1. Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary] The division of the chapters obscures the connexion. The maxim now before us is but the figurative expression of the fact stated, without a parable, in the last verse of ch. 9. The “dead flies” are, in the Hebrew, “flies of death,” probably, i.e. poisonous, or stinging flies of the dung-fly, or carrion-fly type. Such insects, finding their way into a vase of precious ointment, would turn its fragrance into a fœtid odour. The work of an “apothecary” or manufacturer of unguents was one held in honour in Jerusalem, and the guilds to which they belonged had a special street or bazaar. Few similitudes could describe more vividly the tainting influence of folly, moral or intellectual. It is to the full as expressive as “a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump” of 1 Corinthians 5:6. The experience of every day shews us, how little sins mar the nobleness of a great character; procrastination, talkativeness, indecision, over-sensitiveness to praise or blame, undue levity or undue despondency, want of self-control over appetites or passions, these turn the fragrance of a good name (ch. Ecclesiastes 7:1) into the “ill savour” which stinks in the nostrils of mankind.

so doth a little folly] The completeness of the proverb in the English is obtained by the insertion of the words “so doth.” This is, however, a somewhat over-bold manipulation of the text, and it remains to see whether we can get an adequate meaning without it. The true rendering seems to be as follows, More prevailing (this takes the place of “him that is in reputation,” the primary meaning of the root being that of weight) than wisdom and honour is a little folly. This gives substantially the same meaning as the present English text, though in a different manner. The “little folly” outweighs the wisdom, and diminishes both its actual value and the estimate men form of it. Looking to the language of ch. Ecclesiastes 7:1, the effect of a little folly on the reputation of the wise would seem to be the prominent thought. By some commentators the English meaning of the word is retained even with this construction “More highly prized (i. e. in the opinion of the unthinking) is a little folly than wisdom and honour,” but this destroys the parallelism with the first clause. The writer does not here speak of the undue honour paid to folly, but of its really destructive power even when matched against wisdom. The saying ascribed to the Chancellor Oxenstiern comes to one’s mind, “Quantulâ sapientiâ regatur mundus!” One foolish prince, or favourite, or orator prevails against many wise. One element of folly in the character prevails over many excellencies.

2. A wise man’s heart is at his right hand] The symbolism of the right or the left hand, the former pointing to effective, the latter to ineffective, action, is so natural that it is scarcely necessary to look for its origin in the special thoughts or customs of this or that nation. It is, however, noticeable, probably as another trace of the Greek influence which pervades the book, that this special symbolism is not found elsewhere in the Old Testament, in which to “be on the right hand” of a man is a synonym for protecting him (Psalm 16:8; Psalm 110:5), while to “sit on the right hand,” is to occupy the place of honour (Psalm 110:1). In Greece, on the other hand, the figurative significance was widely recognised. The left was with augurs and diviners the unlucky quarter of the heavens. So the suitors of Penelope see an ill-boding omen:

αὐτὰρ ὁ τοῖσιν ἀριστερὸς ἤλυθεν ὄρνις

αἰετὸς ὑψιπέτης, ἔχε δὲ τρήρωνα πέλειαν.

“But to them came an omen on the left,

A lofty eagle, holding in its claws

A timid dove.”

Od. xx. 242.

Or still more closely parallel, as indicating a mind warped and perverted by unwisdom, in Sophocles:

οὔποτε γὰρ φρενόθν γʼ ἐπʼ ἀριστερά,

ποῖ Τελαμῶνος, ἔβας τόσσον.

“For never else, O son of Telamon,

Had’st thou from reason gone so far astray,

Treading the left-hand path.”

Aias 184.

Our own use of the word “sinister” is of course, a survival of the same feeling. The highest application of the symbolism is found in those that are set “on the right hand” and “on the left” in the parable of Matthew 25:31-46.

