Today's Passage
This passage presents the Corinthian response to Corcyra's appeal for Athenian alliance in 433 BCE.
Crawley Translation (1910)
“These Corcyraeans in the speech we have just heard do not confine themselves to the question of their reception into your alliance. They also talk of our being guilty of injustice, and their being the victims of an unjustifiable war. It becomes necessary for us to touch upon both these points before we proceed to the rest of what we have to say, that you may have a more correct idea of the grounds of our claim, and have good cause to reject their petition. According to them, their old policy of refusing all offers of alliance was a policy of moderation. It was in fact adopted for bad ends, not for good; indeed their conduct is such as to make them by no means desirous of having allies present to witness it, or of having the shame of asking their concurrence. Besides, their geographical situation makes them independent of others, and consequently the decision in cases where they injure any lies not with judges appointed by mutual agreement, but with themselves, because, while they seldom make voyages to their neighbours, they are constantly being visited by foreign vessels which are compelled to put in to Corcyra. In short, the object that they propose to themselves, in their specious policy of complete isolation, is not to avoid sharing in the crimes of others, but to secure monopoly of crime to themselves—the licence of outrage wherever they can compel, of fraud wherever they can elude, and the enjoyment of their gains without shame. And yet if they were the honest men they pretend to be, the less hold that others had upon them, the stronger would be the light in which they might have put their honesty by giving and taking what was just.
“But such has not been their conduct either towards others or towards us. The attitude of our colony towards us has always been one of estrangement and is now one of hostility; for, say they: ‘We were not sent out to be ill-treated.’ We rejoin that we did not found the colony to be insulted by them, but to be their head and to be regarded with a proper respect. At any rate our other colonies honour us, and we are much beloved by our colonists; and clearly, if the majority are satisfied with us, these can have no good reason for a dissatisfaction in which they stand alone, and we are not acting improperly in making war against them, nor are we making war against them without having received signal provocation. Besides, if we were in the wrong, it would be honourable in them to give way to our wishes, and disgraceful for us to trample on their moderation; but in the pride and licence of wealth they have sinned again and again against us, and never more deeply than when Epidamnus, our dependency, which they took no steps to claim in its distress upon our coming to relieve it, was by them seized, and is now held by force of arms.
Modern Translation
The Corcyraeans, in the speech we've just heard, don't limit themselves to discussing whether they should be admitted to your alliance. They also accuse us of injustice and claim they're victims of an unwarranted war. We must address both these points before presenting our remaining arguments, so you'll better understand the basis of our claims and have solid reasons to reject their request. They claim their longstanding policy of refusing all alliances was motivated by moderation. In reality, it was adopted for malicious purposes, not virtuous ones; their behavior is such that they desperately want to avoid having allies witness their actions or being shamed by needing their approval. Furthermore, their geographic position makes them independent of others, meaning that when they harm anyone, the judgment rests not with mutually agreed arbitrators but with themselves alone—since while they rarely sail to neighboring territories, foreign ships are constantly forced to dock at Corcyra. In essence, the true aim of their seemingly noble policy of complete isolation isn't to avoid complicity in others' crimes, but to monopolize wrongdoing for themselves—the freedom to commit violence when they can overpower others, to deceive when they can escape detection, and to enjoy their ill-gotten gains without shame. Yet if they were the honest people they claim to be, their very independence from others would have provided the perfect opportunity to demonstrate their integrity by fairly giving and receiving justice.
But this hasn't been their behavior toward others or toward us. Our colony's attitude toward us has always been one of alienation and has now turned to open hostility. They say: 'We weren't sent out to be mistreated.' We respond that we didn't establish the colony to be insulted by them, but to be their leader and to receive appropriate respect. Our other colonies certainly honor us, and we're greatly beloved by our colonists. Clearly, if the majority are satisfied with us, these Corcyraeans have no legitimate reason for their unique dissatisfaction. We aren't acting improperly by waging war against them, nor would we be fighting them without extreme provocation. Moreover, even if we were wrong, it would be honorable for them to yield to our wishes, and shameful for us to abuse their restraint. But in their arrogant abuse of wealth, they've repeatedly wronged us, never more grievously than when they seized Epidamnus—our dependency, which they made no effort to claim during its troubles, but which they forcibly captured when we came to its aid, and which they now hold by military force.
Historical Context
This passage presents the Corinthian response to Corcyra's appeal for Athenian alliance in 433 BCE. The Corinthians, speaking before the Athenian assembly, counter Corcyra's claims of neutrality and victimhood. The dispute centers on Epidamnus, a Corinthian colony that had sought help from Corinth during civil strife, leading to conflict with Corcyra. The Corinthians argue that Corcyra's traditional isolation wasn't principled neutrality but a cover for piracy and injustice. They emphasize the colonial relationship between Corinth and Corcyra, asserting their rights as the mother city. This debate was crucial because Athens' decision would affect the balance of naval power in Greece. The alliance with Corcyra would give Athens access to the second-largest Greek navy but risk conflict with Corinth, a Spartan ally, potentially triggering the Peloponnesian War.
Key Themes
Annotations & References
Greek Colonization
Greek colonies (apoikiai) maintained complex relationships with their mother cities (metropoleis). While politically independent, colonies were expected to show respect and deference to their founders, participating in religious festivals and seeking arbitration in disputes. The Corinthian complaint reflects these traditional expectations.
Learn more →Corcyra's Strategic Position
Corcyra (modern Corfu) controlled the coastal route to Italy and Sicily. Its harbors were essential stops for ships traveling west, giving the island significant leverage and enabling the isolationist policy the Corinthians criticize. This geographic advantage made Corcyra's alliance crucial for Athens' western ambitions.
Learn more →Rhetorical Strategies
The Corinthians employ sophisticated argumentation, turning Corcyra's claimed virtues into vices. They argue that neutrality masks piracy, independence enables injustice, and geographic isolation facilitates crime. This exemplifies the Greek rhetorical technique of argument reversal (peritrope).
Learn more →The Epidamnus Affair
Epidamnus, experiencing civil war between democrats and oligarchs, first appealed to Corcyra (its mother city) for help. When refused, it turned to Corinth (Corcyra's mother city), which sent settlers and troops. Corcyra then besieged Epidamnus, viewing Corinthian intervention as hostile interference in its sphere of influence.
Learn more →Parallel Ancient Sources
Diodorus Siculus: Library of History (Book 12.30-31)
Diodorus provides a condensed account of the Corcyra-Corinth dispute and the debates at Athens, though with less rhetorical detail than Thucydides. He emphasizes the strategic importance of Corcyra's naval power.
Read passage →Plutarch: Life of Pericles (29.1-2)
Plutarch discusses Pericles' role in the Athenian decision to ally with Corcyra, noting how this alliance contributed to the outbreak of war. He emphasizes the political calculations behind Athens' choice.
Read passage →Herodotus: Histories (Book 3.48-53)
Herodotus describes earlier Corinthian-Corcyraean hostility, including Periander's actions against Corcyra. This historical enmity provides background for understanding the deep-rooted tensions Thucydides describes.
Read passage →Discussion Questions
- How do the Corinthians transform Corcyra's claimed neutrality into evidence of moral corruption? What does this reveal about Greek attitudes toward international engagement?
- What are the implications of the Corinthian argument about colonial relationships? How might this resonate with Athens, which had its own extensive colonial network?
- The Corinthians argue that Corcyra's geographic independence enables injustice. How does this connect to broader Greek ideas about power, accountability, and justice?
- Compare the rhetorical strategies employed here with modern diplomatic arguments. What similarities and differences do you observe in how states justify their actions?