Qualis ab Eurota Phrygiis avecta carinis
coniugibus belli causa duobus erat,
qualis erat Lede, quam plumis abditus albis
callidus in falsa lusit adulter ave,
qualis Amymone siccis erravit in agris,
cum premeret summi verticis urna comas—
talis eras; aquilamque in te taurumque timebam,
et quidquid magno de Iove fecit amor.
Such as she was who, carried away from the Eurotas in Phrygian ships, was the cause of war between two husbands; such as Leda was, whom the cunning adulterer, hidden in white feathers, deceived in the form of a false bird; such as Amymone who wandered in dry fields when a water jar pressed the hair on the top of her head—such were you; and I feared both eagle and bull for you, and whatever else love made of great Jupiter.
The passage weaves together three mythological tales of Jupiter’s amorous pursuits. The first reference is to Helen of Troy, who was taken from the Eurotas river (in Sparta) by Paris to Troy (using Phrygian ships), causing the Trojan War between Menelaus and Paris. The second alludes to Jupiter’s seduction of Leda in the form of a swan with white feathers, resulting in the birth of Helen and the Dioscuri. The third mentions Amymone, one of the fifty daughters of Danaus, whom Jupiter pursued when she was fetching water - a common activity for young women in antiquity, carrying water jars (urnae) on their heads.
The speaker fears for their beloved because Jupiter was known to transform himself to pursue objects of his desire - into an eagle (to capture Ganymede), a bull (to abduct Europa), and various other forms. The poem reflects the common literary device of comparing one’s beloved to mythological figures, while also expressing anxiety about their beauty attracting divine attention. The mention of these particular stories would have resonated with Roman audiences familiar with these tales from both literature and visual art, where they were frequently depicted.
Nunc timor omnis abest, animique resanuit error,
nec facies oculos iam capit ista meos.
cur sim mutatus, quaeris? quia munera poscis.
haec te non patitur causa placere mihi.
donec eras simplex, animum cum corpore amavi;
nunc mentis vitio laesa figura tua est.
et puer est et nudus Amor; sine sordibus annos
et nullas vestes, ut sit apertus, habet.
Now all fear is gone, and the mind’s delusion has been cured, and that face of yours no longer captures my eyes. You ask why I have changed? Because you demand gifts. This reason prevents you from pleasing me. While you were unaffected, I loved both your mind and body; now your beauty is damaged by your mind’s flaw. Love is both a boy and naked; he has years free from corruption and wears no clothes, so that he may be honest.
The poem contrasts pure love with love corrupted by greed and materialism. The personification of Love (Amor/Cupid) as a naked boy was a common motif in Roman art and literature. His nakedness symbolized transparency and innocence, while his youth represented the pure and uncorrupted nature of true love. The Romans particularly valued simplicitas (simplicity, straightforwardness) as a moral virtue, contrasting it with the vice of avarice.
The mention of demanding gifts (munera) refers to the practice of wealthy Romans giving expensive presents to their lovers, particularly to courtesans or mistresses. This practice was often criticized by moralists and love poets who saw it as corrupting true affection. The metaphor of beauty being “damaged” by moral flaws reflects the Roman belief in the connection between physical and moral beauty, an idea inherited from Greek philosophy.
quid puerum Veneris pretio prostare iubetis?
quo pretium condat, non habet ille sinum!
nec Venus apta feris Veneris nec filius armis—
non decet inbelles aera merere deos.
Stat meretrix certo cuivis mercabilis aere,
et miseras iusso corpore quaerit opes;
devovet imperium tamen haec lenonis avari
et, quod vos facitis sponte, coacta facit.
Why do you order Venus’s boy to sell himself for a price? He doesn’t even have a fold in his garment to store the payment! Neither Venus nor Venus’s son is suited for cruel weapons - it’s not fitting for peaceful gods to earn bronze coins. A prostitute stands ready, purchasable by anyone for a fixed price, and seeks wretched wealth with her commanded body; yet she curses the rule of the greedy pimp and does under compulsion what you do willingly.
The poem presents a biting critique of mercenary love through mythological allegory. Cupid (the “boy of Venus”) is portrayed in his traditional form as a naked child-god, hence the joke about having nowhere to store money in his garment’s fold (sinus). The Romans commonly kept money in the folds of their togas.
