Fergana state university

Conclusion

This thesis argues that the poems by Seamus Heaney and Ted Hughes interpreting ancient texts are powerful, disturbing and appealing, and that they share a rich and complex vision with receptive readers. Published in the last decade of the twentieth- century, they reveal the contemporary relevance of ancient subject matter through themes which are still powerful determinants of human actions in the modern world. Jung discerns archetypes as blueprints for experience surviving over generations in the collective unconscious, and the poems relate to these archetypes through the continuity of their themes. Their contemporary colloquial language reinforces the themes’ relevance, which is explicated through detailed analyses in the preceding discussion.

In the first chapter I address three debatable issues: the poems’ status as translations, their modern relevance and their language. Recent concepts of originality and authorship by Steiner, Venuti and some poststructuralist theorists, based on the insight that language is not static and that meaning is not fixed, are drawn on to support my approach to the poems without close reference to their sources. The traditional view of translation as a mere copy fails to acknowledge these recent developments in theory. Additionally I argue that the selected poems are sufficiently distant from their origins to validate treatment of them as independent texts. Except for Heaney’s Beowulf, the poems discussed here were not intended by their authors as literal translations, and frequent minor and major departures from their sources are discussed in the published literary critical commentary.

Heaney’s and Hughes’ commentary on the selected poems support my second argument in Chapter 1 that they have reinterpreted ancient themes in a way relevant to a modern audience. Archetypal patterns discernable in the poems reflect parallels in the modern world. Heaney affirms that an artist adapts his subject matter so as to engage with the modern world (HA 66), while Hughes makes this adaptation in the selected poems.

Moreover, in his most recent poems (2001, 2004), Heaney exemplifies the presence in his poetry of recurring archetypal patterns of human behaviour.

The above analysis has identified differences in the two poets’ approaches but also unexpected similarities. The so-called violence of Hughes’ poetic language is a major issue for some critics and the study examines the grounds for this criticism and responds to it. While Heaney has escaped the condemnation afforded Hughes, I argue that both poets incorporate explicit language in their poems in order to expose to readers the true horror of violence, and that their word choice is appropriate to the subject matter.

Through such language they both subvert the glorification of war and challenge the notion that it resolves problems.

Finally in Chapter 1, I argue a hypothesis to explain the imbalance in critical attention between Heaney and Hughes. One reason is a declining academic interest in the Greek and Roman classics that are Hughes’ source texts, in contrast with a sustained professional concern with the Anglo-Saxon culture that produced Beowulf.

Additionally, Hughes is linked in the American literary canon with Plath and demonised because of her death. Supported by the Modern Language Association of America, this

has produced a “one-sided focus” on some of Hughes’ poems (Scigaj Critical 29), and a neglect of others. Moreover, in contrast with its coverage of Heaney the MLA Bibliography often omits criticism of Hughes’ works which originates in Europe.

Hughes is as creative and as powerful a poet as Heaney, and this study fills a gap in the critical literature, especially in respect of Hughes’ last works. Further recognition of his visionary poetry may be expected, reflecting critical assessments of Moulin, Sagar, and Scigaj who consider that Hughes is one of the greatest modern English-language poets.