Brief Question From Erasmus' Correspondence

[LateStarter]

This a short sentence taken from a letter of John Fisher to Erasmus.

"Liber ille quo me scribis a Reuchlino donatum, nondum ad me pervenit."

I am a bit confused by the relative in the ablative, and the accusative of me...donatum. Is this an instance of what I have seen called "ablative of item given"...I can't make that make that sense because "nondum ad me pervenit": "[it] has not yet reached me." Also confused by "me" and wondering why it isn't "mihi" with "scribis" - I feel at least that would be more typical. Any help would be appreciated as it's difficult to take a fresh look at something after trying to puzzle it out in a certain way..., thanks.

[Shenoute]

I guess me and donatum form an Accusative and Infinitive,
me scribis a Reuchlino donatum > "you write that I have been offered (sthing) by R.".

The quo also puzzles me a bit. Given the context I'd expect something like de quo, "This book, of which you write I have been offered (it) by Reuchlino, has not yet reached me".
Maybe the Abl. quo alone can have this meaning ?

[Qimmik]

Donare takes accusative of the person to whom something is given and ablative of the thing given (or at least that's one possible construction). Somewhat like English "present someone with something."

See Lewis & Short dono II:

II Aliquem (aliquā re), to present one with any thing (class. and very freq.): donis plurimis donatus, Plaut. Am. prol. 137; cf. id. Stich. 5, 2, 8; Caes. B. C. 3, 53 fin.: aliquem paterā, Plaut. Am. 2, 2, 131; 134; 139: aliquem anulo aureo, Cic. Verr. 2, 3, 80: aliquem civitate, id. Arch. 3, 5; Caes. B. G. 1, 47, 4: aliquem laureā Apollinari, Hor. C. 4, 2, 9 et saep.: meritos in proeliis more militiae donat, Sall. J. 54, 1; cf.: donatus atque laudatus magnifice pro contione, id. ib 8, 2 et saep.

http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/phi ... isandshort

As Shenoute notes, me . . . donatum [esse] is accusative + infinitive -- indirect discourse dependent on scribis.

So the sentence might be translated: "That book, with which you write that I have been presented by Reuchlin, has not yet reached me."

"That book, which you write Reuchlin has given me as a gift, has not yet reached me."

[LateStarter]

I appreciate both of your answers and thank you. I didn't put the indirect discourse together, which may have freed me to tackle quo on its own. It's from a book but the note for quo is only "with which." I appreciate the reference to the grammar, as always. I don't know if this comment will be seen by anyone, but has anyone self-studied prose composition to increase reading speed, grammatical competence, and (accuracy of) comprehension? I am thinking of buying a used copy of D'Ooge's Latin Composition to address the latter points. If so, can you speak to its usefulness, difficulty, time invested, etc.? I was browsing D'Ooges Latina Colloquia on Google books and realized I can hardly formulate a complete Latin thought in my own head.

[Shenoute]

Thanks Qimmik.

As for composition, I'm convinced that it's beneficial to reading skills but I must admit that I have tried various manual and didn't stick to any. I mostly read medieval Latin and all these exercises about the fortitude of the consul and the virtues of the orator bore me to no end (don't mind reading about them though).

There's also the fact that lots of manuals assume you already now the vocabulary and do not bother to give you word-lists. Having to look up for words (even just a few) makes to whole business very tedious. Some manuals also do not feature the rules that you're supposed to apply in the exercises but give references to grammars. Like the lack of vocabulary lists, this does not make the book unuseful but it lengthens the process. To sum up, I guess my ideal book would be one in which each exercise is self contained : a rule followed by some vocabulary and then sentences to be translated. That being said, Bradley & Arnold is structured exactly like that and I still wasn't able to progress beyond the first ten or so exercises...So, I guess this is more a problem of self-discipline in the end than of which book you use.

I also quite like the approach used by Anthon in his Introduction to Latin prose composition but I don't know how effective it might be.

[Qimmik]

I probably shouldn't be giving advice, since I haven't done this since college about 50 year ago. Bradley's Arnold is the standard text for Latin composition. It's a very old-fashioned revision of a text that was already old-fashioned when Bradley revised it. (If I'm not mistaken, Arnold was Matthew Arnold's father.) But a key skill that Latin composition can teach is to write connected paragraphs instead of discrete sentences, which in Latin often means stringing together several shorter English sentences into a single unit, but in any event means acquiring a command of idiomatic Latin and a sense of style.

If reading is ultimately your aim and your time is limited, however, I wonder whether simply reading as much as you can with good commentaries that alert you to grammatical and stylistic features might be a more productive use of your time. It's a struggle for a while, to be sure, but with some investment of time and effort it gets easier and easier.

Personally, I've always wanted to take courses in Greek and Latin composition myself, but I've never had the time and the opportunity. You really have to have an instructor, and one who knows the language inside out, so that you avoid "learning" your own mistakes. The answer keys don't necessarily help as much, because there are many ways to translate a single paragraph. At least they should give you good Latin from which you can learn some idiomatic Latin.

One other point: every author has a unique vocabulary, syntax and style that requires some initial getting used to before you can begin to become fluent in that author. And reading Latin poetry is like learning a new language: the vocabulary is to a large extent unique, syntax and semantics are stretched, and the elaborate patterning of words, which involves radical hyperbaton, is often confusing at first. But it doesn't take long to get used to it, and once you do, Latin poetry is a transcendent experience.

[Phil-]

I don't know if this comment will be seen by anyone, but has anyone self-studied prose composition to increase reading speed, grammatical competence, and (accuracy of) comprehension? I am thinking of buying a used copy of D'Ooge's Latin Composition to address the latter points. If so, can you speak to its usefulness, difficulty, time invested, etc.? I was browsing D'Ooges Latina Colloquia on Google books and realized I can hardly formulate a complete Latin thought in my own head.

I don't know if these would be too easy for you, but you might take a look at the "First Latin Writer" by Bennett and "Latin Exercises" by W. W. Bradley, both linked on this page with keys. I used them not long after Wheelock, and they were very helpful for me. Of course, as Qimmik said, having a composition instructor would be ideal, especially if you want to advance further in composition. A thought can be expressed in many different ways, and an answer key gives only one possibility.

[LateStarter]

Thanks again for the responses. What prompted this thought, was in part Rolfe's edition of Nepos' Lives, which has been reprinted in paperback in a pretty passable edition, and contains selections for translation into Latin. (The editor states in the preface that he wished he had had space to cover the entire lives with such exercises!) The sentences start out easily, then prompt you to cover the same material again but this time with subordinate clauses instead of separate sentences, indirect discourse instead of historical narrative and quotation, prompts to approximate Nepos' own phraseology, etc. This appears to be the approach in D'Ooge's book, beginning with Caesar and then covering portions of Cicero, and it also seems to provide instruction in some finer points. (For instance, no beginner's books/readers I have really cover systemically what makes word order and word position emphatic, just to mention one point that seems of not inconsiderable stylistic importance.) With Caesar and Cicero, one would be trying to approximate their styles (the texts would be the "answer keys"); I think this would potentially inculcate a greater critical appreciation of styles, solidify vocabulary/grammar, etc. Coupled with annotated editions of both I think it would be hard to settle for many mistakes.

Perhaps some months from now I will be able to share an experienced perspective. I have at the least a reader or two (including Wheelock's) to get through before I would attempt that.