p. 341
SECOND CHAPTER.
Circumstances of judgment and prize-awarding. The swearing of the oath by the judges. What this oath was about. They were sometimes suspect. What they had to judge. How necessary this was. They investigated whether one had contended lawfully, whether one had truly won, whether there had also been cunning tricks used. Were there accusing public prosecutors? Eupolus and Callippus punished for bribing fellow contestants in the pentathlon. Something similar happened in the wrestling match. Several examples of deceit. Penalty for those registered who did not appear on the correct day. For the cowardly. Appeal to the Olympic Council and the Law-Guardians. Prize award. Three judges for each individual game. Second and third prizes. Some won prizes in different games at the same time.
§. I.
But now we must further examine the circumstances under which they passed judgment and awarded the prizes.
§. II.
As for the first: they were sworn judges; for they had to swear beforehand on the testicles of a boar by Jupiter, the God of the Oath, that they would judge according to the demands of justice, not from the perspective of gifts or favors. They also swear, says Pausanias, that those who will judge the young men or the young foals will pass sentence justly and without regard for gifts; and that they would not make public what moved them to approve or reject someone. In this sense, Romulus Amafaeus renders these last words: keeping the truth secret. But it seems to us, completely wrongly; for the reason why the victor had to be declared as such had to be the clear victory, and everyone was allowed to know that reason. We therefore also believe that the words 'the hidden' and 'the hidden things' refer to the prizes; for 'to keep secret' does not literally mean to be silent, but to keep separate, to preserve, to maintain, to observe, to put it irreverently. And then the meaning will be: and that they will preserve for him that which is due to the one approved and the one not approved, that is, to award the prize to the one who is found to have legitimately achieved victory, but to refuse it without respect of persons to the one for whom this is not the case. This is consistent with and fits the preceding, namely that they would pass a just judgment and thus legitimately award the prizes. The fact that Pausanias also adds: that the judges did this in secret also does not mean, as Romulus wants, that the judges would not retell or make it public, but that they took this oath with all its circumstances in secret, that is, without the presence of the people, beforehand before Jupiter, so as to express the great attention, seriousness, and inviolable sanctity of the oath. For it is clear that
p. 343
and so on, 'secretly,' 'hidden,' means. But this is just an aside. Meanwhile, we have also shown earlier, in the first book, that the game judges had to take this oath (Pausanias book 5), and it is only repeated here as a reminder, and because now the time and place arise in which that oath had to show its effect: as has also already been said, that on the basis of this oath they were also generally considered to judge justly (*), although Agis, king of Sparta, and others joked with it that they only spoke justice once every five years (book 1, chapter 9); and a certain Stratonicus also joked not a little about it in Plutarch (Plutarch in Lycurgus). But they also made themselves suspect now and then of having forgotten or set aside the oath, especially when the Eleans were favored and foreigners were disadvantaged. This is what Herodotus refers to in what he tells about Psammis, the Egyptian king, and the Elean envoys (Herodotus book 2, towards the end): While this (Psammis) was reigning in Egypt, Elean envoys were sent, who boasted that in Olympia a most just and among all people greatest contest was held, thinking that even the Egyptians, though the wisest of the children of men, could not devise anything greater. When these had arrived in Egypt and explained the reason for their coming, the king had those from the Egyptians who were considered the wisest of all gathered. When these had now gathered and had heard the Eleans, who reported everything that had to be observed among them during the celebration of the games, and saying that they had come to learn whether the Egyptians could devise anything more just. After this had been deliberated, he asked them if their own citizens also contended among them? And they had answered: without distinction of their own citizens and other Greeks, anyone who wanted to, could contend. Thereupon they said that the others, because they proposed such a game, fell away from all justice, because it was impossible that citizens would not favor a fellow citizen and do injustice to a foreigner; but if they wanted to hold a just contest, and had therefore come to Egypt, they had to have it held by foreigners, and not allow any citizen to contend in it. Diodorus Siculus called the king under whom this was said to have happened, Amasis (Diodorus Siculus Bibliotheca historica book 1, section 2, towards the end), and tells it briefly as follows: the Eleans, engaged in the Olympic Games, when they sent envoys to ask in what way they could best govern them most justly, it is said that he would have answered: if no one from the Eleans contended. The more the justice of the judges was suspect, when they themselves participated in the horse races through their charioteers, as happened more often: see an example with Pyrrhus. However, this impropriety was remedied when a law was immediately made: that none of the rulers may bring horses into the game. So Pausanias tells (Pausanias book 6, around the beginning). It is generally known that they at least passed one unjust judgment, out of consideration for the person, gifts, and so on, in the case of Nero: for when he was racing in Olympia, he was thrown from the chariot, and when he had gotten up again, he could not endure the strength of the gallop
p. 345
but had to dismount, and yet the crown was given to him for a veneration of twenty-five myriad; which prize Galba then took from them again (Xiphilinus in Nero). However, that act of the judges, as having happened out of necessity due to the greatness and violence of Nero, could be somewhat excused (Paschalius book 6, chapter 6).
