SavedAdd your journal

Journals / PROPONTICA / 2026 / Cilt: 4 Sayı: 8

Proskynēsis in the Persian World: Its Perception in Greek Thought

Pers Dünyasında Proskynēsis’in Yunan Düşüncesindeki Algısı

Gündüz Ünlü0009-0000-7808-1056
Journal
PROPONTICA
Pages
255–284
Publication Date
2026-10-01
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In this context, the article argues that proskynēsis was constructed in Greek thought as a bodily practice identified with despotism, and that the rejection of this practice became not merely an anti-Persian stance, but a fundamental indicator of the free Greek citizen identity shaped around the concept of eleutheria.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This article aims to examine the perception of proskynēsis, an act of respect performed in the presence of the Persian Great King, in the Greek world, and the political and ideological dimensions of this perception.
📊
Key Findings & Data:While the scope and bodily content of proskynēsis are debated in ancient sources, and its etymological origin means “to kiss,” in the accounts of many ancient writers, most notably Herodotus, proskynēsis appears as a bodily practice expressing hierarchical allegiance and political obedience.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In this context, the article argues that proskynēsis was constructed in Greek thought as a bodily practice identified with despotism, and that the rejection of this practice became not merely an anti-Persian stance, but a fundamental indicator of the free Greek citizen identity shaped around the concept of eleutheria.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:proskynesis · eleutheria · hybris

Abstract

This article aims to examine the perception of proskynēsis, an act of respect performed in the presence of the Persian Great King, in the Greek world, and the political and ideological dimensions of this perception. While the scope and bodily content of proskynēsis are debated in ancient sources, and its etymological origin means “to kiss,” in the accounts of many ancient writers, most notably Herodotus, proskynēsis appears as a bodily practice expressing hierarchical allegiance and political obedience. The study addresses the contrast between the function of proskynēsis in Persian court protocol and its meaning in Greek discourse; it also discusses why this gesture was considered a legitimate act by the Greeks, directed only towards the gods. In this context, the article argues that proskynēsis was constructed in Greek thought as a bodily practice identified with despotism, and that the rejection of this practice became not merely an anti-Persian stance, but a fundamental indicator of the free Greek citizen identity shaped around the concept of eleutheria.

Özet

Bu makale, Pers Büyük Kralı’nın huzurunda icra edilen bir saygı edimi olarak proskynēsis uygulamasının, Yunan dünyasındaki algısını ve bu algının siyasal ve ideolojik boyutlarını incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Antik kaynaklarda kapsamı ve bedensel içeriği tartışmalı olan proskynēsis, etimolojik kökeni itibarıyla “öpmek” anlamını taşısa da, Heredotos başta olmak üzere birçok antik yazarın aktarımlarında proskynēsis, hiyerarşik bağlılığı ve siyasal anlamda itaati ifade eden bir beden pratiği olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Çalışmada, proskynēsis’in Pers saray protokolündeki işlevi ile Yunan söylemindeki anlamı arasındaki karşıtlık ele alınmakta; ayrıca bu jestin Yunanlar tarafından neden yalnızca tanrılara yöneltilebilecek meşru bir eylem olarak görüldüğü tartışılmaktadır. Bu bağlamda makale, proskynēsis’in Yunan düşüncesinde despotizmle özdeşleştirilmiş bir beden pratiği olarak kurgulandığını ve söz konusu pratiğin reddinin, Pers karşıtı bir tutumun ötesinde, eleutheria kavramı etrafında şekillenen özgür Yunanlı yurttaş kimliğinin temel bir göstergesi hâline geldiğini ileri sürmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Ünlü, G. (2026). Proskynēsis in the Persian World: Its Perception in Greek Thought. PROPONTICA, Cilt: 4 Sayı: 8, 255–284. https://doi.org/10.56170/propontica.1958216

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (47)

