When trying to compare Herodotus and Aeschylus, do not fall
for the trap of the false dichotomy. I’d suggest that the two writers have very
similar purposes and very similar attitudes to their subject matter. I’d
suggest that Herodotus is a little more cynical and a little more removed and
of course the genres are different. But perhaps not as different as they seem.
Both rely on Homer as a kind of model; both are powerful examples of taking
real events and eye-witness accounts and shaping them to be able to construct a
compelling narrative.
Both of them are admirers of Athens and Athenian democracy
and both are deeply critical of the hubris of leaders which leads them to
ignore wise advice; whether it comes from other mortals or from the world of
the gods, dreams and oracles. Both are also deeply aware of the risks of Empire
building and of what we might call the Homeric paradox – War is how men win
glory; but however Necessary it might be, its reality is brutal and cruel and
leaves the innocent bereft of fathers, brothers, husbands and sons.
Perhaps most interesting, both are producing texts where
“barbarians” play a central role. Barbarian means simply one who is not Greek.
All other peoples were barbarians to the Greeks and while there is an element
of judgement involved – the Greeks clearly thought themselves superior (as all
peoples tend to) – it does not have any of the same implications as its modern
usage. The Greeks do see the Persians as “soft” – pampered, luxuriant and
feminised. They find their clothing ludicrous and their attitudes strange.
Herodotus in particular juxtaposes an idea of Greek freedom, with the despots
of Persia.
The question then is why would both texts choose this focus;
in Aeschylus’ case, an exclusive focus. There are no Greek characters in the
Persians, nor even any Greeks named. I think the answer lies in the
socio-historical context. With the expulsion of Xerxes’ army after the Battle
of Platea in 479BCE; and having seen off the Persian navy at Salamis earlier
that year – Greece is free, at least in the short term, from the Persian
threat. This is not, as Aeschylus suggests, the end of Xerxes or of Persia as a
major power. In fact the continuing threat of Persia is key to what happens
next in Athens. The Athenians broker a deal with a number of other Greek states
to set up a treasury, initially on the island of Delos (a supposedly neutral
territory). This fund will be a war chest in case there is a further Persian
invasion and much of it is used to build a navy, which Athens controls. This
Delian League is matched by a similar grouping of city states around Sparta on
the Peloponnese. Over time though Athenian supremacy and the fact that they
control the navy means that the Treasury is moved to Athens (to the Acropolis
in fact, apparently for its protection!) and the League becomes an Athenian
Empire where the the other states become not so much equal members as
tribute-paying vassals.
This Empire is still in the future when Aeschylus writes,
but it was certainly already in the wind. By the time Herodotus is writing, the
Athenians imperial ambitions have helped create the circumstances for the
Peloponnesian War. I would suggest that both writers are wary of the ambitions
of Athens and are offering a warning. Herodotus is in fact explicit – those
that are great will fall; those that are small can become great.
The two writers spend so much time examining the Persians
because the I think they believe that the fate of Persia will become the fate
of Athens. This is especially pertinent for Aeschylus. He is working with what
will become a trope of tragedy – he may even have created it. Tragedians use
The Other in order to create for their audiences the painful experiences and
uncomfortable truths that are too difficult to watch if they are about
ourselves. Tragedy is almost always set outside Athens – in Corinth or Thebes
or in the case of The Persians – the court of the Persian King. It is almost
always set also in the distant, mythic past. (The Persians is a fascinating
exception to this). And it is peopled by
characters who are not the Athenian male citizen audience. Foreigners, slaves
and women make up a disproportionate number of the characters in tragedy.
By watching the suffering of The Other, Athenian citizens
can learn the valuable lessons; can experience catharsis; can look their own
crimes and suffering in the face – but in a way which is far more palatable and
easier to digest.
