Was it all Lily's fault?

[ElizabethB]

The decline in Latin and grammar? I have not studied enough Latin yet to make an educated answer myself, here are thoughts from Geraldine Rodgers' History of Beginning Reading:

 

page 117 - 118

His [Priscian's] Institutiones grammaticae, which can be translated as Grammatical Foundations, is a series of 18 books, which systematically treat the grammar of Latin. It is certainly interesting that the first 16 are concerned for the most part with sounds and the formation and inflexion of words. That certainly puts “sound†in teaching in its proper place. It certainly demotes the “meaning†approach to the teaching of reading that is propounded by current “experts†like Kenneth Goodman. However, almost one-third of the total material is contained in the last two of Priscian’s books, and they concern syntax.

...

As already mentioned, the massively used Priscian grammars contained numerous excerpts from classical Latin authors, and students at that time studied those excerpts. Concerning the presumed cultural darkness of that period in comparison to ours, how many students today have a real grasp of grammar, as the Priscian students did, and how many today can quote, verbatim, in Latin, from classical authors, as ordinary students of Priscian in the “Dark Ages†did?

 

page 167

The switch from Latin to the vernacular to teach beginners to read marked the end of Latin as a common tongue for Western civilization. The sixteenth century humanists made a sincere attempt to repair the damage to spoken Latin which had occurred in the degenerate late Middle Ages, but they did so with “improved†Latin grammars like Lily’s, which sometimes used the vernacular to teach largely WRITTEN Latin, instead of the ancient Latin Donat which had been used to teach largely SPOKEN Latin, even though boys were then encouraged to speak in Latin in the grammar schools of the sixteenth century. It is true that Latin grammar schools persisted widely into the middle nineteenth century, and some probably persist in many areas today, but it was not spoken Latin which was ultimately learned in these schools, but a written, dead language. For all ordinary purposes except in the Church liturgy, Latin died out as a living, spoken tongue about the beginning of the seventeenth century. Not surprisingly, it therefore largely died out as a written tongue also not long afterwards.

[SarahW]

Yes, and this is why I have a problem with the new classical education synthesis that relies so heavily on the early Humanists. What did Erasmus et al accomplish? What are we trying to accomplish by copying them?

 

When I read Climbing Paranasus that question kept on bugging me. He keeps on talking about how terrible it was when the system failed, but is that all we are trying to do, recreate the system and just try harder this time around?

 

But, I don't believe the late Middle Ages were "degenerate" so that may be why I have issue with Humanism. I think the Middle Ages had a point in keeping Latin around as their version of Esperanto. Sure, they allowed Latin to shift and change, but that was because to them Latin wasn't dead, it was how they did international business.Some people in the Middle Ages were opposed to the vernacular being used as a literary language, but not all (including a good portion of the Catholic church).

 

So, yes, I think Rodger's is right when he says that the humanists ultimately killed Latin. But what can we do about that today? I am currently writing the modern version of "Latin" when it comes to a worldwide language. So I think our kids will have that aspect. Being able to read ancient texts in the language they were written in is nothing to sneeze at, so I think learning an ancient language, even if only on a "dead" reading level, has value. But can we ever hope to revive Latin to the stature it once had as a dynamic language of business, academics, theology, and politics? No, I think that ship has long sailed off the edge of the earth.

Note that "Lily" and "Livy" are very different people...

[ElizabethB]

Note that "Lily" and "Livy" are very different people...

 

Thank you, I updated my post title, that's what happens when you post too late!

[ElizabethB]

But, I don't believe the late Middle Ages were "degenerate" so that may be why I have issue with Humanism. I think the Middle Ages had a point in keeping Latin around as their version of Esperanto. Sure, they allowed Latin to shift and change, but that was because to them Latin wasn't dead, it was how they did international business.Some people in the Middle Ages were opposed to the vernacular being used as a literary language, but not all (including a good portion of the Catholic church).

 

So, yes, I think Rodger's is right when he says that the humanists ultimately killed Latin. But what can we do about that today? I am currently writing the modern version of "Latin" when it comes to a worldwide language. So I think our kids will have that aspect. Being able to read ancient texts in the language they were written in is nothing to sneeze at, so I think learning an ancient language, even if only on a "dead" reading level, has value. But can we ever hope to revive Latin to the stature it once had as a dynamic language of business, academics, theology, and politics? No, I think that ship has long sailed off the edge of the earth.

