Classic comeback | The Spectator

Quote:

Some 15 years ago, at the behest of the then editor Charles Moore, I wrote a jovial 20-week QED: Learn Latin column for the Daily Telegraph. It attracted a huge following, and I still have four large box-files full of letters from users. The majority of them expressed one of three sentiments: ‘I learned Latin at school x years ago, loved it and am delighted to renew my acquaintance’; ‘I learned Latin at school, hated it, but now realise what I have missed’; and ‘I never learned Latin at school and have always regretted it’. These responses have stayed with me ever since, but they prompt a question: anecdotal evidence about the value people place on Latin is all very well, but would it be possible to produce something a little more objective? Can we demonstrate unconditionally that, as Gilbert Murray argued to the Classical Association in 1954, our pearls are real? This week the fund-raising charity Classics for All announced its first round of grants to projects that over the next ten years will, if we can raise the funds, open up the classical world to many of the 3,000 state schools (75 per cent of our pupils) that currently come into no contact with it whatsoever. What such schools have against the people who gave us the magnificent and deeply influential Latin and Greek languages, democracy, philosophy, atomism, our alphabet, tragedy, the form and concept of the republic, the idea of universal citizenship, building in concrete with arches, cupolas and barrel vaults, history, the book, the West’s first literature (Homer), Antigone and eventually underpinned the rise of Christianity (continue for many pages), is beyond me. How can our educational establishments be so heedless of our cultural environment — what men have said, felt, thought and created over thousands of years? Such cultural, intellectual and social deprivation is not visited on the 7 per cent of pupils attending private schools. Of course our pearls are real. At the start of this year, Jeannie Cohen and I, as co-founders of the charity Friends of Classics (instrumental in setting up Classics for All), took a deep breath and decided to test the proposition. For the first time, we would find out what influence a school subject had actually had on people, many years later. So we invited the market researcher Colin McDonald to see what could be done. He found that YouGov, uniquely, held the educational details of its 80,000+ survey panel, and could provide us with the answer to our question. Going for the largest coverage, Colin asked YouGov to sample the 10,000 who had done something classical in the course of their education — Latin, Greek, classical civilisation or ancient history — and ask what value they placed upon it. Some 2,182 replies were received out of 2,700 sampled, an astonishing 81 per cent response. This was going to be definitive. When the results came in, Jeannie and I could hardly believe our eyes. Let me quote just one from a vast range of statistics. It concerns those who had studied classics to School Cert/O level/GCSE and no further, i.e. those most likely to have had a minimal commitment to it (about 45 per cent of the total). On the usual five-point scale — useless, fairly useless, OK, quite beneficial, very beneficial — those who said classics had benefited or greatly benefited their subsequent quality of life came out at 77 per cent of the total. The results in relation to their influence on work-life and skills were equally impressive. Given that two thirds of the survey respondents were over 50, many of them must have sat those subjects for the last time at least 35 years earlier. The reasons they gave for their replies were equally revealing: overwhelmingly, they cited firm linguistic grip on English and other languages, verbal sensitivity, the capacity to communicate clearly and concisely, and a broad perspective on the intellectual, political and cultural foundations of our world. Not a bad return, 20, 30, 40, 50 or more years on, from subjects studied up to age 16. Are our pearls real? You bet they are. Can it be done? Of course it can. In the past ten years, 600 state secondary schools have started Latin. Boris’s ‘Latin in London’ push has attracted swaths of volunteer helpers (including over 50 Oxford undergraduates). The Minimus primary school Latin course is flourishing (130,000 copies sold). The fenestra opportunitatis (as no Roman ever said) is wide open. With your help, Classics for All can lavish on our schools an inheritance to last a lifetime.

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Quote:

How can our educational establishments be so heedless of our cultural environment — what men have said, felt, thought and created over thousands of years?

Umm, they're not, they just read them in translation? Duh.

Quote:

Such cultural, intellectual and social deprivation is not visited on the 7 per cent of pupils attending private schools.

Is that because they are likely to be sufficiently priviliged that they don't really need to know useful things? Kind of like how the default line of study for royal sprogs is "art history"?

The rest of this article suffers from severe logic problems, either accidental or deliberate. It starts out by arguing the case for classical languages, but then when trying to demonstrate the value of the subject it subtly shifts to suddenly including "classical civilisation or ancient history". Now of course both of those can be studied in translation. Same applies to "a broad perspective on the intellectual, political and cultural foundations of our world". But then at the end, it cites schools teaching Latin as evidence of "success".

Now I'm strongly in favour of reading and teaching classical history, and I suppose there's no harm in learning Greek or Latin with which to do so. But to conflate the two is dishonest, and whatever benefits can be argued for studying history cannot be magically transferred to learning languages. If this absurdity is the result of a mind trained in Latin, we can frankly do without it.

And for the record, I did 2 years of Latin.

I did no years, and was and am terrible at it, but I still like it.

And it think that if you want to understand a culture you need to at least have an idea of what its language is/was like. Reading stuff in translation just isn't the same. Then there's also the point that for much of European history, even authors who wrote in the vernacular had Latin texts as their main reference point, and hark back to them frequently. One of the happiest moments of my life to date involved realising that Thackeray's joke about an Irish officer's wife leaving a ball "lassata nondum satiata" was a reference to Juvenal's description of Messalina as being "lassata viris nondum satiata". Sure, it contributes nothing to the GDP, but we're supposed to be counting gross national happiness these days, aren't we?

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

I'm perfectly happy for those who are keen on it to have it available. And I don't disagree with your points, but I think it can be safely left to specialists at university level. A similar argument could be made Old English, but I just don't think its sufficiently valuable to justify displacing other subjects.

Make it an option. I had 4 years of it (my mother teaches the stuff) and I can't say it made any huge impact on me.

In general, studying several languages is always good but, while you're at it, you can as well select a living language.

The idea that it helps to be able to read a text in its original language is obviously true but it's not that important. You still get most of it within a translation.

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by Zichao

Sure, it contributes nothing to the GDP, but we're supposed to be counting gross national happiness these days, aren't we?

Everything new has been done before.

The peasants used to take some comfort in believing that the rich wont have an easy time getting into heaven... now, with this global recession, everyone is supposed to feel better knowing that despite the enormous wealth inequality gap, that the rich aren't all that happy. And happiness is what really matters.

__________________
Righteousness will always be the trap at the gates of hell

I am obviously very much tempted to agree but my standard geeky self of disagreeing with everyone forces me to point out that, while it is impossible to measure the likelihood of access to a theoretical heaven, you can, kind of, measure happiness....

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.