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.

L’objet de notre thèse, qui s’inscrit dans une réflexion sur le processus de la réécriture des textes classiques à l’époque de la seconde sophistique, est d’étudier le rôle singulier que joue Ulysse dans l’œuvre de Lucien de Samosate. Ulysse se distingue d’abord d’Achille, personnage plus monolithique qui, chez Homère déjà, est construit en opposition avec lui. Par ailleurs, de la citation isolée aux allusions croisées, disséminées au point de créer de véritables échos entre des œuvres en apparence très différentes, il apparaît que l’utilisation qui est faite d’Ulysse est beaucoup plus élaborée et subtile que celle d’Achille. Ainsi l’examen et la comparaison des références aux deux personnages permettent d’établir la primauté d’Ulysse, associé, chez Lucien, à une réflexion fondamentale sur la force des mots et leur pouvoir de séduction, ainsi que sur l’importance de l’esprit critique en toutes circonstances. Un deuxième temps est consacré à la lecture plus minutieuse des œuvres où prévaut le processus d’exploration et que la référence au personnage d’Ulysse, voyageur inventif par excellence, permet en fait de structurer. Grâce à cet examen, il est possible de mieux comprendre à quel point Lucien s’approprie pleinement le personnage homérique pour en faire un autre de ses masques et proposer ainsi, tel un défi, un nouvel Ulysse à la postérité, tout en gardant ses distances avec le personnage. C’est aussi l’occasion de remarquer combien, progressivement, Lucien intègre les expressions ou le lexique épique au cœur même de son texte, pour aboutir à l’écriture d’une prose poétique qui lui appartient en propre. Il apparaît, en effet, au terme de cette étude que l’utilisation que Lucien fait d’Ulysse est directement liée à la question cruciale chez lui de son identité culturelle, dans un monde d’érudits exigeants, au sein duquel l’orateur syrien entend être reconnu. / The aim of our thesis, which comes within the scope of considering the process of rewriting classic texts in the time period of the second sophistic, is to study the unique importance of Odysseus in the writings of Lucian of Samosata. At first, Odysseus is distinguished from Achilles, a character more monolithic who, even in Homer’s works is constructed in contrast to Odysseus. Moreover, from an isolated quote to intricate references, scattered to create echoes between works seemingly very different, the context in which Odysseus appears is more elaborate and subtler than that of Achilles. Hence, studying and comparing references to both heroes is sufficient to imply Odysseus’ primacy, associated, in Lucian’s works, to a fundamental consideration of the power of words and their appealing strength, as well as the importance of critical thinking in any circumstance. A second part is dedicated to a more detailed reading of the works in which prevail the theme of adventure and in which the references to Odysseus, the ultimate adventurer, become part of the whole structure. Thanks to this study, it is possible to understand further the degree to which Lucian takes over completely the Homeric character to transform him into one of his masks, offering a new Odysseus to the future, although he keeps his distances from the character. We can also note how Lucian integrates the epic set phrases and lexicon in the heart of his work, to end up with a poetic prose that belongs to him alone. In fact, it seems at the conclusion of this study that how Lucian uses Odysseus is interconnected with the crucial question for him, of his cultural identity in a world of demanding scholars within which the Syrian orator intends to be acknowledged.

Dissertation "Myths of the Czech Music Alternative in the 1980s" presents an anthropological view of the phenomenon of a parallel culture in a limiting situation. On the basis of biographical narratives, additional interviews and data gained from other types of sources, "myths" are constructed for seven major figures of the Czech alternative scene. This is an insider's ethnomusicological interpretation, based on Mircea Eliade's and Bronislaw Malinowski's concepts of myth as recurrent and exemplary models of behavior. The described personalities, Jazz Section (Prometheus), Miroslav Wanek ("hero's journey") Karel Babuljak ("search for paradise lost"), Pavel Zajíček (Odysseus), Mikoláš Chadima ("Rebel"), Oldřich Janota (Hermes), and Marka Míková (Psyche), represent some of the main trends in creative processes of the Czech music alternative scene with myth being used as a metaphor. The metaphor is understood here in the terms of Timothy Rice, i.e. as an organization principle of our thinking, as well as an illuminating image.

