I recently stumbled upon a charming piece attributed to "Petronius": Foeda est in coitu et brevis voluptas, et taedet Veneris statim peractae. Non ergo ut pecudes libidinosae caeci protinus irruamus illuc (nam languescit amor peritque flamma);-- sed sic sic sine fine feriati et tecum iaceamus osculantes. Hic nullus labor est ruborque nullus: hoc iuvit, iuvat et diu iuvabit; hoc non deficit incipitque semper. In translation the thing seems naturally to fall into the form of a sonnet: Uncleanly is that pleasure that we find in intercourse, and brief; and quickly of a quick and wetly consummated love we weary and grow tired. Not therefore blind as farmyard beasts libidinously inclined should we rush to the thing, for when we shove unto it love doth droop; the flame thereof doth die. I have a better plan in mind. Thus, thus we’ll keep eternal holiday: we’ll lie in one another’s arms and kiss. No weariness in this, no shame, no stain, but pleasure shared, today as yesterday, and then tomorrow by tomorrow, bliss that faileth not, but starteth new again. But there's a teensy problem. The more perspicacious among you will already have noted that I solved it in in the sonnet by the method so often used by translators confronted with difficulties: I left it out. The problem of course lies in that et tecum iaceamus -- "and let us with you lie". It seems to me that the context forbids any consideration that the author is really discussing a menage a several here. Is it merely a nosism-- is the author for some reason, maybe just metrical, referring to himself in the plural? Or should the tecum be read as "at your place"? I would appreciate any opinions. Please feel free also to point out any other errors I have made.