No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
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.
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.