Important note : If during the Middle Ages Latin evolved
independently from its classical archetype, the humanists of the
Renaissance strove to restore the original language by drawing
from copies of the works of ancient authors. These copies being
imperfect, the spelling of certain words was impaired with folk
etymology and influenced by improper pronunciation, and the
length of the vowels, despite its importance in the classical
language, was and still is widely neglected. Only the rise of
Indo-European studies, especially after 1850, helped restoring
and gradually spread the original forms and sounds of the words.
Older works, when they are republished, may also benefit from
the most recent spelling, and as such show more useful to
students who need to learn from the best standards, or just
provide a more pleasurable reading experience to more advanced
readers. Therefore, this work is offered to you in the original
version, but also in a renewed version, with better spelling if
applicable, and long vowels noted with macrons. On the other
hand, although the spelling has been modified, vocabulary,
grammar and syntax, fortunate or not, which belong to the
author, were kept as they were out of respect for the original
work.
REBILIUS CRUSO:
ROBINSON CRUSOE, IN LATIN;
A BOOK TO LIGHTEN TEDIUM
TO A LEARNER.
BY
FRANCIS WILLIAM NEWMAN,
EMERITUS PROFESSOR OF LATIN IN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, LONDON;
HONORARY FELLOW OF WORCESTER COLLEGE, OXFORD.
LONDON:
TRÜBNER & CO., 57 & 59, LUDGATE HILL.
M.DCCC.LXXXIV.
NOTTINGHAM:
PRINTED BY STEVENSON, BAILEY, AND SMITH,
LISTER GATE.
PREFACE.
This book was composed when the writer was a Professor of Latin, as
part of a larger scheme. He has long been convinced that the mode of
teaching Latin has become less and less effective in proportion as it
has been made more and more scientific. The effort has been general to
confine the pupil to the most elaborate styles and the most approved
classics, and the exercise of memory has been superseded by minute
accuracy in the study of very limited pieces. In the natural mode we
have enormous endless repetition and much learning of the names of
things. We begin with short sentences and a very limited number of
verbs; and we learn with the least possible number of _rules_. If
we could talk in Latin, that would be of all best; but as we cannot
get exercise in talking it for practical needs, no teacher can hope
to gain adequate readiness and facility: or if a few might, yet this
could not be counted on in any general system. It has long been my
conviction that we ought to seek to learn a language _first_, and study
its characteristic literature _afterward_. Greek and Latin literature
plunge us into numerous difficulties all at once, inasmuch as their
politics, their history, their geography and their religion are all
strange to the young student. To take difficulties one by one is
obvious wisdom; and with a view to this I elaborately maintained in an
article of the _Museum_ (No. iv., Jan., 1862, Edinburgh) that we ought
to teach by _modern_ Latin. As parts of such a system I have executed
and published a Latin “Hiawatha,” and Latin Verse Translations of many
small pieces of English poetry. If I could write Latin conversations
_that would interest learners_, I should gladly have undertaken this:
but when I tried, I could not invent matter that seemed interesting
enough. This indeed is my objection to Erasmus’s “Colloquies,” which
also are not easy enough in idiom to satisfy me. This “Robinson Crusoe”
I thought I could make very interesting, and it includes a far greater
variety of vocabulary than can be obtained from any of our received
classics of the same length. I hope also the style is easy.
I surely need not apologize for taking only the general idea from
Defoe. His tale is far too diffuse, too full of moralizing and with too
little variety. He was very ignorant of the Botany and Zoology of the
tropics, and when his tale is faithfully abridged, its impossibilities
become too glaring. The Arabic “Robinson Crusoe” published by the
Church Missionary Society cuts down Defoe’s story unmercifully.
I am indebted to my former colleague, the late Professor T. Hewitt
Key, for the translation of Robinson into the name Rebilius. He also
approved of Ignipulta for _a gun_, not as strictly grammatical, but
as good enough to pass with Latins who were familiar with the word
Catapulta. From him also I adopted Cannones, for _cannons_, and Pistola
_a pistol_. The word Canna, a cane (or hollow tube) seems to be the
root of Cann̄on, a _tube_ or _cannon_, in Spanish, whence the American
can̄on for a tunnel, or larger tube.
After I had executed my own Rebilius (finally completed in 1861), I
learned that a Frenchman, Goffaux, had published a “Robinson Crusoe”
in Latin and French. On discovering this, I stopped the printing which
I had begun, and after some delay succeeded in getting the book. But
on perusing it I found his principles of remodelling the tale to
be fundamentally the opposite of mine, concerning which I need not
enlarge. I like his Latin, yet do not think his book supersedes mine.
But if teachers can practically use his with advantage, I shall be well
satisfied.
I wish here to renew my protest, that no accuracy of reading small
portions of Latin will ever be so effective as extensive reading; and
to make extensive reading possible to the many, the style ought to be
very easy and the matter attractive. To enable us to talk, we ought
to have a vocabulary that includes all familiar objects,--which the
Classics of our schools cannot give us. Terence, though somewhat too
difficult, would have great excellencies for the learner; but the
substance of his plays is low, and eminently unedifying.
In the near future, _some_ universal tongue will be sought for by the
educated. If Latin be still learned in England, France, Italy, Germany,
Hungary, Spain, this is still, as three centuries ago, the best for all
Christendom. But perhaps even Latin will be beaten out of the schools.
It may be well to remark, that inasmuch as the grave accent has been
very widely used in school books as indicative of _an adverb_, I
adopt the mark in this sense; and think it no objection to say that
the Latins never so used it. Neither had they our stops. We do not
pretend to follow their writing in detail. We usefully distinguish the
vowels u i from the consonants v j; they did not. What should we gain,
by writing the Iliad as its author wrote it? So too, I think it well
occasionally to add long or short marks, as ēgēre ĕgēre ēgĕre, vēnēre
vĕnĕre, lătēre lătĕre lātere, to obviate ambiguity. Nay I write fluctûs
for gen. sing., fluctūs for plural, but fluctus for nomin. sing.
When _et_ means _both_ or _even_, I set an acute accent over it, not
doubting that it then received some emphasis.
I also borrow from the marks used in Hebrew an _under_-parenthesis
for coupling words that are in grammatical union. This mark is often
very effective in explaining the structure of complicated Greek
sentences.
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
1 Robinson’s parentage. 2 His first adventures. 3 His
slavetrading voyage. 4 The shipwreck. 5 They take to the
boat. 6 It is swamped. 7 His narrow escape. 8 His forlorn
position. 9 He sleeps in a tree. 10 His mental struggles.
11 The dog and long boat. 12 He swims to the ship. 13 Its
condition. The skiff. 14 He makes a raft. 15 He loads it,
first with food; 16 next, with other necessaries. 17 He
tows off the raft by the skiff. 18 Favouring weather. 19
It is all but wrecked. 20 He sleeps again in a tree. 21
His first supper. 22 He fastens the raft; 23 and visits
the long boat. 24 Second visit to the ship. 25 He plans a
raft on water-tight empty boxes. 26 He carries off a few
costly articles in the skiff; 27 and tows off whatever will
float. 28 He lands his train at the nearest point; 29 and
explores a natural harbour. 30 His dog-and-cat meat. 31 He
ascertains that he is in an island. 32 Its character. 33
His precaution against panthers. 34 He puts his first raft
in safety. 35 Third visit to the ship. 36 He brings away
his new raft. 37 Second expedition the same day.