Parallel session 5, panel 2: Memory, History and Historiography

(Friday 22^nd June, 11.30-1pm)

Forgetfulness as a narrative device in Herodotus' Histories
Carlos Hernandez (University of Oslo)

Forgetfulness is strikingly visible in the Histories. There is a variety of reasons for Herodotus to cast a piece of information into oblivion: the historian adduces distaste for the topic (2.46.2), lack of relevance or interest (2.102.1, 3.95.2), religious qualms (2.171.1, 2.171.2), common knowledge (3.103.1), avoidance of exaggeration (4.36.1), and political caution (4.43.7). Can this recurrent trait of the Histories be brushed aside as an unintentional feature or did this apparently nonchalant form of forgetfulness serve a narrative purpose?

At the level of the composition, Herodotus states he will not mention (οὐ παραμέμνημαι – 7.99.1) the Persian commanders in the run-up to the fight at Salamis, except for Artemisia. By dropping the names of the other protagonists he enhances beforehand the prowess she will show in the battle and the high regard in which she will be held by Xerxes. At the level of the plot, the capacity to wield forgetfulness knowledgeably is the trademark of sound analysis in political matters: Aristides appropriately proposes to Themistocles that they ‘put aside’ their differences while the Persian threat looms over Greece (ὑπὸ δὲ μεγάθεος τῶν παρεόντων κακῶν λήθην ἐκείνων ποιεύμενος ἐξεκαλέετο – 8.79.2). Conversely, unwitting forgetfulness foreshadows ruin: Astyages’ blindness (θεοβλαβής) leads to an ill-fated ‘slip’ on his part as he appoints Harpagus as commander-in-chief of his army, the man whose son he had killed and served as dinner (λήθην ποιεύμενος τά μιν ἐόργεε – 1.127.1).

Moreover, Herodotus’ employment of λανθάνω intimates the relation between ‘escaping notice’ and ‘forgetfulness’, which translates into a playful use of the term. Thus, Croesus lets himself be convinced that the meaning of the prophetic dream has escaped him (1.39.1), and so he consents to let his son go on a hunt where he will meet his death. Likewise, Cambyses refuses to believe that it would ‘escape’ him if the calf the Egyptian priests show him were truly the god Apis (3.28.1), and so he kills it, only to perish similarly later on (3.64.3).

In my presentation I would like to explore the role of forgetfulness as a narrative device in Herodotus’ Histories.

Constructing and losing memories: the case of the Marathon runner
Valeria Melis (University of Cagliari)

Plutarchus (de glor. Ath. 3.347c) tells us that, according to Heraclides Ponticus, the name of the

hoplite who died after running to announce the Greeks’ victory over the Persians following the battle of Marathon (490 BCE) was Thersippus Eroeus, commonly known as Eukles; Lucianus (Laps. 3) maintains that he was a hemerodromos (‘courier’) whose name was Philippides. Despite his chronological closeness to the facts, Herodotus (6.105.1) does not mention this episode, but instead says that the Athenians sent a hemerodromos to Sparta to claim help before the battle of Marathon and that his name was Pheidippides (according to manuscript A) or Philippides (according to D)¹.

After trying to solve the problem of the correct form of the name of the hemerodromos decribed by Herodotus by making a comparison with extant sources², my first aim is to clarify the lost identity of the Marathon runner who announced the Greek victory over the Persians. My second aim is to show that the episode of the hoplite who dies after running many miles to announce victory could be a memory of a real fact that was deformed by mythicizing processes. Parallel examples can be found in the accounts of the extraordinary deaths and injuries of Kynegiros, Kallimachos and Polyzelos/Epizelos (Hdt. 6.114; Plut. Parall. gr. et rom. 305c). Myths describing heroes who died after athletic performances, such as Kleobis and Biton (Hdt. 1.31), could have been the model for the afore-mentioned episodes, which aimed to strengthen Greek identity after the glorious victory over the Persians.

¹ A = Laurentianus LXX3 (X CE); D = Vaticanus gr. 2369 (XI-XII CE).

² Filippides = Plin. Nat. hist. 7.84, Plut. de Herod. malign. 862a, Paus. Perieg.1.28.4 and 8.54.6, Poll. Onom. 3.148, Clem. Al. Protr. 3.44.3, Solin. Coll. rer. mem. 1.98; Feidippides = Aristoph. Nub. 63-67, Corn. Nep. Milit. 4.3.

Struggling for Commemoration: Epigraphic Interventions in Thucydidesʼ History
Benjamin Allgaier (Heidelberg University)

Inscribed objects are a key element of Greek commemorative culture. Arguably one of the most prominent examples is the tripod which was dedicated to Apollo at Delphi after the Greeks’ victory in the Persian Wars. The column on which the tripod rested is still extant (ML 27), and the inscription it bears is an important source for the reconstruction of the history of the Persian Wars.

In my paper, I would like to approach the famous Delphic tripod in an indirect way, namely through the lens of Thucydides’ History. My focus is thus on one of the earliest instances of the reception of this famous memorial in a literary text. What makes Thucydides’ treatment of the tripod (1.132) particularly interesting is the fact that it is an account of the obliteration of one inscription and its replacement with another: a boastful epigram extolling the achievements of the Spartan regent Pausanias has to make way for a list of all the poleis which contributed to the Greek victory.

I submit that Thucydides’ account of the changing inscriptions is not simply a story of how the truth about the past eventually carries the day. Rather, our attention is drawn to the fact that various parties avail themselves of an inscription in their attempts to shape the way in which future generations will remember a momentous event in Greek history. By narrating the dynamics of the struggle for epigraphic representation, Thucydides’ text thus offers a valuable complement to the impression of conclusiveness which the (partially) extant monument might evoke. But the episode is not only noteworthy for what it tells us about a specific aspect of the commemoration of the Persian Wars. It also throws a light on Thucydides’ project of ensuring the future memory of certain events by means of his monumental prose text. While Thucydides sometimes draws on epigraphically preserved information to support his claims, the account of the changing inscriptions on the votive offering to Apollo may serve to underline the superior authority of his own reconstruction of the past.