The race of a single horse with a rider was less celebrated among the ancients, yet it had its favourers amongst the most considerable persons, and even kings themselves, and was attended with uncommon glory to the victor. Pindar, in his first ode, celebrates a victory of this kind, obtained by Hiero, king of Syracuse, to whom he gives the title of Κέλης, that is, “Victor in the horse-race;” which name was given to the horses carrying only a single rider, Κέλητες. Sometimes the rider led another horse by the bridle, and then the horses were called Desultorii, and their riders Desultores; because, after a number of turns in the Stadium, they changed horses, by dexterously vaulting from one to the other. A surprising address was necessary upon this occasion, especially in an age unacquainted with the use of stirrups, and when the horses had no saddles, which made the leap still more difficult. Among the African troops there were also cavalry,[144] called Desultores, who vaulted from one horse to another, as occasion required; and these were generally Numidians.
3. Of the Chariot-races.
This kind of race was the most renowned of all the exercises used in the games of the ancients, and that from whence most honour redounded to the victors; which is not to be wondered [pg lxv] at, if we consider whence it arose. It is plain that it was derived from the constant custom of princes, heroes, and great men, of fighting in battle upon chariots. Homer has an infinity of examples of this kind. This custom being admitted, it is natural to suppose it very agreeable to these heroes, to have their charioteers as expert as possible in driving, as their success depended, in a very great measure, upon the address of their drivers. It was anciently, therefore, only to persons of the first consideration that this office was confided. Hence arose a laudable emulation to excel others in the art of guiding a chariot, and a kind of necessity to practise it very much, in order to succeed. The high rank of the persons who made use of chariots ennobled, as it always happens, an exercise peculiar to them. The other exercises were adapted to private soldiers and horsemen, as wrestling, running, and the single horse-race; but the use of chariots in the field was always reserved to princes, and generals of armies.
Hence it was, that all those who presented themselves in the Olympic games to dispute the prize in the chariot-races, were persons considerable either for their riches, their birth, their employments, or great actions. Kings themselves eagerly aspired to this glory, from the belief that the title of victor in these games was scarce inferior to that of conqueror, and that the Olympic palm added new dignity to the splendours of a throne. Pindar's odes inform us, that Gelon and Hiero, kings of Syracuse, were of that opinion. Dionysius, who reigned there long after them, carried the same ambition much higher. Philip of Macedon had these victories stampt upon his coins, and seemed as much gratified with them as with those obtained against the enemies of his state. All the world knows the answer of Alexander the Great on this subject.[145] When his friends asked him whether he would not dispute the prize of the races in these games? “Yes,” said he, “if kings were to be my antagonists.” Which shows, that he would not have disdained these contests, if there had been competitors in them worthy of him.
The chariots were generally drawn by two or four horses, ranged abreast; bigæ, quadrigæ. Sometimes mules supplied the place of horses, and then the chariot was called ἀπήνη. Pindar, in the fifth ode of his first book, celebrates one Psaumis, who had obtained a triple victory; one by a chariot drawn by four horses, τεθρίππῳ; another by one drawn by mules, ἀπήνη; and the third by a single horse, κέλητι, which the title of the ode expresses.
These chariots, upon a signal given, started together from a place called Carceres. Their places were regulated by lot, which was not an indifferent circumstance as to the victory; for as they were to turn round a boundary, the chariot on the left was nearer than those on the right, which consequently had a greater compass to take. It appears from several passages in Pindar, and especially from one in Sophocles, which I shall cite very soon, that they ran twelve times round the Stadium. He that came in first the twelfth round was victor. The chief art consisted in taking the best ground at the turning of the boundary: for if the charioteer drove too near it, he was in danger of dashing the chariot to pieces; and if he kept too wide of it, his nearest antagonist might cut between him, and get foremost.
It is obvious that these chariot-races could not be run without some danger; for as the motion[146] of the wheels was very rapid, and it was requisite to graze against the boundary in turning, the least error in driving would have broken the chariot in pieces, and might have dangerously wounded the charioteer. An example of which we find in the Electra of Sophocles, who gives an admirable description of a chariot-race run by ten competitors. The pretended Orestes, at the twelfth and last round, which was to decide the victory, having only one antagonist, the rest having been thrown out, was so unfortunate as to break one of his wheels against the boundary, and falling out of his seat entangled in the reins, the horses dragged him violently forwards along with them, and tore him to pieces. But this very seldom happened. To avoid such danger, Nestor gave the following directions to his son Antilochus, who was going to dispute the prize in the chariot-race.[147] “My son,” says he, “drive your horses as near as possible to the boundary; for which reason, always inclining your body over your chariot, get the left of your competitors, and encouraging the horse on the right, give him the rein, whilst the near horse, hard held, turns the boundary so close that the nave of the wheel seems to graze upon it; but have a care of running against the stone, lest you wound your horses, and dash the chariot in pieces.”
Father Montfaucon mentions a difficulty, in his opinion of much consequence, in regard to the places of those who contended for the prize in the chariot-race. They all started indeed from the same line, and at the same time, and so far [pg lxvii] had no advantage of each other; but he, whose lot gave him the first place, being nearest the boundary at the end of the career, and having but a small compass to describe in turning about it, had less way to make than the second, third, fourth, &c. especially when the chariots were drawn by four horses, which took up a greater space between the first and the others, and obliged them to make a larger circle in coming round. This advantage twelve times together, as must happen, admitting the Stadium was to be run round twelve times, gave such a superiority to the first, as seemed to assure him infallibly of the victory against all his competitors. To me it seems, that the fleetness of the horses, joined with the address of the driver, might countervail this odds; either by getting before the first, or by taking his place; if not in the first, at least in some of the subsequent rounds; for it is not to be supposed, that in the progress of the race the antagonists always continued in the same order in which they started. They often changed places in a short interval of time, and in that variety and vicissitude consisted all the diversion of the spectators.
It was not required, that those who aspired to the victory should enter the lists, and drive their chariots in person. Their being spectators of the games, or even sending their horses thither, was sufficient; but in either case, it was previously necessary to register the names of the persons for whom the horses were to run, either in the chariot or single horse-races.
At the time that the city of Potidæa surrendered to Philip, three couriers brought him advices; the first, that the Illyrians had been defeated in a great battle by his general Parmenio; the second, that he had carried the prize of the horse-race in the Olympic games; and the third, that the queen was delivered of a son. Plutarch seems to insinuate, that Philip was equally delighted with each of these circumstances.[148]