SINCERE, SIMPLE, SINGULAR.
(Vol. viii., pp. 195. 328. 399.)
When a hive of bees is taken, the practice is to lay the combs upon a sieve over some vessel, in only that the honey may drain out of the combs. Whilst the combs are in the hive, they hang perpendicularly, and each cell is horizontal; and in this position the honey in the cells which are in the course of being filled does not run out; but when the combs are laid on the sieve horizontally, the cells on the lower side of the combs hang perpendicularly, and then the honey begins to run out of those that are not sealed up. The honey that so runs out is perfectly pure, and free from wax. The cells, however, that are sealed up with wax still retain their honey; and the ordinary process to extract it is to place the sieve with the combs upon it so near a fire as gradually to melt the wax, so as to let the honey escape. During this process, some portion of wax unavoidably gets mixed with the honey. Here then we have two kinds of honey: one in a perfectly pure state, and wholly sine cerâ; the other in some degree impure, and mixed cum cerâ. Can anything be more reasonable than to suppose that the former was called sincerum mel, just as we call it virgin honey? And this accords with Ainsworth's derivation, "ex sine et cerâ: ut mel purum dicitur quod cerâ non est permixtum." If it be said that there is nothing to show that the old Romans adopted the process I have described, I reply it is immaterial what process they followed in order to extract what would not flow out of itself; as whatever did flow out of itself would be mel sine cerâ.
If such were the origin of the term, it is easy to see how appropriately, in a secondary sense, it would denote whatever was pure, sweet, unadulterated, and ingenuous.
Now if we apply this sense to the line:
"Sincerum est nisi vas quodcunque infundis acescit,"—
it will mean, "unless the vessel be sweet and pure, it will turn whatever you pour into it sour."
This is the interpretation that has always hitherto been put upon the line; which is thus translated by Tommaso Gargallo, vol. iii. p. 19. edit. 1820:
"Se non è puro il vase, ecco già guasto
Che che v' infondi."
And by Francis (vol. iv. p. 27., 6th edit.):—
"For tainted vessels sour what they contain."
The context shows that this is the correct translation, as sincerum vas is obviously in opposition to "auriculas collectâ sorde dolentes," in the preceding line.
The line itself plainly refers to the well-known fact, that if wine or other liquor be poured into a foul vessel, it will be polluted by it. Nor can I avoid noticing the elegant opposition, according to this construction, between the sweetness in sincerum, and the acidity in acescit.
I also think that Mr. Inglesby's version cannot be correct for the following reason. Cracks may exist in every part of a vessel alike; and as the part filled by the liquor is always many times greater than the remainder of the vessel, cracks would more frequently occur in the former; and, as where air can get in the liquor can get out, it
is plain that in the majority of instances the liquor would run away instead of turning sour. Now the line plainly contains a general affirmative proposition that all liquor whatsoever will be turned sour, unless the vessel be sincerum; and therefore that version cannot be right which applies only to a few instances.
"Sincerum cupimus vas incrustare" is well rendered by Gargallo (vol. ii. p. 37.):
" . . . . Insudiciar bramiamo
Anco il vase più puro;"
and by Francis (vol. iii. p. 39.):
"And joy th' untainted vessel to begrime."
The passage is well explained in the note to Baxter's Hor. (p. 310. edit. 1809):
"Incrustari vas dicitur cum aliquo vitioso succo illinitur atque inquinatur."
And the passage in the 18th satire of Lucilius shows that this is an accurate explanation:
" . . . . . Regionibus illis
Incrustatu' calix rutâ caulive bibetur."
A practice, I rather think, prevails in some parts of England of rubbing the inside of a vessel with sweet herbs, in order to flavour cyder or other liquor.
It appears from the same note:
"Fracta vasa et gypsare et pelliculare Veteres consuevêre. Gypsantur et pelliculantur vasa plena ad aëra et sordes excludendas. Sincerum proprie mel sine cerâ, vel, quod magis huc pertinet, vas non ceratum: nam a ceraturâ odorem vel saporem trahit."
If these passages show the practice of sealing vessels with wax, they also show that the wax was what affected the flavour of the liquor.
Mr. Jeffcock plainly errs in saying that simplex "does not mean without a fold, but once folded." In Latin we have the series simplex, duplex, triplex, &c., corresponding precisely to the English single, double, treble, &c. And as single denotes a thing without a fold, so does simplex. Mr. Jeffcock's derivation would make simplex and duplex mean the same thing. Now duplex does not mean twice folded, but double.
Nor can I think that singulus can be "semel and termination." Ainsworth derives it from the Hebrew
סגלה
, which denotes whatever is peculiar or singular. It occurs to me to suggest whether it may not be derived from sine angulis. The term denotes unity—one person, one thing. Now the Roman mark for one is a straight line, and that is "that which lies evenly between its extreme points;" it is emphatically a line without bend, angle, or turning—"linea sine angulis:" angulus, like its Greek original, denoting any bend, whether made by a straight or curved line.
Though I cannot at this moment refer to any other Latin words compounded of sine, we have in Spanish simpar, without equal: sinigual, sinjusticia, sinrazon, sinnumero, sinsabor.
The delight I take in endeavouring to attain the correct meaning of the classics will, I hope, form some apology for the length of this Note.
S. G. C.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne.