Academic literature on the topic 'Oedipus'

Freud's path to the Oedipus complex reveals conceptual inconsistencies. These uncertainties concern fathers, brothers and sons, and the place of the oedipal triad within the family romance. Freud's uncovering of the Oedipus complex emerged, in large part, from his self-analyis of his childhood years in Freiberg. Freud's father was 20 years older than his third wife, and had two adult sons, all of whom lived in Freiberg. In 1897, when Freud announces the Oedipus complex, he stresses his love of his mother and jealousy of his father. Yet in 1924 Freud wrote that his adult brother, Philipp, had taken his father's place as the child's rival. The oedipal complex alters if there are four players rather than three. Freud's concept of an oedipal triangle does not adequately explain the psychological dynamics of his childhood. Fuller conceptual clarity would occur if the dynamics of the Oedipus complex were placed within the family context in which it unfolds.

Abstract Oedipus the King: A Greek Tragedy, Philosophy, Politics and Philology — This study tries to show that the abundance of translations, imitations and radical re-interpretations of a genre like tragedy is due to various social discourses of target societies. Taking as an example Sophocles' Oedipus the King, the acclaimed tragedy par excellence, this essay discusses how the discourses of philosophy, politics and philology influenced the reception of this classical Greek tragedy by the French and British target systems (TSs) during the late 17th and early 18th century and the late 19th and early 20th century. The first section shows how, by offering Sophocles' Oedipus the King as a Greek model of tragedy, Aristotle's Poetics has formed the Western literary criticism and playwriting. The second section attempts to demonstrate why three imitations of Oedipus by Corneille (Oedipe), Dryden {Oedipus) and Voltaire {Oedipe) became more popular than any other contemporary "real" translation of the Sophoclean Oedipus. The third and final part holds that the observed revival of Oedipus the King in late 19th- and early 20th-century France and England was due to the different degrees of influence of three conflicting but overlapping discourses: philosophy, philology and politics. It illustrates how these discourses resulted in different reception of the Greek play by the French and British TSs.

This article deals with the plot structure of the Oedipus myth. From the set of known sources we select a series of elements that form a plot representing an object of our analysis. The author takes into account the following elements: 1) piercing of Oedipus’s ankles and the subsequent displacement of Oedipus to the mountain Cithaeron, 2) the deadly clash between Oedipus and Laius, 3) the riddle of the Sphinx and the Oedipus’s answer, 4) the suicide of the Sphinx, 5) the accession of Oedipus to the throne in Thebes, 6) Oedipus’s discovery of his own origins, 7) the suicide of Jocasta, 8) the self-blinding of Oedipus. In the plot there is a series of correspondences related to the number 3. In the riddle of the Sphinx that Oedipus solves, 3 stages of human life are indicated: infancy, maturity, old age. In the Sphinx, 3 components are integrated in one whole: “man + lion + bird”. Oedipus commits murder in the point where 3 roads meet. It is shown that incest and clash with the unrecognized father are expressed in the myth in the framework of such a ternary structure. The relevant elements that normally are separated from each other, merge in one point that is nothing else than a singular transformation. The other cases consist in mapping a common human history (that is continual by its very meaning) to a discrete sequence of three phases in an individual story of Oedipus. We also discuss some aspects of the Sphinx riddle that were not given a proper attention before. The feature with respect to which different stages of human life are classified, is related to legs. In turn, this motif is correlated with the presence or absence of footing. Deprivation of it is acts as a source of danger. In turn, this motif is correlated with the presence or absence of footing. Deprivation of it is acts as a source of danger. Both the contents of the riddle and the process of asking and guessing can be correlated with further investigation carried out by Oedipus.

Representations of Sigmund Freud in early 21st century US American novels rely on and respond to the image of Freud that emerged from investigations by Paul Roazen (Brother Animal, 1969) and Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson (The Assault on Truth, 1984), which cast doubt on the validity of the Oedipus complex. Relying on Roazen, Brenda Webster's Vienna Triangle ( 2009 ) links Freud's oedipal thinking to paranoia and male masochism. Working with Masson, Selden Edwards's The Little Book ( 2008 ) takes Freud to task for abandoning the seduction theory in favour of the Oedipus complex. Jed Rubenfeld's The Interpretation of Murder ( 2006 ) rethinks the Oedipus complex as a projection of adults onto their children. All three novels seek to celebrate Freud's understanding of the human psyche, while shifting the focus of the oedipal structure away from the murderous and lustful child toward the adult.

Retracing in his novel the labyrinthine journey that leads Oedipus from the place of his abomination (Thebes) to the city of his future glory (Colonus), Henry Bauchau fills the emptiness between Sophocles’s Oedipus the King and Oedipus at Colonus. Bauchau’s hero, a powerful king, loses everything and stabs his eyes out when the cruel truth about his real identity is revealed. Blind, homeless, devoid of meaning of life, Oedipus leaves on a journey to pass away anywhere. However, his way to death turns out to be, thanks to benevolent presence of others and art’s liberating power, the road to personal elucidation. The story of Bauchau’s Oedipus, who finally recognizes himself as a truly human, is based therefore on the passage between absence and presence, between darkness and lucidity, on the union of contradictions which symbolize the complexity of human nature. This paper attempts to analyse different representations of absence in Bauchau’s novel. Afterwards, the article focuses on the ways which facilitate Oedipus’s road leading from depersonalization to rediscovery of his own identity.

This paper exposes the thematic relationship between politics and medicine which can be inferred from the Oedipus Tyranus by Sophocles. We can find the concept of excess (ὕβρις) as a common thread between both arts (τέχναι) as it is the cause of the wrecking plague in 430 BC Attica, just as it is formulated in the Tragic version of Oedipus̓ myth. We resort to the History of Thucydides to help us approaching Sophocles̓ tragedy from historiography and, thus, configurating Oedipus as a tyrant, conception linked to the theme of the aforementioned plague.

Object of the article:the myth of Oedipus. Subject of the article:the structure of the Oedipus story. Purpose of research: the analysis of the specific characteristics of the story of Oedipus which distinguish it from a traditional folklore story. Research methods:methods of the structural and semantic analysis applied. Results: The author argues that the specific nature of the story of Oedipus is characterised by the “prophetic” function of the combination of two interrelated motifs: the number motif and motif of feet. Those motifs, which are conveyed in the riddle of the Sphinx by the words “four-footed”, “two-footed” and “three-footed”, semantically connect with each other the riddle, Oedipus' fate and his name (Οἰδίπους). The riddle about a creature which changes the number of its feet corresponds to 1) Oedipus' biography (he changes the number of his feet when he becomes “three-footed” - a blind man with a staff); 2) Oedipus's name (which foreshadows the answer to the riddle - “man” (alias “two-footed”) as part of the name Οἰδίπους - δίπους means “two-footed”; 3) number symbolism related to Oedipus (“three days” after Oedipus' birth his father pierced his feet and cast him upon a hillside; Oedipus killed his father where “three roads meet”). Field of application: literary studies. Conclusion:The author argues that story of Oedipus is a result of the semantic adaptation (accommodation) of a traditional folklore story to the ancient numerological riddle about a creature with a changing number of feet by adding of the imagery connected to the number motif and motif of feet. The systematic manifestation of the number motif and of motif of feet on various levels of the structure suggests that the “telling name” of Οἰδίπους (“swollen foot” and “two-footed”) has been integrated into a traditional folklore tale in order to semantically adapt it to the ancient riddle about “feet”. The author is indebted to Svetlana Gracheva, Dan Whitman and Oleg B. Zaslavsky for stimulating discussions and helpful advice.

Thesis advisor: Patrick H. Byrne
My first aim in this dissertation is to elucidate Sophocles’ Oedipus Tyrannus through the writings of Bernard Lonergan, SJ. My second aim is to elucidate Lonergan’s thought by adducing it, in action, in Oedipus Tyrannus. Instead of analyzing what a classical text means to its own time and place, I undertake a philosophy of classics, exploring various philosophical problems by using Sophoclean texts. The paper incidentally discloses an interpretation of Oedipus Tyrannus that is at odds with some of the leading authors in the secondary literature while remaining consonant with others. I use Woodruff and Meineck’s 2003 translation of Theban Plays throughout because I find the translation refreshing. It is my hope that this paper, like all good papers, raises more questions than answers. In Chapter 1, I recruit Lonergan’s three basic observations about human knowing to explain Oedipus’ cognitive journey over the course of the play. First, Lonergan notes that underpinning all human knowing is the spirit of inquiry; the pure, unrestricted desire to know, which Lonergan calls “the supreme heuristic notion.” Second, he observes that the structure of human knowing is invariant. No matter who you are – mathematician, scientist, commonsense knower, etc. – all human knowing follows a dynamic but invariant structure Lonergan calls the “self-correcting cycle of learning.” This cycle moves from inquiry to insight to judgment to decision. Third, this invariant, self-correcting cycle, underpinned by the pure unrestricted desire to know, operates within dynamically shifting patterns of consciousness, modes of human knowing, that are circumscribed by our concerns, expressed by the kinds of questions we ask. Human consciousness is “polymorphic.” Using these three points as touchstones, I elucidate the dynamism of Oedipus’ cognitional structure by tracing the self-correcting sequence of his 132 questions until he arrives at his famous insight, which is simultaneously a virtually unconditioned judgment, expressed by his cry: Oh! Oh! It all comes clear! Light, let me look at you one last time. I am exposed – born to forbidden parents, joined In forbidden marriage, I brought forbidden death (Lines 1181-1185). With the concrete situation known and understood with clarity (σαφής), Oedipus’ consciousness should now become sublated into the structure of ethical intentionality. This sublation occurs the moment an agent says, “Okay. I understand and know the situation. Now, what should I do?” Typically, an agent begins to ask questions of value, questions which, in Patrick H. Byrne’s words, intend “practical insights into possible courses of action.” The goal of questions for intelligence and questions for judgment is to grasp, respectively, understanding and a virtually unconditioned judgment of fact. Likewise, the goal of questions of value is to “grasp of virtually unconditioned value” until, ultimately, a judgment can be made about that value in a decision which implements the value in action. Instead of “ascending” into an “ethics of discernment,” however, Oedipus’ development remains arrested, in a static state of undistorted affectivity that makes moral conversion impossible. The play ends with Oedipus hovering in a liminal state, somewhere between Lonergan’s rational consciousness and rational self-consciousness. This liminal position of distorted affectivity lends credence to Marina McCoy’s claim that, “Sophocles does not reject the rational in favor of a tragic vision that is anti-rational or non-rational; rather, the rational itself includes an affective element.” In Chapter 2, I point out the various “interferences” in the dynamic, self-correcting sequence which I argue imbues Oedipus’ journey with its especially tragic and ironic dimension. I argue that the tragedy (and irony) of the play pivot on the “polymorphism” of Oedipus’ consciousness. A corollary to this argument is that we may understand some of the muddled thinking and the bitter intersubjective quarrels in the play – including but not limited to Oedipus v. Tiresias, Oedipus v. Creon and Oedipus v. Jocasta – through the prism of Lonergan’s discussion of “bias.” My discussion of bias naturally leads to an interpretation of the play that finds Sophocles indicting, not wisdom per se, as Nietzsche argued, but those who fail to understand what it means to correctly understand; those, in other words, who would deign to reduce understanding to a simple matter of “taking a look,” to use Lonergan’s phrase. I argue that the symbolism in the drama staunchly affirms Lonergan’s well-known claim that, “What is obvious in knowing is, indeed, looking. Compared to looking, insight is obscure, and the grasp of the unconditioned is doubly obscure. But empiricism amounts to the assumption that what is obvious in knowing is what knowing obviously is.” In Chapter 3, I enlarge the focus of my analysis from Oedipus’ single consciousness to the milieu in which that consciousness operates – Corinth, Thebes and, finally, Colonus. Viewed through a prism of Lonergan’s social theory, Thebes, and to a lesser extent Corinth, become exempla of “cities in decline,” symbolized generally by their hostility to questioning which, specifically, allows various biases to reign. I discuss the Greek concept of pollution, beginning with the familiar distinction between agos and miasma, and suggest that we may treat the idea of pollution in Oedipus Tyrannus as a metaphor for what Lonergan’s called the “long cycle of decline” and its root cause, “general bias,” the unprincipled privileging of the immediate and concrete over that which is non-present. The byproduct of this bias is “the social surd.” In an essay entitled, “The Absence of God in Modern Culture,” Lonergan notes, in cultures exists the “disastrous possibility of a conflict between human living as it can be lived and human living as a cultural superstructure dictates it should be lived.” I argue that there many junctures in the play in which the failure of insight and the triumph of oversight is compounded by if not caused by the dictates of Theban and Corinthian cultures, starting with Laius and Jocasta’s decision to murder their child, a choice which is then echoed by Polybus and Merope’s choice to suppress the truth of their son’s origin. I then point out that the most obvious operative bias here is group bias, symbolized by various characters’ commitment to violent patriarchy which neglects female voices of reason. I show, following McCoy and Christopher Long, that Colonus, courtesy of Theseus’ leadership, represents a possible antidote to this group bias through healing love. As Oedipus says of the space of Colonus in 1125, “In all my wanderings, this is the only place/Where I have found truth, honor and justice./I am well aware of how much I stand in your debt,/Without your help I would have nothing at all.” For Lonergan, if the mischief of bias is to be conquered, the ultimate ground for that conquering will come from a liberation outside the agent’s own native resources. Colonus gives us a glimpse of this third mode of self-transcendence, religious conversion, which, for Lonergan, is an unrestricted being in love with a “mysterious, uncomprehended God.” On the one hand, this viewpoint would seem to represent a juncture at which Lonergan’s thought simply does not and cannot apply to a classical text, such as Oedipus Tyrannus or Oedipus at Colonus. Lonergan’s notion of unrestricted being in love (with God) and his further distinctions of operative and cooperative grace would seem to be anachronistic. And yet, Lonergan claims that unrestricted being in love is “interpreted differently in the context of different religious traditions.” I argue that there is a sense in which Theseus’ almost otherworldly commitment to reverence (aidos) for the sacred space of Colonus, and his compassionate commitment to care for the stranger (xenia), more closely approximates or, at the very least, anticipates the almost supernatural dynamism of the authentic moral conversion Lonergan seems to have in mind. There are moments, in other words, in which Theseus relies on the dynamism of his own native intelligence and others in which something beyond him seems to be at work, as if a precursor to the supernatural moral disposition of the father in Luke’s “Parable of the Prodigal Son.” I conclude this chapter by noting that implicit in my argument is the premise that Oedipus Tyrannus cannot be read without adverting to Oedipus Colonus, without which the full sweep of the conquering of bias cannot be appreciated. From this premise I then deduce that the pessimistic Nietzschean reading of Oedipus Tyrannus, at the very least, requires more context. And while it is certainly possible to read Tyrannus separately from Colonus, insofar as they are not part of a traditional cycle, including Colonus in an analysis of Tyrannus discloses a further development in Sophocles’ thought that we may use to retroactively assess Tyrannus philosophically, especially vis-à-vis nihilism. Chapter 4 is devoted to a discussion of Lonergan’s metaphysics of human freedom and its relation to willingness, moral impotence and liberation. Here I apply Lonergan’s rich and complicated discussion of human freedom in Insight to offer a viewpoint that is contrary to deterministic readings of the play. In Oedipus Tyrannus: Tragic Heroism and the Limits of Knowledge, Charles Segal advises us that to offer any fresh approach to Oedipus Tyrannus one must “remove a few layers of misconception.” Segal’s first misconception is this: “This is not a play about free will versus determinism.” He adds that “the issues of destiny, predetermination, and foreknowledge are raised as problems, not as dogma.” I will suggest here that if this assessment is accurate, the unintended irony of the play is that it nevertheless affirms a principle (dogma?) in spite of itself: that human freedom is enlarged by human intelligence, insofar as intelligence specifies, via practical insights and practical judgments of facts and values, a range of choices for the will to select. It follows that ignorance, bias and moral impotence, in blocking or shrinking this range of choices, limit our effective freedom to the point at which we are incapable of fully actualizing our essential freedom. Here I recruit Lonergan’s provocative image of the “surrounding penumbra” to describe “moral impotence,” in which he says, “Further, these areas are not fixed; as he develops, the penumbra penetrates into the shadow and the luminous area into the penumbra while, inversely, moral decline is a contraction of the luminous area and of the penumbra.” This image is particularly apt in describing the ways in which Oedipus enlarges the “luminous area” when he is authentically questioning, only to watch it contract into darkness when he is not – an equation symbolized by the Sophoclean trope of blindness. Finally, in an “Epilogue,” I conclude with some observations about the way in which Sophocles is often presented in undergraduate philosophy classes. I concur with Yoram Hazony who writes, in The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture, “I do not believe the dichotomy between faith and reason is very helpful in understanding the diversity of human intellectual orientations.” Likewise, it is unclear to me as to whether couching Athens as somehow opposed to Jerusalem is good pedagogical practice. In a similar mode, equally unclear to me is whether couching Sophocles as somehow opposed to Socrates, Plato and Aristotle is good practice. Yes, contradistinction has its pedagogical merits, but it can also wash away nuance. I then suggest, by way of a conclusion, that if we must have a dichotomy, a better alternative, even pedagogically speaking, may be to use Lonergan’s dichotomy of the friendly or unfriendly universe. For ultimately, we are faced with one existential question: is our universe a friendly one? In Method in Theology, Lonergan asks, poignantly: "Is moral enterprise consonant with this world?...is the universe on our side, or are we just gamblers and, if we are gamblers, are we not perhaps fools, individually struggling for authenticity and collectively endeavoring to snatch progress from the ever mounting welter of decline? The questions arise and, clearly, our attitudes and our resoluteness may be profoundly affected by the answers. Does there or does there not necessarily exists a transcendent, intelligent ground of the universe? Is that ground or are we the primary instance of moral consciousness? Are cosmogenesis, biological evolution, historical process basically cognate to us as moral beings or are they different and so alien to us?" The phrase “friendly universe” comes a bit later in the text, when Lonergan adds, “Faith places human efforts in a friendly universe; it reveals an ultimate significance in human achievement; it strengthens new undertakings with confidence” (117, my italics). Notice the connection Lonergan adduces between religious conversion, or the unrestricted being in love with God, as the ground of the friendly universe. And yet, as I mentioned earlier, this unrestricted being in love is, as Lonergan points out, “interpreted differently in the context of different religious traditions.” After all, Socrates was no Christian; but he did believe the universe was friendly. In this context, I argue that Sophocles ought to be aligned with Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, not to mention most Biblical texts, against the truly opposed counter-position, “nihilism.” While it is certainly true that, in Oedipus, Sophocles heard that “eternal note of sadness on the Aegean,” as Matthew Arnold once wrote, Sophocles also seems to have heard in Colonus a note of compassion and wisdom and love and the hope for a construction of a community in which human striving is not in vain. As Oedipus tells his daughters, But there is one small word that can soothe – And that is ‘love.’ I loved you more than Anyone else could ever love, but now Your lives must go on without me. (1610-1619)
Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2018
Submitted to: Boston College. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences
Discipline: Philosophy

