What kind of Latin texts should I read ?

[Junya]

I don't know what I REALLY should read.
Please give me an advice.

I began to study Latin 4 years ago, alone by myself.
The same year I started to read medieval philosophy, of scholars from 11 to 13th century, like Thomas Aquinas.
The Latin was very easy and there was minimum need of consulting dictionaries.

I was not satisfied with what I was reading (medieval philosophy texts).
What I was really curious and wanted to try was magical texts from around Renaissance period.
But I couldn't find an e-text (I found photo-copies on the web, for example, of Ficinus' books, but I couldn't read those difficult old characters).

And searching the web for Latin texts I can read, I met with a Tertullianus page and an Augustinus page (where you can see his opera omnia). (my concern was always around philosophy, not history and literature.)
I tried reading some of the texts, and I found them extraordinarily difficult, far more difficult than the medieval Latin.
I had to check up every word in the dictionary, and even doing so I could not really understand one sentence.
So I got completely stuck in them, I got completely caught by their difficulty, and since then I have studied them throwing away medievals.
I thought being able to read medieval Latin was still a beginner's level, and that I would have to become able to read Augustinus and Tertullianus if I want to be a Latin master.




Reading Tertullianus and Augustinus demands me to consult dictionaries exhaustively.
And the work can be carried on only in a very, really slow pace.
It takes me 2 or 3 weeks to read up only one chapter.
And in result I can produce very little amount of productive works, and the works are all at a kind of student's level, (I am frustrated)
while, if I work on medieval philosophy texts, I would be able to produce more, and the works can be developed above student's level.

So, please advise me what I REALLY should do now.
If I want to be a pundit of Latin, I think I should keep working on Tertullianus.
If I want to get more freely into activity, I should return to medieval philosophy. (But then, the Latin skill and knowledge will surely stop growing.)
If I want to resume the first interest, I should find e-texts of magical literature.
I don't know which option to choose.

[adrianus]

Read Asterix in latin now. I predict the answer will come to you afterwards.
Fabulas nunc Asterigis Galli in latinum convertas legi. Posteà quod facere debes se ostendet, portendo.

[MatthaeusLatinus]

What about Caesar's de bello gallico?
the medieval gesta Romanorum is also simple, I think.

[Junya]

Hi, Matthaeus Latinus.
Are those historical literatures simple and easy to understand, but with a lot of different words to check up in dictionaries ?
(Medieval philosophy's Latin is simple, and besides, with a very very small vocabulary. The same words are repeatedly used, so you don't have to check up the words in the dictionary many times. That is the bad point in medieval philosophy texts as a material for learning Latin.)

[Junya]

Adrianus, since you say so, I suppose it is really meaningful, I will try it soon. (I ordered Asterix Iter Gallicum just now at Amazon.)
I imagine reading Asterix in Latin had dramatically improved your grasp of Latin laguage.

But, could you tell me what was actually helpful in reading it ?

[adrianus]

I really mean you occasionally need something not so serious but at the same time real, that can give you pleasure and release, until you take up again your burden. To motivate yourself, you need to find pleasure again. Plus, I like comics and Asterix is a very good one in Latin, and challenging, even.

Verè volo dicere quoddam levius tamen sincerum tibi opus alicubi esse, quod delectet avocetque, antequam onus denuò tollas. Ut te impellas, iterùm te delicias reperire desideras. Porrò libelli pictographici mihi placent et ex eis optimi latinè illi de Asterige, non minùs digni ut eos studeas.

[Junya]

Then it is ok with other things than Asterix ?
I sometimes read and translate medieval songs, things like you listen to in early music. (I like early music, since I used to listen to it on the radio in my childhood. This partly motivated me to start Latin.)
Is this ok too ?

[adrianus]

Of course. We're all different. // Est, certé. Inter nos varimus omnes.

[Alan Aversa]

The same year I started to read medieval philosophy, of scholars from 11 to 13th century, like Thomas Aquinas.

Yes, St. Thomas Aquinas's works are very easy to read for a Latin student. You can find all of them here and mostly in two-column, Latin-English bilingual format.

[Junya]

Then everybody seems to feel so. Don't you think the same way with other philosophical writers of the medieval periods ? They write with a very small vocabulary and repeatedly use the same words.

How about other genres from the era ?

