Why Do We Latin? Should We Latin?
If you're looking for a robust defense of Latin in classical schools then you should probably not look here. Christopher Perrin, a well-known and respected classical education consultant has a short little article called 10 Reasons to Study Latin that presents the case as well as any other I've seen. I myself know small Latin and less Greek, but what I can give you some insight into why I think classical schools place Latin in such an important position in their curriculum.
When people know nothing else about classical education they usually know that classical schools are "the ones that do Latin." And it's true. Pretty much all classical school require their students to do at least some form of Latin. Usually they begin studying the language in earnest in middle school, and continue it through tenth grade or so. Then, if the student desires, he can either continue in his language studies with a different language (sometimes a modern language like Spanish or another ancient one like Greek) or can give up on languages altogether.
Argumentum Ex Lēctitandō
I have very mixed feelings on this particular subject. One of the reasons is that the best argument that I have heard for teaching kids to learn Latin (at least the one that rings the most true for me personally) is that it is better to read great works of literature in the languages in which they were originally written. This in undoubtedly a true statement. However, I have never personally seen anyone actually do this in earnest. There may be a handful of classical schools out there who make their students read everything that was originally written in Latin in the language, but most schools I know read English translations of all the works. At best students may work on translating some great works into English (usually the Aeneid), but most of them never attain a mastery of Latin sufficient to write or read in it to any great extent. It's also strange to me that most classical schools would offer Latin and then not Classical Greek under this way of thinking since much of the philosophy and early literature students read in in Greek (again, I know that there are probably a few schools who have really leaned into this, but I would argue that it's not the majority of classical schools).
Reductio Ad Grammaticam
Another argument I hear frequently that is persusasivish from a practical perspective is that it helps them to gain a solid grasp of grammar, of how languages themselves work. The way Latin is taught is inherently different from the more conversational models used to teach languages in progressive schools. Almost by necessity it focuses on grammatical structures. First year students learn not just what nouns are but what different 'jobs' in a sentence a noun can have. They learn what conjugations actually are. We have noun declensions and verb conjugations in English, but our language has simplified the process for native speakers so much that students often don't realize that they decline and conjugate in everyday language. Understanding the basic fundamentals of language is helpful when students are writing in their native language, or when students attempt to learn another language.
Plus it's worth mentioning that many of the modern languages that students will learn, Spanish or French are some of the most popular, are Romance languages in that they are directly descended from Latin. So a foundation in Latin can make learning those languages an easier process.
Advocatus Diaboli... Fortasse...
It could be argued, however, at that point, why not just teach Spanish or French grammatically. Spanish in particular is a language that is beautiful, is living, and is practically valuable. If students are graduating from a classical school with a good understanding of at least one language, shouldn't it be a language that they can actually use to speak and connect with other human beings? Can't you use Spanish to work backward just as easily into Latin if a student decides that's something he wants to do? I'm literally asking, because I don't know. I feel like you probably can though. I have only heard defenses of Latin at this point, and while I don't necessarily find them compelling, I haven't heard anyone offer a compelling reason to not teach Latin either. So, I guess, I'm ultimately a Latin agnostic, which leads me to my ultimate conclusion as to why I really think classical schools are obsessed with Latin.
Quia, Cur Non
Classical education is a kind of education that is interested in the past and with its connection to tradition and history. Honestly I think that the reason, deep down, that classical schools still teach Latin is because that's the language that was taught to educated people and to the gentleman classes until the rise of the progressive education movement. There are a lot of people who are incredibly passionate defenders of the Latin curriculum. Most of them as far as I can tell are also classicists (people who study Latin and Greek languages and literature). So, at the end of the day why do I think our schools teach Latin? It's not for the grammar, it's not for the root words, it's not so that children become fluent masters who read Cicero's speeches fluently. Latin does teach grammar, it does teach root words, etc. etc. whatever. I think it simply comes down to the fact that it's traditional and if it's good for people to learn a different language, then why not Latin?*I know that all my Latin headings are bad. I did my best but at the end of the day I have to live with the knowledge that all I did was make English sentences with Latin words.
No comments:
Post a Comment