Man’s Agency: Translation and Meaning in RC Jebb’s Antigone and Don Taylor’s Antigone

Sophocles penned Antigone in 440BCE, at a time when Greek democracy was in its infancy. The traditional Greek Tragedy tells the tale of a political dissident, Antigone, who believes in the power of divine law over human law. The original work has been translated and revised countless times, with each translation notably tailored to the context of its translation. Within the play, the choral staismon “Ode to Man” speaks of the paradoxical power and folly of mankind, and has been interpreted in different ways by two translators: Don Taylor, whose translation was done in 1986, and RC Jebb, who was writing in 1888. While the subject matter and raw material is the same, the translations and interpretations by these two men bring a different meaning to the seminal work. Their work has clear stylistic disparities, given the difference in time period and therefore literary style, but the meaning also varies due to the cultural and social values of the time. Jebb’s translation is far more optimistic than Taylor’s. Through a close reading investigation of the two source texts, and some investigation into the cultural times in which these works will written, their difference will be explored with reference to style, the nature of man, and the values of each translator in relation to women, class, and the environment within the first strophe and the final antistrophe of the Ode.

In order to understand the differences between the two translations, it is important to discuss their contexts. Jebb was an ecclesiast, educated at Cambridge was a great admirer of Sophocles and indeed, unlike Taylor, could read ancient Greek. His translation was composed in the Victorian era and high romance and gothic influences are evident throughout his translation. In contrast, Taylor’s translation, originally commissioned for television by the BBC, was written in a time of socialism in the United Kingdom. Class riots and economic inequality dominated the culture at the time, and as such, Taylor’s translation is far more critical of the hubris of man, a central theme of the Greek Tragedy, than Jebb, but is also concerned more with Marxism and man’s rationalism than Jebb’s translation. Furthermore, as Taylor is writing for a television audience, he is possibly trying to make the links between the ode and the plot of the play more evident in order to appeal to a mass audience who might not be familiar with Antigone before viewing this version. Don Taylor in 1986 he commented, "My main aim in making this new version of these much-translated works has been to make them seem that they were written not 2,500 years ago, but the day before, yesterday, today, and tomorrow”(Translators Note 215) and indeed his verse is very comprehensible. Conversely, Jebb, writing at a time of highly structured verse, uses much archaic language which makes his work less accessible in modern times.  He is also writing for an audience who would be familiar with Antigone and thus does not have to make his thematic links so pronounced. In addition to this, Jebb’s context is different. Jebb was writing at the time of British expansion and dominance, and a time of relative stability for the UK. His Britain had structure and order under Queen Victoria, whereas Taylor’s Britain was fraught with revolution. In addition, both men have a unique relationship to feminism.  Jebb was a supporter of the suffragette movement, and sympathetic to the plight of woman, especially Antigone, but was still functioning within a highly gendered paradigm, whereas Taylor’s translation took place at a time of shifting gender roles during third-wave feminism. Furthermore, the environmental movement is far more pressing for Taylor than for Jebb, as the consequences of industrialism were barely known in the Victorian era. The social and political context of the translations is significant for our understanding of them, as are the unique styles of the two translators.

As previously stated, “Ode to Man” is centred on the paradox that is man. The first strophe of the Ode begins with man described using the adjective Δεινός, a Greek word (Collins 43) which both Jebb and Taylor translate as ‘wonderful’, while others like Kathleen Kaufman translate as  “terrible” (Kaufman 112) and full of sorrow, and others try to encapsulate the paradox, as Ian Johnston does in “many strange and wonderful things” (Johnston 332). However, Jebb’s interpretation makes the chorus more unilaterally praising of man, which is no doubt in line with his own sentiments as an ecclesiast, a humanist, and an early feminist. He states, “Wonders are many, but none more wonderful than man, the power” (340) and then goes on to list the unyielding strength of man. Taylor instead begins his translation with rhetorical question: “Is there anything more wonderful on earth, / our marvellous planet, / than the miracle of man!” (1-3). In the style of realism, Taylor’s line has a hint of sarcasm, somewhat overwrought with alliteration, it suggests that there is indeed something more wonderful than man, which might be our “marvellous planet” (2). Sophocles was writing at a time when man’s achievements in art, literature, philosophy, math, and science were flourishing; he was responding to man’s terrible greatness. Taylor’s decision to refer to the miracle of man is steeped in irony and is the first evidence of Taylor’s cynicism in the ode. Jebb instead simply speaks of the power man has over wonders and is much more optimistic, and arguably much more aligned with Sophocles in this manner. This could have course be inspired by their particular contexts, as Taylor was concerned with classism and the elevation of the lower classes in a time of political turmoil in the UK, while Jebb was more concerned with praising the accomplishments of man in a time of more political and societal stability. Issues such as environmental impact and women’s rights weigh far more heavily on Taylor than on Jebb, who is writing at a time of much greater optimism.

The first description of man in Taylor’s work is rather sinister, with the assonance in the phrasing of arrogant ease/ He rides the dangerous seas” (4/5). Taylor, writing in Thatcher’s England, could be referring to the strength and dominance of the upper class, who have retained their power over the lower classes. The phrase contains judgment of man, which is not present in Jebb’s work. Jebb instead praises the resilience of man, who is able to “making a path under the surges that threaten to engulf him” (338). The chorus, as a representation of the populace and therefore of the norms and ideals of society, has been given a mouthpiece by each translator to speak of the nature of man – this quality of being human is a direct reflection of the times of translations. Both texts suggest possible peril that man is in, but in Taylor’s version, his ease is a result of the fact that the seas are simply dangerous, which could imply any vague number of dangers, and does not seem immediate but rather a blanket caution. In Jebb’s version, however, man is industriously making “a path” (343) which suggests both humility and work ethic, not atop the waves, as is implied by Taylor, but rather under them, suggesting that in Jebb’s conception of humanity, man was still reverential to nature in a way that in Taylor’s late capitalist time, man is no longer. Furthermore, in Jebb’s version, the imagery of the wave as “surges” that could engulf” (345) is much more physical. This imagery is also related to war, and could be a reference to Crimea or to the Boer war, both where Jebb was present. In his translation, the immediacy and the violence of the threat is more known, whereas in Taylor’s, composed at a time when class divisions were more debated, there is a reference to a hierarchy of man. Each of these authorial choices have an effect on the reader, as Taylor’s conception of man is far more hubristic and defiant, whereas Jebb’s is far more deferential, and therefore arguably more sympathetic.

The next part of the strophe is concerned with Man’s relationship with nature. Taylor refers to Earth as “mother”, a reference to ancient Greek mythology and Gaia, the mother of all the gods. Jebb instead does not personify Earth as a woman, but rather just as the genderless “eldest of the gods” (370). The distinction is no doubt due to the conception of women at the time. For Jebb, a supporter of the suffrage movement, was still an ecclesiast, and therefore rooted in the masculinity of a Christian God. Taylor instead, writing at the time of third wave feminism and in Thatcher’s secular Britain, there was no conflict in expressing Earth as a mother. The effect this has on the reader lies in the contrast set up between Earth and Man. Taylor, the more cynical, sets up the juxtaposition between the softness and nurturing associated with the word “mother” and the dominance of man and “his driving plough” (8). Therefore, Taylor sets up the notion that man is destructive energy, masculine and violent, and perhaps even sexually loaded through the phallic image of the plough, in contrast to the creative and nurturing and sacred strength of the mother. This makes the reader feel empathy towards Earth because it has been so overwhelmed by the violent presence of man. This is reinforced by further violence in “breaking the clods” (9) until the Earth’s final submission to man, when she “she yielded up her fruitfulness” (12), which again, could refer to fertility or perhaps intercourse. The Earth, in Taylor’s conception, has been almost raped by man, which is perhaps a reference to the growing awareness of the environmental impact of man at the time, or a reference to the growing awareness of women’s rights and issues of gender-based violence. By gendering the earth as a “mother” it is clear that Taylor is making a comment upon the relationships between genders, and upon man’s destructive masculinity. Conversely, Jebb’s Earth is “immortal, unwearied” (360), and it seems, quite content to have man exert his power over her. This is indicative of Jebb’s optimism for the plight of women and the irrelevance of the environmental movement in his time of writing.

