We can see from this section that Joseph still remains close to his roots and his religion, to his nation, as it were, even in death. He wishes to be carried to Israel, the promised land, so that he may be buried with his people. This is why Joseph is still regarded so highly, despite some of his childish nature. He embodies that of the perfect man of faith, never faltering in the skills that God gave him in interpreting dreams, and maintaining his connection to God.

Zach Long CC BY-NC-ND

In this section of the text, while not directly from the story of Joseph, it does show to us that most people see Joseph as being in the right because he sticks with his Jewish heritage, that he follows the faith of his people, despite how his brothers sold him o slavery and that he grew up mostly in Egypt where it was not the predominant religion of that area.

Zach Long CC BY-NC-ND

This further shows that those that follow God under this religion are not following what is "right" that all other religions are false and wrong. You either believe in this God, or you believe wrongly and therefore are seen as being "other" of being incorrect.

Zach Long CC BY-NC-ND

In this text we can see what it means to be of this faith. We can see that the beauty of Joseph draws evil and brings a lady to want him. If he were to listen to these desires than he would be "ignorant" which shows that promiscuity, or coveting someone else's wife, is seen as "less than" in the identity of this culture.

Zach Long CC BY-NC-ND

Here we have a different spin on the idea of "us" vs "them". Instead of the idea of nations being different because they are a different people, we have Soudabeh convincing Kay-Kavous that Siawosh is unworthy and that he tricked them with magic. All to get revenge because Siawosh would not sleep with her. It's certainly a different view of "them" vs "us" that we've seen in other works.

Zach Long CC BY-NC-ND

The wording here and in the Helen Zimmern translation, are nearly identical. This shows just how important to the tellers of this story, that Siawosh be strong and beautiful. Without this element, Siawosh would not be chosen by fate nor the king to be raised well.

Zach Long CC BY-NC-ND

In looking at this moment, the "them" vs "us" is even used with ones own blood. Sudaveh manipulates Kai Kawous in order to get back on Saiawosh for denying her. This reminds me a bit of Lord of the Rings, where the king of Gondor is made ill and is under Sauromon's control and doesn't care that his son was killed. In this sense, Saiawosh is being made into a "them" despite truly being an "us" as he is from his father.

Zach Long CC BY-NC-ND

We see here that the identity of this nation is in military strength and physical beauty. He is given up to be raised by a king because he is so beautiful and strong. This sense of identity is familiar in other moments in literature, where you only belong in the predominant race if you are strong and handsome.

Zach Long CC BY-NC-ND

In this translation of the story, we can see that the word used here is hierodule and almost immediately after, courtesan. Hierodule is another word for priestess, and courtesan implies a sexual nature. So here we can see this used to both show that she should have some status and yet is also shown to have little regard. However, she is still shown to be used to make Enkidu civilized, and thus he is no longer "other" to the people of Uruk, but one of them as he becomes Gilgamesh's companion.

Zach Long CC CC BY-NC-ND

This is the closest part I could find to that of Cookson /The_Persians)when he first looked at Xerxes. In that version, he translates Xerxes as a warmongering unwise king. Here, we see something similar, though again a bit more subtly displayed. Morshead does blame Xerxes here, but he doesn't outright call him a fool or say he only seeks war, which depletes the manly youth of Persia.

Zach Long CC BY-NC-ND

This section shows the first taste of how the Persians view the Athenians. They see them as nothing more than murderers, as common thugs who slew husbands and fathers. Despite the fact that the Persians were the attackers and the Athenians were the defenders of this war. Again, in the language comparison between this version and the version translated by Cookson/The_Persians), we can see that both shows Athens as an evildoer, however, in this case Morshead is actually more brutal about it than Cookson is. Here Athens is portrayed as simply murderous, whereas in Cookson's version it only states them as being hateful. I would say that murder is worse than hatred, though I suppose the latter could lead to the former.

Zach Long CC BY-NC-ND

Here, we can see that the Athenians are shown as bowing to no one man, they have no king, nor are they subject to any other nation. The idea of a democracy, as the Athenians are known to have some form of in this time, is foreign to the Persians. This is also interesting because the use of the word slave. With Persians being the first known Empire in the world, they cast aside slavery and let all people be free. While Athens was not the worst in terms of slavery, as say the Spartans, they were still slavers in totality. They did have slaves. So using the word "slave" here is an interesting use of the word. We can see this same thing come through in looking at the Cookson/The_Persians) version as well.

Zach Long CC BY-NC-ND

Again, in looking at the Cookson/The_Persians) version here, we can see that he has a grander flair in his talking of the queen. He references her as the wife of a god. Here, in Morshead's version, we see that she is still highly regarded by the author, and she even has some relationship to a god with her "godlike sheen". However, again with the word choices here, we can see that Morshead appears to be a bit more modest in how he chooses to portray the Persians versus the way Cookson talks about them.

Zach Long CC BY-NC-ND

If we look at this section in comparisson to the version translated by G. M. Cookson/The_Persians), we can see that the translators went in slightly different ways. In Cookson's version it shows the bravado of the Persians. It showcases how mighty they are. With Morshead, he translated it in a more modest light. He does say that no barrier nor phalanx, a reference to the style in which the Hellenistic people fought, can be so brave. Essentially they say the same thing, that Persia cannot be defeated by such a style of fighting, but Cookson seems to have the Persians boasting be more outright and less hidden in the meaning of the words.

Zach Long CC BY-NC-ND

If we look at this altogether, we can begin to see an interesting form of "self" of the identity of this people. They see themselves as civilized. They see Enkidu as "other". They see this wild man and think he should be tamed by a "harlot" who will strip naked and lay with Enkidu so that he may too be civilized. It's interesting as well the language used her to describe this woman. This implies that without women, men would still be uncivilized, that they would be wild and roam the lands as wild beasts do. However, the author still translates to harlot. So, it is not merely the act of a woman, but the physical act that somehow tames the wildness within men, yet she does not gain any respect for keeping men civil.

Zach Long CC BY-NC-ND

We see the Persians as a whole, along with Darius and the Queen, spoken of in such high regards that this switch to showing Xerxes as an unwise king is a change of pace. It places him as "other" it shows that they had to fight him as he is a terrible king. It is a negative way of looking at him, though Aeschylus clearly had some respect for his father and mother and of the people as a while, he dis not show the same respect for Xerxes throughout this play, giving both the Athenians and the Persians a "common enemy" as it were within the context of this play. For the Athenians, he is a bafoonish ruler whom was handily defeated at Salamis. For the Persians, he wasted time and the lives of their men on his on interests of getting revenge for their loss at Marathon, and losing almost all of the men of Persia, casting away an entire generation of strong men.

Zach Long CC BY-NC-ND

While Aeschylus is Athenian, this play is from the Persian perspective,and while he does not wish to besmirch the name of Athens, he has to see from the Persian's eyes what it may look like to see their mighty army defeated. In this instance, he is saying that Athens really knows how to hold a grudge. That, if you come for its people, you will falter, and you will fail as they harness no compassion for its enemies.

Zach Long CC BY-NC-ND

It;s curious the use of language here. While this is saying that the Athenians are slave to none, that they do not have one ruler above them as they are a democratic power, the use of "slave" not sorting with Athenian is an interesting choice of words because they do house slaves. So while what the author is saying is true, the use of the word slave here is an interesting choice as the word slave does correlate to Athens, but not in the same way. It's almost to indicate, as the original author was Athenian, that they are superior to Persia because they bow to no one man, no king rules Athens. They are not subjugated to another people, like most of Persia's territory, which are satraps and subjugates of Persia, and not all technically Persians.

Zach Long CC BY-NC-ND

When speaking of the Queen of Persia, the author speaks of her as the "spouse of a god". The use of language here is to show that Persians, especially the rulers of Persia, are powerful enough to be, and be with, the gods. They think themselves as gods, and therefore, how could they not come out of this war victorious.

Zach Long CC BY-NC-ND

This section here shows how highly the Persians think of themselves. It equates them to being incomparable, as having no equal in military might. This is quite interesting considering they have been defeated by the same foe only a few years prior at the battle of Marathon, thus the Persians clearly have equals, or perhaps even superiors in these terms. They do have more numbers than they had on their previous march to fight the Athenians, Spartans, etc. than when they lost at Marathon. It's similar in irony to the Titanic being an "unsinkable" ship, only to sink on its maiden voyage. Here the Persians are saying the same thing, that they are incomparable in strength, and yet we find out later that they are in fact not incomparable.

Zach Long CC BY-NC-ND