For the remainder of this chapter I shall examine the wider literary impact of Simonides’ highly-significant dedication to contemporary events, specifically looking at the ways in which he elevates the status of the recent war-dead to that of the Homeric heroes, a familiar trope by the time of Herodotus and Thucydides. In doing so, I will suggest that Simonides’ poetic persona not only acts as a useful precedent to the authority of the historian, but also that the extant Simonidean literature can help to enrich our understanding of the emergence—and development—of historiography in fifth-century Greece.
A striking feature of the “new Simonides” is the way in which the poet appeals to the Trojan War tradition as a paradigmatic model for the almost-contemporary events at Plataea. As discussed above, fragment 11 begins with a specific call to the mighty strength of Achilles; and while it is not clear as to whether Achilles is invoked as a paradigm for the collective Greeks who fought at Plataea, or for an individual leader such as Pausanias,91 the very mention of his name, and the other valiant Greeks, strengthens the heroic reputation which the poet wishes to bestow upon the recent war-dead. This not only anticipates Herodotus’ complex interaction with Homeric/epic precedents, as explored in the previous chapter, but it equally pre-empts the wider practice of portraying Trojans as barbarians within fifth-century Athenian cultural history.92
But are these fragments, along with the epigram commissioned for those who fought at Thermopylae (as Herodotus ambiguously puts it at 7.228.4),93 the full extent of Simonides’ treatment of this epic war? On the contrary, Simonides’ position as one of the principal, authoritative voices on the Greco-Persian conflict is further affirmed by a number of additional pieces of evidence. In the Anonymous life of Aeschylus, he is said to have
90 Indeed, after reporting that Homer was ostensibly aware of an alternative version of Helen’s whereabouts after being abducted by Paris, Herodotus states that ‘ἀλλ᾽ οὐ γὰρ ὁμοί ως ἐς τὴν ἐποποιί ην εὐπρπὴς ἦντῷ ἑτέρῳ τῳ περ ἐχρήσατο’ (2.116.1), cf. further 4.3 above.
91 Shaw (2001) 178-81 persuasively suggests that one does not automatically preclude the other; so Achilles may have been employed by Simonides, not only to invoke the panhellenic plurality of the Greeks, but simultaneously as a paradigmatic icon for the current leader of Greece, i.e. Pausanias. Pavese (1995) 21ff. is not persuaded by the suggestion that Simonides might be comparing Achilles with such an unscrupulous figure as Pausanias (‘Il suo temperamento difficilmente si può descrivere come Ἀχί λλειος’, p.21), and proffers the suggestion that the reference is rather to Leonidas at Thermopylae. Cf. also Sbardella (2000), reading the Spartans as the referent, noting how just as Achilles avenges the murder of Patroclus, so too the Spartans avenge Leonidas’ death (10).
92 See further Miller (1997). 93 See §3.5 above.
defeated Aeschylus in a competition in which he recited an elegy for those who died at Marathon, τὸ γὰρ ἐλεγεῖ ον περὶ τὸ συμπαθὲς λεπτότητος μετέχειν θέλει.94 (This, incidentally, if indeed it did happen, clearly demonstrates that Simonides’ use of elegiacs was more substantial than the newly-discovered fragments.) And by winning a poetry competition for commemorating the Marathon dead, the possibility is raised that he was commissioned for other, separate dedicatory elegies, praising those who fell in one of the other conflicts.95 As Hutchinson notes, Simonides must have been no less important than Pindar, particularly as Pindar failed to acquire the grand commissions after the Persian Wars.96 Turning towards his influence on other genres, Martin West also acknowledges the extraordinarily swift response to Xerxes’ defeat amongst the tragedians, especially as it was more typically au courant for dramatists to explore subjects from the heroic age.97 One might wonder whether Simonides’ extensive poetic treatment of the recent conflict—in which he himself includes various analogical references to the Trojan War—made the conflict appear that much more worthy of further artistic treatment amongst his contemporaries? In this way, we can discern yet again how Simonides’ contribution to the memorialisation of the Persian Wars was distinguished both for its breadth, and its profundity.
