Today's Passage
This passage occurs during the famous Melian Dialogue (416/415 BCE), where Athenian envoys negotiate with the neutral island of Melos.
Crawley Translation (1910)
Melians. Well then, if you risk so much to retain your empire, and your subjects to get rid of it, it were surely great baseness and cowardice in us who are still free not to try everything that can be tried, before submitting to your yoke.
Athenians. Not if you are well advised, the contest not being an equal one, with honour as the prize and shame as the penalty, but a question of self-preservation and of not resisting those who are far stronger than you are.
Melians. But we know that the fortune of war is sometimes more impartial than the disproportion of numbers might lead one to suppose; to submit is to give ourselves over to despair, while action still preserves for us a hope that we may stand erect.
Athenians. Hope, danger’s comforter, may be indulged in by those who have abundant resources, if not without loss at all events without ruin; but its nature is to be extravagant, and those who go so far as to put their all upon the venture see it in its true colours only when they are ruined; but so long as the discovery would enable them to guard against it, it is never found wanting. Let not this be the case with you, who are weak and hang on a single turn of the scale; nor be like the vulgar, who, abandoning such security as human means may still afford, when visible hopes fail them in extremity, turn to invisible, to prophecies and oracles, and other such inventions that delude men with hopes to their destruction.
Melians. You may be sure that we are as well aware as you of the difficulty of contending against your power and fortune, unless the terms be equal. But we trust that the gods may grant us fortune as good as yours, since we are just men fighting against unjust, and that what we want in power will be made up by the alliance of the Lacedaemonians, who are bound, if only for very shame, to come to the aid of their kindred. Our confidence, therefore, after all is not so utterly irrational.
Modern Translation
MELIANS: If you are willing to risk so much to maintain your empire, and your subjects risk everything to escape from it, then surely it would be utterly shameful and cowardly for us, who are still free, not to attempt every possible course of action before accepting enslavement.
ATHENIANS: Not if you think rationally. This is not an equal contest where honor is the reward and disgrace the punishment. This is about survival—about not opposing those who vastly outmatch your strength.
MELIANS: But we understand that war's fortune can be more evenhanded than the inequality of forces might suggest. To surrender means abandoning all hope, while resistance at least preserves the possibility that we might yet prevail.
ATHENIANS: Hope—that comfort in danger—can be afforded by those with ample resources; they may suffer losses but not destruction. Yet hope's nature is profligacy itself. Those who stake everything on a single gamble see hope's true character only when they're already ruined—when such knowledge comes too late to help. Don't let this happen to you, weak as you are, balanced on a knife's edge. Don't imitate common people who, when ordinary human efforts might still save them, abandon practical measures once their tangible hopes fail. In desperation they turn to the intangible—to prophecies, oracles, and similar delusions that destroy men by feeding false hopes.
MELIANS: We fully understand, believe us, how difficult it is to fight against your power and fortune when the odds are unequal. Still, we trust the gods will grant us luck equal to yours, since we stand as righteous men against injustice. What we lack in power will be compensated by our alliance with Sparta, who must come to aid their kinsmen, if only to avoid dishonor. So our confidence is not entirely unreasonable.
Historical Context
This passage occurs during the famous Melian Dialogue (416/415 BCE), where Athenian envoys negotiate with the neutral island of Melos. Athens demands Melos surrender and become a tribute-paying subject, while the Melians argue for their right to remain neutral. The dialogue represents one of history's most stark presentations of realpolitik versus idealism. The Athenians have already established that justice only matters between equals in power, and now the Melians attempt to counter with arguments about divine justice, Spartan kinship, and the uncertainties of war. This exchange crystallizes the tension between might and right that pervades Thucydides' work, occurring at the height of Athenian imperial power, just before the disastrous Sicilian Expedition.
Key Themes
Annotations & References
Athenian Empire
By 416 BCE, Athens controlled a maritime empire of over 300 city-states. The empire provided Athens with tribute, ships, and soldiers, but required constant military enforcement to prevent revolts. The Melian Dialogue illustrates the brutal logic necessary to maintain such imperial control.
Learn more →Hope (Elpis) in Greek Thought
The Athenians' critique of hope echoes traditional Greek wisdom about elpis as a dangerous delusion. From Hesiod's Pandora myth onward, hope was seen as ambiguous—sometimes sustaining humans but often leading to destruction through false confidence.
Learn more →Spartan Foreign Policy
Melos was a Spartan colony, founded by Dorians. The Melians expect Sparta to intervene based on ethnic kinship (syngeneia) and shame (aischyne). However, Sparta's cautious foreign policy often disappointed allies who expected automatic support.
Learn more →Divine Justice in War
The Melians invoke divine justice (dike), believing the gods will support the righteous against aggressors. This reflects traditional Greek belief that the gods punish hubris and injustice, though Thucydides generally presents a world where such beliefs prove futile.
Learn more →Parallel Ancient Sources
Xenophon: Hellenica (Book 2.2.3)
Describes Athens' own fate in 404 BCE when facing Spartan power after defeat, ironically placing Athens in a position similar to Melos, though Sparta showed more mercy than Athens had.
Read passage →Herodotus: Histories (Book 7.8-11)
Xerxes' dialogue with Artabanus about invading Greece parallels the Athenian warnings about hope and the Melian trust in divine justice against superior force.
Read passage →Polybius: Histories (Book 15.20)
Discusses how smaller states must realistically assess their chances against greater powers, echoing the Athenian argument about rational calculation versus false hope.
Read passage →Discussion Questions
- How do the Athenians' arguments about hope relate to modern political decision-making? When is hope rational versus delusional?
- Is the Melians' trust in divine justice and Spartan kinship naive idealism or principled resistance? How should weaker states respond to overwhelming force?
- What does this dialogue suggest about the relationship between morality and power in international relations? Has this dynamic changed in modern times?
- How does Thucydides use this dialogue to comment on Athenian imperial ideology? What is his implicit critique?