A little further research might easily multiply instances, but I think these are quite sufficient to prove that we moderns are but following the ancients in using the word repudiate without reference to any obligation expressed or implied.
F. F. F.
Repudiate, Ringlet, Outburst (Vol. iv., p. 54.).
—Your correspondent H. C. K. has dealt, I fear, somewhat too harshly with "repudiate." Surely "repudiare" is "to reject what one is ashamed of, scorns, or disdains." Two instances immediately suggest themselves in Cicer. pro Plancio, 18 (44). 20 (50). In the former—
"Respuerent aures, nemo agnosceret, repudiarent,"
perhaps the word is a gloss upon "respuerunt." The latter, however, is unexceptionable:
"Nunquam enim fere nobilitas, integra præsertim atque innocens, a Populo Romano supplex repudiata fuit."
Why then should "repudiate" necessarily imply the notion of "obligation?" and why should I, if I "repudiate" the criticism of H. C. K., be held to "talk nonsense?"
May I be allowed room for a couple of Queries? 1. Is our modern usage of "ringlet" found before the time of Milton? 2. What is the earliest authority for "outburst?"
CHARLES THIRIOLD.