Plain
Seneca — The Senator

The same person who told you bad things about your friend won't repeat his story if he has to prove it. "Don't call me as a witness," he says. "If you do, I'll deny everything I told you. And unless you promise not to drag me into this, I'll never tell you anything again." He pushes you to get angry, then runs away from any real confrontation. Someone who will only whisper accusations is barely telling you anything at all. What could be more unfair than believing secret rumors while showing your anger in public?

On Anger, Book 2, Section 29 Book 2 · 78 of 103
Human Nature Doing The Right Thing
Seneca — The Senator Original

This very man who has informed against your friend, will say no more if he be obliged to prove what he says. "You need not," says he, "bring me forward as a witness; if I am brought forward I shall deny what I have said; unless you excuse me from appearing I shall never tell you anything." At the same time he spurs you on and withdraws himself from the strife and battle. The man who will tell you nothing save in secret hardly tells you anything at all. What can be more unjust than to believe in secret, and to be angry openly?

On Anger, Book 2, Section 29 Book 2 · 78 of 103
Seneca — The Senator

If you were about to decide a court case over even a tiny amount of money, you wouldn't accept anything as fact without a witness. And you wouldn't trust a witness unless they swore an oath. You would listen to both sides. You would give them time. You wouldn't rush through it in one session, because the more you examine something, the clearer the truth becomes. So why do you condemn your friend immediately? Why are you angry with him before you hear his side, before you question him, before he even knows who accused him or what he's charged with? Just now, in that case you tried, didn't you listen to what both sides had to say?

On Anger, Book 2, Section 29 Book 2 · 77 of 103
Doing The Right Thing Human Nature
Seneca — The Senator Original

If you were about to give sentence in court about ever so small a sum of money, you would take nothing as proved without a witness, and a witness would count for nothing except on his oath. You would allow both sides to be heard: you would allow them time: you would not despatch the matter at one sitting, because the oftener it is handled the more distinctly the truth appears. And do you condemn your friend off-hand? Are you angry with him before you hear his story, before you have cross-examined him, before he can know either who is his accuser or with what he is charged. Why then, just now, in the case which you just tried, did you hear what was said on both sides?

On Anger, Book 2, Section 29 Book 2 · 77 of 103
‹ Previous Next ›

Ancient philosophy, in plain English.

About · Support