Cette étude se propose de dégager la nature mythique de la musique, ceci à travers l'exemple précis d'une œuvre, Oedipus-Rex de Stravinsky. En nous inspirant du modèle formel de l'œuvre pour construire notre travail et en nous aidant du mythe d'Œdipe pour réfléchir au procès de la connaissance, nous avons entrepris une enquête sémantique subjective qui procède à trois niveaux : un niveau analytique qui envisage l'opéra-oratorio à partir d'une vision contradictoire, celle du rite et celle du drame; un niveau exégétique qui intègre l'œuvre dans une double lecture, celle du compositeur et celle de l'auditeur; enfin un niveau théorique qui tente de définir ce que peut être une recherche sur le mythe et la musique. Considérant qu'Oedipus-Rex constitue une version du mythe d'Œdipe, c'est-à-dire une réalisation exprimant les interrogations d'une culture spécifique, nous l'envisageons donc avec ses propres critères, à savoir d'un point de vue esthétique et en fonction de la problématique de l'opéra, celle de la représentation humaine. A l'issue de cette entreprise, il apparait que la force mythique d'Oedipus-Rex est de proposer un schéma à la fois binaire et ambigu qui permette à l'œuvre de catalyser ce matériel symbolique collectif que constitue le mythique
The purpose of this study is to emphasize the mythical dimension of music, using as a particular instance one of Stravinsky’s works, namely Oedipus-rex. By using the formal structure of the piece to organize our research and by making use of the myth of Oedipus to reflect on the process of knowledge, we undertook a subjective semantic enquiry going on to three different levels. The analytical level considers the opera-cum-oratorio from a contradictory viewpoint taking in both ritual and drama. The exegetic level integrates the work in a double-sided reading, that of the composer and that of the listener. Finally, the theoretical level attempts to define what could be a research on myth and music. Considering that Oedipus-rex is one version of the myth of Oedipus, i. E. A product expressing the questioning of a specific culture, we consider it in the light of its own criteria. This implies having an aesthetic stand and looking into the problematic of the opera, as a human representation. At the end of our quest, it seems that the strength of Oedipus-rex as a myth is to offer both a binary and ambiguous scheme which enables the work to crystalize the collective and symbolic material of which myths are made of

