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 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 [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.