Πέρσες

by Aeschylus, Αισχύλος, Γιώργος Μπλάνας (Translator)

Ο Γλαύκος, στην πραγματεία του για τους μύθους του Αισχύλου, λέει ότι οι Πέρσες διαμορφώθηκαν σύμφωνα με τις Φοίνισσες του Φρύνιχου, καθώς κι εκείνος άρχιζε την τραγωδία με τους ίδιους στίχους: "Των Περσών, που έχουν φύγει για την Ελλάδα". Αλλά στο έργο του Φρύνιχου τον πρόλογο τον έκανε ένας ευνούχος, ο οποίος ετοίμαζε τους θρόνους στους οποίους θα κάθονταν οι σύμβουλοι της Αυτοκρατορίας, ενώ το έργο του Αισχύλου αρχίζει με την πάροδο του χορού γερόντων προεστών, οι οποίοι κάνουν και τον πρόλογο. Ο Αισχύλος νίκησε στους τραγικούς αγώνες -επί Μένωνος- με την τριλογία Φινεύς -Πέρσαι- Γλαύκος Ποτνιεύς και το σατυρικό δράμα Προμηθεύς Πυρκαεύς. Η τραγωδία εξελίσσεται δίπλα στο μνήμα του Δαρείου και η υπόθεση είναι η ακόλουθη: ο Ξέρξης εκστράτευσε κατά της Ελλάδας· το πεζικό του ηττήθηκε στις Πλαταιές και το ναυτικό του στη Σαλαμίνα· ο ίδιος διέφυγε στη Θεσσαλία και κατάφερε να περάσει στην Ασία. Η πρώτη εκστρατεία των Περσών -του Δαρείου- συντρίφτηκε στον Μαραθώνα και η δεύτερη -του Ξέρξη- στη Σαλαμίνα και στις Πλαταιές.

Genres: Plays, Classics, Drama, Fiction, Theatre, Poetry, Tragedy

112 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 473

About the author

Greek Αισχύλος , Esquilo in Spanish, Eschyle in French, Èsquil in Catalan, Eschilo in Italian, Эсхил in Russian.

Aeschylus (c. 525/524 BC – c. 456 BC) was an ancient Greek tragedian often described as the father of tragedy. Academic knowledge of the genre begins with his work, and understanding of earlier Greek tragedy is largely based on inferences made from reading his surviving plays. According to Aristotle, he expanded the number of characters in the theatre and allowed conflict among them. Formerly, characters interacted only with the chorus.
Only seven of Aeschylus's estimated 70 to 90 plays have survived. There is a long-standing debate regarding the authorship of one of them, Prometheus Bound, with some scholars arguing that it may be the work of his son Euphorion. Fragments from other plays have survived in quotations, and more continue to be discovered on Egyptian papyri. These fragments often give further insights into Aeschylus' work. He was likely the first dramatist to present plays as a trilogy. His Oresteia is the only extant ancient example. At least one of his plays was influenced by the Persians' second invasion of Greece (480–479 BC). This work, The Persians, is one of very few classical Greek tragedies concerned with contemporary events, and the only one extant. The significance of the war with Persia was so great to Aeschylus and the Greeks that his epitaph commemorates his participation in the Greek victory at Marathon while making no mention of his success as a playwright.

Reviews

[Olga · Rating 5 out of 5]

'Persians' is the first Greek tragedy I have read. It is based on a historic event - the Persian king Xerxes comes back home after the disastrous defeat of his navy by the Greeks. Everybody laments the loss of the many young Persian men and the Persian fleet.
The role of the Chorus was something new to me. The Chorus is one of the main characters, it has its own point of view and its voice. It does most of the mourning.

CHORUS
Aaaaiii! Cry out your sorrows,
and learn the tale in full.
Where are they now, that multitude
of other friends so dear to us?
Where are the ones who stood by you—
Pharandaces, and Sousas, and Pelagon,
with Agabatas and Dotamas,
Psammis, and Sousiskanes,
who came from Agbatana?
XERXES
I left them there. They perished,
tumbling out of their Tyrian ship
by the coast of Salamis,
beaten against its rugged shore.
CHORUS
Aaaiii! Where is Pharnouchus, your friend,
and Ariomardus, that glorious man?
And lord Seualcus or Lilaios,
descended from a noble line,
or Memphis, Tharybis, and Masistras,
or Hystaichmas and Artembares?
I am asking you about them, too.
(...)
XERXES
Those leaders of our forces are all dead.
CHORUS
They are gone? Alas! And with no glory!
XERXES
Aaaaiiii! The sorrow!
CHORUS
Alas! Alas, you spirits above,
you bring us such disaster,
so unforeseen and yet so clear to see, 1180
as if the goddess of folly, Ate,
had glanced at us in this calamity.1
XERXES
We have been hit by blows,
smitten by unexpected blows of fate!
CHORUS
Yes, all too clearly stricken!
(...)
CHORUS
And of our splendid Persian glory
what has not perished?
XERXES
Do you see my robes—
what’s left of them?
CHORUS
Yes, I see . . . I see them now.
XERXES
And my quiver here . . .
CHORUS
What are you saying?
Is this what has been saved?
XERXES
. . . this holder for my arrows?
CHORUS
So small a remnant from so many!
XERXES
We have lost all our protectors!

[Ali Ahmadi · Rating 3 out of 5]

تولد یک ژانر
اولین‌ها همیشه بحث‌برانگیزند. مثلن شروع فلسفه‌ی غرب را زمانی می‌دانند که جهان‌بینی میتوسی یا افسانه‌ای هومر و هزیود، جای خودش را به مشاهده‌گری و منطق لوگوسی سقراط و افلاطون داد. اما این تقسیم‌بندی‌ها همیشه بسیاری را هم در ناحیه‌ای خاکستری قرار می‌دهد. شخصیت‌هایی مثل فیثاغورس، با وجود جدایی فکری از جهانی که آشیل و زئوس را راهنمای افتخار و سعادت می‌دانست، ایده‌هایشان را کماکان در پوسته‌ای از ابهام و ماورا می‌پیچدند. [شخصیت‌های بسیار گمنام‌تر و خاکستری‌تری مثل فِرِسیدس هم داریم که ارسطو در متافیزیکش از او به عنوان یک پیشافیلسوف (و نه یک فیلسوف پیشاسقراطی) یاد می‌کند و اولین کسانی که در افسانه‌نگاری‌هایش می‌شود ردپایی از تفکر فلسفی را دید.]

