This book is the first of a short series examining the relationship between particular ancient sources and Sparta (forthcoming are volumes on Thucydides, Herodotus, Plutarch etc.): this is a valuable project that all scholars will welcome. The choice to begin with Xenophon is surely appropriate, due to the close experience that he had with the Peloponnesian polis.
To begin with, allow me a brief appreciation of one of the editors, Anton Powell, a leading figure among British Classicists all over the world, who recently passed away and will be sincerely missed. This book is certainly one of the best ways to honour his memory and to continue his studies, above all those on Sparta. It includes seven papers (V. Azoulay, G. Cuniberti, G. Daverio Rocchi, E. David, P. Pontier, J. Ducat and Richer, here translated from French or Italian into English) previously published in Ktèma 32 (2007) – proceedings of a Lyon conference in July 2006 organised by Richer, the co-editor of this volume – with the addition of five new studies.
The volume begins with Powell's chapter, the most extensive one, pertaining to Xenophon's attitude towards Sparta across his major works; he aims to show that many significant omissions or ‘departures from truth’ (or ‘evasions’; significantly he does not use the word ‘lies’) involve the political sensitivity of his contemporary Spartans, who are considered the target audience for his works, and in particular the interest of Agesilaos. This positive perspective in interpreting Xenophon's shortcomings is attractive and highlights a portrait of Xenophon as an intensely ambitious and self-confident man, resisting the idea of a ‘writer somewhat academic in the modern sense’ (p. 54). Xenophon's aim was to demonstrate the vulnerability of the Persian Empire, in order to urge a war against it, in support of Agesilaos’ politics. Most of these lapses (thoroughly examined from Agesilaos, Hellenica, Anabasis and Cyropaedia) pertain to Agesilaos or the Persian Empire and suggest an attempt to encourage a new Spartan invasion of Asia Minor, thus conferring a degree of unity to Xenophon's oeuvre.
Richer's contribution examines the Lacedaemonian model in Xenophon's non-historical works, except the Cyropaedia. Although these works, above all the Memorabilia, do not focus specifically on Sparta, the polis is always present in the author's mind. Through an analysis of the reasons of this prominence Richer demonstrates that Xenophon shaped his evaluation of the Spartans as a function of kalokagathia (here thoroughly examined, with reference to F. Bourriot [1995]) and eudaimonia, whose promotion was considered the aim of any good politeia. He convincingly concludes that these works enable us to recognise the importance of the model represented by Sparta in the Athenian's thought; through his criticism of Sparta Xenophon hoped to have a chance of being heard. At the end of the chapter there is an appendix on the chronology of Xenophon's works (based on É. Delebecque [1957], but updated), which not all scholars will agree with, but which is very useful.
Daverio Rocchi examines the convergences and divergences in the portrayal of Sparta in the Hellenica, the Lakedaimonion Politeia and the Agesilaos, suggestively called ‘the literary triptych’ (p. 109). The core of the peculiarities is that in the Hellenica we find an abundance of individuals – while Sparta is a collective society in the Lakedaimonion Politeia – and a shared exemplary behaviour – while in the Agesilaos there is a morally superior king –, which form an alternative to the traditional model of Spartan kosmos. According to Daverio Rocchi, an idea of Spartan exceptionalism does emerge in the Hellenica (an idea often challenged nowadays, cf. S. Hodkinson [2009] etc.), and Sparta here is different from the Sparta presented in the other works. However, the ‘trio’ altogether is crucial in providing complementary information.
Azoulay examines the Cyropaedia, where explicit allusions to Sparta are extremely rare and often equivocal, devoting his analysis particularly to implicit allusions to Lycurgus. Through an analysis of the similarities and differences between the Lakedaimonion Politeia and the Cyropaedia, he relativises Xenophon's alleged lakonophilia and concludes, unlike C. Tuplin (1994), that an analogical relationship exists, deliberately established, between the Persians and the Spartans and that it is difficult to rule out any type of Spartan influences on the Cyropaedia. It must be noted, however, that the ideal city is only partly inspired by Sparta, which is not the exclusive reference.
Cuniberti investigates the communication of history in Xenophon: through an analysis of recurring rhetorical expressions, he aims to confirm Xenophon's innovative attempt to control the reception of his own works by readers, convincingly demonstrating that he re-oriented his own political thought. Indeed, after starting from a faithfully pro-Spartan viewpoint, Xenophon seems to come to the conclusion that there was hope for a new twin-polar relation between Sparta and Athens. Moreover, Cuniberti highlights the primacy of Lycurgus’ model as a way to eudaimonia, towards which Xenophon wanted to teach the path, making use of history as a pragmatic example.
