[Authors and titles are listed at the end of this review.]
This book results from a conference held at the Université de Montréal in October 2018. The volume’s goal is to add to the conversation about Greek interactions with other peoples by exploring how foreigners functioned as possible sources of knowledge for the Greeks. While the stated goal of the volume is quite broad, the focus of the chapters is on Greek philosophy and science.
The most important contribution of this book lies in its conception of the “foreign.” Many studies of this sort focus on the interaction between the Greeks, usually considered monolithically, and barbaroi; this book instead centers around the concept of the xenos, the outsider who is both distant and strange. The term encompasses non-Greeks, non-citizens of a particular Greek polis, or even, as in the case of Socrates, those who inhabit a space outside of social norms. Étienne Helmer’s exploration of étrangèreté, or “stranger-ness,” discussed further below, provides the fullest explanation of this idea. The volume’s contributors think about foreignness not just literally, describing those who are not citizens of a given polis, but epistemologically, describing a deliberate sense of distance and strangeness, which can exist conceptually for both citizen and non-citizen. While this focus is apparent as one works through the volume, the foreword does not place sufficient emphasis upon it, which may lead some readers to feel confused by the various chapters’ explorations of foreignness as embodied by metics, visiting sophists, and the like.
The first chapter, “Remarques sur les emplois stylistiques de ξένος, ξενικός et γλῶττα” by André Rehbinder, provides an excellent grounding for understanding the volume’s conception of the foreign. Rehbinder examines how four different authors—Aristophanes, Isocrates, Plato, and Aristotle—use the terms ξένος, ξενικός and γλῶττα. In all the authors discussed, ξένος and ξενικός have a lexical meaning that indicates foreignness—non-Greek or at least non-Attic. In Aristophanes, ξένος and ξενικός can also refer to words, people, or speeches that are contextually inappropriate and presented negatively. This shifts in Isocrates, who uses ξένος and ξενικός to indicate when words are inappropriate to a genre—such as poetic words in prose or oratory. Rehbinder shows that Plato uses the term ξενικός exclusively to describe Greek words belonging to different dialects, while reserving the adjectives βάρβαρος/βαρβαρικός, for specifically non-Greek words. Within this group, Plato distinguishes archaic or poetic vocabulary as a special subset of non-Attic words. Aristotle’s use of ξενικός primarily indicates words that are not in common use, whether poetic or not. Rehbinder introduces the third term, γλῶττα, in the section on Aristotle to show how he uses this term to designate words that are foreign to their context. For Aristotle, there is stylistic value and pleasure in this very foreignness. This chapter is significant because it reminds us of the wide lexical range of ξεν-related terms found within authors and between authors. This contributes further to the volume’s emphasis on not treating Greeks or the Greek language as a monolith.
The final chapter, “Le privilège philosophique de l’étranger” by Isabelle Chouinard, provides a good summation by offering a broad perspective on the relationship between foreignness and philosophy. She traces the history of travelling philosophers who gained knowledge and perspective from their travels in both the biographical and philosophical traditions. In her discussion of Plato, she raises two potential rebuttals to the general theme that travel and philosophy go hand in hand—that Socrates famously did not travel and that the ideal city in the Laws strictly regulates travel and interaction with foreigners. Chouinard shows how Socrates manages to be a foreigner in his own city, by not engaging in the political responsibilities of citizens and by not behaving in a socially acceptable manner. This distance from his own city and its political life gives Socrates both the time and the space to practice his philosophy. The Laws and the Republic both seem to reject travel for their citizens, but, as Chouinard ably argues, this is because philosophers do engage in political life, and, since these cities are ideally organized, they risk corruption from foreign influence. Thus, Plato approves of travel for philosophers and thinkers in the real world, but not in his ideal states, because philosophers must be separate from politics in the real world, but politically engaged in the ideal one. This important separation from the political life of a city, whether one is a foreigner by choice or necessity, appears in other thinkers as well. Chouinard highlights Aristippus in Xenophon’s Memorabilia, who claims that philosophers on the quest for happiness should seek the position of ξένος to be free from both the responsibility of the ruler and the oppression of the ruled. She concludes by briefly noting the praise of the position of foreigner by both Democritus and Diogenes. For both thinkers, being a foreigner or exile encourages self-sufficiency and a more ethical life through enforced simplicity.