پارسیان نه فقط قدیمی‌ترین متن نمایشی تاریخ است که به دست ما رسیده، بلکه تنها تراژدی بازمانده از یونان است که کاملن بر پایه‌ی یک رویداد تاریخی نوشته شده: شکست خشایارشای اول از ارتش متحد دولت‌شهرهای یونانی در نبرد سالامیس. آیسخولوس که خودش با سپاه داریوش اول، پدر خشایارشا، جنگیده و شاید حتا در سالامیس هم حضور داشته، به‌دنبال بازگو کردن تاریخ نیست و دغدغه‌ش در تراژدی تاباندن نور به سویه‌‌هایی از انسان بودن است که مرز‌های زمانی و مکانی را نمی‌شناسند، البته که اگر در کنارش بتواند کمی غرور وطن دوستانه را در مخاطب برانگیزد چه بهتر. پارسیان را می‌توان از اولین تلاش‌هایی دانست که به جای جست‌وجوی روایت در گذشته‌‌های بسیار دور و دست‌نیافتنی،‌ جای پایش را در تاریخ معاصر پیدا می‌کند. البته که هنوز تا تاریخ هرودوتی چند دهه فاصله داریم و تا آن زمان —از جمله همینجا— باید هنوز انگیزه‌ها و دلایل رویدادهای تاریخی واقعی را در خواست خدایان بیابیم.

آنچه فدا شد
برخلاف تراژدی‌های دیگر که اغلب پیچشی غیرمنتظره به یک روایت رایج اسطوره‌ای می‌اندازند و تماشاگر را غافلگیر می‌کنند، در پارسیان تقریبن همه چیز همانطور است که باید باشد. و شاید همین است که نمایشنامه را از نفس می‌اندازد. در هیچ زمانی هیچ شخصیتی مجبور نیست که تصمیمی جان‌کاه بگیرد و بازی دوسرباختی را آغاز کند. همه چیز رخ داده و آنچه می‌بینیم در ابتدا اضطراب و ترس ایرانی‌‌هاست و بعد از بالا رفتن پرده‌ها، افسوس و مویه‌شان. یکی تعریف می‌کند و دیگری تفسیر، بدون فرصتی برای کنش و واکنش. انگار آیسخولوس دوست داشته تا به تماشاچیان —که فرارِ هفت‌هشت سال پیشتر از آتن و تماشای سوختنش را به‌‌خاطر داشتند— کمک کند که این تجربه‌ی تحقیرآمیز را فراموش و یاد پیروزی‌ بزرگی را که به‌دنبالش آمده زنده کنند. پارسیان در مرز باریک ادبیات و پروپاگاندا حرکت می‌کند و با اینکه هیچ وقت بلندگوی تبلیغاتی یونان نمی‌شود نوعی غرور میهنی در آن به‌چشم می‌خورد که در بیشتر تراژدی‌ها غایب است، نوعی افتخار به سامان سیاسی پولیس.

آتوسا: خداوندگار ایشان کیست؟ فرمان از کدام کس می‌برند؟
همسرایان: خداوندگار؟ آنان بنده‌ی کس نیستند.
آتوسا: تواند بود آیا که مردمی بی‌خداوندگار پاسدار شهری باشند یا به‌شهری بتازند؟
همسرایان: آری تواند بود.

نمونه‌ی دیگرش رویایی‌ست که مردم ایران و یونان را به دو زن زیبا تشبیه می‌کند که خشایارشا آن‌ها را به ارابه‌اش می‌بندد. اولی آسوده‌وار تن به فرمان می‌دهد، ولی دومی سر می‌کشد و می‌کوشد تا بلاخره بند بگسیخت، چرمینه افسار به سویی افکند و یوغ چوبین دو نیمه کرد.
بعضی اوقات هم زیاده‌روی می‌کند و مثلن تعداد کشتی‌های ایرانیان را آنقدر زیاد می‌کند که پیروزی یونانیان را شگفت‌انگیزتر جلوه‌ دهد یا در عجیب‌ترین حرکتش، داریوش را بی هیچ دلیلی به اصلی‌ترین منتقد حملات خشایارشا به یونان تبدیل می‌کند، در صورتی که همه (از جمله تماشاگر آن زمان) می‌دانند آرزوی تسخیر سراسر یونان را داریوش در سر پسرش کاشته.

آنچه به‌دست آمد
اما نوشتن نمایشنامه‌های تاریخی بدون وارد کردن حب و بغض شخصی کار راحتی نیست. نمونه‌های امروزی‌اش را نگاه کنیم. نتیجه‌های درخشان مثل مرگ یزدگرد (و بسیاری از کارهای دیگر بیضایی) کمتر‌ند از آثاری که شاید برای زمانه‌ی خودشان قابل توجه بوده‌اند، اما امروز ارزش‌شان فقط این است که در کتاب‌های تاریخ ادبیات بیایند. (مثل مازیار یا پروین دختر ساسان، دو نمایشنامه‌ی هدایت جوان در سال‌های ابتدایی قرن چهاردهم شمسی، یا فیلم‌نامه‌ی بسیاری از فیلم‌های ساخته‌شده در آمریکا درباره‌ی آلمان نازی.) آنچه که پارسیان را از یک اثر فراموش‌شدنی به جایگاهی برتر (و البته هم‌چنان دور از اورستیا و سایر تراژدی‌های ماندگار) می‌رساند همین است که دشمن را به جایگاه دیگری فرونمی‌کاهد، که نشود او را شناخت، فهمید و هم‌دردش شد. داریوش، آتوسا، خشایارشا و رایزنان دربارشان نه وحشی‌هایی تن‌آسا، خدانشناس و شیفته‌ی زر، که آدم‌هایی‌اند بسیار شبیه شهروندان یونانی. آن‌ها همچنان از ناپایداری روزگار و رنج مدام می‌نالند (وه که این زندگانی چه دیر می‌پاید و خرمنی که به پیرانه‌سر بر می‌دارم اندوه تازه است و سرشک بی‌اندازه) و در موقع نیاز زئوس را به یاری می‌خواهند. (احتمالن شهروند عادی آن زمان هم می‌دانسته که پارسیان خدا یا خدایان دیگری دارند.)

