Saviors of Greece West, William C Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Winter 1970; 11, 4; ProQuest pg. 271

Saviors of Greece 

William C. West III 

FEW TEXTS have been so problematic as the so-called Marathon 
epigrams (IG J2 763). In their recent edition in the collection of 
Meiggs and Lewis one can follow succinctly the progress of 

nearly four decades of controversy regarding the interrelated ques­
tions of the restorations of individual lines, the nature of the monu­
ment, and the battles commemorated.1 The last line of Epigram I 
is, in fact, the only line of that poem whose suppletion has not been 
seriously questioned or modified since Kirchhoff proposed it in 
1869,2 and it is perhaps ironic that this line suggests a point of historical 
interest which has been neglected. 

Meritt's latest restoration of the epigram, which combines the 
fifth-century fragments and the alleged fourth-century copy, will 
serve to introduce the problem: 

• Avopwv TWVO' apET~ [AdJ-ttfEt cpd]oe acpOt[ TOV] aiel, 
[ore Kav El]v E'PY[OK EcBAa] VEJ-tWCt BEOt· 

t1 \ r' [ ']' , ,\ ...... ECXOV yap 7TE<;,Ot TE Kat WKV7TOPWV E7Tt VYJWV 
'EAAd[oa J-tN 7TCXcaV OOVAwv ~J-tap iOELv.3 

The final couplet expresses the idea that the victory commemorated 
was responsible for the saving of Greece. The belief that this epigram, 
as well as its companion, referred to the battle of Marathon held the 

1 A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century B.C., ed. R. Meiggs 
and D. Lewis (Oxford 1969) no.26. 

2 A. Kirchhoff, MonatsberBerl (1869) 412-16. A slightly different version was printed in 
IG I 333, but the Original suggestion was followed in Epigrammata Graeca ex lapidibus 
conlecta, ed. G. Kaibel (Berlin 1878) no.749, and confirmed by the Agora find of 1932. 

a I cite a convenient recent version published in Inscriptions from the Athenian Agora 
Excavations of the Athenian Agora, Picture Book No.10, Princeton 1966) nos. 2-3. For full 

discussion of the epigraphical details see "The Marathon Epigrams Again," AJP 83 (1962) 
294-98, and "Epigrams from the Battle of Marathon," The Aegean and the Near East. Studies 
presented to Hetty Goldman (Locust Valley, N.Y. 1956) 268-80. Disagreement with Meritt as 
to whether the fourth-century inscription is actually a copy of the fifth-century text is 
voiced by W. K. Pritchett, AJP 85 (1964) 50ff, but the standard view is otherwise. See Meiggs 
and Lewis, op.cit. (supra n.l) 55. 

271 



272 SAVIORS OF GREECE 

field for almost a hundred years and has only been weakened, if not 
altogether dispelled, by relatively recent developments.' Would such 
praise for Marathon be consistent, however, with our understand­
ing of the direction of Athenian propaganda in the decades follow­
ing the war with Xerxes? 

Ever since the discovery of the new fragment in 1932 in the Athenian 
Agora some critics maintained that the first poem actually referred 
to Salamis, or Salamis and Plataea. Hiller first objected to its attribu­
tion to Marathon on the grounds that c1Jl(V7T6pwv J7T~ V7Jwv (cf the Eury­
medon epigram, AP 7.258) should be restored in line 3 and that it 
could not have been asserted that Marathon saved all Greece from 
slavery.5 Jacoby summarily dismissed this suggestion with a contemp­
tuous reference to" ... the frequent confusion between the historical 
views held by us with those held by the contemporaries of the event."6 
The feeling that the Athenians utilized Marathon in pushing them­
selves as saviors of Greece was quite strong and, therefore, criticism 
of the implications of line 4 was not forthcoming. Gomme, citing the 
prominent reference to a city by the sea, &'Yxt~ov,in line 2 of Epigram 
IT, argued that both epigrams should be referred to Salamis.7 Never­
theless Marathon at first remained the orthodox attribution. 

In 1956, however, Meritt published the copy of Epigram I which 
upheld Hiller's restoration and confirmed the reference to land and 
sea warfare in lines 3 and 4, and because of the attested reference to 
ships Salamis quickly won adherents. Although Meritt had attempted 
to rationalize the meaning of J7T~ V7Jwv as <by the ships' rather than 
'upon' them,S Amandry formally proposed Salamis as the battle 
logically commemorated in the phrase.9 Pritchett countered that J7Ti 
with the genitive must mean <on' (hence the impossibility of referring 

'The bibliography of the epigrams is voluminous. See F. Jacoby, Kleine philologische 
Schriften I (Berlin 1961) 461-62 nn.19, 20; SEG 10.404; 12.68; 13.34, 35; 14.18; 16.22, 139; 
19.38; 21.117; 22.63; and Meiggs and Lewis, loc.cit. (sllpra n.1). 

