Archaism in Terence
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 9664280 |
|---|---|
| Authors | J D Craig (St. Andrews University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 1927 |
| Volume | 21 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 90-94 |
| Publication date | 1927-04-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | The Classical Quarterly (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0009-8388 • E-ISSN: 1471-6844 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s0009838800001117 |
| OpenAlex | W2114395332 |
| Language | EN |
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
Archetype · Art · Epistemology · Geometry · Line (geometry · Literature · Modernity · Byzantine Studies and History · History · Linguistics and language evolution · Mathematics · Medieval Literature and History · Philosophy
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |