Reading Advice

Latin Learning Latin
1

I have extensive though distant background in Wheelock; and for the past two years ecclesiastical latin via Collins; I’ve been reading the Vulgate every morning; and the text now seems almost “second nature” to me.

I’d like to expand my reading and have in mind either the Confessions or The Consolation of Philosophy. Spending a bit of time peaking at both texts, I was surprised to find that St. Augustine was a bit more accessible; I’ve heard his syntax can be a nightmare (and indeed it is haha :smiley: ), though Boethius seemed even more difficult.

Tackling either volume is going to be a monumental task - that’s a given. However, while eventually I would like to read both, would anyone be willing to recommend that I first go with one or the other? Of course, I’ll be making liberal use of student editions/commentaries.

Many thanks for your advice in advance! :slight_smile:

2

Augustine. Not only is his Latinity decent, but he interacts fairly extensively with classical culture and philosophy, and is extraordinarily seminal for the church moving forward from his time.

3

Many thanks - yes, and yet there is also so much to recommend Boethius; and I’ll be reading both, so really the question comes down to “which first?” And much of that question depends upon relative difficulty.

4

I don’t think you’ll go wrong either way, but remember that while Boethius is likely to have read Augustine, Augustine never read Boethius, so that Augustine may help you more with your Boethius than the other way round. I can’t speak to relative difficulty since I’ve never read Boethius.

5

I think all the points listed by Barry in favour of Augustine can be applied to Boethius as well. He, too, was read and engaged with widely in the following ages.

However, I think one of the big differences is that Boethius’ work is a prosimetrum, i.e. a combination of prose and verse, while the Confessiones are prose. Engaging with verse might be challenging in the beginning, but it is also rewarding. You might also read Boethius’ prose and read the verse in translation, at least initially.

6

Very good point; there’s something in that.

7

I agree.

However, I think one of the big differences is that Boethius’ work is a prosimetrum, i.e. a combination of prose and verse, while the Confessiones are prose. Engaging with verse might be challenging in the beginning, but it is also rewarding. You might also read Boethius’ prose and read the verse in translation, at least initially.

Yes, that’s exactly one of the reasons I immediately felt “at sea” - but the rewards, as you say, would be worth it, I’m sure. Your strategy is a good one, thanks!

8

Any other advice would be most welcome. Cheers to all! :slight_smile:

9

Another author you might want to check out is Lactantius (the “Christian Cicero”, according to Pico della Mirandola), specifically his Epitome Divinarum Institutionum, which is not a difficult read and might suit your interests.

10

Many thanks for that excellent suggestion; I am embarrassed to say that I had never heard of him. The only text I can find is directly from the Patrologia Latina (Migne) - which I could download/format and have printed (hate reading online beyond a few paragraphs.)

Any suggestions for texts? [EDIT: Found it, thanks! :sunglasses: ]

Many thanks again! :slight_smile:

11

Salvete, amici!

Barry, I also wanted to read Augustine’s Confessiones, but also found the syntax very challenging, even though the vocabulary itself wasn’t bad. I am way more comfortable with reading the Vulgate. But, I want to expand my reading of Christian Latin, and due to Augustine’s importance in theology, I want to read him too. I reluctantly am putting him aside for a while, and trying Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, which at first glance seems easier. Before I go back to Augustine, can you suggest some key areas of Latin syntax I could read up on (particularly in free online resources) that would help in reading him? I assume some of these are covered in the grammars, and I also found J. Fletcher’s S_hort Handbook of Latin Accidence and Syntax_ on archive.org. As for my Latin grammar background, it is all self-taught. I’ve been about a quarter of the way through Wheelock twice, and all the way through the Cambridge Latin Course volumes (North American Ed.).

12

Really, Wheelock has all you need for syntax. The best thing you can do is read your actual author, and use the grammar of your choice as a reference. Plenty of free resources online as well, and search Textkit for discussions on grammar and resources.

13

I tend to find the syntax confusing and difficult whenever I pick up a new author. I think you just have to get used to it each time, and it could take anywhere from a couple dozen to hundreds of pages.

14

Good observation. The linguistic terms for this is “idiolect.” Each user of the language handles it in their own way. Such differences are minor to the point of not being noticed by native speakers, but for those learning the language, can be difficult. Perseverance is the key.

15

Good advice, thanks. The main thing, I think, as for as using the grammar references, is that I am not always sure what category the particular construction might be in. I have spent a fair amount of time over the years browsing Greek grammars (particularly Smyth and A.T. Robertson, as well as Dana and Mantey). The only Latin grammar I’ve spent much time with is Wheelock. I had hoped O’Donnell’s commentaries had a grammatical and vocabulary focus, or at least some sections focusing on that for the Confessions. But it seems his main focus is the rhetorical structure and philosophical content, as well as theology. All useful, of course, but not entirely what I was looking for. Though of course I’ll use his material when I start back on the work.

16

I’ve heard his syntax can be a nightmare



but also found the syntax very challenging



I tend to find the syntax confusing and difficult whenever I pick up a new author.

katzenjammer, persequor, praepositus -

Let’s be clear: Nobody’s, no work’s, “syntax” is difficult. You may find someone’s style initally difficult (the often intricate sentences in a Cicero oration). You may find some subject matter initially difficult (Boethius on Aristotle). You may find the especially flexible word order of classical Latin poetry initially difficult. But you are all simply experiencing and saying the obvious: It takes lots of practice to learn to read a foreign language, any language, ancient or modern, comfortably.

Just follow Barry’s advice, here somewhat expanded.

  1. Get one grammar under your belt (Wheelock is just fine). Go through it again if it’s been a while and you’ve never really applied it.

  2. Choose the work you would most want to have read in Latin if you knew you were going to die in a year. Forget about its alleged difficulty. For a lengthy work like the Confessions, narrow your initial goal to the first book. Or even more narrow, say Book One’s opening prayer and meditation, followed by the section on infancy, etc. There’s no shame, by the way, in reading the section in English first (as we get better, some of us like the challenge from time to time of reading something in the original without previously knowing much about its contents, but that’s as we get better). When you finish that first section, pat yourself on the back, have a glass of champagne. And maybe re-read it. There’s so much we want to get to before we die in a year, but reinforcement of material you’ve already slogged through once is very beneficial to your language acquisition and also a pleasant experience.

  3. Read the first word (Magnus). What are the possibilities for its role in the sentence? Clearly, if you know your noun & adjective forms, it’s nominative and therefore going to be the sentence’s subject. It’s also masculine and going to modify something masculine.

  • Read the second word (es). If you know your verb forms, Augustine is speaking to an individual (you, second person singular), predicating that he (magnus) is magnus. I wonder who he’s addressing!

  • Well, read the third word (domine). Again, if you know your verb forms, you know domine is what your mind already expects at this point: a vocative (you’d really be scratching your head if it were, say, domino).

  • Read the next word (et). What is its likely role in the sentence? It’s a conjunction, i.e., it’s going to connect something to something. What to what? It could be connecting a second independent clause (“You are great, Lord, and to you I dedicate this book …”). It could be connecting a second attribute (“You are great, Lord, and wise …”).

  • The suspense is killing you, so go ahead and read the next word (laudabilis). If you know your noun & adjective forms, you know laudabilis is either singular nominative or singular genitive, masculine or feminine. The sentence has already prepared you to decide with about 95% certainty that it’s nominative masculine. I say 95% because genitive singular, even genitive singular feminine, is, while unlikely, not impossible (et laudabilis virtutis manifestatio es). I have already said several times “if you know your forms”. If you have to stop and think about them, put down the book, confess to yourself you didn’t do a good job of memorizing them, and take your medicine; otherwise, the process is just going to be too painful.

  • Read the next word (valde). What is its role in the sentence? You recognize that it is an adverb, so it must modify something. Does it modify what went before it (es or laudabilis?), or something that’s going to come after it? In the edition I’m looking at, there is punctuation that helps me answer that: Magnus es, domine, et laudabilis valde:. The colon terminates the independent clause you’ve just read and suggests, more closely than a period would, a close connection to the presumably new independent clause that follows. In a good edition, punctuation is your friend.

