Marcus Tullius Cicero→Lucius Papirius Paetus|c. 45 BC|Cicero|From Rome|To Rome|Human translated
I love your modesty -- or rather, your freedom of speech. And yet this was the view of Zeno, a sharp man by Hercules, even if our Academy has a great quarrel with him. But as I say, the Stoics hold that every thing should be called by its proper name. For they argue thus: there is nothing obscene, nothing shameful to say; for if there is any disgrace in obscenity, it is either in the thing or in the word; there is no third option. It is not in the thing. And so not only in comedies is the thing itself narrated -- as in that scene in the Demiurgus: "just now by chance" -- you know the song, you remember Roscius -- "he so abandoned me stripped bare..." -- the whole speech is veiled in words but more shameless in substance -- but even in tragedies. For what is that "what woman alone?" What, I ask, is "she occupies a double bed?" What? "This wild beast has dared to enter his bed." What is "The maiden once unwilling Jupiter violates by force"? Well put, "violates"; and yet it means the same thing, but no one would have tolerated the other word. You see, then, that when the thing is the same, because the words are different, nothing seems shameful. Therefore it is not in the thing; much less in the words. For if what is signified by the word is not shameful, the word that signifies it cannot be shameful. You call a certain body part by a borrowed name: why? If it is shameful, not even by a borrowed name; if not, rather by its own. The ancients called a tail a "penis," from which, because of the resemblance, comes "penicillus" (a brush); but today "penis" is among the obscene words. "But Piso Frugi in his Annals complains that young men are devoted to the penis." What you call in your letter by its proper name, he covered more discreetly with "penis"; but because many used it, it became as obscene as the word you used. What about the common expression "when we wished to meet with you at night" -- is it obscene? I remember a distinguished and eloquent consular saying in the senate: "Shall I call this fault greater or that one?" Could he have spoken more obscenely? "It was not obscene," you say; "for he did not mean it that way." Therefore it is not in the word; and I have shown it is not in the thing; so it is nowhere. "To work at having children" -- how properly that is said! Even fathers urge their sons to it; but they do not dare to say the name of the activity. The most famous lyre-player taught Socrates to play the lyre; he was called "Connus." Do you think that is obscene? When we say "terni" (three at a time), we say nothing disgraceful; but when "bini" (two at a time), it is obscene. "In Greek, anyway," you will say. Therefore there is nothing in the word, since I know Greek too and yet I say "bini" to you, and you take it as though I had spoken Greek, not Latin. "Ruta" (rue) and "menta" (mint) -- both are proper. I want to call a little mint a "mentula" (as a diminutive of menta), just as one says "rutula" (little rue). I may not. "Tectoriola" (little plastering jobs) is fine; then say "pavimenta" (floor-laying) in the same way. You cannot. You see, then, that there is nothing but absurdity? Indecency is neither in the word nor in the thing; and so it is nowhere. Therefore we set obscene things in honorable words. For what? Is not "divisio" (division) an honorable word? Yet there is an obscene meaning in it, to which "intercapedo" (interval) corresponds. Are these then obscene? But we are ridiculous: if we say "that man strangled his father," we do not preface it with "saving your presence"; but if something about Aurelia or Lollia, we must say "with all due respect." And indeed by now even non-obscene words are used for obscene ones: "he beat," someone says, "shamelessly; he kneaded, much more shamelessly." Yet neither is obscene. The world is full of fools. "Testes" is a most honorable word in court, but not too much so in another context; and "the inhabitants of Lanuvium" are honorable, while "those of Cliternum" are not. What? The same action is sometimes honorable, sometimes shameful: to relieve nature in public is a disgrace; he will be naked in the bath, and you will not criticize him. You have your Stoic lecture: the wise man will tell a dirty joke properly. How much from a single word of yours! It is gratifying that you dare say anything to me; I maintain and shall maintain -- for so I am accustomed -- Plato's modesty. And so I have written these things to you in veiled words, while the Stoics discuss them in the most explicit terms. But they even say that belches should be as free as... well, with all due respect. The Kalends of March. Love me and take care of your health.
DCXXXI (Fam. IX, 22) TO L. PAPIRIUS PAETUS (AT NAPLES) (ROME, JULY?) I like modesty in language: you prefer plain speaking. The latter I know was the doctrine of Zeno , a man by heaven! of keen insight, though our Academy had a serious quarrel with him. However, as I say, the Stoic doctrine is to call everything by its right name. They argue as follows: nothing is obscene, nothing unfit to be expressed: for if there is anything disgraceful in obscenity, it consists either in the thing meant or in the word: there is no third alternative. Now it is not in the thing meant. Accordingly, in tragedies as well as in comedies there is no concealment. For Comedy, take the character in the Demiurgus: you know the monologue beginning “Lately by chance,” and you remember how Roscius recited, “So naked has she left me”: the whole speech is covert in language, in meaning is very immodest. As for tragedy, what do you say to this: “The woman who” — notice the expression — “uses more than one bed.” Or again, “He dared intrude upon her bed, Pheres .” Or again: “A virgin I, and sheer against my will Did Iuppiter achieve his end by force.” “Achieve his end” is a decent way of putting it; and yet it means the same as a coarser word, which however no one would have endured. You see then that though the thing meant is the same, yet, because the words are not so, there is thought to be no impropriety. Therefore obscenity is not in the thing meant: much less is it in the expressions. For if the thing meant by a word is not improper, the word which signifies it cannot be improper. For instance, you call the anus by another name; why not by its own? If mention of it is improper, don't mention it even under another name. If not, do so for choice by its own. The ancients called a tail a penis; whence comes the word penicillus ("paint-brush"), from its similarity in appearance. Nowadays penis is regarded as an obscene word. “But,” you will say, “the famous Piso Frugi in his 'Annals' complains of young men being given up to lust (peni).” What you call in your letter by its own name, he, with more reserve, calls penis. Yes; but it is because many use the word in that sense that it has become as obscene as the word you used. Again, suppose we use the common phrase: “When we (cum nos) desired to visit you” — does that suggest obscenity? I remember once in the senate an eloquent consular expressing himself thus: “Am I to say that this or that is the greater culpability?” Could it have been expressed more obscenely? “Not so,” you say, “for he did not mean it in that sense.” Therefore obscenity does not consist in the word used: I have shown that it does not do so in the thing meant: therefore it does not exist anywhere. How entirely decent is the expression: “To exert oneself for children ”? Even fathers beg their sons to do so, though they do not venture to mention the name of the “exertion.” Socrates was taught the lyre by a very famous musician named Connus : do you think the name obscene? When we use the numeral terni there is no suggestion of obscenity: but if I speak of bini there is. “Only to Greeks,” you will say. That shows that there is nothing obscene in a word, for I know Greek and yet use the word bini to you; and you assume that I am speaking Greek and not Latin . Again, we may speak without impropriety of “rue” (ruta) and “mint” (menta); but if I wish to use the diminutive of menta (mentula)-as one can perfectly well use that of ruta (rutula)-that is a forbidden word. So we may, without a breach of good manners, use the diminutive of tectoria (tectoriola); but if you try to do the same with pavimenta (pavimentula), you find yourself pulled up. Don't you see, then, that these are nothing but empty distinctions? That impropriety exists neither in word nor thing, and therefore is non-existent? The fact is that we introduce obscene meaning into words in themselves pure. For instance, is not the word divisio beyond reproach? Yet in it there is a word (visium or visio, “a stench”) which may have an improper meaning, to which the last syllables of the word intercapedo (pedo πέρδω) correspond. Are we, therefore, to regard these words as obscene? Again, we make a ridiculous distinction: if we say, “So-and — so strangled his father,” we don't prefix any apologetic word. But if we use the word of Aurelia or Lollia we must use such an apology. Nay, more, words that are not obscene have come to be considered so. The word “grind,” he says, is shameful; much more the word “knead.” And yet neither is obscene. The world is full of fools. Testes is quite a respectable word in a Court of law: elsewhere not too much so. Again, “Lanuvinian bags” is a decent phrase; not so “bags” of Cliternum . Again, can the same thing be at one time decent, at another indecent? Suppose a man to break wind — it is an outrage on decency. Presently he will be in a bath naked, and you will have no fault to find. Here is your Stoic decision — “The wise man will call a spade a spade.” What a long commentary on a single word of yours! I am pleased that you have no scruple in saying anything to me. For my own part I maintain and shall maintain Plato 's modesty: and accordingly, in my letter to you, I have expressed in veiled language what the Stoics express in the broadest: for they say that breaking wind should be as free as a hiccough. All honour then to the Kalends of March! Love me and keep yourself well.
XXII. Scr. anno incerto. CICERO PAETO.
Amo verecundiam, vel potius libertatem loquendi. Atqui hoc Zenoni placuit, homini mehercule acuto; etsi Academiae nostrae cum eo magna rixa est; sed, ut dico, placet Stoicis suo quamque rem nomine appellare. Sic enim disserunt: nihil esse obscoenum, nihil turpe dictu; nam, si quod sit in obscoenitate flagitium, id aut in re esse aut in verbo; nihil esse tertium. In re non est. Itaque non modo in comoediis res ipsa narratur—ut ille in Demiurgo: modo forte —nosti canticum, meministi Roscium— ita me destituit nudum. . . . —totus est sermo verbis tectus, re impudentior—, sed etiam in tragoediis; quid est enim illud quae mulier una? quid, inquam est usurpat duplex cubile? quid? huius ferei hic cubile inire est ausus quid est? Virginem me quondam invitam per vim violat Iuppiter. Bene "violat": atqui idem significat, sed alterum nemo tulisset. Vides igitur, cum eadem res sit, quia verba non sint, nihil videri turpe. Ergo in re non est: multo minus in verbis; si enim, quod verbo significatur, id turpe non est, verbum, quod significat, turpe esse non potest. "Anum" appellas alieno nomine: cur? si turpe est, ne alieno quidem; si non est, suo potius. Caudam antiqui "penem" vocabant, ex quo est propter similitudinem "penicillus;" at hodie "penis" est in obscenis. "At vero Piso ille Frugi in Annalibus suis queritur adolescentes peni deditos esse." Quod tu in epistula appellas suo nomine, ille tectius "penem;" sed, quia multi, factum est tam obscenum quam id verbum, quo tu usus es. Quid, quod vulgo dicitur, "cum nost te voluimus convenire," num obscenum est? Memini in senatu disertum consularem ita eloqui: "hanc culpam maiorem an illam dicam?" potuit obscenius? "Non obscene," inquis; "non enim ita sensit." Non ergo in verbo est; docui autem in re non esse: nusquam igitur est. "Liberis dare operam" quam honeste dicitur! etiam patres rogant filios; eius operae nomen non audent dicere. Socraten fidibus docuit nobilissimus fidicen; is "Connus" vocitatus est: num id obscenum putas? Cum loquimur "terni," nihil flagitii dicimus; at, cum "bini," obscenum est. "Graecis quidem," inquies. Nihil est ergo in verbo, quoniam et ego Graece scio et tamen tibi dico "bini," idque tu facis, quasi ego Graece, non Latine, dixerim. "Ruta" et "menta," recte utrumque: volo mentam pusillam ita appellare, ut "rutulam;" non licet. Belle "tectoriola:" dic ergo etiam "pavimenta" isto modo; non potes. Viden igitur nihil esse nisi ineptias? turpitudinem nec in verbo esse nec in re; itaque nusquam esse. Igitur in verbis honestis obscena ponimus. Quid enim? non honestum verbum est "divisio?" at inest obscenum, cui respondet "intercapedo." Num haec ergo obscena sunt? Nos autem ridicule: si dicimus "ille patrem strangulavit," honorem non praefamur; sin de Aurelia aliquid aut Lollia, honos praefandus est. Et quidem iam etiam non obscena verba pro obscenis sunt: "'battuit,' inquit, 'impudenter, 'depsit' multo impudentius;" atqui neutrum est obscenum. Stultorum plena sunt omnia: "testes" verbum honestissimum in iudicio, alio loco non nimis; et honesti, "colei Lanuvini," "Cliternini" non honesti. Quid? ipsa res modo honesta, modo turpis: suppedit, flagitium est; iam erit nudus in balneo, non reprehendes. Habes scholam Stoicam: sofÚw eÈyurrhmonÆsei. Quam multa ex uno verbo tuo! Te adversus me omnia audere gratum est: ego servo et servabo—sic enim assuevi—Platonis verecundiam; itaque tectis verbis ea ad te scripsi, quae apertissimis agunt Stoici; sed illi etiam crepitus aiunt aeque liberos ac ructus esse oportere; honorem igitur ***. Kalendis Martiis. Tu me diliges et valebis.
◆
I love your modesty -- or rather, your freedom of speech. And yet this was the view of Zeno, a sharp man by Hercules, even if our Academy has a great quarrel with him. But as I say, the Stoics hold that every thing should be called by its proper name. For they argue thus: there is nothing obscene, nothing shameful to say; for if there is any disgrace in obscenity, it is either in the thing or in the word; there is no third option. It is not in the thing. And so not only in comedies is the thing itself narrated -- as in that scene in the Demiurgus: "just now by chance" -- you know the song, you remember Roscius -- "he so abandoned me stripped bare..." -- the whole speech is veiled in words but more shameless in substance -- but even in tragedies. For what is that "what woman alone?" What, I ask, is "she occupies a double bed?" What? "This wild beast has dared to enter his bed." What is "The maiden once unwilling Jupiter violates by force"? Well put, "violates"; and yet it means the same thing, but no one would have tolerated the other word. You see, then, that when the thing is the same, because the words are different, nothing seems shameful. Therefore it is not in the thing; much less in the words. For if what is signified by the word is not shameful, the word that signifies it cannot be shameful. You call a certain body part by a borrowed name: why? If it is shameful, not even by a borrowed name; if not, rather by its own. The ancients called a tail a "penis," from which, because of the resemblance, comes "penicillus" (a brush); but today "penis" is among the obscene words. "But Piso Frugi in his Annals complains that young men are devoted to the penis." What you call in your letter by its proper name, he covered more discreetly with "penis"; but because many used it, it became as obscene as the word you used. What about the common expression "when we wished to meet with you at night" -- is it obscene? I remember a distinguished and eloquent consular saying in the senate: "Shall I call this fault greater or that one?" Could he have spoken more obscenely? "It was not obscene," you say; "for he did not mean it that way." Therefore it is not in the word; and I have shown it is not in the thing; so it is nowhere. "To work at having children" -- how properly that is said! Even fathers urge their sons to it; but they do not dare to say the name of the activity. The most famous lyre-player taught Socrates to play the lyre; he was called "Connus." Do you think that is obscene? When we say "terni" (three at a time), we say nothing disgraceful; but when "bini" (two at a time), it is obscene. "In Greek, anyway," you will say. Therefore there is nothing in the word, since I know Greek too and yet I say "bini" to you, and you take it as though I had spoken Greek, not Latin. "Ruta" (rue) and "menta" (mint) -- both are proper. I want to call a little mint a "mentula" (as a diminutive of menta), just as one says "rutula" (little rue). I may not. "Tectoriola" (little plastering jobs) is fine; then say "pavimenta" (floor-laying) in the same way. You cannot. You see, then, that there is nothing but absurdity? Indecency is neither in the word nor in the thing; and so it is nowhere. Therefore we set obscene things in honorable words. For what? Is not "divisio" (division) an honorable word? Yet there is an obscene meaning in it, to which "intercapedo" (interval) corresponds. Are these then obscene? But we are ridiculous: if we say "that man strangled his father," we do not preface it with "saving your presence"; but if something about Aurelia or Lollia, we must say "with all due respect." And indeed by now even non-obscene words are used for obscene ones: "he beat," someone says, "shamelessly; he kneaded, much more shamelessly." Yet neither is obscene. The world is full of fools. "Testes" is a most honorable word in court, but not too much so in another context; and "the inhabitants of Lanuvium" are honorable, while "those of Cliternum" are not. What? The same action is sometimes honorable, sometimes shameful: to relieve nature in public is a disgrace; he will be naked in the bath, and you will not criticize him. You have your Stoic lecture: the wise man will tell a dirty joke properly. How much from a single word of yours! It is gratifying that you dare say anything to me; I maintain and shall maintain -- for so I am accustomed -- Plato's modesty. And so I have written these things to you in veiled words, while the Stoics discuss them in the most explicit terms. But they even say that belches should be as free as... well, with all due respect. The Kalends of March. Love me and take care of your health.
