Running head: MYTILENEAN DEBATE

SOCRATES IN THE MYTILENEAN DEBATE

Name
Institution
Instructor
Course

MYTILENEAN DEBATE
2
Context
The Mytilenean Debate is a historical occurrence recorded credibly by Thucydides, a
historian. He lived during the age of legends and the Peloponnesian War during which the Greek
city States warred amongst themselves for empire and liberty. During the time of the event itself,
the Athenians were in ascendance, with a wide-ranging empire encompassing a number of citystates. Their chief rivals, the Spartans, headed the Peloponnesian League, a group of city-states
unified against further attempts at empire by the Athenians. The oligarchic government of
Mytilene, seeking the unification of Lesbos under one rule, thereby gaining profit in terms of
political power and economy, sought the invasion of city-states regarded possessions of Athens.
Using the aid of Sparta, the Mytilenean committed several acts of war that aggravated the
Athenian Empire, especially considering the unwarranted and unjustified attacks.
As such, the Mytilenean Debate was a political discussion held in the Athenian forum
where the members sought to come to terms with what they deemed threats to their rule. Two
main contending ideologies sought dominance as to the treatment meted out to the Mytilenes:
Cleon, heading the more aggressive party, called for the complete subjugation of the Mytilene
people, including the death of all males and the enslavement of the rest of the population as a
lesson and deterrent. Against this view was the moderate yet considerate view held by Diodotus`
party wherein they called for a lenient treatment of the city, especially in consideration of the
actions of several of the commoners in the city. This short essay aims to highlight the views
broached by both parties in the debate, analyzing their worth. Finally, it attempts to speculate on
what the actions and recommendations that Socrates, a member of Athens at the age yet reticent
in political policy debates, would have advocated for.

MYTILENEAN DEBATE
3
The Arguments and counter-points
Cleon advocated for a more aggressive foreign political policy regarding the treatment of
the Mytilenes. Regarded as a brute and warlike, his arguments were worthy for a member of the
august body as they not only highlighted the errors of the lenient approach, but displayed the
dangers therein. In effect, Cleon forwarded five main points and counter-points in response to
Diodotus and in support of the policies advocated.
The main argument that spurred Cleon`s proposal was given credence by the premeditated nature of the Mytilene actions. The presence and actions of the Mytilene fleet upon the
seas indicated acts of aggression the Empire could not ignore and survive. As a result, his main
argument attacked both the proposal for a lenient treatment of the Mytilenes, as well as the
Athenian practice of debate within the forum.
Since the debate was in essence a rehash of a previous debate held by the Athenians
regarding the policy decision on the handling of the revolt, Cleon made two arguments against
the intellectual contingent in the assembly who, seeking to confuse the issue with rhetoric and
sophistry, would endanger the Empire`s gains. Cleon`s argument thus questioned the influence
that intellectuals had upon the practices of good government, that is, on practical policy making
as opposed to pure rhetoric when the enemy acted otherwise. He called for the assembly to
reconsider their reception of the arguments of the Diodotus party, arguing that in terms of
practical decision-making, the arguments that the party made were dangerous.
In counter, Diodotus cast aspersions on Cleon` character, as well as calling for reasonable
thought in the debate. He argued that Cleon`s argument, one that advocated for the rejection of

MYTILENEAN DEBATE
4
intellectual sophistry in reasonable debate, was in actuality a ploy seeking the exclusion of
members of the assembly who sought out fair and just treatment by appealing to the reasoning
faculties of the members. His argument was that the same accusation, that of using sophistry,
could be applied to Cleon because his calls for the rejection of Diodotus` recommendations was
not only deceitful, but also suspect for it called for the exclusion of the bets members of the
assembly, the members capable of best leading the assembly through reason.
Cleon`s first argument also attacked the assembly`s notions of democracy. In it, he
questioned the relationship between democracy and imperial ambitions in that the two were in
conflict when regarding the intents of each. He questioned the assembly`s methods: that the
assembly sought to retain bad laws simply in favor of keeping to outdated notions of democracy
whilst their enemies sought their destruction. In essence, Cleon proposed the determination that
democracy, as a ruling and guiding principle, was incapable of ruling an empire. The weakness
of the laws advocated for by democratic principles placed the Empire in danger since in essence,
a democracy was a system of equality while Empire, denoted a system of in-equality. Cleon
argued that the special arrangement that the Athenian empire had with the Mytilenes was the
cause for the revolt in the first place, since the uncertain nature of the relationship gave way to
rebellion.
Cleon also broaches his argument on matters of justice and human nature in making
foreign political policies and decisions. His contention was that deeming the actions of the
Mytilenes, as a revolt was erroneous, for it implied some form of injustice meted to them. In
contrast, Cleon pointed out that the city did not have any cause for war: not only were they given

