The Culture of Competition In Ancient Greece

The culture of competition within ancient Greece was one of long-standing traditions and social expectations. Within these expectations lie an abundance of ideas that seem barbaric, misogynistic and incredibly alien to us today. However, our contemporary sources present a broad consensus on the idea that competition within the ancient Greek world was almost always seen as an exclusively male affair. [1] This idea is prevalent all the way through from the archaic period into the classical era, and with this core principle in mind, our sources present consistent ideas surrounding competition which can be broken down into two common themes. One of which Joseph Roisman beautifully encapsulates in the phrase ‘being a good man, meant being better than other men.’ [2] The sources suggest that Greek men were required to aspire to be better than their peers, and that personal victory was synonymous with the defeat of another. [3] This does not seem all that surprising to our modern eyes, as it is common to see those in today’s societies who step over countless others in an attempt to rise to the top. However, there is arguably always at least some level of public disapproval directed at those who do this, albeit often with a small hint of begrudging respect for one’s capacity for self-serving ruthlessness hidden underneath. In ancient Greece however, there was no such shroud, with many examples, be it from mythological heroes or classical city-states, of men callously acting first and foremost to the betterment of their own self-interest. The second theme amongst our sources, is the idea that the Greeks valued their kleos (eternal renown) above all else, or at least wanted to display this as the case in an attempt to adhere to the social norms of the culture they found themselves in. [4] As will become apparent, there were those who would sooner die than lose their honour. Within this essay I would like to explore these ideas, and see if we can shine any further light on how through the tales of great mythological heroes, this bizarre culture of competition past down into the psyche of the ordinary Greek.

BEING A GOOD MAN MEANT BEING BETTER THAN OTHER MEN:

You gave him the honour of your sword. You won't have eyes tonight; you won't have ears or a tongue. You will wander the underworld blind, deaf, and dumb, and all the dead will know: This is Hector. The fool who thought he killed Achilles. – Achilles, Troy

A culture of one-upmanship is prevalent throughout a variety of differing types of sources, however intriguingly it is with the poets and playwrights where it is most prevalent. [5] It seems obvious that competition presented in this way would make for captivating drama, explaining why it is commonly seen in these mediums, however with both Homer and Hesiod presenting the idea, it acts as a testament to just how important this societal norm was. This is because both these bards’ tales’ would not have been passed down through the generations so successfully had they not accurately conveyed the average Greek ideology of archaic Greece and beyond. [6] There must have been a reason that the Greeks valued these stories so much, and it is most likely because they reflected the values and ideals which they believed people should strive towards. [7]

Hesiod’s work is often seen as cautionary and educational, [8] being there to instruct archaic Greeks on how to live productive and conscientious lives, while also attempting to explain reasons for adversity in the world. [9] Hesiod demonstrates this in his Works and Days, where he makes the claim that Night bore envy, with it being good for the world and ‘much better for men.’ [10] He seems to be advocating for the idea that envy is a healthy and necessary state of being, as it breeds competition. This is something that in his eyes is vital for the success, because competition sets the unworking man on the path of the ‘rich one who is hastening to plough.’ [11] This sentiment seems to be shared through to the classical period, however the focus seems to have shifted on to the collective rather than the individual here, as communal pride in one's city state became just as important as individual pride. [12] Thucydides shows this by describing the Athenians, both rich and poor alike, competing [13] and going to extreme lengths to show that their own ship was ‘the best in both splendour and speed,’ while at the same time demonstrating their overwhelming naval prowess over all the Greek isles. [14] Almost as though to appear similar to the ‘rich man’ described by Hesiod, who hastens others to rise to their level. [15]

From a modern perspective, Hesiod’s ideas of envy seem bizarre, as on the one hand he openly acknowledges the fact that it is a negative emotion, personifying it as a ‘Strife,’ [16] while at the same time claiming it to be ‘good for mortals.’ [17] Modern societies tend to treat envy as an emotion that will lead to self-destruction, which most likely originates from the Judeo-Christian traditions that arrived from the spread of Christianity throughout Europe. However, Hesiod, who reflected the attitudes of the archaic Greeks, saw the negative impact of envy as a catalyst for competition, and in turn a more productive society. [18] By a man aiming to be better than other men, or in Hesiod’s eyes a potter being angry with a potter, a builder with a builder, or a poet a poet, competition could act as a way to get the best out of everyone involved by raising the bar of achievement higher for all. [19]

Book 21 of The Odyssey also demonstrates the importance of male rivalry in competition, through the approach used by Odysseus’ wife, Penelope, to pick a worthy suitor. [20] Interestingly, the Homeric poets decided not just to allow Penelope to pick her next husband by the contents of his character, but used a physical competition to determine who among them could rival Odysseus in skill and finesse. [21] This is crucial, because not only are the suitors competing against each other, but they are also competing to demonstrate which among them can compare to the great hero of the tale, Odysseus. [22] Penelope challenges them to string his bow and shoot his arrows just as Odysseus would later do with ease. [23] The Homeric canon seems to be consistently attempting to emphasise its heroes’ superiority over other men, with another perfect example of this coming in Book 23 of the Iliad. [24] Although not taking part in the chariot race at Patroclus’ funeral games, Achilles still feels the need to reinforce the fact that he would ‘win the first prize, and bear it to his hut,’ if he were to compete in the race. [25] Here, Achilles is being presented as arrogant to a modern audience’s standards, however to an archaic Greek it must have looked as though he was establishing his dominance over the other men and heroes present, without even needing to compete. [26] The only way he could do that here, is through his speech. Worman points out that Homeric speeches are made in agonistic scenarios, where violence never feels too far away, [27] and this seems true here, as Achilles’ words are littered with an undercurrent of subtext to let all present know that despite his lack of participation, he was the best man there. [28]

The tradition of men trying to prove their worth by defeating other men evidently continues from the archaic period into the classical period alongside a new found polis-based competitive culture. Even Aristophanes continues the traditions of Homer and Hesiod in his play the Frogs, where he uses the beloved convention of one on one competition. [29] While Homer pits his great heroes in combat, Aristophanes pits two of the greatest Athenian tragedians, Euripides and Aeschylus, in a battle of words. Although tinged in satire, Aristophanes is still playing into the Greeks love of competition, where not even the arts are off limits from man’s need to prove their superiority over another. [30] Therefore, this message in the Frogs is not dissimilar to that of a 5th century Stater’s found at Aspendos. It depicts two nude, muscular wrestlers grappling with one another, heads a hair’s breadth apart. This coin in turn shares its sentiment with an Attic red-figure cup found in Etruscan Vulci, which similarly displays boxers in combat, one of which is down on his knee signalling surrender, while his opponent looms over him ready to strike. [31] Both these images perfectly and simply encapsulate the views displayed by the other sources discussed, both with two men, at the peak of their profession testing each other, both vying to come out on top, without mercy or hesitation. [32] Only in this way do they prove that they are the others better, and thus a ‘good’ Greek man.

Thucydides shows us the men of Athens competing against each other to provide the best ship for a fleet, but examples of a naval superiority’s importance can be dated even before that. [33] An inscription of Simonides was found claiming that Democritus had ‘captured’ a Dorian ship back from the Persian’s at the battle of Salamis after taking only five ships out himself. [34] Once again, the Greeks are displaying an almost trifling level of one-upmanship, as the inscription makes it clear that not only did he not lose any ships to the Persians during the battle, but rather gained a ship from the conflict. This inscription therefore makes the whole episode at Salamis appear like an easy, unchallenging victory for Democritus and the Greeks, and thus acts as yet more evidence of Greek men displaying a competitive victory over their adversaries. [35]

