Today's Passage
This passage describes the civil war (stasis) in Corcyra in 427 BCE, which became a paradigm for revolutionary violence throughout Greece.
Crawley Translation (1910)
So bloody was the march of the revolution, and the impression which it made was the greater as it was one of the first to occur. Later on, one may say, the whole Hellenic world was convulsed; struggles being every, where made by the popular chiefs to bring in the Athenians, and by the oligarchs to introduce the Lacedaemonians. In peace there would have been neither the pretext nor the wish to make such an invitation; but in war, with an alliance always at the command of either faction for the hurt of their adversaries and their own corresponding advantage, opportunities for bringing in the foreigner were never wanting to the revolutionary parties. The sufferings which revolution entailed upon the cities were many and terrible, such as have occurred and always will occur, as long as the nature of mankind remains the same; though in a severer or milder form, and varying in their symptoms, according to the variety of the particular cases. In peace and prosperity, states and individuals have better sentiments, because they do not find themselves suddenly confronted with imperious necessities; but war takes away the easy supply of daily wants, and so proves a rough master, that brings most men’s characters to a level with their fortunes. Revolution thus ran its course from city to city, and the places which it arrived at last, from having heard what had been done before, carried to a still greater excess the refinement of their inventions, as manifested in the cunning of their enterprises and the atrocity of their reprisals. Words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them. Reckless audacity came to be considered the courage of a loyal ally; prudent hesitation, specious cowardice; moderation was held to be a cloak for unmanliness; ability to see all sides of a question, inaptness to act on any. Frantic violence became the attribute of manliness; cautious plotting, a justifiable means of self-defence. The advocate of extreme measures was always trustworthy; his opponent a man to be suspected. To succeed in a plot was to have a shrewd head, to divine a plot a still shrewder; but to try to provide against having to do either was to break up your party and to be afraid of your adversaries. In fine, to forestall an intending criminal, or to suggest the idea of a crime where it was wanting, was equally commended until even blood became a weaker tie than party, from the superior readiness of those united by the latter to dare everything without reserve; for such associations had not in view the blessings derivable from established institutions but were formed by ambition for their overthrow; and the confidence of their members in each other rested less on any religious sanction than upon complicity in crime. The fair proposals of an adversary were met with jealous precautions by the stronger of the two, and not with a generous confidence. Revenge also was held of more account than self-preservation. Oaths of reconciliation, being only proffered on either side to meet an immediate difficulty, only held good so long as no other weapon was at hand; but when opportunity offered, he who first ventured to seize it and to take his enemy off his guard, thought this perfidious vengeance sweeter than an open one, since, considerations of safety apart, success by treachery won him the palm of superior intelligence. Indeed it is generally the case that men are readier to call rogues clever than simpletons honest, and are as ashamed of being the second as they are proud of being the first. The cause of all these evils was the lust for power arising from greed and ambition; and from these passions proceeded the violence of parties once engaged in contention. The leaders in the cities, each provided with the fairest professions, on the one side with the cry of political equality of the people, on the other of a moderate aristocracy, sought prizes for themselves in those public interests which they pretended to cherish, and, recoiling from no means in their struggles for ascendancy engaged in the direst excesses; in their acts of vengeance they went to even greater lengths, not stopping at what justice or the good of the state demanded, but making the party caprice of the moment their only standard, and invoking with equal readiness the condemnation of an unjust verdict or the authority of the strong arm to glut the animosities of the hour. Thus religion was in honour with neither party; but the use of fair phrases to arrive at guilty ends was in high reputation. Meanwhile the moderate part of the citizens perished between the two, either for not joining in the quarrel, or because envy would not suffer them to escape.
