Aeschylus – The Persians

The Persians of Aeschylus is considered the most important historical play in European literature, but it is probably a play performed for a national celebration. Aeschylus was a warrior in the naval battle of Salamis, so an eyewitness.

The tetralogy to which the work belongs won 1st victory when it was performed at the Great Dionysia (473-472 BC). The Teaching, i.e. the official reference to the performance in Athens, has survived. Pericles was the sponsor. A year or two later Aeschylus brought the Persians up to Syracuse.

The Persians was a performance written for a public ceremony of national victory, from the worst sources for good poetry. How could it be good tragedy? The feeling of victory, the self-satisfaction of success, the triumph over the opponent oppose true poetry. Losing, not winning, is a deeper experience.

Themistocles in his speech after the naval battle of Salamis says: “It is not we who have achieved this”. This is the expression of the passion of the great moment. The Greeks were liberated, their liberation was improbable, it must have been the work of God, not man. Aeschylus in the Persians maintains this passion from beginning to end.

Not a single Greek name is mentioned among the Persians. If there was the name of a Greek general, the work would become modern and would be exposed to all the small temporary passions of the immediate present. Even the gods fighting for Greece are kept anonymous except for Zeus and once Athena.

On the contrary, Persian names abound (55 names are mentioned). Persians are strange, exotic and heroic. There is no danger that the act has descended to the ephemeral level. He treats the Persians with a heroic spirit, they are terrible, full of pride, greedy, irreverent and contemptuous of the gods.

But there is no hatred against them. No Persian is presented as nothing, he will be either brave or chivalrous. This greatness of Aeschylean spirit in treating the subject of the enemy is remarkable.

The drama was performed on the eve of the ostracism of Themistocles, and some philologists (Podlecki) argue that it was performed to defend the politician whose position at that time was shaken. Aeschylus did not write the drama with a political purpose, but one has the right to wonder if a play on the subject of Salamis does not inevitably turn into a eulogy of the one who was the soul of the defense.

Aeschylus begins the narrative by describing the Persian power in a grand manner, only to describe the fall and destruction in the same way a little later. At the same time he repeatedly speaks of the pain and mourning of the relatives of the dead, as if he were Persian himself. But at the same time, on another level, he cites the meaning of war for the Greeks and the Persians (liberating/conquering respectively), while at the same time comparing 2 political regimes, democracy and autocracy.

He must intercede, listen to the well-understood language, the Persian (the Dance in the 2nd Stasis will say), the dead, wise, well-loved, harmless king. He alone can understand and help write a new story that will include destruction. And the most moving: Darius’ exhortation to Atossa to welcome her son, Xerxes, in the most brilliant outfit.

The role of Darius: Why is the presence of Darius necessary in the drama? Why is he called by Hades? Darius comes to help the grieving process. He is the one who restores the measure, the one who helps process the events and thus allows the lamentation, the one who makes the connection with the past (he comes from the past, and makes extensive reference to his own and his predecessors’ way of reigning, to reach Xerxes) and the future (his wisdom allows him to make future predictions) based on the present (genogram).

One who can see events from a distance, one who can empathize and bring life back into continuity. In short, he has the role of the therapist, the advisor of the Dance.

Darius departs and then Xerxes appears on the stage and mourns with Horus. Xerxes does not co-exist on stage with either his mother Atossa or Darius, the tragedy is not a family drama. Xerxes enters into dialogue only with the Dance. To him he is accountable, to him he is justified, to him he commands.

So what does Aeschylus do? He makes an anti-war-political drama, in a Greek language, which the particular meter he uses makes it seem acoustically Persian, without talking about politics, he shows a deep empathy for the pain of the enemies, while he is on the side of the victors, without the slightest triumphalism (not a Greek name is mentioned, not a Greek achievement). Pain is the same in both camps, death is death on both sides (in Atossa’s dream, Greece and Persia are sisters).

In Aeschylus, man’s responsibility for his actions appears for the first time, despite the fact that divine causality also exists (double causality). Xerxes is responsible for the destruction, no one exonerates him, yet he has the right to treatment and the restoration of his mental balance. The reception with the most brilliant clothes that Darius recommends, isn’t what he restores his self-image, which by restoring it, will help him take the responsibility due to his position? In another sense this is the ultimate healing act. This is Aeschylus’ way of showing the great reserves of his humanity.

