This thesis examines Seamus Heaney’s approach to translation with specific reference to Sweeney Astray, The Cure at Troy, and Beowulf. An assessment of Heaney’s translations, and the ways in which they relate to his poetry, is essential to an understanding of his work as a poet. This thesis demonstrates the centrality of translation to Heaney’s oeuvre as an effective means to comment on his Northern Irish socio-political context without producing political propaganda. Translation is a valuable means for Heaney to elucidate his contemporary experience by considering it in terms of the recorded past captured within his chosen translations. Instead of comparing the three translations with their original texts, this thesis concentrates on Heaney’s translations as a continuation of his own creative work and as catalysts for further poetry. The translations are explored in chronological order to allow a sense of Heaney’s development as a translator and his efforts to remain critically attuned to the Northern Irish political situation. The first chapter examines Heaney’s translation of the Gaelic poem Buile Suibhne, which is published as Sweeney Astray. In this first major act of translation Heaney recognises the political role that translation is able to play. He draws attention to the protagonist’s sense of cultural ease in both Britain and Ireland, which he argues is exemplary for the people of Ulster and renders the narrative particularly accessible to a Northern Irish readership due to his anglicisation of the text, which is intended as a reminder to both Catholics and Protestants of their shared identity as Irishmen. The second chapter focuses on Heaney’s translation of Sophocles’ Philoctetes, entitled The Cure at Troy. Heaney’s translation contextualises the Ancient Greek concern for personal integrity in the face of political necessity, a situation relevant to his own complex relationship with Northern Irish politics. His alterations to the text accentuate the positive aspects of the play, suggesting the very real possibility of social change within the seemingly constant violence of Northern Ireland. The third chapter explores Heaney’s engagement with the Anglo-Saxon epic poem, Beowulf, as a means of coming to terms with the complex history of Irish colonisation through language. This chapter assesses Heaney’s incorporation of Irish dialectal words into his translation, which lend the poem political weight, and yet prove to be contextually appropriate, rendering Heaney’s Beowulf a masterpiece of readability and subtle political commentary.

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.

Is there a world in G. W. F. Hegel's The Phenomenology of Spirit? This is the central question my doctoral thesis aims to address. Both scholars and philosophers alike tend to consider Hegel a thinker who, having formulated the philosophy of absolute spirit, has surrendered the world. Despite this suspicion, the consciousness finds itself at nearly every level of Hegel's oeuvre in a place called "the world". At every stage, the world changes its shape - along with the consciousness - but its function seems to remain the same. The world is a conception of totality; thus, the world is an object of the consciousness that, by definition, surpasses the consciousness and thus reveals its limits. This moment of a "worldly" estrangement is especially pronounced as the consciousness sets itself into action. One of the most recurring motives in Hegel's The Phenomenology of Spirit is the inability of the consciousness to realize its intentions as planned. The consciousness fails to recognize itself in the deed, and thus devises strategies to distance itself from the deed. In my interpretation, this testifies that the deed is the door to the world, and obviously this world is not one that would be in the power of the consciousness. Instead, it is the consciousness that needs to subordinate itself to the deed...

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.

