Today's Passage
This passage comes from the debate at Sparta in 432 BCE, where various Greek states are presenting grievances against Athens.
Crawley Translation (1910)
“We imagine that our moderation would be best demonstrated by the conduct of others who should be placed in our position; but even our equity has very unreasonably subjected us to condemnation instead of approval. Our abatement of our rights in the contract trials with our allies, and our causing them to be decided by impartial laws at Athens, have gained us the character of being litigious. And none care to inquire why this reproach is not brought against other imperial powers, who treat their subjects with less moderation than we do; the secret being that where force can be used, law is not needed. But our subjects are so habituated to associate with us as equals that any defeat whatever that clashes with their notions of justice, whether it proceeds from a legal judgment or from the power which our empire gives us, makes them forget to be grateful for being allowed to retain most of their possessions, and more vexed at a part being taken, than if we had from the first cast law aside and openly gratified our covetousness. If we had done so, not even would they have disputed that the weaker must give way to the stronger. Men’s indignation, it seems, is more excited by legal wrong than by violent wrong; the first looks like being cheated by an equal, the second like being compelled by a superior. At all events they contrived to put up with much worse treatment than this from the Mede, yet they think our rule severe, and this is to be expected, for the present always weighs heavy on the conquered. This at least is certain. If you were to succeed in overthrowing us and in taking our place, you would speedily lose the popularity with which fear of us has invested you, if your policy of to-day is at all to tally with the sample that you gave of it during the brief period of your command against the Mede. Not only is your life at home regulated by rules and institutions incompatible with those of others, but your citizens abroad act neither on these rules nor on those which are recognized by the rest of Hellas.
Modern Translation
We believe our restraint would be most clearly proven by observing how others might act in our position; yet paradoxically, our very fairness has earned us criticism rather than praise. When we've waived our imperial prerogatives in commercial disputes with our allies and allowed these cases to be tried under impartial Athenian law, we've been labeled as excessively litigious. Nobody bothers to ask why this accusation isn't leveled at other imperial powers who treat their subjects far more harshly. The answer is simple: where brute force suffices, legal proceedings become unnecessary. But our subjects have grown so accustomed to being treated as equals that any verdict against them—whether arising from legitimate legal judgment or from the authority our empire naturally confers—seems unjust to them. They forget to appreciate that we allow them to keep most of their property, and instead become more resentful over small losses than they would be if we had simply discarded law from the beginning and openly pursued our interests. Had we done so, they wouldn't even dispute the principle that the weak must yield to the strong. It appears that people's anger is more provoked by perceived legal injustice than by open violence; the former feels like being swindled by a peer, the latter like submission to a superior force. They certainly endured far harsher treatment under Persian rule, yet they consider our governance oppressive—naturally so, since current masters always seem more burdensome than past ones. This much is certain: if you succeeded in defeating us and assuming our position, you would quickly lose the goodwill that fear of us has generated for you, especially if your current policies are any indication of how you would rule, judging from your brief leadership during the Persian Wars. Not only do your domestic laws and customs differ incompatibly from everyone else's, but when your citizens venture abroad, they follow neither their own rules nor those accepted by the rest of Greece.
Historical Context
This passage comes from the debate at Sparta in 432 BCE, where various Greek states are presenting grievances against Athens. An Athenian envoy (unnamed) is defending Athens' imperial conduct before the Spartan assembly. The speech occurs at a critical juncture when Sparta is deciding whether to declare war on Athens. The Athenian argues that Athens exercises its imperial power with unusual restraint and legal fairness, yet paradoxically receives more criticism than harsher empires. He warns the Spartans that if they overthrew Athens, they would face the same resentments and prove less capable rulers, given their rigid customs and brief, unsuccessful leadership against Persia. This sophisticated defense of empire reveals both Athenian self-perception and the tensions between power and justice that would define the coming war.
Key Themes
Annotations & References
Athenian Legal System
Athens prided itself on its sophisticated legal system where even allied states could bring cases. The passage refers to commercial disputes (dikai apo symbolon) judged in Athenian courts, which allies saw as biased despite procedural fairness.
Learn more →The Persian Wars
The reference to 'the Mede' means the Persians. The speaker contrasts harsh Persian rule with Athenian moderation, while also criticizing Sparta's brief hegemony after the Persian Wars (478-477 BCE) under Pausanias.
Learn more →Spartan Exceptionalism
The final criticism targets Sparta's unique social system and laws (attributed to Lycurgus), which made Spartans notoriously inflexible when dealing with other Greeks, contributing to their diplomatic failures.
Learn more →Parallel Ancient Sources
Aristotle: Constitution of Athens (24.3)
Aristotle describes how Athens required allied lawsuits exceeding a certain amount to be tried in Athenian courts, supporting Thucydides' account of allied resentment over legal proceedings.
Read passage →Plutarch: Life of Pericles (17)
Plutarch discusses Athenian imperial policies and how Pericles justified using allied tribute, showing similar themes of imperial justification and allied resentment.
Read passage →Xenophon: Hellenica (2.3.11)
Xenophon describes how the Thirty Tyrants claimed to act with moderation while being tyrannical, echoing the gap between imperial self-perception and subject experience.
Read passage →Discussion Questions
- How does the speaker's distinction between 'legal wrong' and 'violent wrong' illuminate different forms of political domination?
- Is the Athenian argument about moderation sincere or merely sophisticated propaganda? What evidence supports each interpretation?
- How does this passage relate to modern debates about 'soft power' versus 'hard power' in international relations?
- What does the criticism of Spartan inflexibility suggest about the requirements for successful imperial rule?