Thanks, Zack, and everyone else who signed the card and came to La Conner. It was the pleasantest of surprises.

The Latin phrase ‘in vino veritas’ is clearly important to the discussion concerning Mel Gibson.

But how do you properly translate the phrase? Is it literally “in wine is truth”? “That wine is truth”? “That wine speaks truth”? Or “that those who imbibe wine can only speak things that are objectively true”? These are not definitions found in articles on Mr. Gibson. For, whether properly or not, the phrase appears strictly interpreted as “wine makes people say what’s on their mind.”

But can that truly be the most complete interpretation of the phrase? To inquire further, I uncorked a bottle of cheap White Zinfandel and flipped open a copy of Erasmus’ Adages.

True to my suspicion, confirming and yet refining my hypothesis, I found Erasmus placing the veritas of the phrase somewhere between what the imbiber has on his heart and what the interpreter wants to believe is on the drunkard’s heart.

That wine facilitates the truth and that it “displays the mind before our eyes” are but only two aspects to the phrase. Comparing the adage to another - “a slip of the tongue is wont to tell the truth” - Erasmus explains: “For what a man lets fall unawares is commonly thought to be true, because only then is it free from any suspicion of falsehood.” The editor of Erasmus’ Adages calls this interpretation an early rendition of the Freudian Slip. What slips reflects not only what the utterer may believe but also what the interpreter wants to believe about the utterer.

Mel Gibson makes a film that is suspected by some to be anti-Semitic - note how suspicion here is held captive by ambivalence. And then: Anti-Semitic outburst confirms suspicions - note how suspicion becomes free to be true.

I think there is a reason why the phrase is in vino veritas and not (and help me right if I’m wrong) in vino veritas hominis or in vino veritas hominom. Wine doesn’t exclusively reveal the truth of a man or the truth about a people. Perhaps, wine reveals secrets about everyone. For isn’t calling someone who acknowledges alcoholism a bigot not just as reflective of the truth concerning the situation as an alcoholic calling someone names?

Erasmus mentions how some guy called Sparamixas once said “No offence taken” to a tipsy fellow by the name of Mithridates. I think the alcoholism of Mithridates revealed something about Sparamixas. Wouldn’t you say so?

Well I say so and I’m tipsy! Goodbye.

Wait, side note: Erasmus’ entry on in vino veritas brings up an interesting point. He says, “There is a well-known saying, attributed to an eminent Persian, that torture is unnecessary to get at the truth; wine is much more effective.” So why is it not used if everyone believes it reveals the truth?