Today's Passage
This passage comes from the Mytilenean Debate in 427 BCE, specifically from Diodotus's speech opposing Cleon's proposal to execute all adult males in Mytilene after their failed revolt against Athens.
Crawley Translation (1910)
“Now of course communities have enacted the penalty of death for many offences far lighter than this: still hope leads men to venture, and no one ever yet put himself in peril without the inward conviction that he would succeed in his design. Again, was there ever city rebelling that did not believe that it possessed either in itself or in its alliances resources adequate to the enterprise? All, states and individuals, are alike prone to err, and there is no law that will prevent them; or why should men have exhausted the list of punishments in search of enactments to protect them from evildoers? It is probable that in early times the penalties for the greatest offences were less severe, and that, as these were disregarded, the penalty of death has been by degrees in most cases arrived at, which is itself disregarded in like manner. Either then some means of terror more terrible than this must be discovered, or it must be owned that this restraint is useless; and that as long as poverty gives men the courage of necessity, or plenty fills them with the ambition which belongs to insolence and pride, and the other conditions of life remain each under the thraldom of some fatal and master passion, so long will the impulse never be wanting to drive men into danger. Hope also and cupidity, the one leading and the other following, the one conceiving the attempt, the other suggesting the facility of succeeding, cause the widest ruin, and, although invisible agents, are far stronger than the dangers that are seen. Fortune, too, powerfully helps the delusion and, by the unexpected aid that she sometimes lends, tempts men to venture with inferior means; and this is especially the case with communities, because the stakes played for are the highest, freedom or empire, and, when all are acting together, each man irrationally magnifies his own capacity. In fine, it is impossible to prevent, and only great simplicity can hope to prevent, human nature doing what it has once set its mind upon, by force of law or by any other deterrent force whatsoever.
Modern Translation
Communities have, of course, established the death penalty for many crimes far less serious than this one. Yet hope drives people to take risks, and no one has ever endangered themselves without believing inwardly that they would succeed in their plan. Similarly, has any city ever rebelled without believing it had sufficient resources—either its own or through alliances—to accomplish its goal? All people, whether states or individuals, are equally prone to error, and no law exists that can prevent this. Why else would humanity have exhausted every possible punishment trying to find laws that protect against wrongdoers? It seems likely that in ancient times, punishments for the most serious crimes were less severe, and as these proved ineffective, the death penalty gradually became the standard response in most cases—yet even this is ignored. Either we must discover some deterrent more terrifying than death, or we must admit that this restraint is worthless. As long as poverty drives people to desperate courage, or wealth fills them with the arrogance that comes from insolence and pride, and as long as other life circumstances keep people enslaved to some overwhelming and controlling passion, the impulse to court danger will never disappear. Hope and greed—one leading, the other following; one devising the plan, the other promising easy success—cause the greatest destruction. Though invisible forces, they are far more powerful than visible dangers. Fortune also strongly reinforces this delusion, and through the unexpected assistance she sometimes provides, she tempts people to gamble with inadequate resources. This is particularly true for states, because the stakes are the highest possible—freedom or empire—and when everyone acts collectively, each person irrationally overestimates their own abilities. In short, it is impossible to prevent—and only the extremely naive would hope to prevent—human nature from pursuing what it has decided upon, whether through law or any other deterrent whatsoever.
Historical Context
This passage comes from the Mytilenean Debate in 427 BCE, specifically from Diodotus's speech opposing Cleon's proposal to execute all adult males in Mytilene after their failed revolt against Athens. Diodotus argues against the effectiveness of harsh punishments as deterrents, presenting a sophisticated analysis of human psychology and motivation. The debate represents a crucial moment in Athenian imperial policy and democratic decision-making. Following an initial decree to destroy Mytilene entirely, the Athenians reconvened to reconsider this harsh judgment. This speech exemplifies the intellectual sophistication of Athenian political discourse and Thucydides' interest in the relationship between human nature, power, and justice. The passage remains one of the most penetrating ancient analyses of deterrence theory and criminal justice.
Key Themes
Annotations & References
Deterrence Theory
Diodotus presents an early critique of deterrence theory, arguing that even the death penalty fails to prevent crimes because human nature, driven by hope and passion, will always override fear of punishment. This sophisticated psychological analysis predates modern criminological theories by over two millennia.
Learn more →Athenian Democracy
The Mytilenean Debate showcases Athenian democratic deliberation at its most sophisticated, with citizens reconsidering a hasty decision and engaging in philosophical discussion about justice and policy. This reflects the unique nature of Athenian direct democracy.
Learn more →Greek Psychology
The passage reveals Greek understanding of human motivation, particularly the roles of hope (elpis), desire (epithymia), and fortune (tyche) in decision-making. This psychological framework influenced later philosophical developments in Plato and Aristotle.
Learn more →Imperial Policy
The debate reflects tensions in Athenian imperial management—balancing deterrence against future revolts with maintaining the empire's economic viability. Diodotus argues for a pragmatic rather than moralistic approach to imperial control.
Learn more →Parallel Ancient Sources
Plato: Republic (Book 2, 359c-360d)
Glaucon's ring of Gyges argument similarly explores whether laws and punishments can truly restrain human nature when people believe they can act without consequences.
Read passage →Aristotle: Rhetoric (Book 1, Chapter 12)
Aristotle analyzes the causes of wrongdoing, including hope of success and expectation of avoiding punishment, echoing Diodotus's psychological insights about criminal motivation.
Read passage →Xenophon: Hellenica (Book 2, 2.3)
Describes the debate over punishing the Arginusae generals, another instance where Athens reconsidered a harsh collective punishment, showing similar tensions in democratic justice.
Read passage →Discussion Questions
- How does Diodotus's argument about the ineffectiveness of deterrence compare to modern debates about capital punishment and criminal justice?
- What does this passage suggest about the relationship between individual and collective decision-making? Why might states be more prone to irrational hope than individuals?
- How does Diodotus's view of human nature as fundamentally unchangeable influence his policy recommendations? Is this pessimistic or realistic?
- What role does Diodotus assign to fortune (tyche) in human affairs, and how does this reflect broader Greek thinking about fate and free will?