آیسخولوس با این نمایشنامه (و در حقیقت برای سه‌گانه‌ای که تنها این قسمتش به ما رسیده) جایزه‌ی اول جشنواره را از آن خود می‌کند، و با اینکه تراژدی تاریخی هیچ گاه در یونان آنقدر محبوب نمی‌شود، اما گوشه‌ای می‌ماند تا روزی بشود هنریاد و ژولیوس سزار شکسپیر. در تاریخ، اما و اگر نداریم، اما اگر خشایارشا پیروز میشد، چه اتفاقی برای ادبیات و فلسفه‌ی یونان می‌افتاد؟

— خوانده‌شده از ترجمه‌ی کوثری

[Luís · Rating 2 out of 5]

You almost feel shy before opening "The Persians." We know its historical immensity.
And then we apprehend a long and dull reading, a generality that we apply all too often to the dramatic theatre of antiquity, sometimes wrongly. Not always.
Finally, careful reading and some research parallel to the discovery of the work have fascinated us with this story that comes from afar.

[Paul Haspel · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Persian Empire invaded Greece in 480 B.C., and came to grief when the Greeks decisively defeated the Persians at the naval battle of Salamis and the land battle of Plataea. And just seven or eight years after that key moment from classical history, those dramatic events were brought to the Athenian stage by the playwright Aeschylus – in The Persians, the first Western play that has survived to the present day in its complete form.

Aeschylus (c. 525-455 B.C.) is conventionally spoken of as being the first of Athens’ triad of great tragic dramatists, with Sophocles and Euripides following after him and building upon his achievements. But making that kind of flat statement does not do justice to the magnitude of Aeschylus’ status as an innovator. Before Aeschylus, characters in classical Greek drama spoke only to the chorus – a holdover, no doubt, from the time when Greek plays served a strictly religious function. Aeschylus, by contrast, had characters in his plays speak to each other. In that regard, he can truly be called the Father of Drama.

And when Aeschylus wrote about the Greco-Persian Wars, he wrote not only as a concerned Athenian citizen and talented dramatist, but also as a military veteran who had risked his life to preserve the Athenian democracy. Aeschylus was about 35 years old when he fought the invading armies of the Persian emperor Darius I, at the Battle of Marathon in September of 490 B.C. Ten years later, Aeschylus took up arms again, when Darius’ son, the emperor Xerxes, launched his own invasion of Greece; and Aeschylus participated in the two Athenian victories that sent Xerxes’ soldiers reeling back in defeat: the naval battle of Salamis (September, 480 B.C.), and the land battle of Plataea (August, 479 B.C.).

Aeschylus’ experience of battle and victory certainly informed his writing of The Persians, and the play won the Dionysia dramatic competition in Athens in 472 B.C. As we consider the impact of The Persians, it behooves us to reflect that the events of the play were as recent, for Aeschylus and his audience, as the #MeToo movement or the Las Vegas mass shooting would be for people of today.

As the play begins, a chorus of Persia’s elder statesmen awaits word of the outcome of Xerxes’ invasion of Greece. Persia’s queen, Atossa – the wife of the deceased king, Darius, and mother of the current king, Xerxes – meets the elders in front of a government building in front of the Persian capital at Susa, and joins them in expressing concern regarding the outcome of the campaign, particularly as she has been having strange dreams of late. The Chorus Leader’s cautious hope that Atossa’s dream portends victory for Persia is dashed when a messenger arrives and reports the bad news for Persia: “O you cities throughout all Asian lands,/O realm of Persia, haven of vast wealth,/One blow has smashed your great prosperity –/The flower of Persia has been destroyed!/Our men have perished!” (pp. 13-14) The messenger describes the unfolding of the Persians’ disastrous defeat at Salamis, and adds that Xerxes, who “did not sense the Greek man’s cunning/Or the envy of the gods” (p. 19), had something of a front-row seat from which to watch the ruin of his army:

From high up
On a promontory right beside the sea
Xerxes watched. He had an excellent view
Of his entire army, and, as he looked
And witnessed the extent of his defeat,
He groaned, tore his robes, gave out a shrill cry,
And quickly issued orders to his troops,
Who ran away confused. (p. 22)

Xerxes’ mother, Atossa, offers a lament, even while scolding the chorus for not interpreting her dream harshly enough: “This overpowers me – the utter ruin/Of our entire force! Those visions last night –/the ones I saw so clearly in my dreams –/how plainly they revealed these blows to me./Your sense of them was far too trivial” (p. 24).

The Chorus meanwhile places the blame for the Persian disaster squarely at the feet of the Persian emperor, Xerxes:

Xerxes marched them off to war, alas!
Xerxes, to our sorrow, killed our men!
Xerxes, in his folly, took them all… (p. 25)

In one of the play’s most striking moments, the Chorus, acting in response to a plea from Atossa, calls upon the ghost of the late king Darius, hoping that he can provide further information regarding these sad events. Darius, it turns out, cannot see what is going on in the larger world, and must be informed of Xerxes’ defeat by the Persian elders. Once he has heard of the Persian disaster at Salamis, Darius sees in it evidence of divine will punishing fatal human pride:

[W]hen the man himself is in a hurry,
The god will take steps, too….It was my son
Who, knowing nothing of these matters,
With his youthful rashness brought them on. (p. 33)

Darius focuses on Xerxes’ building of a vast pontoon bridge across the Bosphorus, suggesting that doing so was an impious act that invited divine retribution: “Though a mortal man,/He sought to force his will on all the gods,/A foolish scheme” (p. 33). The dead Persian emperor foretells the even greater defeat that Persia will suffer in the land battle at Plataea, and remarks ironically that Xerxes, who had yearned so eagerly after glory, “has achieved his mighty deed,/The greatest of them all, truly immense,/Whose memory will never be erased –/He has removed from Susa all its citizens” (p. 34).