One source that seems to go against all others in regards to manly competition is the inscription of Kyniska found at Olympia, dating to the 390s BC. [36] The reason this inscription is such a glaring discrepancy is because it goes against the rule of men having exclusivity over competition. Here Kyniska, boasts of her victories at the Olympic Games, according to David Young, even setting a ‘gender record’, being the first and only woman to win the crown. [37] For a woman to win the highest of competitive feats, and then have an inscription to immortalise and encourage this, seems to counter the idea that competition was for men alone. [38] Initially, this is an exciting discovery, and potentially opens up new ideas that allow women to also feature within Greek competition. Unfortunately however, there are ways of explaining how this inscription was made, while still adhering to the ideas and themes displayed by the other sources. Firstly, Pausanias, who is writing centuries after with all the hindsight and further discoveries that entails, claims that the epigram was written by ‘some man or other’ [39] with it only being commissioned on the order of Kyniska or possibly even her brother. [40] Although Pausanias writes that Kyniska was ambitious to win at Olympia, [41] both Plutarch and Xenophon [42] contradict this, stating that King Agesilaus pressured her to compete, [43] creating a debate around who is correct, and whether Kyniska’s victory is an example of women competing on the same level as men, or it's yet another example of men using women to orchestrate their own personal gain. [44] You could easily argue however, that male historians such as Pausanias or Plutarch had an instinctive bias against Kyniska, and that they would be more than capable of suppressing her success within their records. Either way, this inscription does seem to be an outlier when compared to the overwhelming majority of sources that present competition in Greece as a strictly male affair.

THE GREEKS VALUED THEIR KLEOS ABOVE ALL ELSE: 

I would die of shame to face the men of Troy and the Trojan women trailing their long robes if I would shrink from battle now, a coward. – Hector, The Iliad

The next major theme which the sources tend to agree upon, is that for a Greek, attaining kleos and glory in the eyes of others, mattered above all other rewards. To be a good Greek meant to have achieved something of note, and Pindar’s Olympian is a great example of this. [45] The Theban poet uses this poem to glorify the achievements of Herakles, the greatest of all the Greek heroes. [46] Herakles has the testimony of Time behind him to secure his kleos, for as Nassen points out, ‘that which is genuine and true has withstood the test of time.’ [47] However, within the poem he also establishes the first Olympiad ‘and its victories,’ [48] implying that Herakles enabled the kleos of others to be heightened, and thus in turn heightened his own abundantly, as he could take the acclaim for creating a competition that bred stronger, better Greeks. [49] In this way, Pindar demonstrates just how valuable a Greek’s kleos was, as by recognising and celebrating the glories of the perfect idealised Greek man in Herakles, he shows the values and objectives that all others must strive towards and emulate. [50]

Continuing with this idea, there are numerous examples of the Greeks following suit with archetypes like Herakles, by valuing the glory of victory over monetary rewards. Herodotus, in his usual anecdotal fashion, recounts the reaction of Tritantaechmes when learning that the Greeks received a garland of olive as the prize for victory, with the contest posing no prize money. [51] Since much of Herodotus’ writings are criticised for being too anecdotal and lacking an analytical approach, [52] it is fortunate that we have other sources to reinforce his claims. The archaeological evidence also shows more sentimental items acting as rewards, with a 5th century Athenian red-figure krater attributed to Nikias [53] showing Victory presenting a victory ribbon to the winner of a torch-race, [54] allowing the vase to represent a modest victory memento. [55]

As well as this, the satirist Lucian reaffirms that a crown of olive was indeed the prize for victory at Olympia, [56] meaning his plays are in complete alignment with Herodotus’ account. Despite any lingering uncertainty around the accuracy of Herodotus’ account, Tritantaechmes’ rash response is incredibly useful for showing the extraordinary value that the Greeks put upon their kleos, as it could even appear ludicrous to an outsider. [57] Tritantaechmes’ words are intended to mock the Greeks, but unknowingly he presents them exactly as they intended [58] with the phrase ‘they make excellence rather than money the reason for a contest!’ [59] Herodotus could be trying to characterise the foreign Persians as materialistic, ignorant and lacking any higher virtue here, however other passages where he shows admiration for the Persians would call this idea into question. However, if he is attempting to disparage the Persians here, in doing so he also perfectly displays one of the Greeks’ central principles, that their kleos, or in this case ‘excellence,’ was more important than any material gain, while also being achieved via competition and challenge. [60]

