Ancient tradition assigns to Simonides an important role in the celebrations of the Greek victory against the Persians, but it is an elusive role due to the uncertain attributions of many of the epigrams included in the Simonidean corpus. Beyond the historical-literary question of which texts are definitively by Simonides, it is equally important to identify the stage in the tradition on the Persian Wars contemporary with or immediately following the events in which the elderly Simonides was active, i. e., in the mid-470s. Such an approach avoids using later authors to contextualize or interpret Simonidean verses, which thereby creates a misleading interpretive filter with regard to these verses. For example, the utilization of Herodotus in the exegesis and organization of the text of the fragments of Simonides’ elegy on the battle of Plataea published in 1992 (precious evidence for narrative elegy dedicated to contemporary historical events) has often obscured the differences between the two authors and, above all, between the stages of the tradition that they represent (Boedeker and Sider 2001; Asheri 2004).
In this context, the single citation of Simonides’ verses by Herodotus (7.228) merits attention. This is also the only appearance of an epigram on the Persian Wars (in particular on Thermopylae) whose Simonidean origin can be considered certain. Herodotus cites the verses in those chapters dedicated to the description of the best and worst in battle (7.226-233). This section consists of two parts and is rather pronounced: in the first part is found the praise of the fallen (226-228), while the second part is reserved for blame of those who survived or sought to survive (229-233). In the middle, in grand relief, Herodotus cites the epigrams, at least one of which was by Simonides, inscribed on pillars erected by the Amphictyons to
Translated by Kyle M. Hall.
Celebrate the military event (7.228; the best discussion is Molyneux 1992: 175-179; Simonidean authorship is not excluded for the other two as well). These epigrams reflect the great prestige of Sparta in the period immediately following 479 bce; however, they are part of a narration that as a whole also reflects differing points of view. The Histories, in this as in other cases, offers the possibility of seeing into the stratification and variation, in time as well as in space, of the traditions about the Persian Wars during the succeeding two generations. The non-homogeneous nature of the tradition is expressed and elaborated in Herodotus’ narrative art, something that has gained ever more attention in the last several years (for a recent synthesis see de Jong 2004, which contains further bibliography): Herodotus presents himself as orchestrating different traditions ( legomena), often taking a position on these either explicitly or implicitly, but also at times allowing aporias in the tradition to become aporias in the narrative.
The narrative dedicated to Thermopylae culminates in the events of the third and final day of battle, with the arrival of the so-called ‘‘Immortals’’ in the Greeks’ rear, after a long nighttime march led by Hydarnes and Ephialtes (7.219-225). One of the central themes of the story is the identity and the extent (who and how many were they?) of the Greeks who took part in the various stages of the battle. A progressive dispersion and reduction of the Greek forces leads to the final annihilation of the last hoplites on the hill ( kolonos) of the final resistance, on which the monument in honor of Leonidas was later erected (cf. 7.225.3). In particular, at the news of the surrounding of the Thermopylae pass by the Persians, Leonidas decides to discharge a large part of the allied forces (mainly the Peloponnesian allies who, according to a version refuted by Herodotus, would have instead removed themselves due to dissension: 219.2; 220.1-2; 221), keeping with himself only Spartans, Thespians (willingly), and Thebans (unwillingly) (222); these last surrender precisely when the Immortals break through in the rear (225.2; 233), abandoning the Lacedaemonians and Thespians to their deadly fate.
The arrival of the Immortals in Herodotus is the decisive element in the outcome of the battle. The battle of the final day has two clearly distinct phases: only in the second phase, which coincides with the breakthrough of the Immortals and the desperate surrender of the Thebans, do the surviving Lacedaemonians and Thespians fall back to the kolonos, where they are overwhelmed (225.2-3). The first phase, however, still sees the Greeks prevailing, the greatest warrior (aristos) being Leonidas himself. When the king dies in combat (224.1) an assortment of epic attributes illuminates the battle for his corpse (225.1). As in Herodotus’ entire narrative, so in death Leonidas is characterized by a kind of tragic isolation, an image of the centrality of Sparta in the events of Thermopylae (and possibly also a reflection of the attention given by Sparta to his personage around 440 bce: Paus. 3.14.1; see Connor 1979; Richer 1994: 74-75 n. 135).