§. III.
We therefore generally maintain good thoughts of the judges, who had to judge the contestants and award them the victory and prize. But if you ask what they had to judge about it, since the matter was openly apparent, both from the shortcoming and falling behind of the runners, and from the three times repeated throwing down of the wrestlers, and from the sign and confession of the boxers and pancratiasts, before the eyes of all spectators, who are all to be considered as witnesses and judges (which is why Aristotle rightly said: For everyone who has beheld it with his eyes may judge the exercise games (Aristotle, Problems, section 30, question 11)). And since these spectators often already named and cheered the victor, before the judge had passed judgment and the announcer had proclaimed him and the trumpet had announced him, as Faber points out from Plutarch (Faber book 2, chapter 28). The answer is that they were needed to maintain order from the beginning and continuously through their own authority and power, and the service of the game organizers and the bearers of the whip, over the game, the players, and the spectators. But especially because the point of victory between fellow contestants could often be so balanced that it was not immediately clear who the victor was. For example, two or more runners could often
p. 346
reach the finish line at about the same time. Furthermore, most things had to happen more than once (Paschalius book 6, chapter 22): the boxers had to give each other three blows, the wrestlers had to throw the other to the ground three times. In the great racecourse, the chariots had to go around seven times, as has been shown in its place. Accurately remembering these numbers was not a task for the fickle crowd, which looked now here then there, but for attentive judges, who knew that they had to judge about it. And finally, much deceit and trickery could be committed: judges were therefore needed to distinguish and let injustice give way to fairness.
§. IV.
Without a doubt, these judges then investigated whether those who seemed to be victors had fulfilled their previously made oath and had contended lawfully (*), that is, had maintained all the laws of the game and had performed all actions and movements according to the art. Secondly, whether they had already truly won, by being the first in the running race, by having given three blows in the boxing and the pankration and having forced the opponent to surrender. And thirdly, in particular, whether they had also, by deceit and cunning tricks of bribery and such tricks, induced the opponent to give up, playing the victory in hand. And this investigation undoubtedly happened
p. 347
in the same way as the screening before the game for the qualities, virtues, and so on of the contestants, namely on the basis of accusations and indictments made, which accusations, indictments, are called by a Greek and Latin name (Paschalius book 5, chapter 8). And it seems that such accusations, which amounted to someone not having followed the rules of the game, having committed fraud and conspiracy, and so on, were made either by anyone from the people, who wanted to, or in particular by some appointed public prosecutors for that purpose, who bore the name 'accusers' in Greek. If the indictment was now found to be true and the guilt appeared, the victory and prize were denied, as has been shown in the first chapter, and a heavy fine was imposed.
§. V.
We find a very first example of this in the person of Eupolus, a Thessalian, of whom Pausanias tells us the following (Pausanias book 8): "For when Eupolus the Thessalian, among those who had come up for the boxing, had bribed Agetor the Arcadian and Prytanis the Cyzicenian with money, and in addition also Phormio the Halicarnassian, who had won the victory in the previous Olympic game in boxing, the Eleans brought him and those who had received the money into the treasury, because they had for the first time by this deceit violated the sanctuary of the games. From this Cleon the Sicyonian made two statues; who made the other four, I cannot say. If you overlook the third or fourth statue, you will find the others described with inscriptions in verses of low rhyme: the first of which
p. 348
admonishes that the palm branch is reached by the speed of the feet and the strength of the rest of the body. The other inscription testifies that it was erected to God, to at the same time give praise to Jupiter and add a fear with the Elean piety, to punish the deceit of the contestants. Of the two remaining, one honors the Eleans and counts it to their great praise that they punished the boxers; the other says that those spectacles must be a lesson to all Greeks, that no one should put the hope of victory in money.
§. VI.
Yet after Eupolus another, namely Callippus, dared to win the victory of the pentathlon for himself by gifts. Therefore, Pausanias continues there as follows (Pausanias there): "It has been left to memory that after Eupolus, a certain Callippus the Athenian took the crown of the pentathlon away from his opponents by money. This happened during the one hundred and twelfth Olympiad. When the Eleans had demanded the fine from Callippus and those who had conspired with him, the Athenians did send envoys to beg for the fine; but when the Eleans did not let themselves be softened, the Athenians were so proud that, although excluded from the Olympic market, they still did not want to pay what had been judged, until the Apollo of Delphi, whom they consulted, answered that he would not answer anything until they had given the Eleans satisfaction. From the money of this fine, as many statues of Jupiter have been erected as from the previous one, and verses of not milder content have been written on them than those which were about the fine of Eupolus. And so
p. 349
certainly, the first inscription gives to understand that those statues were erected by order of the oracle, which approved the judgment of the Eleans concerning the deceit in the pentathlon. The second likewise and the third were in praise of that judgment. The fourth taught that one should strive for victory not by money, but by bravery. The fifth shows why they were erected. The last of all recounts that answer of the Apollo of Delphi, by which those pentathletes were declared to have been rightly condemned.
§. VII.
Such deceit also happened around the wrestling match, but was no less condemned and punished as an example for all. Of this, Pausanias has noted the following (Pausanias there): "In addition, two statues have been erected from the fines of the wrestling match; but their names are unknown not only to me, but also to the old writers about the Elean matters. Their inscriptions have been added: one of them declares that the Rhodians had to pay the Olympic Jupiter with money for the deceit concerning the wrestling; the other, that the statue was erected from the fine that was imposed on those who had earned the wrestling palm by evil deceit. The same writers report that the other statues were erected when Eudelus of Philostratus accepted money at the one hundred and seventy-eighth Olympiad. Eudelus was certainly a Rhodian. But in the public archives of the Eleans, by which the memory of those who have won is preserved, I have found an almost different story, namely that Strato the Alexandrian would have been crowned on the same day at the one hundred and seventy-eighth Olympiad for both the pankration and the wrestling match, and so on.
p. 350
§. VIII.
The same Pausanias still tells another example (Pausanias book 6) of deceit without bribery, and the condemnation thereof, in the person of Theagenes the Thasian, which happened with regard to the pankration. He says: For Theagenes the Thasian, who desired the palm branch of the boxing and the pankration at the same games, did indeed defeat Euthymus with the cestus; however, he did not receive the olive wreath for the pankration, because he was judged to have exhausted the opponent with deceit in the previous contest. By order of the architects, he had to pay a talent to Jupiter as a sacred fine, and also another talent to Euthymus, to compensate for the insult caused. And indeed, Theagenes paid the commanded amount to Jupiter at the seventy-sixth Olympiad; but he refused the rest of the fine and did not enter the boxing ring; therefore, at that and the next Olympiad, the crown was awarded to Euthymus, and so on.
§. IX.
We find even more such incidents with Pausanias (Pausanias book 5): for he relates that at the two hundred and twenty-sixth Olympiad there were two foreign boxers, namely Egyptians, with the names Didas and Sarapammon, who made an agreement about the victory. Didas gave, Sarapammon received the money; they were therefore fined. And Pausanias further relates that such deceit once happened with the knowledge of the fathers of the contestants. The father of one party was Damonicus, an Elean, his son Polyctor; but on the other side Sosander, a Smyrnian, father and son with the same name. Damonicus, ardently wishing that his son might win in the wrestling match, bribed Sosander so that he would let himself be defeated, but it came out, and even the parents had to pay a fine. This is said to have happened at the one hundred and ninety-second Olympiad.
p. 351
§. X.
But in the same place, Pausanias also speaks of (Pausanias there), that by judicial decision someone was indeed fined who did not appear on the correct day, namely when he had had his name registered on the roll. This happened to an Alexandrian (thus also an Egyptian, just like those two we just spoke about; which confirms that at that time the games were already degenerating considerably, because also non-Greeks were allowed to come, which was not allowed earlier, as has been indicated in due course), an Alexandrian, I say, with the name Apollonius, with the nickname Rhantes. For when he did not appear on the set day, his fine was mentioned, and it could not acquit him to pretend that he had been held up by head winds at the Cyclades and had not been able to come; for Heraclides, also an Alexandrian, contradicted this, and the crown was given to him without having contended, a crown called "without dust," which was given to both someone who had not found an opponent and to the victor. But this particularly cost Apollonius
p. 352
a high price. This was around the two hundred and eighteenth Olympiad.
