/clas/ - Classical Greek and Roman Literature Thread

What book/language course will help me achieve a reading knowledge of greek?

I like Karoly Kerenyi The Gods of the Greeks and the Heroes of the Greeks more.
It may be a bit longer, but I think they are good reads, well-informed and not too difficult.

Thanks user, these links are great!!
I have searched for the text a bit, but couldn't find anything on libgen and scihub. Apparently, there is no doi for the loebs... But it may pop up on libgen at a certain point.
Otherwise, do you have access to the TLG or to the Loeb Library via some university resources?

In this guide can we recommend better versions of texts than the ones already here?
In regards to the Recommended Prerequisite Reading, to make a controversial claim, I agree that Fagles is adequate for a first encounter with Homer.
However, can we replace the Penguin Warner of Thucydides with the objectively superior Landmark edition:
amazon.com/Landmark-Thucydides-Comprehensive-Guide-Peloponnesian/dp/0684827905/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1511088853&sr=8-1&keywords=landmark thucydides

Also, The Oxford World Classics First Philosophers is fine, but it would be helpful for a guide for people who want to seriously study Greek Philosophy to at least be aware that the following, far superior edition exists:
amazon.com/Texts-Early-Greek-Philosophy-Presocratics/dp/0521608422/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1511088914&sr=1-3&keywords=presocratics cambridge

Big fan of whats happening here, and I'm excited for the future of /clas/. I think that here we could recreate the two Greek Guides linked in OP that frequently circulate Veeky Forums. They recommend a lot of inferior translations, not particularly helpful scholarship and skip a lot of important texts such as Pindar and the Homeric Hymns.

A thread like this could certainly create a far superior chart to the ones currently circulating Veeky Forums and I would love to help contribute to that here.

No. I can't access.

Good disposition, I'd just change a couple of things:

Group 1: Virtue-Ethics
Read in order:
Euthyphro
Apology
Crito
Phaedo
Then read following in any order:
Ion
Laches
Lysis
Meno

Group 2: Intermediate Dialogues
Read in order:
Lesser Hippias
Greater Hippias
Euthydemus
Protagoras
Gorgias
Read in any order:
Cratylus
Phaedrus
Symposium

Group 4: Platonic Core
Republic
Timaeus

Group 5: Harder Dialogues
Read in Order:
Sophist
Statesman
Theaetetus
Philebus
Parmenides

Group 5: Later Dialogues
Read in order:
Critias
Laws

I've moved the Philebus because it is among the later dialogues, and put the Republic and the Timaeus together in a separate group because the second starts when the first ends, and is meant to continue its discussion.

I was uncertain to move the Lysias together with Phaedrus and Symposium for a "love dialogues" group...

How about secondary literature? I am studying Plato in Italian, so I know mostly about Italian scholarship... What are good introductions in english? Is the Cambridge Companion series any good? Thomas Taylor Life and Writings of Plato?

Shit.. I'll see if I can manage to download something, but the Loeb website is a bitch, they don't let you download PDFs, and I'd have to scan the whole thing. :/

Odyssey/Iliad/Divine Comedy
Any of these still worth reading or do they feel somewhat outdated?
t.Greek philosophy lover

Great ideas! If you can, just try and do a revised version of the chart

dude learn Latin and Catullus will blow your mind

Sure. Divine Comedy is medieval literature, though.
I don't know what you mean by "outdated", but being old texts, they'll require a little bit more of concentration and hard work to get through.
They are great reads in my opinion, and can be very fun and rewarding!

Also OP could you add a link to this chart in the following OP's? It is very good and probably more helpful than those two more popular ones!
Linked from: i.warosu.org/data/lit/img/0086/04/1476211635020.jpg

OP here, it will be there in the next one!

Fantastic. Hopefully we can compile a better one as well! Some of the translations there aren't the best and there isn't a flowchart.

I found the Bekker's edition.
Better than nothing

babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101074031186;view=1up;seq=10

I couldn't have hold of Hamilton's mythology, so I've read the Graves one. Did I miss out on anything?

