Information concerning Oct. 24 paper

Information concerning paper (750 to 1250 words, i.e., roughly 3 to 5 pages) due Thursday, Oct. 24.

The basic topic is a comparison and contrast of the effect of Roche's translation of the two scenes in Sophocles, Antigone which involve the sentry (including the intervening choral ode) with the effect produced by one or more other translations. In Roche, the pages are 351-358; also, Starr briefly discusses the choral ode, including a kind of paraphrase, on p. 65.

A large number of other translations of Antigone are available, in hard copy or on the internet. Some of the internet versions are more or less archaic, some are more modern.

Some guidelines (very general). These "guidelines" are deliberately not very precise. It is your job to write an interesting, well-argued paper, within the basic framework presented. Some questions, though, which you may want to consider are listed below. (You need not consider all of these questions in your paper, and you may wish to develop other, relevant questions instead.)

Is Roche's translation effective?
How does Roche characterize the Sentry?
Does Roche's characterization of the Sentry somehow distort what was probably the original effect?
How do Roche and one or more other translators handle the details of Polyneices' burial, as reported by the Sentry?
How does the choral ode (which is often cited out of context, as Starr does) fit into the scenes with the Sentry?

Be sure to indicate what other translation(s) you are using for comparison / contrast with Roche.

Papers should normally be computer-printed or typed. Neatly handwritten papers, though, will be accepted, if for some reason no other format is feasible.

Of course, it goes without saying that your paper should be your own work, not someone else's.

Quite a few translations of Antigone are available in print form, e.g., by Peter Arnott, Richard Emil Braun, Robert Fagles, Dudley Fitts & Robert Fitzgerald, Richard C. Jebb, E. F. Watling, and Elizabeth Wyckoff. There are probably others too.

Also, as indicated above, a large number of internet versions are available. Some of the internet versions are archaic, some are more modern. The older, more archaic ones are in the public domain, while the more recent ones are copyrighted. (In looking at different versions, be aware that different translators may use different line nos. - a problem which does not arise in Roche, inasmuch as he does not give any line numbers at all.) I have found the following fairly easily accessible:

translation by R. C. Jebb (old, public domain)
translation by E. H. Plumptre (old, public domain). This divides the play into three parts; the scenes to be considered in the paper are in the first part. This translation, by Plumptre, is archaic sounding (especially in the use of "thou" and "thee", verb forms like "knowest" and "knoweth", and contractions such as "ne'er"). Once one adjusts to this archaic effect, though, it is one of the most effective translations of Antigone in English.
translation by D. W. Myatt (modern, copyrighted)
translation by C. Blackwell and R. Prior (modern, copyrighted, may be sort of hard to download)
translation by Wm. Blake Tyrrell and Larry J. Bennett (modern, copyrighted)

For your convenience, the text from the last mentioned of the internet versions, by Bennett and Tyrrell, from the Diotima Project (Materials for the Study of Women and Gender in the Ancient World), was distributed in class. If your copy of this is missing, check with the instructor. Of course, you may make your comparison and contrast of Roche with another translation, or you may compare and contrast more than one other version with Roche's.