The Athenian Expedition to Melos in 416 B.C. Author(s): Michael G.

Seaman Reviewed work(s): Source: Historia: Zeitschrift fr Alte Geschichte, Bd. 46, H. 4 (4th Qtr., 1997), pp. 385-418 Published by: Franz Steiner Verlag Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4436483 . Accessed: 10/10/2012 21:36
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Historia: Zeitschrift fr Alte Geschichte.

http://www.jstor.org

THE ATHENIANEXPEDITIONTO MELOS IN 416 B.C.*

Taking the proceedings of the Athenians toward Melos from the beginning to the end, they form one of the grossest and most inexcusable pieces of cruelty combined with injustice which Grecian history presents to us [...J But the treatment of the Melians goes beyond all rigor of the laws of war; for they had never been at war with Athens, nor had they done anything to incur her enmity [...] Far from tending to strengthen her entire empire, by sweeping in this small insular population who had hitherto been neutral and harmless, it raised nothing but odium against her, and was treasured up in after times as among thefirst of her misdeeds.1 In 1947 Felix Wassermann observed that "there is hardly any article or book on Thucydides which does not mention the Melian Dialogue."2 That remark holds true today, for the drama of the Melian Dialogue elicits an emotional response from us, not unlike that of George Grote's, and a discussion of it still constitutes a chapter in nearly every book on Thucydides.3 Given that this passage has been, in Wassermann's words, "much praised and discussed," it is remarkable that only a few scholars have investigated the historical circumstances which may have led to the siege of Melos. With few exceptions, modern scholars of the Melian Dialogue have preferred to address the various literary questions inherent in the dialogue, such as the structure and form of the passage or the date of its composition.4 The dramatic narration of the Melian Dialogue and eventual fate of the island are presented in great detail by Thucydides but the

I 2 3

I am gratefulto M. H. Chambers, A. R. Dyck, M. Haslam,J. H. Kroll, S. Lattimore,P. G. Naiditch,K. A. Raaflaub,F. S. Russell, andD. Sanbornwho have given me the benefit of theiradvice and criticism. George Grote,A History of Greece (London 1850) VII, 114. Titles cited only by author's name are listed in the bibliographyat the end. ML = Meiggs-Lewis. F. M. Wassermann, "TheMelian Dialogue,"TAPA78 (1947) 18 n. 1. In his recentbook The Humanity of Thucydides (Princeton1994) CharlesOrwindevotes the betterpartof two chaptersto the Melian Dialogue. A. Andrewesnoted accurately,in
A. W. Gomme, A. Andrewes and K. J. Dover, A Historical Commentary on Thucydides (=

HCT),5 vols. (Oxford 1945-81) IV, 182, that "thereis no keeping up with the bibliography." Cf. Orwin's recent comment(ibid. 97): "In readingthe dialogue, we must ask above all what happens in it" (emphasisin original). BandXLVI/4(1997) Historia, C FranzSteinerVerlagWiesbaden GmbH,Sitz Stuttgart

386

MICHAEL

G.

SEAMAN

affair remains obscure nonetheless and one is justified in complaining that the account supplies "insufficient" historical information.5 For in introducing the Athenian expedition to Melos in 416 B.C., Thucydides does not give an explanation for it: in the speech of the Athenians, he seems to imply that imperial policy was the reason for the Athenian aggression. Some modern scholars have found this interpretationin varying degrees unacceptable. Thucydides' failure to provide a full historical account of the Melian affair has led some scholars to seek an Athenian motivation from other sources. This essay is concerned with the Melian Dialogue in its historical context and will focus on the historical sources, both literary and epigraphic, relevant to the fate of Melos. Its purpose is to discern the reasons why the Athenians found it necessary to suppress the island in 416 B.C.6

I: The Melian Dialogue Melos was a Dorian colony that actively participated in the Hellenic alliance against Persia.7 At the outset of the Peloponnesian War they were apparently allied to neither side.8 But Thucydides relates that in 426 the Athenians sent to Melos 60 ships and 2,000 hoplites under the command of Nicias for the purpose of bringing over the island to the alliance:

5 6 7

Andrewes,HCT(as in n. 3) IV, 156. All subsequentdates are B.C. unless indicatedotherwise. Melos was thoughtto have been settled by Doriansin the age of the migrations(Thuc. 5.112.2) and it claimed to be a colony of Sparta(Hdt. 8.48; Thuc. 5.84.2, 89, 106; Xen. Hell. 2.2.3). Most scholarsnow considerThucydides'date of colonizationtoo early. For (Cambridge a discussion,cf. I. Malkin,Mythand territoryin the SpartanMediterranean recounts(8.46, 48) how Melos sent two fifty-oaredships (revvE1994) 74-78. Herodotus KOvtepot) to the battle of Salamis. All subsequenttext citations refer to Thucydides unless indicatedotherwise. [oi kv5iiaxotj 'A&rivaiov[.I vijaot 6oiat &vrotFlekonovviaou icai Kpinn; np6; MiiXouicai ei3pa; (2.9.4). Cf. also 5.84.2: ijXtovcviaXovra, n&czat ai Kuicka5e;icXnv T6 R?v ipd.tOV Oi)SETEpOV OVXE; #oi5XaCov. Theraappearson the tributelist for 429/8, can be restoredin the lists of 430/29 (payingthreetalents),422/1 and416/5, is mentioned in a decree concerningthe tributemoved by Cleonymusin 426 as paying in installments money owed to Athens (IG I3 68.22 = ML 68.21), and was assessed five talents in the into decreeof 425/4. ThatThucydidesomittedThera'sincorporation tributereassessment the empire may indicatethat it was broughtinto the fold peacefully;he may have been ignorantof this fact or, morelikely, consideredit insignificant.It was probablycoercedto join in 431 or 430. Thucydidesis not likely to have erred in his catalogue of the two alliances in 431 and, thoughhe neglects to discuss the statusof minorAegean islands(cf. n. 107 below), it is safe to assume that, prior to 431, Melos had never joined the PeloponnesianLeague.

The AthenianExpeditionto Melos in 416 B.C.

387

For they wished to draw in the Melians since they were islanders and yet were unwilling to submit or to join their alliance. But when they would not give way, even when their land was being ravaged, the Athenians left Melos and sailed to Oropos in the region of Graia (3.91.2-3).9 Thucydides states that Melos had been unwilling to join the Athenian alliance voluntarily; and so the Athenians undertook an expedition in 426 with the expectation that threatsbacked by a strong show of force would persuade Melos to abandonher neutrality.When this strategyproved unsuccessful, the Athenians ravaged the land around the main settlement, harboring the hope that the Melians would be induced to submit to them and join the alliance if they saw their territory being laid waste.10 When these tactics failed, rather than risk a prolonged siege to force them into the alliance, the Athenians withdrew.11 A decade later, in the sixteenth year of the war, while officially at peace with Sparta, the Athenians sent a second expedition to the island. According to Thucydides, the latter expedition had the same purpose as the former:to compel the Melians to join the alliance.12 In their second attempt to bring over the Melians, the Athenians at first employed the same tactics they had used in the previous expedition. For a second time, intimidation and a multitude of armed forces failed to win them over and the Athenians likely ravaged the territory

Cf. also 5.84.2. The expeditionis relatedin brief by a confused Diodorus(12.65.1-3; cf. n. 83 below). 10 This may be deducedfrom5.84.2: ezeta o aroub; flvcyKalov oi 'A&vatot Slo vrE niv yiv. The fact thatby 426 the Melianswere "unwillingto join the [Athenian]alliance" might indicate that they were previously "invited"to join the empire, perhaps, as R. Meiggs conjectures in The Athenian Empire (Oxford 1972) 321f., at the time their neighboringisland Therawas. 11 The siege could conceivablyhave gone on for nearlya year since Thucydidesrelatesthat the expeditionwas sent in the summerof 416 and thatthe city was takenin the winterof 416/5. Andrewes,HCT(as in n. 3) IV, 156-157, n. X,holds thatNicias did not lay siege in 426 because taking the forces to Melos was "no more thanan excuse to take out a force whose real (and necessarilysecret) use was to be against the Boeotians"(for which cf. 3.91.3-6). D. M. Lewis, "The Archidamian War"in D. M. Lewis et. al. (eds.), CAH V (2nd ed. Cambridge1992) 409, concurred.But we need not assume that the rendez-vous in Boeotia precludeda siege since we knowthatthe investmentof the islandrequiredonly a small part of the combined forces (5.114.2). M. Pi6rart,"Deux notes sur la politique d'Ath6nes en mer Eg6e (428-425)," BCH 108 (1984) 165f., has arguedforcefully that, after the menacing endeavors of Alcidas, the Athenians decided to strengthen their control of the southernCyclades. Perhapsthe Athenianexpedition to Melos in 426 was punishment for certainassistancethatthe MelianshadprovidedAlcidas or perhapsit was merelyto reassertauthority over the Aegean which the Atheniansconsideredtheirprivate dominion.The motive may simply have been, as Thucydidesrelates, pureimperialism.
12 cKi o6wcdirpEin; VoiElTE n6kXe tEX?; ieyiatT; radaiaOat gkpta npOKaxOxuJivr5;, tvlicixoV; yev6a6a. 9XovTa; vrv igeT?pav akCov mo'reX0 i; (5.111.4).

388

MICHAEL G. SEAMAN

again in an effort to pressure the Melians to join the alliance.13 When these tactics failed to coerce the Melians to join the alliance, the Athenians did not retire from the island, as in the previous expedition, but besieged the city until it capitulated. In his narrationof the events on Melos in 426 Thucydides maintains that the Melians were never members of the Athenian alliance (3.91.2) and he later states that they maintained their neutrality for at least the first six years of the war (5.84.2). But it is in this latter passage, which forms part of the prelude to the Melian Dialogue, that we learn of a change in the state of affairs between the two poleis in the year 426: Now the Melians are colonists of the Lacedaemonians and were unwilling to obey the Athenians like the rest of the islanders. At first they kept quiet as neutrals, then, when the Athenians tried to force them [to join the alliance] by ravaging their land, they came into open war (5.84.2). Thucydides' use of the words "they came into open war" (e5;nroxqiov cavepov Kat?o-r1cFav) has often been taken to mean that the Melians renounced their neutrality and began to engage in war with the Athenians in 426 but such a conclusion should be resisted for several reasons.14 First, there is no supporting evidence which suggests that the Melians ever went to war with the Athenians (not to mention that doing so would have been quite foolish). Second, if the Melians had decided on war with the Athenians (and their allies) they would likely have concluded a treaty with the Spartans, an alliance for which there is again no evidence. If the Melians had in fact joined the Spartan alliance or had injured the Athenians in any way, we might expect Thucydides at some point to have said as much.15 In fact Melos emerges from the Melian Dialogue as a neutral state never having injured Athens. In the dialogue the Melians do not actually say that they are currently neutral but they allude to their status on two occassions. Early on they purportto ask the Athenians:

before laying siege in 416 13 Thatthe Atheniansandtheirallies ravagedthe Melianterritory oUv ?S Trv yiV aivr&v riitapamight be inferredfrom 5.84.3: ctpaTonE6eIac4tEvoI TE O AuKOA0o10; Kai Tetcxia4 6 T-taigiXotv, UKEl 'ra6rMoi ctparryoi KkEop,6n Ti lpiv a6&KCtv vou; gi kn,6you; irpdov no jaogtO ?eg? av np?aPet;. Such prespractice(cf. 4.87.2-88.1 whereBrasidasthreatensto ravagethe suretactics were standard land of the Acanthiansto compel them to revolt from Athens and succeeds in inducing theirrevolt in partby arousingtheir"fearsfor the harvest"). 14 R. Meiggs, Empire(as in n. 10) 386: "Fromthat point there was a state of war between Athenaeum 46 AthensandMelos."Cf. also M. Amit, "TheMelianDialogueandHistory," (1968) 220; C. W. Macleod, "Formand Meaningin the Melian Dialogue," Historia 23 (1974) 399. 15 We certainlywould have expected the Meliansto have mentionedsuch an alliance in the dialogue with the Athenians.

The AthenianExpeditionto Melos in 416 B.C.

389

Qote [6e] 'cncuXiav dayovra; 1]g&; axiou;ji?v eivat adv+t nokxgicov, 6e dv oV'ic 6?taaoO; (5.94). p.in6et?p(ov, tuggdXouq5;
And so you would not agree to our remaining at peace, being friends instead of enemies but allies of neither side? Again, in their concluding words to the Athenians the Melians make their final and desperate proposal: lpoKcakolIE0a 6e gaS; oikot gEvdIvat, EoXegot &? gET8pOt;,
t; yfj; ?uv

Kat ?K it t-

&vaXxopiatual cov&ax; adRuoT-pot; (5.112.3).

nroti.aatcvout

atTtv;

601coioatv

t*6&tot

dlvat

But we propose to you that we be friends, and enemies to neither side, and that you withdraw from our territory after making a treaty that both sides deem suitable. In both passages the Melians want to be (i.e. to go on being) neutral friends - at peace - neither allies nor enemies of both sides. Their neutral status, though not stated outright, is certainly implied - the verb employed is eivat not ycvEaOa. The only difficulty is in reconciling or accounting for the apparentinconsistency between what Thucydides says in 5.84 of the change in the state of affairs in 426 and the Melians' (implicit but uncontested) claim of neutrality still in 416. After the Athenians plunderedMelian land in 426 relations between the two states were no doubt severely strained.16But if the Melians at that point had decided to engage in war with the Athenians, whether or not they had concluded a treaty with the Spartanalliance, they would not have been able to profess such impartiality as they do in the Melian Dialogue by continually asserting their neutrality, even when allowing for elementary rhetoric. Such a blatant change in their position vis-a-vis the Athenians would have violated their neutral status.17 It is rather more likely that what Thucydides means when he writes that the Melians "went to war openly" is that they engaged in acts of open hostility with the Athenians but did not escalate the hostilities to the extent that they invalidated their neutral status. Such unfriendly acts, which we would expect to have occurred during the events of 426, would have promptedThucydides to declare that the Melians had "taken a stand toward open war" but will have still allowed the Melians to claim neutral status.18

16 R. Meiggs, Empire (as in n. 10) 322: Afterthe Melianlandhadbeen ravagedin 426 "there can have been little doubt whereher sympathylay." 17 Cf. R. A. Bauslaugh, The Concept of Neutrality in Classical Greece (Berkeley/Los Angeles 1991) 142-151. Bauslaughprovides a detailed discussion of Melian neutrality and what the subjugation of an unalliedMelos meantto Thucydides. 18 Though the two states "cameinto open war"following the Athenianexpedition of 426, this does not necessitate that the state of war continuedto 416; hence a possibility that

390

MICHAEL G. SEAMAN

As Thucydidestells the story, Athensis guilty of unprovoked aggression against a harmlessneutral.While Thucydidesmay have believed that the conquestof Melos was an inevitableconsequenceof the desire to dominate speakof two inherent in humannature, he nonetheless does havethe Athenians immediatereasonsfor the expedition,bothof which are revealedin the same sentence:
(OtS ?w

xa'

oi5 lskeovow

TO acToa?5cX i'jitv 6ta To dptat icaKti

&v iapacXotts, dXkkui re cait viOuC5rat vaxmcparopov, ataa,tpaoivat Kcat da0evea-Tepot ?Ee'pov 0vre sqi?i neptcyevota0s (5.97).19

So that, to say nothingof our rulingeven more subjects,you would also especiallyif you, being islandaffordus securitythrough yoursubmission, ers, and even weaker than others, should fail to prove superiorto the mastersof the sea. The Atheniansspeak of enlargingtheir empirebut the use of i`w ("to say but motivefor theexpedition nothingof") impliesthatthis is not theunderlying Melos to the one thatfollows; namely,thatan independent thatit is subsidiary The clear importof the (admittedlyvery is a threatto Athenianinterests.20 obscurelyexpressed)6"XX(; TE Kat clause is that successful resistenceby a weak island would be especially dangerous.The idea is repeatedwhen the
official policy towardAthens and Spartawas not changedeven as a result of the earlier expedition. A parallel might be Sphodrias'abortive march on the Piraeus in 378: an unsuccessfulact of violence which did not cause Athensto declarewaron Sparta,though it certainlyaffected her attitude(Xen. Hell. 5.4.19-25). There may have been additional afterthe expeditionof 426 Melos acts of open hostilityon the partof the Melians.Perhaps refused to allow Athenianships to put in at her port, while still allowing those of Sparta and her allies to land there. Thucydidestells us that immediatelybefore the outbreakof the war, the Spartansinstructedtheirallies in Italy and Sicily to refuse their portsto the had been Atheniansif they came with more than a single ship until certainpreparations completed(2.7.2). Whenthe Atheniansin 415 sailed along the coast of Italy, some of the cities refusedto receive them (6.44.2). An identicalproposalis ratifiedby the Corcyraeans at the instigation of the oligarchs during their revolution (3.71.1). This behavior echoes the tenorof what we know of the MegarianDecree (1.144.2). 19 For the view that Thucydidesconsidered the destructionof the island an inescapable consequence resulting from "the escalating violence underpressureof war," see P. R. Pouncey, The Necessities of War:A Studyof Thucydides'Pessimism(New York 1980) 93. AlthoughThucydidesmay have viewed as inevitablethe events at Melos in 416, this essay explores why the Atheniansmight have felt the need to attackMelos. 20 The Atheniansmay have been motivatedin partbecausethe Melians were "unwillingto Earlyin the Melian Dialogue ij6sXov '6naKoi3etv). submit"to them (3.91.2; 5.84.2: OOkK
(5.91.2), the Athenians speak of a "benefit" (d4ekia) to be derived from the conquest of

the Melians and admit that they themselves "desireto rule [the Melians]"(PouAx6gevot terms:that the Melians [...] vigCvdp4ai). They later (5.111.4) outline their "moderate" but payingtribute." "be their allies, keepingtheir own territory

The AthenianExpeditionto Melos in 416 B.C.

391

Athenians inform the Melians of the identity of those whom they consider more dangerous than the independent cities on the mainland: [For we reckon as more dangerous] both the islanders, whoever they may be, who, like you, have not submitted and those who are already irritatedby the necessity of submission to our rule. For it is they who are most inclined to succumb to recklessness and to bring to both them themselves and to us manifest danger (5.99). The concern that the Athenians have is with the islanders, both free and tributary,and with the danger of revolt against the empire. The attack on Melos, then, would be a preemptive strike to remove the potential risk of revolt of the Athenian allies. This appears to be the motive for the Athenian expedition which Thucydides makes the Athenians admit. For various reasons, this explanation for the attack has proved unsatisfactory to many modern scholars. From epigraphic evidence we know that Melos had contributed to the Spartanwar fund21and that it had been included in the Athenian assessment of 425/4.22 This evidence might suggest a more complex pattern in the relations between Athens and Melos than can be gathered from Thucydides alone, since one inscription, the Spartan War Fund which lists the Melians among the contributors, suggests support for Sparta, and another, the Athenian Reassessment Decree which includes the island among states assessed for tribute, suggests submission to Athens. In addition to the epigraphic evidence, some later literary sources, Diodorus and the scholia to Aristophanes, mention the Athenian expedition to Melos in 416 and may provide additional clues to uncover a motive for it. Since these sources have been used to "correct" Thucydides, an analysis of them and of several modern arguments which rely on them will here follow, in an effort to ascertain the credibility of the version of events given by Thucydides. I conclude with a summaryof the events leading up to and following the Athenian expedition to Melos in 416.

II: The SpartanWar Fund The inscription commonly known as the SpartanWar Fund lists contributions "for the war" given to the Spartans both by specific individuals and by states. Of the states, four can be positively identified: the Aeginetans, the exiles of the Chians, the Ephesians and the Melians, who alone are recorded as having

21 IG V 1,1 + = SEG 39.370*. For a detailedtreatment of the inscription,cf. W. T. Loomis, The Spartan War Fund, IG V 1,I and a New Fragment, Historia Einzelschriften74 (Stuttgart1992). 22 IG 1371 = ML 69.

392

MICHAEL

G.

SEAMAN

contributed twice. Unfortunately, of the two Melian contributions only the first, 20 mnas of silver, can be read. The date of the inscription has been the subject of much debate, with most scholars dating it to the Archidamian War, between the years 431 and 421. If the contributions of the Melians to the Spartan war fund were made at some point during this period, they might have prompted either (or both) of the Athenian expeditions to Melos. F. E. Adcock, followed by many others, believed that the Melian contributions were made in 427 and hence provoked the Athenian attack of 426.23 Nearly all scholars of the inscription have argued that the Melians made their contributions sometime before the conquest of Melos in 416. A. Andrewes found support for this date in Thucydides who, in the Melian Dialogue, has the Athenians allude to an "injury" committed against them by the Melians:24 ATH: Now then, we on our part will neither use fine phrases, for example, either to the effect that we rule justly, having destroyed the Mede, or that we now proceed against you because we have been injured, offering a long speech that no one would believe, nor will we recommend that you think that you will persuade us by declaring either that, even though you are colonists from Sparta, you did not campaign with them or that you have not
injured us (5.89).25

The fact that the Athenians seemingly twice accuse the Melians of wrongdoing has prompted some historians to find in this passage evidence for "an immedi-

in Melanges Gustave Glotz I (Paris 1932) Sf. 23 F. E. Adcock, "Alcidas dpyupoX6yoq" Adcock dated the inscriptionto "the latter part of the year 427" and argued that the which expeditionof Alcidas to Ioniain 427 was actuallya mission to solicit contributions were subsequentlyinscribed(p. 6). Adcock was followed by M. N. Tod, GreekHistorical of the InscriptionsI (2nd ed. Oxford 1946) 134; G. E. M. de Ste. Croix, "TheCharacter Historia 3 (1954) 9, 13;Gomme,HCT(as in n. 3)11, 12;butcf. II, 294 AthenianEmpire," wherehe prefersthe year428; A. H. M. Jones,AthenianDemocracy(Oxford 1957) 71; L.
H. Jeffery, The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece (Oxford 1961) 197, 201; R. Meiggs in R. Meiggs/D. M. Lewis (eds.), A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions (Oxford 1969)

184; cf. also Meiggs, Empire(as in n. 10) 314 n. 3; Loomis, SWF(as in n. 21) 81. D. M. Lewis, ibid. 184, originallydatedthe inscriptionto 396/5 finding the threecontributions War."Jeffery in darics "unlikely to have been so widespreadduringthe Archidamian afterwardin a book review, JHS 101 (1981) 191, adoptedLewis' late date but Lewis with M. H. Chambersthe himself subsequentlyaccepted Adcock's. In correspondence year before his death,Lewis wrote of the inscription:"I agree it seems to take us back to used for of earlierarguments the 420s." Loomis (pp. 56-76) providesa concise summary datingthe inscription. 24 Andrewes,HCT(as in n. 3) IV, 157. 25 So scholiast, de Romilly, Kriiger,Poppo-Stahl,Jowett (2nd. ed. 1900), Dale, Gomme, Smith in the Loeb, Classen-Steup,and Warner,and Crawley.Against Boehme-Widman, Andreweswho read"since you are colonists from Sparta,you did not marchwith us."

The AthenianExpeditionto Melos in 416 B.C.

393

ate antecedent quarrel"to the expedition of 416.26 But this interpretationof the Athenian assertions takes their words out of the context of the discussion which is essentially about the relevance of justice. Thucydides has the Athenians say that they will not use "fine phrases" (i.e. false pretexts) such as saying that they come against the Melians "having been injured." Again, the Athenians ask the Melians to reciprocate and not to plead with the Athenians to spare them simply because they have done them no harm.27In other words, the Athenians tell the Melians not to use the excuse "we have done you no wrong" not because they actually have injured the Athenians but because the subject of justice is not open for discussion at this conference. This is what Thucydides means when he next has the Athenians tell the Melians that they should not strive for what is just but for what is possible: Rather, we recommend that you try to accomplish that which is possible out of that which we both truly consider possible, since you know as well as we do that in human negotiations justice is taken into account when there is equal power to compel, while the powerful exact what they can and the weak suffer what they must (5.89). By having the Athenians tell the Melians that justice is possible only among equal powers, Thucydides implies the innocence of the Melians.28 This becomes even clearer later in the dialogue when the Melians denounce the unjust actions of the Athenians: Nonetheless, we trust that, so far as fortune is concerned, we shall through divine favor be at no disadvantage because we are god-fearing men standing our ground against unjust men (5.104). Here the Melians proclaim that the Athenians are less likely to enjoy divine favor because they are o' 5iiaiot, unjust men, while the Melians themselves are just.29 Elsewhere in the dialogue, the Melians refer to their "just cause" (Tco
26 Andrewes,HCT(as in n. 3) IV, 157. Again, at 5.104, the Melianstell the Atheniansnp6;
ov 6KxaiolU; ictjAie6a.

27 It should be stressedthatthe Atheniansmaketwo referencesto hypotheticalwrongdoing on the partof the Melians and each time the referenceto punitiveMelian wrongdoingis precededby a parallelclause. In the notes of his forthcomingtranslationof Thucydides (Hackett 1998), Steven Lattimorehas unpackedthe logic of this sentence: "The Athenians state thatthey will not claim (a) thatthey deserve theirempirebecause they defeated the Persians, and (b) that the Melians have injuredthem, providedthe Melians do not claim that(c) they did notjoin the Spartans againstAthens[...1and(d) they have done the Atheniansno injury.Since (c) is true, (d) should be also. (b) is then false, implying that (a) is also false." 28 Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Thuc.38) concludedas much:"This [statement]is identical to an admissionthatthe expeditionis againstinnocentvictims." 29 Andrewes,HCT(as in n. 3) IV, 172.

394

MICHAEL

G.

