نمایشِ آنتی‌گون و بخش‌های پراکنده‌ای از دو نمایشِ دیگه رو از ترجمه‌های فارسی هم خوندم و باید بگم که بیشتر از متن انگلیسی،ازشون خوشم اومد
هم به‌خاطر نثرِ تقریبا کهنی که داشت و هم متنِ انگلیسی یک جورهایی فاقدِ «لحن» بود. نثرش متعلق به قرن بیستم بود انگار

بریده :

تو را دوبار معذب ساخته‌اند. یک‌بار در تن و یک‌بار در جان، کاش اصلا به وجود نیامده بودی که این معما را بخوانی
تو را عقیده هرچه هست،باشد اما به گمان من، سعادت آدمی در آن است که اصلا در این جهان نباشد و چون به ناچار، زندگی انسان در این عالم آغاز می‌شود، پس هرچه زودتر به فرجام رسد،بهتر است و راهی که به سرمنزل مقصود می‌رسد، هرچه سریع‌تر پیموده شود، طی آن آسان‌تر باشد

...
چیست که با عشق برابری تواند کرد؟ یا کیست که در جنگ با او مقهور نشود؟ کدام قدرت است که زور عشق بر او نچربد؟ در اقطار بعیده‌ی این جهان و در عرصه‌ی پهناور دریاها، عشق حاضر و موجود است. در عارض شکفته‌ی دختری که به انتظار محبوب خود نشسته‌است، آیات عشق خوانده می‌شود. جنونِ عشق گریبان‌گیرِ خدایان و آدمیان هردو می‌شود

I was rather flippant about Greek drama throughout my time at university (much to the chagrin of every single professor teaching the unit), but even I had to concede to the immense talent of Sophocles: to cast a myth like Oedipus' on stage with such eloquence, and without leaning on its sensationalism, is inconceivable elsewhere in the theatrical tradition—unsurprising, then, that his Theban Plays have today become authoritative sources, rather than mere tellings, of the fate of the House of Cadmus.

In his acclaimed and unerringly beautiful translation, Robert Fagles reclaims for the three plays—Antigone, Oedipus the King, and Oedipus at Colonus, arranged in order of composition rather than narrative chronology—a sense of crisp, lucid triumph, revealing their timelessness while also honouring the relevance of their politics for the Athenian audiences they were originally intended for. Despite being about a hundred generations too late a witness, I found myself completely immersed within the pages of these ancient tragedies.

Antigone (c. 441 BCE)

Antigone au chevet de Polynices by Jean-Joseph Benjamin-Constant (1868)

My favourite of the three, Antigone is a work of astounding depth— masterful tragedy dealing with familial love, treachery, and morality in the face of despotic rule. Rebellion, too, is an important theme, be it Antigone's breaking the ruler's decree or Haemon opposing his own father. The protagonist's heroic temper, her defiance of authority, and her willingness to give up life and love in order to fulfill her moral duty has led to many interpreting this as a feminist play.

But beyond that, Antigone is also a complex exploration of our notions of 'right' and 'wrong'. Sophocles does not see his characters' actions as purely black and white: we get a glimpse of the true motivations governing Creon's degree as well as Antigone's transgression, and while we are explicitly told that Creon was wrong and see him suffer, it is only for his proud renunciation of divine power and familial ties—neither the Chorus nor Sophocles himself seem to find fault with his statecraft. Meanwhile, no affirmation of Antigone's rightness is ever made. However, unlike Creon, she does not betray the loyalties she spoke for, and dies believing in the rightness of her actions even if others do not seem to.

While her death is part of the curse against the House of Cadmus—the same prophecy that led to the ruin of her father, Oedipus, and drove her brothers Etiocles and Polynices to kill each other—it is also an act of heroism, of upholding the laws of divinity and nature and standing up against the barbaric. Thus, Antigone explores the ideas of predestination and agency in tandem with each other, a concern dominant in Greek drama in general and the Theban plays in particular.

