Modern performance of Persians at Epidaurus (Source: utexas.edu) Aeschylus was probably born at Eleusis (at ?525 BC), fought in the Battle of Marathon (490 BC) and perhaps also at Salamis (480 BC), which is described in detail as the battle in Persians. He wrote 70-90 plays, 7 of which have survived in medieval manuscripts. Substantial fragments survive of 2 more plays. His earlier plays (Persians, being the earliest surviving Greek play, included) are designed without a skēnē (stage building). His idea of tragedy is, in a way, a bit optimistic: all human suffering can ultimately be put down to 'some evil or foolish action' (e.g. ill-advised decisions, hubris, not caring about oracular warnings). The consequences of these actions, however, spread like fire and reach the descendants of the perpetrator and, in the end, the whole community, even though they are not to blame. (Main source throughout blog entry: OCCC) The play was so thoroughly analysed in the course book that I feel there's not much to add. This and the fact that Persians is not the most exciting play I have ever read/listened to/seen left me somewhat uninspired. Still, I don't like calling something just boring, so I've decided to dig a bit and see what I can find. One of the obvious problems with Persians (performed in 472 BC) is that the plot is anything but intricate. I had the same problem with Agamemnon (another play by Aeschylus): it felt like it only consisted of one scene, and I spent the whole time thinking: "when are they going to move on to the next one?". It may be that for me it was written text not live performance, and it didn't take place during the course of a festival which I attended with my fellow citizens on the slope of the Acropolis. I can imagine that the actual performance of the play was quite powerful as it focused on spectacle: the luxury of the Persian court (beautiful costumes) and then the downfall (Xerxes in rags). It is not just gloating though. It is an interesting idea to present your enemy as the tragic hero, as this inevitably gives them some dignity. It's difficult to say whether this was intended or not, and all this, of course, heavily depends on the interpretation and actual acting out of the written text. I suppose Xerxes could be presented as ridiculous or tragic or a mixture. Most Greek tragedies I have read were revolving around a powerful (and usually scary) female character, and the Persians is no exception - in a way: the Queen (who is sometimes referred to as Atossa, although her name is never actually mentioned in the play) is a central and majestic figure, but rather weak in contrast to the queens in Greek tragedy who don't just wait around and worry, but pick up an axe and kill (their family members or themselves). The play is full of lists of names: the names of the Persian generals and also of places in the Persian Empire and the Eastern Mediterranean. I think for a modern reader this is very artificial and does not serve any understandable function. They are obviously there for showing the vastness of the Persian Empire, the multitude of warriors marching against Greece (practically the whole of Asia was emptied), but it just goes on and on. The Messenger, listing the war dead, mentions 19 names in a relatively short passage in ll. 302-331. Later, ll. 480-496 is a geography lesson. A history lesson and Persian king list is provided in ll. 760-783. Another lengthy geography lesson can be found in ll. 857-896. All this continues relentlessly until the bitter end, when Xerxes is questioned by the Chorus about casualties, name by name. And he has to confess that the whole Persian army has been wiped out, showing them his quiver, once 'the storehouse of arrows' (l. 1022), now (presumably) bare. (We have already been told that 'the / whole barbarian force has perished' by the Messenger in ll. 254-5, but now we can relive that moment again). Aeschylus describes with relish how the Persians panic, try to retreat and escape and how mercilessly their archers are 'butchered' by the Greeks (l. 463). At the same time, as this is from the Persians' perspective, their deaths are recounted in graphic detail but with a strong emphasis on loss. It must have tainted the sense of triumph and self-congratulation the audience felt. This and the way the Queen is presented as a mother and the fact that she conducts herself with modesty despite the fact that she is decked out in gold (to me, she is the least 'Persian' and could be anybody's mother really). Aeschylus takes some pains to put all responsibility on Xerxes, and absolve Dareios and the Queen for some reason (or at least the Chorus keep saying how great Dareios was and Dareios seems to be of the same opinion). Mentions of Greece (or Athens), the place the Persians attempted to conquer at their peril, are carefully but not particularly artfully woven into the text. The superiority of the Greeks is simply referred to by emphasising their freedom and ingenuity, the product of their struggle with the land, which, they well know, can't support a huge army ('For the very soil of Greece is their ally... It starves to death any excess population', ll. 791-794). The hubris and cumbersome movement of the Persians (symbolised by the bridging of the Bosporos) is contrasted with the practical problem-solving and manoeuvring skills of the Greeks (Battle of Salamis). I'm sure this was the ultimate message of the play (sponsored by Pericles), which, apparently, did not form part of a 3 tragedies plus 1 satyr-play tetralogy as was the custom (the other plays seem to be totally unrelated: Phineus, Glaucus of Potniae and Prometheus the Fire-Kindler).
2 Comments
John Harker
12/16/2010 12:23:07 pm
Hi Olga
Reply
Alan Carson
12/17/2010 02:50:26 pm
Hello again Olga,
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorHave studied A219 Exploring the Classical World and A275 Reading Classical Greek at the Open University. Currently studying for a Psychology degree. ImagesPlease click on any image to be taken to its source.
Archives
August 2014
Categories
All
Resources |