but here and there shows the deficiency of education.

E. M. R.

Grantham.

* * * * *

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 cera_; the other in some degree impure, and
mixed _cum cera_. 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 cera: ut mel purum dicitur
quod cera 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
cera_.

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 e puro il vase, ecco gia 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