Precis: The Melian Dialogue

Zach Turminini

Rhetoric 103A

Professor Carrico

GSI: Jerilyn Sambrooke

Precis: The Melian Dialogue

The Melians rhetoric is made manifest through their norms and actions, which provides us ample insight into the social and cultural relations at the time, providing us a means of foregrounding the historical context in which the Melian Dialogue took place. This serves a pedagogical purpose, by which Thucydides non-fortuitously asserts the significance, both historically and politically, of the idealized moral relations between states and the Athenian realism and foresight presented in the dialogue. The assertion of power in the Melian Dialogue serves to promulgate the Athenian authority, underscoring their emphasis on security, through which the Athenians argue is achieved by domination or violence, and no variations thereof.  The merit of justifications argued by the Athenians seems to be the center of focus for Thucydides, again, questioning rationale and morality within the realm of political relations between states.

The Melian Dialogue encapsulated the events surrounding a siege of the kingdom of Melos, as well as, the issues surrounding war, politics, and the just use of force. Interestingly, the intensity to which the dialogue begins, in the establishing of terms by the Athenians, in summary ‘allow us to dominate you or perish’. And so, by issuing this ultimatum,which the Athenians justified their actions by rights afforded to them by Natural Law. The Melians had been forced into a decision to either concede to hegemonic rule or fight, which meant assured destruction.

Initially, the Melians argued a more preferred outcome, involving making equal their relations as two distinct states. Unfortunately, this was the main point of contention for the Athenians. Those intentions include among others a desire to both sustain and impose their dominance and control over other less powerful sovereignties through fear and dominance, to the detriment the Melians.

I assert the Athenians are more reasonable, illustrated clearly by their forethought and use of rational logic, in an instance where brute force would have been an easy option. If not for the fact that destroying a state for standing by a version of peace and justice as an alternative to hegemonic rule, is itself a revolutionary example, one which other states would be wiser to take heed of. Ironically, due to the nature of the increased scrutiny in the state relationships between the dominator and the dominated, inaction is taken as a sign of weakness in the wake of the events leading to the dialogue. And so, we must recognize the pragmatism applied by the Athenians in identifying the tactful benefits in taking Melos. Alluding to the importance of state relations and their role in ensuring the security of the Athenian state, by way of example.

Defined by the ultimatum presented by the Athenians, the basic premise of the dialogue is that it was futile for the Melians to resist. Due in part to the Athenians’ might, which drastically swayed the odds in their favor. The only rational choice for the Melians was to concede, according to the risks present in the arguments of the Athenians. Instead, the Melians chose to disregard reasonable terms, and instead engaged in a counter-siege, hoping their Spartan allies would come to their aid. This we would learn later to be the decision that ended in the destruction of Melos. The violence incurred in this example shows the importance of power and exacerbates the fallacy of the idiosyncratic approach taken by the melians, in ignoring the real for the ideal. Through dominance, via power, Athens had justified war and violence in times of peace in order to ensure their security and sovereignty according to the laws set forth by nature.