Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T01:37:19.404Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Archaism in Terence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

J. D. Craig
J. D. Craig
Affiliation:
East Scores, St. Andrews
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is sometimes assumed too rigorously that what distinguishes the language of Terence from that of Plautus is its modernity; that antiquated forms and expressions, common enough in the older dramatist (died 184), were all but completely absent in the younger (died 159). On this assumption a faulty Terence line is due simply to mistranscription, and the method of emendation is the same as would be employed on any MS. incorrectly copied in Carolingian times from an archetype now lost.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , April 1927 , pp. 90 - 94
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1927

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 90 note 1 Not in the sense of the deliberate use of expressions known by Terence to be antiquated but in the sense of expressions felt by, say, the age of Cicero to be antiquated or unfamiliar.

page 91 note 1 Schoell's emendation for et inanire of the MSS.

page 92 note 1 In the new Oxford text gl. I. and gl. II. (vid. Lindsay, , Class. Quart. XIX. 101–2)Google Scholar denote two lost MSS. of the δ-family of Terence (minuscule) MSS.