Étienne Helmer’s standout contribution, “Étrangèreté du vrai et politique chez Platon”, raises the distinction between political foreignness, which he identifies as relative and less meaningful, and epistemological foreignness. Helmer acknowledges that Greek has two different linguistic registers for foreignness (ξεν-terms) and strangeness (allos, heteros, etc…) that are encompassed by the single French term étrangèreté; regardless he suggests, and the chapter reveals, the benefits in considering these two types of “otherness” together. Sophists and other foreign thinkers in Plato’s work, in their eagerness to answer questions and reveal their knowledge, make the mistake of equating knowledge with truth and believe that truth can be made familiar. Thus, their “stranger-ness” invites connection without perspective. Socrates, on the other hand, recognizes that truth itself is foreign—he knows that he does not know—and so opens himself up to true philosophizing. His “stranger-ness” emphasizes the distance between knowledge and truth, a distance that drives him to ask questions rather than give answers.
Like the three chapters described, most of the volume focuses on authors from the classical and early Hellenistic periods. Ilaria Andolfi, in “Democritus, B 299 (D.K.). Alien Wisdom, Geometry, and the Contemporary Prose Landscape”, tackles a tricky fragment ascribed to Democritus by Clement. In her close analysis of the fragment and argument, Andolfi shows how Democritus participates in traditional Greek habits of foreign “quotation” and engages in a specific type of travel abroad—one which proves Democritus’ accomplishments rather than contributes to them. Anna Schriefl, in “Cephalus: A Role Model for the Producers in Plato’s Kallipolis”, argues for a reconsideration of Cephalus’ negative portrayal by most commentators. She argues that, while Cephalus could be associated with the oligarchic man presented in Republic VIII (and that this may indeed be the reason for the negative portrayal), he should instead be associated with the “producers” in the ideal states of the Republic and the Laws. Schriefl’s in-depth analysis, including a consideration of the historical Cephalus and his family, offers a convincing argument for a reconsideration of Cephalus and the role of producers that is both beneficial to the community and to themselves. David Merry, in “Xenophobia in Utopia: On the Metics in Plato’s Laws”, highlights the extremely negative attitude towards foreigners and metics in Magnesia (putting this attitude in the historical context of metics in Athens) and argues that we should not ignore the authoritarian implications of Plato’s acceptance of foreigners for existing but his rejection of them in ideal ones. Zoli Filotas’s “Social Science and Universalism in Xenophon’s Oeconomicus IV” uses Xenophon’s inclusion of the Persian king Cyrus to explore the tension between specific knowledge, such as the ins and outs of running a household, and universal knowledge, such as good leadership, and how their connection relates to Xenophon’s larger philosophical project.
Two more standout contributions pursue Aristotle’s conception of non-Greeks. Mor Segev (“Aristotle on the Intellectual Achievements of Foreign Civilizations”) focuses on Aristotle’s high valuation of metaphysics as the pinnacle of human knowledge; he argues that while Aristotle acknowledges the attainments of foreign civilizations in the arts, mathematics, and politics, he does not credit them with any achievement in the natural sciences, the lack of which precludes them from achievement in metaphysics. While Segev recognizes that Aristotle may be using this analysis to heighten his own achievements and that of his school, he does not use this recognition to interrogate more fully how much credit Aristotle does give to foreign civilizations within his value structure. Thornton Lockwood (“Carthage: Aristotle’s Best (Non-Greek) Constitution?”) tackles the disjuncture between Aristotle’s high praise for Carthage’ constitution in the Politics and the widely-held view that Aristotle conceives of non-Greeks as natural slaves. Aristotle’s praise of Carthage has been acknowledged by many, but Lockwood is the first to take it on fully. He shows how Aristotle both praises and blames the Carthaginian constitution in the same manner as he does Greek historical models. Both Segev and Lockwood build off Aristotle’s conception of a cyclical history in which humans have previously attained complete knowledge. Where they differ is in their evaluation of how and where Aristotle gives credit to non-Greek institutions and attainments, and what this may mean for Aristotle’s attitude towards non-Greeks.