In the final antistrophe, the Chorus delivers their warning message to Creon on the limitations of man’s greatness. The Chorus, who has spent the entirety of the ode either praising man or lamenting his ineffectiveness over death, now turns to warn Creon of the damage of hubris. Taylor writes that man’s “In action he is subtle beyond imagination….gifts/ Are both his enemies and friends,/ As he applies them, with equal determination,/ to good or to evil ends” (39-44). Jebb’s translation differs from this, as states, “Cunning beyond fancy’s dream is the fertile skill which brings him, now to evil, now to good” (375). The contexts of the two translators are clearly evident here. While Taylor uses the term imagination”, Jebb has preferred to use “fancy” a romantic word which has slightly inferior connotations, according to Coleridge, who describes it a “logical ordering rather than creative power” (Poetics 32). However, the skill that men have is, according to Jebb, “Cunning” which has more negative connotations of subterfuge in our times, but which for Jebb would have meant skill, which brings it more align with Taylor’s more ambiguous, “action”. However, the key difference between these two passages is the agency that is ascribed to man in Taylor’s version, as man applies the skill, versus the passivity that is ascribed to man in Jebb’s version, as cunning brings men to evil or good. This distinction has much to do with the notion of individualism, which only really began as a school of thought with the advent of realism in the 20^th century, thereby still evading Jebb’s ideology. Instead, the ecclesiast is intimating that many things, such as motivation, are actually out of the hands of man, who could be lead to evil deeds, but does not, as Taylor suggests, seek them out.

The similarity in these texts is perhaps most evident in the final lines of the Ode, wherein the Chorus condemns those who go against the laws of the gods. In this avenue, the tone of both translations is similar, but Taylor puts “the constitution” (43) before the laws of the gods, whereas Jebb refers to only “the laws” (378). This is demonstrative of the conception of human rights at the time of translation – the constitution implies the basic rights of all mankind, which is not expressed in Jebb’s “the laws”. This again, has to do with the modern conception of what it means to be human, which means to have fundamental rights. In the final warning to Creon, Taylor’s translation is more foreboding as a result of the caesura on like 42 and as a result of his commitment to the ABAB rhyme scheme. The consequence of the word “If” on line 42 is an ominous tone which makes it clear to the reader that this foreshadows Creon’s downfall. The warning is more subtle in Jebb’s translation, which begins with “no city hath he” (380). Again, Jebb has made man’s involvement more passive in this translation and has given the warning to men who have “rashness” and “who dwell with sin” (381) rather than those who “are blown up with pride”(45) as in Taylor’s translation. Again, the arrogance of man is the cardinal sin for Taylor, and this links explicitly with Creon’s hamartia and his actions. In contrast, Jebb’s warnings are more ambiguously for “he who doth these things!” (390). The impact of these words is that man is more a victim of circumstance for Jebb than for Taylor, which seems to imply that Creon is less culpable for Jebb than Taylor. Taylor in contrast, makes explicit Creon’s flaws, and his foreboding warning is much more dramatic and ironic for the reader. This again, could be a result of the differences in perspective of an ecclesiast and a realist – one who lives in a time of stability and structure vs. the chaotic secular context of the 1980s.

Don Taylor and RC Jebb’s translations are distinctly different for their styles, their understanding of mankind, and for the attitudes towards women and nature they express. In general, Taylor’s version of the choral ode makes the staismon more critical of man, who is arrogant and full of pride, whereas in Jebb’s version, the chorus is much more exalting of man, whose downfalls are not the result of evil agency but rather, perhaps of circumstance, and for Jebb, as an ecclesiast, of the temptations of the sin. The distinctions in these two translations demonstrates the impact that language can have on knowledge, for slight differences in interpretation can lead to entirely different connotations, and therefore effects in the readers’ mind and message of the play. The passive vs. active voice evidences this as it relates to the individual goals of the translators. These interpretations are of course affected by the context they are written in, but so are the readers’ interpretations of the works affected by the context in which they are read, as is evidenced by the changing connotations of the word “cunning” or the increased sensitivity of the 2020s to issues of environmentalism. This connects explicitly to both TOK and to the area of exploration: Readers, Writers, and Texts. Analysing a work in translation requires 4 levels of critical investigation: in understanding these two versions of Antigone, we are interpreting a text through the lens of the original author and context (Sophocles and Ancient Greece), the translator and their context (Taylor and Jebb), our own context and ‘baggage’ and of course, the text itself. Therefore all three avenues of this theme are explored.

Works Cited

Coleridge, Samuel Taylor. Poetics. Vintage. 1998.

Collins, Janet. Jebb’s Antigone. Queens University Press. Master’s Thesis. 2015.

Sophocles. Antigone. Trans. RC Jebb, Cambridge Classics. 1955.

Sophocles. Antigone. Trans Don Taylor. Penguin. 2005.