History of the Peloponnesian War

For those who emerged as party leaders in the several cities, by assuming on either side a fair-sounding name, the one using as its catch-word “political equality for the masses under the law,” the other “temperate aristocracy,”[*](For the objectionable terms “democracy” (δημοκρατία) and “oligarchy” (ὀλιγαρχὶα).) while they pretended to be devoted to the common weal, in reality made it their prize; striving in every way to get the better of each other they dared the most awful deeds, and sought revenges still more awful, not pursuing these within the bounds of justice and the public weal, but limiting them, both parties alike, only by the moment's caprice; and they were ready, either by passing an unjust sentence of condemnation or by winning the upper hand through acts of violence, to glut the animosity of the moment. The result was that though neither had any regard for true piety, yet those who could carry through an odious deed under the cloak of a specious phrase received the higher praise. And citizens who belonged to neither party were continually destroyed by both, either because they would not make common cause with them, or through mere jealousy that they should survive.

So it was that every form of depravity showed itself in Hellas in consequence of its revolutions, and that simplicity, which is the chief element of a noble nature, was laughed to scorn and disappeared, while mutual antagonism of feeling, combined with mistrust, prevailed far and wide.

For there was no assurance binding enough, no oath terrible enough, to reconcile men; but always, if they were stronger,[*](Or, as Shilleto, “leaning in calculation to considering that security was hopeless, they rather took precautions . . .” cf. Schol., ῥέποντες δὲ οἱ ἄνθρωτοι τοῖς λογισμοῖς πρὸς τὸ υὴ ἐλπίζειν τινὰ πίστιν καὶ βεβαίοτητα.) since they accounted all security hopeless, they were rather disposed to take precautions against being wronged than able to trust others.

And it was generally those of meaner intellect who won the day; for being afraid of their own defects and of their opponents' sagacity, in order that they might not be worsted in words, and, by reason of their opponents' intellectual versatility find themselves unawares victims of their plots, they boldly resorted to deeds.