[[174]]
CHAPTER X
THE MELIAN DIALOGUE
The second half of the History opens with a summary and, for the most
part, colourless record of diplomatic negotiations and battles, including a
long description of the victory of Mantinea, which restored the Lacedaemonian
prestige. (note 1) Except in one critical incident, which we reserve for the
next chapter, the story presents no features that call for discussion.
Accordingly we pass on to the end of Book V, where, suddenly, we come upon one
of the most extraordinary and interesting passages in the whole work--the
Melian Dialogue. It is extraordinary because the expedition to Melos,
considered as an episode in military history, was of no importance whatever; if
it had never happened, the main result of the Peloponnesian War would have been
the same. The interest lies in the dialogue which accompanies the narrative;
and here we happen to possess the detailed comments of an ancient critic,
Dionysius, who singles out this passage--as well he might--for special remark.
His observations are instructive, and we shall take note of them as we
proceed.
The narrative begins as follows. (note 2) `The Athenians made an
expedition against the island of Melos.... The Melians are colonists from
Lacedaemon, who would not submit to Athens like the other islanders. At first
they remained quiet and were on neither side, but later, when the Athenians
tried to coerce them by ravaging their land, they had come to open hostilities.
(note 3) The generals of this expedition, Cleomedes
[1. The Second Part begins at v. 26, and the remainder of Book V covers
the years 421-416. [2. v. 84 ff.
[3. See iii. 91.]
[[113]]
and Tisias, encamped with their army on Melos; and before doing any harm
to the country they sent envoys to negotiate. Instead of bringing these envoys
before the people, the Melians asked them to explain their errand to the
mstrates and the chief citizens.'The Athenians sneeringly remark
that the magistrates are evidently afraid of their deluding the people with
seductive arguments; they accept, however, the proposal of a conference, in
which the Melians are to criticize and reply to each statement as it is made.
The Melians answer that they have nothing to say against the quiet interchange
of explanations; (note 1) but, they add, the presence of the army shows plainly
that the Athenians have come, not to argue, but to judge. The alternative
before themselves is war, if they make out the justice of their case, and
slavery, if they are convinced by the Athenians.
From this point to the end, the historian changes from narrative to full
dramatic form, prefixing, as in a play, the names--`Athenians', `Melians,'--to
the speeches. (note 2) The Athenians begin the statement of their case as
follows. (note 3)
Athenians. Well, then, we on our side will use no fine words; we
will not go into a long story, which would not convince you, to prove either
that our empire is justified by our having overthrown the Persians, (note 4) or
that our present attack upon you was provoked by any injury on your part. Nor
is it of any use for you to urge that, although Lacedaemonian colonists, you
have not fought for Sparta, or to plead that you have never wronged us. Let us
both keep to practical matters, and to what we really have in our minds. We
-both know that in human reckoning the question of justice comes up for
decision only when the pressure of
[1. Note how this situation recalls Athens' refusal, prompted by Cleon,
to discuss terms quietly in a private conference with the Spartan envoys
before Sphacteria, iv. 22. [2. Dion. Hal. Thucyd. 37 [[section]]p<
miçw dÉ épokr[[currency]]sevw toËto tÚ
sx[[infinity]]ma diathrÆsaw tÚ dihghmatikÒn, prosvpopoie>
tÚn metå taËta diãlogon ka< dramatikÒn.
[3.
The speeches. are abbreviated.
[4. The standing official justification of
the Athenian empire; cf. vi. 83, &c.]
[[176]]
necessity is equal on both sides; in practical matters the stronger
exact what they can, and the weak concede what they must.
`Thucydides begins,' says Dionysius, `by putting together a statement
which is unworthy of Athens and inappropriate to the circumstances.' The
opening words `amount to a confession that their hostilities are not justified
by any provocation'. The rest comes to this: `You are right in thinking that
you are yielding to coercion; we are not unaware that we are wronging you, and
we intend to get the better of your weakness by violence.' `Such words would
be appropriate to an oriental monarch addressing Greeks (note 1); but it
would not be like Athenians speaking to the Greeks, whom they had freed from
the Persians, to say that while the question of justice is for equals, between
the weak and the strong the issue rests with violence.'
The Melians reply that, if the Athenians will speak only of
expediency and hear nothing of justice, still, even so, it is to their own
interest to listen to reason. If ever they fail themselves, the vengeance that
overtakes them will be a terrible example to mankind. Then they may repent of
having set a precedent of unreasonable severity.
Athenians. We do not look forward with dismay to the fall of our empire, if
it should ever come. The danger is not from Sparta ruling states are not harsh
to the vanquished--but from our own subjects who may rise and overpower their
masters. But you may leave that danger to us. We will now point out that, while
we are here in the interest of our own empire, our present words are designed
to save your city. We want to add you to our empire with the least trouble, and
it is for the interests of us both that you should be preserved.
Dionysius comments: The reference to the clemency of Sparta amounts to
saying `tyrants are not hated by tyrants'.
[1. Thucyd. 39 basileËsi går barbãroiw
taËta prÚw ÜEllhnaw [[yen]]rmotte ldeg.gein.]
[[177]]
`The words "you may leave that danger to us" would hardly have been used
by a wrecker or a pirate, indulging the passion of the moment and regardless of
vengeance to come.'
Melians. It may be your interest to rule, but how can it be ours
to be enslaved?
Athenians. Because by submission you will avert the worst of fates; while
we shall profit by not destroying you.
Melians. But will you not allow us to remain neutral and be friends instead
of enemies?
Athenians. No, your enmity is not half so mischievous to us as your
friendship; to our subjects, your hate is an argument of our power, your
friendship of our weakness.
Melians. But are your subjects blind to the difference between neutrals and
revolted allies?
Athenians. Why, both, in their opinion, have no lack of justification; but
they think that we are afraid to touch you. Thus, besides adding to our empire,
we shall gain in security. As masters of the sea, we cannot afford to let
islanders, and weak ones too, escape us.
Melians. But does not security lie in the opposite course? For, to leave
justice aside, as you direct, and speak only of expediency, will you not turn
all who are now neutral into enemies?
Athenians. We are not afraid of the mainland peoples, who are free and can
take precautions against us at their leisure, but of islanders like you, who
are outside our empire, and of those who are already within it and chafing at
constraint. They are the most likely in their recklessness to bring themselves
and us into a danger which we foresee.
Melians. Surely, if you and your subjects will take all this risk, you to
keep your empire and they to be rid of it, we who are still free should be
cowards to submit to slavery.
Athenians. Not if you prudently reflect. There is no question for you of
honour, or of avoiding the shame of being defeated by equals. You have to think
of saving yourselves, instead of opposing overwhelming strength.
Melians. But we know that the chances of war sometimes
[[178]]
times redress the inequality of numbers. To yield now would extinguish
all hope at once; but if we act we have still a hope of standing
upright.Athenians. Hope is a consolation in danger, and
when men have some other support she may bring them to harm, but not to utter
ruin. But when men stake all they have (for she is naturally a spendthrift), in
the moment of their fall she is recognized for what she is, and nothing is left
them in respect of which they might be on their guard against her, now she is
known. (note 1) You are weak and depend on a single turn of the scale. Do not
choose that fate, like so many who, when ordinary human means might still save
them, in the hour when all their visible hopes fail them at the pinch, turn to
the invisible, to divination and oracles and the like, which ruin men by the
hopes which attend them. (note 2)
`Thucydides,' says Dionysius, `makes the Athenians reply in a style of
labyrinthine contortion, about Hope turning out for evil to mankind. I cannot
understand how any one can praise this passage as appropriate in the mouths of
Athenian officers: that the hope that is from the gods (<= parå
t<<n ye<<n [[section]]lp[[currency]]w) ruins mankind, and that
divination and oracles are no help `to those who have chosen a life of piety
and righteousness. It was the first and highest praise of Athens that in every
matter, and at every season, she followed the gods, and accomplished nothing
without divination and oracles.' `The Athenians' next answer is still more
brutal.'