Ii F. Hiller von Gaertringen, "Perserepigramme von der athenischen Agora," Hennes 69 
(1934) 204-06. 

• F. Jacoby, "Some Athenian Epigrams from the Persian Wars," Hesperia 14 (1945) 165. 
Hiller's view was also criticized by W. Peek, Herm£s 69 (1934) 339-43, but even Meritt 
(Stlldies Goldman [sllpra n.3] 272) felt that the Panhellenic character of the text was not 
suitable for a date before 480. 

7 A. W. Gomme, A Historical Commentary on Thucydides II (Oxford 1956) 98-100. 
8 Studies Goldman (sllpra n.3) 271-72. 
• P. Amandry, "Sur les epigrammes de Marathon," 8£wpla. Festschrift JUr W.-H. Schuch­

hardt (Baden-Baden 19(0) 1-8. 



WILLIAM C. WEST ill 273 

the epigram to Marathon) and noted that the sentiment of the poem 
reflected that expressed in regard to Salamis in the Persae of Aeschylus. 
with its emphasis on the hop lite action on Psyttaleia as well as the 
naval battle.1o Peek, preferring to associate another fragmentary 
epigram, SEG 13.34, with Salamis and Plataea, argued that Epigram I 
referred to all operations of 480-79,11 but Meritt, on the assumption 
that the demonstratives 'Twv8' of Epigram I and 'TOtC" of Epigram II 
must refer to the same men, has stoutly defended the reference of 
both poems to Marathon.12 Meiggs and Lewis now state definitely 
that the first epigram, and the monument, concerned Salamis and, 
at any rate, it must now be admitted that Marathon is the unorthodox 
position. 

In view of this development it should be noted that Kirchhoff had 
originally proposed Marathon, in 1869, in the belief that both epi­
grams had been inscribed on the base of the Athena Promachus 
statue, said by Pausanias (1.28.2) to be a tithe a7To M'1}SwV 'TWV EC 
Mapa(}wva ct7To/3av'Twv.13 It would appear that, since in his opinion 
both epigrams commemorated Marathon, they could be used to 
account for Pausanias' clear statement as to the origin of the famous 
statue. Oliver, in his publication in 1933 of the new fragment, followed 
Kirchhoff in his attribution but did not investigate his motives in 
making it, speaking merely of an epigram commemorating" a battle 
which saved all Hellas" as being "correctly" referred to Marathon.14 

The much discussed problems of dating and restoration, however, 
have obscured the fact that line 4 CEi\A&Sa JLTJ 7Tacav Sov'\wv 
~f-"ap l8EtV) , the one certain complete line in Epigram I, is the only 
solid epigraphical evidence that Athens, in the early years of the 
Pentecontaetia, promoted herself as the savior of Panhellenic interests. 
Consequently, if the epigram now refers to Salamis, as the trend of 
scholarship suggests, one may feel justified in asking if there is any 
other evidence from the fifth century that Athens in its propaganda 
associated the saving of Greece with their victory at Marathon. I hope 
to show that there is none at all from early in the century for such an 
idea and that it stems from a tradition primarily of the fourth century. 

10 w. K. Pritchett, Marathon (CalifPCIArch 4.2, Berkeley and Los Angeles 1960) 16<Hl8. 
11 Hermes 88 (1960) 494-98. 
12 AJP 83 (supra n.3) 297-98. 
18 Kirchhoff, loe.cit. (supra n.2). 

11 J. H. Oliver, Hesperia Z (1933) 485-86. 



274 SAVIORS OF GREECE 

The idea appears distinctly in epitaphia of the fourth century, the 
earliest of which (ca. 394) is Lysias, Epit. 20: P.6VO£ yctp lnrJp a.mtcT}c 'TiiC 
tE>J.&.8oc TTPOC p.vp£&.8ac 'TWV {1ap{1&.pwv 8£€K£v8Vv€vcav. Other appearances 
of the topos in this tradition include Plato, Menex. 240D-E, Demos­
thenes 60.10, and Hyperides, Epit. 37. It occurs also in other orations of 
different formal types: Andocides, De Myst. 107, Isocrates, Panath. 195, 
and Demosthenes, De Cor. 208, and Marathon is indicated by implica­
tion in Lysias 18.27 and Isocrates, Paneg. 75. As an example of the latter 
group the reference of Andocides bears quoting because of its close 
resemblance to that of Lysias, suggesting a common source for the 
topos: ... ~~tovv c~a.c av'Tovc TTpO'Ta~aV'T€c TTPO 'TWV tEA>':r}vwv aTTaV'TWV 'Totc 
{1ap{1&.pOLC MapaOwv&.8E •.. p.aXEc&.p.Evot 'TE EV{KWV Kat 'T~V tE>J.&.8a 
~I\EVO€pWCav Kat ~V TTa'Tpt8a €cwcav. The earliest of all these orations 
is De Mysteriis, dated in 400 or 399 B.C. ;15 the Lysian speeches are 
dated a few years later. 

The epitaphios tradition, however, goes well back into the fifth 
century, and recent scholarship has stressed once again its influence 
in establishing the repeated claims of Athenian propaganda.16 Com­
mon opinion holds that orations became part of the ceremony of 
burial shortly after the war with Xerxes and continued year after year 
with essentially the same laudatory topoi,l7 Fifth-century speeches 
which have been interpreted as reproducing the commonplaces of 
funeral oratory are the speech of Athens against Tegea concerning 

15 For the date see R. Sealey, Historia 5 (1956) 181-82, and Andokides. On the Mysteries, ed. 
D. MacDowell (Oxford 1%2) 204--05. 

141 The idea had been suggested and argued extensively by E. Meyer, Forsehungen zur 
alten Gesehichte II (Halle 1899) 219ff. See now W. Kierdorf, Erlebnis und Darstellung der 
Perserkriege (Hypomnemata 16, Gottingen 1966) 83-110, and C. Starr, ParPass 17 (1962) 33Off. 
Cj. H. Strasburger, Hermes 86 (1958) 2(}-22; H. Diller, Entretiens Hardt 8 (Vandreuvres­
Geneve 1%1) 55; and J. H. Oliver, TrAmPhilosSoe 58.1 (Philadelphia 1968) 9ff. 

17 The oration was added to an existing ceremony of public burial (Thuc. 2.35.1; Dion. 
Hal. Ant.Rom. 5.17.4; Diod.Sic. 11.33.3). Kierdorf, loe.dt. (supra n.16), concludes that the 
epitaphios logos became traditional shortly after 478. See A. Westermann, Gesehichte der 
Beredsamkeit in Griechenland und Rom (Leipzig 1833) 35, and H. Caffiaux, De l'oraison funebre 
dans la Greee pafenne (Valenciennes 1860) 21-27, who assert from the literary evidence that 
the custom of public oration was established after the Persian wars. Cj. also A. Hauvette, 
Melanges Henri Weil (Paris 1889) 159ff; T. C. Burgess, "Epideictic Literature," Studies in 
Classical Philology 3 (Chicago 1902) 146ff; O. Schroeder, De laudibus Athenarum a poetis tragicis 
et ab oratoribus excultis (Diss. Gottingen 1914); and G. Kennedy, The Art of Persuasion in 
Greece (London 1%3) 154. Jacoby's celebrated thesis that the patrios nomos was established 
in 464 after the disaster at Drabescus UHS 64 [1944] 37-66) has been effectively criticized 
by Gomme, op.dt. (supra n.7) 94-101, and D. W. Bradeen, Hesperia 36 (1%7) 321-28 and 
CQ 19 (1%9) 154-55. 



WILLIAM C. WEST ill 275 

position in the battle line at Plataea (Hdt. 9.27),18 the Athenian am~ 
bassador's speech in reply to the Corinthians in the conference at 
Sparta in 432 B.C. (Thuc. 1.73ff), and, in part, the speech of Euphemus 
at Camarina in 415 (Thuc. 6.83ff).19 None of these speeches is itself an 
epitaphion. They were probably creations of Herodotus and Thucy­
dides, but in their use of the topoi they reflect the tradition of 
epitaphia which incorporated praise of Athens and, therefore, are 
indicative of what was standard in the fifth century concerning the 
praise of Marathon. 

In Herodotus emphasis is placed on Athenian uniqueness. In 9.26-
27, before the battle of Plataea, the Athenians and the Tegeans 
quarrel for the privilege of occupying one wing of the battle line, 
each speaker basing his city's claims on past achievements. The 
Tegean speaker cites the duel between the Heraclid Hyllus and their 
king Echemus, acting as champion for all the Peloponnesus, by virtue 
of which the Tegeans were granted the right to lead the army's 
second wing in campaigns which involved a united Peloponnesian 
force. The Athenian response, although noting suitable exempla from 
Athens' mythological heritage (restoration of the Heraclidae to the 
Peloponnesus, burial of the seven against Thebes, victory over the 
Amazons who attacked Attica), downgrades mythology ( .. . OU y&.p TL 

, , • ~ f) \ ~ , " "\" 27 4 5) 7TPOEXEt TOVTWV E7TLfLEfLVTJC at • • • 7TCu\aLWV fLEV vvv EpyWV al\tc ECTW • - . 

