Sin and Redemption
The Oedipus Plays of Sophocles / 0-451-62847-0
Roche's superb translation of the three dramas of Sophocles are a wonderful introduction to the phenomena of Greek drama.
So much of the Greek spirit is delved into here. The problem of pre-destination is dealt with here, as in many plays, in the form of a question: Would Oedipus really have killed his parents if they hadn't tried to thwart the Oracle's prediction by abandoning him? And yet, if they just accepted their fate and raised him as their own (instead of making themselves strangers to him), would the Oracle's prediction have failed? Or did the Oracle *know* that the question would be asked and responded to in a certain way, and merely predicted the final outcome of this cycle? Yet does that mean that the Oracle actively determines future rather than merely passively observing it? And around we go.
These plays deal deeply with unforgivable sin and forgiveness. Oedipus himself mistakenly kills the father he never knew and marries the mother he never met. No matter how innocently done, the crime is still there, clinging to him. His sons fail to govern responsibly and fairly and take arms against each other. They both fall in battle, but the one favored by the people is lionized, while the one out of favor is demonized. Against the laws of Zeus, he is denied burial rites and entrance into the afterlife, but own brave sister defies these laws and gives her life to secure afterlife for both her brothers. Sophocles asks us, Is there any fault so grievous that forgiveness cannot be offered?
Essential reading for a classical education
I read Sophocles Antigone for graduate Humanities class. It is an essential reading to understand Greek Tragedy. It is also a foundation stone of literature in studying Western Civilization.
Antigone, daughter of Oedipus in 3-cycle play, faces capital punishment for burying her brother who rebelled against Thebes. Obeying instincts of loyalty of love and the divine law, she defies Creon, the King and her uncle. Creon says laws of states outweigh all other laws, and family loyalty, when he finally relents it's too late.
Over the centuries there has been a great deal made about the conflicts played out in the play, law of state vs. law of goods, personal vs. state duties. Loves knowledge vs. state knowledge. Greek understanding of tragedy- Aristotle lays down understanding of Greek tragedy. He based it on Sophocles. Tragedy- most important thing for tragedy is plot, it is all essential. Tragedy defined as- is imitation of an action that is serious, complete and of a certain magnitude in language embellished with incidents arousing pity and fear ant to the audience it accomplishes catharsis of such emotions. Every tragedy must have six parts that determine its quality. 1. plot 2. character 3. diction 4. fault 5. spectacle and 6. melody.
According to Aristotle, tragedy is higher and more philosophical than history or poetry; it is one of the highest expressive forms because it dramatizes what may happen. History is a narrative that tells you what has happened tragedy shows what is possible. History deals with particulars, tragedy deals with the universal. Tragedy creates a cause and effect chain and shows how the world operates. It frames human experience in universal discourse, tragedy is central in this effort. Tragedy arouses pity and fear in audience because we can envision ourselves caught in this cause and effect chain. Plot most important feature, the arrangement of incidents, the way incidents, and action is structured. Tragedies outcome depends on the outcome of these cause and effect changes not on being character driven. Plot must be whole, beginning middle and end. Beginning must have a motivation that starts the cause and effect chain of events must be a center or climax that is caused by earlier incidents. There must be an end some kind of closure caused by earlier events in tragedy. This is all part of the complication of the tragedy all must be connected. You can't have a dues ex machnia in a superior tragedy.
In tragedy, the hero or heroine walks knowingly towards the fate that is written and can't be changed. Unity of action plot must be structurally self-contained, each action leading invariably to the next without outside intervention. The worst kinds of plots are episodic, like a Jerry Seinfeld sitcom, can't be something about nothing, must have unity of action. Magnitude, quantatively meaning length, and quality of action, it must be serious. Must be of universal significance, depth, and richness. Character- most important feature is the fatal flaw. Motivations of characters are important but character is there to support the plot. Character must be a prosperous renowned personage. Change of fortune from good to bad will really matter and bring fear and pity to the audience. In ideal tragedy, the hero will mistakenly bring about his own downfall. Because they make a mistake, because knowledge of our selves is always partial, we can't have complete knowledge of ourselves. Hall quotes Descartes in the article, "The limited error prone perspective of the individual. Subject is always imperfect and human and these limitations include our ability to know in any reliable way ourselves." The fact that we as subjects, as agents can never fully know ourselves means that we are always prone to error, error is the essence of the tragic hero, tragedy is the essential drama of human subjectivity.
