Yearly Archives: 2009

rupestral

“Well, I thought it was clever,” Rupert said. He pursed his lips, stared into his Scotch on the rocks for a moment, and then continued. “And so did she. Certainly at first. I mean, it was too perfect. My name is Rupert Stein and hers is Ani Lithgow. Stein and Lith – the rock theme was on a silver platter, as it were. But I’ll get back to the silver in a moment. I mean, there was silver in the rings, but the silver in the rupiah – oh, well, hm.” He paused and had a drink.

“Rings,” I said, prompting him out of his intermittent funk.

“Yes,” he said, “when I gave her the engagement ring, I had rupestral engraved inside. A nice anagram, Rupert S., A.L. I said as I gave it to her, ‘I’ve taken a lichen to you.'”

He was lucky he’d met a suitably inclined word taster to become affianced to. Abstruse puns aren’t usually thought of as romantic. But he knew that she knew that rupestral meant “growing on rocks,” from Latin rupes “rock.” And because she was a word freak, she would have had the taste of pest in the word but would not have felt it apposite in this case. Or not initially.

“I suppose it had a nice rock on it,” I said.

“Oh, a good stone,” he said. “But a rolling stone gathers no moss, as Ani later pointed out. Anyway, I bought it as a set with the wedding ring, which I also had engraved: rupestrian. Because when you’re married it’s carved in stone. And another great anagram: Rupert S., Ani.”

“Of course, rupestral also means ‘carved in stone’ or ‘written on stone,'” I said.

“Yes,” Rupert said, “they both do. We actually thought of cave paintings as a decorative motif for the wedding.”

“We?” I raised an eyebrow.

“Well,” he said, “perhaps I more than she. Anyway, she thought it would be better to theme with the blue dresses that she was having for the bridesmaids.”

“Blue,” I said. “Aniline die?”

“It was her way of reminding me that two can play the name game.”

“It occurs to me,” I said, “that planning wedding details around puns on your names – especially competing puns – may be –”

He cut me off. “A rocky start? How original of you.” He drank a bit more of his Scotch. The ice clinked. “I mean, obviously we were focused a bit too much on ourselves, I on me, she on her. The name thing was symptom more than cause. But maybe if I had eased it up a bit, not gone the extra step.”

“All this rock punning is a bit much, anyway, given that Rupert has nothing to do with rocks,” I observed.

“Well, it comes from Germanic roots for ‘bright fame’ or ‘famous fame.'” He rolled his eyes. “Not worth the effort. I suppose if I has been given the more standard version of the name, Robert, this might not have come to pass as it did. But it did. And it was really the invitations that were the cause of the rupture.” He paused for a moment and winced.

“I suppose Ani wanted papyrus,” I said.

“Which we agreed on,” he confirmed, “overlooking the fact that the papyrus of Ani was an Egyptian Book of the Dead. I guess there might have been a curse of the mummy. But mainly of her mummy, who didn’t think so highly of me. But it was the seal that sealed my doom.”

“On the invitations?” I said.

“Yes,” he said, “the idea was for the seal to have the impression of a coin in the sealing wax. You know, rupography.”

Yes, as it happened, I did know rupography – taking an impression of a coin or medal in sealing wax. From Greek rhupos “sealing wax” plus the usual ography. “That was a problem?” I asked.

“It was the coin,” he replied. “I guess I should have gone with a rupee, but I didn’t like the pee. So I wanted it to be a rupiah, which is the unit of money of –”

“Indonesia,” I said, nodding. Come on, man, I know that!

“Well, as it happens, the rupiah isn’t worth a whole lot. A hundredth of a cent. You can’t even really get a one-rupiah coin. Which is what I wanted, not 25 or 100 rupiahs or whatever. Anyway, rupiah may, like rupee, come via Urdu from the Sanskrit for ‘wrought silver,’ but their low-value coins are aluminum. So I decided to go to a silversmith and get a fake coin made, with a ring to make it easy to hold. This wasn’t a cheap thing to do, you know.”

I was trying not to say that the money might have been better invested otherwise. Wordplay isn’t just cheap, it’s free, for heaven’s sake.

“So we had the invitations printed up on papyrus. And Ani thought it would be nice to have the seal done with a grey dog on it, which is the family seal of the Lithgows. I suppose I didn’t need to mention to her that ‘grey dog’ was folk etymology and that Lithgow really comes from ‘damp hollow.’ Things got a bit damp and my words began to ring hollow after that…”

“Relations got a bit rupellary?” I said. (Rupellary means “rocky.”)

“Where there were any at all,” he replied, making sure I heard the any–Ani pun. “And then I took it upon myself to seal the invitations all myself, as a surprise to her, with this fake coin. But I hadn’t inspected it closely enough. You may find it hard to believe, but I don’t read backwards print so well. And I just didn’t really stop and look at the seal as I was making it. I really thought they all said rupiah.” He pronounced the [h] at the end clearly.

A pause ensued.

“And when I showed her what I had done, her mother was there too. And her mother is a dermatologist.”

Another pause. I was thinking. Then my eyes grew wide. “Ohhhhh nnoooooooo,” I said.

There’s no delicate way to explain this, really. Rupia – no h – is the name of a nasty skin condition that shows up in advanced syphilis and involves crusted pustules. And what he was telling me was that his invitations had blobs of sealing wax on them stamped with this word.

“At that juncture, Ani pointed out to me that rhupos, aside from meaning ‘sealing wax,’ also means ‘dirt’ or ‘filth.’ And her mother, who doesn’t like puns much, nonetheless indulged in a play on my name and eruption.”

He finished his Scotch and looked over his shoulder towards the bar, the imminent source of his next. He turned back and made one more observation, drily: “Those who are joined by the pun shall be severed by the pun.”

scathe

“Hey, you idiot, what’re you doing with that scythe? Man, you’re lucky you only got a little cut; you could have taken someone’s head off – or your own, which probably wouldn’t make a difference!”

Ooo… a scathing rebuke for one who escaped relatively unscathed from a misadventure.

Now, how is that? If the rebuke is scathing, then the person is scathed, right? Funny, though… the past participle adjective keeps its literal sense even when used consciously as a metaphor, while the present participle adjective is entirely figurative and refers specifically to use of language (speech or writing). We can see these patterns in the collocations: relatively, escape(ed), and emerge(ed) are the most common words coming just before unscathed, while scathing is most often preceded by wrote and issued and followed by report, critique, criticism, review, and letter.

Scathe was first of all a noun, meaning “harm” or “damage” (or, in the misty past, also someone who inflicted same). From there it easily became a verb (as so many nouns have, and yet despite cries of doom and agony from prescriptivist voices our language not only emerges unscathed from these conversions but thrives on them). The verb, in more recent centuries, took on a frequently more specific sense of scorching, blasting, burning, etc.; one may be tempted to imagine some phonaesthetic inclination affecting this, but although scorch and scald have the same onset and flame the same vowel, we must remember that bathe seems to have no such overtones, nor the fairly similar save either, and certainly not, say, lathe. The heat anagram of the rhyme portion of this word also probably had no formative influence on it, though it adds to the flavour now.

But scathing does lend itself to emphatic use, with the extensible lead-in /s/ and the opening-closing arc of the vowel /eI/ with an equally extensible and vibrating voiced fricative after it. Unscathed, for its part, gives a little echo effect when preceded by escaped.

And how does scathe get mixed up in all this? Well, it may be that he-cats (and any she-cat) have a decent supply of lives, but people less so, and even one who cheats death may still have to pick up the dice he cast.

carnage

There is mixed-up anger in this word, following the beginning of calamity. It is what happens when you see rage creeping out of its can. Oh, this word brings to mind a battlefield of senseless slaughter, or else something founded on the same as a metaphor – one’s dining-room table after a particularly successful dinner party, for instance.

It could actually have come to mean one’s dining-room table before a particularly successful dinner party. Its immediate source, French carnage, comes from Italian carnaggio, defined in 1611 as “slaughter, murther; also all manner of flesh meate” (thanks to the OED for that quote). That in turn comes from late Latin carnaticum, meaning “meat” (I would hope that you, as an avid word taster, will recognize the hungry carn root, as seen in carnal – and also carnival and carnation and incarnadine…). Carnaticum also meant specifically “meat supplied by tenants to their feudal lords” (does this make it serf-and-turf?). And Old French charnage could mean “a feast of flesh” or “a day or season when flesh is eaten” (a Catholic church calendar concept). So why not parallel verbiage, a spread of words, with carnage, a spread of meat to eat?

