Sunday, November 04, 2007
Opinion

Fiat lux! We need Latin!

Latin in public schools

By Bob Zaslavsky

The time has come to require in the public school curriculum the subject that used to be considered the royal road to academic competence. That subject is Latin.

By Latin, I mean the language that originated among the ancient Romans, became the official language of the medieval European church, and functioned for many centuries as the universal language of scholars and diplomats.

This explanation is necessary because one cannot assume any longer that if one says “Latin,” everyone will know what one means. Some years ago, a ninth-grade student who had selected my Latin I course seemed alternately confused by and indifferent to what we were doing in class. One day after class—not wishing to cause her needless agony—I asked her why she had decided to take Latin. She replied, “Because I like Latin music.”

For centuries, students learned Latin (and Greek) in primary school, completing by the eighth grade the equivalent of what today would be a rigorous four-year high school Latin curriculum.

In the 19th century, in this country, one could not be accepted into college without demonstrating mastery of both Latin and Greek.

Until 30 years ago, one could not be accepted into medical or law school without having completed a high school Latin curriculum.

Since the 1970s, without the imprimatur of professional school requirement or public school support, Latin has been fighting an increasingly difficult uphill battle against the charge of its irrelevance and uselessness.

The paradox is that few subjects are as relevant or useful as Latin, and the gain from studying Latin is almost incalculable.

First, one gains a knowledge of the language that is the direct or indirect source of more than two-thirds of the English language. In this sense, studying Latin strengthens, enhances and enriches one’s knowledge of all aspects of the English language.

Second, one gains a knowledge of ancient Rome and Roman culture. Since later Western history and culture—especially the foundation of our own country—grew out of Roman history and culture, studying Latin gives one a deeper appreciation of both global and our own national civilization.

The so-called Romance—which means “Romanic,” not “romantic”—languages (French, Portuguese, Spanish, Italian and Romanian) are the direct outgrowths of Latin. Therefore, knowing Latin makes it easier and quicker to learn those languages. My own daughter experienced this. After she took the three years of Latin that I insisted she take in high school, she started (and sailed through) French in her senior year (continuing it into her first year of college). In her college sophomore year, she started Spanish, and—because of the Latin foundation—she was able to learn it well enough after just one semester to qualify to do her junior year in Spain at the University of Madrid.

Third, the study techniques that are used to learn Latin make one a better student in all other academic subjects.

Fourth, as a byproduct, those who study Latin make demonstrably higher scores—in both English and mathematics—on the SAT (and other standardized tests) than those who do not.

Finally, studying Latin enables one to know which Super Bowl one is watching.

There are those who say that it is more useful to study, say, Spanish than Latin. I would challenge them to survey their parents and grandparents. Ask what language they studied in high school. Then ask how much they have used that language. I would wager that of those who took a modern language, no more than 5 percent will say that they have used (or even remembered) it. Wile of those who took Latin, almost all would say that—in some form or other—they have used it every year of their lives.

To those who would say that Latin is not the study of the future, I would say that we cannot know the future. Whatever we now pick as the study of the future may turn out to be obsolete when that future arrives.

However, we can—and should—know the past and present. The best road map to the best of the past and present, to what has endured through many earlier “futures,” is Latin. Cicero, in his “Orator” (120), said:

Nescire autem quid ante quam natus sis acciderit, id est semper esse puerum. Quid enim est aetas hominis, nisi ea memoria rerum veterum cum superorum aetate contexitur?

However, not to know what befell before you were born is always to be a child. For what is the age of a human if it is not woven together with the age of one’s ancestors by means of a memory of old things? SP

Bob Zaslavsky is author of “The First Latin Course,” and may be reached via his Web site at doczonline.com