Chorus, conflict, and closure in Aeschylus' Persians

20 Pages·2014·0.15 MB·English

chapter 3
Chorus, conflict, and closure in Aeschylus’ Persians
MarianneGoversHopman
Inthepastfifteenyearsorso,severalstudiesattentivetotheperformative
contextofAtheniandramahavehighlightedanumberofelementsthought
tosupporttheauthorityofdramaticchoruses.Ithasbeenpointedout,for
instance,thatthesocialimportanceofmelicchoruseslikelyinfluencedthe
perceptionoftheirdramaticcounterparts(Bacon1994/5;Gruber2008:28–
43);thatdramaticchoruseswerecentraltotheorganizationofthedramatic
contests (Wilson 2000); that as ritual performers dancing for Dionysos,
thechoreutaimirroredtheexperienceoftheaudiencecelebratingthegod’s
festival; and that the chorus’ function as an internal audience further
replicatedthespectators’position.Eventhoughtragicchorusesoftentook
the identity of marginal groups like slaves, women, or foreigners, their
special status outside the fiction could foster some form of identification
1
withtheaudience.
What happened, however, when the chorus impersonated characters
who did not belong to the realm of myth but to the historical reality of
Athens, and more precisely to the most dangerous people that the Athe-
nians ever had to face – i.e. Persians? In spite of the unexpected and
spectacularvictoryoverPersiaatSalamisandPlataea,Persiawasnotadead
issue even after 480 bce (Pelling 1997: 12); in fact the very foundation of
theDelianleagueassumedthattheGreekstatesstillneededtojoinforces
to repel the enemy. In that tense context, Aeschylus’ display of an Athe-
nian chorus dressed as Persian males right at the opening of his 472 bce
playwasadaringand,asfarasweknow,unparalleledgesture.Thechorus
of Phrynichus’ 476 bce Phoenician Women, on which Persians was partly
based, was probably made of Phoenician widows or slaves at the Persian
1
Forathoroughdiscussionoftheparametersthatcanaffecttherelationbetweenchorusandaudience,
seeMastronarde1998and1999,whichbuildontheworkofGould2001[1996]andGoldhill1996.
ForasubtlediscussionoftheconceptofidentificationinAtheniandramaanditspossibleapplication
tothesatyrplay,seeGriffith2002.Iuse“chorus”whenreferringtothemediumingeneral,and
“Chorus”whenreferringtothespecificensembleinPersiansandotherdramaticworks.
58
Chorus,conflict,andclosureinAeschylus’Persians 59
court. In addition, Phrynichus’ play did not start with the Chorus won-
deringabouttheoutcomeofthewar,butwithaeunuchreportingXerxes’
defeat.
Thematically, Persians belonged in a context of active commemoration
of the Persian defeat through celebratory offerings, inscriptions, funer-
aryepigrams, andelegiacbattlepoems. Unlikethese monodicdiscourses,
however, the play evokes the war in the fundamentally choral medium of
2
Athenian tragedy. As a counterpoint to earlier studies that highlighted
the polarization between Greeks and Persians in Aeschylus’ tragedy, this
chapter focuses on aspects of the Persian chorus that arguably challenge
3
the ethnic contrast. I first analyze the Chorus as a narrator of the war
against Greece and show that it offers a perspective unlike the actors’ in
itswiderangeofobjects,viewpoints,andideologies.Thatbreadthofper-
spective,Ifurtherargue,isfosteredbyaplotthatprogressivelyconstructs
the Chorus as Xerxes’ antagonist and thus partly aligns its interests with
those of the Athenian audience. Consequently, I suggest that the final
reconciliationbetweenkingandChorusmayhavespreadtotheaudience
and encouraged the spectators to emotionally, if not effectively, join in
the Persian lament. Besides shedding light on the much-debated prag-
matics of Persians’ 472 bce production, I hope to make two larger points
aboutdramaticchoruses:thatthenarratologicalconceptofperspectivecan
help us grasp the complex referentiality of some choruses, and that our
understanding of tragic choruses can gain from a comparison with comic
4
choruses.