Eventually, Xerxes returns home. Alone, with his clothing dirty and torn, with nothing in his possession but a quiver empty of arrows, he is a wretched shadow of the richly equipped emperor who set forth in his finest battle array, with vast armies behind him, to crush those impudent Greeks. And his first words indicate to the reader or viewer the “all about me” mindset that has brought Xerxes to this overthrow:

O my situation now is desperate!
My luck has led me to a cruel fate
Which I did not foresee! How savagely
A demon trampled on the Persian race.
What must I still endure in this distress?
…O how I wish
A fatal doom from Zeus had buried me
With all those men who perished! (p. 40)

Xerxes’ self-pitying lament for his misfortune stands in stark contrast to what a Greek audience would have expected in terms of dignified behaviour in defeat. While Aeschylus was writing more than a century before Aristotle set down his ideas about tragedy in the Poetics, the basic ideas would already have been deep-seated within the Greek psyche: Hubris or fatal pride leads the tragic hero to hamartia, the fatal decision or act that leads to the hero’s fall from greatness. In the aftermath, the hero experiences anagnorisis – recognition that his own actions have led to his fall, and acceptance of responsibility for what has happened.

Xerxes has fatal pride aplenty, and his choice to invade is a classic example of hamartia. But there is no acceptance of responsibility for the consequences of his own policy decisions – no declaration that “the daric stops here.” Instead, it’s all the fault of a god or a demon; and for Xerxes, the main problem with this overwhelming Persian defeat that cost the lives of thousands of young soldiers and sailors is that it’s made things really tough for Xerxes.

Xerxes focuses at first on how he is “a sad/And useless wretch” (p. 40) who has been cursed by the gods. In fairness, however, I must acknowledge that Xerxes later laments “the pain of those poor wretches” from his army and navy who “lie gasping on the shore” (p. 41); and he closes by crying out for the thousands of his forces killed in the battle of Salamis: “Aaaiii! Alas, for those destroyed in the flat-bottomed boats – the force of those three-tiered galleys!” (p. 48) Is he on his way toward accepting responsibility for what he has done?

And, while we’re asking questions – Would the Athenians have seen this play as an end-zone dance over the prone and whining Xerxes? I think not. The ancient Greek religion emphasized patient endurance of the will of the gods, acceptance of one’s fate. Xerxes would stand as an example of what not to do; his determination to outdo his father Darius, to avenge the defeat at Marathon, caused him to impiously bridge the seas, and to wage a vain and selfish war that led to his army’s destruction. Such, I think, would have been the sentiments in the minds of the original audiences for The Persians, as they left the Theatre of Dionysus at the base of the Acropolis.

It is quite a thing to read the first Western play whose text has survived to the present day. The completeness of Aeschylus’ vision stands out to the reader’s mind at once. It was no doubt among the greatest of all the tragic dramas written up to its time; and its greatness endures today.

[Ted · Rating 4 out of 5]

What’s done, I know, is done; yet I will sacrifice
In hope that time may bring about some better fate.

the mother of Xerxes

3 1/2




Bust of Aeschylus. From the Capitoline Museums, Rome


Aeschylus (c. 525/524 – c. 456/455 BC) is the earliest of the four great Greek playwrights, parts of whose oeuvre have survived to the present day. (The others are, of course, Sophocles (c. 497/6 – winter 406/5 BC) and Euripides (c. 480 – c. 406 BC) [these three tragedians] and the comic playwright Aristophanes (c. 446 – c. 386 BC).



Seven of Aeschylus’ plays have survived, with about 75 other plays known only through fragments or references to their titles. The Persians is now thought to be the earliest of the seven. The play was produced in 472 BC. Other than comedies, it is the only Greek play of the Classical era whose subject matter is taken from actual history, rather than from legend.

The subject of the play is the battle of Salamis, which occurred in 480 BC.





Wilhelm von Kaulbach - Die Seeschlacht bei Salamis – 1868


As the painting makes clear, Salamis was a naval engagement, one in which the Greeks (vastly outnumbered) defeated the invading Persian forces led by King Xerxes.

The play does not, however, take place near Salamis, nor at the time of the battle – rather, it is set in the Persian royal court at Susa, a few months after the battle. At the beginning of the play the court has not heard from Xerxes’ army for some time, and rumors and dread are rife. Then a messenger arrives, who tells the horrible news of what has transpired. King Xerxes himself is a survivor, and arrives later in the play – his mother, Atossa, and the ghost of Darius, king prior to Xerxes, make up the only three named characters. The messenger and the chorus complete the cast.

In telling of the Persian calamity, Aeschylus (who is believed to have seen the battle, perhaps even fought in it) obviously plays to the home crowd. One can almost hear the audience hooting, hollering, applauding as the deaths of various Persian generals are announced.

But, though this “tragedy” (more a triumph from the Greek point of view) seems of little interest to the modern reader as drama, I found myself curiously affected by it. First, even as perhaps fictionalized history, it did appeal to the historian in me. And the last part of the play, in which the glost of Darius laments the foolishness of Xerxes in falling into the trap set for him by the Greeks, certainly has traditional elements of the tragic, even though being presented from a point of view quite different from that of the audience.

The play is short, easily read in an hour or so. The translation by Philip Vellacott appealed to me, as indicated by the great number of underlinings I made. Recommended.

[David Sarkies · Rating 3 out of 5]

A celebration of a Greek victory
13 March 2012

This is actually quite an unusual Greek play in that it does not deal with a mythological event. Granted Aristophanes deals with historical events, but he wrote comedy as opposed to tragedy (and I have explained elsewhere what is meant by Greek Tragedy). Excluding Aristophanes, The Persians is the only historical play that we have, and it is possible that it is the only historical play that was ever written during the classical period of Ancient Greece.

