Great Works of Literature I (Fall 2016)

Original text (excerpted song verse):

ตื่นขึ้นมาแล้วเธอยังมีพรุ่งนี้
ยังมีวันดีๆ รออยู่ตรงนั้น
จ้องมองไปที่แสงตะวัน จะเห็นประกายที่สวยงาม
อย่าคิดว่าเธอเดินอยู่ลำพัง
อยากให้เธอรู้ว่ายังมีฉัน
อย่าเพิ่งยอมแพ้ อย่าเพิ่งท้อแท้ อย่าเพิ่งร้องไห้

Literal translation:

wake up come already you to have tomorrow

to have day good good | wait be at there

gaze go at light sun | will see spark that beautiful

don’t think that you walk be alone

want give you know that still have me

don’t just permit lose | don’t just disheartened | don’t just cry

In this translation, I basically did a 99% word for word translation, so all the words correlate to that of the original text. In Thai, words in the same sentence or phrase are usually writtenwithoutspaces. Spaces are only used to divide up sentences or phrases. However, to make it more visible in this translation, I used the | to divide up the different phrases in 3 out of the 6 lines where a phrase divide was present in the original text. Also, capitalization and punctuation are not really present in Thai, so I omitted those in this translation.

“Westernized” sort of assonant translation:

Wake up and you already have tomorrow to look forward to:

still have good days waiting in the distance.

Gaze at the sunlight, see the beautiful sparks.

Don’t think you’re walking with no one near.

I want you to know that I’m still here.

Don’t give up just yet.

Don’t be discouraged yet.

Don’t shed any tears yet.

In this translation, I tried to capture some of the original meaning, sound, and format of the text, while still modifying it for my contemporary aesthetic. I added capitalization and punctuation to give the translation more syntactical structure, but also broke up the last line into 3 separate lines for reasons I will discuss later. The first 3 lines of translation I did not change most of the words from the original text, but rearranged them and added a few words to make them make more sense for American readers. When I translated the 5th line to “I want you to know that I’m still here,” I added the implicit first-person I because in the original the text, the singer/narrator is basically saying that he wants the other person to know that the other person still has him. But when he he refers to himself, he uses the word me (as seen in the last word of the 5th line in the previous), making the presence of subject essential in the translation. At first, I translated this line as “I want you to know that you still have me” because it is closer to meaning in relation to the original text. However, to capture the sound of the original text where the last words of likes 4 and 5 are assonant, I changed the translation to “I want you to know that I’m still here” so that here and near from line 4 are assonant. I also maintained the assonant quality in lines 6 and 7 (phrase 1 and 2 in line 6 in the original text): “Don’t give up just yet” and “Don’t be discouraged yet.” Repetition is also used in the original text in the 3 phrases of line 6, so I kept that present in lines 6-8 of this translation. The reason why I chose to separate the phrases into 3 separate lines is because I had a feeling that the format of the original text was inaccurate to begin with.

Original

“Back when I had a little,
I thought that I needed a lot.
A little was overrated,
but a lot was a little too complicated.
You see, zero didn’t satisfy me.
A million didn’t make me happy.
That’s when I learned the lesson,
that it’s all about your perceptions.
Hey, are you a pauper or a superstar?
So you act, so you feel, so you are.
It ain’t about the size of your car,
it’s about the size of the faith in your heart.”

– “There’s Hope” by India Arie

Translation 1

Back when I was poor,
I thought that I needed a lot of money.
Being poor was too simple,
but being wealthy made things too complicated.
Having nothing wasn’t satisfying.
Having everything didn’t make me happy.
But then I learned
that life is about your perception of it.
Are you dirt poor or are you filthy rich?
How you act is how you feel, and therefore who you are.
Your material possessions aren’t what’s important,
what’s important is the strength of your faith.

Principle 1

This translation is the more obvious of the two. Although Arie does not actually use the word “money” here, it is a natural correlation to make due to her use of numbers and references to things associated with money (e.g. a pauper is a person who is poor, a superstar is a person who is likely rich, and cars are generally expensive). This contrast between being poor (having “a little”) and being rich (having “a lot”) was my basis for this first translation. In both of my translations I decoded the lines “that’s when I learned the lesson, that it’s all about your perceptions” to “but then I learned that life is about your perception of it”. I felt that those lines had the same message in both translations, because at that point Arie learns that what is important in life can change based on her perspective. In this example she thought that the amount of money she had (whether it was a little or a lot) was what was important, but later realized that her faith (in herself, in life, or in god) was what was truly important.

Translation 2

Back when I had low self esteem,
I thought I needed to be boastful to be happy.
Being too humble was disappointing,
but being too proud wasn’t gratifying either.
Feeling self-conscious wasn’t satisfying.
Being self-centered didn’t make me happy.
But then I learned
that life is about your perception of it.
Are you insecure or are you overconfident?
How you act is how you feel, and therefore who you are.
It’s not about the size of your ego,
it’s about the kind of person you are.

Principle 2

This translation is the more abstract of the two. In the original line when Arie says “it ain’t about the size of your car”, it reminded me that people brag about their material possessions to feel self-worth. This contrast between being too humble (having “a little” ) and being too boastful (having “a lot”) was my basis for this second translation. It focuses more on how Arie feels than what she physically has. In both of my translations I decoded the lines “that’s when I learned the lesson, that it’s all about your perceptions” to “but then I learned that life is about your perception of it”. I felt that those lines had the same message in both translations, because at that point Arie learns that what is important in life can change based on her perspective. In this example she thought that how much she boasted about herself (whether it was a little or a lot) mattered, but after changing her perspective realized that what actually mattered was her character.

Original:

That detestable sight him much amazde,
To see th’ unkindly Impes, of heaven accurst,
Devoure their dam; on whom while so he gazd,
Having all satisfide their bloudy thurst,
Their bellies swolne he saw with fulnesse burst,
And bowels gushing forth: well worthy end
Of such as drunke her life, the which them nurst;
Now needeth him no lenger labour spend,
His foes have slaine themselves, with whom he should contend.

(Spenser, The Faerie Queene 226-234)

Word-by-word translation into modern American English:

That detestable sight him much amazed,
To see the unkindly imps, of heaven accursed,
Devour their dame; on whom while so he gazed,
Having all satisfied their bloody thirst,
Their bellies swollen he saw with fullness burst,
And bowels gushing forth: well worthy end
Of such as drunk her life, the which them nursed;
Now need him no longer labor spend,
His foes have slain themselves, with whom he should contend.

Explanation:
Here, I went word by word and translated those that changed in spelling and pronunciation. I chose to leave the archaic grammatical structure to keep it epic and preserve the flow. This way, the modern reader does not have to sound the words out in their head but can still bask in the offbeat pronoun placement and rhyming scheme. After all, it is a choice, too, for a translator to trust the decisions of the original and let well alone.

Convenience translation:

That detestable sight amazed him,
To see the nasty imps, cursed by heaven,
Devour their mother. While he watched,
All having satisfied their bloody thirst,
Their swollen bellies burst with fullness,
And guts gushed out: a worthy end
For those who drank the life of she who nursed them.
Now he need no long labor,
His foes had slain themselves.

Explanation:
I took more liberties with this translation, with the end goal of modern readability and grammar. Rhyme was de-prioritized in favor of a more comfortable read. I switched some words for more colloquial versions, such as “bowels” to “guts.” I also cut some words, such as the ending “with whom he should contend,” which to me seems a bulky rhyming tool with no significant addition in content.

Original Text:

“I have of late—but wherefore I know not—lost all my mirth, forgone  all custom of exercises; and indeed it goes so heavily with my  disposition that this goodly frame, the earth, seems to me a sterile  promontory; this most excellent canopy, the air, look you, this brave  o’erhanging firmament, this majestical roof fretted with golden fire,  why, it appears no other thing to me than a foul and pestilent congregation  of vapors. What a piece of work is a man! how noble in  reason! how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how express and  admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a  god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals! And yet, to me,  what is this quintessence of dust? man delights not me; no, nor woman neither…”

First Translation:

I have, as of late- I do not know why- lost all my joy and ceased all my physical activities. Yes, this mood of mine goes along with this goodly earth- an infertile protuberance in the universe. The sky, look at it, it is the brave support for the heavens; majestically scattered with the sun’s golden rays. It is all a semblance to me, nothing more than a foul and disease-ridden breath of air. What a piece of work is a man! How powerful in Reason! How limitless in thought! In design and in spirit how demonstratively intelligent! In action how like an angel! In apprehension how like a god! The beauty of the world! An animal par excellence! And yet, to me, it is all just an amalgamation of dust. Man does not delight me- no neither do women…

Principle: Literal translation. I chose to replace “promontory” with “protuberance” because that is also it’s meaning in the human anatomy, and also because it highlights Hamlet’s futility for the world more sharply. I chose to replace “overhanging firmament” with “support for the heavens”, because it goes along with the cosmological structure Hamlet is briefly spelling out. I chose to keep “What a piece of work is a man!” intact because this line is the essence of this passage: a disparagement on Man’s abilities, and thus I myself didn’t want to disparage it. I chose to replace “in form and moving how express and admirable!” with “In design and spirit how demonstratively intelligent!” because I felt the “in form and moving” part of this line was connoting the observation that Man is an animate object, and what makes him animate is his “spirit” and this spirit is “expressed” rather than tangibly observed which makes it still demonstrative to the human intellect. This also explains why I replaced “intelligent” with “admirable” to go along with the “form” of Man stated at first in the phrase, which I chose to replace with “design”. I chose “amalgamation” over preserving the question “what is this quintessence of dust?” because in the Medieval times, “quintessence” was believed to be a substance that permeates throughout all nature, so all things can be reduced to this “dust”.

Second Translation:

I, as of late, don’t ask me why, have come into my hour of despair. An hour where my joy stimulates my repulsion. Yes, my despair does hold hands with this goodly world, but look at the sun! Look at how it puts it’s golden blinding rays on the wrinkles and deformities of this goodly frame we call earth. This majestic sky- we shall never see it’s true complexion, it’s all full of ghastly air! This world, to me, is degenerating. And in the meaning of this decline underlies Man. What a painful sight Man is. He errs the beauty of the earth and stays faithful to the otherworlds that give him comfort. All species have evolved and have gotten to a mode of being beyond themselves, yet Man always refrains from too much exertion. He calls himself a knower, a thinker, yet has no knowledge of himself. And his power to Reason- his power? Every principle of Reason Man inherits makes him inauthentic, for he uses it to order the secret chaos that is himself. In action how like an angel? What makes most men act is not their will, but their jealousy. Man’s godlike apprehension? Well, maybe one day for the lucky few…
Man, the beauty of the world, the immense variation among species, I see their essence: nothing but dust.
No, Man does not entertain me; neither do women…

Principle: A more “updated” version, but still in correspondence with the essence of the original text. I also added on some sentences to make it almost a response to the Shakespearean observations on Man (thus the mini Q&A towards the end), and to give them more depth. I also tried to make it flow better, in the original text the transition from Hamlet’s distaste for the world was abruptly switched to his distaste for Man. I chose to rephrase the essential line of the text (“What a piece of work is a man!”) here to reduce the rhetorical sarcasm that was prevalent in the original text.

Above is a video of an American Sign Language poem by Daniel Durant called “Alone.” This poem was originally written in ASL, which means that it was composed of ASL signs and not in written English. One can translate ASL to English (and vice versa) essentially like a foreign language; ASL and English have different grammar and structures, and are altogether separate languages.

Translation 1:

“Nothingness.

Empty and dark.

Rain falls and wind blows.

It is cold.

I am alone.

Never with anyone.

