Praise and Critique of Ancient Sparta

Plutarch On Sparta

Introduction

Plutarch’s On Sparta is a book about the Spartan way of life and what made that way of life better than ways found in other Greek city-states. Plutarch begins by praising the Spartans for their military prowess, their focus on physical fitness, and their simple lifestyles. He goes on to argue that the Spartans’ political system is superior to that of Athens, as it allows for stability and prevents faction fighting. Plutarch also claims that the Spartan system of education produces citizens who are more virtuous than those of other city-states. Essentially, in Plutarch’s On Sparta, the Spartan way of life is held up as an example of a society that values duty, discipline, and obedience above all else. Plutarch’s main thesis is that Sparta’s focus on military training and austerity allowed it to create a strong and unified city-state that was able to withstand any enemy. While Plutarch admits that the Spartan way of life may not be suitable for everyone, he nonetheless believes that it offers an impressive model for other societies to emulate. Thus, Plutarch argues that Sparta is the best city-state in Greece and that its citizens are the most virtuous people in the world.

What On Sparta Covers

Plutarch covers a variety of topics in On Sparta, including the lives of Sparta’s leaders, such as Lycurgus, Agesilaus, Agis, and Cleomenes; and important Spartan Sayings of both men and women, which help to give context to the Spartan way of life, the Spartan culture, and Spartan wisdom. He describes how Spartans learned to master their feelings from a young age and why this learning helped them to become such superior warriors. He covers the harsh training conditions that young Spartan boys underwent. He also describes how Spartan serfs or slaves were treated somewhat cruelly. Throughout all of this, Plutach describes a city-state that is unique and entirely unlike other Greek city-states at the time. His major supporting argument for why Sparta is so superior to other city-states is the fact that Sparta valued discipline and toughness above all else. For a Spartan, what mattered most was doing one’s duty, so it could be argued that it was the first city-state in Greece that really held a deontological ethical system as the foundation of its moral society.

Plutarch supports his thesis quite well with a number of anecdotes and detailed stories that help bring the main point to life: one sees how the training of children and the emphasis on sacrifice helped to shape boys into men and a society into a warrior state. Plutarch’s reason is always sound as the evidence he supplies to support his views comes from many different sources (some of which have been lost to time). The book is organized both chronologically and topically, with the lives of Spartan leaders appearing chronologically, but other topics, such as sayings, organized by subject.

The author’s approach is that of political, social, and intellectual history. He provides context for political history by discussing Sparta’s leaders; social and intellectual history are viewed through the lens of Spartan sayings, and through the subjects of Spartan culture, child-rearing, and so on.

The book has a high degree of literary quality, as it is very well-written, easy to read and follow, and the author clearly has a good grasp of his subject. Plutarch himself is a noted historian and author who brings his subject to life. However, like any other, he is writing from a certain perspective, and it is important to consider that perspective and how it might influence what it is he has to say.

Plutarch, His Perspective, and Potential Bias

Plutarch was a Greek historian who was born in Athens and, as such, had an Athenian bias against Sparta. In On Sparta, Plutarch paints a picture of Spartan society as being harsh and regimented, which is essentially the opposite of what life was like for Athenians. He describes the Spartans as being brave and fearless in battle, but he also paints them as being cold and emotionless. Athens was known at the time as a rich cultural center, where philosophy and the arts flourished: it is where Socrates taught the youth and helped pave the way for Plato and Aristotle (Plato). Athenians valued ideas, drama, the theater, and wisdom. They viewed themselves as highly civilized and tended to see the Spartans as primitive. In Athens, women had almost no part to play in the public life of the city-state. Athenian women tended to be very domesticated. Thus, Plutarch\\\'s bias is evident in his portrayal of Spartan women. He describes them as being strong and capable, but he also depicts them as being submissive to their husbands when this was not really necessarily the case. As other researchers have shown, Spartan women actually tended to lead the Spartan government and Spartan society in very nuanced ways (Fantham et al.). As Fantham et al. point out, for example, Sparta had no patrimony at all. Spartan women had a lot of freedom to speak back at their husbands or to give their views in public. Girls were often trained right alongside boys in sports and athletics (Christesen). Athenian women did not have this kind of freedom at all. It was actually Athenian women who were more submissive to their husbands—not Spartan women—but Plutarch’s Athenian bias seems to have prevented him from understanding this distinction completely. Plutarch\\\'s bias can also be seen in his portrayal of Spartan children. He depicts them as being raised in a strict and disciplined environment, but he also suggests that they are not given the opportunity to develop their individual talents. In Athens, individual talents were very important to society’s development, and Plutarch just does not see this individuality as thriving in Sparta. As a result of Plutarch’s bias, On Sparta is not necessarily a completely accurate or totally objective portrayal of Spartan society.

Plutarch’s book is an important work for understanding the culture of Sparta in the late Roman Republic. However, it is important to keep in mind Plutarch’s bias when reading this work. Plutarch was not a Spartan himself, and he was writing during a time when Sparta was in decline. As a result, Plutarch\\\'s view of Sparta is likely shaped by his own time and place. For example, Plutarch could at times paint Spartans as simple minded and uninterested in intellectual pursuits, while having in mind his own city-state’s rich history of democracy and learning. While his viewpoint of simple-minded Spartans may have been true of some Spartans, it is important to remember that Plutarch is not writing an objective history of Sparta, and, as such, readers should be cautious when drawing conclusions about Sparta based on Plutarch’s work.

What the Book Added to My Understanding

This book added a great deal to my understanding of ancient Greek culture, for prior to its reading I tended to think that Athens was the superior city-state and that all Athenians looked down with contempt on Sparta. Yet here is Plutarch regarding Sparta with a lot of consideration and empathy, which signifies that some cultured people could see Sparta as having a lot of integrity. This made me think about how the Sparta culture could be praiseworthy for its emphasis on discipline and duty.

I did enjoy reading the book, as it gave me insight into the lives of Spartan leaders, and some great Spartan sayings that could still be seen as having some truth even in our own time. Spartans had a good sense of human nature, even if they could be cruel at times. I must say, however, that I probably would not have liked to live in Sparta, even if it can be celebrated for its virtue and integrity. I probably would have preferred to live in Athens—but this too would have its drawbacks. All in all, Plutarch’s book gave me a lot to think about with respect to the ancient Grecian world.