{297}
THE piece, on the perusal of which the reader is now about to enter,
stands unique among the extant remains of the ancient drama, as drawing
its materials from the historical, not the mythological, age of the
Greek people. We are not, from this fact, to conclude that the Greeks,
or the ancients generally, drew a more strict boundary line between the
provinces of history and poetry, than the moderns. Such an inference
were the very reverse of the fact, as the whole style of ancient history
on the one hand, and the examples of Ennius and Lucan in poetry,
sufficiently show. Not even within the special domain of the Greek stage
is our one extant example the only historical drama of which the records
of Hellenic literature have preserved the memory; on the contrary, one
of the old arguments of the present play expressly testifies that
Phrynichus, a contemporary of Æschylus, had written a play on the same
subject; and we know, from other sources, that the same dramatist had
exhibited on the stage, with the most powerful effect, the capture of
the city of Miletus, which took place only a few years before the battle
of Marathon.[f1] There was a plain reason, however, why, with all
this, historical subjects should, in the general case, have been
excluded from the range of the Greek dramatic poetry; and that reason
was, the religious character which, as we have previously shown,
belonged so essentially to the tragic exhibitions of the Hellenes. That
religious character necessarily directed the eye of the tragic poet to
those ages in the history of his country, when the gods held more
familiar and open converse with men, and to those exploits which were
performed by Jove-descended heroes in olden time, under the express
sanction, and with the special inspiration, of Heaven. Had a
characteristically Christian drama arisen, at an early period, out of
the festal celebrations of the Church, the sacred poets of such a drama
would, in the same way, have confined themselves to strictly scriptural
themes, or to themes belonging to the earlier and more venerable
traditions of the Church.
{298}
With regard to the subject of the present drama, there can be no doubt
that, like the fall of Napoleon at Moscow, Leipzig, and Waterloo, in
these latter days, so in ancient history there is no event more suited
for the purposes of poetry than the expedition of Xerxes into Greece.
There is "a beginning, a middle, and an end," in this story, which might
satisfy the critical demands of the sternest Aristotle; a moral also,
than which no sermon ever preached from Greek stage or Christian pulpit
is better calculated to tame the foolish pride, and to purify the turbid
passions of humanity. In ancient and modern times, accordingly, from
Chœrilus to Glover, the whole, or part of this subject has been
treated, as its importance seemed to demand, epically;[f2] but of
all the poetical glorifications of this high theme, that of Æschylus
has alone succeeded in asserting for itself a permanent niche in the
library of that select poetry which belongs to all times and all places.
Of the battle of Salamis and the expedition of Xerxes, as an historical
event, it must be unnecessary for me to say a single word here,
entitled, as I am, to presume that no reader of the plays of Æschylus
can be ignorant of the main facts, and the tremendous moral significance
of that event. I shall only mention, for the sake of those whose memory
is not well exercised in chronology, that it took place in the autumn of
the year 480 before Christ, ten years after the battle of Marathon,
thirty years after the expulsion of the Tarquins from Rome, and eighty
years after the foundation of the great Persian empire by Cyrus the
great. Those who wish to read the descriptions of the poet with complete
interest and satisfaction should peruse the 38th, 39th, 40th, and 41st
chapters (Vol. V.), of Mr. GROTE's great work; and, if possible, also,
the 7th and 8th books of Herodotus.[f3]
On the poetical merit of the Persians, as a work of art, a great
authority, Schlegel, has pronounced that it is "undoubtedly the most
imperfect of all the extant tragedies of this poet;" but, unless the
historical theme be the stumbling-block, I really cannot see on what
ground this judgment proceeds. As for the descriptive parts, the battle
of Salamis, and the retreat of the routed monarch, are pictured with a
vividness and a power to which nothing in this massive and manly author
is superior; the interest to the reader being increased tenfold by the
fact, that he is here dealing with a real event of the most important
character, and recited by one of the best qualified {299} of
eye-witnesses. The moral of the piece, as already stated, is, in every
respect, what in a great drama or epos could be desired; and, with
respect to the lyrics, the Anapæstic march, and the choral chaunt in
Ionic measure, with which it opens, has about it a breadth, a
magnificence, and a solemnity surpassed only in the choral hymns of the
Agamemnon. Not less effective, to an ancient audience, I am sure, must
have been the grand antiphonal chaunt with which (as in The Seven
against Thebes) the variously repeated wail of this tragedy is brought
to a climax; and if the Bishop of London, and some other scholars, have
thought this sad exhibition of national lamentation ridiculous, we ought
to believe that these critics have forgot the difference between a
modern reader and an ancient spectator, rather than that so great a
master as Æschylus did not know how to distinguish between a tragedy
and a farce.
In common with other historical poems, the Persians of Æschylus is not
altogether free from the fault of bringing our imaginative faculty into
collision with our understanding, by a partial suppression or
exaggeration of historical truth. In the way of suppression, the most
noticeable thing is, that the slave of Themistocles, who is described as
having, by a false report to Xerxes, brought on the battle of Salamis,
appears, according to the poet, to have cheated the Persians only;
whereas, according to the real story, he cheated his countrymen also,
and forced them to fight in that place against the will of the
non-Athenian members of the confederation. In the way of exaggeration,
again, GROTE, in an able note,[f4] has shown what appear to me
valid reasons for disbelieving the fact of the freezing of the Strymon,
and its sudden thaw, described so piteously by our poet; while the very
nature of the case plainly shows that the whole circumstances of the
retreat, coming to us through Greek reporters, were very liable to
exaggeration. This, however, in a poetical description, is a small
matter. What appears to me much worse, and, indeed, the weakest point in
the structure of the whole drama, is that the contrast between the
character and conduct of Darius and that of his son is drawn in colours
much too strong; the fact being that the son, in following the advice of
Mardonius to attack Athens, was only carrying into execution the design
of the father, and making use of his preparations.[f5] All that I
have to say in defence of this misrepresentation is, that the poet wrote
with a glowing patriotic heat what we now contemplate with a cold
historical criticism. The greatest works of the greatest masters can, as
{300} human nature is constituted, seldom be altogether free from
inconsistencies of this kind.
I have only further to add, that I have carefully read what WELCKER
and GRUPPE[f6] have written on the supposed ideal connection
between the four pieces of the tetralogy, among which the Persians
stands second, in the extant Greek argument;[f7] but that, while I
admire exceedingly the learning and ingenuity of these writers, I doubt
much the utility of attempting to restore the palaces of ancient art out
of those few loose bricks which Time has spared us from the once compact
mass. Poetry may be benefited by such speculations; Philology, I rather
fear, has been injured.