Behistun Inscription - Message to the Persian Empire

Behistun Inscription - Message to the Persian Empire The Behistun inscription (also spelled Bisitun or Bisotun and typically abbreviated as DB for Darius Bisitun) is a 6th century BCE Persian Empire carving. The ancient billboard includes four panels of cuneiform writing around a set of three-dimensional figures, cut deep into a limestone cliff. The figures are carved 300 feet (90 meters) above the Royal Road of the Achaemenids, known today as the Kermanshah-Tehran highway in Iran. Fast Facts: Behistun Steel Name of Work:  Behistun InscriptionArtist or Architect: Darius the Great, ruled 522–486 BCEStyle/Movement: Parallel CuneiformTextPeriod: Persian EmpireHeight: 120 feetWidth: 125 feetType of Work: Carved inscriptionCreated/Built: 520–518 BCEMedium: Carved Limestone BedrockLocation: Near Bisotun, IranOffbeat Fact: The earliest known example of political propagandaLanguages: Old Persian, Elamite, Akkadian The carving is located near the town of Bisotun, Iran, about 310 miles (500 kilometers) from Tehran and about 18 mi (30 km) from Kermanshah. The figures show the crowned Persian king Darius I stepping on Guatama (his predecessor and rival) and nine rebel leaders standing before him connected by ropes around their necks. The figures measures some 60x10.5 ft (18x3.2 m) and the four panels of text more than double the overall size, creating an irregular rectangle of approximately 200x120 ft (60x35 m), with the lowest part of the carving some 125 ft (38 m) above the road. Behistun Text The writing on the Behistun inscription, like the Rosetta Stone, is a parallel text, a type of linguistic text that consists of two or more strings of written language placed alongside each other so they can be easily compared. The Behistun inscription is recorded in three different languages: in this case, cuneiform versions of Old Persian, Elamite, and a form of Neo-Babylonian called Akkadian. Like the Rosetta Stone, the Behistun text greatly assisted in the decipherment of those ancient languages: the inscription includes the earliest known use of Old Persian, a sub-branch of Indo-Iranian. A version of the Behistun inscription written in Aramaic (the same language of the Dead Sea Scrolls) was discovered on a papyrus scroll in Egypt, probably written during the early years of the reign of Darius II, about a century after the DB was carved into the rocks. See Tavernier (2001) for more specifics about the Aramaic script. Royal Propaganda The text of the Behistun inscription describes the early military campaigns of the Achaemenid rule King Darius I (522–486 BCE). The inscription, carved shortly after Dariuss accession to the throne between 520 and 518 BCE, give autobiographical, historical, royal and religious information about Darius: the Behistun text is one of several pieces of propaganda establishing Dariuss right to rule. The text also includes Dariuss genealogy, a list of the ethnic groups subject to him, how his accession occurred, several failed revolts against him, a list of his royal virtues, instructions to future generations and how the text was created.   So, What Does it Mean? Most scholars agree that the Behistun inscription is a bit of political bragging. Dariuss main purpose was to establish the legitimacy of his claim to Cyrus the Greats throne, to which he had no blood connection. Other bits of Dariuss braggadocio are found in others of these trilingual passages, as well as big architectural projects at Persepolis and Susa, and the burial places of Cyrus at Pasargadae and his own at Naqsh-i-Rustam. Historian Jennifer Finn (2011) noted that the location of the cuneiform is too far above the road to be read, and few people were likely literate in any language anyway when the inscription was made. She suggests that the written portion was meant not only for public consumption but that there was likely a ritual component, that the text was a message to the cosmos about the king. Translations and Interpretations Henry Rawlinson is credited with the first successful translation in English, scrambling up the cliff in 1835, and publishing his text in 1851. The 19th-century Persian scholar Mohammad Hasan Khan Etemad al-Saltaneh (1843–96) published the first Persian translation of the Behistun translation. He noted but disputed the then-current idea that Darius or Dara might have been matched to King Lohrasp of the Zoroastrian religious and Persian epic traditions.   Israeli historian Nadav Naaman has suggested (2015) that the Behistun inscription may have been a source for the Old Testament story of Abrahams victory over the four powerful Near Eastern kings. Sources Alibaigi, Sajjad, Kamal Aldin Niknami, and Shokouh Khosravi. The Location of the Parthian City of Bagistana in Bistoun, Kermanshah: A Proposal. Iranica Antiqua 47 (2011): 117–31. Print.Briant, Pierre. History of the Persian Empire (550–330 BC). Forgotten Empire: The World of Ancient Persia. Eds. Curtis, John E., and Nigel Tallis. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005. 12–17. Print.Daryaee, Touraj. Persianate Contribution to the Study of Antiquity: Etemad Al-Saltanehs Nativisation of the Qajars. Iran 54.1 (2016): 39–45. Print.Ebeling, Signe Oksefjell, and Jarie Ebeling. From Babylon to Bergen: On the Usefulness of Aligned Texts. Bergen Language and Linguistics Studies 3.1 (2013): 23–42. Print.Finn, Jennifer. Gods, Kings, Men: Trilingual Inscriptions and Symbolic Visualizations in the Achaemenid Empire. Ars Orientalis 41 (2011): 219–75. Print.Naaman, Nadav. Abrahams Victory over the Kings of the Four Quadrants in Light of Darius Is Bis itun Inscription. Tel Aviv 42.1 (2015): 72–88. Print. Olmstead, A. T. Darius and His Behistun Inscription. The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 55.4 (1938): 392–416. Print.Rawlinson, H. C. Memoir on the Babylonian and Assyrian Inscriptions. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 14 (1851): i–16. Print.Tavernier, Jan. An Achaemenid Royal Inscription: The Text of Paragraph 13 of the Aramaic Version of the Bisitun Inscription. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 60.3 (2001): 61–176. Print.Wilson-Wright, Aren. From Persepolis to Jerusalem: A Reevaluation of Old Persian-Hebrew Contact in the Achaemenid Period. Vetus Testamentum 65.1 (2015): 152–67. Print.

The role of Inspector Goole in ‘An Inspector Calls’ Essays

The role of Inspector Goole in ‘An Inspector Calls’ Essays The role of Inspector Goole in ‘An Inspector Calls’ Essay The role of Inspector Goole in ‘An Inspector Calls’ Essay Essay Topic: Clueless Literature In this essay I will be discuss the role of the inspector in An Inspector Calls and evaluating his important to the play. An Inspector Calls was written by J.B Priestly in 1945 but was set in Capitalist England during 1912 during this time Socialism was beginning to catch onto society. The play depicts the story of the Birling family and how each member discovers his or her involvement with the death of a girl called Eva Smith (who also called herself Daisy Renton). An Inspector visits them while the family are having dinner, celebrating the engagement of Sheila and Gerald, Sheila being the daughter of the wealthy, prosperous and capitalist businessman Burling. His wife, Sybil is a cold woman and her husband’s social superior. Their children are Eric; a shy but assertive young man, and Sheila; a pretty young woman who is pleased with life. Gerald Croft, her new fiancà ©, is an attractive, easygoing man who is excited about his new engagement. Their celebration is interrupted by Inspector Goole, a man who creates an â€Å"impression of massiveness, solidity and purposefulness†. Soon, the story unravels and we discover how each member of the household is responsible for the suicide of Eva Smith. Between 1912 and 1945, many important events occurred, including; both World Wars, the Holocaust, the sink of the Titanic and the Wall Street Crash (resulting in hyperinflation and the great depression). The overall message of the play is to be more socially responsible by taking care of your community as a whole body of people, and to accept that there are other people who are different, or are of a lower class. Priestly wrote the play in 1945, it was set in 1912 however, as a way to reflect on how capitalists neglected their responsibilities as members of a society to care for others. Between the setting of the play and the time it was written, three major world events occurred; the sinking of the Titanic and both World Wars. Priestly set the play in 1912 to enable him to speak out as a socialist about how the capitalists should have changed their ways, almost warning them that if they did not, such events like war would occur. I know this because the inspector says â€Å"if men will not learn that lesson, they will be taught in blood, and fire, and anguish†. Priestly makes Arthur Birling’s views seem foolish, and writes him to be an ignorant and stupid character that is clueless about society and how the community can work together. Birling says â€Å"†¦the Titanic†¦unsinkable, absolutely unsinkable† and by this, I can recognise how commanding Birling is. I can also identify by how he speaks that he thinks his word is final, and that his decision means everything, even about the sinking of the Titanic. We know that the Titanic did sink, therefore making Birling seem foolish and arrogant. It is a brilliant example of dramatic irony, because the audience know that everything that Birling said would not happen, eventually did happen, and even causes a stir of inner hate at his socialist arrogance and his lack of care for society. This