Greek Tragedy

[Note: The following essays previously appeared as 'Introductions' to translations of Sophocles' Antigone and Oedipus Tyrannus, and the first three books of Homer's Odyssey]

(1) Concerning 'The Odyssey':

The Odyssey is, in essence, a saga which tells of the heroic struggle, against difficult odds, of a warrior seeking to return to his fatherland after that warrior had fought in the ten-year long Trojan war.

This warrior, called Odysseus⁽¹⁾, embodied everything that the ancient Greeks, from the time of Homer to the time of Sophocles and beyond, admired and saught to emulate. Fundamentally, Odysseus was the archetypal or ideal Greek man - proud, strong ( both physically and in character), forthright, independent, war-loving, skilled in combat, cunning, inventive and capable of being, if necessary, ruthless with his enemies. This man had an instinctive and healthy respect for the gods and Fate. He was a warrior who considered it natural and necessary to carry a weapon, and who also considered it was his responsibility, and his alone, to defend himself, his family and his kin. It was such individuals who created, and maintained over many centuries, the Greek civilization - a civilization which, until recently, has remained the inspiration for generation after generation of Europeans.

It is a fact, however unfashionable in these times, that no European can consider themselves truly cultured unless they have some genuine understanding and appreciation of ancient Hellenic civilization. The best way to acquire such an understanding and appreciation is to read, in the original, the works of such people as Homer, Aeschylus, Herodotus, Thucydides, Sophocles and Aristotle. The next best way is to read such translations as capture that intoxicating, inspirational, mixture of Reason, Fate, and War which was the Hellenic ethos. Sadly, however, most translations are rather boring, and do not possess the power to inspire. Consequently, they are of little interest to those not forced to study them. This is particularly true of the majority of translations of the Odyssey and the Iliad - works originally read aloud by a Bard. One has only to try reading aloud - to a group of non-classical Scholars - one of the many translations currently available to understand what is meant here. There is no sense of a great adventure being unfolded; no stirring of the blood. The saga does not seem to be interesting unless one already has an interest in the subject, and even then such a translation usually weakens that interest!

Some translators - particularly of the Odyssey and the Iliad - do try and have tried to produce "poetic" versions which both read well and sound good when read aloud. However, without exception, such 'translations' either follow the colloquial speech of the moment, or they try and create/imitate a 'poesy' style. The former are disposal, and often become dated and meaningless after a decade or so. The latter are intrusive, the style (or often, lack of it) distracting from the content. Both types are unreliable, failing to express what Homer expressed - the modern versions, for instance, often using modern images, words and phrases in an attempt (and it is a failed attempt) to express what they believe Homer meant.

My own translation is designed to be suitable for both reading and speaking aloud, and I have endeavoured to express the meaning as I find it in Homer. Readers of my translations of Sophocles and Aeschylus will be familiar with my desire to rescue ancient Greek from the abstract, basically monotheistic, moral mis-interpretations imposed upon it over the centuries. The result of my endeavours is a new, refreshing translation imbued with the pagan ethos of a noble warrior society. In common with the majority of ancient Greeks whom I admire and draw inspiration from, I dislike false modesty, so I can only write that I believe my translation to be inspirational, and capable of creating in others a genuine understanding of ancient Greece. An increase in those who possess such an understanding would lead to an increase in cultured individuals - something our increasingly uncultured societies badly need.

(2) Concerning the 'Antigone':

The 'Antigone' of Sophocles [written c. 441 BC] - which follows his 'Oedipus the King' and 'Oedipus at Colonus' - seems, at first glance, to be concerned with the conflict between Antigone, the daughter of Oedipus, and Creon, the new ruler of the community at Thebes, who was the brother of Jocasta, the mother and wife of Oedipus.

Polynices and Eteocles, the two sons of Oedipus (and thus the brothers of Antigone, and her sister, Ismene), had quarrelled - Polynices leaving Thebes and returning with an attacking force which he hoped would take the fortified citadel, defended by Eteocles. In the ensuing battle, Polynices and Eteocles fought and killed each other, with the attackers routed and forced to flee.

One of Creon's first edicts, as ruler of Thebes, is to forbid anyone to bury or mourn for Polynices. This edict goes against the established custom which permitted those foes fallen in battle to be honoured by their relatives with the customary rites and buried.

Antigone defies this edict - even though she knows her disobedience will mean her own death. She believes that the ancient customs, given by the gods and which thus honour the gods, have priority over any edict or law made by a mortal, and that thus it is her duty to observe these customs.

The reality, however, is that the 'Antigone' is a not a tragedy concerned with individual characters - with their motivations, feelings, ideas and so on. It is not, for instance, as many modern commentators like in their ignorance to believe, a drama about two different personalities - Antigone and Creon - both of whom are self-willed and determined. Rather, this tragedy - as do all Greek tragedies when rightly understood - deals with the relation between mortals and gods. The work is an exploration and explanation of the workings of the cosmos - and the answers given express the distinctive ancient Greek 'outlook' or ethos. This ethos is pagan, and it forms the basis of all civilized conduct and indeed civilization itself. The essence of this outlook is that there are limits to human behaviour - some conduct is wise; some conduct is unwise. Unwise conduct invites retribution by the gods: it can and often does result in personal misfortune - in bad luck.