Modern Translation
The revolution's progress was marked by such bloodshed, and its impact seemed all the greater because it was among the first of its kind. Subsequently, one could say the entire Greek world was thrown into upheaval, with popular leaders everywhere striving to bring in the Athenians, while oligarchic factions sought to introduce the Spartans. In peacetime, there would have been neither justification nor desire for such foreign intervention; but during war, with alliances readily available to either faction—both to harm their opponents and gain corresponding advantages—revolutionary parties never lacked opportunities to invite outside powers. The sufferings that revolution inflicted upon the cities were numerous and terrible, phenomena that have occurred before and will always occur as long as human nature remains unchanged, though varying in intensity and manifestation according to the specific circumstances of each case. In times of peace and prosperity, both states and individuals maintain nobler sentiments, not being suddenly confronted by harsh necessities; but war, by removing the ease of daily provisions, proves a violent teacher that reduces most people's character to match their circumstances. Thus revolution spread from city to city, and those reached later, having learned from previous examples, exceeded them in both the sophistication of their schemes and the brutality of their vengeance. Words themselves had to alter their conventional meanings and accept new interpretations. What was once considered reckless daring now passed for loyal courage; thoughtful hesitation became disguised cowardice; moderation was viewed as a cover for weakness; the ability to consider multiple perspectives meant inability to act decisively. Extreme violence became the mark of true manliness; careful planning was merely justified self-defense. The advocate of radical measures was always trusted; his opponent automatically suspect. To successfully execute a conspiracy showed cleverness, to detect one showed even greater intelligence; but to try avoiding either situation meant betraying your faction and fearing your enemies. In short, praise went equally to those who struck first against intended victims and to those who incited crimes where none were previously contemplated. Even family bonds became weaker than party loyalty, given the latter's superior readiness to risk everything without hesitation; for these associations weren't formed to enjoy benefits from established laws but arose from ambition to overthrow them. Members' mutual trust rested not on religious oaths but on shared criminality. When adversaries made reasonable proposals, the stronger party met them with suspicious precautions rather than noble confidence. Revenge counted for more than self-preservation. Reconciliation oaths, offered only to address immediate crises, lasted only until one side found another weapon; whoever first seized an opportunity to catch their enemy unguarded considered such treacherous revenge sweeter than open victory, both for safety's sake and because success through deception earned them recognition for superior intelligence. Indeed, people generally prefer calling scoundrels clever rather than calling simple folk honest, taking pride in the former while feeling ashamed of the latter. The root cause of all these evils was the pursuit of power driven by greed and ambition; from these passions arose the violent partisanship of those engaged in struggle. City leaders on both sides adopted attractive slogans—champions of democratic equality on one side, advocates of moderate aristocracy on the other—while actually seeking personal gain from the public interests they claimed to protect. In their power struggles they stopped at nothing, committing the worst atrocities; their revenge exceeded all bounds, constrained neither by justice nor state welfare, but limited only by each faction's temporary whims. They readily employed either corrupt verdicts or brute force to satisfy their immediate hatreds. Neither side truly honored religion, though both gained reputation for using noble rhetoric to achieve criminal ends. Meanwhile, moderate citizens perished between the extremes, destroyed either for refusing to take sides or because others' envy wouldn't allow their survival.
Historical Context
This passage describes the civil war (stasis) in Corcyra in 427 BCE, which became a paradigm for revolutionary violence throughout Greece. The conflict began when oligarchic exiles, backed by Corinth, attempted to overthrow the democratic government allied with Athens. The resulting bloodbath shocked the Greek world as one of the first instances where internal political divisions led to such extreme violence. Thucydides uses this specific event to analyze how war corrupts human nature and political discourse, showing how both democratic and oligarchic factions invited foreign intervention to destroy their domestic enemies. This analysis serves as his general commentary on the moral degradation that accompanied the Peloponnesian War.
Key Themes
Annotations & References
Stasis in Ancient Greece
Stasis (civil strife) was a recurring phenomenon in Greek city-states, involving violent conflict between democratic and oligarchic factions. These internal wars often proved more destructive than external conflicts, as they dissolved traditional social bonds and moral constraints.
Learn more →Thucydidean Psychology
Thucydides pioneered the analysis of how extreme circumstances reveal fundamental aspects of human nature. His observation that war is a 'violent teacher' reflects his belief that crisis strips away civilization's veneer, exposing raw human motivations of fear, honor, and self-interest.
Learn more →Language and Power
Thucydides' analysis of how words change meaning during revolution anticipates modern concerns about political language and propaganda. His examples show how moral vocabulary gets inverted to serve partisan ends, making vice appear as virtue.
Learn more →Corcyra
Corcyra (modern Corfu) was strategically vital due to its location on the sea route to Italy and Sicily. Its alliance with Athens in 433 BCE was a major cause of the Peloponnesian War, making its internal strife particularly significant for both Athens and Sparta.
Learn more →Parallel Ancient Sources
Plato: Republic (Book VIII, 556e-557a)
Plato's analysis of how democracy degenerates into tyranny through factional conflict parallels Thucydides' observations about the corruption of political language and values during stasis.
Read passage →Aristotle: Politics (Book V, 1301a-1302b)
Aristotle's systematic analysis of the causes of revolution and civil strife builds on Thucydidean insights about faction, showing how inequality and competing conceptions of justice lead to stasis.
Read passage →Xenophon: Hellenica (Book II, 3.11-4.43)
Xenophon's account of the Thirty Tyrants in Athens (404-403 BCE) provides another detailed example of revolutionary violence and the breakdown of traditional values during civil conflict.
Read passage →Discussion Questions
- How does Thucydides' analysis of the corruption of language during civil conflict relate to contemporary concerns about 'fake news' and political polarization?
- Is Thucydides correct that human nature remains constant across time, or have modern institutions and values fundamentally changed how we respond to crisis?
- What role does the presence of external powers (Athens and Sparta) play in escalating internal conflicts? How might this apply to modern civil wars?
- Why does Thucydides emphasize that moderate citizens are destroyed by both extremes? What does this suggest about the dynamics of political polarization?