What do you think?
Rate this book
The Greek Way
"Five hundred years before Christ in a little town on the far western border of the settled and civilizaed world, a strange new power was at work. . . . Athens had entered upon her brief and magnificent flowering of genius which so molded the world of mind and of spirit that our mind and spirit today are different. . . . What was then produced of art and of thought has never been surpasses and very rarely equalled, and the stamp of it is upon all the art and all the thought of the Western world." A perennial favorite in many different editions, Edith Hamilton's best-selling The Greek Way captures the spirit and achievements of Greece in the fifth century B.C. A retired headmistress when she began her writing career in the 1930s, Hamilton immediately demonstrated a remarkable ability to bring the world of ancient Greece to life, introducing that world to the twentieth century. The New York Times called The Greek Way a "book of both cultural and critical importance."
256 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1930
442 people are currently reading
6712 people want to read
About the author
Edith Hamilton
66 books598 followersEdith Hamilton, an educator, writer and a historian, was born August 12, 1867 in Dresden, Germany, of American parents and grew up in Fort Wayne, Indiana, U.S.A. Her father began teaching her Latin when she was seven years old and soon added Greek, French and German to her curriculum. Hamilton's education continued at Miss Porter's School in Farmington, Connecticut and at Bryn Mawr College near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, from which she graduated in 1894 with an M.A. degree. The following year, she and her sister Alice went to Germany and were the first women students at the universities of Munich and Leipzich.
Hamilton returned to the United States in 1896 and accepted a position of the headmistress of the Bryn Mawr Preparatory School in Baltimore, Maryland. For the next twenty-six years, she directed the education of about four hundred girls per year. After her retirement in 1922, she started writing and publishing scholarly articles on Greek drama. In 1930, when she was sixty-three years old, she published The Greek Way, in which she presented parallels between life in ancient Greece and in modern times. The book was a critical and popular success. In 1932, she published The Roman Way, which was also very successful. These were followed by The Prophets of Israel (1936), Witness to the Truth: Christ and His Interpreters (1949), Three Greek Plays, translations of Aeschylus and Euripides (1937), Mythology (1942), The Great Age of Greek Literature (1943), Spokesmen for God (1949) and Echo of Greece (1957). Hamilton traveled to Greece in 1957 to be made an honorary citizen of Athens and to see a performance in front of the Acropolis of one of her translations of Greek plays. She was ninety years old at the time. At home, Hamilton was a recipient of many honorary degrees and awards, including election to the American Academy of Arts and Letters. Edith Hamilton died on May 31, 1963 in Washington, D.C.
Hamilton returned to the United States in 1896 and accepted a position of the headmistress of the Bryn Mawr Preparatory School in Baltimore, Maryland. For the next twenty-six years, she directed the education of about four hundred girls per year. After her retirement in 1922, she started writing and publishing scholarly articles on Greek drama. In 1930, when she was sixty-three years old, she published The Greek Way, in which she presented parallels between life in ancient Greece and in modern times. The book was a critical and popular success. In 1932, she published The Roman Way, which was also very successful. These were followed by The Prophets of Israel (1936), Witness to the Truth: Christ and His Interpreters (1949), Three Greek Plays, translations of Aeschylus and Euripides (1937), Mythology (1942), The Great Age of Greek Literature (1943), Spokesmen for God (1949) and Echo of Greece (1957). Hamilton traveled to Greece in 1957 to be made an honorary citizen of Athens and to see a performance in front of the Acropolis of one of her translations of Greek plays. She was ninety years old at the time. At home, Hamilton was a recipient of many honorary degrees and awards, including election to the American Academy of Arts and Letters. Edith Hamilton died on May 31, 1963 in Washington, D.C.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 263 reviews
March 14, 2020
Edith Hamilton is my favourite writer when it comes to describing ancient Greek mythology. This is her first book where she tries to place the context of intellectual life in 5th C Athens from which so much influential poetry, theatre and philosophy will be born. It feels like you are walking down the lane in front of the Parthenon with the plunging view of Athens seeing Socrates pass by with a gaggle of students around him, Aristophanes on the side of a building looking up at a flock of birds, a young Plato listening on the steps of the Forum to a public debate.
April 11, 2011
In the late Victorian, an eighteen-year-old Edith Hamilton graduated from Bryn Mawr College. Enraptured by the spirit of Classical Antiquity, she did what any academic would and traveled to the center of Greek and Roman studies, Germany, to continue her education. She was the first woman to attend classes in these great European colleges, though she could not pursue a degree, instead she had to audit, watching lectures from s specially-built booth that screened her from the view of her classmates so they would not be scandalized by female intrusion.
She was not allowed to ask questions, but soon began to tire of the German method. The professors were always distant from the material, discussing in the greatest depth which verb cases Pindar used while never once acknowledging that he was a poet, or a human being.
It recalls one to the scene in Forester's 'Maurice' where a group of young students are reading aloud, translating as they go, on the topic of the glories of male love, while at every other paragraph, the professor instructs them to omit the 'unspeakable vice of the Greeks'. They must study and translate the text, but never once consider its content or meaning.
So Hamilton returned to the United States, and to her alma mater, where she became headmistress, continuing her studies and teaching the classics for the next twenty-six years. It was not until her early sixties that she wrote her first book, The Greek Way, which stands in opposition to the German style, seeking to understand and explicate the Greek mind.
This compilation of considerations, assembled at the end of a lengthy career, might be seen as a series of lectures on related topics, each chapter tackling a different author or concept, giving an introduction, facilitating understanding, and gradually, producing an overarching theory concerning the Greek mind and the Greek, himself.
It is a most unusually personal look at the Greeks, from someone who spent her life growing near to them, and it is entirely full of extraordinary theories and observations, all backed up by quotes from the great thinkers, not only of Greece, but of all ages. Hamilton seeks to connect us to Greece, to bridge the gap of time and thought and allow us to think of the Greeks as authors, artists, and people. She removes them from their pedestals and proffers them to us, though not without care, respect, and passion.
There is something of a worship for Greek thought and ways here, an attempt to convince us that, despite all we have achieved, we cannot equal or excel the Greeks. Hamilton by no means grudges us our growth, our change, our recognition of the importance of the individual, but implores us to learn something from the ways of old Greece.
Her encyclopedic use of quotations, her deferring to those who have, for all posterity, 'said it better' is charming, and also connects Greece to the thinkers and artists she inspired, inviting us to understand them by comparison. For any scholar of Nietzsche, as an example, it is easy to see how Hamilton plays with the many themes he drew from Greek thought, including the Apollonian/Dionysian split and the arete which defined both the best Greeks and his notion of 'Superman'.
I have always been partial to arete, myself; there is no reason we cannot all strive to be wise, sociable, fit, and knowledgeable in every field, from philosophy to history. The idea that the strong man can afford to be a dullard or the knowledgeable man a scatterbrained outcast is to accept that we should be less than we are.
Her comparison between Kant, who was as detached from the world as his theories, and Socrates, who developed his ideas while talking and laughing with friends, shows that a passion for the mind need not make one withdrawn or unpleasant. After all, Chekhov wrote at his desk at parties, taking characters and ideas from his guests, and has yet to be matched as a psychological realist.
I was also tickled that she used a passage from Tacitus in her definition of 'Tragedy' which I have used as a similar example since being taken by it. That chapter is the weakest in the book, at turns ingenious and unsure. Her observations remain insightful, but are not as polished or convincing as the rest of the book. She may be right in what she says, but her arguments are incomplete.
Hamilton would go on to write two more books, a similar volume on Rome and her 'Mythology', the definitive classroom text. Though she was, throughout her life, kept at arm's length from academia, and is still criticized for being insufficiently scholarly, this book is an achievement, insightful and wide-reaching.
Her conclusions may sometimes be grandiose, but never naively so. Her personalized, holistic style prefigures much of modern academia, and though it took some time, the world has, at last, caught up with her notion that there is nothing unspeakable about seeking a more personal relationship with our past.
She was not allowed to ask questions, but soon began to tire of the German method. The professors were always distant from the material, discussing in the greatest depth which verb cases Pindar used while never once acknowledging that he was a poet, or a human being.
It recalls one to the scene in Forester's 'Maurice' where a group of young students are reading aloud, translating as they go, on the topic of the glories of male love, while at every other paragraph, the professor instructs them to omit the 'unspeakable vice of the Greeks'. They must study and translate the text, but never once consider its content or meaning.
So Hamilton returned to the United States, and to her alma mater, where she became headmistress, continuing her studies and teaching the classics for the next twenty-six years. It was not until her early sixties that she wrote her first book, The Greek Way, which stands in opposition to the German style, seeking to understand and explicate the Greek mind.
This compilation of considerations, assembled at the end of a lengthy career, might be seen as a series of lectures on related topics, each chapter tackling a different author or concept, giving an introduction, facilitating understanding, and gradually, producing an overarching theory concerning the Greek mind and the Greek, himself.
It is a most unusually personal look at the Greeks, from someone who spent her life growing near to them, and it is entirely full of extraordinary theories and observations, all backed up by quotes from the great thinkers, not only of Greece, but of all ages. Hamilton seeks to connect us to Greece, to bridge the gap of time and thought and allow us to think of the Greeks as authors, artists, and people. She removes them from their pedestals and proffers them to us, though not without care, respect, and passion.
There is something of a worship for Greek thought and ways here, an attempt to convince us that, despite all we have achieved, we cannot equal or excel the Greeks. Hamilton by no means grudges us our growth, our change, our recognition of the importance of the individual, but implores us to learn something from the ways of old Greece.
Her encyclopedic use of quotations, her deferring to those who have, for all posterity, 'said it better' is charming, and also connects Greece to the thinkers and artists she inspired, inviting us to understand them by comparison. For any scholar of Nietzsche, as an example, it is easy to see how Hamilton plays with the many themes he drew from Greek thought, including the Apollonian/Dionysian split and the arete which defined both the best Greeks and his notion of 'Superman'.
I have always been partial to arete, myself; there is no reason we cannot all strive to be wise, sociable, fit, and knowledgeable in every field, from philosophy to history. The idea that the strong man can afford to be a dullard or the knowledgeable man a scatterbrained outcast is to accept that we should be less than we are.
Her comparison between Kant, who was as detached from the world as his theories, and Socrates, who developed his ideas while talking and laughing with friends, shows that a passion for the mind need not make one withdrawn or unpleasant. After all, Chekhov wrote at his desk at parties, taking characters and ideas from his guests, and has yet to be matched as a psychological realist.
I was also tickled that she used a passage from Tacitus in her definition of 'Tragedy' which I have used as a similar example since being taken by it. That chapter is the weakest in the book, at turns ingenious and unsure. Her observations remain insightful, but are not as polished or convincing as the rest of the book. She may be right in what she says, but her arguments are incomplete.
Hamilton would go on to write two more books, a similar volume on Rome and her 'Mythology', the definitive classroom text. Though she was, throughout her life, kept at arm's length from academia, and is still criticized for being insufficiently scholarly, this book is an achievement, insightful and wide-reaching.
Her conclusions may sometimes be grandiose, but never naively so. Her personalized, holistic style prefigures much of modern academia, and though it took some time, the world has, at last, caught up with her notion that there is nothing unspeakable about seeking a more personal relationship with our past.
July 8, 2024
It is the fashion of the times to demote Greece and Rome from their pedestals and insist on the homogenization of history and culture, to declare that no one society, set of laws and customs, or literature and poetry is better than any other. It offends delicate souls to be told that lightning may have struck certain civilizations at certain times, and that they made outsize contributions to our world, gifts that still form the bedrock of our societies. “In truth what the Greeks discovered, or rather how they made their discoveries and how they brought a new world to birth out of the dark confusions of an old world that had crumbled away, is full of meaning for us to-day.” (p. 3) There is a bit of irony in the fact that even the freedom to freely criticize these civilizations is one of the gifts they passed down to us.
The revised edition of this book came out in 1942, and tried to kindle a light against the darkness that had fallen over the world, that this is what we are fighting for when we confront the forces of raging inhumanity, the totalitarianism of body and soul. We fight for the highest ideals of our civilization, which would be twisted beyond recognition or lost forever if we do not take up the struggle and make whatever sacrifices are necessary to win.
The book looks at both individuals, poets, playwrights, historians, and philosophers, and the social forces that shaped them and provided a stage for their ideas. The focus is overwhelmingly on Athens and its citizens, for good reason (quick, name one Spartan who was not a soldier…), and emphasizes that the concepts which we consider fundamental to good citizenship are in fact echoes of Athens. For example, “The state did not take responsibility for the individual Athenian, the individual had to take responsibility for the state...The idea of the Athenian state was a union of individuals free to develop their own powers and live in their own way, obedient only to the laws they passed themselves and could criticize and change at will.” (p. 177)
Edith Hamilton does a fine job explaining both the similarities and the sense of otherness ancient Greek society presents, its pre-modern world of gods and spirits, curses, and fate. We can try to appreciate, but will never fully understand, Agamemnon’s sacrifice of Iphigenia, or why Oedipus was pursued by the Furies for crimes he didn’t know he was committing. The genius of these works is that we do not have to understand their society to be awed by the universal, timeless qualities they represent. Agamemnon embodies the concept of duty at any cost, and Oedipus is the eternal innocent man who is raised up and cast down by fates he cannot comprehend.
Hamilton discusses the historians, Herodotus and Thucydides, and notes how they created the first modern histories and why they are still worth reading today. Previously what passed for history consisted of obsequious praise of the local thug who happened to be ruling at the time. I first read Herodotus in the lively modern translation by David Grene, and I loved it both for its interesting details and the weirdness of some of its stories. For instance, Herodotus wrote that there are hairy ants larger than foxes that live in India and unearth gold while excavating their nests. You could steal some of it, but when they find out they will pursue you, so you must not only have fast mounts, but they should be mares who have recently given birth, who will run faster than any others because they want to return to their foals. That story that has made people smile for 2500 years.
I read Thucydides in Rex Warner's translation. He conveys the spirit of the work, and the two chapters on the Sicilian Expedition are among the most memorable, heartbreaking things I have ever read. Hamilton explains that when Thucydides wrote, he wrote not only the story of his own times, but a timeless discussion of the fates of men. “Underneath the shifting sands of the struggle between two little Greek states he had caught sight of a universal truth. Throughout his book, through the endless petty engagements on sea and land which he relates with such scrupulous care, he is pointing out what war is, why it comes to pass, what it does, and, unless men learn better ways, must continue to do. His History of the Peloponnesian War is really a treatise on war, its causes and its effects.” (p. 166)
The Greek Way is a classic. First published almost ninety years ago, it is still in print, and for good reason. Though there are books based on more modern scholarship, there is no better introduction to the ancient Greeks, their importance, and their place in modern culture.
The revised edition of this book came out in 1942, and tried to kindle a light against the darkness that had fallen over the world, that this is what we are fighting for when we confront the forces of raging inhumanity, the totalitarianism of body and soul. We fight for the highest ideals of our civilization, which would be twisted beyond recognition or lost forever if we do not take up the struggle and make whatever sacrifices are necessary to win.
The book looks at both individuals, poets, playwrights, historians, and philosophers, and the social forces that shaped them and provided a stage for their ideas. The focus is overwhelmingly on Athens and its citizens, for good reason (quick, name one Spartan who was not a soldier…), and emphasizes that the concepts which we consider fundamental to good citizenship are in fact echoes of Athens. For example, “The state did not take responsibility for the individual Athenian, the individual had to take responsibility for the state...The idea of the Athenian state was a union of individuals free to develop their own powers and live in their own way, obedient only to the laws they passed themselves and could criticize and change at will.” (p. 177)
Edith Hamilton does a fine job explaining both the similarities and the sense of otherness ancient Greek society presents, its pre-modern world of gods and spirits, curses, and fate. We can try to appreciate, but will never fully understand, Agamemnon’s sacrifice of Iphigenia, or why Oedipus was pursued by the Furies for crimes he didn’t know he was committing. The genius of these works is that we do not have to understand their society to be awed by the universal, timeless qualities they represent. Agamemnon embodies the concept of duty at any cost, and Oedipus is the eternal innocent man who is raised up and cast down by fates he cannot comprehend.
Hamilton discusses the historians, Herodotus and Thucydides, and notes how they created the first modern histories and why they are still worth reading today. Previously what passed for history consisted of obsequious praise of the local thug who happened to be ruling at the time. I first read Herodotus in the lively modern translation by David Grene, and I loved it both for its interesting details and the weirdness of some of its stories. For instance, Herodotus wrote that there are hairy ants larger than foxes that live in India and unearth gold while excavating their nests. You could steal some of it, but when they find out they will pursue you, so you must not only have fast mounts, but they should be mares who have recently given birth, who will run faster than any others because they want to return to their foals. That story that has made people smile for 2500 years.
I read Thucydides in Rex Warner's translation. He conveys the spirit of the work, and the two chapters on the Sicilian Expedition are among the most memorable, heartbreaking things I have ever read. Hamilton explains that when Thucydides wrote, he wrote not only the story of his own times, but a timeless discussion of the fates of men. “Underneath the shifting sands of the struggle between two little Greek states he had caught sight of a universal truth. Throughout his book, through the endless petty engagements on sea and land which he relates with such scrupulous care, he is pointing out what war is, why it comes to pass, what it does, and, unless men learn better ways, must continue to do. His History of the Peloponnesian War is really a treatise on war, its causes and its effects.” (p. 166)
The Greek Way is a classic. First published almost ninety years ago, it is still in print, and for good reason. Though there are books based on more modern scholarship, there is no better introduction to the ancient Greeks, their importance, and their place in modern culture.
June 27, 2021
The disdain of professional classicists for Edith Hamilton is understandable but nevertheless unfair, since she never held herself out as a learned scholar or textual critic. Instead, she simply took a great interest in communicating to a broader audience (i.e. the masses) what it was that made Greek civilization worthy of our attention. Hamilton was one of those enthusiasts who was simply in love with the Greeks, and that affection is evident on every page.
She was, in short, a "popularizer," and she was very good at it. She writes well, and there are many good general observations about the Greeks in this little volume, originally published in 1930.
The chief virtue of this book is the way in which Hamilton focuses her discussion of the Greek achievement on the literary productions of such writers as Pindar, Thucydides, Herodotus, the tragedians, Aristophanes, Plato and Xenophon. "The Greek Way of Writing" (Chapter Four) contains one of the best discussions I have encountered on the unique way in which the Greek writers exploited the many remarkable features of their remarkable language.
The author makes the excellent point, for example, that while we take Greek statuary and architecture for granted, we are in a very different place as far as their language is concerned. She writes: "... Greek is a very subtle language, full of delicately modifying words, capable of the finest distinctions of meaning. Years of study are needed to read it even tolerably." Talk about honesty -- I myself have an advanced degree in the subject; I have been been reading and teaching it for years. I have invested thousands of hours in the hope of reaching a deeper understanding of this extraordinary language and yet, because of the incredible challenges that it poses, I would not dare to call myself anything more than an advanced beginner.
She compares brief excerpts from Homer, Aeschylus, and other Greek poets with snippets of English poetry (Shakespeare, Byron, Keats) and also Biblical Hebrew poetry (Psalms and Prophets). She explains the reasons for their differences and especially how Greek, in its famous austerity, uses ornamental epithets far more sparingly and with much tighter control. Greek authors, she claims, routinely used their language less to appeal to the emotions than to factual truth, logic, and ideas. While this assertion is attractive -- and perhaps very true when an author such as Heraclitus or Plato or Aristotle is in hand -- it is difficult to reconcile with the constant repetition of oimoi and aiai and e e and pheu in Greek tragedy, not to mention some of the more explosive passages of mind-warping anger, hatred, or consuming grief found not infrequently in both tragedy and epic. On balance, however, it is clear that given Greek writers' love of symmetry, balance, and the relationship of the part to the whole, Hamilton is spot on when she reminds us that the form of many of their literary productions turns out to have much more in common with their architecture and statuary than might at first appear.
This chapter alone has great value, since it explains exceptionally well what few other popular treatments do: the precise reasons why the Greek style of literary expression is so striking in its simplicity, directness, and beauty, and how difficult it can be to take those qualities and translate them into a language that is altogether different, namely English.
If you enjoy Greek literature, read what she has to say about the Greek language, the magnificent instrument that it was in the hands of the best Greek writers.
She was, in short, a "popularizer," and she was very good at it. She writes well, and there are many good general observations about the Greeks in this little volume, originally published in 1930.
The chief virtue of this book is the way in which Hamilton focuses her discussion of the Greek achievement on the literary productions of such writers as Pindar, Thucydides, Herodotus, the tragedians, Aristophanes, Plato and Xenophon. "The Greek Way of Writing" (Chapter Four) contains one of the best discussions I have encountered on the unique way in which the Greek writers exploited the many remarkable features of their remarkable language.
The author makes the excellent point, for example, that while we take Greek statuary and architecture for granted, we are in a very different place as far as their language is concerned. She writes: "... Greek is a very subtle language, full of delicately modifying words, capable of the finest distinctions of meaning. Years of study are needed to read it even tolerably." Talk about honesty -- I myself have an advanced degree in the subject; I have been been reading and teaching it for years. I have invested thousands of hours in the hope of reaching a deeper understanding of this extraordinary language and yet, because of the incredible challenges that it poses, I would not dare to call myself anything more than an advanced beginner.
