What do you think?
Rate this book
The Echo of Greece
"Fourth-century Athens has a special claim on our attention," writes the author, "apart from the great men it produced, for it is the prelude to the end of Greece...The kind of events that took place in the great free government of the ancient world may, by reason of unchanging human nature, be repeated in the modern world. The course that Athens followed can be to us not only a record of old unhappy far-off things but a blueprint of what may happen again."
With the graceful clarity for which she is admired, Edith Hamilton writes of Plato & Aristotle, of Demosthenes & Alexander the Great, of the much-loved playwright Menander, of the Stoics & finally of Plutarch. She brings these figures vividly to life, not only placing them in relation to their own times but also conveying very poignantly their meaning for our world today.
With the graceful clarity for which she is admired, Edith Hamilton writes of Plato & Aristotle, of Demosthenes & Alexander the Great, of the much-loved playwright Menander, of the Stoics & finally of Plutarch. She brings these figures vividly to life, not only placing them in relation to their own times but also conveying very poignantly their meaning for our world today.
226 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1957
17 people are currently reading
760 people want to read
About the author
Edith Hamilton
66 books601 followersEdith Hamilton, an educator, writer and a historian, was born August 12, 1867 in Dresden, Germany, of American parents and grew up in Fort Wayne, Indiana, U.S.A. Her father began teaching her Latin when she was seven years old and soon added Greek, French and German to her curriculum. Hamilton's education continued at Miss Porter's School in Farmington, Connecticut and at Bryn Mawr College near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, from which she graduated in 1894 with an M.A. degree. The following year, she and her sister Alice went to Germany and were the first women students at the universities of Munich and Leipzich.
Hamilton returned to the United States in 1896 and accepted a position of the headmistress of the Bryn Mawr Preparatory School in Baltimore, Maryland. For the next twenty-six years, she directed the education of about four hundred girls per year. After her retirement in 1922, she started writing and publishing scholarly articles on Greek drama. In 1930, when she was sixty-three years old, she published The Greek Way, in which she presented parallels between life in ancient Greece and in modern times. The book was a critical and popular success. In 1932, she published The Roman Way, which was also very successful. These were followed by The Prophets of Israel (1936), Witness to the Truth: Christ and His Interpreters (1949), Three Greek Plays, translations of Aeschylus and Euripides (1937), Mythology (1942), The Great Age of Greek Literature (1943), Spokesmen for God (1949) and Echo of Greece (1957). Hamilton traveled to Greece in 1957 to be made an honorary citizen of Athens and to see a performance in front of the Acropolis of one of her translations of Greek plays. She was ninety years old at the time. At home, Hamilton was a recipient of many honorary degrees and awards, including election to the American Academy of Arts and Letters. Edith Hamilton died on May 31, 1963 in Washington, D.C.
Hamilton returned to the United States in 1896 and accepted a position of the headmistress of the Bryn Mawr Preparatory School in Baltimore, Maryland. For the next twenty-six years, she directed the education of about four hundred girls per year. After her retirement in 1922, she started writing and publishing scholarly articles on Greek drama. In 1930, when she was sixty-three years old, she published The Greek Way, in which she presented parallels between life in ancient Greece and in modern times. The book was a critical and popular success. In 1932, she published The Roman Way, which was also very successful. These were followed by The Prophets of Israel (1936), Witness to the Truth: Christ and His Interpreters (1949), Three Greek Plays, translations of Aeschylus and Euripides (1937), Mythology (1942), The Great Age of Greek Literature (1943), Spokesmen for God (1949) and Echo of Greece (1957). Hamilton traveled to Greece in 1957 to be made an honorary citizen of Athens and to see a performance in front of the Acropolis of one of her translations of Greek plays. She was ninety years old at the time. At home, Hamilton was a recipient of many honorary degrees and awards, including election to the American Academy of Arts and Letters. Edith Hamilton died on May 31, 1963 in Washington, D.C.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 58 reviews
August 11, 2014
The book picks up quite a bit after the first chapter. Hamilton's style is highly readable, and when she is narrating historic events and showing the connections between them, this book is great. However, whenever she falls back into talking about the "mind" of a people, the "Greek mind," the "Roman mind," the "Persian mind," the "Semitic mind," she is always extremely reductionistic. Like Thucydides, she wants to see history as a progression of ideas and universals. Unfortunately, one needs the balance of Aristotle who said that history is made up of "singulars." People make up history, and people rarely, if ever, conform to a certain "worldview" en masse. This is the same fallacy that occurs when theologians try to contrast "Greek thought" with "Hebrew thought," and lament the introduction of Greek thought into Christian theology. There were many Greek philosophies, some of which fit better with the theology of certain Jews than others. There is not one "Greek worldview" stretching from Homer to Plutarch. There is not one "Hebrew worldview" stretching from Abraham to Christ. There are certainly shared beliefs and assumptions in Yahweh worshippers from Abraham to modern Christians, but this does not mean one unified and unchanging "mind."
Overall, I enjoyed Hamilton's book whenever she was narrating history. She is a gifted writer and brings history alive with her lively combination of biography and historical narration. I had to cringe though whenever she picked up her grand narrative and tried to fit history into a pattern of conflict between Greek and Roman thought, and especially when she clumsily tried to explain Church history in terms of her "worldviews."
---------------------------------------------
After the first chapter of this books, I can tell that by "the Greeks," Hamilton means only the Athenians and only after the 5th century B.C. Though she gives lip service to Homer, she clearly wouldn't consider Achilleus, Agamemnon, or Odysseus to be "Greek" heroes by her statement, "arrogance, violent self-assertion, was of all qualities most detested by the Greeks." Using her curiously narrow definition of "the Greek mind," which also excludes Sparta and Corinth, she uncritically lavishes praise on a Greek mindset, held by a minority of Greeks for a few centuries, that is reflective of her own preconceived ideas of what a good society should look like.
The beauty of this approach is that one can dismiss almost any counterexample as "not really Greek," as Hamilton does with art: "Greek art at its best and most characteristic is kept within the limits of the real world." Presumably this means that the famous vase painting of Oedipus and the Sphinx is not characteristically "Greek" and is more like the "monstrous Assyrian bird-and-beast statues." Such a damn-the-facts approach may make for great moralizing, but it also makes for weak history. Add to this the fact that she misrepresents the cultures of the ancient near east and her wildy exaggerated claims about the uniqueness of various cultural achievements of the Greeks. It appears that she knew what she was looking for, and through the miracle of confirmation bias she found it and missed all the particular evidence to the contrary.
To be fair, there is much of value here as well, and I will definitely finish the book. However, so far her very narrow definitions of "the Greek mind" and her extremely broad generalizations often fly wide of the mark. A much more careful and balanced introduction to the Greeks on a popular level is H.D.F. Kitto's fine work entitled simply The Greeks.
Overall, I enjoyed Hamilton's book whenever she was narrating history. She is a gifted writer and brings history alive with her lively combination of biography and historical narration. I had to cringe though whenever she picked up her grand narrative and tried to fit history into a pattern of conflict between Greek and Roman thought, and especially when she clumsily tried to explain Church history in terms of her "worldviews."
