Printer Friendly

Sex in the gym: athletic trainers and pedagogical pederasty.

After a lengthy prologue apologizing for the poet's delay in delivering his promised composition, (1) Pindar's Olympian 10 finally names the athlete who is to be celebrated, Hagesidamus of Epizephyrian Locris, an adolescent victor in boxing in 476 BCE:

   [Victorious as a boxer in the Olympics, let Hagesidamus give thanks
   to Ilas,
   just as Patroclus did to Achilles. A man aided by the arts of a god
   whet one who is born to excellence and spur him toward awesome

The ancient commentators on Pindar speculated that Ilas must have been the boy's athletic trainer, as suggested by the gnome in vv. 20-21; most modern scholars have followed this view. (2) What most critics have not fully understood, however, is why Ilas receives so much emphasis as to be mentioned side-by-side with the first naming of the victor, and in particular why his relation to Hagesidamus should be likened to that of Achilles and Patroclus. (3) William Mullen and Deborah Steiner have both suspected that there might be an erotic dimension to their relationship, but neither has argued the point in detail. (4) On the other side, Verdenius has explicitly rejected this possibility: "it would have been tasteless to suggest that there existed an erotic relation between the victor and his trainer." (5) The present essay aims to contextualize consideration of this passage within the broader perspective of the evidence we can glean from a variety of sources about athletic trainers and their personal relationship to young athletes under their care.

No one can doubt Pindar's own interest in the attractiveness of boys and pederastic themes generally. (6) The central reason for interpreting the Ilas-Hagesidamus relationship as not merely didactic is the application of Achilles and Patroclus as a mythological analogy. Nothing in the Iliad or mythological tradition makes Achilles a teacher of Patroclus; the one admonition Achilles offers Patroclus in the Iliad Patroclus fatefully disobeys. However, it is well-known that the myth of Achilles and Patroclus had been interpreted in explicitly pederastic terms in Pindar's own time by Aeschylus' tragedy Myrmidons. (7) This would therefore be one of several cases where Pindar reacts to a myth Aeschylus had recently put on stage. (8) Achilles is a teacher to Patroclus inasmuch as he is Patroclus' erastes and role model. This association of functions raises the obvious question whether Ilas, in addition to being Hagesidamus' athletic trainer, was also his lover or at least was presented as such. The term [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], which is used here to designate the thanks owed to the teacher, frequently bears erotic connotations in Greek, referring to the reciprocal favors a beloved grants his lover, whether physical or emotional (see, for instance, Theognis 956-57, 1263-66, 1299-1304, 1319-22, 1327-34, 1367-68). Vv.20-21 certainly suggest that Ilas' role involved building character as well as teaching the fine points of the pugilistic art.

The coupling of Hagesidamus' name with Ilas in the first actual naming of the victor in the poem stands as the climax of the entire first triad. (9) Interestingly, Pindar's last mention of the boy at the end of the poem links his name with the erotically charged epithet [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] and with an allusion to another pederastic myth, that of Zeus and Ganymede:

   [I have praised the love-inspiring son of Archestratus, whom I saw
   in strength of hand beside the Olympian altar at that time,
   in physique and blessed with that youthful effloresence which,
   with Cyprian born Aphrodite, once warded off from Ganymede death
   knows no shame.] (O.10.99-105)

Pindar specifically praises the boy's beauty and his [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], that perfect moment of adolescent ripeness which became immortal for Ganymede and, by implication, will become immortal for Hagesidamus through Pindar's poetic celebration. (10)

Hagesidamus' relation to Ilas raises the question whether the prominence of trainers in Pindar's epinicia for boy victors may have been due to the trainer conventionally being an erastes. As abhorrent as teacher-student relationships may be to some modern constructions of sexual morality, as institutionalized today in the ethical codes of virtually every school and university, we must recognize that the bugbears of sexual harassment and child molestation did not possess the same valence in antiquity; pederasty and pedagogy were intimately linked. The educational historian H. I. Marrou, although no enthusiast for homosexual causes, was nevertheless forthright in acknowledging the pederastic basis of advanced education in all spheres: (11)
   Pederasty was considered the most beautiful, the perfect, form of
   education--[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]. Throughout Greek
   history the relationship
   between master and pupil was to remain that between a lover and his
   beloved: education remained in principle not so much a form of
   an instruction in techniques, as an expenditure of loving effort
   by an elder
   concerned to promote the growth of a younger man who was burning
   the desire to respond to this love and show himself worthy of it.

This romantically engaged mentorship would be particularly characteristic of the most elite forms of aristocratic education, based on personal rather than group instruction. It might also be appropriate for some forms of technical apprenticeship. Marrou continues:
   ... it was still under the shadow of masculine erotic love that
   this high
   technical instruction flourished: no matter what branch was
   involved, it was
   carried on in the atmosphere of spiritual communion that was
   created by
   the disciple's fervent and often passionate attachment to the
   master to
   whom he had given himself, whom he took as his model, and who
   initiated him into the secrets of his science or art. For a long
   time, the
   lack of proper educational institutions meant that only this one
   type of
   thorough-going education was possible--the type whereby a disciple
   attached to a tutor who had honoured him by summoning him to his
   by electing him. Let us emphasize the direction of this vocation:
   it was a call
   from above, to one whom the tutor deemed worthy. For a long time
   opinion of antiquity was to despise the teacher who made a business
   out of
   teaching and offered his learning to the first customer who came
   The communication of knowledge, it was believed, should be reserved
   those worthy of it. (12)

Socrates' relationship with his pupils is often characterized in pederastic terms, even if he never actually sought physical consummation of the relationship. (13) Later biographical sources, although not always trustworthy, suggest numerous teacher-student relationships of a pederastic nature: the philosophers Parmenides and Zeno, Xenocrates and Polemon, Polemon and Crates, Crantor and Arcesilaus, the sculptors Pheidias and Agoracritus of Paros, the physician Theomedon and Eudoxus of Cnidus. (14) Iconographic evidence confirms that teacher-student relationships could be eroticized even in musical and other non-athletic contexts. (15)

In a bold and challenging revaluation of ancient educational models, Yun Lee Too has questioned the concept of educational mentorship as merely a "call from above," as Marrou termed it, in favor of an economy of reciprocal, two-way desire on the part of both teacher and student: in her view, the eroticization of the relationship can serve a beneficial purpose precisely inasmuch as it equalizes or "peers" the teacher and student, deconstructing the traditional model of prescriptive, omniscient pedagogy in favor of a more open, conversational, and dialectical exchange in which the student becomes closer to an equal of the teacher, able to develop and contribute his own original ideas like an adult, rather than as an acolyte kneeling before a magisterial discourse of self-contained totality and impassionate wisdom. (16) The teacher's desire for proximity to his student's beauty complements the student's desire to learn by proximity to his teacher's experience and wisdom; this mutual, if differentially determined, aporia makes each partner to the relationship of exchange equally needful and therefore equally vulnerable to the other's disapprobation. This conceptualization of a two-way relationship of mutual vulnerability and need is surely preferable to the reductive phallocratic formulation of Greek pederasty advanced by David Halperin and others. (17) On the other hand, it is precisely by refusing to love the beautiful student, as Socrates does with Alcibiades, that the teacher retains his self-sufficient authority and mastery: as Leo Bersani has noted in explicating Foucault's articulation of Greek ascesis, "the elimination of sex has transformed a relation of problematic desire into a pure exercise of power." (18)

The applicability of the pederastic model to athletic training is clear. Later sources distinguish between the paidotribes, who would lead classes of group instruction, and the gymnastes, a more accomplished professional who would train a competition-level athlete one-on-one and who would supplement his instruction in bodily maneuvers with a systematic dietary regimen and supervision over every aspect of the athlete's lifestyle. (19) Although the term paidotribes probably encompassed both forms of instruction in the fifth century, the separation between the two types of training nevertheless probably existed, with the gymnastes more likely to accommodate Marrou's pederastic model. The trainer would accompany an Olympic-level boy athlete alone on what could often be an extremely long and arduous journey (as in Hagesidamus' case, an overseas voyage from the toe of Italy) and would stay with him for the mandatory thirty-day training period at Olympia, lodged together at close quarters in accommodations that probably consisted of little more than a tent.

The private wrestling school (palaestra) is certainly identified as the prime arena of pederastic courtship in a range of texts from a variety of genres in both the fifth and fourth centuries. (20) Numerous Greek vases depict scenes of clothed men or youths admiring, crowning, or presenting gifts to naked athletes; strigils and oil flasks hanging in the background are also common means of giving a gymnastic setting to courtship scenes. (21) Some would argue that the institution of athletic nudity and the addition of separate competitions for boys at the major festivals reflect the emergence of a homoerotic aesthetic centered upon athletics during the archaic period. (22) Indeed, contests of euandria centered upon male beauty were a part of the Panathenaea and several other local festivals. (23) Is it legitimate to assume that pederasty entered the wrestling schools only from the influence of outside spectators and never among the participants themselves?

