BOXING
No sport was older, and none was more popular at all periods among the
Greeks than boxing. Its antiquity and its popularity are manifest in
their mythology.[691] Apollo himself is said to have defeated Ares in
boxing at Olympia, and the Delphians sacrificed to Apollo the Boxer
(πύκτης), a conclusive proof that boxing was regarded by the Greeks as a
contest of skill rather than of brute strength. Heracles, Tydeus, and
Polydeuces were all famous boxers, and the invention of boxing is
ascribed to Theseus. Both in the _Iliad_ and the _Odyssey_ boxing
appears as a common accomplishment and a popular sport; it was
represented, according to Hesiod, on the shield of Heracles. The
discoveries of Cnossus have shown that boxing was known in the Aegean
centuries before the arrival of the Greeks. The survival of the
tradition in these parts may perhaps explain the extraordinary
popularity of boxing in the East, and particularly among the Ionians.
Boxing formed part of the ancient Delian festival, and the laws of
boxing in use at Olympia were ascribed to Onomastus of Smyrna. It was
also extremely popular among the Arcadians, but found less favour with
the Spartans who, though claiming to have invented boxing at first as a
military exercise, abandoned it at an early date and took no part in
boxing competitions.[692]
The early inhabitants of Crete are thought to have worn some kind of
glove or caestus. But the boxing of historic times was far more nearly
akin to fighting with bare fists, from which, of course, all boxing
originated. The fight between Odysseus and Irus in the _Odyssey_ proves
that fights with bare fists were frequent in Homeric times. But the
competitors in the funeral games of Patroclus had their hands covered
with well-cut thongs of ox-hide, such as we find represented later on
the vases. The use of some sort of covering or protection for the hand
necessarily determines the whole system of fighting, and it will be
convenient, therefore, before we consider the style of Greek boxing, to
trace the history and development of what for convenience we may call
the Greek gloves.[693] The simplest form of glove consisted in long,
thin thongs wound round the hands. They were made of ox-hide, raw or
simply dressed with oil or fat so as to render them supple. Later
writers described them as “soft gloves,” ἵμαντες μαλακώτεροι or μείλιχαι
in contrast with the more formidable implements in use in their own
time.[694] In reality they must have been far from soft, and like the
light gloves used sometimes in modern fights they served to protect the
knuckles from swelling, and so to increase the power of attack rather
than to deaden the force of the blow. From the vase paintings they
appear to be ten or twelve feet long, and the number of windings
represented require at least that length.
[Illustration: Fig. 132. R.-f. kylix, in British Museum, E. 63.]
[Illustration: Fig. 133. R.-f. kylix, in British Museum, E. 39.]
These thongs are among the commonest objects on the vases. Sometimes we
see them gathered into a bundle; and carried in the hand. A fragment of
a red-figured kylix in the British Museum, E. 63, shows a procession of
youthful boxers standing before an official (Fig. 132). They appear to
be competitors taking the preliminary oath to observe all the laws of
the games. Their right hands are raised, and in their left they carry
bundles of thongs. Similarly on the interior of another British Museum
kylix, E. 39, a youthful boxer with the thongs in his left hand stands
over an altar (Fig. 133). His attitude expresses surprise and excitement
at something which he sees upon the altar, perhaps, as Dr. Jüthner
suggests,[695] at the appearance of the victim, from the burning of
which he seeks an omen of his success in the games (μαντεῖον δί
ἐμπύρων). On the exterior of the same kylix the artist has drawn a
series of boxing scenes. On one side two youths are preparing or waiting
their turn to box, one holds in his hands a pair of thongs, one of which
he is handing to his fellow. The latter holds a thong outstretched with
both hands. At either end the thong is gathered into a loop. This type,
which is of very frequent occurrence, is often misinterpreted, the thong
being regarded either as a jumping rope, or as a rope used in a sort of
pulling match or tug-of-war, which was a familiar boys’ game in Plato’s
time.[696] But Dr. Jüthner has proved conclusively that the objects
represented are boxing thongs.[697]
Very frequently, as in the vase with which we are dealing, we see one or
both ends of the thong gathered into a loop. This arrangement is clearly
connected with the method of fastening the thong. Philostratus, in
describing the meilichai, says that the four fingers were inserted into
a loop in such a way as to allow the hand to be clenched, and were held
tight by a cord fastened round the forearm.[698] Cord and loop are
merely parts of the leather thong. The act of binding the thong is
frequently pictured on the red-figured vases, but the drawing of the
thongs is too small and usually too sketchy to allow us to form any
conclusion as to the precise method.[699] Probably there were various
methods in use. The thumb is always free and usually uncovered, though
occasionally the thong is wound round the thumb separately.[700] As a
rule the thong is wound several times round the four fingers and
knuckles, passed diagonally across the palm and back of the hand, and
wound round the wrist, the binding sometimes being carried some distance
up the forearm. The interior of a British Museum kylix, E. 78 (Fig.
134), shows a youth in the act of binding the thong on his right arm,
pulling the end tight with his left hand. In this case it seems that the
fingers are bound first, and the thong is fastened round the wrist. On a
B.M. amphora (Fig. 135) representing a later type of glove the order
appears to be reversed.
[Illustration: Fig. 134. Interior of Fig. 151. British Museum, E. 78.]
[Illustration: Fig. 135. Panathenaic amphora, in British Museum, B. 607.
Archonship of Pythodelus, B.C. 336.]
The meilichai were the only form of boxing glove used in the sixth and
fifth centuries, and they continued in use, at all events for practice
in the palaestra, during the fourth century. Early in this century,
however, they seem to have been superseded in competition by more
formidable gloves which Plato describes as σφαῖραι, and which he
recommends for use in his ideal state as more closely reproducing the
conditions of actual warfare. These σφαῖραι or balls have been
identified by Dr. Jüthner with a type of glove represented on certain
Panathenaic vases of the fourth century, and also on some Etruscan
cistae which belong to the early part of the third century. On the
latter the ball-like appearance to which they owed their name is clearly
marked. On the well-known Ficoroni cista[701] the hand appears to be
covered by a glove which leaves the fingers free but extends almost the
whole length of the forearm; and the glove is bound on by triple thongs,
crossing and recrossing each other, and finally gathered together into a
bunch, and secured by passing through a loop at the back of the hand.
Very similar is the type represented on the B.M. amphora (Fig. 135)
which bears the name of the Archon Pythodelus, 336 B.C. The glove seems
to be formed of thick bands of some soft substance stretching along the
arm, and bound round by stout, stiff leather thongs fastened apparently
between the fingers and the thumb. The youth to the left, who is waiting
to fight the winner, is drawing the end tight with his teeth. On the
right is represented, in place of the usual judge, a draped and winged
figure of Victory bearing in her hand a palm. A similar glove is
represented on another Panathenaic vase, in the Louvre, belonging to the
Archonship of Hegesias in 324 B.C.
