Creating Barbarians I


My examination of how the Ancient Greeks formed their notion of the “barbarian,” and Persians as the archetypical “barbarians,” has its inspiration in the study of the part played by slaves in Classical Greek warfare in Peter Hunt’s Slaves, Warfare, and Ideology in the Greek Historians. Hunt argues that there is a pattern of suppression in these works, both conscious and subconscious, of the role slaves played in Classical warfare, rooted in the challenge fighting slaves posed to notions of “free Greeks.”[1] According to Hunt: “In contrast [to free Greeks], slaves are anti-warriors: they are soft, feminine, non-Greek, and cowardly.”[2] Slaves assuming the role of warrior, a part reserved for male citizens, threatened the ideological categories that separated slave from free in the minds of the citizenry:
Slavery played an important ideological role in the relations between
sections of the free population . . . On the ideological level, slaves were a
group against which all Athenians could define themselves as a unity.[3]

Hunt argues that this led to a certain “reticence of the ancient sources” in which slaves tend to “disappear” or stand out as exceptions when they are mentioned.[4] The main players of the historians’ narratives are free Greek citizens.
I believe that Hunt’s thesis can be extended to understand the mental world of the Classical Greeks in regard to a Greek/Persian dichotomy. This dichotomy has its origins at the very outset of Greek literature, Homer’s Iliad. It latches on to the Persians in the theatrical works of Persian War veteran, Aeschylus. The historian Herodotus brings the dichotomy into the realm of formal history in his Persian Wars and Xenophon’s Anabasis and Cyropedia firmly cement the dichotomy as a common place.
In order to begin my examination, I will first mark out what I believe are the three key identifiers of the Greek/barbarian dichotomy. The first identifier is the stereotype of the numberless and disordered barbarian hordes versus the disciplined Greeks. Aeschylus, an eyewitness at the battles of Marathon and Salamis, demonstrates this in his Persians:
A mighty shout greeted our ears: “On, ye sons of Hellas! Free your
native land, free your children, your wives, the fanes of your fathers’ gods,
and the tombs of your ancestors. Now you battle for all.” And now from
our side arose responsive the mingled clamor of Persian speech. [5]

The image is that of a vast and countless swarm of exotic Asiatics descending upon Greece. The Greek popular imagination liked nothing so much as a few well-disciplined Greeks overcoming all the odds to win out against a tide of disordered and clamorous  barbarians, as Xenophon’s Anabasis bears witness.[6] This identifier creates a bridge between the mental stereotype of barbarians as “weak and slavish” and the need for a compelling story. If Greeks defeating an equal number of barbarians is always going to be a pushover, how about if they’re outnumbered ten to one![7] 
The second identifier is the stereotype of barbarian luxury and effeminacy. Again, Aeschylus provides an example in speaking of the Persian-dominated Anatolians:
In their train follows a throng of luxurious Lydians, and those who hold in
subjection all the people of the mainland, whom Metrogathes and brave
Arcteus, their kingly commanders, and Sardis rich in gold sped forth, riding
in many a chariot, in ranks with three and four steeds abreast, a spectacle
terrible to behold.[8]

Barbarians are lovers of gold, numerous, and “luxurious.” In the Greek mind, Greeks may have been much poorer than the Persians, but their poverty made them rugged and “manly”; while a life of “oriental luxury” blunted the puissance of the Persians and their allies.[9] In this way, an accident of geography and economics becomes a moral virtue.
The final identifier is that of the “great leader,” or the barbarian who by virtue of possessing certain “Greek” traits is able to rule over the other barbarians and, when the narrative demands it, to provide a fitting challenge to Greek manhood on the field of battle. An example is Xenophon’s heroic Persian employer in his Anabasis, Cyrus the Younger, or his idealized Cyrus the Great:
As to his nature, even now Cyrus is still described in word and song by the
barbarians as having been most beautiful in form and most benevolent in
soul, most eager to learn, and most ambitious, with the result that he endured
every labor and faced every risk for the sake of being praised.[10]

The logic runs along the same lines as that of the “Asiatic hordes”: the creation of a “super” barbarian who can be focused on as a fitting, and (in a narrative prepared to entertain an audience) exciting, challenge to the Greeks.
            With these three identifiers marked out, I can proceed to examine their source. In the next post in this series, I will demonstrate that these markers find their origin at the beginning of Greek literature in Homer’s Iliad.