Dissertation "Myths of the Czech Music Alternative in the 1980s" presents an anthropological view of the phenomenon of a parallel culture in a limiting situation. On the basis of biographical narratives, additional interviews and data gained from other types of sources, "myths" are constructed for seven major figures of the Czech alternative scene. This is an insider's ethnomusicological interpretation, based on Mircea Eliade's and Bronislaw Malinowski's concepts of myth as recurrent and exemplary models of behavior. The described personalities, Jazz Section (Prometheus), Miroslav Wanek ("hero's journey") Karel Babuljak ("search for paradise lost"), Pavel Zajíček (Odysseus), Mikoláš Chadima ("Rebel"), Oldřich Janota (Hermes), and Marka Míková (Psyche), represent some of the main trends in creative processes of the Czech music alternative scene with myth being used as a metaphor. The metaphor is understood here in the terms of Timothy Rice, i.e. as an organization principle of our thinking, as well as an illuminating image.

Based on the poetry of Jehanne Dubrow, professor of English at the University of North Texas, Stateside: An opera in one act uses the mythology of Penelope and Odysseus to tell a story of a modern day military wife. David T. Little's opera Soldier Songs, Sarah Kirkland Snider's song-cycle Penelope, and Stateside are dramatic musical works influenced by the genre, instrumentation, and formal structures of popular music that broadly deal with the emotional and internal elements of military life. These three works prioritize narrative structure of the text in relation to character, and employ elements of popular music harmony, melody, and structure. The critical essay analyzes selections from Soldier Songs and Penelope and explains the compositional process of Stateside. The creative document consists of the full score of Stateside: an opera in one act.

Made available in DSpace on 2014-06-11T19:35:38Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2010-03-15Bitstream added on 2014-06-13T20:07:06Z : No. of bitstreams: 1 bernardes_cd_dr_sjrp_parcial.pdf: 131506 bytes, checksum: b61e96e0fc149b40b46eb07f77cc1058 (MD5) Bitstreams deleted on 2015-06-25T13:00:56Z: bernardes_cd_dr_sjrp_parcial.pdf,. Added 1 bitstream(s) on 2015-06-25T13:03:19Z : No. of bitstreams: 1 000619081_20161512.pdf: 118890 bytes, checksum: 999f060d13bd016c6c6a36f085a2618f (MD5) Bitstreams deleted on 2017-01-02T15:03:47Z: 000619081_20161512.pdf,. Added 1 bitstream(s) on 2017-01-02T15:05:06Z : No. of bitstreams: 1 000619081.pdf: 990823 bytes, checksum: aeff84ed92c2ab0bea7e4988d1a54f13 (MD5) / Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) / O tema da viagem de Odisseu foi largamente retomado pela tradição literária após a Odisséia de Homero, seja para confirmar o ideal do herói nostálgico, que anseia o retorno à pátria, seja para reafirmar o ímpeto do eterno navegador de mares. Nikos Kazantzakis (1883-1957) igualmente retoma o Odisseu lendário, insatisfeito com o retorno ao lar, como seu protótipo de herói e constrói, na modernidade, o poema épico Odisséia (1938), a partir do canto XXII no verso 477 do poema de Homero, sendo Odisseu levado a um novo itinerário ao deixar Ítaca definitivamente. Embora se baseie na obra clássica, recuperando personagens e a estrutura épica, Kazantzakis participa de seu tempo, compondo um novo Odisseu representante do mundo moderno, próximo das filosofias de Nietzsche e de Bergson. Como figura “entre mundos”, o Odisseu de Kazantzakis recupera as antigas delineações de Homero e incorpora as questões da modernidade: o niilismo, a desesperança, a multiplicidade. No entanto, além de prolongar os feitos de Odisseu e a narrativa de Homero, Kazantzakis compõe um poema épico de dimensões admiráveis – 33.333 versos de 17 sílabas poéticas, em 24 cantos – contrariando (e reafirmando) as intenções inovadoras de seus contemporâneos da primeira metade do século XX. A epopéia configura na modernidade um gênero considerado esgotado, que teria dado lugar ao romance como gênero mais apropriado às produções modernas. Esta investigação, no entanto, procura evidenciar que o épico de Kazantzakis, ainda que represente um anacronismo em tempos modernos e, para muitos, uma afronta às normas estéticas, é, assim como muitas das obras de sua época, a confirmação das intenções inovadoras em tempos de crise, por meio da incorporação de uma trajetória filosófica de Odisseu baseada no niilismo heróico de cunho nietzschiano e na evolução criadora de Bergson... / The theme of Odysseus‟ journey was broadly retaken by the literary tradition after Homer‟s Odyssey, whether to confirm the nostalgic ideal of the hero yearning to return to his homeland, or to reaffirm the impetus of the eternal navigator. Nikos Kazantzakis (1883-1957) also incorporates as his prototypical hero the legendary Odysseus, unhappy about returning home, and writes, in the modernity, the epic poem Odyssey (1938), based on the canto XXII and on the verse 477 of Homer‟s poem, and taking Odysseus to a new route when he leaves Ithaca for good. Although based on the classic work, restoring its characters and its epic structure, Kazantzakis takes part of his own time, creating a new Odysseus, now representative of the modern world, and close to the philosophies of Nietzsche and Bergson. As a figure “between worlds”, Kazantzakis‟s Odysseus recovers the old delineations of Homer and incorporates the issues of modernity: nihilism, hopelessness, and multiplicity. However, besides prolonging Odysseus‟ prowess and Homer‟s narrative, Kazantzakis wrote an epic poem of remarkable dimensions –– 33,333 verses of 17 poetic syllables, along 24 Cantos –– contradicting (and reassuring) the innovative intentions of his contemporaries in the first half of the 20th century. In the modernity, epic poetry configures a genre considered to be already exhausted, and which would have given rise to the novel as a genre much more suitable to the modern productions. This research, however, intends to show that the Kazantzakis‟s epopee, even being an anachronism in the modern times and, for many, an affront to aesthetic standards, is, like many of the works of his time, the confirmation of innovative intentions that take place in times of crisis, through the incorporation of a philosophical trajectory of Odysseus based upon Nietzsche‟s heroic nihilism and on Bergson‟s ...(Complete abstract click electronic access below)