She compares brief excerpts from Homer, Aeschylus, and other Greek poets with snippets of English poetry (Shakespeare, Byron, Keats) and also Biblical Hebrew poetry (Psalms and Prophets). She explains the reasons for their differences and especially how Greek, in its famous austerity, uses ornamental epithets far more sparingly and with much tighter control. Greek authors, she claims, routinely used their language less to appeal to the emotions than to factual truth, logic, and ideas. While this assertion is attractive -- and perhaps very true when an author such as Heraclitus or Plato or Aristotle is in hand -- it is difficult to reconcile with the constant repetition of oimoi and aiai and e e and pheu in Greek tragedy, not to mention some of the more explosive passages of mind-warping anger, hatred, or consuming grief found not infrequently in both tragedy and epic. On balance, however, it is clear that given Greek writers' love of symmetry, balance, and the relationship of the part to the whole, Hamilton is spot on when she reminds us that the form of many of their literary productions turns out to have much more in common with their architecture and statuary than might at first appear.
This chapter alone has great value, since it explains exceptionally well what few other popular treatments do: the precise reasons why the Greek style of literary expression is so striking in its simplicity, directness, and beauty, and how difficult it can be to take those qualities and translate them into a language that is altogether different, namely English.
If you enjoy Greek literature, read what she has to say about the Greek language, the magnificent instrument that it was in the hands of the best Greek writers.
June 20, 2024
This is a wonderful and profound little book by Edith Hamilton, renowned for her book on mythology (from which I had assigned readings in high school that I quite enjoyed), that outlines and discusses the gifts classical Greek civilization gave to the world.
The book touches on history, philosophy, art, architecture, literature (specifically the great Greek playwrights), religion, and mythology. It contains a surprising depth of insight into the ancient Greek mindset, which helped propel the West into modernity, yielding such fruits as democracy, science, philosophy, and of course Greek literature, art, and architecture.
The Greeks of the Athenian Golden Age did not have an ideal society: Slavery existed, and women were excluded from participating in government. Despite those shortcomings, there is no question that the Athenian flowering in the 5th century BC was a leap toward the modern world away from the old one.
Hamilton’s knowledge of and passion for classical Greece shines throughout the book. She was actually made an honorary citizen of Athens in her lifetime due to her impressive scholarship on its cultural history and legacy. This work was her loving homage to the ancient Greeks, who were in so many ways the innovators of western civilization. 5 stars.
The book touches on history, philosophy, art, architecture, literature (specifically the great Greek playwrights), religion, and mythology. It contains a surprising depth of insight into the ancient Greek mindset, which helped propel the West into modernity, yielding such fruits as democracy, science, philosophy, and of course Greek literature, art, and architecture.
The Greeks of the Athenian Golden Age did not have an ideal society: Slavery existed, and women were excluded from participating in government. Despite those shortcomings, there is no question that the Athenian flowering in the 5th century BC was a leap toward the modern world away from the old one.
Hamilton’s knowledge of and passion for classical Greece shines throughout the book. She was actually made an honorary citizen of Athens in her lifetime due to her impressive scholarship on its cultural history and legacy. This work was her loving homage to the ancient Greeks, who were in so many ways the innovators of western civilization. 5 stars.
July 1, 2021
Hamilton wants people to engage with the examples of ancient Greece. Well, just this year I have read Plato's Republic, Xenophon's Anabasis and Cyropaedia, some ancient Greek tactics manuals and jokes, as well as listened to a number of discussions on Hesiod, Homer, Pindar, and the major tragedies of Greek theatre. Heck, I'm even currently halfway through Plutarch. So I certainly don't disagree with her that there's a lot of value to be extracted from ancient Greece. Yet despite this, I didn't enjoy reading her exhortations here.
Part of what rankled was her style. Hamilton adopts a lofty, forceful voice. When you agree with her it is soaring, powerful -- lines you might clip and repeat to others as expressing a sentiment well.
When you are less sure, or less interested, the tone feels bombastic, a thin skin of argument being puffed up. It leads her into making careless statements. Some frivolities, like
are perhaps forgivable under artistic licence, but others seem to be presented more seriously despite being farcical. For example, Hamilton claims that the idea of men like the Greek generals -- as able to criticise poetry as storm a city -- is unique to ancient Greece, a conclusion that seems utterly bizarre and divorced from an understanding not only of history, but modernity. Does she truly doubt that the martial and the artistic coexist in her own time, and throughout all others?
I also didn't enjoy some of the content very much, somewhat independent of how it was presented. Hamilton is very interested in art, plays and poetry, and the majority of the text is located there. I understand the relevance of these topics to Hamilton's aim, but their importance did seem slightly inflated, and her approach to them was a little repetitious -- I was surprised to find the same quotations popping up in multiple chapters, and a little wearied that the comparison between the Athenian golden age and Elizabethan England was also drawn out independently multiple times. I should mention, though, that these topics just aren't very interesting to me. I like to watch plays, not read them, and I have extremely little tolerance for (non-epic) poetry. If you differ you might enjoy this book significantly more.
I also admit a certain fundamental suspicion of Hamilton's romanticism of ancient Greece (or rather, Athens -- she says the former but almost always means the latter). I can reject the postmodern approach that all cultures are equally valuable without having to abandon all critical distance. It's sometimes easy to forget that other cultures, even ones with many parallels, can be extremely weird. Hamilton tries to draw out Greece as properly curtailing religion, pointing out the limited role of priests in public life. True enough. But what she skips past is the extreme importance of prophecy and prophetic sacrifice to the Greek. Events in the ancient world quite commonly depended upon the movement of entrails from sacrificed animals. Entire armies have paused, refusing to move for weeks because the repeated animal sacrifices gave negative omens. If accounts are to be believed, armies have even held position on the battlefield, suffering the missiles of their foes, and still not moving until the general, sacrificing animal after animal, finally receives the indication he has been looking for, and can order an attack. Modern Westerners struggle to understand even contemporary religious mindsets, and I am wary whenever I see a 'real explanation' projected back to an older brain -- and while it is not all as suspect as her treatment of religion, this kind of grappling with a mindset is what Hamilton is doing. Not merely understanding, either, but drawing on it as something still with us, a spirit of pragmatic rationality.
While it throws up sometimes unexpected hurdles, I don't think understanding the communities of the past is impossible, and it is clear that a form of Hamilton's argument is true. The Renaissance was founded on Greek seeds, and even before it Greek thought had carried currency in the Church. We in the West are their inheritors, and there are connections to draw from modernity to their thought and culture beyond just human universals. But I would prefer to go in open-eyed, to see the alien in them as well as the familiar, and relish both, rather than sweeping them to a summit and lamenting that we ever climbed down.
That has all been quite negative. To capture a couple of the quotes that I did like: Hamilton articulates well the appeal and the trap of the old Eastern religions.
And also a nice line on the perils of geography for any emperor.
Part of what rankled was her style. Hamilton adopts a lofty, forceful voice. When you agree with her it is soaring, powerful -- lines you might clip and repeat to others as expressing a sentiment well.
It is worth our while in the confusions and bewilderments of the present to consider the way by which the Greeks arrived at the clarity of their thought and the affirmation of their art. Very different conditions of life confronted them from those we face, but it is ever to be borne in mind that though the outside of human life changes much, the inside changes little, and the lesson-book we cannot graduate from is human experience.
When you are less sure, or less interested, the tone feels bombastic, a thin skin of argument being puffed up. It leads her into making careless statements. Some frivolities, like
The Greeks were the first people in the world to play
are perhaps forgivable under artistic licence, but others seem to be presented more seriously despite being farcical. For example, Hamilton claims that the idea of men like the Greek generals -- as able to criticise poetry as storm a city -- is unique to ancient Greece, a conclusion that seems utterly bizarre and divorced from an understanding not only of history, but modernity. Does she truly doubt that the martial and the artistic coexist in her own time, and throughout all others?
I also didn't enjoy some of the content very much, somewhat independent of how it was presented. Hamilton is very interested in art, plays and poetry, and the majority of the text is located there. I understand the relevance of these topics to Hamilton's aim, but their importance did seem slightly inflated, and her approach to them was a little repetitious -- I was surprised to find the same quotations popping up in multiple chapters, and a little wearied that the comparison between the Athenian golden age and Elizabethan England was also drawn out independently multiple times. I should mention, though, that these topics just aren't very interesting to me. I like to watch plays, not read them, and I have extremely little tolerance for (non-epic) poetry. If you differ you might enjoy this book significantly more.
I also admit a certain fundamental suspicion of Hamilton's romanticism of ancient Greece (or rather, Athens -- she says the former but almost always means the latter). I can reject the postmodern approach that all cultures are equally valuable without having to abandon all critical distance. It's sometimes easy to forget that other cultures, even ones with many parallels, can be extremely weird. Hamilton tries to draw out Greece as properly curtailing religion, pointing out the limited role of priests in public life. True enough. But what she skips past is the extreme importance of prophecy and prophetic sacrifice to the Greek. Events in the ancient world quite commonly depended upon the movement of entrails from sacrificed animals. Entire armies have paused, refusing to move for weeks because the repeated animal sacrifices gave negative omens. If accounts are to be believed, armies have even held position on the battlefield, suffering the missiles of their foes, and still not moving until the general, sacrificing animal after animal, finally receives the indication he has been looking for, and can order an attack. Modern Westerners struggle to understand even contemporary religious mindsets, and I am wary whenever I see a 'real explanation' projected back to an older brain -- and while it is not all as suspect as her treatment of religion, this kind of grappling with a mindset is what Hamilton is doing. Not merely understanding, either, but drawing on it as something still with us, a spirit of pragmatic rationality.
While it throws up sometimes unexpected hurdles, I don't think understanding the communities of the past is impossible, and it is clear that a form of Hamilton's argument is true. The Renaissance was founded on Greek seeds, and even before it Greek thought had carried currency in the Church. We in the West are their inheritors, and there are connections to draw from modernity to their thought and culture beyond just human universals. But I would prefer to go in open-eyed, to see the alien in them as well as the familiar, and relish both, rather than sweeping them to a summit and lamenting that we ever climbed down.
That has all been quite negative. To capture a couple of the quotes that I did like: Hamilton articulates well the appeal and the trap of the old Eastern religions.
The circle is complete: a wretched populace with no hope save in the invisible, and a priesthood whose power is bound up with the belief in the unimportance of the visible so that they must forever strive to keep it an article of faith. The circle is complete in another sense as well: the wayfarer sheltering for the night in an abandoned house does not care to mend the roof the rain drips through, and a people living in such wretchedness that their one comfort is to deny the importance of the facts of earthly life, will not try to better them.
And also a nice line on the perils of geography for any emperor.
The absolute monarch-submissive slave theory of life flourishes best where there are no hills to give a rebel refuge and no mountain heights to summon a man to live dangerously.
June 22, 2016
This is a really bad book. Like, really bad. Well, perhaps bad isn’t the right word. Hopelessly dated and irrelevant might be better. Hamilton (author of the excellent introduction to Mythology) attempts to explain the unique and superior nature of ancient Greece through a review of its culture and comparison to the uncultured “east”, ruled by dictators, or the culture of today. Hamilton is obsessed with placing national cultures in boxes (if you’re western, if you’re “eastern”, its all the same shit to her).
The “east” care not for the individual soul, as Buddhism is a religion of personal renunciation. The French are our times great thinkers, while the British are our great poets.
Seriously, she talks like this.
I almost feel bad for her, so myopic is her view of the world. There is Greece in its democratic glory, the flower of all that is good in our world. And then there is everyone else, easily placed in buckets by nationality or region, and dismissed as inferior. Its embarrassing to read and frankly I wish I’d stopped after the first fifty pages. The only reason I can think this would be worth your time is if you’re a scholar of outdated modes of relating to the classical world.
Otherwise, not recommended.
The “east” care not for the individual soul, as Buddhism is a religion of personal renunciation. The French are our times great thinkers, while the British are our great poets.
Seriously, she talks like this.
I almost feel bad for her, so myopic is her view of the world. There is Greece in its democratic glory, the flower of all that is good in our world. And then there is everyone else, easily placed in buckets by nationality or region, and dismissed as inferior. Its embarrassing to read and frankly I wish I’d stopped after the first fifty pages. The only reason I can think this would be worth your time is if you’re a scholar of outdated modes of relating to the classical world.
Otherwise, not recommended.
January 3, 2025
Ovo (najveće?) ljubavno pismo antičkoj Grčkoj, a pre svega Atini klasičnog vremena, Idit Hamilton je objavila 1930. godine. Dopunjeno izdanje izašlo je dvanaest godina kasnije, za vreme Drugog svetskot rata: "Kada je sve zahvaćeno olujom, kada se zbiva zlo a preti još gore i kada je ono toliko nasrtljivo da uklanja sve pred sobom, tada bi trebalo spoznati jake tvrđave duga koje su ljudi sagradili tokom vekova," piše Hamiltonova u predgovoru tom drugom izdanju, koje mi danas čitamo.
Grčki put sadrži 17 eseja koji istražuju osnovne ideje i vrednosti grčke civilizacije, tog 5. veka p.n.e. Eseji se bave temama kao što su demokratija, filozofija, umetnost i ljudska sloboda, pružajući dublji uvid u kulturnu i intelektualnu snagu tog perioda. Atina, sa svojih možda 200,000 stanovnika, dala je za tih svega pedesetak godina zapadnoj civilizaciji neprocenjiv doprinos. Teme koje se obrađuju uključuju demokratiju, filozofiju, umetnost i teatar, ali i ljudsku slobodu. Neki od naslova: Istok i Zapad, Pindar - poslednji grčki aristokrata, Atinjani kako ih je Platon video, Aristofan i stara komedija, Tukidid - šta se zbilo zbiće se, Eshil - prvi dramatičar, Religija Grka, Ksenofont - prosečan atinski gospodin, itd.
"Nešto se probudilo u umu i duhu ljudi, što je imalo da izvrši takav uticaj na svet da će sporo proticanje duga vremena, vek za vekom, i razorne promene koje je donosilo, biti nemoćni da izbrišu taj duboki žig. Atina je zakoračila u svoj kratki i veličanstveni procvat genijalnosti, koji je tako uzdrmao svet uma i duha, da je promenio čak i današnje struje našeg uma i našega duha."
Da, to je ta Hamiltonova neskrivena subjektivnost i strast. Nimalo ne skriva veliku ljubav i divljenje prema Grčkoj i njenom nasleđu, tako da meni sličnima koji vole (blago rečeno) grčku kulturu i istoriju, knjiga služi kao ogledalo vlastitih stavova, ali istovremeno nam može dati priliku za još bolje razumevanje tih ideala. Povezuje to vreme antičko Atine i moderni svet, i univerzalnost grčke misli i pokušava da objasni zašto su ti zapisi (filozofski, umetnički) sposobni da nas i dalje inspirišu i oduševljavaju.
"Šta je tada ostvareno na polju umetnosti i misli nikada nije prevaziđeno, veoma retko je dostignuto, a pečat toga ostao je na čitavoj umetnosti i misli Zapadnog sveta... Nema vajarstva uporedivog sa njihovim niti ikad lepše arhitekture ni nadmoćnije književnosti, Prozu, koja je uvek pozno dostignuće, uspeli su tek da dotaknu, ali su ostavili remek-dela. Istorija tek treba da otkrije većeg predstavnika od Tukidida, u poeziji su vrhunski u svakom pogledu; niko se u epici ne može približiti Homeru, niti se u pisanju oda postaviti kraj Pindara; od četiri majstora tragičke scene, trojica su Grci."
Naša glavna i karakteristična delatnost je delatnost uma, tvrdio je Aristotel, a Hamiltonova nas podseća da su Grci bili prvi intelektualci, pošto je pre Grka domen intelekta pripadao sveštnicima. Grci su razvili filozofiju, istražujući pitanja etike, politike, kosmosa i ljudske prirode. Sokratova metoda dijaloga služila je kao osnova za razvoj kritičkog promišljanja, pa i kasnije za razvoj obrazovanja, dok su Aristotelovi zapisi poslužili za kasniju naučnu klasifikaciju i empirijski pristup prirodi. Pitagora je postavio temelje matematičkog mišljenja, a Hipokrat osnovao medicinu kao racionalnu disciplinu oslobođenu magije. Hamiltonova nas podseća i da je ovo prvo doba u kojoj je "životna radost našla svoj izraz", da je radovanje životu obeležje grčkog duha koje ga razlikuje od svega što mu je prethodilo. "U Egiptu grobnica, a u Grčkoj pozorište."
Hamiltonova piše jednostavno, direktno, bez uvijanja. Ponekad te rečenice zvuče i osladno, ali su uvek pune istinske ljubavi. Interesantno je da je Grčki put, koji je imao velik uticaj na mislioce 20. veka i inspirisao humanističke pokrete, bio njena prva knjiga. Izdala ju je kada je imala 63 godine, tek nakon što se penzionisala. Još teže je razumeti da je prvi put posetila Grčku tek sa 90 godina, 1957. godine, kad su je i proglasili počasnom građankom Atine. Što se mene tiče, jedna od boljih knjiga koje sam čitao 2024.
Grčki put sadrži 17 eseja koji istražuju osnovne ideje i vrednosti grčke civilizacije, tog 5. veka p.n.e. Eseji se bave temama kao što su demokratija, filozofija, umetnost i ljudska sloboda, pružajući dublji uvid u kulturnu i intelektualnu snagu tog perioda. Atina, sa svojih možda 200,000 stanovnika, dala je za tih svega pedesetak godina zapadnoj civilizaciji neprocenjiv doprinos. Teme koje se obrađuju uključuju demokratiju, filozofiju, umetnost i teatar, ali i ljudsku slobodu. Neki od naslova: Istok i Zapad, Pindar - poslednji grčki aristokrata, Atinjani kako ih je Platon video, Aristofan i stara komedija, Tukidid - šta se zbilo zbiće se, Eshil - prvi dramatičar, Religija Grka, Ksenofont - prosečan atinski gospodin, itd.
"Nešto se probudilo u umu i duhu ljudi, što je imalo da izvrši takav uticaj na svet da će sporo proticanje duga vremena, vek za vekom, i razorne promene koje je donosilo, biti nemoćni da izbrišu taj duboki žig. Atina je zakoračila u svoj kratki i veličanstveni procvat genijalnosti, koji je tako uzdrmao svet uma i duha, da je promenio čak i današnje struje našeg uma i našega duha."
Da, to je ta Hamiltonova neskrivena subjektivnost i strast. Nimalo ne skriva veliku ljubav i divljenje prema Grčkoj i njenom nasleđu, tako da meni sličnima koji vole (blago rečeno) grčku kulturu i istoriju, knjiga služi kao ogledalo vlastitih stavova, ali istovremeno nam može dati priliku za još bolje razumevanje tih ideala. Povezuje to vreme antičko Atine i moderni svet, i univerzalnost grčke misli i pokušava da objasni zašto su ti zapisi (filozofski, umetnički) sposobni da nas i dalje inspirišu i oduševljavaju.
"Šta je tada ostvareno na polju umetnosti i misli nikada nije prevaziđeno, veoma retko je dostignuto, a pečat toga ostao je na čitavoj umetnosti i misli Zapadnog sveta... Nema vajarstva uporedivog sa njihovim niti ikad lepše arhitekture ni nadmoćnije književnosti, Prozu, koja je uvek pozno dostignuće, uspeli su tek da dotaknu, ali su ostavili remek-dela. Istorija tek treba da otkrije većeg predstavnika od Tukidida, u poeziji su vrhunski u svakom pogledu; niko se u epici ne može približiti Homeru, niti se u pisanju oda postaviti kraj Pindara; od četiri majstora tragičke scene, trojica su Grci."
Naša glavna i karakteristična delatnost je delatnost uma, tvrdio je Aristotel, a Hamiltonova nas podseća da su Grci bili prvi intelektualci, pošto je pre Grka domen intelekta pripadao sveštnicima. Grci su razvili filozofiju, istražujući pitanja etike, politike, kosmosa i ljudske prirode. Sokratova metoda dijaloga služila je kao osnova za razvoj kritičkog promišljanja, pa i kasnije za razvoj obrazovanja, dok su Aristotelovi zapisi poslužili za kasniju naučnu klasifikaciju i empirijski pristup prirodi. Pitagora je postavio temelje matematičkog mišljenja, a Hipokrat osnovao medicinu kao racionalnu disciplinu oslobođenu magije. Hamiltonova nas podseća i da je ovo prvo doba u kojoj je "životna radost našla svoj izraz", da je radovanje životu obeležje grčkog duha koje ga razlikuje od svega što mu je prethodilo. "U Egiptu grobnica, a u Grčkoj pozorište."
Hamiltonova piše jednostavno, direktno, bez uvijanja. Ponekad te rečenice zvuče i osladno, ali su uvek pune istinske ljubavi. Interesantno je da je Grčki put, koji je imao velik uticaj na mislioce 20. veka i inspirisao humanističke pokrete, bio njena prva knjiga. Izdala ju je kada je imala 63 godine, tek nakon što se penzionisala. Još teže je razumeti da je prvi put posetila Grčku tek sa 90 godina, 1957. godine, kad su je i proglasili počasnom građankom Atine. Što se mene tiče, jedna od boljih knjiga koje sam čitao 2024.
August 16, 2012
I have been re-reading this, for the first time since high school. It remains a splendid book. Hard to imagine what could be better for the purpose of introducing the achievements of classical Greece to modern readers. The author treats her subject with the clarity and brevity that comes from mastery. She explains to the reader what was singular about the Greeks, and why it continues to matter to this day.
When I had read it in high school, I had not favored it as much as I had H. D. F. Kitto’s The Greeks; but that was because I had been more interested in what Kitto’s book covers — the Greeks’ invention of politics — and its description of the polis. Now, however, I understand that both books are indispensable for any English-language reader who wishes to appreciate the legacy of the Greeks of classical antiquity.
When I had read it in high school, I had not favored it as much as I had H. D. F. Kitto’s The Greeks; but that was because I had been more interested in what Kitto’s book covers — the Greeks’ invention of politics — and its description of the polis. Now, however, I understand that both books are indispensable for any English-language reader who wishes to appreciate the legacy of the Greeks of classical antiquity.
