nativity

It’s a word as Christmassy as a Christmas tree – and as crisp in sound as Christmas tree, or as the crisp winter air Christmas is typically associated with. Crisp is of course relative – as I write this in late December, a quick check tells me the temperature in Bethlehem is only a couple of degrees lower than the temperature inside my apartment; outdoors here in Canada, of course, it’s much more like what Christina Rossetti envisioned: “In the bleak midwinter, frosty wind made moan, earth stood hard as iron, water like a stone”… a very northern version of Christmastide.

Even more northern and Canadian would be the Huron Carol: “’Twas in the moon of wintertime when all the birds had fled…” Ah, but that’s a particularly native nativity: “’Twas in a lodge of broken bark the tender babe was found; a ragged robe of rabbit fur enwrapped his beauty ’round…” I’m put in mind of the similar presentation I first saw as a kid on the Stoney (Nakoda) reserve, which as it happens my dad has recently written about in his column: Christmas story in Stoney points to hope for humanity. Braids and buckskins, and a babe in a moss bag (they’re comfy, moss bags, by the way; I spent lots of time in one when I was that age).

But should a nativity be native? Well, um… Funny how we don’t always think about the link between nativity and native, obvious as it is at a mere glance (indeed, nativity could mean “nativeness” if it weren’t already in use to refer to the birth of Jesus). The shift of stress results in significant phonemic changes and a definite shift in reference. One may certainly speak of being a native of this place or that – but that’s not the overriding flavour native has now (and indeed, when my dad first arrived at the Stoney reserve, when they asked him where he was from, and he said he was a native of Buffalo, they told him he wasn’t a native!). Oh, “the natives are restless,” we all know that one… but the nativity is very restful. Sleep in heavenly peace, eh?

Still, why not a native nativity? If we can sing about ice and snow when those were not likely present at the actual birth of Jesus (which probably wasn’t in December anyway), if we can have songs and art that present the infant Jesus as some pale, blonde Germanic sort, if we can sing joyously that Little Lord Jesus made no crying (seriously, a man who as an adult was very good at creating stirs was somehow a perfectly quiet little baby?), why not also a native nativity?

The essence of the nativity, anyway, is the birth – of course, it has the Latin root for birth, nat, as seen in such words as prenatal – but also the humble surroundings. The very shape of the word nativity lends itself nicely to the humble birth: look at the symmetrical centre, tivit, and tell me you don’t see a manger (a hay trough) and two flanking parents. True, that tivit is surrounded by a nay, but that may be not so much naysayer as neigh-sayer. And anyway, who knows what else we may see if I tantivy mix up the letters? Well, it may come to vanity, but it may as readily give a glimpse of the tiny vita represented.

But while changing the letters may change the word, a little switching and replacement in the nativity scene does not impair its central theme, and may remind us of the common bond of humanity and the experiences and hopes we share – for instance, an African nativity scene (wzakcleveland.com/national/wzak/black-nativity-angers-italys-white-xmas-party/), or a Japanese one (mattstone.blogs.com/photos/asian_icons/nativity-ki-chang.html)… You really don’t need to be a Christian to appreciate what such depictions are getting at. (Of course, some people like to have fun with it, too; see relijournal.com/christianity/the-24-most-creative-nativity-scenes/.)

caboodle

No doubt you came out of this Christmas with oodles of gifts – enough to fill a cab, I’m sure, or even a caboose. Any more and your full-to-overfull house would go kaboom. Books, booze, toys, togs, the whole kit and caboodle. And maybe, if you are an ailurophile, even a caboodle of kittens.

Ah, well, even without the kitten caboodle, or a cab with oodles of noodles, poodles, doodles, or, uh, Boodles Gin (which may or may not be served at Boodle’s gentlemen’s club in London, but surely is at the Boodles Challenge tennis event), or even a couple canoodling in the back, there is the eternal question: what the heck is a caboodle?