The Athenians state proudly that all past events were eclipsed by 
their one achievement at Marathon, emphasizing that only they 
fought there (fLovvOt ·E;v.~vwv 8~ fLovvofLaX~CavT€c Tep nEpCIJ 27.5) and 
that they conquered forty-six nations. The point is made to under­
cut the one-to-one confrontation between Echemus and Hyllus. 

Elsewhere in Herodotus the singularity of Athens' effort at Mara­
thon is cited by Artabanus, in the first council scene before Xerxes' 
. • ( , " A' "A.J..'" '\f) ~ InvaslOn ... CTpaTLYJV y€ TocaVTYJV CVV .:JaTL Kat pTa<pp€V€L €I\ ovcav 

lc T~V 'ATTLK~V XdJPYJV fLOVVOt 'Af)YJvaLOt atE~f)€tpav 7.10,81-2). In Mil­
tiades' speech to Callimachus before the battle (6.109), the decision 
to fight at Marathon is represented as one that will enslave or free 
Athens and make her the leading city in Greece. The orators of Herod­
otus do not represent the Marathonomachae as the saviors of 

18 E. Maass, Hermes 22 (1887) 589 n.l; Meyer,loe.cit. (supra n.16); L. Solmsen. CP 39 (1944) 

248-50; Kierdorf, op.cit. (supra n.16) 97-100. 
11 Meyer, loe.cit. (supra n.16); Strasburger, loe.cit. (supra n.16). 



276 SAVIORS OF GREECE 

Greece,20 an honor clearly reserved for the combatants at Salamis 
(cf 7.139.5). 

The Athenian orators in Thucydides also emphasize the fact that 
only the Athenians fought at Marathon, rather than call it a battle 
in behalf of Greece. In the speech of the Athenian ambassador at 
Sparta in 432, before the outbreak of war, Marathon and Salamis are 
both promoted as examples of Athenian contributions. Whereas 
Salamis is dealt with in detail, Marathon is accorded only a brief 
sentence: cf>ap.Ev yap Mapa8wvl T€ P.bvot 7TPO/"v8vvEVeat Tip f1apf1&pcp . . . 
(1.73.4). The phrase occurs in the section on the praise of Athens which 
has been interpreted as incorporating the commonplaces of funeral 
oratory.21 An apparent parallel would be Lysias' P.bVot yap V7T~P a7TCxC'1]e 
rije tEAA&8oe ..• 8tE/Ctv8VVEveav (Epit. 20), but the parallelism is decep­
tive. The phrase V7r~p a7T&C7Je rije tEAA&8oe has been added in Lysias 
specifying the beneficiaries of the Athenian effort (ef 7Tp6 TWV 
<EAA1Jvwva7T&VTwv, Andoc. De Myst. 107). The emphasis is upon P.bVOt 
in Thucydides as in Herodotus. 

The word 7TPOKtv8vvEVeat requires special comment. Derivative from 
the two meanings of 7TPO- (,before', temporal, and <in front of', spatial, 
i.e., <in defense of'), the lexical meaning of 7TPOKW8vv€veat is <brave the 
first danger' or <bear the brunt in battle' (so LS]). The connotation is 
of troops fighting in the front line and, therefore, meeting the first 
shock of battle. A cognate genitive is required for the object defended. 
The philological question is: Which meaning is present in 1.73.4? The 
scholiast's explanation (7Tp6 rije <EAA&8oe Kw8vvEVeat) was generally 
followed by most commentators of the nineteenth century, who took 
the sense to be <in behalf of' (sc. of Greece).22 More recent interpreta­
tions have preferred the temporal meaning ('we ran the risk first' or 
'we alone were at the front', i.e., before anyone else).23 The scholiast's 

10 On the absence of such praise of Marathon in Herodotus see H. R. Immerwahr, Form 
and Thought in Herodotus (APA Mon. 23, Cleveland 1966) 250 n.38. 

11 Strasburger, op.cit. (supra n.16) 20-25; Kierdorf, op.cit. (supra n.16) 100-10. 
II See, e.g., ad loc.: Thukydides, 5th ed. G. Boehme/S. Widmann (Leipzig 1882); A. Croiset 

ed., Thucydide, livres I-II (Paris 1886); Thucydides, 3rd ed. E. F. Poppo/J. M. Stahl (Leipzig 
1886). But contra, for the temporal sense, see The History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucy­
dides, ed.].]. Owen (New York 1857), and Thucydides, Book I, ed. C. D. Morris (Boston 1887). 

