Ticket #5018 (new)

Opened 2 months ago

GET A FREE INFO KIT ON GOLD

Reported by: "Big Banks" <CheatCode@…> Owned by:
Priority: normal Milestone: 2.11
Component: none Version: 3.8.0
Severity: medium Keywords:
Cc: Language:
Patch status: Platform:

Description

GET A FREE INFO KIT ON GOLD

http://unlockhips.us/wF-BDzcOPhZzedqgXG6MqCZIcE7Q_EtB6K56U4B4QI6IGPbKcA

http://unlockhips.us/LZq-DyUcMeNE8Cy9W2CrONrGfK6AaFItMvJGybnI-7TfDlygKg
    
ttwell adopts the time periods found in Teuffel's work, but he presents a detailed analysis of style, whereas Teuffel was more concerned with history. Like Teuffel, Cruttwell encountered issues while attempting to condense the voluminous details of time periods in an effort to capture the meaning of phases found in their various writing styles. Like Teuffel, he has trouble finding a name for the first of the three periods (the current Old Latin phase), calling it "from Livius to Sulla." He says the language "is marked by immaturity of art and language, by a vigorous but ill-disciplined imitation of Greek poetical models, and in prose by a dry sententiousness of style, gradually giving way to a clear and fluent strength..." These abstracts have little meaning to those not well-versed in Latin literature. In fact, Cruttwell admits "The ancients, indeed, saw a difference between Ennius, Pacuvius, and Accius, but it may be questioned whether the advance would be perceptible by us."

In time, some of Cruttwell's ideas become established in Latin philology. While praising the application of rules to classical Latin (most intensely in the Golden Age, he says "In gaining accuracy, however, classical Latin suffered a grievous loss. It became cultivated as distinct from a natural language... Spontaneity, therefore, became impossible and soon invention also ceased... In a certain sense, therefore, Latin was studied as a dead language, while it was still a living."

Also problematic in Teuffel's scheme is its appropriateness to the concept of classical Latin. Cruttwell addresses the issue by altering the concept of the classical. The "best" Latin is defined as "golden" Latin, the second of the three periods. The other two periods (considered "classical") are left hanging. By assigning the term "pre-classical" to Old Latin and implicating it to post-classical (or post-Augustan) and silver Latin, Cruttwell realized that his construct was not accordance with ancient usage and assertions: "he epithet classical is by many restricted to the authors who wrote in it [golden Latin]. It is best, however, not to narrow unnecessarily the sphere of classicity; to exclude Terence on the one hand or Tacitus and Pliny on the other, would savour of artificial restriction rather than that of a natural classification." The contradiction remains—Terence is, and is not a classical author, depending on the context.

Authors of the Golden Age

At Maecenas' Reception, oil, Stefan Baka?owicz, 1890. An artist's view of the classical. Maecenas knew and entertained everyone literary in the Golden Age, especially Augustus.
Teuffel's definition of the "First Period" of Latin was based on inscriptions, fragments, and the literary works of the earliest know

untitled-part.html Download

Attachments

untitled-part.html Download (5.0 KB) - added by CheatCode@… 2 months ago.
Added by email2trac

Change History

Changed 2 months ago by CheatCode@…

Changed 2 months ago by CheatCode@…

This message has 1 attachment(s)

Changed 2 months ago by CheatCode@…

Added by email2trac

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.