Sophocles’ Ajax and Philoctetes can be read as allegories of warriors who experience war trauma. The ancient Greeks already knew of the effects of war trauma through prior literature, and the plays were produced during a period of great violence and upheaval. Ajax shows how a shame-inducing betrayal causes a warrior to go berserk, and consequently withdraw from his community and commit suicide. Philoctetes shows that a betrayal, combined with the loss of a comrade, can cause the warrior to become isolated and emotionally vulnerable. His only means of being reintegrated into society is through mutual understanding with members of that society, and closure with his dead comrade. These plays were produced for therapeutic benefit, as shown by the comparative evidence found in psychodrama, dramatherapy, and the Theater of War productions of the two plays. / Graduate / 0294 / 0621 / 0465 / jrbinus@aol.com

Proefschrift--Utrecht. / "Stellingen" (4 p.) laid in. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references.

In order to reconcile the deus ex machina at the end of Sophocles' Philoctetes with the actions of the rest of the play, this project analyzes the role of Odysseus within the play with special attention to rhetoric. By considering the character of Odysseus as a complex construct referencing both literary and historical contexts, this study suggests that Neoptolemus in fact errs in siding with Philoctetes to the degree that he does by the tragedy's end. The themes of the play involving Philoctetes and Neoptolemus then become warnings against inappropriate emotional responses, again consistent with Heracles' advice in the deus ex machina at the play's end.

Este trabalho tem o objetivo de estudar o personagem Neoptólemo na tragédia Filoctetes (c. 409 a.C.) de Sófocles (c. 496-406 a.C.). Neoptólemo inicialmente é trazido para Lemnos por Odisseu com a missão de auxiliá-lo a reconduzir Filoctetes e o arco de Héracles para Troia. Ao descobrir qual o procedimento proposto por Odisseu, Neoptólemo hesita, propondo que utilizem persuasão aberta para convencer Filoctetes em vez de enganá-lo. Neoptólemo oferece alguma resistência, mas acaba aceitando o sofisma de Odisseu. Ao tomar contato com Filoctetes, Neoptólemo aos poucos aprende sobre o modelo ético de que abriu mão aceitando a proposta de Odisseu. Cria-se um dilema em que o jovem Neoptólemo precisa decidir como irá agir. O próprio ato de decidir é motivo de hesitação para o jovem. Ao optar por uma ou outra atitude, Neoptólemo deverá necessariamente enfrentar todas as consequências de sua escolha, incluindo a impossibilidade voltar atrás, isto é, retroceder ao momento anterior a sua decisão, uma situação infantilizada em que as possibilidades ainda não teriam sido reduzidas por causa de cada escolha feita. Nos momentos finais, antes da chegada de Héracles, Neoptólemo finalmente decide por um caminho aparentemente próprio, intermediário aos que lhe foram apresentados inicialmente e aceita as consequências de sua escolha. / This work aims to study the character Neoptolemus in the tragedy Philoctetes (c. 409 BC) by Sophocles (c. 496-406 BC). Neoptolemus is initially brought to Lemnos by Odysseus with the mission of helping bring Philoctetes and the bow of Heracles back to Troy. Upon discovering the procedure of this mission proposed by Odysseus, Neoptolemus hesitates, suggesting they should openly persuade Philoctetes instead of tricking him. Neoptolemus offers some resistance, but eventually accepts Odysseus' sophistry. Upon making contact with Philoctetes, Neoptolemus gradually learns about the ethical model that he gave up by accepting Odysseus' proposal. This creates a dilemma in which the young Neoptolemus must decide how to act. The act of deciding in itself is cause for hesitation for the youngster. By choosing one attitude or another, Neoptolemus must face all the consequences of his choice, including the inability to go back, that is, back to the moment before the decision was made, a childish situation in which the possibilities have not yet been reduced because of each of his choices. In the final moments before the arrival of Heracles, Neoptolemus finally decides his own path, which is at an intermediate position in relation to the choices that were presented to him and he accepts the consequences of his choice.

Este trabalho tem o objetivo de estudar o personagem Neoptólemo na tragédia Filoctetes (c. 409 a.C.) de Sófocles (c. 496-406 a.C.). Neoptólemo inicialmente é trazido para Lemnos por Odisseu com a missão de auxiliá-lo a reconduzir Filoctetes e o arco de Héracles para Troia. Ao descobrir qual o procedimento proposto por Odisseu, Neoptólemo hesita, propondo que utilizem persuasão aberta para convencer Filoctetes em vez de enganá-lo. Neoptólemo oferece alguma resistência, mas acaba aceitando o sofisma de Odisseu. Ao tomar contato com Filoctetes, Neoptólemo aos poucos aprende sobre o modelo ético de que abriu mão aceitando a proposta de Odisseu. Cria-se um dilema em que o jovem Neoptólemo precisa decidir como irá agir. O próprio ato de decidir é motivo de hesitação para o jovem. Ao optar por uma ou outra atitude, Neoptólemo deverá necessariamente enfrentar todas as consequências de sua escolha, incluindo a impossibilidade voltar atrás, isto é, retroceder ao momento anterior a sua decisão, uma situação infantilizada em que as possibilidades ainda não teriam sido reduzidas por causa de cada escolha feita. Nos momentos finais, antes da chegada de Héracles, Neoptólemo finalmente decide por um caminho aparentemente próprio, intermediário aos que lhe foram apresentados inicialmente e aceita as consequências de sua escolha. / This work aims to study the character Neoptolemus in the tragedy Philoctetes (c. 409 BC) by Sophocles (c. 496-406 BC). Neoptolemus is initially brought to Lemnos by Odysseus with the mission of helping bring Philoctetes and the bow of Heracles back to Troy. Upon discovering the procedure of this mission proposed by Odysseus, Neoptolemus hesitates, suggesting they should openly persuade Philoctetes instead of tricking him. Neoptolemus offers some resistance, but eventually accepts Odysseus' sophistry. Upon making contact with Philoctetes, Neoptolemus gradually learns about the ethical model that he gave up by accepting Odysseus' proposal. This creates a dilemma in which the young Neoptolemus must decide how to act. The act of deciding in itself is cause for hesitation for the youngster. By choosing one attitude or another, Neoptolemus must face all the consequences of his choice, including the inability to go back, that is, back to the moment before the decision was made, a childish situation in which the possibilities have not yet been reduced because of each of his choices. In the final moments before the arrival of Heracles, Neoptolemus finally decides his own path, which is at an intermediate position in relation to the choices that were presented to him and he accepts the consequences of his choice.

Este trabalho tem o objetivo de estudar o personagem Neoptólemo na tragédia Filoctetes (c. 409 a.C.) de Sófocles (c. 496-406 a.C.). Neoptólemo inicialmente é trazido para Lemnos por Odisseu com a missão de auxiliá-lo a reconduzir Filoctetes e o arco de Héracles para Troia. Ao descobrir qual o procedimento proposto por Odisseu, Neoptólemo hesita, propondo que utilizem persuasão aberta para convencer Filoctetes em vez de enganá-lo. Neoptólemo oferece alguma resistência, mas acaba aceitando o sofisma de Odisseu. Ao tomar contato com Filoctetes, Neoptólemo aos poucos aprende sobre o modelo ético de que abriu mão aceitando a proposta de Odisseu. Cria-se um dilema em que o jovem Neoptólemo precisa decidir como irá agir. O próprio ato de decidir é motivo de hesitação para o jovem. Ao optar por uma ou outra atitude, Neoptólemo deverá necessariamente enfrentar todas as consequências de sua escolha, incluindo a impossibilidade voltar atrás, isto é, retroceder ao momento anterior a sua decisão, uma situação infantilizada em que as possibilidades ainda não teriam sido reduzidas por causa de cada escolha feita. Nos momentos finais, antes da chegada de Héracles, Neoptólemo finalmente decide por um caminho aparentemente próprio, intermediário aos que lhe foram apresentados inicialmente e aceita as consequências de sua escolha. / This work aims to study the character Neoptolemus in the tragedy Philoctetes (c. 409 BC) by Sophocles (c. 496-406 BC). Neoptolemus is initially brought to Lemnos by Odysseus with the mission of helping bring Philoctetes and the bow of Heracles back to Troy. Upon discovering the procedure of this mission proposed by Odysseus, Neoptolemus hesitates, suggesting they should openly persuade Philoctetes instead of tricking him. Neoptolemus offers some resistance, but eventually accepts Odysseus' sophistry. Upon making contact with Philoctetes, Neoptolemus gradually learns about the ethical model that he gave up by accepting Odysseus' proposal. This creates a dilemma in which the young Neoptolemus must decide how to act. The act of deciding in itself is cause for hesitation for the youngster. By choosing one attitude or another, Neoptolemus must face all the consequences of his choice, including the inability to go back, that is, back to the moment before the decision was made, a childish situation in which the possibilities have not yet been reduced because of each of his choices. In the final moments before the arrival of Heracles, Neoptolemus finally decides his own path, which is at an intermediate position in relation to the choices that were presented to him and he accepts the consequences of his choice.

