Ethnicity and the Stage 265Athenian traits and practices. Additionally, Euripidean Trojans touch upon popular
issues among contemporary Greek intellectual circles (e.g.,Andromache244 about the
universality of disgrace;Hecuba798–801, 864–9 aboutνóμoς[“convention, law”],
justice, and the limitations of human freedom; the fragmentaryAlexanderabout the
role of birth, wealth, andνóμoς; cf. fr. 591 of Sophocles’Tereus).
In contrast with epic, and to some extent lyric, poetry, fifth-century drama exhibits a
strong interest in the theme of ethnicity and its various aspects or complications. This
interest and the ways in which it is expressed are closely linked to both the particular
historical context and drama’s distinctive features (including the performance context).
At the same time, and for all the fundamental continuities in the collective character
of the genre, the heterogeneity of dramatic plays, composed over a wide chronological
span that was marked by intense activity and changes, calls for a close reading of diverse
contexts that are not necessarily consistent in their approach to ethnicity (even when
speaking about plays of the same dramatist or the same play itself). Ethnicity does not in
fact seem to be treated as an absolutely crystallized and strictly defined concept, and it
certainly cannot be properly examined in isolation from other identity constituents.
Despite these variations, Attic drama extensively explores or reinforces ethnic stereo-
types and often thematizes the Greek–barbarian polarity in ways that are or appear to
be ideological, especially in the field of politics and ethics. This polarity is, in several
cases, either explicitly or implicitly employed to the effect of Greek self-praise; yet, it
is also often used in ways that complicate the very idea of fixed (both inter-ethnic and
intra-Hellenic) boundaries—and moral judgments stemming from them—occasionally
resulting in self-criticism or simply in the illumination of universal conditions and truths.
While Euripidean tragedy exploits the theme of ethnicity more extensively and subver-
sively, both Aeschylus and Sophocles offer subtle insights into its perplexities or relative
importance. The possibility of a Greek self-definition through the dramatic contrast of
Greeks with foreigners thus seems to be a nuanced and versatile procedure, one that
challenges Greek complacency as much as reinforcing it—and may in fact do a compli-
cated blend of the two. At the same time, drama’s exploration of (real or speculative)
differences between Greeks and foreigners may further particular artistic goals (e.g.,
comic effects) or contribute to the discussion about pertinent factual contrasts (e.g.,
tyranny–democracy/freedom) that are not necessarily or exclusively treated as narrow
ethnic markers.
A comparative inquiry into the major aspects of ethnicity in other classical genres (see
Chapter 23 in this volume, by Rosaria Vignolo Munson, titled “Herodotos and Eth-
nicity”), as well as in fourth-century tragedy and comedy, would prove very fertile for
manifesting the wide range and flexibility of its functions, along with the way in which
these genres interact in both mutually illuminating and mutually perplexing ways.
REFERENCESAllan, William. 2000.The Andromache and Euripidean Tragedy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bacon, Helen. 1961.Barbarians in Greek Tragedy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Buxton, Richard. 1982.Persuasion in Greek Tragedy: A Study of Peitho. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.