And the weak suffer what they must pdf

Short Answer Questions Based On Class Readings

I have attached all the questions below, I need to answer all of them for the final portfolio in one of my class and I am not able to answer them all before the due date which is 11/30/2015. I can provide you all the texts that professor updated online, but there are some books I purchased in bookstore I am not able to provide you, but I am sure you can find free PDF if you Google it. More than half of the questions my sweet professor has provided either page numbers or paragraph numbers to us so I am sure it wouldn't take much time to find answers in these articles. Anybody if you can help me out please contact me: )

Ashbrook Statesmanship Thesis Recipient of the 2008 Charles E. Parton Award

1

POWER AND PRETEXT: THE STATUS OF JUSTICE IN THUCYDIDES

Caitlin Poling

INTRODUCTION

Thucydides wrote The History of the

Peloponnesian War “believing that it would be a great war, and more worthy of relation than any that had preceded it” (1.1.1). 1 He described the Peloponnesian War as the “greatest movement yet known in history,” because this conflict affected almost all of mankind (1.1.2). The Peloponnesian War included all of the Greeks and most of the Barbarians as well. This war was a universal war, involving everything that is found in human nature. It affected the two poles of “Greekness” that represented two vastly different ways of life under the idea of being Greek. Sparta and Athens are fundamental opposites, among which are their public positions regarding the status of justice in international relations. The war between them revealed their differences and contrasted fundamental truths about human existence. Thucydides also believed it im- portant to record episodes involving the war between the two most powerful cities, especially since both combatants were per- fectly prepared and at the highest ability to

Caitlin Poling, of Grosse Ile, Michigan, will graduate from the Ashbrook Scholar Program in Spring 2009, having majored in Political Science, International Business, and French. 1 Robert B. Strassler, ed. The Landmark Thucydides: A Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996). Note: from here on reference to this book will be cited parenthetically by book and paragraph number.

fight because they were at their peak condition in terms of their chosen way of life. Thucydides believed that the greatest rest would give rise to the greatest motion. Before the Peloponnesian War was a great time of rest, allowing the two cities to build up to their full potential. According to Strauss, “Thucydides surely lets us see the universal in the individual event which he narrates and through it: it is for this reason that his work is meant to be a possession for all times.”2 From a particular event, uni- versal truths can be found that are useful for all of mankind to know. Lessons about the tendencies of human nature can be culled from particular events and can be applied to others. Specifics may change, but the under- lying principles and stimuli will remain fundamentally similar. Because of the fundamental immutability of human nature, we know that situations in politics will remain fundamentally the same.

Whether or not one believes that Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War is “a possession for all time” depends upon one’s view of whether history can be the vehicle for political understanding (1.22.4). Those with a progressive or linear view of history would not accept Thucy- dides as a valuable resource for the present and future.3 To hold a progressive view of

2 Leo Strauss. The City and Man (Chicago: The

University of Chicago Press, 1964). 143. 3 Hegel, Kant, and Marx, for example, all have

progressive views of one kind or another. They differ in several aspects, but they hold the same general idea on the progressive nature of history and mankind. All are marked by the idea of the cessation of conflict in human affairs.

Power and Pretext: The Status of Justice in Thucydides

2

history is to believe in the perfectibility of man; men become better and perfected as history progresses. In this view mankind will eventually progress beyond war and dispute and reach a state in which perpetual peace or the perfection of mankind is reached. In the ultimate state of perpetual peace, all problems will be solved by debate, discussion, and contemplation. In this utopia, no country will be armed or pose a threat to another. This view of the perfect- ible nature of mankind and our ability to progress to a plateau of perpetual peace is not compatible with the principles demon- strated in Thucydides. Those who hold a progressive view of history believe that they are above the ancients such as Thucydides as they had achieved advancements in technological, scientific, and moral know- ledge since the time of Thucydides. Progressives or idealists would believe that the nature of mankind has advanced beyond that which was described in Thucydides in the sense that certain political alternatives are no longer available to human beings because we have proceeded past them with our newfound knowledge. Therefore, the wealth of knowledge present in Thucydides would be, for the most part, ignored by idealists and be of no value to them.

In all reality, history has proven Thucydides correct. His work, indeed, has revealed itself to be “a possession for all time.” Because human nature is not entirely malleable, similar situations are likely to occur in history. By saying that human nature is immalleable, it is to say that funda- mental aspects of human nature do not change with the passage of time or techno- logical advances. Because of this lack of malleability in human nature, it is useful to look to history as a guide in making current decisions. This is true because history is not linear or progressive by nature. Thucydides does not hold history as locked in a set pattern – progressive or otherwise – but he

does demonstrate a kind of consistency based on the fundamentally consistent nature of the world and the nature of human beings responding to that world. The moderns are no greater than the ancients because human nature does not alter with the passage of time. Because of this funda- mental consistency, the present must reflect the past; history often repeats itself – only with differences in details. Not everyone chooses to accept Thucydides’ account of the war as a true history. Many claim his work to be too poetic to be considered a scientifically historic work. Much of this controversy lies in the methodology in which Thucydides chose to write the History. As opposed to writing the exact facts and the word by word speeches, he admitted that some deviations from what really happened occur in his work. Thucydides plainly stated at the onset of his work that he was not present at every speech given, nor was he reiterating them word for word. Instead Thucydides told us that “my habit has been to make the speakers say what was in my opinion demanded of them by the various occasions, of course adhering as closely as possible to the general sense of what they really said” (1.22.1). Thucydides’ method in presenting the speeches was to write them as he considered they should have been spoken. While he maintained the general body of the speech, he added his own flavor. He would put himself in the speaker’s position, circumstances, and current situations. He then articulated the means by which, in his judgment, the position could have been better presented. Thucydides chose to employ the method of writing that he did because of his understanding of history. His aim was not to present a perfect depiction of particulars. The particulars, while necessary, were not considered by him to be the most important matter at hand. The most important element of the History is the

Ashbrook Statesmanship Thesis Recipient of the 2008 Charles E. Parton Award

3

lessons that Thucydides tried to convey to the reader about how humans will tend to act and predictably react given certain situations and choices. Because of his understanding of the flow of human choice and reaction in history, Thucydides believed that these lessons will be of use in predicting and anticipating future political events.

The absence of romance in my history will, I fear, distract somewhat from its interest; but if it be judged useful by those inquirers who desire an exact knowledge of the past as an aid to the understanding of the future, which in the course of human things must resemble if it does not reflect it, I shall be content. In fine, I have written my work, not as an essay which is to win the applause of the moment, but as a possession for all time. (1.22.4)

According to Strauss, Thucydides rewrote the speeches so that they would become true; “the true speech is the speech as heard by the man of the highest political under- standing.”4

However, Thucydides chose to write much of his account in the form of dialogues as a poetic imitation of political life. In discussions between nations, Thucydides wanted the outsider to see both sides and determine on their own what lessons need to be taken from the situation. He imitated political drama which is what one sees in their current surroundings. The right and wrong are not presented nor are lessons which could be learned obviously presented. He does not give us the answers, but forces us to look at the big questions ourselves. Like in the History, one must use their own

4 Leo Strauss, The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989), 94.

judgment to determine appropriate applica- tion in daily political life.

In my opinion, Thucydides is more of a historian than are the “scientific historians” of today because he went to extreme measures to ensure that he wrote an unbiased history of the events. “Scientific historians” write histories that are as they see the event and are one-sided; therefore they present us with a biased account of history because they do not present all sides. Thucydides is superior because he gives both sides of the argument in all their partiality. He used the dialogue format in effort to present that the views of the political actors in his account did not necessarily reflect his own views. Thucy- dides intended his work to be used “by those inquirers who desire an exact knowledge of the past as an aid to the understanding of the future, which in the course of human things must resemble it if it does not reflect it” (1.22.4). A one-sided account of events would not allow for the clearest reflection upon the past to aid in understanding future events. For this reason, some refer to Thucydides as “the most political historian, the greatest political historian of all times, the man who has grasped and articulated most fully the essence of political life, the life of politics as it actually is.”5

Many lessons can be drawn from Thucydides, but one of the most crucial lessons central to The History of the Pelo- ponnesian War is the concern for justice in international relations. In each situation, questions involving right and wrong arise. However, there is no party who appears to be obviously just or correct in its actions, often due to pretexts and manipulation. One is left to wonder what the outcome would be if one party acted differently or used different words to persuade the people. Thucydides passes no judgment on the 5 Strauss, Rebirth, 75.

Power and Pretext: The Status of Justice in Thucydides

4

outcomes, but rather leaves it to the reader to interpret and struggle with the big questions. In reading Thucydides, several questions come to mind. Does justice act as the motivating factor among nations? If not, what does? Finally, what is the effect upon the citizen and the polis if a nation denies the idea and very existence of justice?

THE FIRST MEETING OF THE PELOPONNESIAN LEAGUE

In the first book of the History of the

Peloponnesian War, Thucydides addresses the real cause versus the propaganda cause of the Peloponnesian War. At this time, both Athens and Sparta were enjoying peace. However, tensions were mounting between them and their allies. The final straw leading to war between Athens and Sparta was the war between the Corinthians and the Corcyraeans. After coming to a stalemate in the war, the Corinthians began to build up their navy immensely to defeat the Corcyraeans (1.31). The Cocyraeans were greatly dismayed once they heard news of this and were frightened. They lacked allies for they were members neither in the Delian nor Peloponnesian League. Panicked, the Cocyraeans sent envoys to Athens to ask for a protective alliance. The Corinthians dis- covered the plans of the Corcyraeans to do so and they also sent an envoy to Athens. The Corinthians attempted to prevent the Athenians from granting an alliance with Corcyra.

Historically, the Corcyraeans prac- ticed an isolationist policy. They avoided alliances, finding them to be unnecessarily risky. The Corcyraeans did not care to ally themselves with others thinking they could avoid taking risks at the choice of their allies (1.32). However, this isolationist policy left Corcyra a solitary entity in the face of a much larger enemy. The Corcyraeans

present three rationales for the Athenians to agree to an alliance. First, they appeal to justice. They claim that the Athenians would be assisting a nation that had been treated unjustly by others. Secondly, the Corcy- raeans claim that by assisting them, the Athenians would forever be given great gratitude and their goodwill would not be forgotten. Lastly, they appeal to the self- interest of the Athenians. The Corcyraeans were the second greatest naval power in all of Greece. Athens being the greatest naval power would, by acquiring Corcyra, become the strongest at sea by far. They state that out of fear, the Spartans want to go to war against Athens, and strengthening their navy through an alliance would have served only to benefit Athens. The Corcyraeans even suggest preempting the Spartans in this war, and going after them first before they could plot against Athens (1.33).

Fully aware that the Athenians and Spartans were under a truce, the Corcy- raeans ensure Athens that by entering into this alliance, they would not be breaching the preexisting treaty with Sparta. The alliance was only a defensive one to protect Corcyra (1.35). Corcyraean emissaries point out that if the Athenians were to refuse a protective alliance with them, they may later find the Corcyraeans as allies of the Peloponnesians. In addition, Corcyra has a strategically opportune location for Athens: en route to Sicily, a crucial naval crossing point to Sparta (1.36).

After pleading their position, the Corinthians speak. They argue that the Corcyraeans acted unjustly in isolating themselves. They also claim that they had never acted unfairly towards the Corcy- raeans or any of their colonists, as their policy was to act justly. The Corinthians believe it to be unfair and unwise for the Athenians to protect a nation that has never shared their power with Athens (1.39). Corinth was currently in a treaty with

Ashbrook Statesmanship Thesis Recipient of the 2008 Charles E. Parton Award

5

Athens. Corcyra had never been in any political agreement with Athens. Why should they choose to help them? Because of this situation, the Corinthians threaten hostility and retribution if this alliance should occur (1.40). Corinth went so far as to remind Athens of past assistance, such as in the war with Aegina and the revolt of Samos. They demand gratitude. Instead of allying themselves with Corcyra, Athens should return the past favors of Corinth and avoid enmity. In light of all of these arguments, the Corinthians state that it would be in the Athenians’ best interest to reject the demand of Corcyra. The ominous overtones are far from lucid argument.

Realizing the eminence of war with the Peloponnese, Athens chose to ally herself with Corcyra (1.44). They believed that the powerful fleet of Corcyra and their strategic positioning en route to Sicily would prove insurmountable to Athens in a war against Sparta.

Corcyra appealed to justice, grati- tude, and the self-interest of Athens. While these may have been perfectly valid arguments, Corcyra used them as pretexts to conceal their true motive. More than likely, their concern was merely for their own self- interest. Their concern for justice was in their own interest: they were being bullied by other nations. The gratitude promised to the Athenians was also due to the same motive. They promised to be useful to the Athenians not for the good of Athens, but for their own preservation.

Similarly, Corinth appealed to justice as well as to the self-interest of Athens. Corinth believed it was unjust for Corcyra to isolate herself. After all Corcyra had never shared power with Athens before, why should she benefit from it now? They also stated that it would be in Athens’ best interest to avoid alliance with Corcyra; if they did pursue such an alliance, Corinth would retaliate. This sounds more like a

threat than an appeal to the self-interest of Athens. It is quite apparent that Corinth too was covering its true motives with pretexts.

Athens, as a polis of realists, disregards both arguments. Instead, they choose what they find to be in their best interests. Corcyra’s naval power was far too tempting to overlook. Athens plainly dis- regards the treaty with Sparta, acting unjustly. A new alliance, that was not merely defensive as stated before, violated the treaty. However, no consideration trumped that of expedience. The Corcyraean navy would be useful to Athens in the eminent war against Sparta.

Potidaea was a member of the Delian League that shared ancestry with Corinth being one of their colonies. The Corinthians threatened that if Athens interfered with a colony of Corinth, they would not hesitate to interfere with one of theirs. Athens sought to interfere with Corcyra so Corinth, an ally of Sparta, encouraged Potidaea to act against Athens (1.56). With a Spartan promise to invade Attica, the Potidaeans revolted against Athens even though they were tributary allies (1.58). The wheels were set in motion for war. The essential point to see here is that Corinth actually put its threat against Athens into action. This can be contrasted with the Melians who could never do that. The Corinthians were strong enough to retaliate against Athens. The Melians were not.6

Coincidence plays into politics. It so happened that an embassy of Athenians was present in Sparta and heard that speeches would be offered at the Spartan Assembly; the subject being the matter of war (1.72). Four speeches are tendered. Representatives of Corinth, Athens, Sparta, represented by Archidamus the king, and the war party spoke. The finger pointing begins with the Corinthians, laying blame at the feet of 6 See Melian Dialogue.

Power and Pretext: The Status of Justice in Thucydides

6

Sparta for allowing Athens to become entirely too powerful. In earlier years, Sparta could have easily accomplished defeat of Athens. With her increased strength, a victory by Sparta would have a lesser chance to occur (1.69). By allowing Athens to grow and imperialize, a boiling point is near. Corinth next places blame on the Spartans. They call them homebodies lacking motivation to leave Sparta. Traditionally the Spartans were quiet, trustworthy, and perceived as “safe” (1.70). The Corinthians directly place responsibility on the head of the Spartans for, by their acquiescence, they allowed the strengthen- ing of Athens and the building of walls following the Persian War. For all intents Spartans were a law abiding body. Their preliminary concern was to conserve what they had. They saw no immediate need for expanding. This is due to the nature of their laws, as given by Lycurgus.

The Corinthians juxtapose their view of Sparta with that of Athens. The Athenians are innovative, quick, courageous, enterpris- ing, and covetous (1.70.2). In contrast, the Spartans are passive, conservative, cautious, and slow to act. The Athenians were never at rest while the Spartans prefer to be at rest. The Corinthians blame the old-fashioned habits of Sparta as the reason that they could not accurately perceive Athenian innovation and action as a threat. The main point made by juxtaposing Athens to Sparta is to show that nations have characters that are formed by their regimes and laws. People living under monarchies act differently than do those under democracies. Athenians without their city are fine; they were self-sufficient. The Spartans without their city are lost and worthless. The Spartans are meant to take offense to this. They are meant to be inspired to motion (similar to that of the Athenians) to fight the Athenians. However, does this not suggest that the Athenian way of life is better?

The Athenians then state that they were not going to offer defense on the allegations against their breach of treaty (1.73.1). However, they want to remind the Spartans of their merits and show how they were entitled to their possessions. They remind the Greeks that they helped save Greece from the Persians, especially at the Battle of Marathon and in numerous naval victories (1.73.4). This is used to justify their empire. Their past actions do not merit their unpopularity among the Greeks. At one point in the Persian War, the Spartans deserted the Greeks, while the Athenians led them to victory. In defense of their empire, they claim that they were moved by necessity in three ways: fear, honor, and interest. In fact, given this situation, any of the other Greek poleis would have done the same thing. Fear was the most excusable of their three justifications. No one can deny the right of a nation to defend itself (1.76.2). The Athenians claim that if Sparta were in the same situation, they would have done the same thing. However, Sparta would have ruled over their empire in a worse manner than Athens. Sparta, due to their regime, would have acted more tyrannically towards their imperial subjects. The Athenians, as a product of democracy, claim to rule subjects in a moderate and measured method because it is in their interests to do so (1.76.4). They were moderate within the bounds of necessity. However necessity moderates everyone, and despite this, the Athenians ruled justly and moderately over their empire. The Greeks should have been thankful to have Athens do so, because not all nations would do the same in their place.

The Athenians claim that “it was not we who set the example, for it has always been the law that the weaker should be subject to the stronger” (1.76.12). They bring up the idea that the strong shall rule the weak. This statement has no consider-

Ashbrook Statesmanship Thesis Recipient of the 2008 Charles E. Parton Award

7

ation to justice as a reason for rule, only power.

When calculations of interest have made you take up the cry of justice – a consideration which no one ever yet brought forward to hinder his ambition when he had a chance of gaining anything by might. (1.76.14- 16)

The Athenians also point out that it is only in a situation where they are threatened that the Spartans cry out for justice. The Spartans feared Athenian power and resorted to the cry of justice to cloak their self-interest. On the contrary, the Athenians claim that those who are powerful never bring up justice to gain anything for they do not have the need for that claim. They did not deny the existence of justice in international relations, but they did deny its applicability in all situations. Justice plays an important role in settling arguments, but only when it can be used among equals. Otherwise, it is appealed to by the weaker party to protect themselves from the stronger party. Finally, the Athenians remind the Spartans that this argument would end in one of two choices: arbitration or war, so they should decide carefully (1.78). While the Corinthians tried to inspire Athenian style motion in the Spartans, the Athenians attempt to inspire the opposite, hoping that reminding the Spartans of their great power and of the fact that a good deal should be considered before entering war would encourage them to stick to their tendency to rest. Thucydides placed a lot of importance upon the Athenian embassy. The members remained nameless to give the effect that it could have been any Athenian

speaking.7 They were also unique in that they were not sent by their city to defend their city, and they gave a speech to do so outside their own city. The Athenians spoke frankly, even though they were not officials of Athens, thus demonstrating the power of Athens. The powerful do not have to cloak their true meanings in the idea of justice or with excuses. The powerful can speak freely and openly of their actions to anyone – even if they are not of the ruling class of the polis. This immediately proved the Corinthian point to be true: Athenians functioned perfectly well both in and out of the city. They did not rely on the city for their ability to speak and act. Spartans outside of the city, on the contrary, acted according to no law but only to their own will. They tended to be rude, destructive, and menacing (1.77.6). They did not know how to act outside of their polis, free of laws. They were not educated by their regime to function as individuals outside of their polis, so they did not know how to do so. Once the Athenians began to speak, it is obvious that they did not come to make an apology. The intent was to advise the Spartans to make their move carefully and only after slow deliberation. This speech was bold, frank, and filled with candor. Neither explanation nor interpreters were required. There was a bone of contention here, however, between the direction Thucydides believed Athens to provoke thought as opposed to that stated by Athens. It was Thucydides’s assertion that the Athenian intent was to cause Sparta to remain at rest by the great power of the city. The Athenians claim that they merely spoke to the city in a reasonable, fair light in order to validate the worthiness of their city in holding such an empire.

7 Michael Palmer, Love of Glory and the Common Good (Lanham: Roman & Littlefield Publishers, 1992), 49.

Power and Pretext: The Status of Justice in Thucydides

8

Next, the king of Sparta, Archidamus speaks. He represents the peace party of Sparta. He is known to be wise, moderate of soul, and wanted peace. He states that if the Athenians would continue to misbehave, war should be the answer, but carefully considered – even if they must ally them- selves with the Persians! Victory should be thought of as almost certain if war was to be waged. Sparta was a land power; Athens ruled the seas. Attica was the only place that Sparta could devastate, which would not harm Athens much (1.81). In response to the Corinthian claim that the Spartans were too trusting and slow, Archidamus says that they were moderate and had self-control (1.84.2). In response to the Corinthian claim that the Spartans are not taught to think for themselves, he states that the Spartans were not taught to think of themselves as above the laws (1.84.3)! He also mentions the power of chance – things can go wrong easily, so war should only be taken on after careful consideration. Archidamus was considering the practical aspects of politics in his argument. He was most concerned with necessity. War should not be waged on a whim. By entering in such a war, the Spartans could end up destroying them- selves; therefore, they should proceed with caution and only undergo war if is absolutely inevitable. Archidamus appeals to the self-interest of Sparta by saying that the war should be waged with caution. How- ever, he is primarily motivated by fear. Finally, the war party of Sparta speaks, as represented by Sthenelaidas, an ephor of Sparta. He claims that the Athen- ians, in their lengthy speech, only proved to praise themselves and not deny mistreatment of Spartan allies. He also believes that if “they behaved well against the Persians in the past, but ill toward us now, they deserve double punishment for having ceased to be good and for having become bad” (1.86.4). If they had once acted properly towards the

Peloponnesians and now do not, their improper actions were not due to ignorance. To ignore the wrongs of an ally would be unwise. He appeals to honor and justice to motivate the rest of the Spartans to war. He demands immediate retribution for the wrongs done to Sparta. To prevent further Athenian expansion, to uphold the honor of Sparta, and to maintain its present allies, Sparta must act now (1.86). One can see by his argument, the immoderateness of his concern for justice. Precautions and deliberation should be undertaken when determining what is just and unjust, should they not? His concern for justice was feeble, if existent; his main motivation was honor. The assembly then voted for war against Athens, acting against the Spartan tendency of rest.

THE SECOND MEETING OF THE PELOPONNESIAN LEAGUE

At the second meeting of Sparta and

her allies in 440 A. D., the issue of war among the Greeks was discussed. First Corinth speaks, demanding war against Athens (1.119). However, they had pre- viously, on their own accord, solicited the individual poleis for votes in favor of war. They did this out of fear that war may come too late to save Potidaea. Corinth praises Sparta for voting for war and for taking the care to arrange the current assembly of the Peloponnesian League. Corinth refers to this as a duty of Sparta due to their “supremacy” (1.120.4). To earn the honors and prestige of being the leader, Sparta must lookout for the common interest of all members of the Peloponnesian League. In addition, Corinth shows them the risk of allowing Athenian power to go unchecked. The Corinthians note that inactivity is the surest way to lose the goods known to the poleis in their time of peace and reprieve. Peace may always

Ashbrook Statesmanship Thesis Recipient of the 2008 Charles E. Parton Award

9

sound favorable to war, but to sustain their ways of life, war was necessary (1.120). They then try to paint an optimistic image for the rest of the Peloponnesian League to calm their worries. Loans from Delphi and Olympia could surely provide the loans needed to finance such a project (1.121). The Corinthians assure Sparta that with these funds and some practice, the Pelo- ponnesian fleets could soon equal those of Athens. Bribes could be made to allies of Athens to allow for fortifications to be established in Attica. Most importantly, the Peloponnesian League must remain united against Athens, for the lack to do so would result in slavery (1.122). Athens must not be allowed to expand their tyranny. As the Peloponnesians had removed tyrants in individual cities, they must not permit Athens to further their tyranny over all of Greece. It seems as though Corinth is appealing to justice here; no one would claim it is just to rule as a tyrant. They also called to the self-interest of the Peloponnesians; would anyone want to be under the rule of a tyrant? After appeal- ing to justice, Corinth shifts to an appeal to the gods. They claim that the god of Delphi encouraged the war. Such approval for war from the god would only occur if Athens had broken the treaty already (1.123). Therefore, the Peloponnesians would not be in the wrong for warring against Athens. The treaty had already been broken, according to the god of Delphi’s encourage- ment, so the Peloponnesians no longer had a reason to honor it. Corinth states that “the identity of interests is the surest of bonds whether between states or individuals,” that war that may have seemed at first to be only to save Potidaea, but war was really in the interests of all to prevent further Athenian tyranny (1.124.3). Finally, the Corinthians state that a Peloponnesian vote for war was necessary to refuse Athens from attaining her ambition of universal empire (1.124).

The majority voted for war. A year later, war against Athens began (1.125). While Corinth states many reasons to go to war with Athens, the main driving factor was self-interest. They appeal to the honor of Sparta, in an attempt to make them feel shamed if they were not to act. How- ever, was the honor of Sparta really a concern to Corinth? They then appeal to the self-interest of the Peloponnesian League – Athens was becoming too much of a threat to everyone. They also appeal to justice, referring to Athens as tyrants. Finally, the gods are mentioned. If the Oracle at Delphi supports the war, Athens must have broken the treaty – it would be just to retaliate. In reality, Corinth speaks out of self-interest. They do not want their security and well- being to be threatened further by the ever strengthening Athenian empire.

