What do you think?
Rate this book
A History of Latin Literature
A discussion of Latin literature and its form with emphasis on its influence on European education.
- GenresNonfiction
474 pages, cloth
First published July 1, 1952
About the author
Moses Hadas
95 books14 followersMoses Hadas (1900–1966) was an American teacher, one of the leading classical scholars of the twentieth century, and a translator of numerous works.
Raised in Atlanta in a Yiddish-speaking Orthodox Jewish household, his early studies included rabbinical training; he graduated from Jewish Theological Seminary of America (1926) and took his doctorate in classics in 1930. He was fluent in Yiddish, German, ancient Hebrew, ancient Greek, Latin, French, and Italian, and well-versed in other languages.
His most productive years were spent at Columbia University, where he was a colleague of Jacques Barzun and Lionel Trilling. There, he took his talent for languages, combined it with a popularizing impulse, to buck the prevailing classical methods of the day—textual criticism and grammar—presenting classics, even in translation, as worthy of study as literary works in their own right.
This approach may be compared to the New Criticism school: even as the New Critics emphasized close reading, eschewing outside sources and cumbersome apparatus, Hadas, in presenting classical works in translation to an influx of post-war G.I. Bill students, brought forth an appreciation of his domain for those without the specialized training of classicists.
His popularizing impulse led him to embrace television as a tool for education, becoming a telelecturer and a pundit on broadcast television. He also recorded classical works on phonograph and tape.
Raised in Atlanta in a Yiddish-speaking Orthodox Jewish household, his early studies included rabbinical training; he graduated from Jewish Theological Seminary of America (1926) and took his doctorate in classics in 1930. He was fluent in Yiddish, German, ancient Hebrew, ancient Greek, Latin, French, and Italian, and well-versed in other languages.
His most productive years were spent at Columbia University, where he was a colleague of Jacques Barzun and Lionel Trilling. There, he took his talent for languages, combined it with a popularizing impulse, to buck the prevailing classical methods of the day—textual criticism and grammar—presenting classics, even in translation, as worthy of study as literary works in their own right.
This approach may be compared to the New Criticism school: even as the New Critics emphasized close reading, eschewing outside sources and cumbersome apparatus, Hadas, in presenting classical works in translation to an influx of post-war G.I. Bill students, brought forth an appreciation of his domain for those without the specialized training of classicists.
His popularizing impulse led him to embrace television as a tool for education, becoming a telelecturer and a pundit on broadcast television. He also recorded classical works on phonograph and tape.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
April 26, 2021
The information was great. The translations that were used were awful. Latin poetry is not meant to rhyme and trying to put it into English rhyme ruins the poetry.
September 7, 2014
Moses Hadas, A History of Latin Literature (1951)
Writing in the true humanist tradition, Moses Hadas, the Jay Professor of Greek at Columbia University, created a delightful advanced introduction to Latin Literature. His honest and insightful tone can be seen from the first paragraph. Comparing Latin and Greek literature, he says, “[W]e may grant at once that in originality, scope, imagination, and taste the Greek is superior. Taken in isolation, moreover, and separated from the historical and cultural development out of which it arose and which it reflects, Latin literature must be pronounced inferior to more than one of its daughter literatures.” While the evidence of inferior translation and imitation throughout the work supports this statement, do not mistake this as a hack job. Hadas has a deep appreciation of these works as literature. Reliable sources (Wikipedia) report that Hadas pioneered a change from a primarily grammatical and textual approach to the classics to appreciating them as works of art, and the work shows it. Hadas shares generously of his opinions and evaluations, which, while one might not always agree with them, are so well formed and developed, with such familiarity with primary texts, that they are always welcome and useful. Moreover, while he does not shy away from calling out inferiority, he generally tries to emphasize the parts of value in a particular work. The source of this attitude seems to be simply a deep appreciation for this civilization, in the tradition of Gibbon (though better informed, as he ought to be).
This work is not a scholarly work, or should not be considered so now. Most of his scholarly assessments are out of date, but the book does not rely on them. There are some odd omissions. For instance, there is almost no mention of a feminist perspective on any of this literature, which feels like an oversight today. I see no evidence that it advances the ball in understanding any of the authors in the context of total scholastic literature. But all that can be a virtue. Hadas’s reliance on his deep knowledge of the primary texts is the reason that this book, written in 1951, still has relevance and use today. I have found few classicist writers today who have such a nuanced sense of style and taste and appreciation of the literature. It made me eager to read all the writers I had not read widely in: Terence, Plautus, Ennius, Tibullus & Propertius, Catullus, Juvenal, etc.
But neither will the book be an easy read for a Roman history novice. Hadas aspires to be exhaustive, both in presenting all the major and most of the minor Roman authors or literary merit, and in describing or mentioning almost all of their works. He has detail. For someone struggling to absorb Hadas's detailed description of all the plays of Plautus and Terence, discussions of Lucilius, Laberius, Persius, and other minor Roman playwrights at the end of the chapter may be too much. However, for the amateur classicist, who reads for edification and pleasure, the book is a gold mine. Not only does it contextualize all the major Roman authors one may have read about in primers, but it discusses the strengths and weaknesses of their major and minor works, and who their competitors and imitators were. It is a roadmap for reading Roman literature for pleasure.
