260 Efi Papadodima
Phrygians’ and Lydians’ cowardice (Birds1244–5; cf. Men.Shield241–3) and the Thra-
cians’ ferociousness (Acharnians153–4,Birds1367–71), it is also full of stereotypes
about Greeks, as well as points of criticism against representative Athenian types of peo-
ple (such as the informers and “new” thinkers)—points that are more central to the plays’
concerns. Comic barbarians, though consistently ridiculed or disparaged, are in fact rarely
the focus of the comedies, and are treated generally as part of the fabric of Athenian life;
they are background characters rather than distinctive individuals. In this sense, ethnic
humor draws on the same qualities as other aspects of the comic genre; its topical nature
and intrinsically critical spirit include a tendency to stereotyping, but the humor is not
necessarily genuinely hostile or ideological (see further, Halliwell 2008: Chapter 5). In
addition to contemporary polarities or hostilities, the Greeks, and particularly the Athe-
nians, are often juxtaposed to the Greeks of past generations, who selflessly served their
country in the Persian Wars (Acharnians599–606,Knights573–80,Wasps1075–121;
cf.Frogs1026–7). Such a contrast highlights the fluidity of an ethnic group’s identity
and self-perception, which is not necessarily inferred by (or based upon) its opposition to
different ethnic groups. Just as easily, the point of contrast may be with the same ethnic
group as it was once believed to be.
Drama’s “Barbarian Rhetoric”
For all the complications pertaining to the perception and manipulation of ethnicity,
dramatic barbarians are consistently associated with certain traits or vices, whether high-
lighted by their own status and behavior or, more usually, spoken of by the Greeks,
some of which are at least partly rooted in historical reality. The most distinctive ones
are their despotic regimes and slavishness (e.g.,Persians,IA, Euripides fr. inc. 850); the
decadent luxury, effeminacy, and emotionalism, but also criminality, of Eastern societies
(e.g.,Persians,Bacchants,Orestes,Acharnians); and the savagery and unsophistication,
particularly of Northern tribes (e.g., Sophocles’Tereus,Medea,IT,Women at the Thes-
mophoria). (On Easterners and Northerners, see Thomas 2000.) These recurring prop-
erties may function as a foil for constituent ideals of Greek identity (free institutions,
modesty, bravery, lawfulness, and reason). The tyranny–freedom contrast, in particular,
as primarily explored in connection to the Persian, is commonly considered the catalyst
in the invention of the fifth-century barbarian (Schwabl 1962: 23; Griffith 1998: 43;
Rhodes 2007: 36).
Indeed, few barbarian individuals who appear on stage (especially in comedy) match
their stereotypes. The Scythian archer inWomen at the Thesmophoriais a highly unsophis-
ticated brute who hardly resembles the intelligent and efficient Scythians of Herodotus
(Book 4). He is unable to speak proper Greek, and even less to comprehend philosoph-
ical ideas (1128–32). He is clueless about Greek mythology and art (e.g., 1101–4,
1200–1; cf.Orestes1520–1), and is driven exclusively by physical urges. The barbar-
ian god Triballus inBirdsis also caricatured (e.g., 1567–71), although he is not unlike
his fellow-ambassador Heracles. Both barbarian figures are invested with ethnic-related
denigratory markers, and, at the same time, represent a broader class that is mocked or
attacked for reasons that transcend ethnicity. The Scythian’s status as a state slave (see
Plassart 1913: 151–213 and Jacob 1928: 53–78) maximizes the audience’s amusement