Some lines of Philitas of Cos

Reported by Stobaeus (Florilegium 2.4.5) as an extract from Philitas of Cos’ Παίγνια (‘play, sport, game’ – a very rare word). Philitas (born ~340 BCE) was both poet and scholar and one side of his scholarship – his love for rare archaic words (also illustrated here) – comes through well in these few lines.

No lumbering rustic snatching up a hoe
Shall bear me from the mountains—me, an alder tree;
But one who knows the marshalling of words, who toils,
Who knows the pathways of all forms of speech.


οὐ μέ τις ἐξ ὀρέων ἀποφώλιος ἀγροιώτης
αἱρήσει κλήθρην, αἰρόμενος μακέλην·
ἀλλ᾿ ἐπέων εἰδὼς κόσμον καὶ πολλὰ μογήσας,
μύθων παντοίων οἶμον ἐπιστάμενος.

The note to the Loeb edition (titled The Hellenistic Collection) adds:

If the second line is to be taken literally, the speaker may be the tree itself, or, derived from it, a poet’s staff (cf. Hes. Th. 30) (so Maass), or writing-tablet (so Kuchenmüller). Other scholars have suggested that a Philitan poem, or collection of poems, or poetry itself is speaking. Alternatively, the speaker could be a girl who prefers to marry a poet rather than a rustic (so Reitzenstein). On any reading, the lines contain an image, perhaps self-image, of the refined, learned, and dedicated poet.

There is more of interest in these lines than first looks. A few quick observations – the flavor of ἀποφώλιος ἀγροιώτης feels a condensed reminiscence of Hesiod’s ποιμένες ἄγραυλοι, κάκ᾽ ἐλέγχεα, γαστέρες οἶον at Theogony 26 (Shepherds of the wilderness, wretched things of shame, mere bellies). Hesiod actually has ποιμένας ἀγροιώτας in the same line-end position at Scutum 39 but if Philitas is recalling the phrase, he punches it up with the rare (and exclusively Odyssean in Homer) ἀποφώλιος (’empty, vain, idle’) memorably used by Odysseus of Euryalus in Odyssey 8.177 – νόον δ᾽ ἀποφώλιός ἐσσι (‘but in mind thou art stunted’ in the old Loeb translation).

The phrase ἐπέων εἰδὼς κόσμον is in the same family as κόσμον ἐπέων ὠιδὴν in Solon’s Salamis Elegy (fr.1-3 in West’s edition) and Parmenides’ µάνθανε κόσµον ἐµῶν ἐπέων ἀπατηλὸν ἀκούων (Learn as you listen the deceptive order of my words, line 52 in Diels) – but feels less a direct reference than a pull from a shared early poetic stockpile.

The same feels true of μύθων παντοίων οἶμον – the metaphor is seen in the Homeric Hymn to Hermes καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ Μούσῃσιν Ὀλυμπιάδεσσιν ὀπηδός, / τῇσι χοροί τε μέλουσι καὶ ἀγλαὸς οἶμος ἀοιδῆς (And though I am a follower of the Olympian Muses who love dances and the bright path of song, 451) and in Pindar Olympian 9 ἔγειρ᾽ ἐπέων σφιν οἶμον λιγύν (Arouse for them a clear-sounding path of song, 47).

Otio qui nescit uti, plus negoti habet quam cum est negotium in negotio

A passage from one of Ennius’ plays, reported by Aulus Gellius (19.10.11). The translation here – from the Loeb Fragmentary Republican Latin v.2 – goes as far to capturing the wordplay of the original as possible. Curiously, the passage is cited for a rare word at the end, not the tongue-twister.

And here Iulius Celsinus1 called attention to the fact that also in Ennius’ tragedy that is entitled Iphigeneia this very word that was being investigated [praeterpropter, “more or less”] had been written and was normally spoiled rather than explained by grammarians. Therefore he ordered Ennius’ Iphigeneia to be brought forward immediately. We read the following verses written in a chorus of this tragedy:

He who does not know how to use otium [“leisure”]
has more negotium [“work”] than in negotium [“when occupied”] when there is negotium [“work”].
For he, for whom what he should do is arranged, does this, he devotes himself to this with no negotium [“difficulty”] at all,
therein he delights his intellect and mind;
in otiosum otium [“leisurely leisure”] the mind does not know what it wants.
This is the same: look, we are now neither at home nor on campaign:
we go here, then there; when one has gone there, it pleases to move from there.
The mind wanders doubtfully; one lives a life more or less.

As soon as this was read, Fronto then said to the grammarian, who was already wavering: “Did you hear, greatest master, that your Ennius used praeterpropter [“more or less”] and indeed with the kind of meaning for which the criticisms of philosophers tend to be most serious? We are therefore seeking—do tell us—since an Ennian word is now being investigated, what the deep sense of this line is: ‘the mind wanders doubtfully; one lives a life more or less.’”


atque ibi Iulius Celsinus admonuit in tragoedia quoque Enni, quae Iphigenia inscripta est, id ipsum, de quo quaerebatur [i.e., “praeterpropter”], scriptum esse et a grammaticis contaminari magis solitum quam enarrari. quocirca statim proferri Iphigeniam Q. Enni iubet. in eius tragoediae choro inscriptos esse hos versus legimus:

otio qui nescit uti,
plus negoti habet quam cum est negotium in negotio.
nam cui, quod agat, institutum est, non ullo negotio
id agit, id studet, ibi mentem atque animum delectat suum;
otioso in otio animus nescit quid velit.
hoc idem est; em neque domi nunc nos nec militiae sumus:
imus huc, hinc illuc; cum illuc ventum est, ire illinc lubet.
incerte errat animus, praeterpropter vitam vivitur.

hoc ubi lectum est, tum deinde Fronto ad grammaticum iam labentem “audistine,” inquit “magister optime Ennium tuum dixisse ‘praeterpropter’ et cum sententia quidem tali, quali severissimae philosophorum esse obiurgationes solent? petimus igitur, dicas, quoniam de Enniano iam verbo quaeritur, qui sit remotus huiusce versus sensus: ‘incerte errat animus, praeterpropter vitam vivitur.’”


Are you planning to Homer me to death?

This started with something about Philitas of Cos, an early Hellenistic poet and scholar whose works survive only in a few small fragments. But when looking at testimonia for Philitas I found this genuinely hilarious passage from a 3rd century comic poet named Strato in his Phoenicides. The text is reported in Athenaeus at 9.383.

Since there’s no good way to footnote here I’m just linking to definitions of the ‘obscure’ words even though most are defined after use and are common enough Homeric terms anyway. Switch to the Cunliffe or Autenrieth entries for the Homeric definitions.

I’ve taken a male Sphinx into my house,
not a cook! By the gods, I don’t understand
a single word he says. He’s here with a full supply
of strange vocabulary. The minute he entered the house,
he immediately looked me in the eye and asked in a loud voice:
“How many meropes have you invited to dinner? Tell me!”
“I’ve invited the Meropes to dinner? You’re crazy;
do you think I know these Meropes?
None of them’ll be there. By Zeus, this is
too much—inviting Meropes to dinner!”
“So isn’t a single daitumōn going to be present?”
“I don’t think so. Daitumōn?” I did a count:
“Philinus is coming, and Moschion, and Niceratus,
and so-and-so, and so-and-so.” I went through them, name by name;
I didn’t have a single Daitumōn among them.
“No Daitumōn’ll be there,” I said. “What do you mean? Not one?”
He got real irritated, as if I was treating him badly
because I hadn’t invited Daitumōn. Very strange.
“Aren’t you sacrificing an earthbreaker?” “No, I’m not,” I said.
“A cow with a wide forehead?” “I’m not sacrificing a cow, you bastard.”
“So you’re making a sacrifice of mēla?” “No, by Zeus, I’m not.
Neither of these—just a little sheep.” “Aren’t mēla sheep?”,
he said. “Apples are sheep? I don’t understand
any of this, cook,” I said, “and I don’t want to.
I’m quite unsophisticated; so talk to me very simply.”
“Don’t you realize that Homer uses these terms?”
“He could talk however he wanted to, cook!
But what does that have to do with us, by Hestia?”
“In the future, if you don’t mind, keep him in mind.”
“Are you planning to Homer me to death?”
“That’s how I’m used to talking.” “Well, don’t talk
that way when you’re around me!” “For four drachmas”,
he says, “I’m supposed to abandon my principles?
Bring the oulochutai here!” “What’s that?”
“Barley.” “So why, you idiot, do you talk in riddles?”
“Is any pēgos available?” “Pēgos? Suck me!
Say what you want to say to me more clearly!”
“You’re an ignoramus, old man,” he says. “Bring me some salt;
that’s what pēgos is. Let me see a basin.”
I had one. He made the sacrifice and used countless other
words of a sort no one, by Earth, could have understood:
mistulla, moires, diptucha, obeloi. The result was that
I would’ve had to get Philetas’ books
to figure out what all the vocabulary he used meant.
Except now I began to beg him to take a different tack
and talk like a human being. I doubt Persuasion herself would
ever have convinced him, by Earth; I’m sure of that.