[metrodorus]

If you are interested in magical texts, you could do worse than read this one:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8NE7AAAAcAAJ
Malleus maleficarum
By Jakob Sprenger, Heinrich Institoris
There is a clearer edition available on europeana.eu

[Junya]

Thank you, Metrodorus.
Melleus Maleficarum, nice. (I own an English translation of it.)
If you have time, could you instruct me how to search the net effectively and without headache for what one wants to find (in my case, magical texts from around Renaissance) ?
I am really bad at searching the net.
Whie searching, I soon get a headache (not figuratively, but a real headache).

[metrodorus]

I'll make a YouTube video and stick on Latinum giving some hints - although I am sure others are better at it than I am. Sometime this week, hopefully.

[Junya]

Metrodorus, I'm sorry for bothering you. But I thank you very much. I am looking forward to it

[Junya]

Metrodorus, I learned about Archive.org at your LATINUM. The Archive.org and the Google books would suffice.

[Sceptra Tenens]

I enjoy the letters of Pliny the Younger.

Also, you might find this helpful.

[quendidil]

Latin-English edition of the Heptameron. Arbatel.

The Clavicula Salomonis in Latin is quite a bit harder to find though. There was a critical edition of the Liber Juratus which is now out of print. There is also a critical edition of Libri Tres de Philosophia Occulta still available. Julien Veronese was also preparing a critical edition of the Almandal in Latin AFAIK which might have been published already. There's also a book called Forbidden Rites: A Necromancer's Manual of the Fifteenth Century with a transcription of a grimoire in Latin.

[Junya]

Quendidil, you gave me a wonderful information.
But the problem is, I can't choose what kind of Latin text I should REALLY read, what I should REALLY study. (There are 3 or more options.)
The study of magical texts is fascinating.
And I have always wanted to see and study them from the first time.
I wish I could choose it as my true object of study right now, but I can't.

[quendidil]

Why don't you try reading some Classical authors too? Cicero goes into philosophy in many of his letters; there's Lucretius, Seneca and if you consider natural philosophy, there's Pliny.

Besides that, there are more modern philosophical writings in Latin from the Renaissance to the early modern era too. Newton, Descartes, Spinoza among others. From the 18th century on there are also some translations of Eastern philosophical texts into Latin. This guy in fact translated the Diamond Sutra and the Prajnaparamita Heart Sutra into Latin. Here is the Dhammapada in Pali and Latin.

[Junya]

Quendidil,
why do you know I have an inclination to Buddhism ? Because I am Japanese ?
You gave me a lot of options.
But what has to be advised on is, what I had better choose from them.
I can't do multiple work. (The reason is written below.)
And to tell the truth, I want to go to the study of Buddhism, abandonning what I have studied these several years, Latin and Greek.
(Last year I tried translating the Heart Sutra myself from Sanskrit. The Heart Sutra is the best known sutra among Japanese (the Chinese translation of it). Even my mom often hand-copies it as a kind of religious activity.)



Why I want to go to Buddhism is, because the philosophies in Latin and Greek don't have a topic which I can find myself really interested in.
But in Buddhism there are, and in Buddhism there are what I find really important for my life and deserve serious studying.
I'm especially interested in the philosophical study of Buddhism on how to observe oneself and control oneself, so that one can control the pain of body (and mind, and life in general).
Science of self-observation, especially as regards observation of one's body from the inner side, is not cultivated in Latin and Greek philosophies.
Dammapada you mentioned, and Suttanipata have been especially interesting to me.



Now I'm in the middle of opposite options, unable to decide which one to choose.
Should I cherish my present ability in Latin and Greek and keep working at them ?
then which philosophers should I study?
(I started Latin from Aquinas as a commentator of Aristotle's DE ANIMA, and other Latin commentators on DE ANIMA, and then started Aristotle's Greek text of DE ANIMA or Peri Psyche^s.)
Or should I abandon them and go to Buddhism study ?


I cannot do them all. I have to abandon some.
For, Latin and Greek writings are difficult to me, so they demand very much laborious dictionary-consultation.
I cannot work on multiple texts.
And also I like to translate in a deep way,
creatively thinking how to translate better and in a well coherent manner, and how to make the translation understandable as deeply for the readers as for me,
disliking just translating literally, or just imitating the other translators' translations.
So the work takes much time and energy, that I cannot engage in multiple works.