Choralperspectives
Inthelastfewyears,severalanalytictoolshavebeenputforwardtoanalyze
the multi-layered performance of the chorus (see Introduction to this
2 Forusefulsurveysofthedifferentmodesofcommemorationofthevictoryinthe470s,seeBarron
1988andRaaflaub2004:60–6.
3
TheideathatAeschylus’playcontributedtoanOrientalizingconstructionofPersiaasanultimate
form of otherness was most forcefully argued by Hall 1989 and 1996. See also Harrison 2000.
AlthoughIemphasizefeaturesofPersiansthatchallengesomeofHall’sargument,thefactthather
workhassoforcefullyshapedthedebateaboutAeschylus’playtestifiestothepowerofheranalysis.
However,neithershenorHarrisontakesintoaccountthespecificityofthechoralmediumintheir
discussionofthepragmaticsofPersians.
4Currentscholarshipontheplay’s472bceproductionfallsintotwogroups.Some–mostrecently
EdithHall1996andThomasHarrison2000–readtheplayasanAthenianauto-celebrationsuffused
withchauvinistovertonesandOrientalizingcliche´s,whileothers–notablyDesmondConacher1996
andNicoleLoraux1993a–viewitasasurprisingvehicleforidentificationwiththeenemywhereby
culturalandmilitarypolaritiesareovercomebyasharedexperienceoflossanddeath.Forarecent
summaryofthedebate,seeGarvie2009:xx–xxii.
60 MarianneGoversHopman
volume). The chorus’ double role within and outside of the fiction –
simultaneously a group of slaves, soldiers or captive women, and a ritual
and civic collective performing in the festival of Dionysos – has been
described in terms of a double identity (Henrichs 1994/5; see also Bierl
and Swift in this volume). Furthermore, the notion of voice has helped
to highlight the complexity of the chorus’ enunciative position between
poet and spectators, while the semantic diversity of the odes has been
described through the concept of registers (Calame 1999: 128–9 and this
volume). The validity of these concepts is a function of the insights that
they yield and may vary from play to play, just as each chorus represents
a unique experiment with the medium. In what follows, I propose that
somespecificitiesofthePersianchorusmaybegraspedbyanalyzingitasa
narrator of the war against Greece and by putting the narratological idea
5
ofperspectivetobearuponitsutterances.
A fundamental notion of narratology, the concept of perspective (or
focalization) was first introduced by Ge´rard Genette in 1972 to describe
“the second mode of regulating information, arising from the choice (or
not) of a restrictive ‘point of view’” (Genette 1972: 203). The notion is
6
fraught with difficulty and still fiercely debated. As Genette’s sentence
implies, “perspective” is perhaps best defined negatively as that which
restricts the information offered by a narrator. Positive definitions are
more difficult to offer. As post-Genettian critics have made clear, the
conceptsof“pointofview”and“perspective”gobeyondthestrictlyvisual
significance originally envisaged by Genette to embrace a wide array of
non-sensoryfilters,includingbutnotrestrictedtocognitive,emotive,and
ideological orientation (Rimmon-Kenan 1983: 71). Drawing on the work
of Seymour Chatman and other critics, I therefore propose to analyze
the perspective of the Persian chorus under the four categories of Object
(whatisofparamountimportancetothenarrator?);Zooming(howclosely
5
Formal(asopposedtostructural)narratologywasoriginallyelaboratedtostudynovelsorepics,i.e.,
genresinvolvinganarratorwhoturnsastoryintoanarrativethroughthecategoriesoftime(what
istherelationbetweentimetoldandtimetelling?),voice(whoisspeaking?),andmood(whatis
thenarrator’sperspective?).Whiledramainvolvesthetransformationofastoryintoanarrative,it
doesnothaveanarrator,andthustherelevanceofnarratologytotheanalysisofentireplaysisstilla
debatedtopic(Jahn2001;Nu¨nningandSommer2002).Bycontrast,theapplicationofnarratology
todramaticsectionswithstronginformationcontentisrelativelyuncontroversial,asdemonstrated
byIrenedeJongandJamesBarrett’sanalysesofmessenger-speeches(deJong1991;Barrett2002).