October 12, 2012
Although it's sixty years old, this masterful little book brings ancient Greece to life and connects the core issues and questions that drove their lives to the issues and questions any thinking person struggles with today. Hamilton masterfully integrates a long view of the ebb and flow of human thought with the specifics that drive us making each period unique. She describes how in ancient Greece, for the first time in history, man was sufficiently secure to let go of the day to day concerns such as securing sufficient calories and reproducing, to ponder about a life beyond mere survival. She describes the essential character of the great writers of the period so their words and stories don't simply blend together in an unintelligible mass but are clearly distinguishable.
Some of my favorite quotes:
"'God offers to everyone,' says Emerson, 'his choice between truth and repose. Take which you please -- you can never have both.'" (39)
"The Realism of one generation is apt to be the Romanticism of the next" (171)
"Life for him [AEschylus] was an adventure, perilous indeed, but men are not made for safe havens. The fullness of life is in the hazards of life. And at the worst, there is that in us which can turn defeat into victory." (176)
"To strive to understand the irresistible movements of events is illusory; still more so to set ourselves against what we can affect as little as the planets in their orbits. Even so, we are not mere spectators. There is nobility in the world, goodnesss, gentleness. Men are helpless so far as their fate is concerned, but they can ally themselves with the good, and in suffering and dying, die and suffer nobly." (187)
"The life without criticism,' Plato says, 'is not worthy to be lived.'" (198)
"The modern mind is never popular in its own day. People hate being made to think, above all upon fundamental problems. Sophocles touched with the radiant glory of sublime poetry the figures of the ancient gods, and the Athenians went home from his plays with the pleasing conviction that old things were right. But Euripides was the arch-heretic, miserably disturbing, never willing to leave a man comfortably esconded in his favorite convictions and prejudices." (205).
"The dogmatism of each age wears out. Statements of absolute truth grow thin, show gaps, are discarded. The heterodoxy of one generation is the orthodoxy of the next. The ultimate critique of pure reason is that its results do not endure." (206).
"A magical universe was so terrifying because it was so irrational, and therefore completely incalculable. THere was no dependable relation anywhere between cause and effect. It will readily be seen what it did to the human intellect to live in such an atmosphere, and what it did to the human character too. Fear is of all the emotions the most brutalizing." (211)
"Everywhere we are distracted by the claim of the single man against the common welfare. Along with this realization of each unit in the mass has come an over-realization of ourselves. We are burdened with over-realization. Not that we can perceive too clearly the rights and wrongs of every human being but that we feel too deeply our own, to find in the end that what has meaning only for each one alone has no real meaning at all." (246)
"Even though the way of the West since Greece has bene always to set mind against spirit, never to grasp the twofold aspect of all human things, yet we are not able to give ourselves wholly up to one and let the other drop from our consciousness. Each generation in turn is constrained to try to reconcile the truth the spirit knows with the truth the mind knows, to make the inner world fit into the ever-changing frame of the outer world. To each in turn it appears impossible; either the picture or the frame must go, but the struggle toward adjustment never ends, for the necessity to achieve it is in our nature." (247)
Some of my favorite quotes:
"'God offers to everyone,' says Emerson, 'his choice between truth and repose. Take which you please -- you can never have both.'" (39)
"The Realism of one generation is apt to be the Romanticism of the next" (171)
"Life for him [AEschylus] was an adventure, perilous indeed, but men are not made for safe havens. The fullness of life is in the hazards of life. And at the worst, there is that in us which can turn defeat into victory." (176)
"To strive to understand the irresistible movements of events is illusory; still more so to set ourselves against what we can affect as little as the planets in their orbits. Even so, we are not mere spectators. There is nobility in the world, goodnesss, gentleness. Men are helpless so far as their fate is concerned, but they can ally themselves with the good, and in suffering and dying, die and suffer nobly." (187)
"The life without criticism,' Plato says, 'is not worthy to be lived.'" (198)
"The modern mind is never popular in its own day. People hate being made to think, above all upon fundamental problems. Sophocles touched with the radiant glory of sublime poetry the figures of the ancient gods, and the Athenians went home from his plays with the pleasing conviction that old things were right. But Euripides was the arch-heretic, miserably disturbing, never willing to leave a man comfortably esconded in his favorite convictions and prejudices." (205).
"The dogmatism of each age wears out. Statements of absolute truth grow thin, show gaps, are discarded. The heterodoxy of one generation is the orthodoxy of the next. The ultimate critique of pure reason is that its results do not endure." (206).
"A magical universe was so terrifying because it was so irrational, and therefore completely incalculable. THere was no dependable relation anywhere between cause and effect. It will readily be seen what it did to the human intellect to live in such an atmosphere, and what it did to the human character too. Fear is of all the emotions the most brutalizing." (211)
"Everywhere we are distracted by the claim of the single man against the common welfare. Along with this realization of each unit in the mass has come an over-realization of ourselves. We are burdened with over-realization. Not that we can perceive too clearly the rights and wrongs of every human being but that we feel too deeply our own, to find in the end that what has meaning only for each one alone has no real meaning at all." (246)
"Even though the way of the West since Greece has bene always to set mind against spirit, never to grasp the twofold aspect of all human things, yet we are not able to give ourselves wholly up to one and let the other drop from our consciousness. Each generation in turn is constrained to try to reconcile the truth the spirit knows with the truth the mind knows, to make the inner world fit into the ever-changing frame of the outer world. To each in turn it appears impossible; either the picture or the frame must go, but the struggle toward adjustment never ends, for the necessity to achieve it is in our nature." (247)
August 11, 2014
Chapters 5-14 of The Greek Way are excellent. Edith Hamilton is at her best when sketching biographies of specific people. She makes historical figures come alive as real humans by examining their writings as well as anecdotes told about them by their contemporaries. One high point for me was the story of Socrates drinking everyone else under the table at the dinner party, and of him being ribbed by his companions about his shrewish wife. Such moments make this book worthwhile for any student of the classics.
However, the first four chapters and the last three share in the same flaws that I noted in my review of The Echo of Greece. When Edith Hamilton discusses the “Greek mind” or the “Greek way” she inevitably focuses on 5th century Athens. The way of the Lacedaemonians, the way of the Corinthians, even the way of earlier Mycenaens or Minoans have no part in “The Greek Way” as far as Hamilton is concerned. When she gives her broad overviews she paints with a big brush, and her depictions of non-Greek cultures are overly simplistic.
Let me give just one example. After stating that Greek art was first and foremost realistic, depicting only life as it is seen with nothing fantastic or unbelievable, she criticizes art of the East and Near East for its depictions of weird human/animal hybrids. (As to the famous amphora painting of Oedipus and the Sphinx which I mentioned in my review of The Echo of Greece there is still no explanation.) Then, when confronting the pyramids, apex of Egyptian art and as natural as mountains or sand dunes, she is caught in a bind. It is certainly realistic and natural in its way. So she instead writes, “All the tremendous art of Egyptian sculpture has something of this unity with the physical world. The colossal statues have only just emerged from the rocks of the hills. They keep the marks of their origin…What Egyptian art would have resulted in if it had been allowed a free development, is one of those questions that forever engage the attention through the realization of an immense loss to the world. But the priests stepped in, and that direct experience of the spirit was arrested at a certain point and held fast.” In other words, yes, Egyptian art is realistic and natural. But it’s still not Greek. Just imagine if the Egyptian priests had not stepped in. Why, the Egyptians may have eventually created Greek art!
This is, once again, the pattern of making a judgment, coming to a conclusion, and then making sure the facts substantiate the conclusion in the end. This is what irks me so much about Hamilton’s writing. She seems totally unable to criticize Greek culture or praise Persian, Hebrew, Roman, or Egyptian culture, except insofar as those cultures share in the “Greek spirit”. Her biographical chapters are wonderful, helpful and extremely engaging. I highly recommend this book if only for those parts. However, her worldview analyses remain problematic for anyone looking for an accurate and less biased overview of Greek history. In short, Edith Hamilton and 5th century Athens just need to get a room.
However, the first four chapters and the last three share in the same flaws that I noted in my review of The Echo of Greece. When Edith Hamilton discusses the “Greek mind” or the “Greek way” she inevitably focuses on 5th century Athens. The way of the Lacedaemonians, the way of the Corinthians, even the way of earlier Mycenaens or Minoans have no part in “The Greek Way” as far as Hamilton is concerned. When she gives her broad overviews she paints with a big brush, and her depictions of non-Greek cultures are overly simplistic.
Let me give just one example. After stating that Greek art was first and foremost realistic, depicting only life as it is seen with nothing fantastic or unbelievable, she criticizes art of the East and Near East for its depictions of weird human/animal hybrids. (As to the famous amphora painting of Oedipus and the Sphinx which I mentioned in my review of The Echo of Greece there is still no explanation.) Then, when confronting the pyramids, apex of Egyptian art and as natural as mountains or sand dunes, she is caught in a bind. It is certainly realistic and natural in its way. So she instead writes, “All the tremendous art of Egyptian sculpture has something of this unity with the physical world. The colossal statues have only just emerged from the rocks of the hills. They keep the marks of their origin…What Egyptian art would have resulted in if it had been allowed a free development, is one of those questions that forever engage the attention through the realization of an immense loss to the world. But the priests stepped in, and that direct experience of the spirit was arrested at a certain point and held fast.” In other words, yes, Egyptian art is realistic and natural. But it’s still not Greek. Just imagine if the Egyptian priests had not stepped in. Why, the Egyptians may have eventually created Greek art!
This is, once again, the pattern of making a judgment, coming to a conclusion, and then making sure the facts substantiate the conclusion in the end. This is what irks me so much about Hamilton’s writing. She seems totally unable to criticize Greek culture or praise Persian, Hebrew, Roman, or Egyptian culture, except insofar as those cultures share in the “Greek spirit”. Her biographical chapters are wonderful, helpful and extremely engaging. I highly recommend this book if only for those parts. However, her worldview analyses remain problematic for anyone looking for an accurate and less biased overview of Greek history. In short, Edith Hamilton and 5th century Athens just need to get a room.
May 6, 2018
I first read this book back in college at a humanities survey course. I remembered this book fondly as a survey of Greek art, philosophy and literature. The textbook for the course was boring, but this book which was also assigned was not. This book remains a classic—Edith Hamilton was an extraordinary historian who was also the Head Mistress for Bryn Mawr and in addition to this also wrote a bestselling book on Mythology. She was also made an honorary citizen of Athens for her work.
I happened to pick this book up at a library sale—it is a double book which contains not only the Greek Way but a second book by Hamilton, the Roman Way. I’ll go back and read the second title later.
