Of the seven of Aeschylus’ plays which survive The Persians, first performed in 472 BC at the festival of Dionysus, is the earliest. The play is a historical tragedy, based on the recently fought Persian Wars, or more specifically, the battle of Salamis. The play is set in the Persian royal court in Susa, the main characters being the chorus of Persian elders, Atossa, the king’s mother, the ghost of the dead king Darius, and the king himself (the Great King) Xerxes. (Also messenger).
The Persian Wars
The westernmost part of the vast empire that was Persia was a region named Ionia. The Ionians claimed kinship with Greeks rather than with Persians, in particular the cities which were also of Ionian descent such as Athens. In 494 the Ionians revolted against oppressive Persian rule and sent to their fellow Ionians in Greece for help; and the Athenians duly sent aid. The revolt was put down, but the Persian king, Darius, was determined never to forget the role of the Athenians. It is said that he had one of his servants say to him “remember Athens”, three times each day when he sat down to dinner. In 490 a Persian force sent by him was defeated at Marathon by the Athenians and Plataeans. Ten years later, his son, Xerxes was determined to finally bring retribution to the Greeks. He built a bridge over the Hellespont and fought three battles: Thermopylae in 480, which the Persians won, Salamis, a naval battle, also in 480, in which the Athenians dealt him a devastating blow, and finally a land battle at Plataea in 479 which ended Xerxes’ expedition (although he had already returned to Persia the previous year). The Persian threat remained and to combat this a Delian League was founded by the Greeks under the leadership of Athens. This league formed the basis for the Athenian Empire. (454 - money moved)
Historical aspect
Aeschylus’ Persae was only written 8 years after the battle of Salamis; his audience would have remembered it. (the battle was fought not far from where this was being performed) It may seem to us that it was all too recent to be composing a play about it, but Kitto argues that remoteness of place compensates for nearness in time, and that by setting it in Susa Aeschylus could develop a broad moral theme despite the short time which had elapsed since the battle. Furthermore, this was not even the first play on the topic, Phrynichus staged his play on the Persian Wars in 476 BC. By writing another play on the same topic only 4 years later Aeschylus is demonstrating that he has more to say on the topic, which would imply that this play was written for more than just the glory of Athens.
There are historical inaccuracies in the play. For example the action occurring on the island of Psyttalia (where, according to Aeschylus the cream of the Persian army met their death) is exaggerated. Also Darius is portrayed as the prudent king who is against Xerxes’ attempt to yoke Greece as “the land itself is their [the Greeks’] ally” (l. 792), although Darius himself had sent a force against Greece in the afore mentioned battle of Marathon. This can either be taken as being mere inaccuracies, that is to say due to misinformation or ignorance, or, more likely, there is a dramatic reason, thereby agreeing with the notion that Aeschylus had particular reasons for producing a play on a similar topic to one performed four years earlier.
Tragedy
As this is a historical tragedy commemorating a great Athenian victory the question is is this a true tragedy in the Aristotelian sense of fall from prosperity to adversity, or is it merely a patriotic commemoration of Greek victory? There definitely is an element of a patriotism in it, and I think this is acknowledged. For examples in Aristophanes’ Frogs Aeschylus recalls his presentation of Persae in which “by glorifying a great deed I taught [the Athenians] to desire always to conquer their enemies”. This doesn’t necessarily mean that this was Aeschylus’ or even Aristophanes’ view, but the presence of such a line shows that the audience would have understood something in this. There are elements of the play which are clearly so written for the sake of Athenian pride. For example there’s the description of the Greek fleet in all its splendour at the outset of the battle (ll.386-401). Much is made of the size of the Persian army as this makes the Greek victory even more impressive. When the outcome of Salamis is being reported to them Aeschylus has Atossa ask specifically the number of the Greek ships. There is no mention of any minor Persian success, nor does any Persian warrior have a moment of glory. In contrast, as has already been mentioned, much was made of the relatively minor Greek victory at Psytalleia. It has been noted that nor does Aeschylus include specific victories of various Greek soldiers, in fact not one is mentioned by name. However the case has also been put that it wasn’t the Greeks who won the battle, it was the gods.
What should also be noted is that, although the term ’Greek’ is used most of the time, it was in fact the Athenians. It may seem therefore that Aeschylus is deliberately trying not to pander to Athenian pride. However, the name Athens occurs frequently within the text, and at key moments, thus linking Athens with the action; for example (l. 231) the queen straight after relating her dream enquires, not if there is any news, but where Athens lies.
Secondly then to examine this play as a Persian tragedy. What is interesting here is that the announcement of defeat comes early on in the play, leaving the rest of it to lamentation. A spirit of doom is fostered even in the opening by their worry at the long absence, and by the women grieving for their husbands. The fall from Persian prosperity comes by way of wealth, war, ignorance, impiety and divine intervention. The wealth is Xerxes’ desire to increase what Darius created; war is self-evident, the ignorance and impiety are the characteristics of “impetuous” Xerxes (and his ubris), in daring to bridge the Hellespont and in foolishly relying on his navy when the Persians real power lay in their land army. Lastly then, is divine intervention; this is quite evident from any reading of the play, the word daimwn meaning a divine being, a spirit, a demon or fate, seems to appear more than any other. What we have here is a fall from prosperity for many reasons, and yet the play focuses more on the adversity than the time before the fall. This is possibly because this becomes a starting point for new prosperity, for Persia remained a threat for many more years, as is evidenced by the formation of the Delian League. As Atossa says “mortals must endure the affliction when sent by heaven” (ll. 293-294)
What we have here is both a Persian tragedy and an Athenian celebration. The play may seem to concentrate on the Persian tragedy, yet we must remember that the audience was Athenian, so they would have been very aware of and would have picked up on any allusions to Athens or to the greatness of the victory won, such as I mentioned earlier.
This play shows therefore both triumph and disaster, joy and lament. Gagarin argues that this co-existence of opposites is crucial to the play. Persae has no agwn or no conflict between two opposed individuals. Instead it has two wholly contrasting viewpoints. This use of the number two reoccurs throughout the play (not only important because of the fact that Aeschylus added the second actor), Aeschylus uses mirror scenes, that is, a similar scene replayed, usually it occurs before and after the peripateia so that the contrast is evident. The best example here are the two entrances of the queen. The first time she is in a chariot, and the very image of wealth and opulence. The second time she has dispensed with all of this, having now been afflicted by tragedy. There are other instances of twos, for example the two women in Atossa’s dream, the contrast between the two kings, and it occurs often within the text - the true tragedy of the Persian army outweighs the catastrophe that is Salamis twice over, and Xerxes is criticised for having a twofold front of double armament.
The tragedy of the Persian empire can also be seen as a warning to the development of the Athenian empire, as well as on an individual level, the clear warning of advancing too far on account of hubris, and a celebration of the Athenian victory. By thus developing the play beyond that of a purely historical tragedy Aeschylus may be demonstrating (and we can’t know details as we don’t have Phrynichus’ text) that, although written only four years apart, that there is merit in having two plays on the Persian Wars.
Bibliography
Ÿ Kitto, Greek Tragedy
Ÿ Taplin, The Stagecraft of Aeschylus
Ÿ Gagarin, Aeschylean Drama
Ÿ Murray, Aeschylus
Ÿ Said, ‘Tragedy and Reversal in Persians’ in Lloyd, Aeschylus
Theatre of Dionysus in Athens
