The Mental Utility and Profit of Studying Latin

Latin Learning Latin
1

Hello to you all,

Let me preface my topic here.

I’m trying to prepare for the Law and a public career,

And I believe there are many auxiliary subjects which could be effective and very useful in preparing me for the mental demands of these fields, and for propelling me to acquire a solid command of language, a necessity in this endeavor.

Mathematics is the primary subject which ranks highest in producing mental benefits and good mental habits.

But the subject that vies for the second place in my opinion, if all we are discussing is mental utility or profit, would be the Greek, or Latin Languages, and possibly hebrew.

Since I do not have time or interest for the hebrew or greek,
I see and spotlight Latin as worth trying to master or become very familiar on, because of the way it exercises the mind, the substance of the information, and the eloquence of the writings.

This is not to mention, that the Roman Law is written in Latin but that’s a different discussion.

I will list a few premises that give me reasons enough, to take up a consistent and continuous study of Latin.

  1. The Mental benefits that come from much exercise in translating Latin into English and English into Latin.

Mental benefits:

Strengthens Memory from Vocabulary memorization

Strengthens memory, and logical thinking in the translation, because it requires remembrance and understanding of the Grammar

Strengthens the judgement, attention, and the concentration of the mind.

  1. The translation of Latin into English aids in a good and forceful expression, an indispensable skill in the Law and in any endeavor actually.

  2. The Roman Writings, in terms of actual substance, are among the best ideas in Philosophy, History, Oratory, and Poetry.

Now I have some serious questions to all who are able and willing to answer, based on your experiences.

  1. How much time ought one to spend daily, to reap the mental benefits from the study of Latin?
    How long is this project going to last, before any of the results I spoke of, start coming in?

I’m willing to work 2hrs per day.
I would guess at that rate, many years work would be the answer.


2. What is the value of translating Latin into English, English into Latin

I have the Henle books and those would be my main starter, but much of his exercises are designed in such a way that the student is expected to write LATIN.

Could not translating into Latin actually cramp and deaden the English style, with the way Latin is structured?

Verb Last. Adjective after noun.

English is about Order and Clearness, Latin is about Emphasis and Rhetorical force.

Any ideas on this part?

Do any of you believe or can confirm the premise of many educators from bygone times, that the study of Latin produces a facility and command of language? Why?

How can studying latin create or aid in commanding language?

I’m not talking about command of grammar rules, or words, or etymologies, that is superfluous to me, I’m talking about in the heat of battle, you can ring out pieces of forceful speech, you have dexterity in using your own language, grammatically correct or not, you just have command of the way speech works.

  1. Will my own genius be effected by studying an alien language?

Henle wants you to write Latin, using his English thoughts, using extremely simplified English, with little to no creativity in the dry sentence. This is done for 4 Books, for 4 years.

The Third Book and Fourth book are probably original Cicero translated, but what is the point, of saying and expressing the idea, in the exact same way the author did, Cicero in this case?

I don’t want to write like Cicero, I want to write like myself. I have my own style, I’m not Cicero.

I don’t need help from Cicero on how to write.

I think translating Cicero into English would be of great benefits in gaining command of language, because there is creativity involved in producing your own English version but keeping accurate to the sense and sentiments.

When your translating into Latin on henle’s terms, your basically playing mathematics, or extreme Grammar.
There is no original expression. Your copying and transcribing Grammatical rules.

What does this do for expression?

It would seem, there would be a total long tedious grammatical process, before any creativity, dexterity, freedom, and flexibility in thinking and expressing oneself in Latin would take place. Like 4-5 years.

I know Henle is trying to have the student write into Latin so that the student can read Latin more easily, and his aim is not to have students make their bread off expressing themselves into Latin.

So the logical thing would be to say, that the only way a command of language is got from the study of Latin is by translating latin into idiomatic english while retaining the ideas and sense of the original, not by translating extremely simple english into Latin.

This writing into latin seems to me an extremely unnatural exercise doesn’t it?

How did a Roman learn Latin? He thought and then spoke, he didn’t think of Grammar rules like they were mathematics.
Language isn’t mathematics.

Is it possible that my use of English could decline by studying Latin, a foreign and alien language, with no words of Anglo Saxon derivation?

Seeing that Law and Oratory require skill in expression in your own tongue, not in an alien one, I don’t see why I have any reason to translate into Latin. I actually think it would decimate any skill in english I already have, by changing the structure and order of my thoughts before they become produced in speech.

Please give me a few reasons to be motivated to translate English into Latin and acquiring skill in this tongue seperate from the desire to translate latin into english.

Let us remember what John Locke said about Grammars and Languages

" For languages being to be learned by rote, custom and memory, are then spoken in greatest perfection, when all rules of grammar are utterly forgotten. I grant the grammar of a language is sometimes very carefully to be studied, but it is not to be studied but by a grown man, when he applies himself to the understanding of any language critically, which is seldom the business of any but professed scholars. This I think will be agreed to, that if a gentleman be to study any language, it ought to be that of his own country, that he may understand the language which he has constant use of, with the utmost accuracy".


So, I’m chiefly asking how this subject out of a bunch of others, is worth dedicating energy, effort, and time to?

Because I’m willing to do so, I’m not looking for easy way out, or quick learn, just need convincing that this will be of profit.
I know there is pleasure involved in just reading these authors, but that’s not my motivation, there’s only a limited amount of time we can all spend on something this arduous, just for the pleasure of it, you also want utility and profit.

Thank you for any responses in regards to these questions.

2

I was called to the bar in 2003. I think it’s folly to study a language for any other reason than to communicate in that language, which for Latin means reading literature. To prepare for a career in law, you would do far better to study philosophy, psychology, and the social sciences. The best thing one can so is to become qualified as a professional in the field that he intends to specialise in. For example, if you aim for business law, get an MBA first. Interested in environmental law? Get a degree in environmental engineering. It will secure you a nice future in the field. Latin will do little or nothing.

3

I agree with you that there is little transference of skills attained from studying one subject, in that it helps the person significantly in another.
And I agree with you on the importance of specialization.

But that’s the whole point and structure of the Education system.
There is General Education leading onto the next steps, and then what follows is the choice of what you want to specialize in.

Why else would Latin or Greek be taught in General Education if not for some mental training? That may not be the reason teacher’s teach it, but there is mental training.


But, go read Cicero’s “De Oratore”.
What does Marcus Antonius one of the interlocutors say that the most crucial part and aid of his training in becoming one of the best Roman Orators was?
TRANSLATING Greek into Latin.

Not simply reading Greek for enjoyment or knowledge, but translating the good works in that language.

What does Cicero himself say in “Duties” to his son, on how to improve his use of language?
Translate Greek into Latin.


What did one Lord Chesterfield say could be used to gain command of language
“Whenever I read pieces of Eloquence whether ancient or modern I used to write down the shining passage, and then translate them as well and elegantly as ever I could; If Latin or French, into English.
If English into French. This, which I practised for some years not only improved and formed my style, but imprinted on my mind and memory the best thoughts of the best authors”.

And the list goes on and on of the value of this study.

I do agree the main motivation should be to learn the language and to read the literature.

But your saying the skills I mentioned aren’t gained by studying it, and that it is poised to offer no aid in General?

I guess your saying, the main motive should be,

  1. communicating in the language,
  2. gaining the knowledge from the literature

Whatever else follows, is up to the individual, like an accessory benefit.
By the way, you say study philosophy, social science, and so forth.
Cicero is philosophy.
And History is social science. Livy’s got history.

Thanks for the response. Appreciated.

4

If you want to improve your English style, both written and spoken, I recommend that you spend your time studying and imitating great English writers and speakers.

Studying Latin is fun and certainly improves your concentration, memory, attention to detail, etc. Of course, it also allows you to directly access an immense body of interesting and challenging written material on a wide variety of subjects. I’m glad that I studied Latin and that can now read it.

However…

I think the secondary benefits derived from studying Latin (by that I mean the benefits aside from reading primary texts in their native language) are not alone sufficient to justify its study. This is because you can exercise your mind by applying yourself to the study of many different fields.

Within the realm of languages, I’m sure you could find a living language that provided you with the benefits of studying Latin but also furnished you with a very useful skill for the rest of your life. If you want to emphasize Utility, then learn Spanish or another language that’s widespread in your area. If you want a mental challenge, then tackle a more complex and foreign language like Arabic. At its core, Latin is still just a language, and the act of learning it will be very similar to those of living languages. Part of what makes learning Latin such a difficult mental exercise is that we can’t just ask native speakers for feedback on how to use it. Instead, we have to conduct a minute study of its use over time and then infer rules and acceptable usage. With Spanish, for example, if I have doubts about the way I’ve phrased something, I can ask a friend who will immediately tell me whether there is a more natural way of saying it.