---------------------------------------------
After the first chapter of this books, I can tell that by "the Greeks," Hamilton means only the Athenians and only after the 5th century B.C. Though she gives lip service to Homer, she clearly wouldn't consider Achilleus, Agamemnon, or Odysseus to be "Greek" heroes by her statement, "arrogance, violent self-assertion, was of all qualities most detested by the Greeks." Using her curiously narrow definition of "the Greek mind," which also excludes Sparta and Corinth, she uncritically lavishes praise on a Greek mindset, held by a minority of Greeks for a few centuries, that is reflective of her own preconceived ideas of what a good society should look like.
The beauty of this approach is that one can dismiss almost any counterexample as "not really Greek," as Hamilton does with art: "Greek art at its best and most characteristic is kept within the limits of the real world." Presumably this means that the famous vase painting of Oedipus and the Sphinx is not characteristically "Greek" and is more like the "monstrous Assyrian bird-and-beast statues." Such a damn-the-facts approach may make for great moralizing, but it also makes for weak history. Add to this the fact that she misrepresents the cultures of the ancient near east and her wildy exaggerated claims about the uniqueness of various cultural achievements of the Greeks. It appears that she knew what she was looking for, and through the miracle of confirmation bias she found it and missed all the particular evidence to the contrary.
To be fair, there is much of value here as well, and I will definitely finish the book. However, so far her very narrow definitions of "the Greek mind" and her extremely broad generalizations often fly wide of the mark. A much more careful and balanced introduction to the Greeks on a popular level is H.D.F. Kitto's fine work entitled simply The Greeks.
December 20, 2021
A very good book for the last centuries of Classical Greece, with an emphasis on the Greek Culture. It is a farewell to a dying world, that obviously the author loves. A rather emotional approach, but still of great value.
April 28, 2018
I believe I was expecting too much from this book. Having read Mythology in grade school, and relying on it regularly for everything that has to do with Greek myth, I pictured this book was going to be a fantastic exploration of Greek culture. This book was most certainly that, but it's very much a product of it's time and not just because she uses the word "oriental" to refer to Persians. Edith Hamilton is an incredible writer, but honestly this book was very much soft history. The method was more to recount the events and people of the past and celebrate them without much digging into the real impact these events and people have had on the larger culture. Hamilton does not so much dig into a real historical method, instead she wants to celebrate Greece and it's ancient culture as a font which continues to inspire people over the ages.
There is nothing wrong with this, in fact it's in the goddamn title, but, as a resource for studies of greek history this book is lacking. I wanted something with teeth, or something more than just pep rally for individuals like Socrates, Alexander, and Isocrates. Those dudes have had a non-stop pep rally by the academy for close to the entirety of human culture.
This book is worth reading because Edith Hamilton is an incredible writer with a substantial intellect, and a concern for understanding how Greece has impacted the zeitgeist and culture. But as a historical resource this book is probably going to let the reader down.
Start here, but move forward.
There is nothing wrong with this, in fact it's in the goddamn title, but, as a resource for studies of greek history this book is lacking. I wanted something with teeth, or something more than just pep rally for individuals like Socrates, Alexander, and Isocrates. Those dudes have had a non-stop pep rally by the academy for close to the entirety of human culture.
This book is worth reading because Edith Hamilton is an incredible writer with a substantial intellect, and a concern for understanding how Greece has impacted the zeitgeist and culture. But as a historical resource this book is probably going to let the reader down.
Start here, but move forward.
June 18, 2021
An AO Year 12 preread
Let me see if I can get my words to do this book justice. First, if you’ve been faithful to reading Plutarch all these years this book will be a delightful smorgasbord. And if you’re unsettled with or just beginning Plutarch, read this book and it will motivate you to stick with the Lives. It’s a small book that packs a big punch.
It begins with Athens’ failure, you’re not sure if you’re reading current events or ancient history: “They were thinking, not of their duties as citizens, but of their rights. They were looking to the state to guarantee not freedom as in the old days, but privilege.” It goes on to the schools of Athens and the teachers. The pursuit of truth was kept before each student but “he (Plato) discovered how few were willing to make the effort.”
This leads to Aristotle teaching Alexander the Great, only for Alexander to leave off such ideas and betray his people (and himself) for the customs of the Persians. His great plan backfiring as he forgot the Greek ways. Menander sees all this and puts Alexander’s drunken mistakes in his plays, but then shifts to focusing on home for the fallen Athenians: “Stay at home,” one of his characters says, “A man is free and happy nowhere else.”
Then come the Stoics and the most interesting account of these exhortation notebooks Marcus Aurelius kept for himself: “Prefer the hard.” “Stay in Rome though you want very much a house by the sea or in the hills, a quiet retreat…” “Show gentleness.” “Show good humor.”
And this leads us to Plutarch. An artist is what he calls himself and I was surprised to hear of his…not Pollyanna-ness…but his realistic optimism: “..the Greek to whom the world was a place full of interest and men generally likable and often admirable.” He was full of wonder and spent his life “centered in the sphere of little things,” not despising them or pitying himself. Though he never crossed paths with Christianity, I was surprised by the number of his sentiments that echo the words of Christ: how suffering teaches us profound lessons, it is our duty to contemplate the best, and more. The chapter on Plutarch is worth the whole book.
And then she wraps up this book talking about the church. The “young Christian church turned from the Greek way and chose the Roman way. No more little communities of Christians each led by the Spirit of Truth which Christ had promised them.” If the Christians would have been learners as well as teachers of Greece, the “cruelties practiced in his name might not—almost surely would not—have defaced the religion of love.”
This book leaves you with much to ponder considering the modern world and the influences from the past (both Greek and Roman) that shaped it.
Let me see if I can get my words to do this book justice. First, if you’ve been faithful to reading Plutarch all these years this book will be a delightful smorgasbord. And if you’re unsettled with or just beginning Plutarch, read this book and it will motivate you to stick with the Lives. It’s a small book that packs a big punch.
It begins with Athens’ failure, you’re not sure if you’re reading current events or ancient history: “They were thinking, not of their duties as citizens, but of their rights. They were looking to the state to guarantee not freedom as in the old days, but privilege.” It goes on to the schools of Athens and the teachers. The pursuit of truth was kept before each student but “he (Plato) discovered how few were willing to make the effort.”
This leads to Aristotle teaching Alexander the Great, only for Alexander to leave off such ideas and betray his people (and himself) for the customs of the Persians. His great plan backfiring as he forgot the Greek ways. Menander sees all this and puts Alexander’s drunken mistakes in his plays, but then shifts to focusing on home for the fallen Athenians: “Stay at home,” one of his characters says, “A man is free and happy nowhere else.”
Then come the Stoics and the most interesting account of these exhortation notebooks Marcus Aurelius kept for himself: “Prefer the hard.” “Stay in Rome though you want very much a house by the sea or in the hills, a quiet retreat…” “Show gentleness.” “Show good humor.”
And this leads us to Plutarch. An artist is what he calls himself and I was surprised to hear of his…not Pollyanna-ness…but his realistic optimism: “..the Greek to whom the world was a place full of interest and men generally likable and often admirable.” He was full of wonder and spent his life “centered in the sphere of little things,” not despising them or pitying himself. Though he never crossed paths with Christianity, I was surprised by the number of his sentiments that echo the words of Christ: how suffering teaches us profound lessons, it is our duty to contemplate the best, and more. The chapter on Plutarch is worth the whole book.
And then she wraps up this book talking about the church. The “young Christian church turned from the Greek way and chose the Roman way. No more little communities of Christians each led by the Spirit of Truth which Christ had promised them.” If the Christians would have been learners as well as teachers of Greece, the “cruelties practiced in his name might not—almost surely would not—have defaced the religion of love.”
This book leaves you with much to ponder considering the modern world and the influences from the past (both Greek and Roman) that shaped it.
July 30, 2022
Edith Hamilton had a great admiration for the Greeks, and I thought she made some good observations, but she frequently misunderstands and/or misapplies Scripture. Hamilton also thought that if the Church had followed Greek ways rather than Roman ways, she would have avoided most of the problems and violence in her history. This fails to take into account the sinfulness of the human heart (something Hamilton discounts) and the heresies and distortions that came from the influence of Greek philosophy (Gnosticism being one example). I think it will still be a good one for my 12th grader to read and discuss and compare to the other philosophy books and lectures he'll learn from next year. And it did make me want to read more by and about the authors she mentions. :)
December 8, 2020
A good overview over 4th century Greece, with a particular focus on Athens, and its notable figures as well as the decline of Greece's importance with the rise of Rome. This is a lot of history for so tiny a book, so it's hardly surprising that each subject is only touched on very briefly. Hamilton's style is engaging, though her views are at times rather outdated - which is also not surprising, as this was written in the 50s.
December 6, 2021
There's a certain type of pseudo-academic prose that does little but traffic in airy generalities, words so vague that they mean anything to anyone, but so portentous that the entire mess sounds like it must be important. Before the 19th C, this sort of author wrote with certainty about Christianity, God, and Empire. During the 19th C it was World Spirit, then Race and Class. In the 21st C it's Patriarchy and Racism.
Edith Hamilton is squarely in this tradition, though writing in the 1950s, her Big Word is Freedom. Naturally, of course, nothing is done to investigate what this actually meant to the Greeks, or how they squared it with the obvious issues of women, slaves, even fathers over sons. It's enough simply to repeat, over and over again, that the Greeks were for it (and Democracy), that that makes them the greatest, and makes us, by inheritance, the greatest. There's zero curiosity here as to why the Greeks went down their particular path (apparently it was something to do with how the Greek language disapproves of extremes, but the entire argument she gave seemed to me like just so much begging the question). There's zero investigation of how things played out in the rest of the world (I believe just to the north in Europe, apparently they also had some opinions regarding Freedom and Democracy...), or why things were structured as they were in Persia or Egypt.
Basically a waste of time from beginning to end, unless you are extremely keen to have all your prejudices re-confirmed. The only value in this book is that reading it makes you aware of, maybe, what people like Foucault were rebelling against. Regardless of how misguided you might consider Foucault's theoretical project to be, at least he (and people like him) are doing the slightest bit of independent thinking and refactoring of their perception.
That project is far from complete (and my list of big thought destroying 21st C words shows that it's always in danger of being strangled by mediocre minds) but at least some good work is now being done in cross temporal comparisons and world history that's interested in slightly more than just the childishly self-centered "how does the past prove how great we are" (or the 21st C variant "how does the past prove how horrible we are"); both interested in the past only insofar as it can be used to manipulate the present.
Edith Hamilton is squarely in this tradition, though writing in the 1950s, her Big Word is Freedom. Naturally, of course, nothing is done to investigate what this actually meant to the Greeks, or how they squared it with the obvious issues of women, slaves, even fathers over sons. It's enough simply to repeat, over and over again, that the Greeks were for it (and Democracy), that that makes them the greatest, and makes us, by inheritance, the greatest. There's zero curiosity here as to why the Greeks went down their particular path (apparently it was something to do with how the Greek language disapproves of extremes, but the entire argument she gave seemed to me like just so much begging the question). There's zero investigation of how things played out in the rest of the world (I believe just to the north in Europe, apparently they also had some opinions regarding Freedom and Democracy...), or why things were structured as they were in Persia or Egypt.
Basically a waste of time from beginning to end, unless you are extremely keen to have all your prejudices re-confirmed. The only value in this book is that reading it makes you aware of, maybe, what people like Foucault were rebelling against. Regardless of how misguided you might consider Foucault's theoretical project to be, at least he (and people like him) are doing the slightest bit of independent thinking and refactoring of their perception.
That project is far from complete (and my list of big thought destroying 21st C words shows that it's always in danger of being strangled by mediocre minds) but at least some good work is now being done in cross temporal comparisons and world history that's interested in slightly more than just the childishly self-centered "how does the past prove how great we are" (or the 21st C variant "how does the past prove how horrible we are"); both interested in the past only insofar as it can be used to manipulate the present.
June 22, 2017
Four years ago I picked this up, having enjoyed multiple readings of her mythology compilations. I liked it very much, and when I came across it during the move I decided to see it if stood up to my earlier opinion.
It's a small work whose value comes from the magnanimity, enthusiasm, and gentleness of its author. The very attributes she bestows upon Plutarch are also her own. Her analysis of Athen's failure is brief, accessible, and all too relevant for our times. Would that our leaders, mobs, and demagogues actually picked up Isocrates, Thucydides, or Hamilton herself.
The final chapter is not up to the rest of the book. Hamilton is a classical scholar, not medieval, and does not seem to have an adequate understanding of the Byzantine Rite or the Orthodox Church. It can be safely skipped, but as the author is such a kind soul why not linger with her for a few more pages?
It's a small work whose value comes from the magnanimity, enthusiasm, and gentleness of its author. The very attributes she bestows upon Plutarch are also her own. Her analysis of Athen's failure is brief, accessible, and all too relevant for our times. Would that our leaders, mobs, and demagogues actually picked up Isocrates, Thucydides, or Hamilton herself.
The final chapter is not up to the rest of the book. Hamilton is a classical scholar, not medieval, and does not seem to have an adequate understanding of the Byzantine Rite or the Orthodox Church. It can be safely skipped, but as the author is such a kind soul why not linger with her for a few more pages?
July 15, 2022
Edith Hamilton possessed in full two qualities too long dismissed in present-day literary academia:
she could read the original languages and she loved the literature.
This volume does not consider Homer, Hesiod, or the lyric poets. She commences with an historical setting to explain the continued intellectual glow of Greece beyond the miraculous flower of inspiration that was the 5th century BC in Athens. To this end, Herodotus and Thucydides are first marshalled. They are followed by weighings of Isocrates, Plato, and Aristotle. The political and historical retake the stage in a consideration of the career of Demosthenes and the campaigns of Alexander. There follows a meander with Menander before we are introduced to the Stoics, whom Hamilton considers the last great philosophical exhalation of Greece. The longest chapter is reserved for Plutarch whose contagious combination of reverence and restraint has won him literary immortality and especially endeared him to Hamilton. She closes this book reflecting on the cultural handoff that occurred between Greece and Rome and their respective mindsets regarding conquest. Similarities between Christian and classical Greek thought are introduced throughout the book (culminating at the end) when she finds them relative to her point.
