Today's Passage
This passage comes from the Mytilenean Debate in 427 BCE, where the Athenian Assembly reconvened to reconsider their harsh decision to execute all adult males and enslave the women and children of Mytilene after its revolt.
Crawley Translation (1910)
“I do not blame the persons who have reopened the case of the Mitylenians, nor do I approve the protests which we have heard against important questions being frequently debated. I think the two things most opposed to good counsel are haste and passion; haste usually goes hand in hand with folly, passion with coarseness and narrowness of mind. As for the argument that speech ought not to be the exponent of action, the man who uses it must be either senseless or interested: senseless if he believes it possible to treat of the uncertain future through any other medium; interested if, wishing to carry a disgraceful measure and doubting his ability to speak well in a bad cause, he thinks to frighten opponents and hearers by well-aimed calumny. What is still more intolerable is to accuse a speaker of making a display in order to be paid for it. If ignorance only were imputed, an unsuccessful speaker might retire with a reputation for honesty, if not for wisdom; while the charge of dishonesty makes him suspected, if successful, and thought, if defeated, not only a fool but a rogue. The city is no gainer by such a system, since fear deprives it of its advisers; although in truth, if our speakers are to make such assertions, it would be better for the country if they could not speak at all, as we should then make fewer blunders. The good citizen ought to triumph not by frightening his opponents but by beating them fairly in argument; and a wise city, without over-distinguishing its best advisers, will nevertheless not deprive them of their due, and, far from punishing an unlucky counsellor, will not even regard him as disgraced. In this way successful orators would be least tempted to sacrifice their convictions to popularity, in the hope of still higher honours, and unsuccessful speakers to resort to the same popular arts in order to win over the multitude.
Modern Translation
I have no criticism for those who wish to reopen debate about the Mytileneans, nor do I support those who object to repeated deliberation on crucial matters. In my view, the two greatest enemies of sound policy are haste and anger—haste typically accompanied by foolishness, anger by vulgarity and small-mindedness. Anyone who argues that words should not guide actions must be either stupid or self-serving: stupid if he thinks we can examine an uncertain future by any means other than speech; self-serving if he wants to push through some shameful proposal and, knowing he cannot make a persuasive case for a bad policy, hopes instead to intimidate his opponents and audience with skillful slander. Even worse are those who accuse speakers of putting on performances for money. If we merely charged them with ignorance, a defeated speaker could at least preserve his reputation for integrity, if not intelligence. But accusations of corruption make a successful speaker seem suspect and a defeated one appear not just foolish but criminal. Such practices harm the state by frightening away potential advisors—though honestly, if speakers insist on making such accusations, perhaps we'd make fewer mistakes if they couldn't speak at all. A good citizen should prevail by superior argument, not intimidation. A prudent city, while not excessively honoring its best counselors, should at least not dishonor them, and should neither punish nor disgrace those whose advice proves unsuccessful. This approach would minimize the temptation for successful speakers to pander for popularity seeking greater honors, or for unsuccessful ones to employ the same demagogic tricks to win over the crowd.
Historical Context
This passage comes from the Mytilenean Debate in 427 BCE, where the Athenian Assembly reconvened to reconsider their harsh decision to execute all adult males and enslave the women and children of Mytilene after its revolt. The speaker is Diodotus, arguing against Cleon's position that the original death sentence should stand. This debate exemplifies the tensions in Athenian democracy between deliberation and decisiveness, and between rational argument and emotional rhetoric. It occurs during a critical phase of the Peloponnesian War when Athens faced multiple revolts from allied cities, making the handling of Mytilene a precedent for imperial policy. The debate showcases both the strengths and vulnerabilities of democratic decision-making during wartime.
Key Themes
Annotations & References
Athenian Democracy
The passage illustrates key features of Athenian democratic debate, including the right to reconsider decisions, the importance of public speaking, and concerns about demagogues manipulating emotions. It shows how political rhetoric functioned in the Assembly.
Learn more →The Mytilenean Revolt
Mytilene, the principal city of Lesbos, revolted from Athens in 428 BCE during the Peloponnesian War. After suppressing the revolt, Athens initially voted for harsh collective punishment but reconsidered the next day, leading to this famous debate.
Learn more →Rhetoric in Ancient Greece
This passage demonstrates the central role of persuasive speech in Greek political life. Diodotus defends the value of rational deliberation against accusations that speakers are motivated by personal gain rather than public good.
Learn more →Cleon and Diodotus
Cleon, the prominent demagogue, argued for maintaining the death sentence against Mytilene. Diodotus, otherwise unknown, opposed him with arguments based on expediency rather than justice, ultimately persuading the Assembly to reverse its decision.
Learn more →Parallel Ancient Sources
Aristotle: Rhetoric (Book 1, Chapter 3)
Aristotle analyzes deliberative rhetoric in democratic assemblies, discussing how speakers should argue about future actions based on expediency and harm, themes central to Diodotus's approach.
Read passage →Xenophon: Memorabilia (Book 3, Chapter 5)
Xenophon presents Socrates discussing the qualities of good political speakers and the dangers of demagogues who prioritize popularity over truth, echoing Diodotus's concerns.
Read passage →Plutarch: Life of Nicias (Chapter 8)
Plutarch describes how fear of prosecution discouraged honest advice in Athens, illustrating Diodotus's point about how accusations of corruption silence good counselors.
Read passage →Discussion Questions
- How does Diodotus's defense of deliberation balance the need for careful consideration against the demands of decisive action in wartime?
- What are the implications of Diodotus's claim that accusations of corruption do more harm than good to democratic decision-making?
- How relevant are Diodotus's concerns about hasty decisions and emotional rhetoric to modern democratic societies?
- Does Diodotus's focus on protecting speakers from accusations strengthen or weaken democratic accountability?