Today's Passage
This passage comes from the Mytilenean Debate in 427 BCE, where the Athenian assembly reconvenes to reconsider their harsh decision to execute all adult males in Mytilene after its failed revolt.
Crawley Translation (1910)
“We must not, therefore, commit ourselves to a false policy through a belief in the efficacy of the punishment of death, or exclude rebels from the hope of repentance and an early atonement of their error. Consider a moment. At present, if a city that has already revolted perceive that it cannot succeed, it will come to terms while it is still able to refund expenses, and pay tribute afterwards. In the other case, what city, think you, would not prepare better than is now done, and hold out to the last against its besiegers, if it is all one whether it surrender late or soon? And how can it be otherwise than hurtful to us to be put to the expense of a siege, because surrender is out of the question; and if we take the city, to receive a ruined town from which we can no longer draw the revenue which forms our real strength against the enemy? We must not, therefore, sit as strict judges of the offenders to our own prejudice, but rather see how by moderate chastisements we may be enabled to benefit in future by the revenue-producing powers of our dependencies; and we must make up our minds to look for our protection not to legal terrors but to careful administration. At present we do exactly the opposite. When a free community, held in subjection by force, rises, as is only natural, and asserts its independence, it is no sooner reduced than we fancy ourselves obliged to punish it severely; although the right course with freemen is not to chastise them rigorously when they do rise, but rigorously to watch them before they rise, and to prevent their ever entertaining the idea, and, the insurrection suppressed, to make as few responsible for it as possible.
Modern Translation
Therefore, we must not adopt a misguided policy based on faith in capital punishment's effectiveness, nor should we deny rebels any hope of repentance or opportunity for swift reconciliation. Think about this: currently, when a rebellious city realizes it cannot win, it negotiates terms while still capable of repaying our expenses and continuing tribute payments. But if we pursue the alternative approach, what city wouldn't prepare more thoroughly than they do now and resist to the bitter end, knowing that early or late surrender makes no difference? How could this be anything but harmful to us? We'd bear the costs of prolonged sieges—since surrender would be unthinkable—and even after victory, we'd inherit ruined cities incapable of generating the revenues that constitute our true advantage over our enemies. Therefore, we shouldn't act as harsh judges to our own detriment, but instead consider how moderate punishments might preserve our subjects' revenue-generating capacity for our future benefit. We must resolve to seek security not through legal intimidation but through vigilant governance. Yet we do precisely the opposite now. When a free state under our forced subjection naturally rebels to reclaim its independence, we immediately feel compelled to impose severe punishment after reconquest. However, the proper approach with free peoples isn't to brutally punish their uprisings, but to maintain such careful surveillance that they never conceive of rebellion in the first place. And when we do suppress an insurrection, we should hold as few people responsible as possible.
Historical Context
This passage comes from the Mytilenean Debate in 427 BCE, where the Athenian assembly reconvenes to reconsider their harsh decision to execute all adult males in Mytilene after its failed revolt. The speaker is Diodotus, arguing against Cleon's proposal for collective punishment. Mytilene, Athens' ally on Lesbos, had attempted to defect to Sparta during the Peloponnesian War. After crushing the revolt, Athens initially voted for mass execution but is now debating whether to reverse this decision. Diodotus presents a pragmatic argument focused on Athens' long-term imperial interests rather than abstract justice, suggesting that excessive punishment would encourage future rebels to fight to the death and destroy Athens' revenue base.
Key Themes
Annotations & References
Athenian Imperial Revenue
Athens' empire depended heavily on tribute (phoros) from subject cities. This annual payment funded Athens' navy and public works. Diodotus argues that destroyed cities cannot pay tribute, making moderation a financial necessity for maintaining imperial power.
Learn more →Democratic Decision-Making
The Mytilenean debate showcases Athenian democracy's capacity for self-correction. The assembly could reconsider and reverse decisions, though this required extraordinary circumstances. This flexibility contrasted with the irrevocability often associated with autocratic systems.
Learn more →Deterrence Theory
Diodotus challenges conventional deterrence theory, arguing that harsh punishments don't prevent rebellion but ensure desperate resistance. His argument anticipates modern debates about capital punishment and proportional response in international relations.
Learn more →Realpolitik in Antiquity
Diodotus exemplifies political realism by focusing on Athens' practical interests rather than moral considerations. His cost-benefit analysis of imperial policy demonstrates that ancient thinkers understood power politics in sophisticated terms comparable to modern international relations theory.
Learn more →Parallel Ancient Sources
Xenophon: Hellenica (Book 2, Chapter 2.3)
Describes Athens' treatment of defeated enemies after Aegospotami, showing how the city's imperial policies evolved and demonstrating the consequences of harsh versus moderate treatment.
Read passage →Aristotle: Politics (Book 5, 1302b-1303a)
Discusses how excessive harshness by rulers provokes rebellion, supporting Diodotus' argument that severe punishments encourage rather than deter resistance.
Read passage →Herodotus: Histories (Book 3.80-82)
The Constitutional Debate presents different views on governance and control of subjects, offering Persian perspectives on similar issues of imperial management and rebellion.
Read passage →Discussion Questions
- How does Diodotus' pragmatic approach to justice differ from modern conceptions of human rights and international law?
- What are the advantages and disadvantages of allowing democratic assemblies to quickly reverse their decisions?
- Does Diodotus' argument about deterrence apply to modern criminal justice debates about capital punishment?
- How might subject cities have responded to this debate? What does it reveal about the nature of Athenian imperialism?