Nota Bene: This post in modified from my master’s thesis “Peacocks out of Asia: An examination of the Greco-Persian dichotomy as articulated in four ancient Greek texts”

[1] Peter Hunt, Slaves, Warfare, and Ideology in the Greek Historians (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 5.
[2] Ibid., 5.
[3] Ibid., 3.
[4] Ibid., 5.
[5] Ibid., lines 401-406.
[6] Nor is that taste foreign in our own times, as the continued popularity of the film adaptation of Frank Miller’s 300 based on the battle of Thermopylai shows; cf. http://300themovie.warnerbros.com (16 February 2006).
[7] For a brief outline of Barbarians as “servile,” cf. Paul Cartledge, The Greeks: A Portrait of Self and Others, op. cit., 54-56.
[8] Aeschylus, Persians, ed. Loeb, trans. Herbert Weir Smyth., op. cit., lines 40-48.
[9] Paul Cartledge, The Greeks: A Portrait of Self and Others, op. cit., 12. In addition, cf. Xenophon, The Education of Cyrus, trans. Wayne Ambler (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001), 8.8.8-26. Also of interest, cf. Peter Hunt, Slaves, Warfare, and Ideology in the Greek Historians, op. cit., 46-48.
[10] Xenophon, The Education of Cyrus, trans. Wayne Ambler, op. cit., 1.2.1.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ancient Witches II: Helen of Troy

In our last post, we examined the close link between medicine and magic evinced by Homer’s healers in the Iliad . This week, we turn to another Homeric adept in the art of pharmaka , one step closer to the ideal European “witch” Judge Hathorne had in mind at Salem: Helen of Troy. By 1692, Helen of Troy’s name had already entered the pop-canon of European witch-lore with Christopher Marlowe’s play Faust .* Marlowe specifically plays on the idea of Helen’s irresistible sexuality as a temptation of the Devil. While Homer knew nothing of the Devil, he does portray Helen’s beauty as supernaturally baleful. The Trojans are so enraptured by her that they refuse to release her, against the advice of the elders, even though it spells doom for their city. These elders see Helen clearly:   Small blame that Trojans and well-greaved Achaeans should for such a woman long suffer woes; she is dreadfully like immortal goddesses to look on. But even so, though she is like them, let her g...
Read more

The Shield of Aeneas Part II

In the previous post on the Shield of Aeneas, we saw how Virgil moves from the generic scenes of Achilles’ and Herakles’ shields to specific moments in the Roman past in order to express his hope that Caesar Augustus will lead the world into an era of universal peace. Today’s post focuses on the circumstances surrounding the gift of Aeneas’ shield and what they reveal about Virgil’s attitude toward his Greek sources. At first glance, the Aeneid appears strongly anti-Greek. The defeated Trojans, not the Greeks, are the heroes of the epic. Odysseus in particular comes off as a weasel, and we are told that Aeneas’ opponent, Turnus, is a new Achilles. Given how closely the structure of the Aeneid follows that of the Odyssey and then the Iliad , it can give the impression that Virgil is trying to undo Homer by some process of literary alchemy. We should take careful note, then, that at the moment when Aeneas receives his shield and prepares to bear Rome’s future on his shoulders, h...
Read more

Ancient Witches XI: The Witches of Acts

The Julio-Claudian dynasty reigned in the Hellenistic style as “Sons of God” and “Saviors,” bringing order to the chaos of the Mediterranean world. As a part of that order, the Julio-Claudians suppressed destabilizing forces such as magic and divination. During the reign of Tiberius, and particularly under his successors, Gaius Caligula and Claudius, a sect within Second Temple Judaism began challenging the official line. Leaders of The Way, such as Simon/Peter and Saul/Paul, defiantly claimed that the true “Son of God” and “Savior” was an obscure backwater preacher by the name of Jesus of Nazareth, who had been executed for political agitation. As one proof of their claim, Peter and Paul didn’t outlaw witchcraft; they declared war on it. Accounts of powerful confrontations between Peter and Paul and ancient practitioners of magic abound in the earliest organized account of The Way, Acts . It is significant that Acts does not show Peter and Paul forbidding magic so much as annih...
Read more