4 ms·
> I took 8 years of Latin through Catholic school. This just proves my point. Catholic schools in the US are private institutions, and one that would teach Lat
by Mediterraneo10 7y ago
> I took 8 years of Latin through Catholic school.
This just proves my point. Catholic schools in the US are private institutions, and one that would teach Latin with vigor is a rare case. However:
> we were required to read history texts written in Latin.
It is common for Caesar’s Gallic War to be assigned early on, but students working through it with the support of a tailor-made glossary and commentary is not a particularly impressive achievement. De bello gallico (like Xenophon’s Anabasis in Greek) is assigned precisely because it is an extremely easy text, and it is not very representative of Latin literature in general.
If your school expected you to read Livy, or even Tacitus, that definitely puts it into the “elite” category.
- busterarm 7y ago> If your school expected you to read Livy, or even Tacitus, that definitely puts it into the “elite” category. Yes to both :D
- joycian 7y agoLivy, Seneca, Cicero, Virgil also featured in my Latin classes. I'm not sure of the relative difficulty levels anymore, though. All of these were fascinating for different reasons: Livy for the narrative, Seneca for the wisdom (see also Montaigne who heavily quotes Seneca in his essays), Cicero for his personal involvement in Caesarian politics and Virgil for his role as Augustus' propagandist and continuation of the Homeric tradition. I should read more of these texts, I remember being really fond of Latin classes. Edit: to concur with GP, Caesar's writings (de bello Gallico) were somewhere in the first half of the curriculum and were definitely regarded as relatively easy.