[Illustration: Fig. 136. Boxer. Terme Museum, Rome. (From a photograph
by Anderson.)]
[Illustration: Fig. 137. Right hand of boxer, from Sorrento. Naples.]
To bind on the hand these complicated thongs must have been a
troublesome and lengthy process. And the introduction of the sphairai
was followed almost immediately by the invention of gloves which could
be drawn on or off more readily. These gloves, which are appropriately
described as ἵμαντες ὀξεῖς, are familiar to us from the seated boxer in
the Terme at Rome (Fig. 136). They occur also in a marble figure of a
boxer from Sorrento which is now at Naples (Fig. 137), on an arm also at
Naples, and on a hand found at Verona.[702] They consist of two parts, a
glove and a hard leather ring encircling the knuckles. The glove extends
half-way down the forearm and ends in a thick strip of fleece serving
doubtless to protect the arm, which might easily be broken by a blow
from so formidable a weapon; the glove itself appears from the way in
which the straps cut into it to have been padded; the ends of the
fingers are cut off and there is an opening on the inside. On the
knuckles the glove is provided with a thick pad which prevents the ring
in which the fingers are inserted from slipping down. This ring is
formed of three to five strips of hard, stiff leather, bound together by
small straps, and held in its place by thongs bound round the wrist. It
is about an inch wide and half an inch thick, and its sharp, projecting
edges must have rendered it a weapon of offence fully as effective as
the modern knuckle-duster. Under these circumstances it is amusing to
learn from Philostratus that the thumb was not allowed to take any part
in the blow for fear of causing severe and unsightly wounds (ὑπὲρ
συμμετρίας τῶν τραυμάτων) and that for the same reason the use of
pigskin was forbidden.[703] In later writers the term “sphairai” seems
to be used of these ἵμαντες ὀξεῖς, and inasmuch as they were too
dangerous for use in practice, soft, padded gloves were used in the
palaestra called ἐπίσθαιρα.[704]
These gloves continued in use with but little variation till the second
century A.D. at least. Indeed it is doubtful if any other form was ever
used in the true Greek festivals. The latest representation of them in
art is a relief now in the Lateran supposed to represent the fight
between Entellus and Dares.[705] The influence of Roman feeling is seen
in the fact that both combatants instead of being naked wear a chiton
tucked up so as to leave the right shoulder bare.[706] The gloves differ
little from those described above, except that the thumb is protected by
leather thongs, though not bound up with the fingers. Pausanias,
Plutarch, and Philostratus know no other form of glove, and none of
these writers makes any reference to the masses of lead and iron with
which, according to Roman poets, the caestus was loaded. The ἵμαντες
ὀξεῖς were certainly capable of inflicting all the injuries on which the
writers of epigrams in the _Anthology_ delight to dwell.[707] The use of
metal to render the caestus heavier and more dangerous is a purely Roman
invention, utterly barbarous and entirely fatal to all science in
boxing. The Roman caestus may have figured in some of those gladiatorial
shows which found favour in some parts of Greece under the empire, but
the silence of Philostratus and others proves that it was never used at
Olympia, or indeed at any place when any vestige of the athletic
tradition of Greece yet lingered.
The caestus has really no place in the history of Greek athletics except
in so far as it is a development of the ἵμαντες ὀξεῖς or σφαῖραι of the
Greeks. Completely ignorant of true boxing, the Romans assumed that the
power of attack could be increased by additional weight. They did not
understand that in boxing a quick, sharp blow is far more dangerous and
effective than a slow, heavy blow, and that the more the hand is
weighted, the slower the blow is, and therefore the easier to guard
against or avoid. According to the poets they increased the weight by
sewing pieces of lead and iron into the glove. In the existing
representations of the caestus the hand seems to be encased in a hard
ball or cylinder, from the back of which over the knuckles is a toothed
protection presumably of metal, which sometimes takes the form of two or
three spikes. These spikes have been sometimes mistaken for the fingers,
but their true nature has been conclusively shown by Dr. Jüthner. At the
same time the owner was protected by a padded sleeve extending almost to
the shoulder. This sleeve is usually made of a skin or fleece with the
rough side turned outwards and is secured by straps. On the Lateran
Mosaic the whole arm appears to be encased in a hard sheath (Fig.
138).[708]
[Illustration: Fig. 138. Caestus, from mosaic in the Thermae of
Caracalla. Lateran Museum.]
[Illustration: Fig. 139. Bronze situla. Watsch.]
In the preceding sketch no mention has been made of a very curious form
of caestus represented on the bronze situlae found at Bologna and in the
Tyrol, because, as Dr. Jüthner has pointed out, this form finds no place
in the development of the Greek boxing glove.[709] So-called boxing
scenes are of common occurrence on these situlae; the form of the weapon
is most clearly shown on the well-known situla from Watsch (Fig. 139),
on which two boxers are depicted fighting over a helmet placed on a
stand between them and holding in their hands objects exactly resembling
modern dumb-bells. In fact one is tempted to suppose that they really
are halteres shaped like dumb-bells, and that the scene depicted is not
so much a boxing match as some sort of athletic dance. Certainly the
style of the performance has as little connexion with true boxing as
these objects have with boxing gloves. But the composition of the group
seems to show that it really is a crude and barbarous representation of
boxing. The helmet placed between the two figures is, of course, the
prize for which they are fighting, and cannot possibly represent any
sort of barrier between the two combatants as a recent writer has
suggested.[710] In archaic art the tripods, cauldrons, or helmets which
are the objects of competition are frequently represented. In a race the
prize is naturally placed at the finish; in a combat it is no less
naturally placed between the combatants. The same scheme of composition
occurs on the walls of tombs at Tarquinii and Clusium,[711] and on the
fragment of a black-figured vase in the British Museum found at Daphnae
in Egypt (Fig. 140).[712] On the Etruscan tombs the scheme is not
confined to boxers. In the Tomba degli Auguri at Tarquinii a pair of
wrestlers[713] are wrestling over three large bowls placed between them;
but no one could suppose for a moment that the bowls were in reality so
placed. The numerous athletic scenes on those tombs bear witness to the
popularity of athletics and especially of boxing among the Etruscans;
but they do not justify us in assuming any connexion between Etruscan
art and that of the situlae, nor between Etruscan athletics and the
athletics of the Tyrol. The athletic scenes on Etruscan tombs are
nothing but imitations of the athletic scenes on the Greek vases which
we know were from an early period imported into Etruria. The diskoi,
halteres, and himantes differ little from those on the vases, such
differences as do occur being possibly due to the fact that the Etruscan
artist did not quite understand what he was copying. The scheme of
composition is usually Greek; that the particular boxing scheme which we
are discussing is Greek is proved by the vase from Daphnae. Such
resemblance then as exists between the Etruscan scheme and that on the
situlae is clearly due to the fact that both were imitated from the
Greeks, unless we are to maintain that the situlae were the original for
both Etruscans and Greeks. But if the scheme of composition on the
situlae is Greek, what shall we say of the form of caestus? It certainly
cannot have been derived from or even suggested by anything that Greek
boxers ever wore. Two explanations alone are possible. Either we have a
picture of some barbarous form of combat belonging to the Tyrol in which
such weapons were used,[714] or the makers of the situlae, ignorant of
Greek athletics, have mistaken the halteres of the Greeks for weapons
used in boxing.