Themes emerge throughout the narrative, the fruit of Hamilton's years' worth of reading and meditating on the primary sources. The incalculable potential of an individual who is free but self-restrained. The moral horror of slavery which she presents as first wrestled with by the Athenians. The danger of abandoning temperance for extremes. Her tone is a balanced respect that elevates when she discusses figures who evoke her awe e.g., Aristotle and Plutarch.
If there is any weakness, it is the aforementioned awe, which at times results in theory displacing fact. It is manifest in the final pages wherein she claims that certain violent episodes perpetuated by sundry Christians could have been avoided if only Christendom had absorbed the Greek rather than the Roman societal mind. Greek thought permeated early Christianity and the Greeks, as she herself recounts, were more than capable of bloody constraint (Alexander). Her imbalance is forgivable, as it is not violent but sprung from love. She was the last of an era of great generalists, widely and deeply read, whose written expressions remain permeable to a general reading audience. She is free of affectation and agenda. Please read her works.
she could read the original languages and she loved the literature.
This volume does not consider Homer, Hesiod, or the lyric poets. She commences with an historical setting to explain the continued intellectual glow of Greece beyond the miraculous flower of inspiration that was the 5th century BC in Athens. To this end, Herodotus and Thucydides are first marshalled. They are followed by weighings of Isocrates, Plato, and Aristotle. The political and historical retake the stage in a consideration of the career of Demosthenes and the campaigns of Alexander. There follows a meander with Menander before we are introduced to the Stoics, whom Hamilton considers the last great philosophical exhalation of Greece. The longest chapter is reserved for Plutarch whose contagious combination of reverence and restraint has won him literary immortality and especially endeared him to Hamilton. She closes this book reflecting on the cultural handoff that occurred between Greece and Rome and their respective mindsets regarding conquest. Similarities between Christian and classical Greek thought are introduced throughout the book (culminating at the end) when she finds them relative to her point.
Themes emerge throughout the narrative, the fruit of Hamilton's years' worth of reading and meditating on the primary sources. The incalculable potential of an individual who is free but self-restrained. The moral horror of slavery which she presents as first wrestled with by the Athenians. The danger of abandoning temperance for extremes. Her tone is a balanced respect that elevates when she discusses figures who evoke her awe e.g., Aristotle and Plutarch.
If there is any weakness, it is the aforementioned awe, which at times results in theory displacing fact. It is manifest in the final pages wherein she claims that certain violent episodes perpetuated by sundry Christians could have been avoided if only Christendom had absorbed the Greek rather than the Roman societal mind. Greek thought permeated early Christianity and the Greeks, as she herself recounts, were more than capable of bloody constraint (Alexander). Her imbalance is forgivable, as it is not violent but sprung from love. She was the last of an era of great generalists, widely and deeply read, whose written expressions remain permeable to a general reading audience. She is free of affectation and agenda. Please read her works.
December 30, 2022
Definitely of its time, complete with prejudices and biases but, as always, Hamilton is eminently readable with a breezy writing style that draws you in and keeps you engaged. Books about fading empires hit a little differently these days and it's almost impossible not to draw a parallel between Christianity driving the final nail (heh) into the glory that was once Greece and the negative impact of radical fundamentalism on American politics. There truly is no new thing under the sun.
December 8, 2021
Very out of date and biased book about Ancient Greece. There are many contradictions, hyperbole arguments. What's worst for me is the reductionist, to the point of ignorance, and imperialist viewpoint regarding Persian and other Eastern civilizations.
April 19, 2022
I enjoyed this book, which I pre-read (which became reading alongside b/c I was too slow, sigh -- but it worked out) for my senior in high school, a selection for history from Ambleside Online's year 12 list, "with a focus on worldview." It discusses the ancient Greeks, and especially their ideas, comparing and contrasting them with others as well. I wished I'd known more about the people and groups she discusses beforehand, but it was interesting and thought-provoking reading. I found myself making connections about our world today, especially as she discussed decline (sad but true similarities). It also gave me some additional background for the time the church began, filling me in on some possible details of how God was preparing the Gentiles as well as the Jews to be ready for the coming of Jesus, and how Paul used what he knew about the culture brilliantly to address them. I'd heard some of that mentioned before at times, but it was interesting to learn more about the Stoics, for instance, and how their philosophy in some ways prepared them for Christianity.
I could wish for more sources cited -- as with so many books.
I underlined a lot. Just a few quotes, for some idea:
"Fundamental to everything the Greeks achieved was their conviction that good for humanity was possible only if men were free, body, mind, and spirit, and if each man limited his own freedom. A good state or work of art or piece of thinking was possible only through the self-mastery of the free individual, self-government" (12).
"'You do not know what freedom is,' Herodotus reports a Greek saying to a Persian. 'If you did you would fight for it with bare hands if you had no weapons'" (17).
"At least the Athenian citizen had true freedom. There has never been a state more free; there have been few as free. Never was freedom of speech restricted; not in times of utmost peril when an enemy was advancing to the very walls of the city" (24).
"[Alexander] had planned, Plutarch says, to make the world Greek. What happened was that he turned Persian. Nothing is clearer than that he had lost whatever of Greek excellence he had had in him by nature or by education. [Aristotle tutored him.] Moderation, reasonableness, self-control, had gone.... The last glimpse of him the ancient historians give us shows no trace of the Greek, only the Eastern despot complete" (133-135).
Arrian, about Alexander: "I hold that no mighty deeds, not even conquering the whole world, is of any good unless the man has learned the mastery of himself" (136).
I could wish for more sources cited -- as with so many books.
I underlined a lot. Just a few quotes, for some idea:
"Fundamental to everything the Greeks achieved was their conviction that good for humanity was possible only if men were free, body, mind, and spirit, and if each man limited his own freedom. A good state or work of art or piece of thinking was possible only through the self-mastery of the free individual, self-government" (12).
"'You do not know what freedom is,' Herodotus reports a Greek saying to a Persian. 'If you did you would fight for it with bare hands if you had no weapons'" (17).
"At least the Athenian citizen had true freedom. There has never been a state more free; there have been few as free. Never was freedom of speech restricted; not in times of utmost peril when an enemy was advancing to the very walls of the city" (24).
"[Alexander] had planned, Plutarch says, to make the world Greek. What happened was that he turned Persian. Nothing is clearer than that he had lost whatever of Greek excellence he had had in him by nature or by education. [Aristotle tutored him.] Moderation, reasonableness, self-control, had gone.... The last glimpse of him the ancient historians give us shows no trace of the Greek, only the Eastern despot complete" (133-135).
Arrian, about Alexander: "I hold that no mighty deeds, not even conquering the whole world, is of any good unless the man has learned the mastery of himself" (136).