Melians. We know, you may be sure, how hard our
[1. v. 103 ÉElplen: to>w dcents [[section]]w ëpan tÚ
Ípãrxon énarriptoËsi (dãpan ow går
fÊsei) ëma te gign~sketai sfaldeg.ntvn ka< [[section]]n ~t[[florin]]
[[paragraph]]ti fulãjeta[[currency]] tiw aÈtØn
gnvrisye>san oÈk [[section]]lle[[currency]]pei. The last clause means
that men are so utterly ruined by Elpis that they have no goods left which they
could be on their guard against risking in another venture. [2.
*peidån piezomdeg.nouw aÈtoÁw
[[section]]pil[[currency]]pvsin afl favera< [[section]]lp[[currency]]dew,
[[section]]p< tåw éfane>w kay[[currency]]stantai, mantikÆn
te ka< xrhsmoÁw ka< ~sa toiaËta metÉ
[[section]]lp[[currency]]dvn luma[[currency]]netai. Cf. iii. 45. 5 (Diodotus)
[[yen]] te ÉElp
[[179]]
struggle will be against your power and also against Fortune, if she is
not impartial. Yet we trust that in respect of fortune that is from Heaven
(note 1) we shall not stand lower than you, because we are pure men standing
against the unrighteous. And our weakness will be compensated by the aid of the
Lacedaemonians, who are bound in honour to save their kinsmen. Thus our
boldness is not utterly unreasonable.Athenians. Oh, as for the
favour of the divine, we too do not expect to be left behind. Our claims and
our actions do not go beyond men's common opinions about the divine, or their
wishes for themselves. Of divinity we believe, and of humanity we know, that
everywhere, by constraint of nature, it rules wherever it can hold the mastery.
We did not lay down this law, nor are we the first to observe it; it existed
already when we inherited it, and we shall bequeath it to exist for ever. (note 2) We observe it now with the knowledge that you or any one else, if you had
our power, would do the same. As for the honour of Lacedaemon, we congratulate
your innocence, but do not envy your folly. The Spartans are very virtuous
among themselves; but towards others, a word is enough to describe their
conduct: they are the most notorious instance we know of men who identify the
honourable with the pleasant, and the just with the expedient.
We will follow this horrible conversation no further, but only quote the
conclusion of Dionysius' commentary, which runs thus: `It is clear that the
historian was not present at this conference, and received no report of it from
the Athenians or the Melians who took part in it. From his own statement in the
previous book we know that after his command at Amphipolis he was banished and
spent in Thrace
[1. v. 104 t[[ordfeminine]] mcentsn tÊx[[dotaccent]] [[section]]k
toË ye[[currency]]ou. [2. v. 105 t[[infinity]]w mcentsn
to[[currency]]nun prÚw tÚ ye>on (toË ye[[currency]]ou,
Kruger) eÈmene[[currency]]aw oÈdÉ <=me>w
ofiÒmeya lele[[currency]]cesyai: oÈdcentsn går
[[paragraph]]jv t[[infinity]]w ényrvpe[[currency]]aw t<<n mcentsn
[[section]]w tÚ ye>on nom[[currency]]sevw, t<<n dÉ
[[section]]w sfçw aÈtoÁw boulÆsevw dikaioËmen u
prãssomen. <=goÊmeya går tÒ te ye>on
dÒj[[dotaccent]] tÚ ényr~peiÒn te saf<<w
diå pantÚw ÍpÚ fÊsevw
énagka[[currency]]aw, oÔ ín krat[[ordfeminine]],
êrxein: ka< <=me>w oÎte ydeg.ntew tÚn nÒmon
oÎte keimdeg.n[[florin]] pr<<toi xrhsãmenoi, ^nta dcents
paralabÒntew ka< [[section]]sÒmenon [[section]]w afie<
katale[[currency]]contew xr~meya aÈt".]