[Illustration: Fig. 140. Fragment of b.-f. situla, in British Museum, B.
124.]
The history of Greek boxing may be divided then into three main periods.
The first is the period of the soft thongs or meilichai, and extends
from Homeric times to the close of the sixth century; the second is that
of the “sharp thongs” and sphairai, extending from the fourth century
into late Roman times; the third is that of the weighted caestus, though
as has been shown it is doubtful whether this was really Greek. The
changes in the form of the glove must have greatly modified the style of
boxing and even the scanty evidence which we possess allows us to trace
to some extent the change in style. For the first period we have the
evidence of Homer, and of the painted vases of the sixth and fifth
centuries: for the second period we have the evidence of a few
Panathenaic vases, and of Theocritus and Apollonius Rhodius, both of
whom have left us descriptions of fights which doubtless reflect the
practice of their own day: for the last period we have the extremely
unreliable evidence of Vergil and other Roman poets. There is also much
scattered information referring to different periods contained in the
writings of Plutarch, Pausanias, Lucian, and Philostratus. These writers
for the most part derive their information from earlier records, and it
is often difficult to estimate the value of their evidence. It is,
therefore, extremely important to consider first of all in its proper
order such evidence as can be dated with certainty. The neglect of this
precaution has led to many ill-considered and misleading statements
about the Greek boxer. Thus in a well-known dictionary, I find a
paragraph constructed with sublime indifference to dates from some
sixteen authors, Greek, Latin, and Byzantine, from the time of Homer to
that of Eustathius. The events referred to in this miscellaneous
collection of writers cover a period of at least a thousand years, and
from this farrago of evidence the author has produced a generalised
picture of the Greek boxer equally applicable or inapplicable to a
Homeric warrior or a Roman gladiator. The result is still worse when a
writer like Professor Mahaffy[715] bases a wholesale condemnation of
Greek boxing on Vergil’s description of the fight between Dares and
Entellus and a few stories of uncertain date. Before we consider such
criticism in detail we will first see what we can learn from a
chronological study of the evidence.
In Homer boxing, like wrestling, is already a specialised sport, though
the pankration, which combined the two, did not yet exist. The art of
boxing was hereditary in certain families, and custom had already
evolved a body of tacitly accepted rules for the regulation of a fight.
This is evident not merely from the description in the _Iliad_, but
still more so in the ease with which the suitors arrange all the
preliminaries for the impromptu fight between Odysseus and Irus. In the
latter bare fists are used; but otherwise the conditions of the two
fights are precisely similar. These conditions, which seem never to have
altered during the long history of Greek boxing, determined the whole
history of the sport, and are largely responsible for the differences
which distinguish Greek boxing from modern.
In the first place, there was no regular ring, beyond what was formed by
the spectators. Greek boxers had ample space and there was therefore no
opportunity for cornering an opponent. The only reference to any such
thing is in Theocritus’ account of the fight between Polydeuces and
Amycus, where the Greeks were afraid for the moment lest “the giant’s
weight might crush their champion in a narrow place.”[716] The
narrowness of the place is evidently noted here as something unusual.
The scene of the fight is the wooded dell at the foot of a lofty cliff
where Amycus makes his abode and waits to waylay strangers. A fitting
place for a robber but very different from the open ground where sports
were wont to be held, and where brute strength could have no chance
against the trained skill of the boxer. It was only the “narrow place”
which gave the bully a momentary advantage, and the passage, therefore,
really confirms the view that the boxing ring was wide and open. These
conditions tend to discourage close fighting and to encourage defensive
and waiting tactics.
Other circumstances contributed to the same result. There were no rounds
in Greek boxing. The opponents fought to a finish. It might happen that
both were too exhausted and by mutual consent paused to take breath; but
usually the fight went on until one of the two was incapable of fighting
any more, or acknowledged himself defeated (ἀπειπεῖν) by holding up his
hand. This signal of defeat is often depicted on vase paintings. A good
example of it occurs on the amphora in the British Museum, reproduced in
Fig. 141. In such fights forcing tactics do not pay, the boxer who makes
the pace too fast exhausts himself to no purpose; in the descriptions of
fights which we possess it is usually the clumsy, untrained boxer who
forces the pace and tries to rush his opponent, with disastrous effects
to himself. Caution was therefore the rule of the Greek boxer; and the
fighting was therefore usually slow. We shall see to what absurd lengths
this caution was carried in later times.
[Illustration: Fig. 141. B.-f. amphora, in British Museum, B. 271.]
Lastly, classification by weights was unknown to the Greeks. Their
competitions were open to all comers whatever their weight, and under
the conditions described, weight had perhaps even greater advantage than
it has to-day. Consequently boxing became more and more the monopoly of
heavy weights and became less and less scientific.
These conditions were not unlike those existing in the early days of the
English prize-ring, except that in the latter bare fists were used and
wrestling was allowed. The use of gloves or thongs renders wrestling
impracticable, and it appears, therefore, never to have been allowed in
Greek boxing. But there is an element of artificiality about all
fighting with covered hands. Modern boxers tell us that the use of
gloves has corrupted the true art of self-defence because the boxer with
gloves may expose himself to blows which would effectually end the fight
with bare fists. I doubt whether such a thing could be said of the Greek
thongs, which certainly can never have deadened the blow in the least.
Consequently boxing remained with the Greeks essentially the art of
“defence.” In late times we hear of boxers winning competitions without
even being hit by their opponents, a feat which would be quite
impossible under modern conditions.[717] But though the true tradition
of fighting was preserved in the pankration, and though in Homer we find
the same tactics employed whether with bare fists or with boxing thongs,
it is undoubtedly true that an artificial style was at an early date
developed in Greek boxing, and the artificiality was increased by the
changes which converted the simple boxing thongs into a formidable
weapon both for offence and defence. So the style of fighting employed
by the boxer diverged more and more from that of the pankratiast, and
whereas in the fifth century it is not infrequent to find families like
the Diagoridae distinguished in both boxing and the pankration, this
combination becomes rarer, and the so-called successors of Heracles of a
later age were those who won the pankration and wrestling.