  1. Abe 2018, Abe, T., “Proskynēsis: From a Persian Court Protocol to a Greek Religious Practice”, Tekmeria, 14, 1-45.
  2. Aubriot-Sévin 1992, Aubriot-Sévin, D., Prière et conceptions religieuses en Grèce ancienne jusqu’à la fin du Ve siècle av. J.-C. (Collection de la Maison de l’Orient méditerranéen ancien 22, série littéraire et philosophique 5), Lyon, 125-145.
  3. Ausfeld 1903, Ausfeld, C., “De Graecorum precationibus quaestiones”, Jahrbücher für classische Philologie, Suppl. Bd 28, Leipzig, 505-47.
  4. Bacon 1928, Bacon, J.R., “Three Notes on Aeschylus, Prometheus Vinctus”, CR, 42, 4, 115-120. Bakewell 2013,
  5. Bakewell, G.W., Aeschylus’s Suppliant Women: The Tragedy of Immigration, Madison.
  6. Baulina 2021, Baulina, K., “Interpretation of the Palace Ceremony Proskynesis, As a Sacral Element in the Court of Achaemenid Empire”, Dieux, rois et capitales dans le Proche-Orient ancien: Compte rendu de la LXVe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale Paris, (eds. B. Lion – C. Michel), Leuven, 1167-1183.
  7. Bevan 2015, Bevan, S., “Proskynesis in the Synoptics: A Textual Analysis of προσκυνέω and Jesus”, Studia Antiqua, 14, 1, 30-43.
  8. Boardman 2000, Boardman, J., Persia and the West: An Archaeological Investigation of Genesis of Achaemenid Art, London.
  9. Briant 2002, Briant, P., From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire, Winona Lake, Indiana.
  10. Carpenter 2007, Carpenter, T.H., “Greek Religion and Art”, A Companion to Greek Religion, (ed. D. Ogden), Blackwell Publishing, 388-420.
  11. Chantraine 1999, Chantraine, P., Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque: Histoire des mots, Paris.
  12. Choksy 1990a, Choksy, J.K., “The Raised Hand”, Iranica Varia. Papers in Honor of Professor Ehsan Yarshater (Acta Iranica 30), Leiden, 30-37.
  13. Choksy 1990b, Choksy, J.K., “Gesture in Ancient Iran and Central Asia II: Proskynesis and the Bent Forefinger”, Bulletin of the Asia Institute n.s. 4, 201-207.
  14. Clark 2009, Clark, C.A., “To Kneel or Not to Kneel: Gendered Nonverbal Behavior in Greek Ritual”, Women, Gender, and Religion (Journal of Religion & Society Supplement 5), (eds. S. Calef – R.A. Simkins), 6-20.
  15. Colburn 2014, Colburn, H.P., “Art of the Achaemenid Empire, and Art in the Achaemenid Empire”, Critical Approaches to Ancient Near Eastern Art, (eds. B.A. Brown – M.H. Feldman), Berlin - Boston, 773-800.
  16. Couch 1931, Couch, H.N., “Proskynesis and Abasement in Aeschylus”, CP, 26, 4, 316-318.
  17. Delshad – Doroodi 2019, Delshad, S. – Doroodi, M., “DNf: A New Inscription Emerges from the Shadow”, ARTA 2019.001 (Achemenet, Mars 2019), 1-18.
  18. Dodds 1951, Dodds, E.R., The Greeks and the Irrational, Berkeley - Los Angeles - London.
  19. Duridanov 2007, Duridanov, I., “Linguistische Angaben über die Namen der Flüsse Axios, Strymon, Nestos”, The Struma/Stymon River Valley in Prehistory. Proceedings of International Symposium “Strymon Praehistoricus”, (eds. H. Todorova – M. Stefanovich – G. Ivanov), Sofia, 273-277.
  20. Foucart 1883, Foucart, P.-F., “Bas-relief du Pirée le culte Zeus Milicihos”, BCH, 7, 507-514.
  21. Frye 1972, Frye, R.N., “Gestures of Deference to Royalty in Ancient Iran”, IrAnt 9, 102-107.
  22. Garrison 2011, Garrison, M.B., “By the Favor of Auramazdā: Kingship and the Divine in the Early Akhaemenid Period”, More than Man Less than Gods: Studies on Royal Cult and Imperial Worship, (eds. P. P. Iossif – A. S. Chankowski – C. C. Lorber) (= Studia Hellenistica 51), Leuven, 15-104.
  23. Garrison 2017, Garrison, M.B., The Ritual Landscape at Persepolis: Glyptic Imagery from the Persepolis Fortification Treasury Archives (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 72), Chicago.
