"Whatever the questions about Bronx Latin, membership in a rarefied group that can decode a dead language is a source of pride that is a powerful motivator."
By Joseph Berger
First off, let me say, Bronx Latin, you rock.
And Ms. Pineiro of Bronx Latin, you rock, too.
As for you, Joseph Berger, you don't.
Berger's comment is questionable, at best. It shows that aggressive ignorance is alive, well, in fact thriving in the world - ignorance about kids, ignorance about the study and acquisition of Latin. Yeah, it's true. Kids love to know something that nobody else does. This is the nature of a kid. Know how to motivate the kid, your school works.
My blog today has to do with the insidiousness lurking in this assertion and generally in the New York Times article (by the way, "insidious" is derived from Latin, of course, particularly the Latin noun insidiae, which means "treachery, ambush"). There is the perception out there, and even in here, that Latin is only for those who are the "best" and the "brightest."
The "best" and the "brightest".
Those who fall into this category are...who?
I've never met them.
Are these the students who are able to immediately absorb information like sponges?
And do I really want to have a conversation with a sponge?
Latin is for everyone. Truly.
It is not a difficult language to learn. Truly.
Unless it is introduced that way. Truly.
"But people who have studied such schools wonder if idiosyncratic — carpers might say gimmicky — missions like teaching Latin can sustain themselves once their founders move on. " Again Berger.
My comment here - if people have studied such schools, why don't they know?
Teaching Latin is "idiosyncratic"? Thanks be to those ancient Greeks for lending a vocabulary item that writers of modern English can so readily access to make themselves look credible even smart.
Here is another entry that I read recently:
"The Rogue Classicist blogged a NY Times article on a public middle school in New York that is teaching very average students Latin (at a Bronx School...)"
At first I was taking severe umbrage at "The Rogue Classicist," mistakenly believing that it was he/she/it that was the culprit. Then I realized that the RC was simply doing his/her/its job. The tag "very average students" had nothing to do with our friendly Rogue. Rather, the source was N.S. Gill herself.
My question:
What is "a very average student"?
Am I hearing that only people of a particular background and a particular set of understanding and skills can even hope to learn Latin?
Those "very average students" are probably sitting adjacent (big, Latin word, be careful, even comes from a present participle, again, careful -- you don't want to think too hard) to the "best" and "brightest".
Oh to jugulate such (inane - dang, there goes that Latin again) ideas before they get beyond the throat!
The idea that Latin is only for those of an advanced skill set is the very plague that kills it both within the field of Classics and without. Within, there are those in the field - not unlike Ms.Gill, alas - who think that Latin is only for that aforementioned set. Without, as evidenced by Joseph Berger, there are those who think that Latin is a "gimmick" - how amusing for a language that is so arcane, it's cool for kids to know it because nobody else does.
Latin was once spoken by the entire western world.
St. Jerome had to translate the Bible into Latin.
Why?
Because that was the language everybody understood.
Hence, the Vulgate: Everybody's Bible.
Latin then evolved into five other languages still in use - some extensively - 1500 years later. Its effect on the other languages of Western Europe is vast. Six out of every ten English words owe their origin to Latin. It always amuses me that people who question the validity of Latin select words of Latinate or Greek origin to support their argument that Latin is "idiosyncratic" or "gimmicky". Ironic that their argumentation is grounded in, and takes its teeth from, the very language and mode of thinking and learning that they would debunk.
It is aggressive ignorance on the one hand, and myopic elitist snobbery, on the other, that prevents those of us who are the direct heirs of Latin - i.e., anybody associated in any way with Western Europe - from seeing that the study of Latin is not some new-fangled flummery, some educational silver (some would argue "blank") bullet, but could serve as a cornerstone of the education of a person who can think not just broadly, but deeply, and who can articulate those ideas and thoughts in a real and meaningful manner.
That's the beauty of Bronx Latin.
Bronx Latin gets it.
And why does Bronx Latin get it?
Because of Ms. Pineiro.
She has the courage, the nerve, and the drive to establish a school of such a (nowadays) remarkable ilk.
Yeah, or, as we could say in Latin, Ita Vero:
She gets it, too.
For other, positive perspectives, see:
Phi Beta Con,
JesuitJoe, In Illo Tempore