SEAMAN

6ticatc), accuse the Athenians of ignoring justice (UVpt;oivro nap'a -or&itcatov) and ask them not to rule out the principle of the common good (vogiiogv v YE [...] 1caaKaEaXuetv d; t6 icotvov dyaO6v), further evidence which suggests that Thucydides believed the Athenian attack to be without provocation (5.86, 90). The Melian Dialogue, then, can be seen to emphasize the Melian innocence at the time of the Athenian expedition ratherthan to question it. If we therefore take the text at face value and concede that the Melians are guilty of no injury, Thucydides might then be evidence for a Melian contribution to the Spartan war fund after the Athenian expedition of 416. In an effort to date the inscription, scholars have searched for a year when all the inscribed groups were pro-Spartanat a time when Sparta was fighting a war.30 This condition, however, does not necessarily apply to a search for an acceptable date for the Melian contributions. Several features of the inscription appear to suggest that the entries were inscribed over an extended period. First, the overall spacing, both horizontally and vertically, is disorderly. Neither the horizontal spacing of lines nor the vertical spacing of letters is uniform.31 Second, the fact that the Melians make two appearances on the stone, with one entry from a certain Molokros in between, suggests two separate contributions given over time. (Otherwise, why not combine the two contributions in one entry?)32A third feature which indicates that the stone was not inscribed at one sitting is the appearance of two dividing lines on the side of the stone. The first of these two inscribed lines divides the first Melian entry from that of Molokros and the second divides the entry of Molokros from the second Melian entry.33If

30 Several attemptshave been made to determinea date from letter forms but these dates have varied from the early fifth centuryto the early fourth.I am inclined to agree with Lewis, Selection (as in n. 23) 184, who found "theargumentfrom letteringindecisive." cf. Loomis, SWF(as in n. 21) 60-62. For a discussion of the arguments, 31 Moreover,thereare two vacatson the frontof the stone. Loomis, ibid. 28, commentsthat facie thatthis inscriptionwas not inscribedat suggests "prima the generaldisorganization were enteredas and when received." one time, but ratherthatcontributions contribu32 The words i8ov roi Mcitot toliqAamce8aioviot;, with their corresponding tions, are inscribedtwice. It cannotbe thatthe two separateMelianentriesmerelyreflect (i.e. twenty mnas of silver on the one hand two different forms of a single contribution mademultiplecontribuand ten staterson the other)since a few of the othercontributors tions (one seems to combine raisins with talentsand two otherunknowngifts) but were only given one entry. Anyway, we would not expect to see an entry between the two Melian entries if they were both given (and inscribed)at once. one silver talent, 33 Some scholarshave identifiedthe unknownMolokros,who contributed at Sphacteria(4.8.9). The with the SpartanMolobros,the fatherof Epitadas,commander MolobrosandThucydidestells us throughthe are unanimousin transmitting manuscripts (1.121.3), and Pericles(1. 141.3; 142.1) (1.80.4), the Corinthians speeches of Archidamus that the Spartansdid not possess much wealth, either publicly or privately. While this seems to be true on the whole, Thucydidesprobablyintendedin these passages to point

The AthenianExpeditionto Melos in 416 B.C.

395

the side of the inscription was in fact inscribed later than the front and the contributions which are divided by inscribed lines were made over time, then it follows that the Melian contributions, the third to last and the last to be inscribed, were given at a later date than all other contributions (with the exception of that of Molokros) and they therefore can be dated relatively independently of the historical criteria which govern the dating of the those on the front of the stele.34 The Melians are not likely to have desired Spartanassistance in a war until some time after 431.35 Though Sparta remained essentially at war from 431 until the Peace of Antalcidas in 387/6, notwithstanding the Peace of Nicias, two periods of years when the Melians would not likely have contributed to the fund may be eliminated from consideration. First, a Chian faction could not have contributed between 409/8 and 394, effectively eliminating those years for the front of the stele.36 Loomis has convincingly argued that the gifts recorded on this stele are so small in comparison with the sums which were raised and spent in the 390s "that it is difficult to see how amounts so insignificant would have been given special recognition in these years."37These conditions leave open two periods of time during which the Melians are likely to have contributed to
out the relative ease with which Athens could finance the war comparedto Sparta;and evidence fromHerodotus(6.61.2; 7.134) mightsuggest thatin fact some Spartan families were wealthy. A. H. M. Jones,Sparta(Oxford 1967) 36f., suggests on the evidence from Pausanias (6.2.1-2; 6.1.7) that some Spartanswere apparentlyrich enough to breed horses. Because of the missing ethnic following his name it can probablybe inferredthat the donor was a Spartan.B. Bleckmann,"Spartaund seine Freunde im dekeleischen Krieg,"ZPE 96 (1993) 307f., makesa solid case for readingMolokros. 34 The Melian contributionsmay be dated independentlyof the historical criteria for the othercontributions insofaras these criteria(e.g. the use of rcivXtov toi 'ixot ratherthan soi X-ot indicatesthat the governmentof Chios was still loyal to Athens) be taken into account by the time the Melians made their contribution (which must have been for the
same war). A. P. Matthaiou and G. A. Pikoulas, "'ESov rot; AaKE:atpoviot1 norr6v ?x0Exov," Horos 7 (1989) 80-1 11, have arguedon historicalgroundsthat the stone was

inscribedover a periodextendingfrom 427 to 424/3, when in their opinion the Melians made their contributions,to sometime after 415/4, when the Ephesianentry was registeredback on the frontof the stone. 35 A gift from rcovXiov roi tiXot rendersimpossible a date immediatelyfollowing the PersianWarssince the Chianswere then allied to the Hellenic league (cf. Hdt. 9.106). In the "first"PeloponnesianWar,it is unlikelythatthe Ephesians,the Chiansor the Melians would have looked to Spartafor protection(let alone all three) since that war seems to have been fought only on the mainland. 36 In 409/8 the Spartan generalCratesippidas seized the Chianacropolisandrestoredexiles, presumably pro-Spartan, who then governeduntil the battleof Cnidos in 394 (Xen. Hell. I.1 .32; 3.2.1 1; Diod. 13.65.3-4; 14.84.3). A discussionis providedby Loomis, SWF(as in n. 21) 66. 37 Loomis, ibid. 68f. Moreover,the contributionby the Aeginetans,fourteenmnas and ten staters,the smallest of those legible, does not make sense 15 years aftertheirrestoration.

396

G. SEAMAN MICHAEL

the fund: during the Archidamian War, between the years 431 and 421, or during the Decelean War, from 413 to 404.38 It has been taken for granted by most scholars that the Melians could not have made their contributions in the period from 416 to 405 since, it is assumed, after the Athenian expedition of 416, the Melians, whoever and wherever they were, would not have had the means to contribute.39This assumption, however, depends a great deal on one line in Thucydides. After narratingthe siege and unconditional surrenderof the Melians he sums up their fate:

oi &iieictEtvav MiXiwv 6ovot

ivppano6Eiaav (5.116.4).

tpoivraq

`XaIov,

aic&ta; &' xa' ydvatca;

The Athenians thereupon slew as many adult males as they captured and enslaved the children and women. It should not be assumed that the Athenians killed all adult Melian men.40 Thucydides is specific in writing that the Athenians killed 6aot; iP36vta; tkXa4ov,"as many adult men as they captured."This limiting clause affords two conclusions: not all Melian adult men were captured;hence not all were slain. If in fact they were all slain why does Thucydides not write "the Athenians slew all the adult males," as he does when describing the Spartan execution of the Plataeans in 427?41 Nor does he write simply "they slew the adult males," as he does when narrating the Athenian execution of the adult males at Scione in 421.42 The use of the limiting clause may indeed imply that some of the Melians
cause betweenthe years425-421 (i.e. to to the Spartan 38 The Meliansmay have contributed contributeto the rebuildingof the Spartanfleet) but theirtwo donationswere not likely given at this time both because "we hear of no naval activity by or on behalf of the fleet at Pylos in 425 (Loomis,ibid. in the yearsfollowing the loss of the Spartan Spartans" are too modestto have been given at this 69f.) andbecause the two Meliancontributions time (for which argumentssee below). of Melos rules out a 39 Cf. Meiggs and Lewis, Selection (as in n. 23) 184: "Theappearance date between 416 and 404;" Loomis, SWF(as in n. 21) 65: "It would have been almost (or even one!) between 416 and impossible for the Melians to make two contributions 405." The sole exceptions are Bleckmann,Freunde(as in n. 33) 298-300; and recently des exiles de Chios a 1'effort M. Pi6rart,"Chiosentre Ath6neset Sparte:La contribution BCH 119 (1995) 261. Both de guerrelac6d6monienpendantla guerredu P6loponn6se," date the inscriptionto 409. 40 Many historianshave madethe assumption.Cf. especially J. B. Bury, TheAncientGreek MA 1942) 211. (Cambridge, Historians(New York 1909) 139; J. H. Finley, Thucydides
More recent is J. V. A. Fine, The Ancient Greeks: A Critical History (Cambridge, MA

1983) 490. 41 3.6.8.1: "Leading[the Plataeans]away, they slew them, no one excepted"(didyovxe? adreKretvov caitiaipexov vnotvaavToo-&Uva). 42 5.32.1: "Aboutthe same time duringthis summer,the Atheniansreducedthe Scionaeans by siege, slew the adultmales andmadeslaves of the childrenand women"(itepi 5e Tub5 cti ?v 'AOnvaiot oXtopXcKWavtc; XpOvoV5 toiV-0?pOo; tOI[TOu 1K1vaiovi aoi)'o;

The AthenianExpeditionto Melos in 416 B.C.

397

escaped the executions. Thucydides states that the Athenian garrisons were not heavily manned (5.116.2) and that during the siege the Melians twice overpowered them and brought in supplies (5.115.4; 116.2). We might expect that some Melians made their way to Sparta to plead for assistance, just as the Plataeans who broke free from the Spartan siege made their way to Athens, presumably for the same reason (3.24.2). Additionally, it is conceivable that some of the Melians were absent or in exile when the Athenian expedition arrived or that they subsequently fled. Moreover, Thucydides is clear in stating that it is the (v,ra;, or men of military age, whom the Athenians capture and kill; thus, older men would presumably have been spared.43Other evidence too suggests that not all adult Melian men perished at the hands of the Athenians. Both Xenophon (Hell. 2.2.9) and Plutarch(Lys. 14.3) mention that in 405 the Spartan general Lysander restored the Melians to their islands.44 Many scholars have argued that the Melians who escaped execution "could not have reconstituted themselves sufficiently to make two contributions to the Spartan war fund"45 but this argument is far from convincing. Resettlements of exiled populations, especially by Sparta,were not uncommon during the Peloponnesian War. When the Aeginetans were expelled en masse in 431 by the Athenians who afterward colonized the island, some of them were subsequently resettled by the Spartans in Thyrea (2.27).46 The Melians, who claimed to be colonists of the Spartans, would likely have been given equal treatment.Both Aegina and Melos were ethnically Dorian but only Melos professed to be a colony of Sparta.47 When Plataea fell to the Spartans in
3d6vzac,ntda1a & K.ai yxvatica; rv8pair6taav). When relatingthe Spartan captureof the city of Hysiaein 417/6, Thucydides(5.83.2) is againexplicit: "they slew all those free men whom they caught"(?oiS;?XF?Uofpou;naiv'ta; oi5; cXa1ov alo?t6ivacvt). Cf. also 1.30.1. Pouncey, Necessities (as in n. 19) 94, may be right in suggestingthatthe slaughter may have been prompted by the Melianslaying of Athenians following their night sortie and breachof the wall (5.115.4). 43 Note that the Athenianexecutions at Scione were likewise restrictedto the adult males. The Spartans execute all the Plataeans("noone excepted")since the women,childrenand older men had earlierbeen evacuatedto Athens (2.78.3). 44 These references to a resettlementmost likely refer to adult men since it was a mere eleven yearsafterthe slayings, hardlyenoughtime for manyenslavedchildrento grow up and be freed. Here we might recall the words of the fourthcenturygeneraland authorof several military treatises, Aeneas Tacticus (proem), who, in his treatise on defense a1ucKxetvav toib

preparations against a siege, gives the following consolation to those poleis who may suffer defeat: "Butif afterall a reverseshouldbefall them, yet at all events the survivors may be able later on to restoretheir affairs to the formercondition, like certain of the Hellenes who have been reduced to worst extremes and yet have reestablishedthemselves." 45 Loomis, SWF(as in n. 21) 65. 46 The rest eandpiraav Mxar& Tiv dXr1v 'EXX6&a. 47 Cf. n. 7 above.