July 26, 2010
My review of The Greek Way is roughly what I would write as a review for The Echo of Greece, as the two books seem to be simply two volumes of the same work. In this book, she continues her interpretative essays on Greek authors and culture through the 4th century B.C., ending with Plutarch of the 2nd century A.D. Considering the period covered by these authors, Hamilton almost has to spend a fair portion of this book meditating on the decline of the Greek world, subjugated first to the Macedonians, then to the Romans.
Of course, no one who loves the Greeks as Hamilton loves the Greeks could see this decline in purely negative terms and under her lens it becomes an experience that shapes the Greek mind and soul into a more refined state, one which was in almost perfect sync with the spirit of the early Christian religion. I have to say, I was surprised to see how much emphasis Hamilton placed on Christianity and the echoes of Greek thought that appear in its early writings, but maybe that's exactly the point of the title. This was by no means clear at the beginning, but the Christian references, scattered at first, become more and more frequent until the very last chapter, which is an analysis of the "Greek" vs. the "Roman" outlook and their respective consequences for the faith. Christianity eventually chose the Roman way and this, according to Hamilton, is directly responsible for the atrocities committed in the name of Christianity over the course of the following 2,000 years. She presents an interesting case, if not a totally convincing one, but in any event her passion for her subject is as infectious as ever and I couldn't help but enjoy this book.
Of course, no one who loves the Greeks as Hamilton loves the Greeks could see this decline in purely negative terms and under her lens it becomes an experience that shapes the Greek mind and soul into a more refined state, one which was in almost perfect sync with the spirit of the early Christian religion. I have to say, I was surprised to see how much emphasis Hamilton placed on Christianity and the echoes of Greek thought that appear in its early writings, but maybe that's exactly the point of the title. This was by no means clear at the beginning, but the Christian references, scattered at first, become more and more frequent until the very last chapter, which is an analysis of the "Greek" vs. the "Roman" outlook and their respective consequences for the faith. Christianity eventually chose the Roman way and this, according to Hamilton, is directly responsible for the atrocities committed in the name of Christianity over the course of the following 2,000 years. She presents an interesting case, if not a totally convincing one, but in any event her passion for her subject is as infectious as ever and I couldn't help but enjoy this book.
August 7, 2019
A Very riveting overview of Ancient Greece--its culture and some of the Great Figures of Ancient History--Edith writes in a very captivating style--Outstanding Book---Eric Greitens Author of the Terrific Book "Resilience"--refers to Edith Hamilton's works in his book.
"The man who does not fear gods or men, who does not greedily covet boundless wealth,
who thinks every path that leads to righteousness is straight, stands on the firm ground of Truth,
and everywhere above him is a blue sky" Seneca
"The man who does not fear gods or men, who does not greedily covet boundless wealth,
who thinks every path that leads to righteousness is straight, stands on the firm ground of Truth,
and everywhere above him is a blue sky" Seneca
January 5, 2026
I found this book somewhat below par, partially because I had higher expectation from the author who introduced me to (and made me love) the Greek mythology in my early teenage years through her seminal work “Mythology.”
That said, Hamilton successfully depicts the “Greek spirit” that came into being in the 5th century BC and lived on through some prominent characters and schools of thought even long after Athens itself ceased to be an independent political entity, and its morality crumbled.
The author defines that “spirit” as an unwavering commitment to freedom, an active share in city’s politics (civic duties), and the self-restraint (sophrosune: “know thyself,” and “nothing in excess” as per Delphic sayings). Indeed, she acknowledges, “the idea that only the man who holds himself within self-chosen limits can be free is one of their greatest (Greeks’) legacies to us.” Naturally, this level of self-awareness, and limiting oneself through unwritten laws would require a high level of education.
She contrasts this set of values with what was prevalent elsewhere in the world (mainly “the East” of Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, and Persia) at the time where despotism, and “exaggeration” (rejection of limits of reality) were the norms.
Indeed, she notes, “fundamental to everything that Greeks achieved was their conviction that good for humanity was possible only if men were free, body, mind and spirit, and if each man limited his own freedom.” This, coupled with the belief that good men create good state made up the Greek attitude.
The author provides a “quick and dirty” (and to some extent, inevitably, superficial) tour of some of the most prominent characters that made and carried on that spirit, namely, Isocrates, Plato, Aristotle, Demosthenes, Alexander the Great, Menander, Zeno, Epictetus, Plutarch and though not Greek himself, Marcus Aurelius.
In particular, I enjoyed learning about the different schools of thoughts, varying approaches among the giants of the antiquity (especially between Plato and Aristotle, with the former being a more practical “philosopher” than he is generally taken to be, and the latter as more of a “scientist” in quest for ever more knowledge) and how they influenced each other (Plato becoming more interested in what can be –positive, versus what should be --normative, for example as proof to that), the ambitious and far-sighted vision of Isocrates, the rebellious Demosthenes, the corrupt and cruel ways of Alexander the Great (having conquered the east, he let Persian ways conquer him.)
In the closing chapter, Hamilton even advances an interesting (yet unlikely) thesis: “if the Church had chosen the Greek way (as opposed to the Roman way, based on authority, organization, and conformity), some of the most terrible pages in history might never have had to be written” –referring to the violence it perpetrated, and its “formalism,” that of considering the outside more important than inside). Wishful thinking methinks, as power corrupts all, if history serves as a lesson.
Throughout the reading, I surmised a few theses that the author tries to slip in a subtle way.
First, in an absurdly twisted way, Hamilton draws parallels between the Stoic school and Christianity – simply preposterous, as the former is based on an introspective, soul-searching and noble (perhaps even a bit naïve) philosophy, while the latter is a dogmatic religion (or even a cult, depending on your point of view) that seeks to expand its band of disciples. She goes even further. She writes, “Plutarch knew nothing about Christianity, although his spirit was naturally Christian, as was said of Socrates.” With a stroke of a pen, Hamilton impudently includes Plutarch and Socrates to the list of “Christians” –insinuating that there can be no other way to be a “good man” without being Christian also.
Second, Hamilton (presumably because she is a classics scholar imbued in anything Hellenic) is not impartial in her assessment of freedom as a concept that is foreign to any other populations except for Greeks. As per her writing, “the Assyrian artist produced what he pleased without a thought of fundamentals and universals. He swept limits aside in his portentous images. His imagination was free to wander where it would.” To me, then, freedom ran even wilder in the East, in certain (non-political) spheres at least.
“Nothing spoken or written is of any great value if the object is merely to be believed, not to be criticized and thus learn more.” (Plato)
“If a man genuinely wishes to learn, he sees in the course marked out of him a path of enchantment which he must strain every nerve to follow or die in the attempt. When this conviction has taken possession of him he never ceases to practice such habits as will make him an intelligent student able to reason soberly by himself.” (Plato)
“Every heroic death sends down an imperious challenge to the generations to come.” (Walter Scott)
That said, Hamilton successfully depicts the “Greek spirit” that came into being in the 5th century BC and lived on through some prominent characters and schools of thought even long after Athens itself ceased to be an independent political entity, and its morality crumbled.
