Creating Barbarians II

Having established the three main identifiers I will be looking for in the previous post, my discussion now turns to the works of Homer. The first identifier I will examine is the stereotype of the numberless and disordered barbarian hordes versus the disciplined Greeks. It is a stereotype that unites and reaffirms members of one group by opposing them to a multitude of exoticized “others.” It also stresses the “moral superiority” of the Greeks in their ability to govern themselves. Herodotus famously plays this up in his Histories where he contrasts self-ruling Greeks to “slavish” Persians.[1]

Homer’s introduction of the Trojans in the Iliad is exactly what we might expect to find in Herodotus:

Now when they were marshaled, the several companies with their

captains, the Trojans came on with clamor and with a cry like birds, even as

the clamor of cranes ariseth before the face of heaven, when they flee from

wintry storms and measureless rain . . . But the Achaeans came on in silence,

breathing fury, eager at heart to bear aid each man to his fellow.[2]

The picture is one of Trojan (read: barbarian) disorder and Achaean (read: Greek) order. The Achaeans rule themselves by marching with strict discipline, but the Trojans come on in din and disorder. The metaphor used to represent the Trojan cries is far from martial. They do not roar like lions, but cry out like birds; particularly birds fleeing from a harsh winter.[3] There is a tie-in between this image and the stereotype of barbarian “softness” as well. If the Trojans are dangerous, it is because they have a savage, cornered-animal rage, in contrast to the measured, controlled “fury” of the Achaeans.[4] The Achaeans fight for their comrades; they are loyal. There is no loyalty between birds flying south for the winter. The metaphors point to the underlying concept: the Trojans are creatures of passion and the Achaeans are creatures of discipline. This description is not unique in the Iliad.[5]

The second identifier is the stereotype of barbarian luxury and effeminacy. Beyond the sheer opulence of Priam’s Troy, there is the implication that it has made its prosperous citizens and allies less than warlike. Throughout the Iliad, no Achaean begs for mercy; they retreat or die. Throughout the Iliad, numerous Trojans degrade themselves by surrendering, cowering in the face of an overwhelming enemy rather than facing death. For example, take the two sons of Antimachus faced with the rampaging Agamemnon in book XI:

Then took he Peisander and Hippolochus, staunch in fight. Sons were

they of wise-hearted Antimachus . . . His two sons lord Agamemnon took,

the twain being in one car, and together were they seeking to drive the

swift horses, for the shining reins had slipped from their hands, and the

two horses were running wild; but he rushed against them like a lion, the

son of Atreus, and the twain made entreaty to him from the car: “Take us

alive, thou son of Atreus, and accept a worthy ransom; treasures full many

lie stored in the palace of Antimachus, bronze and gold and iron, wrought

with toil; thereof would our father grant thee ransom past counting, should

he hear that we are alive at the ships of the Achaeans.”[6]

This portrayal is hardly flattering, and is representative of similar scenes throughout the work. When martial courage fails, the luxury-loving and effete Trojan nobles try to buy their way out. The Achaeans may be brutal in granting no quarter, but the text shows clearly that they ask none themselves.[7] Once again, this episode is not unique, but repeated throughout the poem.[8]

 The final identifier is that of the “great leader,” or the barbarian who through virtue of possessing certain “Greek” traits is able to rule over the other barbarians and to provide a fitting challenge to Greek manhood on the field of battle.[9] There is only one contender for the role of “great leader” in the Iliad, and that is Hector.

The “inferiority” of the Trojans can be seen in the number of heroes they can field. The Trojans have Hector and, as a far second, Sarpedon. Priam is too old to fight, unlike his rival, Agamemnon. In addition, the Trojans are saddled with the unmanly Paris. The Achaeans, on the other hand, have Achilles, Agamemnon, Menelaus, Odysseus, Idomeneus, Diomedes, and the two Ajax.[10]

Hector’s role as the “super-barbarian” becomes even more apparent when seen in light of the primacy of Achilles. Ever since the Romans, there has been a tendency to see Hector as the proper hero of the Iliad. This rooted admiration of Hector’s noble qualities can obscure the fact that the Homerically intended hero of the Iliad has always been Achilles.[11] The most important evidence of this is that it is Achilles who is given a true character arc throughout the work, while Hector remains on a constant slope toward his death.[12] As Gregory Nagy puts it, Hector’s aristeíā, or “grand heroic moment,” functions only to enhance Achilles’ kléos, or “glory,” as the focal character of the Iliad.[13] Though both men are doomed to die fighting before the walls of windy Troy, Achilles achieves a special enlightenment, turning from his implacable wrath back to the world of community, and walks knowingly to his doom with a clear sight.[14] Hector, on the other hand, never achieves this clarity; he plays his part as Achilles’ foil and dies.[15] As much as Hector may be the more appealing character to our modern sensibilities, we must remember to take care that we do not misinterpret an ancient work by reading our modern morals back into it.[16] Seen in its original light, then, Hector appears not as the tragic hero we may want him to be, but instead as a foil for the true agents of the drama, the Achaeans.

While the full-fledged Greek/barbarian dichotomy of the Classical Era is not explicitly present in the Iliad, the root images and concepts of that dichotomy can still be seen. According to Hartog: “In Greece, it all began with epic, and for centuries everything remained under the sign of Homer. It is in epic that we must first expect to find the principal categories of Greek anthropology established and used.”[17] In my next post, I will go on to show how Aeschylus appropriated these Homeric tropes and used them to give shape to his dramatic interpretation of the battle of Salamis.

Nota Bene: This post is a reduction of my master’s thesis “Peacocks Out of Asia”.

---

[1] Peter Hunt, Slaves, Warfare, and Ideology, op. cit., 42, 49.

[2] Homer, Iliad, ed. Loeb, trans. A. T. Murray, op. cit., III.1-9.

[3] Compare with Homer’s description of Agamemnon and the Achaeans in general as lions, cf. Homer, Iliad, ed. Loeb, trans. A. T. Murray, op. cit., XI.102-135.

[4] Compare with Thucydides’ description of the Thracians in VII.29.4-5, 30.3, cf. Paul Cartledge, The Greeks: A Portrait of Self and Others, op. cit., 67-68.

[5] Homer, Iliad, ed. Loeb, trans. A. T. Murray, op. cit., IV.422-338.

[6] Homer, Iliad, ed. Loeb, trans. A. T. Murray, op. cit., XI.122-135.

[7] For another angle of examination, cf. James M. Redfield, Nature and Culture in the Iliad: The Tragedy of Hector (Durham: Duke University Press, 1994), 167-169.

[8] See especially the protracted episode with Lycaon, cf. Homer, Iliad, ed. Loeb, trans. A. T. Murray, op. cit., XXI.34-135.

[9] See Cartledge’s note on Xenophon’s two Cyruses as the exceptions that prove the rule, cf. Paul Cartledge, The Greeks: A Portrait of Self and Others, op. cit., 60-61.

[10] This is only to mention the most distinguished heroes. There are also Nestor the councilor and Teucer the bowman et al. Gregory Nagy identifies nine “Pan-Achaean Champions”: Agamemnon, Diomedes, Ajax, Little Ajax, Idomeneus, Meriones, Eurypylos, Thoas, and Odysseus, with Ajax, Diomedes, and Agamemnon as the inner three, cf. Gregory Nagy, The Best of the Achaeans, op. cit., 30.

[11] Indeed, keep in mind the opening lines: “The wrath do sing, O goddess, of Peleus’ son, Achilles...” Homer, Iliad, ed. Loeb, trans. A. T. Murray, op. cit. I.1.

[12] I use the term “character arc” to denote the narrative pattern given to the focal character of a story: establishment, conflict, enlightenment/attainment, resolution. Hector fails in this pattern since he achieves no enlightenment/attainment. His character is the same when he is introduced as it is when he dies. James M. Redfield charts Achilles’ character arc as a journey from inhumanity to humanity with Hector serving first as Achilles’ “agent” and then Achilles’ “victim,” cf. James M. Redfield, Nature and Culture in the Iliad: The Tragedy of Hector, op. cit., 27, 3-29. Gregory Nagy presents a scholarly study of the Epic Hero as a unified phenomenon, a type of character that can be studied in terms of common traits throughout Indo-European literature, in the field of Homeric Epic, cf. Gregory Nagy, “The Epic Hero,” in A Companion to Ancient Epic, ed. John Miles Foley, op. cit., 71-89.

[13] Gregory Nagy, The Best of the Achaeans, op. cit., 28-29.

[14] James M. Redfield, Nature and Culture in the Iliad: The Tragedy of Hector, op. cit., 13, 27-29.

[15] James M. Redfield, Nature and Culture in the Iliad: The Tragedy of Hector, op. cit., 158-159. Redfield maintains a sharp and open sympathy with Hector throughout the work as can be seen from the preface, especially xi. He sees Hector’s death as “tragic” but admits that there is no moment of revelation for Hector as there is for Achilles. When reading the work, then, it is important to distinguish between Redfield’s sympathy with Hector as a modern American and his handling of the worldview and craft of Homer as a scholar.

[16] M. I. Finley, Ancient History: Evidence and Models (New York: Penguin Books, 1985), 70-71.

[17] Francois Hartog, Memories of Odysseus, trans. Janet Lloyd, op. cit., 15. For further comparison, cf. Ruth Scodel, “The Story-Teller and His Audience,” in The Cambridge Companion to Homer, ed. Robert Fowler, op. cit., 45.