18 See, e.g., ad loc.: Thukydides, 5th ed. J. Classen/]. Steup (Berlin 1919); Thucydides I, 
ed. A. Maddalena (Florence 1951-52). Cf. also the translations by R. Crawley (Everyman, 
London and New York 1910), C. F. Smith (LCLa, London and Cambridge 1928), and J. de 
ROmilly (Bude, Paris 1958), which take the phrase in this sense, and de Romilly, Thucydide 



WILLIAM C. WEST ill 277 

note, however ancient it might be, could well have been influenced 
by the tradition of fourth-century oratory. In the Thucydidean con­
text the temporal meaning does seem preferable because of the 
development of the argument in chronological terms, in which Mara­
thon and Salamis are clearly seen as two phases of the same war (cf 
••• Ka, 07"£ 7"0 VC7"£pOV ~MJ£v .•. ), and because of the strong emphasis 
on JL6vot for Marathon, which contrasts sharply with €V Ea'AaJLtvt 
gvwavJLaxi}caL following shortly. 

The emphasis on uniqueness is repeated or strongly implied, 
without reference to fighting in behalf of Greece, in other references 
in Thucydides to the Persian wars, namely, in the speech of Euphemus 
atCamarina(6.83.2: Tav {3&p{3apov JL6vot Ka(JE'A6V7"EC E1K6Twc IlPXOJLEV) and 
in the Melian dialogue (5.S9: OtKatwc Tav M7joov KaTaAVcaVTEC apXOJLEv). 

Although parallel expressions in fourth-century orators are careful 
to specify the beneficiary of defense (Lys. Epit. 20, IS.27; Andoc. De 
Myst. 107; Isoc. Paneg. 75, Panath.195; Dem. De Cor. 20S), the emphasis 
on uniqueness is seldom retained (cf De Cor. 20S: TOVC Mapa(JwvL 
1TPOKWoVVEVCaV7"aC TWV 1Tpoy6vwv). The shift of emphasis from unique­
ness to Panhellenism in this topos provides a typical contrast between 
the respective attitudes of the fifth and fourth centuries. Since in the 
speech of Euphemus (Thuc. 6.S3ff) the emphasis is still on JL6VOL, it 
would seem that Panhellenism was not added to the praise of Mara­
thon until after, or during the later years of, the Peloponnesian war. 
The glory of old Athens, not Panhellenism, highlights the passages 
praising Marathon in Aristophanes.24 In extant literature it makes its 
first appearance in De Mysteriis 107 and then is regular throughout the 
fourth century. Consequently, if Epigram I of IG 12 763 is construed 
as referring to Salamis, there is no precedent to suggest that Pan­
hellenism was part of the tapas in the earliest funeral orations. 
Significantly enough, the funeral speech of Pericles (Thuc. 2.35ff) does 
not specifically mention the Marathonomachae at all. 

Two further pieces of possible fifth-century evidence must be con­
sidered. In the Callimachus dedication, IG 12 609, Shefton, carefully 
restudying the inscription in 1950, conjectured in lines 3 and 4 Tav 
&yovajTav Ma[pa(Jovt 1Tp6 h]EA{'A}'vov ... ("the struggle at Marathon in 

et l'imperialisme athenien (Paris 1947) 207-09, on Athens' claim as to her own uniqueness in 
the Persian wars. 

u Ach. 180ff. 692ff; Eq. 781ff. 1333ff; Nub. 984ff; Vesp. 711,1081-85; Av. 242ff; Thesm. 806ff; 
Ran. 1296ff; fro 413 K. (Ath. 3.111A). 



278 SAVIORS OF GREECE 

behalf of the Greeks") as a phrase suitably designating the battle of 
Marathon. Since at the time Marathon was still the prevailing view 
for both epigrams of IG 12763, there seemed to be no objection to this 
on historical grounds. But as Salamis now seems more likely for 
Epigram I, the conjecture becomes more awkward. One should note 
that Fraenkel's TOV Ma[pa86vo8EV h]€'\EV .. . (i.e., "won the contest at 
Marathon," ef Hdt. 5.102.3) is also possible and, in fact, received 
Shefton's approva1.25 

Finally, there is the epigram quoted by Lycurgus (Leoe. 109) which 
Suidas (s.v. IIoLK/,,\TJ) quotes also, with the implication that it stood 
beneath the painting of the battle of Marathon in the Stoa Poecile: 

• EM7]vwv 7Tpop.axovVTEc • A8TJvaioL Mapa8wvL 
.J. 1 M 1<;; • 1 <;; 1 XPVCO,/,OpWV TJOWV ECTopEcav ovvap.LV. 

