If the action lie at all, it must be at the instance of the pursuer himself, as the _verus dominus_ of the _Scaraboeus_, for being calumniated through the _convicium_ directed primarily against the animal standing in that relation to him.

Now, abstracting from the qualification of an actual _dominium_, which is not alleged, I have great doubts whether a mere _convicium_ is necessarily transmitted from one object to another, through the relation of a _dominium_ subsisting between them; and if not necessarily transmissible, we must see the principle of its actual transmission here; and that has not yet been pointed out.
"LORD HERMAND .-- We heard a little ago, my Lord, that there is a difficulty in this case; but I have not been fortunate enough, for my part, to find out where the difficulty lies.
Will any man presume to tell me that a Beetle is not a Beetle, and that a Louse is not a Louse?
I never saw the petitioner's Beetle, and what's more I don't care whether I ever see it or not; but I suppose it's like other Beetles, and that's enough for me.
"But, my Lord, I know the other reptile well.

I have seen them, I have felt them, my Lord, ever since I was a child in my mother's arms; and my mind tells me that nothing but the deepest and blackest malice rankling in the human breast could have suggested this comparison, or led any man to form a thought so injurious and insulting.

But, my Lord, there's more here than all that--a great deal more.

One could have thought the defender would have gratified his spite to the full by comparing the Beetle to a common Louse--an animal sufficiently vile and abominable for the purpose of defamation--[_Shut that door there_]--but he adds the epithet _Egyptian_, and I know well what he means by that epithet.