 

Geraldine Rodgers thinks the same of the "dark ages," her entire history was very interesting, I learned a lot more than just the history of reading.

 

I agree that we can only do what we can now...but I am at least trying to use resources that allow for hearing and speaking Latin. (I also find it easier to learn if I fully understand the pronunciation and have an oral aspect of language, even for Latin. That is part of the reason I am using Latin Alive.)

[serendipitous journey]

Yes, and this is why I have a problem with the new classical education synthesis that relies so heavily on the early Humanists. What did Erasmus et al accomplish? What are we trying to accomplish by copying them?

 

 

For myself:

1. religious tolerance

2. extending education to women

3. an interest in reading ancient texts in the original languages, particularly including the Greek texts

4. valuing literary scholarship and the study of the Scriptures, which Erasmus translated into Latin and Greek

5. an emphasis on a Christianity less concerned with pomp and ceremony and more concerned with living a Christ-like life.

6. a belief in free will

7. a dedication to reconciliation, peace, and civility even while trying to address institutional corruptions.

 

That said, I am in no way trying to replicate the Middle Ages version of education, nor that of the early humanists or Renaissance -- I'm trying to learn and extend.

 

We teach Latin largely orally at the moment (via GSWL) and will add ancient Greek next year; I plan to self-teach from Homer (Lord willing & the creek don't rise -- it is an ambitious plan for me! I hope to use Beginning Greek with Homer and/or Homeric Greek: A Book for Beginners). It was actually the Classical-era Jewish interest in Greek as a language par excellence that got me interested in learning Greek here at home.

[SarahW]

For myself:

1. religious tolerance

2. extending education to women

3. an interest in reading ancient texts in the original languages, particularly including the Greek texts

4. valuing literary scholarship and the study of the Scriptures, which Erasmus translated into Latin and Greek

5. an emphasis on a Christianity less concerned with pomp and ceremony and more concerned with living a Christ-like life.

6. a belief in free will

7. a dedication to reconciliation, peace, and civility even while trying to address institutional corruptions.

 

And - I don't think humanism is in any way responsible for any of that.

 

From the Renaissance to Humanism to the Enlightenment what we got was slavery, imperialism and colonialism, the stripping of women's rights, and an intellectual wasteland. I know they said this was a step up from all the awfulness that came before, but I don't believe them, because they were historically verifiably wrong (and a lot of them knew it).

 

A good book on this is The Unintended Reformation.

 

I read that book soon after finishing Hunter's To Change the World. And I read those soon after finishing Pernoud's Those Terrible Middle Ages and Lewis's The Discarded Image.It was a really interesting few months. :)

[8filltheheart]

 

 

And - I don't think humanism is in any way responsible for any of that.

 

From the Renaissance to Humanism to the Enlightenment what we got was slavery, imperialism and colonialism, the stripping of women's rights, and an intellectual wasteland. I know they said this was a step up from all the awfulness that came before, but I don't believe them, because they were historically verifiably wrong (and a lot of them knew it).

 

A good book on this is The Unintended Reformation.

 

I read that book soon after finishing Hunter's To Change the World. And I read those soon after finishing Pernoud's Those Terrible Middle Ages and Lewis's The Discarded Image.It was a really interesting few months. :)

 

 

You might also be interested in reading Thomas Woods's How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. http://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Church-Built-Western-Civilization/dp/1596983280

 

It was actually recommended to me by a former poster on this forum, Myrtle. I am pretty sure that Myrtle was not a Christian (it has been a few yrs) and she recommended the title for its historical view pt. I was glad to have something that contained in a single volume info that I had "in my head" from reading multitudinous sources.

[momma2three]

It's not actually something I know much about, but I wonder why the conclusion is "Spoken Latin stopped being as important because of this popular textbook series" and not "This popular textbook series stopped using spoken Latin because it wasn't as important anymore."

 

Latin was the "world language" because the Catholic Church was the world. Incidentally, Italy also happened to be the epicenter of the European financial world, because it was where all the Asian/European trading magic happened. By the time Lily's grammar was published, the Reformation had happened, and a combination of other European powers establishing colonies around the world and Italy being such a mess made it not nearly so important a world player. French was already becoming the "world language," and Latin was still being learned largely because that's what boys at school had always done.

[SarahW]

You might also be interested in reading Thomas Woods's How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. http://www.amazon.co...n/dp/1596983280

 

It was actually recommended to me by a former poster on this forum, Myrtle. I am pretty sure that Myrtle was not a Christian (it has been a few yrs) and she recommended the title for its historical view pt. I was glad to have something that contained in a single volume info that I had "in my head" from reading multitudinous sources.

 

Thanks for the rec!

 

I think that I've seen that book before, but the title reminded me of a book called Where Would the World be Without the Bible? (or something like that) that I once had the misfortune of trying to read, so I didn't really look into it.

 

From the description on Amazon it seems to cover much of the same ground as Pernoud's book, but I would love to get more than one perspective. Especially for Galileo - Pernoud posits that Galileo was not the victim of the medieval Catholic church, but of the neo-Classical Renaissance. Having read de Lubac's Medieval Exegesis (well, good parts of it!) I think she's right, but I'm still trying to get my brain to sort it all out.

[SarahW]

It's not actually something I know much about, but I wonder why the conclusion is "Spoken Latin stopped being as important because of this popular textbook series" and not "This popular textbook series stopped using spoken Latin because it wasn't as important anymore."

 

Latin was the "world language" because the Catholic Church was the world. Incidentally, Italy also happened to be the epicenter of the European financial world, because it was where all the Asian/European trading magic happened. By the time Lily's grammar was published, the Reformation had happened, and a combination of other European powers establishing colonies around the world and Italy being such a mess made it not nearly so important a world player. French was already becoming the "world language," and Latin was still being learned largely because that's what boys at school had always done.

 

I see what you're saying, but I have a different perspective.

 

The rise of the vernaculars went along with the consolidation of the nation-states. How better could the king in Paris assert his authority over the inhabitants of Brittany than to refuse to send them missives in Latin, and instead write to them in his own French? When the reformers denigrated the use of Latin it was as much a political statement as a theological one, one which the German princes who wanted to consolidate their local authority were happy to exploit.

 

And I disagree that Latin was tied up, or dependent on, the Catholic church. Latin was also the language of the law courts, of trade, and of politics. This continued until quite some time after the Reformation. I wouldn't say French became an international language until Napoleon's wars, and then only grudgingly among the common people. Those who were really pro-French were of the pro-Voltaire nascent-atheism bent, who thought Latin should only be learned to better read Cicero and thus learn better the universal laws that govern mankind.

 

Gregory's book has a lengthy chapter on education, and there he posits that the main shift that happened with the Humanists (and thus with the Reformation) was that soteriology moved from being experiential to being intellectual. The humanists believed that those who knew the right things would then also believe the right things, which was in sharp contrast to the Medieval system where those who did the right things believed the right things. This is why, he says, the humanists pushed philology as the main source of knowledge. But philology can not ultimately sustain itself, which is why it collapsed (leaving the importance of Latin in its dust) and now we are left with simply having a series of "scientific discoveries" to give us meaning.

 

I think the modern classical educators see the last point, which is why they always talk about "character" and "Great books" along with grammar. But here the moral meaning is still being added from the outside as an intellectual endeavor like the humanists wanted, whereas in the medieval system the moral meaning came before either intellect or language. I know that distinction is hard for us to wrap our heads around today, but that's largely because we are still living under the influence of humanism, and it really is quite a different mindset from what came before it.

[serendipitous journey]

And - I don't think humanism is in any way responsible for any of that.

 

From the Renaissance to Humanism to the Enlightenment what we got was slavery, imperialism and colonialism, the stripping of women's rights, and an intellectual wasteland. I know they said this was a step up from all the awfulness that came before, but I don't believe them, because they were historically verifiably wrong (and a lot of them knew it).

 

A good book on this is The Unintended Reformation.

 

I read that book soon after finishing Hunter's To Change the World. And I read those soon after finishing Pernoud's Those Terrible Middle Ages and Lewis's The Discarded Image.It was a really interesting few months. :)

 

 

No, I didn't mean to imply that these things had been accomplished at all. Simply that in looking to humanists such as Erasmus, this is what I look to.

 

I saw that you do not want this thread to become controversial, so I will not debate the slavery, imperialism, colonialism, women's rights, and intellectual wasteland arguments.

 

Will look into those references; thank you. Bouncing back The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. Parts of this are not tightly argued, but the core argument I find to be strong. Pinker is likely to offend religious sensibilities, but if you can look around this I find it a valuable read.