3. Yea also, when he that is a fool walketh by the way] The general drift of the proverb seems plain enough. “Even when the fool is in the way (either literally, ‘whenever and wherever he goes,’ or figuratively, ‘when he has been put in the right path of conduct’), his heart (i. e. his intellect) fails him, and he manifests his folly.” The last clause, however, admits of two constructions, each of which has the support of high authorities, (1) he saith to every one that he (the fool himself) is a fool, i. e. betrays his unwisdom in every word he utters; or (2) he says to every man that he (the man he meets) is a fool, i. e. in his self-conceit he thinks that he alone is wise (comp. Romans 12:16). On the whole the latter construction seems preferable. So it is notoriously the most significant symptom of insanity that the patient looks on all others as insane. It may be noted that (1) finds a parallel in Proverbs 13:16; Proverbs 18:2; (2) in Proverbs 26:16.

4. If the spirit of the ruler rise up against thee] To the picture of the boastful self-assertion of the fool is appended as a contrast, that of the self-effacement of the wise. The scene brought before us is that of a statesman, or minister, whose advice runs counter to that of the ruler. The “spirit,” what we should call the “temper,” of the latter “rises up” against the former. What shall the adviser do? His natural impulse is to “leave his place,” i. e. either to cut short his interview, or, resign his office. He won’t be slighted, will not put up with contradiction. That, however, is precisely what the wise of heart will not do. Yielding, i. e. the temper of conciliation (the Hebrew noun is literally the healing, or the healthy, mood of mind) puts to rest, or puts a stop to, great offences. The history of all nations, our own included, presents manifold instances of both modes of action, sometimes, as in the case of Chatham’s behaviour to George III., in the same statesman at different times, sometimes in the attitude of rival statesmen towards the same sovereign. Interpreters after their manner, seeing either the golden or the silver side of the shields, have referred the last words either to the angry acts of the ruler, or to the sins of rebellion in the minister. It can scarcely be questioned, however, that the proverb includes both. The maxim has its parallel in our English proverb, “Least said is soonest mended.”

5. as an error which proceedeth from the ruler] The last word serves as a link connecting this verse with the preceding. It might be wise at times to bow to the temper of a despotic ruler, but the ruler was not always right. What the Debater had seen was to him a blot upon the government of him who allowed it. There lies below the surface the half-suppressed thought that this anomaly, stated in the next verse, was as a blot in the government of the supreme Ruler of the Universe. Technically the word was used in the Mosaic Law of the involuntary sins of ignorance (Leviticus 4:22; Leviticus 4:27; Leviticus 5:18). The unequal distribution of honours seemed to men as a blunder of Providence.

6. Folly is set in great dignity, and the rich sit in low place] For “great dignity,” literally great heights. The “rich” here are those who by birth and station are looked on as the natural rulers of mankind. Such men, like the ἀρχαιόπλουτοι (the “men of ancestral wealth”) of Greek political writers, (Aristot. Rhet. ii. 9; Aesch. Agam. 1043) a wise ruler associates with himself as counsellors. The tyrant, on the other hand, like Louis XI. exalts the baseborn to the place of honour, or like Edward II. or James I. of England, or Henry III. of France, lavishes dignities on his minions. So the writer may have seen Agathoclea and her brother; all-powerful, as mistress and favourite, in the court of Ptolemy Philopator (Justin xxx. 1).

7. I have seen servants upon horses] The general fact of the previous verse is reproduced with more dramatic vividness. To ride upon horses was with the Parthians a special distinction of the nobly born (Justin xli. 3). So Mordecai rides on horseback through the city as one whom the king delighted to honour (Esther 5:8-9). So the Hippeis in the polity of Solon, and the Equites in that of Servius Tullius, took their place as representing the element of aristocratic wealth. So Aristotle notes that the keeping a horse (ἱπποτροφία) was the special distinction of the rich, and therefore that all cities which aimed at military strength were essentially aristocratic (Pol. iv. 23, vi. 7). So in the earlier days of European intercourse with Turkey, Europeans generally were only allowed to ride on asses or mules, a special exception being made for the consuls of the great powers (Maundrell, Journey from Aleppo, p. 492, Bohn’s Edition). Our own proverb “Set a beggar on horseback, and he will ride to the devil” is a survival of the same feeling. The reign of Ptolemy Philopator and Epiphanes may have presented many illustrations of what the writer notes.

