Part III: The effects of the Agoge on the social relationships of the soldiery with each other

By

Henry Gillson – Gant

In previous two sections of this wiki, it has already been; established that Agoge made an impression on both the professionalisation of the army but also upon the soldiery of Sparta as men. This section will look at similar issues but about how the agoge affected the social relationships of such soldiers. There will be an exploration of three concepts. The first, how boys entered an all-male environment. The second, the role of the pederasty and how it affected the relationship regarding mutual benefit. Third, the collective mess and how and how they shaped the respect of the students of the agoge towards their elders. Sources that that will be used are Xenophon and Plutarch along with Plato and Aristotle as well as a modern scholarship from Cartledge, Powell and others.

The first change the Agoge had on a boy’s relationship was when they turned seven. At this age male offspring were dispatched from their homes into all-male barracks and divided into companies[50]. Such companies were lead and commanded by the Captain; older boys selected going through the Agoge[51]. Boys joining the Agoge were taught to sever their connections with their families instead to rely on each and their elders for matters of their upbringing, the decisions for their futures made by the peers and elders[52]. They had now come from a matriarchal to a very much patriarchal society. From now on their lives where taken care of by the state represented by the warden who was appointed by the Ephors to run the agoge[53]. From now on their family was their peers[54]. It had the prime objective of forcing the boys to rely on each other as a cohesive homogenous unit that could work together on the battlefield[55]. Paul Cartledge writes that an element of this mechanism is the roles of the inspirer and the hearer[56]. It was the duty of an older boy as the father figure or inspire, to correct and to teach the way of the Spartan regimen to the learner as the junior and not so experienced child in the company[57].

The basis of this relationship of the inspirer and learner was known as the Pederasty although not an institution confined to the lands of Laconia. At the age of twelve, each boy was expected to take a lover, typically an older boy[58]. As stated in the previous paragraph it was the duty of the older boy to teach the younger to embody the ideals of Sparta[59]. Lycurgus encouraged such relationships as it was beneficial for the young boys training within the Agoge[60]. However, any sexual contact with the hearers, as Cartledge calls them, was expressly forbidden[61]. Xenophon writes that Lycurgus considered this an abomination and stated that no lover might have sexual contact with boys, just as parents with their children[62]. The role of Pederasty in Sparta was that of training the next generation of Spartan warriors, not to encourage distractions. The very nature of this lover relationship was used to maintain control of the youths in the Agoge, but also broader society. From Plutarch, the evidence suggests that if a lover from the pair acted in a way against the principles of the state, the other, punished to demonstrate that one was responsible for the shortcomings of the other[63]. Therefore, their friendship would become stronger, and make each other the best Spartans possible[64]. It would eventually evolve into their performance on the battlefield.

Now Plutarch defines each party in the relationship as a lover[65]. So, does Xenophon, in the context that a boy would take a lover once he was twelve[66]. But how can it be love if there is no sexual contact as Lycurgus banned it? Plato in his Symposium describes a situation that in Athens love could be taken in an educational form[67]. There is no dishonour in having a paederast relationship if it benefits one person within in improving them as a person. Aristotle writing as a student of Plato, in Nicomachean Ethics expands suggesting that this love is not sexual but rather each member of the relationship respect each other out of respect and the benefits they could give to each other[68]. To have an association of utility; was to their mutual advantage[69]. Their pleasure is not having intercourse but learning from each other. Now Xenophon was writing at the same time as Plato, Aristotle came after both, although significantly influenced by Plato as a student[70]. Both the positions of Plato and Aristotle complement Xenophon in that the pederasty in Sparta was used to improve boys going through the Agoge, the role of the lovers to act as the vehicle for this improvement[71]. Evidence shows that Plutarch cited both Plato and Aristotle so perhaps his interpretation is based on theirs.

Integral to this system was the Spartan way of recognising the role of the elders within their society. Herodotus describes that Sparta is the only city Polis in Greece where the young men move out of the way of their elders[72]. As an extension, Plato has suggested although not confirmed that only the old within Spartan society had the right to criticise the young and the state[73]. This concept was entrenched within the Agoge, teaching those going those going through the process to respect those above them. Be it the Eirene of the companies, or the Warden and his staff. What we know that has been gradually transcribed from the ancient sources is that both the young and old messed together within the shared mess table also known as the Syssitia and it is presumable that the ancient warriors passed on their knowledge to their younger counterparts with whom they shared the mess[74]. Within this setting, there is a replication of the relationship that had already existed within the Pederasty[75]. This time however it is the old veterans who completed the Agoge who are transmitting their wisdom onto the youth. Anton Powell questions if these dining groups were deliberate so that it enabled the elders of the messes to impart their knowledge down to the younger members[76]. He defines this as the similar role of the inspirer and the learner with the same goal to produce recruits from the Agoge to benefit the state of Sparta and her army as the future soldiers and leaders of their city[77].

The evidence of Plutarch and Xenophon we have however is a little cryptic. Kennel in his interpretation of Xenophon describes him being mysterious about the Agoge; how even though he represents the three segments of the process[78]. From the Paides to Hebontes we cannot be entirely sure if the role of relationships in society was significantly impacted by the Agoge as he does not provide precise information if it was an integral part of the institution or not[79]. Then with Plutarch on his version of the Agoge, there is the problem of him writing possibly for Roman readership. There is very little evidence of the Agoge in the Classical period or archaic, so we cannot be sure if Plutarch is correct[80]. The idea of young men training and working together for the benefit of the state appealed to the Romans sense of duty and loyalty to their city, so perhaps the representation of the relationships of the boys of the Agoge represented by Plutarch are archetypes of Roman values, not that of Sparta[81]. Can we honestly then say that Plutarch and his depiction of the Pederasty describe the reality in Sparta? Kennel to a degree argues that the concept if that presented by Plutarch and Xenophon may not the correct form[82]. As he points out Agoge in Greek means the leading, and so could just be a term to describe rituals boys had to go through to reach adulthood, not a predefined and codified educational institution[83].

Through the analysis of the three concepts, the pederasty, the all-male environment as well as the mess tables the agoge made an impact on the soldiers of Sparta within their relationships. The agoge’s all-male environment forced the boys to rely upon each but also to respect those who made decisions on their behalf such as the warden, the roles of the learner and hearer and how the functional relationship forced them to become better warriors of Sparta. The purpose of pederasty built mutual affection for each other’s skills again creating the desire to learn from each other, not to have hopes for one another regarding traditional love. And with the collective mess tables, the wisdom of the elders of whom they shared the mess with juniors transmitting their knowledge to those who would come after them, forever gaining the younger generations respect, to respect one's elder superior in battle.