It is a worthy exercise to read this book to understand more about our current civilization and where we came from. The book is as relevant today as when it was written in the 20th century. I found much in this work that can be applied to our own world today. Here is a quote about the cycles of history and politics:
"A historian who lived some two hundred years later, Polybius, also a Greek, gives an admirably clear and condensed account of Thucydides’ basic thesis. Human history, he says, is a cycle which excess of power keeps revolving. Primitive despots start the wheel rolling. The more power they get the more they want, and they go on abusing their authority until inevitably opposition is aroused and a few men, strong enough when they unite, seize the rule for themselves. These, too, can never be satisfied. They encroach upon the rights of others until they are opposed in their turn. The people aroused against them, and democracy succeeds to oligarchy. But there again the evil in all power is no less operative. It brings corruption and contempt for law, until the state can no longer function and falls easily before a strong man who promises to restore order. The rule of the one, of the few, of the many, each is destroyed in turn because there is in them all an unvarying evil—the greed for power—and no moral quality is necessarily bound up with any of them."
I happened to pick this book up at a library sale—it is a double book which contains not only the Greek Way but a second book by Hamilton, the Roman Way. I’ll go back and read the second title later.
It is a worthy exercise to read this book to understand more about our current civilization and where we came from. The book is as relevant today as when it was written in the 20th century. I found much in this work that can be applied to our own world today. Here is a quote about the cycles of history and politics:
"A historian who lived some two hundred years later, Polybius, also a Greek, gives an admirably clear and condensed account of Thucydides’ basic thesis. Human history, he says, is a cycle which excess of power keeps revolving. Primitive despots start the wheel rolling. The more power they get the more they want, and they go on abusing their authority until inevitably opposition is aroused and a few men, strong enough when they unite, seize the rule for themselves. These, too, can never be satisfied. They encroach upon the rights of others until they are opposed in their turn. The people aroused against them, and democracy succeeds to oligarchy. But there again the evil in all power is no less operative. It brings corruption and contempt for law, until the state can no longer function and falls easily before a strong man who promises to restore order. The rule of the one, of the few, of the many, each is destroyed in turn because there is in them all an unvarying evil—the greed for power—and no moral quality is necessarily bound up with any of them."
August 6, 2012
I finished it months ago, but skimming over it to write my research project. Hamilton is a classicist rather than a historian, although historians of Ancient Greece tend to be as familiar with Aeschylus as they are Thucydides. Hamilton does know her history, but is rather bold if not reckless in her ideas which would probably get a more circumspect response from a true historian. The Athenians were the only civilization up to that time who loved life, she says. All other civilizations, she says, created institutions around death and the afterlife. She ignores the importance of money that allowed Socrates and others freedom from work to persue art, how in a small town the ideas of intelkects will resonate in all quarters of the city, making intellectual pursuits the talk of all denizens, and how war and its atrocities gave drama art not to mention democracy turning into demogagery
May 1, 2020
For anyone with an interest in antiquity, this book is a treasure-trove. From chapters on the important actors in Greece, (Socrates, Plato, etc.) to literary achievements, to Greek thought and religion, the reader is given a veritable smorgasbord of Greek culture. Written by one of the foremost experts on Greece, it is a pleasure to read as it enhances the reader's understanding of the golden age of Greece.
January 1, 2025
The Athenian Way, really.
I don't agree with everything here--Hamilton tends to make sweeping generalizations--but it's well-written and thought-provoking, as well as a good review of some major writers of the period.
I don't agree with everything here--Hamilton tends to make sweeping generalizations--but it's well-written and thought-provoking, as well as a good review of some major writers of the period.
October 30, 2025
2.5 stars [Anthropology]
(W 3 / U 2.95 / T 2.12)
Exact rating: 2.69
Hamilton writes a decent book on Greek anthropology. The best element is her writing, which is often superb, poetic, and passionate prose of a bygone age. The worst element is that she often sidetracks into subjects she is decidedly not competent in.
Good syntax marred by occasional mixed metaphor, vagueness, and slow passages. The truth category was a composite, of some 3.5 and much 1. Valid points exist alongside ridiculous oversimplification, cultural hagiography, sloppy philosophy, biblical illiteracy, and ignorance in comparative religion (a topic which she nevertheless covers a fair amount).
(W 3 / U 2.95 / T 2.12)
Exact rating: 2.69
Hamilton writes a decent book on Greek anthropology. The best element is her writing, which is often superb, poetic, and passionate prose of a bygone age. The worst element is that she often sidetracks into subjects she is decidedly not competent in.
Good syntax marred by occasional mixed metaphor, vagueness, and slow passages. The truth category was a composite, of some 3.5 and much 1. Valid points exist alongside ridiculous oversimplification, cultural hagiography, sloppy philosophy, biblical illiteracy, and ignorance in comparative religion (a topic which she nevertheless covers a fair amount).
April 19, 2024
A good comparison of the Ancient Greek way of life compared to our modern way, including the areas of literature, philosophy, theater, and more. Hamilton, being of an era when scholars were not afraid to make an argument from history, writes in a style that is catchy and interesting.
January 29, 2019
Beautiful descriptions of Greece and the Athenian people. Truly a gorgeous picture set and many different perspectives opened up. Some parts were dull but other than that, I totally recommend!
February 20, 2025
Το βιβλίο αυτό είναι μια εξαιρετική εισαγωγή στο αρχαίο ελληνικό πνεύμα, γραμμένη απο μια ταλαντούχα ακαδημαϊκό. Πρόκειται ασφαλώς για ένα βιβλίο γραμμένο το 1930, και οι απόψεις μας για την κλασική αρχαιότητα έχουν αλλάξει πολύ από τότε. Ωστόσο η αξία του βιβλίου παραμένει και συμφωνώ απόλυτα με την οπτική της συγγραφέως. Ποια είναι η οπτική αυτή; ότι η ελληνική αντίληψη για την ζωή, την διανόηση και την τέχνη διακρινόταν από μια ισορροπία ανάμεσα στον Λόγο και στο Πνεύμα. Οι Έλληνες διέθεταν μια εκπληκτική διαύγεια σκ��ψης και αμεσότητα έκφρασης. Διακατέχονταν από ένα πάθος για τη ζωή έχοντας ταυτόχρονα και έντονες μεταφυσικές ανησυχίες. Είχαν συνειδητοποιήσει την ματαιότητα αυτού του κόσμου, όμως η θλίψη τους δεν μετατράπηκε ποτέ σε απελπισία ή σε παθητική μοιρολατρία. Υπό την έννοια αυτή οι Έλληνες διέφεραν εντελώς από τους λαούς που προηγήθηκαν, αλλά και από τους συγχρόνους τους. Ο πολιτισμός τους, (ο οποίος κληροδοτήθηκε αργότερα στους Ρωμαίους) υπήρξε ξεχωριστός και χαρακτηριζόταν από τα στοιχεία εκείνα τα οποία συνθέτουν σήμερα τον Δυτικό πολιτισμό. Χρειάστηκε όμως να μεσολαβήσουν χίλια σκοτεινά χρόνια ανάμεσα στους δύο αυτούς πολιτισμούς. Μετά την πτώση της Ρωμαϊκής αυτοκρατορίας κυριαρχησε η τυραννία της Θρησκείας και του Ιερατείου, όπως συνέβαινε παλαιότερα στην Αίγυπτο και στην Ανατολή. Τα πάντα υποτάχτηκαν στην Μεταφυσική και στην προετοιμασία του ανθρώπου για την μετά θάνατον ζωή. Κατά την Αναγέννηση η Δύση στράφηκε πλέον συνειδητά προς την κριτική σκέψη και στην αγάπη του σώματος και της επίγειας ζωής. Ο Λόγος άρχισε σιγά σιγά να κερδίζει έδαφος και έτσι άρχισε να προάγεται ο σύγχρονος πολιτισμός.
Αυτή περίπου είναι η κεντρική θέση της συγγραφέως, την οποία εκθέτει στα 3 πρώτα κεφάλαια του βιβλίου της. Στη συνέχεια παρουσιάζει σε 10 κεφάλαια τις βασικές πλευρές του αρχαίου ελληνικού πνεύματος. Το μεγαλύτερο μέρος είναι αφιερωμένο στο αρχαίο ελληνικό δράμα: Αριστοφάνης, Αισχύλος, Σοφοκλής, Ευριπίδης και ένα κεφάλαιο αφιερωμένο στην Τραγωδία. Η Χάμιλτον απευθύνεται στους συμπατριώτες της και προκειμένου να "ζωντανέψει" την αφήγησή της κάνει πολλές συγκρίσεις και αναφορές σε μεταγενέστερους και σύγχρονούς της συγγραφείς. Ο "Αγαμέμνονας" του Αισχύλου συγκρίνεται με τον "Μάκμπεθ" του Σάιξπηρ, τον Αριστοφάνη με τον (διάσημο στις μέρες της) λιμπρετίστα Γκίλμπερτ. Επίσης χρησιμοποιεί πολλά και εκτεταμένα αποσπάσματα όχι μόνο από τα έργα των Ελλήνων κλασικών, αλλά και από τα έργα μεταγενέστερων προκειμένου να υπογραμμίσει τις ομοιότητες ή να αντιδιαστείλει τις διαφορές τους. Με τον τρόπο αυτό μας μεταδίδει την ομορφιά αλλά και την επικαιρότητα της ελληνικής αντίληψης για την ζωή. Οι αναλύσεις της είναι καταπληκτικές παρόλο που στην αρχή ο αναγνώστης ίσως δυσκολευτεί να συνηθίσει το "διδακτικό" ύφος, με τις μεγάλες προτάσεις και την συγκινησιακή φόρτιση. Σύντομα όμως η συγγραφέας θα τον κερδίσει και θα του μεταδώσει το πάθος της. Το βιβλίο κλείνει με το κεφάλαιο : ο Τρόπος της Δύσης, οπου επισημαίνεται η διαφορά του Δυτικού από τον Ελληνικό Τρόπο. Σήμερα το Πνευματικό στοιχείο έχει παραμεριστεί από το Λογικό. Έχει χαθεί η ισορροπία επειδή η ζωή μας έχει γίνει πολύ πιο σύνθετη απ' ότι στο παρελθόν και προάγεται το άτομο έναντι του συνόλου.
Ένα εξαιρετικό βιβλίο το οποίο διατηρεί, παρά τα σημάδια του χρόνου, την αξία του.