The play is about the Persian defeat at Salamis and is set entirely within the palace in Susa. Once again (as we always see) the unities of time and place are obeyed. While many seem to point to Aristotle as being the one who developed the unities, we must remember that Aristotle lived at least two generations after the great dramatists. Aristotle was the pupil of Plato who in turn was the pupil of Socrates, who was alive when Euripides and Sophocles were producing their plays.

This play is pretty much a pat on the back for the Athenians for winning what was considered to be the unwinnable war. It is also the second of the two sources that we have regarding the Battle of Salamis, however we need to remember that this was written from the Athenian viewpoint and in turn was written by Aeschylus' viewpoint, so it will automatically be biased in favour of the Athenians. However, it is a very useful source as numerous generals on the Persian side were named, and the play also outlines the Achameid Dynasty (the line of kings from whom Darius and Xerxes' were descended).

I won't go into too much detail regarding the battle of Salamis as this is discussed extensively in other places (by me as well as others). However the Battle of Salamis (which was a naval battle) is considered to be one of those points upon which of history swings. I am not entirely convinced by this argument, namely because I also believe in divine influence (as we can see from the Battle of Jerusalem when Sennacerib's army was completely destroy by something during the night) but then as we read through this play we can also see numerous references to the gods. However Aeschylus is theologically wrong when dealing with Persian religion. He seems to think that they had a polytheistic religion when in reality, by Xerxes' time, Persia had become Duotheistic, where two gods, equal and opposite, are forever slugging it out with each other (this is Xorastrianism in a really small nutshell).

One thing we must remember though is that Xerxes' survived. This is actually quite unusual for a king who is defeated in battle. Senacerib was killed by his sons upon his return to Ninevah, namely because his defeat was evidence that he no longer had the support of the gods. However, there are two possible answers to why he was no deposed. The first, and the more unlikely, is that Xorastrianism did not allow for this and that defeat is not necessarily the disapproval of the gods, but rather just bad luck. However, this, as far as I am concerned, is not a hugely satisfying answer.

The second answer to this question, I suspect, comes from the Bible, namely from the Book of Esther. Now the events in Esther occur during the reign of Xerxes (though there is debate as to whether it is Xerxes or not, however, for the purpose of my argument, I will take it as it stands) and deals with the festival of Purim. Here the Jews were marked for death, and it was only the intervention of Esther that enable them to be saved. Now, we ask the question of why were they marked for death, and what swayed Xerxes to listen to Haman (boo, hiss). It is clear from the book that Haman (boo, hiss) hated Mordechai (Yay) and the Jews, but I doubt he could have gone to Xerxes and said 'I hate these people, please wipe them out' (by the way, the 'yays' and the 'boo hisses' apparently come from the Jewish tradition when this book is read).

Okay, the Bible indicates that the events in Esther occurred in the twelfth year of the reign of Xerxes, which put it around 474 BC, where as the Persian Wars occurred in 480 to 479 BC, which is about 5 years afterwards. So when I think about it, it is unlikely the the attempted genocide of the Jews could have been related to the Persian Wars. The reason I suggested this is because it is common for a minority group to be blamed for an empire's failure, as we saw in Nazi Germany. So, I guess my thoughts about this pomgrom would be incorrect. However, let us further consider more evidence from the Bible. The feast at which Xerxes' first wife, Vashti, is set in the third year of his reign, which is before the Persian wars. However, it also appears that Esther was married to him probably a few months after, and was queen while Xerxes was away in Greece. This suggests that Amestris (the Greek name of Xerxes' wife) is in fact Esther. Now, I checked Wikipedia and they indicate that she was actually Vashti, but it then goes on to expound the Akkadian root of both words and this seems to indicate that Amestris is Esther as opposed to Vashti. I believe that that is the case, based on the biblical record (if it is correct that Ahasuerus and Xerxes are in fact the same person).

So, I guess my point is that the reason that Xerxes' was not deposed was because he was persuaded by Haman to blame the Jews for his defeat at Salamis, however through the intervention of Esther, this blame was then shifted back onto Haman, who was then subsequently executed. Anyway, this is all speculation, however I do enjoy speculating about ancient historical events, which is why I wrote this in the first place.

[Abeer Abdullah · Rating 4 out of 5]

"XERXES
Wail, wail the miserable doom, and to the palace hie!
CHORUS
Alas, alas, and woe again!
XERXES
Shriek, smite the breast, as I!
CHORUS
An evil gift, a sad exchange, of tears poured out in vain!
XERXES
Shrill out your simultaneous wail!
CHORUS
Alas the woe and pain!
XERXES
O, bitter is this adverse fate!
CHORUS
I voice the moan with thee!
XERXES
Smite, smite thy bosom, groan aloud for my calamity!
CHORUS
I mourn and am dissolved in tears!
XERXES
Cry, beat thy breast amain!
CHORUS
O king, my heart is in thy woe!
XERXES
Shriek, wail, and shriek again!
CHORUS
O agony!
XERXES
A blackening blow—
CHORUS
A grievous stripe shall fall!
XERXES
Yea, beat anew thy breast, ring out the doleful Mysian call!
CHORUS
An agony, an agony!
XERXES
Pluck out thy whitening beard!
CHORUS
By handfuls, ay, by handfuls, with dismal tear-drops smeared!
XERXES
Sob out thine aching sorrow!
CHORUS
I will thine best obey.
XERXES
With thine hands rend thy mantle's fold—
CHORUS
Alas, woe worth the day!
XERXES
With thine own fingers tear thy locks, bewail the army's weird!
CHORUS
By handfuls, yea, by handfuls, with tears of dole besmeared!
XERXES
Now let thine eyes find overflow—
CHORUS
I wend in wail and pain!
XERXES
Cry out for me an answering moan—
CHORUS
Alas, alas again! "


Thats basically my daily internal monologue

[Jenny · Rating 4 out of 5]

" [...] Στη δυστυχία
δε θα προδώσουμε όποιους αγαπάμε. "


Η δυστυχία του χαμένου πάντα προκαλεί λύπη. Στην τραγωδία αυτή, με συγκίνησε ιδιαίτερα η έμφαση που δόθηκε στον χαμό όσων ακολούθησαν, χωρίς να έχουν επιλογή, τον Ξέρξη- όχι μόνο επιφανείς πλούσιοι άνδρες, που εκτέλεσαν χρέη στρατηγών, αλλά και πολλοί ανώνυμοι, οι γυναίκες, οι γονείς και τα παιδιά των οποίων δεν θα τους ξαναδούν ποτέ.