[[180]]
all the rest of the years of war. The dialogue is an invention, and the
only question is whether he has made it appropriate to the circumstances and
fitting to the characters of the interlocutors, "keeping as closely as possible
to the general sense of what was really said," according to his own profession
in the proem to the history.`Now, the Melians' words about
freedom, where they appeal to the Athenians not to enslave an Hellenic state
which was doing them no wrong, are suitable both to the speakers and to the
facts. But is there any such propriety in Athenian officers speaking as these
do about justice, not allowing the question to be discussed or mentioned, but
bringing in the law of violence and covetousness, (note 1) and declaring
that the only rights of the weak consist in the pleasure of the stronger? I
cannot think this statement befitting to officers sent on a mission to a
foreign state by the city whose laws were fairest of all.
`Again, the Melians were citizens of an insignificant state which had never
performed any glorious action. The Athenians, on the contrary, had chosen to
abandon their land and their city in the Persian war, rather than submit to a
dishonourable summons. I cannot believe that, while the Melians thought more of
honour than of safety and were ready to endure the last extremity sooner than
be driven to any unseemly action, the Athenians would charge with folly men who
were making the very choice they had made themselves in the Persian invasion.
No, in my belief, if any one else had ventured to speak like this in the
presence of Athenians, he would have grievously offended the men who civilized
the world.
`For these reasons I cannot approve this dialogue, as compared with the other
which I have contrasted with it in detail. In that other the Lacedaemonian
Archidamus makes a just demand to the Plataeans; and the style employed is
clear and pure, without any contorted tropes and incohereneics. In the Melian
dialogue, the wisest of the Greeks produce the most dishonourable arguments,
conveyed
[1. Dion. Hal. Thucyd. 41 tÚn t[[infinity]]w
b[[currency]]aw ka< pleonej[[currency]]aw nÒmon
efisãgontew.]
[[181]]
in a most unpleasing style. Unless indeed we are to suppose that the
historian, nursing a grudge against the city which had condemned him, has
poured upon her all these shames, which were bound to make all men hate
her. (note 1) For the thoughts and words of representatives, entiusted with
high powers to negotiate for their country with foreign states, are always
attributed to the whole community which sends them.'
The ancient critic, we notice, is not quite satisfied with the
explanation, `a personal grudge.' He is dissenting from the common verdict
which singled out this passage in the history for special praise, (note 2) and
the gist of his judgement is that the dialogue is dramatically a failure,
unless indeed we are to think that the improbabilities are due to deliberate
malice. We believe, however, that as before, in the case of Cleon, a personal
grudge is not the whole, or the main, account of the matter; and we think that
the admirers of this passage were better judges than Dionysius of its artistic
quality.
We have already remarked that, as an incident in the Peloponnesian war, the
Melian expedition was a trivial affair; the population of a small island was
wiped out, and that was the end of it. The significance of the event is only
moral, and it is meant to be studied from that side. Our first question is: Why
has Thucydides abandoned his practice of writing public speeches, and preferred
the dramatic form of conversation?
The proposal for a private discussion is made by the Melians and accepted by
the Athenian officers with a sneer. `Well then,' say the latter, `let us have
no fine words about justice on either side, but keep to practical matters, and
say what we really have in our minds.' What the Athenians have in their minds
is then disclosed in all its horrible deformity. The cynical avowal of
unprovoked aggression; `the law of violence and covetousness'; the admission
that what they fear is not the victory of Sparta but the vengeance
[1. Efi mØ êra mnhsikak<<n i suggrafeÁw
t[[ordfeminine]] pÒlei diå tØn katad[[currency]]khn
taËta tå Ùne[[currency]]dh kateskdeg.dasen
aÈt[[infinity]]w, [[section]]j Œn ëpantew misÆsein
aÈtØn [[paragraph]]mellon. [2. Ch. 37 init.]