However, it is crucial to understand that this outlook does not involve abstract, monotheistic notions like "good" and "evil". The Greeks strove to emulate a human ideal - they strove, through the pursuit of excellence, to emulate and celebrate the best. Their ideals or 'archetypes' were the best, the most heroic, the most beautiful, the most excellent individuals of their communities. In their pursuit of this excellence they were careful not to "overstep the mark" - to be excessive, to commit 'hubris' or 'insolence' toward the gods. Such insolence was a violation of the customs which created and maintained the warrior communities - and these customs were regarded as being given by the gods. By honouring these customs, the gods themselves were honoured and the very fabric of the communities maintained. Thus, a noble human balance was maintained. Of course, there were times of excess - as there were individuals who were excessive. But it was recognized that such excesses were unwise - they would, sooner or later, be paid for. In effect, this outlook or ethos was that of the noble warrior aware of the power of Fate, of the gods. This ethos created and maintained a certain personal character - and this character is evident whenever one reads Homer, Sophocles, Aeschylus, and other Greek writers, or views any Greek sculpture or painting. The essentially archetypal Greek man was an intelligent, reasoning, proud, vigorous, independent warrior who respected the gods and who honoured the customs of the folk. Fundamentally, he was human - able to enjoy life and its pleasures, but aware (from personal experience) of death, suffering, the power of Fate and the gods.

What we admire so much about the ancient Greeks was this balance between a pagan joy and enthusiasm, and an understanding and acceptance of Fate, of the power of the gods - in the rightly-famed Choral Ode of the 'Antigone (vv. 332ff ) Sophocles calls such a man the "thinking warrior", the all-resourceful one, for whom nothing is impossible: he who by his skill rules over others.

Fundamentally, Greek tragedy enables us to gain an insight into that way of living and that way of thinking which are essential to civilization. The sad fact is that this insight is increasingly being lost among the peoples of the West.

(3) Concerning the 'Oedipus Tyrannus':

For a significant percentage of people who have heard of or read the story of Oedipus, the central theme is the incest of Oedipus with his mother - and then, the killing of his father. The same applies to most of those who read or watch a performance of one of the appalling 'translations' which unfortunately seem to appear with monotonous regularity.

In the majority of interpretations, 'explanations' and translations of and about Sophocles' Oedipus Tyrannus (or 'Oedipus the King') the incest and the patricide are viewed morally, and thus the tragedy becomes a sort of ancient 'morality tale'. In many translations, the impression is given that Oedipus commits a 'sin' by sleeping with his mother and killing his father, and is punished because of it.

This sort of moral interpretation is completely wrong. The essence of this particular Greek tragedy lies in the realm of the gods, with the relationship between individuals, their communities, and the gods. The incest in particular is merely an interesting incident which occurs to a particular mortal and whose importance lies in the realm of prophecy - in what prophecy says about the will of the gods and the fate of mortals. Furthermore, this incest is not viewed with 'horror' by either Oedipus himself or by anyone else - it never described as a 'monstrous deed' or anything of the kind. All Oedipus says about it is that he "should not" have slept with his mother - it was disrespectful (for example qv. v.1184 and v.1441). Even when Oedipus is describing the first time he heard the prophecy that he would sleep with his mother and kill his father, the tone is quite restrained and definitely not moralistic: "Suffering and strangeness and misery were what his words foresaw: that I must copulate with my mother - and show, for mortals to behold, a family who would not endure..." (vv.790-3). He then goes on to say: "I fled... so that I would never have to face - because of that inauspicious prophecy - the disgrace of its fulfilment.'

The tragedy lies in the fact that Oedipus was not initially disrespectful of the gods - he tried to avoid killing his father, and sleeping with his mother; and when he learns that the oracle at Delphi has said that the plague which is killing the people of Thebes is the result of a defilement which has not been cleaned [the blood is still on a killer's hand] then he is ready to do all that the god says is necessary (vv.95ff.).

What actually occurs is that Oedipus oversteps the proper limits of behaviour in his quest to find the killer of Laius and discover his own identity. He begins to act like a tyrant, an absolute monarch. First, he accuses the blind prophet Tiresias of conspiring against him. Then he accuses his brother-in-law Creon of wanting to overthrow him. Later on, he is dismissive of the warnings of Jocasta and the Shepherd not to enquire further into his origins. He also boasts that he is a child of Fortuna. Oedipus was certain of himself - he knew he had great skill [ did he not solve the riddle of the Sphinx?]; he had great strength and courage [did he not by his own hands kill many men when he believed himself attacked (vv.801ff)]; he had power and wealth [was he not King of Thebes?]. All these things, in relation to the power of the gods, mean nothing. As Creon says to him at the very end of the drama: "Do not desire to be master in all things, for you are without the strength which assisted you in your life." It is the gods who have taken away his strength, his skill and his power - as the Chorus say in another Sophoclean tragedy: "Mortals cannot be delivered from the misfortunes of their fate." [Antigone, v.1338]. The tragedy of Oedipus ends with words which summarize all this: "Observe - here is Oedipus, he who understood that famous enigma and was a strong man: what clansman did not behold that fortune without envy? But what a tide of problems have come over him!... Therefore, call no one lucky until, without the pain of injury, they are conveyed beyond life's ending."

Oedipus himself accepts that his troubles were the work of the gods: "It was Apollo - Apollo who brought such troubles to such a troubled ending." (vv.1329-1330). Oedipus goes on to say that his own blindness - which the blind prophet Tiresias had foreseen - was not the work of the gods, but his own handiwork.

The fundamental question which Sophocles poses in this tragedy is voiced by the Chorus when they reply (v.1347) to a request by Oedipus that he be exiled: "You are as helpless in that resolve as you were in your misfortune." What the tragedy is really explaining, is that however fortunate a person's fate may appear - it is only not only appearance, but also depends on the will of the gods: it can be destroyed in a moment. Therefore, it is wise not to overstep the mark - it is wise not to be excessive; it is wise to observe the customs given by the gods and thus the gods themselves (qv. vv.863ff.). To do otherwise is insolence, disrespect - 'hubris' - and invites a retribution by the gods.

Sophocles says of 'hubris' - "Insolence plants the tyrant. There is insolence if by a great foolishness there is a useless over-filling which goes beyond the proper limits. It is an ascending to the steepest and utmost heights and then that hurtling toward that Destiny where the useful foot has no use..." (vv.872ff).

One further point about the Oedipus Tyrannus deserves noting, since it has hitherto been mostly ignored. It is the mercy shown by the Shepherd when he is given the infant Oedipus by Laius and Jocasta to leave exposed on the mountain. They have pierced the ankles of the infant Oedipus and fastened them together to make certain he dies. But the Shepherd is merciful and gives the infant to another Shepherd. The consequences of this act of mercy are a sequence of terrible misfortunes which Oedipus, Jocasta and the children of Oedipus suffer - and which, incidently, Creon himself later suffers from (as evident in Sophocles' Antigone). Later, after his self-inflicted blinding, Oedipus curses the person who saved him: "May death come to whosoever while roaming those grasslands loosened those cruel fetters..... It was not a favourable deed. For had I died then, no grief such as this would have been caused to either me or my kin." (vv.1349f.). Sophocles clearly states that an act of mercy or compassion can lead to others suffering in the future - and can therefore be unwise.


Notes:

v.34: 'Daimons'. Correctly understood, a 'daimon' is what we would now call a 'supernatural being'. Daimons guard or watch over individuals, and thus guide the Destiny of the individual: they also give the individual their 'genius' (or their natural abilities). A daimon can be either positive or negative in the personal sense - that is, it can bring good or bad luck and thus good fortune or misfortune. A daimon, in effect, is seen as doing the work or the will of the gods.

Further, daimons also guard or watch over particular places - particularly those natural, sacred sites and places where the daimon thus becomes a 'nature spirit'. Daimons also guard and watch over families, dwellings, clans, towns and their citadels.

It is important to understand that daimons are not 'demons' - demons are the creations of an abstract moralizing religion like Christianity which posits an abstract 'evil' and an abstract 'good'. 

v.981-2: This is one of the crucial lines in understanding how Sophocles - and the Greeks themselves - viewed what we call the 'incest' of Oedipus with his mother (the Greeks had no word for 'incest'). On a first reading of the Greek text, it gives the impression that what is meant is: "many are the mortals who already - in dreams also - have lain with their mothers..." That is, while it is disrespectful and a disgrace, it is nothing to seriously concern oneself with.

Of course, this is far too 'amoral' for most translators and scholars to even consider, and so the line is taken as meaning: "many are the mortals who in dreams (and also in prophecies) have lain with their mothers..." This sense is rather strained, and not apparent on first reading the Greek.

However, if moral Christianized abstractions are not read into the Oedipus Tyrannus - as nearly all previous translators have done, often from laziness and sometimes from misunderstanding what the Greek means - then what emerges, if for purpose of argument we accept the above interpretation, is that the incest may not be that important. Thus, what concerns Oedipus most is his killing of his father - all he says about the incest is that he "should not" have slept with his mother and it is disrespectful (for example, qv. v.1184f and v.1441). What has brought about the plague which is devastating the clan of Thebes, is the killing of Laius. Furthermore, the offender has not given tributes to the gods to clean his hands of the bloodstain (qv. v.1445 - which is often overlooked or misinterpreted). That is, the pollution caused by the killing has not been purified by offerings to the gods - and thus the offender has offended the gods.

DW Myatt 1996

1. It is possible that the name Odysseus was derived by Homer from "he whom a god is angry with" - the god being Poseidon. The name is also an appropriate epithet for Odysseus' maternal grandfather, with whom that god was also angry [ Book XIX, 407-9 ].