Plutarch and the Megarian Decree
By integrating these perspectives, it becomes possible to construct a more nuanced understanding of the Megarian Decree
The Megarian Decree has long fascinated scholars of ancient history. This controversial edict, which barred the Megarians from the Athenian agora and the harbors of allied cities, not only played a pivotal role in the diplomatic and economic tensions preceding the Peloponnesian War but also spurred centuries of debate over its dating, purpose, and significance.
Historical Background and Context
The controversy surrounding the Megarian Decree is entwined with the broader narrative of Athenian politics and the causes of the Peloponnesian War. At its core, the decree was a punitive measure aimed at the city-state of Megara. By excluding Megarians from key commercial and civic areas—specifically the agora and the harbors of the Athenian empire—the decree can be seen as a move designed to humiliate an enemy rather than to inflict outright economic destruction.
The debate over the decree’s significance is inseparable from its historical context. On one hand, the decree is part of the complex web of events and diplomatic maneuvers that escalated tensions between Athens and its rivals. On the other, it raises questions about the motivations of key figures such as Pericles, whose policies and actions have been scrutinized by later historians. While some modern scholars view the decree as a trivial act of humiliation, others argue that it had profound implications for the course of Athenian foreign policy.
The controversy deepens when we consider the interconnected events that surround the decree: the violation of the hiera orgas (sacred matters), the embassy of Anthemocritus, and the subsequent decree of Charinus. Each of these episodes adds layers of complexity and has led to divergent interpretations by ancient and modern commentators alike.
Thucydides’ Sparse Account
One of the major challenges in reconstructing the historical significance of the Megarian Decree is the relative silence of Thucydides on the subject. Although Thucydides provides a detailed narrative of the Peloponnesian War, he makes only brief mention of the decree. This has led to considerable speculation regarding its chronological placement and importance.
Some scholars, like Brunt, argue that Thucydides’ failure to specify the date or elaborate on the circumstances of the decree suggests that it was not a preliminary cause of the war. In this view, the decree must have been passed well before the conflict reached its critical stage in 433 or 432 BCE. Brunt’s interpretation relies on an assessment of Thucydides’ method: by downplaying the issue, the historian might have intentionally relegated it to the background of a more complex set of causes.
Others, such as Meiggs, propose that Thucydides’ minimal discussion of the decree was not due to its insignificance but rather because it had already been so extensively commented upon by other contemporary sources. This perspective contends that Thucydides deliberately omitted detailed analysis because the matter was a well-known part of the public discourse. Thus, his brevity could be read as a subtle commentary on the excesses of political rhetoric rather than an indication of historical triviality.
In any case, the paucity of Thucydidean evidence forces modern historians to rely on other sources and interpretative frameworks to piece together the full story behind the decree.
Aristophanes and the Comedic Lens
In contrast to Thucydides’ dry historical account, the comic playwright Aristophanes offers a vivid, if hyperbolic, portrayal of the Megarian Decree in plays such as the Acharnians and Peace. Aristophanes’ treatment of the subject provides valuable insight into the public perception of the decree during his lifetime. In his works, the decree is not merely a bureaucratic edict—it becomes a symbol of Athenian imperial hubris and the spark that ignited broader conflict.
Aristophanes attributes the cause of the Peloponnesian War, at least in part, to the Megarian Decree. His lines suggest that the economic repercussions of the decree were well understood by his audience. For him, the exclusion of Megarians from the agora and the harbors signified a deliberate policy aimed at inflicting economic hardship, an approach that both humiliated and destabilized Megara. The comic treatment, however, does not strip the event of its historical gravity. Instead, the humor is built upon a foundation of recognizable grievances: the Athenians’ aggressive policy and the resulting economic downturn in Megara.
A key aspect of Aristophanes’ narrative is his linking of the decree to other politically charged episodes, such as the trial of Pheidias and the involvement of influential figures like Aspasia. By intertwining these narratives, Aristophanes underscores the decree’s broader significance. His work suggests that the decree was not an isolated policy but part of a constellation of decisions that collectively set the stage for war.
Yet, it is precisely this intermingling of comedy and history that complicates modern attempts to extract reliable historical data. Scholars must tread carefully when using Aristophanic evidence: while his jests clearly reflect popular sentiment and political commentary, they also contain exaggerations and anachronisms that may distort the factual record. Nonetheless, Aristophanes’ emphasis on the economic consequences of the decree—such as the starvation of Megarians and the invocation of absurd images like the confiscation of a “Seriphian puppy”—demonstrates that, in the popular imagination, the decree was a potent symbol of Athenian aggression.
