Consilium ad legendum (vel: Insanusne sum?)

[Hu]

As I posted in the "How long have you been studying the classics?" thread, I've been with Latin for four years and Greek for about a half. During that time, I'd say the greatest obstacle to my progress has been my own laziness. In high school I discovered a great deal of information on the Internet- stuff about books (Vox Latina/Graeca, The Prosody of Greek Speech) websites (William Harris's, Viva Voce, this one, even Textkit- I still have Smyth's Greek Grammar in my Favorites folder) and all sorts of things. Up until now, the great tragedy of my life (at least with regards to Greek and Latin) has been that my reach extended grasp, and for no other reason than my own lack of motivation.

However, the accomplishments of many people here have spurred me into being more motivated with my studies, and to that end I've decided (though I've been thinking about it for a while) to read, in the space of a year, all of the works of the following authors:

Greek
Aeschylus
Aristophanes
Aristotle
Demosthenes
Euclid
Euripides
Homer
Hesiod
Herodotus
Hippocrates
Isocrates
Lyric poets (Alcaeus, Alcman, Anacreon, Archilochus, Bacchylides, Ibycus, Sappho, Simonides, Solon, Theognis, Tyrtaeus, Xenophanes)
Lysias
Menander
New Testament
Pindar
Plato
Polybius
Sophocles
Thucydides
Xenophon

Latin
Catullus
Cæsar
Cato
Cicer?
Ennius
Horace
Livius
Lucan
Lucrētius
Marti?lis
Ovidius
Petronius
Plautus
Plinius (utrīque)
Propertius
Sallust
Statius
Suetonius
Tacitus
Tibullus
Vergilius
Vulgate
Vitruvius

Hence the question, "Insanusne sum?". It has occurred to me that I could easily read English translations of all these works in a year, but reading the original languages as easily as English is a more difficult question. Being able to do so, however, would give me a great deal of satisfaction. In truth, I'm not going to be satisfied until I can read (as well as write and speak) these languages as easily as English. (How long that will take is anyone's guess, though.)

In particular, I'd like to finish the entire Iliad and Aeneid before I turn 20 (on March 20, 2007). I have no reason for doing this other than that GlottalGreekGeek finished the Iliad before she graduated from high school. It's half a year late (and increasing) for that, but I can still read the whole thing while I'm a teenager, which gives me somewhat less than five and a half months. I'm halfway through Pharr (41 chapters to go), which means that I could finish the entire book by mid-November if I do a chapter a day (but a lot of the later chapters are simply reading, with no grammar, so I could probably finish them faster than the earlier ones).

As for Latin, once I've finished Lingua Latina I for good (probably today or Wednesday), I'm going to go right into De Bello Gallico, an OCT of which I've borrowed from my university library.

So what do you think?

[Amadeus]

However, the accomplishments of many people here have spurred me into being more motivated with my studies, and to that end I've decided (though I've been thinking about it for a while) to read, in the space of a year, all of the works of the following authors:

Whoa! That's a bit much, don't you think? Don't get me wrong, it's a very noble aspiration, and I commend you on trying to structure your life around the classics, but... I think you'll find it easier and more enjoyable if you extend your deadline to, say, 2 years, because, let us suppose, what if you don't reach your goal? What if you do manage to read some of those works but end up retaining nothing? You'll be setting yourself up for a big dissapointment. This happened to me while trying to read Faust at light-speed for my literature class, a few years ago. You could also just pick out the opus magnum of each of these authors, instead of trying to read all their works.

As for Latin, once I've finished Lingua Latina I for good (probably today or Wednesday), I'm going to go right into De Bello Gallico, an OCT of which I've borrowed from my university library.

So what do you think?

You should also finish Lingua Latina Pars II: Roman Aeterna.

Bene, cura ut valeas, amice!

Post scriptum: what Greek course are you taking?

[cantator]

However, the accomplishments of many people here have spurred me into being more motivated with my studies, and to that end I've decided (though I've been thinking about it for a while) to read, in the space of a year, all of the works of the following authors:
[snip]

So what do you think?

Pick two from your lists, read them thoroughly, then read them again, and then read them again. If they're big enough (e.g. Homer, the Vulgate, Vergil) you'll be able to read the others with less hesitation.

IMO you really will learn more and better by restricting your selections and knowing them in greater depth.

[Hu]

Whoa! That's a bit much, don't you think? Don't get me wrong, it's a very noble aspiration, and I commend you on trying to structure your life around the classics, but...

I'm not trying to structure my life around the classics.

I think you'll find it easier and more enjoyable if you extend your deadline to, say, 2 years, because, let us suppose, what if you don't reach your goal? What if you do manage to read some of those works but end up retaining nothing?

How much I'd retain anyway is debatable- I just want to experience these authors like any English author. There will be plenty of time later to get into details.

You could also just pick out the opus magnum of each of theseauthors, instead of trying to read all their works.

I considered that, but I wanted to be able to read Latin and Greek with fluency and ease, and the only way to do that is to read real authors. I was tired of constantly feeling like I had a great deal of work to do (more of my laziness for you), so I resolved to do something about it. This is what I came up with.

If I don't succeed, as least I'l have tried to read these languages with something approaching natural fluency and skill- something many people, in my experience, can't do.

You should also finish Lingua Latina Pars II: Roman Aeterna.

I considered that, but I feel it's better to simply read real Latin, which is the goal.

Post scriptum: what Greek course are you taking?

None. I've only had five classics courses (Latin 1/2/3, Intermediate Latin, and Latin lyric poetry) so far in my education.

IMO you really will learn more and better by restricting your selections and knowing them in greater depth.

There is that argument, but I feel like experiencing the entire classical corpus before going into specifics. Depth will come after I've gotten a sense of what real Greek is like from a wide variety of authors.

[GlottalGreekGeek]

I thought *my* Greek goals for the year were insane ... but compared to yours, they look very sane

I wonder, do you plan to read all these cold-turkey, or will you look up unknown vocabulary?

I have no reason for doing this other than that GlottalGreekGeek finished the Iliad before she graduated from high school.

Oh. My.

*cackles*

Y'know, my original goal was to read 6-7 books off the Iliad before I graduated high school. When I finished book 7 towards the end of January, and I had read it in about a week and a half, I decided to ... expand. Towards the end, I was up to the pace of a book in two days. It just happened to be at the busiest part of the year that I finished the Iliad at the fabulous rate of a book every 2-3 days - I actually think being busy with the senior theatre production and studying for 7 AP exams simutaneously helped, since I was in the habit of doing things with my time rather than being lazy (and yes, my social life had evaporated during this very busy period).

Anyway ... see how far you get in a month. It might help if you prepare for seven AP exams on top of trying to read all that Latin and Greek. Of course, in your case, you might need to study for 20 AP exams to put yourself at the right workaholic pitch Oh, and you also need to be seriously involved in at least three demanding theatre productions too.

[spiphany]

I would say that's an ambitious list to read even in English over the course of a year (and I'm a pretty fast reader) -- some of these authors have written more than you might realize.
Not that you should let that stop you, of course. I thoroughly believe in challenging oneself.

BUT, just to put things in perspective a bit, this is the reading list for the masters program at the local university:

Greek
Archaic Poetry
Homer: 10 books
Hesiod and Homeric Hymns: 1000 lines
iambus and elegy: 400 lines
lyric (excluding Pindar): 400 lines
Pindar: 400 lines
Drama
Tragedy 5 plays (must include one each by Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides)
Comedy 2 plays (must include one by Aristophanes)
History and Oratory
Historians: 200 OCT pages (must include at least 75 pages of Herodotus and 75 pages of Thucydides)
Orators: 80 OCT pages (must include one whole speech each by Lysias and Demosthenes)
Philosophy
200 OCT pages (must include at least 75 pages of Plato and 75 pages of Aristotle)
Hellenistic Poetry
500 lines (must include at least one whole Idyll of Theocritus)
Prose by other authors
100 OCT pages

Latin
Lyric, Elegy, Epigram
Catullus: 1000 lines
Horace: 1000 lines
Ovid: 500 lines
Propertius and Tibullus: 1000 lines
Martial: 200 lines
Epic
7 books (must include one each by Lucretius and Ovid and four by Virgil)
Drama
Tragedy: 1 play
Comedy: 3 plays (must include one each by Plautus and Terence)
Other Poetry
Satire: 1000 lines (must include one each by Horace and Juvenal)
Virgil, Eclogues and Georgics: 1000 lines (must include one whole Eclogue and Georgic)
Other Poetry: 500 lines
Classical Prose
At least OCT 50 pages each by: Caesar, Cicero, Livy, Sallust,
Suetonius, Tacitus
Letters: 50 pages
Other prose
80 OCT pages
Later Latin
60 OCT pages of prose and/or poetry after 193 A.D.

