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 (p??t??), 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,” ?a?te? a?a??te??? or e????a? 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.

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 (a?te??? d? ?p????). 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.

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 sfa??a?, and which he recommends for use in his ideal state as more closely reproducing the conditions of actual warfare. These sfa??a? 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.

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 ?a?te? ??e??, 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 (?p?? s?et??a? t?? t?a??t??) 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 ?a?te? ??e??, and inasmuch as they were too dangerous for use in practice, soft, padded gloves were used in the palaestra called ?p?s?a??a.^[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 ?a?te? ??e?? 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 ?a?te? ??e?? or sfa??a? 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]

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.

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 (?pe?pe??) 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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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 (ste?e???). “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 sfa??a? 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 ??epese? ??, 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 ???a?. 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.

Fig. 149. Marble head of boxer, with ear-lappets.