But there is no direct evidence that this was an epigram of the fifth 
century.26 

In summary, then, there is no evidence from unequivocal fifth­
century sources that the Athenians emphasized Panhellenism in their 
early progaganda concerning Marathon. It is readily evident that such 
an attitude was associated with Salamis (IG 12 763; Hdt. 7.138.2-144, 
8.60; Thuc. 1.73.4ff), although the outspoken smugness of the Athenian 
ambassador at Sparta in Book I of Thucydides (~vvEccfJcap.€v vp.ac T€ TO 

JLlpoc Ka~ ~p.ac aUTovc ... 74.3-4) belies altruism. Regarding both 
battles the Athenians essentially emphasize themselves: "At Mara­
thon we alone fought. In the Xerxes war we were responsible for the 
decisive victory." These nationalistic arguments developed into fully 
Panhellenic ones, perhaps, very late in the fifth century and were 
widely used in the fourth. 

The fifth-century claims of the other Greek cities for their own 
contingents in the Persian wars are quite similar to those of Athens. 
The evidence of the historians suggests that the minor cities set great 
store by representation at the sites of Panhellenic memorials. The 
lists on the serpent column at Delphi and the base of the colossal 

15 See B. B. Shefton, "The Dedication of Callimachus, IG II 609," BSA 45 (1950) 140-64, 
and E. Fraenkel, "A Marathon Epigram," Eranos 49 (1951) 6~. Approval of Fraenkel's 
restoration: Shefton, BSA 47 (1952) 278. 

18 The suggestion that the epigram did stand beneath the painting was made by C. W. 
Goettling, Gesammelte Abhandlungen II (Munich 1863) 139-40. For doubt as to its fifth­
century authorship, see Jacoby, op.cit. (supra n.6) 160. 



WILLIAM C. WEST ill 279 

statue of Zeus at Olympia provided the basis for this, and the smaller 
cities singled out such monuments as representative of their own 
efforts. Plataea used the serpent column in her defense in the trial of 
427 (Thuc. 3.57.2). Herodotus comments sarcastically on the large 
number of cities erecting tombs and cenotaphs at Plataea so as to 
share in the glory of its fame (9.85). 

Apart from the Athenian ones, there are some twenty separate 
poetical epigrams, public and private, on the war with Xerxes which 
are attested primarily in the literary tradition. An exception preserved 
on stone is IG 12 927, the epigram for the Corinthians at Salamis. Four 
others beside this-the three cited by Herodotus (7.228) as inscribed 
on stelae at Thermopylae and Pausanias' original epigram for the 
serpent column (Thuc. l.132.2)-were definitely early poems, but the 
remaining fifteen are attested only in late sources.27 Although fifth­
century authorship is possible and even likely for some, it cannot be 
demonstrated absolutely for any. The phrase pVbfLEOa, T~V <E>J.cfoa,. 
however, a feature of some of the epigrams, can be taken to mean in 
the fifth century the same thing as EcwsofLEV T~V <E>J.cfoa, with a subtle 
distinction. The verb pvofLa,£ is the Homeric €PVfLa,£ (,guard, protect, 
defend'), cognate with Sanskrit varu-tdr- (,protector'), vdru-tha­
('protection') and Latin servare.28 The meaning 'rescue' is therefore 
explicit only in the aorist ('protect once and for all'), but the idea of 
defense is present in all tenses. (wsw is the stronger word, but the two 
are similar in their popular implications. 

Nine of the twenty proclaim the freeing of Greece, or at least action 
in her behalf, in such phrases as 'rescuing Greece', 'freeing Greece', 
r confirming the freedom of Greece', and so forth (e.g., the full version 
of the Corinthian epitaph at Salamis; the epigrams on the cenotaphs 
at the Isthmus and at Megara; the inscription on the altar of Zeus 
Eleutherius at Plataea).29 Of these nine, two are Panhellenic, three 

27 Theopomp. ap. schol. Pind. 01.13.33; Chamael. ap. Ath. 13.573c-B; Strab. 9.650c; 
Diod.Sic. 11.14.4,33; Pluto Arist. 19.7, De Hdt.Mal. 869c, 870B-F, 871B, 873B; Favorin. ap. 
Dio Chrys. 37.18; Aristid. 28.66 Keil; schol. Aristid. 1.1264 (3 p.136 Dindorf); AP 6.50, 215; 
7.250,301,344,347,442,512; IG VII 53; Steph.Byz. S.V. (He-frEta. 