Plutarch’s Complex Narrative
Perhaps the most intricate and debated account of the Megarian Decree comes from Plutarch, whose treatment of the subject is woven into his broader exploration of Pericles’ character and motivations. In his Life of Pericles, Plutarch presents the decree not as a standalone event but as part of a sequence of incidents that illustrate Pericles’ obstinate refusal to yield in the face of mounting pressures.
Plutarch’s narrative is marked by its psychological depth. Rather than offering a strict chronological account, he is more interested in probing the inner motivations of Pericles. His discussion in chapter 30, for instance, delves into the paradox of Pericles’ actions: on one hand, the Megarian Decree appears as a clear punitive measure against a rival state; on the other, it serves as a public justification for what might have been an otherwise politically risky stance.
A central element in Plutarch’s account is the figure of Anthemocritus—a herald sent on an embassy that, according to some interpretations, predated the enactment of the decree. Plutarch presents Anthemocritus’ conciliatory message as a counterpoint to the rigid policy that followed. His narrative suggests that the embassy was not merely an incidental event but a crucial indicator of the underlying tensions that compelled Pericles to take a firm stand.
Adding further complexity is the inclusion of Charinus’ decree. This later edict, which ordered biannual military invasions of the Megarid and even dictated the burial arrangements for Anthemocritus (who was allegedly murdered by the Megarians), serves as a kind of epilogue to the unfolding drama. Plutarch’s ordering of events—first the primary exclusionary decree, then the embassy of Anthemocritus, and finally Charinus’ decree—has been criticized as chronologically confusing by some modern scholars. However, a closer reading suggests that Plutarch was less concerned with precise chronology than with the psychological and rhetorical impact of the events.
For Plutarch, the critical issue was not the exact sequence of occurrences but rather the underlying motivations driving Pericles. His emphasis on Pericles’ reluctance to repeal the decree, despite public pressure and potentially rational economic arguments, points to a belief that the decision was rooted in personal animosity or a calculated political stance. This focus on motive, rather than on a clean-cut historical timeline, has led some modern interpreters to misread Plutarch’s account as muddled or confused. In truth, his narrative strategy was to prioritize the examination of Pericles’ inner life and political pragmatism over strict chronological reconstruction.
Modern Debates and Interpretive Challenges
The scholarship surrounding the Megarian Decree remains as vibrant today as it was in earlier centuries. Modern debates have largely centered on several key issues:
- Chronological Placement: One major point of contention is the dating of the decree. Some scholars, following Brunt’s lead, argue that the decree was passed well before the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War, implying that its effects had long been part of Athenian policy. Others, including de Ste Croix, maintain that the decree should be dated closer to 432 BCE and that its immediate economic consequences—especially as perceived by Aristophanes—underscore its role as a direct catalyst for war.
- Economic Versus Political Motives: There is also a debate over whether the decree was intended primarily as an economic embargo or as a means of political humiliation. Proponents of the former interpretation highlight the language used by Thucydides, who refers to the agora and harbors in a sequence that suggests an economic dimension to the punishment. Critics of this view, however, argue that the decree’s true purpose was symbolic—to mark Megara as a state that had violated sacred customs (the hiera orgas) and therefore was unworthy of participating fully in the Athenian alliance.
- Role of Secondary Episodes: The involvement of figures such as Anthemocritus and Charinus complicates the picture further. The varied interpretations of these episodes—whether they should be seen as preliminary to, or subsequent consequences of, the Megarian Decree—continue to fuel scholarly debate. Some modern interpretations propose that the embassy of Anthemocritus, rather than being a minor footnote, was a critical moment that prompted Pericles to reaffirm his policy of exclusion, thereby reinforcing the decree’s significance.
- Historiographical Methodology: Finally, the differing methodologies of ancient historians versus modern scholars also play a role. Thucydides’ objective, if at times laconic, account contrasts sharply with Aristophanes’ overtly humorous and exaggerated depictions, while Plutarch’s character-driven narrative introduces an entirely different set of concerns. Modern historians must therefore navigate these diverse sources, weighing the merits and limitations of each to arrive at a coherent interpretation.
Scholars like de Ste Croix have attempted to synthesize these varied strands by proposing that the Megarian Decree was a “trivial” measure in economic terms yet a crucial political signal. According to this view, the decree was not so much about causing economic damage as it was about asserting Athenian dominance and justifying subsequent military actions. By excluding the Megarians from certain economic privileges, Athens sought to publicly underscore the city-state’s moral and cultural superiority—a move that resonated deeply in the political and cultural milieu of the period.