398

MICHAEL G. SEAMAN

427 the city was initially given over to a group of exiled Megarians while the land was leased to the Thebans (3.68.3).48 It is entirely possible that the surviving Melians, who presumably numbered fewer than the expelled Aeginetans, were resettled by the Spartansand that they subsequently donated to the Spartan war fund, along with the resettled Aeginetans and the exiled Chians, whatever money they could muster.49It is not difficult to imagine a more or less unified and reconstituted Melian population, a group which was hoping desperately to be restored to their island by a victorious Spartanmilitary. Adcock, followed by Jones, Loomis and many others, suggested that when Alcidas advanced covertly across the Aegean with his squadron of triremes in 427 he not only twice put in at Melos but twice solicited and accepted contributions for the Spartan cause.50 Adcock went on to suggest that this "harbouring and comforting of Alcidas was a cause" of the Athenian expedition against the island in 426. Adcock's conjecture has surprisingly been accepted by many scholars despite its inherent weaknesses. It assumes that Thucydides, though at this time well placed to obtain this information and already at work on his history, was ignorant (or negligent) of the facts. First, it should be said that the purpose of the expedition was not to solicit funds but to relieve Mytilene, then under Athenian siege (3.26.1). Second, it is significant that Thucydides, though he seems to know a great deal about the Spartanadmiral's expedition (i.e. that he touched at Delos, Icaros, Myconos and Embatum in Erythraeabefore learning of the fate of Mytilene, and at Myonnesos, Clarus and Ephesus before returningpost haste through open sea to the Peloponnese), supplies no evidence that Alcidas put in at Melos, much less that he did so twice, soliciting and accepting contributions on both occasions. One might well ask why Alcidas did not succeed in soliciting gifts from some of these other ports he visited (and later record them in our inscription).51But perhaps the most compelling reason to accept a date for a Melian contribution after 427 is the fact that Thucydides is quite clear in stating that the Melians did not change their attitude toward the war until after the Athenians "tried to force them by ravaging their lands" in

48 The surviving Plataeanswho had been evacuatedto Athens were in 421 resettledby the Athenians in recently conqueredScione (5.32.1). They subsequentlywere resettled at Plataea by the Spartansfollowing the Peace of Antalcidas,expelled once again by the Thebansbeforethe battleof Leuctraandresettledonce moreat Plataeaby Philipafterthe battle of Chaeronea(Xen. Hell. 6.3.1; Paus.9. 1; Diod. 15.46.4-6). 49 As Loomis rightlypoints out, SWF(as in n. 21) 63f., thereis no technicalhindranceto a
contribution by them as toi MdXtot rather than
toi

OEiryovue; MaXtot if they in fact

constitutethe main body of citizens and not merely a political faction. The Aeginetans, who were expelled en masse, are simply referredto as oi AiytvVrat. 50 Adcock, Alcidas (as in n. 23) 5f. 51 Cf. 3.69, 76 where he laterput in at Cyllene and Corcyra.It is unclearwhethera Spartan to levy the states he called upon. Wareven had the authority nauarchin the Archidamian

The AthenianExpeditionto Melos in 416 B.C.

399

426 (5.84.2). Such contributions in 427 might have provided sufficient reason for an Athenian attack on Melos in 426 but if this were the case Thucydides would likely have learned of them. He in fact informs us that the purpose of the first Athenian expedition to the island was to "bring them over to the alliance" (3.91.2). From the evidence we have, it would seem that Melos, neutral since the Persian Wars, had no compelling reason to fear the Athenians until 426.52 That the Melians at some point made two contributions to the Spartan war effort is sufficient evidence to suggest an alliance of some sort. It cannot be that the Melians intended to keep their contributions secret, since it would make no sense to have them inscribed subsequently in stone. The stone itself is a concrete acknowledgment of a Melian alliance with Sparta. Such an alliance during the Archidamian War is not consistent with the Melians' professed neutrality in the Melian Dialogue.53 Though the second Melian contribution remains unknown, the first payment by them amounted to a modest 20 mnas of silver and it is likely that the second was of similar value.54 The two contribu-

52 Loomis (per coll.) feels that Alcidas may have pressuredsome or all of the Melians to contributeto the Spartan cause involuntarily butthis argument, thoughrationalenough,is equally problematic.First, the inscriptiondoes not readlike a list of contributions given by only a part of the Melian citizenry, in which case the inscription might record a donationfrom Spartan"friendsamong the Melians"as is the case with the Chian entry. Neitherdoes it have the tenoras stemmingfrom Spartan extortionbut speaks of appreciationfor its donors,listing not only variousminormonetarygifts butalso contributions in kind: two or three thousandmedimnoi of an as yet unidentifiedgrain as well as an unknownquantityof raisins. Furthermore, it is unlikely that any state would set up an inscriptionto recordinvoluntary contributions of nontraditional allies which would only "turnfriendsinto enemies"(3.32.2). Loomis furtherobserves that we might expect from the surviving,resettledMeliansa smallercontribution thanthatof the exiled Aeginetans but we might recall that only some of the Aegenetans,the presumedcontributors,were resettledby the Spartans(cf. n. 46 above). Moreover,the amountsgiven by both groups, while differinga little, are on the whole relativelyinsignificant. 53 AlthoughThucydideshas the Meliansassertrepeatedly(5.104, 106, 108, 112) and rather confidentlythatthe Spartans will aid them(cf. 5.104 wherethey state dvayKrlv iXoouaav [...] foio0eiv), he does not write that this is so because the two are allies. Cf. Gomme, HCT(as in n. 3) IV, 172:Thoughthe Melianssay thatthe Spartan "alliance"will come to theiraid, "themere occurrenceof the wordhere does not prove the existence of a formal alliance." The Melians are made to give anotherplausible reason for their confidence: theirkinshipwith Spartaandthe shameits betrayalwouldbring(5.104, 106). Thucydides underlinesthatfact immediatelybefore the dialogue when he remindshis readerthatthe Melians are colonists of the Spartans (5.84.2). 54 Given thatall of the preservedcontributions are relativelylow (the combinedtotal of the Attic equivalentof the preservedmonetarygifts is just over thirteentalents), it is highly unlikelythatthe second contribution given by the Melianswas much largerthanthe first. Loomis, SWF(as in n. 21) 77-80, gives a succinctdiscussionof the economic significance of the inscription.

400

MICHAEL

G.

SEAMAN

tions represent some sort of an alliance but if they had been given in the Archidamian War, it is difficult to see exactly what the Melians thought they might gain by making such paltry contributions. If they were meant to seek Spartanprotection from an Athenian invasion one might expect larger contributions. At one point in the Melian Dialogue Thucydides has the Athenians warn the Melians of what was true for most of the war: "it is not likely that [the Spartans] will ever cross over to an island while we are masters of the sea" (5.109).55 Could the Melians really have renounced their neutrality and counted on Spartanprotection for so meager a payment? In the Archidamian War, the Melians probablycould have afforded to make a healthier investment in their safety if this had been their intention. The Athenians in 425/4 demanded that they muster up 15 talents for the empire.56 Though there is no evidence that they ever paid it, and even if this figure was unrealistic, it is nonetheless forty-five times 20 mnas, the known amount inscribed on the Spartanstele.57 It is worth recalling that Aegina, though it was certainly much wealthier than Melos, was continually assessed by the Athenians (and presumably paid) 30 talents per annum. It is these Aeginetans who, after being expelled by Athens and resettled by Sparta,contribute to the Spartan war fund fourteen mnas and ten staters, a contribution more or less the same size as that of the Melians.58

55 Atheniannavalsuperioritywas a well knownfact fromthe beginningof the Archidamian War (cf. 1.141-142; 3.32.3 for similar comments).Later in the dialogue the Athenians the Archidamispeak anothertruthbutthe wordswouldhave rungjust as truethroughout
di6 gtd; xnoKroe noLtopKia; 'A0Ivaciot an War: ititv Kcaiov6ic dvricrtiioatv &ri oinS' 46oov 6eX0p7ioav (5.111.1). Surely, after the affairs of Naxos, Thasos, &t' aXXcov

Aegina, Euboea and Samos, the inhabitantsof neutralMelos would have realized the vulnerabilityof their position and would not have been willing duringthe Archidamian war effort. to the Spartan Warto risk a contribution 56 IG 13 71.65 = ML 69.65. 57 20 mnas = 2,000 drachmas= one-thirdof one talent. To get an idea of the purchasing power of 20 mnas, we might recall that in Athens in 415, the pay of a rower was one drachmaper day (6.31.3), the upkeepof a triremewith a crew of c. 200 rowerswas one talentper month,assumingthey were paid for each day of the month(6.8.1). is 1428 drachmas,or about 15 mnas. 58 The Attic equivalentof the Aeginetancontribution Perhapsmore useful in determiningthe value of the assessment of Melos would be a comparisonto the other places which were assessed 15 talents in 425/4. Of these, the assessment of the Naxians was raised from 6.4 talents, the Andriansfrom six and the Eretriansfrom three. We might reasonablyconclude that before the new assessment Melos might have been assessed by the Atheniansonly three to six talents, values still nine to eighteen times the known Melian contributionto the Spartanwar fund. Using Intensification populationfiguresfrom 1961, C. Renfrew,"PolityandPower:Interaction, in C. Renfrew/M.Wagstaff(eds.), An Island Polity: TheArchaeology and Exploitation," of Exploitationin Melos (Cambridge1982) 277-281, calculatedthat,if modernnumbers of inhabitants on the island reflect those in antiquity,Melos was assessed by Athens 2.7

The AthenianExpeditionto Melos in 416 B.C.

401

The stone is thought to have been used as a propaganda device to reveal widespread support for the Spartanwar effort.59 Such an inscription, however, with donors and contributions that pale in comparison to those inscribed on the Athenian tribute quota lists, would not likely have had such an effect. Contributions of this size would have been taken seriously (and inscribed) only if they were an adequate reflection of what the contributors could afford. Matthaiou and Pikoulas make the accurate observation that none of the donors whose names can be positively identified was a formal ally of Sparta.60The stone, listing the support of two or three exiled populations, might rather have been used as a propaganda device to remind the Hellenes and the Spartans themselves that they were fighting not only as the "liberatorsof the Greeks" but also as the "restorersof the Greeks."61 Therefore, the Melians who made the contributions to the Spartanwar fund must be those who survived the Athenian expedition of 416, who resettled and reconstituted themselves somewhere in Greece, and at least some of whom after the war were "restoredto their homes" by Lysander. These "refugee" Melians, like their Dorian kin, the exiled Aeginetans, might have been resettled by the Spartans somewhere in the Peloponnese and would have had ample time (twelve years at the most) to raise 20 mnas and a similar second contribution.62 It is these "refugee" Melians who proclaimed their support for Sparta and had
talentsper thousandpopulation( 15 talentsfor a populationof c. 5,000 in 1961), a figure nearlydouble the averageof 1.5 for the Cycladic islands. He estimates that 15 talents is about twice what might be expected, based on paymentsby islands of other sizes and populationdensities, and concludes (p. 277) thatthe Athenianassessmentlikely reflects "amaximumestimatefor the Melianproduction beyondsubsistencefor the populationof the time." M. Wagstaff and J. F. Cherry,"Settlementand PopulationChange," in C. Renfrew/M.Wagstaff(eds.), An Island Polity (as above) 140, rightly point out that the relatively high assessmentmay be an indicationof "a densely settled island with correspondingly high levels of productivityand surplus."Two late sources (Plut. Mul. virt. 7.246d, 247a; Polyaen.Strateg.8.64.1) relatehow Melos "beingin need of land"founded a colony in Cariaand, as we know, the foundingof colonies was usually accompaniedby an exploding populationgrowth. Loomis, SWF(as in n. 21) 83. Matthaiouand Pikoulas,'E6ov (as in n. 34) 112-113. Xenophon(Hell. 2.2.9) narrates how, afterrestoringthe Aeginetansand Melians to their islands, Lysanderdid the same co!; &XXot; 6oto rA;awx6Tv 6aorpovTo.Plutarchreports (Lys. 14.3) how Lysander's actions delighted "the whole of Hellas," identifying in additionthe Scionaeansas amongthose repatriated, a fact not incrediblesince only their adultmales hadbeen slain (cf. n. 42 above). Bleckmann,Freunde(as in n. 33) 299, rightly infers that"die vollstandigeRestituierung beiderStaaten[Melos und Aegina] ein Thema der spartanischen Propaganda im Dekeleischen Krieg gewesen sein muB."For the Spartans as "the liberatorsof the Hellenes,"cf. 1.69.1; 2.8.4, 72.1; 3.13.1, 13.7, 32.2, 59.4, 63.3; 4.85-6, 108.2; 5.9.9; 8.43.3, 46.3, 52. Bleckmann (ibid. 299-300) offers the suggestion that those Melians who chanced to survive the attack might have secured their contributionsby falling back on presumed

59 60 61

62

402

MICHAEL G. SEAMAN

nothing to lose by it but their insignificant contributions, which they must have made sometime after the Spartansrenewed the war in 413 but no later than 405 when they returned, triumphantly, to Melos. Therefore, the Melian contributions to the Spartan war fund were not what induced either of the Athenian expeditions to Melos.63

III: Additional Epigraphic Evidence In the year 425/4 the Athenians carried out an ambitious new assessment of tribute for the empire which included many cities not otherwise known to have paid tribute for many years before and still others which are not known to have paid at all. Melos, assessed 15 talents in the new assessment, is among the places assessed in 425 and is one of the assessed cities for which there is no evidence of any payment ever having been made. The editors of the tribute lists concluded that this assessment was not only ambitious but unrealistic and that it
or financialdeposits at Delphi or on booty won fightingeitheron the side of the Spartans on their own as pirates.For public funds stored up at temples used as war resources,cf. 1.121.3, 2.13.4-5. We know from an inscriptionat Delphi (ML 95) recordinga thankoffering for the Spartanvictory at Aegospotami that e9e6nonoq Aax6pnov Mdkto; in thatsea battle.Bleckmann(p. 300 n. 22) triesto link him with the Milesian participated pirateTheopomposmentionedby XenophonHell. 2.1.30. 1511," RhM57 Graecarum Beitrage,1.CorpusInscriptionum 63 M. Frankel,"Epigraphische to the Spartanwar fund in the year (1902) 540-542, thoughtthatthe Melianscontributed by Lysander,405-404, but two separate,paltryMeliancontrifollowing theirrestoration butions were not likely solicited for the war effort in the period following the battle of Aegospotami.Frankelnotedrightlythatit is unlikelythatThucydideswouldhave neglectby the Ephesiansin the 420s (1,000 darics ed to informhis readerof a sizablecontribution = four talents,3186 drachmas; cf. Loomisp. 78). The Ephesiansrevoltedfromthe Delian Freunde(as in n. 33) 304-306, pointsout thatthey would Leaguein 413/2 andBleckmann, have had good reason to contributeto the Spartancause after 410 when they received (cf. Xen. Hell. 1.2.6attackled by Thrasyllus assistancein the face of the Athenian Spartan 11; Diod. 13.64.1).The Chianexiles, who donated1,000Aeginetanstaters(the equivalent of 2,837 drachmas),were restoredto their island by the Spartansin 409/8 and this year
must serve as a terminus ante quem for their contribution. Both Bleckmann and Pidrart

the in 409/8 andthis is probably have arguedpersuasivelyfor a dateof all thecontributions to have been listedon the frontof thestone. Butthe stoneappears date forthe contributions inscribed over time and the Melian contributions,along with that of Molokros, were probablygiven some time later (otherwise why not choose a stone large enough to to pinpointa information all entrieson the front?).We do not have adequate accommodate year (or years) for the two Melian donationsto the Spartanwar fund but they most probablymade them between the years 408 and 405. The fact thatThucydidesmakes no from solicited contributions mentionwhatsoeverof this inscription(i.e. thatthe Spartans allies and that they were in partsuccessful - somethingthat the Spartans nontraditional themselveswould not have wantedto keep secret) is perhapsadditionalevidence that all donationswere madeafter411, the pointat which Thucydides'historybreaksoff.

The AthenianExpeditionto Melos in 416 B.C.

403

may have served as Athenian propaganda.64 Thucydides' implication that Melos was "formally"neutraluntil its submission in 416, despite open hostilities in 426, lends support to the view that the island was only in the "potential sphere" of Athenian influence. But several scholars, notably M. Treu and A. E. Raubitschek, dismissing the Melian Dialogue as rhetoric, believe the credibility of Thucydides is put into question by several epigraphic and literary sources.65 Another inscription, a stele inscribed on Pentelic marble and found on the Acropolis, has been identified by some scholars with the decree relating to the dispatch of the Athenian forces described in the Melian Dialogue.66 The fragmentary inscription, which appears to be an Athenian decree sending out an expedition of some sort, contains passages that resemble the Melian Dialogue. Both describe an expedition consisting of 30 triremes, 1200 hoplites and 300 bowmen. The corresponding figures led Tod and others to conclude confidently that the "agreements between certain phrases of [the] decree and the account given by the historian can hardly be due to mere coincidence."67 A more thorough study of the decree conducted by B. D. Meritt in 1953, however, exposed several inconsistencies between the inscription and the narration of Thucydides.68 Meritt pointed out that the inscription, which does not mention Melos, refers merely to "a routine expedition of thirty ships," noting in particular that Thucydides records no fewer than twelve such Athenian expeditions in addition to the one against Melos.69
64 B. D. Meritt,H. T. Wade-Gery, andM. F. McGregor,TheAthenianTributeLists (= ATL) (Cambridge,Mass./Princeton1939-53) III, 196: "A 9 was an unrealistic assessment which contained names of cities from whom Athens could scarcely expect payments." They further stressed (p. 345) that one "must never forget that many cities in the assessmentlist are knownneverto have paid tributeat all, includingMelos and probably many of the Pontic cities, and that many were includedfor their propaganda value, like the cities beyond Phaselis,long afterthey hadceased to belong to the AthenianEmpire." 65 For the MelianDialogue as rhetoric,cf. M. Treu,"AthenundMelos undder Melierdialog des Thukydides," Historia3 (1954) 271; A. E. Raubitschek, "WarMelos tributpflichtig?" Historia 12 (1963) 82. 66 IG 12 97 = Tod 76. Kirchhoff,who publishedthe text in 1873 (IG I 54 and 99), was the first to make the connectionwith Melos. Tod followed suit labeling it "Decreeregulating the Melian Expedition."Citationsbelow are from IG 12 97 which rightly incorporates a thirdfragment(c) rejectedby Tod, GHI(as in n. 23) 192. 67 Tod, ibid. 192. 68 Alreadyunconvincedin 1950 werethe editorsof the tributelists who haddetermined that the decree "hasnothingto do with Melos."Cf. MerittJWade-Gery/McGregor, ATL(as in n. 64) III, 11. Among the differences cited by Meritt,"An AthenianDecree," in G. E. Mylonas(ed.), StudiesPresentedto D. M. Robinsonon his SeventiethBirthday(St. Louis 1953) II, 300, are the fact thatThucydidesnamesChianand Lesbianships not mentioned in the inscription(5.84.1) while the inscriptionnames 150 volunteersin additionto the hoplites (1. 10) and names bowmenand peltasts from both the Atheniansand their allies (1. 17). 69 Meritt,ibid. 300. Merittfurther notes thatCleon's expeditionto Macedoniaresemblesthe

404

MICHAEL G. SEAMAN

One year after Meritt published his study of the inscription, M. Treu published a study which attempted to associate the inscription with Melos again.70 Treu believes, however, not only that the inscription points to the Athenian expedition to Melos, but that it also shows that the island was tributary and revolting from Athens in 416. He inferred, from the preserved words eVtefkl T6Oj 006povin the third line of the inscription, that Athens was sending the expedition against Melos because the island had not paid to Athens the full amount of their assessed tribute payments.71 Treu therefore drew a connection between this inscription and the Athenian tribute reassessment decree of 425. He theorized that Melos, since it was on the Reassessment Decree, must have become an ally of Athens by 425 but that by 416 she had "fallen away" and needed to be brought back into the fold. Treu's theory, which rests in part on the interpretation of three words, has justifiably come under attack.72In 1959, W. Eberhardtpublished a careful survey of the areas where the assessment of 425 must be considered unrealistic and convincingly showed that the decree must list many cities from which Athens probably never collected.73 For Eberhardt,the Reassessment Decree of 425 is a list of those cities and peoples within the actual or potential sphere of influence of the Athenian empire on whom the tribute was assessed.74 Under the weight of Meritt's and Eberhardt's arguments, Treu's epigraphic evidence cracks and one may therefore conclude that Melos, like many other states listed on the decree, was not tribute-paying in 425 but was only declared tribute-boundby the Athenians.

IV: Additional LiteraryEvidence In 1963, Treu's theory was revived by A. E. Raubitschek, who cited not epigraphic but literary evidence to support the view that Melos was a tributeinscriptionevery bit as much as the expeditiondescribedin the Melian Dialogue. It too consisted of a squadron of 30 ships, 1,200 hoplites, 300 horsemenand a numberof allies (5.2.1). Meritt(ibid. 301-303) dates the inscriptionto 430 andbelieves the decree was for a tribute-collecting fleet of "drafted marines." Treu,Athen(as in n. 65), did not discuss Meritt'sarguments. Treu, ibid. 261f. Cf. E. Buchner,"Die Aristophanes-Scholien unddie Frageder Tributpflicht von Melos," Chiron4 (1974) 91, who correctlynotedthatfor Treu,the expeditiondecree is even more importantthan the ReassessmentDecree because it shows for him both "thatAthens continuedher demandfor tributefrom Melos and thatMelos had actuallypaid." W. Eberhardt, "DerMelierdialogunddie Inschriften ATLA 9 (IG 12 63 +) undIG 12 97 +,
Historia 8 (1959) 284-314.

70 71 72

73

74 It is worth noting that in the 430s the numberof cities recordedin the tributelists never exceeded 175 but was no less than380 in 425. Buchner,Scholien (as in n. 72) 92, writes that the Reassessment Decree should be seen as "eine einseitige Absichtserklarung Athens".

The AthenianExpeditionto Melos in 416 B.C.

405

paying member of the Athenian empire in 425.75 Raubitschek twice calls on the testimony of the Aristophanic scholia and once on Diodorus Siculus in his attempt to show that Melos was tributpflichtig.76In his view, the Athenian sack of Melos in 416 is referred to in the scholia on the Birds. Line 186 of that play states that the gods will be killed kiti Mlkiw. Under the heading of these two words the Suda gives the following commentary:
eV

yap Tto; IHeXoiroVVTaX1oti

iEdvTov NuxiavnrEwave; XccTa'

'AOi1vatoi

n' TOOOiDTOV al'Yoi; 60oTEktC iaoetltpat. TX & npo)TC *6EioXi6pxT1(av FTCt Ntxicaq MiXov napecroaao oi5 govov nIlXavwv tpouayMil, a,AXaz cai kXuC,&ta'co &royrovat avudiv, nrp67vimnorO. ovoav. For during the Peloponnesian War, the Athenians, sending Nicias out against everyone, besieged [the Melians] until they perished by famine. In the first year [of the siege], Nicias attacked Melos not only by the drawing up of siege engines but also by famine because, having recently become tributary,they had revolted [from the Athenians].77 The scholiast thus says that Melos was besieged by Athens because it had revolted after having recently become tribute-bound and that Nicias was the general who led the Athenian expedition to Melos when the island capitulated. But Thucydides relates that the Athenian commanders of the expedition in 416 were originally Cleomedes son of Lycomedes and Teisias son of Teisimachus (5.84.3) and that they were laterjoined by another force commanded by Philocrates son of Demeas (5.116.3). Raubitschek finds in the above passage of the Suda "proof' of a report of the occupation of Melos "entirely different from Thucydides."78But such a hasty conclusion should be resisted for two reasons: the nature of the source and the fact that it attributes the leadership of the Athenian expedition to Melos of 416 to the very same general who made the expedition in 426. The Suda, believed to have been compiled about the end of the tenth century A.D., is notorious for its contradictions and ineptitude.79 In

75 Raubitschek,Melos (as in n. 65). 76 Though he believes IG I1 71 (the Reassessment Decree of 425) is evidence for the status of Melos, in his article Raubitschek,ibid., does not addressEberhardt's tributary convincing arguments. Raubitschek also cites (p. 82) as evidence of Melos in open revolt fromAthensIG V 1,1 (the Spartan WarFund)and,inferringfromDiod. 12.65.2, wonders whetherEphorusknew of Melianpaymentsto the Spartan warfundandtherefore"didnot hold the neutralityof the island in high esteem." 77 I have translatedKax& niavtov as "againsteveryone" though I suspect the phrase is corrupt.LSJ s.v. Kard(A.5) allows that Kcaz& + gen. can be used "in a hostile sense" but evidently not in a verb of motion, with which we would expect the acc. (ibid. III). 78 Raubitschek, Melos (as in n. 65) 82. 79 Cf. Adler, REs.v. "Suidas," cols. 675-717. The Sudacontainsmanycontradictions and is thoughtto have undergonemuch interpolation.