σφίγγ᾿ ἄρρεν᾿, οὐ μάγειρον, εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν
εἴληφ᾿. ἁπλῶς γὰρ οὐδὲ ἕν, μὰ τοὺς θεούς,
ὧν ἂν λέγῃ συνίημι· καινὰ ῥήματα
πεπορισμένος πάρεστιν. ὡς εἰσῆλθε γάρ,
εὐθύς μ᾿ ἐπηρώτησε προσβλέψας μέγα·
“πόσους κέκληκας μέροπας ἐπὶ δεῖπνον; λέγε.”
“ἐγὼ κέκληκα Μέροπας ἐπὶ δεῖπνον; χολᾷς.
τοὺς δὲ Μέροπας τούτους με γινώσκειν δοκεῖς;
οὐδεὶς παρέσται· τοῦτο γάρ, νὴ τὸν Δία,
ἔστι κατάλοιπον, Μέροπας ἐπὶ δεῖπνον καλεῖν.”
“οὐδ᾿ ἄρα παρέσται δαιτυμὼν οὐδεὶς ὅλως;”
“οὐκ οἴομαί γε. Δαιτυμών;” ἐλογιζόμην·
“ἥξει Φιλῖνος, Μοσχίων, Νικήρατος,
ὁ δεῖν᾿, ὁ δεῖνα.” κατ᾿ ὄνομ᾿ ἀνελογιζόμην·
οὐκ ἦν ἐν αὐτοῖς οὐδὲ εἷς μοι Δαιτυμών.
“οὐδεὶς παρέσται,” φημί. “τί λέγεις; οὐδὲ εἷς;”
σφόδρ᾿ ἠγανάκτησ᾿ ὥσπερ ἠδικημένος
εἰ μὴ κέκληκα Δαιτυμόνα. καινὸν πάνυ.
“οὐδ᾿ ἄρα θύεις ἐρυσίχθον᾿;” “οὐκ,” ἔφην, “ἐγώ.”
“βοῦν δ᾿ εὐρυμέτωπον;” “οὐ θύω βοῦν, ἄθλιε.”
“μῆλα θυσιάζεις ἆρα;” “μὰ Δί᾿, ἐγὼ μὲν οὔ,
οὐδέτερον αὐτῶν, προβάτιον δ᾿.” “οὔκουν,” ἔφη,
“τὰ μῆλα πρόβατα;” “<μῆλα πρόβατ᾿;> οὐ μανθάνω,
<μάγειρε,> τούτων οὐδέν, οὐδὲ βούλομαι.
ἀγροικότερός εἰμ᾿, ὥσθ᾿ ἁπλῶς μοι διαλέγου.”
“Ὅμηρον οὐκ οἶσθας λέγοντα;” “καὶ μάλα
ἐξῆν ὃ βούλοιτ᾿, ὦ μάγειρ᾿, αὐτῷ λέγειν.
ἀλλὰ τί πρὸς ἡμᾶς τοῦτο, πρὸς τῆς Ἑστίας;”
“κατ᾿ ἐκεῖνον ἤδη πρόσεχε καὶ τὰ λοιπά μοι.”
“Ὁμηρικῶς γὰρ διανοεῖ μ᾿ ἀπολλύναι;”
“οὕτω λαλεῖν εἴωθα.” “μὴ τοίνυν λάλει
οὕτω παρ᾿ ἔμοιγ᾿ ὤν.” “ἀλλὰ διὰ τὰς τέτταρας
δραχμὰς ἀποβάλω,” φησί, “τὴν προαίρεσιν;
τὰς οὐλοχύτας φέρε δεῦρο.” “τοῦτο δ᾿ ἐστὶ τί;”
“κριθαί.” “τί οὖν, ἀπόπληκτε, περιπλοκὰς λέγεις;”
“πηγὸς πάρεστι;” “πηγός; οὐχὶ λαικάσει,
ἐρεῖς σαφέστερόν θ᾿ ὃ βούλει μοι λέγειν;”
“ἀτάσθαλός γ᾿ εἶ, πρέσβυ,” φησ᾿.“ἅλας φέρε·
τοῦτ᾿ ἔστι πηγός. ἀλλὰ δεῖξον χέρνιβα.”
παρῆν· ἔθυεν, ἔλεγεν ἄλλα ῥήματα
τοιαῦθ᾿ ἅ, μὰ τὴν Γῆν, οὐδὲ εἷς ἤκουσεν ἄν,
μίστυλλα, μοίρας, δίπτυχ᾿, ὀβελούς· ὥστε με
τῶν τοῦ Φιλίτα λαμβάνοντα βυβλίων
σκοπεῖν ἕκαστα τί δύναται τῶν ῥημάτων.
πλὴν ἱκέτευον αὐτὸν ἤδη μεταβαλεῖν
ἀνθρωπίνως λαλεῖν τε. τὸν δ᾿ οὐκ ἂν ταχὺ
ἔπεισεν ἡ Πειθώ, μὰ τὴν Γῆν, οἶδ᾿ ὅτι.

Make life beautiful! Make life beautiful!

Le Mauvais Vitrier (The Bad Glazier), from Charles Baudelaire’s Le Spleen de Paris. Translation is David Lehman’s and borrowed from the Antioch Review. See also Edgar Allan Poe’s Imp of the Perverse.

There are people who live entirely in their minds and are totally impractical, utterly abstract, who can nevertheless, under the sway of some mysterious force, act so decisively even they cannot believe it.

One fellow comes home, fearful of bad news, so he paces for a full hour in front of the concierge’s door, too nervous to knock but too irresolute to leave; another one holds onto a letter for a fortnight before he opens it; a third is still wondering, after six months have gone by, whether to do something he should have done a year ago. There are times when even such characters spring into action, rudely propelled by an irresistible force, like an arrow shot from a bow. The moralist and the physician, with their air of infallibility, cannot explain where this energy comes from or how a good-for-nothing idler or voluptuary, ordinarily incapable of running the simplest errand, can somehow tap into that surfeit of bravery that emboldens a man to perform the craziest and most reckless stunts.

A friend of mine, as innocuous a daydreamer as has ever lived, once set a forest on fire just to see, he said, whether fire spreads as speedily as people think. Ten times the experiment failed. On the eleventh it succeeded all too well.

Somebody else will light a cigar near a powder keg just to see, to know, to tempt destiny, to test his mettle, to gamble, to enjoy the pleasures of anxiety, or for no reason at all, on a whim, a piece of mischief born of idleness.

For the twin cause of this energy is ennui and fantasy; and those in whom it manifests itself tend to be, as I have said, the laziest of day-dreaming louts.

Someone too timid to meet your gaze, who needs to pluck up all his courage just to enter a cafe or step into the box office
of a theater, where the ticket vendors appear vested with the majesty of Minos, Eacus, and Rhadamanthus, will suddenly stop an old man in the street, a stranger, and hug him with a big show of affection before an astonished crowd.

Why? Because . . . because the man’s face struck him as irresistibly sympathetic? Maybe. But it is likely he had no idea why he acted as he did.

More than once have I myself been the victim of these crises, these impulses that lead us to believe that we are possessed by malicious Demons, imps of the perverse that make us do their bidding, whether we will it or not.

One morning I woke up in a bad mood, depressed, exhausted, yet motivated, as it seemed to me, to do something spectacular–to attempt some heroic exploit. That is when, alas, I opened the window.

(Observe, please, that the mystical spirit, which, in some of us, is a sign neither of overwork nor affectation but of inspiration and good fortune, suggests, in the intensity of desire it rouses, a certain state of mind–hysterical in the view of doctors, satanic in the view of those who think more deeply than doctors — in the throes of which we may commit deeds as rash and dangerous as they are transgressive.)

The first person I saw in the street below was a maker of window glass loudly hawking his wares. He virtually punctured the pestilential air of Paris with his shouts. I can’t say why the sight of this poor bastard filled me with a surge of violent hatred, but it did.

“Hey,” I shouted, motioning him to come upstairs. I grinned at the thought that the glazier would have to climb six flights of narrow stairs and that his fragile cargo might not survive intact.

And then there he was. I looked at the panes and said, “What! No colored glass? No rose-colored glass, red glass, blue glass? Where are the magic panes, the window-panes of paradise? What impudence! You barge into this humble neighborhood without even the decency to bring the glass that can make life beautiful.” And I pushed him down the stairs.

I went to the balcony with a little flower pot and when he emerged in front of the door, I dropped my engine of war perpendicularly. The shock made him fall backward, breaking all the glass that remained of his itinerant stock. It sounded like the cracking of a crystal palace
split by lightning.

Drunk with the madness of the moment I shouted: “Make life beautiful! Make life beautiful!”

These impulsive jests are not without their hazards, and sometimes there is a stiff price to pay. But what does an eternity of damnation matter to one who has found in a single instant
an infinity of joy?


Il y a des natures purement contemplatives et tout à fait impropres à l’action, qui cependant, sous une impulsion mystérieuse et inconnue, agissent quelquefois avec une rapidité dont elles se seraient crues elles-mêmes incapables.

Tel qui, craignant de trouver chez son concierge une nouvelle chagrinante, rôde lâchement une heure devant sa porte sans oser rentrer, tel qui garde quinze jours une lettre sans la décacheter, ou ne se résigne qu’au bout de six mois à opérer une démarche nécessaire depuis un an, se sentent quelquefois brusquement précipités vers l’action par une force irrésistible, comme la flèche d’un arc. Le moraliste et le médecin, qui prétendent tout savoir, ne peuvent pas expliquer d’où vient si subitement une si folle énergie à ces âmes paresseuses et voluptueuses, et comment, incapables d’accomplir les choses les plus simples et les plus nécessaires, elles trouvent à une certaine minute un courage de luxe pour exécuter les actes les plus absurdes et souvent même les plus dangereux.

Un de mes amis, le plus inoffensif rêveur qui ait existé, a mis une fois le feu à une forêt pour voir, disait-il, si le feu prenait avec autant de facilité qu’on l’affirme généralement. Dix fois de suite, l’expérience manqua ; mais, à la onzième, elle réussit beaucoup trop bien.