In other words, if you manage to accomplish all that in a year, you'll have done considerably more than many graduate students.

[GlottalGreekGeek]

You know, I hope to have the Greek side of that list covered before I earn my first college degree (well, it's not my specific goal, but I think I will incidently cover all the Greek reading required by most grad programs during said time). Of course, I will completely skip the Latin list.

[bellum paxque]

Hu,

Do you intend to quit school while you're doing this?

In my opinion, a better plan would be to make a firm resolution to read a for a set amount of hours every day. Perhaps, after a month of tracking your progress, you could then plan a reading list that represents your actual ability.

I doubt that anyone could read the entire classical corpus in one year (!)

-David

PS - Roma Aeterna IS real Latin - at least, the first half of it gently abridged and adapted texts, but the rest is completely real. The great thing about it is the tricky vocabulary is glossed on the sides...I strongly recommend you read look at it, at the least.

[Hu]

some of these authors have written more than you might realize.

Perhaps, and I don't intend to read every single last work, but mainly the significant texts that have shaped Western civilization.

In other words, if you manage to accomplish all that in a year, you'll have done considerably more than many graduate students.

One thing I feel is very shameful is just how incompetent many classics students are in reading the languages- Latin and Greek are no more complex than English, yet a reading (or perhaps "translation" would be more apt) rate of 20 lines of poetry an hour is the average for undergraduate courses (if my lyric poetry class was any indication). I feel like this is ridiculous.

For example, take De Bello Gallico. I'm currently reading a book with type a little larger than the OCT of Gallico (and with fairly larger pages), and the amount I've read in a few days is a bit more than half the thickness of the Gallico OCT. Why should Caesar be any different than this book written in English? That thought was the genesis of this plan. Of course, I can't read Latin as well as English- yet. So what do I plan to do? Read a lot of Latin.

Do you intend to quit school while you're doing this?

Of course not (although I detect some jocularity in this remark).

In my opinion, a better plan would be to make a firm resolution to read a for a set amount of hours every day. Perhaps, after a month of tracking your progress, you could then plan a reading list that represents your actual ability.

I could, but I'd feel better trying at something reasonably challenging.

I doubt that anyone could read the entire classical corpus in one year (!)

My main goal in doing this was to have a survey of the principal classical authors, not the entire thing. And as I posted, if they were in English, I could easily read them all in a year (I've seen my university library's stacks of OCTs, Teubners, and Loebs). It'd be a lot of reading, but manageable.

PS - Roma Aeterna IS real Latin - at least, the first half of it gently abridged and adapted texts, but the rest is completely real. The great thing about it is the tricky vocabulary is glossed on the sides...I strongly recommend you read look at it, at the least.

I'm aware of Roma Aeterna (I have it), but I feel that it'd be better to just go straight into a text, from start to finish.

[Didymus]

Omnes liberi OCT sunt nisi aliud dico:

