This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
estne=is not? Ne=nonne; as in § 66, videtisne, and § 113, itane est? = Is it not so? These are abbreviated forms, the other clause of the question being understood: estne (an non est?) videtisne (an non videtis?). in Scaevola, in the case of Scaevola; cf. de Orat. 3.36, se calcaribus in Ephoro, . . . in Theopompo frenis uti solere. Nam, per deos immortales, quid: cf. ad Q. Fr. 1.1.10, Nam quid ego de Gratidio dicam? Verr. 2. 2. 160, Nam quid ego de Syracusis loquar, etc. In such places nam introduces an additional remark which the speaker wishes to represent as almost too obvious to be mentioned; and it indicates, not the reason of what precedes (as usually), but the reason why what precedes did not iuclude what is now added. Is this to be endured? (I do not say, to be treated as a justifiable charge, requiring a defence); for (nam) what is there in the case that needs a defence? Cf. Long's note on Cic. Lael. § 104. quae . . . contineat, on what the whole case rests. This is described in § 8, sin aliud agitur nihil, etc. quid sequi: cf. § 8, secuti, note. De Invent. 1.22, certum quiddam destinatur auditori, in quo animum debeat habere occupatum.
Scanned printed text.
Purchase a copy of this text (not necessarily the same edition) from Amazon.com
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.