Today's Passage
This passage presents the opening exchange of the famous Melian Dialogue (416 BCE), where Athenian envoys negotiate with representatives from Melos, a small island state that had remained neutral in the Peloponnesian War.
Crawley Translation (1910)
Athenians. Since the negotiations are not to go on before the people, in order that we may not be able to speak straight on without interruption, and deceive the ears of the multitude by seductive arguments which would pass without refutation (for we know that this is the meaning of our being brought before the few), what if you who sit there were to pursue a method more cautious still? Make no set speech yourselves, but take us up at whatever you do not like, and settle that before going any farther. And first tell us if this proposition of ours suits you.
The Melian commissioners answered:
Melians. To the fairness of quietly instructing each other as you propose there is nothing to object; but your military preparations are too far advanced to agree with what you say, as we see you are come to be judges in your own cause, and that all we can reasonably expect from this negotiation is war, if we prove to have right on our side and refuse to submit, and in the contrary case, slavery.
Athenians. If you have met to reason about presentiments of the future, or for anything else than to consult for the safety of your state upon the facts that you see before you, we will give over; otherwise we will go on.
Melians. It is natural and excusable for men in our position to turn more ways than one both in thought and utterance. However, the question in this conference is, as you say, the safety of our country; and the discussion, if you please, can proceed in the way which you propose.
Athenians. For ourselves, we shall not trouble you with specious pretences—either of how we have a right to our empire because we overthrew the Mede, or are now attacking you because of wrong that you have done us—and make a long speech which would not be believed; and in return we hope that you, instead of thinking to influence us by saying that you did not join the Lacedaemonians, although their colonists, or that you have done us no wrong, will aim at what is feasible, holding in view the real sentiments of us both; since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
Melians. As we think, at any rate, it is expedient—we speak as we are obliged, since you enjoin us to let right alone and talk only of interest—that you should not destroy what is our common protection, the privilege of being allowed in danger to invoke what is fair and right, and even to profit by arguments not strictly valid if they can be got to pass current. And you are as much interested in this as any, as your fall would be a signal for the heaviest vengeance and an example for the world to meditate upon.
Modern Translation
Athenians: Since these negotiations will not take place before the general assembly—preventing us from delivering an uninterrupted speech that might, through persuasive rhetoric, mislead the masses with arguments that would go unchallenged (we understand this is precisely why you've brought us before this select committee)—why not adopt an even more cautious approach? Instead of making formal speeches, simply interrupt us whenever you disagree with something, and let's resolve each point before moving forward. First, tell us whether this method suits you.
The Melian representatives replied:
Melians: We have no objection to the fairness of this calm, instructive dialogue you propose. However, your military preparations have progressed too far to align with your words. We can see that you've come to judge your own case, and that this negotiation can only lead to one of two outcomes: war, if we prove ourselves to be in the right and therefore refuse to surrender; or slavery, if we fail.
Athenians: If you've gathered here to speculate about future possibilities, or for any purpose other than deliberating on your state's security based on the immediate facts before you, we'll end this discussion. Otherwise, we shall continue.
Melians: It's both natural and forgivable that men in our desperate situation should explore multiple avenues in both thought and speech. Nevertheless, as you've stated, this conference concerns our country's survival, and we're willing to proceed according to your suggested format.
Athenians: For our part, we won't waste your time with elaborate justifications—claiming our empire is legitimate because we defeated the Persians, or that we're attacking you in response to some injury you've inflicted—lengthy arguments that no one would believe. In return, we hope you won't attempt to sway us by arguing that you never joined the Spartans despite being their colonists, or that you've never wronged us. Instead, let's pursue what's actually achievable, keeping in mind what we both truly understand: in this world, justice is only relevant between parties of equal strength. The powerful do what their power permits, and the weak endure what they must endure.
Melians: In our view—and we must speak of expediency since you've forbidden us from discussing justice and directed us to address only self-interest—you shouldn't destroy something that benefits all: the principle that those in peril may appeal to fairness and justice, and may benefit even from arguments that aren't perfectly sound if they prove persuasive. This concerns you as much as anyone, since your eventual downfall would invite the most terrible retribution and serve as a cautionary example for all to contemplate.
Historical Context
This passage presents the opening exchange of the famous Melian Dialogue (416 BCE), where Athenian envoys negotiate with representatives from Melos, a small island state that had remained neutral in the Peloponnesian War. Athens has arrived with a fleet to demand Melos's submission. The Athenians propose a frank discussion format, rejecting rhetorical pretense in favor of brutal realism. The dialogue occurs during Athens's imperial height, demonstrating the cynical exercise of power politics. This episode illustrates Thucydides' exploration of might versus right, as the Athenians explicitly reject moral arguments in favor of pure power calculations. The dialogue's outcome—Athens eventually besieges Melos, kills the men, and enslaves the women and children—becomes a defining moment of Athenian imperialism and moral decline.
Key Themes
Annotations & References
Realpolitik in Ancient Greece
The Melian Dialogue represents perhaps the clearest ancient articulation of realpolitik—politics based on practical power rather than moral principles. The Athenians' frank admission that 'might makes right' shocked ancient audiences and continues to resonate in international relations theory.
Learn more →Athenian Empire
By 416 BCE, Athens had transformed the Delian League into an empire, controlling much of the Aegean. The treatment of Melos exemplifies Athens's imperial methods: using overwhelming force against smaller states while maintaining democratic government at home.
Learn more →Sophistic Rhetoric
The dialogue format and the Athenians' rejection of 'specious pretences' reflects contemporary debates about rhetoric and truth in the age of the Sophists. Thucydides presents a stark contrast between persuasive speech and raw power.
Learn more →The Median Dialogue Structure
Thucydides employs a unique dramatic dialogue format here, unlike his usual speech presentations. This literary device heightens the philosophical and dramatic impact, allowing readers to witness the negotiation's stark power dynamics unfold in real-time.
Learn more →Parallel Ancient Sources
Xenophon: Hellenica (Book 2.2.3)
Xenophon describes Athens's own fate when besieged by Sparta in 404 BCE, where Athenians feared suffering the same destruction they had inflicted on Melos—showing how the Melian precedent haunted them.
Read passage →Diodorus Siculus: Library of History (Book 12.65)
Diodorus provides an alternative account of various Athenian imperial actions during this period, offering a different perspective on Athens's treatment of subject states and allies.
Read passage →Plutarch: Life of Alcibiades (16.5-6)
Plutarch mentions Alcibiades's role in advocating for the Sicilian Expedition shortly after Melos, connecting Athenian hubris at Melos with the disastrous overreach that followed.
Read passage →Discussion Questions
- How does the Athenians' rejection of moral arguments in favor of pure power calculations challenge or confirm your understanding of international relations?
- What is the significance of the Athenians' insistence on avoiding public debate and limiting discussion to a small committee?
- How do the Melians' arguments about common protection and precedent relate to modern concepts of international law and norms?
- Is there validity to the Athenian position that 'right' only exists between equals, or does this represent a fundamental corruption of justice?