Talk:Terence

message: Is it really true that Terence only wrote 6 plays? How do we know this? jguk 22:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: How do we know this?

message: I recently heard that the first German translation of some of Terence's works was by Felix Mendelssohn, but I couldn't find anything on Google about it.  Is this true?  JackofOz 08:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Question has been answered - see Mendelssohn's talk page.  JackofOz 11:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mendelssohn

message: This article reeks of pov, man... Gonna trim the fat, unless someone else does.--Ioshus(talk) 02:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ay ay ay 

message: I wonder whether the dates of Terence's birth, death and of his play's performances are correct... If he was really born in the 2nd century, how could his plays have been performed before Christ??! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ib2000 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He was born in the 2nd century BC (201-101BC). Not all scholars agree on the borth and death dates. I've included the 2 most prominent views about his borth date, with sources from respected scholars, so as to reflect where about the academic community stands in this issue. His death date depends heavily on his birth date. there are two views regarding this: that he died in the age of 25, the other on 35 (with the first been considered most probable, taking into account the ammount of his work). in this case, there are 4 possible dates: 195BC - 25 or 35, 185BC -25 or 35. Hectorian 21:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dates

message: Anyone know why the quote "homo sum" was quoted in a different form by Dostoyevsky ("But you've only to assume that I, too, am a man /et nihil humanum/", Crime and Punishment ; "Сатана sum et nihil humanum", The Brothers Karamazov )?  Does this have to do with Latin grammar, or is there a variant translation of the quote? Puddleglum 16:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the original, "homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto", "humanus" is a noun in the genitive, which sounds more naturally Latin to me. It literally means "nothing of human [of human design/make/whatever]". But that is unnatural in English, where we would translate it as "nothing human". I don't know any Russian but perhaps it is more natural there as well. "Humanum" is then an adjective which agrees with the accusative "nihil" and "alienum" in the accusative infinitive construction. I see results for both versions on Google although "humani" appears much more often. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Et Nihil Humanum? 

message: A sentence in this article reads, "A phrase from Terence's musicla collaborator is the only remaining fragment of ancient Roman music extant.  This has recently been shown to be inauthentic."   (1) If it is inauthentic, it is not a survival.  (2) Lacking any comparitive data, how do we know it is inauthentic?  Bigturtle 23:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Real or unreal?

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: The Internet Archive has a book] that looks like Donatus's work cited in the article. I want to make sure it really is, and if so to link to it. Can somebody tell? trespassers william (talk) 00:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it seems to be the same. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this the cited work? 

message: *I'm a fan of infoboxes and put them on every page I can. But I see others of you don't like them. Is there a consensus on whether this page should have an infobox? Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox? 

message: There is now a link to Sir Charles Sedley's play Bellamira: or, The Mistress which is partly modelled on Terence's Eunuchus. Dalmatiner Henry (talk) 12:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to ''Bellamira'' (play) 

message: In contemporary English, homo here has to be translated as "human being" or perhaps "person." Homines in Latin means "people." The gendered "man" is an artifact of English translation practices in the Victorian era. Latin is not ambiguous about this: the word for "man" is vir (as in English "virile"). I can inundate you with a thousand footnotes if you like, but if we're giving a literal translation, "human being" is required in English to create the parallelism in Latin between homo and humanus. (That Terence probably meant the line to be funny, since a busybody utters it, is incidental to its place in the classical tradition as a saying.) Homo sum and Vir sum register in Latin quite differently. If we translate homo sum as "I'm a man," then we have no way in English to distinguish Vir sum, which really does mean "I'm a man." Basically, the first definition of homo in the Oxford Latin Dictionary is "human being (of either sex)", and this line is given as the first example of usage. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Homo' again 

message: I took out 
By borrowing from earlier Greek works, Terence provided in his plays what is considered to be an authentic view of Greek society in the 3rd century BC.Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th Edition, Volume XXVI. Cambridge: University Press, 1911. pp. 639-41.
You will notice that it is from the 1911; this idea is not in the updated Britannica, which reads, "scholars have been preoccupied with the question of the extent to which Terence was an original writer, as opposed to a mere translator of his Greek models. Positions on both sides have been vigorously maintained."
<http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/587857/Terence>
:Calling the point "outdated" is siding with one viewpoint. More precisely, the matter is still a point of debate among academicians, so what is required are sourced statements to illustrate both viewpoints, rather than the removal of the one. On Wikisource, we have now added the entries on Terence from the DGRBM, the 1911 EB, and Collins' book on Plautus and Terence. These should provide ample access to the scholarship through the end of the 19th century, as they frequently quote (critically) the Classical, Medieval, Renaissance, and early Modern scholarship on the subject.  --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed outdated Claim and Reference. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Terence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110420033107/http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-bio/2574.html to http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-bio/2574.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The entry for Terence mentions that Montaigne cited him but makes no mention of Montaigne’s strong assertion in his Essays (Book I, Chapter 40, 1580 edition) that Terence was not the author of the plays attributed to him. Should this not be mentioned and, I assume, debunked? GianniBGood (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Montaigne and Terence