[114] Some give a sharp, strong edge to an iron-bound thong, and fasten it round both hands and lacerate the heads and faces of their opponents, and, when they succeed in planting their blows, batter the rest of their bodies, and then claim prizes and garlands for their pitiless savagery.
[115] As for the other contests, of sprinters or of those who enter for the five exercises, what sensible person would not laugh at them, at their having practised to jump as far as possible, and getting the several distances measured, and making swiftness of foot a matter of rivalry? And yet not only one of the larger animals, a gazelle or a stag, but a dog or hare, among the smaller ones, will, without hurrying much, outstrip them when running full pelt and without taking breath.
[116] Of these contests, in sober truth, none is sacred, and even if all men testify to that effect, they cannot escape being convicted of false witness by themselves. For it was the admirers of these things who passed the laws against overbearing persons, and fixed the punishments to be awarded to acts of outrage, and allotted judges to investigate the several cases. How, then, are these two things compatible?
[117] How can the very same persons be indignant at outrages committed in private and have affixed to them inexorable penalties, and at the same time have by law awarded garlands and public announcements and other honours to those who have done so publicly and at State festivals and in theatres?
[118] For if two things, contrary the one to the other, have been determined against one person or one action, one or other must of necessity be right and the other wrong; for it is out of the question that they should both be right or both wrong. Which then, rightly, would you praise? Would you not approve the punishment of those who are guilty of unprovoked violence and wrong? In that case you would censure, as a matter of course, the opposite treatment of them, the shewing honour to them.