Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T11:05:30.962Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phaedrus and Quintilian I. 9. 2. A Reply to Professor Postgate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2009

F. H. Colson
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
Original Contributions
Information
The Classical Review , Volume 33 , Issue 3-4 , May 1919 , pp. 59 - 61
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1919

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

1 ‘versus’ and ‘poetae’ of course, because no prose was ‘apud grammaticos’ at Rome at this time.

2 So Spalding takes ‘consummatis professoribus,’ but, as he says, it is harsh; on the other hand, if we take it as dative the statement seems exaggerated. I am much inclined to Sarpe's ‘profectibus’ =highly advanced pupils, a phrase which has good parallels in Quintilian.

3 It may be observed that each exercise is introduced by its leading noun, which I have indicated by printing them in capitals.