------------------------------

options
1. Miedeval commentaries on Aristotle's DE ANIMA and Greek original text and Greek commentaries (This is what I most have engaged myself in.)
2. Renaissance magical texts (This is what I am just curious, probably influenced by occult novels and films and Japanese animations and comics.)
3. Philosophical writings from Roman period. (This is to challenge a very difficult Latin, studying of which will deepen my knowledge of Latin.)
4. Buddhism
5. et cetera

[quendidil]

Quendidil,
why do you know I have an inclination to Buddhism ? Because I am Japanese ?
You gave me a lot of options.
But what has to be advised on is, what I had better choose from them.
I can't do multiple work. (The reason is written below.)
And to tell the truth, I want to go to the study of Buddhism, abandonning what I have studied these several years, Latin and Greek.
(Last year I tried translating the Heart Sutra myself from Sanskrit. The Heart Sutra is the best known sutra among Japanese (the Chinese translation of it). Even my mom often hand-copies it as a kind of religious activity.)



Why I want to go to Buddhism is, because the philosophies in Latin and Greek don't have a topic which I can find myself really interested in.
But in Buddhism there are, and in Buddhism there are what I find really important for my life and deserve serious studying.
I'm especially interested in the philosophical study of Buddhism on how to observe oneself and control oneself, so that one can control the pain of body (and mind, and life in general).
Science of self-observation, especially as regards observation of one's body from the inner side, is not cultivated in Latin and Greek philosophies.
Dammapada you mentioned, and Suttanipata have been especially interesting to me.



Now I'm in the middle of opposite options, unable to decide which one to choose.
Should I cherish my present ability in Latin and Greek and keep working at them ?
then which philosophers should I study?
(I started Latin from Aquinas as a commentator of Aristotle's DE ANIMA, and other Latin commentators on DE ANIMA, and then started Aristotle's Greek text of DE ANIMA or Peri Psyche^s.)
Or should I abandon them and go to Buddhism study ?


I cannot do them all. I have to abandon some.
For, Latin and Greek writings are difficult to me, so they demand very much laborious dictionary-consultation.
I cannot work on multiple texts.
And also I like to translate in a deep way,
creatively thinking how to translate better and in a well coherent manner, and how to make the translation understandable as deeply for the readers as for me,
disliking just translating literally, or just imitating the other translators' translations.
So the work takes much time and energy, that I cannot engage in multiple works.




------------------------------

options
1. Miedeval commentaries on Aristotle's DE ANIMA and Greek original text and Greek commentaries (This is what I most have engaged myself in.)
2. Renaissance magical texts (This is what I am just curious, probably influenced by occult novels and films and Japanese animations and comics.)
3. Philosophical writings from Roman period. (This is to challenge a very difficult Latin, studying of which will deepen my knowledge of Latin.)
4. Buddhism
5. et cetera

I remember you once said you used to be interested in Indian philosophy but lost interest in that, I think it was a few years ago and you have apparently changed your mind now. This probably isn't the best place to engage in a philosophical discussion but I think the issues (emptiness, anatman, dependent origination) discussed in Buddhist philosophy are more profound than mediaeval and classical Latin philosophy too. It was a shame that Pyrrhonism died out in the West although from the 16th century, with translations of Sextus Empiricus and philosophers like Montaigne and David Hume, Western philosophy started to cover similar ground again. Gallica has a 16th century Latin translation of Sextus Empiricus.

If you're still interested in Latin, I think you should really read Orberg's Lingua Latina series. It will get you actually reading Latin rather than translating which seems to be your current problem and causing you boredom. Most Renaissance magical texts are actually very straightforward, the language is quite simple and most of the time practical, telling you about tools to use and what forms the spirits appear in; conjurations can be a bit more convoluted and have barbarous names.

If you're interested in Buddhism I think you should learn Tibetan if you haven't already (I think you mentioned having a degree in Indian philosophy before?). Classical texts lost in Sanskrit are still available in Tibetan, even those unavailable in Chinese, though of course in many cases the Chinese translations might preserve an older tradition, and there is a long native commentarial tradition as well. With all respect to East Indian Buddhism, I think Tibetan Buddhism preserves most of the teachings and practices of Indian Buddhism before its end.

[Junya]

My post today is very long, so please read only the passages in thick letters, if you don't have time.


quendidil wrote :

I remember you once said you used to be interested in Indian philosophy but lost interest in that, I think it was a few years ago and you have apparently changed your mind now.