Un autre allumera un cigare à côté d’un tonneau de poudre, pour voir, pour savoir, pour tenter la destinée, pour se contraindre lui-même à faire preuve d’énergie, pour faire le joueur, pour connaître les plaisirs de l’anxiété, pour rien, par caprice, par désœuvrement.

C’est une espèce d’énergie qui jaillit de l’ennui et de la rêverie ; et ceux en qui elle se manifeste si opinément sont, en général, comme je l’ai dit, les plus indolents et les plus rêveurs des êtres.

Un autre, timide à ce point qu’il baisse les yeux même devant les regards des hommes, à ce point qu’il lui faut rassembler toute sa pauvre volonté pour entrer dans un café ou passer devant le bureau d’un théâtre, où les contrôleurs lui paraissent investis de la majesté de Minos, d’Éaque et de Rhadamanthe, sautera brusquement au cou d’un vieillard qui passe à côté de lui et l’embrassera avec enthousiasme devant la foule étonnée.

— Pourquoi ? Parce que… parce que cette physionomie lui était irrésistiblement sympathique ? Peut-être ; mais il est plus légitime de supposer que lui-même il ne sait pas pourquoi.

J’ai été plus d’une fois victime de ces crises et de ces élans, qui nous autorisent à croire que des Démons malicieux se glissent en nous et nous font accomplir, à notre insu, leurs plus absurdes volontés.

Un matin je m’étais levé maussade, triste, fatigué d’oisiveté, et poussé, me semblait-il, à faire quelque chose de grand, une action d’éclat ; et j’ouvris la fenêtre, hélas !

(Observez, je vous prie, que l’esprit de mystification qui, chez quelques personnes, n’est pas le résultat d’un travail ou d’une combinaison, mais d’une inspiration fortuite, participe beaucoup, ne fût-ce que par l’ardeur du désir, de cette humeur, hystérique selon les médecins, satanique selon ceux qui pensent un peu mieux que les médecins, qui nous pousse sans résistance vers une foule d’actions dangereuses ou inconvenantes.)

La première personne que j’aperçus dans la rue, ce fut un vitrier dont le cri perçant, discordant, monta jusqu’à moi à travers la lourde et sale atmosphère parisienne. Il me serait d’ailleurs impossible de dire pourquoi je fus pris à l’égard de ce pauvre homme d’une haine aussi soudaine que despotique.

« — Hé ! hé ! » et je lui criai de monter. Cependant je réfléchissais, non sans quelque gaieté, que, la chambre étant au sixième étage et l’escalier fort étroit, l’homme devait éprouver quelque peine à opérer son ascension et accrocher en maint endroit les angles de sa fragile marchandise.

Enfin il parut : j’examinai curieusement toutes ses vitres, et je lui dis : « — Comment ? vous n’avez pas de verres de couleur ? des verres roses, rouges, bleus, des vitres magiques, des vitres de paradis ? Impudent que vous êtes ! vous osez vous promener dans des quartiers pauvres, et vous n’avez pas même de vitres qui fassent voir la vie en beau ! » Et je le poussai vivement vers l’escalier, où il trébucha en grognant.

Je m’approchai du balcon et je me saisis d’un petit pot de fleurs, et quand l’homme reparut au débouché de la porte, je laissai tomber perpendiculairement mon engin de guerre sur le rebord postérieur de ses crochets ; et le choc le renversant, il acheva de briser sous son dos toute sa pauvre fortune ambulatoire qui rendit le bruit éclatant d’un palais de cristal crevé par la foudre.

Et, ivre de ma folie, je lui criai furieusement : « La vie en beau ! la vie en beau ! »

Ces plaisanteries nerveuses ne sont pas sans péril, et on peut souvent les payer cher. Mais qu’importe l’éternité de la damnation à qui a trouvé dans une seconde l’infini de la jouissance ?

Certabant urbem Romam Remoramne vocarent

My (literary historical) conscience says I’ve done disservice to Ennius with two recent posts (Aurum ex stercore and O Tite, tute, Tati, tibi tanta, tyranne, tulisti) so here is a passage from book 1 of The Annals, as reported by Cicero in On Divination (1.107). This is – I think – the longest continuous bit of Ennius that survives.

That famous augury of Romulus was a pastoral art, not city bred, nor was it fabricated to sway the opinions of the ignorant, but was accepted by the knowledgeable and handed down to posterity. Thus Romulus, an augur, as he is in Ennius, along with his brother, also an augur:

being careful then with great care, each desiring
a kingdom, they together take the auspices and augury.
On the Murcus1 Remus sits in wait for a sign and watches
alone for a favorable flight; but handsome Romulus on the high
Aventine seeks and watches for the high-soaring race.
They were competing whether to call the city Roma or Remora.
All men were anxious over which would be their ruler.
They wait, as when the consul prepares to give
the signal, everyone eagerly looking to the starting gates
for how soon he sends the painted chariots from the barrier:
so the people were waiting, visible on each face a concern
for their affairs, to which the victory of supreme rule is given.
Meanwhile the sun had set into the depth of night.
Then struck by rays the shining light showed itself openly
and at once on high from far away a beautifully winged
leftward flight advanced. Just as the golden sun arises,
there comes descending from the sky a dozen blessed bodies
of birds, settling themselves on fine and favorable seats.
Thus Romulus sees that given to himself alone,
approved by auspices, were the base and bulwark of a kingdom.


atque ille Romuli auguratus pastoralis non urbanus fuit, nec fictus ad opiniones imperitorum sed a certis acceptus et posteris traditus. itaque Romulus augur, ut apud Ennium est, cum fratre item augure:

curantes magna cum cura tum cupientes
regni dant operam simul auspicio augurioque.
in Murco Remus auspicio sedet atque secundam
solus avem servat. at Romulus pulcer in alto
quaerit Aventino, servat genus altivolantum.
certabant urbem Romam Remoramne vocarent.
omnibus cura viris uter esset induperator.
expectant veluti consul quom mittere signum
volt, omnes avidi spectant ad carceris oras
quam mox emittat pictos e faucibus currus:
sic expectabat populus atque ore timebat
rebus utri magni victoria sit data regni.
interea sol albus recessit in infera noctis.
exin candida se radiis dedit icta foras lux
et simul ex alto longe pulcerrima praepes
laeva volavit avis. simul aureus exoritur sol
cedunt de caelo ter quattuor corpora sancta
avium, praepetibus sese pulcrisque locis dant.
conspicit inde sibi data Romulus esse propritim
auspicio regni stabilita scamna solumque.

To keep us from being irrevocably aware of it

The Rejection (Die Abweisung), an early sketch of Kafka’s published in his first work, Meditation (Betrachtung). The word (unwiderleglich) given here – in the Willa and Edwin Muir translation – as ‘irrevocably’ could also be translated with a slightly different flavor as ‘irrefutably, unanswerably.’

When I meet a pretty girl and beg her: ‘Be so good as to come with me,’ and she walks past without a word, this is what she means to say:

‘You are no Duke with a famous name, no broad American with Red Indian figure, level, brooding eyes and a skin tempered by the air of the prairies and the rivers that flow through them, you have never journeyed to the seven seas and voyaged on them wherever they may be, I don’t know where. So why, pray, should a pretty girl like myself go with you?’

‘You forget that no automobile swings you through the street in long thrusts; I see no gentlemen escorting you in a close half-circle, pressing on your skirts from behind and murmuring blessings on your head; your breasts are well laced into your bodice, but your thighs and hips make up for that restraint; you are wearing a taffeta dress with a pleated skirt such as delighted all of us last autumn, and yet you smile-inviting mortal danger-from time to time.’

‘Yes, we’re both in the right, and to keep us from being irrevocably aware of it, hadn’t we better just go our separate ways home?’


Wenn ich einem schönen Mädchen begegne und sie bitte: »Sei so gut, komm mit mir« und sie stumm vorübergeht, so meint sie damit:

“Du bist kein Herzog mit fliegendem Namen, kein breiter Amerikaner mit indianischem Wuchs, mit waagrecht ruhenden Augen, mit einer von der Luft der Rasenplätze und der sie durchströmenden Flüsse massierten Haut, du hast keine Reisen gemacht zu den großen Seen und auf ihnen, die ich weiß nicht wo zu finden sind. Also ich bitte, warum soll ich, ein schönes Mädchen, mit dir gehn?”

“Du vergißt, dich trägt kein Automobil in langen Stößen schaukelnd durch die Gasse; ich sehe nicht die in ihre Kleider gepreßten Herren deines Gefolges, die, Segenssprüche für dich murmelnd, in genauem Halbkreis hinter dir gehn; deine Brüste und im Mieder gut geordnet, aber deine Schenkel und Hüften entschädigen sich für jene Enthaltsamkeit; du trägst ein Taffetkleid mit plissierten Falten, wie es im vorigen Herbste uns durchaus allen Freude machte, und doch lächelst du — diese Lebensgefahr auf dem Leibe — bisweilen.”

“Ja, wir haben beide recht und, um uns dessen nicht unwiderleglich bewußt zu werden, wollen wir, nicht wahr, lieber jeder allem nach Hause gehn.”

O Tite, tute, Tati, tibi tanta, tyranne, tulisti

Some alliterative bombs of Ennius’, from the Loeb Fragmentary Republican Latin v.1. In the unlikely event I ever teach Latin again I will keep this first in my pocket for memorably illustrating vocatives.