But in modern usage, the meat in question is not for us to eat; to quote the title (English translation) of a book by Anatole France, “the gods will have blood” – and flesh, too. France was referring to the French revolution, which certainly produced carnage of the human kind, but all wars do the same. And then people write songs and poems and novels and make movies about it. Like Robert Burns’s “Battle of Sherra-Moor”:

The red-coat lads wi black cockauds,
To meet them were na slaw, man;
They rush’d and push’d, and bluid outgush’d,
And monie a bouk did fa’, man!
The great Argyle led on his files,
I wat they glanc’d for twenty miles;
They hough’d the clans like nine-pin kyles,
They hack’d and hash’d, while braid-swords clashed,
And thro they dash’d, and hew’d and smash’d,
Till fey men died awa, man.

In more recent usage, Iraq and Bosnia come up commonly in connection with carnage. The most common collocation is actually amid the carnage; one will also often see among the carnage, though purists will protest that among requires individuals, whereas carnage is a mass noun. (Mass carnage also shows up, but not quite as commonly.) The phrase scene of carnage is common, too, and here’s a warning: if you see this phrase, you are likely next to see a description of the scene in question. Other words often seen near it are witnessed and, alas, continues.

But if you go to clusty.com, which clusters search results by themes, the top theme – with the most results – is game. I’m really not sure if that’s good or bad.

 


Thanks to David Moody for suggesting today’s word.

bombinate

I was not in London during World War II; I was born two dozen years later, in Canada. But I have heard and read about what it was like there and then, under aerial assault by the Germans. One of the more striking things mentioned was the buzz bomb. It was an early cruise missile, propeller driven, with an odometer that triggered an aerodynamic jam when its destination had been reached, forcing it into a steep dive. The steep dive caused fuel flow to the engine to stop (not vice versa, as is often thought). The effect from ground level was that the buzzing of the engine was audible, and everyone hoped it would keep buzzing, but if it stopped, then the next thing was a dreadful silence, and then an explosion.

This is what bombinate makes me think of. Bombinate does not mean “bomb” noun or verb, however; it is the noise the buzz bombs made before the engine cut out. It is also the hum of a bumblebee. And one might use it to characterize the sound of the bombard, a reed instrument – bombard does mean “buzzer,” after all. Yes, bombard also means a stone-throwing engine, and from that it means the act of using such an engine; the engine got its name because Latin bombus could also mean “boom” (boom is related to bombus, too) or “hum.” Bombard does not come from bomb; it’s actually been in English longer, in fact. But bomb comes from the noise that bombs make – the booming, not the buzzing. And bombinate, for its part, does not seem to buzz at all, not to my ears; hum, even boom, but not buzz. Well, it can mean “drone” or “hum” as well. But there it is. The bombus is innate in it, innit?

Bombinate is actually based on a bit of dodgy Latin; the proper Latin for the same thing was bombitare, but Rabelais wrote, in a satire of subtle scholarly distinctions, about “Questio subtilissima, utrum chimera in vacuo bombinans possit comedere secundas intentiones”: the very subtle question of whether a chimera bombinating in a vacuum is able to eat second intentions. I suppose the answer is that colourless green ideas sleep furiously. But we do have some sense, at least, of the vast number of second intentions a bombinating bomb could consume in a silent instant in London.


My thanks to Elaine Phillips for suggesting this word.

 

tritone

If you picture the devil, he’s holding a trident; but if his pitchfork is a tuning fork, it is sure to produce a tritone. It’s a trying tone, the tritone, and not a typically trite one; most people would rather try not to intone it. Even Triton, the merman messenger of the deep, who blew a terrible sound on a conch, would not fancy it (it’s more of a dry tone) – and that other Merman, Ethel, would have been no less cagey about it. The only ones producing the interval would be the sirens. I don’t mean the famous singing sisters, either: I mean the two-note alerts on emergency vehicles in places such as England. Walk over to your piano (or someone else’s) and play B and F. You will likely find it neither good nor rich.

But why is it a tritone? Is it really tri plus tone? Yes, it is. It is a difference of three whole tones (six semitones). In the C major scale, the fourth (i.e., the fourth note counting upwards, with C as the first) is F, and the fifth is G. Now, if you start at F instead of C, the fifth is C – a fifth and a fourth make up an octave. But F# (F-sharp) is the tritone of C and vice-versa: there are twelve semitones in an octave, so six is halfway, and two tritones make an octave. So why doesn’t it produce a nice harmony? Because the frequencies increase logarithmically: each semitone is 1.06 times the frequency of the previous, and so the frequency 50% higher – which does make a nice harmony – is actually seven semitones up, the fifth, for example from C to G. And the tritone is so not it. It is a diminished fifth – or an augmented fourth.

The tritone has a mythos such that if you ask a musician about the it, they will be sure to mention directly that it’s the “diabolus in musica,” the devil in music. Stories abound about its being anathematized in medieval times, singers who dare voice it risking excommunication, but these are mere stories; the dissonance was disliked for obvious enough reasons, but the term “diabolus in musica” is only attested starting in the eighteenth century. And by the middle of the twentieth century, this archetypal dissonance was being used thematically in classical music – it’s central to Benjamin Britten’s War Requiem, for instance.

But the tritone is also a central note to “the devil’s music” – blues, which were, incidentally, the original basis for heavy metal music (which, however, has moved quite some ways away from blues in the intervening decades). In the hexatonic scale of the blues, it is the pivotal note, and it is called the “blue note.” Which is not to say it runs afoul of blue laws. But be wary of it if liquor is restricted – you don’t want to be caught with a diminished fifth.

willy-nilly

I knew Willy Nally. He like to dally. First he saw Sally, then Elly, then Milly… Although he was a nihilist, he could annul denial when he list. But when he met Nelly, well, will he, nill he, he was stunned silly as jelly; she was up his alley. Whoa, Nally! No more free Willy! His desultory polyamory was annulled, and, nolens volens, he was collared, his will newly woolly. He could no more gaily bully every Sheila, willy-nilly; Nelly knew him fully and would not fall in folly. No shilly-shally dilly-dally hem and haw; she had him, willy-nilly.

Does that seem silly? Do you wonder why, in that weave of words, I used willy-nilly twice? Well, you tell me: what do you use willy-nilly to mean? If you are like many, you see it as meaning “here and there, desultorily, haphazardly.” But that is a sense founded on its sound – the back-and-forth of it, like shilly-shally, which is flush with wishy-washy (note the vowel alternation: high-low, as we see in tick-tock, ping-pong, pitter-patter, frick and frack, and so on). Nill was once a word: the negative of will, which was itself not merely an auxiliary but a full expression of intention. From will he, nill he or will I, nill I we got willy-nilly: as Oxford puts it, “nolens volens,” videlicet, “whether wanting it or not.” Fans of Shakespeare will recall Petruchio’s avowal in The Taming of the Shrew: “Will you, nill you, I will marry you.”

So while we use its high vowels and liquids to tell of situational liquidity, it is originally a liquid or irrelevant will that it spells. (Can you see the teeth of the w give way to the bent back of the n?) Essentially, it tells you to forestall your sally and come and parley.

Why “fetuses”?

A colleague asked why it was that dictionaries seemed to prefer fetuses rather than, say, fœtii, to follow the same rule (she said) as octopus, rather than the “stupid sounding” octopuses.

Well, first of all, the plural of an -us ending is -i, not -ii; the Latinate plural of octopus is octopi, not octopii. Only words that end in -ius pluralize to -ii.

Second, octopi is not really any more correct than octopuses. Octopus was a loan word in Latin and is a loan word in English, and in each case the language has applied its own inflection ending for the plural. The original is Greek octopous (“eight” + “foot”) and the plural of that is octopodes, though those who insist on saying octopodes in English conveniently forget that we don’t say octopous for the singular.

In regard to œ versus e, in many words we have gotten from Latin, the digraph has been simplified in North American English, but that’s hardly the first spelling change ever enacted on Latin loans, and efforts to retain Latin etymology (or resurrect it) have had a lot to do with the poor match between spelling and pronunciation in English. In this case, however, fetus is the more etymologically correct spelling; fœtus is an error – a misconjecture. The original Latin is fetus with a long e.

Anyway, feti is used, but rarely. Fetuses is used commonly because, after all, we’re speaking English, and we more often than not conform loan words to English morphological patterns rather than keeping them in the morphology of the source language. (Quick, what’s the plural of sauna? And why do you say that? Also, why does nobody object that the alcohol and the albatross are redundant, since the al in the source means “the”? Answer: they’re ours now [evil laugh].) I suspect that the fact that feti would sound like “feet eye” has some little something to do with the preference in this case – we don’t always like to confuse ourselves. At any rate, dictionaries document usage. They can have some prescriptive effect, but their main function is to tell people what educated people use a word to mean and how they spell and inflect it. So the usage comes first. Even Noah Webster, when he made a number of spelling reforms in his dictionary, used only spellings that had already been used in real life. (And not all of his changes stuck, either.)

Latinate plurals serve nicely as a sign of desire to sound erudite, and they keep the language nice and difficult the way we like it, but they do have practical limits, beyond which they become rather funny. I seem to recall some humorous prose or verse referring to travelling on omnibi and so forth. (-ibus, by the way, is an inflectional ending of its own and not -ib plus -us, so -ibi is no kind of Latin).

crass

Have you seen the movie Spartacus? The arch-villain of the piece, played by Laurence Olivier, is Marcus Licinius Crassus. Like Spartacus, he was a real person. In fact, he was a good friend of Julius Caesar. He was a powerful general, but also a very, very rich businessman – so rich, it’s almost a wonder people don’t say rich as Crassus rather than rich as Croesus. His wealth equated to about $170 billion in modern terms. He was known for his avarice, but he was mainly a savvy businessman with a knack for buying things that were undervalued. He got many properties at fire sale prices – literally: if your building was on fire, he would offer to buy it on the spot – for a price that took into consideration its current state, of course – and if you sold, he would immediately bring in his private fire brigade to sort things out. But he was also a genial glad-hander, someone who greeted everyone by name in the street. Unfortunately for him, he felt his life wasn’t complete without a great military victory. Well, he got a defeat instead, in the course of which his life attained completion – or conclusion, anyway.

So is this the sort of guy you would call “fatty”? Well, if his father was Publius Licinius “Rich Dude” Fatty, then, yeah, you would call this guy Marcus Licinius Fatty (also given the nickname “Rich Dude” – well, in Latin, Dives.) You see, crassus is Latin for “fat” – think of gras, its modern French descendant. And why not? If you eat food that’s fatty you call it rich, no?

And whatever you may think of Crassus and his behaviour, and his type, however crass you may find him (and, for that matter, however Monty-Pythonish his name may seem), he didn’t actually inspire the word crass. It came straight from the common Latin. It also mean “solid” and “thick” in Latin, you see. So it was an easy borrowing into English for it to mean “gross, stupid, dense, unrefined.”

But does the word fit its meaning? It’s not a dull or heavy-sounding word; the stop and fricative are voiceless. But it’s capable of communicating a certain crudity nonetheless, from craw to ass. Francophones may think of cracher, “spit”; English echoes include crash and all those grabbing, tooth-grinding, growling words such as crap, crank, cramp, crack, crab… but note that there is also craft and, for that matter, class and grass. This word could have kept better company and it would have fit in. Still, its crash and its blaring brass seem to match the bad manners and the blatant avarice. After all, the words it most commonly modifies include commercialism and materialism.

And all of us who are just out looking for opportunities to get more money – like anyone would, because who doesn’t want more money? – well, wouldn’t we, when confronted with our cupidity, look up, surprised, and say, “Crass? Us?” Yes, mark us so; we’re thick as thieves.

 


I thank Roberto De Vido for suggesting crass and Crassus.

 

myriad

Herewith, to mark the ten thousandth view of Sesquiotica, I present an epistolary correspondence between Ion Orzabal and Muriel Wan.

IO:
Muriel, I wan to woo you.

MW:
There are wan ways to do that. Wan, my name, one of the old hundred Chinese surnames, means “ten thousand.” So it is one hundred times the hundred. Square me away with some poetry.

IO:
You, Wan, are Han (Chinese); I am Basque. May I bask in your glory? Muriel, for you I will make merry with a myriad of means – myriad being “ten thousand” but rooting in the Greek murios, “countless.” Any Tennyson? Let’s try this:

Sweet is every sound,
Sweeter thy voice, but every sound is sweet;
Myriads of rivulets hurrying through the lawn,
The moan of doves in immemorial elms,
and murmuring of innumerable bees.

