Parrhesia

Use in the book

The margin says that there is no style here except frank speaking. Beside it Burton describes himself as a loose, plain, rough writer, “as free, as loose.” His “idem calamo quod in mente” makes the pen answer to the mind. The Latin “ficum voco ficum, & ligonem ligonem” calls a fig a fig and a spade a spade; Burton then says in English that he calls a spade a spade. The repetition matters. Frankness is not merely reported but performed through successive Latin and English declarations.

The same sequence specifies what this frank writing is for. “Animis hæc scribo, non auribus” directs it toward minds rather than ears. Burton says that he respects matter rather than words, recalls Cardan’s “verba propter res, non res propter verba,” and cites Seneca on choosing what to write rather than how. The exact Cardan and short Seneca sources remain unresolved in the supplied annotation. The following paragraph brings in Philo, Palingenius and another Senecan judgment against polished expression without substance. These are attributed claims and values, including Seneca’s gendered contrast between manliness and verbal elegance, rather than neutral tests of a writer’s learning.

This defence of plainness comes after a deliberately unpolished birth image: Burton claims that he lacked time to shape his confused collection of notes. His disclaimers are themselves richly furnished with quotation and figure. The sequel describes a river of changing pace, depth, clarity and width, and a road through differing landscapes. His style can be serious or light, comic or satirical, elaborate or relaxed, according to the subject or his disposition. Plain speaking therefore does not promise uniform simplicity or the absence of rhetorical art; it is the author’s declared priority within a conspicuously varied manner.

Elsewhere the demand for frankness encounters its risks. Before applying Lucian’s ideal of independent historical writing to the political writer, Burton warns himself not to go too far: truth can breed hatred. The writer who speaks and writes freely must present matters truthfully without courting anyone’s approval. This is an ideal of independence stated amid political hesitation, not a declaration that existing laws guarantee unrestricted speech.

Burton carries the claim into the discussion of love: he will treat it with like liberty as the rest, while declaring a purpose of censuring lust, deterring its practice and teaching remedies. He also defends Cardan’s sexual self-report as free, down right, plain and ingenuous: this is how it seems to him, despite Mersenne’s condemnation. The sequel distinguishes inward fantasy from outward action and says the confession benefits students. Yet openness does not ensure approval. Vanini is more free, copious and open in expounding the astrological doctrine than other modern writers, Cardan excepted, but Burton endorses Mersenne’s censure of its naturalistic explanations. The later Christian disclaimer is Vanini’s quoted declaration; its sincerity remains unsettled.

The close of the preface stages the instability more dramatically. Burton claims to spare persons while attacking vices, and blames offence on readers who expose their own guilty consciences. His defence of freenesse of speech is self-exculpatory, not proof that objectors are guilty. Festive licence and the mask of Democritus excuse the author’s sharpness; he asks to “speak my minde freely” and says that he will take the liberty if refused. He declares himself independent and unafraid, then immediately recants, admits fear, confesses folly and promises a soberer treatise. The ensuing apology remembers that bitter jokes leave lasting injuries and that a satirist may fear retaliation. These reversals keep the marginal ideal of frank speaking within Burton’s complex self-defence.

Related entries

Cento: The assembled voices and quotations within Burton’s authorial manner.

Action: Delivery and the performance of speech.

Apologize: The defence, recantation and apology accompanying frankness.

Fustian and bombast: The inflated expression Burton professes to avoid.

Censure: Criticism and the risk of speaking harsh truths.

Friendship: Private unburdening to a trusted listener, a different setting for free expression.