Alongsimilarlines,IproposetoapplynarratologicaltoolstothenarrativecontentoftheChorus’
utterances.For acomparableapplicationofnarratologicalconcepts,viz.thedistinctionbetween
performancetimeandnarratedtime,totheodesofAeschylus’Oresteia,seeGrethleininthisvolume.
6Forasampleofworksonthequestion,seeChatman1986;Jahn1999;PeerandChatman2001;
Herman,JahnandRyan2005s.v.Focalization(M.Jahn),withfurtherbibliography.
Chorus,conflict,andclosureinAeschylus’Persians 61
does the narrator consider those objects?); Filter (from or through whose
consciousnessaretheeventsperceived?);andSlant(whatistheideological
7
attitudeofthenarratororthecharacterfilter(s)?). Withthesetools,Ihope
to emphasize the highly visual quality of the Chorus’ utterances and the
remarkablediversityoftheimagesconjuredbythechoreutai.
(a) Objectsoffocalization
Throughout the play, the Chorus highlights a remarkably wide array of
peoplesandlands,usingcataloguesofbothanthroponymsandtoponyms
totreadvastexpansesthroughAsiaandGreece.Intheparodos,thechoreutai
recallthespectaculardepartureofthePersian,Egyptian,Lydian,andBaby-
loniancontingentsfromSusatoGreece(16–58),glimpseattheHellespont
(65–71)andimaginethemenproceedingintoGreeceinXerxes’wake(74–
85),butalsostresstheanguishofthewivesandparentsleftbehind(61–4).
Inresponsetothemessenger’sreport,theyvividlyimaginethePersiancasu-
alties dying in the waters surrounding Salamis (576–7; 595–6) as well as
XerxesandthesurvivorsrushingthroughtheThracianplains(565–7).The
thirdstasimonnostalgicallyevokestheprosperousdaysofDarius’ruleand
surveysstatesthatwereformerlyruledbyPersia,includingThrace,north-
westernAsiaMinorandtheHellespontregion,Aegeanislands,Cyprusand
the Greek cities in Asia (864–900). Lastly, in the Xerxes scene, the choral
catalogueofPersiancasualtiesembracesthedisasterinitsmanifoldhuman
consequences(955–86).
(b) Zooming
The Chorus’ geographical and temporal breadth of interests combines
with various ways of zooming in on peoples and scenes. As a result, we
get striking and often poignant close-ups of individuals, most of whom
engagedinscenesthatthechoreutaididnotseeintheircounselors’persona
but rather imagined in their “prophetic heart” (10–11) or in the wake of
the messenger’s report. Such images include Xerxes on his Syrian chariot
leadingthearmyandcastingasnake-likeglance(74–85);parentsandwives
countingthedays,shudderingastimegoesbyandsoakingtheirbedswith
7
Thistypologydoesnotproposetomakeatheoreticalcontributiontonarratologicalstudies,butonly
toofferaconvenientandrelevantgridtograspthespecificityoftheChorus’voiceincomparison
totheindividualactors.ThefirsttwocategoriesofObjectandZoominginvolvewhatisseenrather
thanwhoseesandthereforefalloutofthescopeofmostnarratologicalstudies.Forthenotionsof
FilterandSlant,seeChatman1986.
62 MarianneGoversHopman
tears(63–4;134–7;579–83);orPersiancorpsesmangledbyfish(576–9).In
addition,speakingasEldersleftinchargeoftheroyalpalace,thechoreutai
sometimesoffer“teichoscopic”viewsprojectingoutwardlyfromthewalls
8
of the Persian capital. They notionally use city walls as their outlook
pointastheydescribeXerxes’contingents“forsakingSousaandAgbatana
and the ancient ramparts of Kissia” (16–58) or reminisce of Darius taking
cities without leaving his hearth (866) and of men returning home from
wars. E contrario, the city walls figure negatively in the final scene when
they do not see the return of the men who left from Agbatana (961).
