Debating Honor in Fifth-
Century BCE Athens: Towards a 
Comparative and Intradisciplinary 
Approach
Andrea Giannotti
Durham University, Department of Classics & Ancient History, 38 North Bailey, Durham, DH1 3EU, UK
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4893-0499
andrea.giannotti1990@gmail.com
This article tries less to give a practical demonstration than to theoretically 
sketch out and propose a novel approach to a specific aspect of ancient Greek 
culture, namely τιμή (honor) and the pursuit of it. Its aim is not only to illustrate 
the potential proficiency of such a methodology (and to set the ground for its 
application), but also to highlight concrete opportunities in the Humanities 
to study how the language of civic institutions in epigraphic sources and the 
moral language of ethical philosophy penetrate poetry in Greece: the idea 
that inscriptions and ethical philosophy are something that scholars of poetry 
should leave to ancient historians and philosophers has left lots of room for new 
scholarship in this area. Special attention is devoted here to Euripidean drama 
and its characters who, in exhibiting specific virtues (e.g. benevolence, solidarity, 
and friendship) while establishing reciprocal relationships, stand as socio-ethical 
examples of the pursuit of an honorable status within one’s community. Scholars 
have not fully explored to what extent this portrayal matches historical evidence 
for benefactions/exchanges between Greek citizens/cities and, at the same time, 
it complies with the virtues described by Aristotle’s ethical works. By interpreting 
honor as a means by which people regulate their social lives, the objective of this 
article is to show how Euripidean drama can serve as a valuable source to be 
explored for understanding Greek moral attitudes.
Keywords: literature and ethics / ancient Greek drama / epigraphy / Euripides / Aristotle / 
moral philosophy / honor
39
Primerjalna književnost (Ljubljana) 44.2 (2021)
In 1997 the journal Classical Philology published the 1994 APA’s 
Panel Discussion entitled Classics and Comparative Literatures: Agenda 
for the ‘90s. Given the marginalization of Classics within the field 
of Humanities during the last decades of the twentieth century, the 
40
PKn, letnik 44, št. 2, Ljubljana, avgust 2021
authors’ simple aim was “to initiate a conversation about the relation 
of Classics to other humanistic disciplines and its role in the humani-
ties in general” (Branham et al. 153). They sought not to demonstrate 
but to concretely apply Classics’ ability to speak to classicists as well 
as to other scholars in the humanities and social sciences: interdis-
ciplinary studies were (and still are) the key. Not being a scholar in 
Comparative Literature, I do not feel entitled to exhaustively illustrat-
ing how Classics can make use of Comparative Literature. However, I 
agree with the approach of Glenn Most’s erudite paper in the above-
mentioned volume, and equally aim to discuss the “generous cosmo-
politanism” between different disciplines as a possible solution to ad-
dress (and hopefully one day solve) the dilemmas surrounding a spe-
cific Classical theme.
Friedrich Nietzsche stated that “what cannot be exhausted is the 
always new adjustment every age makes to the classical world, of mea-
suring ourselves against it” (Arrowsmith 296). If this is the case, then, 
for my modest part I can say that my on-going research ideas aim to 
bring an adjustment to the Classical world by providing useful cri-
teria of an intradisciplinary1 and comparative approach, which might 
achieve more results than a one-directional and specialized approach. 
For instance, the so-called “French School” established by Louis 
Gernet and Jean-Pierre Vernant provided a striking model by focus-
ing on ancient society through a free anthropological approach in the 
name of interdisciplinarity and comparison. Indeed, if we are dealing 
with a plural subject, we are bound to deal with it by means of a plu-
ral examination. Hence, in the words of Giulia Sissa, interdisciplin-
ary means that “what counts is not the comprehension of the thought 
of an author, but the meaning revealed by a passage juxtaposed with 
examples from other sources in order to demonstrate the consistency 
of a certain general idea which is attributed […] to ‘the Greeks’” (in 
Branham et al. 168–169). Conversely, comparison is “an interpersonal 
confrontation among experts of different cultures” or fields. In accor-
dance with these two parameters, I will focus here on the Greek con-
cept of τιμή (generally translatable as “honor”) to show how it can be 
productively analyzed through a similar approach, i.e. by juxtaposing 
and comparing what multiple ancient sources say about τιμή. But, first 
of all, why focus on τιμή?
1 I use the the word “intradisciplinary” rather than “interdisciplinary” as ancient 
Greek theatre, ancient Greek epigraphy, and ancient philosophy (specifically Aristotle) 
are three different disciplines sharing the same heading, namely Classics.