Oedipus the King (c. 430-426 BCE)

Blind Oedipus Commending his Children by Bénigne Gagneraux (1784)

Perhaps the most prominent exploration of fate and free will in Sophoclean tragedy takes place in Oedipus the King: while he is destined to commit the acts of patricide and incest that we know him for, it is through his own determined, willful pursuit that this terrible truth comes to light and becomes known. Most importantly, however, the play illustrates divine indictment against the hubris of Oedipus and Jocasta, who believe that they can subvert the prophecy through their actions. That this play is focused on the discovery of Oedipus's sins rather than the sins themselves serves to highlight this latter aspect of the story (this, according to Bernard Knox, is rooted in contemporary politics; Sophocles wrote this play asserting the superiority of divine will at a time when the institution of the Oracle—and thereby the validity of the gods themselves—was under public fire).

While this notion of predestination in the original myth was transformed and appropriated by the Freudian lens in the early 20th century; Oedipus the King transformed modern drama by presenting an existential model for stories dealing with our own terror of the unknown, uncontrollable future and the idea that our progress; Like Oedipus' success; will unwittingly bring us to our doom. All of this, moreover, allows Sophocles to master the art of dramatic irony, which is in many ways the lifeblood of this play.

It is no wonder that Oedipus the King has long been considered the most distinguished of all Greek tragedy—enough can never be said about a play like this, one so deeply rooted in our exploration of the complexities of art, society, and the human condition.

Oedipus at Colonus (c. 406 BCE)

Oedipus at Colonus by Jean-Antoine-Théodore Giroust (1788)

Written at the age of 90, Oedipus at Colonus was Sophocles' last play, hyperaware of the spectre of impending war and destruction loomed over Athens at the time. It has the least mythical precedent of all Theban plays, and is the tragedian's valedictory reminder of the glory, benevolence, and fame of Athens. This is also the play where Oedipus, whose terrible ruin is part of a divine curse on his bloodline, is finally redeemed, by yet another prophecy: in his death, Oedipus is raised from mortal to hero, he is also able to avenge the wrongs committed unto him by his sons Etiocles and Polynices and his other kinsmen in Thebes.

Here, Oedipus expresses his helplessness as an instrument of fate, and thereby achieves glory: although he is still polluted, he is extricated of blame and dies a painless death. His grave, as per the redemptive prophecy, becomes the site of a war bringing doom to Thebes; that has wronged him; and Victory to Athens, whose ruler, the noble Theseus, saves him (it is through Theseus that Sophocles affirms the spirit of Athens at its peak). This is also a far more mystical play than its predecessors, dealing with furies and rituals, but this only enhances the effect of the hero being lifted to a position that is more than human—reverential, and almost holy.

While Oedipus at Colonus is only the second play concerning the House of Cadmus in Thebes if a narrative chronology is considered, its thematic concerns render it the perfect end to Sophocles' Theban triad. While fate has mark Oedipus with tragedy, and the end of his bloodline is known, this play manages to inject in this sagas a communion with the gods, and thus, a note of hope.

Najważniejszym spostrzeżeniem z lektury cyklu tebańskiego, jest to, jak ważnym, dla całości jest Edyp w Kolonos o którym nie miałem zielonego pojęcia. Obok znanych wszystkim ze szkoły arcydzieł greckiej tragedii, najstarszy bo napisany u schyłku życia Sofoklesa drugi jej element, jest kluczowy do odczarowania Edypa i zrozumienia postaci Antygony. Trzeba też przyznać, że spolszczenie Libery jest czymś wspaniałym dla poznania greckiego teatru laikowi, które aż prosi się o czytanie na głos.

Bardzo jestem ciekaw tych tragedii wystawianych na scenie, oraz porównania ich z tłumaczeniami Chodkowskiego.