  • Read the next word (magna). The first thing that strikes you is the repetition, magnus … magna. What is magna’s role in the presumably new clause? Knowing your noun & adjective forms, you know that magna could be feminine singular nominative (hmmm, parallel to Magnus in case, in that case, but not gender, so modifying something other than dominus); it could be feminine singular vocative (“Great Mother Mary, you …”); it could be feminine singular ablative (“with great something-or-other, you …”) - if the written edition showed vowel lengths, or if you were listening to a speaker with very precise enunciation, you’d be able to distinguish magnā and magnă; it could be neuter plural nominative, accusative, or vocative (“Great things happen when …”). At this point, these are all real possibilities. With Latin, learn to recognize the possibilities (the definition of fluency is that you do that so quickly you don’t even realize you’re doing it) but to suspend judgement: the Latin sentence will resolve itself by its case endings, not by its word order. In fact, on first read, the endings of the words are more important than their meanings. (In this case, the resolution comes with the very next word, virtus.) And you will have to read many sentences more than once. You sometimes do this in English too, you just don’t flagellate yourself for it.

Magnus es, domine, et laudabilis valde: magna virtus tua, et sapientiae tuae non est numerus. et laudare te vult homo, aliqua portio creaturae tuae, et homo circumferens mortalitem suam, circumferens testimonium peccati sui et testimonium, quia …: et tamen laudare te vult homo, aliqua portio creaturae tuae. tu excitas, ut …, quia …, donec … . da mihi, domine, scire et intellegere, utrum … . sed quis te invocat nesciens te? aliud enim pro alio potest invocare nesciens. an potius invocaris, ut sciaris?

As you read the sentence word-by-word (phrase-by-phrase, clause-by-clause, sense-unit by sense-unit as you become more fluent), always and never except in the order it was written, recognize the markers of dependent clauses, interrogatives, etc., and ask yourself what their semantic and syntactic possibilities are in the sentence as unfurled thus far - quia, ut, donec, utrum, an for example in this passage.

an potius invocaris, ut sciaris? That is an interesting sentence. Because they are less frequent, you might have to think for a minute about the voice, tense, and mood of the two verbs. But also try to read for meaning, not syntax. If you’re following Augustine’s train of thought up to this point, the meaning may follow naturally. (Augustine the extremely well trained rhetorician really jumps out at me in this little twist of a sentence, which, in a dialog? monolog? with the dominus, I find quite amusing.)

The “syntax” is not difficult here. Just proceed a word at a time, figuratively and literally. Pick an author you love or are most curious about, segment off realistic goal-chunks, expect fluency to only come with practice, ask Textkit if you’re stumped, and buy yourselves lots of champagne.

17

Randy, all of what you say above is good, but my favorite bits:

Choose the work you would most want to have read in Latin if you knew you were going to die in a year.

and:

When you finish that first section, pat yourself on the back, have a glass of champagne.

Though I think a Guinness Stout for me.

18

and here’s my favourite bit: Just follow Barry’s advice, here somewhat expanded.
Understatement of the year! But what a great read! Many thanks!

19

Just to say: some Greek/Latin syntax is difficult, especially when it’s abnormal or simply when it doesn’t coincide with English syntax.

I find Augustine easier than Boethius, but a whole lot less palatable.

20

Boethius was one of the first works of unadapted Latin I read, and I agree with mwh’s assessment of the comparative difficulty of B. and Augustine.

I found James O’Donnell’s grammatical commentary on the Consolatio very helpful. I was reading a Loeb Classical Library book, and even with the translation, I was frequently baffled by Boethius’s sentences. O’Donnell seemed to present help on the most baffling phrases. The experience was like watching a good math teacher who always knew just which step in the proof would require more explanation.

Here is a link: http://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/boethius/boethius.html

On several occasions I found helpful the translation of the Consolatio made by Queen Elizabeth I of England. I found it somewhere on the web, but cannot reach it now. It was a pleasant experience to be aided in my study by this remarkable woman.