18 See Epv/La, in H. Frisk, Griechisches etymologisches Worterbuch 1 (Heidelberg 1960) 568-<59, 
and F. Solmsen, Untersuchungen zur griechischen Laut- und Verslehre (Strassburg 1901) 245ff. 

18 cLgEvfi Evv8pov IG 12 927, Pluto De Hdt.Mal. 870B, Favorin. ap. Dio Chrys. 37.18; aK/Liic 
ECTaKVlav De Hdt.Mal. 870B-F, Aristid. 28.66 Keil, schol. Aristid. 1.126.4 (3 p.136 Dindorf), 
AP 7.250; 'E>J.&8, Kd M€yap€vnv IG VII 53; T&v8€ '1100'· E>J."fJVEC Pluto Arist. 19.7, De Hdt.Mal. 
873B, AP 6.50; 'E>J.&80c filJpvxopov Diod.Sic. 11.33; filJOV/L&Xwv av8pwJI AP 7.442; ar8' V-rr€p 
'E>J.&JlwJI Theopomp. ap. schol. Pind. 01. 13.33, De Hdt.Mal. 871B, Chamael. ap. Ath. 



280 SAVIORS OF GREECE 

represent Corinth, one Megara, one Opuntian Locris, one Tegea, and 
one is for an individual, Adimantus of Corinth. Although not a single 
one of the epigrams can be shown to be a fifth-century poem beyond 
shadow of doubt, some are probably genuine, as the etymological 
argument suggests, together with the explicit testimony of Herodotus 
and Thucydides. If Boegehold's recent arguments for not rejecting 
the last two lines of J, g'V€ €vv8pov are valid,30 this conclusion would 
be confirmed from an early source. 

Literary evidence suggests that Sparta made use of similar propa­
ganda. Thucydides represents the Corinthian ambassador as sharply 
rebuking the Spartans, at the conference before the Archidamian war, 
for the claim that their city was the liberator of Greece, while they 
allowed by inactivity the growth of Athenian power (1.69.1). Sparta 
could look upon herself as liberator of Greece both for her opposition 
to tyrannies in the sixth century and for her leadership against Persia 
in 480-79.31 The Corinthian argument sets forcefully the contrast 
between Athenian activity and Spartan indifference after the Persian 
wars and presses the incongruity of the claim during that period. 

From the early sixth century Sparta had been the 7TpoC'Tcf:rr}C -rfjc 
"EMa8oc. In this role she held the position of ~Y€f(,(vv in the Hellenic 
League and thereby pledged opposition to the enemies of Greek 
independence. In Herodotus this leadership is acknowledged by 
foreign powers and Greek states alike (Croesus, 1.69.1; Aristagoras of 
Miletus, 5.49.2; Socles of Corinth, 5.92; the Greek embassy to Gelon, 
7.157ff; the Athenians and other allies, 8.3; Athens and Tegea, 9.26-
27). It would seem that Sparta's original role as 7TpocTa77JC for the 
championship of Greek freedom was reaffirmed in the League of 481. 
This league continued to exist after the war with Xerxes, since Sparta 
appealed to it in 462 when seeking help from Athens against the 
helots. Yet relations had become strained between the cities and in 
446, with the ratification of the thirty years' peace between Athens and 
Sparta, a formal dualism was recognized in the Greek world and the 
old league was allowed unconsciously to lapse. It was kept in existence 
formally, however, since in 427 the plataeans appealed to it in their 

13.573c; 'Totk8t" 1To8t"i </>8,p.lvovc (1To8t"i Meineke, 1TO'T€ MSS.) Strab. 9.650c; oQ-roc • A8t"'p.aVTov 
De Hdt.Mal. 870p, Favorin. ap. Dio Chrys. 37.18. 

80 A. L. Boegehold, "The Salamis Epigram," GRBS 6 (1965) 179-86. 
31 For Sparta's opposition to tyranny see Hdt. 5.92 and Thuc. 1.18.2. Cf Gomme, A 

Historical Commentary on Thucydides I (Oxford 1944) 228. 



WILLIAM C. WEST III 281 

defense. The league's principles remained valid also for Sparta, as 
indicated by her repeated use of <freedom' as a slogan against Athens 
during the Peloponnesian War.32 The Corinthian criticism discussed 
above is therefore directed at the fact that Sparta upheld such prin­
ciples nobly at the time of Xerxes' invasion, then neglected them 
during the Pentecontaetia as Athens <enslaved' her allies. 

