70-26,381 VOLK, Marie Therese, 1939~ THE MELIAM DIALOGUE IN THUCYDIDES: A STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1970 Language and Literature, classical University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan (?) Copyright by Marie Therese Volk I 1971 THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED THE MELIAN DIALOGUE IN THUCYDIDES: A STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Marie Therese Volk, A.B., M.A. ******* The Ohio State University 1970 Approved by Ad-\A Adviser Department of Classics ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to acknowledge my sincere gratitude to Professor Robert J. Lenardon. His teaching inspired - me .to begin this dissertation; and his direction, ad­ vice, and encouragement enabled me to complete it. ii VITA March 13, 1939 ............. Born - Cleveland, Ohio 1961 . i ........ A.B., Ursuline College Cleveland, Ohio 1964 . M.A., Tufts University Medford, Massachusetts 1966-1970 Teaching Associate, Department of Classics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio FIELDS OF STUDY Greek Literature. Professors Bernard C. Barmann, Clarence A. Forbes, William R. Jones and Robert- J. Lenardon Latin Literature. Professors Vincent J. Cleary, Philip Lockhart and Mark P. 0. Morford Linguistics and Palaeography. Professor Kenneth M. Abbott Textual Criticism. Professor John B. Titchener Roman and Greek History. Professor William F. McDonald iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . , = ii VITA ................................................... iii INTRODUCTION ........................................... 1 Chapter I. MELIAN HISTORY AND THE MELIAN DIALOGUE... ....... 4 II. THE ANCIENT CRITICS AND THE MELIAN DIALOGUE . 23 III. THE INTERRELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE AND THEME IN THE MELIAN DIALOGUE . 71 IV. CONCLUSION..................................... 146 APPENDIX ......................................... 154 BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................... 160 iv INTRODUCTION When we first read the Melian Dialogue in English, we are stunned to tears by its ageless statements of the human predicament. When we first read the dialogue in Greek, we are at once bewildered by its syntactical intricacies and then spellbound by the subtlety and complexity of its antitheses. Indeed, the Melian Dialogue holds a universal fascination for the individual reader. Exactly what causes this universal fascination? The following study attempts to answer this question by analyzing in detail the form and content of the Melian Dialogue. First it is necessary to consider the Melian Dialogue in the light of the actual historical events of 416 so that we may evalu­ ate the degree of historical accuracy found in this section of the History. Only then can we begin to estimate the subtlety of styl­ istic detail and the depth and power of the political philosophy wrought by Thucydides' creative genius. Primary sources— epigraphi- cal and historical evidence— will be arranged in chronological order and pertinent Greek texts will be quoted along with their translations. The second chapter reviews in detail what the major ancient critics said about Thucydides' style in general and the Melian 1 2 Dialogue in particular. Their appreciation of Thucydides'* rhetori­ cal and poetic manner and diction was often highly developed, and their comments illuminate an aspect of Thucydidean criticism which has often been neglected. Finally, each chapter of the dialogue is analyzed according to major thematic divisions and stylistic devices. The themes of the Melian Dialogue are intensifications of the general themes found throughout the History; likewise, the stylistic devices are here elevated to their highest and most sublime level. We must study each chapter— in fact, practically each word and phrase of the dialogue— in order to grasp the many-leveled, multi-partite whole with its breath-taking tragic effects of "pity and horror." A final chapter surveys some of the more important inter­ pretations of the Melian Dialogue and embodies my own conclusions. The literature on Thucydides in general and the Melian Dialogue in particular is voluminous. Modern critics have not been ignored and the bibliography provides access to the scholarly litera­ ture; but the focus of this dissertation is upon the text itself, and my major purpose and intent is to provide an intensive scrutiny of Thucydides* historical art in his treatment of this crucial episode. A stylistic approach to Thucydides is neither radical nor modern. As Marcellinus mentions in his life of Thucydides, some ancient critics considered the History more poetic than rhetorical: 3 JtepL 6e nacrnq Trfe CTOYYpa'Fl'i fexoXiirjaav xuveq 6.no<pr)vaCT0at o t l afcro to euSoq Trfe avyypacpriq obx eon firjropcxriq tXXa nocrynxriq. The following study will try to show that these critics were not incorrect, despite Marcellinus' reservations. 