258 Efi Papadodima
(cf. Herodotus 8.144.2 and Plato’sStatesman262d–263a). Here, it is worth noting
that cultural identity, following J. Hall’s definition (2002: 17) of it as a “conscious reifi-
cation of ideas, beliefs, values, attitudes, practices,” is not exactly the same as ethnic
identity. An ethnic group, again to use J. Hall’s definition (2002: 9), is a “self-ascribing
and self-nominating social collectivity that constitutes itself in opposition to other groups
of a similar order,” in which “the genetic reality of kinship is unimportant and often ficti-
tious” (J. Hall 2002: 15). The former, cultural identity, seems to constitute the dominant
mode in the self-identification of the Greeks in fifth-century drama. Still, several dramatic
contexts explore and utilize the tension between descent and culture as potential quali-
fiers of one’s status. (For other definitions, notably the concept of “aggregative” versus
“oppositional” identities, see J. Hall 1997: 47, 2002: 198–220;contraHarrison 2002:
4, n. 19. See also McInerney 2001: 51–73 and Walbank 2002: 234–56.)
Mythic genealogy, commonly employed as a means for highlighting heroes’ mixed
(Greek–barbarian) lineage or ambivalent ethnic status, can be manipulated to differ-
ent effects. The Danaïds in Aeschylus’Suppliantsresort to their kinship with the Argives
(through the two peoples’ common descent from Io; cf. Pindar’sNemean10.1–2 and
Bacchylides 11.73–6) to pressure the Argive king, Pelasgus, who eventually acknowl-
edges this close connection. The Egyptians, including the Danaïds themselves, are simul-
taneously depicted as non-Greeks with respect to their language, physical appearance (cf.
Sophocles’Prophetsfr. *395), and political mindset (e.g., 370–5)—against the anachro-
nistically democratic Argos (see further, Mitchell 2006: 205–23). On the other hand, the
Phoenician women’s (regularly reinforced) ethnic “duality” inPhoenician Women(e.g.,
214–19, 239–49) maximizes their ability to provide a full and, at the same time, more
detached view on the play’s past and present crisis (see further, Gould 1996: 217–43).
More subversively, Agamemnon’s descent from Tantalus, which is not otherwise the-
matized in drama, is twice employed as a means of attack on the general’s authority,
in contexts in which Agamemnon himself denigrates people on the grounds of their
non-Greek origin. InAjax, the lineages of both Teucer and the Atreids, who enjoy good
epic pedigrees, are employed as a charged argument in a heated debate. While attempting
to hinder Teucer’s struggle to defend a major religious law (burial), the Atreids accuse
him of being a worthless foreign slave, who allegedly speaks a barbarian language (Fin-
glass 2011 on ll. 1262–3 and Ebbott 2005: 368–70). The hero, however, manages to
defend both his fighting merit (1288–9) and his background (1299–305), even remind-
ing Agamemnon of his own descent from Pelops, “a Phrygian barbarian” (1291–2; cf.IA
952–4). (Also, see Heath 1987: 201–2 and Hesk 2003: 121.) Once having established
that the descent of both heroes is evidently mixed, Teucer concentrates on proving that
his ancestors were nobler (culturally superior) than those of Agamemnon on account of
their social position, achievements, and morals (1293–305). Thus, whether constituting
anad hominemattack devoid of deeper implications or amounting to an admission that
barbarian descent is indeed inferior, Teucer’s response asserts that ethnic origin alone,
rather than predetermining human value, may well prove secondary to other virtues (con-
traLong 1986: 191, n. 25).
Several other contexts, on the other hand, explore cases where one’s conduct does
not (allegedly) match or even “contradicts” one’s ethnic origin. Tragic, and especially,
Euripidean Greeks are accused of having become barbarian when they are thought to be
transgressing cultural norms that are presented as Hellenic. In theAgamemnon, the king