More than one Hellenistic epigram takes it for granted that a position as athletic trainer afforded almost unlimited potential for physical and even sexual intimacy with boys. (24) An early Hellenistic papyrus (P. Lugd. Bat. 20.51, datable to 257 BCE) contains a letter by a man worried that his supervision of a palaestra will give his enemies plausible grounds for accusing him of pederasty. (25) As the teacher responsible for a developing boy's physical formation and health, the trainer would closely inspect every inch of his anatomy; indeed, it was a trainer's role to massage sore muscles after a workout. (26) Touching and visual appreciation of the boy's physique would be daily activities. In the athletic, as in the military and sympotic realms, the boundaries between "homosocial" and "homosexual" were not always clearly demarcated. (27)

There were concerns in some parts of Greece that this pedagogical authority could be misappropriated or abused: Aeschines cites a "law of Solon" (Tim. 10-12, 138-39) regulating the hours at which gymnasia and schools could be open. This regulation, which probably dates much later than Solon, appears to reflect concern about after-hours contact between boy athletes and trainers under the cover of darkness. Kyle has argued that the one part of this law that is genuinely Solonian (based on other citations as such) is the prohibition against slaves "oiling themselves in the gymnasium ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) or acting as lovers ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII])." (28) The fact that these two verbs are coupled together in all the citations of this law implies that athletics and pederasty were routinely coupled in Solon's time as the prerogatives of free men and that the social context for both activities was the same. (29) The more restrictive and sexually conservative environment of the late fifth century may have chosen to expand Solon's law into restricting relationships between boys and trainers, but the fact that such a regulation was felt to be necessary is itself evidence that such relationships were far from unknown. (30) It is commonly accepted that the institutionalization of public gymnasia in Athens evolved together with the state's growing democracy. (31) It may be that the eventual addition of publicly appointed or elected gymnasiarchs and paidotribai, of which there is some evidence in the fourth century, (32) reflected not only further democratization of athletic training, but also a desire to remove it from the realm of private patronage and pederastic influence, which was increasingly marginalized by Athenian democratic discourse as a social practice only of the elite. (33)

Not only did perceptions of what was appropriate and inappropriate vary over time, but they also depended on the local customs of each city state. Plato's Pausanias (Symp. 182A-C) tells us that the Boeotians (Pindar's native people) and the Eleans (the sponsors of the Olympics) were completely unashamed in their conduct of man/boy love, whereas the Athenians and Spartans were exceptions to the norm in their ambivalence. Other sources attest a strong Cretan identification with the practice. (34) In considering whether trainers might be lovers of some boys under their tutelage, we should remember that being an erastes might also mean something very different in different parts of the Greek world. The Spartans practiced what was at least officially a chaste version of pederasty in which men and boys paired off as lover and beloved, but actual sexual contact was forbidden. (35) Acting as a boy's trainer might also be either a more or less formalized arrangement: Theognis 1335-36 implies that it was common for a lover to exercise naked together with his boy, (36) and the Spartan myth of Hyacinthus features the god Apollo doing so with his young companion. (37) Vase paintings frequently show youths of approximately the same age and stature acting as trainer, (38) suggesting that such activity was often more an offering of friendship than a certification of experience or professional standing, although this representational development may also imply the equalization of the teacher-student relationship that takes place once an erotic element dominates.

The forms of patronage a lover could offer a protege were also variable. Xenophon's Symposium presents Callias as the lover of the young athlete Autolycus with the full knowledge and consent of the boy's father. (39) Callias was of course one of the wealthiest Athenians, a man known for his generosity and even extravagance. (40) What little is known of Autolycus' father Lycon suggests that he was comparatively poor, (41) which raises the possibility that it was Callias' role as erastes to pay for the boy's trainer and defray the costs of his travel to various athletic venues. Nick Fisher, drawing on the work of Young, Kyle, and others, has recently argued that quite a few young athletes would come from backgrounds that were less than wealthy and would rely on precisely such patronage, often erotically motivated. (42) Hence the nexus between the palaestra and pederastic courtship may be founded on a complex array of connected social interactions and needs.

Pindar's Pythian 10, written for the Thessalian boy victor Hippocleas, offers a likely parallel for precisely this situation, in that the ode itself was commissioned by Thorax, a member of the local ruling family, but not a relative of the boy. (43) It would therefore seem that Thorax was indeed a patron and financial backer who was in a significant way involved with the boy's athletic success. The scholia speculate that he was also the boy's erastes, (44) a possibility that appears to be supported by the context in which he is mentioned. The ode concludes by commending to the boy Thorax's character and friendship (vv.61-72), after a priamel (vv.55-60) describing the new erotic opportunities which may now be available to him as a famous athlete: celebrated by Pindar's songs, he will be still more beautiful to look upon in the eyes of both youths his own age ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) and mature men ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), and he will be a care to young maidens ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]). (45) V.60 ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), which one might loosely translate as "different strokes for different folks," (46) encapsulates the sequence in a neat summary priamel. In contrast to this priamelistic foil, Pindar warns the boy not to look too far afield, but stick with the good which is at hand. Vv.64ff. make it clear that the boy's present good is Thorax, presumably his present erastes, whose virtues Pindar warmly recommends in the lines that follow. Girls and marriage are among [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] ("the things a year in the future"), which the poet warns the boy not to try foreseeing right now. If my interpretation of this passage is correct, Pindar's ode and its public celebration could be viewed as an extravagant love gift from Thorax, even as Callias' feast (the setting of Xenophon's Symposium) was a public love gift celebrating the Panathenaic victory of his eromenos Autolycus.

There is, however, a key difference between O.10 and P.10, which is the lack of any indication that Ilas is the one who commissioned Pindar's services, in contrast to the very specific announcement in P.10.64-66 that it is Thorax who has yoked Pindar's chariot of song. (47) The shorter O.11, which celebrates the same victory, makes no mention of Ilas at all, which would be strange if he were the one paying for it. Ilas' role in O.10.20-21 seems entirely involved with training and encouraging Hagesidamus. While his financial patronage cannot be excluded as a possibility, it does not appear to be the primary emphasis.

But Fisher notes that the roles of trainer and financial backer were in some cases conflated, in that it would not be unusual for a trainer to volunteer his services out of romantic attraction to a promising youth. (48) One of the most frequently and enthusiastically praised trainers in Pindar is the Athenian Melesias (O.8.54-66, N.4.93-96, N.6.64-66), also noted as the father of the "other Thucydides," the conservative and aristocratic political rival of Pericles. (49) O.8.65-66 tells us that Alcimedon has brought this trainer his thirtieth victory. It is difficult to believe that someone of Melesias' prominence and high station would have undertaken to train so many young Aeginetan wrestlers purely out of a profit motive. More likely his motivations were love of the sport and his enjoyment of close contact with developing adolescent athletes. How "close" the contact was we cannot of course say, but Melesias clearly found his considerable investment of time worthwhile. That Melesias was not the only rich man who chose to pursue a career as a trainer is confirmed by the example of Timarchus' uncle Eupolemus (Aeschines, Tim. 102).

Some of the most suggestive fifth-century evidence concerning the relation of trainers and athletes is found in the iconography of Attic red-figure vase painting. There are dozens of representations of such scenes extant, (50) and this motif is arguably an even more common form of adult-youth interaction than the explicit courtship scenes so often discussed in treatments of Greek pederasty. What is often striking about these images is just how much they have in common with courtship representations; in many cases it is impossible to tell whether the clothed figure watching or crowning a nude athlete is a trainer or a lovestruck admirer. The one certain and distinctive attribute that identifies a character as a trainer is the cleft staff or branch, which would be used to prod or position an athlete's limbs; however, trainers are sometimes represented with an ordinary staff, so the absence of a cleft staff need not exclude a character as trainer.

A common and normative image is of a bearded trainer, sternly imperious and usually supervising more than one pupil, whose air of adult authority and command seems unquestionable (see Figure 1). What may be a bit surprising, however, is that it is just as common to find youths of an age apparently equal to the athlete(s) holding the cleft stick and acting as trainer, as if to de-emphasize any concept of hierarchy and suggest that a friend or companion could just as well assume the role. (51) This is in fact the most frequent way of representing trainers on late fifth-century vases, such as those of the Eretria Painter, Calliope Painter, and Disney Painter, all of whom especially favored athletic scenes, but it is also common in the work of earlier red-figure artists such as the Andocides Painter, Euthymides, Epictetus, the Kleophrades Painter, Onesimus, the Antiphon Painter, the Brygos Painter, Douris, and even on at least one black-figure vase. (52) These youthful trainers are more likely to be paired off with athletes one-on-one and to show a closer degree of personal engagement.