It will no doubt clear things up if I tell you that the whole kit and caboodle is a more recent version of the whole caboodle and of the whole kit and boodle, and that caboodle is thought to come from kit and boodle. (I frankly think the presence of kit was just the needed little nudge in the direction of adding that phonaesthetic ca or ka at the beginning, which has the sound of a small explosion preceeding a bigger one, or of a backswing or other preparatory step for some sudden éclat; we see it in not only kaboom but ka-ching, alakazam, and various places also as the variant ker: kerplop, kerplunk, etc. Not to mention its effect on words that just happen to have it, such as catastrophe.) So caboodle doesn’t exist as a word outside that phrase, and is really a variant of boodle.

Oh, boodle? Well, I’d think you’d be able to guess what it means – “pack, lot, bunch,” typically with a dismissive tone. Its source? Uncertain, but perhaps Dutch boedel, “possession, estate, etc.” But, now, boodle by itself has an almost silly sound, doesn’t it? A little daft, with that loopy /u/ spelled oo, and the tone we can get when we hear words containing it (noodle is a silly word for one’s head or brain, and can also refer to playing around idly, for example on a piano; poodle is a name for a dog that is seldom taken seriously, even though they do bite; doodle is a light, probably inane drawing; oodle is an overeager term for a large quantity; toodle-oo is a light way of saying farewell). It has a playful boo and then idles or toddles off at the end. But add the ca and you get an echo of kaboom and a sense of leaping-up magnification.

And try kit and boodle against kit and caboodle. The first is two trochees, reminiscent of the triplets of liturgical Latin:

Fed a poodle with a noodle,
But he ate the kit and boodle
And concluded with exudal.

It’s fairly simple, rhythmically. The second makes a dactyl of the first foot, and really gives us something like alakazam or Kalamazoo or thingamajig, but with an extra unstressed beat at the end – much livelier. It also has a repetition of the /k/, with a /t/ (typically glottalized) between, which gives a clicky catchiness before mooving into the noodle-muddle of boodle – perhaps like the clickety-clack of a train loaded with goods (the Polar Express, perhaps?), including, of course, a caboose.

Antilles

I often get a taste of something gill-like – or perhaps like a flap of a fabric frill – from ill words, such as the girl’s name Jill and the place name Antilles. I find the word Antilles to be a somewhat delicate-seeming word, a bit French-ish (its Greek overtones from Achilles notwithstanding), in contrast with other names that can also be used for that sweep of islands from just north of South America to just south of North America: the West Indies (which includes some islands not part of the Antilles, such as the Bahamas), the Caribbean islands, and the various names of the individual islands, which include assorted territories of colonial countries (including the Netherlands Antilles, British Virgin Islands, US Virgin Islands, French West Indies) as well a goodly number of independent – but not always affluent – nations.

The pronunciation of Antilles varies from language to language. The word is a little different in some (Spanish Antillas, Portuguese Antilhas, Dutch Antillen) and clear enough in those versions, and the French pronunciation is obvious enough to those who speak French. An anglophone, on the other hand, may well be confused until he’s told. But, as I have already hinted, it’s a rhyme for Achilles. It sounds like until he’s. It may make you think of Milli Vanilli, that duo of great dancers but musical impostors. Such an echo would be basically useless, however, neither of the front men of that group being from the Antilles.

Nearly as useless would be the echo that it tends to have most strongly for me: anthills. Anthills are, after all, beehives of activity – ah, let me rephrase that: they are anthills of activity. Oh, heck, you know what I mean. They’re regimented, and busy busy busy. This is not the image of the Antilles – we’re talking the Caribbean, mon. Irie is what it’s all about. Relaaaax. the sun will always shine. (OK, a hurricane here, a hurricane there, but the sun still comes out after.) The weather is always warm. There are always beaches, and rum punch. Tourism is very big in these islands. For those of us who have taken vacations in the Antilles, they certainly are not useless. But you know what is useless? Folk etymology.

I’ll explain. I was recently in Aruba and Curaçao, both part of the Lesser Antilles, both territories of the Netherlands. One of the bits of touristic information I was given suggested that Antilles came from the Spanish designation of the Lesser Antilles (the smaller, more southern islands) as Islas Inútiles: “Useless Islands.”