MYTILENEAN DEBATE
5
special privileges in that they maintained their own navy, they also were autonomous. As such,
the Mytilenes had no cause to attack Athens allies, nor seek war in such a manner.
Cleon`s final argument touched upon human nature as well, broaching the subject of selfinterests in matters of decision making in political matters in foreign policies. This argument
based itself on justice in that he argued that the sense of fairness in empire decision-making was
not only dangerous for the empire, but also erroneous since the Athenians were innocent of
wrongdoing. In essence, it was in the assembly`s best interests to act with as much harshness in
the matter as possible, if only to avoid any notions of weakness by their enemies.
Diodotus` arguments against these were also poignant and well thought out. His
arguments on justice also have elements of self-interest in the matters of empire for the
Athenians in that he argues for the best approach to employ in dealing with the Mytilenes, an
approach that does not include the wide-sweeping death policy advocated for by Cleon. His
argument against the death policy incorporated elements of the past wherein its employ failed to
prevent further uprisings, and only exacerbated the affair. Therefore, his sense of justice does not
in actuality encompass fair treatment for revolt, but actions that would best serve the empire in
future. In conclusion, Diodotus` argument is that reason should temper justice in their approach
in order to prevent future disturbances.
Socrates
In Plato`s Republic and Apology, one gains insight as to what his opinion on the issue as a
whole would be. First, however, note that partisanship by Socrates would have been incongruous
to his nature, since he never wished to engage in politics. In the Apology, Socrates` opinions on

MYTILENEAN DEBATE
6
reasoned arguments strongly resemble those of Diodotus on matters of the influence of
intellectuals on good governance, as well as the use of sophistry in decision making in that they
caution against silencing the rhetoric of the wise. In the Apology, the assembly executed Socrates
his arguments, also despite his warnings on the repercussions of such an act in that the negative
consequences far outweighed the positives. This warning resembles Diodotus` warning in that
his opinion is that Cleon`s approach in silencing the opposition is dangerous. Furthermore,
Cleon`s calls for the elimination of laws were contrary to Socrates` steadfast nature in that he
would never condone expediency in such a manner, especially with lives at stake (Colaiaco, pg.
164). Like Diodotus, the best approach would be to preserve the contentious element and seek to
find some profitable employ for him.
As such, to the arguments broached by Cleon on matters on the relationship between
democracy and empire rule, the argument can be found in Plato`s Republic. Plato envisioned a
properly ruled city to be one formed of a structured system wherein in-equality existed. In his
just city, a class of rulers was necessary to determine the proper governance of the people, with
some placed in positions of seeming subjugation, while others in positions of authority.
Furthermore, suitable decision making in political decisions would not call for the complete
destruction of Mytilene, as it would be counter-productive to the interests of the empire as a
whole in that it would deprive it of resources. Thus, Socrates` notions of justice strongly
coincided with Diodotus` in that justice, tempered with reason, would allow the continued
existence of the majority of the city`s population so that they could profit the empire therein.
Furthermore, by such an action, future occurrences were avoidable for such an approach would
display the wisdom desired by human nature (pg. 160).

MYTILENEAN DEBATE
7
On the matter of self-interest, especially regarding the death penalty, the argument would
also coincide with Diodotus as it did on the matter of justice. Socrates` prudence in avoiding
political affairs guided his actions in that he knew the dangers of his opinions. While he would
have observed that Diodotus` arguments to be self-serving and servile, he would have
commended it as the proper philosophical approach for it would embody the best results for all.
Socrates, an advocate for reason and philosophy, would have been in direct conflict with Cleon
in that his views on justice whose direct approach would lead to the destruction of Socrates` just
city. Like the case for the eight generals ordered for execution after the naval engagement at
Arginusae where many Athenian sailors lost their lives and their bodies could not be recovered.
The death penalty meted out to all the generals would not be just for it deemed all guilty of the
same act. As such, the just procedure would have been to determine the case in isolation,
determining which of the city`s inhabitants were guilty (pg. 163).

MYTILENEAN DEBATE
8
References
Colaiaco, J. A. 2001. Socrates Against Athens: Philosophy on Trial. New York: Routledge.