Today's Passage
This passage describes a diplomatic exchange following the Battle of Delium (424 BCE), where Athenian forces had suffered a major defeat.
Crawley Translation (1910)
After these words from the herald, the Athenians sent their own herald to the Boeotians to say that they had not done any wrong to the temple, and for the future would do it no more harm than they could help; not having occupied it originally in any such design, but to defend themselves from it against those who were really wronging them. The law of the Hellenes was that conquest of a country, whether more or less extensive, carried with it possession of the temples in that country, with the obligation to keep up the usual ceremonies, at least as far as possible. The Boeotians and most other people who had turned out the owners of a country, and put themselves in their places by force, now held as of right the temples which they originally entered as usurpers. If the Athenians could have conquered more of Boeotia this would have been the case with them: as things stood, the piece of it which they had got they should treat as their own, and not quit unless obliged. The water they had disturbed under the impulsion of a necessity which they had not wantonly incurred, having been forced to use it in defending themselves against the Boeotians who first invaded Attica. Besides, anything done under the pressure of war and danger might reasonably claim indulgence even in the eye of the god; or why, pray, were the altars the asylum for involuntary offences? Transgression also was a term applied to presumptuous offenders, not to the victims of adverse circumstances. In short, which were most impious—the Boeotians who wished to barter dead bodies for holy places, or the Athenians who refused to give up holy places to obtain what was theirs by right? The condition of evacuating Boeotia must therefore be withdrawn. They were no longer in Boeotia. They stood where they stood by the right of the sword. All that the Boeotians had to do was to tell them to take up their dead under a truce according to the national custom.
The Boeotians replied that if they were in Boeotia, they must evacuate that country before taking up their dead; if they were in their own territory, they could do as they pleased: for they knew that, although the Oropid where the bodies as it chanced were lying (the battle having been fought on the borders) was subject to Athens, yet the Athenians could not get them without their leave. Besides, why should they grant a truce for Athenian ground? And what could be fairer than to tell them to evacuate Boeotia if they wished to get what they asked? The Athenian herald accordingly returned with this answer, without having accomplished his object.
Modern Translation
Following the herald's speech, the Athenians dispatched their own herald to the Boeotians with this message: they had committed no sacrilege against the temple, nor would they willingly harm it in the future. Their original occupation of it had not been motivated by any intention to desecrate it, but rather to use it as a defensive position against those who were genuinely wronging them. According to the customary law of the Greeks, whoever conquered a territory—whether large or small—thereby gained possession of its temples, along with the responsibility to maintain the traditional rites as best they could. After all, the Boeotians themselves, like most other peoples who had forcibly expelled the original inhabitants and taken their place, now claimed as legitimate property the very temples they had initially seized as invaders. Had the Athenians succeeded in conquering more Boeotian territory, the same principle would have applied. As matters stood, they intended to hold the portion they had captured as their own and would not withdraw unless compelled to do so. As for disturbing the sacred water, they had done so only under the compulsion of necessity, not through wanton disregard—they had been forced to use it while defending themselves against the Boeotians, who had invaded Attica first. Moreover, actions taken under the duress of war and danger could reasonably expect divine forgiveness—why else would altars serve as sanctuaries for those who had committed involuntary offenses? The term 'transgression' properly applied to those who committed deliberate wrongs, not to victims of unfortunate circumstances. In essence, who was truly guilty of impiety—the Boeotians, who sought to trade corpses for sacred places, or the Athenians, who refused to surrender holy ground in exchange for what was rightfully theirs? Therefore, the demand that they evacuate Boeotia must be withdrawn. They were no longer in Boeotia; they occupied their current position by right of conquest. The Boeotians need only grant them permission to retrieve their dead under truce, according to established custom.
The Boeotians responded that if the Athenians were indeed in Boeotia, they must withdraw before collecting their dead; if they were in their own territory, they could act as they wished. They knew perfectly well that although Oropus—where the bodies happened to lie, as the battle had occurred on the frontier—was technically subject to Athens, the Athenians could not retrieve them without Boeotian consent. Furthermore, why should they grant a truce for what was technically Athenian soil? Nothing could be more reasonable than requiring the Athenians to evacuate Boeotia if they wanted their request granted. The Athenian herald returned with this response, having failed in his mission.
Historical Context
This passage describes a diplomatic exchange following the Battle of Delium (424 BCE), where Athenian forces had suffered a major defeat. The Athenians had fortified a temple of Apollo at Delium in Boeotian territory before the battle. Now they sought permission to retrieve their dead—a sacred right in Greek warfare—but the Boeotians refused unless the Athenians abandoned the temple. This created a religious and diplomatic crisis, as denying burial rites violated Greek custom, yet the Athenians' occupation of a sacred site also constituted sacrilege. The dispute reveals tensions between religious law, military necessity, and political leverage. Both sides employ sophisticated arguments about justice, necessity, and precedent, demonstrating how religious and customary laws could be manipulated for strategic advantage during wartime.
Key Themes
Annotations & References
Greek Religious Law
Greek religious law held that temples belonged to whoever controlled the territory, but occupiers must maintain proper rites. This principle created complex situations when territory changed hands through conquest, as both sides could claim religious legitimacy.
Learn more →Battle of Delium
The Battle of Delium (424 BCE) was a significant Athenian defeat during the Peloponnesian War. The Athenians' fortification of Apollo's temple before the battle and their subsequent refusal to abandon it created this diplomatic crisis over burial rights.
Learn more →Greek Burial Customs
Retrieving and burying the war dead was a sacred duty in ancient Greece. Denying enemies the right to collect their dead under truce was considered a grave violation of religious and military custom, making the Boeotian position particularly controversial.
Learn more →Sanctuary and Asylum
Greek altars and temples provided asylum for those seeking protection, particularly for involuntary crimes. The Athenians invoke this principle to justify their actions, arguing that necessity in war deserves the same divine forgiveness as unintentional offenses.
Learn more →Parallel Ancient Sources
Diodorus Siculus: Library of History (Book 12.69-70)
Diodorus provides an alternative account of the Battle of Delium and its aftermath, including details about the temple fortification and the dispute over the dead.
Read passage →Plutarch: Life of Nicias (Chapter 6)
Plutarch mentions the Delium campaign in his biography of Nicias, providing additional context about Athenian military strategy and the religious implications of occupying temples.
Read passage →Pausanias: Description of Greece (Book 9.2.1)
Pausanias describes the temple of Apollo at Delium and its significance, providing geographical and religious context for understanding why its occupation was so controversial.
Read passage →Discussion Questions
- How do both sides manipulate religious and customary law to support their positions? What does this suggest about the relationship between religion and politics in ancient Greece?
- Is the Athenian argument about necessity and divine forgiveness convincing? How does it compare to modern ideas about military necessity and international law?
- What does this passage reveal about the importance of proper burial in Greek culture? Why was denying burial rites such a powerful diplomatic weapon?
- How does Thucydides present both arguments without explicitly taking sides? What might this tell us about his approach to historical objectivity?