The (fascinating) Mytilenian Debate

Though the Melian Dialogue is an interesting (and important) go-round between the Melians and the Athenians, I found the Mytilenian Debate to be much more engaging. Not only is the form of the debate vigorous (I couldn't help but think that the audience was saying the Ancient Greek equivalent of, "Snap, yo!" in response to Diodotus's opening salvo against Cleon), but the content of the debate is also quite a fascinating discussion on the proper exercise of power.

Cleon's argument is, by all accounts, quite jarring. From his continued argument that the Athenians should attack and kill all adult males, the discussion of proportionality inevitably arises. If a portion of State A attacks State B, 1) does State B have the right/obligation to its citizens to retaliate and 2) if so, should they retaliate against the specific, offending portion of State A, or expand the scope of their retaliation? And, whatever the response, what will be the response from not only State A, but from other states in State B's realm of influence? For Cleon, the answer to the first two questions is, clearly, yes. With regard to the third question, the response to an expanded retaliation will be fear and respect, and less time/energy/finances devoted to smaller in-house skirmishes.

Punish them as they deserve, and make an example of them to your other allies, plainly showing that revolt will be punished by death. Once they realize this, you will not have so often to neglect the war with your enemies because you are fighting with your allies. (217)

More important, in my opinion, than the question of proportionality (on which Diodotus is conspicuously (or perhaps not) silent), is the primary intellectual gulf between Cleon and Diodotus: how a power such as Athens should exercise its power to best acquire the loyalty, respect, and acquiescence of its subjects and/or allies.

For Cleon, a superior power must exercise its power in such a way that instills fear, not inspires goodwill, in its subjects/allies. He seems to run counter to Pericles' assertions that Athens has become powerful because of the goodwill it has extended to those less powerful when he argues that, "...your leadership depends on superior strength and not on any goodwill of theirs" (214). Also seemingly counterintuitive is his statement that "... it is a general rule of human nature that people despise those who treat them well and look up to those who make no concessions" (215).

Diodotus comes in on the other side of the spectrum, arguing that it would be wiser for a superior power to extend goodwill through its exercise of power in an effort to acquire the respect of its subjects/allies. Diodotus also makes a powerful practical argument that, "Hey, we can't get anything from them if they've got nothing to give."

...instead we should be looking for a method by which, employing moderation in our punishments, we can in future secure for ourselves the full use of those cities which bring us important contributions. (221)

Diodotus even goes so far as to extend his idea of goodwill to perhaps ignoring some grievances in the name of the greater good for the future. "It is far more useful to us, I think, in preserving our empire, that we should voluntarily put up with injustice than that we should justly put to death the wrong people" (222). Depending on the grievance, I think this may be taking it too far. [Is there a corrolation, here, to some of the shady characters the US supported during the Cold War in the name of "anything but Communism"?]

The small-L liberal in me tends toward Diodotus's argument. On a micro-level and a macro-level, it seems that citizens of a colony would react much more favorably (i.e. not revolt so readily) in the face of goodwill from the imperial power.

As a final thought, one of the more jarring aspects of the debate is that neither speaker argues on the grounds of what is right and/or just. Both argue primarily (and quite understandably) from the standpoint of self-interest and what will be best for Athens' future. It was just interesting, to me, to observe the near absence of something that is so prevalent in the debate today.