who scrutinize your faults are these same friends:
“He is a bit pugnacious, and offends50 the keener noses of the present day.”
He may feel ridiculed when people say
he cuts his hair the way that bumpkins do,
his toga drags, and an ill-fitting shoe
keeps slipping off, but he's a decent guy—55
you won't find someone better if you try,
and vast capacities may hide within
that fellow's unsophisticated skin.
Once finished, shake yourself to check if seeds
of evil in your nature or bad deeds60
are sown within you; in neglected fields
we need to burn away the weedy yields.
Let's turn now to this subject: being blind,
a man who is in love can never find
his girlfriend's blemishes and may extol65
her flaws, just like Balbinus and the mole
of Hagna. With our friends I wish we'd make
a reasonably similar mistake
and ethics labeled it accordingly—
for if a friend has some deformity70
we should, like fathers with their kids, not shun
the handicap. A dad will name a son
who's crosseyed “Blinky.” If he is as tall
as Sisyphus the Midget, he will call
the son “Small Fry.” A bowlegged boy who limps75
will be affectionately known as “Gimps”
and one with twisted anklebones who hobbles
unsteadily will win the nickname “Wobbles.”
Somebody's tight with money? Let's just say
that he's “quite frugal.” Does a man display80
few signs of tactfulness or self-restraint?
Within his social crowd, he tries to paint
himself as “eager.” Is somebody loud
and blunt? Let's call him “candid” and “uncowed.”
Obnoxious? Let's relabel him “empassioned.”85
For me this practice shows how bonds are fashioned
and preserved once formed, and yet we turn
good habits on their head and foul an urn
that was pristine. When someone lives nearby
who is an unassuming, honest guy,90
we'll call him “Ox” or “Sluggo.” One who glides
past every obstacle and always hides
his naked flank from likely enemies
while life is churning with its jealousies
and innuendos will be labeled “fake”95
or “too conniving”—never “wide awake”
or “shrewd”—though if a person's so sincere
(as I would think, Maecenas, I appear
to you so often) that he'll interject,
perhaps, with chitchat, as his friends reflect100
or read, we say he's short on savoir faire.
Alas! Despite remaining unaware
of adverse consequences, we endure
this rule inflicted on ourselves! For sure,
there's no one born without some faults; the best105
possess those less substantial than the rest.
As is fair, any worthwhile friend will balance
my deficiencies against my talents,
and if he wants my friendship, he'll place weight
upon my qualities that compensate110
for my shortcomings—if, in fact, they do!
And if he is intending to pursue
my friendship, fairness means he must be weighed
upon that scale. No one should be dismayed
if he discovers pimples on a friend—115
unless he wants his own warts to offend.
If absolution is what someone wants,
he should expect to grant the same response.
Moreover, since we can't completely weed
out violent rage and errors of that breed120
for people stuck with their stupidity,
why couldn't Reason with validity
rely upon its weights and measurements
and match fair penalties to each offense?
Suppose a servant who had cleared a dish125
had licked some lukewarm sauce and tried the fish,
and then suppose his master had replied
by ordering the slave be crucified.
Sane men would call him more delirious
than Labeo. How much more serious130
and crazy would you call this violation? A friend commits a minor provocation which you must overlook or otherwise be thought ungracious. You then demonize him and avoid him like that man in debt135 who stays the furthest distance he can get from Ruso; once the dreaded Kalends come, unless that debtor somehow finds a sum of cash or loan, he's collared by the throat and has to listen to each anecdote140 that Ruso ever wrote. That friend may pee upon your couch while on a drinking spree or send Evander's cherished saucer flying off the table. Is this or, when dying of hunger, plucking chicken from your plate145 a reason why a friend is second-rate? What is my recourse if the fellow steals, betrays my trust, or welshes on his deals?
When up against the truth, those who proclaim
that all transgressions are about the same150
start hyperventilating. They deny
both instinct and tradition, and defy
expediency, which appears to be
the source of fairness and equality.
When brute-like men, a mute and lawless pack,155
first crawled into the world, they would attack
each other with their fists and nails, and then
with clubs, to steal an acorn or a den,
and then eventually armaments
that were developed by experience160
until they found the nouns and verbs that brought
their cries and stirrings into realms of thought.
Soon they were shunning conflict, fortifying
villages and making laws—denying
everyone the chance to pillage, loot,165
or carry off their wives, since the pursuit
of cunts provoked the most horrific wars
before Helen, though history ignores
men slain by those who were more powerful
while they were blithely rutting like a bull170
within his herd. If you decide to scan
the records of the history of man,
you will concede that we created courts
from fear of lawlessness. When nature