I don’t doubt that various great minds throughout history have improved their rhetoric and thinking by translating in or out of Latin. However, at the risk of gross exaggeration, that’s just how things were done for a long, long time. Moreover, a Latinate style used to be more valued by high society. If you read famous English orators from 100+ years ago, you’ll find that the expression is often intentionally Classical; for better or for worse, it is usually very different from what counts today as good style.

In summary, my advice:
#1 If there is something specific that you want to get better at, focus on that specific thing. Don’t approach it in a roundabout way.
#2 If you want a challenging and rewarding intellectual exercise, choose a complex subject that interests you and apply yourself to it. If this subject is also offers immediate benefits (a living language, computer programming, etc.), all the better!

There are things in category #2 that will assist you in category #1, but I think the rewards will seldom be greater than just devoting even more time to topic you want to master.

5

I don’t think we’ll agree on this subject, but it’s an interesting one, so for the sake of discussion it’s probably worth pursuing.

Why else, you ask? Because Latin and Greek (as a means of communication) have immense cultural value. That alone warrants studying it. The “mental training” argument is just an excuse in the face of criticism that Latin and Greek are taught so poorly that few school children ever actually learn to read it. The reasoning is as follows: Even if they never actually read anything in Latin or Greek, it’s worth the trouble to have them memorize the declensions and conjugations, because this exercise is somehow better mental exercise than memorizing something useful. I think teaching a kid to program a computer is far better mental training and immensely more useful. But mental training isn’t everything.

And I don’t advocate abandoning the study of Latin and Greek in schools. Just not as “mental training” to justify incompetent teachers who apply faulty methods.

But, go read Cicero’s “De Oratore”.
What does Marcus Antonius one of the interlocutors say that the most crucial part and aid of his training in becoming one of the best Roman Orators was?
TRANSLATING Greek into Latin.

Sorry to break it to you, but lawyers are not orators in the classical sense, so oratory will be of little use as a lawyer. The art of oratory is mostly lost, and even the best public speakers would not qualify as orators according to Cicero’s definition. Cicero himself did not consider himself a lawyer, candidly admitting his ignorance of the law, and famously derided the practice of law (the iurisconsulti) as being a simple skill that anyone could learn.

I guess your saying, the main motive should be,

  1. communicating in the language,
  2. gaining the knowledge from the literature

It’s not just a question of knowledge, since most classical works are available in translation. Communicating in Latin, unlike modern languages, creates continuity with our cultural heritage. People who wrote thousands of years ago can communicate directly with us today, and if we write in Latin today, there is nothing that separates us from our forbears and our posterity. It’s a matter of ideology. Studying Latin is a statement that we do not accept the revolutionary (enlightenment, republican, or marxist) idea of rupture with the past.

By the way, you say study philosophy, social science, and so forth.
Cicero is philosophy.
And History is social science. Livy’s got history.

Cicero may have written philosophical works, but he did nothing more than summarize. The Tusculan disputations (one of my all-time favourite works) is a perfect example.

Livy was entertainment more than factual history. Cicero’s letter to Lucceius (Ep. ad Fam. V, xii) illustrates how the history writers (I would not call them historians) aimed to please certain people by distorting facts and to entertain their readers with captivating narratives. If one is looking to study philosophy and history, Latin won’t hurt, but his efforts would better be spent in reading modern philosophical anthologies and modern, less biased, historians.

6

In response to some of your earlier questions:

Yes, studying Latin will improve your English, not only because English has been so heavily influenced by Latin, but also because many English speakers have no clue when it comes to grammar, and Latin is often their first contact with formal grammar.

No, Latin composition will not be harmful to your English. If anything, it will help you notice and understand the peculiarities of English when compared to Latin. Composition is generally seen as a necessary pedagogical tool for learning Latin and practically all textbooks use it. Henle is a proven method that I recommend. It’s one of the better textbooks.

You are correct in assuming that learning Latin from a grammatical perspective is “unnatural,” but it’s a necessary evil considering the fact that Latin immersion is generally not available.

Your genius will indeed be affected by Latin, especially by Cicero, for the better. His speeches have been called the finest expression of human language. Unless you think so highly of your genius that you fear being contaminated by the likes of Cicero.

