Dissolute, Obsolesce et al.

The genesis for this essay came from reading Cicero's Oration on the Manilian Law today. I decided to write on words that appear to be closely related (and indeed two of them are), but are not necessarily so. The previous essay, for example, distinguished between circumincessio and circumsessio. Further distinctions could have been made between incedo and incido. Indeed, there are two meanings of incido, one of which is reflected in the English word "incise" (i.e., cut into) and one in the word "incident" (i.e., something that befalls someone or is likely to happen). All of this is hugely delightful. If you take the time to learn these distinctions (and others) carefully, you will always have confidence in speaking, writing and otherwise using the English language.

Obsolesce/Obsolete

Well, the passage that got me going today was the following, from sec. 52 of Caesar's Manilian Law:

"Obsolevit iam ista oratio,"

which means, "that argument has now lost value." I am interested in talking about the verb translated "lost value." Its principal parts are obsolesco, obsolescere, obsolevi, obsoletum. Its form, in the first principal part is an inceptive--that is it describes the beginning of a process and is generally well translated as "I become....X" In this case the verb is made up of the preposition "ob" ("before") and "solere" ("to be accustomed." However, the principal parts of the latter verb are soleo, solere, solitus. Thus, solitus means "accustomed" while the nearly-identical solitas means "solitary" or "alone." Let's return to the word obsolesco. We see in it "obsolescent/obsolescence," or something that has worn out, fallen into disuse, decayed. It has, to use the past participle, become "obsolete." Thus, a person's argument has "become obsolete" or has "grown stale" or "has fallen into disuse" or "has lost its validity" or something like that. If something obsolesces in English it becomes valueless; if it is obsolete, it is valueless.

But I should say more about ob before leaving it. Actually, as the OED kindly points out, it has about four basic meanings in Latin, all of which are reflected in English. It can mean: (1) in the direction of, towards, such as in the word obvertere, which means "to turn towards"; (2) against, in opposition, as occurrere, which means "to run against" or opponere, "to place against." It can also mean: (3) "upon or over; down upon, down," as in obducere, "to draw upon or over" and obligare, "to bind down" (I have obligations, you know); (4) completely. This is a pleonastic, such as obdurare, which means "to harden greatly" or obdulcare, which means "to sweeten completely." I would say that the ob in obsolesce partakes of (2), so that it literally means, "to be against the custom.." or "to be no longer done. Thus is it "obsolete."

Solve and Dissolute

We all know what "to solve a problem" means. It means to "come up with the answer." Yet, if we go deeper into this word we learn some fresh things. Standing behind it is the Latin, solvo, solvere, solvi, solutum. Recall that solitus is "accustomed," solitas is "alone" and solutum/us is what we are looking for here. But in fact, solvo is a very rich term, and can be translated "loosen, untie, release, set free; exempt, absolve; break up; relax, make weak." It can be used to describe the "discharge" of obligations or the payment of bills. It can even, in connection with navem mean to "set sail." The curbstones of this word, on either side of the road, seem to be solve, as in a problem, and solution, as in something that we apply to dirt to dissolve it. Thus, the basic concept behind solvo is to "loose" something. We loose the dirt from clinging to something else; we disentange, unravel or 'resolve' the problem we are dealing with. The more you think about the word solve, the more ways you can think of using it. Why can we "solve" a problem but not "solve" a knot (i.e., untie it)?

Well, let's get on to solutus, the past participle. It means, in Latin, "loosened, unbound, free, unencumbered." In referring to literary style, solutus means "fluent." The adverb solute means "loosely, freely." And we have words in English such as solution or solute that stress the "dissolving" or "resolving" character of something. But we can see in the word "loose" the germs of a negative reading of solutus. Indeed, solutus can also mean "unrestrained, unregulated, unbridled, lax, negligent." But we have no words in English beginning with sol that capture the negative meaning of this word. Thus, we go to the word dissolute, which captures it. In this case the prefix dis means "opposite," though as the OED entry shows, dis can have almost a dozen different meanings in English. Something that is dissolute is "loose." It is unrestrained, untied, unencumbered. Good words all.

Celebrate

Celeber, in Latin, means "frequented, populous." Even the word frequent here needs a mention. The original meaning of "frequent" was "crowded" or "thronged," as the angelic convocation in Hell at the end of Paradise Lost Book I is described as "frequent and full." With respect to occasions it can mean "well-attended," while with referece to sayings it means "oft-repeated," and relating to people it means "famous, renowned, celebrated." The verb, celebro (1st conjugation), covers that range of meaning, with most of the definitions centering on the "celebration/praise" meanings.

Finally, a celebret, which literally means "let him celebrate," is a "document, signed and sealed by a bishop, giving a priest permission to say mass in a certain parish." I hadn't run into this word previously, but the number of Latin terms in law and religion is simply astounding. It only seems to have been first used in English in 1844: "I had forgotten to get credentials from Dr. Wiseman, and so he hesitated, but gave the celebret." Or, from 1907, "I am told that the Pope will give me a celebret." Then, the following year, the Catholic Encyclopedia laid out, in a very legal-sounding sentence, the following: "The absence of the celebret does not suffice for the refusal of permission to say Mass, if persons worthy of belief bear positive testimony to the good standing of the priest." It is a sentence like this that makes me a little sad that I wasn't brought up Catholic. For then, I might have been drawn to Canon Law, using the quickness and precision of my mind to help define, distinguish and clarify all questions of faith. But then, after a while, knowing myself, I probably would have become either disgusted with the endeavor, since no one could seriously believe that God was in all this, or become so committed to the task that I would stand by at an ecclesiastical "hanging" and provide the needed justification for it. I guess, ultimately, I prefer just to learn the terms and enter into the discussion/debate as I meet the terms--believing that there yet remains a use for my brain that I don't yet fully understand here on this earth.

4039