MW:
You have connected! You speak of innumerable bees and moaning birds, surely the source of the countless many things – in Chinese, wan wu: the “ten thousand things.” Everything. As often mentioned in the Tao Te Ching – let me quote the translation by Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English:

The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
The named is the mother of the ten thousand things.

and

The highest good is like water.
Water gives life to the ten thousand things and does not strive.

I do like the water images. After all, Muriel comes from Scots Gaelic Muireall, “bright sea.”

IO:
If water is music to your ears, I can Handel it. But then let me Aeschylate matters. Who stole the fire from the gods and put them in your eyes? Why, Prometheus, of course, and he is bound to be relevant. He is quoted speaking of the “Myriad laughter of the ocean waves.” A cheat, though, I declare: the original Greek is pontion te kumaton anérithmon gelasma, no murios in sight until lines later (where it is murieté)… Here is David Grene’s translation of the lines:

Bright lights, swift-winged winds, springs of the rivers, numberless
laughter of the sea’s waves, earth, mother of all, and the all-seeing
circle of the sun: I call upon you to see what I, a God, suffer
at the hands of Gods –
see with what kind of torture
worn down I shall wrestle ten thousand
years of time –

And indeed, Muriel, I wrestle a myriad of yearning tortures for you. Let me, IO, quote Io from Prometheus Bound, stung by the gadfly, goaded by Argos, the ten-thousand-eyed (muriópon) herdsman. In Greek, “Io, io, popoi! Poi de m’agousi téleplagtoi planai.” In English, “O, O, O, Where are you bringing me, my far-wandering wanderings?” Do my wanderings take me back? Do I strive pointlessly?

MW:
Ah, earth, the mother of all, again. You have named it! But there it is: you begin from the myth and you take it to the myriad in the moment, an instance of hierophany – Mircea Eliade’s “eternal return.” We create the sacred space when we connect with the myth, and the time now becomes the time of the myth for the moment. In every countless moment we may return. But again I am jonesing for the tao:

Returning is the motion of the Tao.
Yielding is the way of the Tao.
The ten thousand things are born of being.
Being is born of not being.

IO:
Ah, all is wan and wan is one. I know another eternal return: the idea that, given an infinite amount of time, all arrangements of matter in the universe will recur. But I eternally return to you, Ion after eons. Will you yield?

MW:
And the universe, too, returns, from big bang to big crunch, every breath a myriad of eons. But is this yield you desire the yield of a cookie recipe? I hope it is not a mere yield of a myriad. Myriad matches miscellaneously: ways, problems, forms, details, issues. Do you make merry or do you make as to marry? I do not marry ad hoc; Muriel does not marry all who ask. Wan will have but one.

IO:
Well, when all is Wan, Wan is all. I will be a rock and will not roll. If you wish a stairway to heaven, let us physically manifest the sacred. But let me speak of what I believe; I will shout and let it all out, my tears and fears. You speak of Mircea Eliade, and I hope my words are not Greek to you; I seek no Iliad, and I wish theodicy, not the Odyssey. Have mercy. Let my hierophany be Coleridge’s “Hymn to the Earth”:

Say, mysterious Earth! O say, great mother and goddess,
Was it not well with thee then, when first thy lap was ungirdled,
Thy lap to the genial Heaven, the day that he woo’d thee and won thee!
Fair was thy blush, the fairest and first of the blushes of morning!
Deep was the shudder, O Earth! the throe of thy self-retention:
Inly thou strovest to flee, and didst seek thyself at thy centre!
Mightier far was the joy of thy sudden resilience; and forthwith
Myriad myriads of lives teem’d forth from the mighty embracement.
Thousand-fold tribes of dwellers, impell’d by thousand-fold instincts,
Fill’d, as a dream, the wide waters; the rivers sang on their channels;
Laugh’d on their shores the hoarse seas; the yearning ocean swell’d upward;
Young life low’d through the meadows, the woods, and the echoing mountains,
Wander’d bleating in valleys, and warbled on blossoming branches.

The myriad myriads – noun and adjective, the universe in verse – will teem forth from our embracement. Let me be the genial Heaven that woo’d and won Wan! The rivers will sing in their channels, and the hoarse seas will laugh – countlessly; the yearning ocean will swell upward.

