Chapter 15
One way of removing prejudice is to make use of the arguments by which one may clear oneself from disagreeable suspicion; for it makes no difference whether this suspicion has been openly expressed or not; and so this may be taken as a general rule. Another way 1 consists in contesting the disputed points, either by denying the fact or its harmfulness, at least to the plaintiff; or by asserting that its importance is exaggerated; or that it is not unjust at all, or only slightly so; or neither disgraceful nor important. These are the possible points of dispute: as Iphicrates, in answer to Nausicrates, admitted that he had done what the prosecutor alleged and inflicted damage, but denied that he had been guilty of wrongdoing. Again, one may strike the balance, when guilty of wrongdoing, by maintaining that although the action was injurious it was honorable, painful but useful, or anything else of the kind.
Another method consists in saying that it was a case of error, misfortune, or necessity; as, for example, Sophocles said that he trembled, not, as the accuser said, in order to appear old, but from necessity, for it was against his wish that he was eighty years of age. 2 One may also substitute one motive for another, and say that one did not mean to injure but to do something else, not that of which one was accused, and that the wrongdoing was accidental: “I should deserve your hatred, had I acted so as to bring this about.”
Another method may be employed if the accuser, either himself or one closely related to him, has been involved in a similar charge, either now or formerly; or, if others are involved who are admittedly not exposed to the charge; for instance, if it is argued that so-and-so is an adulterer, because he is a dandy, then so-and-so must be.
Again, if the accuser has already similarly accused others, or himself been accused by others; 3 or if others, without being formally accused, have been suspected as you are now, and their innocence has been proved.
Another method consists in counter-attacking the accuser; for it would be absurd to believe the words of one who is himself unworthy of belief.
Another method is to appeal to a verdict already given, as Euripides did in the case about the exchange of property; 4 when Hygiaenon accused him of impiety as having advised perjury in the verse, My tongue hath sworn, but my mind is unsworn, 5 Euripides replied that his accuser did wrong in transferring the decisions of the court of Dionysus to the law courts; for he had already rendered an account of what he had said there, 6 or was still ready to do so, if his adversary desired to accuse him.
Another method consists in attacking slander, showing how great an evil it is, and this because it alters the nature of judgements, 7 and that it does not rely on the real facts of the case.
Common to both parties is the topic of tokens, Common to both parties is the topic of tokens, as in the Teucer , 8 Odysseus reproaches Teucer with being a relative of Priam, whose sister his mother Hesione was; to which Teucer replied that his father Telamon was the enemy of Priam, and that he himself did not denounce the spies. 9
Another method, suitable for the accuser, is to praise something unimportant at great length, and to condemn something important concisely; or, putting forward several things that are praiseworthy in the opponent, to condemn the one thing that has an important bearing upon the case. Such methods 10 are most artful and unfair; for by their use men endeavor to make what is good in a man injurious to him, by mixing it up with what is bad.
Another method is common to both accuser and defender. Since the same thing mayAnother method is common to both accuser and defender. Since the same thing may have been done from several motives, the accuser must disparage it by taking it in the worse sense, while the defender must take it in the better sense. For instance, when Diomedes chose Odysseus for his companion, it may be said on the one hand that he did so because he considered him to be the bravest of men, on the other, that it was because Odysseus was the only man who was no possible rival for him, since he was a poltroon. Let this suffice for the question of prejudice.
Although the use of inartificial proofs is almost entirely confined to forensic oratory, they may be used in deliberative oratory.↩︎
The first line is quoted 1.13.2. The second differs somewhat from Soph. Ant. 458 , where the passage runs, τούτων ἐγὼ οὐκ ἔμελλον, ἀνδρὸς οὐδινὸς φρόνημα δείσασ᾽, ἐν θεοῖσι τὴν δίκην δώσειν (“I was not likely, through fear of the pride of any man, to incur the penalty for violating these statutes at the bar of heaven”).↩︎
Which is the administration of real justice, not that which appears to the legislator to be such and is embodied in legal enactments.Which is the administration of real justice, not that which appears to the legislator to be such and is embodied in legal enactments.↩︎
Cp.14.7 above.Cp.14.7 above.↩︎
Αἴας δ᾽ ἐκ Σαλαμῖνος ἄγεν δυοκαίδεκα νῆας, στῆσε δ᾽ ἄγων ἵν᾽ Α᾿θηναίων ἵσταντο φάλαγγες , Hom. Il. 2.557-558 . The Lacedaemonians, acting as arbitrators between Athens and Megara, who were fighting for the possession of Salamis , decided in favor of Athens on the strength of the two lines in the Iliad , which were taken to show that Salamis belonged to Athens . It was reported that the second line was the invention of Solon.↩︎
It is not known to what this refers.It is not known to what this refers.↩︎
(Frag. 22,(Frag. 22, P.L.G. 2, where the line runs, εἰπέμεναι Κριτίᾳ ξανθότριχι πατρὸς ἀκούειν ). The Critias attacked by Cleophon is the well-known oligarch and grandson of the first. Cleophon argued from the phrase “bid him listen to his father” that his ancestor was a disobedient son and a degenerate. In reality, Solon had a high opinion of the family, and probably meant to praise the father.↩︎
Hdt. 7.141 .↩︎
They have not been mentioned before. Spengel would therefore omit
εἴρηται, and remove the commas: “proverbs are, as it were, evidence.”↩︎From the Cypria of Stasinus, of the “epic cycle.”↩︎