Turning now to post-fifth-century responses to the Persian Wars, it is the Boiotian author Plutarch who provides further discussion on Simonides’ œuvre, and a more sustained appreciation of Simonides’ subsequent reception in later authors’ works. Indeed, on top of the reference to Simonides in Plutarch’s polemical attack on Herodotus’ ostensibly partisan account of the Corinthians’ role at Plataea, there is other, substantial evidence for his knowledge of what he regards to be Simonidean poetry. In his Life of Themistocles, Plutarch informs us that, according to Simonides, Themistocles instituted the restoration and lavish decoration of a shrine at Phlya (Them. 1.3). Later in this same work, Plutarch quotes Simonides’ praise for those who fought and succeeded at Salamis, a victory which is described as: τὴν καλὴν ἐκεί νην καὶ περιβόητον ἀράμενοι νί κην, ἦς οὔθ’ Ἕλλησιν οὔτε βαρβάροις ἐνάλιον ἔργον εἴ ργασται λαμπρότερον (Them. 15.2).98 These two
94
TrGF iii.33s., see Campbell (1991) 340-3. This passage is also relevant here, as it contradicts the Suda biography of Simonides, in which there is no indication of a Simonidean elegy on Marathon. This not only further brings into question the reliability of the Suda article, but equally, it strengthens the possibility that there was also an elegy composed on Plataea, and that this too had simply gone unreported. On the veracity of this reported contest for the best elegy, see Molyneux (1992) 151f. 95 On the substantive and innovative character of Simonides’ elegiacs, see Hutchinson (2001) 289-90. 96 Hutchinson (2001) 288.
97 West (1993b) 5. 98
‘that fair and famed victory, which neither Greeks nor Barbarians have ever performed a more brilliant deed by the sea.’ It is difficult, however, to determine how much of this is taken from Simonides verbatim, or is merely a paraphrase of his work, see further Pelling (2007b) 147 n.10. Even
references also show that Simonides’ poetry could be—and was, in the case of Plutarch— cited for a wider range of purposes than merely for the singular purpose of correcting Herodotus.
It is also apparent that Simonides predominantly appears in Plutarchan texts which are specifically concerned with the Persian Wars. If we return to Plutarch’s polemical tract against Herodotus, alongside his reference to Simonides’ remarks on the Corinthians’ deeds at Plataea, Plutarch in fact explicitly quotes from other Simonidean epigrams.99 In the first of these two citations, Plutarch refers to a poem in which Simonides sings of the heroism displayed by Democritus of Naxos at Salamis, taking five ships with him to battle (869B-C), a passage which effectively undermines Herodotus’ one-sided ‘fiction’ (ψεῦδος) that the Naxians initially sent three triremes to join the Persians (cf. 8.46.3).100 This epigram is thus used by Plutarch to present a more authoritative account than that of Herodotus, establishing Democritus’ “true” role during the Persian Wars. The other—and no less damning— Simonidean reference is an epigram he wrote about the Corinthian women who dedicated some bronze statues in the temple of Aphrodite (871B). The inscription runs:
Here stand the women who in prayer appealed to Cypris for the men of Grece so bold. Bright Aphrodite had no mind to yield
to Persians bearing bows our Greek stronghold.101
Plutarch vehemently asserts that Herodotus and his contemporaries were patently ignorant of this tale, even though its dissemination was pervasive and perhaps most importantly, even though it was memorably captured in a Simonidean epigram.102 Here it seems, then, that Plutarch is intentionally drawing our attention to the fact that Simonides was the author of the epigram, in order to further stress how nakedly pejorative was Herodotus’ account of the so, is it nonetheless clear that: a) Simonides wrote (perhaps aphoristically) on the battle, and b) that Simonides’ work was readily available to Plutarch, cf. also 5.3-4.
99 He does, in addition, quote a number of other verses, and it is by no means impossible that some of these were not too (or at least thought to be) Simonidean, so Bowen (1992) 139.
100
For a discussion on how many (indeed if any) of the verses ultimately attributed to Simonides can actually be reliably attached to him, see Campbell (1991) 519-20. Bowen (1992) 139 argues convincingly that it is reasonable to assume, as Plutarch does, that Herodotus indeed chose to omit or suppress these Simonidean verses, especially as he quotes from Simonides’ poetry in Book Seven; the new fragments, and the intertextual relationship between the two authors only serves to strengthen this view.
101 Bowen’s translation. These lines are also quoted by (i) the scholion to Pindar (FGrHist 115 F 285b), and (ii) Athenaeus in the Deipnosophistai, who assuredly refers to the epigram as Simonidean (13.573c-d); for further discussion, see Budin (2008).
102 As Bowen (1992) notes: ‘[Simonides] is probably mentioned here by name to underline the importance (as P. Saw it) of this evidence’ (142).
Corinthians. If this is the case, then this citation, along with the previous one, only serves to heighten our sense of Simonides’ fame after the Persian Wars, and re-confirms that his output on all manner of topics and communities related to the conflict was indeed extensive. As to whether all of these epigrams quoted by Plutarch were in fact originally composed by Simonides or not is unfortunately impossible to determine, but as Anthony Bowen notes, it is striking in itself that war epigrams from the period after the Persian Wars generally gravitated towards Simonides.103 Hence Plutarch’s fairly wide-ranging use of (purportedly) Simonidean poetry offers an ever more lucid indication of the honour which was conferred on this prestigious classical poet long after the fifth century.