Greece, the Ancient and Medieval Worlds and Modern Europe: An Early Example of Dialogue of Civilizations

Summary

Watch Discourse

PDF Version

Audio

Table of Contents

Names

Timeline

Search this Text

Greece, the Ancient and Medieval Worlds and Modern Europe: An Early Example of Dialogue of Civilizations

The dawn of the Third of Millennium coincided with one of the most important events of the twentieth century, namely the fall of the Soviet Empire and the end of the ideological competition between Socialism and Liberal democracy. This ideological conflict and the Cold War that it had triggered had for fifty years provided the overarching paradigm within which interstate and international relations had been conducted. Consequently, its end created a conceptual and paradigmatic vacuum in international relations and led almost immediately to a search for a new overarching conceptual paradigm which could explain the post-Cold war dynamics of international relations and provide guidelines for action. The most influential thesis to develop as a result of this search for a new paradigm was that of the Clash of Civilizations advanced by Samuel P. Huntington.[1]

The theory of the Clash of Civilizations is based on two principles: in the post-Soviet and post Cold War era Culture, in particular, religion, will be the new ideology, and will provide the framework for international relations; civilizations are essentially antagonistic, especially those of Islam and Confucianism on the one hand and liberal democracy on the other. Although Huntington enumerates a number of other civilizations, notably those based on Orthodox Christianity, which he considers incompatible with liberal democracy, his thesis is essentially another version of the perennial conflict between the East and the West best captured in Rudyard Kipling’s saying that “East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.” What is striking about the Clash of Civilizations thesis is its resemblance to the old bi-polar and dichotomized vision prevalent during the Cold War. It seems that, with the elimination of the communist “other” against which the West defined itself, it needed another “other” in order to retain its cohesion and not fragment again along national lines.

The use of an “other” as a means of constructing collective identities has a long history. In this regard, as in many other areas, the history of ancient Greece, notably its interaction with the East, has much to teach the contemporary students of international affairs. In fact, it could be argued that the origins of this bipolar vision of the world with the West representing enlightenment, democracy, freedom, reason and humanity, and the East standing for barbarism, dictatorship, superstition and several other vices dates at least to 500 BCE, with Greece representing the West and its virtues and the Persian Empire the East with all its vices. This vision continued after the Roman conquest of Greece and the substitution of Rome for Greece as the representative of the West, and the reemergence of a new Persian empire in 224 CE, this time warring with Rome and Byzantium.

When the Persian Empire fell to the Arab/Muslim armies, essentially Islamic Caliphates from the Abbasids to the Ottomans inherited the old role played by successive Persian Empires as the embodiment of the East. The result was the transformation of the age-old Perso-Greco-Roman standoff into the Islamic-Christian confrontation best represented by the Crusades.

Moreover, according to this bi-polar and dichotomized view of the World, from the very beginning all that is good has been transmitted from the West to the East, and the latter has made no major contribution to the advancement of human civilization.

Yet the question needs to be asked to what extent this reading of history corresponds to the reality? Were East–West relations always and solely conflictual, or were there more positive and constructive aspects to their interaction? Was the transmission of cultural influences always from West to East, or was their interaction more in the nature of two-way traffic? Was there a period when the East made at least some contributions to the development of human, including Western civilization? These are the questions this paper will try to answer.

In view of the fact that Greece’s interaction with the East, especially with Persia, has played such an important role in creating this dichotomous vision of the East-West relations, plus the fact that the Greek culture has had such an important impact on the evolution of Eastern civilizations, notably that of Islam, a study of these relations and interactions is a very good vehicle to try and find some answers to the above questions. More important, since the dichotomized vision of the World has led to nothing but conflict, a different reading of history might provide insight into how communities can find positive ways of asserting their identities rather than resorting to the use of an often dehumanized “other” and thus help to break the cycle of violence which has thus far dominated human history.