If you're interested in Buddhism I think you should learn Tibetan if you haven't already (I think you mentioned having a degree in Indian philosophy before?).

Thank you, quendidil ! How surprising that you remember me from a communication of several years ago.
I majored in Indian Philosophy at university (I wanted to study Buddhism at first), but then I was curious of too many things, and couldn't focus on Indian Philosophy only, and in the end I dropped out from the school, though I have kept studying Sanskrit bit by bit even after that.




quendidil wrote :

If you're interested in Buddhism I think you should learn Tibetan if you haven't already

If I start studying Tibetan also for Buddhism study, I would have to abandon Latin and Greek completely.
I am sorry to throw away what I have so eagerly studied these years. (That is, of course, the reason I can't smoothly move to Buddhism. They pull me back.)
Or do you say there is some way to keep them all at my hand ? You seem to be a very erudite person of extensive learning. I wonder whether you have got your wide knowledge by simultaneous studying or by studying one by one taking a long period of life-time.



quendidil wrote :

Most Renaissance magical texts are actually very straightforward, the language is quite simple and

Yes, I have thought so. Academic writings' Latin after the medieval era in general seems to be simple and easy and written with a small vocabulary. Then, there would be no need of laborious dictionary-consultation about the Renaissance magical texts. Their Latin so easy, I would not have to abandon it when I have moved to Buddhism.





quendidil wrote :

It was a shame that Pyrrhonism died out in the West although from the 16th century, with translations of Sextus Empiricus and philosophers like Montaigne and David Hume, Western philosophy started to cover similar ground again. Gallica has a 16th century Latin translation of Sextus Empiricus.

In what point do Sextus Empiricus and Buddhism resemble ?
Scepticism ?
Then it is not what I like Buddhism for.
I am interested in the Buddhist practical philosophy on how to oberseve oneself (yoga) and control the pains (of body especially), not the metaphysical argument of, for example, Madyamaka.





quendidil wrote :

If you're still interested in Latin, I think you should really read Orberg's Lingua Latina series. It will get you actually reading Latin rather than translating which seems to be your current problem and causing you boredom.

No, I am enjoying the labor of meticulous dictionary-consultation. It is a pain, a big physical pain, but it is also interesting to think how to lessen the physical pain of that labor and how to make the labor more well-ordered. The process, as I feel, will make me wiser, able to work at every thing through some systematical procedure.

But as you recommend me Lingua Latina, I am beginning to feel like trying it.
You mean with Lingua Latina, one gets able to read difficult Latin of Roman era fluently ?
Then I ask you, if I take up Lingua Latina series, how long am I going to study with them before I get able to read fluently ?
And one more question, are the fluent readers who have gone through the Lingua Latina series able to deal with difficult points in a text better than the readers who always consult large dictionary meticulously ? I don't think so. I feel, if I start studying with Langua Latina, I had better continue the training of dictionary-consultation, too, for that reason.

[quendidil]

quendidil wrote :

If you're interested in Buddhism I think you should learn Tibetan if you haven't already

If I start studying Tibetan also for Buddhism study, I would have to abandon Latin and Greek completely.
I am sorry to throw away what I have so eagerly studied these years. (That is, of course, the reason I can't smoothly move to Buddhism. They pull me back.)
Or do you say there is some way to keep them all at my hand ? You seem to be a very erudite person of extensive learning. I wonder whether you have got your wide knowledge by simultaneous studying or by studying one by one taking a long period of life-time.

quendidil wrote :

If you're still interested in Latin, I think you should really read Orberg's Lingua Latina series. It will get you actually reading Latin rather than translating which seems to be your current problem and causing you boredom.

No, I am enjoying the labor of meticulous dictionary-consultation. It is a pain, a big physical pain, but it is also interesting to think how to lessen the physical pain of that labor and how to make the labor more well-ordered. The process, as I feel, will make me wiser, able to work at every thing through some systematical procedure.

But as you recommend me Lingua Latina, I am beginning to feel like trying it.
You mean with Lingua Latina, one gets able to read difficult Latin of Roman era fluently ?
Then I ask you, if I take up Lingua Latina series, how long am I going to study with them before I get able to read fluently ?
And one more question, are the fluent readers who have gone through the Lingua Latina series able to deal with difficult points in a text better than the readers who always consult large dictionary meticulously ? I don't think so. I feel, if I start studying with Langua Latina, I had better continue the training of dictionary-consultation, too, for that reason.

