Ethnicity and the Stage 261at witnessing a stupid and aggressive figure, familiar to them from the actual social setting
as a (non-sympathetic) symbol of authority, coming off the loser. (See alsoAcharnians
54–5,Knights665,Lysistrata426–66, andAssembly-Women143.) In this light, view-
ing his character as a malicious joke about barbarian inferiority (Long 1986: 107) is
perhaps goingtoofar. The three divine envoys inBirds, on the other hand, are united
by their common concerns, weaknesses, and limitations (against the men-birds), rather
than distinguished by their particular position in the divine hierarchy or by their typical,
mythological features.
The Phrygian slave inOrestes, responsible for assisting Helen, is strikingly dissimilar to
the (male and female) Trojans of extant drama because of his status as an “unidentifiable”
slave even before the war, and because of the comic flavor of the scene involving him (see
Wolff 1968: 132–49 and Seidensticker 1982: 101–6). The Phrygian, probably a eunuch
(1528), is an epitome of shamelessness and slavishness, and quite different from any
other tragic slave or freeman. Furthermore, he himself repeatedly draws attention to his
(actually or allegedly) barbarian features (language, gestures, attire), while proceeding
to pass self-deprecatory remarks about his great cowardice, which contrasts him with
not only the “masculine” Greek heroes (1349–52) but also his own noble compatriots
(1478–82). The frequent use of such denigratory markers, merging slave and Easterner,
suggests current Greek stereotypes (Long 1986: 132). At the same time, these dismissive
racist slurs are incorporated into the play’s sub-heroic world that seems to be distorted
and degenerate in many directions (see Zeitlin 1980: 63 and Saïd 2002: 83).
On a more abstract and perhaps more crucial level, the ideals of Greek identity are
expressed through aphorisms directed against the entire barbariangenos.Thisisparticu-
larly true of Euripides, although, as one might expect, his treatment of the barbarian is
never straightforward. Both Aeschylus and Sophocles also offer glimpses into a discourse
on ethnic identity that is complex, but it is Euripides most of all who displays an interest
not only in the actual contact between Greeks and a variety of foreigners, at least judging
by his extant productions, but also in the dual use of barbarism as an ethnic designa-
tion and a value term, and in whose work the complications of mutual self-definition
culminate (see Bacon 1961: 171–2; Synodinou 1977: 58; E. Hall 1989: Chapter 5;
Saïd 2002: 62–100). The influence of the escalating Peloponnesian War and of popu-
lar intellectual trends of the later fifth century are relevant in this regard. The Sophists
in particular highlighted, among other things, the relativism of socially constructed dis-
tinctions and preconceptions pertaining to moral evaluations, while also emphasizing
the power of rhetorical skill—aspects of central significance in the Euripidean corpus
(see Conacher 1998).
Many of these aphorisms indeed end up problematizing the notion of a unified,
culturally superior, or even profoundly different Hellas. Perhaps the clearest example
comes fromAndromache, a play that more broadly exploits the frailty of social bound-
aries (Greek–barbarian, free-slave, wife-concubine). The Spartan Hermione denounces
Andromache as a scheming witch (29–35, 155–60) and accuses barbarians of being
unrestrained by any law and practicing customs unacceptable to the Hellenic world.
These transgressions include incest, murder of kin, and polygamy (173–80; cf. 215–20
and Menander fr. 794–5 Kassel-Austin). Her charges, however, are undermined by
her own family’s atrocious past (murder, adultery, incest, and cannibalism), Orestes’
matricide, and Neoptolemus’ decision to have two women in his house. The concept