Thanks Shenoute for your advice. I know I should do Ritchies again, but the temptation is always to do new things…
I understand 
For someone who’s finished Ritchie’s Fabulae Faciles, I think I’d recommend reading the Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata series (Familia Romana, Colloquia Personarum, Fabula Syrae, Roma Aeterna). The Latinity there is excellent and graded. There is also Intensive Intermediate Latin: A Grammar and Workbook (2015) published by Routledge, which uses excerpts from the Aeneid somewhat adapted into prose (while maintaining the poetic vocabulary).
After Ritchie’s many recommend Caesar’s De Bello Gallico.
By the way, other real ancient authors people recommend to start with are Eutropius (technically a Late Latin historian), Curtius Rufus, Cornelius Nepos, and Cato the Elder. Try them out if the topic of De Bello Gallico bores you (Cato’s On Agriculture is not exactly the most interesting reading admittedly, but his language at least is very simple).
I have tried it before unsuccessfully, but now after Ritchie’s, maybe I’ve moved up a notch?
Yeah, possibly enough to read the above texts, but of course these texts are a notch more complicated. To give you a taste, Curtius Rufus’ surviving text starts with:
Inter haec Alexander, ad conducendum ex Peloponneso militem, Cleandro cum pecunia misso, Lyciae Pamphyliaeque rebus compositis, ad urbem Celaenas exercitum admovit. Media illa tempestate, moenia interfluebat Marsyas amnis, fabulosis Graecorum carminibus inclitus.
The text starts with not one but two ablative absolutives (Cleandro…misso, rebus compositis), and then the next sentence has its main components in an interesting order: object (moenia), verb (interfluebat), subject (Marsyas amnis).
Just plain oversight. It so happens that that’s how I speak English (“when he had done this” sounds a bit awkward to me? I’m not a native speaker admittedly). Unfortunately, I cannot edit my posts.
I am also unsure if > id quod ei erat saluti > should be translated by “as it was a refuge him”.
Oh, I forgot the preposition “for” there: “as it was a refuge for him”. Or is it because this is not the right translation of salus here? What would be better?
Thanks for the advice Ser. I’m now up to Chapter 95 in Ritchie’s and using your translation with profit as you catch points I miss. This is the problem with Fabula Syrae and Roma Aeterna: There is no translation
available. (Familia Romana, which I’ve been through more than once, has a translation on Mr K’s site)
The advantage of De Bello Gallico is that there are so many old school books for grammatical help and a
literal translation on this site. Even with all that, I expect tough going, and the subject matter, as you
mentioned, is not always so interesting.
It seems to me that your translation makes “it” refer to the skin and that “refuge” is not what is meant here. As I understand it, “id” refers to the whole sentence, the fact that he had carried a skin with him, and “salus” is more “delivrance” than “refuge”.
“He had carried a skin, a fact that was his delivrance,…”/“He had carried a skin and the fact that he had was what saved him”.
Oh, I see. Moreover, uter vini is a masculine noun, so it could not be referred to with id.
Bedwere’s recommendation in the other thread of using the Latin Vulgate Bible is very good, by the way. I can’t believe I didn’t think of it, considering I myself read the Bible extensively when I was a beginner, even though I wasn’t/am not Christian at all. The Latin of the Vulgate is very very simple (you don’t really need a commentary, in my opinion!), and there’s of course a lot of translations of the book into English. If you just want to read stories in easy Latin, the Bible is a good choice.
Just finishing chapter 100 in Ritchie’s. Thanks again for your translation Ser. I do have a Vulgate Genesis through Deuteromony, with grammatical notes, on my Kindle for PC. Problem is I’m from the old school that must have a physical book to enjoy. I’ve not seen this in book form (Vulgate only Genesis through Deuteronomy–which is what I’d be interested in reading–preferably with grammatical notes)
Hi Ser,
I was glancing at one or two of your Ritchie translations and spotted this at the end of Chapter 91:
Graeci autem, etsi non multum afuit quin submergerentur,
The Greeks, however, even though it wasn’t long since they had plunged (the ship into the sea)
nullo damno accepto
no damage having been received
cursum tenuerunt.
they held the course (of the ship).
This really means (as I’m sure you’ll agree) something like:
The Greeks, however, although they had escaped by a hair’s breadth from being sunk ('it was not lacking much but that they were/might be/ sunk), no damage having been received, held (their) course.
Otherwise I have nothing but admiration for your great effort on behalf of Ritchie fans (and Angela) .
Ut valeas!
Int
Ser,
If it’s any consolation, even ‘illa Angela’ could slip up sometimes. For example, I just came across this from her Chapter 82:
Navis autem qua ipse Ulixes vehebatur
The ship however in which Ulysses himself was being carriedvi tempestatis ad meridiem delata decimo die ad litus Libyae appulsa est.
carried off by the force of the storm, towards midday of the tenth day landed on the shore of Libya.
Here, of course, ‘meridiem’ means ‘south’, not ‘noon’!
… carried away towards the south by the force of the storm …
Ut valeas!
Int