Oh, folk etymology on place names abounds. I’m sure to get into this topic again. As to Antilles, it would be tidy to have a cut-and-dried origin. But in fact it seems that Columbus called the islands he encountered Antillas because he had been told to expect to encounter an island called Antillia before he got to the Asian continent. Cartographers at that time did, it seems, feel free to posit as certain – and even to map out with some specificity – places that they had simply concluded ought to exist, or had somehow come to believe from hearsay were there. Why, to make things up just because they decided it was so! Who does that? Aside from half of everybody at least, that is. Which is why we get so much BS circulating as etymology.

Oh, and where does Antillia come from? That’s disputed, but a rather plausible explanation is that it’s from Latin for “before” (ante) and “islands” (illas). So the Antilles are the islands before the mainland. Fair enough: we stopped at them before we got to Panama and Costa Rica (we being my wife and I, among others on the boat). Which in turn we stopped at before we came back home…

back in a couple

I’m just stepping out for a little break now. I’ll be back in a couple of weeks. Don’t worry!

saccade

Well, here’s another word to pull out of my sack and add to the word tasting note index. Run your eyes over it for a moment.

Now, actually, when you look at the word saccade, how do you look at it? Do your eyes stab it like a pickle fork and lift it in one piece? Or do they flick across it like a stone skipping on the water? We know that a word such as floccinaucinihilipilification is not likely to get the spear-and-go read; other other hand, in a sentence, common word clusters such as out of the or even as a result of the might be taken in with one stop of the eye – as perhaps might even longer strings of words.

Part of it will be the familiarity of the word, certainly. If you see a common long word or one made of familiar parts, such as, well, familiarization, it’s quite easy to take in; if it’s a new word, perhaps one made of unexpected combinations of letters, and maybe repeated letters, a word such as onychogryphosis or a name in a language you don’t know with letter combinations you’re not used to, such as (for the average anglophone) Przybyszewski or Cichiuciuc, you might have to jerk to a stop and hold your horses for a moment to get past the façade.

One way or another, when you sweep your eyes over something, it’s a good bet they don’t actually move in a smooth sweep like a bird flying over. Rather, they move more like a bird’s head when it’s looking around, skipping from spot to spot – or perhaps like the cicada its eyes are following. Those quick leaps of your eye from spot to spot are called saccades.

Now, saccade is an easy anagram of cascade, but clearly what it refers to is not smooth like a cascade. And I wouldn’t be surprised if the anagram didn’t leap out at you either, given the catching hardness of the cc in the middle – which may look like a pair of eyes looking off to one side, but is at least as easily seen as a couple of hooks. And with the a‘s on either side, acca, it has a hard knocky feel to it like one billiard ball hitting another. And a hard knocky sound, too, especially since the second syllable – which is the stressed one – sounds like cod rather than the end of okayed.

Where do they come up with a word for jerks of the eyes, anyway? Well, in this case, from French jockeys. The older meaning of the word is “a quick jerk of the reins to check a horse,” and it comes from French quite unchanged. Where did French get it from? Apparently from sac “sack” – presumably as in pulling something out of one.

Thanks to Elaine Phillips for suggesting saccade.

uxorious

Ah, what could be more luxurious for a man than to have a wife deserving of great devotion? Ladies, don’t you want a man who will always give u xo (or, when that’s infeasible, IOU’s for the same)? It seems to me it could hardly be a greater virtue in a man than to adore his chosen consort – his wife, Latin uxor. Such a man may be said to be uxorious – as the OED says, “devotedly attached to a wife.”

Notwithstanding which, culture being what it is, the reception of such fellows has sometimes been censorious. Indeed, some observers have seemed determined to find in this word the classical look of the Latin root, VXOR, which reminds one of vex or something like that. Even if some men would want to raise a Luxor or some other deluxe temple to their uxor, others see the VXOR as some nickel-and-dime (V and X?) operator. Indeed, dictionary.com defines uxorious as “doting upon, foolishly fond of, or affectionately submissive toward one’s wife” and the Collins English Dictionary says “excessively attached to or dependent on one’s wife.” As though there were such a thing as excessive devotion to one’s soul-mate!

But that is a definition from an older time. And I suppose, really, one’s affections may be imbalanced or overly submissive (spouses are best as equal partners, with respectful give-and-take– and as to idealistic notions, well, read this: A Reading for a Wedding). Imbalances can sometimes become exorbitant. Still, I rather think the OED definition is more to my liking. But we must admit, if devotion to one’s wife is a norm reasonably to be expected, why have a word for it? The existence of the word implies that there is something exceptional or exceptionable about it – or that the utterers are perhaps exceptious. As one fellow in 1822 put it, “I am a little what vulgar folks call uxorious, and am never truly eloquent upon any subject but my wife and children.”

Two things to note about that quote: First, 1822. You see? There have always been sensible fellows. Second, can you really imagine a vulgar person using a term such as uxorious? I believe the more vulgar term usually used is a hyphenated compound with the second part being whipped and the first carrying a feline reference.

But, ah, apparently in 1822 vulgar people used fine Latinate words such as this. “Dexter, you damned uxorious blackguard! I am singularly esurient but you concede to your consort’s usurious standards in the matter of spotting me a pot of provender. Your heart is in the way of my stomach!” “Ah, Villiers, must you be so vulgar. Come, come, we all have our appetites. Yours is for food; mine is for my lady.” “She but uses you.” “Villiers, I want to spread the news: If it feels this good being used, let her just keep on using me… until she uses me up.” (And at this, Villiers withers and pays the bill.)

onychophagia

It occurs to me that a word I used in my last tasting note may have some of you biting your nails in anticipation of a note on it – or simply in stress at having it cause a hiccup in your ocular saccades. Indeed, its arrangement of letters is so strange to the anglophone eye, it is fairly prone to being misread as, perhaps, onchyophagia. It doesn’t help that the second vowel is represented by the letter y, which does not always represent a vowel and often represents a rather constricting liquid (I don’t mean strychnine lemonade, I mean the phoneme /j/). To add to this, the ch represents /k/, not the affricate it sometimes stands for, and, at least to me, that orthographical representation seems rather more clenching and catching than the blocky k.

So: say with me: “On. Ick. Oh. Fay. Jah.” That’s not the actual syllable division, of course – consonants cling more readily to syllable beginnings than to syllable ends – but if you say it quickly you’re right there, especially if – as you probably will – you put the stress on “on” and “fay”. You may notice that it does a neat tour of the three points of articulation of English obstruants: tip of the tongue, back of the tongue, lips (and teeth), and tip of the tongue again.

Now write it: o-n-y-c-h-o, pause for breath or to file your nails, p-h-a-g-i-a. See? That first half looks kinda like honcho, but it really has much more in common with onyx, which you may know names a kind of stone. The root, Greek ονυξ onux, relates to fingernails and toenails (doesn’t that Greek letter for /ks/, ξ, look like it might have overgrown toenails?). Our word nail as in fingernail is also cognate with onyx – and French ongle, of course. And since you know by now that phagia refers to eating, you know that onychophagia refers to biting one’s fingernails, either incidentally or compulsively.

But, hey, this word may seem ugly, but it’s not so bad in comparison with onychogryphosis, which is a truly nasty-looking word for a not-especially-pretty condition: excessive nail growth, with thickening and curvature. The sort of thing that might well lend itself to onychophagia – though perhaps not, given that it usually affects the toenails. Which would really put the “ick” in onychophagia.

entomophagy

You could see this word as looking like a line of little bugs heading from the left to the right, with the ones at the right getting… well, either larger or chewed up. In sound, it starts out soft-ish, and then gets to be a bit like a stuffed mouth trying to say something, but ends a little crisper. The rhythm is a trochee plus a dactyl, like etymology.

It’s a two-piece word made from Greek bits. The second half should be recognizable from anthopophagus, macrophage, sarcophagus, onychophagia, and a host of similar words, some less familiar than others: it’s from φαγειν phagein, “eat”. The first half is from εντομος entomos, “insect”; I don’t find it sounds especially insect-like – no buzzes or clicks, just those warm, soft nasals with a stop in the middle – but, yes, it does have a bug-like look. It actually comes from a root meaning “cut up”, because insects have bodies divided into different segments.

So, yeah, it’s eating bugs – cut up or whole, raw, cooked, or live. Does that sound horrifying, disgusting, creepy, et cetera? Well, people in many parts of the world do it, sometimes with considerable relish (and sometimes with no condiments at all). There are communities within Judaism that consider some kinds of locust kosher (I’d stick with locust bean, myself). And, hey, who hasn’t eaten bee puke? It’s great stuff – never spoils – and so flavourful. Most people call it honey.

But of course eating honey doesn’t count as entomophagy any more than drinking milk counts as eating beef. Does eating spiders or centipedes count as entomophagy? It does by the looser definition that allows other creepy-crawlies also to count. (My wife would consider eating shrimp or lobster a kind of entomophagy, given that they are, in her words, “disgusting sea insects” – to which I reply, “I’ll have yours, then.”) But is that true to origins?

Well, we should always remember that etymology is not a suitable guide to the current meaning of a word. The mistaken belief that you can know the true meaning of a word by studying its origins is called the etymological fallacy. Etymology is interesting and often useful information, but words can change their meanings quite entirely over time. As I go to troubles to show, sometimes it’s through cultural shifts, sometimes through aesthetic effect of sound, sometimes through sound resemblance to other words (up to and including shift of sense through confusion). I wonder whether someday the occasional confusion between etymology and entomology will become cemented… Probably not.

But it happens that the very word etymology has an origin that supports the etymological fallacy if you believe it, and disproves it if you don’t: it’s from ετυμος etymos “true” and λογος logos “reason” or “word”. If etymology is about finding the true meaning, then you can say that etymology is really about finding the true meaning; if it is simply about finding the history, then regardless of its origin, etymology is really about finding the history.

And why do I dig up the histories of words, then? Why, to taste them. I like a nice, rich, layered etymology, with its complex flavours. I guess you could call my tasting and digestion of them etymophagy. And so much better than entomophagy… ain’t that the truth!

carob, Carib

Ah, carob, with its pseudo-chocolately notes of and gold and beaches and anthropophagy and entomophagy… It has a sort of heavy thickness in my tasting of it,  perhaps from the echo of rubber, or perhaps just from my own experience of herbal teas and similar things made with its object, which doesn’t really substitute nicely for chocolate. Sort of, yes, but not really. Kind of rich and gross.

…Gold and beaches and anthropophagy and entomophagy? Well, OK, I’m cheating on two of those. You see, carob and its common collocation carob bean make me think of Carib and Caribbean (and, as it happens, vice-versa), a sunnier-tasting word, just because it makes one think of sun, water, and golden beaches. Carib is one version of a name for the people who were living in the Caribbean area when Columbus arrived. Other versions of the same word are Caniba, Caribe, and Galibi – those tip-of-the-tongue consonants shift dialectally (this happens in other parts of the world, too – various groups of the Sioux peoples are Lakota, Dakota, and Nakoda, for instance). Not that carib was what they called themselves, per se; the word was one they used to refer to manly virtues of bravery and daring – a “man’s man,” perhaps.

And did those virtues include eating other men’s men? Hmm… I’ll bite. The Caribs did have a reputation for athropophagy, though it seems to have come from a limited sphere – a ritual involving chewing on the flesh of one’s defeated enemies – and so this word in its various versions became associated with brute savagery (as with Shakespeare’s Caliban) and, well, cannibalism – yes, cannibal comes from the same word. Think of that – or don’t – next time you’re in the West Indies drinking a Carib beer. (Would this be a good time to point out that the word barbecue comes from the same region?)

By comparison, carob is pure gold, even if it does have that creepy echo of scarab. Not that it has anything to do with scarab… Locusts yes, scarabs no. You see, the Hebrew word for “carob” (haruv – yes, cognate; carob comes by way of Arabic kharrub) was also used to mean “locust”. This is why the thickener made from carob beans is often called locust bean gum.

Now that you know that etymology, wouldn’t you rather avoid entomophagy – wouldn’t you rather eat a bean pod than a bug? So much easier to catch, too. I know if I were living out in the wilderness I would go for the beans. And though John the Baptist is said to have dieted on bugs and wild honey, the bugs in question were locusts – which means that the locus of meaning may have been lost or misconstrued: ah, and beans to another cherished bit of the scriptural mythos. (Just tangentially, Luther didn’t actually eat worms, either.) By the way, when the prodigal son hungered after the pods he fed the pigs, they were probably carob too.

So this bean may not seem exactly exalted in the culinary realm. And yet its syrup is popular as a sweetener; it is so important to the economy of Cyprus that they call it Cyprus’s black gold. It gets better still, though: this lowly seed sets the standard for gold.

Oh, yes, that’s the solid truth! In Roman times, there was a coin called the solidus that was made with pure gold. It weighed a sixth of an ounce – or as much as 24 standard-sized carob seeds (which were a reference weight). The purity of gold came to be measured on this basis. Greek for carob seed was κερατιον keration, not actually from the Arabic kharrub but from the Greek word for “horn”. From keration came our word carat or karat (we may observe that this kind of carat can tend to be sticky); pure gold is 24-carat or 24-karat gold, while a metal that is only 50% gold is 12-karat or 12-carat.

We may also note that there are 144 standard-sized carob seeds to the ounce. That’s six solidi – and more than $1400 as of when I’m writing this. An ounce of gold could help make one rich… and one gross.

It would also pay for a nice Caribbean cruise. And the food on those ships is so nice.

savage and obscure

Ah, is one condemned to spend one’s life in savage obscurity? Or can the day be salvaged? The reflections one may make at mid-life… Henry Wadsworth Longfellow (after whom a Boston bridge is named) was 35 when he mused on the midpoint of his life (which in actuality was some two and a half years in the future):

Half my life is gone, and I have let
   The years slip from me and have not fulfilled
   The aspiration of my youth, to build
   Some tower of song with lofty parapet.
Not indolence, nor pleasure, nor the fret
   Of restless passions that would not be stilled,
   But sorrow, and a care that almost killed,
   Kept me from what I may accomplish yet;
Though, half-way up the hill, I see the Past
   Lying beneath me with its sounds and sights,–
   A city in the twilight dim and vast,
With smoking roofs, soft bells, and gleaming lights,–
   And hear above me on the autumnal blast
   The cataract of Death far thundering from the heights.

I smile when I read “tower of song,” as I am a Leonard Cohen fan. But what takes my notice even more in this poem is its title: “Mezzo Cammin.”

Literature snobs will have twitched an eyebrow by now. Yes, the reference is to the deliciously euphonious opening of Dante Alighieri’s Divina Commedia:

Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita
mi ritrovai per una selva oscura
che la diritta via era smarrita.

“In the middle of the road of our life, I found myself in a dark wood with the right way lost.” And we know where his route then took him: first of all, with the aid of Virgil, through a gate reading “Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch’intrate” – “Abandon all hope, you who enter.” I rather think this is indeed a bit too gloomy and wild, even though Dante’s path took him ultimately to heaven. But there is a pair of words in there that I like especially: selva oscura – “dark wood.”

There is much one can do with that. A person inclined to polyglot paronomasia may think of the obscure self one is still aiming to discover at mid-life. But is the obscure self a wild one? And if wild, is that good or bad – is it better to be uncultured, as thinkers such as Seneca and Rousseau have thought, or is the wild child in the depths one that must be tamed, an id or idiot?

This no doubt is reflected by one’s view of the forest – not just the woods we’re not out of yet, figuratively, but the sort of forest one might paint if one were to paint one. Is it a pastoral Arcadia, or a forbidding, evil place, wherein lurk wolves? A good question, indeed – now that I live in the heart of a city, I enjoy the forest and the idea of the forest, but when I lived in the middle of one, miles from nowhere and with actual wolves howling outside at night (spooky, even if not a real threat to me), its savagery did not seem so noble.