Three chapters in this volume explore the relationship of Greek philosophy and science in the Roman world. Katarzyna Borkowska’s chapter, “Translatio, Imitatio, Aemulatio: Assimilation of Greek Thought in Cicero’s Philosophical Writings”, analyzes Cicero’s reception of Greek ideas with an important emphasis on the fact that, to Cicero, Greek philosophy is foreign to the Romans. She challenges the view that Cicero is a mere synthesizer of Greek philosophy and shows how Cicero creatively translates and reinterprets Greek ideas in a Roman context. This chapter can be confusing for the reader, since translations offered in the body of the text sometimes differ from those in the footnotes. Marine Glénisson (“Étrangers ou étranges ? La sagesse des confins et la connaissance du monde dans la littérature grecque des premiers siècles de l’empire”) examines how Greek authors of the Roman imperial period, such as Philostratus, Plutarch and Lucian, exploit the areas beyond the known edges of the world, including the Moon, to highlight how the powers of imagination can contribute to shape new Greek identities. Glénisson frames this through the focus of Greek feelings of dislocation in the Roman empire, but this frame is underexplored. “Déterminisme environnemental et influence culturelle : la vision de l’étranger chez Galien” by Julien Devinant examines the tension between Galen’s apparent Greek cultural chauvinism, based in environmental determinism that largely reflects the opinions of earlier writers such as Hippocrates, with his openness to foreign knowledge and foreign perspectives. Devinant argues that Galen, instead of being driven primarily by xenophobia, is driven instead by an assessment of how knowledge is presented and interrogated by others. Those who follow Greek practices of reasoning are acknowledged as valuable contributors; those who do not, including other physicians in Rome, are dismissed. Devinant argues that Galen’s view that foreigners are able to become culturally Hellenic is fundamentally different from Athenian pan-Hellenism in the Classical era, since he is negotiating a Greek identity in a Roman world, whereas they were secure in their own identities.
This volume offers an invaluable perspective on Greek philosophers and philosophy and how they engage with “the foreign” as both a geopolitical distinction and a theoretical construct. Many of the authors do not fully engage with the most recent discussions of race and ethnicity in the ancient world, but this does not feel like a detriment; instead, it highlights the distinct features of how Greek philosophy and the scholarly conversations around it consider foreign influence.
Authors and Titles
Benoît Castelnérac and Laetitia Monteils-Laeng: Foreword
André Rehbinder: Remarques sur les emplois stylistiques de ξένος, ξενικός et γλῶττα
Ilaria Andolfi: Democritus, B 299 (D.K.). Alien Wisdom, Geometry, and the Contemporary Prose Landscape
Étienne Helmer: Étrangèreté du vrai et politique chez Platon
Anna Schriefl: Cephalus: A Role Model for the Producers in Plato’s Kallipolis
David Merry: Xenophobia in Utopia: On the Metics in Plato’s Laws
Zoli Filotas: Social Science and Universalism in Xenophon’s Oeconomicus IV
Mor Segev: Aristotle on the Intellectual Achievements of Foreign Civilizations
Thornton C. Lockwood, Jr.: Carthage: Aristotle’s Best (non-Greek) Constitution?
Katarzyna Borkowska: Translatio, Imitatio, Aemulatio: Assimilation of Greek Thought in Cicero’s Philosophical Writings
Marine Glénisson: Étrangers ou étranges ? La sagesse des confins et la connaissance du monde dans la littérature grecque des premiers siècles de l’empire
Julien Devinant: Déterminisme environnemental et influence culturelle : la vision de l’étranger chez Galien
Isabelle Chouinard: Le privilège philosophique de l’étranger