Эсхил в зуме
Jun. 28th, 2020 04:50 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
diejacobsleiter1. The tragedy may be incomplete. There should probably be the scene of Atossa meeting Xerxes. And there is a confusion with the final part, exodus. It has its final “adieu”, yes, but it also sounds more like a kommos, “lacrimosa”, the scene of actor’s and choir’s weeping, a moment of “emotional reflection”. And kommos is a scene that should be rather the climax than the end of a tragedy. All this means that one should be careful in conclusions about the plot and the form.
2. At first sight, the tragedy looks “sensationally” different from others that we know, because it tells the story of a very recent historic events, and not mythological ones. However, I wouldn’t exaggerate the difference. In its main features, the tragedy is very similar to the others. One should realize that most of the “mythology”, especially about Trojan war, or Thebes, or Heracles, was as real and true for Greeks as the recent war.
3. Only for hyper-criticism of the XIX century, everything was doubtful and suspicious, a tale, a fake, a “myth” (in a journalists’ meaning of the word, i.e. “lie”). Those scientists worked under the presumption of lie. Hence all the doubts about authorship and historic authenticity (e.g. the Trojan war). Ironically, this attitude became popular in the century of massive literary falsifications (starting from “Makpherson songs”) and artificially created “national cultures”.
4. But Greeks were unaware of such hyper-critical attitude and took their myths as historic truth. We know that Homer was rather playful than religious in his mythology: he lived in “decadent” times of irony, skepticism and postmodernist deconstruction of old beliefs. But the authors of tragedies belonged to another epoch; they were quite sincere and serious. This, by the way, is why the mythology should be better learned from tragedies than from the texts by Homer.
5. So, there is no reason to distinguish The Persians from, for example, Agamemnon. Both wars were historic, and Agamemnon was as much a historic figure as Xerxes. But there is a more fundamental reason not to distinguish The Persians. The themes of the tragedy are very typical for the genre: hubris and divine punishment. In the following Dariu’s phrase it was expressed fully and clearly:
...that mortal man should not vaunt himself excessively. For presumptuous pride [hubris in the original], when it has matured, bears as its fruit a crop of calamity, from which it reaps an abundant harvest of tears...
ὡς οὐχ ὑπέρφευ θνητὸν ὄντα χρὴ φρονεῖν. ὕβρις γὰρ ἐξανθοῦσ᾽ ἐκάρπωσεν στάχυν ἄτης, ὅθεν πάγκλαυτον ἐξαμᾷ θέρος
6. The similarity will be more striking if one compares the beginning of “The Persians” with that of “Agamemnon”. The scheme is almost the same. The choir of elder men (“councilors”, “senators”, “collective wisdom”) expects the news from the war. The Queen exits the castle and they talk about the war. Then the Messenger comes and tells his story of the disaster. Then begins the choir’s meditation about what happened, with some theological analysis. Then the warlord returns (Agamemnon, Xerxes). So, in spite of a “modern times” demeanor, The Persians look very much like a first sketch of the Oresteia. Even the figure of the Darius, the Father-Ghost (also Agamemnon / Hamlet) adds some similarity.
7. Hubris, or violation of Measure, is the main sin in Greek ethics and theology (remember proverbs: “nothing above the measure”, “measure is the best” etc.). However, the idea of sin is ambivalent: it contains both attraction and disgust. So does the idea of hubris. Hubris is “bad”, but also beautiful and admirable.
8. Hubris means “a hero”. Unlike our understanding (hero is a brave man), for Greeks, hero is either a half-god / half-man, or, in most cases, a man violating the Measure. We admire a hero’s hubris, but we also know that it will be punished by gods; and so, with sadness and bitterness, we observe the inevitable fall of a hero.
9. Greeks had mixed feelings about Xerxes’ expedition. Yes, they were terrified by the army arriving to their land. And, of course, they hated the enemy. But they were also stunned by the hubris of the monarch whipping the sea and changing the landscape (the main image of hubris against the Natural Order) and leading such an incredibly huge army (another image of hubris – the size).
10. The descriptions of the Persian army (not only in the tragedy, but also in Herodotus’ History) are so detailed, so colorful, so “eyes-widely-opened”, so full of amazement, that it’s impossible not to see: Greeks admired that “hero of heroes”, the man so beautifully arrogant in defying any measure and reason. (Here one can also remember the Babylon Tower.) An incomparable hubris, which is followed by the “same-size” punishment: a complete catastrophe.
11. The symbol of hubris, the sea whipping, had a parallel in the Trojan war. Agamemnon was also stopped by the sea storm. To pass through, he sacrificed his daughter (another riot against the Nature), and for that hubris he was finally punished: he won the war but lost his army on the way back and eventually was killed by his wife.
12. What Greeks valued the most was hero’s dignity in the face of the punishment. Aeschylus showed his hero very respectfully. In his bitter self-scolding, Xerxes is completely honest; he accepts the gods’ punishment with dignity. The same could be said about his parents. Both Atossa and Darius-Ghost are honest and wise in their analysis of the events. They are all impeccably decent. No hatred, no stubbornness, no avenging rage, nothing “barbarous”, just noble acceptance.