In addition, it has an excellent discussion of some of the older translators of these works, including a preference for verse translations of poetry, which is perfect for an amateur classicist who prefers readability and, perhaps, a public domain copy, to an apparatus criticus. Some of the translations are gems. Here’s a translation of Horace I.38 by famed children lullaby writer Eugene Field:
Boy, I detest the Persian pomp;
I hate those linden-bark devices;
And as for roses, holy Moses!
They can’t be got at living prices!
Myrtle is good enough for us,—
For you, as bearer of my flagon;
For me, supine beneath this vine,
Doing my best to get a jag on!
Without consulting the Latin, I would guess there are some liberties with the underlying text, but the tight verse captures some of the delight of the original Horace in a different way. He also cites translations of John Milton, Christopher Marlowe, Robert Herrick, and many others.
Overall, for someone interested in getting a bigger picture of Latin literature and what may be worth reading, this is pretty much an ideal work. Hadas has also written a History of Greek Literature, which may have to be my next stop.
Writing in the true humanist tradition, Moses Hadas, the Jay Professor of Greek at Columbia University, created a delightful advanced introduction to Latin Literature. His honest and insightful tone can be seen from the first paragraph. Comparing Latin and Greek literature, he says, “[W]e may grant at once that in originality, scope, imagination, and taste the Greek is superior. Taken in isolation, moreover, and separated from the historical and cultural development out of which it arose and which it reflects, Latin literature must be pronounced inferior to more than one of its daughter literatures.” While the evidence of inferior translation and imitation throughout the work supports this statement, do not mistake this as a hack job. Hadas has a deep appreciation of these works as literature. Reliable sources (Wikipedia) report that Hadas pioneered a change from a primarily grammatical and textual approach to the classics to appreciating them as works of art, and the work shows it. Hadas shares generously of his opinions and evaluations, which, while one might not always agree with them, are so well formed and developed, with such familiarity with primary texts, that they are always welcome and useful. Moreover, while he does not shy away from calling out inferiority, he generally tries to emphasize the parts of value in a particular work. The source of this attitude seems to be simply a deep appreciation for this civilization, in the tradition of Gibbon (though better informed, as he ought to be).
This work is not a scholarly work, or should not be considered so now. Most of his scholarly assessments are out of date, but the book does not rely on them. There are some odd omissions. For instance, there is almost no mention of a feminist perspective on any of this literature, which feels like an oversight today. I see no evidence that it advances the ball in understanding any of the authors in the context of total scholastic literature. But all that can be a virtue. Hadas’s reliance on his deep knowledge of the primary texts is the reason that this book, written in 1951, still has relevance and use today. I have found few classicist writers today who have such a nuanced sense of style and taste and appreciation of the literature. It made me eager to read all the writers I had not read widely in: Terence, Plautus, Ennius, Tibullus & Propertius, Catullus, Juvenal, etc.
But neither will the book be an easy read for a Roman history novice. Hadas aspires to be exhaustive, both in presenting all the major and most of the minor Roman authors or literary merit, and in describing or mentioning almost all of their works. He has detail. For someone struggling to absorb Hadas's detailed description of all the plays of Plautus and Terence, discussions of Lucilius, Laberius, Persius, and other minor Roman playwrights at the end of the chapter may be too much. However, for the amateur classicist, who reads for edification and pleasure, the book is a gold mine. Not only does it contextualize all the major Roman authors one may have read about in primers, but it discusses the strengths and weaknesses of their major and minor works, and who their competitors and imitators were. It is a roadmap for reading Roman literature for pleasure.
In addition, it has an excellent discussion of some of the older translators of these works, including a preference for verse translations of poetry, which is perfect for an amateur classicist who prefers readability and, perhaps, a public domain copy, to an apparatus criticus. Some of the translations are gems. Here’s a translation of Horace I.38 by famed children lullaby writer Eugene Field:
Boy, I detest the Persian pomp;
I hate those linden-bark devices;
And as for roses, holy Moses!
They can’t be got at living prices!
Myrtle is good enough for us,—
For you, as bearer of my flagon;
For me, supine beneath this vine,
Doing my best to get a jag on!
Without consulting the Latin, I would guess there are some liberties with the underlying text, but the tight verse captures some of the delight of the original Horace in a different way. He also cites translations of John Milton, Christopher Marlowe, Robert Herrick, and many others.
Overall, for someone interested in getting a bigger picture of Latin literature and what may be worth reading, this is pretty much an ideal work. Hadas has also written a History of Greek Literature, which may have to be my next stop.
October 12, 2010
Couldn't really get into this. Though I likely just picked it up to peruse the timeline of who was writing what when. I like that stuff.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews