Scan barcode
glazedpotat11's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
sad
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? N/A
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
jae_reads's review against another edition
3.0
This is the first play I've encountered in a new, personal journey through the history of theatre. And despite my more commercial/modern taste in books I really enjoyed this read. I found it quite interesting how Aeschylus incorporates navegation metaphors into his writing (despite depicting a battle on land). And (spoiler alert) I was drawn in by the debate about it's ending ; the fact that it derives from the playwriting characteristics of its time. Is it added in at a later time? Did Aeschylus even write it? Did it have anything to do with being defeated by Sophocles the previous year? We might never know.
anisha_inkspill's review against another edition
3.0
The translation I read is from https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0014%3Acard%3D1 Its layout is not the easiest to read but the translation is easy to follow.
This is very different approach from Euripides’s The Phoenician Women, which covers the same ground. This one is dated 60 years earlier.
The play dramatizes the war on Thebes when one brother breaks his promise to rule Thebes in turn. The brothers are the sons of Oedipus; the curse that plagued him continues to his sons.
Reading this play is more informative than entertaining, what I enjoyed the most is that it gave me a little bit more insight of those times.
And I think I’m getting more used to reading these plays, as I also noticed more differences between Euripides and Aeschylus’s style.
This is very different approach from Euripides’s The Phoenician Women, which covers the same ground. This one is dated 60 years earlier.
The play dramatizes the war on Thebes when one brother breaks his promise to rule Thebes in turn. The brothers are the sons of Oedipus; the curse that plagued him continues to his sons.
Reading this play is more informative than entertaining, what I enjoyed the most is that it gave me a little bit more insight of those times.
And I think I’m getting more used to reading these plays, as I also noticed more differences between Euripides and Aeschylus’s style.
lukija's review against another edition
Suomeksi: Seitsemän Teebaa vastaan. - - - Arkaainen tuntu. Sotauhmaa ja lyyristä monologia. Oidipuksen (joo se epäonninen tyyppi) pojat Etokles ja Polyneikes ovat vihamiehiä. Etokles puolustaa perheensä kaupunkia, jonne Polyneikes hyökkää ja ennen kohtalokasta lopetustaan Etokles hermostuu naisille.
moviemagus's review against another edition
challenging
reflective
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.5
larkspire's review against another edition
challenging
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.0
For me - no classicist - this is interesting mostly for the dirge at the end, and as an explanation of the events leading up to Sophocles' Antigone. The bulk of this play is a description of the titular Seven's standards. I believe translator David Grene when he says in the introduction that this was probably written to have great symbolic significance to the original audience, and perhaps contemporary events in Athenian politics - but that significance is now lost, and as a result that section is going to be uninteresting to most people whose favourite section of the Iliad isn't the catalogue of ships.
adaora_ble's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
funny
reflective
sad
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
Content Warnings
Moderate: Incest, Death of parent, Xenophobia, Violence, Death, War, and Sexism
spacestationtrustfund's review against another edition
2.0
This review is of the translation by Ian Johnston.
In my other review of Seven Against Thebes, the Hecht & Bacon translation, I included a line from the introduction that said the play had been "accused of being static, undramatic, ritualistic, guilty of an interpolated and debased text, archaic, and, in a word, boring." I said I agreed with that statement, and I stand by that: translation has a lot to do with the appeal of a translated text, and this version—translated by Ian Johnston—is very... tame.
The translation is fine, I guess? The real strength of this version is the contextual notes Johnston himself wrote, i.e., he includes line numbers both for the English text and for the original Ancient Greek. In the interest of making the play more "stageable" (something also done by Robert Emmet Meagher, among others), Johnston added stage directions where there were originally none. This is a common trend in modern translations or adaptations of plays, whether the plays in question be ancient Greek tragedies or Shakespeare. I personally disagree with this practice, but I do see how it could be helpful for someone intending to stage the play. It's fine. This is fine. It's whatever.