 

At any rate, RE Greek and Latin, early humanists were extremely interested in being able to read and work in Greek and Latin, and more interested than their predecessors in finding the most ancient texts to work from. So while their other interests and goals may have been associated with a rise in the use of vernaculars, it is my understanding they were very interested in classical languages and works for their own sake.

[8filltheheart]

 

I think the modern classical educators see the last point, which is why they always talk about "character" and "Great books" along with grammar. But here the moral meaning is still being added from the outside as an intellectual endeavor like the humanists wanted, whereas in the medieval system the moral meaning came before either intellect or language. I know that distinction is hard for us to wrap our heads around today, but that's largely because we are still living under the influence of humanism, and it really is quite a different mindset from what came before it.

 

Getting completely OT from the OP, but wanted to comment on this. My 11th grader is doing a philosophy of science and religion course this yr and it is extremely difficult to understand the pre-humanism perspective b/c we are so immersed in it. It has been one of the best studies we have ever done in our homeschool. We have really enjoyed TC's Birth of the Modern Mind: The Intellectual History of the 17th and 18th Centuries. http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=447

 

Kreeft's Socrates Meets_______ books and Paschal's Pensees combined with the lectures have helped us realize how many beliefs we hold simply b/c of the influence of philosophy.

[SarahW]

No, I didn't mean to imply that these things had been accomplished at all. Simply that in looking to humanists such as Erasmus, this is what I look to.

 

I saw that you do not want this thread to become controversial, so I will not debate the slavery, imperialism, colonialism, women's rights, and intellectual wasteland arguments.

 

Will look into those references; thank you. Bouncing back The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. Parts of this are not tightly argued, but the core argument I find to be strong. Pinker is likely to offend religious sensibilities, but if you can look around this I find it a valuable read.

 

At any rate, RE Greek and Latin, early humanists were extremely interested in being able to read and work in Greek and Latin, and more interested than their predecessors in finding the most ancient texts to work from. So while their other interests and goals may have been associated with a rise in the use of vernaculars, it is my understanding they were very interested in classical languages and works for their own sake.

 

 

It really isn't controversial that the Renaissance led to slavery and imperialism. Slavery was nearly completely eradicated in Western Europe by the 14th c., it was those who sought out the ancient texts, decided that they were superior, and went about applying them wholesale that caused it to be reinstated. The Romans weren't particularly anti-slavery, kwim? This is why Pernoud deems this "ressourcement" to be a contraction of Western thought. Sure, some people may have used textual criticism for pure intellectual reasons, but lots of people didn't, especially if there was money to be made.

 

I checked out The Better Angels of Our Nature, and I'm not particularly impressed, sorry. The books I linked to before are written by historians of those time periods (except Hunter, who is a sociologist), I think I trust them a lot more for history than an experimental psychologist.

[SarahW]

Getting completely OT from the OP, but wanted to comment on this. My 11th grader is doing a philosophy of science and religion course this yr and it is extremely difficult to understand the pre-humanism perspective b/c we are so immersed in it. It has been one of the best studies we have ever done in our homeschool. We have really enjoyed TC's Birth of the Modern Mind: The Intellectual History of the 17th and 18th Centuries. http://www.thegreatc...il.aspx?cid=447

 

Kreeft's Socrates Meets_______ books and Paschal's Pensees combined with the lectures have helped us realize how many beliefs we hold simply b/c of the influence of philosophy.

 

Fascinating course.

 

I'd like to see Kreeft write a "Socrates Meets Voltaire" book. ;)

[ElizabethB]

Getting completely OT from the OP, but wanted to comment on this. My 11th grader is doing a philosophy of science and religion course this yr and it is extremely difficult to understand the pre-humanism perspective b/c we are so immersed in it. It has been one of the best studies we have ever done in our homeschool. We have really enjoyed TC's Birth of the Modern Mind: The Intellectual History of the 17th and 18th Centuries. http://www.thegreatc...il.aspx?cid=447

 

Kreeft's Socrates Meets_______ books and Paschal's Pensees combined with the lectures have helped us realize how many beliefs we hold simply b/c of the influence of philosophy.

 

 

It's not really that off-topic, it's somewhat related in the whole scheme of things! And, that is interesting. It looks like a great course. [ETA: No pun was intended, but I noticed the "pun" a few hours later and it made me chuckle.]