BMCR 2009.04.34: Steinmeyer on Carson, Sophocles' Electra and on Roisman, Sophocles. Electra

Anne Carson (trans.), Sophocles' Electra. With commentary by Michael
Shaw. Series editors: Peter Burian and Alan Shapiro.  New York:  Oxford
University Press, 2001.  Pp. 127 (pb).  ISBN 0-19-504960-8.
Hanna M. Roisman (trans.), Sophocles. Electra. Translation with notes,
introduction, interpretive essay and afterlife. Series Editors: James
Clauss and Stephen Esposito. Focus Classical Library.  Newburyport, MA:
Focus Publishing, 2008.  Pp. 135.  ISBN 9781585102815.  $8.95 (pb).

Reviewed by Elke Steinmeyer, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South
Africa ([email protected])
-------------------------------
To read a print-formatted version of this review, see
http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2009/2009-04-34.html
To comment on this review, see
http://www.bmcreview.org/2009/04/20090434.html
-------------------------------

In view of the multitude of translations, commentaries and monographs
(not to mention individual articles or chapters in books) on Sophocles'
play Electra that have appeared since the beginning of the new
millennium,[[1]] one might ask what original contribution can still be
made to the existing scholarship without simply repeating what others
have already said. It will be the purpose of this review to consider
this question and to establish where the two books under review fit in
relation to other publications on the same topic.

Both works are similar in size, price and format. They are part of the
respective series of Oxford University Press and Focus Publishing which
aim at providing new translations of the ancient Greek tragedies
(Oxford) or "the best of Classical literature" (back cover; Focus).
Both provide new modern translations with notes and an introduction in
the form of an interpretative essay (Shaw) or an introduction and
interpretative essay as separate entities (Roisman). Given so many
similarities, one might ask what makes each of them special and
differentiates them from each other. In addition to their similarities,
Carson / Shaw's book comprises a (general) editor's foreword, outlining
the general principles of the series, a translator's foreword (Carson),
and a glossary; the notes to the translation follow as endnotes in a
separate chapter. Roisman uses footnotes throughout the whole book; and
she adds a preface, an extremely interesting chapter on the afterlife
of the play and a separate bibliography which is missing in Carson /
Shaw and would have been more helpful for their readers than the
individual references scattered in the footnotes of the introduction. A
short but concise index concludes Roisman's book, although one might
wonder whether an index is at all necessary for a work of 130 pages.

Some of these differences can probably be explained by the different
target audiences at which the two series aim. The general editors of
the Oxford series, Peter Burian and Alan Shapiro, elaborate in great
detail on their intention in the Editor's Foreword: "The Greek Tragedy
in New Translations is based on the conviction that poets like
Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides can only be properly rendered by
translators who are themselves poets. Scholars may, it is true, produce
useful and perceptive versions. But our most urgent present need is for
a re-creation of these plays--as though they had been written, freshly
and greatly, by masters fully at home in the English of our own times."
(v) In addition to these words by the late William Arrowsmith, the
reader is informed that the volumes of this series are "products of
close collaboration between poets and scholars" (ibid.) and that the
translations are supposed to "convey as vividly and directly as
possible the splendor of language, the complexity of image and idea,
and the intensity of emotions of the originals" and demand "writing of
inventiveness, clarity, musicality, and dramatic power" (ibid.). They
are meant to be used by "nonspecialist readers" (ibid.) and to be
actually performed on stage (vi). Roisman states in her preface that
"the book is intended mainly for students and non-professionals" (1).
The back cover, which also indicates James Clauss and Stephen Esposito
as the series editors for Focus Classical Library, adds: "The Focus
Classical Library is dedicated to publishing the best of Classical
literature in contemporary translations with notes and introductions,
so as to provide modern students with access to the thought and context
at the roots of contemporary culture." Consequently, both books seldom
use Greek font (Carson / Shaw) or avoid it all together (Roisman), but
transliterate the Greek words in order to make them accessible also for
those who cannot read ancient Greek. In the rest of the review I will
try to establish how well each book serves its intended purpose.

Before turning to the translations themselves one needs to take a
closer look at the introductions and interpretative essays in both
books. Carson / Shaw is a joint undertaking, with Carson providing the
translation and Shaw writing the introduction and the notes (and I
presume the glossary) for Carson's translation. In his extensive
introduction (3-40) Shaw guides the reader step by step through the
play, touching briefly on the earlier or other treatments of the myth
in Homer's Odyssey and in the plays by Aeschylus and Euripides.[[2]]
Shaw provides an interpretative reading of Sophocles' play and a
well-balanced critical discussion of the major themes and problems
which he supports by a good and representative selection of
scholarship. Since this introduction is directed mainly at an
interested lay person, relatively inexperienced in Classics and Greek
tragedy, one does encounter some rather general statements such as
"choruses are typically suspicious of extreme behaviour" (8) or
"Sophoclean heroes often say that they 'must' do something" (9), but on
the other hand Shaw also assumes that his reader is familiar with the
names and content of other Sophoclean plays. I personally very much
like Shaw's acute formulations and insights, such as "the lie he
[Orestes] has chosen, a chariot wreck at Delphi, reflects the limited
perspective of a rich teenager of his times" (7) or "Sophocles' Electra
is, among other things, a thriller" (14), which capture the point in a
nutshell. Shaw underpins his discussion with frequent references to or
quotations from the text, often rephrasing Carson's free translation by
a closer one (for example 7, 9, 13/14, 15, 23, 24/25, 27, 29, 30, 31,
32, 34, 35, 37). He clearly likes his Electra ("I personally believe in
the noble Electra"; 36), but does not impose his view on the reader.
His notes are sparse, but the glossary is comprehensive and helpful
with its explanations of all the mythological names.

Roisman is the sole author of the monograph and is responsible for all
parts of it, including the translation; therefore the argument
throughout the book is very coherent. The introduction (3-16) is
subdivided into four parts. The first, entitled "Theater and
Performance", offers an essential summary of ancient Greek theatre and
festival practices. The second, entitled "The Myth", discusses in a
clear and concise way the various treatments of the myth before
tragedy, including fragmentary works, and mentions the (popular)
etymology of the name Electra (11). The third, entitled "The Three
Playwrights: The Dilemma of Matricidal Revenge", compares Sophocles'
interpretation of this part of the myth with those in Aeschylus'
Libation Bearers and Euripides' Electra, but does not elaborate too
much here on Sophocles, rather pointing to problematic issues. Roisman
does not refrain from taking a strong viewpoint, for instance about
Euripides' Electra: "The play's final judgment is that the matricide
was a wicked act orchestrated by a headstrong and embittered woman
under the misapprehension that it was the divine will" (14). The third
part concludes with a useful overview of some positions scholars have
adopted in the debate about Sophocles' play. The fourth part, entitled
"On the Translation" will be discussed below.

In her "Interpretative Essay", Roisman presents her own reading of the
play, as she announces in the preface (1). Roughly following the
structure of the play she exposes the reader to the main issues and
problems in Sophocles' treatment of the myth. She has a more critical
attitude towards the character of Electra than Shaw ("Electra emerges
as manipulative and out of touch with reality", 103; "Electra, with her
unmitigated railing and reproaches, could test any mother's patience",
107), but, like Shaw, she uses a good and representative selection of
scholarship in her discussion. Roisman is a highly acclaimed specialist
in Greek tragedy and an experienced university teacher who has taught
in this field over many years (1), all of which is reflected in her
analysis of the play. I would very much have liked to see her final
conclusion, but could not since this part was missing (see below).

