Читать книгу The Herodotus Encyclopedia - Группа авторов - Страница 938

HYUN JIN KIM

University of Melbourne

The term barbaros was most likely a foreign loanword in the Greek language, though its ultimate origin is disputed (Old Persian and Sumerian/Akkadian derivations have been proposed). It first appears in Greek as part of a compound word, in the “Catalogue of Ships” section of Homer’s Iliad where the Carians are referred to as barbarophonon, “barbaros‐speaking” (Il. 2.867; Hall 2002, 111–12). However, the existence of this term so early in Greek literature is suspect, since THUCYDIDES in the fifth century BCE stated that HOMER did not mention the word barbaros at all (1.3.3). It has therefore been argued that this early reference to barbaros is a late interpolation and that the term is a sixth century BCE neologism designating non‐Greeks. In fact the use of the word barbaros is rare even in Greek literature of the late sixth century. It is only attested three times in total: ANACREON (PMG F423); HECATAEUS (BNJ 1 F119); Heraclitus (DK 22 B 107). As a noun appellation, it is first found in Hecataeus (as cited by Strabo 7.7.1/C321), where it carries no visible negative connotations.

Since the time of STRABO (14.2.28/C662–63) it has been assumed that the word barbaros in Greek literature was originally associated with the inability to speak Greek which marked the foreigner off as inferior. From this assumption it was argued that language and the comprehension of LOGOS (i.e., Greek) was central to the Greek‐Barbarian divide. During the ARCHAIC AGE the Greeks recognized the existence of foreigners speaking incomprehensible tongues (e.g., Hom. Hymn Aphr. 5.113–14, where Trojan and Phrygian are cited as different languages). However, before the late sixth century BCE there is no evidence that speaking Greek was regarded as a marker of superiority over non‐Greeks. Bad feeling and prejudice towards foreigners no doubt existed among the Greeks in the early archaic period, but this by no means implied the antithetical “othering” of all foreigners based on speech patterns.

From the late sixth century onwards, however, the term barbaros is used with ever‐growing frequency, usually to designate either the Persians or Persian subjects in continental ASIA. For instance, AESCHYLUS in his Persians (472 BCE) equates Asia and non‐Greeks/barbaroi in general (i.e., those who live on the continent ruled by the Persians). Aeschylus refers to the Asiatic race (Ἀσιατογενής) and fits a plethora of ethnic groups as diverse and different as the Lydians, Persians, Babylonians, and even Egyptians into this race reared in the land of Asia (Pers. 61). XERXES is called the ruler of Asia (74), and the Greek land (Ἑλλάδα) is seen as being distinct from that of the Asians/βάρβαρον (186–87). Furthermore, in Aeschylus linguistic difference is not the only meaning implicit in the word barbaros nor is it the most prominent meaning overall. It is primarily a designation for the Persians and their Asian subjects invading Greece to deprive HELLAS of its political FREEDOM.

Scholars have often held that the Greek experience of Persian CONQUEST, the wars fought against PERSIA to preserve the freedom of Hellas, and the unexpected Greek triumph in that conflict were all critical to the formulation of the image/perception of the “barbarian,” though this view has been challenged recently (Skinner 2012; Vlassopoulos 2013). Edith Hall (1989) famously argued that the “barbarian” was invented by Athenian tragedians such as Aeschylus in the aftermath of the PERSIAN WARS, as part of the RHETORIC designed to “other” the defeated Persian enemy. The antithetical othering of the barbarian was also no doubt intimately associated with the gradual crystallization of the sense of a Hellenic ethnic identity among various Greek peoples. It has been argued that the othering of the barbarian in Greek literature of the classical period amounts to “ethnocentrism” or “proto‐racism.” This view, however, is questioned by Isaac (2004), who treats such antithetical othering as more of a fourth century BCE phenomenon.

Although Herodotus narrates the story of the Persian Wars, which were viewed by many Greeks as definite proof of their natural superiority over the Barbarian, he only rarely uses the word barbaros in a negative sense, for example when he calls Xerxes’ INSULTS towards the HELLESPONT “barbarous and presumptuous” (7.35.2). Shortly thereafter, following the greatest Greek triumph ever over the barbarians at PLATAEA, the Spartan regent PAUSANIAS refuses to impale the corpse of MARDONIUS in revenge for the outrage committed by Xerxes on the body of LEONIDAS at THERMOPYLAE and declares (in a direct speech) that “it’s a kind of deed we would expect from a barbarian, not a Greek” (9.79). MUTILATION and other acts of extreme VIOLENCE are indeed usually identified as non‐Greek practices in Herodotus.

