The Structure and Function of the Melian Dialogue
Thucydides' account of the events at Melos in 416–15 B.C. falls into two parts, the famous dialogue in which representatives of Melos and of Athens discuss the submission of Melos, and a series of notes about the siege of the city culminating in the account of its destruction. But as I shall try to show, the two sections form part of a single whole. The discussion between the negotiators centres on two topics. In the first half of the dialogue the speakers discuss the expediency of forcing Melos into the Athenian Empire, in the second they discuss the likelihood of the Melians resisting successfully. But since the Melians are offered no alternative to becoming subjects except complete destruction, and since they are clearly not ready to choose the safe but dishonouring alternative, even though they have no chance of defending their city successfully, the inevitable destruction of Melos casts its shadow over the whole of the negotiations.Many of the arguments used in the discussion are equally relevant to the destruction and to the subjection of Melos. This is partly a result of the Athenian aim: to impress their island-subjects with their power. This they can achieve by forcing Melos to become a subject—but equally well by destroying it. On the level of expediency the Athenian argument would be equally applicable to either course, and the tactlessness of the Athenians suggests that they are not much concerned which of the two they will adopt. The Melians on the other hand appear to anticipate their own rejection of the ultimatum and to include the consequences of this inevitable rejection within the scope of their arguments. So a debate about the expediency of forcing an independent state to forgo its freedom is at the same time a debate about the expediency of destroying an independent city that refuses to become a subject.