264 Efi Papadodima
confined to his son’s lot. The ghost suggests that Xerxes has overstepped the mark even by
the standards of Persian tyrants and their warlike policy (808–31; cf. 785–6). He speaks
ofυβρις ́’ (Fisher 1992) and
,
ατη ́ , and contrasts his son, who attempted to transgress human
limitations, with the single assessor of men, who is truly unaccountable, Zeus (827–8).
What is indeed distinctively Persian (and radically different from the Athenian model)
is that Xerxes will not suffer adverse political consequences, since he is not considered
liable (
,
υπευθυν́ oς) for the expedition’s failure, according to Atossa (211–14). On a per-
sonal level, nevertheless, Xerxes partly assumes responsibility for the misfortunes he has
brought upon his people and even wishes that he had perished together with his men
(909–17, 931–4).
The play thus sets up key points of opposition between Persian and Greek civilization,
which acquire a more immediate significance given the Persians’ status as the potential
rulers of the Hellenic world, and at the same time explores the meaning of Xerxes’ indi-
vidual misconduct, which is not presented as being causally linked to ethnic origin—even
if it was facilitated by certain Persian customs. Indeed, what makes the Persian failure
interesting and potentially a lesson for the Greeks (contraE. Hall 1989: 73 and Har-
rison 2000: 109), or even a warning to the Athenians of the dangers of their empire
(see Rosenbloom 2006: Chapters 5, 6;contraLloyd 2007: 46), is that it illuminates an
all-embracing moral and religious framework shared by both cultures.
Just as the dramatic presentation of the Persians is influenced by their historical identity,
the presentation of the Trojans is influenced by their mythical background. The tragic
Trojans are distinguished from their epic counterparts most evidently when it comes to
points of ethnography but also the degree of ethnic consciousness exhibited by both
themselves and the Achaeans. This is particularly evident in the Sophoclean fragments,
where the Trojans are largely portrayed as similar to Persians with respect to language
(fr. 517–521 ofShepherds, fr. 56 ofCaptive Women, fr. 183 ofHelen’s Marriage)and
with respect to certain habits (e.g., fr. 620 ofTroilus[eunuchs in the royal court])—an
aspect that differentiates them not only from the Greeks but also from most Trojans of
extant tragedy. This discrepancy, however, does not crucially interfere with the broader
Greek–Trojan interaction, at least not in ways that would make ethnic origin predomi-
nant. Instead, the two defining elements of the Trojans’ image in our surviving plays are
their epic heritage (cf.Phoenician Women1509–14 andTrojan Women475–8, 971–6)
and their status as the enslaved (female) victims of war, who still have to struggle against
their masters’ threatening intentions.
The extant dramas concerned with the Trojan saga indeed thematize the Greek com-
munity’s issues, conflicts, or transgressions, to which the Trojan victims attempt to resist
or respond, as a rule through legitimate channels (e.g., persuasion, “trial,” supplication).
Regardless of whether their attempts are successful or not, eminent heroes of the Greek
community meet or will meet a bad end as a result of the Greek world’s internal animosi-
ties (Agamemnon,Andromache), or its transgressions against Troy in particular (Hecuba,
Trojan Women,Agamemnonin part). In this way, the boundaries between victors and
victims, friends and enemies, and Greeks and barbarians (understood as a charged dis-
tinction) are significantly blurred.
On the whole, and irrespective of each group’s possible misconducts or failings,
Achaeans and Trojans are represented as sharing traditional heroic values (friendship–
enmity, reciprocity, honor) and cultural norms, some of which reflect fifth-century