Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War depicts the conflict between Athens & Sparta not only through fact-based wartime accounts, however, there are also dramatized orations, debates, and interwoven stories. There is a striking parallel between the two fundamental modes of interaction and communication that ancient Greek society valued, speech-giving and warfare-making. The Melian Dialogue is perhaps the best example of this binary. Speech acts as an extension and function of war. These two sides are portrayed as representing opposing ideologies. Athenian realism driven by conquest and empire is juxtaposed to Melian idealism with its bulwarks and hope. Thucydides explores power dynamics in the dialogue. This goes beyond the actual arguments. It also examines justice concepts through Thucydides’ language and rhetoric. The Athenians use their arguments to implement policy and metaphorical weapons in battle of words. The Athenians control the direction and nature of dialogue. This is similar to their military victory over the Melians, but also foreshadows their eventual fall.
Both the Athenian-Melian representatives attempt structure the flow and nature of the Melian Dialogue’s opening. Each side’s attempts to control the proceedings lead to subtle shifts of power dynamics. The Melians open the dialogue by stipulating the audience. However, the Athenians soon take control. The Melians attempt at organizing the debate immediately fails as the Melians use the Melians’ choice for audience against them. This, we know, is your motivation in bringing you here to speak for the few.” (5.55-89) The Athenians criticize the intellectual power and authority of the Melians, pointing out the council’s low popularity among the public. This is done while simultaneously strengthening their position and generating anticipation for the “persuasive, incontrovertible” arguments. Athenians are also making a conscious move to elevate the nature and content of the dialogue beyond the normal grounded discussions. And we ask that you not think that you can influence us by saying that although you are Sparta’s colony, you have never been a harm to us.
The Athenians are able to establish the terms of the negotiations that will follow and thus assert their supremacy. The Athenians are able to use speech to influence policy and display impressive oratorical skills even before actual arguments start. The dialogue structure and speeches all reflect the power dynamics subtext. The Melians try to portray themselves as equals to Athenians intellectually and politically. They express their opinions with clear, direct, and logical rhetoric.
“No one is going to object to us all voicing our opinions in a peaceful atmosphere. This is perfectly acceptable. It is hard to believe that such a proposal would be accepted by you. We see that both you and I are fully prepared to make a decision. If we prove our innocence, we will either surrender or go to war. (5.86).
Instead of resorting to the emotional arguments that are typical of their lofty idealism, the Melians insist on continuing the dialogue with logic and rational discourse. The Athenians make it clear that they are not happy with the Melians’ “force[d]] justice to be taken out of account” and “force[d] them] to keep [them]selves to their self-interest,” but there are some signs of melian unease and discomfort.
These matters can be discussed by ordinary people. The standard of justice rests on the equality in power to compel. That is, the strong do the things they are able to and the weak must accept the consequences. Because of the Athenian concept, dialogue cannot evolve into a full-fledged dispute between equal sides. Accordingly to the Melians’ prediction, the Athenians were “prepared to judge this argument [themselves].” They declared that “this is not a fair fight, with honour for one side and shame for the other. It’s not about resisting those who are far more powerful than you, but saving your own life. The Athenians, who are the ultimate judges of human nature, declare hope to be “by nature an inexpensive commodity” throughout the dialogue. The Athenians lecture and give advice, disregarding any concerns or questions raised by the Melians due to their inequal status. The Athenians use argumentation to justify imperialist policies. This is a lie.
Although the Melian Dialogue is a historical episode, its significance in the context of the Peloponnesian War is minimal. It can instead be read by Thucydides’ treatise on the dynamics and power of conquest. Thucydides demonstrates how Athenians used both war and speech to build their empire. He uses the contrasted political philosophies to describe the conversation. Melos’s final defeat and the destruction of Athens are foreshadowed by the Melian Dialogue’s verbal sparring.