Oh, let me Marvell at your beauty! To be exact, Andrew Marvell, “To His Coy Mistress”:

Had we but world enough, and time,
This coyness, Lady, were no crime

An hundred years should go to praise
Thine eyes and on thy forehead gaze;
Two hundred to adore each breast,
But thirty thousand to the rest;
An age at least to every part,
And the last age should show your heart.

But at my back I always hear
Time’s wingèd chariot hurrying near;

Let us roll all our strength and all
Our sweetness up into one ball,
And tear our pleasures with rough strife
Thorough the iron gates of life:
Thus, though we cannot make our sun
Stand still, yet we will make him run.

MW:
Ah, thirty thousand – san man. Mister San Man, you bring me a dream. The wingèd chariot may be your father’s, for you are Ion, son of Apollo, who drives the sun. I hope you will not run. You are myriad-minded, to borrow a word Coleridge applied to Shakespeare: Greek murionous. I am in mind of Bronson Alcott, from “Ion: A Monody”:

Early through field and wood each Spring we sped,
Young Ion leading o’er the reedy pass;

For endless Being’s myriad-minded race
Had in his thought their registry and place

But for your harbinger, let me end with a line from Edmund Charles Blunden’s Harbingers:

And wed me with the myriad-minded man.

IO:
Then let us be happily myriad!

collyrium

Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase and Fable relates this tale under the heading “Sight (Far)”:

Zarga, the Arabian heroine of the tribe Jadis, could see at the distance of three days’ journey. Being asked by Hassân the secret of her long sight, she said it was due to the ore of antimony, which she reduced to powder, and applied to her eyes as a collyrium every night.

A collyrium! Well, I suppose it did clear ’em. I wonder if she could see all the way to Illyricum. Who? No, not the Who, though they did record “I Can See for Miles.” Illyricum was the Roman province roughly where Bosnia and Croatia now are. But though that’s a day’s journey now from Arabia, it would then have been somewhat more; she could only have seen it on television (“far-see,” which in German is Fernseh, meaning literally “farsee” and actually TV… but Zarga was Arabian, not Farsi). If she’d had one.

Perhaps she was wanting to see Mary, Queen of Heaven; if she was a Collyridian, she might have. They were a sect of the 4th and 5th centuries known for offering the Virgin little cakes (kollurida).

But where did she get her antimony? Perhaps from her television? It’s used in electrical alloys, after all. But, no, probably from stibnite, which was popularly applied to the eyes in powder form at the time (but was that really all that farsighted of them to do?). That form of antimony was called koh’l, which, with the article al, is the source of our word alcohol – through an obviously winding path of senses passing through alchemy.

But would she apply alcohol to her eyes? Ha! My eye! In this respect the guidance of etymology would force an antinomy with that of sensibility. No, such suggestions are collyrium – mere eyewash. She might as well get her dust from a colliery.

But, now, is collyrium another word for antimony, then? If the antimony is applied to the eyes, it can be. But collyrium can be any of a variety of powders – or liquids. The main is just that they are applied to the eyes, you see. Or, on the other hand, the word can also be used to refer to a cylinder of solid medicine to be stuck in some bodily opening (we don’t mean the mouth). And, from the “eyewash” sense, it can mean “nonsense.”

The word comes, anyway, from the Greek: kollura, referring to a small roll of coarse bread (and the root of kollurida – see above). I don’t quite see how that gets into the eyes, but there it is. The word has a nice lyric flavour to it anyway, with the liquid l‘s and the the look of the llyr. What kind of lyrics? Well, Zarga being Arabian, and being Jadis – and jadis, French for “in the past” – she might well have chosen ruba’i, a quatrain form, collected perhaps in a volume, named by the plural ruba’iyat. And then she could use her fine sight alternately between the book, a jug of wine (or other alcohol), a little cake or roll of bread, and the wilderness – whether Arabia, Illyria, or North Dakota (where you can watch your dog run away for three days). And, of course, her lover, who could recite to her Fitzgerald’s famous translation of Omar Khayyam’s eleventh ruba’i:

A Book of Verses underneath the Bough,
A Jug of Wine, a Loaf of Bread – and Thou
Beside me singing in the Wilderness –
O, Wilderness were Paradise enow!

And that’s not just collyrium!

 


I thank my mother, Mary Anna Harbeck, for suggesting this word, which she in turn heard from a friend, Pat Verge, who read it in a Baha’i book.