The tragedy ends with Xerxes’ dialogue with the Horo-people, he has to answer to them, he feels embarrassed with them, he asks them to support him and at the same time in an authoritarian way he tries to impose his own way of mourning on them, it is a Xerxes who on the one hand he has lost all prestige and sees it, and at the same time he tries to exercise power. He still has a long way to go mentally to realize his reality. Aeschylus leaves him on the stage unaware, but he has prepared the healing framework. Of course, we do not know what answer he would possibly give to the two other tragedies that belonged to the same tetralogy. (The Persians is the 2nd tragedy of the tetralogy to which it belonged).

What does it bring to mind about modern politics? There are many Xerxes in the world political scene and there always will be. But how do the Dance-peoples function today, they are thinking, fighting for the past (the memory of the people), the present, the future, (f 402-405 “O children of the Greeks, if you liberate your country, you liberate a child, a woman, gods For the values ​​of life, as G. Vassiliou used to say?

What is the dominant hubris today? It could be the work of a whole conference. The first thing that comes to mind is the time gap, the excessive focus on the present and the annihilation of the value of the past and the future. In ancient Greek mythology, Mnemosyne was a Titan, daughter of Gaia and Uranus and companion of Zeus, with whom she gave birth to the nine Muses, who created the arts.

If we imagine, now, the scene in the theater of Dionysus, in the Great Dionysia, that the Persians were being performed, a few years after the naval battle of Salamis, and that among the spectators were entire Athenian families with their children, to see at least 12 tragedies, continuously (at that time all activity stopped and the attendance of the performances was subsidized by the state, so that everyone could attend). Can we today respond to this task of such a long duration? What equivalent of collective education do we have today? Unfortunately none. We have the garbage of television, social networks, information overload that we cannot synthesize because it constantly leaves us in the open system phase, because closure and assimilation requires an active effort, not a passive one.

Historical Context and Structure

“The Persians” was first performed in 472 BC, merely eight years after the Battle of Salamis, a pivotal naval confrontation during the Greco-Persian Wars where the Greek fleet achieved a decisive victory over the Persians. This historical proximity lends the play an immediacy and relevance uncommon in Aeschylus’s works, which are typically based on mythological or legendary events.

The structure of “The Persians” adheres to the conventional format of Greek tragedy, comprising a prologue, parodos (entry of the chorus), episodes (scenes), stasimon (choral odes), and exodus (concluding scene). However, it diverges from the typical narrative by focusing not on Greek heroes but on the Persian court, providing a rare glimpse into the enemy’s perspective. This narrative choice allows Aeschylus to explore themes of hubris, fate, and the human cost of war from an angle that invokes both empathy and reflection.

Themes and Characterization

At the heart of “The Persians” lies the theme of hubris, embodied by Xerxes, the Persian king whose overconfidence leads to the disastrous defeat. The play opens with the Persian elders anxiously awaiting news from the battlefield. Their concerns foreshadow the devastating news brought by a messenger, who graphically describes the destruction of the Persian fleet. The character of Queen Atossa, Xerxes’ mother, serves as a central figure through whom the audience experiences the tragic downfall of the Persian empire. Her lamentations and subsequent consultation with the ghost of Darius, Xerxes’ father, underscore the play’s exploration of divine retribution and the inevitable consequences of human arrogance.

The ghost of Darius provides a critical commentary on Xerxes’ actions, attributing the disaster to his reckless ambition and failure to heed wise counsel. This supernatural element not only enhances the dramatic tension but also reinforces the moral lesson of the play. Aeschylus uses Darius to articulate a traditional Greek view of the cosmos, where excessive pride (hubris) inevitably incurs the wrath of the gods, leading to downfall (nemesis).

The Persian Perspective

Aeschylus’s decision to depict the Persians sympathetically is notable. Rather than demonizing the enemy, he humanizes them, portraying their grief, despair, and sense of loss. This empathetic portrayal serves multiple purposes. Firstly, it allows the audience to see the universal impact of war, transcending nationalistic boundaries. The grief of the Persians mirrors that which any society might experience in the wake of devastating loss, fostering a sense of shared humanity.

Secondly, this perspective encourages the Greek audience to reflect on their own values and actions. By presenting the Persians as noble yet flawed, Aeschylus prompts his audience to consider the fine line between victory and hubris. The play implicitly warns against the dangers of excessive pride and the moral responsibilities that come with power and success.

Broader Significance

“The Persians” stands out in the corpus of Greek tragedy for its historical basis and its empathetic treatment of the enemy. It provides valuable insights into Greek perceptions of their Persian adversaries and serves as a poignant commentary on the nature of war and leadership. Aeschylus’s work transcends the specific historical context to address broader themes of human ambition, divine justice, and the tragic consequences of hubris.