Ethnicity and the Stage 259rebukes his wife for pampering him as if he were a woman and for accepting him as if he
were a barbarian when she prostrates herself, cries out, and strews the ground with fine
garments, a hubristic act that may provoke divine envy (918–25). In reply to Clytemnes-
tra’s question, Agamemnon is sure that the Trojan king, Priam, would not hesitate to
set foot upon the embroideries if so called upon (935–6). While the exchange reflects
the stereotype of Oriental luxury and despotism, and thus contrasts Greek with barbar-
ian civilization, Agamemnon’s yielding to Clytemnestra’s persuasion ultimately blurs this
distinction (see further, Zeitlin 1996: 91–2). More strikingly, inOrestes, Tyndareus infers
that Menelaus has been “barbarized” due to his long stay abroad (485 [cf. 349–51]; see
Saïd 2002: 100, n. 219), since he is willing to assist Orestes, who is perceived (by Tyn-
dareus) as a violator of a prominent Hellenic law (500–6). Even though condemnation
of matricide is treated as a universal imperative in classical literature (cf. Hdt. 1.137.2,
Xen.Mem. 4.4.19–20, and Eurip.IT1173–4), Tyndareus suggests that the prevalence
of prescribed legal customs over retributive justice defines and distinguishes the Hellenic
world only. The Athenian king Demophon, inChildren of Heracles, remarks that the
Argive herald, who threatens to drag the suppliants from the altars, acts like a barbarian
even though he is obviously Greek (130–1); in that respect, the Argive resembles the
actually barbarian herald in Aeschylus’Suppliants. In both plays, the heralds’ clothing
and complexion serve as signifiers of their ethnic status.
In fact, the term “barbarian” reflects this slippage.βαρβαρ ́ oςand its cognates are often
used as mere ethnic designations (e.g.,Rhesus404–5, 833–5; see Skoda 1981 and Tuplin
1999: 47–75), but they can also be used in a broadly pejorative sense (“savage,” “law-
less,” “crude”), describing a universal condition or aspect of human nature (e.g.,Helen
501,Hecuba1129; cf.Birds1573), going well beyond the narrowly defined opposi-
tion of Greek and barbarian. The Trojan princess Andromache famously blames the
Achaeans for having invented “barbarous” (βαρβαρα ́ ) evils as she denounces the killing
of Astyanax (Trojan Women764; cf. 775 withHecuba1070–4, 1125–6); her denunci-
ation of the Greeks suggests that, given their brutality, “βαρβαρα ́ ” is a word that should
be applied potentially to everyone (i.e., language ought to change). Not coincidentally,
Trojan Womenwas presumably produced in the same year as the infamous massacre of
Melos (Thucydides 5.84–116).
Furthermore, aside from the opposition of Greek and barbarian, whether seen as
ingrained or treated with more nuance, the issue of Otherness is complicated by
the exploration, also on the stage, of differences between the Greeks, measured in
sociopolitical organization, myth, cult, and language, and played out in disputes and
animosities. This discourse of internal Otherness manifests itself in various forms,
including an emphasis on Athenian autochthony (Ion670–5; cf. Plato’sMenexenus
245c–e with Isaac 2004: 121–3) and the value of inclusion within the citizen body
(Phoenician Women387–442), but also extends to representing armed confrontation
between Greek cities, conflicts capable of generating just as much fury and destruction
among the Greeks as they face in wars against Trojans or Persians (Seven against Thebes,
Children of Heracles, Eurip.Suppliants,Phoenician Women).
Internal conflict constitutes the core of Aristophanic comedy, since most plays are cen-
tered on the internal tensions of contemporary Athenian society (e.g., class conflict) and
the effects of the Peloponnesian War on various parties. Even though comedy abounds
in stereotypes concerning the non-Greek world and specific ethnic groups, such as the