The author defines that “spirit” as an unwavering commitment to freedom, an active share in city’s politics (civic duties), and the self-restraint (sophrosune: “know thyself,” and “nothing in excess” as per Delphic sayings). Indeed, she acknowledges, “the idea that only the man who holds himself within self-chosen limits can be free is one of their greatest (Greeks’) legacies to us.” Naturally, this level of self-awareness, and limiting oneself through unwritten laws would require a high level of education.
She contrasts this set of values with what was prevalent elsewhere in the world (mainly “the East” of Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, and Persia) at the time where despotism, and “exaggeration” (rejection of limits of reality) were the norms.
Indeed, she notes, “fundamental to everything that Greeks achieved was their conviction that good for humanity was possible only if men were free, body, mind and spirit, and if each man limited his own freedom.” This, coupled with the belief that good men create good state made up the Greek attitude.
The author provides a “quick and dirty” (and to some extent, inevitably, superficial) tour of some of the most prominent characters that made and carried on that spirit, namely, Isocrates, Plato, Aristotle, Demosthenes, Alexander the Great, Menander, Zeno, Epictetus, Plutarch and though not Greek himself, Marcus Aurelius.
In particular, I enjoyed learning about the different schools of thoughts, varying approaches among the giants of the antiquity (especially between Plato and Aristotle, with the former being a more practical “philosopher” than he is generally taken to be, and the latter as more of a “scientist” in quest for ever more knowledge) and how they influenced each other (Plato becoming more interested in what can be –positive, versus what should be --normative, for example as proof to that), the ambitious and far-sighted vision of Isocrates, the rebellious Demosthenes, the corrupt and cruel ways of Alexander the Great (having conquered the east, he let Persian ways conquer him.)
In the closing chapter, Hamilton even advances an interesting (yet unlikely) thesis: “if the Church had chosen the Greek way (as opposed to the Roman way, based on authority, organization, and conformity), some of the most terrible pages in history might never have had to be written” –referring to the violence it perpetrated, and its “formalism,” that of considering the outside more important than inside). Wishful thinking methinks, as power corrupts all, if history serves as a lesson.
Throughout the reading, I surmised a few theses that the author tries to slip in a subtle way.
First, in an absurdly twisted way, Hamilton draws parallels between the Stoic school and Christianity – simply preposterous, as the former is based on an introspective, soul-searching and noble (perhaps even a bit naïve) philosophy, while the latter is a dogmatic religion (or even a cult, depending on your point of view) that seeks to expand its band of disciples. She goes even further. She writes, “Plutarch knew nothing about Christianity, although his spirit was naturally Christian, as was said of Socrates.” With a stroke of a pen, Hamilton impudently includes Plutarch and Socrates to the list of “Christians” –insinuating that there can be no other way to be a “good man” without being Christian also.
Second, Hamilton (presumably because she is a classics scholar imbued in anything Hellenic) is not impartial in her assessment of freedom as a concept that is foreign to any other populations except for Greeks. As per her writing, “the Assyrian artist produced what he pleased without a thought of fundamentals and universals. He swept limits aside in his portentous images. His imagination was free to wander where it would.” To me, then, freedom ran even wilder in the East, in certain (non-political) spheres at least.
“Nothing spoken or written is of any great value if the object is merely to be believed, not to be criticized and thus learn more.” (Plato)
“If a man genuinely wishes to learn, he sees in the course marked out of him a path of enchantment which he must strain every nerve to follow or die in the attempt. When this conviction has taken possession of him he never ceases to practice such habits as will make him an intelligent student able to reason soberly by himself.” (Plato)
“Every heroic death sends down an imperious challenge to the generations to come.” (Walter Scott)
April 26, 2025
In the 5th century B.C. Greece defeated the Persians and were kings of the world. In the 4th century it all fell apart and Hamilton focuses on how this affected the whole Greek idea. Athens had become the de facto ruler of Greece and they increasingly turned tyrannical. The Athenians stopped prioritizing service to their fellow man and looked more and more towards getting rich and lazy and looking out for number one. Then, after 27 years fighting Sparta, they lost and never recovered.
Hamilton gives biographies of the leading men of the time and how defeat affected them. Plato and Isocrates founded competing schools of philosophy. Plato taught that men should pull back from political activity and concentrate on bettering themselves which should eventually lead to the development of a group of good men who could rule well. Isocrates taught that action was the answer and that only by example could the old Athens be brought back. Both were thwarted by Philip of Macedon. Demosthenes tried to stop him directly but failed.
After Philip and the Alexander defeated Athens they became resolved to their new state and Zeno founded the Stoic school. The Greeks became a client state, lost all their former drive, and faded into history. Plato and Isocrates' schools closed until only the Stoics remained, and they too faded away after the last great Stoic Marcus Aurelius died. The idea of Greece remained, but none of the substance.
As usual, Hamilton is well versed and easy to follow. She covers a period of Greek history that is often overshadowed by the exploits of Alexander the Great, and concisely describes how the glory of Athens was brought low by their own hubris.
Hamilton gives biographies of the leading men of the time and how defeat affected them. Plato and Isocrates founded competing schools of philosophy. Plato taught that men should pull back from political activity and concentrate on bettering themselves which should eventually lead to the development of a group of good men who could rule well. Isocrates taught that action was the answer and that only by example could the old Athens be brought back. Both were thwarted by Philip of Macedon. Demosthenes tried to stop him directly but failed.
After Philip and the Alexander defeated Athens they became resolved to their new state and Zeno founded the Stoic school. The Greeks became a client state, lost all their former drive, and faded into history. Plato and Isocrates' schools closed until only the Stoics remained, and they too faded away after the last great Stoic Marcus Aurelius died. The idea of Greece remained, but none of the substance.
As usual, Hamilton is well versed and easy to follow. She covers a period of Greek history that is often overshadowed by the exploits of Alexander the Great, and concisely describes how the glory of Athens was brought low by their own hubris.
July 30, 2016
About two years (2006) ago I read The Greek Way by Edith Hamilton, which was an exploration of the Greek mind as reflected in law, philosophy, art, and more. The book introduced me to the works of Pindar, and I generally remember the book favorably. While poking around in the classical literature shelves, I spotted another book by Hamilton, and upon seeing that it included a chapter on the Stoics I wanted to read it. The book concerns itself with the twilight of Greece civilization (prior to being absorbed into the Roman Empire): the fourth and fifth centuries B.C. She begins it:
Fourth century Athens is completely overshadowed by Athens of the fifth century, so much so that it is little considered. Any brief history of Greece will more likely than not end with Athens' defeat in the Peloponnesian war in 404 B.C.There will be references, perhaps, to Demosthenes and Philip of Macedon and Alexander the Great, all too important to be omitted, but no account of the time they lived in will be thought necessary. Real interest in Greece ceases with Sparta's victory over Athens. Plato and Aristotle live in a timeless word of philosophy without any local inhabitation, and are hardly thought of us Greeks but as intellectual forces. And yet, their century, the fourth century, has a special claim on our attention apart from the great men it produced, for it is the prelude to the end of Greece, not only of her glory, but of her life historically.
