Does the Melian Dialogue serve as an emphatic continuation of Pericles’ imperialist policy?

PDF (English)
Publiée : Απρ 21, 2025
DOI : https://doi.org/10.12681/pr.v2.35535
Stavros Anastasopoulos
a:1:{s:5:"en_US";s:49:"Ph.D. Candidate in Ancient Greek Philology (NKUA)";}
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5359-3012
Résumé

This article is divided into two parts: in the first part I undertake the weighty task of interpreting the Melian Dialogue – the widely known conversation between the Athenians and the Melians, which took place in 416 B.C. – and then I shed light on the immorality that characterizes the views expressed by the Athenians. Athens seeks to conquer Melos by force, basing its decision on the necessity of Athenian hegemony to constantly expand its territorial borders. The second part of this paper examines the three speeches of Pericles – propounded by Thucydides – and attempts to prove that the Melian Dialogue acts as a faithful continuation of Pericles’ imperialistic orations. In this way, it becomes evident that the Melian Dialogue is not just a circumstantial event, caused by the pain and suffering of the Peloponnesian War, but represents as well a carefully considered expansionist policy put into practice by the Athenians throughout the years.

Article Details
  • Rubrique
  • Articles

Les auteurs dont les articles sont publiés par la revue acceptent les conditions suivantes:

Les auteurs conservent tout droit d’auteur selon la Licence publique Creative Commons Attribution - Utilisation non commerciale - Partage dans les mêmes conditions 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) permettant le partage du travail à condition que le nom d’auteur et la revue PUBLIC REALM soient référés. 

Les auteurs peuvent convenir avec la revue de la distribution non-exclusive du travail publié dans la revue (par exemple, mise dans une base de données institutionnelle ou publication dans un livre), à condition que la première parution soit référée.

Les auteurs sont invités à diffuser leurs travaux (de préférence dans des bases de données institutionnelles ou sur leurs sites personnels) avant et pendant la procédure de soumission afin d’arriver à des échanges fructueux ainsi que d’obtenir au futur plus de citations dès que l’article sera publié.

Téléchargements
Les données relatives au téléchargement ne sont pas encore disponibles.
Références
Anastasopoulos, St. Chr. (2021). Φιλοσοφικές Καταθέσεις. Athens: Pyrinos Kosmos Publications.
Andrews, J. A. (2004). Pericles on the Athenian Constitution (Thuc. 2.37). The American Journal of Philology, 125, 539-561.
Archie, J. P. (1984). Callicles' Redoubtable Critique of the Polus Argument in Plato’s 'Gorgias'. Hermes, 112, 167-176.
Balot, R. (2001). Pericles᾽' Anatomy of Democratic Courage. The American Journal of Philology, 122, 505-525.
Berman, S. (1991). Socrates and Callicles on Pleasure. Phronesis, 36, 117-140.
Bornstein, G. (2015). Reading Thucydides in America Today. The Sewanee Review, 123, 661-667.
Bosworth, A. B. (1993). The Humanitarian Aspect of the Melian Dialogue. The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 113, 30-44.
Boter, G. J. (1986). Thrasymachus and Πλεονεξία. Mnemosyne Fourth Series, 39, 261-281.
Boyarin, D. (2012). Deadly Dialogue: Thucydides with Plato. Representations, 117, 59-85.
Burns, T. W. (2016). The Problematic Character of Periclean Athens. In G. C. Kellow & N. Leddy (Eds.), On Civic Republicanism. Ancient Lessons for Global Politics (pp. 15-40). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Castoriadis, C. (2011). Η Ελληνική Ιδιαιτερότητα, τόμ. Γ΄. Θουκυδίδης, η Ισχύς και το Δίκαιο, trans. Z. Castoriadi. Athens: Kritiki.
Christodoulou, P. (2013). Thucydides’ Pericles. Between Historical Reality and Literary Representation. In A. Tsakmakis & M. Tamiolaki (Eds.), Thucydides Between History and Literature (pp. 225-254). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Connor, R. (2022). Θουκυδίδης, trans. P. Daouti. Athens: Gutenberg.
Couch, H. N. (1935). Some Political Implications of the Athenian Plague. Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, 66, 92-103.
Craik, E. M. (2001). Thucydides on the Plague: Physiology of Flux and Fixation. The Classical Quarterly, 51, 102-108.
Duque, M. (2019). Two Passions in Plato’s Symposium: Diotima’s to Kalon as a Reorientation of Imperialistic Erōs. In H. L. Reid & T. Leyh (Eds.), Looking at Beauty to Kalon in Western Greece. Selected Essays from the 2018 Symposium on the Heritage of Western Greece (pp. 95-110). Iowa, USA: Parnassos Press.
Emlyn–Jones, C. (1999). Dramatic Structure and Cultural Context in Plato’s Laches. The Classical Quarterly, 49, 123-138.
Finley, J. H. (1942). Thucydides. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Flew, A. G. N. (1995). Responding to Plato’s Thrasymachus. Philosophy, 70, 436-447.
Hadgopoulos, D. J. (1973). Thrasymachus and Legalism. Phronesis, 18, 204-208.
Greenwood, E. (2011). Ο Θουκυδίδης και η Διαμόρφωση της Ιστορίας, trans. P. Chiotellis. Athens: Kardamitsa.
Harlap, S. (1979). Thrasymachus’s Justice. Political Theory, 7, 347-370.
Harris, E. M. (1992). Pericles’ Praise of Athenian Democracy Thucydides 2.37.1. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 94, 157-167.
Harrison, E. L. (1967). Plato’s Manipulation of Thrasymachus. Phoenix, 21, 27-39.
Hayward, A. R. Jr. (1988). The Dialectical Logic of Thucydides’ Melian Dialogue. The American Political Science Review, 82, 805-820.
Hornblower, S. (1991). A Commentary on Thucydides, Vol. I. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hornblower, S. (2003). Θουκυδίδης. Ο Ιστορικός και το Έργο του, trans. A. Maniati. Athens: Tipothito, G. Dardanos.
Hourani, G. F. (1962). Thrasymachus’ Definition of Justice in Plato’s "Republic". Phronesis, 7, 110-120.
Jaffe, S. N. (2022). Walls of Wood and Walls of Stone: Themistocles as Architect of Empire. In N. Marinatos & R. K. Pitt (Eds.), Thucydides the Athenian (pp. 19-46). Athens: Alexandria Publications.
Jang, I. H. (1997). Socrates’ Refutation of Thrasymachus. History of Political Thought, 18, 189-206.
Jenks, R. (2007). The Sounds of Silence: Rhetoric and Dialectic in the Refutation of Callicles in Plato’s Gorgias. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 40, 201-215.
Joho, T. (2017). The Revival of the Funeral Oration and the Plague in Thucydides Books 6–7. Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies, 57, 16-48.
Kallet, L. (2013). Thucydides, Apollo, The Plague, And The War. The American Journal of Philology, 134, 355-382.
Kassel, R. & Austin, C. (1983–2001). Poetae Comici Graeci, Vol. 1–8. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Katsimanis, K. (2006). Ο πλατωνικός Καλλικλής υπό το φως του Θουκυδίδη. In M. Skortsis (Eds.), Γ΄ Διεθνές Συμπόσιο για τον Θουκυδίδη: Δημηγορίες (pp. 80-101). Athens: Sideris I.
Kerferd, G. B. (1974). Plato’s Treatment of Callicles in the 'Gorgias'. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society New Series, 20, 48-52.
Klosko, G. (1984). The Refutation of Callicles in Plato’s 'Gorgias'. Greece & Rome, 31, 126-139.
Konstantakos, I. M. (2021). La campagna di Serse contro la Grecia: mito poetico e pensiero storico, da Eschilo a Erodoto. In G. E. Manzoni (Eds.), Il mito, il sacro, la patria dei poeti. Le radici identitarie dell’Europa a 2500 anni dalle guerre persiane (pp. 62-94). Milano: Edizioni Studium.
Lateiner, D. (1985). Nicias’ Inadequate Encouragement (Thucydides 7.69.2). Classical Philology, 80, 201-213.
Lee, R. C. Jr. (2002). Justifying Empire: Pericles, Polk, and a Dilemma of Democratic Leadership. Polity, 34, 503-531.
Lehmann, G. A. (2008). Perikles. Staatsmann und Stratege im klassischen Athen. München: Verlag C. H. Beck.
Liebeschuetz, W. (1968). The Structure and Function of the Melian Dialogue. The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 88, 73-77.
MacArthur, W. P. (1954). The Athenian Plague: A Medical Note. The Classical Quarterly, 4, 171-174.
Macleod, C. W. (1974). Form and Meaning in the Melian Dialogue. Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 4thQtr., 23, 385-400).
Maguire, J. P. (1971). Thrasymachus – or Plato? Phronesis, 16, 142-163.
Monten, J. (2006). Thucydides and Modern Realism. International Studies Quarterly, 50, 3-25.
Mpempedelis, G. N. (2023). Monism and dualism in Plato and the platonic tradition, diss. Athens: National and Kapodistrian University of Athens.
Murray, W. (2013). Thucydides: Theorist of War. Naval War College Review, 66, 30-46.
Nash, J. (2018). Sea Power in the Peloponnesian War. Naval War College Review, 71, 119-139.
Nicholson, P. P. (1974). Unravelling Thrasymachus’ Arguments in "The Republic". Phronesis, 19, 210-232.
Nielsen, D. A. (1996). Pericles and the Plague: Civil Religion, Anomie, and Injustice in Thucydides. Sociology of Religion, 57, 397-407.
Nudell, J. P. (2023). Accustomed to Obedience? Classical Ionia and the Aegean World, 480–294 BCE. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
Page, D. L. (1953). Thucydides’ Description of the Great Plague at Athens. The Classical Quarterly, 3, 97-119.
Romilly, J. De. (2002). Ο Θουκυδίδης και ο Αθηναϊκός Ιμπεριαλισμός. Η Σκέψη του Ιστορικού και η Γένεση του Έργου, trans. L. Stefanou. Athens: Papadimas.
Seaman, M. G. (1997). The Athenian Expedition to Melos in 416 B.C. Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 4th Qtr., 46, 385-418.
Sparshott, F. E. (1966). Socrates and Thrasymachus. The Monist, 50, 421-459.
Stadter, Ph. A. (1989). A Commentary on Plutarch’s Pericles. Chapel Hill and London: The University of North Carolina Press.
Stauffer, D. (2002). Socrates and Callicles: A Reading of Plato’s "Gorgias". The Review of Politics, 64, 627-657.
Sykoutris, J. (1997). Εκλογή Έργων. Athens: Cactus Editions.
Templer, R. (2015). From Democracy to Empire: Transgression and Substitution in Thucydides’ Periclean Narrative. Polity, 47, 147-174.
Venier, M. E. (2011). De Pericles A Sicilia. Foro Internacional, 51, 356-364.
Wassermann, F. M. (1947). The Melian Dialogue. Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, 78, 18-36.
Welton, W. A. (2006). Thrasymachus Vs Socrates: What Counts as a Good Answer to the Question ΄΄What is Justice΄΄? Apeiron, 39, 293-318.
Wilson, J. R. S. (1995). Thrasymachus and the Thumos: A Further Case of Prolepsis in Republic I. The Classical Quarterly, 45, 58-67.
Woodhead, A. G. (1960). Thucydides’ Portrait of Cleon. Mnemosyne Fourth Series, 13, 289-317.