In a third place, he relates that some persons forged a will of one Minucius Basilus, who had died in Greece; and, in order that they might the more easily obtain their end, put down Marcus Crassus and Quintus Hortensius, two of the most influential men in Rome at that time, as co-legatees with themselves, who although they suspected the will to be forged, yet did not _repudiate the little legacy_ coming to them through other persons' fraud, because forsooth they were not privy to the actual commission of the forgery. "Qui cum illud falsum esse suspicarentur, sibi autem nullius essent conscii culpæ, alieni facinoris _munusculum non repudiaverunt_."--_Cic. de Off._ III. xviii. 4. 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. Cambridge, July 29. 1851. _On the Letter "v"_ (Vol. iv., p. 55.).--I have read with pleasure the paragraphs in your "NOTES AND QUERIES" on "the letter _v_," and beg space for a further notice, with an especial reference to the patronymic of _Ray_ or _Wray_. One family uses the motto, "Juste et _V_rai," whose name is _Wray_; and another the same motto, whose name is _Ray_. And it will be remembered that John Ray, the naturalist, changed the orthography of his name from _Wray_ to _Ray_, as he concluded it had been formerly written; and in one of the letters published by the Ray Society[9], allusion is made to the adjective or substantive _vrai_, as if that distinguished philosopher and divine had either derived his name thence, or it had the same signification as that French word. Are we then to take this as an instance of the silent _v_ or _double u_ or _v_; and as any proof that families writing their names _Wray_ and _Ray_ were originally of one patronymic and one common root, and that presumptively Norman?