However, the context in which the above comment appears makes the identification of extreme violence with barbarians alone in the Histories an untenable hypothesis. The suggestion for impaling Mardonius comes from an Aeginetan, a Greek, whose city had received the highest honors for valor at SALAMIS (8.93). Herodotus, in commenting on Xerxes’ act of violence against Leonidas’ corpse, asserts that the Persians are usually the last people in the world to treat men of valor with disrespect (7.238). In effect, the Greek Aeginetans are cast in a worse light than the Persians. Even among non‐Greeks, Pausanias comments, such behavior would be abhorrent. To add to the irony, this very Hellenic Pausanias would later be charged with turning traitor and adopting Persian habits (Thuc. 1.128–34).

Herodotus argues that the use of the term barbaros itself is not the exclusive prerogative of the Greeks. In his Egyptian logos, he notes that “the Egyptians call all men of other languages barbarians” (2.158.5). To the Egyptians, then, the Greeks are themselves barbaroi! Herodotus in fact suggests to the Greeks that their ethnocentrism is neither unique nor superior to that of others, and EGYPT is held up as an example of barbarian superiority vis‐à‐vis the Greeks. Throughout the Egyptian logos Herodotus consistently argues for the antiquity of Egyptian civilization and asserts that much of Greek religion is derived from Egypt (2.4, 43 etc.). As well as acknowledging the Greek debts to Egypt Herodotus also points out the various areas in which the Egyptians have surpassed the Greeks in KNOWLEDGE (the Egyptian system of months, for example: 2.4.1). Later he contrasts the unreliable Greek account of the TROJAN WAR with the more precise eyewitness accounts and reliable records of the same event supposedly preserved by the PRIESTS of Egypt (2.112–20). He even calls the Greek version silly (mataion, 2.118.1). Such comments as these later earned Herodotus the epithet philobarbaros, “barbarian‐lover” (coined by the indignant PLUTARCH, who used it to deride Herodotus in his Malice of Herodotus). As well as implicitly denying the absolute superiority of the Greeks over the barbaroi, Herodotus also frequently blurs the distinction between Greeks and non‐Greeks.

To a certain extent, however, Herodotus also accepts aspects of the classical Greek portrait of the Barbarian. What is more, to a certain degree, he continues to operate within the framework of the values and ideals that shaped his intellectual environment. One striking example can be found in his vehement denunciation of the custom of temple PROSTITUTION practiced in BABYLON, which in his words is “the most disgraceful custom” (1.199.1). Here we find his Greek religious scruples overriding his supposed relativism. Even his pluralism cannot tolerate certain customs which are condemned as aberrations. His rather ruthless and devastating assertion that the EUXINE (Black) Sea region is home to “the most ignorant peoples,” to whom it is completely implausible to “attribute cleverness” (4.46.1), shows that he has not completely abandoned Greek and more broadly eastern MEDITERRANEAN standards of evaluating the mental capacity of any given group of people, namely by their material culture and literary endeavors.

Noteworthy also is the extent to which Herodotus favors the non‐Greeks who reside within the eastern Mediterranean and the Near Eastern world over those outside it. Almost all the customs that Herodotus feels are worthy of adoption or emulation on the part of the Greeks either presently or in the past are Egyptian, Anatolian, or Near Eastern. The city most admired for its magnificence is Babylon; the culture most respected for its antiquity and wisdom is Egypt. Putative Greek ancestors are from either the Levant or Egypt. None derives from other regions and very rarely are their customs contemplated for admiration. Indeed the non‐Mediterranean barbaroi are almost always associated with the most bizarre customs in direct and obvious contrast with the more civilized eastern Mediterranean and Near Eastern world. The Egyptians, Lydians, Babylonians, and even Greeks may all possess their own eccentric behavioral patterns, but all adhere to what could be termed “civilized” Mediterranean norms. Rarely is extreme violence attributed to these groups, and their behavior is presented in ways that are intelligible to a Greek audience. The same cannot be said of strange “barbarians” such as the nomadic SCYTHIANS, or the eschatoi andrōn (“men living on the edges [of the known world]”), such as the ANDROPHAGI (Man‐eaters), “the most savage people in the world” (4.106).

SEE ALSO: Ethnography; Extremes; Geography; Language and Communication; nomos; Orientalism