مرگ را نمیتوان تمنا کرد. او نمی آید تا آدمی را از سرنوشتی که خود ساخته بِرَهد. «آنتیگونه اثر سوفوکلس»

میخوایم خیلی کوتاه راجع به سه شاهکار بی بدیل ، سه تراژدی فراموش نشدنی ، سه نمایشنامه که انقدر مهم اند که همه بر آن ها مسئله دارن ، صحبت کنیم :
«ادیپوس شهریار» ، «ادیپوس در کلونس» و «آنتیگونه»
خیلی کوتاه جهت جلوگیری از اسپویل : خانم ها و آقایان شما با یک شاهکار «ادیپوس در کلونس» و دو ابر شاهکار «آنتیگونه» و «ادیپوس شهریار» طرفید.
ابرشاهکار ها رو هرگز فراموش نمیکنید‌. حق هم دارین. ببینین «ادیپوس شهریار» چه اعجوبه‌ایه که همه از «هایدگر» تا «فروید» و حتی روان شناس های امروزی روش نقد دارن و مسئله‌شونه.

و «آنتیگونه» آنتیگونه‌ای که شاید بتونم بگم از «ادیپوس شهریار» هم (کمی) بهتره. آنتیگونه‌ای که مجموعه‌ای از جدال هاست‌. جدال شناختن شر و خیر ، جدال ظالم و مظلوم ، جدال دادخواهی و عدالت خواهی ، جدال با قدرت تقدیر روزگار و در نهایت جدال با پذیرش سرنوشت. باید اثر رو بخونین تا بفهمین بعد از خوندنش تا چه حد منقلب میشید.

«آنتیگونه» و «ادیپوس شهریار» رفتن توو لیست صد داستانم

کارتاسیس


اگر میخواهید به تجویزِ پیرِ عالمِ فلسفه ارسطوی کبیر عناصر چهار گانه طبعتون( بلغم ، سودا ، صفرا و خون ) همیشه میزان باشه ، شبا قبل خواب مغزتون تراژدی میل کنه ؛ ترجیحا با شربت آبلیمو و بهمن کوچیک .
دوهزار و پونصد سال از عمر روایت کتبی این تراژدی میگذره چه بسا روایت شفاهی عمر دراز تری هم داشته باشه. اما چه جاذبه و جادویی باعث مصون موندن و از چشم نیفتادن پیکار تکراری خدایان و انسان میشه ؟ پیکاری که ماحصلش برای ما ساخت قهرمان تراژیکه.
به نظرم انسان بودن مهمترین رکن این جاودانگی باشه.
اینکه ما تو تیم انسانهاییم و با اینکه آگاه از تسلیم و شکست قهرمان تراژیک در برابر خواست و اراده تقدیر خدایانیم ولی این تلاش و به نوعی شکست قهرمانانه رو تحسین میکنیم . حسی شبیه هوادارای یک تیم دسته سومی که از شکست قطعی تیمش برابر حریف قدرتمند آگاهه ولی فارغ از نتیجه از ۹۰ دقیقه تلاش تیم نهایت لذت رو خواهد برد و موهبت کاتارسیس رو تجربه میکنه.


این سه گانه با شکوه علاوه بر انبوهی از فضایل نیک که از شمارش خارجه دو ویژگی منحصر بفرد نسبت به بقیه افسانه‌ها داره از نظر من ؛
اولیش این‌که توجهش به بُعد انسانی افسانه خیلی بیشتر از خدایانه . به نوعی سوفوکل یک قدم جلوتر رفته و به جای تمرکز روی نزاع و کشمکش بین انسان و خدایان ؛ بیشتر به عواقب و ماحصل این کشمکش بر سرشت قهرمان افسانه خودش پرداخته . به همین دلیل خواننده و یا شنونده بیشتر از اینکه شاهد یک پیکار باشه به عنوان شخص سوم ؛ مدام در حال همزاد پنداری عاطفی با چندین کاراکتر داستانه و یک چرخه مداوم از تقابلهای بدون قضاوت جلوش شکل میگیره که به تفکر راجع بهشون تشویقش میکنه .

