Newsgroups: soc.culture.greek,sci.archaeology,alt.mythology
Subject: Re: Marathon Runner's Name
From: <PXP111@psuvm.psu.edu>   Andronikos Romanos
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 15:11:55 EST
Organization: Penn State University


(even number of ">" indicate my text and the rest A.T.Fear's)

A.T. Fear (cla04@seq1.keele.ac.uk) writes in Message <Bx5MDD.Ixz@
gabriel.keele.ac.uk> about Pheidippides' run to Sparta.
                           
> From article <92306.062210PXP111@psuvm.psu.edu>, by  PXP111@psu
> vm.psu.edu:
>
>>  A.T. Fear (cla04@seq1.keele.ac.uk) writes in Message <BwzDLI.
>>  2EE@ gabriel.keele.ac.uk>:
>>

>>>  Surely we don't  *know*  this we are told it  (Hdt.6.105-6),
>>>  which is quite a different thing.   We are also told he met
>>>  the god Pan en route.
>>>
>> This was actually taken from my text over the Runner. The pos-
>> ting may be read in  Soc.Culture.Greek...   I fail  to see the
>> point of the omission and "correction" Andy.
>>
> It's probably because I  didn't see your original posting,  our
> feed here has been atrocious recently, sorry!

OK... I see.

>> I did  not clarify whether I was discussing Herodotus,Pauseni-
>> as,Plutarch (or Aristophanes). The reason for this is that ac-
>> cording to  modern historians  there  seems  to be a consensus
>> over this issue. Enough about the word *told*  (and "who told"
>> in order for us to *know* what the ancients said),  though.
>>
> I think the point I was trying to make here was slightly diffe-
> rent,  namely  that there is  a problem  in accepting,  without
> thinking  about  the  context  involved, that what the ancients
> *said* is what as Ranke put really happened.  War does generate
> myths of various sorts, I wouldn't limit them to ancient Greece
> the ancient Romans  and indeed the c20 British have all dabbled
> in this.  Herodotus, relying on mainly on oral sources might be
> supposed  to have been  particularly vulnerable to this sort of
> distortion.

I have to agree on the principle you describe but I think this is
a basic assumption among people who discuss this stuff anyway! It
is sort of the analog of the Lukas' Critique in the field of Eco-
nomics:  the ultimate (and always true) critique,  no matter what
else has been discussed.
Coming back to Herodotous  (who became the obvious target of many
in antiquity): scholars would argue that despite what he said ab-
out distant lands...  he might had some difficulty in pulling the
leg of the Athenians for such resent events.
I know that your may reply:
   - The Athenians wanted to create these myths.
And otheres will argue:
   - Well,  Herodotus in many instances did not appear pleasant
     to them anyway!
   - Well he probably checked the distances and places... etc
( Two friends/peers of mine go through this "endless cycle" every
  time!  That is why I didn't even bring it up.  After a while it
  becomes futile ! ! !  )   :-)
Anyway,  even though your general comment is something always va-
lid,  I do not think that the story of Pheidippides (Philippides)
has been refuted. Therefore, I think I was on pretty solid ground
when I offered my explanation to the netter that posted this par-
ticular question some weeks ago. I think that Hammond would agree
WITH ME and if you want  open  your  OCD  in page 811.
(I take it that since you deal a lot with this material you defi-
nitely have this volume.)

Having said this, I will add that if you want to  hunt  me on the
word "told" vs "know" that is up to you. In this particular situ-
ation of the Runner is like spliting hair.   I may argue (!) that
you are clearly wrong for most probably Herodotus "wrote" and did
not "tell".   But after a while we enter the realm of sophisties.

> The rest of our sources are later accounts than Herodotus', so-
> me are 100s of years later.

True but not actually an argument: "Later author"  does not imply
that he/she copied a particular older source.  These people could
have used different (lost today) sources.   Take Appian, who most
probably did not use Cicero as his source when dealing with Spar-
tacus. Neither did Eutropius rely on Asinius Pollio.  Take Diodo-
rus Siculus etc.etc. We do not dissmiss the later ones purely ba-
sed on the time-factor...  Sometimes these historians appear even
more suitable.

> My only plea here is that we treat this material with caution.

Point accepted. It applies from the texts of Homer to the speech
of Bush and the broadcasts of CNN and BBC.

>> As far as "Pan" is concerned I feel that my full text was very
>> clear over this.  Other netters copied only a part.
>>
> See above, any chance of a repost?

Well, I guess I can place it towards the end of this posting...
And you can see whether you criticism is valid. Please note how I
deal with the whole thing...  I think I was very much even-handed
and judgmental.

>>> Is it  physically  possible  to run this distance in such a
>>> short amount of time?
>>>
>> Yes Andy it is...  And I want to point towards the recent Spa-
>> rtathlon race carried the last years in Greece and, even, Aus-
>> tralia. The distance is the same: Athens - Sparta. I'm seeking
>> confirmations from fellow-netters though for I  do not  have a
>> newspaper handy.
>>
> I would be equally interested in this.

Am I accurate by mentioning Skourtis and another Canadian runner
running twice during the last five years?
            (Where are you Gregory Dandulakis? Lambros Skartsis?)

>>  (Coincidently, Pheidippides passed from mount Partenion where
>>  the caves of Pan were supposed to be -eventually excavated in
>>  1897.)
>>
> Not sure where Mount Partenion is.

It is exactly on the way from  Athens to Sparta  if one takes the
shortest way.

> But who tells us about the route.  Once again you can see how a
> late source might  place  the route past a shrine of Pan simply
> to give plausibility  to the story  that Pan did in fact appear
> to Philippides.

True! The legend connected Pheidippides with the Athenian cult of
Pan...
With the same argument of plausibility we have no Troy (the great
debate of Finley), or say that the Myceneans are actually Egypti-
ans (the great debate of Bernal) etc. etc.
Everything is plausible Andy...
Moses was a thief who escaped from Egypt...
Should not I answer the question I saw in the network at all ?
Don't take me wrong. I do not disprove what you say. Classicists
and historians have said these again and again...
Yet, the most obvious -and widely accepted answer- here  (the Ma-
rathon topic) is that the Athenians actually built a temple after
the incident according to the traditional story.

>>>  This isn't the only suspicious running feat connected to Ma-
>>>  rathon either.The charge of the Athenian hoplites over eight
>>>  stades  as  recounted  by Herodotus (6.112)  seems less than
>>>  plausible too.   War often brings mythology in her train and
>>>  I suspect that these two events are part of that mythology.
>>>
>>   Any classicist or historian would have the answer handy here
>>   Andy for How's and Wells' "Commentary" (where the individual
>>   words are explained/analyzed),  has been pretty unchallenged
>>   for some decades. (Do not take it as if we do not need a new
>>   one!)
>>
> Well this is true in one sense.  But How and Wells are only ma-
> king sense of a text they find puzzling, Herodotus' account of
> Marathon  has  always been a  battleground of theories as prima
> facie it doesn't seem to make sense.

Yes and No.
--> They do not find the term puzzling at all.  Actually the have
    no doubt at all. Others though were wrong on the way they had
    read the term.
--> Yes, there are several modern theories on the actual place of
    the 2 military camps.  And How & Wells give a place that ini-
    tiated the battleground controversy.
The recent belief is that both armies fought parallel to the sea-
coast of the S.Euboean Golf...  Yet, again, the interpretation is
that the Greeks run for the last 200-yards or even less!!!  There
is no question about it because of the enemy archers.
(That is why I directed you to the  specific source.  Not because
of the battleground which   - with the hill configuration and the
temple of Heracles as a point of reference- may be debatable .)
The book I  suggested  offers the explanation and analysis of the
Greek words and we have no other English Commentary. (I would not
say "no" to modern Greek clarifications and a Commentary, but the
rest English-speaking netters might feel a bit uncomfortable.)
Anyway,  contemporaries of Herodotus  knew what he meant by "dro-
mw" in the military.. The 18-19th century schoolars perceived the
word in the way the British troops run (at the double if I remem-
ber a particular lecture), but this is Wrong. That is why the ex-
perts on the various Greek terms make the clarification  and  in-
struct the rest to use the concept in this way and not  associate
it with the much (later)  British run  when a military body in on
the attack, or the completely different run in the Boedromia...

>>  Having clarified this, I must say that I don't find even this
>>  second argument of yours very successful.. Actually, the his-
>>  torians are very careful here: far from perceiving the phrase
>>  as a description of an orderly & effective charge after a mi-
>>  le's run  (which in full armour would be beyond  the power of
>>  any large body of soldiers, however  well  trained the Greeks
>>  were), historians as How & Wells state that the  "mile" is an
>>  inference  from  the distance between the  Athenian  position
>>  near Vrana and the place where they charged the Persians near
>>  Soros.  And they add: "...No doubt the advance was rapid, but
>>  only  for the  last  two  hundred yards, when within bowshot,
>>  whould the Attic hoplites charge at full speed."
>>
> I think they say it was 'probably' such an inference, which ma-
> kes an important difference - it indicates they are making what
> seems to them a plausible guess from a text that makes no sense
> as such.

They say "probably" on the 1-mile-distanse between the two camps.
They say that "no doubt" the Athenians run for the last 200yards.
The word "dromw" here is used in the military jargon.  The 2 his-
torians/classicist explain exactly this (forget the Boedromia)...
Herodotus's audience knew what he meant.  That is why I suggested
to check other authors describing military tactics in similar si-
tuations.

> The text as it stands implies rapid speed from the beginning -
> the Athenians set off like runners from the starting gate (the
> verb involved is also used of throwing weapons I think,  which
> might be significant, though I wouldn't want to press this) and
> proceed at a run.   How and Wells are forced to rationalise the
> passage severely, I think it might be more easily taken just as
> a patriotic myth.
    
Well you may want to give this version to your students.
I've already explained my position. I do not think that Herodotus
would have any reason to exaggerate on this out of patriotism (On
the number of casualties, on Xerxes' army,  on the cruelty of the
enemy I may accept the argument as a logical one..) Here, I don't
know! It makes no sense to me that he intended to present the At-
henians as...racers! Advancing rapidly, yes! But running from the
very beginning???
What is your plausible version of what happened Andy?
Did the two armies ever clash? How did the Athenians and Plateans
avoid the enemy archers and use their spears without speed?

> I think the rationalistic methodology may be the problem here.
> Recent approaches to interpreting Herodotus have been much more
> sensitive  to the  nature of oral/semi-oral history and ponder
                               
> more deeply what Herodotus' general intentions were.

Well, this cuts both ways as you know.  According to Tamara Green
("Arethusa", Fall 1989; p.59):  "What also must be taken into ac-
count is the extent to which Greek literature,  even in the fifth
century and later, arose out of, and remained grounded in, orali-
ty.  ...the stories of Herodotus...  In an oral culture, non-tra-
ditional thought is not highly valued,  for  knowledge is the sum
total of what everyone in the group can remember;  and non-formu-
laic ways of thinking make its retrieval difficult, if not impos-
sible."
So Herodotus, who wrote & wondered in the area a few years later,
probably could not exaggerate in Athens (if we accept that he in-
troduced this part of his work there), let alone that people from
Thucydides to Maneftho to Plutarch  at least left that part with-
out criticism.
This does not mean that I (or others)  do not accept every single
word you just said.

> A book I'd recommend is John Gould's book simply entitled Hero-
> dotus.  BTW is How and Wells used as widely in Greece as it is
> here?

I do not think so.
I would say that the Greeks  go  with their own work and detailed
effort/literature making their comments in Greek, not English...
"Papyros" is one such example (their sort of "Loeb", commentaries
etc).  I believe that actually all students have to be very effi-
cient on ancient formulas, expressions etc. in order to be accep-
ted from high-school to this branch of classical studies.
Actually, the exam on ancient Greek,  that these people take  (in
order for the most skilled to pass to this department), is one of
the most competitive I know about.
(And now that I mentioned "high-school", another analysis/commen-
tary that most students use in this level is that of Patakis.)

> A final thought,Attic hoplites of course wouldn't be well trai-
> ned, they were a citizen militia

Yes!   I see you got my "funny" hint.

> - the only trained hoplites in Greece, those of Sparta mysteri-
> ously arrived too late to fight at Marathon - I wonder if this
> was only by accident.

You are right about their training!
About the "mystery", too!  Did the Carneia bother them in a later
date?  I don't think so.
But now that  you  mention their arrival to Attica,  the Spartans
reached Attica in two days in full armor.  Usually, some may add,
they  needed  helots  to carry  parts of their armor in order for
the division to move quickly.   This may be used as an additional
indication that the hoplites (infantry) weren't as lightly equip-
ped as the peltastai (or gymnitai) and couldn't run but much less
than a mile...

>>  (I believe we have knowledge on these military tactics from
>>  other authors.
>>
> Can't think of any off hand and the tactical handbooks we have
> are all much later,  so it would be anachronistic to read back
> from them.

Let me ask you then something:
What were the changes introduced in armor from this "much later"
period?

> I suppose Xenophom might be a good place to look.

No question about it. Please make the armor-comparison.

> Worth continuing this discussion in sci.classics?

Well, from what I see you don't need particular encouragement!!!
I suddenly discovered my text in such newsgroups as  sci.archae-
ology, or sci.mythology (by the way, I don't think that the lat-
ter was an appropriate newsgroup... If the argument was over Ap-
ollo, Isis, Zeus then I'd think it was suitable;  not this time.
Pan was not very much the issue).
Anyway, I primarily correspond in soc.culture.greek  and  europe
(sometimes in other balkan soc's as well)... If you feel that we
can get some input in the classics that is fine with me.  Yet, I
do not want to see the "Futile Cycle"  I described in the begin-
ning...
All I intended to do when I replied was to assist someone asking
a question on antiquity by saying what we have over the issue. I
am not wishing to engage (at this moment) in lengthy discussions
over plausibility and the literary analysis of texts  for I have
this stuff every day anyway...  and it is so much time-consuming
to reshuffle all these volumes of criticism and responses.
                  But I promise to read what the rest will write.

I do not want to discourage you.
By all means, do it, if you feel so.
What do we have to loose? In the worst possible scenario the dis-
cussion will degenerate  between critics of Herodotus & more cri-
tics of Herodotus...  So what?  :-)
This has been going on for some 2,300 yrs!

>> Andronikos
>>
> Andy
                                                       Andronikos

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This was my initial reply over the Marathon Runner's Name.
                                ("Philippides" in Lucian's story)

Raymond Anderson (rander@netcom.com) writes in Message <1992Oct27
.044139.13091@netcom.com>:
>>
>> Does anyone know the name of the runner that ran from the
>> Plains of Marathon to Athens to announce the victory over
>> the Persians?

One of the most informed netters, Edward Wiener (wiener@duke.cs.
duke.edu), responds in Message <720216572@locust.cs.duke.edu>:
>
> Pheidippides (sp?)

I have heard others claiming the same thing, but I have my reser-
vations here:
--> The famous Athenian messenger was a professional long distan-
    ce-runner,  and its is unlikely that the Marathon-Athens dis-
    tance overcame him  (as it did exhaust the one who run) .  We
    know,  for example,  that Pheidippides delivered the message/
    request to Sparta the next day he left Athens.. (some 140 mi-
    les of distance).
--> Even if  Pheidippides  had managed to return to Athens by the
    time of the battle,  it is unlikely that he had the chance to
    join the troops for a number of reasons:
   --> He was not appointed to do this;
   --> He was not reassigned there  (when he returned)  since the
       City itself was not, probably, aware of the whereabouts of
       the army  (J.A.R.Munro's analysis).
   --> The Athenian Generals did not carry a special sacrifice to
       Pan (which was part of the news the messenger was bringing
       from his trip to the Peloponnese).   I think he would have
       informed them  had he joined the Athenean-Plataean camp of
       Marathon.

I believe that we should say that it was an anonymous soldier who
run the first "marathon race" (exhausted though he might had been
after the famous battle).

Having said this let me express a strange question I can not help
asking myself.. Does it make sense for a single messenger/soldier
to be ordered to run to Athens?   The victorious army was already
hurrying back -in all possible speed-  towards the same direction
(in the opposite side of Attica) to place a new protective shield
between the city-walls  and the Persian navy  that came the other
way.
                And Zeus, Athena and Heracles forgive me for this
                heresy. I'm not saying that the legacy is a lie..
                I am just skeptical.
                                               Andronikos Romanos