The two Homeric fights have been already fully described in a previous
chapter. They give us little information as to the style of Greek
boxing, except that both fights were decided by knock-out blows on the
jaw or thereabouts, delivered presumably with the right hand much in the
same way as in modern boxing. Nor are the vase paintings as enlightening
as we should expect from the number of vases on which boxing is
indicated. The fact is that a boxing match is a supremely difficult
subject for an artist, as may be readily realised by a glance at the
illustrations in modern books on athletics. The Greek vase painter
instinctively avoided violent movement, and often preferred to represent
a sport not by the actual performance but by some preliminary scene.
Hence the large number of vases on which he has represented boxing by
groups of men holding or adjusting the himantes.[718] Even when he did
depict the actual fight he confined himself to a small number of
conventional types. There is less conventionality and more originality
shown on the early black-figured than on the red-figured vases; but the
crowding of figures on these early vases was incompatible with a true
representation of open fighting, and consequently on many of these vases
the boxing is confined to short arm punching and chopping, the grotesque
effect of which is frequently heightened by the blood which flows
copiously from the noses of the combatants. A good example of this style
is seen in Fig. 142, taken from a black-figured stamnos in the
Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, where, it will be observed, the
athletes all wear the archaic loin-cloth. On the red-figured vases a
more open style of fighting prevails. We are not, however, justified
thereby in assuming any change of style in the actual fighting; the
difference is due chiefly, if not entirely, to artistic causes. In
spite, however, of this lack of variety on the vases we can, I think,
draw certain conclusions from them as to the attitude and methods of the
Greek boxer.
[Illustration: Fig. 142. B.-f. stamnos. Bibliothèque Nationale, 252.]
There can be no doubt as to the position assumed by the Greek boxer when
he first “puts up his hands.” It is the moment most frequently depicted
on the vases. He stands with body upright and head erect, the feet well
apart, and the left foot advanced. The left leg is usually slightly
bent, the foot pointing straight forwards, while the right foot is
sometimes at right angles to it, pointing outwards in the correct
position for a lunge with the left. The left arm, which is used for
guarding, is extended almost straight, the hand sometimes closed,
sometimes open. The right arm is drawn back for striking, the elbow
sometimes dropped, but more usually raised level with or even higher
than the shoulder. This position is clearly shown on a series of vases
from the British Museum, from which our illustrations are taken,
extending from the sixth century to the fourth century B.C. They are a
black-figured amphora by Nicosthenes (Fig. 143), two red-figured kylikes
one of which is signed by Duris (Figs. 133, 151), and two Panathenaic
vases of the latter half of the fourth century (Figs. 135, 148).
On all these vases and on most other vases containing boxing scenes the
left leg is vigorously advanced. Mr. Frost, in his article on Greek
boxing in the _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, vol. xxvi., to which I am
indebted for many useful hints, maintains that this is merely a
conventional rendering, and that the Greek boxer really stood with his
feet nearly level, like the early pugilists of the English prize-ring.
Little evidence is adduced for this statement, and he seems to me to
have been misled by the analogy of the prize-ring, forgetting that our
knowledge of Greek boxing begins at the point where the history of the
prize-ring ends. In the prize-ring bare fists were used, and clinching,
wrestling, and throwing were allowed; whereas in Greek boxing the hand
always had some form of covering, and no clinching or wrestling was
allowed. Moreover, Mr. Frost’s theory does not seem to me to explain the
facts. If both feet were approximately level we should expect to find
that in a fair proportion of cases the right foot was advanced,
especially as symmetry, which exercised a strong influence over the
Greek painter, would naturally prompt him to represent one boxer with
the right foot, the other with the left foot in advance, an arrangement
by no means uncommon in wrestling groups. In boxing, however, such
symmetrical groups are extremely rare, and the left foot is nearly
always advanced, and in several cases is shown in the very act of
lunging. Indeed, so far from holding the body square, it would appear
from the vases that the Greeks exaggerated the sideways position. For
frequently the left foot and left arm of one boxer are represented as
outside or to the right of the left foot and arm of his opponent (Fig.
143).[719]
[Illustration: Fig. 143. B.-f. amphora, in British Museum, B. 295.]
This sideways position with the left arm extended was an elective guard
for the head and kept an opponent at a distance, but it left the body
quite unprotected, a mistake which would be fatal in the confined space
of the modern ring with a strong and active opponent. This exposure of
the body is, as Mr. Frost has pointed out, characteristic of all Greek
boxing as depicted on the vases, and this peculiarity is connected with
a fact which, as far as I know, has not been observed before, that the
Greek boxer confined his attention almost exclusively to his opponent’s
head. Whether it was that he did not realise the use of body blows, or
that he considered them bad form, or that they were prohibited, it is
certain that he made little or no use of them. There is not, as far as I
know, a single representation of a body blow; the injuries inflicted are
all injuries to the head; in the few cases where body blows are
mentioned they are delivered by unscientific fighters, such as Irus and
Amycus, and appear to be ill-aimed or short blows, which, missing the
head, have fallen on the shoulder or chest. The only exception which I
know is the fatal blow by which Damoxenus, according to Pausanias, slew
Creugas at the Nemean games;[720] but though there was doubtless some
foundation for the story the details are so manifestly fabulous that
they are valueless as evidence. On the other hand a passage in
Philostratus affords a strong presumption that boxing was practically,
if not formally, confined to head blows. He tells us that boxing was
invented by the Spartans because they did not wear helmets, considering
the shield the only manly form of protection.[721] They practised boxing
in order to learn to ward off blows from the head and to harden the
face. Further, in describing the physical qualities of the boxer he
regards a prominent stomach as a possible advantage, because it renders
it less easy for an opponent to reach the face! Nor does he anywhere
make any reference to body blows. Boxing like fencing is governed by
artificial laws, and it is just possible that the laws of Greek boxing
prohibited intentional blows on the body, just as blows below the belt
are prohibited to-day. Perhaps they were forbidden by the unwritten law
of tradition. Whatever the explanation, the fact seems fairly
established that body hitting was not practised, and consequently the
body was left unguarded; and this peculiarity is perhaps the most
important difference between Greek and modern boxing, and had important
results on the history of the sport.
It would appear at first sight from the vases that the left hand was
used almost exclusively for guarding, and the right for attack. Though
the actual blow with the right is never represented, the right fist is
almost invariably clenched and drawn back for the blow. But this
statement requires considerable modification. In the first place, so
long as a boxer kept his left arm extended as guard, it was only
possible to reach his head with the right hand either by stepping to the
right so as to get outside his guard, or by breaking down his guard. In
the first case it was possible to deliver a swinging blow on the left
side of the chin—the knock-out blow described in Homer and Theocritus.