Places to read

1. Democritus Junior to the Reader · paragraphs 23–29; Democritus Junior to the Reader · paragraph 26; note 294revision, the unshaped work, marginal parrhesiam, the pen-and-mind declaration, repeated Latin and English plain-speaking formulas, attributed attacks on empty polish, and the river and road figures of changing style.
2. Democritus Junior to the Reader · paragraphs 24–27the danger of harsh truth, Lucian’s model transferred to political writing, acknowledged laws and the ironically reported promise of universal reform.
3. Democritus Junior to the Reader · paragraphs 21–39the assumed persona, claimed persons/vices distinction, freenesse of speech and self-exculpatory attribution of offence; then Democritus’s shield, festive permission, frank defiance, immediate recantation and the remembered risks of satire.
4. Section 1. Member 1. Subsection 1 The Preface · paragraphs 12–16; Section 1. Member 1. Subsection 1 The Preface · paragraph 16; note 8198like liberty in erotic writing, with censure, deterrence and teaching remedies as its declared purpose.
5. Member 2. Subsection 1. Causes of Heroic Love: Bodily Temperament, Plentiful Diet, Idleness, Place, Climate, and So Forth · paragraphs 3–9; Member 2. Subsection 1. Causes of Heroic Love: Bodily Temperament, Plentiful Diet, Idleness, Place, Climate, and So Forth · paragraphs 5–8Cardan’s candid self-report, Burton’s qualified defence, the distinction between fantasy and action, and the claimed benefit to students.
6. Member 2 Subsection 1 Religious Melancholy From Deficiency: Those Affected—Epicures, Atheists, Hypocrites, the Worldly and Complacent, Carnalists, All Impious People, Impenitent Sinners, and Others · paragraphs 21–28; Member 2 Subsection 1 Religious Melancholy From Deficiency: Those Affected—Epicures, Atheists, Hypocrites, the Worldly and Complacent, Carnalists, All Impious People, Impenitent Sinners, and Others · paragraph 22Vanini’s comparative openness, the Cardan exception, Burton’s censure and Vanini’s own Christian disclaimer.

In this edition

“parrhesiam” → “frank speaking” comes from the translated original margin, the accompanying note. The full marginal sentence becomes “There is no style here except frank speaking.” The English is makes its elliptical predication explicit. The body’s separate “as free, as loose” → “as outspoken as I am unrestrained” renders the paired adjectives; the repeated I am is supplied from the first-person context. The marginal term and the related body claim remain distinct.

Idem calamo quod in mente becomes the same in my pen as in my mind: my is supplied twice from the speaker’s context. The fig-and-spade Latin is translated before Burton’s separate English spade repetition. Animis and auribus in the next maxim mean for minds and for ears; they describe the intended recipient, not a claim to write with those organs. The Cardan maxim’s things and words exchange positions around for, so its full antithesis remains broader than Burton’s adjacent English preference for matter. The modern text retains these overlapping formulations instead of silently reducing them to one.

Freenesse of speech becomes freedom of speech within Burton’s denial that his writing causes the reader’s flinching. With like liberty becomes as freely in the love preface. In Cardan’s defence, free means frank, while down right means straightforward and ingenuous candid. The later more free, copious and open becomes more freely, fully and openly: the modern turns the adjective construction into adverbs modifying explains, preserving three distinct components.

Animis hæc scribo, non auribus

Printed “animis hæc scribo, non auribus” (Latin; phrase).

I write these things for minds, not ears.

Here: The declaration gives understanding priority over attractive sound.

Context: Burton’s authorial maxim, followed by his own substance-versus-words explanation and further attributed authorities.

Source: original body

Source wording and original alignment: animis hæc scribo, non auribus

Modern rendering: I write these things for minds, not ears

Alignment scope: Equal-scope phrase or construction in the supplied parallel text.

Word and construction: Scribo is I write; hæc these things; animis and auribus are dative plurals, for minds and for ears. Non negates the latter destination.

Ficum voco ficum; ligonem ligonem

Printed “ficum voco ficum, & ligonem ligonem” (Latin; phrase).

I call a fig a fig and a spade a spade: name things directly without disguising them.

Here: The Latin is followed shortly by Burton’s own English spade expression, making plain speaking audible through repetition.

Context: Burton’s proverbial self-description. The modern translates the Latin and also preserves the separate English repetition rather than collapsing the two.

Source: original body

Source wording and original alignment: ficum voco ficum, & ligonem ligonem

Modern rendering: I call a fig a fig and a spade a spade

Alignment scope: Equal-scope phrase or construction in the supplied parallel text.