The assignment of the prize as best (aristos) to Leonidas does not, however, exhaust the information relative to the aristeia (Pritchett 1974). Let us consider in detail the presentation of Herodotus (7.226-227). It is organized in the form of ring composition, in which a distinction is made between what is told by the primary narrator and what is told by others. The introductory words, expressed as a genitive absolute (‘‘the Lacedaemonians and the Thespians having proven themselves such men’’), follow directly on from the narrative just concluded: they confirm that it was the Lacedaemonians and Thespians who offered the final heroic resistance to the Persian advance at Thermopylae (226.1). The alignment without distinction of these two contingents does not find complete confirmation in the information that follows, however, in which space is given predominantly to the Spartans. An imbalance between the valor exhibited in battle and the subsequent recognition given (aristos, aristeusai) is suggested in two ways: first, the indication of the aristoi is introduced by ‘‘yet’’ (homos), which makes the genitive absolute concessive; second, it is referred to as a judgment by others (legetai, ‘‘it is said,’’ a voice distinct from the principal narrator): ‘‘yet Dieneces, a Spartan, is said to have been the bravest man.’’ (At 9.71.1, by contrast, Herodotus himself underlines the superiority of the Spartans at Plataea, notwithstanding the valor displayed by the Tegeans and the Athenians.) Dieneces’ boldness is then illustrated with a witticism: when a Trachinean, referring to the enormous number of the enemy, states that their arrows will obscure the sun, Dieneces ‘‘laconically’’ replies that this will afford the advantage of fighting in the shade. This and other statements are attributed by Herodotus to a third narrative voice, identified by ‘‘they say’’ (phasi, 226.1-2): ‘‘they say that he made the following remark, before they engaged with the Medes... they say that Dieneces, the Lacedaemonian, left as memorials this and other sayings of the same kind.’’ The dialogue between Dieneces and the Trachinean also signals a change in the narrative rhythm which, while interrupting the ranking of the aristoi, draws a vivid picture of Spartan heroics. Immediately following, however, is a continuation of the listing of the greatest (227): ‘‘Next to him, two Lacedaemonian brothers, Alpheus and Maron, sons of Orsiphantus, are said (legontai) to have distinguished themselves most.’’ With the indication of the second ranking, the narrative thread interrupted by the lively dialogue between Dieneces and the Trachinean resumes, both lexically and grammatically. That is to say that it returns to the domain of distinction identified by the vocabulary of the aristeia (aristos, aristeusai) and attributed to generic legetai/legontai: a different narrative voice both from what we could call phasi (to which the small scene with Dieneces at its center belongs: probably a Spartan oral tradition) and from that of the primary narrator. At this point, however, the word returns, in the third person, to the primary narrator, who solemnly points out the name of a Thespian (227): ‘‘Of the Thespians, the one who obtained the greatest glory (eudokimee) was Dithyrambus, son of Harmatidas.’’
The following schematic provides the ring structure of the narration and the various narrative levels (line numbers refer to Hude’s text):
A (226.17) Though the Lacedaemonians and Thespians behaved in this man
Ner, yet (primary narrator)
B (226.18) Dieneces, a Spartan, is said to have been the bravest man (first secondary narrator)
C (226.19 ff.) they relate that he made the following remark, before they engaged
With the Medes... this and other sayings of the same kind they relate
That Dieneces, the Lacedaemonian, left as memorials (second secondary narrator)
B1 (227.2-4) Next to him, two Lacedaemonian brothers, Alpheus and Maron,
Sons of Orsiphantus, are said (legontai) to have distinguished themselves most (first secondary narrator)
A1 (227.4-5) Of the Thespians, the one who obtained the greatest glory was
Dithyrambus, son of Harmatidas (primary narrator).
Listing the best in battle, Herodotus therefore allows a gap to emerge between the content of his story (that tends to recognize equal valor on the parts of the Lacedaemonians and the Thespians) and the catalogue of the aristoi.
He does this by signaling the inconsistency either with the initial homos or by developing multiple levels of narrative: the mention of the best Spartans on the field is attributed to a voice different from that of the primary narrator, who intervenes at the end to seal the list with the mention of a Thespian. Moreover, there is an evident quantitative disproportion between the space given to the Spartans (12.5 lines in the Oxford edition) and the Thespians (2.5 lines); the final citation of the Thespian, however, is highly prominent, as it also refers back to the more impartial introductory assessment (combining without distinction the Lacedaemonians and Thespians). The judgment of Herodotus is not explicit, but all seems to be arranged so that the reader perceives a certain discord.