§. XI.
The game judges also did impose a fine on someone for his cowardly faintheartedness. Pausanias says this happened (Pausanias there) around the two hundred and first Olympiad in the person of Serapion, also an Egyptian: for he withdrew out of fear of the opponents. But this was the first and last not only of the Egyptians, but also of all nations, to whom this disgrace happened, as Pausanias notes.
§. XII.
But in case of objection, one could appeal from the game judges to the Olympic or Elean Council, and the Law-Guardians (about whom has been spoken elsewhere), as again appears from Pausanias in the case of Eupolemus the Elean and Leo the Ambracian (Pausanias book 6). "Of Eupolemus the Elean it is related that, when three rulers sat at the end of the track, two of them gave the palm branch to Eupolemus, but the third to Leo the Ambracian; and that Leo, each of those two, by whose sentence he was rejected, after he had appealed to the Olympic Council, punished with a heavy fine. Just so in the Pythian games, an appeal took place, namely from the thirty Amphictyons, who sat there as judges, to the supreme game manager, and from there again and further to the Roman emperor, that is, in later times, when the Greeks lay chained under the Roman sole rule; which Clemens Byzantinus had almost lost the victory for the tragedy play, because Byzantium, that is, Constantinople, was besieged by the Romans at that time, and they did not want to allow him to appeal to the besieging Romans. However, the game manager Hippodromus intervened, awarded the prize to Clemens, and said goodbye to those judges who had passed an unjust sentence against the sworn oath. See about this, and more related matters, what Faber has learned, according to his custom, noted (Faber book 3, chapter 23).
p. 353
§. XIII.
But after everything had been investigated and considered, the aforementioned judges declared the victor, and thus made him capable and entitled to the prize, which he also received directly afterwards. And this was the noblest part of their office, since it is more joyful and evokes a happier image to approve, justify, and reward than to condemn and punish. The passing of judgment was such that the judges were divided into groups of three, and each trio had supervision over a separate game, as has been indicated earlier, and that then each trio declared the victor of that game, which it was about; and that by the majority of votes, as appears from the case of Leo the Ambracian, who was excluded from the victory by two votes, as the majority of three, to the point that he was forced to make his appeal with the Olympic council, where it was found that they had wronged him, which is why they were fined. See what has already been said from Pausanias (Pausanias book 6). Those who were in charge of the pentathlon, declared the pentathlon winner; those who were in charge of the running race, the winner of the race; those who were in charge of the boxing, the wrestling, those who were in charge of the pankration, and so on, likewise declared the winners of
p. 354
those same games. But they not only declared the main victor of each game (although that as the first and mainly), but because for the consolation of brave competitors some second and third prizes were also available, as will be said (Faber Agonisticus book 3, chapter 21), so they also declared the second victor, and the third, and thereby made them capable and entitled to their set prizes. Yes, because the games were not all held at the same time at the same hour, but one after the other, and thus the most powerful daredevils could participate in more than one game, and if successful, could win in more than one, for example in the running race, and the boxing, the wrestling, and the pankration, as for example Caper, son or student of Pythagoras, was the master in the wrestling and the pankration on the same day (Pausanias book 6): just as this also happened with Straton the Aeginetan, son of Corragus, who also won at the next Olympiad and elsewhere (Aelianus, Varia Historia book 4, chapter 15). So also in the Pythian Games, the Elean Paeanius won by wrestling and boxing (Pausanias in the cited place). But Clitobolus the Theban won in the Isthmian games in three different games, namely by boxing, wrestling, and pankration, according to the testimony of Pausanias and Alcaeus (Anthologia book 4). In Lucian, Timon is praised by a flatterer that he had contended and won in Olympia in one day the boxing, the wrestling, and the running race, yes, also with the chariot race and the foal chariot (Lucian in Timon). With such a player, who had completed two contests with victory in one day, Plutarch compares general Cimon, because he, according to C. Nepos, had contended and won twice in one day, once by water at Mycale, and then disembarking the war folk by land (Plutarch & C. Nepos in Cimon). Because this then happened, I say again, the Olympic judges, each tribunal, so to speak, had to do what was due to it, also judge these and declare them and legalize them for all prizes.