The “Other” and the Construction of the Collective Self

It is an unfortunate fact of human history that, the process of the construction of collective self has involved the need for communities not only to define who they are and what they value, but also to decide who they are not and what they do not value. The importance of the latter aspect of collective identity formation is such that some scholars have suggested that it is more important to know who one is not and what it does not value than to know who one is and what one values.Some scholars, notably Samuel Huntington, have gone as far as saying that “we know who we are only when we know who we are not and often only when we know whom we are against.” [2]

What this means is that, the process of identity formation includes the setting up of boundaries between “us” and “them”, between external enemies and friends by a process of “exclusion” and “inclusion”, hence the importance of the “other” or “others” in identity formation.[3] As evidence that this has been the case throughout human history, Anthony Smith notes that, the names of certain nations has been paired together such as Greeks and Persians, French and Germans etc, because of the function of “other” that they have performed for one another.[4] The relationship between the collective self and the “other”, meaning one who is different from oneself, need not be always hostile. However, generally this relationship is hostile and, sometimes extremely so.[5] In such cases, the “other” migrates from being something merely different from the self and is transmuted into the enemy.[6] The way in which the “other is viewed takes different forms.At times, some others are perceived in less than “human” terms, below human beings in hierarchical terms, or in extreme cases, as non-human beings, dangerous animals that can and must be killed.” [7] Parallel with at times complete dehumanization of the selected “other” is the attribution of all virtues to oneself.

Historically, the process of the selection of the “other” and collective identity formation has been closely related to conflicts between communities resulting from clash of competing ambitions and values, religions and ideologies. Especially important in this process have been invasions and occupations by the foreigners, unless the conquered people become completely assimilated in the conqueror’s culture. By contrast, in cases when a nation/community survives such traumatic experiences with the core of its culture intact, it often seeks revenge and reconquest. This chain of action–reaction results in the tradition of viewing certain people or religions as the hostile “other”, in other words the enemy. At other times, the image of the “other” is used to help resolve differences and conflicts within a community itself. Thus for example, an external enemy is chosen or its threat exaggerated in order to unify a fractious community or achieve certain goals. At other times, the image of the “ other” is made so much more repellent and horrible as to make one’s own virtues appear better or the value of one’s own achievements be enhanced. The history of Greece’s interaction with the East, especially the Persian Empire, provides excellent examples of these processes in action.

Civilization versus Barbarism: Greece and Ancient Persia

The Greeks interacted with eastern civilizations, notably that of the Phoenicians from whom supposedly they learnt the use of the alphabet. They were also aware of Egypt. But Phoenicia was not of much consequence to the Greeks. Moreover, after its conquest by Cyrus the Achamenide emperor any relations with it were in the context of Greek-Persian relations. Egypt was too remote intellectually and geographically, and the Greeks seem to have considered Egypt something of a sui generis civilization with little affinity with those of others. Consequently, the Greeks’ most extensive relations in the East until Alexander’s conquests and later during the Byzantine era were with Persia. Consequently, here it is the Greco-Persian relations that will be the main focus.

Ancient Greeks excelled the Persians in many fields of sciences and arts, notably history. Consequently, it is to the Greek historians that we owe most of our knowledge of not only Greek-Persian relations, but the entire history of Persia in antiquity. Because Iran has been subject of frequent invasions and pillages, there are no extant books written by the Persians themselves about their history in antiquity.[8]

The predominant image of the Persians and Persia which emerges from the writings of the Greek historians, notably Herodotus, is negative. This is not surprising because he was writing after the Greco-Persian wars. Moreover, it is clear that Herodotus had not had any first hand knowledge either of Persia proper or the Persians. But perhaps more significantly, it is not clear to what extent he was using Persia, and before that Media, as foils for discussion of actual Greek situations and sounding warnings about dangers of certain trends, including the risk of tyrannical temptations among the Greeks themselves.[9] This view is worth considering, because while the dominant image of Greece in the West is that of Athens during the age of democracy, the history of Greece is more complex.Moreover, the way Herodotus uses the evolution of Cyrus and the Persians from a simple, hard- working, truth-telling people who did not know much of luxury and money and, hence, according to him, were superior to “those agora-frequenting Greeks of Ionia whom Cyrus conquered with their Lydian cousins, the inventors of marketing and money” into calculating, luxury-loving, trading people, indicates that he was using the Persians as a warning to the Greeks [10] about the risks of tyranny and excessive materialism. In other words, Herodotus is using the Persian “other” and magnifying all their faults. Plato, too, used the Barbarians, notably the Persians, in order to convince the Greeks that they should o stop quarreling and fighting among themselves .[11]

