Tristan Gray

There can be little dispute that a charge of 'orientalism', for it is certainly an accusation when used
in the context for which it has been appropriated by Edward Said, is, at best, one of ignorance and,
at worst, one of xenophobic and imperialist arrogance. Though Mr. Said claims himself that the
term is not 'representative and expressive of some nefarious Western imperialist plot to hold down
the Orientalist world,1' yet his admission of 'Orientalism's broadly imperialist view of the world 2'
undermines his conviction to his own words. Can there be any merit to such an allegation, when one
cannot help but be accused of projecting an inferiority on the so-called 'other'?
Central to Mr. Said's argument is a notion that every literary work concerning the East and
originating from a colonial power, whether contemporary to the imperial period or subsequent,
cannot but patronise and misrepresent peoples and cultures of the Orient. Furthermore, the
oppression by the West which, so he claims, has subjugated the people of the Middle East for two
thousand years,3 cannot but be reflected, consciously or unconsciously, in literature produced under
the same ideologies. It is therefore unfortunate that Mr. Said chooses to describe Aeschylus as a
'non-Oriental4', a curiously exclusive description which serves to make Mr. Said guilty of the very
prejudice of which he so recklessly accuses many others.
Let criticism of the method and its proponent be ceased briefly however; how appropriate, if at all,
is an Orientalist reading of Aeschylus' Persians? And could anything worthwhile be extracted from
the results of such a survey?
It cannot be doubted that Aeschylus very deliberately portrays the Persians as almost a polar
opposite to the Greeks in every respect. Indeed Herodotus, in his Histories, contrasts both the
manner in and reasons for which both sides fought; the Greeks fought for freedom and justice, and
their smaller ranks were better disciplined and dedicated; the Persians, by contrast, fought for
conquest and out of fear of their own lords' wrath, whose great hordes were unruly and lacked
discipline. A great number of troops but few men, as Herodotus describes them. 5 Furthermore
Aeschylus' Xerxes, defeated by the Greeks at Salamis, wails and bemoans his loss:
Alas, wretched am I who have met this cruel
doom

What misery is yet in store for me...?

Aeschylus, Persians 909 - 9126

Contrasted with the perceived nobility and pragmatism of the Greeks, this extract, which begins a
section of some 150 lines during which Xerxes rues his defeat and his own humiliation at the hands
of the Greeks, shows the 'otherness' of the barbarians' leader. The length of the section, which, in its
entirety, consumes more than a tenth of the play, would itself have been a source of amusement to
the audience, to whom such an effusion of grief and mourning would be the reserve of women.
Married to the nature of Xerxes' distress, which is concerned primarily with himself and his own
loss of men rather than, for example, his failure in his duty to his army and his state, this would be
considered a typically un-Greek manner in which to express oneself, lacking dignity and
composure.
1
2
3
4
5
6

Said Orientalism (1978), 12

Ibid., 15
'The Orient was almost a European invention, and had been since antiquity...' Orientalism, 1
Ibid., 21
Herodotus Histories, 7.210
Trans. H. W. Smyth, 1926