7

Cicero himself did not consider himself a lawyer, candidly admitting his ignorance of the law, and famously derided the practice of law (the iurisconsulti) as being a simple skill that anyone could learn.

Can you direct me to some passages where Cicero talks about this? I was always under the impression that he fancied himself a sharp lawyer, although he obviously takes most pride in his oratory. I don’t doubt you–I’m just interested in seeing what he says.

8

It’s in one of his speeches, I can’t remember where. He goes on about how anyone can be a lawyer, how they’re a dime a dozen. Maybe someone can help me out here.

EDIT: I think I’ve found it, in Pro Murena:

http://latin.packhum.org/loc/474/14/6/4630-4656@1#6

In fact, I think the matter hinges on what you mean by the term lawyer. Maybe he would have considered himself a barrister, but not a solicitor. He basically says that anyone can learn the law, and that the iuris consulti were only ever esteemed in Rome because they formerly kept the knowledge secret. He even says that he could become a iuris consultus in three days if he chose to.

9

I imagine that Enlightenment thinkers such as Thomas Jefferson would have been astonished to learn that their knowedge of Latin, and their study of Latin texts, made them anti-Enlightenment and anti-republican, especially as the invocation of the ‘republican virtues’ of post-monarchical Rome was a familiar theme of the period.

Latin and Greek, and the texts written in them, may be studied for many reasons: one may, for example, wish to learn more about the civilisations of Greece and Rome, or simply to read the masterpieces of their respective literatures. And of course the texts themselves do not speak with a common voice: if one were so minded, one could find passages to support oppression of the weak, injustice, misogyny, homophobia, and all manner of other prejudices born from inhumanity and ignorance; equally, however, there are many passages that take a very different view of such issues. In any event, to attempt to designate the study of Latin (or Greek) as implying support for a specific agenda, as your remarks above seem to suggest, is in my view unhistorical, and a misrepresentation both of the texts themselves, and of the reasons why people seek to engage with them. One can, after all, learn from the past without being enslaved to it.

10

I like this quote:

And as Aristotle; so Cicero, and other Writers have grounded their Civill doctrine, on the opinions of the Romans, who were taught to hate Monarchy, at first, by them that having deposed their Soveraign, shared amongst them the Soveraignty of Rome; and afterwards by their Successors. And by reading of these Greek, and Latine Authors, men from their childhood have gotten a habit (under a false shew of Liberty,) of favouring tumults, and of licentious controlling the actions of their Soveraigns; and again of controlling those controllers, with the effusion of so much blood; as I think I may truly say, there was never any thing so deerly bought, as these Western parts have bought the learning of the Greek and Latine tongues.

— Hobbes’ > Leviathan

11

I imagine that Enlightenment thinkers such as Thomas Jefferson would have been astonished to learn that their knowedge of Latin, and their study of Latin texts, made them anti-Enlightenment and anti-republican, especially as the invocation of the ‘republican virtues’ of pre-monarchical Rome was a familiar theme of the period.

Whilst I disagree with what Nesrad actually says I dont think you are being fair to him by saying this. Surely Nesrad is positing an unbroken tradition of Latin (language and thought?) extending back to antiquity which endures despite (temporary !gasp!) changes in intellectual outlook.

You are on safer ground saying that we all study Latin for many different reasons. I think there are many intellectually sound reasons for disagreeing with Nesrad’s view. But I dont see its an argument worth getting into. Anphph’s quote from Hobbes shows the past can be appropriated in whatever way you choose. Just choose your quote and ignore any inconvenient context.

12

I am not sure if that was a jab at me posting the quote with no explanation nor context, so sorry if this comes out as too touchy, but the reason I posted it had to do with Nesrad’s comment ath “studying Latin is proof that we do not accept the revolutionary idea of a break with the past.” In fact, the study of the Classics has often served as a way of presenting a revolution against the present by cloaking it with the vest of a return to great times, which by necessity would be the greatest conceivable opposite to the present. “Revolution” does not exclude “uses of the Past”.

Another context-less quote, this time by Hannah Arendt:

The discovery of antiquity in the Renaissance was a first attempt to break the fetters of tradition, and by going to the sources themselves to establish a past over which tradition would have no hold.

13

I am not sure if that was a jab at me posting the quote

Absolutely not! I should have made it clearer. Sorry!

It was contra Hobbes and all demagoguery.

The quotes from Arnedt and Hobbes are useful illustrations of how the past is mined to service the present. Latin culture, for want of a better expression, is so varied and contradictory you can use it to promote anything!

14

Seneca - many thanks.

First of all, I should apologise for having written ‘pre-monarchical’ instead of ‘post-monarchical’; I was thinking of the period after the kings, rather than before the emperors.

I’ve certainly no desire to be unfair to Nesrad (or anyone else). I do, however, still find his apparent implication that studying Latin is a way of sticking two fingers up at the Enlightenment or republicanism rather odd, especially when both causes have frequently invoked Classical support. As for continuity, did the Enlightenment lead to a disruption in the study of Latin? Does republicanism (of whatever period) necessarily entail one?

Still, as you say, perhaps there’s little point in pursuing the matter further. I certainly agree with you and anphph that ‘the past’ (which is itself, of course, not a homogeneous entity, but - like ‘The Classics’ - a variety of different viewpoints) can be pleaded in aid of practically any cause. Since Hobbes has already been mentioned, one might point by way of example to the fact that he managed to interpret Thucydides as a supporter of monarchy as opposed to either oligarchy or democracy.

Best wishes,

John

15

I do, however, still find his apparent implication that studying Latin is a way of sticking two fingers up at the Enlightenment or republicanism rather odd, especially when both causes have frequently invoked Classical support.

Me too!

Since Hobbes has already been mentioned, one might point by way of example to the fact that he managed to interpret Thucydides as a supporter of monarchy as opposed to either oligarchy or democracy.

Interesting. Likewise the endless debate on Virgil’s republican sympathies.

16

I think we’re unclear on the terms enlightenment and republican. I use the terms in the sense of the French revolution, whose ideology was a precursor to Marxism. The revolutionaries hated Latin because it symbolised the ancien régime and the clergy. The American idea is different. I should have written in Latin.

17

The revolutionaries hated Latin because it symbolised the ancien régime and the clergy.

I don’t see how this could ever be true. The Roman tradition was everywhere to be found in the Revolution, from the way they dressed themselves, to the titles they took (consuls!), to the iconography they adopted in paintings and festivities. Sic semper tyrannis is, after all, fine and proper Latin.

18

If I recall correctly, Napoleon was ambivalent about the paintings of David (such as The Oath of the Horatii and The Lictors Returning to Brutus the Bodies of His Sons) because their evocation of ‘republican virtue’ could be construed as a critique of monarchy in general, and of the rule of Napoleon himself in particular.

Surely the movement away from Latin to vernacular languages as a medium of learned or official communication antedates what can reasonably be regarded as the Enlightenment, and has its roots in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. In England, I’m thinking of things such as the growing popularity of translations - such as North’s Plutarch and the various works (e.g. Suetonius) translated by Philemon Holland - and the fact that, for example, Burton’s Anatomy was written in English rather than Latin. Personally I see little point in lamenting this; as a Hellenist I might as well bewail the fact that, under the Roman Empire, Latin largely supplanted Greek as the common language of the Mediterranean world.

19

That is true, yet it proves the point: Many a famous history of the Revolution ends with Napoleon’s wrapping up the Directory, not to mention the establishment of the Empire. Yet this is far from the topic of “the mental utility and profit of studying Latin”, so I will leave it at that. Besides, I was talking more about “Roman ideals” than the “Latin language.”

The issue of Latin vs Vernacular antedates the Enlightenment by many a century; I don’t quite know what we could count as “learned” — Dante’s De vulgari eloquentia and Leonardo Bruni’s Dialogi ad Petrum Histrum in the early and late 14th century are probably among the first to make the “theoretical case” for the toppling of Latin in a belletristic sense, but if you’re thinking official, I am quite ignorant about other countries but “Lingua portuguesa” was made the official language for all state communications in the Kingdom of Portugal in 1290, and in the XIV century Florence would gradually switch to using Tuscan for its missives to the other city-states (while keeping Latin for foreign affairs with other political entities).

20

This post is a bit old but I’ll try to reply anyway as best I can, though not to every point as this is quite a long one, and it’s entirely possible secny22 isn’t here anymore.

Of your premises:

It certainly does that. Perhaps it’s just maturity, but before I studied Latin I had poor discipline and my thoughts were more scattershot. One thing that you didn’t mention is that it builds and reinforces discipline and good habits. I don’t say this to strut around, but the attrition rate on this website (and one would assume autodidactry in general) is astronomical, if you compare those who compose introductory posts on the open board to the number of people who actually stick.