Since I myself am working on the reception of the Electra myth,
Roisman's chapter on "Afterlife" (113-125) was of particular interest
to me. Each selection is naturally subjective and open to question;
Roisman has chosen the following criteria for her selection of the
adaptations she has included: "key adaptations and some works that
apply a conception of Electra which may be traceable to Sophocles'
play. A major criterion of selection was my ability to access the
texts, which restricts the discussion to published works available in
English." (113). She discusses five adaptations (Voltaire, Oreste; Hugo
von Hofmannsthal, Elektra; Jean Paul Sartre, Les Mouches; John Barton,
The Greeks; Eugene O'Neill, Mourning becomes Electra), dedicating 2-3
pages to each of them, and three more (Marilyn Hacker, For Elektra;
H.D., Electra-Orestes; John Barton, Tantalus) in one sub-paragraph
entitled "The Repudiation" on one page. Inserted is a short explanation
of the term "Electra complex". Despite the brevity, Roisman manages to
bring across in a condensed but very clear way the central issues of
each adaptation and the changes each author made in relation to
Sophocles' original. Her selection shows the wide range of possible
approaches - historical, political, philosophical, and psychological -
to the Electra myth. Barton's plays were new to me, and I am glad to
have learned about them.

In her detailed "Translator's Foreword" (41-48) which precedes the
actual translation, Carson outlines some of her principles and problems
during the process of translating. She focuses on three main points:
Electra's screams (Carson has itemized 14 different screams and keeps
them untranslated or omits them); the difficulty of translating the
Greek verb lupein; and "the verbal and rhythmic music of Electra" (42).
Her translation has two numberings: one for the text of the translation
and one for the equivalent in Sophocles' text (indicated on the top of
each page). The lines of the English translation outnumber the Greek
original considerably (2008 versus 1510). The overwhelming majority of
sentences and lines are very short, often consisting of one or two
words only, which sets a rapid pace. Carson's translation conveys the
spirit and tenor of Sophocles' verses strongly, but in a shorter and
more condensed way. I am not convinced that compression is the most
suitable way to express the excessiveness in Sophocles' drama, in
particular that of Electra, who talks in an expansive manner and in
periods extending over several lines in the Greek original. Carson
coins some nice phrases such as <greek>u(laktei=</greek> (299) as
"howling bitch" (406) or <greek>tou)me\ mh\ lupei=n</greek> (363) as "I
must not violate Electra" (495) or <greek>o(\n e)/ktan' au)th/</greek>
(408) as "her 'murder victim' " (558), but also occasionally leaves out
parts of the Greek text for no obvious reason (for example: the second
halves of Sophocles' lines 111 and 565 have fallen away in Carson's
lines 151 and 758), or else adds some which are not in the Greek (for
example: there is no equivalent in the original (230) for Carson's  "as
any lover" (171; I found this remark about Orestes put into Electra's
mouth rather confusing). Carson regularly uses contemporary colloquial
expressions such as "damn you" in line 391 (291 Sophocles), "I couldn't
care less" in line 496 (364 Sophocles) and "lick their boots" in line
544 (397 Sophocles). She creates an intense and emotionally charged
atmosphere, but much of Sophocles' style, vocabulary, and imagery is
lost in the process. For me there is too much Carson and too little
Sophocles.

Roisman's claim is less ambitious; her translation aims "to combine
readability with fidelity to the Greek" (1). In her section "On the
Translation" she says: "My aim was to offer an accessible translation
as close as possible to the sense of the Greek. Sophocles' wonderful
poetry was sacrificed in the process" (15). She then discusses the
problems she encountered in this process: first, whether always to
render the same Greek word by the same English word or not, using the
words <greek>do/los</greek>, <greek>kako/s</greek> and
<greek>talai=na</greek> as examples. She decided to settle on one main
meaning, but to modify it if necessary. Second, she states that she
left out most of the screams and conjunctions. The back cover of the
book adds that she "gives a clear and close translation of the Greek
original". In my opinion these statements characterize Roisman's
translation very well. It is close enough for one to identify
Sophocles' text through hers, but it is written in a clear and fluent
style. The numbering of her lines equals those in the Greek original. I
personally prefer to have the notes as footnotes providing all the
information together below the text. In order to illustrate my
comments, I offer for comparison the same passage from Sophocles
(Electra's last words, lines 1483-1490) in the translations by Carson
(1969-1978) and Roisman:

Carson:


No!
Don't let him speak--
by the gods! Brother--no speechmaking now!
When a human being is so steeped in evil as this one
what is gained by delaying his death?
Kill him at once.
Throw his corpse out
for scavengers to get.
Nothing less than this
can cut the knot of evils
inside me.