Plato's Phaedo; is there a more perfect book? This man made me have faith.

Grave is also a good choice, I don't think you are missing on.

And, in my opinion, there is one book more perfect than the Phaedo: the Symposium! Beautiful language, perfect structure, philosophical depth and drunken Alcibiades - what could you ask more?

On all these aspects, the Phaedo is very close to it. I like to think about them as a couple on life and death - though they are much more than just that! From a literary aspect, they are among the most beautiful dialogues to read!

Reading Euripides' plays currently. Right now I am in the middle of Iphigenia at Aulis. Which of his other plays are must-reads? I assume Bacchae and Medea are the obvious ones and I already read Hecuba.

I also very much like Helen, it's a different take on the character. There's this whole idea that she was just an eidolon in Troy which is very fascinating.

Also, Alcestis, for similar reason. According to one of my uni professors, there's a weird subtext going on there, when she comes back from afterlife, so that it seems she is either not herself or is some sort of ghost/copy/eidolon again. It was very creepy reading it that way.

Trojan women is most certainly worth your time.

It seems like such a weird concept to me to split some of these works up like that. Why would you start reading Aristotle's Ethics in Year 1, continue in Year 2 and then come back to it 5 years later in Year 7? Read the first part of Don Quixote in Year 5 and then 5 years later come back to finish the second part in Year 10? Plenty of examples like that.
Also I am really unsure how much somebody would actually get out of reading old science books from Copernicus, Kepler, etc. Sure many of the things they did were revolutionary but surely they don't posses that much literary value and for actually learning about science you would be much better of to read a more recent book...

Thanks, any recommendations on alternative translations of particular dialogues?

I think that Republic is better read after the group 5 dialogues as there are parts in it which benefit from understanding some of the discussions in sophist+parmenides and theatetus. I've always seen Republic as a kind of omnibus of Plato's views, almost as his answer to many of the previous dialogues (especially the virtue-ethics dialogues). Placing Timaeus in a particular order with his other works is difficult as it's so different from all other dialogues, and it's importance (as far as i know) is really only related to Platonism and Gnosticism. I've heard the Cambridge companion is pretty bad for Plato, but i haven't read it myself.

> No mention of my taoist niggah Heracletus
Fix this mistake please.

...

Isn't this Veeky Forums?

Lurking for interest
Please continue your work!

The Gracchi did nothing wrong.

The main problem I have with this is that it does not follow the chronology, and that the Republic has likely been written before all of them.

Moreover, what happens shortly after the Republic is that Plato seems to re-think a lot of theories of the dialogues of the maturity, so that the later dialogues are not only formally but also thematically different (and this may explain why Socrates is substituted by other "main characters" there).

The Statesman depicts a "second best" to the philosopher-king ideal - therefore you need to understand what a philosopher king is.
The Sophist is usually read an evolution of the "standard" theory of Forms (assuming that there is something like a "standard" theory of Forms) which is still the one he's likely adopting in the Republic.
The Parmenides has a similar problem: the first part is a critique of previously presented theses on the Forms which still seem to be used in the Republic.
The Theaetetus is really its own thing, it seems to go back to the form of a Socratic dialogue and the political mission of the philosopher seem to be not that relevant ("the philosopher does not know the way to the agorà", says Socrates).

These are all dialogue which, in my opinion, require a reading of the Republic before being properly understood. The risk of reverting the chronological order and of reading, let's say, the Parmenides before the Republic, is that one risks to read Plato's dialogues as a system, and risks losing the differences between different stages of his intellectual developements and the refinement of some ideas (e.g. the One in the Parmenides is, in my opinion, an attempt to make a step beyond what has been said in the Republic about the Form of Good).

So, I'd stick to the chronology as much as possible.

Some changes are ok - e.g. putting the Phaedo among the firsts is good, even if it is likely a mature dialogue, because it serves as a good introduction to the "Platonic" Plato of the middle period as different from the "Socratic" Plato of the first dialogues.

