“东方主义”的滥觞：希腊古典史家作品中的“他者”形象研究

【作者】 陈佳寒；

【导师】 裔昭印；

【作者基本信息】 上海师范大学 ， 史学理论及史学史， 2014， 博士

【摘要】 本文以古典时期希腊世界的政治、经济、文化状况为背景，在参照与比较荷马时期以降各类文本与艺术品的基础上，分析希罗多德、修昔底德与色诺芬这三位希腊古典史家作品中的“他者”形象。前言由三部分组成。第一部分解释了本文的理论依据。本文对“他者”的界定与分析方法来自于后殖民主义文化批评理论，主要借鉴了萨义德关于“东方主义”话语的学说，以及斯皮瓦克将女性主义视角与后殖民批评相结合的分析范式。第二部分阐述了古典时期希腊城邦的公民属性，界定了当时希腊世界中三类主要的“他者”群体，即妇女、蛮族人与奴隶。第三部分简要介绍、评价了国内外相关研究成果，并说明了本文的研究思路。第一章追溯了荷马到古风时期希腊人的女性观、蛮族观与奴隶观。对于女性，希腊人认为她们应该处在“私人领域”内。对于蛮族人，“泛希腊”意识与“希腊人”身份认同的形成，以及殖民运动的展开，使希腊人产生了将自己与蛮族人区别开来，并认为后者在各方面都比自己低下的认识。对于奴隶与奴隶制，《荷马史诗》中的相关描述透露出矛盾的态度。希腊人既歧视奴隶，将被奴役视为不幸的遭遇；又美化奴隶制与奴隶主，认为奴隶应该为主人尽忠，在为其效力的过程中表现自己的才智与品格。第二章分析了古典史家作品中的女性形象，并探讨了其成因。古典史家往往将介入公共事务的女性不同程度地“他者化”，甚至将其中的某些女性建构成头脑混沌、缺乏理智的负面形象。相反，对于恪守性别秩序，未曾跨越“私人领域”的女性，则赋予她们独立自主、世事洞明与智慧贤达等诸多美好的品质。这样的形象建构呼应了戏剧诗人对女性角色的塑造，反映并维护了当时压制女性的性别制度，响应了旨在“征用”女性为男性公民服务，进而为城邦服务的性别意识形态。第三章分析了古典史家作品中的蛮族人形象。在继承荷马到古风时期蛮族观的基础上，与波斯人的冲突、民主制的建立等历史事件使古典时期的希腊人产生了一种带有较为强烈的仇外情绪的蛮族观。因此大多数情况下，古典史家以“他者化”的方式呈现蛮族人，认为其“他者性”主要体现在两方面：一方面，蛮族人实行并臣服于专制统治，希腊人则建立了民主制，两者存在政治制度上的对立；另一方面，蛮族人的行为方式或文化习俗与希腊人是颠倒的，并且具有野蛮、愚昧、怪异等特点。古典史家对波斯人形象的建构是前者的具体表现，并与悲剧《波斯人》有异曲同工之妙；对埃及人、斯基泰人以及阿玛宗女战士形象的建构则是后者的具体表现。有时，古典史家也会以中立的态度呈现蛮族人，但这种情况相对来说比较罕见。第四章分析了古典史家作品中的奴隶形象。古典史家将奴隶等同于蛮族人，后来得到亚里士多德阐释的“自然奴隶”观念可以追溯到他们那里。在此基础上，古典史家又从身体、心智与行为等方面将奴隶“他者化”。相对于自由人或公民，奴隶的身体不能免于暴力，而且丑陋畸形。身体的残缺暗示了头脑与心理的残缺，所以奴隶的行为反映出他们低下的智能与扭曲的心态。同时，古典史家认为奴隶也可以具有理性。但奴隶的“理性”仅限于推动他们获取物质利益，追求安逸的生活条件，与争取自由，成为公民无关，因而是可供奴隶主利用的工具。上述情形与戏剧或演说词呈现奴隶的方式往往是一致的，也是对《荷马史诗》中矛盾的奴隶观的继承。而且，由于认定奴隶与自由人的区别是不可更改的，古典史家在写作过程中也常常省略他们参与战争的事迹，忽视其在军事行动中的作用，因为希腊人当兵参战的权力是与公民权联系在一起的。而对于奴隶反抗奴隶制并获得成功，成为自由人的事实，他们则尽量避而不谈。结语部分总结了古典史家作品中“他者”形象建构的原则与特点。萨义德将“东方主义”话语追溯到《波斯人》。在分析了古典史家作品中的“他者”形象，并为此参照、比较了荷马时期以降各类文本与艺术品之后，我们可以认为，后世“东方主义”话语体系呈现“他者”时所依赖的基本原则，所采取的主要策略，及其运行机制所具有的重要特点，在古典时期已经发展得比较成熟了。古典史家对“他者”形象的呈现，与当时其他文本与艺术品对“他者”形象的呈现，一起构成了后世“东方主义”话语的源头。更多还原

