De Abusu linguae Graecae

he believed that those who had imposed the name on this comprehension had abused the word symbolon in place of the other, symbolē. But the matter is otherwise, when another reason for this appellation is at hand, by attributing to the word symbolon no meaning other than its own and common one: if, indeed, we say that it was called symbolon because it is as it were a tessera token/password of the Christian faith, or a token by which the true soldiers of Christ can be distinguished. I confess, however, that I at one time approved of that other reason for this appellation, while I did not consider that it did violence to the word symbolon, or to the meaning of this word. But lest I, while I am here, be too much of a makrosymbolos long-winded/long-contributing (certainly in a different way than the Attics were accustomed to call makras symbolas long/heavy contributions), be forced to approach the many other things that must be treated as an asymbolos without contribution, since the hours that were to be shared with others have been consumed in this question, I shall close this discourse in such a way as to say that this at least cannot be taken from me: that the word symbolon in place of symbolē was unknown to the Greeks, and therefore in this meaning it is either barbaric or certainly was received into the Latin language licentiously and not without abuse, provided it can be found in any classical writer confirmed by the authority of ancient copies as well.