Pheidippides and the Myth of the Marathon April 4, 2015
Author: Beach Combing | in : Ancient , trackback
Pheidippides is a bit player in history. A fifth-century Greek who allegedly ran the original marathon. First, though some background to help situate one of the fastest men in the ancient world. In 490, perhaps in early September, Athens found itself in trouble. The Persian Emperor, Darius, resented the fact that Athens had helped the Ionian city states of Asia Minor in their revolt in the 490s. Darius had decided, then, to send an army of Persian immortals to punish the Athenians by burning their polis or by installing a tyrant. The Athenians were understandably concerned and went out to greet the Persian army with their hoplites: their victory on the fennel fields by the sea at a place called Marathon was one of the most important in history. On the cusp of that victory the city would enter its golden age: Aeschylus (who lost his brother in the battle) would write his tragedies, Socrates would drink hemlock, Pericles would preach democracy… Pheidippides is famous because he ran to Sparta to ask for help before Marathon (150 miles in perhaps thirty hours), he ran back after failing to get help and then after the battle of Marathon he brought the news to Athens of a Greek victory before expiring in front of the archons (an event captured in this perfectly dreadful Victorian image above). The distance between Marathon and Athens, at least by the easy road, was perhaps 25 miles, hence the modern marathon race that conforms, roughly to that distance.
Now there are two fascinating things about Pheidippides…. The first is that he is that rarest thing, a historical individual who met a divinity (another post, another day) and the other is that half of his biography (and naturally the most important half) is based on a misunderstanding. To deal with these historical cobblers let’s start with a simple observation. Pheidippides, according to ancient tradition, made two runs for his city: (i) from Athens to Sparta (150 miles) and back again; (ii) and one from Marathon to Athens (25 miles). The evidence from the first is good: it appears in Herodotus who was writing in Athens (or at least after good contact with Athenians) about fifty years after the events described, well within living memory, particularly in a society with strong oral traditions. The second does not appear in a written record for over five hundred years and only then in an unexpected form. There is also the common sense objection (admittedly perhaps the most dangerous kind in history) that the Athenians would hardly have trusted such an important run (from Marathon to Athens) to a man who had jogged 300 miles and driven himself to exhaustion just a few days before. Note that there was some concern that the Persians might bring their fleet direct to the city after their defeat so the run was not just about relief and celebration.
The first person to record this story was the Greek writer Heraclides Ponticus in the fourth century B.C. The problem is that Heraclides’ writing does not survive and so we have to trust Plutarch writing in the late first century A.D. who cites Heraclides. Plutarch knew at least two versions of the story. He had heard that one Thersippus of Eroedae had made the run and ascribes this view to Heraclides. But he had also heard that it was Eucles, a soldier, who ran in armor: presumably an Athenian hoplite.* Plutarch had heard that the runner died. Lucian of Samosata, meanwhile, about fifty years later, claimed that one Philippides (‘the dispatch runner’) brought the news and died. Note Philippides not Pheidippides**: had Lucian got the name mixed up, had he quoted from memory from Herodotus from the Spartan episode, or was there yet another name in tradition? Many knowledgeable folk will tell you wearily that the evidence that Pheidippides ran from Marathon is late: it is though actually far worse than late. It is late and based on a textual emendation or the assumption of a misquoted name. Perhaps the one historical fact, we can anxiously but uncertainly wring from this mess, is that someone ran from Marathon to the city with the news of a victory and just possibly that person, in an admixture of joy and exhaustion, died: or is that the myth? The evidence for the story comes a ‘mere’ hundred and fifty years after the battle when it was written in the Black Sea: worryingly disconnected from the events in question. And the source in any case does not survive. Yet modern scholarship has gone along tacitly with the attempt to role the biographies of the two runners into one. Imagine how surprised Pheidippides would be to learn that his gruelling trip to Sparta in the Greek sunshine had been largely forgotten and yet he was credited with starting a modern race craze for a run he had not undertaken, while he was still at home nursing his blisters.
Other evidence for or against the run: drbeachcombing AT yahoo DOT com
Table of Sources and Dates
490 BC Athenian Victory at Athens
440 BC Herodotus writes?
400-300 BC floruit Heraclides Ponticus who allegedly mentions a runner from Marathon
100 AD Plutarch mentions a runner in Glory of Athens
150 AD Lucian of Samosata mentions runner in pro Lapsu inter Salutandum
*Note that in Aristides Plutarch records one Euchidas who ran to bring news of the Greek victory after Plataea: he also died… Note the similar name here.
** Talking to a classicist friend I’m assured that it is conceivable that Philippides was the original name that was then corrupted in the Herodotian manuscript tradition. This seems to add an unnecessary level of complexity, but Pheidippides was a rare name in Attica.
5 April 2015: A few emails on the philological transmission of the name. I think the easiest way to deal with the problem is as follows. Let’s say, for the sake of argument that Pheidippides was Philippides. In historical terms it changes nothing as Plutarch demonstrates there was an earlier tradition. Lucian could very easily have remembered the story and the name of the Spartan runner and connected them: might be worth pointing out that Lucian cared little for historical rigour… Even if there is not a textual emendation there is a much earlier opposed tradition!