The comparison with prostitution is particularly pointed. Roman prostitutes typically stood (hence “stat meretrix”) in doorways or under arches, with fixed prices for their services. They operated under the control of a leno (pimp), a figure of particular moral disgust in Roman society. The reference to “bronze coins” (aera) emphasizes the sordid nature of the transaction, as bronze was the lowest value Roman currency.
The final contrast between the forced prostitute who hates her work and the addressees who willingly commercialize love forms the poem’s moral center. This reflects a common theme in Roman love poetry: the conflict between genuine affection and financial transaction, with the latter seen as a corruption of love’s true nature.
Sumite in exemplum pecudes ratione carentes;
turpe erit, ingenium mitius esse feris.
non equa munus equum, non taurum vacca poposcit;
non aries placitam munere captat ovem.
sola viro mulier spoliis exultat ademptis,
sola locat noctes, sola licenda venit,
et vendit quod utrumque iuvat quod uterque petebat,
et pretium, quanti gaudeat ipsa, facit.
Take as an example the beasts lacking reason; it will be shameful if your nature is gentler than wild animals’. The mare does not demand a gift from the horse, nor the cow from the bull; the ram does not try to catch the pleasing ewe with a present. Only woman exults in spoils taken from man, only she rents out her nights, only she comes to be bid upon, and she sells what pleases both and what both were seeking, and sets the price at whatever amount she herself might enjoy.
The poem employs the common rhetorical device of comparing human behavior unfavorably to that of animals, but with a specifically Roman economic twist. The language is drawn from commercial and military spheres: spolia (spoils) typically referred to armor stripped from defeated enemies, while locare and liceri are technical terms from Roman business practice. Locare was commonly used for rental contracts, while liceri referred to auction bidding.
The criticism of mercenary love reflects ongoing tensions in Roman society about the economics of sexual relationships. While prostitution was legal and regulated, elite Romans often expressed anxiety about the commodification of intimacy. The poem’s reference to noctes (nights) euphemistically refers to sexual services, a common usage in Latin literature. The comparison with various domestic animals (equa, vacca, aries, ovis) would have been especially pointed for a Roman audience, as these were common sights in the Italian countryside and their mating behaviors would have been well-known to urban and rural audiences alike.
quae Venus ex aequo ventura est grata duobus,
altera cur illam vendit et alter emit?
cur mihi sit damno, tibi sit lucrosa voluptas,
quam socio motu femina virque ferunt?
Non bene conducti vendunt periuria testes,
non bene selecti iudicis arca patet.
turpe reos empta miseros defendere lingua;
quod faciat magni, turpe tribunal, opes;
When Venus (love) is about to come equally pleasing to both parties, why does one sell it and the other buy it? Why should pleasure be a loss to me but profitable to you, when man and woman create it with shared motion? It’s not right that hired witnesses sell their perjuries, not right that a chosen judge’s money-box lies open. It’s shameful to defend wretched defendants with a purchased tongue; it’s shameful, O court, that you make great wealth.
The poem draws parallels between corrupt love affairs and the Roman legal system. The reference to Venus encompasses both the goddess and the concept of sexual love. The imagery of buying and selling reflects the Roman practice of prostitution, but also criticizes the broader commercialization of relationships through gifts and payments.
The legal metaphors are drawn from the Roman court system. Witnesses (testes) could often be bribed to give false testimony, while judges (iudices) were notorious for accepting bribes, kept in their money-boxes (arcae). The “purchased tongue” refers to paid advocates who would defend clients regardless of guilt. The tribunal was the raised platform where the judge sat during trials, here personified as an enabler of corruption.
The poem bridges private and public spheres of Roman life, suggesting that the corruption of intimate relationships mirrors broader social decay. The reference to “socio motu” (shared motion) is a tasteful euphemism for sexual intercourse, typical of more refined Roman poetry.
turpe tori reditu census augere paternos,
et faciem lucro prostituisse suam.
grazia pro rebus merito debetur inemptis;
pro male conducto gratia nulla toro.
omnia conductor solvit; mercede soluta
non manet officio debitor ille tuo.
parcite, formosae, pretium pro nocte pacisci;
non habet eventus sordida praeda bonos.
It is shameful to increase paternal wealth through income from the bed, and to have prostituted one’s beauty for profit. Gratitude is rightly owed for things unbought; for a badly rented bed, there is no gratitude. The renter pays for everything; with the fee paid, he remains no debtor to your service. Spare yourselves, beautiful ones, from bargaining a price for the night; sordid plunder does not have good outcomes.