Have you ever come across a blatantly mistranslated edition of a Greek or Latin classic?

>a much turned man

I've had a lot of difficulties with Plotinus' translations. But Parmenides' Publishing now is releasing good ones.

By the gods, where did you find such abomination?

The first translation of the Odyssey by a woman. There was a lengthy discussion a couple of weeks back with some faggots trying to argue how it was correct while I took the position of the correct translation being "crafty" while keeping an eye out for the possible usage of a pun by Homer (or whoever).

Fagles

Proof that Odysseus was black.

Why the fuck there's not Lucretius in the Roman charts guys

youtube.com/watch?v=BpwH0i0l0po

OP here, I also think the charts should be improved. I'm working on it, but in the meantime, if some user produces some good chart, I'll include it in the next /clas/ thread!

Is this the endgame of greco-roman history?

how the fuck would you render polutropos? Not like it really works in English, now, does it?

That list was built by a mental retard who has ass burgers

Anyone of you newfags better not fall for this.

Otherwise, if you want to study myths starting from a primary source, I really like Ovid's Metamorphoses. This is also an overview of almost all mythology, it is beautifully written (though a bit chaotic) - and possibly my favorite text about mythology by an ancient author.

These "Resume with the Romans" charts are hot garbage. Here's a real Romans reading list. "Mandatory" authors are starred, but all are worth spending some time with. Vaguely chronological order within genres.

Epic:
Ennius - Annales (fragments)
Lucretius - De Rerum Natura
*Vergil - *Eclogues, *Georgics, **Aeneid
*Ovid - **Metamorphoses
Lucan - Pharsalia
Statius - Thebaid
Silius Italicus - Punica

Drama:
*Plautus - *Pseudolus, Miles Gloriosus, Amphitruo
*Terence - Andria, Hecyra, Phormio, *Adelphoe

Non-epic poetry:
*Catullus
*Horace - Epodes, Odes, *Satires/Sermons, Ars Poetica
Tibullus
Propertius
*Ovid - *Amores, *Heroides, *Ars Amatoria
Juvenal - Satires
Statius - Silvae
Martial - epigrams

Prose fiction ("novels"):
Apocolocyntosis
Petronius - Satyricon
*Apuleius - Metamorphoses/Golden Ass

Rhetoric:
*Cicero - *In Catilinam 1 & 3, **Philippic 2, Pro Milone, Pro Caelio
(if interested in theory as well:
Rhetorica ad Herennium, Seneca the Elder's rhetoric handbook, Quintilian)

Historiography:
*Caesar - Comentarii
*Sallust - **Bellum Catilinae, Bellum Jugurthae
Livy - as much as you want / until you get bored
Res Gestae divi augusti
*Tacitus - Agricola, Historiae, *Germania, **Annales
Suetonius - 12 Caesars
Ammianus Marcellinus - again, just what you want

And I don't care much about philosophy, but if I did, it would go here. If it would really help to make one of those dumb charts, I guess I could.

...

I would understand "clever," but "crafty" is a Greek epithet normally for women. Doesn't really fit in this case. Also, any dictionary in the world is going to point you to the fact that πολυτροπος means both someone turned-about a great deal (by his long journey home) and someone with many turns (i.e. clever or tricky).

"Much-turned" is about as close to the Greek as you can get without injecting bullshit into the translation (like "Crafty" would). You arguing that it's wrong is just politics, and you know it.

t. classics PhD

Good list tbqh
>These "Resume with the Romans" charts are hot garbage
Agreed

>You arguing that it's wrong is just politics, and you know it.
Oh no man, no politics, but really translators should put a TN saying it has many different meanings.
It is translated as crafty in a couple of translations in Modern Greek too.
But what did you mean with "politcs"?

I meant that post where you called people who (rightfully) defended much turned man "faggots" for supporting a woman's translation.

Maybe I'm just on edge because on /pol/'s prevalence here now. I'm just sick of seeing their bullshit

If someone could make this into an actual chart, it would be great!

thx mate

On second thought, Lucretius, Lucan, and Juvenal should be starred and Sallust should have 1 star, not 2

>I meant that post where you called people who (rightfully) defended much turned man "faggots" for supporting a woman's translation.
We are on Veeky Forums after all, how am I supossed to argue otherwise?
I have talked to other Phd holders, the opinion seems to be divided. IMHO it's a pun that was meant to provoke such discussions.

fair

Kazantzakis just straight up left it untranslated to give you an example.

>and someone with many turns (i.e. clever or tricky).

much-turned doesn't get that meaning across tho, at least not as presented here, a single phrase plucked from the passage

a man of many turns would hit both

not a fan of crafty either, but of course it does deal the second meaning

>modern academia phd
>a flaming PC faggot
like pottery

"a much turned man" is a shit translation that doesn't mean fucking anything in english

all the puns should be covered in notes and the introduction with tricky/crafty/clever/etc(based on how other similar words are translated) used when it comes up

and yes a woman's translation is innately inferior to a man's translation

>literally begging some guy to include him in his history

SPQR /thread

>Start with Homer
>End with some Plato and complete works of Aristotle
This is the dumbest advice tbfqh desu. It completely depends on what people would like to learn. I'm a philosophy major, so it's not important for me to read Homer at all, and I haven't finished Odyssey all the time I've owned it since I was 16. There needs to be more Plato and other philosophers.

I'm taking advantages of all secret friend parties i have been invited to ask for seneca, the tragedians, plato, aristotle, and ovid, as i plan to start in january the education that i was never given due to my upper middles class upbringing. Wish me luck, bros.

>Phil major
>Has never read Homer

Is your uni curriculum mediocre, or is it just you?

Modern philosophy doesn't care about the Greeks, let alone Homer - who has nearly no philosophical importance. Stop putting it out on a pedestal just because it's old. Why do people mix up philosophy with classics majors? They're the only ones who have to be reading Homer.

If the subject is Plato, a full understanding of Plato is not complete without Homer. And with that said about modern philosophy, why are you making this argument in a classical literature thread?

>why are you making this argument in a classical literature thread?
I'm telling you my uni curriculum doesn't teach Greeks because they're myopic when it comes to the Greeks. It's just too much to teach people anyway, but I want to do it. I'm going to teach myself Latin then Ancient Greek soon.

I'm saying there needs to be more phil because "Start with the Greeks" is a meme about getting into philosophy, yet the reading list had nearly no philosophy on it.

Ehi, Anons over here are working on a Plato chart, - do you mind giving us a hand? :D

currently reading the Cambridge companion to Homer and half of it seems to go over my head, suppose that comes with the territory of being a brainlet
I'm aware of how important reading secondary material is with the greeks but it does feel a little like I'm cheating myself, I don't want to end up just parroting the thoughts of others over such a work
then again I probably wouldn't be able to achieve more than a surface level understanding of Homer just relying on my own mental capabilities

thanks for reading my blog

>I don't want to end up just parroting the thoughts of others
Do you go to university? The reason why they get you to do research essays is because it teaches you how to present conflicting interpretations and either agree with someone else, or synthesise a new one. It's probably impossible to "interpret" a piece of anything if you don't also find out what the discourse around it is, otherwise you can't contribute anything. I suggest that if you're an autodidact, you try to find stuff online and maybe ask someone with university access to give you the journal articles you want. If you go to uni, use your access. Either way, definitely try to find different interpretations and write an essay yourself. It's holidays now, so you can do it. Doesn't have to be long. Like 2000 words will do, and set yourself a question.

A philosophy undergrad program at any university is just 4 years of skimming over major philosophers and skimming over the less ones. I agree with you with the misinterpretation of "start with the greeks", those flowchart images in the OP are atrocious. "Start with the greeks" is the way I got into classical studies as a whole rather than only philosophy. I started with philosophy (and Homer), but I realized quickly that the scope of "the greeks" is much wider than philosophers. People should recognize this as well, they are only making themselves pharisees if they purposely strive for a superficial understanding of "the greeks".