As far as I can tell the main reason is that the initial enthusiasm wears off as the book is getting harder while one needs to retain the earlier lessons as well. This is what happened to me with Clyde Pharr’s Homeric Greek book: I got about halfway through it and decided to skip a day, which turned into two, which turned into many. Learning Latin requires you to make time in your day, as many days as you can, to study, and to strictly enforce that time.

  1. The translation of Latin into English aids in a good and forceful expression, an indispensable skill in the Law and in any endeavor actually.

Most people studying Latin aim to read rather than to translate. I have, however, picked up some rhetorical figures and devices from it that can be (and are) used in (generally written) English expression.

  1. The Roman Writings, in terms of actual substance, are among the best ideas in Philosophy, History, Oratory, and Poetry.

I wouldn’t call them necessarily the best ideas; that’s more of an appeal to tradition or antiquity. It’s good literature, though (I’ve never been interested in Old English not just because I’m not a medievalist but also because its corpus is limited compared to Latin and Greek which makes the intellectual investment not as appealing).

Of your questions:

  1. How much time ought one to spend daily, to reap the mental benefits from the study of Latin?
    How long is this project going to last, before any of the results I spoke of, start coming in?

Before the results you want come in: perhaps once you start reading with more fluency, though I say this as probably the forum’s least-able poster. How much time to spend daily: whatever works for your schedule and whatever works for you. This week I’ve changed from reading both Latin and Greek daily to alternating days (on Monday I read Greek; on Tuesday I read Latin; yesterday I read Greek; today I’ll read Latin) and it’s working a lot better (not to mention I have an extra day to memorize Greek vocabulary); I don’t know how long it took to read purely Latin, but when I read them together I would take anywhere from 30 to 90 minutes a day (rarely at either extreme). Two hours a day should be fine, if it works for you.

  1. What is the value of translating Latin into English, English into Latin

Translating from English to Latin/Greek is good for thinking in the target language and using its grammar yourself, actively instead of passively, which builds a mastery of it.

Do any of you believe or can confirm the premise of many educators from bygone times, that the study of Latin produces a facility and command of language? Why?

Yes: command of grammar, English as well as Latin, and an awareness of Latin derivatives and cognates, and exposure to classical rhetoric, but…

I’m not talking about command of grammar rules, or words, or etymologies, that is superfluous to me, I’m talking about in the heat of battle, you can ring out pieces of forceful speech, you have dexterity in using your own language, grammatically correct or not, you just have command of the way speech works.

In that case you’d be better off reading good English authors (reading Dickens in particular improved my English). The “superfluous” stuff is what you’ll get from Latin (but which helped many of those good English authors).

  1. Will my own genius be effected by studying an alien language?

I’m not sure whether you mean “affected” or “effected”: either would work (though one is considerably more humble…).

Henle wants you to write Latin, using his English thoughts, using extremely simplified English, with little to no creativity in the dry sentence. This is done for 4 Books, for 4 years.

…

When your translating into Latin on henle’s terms, your basically playing mathematics, or extreme Grammar.
There is no original expression. Your copying and transcribing Grammatical rules.

Well you’ve got to start somewhere (and start small). Above are my thoughts on translating into Latin. I’m unfamiliar with Henle but if his system is based entirely on translating English into Latin I’d recommend a different course.

It would seem, there would be a total long tedious grammatical process, before any creativity, dexterity, freedom, and flexibility in thinking and expressing oneself in Latin would take place.

This is true – though maybe not 4-5 years.

So, I’m chiefly asking how this subject out of a bunch of others, is worth dedicating energy, effort, and time to?

Development of rigor, command of grammar, knowledge of rhetoric, enjoyment of literature, intellectual stimulation, “because it’s there”…

Like most here I study as a hobby, along with listening to music; truth be told I have a dead-end crappy job and studying brings much-needed intellectual stimulation and is a journey with quantifiable results, whereas music is relatively passive enjoyment. Studying brings me pleasure, at least, but I didn’t go into expecting great things and I’m not put out by not reaping huge rewards in my professional life or by not having my speech transformed. For what you’re asking about and what you’re seeking I’d recommend, again, good English authors.

I see you joined in September 2014, actually before I did. Why wait until now to ask about something that a year and a half ago you were moved to join a classical-languages forum for?