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 ukely to happen
in the case of each of them.
 This partition, derived from Herodotus (7, 10), is not at
all strictly followed by Lucian in developing his theme. 
 
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



 

sure, because no good man would make trouble for
his neighbour. On the contrary, it is characteristic
of good men to win renown and gain a reputation
for kind-heartedness by doing good to their friends,
not by accusing others wrongfully and getting them
hated.

 

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, The Greek is here corrupt. The translation merely
gives the probable sense of the passage. 

and then condemn him,



 

conquered by the'first plea. It may be said, then, that
slander does not accord with what is just and legal,
and what the jurors swear to do. But. if anybody
thinks that the lawgivers, who regommend that verdicts be so just and impartial, are not good authority,
I shall cite the best of poets in support of my contention. He makes a very admirable pronouncement
— indeed, lays down a law—on this point, saying :
 Though this verse was frequently quoted in antiquity,
its authorship was unknown even then, and it was variously,
attributed to Phocylides, Hesiod, and Pittheus. See Bergk,
Poet. Lyr. Graec. ii, p. 93. 

 Nor give your verdict ere both sides you hear. 

He knew, I suppose, like everyone else, that though
there are many unjust things in the world, nothing
worse or more unjust can be found than for men to
have been condemned untried and unheard. But
this is just what the slanderer tries his best to
accomplish, exposing the slandered person untried
to the anger of the hearer and precluding defence by
the secrecy of his accusation.

 

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. Iliad 18, 309. 

So, as their conflict is for no small stake, they think
out all sorts of ways to get at each other, of which
the quickest, though most perilous, road is slander,
which has a hopeful beginning in envy or hatred,
but leads to a sorry, tragic ending, beset with many
accidents.