Tristan Gray

It would be a disservice to any erudite reader to list exhaustively every way in and each reason for
which Aeschylus contrasts the Persians and the Athenians and seeks to generate the 'other', both
literally as an enemy and also as a concept or idea of the Eastern peoples. It is clear that, in both
Herodotus' and Aeschylus' romanticised accounts of history, stark contrasts are deliberately and
consistently drawn between Persian and Athenian. Such distinctions alone are enough to satisfy the
conditions of Orientalism. Indeed, Mr. Said himself pinpoints Aeschylus as the beginning of
Western literature's apparent crusade against the East.7
For its own purposes, however, Orientalism requires that the distancing and derogatory depictions
of the East by the West are somehow unique and distinct; wherefore Mr. Said argues that the West,
and Western literature by association, has subjugated and demeaned the people and cultures of the
East unceasingly since the time of the Greeks and the Persians.
Creation or depiction of an 'other' in literature of many cultures derives not from the nature of the
enemy alone but from the fact of their being an enemy at all. Caesar, in his Gallic Wars, shows the
Gauls to be not only unruly and disorganised in battle but also of lower moral standards than
Romans with the burning alive of innocents, and less advanced in their failure to treat diseases. 8
Indeed, race or origin need not be factors at all in the revulsion of some 'other'. Luo Guangzhong, in
his 14th-century work The Romance of the Three Kingdoms, tells of the 'overbearing and arrogant'
tyrant Dong Zhuo's failure to give proper respect the virtuous Liu Bei.9
It is difficult, therefore, to see how any claim of 'orientalism' in Herodotus or Aeschylus could rely
on some special criterion, namely that it be because of their geographical differences, rather than
simply enmity, that the Persians are the subject of derision, which differentiates it from mockery or
derision of any other person or group. But what could constitute such a differentiating factor?
Surely to make a claim that the Persians are unfairly represented is to miss the wood for the trees, to
allow subscription to a theory to cloud one's judgement of the text? That is to say that, not having
begun by seeking an 'orientalist' reading of ancient literature, what is there to separate The Persians
or Histories from any other account of any other 'other'?
Mr. Said's Orientalism is, primarily, aimed at representations of Muslims and Islamic culture by,
first, the British and French and, subsequently, by the United States. The relevance of The Persians
to modern or even any subsequent Orientalist writing is that it was, according to Mr. Said, the
earliest example of Orientalism10 and, inasmuch as it suits his intention, in the same vein as much
Western literature since.
To say, however, that the East is just a kind of theatre for Western audiences, and that false
representations in Western literature are damaging to the East precludes any sort of autonomy of
Muslim or Eastern cultures; indeed, it is surely more patronising to suggest that the East is merely
an impotent plaything for Western writers than to write about it from a position of ignorance. Of
course, Herodotus' Xerxes is a creation of his own mind and a reflection of his own aims as much as
he is an accurate representation of truth; yet by the same token, the Saladin of legend is created as
much as he is recorded. His contemporary, William of Tyre, wrote of Saladin that he was 'a man of
sharp mind, active in war, and generous beyond proper measure. 11' And just as modern
representations of Xerxes retain the image of the proud and hubristic ruler12, so Saladin is enshrined
7
8
9
10
11
12

Said Orientalism, 18
Caesar Gallic Wars, 6.8; 6.16
Luo Guangzhong The Romance of the Three Kingdoms, 1.101
Said Orientalism, 18
William (1169), 958
The 2006 film 300 is an excellent example of the modern popular view

Tristan Gray

in history as an excellent ruler and warrior, described thus by Richard in Scott's The Talisman:
I have never known knight more fulfilled of
nobleness, or to whose good faith we may
so peremptorily intrust[sic] ourselves.
Scott, The Talisman13

If ever there were a contrast between representations of two men, it is between the descriptions of
the Eastern leaders in The Persians and The Talisman. Indeed, much of Scott's novel awards praise
to the Muslim leaders for their humanity where it criticises the factious crusaders.
The characterisation of Xerxes as leader serves as one of several ways in which the Persians of
Aeschylus and Herodotus are denigrated. Chiefly these are, as well as hubristic and arrogant
leadership, the unruliness and inferiority of their army, and superiority of Greek tactics and plans.
In order to dispel the idea that there can be any Eurocentric uniqueness to the representation of the
'other' in The Persians, it is perhaps best to take a text written under an Eastern ruler and compare,
systematically, representations of Western equivalents. The Third Crusade, while far from an
equivalent to the Graeco-Persian war, is an opportunity for study of Muslim literature concerning
the Christians; it is, of course, an account of the enmity between the two sides which, like the
Greeks and the Persians, began fighting over a piece of disputed land.
The Kurdish historian Bohadin wrote a full account of the life of Saladin including, in detail, the
events of the Third Crusade. He, like Aeschylus, was contemporary to the events he recorded and
the oft-repeated caveat that 'for I myself was not there 14' assures us of a comparable level of
involvement to Herodotus'.
The most obvious distinction in Bohadin's account is the manner of death for the Muslims and
Christians; a glorious death has been a matter of importance to many cultures, particularly those to
whom war has been a constant companion. The Greeks also placed an importance on a glorious and
noble death for the soldier, and the deaths of many Persians in Aeschylus are without such
honours.15 Likewise the Christians, when
The Moslem advanced guard rushed upon
them...killing a great number...and driving
others into the stream, where they were
drowned. None of the [Moslems] were
killed, excepting one...who had the good
fortune to receive a martyr's death.
A number of footsoldiers...found martyrdom
on the field of battle...
Bohadin, The Life of Saladin, LI; LII

