Meekness is a thing unconquerable, if it be true and natural, and not affected or hypocritical. For how shall even the most fierce and malicious that thou shalt conceive, be able to hold on against thee, if thou shalt still continue meek and loving unto him; and that even at that time, when he is about to do thee wrong, thou shalt be well disposed, and in good temper, with all meekness to teach him, and to instruct him better? As for example; My son, we were not born for this, to hurt and annoy one another; it will be thy hurt not mine, my son.
[tr. Casaubon (1634)]

Gentleness and Good Humour are invincible, provided they are of the right Stamp, without any thing of Hypocrisy, or Grimace. This is the way to Disarm the most Barbarous, and Savage: A constancy in Obliging Behaviour, will make the most Outragious Person asham'd of his Malice : The worst Body imaginable can't find in his heart to do you any Mischief, if you continue kind and unmov'd under ill Usage, if you strike in with the right opportunity for Advice; If when he is going to do you an ill Turn, you endeavour to recover his Understanding, and retrieve his Temper in such gentle Language as this. Prethee Child be quiet, Men were never made to worry one another; In earnest if you go on, my dear Friend, you'l have the worst on't; As for my part, I'm proof against every Thing, but my own Folly.
[tr. Collier (1701)]

Meekness is invincible, where it is genuine, and sincere without hypocrisy. For, what can the most insolent do to you, if you steadfastly persist in kindness to him, and, upon occasion, mildly admonish and instruct him thus, at the very time he is attempting to do you an injury? “Don’t do so, my son! Nature formed us for a quite different conduct. You cannot hurt me; you hurt yourself, my son!”
[tr. Hutcheson/Moor (1742)]

Consider that benevolence is invincible, if it be genuine, without affectation or hypocrisy. For what can the most brutishly injurious person do to you, if you persevere in your kindness to them, and when an opportunity offers, tenderly admonish him, and at the very time when he is going to do you an injury, thus calmly instruct him: "Forbear, my son, we were formed by nature for quite a different purpose; you cannot injure me, but you hurt yourself my son."
[tr. Graves (1792)]

Consider that a good disposition is invincible if it be genuine, and not an affected smile and acting a part. For what will the most violent man do to thee, if thou continuest to be of a kind disposition towards him, and if, as opportunity offers, thou gently admonishest him and calmly correctest his errors at the very time when he is trying to do thee harm, saying, Not so, my child: we are constituted by nature for something else: I shall certainly not be injured, but thou art injuring thyself, my child.
[tr. Long (1862)]

Gentleness is invincible, provided it is of the right stamp, without anything of hypocrisy or malice. This is the way to disarm the most insolent, if you continue kind and unmoved under ill usage, if you strike in with the right opportunity for advice. If when he is going to do you an ill turn you endeavour to recover his undertsanding, and retrieve his temper by such language as this: I pray you, child, be quiet, men were never made to worry one another. I shall not be injured, but you are injuring yourself, child.
[tr. Collier/Zimmern (1887)]

Kindness is invincible if only it is honest, not fawning or insincere. What can the most aggressive do, if you keep persistently kind, and as ocasion offers gently remonstrate, and seize the moment when he is bent on mischief, for trying quietly to convert him to a better frame of mind. "Not so, my son, we are made for other ends; you cannot hurt me, you hurt yourself, my son."
[tr. Rendall (1898)]

Meekness is invincible if it be genuine, without simper or hypocrisy. For what can the most insolent of men do to you, if you persist in civility towards him; and, if occasion offers, admonish him gently and deliberately, shew him the better way at the very moment that he is endeavouring to harm you? “Nay, my son; we were born for something better. No hurt can come to me; it is yourself you hurt, my son.”
[tr. Hutcheson/Chrystal (1902)]

Kindness is irresistible, be it but sincere and no mock smile or a mask assumed. For what can the most unconscionable of men do to thee, if thou persist in being kindly to him, and when a chance is given exhort him mildly and, at the very time when he is trying to do thee harm, quietly teach him a better way thus: Nay, my child, we have been made for other things. I shall be in no wise harmed, but thou art harming thyself, my child.
[tr. Haines (Loeb) (1916)]