[[182]]
of their own oppressed subjects;--all this culminates in the blasphemous
insult to heaven. `Of divinity we believe, and of humanity we know that
everywhere, under constraint of nature, it rules wherever it can hold the
mastery. We did not make this law, nor are we the first to observe it. It
existed already when we inherited it; we shall bequeath it to exist for ever.'
Words to make the blood of any Greek run cold, even without the ghastly
reminiscence of Antigone's appeal to the over-ruling Law of
God:Not of to-day nor yesterday, it lives
For ever, and none knows from whence it dawned.
But there is
another reminiscence, no less significant. When Xerxes calls together the
Persian nobles to lay before them his design of conquering Greece, the speech
put in his mouth by Herodotus (note 1) opens thus: `Persians, I shall not lay
down a new law among you which I myself have introduced, but I shall observe
one that I have received from them that were before me. For, as I learn from
older men, we have never reposed ourselves since we took the supremacy from the
Medes... but God thus leads us on, (note 2) and we, following this guidance in
many enterprises, are much advantaged.'
Dionysius, as himself a Greek, feels that the language which Thucydides assigns
to the Athenians is `fit only for an oriental monarch', and that no Greek could
have used it;--except, we will add, on one condition: that the speaker be
mad. And, In fact, as we read the dialogue, the impression deepens that the
Athenian spokesman is out of his right mind. We can, moreover, put a name to
the special form of his madness, which shows the peculiar symptoms of a state
classed, perhaps rightly, by the Greeks as pathological. The two notes of it
are Insolence (Ïbriw) and Blindness (êth, in the subjective sense).
`Insolence' is a weak translation of the Greek term, which covered two types of
insane exaltation, distinguishable, but closely allied. One is exuberant,
sanguine, triumphant, fed by alluring
[1. Herod. vii. 8. [2. YeÒw te oÏtv êgei. Cf.
Soph. Ant. (loc. cit. infra, p. 184) ye
[[183]]
Hope, leaping to clasp hands with unconquerable Desire. The other is
cold-drawn, masked, cruel, cynical, defiant of the gods, self-assured of its
own worldly wisdom. The former type we shall meet with presently; the latter is
portrayed with finished art in the dialogue which leads up to the Melian
massacre. Both are blind,--blind to the doom towards which the one speeds
exultingly, blind to the vengeance which the other impiously
denies.This effect of blindness comes out curiously in an
utterance of the Athenians later in the dialogue: (note 1) `Surely you are not
going to turn to that sense of `honour' which ruins so many when
dishonour and danger stare them in the face Many whose eyes were still
open to the end whither they were borne have been drawn on, under the powerful
spell of a mere name, by this so-called `honour', until, victims of a
phrase, they have voluntarily fallen up: irremediable calamities and sunk by
their folly to a deeper depth of dishonour than fortune would have
inflicted.' Observe how in this sentence afisxÊnh is used both in the
moral sense of `honour', and to mean merely the disgrace of being beaten. The
speaker is not conscious of any change of meaning; ho has lost all sense of the
difference between honour and success, dishonour and defeat. He is already
smitten with the blindness by which insolent cruelty brings vengeance on
itself.
`Reverence, daughter of Forethought, crowns mankind with goodness and with
joys. But over them steals a dim mist of unconsciousness and turns aside the
straight path of action, away from right-mindedness.' (note 2)
Thucydides' first reason for choosing the dialogue form is that this
pathological state of mind cannot be directly
[1. v. 111. 3 oÈ går dØ [[section]]p< ge tØn
[[section]]n to>w afisxro>w ka< proÊptoiw kindÊnoiw ple>sta
diafye[[currency]]rousan ényr~pouw afisxÊnhnh trdeg.cesye. pollo>w
går proorvmdeg.noiw [[paragraph]]ti [[section]]w o[[perthousand]]a
fdeg.rontai tÚ afisxrÚn kaloÊmenoon ÙnÒmatow
[[section]]pagvgoË dunãmei [[section]]pespãsato
<=sshye[[currency]]si toË =Æmatow [[paragraph]]rg[[florin]]
jumfora>w énhkdeg.stoiw énhkdeg.stoiw *kÒntaw peripese>n,
ka< afisxÊnhn afisx[[currency]]v metÉ éno[[currency]]aw
[[partialdiff]] tÊx[[dotaccent]] proslabe>n. [2. Pindar, Ol.
vii. 43; cf. l. 89.]