But as the opponent naturally met the movement by himself moving to the
right, the result was usually that the fighters circled round each other
ineffectively. This is perhaps the reason why the left foot and hand of
the boxer are so commonly represented to the right of his opponent’s
left foot and hand. But it can seldom have been possible to bring off
such a blow as a lead, and therefore an opening had to be made for the
use of the right hand by sparring with the left somewhat in the style of
fencers. In this sparring which is commonly depicted on the vases, the
hands are usually open. An instance of it occurs in Fig. 151, where a
pair of boxers are seen sparring with open hands apparently for
practice. Still better is the scene on a Panathenaic vase in Berlin
(Fig. 144). Here the left-hand boxer having made his opening prepares to
follow up the attack with his right, while his opponent draws back his
head out of reach and guards with both hands. Sometimes in such sparring
an opportunity occurred for delivering a blow with the left. On a
Panathenaic vase published by Stephani (Fig. 145) the right-hand boxer
in pressing the attack has exposed his head, and his opponent has shot
out his left hand without even closing it and hit him on the nose. This
leads us to a second point. Wherever the actual blow is represented, or
one boxer is represented as in the act of being knocked down, or having
been knocked down, the blow is delivered with the left hand. We may
therefore conclude that the Greek boxer used his left hand as much as
the right for attack, and that some of the most effective blows could be
delivered with the left. This conclusion is borne out by the
descriptions in Homer, Theocritus, and other writers, who with one
consent represent the Greek as a two-handed fighter.
[Illustration: Fig. 144. Panathenaic amphora. Berlin, 1831. Sixth
century.]
[Illustration: Fig. 145. Panathenaic amphora. Campana. Sixth century
(?).]
The position of the right arm indicates that it was employed chiefly for
round or hook hits, upper cuts, and chopping blows, and a consideration
of the general attitude and guards of the Greek boxer shows that only
such blows were as a rule possible with the right. Sometimes the right
hand is swung back in preparation for the knock-out blow (Fig. 133),
sometimes it is raised slightly above the shoulder as if for a downward
chopping blow (Fig. 143), sometimes it is held on a level with or below
the shoulder, in which case a straight hit may be intended (Fig. 148).
But a straight hit was impossible unless the opponent’s guard had been
previously broken down or knocked aside with the left. With the left
hand, however, straight hits appear to be the rule, as indeed we should
expect from the position with the left leg advanced, and, as the heel of
the right foot is usually lifted from the ground, it appears that the
force of the blow was obtained correctly from a lunge. An excellent
illustration of such a blow is found on a kylix of Pamphaeus (Fig. 146).
The falling boxer raises his left hand to guard his head; but it is in
vain; for he lifts the forefinger of his right hand in acknowledgment of
defeat. Still better is the scene on a Panathenaic amphora in the Louvre
(Fig. 147) which represents a boxer knocking his opponent down with a
blow on the point of the chin. A further stage is depicted in one of the
groups on the Duris kylix (Fig. 133) where one boxer has already been
knocked down by his opponent’s left. He too raises his finger as a sign
that he is beaten. Sometimes a vigorous lunge with the left foot is
represented.[722]
[Illustration: Fig. 146. R.-f. kylix of Pamphaeus. Corneto.]
[Illustration: Fig. 147. Panathenaic amphora. Louvre, F. 278.]
[Illustration: Fig. 148. Panathenaic amphora, in British Museum, B. 612.
Fourth century.]
The view stated in the last paragraph is at variance with that put
forward by Professor Mahaffy and supported with some modification by Mr.
Frost. These writers maintain that the straight hit from the shoulder
was practically unknown to the Greek boxer. They argue partly from the
description of the fights in Theocritus and Vergil, which will be
discussed later; but their main argument is that the wounds received in
Greek boxing were chiefly on the side of the head and on the ear, and
that the Greek boxer was known throughout all Greek history as “a man
with the crushed ear.” The latter statement is absolutely erroneous. The
earliest reference to the crushed ear is in Plato, who uses the term to
describe those who aped Spartan manners and practised fighting like the
Spartans.[723] Now it is well known that scientific boxing was unknown
at Sparta: fighting there was in plenty with bare fists and no
regulations; but science in boxing and also in wrestling was despised by
the Spartans. Moreover, it seems that the crushed ear was quite as much
the sign of the pankratiast or even of the wrestler;[724] it appears to
have been very similar to the swollen ear which is so common among Rugby
football players. When we come to consider the literary evidence we
shall find that the crushed ear plays but little part; eyes, nose,
mouth, teeth, chin, come in for far more punishment than the ears, and
the vase paintings agree with the literary evidence. Bleeding at the
nose, cuts on the cheek, blows on the chin are freely depicted; but I do
not know a single vase which represents the crushed ear. So far as the
crushed ear is concerned, the charge against the Greek boxer of
neglecting straight hitting breaks down completely.
Nor does it seem to me at all easy to substantiate the statement also
made that the Greeks had no knowledge of foot-work, and that having
taken up their position they stood practically still. Naturally the
vases throw little light on such a point; but they do prove undoubtedly
that the Greeks understood how to give force to a blow by lunging, and
inasmuch as the lunge is always with the left foot, it seems probable
that they understood the importance of not changing feet. Further, in
all the descriptions of fights the value of quick foot-work is clearly
recognised. This appears even in late writers like Statius.[725] His
victor Alcidamas defeats his heavier opponent Capaneus by his greater
activity. Capaneus drives him round the ring but Alcidamas “avoids a
thousand deaths which flit around his temples by quick movement and by
the help of his feet.” When we find the value of foot-work recognised in
a writer like Statius, whose ideas of boxing are vitiated by the
brutalities of the Roman caestus, we are surely justified in assuming
that the Greeks of a better period were at least equally skilful. Still
more convincing is the evidence of Philostratus. “I do not approve,” he
says, “of men with big calves in any branch of athletics, and especially
in boxing. They are slow in advancing, and easily caught by an
opponent’s advance.”[726] Philostratus, it will be remembered, though
writing in the time of the Empire, aims at reviving the practice of the
old Greek athletes, and much of his material is derived from earlier
treatises on athletics. In describing the ideal boxer he lays particular
stress on activity and suppleness. So Bacchylides describes the youthful
Argeius of Ceos,[727] a victor in the boys’ boxing at the Isthmia, as
“stout of hand, with the spirit of a lion and light of foot.”
Such appear to be the general characteristics of the Greek boxer as
depicted on the vases. He used both hands freely, was active on his
feet, and had a considerable variety of attack. His style resembled the
freer style of American boxing which has recently become popular rather
than the somewhat conventional almost one-handed style which so long
prevailed in England. From later literature we learn that he was an
adept at dodging, “ducking,” and “slipping.” The defect of his style
appears to me to be the stiff, high guard with the left hand, which is
best explained on the supposition that he hit only at the head. This
guard is stiffer, and the arm straighter on the red-figured vases than
on the earlier black-figured vases, and this is still more the case on
the Panathenaic vases of the fourth century (Figs. 135, 148). The use of
the left hand for guarding cramped the attack and encouraged the use of
downward chopping blows, of which there are some traces on the vases.