تیرزیاس


در روایتی اومده یک روز که آتنا با یکی از پریان جنگل در رودخانه ای به شنا مشغول بود چوپان زیبا و جوانی به نام تیرزیاس برحسب تصادف از اونجا میگذشته و چشمش به اندام برهنه الهه میفته و تو این نگاه تعمد و تقصیری نداشته اما الهه چنان به خشم اومده که بلافاصله بنده خدارو از هر دو چشم کور میکنه . با اینکه یکی از پریان جنگل به نام کاریکلو که شاید فریفته زیبائی تیرزیاس شده بود شفاعتشو کرد و آتنا هم اعتراف کرد که طفل معصوم تقصیر نداشته اما آتنا حاضر نشد چشم هائی را که تونسته بود اندام برهنشو ببینه دوباره بینا کنه ؛ فقط تیرزیاس رو به جای بینایی از دست رفته از قدرت غیب گویی و پیش بینی برخوردار میکنه .

جایگاه شخصیت تیرزیاس بسیار بسیار تو کتاب حائز اهمیته و حس میکنم سوفوکل هر بار که اسمشو مینوشته به احترامش می‌ایستاده .
یک دانای کل که هیچ شک و تردیدی در کلامش روا نبود و سوفوکل به دو شکل متفاوت از تیرزیاس دانا بهره میبره .
اولین بار تقابلش با ادیپوس و دومیش با کرئون .
تقابل بین ادیپوس و تیرزیاس تبدیل به تقابل بین بینایی و نابینایی میشه. در یک سو ادیپوس بینا و اون طرف تیرزیاس نابینا. تقابل بینایی و نابینایی اون چیزیه که به وضوح تو نمایشنامه دیده میشه اما تفاوت‌هایی وجود داره .
تیرزیاس در مواجه با ادیپوس به صورت غیر مستقیم ادیپوس رو دارای خرد می‌دونه. با اینکه ادیپوس قادر به دیدن و شناخت این خرد نیست اما با بیان واقعیت های و تقدیری که بر ادیپ گذشته راه رو برای دستیابیش به حقیقت و خرد فراهم میسازه .
اما در مواجه با کرئون به طور اون رو بی خرد ، ابله و پوچ میدونه که هیچ امیدی بهش نیست .
به طور کل یکی از جذابیتهای اصلی کتاب دیالوگهاییه که از زبان تیرزیاس بیان میشه


آنتیگونه


دومین ویژگی منحصر به فرد کتاب از دید من شخصیت و کاراکتر آنتیگونست ‌.
کاراکتری که قدم به قدم شکل گرفت ، رشد پیدا کرد و به عروج غنایی خودش رسید .
تصویری که سوفوکل ۲۵۰۰ سال قبل از آنتیگونه ارائه کرد مصداق بارز و بدون ذره ای ناخالصی ازناب ترین تفکر فمنیست عصر حاضره که الان از ذات اصلی خودش دور شده .
شخصیتی که به جد در خور تحسین و قهرمان اصلی اقبال تو این کتابه .
آنتیگونه به نظرم بزرگترین قربانی این گناه و خشم و غصب خدایان بود که شجاعت رو معنا کرد .
اقا اصلا هر چی بگم کم گفتم .

راجع به خیلی از مسائل از جمله ترجمه بی نقص مسکوب یا خود مسئله افسانه تو ریویوهای دوستان صحبت شده که تکرار مکررات نمی‌کنم.

بخوانید و لذت ببرید که از خشم خدایان به دور باشید .