Andrea Giannotti:     Debating Honor in Fifth-Century BCE Athens
41
In 1974, Kenneth J. Dover claimed that, in order to be able to 
reconstruct a lifelike picture of Greek norms of behavior we would 
need “hundreds of private diaries and account-books, parish records 
and thousands of letters” (Dover 4). In other words, we would need 
something which informs us about Greek social interactions, their 
rules and dynamics. Recently, my attention has been drawn to an 
ambiguous passage from Aristotle’s Poetics: “Sophocles claimed he 
made men as they should have been, while Euripides made them as 
they were” (1460b33–34). While it may seem difficult to draw a con-
clusive assessment of this statement, this claim lends a certain cred-
ibility to Euripides’s depiction of the world, and scholars have hardly 
enquired whether it is possible to put this credibility to the test. Hence, 
I ask: to what extent can the thoughts, deeds, words, and reactions of 
Euripides’s characters be said to mirror those of the Greeks of his day? 
The first thing to do is to determine what is “real” in Greek social life. 
In this respect, one cannot but recall Aristotle’s description of people as 
“social animals” (Pol. 1253a3–4; EN 1169b18–19) who pursue recip-
rocal exchanges within communities. Across all ages, in order to live 
happily, people have always sought recognition, respect, esteem, and 
honor: all of these terms are meaningfully combined in the Greek word 
τιμή, which Aristotle defines as “the greatest of external goods” and 
“the aim of the majority” (EN 1123b15–21, 1159a16–17). Indeed, 
as Øyvind Rabbås has shown, by recognizing and responding to τιμή 
people create a construct that has real significance for their lives.
Thus, τιμή does have a tangible character within Greek society, 
and it is a crucial (if not the crucial) mechanism by which the ancient 
Greeks described their social interactions and relationships: it was a 
right, it was an office,2  it was a reward, it was a feeling. It was, there-
fore, something which displayed its concreteness during reciprocal 
relationships. The last two decades have witnessed a rise in scholarly 
interest in τιμή (in its varied nuances as honor, esteem, worth, dignity, 
etc.). Past scholarship has either (i) analysed it by means of pre-Clas-
sical comparisons (Dodds; Finley) or (ii) assessed fifth-century BCE 
φιλοτιμία, “love for honor” or “ambition” (Whitehead), against the 
more positive accounts of fourth-century BCE sources (Dover; Liddel; 
Keim; Aloumpi). As a result, scholars have outlined a stark distinction 
between a negative notion of the pursuit of τιμή (in the fifth century 
BCE) and a positive consideration of it (in the fourth century BCE). 
On the other hand, the seminal studies by Cairns on the psychological 
2 This meaning is usually expressed by the plural form τιμαί.
42
PKn, letnik 44, št. 2, Ljubljana, avgust 2021
concept of αἰδώς, “honor-shame”, have assessed the active role of honor 
in human relationships as described in ancient Greek literature. Other 
scholars, such as Ruth Scodel, have re-evaluated the cohesive character 
of τιμή in ancient Greek epic. Also, the logic of reciprocal exchanges 
attested by Greek historical-epigraphic sources dealing with τιμή and 
τιμαί have been wholly accounted for and analyzed by Marc Domingo 
Gygax. Lastly, the Edinburgh ERC Project Honour in Classical Greece 
(2018–2022) claims and aims to demonstrate that Greek “honor” is 
a pluralist, inclusive, and flexible notion to be re-examined in light 
of recent findings in sociology and philosophy. This scholarly interest 
confirms that there is a whole “honor world” in ancient Greek soci-
ety which has yet to be fully explored. In particular, there is plenty of 
room to reconstruct honor dynamics from an internal perspective too: 
instead of examining Greek society by means of recent philosophical/
sociological concepts, it is possible to identify ancient paradigms of τιμή 
within ancient contexts, through a comparative analysis of Classical 
epigraphic, literary and philosophical sources. 
To be sure, drama has often been considered a repository of moral 
values and discourses (Adkins; Blundell; Cairns, AIDŌS; Belfiore). 
What I wish to ask here is whether Euripides’s peculiar portrayal of 
social relationships may represent a valuable case study to examine how 
people realistically interact and pursue various kinds of τιμή, in a variety 
of ways. Euripidean drama records more occurrences (c. 160) of τιμή 
(and cognates) than Aeschylean and Sophoclean drama. Moreover, 
Euripides displays an impressive interest in moral issues regard-
ing “honor” in social contexts: on the one hand, Euripides addresses 
ambition as a device by which to deal with unstable/dishonorable cir-
cumstances; on the other hand, he does not hesitate to point out the 
backlashes of the selfish pursuit of τιμή, which risks turning into ὕβρις 
(Fisher; Cairns, “Hybris, Dishonour”) when each character forcefully 
seeks to assert his or her own rights/claims. 
