"Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi"in the Latin 'original' (fabrication) as internal rhymes were an unknown feature in the classical, i.e. Roman era of the Latin language.
The phrase therefore, in fact, is a Medieval invention: the use of a metaphor is employed to explain or even justify double standards.
See also Seneca's "quod licet Iovi, hoc regi licet" ("What Iove may do, so may the king do") But bear in mind that 'king' referred to 'tyrant' - comparable to nowadays 'dictator' and the word itself was despised and held a strictly negative connotation).
Cicero's "aliud homini, aliud bovi" - (one for man, another for cattle) echoes this phrase and is often considered a basis for the phrase.
The phrase itself has only been around since Joseph Freiherr von Eichendorff coined the phrase 'The locus classicus' in his novella "Aus dem Leben eines Taugenichts" as late as 1826 - when critical questioning and doubting were no longer life-threating and critism even desired to develop socially and culturally.
The earliest possible source of origin is Terence's (who lived ~190-160 BCE) 'Heauton Timorumenos':
"aliis si licet, tibi non licet"
("what to others is permitted; to you it is not permitted").
Nowadays, we look at double-standards with disgust and despise, but we need to bear the cultural differences of the time. Many people (in different cultures, and at different times) looked at their leadership as something heavenly and devine. Godlike-cults and worship were the result, sometimes enforced (as it was the case with Hitler, Stalin, Mao or Kim Jong-il), but oftentimes even voluntary and even with delight, as for example Caesar, Augustus, Henry V, Friedrich II ('der Große') or artists, such as Rembrandt and Descartes who even had statues erected and plaques built during their lifetimes. (There are, of course, more examples, just listing a few to illustrate the point).
The phrase therefore, in fact, is a Medieval invention: the use of a metaphor is employed to explain or even justify double standards.
See also Seneca's "quod licet Iovi, hoc regi licet" ("What Iove may do, so may the king do") But bear in mind that 'king' referred to 'tyrant' - comparable to nowadays 'dictator' and the word itself was despised and held a strictly negative connotation).
Cicero's "aliud homini, aliud bovi" - (one for man, another for cattle) echoes this phrase and is often considered a basis for the phrase.
The phrase itself has only been around since Joseph Freiherr von Eichendorff coined the phrase 'The locus classicus' in his novella "Aus dem Leben eines Taugenichts" as late as 1826 - when critical questioning and doubting were no longer life-threating and critism even desired to develop socially and culturally.
The earliest possible source of origin is Terence's (who lived ~190-160 BCE) 'Heauton Timorumenos':
"aliis si licet, tibi non licet"
("what to others is permitted; to you it is not permitted").
Nowadays, we look at double-standards with disgust and despise, but we need to bear the cultural differences of the time. Many people (in different cultures, and at different times) looked at their leadership as something heavenly and devine. Godlike-cults and worship were the result, sometimes enforced (as it was the case with Hitler, Stalin, Mao or Kim Jong-il), but oftentimes even voluntary and even with delight, as for example Caesar, Augustus, Henry V, Friedrich II ('der Große') or artists, such as Rembrandt and Descartes who even had statues erected and plaques built during their lifetimes. (There are, of course, more examples, just listing a few to illustrate the point).