Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T08:12:22.215Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Was Persius a ‘Micher’?1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2009

J. Tate
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
Review Article
Information
The Classical Review , Volume 42 , Issue 2 , May 1928 , pp. 63 - 64
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1928

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 63 note 2 It is not in Jahn or Pretor. It is in Conto ington's Persius, Introd., p. xvii, and in Friedländer's Roman Life and Manners, III., p. 13.Google Scholar

page 63 note 3 Quintilian II. 1, 2.

page 63 note 4 Cf. Wight Duff, op. cit., p. 27.

page 63 note 5 Quintilian I. 1, 15 ff.

page 63 note 6 So Pretor, p. 34, who is the only editor (so far as I know) to consider the point.

page 63 note 7 Pretor agrees: ‘44–51. True (says the master),’ etc.

page 64 note 1 Preferably with the pupil, if Tuscum stemma (v. 28) counts for anything§ (Cf. Jahn, Prolegg., p. v.)