This twofold treatment of “honor” attests to the realistic and inevi-
table limits and negotiations which can occur in reciprocal relations. 
Indeed, while providing examples of the civic-minded pursuit of 
τιμή (which brings benefits both the individual and the community), 
Euripides’s plays also betray the fifth-century BCE concern for ambi-
tious attitudes within an egalitarian community. Hence, Euripidean 
drama displays a subtle interest in cases in which social dynamics lead 
ambition to fail. Against the resultant tragic consequences, Euripidean 
characters—truly acting as sociable people—react by seeking τιμή 
through reciprocal relationships rooted into virtuous attitudes, such 
Andrea Giannotti:     Debating Honor in Fifth-Century BCE Athens
43
as benevolence, friendship, euergetism, charity, etc. Now, the cred-
ibility of Euripides’s “social world” is substantiated (both in terms 
of language proximity and of the contexts described) by the parallel 
accounts on socio-ethical behaviors in relation to τιμή provided by 
two different genres, honorific epigraphy and Aristotle’ ethics. Since 
τιμή is the major object/subject regulating Greek social life, one can 
test the reality of Euripidean drama against those sources which spe-
cifically deal with honor, and look for a reliable assessment of honor 
both when it is sought “more and less than is right” and when it is 
sought “rightly” (Arist. EN 1125b19–20). This can be done by turn-
ing, on the one hand, to those accounts and records which provide 
multiple social guidelines about human dynamism with respect to 
honor, i.e. fifth-century BCE honorific epigraphy; and, on the other 
hand, to the only systematic sources on the individual behaviors and 
moral values of people operating within a community, i.e. Aristotle’s 
Nicomachean Ethics and Eudemian Ethics, where the social dynamics 
of ambition are remarkably discussed. In such a way, it is possible 
to show that Euripides’s representation of social interactions actually 
mirrors the same language and setting as honorific epigraphy; and 
that, according to Aristotle’s description of tragedy as the “imitation 
of action and life” (Poet. 1450a16–17), Euripides’s social portrayal of 
τιμή also complies with Aristotle’s description of society, where human 
beings, while pursuing a honorable status, are bound together by 
“reciprocation”, “need”, and “friendship” (EN 1132b33–1155a22–23 
passim). The honorific dimension of Euripidean drama can be contex-
tualized and examined socially (through epigraphy) as well as ethically 
(through Aristotle).
Epigraphic sources preserve many instances of state decrees con-
ferring τιμαί (honors, rewards, rights) on those who had benefited 
or helped the people and the city of Athens. This material provides 
solid evidence of the Athenian approach to beneficial (inter)actions. 
While praising benefactors’ deeds, honorific decrees also single out 
“social behavior[s]” (Lambert 71), thereby characterizing the pur-
suit of τιμή on the basis of moral habits and specific virtues (such 
as magnanimity, courage, friendship, and benevolence). Through 
honorific decrees, Greek πόλεις conferred honors and awards on their 
benefactors, established socio-political relationships and alliances, 
and publicly displayed their gratitude to those who provided (usu-
ally economic) assistance. Thus, from the fifth century BCE onwards, 
Greek πόλεις gradually experienced a popular rush to gain honors and 
rewards through public benefactions. It goes without saying that the 
44
PKn, letnik 44, št. 2, Ljubljana, avgust 2021
advantage was double, as both the benefactor and the benefited would 
give something while receiving something in return, based on a sys-
tem of reciprocation:
X benefits the city; city honors X; because of this honor the city expects X 
to continue benefiting the city. The logic, honor based on past behavior but 
looking to influence future behavior, is the same as that of the hortatory 
intention clause. Commonly an honorific decree represents just one point 
along a line of mutually beneficial exchanges that extends back generations 
into the past and is expected to continue long into the future, an extension 
in time reflected in the wording of the decrees themselves: in the frequent 
recognition that an honorand’s benefactions continue a tradition of bene-
faction begun by his ancestors, and in the common extension of honors to 
descendants. (Lambert 73)
By elucidating the moral context of these relationships, the deeds 
praised are defined by the ethical characterization of agent(s) and 
receiver(s), whose accurately delineated virtues produce laudable choic-
es. More importantly, honorific discourse attests to an ideology shared 
by multiple parties, and which establishes an expectation of reciproc-
ity feeding people’s ambition. What has not yet been noted, however, 
is how closely the vocabulary and mechanisms of honorific practices 
fit the interactions represented in Euripidean drama. In Euripides’s 
plays, characters’ attitudes appear to conform to a collectivist ideology 
established by means of reciprocal favors and benefits aimed at the 
achieving of τιμή (which, within a tragic context, can entail the pursuit 
of fame, wealth, esteem, vengeance, marriage, or power). Euripides’s 
plays meaningfully integrate the information provided by the epi-
graphical material which, insofar as it only records the result of recip-
rocal actions, glosses over the background motivations/evaluations of 
the parties involved. Thus, Euripidean interactions, that illustrate the 
social dynamics in which τιμή is embedded, also provide a meaning-
ful way of integrating the epigraphic sources. This opens up a whole 
new spectrum of questions concerning the “honorific dimension” of 
Euripidean drama, e.g.: what social conditions determine the recogni-
tion of τιμή? What motives (benefits/sacrifices) underlie the pursue 
of it? Combining the fixed image of τιμή preserved by the epigraphic 
sources with Euripides’s lively depiction is an innovative way to ex-
amine human motivations/evaluations for seeking an honorable status 
(either as individuals or collectively).
For instance, Euripides’s Medea displays a rhetoric strongly related 
to the concept of reciprocity (Schein). In parallel, the play provides 
Andrea Giannotti:     Debating Honor in Fifth-Century BCE Athens
45
a subtle discussion of τιμή related to reciprocity itself, along with the 
use of technical terms which we usually find in inscriptions. Indeed, 
Euripides’s stress on Medea’s lack of τιμή, due to Jason’s betrayal of 
his family and interruption of reciprocity, can be analyzed in the light 
of the dynamics of the Athenian honorific system by which τιμή was 
achieved through reciprocation (Giannotti, “Something”). Medea 
finds herself in a ruthless context, as Jason’s individualistic attitude 
does not agree with the habit of reciprocating and of rewarding friends 
and benefactors. Medea has to acknowledge that Jason will not πράξειν 
καλῶς (v. 500) towards herself—the concept of “doing good towards 
someone” in return for a benefit received (ἀντὶ ὧν εὖ πεποίηκεν) is com-
mon in honorific decrees (e.g., OR 182, IG I3 125, and OR 191 + RO 
2). Unfortunately, even the king of Corinth, Creon, does not reward 
Medea for her previous help in ending Corinth’s famine. Without 
Jason and Corinth giving Medea what she is entitled to, Medea lacks 
τιμή. Hence, this woman, ἠτιμασμένη and ἄτιμος, will be redeemed 
only by the friendly and benevolent attitude of Aegeus, πρόθυμος (v. 
720) and δίκαιος πρόξενος—two epithets which remind us of the terms 
used to describe benefactors of Athens (e.g. OR 157, 184, 187). Both 
characters find themselves in dishonorable circumstances and seek 
τιμή: on the one hand, Aegeus, a man and king, is ἄπαις (v. 670); on 
the other, Medea and her children are ἄτιμοι (v. 696). However, there 
is a difference between the two characters: Aegeus is honorless in a 
moral sense as a king’s sterility was considered shameful; Medea, as said 
above, is ἄτιμος in the legal sense of the term and purposely describes 
herself and her children as ἄτιμοι so that her status may be rehabilitated 
through χάρις (v. 719). Medea’s status is close to that of Arthmius of 
Zelea, a former πρόξενος of Athens who was made ἄτιμος καὶ πολέμιος 
τοῦ δήμου τοῦ Ἀθηναίων καὶ τῶν συμμάχων αὐτὸς καὶ γένος (D. 9.42) 
for having brought Persian gold into the Peloponnese (probably in the 
470s BCE). Both were officially banished from the land and risked 
being killed during their wanderings. After having been declared an 
enemy (πολεμίος) of the Athenians, Arthmius became an enemy of 
Athens’s allies too. Accordingly, Medea is declared “hostile” (v. 323) 
by Creon, who in turn has already been called an “enemy” (along with 
his family and Jason, v. 278) by Medea herself. Once Medea has made 
her intentions clear, she calls herself ἐχθρά of the Corinthian royal fam-
ily and Jason (v. 875; but cf. already v. 16). Moreover, Jason offers an 
ultimate deal by which Medea could be hosted by Jason’s ξένοι (vv. 
