Customer Reviews

The Oedipus Plays of Sophocles: Oedipus the King; Oedipus at Colonus; Antigone

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

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.

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.

I must admit, I have difficulty reading plays done in poetry. (I read "Hamlet" a thousand times and I still don't know the details about Rosencrantz and Guilderstern!) When I picked up this book, I was expecting it to be the same deal. But it wasn't. I couldn't put this book down! "Oedipus at Colonus" is so powerful and dramatic! The other two are equally compelling. I guess I'm giving this such a glowing review because I love Greek mythology, but I can't help loving this! Paul Roche is a wonderful translator. This translation can be performed in front of a modern audience without problems in understanding at all. I really must owe the credit to Sophocles for my favourite moments. The endings "Oedipus the King" (where a messenger describes Jocasta's death and Oedipus blinding himself) and where in "Oedipus at Colonus" a man describes Oedipus going into the light before Theseus's eyes- they moved me so much. I recommend this translation to anyone who wants to enrich their lives with a timeless and simple story about human nature.

Sophocles' masterpieces cannot be acclaimed enough for their fluidity, coherence, content and style. Indeed, I have never read a play that captured my heart and soul as much as Antigone, and I have never had more interest in any story than that of Oedipus. Roche's translations are the best ever produced by human hands. The text reads perfectly, as if originally written in English (although not in an english style), yet it more accurately represents Sophocles' work than any other translation on the market. Roche has used his great poetic skill and love of greek to create a triumph of classic literature.

This was a lot better than I expected it to be. The reading is easier than Shakespeare - in fact, I like this more. Much of the credit must go to Paul Roche. Watching a clip of a video of these plays (under a different translation) showed that his translation was not just word for word, but - as he says in the introduction - a work of art that retains the melody of the poetry.

I found the sophistication of Shakespeare (and the multiple suicides/murders) - amazing for something written so much earlier. But what was here was something more human. Within the different but wonderful style of speaking (thanks to Sophocles) was a modern voice (thanks to Roche) that made this play not only readable but enjoyable.

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.

.
This is a moving book that stays with you. It conveys the idea of tragedy and life's hand of cards dealt to each one of us. Paul Roche's translation of Sophocles is excellent and his introduction is wonderful to read both before and after reading the plays.

Here are the stories of Oedipus, the King of Thebes, respectively Oedipus the King, Oedipus at Colonus and Antigone. It all began with the words of the gods spoken through an oracle and thus the words eventually become fulfilled, for you cannot outwit, nor cheat the oracle.

The ultimate lesson one finds, as outlined in Roche's intro, is that each one of us are handed a destiny in life and it is in vain to attempt to do otherwise, to cease what is handed to us prior our births. However, there is the human freedom of the will and with this we make decisions and act, all so within the predetermined destiny we are given. And so it is, Oedipus is foretold that he will murder his father and marry his mother and despite all efforts to prevent this, it ultimately becomes fulfilled.

Now what is so beautiful and yet tragic is beauty seen in suffering, the final outcome in some ways is honorary, yet painful; ugly yet divine; disturbing, yet positive in meaning. In King Oedipus' suffering he is finally vindicated, accepted by the King of Athens, and yet dies while being an outcast by many but with honor and pride of himself and his actions subsequent his many years of suffering blind, walking in the harsh desert with his daughter Antigone. His two son's deaths, the predecessor King of Thebes, Creon also reaps tragedy in a major and soul stirring way. The ultimate death of Antigone, Creon's son and wife, the vindication of Oedipus and self punishment of Creon's pride; there are many lessons, many meanings in these three stories. The tragedy conveyed is that of a nature of pessimism and yet a numinous quality of the irrational in the Dionysian, in the void of Being, in the sacred as opposed to the profane.

Now as far as Freud is concerned with his 20th century psychoanalysis he labels the "Oedipus Complex," I can understand the similarity with the sexual attraction towards a parent, however I find there is really no connection here with the plays of Sophocles and that of Freud. There simply is no relation towards the desires of murder and sex, as these actions were entirely accidental and pre-determined by the gods, by the oracle. So in line with this, taking it much further, that is, to those Jim Morrison listener's of music, there is great difference in the original intent of Sophocles and that of the mantra uttering "Kill the Father, F---- the Mother."

What also makes these plays so enlightening is the origin from a totally non-theistic society far apart from the monotheistic mindset of the Western civilization, as we know it and so deeply ingrained in both thought and rational analysis.

I'm not sure how to rate this book. For one thing, I don't know much about Greek drama. However, in some respects no one does. Our author tried to be faithful to the original in ways he feels are important: "I have tried to walk and to run, to rise and to sit, with the Master, but never by imitation, only by analogy, transposition, re-creation." He has given us the three plays in iambic lines of varying length, with inventive syntax and vocabulary (sanctioned by the example of the original). I got annoyed with the verse at various points as it seemed just wrong: the expression seemed not to reflect the intention, and words were used (dare I say it?) sloppily. Now, I know I'm on shaky ground here. For one thing (a big thing!), I have not seen the plays performed. Moreover, our author knows the Greek, and he may be reflecting it quite closely, and my criticism should be directed at the Master. On top of that, Paul Roche, from his introduction, is clearly a good writer, so I must assume that the odd things he does he does deliberately.

But, anyway, as he says in a note on meter in the Appendix, "Indeed, the danger on the stage is not that poetry should sound monotonous but that it should not sound at all." He has quite a bit more to say on the subject, which is an important one. Sophocles wrote in an "iambic" meter rather than prose. In fact, it's possible that writing a play in prose, or good parts of it in prose, made as much sense in classical Athens as writing song lyrics in prose would now, and for roughly the same reason. While the actors may not have sung all the words, certainly the chorus was singing, and song hovered around, heightening the action.

Having said all that, I think our author does some very good things. For one thing, he does give us a good verse translation with all the choral markings - the Episodes, the Strophes and Antistrophes, with nice summaries at their heads. He brings the speech into reasonably colloquial English without sacrificing the "beat". (As an example of that, I particularly liked the byplay between Creon and the sentry in "Antigone". Here he gives the sentry a Cockney accent and Creon the voice of one of those impatient stuffed-shirts in a screwball comedy.) Overall, he achieves the right balance between vivacity of expression and dignity. His introduction and appendix are informative, opinionated, and well-written. In summary, this is an excellent version of these three plays (only a trilogy by coincidence).

This is extraordinary story and easy to follow. It is easily comparable to modern socitey. The tragic flaws in Creon and Oedipus are very defined. This is a classic "must read" !

Obviously the actual text is a classic, but the layout and translation of it in this edition is nicely done. It's modern English, but doesn't treat you like you're a kid.