What the nineteenth century knew of attamen or at tamen it did not learn from dictionaries. The two last revisions of Forcellini, Corradini's and De-Vit's, provided eight examples between them, of which three were false. Klotz added one, Georges two, Smith two: one of these five was false, and two more lie under much suspicion. Freund gave no instance whatsoever. In preparing his first volume, which appeared in 1834, he turned, like a good compiler, to the first volume of Hand's Tursellinus, published in 1829. What he found there, on p. 450, was ‘de at tamen uide in tamen’; so he sat down quickly and wrote ‘attamen adv., s. tamen’. But Hand's Tursellinus, which never reached tamen, had proceeded no further than multum when Freund in 1840 produced the last volume of his dictionary; so he did not redeem his promise, and when you got there the cupboard was bare. This perfidy was faithfully imitated by the English and American dictionaries of Andrews, White and Riddle, Lewis and Short. To all intents and purposes one was left to depend on one's own reading and on the observations of Madvig at Cic. de fin. pp. 286 and 425 and opusc. I p. 491.