Incest, polygamy, murder, sacrilege, impalement, castration, female power, and despotism are some of the images used by Athenian tragedians to define the non-Greek, "barbarian" world. This book explains for the first time the reasons behind their singular fascination with barbarians. Edith Hall sets the Greek plays against the historical background of the Panhellenic wars, and the establishment of an Athenian empire based on democracy and slavery. Analyzed within the context of contemporary anthropology and political philosophy, Hall reveals how the poets conceptualized the barbarian as the negative embodiment of Athenian civic ideals. She compares the treatment of foreigners in Homer and in tragedy, showing that the new dimension which the idea of the barbarian had brought to the tragic theater radically affected the poets' interpretation of myth and their evocation of the distant past, as well as enriching their reportoire of aural and visual effects. Hall argues that the invented barbarian of the tragic stage was a powerful cultural expression of Greek xenophobia and chauvinism that, paradoxically, produced and outburst of creative energy and literary innovation.
Invention of barbarians includes the Greeks' conflict with the Persians, defense of Athenian democracy, panhellenic unity and culture and overthrowing the tyrants that ruled many of the Greek states and most of Persia.
"The Persians" by Aeschylus is the first unmistakable file in the archive of Orientalism, the discourse by which the European imagination has dominated Asia by conceptualizing its inhabitants and defeated, luxurious, emotional, cruel and always dangerous.
"Inventing the Barbarians" attempts to to explain the singular fascination ancient Greek tragedians felt for the non-Greek, "barbaric" world. It sets Greek drama against the historical background of war with Persia and the establishment of an Athenian empire based on both democracy and slavery.
The earliest European identity relied on the stereotyping the other as an uncultured, Asiatic enemy. Her argument that ancient ideas about ethnicity underlie modern questions of nationalism, racism and ethnic self-determination has been extremely influential in Classics, although the are rejected--belittled actually--by Robin Lane Fox in "The Classical World".
Hall’s relentless probing of Greek tragedy to expose the ethnocentrism, stereotyping, and distorted images of non-Greeks in the plays fostered a wholesale shift in the reading of this genre and its undercurrents.
Startlingly contemporary, was my impression. Is it that we owe so much to the Greeks, including how to construct a prejudice? Has nothing changed? Or was the author bringing out the relevance?
The age of heroic poetry didn't differentiate its Greeks from its barbarians; only your lineage and your valour mattered; hence evenhanded Homer. Then the Persian War kickstarted Orientalism, and the tragedians of Athens imported current politics into mythological topics.
The Greek thinking was so modern, and at the same time, the parallels with China and its barbarians so apparent (she makes them), that it was quite a strange experience to read this.
It's from 1989, a pioneer work I believe; may be dated -- author has gone on with the subject -- but probably a classic study.
And now what shall become of us without any barbarians? Those people were a kind of solution.
The same way that Edward W. Said opened up a new way of seeing East-West relations over history, Edith Hall presents a whole new way of reading 5th century BC classical Greek tragedies, by presenting them as politically charged texts which sought to reaffirm Athenian hegemony within the Greek speaking world and to differentiate the Greeks from their neighbours, by depicting them as barbarians, lacking all the civic virtues which theoretically defined Greek civilization. Impossible not to approach classical literature with very different eyes now.
So I read this book as part of a coursework and well, it was a pretty decent read.
Pros: - the book showed its arguments very clearly. I didn't have to search the entire book to find out what the author is exactly saying. - the arguments were always substantiated with evidence so even if I hadn't read the Greek plays, I would understand what she is trying to say.
Cons: - Well, the arguments were always substantiated with evidences from the Greek plays, and eh, no one has read ALL of them to understand every single thing, right? Things didn't make sense because of this at some points.
Verdict: Pretty decent read. Can't judge it much but yeah, it was good.