Moral Letters to Lucilius Section 6

Non statim, cum haec legeris, hoc tibi occurret, hunc esse, qui solutis tunicis in urbe semper incesserit? Nam etiam cum absentis Caesaris partibus fungeretur, signum a discincto petebatur. Hunc esse qui in tribunali, in rostris, in omni publico coetu sic apparuerit, ut pallio velaretur caput exclusis utrimque auribus, non aliter quam in mimo fugitivi divitis solent? Hunc esse, cui tunc maxime civilibus bellis strepentibus et sollicita urbe et armata comitatus hic fuerit in publico spadones duo, magis tamen viri quam ipse? Hunc esse, qui uxorem milliens duxi, cum unam habuerit? Haec verba tam improbe structa, tam neglegenter abiecta, tam contra consuetudinem omnium posita ostendunt mores quoque non minus novos et pravos et singulares fuisse.

- Autour du foyer la mère ou l’épouse font ceinture. »

Ne vient-il pas tout de suite à l’esprit, quand on lit ces choses, que c’est bien là l’homme qui allait toujours par la ville robe traînante ; qui, même quand il suppléait Auguste absent, donnait dans ce lâche accoutrement le mot d’ordre ? Oui, c’est l’homme qui du haut du tribunal et des rostres, dans toute assemblée publique, ne paraissait que la tête couverte d’un capuchon de femme d’où ressortaient ses oreilles, comme dans le mime des riches proscrits. C’est celui qui, au moment où grondaient le plus les guerres civiles, quand Rome était sur le qui-vive et en armes, se faisait publiquement escorter de deux eunuques, plus hommes encore que lui. C’est celui qui s’est marié mille fois, et n’a jamais eu qu’une même femme.

Can you not at once imagine, on reading through these words, that this was the man who always paraded through the city with a flowing tunic? For even if he was discharging the absent emperor’s duties, he was always in undress when they asked him for the countersign. Or that this was the man who, as judge on the bench, or as an orator, or at any public function, appeared with his cloak wrapped about his head, leaving only the ears exposed, like the millionaire’s runaway slaves in the farce? Or that this was the man who, at the very time when the state was embroiled in civil strife, when the city was in difficulties and under martial law, was attended in public by two eunuchs - both of them more men than himself? Or that this was the man who had but one wife, and yet was married countless times?