An attempt to transfer the unique syntax of Ancient Greek into English as "faithfully" as possible.
Focus text: Oedipus Rex
I began by hastily trying to cover all of my bases: introducing myself to poetic techniques, making absolutely sure I was interpreting the grammatical cases correctly, and comparing translation to translation of established translators. In sum, I went an incredibly literal route, attempting to utilize every possible source to create something that would reflect the syntax of the original Greek. This was not entirely successful, though it was an incredibly useful exercise in the analysis of Ancient Greek.
After my first handwritten set of attempted translation, I continued marking up the text online, focusing in on specific sections I had had difficulty with. I hoped to answer these on my own, only to result in an unfortunate lack of true clarification. All of this was wonderfully explained in my later meeting with Professor Deborah Roberts.
After having met with her and gone over the text multiple times, these are the questions I think would most benefit new attempts at deciphering this complex chorus:
1. In the line, "ὡς ὑμᾶς ἴσα καὶ τὸ μηδὲν ζώσας ἐναριθμῶ" [How I count you as living [in a way that is] equal to nothing", how could I best translate the idea of a nonexistent life when the Greeks had no concept of 0? Of course, this passage involves no numbers in the original Greek, but still, I was hung up on the fact that I did not want to further the problem laid out in the Cambridge commentary: "In a world that lacked a numerical concept of zero, there may be a paradox in ἐναριθμῶ denoting an act of counting that results in nothingness" (1186-1187/8 link). I was also confused by the presence of "καὶ", clarified by Geoffrey Steadman's commentary. He explained this (ἴσα καὶ) may be interpreted as "equal to" or "same as" (link).
2. Why are there two accusatives, τοσοῦτον [so great] and ὅσον [as far as], by δοκεῖν [to seem]? I initially assumed indirect statement (Accusative + Infinitive construction), but after meeting with Professor Roberts, came to the interpretation that they are in apposition — two words functioning side-by-side in meaning, sharing the same case. Both, then, modify δοκεῖν [to seem].
3. What is the function of the τὸν in τὸν σόν; could you not have a singular σόν or is it a metrical addition? I later determined, again with the help of the Cambridge commentary, that these emphasize the "chorus's frenzied grief" (1189-92 link).
After I settled those questions (and many others), my meeting with Prof. Roberts moved on to scansion. It was here that I finally learned about the choriamb.
A choriamb = a trochee (aka choreus) (– ˘) + an iamb (˘ – ), combining to form: – ˘ ˘ –
[long, short, short, long]
Each choriamb may be considered a foot in its own right, and after reading "The Choriambic Foot of Verse" by Mary Hall Leonard (link), it seems like the singers would often pause over these sections, drawing parts out for effect:
Option one: trochee + iamb (– ˘ ˘ –)
Option two: two feet; dactyl + mone/protracted syllable (– ˘ ˘| —)
Option three: four-syllable food with the last syllable filling half the measure (– ˘ ˘—)
Though in length these are equivalent to singular foot styles, the freedom offered by the structure of the choriamb (as described by Leonard) seems to emphasize the words in those sections.
Therefore, I attempted to keep the choriambs in my translations as the more important sections of the line (though this was not always successful):
Ahi [mè! Children of] mortals,
How eq [ual to nothing] ness I
Measure [the weight of your] lives.
For [what, what man may] better
Grasp some [thing of such good] fortune,
Held so [as to suggest] such joy,
Though it [seemed to fade a] way
So you, [a paradigm] bearing
Such a [fate, your future,] yours, O
Poor Oe [dipus, transi] ent, I
Ne'er [count blest those to] die.
Finally, I began to prepare to read the two sections aloud:
Comments