When gods make might, might makes right, and right makes the Melians... a sad crew :(

This précis is of a paragraph near the end of the Melian Dialogue beginning, “As for the gods”. It is paragraph -105- of the text if accessed from http://www.shsu.edu/%7Ehis_ncp/Melian.html.

            The argument made by the Athenians refutes two claims made by the Melians in the preceding paragraph. Within the refutations the Athenians build two counter points of their own. These two main points are accompanied by a subtle and continuous ethos claim, which in addition to the two main premises form a grander theme and final point. Throughout the text there are further argumentative strategies enlisted to strengthen both small and large points.

The Athenians begins with a refutation of the Melian claim of Athenian unrighteousness. The refutation states that the Athenians are in fact more righteous than the Melians because they are following the law of nature that they “did but inherit” from the gods. Arguing that they would in fact be unrighteous if they were not to enact and pass down “their nature”, so decreed, to rule wherever they will. They then proceed to reassert that it is not their law, in order to remind the Melians that they cannot be held accountable for it. It is simply a rule they are following out of duty to the gods, and as such, one the Melians would also follow if they were in a position of strength. This assertion also serves as a not-so-gentle reminder to the Melians that they are weak and therefore wrong. It is part of the Athenian logos that might makes right, that force equates logic, and that therefore the wise thing is for the Melians to submit; anything else is illogical and foolish. Also worth mentioning are the opening words, “As for the gods” and the words used to switch the focus of the argument, “So much for the gods”. If read together as a question and a damning assertion it functions as a final rebuttal to the Melian plea to heaven’s favor: As for (your plea to) the gods? So much for (your plea to) the gods!

The second disputation admonishes the Melian claim that the Lacedaemonians will, out of honor, defend them. The argument begins with an Athenian ethos claim, by initially –albeit mockingly - giving credit to the Lacedaemonians that they are, “exceeding virtuous among themselves” in order to establish a sense of unbiased recognition. With this new credibility they immediately turn and denigrate the Lacedaemonians as the “most notorious” for choosing pleasure over honor, and expediency in the place of justice, rendering the Lacedaemonians as unfit morally and far from honorable. This in turn leaves the Melian claim inconsistent. It is also worthwhile to note the Athenians state that “out of very shame” is the reason why the Lacedaemonians would act, and it is honor not shame that drives the righteous into battle. This further denies any credit to the Melian claim and once again establishes the idea that the Melians are behaving in an unwise manner.

In addition to the two apparent themes there is a larger ethos claim made by the Athenians working throughout the statement. It is based on Athenian certainty in comparison to Melian uncertainty. The Athenians use words and phrases of certitude and authority when referring to themselves and their actions, such as, “This law” and in several places “we know”. Meanwhile they appoint ideas of uncertainty and immaturity to the Melian position including, “you imagine”, “the simplicity of your idea” and “blind hope”. Within this claim, made through the very language they use, is the reoccurring concept that the Melians are misguided and act not on reason but on improbable expectation. Thus asserting once again that the position of certainty, authority, and strength is the credible and therefore reasonable position.

This argument for reason and credibility is the overarching message of the section. The Melians are repeatedly accused of believing against rationality, which sets up the premises that they are in fact foolish. The Athenians on the other hand claim the authority and certainty of the gods, justified by their physical might, which in turn gives them credibility. In essence the greater claim is; you the Melians are unwise and weak while we the Athenians are wise and mighty. As a result you the Melians should listen to us the Athenians because it is in your interest to follow the words of the wise instead of the hopes of the foolish. The ultimate logos of the argument is built from the establishment of ethos in the argument; it is illogical to choose foolishness over credibility.