42. Sophocles I : Oedipus The King; Oedipus at Colonus; Antigone (The Complete Greek Tragedies)
published: 1954 (my copy is a 33rd printing from 1989)
format: 206 page Paperback
acquired: May 30 from a Half-Price Books
read: July 3-4
rating: 4½

Each play had a different translator

- n  Oedipus the Kingn (circa 429 bce) - translated by David Grene c1942
- n  Oedipus at Colonusn (written by 406 bce, performed 401 bce) - translated by Robert Fitzgerald c1941
- n  Antigonen (by 441 bce) - translated by Elizabeth Wyckoff c1954

Greek tragedy can fun. After all those rigid Aeschylus plays, that is the lesson of Sophocles. The drama within the dialogue is always dynamic, and sometimes really terrific. I had to really get in the mood to enjoy reading a play by Aeschylus, otherwise I might be bored by the long dull choral dialogues. These three plays are all different and all from different points in Sophocles career, but they each drew me on their own.

Although they are all on the same story line, they were not written together, or in story order. Antigone was first, and was written when Sophocles was still trying to make a name for himself (vs Aeschylus). Oedipus the King came next, when Sophocles was well established. Oedipus at Colonus was apparently written just before Sophocles death, at about age 90. It wasn't performed until several years after his death. All this seems to show in the plays. Antigone having the sense of an author trying to make a striking impression. Oedipus the King carrying the sense of a master playwright with it's dramatic set ups. Oedipus at Colonus is slower, and more reflective. And two of the main characters are elderly.

n  Oedipus the Kingn

This is simply a striking play, from the opening lines. In line 8, Oedipus characterizes himself to children suppliants as "I Oedipus who all men call the Great." It shows his confidence, but, as Thebes is in the midst of a suffering famine, it also shows outrageous arrogance - it's the only clear sing of this in the play. He is otherwise a noble character throughout. Of course he doesn't know what's coming. In the course of the play he will learn, slowly, his own tragic story - that a man he had killed in a highway fight was his father, and that his wife, and mother of his four children is also his own mother. As each person resists giving him yet another dreadful piece of information, he gets angry at them, threatening them in disbelief at their hesitancy. His denial lasts longer than that of Jocasta, his mother/wife, who leaves the play in dramatic fashion herself, first trying to stop the information flow, and then giving Oedipus a cryptic goodbye. And even as his awareness gets worse and worse, he cannot step out of character, the show-off i-do-everything-right ruler, but must continue to pursue the truth to it bitter fullness.

n  Oedipus at Colonusn

A mature play in many ways. It's slow, thoughtful, has much ambiguity, and has many touching moments. The opening scene is memorable, where a blind Oedipus moves through the wilderness only with the close guidance of his daughter, Antigone.

...

Who will be kind to Oedipus this evening
And give the wanderer charity?

Though he ask little and receive still less,
It is sufficient:

                                          Suffering and time,
Vast time, have been instructors in contentment,
Which kingliness teaches too.

                                          But now, child,
If you can see a place we might rest,

...

It's interesting to see Creon, Jocasta's brother, turn bad. But it's more interesting to see Oedipus have a bitter side to him. He maintains his noble character, and that is the point of the play—he is hero because he never did anything bad intentionally, and yet he bears full punishment. But he also makes some interesting calls, essentially setting up a future war between his Thebes and Athens. And, Antigone is striking too. She saves Oedipus critically several times through her advice or her speech. While sacrificing herself and maintaining real affection for Oedipus, she is also shrewd, stepping forward boldly and changing the atmosphere.

n  Antigonen

This play takes place immediately after what Aeschylus covered in The Seven Against Thebes. Polyneices has attacked Thebes with his Argive army, and been repulsed by his brother Eteocles. Both are sons of Oedipus and they have killed each other in the battle. Creon is now ruler. He is a stiff ruler. Despite much warning, he refuses to listen to popular opinion, instead threatening it to silence (a clear political point is being made). But the problems start when he refuses to give his attacker Polyneices a proper burial. He threatens death on anyone who does try to bury him. Antigone openly defies this rule, setting up the play's drama. It's an extreme tragedy with a hamlet-like ending where practically everyone dies. I felt there was less here than in the other two plays, but yet there is still a lot. And it's still fun.