8. He that diggeth a pit shall fall into it] It is scarcely a profitable task to endeavour to trace a very close connexion between this and the preceding verses. The writer has got into what we may call the gnomic, or proverb-making state of mind, and, as in the Book of Proverbs, his reflections come out with no very definite or logical sequence. All that we can say is that the context seems to indicate that the maxims which follow, like those which have gone before, indicate a wide experience in the life of courts, and that the experience of a courtier rather than of a king, and accordingly find their chief application in the region of man’s political life, and that their general drift is that all great enterprises, especially perhaps all enterprises that involve change, destruction, revolution, have each of them its special danger. The first of the proverbs is verbally from Proverbs 26:27, and finds parallels in Psalm 7:15-16; Psalm 9:15; Psalm 10:2; Psalm 57:6. The thought is that of the Nemesis which comes on the evil doer. He digs a pit that his enemy may fall into it, and he falls into it himself. Plots and conspiracies are as often fatal to the conspirators as to the intended victims. The literature of all nations is full of like sayings, among which that of the engineer “hoist with his own petard” is perhaps the most familia

whoso breaketh a hedge, a serpent shall bite him] Better, whoso breaketh down a fence or a stone wall, as in Proverbs 24:31; Lamentations 3:9, and elsewhere. Hedges, in the English sense of the word, are rare in the landscapes of Syria or Egypt. The crannies of such structures were the natural haunts of serpents (Isaiah 34:15; Amos 5:19), and the man who chose to do the work of destruction instead of being “a repairer of the breach” (Isaiah 58:12), might find his retribution in being bitten by them. The proverb, like many like sayings, is double-edged, and may have, as we consider the breaking down of the wall to be a good or evil work, a twofold meaning: (1) If you injure your neighbour’s property, and act as an oppressor, there may come an instrument of retribution out of the circumstances of the act itself. (2) If you are too daring a reformer, removing the tottering wall of a decayed and corrupt institution, you may expect that the serpents in the crannies, those who have “vested interests” in the abuse, will bite the hand that disturbs them. You need beforehand to “count the cost” of the work of reformation.

9. Whoso removeth stones shall be hurt therewith] The words are referred by some commentators to an act like that of the previous verse, by others to hewing stone in the quarry. In the former case, however, we get but a tame repetition, in the latter there is nothing in the act that deserves retribution. We get a more natural meaning, if we think of the curse pronounced on him who “removes his neighbour’s landmark” (Deuteronomy 19:14; Deuteronomy 27:17). Such landmarks often consisted of cairns or heaps of stones, as in Genesis 31:46-48, or a pillar, and the act of removing it would be one of wrongful aggression. For the stone to fall on a man so acting would be once more an instance of the Nemesis which is presented in these similitudes.

he that cleaveth wood shall be endangered thereby] Better, “he that cleaveth trees or logs,” as in Genesis 1:11; Genesis 2:16; Genesis 23:16; Isaiah 40:20, and elsewhere. Here again the proverb seems to have a double edge. (1) On the one hand it might seem that an act of unjust aggression is contemplated. The special sacredness of trees as standing above most other forms of property is recognised in Deuteronomy 20:19-20, and the frequency of accidents in the process was provided for by the special legislation (Deuteronomy 19:5), which exempted from penalty one who in this way was the involuntary cause of his neighbour’s death. The primary thought in the saying, so taken, is, as before, that retribution comes on the evil-doer out of the very deed of evil. Out of our “pleasant vices” the gods “make whips to scourge us.” The attack on sacred and time-honoured institutions is not without peril. (2) On the other hand, eastern as well as western thought recognises in decayed trees the types of corrupt institutions that need to be reformed, and, as in the last proverb, the work of the reformer is not always a safe or easy one. Popular political rhetoric has made us familiar both with the appeal to “spare the tree” under the shadow of whose branches our fathers lived, and with that which bids men lop branch after branch from the “deadly Upas” of oppression and iniquity, especially of corrupt kingdoms (Isaiah 14:8; Jeremiah 51:15; Ezekiel 34:3; Daniel 9:10; Daniel 9:14; Matthew 3:10; Luke 13:7; Luke 13:9).

