You Barbarian! Greek Kernel of Orientalism

<html><a rel=“license” href=“http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/”><img src=“http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png” style=“border-style: none;” alt=“Public Domain Mark” /></a> This work (by <a href=“https://lucianofsamosata.info/wiki” rel=“dct:creator”>https://lucianofsamosata.info/wiki</a>), identified by <a href=“http://meninpublishing.org” rel=“dct:publisher”>Frank Redmond</a>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</html>

Authored by Frank Redmond, 2012

As Westerners, we unavoidably think and act like Greeks. It is inescapable and it is dangerous. Although in recent history some of us have tried to overthrow this rigid system of thought, we still have not been able to completely topple the static Greek logic. It still stands defiant. This is reflected in our society: for instance, we often use their epistemology to defend our positions, or to challenge anothers’; we often uphold their insitutions (i.e. democracy, education, religion, etc.) using their societal logic; we often (still) use their scientific logic to explain the world around us. Many of us admire the Greek achievement and find it worth investigating and thinking about, even praising. This is a valid position. But it’s dangerous not to recognize their faults, failures, and prejudices, espically the ones that have survived till today. Therefore, the Greeks, we mustn’t forget, were the progenitors of many of Western Civilization’s greastest ills. We could call these their logical aberations.

Many of these aberations we still, almost religiously, uphold till this day. One mistake has been Orientalism; this is clearly a big Greek mistake. Many Ancient Greeks were admittedly and proudly anti-barbarian, anti-foreigner, anti-Orient. And through their literatures and conquests this sentiment has passed down to us till this day. This attitude has become over time what we deem Orientalism, and this attitude has provided Western civilization with its intellectual, social, philosophical, and religious justifications for Orientalism.

I intend to track this nascent Greek Orientalism through a philological analysis of the word “barbarian”. The changing uses of the term “barbarian” in Greek society mirrors the emergence of Orientalism as well as their xenophobic suspicion of the Easterner. To substantiate my claims, I will be using Edward Said’s ideas on Orientalism, especially his comments about the formation of the cultural “other”.

Orientalism, a termed coined by Edward Said, is a theory that is based on two fundamental principles, or definitions, which he splays out in his work Orientalism. Even though these are two separate principles, they share this one common thread: The Orient has been created and exploited by the Occident’s “will-to-power” and hegemonic superiority, as well as, the Occident’s collective imagination about the Orient. These two theses lead to the same effects and lead to the same teleological conclusions. Said himself says that Orientalism can mean a myriad of things, all of which are “interdependent”. In this paper, only his two main theses will be explored. His first thesis is that the Occident has defined itself by consistently repudiating and opposing the Orient. Namely, that the Occident has fashioned itself by refusing to acknowledge its counterpart, the Orient. “The Orient has helped define Europe (or the West) as its contrasting image, idea, personality, experience” (1991). The Occident has also seen itself as the Orient’s constant rival in a contest of superiority, a contest over whose civilizations, languages, wealth, and representations are superior. This Occidental versus Oriental “will-to-power” and competitiveness over time has bred our current mentality, a mentality that has deeply carved itself into the institutions and identity of the Western World. Because of this intellectual matrix, Orientalism insidiously slipped into the unconscious of our own culture. This realization, namely that Orientalism has been unquestioned and even supported in our institutions, led Said to write his book. He says the book tries to demonstrate “that European culture gained in strength and identity by setting itself off against the Orient as a sort of surrogate and even underground self” (1993). Said basically wants to expose what he sees as a deep, deep, albeit disgraceful, illusions that have become, over time, truth. This is similar to Nietzsche’s dictum: “truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that this is the way they are”. To Said, this is precisely how Orientalism became an unquestionable truth.

Said’s second thesis exploits the following commonsensical tenet: “The Orient is not an inert fact of nature. It is not merely there, just as the Occident itself is not just there either. We must take seriously Vico’s great observation that men make their own history; that what they can know is what they have made, and extend it to geography […] such locales, regions, geographical sectors as ‘Orient’ and ‘Occident’ are man-made” (1994). Since geography and history is to large extent man-made and relies on Vico’s principle of verum-factum, the Orient and the Occident are places of invention and arbitrary geographies, not tangible facts. This doesn’t deny that cultures and nations of the “East” have their own independent reality and mentality, which is beyond the Occident’s imagination (1994), but instead suggests that the Occident’s vantage-point is colored by its “constellation of ideas” about the Orient. The Orient is the “idea” of the Occident and nothing more. In this way, the Occident has (happily) fenced itself in and fenced the Orient out. Once again, to Said, this imaginary division was instigated by their volatile power relationship, as well as, the Occident’s shared cultural logic.