Word and construction: Voco is I call; the paired accusatives ficum and ligonem give the object and the name applied to it. The second clause shares voco. The following original I call a spade a spade is a separate restatement, not part of this Latin unit.

Free; frank disclosure

Printed “free” (English; family).

Frank or candid in expression.

Here: Burton defends Cardan’s sexual self-report against Mersenne and other critics.

Context: Me thinks qualifies the judgment as Burton’s assessment. The continuation distinguishes imagined sexual pleasure from actions not performed and explains the confession as useful to students; the Gregory comparison and exact quoted sources remain uncollated.

Source: original body

Source wording and original alignment: free, down right, plain and ingenuous

Modern rendering: frank, straightforward, plain and candid

Alignment scope: Equal-scope phrase or construction in the supplied parallel text.

Word and construction: Free supplies frank; down right straightforward; plain remains plain; ingenuous supplies candid. These adjectives describe the reported disclosure, not freedom from sexual desire or guilt.

Free; loose in expression

Printed “as free, as loose” (English; family).

As outspoken as unrestrained: free describes frank expression, while loose describes its lack of restraint or tight control.

Here: The paired adjectives connect frankness with Burton’s declared loose, plain, rough manner.

Context: Burton’s self-presentation, followed by a series of Latin and English formulations and a comparison of his variable style to a river. It is not a clinical or moral diagnosis.

Source: original body

Source wording and original alignment: as free, as loose

Modern rendering: as outspoken as I am unrestrained

Alignment scope: Equal-scope phrase or construction in the supplied parallel text.

Word and construction: Free becomes outspoken and loose unrestrained. The modern repeats I am to express the comparison as an explicit clause; those words are grammatically supplied from the speaker’s self-description.

Free; open exposition

Printed “more free” (English; family).

More unrestricted or frank in explaining a doctrine.

Here: Vanini’s openness and fullness of exposition accompany an argument Burton condemns.

Context: The comparison expressly excepts Cardan. Burton endorses Mersenne’s censure of the reported naturalistic explanations; the later Christian disclaimer is Vanini’s own quoted statement, whose sincerity this passage does not resolve. Spirits and celestial intelligences remain distinct in the reported system.

Source: original body

Source wording and original alignment: is more free, copious and open in the explication of this Astrological Tenent of Ptolomy, than any of our modern Writers, Cardan excepted

Modern rendering: explains this astrological doctrine of Ptolemy more freely, fully and openly than any of our modern writers except Cardano

Alignment scope: Equal-scope phrase or construction in the supplied parallel text.

Word and construction: The modern turns is…in the explication into explains and the coordinated adjectives into adverbs: free supplies freely, copious fully, open openly. More and the exception remain; fully and openly are not definitions of free.

Idem calamo quod in mente

Printed “idem calamo quod in mente” (Latin; phrase).

The same in the pen as in the mind: an elliptical claim of agreement between writing and thought.

Here: Burton presents his writing as the direct expression of his mind.

Context: The claim belongs to an elaborately quoted authorial defence of plainness, not independent evidence that every satirical statement is his settled judgment.

Source: original body

Source wording and original alignment: idem calamo quod in mente

Modern rendering: the same in my pen as in my mind

Alignment scope: Equal-scope phrase or construction in the supplied parallel text.

Word and construction: Idem is the same, quod introduces the comparison; calamo is the ablative of pen and in mente means in the mind. Both occurrences of my are supplied from Burton’s first-person context, not separate Latin possessives.

Liberty; freedom in writing

Printed “liberty” (English; family).

Licence or freedom to discuss a subject openly.

Here: Burton extends the freedom of his earlier discussion to love and lust.

Context: He claims to censure lust, deter others and teach remedies, rather than teach erotic practice. This is his defence of the writing’s purpose, following anticipated accusations of frivolity and wantonness; the original margin preserves the explicit teaching of remedies.

Source: original body

Source wording and original alignment: I will treat of this with like liberty as of the rest

Modern rendering: I will treat this subject as freely as the rest

Alignment scope: Equal-scope phrase or construction in the supplied parallel text.

Word and construction: With like liberty becomes as freely, retaining the comparison as of the rest/as the rest; this is made explicit as this subject. Liberty names the authorial freedom, not a legal entitlement.