However, unlike some later European Orientalists, even Herodotus recognizes a few virtues in the Persians, notably their truth telling. Furthermore, he seems to have been impressed by certain Persian institutions, such as its postal system which nothing could stop from functioning.[12] Moreover, other Greek accounts of the Persians seem to indicate that, while the Greeks despised Persian tyranny, luxury and soft living, they saw them as worthy adversaries and brave fighters. Even, Aeschylus in his Persae , which, according to Edward Said, marks the beginning of Orientalism, grants that the Persians fought bravely. However, as noted by one scholar, this acknowledgement of Persian bravery might have been wanted to enhance the value of the Greeks’ victory over the Persians by making the Persian “other” a more formidable foe.[13]

A relatively more favorable image of the Persians emerges in the works of Xenophon, including his Education of Cyrus. Initially, Xenophon’s works on matters Persian were viewed by many scholars as mere fantasy with no historical value. These scholars argued that, Xenophon had used the Persians as a foil to express his own views on matters pertaining to governance, statecraft, qualities of a great leader, etc. However, in recent decades, this view has been transformed to some extent, because what he has said about aspects of the Persians’ statecraft, administration, etc, has been ratified by the discoveries of Iranologues and by archeological evidence. However, at the end, even in Xenophon’s account, Cyrus the great Persian king becomes corrupted, thus demonstrating the limited nature of eastern virtues in Xenophon’s eyes. Nevertheless, it is clear from Xenophon’s account that he viewed certain aspects of Persian culture, notably its educational system, including emphasis on moral education, and governance, notably paying adequate attention to agriculture together with military affairs with approval. He also ascribes many qualities of leadership to Cyrus.[14] In short, notwithstanding the function of the “other’ that the Persians performed for the Greeks, at least some Greeks did not have a totally negative view of the Persians.

In sharp contrast to the Greeks, there is no evidence that the Persians used those people, including the Greeks, living to their West as the “other” for the purposes of either identity building or resolving their own problems. This might, in part, be because of the less sophisticated nature of the Persian society as compared to that of the Greeks. Also the fact that, it was the Persians who first moved against the Greeks might have played a role in this, since, as noted earlier, the choice of an ethnic group or a religion as the “other” is often preceded by some form of conflict. However, it should also be noted that, while the Persians considered themselves to be part of the noble Aryan race, they had a less ethno-centric view of their political structures as reflected by the largely tolerant and multi-cultural nature of the Achamenide Empire.[15] Consequently, the image of the Greeks as hostile “other” developed to a very limited extent and among certain Persian religious hierarchy only after the conquest of Alexander and the burning of the Persepolis. The animosity of later Zoroastrian priests against the Greeks was because supposedly during the burning of Persepolis by Alexander one of the early versions of Avesta , the Zoroastrian holy book was destroyed. Be that as it may, it appears that the Persians were eager to learn from the Greeks and did not hesitate to use their medical experts, engineers, and even warriors, and to adopt their customs. Thus even before the conquest of Alexander and the downing of Persia’s Hellenic period under the Seleucids, Greek cultural influence was present in Persia.

However, notwithstanding the Greek perception of the Persian culture as inferior, there is evidence that cultural influence was not solely from Greece to Persia. On the contrary, it appears that cultural exchange between Greece and Persia was more in the nature of two-way traffic, and Persian political and artistic traditions did exert at least some influence in Greece. For example, it is reported that Xenophon, who accompanied the Young Cyrus in his wars to gain the throne of Persia, learnt from him how to combine cavalry and heavy infantry.[16] It is said that Plato was familiar with Zoroastrian historical and cosmological concepts through supposedly the works of Eudoxus of Cnidus. Although it can not be established how Plato might have come to know about Zoroaster or his ideas, it is generally accepted that he was familiar with the so-called “Wisdom of the Magi” which in its broadest sense means the philosophy and sciences of the Persians, most of which was mixed with their religious ideas.[17] Colotes accused Plato of having used parts of what is attributed to Zoroaster in his Republic.[18] Irrespective of the truth of these accounts, and keeping in mind that, in later centuries, some Greeks attributed all manner of secret writings, magic, occult, etc, mostly in not so flattering ways, to Zoroaster it is clear that Iranian philosophical and other ideas were not unknown to the Greeks.[19] However, it is much later, during the Roman era that Zoroastrian concepts, through the intermediary of Christianity, exert a significant influence on the Christianized Greeks.[20]