The Calliope Painter produced a series of pelikai featuring a common compositional scheme, of which a dozen examples are extant (Lezzi-Hafter, nos. 163-74; see Figure 2) dated to the period 440-20 BCE: on one side of each pelike is a pair of figures (in two cases male-female [Lezzi-Hafter, nos. 165-66], in the others two age-equal male youths), and on the other side is a single male figure who appears to be watching the interaction of the pair on front. Six of the ten vessels with male-male couples show a trainer (identified as such by the forked stick) and athlete; the other four merely show two clothed youths in conversation, but one of those (Lezzi-Hafter, no. 174) features a young trainer as the solo figure on the reverse. The mutual engagement and eye contact of these four non-athletic couples suggest that the images could be construed as courtship scenes; the two heterosexual couples are unquestionably such, since the young man in both cases hands an alabastron to the woman as a gift. It is interesting that this painter would regard trainer-athlete pairs as a variation or substitute for courtship scenes. Even more significant, however, is what we find on some of the pelikai with trainers and athletes: three of the six (Lezzi-Hafter, nos. 163 = Figure 2, 168 [Verona 53 = AR[V.sup.2] 1262.67], 169 [New York 25.78.68 = AR[V.sup.2] 1262.69]) show the youth disrobing himself in front of the trainer, as if to open up his body for the trainer's inspection. (53) The trainer bends over slightly and fixes his gaze on the boy's midsection, as if the boy's penis were his real object of interest. From our position to the boy's side, we do not see the boy's penis, but it is clear that the boy's clothing is opened just enough that the trainer, who stands in front of him, can steal a peek at this visual prize, which seems to be reserved for him alone. In earlier red-figure vase painting (see, for example, Figure 3), a boy's opening up his clothing and showing his body to an interested suitor is a convention to express his consent to the suitor's gifts and advances. (54) That the Calliope Painter chose to model some of his trainer-athlete pairs on the iconography of pederastic courtship suggests that he saw the relationships as parallel and perhaps even equivalent.


Another interesting case is Figure 4, a plate signed by Epictetus, active from about 520 to 490 BCE, in which two age-equal youths stand face-to-face at close quarters, with reciprocal eye-contact. The youthful trainer at the right, holding a forked staff in one hand, reaches out with the other to his companion's hip to tie a fillet around him. This gesture recognizes an athletic triumph and could thus appropriately be a trainer's way of honoring his pupil, but iconographic parallels also suggest that such ribbons are commonly offered by lovers or suitors. New York 1979.11.9 (= Kunisch no. 250), a kylix by Makron, shows bearded men (no staffs) wrapping elaborate, even excessive ribbons around nude athletes; (55) that this is meant as a courtship vase is indicated by the other side, which clearly shows lovers offering gifts. See also London E440 (AR[V.sup.2] 289.1 = Koch-Harnack, Fig. 111), a stamnos by the Siren Painter showing Erotes carrying such a ribbon along with other lovegifts, and Paris G45 (AR[V.sup.2] 31.4 = R59 in Kilmer), an amphora by the Dikaios Painter, where a clothed youth and a naked boy kiss, and another shows the clothed youth crowning the naked boy discus-thrower. (56)


On some vases, one sees trainers and wooers explicitly parallelled. Figure 5, a kylix by Douris, who was active throughout the first half of the fifth century BCE, provides an interesting example. One side depicts four naked youths and two bearded men: the two youths at the left hold hand weights, emphasizing their athletic activity. A trainer, recognizable by his forked rod, reaches out with the palm of his hand to touch one of these youths, perhaps to position the young man's back or buttocks. On the right side we see another group of three, again with the youth on the outside margin watching. In this group, the bearded man holds in his right hand a typical walking staff rather than a trainer's rod and gesticulates with his left hand as if talking to the youth in front of him, who turns around to look at him, but walks away and raises his right hand in what appears to be a gesture of refusal. (57) This scene is evidently one of courtship, not athletic supervision. Its juxtaposition with the trainer reaching out to touch the youth in front of him prompts us to reconsider the dynamics and intention of that grouping. The parallelism in the composition and orientation of each pair is clear: in each case the man appears to pursue from the right, while the youth walks away to the left. Moreover the youth twists around to look back at the man, who advances his right arm in the youth's direction. Could the vase painter's intention be to show that the wooer and trainer are in some sense both pursuing the same thing, even if from the standpoint of different roles? (58)


There are many cases where one simply cannot tell whether the figure in question is a trainer or an engaged admirer. A good example is Figure 6, a neck amphora attributed to the Painter of Altenburg 273, from the second half of the fifth century BCE. A naked youth holds a hand-weight as he stands to the right of a goal-post, while a well-clothed bearded man on the other side of the post bends over to talk with him, leaning on his walking staff, his right hand positioned on his hip. He lacks the forked staff characteristic of trainers, which is always held, never leaned upon. His hands are static and make no gesture indicating instruction or demonstration to the youth. But nothing prevents him from being a trainer either. On the other side of the amphora is a running Nike, perhaps suggesting that the man is admiring a youthful victor. The two figures, like those of Figure 4, stand in reciprocating eye-contact, which often indicates emotional engagement. (59) Other equally ambiguous cases can be identified. (60) That the iconographical conventions are so undefined that we cannot distinguish between trainers and admirers in these cases raises the possibility that the ancients themselves did not sharply distinguish between the two: a trainer was an admirer, whose emotional orientation toward a favored trainee was in some sense that of a lover.

The work of one vase painter deserves particular mention. The Eretria Painter, active between 440 and 420 BCE and closely associated with the Calliope Painter, produced a series of kylixes with athletic (or in some cases musical or pedagogical) scenes: each cup features a pair of (usually age-equal) youths in the interior, and two pairs on each side. (61) Typically, one youth in each pair is clothed and the other a nude athlete; it is often uncertain whether the clothed figure is a trainer or a lovestruck admirer. (62) One vase where at least two or three of them are certainly trainers is Figure 7a-c: the clothed figure in the tondo (7a) is clearly recognizable as a trainer in virtue of his forked staff and distinctive wreath. Similarly, one of the youths on the side of the cup (7b) holds a forked staff. The comparable youth on the other side (7c) who holds a staff is probably a trainer; although the staff is not forked, it is too long to be merely a walking stick. (63) The other pair on each side is distinguished by the giving of a sprig or crown; on one side (7c) the clothed admirer holds it out toward the athlete as a reward he is presenting, (64) whereas the other side (7b) shows a curious inversion of the usual pattern in that the naked athlete boldly strides forward and appears to present the gift to his admirer. Although this athlete's groin area is damaged by a large scratch, one can make out the tip of an obviously erect penis, something quite without parallel in athletic scenes, but perhaps intended to suggest the aphrodisiac power of athletic success as well as the complete deconstruction of all active-passive distinctions between lover and beloved. What is common to all these pairs, however, is the deeply engaged mutual eye contact in each case. Such intense ocular interaction seems to be a hallmark of this painter's style, particularly noticeable in the age-equal couples, (65) and cannot fail to imply a two-sided eroticization of the relationship. The trainer-figures in each case make no authoritative gestures and appear unconcerned with how the athletes hold the discus. Note particularly how close together the trainer and youth stand in 7a, as if their arms touch. The trainers here are, for all practical purposes, admirers, and their emotional engagement with the athletes puts them on a level of complete equality.


An anomalous, but intriguing illustration appears in Figure 8, an amphora by the Andocides Painter, active in the last quarter of the sixth century and one of the earliest red-figure painters. Martin Kilmer, who includes an illustration, aptly captions "Wrestlers and effeminate trainer." (66) At the left-hand margin of the picture we see a long-haired, willowy youth dressed in a robe with an elaborate border and a flowery decoration, more typical of what one might expect a woman to wear. (67) In his right hand he holds a rod, but with his thin, delicate left hand he raises to his nose a flower, as if to imply that the delight he takes in watching naked athletes is a sensual pleasure like sniffing a rose. (68) A similar flower-sniffing youth appears on other works of the same painter as an aesthete appreciating musical entertainment. (69) Figure 8 is unusual in more than one respect: note also the bearded figure on the extreme right, who is lifted up by his larger and younger companion like a plaything, emphasizing that the usual categories of age superiority are inverted. (70) But in showing that youth and beauty captivate even those one might expect to exercise authority, the vase speaks to a more profound truth in erotic relations. While it cannot be ruled out that the flower-sniffer is an umpire rather than a trainer, either way he shows that supervision in the ring is not necessarily defined in terms of superior physical strength or masculinity, so much as a role assumed by those most appreciative of athletic beauty.


None of the evidence we have adduced, either textual or iconographic, is by itself definitive. But in its cumulative totality, the evidence does suggest that the palaestra was a sanctuary of pederastic culture and that it was not uncommon for the relationships between a trainer and young athlete to be intimate and eroticized. The iconographic evidence in particular suggests that there was sometimes very little difference in age between the two, and the trainer's position need not necessarily be based on long experience or even athletic skill. However, the better trainers--Melesias and the others whom Pindar praises in connection with their pupils' victories--were probably experienced professionals, which does not, however, necessarily mean they offered their services for hire. Indeed, Pindar's allusive suggestion that Ilas was the lover as well as the trainer of the young Hagesidamus in Olympian 10 does not necessarily prove that he actually was the boy's lover, but that it would be received positively for Pindar to imply that he was, as if to affirm that he was motivated by genuine and authentic admiration of Hagesidamus' qualities rather than any mercenary motive. (71) Just as Socrates could pride himself on not being motivated by money, like other sophists, but by the pleasure afforded him in the company of young and open minds in search of moral excellence, a trainer might be excited by the opportunity to guide young and eager bodies in pursuit of an excellence that combined physical and moral self-control. We should not be unduly prejudiced by modern assumptions that may define erotic involvement with youth and moral guidance as mutually exclusive and antithetical spheres of activity. (72)


(1.) For a more detailed interpretation of the context of these lines, see Hubbard, "Subtext and Allusion."

(2.) [SIGMA] O.10.19c, 21a (Drachmann). This view is accepted by most modern Pindaric commentators (e.g. Dissen II, 130; Mezger 429; Christ 82; Verdenius 64). That training is at issue here is certainly suggested by the image of "whetting" [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] natural ability [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] by means of divine arts [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]. The trainer is also characterized as a "whetstone" in I.6.73. Gildersleeve (216) cites additional parallels.

(3.) Fraccaroli (294-95) and Viljoen (72-85) note that Ilas is given special prominence in this poem beyond what one normally expects of a trainer (who is usually mentioned only in the last triad), but fall back on the speculation of the scholia ([SIGMA] O.10.19c, 21a [Drachmann]) that Ilas gave the boy special encouragement or advice during the match itself that turned a looming defeat into a victory. This explanation fails to motivate the Patroclus/Achilles allusion.

(4.) Mullen 186; Steiner 140.

(5.) Verdenius 64.

(6.) See especially frr. 123, 127-28 S-M, N.8.1-5. Kohnken (200-4) has argued that Pindar is the one who introduced the pederastic dimension into the myth of Poseidon and Pelops in O.1; even if it was traditional, Pindar certainly emphasizes it. Athenaeus 13.601C, in quoting fr. 127, calls Pindar [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]. Pindar frequently uses erotic motifs in the epinicia as an extension of the symposiastic relationship of philotes between poet and victor. See von der Muhll; Lasserre 18-19; Crotty 92-103; Instone; Steiner 136-42; Nicholson 28-33. Kurke ("Sixth Pythian" 94-95) argues that the paideutic role of Cheiron in P.6 is inherently pederastic; if so, it would provide a parallel to what is here proposed for Ilas and Hagesidamus.

(7.) See Plato, Symp. 180A, and Aeschylus, frr. 135-37 TGrF. Clarke has argued that the Achilles-Patroclus relationship is already erotic in the Iliad. Against this view, see Barrett and Patzer 94-98. Halperin (75-87) is more cautious and views the relation in terms of warrior-partnerships in Near Eastern tradition that are not necessarily sexual. The Platonic passage suggests that Aeschylus' innovation was not only to interpret the relationship in pederastic terms, but also to invert the ages (Patroclus was usually imagined as the elder of the two) so that Achilles could be cast as the erastes. Among Pindaric commentators, Lehnus (175) is the only one to perceive the erotic nature of this relationship, but he fails to recognize the influence of Aeschylus here or to draw the necessary inference about the analogous relationship of Hagesidamus and Ilas.

(8.) For the influence of the Oresteia on P.11, see Hubbard, "Invisible Roar" 348-51, and the additional bibliography therein. For O.6 and N.9 as responses to Aeschylus' Eleusinians, see Hubbard, "Remaking Myth" 97-100.

(9.) The climactic coupling of the trainer Orseas' name with the victor at the very end of I.4, together with the evocation of the erotically suggestive term [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], leads Nicholson 31-32 to conclude that their relationship may also have been pederastic.

(10.) N.8.1-5 opens its praise of the young victor Deinias with an invocation to [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], called "herald of the ambrosial love acts of Aphrodite, who sits on the cheeks of maidens and boys." The word unquestionably marks a love object for Pindar. Deinias' exact age is unclear, but the emphasis on [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] and the explicit reference to boys in v.2 suggests that he was probably still a boy and in any event not much over eighteen. Hamilton (108nn5-6) adduces formal grounds to support the information of [SIGMA] Pindar, N.8.inscr. a (Drachmann) that the ode commemorates a double victory of father and son, suggesting that Deinias must in fact be quite young, if his father is still an active athlete winning footraces.

(11.) Marrou 57.

(12.) Marrou 158-59.

(13.) See especially Plato, Charm. 154A-155D, Lysis 204A-206A, Symp. 216A-219E; Xenophon, Symp. 4.27-28.

(14.) See Meier & de Pogey-Castries 84-85 for a catalogue of the sources, mainly in Diogenes Laertius. Even if we reject the historicity of all these relationships, the traditions demonstrate that by the Hellenistic period, such teacher-student pederasty was taken for granted.

(15.) While it is easy to understand why boys undergoing athletic instruction are depicted nude on vases, there was no necessary reason why students of music and literature should be so presented, unless to emphasize their role as beautiful objects of their teacher's gaze: see the interior of a kylix by the Eretria Painter (Paris G457 = AR[V.sup.2] 1254.80 = Lezzi-Hafter no. 21), pointedly parallelled to athletic scenes on the sides of the cup. For other examples of classroom nudity, see the interior of a kylix by a painter related to Apollodorus (Basel BS465 = Beazley Addenda (2) 398 = CVA Switzerland VI, pl. 19.1), a chous by the Berlin Painter (New York 22.139.32 = AR[V.sup.2] 210.186 = Beck, Fig. 104), a kylix of the Cage Painter (Paris G318 = AR[V.sup.2] 348.3 = Beck, Fig. 57), the interior of a kylix by the Akestorides Painter (Leiden PC91 = AR[V.sup.2] 781.3 = Beck, Fig. 121), a kylix by the Tarquinia Painter (Tarquinia RC1121 = AR[V.sup.2] 866.1), a chous by the Shuvalov Painter (London E525 = AR[V.sup.2] 1208.38 = Beck, Fig. 80), an unattributed chous (Brussels A1911 = Beck, Fig. 69), and a South Italic marble grave relief datable to c. 400 BCE (Munich G481 = Beck, Fig. 122). Even in cases where the pupil is fully clothed, the erotic relation to his teacher can be clear: see a kylix by the Telephus Painter (Munich 2669 = AR[V.sup.2] 818.26 = Beck, Fig. 120), where a boy sings in front of his seated teacher, who plays the flute, while an Eros crowns the boy from the rear, or a kylix by Douris (Getty 86.AE.290 = Para. 375.51 bis = Buitron-Oliver no.93), where suitors and love gifts enter the classroom. An interesting series of terracotta figurines show teacher-student couples huddled closely together, often with the teacher's arm or hand around the (typically naked) boy's shoulder: see Berlin TC8033 (= Beck, Fig. 67), Paris MYR287 (= Beck, Fig. 74), Athens 4899 (= Beck, Fig. 82), London, Life Coll. 31 (= Beck, Fig. 83). The most famous and flamboyant sculptural example is of course Heliodorus' late Hellenistic group of Pan teaching music to a naked Daphnis (the most famous example of which is in the Museo Nazionale, Naples). Red-figure scenes of Heracles and his music teacher Linus typically show the young hero naked (see LIMC IV, 833, especially nos. 1667-73), raising the possibility that his reason for attacking Linus may have been related to unwanted physical intimacies rather than punishment.

(16.) Too 73-75.

(17.) Halperin 30. For a more detailed critique, see Hubbard, "Popular Perceptions," Hubbard, "Theoxenus" 273-90, Hubbard Homosexuality 10-14.

(18.) Bersani 17.

(19.) See Gardiner, Greek Athletic Sports 503-5, Schween 16-20, Forbes 64-69, Juthner 183-88.

(20.) This is clear from the setting of Plato's Lysis (206E-207B) and Charmides (153A-154C), as well as references in Attic comedy (Aristophanes, Nub. 973-76, Vesp. 1023-28, Pax 762-63, Av. 139-42). See the discussions of Delorme 19-20, 35; Dover 54-55; Buffiere 561-72; Reinsberg 179-80; Steiner 126-29; Fisher 94-104; Scanlon 199-273.

(21.) See, for example, Gotha 48 (AR[V.sup.2] 20 = Koch-Harnack, Fig. 17), Berlin 2279 (AR[V.sup.2] 115.2 = Dover R196a), Florence 12 B 16 (AR[V.sup.2] 374.62 = Koch-Harnack, Fig. 10), Vatican H550 (AR[V.sup.2] 375.68 = Koch-Harnack, Fig. 9), Yale Univ. 1933.175 (AR[V.sup.2] 576.45 = Koch-Harnack, Fig. 5). See the survey of iconographical evidence by Scanlon 236-49, including several examples where the god Eros is shown crowning or in other ways recognizing victorious athletes.

(22.) For the connection of athletic nudity and pederasty, see the remarks in Plutarch, Amatorius 751F, Papalas 172, and Scanlon 96. Bonfante emphasizes the evolution of athletic nudity in connection with ritual initiation of the young, a context in which pederasty also figured. Arieti 434-36 argues that athletes' nudity was a means of displaying their sexual modesty. For a brief survey of other recent scholarship on the question, see Golden 65-69. Pausanias 5.8.9 dates the addition of separate boys' contests at Olympia to 632 BCE. Evidence suggests that they became part of the other major festivals during the same general period; see Papalas 166-67 and Golden 104-12. Significantly, this is also the period to which we owe our earliest evidence of generalized male and female pederasty (Sappho, Alcaeus, Alcman, the Thera graffiti). On athletics generally as eroticized spectacle in this period, see the recent work of Larmour 139-44 and Scanlon 199-273.

(23.) These would include some kind of performance displaying bodily size, strength, and agility. Crowther 285-91 collects the evidence. On their Athenian version as represented on Attic vases, see Reed 59-64 and Neils 154-59. For their connection with homoeroticism, see Spivey 36-39.

(24.) E.g. Automedon, AP 12.34; Strato, AP 12.206, 12.222. Wrestling imagery is commonly applied to love-making in a variety of texts: see Aristophanes, Pax 894-905, Eccl. 962-65, and Lucian, Asin. 8-10. The association may be present in Pindar's description of Hippolyta's machinations in N.5.26-27. On the strong element of homoeroticism involved in naked bodies wrestling together and the possibility that infibulation of the penis was introduced specifically to avoid sexual arousal during the event, see Larmour 140-41.

(25.) See Montserrat 150-51 on the implications of this text.

(26.) See Galen's treatise [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (= 6.13 Oribasius) for the importance of this practice, and 11.476 Kuhn for the trainer's role in it. This activity probably formed the basis for the etymology of the term paidotribes (literally "boy rubber") and the synonomous aleiptes (literally "anointer"). See Forbes 63, 91; Juthner 161-62; Harris 171. For the most complete study of athletic massage in antiquity, see Jung 8-23. The practice is certainly attested in vase painting as early as 480 BCE: see a kylix by the Antiphon Painter (Villa Giulia 50430 = AR[V.sup.2] 340.62 = Gardiner, Athletics, Fig. 46). Scanlon (212) notes that the term tribein is also used in explicitly erotic contexts, and thinks the erotic potential of massage is the reason it was limited to practice by a professional.

(27.) On the concept of "male homosocial desire," or the need for non-sexual male bonding which nevertheless forms a seamless continuum with actual homosexuality, see Sedgwick 1-5. For an exploration of the issue with respect to modern athletics, see Pronger.

(28.) Kyle, "Solon and Athletics" 99-102.

(29.) See Scanlon 212-13.

(30.) Kyle ("Solon and Athletics" 100) suggests that this expansion of the law may date to the systematic reform of Athenian law in 403 BCE. See also Scanlon 91, 213-14.

(31.) Delorme (24-30) associates the foundation of public gymnasia with cities' needs to prepare the young for an expanded hoplite force. Kyle (Athletics 71-101) sees the major periods of building activity as the fifth century, under Cimon and Pericles, and the fourth century, under Lycurgus. On the connection of gymnasia with democratic developments, see Humphreys 90-91, Golden 144, Fisher 84-94. Ps.-Xenophon, Const. Ath. 2.10 provides key evidence for the association in the fifth century.

(32.) Although the first certain evidence for publicly elected or appointed gymnastic officials is in a third-century inscription from Teos (SI[G.sup.3] 578), Plato at least conceives of such an institution (Laws 764C-766C, 813E) and Aristotle (Const. Ath. 42.2-3) attests such a system for electing supervisors of ephebic training, with an emphasis on choosing mature men over 40 who could be trusted with the care of youths. The third-century gymnastic law of Beroea (SEG 27.261, Side B, 13-15, 26-32) makes it clear that it was part of the gymnasiarch's job to protect boys from precisely those corrupting influences that were associated with the private palaestra. This seems to be confirmed for the late fifth century by the story of Prodicus' expulsion by the gymnasiarch of the Lyceum for being a bad influence on the young (Pa.-Plato, Eryxias 398E-399A). See also Aeschines, Tim. 12, although the text of the law is probably a later addition.

(33.) On the developing prejudice against pederasty in Athens as a radical democratic reaction against upper-class predilections during this period, see Hubbard, "Pederasty and Democracy" 7-11. See also Nicholson 39.

(34.) See Plato, Laws 636B-D; Aristotle, Polit. 2.10, 1272a22-26; Ephorus, fr. 149 FGrH; Athenaeus 13.601F, 602F.

(35.) See Xenophon, Const. Lac. 2.12-14, Agesilaus 5.4-6; Aelian, VH 3.12. Plutarch, Lyc. 17.1, emphasizes the athletic setting of such relationships in Sparta.

(36.) On this couplet, see Delorme 19-20.

(37.) On this myth, see Sergent 84-96. Euripides, Helen 1468-75, attests it as the basis of the Spartan ritual of the Hyacinthia (cf. Pausanias 3.19.3-5, Athenaeus IV, 138E-139F, citing earlier local historians, and the extensive note of Kannicht II, 383-85, listing further sources and bibliography), which included a contest of discus-throwing and must have been a ritual of some antiquity. Tarentum had a tomb of Apollo Hyacinthus (cf. Polybius 8.28.2), suggesting that the association of the two must have predated the colony's foundation by Sparta in 706 BCE. Hesiod, fr. 171 MW, may also attest the myth, but the reading here is uncertain. For iconographic evidence connecting Hyacinthus with the cult of Apollo dating back to the last quarter of the sixth century, see LIMC V, 546-49, especially nos. 3-40.

(38.) See n.52 and our discussion below. Schween (78-80) and Forbes (72) suggest that these might be instances of older pupils who take over instruction in the master's stead, but often there is no indication of age difference at all. These may be analogous to the cases of age-equal courtship.

(39.) Xenophon, Symp. 1.2-4, 8.11.

(40.) See Eupolis, Flatterers, especially frr. 156, 160, 174-75 PCG; [SIGMA] Aristoph., Aves 283a, 284b (Holwerda); Philostratus, Vit. Sophist. 2.610; Libanius, fr. 50b.2 (Foerster).

(41.) See Cratinus, fr. 214 PCG; Xenophon, Symp. 3.13. This is also the conclusion of Fisher 99.

(42.) Fisher 96-98.

(43.) Thorax is nowhere identified as a relative, and Pindar is normally very careful in specifying familial relationships, when they exist.

(44.) Pindar, P.10.99a (Drachmann) calls Thorax the [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] of the boy, which is probably to be understood as a synonym for erastes. Among modern commentators, only Schroeder, Pindars Pythien 91 and Coppola 29 have explicitly acknowledged the likely nature of the relationship. The remarks on Thorax's xenia to the poet in vv. 64-66 and his gold being put to the touchstone in vv. 67-68 make it clear that he, not the boy's father Phrikias, was the one who commissioned the epinician. For a more detailed exposition of this passage and its significance, see my remarks in Hubbard, "Implied Wishes" 41-45.

(45.) This passage is parallel to P.9.97-100, on the young victor's enhanced sex appeal to women, in an ode critics have long seen as pervaded by concerns with marriage. In P.10 females are the climactic term in a series, represented as the final goal (in the form of marriage) after a period of homoerotic and homosocial involvement. The Pelops myth in O.1 suggests that Pindar did in fact view pederasty as in some way an initiatory preparation for adult sexual responsibilities: after a pederastic interlude with Poseidon on Olympus, Pelops with Poseidon's help competes for and wins the hand of Hippodameia, upon whom he fathers a race of heroes. For iconographic representations of a victorious athlete admired by women, see Scanlon 246-49.

(46.) For the idea that men are differentiated by sexual preference, compare Archilochus, fr. 25.1-4 W., and Pindar, fr. 123.4-9 S-M.

(47.) The mention of xenia ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) confirms the patronage relationship here. See Kurke, Traffic 135-59 for an extended discussion of this institution's meaning in Pindar's work.

(48.) Fisher 96-97.

(49.) Wilamowitz (397-98) doubts the identity of Pindar's Melesias with Thucydides' father, largely based on his assumption that the trainer's vocation must have been that of a lowly hireling. But Pindar would be unlikely to devote so much attention to the praise of trainers if such were the case. [SIGMA] Pindar, N.4.155a (Drachmann) identifies Melesias as Athenian, and the circumspection with which Pindar refers to possible envy against him in Aegina (O.8.55, N.4.93-96) fits with his being Athenian. The date also seems right. In favor of the identity of the two figures, see Wade-Gery 243-47, who notes that Thucydides and his sons are referred to as wrestlers in several sources, Bowra 150-1, Golden 109, and Fisher 89; Woloch (102) thinks the identification "plausible" and believes that Melesias was in any event an aristocrat. Other sources tell us that Thucydides was of aristocratic pedigree (Plutarch, Pericles 11.1) and married into Cimon's family (Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 28.2), suggesting that his father was also wealthy and prominent.

(50.) In a well-catalogued and extensive collection, that of the British Museum, there are at least 14 scenes involving trainers with athletes out of 819 red-figure vases of the best period (the late-sixth and fifth centuries), compared to twelve scenes of men approaching or conversing with youths in non-athletic contexts. See the descriptive catalogue of Smith, Catalogue.

(51.) See n.38 above.

(52.) For the Andocides Painter, see Figure 8; for Euthymides, see Berlin 2180 = AR[V.sup.2] 13.1; for Epictetus, see Figure 4; for the Kleophrades Painter, see Tarquinia RC4196 (AR[V.sup.2] 185.35 = Plate 142 in Buitron-Oliver); for Onesimus, see Paris Bibl. Nat., Cab. Med. 523 (AR[V.sup.2] 316.4 = Patrucco, Fig. 126) and Boston 01.8020 (AR[V.sup.2] 321.22 = Schroeder, Sport, Plate 54b); for the Antiphon Painter, see Villa Giulia 50430 (discussed in n. 23 above) and Oxford 1914.729 (AR[V.sup.2] 340.73 = Patrucco, Fig. 81); for the Brygos Painter, see Boston 10.176 (AR[V.sup.2] 381.173 = Schroeder, Sport, Plate 53a); for Douris, see the interior of Paris G118 (same cup as Figure 5), and the interior and Side B of Basel Ka452 (AR[V.sup.2] 430.31 = no. 51 in Buitron-Oliver). See also the Painter of the Paris Gigantomachy, London E288 (AR[V.sup.2] 423.119 = CVA Great Britain, VII, Plate 47.3), the Aberdeen Painter (Boston 03.820 = AR[V.sup.2] 919.3 = Beck, Figs. 181 & 184), the Penthesilea Painter (Boston 28.48 = AR[V.sup.2] 882.36 = Beck, Figs. 143 & 150), and a kylix in the style of the Colmar Painter (Bologna 362 = AR[V.sup.2] 357 = Beck, Fig. 196). Other possible examples include the work of Polygnotus (London E337 = AR[V.sup.2] 1031.47 = CVA Great Britain VII, Plate 65.3a,b) and the Berlin Painter (Munich 2313 = AR[V.sup.2] 198.12 = CVA Germany, XII, Plate 196).

(53.) In Lezzi-Hafter no. 173 (London E414 = AR[V.sup.2] 1262.65), the seated trainer looks down at the midsection of a completely nude discus-thrower. In no. 164 (Copenhagen Thorvaldsen 108 = AR[V.sup.2] 1262.66), the nude jumper holds weights and is about to leap over a hurdle as his trainer watches. In no. 170 (Vienna 814 = AR[V.sup.2] 1262.68), the athlete is clothed, but holds a strigil, as if to emphasize that he has just finished bathing.

(54.) Makron clearly uses clothing to designate varying degrees of engagement or interest: in Figure 3, the man on the right offers a flower or crown to an unresponsive boy who remains tightly wrapped in his mantle, whereas the youth in the center offers a hare to a boy who reaches out to accept it and throws back his garment enough to reveal his shoulder and breast, and the boy on the left opens up his clothing to reveal a view of his entire body to the youth who offers him a cock and visibly looks down to examine his penis. The more flesh is revealed, the more responsive a boy appears to be; interestingly, the boys reveal more corresponding to the value of the gifts offered, but it also bears noting that the least responsive boy is the one with the greatest age difference relative to his suitor. We see the same use of clothing in Vienna 3698 (AR[V.sup.2] 471.193 = Kunisch no. 95), where the boy who has accepted a hare throws back his cloak, whereas the two boys on each side keep their arms tightly wrapped. A wine cooler by Smikros (Getty 82.AE.53) displays four pairs in a continuous wrap-around sequence, ranging from clear rejection of the suitor by a fully clothed boy who walks away (Frel, Fig. 10.5) to a youth who places one hand on a boy's bare shoulder and reaches for his chin with the other (Frel, Fig. 10.6) to a youth who reaches out to touch another's penis (Frel, Fig. 10.4--the beloved here opens up his mantle to reveal his naked body to his wooer and reciprocates by touching the wooer's arm) to a pair who embrace and kiss as well as the lover fondling the boy's penis (Frel, Fig. 10.2--again the body is revealed by an opened cloak). Again, we note that the two pairs who are furthest advanced in their contact and reciprocation are the two who appear to be closest to each other in age and stature, as if to imply that boys are more likely to accept physical intimacy with youths who are closer in age to themselves.

(55.) See also the tondo of a kylix attributed to the Ashby Painter (Paris Bibl. Nat., Cab. Med. 532 = AR[V.sup.2] 455.10 = Patrucco, Fig. 3). The inscription [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] emphasizes the erotic character of the man's admiration.

(56.) On the ambiguity of whether such figures offering crowns or ribbons are trainers, umpires, or private admirers, see Juthner 172-74. Scanlon (243-45) lists some other vases showing Eros crowning or carrying a fillet to a victorious athlete. At least one of these (Frankfurt WM06 = Para. 501.12bis = Scanlon, Fig. 8-13) shows a fillet-bearing Eros on the interior of the cup, a trainer admiring the athlete on the exterior.

(57.) See another cup of Douris, New York 52.11.4 (AR[V.sup.2] 437.114 = Buitron-Oliver, no. 152), Side B: a man offers a flower to a youth with a lyre: the youth does not look at the flower, but looks straight ahead into the man's eyes and holds up his hand in a similar gesture of refusal. Compare two cups of Makron: Boston 08.293 (AR[V.sup.2] 475.265 = Kunisch no. 522) and Munich 2658 (AR[V.sup.2] 476.275 = Kunisch no. 475). However, Frontisi-Ducroux ("Eros" 83, 87-88) suggests that such returned looks could form an implicit consent despite the boy's pretense of flight, a typical rapist's fantasy (i.e. s/he says no, but means yes). In contexts of divine pursuit, this might be plausible, but seems less likely to me here. There can certainly be no implied consent in Cambridge 37.26 (AR[V.sup.2] 506.21 = R684 in Dover), where a youth hits a man over the head with his lyre, while looking straight into his eye. Rejection, like reciprocated love, can be a form of emotional engagement with one's wooer and therefore appropriate for face-to-face interaction.

(58.) Another kylix of Douris that may show both a trainer and wooer/admirer is Basel Ka452 (AR[V.sup.2] 430.31 = no. 51 in Buitron-Oliver), Side B, where the clothed youth on the extreme left holds a forked staff, whereas the clothed youth on the extreme right merely watches the three naked jumpers in the middle. Compare a kylix by the Aberdeen Painter (Boston 03.820, listed in n.52 above), where both sides show the same compositional scheme: the trainer with a long rod on the right, another clothed youth who merely watches from the left, the athlete in the middle. Another possible example is the Beugnot amphora, attributed to Phintias (Paris G42 = AR[V.sup.2] 23.1 = Hoppin 1917, Plate 31), where the naked man on the right holds a long staff, suggesting that he is a trainer, and the clothed man on the left holds a shorter, thicker staff, more like a walking stick. Hoppin (Euthymides 124) suggests that the bearded man on the right is an athlete rather than a trainer, but one rarely finds bearded men under a trainer's supervision or in direct competition with youths (but see the rather unusual kylix attributed to Onesimus, Munich 2637 = AR[V.sup.2] 322.28). Juthner (1965.175-77) suggests two other examples: a cup signed by the Euergides Painter (London 1920.6-13.2 = AR[V.sup.2] 88.1, line sketch in Hoppin, Handbook I,367) showing a nude javelin-thrower in the center ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] accross the top), a trainer signalling to him on the left, another clothed youth offering him a flower on the right, and a Panathenaic amphora attributed to the Aegisthus Painter (Naples, SA693 = ABV 407 = CVA Italy XX, III.H.g, Plate 3), with two naked boys in the center, a bearded trainer with forked staff on the left, and another bearded and fully clothed man on the right, about to place a crown on the victorious boy's head (however, Smets [95] identifies this figure as another trainer or official).

(59.) For a more extensive treatment of this topic in relation to homoerotic vases, see Hubbard, "Theoxenus" 273-83.

(60.) On the conflation of these two roles in vase painting generally, see Osborne 138-39. Kilmer captions one of the pairs on Paris G45 (discussed above) as a "trainer" watching a boy do the stretches. If so, then the other two youths (one crowning a boy, one kissing a boy) might also be seen as trainers. But all three could just as well be lovers or admirers. See also Munich 2313 (listed in n.52 above), showing a discus-thrower on one side (inscribed Sokrates kalos) and on the other side a youth with a staff, holding out his hand in a demonstrative gesture. Or see London E337 (also listed in n.52 above), showing a naked boy on horseback on one side, a clothed youth with a staff on the other. But the two sides of such amphoras are not always connected in theme or subject, so these two examples are uncertain.

(61.) This painter's work has been fully catalogued and analyzed by Lezzi-Hafter: see nos. 11, 13-14, 17-24, 32, 35, 39, 42, 48, 55 for cups of the type I describe. A gender-mixed variant form also exists, usually with one figure in the tondo and three on each side.

(62.) On Lezzi-Hafter, no. 32, Side B, located in a private collection, the tightly wrapped figure at the far left can hardly be a trainer: in fact, the naked athlete reaches out toward him as if the clothed figure is the modest eromenos. This example does at least prove that the clothed figure in these pairs was not always a trainer.

(63.) On Side A and the tondo of Lezzi-Hafter no. 39 (Ferrara T11C = AR[V.sup.2] 1254.77) and on the tondo of no. 32, we see nude athletes holding long staffs, so these are not necessarily markers of a trainer.

(64.) The tondo of Lezzi-Hafter no. 17 (San Antonio 86.134.80) presents a clear parallel for a crown being offered as a reward in a musical, rather than athletic, context by an admirer, not a teacher. On the other hand, a trainer could be the figure to offer a crown, as we see with the figure holding the forked staff on Side A of Lezzi-Hafter no. 39.

(65.) See especially Lezzi-Hafter nos. 11, 17-20, 32, 42, 48.

(66.) Simon (92) also considers him a trainer, but Frontisi-Ducroux (Masque 127) calls him a "judge." Knauer (19-20) finds the figure too feminine in appearance for either vocation, and considers him merely a spectator who has taken up the trainer's staff in play.

(67.) Note how similar the robe and the position of the youth's hand are to those of Artemis, who stands as a spectator at the right edge on the other side of the amphora, watching Heracles and Apollo wrestle over the tripod. See Knauer, Plates 7-8 for good details.

(68.) Simon (92) suggests a more mundane interpretation: he holds the flower to his nostrils to avoid being overcome by the stench of oil and sweat in the ring. Even if true, this would still suggest a more delicate and sissified constitution than that of the athletes themselves. See the remarks of Friedrich Hauser in Furtwangler-Hauser-Reichhold III, 74, echoed by Juthner 176 (my translation): "two wrestling pairs supervised by a paidotribes. We can understand the youth at the left only as such because of his long staff, as little as his over-refined appearance seems suited for this profession. As he stands there shyly, with his flowery mantel pulled up over the back of his head to protect him from the sun, and as he brings a rose up to his nose with his long sewing fingers, he gives us the impression of a decadent aesthete rather than a trainer. An exceptional over-cultivation." His long hair certainly implies that he did not wrestle himself, since wrestlers of necessity kept their hair close-cropped: cf. Simonides, fr. 507 PMG, Euripides, Bacch. 455 and Electra 527-29 (with Denniston's note ad loc.), and Golden 78, 157.

(69.) See Paris G1 (AR[V.sup.2] 3.2 = Shapiro, Plate 20b) and perhaps Basel BS491 (AR[V.sup.2] 3.4 = Shapiro, Plate 20c).

(70.) Note that the bearded man looks straight at us, what Frontisi-Ducroux (Masque 126-30 and "Eros" 85-89) calls apostrophe or "interpellation of the spectator," summoning us (here assumed to be adult, male, and homoerotically inclined) into the scene as participants who may assume the position of the male figure turned frontally toward us like a mirror reflection. Knauer (18-19) argues that the central pair of wrestlers also consists of a bearded and unbearded figure (although the face of the latter is partly obscured), with the younger wrestler gaining a superior hold over his rival.

(71.) See Too 13-36 on the abiding suspicion of "teaching for hire." The kind of personal exchange involved in pederastic mentorship was perceived as an altogether different practice; Pindar himself emphatically distinguishes between mercenary and romantic motives in I.2.1-11, foregrounding the romantic as preferable. See Nigel Nicholson's acute analysis of the superior truth claims of pederastic commitment.

(72.) Nicholson (33-36) points to Theognis, who mingles admonitory advice poetry to Cyrnus with amatory poetry addressed to the same youth. There is no reason to think that Pindar or most aristocrats of the archaic period would have viewed the matter differently.

Works Cited

Alexander, Christine. Greek Athletics. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1925.

Arieti, James A. "Nudity in Greek Athletics." Classical World 68 (1975): 431-36.

Barrett, D. S. "The Friendship of Achilles and Patroclus." Classical Bulletin 57 (1981): 87-93.

Beck, Frederick A. G. Album of Greek Education. Sydney: Cheiron Press, 1975.

Bersani, Leo. "Pedagogy and Pederasty." Raritan 5 (1985): 14-21.

Bonfante, Larissa. "Nudity as Costume in Classical Art." American Journal of Archaeology 93 (1989): 543-70.

Bowra, C. M. Pindar Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964.

Buffiere, Felix. Eros adolescent: la pederastie dans la Grece antique. Paris: Belles Lettres, 1980.

Buitron-Oliver, Diana. Douris: A Master-Painter of Athenian Red-figure Vases. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1995.

Christ, Wilhelm. Pindari carmina prolegomenis et commentariis instructa. Leipzig: B. G. Teuber, 1896.

Clarke, William M. "Achilles and Patroclus in Love." Hermes 106 (1978): 381-96.

Coppola, Goffredo. Introduzione a Pindaro. Rome: L' Universal, 1931.

Crotty, Kevin. Song and Action: The Victory Odes of Pindar. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982.

Crowther, Nigel B. "Male 'Beauty' Contests in Greece: The Euandria and Euexia." Antiquite classique 54 (1985): 285-91.

Delorme, Jean. Gymnasion: Etude sur les monuments consacres a l' education en Grece. Paris: E. De Boccard, 1960.

Dissen, Ludolphus. Pindari Carmina quae supersunt. Gotha: F. Henning, 1830.

Dover, Kenneth J. Greek Homosexuality. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1978.

Fisher, Nick. "Gymnasia and the Democratic Values of Leisure." Kosmos: Essays in Order Conflict, and Community in Classical Athens. Ed. P. Cartledge, P. Millett, & S. von Reden. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. 84-104.

Forbes, Clarence A. Greek Physical Education. New York: Century, 1929.

Fraccaroli, Giuseppe. Le odi di Pindaro dichiarate e tradotte. Verona: G. Franchini, 1894.

Frel, Jiri. "Euphonios and His Fellows." Ancient Greek Art and Iconography. Ed. Warren G. Moon. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1983. 147-58.

Frontisi-Ducroux, Francoise. Du masque au visage: Aspects de l' identite en Grece ancienne. Paris: Flammarion, 1995.

--. "Eros, Desire, and the Gaze." Sexuality in Ancient Art. Ed. N. B. Kampen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. 81-100.

Furtwangler, A., Hauser, F., Reichhold, K. Griechische Vasenmalerei. Munich: Bruckmann, 1932.

