i miss anne carson.

I thoroughly enjoyed this translation of Sophocles Theban plays. Robert Fagles placed the plays in the order written, rather than in their dramatic chronology. At first I thought this was strange, but I followed his lead and read 'Antigone' first. Now, after reading Oedipus the King and Oedipus at Colonus, I have a much greater feeling for Antigone's suffering and a much better understanding of Creon's perspective as well. Now I'm ready to re-read Antigone better armed with the facts of their respective histories.

Beyond that, what can I say about Sophocles? He treats these myths with genius skills, contemporary mastery of his times and a deep understanding of his fellow Athenians. An amazing accomplishment and an important work for any serious student of drama or literature to read deeply and repeatedly.


The Thug perspective:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMD18...

***************

2015 reread:

Everything I said above and then some. The more Greek drama I read, the more I understand the sources and obsessions of western literature.

Există și lecturi obligatorii? Negreșit, Oedip rege este una dintre ele...

Întreaga tragedie se sprijină pe un paradox. Oedip e chemat rege în Teba, fiindcă dezleagă enigma pusă de Sfinx. Dacă nu ar soluționa enigma, Oedip ar fi ucis. Găsește răspunsul și, prin asta, omoară, el, monstrul feminin. Așadar, faptul că învinge Sfinxul este pentru tebani un merit suficient pentru a-l desemna ca rege (= tiran). Oricum, alegerea nu va fi deloc fericită. Nici pentru locuitorii cetății, nici pentru Oedip. Se căsătorește fără să știe cu mama sa. E un sacrilegiu.

După această desemnare, Teba e lovită de nenorociri cumplite. În fața lui Oedip stă o nouă enigmă. Locuitorii vor să afle pricina năpastelor care au lovit cetatea. Oracolul din Delphi dezvăluie că printre tebani există un mare vinovat. Locuitorii îl solicită pe profetul Tiresias. Este bătrîn și orb. Ei vor un răspuns limpede. Tiresias se ferește să dezvăluie numele și identitatea vinovatului. Cînd însuși Oedip îi cere imperios răspunsul, primește acest avertisment:

„Vai, vai, cumplit e să cunoști, cînd a cunoaște / Nu-ți este de folos...”.

Oedip vrea, totuși, să afle adevărul. Cu orice preț. Pînă la urmă va înțelege că vinovatul este el însuși. El l-a ucis pe Laios, tatăl său, el s-a casătorit cu Iocasta, mama sa. Pentru acest motiv tebanii suferă. Problema este, așadar, următoarea. Dacă Oedip nu ar dezlega enigma Sfinxului, el nu ar mai ajunge rege în Teba (și soț al propriei mame). Și ar muri precum toți cei care nu au găsit răspunsul. Dar Teba ar rămîne sub amenințarea Sfinxului. Oedip dezleagă enigma, iar consecința este la fel de atroce. Are de răspuns la întrebarea cu privire la vinovatul din cetate. Iar răspunsul este unul singur: Oedip.

Dar este Oedip într-adevăr vinovat? Mai mult: există cazuri în care adevărul trebuie ascuns? Sfîntul Augustin ar fi spus (și chiar a spus) că nu...

Three plays that stand the test of time. 5 stars for Antigone, although I prefer Jean Anouilh’s version, 4 for the others.

چقدر می تونه یه ترجمه استادانه باشه؟ به نظرم دقیقا همین قدر

می‌تونم بگم که از جزء جزء سطرهای این کتاب لذت بردم (البته مقاله‌ی بونار روی آنتیگونه چندان برام جالب نبود). ترجمه‌ی فوق‌العاده‌ی مسکوب هم البته تاثیر زیادی داشت
خلاصه که توصیه می‌کنم حتما بخونیدش

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 .

Nutshell: dude screws his mother in order to give psychoanalysis a set of master narratives.

Not a true trilogy, and written out of the order of this presentation, these texts commence from the unlikely proposition that Oedipus is somehow guilty for having scum parents--for the fact that "before three days were out / after his birth King Laius pierced his ankles / and by the hands of others cast him forth / upon a pathless hillside" (Oedipus Rex ll. 717-20) and thereafter, not knowing his father, killed him in apparent self-defense. Oedipus has no problem, it seems, believing "Was I not born evil? / Am I not utterly unclean?" (op. cit. ll. 822-23), insofar as "I and no other have so cursed myself. And I pollute the bed of him I killed" (id. ll. 820-21).

The action of the play itself begins in medias res with the proposition that Thebes suffers:

A blight is on the fruitful plants of the earth,
A blight is on the cattle in the fields,
a blight is on our women that no children
are born to them. (id. ll. 25-28)

This is immediately recognizable as the locus classicus of the fantasy of demographics, the ideological trans-genre concerned with irrational fears regarding biopolitical management of populations, most recently and stunningly articulated in Scott Bakker's Second Apocalypse books as a 'wombplague.' (We see the same concern show up negatively in the fear of other species’ fertilities, such as in the Alien films or Jurassic Park.)

It is not for his own fault, but rather in a representative capacity, that Oedipus steps into liability for crime, to the extent that he "groans for city and myself and you at once" (id. l. 62), and likewise as a guarantor, in that the crime is a debt to be repaid ("redeem the debt of our pollution" (id. l. 313)), that conflates oikos and polis ("Are you not ashamed to air your private griefs when the country's sick?" (id. l. 635)). He is certainly a tyrant, endorsing torture (id. l. 1154) and confusing the legislative and judicial functions with his office (id. l. 235 et seq.)--but also the entire regime of making policy contingent upon religion is revealed to be the essence of tragedy here, insofar as Oedipus on the one hand enjoins the priest to diagnose the cause of the wombplague to be the foundational regicide, but then on the other hand comes to distrust priestly advice when Tiresias identifies him as the corruption, and thereby thinks it a coup d'etat by Creon, "robbery of my crown" (id. l. 535)--a fatal equivocation, surely, indicating the instability that shall always result for states who leave arbitration of the real to "go to the oracle at Pytho and inquire about the answers" (id. l. 604). If this theological determination of policy is not the fundamental pollution of the tragedy, then fault must rather be in the chorus of Theban citizens, who inform Oedipus that "you would better be dead than blind and living" (id. l. 1367)--states that approve of infanticide likely earn a wombplague.

The second text by internal chronology, Oedipus at Colonus, brings his long exile to an end, in the neighborhood of Athens--and its resolution seems like the close of a trilogy, similar to how Aeschylus' Eumenides closes out the Oresteia. The conflict in this text involves the civil war between his sons via Jocasta--both try to enlist him for whatever reason; he declines both; he cuts a deal with Theseus to be buried secretly near Athens, near the shrine of the Erinyes ("most feared Daughters of darkness and mysterious earth" (op. cit. 39-40)). The text is something of an enigma--what exactly is the story, and what is at stake?

The answer is in the third volume of Agamben's Homo Sacer, Stasis, discussing not only the conflation of oikos with polis but also the 'rules' of civil war, as discussed in the review, supra:

One curiosity of the stasis is that the Solonian constitution required the citizens to take one side or the other therein, lest the non-participant be afflicted with atimia (no-honor, or so? i.e., ‘dishonor’) “the loss of civil rights”—“not taking part in the civil war amounts to being expelled from the polis and confined to the oikos” (17). The corollary curiosity is that the constitution furthermore prohibits prosecution of crimes committed during the stasis--the amnestia, less a forgetting and more a refusal to make use of memory (21).

Oedipus, by his refusal to participate in the civil war, must be expelled definitively from the polis--his exile is made executory, say--but he cannot abide in the oikos, as the royal household tends to merge with the polis in a monarchy, but also because his household is already totally fucked up. And because he does not participate, there shall be no amnesia/amnesty for him. To the extent that these unstated rules of the stasis were salient for Athenian audiences, this must have been a powerful text--similar in effect to how the Oresteia catches Orestes in the contrary obligations to avenge one's father's death but not commit matricide. Athenian Theseus cuts the gordian knot here: "I shall not refuse this man's desire: I declare him a citizen" (id. l. 636)--which only replicates the problem of tyranny noted in connection with Oedipus Rex, conflating the legislative and judicial functions with his Athenian executive office.

In the third text, the Antigone, the Seven against Thebes that had been contemplated in Oedipus at Colonus has come to pass, Oedipus' sons are dead, and Jocasta's brother, Creon, steps into the state of exception as sovereign with the notion that "the very gods who shook the state with mighty surge have set it straight again" (op. cit. at 162), an orthopolitics that he as homo sacer embodies. His first act, once again conflating oikos and polis, and once again merging legislative and judicial function with his own office, declares that faithful Eteocles receives a state burial, whereas faithless Polyneices must remain unburied "a dinner for the birds and for the dogs" (id. l. 206). The contrary injunctions of loyalty to household and loyalty to state force Creon and Antigone to different acts--and the chorus of numbnut conservative Thebans here however admits "my mind is split at this awful sight" (id. l. 373), an ideological diremption of no easy resolution (perhaps the sort that causes stasis--Marx's 'between equal rights, force decides'). It is difficult to avoid Antigone's egalitarian position--"Death yearns for equal law for all the dead" (id. l. 519), whereas Creon is quite a bit less sympathetic ("No woman rule me while I live" (id. l. 524)). Both Antigone and Creon are in violation of Agamben's rules of the stasis, we should note, insofar as he is not engaging in amnesia/amnesty, and she had stayed with her father in the initial part of the war, only picking a side when the war was over.