Human translation - ToposText / Shuckburgh
Latin / Greek Original
XXII. Scr. anno incerto. CICERO PAETO.
Amo verecundiam, vel potius libertatem loquendi. Atqui hoc Zenoni placuit, homini mehercule acuto; etsi Academiae nostrae cum eo magna rixa est; sed, ut dico, placet Stoicis suo quamque rem nomine appellare. Sic enim disserunt: nihil esse obscoenum, nihil turpe dictu; nam, si quod sit in obscoenitate flagitium, id aut in re esse aut in verbo; nihil esse tertium. In re non est. Itaque non modo in comoediis res ipsa narratur—ut ille in Demiurgo: modo forte —nosti canticum, meministi Roscium— ita me destituit nudum. . . . —totus est sermo verbis tectus, re impudentior—, sed etiam in tragoediis; quid est enim illud quae mulier una? quid, inquam est usurpat duplex cubile? quid? huius ferei hic cubile inire est ausus quid est? Virginem me quondam invitam per vim violat Iuppiter. Bene "violat": atqui idem significat, sed alterum nemo tulisset. Vides igitur, cum eadem res sit, quia verba non sint, nihil videri turpe. Ergo in re non est: multo minus in verbis; si enim, quod verbo significatur, id turpe non est, verbum, quod significat, turpe esse non potest. "Anum" appellas alieno nomine: cur? si turpe est, ne alieno quidem; si non est, suo potius. Caudam antiqui "penem" vocabant, ex quo est propter similitudinem "penicillus;" at hodie "penis" est in obscenis. "At vero Piso ille Frugi in Annalibus suis queritur adolescentes peni deditos esse." Quod tu in epistula appellas suo nomine, ille tectius "penem;" sed, quia multi, factum est tam obscenum quam id verbum, quo tu usus es. Quid, quod vulgo dicitur, "cum nost te voluimus convenire," num obscenum est? Memini in senatu disertum consularem ita eloqui: "hanc culpam maiorem an illam dicam?" potuit obscenius? "Non obscene," inquis; "non enim ita sensit." Non ergo in verbo est; docui autem in re non esse: nusquam igitur est. "Liberis dare operam" quam honeste dicitur! etiam patres rogant filios; eius operae nomen non audent dicere. Socraten fidibus docuit nobilissimus fidicen; is "Connus" vocitatus est: num id obscenum putas? Cum loquimur "terni," nihil flagitii dicimus; at, cum "bini," obscenum est. "Graecis quidem," inquies. Nihil est ergo in verbo, quoniam et ego Graece scio et tamen tibi dico "bini," idque tu facis, quasi ego Graece, non Latine, dixerim. "Ruta" et "menta," recte utrumque: volo mentam pusillam ita appellare, ut "rutulam;" non licet. Belle "tectoriola:" dic ergo etiam "pavimenta" isto modo; non potes. Viden igitur nihil esse nisi ineptias? turpitudinem nec in verbo esse nec in re; itaque nusquam esse. Igitur in verbis honestis obscena ponimus. Quid enim? non honestum verbum est "divisio?" at inest obscenum, cui respondet "intercapedo." Num haec ergo obscena sunt? Nos autem ridicule: si dicimus "ille patrem strangulavit," honorem non praefamur; sin de Aurelia aliquid aut Lollia, honos praefandus est. Et quidem iam etiam non obscena verba pro obscenis sunt: "'battuit,' inquit, 'impudenter, 'depsit' multo impudentius;" atqui neutrum est obscenum. Stultorum plena sunt omnia: "testes" verbum honestissimum in iudicio, alio loco non nimis; et honesti, "colei Lanuvini," "Cliternini" non honesti. Quid? ipsa res modo honesta, modo turpis: suppedit, flagitium est; iam erit nudus in balneo, non reprehendes. Habes scholam Stoicam: sofÚw eÈyurrhmonÆsei. Quam multa ex uno verbo tuo! Te adversus me omnia audere gratum est: ego servo et servabo—sic enim assuevi—Platonis verecundiam; itaque tectis verbis ea ad te scripsi, quae apertissimis agunt Stoici; sed illi etiam crepitus aiunt aeque liberos ac ructus esse oportere; honorem igitur ***. Kalendis Martiis. Tu me diliges et valebis.