Roisman:


By the gods, don't let him say another thing,
brother, or spin out words at length.
For when mortals are in the thick of trouble,
what can one who is about to die gain with time?
No, kill him as quickly as possible, and when you've killed him,
hand him over to such grave-diggers as he deserves,
far from our sight. For this is my only release from
the pains that have plagued me for so long.

It is one of the fundamental rules in translation studies that the
success of a translation should be measured in terms of whether it
achieves the goals it sets itself. Therefore I will try to establish
whether the two translators meet the set goals. As regards the criteria
identified by the general editors of the Oxford series, Carson is, in
my opinion,  successful in rendering "the intensity of emotions of the
original[s]", and in showing "inventiveness, clarity ... and dramatic
power" (v). But I do not find much "musicality" in the translation and,
as I mentioned before, I think that "the splendor of language and the
complexity of image and idea" (ibid.) are compromised. I would agree
with the summary on the back cover: "The translation equals the
original in ferocity of expression and leaves intact the inarticulate
cries of suffering and joy that fill the play." Maybe the dilemma could
be resolved simply by labeling Carson's text a re-creation or "inspired
by" instead of a translation of Sophocles. Roisman sticks to her own
parameters and delivers what she promised: a solid down to earth
translation on the literal side which does more justice to Sophocles
than Carson's more poetic re-creation. One slight reservation I have
with both translations is the occasional (Carson) or sparse (Roisman)
use of Christian terminology,[[3]] but this might be a personal
dislike.

Before concluding I have two points of criticism. The first concerns
the otherwise satisfactory selection of secondary literature used by
Shaw and Roisman, respectively. Both follow a recent unfortunate trend
and restrict themselves in their bibliographies almost exclusively to
Anglophone scholarship; both include only one other work in another
language (German) and one of these two even in the English translation
and not in the German original. Although the target audience is
non-specialist, English-speaking students especially should be
encouraged to make use of additional readings in other major modern
languages in the field of academia. The second criticism concerns the
sloppy editing of Roisman's monograph. In my reviewer's copy, the last
paragraph of the "Interpretative Essay" entitled "Some Words in
Conclusion" (see Table of Contents) is missing and the essay stops
abruptly on p. 111. In addition one subtitle (Carl Jung: The Electra
Complex; see Table of Contents) is missing in the chapter "Afterlife"
on p. 122. Potential buyers are cautioned to check beforehand whether
they have got a complete copy of the book or not.

Roisman's book can serve as a very useful introduction for a newcomer
to Classics and Greek tragedy and is well suited for a non-language
student without ancient Greek. Also a beginning ancient Greek language
student will find Roisman's translation helpful in many instances for
working through Sophocles' original because of the faithfulness of her
translation, although students should definitely consult in addition
some of the more scholarly commentaries. Interested non-specialists
outside Classics without a particular interest in Sophocles' original
text, and probably also theatre practitioners, might find Carson's
re-creation appealing. However, advanced students and scholars can
still profit from both Shaw's fine insights in his Introduction as well
as Roisman's chapter on Afterlife.

------------------
Notes:


1.   See for example: Sophocles (edited and translated by Michael Ewans
et al. 2000), Three Dramas of Old Age. London: Everyman; Sophocles
(edited with introduction, translation and commentary by Jenny March
2001) Electra. Warminster: Aris & Phillips Ltd; Michael Lloyd (2005),
Sophocles: Electra (London: Duckworth); P.J. Finglass (2007), Electra:
Sophocles edited with introduction and commentary (Cambridge, UK, New
York: Cambridge University Press).

2.   Shaw does not mention the scholarly debate about the priority
problem of Sophocles' and Euripides' Electra plays at all; Roisman only
in one sentence (11).

3.   Carson: for example lines 86 (holy), 111 (hell), 148 (angel), 175
(heaven), 291 (hell), 433 (unholy), 892 (Amen - not in Sophocles), 1784
(hell). Roisman: for example lines 86 (holy), 112 (holy), 968 (piety).