Oh, yes, the savage. The noble savage (like Tonto – you savvy, kemo sabe?) was a romantic image – the human from the state of nature, emerged from the forest and pure of heart. But savage is first of all savage. And first of all, the savage – the person from the forest, selvaggio as they would say in Italian or silvaticus in Latin – was about as welcome as a wolf. Even if in times past the term was used more broadly – I remember reading an old book in which  someone living with New World aboriginal people referred ingenuously to “my lousy savages” meaning just that they were forest people infected with small insects – the pejorative sense was original and always inescapable. Now when we hear savage, we think not so much “natural” as “vicious”: savage as a verb means something on the order of “tear apart”, like ravage but with hissing at the beginning.

(I would be remiss, however, if I did not mention the mild mollifying influence of the surname Savage – when one thinks of Fred Savage, who played that cute kid on The Wonder Years, one can’t think of some evil hairy barely human woodland freak. Incidentally, Fred Savage turns 35 in 2011.)

Music, of course, hath charms to soothe the savage breast (no, not the savage beast). Some music may trace the soothing of the breast through in fact becoming more savage. I am put in mind of the movie La Vallée, in which a citified Frenchwoman, lured by the prospect of rare feathers for her Paris boutique, joins an expedition into the heart of New Guinea, in the course of which she gradually sheds her “civilized” persona. The woman discovers free love among the hippies she is travelling with, and she thinks she has found an ideal society in the tribespeople of the forest (with luscious vegetation and, oh yes, killing pigs with clubs – animals were harmed in the filming of this movie) when she arrives at last at the destination, a valley perpetually obnubilated – or, as the title of the soundtrack, by Pink Floyd, puts it, Obscured by Clouds. But it turns out they are not so different from what she thought she was leaving behind.

So at what point is the obscurity cleared? Do you know for certain that you see clearly now? Some forests are not so obviously dark, and yet, even if the route sings as you set forth, within three steps all may change… (Yes, that’s a reference to “La Marée haute” by Lhasa.)

So what routes does our life take in the middle? Are they inevitably obscure, or is there a cure for the obstacles? And where does the word obscure come from, by the way?

Well, to answer the last, it comes from Latin obscurus, “dim, dark, hard to see” – or “hard to understand”. It comes from the ob prefix that we see in obstacle and obviate and various others, added to a root that is related to our word sky: scurus, “covered”.

And what is obscure may indeed by uncovered. But sometimes obscurity is an invitation – to adventure, or simply to one’s own inner exploration: fill the gaps with your interpretations and understandings. Many poems have this effect. I am put in mind of T.S. Eliot, whose poems are often quite recherché but invite more than a simple decipherment. He made his name in his 20s with “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock,” that great poem that one understands better at mid-life and beyond, when one may say “No! I am not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be” and

I grow old… I grow old…
I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled.

Shall I part my hair behind? Do I dare to eat a peach?
I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.

I do not think that they will sing to me.

Ah, the savagery of the average. Is there any salve for obscurity?

Eliot returned again and again to meditations on the mezzo cammin; he never left the obscure forest. In his early 50s – 24 years after Prufrock and 24 before his death – he wrote this:

You cannot face it steadily, but this thing is sure,
That time is no healer: the patient is no longer here.
When the train starts, and the passengers are settled
To fruit, periodicals and business letters
(And those who saw them off have left the platform)
Their faces relax from grief into relief,
To the sleepy rhythm of a hundred hours.
Fare forward, travellers! not escaping from the past
Into different lives, or into any future;
You are not the same people who left that station
Or who will arrive at any terminus,
While the narrowing rails slide together behind you

Yes, the unending river, the eternal now; a human life is a wave form (even at the cataract), and you are not who you were nor who you will be. Life is always the middle of the road (it’s not trying to find you – even if Chrissie Hynde and The Pretenders sang it so well when Hynde was 33); it is always obscured, front and back; and there is no self to salvage, for the self that you salvage is by then but a dry relic, as you roll on, a wave of similar shape but ever a wave.

Which brings me around to the title of Eliot’s poem. No doubt by now you know my style and have noticed that I haven’t mentioned it. The poem is “The Dry Salvages.” It takes its name from three rocks off Cape Ann in Massachusetts. Their name in turn comes from French, les trois sauvages. At the root of these marine rocks is thus a forest… but the waves of time have obscured it.