Esta dissertação visa demonstrar que as didascálias caracterizam-se como um dos recursos cênicos presentes na poesia dramática antiga, tendo como objeto de análise a Obra Oedipus de Sêneca. A partir de um pequeno panorama acerca de Sêneca e sua obra com ênfase na poesia dramática, apresentamos um referencial teórico antigo e contemporâneo sobre a poesia dramática de Sêneca, com ênfase no conceito de didascálias e, por fim, a partir do conceito apresentado, identificamos e analisamos as didascálias no Oedipus de Sêneca. Esperamos, com este estudo, abrir novas vias para pesquisas acerca da poesia dramática latina e suas possibilidades de representação.

There is a vast amount of scholarly work devoted to Oedipus Tyrannus and Oedipus at Colonus. However, the number of studies relating these plays to Hippocratic medical thought is small and, in the case of OC, almost non-existent. Bernard Knox???s study Oedipus at Thebes (1957) constitutes the most direct approach to medical thought in OT. He describes how Oedipus shifts between being a physician, a patient, and ultimately, a disease at different stages of the play (1957: 139-147). Knox supports these role shifts by comparing some of the vocabulary of selected passages in the tragedy with their occurrence in the medical writings of the Hippocratic Corpus. The approach I propose in this study is to account for these role shifts from the standpoint of the doctor-patient relationship as described in different writings of the Hippocratic Corpus. I will focus on how the elements of the doctor-patient relationship (i.e., disease, patient, and physician) are represented and the reconfigurations they undergo in the plays. In the first chapter, I will examine how the doctor-patient relationship was viewed among the authors of the medical writings. In addition, I will examine Sophocles??? involvement in the cult of Asclepius in order to determine how this aspect of his life might have influenced his work. In the second chapter I will analyze how the doctor-patient relationship fluctuates in OT. I will use as reference the set of guidelines established in the first chapter regarding the notion of the doctor-patient relationship. In the third chapter, I will suggest that OC provides two complementary approaches to account for the doctor-patient relationship: the Hippocratic model and a new metaphor in which Oedipus stands for a healing god. The medical imagery of the doctor-patient relationship found in OT and OC indicates that Sophocles was well aware of the medical practices of his time. Furthermore, I will suggest that his involvement in the cult of Asclepius is reflected in the metaphor of Oedipus as a healing god at the end of OC.

Between 1900 and 1970 seven different versions of Sophocles’ play Oedipus Tyrannos were performed or published in Arabic in Egypt. This thesis looks at the first 71 years’ history of this iconic Greek tragedy in Arabic and the ways it can be used to think through the cultural debates of the period. The long history of contact between Greece and Egypt and the 19th and 20th century interpretations of this history can be used to look at different models of colonial and post-colonial cultural interaction. Classicism offered Egyptian writers a constructive way of looking at their cultural identity and contemporary world – a way which takes in to account the legacies of colonialism but also engages Greek literature to create their own models of nationhood. Following the history of performance and adaptation of the play throughout the 20th century, this thesis offers close readings of the most prominent adaptations of Oedipus, particularly those of Farah Antun (whose text was used for Actor-Director George Abyad’s first version of the play in 1912), Tawfiq al-Hakim (1949), Ali Ahmed Bakathir (1949) and Ali Salem (1970). Using performance and translation theory, I show how performance of translated plays like Oedipus was a crucial but complex part of the formation of an Egyptian dramatic tradition through the dynamic interaction of diverse views of what the theatre should be, using, for instance, the role of singing in turn of the century drama. This thesis also revisits and revises misconceptions about the relationship between Islam and theatre. In addition to examining Egyptian Oedipus’ 19th and 20th century context, I also stress the contribution of performance and adaptation to readings of the original text. In particular, these versions of Oedipus ask questions about monarchical rule and democracy that form one link between this classical play and 20th century Egypt. Through its interdisciplinary approach as well as the close readings it offers, this thesis aims to make valuable contributions to the fields of Arabic Theatre Studies and Classical Reception in Colonial and Post-Colonial contexts as well as Performance and Translation Theory.