The book is divided into ten chapters. The first two chapters ("Freedom" and "Athens' Failure") concern themselves with events of the fifth century before the birth of Jesus. In "Freedom", Hamilton writes about the Athenian mind and its focus on individualism and moderation, contrasting it to the grandiose and authoritarian ideas of its neighbors. In "Athens' Failure", she addresses the consequences of the Persian and Peloponnesian wars, wherein the ideals and freedoms that Athens once stood for are betrayed by its new-found obsession with power.
In the next two chapters ("The Schools of Athens" and "The School Teachers") Hamilton writes on the intellectual life of Athens. It is in this chapter that the reader learns a bit about Greek philosophy, which is focused less on ethics and more on the substance of what is (epistemology) and politics. We are told about Plato's Academy and Isocrates' Lyceum, as well as another school. The next two chapters ("Demosthenes" and "Alexander the Great" are historical in nature and are a narrative of Macedonia's rise, the defense of Greece against the designs of Alexander, his triumph, and the waxing and collapse of his world-empire. Hamilton examines the way Greek philosophy (through Aristotle) shaped Alexander's mind, how his actions impacted the Greek and Athenian mindset, and how his actions transmitted Greek thought across a wider portion of the map. The next chapter, "Menander", uses the life of a playwright to observe how Greek culture is changing in response to the various political changes that Greece is going through.
The next chapter is on the Stoics, and I enjoyed it immensely. While Hamilton writes about many of of the known Stoics, the three she concentrates on are Zeno (the founder), Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius. Hamilton's narrative has Stoicism and the other new schools of thought being created because of Greece's newfound domination by Alexander (and later, Rome):
The people who listened to Zeno were afraid and very evil things kept happening to them. [...] the great majority were in a state of confusion and fear, thrown off their base by events never dreamed of before by any Athenian. Their city, the only place in the world where they could look to any well-being, which had been the freest city and the proudest, and suddenly been cast down helpless. [...] To the Athenians [Stoicism] was a message of hope to the despairing, of liberty to the conquered, of courage and self-reliance.
Hamilton writes at-length about the Stoics, often comparing it to Christianity. On page 166, she writes 'Stoic sayings again and again recall Christ's teachings. He too preached a hard doctrine and disregarded nonessentials". In the next chapter, "Plutarch", Hamilton looks at the historical books of Plutarch and at his way of looking at things to get an insight as to how the Greeks perceived their own history.
In the last chapter, "The Greek Way and the Roman Way", she compares the Greek/Athenian mind to the Roman mind: individualism and idealism compared to authoritarianism, a contemptuous attitude toward the public, and a penchant for brutalism. She then laments that the Catholic church choose the Roman way rather than the Greek way, and attributes some of the medieval failings of the Roman church to its adopting that viewpoint. In her view, it was the Greek way that was closest to the teachings of Christ.
"In all Athens' history, Socrates was the only man put to death for his opinions. His executioners killed him by giving him a poison that made him die with no pain. They were Greeks. The Romans hung Christ upon a cross."
All in all, I enjoyed the book immensely. She uses primary sources materials extensively, giving the reader the opportunity to sample quotations from plays, lectures, and so on. Hamilton is a gifted writer, I think. Some of her phrasings border on poetic, at least in my estimation. I do have two concerns:
Firstly, her narrative seems to be to be very romanticized. I like the classical Greeks and I will praise and defend them when appropriate. I do not, however, believe that the Greeks were as exquisite examples of humanity as they are painted here. While there is much to be admired about the classical Greeks (more than their contemporaries, fans like myself would argue), they were people and they were undoubtedly given to the same mistakes as everyone else.
Secondly, while this book is about Greece, it is Athens that features most prominently and I am concerned that the casual reader might be given the impression that the Athenian mind and the Greek mind were identical. They were not, and couldn't be. While there were undoubtedly shared cultural norms, Hamilton herself points out the extreme differences between Athens and the rest of the poleis in "Athens' Failure".
That said, I recommend the book to any who are interested in the subject at hand.
Fourth century Athens is completely overshadowed by Athens of the fifth century, so much so that it is little considered. Any brief history of Greece will more likely than not end with Athens' defeat in the Peloponnesian war in 404 B.C.There will be references, perhaps, to Demosthenes and Philip of Macedon and Alexander the Great, all too important to be omitted, but no account of the time they lived in will be thought necessary. Real interest in Greece ceases with Sparta's victory over Athens. Plato and Aristotle live in a timeless word of philosophy without any local inhabitation, and are hardly thought of us Greeks but as intellectual forces. And yet, their century, the fourth century, has a special claim on our attention apart from the great men it produced, for it is the prelude to the end of Greece, not only of her glory, but of her life historically.
The book is divided into ten chapters. The first two chapters ("Freedom" and "Athens' Failure") concern themselves with events of the fifth century before the birth of Jesus. In "Freedom", Hamilton writes about the Athenian mind and its focus on individualism and moderation, contrasting it to the grandiose and authoritarian ideas of its neighbors. In "Athens' Failure", she addresses the consequences of the Persian and Peloponnesian wars, wherein the ideals and freedoms that Athens once stood for are betrayed by its new-found obsession with power.
In the next two chapters ("The Schools of Athens" and "The School Teachers") Hamilton writes on the intellectual life of Athens. It is in this chapter that the reader learns a bit about Greek philosophy, which is focused less on ethics and more on the substance of what is (epistemology) and politics. We are told about Plato's Academy and Isocrates' Lyceum, as well as another school. The next two chapters ("Demosthenes" and "Alexander the Great" are historical in nature and are a narrative of Macedonia's rise, the defense of Greece against the designs of Alexander, his triumph, and the waxing and collapse of his world-empire. Hamilton examines the way Greek philosophy (through Aristotle) shaped Alexander's mind, how his actions impacted the Greek and Athenian mindset, and how his actions transmitted Greek thought across a wider portion of the map. The next chapter, "Menander", uses the life of a playwright to observe how Greek culture is changing in response to the various political changes that Greece is going through.
The next chapter is on the Stoics, and I enjoyed it immensely. While Hamilton writes about many of of the known Stoics, the three she concentrates on are Zeno (the founder), Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius. Hamilton's narrative has Stoicism and the other new schools of thought being created because of Greece's newfound domination by Alexander (and later, Rome):
The people who listened to Zeno were afraid and very evil things kept happening to them. [...] the great majority were in a state of confusion and fear, thrown off their base by events never dreamed of before by any Athenian. Their city, the only place in the world where they could look to any well-being, which had been the freest city and the proudest, and suddenly been cast down helpless. [...] To the Athenians [Stoicism] was a message of hope to the despairing, of liberty to the conquered, of courage and self-reliance.
Hamilton writes at-length about the Stoics, often comparing it to Christianity. On page 166, she writes 'Stoic sayings again and again recall Christ's teachings. He too preached a hard doctrine and disregarded nonessentials". In the next chapter, "Plutarch", Hamilton looks at the historical books of Plutarch and at his way of looking at things to get an insight as to how the Greeks perceived their own history.
In the last chapter, "The Greek Way and the Roman Way", she compares the Greek/Athenian mind to the Roman mind: individualism and idealism compared to authoritarianism, a contemptuous attitude toward the public, and a penchant for brutalism. She then laments that the Catholic church choose the Roman way rather than the Greek way, and attributes some of the medieval failings of the Roman church to its adopting that viewpoint. In her view, it was the Greek way that was closest to the teachings of Christ.
"In all Athens' history, Socrates was the only man put to death for his opinions. His executioners killed him by giving him a poison that made him die with no pain. They were Greeks. The Romans hung Christ upon a cross."
All in all, I enjoyed the book immensely. She uses primary sources materials extensively, giving the reader the opportunity to sample quotations from plays, lectures, and so on. Hamilton is a gifted writer, I think. Some of her phrasings border on poetic, at least in my estimation. I do have two concerns:
Firstly, her narrative seems to be to be very romanticized. I like the classical Greeks and I will praise and defend them when appropriate. I do not, however, believe that the Greeks were as exquisite examples of humanity as they are painted here. While there is much to be admired about the classical Greeks (more than their contemporaries, fans like myself would argue), they were people and they were undoubtedly given to the same mistakes as everyone else.
Secondly, while this book is about Greece, it is Athens that features most prominently and I am concerned that the casual reader might be given the impression that the Athenian mind and the Greek mind were identical. They were not, and couldn't be. While there were undoubtedly shared cultural norms, Hamilton herself points out the extreme differences between Athens and the rest of the poleis in "Athens' Failure".
That said, I recommend the book to any who are interested in the subject at hand.
July 11, 2023
Given that I rather haphazardly selected this audiobook, I was pleasantly surprised to find it a fantastic listen! Its like sitting by the fire with your very articulate and knowledgeable grandmother as she tells you stories about people from long ago. It essentially functions as several warmly told mini-biographies regarding the towering men of Greece: Socrates, Plato, Aristole, Demosthenes, Alexander the Great, Menander, Marcus Aurelius, and Plutarch. However, Edith isn't simply storytelling for storytelling's sake. Throughout the book she continuously shows how the Greek Way is compatible with Christianity and builds to a final chapter that dramatically displays how there was a distinct crossroads where The Church could've chosen the Greek Way or the Roman Way, and quite disappointingly, she chose the Roman Way.
I've certainly discovered an author I'd like to explore several more works from (especially The Greek Way and The Roman Way which seem to be companions to this book).
I've certainly discovered an author I'd like to explore several more works from (especially The Greek Way and The Roman Way which seem to be companions to this book).
March 21, 2021
I listened to the audiobook. Having not had much, if any, introduction to Greek history in school, I’ve enjoyed filling in the gaps. Edith Hamilton writes so clearly and eloquently that the book was easy to follow even while my mind was half focused on chores or a run.
I especially enjoyed her analysis of the Greek belief system. She didn’t simply recite what Socrates, Plato, or Plutarch believed but put their beliefs in the context of Greek society or in contrast to the Romans. I wish we could hear what lessons Edith would tell us to learn from the Greeks given the poor condition of American political philosophy.
This book made me want to dive deeper and read some of the Greek classics that I’ve never delved into. If someone wanted an introduction to Edith Hamilton’s writing, I’d recommend they read Mythology first.
I especially enjoyed her analysis of the Greek belief system. She didn’t simply recite what Socrates, Plato, or Plutarch believed but put their beliefs in the context of Greek society or in contrast to the Romans. I wish we could hear what lessons Edith would tell us to learn from the Greeks given the poor condition of American political philosophy.
This book made me want to dive deeper and read some of the Greek classics that I’ve never delved into. If someone wanted an introduction to Edith Hamilton’s writing, I’d recommend they read Mythology first.
March 27, 2020
This book is an interesting look at Greek philosophy and how its influence has persisted despite the fact that its culture was largely absorbed by Rome. Ms. Hamilton talks a lot about the similarities between Greek philosophy and Christianity, which sometimes rubbed me the wrong way, since she treats it merely as a religious and philosophical movement, and talks about Jesus as if he was just a 'good teacher'. There are definitely a lot of similarities, but I would say that this is because the Greeks were getting as close to the truth as they could with their own reasoning; they would have needed the revelation of Jesus and of God's word in order to make it the rest of the way. There are a lot of ideas and similarities worth thinking about, but I think that this book approaches them from the wrong direction. Still, a thought provoking read.
June 7, 2020
Edith Hamilton combines philosophy, history and anthropology in this look at the fall and continuing influence of Greece. Starting with Plato and taking us through Plutarch, she brings the period alive in this easy to read and still relevant commentary. The reader is able to see the influence of Greece on Rome to the modern day, as well as parallels between Greece and modern day institutions. There are cautions and elements of ancient Athens that are still relevant for those willing to observe them. A great classic read.
February 2, 2024
Edith Hamilton combines philosophy, history and anthropology in this look at the fall and continuing influence of Greece. Starting with Plato and taking us through Plutarch, she brings the period alive in this easy to read and still relevant commentary. The reader is able to see the influence of Greece on Rome to the modern day, as well as parallels between Greece and modern day institutions. There are cautions and elements of ancient Athens that are still relevant for those willing to observe them. A great classic read.
May 27, 2019
I feel like the people that gave this a high rating also loved "The Alchemist" and most of you know I feel about that book and the people who love that one. Okay maybe not that much dislike but most of it felt too generalized and just plain meh for me. Maybe I went through this one too fast and not at the right time. I'm sure someone will make me buddy read this in the future (hopefully far future) and I'll have a better opinion.
July 4, 2019
I have enjoyed this book immensely. Hamilton has an exceptionally readable quality to her work. I am sad the book is over. Her interlocking the bits of history into a portrait is done so well that you feel as though you understand the Greeks of 2,000 years ago like you understand a contemporary culture. I can’t wait to pick up another of her works sometime soon.
December 30, 2020
Edith Hamilton is my favorite historian of Ancient Greece and Rome. I have read all seven of her books and learned much from each. Each is brief but filled with unique insight that only a speaker of Greek and a women could provide. This book is one of her less well known works, on the decline of ancient Greece. As a lesson on how a state can fail when its people no longer are united in a common interest to preserve it, Echo of Greece is relevant today.
July 28, 2025
Interesting book but not really that thought provoking. I like how she explained the concept of Catholic guilt as fundamentally Roman in contrast to the Greek view. She also explores the Greek character, and how the Greeks expressed themselves through different roles of conquered and conqueror. Pretty good short read!
January 20, 2020
Much to ponder. Worth revisiting. Interested to explore more of Edith Hamilton's works, more of her thoughts on the Greek & Roman Way beyond the ending chapter. Much of who and what was talked about in this book, though the names were familiar, were new to me in specifics.
September 19, 2021
An interesting survey of Greek history and thought. I am skeptical about Hamilton's grand conclusions about the importance and impact of "the Greek way" and especially her what if Christianity had followed the Greek rather than the Roman way.
March 26, 2025
This was a good close to my high school career. A look at the splendor and degradation of ancient Athens and the great men who shaped her. A glimpse deeper into philosophy. A gentle reminder of the faults and tendencies of humankind.
March 24, 2017
concise overview of 5th and 4th century Greek figures, Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Stoics. Enjoyable, not ponderous survey level history. Was Book of the Month Club book in 1957.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 58 reviews