Читать книгу Olympic Victor Monuments and Greek Athletic Art - Walter Woodburn Hyde - Страница 15

Table of Contents

That chariot and hippic monuments were votive in character can scarcely be doubted. Pausanias distinguishes between gymnic victors and equestrian ones.356 All authorities agree that equestrian monuments were different in origin and character from those of other victors.357 Gardiner believes that if the Olympic games developed out of a single event, it was not the stade-race, but the chariot-race or heavy-armed-race. He shows that the custom of making the stade runner eponymous for the Olympiad is not earlier than the third century B.C., and did not arise from the importance of that event, but from the accident of its coming first on the program and first on the list of victors.358 Equestrian monuments were dedicated at Olympia all through antiquity, from the sixth century B.C. to the second A.D. The oldest was that of the Spartan Euagoras already mentioned, who won in the chariot-race three times in Ols. (?) 58–60 ( = 548–540 B.C.).359 The latest dated example is that of L. Minicius Natalis of Rome, who won in Ol. 227 ( = 129 A.D.).360 Some of the inscriptions pertaining to equestrian groups are in verse,361 while others are in prose.362 Most of them have the usual dedicatory word ἀνέθηκε,363 or the formula Διὶ Ὀλυμπίῳ,364 while others have the word ἔστησε365 and a few have no dedicatory word at all.366

The question arises, then, whether ordinary victor monuments in the Altis were votive in the sense that these equestrian ones were, or merely honors granted to the victors. The crown of wild olive was merely a temporary reward suiting the occasion of the victory. The privilege of setting up a statue was granted in order to perpetuate the fame of that occasion. In a well-known passage Pausanias makes a sweeping generalization about monuments at Athens and Olympia.367 He says that all objects on the Akropolis—including statues—were ἀναθήματα or votive offerings, while some of those at Olympia were dedicated to the god, but that the statues of athletes were mere prizes of victory. In another passage368 also, in distinguishing the various sorts of monuments at Olympia, he expressly says that the statues of athletes were not devoted to Zeus, but were marks of honor (ἐν ἄθλου λόγῳ) bestowed on the victors. These statements of the Periegete have given rise to a good deal of fruitless discussion. Furtwaengler follows Pausanias in saying that the right of setting up statues was ein wesentlicher Theil des Siegespreises.369 That such erections at Olympia were considered as high honors is implied by the wording of many of the inscriptions which have been recovered from the bases of the statues. Thus on that of the boxer Euthymos are the words εἰκόνα δ’ ἔστησεν τήνδε βροτοῖς ἐσορᾶν.370 Furtwaengler, therefore, has promulgated the theory that the victor statues at Olympia were in no sense votive, though they were considered to be the property of the god in whose grove they stood. He cites the fact that the inscribed bases of such monuments down to the first century B.C., with the exception of a few metrical epigrams, make no mention of dedications, and that in these exceptions the word ἀνέθηκε was added for metrical reasons,371 while during the same centuries regular votive offerings (ἀναθῆματα) invariably have the word ἀνέθηκε.372 One inscription, that from the base of the statue of Euthymos of Lokroi, is both metrical and in prose;373 but it seems to have been changed later in two places, the second line originally ending in a pentameter, and the third line, with ἀνέθηκε, being added afterwards.374 Also the prose inscription375 referred by Roehl to the statue of the wrestler Milo is rejected by Dittenberger. The oldest prose inscription which makes a votive offering out of a victor statue at Olympia is that of Thaliarchos, who won his second victory in boxing some time between 40 and 30 B.C.376 Then follow certain prose inscriptions of imperial times.377 Dittenberger concludes that for four hundred years there is no case of such a dedication.378 From the evidence of the inscriptions from statue bases, therefore, it is clear that the distinction made by Pausanias between honor and victor statues did not hold good in his day, since the words ἀνάθημα and ἀνέθηκε were then used on victor monuments at Olympia, as the inscriptions of the imperial age just cited show, but that it did hold good for centuries before the Roman period. Pausanias must have based his statement, therefore, not on observation, but on the words of some earlier writer.379 Furtwaengler’s reasoning has been followed pretty generally by archæologists.380 While some, however, leave the question in doubt,381 others are opposed to the idea that these statues were not votive. Thus R. Schoell believes that the victor monuments were as truly ἀναθήματα as the olive crowns.382 Reisch, who has discussed the question at length,383 believes, in opposition to the earlier view of Furtwaengler, that everything within the Altis must always ipso facto have been regarded as dedications to the god. This would explain the frequent omission of the name of the god, which would be superfluous, the victor being content with inscribing his own name and the contest in which he was victorious. Even the name of the contest does not always appear.384 Reisch explains the omission of the formula ἀνέθηκε in earlier inscriptions on the ground of epigrammatic brevity.385

The truth must lie somewhere between the extremes represented by the views of Furtwaengler and Reisch. Some athlete statues may have been votive, while others were not. Thus Rouse argues386 that originally all victor statues at Olympia were as truly votive as equestrian groups, and as truly as those athlete statues continued to be, which were dedicated in the victors’ native towns. Those inscribed with ἀνέθηκε at Olympia must have been votive, for we should take the dedicator at his word, instead of believing the formula to be added merely to make the verse scan.387 There is no reason why an athlete should not dedicate a statue of himself, representing himself as forever standing in the presence of the god, as well as a diskos or jumping-weights; for it was customary to make votive offerings representative of the events, and this could be done best by presenting the athlete in a statue which showed the characteristic attitude or the appropriate attributes. Rouse furthermore believes that a change was slowly wrought in the course of centuries, by which the original votive offering became a means of self-glorification. Equestrian victors owed their victories not to themselves, but to their horses, cars, drivers, and jockeys; in such cases the group was a thing apart from the owner. Only seldom did such victors dedicate statues of themselves alone. Even when the victor added a statue of himself to the group, still it was the chariot and not the statue which was emphasized.388 On the other hand the ordinary gymnic victor relied on himself—on his strength, endurance, courage, and other qualities; and in representing the contest the victor himself had to be represented. Consequently, by the fifth century B.C., if not earlier, the statues of athletes had become memorials of personal glory.