Thesis (MA)--Stellenbosch University, 2011.
ENGLISH ABSTRACT: “Freud, Lacan, and the Oedipus Complex” examines the Oedipus complex as found in the writing of Sigmund Freud and re-evaluated in the works of Jacques Lacan. Lacan‟s critical reappraisal of the Oedipus complex is captured in his 1969-1971 Seminars, published as The Other Side of Psychoanalysis(2007). This thesis examines Freud‟s overemphasis of the Oedipus complex, the myth of the primal horde and the consequent depiction of the father. Lacan doesn‟t dismiss the Oedipus complex completely, but treats it as a dream, and reinterprets it in light of Freud‟s The Interpretation of Dreams (1900). Lacan focuses on Freud‟s overemphasis on the father in both the Oedipus complex and the myth of the primal horde and illustrates how Freud is protecting the image of the father by depicting him as strong, whereas clinical experience shows that the father can be weak and fallible.
AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: “Freud, Lacan, and the Oedipus Complex” ondersoek die Oedipus kompleks, soos beskryf in die werk van Sigmund Freud en die beskrywing daarvan in die werk van Jacques Lacan. Lacan se kritiese herevaluasie van die Oedipus kompleks verskyn in sy 1969-1971 Seminare, gepubliseer as The Other Side of Psychoanalysis(2007). Die tesis studeer Freud se oorbeklemtoning van die Oedipus kompleks, die oer-miete en die rol van die vader, ten spyte van die ongerymdhede en kliniese tekortkominge in sy uitbeelding van die vader-figuur. Lacan verwerp nie die Oedipus kompleks ten volle nie, maar kontekstualiseer dit in terme van ʼn droom en herinterpreteer dit in lig van Freud se The Interpretation of Dreams (1900). Lacan fokus op Freud se oorbeklemtoning van die vader in beide die Oedipus kompleks en die oer-miete en illustreer hoe Freud die beeld van die vader probeer beskerm deur hom as sterk uit te beeld, veral wanneer kliniese ervaring wys dat die vader swak en feilbaar is.

Chapter One of this thesis explores the identity of the Eumenides, the resident deities in Sophocles' Oedipus at Colonus. By examining the language and contents of two important ritual acts in the play, it is proven that their title is euphemistic; these goddesses are the transformed Erinyes of Aeschylus.
Oedipus and his sinfulness is the focus of Chapter Two. Although he has committed the heinous crimes of incest and parricide, Oedipus seems to be exempt from the Erinyes' hounding. By reviewing the charges laid against him, it is revealed that Oedipus is a morally innocent man.
The final chapter deals with Oedipus' apotheosis and the role played by the Eumenides. By examining the play's dramatic action, it is demonstrated that Oedipus, a man of innate heroic nature, is deserving of heroization. But to reach his exalted end, the championship of the Eumenides is required.

The article is based on three cases of private psychoanalytic work with successful businessmen from central and northern parts of Ukraine. The research methodology was psychoanalytic theories devoted to the unconscious meanings of money and the role of money in the psychoanalytic setting, including object theory, drive theory, psychosexual development theory, narcissism theory, Oedipus complex, transference and resistance. What presents the interest of this study are the cases when those who grew up in poverty finally obtains such a desired object — money, wealth, however, something unconscious hinders this person to get satisfied by it and even to admit obtaining it. The presented clinical work was conducted as classic psychoanalysis in person with different duration: 5, 10 and 46 months. Men were asked to tell whatever comes to mind: thoughts, memories, dreams, phantasies, feelings etc. The role of psychoanalyst was to hear specific connections between patient’s stories and to analyze them together with the patient. The cases presented highlight several psychological features of young men «millionaires» who suffer from their own success. 1. Sensitivity to Father’s (real or symbolic) acceptance of their business and financial success. 2. Activation of unconscious Oedipus complex and Complex of castration because of the risk to dethrone the Father in reality, with experiences of guilt, fear and expectation of punishment. 3. Projection of their own envy, hate, wish to avenge and killing phantasies into external objects (friends, partners, psychoanalyst) with building individual defensive strategies from them. These psychological features were associated not only with suffering and psychopathological symptoms but also with impossibility to continue business development. In addition, the cases analyzed in the article show some difficulties in building business connected with the generations gap. Fathers from the USSR or the 90s teach their sons to act in the way that is not relevant for successful careers nowadays. This latent or manifested struggle between generations may be an important factor in abovementioned psychological features.