Hostname: page-component-65f69f4695-q7d28 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-27T06:42:51.880Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Just and the Advantageous in Thucydides: The Case of the Mytilenaian Debate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Clifford Orwin
Clifford Orwin*
Affiliation:
The University of Toronto
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As no passage in Thucydides is more important, so none is more dramatic than the Mytilenaian Debate. Having resolved to punish harshly a rebel city, the Athenians repent and reconsider. Exhorted by Kleon to maintain their original decision and by Diototos to abandon it, the Athenians must scrutinize the relationship between justice and expediency. Diodotos, who professes to argue from interest only, narrowly prevails in the debate. There is, however, much more to his speech than meets the eye. For it proves misleading to say that he is arguing merely from interest—and then, on a deeper level, to say that he is arguing from justice. In fact no passage in Thucydides, including the Melian Dialogue, raises starker questions about the status of political justice.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 78 , Issue 2 , June 1984 , pp. 485 - 494
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Andrewes, A.The Mytilene debate. Phoenix, 1962, 16, 64–85.Google Scholar
Bodin, L.Diodote contre Cleon. Revue des etudes anciennes (Melanges Radet), 1940, 42, 36–52.Google Scholar
Bradeen, D. W.The popularity of the Athenian empire. Historia, 1960, 9, 257–269.Google Scholar
Bruell, C.Reply to Corsi. American Political Science Review. 1974, 68, 1680–1681. (b)Google Scholar
Bruell, C.Thucydides' view of Athenian imperialism. American Political Science Review, 1974, 68, 11–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cochrane, C. N.Thucydides and the science of history. London: Humphrey Milford, 1929.Google Scholar
Corsi, J. R.Communication. American Political Science Review. 1974, 68, 1679–1680.Google Scholar
Ebener, D.Kleon, und Diodotos, . Wiss. Z. Univ. Halle (Ges.-Sprachw.), 1956, 5.6, 1085–1166.Google Scholar
Finley, J. H. Jr.Thucydides. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1942.Google Scholar
Gillis, D.The revolt of Mytilene. American Journal of Philology, 1971, 92, 38–48.Google Scholar
Grene, D.Greek political theory. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1965.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, S.Duties beyond borders. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1981.Google Scholar
Huart, P.Le vocabulaire de l'analyse psychologique dans l'oeuvre de Thucydide. Paris: Klinckseick, 1968.Google Scholar
Huart, P.L'idee de justice chez Thucydide. Reseaux, 1972, 18, 17–38.Google Scholar
Kagan, D.The Archidamian war. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
Legon, R. P.Megara and Mytilene. Phoenix, 1968, 22, 220–225.Google Scholar
Macleod, W.Reason and necessity: Thucydides III 9-14, 37-48. Journal of Hellenic Studies, 1978, 98, 64–78.Google Scholar
Macleod, C. W.Thucydides' Plataean debate. Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 1977, 18, 227–246.Google Scholar
Manuwald, B.Der Trug des Diodotos. Hermes, 1979, 707, 407–422.Google Scholar
Moraux, P.Thucydide et la rhetorique. Etudes Classiques. 1954, 22, 3–23.Google Scholar
Orwin, C.Democratic deliberation and distrust: A lesson from Thucydides. The American Scholar, 1984, 53, 3.Google Scholar
Pearson, L.Popular ethics in ancient Greece. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1962.Google Scholar
Pouncey, P. R.The necessities of war: A study of Thucydides' pessimism. New York: Columbia University Press, 1980.Google Scholar
Proctor, D.The experience of Thucydides. Warminster, England: Aris and Phillips, 1980.Google Scholar
Quinn, T. J.Political groups in Lesbos during the Peloponnesian war. Historia, 1971, 20, 405–417.Google Scholar
Romilly, J. de. Thucydide et l'imperialisme athenien. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1947.Google Scholar
Ste Croix, G. E. M. de. The character of the Athenian empire. Historia, 1954, 3, 1–41.Google Scholar
Ste Croix, G. E. M. de. The origins of the Peloponnesian war. London: Duckworth, 1972.Google Scholar
Shorey, P.On the implicit ethics and psychology of Thucydides. Transactions of the American Philological Association, 1893, 24, 66–98.Google Scholar
Stahl, H. P.Thukydides: Die Stellung des Menschen (Zetemata, Heft 40). Munich: C. H. Beck, 1966.Google Scholar
Strauss, L.The city and man. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1964.Google Scholar
Thucydides. Historiae. (Jones, H. S., Ed., Powell, J. E., Rev.) Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966–1967.Google Scholar
von Fritz, K.Die Griechische Geschichtschreibung (vol. 1). Berlin: de Gruyter, 1967.Google Scholar
Walzer, M.Just and unjust wars. New York: Basic Books, 1977.Google Scholar
Wassermann, F. M.Post-Periclean democracy in action: The Mytilenean debate. Transactions of the American Philological Association. 1956, 87, 27–41.Google Scholar
Westlake, H. D.The commons at Mytilene. Historia, 1976, 25, 429–440.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. Q.Thinking about crime. (Rev. ed.) New York: Basic Books, 1983.Google Scholar
Winnington-Ingram, R. P.Ta deonta eipein: Cleon and Diodotus. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (London), 1965, 12, 70–82.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.