Liberi Graeci --
Aeschylus: 348 pp.
Aristophanes: vol. 1 364 pp.; vol. 2 366 pp.
Aristotle: Ethica Nicomachea 272 pp.; Metaphysica 336 pp.; De Arte Poetica 94 pp.; [Ar.] Atheniensium Respublica 86 pp.; Analytica Priora et Posteriora 210 pp.; Categoriae et Liber de Interpretatione 120 pp.; Physica 214 pp.; Topica et Sophistici Elenchi 270 pp.; Politica 292 pp.; Ars Rhetorica 224 pp.; Fragmenta Selecta 170 pp.
Demosthenes: vol. 1 352 pp.; vol. 2 432 pp.; vol. 3 452 pp.
Euclid: OCT non exstat; Teubner exstat sed hodie non imprimitur -- quot sint pp. nescio. Si vis opera Euclidis legere, puto editionem mathematicorum Graecorum omnium a T.L. Heath editam exstare. Loeb quoque exstat. Re vera autem non sunt plures qui velint hos tomos legere. Ego alio T.L. Heath libero (Anglice scripto) usus sum.
Euripides: vol. 1 416 pp.; vol. 2 388 pp.; vol. 3 492 pp.
Homer: vol. 1 304 pp.; vol. 2 320 pp.; vol. 3 244 pp.; vol. 4 240 pp.; vol. 5 (Hymni et cetera; forsitan hunc tomum omittere velis) 294 pp.
Hesiod: 276 pp.
Herodotus vol. 1 423 pp.; vol. 2 436 pp.
Hippocrates: Neque OCT exstat nec Teubner; editionem nescio optimam. Numquam Hippocratis liberos legere volui.
Isocrates: vol 1. 429 pp.; vol. 2 286 pp.; vol. 3 319 pp. (OCT non exstat; hae pp. Teubnerianae sunt.)
Lyrica Graeca: 276 pp. (OCT solum "selecta" lyrica continet.)
Lysias: 290 pp.
Menander: 372 pp. (reliquiae profecto selectae)
New Testament: OCT profecto non exstat; editionem nescio optimam. Editionem translatorum in usum editam domi habeo; quot cuius pp. sint scire si vis tibi vesperi dicere possum.
Pindar: 302 pp.
Plato: vol 1. 604 pp.; vol. 2 410 pp.; vol. 3 528 pp.; vol. 4 554 pp. (Hic tomus Platonis Rempublicam continet; editio nova quae solum Rempublicam continet exstat ab S.R. Slings edita [452 pp.]); vol. 5 610 pp.
Polybius: OCT non exstat; Teubner exstat sed pp. mihi videntur ab Teubner et Amazon ignotae. 5 vol.
Sophocles: 450 pp.
Thucydides: vol. 1 350 pp.; vol. 2 328 pp.
Xenophon: vol. 1 294 pp.; vol. 2 292 pp.; vol. 3 266 pp.; vol. 4 (in hoc tomo quot sint pp. mihi videtur ignotum); vol. 5 250 pp.

Liberi Romani --
Catullus: 136 pp.
Caesar: vol. 1 239 pp.; vol. 2 304 pp.
Cato: Neque OCT exstat nec Teubner. Editionem nescio optimam. Scripsitne ille liberos alios quam De Agricultura?
Cicero: vol. 1 466 pp.; vol. 2 366 pp.; vol. 3 350 pp.; vol. 4 366 pp.; vol. 5 190 pp.; 341 pp.; vol. 6 492 pp.; vol. 7 304 pp.; vol. 8 pp. 258; vol. 9 568 pp.; vol. 10 236 pp.; vol. 11 354 pp.; vol. 12 260 pp.; vol. 13 276 pp.; vol. 14 192 Ennius: Editionem nescio optimam. Quot exstant huius fragmenta? Nimirum non multa. Me editionem meminisse puto a Skutsch editam quae continet fragmenta quae exstant scriptorum antiquorum, sed non pro certo habeo.
Horace: 268 pp.
Livy: vol. 1 416 pp.; vol. 2 414 pp.; vol. 3 438 pp.; vol. 4 512 pp.; vol. 5 356 pp.; vol. 6 424 pp.
Lucan: OCT non exstat; editio Teubneriana exstat quae liberum X continet, quot autem sint pp. nescio.
Lucretius: 254 pp.
Martial: 490 pp.
Ovid: vol. 1 584 pp.; vol. 2 288 pp.; vol. 3 365 pp.
Petronius: 248 pp. (OCT non[dum] exstat; hae pp. Teubnerianae sunt.)
Plautus: vol. 1 528 pp.; vol. 2 590 pp.
Pliny: 386 pp. (Litterae iunioris; editionem senioris scriptorum nescio optimam.)
Propertius: 188 pp.
Sallust: 280 pp.
Statius: 198 pp.
Suetonius: Neque OCT exstat nec Teubner (vol. 1 Teubnerianum exstat, quot cuius sint pp. nescio).
Tacitus: vol. 1 430 pp.; vol. 2 272 pp.; vol. 3 128 pp.
Terence: 344 pp.
Tibullus: 80 pp.
Vergil: 468 pp.
Vulgate: Neque OCT exstat nec Teubner. Editionem nescio optimam.
Vitruvius: Neque OCT exstat nec Teubner. Editionem nescio optimam.

Terentium addidi.

pp. in toto Graecorum: 15,645
pp. in toto Romanorum: 14,142
pp. in toto omnium: 29,787

Alios scriptores quoque aliquibus tuis praefero; e.g. Apollonium Theocritum Callimachum Senecam; sed, ut aiunt, "de gustibus." Ut videre potes, editiones aliquas reperire non potui; haud scio an 40,000 pp. recte sint in toto. Tibi necesse erit cotidie legere inter 80 et 110 pp ut omnes uno in anno legeas. Fieri potest ut Anglice tantum facile legere possis, sed Graece Latineque ...

Memento etiam legenda esse commentarios, lexica, et cetera. Non tibi dicam fieri non posse, sed intellegere potes quam difficile sit. Forsitan velis legere liberos selectos in linguis antiquis ac reliquos Anglice?

Si etiamnunc omnes legere in linguis antiquis intendis, necessere erit cernere quibus editionibus velis uti. Fortasse omnes qui in Textkit scribunt debent opiniones dicere de liberis optimis (editionibus, commentariis, etc.) quae sint.

Optimam fortunam!

[cdm2003]

Neque OCT exstat nec Teubner. Editionem nescio optimam.

Is something wrong with the Loeb editions of these works? I've found, for example, that the Loeb Suetonius is great. I'm not praising the perfection or simplicity of their English translations, but for the Latin, their additions are great, affordable, and for the most part in print and easy to purchase.

As for the Vulgate, I have a 19th century edition published out of France that not only suits me but is absolutely beautiful.

Chris

[perispomenon]

In particular, I'd like to finish the entire Iliad and Aeneid before I turn 20 (on March 20, 2007). I have no reason for doing this other than that GlottalGreekGeek finished the Iliad before she graduated from high school.

Don't miss out on the Odyssey! And is that really your ONLY reason????

[Hu]

Alios scriptores quoque aliquibus tuis praefero; e.g. Apollonium Theocritum Callimachum Senecam; sed, ut aiunt, "de gustibus." Ut videre potes, editiones aliquas reperire non potui; haud scio an 40,000 pp. recte sint in toto. Tibi necesse erit cotidie legere inter 80 et 110 pp ut omnes uno in anno legeas. Fieri potest ut Anglice tantum facile legere possis, sed Graece Latineque ...

Hi auctores numerati sunt in paulo temporis; vero quosdam oblitus sum, quos spero numerare postquam incepi legere.

Legere 80-100 paginas cotidie non difficile est, habeo nam facultatem legere tantum in Anglice. Posse fieri idem Latine Graeceque est, ut ais, difficilius, sed vero potest fieri a quibusdam discipulis harum linguarum, et cupio esse in illorum numero.

Memento etiam legenda esse commentarios, lexica, et cetera. Non tibi dicam fieri non posse, sed intellegere potes quam difficile sit. Forsitan velis legere liberos selectos in linguis antiquis ac reliquos Anglice?

Talis res mihi non placeat; ut dixi, possum legere omnes hos auctores in Anglica, sed multo maius esse censeo legere in Latina Graecaque. Etiamsi non perficiam, temptavero.

Si etiamnunc omnes legere in linguis antiquis intendis, necessere erit cernere quibus editionibus velis uti.
Optimam fortunam!

Intendo uti OCTibus a mea universitatis bibliotheca, vel fortasse Teubneres vel Loebes. Sed est sex unius, dimidius duodecim alii, ut aiunt.

[Didymus]

Legere 80-100 paginas cotidie non difficile est, habeo nam facultatem legere tantum in Anglice. Posse fieri idem Latine Graeceque est, ut ais, difficilius, sed vero potest fieri a quibusdam discipulis harum linguarum, et cupio esse in illorum numero.

Aliud est legere 80 pp. Caesaris, aliud est legere 80 pp. Pindari. Neminem habeo cognitum qui possit facere id quod vis; sed tempta tu! Temptando, sine dubio, multa disces. Auctores de tot variis saeculis Graecos in tam paulo tempore legere difficillimum fore ausim dicere vel M.L. West vel Hugh Lloyd-Jones, ne dicam ei qui linguam minus anno studuerit. Sed tolle, lege!

[Hu]

Aliud est legere 80 pp. Caesaris, aliud est legere 80 pp. Pindari. Neminem habeo cognitum qui possit facere id quod vis; sed tempta tu! Temptando, sine dubio, multa disces. Auctores de tot variis saeculis Graecos in tam paulo tempore legere difficillimum fore ausim dicere vel M.L. West vel Hugh Lloyd-Jones, ne dicam ei qui linguam minus anno studuerit. Sed tolle, lege!

Estne Pindarus tam difficilior legere? Certo Graeci Romanique hoc facere poterant; quare impossiblilis sit mihi? Scio quod dices: "Nec Romanus nec Graecus es". Et deinde? Idem genus mentis habeo ut illi. Ut dixi, Latina Graecaque non multipliciores sunt quam Anglica, sed differentes sunt, quae est radix problemorum in discendo illas linguas. Credere non possum quamobrem omnes existimatis hoc tam difficilis esse. Nonne cupistis facultatem legendi Latinam ut Anglicam (aut quidquid tua lingua nativa sit)? Nonne consilia ad hunc finem fecistis? Hoc est tale consilium.

[Didymus]

Estne difficile Pindarum legere? Pro te respondere non possum, sed mihi difficillimum est. Nimis autem loquendi esse puto; non enim tibi persuadere conor ut hoc inceptum omittas antequam incepisti. Ad bibliothecam velim eas ac Pindari OCT reperias. Unam horam lege et nobis dic utrum difficile sit necne. Si vis, etiam nobis nuntiare potes quot pp. legeris. Profecto eadem pro quovis auctore facere potes. Postquam haec fecisti, melius scis utrum hoc consilium sit insanum necne.

[bellum paxque]

Hu,

Are you trying to make a philosophical point by claiming that, if the Romans and Greeks could read all of these texts in a year, we should be able to as well? Isn't this equivalent to saying that a Chinese scholar can read a significant portion of that country's classical literature - and so should we!

Clearly the point is not what the human mind is capable of doing, but rather whether we have the requisite grammatical understanding, lexical breadth, and fluency to read that many pages in one year. Obviously, if you spend enough time and labor, you can read Greek and Latin with a nearly Roman proficiency.

I simply ask, have you spent enough time and labor to achieve that?

Regards,

David

[Hu]

Hu,

Are you trying to make a philosophical point by claiming that, if the Romans and Greeks could read all of these texts in a year, we should be able to as well?

Of course we should be able to, but in my experience not many people can do that. But why? Why are they content with their plodding pace and not satisfied with having as much proficiency as in modern languages?

Isn't this equivalent to saying that a Chinese scholar can read a significant portion of that country's classical literature - and so should we

Should we? That depends on personal preference. I know that, for as long as I've been learning Latin, I've felt like I have the huge burden of experiencing the classics in the original to get over with before I can rest. I remember thinking, "How am I ever going to learn all these words?" when I got my first Latin dictionary. Simply experiencing the classics (in particular, the important authors) is what I want to get done.

Clearly the point is not what the human mind is capable of doing, but rather whether we have the requisite grammatical understanding, lexical breadth, and fluency to read that many pages in one year. Obviously, if you spend enough time and labor, you can read Greek and Latin with a nearly Roman proficiency.

"Nearly"?

I simply ask, have you spent enough time and labor to achieve that?

Have I spent enough time and labor as of the current moment? No- which is what this idea is all about. I paln to spend that time (however much I'll need) to be able to do that.

[bellum paxque]

Of course we should be able to, but in my experience not many people can do that. But why? Why are they content with their plodding pace and not satisfied with having as much proficiency as in modern languages?

For one thing, people who are reading Latin and Greek are tackling much more difficult texts than their counterparts in French or Italian. For another, at least for us native speakers of English, Latin and Greek are qualitatively more difficult than French, Italian, or other modern languages (in the European sense).

But, I agree with you - we should aim for reading fluency. However, achieving that goal is a difficult process and requires persistence and, frankly, sweat.

Quote:
Isn't this equivalent to saying that a Chinese scholar can read a significant portion of that country's classical literature - and so should we

Should we? That depends on personal preference. I know that, for as long as I've been learning Latin, I've felt like I have the huge burden of experiencing the classics in the original to get over with before I can rest. I remember thinking, "How am I ever going to learn all these words?" when I got my first Latin dictionary. Simply experiencing the classics (in particular, the important authors) is what I want to get done.

I think that we may be communicating at cross-purposes. I'm simply saying that it's irrational to assume that RIGHT NOW we can read as much of Latin & Greek as we can in English. I certainly agree with you that we students of the classics should strive toward that goal. But as much as I'd like to read your massive list in a year, I'm not about to see myself that goal since I consider it impossible.

Quote:
Clearly the point is not what the human mind is capable of doing, but rather whether we have the requisite grammatical understanding, lexical breadth, and fluency to read that many pages in one year. Obviously, if you spend enough time and labor, you can read Greek and Latin with a nearly Roman proficiency.

"Nearly"?