“Barbarian” was once a harmless word and had a humble beginning. The history of the word “barbarian” begins well before the Persian Wars (500-448 BC), the Wars which gave “barbarian” its contemporary meaning and began Orientalism (as I will enumerate later). The word “barbarian” (Gk. Barbaros) has an interesting and complicated etymology, but one which sheds much light on the shifting “geographies” and attitudes of the Ancient World, as well as, the infancy of East and West. The word “barbarian” did not always mean someone who is violent, uncouth, primitive, and generally uncivilized. This was a later development. Originally the term was empty of any meaning beyond “non-Greek speaker”. The word is imitative by nature, the bar-bar stammer “representing the impression of random hubbub produced by hearing a language one cannot understand” (Anonymous 1). In Homer’s writings which were about three centuries before the Persian War, “the term [‘barbarian’] appears only once, in the form barbarophonos (‘of incomprehensible speech’), used of the Carians fighting for the Trojans. Notably the Trojans themselves, who despite bearing Hellenized names in the Homeric telling are emphatically not Greek, are not called barbaroi [plural of barbaros]. In general the concept of barbaros does not figure largely in archaic literature (i.e. before 5th century BC)” (1). What, therefore, caused its meaning to shift? What circumstances contributed to its future negative connotation? There is not one reason for its shift, but many factors helped turn “barbarian” from a neutral term into a derogatory one. A xenophobic fear of the Oriental-Easterner, a growth of Hellenic pride, a nascent slave trade, an infiltration of foreigners, an accumulation of wealth: all these contributed to the term’s shift.

However, the Persian War was the term’s greatest instigator for change. After the defeat and embarrassment of Persia, the massive power base of the period, the Greeks received unprecedented amounts of wealth, influence, and power over the whole of the Mediterranean and the Near East (the Orient). The Hellenes began to see themselves, not as farmers and private citizens like before, but instead as a people with superior military and political powers; they began envisioning themselves as kings and leaders.

This led to hubris on their part, and the birth of Orientalism for the rest of us. Quite simply, because of fear, ideology, and strangers, the Greeks began the process of Orientalization by forming their new found identity in direct opposition to the now “inferior” barbarians, since they have finally been tamed and conquered. Also, when the Greeks won, the old master-slave dichotomy broke down, the slaves rebelled and became the new masters. (Greek slaves [the West] finally overcame the Persian masters [the East]) In turn, the Greeks, out of resentment, slowly stifled their former Oriental overlords. The Greeks, by making the whole Orient a large “Other”, became the first to build a wall between the Occident and the Orient. The plan was to fence out the “barbarians”; its result was the closure of East from the West.

Many writers and orators from around the time of the Persian War believe in “barbarian” inferiority and Greek superiority. Even the most so-called “enlightened” members of the period are very prejudiced.

For example, Plato (427 BC - 347 BC) says in Republic (470c) that when Greeks battle barbarians, since they are “natural enemies”, it is called “war”; when Greeks battle Greeks, since they are “friends”, it is called “civil strife”. Plato is obviously implying that only Greeks can fight gentlemanly, whereas barbarians are incapable of this type of civility. (This is historically not true - cf. Thucydides). Here Plato is using an inside vs. outside, us vs. them dual logic in order to philosophically defend Orientalism. In turn, Plato logically justifies Greek prejudices and adds yet another layer of credibility to Orientalism.

His student Aristotle (384 BC - 322 BC) has an even harsher estimation of barbarian worth, “Yet among barbarians the female and the slave have the same rank; and the cause of this is that barbarians have no class of natural rulers, but with them the conjugal partnership is a partnership of female slave and male slave. Hence the saying of the poets – 'Tis meet that Greeks should rule barbarians,– implying that barbarian and slave are the same in nature” (1.1252B). Hence, he takes Plato’s logic to its next step. Instead of the barbarians being just the natural enemies, which implies at least some civility, of the Greeks, Aristotle makes the barbarians the new “womanish slaves” of the Greeks. To him, only Greeks are able to live as freemen in the polis, whereas all barbarians are womanish slaves who are only capable of living under the yoke of servitude (1). This theme is one of the pillars upon which Aristotle developed his both his Ethics and Politics.

