▼7:22Ancient Latin had no punctuation, no spaces between words, and no difference between capital and small letters. So, does the text say: “gracious, loving good, astute, which nothing hinders, beneficial,” (as some have it), or does it say: “gracious, loving, good, astute, who forbids nothing beneficial,” (as this version has it)? Later editors added the commas, which make all the difference. But, since the text is first a series of one-word descriptors of wisdom, the comma between amans and bonum makes more sense, translated as “loving, good” rather than “loving good,” although both are obviously true of wisdom. On the other hand, “who forbids nothing” does not fit wisdom, for wisdom does forbid what is evil, what is vain, what is harmful, what is useless, etc. Therefore, the translation is “who forbids nothing beneficial.” Some translations have rendered “quem nihil vetat” as “irresistible,” i.e. “which nothing forbids, beneficial,” but this seems a less likely meaning of the text.(Conte)