Page images
PDF
EPUB

A who was successively 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 might win from B who was 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, a case which is at variance with common sense and (as Prof. Gardner shews) with all the slight testimony given by antiques and by writers. Still it is quite possible that a minimum of proficiency was required in the first four contests, as Dr Pinder assumes in regard to the first.

In supporting the objection to Dr Pinder's view that "if it were true, those contests which Dr Pinder asserts to be the most important," the first three, "would count for very little." Professor Gardner says (p. 217) "A man might be but third in all the three contests I have mentioned, and yet win by wrestling. In this case, why should his statue bear the halteres and his prize-vase contain no allusion to wrestling?" Yet these remarks are almost equally antagonistic to the application of Prof. Gardner's scheme to Flavius Philostratos' Argonautic pentathlon (de Gymn. § 3); for Prof. Gardner (p. 221) entertains two cases in which Pêleus wins, though third in leaping.

According to Professor Gardner's view of the comparative merits of the heroes, Pêleus was only third best in each of the first four contests. In assuming that Zêtês or Kalaïs might be left in for the last heat (on his own system) he must imply that either of them might beat Lynkeus and Telamôn in wrestling; as the sons of Boreas were last in merit in discus and spear-throwing. Now suppose the heats were as fol

[blocks in formation]

On this assumption, which ought not to be arbitrarily excluded, Pêleus would not even have a success in leaping in

one heat to justify the haltêres on his prize. If any justification beyond artistic requirements (see Dr Waldstein's letter) be needed it is furnished by the evidence (Flav. Phil. de Gymn. 55) that unless a man leapt well he ran a great chance of knocking himself up, and also by the premier position of the leaping in the order of the contests.

On my hypothesis, according to Prof. Gardner's own view of the heroes' merit, we get the subjoined simple scheme.

[blocks in formation]

If the larger of the alternative numbers be chosen or excluded, all five competitors remain in for the wrestling.

I need not make any assumption as to the numbers in the case of Tisamenos. Pausanias says of him, III. 11. 6, οὕτω πένταθλον Ὀλυμπίασιν ἄσκησας ἀπῆλθεν ἡττηθείς, καί τοι τὰ δύο γε ἦν πρῶτος· καὶ γὰρ δρόμῳ τε ἐκράτει πηδήματι Ἱερώνυμον *Ανδριον καταπαλαισθεὶς δὲ ὑπ' αὐτοῦ καὶ ἁμαρτῶν τῆς νίκης, κ.τ.λ. Her. IX. 33 tells us that Τισάμενος παρὰ ἓν πάλαισμα ἔδραμε νικᾶν Ολυμπιάδα Ἱερ. τῷ ̓Α. ἐλθὼν ἐς ἔριν. If these were the only competitors and Hierônymos was first in spear and discus-throwing Pausanias seems to say too much and too

little.

Theoretically any number of competitors might stay in for the wrestling, as for example if the order of n 1 competitors A, A, &c. (n being greater than 2) in the first four contests were 4,, 1, 1, n - 1, n-1; 4,, 2, 2, n-2, n − 2;..; A-, n-1, n-1, 1, 1.

n-19

But practically there would almost always be some competitors already beaten after the 3rd and 4th contests; and often, no doubt, the ultimate victor would be absolutely first in three out of the first four contests.

My hypothesis avoids the following difficulty entailed by assuming that each kind of contest was decided separately and also that three absolute victories were necessary to gain the prize. If two competitors were each first twice, or if 3, 4, or 5 competitors were each first once, we have on these assumptions no means of determining the final decision.

I will now indicate the difficulties which I consider fatal to Prof. Gardner's theory, but which mine avoids. First Prof. Gardner admits (p. 221) “that at first sight" Xenophon's language, Hellenica, VII. 4, "would seem to imply that the running contests of the pentathlon took place all at once."

Secondly, he seems to be obliged to assume that seven competitors is an extreme case, and only to be able to fit the three heats required in this case "provided, of course, that they went on at the same time as other contests." Now as to the numbers he says (p. 220): "Indeed it is doubtful if more than three usually contested in boxing and wrestling at Olympia." There happens to be a little indirect evidence on this point. Ol. VIII. 38 tells us that from eleven to sixteen boys competed in wrestling at once. Of course when the term pedpos was used metaphorically the case which naturally presented itself was the pedpos at the most critical stage of a contest, namely when only three were left in, and proves nothing as to the original number of competitors. We must not forget that the pentathlon "was in high favour among the Greeks" (p. 210), so that a theory as to the nature of the pentathlon ought to admit of as many competing in the boys' pentathlon (Nem. vII) as are implicitly recorded to have competed at once in the boys' wrestling. Prof. Gardner's heats would have taken as long in the case of five competitors