Later, after the cosmopolitanism of the Stoics took over the philosophical scene, the philosopher and geographer Eratosthenes (276 BC - 194 BC) made an attempt to classify the whole of mankind. A bold and ambitious endeavor, to be sure, but one seeped in Plato’s and Aristotle’s logic of Orientalism. He begins his divisions first by making two clear-cut camps: the “Hellenes”, who are arete, and the “Barbaroi”, who are kakia (Jones 208). Here one can see how much Orientalism had already infiltrated the Western consciousness. Judge for yourself: Arete = “excellence, goodness, manhood, prowess, valour, beauty, virtuous” (Liddel and Scott 100-1); Kakia = “badness, baseness, cowardice, wickedness, vice, disgrace” (342).

Plato and Aristotle, and later philosophers like Eratosthenes “the geographer” (cf. Vico), made Orientalism a philosophically justified position to uphold. They made Orientalism and the castigation of the barbarian a logically coherent position. (Interestingly, in a side note, this is about the time when the term “logos” became an antonym for “barbarophonos” and “barbaros”. The two eventually became mutually exclusive and philosophically antithetical).

But it wasn’t only the philosophers who were infected with Orientalism: the dramatists were as well, Euripides especially. In Euripides’ last play Iphigenia at Aulis, he manifestly shows his prejudicial sentiments: Iphigenia, the heroine, says, “And it is right, mother, that Hellenes should rule barbarians, but not barbarians Hellenes, those being slaves, while these are free” (line 1400). This lawlessness and effeminacy of the barbarians is a persistent theme throughout the play (208). Unsurprisingly perhaps, it was very well received and won first prize in the yearly Dionysia competition. A similar sentiment is presented in Euripides Medea - “First, [Medea], you now live among Greeks and not barbarians, and you must understand justice and the rule of law, with no concession to force” (line 534). Once again the juxtaposition between justice and lawlessness, civility and savagery, is manifest.

Similarly, the “Father of History”, Herodotus, succumbs to these same prejudices. Herodotus is a sly trickster however. Herodotus paradoxically offers some of the most harsh condemnations of the barbarians, all the while being one of the barbarians’ greatest advocates. For instance, he devotes one of his nine chapters of his Histories to the genius and ingenuity and history of the Egyptians. He, also, against the current of his times, praises the Persians (who were Greece’s main antagonist!) as paragons of civility and sophistication. However, he tended to view other groups of barbarians with either suspicion or downright disgust. In this way, Herodotus provides us with the most information on early Orientalism, although this was not his intention. For brevity’s sake, I’ll focus on the one people Herodotus definitively found to be totally abhorrent: the Scythians.

In short, the Scythians were an ancient, nomadic people who lived on and around the North- Eastern coast of the Black Sea. Some estimate their presence extending as far as modern Ukraine and large portions of the Southern Caucasus, although this speculation. Nonetheless, they were a very well-known Eastern people of the time. Infamous some would say. They were a constant nemesis to the peoples they lived near, and, being the only nomadic people in the area, they were seen as unpredictable, threatening, and odd. Also, they had skills and arts that the other civilizations failed to either acknowledge or appreciate. Herodotus admires only one Scythian custom: its uncanny ability to survive. “The Scythians, though in other respects I do no admire them, have managed one thing […] better than anyone else on the face of the Earth: I mean their own preservation” (4.46). This comment, when thoroughly examined, is scathing and derogatory. It almost implies that the Scythians should not exist.

To Herodotus and many other Greeks, “Scythian” = bad, other. In short, this is how the Scythian became the Greek “other”, the absolutely “un-Greek”.

What does the Greek “other” look like? Herodotus does a wonderful job of supplying us with his opinions and assessments of Scythian culture; basically, he paints us a picture of pure “otherness”. This picture, following Said’s principle, was constructed in direct opposition to the obscene barbarians. The Scythians, therefore, become everything a civilized Greek finds repugnant. Furthermore, following Said’s lead, the “other’s” society will always be portrayed as lacking in comparison. In this case, the Scythians lack all the supposed achievements and wonders of Greece: temples, philosophers, city-states, artisans, institutions, manners, etc. To Herodotus, any society that lacks these basic elements is barbaric and uncouth. This provides Herodotus with a logical reason why the Scythians are repulsive and an “other” - just think Greece, and then turn it on its head. What Herodotus says therefore about the Scythians speaks for itself. Here are a few examples (with commentary):

+ “The Scythian women, wearied with their husbands’ protracted absence, had intermarried with the slaves” (4.1). (cf. Aristotle’s view above).