612–613), i.e. guest-friends obliged to treat him—and be treated by 
him—respectfully. By rejecting both Jason’s and his ξένοι’s friendship, 
46
PKn, letnik 44, št. 2, Ljubljana, avgust 2021
Medea becomes an enemy of Jason’s ξένοι as well. The ἄτιμος Medea is 
thus forced to wander as an exile and to flee Corinth, Jason and their 
allies as their common enemy. Epigraphy and oratory also attest to the 
meaning of ἀτιμία as the deprivation of rights and properties, as is the 
case with: OR 131 attesting to Athenian relations with Chalcis (446/5 
or 424/3 BCE); OR 142 concerning the foundation of the Athenian 
colony at Brea (c. 440–432 BCE); Andocides on the supporters of 
the Peisistratids (1.106); and Thucydides on the homecoming of the 
Spartan prisoners from Sphacteria (5.34.2). It is clear that Medea is 
also ἄτιμος insofar as she is being deprived of something, i.e. she is 
deprived of her status as a wife. Only through a reciprocal exchange 
will Medea get her τιμή back: by solving the problem of Aegeus’s 
sterility, she will return to being a married and honorable woman in 
magnificent Athens, as described by the Chorus (vv. 824–865). Medea 
will thus obtain the πρoξενία (v. 35), σωτηρία (v. 360), and ἀσυλία she 
was looking for (v. 387).
A similar pattern can be identified in further Euripidean plays, 
where we find a proper “vocabulary of τιμή” and honor-related con-
cepts. We can briefly mention another example, that is, Euripides’s 
Heracles, whose many passages reveal honorific, euergetic and recipro-
cal themes (Giannotti, “Heracles’ Honours”): Heracles’s virtues, his 
praise, and the rewards he receives seem to reflect the contemporary 
honorific, euergetic and diplomatic political system together with 
its rhetoric. The “honorific core” of the play is the scene involving 
Theseus and Heracles, which has the same structure as Medea’s Aegeus 
episode. After Heracles has suffered the consequences of Lycus’s “dis-
respectful” (v. 557) ambition and Hera’s vengeance (through Iris and 
Lyssa), Theseus comes to pay him what he is rightfully due. Indeed, 
Heracles’s status as benefactor is already clear in the first part of the 
tragedy: he has helped Thebes, but has not received what he deserves 
(vv. 264–265); having demonstrated his φιλία, Heracles should have 
receive respect (v. 301); the Thebans, despite having received bene-
fits from Heracles, have turned out to be evil people (vv. 568–569). 
When we finally come to the meeting between Theseus and Heracles, 
the language that the two heroes use is the rhetoric of civic εὐεργεσία 
with the reciprocity it implies. Theseus, in the role of an ally, wants to 
return the favor Heracles has done by rescuing him from Hades (vv. 
1169–1171), and to avoid being an ungrateful friend (v. 1223: χάριν 
δὲ γηράσκουσαν ἐχθαίρω φίλων). There should not be any vengeance 
between friends, and the two heroes recognize that, in turn, one has 
done good and the other has benefited from it (vv. 1234–1236). After 
Andrea Giannotti:     Debating Honor in Fifth-Century BCE Athens
47
this rhetorical exchange, Heracles is explicitly labelled as “humanity’s 
great benefactor and friend” and Theseus, on behalf of Athens, offers 
his help, seeking to make Athens the only city honoring him and to 
secure future benefits. Moreover, when Theseus closes his honorific 
speech (vv. 1322–1337) by saying “and I will repay you in this way, 
for having freed me” (vv. 1336–1337), he is explicitly conferring euer-
getic honors which, “like counter-gifts, aimed to re-establish a balance 
in the relationship with the benefactor and pay off the debt gener-
ated by the benefaction” (Domingo Gygax 45). Indeed, many poleis 
emphasized the fact that they were rewarding their benefactors in an 
adequate way with ἄξιαι τιμαί / χάριτες: in the fifth century BCE, hon-
ors such as citizenship, the right to own land, freedom of entry and 
exit from the harbor, proedria, stelae, and statues were all designed to 
repay benefactors’ deeds. This is what Theseus was doing—this, and 
more: by stating that the Athenians would be praised in the future for 
having helped a man like Heracles, Theseus was making a prolepsis, 
which is why we can speak of “proleptic honors.” Indeed, “the hon-
ors awarded to provoke benefactions were, to a considerable extent, 
designed to surpass in due proportion the debt aroused by the gift […] 
that required repayment” (Domingo Gygax 45). Theseus’s gifts to 
Heracles were nothing but a pompous and majestic reward for his 
favor. But, “at the same time, because of the reciprocity mechanisms 
of euergetism, which led to expectations that honors would lead to 
benefactions, these honors were to a substantial degree experienced as 
a recompense for benefactions yet to come, as counter-gifts in advance 
or proleptic honors” (45). Again, τιμή is what unites the two parties 
and makes them reciprocate.
Further inquiries of this kind can be conducted in relation to 
Euripides’s Hecuba, where Priamus’s wife is betrayed by Polymestor’s 
selfish suspension of εὐσέβεια (v. 1004), χάρις and προθυμία (vv. 1201–
1202), and φιλία (vv. 1226–1227), and the Supplices, where wise, 
noble, and pious Theseus helps the Argives because he knows that “the 
endeavour brings honor” (v. 306). All Euripidean interactions should 
be analyzed in the light of the concepts of reciprocation and benefac-
tion. Euripides stages characters who, for all their depth and complex-
ity, are not, as Dover claims, “different in scale and kind” (v. 18) from 
their audience. Rather, Euripidean characters’ interactions often mir-
ror the social guidelines on the basis of which Greeks used to engage 
with one another. Honorific epigraphy represents a reliable tool to test 
Euripides’s theatre as a “space of sociality” (Canevaro) in which τιμή 
and people’s approaches to it are at play.
48
PKn, letnik 44, št. 2, Ljubljana, avgust 2021
But what about a moral evaluation of Euripidean characters’ choices 
within reciprocal relationships? In a world marked by the complex 
dynamics of individual and collective pursuit of τιμή, a viable solution 
to positively direct one’s desire for honor and esteem is the application 
of certain virtues. Thus, how can τιμή be properly pursued? Any exhaus-
tive understanding of honor dynamics should consider the first com-
prehensive Greek handbooks on how to act and behave in social life, 
namely Aristotle’s ethical works (Eudemian Ethics and Nicomachean 
Ethics). Insofar as Aristotle’s works address τιμή as a central topic and 
discuss the ethical implications (virtues/vices) of honor in action, they 
provide a systematic overview of how τιμή is evaluated and classified 
within the context of social interactions. In particular, Aristotle scruti-
nizes honor-related virtues and establishes the conditions for laudable 
and despicable actions. It is striking that the virtues touched upon in 
Aristotle’s analysis are precisely those displayed by Euripidean charac-
ters and praised by honorific decrees.
Aristotle’s work focuses on the theory of human actions, expounding 
on how these are performed, what their aim is, and what virtues should 
guide them (EN 1103b26–31). According to Aristotle, choice generates 
an action through which a certain relationship arises. Yet, it is within 
human relationships that people become just or unjust (EN 1103b14–
15), and virtues, which concern behaviors in context, consequently con-
cern “social life” (EN 1108a10–11). Since, as honorific epigraphy and 
Euripidean interactions also show, relationships in action make virtues 
emerge, it may be no accident that virtues such as σοφροσύνη, φιλία, 
χάρις, εὐεργεσία, εὔνοια, and προθυμία are central to Aristotle’s analysis 
of individual as well as collective action. Indeed, Aristotle shows that 
only the above-mentioned moderate virtues, esp. “reciprocal benevo-
lence” (EN 1156a3–4), create a friendly community where one can do 
great favors with a proportionate effort. Euripidean characters’ deeds, 
words, and feelings can be interpreted through Aristotle’s ethical lens: 
this would allow us, for example, to contextualize characters’ virtues 
(courage, temperance, generosity, magnanimity, justice) and to under-
stand how one individual’s virtuous actions relate to another individ-
ual’s honorable or dishonorable status (through the so-called “person 
parameter”). While honorific epigraphy can tell us something about 
who benefited whom and how, Aristotle’s ethical works specifically 
explain “morally right action” as a matter of “who one acknowledges as 
entitled to be taken into account when one acts” (Rabbås 626).
The philosopher’s testimony crucially provides a realistic moral 
discussion of Greek honor culture akin to Euripides’s treatment 
Andrea Giannotti:     Debating Honor in Fifth-Century BCE Athens
49
of τιμή. If Greek tragedy is usually read through the guidelines of 
Aristotle’s Poetics, why cannot Euripides—he who portrayed people 
in a “realistic” way—be read through Aristotle’s ethical guidelines? 
Aristotle’s ethics is one of the very few areas within ancient thought 
which are studied not merely for their historical value, but also on 
account of the enduring relevance of their contents. Especially in 
the UK, Aristotle’s ethics is being widely studied and considered as 
the major opponent of attempts to reduce human action to a mere 
natural event: for this reason, Aristotle’s discussion on friendship 
and virtue is regarded highly. Focusing on Euripidean characters and 
comparing their words during social interactions to those attested by 
honorific epigraphy, and their actions and virtues to those described 
by Aristotle in his ethical portrayal of the dynamism of human soci-
ety, can initiate a fruitful intradisciplinary analysis: the honor-related 
guiding thread underlying Euripides’s plays can be envisaged as a key 
aspect of ancient Greek society’s discussion about itself, embracing 
varied genres and producing an equally varied literature and narrative 
about its own socio-ethical structure.
By investigating how honor dynamics are described in these three 
different sources (ancient Greek epigraphy, literature, and philoso-
phy), I believe that it is possible to unveil a shared set of assumptions 
in relation to τιμή across the fifth and fourth centuries BCE, and to 
outline the honor-paradigm governing the ancient Greeks’ ambitions 
and actions. In such a way, a reliable reconstruction of the social, 
ethical and civic value of a cardinal concept, honor, can be provided. 
Through the lens of the honor code, the classic binary logic applied 
to characters on stage (bad/good) would be reappraised as the depic-
tion of two (or more) contracting parties expressing and experienc-
ing the inevitable limits and negotiations which occur in reciprocal 
human relations. The social setting provided by epigraphy and the 
ethical explanations provided by Aristotle allows us to consider the 
actions and behaviors of tragic characters according to a historically 
and ethically informed perspective. Not only that, but such a reap-
praisal of the socio-ethical dimension of Euripides’s dramatic world 
offers the opportunity to reassess the educational value of ancient 
Greek tragedy today. In times like these, where (also due to Covid-
19) ethical principles risk crumbling under the weight of individu-
alism and isolation, a positive representation of “honor” based on 
reciprocation, respect, and solidarity may prove instructive for the 
social progress of our alienated modern democracies. By providing 
potential frameworks for integrating the individual pursuit of τιμή 
50
PKn, letnik 44, št. 2, Ljubljana, avgust 2021
into a community, Euripides’s plays may serve as a surprisingly con-
temporary model for reappraising honor in modern societies—as, 
e.g., Appiah and Sommers have recently done by considering and 
comparing other pre-modern cultural products and ethical beliefs. 
Hence, this analysis would ultimately demonstrate the importance 
of Euripides’s socio-ethical testimony, reasserting the relevance of 
his theatre in the ancient and contemporary debate on the value of 
honor for human societies.
WORKS CITED
Adkins, Arthur W. H. Merit and Responsibility. A Study in Greek Values. Oxford: Cla-
rendon Press, 1960.
Aloumpi, Myrto. The Civic Virtue of Philotimia. Rhetoric, Ideology, and Politics in 
Democratic Athens. DPhil dissertation. Oxford: Oxford University, 2018.
Appiah, Kwame A. The Honour Code. How Moral Revolutions Happen. New York, NY; 
London: Norton, 2010.
Arrowsmith, William. “Nietzsche: Notes for ‘We Philologists’.” Arion 1.2 (1973–1974): 
279–380.
Branham, Robert B., Glenn W. Most, Ralph Hexter, Giulia Sissa, Daniel Selden, Page 
duBois, and Walter R. Johnson. “Panel Discussion. Classics and Comparative 
Literature: Agenda for the ‘90s.” Classical Philology 92.2 (1997): 153–188.
Barbato, Matteo. The Ideology of Democratic Athens. Institutions, Orators and the 
Mythical Past. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2020.
Belfiore, Elizabeth S. Murder among Friends. Violation of Philia in Greek Tragedy. New 
York, NY; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Blundell, Mary W. Helping Friends and Harming Enemies. A Study in Sophocles and 
Greek Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Cairns, Douglas L. AIDŌS. The Psychology and Ethics of Honour and Shame in Ancient 
Greek Literature. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993.
Cairns, Douglas L. “Hybris, Dishonour, and Thinking Big.” The Journal of Hellenic 
Studies 116 (1996): 1–32.
Canevaro, Mirko. “I diritti come spazio di socialità: la timē tra diritto e dovere.” Dike. 
Ovvero della giustizia tra l’Olimpo e la terra. Eds. Alberto Camerotto and Filippomaria 
Pontani. Milano; Udine: Mimesis Edizioni, 2020. 157–177.
Dodds, Eric R. The Greek and the Irrational. Berkeley, CA: University of California 
Press, 1951.
Domingo Gygax, Marc. Benefaction and Rewards in the Ancient Greek City. The Origins 
of Euergetism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016.
Dover, Kenneth J. Greek Popular Morality in the Time of Plato and Aristotle. Oxford: 
Blackwell, 1974.
Finley, Moses I. The World of Odysseus. New York, NY: Viking Press, 1954.
Fisher, Nick R. E. Hybris. A Study in the Values of Honour and Shame in Ancient 
Greece. Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1992.
Giannotti, Andrea. “Something to Do with Epigraphy? The Aegeus Episode in Euripides’ 
Medea and the honorific Dimension of Athenian Tragedy.” ἡμετέρη δὲ πόλις. Essays 
Andrea Giannotti:     Debating Honor in Fifth-Century BCE Athens
51
in Honour of Peter J. Rhodes on the Occasion of his 80th Birthday. Eds. Delfim Leão 
and Rui Morais. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2021. [forthcoming]
Giannotti, Andrea. “Heracles’ Honours: The Dynamics of Greek honorific Practice 
on Stage.” Poétique et politique. Nouvelles lectures d’Euripide. Eds. Pascale Brillet-
Dubois, Boris Nikolsky, and Anne-Sophie Noel. Lyon: Éditions de la MOM, 
2021. [forthcoming]
Keim, Benjamin. “Xenophon’s Hipparchikos and the Athenian Embrace of Citizen 
Philotimia.” Polis 35 (2018): 499–522.
Lambert, Stephen D. Inscribed Athenian Laws and Decrees in the Age of Demosthenes. 
Historical Essays. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2018.
Liddel, Peter. Civic Obligations and Individual Liberty in Ancient Athens. Oxford: 
Oxford University Press, 2007.
Rabbås, Øyvind. “Virtue, Respect, and Morality in Aristotle.” The Journal of Value 
Inquiry 49 (2015): 619–643.
Scodel, Ruth. Epic Facework. Self-Presentation and Social Interaction in Homer. 
Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 2008.
Sommers, Tamler. Why Honor Matters. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2018.
Whitehead, David. “Competitive Outlay and Community Profit: φιλοτιμία in 
Democratic Athens.” Classica et Mediaevalia 34 (1983): 55–74.
Razpravljanje o časti v Atenah iz 5. stoletja pr. n. š.: 
primerjalni in intradisciplinarni pristop
Ključne besede: literatura in etika / starogrška dramatika / epigrafika / Evripid / Aristotel / 
moralna filozofija / čast
Članek ni toliko praktični prikaz kot teoretični oris in predlog novih pristopov 
k določenemu vidiku starogrške kulture, tj. »časti« (τιμή). Cilj ni le ponazoriti, 
kako potencialno napredna je takšna metodologija (in pripraviti podlago za 
njeno uporabo), temveč tudi izpostaviti konkretne priložnosti v humanistiki 
za preučevanje načinov, na katere jezik civilnih institucij v epigrafskih virih 
in moralni jezik etične filozofije prodreta v grško poezijo: miselnost, da so 
epigrafi in etična filozofija nekaj, kar morajo strokovnjaki za poezijo prepu-
stiti zgodovinarjem, specialistom za stari vek, in filozofom, je pustila veliko 
prostora za nova dognanja na tem področju. Posebna pozornost je namenjena 
Evripidovi dramatiki in likom, ki z izkazovanjem posebnih vrlin (npr. dobro-
hotnost, solidarnost, prijateljstvo) in ob vzpostavljanju recipročnih odnosov 
predstavljajo družbeno-etični primer uveljavljanja častnega statusa v svoji 
52
PKn, letnik 44, št. 2, Ljubljana, avgust 2021
skupnosti. Stroka še ni raziskala, v kolikšni meri se ta upodobitev ujema z zgo-
dovinskimi dokazi o dobrih delih in plodnih izmenjavah med grškimi drža-
vljani/mesti in koliko je v skladu z vrlinami, ki jih opisujejo Aristotelova dela o 
etiki. Cilj razlage časti kot sredstva, s katerim ljudje regulirajo svoje družbeno 
življenje, je pokazati, da je lahko evripidska drama dragocen vir za razumeva-
nje grških moralnih stališč.
1.01 Izvirni znanstveni članek / Original scientific article
UDK 821.14'02Euripides:17
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/pkn.v44.i2.03