Today's Passage
This passage comes from the famous Melian Dialogue (416 BCE), where Athenian envoys attempt to persuade the neutral island of Melos to surrender peacefully.
Crawley Translation (1910)
Athenians. Some diversion of the kind you speak of you may one day experience, only to learn, as others have done, that the Athenians never once yet withdrew from a siege for fear of any. But we are struck by the fact that, after saying you would consult for the safety of your country, in all this discussion you have mentioned nothing which men might trust in and think to be saved by. Your strongest arguments depend upon hope and the future, and your actual resources are too scanty, as compared with those arrayed against you, for you to come out victorious. You will therefore show great blindness of judgment, unless, after allowing us to retire, you can find some counsel more prudent than this. You will surely not be caught by that idea of disgrace, which in dangers that are disgraceful, and at the same time too plain to be mistaken, proves so fatal to mankind; since in too many cases the very men that have their eyes perfectly open to what they are rushing into, let the thing called disgrace, by the mere influence of a seductive name, lead them on to a point at which they become so enslaved by the phrase as in fact to fall wilfully into hopeless disaster, and incur disgrace more disgraceful as the companion of error, than when it comes as the result of misfortune. This, if you are well advised, you will guard against; and you will not think it dishonourable to submit to the greatest city in Hellas, when it makes you the moderate offer of becoming its tributary ally, without ceasing to enjoy the country that belongs to you; nor when you have the choice given you between war and security, will you be so blinded as to choose the worse. And it is certain that those who do not yield to their equals, who keep terms with their superiors, and are moderate towards their inferiors, on the whole succeed best. Think over the matter, therefore, after our withdrawal, and reflect once and again that it is for your country that you are consulting, that you have not more than one, and that upon this one deliberation depends its prosperity or ruin.
The Athenians now withdrew from the conference; and the Melians, left to themselves, came to a decision corresponding with what they had maintained in the discussion, and answered: “Our resolution, Athenians, is the same as it was at first. We will not in a moment deprive of freedom a city that has been inhabited these seven hundred years; but we put our trust in the fortune by which the gods have preserved it until now, and in the help of men, that is, of the Lacedaemonians; and so we will try and save ourselves. Meanwhile we invite you to allow us to be friends to you and foes to neither party, and to retire from our country after making such a treaty as shall seem fit to us both.”
Modern Translation
Athenians: You may indeed experience the kind of setback you mention someday, only to discover, as others have, that Athens has never abandoned a siege out of fear. We find it remarkable that while claiming to deliberate on your country's survival, you've offered nothing in this entire discussion that rational people could rely upon for salvation. Your most compelling arguments rest on hopes and future possibilities, while your present resources are far too meager compared to the forces arrayed against you to achieve victory. You demonstrate profound misjudgment unless, after we leave, you can devise a more sensible plan. Surely you won't fall victim to that notion of dishonor which proves catastrophic to humanity when facing dangers that are both shameful and unmistakably clear. Too often, people who see perfectly well what destruction awaits them allow this thing called 'dishonor'—through the sheer power of its alluring name—to lead them to a point where they become so captivated by the word that they deliberately plunge into irreversible catastrophe, bringing upon themselves a disgrace far more shameful as the product of foolishness than any that might result from misfortune. If you're wise, you'll avoid this trap. You shouldn't consider it dishonorable to submit to Hellas's greatest city when it offers reasonable terms: becoming our tributary ally while retaining control of your own territory. When presented with a choice between war and safety, don't be so deluded as to select the worse option. Those who succeed best are generally the ones who refuse to yield to equals, maintain proper relations with superiors, and show moderation toward inferiors. Consider this carefully after we withdraw, and remember repeatedly that you're deliberating for your homeland—you have only one—and that its flourishing or destruction depends on this single decision.
The Athenians then left the conference. The Melians, now alone, reached a conclusion consistent with their position during the negotiations and responded: "Athenians, our determination remains unchanged from the beginning. We refuse to strip of its liberty in an instant a city that has existed for seven hundred years. Instead, we place our faith in the divine fortune that has protected us thus far and in human assistance—specifically, the Spartans. We will therefore attempt to preserve ourselves. In the meantime, we propose that you permit us to remain friendly to you and neutral to all parties, and that you withdraw from our territory after we negotiate a treaty acceptable to both sides."
Historical Context
This passage comes from the famous Melian Dialogue (416 BCE), where Athenian envoys attempt to persuade the neutral island of Melos to surrender peacefully. The Athenians have already presented their stark realpolitik argument that 'might makes right,' dismissing appeals to justice. Here, they make their final argument before withdrawing, warning the Melians against false hope and misguided notions of honor. The Melians respond with defiance, trusting in divine providence and potential Spartan aid. This dialogue occurs during Athens' aggressive imperial expansion in the Peloponnesian War, illustrating the brutal logic of empire. The Melians' refusal will lead to their city's destruction, with all men killed and women and children enslaved, making this one of history's most chilling examples of the conflict between idealism and power politics.
Key Themes
Annotations & References
Athenian Imperialism
By 416 BCE, Athens had transformed the Delian League into an empire, demanding tribute from subject states. The Athenians' argument here reflects their imperial ideology: submission to superior power is natural and resistance is irrational. This represents the peak of Athenian hubris before their catastrophic Sicilian expedition.
Learn more →Honor and Shame in Greek Culture
The Athenians' warning about 'disgrace' (aischron) reveals deep Greek cultural values. Honor (timē) and shame (aischunē) were fundamental to Greek identity. The Athenians argue that the Melians' concept of honor is self-destructive, preferring death to perceived dishonor—a tension central to Greek tragedy.
Learn more →Spartan Alliance System
The Melians' hope for Lacedaemonian (Spartan) aid reflects Sparta's role as the defender of Greek autonomy against Athenian imperialism. Melos had ethnic ties to Sparta as a Dorian colony, but Sparta's failure to help demonstrates the limits of such connections when facing strategic realities.
Learn more →Greek Religious Fatalism
The Melians' trust in 'fortune by which the gods have preserved' them reflects traditional Greek piety and the belief in divine justice (dikē). This contrasts sharply with the Athenians' secular realism, illustrating the intellectual revolution of the Sophistic enlightenment challenging traditional religious worldviews.
Learn more →Parallel Ancient Sources
Xenophon: Hellenica (Book 2, Chapter 2.3)
Describes Athens' similar ultimatum to Aegina, showing the pattern of Athenian imperial negotiations where submission or destruction were the only options offered to weaker states.
Read passage →Diodorus Siculus: Library of History (Book 12.65)
Provides an alternative account of the Melian affair, emphasizing the brutality of Athens' punishment and suggesting some Athenians opposed the harsh treatment, adding moral complexity absent from Thucydides.
Read passage →Plutarch: Life of Lysander (Chapter 14)
Describes how Sparta later used Athens' treatment of Melos as justification for harsh measures, showing how the Melian precedent haunted Athens and legitimized revenge against them.
Read passage →Discussion Questions
- How does the Athenian argument about 'disgrace' challenge traditional notions of honor? Is there wisdom in their critique of choosing honorable destruction over pragmatic survival?
- What role does religion play in the Melians' decision-making? How does their faith in divine justice compare to modern appeals to international law or human rights?
- The Athenians claim those who succeed 'do not yield to equals, keep terms with superiors, and are moderate towards inferiors.' How does this formula for success apply to modern international relations?
- Given that the Melians will be destroyed for their defiance, does Thucydides present their choice as noble or foolish? What evidence supports each interpretation?