Occasionallythisteichoscopicperspectiveexpands,shiftsaxis,andmorphs
intoabird’s-eyeviewwherebythechoreutaisurveyplacesandeventsfrom
above,thusofferingcartographicalimagesofthetribesconvergingtoward
XerxesfromalloverAsia(16–58),oftheAsianlandgrievingandyearning
(61)orofDarius’empireexpandingaroundtheAegean(865–900).9Finally,
the Chorus also offers a few images shot sub specie aeternitatis in gnomic
utterances that are not shaped by a specific outpost but embrace human
experience in its universal, timeless and spaceless dimension: thus, At¯e
deceivesmanbyfirstfawningathimandthentrappinghimintohernets
(92–100).
TheChorus’varietyofobjectsandzoomingmodesstrikinglycontrasts
withtheperspectiveoftheall-Persiancastofactors.Themessengercertainly
is expected (246; 294) and does in fact attempt to give a full account of
the Persian defeat in Greece ((cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:7) (cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:9)(cid:3)(.(cid:4)(cid:29) (cid:9)$)(cid:14)(cid:15), 254; cf. 294): his
catalogues of dying Persian leaders (302–28) and places crossed by the
retreatingarmy(481–95)offerawiderangeofobjectsofinterest,whilehis
insistence on the unspeakable quality of the events further opens up his
account(329–30;513–4).LiketheChorus,themessengercombinesbroad
strokes creating an “overpowering vision of vast landscapes and events”
(Herington1986:69)withvividandpoignantvignettesofMatallos’beard
changing color as he fell into the sea (314–16), Xerxes tearing his robes
whenhesawthedisaster(465–70)ortheiceoftheStrymonrivermelting
underthefirstraysofthesun(495–504).Inaddition,themessengerseldom
8
Although relativelyforeign to us, teichoscopic views must have played an important role in the
livesofwalled-citydwellers.SeeforinstanceHelenandPriam’sdiscussionoftheGreekandTrojan
contingentsfightingintheplainofScamanderinIliad3(161–244),andthefearfulglancesthatthe
ChorusoftheSevenAgainstThebescastfromthewallsdowntotheThebanplainastheysightthe
sevenchieftainsmarchingagainstthecity(78–180).
9OnpoeticizedcartographyasanimportantAeschyleantechnique,seeHall1996:144ad480–514,
withbibliography.ItmaynotbecoincidentalthatHecataeus,whosePeriegesishasoftenbeenoffered
asapossiblesourceforAeschylus’informationaboutAsia,wasalsotheauthorofamap,probablya
responsetoandarefinementofAnaximander’smap.OnHecataeus’Periegesisandmap,seePearson
1939:27–96;Branscome2010:6–7.
Chorus,conflict,andclosureinAeschylus’Persians 63
mentions his own post during the battle and refers to the Persians in the
thirdperson,whichfurthercontributestohisconstructionasanomniscient
narratorlookingattheeventsfrommultiplevantagepointsatonce(Barrett
1995: 546–50). Yet his interests are more temporally and spatially limited
than the Chorus’, solely focusing on the time span between the Battle
of Salamis and the Persian retreat, and limiting himself to the events in
Greece,sayingvirtuallynothingoftheAsiaticsectionofthejourney(508–
11;cf.Hall1996:144onPers.480–514).Nognomicstatementattemptsto
deriveuniversalconclusionsfromthePersiandefeat.
