Ancient Greece and the Barbaros


Part 2.1

The modern word barbarian integrates both the ideas of the foreign, and of a lower value. Where is it coming form? The Greek βάρβαρος (barbaros) was conceived as antonym to πολίτης (polites), the “citizen” or inhabitant of the city. In Ancient Greece, a complex geopolitical order made of city-states, not belonging to the city meant being outside of the main form of community. The leap operated from barbaros as a purely factual term, providing a geographical, if not demographic information on the concerned individuals, to barbaros as a pejorative and disdainful category, corresponds to the association observed by Saïd, of the stranger as a lower individual upholding and evoking less respectable values. If we wish to look at the roots of the Western understanding of foreignness, it is towards the Greeks that our focus must turn, and in Attic Greece, foreigners were barbarians.

Not unlike other racial appellations, 1 the concept of the barbarian was initially used to refer to language features (it is still used today as a technical linguistic term). In his Iliad, Homer qualifies the Carians, supporters of Troy, to be barbarophonos, “of incomprehensible speech” or “uncouth of speech” (2.867: Homer 1978, 114-115). Jonathan Hall (2002) argues that the barbarians were not necessarily the foreigners, i.e. non-Greeks, but, as in the case of the Carians, those who spoke a flawed Greek (111). This was a determining feature: notions of language and reason were conflated in the growingly central concept of Logos, progressively valued as both the core intellectual energy — reason — and its ultimate object of enquiry, reflexively — language. Not speaking well meant not having a clear and refined sense of reason. Hall adds that the distinction between Greek nationals and foreigners was not as strong during the Archaic period (800-510 bc), when a feeling of ‘Greek nationalism’ was not yet formed, as it would become in the Classical period (510-323 bc) (111). This corresponds exactly to the era of Herodotus.

guill top right

For Herodotus, the main barbarians, the Persians, were not simply uncivilized, but civilized and corrupted; their historical value was that of being able to provide a contrast with the virtuous deeds of the Greeks.

guill bottom left

The understanding of the barbarian in Classical Greece was two-fold, emphasizing two features of the barbarian. These do not constitute two distinct definitions of the barbarian, but rather two aspects of one and the same category. Moreover, interestingly, two major intellectual authorities have respectively insisted in each of these two features. For Herodotus, the main barbarians, the Persians, were not simply uncivilized, but civilized and corrupted; their historical value was that of being able to provide a contrast with the virtuous deeds of the Greeks (Pocock 2005, 11-12). In this conception, the barbarian society is defined as opposite to the proud cultural sophistication of the Greek polis. But for Aristotle, foreigners were primarily barbarians in virtue of their being governed by “god-king living in palaces” (12). In other words, barbarians were those beings who surrendered, as slaves, to the tyrannical power of self-established rulers. The barbarians had not reached the ‘Greek stage’, where humans partake actively in the organization of their political order. They simply did not share the political project of free and “democratic” Greece. Aristotle’s judgment was certainly influenced by the switch of provenance of slaves after the 6th century bc. Statesman Solon (c. 638-558 bc) had abolished chattel slavery (self-slavery as a form of repayment of debts), provoking a boost of importation of slaves from war prisoners and foreign populations. Aristotle probably assumed that barbarians had to be slaves because their only presence in Greece, for several centuries before his own lifetime, had been as slaves. It is not surprising, therefore, that Aristotle estimated that “barbarians are slaves by nature” (1.2–7; 3.14: Aristotle 1998, 2-12 & 91-93). Constituting the association of pejorative values and habits on the one hand, with the inability to govern themselves and their believed “natural” quality as slaves on the other, the barbarians soon became recipients of the worst derogatory attributes. Leo G. Perdue (2011) lists the moral attack addressed by most Greek authors on the barbarians: they are “like children, unable to speak or reason properly, cowardly, effeminate, luxurious, cruel, unable to control their appetites and desires, politically unable to govern themselves” (112).

In his Barbarian Asia and the Greek Experience (1994), Pericles Georges attempts to sketch “Herodotus’ Typology of Barbarism” (167-206), and he recalls that Herodotus’s Histories are in fact limited to a very restricted geographical space. This zone is bordered in the north by Scythia (modern central Eurasia), “where winter is so cold you make mud with fire instead of water and the whole climate is topsy-turvy, because the summer is wet but the winter is dry” (204). It is the land that the Persian ruler Darius the Great (550-486 bc) could not penetrate, even at the peak of his conquests. South of this zone is Egypt, where, as we will see, “climate, river, and customs are altogether different from everyone else’s” (204). It is interesting to notice that Herodotus did not simply assemble all non-Greeks in one box, in the category of the barbarian, similar to our modern foreigner – and, perhaps, to Saïd’s Orientals. There was, for Herodotus, a group of communities compounded of the Dorians, Ionians, Lydians and Persians, occasionally antagonists, but nonetheless similar on a number of respects (this is also why Persians were not simply “uncivilized” but of a civility “corrupted” from that of the Greeks). The real contrast is operated with the communities and the cultures external to this geographical zone: the Scythians, and the Egyptians. “In Herodotus the two nations [Greeks and Persians] are mutually related, “permeable” to one another, whereas Scythia and Egypt are impermeable to both peoples” (204). This may explain why most, if not all of Herodotus’ Histories are focused on the Persian Wars. But another text prevails, one confirming that Herodotus also went “off the beaten track,” and in particular, in Egypt. Therefore, if we want to discover what is really a stranger to Herodotus, we may need to turn to another text: An Account of Egypt.


