Summary:
T
his paper deals with four essential elements: the first one focus our attention on the history of the relationship between the Egyptians and the Greeks and its curves between sympathy and antipathy. What I am actually interested in pointing out in this part, is that the epoch of the seventh and sixth century B.C., and the settlement of the Greeks in Naukratis, has played an important role in better forming the background and the image of Egypt, and those Egyptian elements in both Greek mythology and tragedy. Moreover, the Greeks of Asia Minor helped in essentially creating such background at a time where the Athenians were far from any direct contact with Egypt, until the fifth century. Herodotus' book II also – without doubt - has participated in forming such background, which cannot be ignored at the time when Greek tragedies were performed, although his accounts were concerned with the history of Egypt and not a history of Greek contact with Egypt and the Egyptians. Taking into account the publishing date of book II and the performing date of those tragedies which contain these Egyptian allusions. Herodotus' writings – as we know - had a wide audience, for the Greeks cultivated a voyeuristic interest in alien customs, however much they looked down on the aliens themselves.
The second element deals with the reasons that encouraged or may forced Aeschylus to mention Egypt and Egyptian elements throughout his tragedies (e. g. the Supplices). As it seems to me, Aeschylus did not intend to use the dramatic conflict between the Danaids and the sons of Aegyptus in the Supplices, in order to express, the so called, the tense relationship between the Greeks and the Egyptians of his own days, or to maintain and contribute such conflict. Aeschylus was tempted to use the Danaids myth because of its nature which basically depend on such an exciting conflict (Danaids - sons of Aegyptus), which is considered the main factor of the drama. The conflict in Aeschylus’ Supplices, as it seems to me, was not Greek - Egyptian or West against East, as it was seen by most scholars. It was Greek - Greek or in other words, old political and social Greek ideologies (monarchy, exogamy) and the preferable new one (democracy, endogamy). Egypt was for Aeschylus the image of Greece in the past and present; the symbol and the better field of example, from which he currents the Athenian audience to their remote and present days. It should be noted here that differences between two political or social systems (Greek & Egyptian) do not necessarily mean conflict between two civilizations, as some scholars believed, and conflict does not necessarily mean violence. The struggle between the Danaids and their suitors, generally, was not a conflict between right and wrong, but between two rights, one old and the other new. Aeschylus’ Supplices needs to be re-read again from a fair view points, for I feel sorry to say that racist biases throughout some attitudes and opinions were sounded.
The third part of this paper deals with the colors of the ancient Egyptians throughout the tragedies of Aeschylus, particularly, the Supplices. My main aim is to investigate the ancient Greek viewpoint about this issue, and their attitude towards the other nations, particularly the Egyptians, whom their complexions are quiet different from them. It seems to me that although the Greeks had encountered Egyptians and Ethiopians, there was no specifically anti-black sentiment in Greek drama. The ancients did not fall into the error of biological racism; black skin color was not a sign of inferiority. The darkness of the Egyptians, is referred to often enough in Suppliants to be, like the strangeness of their speech, a consistent part of their characterization. Stress is laid on their non-Greek appearance (lines 277-290) by the fact that the king can hardly believe the tale of the Danaids because they are not like Argive maidens, but like Libyans, Egyptians, Amazons, or Nomads - all, presumably, of dark complexion. Looking different is not, for Aeschylus, an essential part of the characterization of foreigners, any more than speaking differently is.
The fourth part of this paper treats the concept of Egypt in the tragedies of Euripides particularly Helen. The conflict in Euripides’ Helen, as it seems to me, was not actually Greek - Egyptian, but probably Egyptian - Trojan or Athenian -Spartan. The Athenian - Spartan military conflict and Euripides political thoughts played an important role in forming the play that should not be ignored. Euripides, in contrary, wished, strongly and throughout one of his tragedies (Helen), to praise the position of Egypt and the Egyptians throughout the Trojan War and its nobleness, generosity, and fulfillment that kept the chastity of the beautiful Helen untouched as a way of gratitude to Egypt.
Finally, we can conclude our summary as follows: Aeschylus’ Supplices stressed, to an extent, on the external side of the Egyptian civilization (its geography, physical appearance, language, costume and habits, political and social systems and so on ….), Euripides’ Helen, from the other side, stressed on the internal side of the Egyptian civilization (the deepness of the Egyptian character from all its different sides (its religious aspects, kindness, nobility, and the strong family ties in ancient Egypt). Euripides is further distinguished from Aeschylus and Sophocles by his interest in the question of the relative value of Greek and barbarian culture and individuals.