Αυτή περίπου είναι η κεντρική θέση της συγγραφέως, την οποία εκθέτει στα 3 πρώτα κεφάλαια του βιβλίου της. Στη συνέχεια παρουσιάζει σε 10 κεφάλαια τις βασικές πλευρές του αρχαίου ελληνικού πνεύματος. Το μεγαλύτερο μέρος είναι αφιερωμένο στο αρχαίο ελληνικό δράμα: Αριστοφάνης, Αισχύλος, Σοφοκλής, Ευριπίδης και ένα κεφάλαιο αφιερωμένο στην Τραγωδία. Η Χάμιλτον απευθύνεται στους συμπατριώτες της και προκειμένου να "ζωντανέψει" την αφήγησή της κάνει πολλές συγκρίσεις και αναφορές σε μεταγενέστερους και σύγχρονούς της συγγραφείς. Ο "Αγαμέμνονας" του Αισχύλου συγκρίνεται με τον "Μάκμπεθ" του Σάιξπηρ, τον Αριστοφάνη με τον (διάσημο στις μέρες της) λιμπρετίστα Γκίλμπερτ. Επίσης χρησιμοποιεί πολλά και εκτεταμένα αποσπάσματα όχι μόνο από τα έργα των Ελλήνων κλασικών, αλλά και από τα έργα μεταγενέστερων προκειμένου να υπογραμμίσει τις ομοιότητες ή να αντιδιαστείλει τις διαφορές τους. Με τον τρόπο αυτό μας μεταδίδει την ομορφιά αλλά και την επικαιρότητα της ελληνικής αντίληψης για την ζωή. Οι αναλύσεις της είναι καταπληκτικές παρόλο που στην αρχή ο αναγνώστης ίσως δυσκολευτεί να συνηθίσει το "διδακτικό" ύφος, με τις μεγάλες προτάσεις και την συγκινησιακή φόρτιση. Σύντομα όμως η συγγραφέας θα τον κερδίσει και θα του μεταδώσει το πάθος της. Το βιβλίο κλείνει με το κεφάλαιο : ο Τρόπος της Δύσης, οπου επισημαίνεται η διαφορά του Δυτικού από τον Ελληνικό Τρόπο. Σήμερα το Πνευματικό στοιχείο έχει παραμεριστεί από το Λογικό. Έχει χαθεί η ισορροπία επειδή η ζωή μας έχει γίνει πολύ πιο σύνθετη απ' ότι στο παρελθόν και προάγεται το άτομο έναντι του συνόλου.
Ένα εξαιρετικό βιβλίο το οποίο διατηρεί, παρά τα σημάδια του χρόνου, την αξία του.
January 1, 2013
"Little is left of all this wealth of great art: the sculptures, defaced and broken into bits, have crumbled away; the buildings are fallen; the paintings gone forever; of the writings, all lost but a very few. We have only the ruin of what was; the world has had no more than that for well on for two thousand years; yet these few remains of the mighty structure have been a challenge and an incitement to men ever since and they are among our possessions today which we value as most precious.” A passage taken at random (page 18 of my Norton edition) which illustrates the strength of this remarkable book. Edith Hamilton writes beautiful prose which has been a joy to many since her book was first published in 1930.
She writes for an audience unfamiliar with ancient Greek culture. Her attempt to indicate the effect that Pindar achieved is perhaps bound to fail, but it is a noble attempt. She fares a little better with the dramatists, though hindered in that we are little equipped to appreciate verse drama in translation. The best sections are those dealing with prose writers: Plato, Herodotus, Thucydides. An important proviso though is that Hamilton is not primarily an analyst. She strives to pass on her own love and appreciation, not a critique. As such her work has always been welcomed by lay readers new to the subject.
This beautifully written book, both lofty and inspiring, yet inculcates a number of falsities about ancient Greece, once commonly held. It downplays Greek religion and magical and mystical beliefs, apparantly under the impression that the philosophical outlook (which survives in written form more so than religious texts) was the norm. On the contrary, one of the universal influences on all ancient Greeks (and it is suspected, on emerging Christianity), was the Eleusian mysteries. Greek oracular shrines, too, were enormously popular throughout the ancient Mediterranean world. The book also overlooks the fact that the ‘rationalist’ school of philosophy initiated by Thales was an outcrop of Persian philosophical thinking.
Hamilton’s book contrasts Persian (tyrannical and slave based) with Greek (freedom loving) society, oblivious that Greece was a slave based society (as most ancient cultures were) and that many Persians were fanatically loyal to their ‘King of Kings’. Little is said of the oligarchic governments of poleis such as Thebes, Sparta or Corinth, nor of the excesses of Athenian democracy; the list of great names who succumbed to democratic reigns of terror is a sad one: Themistokles, Aristedes, Alkibiades, Socrates…
The subjective feeling is that the Greeks were fighting something similar to Nazism in their Persian Wars. Scholarship is yet another expression of the time in which it was written.
Yet of course all this is little in comparison to the book’s great virtues. Don’t read it as an example of penetrating scholarship: there is plenty of more up-to-date material freely available. Read it if you need to know why the ancient Greeks are important, have been in the past, and hopefully will always be.
Sadly, all books on ancient Greek culture must tell an incomplete story. There were once many artworks and artists whom we are not aware of: musicians, dancers and other performers have of course left no trace; painters and sculptors as well as architects are represented by ruins and reputations; and there is a range of writings in genres we’ve never heard of that haven’t survived. The first volume of the Loeb edition of Athenaeus’ Deipnosophists has an index listing over 300 writers – poets, dramatists, dancers, painters, philosophers, performers, writers on food, scholars, satiric poets and so on – none of whose works have survived the years. The culture of ancient times has been bereft of sound, movement and colour, and of 99% of its writers. The ruins of time have left something valuable, but something almost impossible to see in context. Edith Hamilton’s The Greek Way is still a useful aid to appreciating what remains of ancient Greek culture.
She writes for an audience unfamiliar with ancient Greek culture. Her attempt to indicate the effect that Pindar achieved is perhaps bound to fail, but it is a noble attempt. She fares a little better with the dramatists, though hindered in that we are little equipped to appreciate verse drama in translation. The best sections are those dealing with prose writers: Plato, Herodotus, Thucydides. An important proviso though is that Hamilton is not primarily an analyst. She strives to pass on her own love and appreciation, not a critique. As such her work has always been welcomed by lay readers new to the subject.
This beautifully written book, both lofty and inspiring, yet inculcates a number of falsities about ancient Greece, once commonly held. It downplays Greek religion and magical and mystical beliefs, apparantly under the impression that the philosophical outlook (which survives in written form more so than religious texts) was the norm. On the contrary, one of the universal influences on all ancient Greeks (and it is suspected, on emerging Christianity), was the Eleusian mysteries. Greek oracular shrines, too, were enormously popular throughout the ancient Mediterranean world. The book also overlooks the fact that the ‘rationalist’ school of philosophy initiated by Thales was an outcrop of Persian philosophical thinking.
Hamilton’s book contrasts Persian (tyrannical and slave based) with Greek (freedom loving) society, oblivious that Greece was a slave based society (as most ancient cultures were) and that many Persians were fanatically loyal to their ‘King of Kings’. Little is said of the oligarchic governments of poleis such as Thebes, Sparta or Corinth, nor of the excesses of Athenian democracy; the list of great names who succumbed to democratic reigns of terror is a sad one: Themistokles, Aristedes, Alkibiades, Socrates…
The subjective feeling is that the Greeks were fighting something similar to Nazism in their Persian Wars. Scholarship is yet another expression of the time in which it was written.
Yet of course all this is little in comparison to the book’s great virtues. Don’t read it as an example of penetrating scholarship: there is plenty of more up-to-date material freely available. Read it if you need to know why the ancient Greeks are important, have been in the past, and hopefully will always be.
Sadly, all books on ancient Greek culture must tell an incomplete story. There were once many artworks and artists whom we are not aware of: musicians, dancers and other performers have of course left no trace; painters and sculptors as well as architects are represented by ruins and reputations; and there is a range of writings in genres we’ve never heard of that haven’t survived. The first volume of the Loeb edition of Athenaeus’ Deipnosophists has an index listing over 300 writers – poets, dramatists, dancers, painters, philosophers, performers, writers on food, scholars, satiric poets and so on – none of whose works have survived the years. The culture of ancient times has been bereft of sound, movement and colour, and of 99% of its writers. The ruins of time have left something valuable, but something almost impossible to see in context. Edith Hamilton’s The Greek Way is still a useful aid to appreciating what remains of ancient Greek culture.
December 6, 2016
Alas, an old and decrepit copy!
Simply, a treatise on the greatness of the Ancient Greeks. From this statement, Hamilton then proceeds to show the reader why we can say "great."
She traces each "big" writer: Aeschylus, Herodutus, Plato, etc. and sets up a comparative with each. Aeschylus with the other dramatists; Herodutus with Thucydides and Xenophon, etc.
But, the two most powerful arguments, I think, come at the beginning and the end: the first setting in relief the difference between thinking of the East against this "new" Greek thinking that ultimately becomes the core to the West; and, the second concerning a follow-on to the first—that of the spurning of religeon as a controlling force in men's (and women's) lives.
This, like other works regarding the classical world, I will return to again and again, I'm sure.
But first, I'll definitely have to buy an updated copy—one that is not bound with an elastic.
Simply, a treatise on the greatness of the Ancient Greeks. From this statement, Hamilton then proceeds to show the reader why we can say "great."
She traces each "big" writer: Aeschylus, Herodutus, Plato, etc. and sets up a comparative with each. Aeschylus with the other dramatists; Herodutus with Thucydides and Xenophon, etc.
But, the two most powerful arguments, I think, come at the beginning and the end: the first setting in relief the difference between thinking of the East against this "new" Greek thinking that ultimately becomes the core to the West; and, the second concerning a follow-on to the first—that of the spurning of religeon as a controlling force in men's (and women's) lives.
This, like other works regarding the classical world, I will return to again and again, I'm sure.
But first, I'll definitely have to buy an updated copy—one that is not bound with an elastic.
March 30, 2008
I first encountered the work of Edith Hamilton when I was a student of Latin in high school. She enchanted me with her love for classical Greece much as did my Latin teacher. Hamilton outlines both the mythology and cultural history of Greece from its literature to it art, architecture and beyond. Her passion for the classics, she co-edited what is still a standard collection of Plato's Dialogues, is evident on every page. It hard for the reader not to succumb to the admirable presentation and seek further immersion in this culture. This is a wonderful overview of the culture that influences yet today.
October 15, 2010
This book was lost on me in college and I'm so glad I found a copy recently.
Miss Hamilton is a wonderful teacher and this is a fantastic readers' companion to the Greek greats. She differentiates between the tragedians so successfully that this should be required reading for all directing students. I humbly disagree with her opening thesis on ancient Greek motivations and values, which are, I think, overly influenced by the two World Wars she lived through and her deep knowledge of the Bible, but where she puts all other scholars to shame is in the details. Who else would share with us that Socrates danced every morning to keep fit?
Miss Hamilton is a wonderful teacher and this is a fantastic readers' companion to the Greek greats. She differentiates between the tragedians so successfully that this should be required reading for all directing students. I humbly disagree with her opening thesis on ancient Greek motivations and values, which are, I think, overly influenced by the two World Wars she lived through and her deep knowledge of the Bible, but where she puts all other scholars to shame is in the details. Who else would share with us that Socrates danced every morning to keep fit?
May 22, 2019
One of my favorite Friedrich Nietzsche quotes is: “It was subtle of God to learn Greek when he wished to become an author – and not to learn it better.”
The Golden Age of Greece is still unsurpassed and this book finally made me appreciate Edith Hamilton. Years ago I’d read and enjoyed “Mythology” but didn’t understand the passion for her work or why she had such an avid following. This book explains why; this concise summation beautifully analyzes and illuminates the many reasons to admire the Ancient Greeks.