would have been important when this play was written, because England at this time was a Socialist country. We can tell from the stage directions on page eleven that the inspector gives an â€Å"impression of massiveness, solidity and purposefulness†. By directing the Inspector to seem purposeful, the audience begin questioning his true role in the play is he more important than just a police inspector? What exactly does he represent? We question this because of his behaviour towards the family; any traditional or ‘normal’ inspector of the time would’ve been empathetic towards the Birling’s situation and may have been capitalist too. When addressing people, the inspector stares them down and they begin explaining their encounter with Eva Smith. He has a â€Å"disconcerting habit of looking hard at the person he addresses before actually speaking†. This could scare or worry the family members into unfolding the story of how they all played a part in Eva Smith’s death. Either that or maybe his purposefulness may exist only in his gaze, which he uses to unravel the story to the family. The stage directions show the inspector’s authority with simple phrases like â€Å"cuting in, with authority†. This implies his voice is the most important, he is speaking out for the dead girl and needs to be heard above the family. This also has a political context; the socialists, who at the time the play was set, were only just getting any kind of authority. Also, as this play represents, socialists grew a voice and soon were beginning to be heard above the capitalists. Birling makes a strongly capitalist speech about how people should look after themselves and that society doesn’t matter. He says â€Å"communityand all that nonsense.† This is a perfect example of how Birling views the community as unnecessary and stupid. He deeply believes that a man should look after himself and his own, and he shows no empathy for the dead girl. Also, Birling’s focus in life is his money and class, which relates to capitalism. Birling’s speech is interrupted by the family’s maid, Edna, who introduces the Inspector. Birling welcomes him but immediately becomes defensive and boastful. The Inspector, however, is not phased. The emphasis on the Inspector’s determination and confidence shows how in control he is. He hushes the family so he can speak by â€Å"cutting in massively†, another portrayal of how commanding he is and his authority over the family. This is also represented by his knowledge, and the way he unnerves Sheila and Eric with his understanding of the whole situation. After leaving the room during Sheila and Gerald’s talk, the Inspector asks â€Å"Well?, showing the audience he already knows about Gerald’s affair to Daisy Renton. During his enquiries, the Inspector remains entirely in control; at times, he is able to â€Å"massively take charge†. Sheila regards him â€Å"wonderingly and dubiously†, later she realises no-one told him anything that he didn’t already know. Through his creation of the powerful, all-knowing nature of the character of the Inspector, and through the revelation of the incredible but very real chain of events in which every character is involved, Priestly successfully moves his audience beyond the bounds of naturalism. It is the unreal quality of the Inspector and his final prophecy of â€Å"fire and blood and anguish† referring to World War One which would start only two years after this play was set that successfully imbues the Inspector with an almost supernatural intelligence. To the Inspector, Eva Smith represents all the ‘lower class’ socialists of the time. The surname ‘Smith’ was very common at this time, again representing a vast quantity of people who were finding working life difficult. It is this that again makes us question the Inspector’s existence was he simply a voice for the lower, working class citizens of England? He says â€Å"there are millions and millions of Eva Smiths and John Smiths still left with us†¦intertwines with our lives†. He is explaining that by the family realising the consequences of their actions towards Eva Smith, they should reform themselves and treat everyone with respect. The Inspector’s timing is almost perfect, both upon arrival and when leaving. He arrives during Birling’s capitalist speech, representing how socialism would soon overpower capitalism. Also, the lighting changes, emphasising the Inspector’s important and authority in the play. The Inspector leaves at the end of his speech, which of course completely contrasts with what Birling was talking about in the beginning. The Inspector leaves just before Gerald’s return, who explains t the family that Inspector Goole is not a real inspector. This magnifies the Inspector’s mysterious character and leaves the family and the audience questioning his existence and purpose in the play.