A presente dissertação, intitulada “Neoptólemo entre a cicatriz e a chaga: lógos sofístico, peithó e areté na tragédia Filoctetes de Sófocles”, busca analisar como Sófocles problematiza para a pólis ateniense o lógos sofístico, a ambigüidade da figura do sofista e os efeitos de tal posição sobre os valores e os significados, em um conflito com os padrões éticos da areté. Examina-se como os personagens Odisseu, Filoctetes e Neoptólemo, na interação dos seus discursos, põem em discussão os poderes, as limitações e os usos dos discursos, em especial o persuasório, a peithó. Trabalha-se com a hipótese de que existe no texto trágico um conflito de visões de mundo e de significados e de que as diferentes posturas dos personagens frente ao lógos constituem representações de discursos antagônicos, pertencentes ao repertório cultural da cidade ateniense do último quarto do século V a.C. Parte-se do pressuposto teórico de que a tragédia grega é uma arte política, que trabalha o mito e a pólis e os seus vocabulários, de forma que o Filoctetes de Sófocles (409 a.C.) discutiria temas caros à pólis como a comunicação e a educação, relacionados então com a ascensão dos sofistas. / This work aims to analyze how Sophocles discusses before the Athenian polis’ citizens sophistic logos, the ambiguous position of sophists, and their impact as a debate about values and meanings and as a conflict with the ethical standards related to arete. It is examined how the characters Odysseus, Philoctetes, and Neoptolemus deal with the possibilities, limits, and uses of speech in their interactions, rendering persuasion, peitho, as especially problematic. Considering that tragic poetry examines conflicts in meanings and standpoints, the characters’ different stances about logos are regarded as representative of opposing views available in Athens’ cultural repertoire in the last quarter of the fifth century BC. Theoretically, Greek tragedy is taken as a political art that operates with both myth and polis, its issues and vocabularies, so that Sophocles’ Philoctetes (409 BC) could be interpreted as a discussion of issues of great concern for Athens such as communication and education, both then inseparable from the rise of the sophists.

A presente dissertação, intitulada “Neoptólemo entre a cicatriz e a chaga: lógos sofístico, peithó e areté na tragédia Filoctetes de Sófocles”, busca analisar como Sófocles problematiza para a pólis ateniense o lógos sofístico, a ambigüidade da figura do sofista e os efeitos de tal posição sobre os valores e os significados, em um conflito com os padrões éticos da areté. Examina-se como os personagens Odisseu, Filoctetes e Neoptólemo, na interação dos seus discursos, põem em discussão os poderes, as limitações e os usos dos discursos, em especial o persuasório, a peithó. Trabalha-se com a hipótese de que existe no texto trágico um conflito de visões de mundo e de significados e de que as diferentes posturas dos personagens frente ao lógos constituem representações de discursos antagônicos, pertencentes ao repertório cultural da cidade ateniense do último quarto do século V a.C. Parte-se do pressuposto teórico de que a tragédia grega é uma arte política, que trabalha o mito e a pólis e os seus vocabulários, de forma que o Filoctetes de Sófocles (409 a.C.) discutiria temas caros à pólis como a comunicação e a educação, relacionados então com a ascensão dos sofistas. / This work aims to analyze how Sophocles discusses before the Athenian polis’ citizens sophistic logos, the ambiguous position of sophists, and their impact as a debate about values and meanings and as a conflict with the ethical standards related to arete. It is examined how the characters Odysseus, Philoctetes, and Neoptolemus deal with the possibilities, limits, and uses of speech in their interactions, rendering persuasion, peitho, as especially problematic. Considering that tragic poetry examines conflicts in meanings and standpoints, the characters’ different stances about logos are regarded as representative of opposing views available in Athens’ cultural repertoire in the last quarter of the fifth century BC. Theoretically, Greek tragedy is taken as a political art that operates with both myth and polis, its issues and vocabularies, so that Sophocles’ Philoctetes (409 BC) could be interpreted as a discussion of issues of great concern for Athens such as communication and education, both then inseparable from the rise of the sophists.