Just me. Always.

My world is falling apart.

Everything is falling apart.

Emptiness.

I feel pain.

Sadness.

I cry and it rains.

My spirit wants to go.

Someone stops me.

Someone who loves me.

I feel my heart beating in my chest and all through me.

My world is full.

The rain goes away.

The sun shines.

It is warm and hits my face.

I feel love.

I am not alone.”

This first translation is literal. I transcribed the signed phrases into English words almost exactly. My principle behind this translation was to create a very literal, written English transcript of the signs which Daniel uses in the poem for basic understanding. This led to a translation which is composed of short and compact sentences, as ASL tends to convey more per sign than English conveys per word. In a way, this translation is largely a summary of the poem. I refrained from including anything which was not obvious on the surface from watching the video. For this reason, the above translation may seem brief and even unfinished.

Translation 2:

“Everywhere I go, it is empty and dark.

All I see is rain, pelting rain, and harsh winds thrash against my face.

It is cold, and I am alone.

In a place full of people, I’m alone.

I’m always alone.

My world is tearing at the seams.

It’s falling apart.

My life is a mess, every part of it.

I feel nothing but pain.

All I ever feel is sadness and pain.

The rain continues to fall, and I cry along with it.

Inside my body, my spirit yearns to break free.

It is finished, and I am ready to leave this place behind.

My spirit struggles inside me, and begins to escape.

But wait!

Something stops me.

What is that? What could it be?

It’s someone.

I feel that someone is beside me, near me…with me.

Someone who loves me.

My heart starts beating in my chest, pumping strong and steady within me.

Love runs through me.

It is an odd feeling, and one I had forgotten.

I open myself up to feel.

And I feel everything.

My world becomes fuller, and love colors in what were once blank spaces.

The rain quiets, and soon it ceases to fall.

The sun comes out and replaces the storm.

It is strong and warm and beautiful.

I feel it on my face, on my skin, and in my bones.

It warms me, and I feel love.

I feel love.

I am not alone.”

This second translation is less literal. Rather, it is more of a translation than an interpretation, meaning that I tried to capture the essence of the signs and their big-picture ideas. Basically, this second translation focuses more on concept than on specific words. My principle behind this translation was to recreate the feeling which Daniel creates with his use of ASL signs, but instead by using written English. For this reason, I chose to include more words and longer descriptions for each line of the poem. As mentioned earlier, ASL has the capability to convey a great deal per each sign. The way someone signs any given sign, by using facial expressions and other nuances, depicts the feelings attached to that sign and its inherent meaning and relevance. In order to replicate this factor in English, I needed to include more adjectives and adverbs. I also used repetition in this second translation, because ASL can be repetitive by emphasizing or drawing out a particular sign. Repeating words and phrases was my attempt to replicate this aspect of the ASL poem in my English translation.

(Please note: I didn’t look at the closed captions until I finished both of my translations, which is why the CC translation is different from mine. This was intentional, as I didn’t want it to influence my initial reaction to the poem and hence my own translation of it. For reference, the closed captions on the video are more similar to my second translation than my first, in that they are less of a literal interpretation and more of a conceptual one.)

בראשית כב: עקידת יצחק

א ויהי אחר הדברים האלה והאלהים נסה את אברהם ויאמר אליו אברהם ויאמר הנני

ב ויאמר קח נא את בנך את יחידך אשר אהבת את יצחק ולך לך אל ארץ המריה והעלהו שם לעלה על אחר ההרים אשר אמר אליך

ג וישכם אברהם בבקר ויחבש את חמרו ויקח את שני נעריו אתו ואת יצחק בנו ויבקע עצי עלה ויקם וילך אל המקום אשר אמר לו האלהים

ד ביום השלישי וישא אברהם את עיניו וירא את המקום מרחק

ה ויאמר אברהם אל נעריו שבו לכם פה עם החמור ואני והנער נלכה עד כה ונשתחוה ונשובה אליכם