10. If the iron be blunt] The proverb seems obviously suggested by that of the preceding verse, but its meaning is far from clear. The axe (literally, the iron) is used to cut wood. What if it fail to cut (i. e. if, going below the imagery, the man has not the sharpness or strength to carry his plans promptly into effect), if he (the cutter down of trees) has not sharpened its edge, literally its face as in Ezekiel 21:21, i.e. if he has entered on his plans without due preparation. In that case he must “put to more strength,” must increase his force (i. e. the impact of his stroke). He will have to do by the iteration of main force what might have been effected by sagacity and finesse. So interpreted, the whole imagery is consistent. The man who enters on the perilous enterprise of reform or revolution has to face not only the danger that he may perish in the attempt, but the risk of failure through the disproportion of his resources to his ends. The meaning of the proverb would be clear to any one who united the character of an expert in felling timber with the experience of a political reformer. Briefly paraphrased, the maxim would run thus in colloquial English, “If you must cut down trees, take care that you sharpen your axe.”

but wisdom is profitable to direct] Better, But it is a gain to use wisdom with success, i.e. It is better to sharpen the axe than to go on hammering with a blunt one, better to succeed by skill and tact than by mere brute strength.

11. Surely the serpent will bite without enchantment] Literally, If the serpent will bite without enchantment, i.e. in the absence of skill to charm it. It is hardly necessary to dwell at length on a topic so familiar as the serpent-charming of the East. It will be enough to say that from time immemorial in Egypt, Syria, Persia, India, there have been classes of persons who in some way or other have gained a power over many kinds of snakes, drawing them from their retreats, handling them with impunity, making them follow their footsteps like a tame dog. The power was really or ostensibly connected with certain muttered words or peculiar intonations of the voice. We find the earliest traces of it in the magicians of Pharaoh’s court (Exodus 7:11). So the “deaf adder that cannot be charmed” becomes the type of those whom no appeal to reason or conscience can restrain (Psalm 58:5; Jeremiah 8:17; Sir 12:13). The proverb obviously stands in the same relation to the “breaking down of walls” in Ecclesiastes 10:8, as that of the “blunt axe” did to the “cutting down trees” of Ecclesiastes 10:9. “If a serpent meets you as you go on with your work, if the adder’s poison that is on the lips of the traitor or the slanderer (Psalm 140:3; Romans 3:13) is about to do its deadly work, are you sure that you have the power to charm? If not, you are not likely to escape being bitten.” The apodosis of the sentence interprets the proverb. “If a serpent will bite in the absence of the charmer, there is no profit in a babbler (literally, a lord or master of tongue, see note on ch. Ecclesiastes 5:10), who does not know the secret of the intonation that charms it.” No floods of wind-bag eloquence will-avail in the statesman or the orator if the skill that persuades is wanting.

12. The words of a wise man’s mouth] The mention of the babbling eloquence of “the master of tongue” in the previous verse is naturally followed by precepts fashioned after the type of those in Proverbs 10:8; Proverbs 10:14; Proverbs 10:32; Proverbs 12:13; Proverbs 15:2; Proverbs 17:7 as to that which is of the essence of true eloquence. In “are gracious” (literally are grace itself) we find a parallel to the “gracious words” (literally words of grace) of Luke 4:22. They describe the quality in speech which wins favour, what the Greeks called the ἠθικὴ πίστις (moral suasion), which conciliates the good will of the hearers (Aristot. Rhet. i. 2, § 3).

the lips of a fool will swallow up himself] The English version rightly preserves the vivid force of the original, instead of weakly paraphrasing it by “destroy” or “consume.” Who has not heard orators who, while they thought they were demolishing their opponents, were simply demolishing themselves, swallowing up their own reputation for honesty or consistency, greeted by the ironical cheers of their opponents, while those of their own party listen in speechless dismay? Our own familiar phrase, when we speak of an imprudent orator having “to eat his own words,” expresses another aspect of the same idea.

