Download Nobility and Civility (COLL W3920)

Nobility and Civility (COLL W3920)
Some Greek Vocabulary
Fall 2003
xenía -- "guest-friendship," "hospitality."
[xénia = the gifts exchanged between guests and hosts.]
nomoi (singular nomos) -- "laws," "customs," "mores," "norms."
Fifth-century Athenian usage began to distinguish specific psephismata ("decrees") enacted by
the Assembly from basic, traditional nomoi. Nonetheless, the former were considered subordinate and
ancillary to the latter; as Herodotus' usage suggests, nomos/nomoi remained the blanket term for all
kinds of social rules, whether codified or not.
Nomoi concerning hospitality (i.e. xenía), the parent-child relationship, and suppliancy were
considered basic throughout the Hellenic world, as were those concerning deference to superiors and
respectful treatment of equals within one's community.
agathos (comparative ameinôn, superlative aristos), esthlos, kalos, chrêstos -- all of these
adjectives are translatable as "good," "fine," and/or "noble" AND
aretê -- literally "excellence."
The noun aretê literally refers to the condition of being aristos ("best"), and it is typically the
term that is used to describe the exceptional qualities of figures such as Achilles, Aias, Odysseus, et al.
in the Homeric poems, who are often referred to as hoi aristoi ("the best men").
By the classical period, aretai (in the plural) came to refer to qualities that we might readily
recognize as moral and social virtues: i.e., justice, self-restraint or moderation, courage, wisdom, and
piety. Nonetheless, even in the fifth and fourth centuries, aretê had not lost its association with the
external circumstances (i.e. elevated birth and social standing, wealth, good looks, and generally
speaking "success") that were central to its conception in archaic poetry.* Very importantly, pursuit of
personal advantage was generally not thought to impinge upon one's aretê (and thus on one's ability to
uphold and enforce the nomoi of one's community). Men who sought to be aristoi in the classical as
well as archaic periods would have been expected to enforce nomoi, to protect their communities from
external aggression, and also to protect and add to their own material assets, to garner power for
themselves and their allies while defeating their rivals, to avenge themselves on their enemies, and in
general to assert their prerogatives. Passivity regarding any of these goals would have been judged
"unmanly," and would have been seen as an abrogation of responsibility.
*See e.g. the description of Hektor pursued by Achilles in Iliad 22. 158, which speaks volumes about
the archaic conception of aretê: "It was a great man (esthlos) who fled, but a far better (ameinôn) he
who pursued him…"
For a thorough discussion of the terms of social, ethical, and political approbation used in Greece during the archaic and
classical periods, see A. W. H. Adkins, Merit and Responsibility: A Study in Greek Values (Oxford UP, 1960).
These terms describe what we today would call exemplary "moral qualities," yet refer
simultaneously to external circumstances (such as social status, birth, appearance, wealth) and practical
accomplishments. In the archaic period especially, it would have been oxymoronic to use these terms to
describe someone who was in any way disadvantaged, no matter what his/her principles or deeds. It
would have been less oxymoronic to apply them to someone like Paris or the suitors, who as "princes"
have "noble" standing by birth but do not excel in their discharge of their social, political, and military
duties.