Even more striking is the contrast between the Chorus’ and the royal
family members’ perspectives. The Queen obsessively focuses on her son
and considers the war through his interests, thus offering close-ups pri-
marily centered on Xerxes. Unlike the wide choral views of the parodos,
herversionoftheexpeditioninthefirstepisodeconsistsofasymbolicand
highly pared-down dream report featuring only four characters – Xerxes,
Darius,andtwowomenpersonifyingAsiaandGreece–andstressingthe
son’sshameinfrontofhisfather(197–9;cf.753–8).Similarly,sheresponds
tothedefeatbyworryingaboutthesurvivalandpsychologicalwell-being
of the King. Upon hearing the news, she breaks her long silence only to
inquire about the survival of the leaders (290–8); the information that
Xerxes is still alive seems to entirely relieve her of her worries (301); upon
exiting to fetch libations, she recommends that the Chorus console and
escortXerxestothepalace(529–31).
Darius’perspectiveisspatiallyandtemporallybroaderthantheQueen’s:
he contextualizes the defeat within the history of Persian monarchy,
announces the pending defeat at Plataea (803–20) and gnomically casts
theeventsasanillustrationofdivineretributionforexcessivehybris(821–
2).YethisvisionisstillcenteredonXerxesasleaderandking:heinquires
which of his sons led the campaign (717), interprets the disaster as a con-
sequence of Xerxes’ foolish attempt to enslave Poseidon (743–52), worries
thathiseconomicallegacymaybewipedout(751–2)andhighlightsthedis-
continuitythatXerxeshasintroducedamongsevengenerationsofPersian
rulers(759–86).Darius’emphasisonrulers(H(cid:9)(cid:4)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:15)’(cid:11)(cid:19)(cid:30)(cid:15),(cid:14)W(cid:24)(cid:13)$(cid:3)(cid:25)(cid:3)$(cid:26)X
;(cid:31)+(cid:14)(cid:11)(cid:19)(cid:7), 785) contrasts with the Chorus’ concern for the Persian people
(%(cid:19)(cid:13)(cid:31)(cid:29)(cid:24)(cid:10)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:19)6(cid:15),789).TheQueenviewsthewarasanOedipalplot10 and
the King envisages it as a cosmic dual, whereas the Chorus sees it as the
adventureofawholepeople.
10 ForapsychoanalyticreadingthatemphasizesfamilytensionsinPersians,seeKuhns1991.
64 MarianneGoversHopman
(c) Filters
As the choreutai focus on a wide range of objects apprehended through
various levels of proximity and distance, they activate and embrace the
11
perspective of different characters. Some of these constituencies can be
describedintermsofconcentriccirclesexpandingfromthechoreutaiout-
wards. The choreutai (often through the koryphaios) speak in their royal
counselors persona as they announce their intention to “engage in care-
ful thought” (142) or reminisce about Darius’ successes (852–906). By
contrast, the teichoscopic views listed above describe experiences that the
EldersnotionallysharedwithSusa’sotherinhabitants.Expandingstillfur-
ther, the Chorus sometimes conveys the perspective of the whole Persian
people, for instance when they describe Salamis as an “utter catastrophe
forthePersians”((cid:9)$(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:4)%(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:31)(cid:4)(cid:29)(cid:15)(cid:9)(cid:4)(cid:18)(cid:24)$(cid:24)(cid:21)(cid:15),282)orwhentheyaskDar-
ius for advice about how the Persians can fare best (787–9).12 Finally, like
many tragic choruses, the Persian choreutai have a special connection to
the land.13 Xerxes left them in charge of his palace and land (+6(cid:13)(cid:4)(cid:15), 7)
and that rootedness translates into a special understanding of the grief of
the “Asian land” ((cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:31)(cid:4) +)(cid:27)(cid:7) R(cid:31)(cid:29)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:29)(cid:15), 61).14 In other words, the Cho-
rus’ range of interests and insights activates the whole spectrum of their
various identities as royal counselors, inhabitants of Susa, Persians, and
Asians.