It is clear that both Christian and Muslim soldiers killed on the battlefield were consigned to the
same fate, and yet only the Muslim (or Moslem) soldiers are afforded glory as a result of their
deaths in battle. Furthermore, the soldiers themselves, like the brave Greeks of Aeschylus whose
13 Scott (1832), 378
14 Bohadin (1192), 149
15 Aeschylus Persians, 441

Tristan Gray

battle-cry so terrifies the Persians,16 surpass the enemy in both prowess and mental constitution; the
solitary Muslim soldier who died in one particular battle held his own against the Christians, though
mortally wounded, until his quiver was empty and he was overwhelmed by the number of the
enemy.17
The leaders, too, of the Christians are neither trustworthy nor chivalrous. King Guy, captured by
Saladin, agrees not to raise arms against him in exchange for his release. But he 'broke his word 18'
and returned to fight with the marquis of Montferrat, a man 'accurst of God. 19' Indeed, a good word
is only said about a defector whose intelligence and wisdom are praised when he surrenders himself
and his army to Saladin, who treats him with the utmost dignity and respect. 20 It is interesting to
note here the contrast between this episode and the famous traitor Ephialtes of Sparta, who betrays
the Greeks for hope of gold from the Persians.21 It seems obvious indeed that the betrayed should
speak ill of the traitor, and that the beneficiaries should shower praise upon him.
A further defining measure of quality is the application of valour in battle; it is true for both the
Greeks in Aeschylus with their battle cry and the Muslims of Saladin's army who, 'too proud to
retreat before the Franks, [were] urged by a feeling of honour...' 22 that retreat or giving in at the sight
of the enemy or the jaws of defeat is a weakness not ever to be countenanced by the side of the
history's writer. And as if in chorus, the Persians and the Christians:
Fear
shook
every
one
of
the
barbarians...The Persians answered that
shout with a frightened murmur...
Aeschylus, Persians, 392 408
The Franks, when they saw the first
reinforcements...were seized with terror,
and retreated.
Bohadin, The Life of Saladin, LIII

While the two events span almost two thousand years and the civilisations which they represent
differ so wildly as to be irreconcilable, comparison so similar can be drawn that it serves the
purpose of questioning any Orientalist rendering of Aeschylus, for it allows one of two possibilities;
either the characterisation of the Persians and the derision directed towards them is a result
primarily of enmity, and the distancing of Persians from Greeks serves only as a symptom of their
already being drawn against each other in war, or one must accept that any derision towards or bias
against the East in Western literature is as easily represented in Eastern literature concerning the
West. An Orientalist reading in isolation, therefore, is necessarily myopic, either so obsessing over
the East-West divide as to overlook completely more obvious reasons for hostility to others, or
ignoring, to its detriment, views of the West from the East.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Ibid., 388
Bohadin (1192), 145
Bohadin (1192), 143
Ibid., 144
Ibid., 142
Herodotus Histories,7.123
Bohadin (1192), 149

Tristan Gray

Bibliography
E. W. Said, Orientalism, Vintage Books 1978
H. W. Smyth, Aeschylus, with an English translation, Harvard University press 1926
C. H. Brewitt-Taylor (c. 1860), The Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Silk Pagoda 2008
William of Tyre (1169), Historia Rerum in Partibus Transmarinis Gestarum, Imprimerie Royale,
Paris 1844
W. Scott (1832), The Talisman, Collins' Imperial Library 1904
Bohadin (1192), The Life of Saladin (various translators), Billing & Sons 1897
Tom Holland, Herodotus' Histories, Penguin Classics 2013