I don't consider myself erudite at all (very likely, I am much younger than you ) but several polyglots who have studied at least 10+ languages have remarked that around 15 minutes a day per language is a bare minimum for keeping knowledge of that language active. Comparing reading fluently without a dictionary, which Lingua Latina will help with, to consulting a dictionary, I believe the former will allow you to spend time more efficiently and cover more content. There might be the occasional unfamiliar use of a word that you come across without understanding, a dictionary and reference grammar would be helpful in that case.

You might also like to read up about spaced repetition systems which could help in maintaining your knowledge.

quendidil wrote :

Most Renaissance magical texts are actually very straightforward, the language is quite simple and

Yes, I have thought so. Academic writings' Latin after the medieval era in general seems to be simple and easy and written with a small vocabulary. Then, there would be no need of laborious dictionary-consultation about the Renaissance magical texts. Their Latin so easy, I would not have to abandon it when I have moved to Buddhism.

quendidil wrote :

It was a shame that Pyrrhonism died out in the West although from the 16th century, with translations of Sextus Empiricus and philosophers like Montaigne and David Hume, Western philosophy started to cover similar ground again. Gallica has a 16th century Latin translation of Sextus Empiricus.

In what point do Sextus Empiricus and Buddhism resemble ?
Scepticism ?
Then it is not what I like Buddhism for.
I am interested in the Buddhist practical philosophy on how to oberseve oneself (yoga) and control the pains (of body especially), not the metaphysical argument of, for example, Madyamaka.

That is good and in fact Madhyamaka philosophy merely establishes the point of view as a result of meditation; many Yogacarins still do not accept the full implications of Madhayamaka philosophy although they may be accomplished meditators. However, why don't you read more about Buddhism in Japanese or Chinese? Personally, I do not like the direction Japanese Zen has taken with the abolition of vinaya and the stages of meditation in general but there must be original texts available in Japanese translation for you. The Chinese Chan system might maintain a stronger meditative tradition. Still, I don't think physical body exercises are taught in much detail in Chan outside of the descendants of Shaolin Temple . Tibetan Buddhism does however have a long tradition of physical yoga (yantra yoga) and other yogas. In fact, the root text of yantra yoga, translated by Vairotsana into Tibetan pre-dates any of the subsequent hatha yoga texts. If you are interested in magical texts, the Buddhist equivalent would be the tantras -- some are available in Classical Chinese but far more are only in Tibetan.

Theravada Buddhism also has a long meditative tradition rooted in the sutras. The Vipassana movement organizes 10-day retreats teaching the basics of shamatha and a brief introduction to vipasyana worldwide.

Anyway, this probably isn't an appropriate place to discuss Buddhism and I am not a qualified teacher; I'm just mentioning certain things which you might be interested in following up on your own. My personal practice is based on Dzogchen.

[Junya]

quendidil. I feel I am advised really cordially. Thank you very much.
Though I am still uncertain about which direction to choose, something in my mind is influenced and oriented somewhere by you.




quendidil wrote :

My personal practice is based on Dzogchen.

Are you a practitioner of Buddhism ?

If you are interested in magical texts, the Buddhist equivalent would be the tantras -- some are available in Classical Chinese but far more are only in Tibetan.

I'm not very interested in the tantra.
I'm just interested in the Western magic and occult culture.




In Latin or Greek writings, are there such texts as resemble Buddhism ?
I mean, are there texts written about the self-observation of body (as well as of mind) from the inner side (like yoga in Buddhism) for the purpose of medical study ? (As you know, Buddhism's primary purpose is to free oneself from all kinds of pain, pysical, mental, so I say it's a kind of medicine.)
How about medical texts and magical texts (if magical texts are treating the diseases and cures as demonic spirits' work and describing how to control them) in those languages ?
If there are such texts, where do they resemble Buddhism, and where do they differ from it ?

[quendidil]

Yes, I am a practitioner of Buddhism

As far as I know, there are very limited writings on traditions similar to Eastern meditation and yoga in Greek and Latin. The Neoplatonists and Gnostics, among other schools, very likely had similar traditions but there are very vaguely touched upon in the extant writings we have of them.