It does appear however that there was some room for monetary prizes in competition, as Plutarch states that Lycurgus not only revived the festival of the Chytroi, but also declared that at least three circular fences would be played to Poseidon in the Piraeus. [61] Rather than it being a strictly religious affair, this dance was a competition, as the winner would receive ‘not less than ten minas.’ [62] This could conflict with the other evidence presented elsewhere, suggesting that the competitive and religious angles of the dance were not enough incentive for the performers, presenting the money as more valuable than the glory received from victory. [63] However, as coins commissioned in both 480 and 356 BC prove by commemorating both the Olympic mule cart [64] and horse race [65] winners of their respective years, money could be used as a platform to further demonstrate someone’s kleos. [66] In the case of the competitive dance that Plutarch describes, it can be argued that the monetary reward is there to heighten the stakes of the competition, and thus bestow upon the victor a greater respect and glory for their victory. In the case of the coins, it seems that by displaying these commemorative images on coinage, it reminds the users of said coinage of the athlete’s great victory, and thus acts the same way in bestowing greater glory upon them. This denotes that money had a place in establishing a competitively won kleos and was not therefore, the main draw for the victor in and of itself.

CONCLUSIONS:

In closing, there are consistent presentations displayed amongst both literary and archaeological sources that their indeed was a culture of competition within both the archaic and classical periods. It was centred around men trying to best one another to prove their superiority and worth, as well as men trying to pursue a great kleos that every ‘good’ Greek should aspire towards. Although there are a few discrepancies where a piece of evidence does not perfectly align with these ideas, it appears that they are few and far between, and not without alternative ways of interpreting them to make them more easily fit with the established consensus. Furthermore, there does appear to be a slight shift in how these central ideas were enacted as the centuries progressed. In the archaic period, it seems as if these ideas of male rivalry and kleos building were individualistic, focusing on one on one competition and the pursuit of your own personal glory. However by the classical period, there is a sense that these principles were focused on ideas bigger than the individual, and on more of a polis against polis basis. This could be down to the expansion and rising complexity of the Greek world with its rising city state powers of Athens and Sparta, which both place a heavy value on the importance of the collective. Nevertheless, the culture of competition was surely one that thrived over the centuries in ancient Greece and paved the way for the society that we study so adamantly today.

FOOTNOTES:

¹ Roisman, J., 2007. “Rhetoric, Manliness and Contest,” in I. Worthington (ed.), A Companion to Greek Rhetoric. Malden, 394.

² Ibid, 394.

³ Ibid, 393.

⁴ Kyle, D., 2015. “Athens: City of Contests and Prizes,” Sport and Spectacle in the Ancient World, Second Edn. Chichester, 170.

⁵ Worman, N., 2009. “Fighting Words: Verbal Contest in Archaic Poetry,” in E. Gunderson (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Rhetoric. Cambridge, 30.

⁶ Roisman, 2007, 394.

⁷ Worman, 2009, 33.

8 Ibid, 31.

9 Ibid, 37.

10 Hesiod, Works and Days, 16.

¹¹ Ibid 18.

¹² Kyle, 2015, 148.

¹³ Pritchard, D.M., 2012. “Sport, Democracy and War in Classical Athens,” Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 164.

¹⁴ Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, 6.31.3.

¹⁵ Hesiod, Works and Days, 18.

¹⁶ Ibid, 11.

17 Ibid, 25.

18 Roisman, 2007, 393.

19 Hesiod, Works and Days, 26.

20 Homer, Odyssey, Book 21, lines 65–70.

²¹ Doherty, L., 1991. “Athena and Penelope as Foils for Odysseus in the "Odyssey",” Quaderni Urbinati Di Cultura Classica 39(3), 37.