Good times for the whole family. When Seneca gets a hold of this narrative, he skips much of the detective-type inquiry into uncovering the murderer of Laius and skips right to the main question of how in the holy hell does Tiresias know so much? In Sophocles, Tiresias simply shows up and tells everyone what happened. Seneca, however, is not satisfied with this sort of lazy storytelling. Rather, Seneca's Tiresias employs Tiresias' daughter, Manto, to read the sacrificial flames (op. cit. l. 309 et seq.), to read the affect of the sacrificial animals (id. l. 330 et seq.), to read the flowing of the animal's blood (id. l. 350 et sq.), and to read the entrails of the dead animal (id. l. 370 et seq.)--discovering therein "what monstrosity is this? A foetus in an unmated heifer!"--surely the worst sign possible when one is reading entrails? Thereafter, a priest is employed in necromantic arts of summoning the dead (id. l. 550 et seq.). It all leads to the same result, just a bit more interest in the techne of prophetics, without disturbing the flaw of including them at the foundation of policy.

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.

n  Alas, alas, what misery to be wise when wisdom profits nothing!n

Great books do not reveal themselves all at once. Old classics must be revisited from time to time, at different stages of life, in order to experience the many resonant frequencies of the work. This time around I chose to listen to these Theban plays as an audiobook, with a full cast; and it was far preferable to the mute page.

Reading, listening to, or watching the Greek plays may be the nearest we get to time travel. The works immerse us in a foreign world. What struck me most was the Greek attitude towards freedom and fate. Shakespearean tragedy is reliant on human choice. As A.C. Bradley notes, the tragedy is always specific to the individual, to the extent that the tragedy of one play would be impossible for the protagonist of another. Put Hamlet in Othello’s place, or vice versa, and he would make short work of the play’s problem. The tragedy in a Greek play is, by contrast, inevitable and universal. By the time that the curtain is raised in Oedipus Rex, the Theban king has long ago sealed his doom.

There is nothing special about Oedipus that marks him for a tragic fate. His tragedy could have befallen a Hamlet or an Othello just as readily as an Oedipus. This changes the entire emotional atmosphere. Whereas in a Shakespearean tragedy we feel a certain amount of dramatic tension as the protagonists attempt to avert crisis, in Greek tragedy there is instead a feeling of being swept along by an invisible, inexorable force—divine and mysterious. It is animated by a far more pessimistic philosophy: that honest, noble, and wise people who do nothing wrong can be dragged into the pit of misery by an inscrutable destiny.

As a result, the plays can sometimes engender a feeling of mystery or even of vague mysticism, as we consider ourselves to be the mere playthings of forces beyond all control and understanding. Characters rise to power in such a way that we credit their virtues for their success; and yet their precipitate fall shows that there are other forces at play. Life can certainly feel this way at times, as we are buffeted about, lifted up, and cast down in a way that seems little connected to our own actions. For this reason, I think that the fatalistic pessimism of these plays is both moving and, at times, even consoling.

Of the three, the most artistically perfect is Oedipus Rex, which Sophocles wrote at the height of his career. Antigone, the last play, was actually written first; and Oedipus at Colonus was written over thirty years, at the very end of Sophocles’ life.

Though arguably the worst of the three, Antigone is the most thematically interesting. It pits two ethical concepts against one another with intense force, specifically different sorts of loyalty. Is it better to be loyal to one’s family, to the gods, to the state, or to the ruler? Creon’s interdiction, though vengeful and petty, is understandable when one remembers that Polynices is a traitor responsible for an attack on his homeland that doubtless cost many citizens’ lives. Creon could have justified his decree as a discouragement of future disloyalty. Antigone believes that duty to family transcends the duty of a citizen, and the events justify this belief.

It must be admitted, however, that this ethical question is muddled by the religious nature of central issue. Few people nowadays can believe that burial rites are important enough to merit self-sacrifice and civil disobedience. When the superstitious element is removed, Antigone’s ethical superiority seems questionable at best. Certainly there are many cases when loyalty to the family can be distinctly unethical. If a sister sheltered a brother who just escaped imprisonment for murder, I think this would be an unequivocally immoral act. But since burial does not involve help or harm to anyone, the ethical question becomes largely symbolic—if no less interesting.

Even if the emotional import of these plays has been somewhat dulled by the passing years, they remain amazingly alive and direct. The power of these plays is such that, even now, when the Greek gods have passed into harmless myth, here we can still feel the sense of awe and terror in the face of a divine order that passes beyond understanding. It would take a long time for theater to again reach such heights.

انگار تو تاتر باستانیancient greece یونان نشسته بودم و داشتم نمایش بی‌نظیرشونو تماشا می‌کردم‌.اینکه سوفوکل حدود ۵۰۰ سال قبل از مسیح همچین هنری رو ابداع کرده باشه و انقدر هم قشنگ و تاثیرگذار به قلم آورده باشه باورنکردنیه.خیلی لذت بردم و خیلی دلم میخواد به زبان اصلی هم بخونمشون.

پ‌ن:فقط اولین نمایشنامه ۵ستاره داشت دوتای دیگه که یجورایی مکمل و سرگذشت اولی بودن به اندازه‌ی اولی خوب نبودن و ۳ستاره داشتن.

Il più cartesiano tra i tragici greci.