The Christians have their own contemplative traditions which I cannot really speak much of, but from what little I know, besides some modern Catholic priests who have contact with Eastern religions, their methods differ greatly. I know some modern Christians, usually Catholic, do use "Maranatha" or other phrases from the Bible essentially as mantras/dharanis but they don't write in Latin.

Dioscorides included descriptions of herbs warding away demons in his Materia Medica, and the Testament of Solomon also describes demons causing various illnesses and which herbs will drive them away. Demons remained a part of medical theory throughout the medieval period as far as I know, they are a feature in Arab medical theory, based on the four humours.

Demons are a part of traditional Tibetan and Chinese medicine too, though modern TCM practitioners might whitewash it or be unaware of it since the PRC while still allowing qi as a part of TCM curricula, have tried to eliminate spirits as a part of TCM theory, Tibetans are more open about that. Tibetan medicine actually has some influence from Greek medicine as well, through translations from Persian. Of course, calling spirits who cause afflictions "demons" in a Buddhist framework isn't exactly fitting -- they could be of any of the 6 classes of beings. Also, the fundamental aetiology of all illnesses in Tibetan medicine are the three poisons. I don't know more about the specifics of the practices in Tibetan medicine to say much more, but I suspect they would largely be the same with burning and ingestion of certain herbs and substances; prayer and meditation could be a part of the cure in many ailments though.

[Junya]

You know every thing !
It's a wonderful thing to be advised by a wise person like you, though you are younger than I.
I am already in my 30's but still a very foolish guy who cannot focus on any study.
I want to focus on something, but I am always pulled in different directions.
I feel Buddhism is most important for me both as an object of learning and study and as an object of life, but cannot focus on it.
I want to abandon things that I feel faintly in the bottom of my heart are not at all important for my life, though they could be the objects of study-life, like Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, magic, etc..
Do you think I should focus on Buddhism ?
Tell me, honestly.




quendidil wrote :

Dioscorides included descriptions of herbs warding away demons in his Materia Medica, and the Testament of Solomon also describes demons causing various illnesses and which herbs will drive them away. Demons remained a part of medical theory throughout the medieval period as far as I know, they are a feature in Arab medical theory, based on the four humours.

It's interesting. The combination of demonology and medical study is fascinating.
The texts' Latin being easy, I might be able to learn and study about them when I move to Buddhism.
Thank you.

Also, the fundamental aetiology of all illnesses in Tibetan medicine are the three poisons. I don't know more about the specifics of the practices in Tibetan medicine to say much more, but I suspect they would largely be the same with burning and ingestion of certain herbs and substances; prayer and meditation could be a part of the cure in many ailments though.

Interesting. Though I have never read much about Tibetan Buddhism, I feel now it is very interesting, even important.

[quendidil]

I think Buddhism might be of more use with regards to applying its practice to your daily life than e.g. Aquinas, but if you're interested in the rest and translating with a dictionary is too time-consuming I think you could at least read them in translation.

I was unclear in the last post; Dioscorides and the ToS are in Greek. The ToS seems to be the basis for some later medieval Latin/Romance works variously titled De officiis spirituum and similar, though they lack the medical content and are more concerned with the powers of the spirits in serving the magician. There is an Arabic grimoire called the Book of Deadly Names published by Ishtar Publishing with 72 spirits with a strong focus on medical cures for ailments caused by these spirits but I don't know how authentic it is. Ishtar Publishing provides a dual Arabic-English text though.

[Junya]

quendidil wrote :

I think Buddhism might be of more use with regards to applying its practice to your daily life than e.g. Aquinas, but if you're interested in the rest and translating with a dictionary is too time-consuming I think you could at least read them in translation.

Yes, and I can think of just the opposite, that is, to keep studying Latin and Greek and learn Buddhism in translation.







quendidil wrote :

I was unclear in the last post; Dioscorides and the ToS are in Greek. The ToS seems to be the basis for some later medieval Latin/Romance works variously titled De officiis spirituum and similar, though they lack the medical content and are more concerned with the powers of the spirits....

I have read philosophical writings of Later Greek, and the Greek of them was much simple and very much easier than Aristotle's Greek, just like the contrast between the Medieval and the Roman philosophical writings' Latin. They didn't need laborious consultation of large dictionary. How about their (Dioscorides and ToS's) Greek ? I'm very interested in them.





Can I ask for more advices ?
Today I won't ask, not to annoy you.