Читать книгу The Herodotus Encyclopedia - Группа авторов - Страница 177

EMMA BRIDGES

Institute of Classical Studies, University of London

Athenian tragic dramatist (?525/4–456/5 BCE), author of around eighty or ninety plays, only seven of which survive intact. Herodotus identifies Aeschylus as son of Euphorion and as author of a (now lost) play based on the story of ARTEMIS. Herodotus asserts that the version of the MYTH which Aeschylus used as the basis for this play (in which, unlike his predecessors, he made Artemis the daughter of DEMETER) originated in an Egyptian account of the relationship between the gods (2.156.6; cf. Paus. 8.37.6). Herodotus correlates Artemis with the Egyptian goddess Bastet, whom he names BUBASTIS.

Although Herodotus names the tragedian on only one occasion, it is clear that the historian was familiar with Aeschylus’ plays, and in particular with his tragedy Persians, first performed in 472 (Immerwahr 1954, 27–30), perhaps using this as a source for his own work. Herodotus’ narrative—as seen in particular in several of the SPEECHES—contains verbal echoes of the Aeschylean text, and there are areas of overlap: for example, in the descriptions of XERXES’ bridging of the HELLESPONT, by which the joining of EUROPE and ASIA is portrayed as a violation of the natural or divinely appointed order (Pers. 65–71, Hdt. 7.35–36, 54–56; see Bridges 2015, 15–16, 57–58), and of the naval battle of SALAMIS, related in detail by Herodotus (8.40–96) and recounted via a MESSENGER in Persians (353–432; see Hall 1996). Like Aeschylus’ play, Herodotus’ narrative also presents the broader story of the Persian invasion of Greece and failed attempt to enslave its inhabitants as a tragic reversal of fortune for Xerxes and his army, with both authors highlighting the vast scale of that army and offering CATALOGUES of its contingents (Pers. 21–58, 81–85, 302–30; Hdt. 7.61–99). This contrast with the depleted NUMBERS which returned home after the campaign helps emphasize the magnitude of the DISASTER which befell PERSIA (Pers. 480–514, Hdt. 8.115–17).

There are, however, also significant differences between Herodotus’ and Aeschylus’ representations of Xerxes and the relationship between Persia and HELLAS. The distinction between East and West is far less clear‐cut in Herodotus’ account than in the Persians. Where Aeschylus’ play posits a polar ideological opposition between Athenian DEMOCRACY and Asian DESPOTISM, some scholars suggest that in fact Herodotus may have been drawing parallels between aggressive Persian imperialism and Athenian expansionist policy in the second half of the fifth century (Moles 1996; Pelling 1997a and 1997b). Meanwhile, Aeschylus presents Xerxes as abandoning the good judgment of his predecessors. For Herodotus, however, the Great King is situated within a wider pattern of imperialistic overreach which the historian is at pains to explore, and he is seen as an aggressor whose actions represent the culmination of the actions already carried out by his predecessors CYRUS (II), CAMBYSES (II), and his father DARIUS I (Flower and Marincola 2002, 8). Herodotus therefore presents Xerxes not as the impetuous youth whom Aeschylus’ version contrasts with the wise Darius, but instead as subjected to the pressures of his position at the head of the Persian Empire and as following on from the policies of his father (Pelling 1997a, 15; Bridges 2015, 59–60).

An epitaph quoted by the Roman‐era authors Athenaeus (14.627c) and Pausanias (1.14.5) asserts that Aeschylus fought at MARATHON (Vit. Aesch. 11); his brother CYNEGIRUS was killed in the same battle (Hdt. 6.114). It is probable that Aeschylus also fought at SALAMIS (as claimed by Ion of Chios: BNJ 392 F7).

SEE ALSO: Athens and Herodotus; Conquest; Euphorion the Athenian; Persian Wars; Poetry; Sources for Herodotus; Tragedy