[[183]]
The Athenians, on the eve of the Sicilian expedition, are good
counsellors to warn the Melians against spendthrift Hope! The irony is repeated
at the close of the conference. The Melians had ended with a renewed
declaration of trust in `the fortune from the divine which hitherto has
preserved them' and in the help of Lacedaemon. The Athenians reply: `Well, we
must say that this decision of yours makes us think you altogether singular in
the way you count upon the future as clearer than what is under your eyes, and
contemplate things unseen as alieady being realized in your fond wishes. The
more completely you have staked all on the Lacedaemonians and Fortune and
Hopes, the more utter will be your ruin.' (note 1)
The speaker is unconscious that even now Hope is busy in attendance at Athens,
with her Battering suggestion of the wealth in Fortune's store. In the impious
exaltation of strength he is unaware of the haunting Spirit of Delusion at his
side, who will be known for what she is only in the moment of Athens' fall. The
`dim mist of unconsciousness' has stolen down upon him; he is smitten with
madness-- blind.
The thoughts and words of representatives, as Dionysius says, are always
attributed to the whole community which entrusts them with their mission.
Thucydides intends us to feel, with no opening for mistake, that Athens was mad
when she committed this act of unprovoked, insolent cruelty, comparable with
the act which Cleon had formerly advised and of which she had repented just in
time. There was no repentance now. `The siege was pressed hard, there was
treachery among the citizens themselves, and Melos surrendered at discretion.
The Athenians thereupon put to death all the adult males whom they caught, and
sold into slavery the children and the women. Later, they colonized the island
themselves, sending thither five hundred settlers.'
[1. v. 113 éllÉ oÔn nÒmoi ge
épÚ toÊtvn t<<n bouleumãtvn, ...w <=m>n
doke>te, tå mcentsn mdeg.llonta t<<n irvmdeg.nvn safdeg.stera
kr[[currency]]nete, tå dcents éfan[[infinity]] t" boÊlesyai
...w gignÒmena >=dh yeçsye, ka< Lakedaimon[[currency]]oiw ka<
TÊx[[dotaccent]] ka< ÉElp[[currency]]di ple>ston dØ
parabeblhmdeg.noi ka< pisteÊsantew ple>ston ka<
sfalÆsesye.]
[[184]]
unfolded in a public speech designed to convince a large audience.
Another motive which may have influenced him is that this form is better suited
to dramatic irony. The reader who has followed us so far will not have missed
the passage, which excites Dionysius' astonishment, where Thucydides `in a
style of labyrinthine contortion makes the Athenian speak of Hope as turning
out for evil to mankind'. Again we find Elpis spoken of as a personal agency.
`Hope is a consolation in danger, and when men have something else to depend on
she may bring them to harm, but not to utter ruin. But when men stake all they
have (for she is naturally a spendthrift), in the moment of their fall she is
recognized for what she is, and nothing is left them in respect of which they
might be on their guard against her now she is known.' This sentence is almost
paraphrased from a chorus in the Antigone, where Sophocles sets forth
the theological theory of Delusion sent by God upon a doomed sinner in the form
of passionate Ambition.`For that far-roving Hope, though many
men have comfort of her, to many is a Delusion that wings the dreams of Desire;
and he whom she haunts knows nothing till he bum his foot against hot fire. For
with wisdom hath one given forth the famous saying that, soon or late, evil
seems good to him whose mind God draws to ruin: and from the blindness of that
ruin his acts are free no more than for a moment's span.' (note 1)
[1. Soph. Antigone 616:--ÑA går dØ
polÊplagktow ÉElpw mcentsn ^nasiw
éndr<<npollo>w dÉ ÉApãta koufonÒvn
[[section]]r~tvn:efidÒti dÉ oÈdcentsn ßrpei,prn potÉ
[[section]]sylÚnt"dÉ [[paragraph]]mmen ~t[[florin]]
frdeg.nawyeÚw êgei prÚw êtan:prãssei dÉ
Ùl[[currency]]giston xrÒnon [[section]]ktÚw êtaw.
The last line means that he will soon commit the fatal act, to which blindness
(êth) makes him liable, which Elpis-Apatê prompts, and which
precipitates Ruin (ÖAth).]
[[186]]
In the older histories it was the custom at this point to censure
Thucydides for recording the massacre with no expression of disapproval!
Whose doing was this? Thucydides has not told us who played on this
occasion the part which Cleon played in the massacre of Mytilene; but Plutarch
informs us. (note 1) It was Alcibiades. The biographer tells how his public
munificence, his illustrious birth, his eloquence, his bodily strength and
beauty, disposed the Athenians to indulge his lawlessness and give it the
mildest names--of boyish frolic and ambition. Once he shut up the painter
Agatbarchos in his own house till his portrait was finished, and then gave him
the house for his fee. He beat Taureas, in a fit of pique, because he had been
his successful rival in providing a chorus. He selected a woman from among the
Melian prisoners, and reared the child he had by her. `Even this the
Athenians would have called kindhearted; only that he had been chiefly
responsible, by supporting the decree, for the massacre of all the adult male
inhabitants of Melos.'
A dark passage this, which Thucydides, for whatever reason, has omitted. Had
the stern historian a touch of weakness which disposed him, not, like his
countrymen, to use mild names, but to draw a veil over some part of the
brilliant picture? Or--a likelier supposition--is he reserving Alcibiades for a
different and more characteristic effect? Cold-blooded cruelty was not the
dominant trait in that mutable disposition; he kindly reared the child of his
Melian captive, whose father, brothers, husband, perhaps, had perished by the
decree which he supported. He may have remembered the compassion of Ajax for
his Trojan captive, Tecmessa, and for their infant child Eurysakes, `whelp of a
liones forlorn,' (note 2) from whom Alcihiades' family traced their descent
(note 3); for his own father, Cleinias, had died in battle, and left him to the
guardianship of his kinsman, Pe,icles, as Ajax left Eurysakes to Teucer.
[1. Plut. Alc. xvi. [2. Soph. Ajax 545-653; 986 ...w
ken[[infinity]]w skÊmnon lea[[currency]]nhw.
[3. Plato, Alcib.
l. 121 A, Alcibiades says, ka< går tÚ <=mdeg.teron
(gdeg.now énafdeg.retai), Œ S~kratew, e[[perthousand]]w
EÈrusãkh.]
[[187]]
Here, perhaps, we may see another motive for the choice of the dialogue
form. One alternative would have been to report the debate in the Athenian
assembly, at which the decree of massacre was moved; but a speech from
Alcibiades in support of it would have been too close and obvious a parallel to
Cleon's Mytilenean speech. Alcibiades is not to appear like a second Cleon; for
it was not he, but Athens, that was mad and blinded with the thirst of gain and
the thirst of blood. So the historian saw her; so also did Euripides. The
prologue to the Trojan Women, (note 1) first performed in the interval
between the massacre of Melos and the Sicilan expedition, ends
thus:--How are ye blind,
Ye treaders down of cities, ye that cast
Temples to desolation, and lay waste
Tombs the untrodden sanctuaries where lie
The ancient dead; yourselves so soon to die!
[1. Eur. Troades, 95, Mr. Gilbert Murray's version. See also Mr.
Murray's Introduction to his translation of the play.]