Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:39:04.729Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Archaeology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2009

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Other
Information
The Classical Review , Volume 9 , Issue 9 , December 1895 , pp. 467 - 476
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1895

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 475 note 1 Myth. Lex. s.v. Juno, p. 590. The text of Plutarch is no doubt uncertain in at least one sentence of this Quaestio. But, corrupt or not, no one who reads it carefully will be likely to attach any weight to the words quoted by Roscher.

page 475 note 2 As is done e.g. in the most reckless manner by Zinzow, A., Der Vater-begriff bei den Römischen Gottheiten, p. 7.Google Scholar It is probable that such conjunctions are ‘ non per justum matrimonium sed ex officiorum adfinitate ’: Wissowa, , De feriis anni Romanorum vetustissimi, p. xi.Google Scholar

page 476 note 1 Bochart, Geographia Sacra, pars 1, lib. 3, cap. 7.

page 476 note 2 Josephus, De Ant. Jud. i. 6, 1.