My email was bombarded recently.
Friends, students, colleagues sent me a link to a
New York Times article on the resurgence of Latin in schools.
Fabulous.
Wonderful.
So glad other people decided to join the party.
I'm thrilled that the Times would deign to take an interest.
Twice within a year, too.
But some of this has to be addressed.
Actually, a lot.
And we'll start with this quote from the article.
"Ms. Abbott, a former Latin teacher, said that today’s Latin classes appeal to more students because they have evolved from 'dry grammar and tortuous translations' to livelier lessons that focus on culture, history and the daily life of the Romans. In addition, she said, Latin teachers and students have promoted the language outside the classroom through clubs, poetry competitions and mock chariot races."
"'dry grammar'"
Yes, grammar is dry.
BUT ONLY
if you teach it that way.
If you expect a thing to be boring,
guess what.
It Will Be.
Very simple.
Kids aren't stupid.
And when they know that a teacher feels a particular way about something, and it happens to fit their desired outcome (i.e., to junk it because they find it 'boring', - read, Challenging), they will be all over it.
Grammar is doomed to fail.
It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
That is why my favorite oxymoron is
An English Grammarian.
English teachers don't generally teach grammar anymore.
Oh, and look at that.
One of the things that employers have the biggest problem with is that their folks
don't know how to write.
The same is true, of course, at the university level, where many tests have become multiple choice.
Oh, but, I know, let's just make sure our kids are having FUN in school.
That's really all that matters.
Having Fun.
I mean, who cares whether or not they actually LEARN anything?
Good Idea.
As teachers, why don't we go down to our students' level instead of bringing them up to ours?
Why Didn't I Think Of That?
Enough of the ranting.
Here's the deal.
The linguistic study of Latin helps people identify and establish the underpinnings of language. It is a scientific approach to the acquisition of language.
All the other stuff is fun.
No question.
I myself like a chariot race first thing in the morning to really get me going .
Though I'd rather skip the dormice for breakfast.
Or dinner.
What is particularly critical about the study of Latin is that it helps young people harness their minds. (Take a look at my previous blog post Altius Citius Fortius.)
All this other stuff is window dressing
It's okay.
For window dressing.
Language is part and parcel of "culture" and "history".
Anybody who doesn't get that is going to be in trouble, as many of the major wars that have been fought in Europe are matters of Language.
Just look at Adolf Hitler and his reclamation of Austria, the Sudetenland, Poland, etc., all because of his "concern" about the persecution of the ethnic Germans in those lands.
Oh, and does the word "holocaust" mean anything?
Language, let's get real here, is pivotal.
As George Santayana said in A Life of Reason,
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
You cannot splice culture and history away from language.
Language is the nervous system of a people.
It is what communication is based on.
People don't say
"You're the same culture as me"
or
"You've got the same history as me"
No, they say,
"We speak the same language."
Language.
It is the key.
And Latin, when it's taught effectively, can turn that key into a Master.
drg