+ “As regards war, the Scythian custom is for every man to drink the blood of the first man he kills. The heads of all enemies killed in battle are taken to the king; if one brings a head, a soldier is admitted to his shared of the loot; no head, no loot. One strips that skin off the head by making a circular cut round the ears and shaking out the skull: [… it is] to be used as a sort of handkerchief” & “Many Scythians sew a number of scalps together and make cloaks out of them […] having discovered the fact that human skin is tough” (4.64).

+ “The method of execution is this: a cart is filled with sticks and harnessed to oxen; the guilty men, gagged and bound hand and foot, are thrust down amongst the sticks, which are then set alight, and the oxen scared off to run” (4.69). (In this particular case, Herodotus is describing what happened to a prophet who predicted wrongly!).

+ “They take hemp seed, creep into the tent, and throw the seed onto the hot stones. […] The Scythians enjoy [hemp-smoke] so much it makes them howl in pleasure” (4.75). (The Scythians got high!).

+ “The Scythians are dead-set against foreign ways, especially Greek ways” (4.76). For example, once, a Scythian called Anacharis traveled to Athens, and in the meantime participated in a few Athenian rituals. Once the Scythians discovered this, they killed and desecrated him, one of their own.

Although its probable that many of Herodotus’ depictions are contrived or hearsay, that truly does not matter. What matters is how Herodotus depicts these people, and in my assessment, this is pure “otherness”, pure Orientalism. Later readers and people of influence were likely influenced by Herodotus’ account of the East, an account that is packaged in the mystical, the gruesome, the alien, the nomadic, the dreamy. Virtually all the elements of Orientalism as we know it.

As with so many things, the Greeks were the pioneers, like it or not. They created the logic by which we communicate and reason, and its only logical that the way people have conceived of the Orient over the past two millennia has been significantly colored by them. It would be a stroke of naivety to place all the blame of Orientalism on the Greeks, however, we must remember that they were certainly the first to firmly establish this idea. The Greeks are definitely the root. In this way, Said’s two theses can be traced back to the Greeks.

For one, the Greeks, after the Persian Wars, defined themselves by consistently repudiating and opposing the East. This led to a cultural arrogance on the Greek’s part, which in turn helped lead to the West’s arrogance against the East. Also, the Greeks, over time, began to see the Orient as their natural enemy, a competitor that needs to be dismantled. And, over time, the Greeks forgot why and how they became infuriated with the East; the Greeks forgot a time when barbarians were neutrally conceived. Instead, a new truth emerged: all barbarians are too be suspect, especially the mystical, mysterious, repulsive Orientals.

For two, a new true geography was created to service this new viewpoint. Just like language, since geography is totally arbitrary, we give geography its value, and therefore, we can invite or repel whomever we wish. Even today, we still follow Eratosthenes’ map to a certain extent: the East is kakia and the West is arete. The Muslim is threatening and wicked; the European is politically correct and virtuous.

In an age where walls are being erected rather than being toppled (as we naively suspected would occur), where globalization has only exacerbated Orient and Occidental tensions, maybe the Greeks could teach us a lesson. After all, have we forgotten what happened to the Greeks? They fostered a despot named Alexander who decided the EAST WAS HIS.
Cited

Anonymous. “Barbarian”. Wikipedia. 27 April 2006. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarian>.
Aristotle. Politics, The. D.C.H. London: Penguin Classics, 1981.
Euripides. Iphigenia at Aulis. D.C.H. London: Penguin Classics, 2006.
Euripides. Medea. D.C.H. London: Penguin Classics, 2003.
Herodotus. Histories, The. D.C.H. London: Penguin Classics, 2003.
Jones, W.H.S. “Greeks and Foreigners”. The Classical Review. Vol. 24, No. 7. (Nov., 1910): pp. 208-209.
Liddel and Scott. Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953.
Plato. Republic, The. D.C.H. London: Penguin Classics, 2003.
Said, Edward. “Orientalism”. Norton Anthology of Criticism and Theory, The. New York, USA: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2001.

The Lucian of Samosata Project

Table of Contents

You Barbarian! Greek Kernel of Orientalism

Authored by Frank Redmond, 2012