In the early books of Thucydides Sparta is characterized as the 
champion of Greek freedom (e.g., Brasidas' speech to the Acanthians, 
4.85ff). In assessing the mood of the cities in 431 the historian had 
remarked: "The good will of men made a great deal of the Spartans, 
especially since they claimed to be liberating Greece" (2.8.4.). Speeches 
by representatives of Corinth (1.69.1; 122.3, 124.3) and Plataea (2.71.2; 
3.58.4, 59.4) put the expression in perspective by holding before the 
Spartans their common effort in the Persian wars, under Spartan 
leadership. For the Spartans plataea was the final and decisive battle. 
Their dedication of the tripod and serpent column at Delphi marked 
the conclusion of the war with Xerxes.33 The plataeans themselves 
understandably felt in 427 that the oaths of Pausanias in their agora 
(2.71.2), in addition to their name on the serpent column (3.57.2), 
would have an effect on the Spartan judges. 

It is significant that Herodotus represents Spartan generals before 
Plataea and Mycale encouraging their forces in the name of freedom 
(9.60.1, 98.3). After the battle of Plataea, moreover, Lampon of 

32 Sparta aS7TpoeTtfT7/e Tile 'E>J.tfSoe: J. H. Oliver, Demokratia, the Gods, and the Free World 
(Baltimore 1960) 124, 129-30. For evidence that the Hellenic League did not end in 478 see 
J. A. O. Larsen, HSCP 51 (1940) 204ff. On its continuance after the war with Xerxes see P. A. 
Brunt, Historia 2 (1953-54) 135-63; F. R. Wiist, Historia 3 (1954-55) 143-49; and H. D. Meyer, 
Historia 12 (1963) 436fT. Meyer thinks that, although the league of 481 was not formally 
abrogated, it was at least rendered ineffective by the return of the Peloponnesian contingent 
from the Hellespont in 479 and the joining of the Delian League by the islanders. See now 
N. G. L. Hammond, "The Origins and the Nature of the Athenian Alliance of 478/7 B.C.," 

]HS 87 (1967) 41-61, and D. Kagan, The Outbreak of the Peloponnesian War (Ithaca 1969) 9-74. 
Hdt. 8.3 has been variously interpreted as foreshadowing a change in the hegemony (from 
the point of view of Athens and the islands), but there can be no question that Herodotus 
represents Athens as recognizing Sparta's leadership against Xerxes. For a recent discussion 
of the problem, with bibliography, see Immerwahr, op.cit. (supra n.20) 220-22. 

aa Gomme's comment, op.cit. (supra n.31), on Thuc. 1.132.2 makes this point succinctly. 
The Spartan ephors substitute the names of the cities for that of Pausanias (erased in the 
epigram) as dedicators of the monument. If the Athenians dedicated, in their stoa at Delphi, 
the cables of Xerxes' bridge across the Hellespont (cf Hdt. 9.121), this would seem to in­
dicate that they looked upon the Sestus campaign, not the battle ofPlataea (or even Mycale), 
as marking the final victory over Xerxes. See P. Amandry, La Colonne des Naxiens et Ie 
Portique des Atheniens. Fouilles de Delphes II.L5 (Paris 1952) 91-121. 



282 SAVIORS OF GREECE 

Aegina calls Pausanias the man 'who has rescued Greece' (jvca/-,€Vov ~v 
~E>.Aaoa 9.78.2). A similar claim is made for Leonidas at Thermopylae 
by Spartan messengers who appear before Xerxes on his retreat 
through Thessaly after Salamis. They charge him with killing the 
king who defended Greece (jv6/-,€vOV ~v <E>.Aaoa 8.114.2). 

Panhellenic claims as to their service to Hellas were made by all 
cities after the war with Xerxes. In this widespread practice of com­
mon propaganda Athens attempted to establish her own uniqueness 
by basing claims on a similar, and more subtle, conception of Mara­
thon and Salamis. She did not emphasize Panhellenism for both 
battles but promoted one as a single-handed victory and the other as 
a victory for which she was chiefly responsible. The other dties re­
sented this as a distortion of glory common to all, and it contributed 
Significantly to the ill feeling against Athens which grew steadily 
during the Pentecontaetia. After the Peloponnesian War, with the 
defeat of Athens, a new perspective developed, and Panhellenism was 
incorporated into the praise of Marathon, as Athenian orators at­
tempted to inspire their listeners of the fourth century to reproduce 
the glories of the fifth.34 

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, CHAPEL HILL 

August, 1970 

U I should like to express my thanks to Professor Henry R. Immerwahr for kindly 
reading a preliminary draft of this paper and offering pertinent criticisms. Naturally. he is 
not responsible for the views presented nor for any errors which may remain.