There is also evidence of other borrowings. For instance, according to Plutarch, “The Odeon, or music room, which in its interior was full of seats and ranges of pillars, and outside had its roof made to slope and descend from one single point, was constructed, we are told, in imitation of the King of Persia’s pavilion [ skene ]. This was done by Pericles’s order.” Moreover, when the Odeon of Pericles was excavated it turned out to have almost the same dimensions as the Hall of the hundred columns of Persepolis.[21] Although this idea has been challenged by some scholars, nevertheless its existence points to borrowings from Persian forms in Greece.[22] Similarly, some believe that the idea behind Parthenon as the representative of Athens’s power and might and the ceremonies related to it might have been inspired by Persepolis. According to A. W.Lawrence, “If Pericles aimed at securing for Athens dominion over the West as manifest as Persia’s tyranny over the East, what could be more appropriate than to exploit the resources of the empire, as the Persians had done in Persepolis, to build a thoroughly Athenian counterpart, likewise embodying the concept of state, but rival concept?” [23] There is also other evidence of artistic borrowing from Persia.[24] In administration and governance, too, the Athenians seem to have borrowed ideas form the Persian Empire. For instance, it has been suggested that the organization of the “Delian League” and especially the way tribute was paid as well as the office of the episcopus (overseer) were borrowings from the structures of the Persian Empire.[25] It has in particular been suggested that after defeating the Persians, the Athenians developed an imperial tendency and borrowing from Persian architectural and other symbols is indicative of “a propagandist statement to the effect that Athens was deserving of hegemony in view of her victory over the Persians.” [26] As to the later periods, if some accounts that after the conquest of Iran Alexander sent surviving works which he found in the library at Persepolis to Greece to be translated are credited, it is conceivable that certain Persian ideas exerted some influence over the Greeks. Last, but not least, it is very probable that Xenophon’s tales of Cyrus the Great and the world empire he created had some effect on Alexander and his quest for a world empire. However, it would be the Romans who would inherit the quintessentially Persian notion of the great and semi divine kingship in the form of the Roman emperors. In other less important areas such as clothing and fashion, also, the Greeks were not averse to borrowings from the Persians.[27]

The above is intended to show that, even in conditions wherein a particular nation and civilization serves as the hostile “other” for another nation and hence is viewed unfavorably, cultural interaction and mutual influences take place. In other words cultures and civilizations enter into dialogue even if nations representing them do not.

Alexander’s Conquest of Persia: Toward a Greco-Persian Synthesis?

The once mighty Persian Empire had rotted so much from within that it fell easily to Alexander’s armies, who burnt the ceremonial Persian capital Persepolis (Takht e Jamshid). However, there is some evidence that in his scheme of creating a World empire Alexander envisioned some role for the Persians. This view has led some scholars to suggest that Alexander’s scheme involved a synthesis of Persia and Greece. For example, according to I.H.Illif, “from the very beginning it was a hybrid civilization that Alexander setup.” [28] In support of this theory, he cites Alexander’s “taking an Iranian wife and compelling Seleucus and thousands of his Macedonians to do likewise.” [29] It is difficult to assess to what extent this judgment on Alexander’s intentions is correct, because Alexander died fairly soon after his conquest of the Persian Empire. What is clear is that he did adopt certain Persian traditions and not necessarily the best of them. For example, he called himself the King of Kings. This attitude on his part antagonized some of his generals and troops leading to plots against his life.

Whether Alexander wanted a Greco-Persian synthesis or not, it was in reality what happened. Despite the many calamitous effects of Alexan der’s conquest of Persia, after that time Persia served as a bridge between the Hellenic, and later Roman, worlds and Asia. In Persia proper, Greek cultural influence remained, although the country did not become Hellenized. For example, the Parthian kings maintained many of the Greek cultural and artistic traditions, and some of them called themselves Philhellene. Even the early inscriptions of the Sassanid Kings, who were Persian nationalists and made a point of resurrecting Iranian traditions, were, in addition to Parthian and middle Persian, in Greek.

In short, the Greco-Persian synthesis that Alexander might have wished to achieve did not materialize, but interest in Greek culture, philosophy and sciences remained strong in Persia, although after the Roman conquest of Greece, Greco-Persian interaction was carried out through the intermediary of Byzantium.

Khosrow Anoushirvan: A Philosopher King?

Most accounts of relations between Persia and Byzantium focus on their ultimately mutually exhausting and debilitating wars. Clearly, a good part of the two empires’ relations consisted of wars. However, there were periods of relative peace between the two. Moreover, despite their destructiveness, wars, too, can become instruments of cultural exchange and mutual influence. In fact, mutual influence between Byzantium and Persia was very extensive, especially in the arts and architecture. Political ideology of the Imperial Byzantium and Persia was similar, and there is evidence that Persian court style and diplomatic etiquette influenced those of Byzantium and through it the later European diplomatic style and manners.[30]

On the Persian side, military hostility did not cool interest in the philosophy or science of the Byzantium. The first among the Sassanid emperors to encourage the translation of Greek works as part of a policy of cultural and scientific reinvigoration was Shapur the Second, who also founded the famous university of Jundi Shapur in present day Ahwaz. Over the years, this university attracted many foreign scholars, including Christians who before the conversion of Constantine to Christianity fled persecution. The university was especially renowned for its medical school and hospital, (Bimarstan) [31] where Persian, Greek and Indian medical scientists interacted and, according to some accounts, the first medical symposium was held there in 550 CE. Following the closure of schools of philosophy by Justinian in 529 CE, the importance of Sassanid Persia as a repository of Greek philosophy and sciences increased. At the time of the Arab invasion of Iran in 642 CE the library in Jundi Shapur held 400,000 books. It is safe to assume that a fair number of these were translations of Greek works.

However, it was during the long rule of Khosrow Anoushirvan (of immortal Soul) that efforts to acquire Greek science and philosophy reached its peak. Anoushirvan ordered the acquisition and translation of Greek works and encouraged Greek philosophers to come to his court. Reportedly, he himself was familiar with the works of Plato and Aristotle. Such was his interest in these matters that he developed a certain reputation abroad as something of a philosopher King. This reputation encouraged a number of Greek philosophers and scientists to go to his court. Although they seem later to have become somewhat disappointed with Anoushirvan, partly perhaps because they expected too much from him, and left his court, because of his initiatives Sassanian Persia became a major repository of Greek works translated into Sassanian Pahlavi.

Many of these works were destroyed following the Arab invasion of Persia in 642 CE. Nevertheless, many others were translated into Arabic by Persians, and, together with translations of Greek works done by Christians, laid the foundations of Islamic philosophy, and theology (Kalam).

Since the Sassanians were also interested in Indian sciences and relations between Iran and India were fairly extensive and many Indian scientific and other works were translated into Pahlavi, Persia of this period also acted as an intermediary in the transmission of Indian sciences to the Greco-Roman world.

Muslim Inheritors of Greek Philosophy

There is a tradition transmitted by the Muslim historian Tabari which says that when Saad Ibn Vaqqas, the Arab-Muslim general reached the Sassanid capital of Ctesiphon, he asked the Caliph Omar what he should do with the books in the Library. Omar replied that religious books are blasphemous and must be burned; scientific books if they don’t agree with the Qur’an are equally useless and if they do agree they also are of no use. The upshot was that Saad Ibn Vaqqas burned all the books in the library of Ctesiphon. Irrespective of the veracity of this tradition, it is clear that many books were destroyed in the centuries following the Arab invasion. However, some, including Pahlavi translations of Greek works, survived and were later translated into Arabic by the Persians. Works in other languages, notably Aramaic, of Greek works were translated into Arabic by Christians, including some Persian Christians. And it was in this new Islamic empire and more precisely during the Abbasid Caliphate that a new Greco-Islamic synthesis was attempted, and Baghdad which was built on the ruins of Ctesiphon became the new site of the Dar (or Beit) ul Hikmah, (The House of Knowledge) the name by which the Sassanid library in Ctesiphon was known to Muslim historians.