Πολύ συγκινητικός και συμπαθητικός ο χαρακτήρας της Άτοσσας, μητέρας του Ξέρξη και χήρας του Δαρείου. Η αγωνία για το γιο της είναι η αγωνία κάθε μάνας, αίσθημα πανανθρώπινο και διαχρονικό.

"Πόσο πολύ με σπάραξεν η θλίψη,
τις τωρινές μας συμφορές γρικώντας
κι όσες ακόμη απάνω μας θα πέσουν.

[Teresa · Rating 3 out of 5]

Representada pela primeira vez em 472 a. C., Persas é a peça grega mais antiga que chegou completa ao nosso tempo.
O tema é a Batalha de Salamina, "a mãe de todas as guerras". A acção decorre em Susa, Pérsia, iniciando-se com a glorificação e esperança de vitória do exército atacante e terminando com os lamentos do sobrevivente Xerxes, cujos trajes reais esfarrapados simbolizam a derrota numa guerra onde pereceram quase todos os persas pelas armas dos gregos.



(Wilhelm von Kaulbach, Battle of Salamis)

[Jonfaith · Rating 3 out of 5]

Yet the insidious guile of god—what mortal man can escape it? Who with agile foot can lightly overleap and escape its toils?


This is a mournful gaze of the vanquished. Fortuna's Wheel has spun and the Imperium has been struck. The famed army of the title have been routed at Salamis.

There's very effective use of the chorus, the tempo of such leads us to the precipice.

[la poesie a fleur de peau · Rating 3 out of 5]

Não posso mentir, já me passaram textos clássicos pelas mãos que fizeram as minhas delícias e este "Persas" não provocou um impacto muito significativo. Mas há algo de especial nele, nem que seja o facto de se tratar da peça grega mais antiga que chegou inteira aos nossos dias, ou até o espantoso poder evocativo da palavra: muito antes de Xerxes entrar em cena, é pela mão do Mensageiro que se torna possível desenhar mentalmente toda a desgraça que se abateu sobre os bárbaros — "A costa de Salamina e toda a região em volta estão juncadas dos cadáveres", "do lado dos Gregos, irrompe um grande clamor, semelhante a um canto, cujo eco é devolvido pelos rochedos da ilha"... esta evocação dos acontecimentos passados é violenta e arrepiante, mas também incrivelmente bela (talvez por ser tão sensorial).

[Scriptor Ignotus · Rating 3 out of 5]

Written in 472 B.C., Aeschylus’s Persians is the oldest surviving play in the history of Western drama. How astonishing, then, to consider that the first piece of Greek tragedy to come down to us was written not from a Greek perspective, but ostensibly from that of an implacable enemy defeated a mere eight years prior; an enemy that had terrorized all the Greeks, enslaved many of them, and had sacked the very city in which the play was first performed.

Aeschylus, along with many of the play’s original viewers, was likely at the Battle of Salamis. The graphic imagery conjured by the Persian Messenger—the sea being so cluttered with corpses and debris that one couldn’t see the water; bodies clustering on the shoreline like litter; Athenian marines using the splintered, jagged ends of their rowing oars to skewer wounded Persians in the water like fish—were probably drawn not from Aeschylus’s imagination, but from his memory. Many of his viewers would have had similar recollections. Many of them would have lost friends in the battle, and some of them may have suffered from symptoms of what we would now call Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. For those who didn’t participate in the battle, the memory of the war would have recalled the deep existential dread they must have felt for the prospect of their total annihilation at the hands of a foreign invader; a level of terror impossible to comprehend by those of us who have never lived in the path of an invading army.

Needless to say, there were doubtless some exposed nerves in the audience that would have been touched upon seeing a play set not at Salamis or at Athens, but at the Persian court at Susa. There is certainly some Greek triumphalism woven into the dialogue, as the characters lament the folly of trying to subdue the irrepressible Greek genius. But there is also an admirable effort on Aeschylus’s part to make the Persian experience—that of the “other”—palatable to his Athenian audience. The festival goers gathered at the Dionysia would have been permitted to see their great oriental nemesis no longer as a faceless terror, but as a king reduced to a beggar in rags; a defeated and despondent victim of the mercurial intelligences which rule the fates of all men of all races. In the world of gods and men, the mighty could be cast down without notice and without recourse.

Such was the warning of Aeschylus to an Athens which was entering its golden age. One wonders if, fifty-seven years later, the sailors embarking from an Athens which was now the center of an aggressive and expansionary maritime empire on the doomed Sicilian Expedition spared a thought for the inconsolable Xerxes and his fawningly pitiful mother.

[Ana · Rating 2 out of 5]

Esta foi uma leitura que não superou as minhas expectativas iniciais, pois esperava um pouco mais desta tragédia de Ésquilo.

Achei o texto bastante repetitivo, com um enredo monótono e pouco diversificado. A acção é quase inexistente, tratando-se maioritariamente, de uma descrição pormenorizada da derrota do exército Persa pela mão do exército Grego. Sendo o relato feito pela voz dos Persas, é um relato muito pungente, cheio de emoção, que não deixa o leitor indiferente. Assistimos à dolorosa ampliação da desgraça dos Persas, que remete para uma subtil glorificação da superioridade militar grega. No entanto, para além deste aspecto central, muito bem conseguido e que se repete ao longo de toda a tragédia, este texto pouco mais me "falou".

