Cacoethes

Cacoethes (pronounced kak-oh-ee-theez)

(1) An uncontrollable urge or irresistible desire, especially something harmful or ill-advised.

(2) In medicine, a bad quality or disposition in a disease; a malignant tumor or ulcer (obsolete).

1560s: From cacoēthes, a Latinized form of the Ancient Greek κακοήθης (kakoēthēs) (ill-habit, wickedness, itch for doing (something)), from κακός (kakós) (bad) from the primitive Indo-European root kakka- (to defecate) + ἦθος (ēthē- & êthos) (disposition; character, moral nature).  Related forms include the Modern English ethos & ethics.  The Ancient Greek kakóēthes was a neuter (used as noun) of kakoḗthēs (malignant), literally “of bad character; of evil disposition”.  Perhaps as a consequence of the operation of certain spell-check programs, the word is sometimes confused with cacoethics (bad ethics or morals; bad habits), the construct being caco- +‎ ethics.  Caco- (in the sense of "bad" or "defective" and well illustrated by words such as cacography (bad handwriting; poor penmanship, incorrect spelling), kakistocracy (a form of government in which the worst persons are in power), cacophony (a harsh discordance of sound; dissonance) or caconym (an incorrect name for something)) was from the Ancient Greek κακός (kakós) (bad) and ethics (used in the sense or "morality"; "right & wrong") was from the Middle English etik, from the Middle French ethique, from the Late Latin ethica, from the Ancient Greek ἠθική (ēthikḗ), from ἠθικός (ēthikós) (of or for morals, moral, expressing character), from ἦθος (êthos) (disposition; character, moral nature).  The preferred modern spelling is cacoethes but cacoëthesor is used by some classists.  Cacoethes (or cacoëthes) is a noun, cacoethical & cacoethic are adjectives and cacoethically is an adverb; the noun plural is cacoethe.

The consequences of cacoethetic conduct.  Lindsay Lohan under arrest, Los Angeles, October 2011.

The phrase insanabile scribendi cacoethes is the most quoted fragment from the passage “Tenet insanabile multos scribendi cacoethes et aegro in corde senescit” (literally “An inveterate and incurable itch for writing besets many, and grows old in their sick hearts many are afflicted by an incurable desire to write” although it’s more often cited as something more manageable like “many are afflicted by an incurable desire to write” which appears in the Seventh Satire by Juvenal (Decimus Junius Juvenalis, a Roman poet of the late first and early second century AD).  In political discourse, the phrase is used of those with “an urge to write dangerous words”, penning the texts which upset the rich and powerful.  It’s thus been said of figures such as Socrates (circa 470–399 BC (although he spoke rather than wrote), Machiavelli (1469–1527), Luther (1483–1546), Voltaire (1694–1778) and might be extended to any number of dissidents and ratbags of the modern age, not all of who suffered for their craft under totalitarian rule.  The example of Julian Assange (b 1971) lends a new layer of meaning to the idea.

Assange claims to be an editor (which is some sense he is), an activist (which none dispute) and a journalist (which is contested) and although the celebrated US case against him is on grounds which don’t hang on any of these descriptions being accepted, there is a long tradition of people being pursued by governments for words they didn’t necessarily write.  Printers and publishers have been jailed (or worse) for making possible the dissemination of the writing of others (one notorious case in Germany involving a printer’s assistant, the illiteracy of whom was conceded even by the prosecutor) and English biblical scholar William Tyndale (circa 1494–1536) was convicted of heresy, executed by strangulation and then burnt at the stake for the subversive act of publishing Bibles in vernacular English.  Well Tyndale knew the risks but he was afflicted by an incurable desire to translate the word of God.

What Assange does through the vehicle of Wikileaks is different from what has been done by political dissidents or religious dissenters (heretics usually the preferred term) and aligns more with the decision by former military analyst Dr Daniel Ellsberg (1931–2023) in 1971 to leak to the press what came to be known as the Pentagon Papers (officially titled Report of the Office of the Secretary of Defense Vietnam Task Force) a top-secret report of some 7,000 pages detailing the political & military aspects of the US involvement in Vietnam between 1945-1967 (eventually de-classified and made public in 2011).  Ellsberg obtained copies of the documents by spending late nights with the Pentagon’s Xerox machines (photocopiers), a long, boring, repetitive task; by the time in 2010 a low-level US Army analyst on deployment in Iraq could obtain the material Wikileaks published, all that was needed was the necessary access and a USB flash drive.  Conceptually, the two processes are about the same but whether the two men can be said to have similar motivations (their insanabile scribendi cacoethes) has become the subject of debate.  Ultimately, the US Supreme Court ruled publication of the Pentagon Papers was protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution (freedom of speech) and Ellsberg, although guilty as sin under the espionage counts with which he was charged, walked free because of the many outrageous acts by the administration of Richard Nixon (1913-1994; US president 1969-1974) which saw the case collapse.  Julian Assange awaits an appeal hearing in London which will decide whether he can be extradited to face espionage charges in the US.  Should he face trial, the special circumstances which prevailed during the Ellsberg hearings won't exist to help and darkly his lawyers are hinting he may take hemlock with Socrates.