Conversely, others have taken a more expansive view, arguing that the decree’s economic ramifications were real and significant. The fact that Megara’s commercial activities were disrupted by the exclusion from key marketplaces and ports would have had tangible impacts on trade and regional stability. This interpretation aligns more closely with Aristophanes’ portrayal, wherein the economic hardships faced by the Megarians are a central element of the comedic critique.
Psychological and Political Implications
Beyond the logistical and economic aspects, the Megarian Decree offers a window into the psyche of Athenian politics during a critical juncture in its history. Pericles, who is often portrayed as a visionary yet uncompromising leader, emerges from these debates as a figure driven by both public and private motives. His steadfast refusal to revoke the decree—despite mounting internal and external pressures—can be seen as an indication of his broader strategic imperatives.
For Pericles, the decree served a dual purpose. Publicly, it was a measure designed to isolate Megara and reinforce Athenian moral and cultural values, particularly in light of the alleged violation of the hiera orgas. Privately, however, it may have represented a calculated move to consolidate power at a time when Athenian society was deeply divided over issues of war and peace. By taking a hard line, Pericles not only asserted Athenian superiority but also positioned himself as the guardian of the state’s honor—a stance that, while unpopular with some segments of society, ultimately paved the way for the military strategies that defined the early years of the Peloponnesian War.
This duality is reflected in the ancient sources. Thucydides, though sparing in his discussion, hints at a broader diplomatic calculus that went beyond mere economic policy. Aristophanes, through his biting satire, underscores the public resentment that the decree engendered, suggesting that the economic blockade was both a literal and figurative manifestation of Athenian arrogance. Plutarch, meanwhile, delves into the psychological motivations behind Pericles’ actions, offering a portrait of a leader who was as much concerned with personal honor and reputation as he was with the pragmatic demands of statecraft.
The interplay between these different perspectives highlights the multifaceted nature of the Megarian Decree. It was not a policy enacted in a vacuum but a carefully calibrated response to a complex set of internal and external pressures. The decree’s lasting historical significance, therefore, lies not only in its immediate economic and diplomatic effects but also in the way it encapsulates the broader tensions that characterized Athenian society in the years leading up to the Peloponnesian War.
Reconciling the Sources: A Path Forward
Given the divergent interpretations presented by Thucydides, Aristophanes, and Plutarch, how can modern scholars reconcile these accounts? One promising approach is to view each source as providing a different lens through which to examine the same events. Thucydides offers a restrained, fact-focused narrative that emphasizes the structural and strategic dimensions of Athenian policy. Aristophanes, with his flair for satire, captures the popular sentiment and the cultural undercurrents that animated the public debate over the decree. Plutarch, finally, adds a psychological depth that invites readers to consider the inner workings of political decision-making.
By integrating these perspectives, it becomes possible to construct a more nuanced understanding of the Megarian Decree. Rather than viewing the conflicting accounts as evidence of historical confusion, we can see them as complementary facets of a complex phenomenon. The decree was both a minor administrative act and a symbol of broader political and cultural transformations. It reflected not only a tactical decision regarding trade and diplomacy but also the personal convictions of a leader determined to preserve Athenian honor at any cost.
Moreover, the debate over the decree’s dating—whether it was an early measure or a last-ditch effort in the face of impending war—can be reframed as part of a larger discussion about the evolution of Athenian policy. The differing chronological interpretations may well reflect the varied emphases of the sources: one stressing the continuity of Athenian resolve, another highlighting the reactive nature of its policies in times of crisis.
Concluding Thoughts
The Megarian Decree remains a topic of enduring interest and debate among historians and classicists. Its significance lies not only in the specific events it precipitated but also in the broader questions it raises about the nature of historical evidence and the challenges of interpretation. The contrasting accounts of Thucydides, Aristophanes, and Plutarch illustrate the difficulties inherent in reconstructing a coherent narrative from sources that differ in purpose, style, and perspective.
Modern scholarship continues to grapple with these issues. Whether one views the decree as an early diplomatic maneuver, a trivial act of humiliation, or a calculated political statement, it is clear that its impact was far from negligible. For some, the decree symbolizes the ruthless pragmatism of Athenian imperial policy; for others, it is a reflection of the cultural and economic tensions that underpinned the Peloponnesian War.
Sophie
Sophie
Sophie
Sophie