Overall

I don't imagine citizens of Thebes liked these plays. There is an unspoken sense of noble Athen poking fun its neighbor throughout. But, as it's not Athens, they give the playwright freedom to work in otherwise dangerous political points - and those are clearly there. But, mostly, these were fun plays. They don't need to be read as a trilogy. They were not meant that way, despite the plot-consistency. Each is independent. There are four more plays by Sophocles. I'm actually going to save them and start Euripides next. Because I think Sophocles is something to look forward to and that might push me through the next bunch.

These plays are world class literature. I originally read them a long time back (during an early "Classics" phase), and liked them well enough, though at the time I was sort of checking off boxes of Books-I-Must-Read. Reading these now, later in life, they have much more impact. I'm sure an additional boost came via Fagles' potent translations. An added plus are the outstanding introductions preceding each play, which create necessary historical and literary contexts to further enhance the plays. Also, Fagles orders the plays within the cycle in an order that follows their composition rather than the linear ordering found in other translations. This fascinating arc, to my mind, deepens our understanding of the characters and their motivations. Fagles also notes that this ordering reflects Sophocles' evolving sense of tragedy. I don't know about that, but such a reading approach certainly heightens the poignancy of "Oedipus at Colonus," which in the traditional ordering ("Oedipus the King," "Oedipus at Colonus," "Antigone") seems the most static of the three plays. With Fagles' ordering ("Antigone," "Oedipus the King," "Oedipus at Colonus"), you experience some serious (and enjoyable) literary jujitsu. The last events in the cycle now become the first. Sophocles, by composing the plays the way he did, creates something along the lines of a Greek Rashomon, with new revelations, as viewpoints shift, about characters and their motivations. Such an approach creates a greater bond between the three plays, transforming them into a surprisingly modernist whole.

3. Antigone

بهش ۴ ستاره دادم چون خیلی عالی بود سه تا نمایشنامه عالی مقدمه ی خیلی خوب و موخره ی فوقالعاده . نثرشم خیلی دوست داشتنی بود

Wonderful. I know we need to read these in modern translations, but how amazing is it that we still have works from ancient Greece? These stories are not at all boring, or dated, or difficult to read. Pick the translation that suits you, whether poetry or prose or somewhere in-between and dive into some incredible drama.

کتاب شامل سه نمایشنامه معروف از سوفوکلس است که به نام (نمایشنامه‌های تبای) معروف است، ادیپ شاه، ادیپ در کلونوس و آنتیکونه.
هر سه نمایشنامه و مخصوصاً ادیپ شاه و انتیگونه شهرتی جهانی دارند، در طی سال‌ها اقتباس‌های زیادی از آنها شده و حتی انگیزه‌ای برای نویسنده‌ها و داستان‌های پس از خود.
تمام داستان‌ها پیرامون سه مسئله می‌گذرد، اختیار و تقدیر، دانستن و رنج بردن، عشق و منطق که سوفوکسل به زیبایی فضایی پارادوکسیکال خلق کرده و در پایان از قضاوت خودداری کرده و فقط خواننده را با بار فشار داستان تنها گذاشته
ترجمه شاهرخ مسکوب، کمی سنگین و ادبی است و بسیار مناسب نثر آهنگین کتاب و به نظر من یک ترجمه هنری و عالی برای چنین اثری است.

آنتیگونه! ای اول فمنیست جهان، ای زاده‌ی نفرین و شرم، ای کسیکه بر سنت‌ها شوریدی، ای میرنده در راه عشق، دوستت دارم.

تسلیم شدن یا تسلیم نشدن. مسأله این است.
و من همچنان معتقدم پیام این تراژدی همون جمله معروف بوکوفسکی عه
Don't try
.....
این کتاب رو باید هدیه داد.