No Place in History for Abusive Language
Relying therefore on the testimony of his own countrymen, as safer ground than the virulence of Timaeus, I feel no
hesitation in declaring that the life of Demochares is not
chargeable with such enormities. But even supposing that
Demochares had ever so disgraced himself, what need was
there for Timaeus to insert this passage in his History? Men
of sense, when resolved to retaliate upon a personal enemy,
think first, not of what he deserves, but of what it is becoming
in them to do. So in the case of abusive language: the first
consideration should be, not what our enemies deserve to be
called, but what our self respect will allow us to call them.
But if men measure everything by their own ill temper and
jealousy, we are forced to be always suspicious of them, and
to be ever on our guard against their exaggeration. Wherefore, in the present instance, we may fairly reject the stories to
the discredit of Philochares told by Timaeus; for he has put
himself out of the pale of indulgence or belief, by so obviously
allowing his native virulence to carry him beyond all bounds
of propriety in his invectives.
