Search Results

This chapter outlines the historical, geographical, social, cultural, and ideological background to the emergence of the controversy in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. First, it answers the questions: who thought of themselves as Greek at the time, what did they think it meant to be Greek, and what did they think was the geographical extent of the area in which the Greeks lived? It examines the three different names that the Greeks used for themselves (Romans, Greeks, and Hellenes) and the ideological connotations of each of them, and goes on to examine the way Greek-speakers perceived themselves in relation to the speakers of other languages (chiefly Albanian and Aromanian) among whom they lived. The prehistory of the Greek language question is outlined, together with its immediate historical and intellectual background. Lastly, Greeks' attitudes to language at the time are evaluated, and the relationship between language attitudes and social background is discussed.

chapter 1 offers a framework for understanding the rest of the book. The emperor Julian’s imperial hellenizing program is explained as his attempt to right the cosmic order overturned by Constantine and his son, Constantius II, in order to save the Roman oikoumenē. As a philosopher partially trained in theurgic Neoplatonism, Julian applies these teachings to his imperial program in an attempt to define the correct hierarchy of ethnic gods who ensured the health and success of the Roman oikoumenē and to articulate the correct worship that would gain their beneficence. Ethnographic thinking is introduced as an important element in Julian’s program, and he applies it to the Hellenes, an “imagined community” defined by the emperor; to Jews, who are portrayed as the Judean ethnos, with theurgic ancestral laws that can be mined to develop and sometimes authorize or model Hellenic orthopraxy; and to Christians, as Galileans, a people without any ethnic legitimacy.

This chapter examines the ripple effect of Porphyry of Tyre's arguments against universalism within the branch of the Ammonian community represented by Origen's heirs. In Porphyry's view, both Iamblichaeans and Origenists failed to use appropriately the exegetical tools that were the cornerstone of their shared traditions. Although he was most concerned to set out the proper way of living for those who aspired to be philosophers, Porphyry also justified the pursuit of traditional ethnic cult rituals for ordinary people. This chapter considers the implications of Porphyry's response to what he saw as Origenist deviance and argues that he was concerned not only with Origen but also with the activities of Origen's followers, his contemporaries. It also discusses the writings of Methodius of Olympus to highlight the tensions between Porphyry and Origenists. Finally, it analyzes two profound disagreements that separated Christians like Methodius from Hellenes like Porphyry: their understanding of how divination worked through the world around them, and whether the founding, divinely ordained legislation of a given political community could ever be abrogated.

This book traces the origins of the so-called Great Persecution, the Roman Empire's last and longest campaign compelling Christians to uphold traditional religious norms. Executed by the emperor Diocletian in the year 303 and lasting until 313, the Great Persecution seemingly conforms to a stereotype of Romans as persecutors and Christians as victims before the emperor Constantine converted to Christianity in 312. Yet this familiar image is not consistent with the presence of Christian courtiers in Diocletian's entourage. This book challenges the view held by most historians that the Great Persecution was inevitable, noting that Christians and Hellenes had lived, learned, and worked side by side for forty years before they became sharply divided by the turn of the century. It argues that Iamblichus of Chalcis played a key role in this shift, explaining how his dispute with Porphyry of Tyre laid the foundations that supported the Great Persecution.

This study has attempted to understand Polybius as individual statesman and historian through his uses of one of the dominant themes of his cultural heritage: the Greek politico-cultural grammar of Hellenism. Polybius's stress on institutional factors in the formation of the Roman and other collective group characters afforded him the greatest flexibility in his representations of the world conqueror, allowing him to represent the Romans alternately as quasi Hellenes and as barbarians. Polybius's representation of Romans is a subtle play with the principles of polarity and analogy. It is noted that Polybius himself experienced the crushing blow of expatriation and political arrest in Rome; that he soon befriended Scipio Aemilianus and other powerful Roman statesmen, enjoying considerable privileges in Rome, and in the end he served as a mediator in the Roman resettlement of Greece, earning high praise from both Romans and his Greek compatriots for his services.

This chapter focuses on questions of identity more clearly and provides an analysis of its different implications, to show how the communities of the gymnasia of Hellenistic Egypt, while following traditions of Greek character, were thoroughly embedded in the socio-cultural world of the country in which they lived. It is argued that the members of the gymnasium displayed complex identities, which could encompass features deriving from various traditions; this goes beyond a simplistic interpretation and understanding of ethnicity. Beyond strict ethnic designations, Ptolemaic society also functioned in a less exclusive fashion, according to cultural definitions: the Ptolemaic category of Hellenes ‘Greeks’ was applied to people who displayed a certain degree of knowledge of Greek language and culture, not only to those who were of strict Greek ethnicity. As the prime institution of Greek cultural traditions, the gymnasium operated as the quintessential ‘association of the Hellenes’: the place where those who were willing to go Greek could express themselves as a well-defined group of people, while upholding specific aspects of Greek life. However, it is shown how the gymnasium’s members stretched over different layers of (normally) the middle and upper strata of local society and shared many features, which were foreign to Greek traditions and thought, including specific onomastic choices, religious practices, or marriage patterns. ‘Those of the gymnasium’ were fully embedded in and deeply intertwined with the local population—to the point that they essentially formed a part of it: they were the ‘Greeks’ of Egypt.

This introductory chapter considers the implications of the aftermath of the Persian Wars. Prior to Sparta's defeat of the Persian army, there was every reason to suppose that the Greek resistance would collapse and that Hellas would soon fall. When the dust had settled, however, it gradually dawned on all concerned that affairs had undergone a decisive change; and everyone in and on the periphery of the Mediterranean world began to reassess. That such a turn of events could take place—that a ragtag navy and militia, supplied by tiny communities hitherto best known for their mutual hostility, should annihilate an armada greater than any the world had ever known—this was then and remains today both a wonder and an occasion for rumination. But this chapter shows that such an incredible outcome had its own issues. The unity displayed by the Hellenes during the war was unprecedented, after all. Whether or not this alliance would hold after the war, however, became a great cause for concern for those living in the postwar world.

Modern Greek popular culture has perceived Hellenes as mythical people who did not form part of the ethnic Romaic identity, which was first shaped around 1204, but was not static and developed in response to major political changes until it was officially replaced by the Hellenic national identity (in the nineteenth century). In premodern times, some Greek-speaking people also described themselves as Graikoi. These three ‘competing’ antique names, Hellenes, Graikoi, and Romaioi, were all candidates for the name of the emerging Greek nation before the creation of its nation-state. But what was the actual dissemination of these names? Were they all used as markers of ethnic identities, and by whom? This chapter presents and discusses the various appearances and perceptions of Hellenes, Graikoi, and Romaioi in premodern times, in both quantitative (with the use of technology) and qualitative terms. It offers an overall picture that differs significantly from the one provided by the Greek national narrative, and aims to challenge the ways in which our contemporary scholarship explores the relationship between antiquity and modern Greece.

This chapter examines the role of Heinrich Heine in the project of rethinking the problem of the distinction between Hellenes and Nazarenes, Greeks and Jews, and, as a consequence, between philosophy and Jewish philosophy. It explains that Heine traced the origins of philosophy to the Bible's King Solomon and challenged the unquestioned exemplarity of Greek culture as a paradigm for modernity by reimagining the origins of philosophy and poetry in Jewish tradition. This chapter also considers the views of Matthew Arnold and Friedrich Nietzsche about the typological distinction between the Hellene and the Hebrew.

This chapter analyzes the character of the Spartan polity, traces its origins, and describes the grand strategy that the Lacedaemonians first articulated in the mid-sixth century. It discusses the defense of the Spartan polity and the way of life associated with it before Persians burst on the scene. It also investigates how Spartans gradually adjusted their strategy to fit the new and unexpected challenge that suddenly loomed on the horizon when the Mede first appeared. The chapter describes the fashion in which Spartans organized and managed the alliance with which they confronted and defeated the invader bearing down on Hellas. It also highlights the way the victorious Hellenes gradually and awkwardly worked out a postwar settlement that seemed to suit all concerned.

Sketches a narrative of the Battle of Plataia, following Herodotos, and proposes a date for the battle. Considers the night sky over Plataia in summer 479 B.C. Assesses scholarship on how Greeks looked at the night sky and employed it in ritual and religion. Considers the myths and iconography of battles between Greek hero-gods and chaos-dragons, notably Zeus and Typhon, Apollo and Python, and relates this to other variants of the Near Eastern primordial combat myth, including Mesopotamian tales of Ninĝišzida and the God on the Serpent Throne; it concludes with a carved relief from the Bakhtiari mountains in which a male figure sits enthroned wearing a horned crown, clutching a pair of serpents in his left hand, while behind him a female figure sits, also wearing a horned hat, also holding two snakes in her left hand..