Gardiner, E. Norman. "Throwing the Javelin." Journal of Hellenic Studies 27 (1907): 249-73.

--. Greek Athletic Sports and Festivals. London: Macmillan, 1910.

--. Athletics of the Ancient World. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1930.

Gildersleeve, Basil L. Pindar: The Olympian and Pythian Odes. New York: American Book, 1885.

Golden, Mark. Sport and Society in Ancient Greece. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Halperin, David M. One Hundred Years of Homosexuality and Other Essays on Greek Love. New York: Routledge, 1990.

Hamilton, Richard. Epinikion: General Form in the Odes of Pindar. The Hague: Mouton, 1974.

Harris, H. A. Greek Athletes and Athletics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1966.

Hoppin, Joseph Clark. Euthymides and his Fellows. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1917.

Hoppin, Joseph Clark. A Handbook of Attic Red-Figured Vases. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1919.

Hubbard, Thomas K. "Envy and the Invisible Roar: Pindar, Pythian 11.30." Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 31 (1990): 343-51.

--. Homosexuality in Greece and Rome: A Sourcebook of Basic Documents. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003.

--. "On Implied Wishes for Olympic Victory in Pindar." Illinois Classical Studies 20 (1995): 35-56.

--. "Pederasty and Democracy: The Marginalization of a Social Practice." Greek Love Reconsidered. Ed. Thomas K. Hubbard. New York: Wallace Hamilton, 2000. 1-11.

--. "Pindar, Theoxenus, and the Homoerotic Eye." Arethusa 35 (2002): 255-96.

--. "Pindar's [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]: Subtext and Allusion in Olympian 10.15-16." Materiali e Discussioni 23 (1989): 137-43.

--. "Popular Perceptions of Elite Homosexuality in Classical Athens." Arion ser. 3, 6.1 (1998) 48-78.

--. "Remaking Myth and Rewriting History: Cult Tradition in Pindar's Ninth Nemean." Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 94 (1992): 77-111.

Humphreys, S. C. "The Nothoi of Kynosarges." Journal of Hellenic Studies 94 (1974): 88-95.

Instone, Stephen. "Love and Sex in Pindar: Some Practical Thrusts." Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 37 (1990): 30-42.

Jung, Albert. Massage und Sport in Altertum und Gegenwart. Bonn: Kubens, 1930.

Juthner, Julius. Die athletischen Leibesubungen der Griechen. Vienna: Bohlau, 1965.

Kannicht, Richard. Euripides: Helena. Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1969.

Keuls, Eva C. The Reign of the Phallus. New York: Harper & Row, 1985.

Kilmer, Martin F. Greek Erotica on Attic Red-Figure Vases. London: Duckworth, 1993.

Knauer, Elfriede R. Die Berliner Andokides-Vase. Stuttgart: Reclam, 1965.

Koch-Harnack, Gundel. Knabenliebe und Tiergeschenke: Ihre Bedeutung im paderastischen Erziehungsystem Athens. Berlin: Gebruder Mann, 1983.

Kohnken, Adolf. "Pindar as Innovator: Poseidon Hippios and the Relevance of the Pelops Story in Olympian 1." Classical Quarterly NS 24 (1974): 199-206.

Kunisch, Norbert. Makron. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1997.

Kurke, Leslie. "Pindar's Sixth Pythian and the Tradition of Advice Poetry." Transactions of the American Philological Association 120 (1990): 85-107.

--. The Traffic in Praise: Pindar and the Poetics of Social Economy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991.

Kyle, Donald G. Athletics in Ancient Athens. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1987.

--. "Solon and Athletics." Ancient World 9 (1984): 91-105.

Larmour, David H. J. Stage and Stadium: Drama and Athletics in Ancient Greece. Hildesheim: Weidmann, 1999.

Lasserre, F. "Ornements erotiques dan la poesie lyrique archaique." Serta Turyniana: Studies in Greek Literature and Palaeography in Honor of Alexander Turyn. Ed. J. L. Heller and J. K. Newman. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1974. 5-34.

Lehnus, Luigi. Pindaro: Olimpiche. Milan: Garzanti, 1981.

Lezzi-Hafter, Adrienne. Der Eretria-Maler Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1988.

Marrou, H. I. A History of Education in Antiquity. Tr. G. Lamb. New York: Sheed & Ward, 1964.

Meier, M.-H.-E. & de Pogey-Castries, L. R. Histoire de l' amour grec dans l' antiquite. Paris: Stendhal, 1930.

Mezger, Friedrich. Pindars Siegeslieder. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1880.

Montserrat, Dominic. Sex and Society in Graeco-Roman Egypt. London: Kegan Paul, 1996.

Mullen, William. Choreia: Pindar and Dance. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982.

Neils, Jennifer. "The Panathenaia and Kleisthenic Ideology." The Archaeology of Athens and Attica under the Democracy. Ed. William D. E. Coulson. Oxford: Oxbow, 1994. 151-60.

Nicholson, Nigel. "The Truth of Pederasty: A Supplement to Foucault's Genealogy of the Relation Between Truth and Desire in Ancient Greece." Intertexts 2 (1998): 26-45.

Osborne, Robin. Archaic and Classical Greek Art. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.

Papalas, A. J. "Boy Athletes in Ancient Greece." Stadion 17 (1991): 165-92.

Patrucco, Roberto. Lo Sport nella Grecia antica. Florence: L. S. Olschki, 1972.

Patzer, Harald. Die griechische Knabenliebe. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner, 1982.

Pronger, Brian. The Arena of Masculinity: Sports, Homosexuality, and the Meaning of Sex. New York: St. Martin's, 1990.

Reed, Nancy B. "The Euandria Competition at the Panathenaia Reconsidered." Ancient World 15 (1987): 59-64.

Reinsberg, Carola. Ehe, Hetarentum und Knabenliebe im antiken Griechenland. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1989.

Scanlon, Thomas F. Eros and Greek Athletics. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Schroeder, Bruno. Der Sport im Altertum. Berlin: H. Schoetz, 1927.

Schroeder, Otto. Pindars Pythien. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1922.

Schween, P. G. Hermann. Die Epistaten des Agons und der Palaestra in Literatur und Kunst. Diss. Kiel: L. Handorff, 1911.

Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. Between Men: English Literature and Male Homosocial Desire. New York: Columbia University Press, 1985.

Sergent, Bernard. Homosexuality in Greek Myth. Tr. A. Goldhammer. Boston: Beacon Press, 1986.

Shapiro, H. A. Art and Cult under the Tyrants in Athens. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1989.

Simon, Erika. Die griechischen Vasen. 2nd ed. Munich: Hirmer, 1981.

Smets, A. "Groupes chronologiques des amphores panathenaiques inscrites." Antiquite classique 5 (1936): 87-104.

Smith, C. H. Catalogue of the Greek and Etruscan Vases in the British Museum, Vol. III: Vases of the Finest Period. London: W. Nicol, 1896.

--. "A Proto-Attic Vase." Journal of Hellenic Studies 22 (1902): 29-45.

Spivey, Nigel. Understanding Greek Sculpture: Ancient Meanings, Modern Readings. London: Thames and Hudson, 1996.

Steiner, Deborah. "Moving Images: Fifth-Century Victory Monuments and the Athlete's Allure." Classical Antiquity 17 (1998): 123-49.

Too, Yun Lee. The Pedagogical Contract: The Economies of Teaching and Learning in the Ancient World. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2000.

Verdenius, W. J. Commentaries on Pindar, Volume II. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1988.

Viljoen, Gerrit van N. Pindaros se tiende en elfde Olympiese odes. Diss. Leiden: "Luctor et emergo," 1955.

von der Muhll, Peter. "Weitere pindarische Notizen." Museum Helveticum 21 (1964): 168-72.

Wade-Gery, H. T. Essays in Greek History. Oxford: Blackwell, 1958.

Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Ulrich von. Pindaros. Berlin: Weidmann, 1922.

Woloch, Michael. "Athenian Trainers in the Aeginetan Odes of Pindar and Bacchylides." Classical World 56 (1963): 102-4, 121.

Thomas K. Hubbard is professor of classics at University of Texas, Austin. He is the author of books on Pindar, Aristophanes, pastoral poetry, and most recently, a sourcebook of texts in translation on homosexuality in the ancient world. His next project will be on the politics of epinician poetry.
COPYRIGHT 2003 Texas Tech University Press
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2003 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Hubbard, Thomas K.
Date:Mar 22, 2003
Previous Article:Review of Masocriticism.
Next Article:My worldly goods do thee endow: economic conservatism, widowhood, and the mid- and late eighteenth-century novel.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters