Mount Hope Classics
Vol. II.
Mons Spes et novellæ aliæ
Ex Anglica narratione variorum auctorum
Latine interpretatus est
Arcadius Avellanus
Prostat apud
E. Parmalee Prentice,
37 WALL STREET,
New York City, N. Y.
Copyright By
E. Parmalee Prentice
1918
Latin Press Printing Co., 336 West Girard Ave., Philadelphia, Pa.
For permission to publish the Latin version of Mr. Robert Louis
Stevenson’s story “The Sire de Malétroit’s Door,” I take pleasure in
expressing my thanks to Messrs. Charles Scribner’s Sons.
E. Parmalee Prentice.
37 Wall Street,
New York City, N. Y.
Introduction.
To prepare for college in Latin, commonly means by a four or five
years’ study of rules and forms to work through an amount of Latin
text about equivalent to a hundred pages of Harper’s Monthly. The
subject thus pursued is not very alluring. Even pupils who can recite
rules distinguishing between the use of cum with the subjunctive to
describe the time of the main verb by its circumstances and the use
of cum with the indicative to define the time by denoting a
coexistent state of things, will too often find the distinction
losing somewhat of such vividness as it may have had, when told that
cum regularly takes the indicative if the principal action is
expressed in the form of a temporal clause. So with other rules. They
are not hard in themselves, but their multiplicity and variety as
they grow in number during a course of several years, and their
abstract statement, make the study something like a problem in chess.
The results of all this instruction, so far as knowledge of Latin is
concerned, we can perhaps understand if we try to imagine what would
be the English achievements of a French or German boy who in lessons
of five hours or so a week during parts of four or five years had
worked out the grammatical constructions of some short English book.
To many persons the whole scheme seems wrong, and the results
accomplished seem an inadequate return for the outlay of time and
labour.
Those who so think, believe that the remedy is easy. Latin is taught
as no modern language is taught — one might almost say as no language
is taught, for by the method followed the ancient languages have
become mnemonic tasks and grammatical problems, the literature being
lost in a species of anagram whose significance is slowly determined
by prescribed formulas. The remedy would be to teach Latin as a
language. By this it is not meant that anything should be subtracted
from the course of instruction now given. Rules and forms must be
learned, and it is no disadvantage that in so doing the student
learns also to concentrate his attention and to work upon a given
task. It is, however, a disadvantage with little reading, to dwell
upon logical niceties and abstract statements, when familiar use
would illuminate the whole field. Therein is the secret of language
learning — familiar use. There is no other way, and Latin is no
exception to the rule. This, moreover, is the easy way, the method by
which in the same time and with no greater efforts much greater
results can be achieved. Suppose, for example, the element of
pleasure were introduced into the study, and texts were given to the
pupil which he could read out of class, easily and with enjoyment, —
stories or novels, such as are given to beginners in any modern
language, — would not the process of learning rules, forms and uses
of words be simplified at every point? Suppose that by a little
practice of this sort, without using the dictionary, and without
stopping over difficult passages, a student could learn to follow the
action of stories, told in Latin, such as would appeal to the
interest of the young and could be read for a double enjoyment — the
enjoyment of the story and of unexpected success — and suppose that
by much reading in this way Latin could be so far learned that the
lessons in class would deal with forms and constructions already
somewhat familiar, — would it not be possible thus to substitute a
certain degree of success for the failure which now so often marks
Latin studies?
But it will be objected, that Roman literature has no such stories as
are needed for this method of instruction. This is true. Petronius
and Apuleius come nearest to what would be needed, but on account of
the subject-matter, of difficulties in the text and other objections
they are not adapted to the purpose described. What is needed for the
plan proposed is a modern translation of modern stories.
At this point of course we part company with all to whom Latin means
the style of a few selected authors or nothing. None who would keep
from students the so-called eighth book of Cæsar’s Commentaries lest
our modern beginners be corrupted by Hirtius’ expressions, can be
expected to approve of modern translations.
On the other hand, all who would be willing, were it possible, to
spend a month in ancient Rome — as a modern student of French would
go to France — there to learn by the daily speech of all, whether
ignorant or learned, even from strangers in Rome, to learn also from
books and papers, of whatever literary value, the use of the language
as a tool, these persons will be prepared to accept modern work
judged only by the skill with which it has been done. To such
persons, these stories translated into Latin by Dr. Arcadius
Avellanus are offered.
The translations show a wonderful intimacy with the spirit of the
Latin language and an admirable grasp of its vocabulary, its synonyms
and forms of expression. No doubt had these stories been published at
Rome in classical times, the translator would have inclined to say
with Apuleius, himself a foreign learner of the language —
Et ecce præfamur veniam, si quid