Then as to the pentathlon

as in his "extreme case" of seven. going on during other contests Pausanias tells us, vi. 24. 1, that the pentathlon took place towards the middle of the day after the running, and before wrestling and the pankration. This passage then supports the "at first sight" interpretation of Xenophôn, Hellenica, vII. 4, as also does Nem. vii. 72-74, to which I shall return. The most conclusive' passage on this point is Pausanias v. 9. 3, which tells us that, in the 77th Olympiad the horse-racing and pentathlon were deferred to a second day, because they, especially the pentathlon, extended the pankration to night. This passage, together with ib. vi. 24. 1, proves that the pentathlon did not go on simultaneously with other contests. These citations offer an argument against the system of heats for the pentathlon as they tend to shew that contests which took place in the same place came together. First the scene was in the dromos, then in the hippodromos, then the pentathlon in leaping- and hurling-ground, dromos, and wrestling-place whence there was no further move till night.

Thirdly comes the difficulty presented by the great advantage which an ephedros would have over competitors who had wrestled. Prof. Gardner justly says (p. 214) "We cannot help wondering what sort of a throw with a spear an athlete could make after a bout or two of wrestling."

This remark suggests a fourth difficulty, namely, that when one or more couples in the first heat had wrestled the performance in the subsequent heats would have been miserable.

Fifthly, it seems strange that a popular contest should be carried on during other contests, and that its interest should be divided.

Sixthly, time being an important consideration, a system of heats presupposes expenditure of time, while the pentathloi pass more than once from leaping-place to Spóμos, and thence to wrestling-ground.

1 Pointed out by Mr Ridgeway.

My supposition that it was not necessary for the victor to be absolutely first except in wrestling is not only supported by the above-mentioned case of Pêleus, which was most probably in accordance with the usage of the historic pentathlon, but also by Xenophon, Hellenica, IV. 7. 5, ἅτε δὲ νεωστὶ τοῦ ̓Αγησιλάου ἐστρατευμένου εἰς τὸ ̓́Αργος, πυνθανόμενος ὁ ̓Αγησί πολις τῶν στρατιωτῶν μέχρι μὲν ποῖ πρὸς τὸ τεῖχος ἤγαγεν ο ̓Αγησίλαος μέχρι δὲ ποῖ τὴν χώραν ἐδῄωσεν, ὥσπερ πένταθλος πάντῃ ἐπὶ τὸ πλέον ὑπερβάλλειν ἐπειρᾶτο, and still more strongly by Plato, p. 138 D, Erastae, Πότερον οὖν καὶ περὶ ταῦτα λέγωμεν, ἔφην, πένταθλον αὐτὸν δεῖν εἶναι καὶ ὕπακρον, τὰ δευτερεῖα ἔχοντα πάντων τὸν φιλόσοφον, κ.τ.λ. Even in Plutarch Symp. Probl. ix. 2, where alpha ταῖς τρισὶν ὥσπερ οἱ πένταθλοι περίεστι καὶ νικᾷ, definite classes of letters are vanquished at each contest', so that this passage can scarcely be quoted to support heats on Prof. Gardner's plan. Prof. Gardner cites the Scholiast ad Aristidem, οὐχ ὅτι πάντως οἱ πένταθλοι πάντα νικῶσιν, ἀρκεῖ γὰρ αὐτοις γ' τῶν ἑ πρὸς νίκην (Ed. Frommel, p. 112). But Aristides, Panathenaicus, p. 341 says ἐμοὶ μὲν οὐδὲ πένταθλοι δοκοῦσιν οἱ πάντα νικώντες τοσοῦτον τοῖς πᾶσι κρατεῖν.

Plutarch and Aristides allude either to the most famous pentathloi of old, who would naturally occur first to the minds of late writers, if they thought of old times at all, or perhaps to the exhibitions of professional athletes of their own times; while Plato refers to ordinary cases in the fifth and fourth centuries B. C. The authority of the Scholiast ad Aristidem is perhaps somewhat lowered by the fact that he does not repudiate the idea that the pankration might have taken the place generally assigned to the leaping (see, however, Plin. N. H. xxxiv. c. 19). But it is not my desire to damage his authority, for the three passages on the τραγμὸς do not " prove beyond all cavil that for victory in the pentathlon it was

1 In using this passage to support his own theory Dr Pinder seems to press the simile too much.

« PreviousContinue »