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_.