This is probably the reason why the forearm was protected by leather
thongs. The introduction of the hard, cutting rims round the hand at the
close of the fifth century rendered the style of fighting still more
artificial, and necessitated still further protection for the forearm.
How difficult it must have been to get within the guard of a big boxer
with a long reach armed with these weapons will be realised from the
figure on the Panathenaic vase in Fig. 135. Thus a thoroughly vicious
style of boxing sprang up which accentuated the natural advantages of
the heavy-weight boxer. Instead of relying on activity and skill he
relied more and more on his stiff defence. He even practised holding up
his arm for long periods in order to weary his opponent, and the
absurdity of his style reaches its climax in the highly rhetorical tales
of Dion Chrysostom. Describing Melancomas, the favourite of the emperor
Titus, he says that he could keep up his guard for two whole days and so
forced his opponents to yield not merely before he had been struck
himself but even before he had struck them.[728] The story is
sufficiently remarkable; but, nothing daunted, Eusebius succeeds in
improving upon it and asserts that Melancomas by these tactics “killed
all his opponents,” an illustration of the growth of sporting stories
which may well make us sceptical of the evidence of late commentators.
Dion, however, is writing of a man who was his own contemporary, and,
making allowance for rhetorical exaggeration, we may therefore safely
accept his evidence as to the style of boxing in vogue at his time. Such
a defence explains the employment of those slogging, downward blows
which figure so largely in the descriptions of late Greek and Latin
poets. In these descriptions we can trace the decay of Greek boxing; but
the faults which were developed in Hellenistic and Roman times should
not be ascribed to the boxers of the fifth century. The changes in the
boxing thongs altered the whole character of the boxing.
Incomparably the best description of a fight which we possess is that
between Amycus and Polydeuces in the 22nd Idyll of Theocritus. It
illustrates the changes in Greek boxing; for it is a fight between a
boxer of the old heroic school who relies on science and activity, and
the coarse braggart prize-fighter with whom the poet was perhaps
familiar in Alexandria. We see the bully sitting in the sunshine beside
the spring, the muscles on his brawny arms standing out like rounded
rocks, just as they do in the Farnese Heracles. His ears are bruised and
crushed from many a fight. There he sits sulkily guarding the spring,
and when Polydeuces approaches and with courtly grace craves hospitality
he challenges him to battle. The boxing thongs are all ready to hand,
not soft thongs but hard (στερεοῖς). “Then,” says the poet, “they made
their hands strong with cords of ox-hide, and wound long thongs about
their arms.” Here we have the σφαῖραι depicted on the Ficoroni cista in
a picture of this very fight. A keen struggle ensued for position—which
should have the sun’s rays on his back—and the more active Polydeuces
naturally outwitted his clumsy opponent. Writers on athletics are wont
to dwell on this incident as typical of boxing at Olympia, and to
expatiate on the glare of the sun in the eyes, forgetful of the fact
that at midday, the hour at which it seems boxing took place, the rays
of the summer sun at Olympia must be too nearly vertical to make much
difference. Amycus, exasperated at the advantage gained, made a wild
rush at Polydeuces, attacking with both hands, but was promptly stopped
by a blow on the chin. Again, he rushed in head down, and for a time the
Greeks were afraid that he would crush Polydeuces by sheer weight in the
narrow space; but each time Polydeuces stopped his rushes with blows
right and left on mouth and jaws, till his eyes were swollen and he
could hardly see, and finally knocked him down with a blow on the bridge
of the nose. He managed, however, to pick himself up and the fight began
again; but his blows were short and wild, falling without effect on the
chest, or outside the neck, while Polydeuces kept smashing his face with
cruel blows. At last in desperation he seized Polydeuces’ left hand with
his left and tried to knock him out with a swinging right-hander,
“driving a huge fist up from his right haunch.” It is an admirable
description of a knock-out blow, but he was too slow; the very act of
seizing his opponent’s hand, an obvious illegality, spoilt his effort.
Polydeuces slipped his head aside and with his right struck him on the
temple “putting his shoulder into the blow,” and he followed up this
advantage by a left-hander on the mouth, “so that his teeth rattled.”
After this he continued to punish his face with quickly repeated blows
“till Amycus sank fainting on the ground, and begged for mercy.”
In this masterly description Theocritus shows an intimate knowledge of
boxing. It is a fight between science and brute strength. Amycus has the
advantage of height and weight, but he has no science and blunders
hopelessly. He rushes in head down, hits wildly with both hands,
neglects his guard, and finally commits a glaring breach of the rules of
boxing by seizing his opponent’s hand. Polydeuces acts on the defensive,
husbanding his strength by allowing the bully to exhaust himself, while
he avoids his rushes by dodging, or ducking, or stops them by well-aimed
blows on the face. Did he stop his rushes by swinging hits only, or by
straight hitting from the shoulder? The description appears to me
conclusive proof that even in the third century some of the Greeks
understood the art of hitting straight. I do not dwell on the evidence
of the words ἐμέεμπεσεν ὠμῷ, though I confess that the only
interpretation which is to me intelligible, is the ordinary one “he put
his shoulder into the blow.” It is rather the whole character of the
fight which implies straight hitting. Polydeuces is the smaller man, and
time after time he stops the other’s rushes with blows which fall on
chin, mouth, nose, eyes, forehead, in fact everywhere except on the ears
or side of the heads, the parts which should have suffered most
according to the argument of those who maintain that the Greeks did not
hit from the shoulder. As for the faults of Amycus, Theocritus is quite
aware that he is no trained boxer, and it is hardly fair to judge the
Greek boxer by him.
The account of this same fight in the _Argonautica_ of Apollonius
Rhodius[729] is somewhat similar, and though infinitely inferior as a
whole presents certain details of interest. The himantes are carefully
described; they are manufactured by Amycus himself; “rough and dry with
hard ridges round them” like the gloves worn by the boxer of the Terme.
Amycus makes the fighting; Polydeuces retreats and dodges his rushes,
but at last he stands his ground and a fight ensues so fast and furious
that both men, utterly exhausted, pause and separate by mutual consent.
After a moment they spring at one another again, and Amycus, rising on
tiptoe to his full height, aims a swinging downward blow at Polydeuces
“like one that slays an ox.” Polydeuces slips aside, and, before his
opponent has time to recover his balance or his guard, steps past him
and deals him a swinging blow above the ear which not only knocks him
out but kills him. The conclusion of the fight is an obvious imitation
of Homer. But the poet has introduced a feature of his own which finds
no place in Homer, when he describes Amycus as rising on tiptoe. The
detail is copied by Vergil who probably knew no better. But Apollonius
has more knowlege of athletics; it is the action not of a boxer but of
“one that slays an ox.” And yet, in spite of this, we find it stated by
modern writers, on the authority of these two poets, that the boxer
habitually rose on tiptoe to increase the weight of his blow! If we
would learn the principles of Greek boxing it must be from the practice
not of Amycus but of Polydeuces.
