Editing Classical Latin (section)

==Philological constructs==

===Classical===
"Good Latin" in [[philology]] is known as "classical" [[Latin literature]]. The term refers to the canonical relevance of literary works written in Latin in the late [[Roman Republic]], and early to middle [[Roman Empire]]. "[T]hat is to say, that of belonging to an exclusive group of authors (or works) that were considered to be emblematic of a certain genre."{{Sfn|Citroni|2006|p=204}} The term ''classicus'' (masculine plural ''classici'') was devised by the Romans to translate Greek ἐγκριθέντες (encrithentes), and "select" which refers to authors who wrote in a form of Greek that was considered model. Before then, the term ''classis'', in addition to being a naval fleet, was a social class in one of the diachronic divisions of Roman society in accordance with property ownership under the Roman constitution.{{Sfn|Citroni|2006|p=205}} The word is a transliteration of Greek κλῆσις (clēsis, or "calling") used to rank army draftees by property from first to fifth class.

''Classicus'' refers to those in the ''prima classis'' ("first class"), such as the authors of polished works of ''Latinitas'', or ''sermo urbanus''. It contains nuances of the certified and the authentic, or ''testis classicus'' ("reliable witness"). It was under this construct that [[Marcus Cornelius Fronto]] (an [[Africa]]n-[[Ancient Rome|Roman]] lawyer and language teacher) used ''scriptores classici'' ("first-class" or "reliable authors") in the second century AD. Their works were viewed as models of good Latin.{{Sfn|Citroni|2006|p=206|ps =, reported in [[Aulus Gellius]], 9.8.15.}} This is the first known reference (possibly innovated during this time) to Classical Latin applied by authors, evidenced in the authentic language of their works.{{Sfn|Citroni|2006|p=207}}

===Canonical===
[[File:David Ruhnken - Imagines philologorum.jpg|thumb|left|David Ruhnken]]
Imitating Greek grammarians, Romans such as [[Quintilian]] drew up lists termed ''indices'' or ''ordines'' modeled after the ones created by the Greeks, which were called ''pinakes''. The Greek lists were considered classical, or ''recepti scriptores'' ("select writers"). [[Aulus Gellius]] includes authors like [[Plautus]], who are considered writers of [[Old Latin]] and not strictly in the period of classical Latin. The classical Romans distinguished Old Latin as ''prisca Latinitas'' and not ''sermo vulgaris''. Each author's work in the Roman lists was considered equivalent to one in the Greek. In example, [[Ennius]] was the Latin [[Homer]], [[Aeneid]] was the equivalent of [[Iliad]], etc. The lists of classical authors were as far as the Roman grammarians went in developing a [[philology]]. The topic remained at that point while interest in the ''classici scriptores'' declined in the medieval period as the best form of the language yielded to [[medieval Latin]], inferior to classical standards.

The [[Renaissance]] saw a revival in Roman culture, and with it, the return of Classic ("the best") Latin. [[Thomas Sébillet]]'s ''Art Poétique'' (1548), "les bons et classiques poètes françois", refers to [[Jean de Meun]] and [[Alain Chartier]], who the first modern application of the words.{{Citation needed|date=December 2010}} According to [[Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary|Merriam Webster's ''Collegiate Dictionary'']], the term classical (from ''classicus)'' entered modern English in 1599, some 50 years after its re-introduction to the continent. In Governor [[William Bradford (Plymouth Colony governor)|William Bradford]]'s ''Dialogue'' (1648), he referred to [[synod]]s of a [[separatist]] church as "classical meetings", defined by meetings between "young men" from New England and "ancient men" from Holland and England.<ref>{{Cite book|first=William|last=Bradford|contribution=Gov. Bradford's Dialogue|title=New England's Memorial|url=https://archive.org/details/newenglandsmemor00m|editor-first=Nathaniel|editor-last = Morton| publisher = Congregational Board of Publication|location= Boston|year =1855|orig-year=1648|page = [https://archive.org/details/newenglandsmemor00m/page/330 330]}}</ref> In 1715, [[Laurence Echard]]'s ''Classical Geographical Dictionary'' was published.{{Sfn|Littlefield|1904|p=301}} In 1736, [[Robert Ainsworth (lexicographer)|Robert Ainsworth]]'s ''Thesaurus Linguae Latinae Compendarius'' turned English words and expressions into "proper and classical Latin."<ref>{{Cite journal|first=Robert|last= Ainsworth|title= Article XXX: Thesaurus Linguae Latinae Compendarius|journal= The Present State of the Republic of Letters|volume= XVII|date= January 1736|location = London|publisher=W. Innys and R. Manby}}</ref> In 1768, [[David Ruhnken]]'s ''Critical History of the Greek Orators'' recast the molded view of the classical by applying the word "canon" to the ''pinakes'' of orators after the [[Biblical canon]], or list of authentic books of the Bible. In doing so, Ruhnken had secular [[catechism]] in mind.<ref>{{cite book |page=51|title=The making of the modern canon: genesis and crisis of a literary idea|first=Jan |last=Gorak|location=London|publisher=Athlone|year=1991}}</ref>

===Ages of Latin===
[[File:Wilhelm Siegmund Teuffel - Imagines philologorum.jpg|thumb|Wilhelm Sigismund Teuffel]]
In 1870, [[Wilhelm Siegmund Teuffel|Wilhelm Sigismund Teuffel]]'s ''Geschichte der Römischen Literatur'' (''A History of Roman Literature'') defined the philological notion of classical Latin through a typology similar to the [[Ages of Man]], setting out the Golden and Silver Ages of classical Latin. Wilhem Wagner, who published Teuffel's work in German, also produced an English translation which he published in 1873. Teuffel's classification, still in use today (with modifications), groups classical Latin authors into periods defined by political events rather than by style.

Teuffel went on to publish other editions, but the English translation of ''A History of Roman Literature'' gained immediate success.

In 1877, [[Charles Thomas Cruttwell]] produced a similar work in English. In his preface, Cruttwell notes "Teuffel's admirable history, without which many chapters in the present work could not have attained completeness." He also credits Wagner.

Cruttwell 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 [[Lucius Livius Andronicus|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 [[Lucius Accius|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."{{Sfn|Cruttwell|1877|p=3}}

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: "[T]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 the Elder|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.{{Sfn|Cruttwell|1877|p=142}}