From rowland@loyno.edu Sat May 27 22:25:22 2000
Received: from mxu2.u.washington.edu (mxu2.u.washington.edu [140.142.32.9])
	by lists.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW00.05/8.9.3+UW99.09) with ESMTP id WAA31646
	for <classics@lists.u.washington.edu>; Sat, 27 May 2000 22:25:21 -0700
Received: from nadal.loyno.edu (nadal.loyno.edu [141.164.24.217])
	by mxu2.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW00.02/8.9.3+UW99.09) with ESMTP id WAA29817
	for <classics@u.washington.edu>; Sat, 27 May 2000 22:25:20 -0700
Received: from 141.164.20.79 ([141.164.20.79]) by nadal.loyno.edu (8.9.3/8.7) with SMTP id AAA178036 for <classics@u.washington.edu>; Sun, 28 May 2000 00:19:21 -0500
Message-ID: <3930AD75.CF1@loyno.edu>
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 00:24:08 -0500
From: rowland <rowland@loyno.edu>
Reply-To: rowland@loyno.edu
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01-C-MACOS8 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: classics@u.washington.edu
Subject: Re: Wheelock's Caesar footnote
References: <3.0.1.32.20000527231843.012ef240@pop.mindspring.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Fred Zimmerman wrote:
> 
> >
> >3) Yes, but *why* did "so many of us learn connected Latin by reading long
> >passages in Caesar"? Coming to Latin after learning two other languages well
> >and two more passably, I presumed that 'The Gallic Wars' was the usual
> >introductory book because its Latin was relatively simple (like New
> >Testament students starting off with the writings of the apostle John).
> >However, when I had Caesar and others in my second-year Latin course, he
> >seemed only marginally easier than the other standard prose writers. Now I
> >suspect that the reason may simply be more "Victorian"--no sex. Not quite
> >the same as Suetonius, or even the juicy parts of Livy's book one. Which
> >leads me to ask--(1) might I be correct? (2) If so, is this the same reason
> >that Xenophon's 'Anabasis' is the traditional first book tackled in
> >Classical Greek?
> >
>   No sex in Caesar, maybe, but too much blood and guts--for Wheelock, at
> least. In the preface to the fifth ed. (1995) of Wheelock's Latin there
> appears, on page xviii, a footnote to the discussion of how Wheelock
> perused ancient works that he then excerpted for his textbook: "Caesar's
> works were studiously avoided because of the view that Caesar's traditional
> place in the curriculum of the first two years is infelicitous, and that
> more desirable reading matter can be found." Hmmmm. One day in a Latin
> class we sat around for a bit pondering what that could possibly mean, and
> didn't get very far. But recently I came across a 3rd ed. Wheelock (1963),
> and was amused to find that Wheelock's footnote has been, for some reason,
> sanitized. In 1963 it said: "Caesar's works were studiously avoided because
> there is a growing opinion that Caesar's military tyranny over the first
> two years is infelicitous, intolerable and deleterious to the cause, and
> that more desirable reading matter can be found." (Frederic Wheelock died
> in the late 1980s.)
> 
In an early work (early 50's?), Michael Grant makes the point that
otherwise kindly and gentle teachers teach Caesar without commenting on
his monstrosity while reference to Hitler and recent events on the
continent would not be out of place. Bob Rowland
.