Slander: on not Being Quick to Put Faith in it (6-10)

Come, suppose we too, if you like, following the lead of the Ephesian artist, portray the characteristics of slander, after first sketching it in outline: for in that way our picture will perhaps come out more clearly. Slander, then, is a clandestine accusation, made without the cognizance of the accused and sustained by the uncontradicted assertion of one side. This is the subject of my lecture, and since there are three leading characters in slander as in comedy—the slanderér, the slandered person, and the hearer of the slander,—let us consider what is likely to happen in the case of each of them. [*]

In the first place, if you like, let us bring on the star of the play, I mean the author of the slander. That he is not a good man admits of no doubt, I am

Furthermore, that such a man is unjust, lawless, impious and harmful to his associates is easy to see. Who will not admit that fairness in everything and unselfishness are due to justice, unfairness and: selfishness to injustice? But when a man plies slander in secret against people who are absent, is he not selfish, inasmuch as he completely appropriates his hearer by getting his ear first, stopping it up and making it altogether impervious to the defence because it has been previously filled with slander? Such conduct is indeed the height of injustice, and the best of the lawgivers, Solon and Draco, for example, would say so, too; for they put the jurors on oath to hear both sides alike and to divide their goodwill equally between the litigants until such time as the plea of the defendant, after comparison with the other, shall disclose itself to be better or worse. To pass judgment betore weighing the defence against the complaint would, they thought, be altogether impious and irreligious. In truth, we may say that the very gods would be angry if we should permit the plaintiff to say his say unhampered, but should stop our ears to the defendant or silence him,[*] and then condemn him,

Nor give your verdict ere both sides you hear.

Of course, all such men are also disingenuous and cowardly; they do nothing in the open, but shoot from some hiding-place or, other, like soldiers in ambush, so that it is impossible either to face them or to fight them, but a man must let himself be slain in helplessness and in ignorance of the character of the war. And this is the surest proof that there is no truth in the stories of slanderers; for if a man is conscious that he is making a true charge, that man, I take it, accuses the other in public, brings him to book and pits himself against him in argument. No soldier who can win in fair fight makes use of ambushes and tricks against the enemy.

For the most part, such men may be seen enjoying high favour in the courts of kings and among the friends of governors and princes, where envy is great, suspicions are countless, and occasions for flattery and slander are frequent. For where hope runs ever high, there envy is more bitter, hate more dangerous, and rivalry more cunning. All eye one another sharply and keep watch like gladiators to detect some part of the body exposed. Everyone, wishing to be first himself, shoves or elbows his neighbour out of his way and, if he can, slyly pulls down or trips up the man ahead. In this way a good man is simply upset and thrown at the start, and finally thrust off the course in disgrace, while one who is better versed in flattery and cleverer at such unfair practices wins. In a word, it is “devil take the hindmost!”; for they quite confirm Homer’s saying:

Impartial war adds slayer to the slain.