Sphinx

Attendance is free, but numbers are limited, so please register HERE.

Modern receptions of Thucydides return time and again to the Melian Dialogue, the great confrontation between the imperialist Athenians and the representatives of the city of Melos; sometimes because it is more or less the only section that is read, but still more because of a widespread perception that it encapsulates Thucydides’ message and even his sensibility, and perhaps above all because of the sheer dramatic power of the text.

‘Questions of justice arise only between equals; otherwise the strong do what they want and the weak have to comply’; this is cited as the essence of ‘Realism’ as a theory or attitude. However, such readings tend to be simplistic and deeply problematic. They assume that the words of the Athenians express the thoughts of Thucydides himself, and that they are an accurate account of the world as it is and should be. The Melians’ statements are largely ignored, on the assumption that their view of the world is hopelessly naïve and optimistic – partly because most of these readings ignore the wider context of events, above all the fact that it is the same Athenian arrogance that then leads them to launch the disastrous Sicilian Expedition. Further, by taking these assertions of Realpolitik at face value rather than as rhetorical claims, these readings turn a complex debate between different arguments and assumptions about the world into a simplistic normative treatise, closing down ambiguities and counterfactual possibilities.

The fact that the Melian Dialogue looks remarkably like the script of a play has long been recognised by classical scholars, and discussed as part of broader debates about historical verisimilitude and the role of speeches in Thucydides’ account; F.M. Cornford, for example, saw it as evidence of the influence of myth on Thucydides, echoing Attic tragedy rather than sticking to proper historical values. We can instead see it as a powerful means for Thucydides to explore these complex issues and competing values, with the historical setting giving the debate additional power and pathos rather than being in contradiction with it. The theatrical presentation – echoing the agon of more conventional tragedy and comedy – serves to throw the confrontation of different rhetorics and perspectives into sharp relief, pulling the audience’s sympathies backwards and forwards between the two sides and their claims; in place of an imagined Thucydidean doctrine, it offers multivocality and ambiguity.

It is only a small step from seeing the Melian Dialogue as a dramatic exchange within Thucydides’ text to imagining how it might have been performed and received in a public recitation, and from there to imagining a full theatrical performance. But just as reading this passage as a dialogue forces us to focus not only on the arguments but on how we imagine they must have been delivered, so imagining it as a performance raises questions about how characters might be dressed, how they should move and interact, and how the setting might be varied. Further, we can not only abstract the Dialogue from its historical context to emphasise its relevance to modern wars, but consider how unbalanced power relationships can be found in many situations besides inter-state conflict – state and citizen, employer and employee, husband and wife, parent or teacher and child. In performance, meaning is made through the exchange between performers and spectators, not just handed down as a monolithic truth by an authorial voice – or, in the case of Thucydides, by would-be authoritative interpreters.

There is precedent for presenting the Melian Dialogue on stage; most obviously, in the various productions of John Barton’s adaptation of Thucydides (with additions from Plato), known variously as The War That Never Ends or The War That Still Goes On (1967, 1991 and 2006, with a BBC version in 1991 that can be partly viewed on YouTube), as well as a more recent Greek adaptation, Lessons of War, by Giannis Lignadis, directed by Dimitris Lignadis (2018). The Barton productions are characterised by their lack of theatricality, presumably because they are designed to focus the audience’s attention on the text: costumes are minimalist (dark suits in most cases; ordinary clothes in 2006, as the whole production was presented as actors workshopping the script; quasi-uniforms in the case of the BBC production), and the actors scarcely move.

The Lignadis production is more striking, with the Melians (in dark suits) standing within an upturned table as if in a cage, being harangued by an unseen speaker via a microphone – but still quite simple and static. The choice of relatively straightforward staging is understandable on the assumption that this is the only time the audience will encounter this unfamiliar text, so the emphasis must be on the words. However, it limits exploration of the Dialogue’s dramatic possibilities and hence its capacity for multiple interpretations, as does the embedding of the Dialogue within the story of the Peloponnesian War, so that inter-state relations are the only kind of power dynamic evoked.

Do What You Must, my new project funded by the Arts & Humanities Research Council as a belated follow-on to my 2009-13 project on the modern reception and influence of Thucydides, aims to explore in depth the theatrical possibilities of the Melian Dialogue. It’s a collaboration with two exciting theatre companies, Arch 468 and fanSHEN. In the first phase, a cast of professional actors supported by a Director-Dramaturg and a Forum Theatre practitioner will spend a week workshopping the piece, with me present throughout as academic consultant, creative sounding-board and observer. The aim is to draw out key emotional and intellectual pivot points to locate the negotiation in a real-world psychological context. Through exploring potential interpretations, settings and stagings for dramatic renderings of the dialogue, we will offer new understandings of the work that extend beyond traditional academic readings to provide a more deeply resonant and emotionally rooted basis for engaging with the text.

This concludes with the public performance of versions of the Dialogue in different iterations exhibiting shifting theatrical and philosophical interpretations. We will thus provide a unique opportunity for the audience to encounter the text in a more visceral and robust way than usual, viewed from multiple perspectives, emphasising multivocality and evoking multiple meanings and questions – and you are all warmly invited, whether your interest is in the reception of Thucydides, the reinterpretation of classical texts in performance, the broader issues of power and justice or the capacity of theatre to provoke thoughts and bring issues to life. The performance will be followed by a round table discussion with me, Rebecca Atkinson-Lord of Arch 468, Emma Cole (Bristol) and Edith Hall (KCL), with plenty of opportunity for questions and debate.
We’ll be moving into Phase Two, which I will write about in due course…