  24. Hall 1989, Hall, E., Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self-Definition through Tragedy, 56-97.
  25. Harrison 1908, Harrison, J.E., Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion, 2nd ed., Cambridge.
  26. Kaya 2002, Kaya, M.A., “Themistokles”, Tarih İncelemeleri Dergisi, XVII, 2, 85-92.
  27. Lecoq 1997, Lecoq, P., Les inscriptions de la Perse achéménide: traduit du vieux perse, de l’élamite, du babylonien et de l’araméen, présenté et annotées par, Paris.
  28. Llewellyn-Jones 2013, Llewellyn-Jones, L., King and Court in Ancient Persia 559 to 331 BCE, Edinburgh.
  29. Llewellyn-Jones 2017, Llewellyn-Jones, L., “Persianisms: The Achaemenid Court in Greek Art, 380-330 BCE”, Iranian Studies, 50, 6, 765-786.
  30. Matarese 2013, Matarese, C., “Proskynēsis and the Gesture of the Kiss at Alexander’s Court: The Creation of a New Élite”, Palamedes 8, 75-85.
  31. Muntz 2011, Muntz, C., “The Invocation of Darius in Aeschylus Persae”, CJ, 106, 3, 257-271.
  32. O’Sullivan 2020, O’Sullivan, L., “Reinventing proskynesis: Callisthenes and the Peripatetic School”, Historia, 69, 3, 260-282.
  33. Ober 1998, Ober, J., Political Dissent in Democratic Athens: Intellectual Critics of Popular Rule (Martin Classical Lectures), Princeton - Oxford.
  34. Qarche 2015, Qarche, K., Persepolitan Visual Imagery and Design; Symmetrical and Mirror Reflection Principles of Persepolis Reliefs. Case Study: Northern and Eastern Stairways of the Apadana Site and Northern and Southern Door Gates of the Hundred-Column Site, (Research Master’s Thesis), VU University Amsterdam Faculty of Arts, Ancient and Classic Studies, Amsterdam.
  35. Root 1979, Root, M.C., The King and Kingship in Achaemenid Art: Essays on the Creation of an Iconography of Empire (Acta Iranica 19), Leiden.
  36. Rose 1921, Rose, H.J., “Zeus Meilichios, Zeus, Zeus Agamemnon and Zanes”, CR, 35, 7/8, 147-149.
  37. Rosenbloom 2023, Rosenbloom, D., “Aeschylus’s Athens between Hegemony and Empire”, A Companion to Aeschylus, (eds. P. Burian – J. Bromberg), Hoboken, NJ, 373-388.
  38. Rung 2020, Rung, E.V., “The Gestures of Proskynēsis in the Achaemenid Empire”, Klio, 102, 2, 405-444.
  39. Schmidt 1957, Schmidt, E., Persepolis II: Contents of the Treasury and Other Discoveries, Chicago.
  40. Schmidt 1970, Schmidt, E., Persepolis III: The Royal Tombs and Other Monuments, Chicago.
  41. Söğüt 2025, Söğüt, A., Karia Bölgesi Anıt Mezar Mimarisi ve Tipolojisi (MÖ 6.yy - MS 4.yy), (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi), Muğla Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Muğla.
  42. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Antikensammlung. Die griechischen Bronzen, Berlin 1988, kat.no. SK 2.
  43. Thein 2020, Thein, K., “The Heavenly Sphere (Chapter 2 391b9-392a31)”, Pseudo Aristotle: De Mundo (on the Cosmos): A Commentary, (eds. P. Gregorić – G. Karamanolis), Cambridge, 33-61.
  44. Ünlü 2025, Ünlü, G., Karşılaştırmalı Yunan-Pers Sanatı, (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi), Anadolu Üniversitesi Lisansüstü Eğitim Enstitüsü, Eskişehir.
  45. van Straten 1981, van Straten, F. T., “Gifts for the Gods”, Faith, Hope and Worship: Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World, (ed. H.S. Versnel) (= Studies in Greek and Roman Religion 2), Leiden, 65-151.
  46. Widengren 1959, Widengren, G., “The Sacral Kingship of Iran”, The Sacral Kingship: Contributions to the Central Theme of the VIIIth International Congress for the History of Religions (Rome, April 1955), (ed. C.M. Edsman), Leiden, 242-257.
  47. Wiesehöfer 2001, Wiesehöfer, J., Ancient Persia from 555 BC to 650 AD (trans. A. Azodi), London - New York.