Today's Passage
This passage occurs in 432 BCE, on the eve of the Peloponnesian War.
Crawley Translation (1910)
To return to the Lacedaemonians. The history of their first embassy, the injunctions which it conveyed, and the rejoinder which it provoked, concerning the expulsion of the accursed persons, have been related already. It was followed by a second, which ordered Athens to raise the siege of Potidæa, and to respect the independence of Aegina. Above all, it gave her most distinctly to understand that war might be prevented by the revocation of the Megara decree, excluding the Megarians from the use of Athenian harbours and of the market of Athens. But Athens was not inclined either to revoke the decree, or to entertain their other proposals; she accused the Megarians of pushing their cultivation into the consecrated ground and the unenclosed land on the border, and of harbouring her runaway slaves. At last an embassy arrived with the Lacedaemonian ultimatum. The ambassadors were Ramphias, Melesippus, and Agesander. Not a word was said on any of the old subjects; there was simply this: “Lacedaemon wishes the peace to continue, and there is no reason why it should not, if you would leave the Hellenes independent.” Upon this the Athenians held an assembly, and laid the matter before their consideration. It was resolved to deliberate once for all on all their demands, and to give them an answer. There were many speakers who came forward and gave their support to one side or the other, urging the necessity of war, or the revocation of the decree and the folly of allowing it to stand in the way of peace. Among them came forward Pericles, son of Xanthippus, the first man of his time at Athens, ablest alike in counsel and in action, and gave the following advice:
Modern Translation
Let me return to the Spartans. I have already described their first embassy—the demands it made and the response it received regarding the expulsion of those under religious curse. A second embassy followed, demanding that Athens lift the siege of Potidaea and restore Aegina's autonomy. Most importantly, they made it absolutely clear that war could be avoided if Athens repealed the Megarian Decree, which banned Megarians from using Athenian harbors and the Athenian marketplace. But Athens refused to repeal the decree or consider their other demands. The Athenians accused the Megarians of cultivating sacred land and disputed border territory, and of sheltering Athenian fugitive slaves. Finally, an embassy arrived bearing Sparta's ultimatum. The ambassadors were Ramphias, Melesippus, and Agesander. They said nothing about any of the previous issues; their message was simply this: 'Sparta wants peace to continue, and it can continue—if you allow the Greeks to be autonomous.' In response, the Athenians convened the assembly and presented the matter for debate. They decided to deliberate thoroughly on all Spartan demands and deliver a final answer. Many speakers came forward, supporting either war or peace, arguing whether maintaining the decree was worth risking war. Among them stood Pericles, son of Xanthippus, Athens' foremost statesman, equally distinguished in deliberation and action, who offered the following counsel:
Historical Context
This passage occurs in 432 BCE, on the eve of the Peloponnesian War. Diplomatic relations between Athens and Sparta have deteriorated through a series of escalating demands. The Megarian Decree, an economic embargo against Megara (Sparta's ally), has become the focal point of negotiations. Sparta's final ultimatum cleverly shifts from specific grievances to the broader principle of Greek autonomy, challenging the legitimacy of Athens' empire. The passage sets up Pericles' famous speech defending Athenian policy and preparing the citizens for war. This moment represents the last chance for peace before the devastating 27-year conflict that would reshape the Greek world.
Key Themes
Annotations & References
The Megarian Decree
An economic embargo passed by Athens around 432 BCE, banning Megarians from Athenian harbors and markets. While ostensibly punishment for religious violations, it was effectively economic warfare against a Spartan ally and became a symbol of Athenian imperial aggression.
Learn more →Potidaea Siege
A crucial conflict (432-430 BCE) where Athens besieged Potidaea, a tributary ally that had revolted. The siege drained Athenian resources and escalated tensions with Corinth, Potidaea's mother city and Sparta's ally, making it a key catalyst for war.
Learn more →Athenian Democracy
The assembly (ekklesia) where all male citizens could speak and vote on policy. This passage shows democracy in action during a crisis, with open debate preceding Pericles' speech. The decision for war would be made democratically, binding all citizens to its consequences.
Learn more →Greek Autonomy
Sparta's demand for Greek 'independence' (autonomia) was propaganda targeting Athens' empire. While Sparta claimed to champion freedom, it controlled its own alliance system. This ideological conflict between freedom and empire would define the war's rhetoric.
Learn more →Parallel Ancient Sources
Plutarch: Life of Pericles (29-32)
Plutarch provides personal details about Pericles' role in the Megarian Decree and suggests it was partly motivated by personal reasons, offering a biographical perspective on these diplomatic negotiations.
Read passage →Diodorus Siculus: Library of History (12.39-40)
Diodorus gives an alternative account of the war's causes, emphasizing economic motivations and providing different details about the Megarian Decree's origins and the diplomatic exchanges.
Read passage →Aristophanes: Acharnians (lines 515-556)
This comedy, produced in 425 BCE, satirizes the Megarian Decree and its role in causing the war, providing contemporary Athenian popular perspective on these events through humor and criticism.
Read passage →Discussion Questions
- Why does Sparta shift from specific demands to the broad principle of 'Greek independence'? What does this reveal about the rhetoric of power in interstate relations?
- How does the democratic process described here—open debate before a crucial decision—compare with modern democratic war-making procedures?
- Was the Megarian Decree worth risking war over? What does this suggest about how small issues can escalate into major conflicts?
- How does Thucydides' presentation of this diplomatic breakdown reflect his views on the inevitability of the war?