The thesis of this book is that a commonly accepted Panhellenic tradition on the conflicts between the Greeks and the Persians did not emerge until the Macedonian hegemony. Before 338 bce each Greek community perceived and celebrated the war in its own, distinct way. Y. traces this process by setting sources (mainly) from the classical period in their historical and ideological context. The study often takes the form of a response to M. Jung's Marathon und Plataiai (2006).
Y. employs the expression ‘Persian war’ to refer to the conflicts between Greece and Asia from the mid-sixth to the mid-fifth century bce (p. 1 n. 1), understood as one slowly developing process. This review will respect Y.'s formula, even though the sixth century makes limited appearance in the book. Another important terminological remark regards the notion of Panhellenism, a modern coinage lacking precise and undisputed definition. Y.'s approach highlights the conceptual divide between our analytical categories and the evidence, but I must report some inconsistencies in its application. Y. needs no clarifications about the Hellenic alliance (Historia 64 [2015]), and yet he does not employ the terminological rigour we would expect when discussing it. As widespread as it may be, calling the alliance a ‘league’ is an imprecise commonplace, which generates significant ambiguities, especially since the same word also commonly translates koinon. When sources refer to ‘the Greeks’ or their symmachia, they are not really employing a ‘shorthand for the Hellenic League’ (p. 39) – quite the contrary, it is us who are imposing a modern concept upon what they obviously defined in quite different terms. Thus, in Chapter 6 a meticulous discussion of Diodorus’ use of synedrion combined with Y.'s own use of ‘league’ produces a confusing admixture of historical and a-historical elements. Greater attention to these issues would have aided Y.'s main argument, since constantly referring to a league only conveys the illusionary impression of an institutional form that likely never existed.
In the introduction Y. provides a detailed yet accessible discussion of the memory studies forming the solid theoretical foundations of his analysis. Y. expertly guides the reader through numerous approaches; perhaps the addition of P. Bourdieu's model of symbolic power and doxa might have further supported the treatment of power as a network of unequal relationships.
Chapters 1 and 2 set the scene by examining major evidence on the celebration of the war, starting from the Serpent Column. Y. underlines that the surviving inscription groups together individual poleis but does not express any overarching, Panhellenic commemoration. Evidence related to the Column is scattered over Chapters 1–3, and as a result one group of key issues (pp. 31, 41–2, 97 and 102–5) does not seem to emerge clearly enough: I refer to the inconsistencies among accounts about the shape of the monument and the location of the revised inscription as well as to the different lists of participants found in the literary sources. Such conflicting evidence suggests further complexities in the tradition on the monument, to the point that the surviving inscription, on which Y.'s argument is mainly based, may not even be the one which replaced Pausanias’ couplet (add e.g. P. Liuzzo, Epigraphica 74 [2012]).
In Chapter 3 Y. shows there was no such thing as a ‘master’ narrative of the Persian war from the beginning, but rather numerous locally dominant (which he calls ‘counter’-) narratives. Y.'s clever analysis is hindered by occasional reliance on anachronistic juxtaposition of sources in order to generate a convenient ideological setting by attributing a monument to the will of a single politician (e.g. the idea that Theseus’ bones ‘were restored to Athens by Cimon’, p. 121 n. 119, is unattested before – at the very best – the late fourth century). This kind of ‘great-man-theory’ approach is now hardly tenable as several studies reveal weaknesses in settled assumptions, such as the notion of ‘Periclean’ Athens (e.g. V. Azoulay, Périclès [2010]; add M. Simonton, Polis [2018]), and consistently acknowledge the role of non-elites in political deliberation (M. Canevaro, Annales HSS 74 [2019]; P. Liddel, Decrees of Fourth-Century Athens [2020]) and construction of the past (M. Barbato, The Ideology of Democratic Athens [2020]). A related issue is Y.'s rather liberal application of the notion of propaganda (pp. 108, 125, Chapter 6 and passim) to any context ranging from democratic policies to the decisions of a Macedonian king. To regard propaganda as an interpretative tool for antiquity is inevitably anachronistic, problematic even in the case of imperial Rome, and indeed troublesome for Greece as the notion itself still eludes precise definition (a relatively recent attempt edited by K.A.E. Enenkel and I.L. Pfeijffer, The Manipulative Mode [2004], suffers from the limits highlighted by J. Lobur in BMCR 2005.06.24).
Chapter 4 deals with the different temporal and spatial boundaries set upon the war by the sources. The ‘interstate perspective’ (p. 149), reconstructed through six embassy speeches from Herodotus and Thucydides, reflects how memory of the war was debated when dealing with another community. Chapter 5 contrasts local celebrations from Plataea, Megara and Corinth with related Athenian traditions, convincingly showing how each polis forged different, ‘idiosyncratic’ stories.
Chapters 6 and 7 discuss how, eventually, Philip and then Alexander promoted a unified memory of the Persian war in order to bring the Greeks together against the Persian empire. The earlier, conflicting recollections facilitated the Macedonian effort since there was no strong master narrative to question, but the Greeks still presented a lukewarm reaction to Alexander's initiative, as shown by the counter-narratives developed in Thebes, Sparta and Athens in conjunction with their revolts. Y.'s discussion is convincing and well grounded, although the blatant disgracing of the Spartans on the Granicus dedication would have merited a longer treatment vis-à-vis the tradition on Sparta's hegemony during Xerxes’ invasion. Chapter 7 transcends the chronological limits of the study by surveying how Hellenistic powers exploited the Panhellenic view before the confrontation with Rome.
Y.'s book is beautifully produced and very clearly written. The bibliography is impressive but lacks some contributions, such as several relevant studies by G. Proietti and E. Franchi; the publication of N. Luraghi's article on the context of the Histories (QUCC 118 [2018]) might have been too close to that of the book to be taken into account. In this regard, Y. considers Herodotus as largely responsible for the single narrative of the war on which the traditional modern reconstruction is based. However, as Y. obviously knows (e.g. p. 273), the Histories often underline Greek disunity and regard the Serpent Column as supporting, yet clearly problematic evidence (A. Corcella in A.M. Biraschi et al. [edd.], L'uso dei documenti nella storiografia antica [2003], on Hdt. 8.82). Consistently, through monuments dedicated in the great sanctuaries and public speeches delivered abroad, each community stated a peculiar view of the war but, at the same time, also presupposed its negotiation, hence validation, in a ‘Panhellenic’ context whose definition was disputable and intimately tied to local claims. Thus D. Asheri called Herodotus’ view at the same time Panhellenic and Polyhellenic (QUCC 77 [2004]), and whereas Y. underlines parochialism, J. Crowley (in M. Sardoč [ed.], Handbook of Patriotism [2020]) has focused on the coexistence of Panhellenism and ‘parochial patriotism’.
I have highlighted what I found most problematic and controversial in a book which, nevertheless, successfully demonstrates that the familiar narrative of the Persian war does not reflect the way in which the ancient tradition(s) developed, and that our approach needs to be seriously reconsidered. Notwithstanding the aforementioned reservations, I welcome Y.'s monograph as an innovative and persuasive contribution.