406

MICHAELG. SEAMAN

fact it is precisely the mentionof Nicias that betraysthe confusion of the thatit was not Nicias who commanded writer.80 We know froman inscription the expedition which destroyedMelos but Teisias son of Teisimachusand Thucydides narrates.81 Cleomedesson of Lycomedes,the samecommanders source for the "secondtradition" is Ephorusand he traces Raubitschek's boththrough ingeniouslyan invisiblepathbackto the fourthcenturyhistorian one of the main sources for the DiodorusSiculus and throughSymmachus, oldest scholia to Aristophanes. Ephoruswas a chief sourcefor Diodorusand the Raubitschek cites a passagefrom Diodoruswhich appearsto substantiate assertionof the scholia that Nicias commandedthe Athenianexpeditionto Melos in 416:
'A6vatot
Ni'atav

i)pa cat 6U Niuiou ctpaTnyoi5vro; Etiov 80o iu6X&;, Kv [ncvta;] ihp8o&vii?oIatav, Mv te Milov ?aiC1oXop1C1iaav?e;

c uvaYKa;E'iv8pawuo8tavto (Diod. 12.80.5).82 ntat6a;6? iai

80 Alreadyin 1914 J. W. White, TheScholia on the Aves of Aristophanes(Boston 1914) 50, 52, concludedthatthe authorof the passagehadconfusedthe two Athenianexpeditionsto Melos. 81 IG I3 370 = ML 77. There can be little doubt that the inscriptionrefers to the Melian expeditionof 416. Thoughsome lettersare illegible, Meiggs and Lewis, Selection (as in n. 23) 231, read"[Teisilasson of TeisimachusandCleomedesson of Lyco[medesl."F. E. Birds,"AJP I15 (1994) Romer,"Atheism,Impietyandthe LimosMelios in Aristophanes' that the Suda's referenceto "Melian famine" 351-365, has persuasivelydemonstrated may have as muchor moreto do with Diagorasthe Melianthanwith the events on Melos in 416/5. It is worth noting that this is the sole referenceto "Melian"in the text of the Birds, thoughDiagorasthe Melian is alludedto on two otheroccasions (11.1420f., 10721074 where he is mentioned by name; cf. Romer pp. 352-358). Cf. also Raubitschek, simply "Melos"(as in n. 65) 83. In Clouds830, to makeSocratesan atheist,Aristophanes calls him 6 MrXto;. The entryunder"Melianfamine"is anotherexampleof interpolation evidence thatsuggests Nicias besiegedMelos in 416, Raubitschek, in the Suda.As further Melos (as in n. 65) 81, cites the scholia to lines 362f. of the Birds. In these lines Aristophaneshas one of the characterssay to another "You outdo Nicias in siegea?j y' AS&r NtKiav taot; IifXavcxi), perhaps implying that engines" (6n?epaicovti4ei.; Nicias was quite skilled with them. Though Melos is not mentioned,the scholia again interpret these lines to referto the captureof Melos by Nicias. But Buchner,Scholien(as thatthe scholiastmusthave incorrectlylinkedline in n. 72) 96, has cleverly demonstrated 186 to lines 362f. since there is little reasonto believe that the Athenians,having heard of the these lines at the City Dionysia in March414, the time of the first performance Birds, would have made the connection with the siege of Melos which ended in winter 416/5, especially given the fact that they were alreadynearly one year into the Sicilian zu Thukydides.Er ist campaign:"DerText selbst von V. 362f. bietetkeinenWiderspruch entwederin aktuellerWeise auf das damaligeWirkendes Nikias in Sizilien zu beziehen In view of Nicias' resignation Feldherrntatigkeit." oder allgemein auf dessen langjahrige of command to Cleon in 425 (and perhapsconsideringhis subsequentperformanceat Syracuse),it may be thatthe complimentpaid to Nicias was actuallymeantto be a joke. 82 Ephorusis believed to be Diodorus'chief source for books 11-16.

The AthenianExpeditionto Melos in 416 B.C.

407

The Athenians under the command of Nicias seized two cities, Cythera and Nisaea; having forced Melos by siege, they slew the men of military age and enslaved the children and women. For Diodorus, this passage constitutes the whole of Athenian affairs for the year 418. While it may be inferred from the quotation that Diodorus believed that Nicias led the Melian expedition of 416, this is not at all clear and the passage itself has several difficulties which make it hard to accept it as constituting a "second tradition."Early editors of the text correctly inserted a semicolon after the word Nitatav. The separation in the author's mind between the taking of Cythera and Nisaea and the destruction of Melos is clear since Diodorus says specifically that, "underthe command of Nicias, the Athenians took two cities," not three. In the second part of his sentence Diodorus relates that "[The Athenians] besieged Melos, slew all the adult men and enslaved the children and women." In view of the fact that Diodorus was hereby summing up in a single sentence all Athenian events of an individual year worthy of mention and in view of the inherent textual division, it appears evident that he did not mean to say that Nicias was in command for all the military expeditions outlined in the sentence but only for the taking of the first two cities.83 This is made even more clear from Diodorus' account of the oration of Gylippus at Syracuse.

83 The fact that Diodorusplaces the Melian siege in his narration of the events of 418 only serves to lesson his credibilityin his accountof the expedition.He earlier(12.65.2) says correctlythatNicias led the firstAthenianexpeditionto Melos buthe misplacesthe affair in 424, two years late, and adds thatthe Athenianslaid siege, explainingthat Melos was "the only island among the Cyclades observingthe alliance with the Lacedaemonians." W. Kierdorf,"ZumMelier-Dialogdes Thukydides," RhM 105 (1962) 253f., points out that, although Diodorus (wrongly) makes the Melians allies of the Spartans,he says nothingabouttheirrevoltingfrom Athens, somethingwe would expect him to include if he were using a "secondtradition" in Ephorus.Moreover,while the takingof Cytherais a well establishedfeat of Nicias (4.53-55; Plut.Nic. 6.4), Diodorusseems to have muddled his accountof the occupationof this islandas well. In 12.65.8 he has alreadystatedthatin 424 Nicias attackedand received the surrender of Cytheraand this chronology agrees with Thucydides. Since Cythera was restored to the Spartansin the Peace of Nicias (5.18.7), there is no reason to believe that the Atheniansreoccupiedthe island in 418 therebybreakingthe treaty. In the same passage cited above, the thoroughlyconfused Diodorus, who is followed by Plutarch(Nic. 6.4), also relatesthat Nicias gained possession of Nisaea in 418, an accomplishment which Thucydides(4.66.3-69.4) ascribesto the generals Hippocratesson of Ariphronand Demosthenesson of Alcisthenes in the year 424. If the Athenianswere to "keepNisaea"(Nicatav 6' eXetv:5.17.2) by the terms of the Peace of Nicias, why wouldthey need to conquerit again in 418? A full discussion is providedby Buchner,Scholien(as in n. 72) 93f. The passages in Diodorushardlyinspire confidence. In view of these andothersuch blundersof Diodorus,in the case of Melos we should be inclined to agreewith the wisdom of Meiggs, Empire(as in n. 10) 457: "When Diodorusdiffers fromThucydideswe can usually ignore him."

408

G. SEAMAN MICHAEL

When advising against granting mercy to the Athenians, the Spartan general reminds the Syracusans of the fate of the Melians (Diod. 13.30.6; 32.1-2). Though Diodorus makes Gylippus find Nicias worthy of the death penalty for various reasons, he does not have Gylippus assign to Nicias the credit (or blame) for the siege and massacre at Melos, as we would expect him to if he had previously held Nicias responsible for it.84 If there was in antiquity a "second tradition"of the siege of 416 which gave the credit to Nicias, we might expect Plutarch to have commented on it in his Life of Nicias.85 Without the help of Diodorus (and therefore Ephorus) Raubitschek's argument depends on a very late and unreliable source which conflates the two Athenian expeditions to Melos.86 Therefore, there is no credible evidence in either Diodorus or the scholia which suggests that Melos was ever tributary.87

84 As noted by Buchner(ibid. 92f.), Diodorus 13.30.6 seems to have Gylippusassign the xi yo MTjXiov;, blame for the fate of the Meliansto the Atheniansas a whole: Kca Ti oiv;
elcnoXdopicioavtE; lplSov ad6rrtevav, KcaiXcKtovaiou;, oi a-yyEvEtS;ovt; nT; aTi)S; 6pyi1v 6rJt1C-a;a. MTjXiot;5iXi1S ECotv6;vq1aav;6o-m HMo%iou;Vnp?S 'ATT}iKhv

85 In his accountof the deathof Nicias, Plutarch(Nic. 28.4) does not hesitateto relate two traditionsrecordedby three different authors.Dionysius of Halicarnassustoo appears since he makesno mentionof Nicias when relatingthe ignorantof any "secondtradition" affair (Thuc. 37-41). There is some merit in Buchner'sargument,Scholien (as in n. 72) 93, that the killing which followed the siege does not correspondto the characterof Nicias thathas come down to us. We mightrecallthatwhen the Athenianarmyburstinto to them,the generalsNicias the revoltingcity of Mendewhich was unexpectedlybetrayed with difficulty"the Atheniansoldiers from massacringthe and Nicostratus"restrained (4.130.6). inhabitants 86 Buchner,ibid. 96-98, shows just how unreliableas a historicalsource the scholia of the Birds are. They errconstantly(cf. 11.13, 362, 395-99) when describinghistoricalevents alluded to by Aristophanes. 87 Daniel Gillis and ltdouardWill are two scholarsamong those who have followed Treu and Raubitschekin accepting the tributarystatus of Melos. Cf. Gillis, "Murderon Melos," RAIB112 (1978) 186f. Will, Le mondegrec et l'orient: Le cinquiemesiecle (5th ed. Paris 1994) I, 345, believes that "la minusculeMdlos avait d6ja subi une attaqueen 426, que Thucydide avait 6voqu6e [...l sans en donner la conclusion: car Melos fut contraintede payer tributa Athenes."Will, however,can accept Thucydides'statement that Melos was neutralin 416 since he holds that "la paix de Nicias renditles Meliens a leur neutralite" (ibid.). This view is implausiblegiven the favorabletermsof the Peace of as they think best"aboutthose cities Nicias which allowed the Atheniansto "determine not mentionedspecifically by the treaty(5.18.8). Gomme,HCT(as in n. 3) III, 675, well sums up the fate of the cities within the Athenianempirebut not mentionedspecifically by the treaty:"Athensis to be left a free handnot only with this groupof cities but with by the rest of those in her empire."There is no clear indicationthatMelos was tributary 421, but even if it was, as Will would have it, if we accept Thucydides'version of the restoredMelianneutrality treaty,we mightask why the Athenianswouldhave voluntarily and deprivedthemselvesof an annualpaymentof 15 (or any) talents.

The AthenianExpeditionto Melos in 416 B.C.

409

V: Conclusions As we have seen, there is no reliable evidence which refutes Thucydides' version of the Athenian expedition to Melos in 416. No ancient source, epigraphic or literary, shows that before 416 Melos was either allied to Sparta or subject to Athens; that she was not in fact both independent and neutral,just as Thucydides tells us.88 But we may well ask whether the Melian Dialogue is historically credible. The documentary value of Thucydides' speeches has been much debated and this is especially true for the Melian Dialogue. It is assumed by many scholars that Thucydides uses the Melian episode to analyze in the form of invented speeches his own views of Athenian imperialism and to show what the conquest of Melos really implied.89 Perhaps he intended to show the extent of Athenian moral degeneration before the Sicilian disaster.90The juxtaposition of the Melian affair and the Sicilian disaster is indeed dramatic, but unless it can be proven that Thucydides omitted significant historical events that took place between the two, "we cannot accuse Thucydides of sacrificing history to art."91Much attention has been focused on "the moral question" but there is no reason to doubt the historical substance of the dialogue.92
88 This should come as no surprise, however, since to maintain that the Melians were tributary we wouldhave to assumethatThucydideswas eitherignorantof the facts (while othersapparently were not) or thathe positively falsified them, both in regardto matters of consequence(e.g. thatthe Melians were allied with Spartaor thatthey were revolting from Athens, in which case he would have omitted both the circumstancesof their incorporation into the empire- since he has them neutralin 431 - and their subsequent returnto neutrality by rebellionor othermeans)andin lesser details (e.g. the namesof the Atheniangeneralswho campaignedagainstMelos). We might also considerthat it would have addedto Thucydides'artistryto have Nicias as commander of both the Melian and Sicilian expeditions. His absence is therefore stronger than the usual argument from silence. 89 Cf. especially J. de Romilly, Thucydide et l'impe6rialisme athenien(Paris 1947) 230: "Le dialogue est 6videmmentune oeuvre de Thucydideautantqu'un dialogue de Platon est une oeuvre de Platon;"M. I. Finley, "TheMelian Dialogue,"Appendix 3 in R. Warner (trans.), Thucydides'History of the PeloponnesianWar (2nd ed. New York 1972): "[In the Melian Dialogue] Thucydideshas inventedmore or less everything;"see also M. I. Finley's Ancient History: Evidence as Models (New York 1985) 13f., 110, n. 15. Cf. also A. G. Woodhead, Thucydideson the Nature of Power (Cambridge,MA 1970) 3, 8-10. Amit, Dialogue (as in n. 14) 225-227, supplies a general survey of those who hold the view that the Melian Dialogue is an inventionof Thucydides. 90 See especially F. M. Cornford,Thucydides Mythistoricus (London 1907) 182-185; J. H. Finley, Thucydides (as in n. 40) 208-212; morerecentis de Romilly, TheRise and Fall of States Accordingto GreekAuthors(Ann Arbor 1977) 57f. 91 Meiggs, Empire(as in n. 10) 387. If Thucydideshadintendedto sacrifice facts to generate sympathyfor the Melians he would have done betterto leave out the line [oi MiAXtotf ?5 r6XsEov4avep6v KcareaTqoav (5.84.2). 92 Thucydides tells us himself (1.22. 1) that in the speeches he has "adheredas close as

410

MICHAEL

G.

SEAMAN

We should bear in mind that even though Thucydides likely composed the Melian Dialogue after the war was over, perhaps with the intention to remind his readerthat "warteaches men to be violent" (3.82.2), neither the form nor the date of composition necessarily precludes it from accurate historicity. Thucydides probably wrote about the second campaign against Melos shortly after the events took place. Narratingthe affairs of 426, Thucydides deemed it worthy to relate (in a scant two lines) that the Athenians sailed to Melos with the futile hope of bringing the island into the alliance and departed having merely ravaged the surrounding land. A second, successful expedition to the island would surely have warranted narrationand our historian would have realized this in 416. Thucydides may have actually invented the dialogue itself very late, composing arguments of highly sophistic philosophical nature, while still incorporating the essential previously gathered facts. Nor would it have been impossible for Thucydides to learn what was said on the island.93Thucydides

possible to the general sense of whatwas actuallysaid"(eyyivratarti; )ugndors;yv6gyr;

'r6)v dXrI0d; x0VXOvxv).

