Abstract
This paper deals with Spitzer's interpretation of Racine's Phèdre which has been strongly criticized for its inaccuracy, especially when it comes to Spitzer's presumed lack of understanding or - even worse - for his limited knowledge of the early-modern French tragedy and its overriding and generally well-known principles. Spitzer's claim that Racine's tragedy shall first and foremost depict and represent, albeit, in a very specific way, the Thésée's and other characters' desengaño (disillusionment) has also been repeatedly rejected, as well as his conviction as to the very "baroque" essence of Racine' s tragic art.
There is no doubt that these critical judgments result from legitimate concerns, but the author suggests that some specific findings of the Spitzerian scrutinizing analysis do not necessarily stand in sharp contrast with the period's theatrical and aesthetic convictions and practice, especially in regard to the final anagnorisis of the play. This very fact should not be overlooked if one is to assume that Spitzer's erudite and sharp-eyed legacy shall continue to nurture, sustain and enrich our naturally more informed, yet not less conflicting (and perhaps all the more controversial) readings of Racine's masterpiece.