"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 _collecta 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 {568} 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 piu 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 ruta 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 consuevere. Gypsantur et
pelliculantur vasa plena ad aera et sordes excludendas. Sincerum
proprie mel sine cera, vel, quod magis huc pertinet, vas non ceratum:
nam a ceratura 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 [Hebrew: SGLH], 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.