More strikingly still, the Chorus occasionally embraces the perspective
of Persian constituencies to which the Elders do not belong. The odes go
beyondwhatthechoreutaicantechnicallyknowintheirfictionalidentity
andembraceothers’perspectiveonthePersianexpeditionastheymention
the shuddering of parents and wives (63) and the loneliness of Persian
widows(289).TheChorus’empathicabilitytotranscenditsfictionaliden-
tityisperhapsmostobviousintwopassageswhentheEldersimpersonate
15
the voice of Persian women. In the anapestic introduction to the first
stasimon, the choric dirge and its accompanying gestures are projected
upon women who are imagined tearing their veils, weeping, and grieving
11
Myuseoftheterm“filter”hereoverlapswiththeconceptof“identity”thatsomescholarsuseto
describeshiftsinthechoralvoice.Ifindtheterm“filter”moresuitabletodescriberapidchangesin
theChorus’perspectivewithinashortintervalofperformancetime.
12 Ontheuseofcompoundsonthepan-roottoexpressthemagnitudeofthedisaster,seeSa¨ıd1988.
13 Ontherootednessoftragicchoruses,seeGould2001[1996].
14 Althoughsomecommentatorsunderstandtheterm+6(cid:13)(cid:4)asareferencetotheroyaldomain,the
contextoftheplaymakesitmorelikelytorefertothePersianlandasawhole(cf.67,271,493,857,
+6(cid:13)(cid:4)(cid:15)-(cid:7))(cid:14)(cid:15)925).
15 Ontheideaofchoralempathy,seePeponi2009.Onthechorus’abilitytoperformamimesisof
otherchoruses,seeNagyinthisvolume.
Chorus,conflict,andclosureinAeschylus’Persians 65
(537–47).16Morestrikinglystill,theparodosincludesavividimpersonation,
indirectspeech,ofthelamentsthattheChorusfearswillbevoicedbythe
women(115–25):
(cid:3)(cid:4)&(cid:3)$(cid:11)(cid:14)(cid:29)(cid:11)(cid:19)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:18)+(cid:20)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:7)F(cid:13)<(cid:7)(cid:2)(cid:11)((cid:31)(cid:31)(cid:19)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:29)F#0(cid:4)
(cid:22)(cid:2)%(cid:19)(cid:13)(cid:31)(cid:29)(cid:24)(cid:14)&(cid:31)(cid:3)(cid:13)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:19)((cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:14)&(cid:26)(cid:19)(cid:11)<(cid:9)#(cid:5)(cid:29)(cid:15)(cid:9)()(cid:25)-
(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:29),(cid:24)(cid:12)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:7)(cid:26)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:18)X-(cid:31)(cid:3),V(cid:14),(cid:31)(cid:20)(cid:26)(cid:14)(cid:15)1
(cid:24)(cid:4)4(cid:3)(cid:10)Y(cid:29)(cid:31)(cid:31)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:7)(cid:9)#(cid:5)(cid:29)(cid:31)(cid:11)X(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:26)(cid:14),(cid:9)(cid:14)(cid:7)(cid:9)(cid:31)(cid:19)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:29),
(cid:22)(cid:2),(cid:3)(cid:14)&(cid:3)X;(cid:9)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:18),(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:29)(cid:24)(cid:14)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:25))<(cid:15)K(cid:11)(cid:29)(cid:5)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:9)((cid:21)(cid:7),
0,(cid:31)(cid:31)(cid:20)(cid:7)(cid:14)(cid:29)(cid:15)(cid:26)X(cid:28)(cid:7)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:14)(cid:29)(cid:15)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:31)(cid:10)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:24)(cid:20)(cid:15).
Thisiswhytheblackrobesofmyheartarerentwithterror–
“oa!–thePersianarmy!”–lestthecity,thegreatcitadel
ofSousa,becomeemptiedofmenandhearthiscry.
AndtheKissiancitywillsinginresponse,
“oa!”–thisiswhatthemassivehordeofwomenwillcallout,
17
tearingtheirlinengowns.
