I’ve been somewhat stressing out over the following:
Is there any merit to translating Latin texts to English and then translating those translations back to Latin?
I remember having read somewhere that that’s how Shakespeare and English poet John Milton learned Latin. And seeing that at least John Milton was a great Latinist (the guy wrote a Latin grammar, he wrote poetry along with other works in Latin, and was the Latin Secretary to the Council of State, what ever that means, but it sure does sound important), would any of you veteran Latinists really advise against such learning method?
And now that I’m on the topic of Latin learning methods, does anyone know how Latin was taught in the Middle Ages and in the Renaissance? Was that same method perhaps used?
By Latin texts, I meant the exercises in workbooks, not a whole book in Latin. I don’t want anything to think that I meant to translate Caesar’s or any other Latin writer’s works into English and then back to Latin.
Why ever would you stress about it? But one valuable exercise can be to do just that. Not whole books, but pick a paragraph or two from an author in English translation, and retrovert into Latin. Then compare the original. Considering the differences and asking why the author made the choices he did in original composition can be quite enlightening.
I don’t think you understood what I meant. I meant the exercises in a workbook, say, for example, D’Ooge (which is the book I’m using). What I’m asking is whether there’s any merit in translating the Latin sentences to English and then back to Latin.
Although it might have been your intention to use a teaser as the title of this thread its not very helpful for future readers.
I am sure this is something which might be useful if you have time and inclination. I came across these two papers recently which give (some) arguments against and in favour of prose composition. The first paper sees prose composition as an elitist activity with its roots in the 19th century the second as a necessary part of language mastery. There are merits and problems with both lines.
Ball, Robert J., and J. D. Ellsworth, “Against Teaching Composition in Classical Languages” C. J. 85 (1989) 54-62.
Newman, J. K., “Composition: A Reply” C. J. 85 (1989) 344 - 349.
Shakespeare was not as far as we know (not that we know very much!) an accomplished Latinist. Ben Jonson wrote of him “And though thou hadst small Latin and less Greek”. He had a basic education in latin at grammar school but he did not go to University unlike Jonson who had a more thorough classical education. I suspect Shakespeare read most of his sources in translation. (Let’s not go down the Shakespeare didnt write any of the plays route )
I would not think it a useful exercise for someone reading D’Ooge. But if it interests you why not?
post script if you dont have access to JSTOR I could send you the papers if you are really interested.
I think that this might be a good idea if you have time. I still think that a structured approach to prose composition such as that provided by North and Hillard would be more helpful than making up your own random selection from say D’Ooge. The more I see of this book the less I like it.
I knew what you were asking, and I was simply making another suggestion. As for the exercises in D’Ooge, the more you interact with the Latin, the better, but Seneca has a good point about using a structured compositional approach.
My reaction after reading this was “Who shot these guys’ dogs? A Latin composition teacher?” Seriously, I experienced nothing like this in the composition courses that I took. It wasn’t about trying to imitate any ancient author’s style, it was about actively interacting with the language better to understand it. The professor I had for Greek prose composition in grad school did observe, however, that he could often figure out which author(s) a student had read the most of from their compositions (he said mine reminded him of the New Testament, which I don’t think he meant as a compliment).
At another level, it strikes me that anti-elitism is as much a distortion as elitism, and that vitriol should not be confused with sober evaluation and assessment.
Newman, J. K., “Composition: A Reply” C. J. 85 (1989) 344 - 349.
Very nice response. A little common sense, anyone?
The articles actually had some references to the approach used. They included a lot of memorizing, a lot of reciting, a lot of composition and “double translation.” In a treatise on Erasmus that I read years ago, I recall reference being made to student debates which had to be conducted in the original languages. Ancient methods were quite different, but apparently included memorizing the equivalent of phrasebooks. Having large speaking communities when the languages were living helped a lot.
I came across these two papers recently which give (some) arguments against and in favour of prose composition. The first paper sees prose composition as an elitist activity with its roots in the 19th century
Is that really the argument against prose composition? That it’s an elitiist activity? Something tells me who ever said that doesn’t know how to write in Latin
Shakespeare was not as far as we know (not that we know very much!) an accomplished Latinist.
Yes, I am aware of that. That’s why I said that Milton of the two was a great Latinist. I just mentioned Shakespeare because he supposedly went through that learning method that I mentioned, and which I’m considering.
I would not think it a useful exercise for someone reading D’Ooge. But if it interests you why not?
And why wouldn’t you considering it useful because I’m using D’Ooge?
I think that this might be a good idea if you have time. I still think that a structured approach to prose composition such as that provided by North and Hillard would be more helpful than making up your own random selection from say D’Ooge. The more I see of this book the less I like it.
This was my plan: translate the Latin exercises to English and translate my English translations back to the original Latin, then after I’m done with D’Ooge, move on to pure prose compostion (no more Latin to English translations). First, North and Hillard, then Bradley Arnold’s.
What I had been doing with D’Ooge is going to the answer key to look up the English translations and translating those to Latin. So I was using the workbook as the answer key when the exercises were in Latin. But I find that it’s better (in the beginning at least) for a student to formulate his own Latin to English translations because I’m certain that everyone has a different idea (though similar) when reading a Latin text, what with the few, and sometimes many, synonyms that a Latin word will have in English.
What do you think of this idea?
And by the way, why do you hold D’Ooge in such low regard?
The articles actually had some references to the approach used. They included a lot of memorizing, a lot of reciting, a lot of composition and > “double translation.” > In a treatise on Erasmus that I read years ago, I recall reference being made to student debates which had to be conducted in the original languages. Ancient methods were quite different, but apparently included memorizing the equivalent of phrasebooks. Having large speaking communities when the languages were living helped a lot.
By double translation, do you mean what I was originally referring to? That is, Latin to English translations, then translating one’s translations back to Latin?
I’m just remembering having read somewhere that German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche’s classical education consisted of double translations as well and he was considered a great philologist with a promising career ahead of him; but, as is known, his intellectual ambitions took him elsewhere. Interestingly, he and Gildersleeve, who got his PhD. in Germany, had the same academic adviser: Friedrich Ritschl. I don’t know how this information may matter to you all, but it’s pretty interesting to know that two great philologists in history that stand out from the rest had the same academic advisor.
)