Subject:	Latin grammars, texts
From:	"Nathan Hicks" moman@--------
Date:	Fri, 28 Aug 1998 02:21:32 -0400

I've seen some asking or suggesting Latin resources which should
be gotten. I will add to these my own ideal Cursus Discentium.

In advance of beginning, let me say, an overly eager student must
first realize that Latin is no easier to learn than a modern tongue. I
say such an obvious thing because I *have* witnessed study groups
falling to five or six dedicated students from a hopeful twenty after
the opening five lessons of Wheelock. I imagine that the number of
frustrated quitters is even greater among those trying entirely by
themselves. A goal of attaining fluency in two years isn't hopelessly
optimistic.

The first step then begins with Wheelock's Latin. Yes, it may be hard
at first, if the text is the first experience with grammar that one's had
in a while, but Wheelock ought to be viewed as the ground floor. If
it is learnt well, a self-student comes away from it with a solid, basic
understanding. I won't recommend Latina Pro Populo to anyone on
account of its finishing far short of Wheelock's coverage. For those
having difficulty with the grammar, I have heard good things from
fellow students, especially those in Wheelock, of a book 'English
Grammar for Students of Latin' by Norma Goldman (and it is listed
on Amazon, Germanice, if you wish to put that up).

With that completely finished, the second step is not real Latin, but
rather to pick up the book 'A New Latin Syntax' by E.C. Woodcock.
(That can be gotten at the website www.bolchazy.com of Bolchazy-
Carducci. When I ordered it through Borders, they had a problem,
and so I sought it directly and got it in three days.) Doing this may
be coupled with further study of vocabulary, perhaps with the book
'Elementary Latin Dictionary' by C.T. Lewis or maybe online here:
www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/resolveform?lang=Latin which has
used the L&S dictionary to good effect, in order to fulfill both of the
elements that Wheelock formerly provided.

All of the items in that book being understood, the student is then
adequately prepared for reading the real Latin and also for writing
composition. Many texts are around for reading in real Latin with
annotations, a good place <a href="http://www.pullins.com/txt/classlan.htm" target="_top" >http://www.pullins.com/txt/classlan.htm</a>
was given me recently for these, or without the annotations and their
associated copyrights, as at this site: <a href="http://patriot.net/~lillard/cp" target="_top" >http://patriot.net/~lillard/cp</a> .
Fewer texts deal extensively with composition, but for my own ideal
Cursus Discentium, I'll have the student to use the book 'Latin Prose
Composition' by North and Hillard--it's the one that I use. The com-
position of Latin requires a thorough grammar nearby in order to be
effective, and I suggest using 'Gildersleeve's Latin Grammar' by B.L.
Gildersleeve and Lodge. Both of the above books are being published
at Bolchazy-Carducci.

The next part is more sketchy, but the student is imagined to get an
Oxford Latin Dictionary and, winning a lottery of some sort, needs
not work. He lives thereafter a happy man.


Valete,

Nathan Hicks
Cnaeus Aelius Rusticus






<--------lass="msghead"> "Na-------- Hicks" moman@--------

Subject:	Re: Lucretius, Atheism, Christians, and Lions
From:
Date:	Fri, 28 Aug 1998 03:35:26 -0400

I'm headed for bed and so must be short in my comments.
The remarks quoted shared a lack of consideration for a
very important circumstance of the poem: it apparently
was written for a patron's benefit. Each remark assumes
that Lucretius is devious in handling his words, and in
seeking favor of 'leaders' so as to spread his beliefs. But
Lucretius was no author--his work is very good but only
one poem was published, which doesn't sound like an
author's behavior. Authors publish as much and as often
as their skill and time allows. Lucretius was well-read in
Greek and earlier Latin, able to set forth a fine poem that
took from both, but no professional author or gospeller.

They toy with his allusions to the Gods, and then boldly
skip across a century's length to Imperial Rome, seeking
to compare as equal two situations luridly distinct. To the
first, I say that it ignores his obvious esteem for ancient
authors: he loved them, the antique manner in which they
wrote, and likely the gods they worshipped--he wasn't a
radical aiming to destroy reverence, but rather a man who
saw a better explanation and sought to allay the fears of
men toward the Gods and death and nature's workings.
And to second, I say it's worthy of ridicule.


Valete,

Nathan Hicks 'Iter fac ad gemitum proelii!'
Cn. Aelius Rusticus

Subject:	Re: Lucretius, Atheism, Christians, and Lions
From:	Robin Harwood phlrrh@--------
Date:	Fri, 28 Aug 1998 10:26:06 -0400 (EDT)

Salve, T. Labienus Fortunatus

I tracked down the comments about Lucretius that you quoted. They seem to
have been written by people with almost no knowledge of Epicurean
Philosophy, and a fairly tenuous grasp of English grammar. (Mind you, I
have seen that a number of people on the Novaroma list do not know the
difference between "its" (possessive - no apostrophe) and "it's"
(contraction of "it is" or "it has") so perhaps I shouldn't be too
snippy.)

> "> The theories of Lucretius were not necessarily
> > new. Epicurus seemed to have served as a fostering
> > father for the philosophy of Lucretius.

Seemed? Lucretius has always been regarded as an Epicurean. He is one of
our main primary sources for Epicureanism. His poem was edited and
published by Cicero, who, although more of a Stoic himself, and a fierce
opponent of Epicureanism in his writings, had an Epicurean for a
Philosophy teacher. This was Phaedrus, who taught first a Rome, and then
later went to Athens as head of the school. Cicero also has Epicurean
friends.

There is more about this in the (inappropriately titled) book by Benjamin
Farrington "The Faith of Epicurus." The book gives a good account of
Epicureanism generally. I also recommend
<a href="http://www.creative.net/~epicurus/history/html" target="_top" >http://www.creative.net/~epicurus/history/html</a>

> > the approach is, on an
> > intellectual level, atheistic and anti-religion, it
> > makes many references to Pagan gods, such as
> > Venus. In this respect, it fails to completely
> > break away from the religion which it condemns.
> > However, I would give Lucretius credit for acting
> > as a relay from Epicurus to the present. The
> > Nature of Things, even if the ideas expressed
> > therein were not new, it was clearly
> > revolutionary.

> The quoted comment is interesting to me for two reasons. First,
I'd lo$
> explore more fully the idea of religion that Lucretius conveys. Is he
really
> espousing atheism, or is he just against superstition? Does he see the
two as
> one and the same, breaking from Epicurus, who argues strongly for piety?

As you suspect, the commentator is wrong. The commentator seems to think
that atheism (non- belief in gods) is the same as being anti-religious.
Lucretius, like Epicurus, believes in the Gods, and believes that they are
exalted, blessed, perfect beings who would, therefore, be unaffected by
anything humans do and would have no interest in us.

For all the gods must of themselves enjoy
Immortal aeons and supreme repose,
Withdrawn from our affairs, detached, afar:
Immune from peril and immune from pain,
Themselves abounding in riches of their own,
Needing not us, they are not touched by wrath
They are not taken by service or by gift.

(Book 2)
This point is made in Book 6 as well.
Epicureans honour the Gods because it is fitting for humans to honour
excellence, but they do not fear the Gods, or expect either reward or
punishment from them. Natural disasters are not punishments from the
Gods. Nature operates by itself. If the Gods had the inclination to do
such things, they would not destroy their own temples in the process, and
they would strike the guilty and save the innocent.

Then Nature, delivered from every haughty lord,
And forthwith free, is seen to do all things
Herself and through herself of own accord,
Rid of all gods. For- by their holy hearts
Which pass in long tranquillity of peace
Untroubled ages and a serene life!-
Who hath the power (I ask), who hath the power
To rule the sum of the immeasurable,
To hold with steady hand the giant reins
Of the unfathomed deep? Who hath the power
At once to rule a multitude of skies,
At once to heat with fires ethereal all
The fruitful lands of multitudes of worlds,
To be at all times in all places near,
To stablish darkness by his clouds, to shake
The serene spaces of the sky with sound,
And hurl his lightnings,- ha, and whelm how oft
In ruins his own temples, and to rave,
Retiring to the wildernesses, there
At practice with that thunderbolt of his,
Which yet how often shoots the guilty by,
And slays the honourable blameless ones!

(Book 2)

In Book 5 (I will forbear from further quotations, save one) He argues
that the Gods CANNOT interfere in the human realm, since they are of a
different type of matter that can neither be affected by nor affect us.
In the same book he also argues that since the Gods did not (and could not
have) created the world, we should not praise them for it. Neither would
benefit the Gods.

The point of this was to free people from the fear of the Gods, and to
save them from the clutches of the priests. Religion, the Epicureans
believed, made people unhappy.

And here, whoso
Decides to call the ocean Neptune, or
The grain-crop Ceres, and prefers to abuse
The name of Bacchus rather than pronounce
The liquor's proper designation, him
Let us permit to go on calling earth
Mother of Gods, if only he will spare
To taint his soul with foul religion.

(Book 2)

Since the Romans used religion for political purposes, Epicureanism was
regarded as being a somewhat subversive (see Farrington again) but there
seems to have been no punishment for being an Epicurean. Epicureans
abounded.


> Would Lucretius
> actually have been put to death if he openly avowed atheism?

I will leave that question to the legal experts. I would point out that
there is only one reason to suppose that he was an atheist, and that is,
that he gave a naturalistic explanation for the formation and workings of
the world. The Gods are not necessary to explain anything. However, this
was a feature of Epicureanism from Epicurus onwards. Epicurus and his
followers believed in the Gods for logical and epistemological reasons.
There is nothing to indicate that Lucretius held a different view.

Of course, there are philosophical difficulties. There is a tension
between the concept of a God that the logical reasons point to, and the
epistemological reasons that provide additional support. I am totally
unconvinced by the logical reasons, and I regard it as possible that the
Gods are not such detached beings as Epicurus believed

However, that is another argument.

R. Harwood.

Subject:	Re: Latin grammars, texts
From:	SDmtwi@--------
Date:	Fri, 28 Aug 1998 17:55:59 EDT

> The first step then begins with Wheelock's Latin. Yes, it may be hard
> at first, if the text is the first experience with grammar that one's had

Salvete,
Professor Dale Grote of UNC Charlotte has written an extremely helpful study
guide to Wheelock's Latin. It can be found at a number of sites on the www.
I found the one I am using at
<a href="gopher://wiretap.spies.com/00/Library/Article/Language/Latin.stu" target="_top" >gopher://wiretap.spies.com/00/Library/Article/Language/Latin.stu</a>

Valete,
T. Labienus Fortunatus

Subject:	Sententia de Roma nostra
From:	"Nathan Hicks" moman@--------
Date:	Fri, 28 Aug 1998 18:21:45 -0400

I'm doing composition today. In the midst of reading the book, my
mind wandered from battles and marches to lighter things. Ex tempore,
I arranged this paragraph that, while prosaic, exercised my abilities
and spoke of something that I think is fitting to be expressed. Let
me unleash my questionable prose for that reason.



Verum est dicere mundum nonnullo poti miro. Nam locus vere mirandus
inest orbi terrarum ubi etnunc Romani vivunt conveniuntque. Gloriae
pristinae hisce temporibus atrocibus relictae adeo lucent de multi-
tudine civium clarissimorum laudando ut laeta visu sit. Si quis tale
spectaculum noscere vult, Romam nostram apertam videat; sive obvenire,
eam vadat. Fabam enim eo erga quod sapiens huc proficiscatur, etiamsi
ab patria procul aut quam molesta dolorosaque via sit altis montibus
et maribus aut harenosis et nivosis regionibus desertis aut dis supernis
et infernis obstantibus.

It is true to say that the world is possessed of a degree of wonder.
For indeed a place of wonder is within, where even now Romans live
and convene. Former glories abandoned in these savage times so shine
forth from a praiseworthy multitude of most remarkable citizens that
it is a joyful sight. If one wishes to be acquainted with such a
vision, let him behold our Rome borne forth into the light; or if to
come before it, let him wend way. Truly, I speak unto him so far as
that, being wise, he should be bound hither though it be far from
his homeland or be a path grievous and taxing to whatever extent--
towering mountains and unfathomed seas or deserted lands both sandy
and snow-bound or the gods above and below standing in the way.



There. I haven't caught any mistakes on this end, but I hope you'll
all remember my address if your eyes do. As the fiddler deems his own
tune good, so does the simple peasant admire his manure well-spread.


Nathan Hicks
Cn. Aelius Rusticus

Subject:	Re: Sententia de Roma nostra
From:	pjane pjane@--------
Date:	Fri, 28 Aug 1998 18:07:45 -0400 (EDT)

>I'm doing composition today. In the midst of reading the book, my
>mind wandered from battles and marches to lighter things. Ex tempore,
>I arranged this paragraph that, while prosaic, exercised my abilities
>and spoke of something that I think is fitting to be expressed. Let
>me unleash my questionable prose for that reason.

Very inspiring! Nice work, Rusticus!

Patricia Cassia

"Take rest; a field that has rested gives a bountiful crop." - Ovid