Greeks And BarbariansEdinburgh University Press, 2019 M07 30 - 288 pages How did the Greeks view foreign peoples? This book considers what the Greeks thought of foreigners and their religions, cultures and politics, and what these beliefs and opinions reveal about the Greeks. The Greeks were occasionally intrigued by the customs and religions of the many different peoples with whom they came into contact; more often they were disdainful or dismissive, tending to regard non-Greeks as at best inferior, and at worst as candidates for conquest and enslavement. Facing up to this less attractive aspect of the classical tradition is vital, Thomas Harrison argues, to seeing both what the ancient world was really like and the full nature of its legacy in the modern. In this book he brings together outstanding European and American scholarship to show the difference and complexity of Greek representations of foreign peoples - or barbarians, as the Greeks called them - and how these representations changed over time.The book looks first at the main sources: the Histories of Herodotus, Greek tragedy, and Athenian art. Part II examines how the Greeks distinguished themselves from barbarians through myth, language and religion. Part III considers Greek representations of two different barbarian peoples - the allegedly decadent and effeminate Persians, and the Egyptians, proverbial for their religious wisdom. In part IV three chapters trace the development of the Greek-barbarian antithesis in later history: in nineteenth-century scholarship, in Byzantine and modern Greece, and in western intellectual history.Of the twelve chapters six are published in English for the first time. The editor has provided an extensive general introduction, as well as introductions to the parts. The book contains two maps, a guide to further reading and an intellectual chronology. All passages of ancient languages are translated, and difficult terms are explained. |
From inside the book
Page 9
... authors – Xenophon, Isocrates, Plato, Aristotle – the reader is referred to other chapters (Hartog, Briant, Nippel, Walbank). Almost all the sources (including the artistic material examined by Lissarrague) derive from Athens. The ...
... authors – Xenophon, Isocrates, Plato, Aristotle – the reader is referred to other chapters (Hartog, Briant, Nippel, Walbank). Almost all the sources (including the artistic material examined by Lissarrague) derive from Athens. The ...
Page 12
... authors – notably Herodotus – may have taken pride in the setting straight of their contemporaries' conceptions of foreign peoples (notwithstanding the schematic nature of their own accounts). In general, however, there was likely to ...
... authors – notably Herodotus – may have taken pride in the setting straight of their contemporaries' conceptions of foreign peoples (notwithstanding the schematic nature of their own accounts). In general, however, there was likely to ...
Page 14
... authors whose work is contained in this volume arrive there as specialists in very disparate fields: Greek tragedy (Goldhill, Saïd), Athenian art (Lissarrague), philology (Morpurgo Davies), the history of religion (Rudhardt), Persian ...
... authors whose work is contained in this volume arrive there as specialists in very disparate fields: Greek tragedy (Goldhill, Saïd), Athenian art (Lissarrague), philology (Morpurgo Davies), the history of religion (Rudhardt), Persian ...
Page 19
... author, more than any other, who has emphasised the chauvinism implicit in the play and Aeschylus' contrast of Greek virtues and Persian vices) and in the readings of most other modern critics.17 I have argued elsewhere for an ...
... author, more than any other, who has emphasised the chauvinism implicit in the play and Aeschylus' contrast of Greek virtues and Persian vices) and in the readings of most other modern critics.17 I have argued elsewhere for an ...
Page 20
... authors: Herodotus and Aeschylus both appear to draw from a common pool of 'knowledge' of the Persian court.20 With Suzanne Saïd (Ch. 3), we turn then to the later problematisation of the Greek–barbarian antithesis by Euripides. Saïd ...
... authors: Herodotus and Aeschylus both appear to draw from a common pool of 'knowledge' of the Persian court.20 With Suzanne Saïd (Ch. 3), we turn then to the later problematisation of the Greek–barbarian antithesis by Euripides. Saïd ...
Contents
1 | |
15 | |
PART II THEMES | 125 |
PART III PEOPLES | 187 |
PART IV OVERVIEWS | 229 |
Intellectual Chronology | 311 |
Guide to Further Reading | 313 |
Bibliography | 314 |
Index | 328 |
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
according Aeschylus ancient appears argument Asia Athenian Athens authors Barbarian become Cadmus called century classical common concept context contrast course culture customs dialect discussion divine early Egypt Egyptian empire especially ethnic Euripides evidence example existence fact fifth foreign further give gods Greece Greek Hall hand Hellenic Herodotus human idea identity important instance interest interpretation Isocrates Italy king land language later less linguistic matriarchy means mentioned myth nature never nomoi opposition oriental origin Paris particular period Persian Persian Wars Phoenician Plato play political possible present problem question reason refer regard relations religion Roman rule Scythians seems seen shows society sources speak speech story theory thought tradition tragedy turn University various whole women writing