The sparse recognition of Thespian merits in Herodotus is not an isolated fact. Thespiae emerged from the Persian Wars gravely weak: her entire contingent of hoplites at Thermopylae was annihilated (7.225), the city was burned by the Persians (8.50.2), in the battle of Plataea the Thespians could muster only 1,800 lightly armed men (9.30: a contribution pointed out in this case too by Herodotus), and after Mardonius’ defeat, they had to rebuild their citizenry (cf. 8.75.1; Schachter 1996). The insistence with which Herodotus reinforces the different position of the Thespians (and Plataeans) from that of all the other Boeotians (cf., e. g., 7.132.2; 8.66.2) gives reason to believe that not all conducted themselves in this way. The Thespians, although present among the cities inscribed on the Serpent Column at Delphi, do not appear in the inscription on the base of the statue of Zeus dedicated at Olympia by the Greeks who were victorious over Xerxes and Mardonius (at least as reported by Paus. 5.23.2, recording only the Plataeans from Boeotia). This might be aligned with a string of traditions that obscure the Thespian presence in the Persian Wars. Thucydides (3.54.3) has the Plateaeans say to the Spartans in summer 427 that they ‘‘were the only Boeotians during the Persian Wars to fight together with the Lacedaemonians for the liberty of Greece.’’ Similarly, in the Against Neaira (59, 95), it is maintained that the Plataeans were the only Boeotians present at Thermopylae. The insistence by Herodotus in giving evidence of the Thespian contribution at Thermopylae must, therefore, be considered in light of the different traditions and tendencies that he redresses in accord with his principle that he ‘‘will go through great and small cities of men alike’’ (1.5.3).
Following immediately on the presentation of the aristeia (226-227) are the celebratory epigrams inscribed by the Amphictyons for the fallen (228):
For these, who were buried where they fell, and for those who died before the departure of those who were sent away by Leonidas, these lines have been inscribed:
‘‘Once four thousand from Peloponnese fought here against three million.’’
That is the inscription for the army as a whole, but for the Spartans separately there is: ‘‘Stranger, tell the Spartans that we lie here, obedient to their commands.’’
That is for the Spartans; but for the seer there is the following:
‘‘This is the memorial of famed Megistias, whom once the Medes killed after crossing the river Spercheius; a seer who, though he was then aware of the approaching Fates, could not bring himself to desert Sparta’s leaders.’’
The Amphictyons are the ones who honoured them with inscriptions and gravestones, except for the inscription for the seer. Simonides is the one who had the inscription for the seer Megistias engraved for friendship’s sake.
In this case as well, the exposition is articulated on various levels: (1) the primary narrator introduces and comments on (2) what the epigrams ‘‘say.’’ In effect, the second and third epigrams are strictly congruent with the preceding narrative (the second presents the fallen Spartans as perfect incarnations of Spartan ideology; that concerning Megistias aids Herodotus’ argumentation, 7.221). The first, however, presents a series of problems, which Page (FGE 233; see also West 1985: 287-289) effectively states: ‘‘The inscription explicitly says that the men commemorated are those ‘from the Peloponnese.’ We are asked to believe that the Amphictyones approved, as a memorial designed to include the heroic Thespians, whose entire fighting-force was destroyed in the battle, an epigram which does not even mention them.’’ Furthermore, the number of 4,000 soldiers coming from the Peloponnese indicated in the epigram does not coincide with the previous information given by Herodotus (at 7.202 the total Peloponnesian contingent is 3,100). Finally, the couplet is introduced by Herodotus as an epitaph for the fallen, while at least literally it commemorates the Peloponnesians who fought at Thermopylae (Wade-Gery 1933:72).
Are these discrepancies between the first epigram and the narration that precedes it merely a product of insufficient attention on Herodotus’ part? A careful look shows that they do not unexpectedly emerge, but are prepared for by the earlier presentation of the aristeia. In fact, the epigrams offer a further example of that discrimination against the Thespians, to the advantage of the Spartans, in the battle celebrations that Herodotus just indicated a few lines before concerning the aristeia. (Str. 9.4.2, which mentions five stelae, almost certainly reflects a later arrangement.)
We come now to the numbers and their discrepancies. The 4,000 ‘‘from Pelopon-nese’’ mentioned in the epigram do not correspond to the preceding information furnished by Herodotus. (Even if Herodotus 8.25.2 intends the number of 4,000 to pertain to the whole of the fallen, which lessens the incongruence, it also opens a further set of problems: see below.) Modern scholars, in the wake of Diodorus (probably from Ephorus: 1,000 Lacedaemonians join themselves to the 300 Spartans), tend to settle the difference in various ways (cf., e. g., Lazenby 1993: 134-135; Flower 1998: 367-368). The common denominator in the various proposals is the idea that the ‘‘Simonidean’’ epigram and Herodotus must present the same picture, and that therefore the first can be used to correct the second. But correcting one author in light of another is methodologically questionable: here, as elsewhere, the differences do not cancel out. Herodotus ‘‘knows well that even ‘documents’ can be the result of choices, orientations, political tendencies...in and of themselves, they were not more authoritative than the traditions’’ (Corcella 2003: 145). As such, what the epigrams made by the Amphictyons ‘‘say’’ about Thermopylae are legomena next to other legomena, including, for example, the oral traditions of the participant cities.
It must be asked, therefore, if Herodotus does not simply intend to juxtapose various traditions, leaving to the ‘‘reader’’ (notoriously more active in antiquity than his modern colleague) the job of noting the differences. The delicate nature of the subject (the centrality of the myth of Thermopylae for Sparta, as well as the role of Delphi) would have required great care - or, if one prefers, a certain obliqueness.
That this was a problem for Herodotus can be seen in the episode that resumes and concludes the story of Thermopylae (8.24-25: significantly indicated as ‘‘matters concerning the corpses,’’ ta peri tous nekrous), the visit to the battlefield by the members of the Persian fleet (among whom were most likely a large number of Greeks) who had fought in the contemporaneous battle of Artemisium. The Great King planned a perfunctory burial for a large part of the fallen Persians, leaving on the field only 1,000 of the 20,000 bodies. Herodotus presents the scene in this way (8.25.1-2):
Everyone [sc. in the Persian fleet] was convinced that all (panta: so Hude) the enemy corpses lying there were Lacedaemonians and Thespians, but in fact they were also seeing helots. None of the men who had come over from Euboea were taken in by Xerxes’ ridiculous ploy with the bodies of his men. There were a thousand corpses from their army lying in plain view, while all the enemy corpses, four thousand of them, were lying piled in a heap in a single spot.
The narrative is rich in implications. In commenting on Xerxes’ manipulation of those who fell in battle, Herodotus again presents (with spiteful speculation?) the problems that have already surfaced relative to the fallen Greeks. The sailors of the Persian fleet who wander over the field of battle are convinced that all the fallen Greeks are Lacedaemonians and Thespians. This, as we have seen, corresponds to the content of the Herodotean narrative of the battle (7.219-225), but not to that of the celebrations - the aristeia and ‘‘Simonidean’’ epigrams - dominated by Sparta (226-228). Here too Herodotus obliquely recalls this contrast. The fact that the fallen are all Lacedaemonians and Thespians is presented as the authoritative point of view of the adversaries from the opposing side in battle. The narrator intervenes in order to correct this thought, but with the somewhat surprising comment that in the pile there were also helots (whose deaths were incidentally made evident in the above-cited passage on the aristeia, 7.229). Is one possibly dealing with a polemical notice against the Spartan tradition that completely focused on Leonidas and his 300? (See Hunt 1998: 31-39.) Herodotus does not speak, however, of the fallen of other origins (for example, from the Peloponnese). When he indicates the number of total fallen Greeks at Thermopylae, however, in contrast to that forged for the Persians, he offers a total of 4,000, that is to say, those previously indicated as the Greek hoplites joined at Thermopylae only by those from the Peloponnese in the first celebratory epigram made by the Amphictyons. In this way two distinct set of data on the fallen are linked yet focalized differently: on the one hand, the statement about the exclusive presence of Lacedaemonians and Thespians among the fallen is offered as an authoritative point of view of the Persian marines (correct, but in a singular and possibly polemic way from the narrator); on the other hand, the number of fallen (4,000) continues the number offered from Herodotus 7.228 by an on-site inscription, which indicates the number of Peloponnesians present at Thermopylae (but Herodotus himself, ibid., refers to that number as the total number of fallen). This divergence, then, here as in 7.228, reflects a fundamental problem: the total or partial eclipse, in the celebrations of the battle, of the contingents that were not Spartan; or to be more precise, the Spartanocentric character of the celebrations as reflected in epigrams fixed in stone at a time quite different from when Herodotus wrote. The perplexity of those who see a problem signaled by this remains, but a solution is not apparent. Perhaps, however, this was precisely Herodotus’ objective.
World History
