Ben Franklin on Latin---what do you think?

[Michelle in MO]

I'm currently reading The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, and am almost finished with the book. I took special note of his approach to learning Latin:

 

"I had begun in 1733 to study Languages. I soon made myself so much a Master of the French as to be able to read the Books with Ease. I then undertook the Italian . . . I afterwards with a little Pains-taking acquir'd as much of the Spanish as to read their Books also.

 

"I have already mention'd that I had only one Year's Instruction in a Latin School, and that when very young, after which I neglected that Language entirely.--But when I had attained an Acquaintance with the French, Italian and Spanish, I was surpris'd to find, on looking over a Latin Testament, that I understood so much more of that Language than I had imagined; which encouraged me to apply myself again to the Study of it, and I met with the more Success, as those preceding Languages had greatly smooth'd my Way. From these Circumstances I have thought, that there is some Inconsistency in our common Mode of Teaching Languages. We are told that it is proper to begin first with the Latin, and having acquir'd that, it will be more easy to attain those modern languages which are deriv'd from it . . . It is true, that if you can clamber and get to the Top of a Staircase without using the Steps, you will more easily gain them in descending: but certainly if you begin with the lowest you will with more Ease ascend to the Top."

 

I found this quote very interesting, although it runs counter to my understanding of the value of studying Latin first. Especially when children are young, I think they can more readily understand the grammatical forms: the declensions, inflections, conjugations, etc., in Latin, than perhaps an adult learner. According to classical thought and theory, children have astounding memories, and memorizing all of these forms is easier when children are young.

 

However, this approach might be more beneficial for the adult learner, which Franklin was, although he admits to studying a year of Latin when he was younger.

 

I'm wondering: has anyone tried this approach for themselves or for their children? If so, has it been successful? I have to admit that his logic makes tremendous sense, but again---it seems more applicable to the adult learner. Perhaps it's his analogy (i.e., climbing the staircase from bottom to top) that seems so logical; maybe there's another analogy that is actually more applicable?

 

Any thoughts?

[Matryoshka]

I could not agree more wholeheartedly with Mr. Franklin. :D

 

I know I am very much in the minority on this board with that opinion, so I usually keep it to myself.... :tongue_smilie:

[latinteach]

Any thoughts?

 

Reading the New Testament in Latin isn't very difficult. After a year of Latin, plus learning French, Italian and Spanish, it's really not surprising he could read the New Testament in Latin. Especially if it's likely that he had read the New Testament in English and was familiar with it. Learning any Romance language will make learning the other Romance languages easier. The New Testament is definitely easier to read in Latin, however, than Vergil, Caesar or Cicero.

 

There are other reasons for studying Latin, however, than making the Romance languages easier to learn later on.

[Michelle in MO]

Reading the New Testament in Latin isn't very difficult. After a year of Latin, plus learning French, Italian and Spanish, it's really not surprising he could read the New Testament in Latin. Especially if it's likely that he had read the New Testament in English and was familiar with it. Learning any Romance language will make learning the other Romance languages easier. The New Testament is definitely easier to read in Latin, however, than Vergil, Caesar or Cicero.

 

There are other reasons for studying Latin, however, than making the Romance languages easier to learn later on.

 

I do think he went on to study more Latin, but so far (at least, as far as I've read in his Autobiography) I don't know if he ever read Vergil or Cicero. In fact, a familiarity with the New Testament would make it readable in almost any language that is related to English, including German, Dutch, and some of the Scandinavian languages.

 

I still believe that it's better for young children to study Latin first; their minds are so malleable that memorizing conjugations and declensions is not nearly as difficult as it is for adults. I was just wondering if his logic would hold true for adult learners.

[Miss Marple]

I found this quote very interesting, although it runs counter to my understanding of the value of studying Latin first. Especially when children are young, I think they can more readily understand the grammatical forms: the declensions, inflections, conjugations, etc., in Latin, than perhaps an adult learner. According to classical thought and theory, children have astounding memories, and memorizing all of these forms is easier when children are young.

 

I think this could probably best be a generalization. While very anecdotal, I can say that I have one child who *cannot* memorize well. He has never been able to do it. We dropped AWANA because he could not learn "word perfect" but he could tell the teacher what the verse meant. Instead, this fella is a big picture guy. He has to know where the idea is going before learning the steps to get there. And he completely balks at formulaic learning. For example, I cannot tell him to invert a fraction and then multiply it when dividing fractions. He simply cannot *get* that. But if I show him *why* it works, he knows it forever.

 

As far as Latin goes, he completed Prima Latina and Latina Christiana 1 with great pain. So we're shelving languages until high school when he will learn a spoken language.

 

He is very right brained, always tinkering with stuff. I would say he is probably very similar in his thinking to Ben Franklin.:D

[latinteach]

As far as Latin goes, he completed Prima Latina and Latina Christiana 1 with great pain. So we're shelving languages until high school when he will learn a spoken language.

 

He is very right brained, always tinkering with stuff. I would say he is probably very similar in his thinking to Ben Franklin.:D

 

It sounds like he would probably prefer learning Latin (or any other languages) via a more direct and communicative methodology. It sounds like he found it difficult to see the purpose in learning the chants and that he'd probably benefit more from a reading-based approach. (Most curricula with a reading focus tend to have purposeful reading selections. Ie. Cambridge teaches about the daily and civic lives of the Romans around the time of the eruption of Vesuvius. Lingua Latina also chronicles the lives of a Roman familia.) Most modern language curricula these days approach the languages from a functional and communicative perspective. In other words, the student can usually see the purpose for studying and reading.

 

Learning Latin in Ben Franklin's day likely involved memorizing a Latin grammar reference...not a textbook but a grammar reference book. Not too exciting.

[clwcain]

I'll second Latinteach's observation and amplify.

 

Franklin notes that he learned the languages well enough to read their literature.

 

That's well beyond what most modern language programs, outside of university aim for. In my experience, most grammar and high school modern language programs aim for basic conversational skills. The same for most language tapes and self-study programs.

 

The key to learning sufficient Latin to make a difference, or vice versa, is to learn the language well enough to read the native literature with ease.

[Michelle in MO]

It sounds like he would probably prefer learning Latin (or any other languages) via a more direct and communicative methodology. It sounds like he found it difficult to see the purpose in learning the chants and that he'd probably benefit more from a reading-based approach. (Most curricula with a reading focus tend to have purposeful reading selections. Ie. Cambridge teaches about the daily and civic lives of the Romans around the time of the eruption of Vesuvius. Lingua Latina also chronicles the lives of a Roman familia.) Most modern language curricula these days approach the languages from a functional and communicative perspective. In other words, the student can usually see the purpose for studying and reading.

 

Learning Latin in Ben Franklin's day likely involved memorizing a Latin grammar reference...not a textbook but a grammar reference book. Not too exciting.

 

I wish I had combined Henle with Cambridge or Lingua Latina, because my dd's found Henle too dry. It didn't exactly excite any enthusiasm on their parts: too much memorization (which is still important, IMO) and too much emphasis on Caesar and the Gauls. :)

[Miss Marple]

I think you're probably right. I'll look into Cambridge. Years ago we worked through the first level of Minimus Latin and he really enjoyed that. Of course, that was back when he was easily impressed with whatever I liked :-). But now a teenager, he's a little more resistant. He thinks I want him to be a nerd - imagine that ;-)