A presente dissertação, intitulada “Neoptólemo entre a cicatriz e a chaga: lógos sofístico, peithó e areté na tragédia Filoctetes de Sófocles”, busca analisar como Sófocles problematiza para a pólis ateniense o lógos sofístico, a ambigüidade da figura do sofista e os efeitos de tal posição sobre os valores e os significados, em um conflito com os padrões éticos da areté. Examina-se como os personagens Odisseu, Filoctetes e Neoptólemo, na interação dos seus discursos, põem em discussão os poderes, as limitações e os usos dos discursos, em especial o persuasório, a peithó. Trabalha-se com a hipótese de que existe no texto trágico um conflito de visões de mundo e de significados e de que as diferentes posturas dos personagens frente ao lógos constituem representações de discursos antagônicos, pertencentes ao repertório cultural da cidade ateniense do último quarto do século V a.C. Parte-se do pressuposto teórico de que a tragédia grega é uma arte política, que trabalha o mito e a pólis e os seus vocabulários, de forma que o Filoctetes de Sófocles (409 a.C.) discutiria temas caros à pólis como a comunicação e a educação, relacionados então com a ascensão dos sofistas. / This work aims to analyze how Sophocles discusses before the Athenian polis’ citizens sophistic logos, the ambiguous position of sophists, and their impact as a debate about values and meanings and as a conflict with the ethical standards related to arete. It is examined how the characters Odysseus, Philoctetes, and Neoptolemus deal with the possibilities, limits, and uses of speech in their interactions, rendering persuasion, peitho, as especially problematic. Considering that tragic poetry examines conflicts in meanings and standpoints, the characters’ different stances about logos are regarded as representative of opposing views available in Athens’ cultural repertoire in the last quarter of the fifth century BC. Theoretically, Greek tragedy is taken as a political art that operates with both myth and polis, its issues and vocabularies, so that Sophocles’ Philoctetes (409 BC) could be interpreted as a discussion of issues of great concern for Athens such as communication and education, both then inseparable from the rise of the sophists.

Στόχος αυτής της διπλωματικής εργασίας είναι η διερεύνηση του τρόπου με τον οποίον ο Βορειοϊρλανδός ποιητής Seamus Heaney, έχοντας επηρεαστεί από τις Ταραχές και την αγριότητα του Ιρλανδικού εμφυλίου πολέμου, αντιλαμβάνεται το σύγχρονο πόλεμο στην Βόρειο Ιρλανδία μέσα από την ποιητική σύνδεσή του με τον αρχαίο μύθο και την αρχαία Ελληνική τραγωδία. Αντικείμενα μελέτης αυτής της εργασίας αποτελούν το θεατρικό έργο The Cure at Troy (1990), που είναι διασκευή του Φιλοκτήτη του Σοφοκλή, και μια σειρά πέντε ποιημάτων, βασισμένων στην Ορέστεια του Αισχύλου, με τίτλο Η Βίγλα των Μυκηνών (Mycenae Lookout) από τη συλλογή Το Αλφάδι (The Spirit Level 1996). Στο πρώτο κεφάλαιο θα γίνει μία σύντομη ιστορική αναδρομή αναφορικά με τις πολιτικές και κοινωνικές συνθήκες που επικράτησαν για αιώνες και εξέθρεψαν το Ιρλανδικό πρόβλημα. Θα απαντηθεί γιατί στην Ιρλανδία καλλιεργήθηκε η μετάφραση και η διασκευή κλασικών έργων σε τέτοια έκταση, και θα καταδειχθεί ότι μέσα σε αυτό το περιβάλλον καταπίεσης και κοινωνικών διακρίσεων η κλασική παιδεία, με μακραίωνη παράδοση στην Ιρλανδία, συνδυάστηκε με την αμφισβήτηση της Βρετανικής κυριαρχίας επί της νήσου. Ακολούθως θα συζητηθεί για ποιο λόγο, κατά την τελευταία τριακονταετία ειδικότερα, αρκετοί σύγχρονοι Ιρλανδοί ποιητές και θεατρικοί συγγραφείς, σε μία προσπάθεια να ερμηνεύσουν τα διάφορα κοινωνικά, πολιτικά και θρησκευτικά προβλήματα που απασχολούν τόσο την κοινωνία της Δημοκρατίας της Ιρλανδίας όσο και αυτήν της Βόρειας Ιρλανδίας (Ulster), στράφηκαν προς την αρχαία Ελληνική τραγωδία, κάνοντας διασκευές και προσαρμόζοντας τα αρχαία κείμενα στις σύγχρονες συνθήκες. Σε αυτή την κατεύθυνση σημαντικό ρόλο έπαιξε ο θεατρικός οργανισμός Field Day, του οποίου η θεματολογία προσανατολίστηκε σε μεταφράσεις και διασκευές αρχαίων ελληνικών τραγωδιών. Στο δεύτερο και το τρίτο κεφάλαιο θα αναλυθούν το θεατρικό έργο The Cure at Troy και τα πέντε ποιήματα της σειράς Η Βίγλα των Μυκηνών, αντίστοιχα, και θα διερευνηθούν οι τρόποι με τους οποίους ο ποιητής διαφοροποιείται από τα αρχαία πρωτότυπα έργα. Στη συνέχεια θα εξεταστεί ο τρόπος με τον οποίον ο Heaney χρησιμοποιεί τα αρχαία έργα για να πραγματευτεί θέματα όπως η σημασία της ‘πληγής’ της Ιρλανδίας και της ‘θεραπείας’, η σύγκρουση μεταξύ προσωπικής ακεραιότητας και πολιτικής σκοπιμότητας, η κοινωνική ευθύνη του ατόμου, η απώλεια της λογικής και της ανθρωπιάς μπροστά στη βιαιότητα του πολέμου. Μέσω του μύθου, ο ποιητής καταγγέλλει την αποικιοκρατία, την εκδικητικότητα, το μίσος, την πολιτική βία, τον πόλεμο και τις συνέπειές τους στη ζωή των συμπατριωτών του. Επίσης θα γίνει εκτενής αναφορά στην έντονη συζήτηση που προκάλεσε το θεατρικό έργο The Cure at Troy σχετικά με το κατά πόσο υπάρχει αντιστοιχία μεταξύ των αρχαίων και των σύγχρονων πολιτικών καταστάσεων και με το αν οι χαρακτήρες στο έργο του Heaney αντιπροσωπεύουν σύγχρονα ιστορικά πρόσωπα που έλαβαν μέρος στον Ιρλανδικό εμφύλιο πόλεμο. Μέσα από την εις βάθος ανάλυση του θεατρικού έργου και των πέντε ποιημάτων η εργασία θα καταλήξει στο συμπέρασμα ότι ο Heaney χρησιμοποιεί τους τραγικούς χαρακτήρες για να προβάλλει ένα όραμα για το μέλλον και για να εκφράσει την ελπίδα του για εθνική συμφιλίωση και τον πόθο για ειρήνευση και επιστροφή σε μία φυσιολογική ζωή. Τέλος, θα αναδυθεί ο βασανιστικός προβληματισμός που απασχολεί τον Heaney διαχρονικά, αναφορικά με τον ρόλο του ποιητή μέσα σε μια κοινωνία που ταλανίζεται από την κρίση και με το κατά πόσο η ποίηση έχει τη δύναμη να επηρεάζει την κοινωνία χωρίς να παράγει πολιτική προπαγάνδα. / The present thesis studies how Seamus Heaney, having been highly influenced by the ferocity of the ‘Troubles’, perceives the civil war in Northern Ireland through its poetic connection with ancient Greek myth and drama. Study subjects of this thesis are Heaney’s play The Cure at Troy (1990), which is an adaptation of Sophocles’ Philoctetes, and a sequence of five poems by Heaney titled ‘Mycenae Lookout’ (The Spirit Level 1996) which is based on Aeschylus’ trilogy the Oresteia. The first chapter comprises of a short historic retrospection on the political and social conditions that prevailed for centuries and generated the Irish problem. It attempts to answer why the translation and adaptation of classic plays was used so extensively, and it suggests that in an oppressive environment of social and religious discrimination, classical education, of a long tradition in the island, was associated with the questioning of the British rule over Ireland. It will be shown that over the last thirty years in particular, many contemporary Irish poets and playwrights, in an effort to interpret various socio-political problems that concern the Republic of Ireland as well as Northern Ireland (Ulster), have been inspired by ancient Greek drama. Towards this direction, the Field Day Theatre Company has played a crucial role on the reworking of ancient Greek tragedies. An analysis of Heaney’s play The Cure at Troy and of the five poems of Mycenae Lookout will be presented in the second and third chapter, respectively. In both chapters, there will be a discussion on the ways his work is differentiated from the ancient original plays, and on how he treats subjects such as the significance of the ‘wound’ of Ireland and of the ‘cure’, the conflict between personal integrity and political expediency, the responsibility of the individual towards the community, the loss of reason and humanity in times of war. Through the ancient myths the poet denounces colonialism, vindictiveness, bigotry, faction, political violence and their consequences in the life of Irishmen. There will also be an extensive account on the issue of political allegory raised in the play The Cure at Troy, and on whether there is an equivalence between the ancient and the contemporary political situation. The thesis epilogue will come to the conclusion that Heaney uses the tragic characters to project a vision for the future of Northern Ireland, and to express his hope and desire for national reconciliation and peace. Finally, there will emerge the tantalizing problem that has been occupying Heaney’s mind over the years regarding the role of the poet in a community that has been harassed by the war crisis and whether poetry has the power to influence the society without producing political propaganda.