The poem addresses the Roman practice of high-class prostitution and the economics of sexual relationships. The language draws heavily from Roman business and legal terminology - conductor (renter), merces (payment), and officium (duty/service) were all terms from Roman contract law. The reference to “paternal wealth” (census paternos) touches on the Roman concern with family honor and inherited status, as prostitution could taint not just the individual but their whole family line.
The concept of gratia (gratitude/favor) was central to Roman social relationships, particularly in the system of patronage. The poem argues that monetizing intimate relationships destroys this social bond - once money changes hands, all obligation ends. This reflects a broader Roman anxiety about the corruption of traditional social ties by commercial transactions.
The final warning about “sordid plunder” uses military terminology (praeda) to characterize mercenary love as a form of warfare, while also playing on Roman moral values where sordidus (literally “dirty”) carried strong connotations of moral corruption and social degradation.
non fuit armillas tanti pepigisse Sabinas,
ut premerent sacrae virginis arma caput;
e quibus exierat, traiecit viscera ferro
filius, et poenae causa monile fuit.
Nec tamen indignum est a divite praemia posci;
munera poscenti quod dare possit, habet.
carpite de plenis pendentes vitibus uvas;
praebeat Alcinoi poma benignus ager!
It was not worth striking the bargain for Sabine bracelets, that weapons should crush the sacred virgin’s head; the son pierced with iron the flesh from which he had come, and a necklace was the cause of punishment. Yet it is not shameful to demand rewards from a rich man; he has something he can give to one who asks for gifts. Pluck the grapes hanging from the full vines; let the generous field of Alcinous offer its fruits!
The first four lines reference the famous story of Tarpeia, a Vestal Virgin who betrayed Rome to the Sabines during the reign of Romulus. She agreed to open the gates of Rome in exchange for “what they wore on their left arms,” meaning their golden bracelets. The Sabines, upon entering, crushed her to death with their shields instead - a story that became a Roman paradigm for betrayal and greed.
The middle section transitions to a defense of gift-giving between unequal social partners, reflecting the Roman system of patronage where wealthy patrons were expected to show generosity to their clients. This was a fundamental aspect of Roman social relations.
The final couplet employs imagery from mythology, referencing Alcinous, the king of the Phaeacians in Homer’s Odyssey, whose magical orchards bore fruit year-round. This allusion would have been well-known to educated Romans, who were steeped in Greek culture. The agricultural metaphor of plucking ripe grapes suggests taking advantage of natural abundance rather than grasping at wealth through treachery.
officium pauper numeret studiumque fidemque;
quod quis habet, dominae conferat omne suae.
est quoque carminibus meritas celebrare puellas
dos mea; quam volui, nota fit arte mea.
scindentur vestes, gemmae frangentur et aurum;
carmina quam tribuunt, fama perennis erit.
nec dare, sed pretium posci dedignor et odi;
quod nego poscenti, desine velle, dabo!
Let the poor man count out his duty, devotion, and loyalty; whatever anyone has, let him contribute it all to his mistress. It is also my gift to celebrate deserving girls with poems; through my art, she whom I wished becomes famous. Clothes will be torn, gems and gold will be broken; but the fame that poems bestow will be eternal. I don’t scorn giving, but I despise and hate being asked for payment; what I refuse to one who demands, stop wanting it, and I will give!
The poem explores the Roman system of gift-giving in amatory relationships through the lens of a poet’s particular contribution. The contrast between material and poetic gifts reflects the Roman literary tradition of immortality through verse, an idea borrowed from Greek poets like Pindar. The reference to domina (mistress) is typical of Roman love elegy, where the beloved woman is portrayed as having power over the male poet-lover.
The material gifts mentioned - clothes, gems, and gold - were typical presents given by wealthy Roman men to their mistresses. The poet’s claim that these will decay while his poetry endures forever draws on a common literary topos. The final paradox about giving freely what is refused when demanded reflects Roman social values about generosity and obligation - gifts freely given created social bonds, while demanded payments destroyed them.
The vocabulary of officium (duty) and fides (loyalty) comes from Roman social and political life, where these concepts were fundamental to proper relationships between citizens. Their application to love affairs shows how Roman poets adapted serious political and social language to erotic contexts.