From Rhetorica ad Herennium (4.18):

Artistic composition is an arrangement of words that makes every part of the discourse equally polished. It will be maintained if we avoid the frequent clash of vowels . . . and if we shun excessive repetition of the same letter, for which fault this verse will be an example—for here nothing prevents using examples from the faults of others:

you, O Titus Tatius, tyrant, took on yourself such great troubles


compositio est verborum constructio quae facit omnes partes orationis aequabiliter perpolitas. ea conservabitur si fugiemus crebras vocalium concursiones . . . et si vitabimus eiusdem litterae nimiam adsiduitatem, cui vitio versus hic erit exemplo—nam hic nihil prohibet in vitiis alienis exemplis uti:

O Tite, tute, Tati, tibi tanta, tyranne, tulisti

And Priscian

In nominationes, i.e., in onomatopoeia, whether of nouns or verbs, with unusual forms not every inflectional ending should be looked for as . . . taratantara. Ennius:

and the trumpet with terrifying tone sounded taratantara

Compare Servius on Virgil, “and the trumpet a terrifying tone . . .”: a half-line of Ennius, for he [Virgil] changed what follows. He [Ennius], to bring out the trumpet’s tone, says “it sounded taratantara.”


in nominationibus, id est in ὀνοματοποιία, sive nominum seu verborum novis conformationibus non omnes declinationis motus sunt quaerendi ut . . . taratantara. Ennius:

at tuba terribili sonitu taratantara dixit

Cf. Serv. ad Verg. Aen. 9.503 “at tuba terribilem sonitum”: hemistichium Ennii. nam sequentia iste mutavit. ille enim ad exprimendum tubae sonum ait “taratantara dixit.”

Looking for gold (and pearls) in the dung

From Donatus’ Life of Vergil (Vita Vergiliana 71 and taken from a lost Suetonian vita):

Once when he [Virgil] held Ennius in his hand and was asked what he was doing, he replied that he was gathering gold from Ennius’ dung, for this poet has outstanding ideas buried under not very polished words.

cum is aliquando Ennium in manu haberet rogareturque quidnam faceret, respondit se aurum colligere de stercore Ennii. habet enim poeta ille egregias sententias sub verbis non multum ornatis.

Similarly reported in Cassiodorus (Inst. 1.1.8):

To whom [Origen] that too could conveniently be applied, namely what Virgil, while reading Ennius, answered when asked by someone what he was doing: “I am looking for gold in the dung.”

cui et illud convenienter aptari potest quod Vergilius, dum Ennium legeret, a quodam quid ageret inquisitus, respondit: aurum in stercore quaero.

The phrase seems to have become at least semi-proverbial in antiquity, though apparently without a crystallized form. In late antiquity it morphed into an occasional reference image for christians reading christian-heretical (or non-christian) works. The best instance in this vein is Saint Jerome’s famous letter 107, A Girl’s Education (De Institutione Filiae). Note the softening from stercus to lutum.

Let her avoid all the apocryphal books, and if she ever wishes to read them, not for the truth of their doctrines but out of respect for their wondrous tales, let her realize that they are not really written by those to whom they are ascribed, that there are many faulty elements in them, and that it requires great skill to look for gold in mud.

Caveat omnia apocrypha et, si quando ea non ad dogmatum veritatem, sed ad signorum reverentiam legere voluerit, sciat non eorum esse, quorum titulis praenotantur, multaque his admixta vitiosa et grandis esse prudentiae aurum in luto quaerere.

In another lesser known letter (98) that is rather a translation of correspondence sent to Jerome by Theophilus of Alexandria we find an interesting expanded variant:

Therefore those who delight in Origen’s errors should not despise the preaching of the Lord’s feast. Nor should they seek ointments, gold and pearls in the mire.

unde, qui Origenis erroribus delectantur, festivitatis dominicae non spernant praeconia nec unguenta, aurum et margaritas quaerant in luto.

Whether originating with Theophilus or reflecting a variant phrasing, I’ve found this version with pearls making a couple of later appearances. First is a letter of Marsilio Ficino’s from 1457 (in Kristeller’s Supplementum ad Ficinum II.82 but recalled from a footnote in Arthur Fields’ The Origins of the Platonic Academy of Florence):

You are happy in the midst of calamities. Fear does not make you lose heart; sadness excruciates not; pleasure does not corrupt nor desire inflame. In the thickest thorns you gather delicate and fair flowers, from dung you extract pearls, in the deepest darkness you see, impeded and held by chains you run like one who is free.

Felicem te puto . . . qui in mediis quoque calamitatibus sis beatus, quem nec metus exanimat nec dolor excruciat nec voluptas corrumpit nec libido inflammat, qui inter densissimas spinas molles ac candidos flores legas, qui ex putrido stercore margaritas eruas atque effodias, qui in profundis tenebris videas, qui compedibus gravatus et vinculis circumstrictus velut liber solutusque percurras.

