'Core' Latin Curriculum

[sydneylam19]

I just came up with an interesting question: if you were to design a 'core' Latin curriculum for high school students which includes the most essential Latin authors, who would you include, and what works would be chosen for them? Also, would you prefer a curriculum which includes a range of authors, or one which focuses on a few authors?

In the past, AP Latin Literature allowed teachers to choose among three pairs of authors: Catullus-Cicero, Catullus-Horace, and Catullus-Ovid. However, starting from 2009, only AP Latin exam was offered which included only Vergil's Aeneid. Then in recent years Aeneid and Caesar's De Bello Gallico were examined. I don't know why there had been such change, and why Catullus had been the central figure of the old syllabus (I thought it should be Cicero or Vergil).

Then when I looked into the current syllabi of GCE AS and A2 Latin (or Classics) provided by several exam boards in the UK, there seems a lack of consensus as to which authors should be studied in-depth; very often extracts from a laundry list of literati are included. This is a stark contrast with the pedagogy in the old days, where the norm was to drill into several masterpiece throughout the course of study. Caesar's De Bello Gallico was the stepping stone for greater learning; Vergil's Aeneid (with rich selection from Georgics) was the limelight of the classroom; Cicero's Catiline Orations and/or Philippics II were assigned for leisure reading, accompanied with some Ovid and Pliny the Younger in English instead of Latin.

Thank you for reading the long thread. It's very interesting to learn about the history of Latin instruction.

[Nesrad]

It depends on one's purpose. If the purpose is to teach Latin, I don't think it would be wise to include any poetry at all until mastery of prose has been acquired. I'm mystified when schools have mere beginners read poetry when they are barely able to parse a sentence. As in any language, the regular constructions and vocabulary are to be found in prose. If I were to design a programme, I would have Caesar and Cicero's speeches first, then Livy, then the rest on the prose authors, namely Tacitus, Seneca, Cicero's treaties, Pliny old and young... Poetry would only be attempted in a "directed reading" course, and I would start with Virgil.

[sydneylam19]

If I were to design a programme, I would have Caesar and Cicero's speeches first, then Livy, then the rest on the prose authors, namely Tacitus, Seneca, Cicero's treaties, Pliny old and young... Poetry would only be attempted in a "directed reading" course, and I would start with Virgil.

I agree with what you said. Nowadays, however, it's rare to find Caesar in First Year Latin, which sounds so odd to me - in the past Caesar and some Pliny or Nepos reigned superior to all authors when it wasn't thought necessary to offer students reading material that would sustain their interest.

Do you think Virgil is a better start than Ovid for Latin poetry? Is Aeneid the best among Virgil's works?

[sydneylam19]

I just knew that the College Board in the US required students to read at least 2000 lines of Aeneid in the 20's.....

[Nesrad]

in the past Caesar and some Pliny or Nepos reigned superior to all authors when it wasn't thought necessary to offer students reading material that would sustain their interest.

Indeed, yet I find it odd that one would consider Ovid and Catullus more interesting than Caesar or Cicero's speeches. The opposite is the case for me. Off hand, I can't think of anything more boring than Ovid's Ars Amatoria, though I can see how it might interest women more than Caesar. I suspect all this poetry has everything to do with the feminization of faculty in schools and colleges.

Do you think Virgil is a better start than Ovid for Latin poetry? Is Aeneid the best among Virgil's works?

As you may have noticed, I have a personal issue with Ovid, so I might be biased, but yes, Virgil seems more appropriate because he stands head and shoulders above all the other authors. I might even make an exception to the prose only rule I set earlier if using Clyde Pharr's edition of Virgil. The Georgics and the Bucolics were just Virgil warming up for the Aeneid. They're fine, but the Aeneid is the masterpiece.

[thesaurus]

Off hand, I can't think of anything more boring than Ovid's Ars Amatoria, though I can see how it might interest women more than Caesar. I suspect all this poetry has everything to do with the feminization of faculty in schools and colleges.

That's a pretty ridiculous stereotype. Only men wrote and read poetry until fairly recently, at any rate.

I personally find Caesar and other historical accounts to be incredibly dull. I'd take Ovid's Metamorphoses over the Aeneid 9 times out of 10. There's a lot to be said for a little sense of fun/humor, of which Vergil's works possess none.