【Abstract】 Basing on the reference to the texts and works of art from Homeric age,combining with the Greek politics, economy and culture in Classical age, thedissertation is a research of the constructions of “the Others” in all three classicalhistorians, Herodotus, Thucydides and Xenophonen’s works.The introduction is composed by three parts. Part one explains the theory in thisdissertation. The ways of definition and analysis of “the Others” in this dissertationare learned from the research of Orientalism made by Edward W. Said and theanalytical paradigm provided by Gayatri C. Spivak, who introduced new perspectiveof Feminism to Post Colonial Criticism. Part two defines three main kinds of “theOthers” in Classical Greek world, Female, Barbarians and Slaves, in line accordancewith the characteristics of Polis. Part three summarizes and evaluates domestic andoversea researching, meanwhile explain the structure of this dissertation.Chapter one traces Greek ideals of female, barbarians and slaves from Homericage to Archaic period. For female, Greeks thought they should be restricted in“private sphere”. Barbarians were considered as different and inferior to Hellenes forthe existence of Panhellenism and Hellenic personal identification. For slaves andslavery, the contents about which in Homer’s Epic provided some conflicting opinions.On one hand, Greeks discriminated slaves and being slaved was regarded asextremely miserable experience. On the other hand, they beautified slavery andslave owners. Slaves were thought to emerge their ability and character in dedicatingthemselves to their owners.Chapter two analyses the constructions of female images in classical historians’works and discusses their cause. The women who introduced into “public sphere”were always displayed as “the Others”. The constructions of their images werechaotic and negative. In contrast, the women who kept themselves in “privatesphere” were given many kinds of wonderful qualities. These constructionsmaintained gender system and responded gender idealism with female roles indramas during Classical age. Chapter three analyses the constructions of barbarians in their works. Traditionsfrom Homeric period and great historical events in classical period led to thephenomenon that barbarians were considered as “the Others” by most Hellenes andtheir “otherness” mainly reflected in two aspects: on one hand, barbarians succumbto despotic rulers, which was the opposite to Hellenes’ democracy. On the otherhand, barbarians’ system of behavior and their culture customs were the reverses ofHellenes’. In this background, Herodotus and Xenophon adopted Aeschylus’ ideas ofPersians. In History and Cyropaedia, Persians were constructed as “the Others” whosuccumb to tyrannies and were unaware of freedom, which was consistent withconditions in Persians. Meanwhile, like another authors and craftsmen, Herodotusconstructed other barbarians as “the Others” through the method that theircharacterizations, which were always savagery and ignorant, were portrayed as thereverses of Hellenes’, of which Egyptians, Scythians and Amazons in History weretypical symbols. In classical period, the phenomenon that constructing barbarians asneutral images also existed and was reflects in the three historians’ works, butcompared with the construction as “the Others”, the existence of neutral imageswere not beneath discussion.Chapter four analyses the constructions of slaves in their works. Slaves wereconsidered as the same as barbarians by classical historians, which led to theirconstructions of them were the harbinger of the idea “nature slave” that would beexplained detailed in Aristotle’s Politics. In this background, slaves as “the Others”were distinguished from free men/citizens in body, mind and behaviour. Slaves’bodies could not be absolved from violence, meanwhile were ugly and abnormal,which mirrored their incomplete in intelligence or mind, so that slaves’ behaviourswere always foolish or metamorphic. Sometimes classical historians considered thatslaves also had some logos to a certain degree. Dependent on the logos, slaveowners were able to aware slaves through some methods that their profits wereconsistent with their owners to whom they should devote themselves. Obviously,slaves’ acknowledged “logos” were what made them as slaves forever, not whatmade a man as a real free citizen. Besides, distinguish between slaves and free men/citizens was realized as unconditional, so that classical historians omitted slaves’deeds in military operations for intimate relationship between joining in the armyand citizenship, meanwhile avoided their achieved revolt to slavery.The epilogue summarizes principle and specialty in the constructions of “theOthers” in classical historians’ works. Said has traced Orientalism to Persians. Afteranalyzing the constructions in their works with the reference to the texts and worksof art from Homeric age, it could be acknowledged that the present of “the Others”in Herodotus, Thucydides and Xenophon’s works composed beginnings ofOrientalism with which in another ancient Greek texts and works of art.更多还原