I want to translate a classical Latin author’s work myself, and I want to work on something that’s not commonly translated for beginners, e.g., Caesar’s Gallic Wars. Any recommendations on which author I should choose? I need a text that is interesting enough to hold my attention but is relatively easy to translate for a beginner-intermediate student. I recently found Plautus’ The Brothers Manaechmus. I like the Shakespeare story. Would this be a good choice?
Gratias ago, Rusticus
You could probably have fun with it, but Plautus is a pretty difficult author - and his early date makes his Latin somewhat different from what you learn in first-year textbooks. I think it might be easy to get discouraged.
If you are set against Caesar (and I think Caesar gets dumped on unneccessarily - the Bellum Gallicum is a blast to read, I think), I will throw out a wild and crazy suggestion and say you should start with some of Martial’s epigrams. They are, for the most part, easy to read, each is short enough that you get the feeling of accomplishment of finishing a ‘whole poem’ in a single sitting, and they are really quite enjoyable - funny, dirty, biting, sarcastic. And you will come away knowing useful vocabulary like ‘scrinium’ - ‘bookbag.’
Thanks. Caesar is fine, I just was wondering if there was anything less common. Your suggestion about Martial’s epigrams sounds fun, but this project will be shared with my children and other young students. I need something more “G” or at least “PG” rated.
Any other suggestions?
Tacitus is not too bad - his style is very quick and to the point and perhaps a bit challenging here and there, but something like “Agricola” is a pretty good read. Or Suetonius perhaps?
Re poetry - considering your rejection of Martial I suspect that rules out Catullus? Another suggestion may be Vergil’s Eclogues, very PG rated and relatively short ‘stories’ to give that sense of accomplishment.
Just my thoughts!
Tacitus is not too bad - his style is very quick and to the point and perhaps a bit challenging here and there, but something like “Agricola” is a pretty good read.
I don’t recommend Tacitus if you haven’t started with something more standard. There’s far too much irregularity in Tacitus, far too much novelty. What’s worse, Tacitus usually chooses the unexpected word, making his style awfully poetic. This is fine for Romans who knew exactly what word would normally be used - and thus could appreciate the variety - but not so good for intermediate readers. Unless you’ve had a lot of exposure to straightforward Latin, it will be awfully hard to understand what Tacitus is doing. Once you have a solid foundation in reading law-abiding Latin, you won’t have as much trouble with Tacitus’ variations.
Such, at least, was my experience.
I’ve heard that the biographies of Cornelius Nepos are fairly easy to read as well as interesting. But I’ve never read any myself, or at least not much to speak of.
-David
Have a look at Apuleius’ Cupid & Psyche. It’s a fairy tale-type of mythological story, which may suit your purposes.
http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/apuleius/apuleius.cupid.shtml
Apuleius’ Cupid and Pysche and Seutonius’ Lives of the Caesars look like good ideas. The Latin appears to be more on my level, plus we can learn more about the Caesars and mythology. Any other similar suggestions?
If this is what you’re looking for, then you may want to limit what you choose from Suetonius. A visit to Tiberius on Capri is at least an NC-17 venture. 
Might I suggest you venture into the wonderful world of Medieval Latin? It tends to be a touch easier because it is quite consistent in both grammar and vocabularly and it’s differences from Classical Latin are not so glaring as to make the venture difficult. A wonderful read is Boccaccio’s De Mulieribus Claris. Also, Boethius’ Philosophiae Consolationis is brilliant, moving, and contains sections in both prose and verse. It should be easy to find as it’s included in the Loeb series. St. Thomas More’s Utopia is really wild and the vocabulary quite easy to master.
Hope these suggestions help.
Chris
Hey CDM - how different is medieval latin from, particularly Boethius, from classical latin? I believe the spelling was sometimes quite different?
Among other differences, ae and oe become e, indirect statements are often replaced by quod or quia statements (like the English “that”), intellego becomes intelligo (why?), and the distinctions between ipse, iste, ille, and is are blurred. Also, there’s a heap of new vocabulary.
Those are some that come to mind. Generally, medieval Latin can be easier, but this is not the case when reading the humanists of the late medieval ages who were attempting to return to the “purity” of Cicero and of classical Latin.
David
gratias tibi multas care Belle!
(yes I know - neuter doesn’t have a vocative)
I must agree with David. However, I find (and this is a personal preference and nothing more) that the purity sought tended to make their writing more uniform both in vocabulary and usage…not to mention more familiar to those who have studied Classical Latin. For instance, I find this very easy to read:
This is the type of Medieval prose to which I was previously referring. Smooth, to-the-point, and, at a minimum, as easy as a vergilian bucolic!
Chris
Salve, bellumpaxque,
Thanks for that little tidbit. A few days ago I was reading St. Thomas Aquinas’ Collationes in Symbolum to see how much I learned from my latin studies, and what I found that St. Thomas used “quod” excessively, very few constructions were of the acc+inf type. I was wondering if maybe that was his style; now I know this was common to all Medieval writers.
Question: is there an obligatory mood to be used after “quod” statements? I could not tell from the book I read, cause sometimes St. Thomas would write “dicit quod Christus non fuit” and at other times “dicit quod Christus non fuerit”.
Gratias iterum tibi ago.
Cura ut valeas, amice!
Mabye they took the greek example, but instead of matching mood to sequence, they though of the ‘quod’ clause as its own finite statement?
Dicit quod Christus non fuit “He says that Christ was not…”
dicit quod Christus non fuerit “He says that Christ should’ve not”
or something like that?
I would also like to know the answer to Amadeus’s question. I read some Latin from the reformation era, and I have observed that sometimes the indicative is used, and sometimes the subjunctive. I haven’t ever dug into enough to know what the “rules” of a quia/quod statement are. All I know is that there is a tendancy among many reformation authors to avoid acc.+inf. for indirect discourse.
According to Nunn’s Ecclesiastical Latin Grammar, quia, quod, or, quoniam may introduce indirect discourse with either an indicative or subjunctive verb.
There is no difference in meaning whether the indicative is used or the subjunctive.
Ah, thanks jjhayes84! Now I can sleep well… just kidding. 
Well, I really can sleep better (but I’m a nerd like that)!
I can’t speak for all of the medieval period, since I haven’t read extensively, but I can speak for the Vulgate gospels (which I did a ton of reading in last semester. I can attest to jjhayes’ quotation:
According to Nunn’s Ecclesiastical Latin Grammar, quia, quod, or, quoniam may introduce indirect discourse with either an indicative or subjunctive verb.
There is no difference in meaning whether the indicative is used or the subjunctive.
Based on my empirical collection of quod, quia, and quoniam clauses, it’s true: there’s simply no difference.
As for the quotation from Thomas More, Chris: did you see the short discussion of Utopia in the agora? It seems to be more affected than the agreeably direct sentence you posted. Of course, the sentence I’m talking about –
Cum non exigui momenti negotia quaedam invictissimus Angliae rex Henricus eius nominis octavus, omnibus egregii principis artibus ornatissimus, cum serenissimo Castellae principe Carolo(3) controversa nuper habuisset, ad ea tractanda componendaque oratorem me legavit in Flandriam.
– IS taken from the dedication. As in all works of the period, flattery was requisite.
-David
Thanks for drawing my attention to that discussion…I hadn’t seen it…and that is quite a run-on and complex sentence. I suppose More would eventually learn that flattery gets you nowhere. 
I didn’t remember the work being quite so rough and stand corrected.
Thanks,
Chris