Acropolis of Athens, 2012, Photo by author. |
This
statement was as much a criticism of Athens’ building program under Pericles
(that had diverted contributions from the Delian League, intended for defense against the Persians, to building extravagant temples in Athens) as a
critique of Sparta. Yet it has misled
modern scholars and novelists to portray Sparta as if it were a primitive
village of dirt and mud.
For
example, in his best-selling novel Gates
of Fire, Stephen Pressfield calls Sparta “a village” adding: “The whole
stinking place would fit, with room to spare, within His Majesty’s [Xerxes of
Persia’s] strolling garden at Persepolis. It is … a pile of stones. It contains
no temples or treasures of note, no gold; it is a barnyard of leeks and onions,
with soil so thin a man may kick through it with one strike of the foot.”
(p.188). Nicolas Nicastro is only
willing to concede the dominant superpower of Greece was “an agglomeration of
sleepy villages.”
These and other modern writers are guilty of both a too hasty reading of Thucydides, and
a failure to consider other evidence.
Thucydides complains that Sparta “is not regularly planned” – but then
nor is London. And he says it is “simply a collection of villages, in the ancient Hellenic way.” This is not the same thing as saying
Sparta was not a cosmopolitan city, it only means that Sparta had no plan and
no walls and hence grew haphazardly -- as all major European cities did after
their confining medieval walls were torn down. No one today would call Paris,
Berlin or Rome “a collection of villages” simply because they are in fact many
villages which have grown into a single metropolis after the need for
fortifications disappeared and economic growth fueled urbanization. Why should
we assume that just because Sparta was made up of five distinct villages in
pre-Archaic times that it was not – in its years of glory – a cohesive, dynamic
city?
Sparta, April 2016, Photo by Author |
Likewise,
when Thucydides writes Sparta “contains no temples or monuments of great
magnificence” he is not denying the existence of temples and monuments, only
ones “of great magnificence” – such as Pericles built with stolen funds from
Athens satellite states without their consent. In short, Thucydides never claimed
that Sparta was not a major,
metropolitan city, nor did he deny it had notable monuments, he was only making
the astute statement that, judged by its buildings alone, future generations
would over-estimate the power of Athens and under-estimate that of Sparta.
The
assessment of Sparta's architecture has been aggravated for modern observers by
the fact that today we cannot see what Thucydides did. Sparta was destroyed by
earthquakes many times over the centuries. It was flooded by the Eurotas. It
was abandoned. Nothing destroys architectural monuments so completely as
abandonment. Nor should it be forgotten
that Sparta has not been systematically subjected to archeological excavation
in almost a century.
The Spartan Amphitheater, 2012, Photo by Author |
Nevertheless,
what has come to light demonstrates definitively that far from being a place
full of primitive, mud structures, Spartan architecture was substantial,
monumental (not the same as “magnificent”!), and very, very typical of Doric
architecture throughout the ancient world. Sparta was, in fact, the ultimate
Doric power. It attained it greatest artistic flourishing in the 6th
rather than the 5th century BC, and consequently its greatest monuments
were archaic not classical or Hellenistic. But they existed! We can still see
some of the foundations and remnants to this day. Sparta was not just a heap of
peasant hits, as Pressfield and Nicastro would like us to believe.
For
anyone whose imagination is too weak to mentally reconstruct a great city from
the remnants left in Sparta today, we have the meticulous record of an ancient
travel guide. Pausanias traveled to Greece in the 2nd Century AD, long after
Sparta’s decline from prominence and more than half a century after its “golden
era” in the 6th Century BC. Yet he
needs 26 sections and more than 60 pages to describe the city! And that,
although he claims he has not described everything but rather has selected and
discussed only “the really memorable things.” (Pausanias, III.10. p. 37)
I would also like to point out that no Spartan has left a written description of his/her city that has survived to our time. Would a Spartan have found the Acropolis in Athens “magnificent” or simply “distant, intellectual and arrogant”? Would a Spartan necessarily have admired the altar at Pergamom? Or found it “gaudy” and “busy”-- as many people see rococo architecture today? Sparta was different from other cities of its age, particularly Athens. Does that necessarily mean it was less attractive?
Let
me be heretical. We know that in ancient Greece most statues and temples were
painted vivid colors and the statues of the gods were dressed in robes, ivory,
gold and jewels. What if Spartan austerity indeed extended to temples, statues
and monuments and these were adorned only with natural beauty – i.e. naked
stone and marble sculptures set amidst flowering trees and running water? Isn’t
that what we find strikingly beautiful in Greek architecture and sculpture
today? The perfection of proportion, symmetry and form in beautiful natural
settings? Isn’t it the lifelike poses, gestures and expressions that appeal to
us? Would we rather see Venus de Milo painted in flesh tones with red lips and
blond hair? Would we admire the Parthenon in Athens as much if it was dressed
in bright paint?
Ancient Nemea Today, Photo by Author |
What
if Spartan homes were indeed devoid of elaborate interior paintings because,
unlike their Athenian counterparts, they were not crammed into an over-crowded
city and surrounded by high-walls that blocked out almost all daylight? Spartan
houses could be built on a generous plan because the city had no plan. They
could incorporate interior courtyards planted with fruit trees and herbs, they
could surround themselves with gardens and orchards, they could sparkle not
with gold and silver but the glinting of sunlight on water in internal
fountains. Spartan homes could have windows that let in the light and they
might have decorated their homes, as they did themselves, with things of
nature: cut flowers, bowls of fruits, running water. Such things are transient;
they rarely leave an archeological record.
Spartan homes would have had views like this from the windows. Who needs wall paintings? Photo by Auhthor |
This Sparta is the setting of my novels about Leonidas:
Very apt comments! One might as well say that judged from conventional archaeological findings and architectural ruins, a future "visitor" might conclude that the American Indians barely existed in North America from Alaska to the Rio Grande. Where are the cities, the monuments, the temples and public buildings, after all? A few pueblos in the Southwest, some mounds in the Southeast, not much else would remain to interest a casual observer. Yet the Indian nations numbered in their hundreds of thousands or millions and persisted in distinct societies until the last century.
ReplyDeleteI am curious what is meant by "abandoned" -- what is the record documenting this, and do you refer to the Middle Ages period, the Visigoth and Slave incursions that caused much destruction in the Peloponnesus? What is known about the effect of these on ancient Sparta? Did the native Laconian inhabitants entirely flee to the mountains (as the Mani still claim to be descendants of the Spartans)? Was the nearby Byzantine citadel of Mistra built from stone quarried from desolate Spartan sites? That would certainly account for the demolition of many ancient sites.
My understanding is that the Frankish rulers of the Peloponnese lived in what had been Sparta, although they built the castle above what later became Mistra. Mistra was occupied by Byzantine "despots" but the valley remained occupied for a while. But the defeat of Byzantium by the Ottomans resulted in the total destruction of what remained of Sparta and it was not occupied during the Ottoman period. THe population allegedly sought refuge in Taygetos and Mani. The new city of Sparta was not founded until after Greek independence.
ReplyDeleteAlways and forever . . . it depends on one's point of view. Not to mention a person's attitude. Americans are not generous in their descriptions of Russia, Russians are not generous in their descriptions of America.
ReplyDeleteWhat's the difference? I'll just say . . . pass the salt. ;-)
It is obvious that these novelists are pro-Athenians.
ReplyDeleteI would love to see a painting based off your description of Sparta, it sounds absolutely beautiful!
ReplyDelete