The demonstratives (cid:3)(cid:14)&(cid:26)(cid:19) and (cid:3)(cid:14)&(cid:3)(cid:14) simultaneously mark anaphoric
deixis and deixis am Phantasma and merge the voice of the Elders with
18
that of the imagined women. For a brief moment, therefore, the chorus
of Elders ventriloquizes two antiphonal female choruses. The passage is
remarkable in at least two ways. Intertextually, the stanza may allude to
andcompetitivelyengagewiththefemalechorusofthePhoenicianWomen
composed by Aeschylus’ predecessor Phrynichus. Generically, moreover,
the passage enacts the polyphony of the dramatic chorus in a particularly
vividmannerthatcrossesovertime,age,andgender.Theodesdonotreflect
theperspective andideasofasingle entity, albeitacollectiveone.Rather,
they combine a plurality of perspectives and voices, weaving the Elders’
withothers’viewsintoplural,polyphonicandmulti-focalizedsongs.
(d) Slant
TheChorus’abilitytotranscendboundariesculminatesinitsreferencesto
AtheniancivicpracticesthatareforeigntotheindividualPersiancharacters.
The Chorus’ stichomythic exchange with the Queen in the first episode
demonstrates a precise knowledge, further underscored by her ignorance,
of the Athenian resources in silver (238), hoplite technique (240), and
16 Fortheconceptof“choralprojection”,seeHenrichs1994/5:75.
17 Hereandthroughout,IquotePersiansinthetextandtranslationofHall1996.
18
Onthedistinctionbetweenthreetypesofdeixis(deixisadoculos,anaphoricortextualdeixis,and
deixisamPhantasma),seeBu¨hler1934.
66 MarianneGoversHopman
democratic government (242). In the first stasimon, the Chorus’ highly
emotional response to the messenger’s news (548–83) is soon followed by
a cold-hearted analysis of the political consequences of the defeat that
is phrased in distinctively Athenian concepts and includes the end of
tribute, abolition of proskynesis, and re-establishment of frank speech
(584–94). Even more remarkably, the abrupt questioning to which the
Chorus submits Xerxes in the final scene is reminiscent of the practice
19
offrankspeech(parrh¯esia)thatdefinesAtheniandemocracy. TheElders
angrily list the names of fallen Persians and ask Xerxes where they are
(967–73):
(cid:14)/(cid:14)(cid:29)(cid:14)(cid:30)<0#(cid:4)>,(cid:9)(cid:14)&(cid:31)(cid:14)(cid:29)Z(cid:4)(cid:13)(cid:7)(cid:14)&+(cid:14)(cid:15)
R(cid:13)(cid:29)#(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:13)(cid:26)#(cid:15)(cid:3)X(cid:2)(cid:18)(cid:4))#(cid:15);
(cid:9)(cid:14)&(cid:26)(cid:23)V(cid:19),$(cid:5)(cid:24)(cid:25)(cid:15)-(cid:7)(cid:4).
[T(cid:20)(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:29)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:19)"(cid:9)$(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:13),
2(cid:12)(cid:11)F(cid:29)(cid:15)8$(cid:13),0(cid:29)(cid:15)(cid:24)(cid:4)42(cid:4)(cid:31)(cid:20)(cid:31)(cid:3)(cid:13)(cid:4)(cid:15),
R(cid:13)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:11)0$(cid:13)(cid:25)(cid:15)(cid:3)XS(cid:26)X\](cid:31)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:20)+(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:15);
(cid:3)$(cid:26)(cid:19)(cid:31)X(cid:28)(cid:9)(cid:4)(cid:7)(cid:19)(cid:13)#(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:7).
Oioioi–cryitout;whereareyourPharnouchos
AndnobleAriomardos?
WherelordSeualkes
OrLilaiosofnoblebirth?
Memphis,TharybisandMasistras,
ArtembaresandHystaichmas?
Iputthequestiontoyouagain.
The catalogue is reminiscent of earlier lists of departing or fallen Persians
(21–58and302–30,respectively)butisnowembeddedindirectinterroga-
tiveclausesintroducedbytheinterrogativeadverb“where”((cid:9)(cid:14)&,967and
969; cf. 956 and 957) that give it an angry significance. Earlier utterances
in the drama construct frank speech as a practice that does not belong
in the Persian Empire. In the first episode, the Queen emphasizes that
Xerxesisnotaccountabletohissubjects((cid:14)"+(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:19)(),(cid:7)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:9)#(cid:5)(cid:19)(cid:29),213).The
limitationoffreespeechinPersiaisforcefullyenactedintheDariusscene.
After singing the kletic hymn that constitutes the second stasimon, the
EldersfindthemselvesunabletospeaktoDariusfacetoface“onaccount
of[their]oldfearof[him]”(694–6).Asaresult,mostoftheconversation
with Darius is performed by the Queen who informs him of the recent
19 OnthedistinctivelyAthenianovertonesoftheChorus’criticismofXerxes,seeKranz1933:550,
whovieweditasthepoet’svoice,andBroadhead1960xxiv–xxvi,whofindsit“outofcharacter”;
Broadhead’sphraseperfectlycapturesthefactthattheChoruscannotbeadequatelydescribedasa
characteronly.
Chorus,conflict,andclosureinAeschylus’Persians 67
disasterandXerxes’expedition(703–58).TheChorus’abruptquestioning
ofXerxesinthefinalscenethereforerepresentsastrongdeparturefromthe
20
Persianpracticesdescribedandperformedearlierintheplay. Theyspeak
asAtheniancitizensquestioningamagistrateratherthanasPersiansubjects
enthralledbytheirking.TheChorus’viewsoftheeconomic,militaryand
political implications of the war differentiate it from the royal family and
21
carrydistinctivelyAthenianresonances.
Inmelicpoetry,thefirst-personpronounisapolysemicsignifierwhose
shiftingmeaningdependsonwhetherthechorusspeakstooronbehalfof
22
thecommunity. ThedramaticchorusofPersiansdrawsonandredefines
23
that fluidity in the narrative context of Athenian drama. In comparison
to the more restricted perspective of the actors, the odes focus on a wide
variety of objects, considering them from various degrees of proximity or
distance, and activating the viewpoint or ideology of different character
groupstowhomthechoreutaimayormaynotbelong.Asaresult,seemingly
incompatible ways of thinking, perceiving or reacting, are unified under
thevoiceofasingleperformativeentity.Theparodosjuxtaposesprophetic
utterances that correctly sense and already lament the impending Persian
defeat (92–100; 115–25) with some triumphant statements of confidence
and hope in the success of the army (86–91), and sheer ignorance about
the status of the expedition (140–9). The first stasimon combines highly
emotionalandgraphicclose-upsofPersiancorpseslaceratedbyfish(576–
8), images of parents lamenting the death of their offspring (579–83) and
pragmaticconsiderationsinvolvingkeyconceptsinAthenianpolitics(584–
96).Throughtheseamlessblendingofvariousperspectivesintoapowerful
song-and-danceperformance,themulti-referentialchoruscomplicatesand
challenges polar divisions between old and young, male and female, and
GreekandPersian.
Achoralplot
Thepluralityofperspectivesdescribedaboveisnotunusualoftragiccho-
ruses,butitisfurtherenhancedbytheplotstructureofPersians.Besidesthe
20 ForthesuggestionthattheChorus’examinationreplacesthe(cid:19)7),(cid:7)(cid:4)towhichAtossasaidthat
Xerxeswasnotsubject,seeGriffith1998:125.
21
OntheinterweavingofGreekandPersianideasandcustomsinAeschylus’play,seeBroadhead
1960:xxx–xxxiiandCalameinthisvolume.Hall1989:69–100bycontrastviewstheGreek/Persian
pairasanunbridgeablepolarity.
22 Calame1977i:436–9;D’Alessio1994,withfurtherbibliography.
23
Onthetransformationsofthemelicchorusresultingfromitstransfertothedramaticstage,see
Calame1994/5;Nagy1994/5b.