Cette thèse de doctorat vise, à partir de l'exemple que constitue le traitement du mythe d'Œdipe par les trois dramaturges que sont Eschyle, Sophocle et Euripide, à comprendre comment les tragiques grecs, qui traitaient toujours des mêmes histoires, et suscitaient pourtant l'intérêt du public, ont su renouveler la création théâtrale, en parvenant à ne pas faire les mêmes pièces à partir des mêmes légendes. Certes, la matière mythique n'était pas figée en soi ; toutefois, comme la tragédie était un genre très codifié dans sa structure et relativement limité en termes d’effets visuels, c'est surtout sur le texte même que l'auteur pouvait intervenir, au prix d'un travail toujours renouvelé sur sa langue.C'est donc au texte même des tragédies que cette étude s'attache, texte qui est abordé selon une triple perspective, à la fois herméneutique, philologique et comparatiste, ce qui permet de comprendre non seulement les enjeux profonds de chacun d'eux, mais aussi les variations sur le mythe et les effets ainsi créés. Le corpus, restreint mais raisonnable (Les Sept contre Thèbes d'Eschyle, l'Œdipe Roi, l'Antigone et l'Œdipe à Colone de Sophocle, et les Phéniciennes d'Euripide), est analysé avec rigueur et aussi peu d'a priori que possible. Cette étude permet de mieux comprendre le fonctionnement de la tragédie, ainsi que la façon dont une poétique se renouvelait sans cesse et évoluait de la sorte, en explorant les possibilités que lui offrait sa langue et en travaillant sur les représentations et les contenus traditionnels dont le poète tragique héritait. Ce projet vise ainsi à mieux saisir les ressorts de la création poétique dans un contexte culturel qui permet d’appréhender au mieux les limites entre lesquelles elle est mise en œuvre ; il permettra également d'approfondir la compréhension d'une culture qui prenait plaisir à aller voir des pièces dont elle connaissait déjà la fin. / The aim of this PhD thesis, based on Aeschylus’, Sophocles’ and Euripides’ treatments of the Oedipus myth, is to understand how Greek tragic playwrights – who aroused the public interest while always dealing with the same stories – managed to reinvent theatre and write new plays out of the same myths. Admittedly, mythical material was not fixed, yet, tragedy was a genre which structure was highly codified, and quite limited in terms of visual effects. Thus, it was mainly within the text itself that authors could intervene by way of an ever-repeated work on their own language. Therefore, it is the texts of tragedies themselves which are the subject of this study, and which will be explored from three different perspectives; hermeneutic, philological and comparative. This not only allows for an understanding of the deeper issues each text tackles, but also of the variations on the myth and the effects they create. The corpus (Aeschylus' Seven against Thebes, Sophocles' Antigone, Œdipus Rex, Œdipus at Colonus, Euripides' Phoenician Women) – limited yet reasonable – will be analysed rigorously and with as little a priori as possible. What is proposed in this study is a better understanding of how the mechanics of tragedy worked, as well as of how part of a poetics could evolve through perpetual renewal, as tragic poets explored the possibilities of their language, worked on representations and traditional materials they had inherited. The aim of this study is to better grasp the means of poetic creation in a given cultural context so as to gain the best possible understanding of the limits within which it took place. It also allows for a deepened understanding of a culture in which people still enjoyed plays while already knowing how they would end.

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.

Dans l’Athènes du Ve siècle avant J.-C., les poètes tragiques étaient responsables de la production entière de leurs œuvres dramatiques, de l’élaboration de l’intrigue à la composition des parties parlées et chantées, de la chorégraphie à la direction d’acteurs, de l’entraînement du chœur à la mise en scène, et Eschyle et Sophocle furent mêmes acteurs dans certains de leurs drames. Les objets font partie des ressources matérielles auxquelles ils ont eu recours pour représenter leurs tragédies dans l’orchestra du théâtre de Dionysos. Épées, boucliers, vases, urnes funéraires, lits ou même chariots attelés, parmi bien d’autres exemples, se trouvent inscrits dans les textes des tragédies qui nous sont parvenus, comme des réalités du monde extérieur avec lesquelles les personnages interagissent et comme des éléments potentiels du spectacle. Par le biais des objets emblématiques qui les révèlent et des instruments qui prolongent leur main dans l’action ou se rebellent, les personnages se trouvent caractérisés comme héros tragiques. Notre travail propose dès lors de voir dans l’objet un principe de composition dramatique et de construction du spectacle de la tragédie, et interroge l’existence d’un imaginaire ou d’une pensée tragique des rapports entre hommes et objets, animés et inanimés. En prenant pour corpus l’ensemble des tragédies conservées d’Eschyle, de Sophocle et d’Euripide, complétées par les fragments les plus significatifs, il vise à faire émerger, dans leurs convergences et leurs singularités, les dramaturgies de l’objet contribuant à exprimer la vision tragique de chacun d’eux. / In fifth-century Athens, tragic dramatists were responsible for the whole production of their plays, from plot-writing to casting, musical composition to choreography, staging to actor’s direction – performance was therefore an essential part of their work. Materialized by props on stage, objects are things with which the characters interact and a potential source of scenic effects. Swords, shields, vases, funerary urns, beds or even wheeled chariots, among many other objects, are mentioned in the extant tragedies and invested with dramatic function and symbolic meaning. Emblematic objects give an insight into the status and ethos of the characters; as instruments, objects are a means to achieve a goal, but they might resist to the characters’ intentions. All of them contribute to characterize them as tragic heroes. Therefore, this dissertation aims to show that the object can be considered as a principle of dramatic composition and of construction of the performance in Greek tragedy; it also questions the existence of a thought or an imagination of the relationships between human beings and objects, animate and inanimate, in the tragic plays. Looking at the whole corpus of extant tragedies by Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides (including the most significative fragments), this work describes the specific dramaturgy of the object developed by each poet to translate into visual and dynamic terms a tragic vision.

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.