Enquanto leitora senti a falta de algumas das características da tragédia grega, e interroguei-me sobre esta estrutura um pouco diferente das que li anteriormente. Uma pesquisa sobre esta obra, revelou-me que Os Persas seriam a segunda tragédia de uma tetralogia (grupo de três tragédias, seguidas de uma peça satírica, tudo do mesmo autor), mas que foi a única chegar até aos nossos dias. Sabendo isto, julgo que apenas lendo a obra no seu devido contexto se poderia avaliar correctamente sobre a mesma. Infelizmente, tal já não é possível, e apesar de não ter gostado particularmente desta peça, reconheço o seu valor, e fico feliz por a mesma ter sobrevivido até aos nossos dias. Não posso no entanto, aconselhar a sua leitura.

Para o post completo visite:
http://linkedbooks.blogspot.pt/2015/0...

[Rita · Rating 4 out of 5]

Conservando diante dos olhos este castigo, lembrai-vos sempre de Atenas e da Grécia e que ninguém despreze a sua sorte presente porque, ao cobiçar o que é dos outros, pode deitar por terra uma grande felicidade.

[blondie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Με τους Πέρσες ο Αισχύλος δίδασκει το ανθρώπινο γένος ότι η ηθική τάξη διαταράζεται, όταν ο άνθρωπος φτάσει στην υβρι. Και η ύβρις γεννιέται, όταν υπερβαίνουμε το μέτρο που δόθηκε από το θεό στη φύση μας. Η υπέρβαση αυτή εμφανίζεται σαν αλαζονεία απέναντι όχι μόνο στους άλλους ανθρώπους αλλά και στον ίδιο το θεό, του οποίου η ουσία και η βούληση εκφράζεται φιλάνθρωπη αλλά και αδυσώπητα σκληρή μέσα στους νόμους της φύσης.

[Ritinha]

Full bitaitanço soon.

[Mike · Rating 1 out of 5]

Yikes. This is the type of ancient Greek drama that is painful to read. The plot: the Persian army was routed by the Greeks. That's it. We are told this in the opening moments of the play, and for 50 pages must read repetitive laments. Chorus: "Oh woe! Woe! What happened to (long list of Greek names)?" Xerxes: "They died in battle." Chorus: "Oh, WOE! WOE! And what of (long list of more Greek names)?" Xerxes: "They, too, died in battle!" Chorus: "Oh, WOE! WOE!"

For fifty pages. I'm not kidding.

The mother of Xerxes meets the ghost of her husband, who commands her to comfort Xerxes, but then we never see the mother again. Does she comfort him? What happened in their emotional meeting? We never find out--only more of the Chorus lamenting. It was just dreadful.

While deciding to explore Greek drama, I'm glad I read Sophocles first. I wouldn't have picked up another play if I had read The Persians first. I can only hope that Aeschylus' other work is better than this!

[José Simões · Rating 5 out of 5]

Esta é a tragédia onde a história se faz mito, ao contrário daquelas onde o mito se aproxima dos homens e das suas vivências. Quem o diz é Manuel de Oliveira Pulquério na introdução a este texto magnífico e, em vários sentidos, único. Escrito pouco tempo depois da guerra que opõe Xerxes à cidade de Atenas, não nos apresenta o lado helénico do acontecimento, nem o acontecimento em si, mas antes a visão persa de uma batalha histórica, dos antecedentes e das suas consequências. Não andamos aqui no domínio das peças trágicas situadas nos tempos míticos de um Édipo ou de um Orestes. Andamos sim num tempo histórico preciso, que tivera lugar havia pouco e que os atenienses ainda recordavam. Só aí já se vê que, tantos anos passados, não aprendemos muito mais.

[Sepehr · Rating 2 out of 5]

پارسی‌ها اگه اشتباه نکنم قدیمی‌ترین تراژدی هست که ما بهش دسترسی داریم. برای همین شاید عیب‌هایی که میخوام بهش بگیم چندان منصفانه نباشه اما خب باز این مشکل‌ها رو باهاش داشتم.
نمایش مثل گزارش جنگ نوشته شده. کل روایت در ایران میگذره. جایی که آتوسا، همسر داریوش و مادر خشایارشا، و گروهی از بزرگان ایرانی خبر شکست ایرانی‌ها از یونانی‌ها رو میشنون. دیالوگ‌ها بیشتر صرف لیست کردن منا��ق مختلف یونان و افراد شکست خورده میشه تا روایت نبرد. یه بخشی از داستان هم که روح داریوش ظاهر میشه اونجا هم باز شروع میکنه به لیست کردن پادشاهان ایرانی.
در نهایت هم که خود خشایار روی صحنه میاد کلا به آه و ناله و زاری میگذره و در نهایت هم با همون حالت صحنه رو ترک میگه و نمایش تموم میشه...
خلاصه اینکه روایت، شخصیت و یا دیالوگ جذابی توی نمایش نمیشه پیدا کرد. انتخاب اینکه داستان از دیدگاه ايرانيهای بازنده به تصویر کشیده بشه میتونست خیلی جذاب باشه اما خب اون هم تاثیر خاصی نداشت. فقط باعث شد یه عيب دیگه توی نمایش پیدا کنم که اونم اعتقاد داریوش و خشایار و آتوسا به خدایان یونانی بود و مدام اسم از زئوس و پوزویدون و بقیه خداها میاوردن.

[Mery_B · Rating 4 out of 5]

3'5 ★

El que tiene experiencia en la miseria
sabe, amigos, que tras una tormenta
de miserias, el hombre se estremece
ante cualquier evento, y cuando el hado
le es favorable, cree que esta brisa
habrá de serle siempre bienhechora.

[Rosaceae · Rating 5 out of 5]

oh how i love this play

[Guðrún Gunnarsdóttir · Rating 2 out of 5]

…smá contraversial að segja þetta um Æskýlos en þetta var alveg smá mid…

[Kyriakos Sorokkou]

Αρχαία Ελληνική Λογοτεχνία

1) Θεογονία / Έργα και Ημέραι / Ασπίς Ηρακλέους (750-650 π.Χ.) 
2) Λυρική Ποίηση (630-570 π.Χ.)

3) Πέρσαι (472 π.Χ.)