The year between the decision and the outbreak of war was spent searching for the best “pretext for war as possible” (1.126.1). Why did the Peloponnesians feel that they needed a pretext for war? Self- interest and the desire to stop Athenian imperialism could not be the stated causes for war. For some reason, poleis feel that they must appeal to a reason to go to war so that they may justify themselves to any other parties. Humans want to feel in accord with justice, it seems to be in their nature. The reader is shocked about what the Athenians say when they claim that power is the only thing that determined relations between poleis. This is because no one talks like this openly. As long as the idea of justice exists, people will desire to have their motives or causes seem just.

The Spartans send an embassy to Athens demanding that they “drive out the curse of the goddess” (1.126.4). Their stated cause was for the honor of the gods; however, their actual cause proved to be different. Pericles, a powerful Athenian, was known to have a connection to this curse. By

Power and Pretext: The Status of Justice in Thucydides

10

driving Pericles out, Sparta hoped to weaken the Athenians’ leadership and morale (1.127). In response, the Athenians demand that Sparta drives out the curse of the goddess of the Bronze House and the curse of Taenarum (1.128). Sparta then demands that Athens repeal the Megarian Decree, re- establish independence to Aegina, and cease the siege of Potidaea (1.139). Once nations begin going back in history to justify foreign policy, there is no turning back. An endless cycle of past misdoings are brought up and tossed back and forth between parties. All the while, both parties know that these past offenses have absolutely nothing to do with the resolution of the current issue at hand. Ultimately, it is hard to resolve anything when going back in history. The Spartans realized this and abandoned the method pretty quickly. Finally, the Spartan ambassadors arrive with an ultimatum: the only possibility for peace in Greece would be for Athens to dismantle her empire (1.139.3). The previous demands were not even mentioned with this message. By examining what was brought to the table by the Spartan ambassadors in their nego- tiations, it can be inferred that the reason for conflict had nothing to do with the previous demands; they were merely pretexts. The true reason for war, the greatest cause, was that Sparta did not like the amount of power held by Athens. The Athenian empire was perceived as a great threat to Sparta.

Upon receiving this Spartan ultima- tum, the Athenians held an assembly to determine how to proceed. Of the many men who spoke that day, Thucydides chose to include the speech of only one man, Pericles (1.139.4). Pericles was the most influential man in Athens at that time. Pericles begins his speech by noting a key difference between himself and the rest of the Athen- ians. Throughout all circumstances, only he has remained consistent with the same opinion. He is not subject to his passions,

but to his reason and the good of the city. No concessions must be made to Sparta (1.140.1). He also mentions a problem of democracy: The attitude of a nation deciding to wage war is different from the attitude held during war. He knows that should Athens be triumphant, the assembly will take all credit for the idea. In times of peril or hardship, Pericles will take all of the blame. This foreshadows what is to come later.8 After mentioning this problem with decisions made by democratic assemblies, Pericles returns to the situation of the moment.

Pericles firmly states that Athens must not concede to Spartan aggression (1.140). Athens would not be going to war over the Megarian Decree, but for the great- est matters. Pericles understood that the calls to past offenses were merely the pretext for war, but not the real cause. To fight against the Spartans would send a message: this is how they respond under pressure (1.140). To give in to one demand would only open the door for Sparta to ask for more. The Periclean understanding of relations between cities is that if one backs down or enters negotiations, they will become a slave (1.141). By refusing to concede to Sparta’s demands, Athens asserts herself as Sparta’s equal. If Athens were to back down, Sparta could continue to make demands. Athens would then descend into a lowly position, acting as a slave of Sparta. Cities exist in a state of nature with one another; the strong rule. The strength of each city determines its position in international relations. This apparently small matter is a question of Athens’ resolution. It was really the character and position of Athens that was at stake (1.141).

Pericles points out that the Athenians had the advantages of money, a strong navy, and their ability to live off of the sea. The Spartans, by contrast, were farmers who did 8 See Third Speech of Pericles.

Ashbrook Statesmanship Thesis Recipient of the 2008 Charles E. Parton Award

11

not want to leave their land; they were very slow to act. The Peloponnesians were not centrally organized in their league. The Spartans also did not have money (1.142). They also lacked naval training which they could not quickly or easily acquire. Even if Sparta were to receive loans from Olympia or Delphi and bribed Athens’ allies to join their navy, they would still not be a match for Athens’ naval prowess (1.143). Pericles attempts to place the image of Athens as an island in the minds of the Athenians. This was to remind them that they are powerful and self-sufficient, and that they could afford to allow Attica to be attacked (1.143). Pericles’s game plan was indeed to allow Sparta to attack Athens and remain behind the city walls. Athens must not trust her military abilities to fight the Spartans over this territory. This would pose a great risk, because Sparta forms its citizens to be warriors, and Athenians focus more upon naval power. The territory could be sacrificed, and Athens could attack Sparta with her navy and empire, her greatest strengths (1.143). Pericles takes note of the particulars in this situation. He says that

If I had thought that I could persuade you, I would have bid you go out and lay them waste with your own hands, and show the Pelo- ponnesians that this at any rate will not make you submit. (1.144.5)

Pericles is aware that the Athenians will be pained to lose their land and homes in Attica. If he could get them to destroy it themselves, he would do so to prove a point to Sparta: Attica is of no great importance to Athens, and Sparta can invade with full vigor to no result. But, men are attached to their possessions, and Pericles is aware that he cannot sway them to destroy what is their own.

In conclusion, Pericles states that Athens must accept this war as unavoidable. The path to victory would be in focusing on the war against Sparta and not diverting to expand the empire or to take on unnecessary risks. He fears more the mistakes that could be made by Athens than enemy attack. Pericles believes that the only way Athens will lose is if she pursues her empire further during the war (1.144.2). He does not say that it is unjust to expand the empire; he only says that it is not prudent to do so during war. Pericles compares the current situation with the Persian war. He appeals to the glory of the ancestors of the city to motivate the citizens. The Athenians must not fail their fathers by failing to pass on their powerful state to the next generation (1.144). While Pericles suggested a safe and prudent solution to face Spartan attacks, it was also very uncharacteristic of the Athen- ians. The Athenians were a people of motion; the Spartans, a people of rest. This war would serve to reverse their roles, if fought in the manner that Pericles suggests. Pericles plays games with the idea of glory. He appeals to glory in the minds of the Athenians, but he suggests action that is not glorious. The Athenians will want to utilize the war as an avenue for pursuing glory. How can they do this if they are hiding behind their city walls, allowing Sparta free reign to attack the countryside of Attica? Could the Athenians accept this? The war would not be a short one, as Pericles notes; how long could Athens watch Sparta attack their lands without retaliation? This was certainly against the Athenian character. Also, could Athens survive without expand- ing her empire? Once an empire is esta- blished, it seems as though it must continue expanding in order to survive.9 9 See Sicilian Expedition.

Power and Pretext: The Status of Justice in Thucydides

12

MILEAN DIALOGUE

After the successful expedition of Athens against the Spartan colony of Melos, the Athenians encounter another problem regarding resistance in their empire. The Melians, after their defeat, refused to submit to the rule of Athens. Instead of cooperating with their new rulers, the Melians met the Athenians with an air of open hostility (5.84.2). Before doing any harm to the land, the Athenians send an envoy to attempt negotiation with their new subjects. Instead of bringing the Athenian envoys before the people, the Melians gave audience to only the “magistrates and the few” (5.84.3). Because the Athenians were only speaking before the few, and not the many, they suggest an open, honest, and frank debate to the Melians. An open debate would lack the need for deception and allow for interruption and rebuttal. This act demonstrates the power of Athens. Their ability to be frank in an international debate demonstrates that they have the power to do so. The weak tend to avoid such frankness out of fear of retaliation for what was said. The Athenians fear no one and they speak candidly. The Melians agree to such an arrangement, but verbalize that they feel they only had two options: defiance and war or slavery (5.86). According to Palmer, “under such circumstances no fair discussion is possible because the Athenians have come to the debate in full force intending to be judges in their own case.”10 In response, the Athenians express that the debate was only for the Melians’ own good. If they were to stop the debate and the Melians were to continue acting defiantly, the Athenians would physically subdue them (5.87). The Melians agree to continue with the debate, realizing that if they did not they could suffer greatly at the hands of the Athenians (5.88).

10 Palmer, Love of Glory, 65.

The Athenians begin the dialogue by stating their position that the idea of justice is irrelevant in this debate. They claim that “right…is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must” (5.89). The idea of justice only exists in inter- national relations, according to Athens, when the parties involved are of equal power. The Athenians seem to be suggesting that the powerful determine what will occur in international relations; the weak must accept their decisions and submit themselves to a greater power. In response, the Melians try to appeal to expedience. Would it not be useful to the Athenians to be just so that others are kind to them when they fall? A nation cannot be the most powerful forever, history has shown us that. One day, the Melians may be stronger and the Athenians may be weaker. That is the nature of international affairs. This statement by the Melians is an attempt to find an equal ground with the Athenians. It acknowledges the idea put forth by the Athenians, that differences in power are what must be taken into account in international relations and not justice. However, a future threat of a strong Melos seeking vengeance upon a possibly weak Athens was not a very strong argument. The Athenians respond, pointing out the weakness in the argument of the Melians; the future is not the present. Furthermore, they appeal to a different aspect of self-interest. The Athenians claim that it would be in the best interest of both Athens and Melos for the Melians to submit to their rule. Without resistance, the Athenians could absorb the Melians into their expanding empire and the Melians would avoid great suffering and destruction (5.93).

Seeing that they cannot win at this argument, the Melians inquire about the possibility of neutrality. The Athenians, however, would not accept neutrality. The

Ashbrook Statesmanship Thesis Recipient of the 2008 Charles E. Parton Award

13

Melians must be their enemy or their subject. Neutrality would be seen by the rest of the Athenian allies as weakness on the part of Athens. It would also lead these allies to question why they are taking the risk of supporting Athens as an ally when they could just remain neutral, distant from the risk of bloodshed. Independence from Athenian rule must be due to one’s power and nothing else. The Melians try to raise the argument that by accepting their neutrality they will avoid making all other neutrals their enemies. All other neutrals would not fear an attack from Athens claim the Athenians. Melos is a weak island nation that has acted recklessly in their relations with Athens by refusing to comply with their wishes. Land-dwelling neutrals would not see the Athenians attacking a small island nation as a threat, because the situation does not imply an attack to them. The differences in power between Athens and Melos are much greater than between that of Athens and a land neutral; therefore, a land neutral should not fear an Athenian attack for merely being neutral. Athens is also known as the masters of the sea. The fact that Melos is an island makes it important for the Athenians to conquer as masters of the sea; it is seen by some as a stepping stone to conquering Sicily, a lofty goal that hung above them. Yet again, this would not be perceived as a threat to land- dwelling neutrals because the land was not Athens’s forte.

Realizing that their argument met lack luster reviews, the Melians then aban- don their argument of self-interest and appeal to honor as their reason for resist- ance. They claim it would be base and cowardly for the Melians to submit to Athenian rule without any resistance (5.100). The Athenians point out that the Melians could only appeal to honor, similar- ly as with justice, if the two powers at hand were equal (5.101). Since the two were

unevenly matched, the issue of self-preserv- ation was the only one that should be considered. “With honor as the prize and shame as the penalty,” the Melians are sure to lose either way (5.101). They feel it would have been shameful to surrender to Athens without a fight; however, it would have been equally shameful to enter into an unequal fight and lose because they did not recognize that they should not have caused trouble with a party of superior power. Thus the Melians are defeated yet again in the debate.

Finally, the Melians resort to an appeal to hope. They claim that chance would not always be on the side of the strong during battle. Melos could always hope that by some twist of fate they may be victorious to a far more powerful opponent (5.102). The Athenians respond that hope is a foolish resort for the weak to indulge in. Were their powers more equally matched, hope could be a reasonable comfort to the Melians; but, because the Athenians possess such greater power, hope was a delusion (5.103). Further, the Athenians bring up the issue of the divine. They state that even oracles and prophecies could not save the Melians (5.103). The Athenians seem to deny belief in the divine here by referring to the divine as “inventions” of man (5.103.2). They suggested that the idea of the divine was only created by men to give them hope; hope that the weak cling to stupidly. To counter this statement, the Melians claim that the gods would side with them because they are acting justly in this situation. Recognizing the weakness in this statement, they add that if not the gods, the Spartans would spare them – even if it was only to avoid the shame of abandoning an ally (5.104).

The Athenians reply that “of the gods we believe, and of men we know, that by necessary law of their nature they rule wherever they can” (5.105.2). Here they

Power and Pretext: The Status of Justice in Thucydides

14

suggest that they were similar or equal to the gods operating on the same principles. How audacious, a nation that claims to rule as gods! It appalls the reader to see how openly irreverent Athens is in reference to the divine. They claim that they rule as the gods do – but on earth – because they both understand that by nature, one must rule where they can to avoid being ruled. There- fore, the Athenians do not fear disadvantage. According to the Athenians, if anything, the gods would side with the Athenians because they are acting in accord with the law of the cosmos. In response to the possibility of the Spartans being the savior of the Melians, the Athenians put forth that the Spartans would not come to save the Melians because it was not in the best interest of the Spartans to do so (5.105). The Melians attempt to argue that due to their proximity to the Pelo- ponnesus, the Spartans would save them because it is convenient. Also, the Melians and Spartans share common blood and they could plead this to the sentimentality of the Spartans to save them (5.108). The Athenians argue that the Spartans may have been sentimental but they were, more importantly, cautious (5.109). Alluding to the disastrous outcome of the battle at Sphacteria, the Athenians state that it is unlikely for the Spartans to cross the seas alone to fight the Athenians – the “masters of the sea” (5.109). The Melians suggest that the Spartans could even send others to help, or that the Spartans might invade the Athenian lands, attempting to reference the Thracian campaign and Brasidas (5.110).

In response, the Athenians state that none of the arguments made by the Melians have been particularly compelling. Their strongest appeals were to possible future strength and hope, and their actual strength is feeble in comparison to Athens (5.111). They then encourage the Melians to rethink their arguments to try to save themselves from disgrace and destruction. Finally, the

Athenians state that it would not be dishonorable to accept a reasonable offer from the most powerful city in Greece instead of being destroyed by them. The Athenians leave the Melians with a lesson in international relations:

And it is certain that those who do not yield to their equals, who keep terms with their superiors, and are moderate towards their inferiors, on the whole succeed best. (5.111.4)

It seems as though these are the Athenian steps to being successful in international affairs, with regards to differences in power. They then leave the matter to the Melians to consult and decide. The Melians refuse to submit to Athenian rule, and the Athenian siege of Melos began. Several months later, the Melians were forced to surrender; all of the men were put to death, and the women and children were taken into slavery (5.116).

The Athenians personally stated that it would not be within their own interests to destroy the Melians. So why did they do it in the end? The Melians rebelled, after hearing the arguments of the Athenians and knowing that the Athenians believed them to have little chance of victory. To spare the Melians after this rebellion would have sent a message to other Greeks under the rule of the Athenians. Sparing the Melians after their surrender could encourage others to revolt, believing that if they surrendered they too would be spared. Also, to spare the Melians would not give Athens trustworthy allies. The most expedient decision after such a rebellion is to do as the Athenians did and destroy the Melians. The Athenians would rather have had to rule with an iron fist to maintain their power than risk losing it and being ruled by others. As Palmer states, “there are no benefits accruing to weakness in political life and no rewards for

Ashbrook Statesmanship Thesis Recipient of the 2008 Charles E. Parton Award

15

justice.”11 The weaker party, the Melians appealed to justice as opposed to self- interest. It resulted poorly.

As we can see from this situation, “cold, calculated self-interest shows itself to be very powerful in international affairs and concern for justice very weak.”12 To survive, Athens must rule as they see fit to their self- interest. Justice is not to be appealed to in international relations–unless among equals. When dealing with two unequal powers, the strong determines the outcome. While the Melians can try to appeal to expedience, honor, the gods, and the Spartans, the Athenians will win the argument because they hold the most power. It does not matter if the Athenians are just in forcing the Melians to submit to their rule, but they have the might to do so. Words and appeals to different arguments may sound nice, but in the end it is futile to make such arguments unless a nation has the power to back up their words. An empire such as Athens cannot rest. It must always expand to maintain its superior power and the fear and respect of others.13

PLATAEA Having been held under siege by the

Peloponnesians, the Plataeans developed a plan and, with several Athenians, conspired to break away from the Peloponnesians (3.20). The plan was executed and a large party of Plataeans escaped from the besieged city. The majority, however, remained with- in the city and refused to give way to the Peloponnesians. Unable to hold fast against the siege, the Plataeans finally surrender. Under the term of surrender they acquiesce to Sparta and accept them as their judges.

11 Palmer, Love of Glory, 73. 12 Ibid., 64. 13 See Sicilian Expedition.

They are told that the guilty would be punished according to the laws. When the judges from Sparta arrive, no formal charges are given. However, the Spartans only ask “whether they had done the Spartans and allies any service in the war then raging” (3.52.4). Notice that this question did not involve justice, as sending judges would usually imply. Instead, it asks the Plataeans if they had been of use to the Spartans in this war. This question exemplifies that they act purely on their narrow self-interest and there is no attempt to justify action based on any principle. They identify the “just” with what was immediately profitable to them.

The Plataeans respond by stating that the Spartans would not be likely to be impartial in judging their case. They com- plain that they expected to be judged with right and wrong, or justice, in mind and not merely based upon what they did to help Sparta (3.53). The Plataeans claim that the trial would surely be a sham, to gratify a third party – the Thebans. They then remind the Spartans of specific instances in which they had aided the Spartans, such as against the Persians and the Messenian Helots (3.54). The Plataeans then blame the Spartans for their alliance with Athens. It was only due to the fact that they were denied assistance by the Spartans that they were told to ally instead with the Athenians. The Spartans told the Plataeans that they were too far away to assist. Therefore, it was not wrong for the Plataeans to continue to assist Athens, even when the Spartans asked Plataea to desert, because the Spartans once told them to ally with Athens instead. Being loyal to their allies was not wrong, and they should not be punished for it.

In addition, the Plataeans attempt to appeal to the Spartans self-interest by way of their image. They claim that the Greeks look to Sparta as a shining example of justice and honor. However, by passing a sentence based not on justice but on self-

Power and Pretext: The Status of Justice in Thucydides

16

interest, this opinion would change (3.57). If the Spartans were to allow Thebes to destroy Plataea, the Hellenes would no longer see Sparta in a positive light, according to the Plataeans. They then contrast the character of the Thebans against that of their own by comparing how each would care for the graves of fallen Spartans. In the past, the Plataeans tended the graves of the Spartans that fell in their lands to the Persians. Would the Thebans have done the same? The Plataeans consider that to be doubtful (3.58). To conclude, the Plataeans state that they did not surrender to Thebes; they surrender- ed to Sparta. Therefore, it should not be the Thebans left to influence the judgment of Sparta and destroy them (3.59).

After hearing the argument of the Plataeans the Thebans respond, speaking out of fear. They do not want the Spartans to be influenced or persuaded by the words of the Plataeans, so they want to have the final word in the discussion (3.60). The Thebans begin with the origins of their disagreement with Plataea. They claim that the Plataeans, upon the settlement of Boeotia, refused to recognize the supremacy of the Thebans and submit to them. As a result, the Plataeans had always been considered traitors to their land (3.61). In addition, the Plataeans had habitually sided with Athens. They did not submit to the Mede because Athens did not do so, not for a great or just reason. In turn, once Athens began to attack the Hellenes, the Plataeans followed suit (3.62). The Thebans claim that they only submitted to the Medes because they were under a tyranny at the time and had no other choice. In response to the Plataeans alliance with Athens, the Thebans claim that if the only purpose of the alliance was to protect Plataea from Thebes, they should not have joined Athens in attacking others and only beckoned Athens to fight Thebes (3.63).

Thebes also argues that the Plataeans had no motive to ally themselves with the

Athenians. Under their alliance with Sparta against the Mede, the Plataeans were perfectly safe from Thebes – or so they claimed (3.63). As a result, the alliance of Plataea and Athens was completely un- necessary and was a choice made by Plataea. While Thebes did Medize, it was only because they acted under compulsion (3.63). However, the Plataeans try to claim that their unwillingness to Medize was a good done to the rest of Greece while the Thebans claimed that it was only because the Athenians did not Medize as well. Also, the Thebans point out that before the siege, the Plataeans were given a choice to become neutral or to continue to serve Athens. According to Plataea “when the Athenians took the path of injustice you (Plataea) followed them” (3.64.4). While the Thebans once submitted to an enemy, it was under compulsion. They claim that Plataea Attic- ized all too willingly to be forgiven.

In response to the Plataeans’ cries against the Theban invasion during a time of peace, the Thebans do not denounce the action. However, they admit that they only did so because they were invited by a group of Plataeans who seemingly were concerned for the well being of their polis that had Atticized (3.65). Therefore, the blame was not to be placed upon the Thebans, but upon Plataea for Atticizing. According to the Thebans at Plataea, their intentions were not hostile. The Plataeans who encountered the Thebans began the bloodshed and dishonor- ed an agreement to refrain from violence. Not only did Plataea breach the agreement and kill Thebans in Plataea, they also killed Theban prisoners contradicting their prior pledge (3.66). In spite of all of this, the Plataeans continue to point the finger towards Thebes as the unjust party.

In conclusion, the Thebans state that the Plataeans are not deserving of the forgiveness for which they asked. “The pity which they appeal to is due rather to men

Ashbrook Statesmanship Thesis Recipient of the 2008 Charles E. Parton Award

17

who suffer unworthily; those who suffer justly, as they do, are on the contrary subjects for triumph” (3.67.4). Because the Plataeans had acted unjustly, they deserve the punishment that Thebes desires for them. They acted against the law by attacking the Thebans in Plataea, and they did so without compulsion. The Spartans could not allow the eloquent and manipulative speech of the Plataeans to sway their decision away from what they perceived to be just (3.67).

While the Thebans claim to only appeal to justice in their argument, they imply an argument of self-interest to the Spartans. By pointing out that they only Medized under compulsion and that the Plataeans Atticized willingly, the implica- tion was of loyalty. The loyalty of the Thebans proved beneficial to the Spartans, for they were their allies. Had the Spartans spared the Plataeans, it would have been unlikely that they would be truly loyal to Sparta. The Plataeans originally Atticized without threat; they desired to be in cohorts with Athens. Would they have served as a good ally to Sparta if they were spared? Would they have been willing to forget the ties that they willingly forged? The Theban argument surely brought these questions to the minds of the Spartans.

Plataea attempts to justify their alliance with Athens to Sparta – Sparta re- fused them previously. The image of Spartan honor and self-interest was also appealed to by the Plataeans. Truthfully, Plataea is not concerned with Sparta maintaining an honorable appearance. They made these appeals to try to persuade Sparta to side with what is in their interest.

Similarly, Thebes acted out of fear and self-interest as well. They claim that Plataea’s alliance with Sparta was unjust because it was superfluous. Thebes, on the contrary, allied with the Medes only under compulsion. Allying with an enemy can only be just if one is compelled to do so,

according to the Thebans. Using this claim to support their next point, they claim that they would be more loyal allies to Sparta than Plataea could be. Yet again, they are merely making these claims out of fear and self-interest, and not in the true interests of Sparta.

After hearing both sides, the Spartan judges decide to base their decision upon the usefulness of Plataea to them. The Plataeans had done the Spartans no service in war. As a result, the Spartans execute, without exception, all of the Plataean men (3.68). These executions were not without purpose. It was not only because the Plataeans had not proven themselves useful to the Peloponnesian League during the war, but also to avenge the Thebans. By providing revenge for the Thebans, the Spartans pleased them. This action was out of self- interest because at that time, the Thebans were considered particularly useful in the war effort. By pleasing an ally, the Spartans acted in favor of their self-interest. It would not have been expedient to protect Plataea. Had they been spared and agreed to come onto the side of Sparta, they would not likely have been loyal or useful allies. The gratitude held by the Plataeans would have been short-lived. Gratitude held based out of fear is hardly reliable. Had the gratitude been held out of a love of Sparta, it may have been longer lasting. This action would have also upset the Thebans and made them less likely to act in favor of Spartan interests. Even though the Spartans knew that their decision would be based upon self- interest only, they still held a trial for the Plataeans. They had to maintain the appearance of justice before their allies and the rest of Greece. If they had not appeared just to Thebes, they would have been comparable to the tyranny of Athens.

The Spartans may have appeared to be the just polis in the account of the Peloponnesian War, but they were just as

Power and Pretext: The Status of Justice in Thucydides

18

guilty as Athens in acting out of self- interest. The Spartans may not have been as frank as the Athenians were, but they were hypocritical. They allowed themselves to appear to be just, when in truth they acted according to the Athenian Thesis as well. Perhaps this is why Sparta prevailed in the end. They knew how to act in terms of self- interest, but they cloaked it well by maintaining an appearance of acting justly. The trial was indeed as Plataea suspected, merely a sham. By holding the trial, Sparta appeared just and could not be accused of acting like a tyrant. It also gave the citizens of Sparta the belief that their nation believed in and supported the idea of justice. The Athenians openly acted in their own self- interest and with the opinion that the strong determine the fate of the weak, regardless of what is just and regardless of common opinion. This returns us to the idea that human beings need to feel that they are acting in accord with justice. A successful nation will know how to act in its own interest, but present it in a manner that appears just to others and to its own people.

MYTILENIAN DEBATE After attempting to revolt against

Athens unsuccessfully, the Mytilenians faced a grim verdict from the Athenians. By decree, the Athenians stated their intention to kill all of the men and enslave all women and children of Mytilene. The Athenians later chose to reevaluate this decision (3.36). The first decision of the Athenians was made out of anger; this revolt had struck at the heart of the Athenian empire. For one polis to revolt is to threaten the entirety of the Athenian empire. For the empire to be upheld, such rebellions must be crushed. The peace party of Athens brought about a debate on the Mytilenian issue, and they put it to vote.