Gentleness is invincible, if it be genuine and not sneering or hypocritical. For what can the most insolent do to you, if you continue gentle to him, and, if opportunity allows, mildly admonish him and quietly show him a better way at the very moment when he attempts to do you injury: "No, my child; we came into the world for other ends. It is not I that am harmed, but you are harmed, my child."
[tr. Farquharson (1944)]

Kindness is irresistible, so long as it be genuine and without false smiles or duplicity. The most consummate impudence can do nothing, if you remain persistently kind to the offender, give him a gentle word of admonition when opportunity offers, and at the moment when he is about to vent his malice upon you bring him round quietly with "No, my son; it was not for this that we were made. I shall not be hurt; it is yourself you are hurting."
[tr. Staniforth (1964)]

Kindness is invincible, provided it’s sincere -- not ironic or an act. What can even the most vicious person do if you keep treating him with kindness and gently set him straight -- if you get the chance -- correcting him cheerfully at the exact moment that he’s trying to do you harm. "No, no, my friend. That isn’t what we’re here for. It isn’t me who’s harmed by that. It’s you."
[tr. Hays (2003)]

Kindness is invincible — if it is sincere, not fawning or pretense. What can the most aggressive man do to you if you continue to be kind to him? If, as opportunity arises, you gently admonish him and take your time to re-educate him at the very moment when he is trying to do you harm? "No, son, we were born for other purposes than this. There is no way that I can be harmed, but you are harming yourself, son."
[tr. Hammond (2006)]

Kindness is unconquerable, so long as it is without flattery or hypocrisy. For what can the most insolent man do to you, if you continue to be kind to him and, if you have the chance, gently advise and calmly show him what is right at the very moment he is trying to harm you, saying: "No, my son. We were born for something else. I am certainly not harmed, but you bring harm to yourself?"
[tr. Needleman/Piazza (2008)]

Never trust a malicious Man upon the Account that thou hast done him good Offices. For thou hast but fed a Dragon, that will devour thee if ever thou comest within the Reach of his Claws.

Tongues never want for Venom to spit; nothing here below can be Proof against them.
[tr. Clitandre (1672)]

Evil tongues have always venom to scatter abroad, and nothing here below can guard against it.
[tr. Van Laun (1876)]

Evil tongues have always some venom to pour fourth; and here below there is nothing proof against them.
[tr. Wall (1879)]

Tongues never lack venom to spread about. Nothing in this world can be proof against them.
[tr. Mathew (1890), 5.2]

Tongues are always ready to spit venom: nothing here below is proof against them.
[tr. Waller (1903)]

Their tongues for spitting venom never lack,
There's nothing here below they'll not attack.
[tr. Page (1909)]

Many a tongue is ready to spread slander,
And nothing in this world is proof against it.
[tr. Bishop (1957)]

Venom is what their tongues will never lack,
And nothing here below escapes attack.
[tr. Frame (1967)]

No -- slanderous tongues on every hand,
All poisonous talk.
[tr. Bolt (2002)]

Nothing in this world can deflect the venom of malice.
[tr. Steiner (2008)]

Wicked tongues will always have poison to spread about.
[tr. Campbell (2013)]

That Virtue here is persecuted ever;
That envious Men may die, but Envy never.
[tr. Clitandre (1672)]

That virtue here is persecuted ever;
That envious men may die, but envy never.
[tr. Van Laun (1876)]

That in this world virtue is ever liable to persecution, and that, although the envious die, envy never dies.
[tr. Wall (1879)]

Virtue here is persecuted ever;
The envious will die, but envy never.
[tr. Mathew (1890)]

That in this world virtue is ever persecuted, and that the envious may die, but envy never.
[tr. Waller (1903)]

Virtue is always unpopular in this world;
The envious, they will die, but envy won't.
[tr. Bishop (1957)]

That virtue in this world is hated ever;
Malicious men may die, but malice never.
[tr. Wilbur (1963)]

Virtue is always harassed here below;
The envious will die, but envy, no.
[tr. Frame (1967)]

The envious die, but envy won't.
[tr. Bolt (2002)]

Virtue is always a target -- envious people may die, envy doesn't.
[tr. Steiner (2008)]

For where the mind to bad Intention's join'd,
And with a Pow'r what's ill design'd to act,
None can himself from such a force defend.
[tr. Rogers (1782), l. 49ff]

But not the forest tribes, nor finny race,
With equal rage their native walks deface,
As he whose deadly arm by Reason's light
Directed falls, and mocks the warding hand;
Conspiring realms in vain his pow'r withstand,
In vain embattled hosts defend their right.
[tr. Boyd (1802), st. 9]

For when brute force
And evil will are back’d with subtlety,
Resistance none avails.
[tr. Cary (1814)]

For discourse of mind,
Wedded with power and inbred lust of wrong,
Had left nor help nor rescue for mankind.
[tr. Dayman (1843)]

For where [the instrument] of [the] mind is joined to evil will and potency, men can make no defence against it.
[tr. Carlyle (1849)]

For when a reasoning and a subtle mind
Is joined, besides, to evil will and power,
Who can resist? -- for all defence must cower.
[tr. Bannerman (1850)]

For when the reasoning faculty combines
With evil will and with destructive pow'r,
Then there remains no more defence for man.
[tr. Johnston (1867)]

For where the argument of intellect ⁠
⁠Is added unto evil will and power,
⁠No rampart can the people make against it.
[tr. Longfellow (1867)]

For where the equipment of the mind is joined to illwill and to power, folk can make no rampart against it.
[tr. Butler (1885)]

For where the assistance of the intellect
Is added unto evil will and power,
'Gainst it no refuge could mankind erect.
[tr. Minchin (1885)]

For where the faculty of the mind is added to evil will and to power, the human race can make no defense against it.
[tr. Norton (1892)]

For where the force of intellect is joined to evil will, and power to do such will, mankind is helpless to find resource against it.
[tr. Sullivan (1893)]

For, where the equipment and the use of reason
Are joined to ill intent and power of action,
No sort of refuge can folk make against it.
[tr. Griffith (1908)]

For where the equipment of the mind is joined to evil will and to power men can make no defence against it.
[tr. Sinclair (1939)]

For if with the mind's instrument unite
Power and an evil purpose both at once,
Men have no means against such force to fight.
[tr. Binyon (1943)]

For where the instrument of thinking mind
Is joined to strength and malice, man’s defence
Cannot avail to meet those powers combined.
[tr. Sayers (1949)]

For where the instrument of intelligence
is added to brute power and evil will,
mankind is powerless in its own defense.
[tr. Ciardi (1954)]

For where the instrument of the mind is added to an evil will and to great power, men can make no defense against it.
[tr. Singleton (1970)]

For where the mind’s acutest reasoning
is joined to evil will and evil power,
there human beings can’t defend themselves.
[tr. Mandelbaum (1980)]

For, where the argument of reason is
Joined with an evil will and potency,
There is no possible defence for man.
[tr. Sisson (1981)]

The power of the mind, along with that
Of immense strength, upon an evil will
Then people will have no defense from it.
[tr. Pinsky (1994), l. 52ff]

For where sharpness of mind is joined to evil will and power, there is no defence people can make against them.
[tr. Durling (1996)]

Where the instrument of mind is joined to ill will and power, men have no defence against it.
[tr. Kline (2002)]

For when the powers of working intellect
are wed to strength and absolute illwill,
then humans cannot find a place to hide.
[tr. Kirkpatrick (2006)]

For when the power of thought
is coupled with ill will and naked force
there is no refuge from it for mankind.
[tr. Hollander/Hollander (2007)]

For when the thinking powers of human brains
Are tools of malicious will and enormous strength,
Smaller creatures like men have no defense.
[tr. Raffel (2010)]

For only when ill will and massive strength
Are joined with mental power does it arise
That the invincible is born.
[tr. James (2013), l. 58ff]

There's no guarding against Calumny: Let us therefore not mind silly tittle-tattle, and let's endeavour to live innocently our selves, and leave the gossiping part of Mankind to say what they please.
[tr. Clitandre (1672)]

There is no protection against slander. Let us, therefore, pay no regard to all this silly tittle-tattle; let us endeavour to live honestly, and leave the gossips to say what they please.
[tr. Van Laun (1876)]

There is no safeguard against calumny. Let us, therefore, not mind all that foolish gossip, but only endeavour to lead a virtuous life, and leave full licence to the scandal-mongers.
[tr. Wall (1879)]

There is no defence against calumny. So let us not mind foolish tittle-tattle, and let us endeavour to live innocently, and leave the gossips to say what they please.
[tr. Mathew (1890)]

There is not any protection against slander. Do not let us pay any attention to foolish gossip, but endeavour to live honestly and leave the scandal-mongers to say what they will.
[tr. Waller (1903)]

Against backbiting there is no defence
So let us try to live in innocence,
To silly tattle pay no heed at all,
And leave the gossips free to vent their gall.
[tr. Page (1909)]

There is no wall so high it shuts out slander.
So let's not give a thought to silly gossip,
And let us try to live in innocence,
And let the talkers talk just as they please.
[tr. Bishop (1957)]

One can't fight slander; it's a losing battle;
Let us instead ignore their tittle-tattle.
Let's strive to live by conscience' clear decrees,
And let the gossips gossip as they please.
[tr. Wilbur (1963)]

There is nothing that can hold back gossip.
Let's give no attention to fools who chatter mean things;
Let's try to live in all innocence,
And leave it to other people to say what they will.
[tr. Siniscalchi (c. 1994)]

Tongues would still wag, it's what tongues do,
Scandal will find a passage through
No matter how secure a wall
We built against it -- hang them all!
Their talk won't bother us a bit
As long as there's no grounds for it.
Provided we've done nothing wrong
They're free to babble all day long.
[tr. Bolt (2002)]

There's no defense against slander.
Let's pay no attention to their cackling;
we'll try to live virtuously and
let busybodies have their way.
[tr. Steiner (2008)]

There is no defence against malicious gossip.
Let's just concentrate on living a good and decent life
And let people talk all they please.
[tr. Campbell (2013)]

There is no rampart that will hold out against malice.
[Bartlett's]

Misunderstandings and neglect create more confusion in this world than trickery and malice. At any rate, the last two are certainly much less frequent.
[tr. Mayor / Brogan]

For, is there a Man ignorant, that the first Rule of History is, that an Historian shall not dare to advance a Falsity; the next, that there is no Truth but what he shall dare to tell? That in Writing, he shall be free of all Prepossession; of all Pique?
[tr. Guthrie (1755)]

For, is there a man ignorant that the first rule of history is that an historian shall not dare to advance a falsehood; the next, that there no truth but what he shall dare to tell? That the writer should be actuated neither by favour, or by prejudice?
[Source (1808)]

For who is ignorant that it is the first law in writing history, that the historian must not dare to tell any falsehood, and the next, that he must be bold enough to tell the whole truth? Also, that there must be no suspicion of partiality in his writings, or of personal animosity?
[tr. Watson (1860)]

Who need be informed that the first law of history is, to have the honesty to state no falsehood, the next, the courage to suppress no truth, and to avoid all suspicion of undue bias or personal animosity?
[tr. Calvert (1870)]

Who does not recognise that the first law of history is that we shall never dare to say what is false; the second that we shall never fear to say what is true; that everything we write shall be free from any suspicion of favoritism or flattery?
[ed. Harbottle (1906)]

For who does not know history's first law to be that an author must not dare to tell anything but the truth ? And its second that he must make bold to tell the whole truth? That there must be no suggestion of partiality anywhere in his writings? Nor of malice?
[tr. Sutton/Rackham (1940)]

The first law for the historian is that he shall never dare utter an untruth. The second is that he shall suppress nothing that is true. Moreover, there shall be no suspicion of partiality in his writing, or of malice.
[Bartlett's]