Initially the Arabs were not much interested in philosophy and other sciences, and considered these activities beneath their status. The only field considered worthy by the Arabs was Islamic jurisprudence. However, over time, this attitude changed and the Arab rulers, especially during the best periods of the Abbasid Empire and in Islamic Spain, became patrons of sciences and philosophy and the Arabs contributed to the flourishing of philosophy and sciences in the Islamic World. Consequently, for a period of nearly four centuries the Islamic world experienced an important intellectual reinvigoration. What is important in this context is the fact that, while in the East there was a new intellectual rigor, the Western world was entering what has been generally referred to as the Dark Ages.[32]

All the diverse peoples who inhabited the vast Islamic empire played a role in this enterprise, but in so far as the studying and popularizing of the works of Greek philosophers and Greek philosophical traditions are concerned plus amplifying them, three names stand out namely: Abu Nasr Farabi, Abou Ali Sina (Avicenna) and Ibn Rushd (Averroes). Of these three giants of Islamic philosophy, the name of Farabi is more closely associated with that of Plato, although he wrote many commentaries on Aristotle’s works, because of his book Medina ul Fadila (virtuous city) supposedly after Plato’s Republic . However, the virtuous city is not a clone of Plato’s republic, because of its neo-platonic dimensions and the fact that it is written within the framework of Islam and is permeated by religious notions. Avicenna , meanwhile, while also writing much on Aristotle’s works, is known for trying to combine Aristotelian and neo-Platonian perspectives. However, it is important to note that, Avicenna was not a mere imitator of Aristotle and, at times, even tried to “correct” his views. He is also known for his work in medicine and his great book in medicine called Qanoon was used in Europe until the early seventeeth century. However, the true inheritor of Aristotle is the Andalusian Ibn Rushd, the most rationalist of Muslim philosophers.[33]

The works of these Muslim philosophers contributed to the transmission of Greek philosophy and thought to the Europe Middle Ages and generated a new effort to rediscover and gather works of the classic age. The works of Avicenna were translated into Latin and published between the mid twelfth and the end of the thirteenth centuries CE. They exerted a good deal of influence on such important figures as St. Thomas Aquinas, whose writing “contains more than four hundred explicit quotations of Avicenna.” as well as others, notably William of Auvergne and Albertus Magnus, and Roger Bacon.[34] Some have argued that without Avicenna, St. Thomas Aquinas’s effort to reconcile faith and reason would not have been possible, and it was Avicenna’s effort to reconcile the Aristotelian logic and Islam that inspired St. Thomas’s effort. Initially, interest in Avicenna derived from interest in the works of neo-Platonists. However, after the third part of the thirteenth century his works were read in connection with Aristotle. According to Van Steenberghen Avicenna’s paraphrases of Aristotle “met the needs of the first interpreters of Aristotle until superseded by Averroes’ literal commentaries.Before the Western Christians became acquainted with Averroes, Avicenna’s influence on Latin Aristotelianism was very marked.” [35]

However, it is Averroes who is credited for being the person who, by influencing a whole group of European philosopher followers of Averroes, planted the intellectual seeds which led to the enlightenment and the dawning of the age of reason. It is ironic and tragic that, in the Muslim World, however, the religious literalists prevailed and by the fourteenth century Islam’s golden age had come to an end.

Contemporary Implications

The interaction between the East and the West in antiquity and the Middle Ages was neither as antagonistic nor one-sided as has generally been assumed. Based on the above it is clear that, while considering themselves superior, the ancient civilizations of the West, notably Greece, did not lack appreciation for the civilizations of their eastern counterparts. Moreover, the conduct of diplomatic relationships between the East and the West was largely on an egalitarian basis.For example, even at times of conflict Persian and Byzantine emperors in their correspondence referred to one another as “my brother.” [36] In fact, it could be argued that later Western emphasis on the dichotomous relationship of East and West in antiquity and the portrayal of the East (in the shape of Persia) as the home of tyranny and barbarism, and the West, (Greece) as freedom and civilization was to justify the imperialist and colonial episode of Western history and the so-called “civilizing mission” of the West. This thesis is supported by the fact that the flourishing of neo-classism coincides with the beginning of the West’s imperial journey.

Similarly, cultural and intellectual exchanges also were not one-sided, and the Eastern civilizations contributed to the enrichment of the West. In particular, as discussed in this paper, the East, both before and after Islam, at a very difficult period of the West’s history played the role of “the torch bearer” for the Western, and most specifically Greek, civilization. It is not totally far fetched to suggest that without this function of the East as the preserver of the best of the Western intellectual heritage the rediscovery of the Greek legacy by the West would have been far more difficult.

The fact is that the East and the West have in different historical epochs participated in the building of human civilization. Clearly, the contribution of some civilizations, such as that of Greece, in many respects has exceeded those of others. However, eastern civilization, too, in many areas, have contributed to the enriching of the Greek and Western civilizations. In particular, the East’s role as the torchbearer for the Greek legacy should be recognized more than it has been so far, despite efforts by some scholars in recent decades.

As the world is facing challenges that can not be managed on a national and even civilizational basis and must be tackled globally, and as the countries of the East—at least some of them—are awakening from their long slumber, it is vital that the past history of relations between the East and the West be reread in a different way. This means that emphasis should be put on the commonalities between them and their positive aspects and not simply on their differences and conflicts. Both sides should try to define themselves in a positive manner and not solely in opposition to the hostile “other.” In this respect, as in many other areas, Greece and the Greek experience has much to offer if we look at this experience through a different lens which incidentally would be much closer to reality of Greece’s interaction with the East than the dominant dichotomous image.

As discussed here, the history of Greece’s interaction with the East viewed impartially and in a more holistic fashion does not fit the framework of the clash of civilizations thesis. Yet, clearly those who subscribe to this thesis are influenced by the dichotomized view of these relations. In fact, despite periods of intense conflict, civilizational relations between Greece and the East have been more in the form of a dialogue, albeit informal. And this unrecognized dialogue has contributed to Europe’s intellectual revival and progress. The world would do well to focus on the dialogue rather than conflict aspects of these relations.

Bibliography

Beate, D. 2007. Rome and Persia: Neighbours and Rivals. Cambridge.

Beck, R. 2002. “Zoroaster IV. As Perceived by the Greeks.” Encyclopaedia Iranica. http://www.iranica.com/articles/zoroaster-iv-as-perceived-by-the-greeks .

Bekker, J. n.d. “Persian Influence on Greece.” Iran Chamber Society. http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/persian_influence_on_greece1.php .

Cerutti, F. 2001. “Political Identity and Conflict: A Comparison of Definitions.” Identities and Conflicts: The Mediterranean (eds. F. Cerutti and R. Ragioneiri) 15-16. Basingstoke.

Cohen, N. R. 1993. Cosmos, Chaos and the World to Come : The Ancient Roots of Apocalyptic Faith. New Haven.

Corbin, H. 1964. Histoire De La Philosophy Islamique: Des Origines Jusqu’a La Mort D’Averroes. Paris.

George, P. 1994. Barbarian Asia and the Greek Experience : From the Archaic Period to the Age of Xenophon. Baltimore.

Harle, V. 2000. The Enemy with a Thousand Faces. Westport.

Hirsch, S. 1985. The Friendship of the Barbarians: Xenophon and The Persian Empire. Hanover.

Huntington, S. P. 1996. The Clash of Civilizations and Remaking of World Order. New York.

Illif, I. H. 1953. “Persia And The Ancient World.” The Legacy Of Persia (ed. A. J. Arberry) 1–39. Oxford.

Kingsley, P. 1995.“Meetings with Magi: Iranian Themes among the Greeks, from Xanthus of Lydia to Plato’s Academy.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 3:5.

Lewis, B. 2009. “The Roots of Muslim Rage.” Atlantic Monthly.

Miller, M. C. 1997. Athens and Persia in the Fifth Century BC, A Study in Cultural Receptivity. Cambridge.

Rice, D. T. 1953. “Persia and Byzantium.” The Legacy of Persia (ed. A. J. Arberry) 39–59. Oxford.

