Cicero, Quintilian, and the Canon of Ten Attic Orators

Bibliographic Data

ID9319295
AuthorsA E Douglas (0000-0001-5212-6826, 1The University of Southampton, corresponding author)
Year1956
Volume9
Issue1
Pages30-40
Publication date1956-01-01
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueMnemosyne (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0026-7074 • E-ISSN: 1568-525X
PublisherBrill (PUBLISHER • NL)
DOI10.1163/156852556x00052
OpenAlexW2092137934
LanguageEN
Citations received7

The origins of the famous canon of ten Attic orators have long been the subject of controversy. This has of late subsided into a general recognition that no final decision is possible between the three chief claimants the scholars of 3rd century Alexandria, those of 2nd century Pergamum, and Caecilius of Cale Acte. But, although there is no doubt that Alexandrian critics drew up some lists of approved writers, and it is possible that as Brzoska thought 1), the Pergamenes did the same, the first two suggestions are, as regards the canon of orators, in fact impossible2). This view needs to be restated, and can be reinforced. Again, although there is attributed to Caecilius in Suidas a work entitled 7repL o5 7cXpMx1-rpo0 xxv C. porp, none the less, the third view, while the most plausible of current opinions 3), is not free from difficulties, to which very little attention has hitherto been paid. Apart from the statement in Suidas, and a familiar observation of Quintilian (Inst. Orat. x. I.76) reproduced and discussed below, there is no positive evidence for the canon before the 2nd century A.D. 4). In my view, there was no canon, in any real sense, before that date. The evidence of Cicero is decisive against the existence of any canon in his time. The silence of Dionysius of Halicamassus

Aesthetics · Art · Canon · Cicero · Epistemology · Literature · Silence · Statement (logic · Subject (documents · Classical Antiquity Studies · Classical Philosophy and Thought · Classics · Organic Chemistry Synthesis Methods · Philosophy

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub