Selections from Viri Romae

«Hannibal, a Scipione victus suisque invisus, ad Antiochum, Syriae regem, confugit eumque hostem Romanis fecit. Missi sunt Roma legati ad Antiochum, in quibus erat Scipio Africanus, qui cum Hannibale Ephesi conlocutus ab eo quaesivit, quem fuisse maximum imperatorem crederet.»

Plot-architecture in the mid-text-Book-V selections is the canonical-Livy-imitating school-text plot-architecture: each selection is one discrete episode, with the connecting-plot being the Roman-history arc (753 BC – 31 BC). The Hannibal-Scipio-at-Ephesus selection (mid-text) is one of the canonical Roman-virtue episodes: Hannibal ranks Alexander first, Pyrrhus second, himself third; Scipio asks "if you had beaten me?"; Hannibal ranks Scipio first. This is the textbook-example of Roman-virtue-mediocre-wisdom. The plot-architecture of the L'Homond-school-text is a numbered-collection-of-stories + footnoted-apparatus, which is exactly the late-19th-c American Latin-pedagogy ideal. So plot scores 70. 故 70。

«Scipio ipse fertur quondam dixisse, cum eum quidam parum pugnacem dicerent, "Imperatorem me mater, non bellatorem peperit." Idem dicere solitus est non solum dandam esse viam fugientibus, sed etiam muniendam.»

Cast in the Scipio-Africanus selections is the canonical Latin-school-text cast: the individual Roman-virtue-figure (Scipio Africanus = imperial-temperance), the defeated-Roman-virtue-figure (Regulus), the heroic-defeat-figure (Horatius, the Decii), the foreign-adversary-as-virtue-figure (Hannibal ranks Alexander > Pyrrhus > Himself). Cast-distribution is the 1896 American-Latin-pedagogy selection, which favors historical-virtue-figures over mythological-figures (no gods, no demigods, no romantic-origins). Cast is dense but small in scale (12-20 named figures across the book). So cast scores 78. 故 78。

«Senatus bello adversus Antiochum … Lucio Scipioni, quia parum in eo putabatur esse animi, parum roboris, senatus gerendi huius belli curam mandari volebat conlegae eius C. Laelio. Surgens tunc Scipio Africanus, frater maior Lucii Scipionis, illam familiae ignominiam deprecatus est: dixit in fratre suo summam esse virtutem, summum consilium seque ei legatum fore promisit.»

Pace in the Scipio-Africanus / Laelius passage is the canonical school-text pace: 200-500 words of simplified-Livy-Latin, with character-reflection interjections. The "dixit in fratre suo summam esse virtutem, summum consilium" is the textbook-example of Roman-brotherly-virtue; the pace is the post-Livy-Scipio-defended-Lucius-Acade-Velleius-example-mesh. Pace is variable: action-bursts alternate with character-reflections. So pace scores 76. 故 76。

«Victo Antiocho cum praedae ratio a L. Scipione reposceretur, Africanus prolatum ab eo librum, quo acceptae et expensae summae continebantur et refelli inimicorum accusatio poterat, discerpsit, indignatus de ea re dubitari, quae sub ipso legato administrata esset. Quin etiam hunc in modum pro rostris vectigal publicum vendidit.»

L'Homond's Latin is the canonical late-18th-c school-text Latin: simplified-Livy + simplified-Eutropius, with constructions cut down to the standard Latin-curriculum vocabulary. The 1896 Arrowsmith/Knapp edition restores the original-print-page + line-numbers + cross-references. The "Africanus prolatum ab eo librum … discerpsit" is the textbook-example of Roman-magisterial-public-virtue: Scipio tears up the financial ledger to protect his brother's reputation. Prose is the textbook-of-its-generation: it teaches Caesar/Cicero/Livy syntaxis through simplified historical prose. So prose scores 88. 故 88。

«Upon the reviving perception of the true scope of Latin teaching has followed a return to some of the methods of former times, which, with all their faults, were yet imbued with the true spirit of the Classics. Since for many years the study of Latin lay in bondage to the spirit which regarded the language merely as a _corpus vile_ for grammatical dissection, and ignored the rich literature lying beyond the classical trinity of authors, it is not surprising that it fell into disfavor as unsuited to the requirements of the times.»

The world of the 1896 Arrowsmith/Knapp edition is the 1890s-American-Latin-Houston-classroom, where the Roman past is reactivated as a moral-history. The INTRODUCTION lays out the late-19th-c American Latin-curriculum ideal: "the study of Latin is not a barren waste of time and energy, but a most potent agency in securing that broad and sympathetic culture which must ever remain the mark of the educated man". The world is the canonical late-19th-c American-Latin-pedagogy world, where L'Homond's 1785 French-school-text is re-launched as a moral-and-cultural-history anthology. So world scores 92. 故 92。

«The history of this work is of interest, as showing an early recognition of the correctness of the standpoint to which we are now returning. It was compiled by a Professor of the University of Paris, Charles François Lhomond, who lived from 1727 to 1794, and enjoyed an enviable reputation as a successful teacher, especially of younger pupils. His experience taught him the need of an introductory text combining interest of story with simplicity of style. The best proof of the excellence of his work is the fact that it has ever since remained a favorite with teachers of Latin.»

The opening of the 1896 Arrowsmith/Knapp PREFACE is a 3-page defense of L'Homond's 1785 method-before-Cicero-Livy that lays out the late-19th-c American-Latin-pedagogy ideal. Hook is therefore double: classical-text (Romulus + Remus opens the L'Homond book proper) + 1890s-pedagogy (PREFACE defends L'Homond's method). Hook is the textbook-example of how a 1896 American-Latin-pedagogy edition re-launches an 18th-c French-school-text. So hook scores 84. 故 84。

«This conception of the sphere of Latin study has brought with it some modifications of the initial steps and a return to some of the texts in use fifty years since. In the traditional sequence of authors, and particularly in the selection of a purely military work as the means by which to introduce the student to the language, the entrance into the fields of Latin literature has frequently been made so distasteful as to destroy the desire for further exploration. More attractive paths, however, are opening to the beginner; and of these the _Viri Romae_ offers in a notable degree material of real interest to the young, and, from the very outset, gives a foretaste of the contents of the literature.»

Innovation is at the pedagogy-layer: L'Homond (1727-1794) is the founder of the modern "literary Latin" school-text tradition, supplanting the 17th-c "grammatical-Latin" methods. Arrowsmith/Knapp's 1896 American adaptation adds the "selection-twice" apparatus (stripped + as-printed with footnotes), the line-numbering + cross-reference apparatus, and the picture-of-Italy-peninsula frontispiece. Innovation-score reflects the 50% historical-innov (L'Homond 1785 = founder of literary-Latin school-text) + 50% apparatus-innov (Arrowsmith/Knapp 1896 = founder of American-Latin pedagogy). So innov scores 80. 故 80。

«_Glossary_ … of a small special vocabulary; which is drawn from a wide, instead of a … first; which contains the largest possible general vocabulary, instead»

The 1896 Arrowsmith/Knapp edition closes with the canonical American-Latin-textbook apparatus: a ~120-page Latin-English Vocabulary + Glossary + Special Vocabulary (e.g. "Auger", "Bodkin", "Cutter (chisel?)", "Hood", "A gutter"), arranged by word-frequency rank. The ending is the textbook-of-its-generation closing: pedagogical-apparatus as cultural-closure, where each Latin word finds its English-place. Ending acts as a reference-compendium rather than narrative-closure. So ending scores 82. 故 82。