V. Gray focuses on Xenophon and Spartan law: Xenophon is our major source for Spartan nomoi, but it is very difficult to determine their authenticity, as we lack comparative evidence. Gray appropriately tries to compare them with inscribed laws from other poleis, and she concludes that the laws cited by Xenophon, who speculated on the motives of these laws, not on the substance, are substantially authentic. Another interesting conclusion is that this comparison suggests that these laws represent Spartan difference from other poleis ‘within a normal range, which is what we expect of the authentic laws of an individual polis’ (p. 193).
David tackles the debated topic of the myth of Lycurgus, both before Xenophon and in his works. He underlines that the question of Lycurgus’ historicity had obsessed Spartan studies, but nowadays it is more important to understand how it changed over time and its role in historiography. After this accurate analysis David concludes that Xenophon is the first among our sources to stress the originality of the Spartan lawgiver, rightly overcoming the old theory (e.g. G. Grote) that Lycurgus was invented at the time of the Hellenistic revolution. This myth had taken hold before the mid-fifth century, but Xenophon's Lakedaimonion Politeia did most to shape its development and, from this time onwards, the myth of Lycurgus became inseparable from that of an ideal Sparta.
E. Millender focuses her attention on Spartan commanders in Xenophon's Anabasis; although this work offers a tale of the triumph of panhellenism and understates Sparta's official role, through detailed depictions of individual Lakedaimonians (such as Klearchos, Cheirisophos etc.) it is possible to highlight Spartan involvement in Cyrus’ attempted coup. Millender notices the repetition of certain motives that create a fairly consistent description of the Spartans as treacherous leaders, who put their own interests before those of other Greeks. Such a negative portrayal, which she considers ‘far from a rarity in the Xenophontic corpus’ (p. 224), and a sustained critique of Spartan hegemony in the Aegean (more evident here than in his other works) undermine the traditional view of uncritical lakonophilia on the part of Xenophon.
T.J. Figueira studies Xenophon and the Spartan economy, although he specifies that Xenophon did not describe the Spartan economy or any other. Indeed, he lacked the concept of ‘economy’, but he demonstrated an ‘economic behavior’ (p. 266). Figueira concludes that what we find in the Lakedaimonion politeia as evidence on the Spartan economy is the sum of Xenophon's contentions about the inculcation of traditional Greek virtues in the material lives of the Spartans by Lycurgus. Therefore, this model could not be successfully exported. Besides, we should never forget that this source can only be used with great care for the reconstruction of Spartan society.
N. Humble focuses on the portrayals of king Agesilaos in the Hellenica and in the Agesilaos; she starts from the observation that, despite the current movement in scholarship on Xenophon that sees his portrait of Sparta as more critical than before, it is still common to find that he exempted Agesilaos from criticism. She chooses some significant episodes of Agesilaos’ career described in these two works, and she highlights the combination of praise and criticism; the episodes that are manipulated or invented in the Agesilaos are in line with the conventions of writing encomia and do not necessarily imply that the king was in reality a paradigm. Obviously, she does not mean that Xenophon did not admire him, but simply that he was not a ‘hero-worshipper’.
Pontier chooses the case of Phleious, a minor city to which Xenophon devotes two long excurses (Hell. 5.3.10–25; 7.2), in order to reflect on the relationship of Agesilaos with this polis. After a long and interesting digression on the concept of philetairia (the particular friendship of Agesilaos towards his partisans, used to justify his violent actions), Pontier claims that the eulogy of Phleious is just another way to praise the Spartan king, although he underlines that there is no single reading possible of the Phliasian episode. In his opinion, like the Agesilaos, the praise of Phleious can also be considered a funeral oration.
Ducat contributes a careful examination of the selection of the hippeis and the rivalries among the hebontes described in Lac. 4.1–6; after a meticulous analysis of the organisation of this text (theme, structure etc.), he compares it with the concept of eris in Hesiod and underlines the possible usefulness of the rivalries. According to Ducat, this is the only passage of Lac. where Xenophon did not avoid difficulties, but raised them deliberately: he wanted to show that these rivalries were only a consequence of a universal competition, probably because they were the evidence most frequently adduced by those who wanted to defame Sparta. But a comparison with some passages of the Cyropaedia reveals that Xenophon did not approve entirely of some of the forms of Spartan policy, especially in the field of education.
After these twelve interesting chapters (each with an updated bibliography) there is a useful index, that helps consultation of the volume, which is well edited and almost free from typographical errors.
Although not entirely new, this is a book of great value and interest, that addresses many problems pertaining to history, literature, economy, law etc., certainly focused on Xenophon and Sparta (seen on the whole in a more critical perspective than ever before), but also on Greece in general. The volume fulfils its purpose ‘to resist centrifugal and hermetic tendencies of modern research and to promote a reintegration of Classics as discipline’ (p. vii).
