Este trabalho versa sobre os romances A Chaga (1970), do autor angolano Fernando Monteiro de Castro Soromenho, nascido na Vila de Chinde (Zambézia – Moçambique), e O Último Olhar de Manú Miranda (2000), do autor goês Orlando da Costa, nascido em Lourenço Marques, hoje Maputo (Moçambique). A nossa proposta de análise comparada parte do pressuposto de que essas duas criações literárias do passado histórico recente, de Angola (Camaxilo) e Goa (Margão) — na situação de ex-colônias portuguesas — apontam a perspectivas confluentes, conforme a visão crítica da história que aqui se tentou estabelecer. Buscamos levar em consideração a imprescindível relação dialética que mantêm entre si arte e sociedade. Constata-se a identificação desses respectivos romances com os pressupostos indicados por poéticas distintas, como o Neo-Realismo e o Realismo Maravilhoso. / This work presents analyses of the novels A Chaga (1970), by the Angolan author Fernando Monteiro de Castro Soromenho, born in Vila de Chinde (Zambezia, Mozambique), and O Último Olhar de Manú Miranda (2000), by the Goan writer Orlando da Costa, born in Lourenço Marques — currently Maputo (Mozambique). Our proposal for a comparative analysis derives from the presupposition that these two literary creations of the recent historical past of both Angola (Camaxilo) and Goa (Margão), when taken in their contexts of ex-Portuguese colonies, points to confluent perspectives, in accordance with the critical view of history we have attempted to establish. For we tried to take into account the indispensable dialectic relationship that art and society keep between one another. Nevertheless, the identification of the two respective novels as Neo-Realism and Marvelous Realism was evidenced by their distinct poetic pressupositions.

Este trabalho versa sobre os romances A Chaga (1970), do autor angolano Fernando Monteiro de Castro Soromenho, nascido na Vila de Chinde (Zambézia – Moçambique), e O Último Olhar de Manú Miranda (2000), do autor goês Orlando da Costa, nascido em Lourenço Marques, hoje Maputo (Moçambique). A nossa proposta de análise comparada parte do pressuposto de que essas duas criações literárias do passado histórico recente, de Angola (Camaxilo) e Goa (Margão) — na situação de ex-colônias portuguesas — apontam a perspectivas confluentes, conforme a visão crítica da história que aqui se tentou estabelecer. Buscamos levar em consideração a imprescindível relação dialética que mantêm entre si arte e sociedade. Constata-se a identificação desses respectivos romances com os pressupostos indicados por poéticas distintas, como o Neo-Realismo e o Realismo Maravilhoso. / This work presents analyses of the novels A Chaga (1970), by the Angolan author Fernando Monteiro de Castro Soromenho, born in Vila de Chinde (Zambezia, Mozambique), and O Último Olhar de Manú Miranda (2000), by the Goan writer Orlando da Costa, born in Lourenço Marques — currently Maputo (Mozambique). Our proposal for a comparative analysis derives from the presupposition that these two literary creations of the recent historical past of both Angola (Camaxilo) and Goa (Margão), when taken in their contexts of ex-Portuguese colonies, points to confluent perspectives, in accordance with the critical view of history we have attempted to establish. For we tried to take into account the indispensable dialectic relationship that art and society keep between one another. Nevertheless, the identification of the two respective novels as Neo-Realism and Marvelous Realism was evidenced by their distinct poetic pressupositions.

La lecture croisée de Machiavel et Schmitt ne permet pas seulement de déchiffrer certains événements passés, elle éclaire encore la compréhension des phénomènes les plus récents. En effet, la conceptualisation que chacun de ces deux auteurs offre de la notion de situation exceptionnelle – comprise comme un trouble mettant en péril la préservation de l’État, et face auquel le droit positif peine à s’appliquer – démontre des points d’accord autant que de divergence, mais dont précisément la confrontation tend à faire émerger des lignes de force. Or, d’une part, ces dernières semblent permettre d’envisager le mouvement révolutionnaire anglo-américain et français des XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles sous l’angle d’une situation exceptionnelle. D’autre part, et d’une manière plus contemporaine, elles permettent encore de rendre compte de l’exceptionnalité du phénomène terroriste affectant actuellement ces mêmes États. L’intérêt d’une telle mise en perspective est double. D’un côté, la confrontation de la théorie machiavélo-schmittienne aux événements concrets démontre – malgré un indépassable anachronisme – leur incontestable influence sur le droit des situations de crise. Mais d’un autre côté, et dans le même temps, l’observation de la pratique révèle les insuffisances de Machiavel et Schmitt quant à leur appréhension du phénomène exceptionnel, en particulier à propos des moyens à mettre en oeuvre pour l’endiguer. Face à ce constat, il sera nécessaire de tenir compte de la pertinence des présupposés de ces deux auteurs, autant que de les critiquer, afin de pouvoir finalement s’en émanciper pour proposer des outils juridiques aptes à régir le phénomène exceptionnel actuel. / A cross-reading of the writings of Machiavelli and Schmitt not only allows us to decode certain past events, it also illuminates our understanding of the most recent challenges to the security of the state. Indeed, both authors conceptualize states of emergency – understood as responses to disorders threatening the preservation of the state not adequately covered by positive law – and their analyses demonstrate points of agreement as well as divergence. Comparing and contrasting them makes salient their lines of force. Both authors shed important light on the Anglo- American and French revolutionary movements of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries as exceptional situations. Moreover, they also provide insight into the more recent emergency situations encountered by these states in confronting the terrorist phenomenon. The interest of such a perspective is twofold. On the one hand, the confrontation of the Machiavelo-Schmittian theory with concrete events demonstrates – despite insurmountable anachronism – their undeniable influence on the operations of law in crisis situations. On the other, from the perspective of their practical application, the theories of Machiavelli and Schmitt both prove inadequate in their apprehension of the exceptional phenomenon, notably with regard to the means that might be deployed to curb the threat. With this in mind, it is imperative to understand both the relevance of the political thought of these two authors, and take the measure of the limits of their theories. A proper understanding of the pertinence and limits of their theories with regard to the present situation should enable us to devise improved legal tools in response to the current crisis.