Fields’ translation doesn’t follow Ficino’s exaggerated style in qualifying stercus as putridus (rotten, decayed) and doubling the verbal action with eruo (dig or pluck out) and effodio (dig out, unearth). There’s of course no way of knowing whether Ficino is here intentionally splicing the variants (with a possible added recollection of a phrase from Plautus’ Casina – ex sterculino effosse / dug from a dung-heap) or is recalling an earlier intermediary source that had already done the same.

A similar curious blend comes from a minor work of Blaise Pascal (Entretien avec M. de Saci sur Epictete et MontaigneA Conversation with M. de Saci on Epictetus and Montaigne) where we see the aurum ex stercore version referenced as Jerome’s (presumably) and glossed with pearls (perles):

M. de Saci could not refrain from testifying to M. Pascal that he was surprised to see how well he knew how to interpret things; but he acknowledged at the same time that every one had not the secret of making on these readings such wise and elevated reflections. He told him that he was like those skilful physicians, who by an adroit method of preparing the most deadly poisons knew how to extract from them the most efficacious remedies. He added, that though he saw clearly, from what he had just said, that these readings were useful to him, he could not believe however that they would be advantageous to many people of slow intellect, who would not have elevation of mind enough to read these authors and judge of them, and to know how to draw pearls from the midst of the dunghill, aurum ex stercore, as said one of the Fathers. This could be much better said of these philosophers, the dunghill of whom, by its black fumes, might obscure the wavering faith of those who read them. For this reason he would always counsel such persons not to expose themselves lightly to these readings, for fear of being destroyed with these philosophers, and of becoming the prey of demons and the food of worms, according to the language of the Scripture, as these philosophers have been.

M. de Saci ne put s’empêcher de témoigner à M. Pascal qu’il était surpris comment il savait tourner les choses, mais il avoua en même temps que tout le monde n’avait pas le secret comme lui de faire des lectures des réflexions si sages et si élevées. Il lui dit qu’il ressemblait à ces médecins habiles qui, par la manière adroite de préparer les plus grands poisons, en savent tirer les plus grands remèdes. Il ajouta que, quoiqu’il vît bien, parce qu’il venait de lui dire, que ces lectures lui étaient utiles, il ne pouvait pas croire néanmoins qu’elles fussent avantageuses à beaucoup de gens dont l’esprit se traînerait un peu, et n’aurait pas assez d’élévation pour lire ces auteurs et en juger, et savoir tirer les perles du milieu du fumier aurum ex stercore, disait un Père. Ce qu’on pouvait bien plus dire de ces philosophes, dont le fumier, par sa noire fumée, pouvait obscurcir la foi chancelante de ceux qui les lisent. C’est pourquoi il conseillerait toujours à ces personnes de ne pas s’exposer légèrement à ces lectures, de peur de se perdre avec ces philosophes et de devenir l’objet des démons et la pâture des vers, selon le langage de l’Écriture, comme ces philosophes l’ont été.

And somewhere out before him, the unravelling patience he was wedded to

Odysseus, from W.S. Merwin’s The Drunk in the Furnace

Always the setting forth was the same,
Same sea, same dangers waiting for him
As though he had got nowhere but older.
Behind him on the receding shore
The identical reproaches, and somewhere
Out before him, the unravelling patience
He was wedded to. There were the islands
Each with its woman and twining welcome
To be navigated, and one to call “home.”
The knowledge of all that he betrayed
Grew till it was the same whether he stayed
Or went. Therefore he went. And what wonder
If sometimes he could not remember
Which was the one who wished on his departure
Perils that he could never sail through,
And which, improbable, remote, and true,
Was the one he kept sailing home to?

There is nothing for you to say

Learning a Dead Language, from W.S. Merwin’s Green With Beasts:

There is nothing for you to say. You must
Learn first to listen. Because it is dead
It will not come to you of itself, nor would you
Of yourself master it. You must therefore
Learn to be still when it is imparted,
And, though you may not yet understand, to remember.

What you remember is saved. To understand
The least thing fully you would have to perceive
The whole grammar in all its accidence
And all its system, in the perfect singleness
Of intention it has because it is dead.
You can only learn a part at a time.

What you are given to remember
Has been saved from death’s dullness by
Remembering. The unique intention
Of a language whose speech has died is order
Incomplete only where someone has forgotten.
You will find that that order helps you to remember.

What you come to remember becomes yourself.
Learning will be to cultivate the awareness
Of that governing order, now pure of the passions
It composed; till, seeking it in itself,
You may find at last the passion that composed it,
Hear it both in its speech and in yourself.

What you remember saves you. To remember
Is not to rehearse, but to hear what never
Has fallen silent. So your learning is,
From the dead, order, and what sense of yourself
Is memorable, what passion may be heard
When there is nothing for you to say.