I am inclined to agree with F. W. Walbank, Polybius (Berkeley/

Los Angeles 1972) 44, that "unless one is preparedto regardThucydidesas blind or dishonest, then his speeches must presumablyhave borne some relationto the overall a0XCX OxvdXi0 purposeof what was said, and remainanchored,howeverloosely, toT&
Ta "

93 Cf. Jones, Democracy(as in n. 23) 66: "It is virtuallyimpossiblethat [Thucydides]can have had any informationon the Melian debate, which was held behind closed doors between the Atheniancommissionersand the Melian government,who were all subseas a free composition."But while the rangeof quentlyexecuted, and it must be regarded possible sourcesfor the MelianDialogue is indeednarrow,we know of Meliansurvivors whomThucydidescould have interviewed,perhapssomewherein the Peloponnese.From themhe wouldalso have learnedthatthe Atheniansbroughtno specific chargeagainstthe of Alcidas, the paymentof 20 mnas, or Melians in 427 (i.e. the comfortingand harboring cf. n. 104 below). Thucydideshimself the mintingof new coinage, for which arguments informs us (5.26.5) that while writing his history he spent his time o06 asov Tot; and RonaldStroud,"Thucydides HeIXotovvrlaiov ("mostlyamongthe Peloponnesians"). Corinth,"Chiron 24 (1994) 267-304, has recently made a strong case that Thucydides resided largely in Corinthduringhis twenty years away from Athens. Thucydidesmay also have found a source among the Athenians.It is not difficult to imagine Athenian of what was discussed at a privateconferenceand generals informingtheir subordinates of Thucydides' learningof it. A parallelmight be when Thucydidesinforms us of the to conferenceheld in 413 by the AtheniangeneralsNicias, Demosthenesand Eurymedon decide whetherto abandonSyracuse or remaindespite their disadvantageousposition. and of the Atheniansoldiers "few out Thoughall threegeneralsperishedsoon thereafter, Thucydidesreportsto us in greatdetail of each general'sviews (7.47of manyreturned," 49). K. J. Dover, Thucydides(Oxford 1973) 23, remindsus that Greekmilitaryofficials were not particularlyknown for their reticence: "Generalswill have boasted or complainedto theirfriendsaftera conference,and half the distinguishedAthenianswho fled from with an envoy who had returned into exile in 415 could have been at dinner-parties Melos." For boastingAtheniansat a symposium,cf. Ar. Wasps1186-1205.

The AthenianExpeditionto Melos in 416 B.C.

411

indeed dramatized the Melian episode but there is no solid evidence that suggests he did not depict accurately the bare facts: First, that the Athenians had brought no specific charges against the Melians in 416 and that they offered to spare her if she joined the empire and paid tribute; and second, that the main line of the Melian defense was that they would rely on the gods and on their ties of kinship to the Spartans.94Despite all the arguments to the contrary, Thucydides' account of the Melian affair remains essentially unshaken.

VI: Summary of Events Leading up to and Following the Athenian Expedition to Melos in 416 B.C. I submit the following chronology of events concerning the Athenian expedition to Melos in 416. In 431 the Melians were officially allied to neither side. Their sympathy, however, probably lay with Sparta, to whom they felt united by strong ties of kinship.95 It was probably for this reason that the Melians never joined the Delian League, even though they had fought alongside the Athenians at Salamis. At first, the Melians kept a low profile and were careful not to reveal publicly any pro-Spartansympathies. In 427 the admiral Alcidas maneuvered the Spartan fleet stealthily through Aegean waters to Ionia and, though retreating in haste upon being sighted by the two swift Athenian state triremes, the Salaminia and the Paralus, his actions were sufficient cause for alarm in Athens (3.33.1-2). In the following year, the Athenians under the leadership of Nicias sent an expedition to Melos in an effort to secure the last area of the Aegean that had up until then successfully eluded her.96 It is significant that Nicias did not lay siege to Melos in 426. The Athenians did not attempt a prolonged siege perhaps because they still respected to an extent Melian neutrality. They might be less inclined to lay siege to a neutral state in times of war since overly aggressive action might drive other neutral
94 These argumentsof the Melians are summedup in their closing remarks:ri;l cxcp
ToV6c qO(00V1 T1)
RiI piq

EK TtOF 8o-o

.oviWov.W

FeC)OVxE;

iEtpacor60a

axTTv Kat TTj ano Ttv dv6poiov a)aea0at (5.112.2).

Kai AaK?x6at-

95 Pro-Spartan sympathieson Melos were no doubt felt most intensely among the ruling oligarchs(cf. 5.84.3-85). 96 There is no need to assume (and no evidence to suggest) that the expedition was punishment for certainassistancethatthe Melianshadprovidedto Alcidas in 427 (see pp. 398f. above). It is rathermore likely that the Athenianswere simply reassertingtheir authorityover the Aegean, which they consideredtheir privatedomain. It could be that the expedition is an indicationthat "AthMnes entendaitposseder toute la mer E'gee,"as PiErart,Notes (as in n. 11) 165, has suggested, though such a policy seems more attributable to Cleon after the victory at Pylos the following year. The expedition may reflect only the desire to follow up the Atheniansuccess in bringingthe Theransinto the alliance.

412

MICHAEL G. SEAMAN

states into the hands of their enemies. More likely, however, was that there was little incentive to undergo such an operation. With the war "in full bloom" (3.3.1) and a Spartan fleet still active in the war, the Athenians probably thought it impracticable to lay siege to an island, the conquest of which would generate little strategic advantage. Sparta,already at war with Athens, might be tempted to intervene on behalf of her kinsmen and prolong the whole affair. Once the Peace of Nicias was established, however, there would be less risk for the Athenians and greater danger for the Melians, since an intervention on the part of Sparta would mean breaking the treaty. The following year, however, the Spartan fleet was liquidated (4.14.4; 4.16), partly destroyed in battle, partly impounded, and Melos was assessed an incredible 15 talents. The Melians ignored the assessment and, despite their claims to neutrality, their relations with Athens deteriorated. In spite of a clash of arms in 426, the Melians maintained their neutrality, though their relations with Athens would hardly have been cordial. Of all Aegean islands of any importance, Melos alone had preserved its independence, but without the assurance of defense by a Spartan fleet that independence was less secure.97 The Peace of Nicias provided Athens with the opportunity to invest Melos without the worry that Sparta might try to intervene. By 416, with virtually no chance of Spartan intervention, the Athenians set out on the task they could not afford to undertake in 426. Melos was the only significant island left in the Aegean not subject to Athens and its submission would bring her both greater dominion and greater security.98 In the spring of 416, while formally at peace with Sparta,the Athenians sent a second expedition of considerable force to Melos with the identical purpose as the first: to bring the Melians over to the alliance. Though Thucydides says nothing of Melian wrongdoing, many scholars have presumed an immediate antecedent conflict that provoked the expedition of 416.99 Andrewes, followed by others, believes that the large number of allied islanders that participatedin the siege "arouses the suspicion that the attack was not just an evidently monstrous outrage."100But allied participation, even if the allies were com97 For Athenianassessmentof the Aegean islands see Meiggs, Empire(as in n. 10) 50-52. 98 The two reasonsfor the expeditionwhich Thucydideshas the Atheniansadmit. 99 Cf. A. Andrewes,"TheMelianDialogueandPericles'LastSpeech,"PCPhSn. s. 6 (1960) 2: "Therewas a case, perhapseven a plausiblecase, for Athens' attackon Melos in 416, and Thucydides no doubt knew what it was [but he] excluded these facts from his account."Macleod, Form (as in n. 14) 397, and othersaccept this view. 100 Andrewes,HCT(as in n. 3) IV, 157. Cf. also M. I. Finley,Dialogue (as in n. 89) 614. The force consistedof 30 Athenianships, six Chianandtwo Lesbian,1,200 Athenianhoplites,
Kcavivaiiotv 300 bowmen, 20 mounted archers, and tcov 5e 4ivgciov 6lniXat; gcxvaQanevTaicoaiot; ical Xtkiot; (5.84.1). The wordingis strangesince the islanderswere

it to mean thatthe allied force was confined to allies and Andrewesand othersinterpret islanders.

The AthenianExpeditionto Melos in 416 B.C.

413

prised only of islanders, does not necessarily imply particular grounds for an attack in 416.101 We should distinguish between the attack on Melos and the subsequent massacre of the islanders since the offensive itself was probably not an outrage to Greek sentiment. Andrewes observes acutely that while the massacre later became a standardcharge brought against Athens, "no one was interested in re-examining the reasons for sending the expedition."102This is because no one needed a reason to re-examine the expedition: forcible incorporation into the empire was nothing new.103 There is no solid evidence for a special charge brought against the Melians in 416 and there is no compelling reason to presume one.104If there was an antecedent quarrel that provoked the
101 This view rests on the false premise that there existed solidarity between all Aegean islands. Andrewes,Pericles (as in n. 99) 2, writes: "Clearlythey knew they could trust their allies: clearly, then, the expedition was not a monstrosityof aggression,but something with which alreadysubject islanderscould sympathise."But while this solidarity may have been felt amongAegean islandsin general,it did not necessarilyapplyto Melos since, as Thucydides constantly reminds us, the Melians, unlike their attackers,were Dorians. 102 Andrewes,HCT(as in n. 3) IV, 158. 103 Neither was wholesale execution for that matter,thoughkilling of innocentvictims was no doubtdetestedby many.Cf. Gillis, Murder(as in n. 87) 197: "The'atrociousconduct' of the Athenianswas by now fairly standard practicein Greece,"as was similarconduct by the Spartansand theirallies. For a discussion,cf. Gillis 187-201. 104 Kierdorf,Dialog (as in n. 83) 156, points out thatthere is no need to assume a reason for the attackother than that of the first expedition.Several scholars, R. Jamesonand J. G. Milne most notably among them, have made the rather implausible suggestion that Meliancoinage mayhaveprovidedan excuse for the Athenianexpedition.Cf. R. Jameson, "Une trouvaillede stat6resde M6los,"RN 12 (1908) 301-310; cf. also his "Latrouvaille de Milo," RN 13 (1909) 188-208; J. G. Milne, The Melos Hoard of 1907 (New York 1934). Jamesonand Milne have drawna connectionbetweenthe events of 416 and a coin hoarddiscovered on the island in 1907. The "Melianhoard"consists of some 84 staters struck on a standardweight of c. 14 grams, the Lydian standardon which the Melian stater was based throughoutthe fifth century. The virtual absence of Melian coinage struck with these types outside the island has led these scholars to conclude (perhaps unnecessarily)from an argumentum ex silentio that the entire hoardwas mintedat once shortly before 416 in which year it was either buriedor melted down by the Athenians. Jamesonbelieved ([1909] p. 205f.) that an independent Melian coinage in the mid-fifth centurythreatened Atheniancontrolover the coinage of theirsubjectallies (cf. IG I) 1453 = ML 45: the AthenianStandards Decree) andthus"etaitforc6ment interditaux membres de la ligue delienne." Along similar lines, Milne argued (pp. 14-17) that the Melians provokedthe attackof 416 by undersellingAtheniancoinage (c. seven gramsagainstthe Athenianof c. four) therebythreateningAtheniancontrol of the silver market.But it is difficult to see how the minor island of Melos could ever have seriously challenged Athenianeconomic supremacyin the Aegean. Moreover,as C. M. Kraay,"The Melos Hoardof 1907 Re-examined," NC ser. 7, vol. 4 (1964) 18, points out, the reason for the unusualweight likely had a basis in traditionand anyway the Atheniantetradrachm still outweighed the Melian stater (17.2 grams against 14.1). Kraay(p. 18f.) advanced the

