ABSTRACT
That only part of Racine's reading of Euripides is documented by the annotations is evident. Given, for instance, that he got some way with a projected draft of a version of Iphigenia in Tauris, the single passage bracketed in that play in the two Euripides editions used by Racine cannot represent the extent of his interest in—or reading of—the play. Why Racine left a detailed record of his reading of Euripides in some plays, but not in others, remains enigmatic. It is not impossible that (as Mesnard believed) other copies of Euripides annotated by Racine existed, but have been lost. Rather, it seems reasonable to conclude that one may use the presence of annotations as positive evidence for interest in a play, and for links between Racine's reading and his creative use of a play, or of lines from it, as source material; but not their absence as negative evidence.