Parrhesia

Printed “parrhesiam” (Latin (Greek-derived noun); lemma).

Frank, open or free speaking; accusative singular of the Greek-derived Latin noun parrhesia.

Here: The marginal sentence declares frank speaking to be the only style present.

Context: Burton’s original Latin margin accompanies his authorial self-description; the English translation and explanatory Greek derivation belong to the supplied note’s later editorial layers.

Source: original marginal quotation

Source wording and original alignment: Stylus hic nullus præter parrhesiam

Modern rendering: There is no style here except frank speaking

Alignment scope: Equal-scope phrase or construction in the supplied parallel text.

Word and construction: Stylus supplies style, hic here, nullus no; the modern is makes the elliptical Latin predication explicit. Præter means except and governs accusative parrhesiam, frank speaking.

Modern container: note

Speak and write freely

Printed “freely speak and write” (English; phrase).

Speak and write openly, independently of another person’s approval or political allegiance.

Here: Burton transfers Lucian’s ideal for a historian to the political writer.

Context: The claim follows Burton’s warning that truth breeds hatred and that he must not speak too harshly. His next paragraph acknowledges good laws but questions their effectiveness; this passage does not establish a general legal right to unrestricted expression.

Source: original body

Source wording and original alignment: He that will freely speak and write

Modern rendering: whoever means to speak and write freely

Alignment scope: Equal-scope phrase or construction in the supplied parallel text.

Word and construction: Will means intends or means to; freely qualifies both speak and write. The modern preserves the prospective condition, not a report that every political writer actually enjoys independence.

Speak my mind freely

Printed “speak my minde freely” (English; phrase).

Express my thoughts openly and without restraint.

Here: The author demands festive licence to say what he thinks and announces that he will take it even if denied.

Context: Burton first claims to spare people while censuring vices, and attributes offence to the reader’s guilt; this is his self-exculpatory argument, not evidence that objectors are guilty. His Saturnalian and Vacunalian literary defence then moves from defiance to immediate recantation, fear, apology and promised sobriety at 019-32–36. It is not a stable assertion that he fears no consequences.

Source: original body

Source wording and original alignment: speak my minde freely

Modern rendering: speak my mind freely

Alignment scope: Equal-scope phrase or construction in the supplied parallel text.

Word and construction: The modern regularizes minde to mind and retains the phrase. In the original it continues the preceding why may I not question, while the later declaration of taking liberty supplies a different assertive modality.

Further local use

Printed “freenesse of speech” (English; phrase).

Citation key: Freedom of speech.

Freedom or frankness in expressing oneself.

Here: Burton denies that his frankness causes offence and blames the reader’s conscience instead.

Context: The preceding conditional distinguishes guilt from innocence, while the denial is Burton’s own satirical defence. The persons/vices limitation and accusation of self-betrayal do not establish an objector’s actual guilt.

Source: original body

Source wording and original alignment: it is not my freenesse of speech, but a guilty conscience, a gauled back of his own that makes him winch

Modern rendering: It is not my freedom of speech that makes him flinch, but his guilty conscience, a sore on his own back

Alignment scope: Equal-scope phrase or construction in the supplied parallel text.

Word and construction: Freenesse of speech supplies freedom of speech. The complete reordered sentence retains not…but and the sore-back figure; the claim assigns the flinching to conscience rather than to the author’s speech.

Verba propter res, non res propter verba

Printed “verba propter res, non res propter verba” (Latin; phrase).

Words for the sake of things, not things for the sake of words.

Here: The objects of discourse should determine expression rather than serve verbal display.

Context: Burton attributes the maxim to Cardan; the precise source remains unlocated in the supplied annotation. His neighbouring English about respecting matter is related but is not a word-for-word translation of the full maxim.

Source: original body

Source wording and original alignment: verba propter res, non res propter verba

Modern rendering: words for things, not things for words

Alignment scope: Equal-scope phrase or construction in the supplied parallel text.

Word and construction: Verba means words, res things, and each propter for or for the sake of governs an accusative. Reversal of the two nouns supplies the antithesis.