Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T08:58:31.993Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Notes on Quintilian And [Quintilian]1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

F. Jones
F. Jones
Affiliation:
Chatam
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The answer to the basic question, quisquamne cantat?, given the rhetoric of the context (perhaps a professorial chestnut of Quintilian's: elements from 11.3.60 turn up at Pliny, Ep. 2.14.3), especially emotive in 57, should be that everyone cantat, but the form of the question seems to suggest, at first sight, the opposite.

Information

Type
Shorter Notes
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 38 , Issue 2 , December 1988, pp. 568 - 569
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1988

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

2 See 10.1.48; 10.7.2; 1.10.35 for Quintilianic exx. Cf. also Pliny, , Ep. 2. 4. 2Google Scholar; 7. 17. 9; 8. 6. 2; , Sen.NQ 1 pr. 1Google Scholar (non tanturn dico…sed…); contrast Pliny, , Ep. 7. 9. 9Google Scholar; 9. 14. 1 where the non dico excludes, but where this is also made explicit in the context.

3 Emphasis and rhythm justify this position for the insertion.

4 The anonymous referee suggests that one might also consider nullos (sc. quam tyrannos).