Yes, nearly. Even if I spend the rest of my life studying, say, Korean (I'm living in Korea right now), it's never going to be as natural and automatic for me as for a native speaker of Korean. So I think we can be "nearly" as fluent as a Roman when reading Latin; possibly we can be just as fluent in reading Greek, since (I presume) the majority of Romans were not completely bilingual.

Quote:
I simply ask, have you spent enough time and labor to achieve that?

Have I spent enough time and labor as of the current moment? No- which is what this idea is all about. I paln to spend that time (however much I'll need) to be able to do that.

And I consider that a valuable and laudable goal. I only hope that you do not expect to reach the necessary level of proficiency in a mere year - especially in Greek.

Good luck in your endeavors.

David

[Didymus]

Let's take it as a given that the overwhelming majority of us cannot read Greek and Latin as quickly as we can a modern language. The question I would like to ask is: what slows you down?

For me the answer to that question is vocabulary. Looking up vocabulary is tremendously time-consuming, and I think it's a chore that never goes away. My vocabulary has grown over the years, and it will only continue to grow, but sometimes I wonder whether by the time I can really say that I have a really decent vocabulary I will have already read everything worth reading in Classical literature (the corpus is big, but the corpus of "worthwhile" stuff isn't overwhelmingly huge -- not a year's reading, but 10, perhaps, for me).

I try to learn vocabulary both by composition and by learning as I read, but reinforcement, especially with reading, can be infrequent. For me vocabulary is the reason I can't read like a Roman or an Athenian -- they spoke the language every day and heard it from the moment of their birth. I can't see any way that I can hope to replicate that experience.

What slows you down? How are you working to overcome those challenges and get better and faster?

[GlottalGreekGeek]

I am also slowed down mainly by vocab, but most texts I can get the gist without looking up vocab (particularly Homer, since I reckon I can recognize about 5,000 words from Homeric vocabulary in context on sight, and the Homeric corpus only has a vocabulary of roughly 10,000 words). As I read more widely in other eras, I expect that the 'gist' I get from cold-reads will become more detailed and lucid.

[cdm2003]

It's vocab for me as well. I still work with graded readers...taking a paragraph, page, or chapter at a time, depending on how much new vocabulary is containted within. I always write the new vocabulary in the margins or at the top of the page but never with the English definitions, so as to encourage myself to memorize the word. Once I've got the section mastered, I move on, but do come back at some point and reread the section to try to keep myself from forgetting any vocabularly that I've learned that isn't subsequently reinforced.

Zipf's Law very roughly suggests that in any natural text we read, approximately 50% of the vocabularly contained therein will be repeated at least once. This also means that approximately 50% of the vocabularly is unique within that work. Since it's unique, it's not repeated, and consequently not reinforced within that particular text. Readers of Latin and Greek, I imagine, have the odds against them, as the corpus we have to draw from is specialized and fairly unnatural (in the sense that others, not us, have determined which of the ancient works would survive and which would not).

Chris

[thesaurus]

I'm new to Greek and Latin, but I have spent a fair amount of time studying literature and philosophy. Is it possible to read through all the works of all the great ancient philosophers and poets in English in one year? Surely. What would you get out of it? Next to nothing.

This is no slight to your ability to assimilate languages. The value of great literature goes much deeper than anything you can pick up on a quick pass. I'm a fairly serious student of English literature, but it would be pointless for me to try to cram all the greatest novels into a short space of time... not to mention the poetry. I'd rather someone never read a line of Shakespeare than try to read all his works without stopping to reflect on each one. Frankly, I think too much haste ruins the whole point of reading literature in the first place. Why speed read "Moby-Dic k" when all you'll remember is that it was about a white whale? In other words, even reading in one's native tounge requires one to take time and read critically.

If you are trying to reach fluency I suggest that you follow the advice others have given: set aside a specified amont of time each day in which to read. Read as much as you can in that period of time, and keep coming back to it day after day.

[cantator]

I still work with graded readers...

As do I. In fact, I prefer them to the Loeb and similar editions, primarily for their (potentially) informative notes. Vocabulary is less of a difficulty for me now, but I'm always in need of background information. I've even come to prefer certain editors (Sedgwick rules!).

I'm coming to the end of Dunmore's Selections From Ovid, and I'm now reading large chunks with no vocabulary or other grammatical aid. The other day I read Rimbaud's Jugurtha, again without benefit of included vocab. I think I looked up two words, the rest I could read at sight. I also keep a small book of annotated prose and poetry selections with me at all times, you never know when the opportunity for practice might arise.