University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations 2013-12-13 Depictions of Spartan Masculinity in Thucydides and Xenophon Heydon, Kendell Heydon, K. (2013). Depictions of Spartan Masculinity in Thucydides and Xenophon (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/25553 http://hdl.handle.net/11023/1197 master thesis University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY Depictions of Spartan Masculinity in Thucydides and Xenophon by Kendell Heydon A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS DEPARTMENT OF GREEK AND ROMAN STUDIES CALGARY, ALBERTA DECEMBER, 2013 © Kendell Heydon 2013 Abstract Because we have no Classical Spartan writing we are reliant on the views of outsiders to try to reconstruct their social mores. Using traditional philology combined with social constructionist theory I examine how Thucydides and Xenophon depict Spartan masculinity. I have found that these authors differ in their descriptions of the Spartan masculine subject, reflecting primarily the purposes for which they wrote. Despite this, both authors describe inter-Spartan relations and relations between Spartiates and “others”, both within the Spartan system and those external to it, so as to suggest that the employment of officially propagated images of Spartan masculinity played a significant role in Spartan dealings. Accounts of Spartan employment of masculine ideology correspond significantly to hegemonic frameworks discussed in social constructionist theories of masculinity, suggesting the veracity of these aspects in accounts of Spartan society as well as the applicability of constructionist frameworks to the study of Spartan masculinity. ii Acknowledgements First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor Dr. Noreen Humble for all her time and effort, for her invaluable guidance and knowledge, and for her patience with me during this process. I would like to thank the members of my examining committee Dr. John Vanderspoel and Dr. Jewel Spangler for giving their time and expertise to review my work. I would like to thank the University of Calgary and the department of Greek and Roman Studies for the academic and financial support I have received over the course of this degree. I would like to thank the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council for the funding they have provided. And lastly, I would like to offer my heartfelt gratitude to my family, without whose love and support I could never have accomplished all that I have thus far. iii Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ iii Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... iv Chapter 1: Background and Methodology ..................................................................... 1 Chapter 2: Thucydides ................................................................................................... 29 2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 29 2.2 Discourse................................................................................................................. 30 2.3 Representation and Performativity ......................................................................... 41 2.4 Relations Between Men and Hegemonic Masculinity ............................................ 52 Chapter 3: Xenophon Philosophy.................................................................................. 59 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 59 3.2 The Relation of Men and Women ........................................................................... 60 3.3 Attitudes Towards Sex ............................................................................................ 63 3.4 Institutions............................................................................................................... 67 3.5 Discourse................................................................................................................. 74 3.6 Representation and Performativity ......................................................................... 78 3.7 Relations Between Men and Hegemonic Masculinity ............................................ 81 Chapter 4: Xenophon History........................................................................................ 88 4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 88 4.2 Attitudes Towards Sex ............................................................................................ 88 4.3 Discourse................................................................................................................. 96 4.4 Relations Between Men and Hegemonic Masculinity .......................................... 104 Chapter 5: Conclusion .................................................................................................. 115 Bibliography .................................................................................................................. 122 iv Chapter 1: Background and Methodology The idea of masculinity an object of study is a recent one. But despite, or perhaps because of its relatively novel status, the study of masculinity has been taken up by a number of disciplines (e.g. sociology, psychology, anthropology, and history), all of which approach the subject in a variety of ways.1 While this has proved fruitful for producing an abundance of material on the subject matter of masculinity, the sheer diversity of material and approaches can make the task of deciding which methodological frameworks to apply to a historio-cultural examination of the construction of masculinity in Classical Sparta daunting. In this chapter I intend to discuss the prominent theoretical frameworks that have been applied to masculinity within the field of sociology.2 I will highlight the theoretical merits and shortcomings of these theories, examine the specific challenges encountered when applying sociological gender theories onto a historical study, and, finally, suggest that the most useful approach to the study of masculinity in Classical Sparta is to incorporate social-constructionist theory within a customary historical approach. When one looks broadly at the theories concerning the formulation of gender, the two most distinct, and oppositional, perspectives that come to light are those of essentialists and of constructionists.3 The core of essentialism lies in the belief that gender arises from a fundamental essence, usually believed to proceed from biological sex, and therefore that there is a significant and innate discrepancy of experience between the two biological sexes. Conversely, adherents of constructionist theories believe that gender has no inherent essence, but rather that it is constructed through societal structures 1 Bickrell (2006), 87; Fletcher (2011), 61. 2 I recognise that significant contributions have been made in masculinity research in many other fields such as psychology and anthropology as well (e.g. Jacobson, Michaelson and Aaland [1976], Gutmann [1997], Lancaster [2002], Diamond [2006], Moss [2006]), However, as the methods employed by such fields rely heavily on accounts of personal experience from psychoanalysis, or survey research, I feel that such approaches do not lend themselves to a historical study whose primary sources are literary works of historical, philosophical, and biographical genres. This is especially the case when one considers the fact that the majority of materials extant concerning Spartan society represent, almost exclusively, the views of the educated, non-Spartan aristocracy, and thus cannot provide the range of viewpoints that psychological and anthropological studies often seek to reveal. 3 Higate (2003), 28; Howson (2006), 55. 1 and discourse, often with political aims. Both frameworks contain a number of approaches which warrant further examination. The origins of modern essentialist gender theories can trace their origins to developments in the Western world beginning in the 16th century, coming to a head in the last two hundred years when the influences of capitalism and imperialism led to a rejection of gentry masculinity. These theories, which became prominent in nineteenth century ideology, gave birth to the idea of separate spheres of action for men and women,4 and generated significant interest in the idea of sex-difference, spawning, in turn, much research— especially within the field of psychology— which continues into present times.5 Beginning with Freud, the idea that “anatomy is destiny”6 was espoused by proponents of the belief