ו ויקח אברהם את עצי העלה וישם על יצחק בנו ויקח בידו את העש ואת המאכלת וילכו שניהם יחדו

ז ויאמר יצחק אל אברהם אביב ויאמר אבי ויאמר הנני בני ויאמר הנה האש והעצים ואיה השה לעלה

חויאמר אברהם אלהים יראה לו השה לעלה בני וילכו שניהם יחדו

ט ויבא אל המקום אשר אמר לו האלהים ויבן שם אברהם את המזבח ויערך את העצים ויעקד את יצחק בנו וישם אתו על המזבח ממעל לעצים

י וישלח אברהם את ידו ויקח את המאכלת לשחט את בנו

יא ויקרא אליו מלאך יהוה מן השמים ויאמר אברהם אברהם ויאמר הנני

יב ויאמר אל תשלח ידך אל הנער ואל תעש לו מאומה כי עתה ידעתי כי ירא אלהים אתה ולא חשכת את בנך את יחידך ממני

יג וישא אברהם את עיניו וירא והנה איל אחר נאחז בסבך בקרניו וילך אברהם ויקח את האיל ויעלהו לעלה תחת בנו

Genesis 22: The Binding of Isaac

Literal Translation

1 And it was, after these things, and God tested Abraham; and he said to him, “Abraham,” and he said, “here I am.”

2 And he said, “take your son, your only one who you love and go yourself to the land of Moriah and offer there a burnt offering on one of the mountains that I will tell you.”

3 And Abraham got up early in the morning and he saddled his donkey and he took his two lads with him and Isaac his son and he cut the offering wood and he got up and he went to the place that God told him.

4 On the third day, Abraham lifted his eyes and he saw the place from a distance.

5 And Abraham said to the lads, “stay here with the donkey and I and the lad will walk until there and we will prostrate and we will return to you.”

6 And Abraham took the offering wood and he put it on Isaac his son and he took in his had the fire and the knife and they went both of them together.

7 And Isaac said to Abraham his father and he said, “my father,” and he said, “Here I am, my son” and he said, “here is the fire and the wood but here is the lamb for the burnt offering?”

8 And Abraham said, “God will show for him the lamb for the burnt offering, my son”; And they went both of them together.

9 And they came to the place of which God told them and Abraham built the alter there and laid the wood in order and he bound Isaac his son and he put him on the alter on the wood.

10 And Abraham sent his hand and he took  the knife to slaughter his son.

11 And an angel of the Lord called to him from heaven and said “Abraham, Abraham” and he said, “I am here.”

12 and he said, “do not send your hand to the lad and do not do anything to him for now I know that a God-fearing man you are and you did not withhold your son, your only son from me.”

13 And Abraham lifted his eyes and looked and behold a ram there caught in the thicket by his horns; and Abraham went and he took the ram and he offered it up as a burnt offering under his son.

Translation Through My Understanding

1 And it was after these events had occurred that God tested Abraham. And he said to him, “Abraham,” and he responded, “Here I am.”

2 And God said, “take your son, your special son, the one who you love–take Isaac now and get for yourself to the land of Moriah and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you.”

3 And Abraham eagerly rose early in the morning and saddled his donkey and took two of his young lads with him and took Isaac his son and cut the offering wood and got up and went to the place of which God told him.

4 On the third day, Abraham lifted up his eyes and he saw the place from a distance.

5 And Abraham said to his young lads, “you stay here with the donkey and I and the lad will go until there and worship and return to you.”

6 And Abraham took the offering wood and put it on Isaac his son and took in his hand the fire and the knife and they walked, two of them, together.

7 And Isaac said to Abraham his father and he said, “my father,” and he said to him, “here I am, my son.” And he said, “here is the fire and wood, but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?”

8 And Abraham said, “God will provide Himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son,” and they walked, the two of them, together.

9 And they came to the place of which God had told him. Abraham built there the alter and set out the wood and bound Isaac his son and put him on the alter upon the wood.

