The sandals of Roman soldiers: the origin of the expression “to have no scruples”

PalmWe say that someone is unscrupulous when they deliberately commit immoral actions, without a guilty conscience. Not only do they not feel remorse, but they also have an attitude of indifference toward the resulting negative consequences. We can even say that they generate a certain evil, perverse pleasure, like an arsonist who enjoys seeing entire forests ablaze, scorched, and devastated. Therefore, a person who is unscrupulous has no regard for anything other than the self, nor does the discomfort of others cause them any anguish. But where does this expression come from? What are scruples? According to the first meaning of the term, Dictionary of the Catalan language from the Institute of Catalan Studies (DIEC), ''scruple' is a "very small part of a thing" and, according to the second, a "doubt, a concern of conscience, about something of little weight." Although the meaning of the expression is currently linked to the second meaning, its origin is closer to the first or, rather, draws on both.

Macoli or small stone

Surely, more than once you've had to stop walking to remove a small stone from your shoe, especially during the summer, when we wear open-toed shoes. Unwittingly, you've reproduced the immortalized action of the giant of Felanitx, the Macolí Giant: he's carrying a sandal in his hand, because, according to legend, a macolí—"a small pebble," according to the DIEC—had lodged itself inside him, preventing him from walking comfortably. This macolí—which, considering the giant's size, can't possibly be small—is found, according to legend, on the route that leads to the Sanctuary of Sant Salvador, shortly before reaching the chapel. This large rock—remember, it was the macolí of a giant, and therefore, the fantasy generated by popular culture causes a change in its meaning: a giant macolí—is a must-stop for the little ones in the family and for superstitious people, as it is said that those who hit the giant with a stone will have good luck. The only difficulty encountered in the aim test is that the throw must be made with the non-dominant hand. But what is the relationship between the giant's macolino and the expression "to have no scruples"? Curiously, a macolino or small stone was previously called a 'scruple'. Therefore, this means that the Giant of Macolín, consciously or not, took off his sandal for not having scruples.

'Scruple', as we have already mentioned, according to one of the meanings of the DIEC, is "doubt, uneasiness of the conscience, over a thing of little weight." Now, if we look at its etymology, Catalan-Valencià-Balear Dictionary explains that it comes from the Latin 'scrupŭlum', "originally, a small stone that gets stuck in the shoe and is annoying when walking." When I was studying Latin in high school, my teacher taught us about the history and culture of the classical world and, among other explanations, told us about the curious etymology of the word scruples. During ancient Rome, soldiers traveled long distances on foot to move between territories while carrying heavy weapons and supplies. The roads, evidently, were not paved, and therefore, it was very common for macolins to get into sandals, the shoes worn by soldiers. When this happened, they had to endure the inconvenience, since if they decided to stop to remove them, it would cause the entire legion to be slowed down and, most likely, result in a disastrous punishment. However, senators, consuls, tribunes, and other political and military officials did not travel on foot, but on horseback, in a chariot, or even on a stretcher. For this reason, high-ranking officials never had any scruples about their shoes. And hence the expression: the powerful people of ancient Rome, generally oppressive toward their subjects and whose privileged status consequently allowed them not to travel on foot, had no regard for their soldiers and no macs in their sandals. In short, they lacked physical or moral scruples.

Moral Scrupulosity

Currently, footwear and the way we travel have no bearing on people's moral scrupulousness. I can't say with certainty that army commanders still—regardless of whether they currently travel by chariot, car, or plane—don't have scruples. What I can confirm is that walking doesn't guarantee them. After two thousand years, society has changed in every way, and morality has been no exception. The fact that many roads are paved, I think, is a telling sign that you're less likely to encounter people with scruples.

From now on, when you get a tinge of pain inside your shoes, think of the poor soldiers who endured stones inside their sandals for hours so as not to delay the legion or to avoid repression. For a few seconds, feel relieved of having scruples. Whether you stop or not to take them off is your decision. If you have to judge someone, it won't be the court of morality, but the soldiers you choose to walk with.