The boxing match between Entellus and Dares in the fifth _Aeneid_ need
not detain us long. Its character is obvious from the first in the
description of the caestus. Entellus throws into the ring the caestus of
the hero Eryx; they are made of seven ox-hides stiff with iron and lead,
and still stained with blood and brains, and at their sight Dares and
all the host tremble. “What!” cries Entellus, “do these frighten you?
What if you had seen the weapons of Hercules?” Finally by the advice of
Anchises these murderous weapons are rejected, but the point of interest
in this scene is that the poet’s Roman ideas have led him to reverse the
whole history of boxing. In reality the heavy caestus had developed
slowly from the simple leather thongs. But to the Roman murder and
bloodshed were the essence of a fight. And therefore as the heroes of
the past excelled in physique the men of the present, they must have
excelled them also in the bloodiness of their fights and the murderous
brutality of their weapons. The fight itself is in accordance with this
beginning.
Both men rise on tiptoe and hammer each other as hard as they can.
Entellus is the bigger man and for a long time acts on the defensive,
keeping his more active opponent at a distance. At last, tired of such
tactics, he makes a big effort; rising on tiptoe to his full height he
ostentatiously lifts his arm on high, thus giving Dares full warning of
what is coming. The latter is not slow to take advantage of the warning;
he dodges the ponderous blow, and Entellus, unable to recover his
balance, falls to the ground. Exasperated by his fall, he picks himself
up and chases Dares all round the ring till Aeneas in mercy ends the
fight. Baulked of his vengeance on Dares he vents his rage and exhibits
his strength by killing with a single blow the ox which is his prize.
What a contrast to the finish in the _Iliad_ when the great-hearted
Epeius picks up his fallen opponent and gently sets him on his feet!
What a contrast even to the fight in Theocritus! There science is
matched against strength and science deservedly wins. Here both men are
as devoid of science as Vergil himself is devoid of all knowledge of
boxing; if either of the two has any claim to skill it is the defeated
Dares. Entellus owes his victory simply to brute strength. A still more
absurd result occurs in Statius; the lighter and more skilful boxer is
declared the victor, but is only saved from the fury and vengeance of
his defeated opponent by the intervention of Adrastus, who separates
them. But the brutalities and absurdities out of which these later
fights are concocted need no discussion.
Little is known of the laws regulating Greek boxing. The competitions
were conducted in the same manner as wrestling competitions, on the
tournament system, and to obtain a bye must have been a very great
advantage. We learn from Plutarch that no wrestling or clinching was
allowed.[730] It appears from the vases that there was no rule against
hitting a man who was down. The successful boxer is frequently depicted
as preparing to hit his fallen opponent, who under the circumstances
naturally gives in at once.[731] On the other hand, in Theocritus and
Vergil the fallen boxer certainly manages to rise again, either by his
own dexterity or his opponent’s forbearance. It appears also from the
story of Creugas and Damoxenus[732] that when a fight had continued long
without any result, the combatants sometimes agreed to exchange free
hits without guarding. A similar practice in wrestling was called
κλῖμαξ. It is further argued from this story that cases of fatal injury
inflicted on an opponent were severely punished; but the evidence seems
insufficient to justify a general statement. In the cases quoted in
support of such a law the offence appears to have consisted in some
unlawful and intentional act of violence.[733] Fatal accidents were
certain to occur occasionally; but there is no evidence that they were
at all frequent, nor do they seem to have been punished. It is not clear
what the offence was for which Damoxenus was dishonoured and deprived of
his victory. Pausanias seems to imply that because he hit Creugas with
his fingers extended, he hit several blows at the same time. Was hitting
with the hand open prohibited? It is certainly a reasonable prohibition.
Or can it be that hitting in the stomach was prohibited? We have no
evidence for deciding.
[Illustration: Fig. 149. Marble head of boxer, with ear-lappets.]
[Illustration: Fig. 150. B.-f. hydria, in British Museum, B. 326.]
We are not told how the Greeks taught boxing; perhaps it was in the same
way as they taught wrestling, by a sort of drill. Boys in the palaestra
had their ears and heads protected with ear-lappets (ἀμφωτίδες or
ἐπωτίδες)[734] or caps. The former are represented on a marble head
formerly in possession of Fabretti (Fig. 149).[735] They closely
resemble the ear-caps worn by modern football players, and were probably
made of padded leather. On the vases a close-fitting cap is often
represented (Fig. 17). Such protection was used both in wrestling and
boxing, but only, it seems, for practice and by boys, never in public
competitions. Boxers kept themselves in training by light sparring with
open hands, which was therefore known as ἀκροχειρισμός.[736] An example
of such sparring may be seen on an early black-figured hydria in the
British Museum (Fig. 150), or on the kylix in Fig. 151. In default of an
opponent they practised “shadow-fighting” (σκιαμαχία),[737] just as a
modern athlete will practise in front of a looking-glass. The statue of
the famous Glaucus represented him “shadow-fighting” because of his
skill in the use of his hands.[738] This form of practice was also known
as χειρονομία, or hand drill. Sometimes a κώρυκος or punch-ball was
employed (Fig. 179).[739] An exercise much recommended for boxers was
digging, and the pick (σκαπάνη) was therefore regarded as the badge of a
boxer.[740]
Footnote 691:
For mythological references _vide_ Krause, pp. 498 ff.
Footnote 692:
Philostr. _Gym._ 9, 12.
Footnote 693:
For a fuller account of this subject the reader is referred to the
admirable chapter in Dr. Jüthner’s _Antike Turngeräthe_, pp. 66-95,
where he will find full references both literary and monumental.
Footnote 694:
Paus. vi. 23, 4; viii. 40, 3. Plato, _Leg._ viii. 830 B.
Footnote 695:
_Ant. Turn._ p. 67.
Footnote 696:
Plato, _Theaet._ 27. Krause, p. 323, distinguishes two games, one
described as διελκυστίνδα or διὰ γραμμῆς παίζειν, a tug-of-war between
teams, the other called σκάπερδα or ἑλκυστίνδα, a game in which two
youths tried to lift one another off the ground by means of a rope
passed through a hole in a pillar. Roulez was the first to suggest
this explanation of the thongs shown on vases. His explanation is
adopted in a recent article on a fine r.-f. kylix representing
wrestling and boxing scenes, Pl. xxxv. in the _Transactions of the
University of Pennsylvania_, 1907, p. 140.
