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 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.
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 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