²² Ibid, 37.

²³ Homer, Odyssey, Book 21, lines 405-425.

²⁴ Homer, Iliad, Book 23, lines 257–286.

²⁵ Ibid, Book 23, line 275.

²⁶ Willcock, M.M., 1973. “The Funeral Games of Patroclus,” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 20, 3.

27 Worman, 2009, 29.

²⁸ Willcock, 1973, 3.

29 Aristophanes, Frogs, lines 851–874.

³⁰ Ibid, lines 870–874.

³¹ Attic red-figure cup attributed to Douris; from Vulci, Italy, c. 500–490 BCE.

³² Smith, T.J., 2012. “Competition, Festival and Performance,” in T.J. Smith and D. Plantzos (eds.), A Companion to Greek Art. 2 Vols. Chichester, 543.

³³ Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, 6.31.3.

³⁴ Inscription: Simonides, ‘Democritus’ epigram’.

³⁵ Rutherford, I., 1996. “The New Simonides: Towards A Commentary,” Arethusa 29(2), 173.

36 Inscription of Kyniska, sister of Agesilaos, c. 390 BCE (?), Olympia.

37 Young, D.C., 1996. "'First with the Most': Greek Athletic Records and Specialization," Nikephoros 9, 181.

38 Kyle, D., 2003. "’The Only Woman in All Greece’: Kyniska, Agesilaus, Alcibiades and Olympia,” Journal of Sport History 30(2), 183. 

39 Pausanias, Description of Greece, 3.8.2.

⁴⁰ Kyle, 2003, 185. 

⁴¹ Pausanias, Description of Greece, 3.8.1.

⁴² Xenophon, Minor Works, Agesilaus 9.1.

⁴³ Plutarch, Parallel Lives, Agesilaus 20.1.46-127.

⁴⁴ Kyle, 2003, 185.

45 Pindar, Olympian 10, lines 55–63.

⁴⁶ Ibid, lines 55–59.

⁴⁷ Nassen, P., 1975. “A Literary Study of Pindar's Olympian 10,” Transactions of the American Philological Association (1974-) 105, 232.

48 Pindar, Olympian 10, line 60.

⁴⁹ Nassen, 1975, 230.

⁵⁰ Ibid, 231.

⁵¹ Herodotus, Histories, 8.26 lines 5-6.

⁵² Konstan, D., 1987. “Persians, Greeks and Empire,” Arethusa 20(1/2), 62.

⁵³ Athenian red-figure krater attributed to the Nikias Painter, c. 420 BCE.

⁵⁴ Thorley, J., 2004. “Athenian Democracy 2nd Edition,” Routledge, 19.

⁵⁵ Neils, J., 2014. “Picturing Victory: Representations of Sport in Greek Art,” in P. Christesen and D.G. Kyle (eds.), A Companion to Sport and Spectacle in Greek and Roman Antiquity. Chichester, 82.

⁵⁶ Lucian, Anacharsis 9.

57 Konstan, 1987, 62.

58 Ibid, 61.

59 Herodotus, Histories, 8.26, line 11.

⁶⁰ Fisher, N., 2009. “The Culture of Competition,” in K. Raaflaub and H. van Wees (eds.), A Companion to Archaic Greece. Malden, 533.

⁶¹ [Ps.-]Plutarch, The Lives of the Ten Orators 841.

⁶² Ibid.

⁶³ Martin, G., 2014. “Interpreting Instability: Considerations on the Lives of the Ten Orators,” The Classical Quarterly 64(1), 327.

⁶⁴ Tetradrachm (= four drachmas) from Sicily commemorating Olympic mule cart race win of Anaxilas of Rhegium, 480 BCE.

⁶⁵ Tetradrachm from Macedon celebrating Olympic win of Philip II in the horse race, 356 BCE.

⁶⁶ Kyle, 2015, 225. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY:
SECONDARY SCHOLARSHIP:

Doherty, L., 1991. "Athena and Penelope as Foils for Odysseus in the "Odyssey"," Quaderni Urbinati Di Cultura Classica 39(3), 31-44.

Fisher, N., 2009. “The Culture of Competition,” in K. Raaflaub and H. van Wees (eds.), A Companion to Archaic Greece. Malden, 524–541.

Konstan, D., 1987. “Persians, Greeks and Empire,” Arethusa 20(1/2), 59-73. 

Kyle, D., 2003. "’The Only Woman in All Greece’: Kyniska, Agesilaus, Alcibiades and Olympia,” Journal of Sport History 30(2), 183-203. 

Kyle, D., 2015. “Athens: City of Contests and Prizes,” Sport and Spectacle in the Ancient World, Second Edn. Chichester, 147–174.

Martin, G., 2014. “Interpreting Instability: Considerations on the Lives of the Ten Orators,” The Classical Quarterly 64(1), 321-336.

Nassen, P., 1975. “A Literary Study of Pindar's Olympian 10,” Transactions of the American Philological Association (1974-) 105, 219-240.

Neils, J., 2014. “Picturing Victory: Representations of Sport in Greek Art,” in P. Christesen and D.G. Kyle (eds.), A Companion to Sport and Spectacle in Greek and Roman Antiquity. Chichester, 81–97.

Pritchard, D.M., 2012.  “Sport, Democracy and War in Classical Athens,” Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 164–208.

Roisman, J., 2007. “Rhetoric, Manliness and Contest,” in I. Worthington (ed.), A Companion to Greek Rhetoric. Malden, 393–410.

Rutherford, I., 1996. “The New Simonides: Towards A Commentary,” Arethusa 29(2), 167-192.

Smith, T.J., 2012. “Competition, Festival and Performance,” in T.J. Smith and D. Plantzos (eds.), A Companion to Greek Art. 2 Vols. Chichester, 543–563.

Thorley, J., 2004. “Athenian Democracy 2nd Edition,” Routledge, 19–26.

Willcock, M.M., 1973. “The Funeral Games of Patroclus,” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 20, 1–11.

Worman, N., 2009. “Fighting Words: Verbal Contest in Archaic Poetry,” in E. Gunderson (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Rhetoric. Cambridge, 27–42.

Young, D.C., 1996. "'First with the Most': Greek Athletic Records and Specialization," Nikephoros 9, 180-181.

PRIMARY SOURCES:

Aristophanes, Frogs, lines 851–874.

Athenian red-figure krater attributed to the Nikias Painter, c. 420 BCE.

Attic red-figure cup attributed to Douris; from Vulci, Italy, c. 500–490 BCE.

Herodotus, Histories, 8.26.

Hesiod, Works and Days, 11–26.

Homer, Iliad, Book 23, lines 257–286.

Homer, Odyssey, Book 21, lines 63–79.

Inscription of Kyniska, sister of Agesilaos, c. 390 BCE (?), Olympia.

Inscription: Simonides, ‘Democritus’ epigram’.

Lucian, Anacharsis 9.

Pausanias, Description of Greece, 3.8.2.

Pindar, Olympian 10, lines 55–63.

Plutarch, Parallel Lives, Agesilaus 20.1.46-127.

[Ps.-]Plutarch, The Lives of the Ten Orators 841.  Plutarch, Agesilaus, 20.46-127.

Stater from Aspendos (Pamphylia, south coast of Asia Minor) with belt wrestlers, c. 420–400 BCE.

Tetradrachm (= four drachmas) from Sicily commemorating Olympic mule cart race win of Anaxilas of Rhegium, 480 BCE.

Tetradrachm from Macedon celebrating Olympic win of Philip II in the horse race, 356 BCE.

Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, 6.31.1–4.

Xenophon, Minor Works, Agesilaus 9.1.