Relier le premier livre de la Bible au dernier, la Genèse à l’Apocalypse, c’est suivre toutes les étapes du dessein divin, de ce qu’on appelle en mythocritique biblique un ur-mythos (création, chute, rédemption), la Bible, cet immense réservoir d’images, de récits et de mythes, ayant nourri, selon Northrop Frye, l’imagination de l’Occident comme une unité. Dans un premier temps, nous examinerons, au niveau structural, l’articulation de la Genèse et de l’Apocalypse en nous intéressant aux convergences et aux divergences des textes génésiaque et johannique afin d’interroger leur sens, leur contenu et leur nature, la Genèse annonçant l’Apocalypse et l’Apocalypse réécrivant la Genèse. Lors des lectures transversales des deux livres bibliques, nous verrons comment s’opère l’interaction entre le texte biblique et le texte poétique dans le but de mettre en évidence les conditions des différentes réécritures poétiques.Dans un deuxième temps, nous étudierons la rémanence de ces deux livres bibliques dans l’oeuvre poétique de trois poètes majeurs du XXe siècle et dont les affinités sont nombreuses : Pierre Jean Jouve, Pierre Emmanuel et Odysséas Elytis (Prix Nobel de littérature en 1979). Révéler les éléments significatifs, les mythes, les épisodes et les images de la Genèse et de l’Apocalypse dans leur poésie et amorcer une réflexion sur la manière dont ces poètes s’approprient et réactivent l’union étroite du début à la fin, de la création et du péché à la fin des temps et à la rédemption, c’est l’enjeu de ce travail. Comment et pour quelles raisons les poètes s’inspirent-t-ils de ces livres bibliques ? Comment et par quels moyens les poètes évoquent-ils l’expérience poétique ou même l’histoire à travers ces deux mythes d’origine biblique ? En guise de réponse, Mallarmé disait à René Ghil qu’« on ne peut se passer d’Éden ». En effet, nous ne saurons nous passer de notre Éden... ni de notre Apocalypse. / Connecting the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, is to follow the steps of the divine purposem so-called ur-mythos (creation, fall, redemption) in biblical mythocriticism, the Bible, this huge reservoir of images, stories and myths, having influenced, according to Northrop Frye, the Western imagination as a unity. As part of this work, we examine at a structural level, the linking of Genesis and Revelation by evaluating the convergences and divergences in the text to explore their meaning, content and nature. Genesis announces the coming of the Apocalypse and Revelation re-writes Genesis. Traverse reading of the Bible shows how the interaction takes place between the biblical text and the poetic text, thus highlight the different conditions of poetic rewritings.We will emphasize the convincing presence of these two biblical books, in the poetic works of Pierre Jean Jouve, Pierre Emmanuel and Odysseus Elytis (Nobel Prize in Literature in 1979), major poets of the twenthieth century whose affinities are many, by revealing the significant biblical elements, myths, images and episodes from Genesis and Revelation in their poetry, then investigate how theses poets appropriated and galvanize this unity from the beginning of the creation to the end of time, from the original sin to the redemption. The question is how and why are these poets inspired from these two books of the Bible? How and by what methods do these poets evoke the poetic experience or even the history through these two biblical myths? Mallarmé said to René Ghil that ’’one cannot get beyond Eden’’. After all, we cannot go beyond our Eden... and our Apocalypse.