3 nepu 6e nacrnq Trfe auYYPatP^ £To\|xr]c7av Ttveq inocp^vacrQat otl a&TO to sl6oq Trfc croYYPa<fHc» °^x sore jbrpropLxrjq 6Xka nolT)tlxriq > The following study will try to show that these critics were not incorrect, despite Marcellinus’ reservations. CHAPTER I MELIAN HISTORY AND THE MELIAN DIALOGUE In order to understand the positions and arguments of Melos and Athens in the Melian Dialogue, the actual historical reality of their relationship must be examined. Epigraphical evidence for Melos' political relationships is meager. There exist only two inscriptions, _IG V.1.1 and ATL A9, to guide historical criticism about the place of Melos in the vacillating and nebulous network of political interrelationships which embraced the Greek world in the fifth century B.C. The only other evidence consists of a few scattered comments in Herodotus, Xenophon, Isocrates, and Plutarch, together with the Melian narra­ tive of Thucydides. Three fragments found on the Acropolis (IG 1.54 and 1.99 = IG 1^, 97) describe a naval campaign which Kirchhoff identified with the Melian expedition in 416 B.C.'*" Meritt has shown that Kirchhoff's identification is incorrect. Although there are some points of similarity between the inscription and the Thucydidean account— thirty Athenian ships, twelve hundred Athenian hoplites, and three hundred bowmen were sent in each instance— the divergencies preclude 1Adolph Kirchhoff, Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno vetustiores (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1873), p. 32; cf. Thucydides 5.84. 5 any possibility that the expeditions could have been identical: the inscription lists one hundred and fifty volunteers and peltasts whom Thucydides does not mention; Thucydides lists Chian and Lesbian ships, Athenian cavalry bowmen, and fifteen hundred allied hoplites which » *• O the inscription does not include. A mass of critical material has grown up around the only politically oriented epigraphic evidence now in existence. This study will deal primarily with the interpretation of the inscriptions themselves and their connections with literary evidence. First, the historical and epigraphic evidence will be presented in chronological order; then, this evidence will be applied to the statements found in the dialogue. 480 The independent spirit of the Melians is seen in Herodotus (8.46): the inhabitants of Seriphos, Siphnos, and Melos were the only islanders who did not offer earth and water to the Persians. The Melians furnished two penteconters at the battle of Salamis (8.48). Herodotus also notes that the Melians were descended from Lacedaemonian, i.e., Doric, stock: Mt)\lO l (aev yevoq £ovTeq dno Aaxs5at|xovoq. Even in this early piece of evidence one can see a dominant theme of the dialogue— the O Benjamin D. Meritt, "An Athenian Decree," Studies Presented to David Moore Robinson, ed. by George Mylonas and Doris Raymond (2 vols.; Saint Louis: Washington University Press, 1953), I, pp. 298- 303. 6 importance to the Melians of their Lacedaemonian heritage. 480- The names of the Greek allies who fought against the Persians 479 were written on the Delphic Serpent Column (SIG 31) and on the base of the bronze Zeus at Olympia (Pausanias 5.23, 1-2). Herodotus (8.82.1) seems to imply that the Delphic inscrip­ tion was the master copy. These listings are important be­ cause of the groupings of states: Sparta Athens Korinth Tegea Plataia Poteidaia Sikyon (Thespiai?) Leukas Aigina Keos Anaktorion Megara -*Melos-<- Ambrakia Epidauros Tenos Orchomenos Naxos Phleious Eretria Troizen Chalkis Hermione Styra Tiryns Kythnos Mykenai Siphnos Elis Lepreon Each of the columns is headed by a political power: Sparta, Athens, Corinth. Under each power her followers are listed. Melos is listed under Athens. This is not as final or decis­ ive a statement of political conduct as it may seem at first glance. As the editors of the ATL explain, . the three categories of names on the Serpent Column no doubt indicate, first, the allies who depended on Sparta direct, and next, the two "subsidiary hegemonies" of Athens and Korinth . ... the "Athenian 7 group" on the Serpent Column is composed of those Greeks whom a strategy of defending Peloponnese would plainly abandon to Persia. Melos, as Herodotus notes, made a small contribution at Salamis; she sent only two penteconters. Siphnos and Seri- phos each contributed one; Siphnos had a doubtful place on the list, and Seriphos is not mentioned. As a result, it is clear that this epigraphical material implies no formal agreement of any type between Athens and Melos. Nevertheless, eight of the eleven