10 And Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to slaughter his son.

11 An an angel of the Lord called out to him from heaven and he said, “Abraham, Abraham!” and he said, “here I am.”

12 And the angel said, “do not lay your hand upon the lad neither should you do anything at all to him for now I know that you are a God-revearing man, seeing that you had not even withheld your son, your special son from me.”

13 And Abraham lifted his eyes and he looked around and behold there was a ram caught in the thicket by its horns. And Abraham went and took the ram and offered it as a burnt-offering instead of his son.

In this unbelievable Biblical scene, the story of a father’s ultimate service of God is portrayed. The text is careful to describe each motion of Abraham in the most specific detail. Every action is enumerated: he took this, he saw that, he went here and there. When translating this text, it is difficult to maintain the emphatic tone. And, so, in the second translation, I chose to stray from the literal translation of the text, somewhat, in order to convey the depth of the original Hebrew text. Notice in some verses how it awkwardly runs on as Abraham does this and this and this…

Additionally, it is crucial to note that, for example, in the second verse, where God relates the actual commandment to Abraham, that the word יחיד/yachid/”only” is often mistranslated here. Abraham actually had another son. Though this other child was birthed of a different, non-Jewish mother, he was Abraham’s son, nonetheless. It is for this reason exactly that the text employs the word of yachid, which means special or unique in this context. Isaac is the son to continue Abraham’s lineage and birth the patriarch of the entire Jewish nation. Abraham knows this, which is why we find it strange that he elects to fulfill God’s command. This is particularly confusing because, elsewhere, we find Abraham questioning the will of God. Yet, here, he seemingly obliges without hesitation. To further this paradox, in the third verse, the language of וישכם/va’yashkem/”and he got up early” has a connotation of excitement or eagerness. Abraham longed to fulfill the will of God. There is a concept in Jewish law that emphasizes achieving a command of God at the earliest possible time. This is displayed in Abraham’s action. However, it is heavily contrasted with the text’s use of 4 additional verbs following in this verse. Every step Abraham took was so heavy on his being because he was getting closer and closer to slaughtering his very own son! The tension between longing to fulfill God’s command and embracing his son as the predicted second patriarch is intensely potent.

Translating these verses literally was actually an excellent exercise for me. I recite them each morning as part of the set liturgy. However, I do not find myself often lost in the translation of them because reading the words in the original Hebrew has become so natural. Nonetheless, the journey of translating each phrase literally brought to light how much richness can be lost. I chose to focus on the verbs and specific phrases because these theme shapes the entire story. Everything is about action. Do, do, do. This was the mantra that Abraham recited in his head over and over again. How else could he venture to perform such an act as killing his own son? So he became a robot. He says very few words and does so many things, in each movement, feeling the flow of his blood and the sweat of his labor. Finally, as he raises the knife to slaughter his son, and angel calls out and says I know you now have reverence for me (God). I chose to alter the translation from fear, since the actions of Abraham transcend those of natural responses to fear. Abraham is conscious through every step as explained. He is not acting out of fear of punishment. God simply instructs and his servant does. Abraham encountered God in a way no one had. He was gripped, in a sense, by the awe-inspiring essence of the Lord. And so he acted. Yet, he was not compelled by fear, he was embracing by choice. So we can see the tension that dominated Abraham throughout this story. He woke up early, yet he hardly spoke. He lifted his eyes to see the place from a distance, and he lifted his eyes to see the ram that saved his son. It is certainly difficult to maintain these deep ideas through translating such a rich text. There is nothing quite like the implication and nature of Biblical Hebrew.

In Antigone law is the code by which people should base their behavior and actions opon. There seems to be several law-makers present who have varying degrees of influence or authority. The main law-makers in Thebes, in order of level of authority, appear to be Fate, Zeus (or the gods), familial code (or loyalty), and King Kreon (or man).

