Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T22:15:23.599Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Professor Elmore's Hypotheses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

E. G. Hardy
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On those of Professor Elmore's hypotheses which appeared in his original article, I need make very few additional remarks. He restates them with undiminished confidence in this Review in January, 1918, but, except on one or two side issues, he makes no attempt to answer the careful and reasoned criticism to which I subjected them. The further developments of his theories, to which he calls my special attention, call for some examination, which however shall be brief.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , January 1919 , pp. 49 - 51
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1919

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 49 note 1 It has, I believe, been suggested that some distinctions may be drawn from the different expressions used by Dio for senatum legere. For 28 and 19 B.C. he uses ⋯ξ⋯τασɛ, for II B.C. κατɛλ⋯ξατο, and for 4 A.D. διαλ⋯ξαι. But of these only the last in any way unusual, and the novelty of the term is sufficiently discounted (a) by the word αὕθις, which proves the process to be nothing new, and (b) by the term ⋯ξɛταςτ⋯ς, which, being allied to the triumuivatus legendi sentus, brings the process into line with that of 28 and 18.