This dissertation demonstrates how props act as conduits of knowledge and (thus?) power in Sophocles’ “non-Theban” plays. I show how certain props challenge the definitions and values that they accrue as they move between actors onstage. Key props in these four plays behave unlike other props in extant tragedy, opening up the possibility for a sustained inquiry into the ways that property speaks to and for power. Focusing on the urn in Electra, the bow in Philoctetes, Hector’s sword and Ajax’s own shield in Ajax, and the robe in Trachiniae, this project argues for the centrality of these props in these plays’ verbal exchanges. The introduction sets up a framework and methodology that draws on Michel Foucault’s notion of power-knowledge (pouvoir-savoir) and the sociology of Pierre Bourdieu alongside contemporary thinkers like Jack Halberstam, Jane Bennett, and Sara Ahmed. The first chapter, “The Urn is the Wor(l)d in Sophocles’ Electra,” builds on prior scholarship on this much-studied stage object by showing how it accrues “symbolic power” and comes to construct reality and the social world. The possibility of that consensus breaks down, however, in the face of the familiar/l strife at Argos, and it is through this breakdown that the urn gives audience members a way to examine the play’s puzzling lack of resolution. The second chapter, “Stringing a Bow: Learning, use, and power in Sophocles’ Philoctetes,” builds on the previous chapters’ by showing how the bow defines the limits of Neoptolemus’ education on Lemnos and the terms of its own exchange. The bow’s frequent back and forth between characters and its role in Odysseus’s subterfuge belie the fact that it still belongs to Heracles, who alone can authorize its use. This reading draws out the strange relationship between the deceptions of the False Merchant and the divine interventions of Heracles, demonstrating an uncomfortable consonance between the two scenes. The third chapter, entitled “Ajax’s economy of hostility: the necropolitics of kleos,” explores how Ajax paradoxically gives up his shield even as it merges with his identity as a defense for the Achaeans against the Trojans. Ajax himself attempts to manipulate this threat through the handling and “exchange” of the sword of Hector with its native soil, misleading his compatriots — and possibly himself — about his intentions in his so-called “deception speech.” When Hector’s sword pierces Ajax’s body, Trojan and personal hostilities merge until Odysseus manages to rectify the play’s errant exchanges and restore Ajax’s status as a shield for his companions. The fourth and final chapter, “Ceci n’est pas un prop: The robe as gift and garment in Sophocles’ Trachiniae,” shows that the robe’s failure to appear onstage as a prop — the audience might see it as part of Heracles’ costume at the end of the play — enacts the conflict between oikos and wilderness that the characters inhabit, exposing them to the threats of order and disorder as they attempt to integrate Heracles’ pure excess into the oikonomia of Trachis. This process ultimately reveals the futility of attempts to analyze the play in terms of its dichotomies: female-male, oikos-polis, concealed-revealed, etc. The circulation of the robe in its box charts a path for understanding the play in terms that defy dichotomization by locating the play’s exchanges along intersecting modes of valuation. In the conclusion, I widen the perspective of this methodology again, turning to the instrumentalization of bodies in Sophocles’ Theban plays. I raise questions about how meaning, use, value, and power come to be confused via onstage exchanges, and I gesture towards possible future avenues of inquiry that might account for the trouble with bodies that Ajax raises.