Book 17
6
But with the indulgence and pardon of those, if such there be, who are influenced by the authority of Verrius Flaccus, this must be said. That recepticius servus in the case of which Cato is speaking is something very different from what Verrius wrote. And this is easy for anyone to understand; for the situation is undoubtedly this: when the woman gave the dowry to her husband, what she retained of her property and did not give over to her husband she was said to hold back (recipere), just as now also at sales those things are said to be held back which are set aside and not sold. This word Plautus also used in the Trinumnus in this line: v. 194. But when he sold the house, this little place Behind it he held back (recepit). That is, when he sold the house, he did not sell a small part which was behind the house, but held it back. Cato himself too, wishing to describe the woman as rich, says: The woman brings a great dowry and holds back a large sum of money; that is, she gives a great dowry and retains possession of a large sum of money. From that property then which she kept for herself after giving her dowry, she lent money to her husband. When she happened to be vexed with her husband and determined to demand the money back, she appoints to demand it from him a seruves recepticius, that is, a slave of her very own, whom she had held back with the rest of the money and had not given as part of her dowry, but had retained; for it was not right for the woman to give such an order to a slave of her husband, but only to one of her very own.