Riet, S. V. “AVICENNA xiii: The Impact of Avicenna’s Philosophy on the West.” Encyclopaedia Iranica. http://www.iranica.com/articles/avicenna-xiii .

Smith , A. D. 1986. The Ethnic Origins of Nations. Oxford.

Van Steenberghen. F. 1966. La Philosophy au XIII siècle, Philosophes medievaux. Louvain.

Footnotes

Note 1
It is important, however, to note that the first person to talk of a coming confrontation between the West and the Muslim World was Bernard Lewis who in his article “The Roots of Muslim Rage” first raised this issue. Lewis 2009.

Note 2
Huntington 1996:21. For a more detailed and analytical concept of the “ Other” and its manifold manifestations see Harle 2000.

Note 3
Cerutti 2001:15-16

Note 4
Smith 1986.

Note 5
Harle 2000:11

Note 6
Harle 2000.

Note 7
Harle 2000.

Note 8
There may have been some records kept by the Persians themselves which perished following the burning of the Persepolis by Alexander. For example, Zoroastrians of today claim that the original Avesta, the holy book of the Zoroastrians was burned by Alexander, although there is no viable evidence for this. There certainly were books dating form the Sassanid period which perished following the Arab invasion of Iran.

Note 9
On this particular function of Persia in Greek historiography and drama see George 1994.

Note 10
George 1994:185.

Note 11
Hirsch 1985:3.

Note 12
According to Herodotus “Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds.”

Note 13
George 1994:83.

Note 14
For details see Hirsch 1985.

Note 15
Of course, in this empire the Persians occupied the highest positions followed by the Medes the people most closely related to the Persians. Nevertheless, the Achamenide emperors were tolerant of other peoples’ religions as demonstrated by the Cyrus Cylinder.

Note 16
Hirsch 1985.

Note 17
Kingsley 1995.

Note 18
This account probably is not true given that Colotes, who was an Epicurean, had criticized all of the most prominent Greek philosophers.

Note 19
On the fictitious Zoroaster see Beck http://www.iiranica.com/articles/zoroaster-iv-as-perceived-by-the-greeks .

Note 20
On the impact of Zoroastrian concepts on the evolution of Judaism and the development of Christianity see Cohen 1993.

Note 21
Bekker http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/persian_influence_on_greece1.php .

Note 22
Miller 1997:218-230.

Note 23
Quoted in Miller 1997:218.

Note 24
Bekker http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/persian_influence_on_greece1.php .

Note 25
Bekker http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/persian_influence_on_greece1.php .

Note 26
Miller 1997:240.

Note 27
Miller 1997:153-187.

Note 28
Illif in Arberry (ed.) 1953:21. Alexander married two Iranian women. Roxana (Roshanak in Persian) the daughter of the Persian satrap of Soghdia and Princess Astereita the daughter of Darius the third.

Note 29
Illif in Arberry (ed.) 1953.

Note 30
Rice in Arberry (ed.) 1953:39-59. According to Rice “ From the point of view of art history the Persian legacy to the Byzantine world is of outstanding importance. It might, indeed, almost be questioned whether byzantine architecture would ever developed in the way it did had not Persian influence not been exercised in early days. . . . Cultural history shows similar relationships, and as we become more closely acquainted with the conditions of society in Persia and Byzantium, we no doubt come to realize more and more and clearly the great extent of Persia’s role in this extent.”p58.

Note 31
Some credit the Persians for originating the concept of hospital. The Persian word for hospital is still used in Arabic, but refers only to mental hospital.

Note 32
Francesco Petrarca (Petrarch) is credited with inventing the term dark ages referring to the period after the fall of Western Roman Empire and the onset of the Renaissance, in comparison to the classic age of the flourishing of Greek and Roman civilizations. In the last century, there has been revision regarding the extent of the “darkness” of the Dark Ages and the periods it covers.

Note 33
On these philosophers and others see Corbin 1964.

Note 34
Riet http://www.iranica.com/articles/avicenna-xiii .

Note 35
Van Steenberghen 1966:186-187.

Note 36
For a good account of these relations see Beate 2007 Cambridge.