13. We shouldn’t expect Greek tragedy to look like a Hollywood production for morons, where “our guys” are good, and “their guys” are always morally corrupt and evil. All Greek texts about wars, starting from The Iliad, are not judgmental. Enemy is always presented with moral neutrality and respect. So it would be anachronism to praise Aeschylus for being “human” towards the enemy. Why? There is nothing unusual for a Greek writer to have such an attitude: it was normal for Greek culture. It’s not normal for us, fed with mass-culture trash; but that’s not Aeschylus’ problem, only ours.
14. There is one more subject briefly mentioned by Atossa, but it needed no development for the audience, since every Greek child was brainwashed about it: the propaganda cliché about freedom and slavery.
Meseemed there came two women in fair guise,
Robed, one in Persian garb, one Dorian-wise,
...Of flawless beauty, sisters of one race.
Each had her home in its appointed place,
In Hellas one, and one in Barbary.
Then rose between them, so I seemed to see,
Some discord; and my son saw, and would fain
Calm them, and make them gentle to the rein
Beneath his chariot, and his yoke would bind
On both their necks; and one with head inclined
Was glad and plumed her in that harness proud,
Meek to the curb. The other, all uncowed,
Struggled, and with both hands asunder tore
The harness, and away unbridled bore
The chariot, and at mid-yoke snapt the wood;
And my son fell...
15. Greeks considered themselves the apostles of freedom (just like Americans, with their president “the leader of the free world”) and all “barbarians” as slaves since they lived in monarchy. Such self-portraying was a great hubris too. It’s a very childish and very provincial point of view, full of arrogance and naivety, typical for a younger civilization. (In Plato’s Timaeus there is a good passage about it: “...you Hellenes are never anything but children, and there is not an old man among you...; there is no old opinion handed down among you by ancient tradition, nor any science which is hoary with age...” etc.) And Greeks paid for their hubris: though their democracy brought many beautiful fruits, it transformed to ochlocracy (Socrates’ execution) and ended very soon. (Unfortunately, democracy is very fragile and never lasts long. It easily transforms to ochlocracy, or oligarchy, or tyranny...)
16. The culmination of the tragedy is the Ghost scene, the appearance of Darius. Why? Because now the human opinion about hubris and punishment, expressed both by the choir and Atossa, receives almost a divine confirmation – from the “other side”. It’s almost a God’s voice, saying: your diagnosis about “hubris and punishment” is correct. Another meaning of that father figure is even more interesting: Xerxes becomes a sort of a “prodigal son”, abandoning the father’s path and being punished for that.
17. Of course, in this tragedy, Darius is idealized. He becomes for Aeschylus a representation of Measure itself. Aeschylus gives a lot of thought to the matter. Hubris is better seen on the background of the opposite: Measure and Reason; and the reign of Darius is described as perfectly measured, reasonable and just (here Aeschylus forgets about the clichés of despotic barbarian state and slavery). His kingdom was being ruled wisely and kindly, and the people lived in peace and prosperity, and even Ionian Greek cities willingly accepted his authority.
18. And here the author’s thought goes deeper. The comparison of Darius and Xerxes now shows the difference between violent and non-violent ways in politics. Darius’ empire attracted people under its scepter (even Ionian Greeks), because it brought peace and prosperity and was built on human moral values. By the contrast, Xerxes’ military state was doomed to fall, because it terrorized the world, and mobilized people to resist by any means possible: win or die.
19. Thus, for example, the empire of Qin, the first totalitarian and legalist state in history, described and analyzed by historians, intended to last 10000 years, but lasted only 15. The same thing happened to the Third Reich, whose intention and methods were the same (to gain the world by violence, “law and order” and a terrifying military machine), but instead it mobilized all former enemies to unite and resist until the full victory. And so it lasted only 12 years. (Militarist totalitarian states have a very short breath too, much shorter than democracy.)
20. So Aeschylus made his clear choice in this eternal, basically human dilemma, that could be called “Confucianism vs legalism”, morality vs violence. He chooses Darius’ way of state-building: a decent state savoring reason and measure. Maybe such thoughts were actual for Athenians who were rebuilding their city from ruins. For them, that was a moment to start a new chapter (it always happens after a cleansing war). That was a moment of reflection about the fundamentals of politics, about the principles upon which the state should be rebuilt.
21. And here, again, The Oresteia could be mentioned as a parallel project: “the theology of democracy and its juridical system”, I would call the subject of Oresteia. Both texts could be understood better if we put them in the context of political reflection over the most basic principles of governing. There, in The Oresteia, the main theme is the dilemma of revenge / justice. Here, in The Persians, the dilemma of violent / non-violent politics is being discussed. It was actual for Greeks, whose cities were in a permanent war with each other, during decades. Sometimes they fought for tiny slices of land; but mostly for influence and political domination.
22. Athens have great ambitions to be the leader and the teacher of all Hellenes. Sometimes they fought for that militarily. But their real success comes after Persian wars, and the key to it was partially diplomacy, partially just attraction. They built a successful state, which attracted people from neighboring cities culturally, economically, and politically. The role of Pericles and his team was decisive in this transformation, and it’s worth mentioning here that Pericles was the “producer” of The Persians...
no subject
Date: 2020-06-29 06:33 am (UTC)Любовь греков к мере как-то по-новому заиграла.
no subject
Date: 2020-06-29 07:24 am (UTC)Там столько интересного, столько нитей, тянущихся в разные стороны...