Book 17
5
It seemed to some that this artist in rhetoric argued cleverly and learnedly, but that as a matter of fact he was ignorant of the true meaning of terms. For Cicero calls a man kind and generous in the sense that the philosophers believe those words ought to be used: not of one who, as Cicero himself expresses it, puts favours out at interest, but of one who shows kindness without having any secret reason which redounds to his own advantage. Therefore he has used an argument which is not obscure or doubtful, but trustworthy and clear, since if anyone is truly kind and generous, it is not asked with what motive he acts kindly or generously. For he must be called by very different names if, when he does such things, he does them for his own advantage rather than for that of another. Possibly the criticism made by this sophist might have some justification, if Cicero had said: As quoted in § 2. For as we do some kind and generous action, not in order to compel a return. For it might seem that anyone who was not kindly might happen to do a kind action, if it was done because of some accidental circumstance and not through a fixed habit of constant kindliness. But since Cicero spoke of kindly and generous people, and meant no other sort than that which we have mentioned before, it is with unwashed feet, Cf. i. 9. 8 (vol. i, p. 49) with the note, and Plautus, Poen. 316, illotis manibus. The reference is to washing before handling sacred objects or performing religious rites. Et verbis is an addition by Gellius, in the sense of hasty, inconsiderate language. as the proverb says, and unwashed words that our critic assails the argument of that most learned man.