χρόνος ανάγνωσης κριτικής: 1 λεπτό

Η πρωιμότερη σωζόμενη ελληνική τραγωδία.
Γράφτηκε 7 χρόνια περίπου μετά τα γεγονότα που εξιστορεί (Ναυμαχία της Σαλαμίνας).
Όποτε για αυτούς που πρωτοείδαν την τραγωδία τους ήταν πολύ φρέσκα.
Και φυσικά από τη στιγμή που ο Αισχυλος συμμετείχε σε αυτη την Ναυμαχία
τα γεγονότα παρουσιάζονται με μεγάλη ακρίβεια. 

Η πλοκή απλή μιας και με τον Αισχύλο αυξήθηκαν οι ηθοποιοί
και μειώθηκαν τα χορικά. Τα πρόσωπα λίγα, ο πόνος τους όμως πολύς.

Είναι εξάλλου και ο πρώτος δραματουργός.
Πριν από αυτόν οι θεατρικές παραστάσεις ήταν ουσιαστικά θρησκευτικοί ύμνοι 
στους οποίους ο Θέσπις παρενέβαλε ένα πρόσωπο που με αφήγηση
και μίμηση παρίστανε τους μύθους των θρησκευτικών ύμνων. 
Ο Αισχύλος πρόσθεσε και δευτεραγωνιστή και ελαττώνοντας τα μέρη του χορού
παρενέβαλε διαλόγους θεατρικού χαρακτήρα,
χρησιμοποιεί θεατρικά σκηνικά, επιμελείται την σκηνική παρουσία των υποκριτών,
τους παρουσιάζει με εντυπωσιακότερα ρούχα βελτιώνει τις θεατρικές τους μάσκες
και τους φορά κοθόρνους ώστε το ανάστημά τους να είναι πιο επιβλητικό.
Έτσι οι αλλαγές υποβάλουν το θεατή και τον παρασύρουν
στην γοητεία της θεατρικής ψευδαίσθησης.

Είναι μια τραγωδία στην οποία απουσιάζουν οι Έλληνες από την σκηνή.
Οι χαρακτήρες είναι μόνο Πέρσες
 Εκτός από τον Χορό που τον αποτελούν γέροντες άρχοντες Πέρσες,
οι υπόλοιποι χαρακτήρες είναι η βασίλισσα Ατόσσα η μάνα του ηττημένου Ξέρξη,
το φάντασμα του Δαρείου του πατέρα του Ξέρξη,
ο Ξέρξης ο ίδιος που επιστρέφει ηττημένος και τέλος ένας αγγελιαφόρος
που κάνει την αρχή στην αγγελία των κακών μαντάτων.

Η πλοκή όπως προανέφερα είναι απλή.
Βλέπουμε τους Πέρσες να μαθαίνουν σταδιακά τα κακά μαντάτα της ήττας τους.
Το μηνύματα του Αισχύλου όμως πολλά. 
Την έπαρση, την φιλοδοξία, και την αλαζονεία της εξουσίας
θα τις ακολουθήσουν η νέμεσις (οργή και εκδίκηση των θεών)
και η τίσις ( τιμωρία και καταστροφή τους). 

[Saadia · Rating 5 out of 5]

*book explores grief*
Me: 5 stars

[Nicholas Vessel · Rating 4 out of 5]

The play can be broken down into "Man, I can't believe that the Greeks beat us THAT hard", but I felt it.

[M. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Reading it may be an easy a way to know a bit about ancient greek culture as well as recognize that some of the main topics of literature were present even back the, for there's the lament of the persinas that follows having lost the Battle of Salamis against the people from Athens, attributing it to a damnation given by gods. The ghost aparition of Darius allowes a reflection about death. Such are the wonders that have always been fundamental to humankind.

One point worth nothing is that, the use of premonitory dreams that the Queen, Darius' wife, experiences give their fate a more unavoidable character, this resource has been largely used in posterior writings of all ages.

It's the second part of a trilogy, but this is the only part that has survived. Sometimes it's a bit surprising to consider the fact that something as old (it's from 472 b.C.) has persisted, not only the test of time in terms of preservation, but also in quality. I might not have much to say, but I definitely enjoyed it.

[Irini Gergianaki · Rating 4 out of 5]

Αριστουργηματικό έργο...

Η ανακοίνωση της ήττας της Ναυμαχία της Σαλαμίνας στην βασίλισσα, μητέρα του Ξέρξη και η εμφάνιση του "ειδώλου" του νεκρού Δαρείου, πατέρα του Ξέρξη για να καταλήξει σε ένα θρήνο από τον Ξέρξη και τους Πέρσες γέροντες του χορού για την ήττα, την απώλεια και τη φρίκη του πολέμου αλλά και τα αίτια που μπορεί να οδηγήσουν σε αυτήν με κυριότερο την αμετροέπεια Η μόνη από τις αρχαίες τραγωδίες που αναφέρεται σε ένα ιστορικό γεγονός γραμμένη με ένα τρόπο που συνυφαίνει την ιστορία με τη μυθολογία αποτελώντας μια"σπουδή της ήττας"...

[Navidno70 · Rating 4 out of 5]

پارسیان تنها تراژدی برجا مانده یونانی است که بر اساس ماجرایی تاریخی نوشته شده. گفته اند که آیسخولوس خود در نبرد سالامیس شرکت داشته.

*آنگاه که باد نعره برمی داشت و دریا به تازیانه طوفان سپید می شد
ما به هزاران هزار ریسمان تخته ها و زورق ها بر
آبراه استوار کردیم
تا خیل تیغ و نیزه و مرد را گذرگاهی باشد

لیک آنگاه که آسمان به آزار و شکنج طرحی دراندازد
کیست آدمیزاد میرا که جان از نیرنگ
جاودانگان بدر ببرد؟

[Wolf Vanlaer · Rating 4 out of 5]

“En lijkenstapels zullen, drie geslachten ver stomme getuigen zijn voor 't stervelingenoog
dat geen, die mens is, bovenmenslijk denken moet.
Want overmoed die bloeit gedijt tot korenaar van schuld, en wat men maait is traandoordrenkte oogst”

[Saris · Rating 4 out of 5]

4,5
Nada como una buena propaganda política para terminar bien la noche