13. The beginning of the words of his mouth is foolishness] The words point, with a profound insight into human nature, to the progress from bad to worse in one who has the gift of speech without discretion. He begins with what is simply folly, unwise but harmless, but “vires acquirit eundo” he is borne along on the swelling floods of his own declamatory fluency, and ends in what is “mischievous madness.” He commits himself to statements and conclusions which, in his calmer moments, he would have shrunk from. As has been said of such an orator or preacher, without plan or forethought, he “goes forth, not knowing whither he goeth.”

14. A fool also is full of words] Literally, multiplies words. The introduction of “a man” is not an idle pleonasm. The “man” is not the “fool,” but the fool forgets the limitations of human knowledge, as to what lies in the near future of his own life, or the more distant future that follows on his death, and speaks as if it all lay before him as an open scroll. The point of the maxim is like that with which we have become familiar in the region of political prediction in the words “Don’t prophesy unless you know.” Boasting of this kind, as regards a man’s own future, finds its reproof, as in the wisdom of all ages, so especially in the teaching of Luke 12:16-20; James 4:13-16.

15. The labour of the foolish wearieth every one of them] The word for “labour” as in chap. Ecclesiastes 1:3; Genesis 41:52; Job 3:3, as with our word “travail,” carries with it the connotation of trouble as well as toil. He labours to no result, for he is destitute of common sense. Not to know “the way to the city” is clearly a proverbial phrase for the crassa ignorantia of the most patent facts of experience that lie within all men’s experience. If a man fails to see that, how will he fare in the difficulties which lead him as into the “bye-ways” of life? We are reminded of the saying, attributed, if I remember rightly, to the Emperor Akbar that “None but a fool is lost on a straight road,” or of Shakespeare’s “The ‘why’ is plain as way to parish Church” (As You Like It, ii. 7).

he knoweth not how to go to the city] The words probably imply a reminiscence of a childhood not far from Jerusalem as the city of which the proverb spoke. Isaiah’s description of the road to the restored Jerusalem as being such that “the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein” (Isaiah 35:8) supplies an interesting parallel. The ingenuity of interpreters has, however, read other meanings into the simple words and “the city” has been taken (1) for the city’s ways and customs, its policy and intrigue which the “fool” does not understand, (2) for the city of God, the new Jerusalem, or some ideal city of the wise, while (3) some, more eccentric than their fellows, have seen in it a hit at the Essenes who, like the Rechabites (Jeremiah 35:7), shunned the life of cities and dwelt in the desert country by the Dead Sea.

Woe to thee, O land, when thy king is a child] The gnomic temper which we have seen in Ecclesiastes 10:7 still continues, and passes from the weaknesses of subjects and popular leaders to those of rulers. It is, of course, probable that the writer had a specific instance in his thoughts, but as the Hebrew word for “child” has a wide range including any age from infancy (Exodus 2:6; Jdg 13:5) to manhood (Genesis 34:19; 1 Kings 3:7), it is not easy to fix the reference. In Isaiah 3:12 a like word appears to be used of Ahaz. The old school of interpreters saw in it Solomon’s prophetic foresight of the folly of Rehoboam (1 Kings 12:1-11). One commentator (Hitzig) connects it, with some plausibility, with the reign of Ptolemy Epiphanes who was but fifteen years of age on his father’s accession to the throne (Justin xxx. 2) and whose government, as described by Justin (“tribunatus, prefecturas et ducatus mulieres ordinabant”) resembled that painted by Isaiah (Ecclesiastes 3:12), the queen mother Agathoclea (see Note on ch. Ecclesiastes 7:26) and her brother being the real rulers. Grätz, adapting the words to his theory of the date of the book takes the word child as = servant, and refers it to the ignoble origin of Herod the Great.

thy princes eat in the morning] The word “eat” is, of course, equivalent to “feast” or “banquet,” and the kind of life condemned is the profligate luxury which begins the day with revels, instead of giving the morning hours to “sitting in the gate” and doing justice and judgment. Morning revelling was looked upon naturally as the extreme of profligacy. So St Peter repudiates the charge of drunkenness on the ground that it was but “the third hour of the day” i. e. 9 a.m. (Acts 2:15). So Cicero (Philipp. ii. 41) emphasizes the fact “ab horâ tertiâ bibebatur.” So Catullus (xlvii. 5)

“Vos convivia lauta sumtuose

De die facitis.”

“Ye from daybreak onward make

Your sumptuous feasts and revelry.”

So Juvenal (Sat. i. 49) “Exsul ab octavâ Marius bibit” (“In exile Marius from the eighth hour drinks”). So Isaiah (Ecclesiastes 5:11) utters his woe against those that “rise up early in the morning that they may follow strong drink.”

17. Blessed art thou, O land, when thy king is the son of nobles] The epithet has been taken as instance of the Hebrew of expressing character by the phrase “the son of …,” and hence as having a meaning here like that of the Latin generosus. Probably, however, the maxim reflects the thought of Greek political writers that they “are truly noble who can point to ancestors distinguished for both excellence and wealth” (Aristot. Polit. Ecclesiastes 10:17) that if there were any one family with an hereditary character for excellence, it was just that it should be recognised as kingly, and that the king should be chosen from it (Ibid. iii. 16). Such, the writer may have meant covertly to imply, ought a true descendant of the Ptolemies to have been instead of sinking into a degenerate profligacy.

thy princes eat in due season] The word “season” reminds us of the sense in which in chap. Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 it is said that every thing, feasting included, has its proper “time.” In the case supposed the character of the king is reflected in the princes that rule under him. The words “for strength” may, perhaps, mean “in strength,” i.e. with the self-control of temperance, the ἐγκρατεία of Greek ethics, and not in the drunkenness which accompanies the morning revels.

18. By much slothfulness the building decayeth] The maxim, though generalised in form, and applicable to every form of the evil which it condemns, may fairly be contemplated, in relation to its context, as having a political bearing. There, laissez-faire, the policy of indolent procrastination, may be as fatal to the good government and prosperity of a state as the most reckless profligacy. The figure is singularly apt. The fabric of a state, like that of the house (Amos 9:11), needs from time to time to be surveyed and repaired. “Time,” as Bacon has said, “alters all things” (houses of both kinds included) “for the worse.” “The timber framework of the house decays.” The decay may be hidden at first (this seems the point implied in the relation of the two parts of the proverb) but the latent cause soon shews itself in a very patent effect, “The house lets in the rain,” there is the “continual dropping,” the “drip, drip, drip,” which, to the householder seeking comfort, is the type of all extremest discomfort (Proverbs 19:13). Delitzsch quotes a curious Arab proverb that “there are three things that make a house intolerable, rain leaking through the roof, an ill-tempered wife, and the cimex lectularius.” So is it with the state. The timbers are the fundamental laws or principles by which its fabric is supported. Corruption or discord (the “beginning of strife” which is “as when one letteth out of water,” Proverbs 17:14) is the visible token that these are worm-eaten and decayed through long neglect.

19. money answereth all things] The maxim as it stands in the English Version, has a somewhat cynical ring, reminding us only too closely of the counsel condemned by the Roman satirist,

“O cives, cives, quærenda pecunia primum est;

Virtus post nummos.”

“Money, my townsmen, must be sought for first;

Virtue comes after guineas,”

“Isne tibi melius suadet, qui rem facias; rem,

Si possis, recte; si non, quocunque modo rem?”

“Does he give better counsel whom we hear,

‘Make money, money; justly if you can,

But if not, then in any way, make money?’ ”

Hor. Epp. i. 1. 53, 65.

So Menander (quoted by Delitzsch) “Silver and gold—these are the Gods who profit most. If these are in thy house pray for what thou wilt and it shall be thine,” and Horace:

Scilicet uxorem cum dote, fidemque, et amicos,

Et genus, et formam, regina pecunia donat;

Ac bene nummatum decorat Suadela Venusque.”

“Seek’st thou a dowried wife, or friends, or trust,

Beauty or rank, Queen Money gives thee all;

Put money in thy purse, and thou shalt lack

Nor suasive power nor comeliness of form.”

Epp. i. 6. 36–38.

The truer rendering of the Hebrew, however, gives not so much a maxim as the statement of a fact and is entirely in harmony with the preceding verses. For revelry they (i.e. “man,” indefinitely) prepare food (literally, bread) and wine that rejoices life, and money answereth all things, i.e. meets all they want. The words obviously point to the conduct of the luxurious and slothful princes condemned in Ecclesiastes 10:16; Ecclesiastes 10:18. Regardless of their duty as rulers and of the sufferings of their people, they aim only at self-indulgence and they look to money, however gained, as the means of satisfying their desires. So, in our own times, Armenians or Fellaheen may die by thousands of famine or pestilence, but the palaces of the Sultan and the Khedive are as full of luxury and magnificence as ever. The State may be bankrupt and creditors unpaid, but they manage somehow to get what they want. The money which they squeeze out from a starving province is for them as the God they worship who grants all they wish.

20. Curse not the king, no not in thy thought] The words paint, as from a painful experience, the all-pervading espionage, which, as in the delatores of the Roman Empire, associates itself naturally with the police of a despotic government. The wise man must recognise that espionage as a fact and gives his counsel accordingly, but it is not the less clear that the counsel itself conveys, in its grave irony, a condemnation of the practice. It may be noted that the addition of “curse not the rich” makes the irony clearer, and takes the maxim out of the hands of those who would read in it the serious condemnation of all independence of thought and speech in face of the “right divine of kings to govern wrong.” For the purposes of the teacher, in the maxims in which the irony of indignation veils itself in the garb of a servile prudence, the rich man and the king stand on the same level.

in thy bedchamber] This is, as in 2 Kings 6:12, like the “closet” of Matthew 6:6, proverbial for the extremest retirement.

a bird of the air shall carry the voice] The figure is so natural, answering to the “walls have ears” of the Rabbinic, German, English proverbs, that any more special reference scarcely need to be sought for, but it is interesting to note the close parallel presented by the familiar Greek proverb of “the cranes of Ibycos.” For the reader who does not know the story it may be well to tell it. Ibycos was a lyric poet of Rhegium, circ. b.c. 540. He was murdered by robbers near Corinth and, as he died, called on a flock of cranes that chanced to fly over him, to avenge his death. His murderers went with their plunder to Corinth, and mingled with the crowd in the theatre. It chanced that the cranes appeared and hovered over the heads of the spectators, and one of the murderers betrayed himself by the terror-stricken cry “Behold the avengers of Ibycos!” (Suidas Ἴβυκος. Apollon. Sidon in the Anthol. Graec. B. vii. 745, ed. Tauchnitz). Suggestive parallels are also found in Greek comedy.

οὐδεὶς οἰδεν τὸν θησαυρὸν τὸν ἐμὸν

πλὴν εἴ τις ἄρʼ ὄρνις.

“No one knows of my treasure, save, it may be, a bird.”

Aristoph. Birds, 575.

ἡ κορώνη μοὶ πάλαι

ἄνω τι φράζει.

“Long since the raven tells me from on high.”

Aristoph. Birds, 50.

Possibly, however, the words may refer to the employment of carrier pigeons in the police espionage of despots. Their use goes back to a remote antiquity and is at least as old as Anacreon’s “Ode to a pigeon.”

The pigeon speaks:

Ἐγὼ δʼ Ανακρέοντι

Διακονῶ τοσαῦτα,

Καὶ νῦν ὁρᾶς ἐκείνου

Ἐπιστολὰς κομίζω.

“Now I render service due

To Anacreon, Master true,

And I bear his billets-doux.”

Frequently they were employed to keep up communication between generals, as in the case of Brutus and Hirtius at the battle of Mutina. “What availed it,” says Pliny, in words that coincide almost verbally with the text (Hist. Nat. x. 37), “that nets were stretched across the river while the messenger was cleaving the air” (“per cœlum eunte nuntio”).