Aristotle. Politics. Translated by C.D.C. Reeve. Indianapolis & Cambridge: Hackett, 1998.

Arora, Namit, et al. “Herodotus: The Historian” Accessed March 12, 2013. (Originally published in 1999).

Ashcroft, Bill, and D. P. S. Ahluwalia. Edward Said. London & New York: Routledge, 2001.

Ashcroft, Bill, and Hussein Kadhim. Edward Said and the post-colonial. Huntington, N.Y: Nova Science, 2002.

Cartledge, Paul. The Greeks: A Portrait of Self and Others. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Chase, George H. “Voyages and Travel. Lectures on the Harvard Classics.” Accessed March 12, 2013. (Originally pronounced in 1909-1914).

Dirlik, Arif. “Placing Edward Said: Space and Time and the Traveling Theorist.” In Edward Said and the post-colonial, edited by Bill Ashcroft and Hussein Kadhim, 1-30. Huntington, N.Y: Nova Science, 2002.

Eagleton, Terry, et al. Nationalism, colonialism, and literature. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1990.

Fabian, Johannes. Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes its Object. New York: Columbia University Press, 1983.

Flaubert, Gustave, and Francis Steegmuller. Flaubert in Egypt : a sensibility on tour : a narrative drawn from Gustave Flaubert’s travel notes & letters. New York, N.Y: Penguin Books, 1996.

Foucault, Michel. Histoire de la folie à l’âge classique. Paris: Plon, 1961.

Foucault, Michel. L’archéologie du savoir. Paris: Gallimard, 1969.

Foucault, Michel. Les mots et les choses – une archéologie des sciences humaines. Paris: Gallimard, 1966.

Georges, Pericles. Barbarian Asia and the Greek experience: from the archaic period to the age of Xenophon. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.

Hall, Jonathan M. Hellenicity: between ethnicity and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002.

Herodotus. An Account of Egypt. Translated by G.C. Macaulay. Accessed March 12, 2013. (2006).

Homer. Iliad. Translated by A.T. Murray. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1978.

Lewis, Reina. Gendering Orientalism: race, femininity, and representation. New York: Routledge, 1996.

Martin, Catherine Gimelli. “Orientalism and the Ethnographer: Said, Herodotus, and the Discourse of Alterity.” Criticism, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Fall 1990): 511-529.

Miller, Jaine. Seductions: Studies in Reading and Culture. London: Virago, 1990.

Perdue, Leo G. “Greek and Barbarian: Anti-Judaism in Greek and Roman Alexandria.” In Judaism and crisis: crisis as a catalyst in Jewish cultural history, edited by Armin Lange et al., 109-152. Gottingen & Oakville, CT: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011.

Pocock, J. G. A. Barbarism and religion, Volume Four: Barbarians, Savages and Empires. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Porter, Dennis. “Orientalism and its problems.” In The Politics of Theory, edited by Francis Barker et al., 179-193. Colchester: University of Essex Press, 1983.

Racevskis, Karlis. “Edward Said and Michel Foucault: Affinities and Dissonances.” Research in African Literature, Vol. 36, No. 3 (Autumn 2005): 83-97.

Said, Edward W. Covering Islam: How the Media and the Experts Determine How We See the Rest of the World. New York: Pantheon Books, 1981.

Said, Edward W. Orientalism. London: Penguin, 2003 [1978].

Said, Edward W. The question of Palestine. New York: Times Books, 1979.

Said, Edward W. The world, the text, and the critic. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1983.

Williams, Patrick. “Nothing in the Post? – Said and The Problem of Post-Colonial Intellectuals.” In Edward Said and the post-colonial, edited by Bill Ashcroft and Hussein Kadhim, 31-56. Huntington, N.Y: Nova Science, 2002.

Yang, Huang. “Orientalism in the Ancient World: Greek and Roman Images of the Orient from Homer to Virgil.” Bulletin of the Institute for Mediterranean Studies No. 5 (March 2007): 115-130.

Image courtesy: Age of the Sage



  1. We can also think of the category of the Aryans.