FWIW: I am still reading Latin, and am not dead (yet)

I got about 1/2 way through City of God, then turned to Cicero, de natura deorum, to get a different picture of things, and after finishing that have now picked up Augustine again, Confessions. The main reason for reading the Confessions is that I happened to have a copy. A secondary reason is that in about 1959, I wrote an undergrad philosophy essay on Augustine’s discussion of time in the Confessions.

Many thanks for the help I have received here; these days when I run into the ditch, I can usually get out by myself. I still follow the discussions here.

Hugh, the title of this thread has cheered me up no end, so thank you. I have another little chuckle every time I look up at it. Would you recommend the Confessions for a post-post-beginner? I’ve received some good advice about working through Nepos, Sallust and Livy to begin with, but I would love to read the Confessions in Latin at some point - I was completely seduced in translation.

Hello Sean,

These are my impressions of prose works I’ve read over several years.

I suggest trying Nepos first, then Sallust. To me, both are easier than Augustine’s Confessions.

Livy to me is more difficult than Sallust, maybe harder than Augustine’s Confessions. I have put off reading LIvy, because I find it difficult.

I find Tacitus quite difficult, but I was carried on by the intrinsic interest of his Agricola, a warm encomium to his father-in-law.

Boethius’s Consolation of Philosophy is pretty hard, but James J. O’Donnell has put online a grammatical commentary. O’Donnell must have taught Boethius several times, because he has an uncanny knowledge of where the hard places are.

https://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/boethius/jkok/list_n.htm

Hi Hugh. I’m delighted to see you’re among those of us still kicking.

I’ve really enjoyed following your progress. I look forward to hearing your thoughts about the Confessions. I’ve read all of it, in English, EXCEPT the closer on time. I saved that for a time I could concentrate on it more, but haven’t found the time yet.

Randy G.

Thank you for your thoughts, they’re much appreciated. I remember wondering what Augustine was like in Latin as I read the early chapters where he discusses his training as a rhetorician, so it’s very good to know that he’s not completely out of sight! Best wishes for your Latin and continued survival.

Edit: Since writing this post I’ve found Joshua Shaw’s brand new Pharr/Steadman-style commentary on Book 1 of the Confessions, available free as a pdf. I’m sure I’ll find it very useful down the line. He says the following on his site, which I thought was interesting:

“Anticipating that some might be hesitant to teach a late Latin text early in the curriculum lest the freshly acquired grammar-rules for Caesar and Cicero — short for Classical Latin prose — collapse, I have also tried, in addition to giving rudimentary explanations of grammar and syntax, to mark off those places where Augustine transgresses Classical Latin’s “rules”. This is, of course, a pedagogical convenience rather than any outmoded view of Cicero’s superiority to all that followed.”

On reflection, I want to boost Cornelius Nepos. Reading this author came at just the right time for me, in that I could almost read him fluently, the way you want to read books. This reduced the dictionary work, and the inflection-review work. C. Nepos is the easiest unadapted Latin author I’ve read.