Johnston's translation is in iambic pentametre, meaning a certain degree of flexibility in adherence to the original text had to be permitted. For example, here are the first twelve lines of Johnston's translation:
In terms of accuracy to the original text, Johnston actually does pretty well. I really do not want to translate this properly, because I'm doing this neither for money nor for academic credit, but here's a word-for-word translation of the Ancient Greek:
In my other review of Seven Against Thebes, the Hecht & Bacon translation, I included a line from the introduction that said the play had been "accused of being static, undramatic, ritualistic, guilty of an interpolated and debased text, archaic, and, in a word, boring." I said I agreed with that statement, and I stand by that: translation has a lot to do with the appeal of a translated text, and this version—translated by Ian Johnston—is very... tame.
The translation is fine, I guess? The real strength of this version is the contextual notes Johnston himself wrote, i.e., he includes line numbers both for the English text and for the original Ancient Greek. In the interest of making the play more "stageable" (something also done by Robert Emmet Meagher, among others), Johnston added stage directions where there were originally none. This is a common trend in modern translations or adaptations of plays, whether the plays in question be ancient Greek tragedies or Shakespeare. I personally disagree with this practice, but I do see how it could be helpful for someone intending to stage the play. It's fine. This is fine. It's whatever.
Johnston's translation is in iambic pentametre, meaning a certain degree of flexibility in adherence to the original text had to be permitted. For example, here are the first twelve lines of Johnston's translation:
And the corresponding original:ETEOCLES [addressing the crowd]You citizens of Cadmus, any man
who seeks to guard the fortunes of a state
and guide the city’s tiller from the stern
must never do so with his eyes asleep,
and words he utters must be to the point.
For if we should succeed, the credit goes
to gods above, but if—and I do hope
this never comes to pass—we have bad luck,
the name Eteocles would then become
a single shout repeated many times [10]
by citizens in every part of Thebes,
as they cried out in discontent and grief.
You might have noticed that the translation is quite a bit longer than the original. This is, again, a side effect of the decision to put the play into iambic pentametre; the original here is only seven (and a third) lines, while Johnston's adds nearly five lines. This is a consistent theme throughout, meaning the translation—especially with the added stage directions—is much longer than the original play.ἘΤΕΟΚΛΉΣΚάδμου πολῖται, χρὴ λέγειν τὰ καίρια
ὅστις φυλάσσει πρᾶγος ἐν πρύμνῃ πόλεως
οἴακα νωμῶν, βλέφαρα μὴ κοιμῶν ὕπνῳ.
εἰ μὲν γὰρ εὖ πράξαιμεν, αἰτία θεοῦ:
εἰ δ᾽ αὖθ᾽, ὃ μὴ γένοιτο, συμφορὰ τύχοι,
Ἐτεοκλέης ἂν εἷς πολὺς κατὰ πτόλιν
ὑμνοῖθ᾽ ὑπ᾽ ἀστῶν φροιμίοις πολυρρόθοις
οἰμώγμασίν θ᾽, [...]
In terms of accuracy to the original text, Johnston actually does pretty well. I really do not want to translate this properly, because I'm doing this neither for money nor for academic credit, but here's a word-for-word translation of the Ancient Greek:
Cadmean / citizens, / proclaim / speak / the following / inNote: φροίμιον (here φροιμίοις) is the Tragic form of προοίμιον, meaning opening, prelude, preamble, preface, introduction.
that / guard / state affairs /into / stern / city
tiller / distribute, / eyelids / lest / lull / sleep.
if / indeed / for / well / pass through, /responsibility / god:
if / but / again, the following / lest / come into a new state of being, / aide-de-camp / happen to be at,
Eteokles / if / one / many / against / city
sing of / under / citizen / preface / of many voices
lamentation / both, / [...]
dorthepedersen_reads's review against another edition
2.0
Den er godt nok svær! Klart den vanskeligst tilgængelige af de græske tragedier, jeg har læst, og kun Christian Dahls indføring gjorde den læsbar for mig! Men det historiske vingesus, som alle græske tragedier og komedier har - dét har den! :-)