Puusepad, pottsepad, hauakaevajad, jõumehed tsirkusest, komödiandid ja narrid, gladiaatorid, võltssandid ning lõtvade elukommetega naised olid Lutatia trahteri tavalisteks külastajateks. Venus Libitina kõrtsi külastajad kuulusid Rooma kõige põlatuma, alama rahva hulka. Inimesed rääkisid päeva lemmikteemal gladiaatorimängudest tsirkuses. Mõni hetk hiljem astus Libitina trahterisse Trebonius Spartacuse ja gladiaatorie grupi saatel. Spartacus oli kurb. Ukselt kostis Catiline hääl, mille peale kõik jäid teda silmitsema. Ta oli Spartacust otsinud ning kui ta viimase üles leidis, siis ulatas ta talle kukru, kuna oli kihla vedanud Spartacuse poolt. Spartacuse võit oli talle juurde andnud kümme tuhat sertserti. Catilina surus Spartacuse kätt, Spartacus imestas, et kust Catilina teab salamärke ja mõningaid salasõnu. Sisse astus Rhodopeia, kes hoopis osutus Spartacuse õeks, Mirzaks, kes oli ühe lurjuse orjatariks tehtud.
descriptions for different people, there is no single fact of which (12) says some people are unaware. Now, if I assert (12), presumably its complement clause expresses what "Cicero is Tully" means in my speech. But since I know that Cicero is Tully, I associate the same set of descriptions (whatever they might be) with both names. Suppose that, like most philosophers, I associate both "Cicero" and "Tully" with "the famous Roman orator who denounced Catiline and who figures in some famous examples of Quine's." Then (12) is equivalent to: (13) Some people are unaware that one and only one person was a famous Roman . . . [etc.] and one and only one person was a famous Roman . . . [etc.] and whoever was a famous Roman . . . [etc.] was a famous Roman . . . [etc.]. That massively redundant sentence is equivalent to: (14) Some people are unaware that one and only one person was a
annaabi.ee 