What is Hegel's understanding of concept of tragedy? He revises Aristotelian principals and logic. Immensely influential German philosopher, he writes about; tragedy in the Aesthete 1820-29, he proposes, "the suffering of the tragic hero are merely the means of reconciling the opposing moral clients." According to Hegel's account of Greek tragedy, the conflict isn't between good and evil, but between competing goods, all is good. Between two entirely ethical worlds that clash and can't come together. Both characters have an ethical vision or belief that they have to follow it is there one-sidedness of their vision that clashes with the one-sidedness of the other character. Both sides of contradiction are justified. Conflict of irreconcilable justifiable ethical worlds, ethical visions. Just as his dialectic must lead to an ultimate synthesis, so to must tragedy lead to a synthesis. This is dramatized in the death of the tragic actor, which becomes the synthesis. Hegel says; "the characters are too good to live." They are too good to live in this world. What is interesting is that Hegel so wants to correct moral imbalances his emphasis is on moral balances.
Greek tragedy is great reading for people interested in aesthetics, history, psychology, and philosophy.
Oedipus at Colonus
Oedipus at Colonus was a fairly good sequel to Oedipus the King. In this book Oedipus and one of his daughters go to Colonus the Gods sent sickness because he killed his father and then married his mother.
This book was a lot easier to read than I was expecting. Usually I have a tough time reading these old kind of plays but this one was written in such a way that I was able to understand it which was a plus. The whole plot is really good; Oedipus's sons are fighting over who gets to be king. If you read any of the previous stories of Oedipus you should know about the oracle. This is a wonderful element to these stories. When you hear the oracle's prediction you know that you should believe it because of what happen in the first story. Recomended for ages 15 and older.
Between Meaning and Music
Most English translations of, say, the Greek New Testament are shepherded by a conviction that the original words had divine inspiration and so are best rendered verbatim wherever possible. At the same time, there generally is a concession (for good or ill) to the reality that if what results is not sufficiently lofty and reverential in tone, the faithful are unlikely to accept it. Attempts at classical Greek drama and poetry tend to be guided by rather different considerations: The translator's audience may consist of fellow scholars, reluctant undergraduate students, or an adventurous minority of the general public; and each of these groups will have particular demands. Too often work thus emerges which is precise but lifeless, or loosely interpreted to conform to the structures of 19th-century-style Anglo-American poetry, or so liberally seasoned with present-day colloquialisms as to jar the reader repeatedly out of the proper period and setting.
For the most part, Paul Roche navigates skilfully through these hazards in trying his hand at Sophocles's Oedipus trilogy, and has produced a rendition that is readable, yet preserves classical distinctiveness. Once or twice in the first play a turn of phrase does feel awkwardly modern, but such flashes are rare and soon either disappear or blend into the overall arc of the stories. That Roche is himself a poet clearly enriched the labour, and his reflections, in the Introduction, on the essence of poetry and the challenge of its transmission across lines of language, era, and culture border on the profound. '... Poetry lies somewhere between meaning and music, sense and sound ...,' he writes; and in this region he attempts to set Sophocles's work. He echoes the meter of the original without imitating it exactly, and preserves more of the Greek dramatic structure (complete with `strophes' and `antistrophes') than do many other translations available. Yet Roche remains mindful that this is also a PLAY, and manages the formalized dialogue with an eye (or ear) to the possibility of his version itself turning up on stage. He also provides an afterword outlining principles to guide such performance.
The reader of this translation whose only prior encounter with the Oedipus legend was some now-vaguely-remembered lesson in school, or perhaps Edith Hamilton's summary, may be surprised at how effectively one is drawn in. Roche, like Sophocles before him, succeeds in bringing the remote and legendary close enough to touch, while allowing it to remain sufficiently mysterious to stir the imagination.
A good compromise between authenticity and accessibility
Roche has worked very hard at reproducing the feel of the original text by Sophocles, and by all accounts he has succeeded admirably. In his introduction, Roche goes on at length to explain why a strictly literal translation is not always the best course; he has done what he can to capture the essence of the original poetry, sometimes sacrificing a more literal translation.
That being said, this trilogy of tragedy remains inaccessible to the casual reader, with the verse, antiquated phrases, and lengthy unnatural monologues and speeches combining to obscure the beautiful and tragic story from the mind and heart of what might otherwise be an appreciative audience.
So where does this leave us? Did Roche waste his time by coming up with a version of the play that is neither authentic nor accessible? In my opinion, he did not. This book is an invaluable asset for intermediary scholars who are not ready (and may never be ready) to apply themselves to the actual text or a literal translation, and yet are willing to devote themselves to overcoming the obstacles that the non-traditional (by modern standards) format presents.
An english student, or an armchair literary enthusiast, will find this an excellent way to experience the power of Sophocles writing in english. The translation is beautiful, and powerful, and does indeed bring one of the most tragic and deeply resonating of stories to life; you just have to work a little to get there.