Fate

When the messenger comes to tell Kreon about his law being broken, although he is afraid, he states that “If I’m talking annihilation here, / I’ll still say it, since I’m of the opinion / nothing but my own fate can cause me harm” (Lines 266-268). This means that regardless of if Kreon punishes him or not, for being the bearer of bad news, the messenger believes that fate has the ultimate say. As we discussed earlier in class, fate decides when people will die and not even the gods can change that. In that way, the law of fate reigns supreme over anyone else’s.

Zeus/Gods

The gods, as in all greek plays, hold a significant amount of power over humans. Zeus in particular is referenced a couple of times when Kreon states that “Zeus enforces his own will through mine” (Line 335) and, ironically, later on when Antigone is refuting Kreon’s authority and states that “it wasn’t Zeus who issued me / this order” (Line 487). Antigone continuously assets that the gods have the ultimate power over man when she tells Kreon that “[she] den[ies] that [his] edicts–since [him], a mere man, / imposed them–have the force to trample on / the gods’ unwritten and infallible laws” (Lines 490-492) and that “[she’d] never let any man’s arrogance / bully [her] into breaking the god’s laws” (Lines 496-497). These examples further affirm that the gods’ law is the law in the eyes of man, even if it is misconstrued as it is when Kreon assumes that his wills are the same as the wills of the gods.

Familial Code/Loyalty

Antigone claims that the law that made her die for Polyneikes was that she would not be able to replace him. She states that “If [ her] husband were dead, [she] could remarry. / A new husband could give [her] a new child. / But with [her] father and mother in Hades, / a new brother could never bloom for [her]” (Lines 1002-1005). In this instance, the loyalty to her family overrode the law of the king. As shown in earlier examples, her adherence to this family code also coincides with the laws set by the gods. This shows that both of these laws are more powerful than one set by man.

King Kreon/Man

Kreon believes, at least in the beginning of the play, that he holds the ultimate power in Thebes. He disregards ancient laws set by the gods and by tradition, in favor of his own moral codes which he imposes on the citizens of Thebes. In the beginning of the play Antigone refers to King Kreon as the “commander in chief” (Line 10), and later he is told by the leader of the chorus that he has “all the authority [he] need[s] / to discipline the living and the dead” (Lines 246-247). In this way, these characters are confirming his authority to themselves as well as to Kreon who believes that his word is law. It is further shown that he thinks his laws reign supreme when he tells his son, Haimon, that “if anyone steps out of line, breaks / our laws, thinks he can dictate to his king, / he shouldn’t expect any praise from me” (Lines 736-738). Despite Kreon’s arrogance however, his law seems to hold the least weight out of the four mentioned for the reasons explained earlier.

Law in Antigone is the ways by which its subjects are to be obey, yet the characters subscribe to different overarching jurisdictions. The law of the gods that the people follow is that a family must bury their loved ones after they die so they can go on in peace to the underworld. However, the edict of Kreon forbids the burial of Polyneikes as punishment for his treason. Yet, Antigone holds the law of the gods of burial of loved ones above Kreon’s edict barring anyone from burying Polyneikes when she tries to bury Polyneikes. Kreon has the final say as which law will prevail with Polyneikes’ burial and Antigone’s fate.

The law of family ties is strong for Antigone in burying her brother, and is strong when Kreon offers Antigone leniency in exchange for not telling anyone what happened, and for abstaining from trying to bury Polyneikes again. But, Antigone holds the law of the gods and of her family to her brother over Kreon’s offering of the law of family ties to her. Ultimately, Kreon’s law prevails in holding Antigone responsible for disobeying his edict, after Kreon’s failed attempt at extending leniency to Antigone.

Kreon’s law barring anyone from mourning or burying Polyneikes contradicts the gods’ law of burial of loved ones, making it a tyrannical edict. However, it is important for Kreon to make an example of Polyneikes and demonstrate that treason will be punished brutally. Part of the purpose of law is to establish order and uphold the institutions of a society, so although Kreon’s edict is tyrannical to the law of the gods, it is a just law. However, Kreon’s family tie to Antigone shows that he was biased to her. It is doubtful that Kreon would have offered the leniency that he offered to Antigone to anyone else who would have been caught disobeying his edict prohibiting burial of Polyneikes.

When the chorus comes in at line 365, they’re exemplifying the greatness of man in relation to the earth, and subsequently contrasting those achievements with the inevitability of death. They start out by listing the physical obstacles man has overcome; “He crosses to the far side of white seas, blown by winter gales, sailing below huge waves; he wears Earth down… plowing her soil back and forth year after year.” They then transition into the topic of man’s ability to construct, overcome and think; “He has taught himself speech… thought… and all the talents that govern a city; How to take shelter from cold skies or pelting rain… He accepts every challenge.” Once the reader is given the bait, to create this amazing outlook on the human race, they are struck with the reality that the one thing that man has not been able to conquer is Hades, aka death. From here, the chorus gives an existential ultimatum; “When he follows the law Earth teaches him- and Justice, which he’s sworn to the gods he will enforce – He soars with his city. But reckless and corrupt, a man will be driven from his nation disgraced.”

This passage is definitely paralleling the power, and lack thereof, of man to Kreon. Just like in The Odyssey, in which Homer included extended metaphors here and there, Sophocles is analogizing Kreon’s extreme power hunger and belief of self-righteousness to the “indestructibility” of man. The King thinks that he has absolute control over all of his subjects, and can determine whether or not they die at his hands in the name of justice. However, in the eyes of the chorus and impliedly Sophocles, the gods have and always will have absolute power over everything and everyone, including Kreon.

The passage also serves as a contrasting of physical human capability and the ever-strong human mind. As the story goes on, one sees a King become enraged enough over an arbitrary concept, and indirectly cause the suicides of three+ people. Why are we able to overcome such obstacles and still be controlled so strongly by something that isn’t tangible?

Upon first glance, law in Thebes comes from two difference sources: one unwritten, established by the gods, the other explicit, proclaimed by the new Theban king Kreon. The former has existed for quite a while, governing the everyday lives of Theban people. Burying one’s kinsmen after they have fallen, for example, is one of the “laws the gods expect us to honor” (94). Obedience to this set of laws is obedience to the heavenly and the underworld, for the failure to do so would bring forth the wrath and hatred from the underworld. When Ismene, Antigone’s sister, refused to help her bury their brother, in fear of Kreon’s punishment, Antigone warned her that “the dead—and they’ll hate [Ismene]/ far longer” (112-113) for her unwillingness to honor the ancient code. The latter, spoken rules by Kreon, are instantly solidified into law for the Thebans. These proclamations, which are dictated by a mortal, hold just as much weight as the set of code established by the gods. Due to Kreon’s stubbornness, his laws are just as non-negotiable, and Thebans, scared for their lives, “bite their tongues” (550) to please and appease to their fearsome new king. The specific example of his rules in the Antigone is the forbiddance of burial of Antigone’s brother, Polyneikes, who Kreon has deemed a traitor to Thebes. As the Antigone unfolded, it was clear that the former set of rules, governed by the gods, reigned supreme over Kreon’s.  Kreon realized the flaws in his proclamations, albeit too late to prevent the tragic consequences from happening. He rushed to sanitize and give a proper burial for Polyneikes and to free Antigone, demonstrating that perhaps there should only be one set of laws to rule Thebes.

I believe, however, that there has always only been one set of rules at work in the Antigone. Kreon’s proclamations, which appeared to be out of his will and his moral code, is merely an interpretation of the law that gods established. Through Kreon’s conversation with the elder, it is clear that he only saw himself as an extension of Zeus, acting on the god’s will and delivering judgement through the god’s code. He declared the forbiddance of burial of Polyneikes because Polyneikes was someone who “returned from exile utterly determined/ burn down his own city, incinerate/ the gods we worship, revel in kinsmen’s blood,/ everyone left alive” (232-235). He was simply acting on the will of the gods, who would never befriend the “country’s enemy” (219).