For learning Latin/Greek I recommend reading Loeb Classical Library books since the text is printed in the Latin/Greek original and english translation. I learned the Greek alphabet that way pretty quickly.

I've read that piece, some of the essays are incredibly hit and miss (see: Gender and Homeric Epic), most are informational and intended on elaborating on Homer, his themes, his metre, language of the poem, etc etc. Reading Homer and then going into that Cambridge Companion seems jarring for a beginner that hasn't caught onto the nuances of Homer. I would recommend you instead Simone Weil's Poem of Force essay and Seth Benardete's Homeric Heroes essay, these essays will give you a direction when thinking about Homer. Then I highly recommend reading the Iliad and Odyssey again for a second time. Keep reading until you understand.

>Someone asks about Edith Hamilton
>Doesn't answer about Edith Hamilton and talks about some other book.

I'm learning Latin right now and "reading" Tacitus and Plinius jr. Really I'm translating, but still.

Ok faggots It's time to settle it once and for all.
What's better: latin or greek?

Greek sounds like someone choking on seafood but Latin is too gay. "Maxima cum loud" lolol

Yeah I'm an autodidact, fair points though thanks. I'll definitely consider the essay idea

I feel like I'm still getting some value from the companion but I suspect you're right that it's a bit advanced for me. I'll check those essays out thanks.
I might read some of the dramatists and historians before I return to Homer just so I don't go crazy

I like greek better, but it's mostly because of the sound.

>Plautus
>Terence
>Drama
>Not Comedy

>Livy
>non-asterisked
Other than that. Not bad.

You just called Mortimer Adler, the man who wrote that book, and helped compile Encyclopedia Britannica's Great Books and that list, a retard with aspergers.

The Ancient Historians by Michael Grant gives an excellent overview and selection from the classical historians. Highly recommended.

Oh, and read Tacitus, you plebs.

And Celsus too, christcucks.

Assburgers' is pretty much a requirement for philology and compiling encyclopaedias, user, or didn't you get the memo?

I say Greek although I am a bit biased

Good.

Hei, can someone tell me what is the best translation of Aristotle's Poetics? Is it the loeb?

>mfw I thought I did well on my last Latin test
>mfw I conjugated a verb in the present instead of the perfect

I was originally gonna include some fragmentary Roman tragedies but no one cares about them.

And I've never met anyone who enjoyed reading Livy in translation, so I don't star him.

Hello /clas/,

Assuming one wishes to learn both languages, what do you think is an easier direction:

Ancient Greek -> Modern Greek
Modern Greek -> Ancient Greek

Livy gets bogged down by the repetition of books 1-10, primarily 1-6, with passages detailing the great men of Rome, such as Camillus, Corvus, Torquatus. Books 21-30 are the best of Livy as it describes the Hannibalic War. I enjoyed that work above all others. I read Oxford's translation, and read through that. If anything of Livy's history should be starred it is that and maybe to book 45, although I think his complete history is great (but books 1-10 could be supplemented with Plutarch's Lives).

Maybe modern to ancient... I've heard it is easier for Greeks to learn Ancient Greek than it is for others.
But still, there is always the risk that it becomes confusing, and that you end up exchanging the grammar of one for the other.
If you want to read ancient texts in the original Greek, I'd just go with Ancient Greek first, and then learn modern for fun (it is also supposedly easier, since you can talk to modern Greek spearkers)

>it is also supposedly easier
It is. Has less grammar than ancient

I have the Butler translations of the Homeric poems, are they fine or should I try to find a different translation?
I mostly got it because it was both poems and a nice looking hardcover for my bookshelf

flowchart 1
>knwoing

flowchart 3
>senetor

What about my boy Persius? Also I think Lucretius should definitely be starred
>Aenadum genetrix...

"much-turned man" is terrible but how about "man of tortuous way/path"?