The Golden Age of Greece is still unsurpassed and this book finally made me appreciate Edith Hamilton. Years ago I’d read and enjoyed “Mythology” but didn’t understand the passion for her work or why she had such an avid following. This book explains why; this concise summation beautifully analyzes and illuminates the many reasons to admire the Ancient Greeks.
April 23, 2011
I read this at around the same time we were made to read her Mythology for freshman English class and during the period I was fulfilling high school foreign language requirements by studying Latin. It was probably my first survey of ancient Greek culture and society and I thoroughly enjoyed it, particularly the part when she pointed out that Greek buildings and statues were originally painted brilliantly, the latter often equipped with glass eyeballs. That blew my mind. It still does.
August 29, 2007
My current favorite book; brilliantly presented, truthful, braod, and just the right amount of justified snobbery on behalf of the Greeks. Changed my life and how i think about the world.
July 15, 2020
In April, 1968, Bobby Kennedy was campaigning in Indianapolis when Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. Kennedy was due to speak hours later at a campaign rally with a majority African American crowd, few of whom could have known about the assassination when Bobby took the stage. Ignoring concerns from his staff about rioting, Bobby Kennedy broke the news to a wailing crowd, and spoke extemporaneously about personal grief and collective faith in America. And even with emotions running high, Kennedy nevertheless recited Æschylus from memory:
It must have been an astonishing moment. I’m grateful to be able to watch it half a century later on YouTube. I can’t imagine how it felt in the room. When I learned Kennedy had been reading The Greek Way while on that campaign, I hoped that this line was in there, just to find some small point of connection to this history. In fact, Hamilton quotes it twice.
I doubt I’ll find a better book on Classical Greek art. Hamilton is concise yet expansive, covering Pindar, Plato/Socrates, Aristophanes, Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Æschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides.
Besides profiling them individually, Hamilton finds commonalities between these artists. One motif is the Greek’s “direct, lucid, simple, reasonable” style, and their distaste for ornamentation. Sophocles is the quintessential example, but even within the school, there were a spectrum of variations on the theme, from the comical Aristophanes to the austere Pindar, Æschylus, and Thucydides:
Other fabulous examples include ”Pericles’s funeral oration or the Epitaph for the fallen Spartans at Thermopylae. When comparing to the more verbose English literary style, Hamilton remarked: “The English method is to fill the mind with beauty. The Greek was to set the mind to work.”
Set to work, but in leisure nevertheless. Hamilton’s text is resplendent in beautiful quotes.
or
or
She’s so excited to share the Greek Way that she even takes credit for later authors who evidenced inspiration from her pantheon, from Terence (“'Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto”) to Shopenhauer (“tragic pleasure is in the last analysis a matter of acceptance”)
If there’s any Greek poet or playwright who I want to read now, it’s Æschylus. He sounds positively Miltonian. Here’s a passage of Hamilton’s discussion of Prometheus Bound which sounds like a proto-Paradise Lost
There must be, out there somewhere, a study of Æschylus through the lens of Rene Girard. A later passage by Hamilton could be taken right out of Things Hidden Since The Foundation of the World:
Girard argues that such as sentiment Æschylus held was Jesus’s great innovation. I wonder who else identified the danger of mimetic cyclical violence and scapegoating?
Girard seems to take these ideas to a whole other level, but the foundations all appear to be in Classical Greece. Hamilton believes Thucydides shared these ideas, when he argued that “human history… is a cycle, which excess of power keeps revolving.” He was wise enough to see when Athens had mutated into a tyrannical ruler of the Delian League, when he saw Athenians no longer cared about the rights of others.
I was surprised that Aristotle didn’t even earn a passing mention. Hamilton’s only possible reference is to Aristotle’s definition of happiness as one would find in the Nicomachean Ethics, but she doesn’t attribute to him: “The exercise of vital powers along lines of excellence in a life affording them scope is an old Greek definition of happiness.” Perhaps Hamilton is less impressed by the old Peripatetic, given his ambivalence to slavery, which Hamilton notes as being contested by Greek culture by his time ever since Euripides criticized it a generation earlier.
[He who learns must suffer]. Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God
It must have been an astonishing moment. I’m grateful to be able to watch it half a century later on YouTube. I can’t imagine how it felt in the room. When I learned Kennedy had been reading The Greek Way while on that campaign, I hoped that this line was in there, just to find some small point of connection to this history. In fact, Hamilton quotes it twice.
I doubt I’ll find a better book on Classical Greek art. Hamilton is concise yet expansive, covering Pindar, Plato/Socrates, Aristophanes, Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Æschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides.
Besides profiling them individually, Hamilton finds commonalities between these artists. One motif is the Greek’s “direct, lucid, simple, reasonable” style, and their distaste for ornamentation. Sophocles is the quintessential example, but even within the school, there were a spectrum of variations on the theme, from the comical Aristophanes to the austere Pindar, Æschylus, and Thucydides:
”We are lovers of beauty with economy” said Pericles. Words were to be used sparingly, like everything else. Thucydides gives in a single sentence the fate of those brilliant youths who, pledging the sea and wine from golden goblets, sailed away to conquer Sicily, and slowly died in the quarries of Syracuse: “Having done what men could, they suffered what men must.” One sentence only for their glory and their anguish.
Other fabulous examples include ”Pericles’s funeral oration or the Epitaph for the fallen Spartans at Thermopylae. When comparing to the more verbose English literary style, Hamilton remarked: “The English method is to fill the mind with beauty. The Greek was to set the mind to work.”
Set to work, but in leisure nevertheless. Hamilton’s text is resplendent in beautiful quotes.
“Brief is the growing time of joy for mortals. And brief the flowers bloom that falls to earth, shaken by grim fate. Things of a day. What are we and what are we not? Man is a shadow’s dream” – Pindar
or
“All arrogance will reap a harvest rich in tears. God calls men to a heavy reckoning for overweening pride” – Æschylus
or
The long days store up many things nearer to grief than joy
… Death at the last, the deliverer.
Not to be born is past all prizing best.
Next best by far when one has seen the light.
Is to go thither swiftly whence he came.
When youth and its light carelessness are past,
What woes are not without, what griefs within,
Envy and faction, strife, and sudden death.
And last of all old age, despised, Infirm unfriended.
She’s so excited to share the Greek Way that she even takes credit for later authors who evidenced inspiration from her pantheon, from Terence (“'Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto”) to Shopenhauer (“tragic pleasure is in the last analysis a matter of acceptance”)
If there’s any Greek poet or playwright who I want to read now, it’s Æschylus. He sounds positively Miltonian. Here’s a passage of Hamilton’s discussion of Prometheus Bound which sounds like a proto-Paradise Lost
Æschylus was the first poet to grasp the bewildering strangeness of life, “the antagonism at the heart of the world.” He knew life as only the greatest poets can know it; he perceived the mystery of suffering. Mankind he saw fast bound to calamity by the working of unknown powers, committed to a strange venture, companioned by disaster....
Prometheus, helpless and faced by irresistible force, is unconquered. There is no yielding in him, even to pronounce the one word of submission which will set him free; no repentance in dust and ashes before almighty power. To the herald of the gods who bids him yield to Zeus’ commands, he answers:
There is no torture and no cunning trick,
There is no force, which can compel my speech,
Until Zeus wills to loose these deadly bonds.
So let him hurl his blazing thunderbolt,
And with the white wings of the snow,
With lightning and with earthquake,
Confound the reeling world.
None of all this will bend my will.
HERALD: Submit, you fool. Submit. In agony learn wisdom.
PROMETHEUS: Seek to persuade the sea wave not to break.
You will persuade me no more easily.
With his last words as the universe crashes upon him, he asserts the justice of his cause: “Behold me, I am wronged”—greater than the universe which crushes him, said Pascal. In this way Æschylus sees mankind, meeting disaster grandly, forever undefeated. “Take heart. Suffering, when it climbs highest, lasts but a little time”—that line from a lost play gives in brief his spirit as it gives the spirit of his time.
There must be, out there somewhere, a study of Æschylus through the lens of Rene Girard. A later passage by Hamilton could be taken right out of Things Hidden Since The Foundation of the World:
The innocent suffer—how can that be and God be just? That is not only the central problem of tragedy, it is the great problem everywhere when men begin to think, and everywhere at the same stage of thought they devise the same explanation, the curse, which, caused by sin in the first instance, works on of itself through the generations—and lifts from God the awful burden of injustice. The haunted house, the accursed race, literature is full of them. “The sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the children.” Œdipus and Agamemnon must pay for their forefathers’ crimes. The stolen gold dooms the Volsungs. It is a kind of half-way house of explanation which satisfies for a time men’s awakening moral sense. It did not satisfy Æschylus.
He was a lonely thinker when he began to think “those thoughts that wander through eternity.” The Hebrew Ezekiel at about the same time perceived the injustice of this way of maintaining God’s justice and protested against the intolerable wrong of children’s suffering for their father’s sins, but his way out was to deny that they did. As ever, the Jew was content with a “Thus saith the Lord,” an attitude that leaves no place for tragedy in the world. He could accept the irrational and rest in it serenely; the actual fact before him did not confront him inescapably as it did the Greek.
Girard argues that such as sentiment Æschylus held was Jesus’s great innovation. I wonder who else identified the danger of mimetic cyclical violence and scapegoating?
Girard seems to take these ideas to a whole other level, but the foundations all appear to be in Classical Greece. Hamilton believes Thucydides shared these ideas, when he argued that “human history… is a cycle, which excess of power keeps revolving.” He was wise enough to see when Athens had mutated into a tyrannical ruler of the Delian League, when he saw Athenians no longer cared about the rights of others.
I was surprised that Aristotle didn’t even earn a passing mention. Hamilton’s only possible reference is to Aristotle’s definition of happiness as one would find in the Nicomachean Ethics, but she doesn’t attribute to him: “The exercise of vital powers along lines of excellence in a life affording them scope is an old Greek definition of happiness.” Perhaps Hamilton is less impressed by the old Peripatetic, given his ambivalence to slavery, which Hamilton notes as being contested by Greek culture by his time ever since Euripides criticized it a generation earlier.
February 8, 2020
If you want a solid history book about ancient Greece, you might want to skip this. If, however, you would be ok with sitting down with a friend and having them enthusiastically explain why ancient Greece was the greatest thing ever or since, then you will enjoy this.
This isn't a bad book. In fact, it is quite fun. You can feel Hamilton's love and enthusiasm for the subject on every page. Just know what you are getting into before diving into this one.
This isn't a bad book. In fact, it is quite fun. You can feel Hamilton's love and enthusiasm for the subject on every page. Just know what you are getting into before diving into this one.
September 19, 2020
If her reflections on Christianity weren’t so stupid, this would get a full five stars. The best bits have to do with the tragedy writers and every reference to Alcibiades...because he was insane and clearly believed far too much in himself.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 263 reviews