Observers
of ancient Sparta noted the peculiar Spartan custom of dinning clubs or
syssitia at which adult Spartan citizens were required to share their evening
meal. These clubs were viewed as one of
the key features of Spartan society that distinguished it from all other Greek
cities. The Spartan dining
clubs were considered peculiar in the ancient world because: 1) they had fixed
membership (for life), and 2) they were a compulsory pre-condition for
attaining citizenship and failure to make the designated fixed contributions to
the mess could cost a man his citizenship.
Yet while the fact of these ancient fraternities is well established, the reason(s) the Spartans
instituted and maintained this peculiar tradition is controversial. A large
number of theories have been put forward over time including the desirability
of men of different age cohorts dining together (so that young men would learn
respect and benefit from the wisdom of older men) to the conscious desire of
the Spartan state to weaken family ties.
This
later thesis is put forward forcefully by Anton Powell, for example, in his
contribution to Michael Whitby’s Sparta.
Powell argues that totalitarian states, recognizing the influence of the family
as inherently inimical to state control, have consistently tried to break down
family ties. He cites examples from National Socialist Germany, although Soviet
Russia and Communist China both provide much more compelling examples of
anti-family policies designed to undermine family structures and influence.
The
problem with the comparison between 20th Century totalitarian states
and Sparta is two-fold. First, whether Nazi Germany or Communist China, these
anti-family societies were consciously revolutionary. The reason they sought to
undermine the family was because they recognized families as inherently conservative. Yet Powel himself stressed
the fundamentally conservative nature of Sparta! If Sparta was essentially
conservative, than no institution was better designed to reinforce conservative
values than the family. The experience of 5,000 years of history supports this
fact. It is when family structures break down that societies become most
vulnerable to change – not the other way around.
The
other problem with Powell’s thesis is that men eating one meal together at a
club is hardly a good way to undermine family structure! It may be a modern
truism that “families that eat together stay together,” but also a fact that most
men in the Western world today also eat at least one meal away from their
families. The most common pattern in Western industrialized societies is for
men (and often women) to eat the mid-day meal away from home among their work
colleagues rather than their family. Why should it be more destructive of
family life to eat the evening meal away from home than the morning or mid-day
meal? In many, particularly agricultural societies (such as ancient Sparta) it
is the mid-day, not the evening meal, that is most important.
I
do not think there is any evidence to suggest that full Spartan citizens (31
years and older) did not eat the morning and mid-day meal with their
families. On the contrary, given the
intimacy of Spartan society, I think it is very likely Spartans ate both
breakfast and dinner (mid-day) with their families, and went to the syssitia in
the evening for what was essentially a light supper.
Certainly,
as all accounts agree, Spartan men returned from the syssitia to their homes (or
barracks) sober before it grew too late. Furthermore, syssitia were not noted
for the entertainment of flute-girls and courtesans, unlike the tradition of
Athenian symposia. At the latter, men
allegedly caroused together until the dawn and then staggered home drunk after
indulging themselves with prostitutes both male and female. From a wife’s point
of view, the Spartan custom of syssitia was infinitely preferable to the
Athenian symposia, and in consequence it is arguable that the syssitia did far more
to strengthen family life than to disrupt it.