I don't think there's a best core curriculum for beginners other than selecting a series of readings that are as easy as possible while remaining authentic. The key is to read as much text as possible once you have the grammar down. I'd honestly say that Orberg's Lingua Latina books should constitute the first core readings (in addition to the regular grammatical studies), as they transition pretty smoothly into large quantities of adapted Latin by the second volume. After that point, I think student interest should be the main guide. As we've seen here, Cicero is exciting for some people and a bore for others.

[hlawson38]

I speak as a victim of self-instruction in Latin.

The main thing I want to see is lots of opportunity for pupils to make mistakes before their fellows, with merciful correction by a humane, determined teacher. A pupil learns not only from her own mistakes, but from the correction of the mistakes of others, which many times she would have committed, if only she had been called on.

[sydneylam19]

I speak as a victim of self-instruction in Latin.

The main thing I want to see is lots of opportunity for pupils to make mistakes before their fellows, with merciful correction by a humane, determined teacher. A pupil learns not only from her own mistakes, but from the correction of the mistakes of others, which many times she would have committed, if only she had been called on.

One disadvantage of self-instruction lies in the inability to learn prose composition. Although prose composition in ancient languages has little practical value, it is, I believe, indeed an ideal way to test our understanding on the grammar, syntax and vocabulary. However, even with the help of Bradley's Arnold and an exhaustive answer key, I still find it challenging to enhance the Latinity of my artificial writing. Learning all grammar tables by heart is simple, but how to apply the rules in reading and writing really needs professional guidance from teachers who tell their students right at the beginning the nuances in word choice and literary device.

I second the idea that prose should come first before poetry or play. That's why I was puzzled at the relative scarcity of prose in many contemporary Latin curricula, which offer to students fragments of every author and suddenly move on to 'in-depth study' of ancient history (Roman culture, Greek civilization, you name it) 'through primary literary source'. I am old-fashioned and am skeptical of such pedagogy.

[Nesrad]

Off hand, I can't think of anything more boring than Ovid's Ars Amatoria, though I can see how it might interest women more than Caesar. I suspect all this poetry has everything to do with the feminization of faculty in schools and colleges.

That's a pretty ridiculous stereotype. Only men wrote and read poetry until fairly recently, at any rate.

That's a pretty ridiculous stereotype.

I personally find Caesar and other historical accounts to be incredibly dull. I'd take Ovid's Metamorphoses over the Aeneid 9 times out of 10. There's a lot to be said for a little sense of fun/humor, of which Vergil's works possess none.

I think you've proven my point. Poetry for young learners is good for spicing up the reading, but it doesn't make sense if your goal is to learn Latin efficiently.

I don't think there's a best core curriculum for beginners other than selecting a series of readings that are as easy as possible while remaining authentic.

I agree, selected readings are a good idea.

[Nesrad]

One disadvantage of self-instruction lies in the inability to learn prose composition. Although prose composition in ancient languages has little practical value, it is, I believe, indeed an ideal way to test our understanding on the grammar, syntax and vocabulary. However, even with the help of Bradley's Arnold and an exhaustive answer key, I still find it challenging to enhance the Latinity of my artificial writing. Learning all grammar tables by heart is simple, but how to apply the rules in reading and writing really needs professional guidance from teachers who tell their students right at the beginning the nuances in word choice and literary device.

It seems like you've moved beyond learning grammar and vocabulary, if you're trying to write 'natural' Latin. In that case, my suggestion is to take a deep dive into the authors and become soaked in their language. It's something that is often neglected in modern schooling because it's a long-term effort that takes a lot of work.

I second the idea that prose should come first before poetry or play. That's why I was puzzled at the relative scarcity of prose in many contemporary Latin curricula, which offer to students fragments of every author and suddenly move on to 'in-depth study' of ancient history (Roman culture, Greek civilization, you name it) 'through primary literary source'. I am old-fashioned and am skeptical of such pedagogy.

The educational systems in western countries have moved away from the culture of hard work. Students nowadays need to be enticed into learning. It's no wonder that they learn so poorly. On the bright side, these limitations have given rise to some innovative pedagogical material like Orberg's method.

[Nesrad]

.

[Nesrad]

.