Salvete,
As I teacher, I would like to incorporate some of the mindset and methods of pre-World War II classical languages pedagogy, but I have never been able to find a precise description of the general method and sequence of studies practiced during that period. I know that a boy (or girl) in a British or American school during that period would have begun with a grammar book that included exercises. However, what was the next step? More translation sentences, or a primary text like Caesar’s De Bello Gallico? At what point would a composition book like “Bradley’s Arnold” have been used? When would students have read Virgil? Ovid?
If any of you can answer my questions from your own knowledge or suggest a book I might consult I would be very grateful. Gratias ago!
Interesting question. My parents met in second year Latin class in High School in the 1930s – it was a requirement, not an elective. The Scudder-Jenney textbook may give you some clues – seems it reviews all the first-year grammar and embarks on Caesar with accompanying translation exercises and the like. Not sure how widely North and Hillard’s Latin Prose Composition was used, but the approach was evidently employed fairly early on in a student’s studies, so gives a clue that English to Latin translation was still highly valued.
This is what I remember of my experiences as a teenager in the 1960s in a US school that offered 5 years of Latin and 4 of Greek (as I recall, 5 hours a week, at least for the first four years of Latin):
First year: Learning basic grammar, with translation exercises to and from Latin, maybe some Caesar.
Second year: Mostly reading texts, Caesar, selections from de natura deorum, 1st Catilinarian, some Ovid towards the end of the year with scansion of hexameters, grammar review, some finer points of grammar but not much composition (English to Latin).
Third year: Cicero, more Catilinarians, selections from the Verrine orations, maybe one or two other speeched; Vergil, Eclogues (except the Third).
Fourth year: Aeneid 1, 2 3, 4 and 6. The Aeneid was withheld until age 16 or 17 because younger boys were deemed too immature to appreciate it. Some Horace, I think.
Fifth year: Horace, Catullus, other things I don’t recall.
My memory may be faulty.
I’ve never taught Latin, but it strikes me that teachers face a dilemma: Caesar is inherently boring, but there’s no better way to assimilate and internalize the grammar–purpose clauses, result clauses, indirect discourse, etc.–because his prose is stripped down to the essentials.
I had two years of Latin in the early 1950s.
Year 1 was an introduction to grammar, with beginner readings. I recall things like “Britannia est insula” and Italia non est insula", among the very first readings.
Year 2 was a somewhat more advanced recapitulation of the grammar in year 1, augmented by some readings from Caesar.
I think we still use a lot of pre-WWII language pedagogy, and this is not necessarily a good thing!
What aspects of it make you say using it is not a good thing?
Google “Latin: Empire of a Sign”.
Latin teaching during the first half of the 20th c. was anything but monolithic. See for instance the “Direct method” as applied to Latin. It is very well documented since it proponents had to defend it again and again against “classical” pedagogy.
Rouse and Appleton’s Latin on the direct method gives a detailed treatement of the method.
Personally, I’m very satisfied with my traditonal instruction in Latin and Greek, which gave me a solid basis for a lifetime of engagement with classical texts.
Ok, maybe I misunderstood your post but I hope my mentioning the direct method has not been taken as belittling in any way the traditional pedagogy…
In case anyone stumbles on this thread looking for more resources, I’m adding a link here that has a few scanned books on the history of classical pedagogy since the middle ages as well as an abundance of sources on pedagogical theory.
https://vivariumnovum.it/risorse-didattiche/propria-formazione/storia-e-teoria-della-didattica