Footnote 697:
_Op. cit._ p. 69.
Footnote 698:
_Gym._ 10 ὥπλιστο δὲ ἡ ἀρχαία πυγμὴ τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον· ἐς στρόφιον οἱ
τέτταρες τῶν δακτύλων ἐνεβιβάζοντο καὶ ὑπερέβαλλον τοῦ στροφίου
τοσοῦτον ὅσον, εἰ συνάγοιντο, πὺξ εἶναι, συνείχοντο δὲ ὑπὸ σειρᾶς ἣν
καθάπερ ἔρεισμα ἐβέβληντο ἐκ τοῦ πήχεος. Cp. Paus. viii. 40, 3.
Footnote 699:
Sometimes the thongs are drawn only on the hand, sometimes only on the
wrist, sometimes they are completely wanting. This is probably due to
nothing but carelessness, but in some cases these lines, which were
usually painted in after the rest of the figure was finished, may have
simply worn off.
Footnote 700:
Jüthner, Fig. 59.
Footnote 701:
Jüthner, Fig. 66.
Footnote 702:
Jüthner, p. 79, Figs. 62-64.
Footnote 703:
_Gym._ 10.
Footnote 704:
Plutarch, _Mor._ 825 E.
Footnote 705:
Jüthner, Fig. 68. Helbig, 619.
Footnote 706:
Cp. _Inschr. v. Priene_, 112, l. 91, where mention is made of boxing
ἐν εἴμασι.
Footnote 707:
The word μύρμηκες, which is used by the epigrammatists (_Anth. Pal._
xi. 78), appears to be merely a humorous designation of these weapons,
but to have no special significance.
Footnote 708:
Jüthner, pp. 87 ff., Figs. 69-74; cp. Hans Lucas, _Jahrbuch_, 1904,
pp. 127-136.
Footnote 709:
Jüthner, Fig. 61, pp. 75, 76.
Footnote 710:
R. M. Burrows, _Discoveries in Crete_, p. 35. As far as the athletic
argument is concerned, the connexion which Professor Burrows suggests
between Crete and Central Europe and Etruria appears to me entirely
without foundation.
Footnote 711:
Dennis, _Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria_, _passim_.
Footnote 712:
_Tunis_, ii. 30.
Footnote 713:
_Mon. d. I._ XI. Pl. 25.
Footnote 714:
Athenaeus quotes Poseidonius as saying that the Celts were addicted to
fights with arms, wounding and even killing one another. ἐν γὰρ τοῖς
ὅπλοις ἀγερθέντες σκιαμαχοῦσι καὶ πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἀκροχειρίζονται,
Athen. 154 A.
Footnote 715:
_Rambles in Greece_, 2nd Ed., p. 314. There is no foundation at all
for his description of the meilichai as weights held in the hand and
fastened by thongs.
Footnote 716:
xxii. 93.
Footnote 717:
Dion Chrysostom, _Orat._ 29.
Footnote 718:
Jüthner, p. 71.
Footnote 719:
Cp. Figs. 142, 145.
Footnote 720:
Paus. viii. 40, 3.
Footnote 721:
_Gym._ 10, 23.
Footnote 722:
Benndorf, _Gr. Sic. Vasenb._ xxxi. 2; Gerhard, _A.V._ 177 (= Munich
584); _Le Musée_, ii. p. 276, Fig. 24 (b.-f. vase at Boulogne). Other
examples of a blow with the left hand are: a Fragment in the Louvre
(Hartwig, _Meisterschalen_, Fig. 31); _Mus. Greg._ ii. 17 (very
similar to B.M. B. 271); Krause, _Gym._ xviii. d. 66 f.; Brussels 336.
In the Benndorf vase and some others the blow seems to be somewhat
downward, which is probably due to the fact that the opponent is in
the act of falling.
Footnote 723:
_Gorgias_, 516 A; _Protag._ 342 B; cp. Theocritus xxii. 45. For full
references _vide_ Krause, _Gym._ pp. 516, 517, and _J.H.S._ xxvi. p.
13.
Footnote 724:
Philostratus, _Heroic._ 180 τὰ δὰ ὧτα κατεαγὼς ἤν οὐκ ὑπὸ πάλης.
Footnote 725:
_Theb._ vi. 731-825.
Footnote 726:
_Gym._ 34 προσβῆναι ταῖς τῶν ἀντιπάλων κνήμαις ἄργοι καὶ εὐάλωτοι τῷ
προσβάντι. Cp. c. 11 ὁ πύκτης τρωθήσεται καὶ τρώσει καὶ προσβήσεται
ταῖς κνήμαις. To προσβῆναι I have given the somewhat wider sense of
“advancing” or “lunging” which is undoubtedly implied in the following
words, ὁρμητικώτερον τὸ σχῆμα τοῦ πυκτεύοντος ἢν μὴ συμβαίνωσιν οἱ
μηροί. The addition of the words ταῖς τῶν ἀντιπάλων κνήμαις is a
difficulty. There can be no question of “kicking” which was certainly
not allowed in boxing, nor are any of the vases quoted by Jüthner in
his note on the passage appropriate. The words can only mean
“advancing against an opponent’s shins.” Shoving an opponent backwards
in this way may occur in “in-fighting,” in which case his only remedy
is “slipping.” But the tactics are not particularly effective, and
shoving is not allowed in modern boxing. I have a suspicion that
Philostratus was very vague in his ideas about boxing. As Jüthner has
shown in his recent edition, Philostratus was a rhetorician, not a
practical athlete, and he owed his athletic knowledge to some
technical treatise on gymnastics, which he did not always quite
understand.
Footnote 727:
Bacchylides i.
Footnote 728:
Dion. _Orat._ xxix.; cp. Eustath. _Il._ Ψ 1322, 1324. Eusebius,
_Histor. Syn._ p. 350, quoted in Krause, p. 510.
Footnote 729:
ii. 25-97.
Footnote 730:
_Symp._ ii. 4.
Footnote 731:
Figs. 133, 141.
Footnote 732:
Pausanias viii. 40.
Footnote 733:
Paus. vi. 9, 6; Pindar, _Ol._ v. 34 Schol.
Footnote 734:
Krause, p. 517.
Footnote 735:
Fabretti, _De Columna Trajani_, p. 267. The evidence for these lappets
is all late, but the caps belong to the fifth century B.C.
Footnote 736:
Aristotle, _Nic. Eth._ iii. 1; Plato, _I. Alcib._ 107 E. For further
references _vide_ Krause, p. 510, and _J.H.S._ xxvi. p. 14.
Footnote 737:
Plato, _Legg._ viii. 830 C.
Footnote 738:
Paus. vi. 10, 1.
Footnote 739:
_Vide infra_, p. 478.
Footnote 740:
Theocritus, iv. 10.