414

G. SEAMAN MICHAEL

attack, it probably would not have remained hidden in the sources but would have surfaced, if not in Thucydides or Xenophon, then certainly in the writings of the fourth century Attic orators who defended the expedition.'05 The motive for the expedition was in all probability Athenian imperialism, plain and simple. We know from the Athenian tribute quota lists that during the Peace of Nicias the Athenians began advancing upon those islands left independent in the South Aegean. In 425, three minor Dorian islands of the Southem Cyclades, Cimolos, Pholegandros and Sicinos, along with Melos, were assessed for the first time.106 By 418 two of these three neighbors of the Melians had made payments to Athens.107The Athenians would hardly have overlooked the island of Melos, the relatively minor but significantly richer neighbor of these Southern Cyclades.'08 It was their intention to gain complete

plausible theory that the Melian hoard representsa "siege coinage," the productof an emergency tax minted in anticipationof the eventual attack for the purposeof buying mercenariesand supplies. But the fact that the coins employ at least 14 obverse and 34 reversedies, includingat least 24 differentreversetypes amonga mere 84 coins, suggests a longer periodof issue. As Milne notes (p. 3), it is quite exceptionalfor "a state the size of Melos to use as manydies in such a shortperiod."Even if Kraayis right,however,no solid evidence yet suggests a link betweenthe Meliancoin hoardand the causes of either of the Athenianexpeditionsto Melos. 105 Isocratesessentiallyjustifies the Athenianactionson Melos on threeoccasions (Panath. 63, 89; Paneg. 100-102). In Paneg. 101, he seems to condonethe Athenianexecutionson Melos and at Scione, justifying them as suitablepunishmentfor offendersand labeling the two groupsas 'rvE; TrCov xoXeriTadvrov ilgiv ("someof those who foughtagainstus") but this is surely rhetoricdesigned to obscure the facts and extol the glory of a former empire.Of the laterwriterswho commenton the affair,Strabo(10.5.1) merely mentions the massacrein passing; though Aelius Aristides (Panath. 302), as might be expected, echoes Isocrates' virtualapologia. A. Andrewes,"ThePeace of Nicias and the Sicilian in D. M. Lewis et al. (eds.), CAHV (2nd ed. Cambridge1992) 446, believes Expedition," in laterjudgmentsof Athenianimperialthatthe reasonMelos standsout so prominently of the Melian affair. ism is due in no small measureto Thucydides'extensive treatment But it is likely that the attentionpaid to defending Athenianactions on Melos in the speeches of the fourthcenturyoratorsis ratherdue to the unjustnatureof those executions. For Arrian, writing in the second centuryA.D., the massacreson Melos and at Scione rankednot only foremostamongAthenianmisdeedsbut were perhapsthe greatest acts of injustice in the entire Hellenic world:"Finally,the captureof Melos and Scione, which were little islandtowns, broughtmoreshameto the captorsthanany greatshock to the whole Greekworld"(Anab. 1.9.5). 106 On the AthenianReassessmentDecree of 425/4 (IG I3 71 = ML 69, lines 87, 89, 90) 2,000. and Pholegandros Cimolos and Sicinos were each assessed 1,000 drachmas 107 Paymentsare preservedin the tributequota lists for Sicinos in 422/1, 418/7, 417/6 and in 418/7, 417/6 and 416/5. Cimolos appearsin 416/5. 416/5; for Pholegandros 108 Though the motivationis clear, we cannot know the actual argumentsadvancedby the Atheniansin the Melian Dialogue. Perhaps,as Meiggs, Empire(as in n. 10) 389, noted, the Athenians reasoned that the Melians were "enjoyingall the benefits derived from

The AthenianExpeditionto Melos in 416 B.C.

415

control of the seas and to discourage disaffection among the allies, precisely as Thucydides tells us.109 After the island was conquered, the Athenians executed those adult Melian men "whom they caught" and later sent out 500 colonists to repopulate the island. IIO The survivors were resettled, probably by Sparta in the Peloponnese, and these "refugee" Melians later made two paltry contributions to the Spartan war fund, probably sometime after 409, when the Chian exiles likely made their donation, but before they were led back to their island by Lysander in 405. It is indeed ironic to consider that it was in fact her longstanding neutrality which left Melos as prey for Athens during the Peace of Nicias. 1

Appendix Suggested Chronological Scheme Summer 431 428 Outbreakof Peloponnesian War Melos, Thera unallied Thera, independent in 431, appears in ATL

Athenian thalassocracywithout contributingto the cost" or the Athenians might have maintainedthatthey had come to liberatethe oppresseddemos from Melian oligarchs. 109 A. Momigliano, "Le cause della spedizione di Sicilia," RFIC 7 (1929) 377, wisely speculatedthat, frustrated in their performance on land after their defeat in 418 at the battle of Mantinea,the Atheniansset out to restore their confidence and prestige by a victory at sea and this may well be what is behindthe Atheniandrive into the Southern Cyclades. A string of easy naval victories was probablythe most attractiveopportunity availableto the Atheniansat the time. Cf. also Andrewes,HCT(as in n. 3) IV, 157; Amit, Dialogue (as in n. 14) 220. PeterGreen,Armada from Athens(New York 1970) 92, has suggestedthatthe subjugation of Melos may be evidence "that[Athens]was concernedto develop or safeguardher traderoutesto NorthAfrica." 110 Whetherthe statusof the Atheniansettlementwas an clotlKia or a OKXlpovXia has been debatedbut is altogetherunclear.See Jones, Democracy(as in n. 23) 169f., who argues for the formerand A. J. Graham, Colonyand MotherCityin AncientGreece (Manchester 1964) 173f., for the latter. 111 It is relevantto ask why the Meliansdid not yield. Perhapsthey in fact believed that the Spartanswould assist themout of ties of kinship.Theremust have been a genuine odium felt amongthe Meliansfor the Atheniansever since the firstexpeditionravagedthe island in 426. The Melians in 416 likely thought they could withstand a second Athenian expedition,especially given thatthe contingentof 426 was such a considerablesize. They hadremainedindependent thus far(since theirsettlingthe island,we are told; cf. 5.112.2) and, in the end, it was at least in parttreacherythat broughtabouttheircapitulationand this only after Athenianreinforcements were sent (5.116.3). Perhapstoo their obstinacy was due in no small measureto the rulingMelianoligarchs(cf. 5.84.3) andto the looming threatof having to pay an incredible,if not impossible,annualtributeof 15 talents.

416 427 Summer 426 425

MICHAEL

G.

SEAMAN

Spartan fleet moves stealthily through the Aegean Melians successfully resist the first Athenian expedition under Nicias. "Open hostility" between Athens and Melos Loss of Spartan fleet at Pylos Melos assessed 15 talents by Athens Melian neighbors Cimolos, Sicinos, and Pholegandros all assessed Sicinos begins to appear in ATL Peace of Nicias renderspreviously assessed, unallied Aegean islands open prey to Athenians Melos remains unallied and independent Pholegandros begins to appear in ATL Second Athenian expedition to Melos Melian Dialogue Siege of Melos Cimolos appears in ATL Fall of Melos Athenians execute those adult Melian men "whom they caught" Melian survivors relocate probably in Peloponnese Athenians send out 500 colonists to Melos Sparta renews the war

422/1 April 421

418/7 Spring 416

Winter

416/5

413

409-405 Relocated Melians make two contributions to the Spartan war fund 405 Battle of Aegospotami Theopompos son of Lapompos, a Melian, participates in the battle Displaced Melians led back to Melos by Lysander

Bibliography
Adcock, F. E. "Alcidas &pyvpoX,6yo;."In Melanges Gustave Glotz. Vol. 1. Paris, 1932. Thucydides and His History. Cambridge, 1963. Amit, M. "The Melian Dialogue and History." Athenaeum 46 (1968) 216-235. Andrewes, A. "The Melian Dialogue and Pericles' Last Speech." PCPhS n. s. 6 (1960)
1-10.

"The Peace of Nicias and the Sicilian Expedition." In The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 5. 2nd ed. Ed. by D. M. Lewis et al. (Cambridge 1992) 433-463.

The AthenianExpeditionto Melos in 416 B.C.

417

Bauslaugh, R. A. The Concept of Neutrality in Classical Greece. Berkeley/Los Angeles, 1991. Bleckmann, B. "Sparta und seine Freunde im dekeleischen Krieg." ZPE 96 (1993) 297-308. Buchner, E. "Die Aristophanes-Scholien und die Frage der Tributpflicht von Melos." Chiron 4 (1974) 91-99. Bury, J. B. The Ancient Greek Historians. New York, 1909. Cornford, F. M. Thucydides Mythistoricus. London, 1907. Dover, K. J. Thucydides. Oxford, 1973. Eberhardt, W. "Der Melierdialog und die Inschriften ATL A 9 (IG j2 63 +) und IG 12 97 +." Historia 8 (1959) 284-314. Fine, J. V. A. The Ancient Greeks: A Critical History. Cambridge, MA, 1983. Finley, J. H. Thucydides. Cambridge, MA, 1942. Finley, M. I. "The Melian Dialogue." Appendix 3 in Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War. 2nd ed. Trans. by R. Warner (New York 1972) 614-616. -, "The Athenian Empire: A Balance Sheet." Chapter 5 in Imperialism in the Ancient World. Ed. by P. D. A. Garmseyand C. R. Whittaker (Cambridge 1978). Reprinted in Finley, Economy and Society in Ancient Greece (London 1981) 4161. -, Ancient History: Evidence and Models. New York, 1985. Frankel, M. "Epigraphische Beitrage, I. Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum 1511." RhM 57 (1902) 534-543. Gillis, D. "Murder on Melos." RAIB 112 (1978) 185-21 1. Gomme, A. W., Andrewes, A. and Dover, K. J. A Historical Commentary on Thucydides. 5 vols. Oxford, 1945-81. Graham, A. J. Colony and Mother City in Ancient Greece. Manchester, 1964. Green, P. Armada from Athens. New York, 1970. Hude, K. Scholia in Thucydidem. Leipzig, 1927. Jameson, R. "Une trouvaille de stat6res de Melos." RN 12 (1908) 301-3 10. -, "La trouvaille de Milo." RN 13 (1909) 188-208. Jeffery, L. H. The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece. 2nd ed. Oxford, 1990. -, Review of L. F. Fitzhardinge, The Spartans. JHS 101 (I 981) 190-192. Jones, A. H. M. Athenian Democracy. Oxford, 1957. -, Sparta. Oxford, 1967. Kierdorf, W. "Zum Melier-Dialog des Thukydides." RhM 105 (1962) 253-256. Kraay, C. M. "The Melos Hoard of 1907 Re-examined." NC ser. 7, vol. 4 (1964) 1-25. Lewis, D. M. "The Archidamian War." In The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 5. 2nd ed. Ed. by D. M. Lewis et al. (Cambridge 1992) 370-432. Loomis, W. T. The Spartan War Fund, IG V 1,1 and a New Fragment. Historia Einzelschriften 74. Stuttgart, 1992. Macleod, C. W. "Form and Meaning in the Melian Dialogue." Historia 23 (1974) 385400. Malkin, I. Myth and Territory in the Spartan Mediterranean. Cambridge, 1994. Matthaiou, A. P. and Pikoulas, G. A. " E'ov toit AaKc6atgoviotg not6v 6kXegov." Horos 7 (1989) 77-124. Meiggs, R. The Athenian Empire. Oxford, 1972. Meiggs, R. and Lewis, D. M. A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions. Oxford, 1969. (= ML)

418

MICHAEL G. SEAMAN

Meritt, B. D. "An Athenian Decree." In Studies Presented to D. M. Robinson on his

SeventiethBirthday.Vol. 2. Ed. by G. E. Mylonas(St. Louis 1953) 298-303. Lists. 4 M. F. TheAthenianTribute Meritt,B. D., Wade-Gery,H. T. and McGregor, 1939-53. Mass./Princeton, vols. Cambridge,
Milne, J. G. The Melos Hoard of 1907. New York, 1934.

Momigliano,A. "Lecause della spedizionedi Sicilia."RFIC7 (1929) 371-377.

Orwin, C. The Humanity of Thucydides. Princeton, 1994.

Pi6rart, M. "Deuxnotes surla politiqued'Athenesen mer tg6e (428-425)."BCH 108 (1984) 161-76. des exil6s de Chios A1'effortde "ChiosentreAth6neset Sparte:La contribution BCH 119 (1995) 253pendantla Guerredu P6loponn6se." guerrelac6d6monien 282.
Pouncey, P. R. The Necessities of War:A Study of Thucydides' Pessimism. New York,

1980. A. E. "WarMelos tributpflichtig?" Historia 12 (1963) 78-83. Raubitschek, In An and Exploitation." Intensification Renfrew,C. "Polityand Power:Interaction,
Island Polity: The Archaeology of Exploitation in Melos. Ed. by C. Renfrew and

M. Wagstaff(Cambridge 1982) 264-290. Birds."AJP Romer,F. E. "Atheism,Impietyand the LimosMelios in Aristophanes' 115 (1994) 351-365.
Romilly, J. de. Thucydide et l'impe'rialisme athe'nien. Paris, 1947. -, The Rise and Fall of States According to Greek Authors. Ann Arbor, 1977.

Historia3 (1954) 1of the Athenian Empire." Ste. Croix,G. E. M. de. "TheCharacter 41. andCorinth." Chiron24 (1994) 267-304. Stroud,R. S. "Thucydides
Tod, M. N. Greek Historical Inscriptions. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. Oxford, 1946.

Historia3 (1954) des Thukydides." Treu,M. "AthenundMelos undder Melierdialog 253-273. Historia 17 (1968) 129-165. bei Thukydides." "Staatsrechtliches and PopulationChange."In An Island Wagstaff, M. and Cherry,J. F. "Settlement
Polity: The Archaeology of Exploitation in Melos. Ed. by C. Renfrew and M.

1982) 136-155. Wagstaff(Cambridge F. W. Polybius.Berkeley/LosAngeles, 1972. Walbank, 78 (1947) 18-36. F. M. "TheMelianDialogue."TAPA Wassermann,
White, J. W. The Scholia on the Aves of Aristophanes. Boston, 1914. Will, E. Le monde grec et l'orient: Le cinquieme siecle. 5th ed. Vol. 1. Paris, 1994. Woodhead, A. G. Thucydides on the Nature of Power. Cambridge, MA, 1970.

University of California, Los Angeles

Michael G. Seaman