Why the Five-Foot Boundary Stretch between Properties Is Not Six in Hyginus
Guillaumin, Jean-Yves
Why the Five-Foot Boundary Stretch between Properties Is Not Six in Hyginus - 2011.
76
The paper shows that the double possibility of a five or six foot boundary stretch one commonly thinks to read in Hyginus’ gromatic treatise is nothing else than the result of the corruption of an original text which expressed in two different manners the same and unchanging prescription of the Lex Mamilia about the five foot width. It emphasizes that this mistaken reading is ancient because it is already found, specially claimed, in the anonymous Commentum to Frontinus. Consequently, it suggests the necessary emendations which must be brought to Hyginus’ text such as it was edited by Lachmann and by Thulin.
Why the Five-Foot Boundary Stretch between Properties Is Not Six in Hyginus - 2011.
76
The paper shows that the double possibility of a five or six foot boundary stretch one commonly thinks to read in Hyginus’ gromatic treatise is nothing else than the result of the corruption of an original text which expressed in two different manners the same and unchanging prescription of the Lex Mamilia about the five foot width. It emphasizes that this mistaken reading is ancient because it is already found, specially claimed, in the anonymous Commentum to Frontinus. Consequently, it suggests the necessary emendations which must be brought to Hyginus’ text such as it was edited by Lachmann and by Thulin.
Réseaux sociaux