Active Latin: Quo Tendimus?

Neil Coffee

Classical World, Volume 105, Number 2, Winter 2012, pp. 255-269 (Article)

Published by Johns Hopkins University Press

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/clw.2012.0007

For additional information about this article

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/469115

Access provided by University of Florida Libraries (21 Nov 2018 13:19 GMT)
 255
PAEDAGOGUS
Active Latin: Quo Tendimus?1
ABSTRACT: This article examines the current state of active Latin pedagogy
and practice, which includes speaking and writing as well as listening. It
offers a short historical survey of the activities, methods, and aims of ac-
tive Latin practitioners to provide bearings for those working with these
methods, and information for those unfamiliar with them.

I. Introduction
In the summer of 2010, there were at least seven full-immersion spoken
Latin workshops in the United States for students and teachers of Latin. 2 In
Europe, the “Monumenta viaeque” conference organized by the Vivarium Novum
in Rome was the fourth in a series of weeklong, large-scale conferences on
academic and pedagogical topics conducted entirely in Latin. 3 These followed
the precedent of conferences held by the Academia Latinitati Fovendae (ALF)
every four years or so since 1970, with the last in Regensburg in 2009. Vari-
ous individuals participate regularly in Latin conversational circles in Europe
and the United States. 4 Latin conversation, in print or by voice, has found a
useful medium in the internet, from the copious entries on Vikipaedia to the
possibilities for live Latin video chat at the website Schola. 5
These conferences and activities attest to current interest in the use of active
Latin among academics, teachers, students, and amateurs. In the long term, the
fate of active Latin will be determined equally by its use in primary and second-
ary schools, where students have the chance to become accustomed to speaking
and listening to Latin as the norm for their interaction with the language. Here
the renewed interest in Hans Ørberg’s active-method Lingua Latina textbook, as
well as national and state standards for the use of active Latin in teaching, give
some sense of the importance of active Latin use to current school pedagogy. 6
Beyond such indications, the use of active Latin is hard to quantify pre-
cisely, although an effort is underway by the ALF to take a census of Latin

1
I would like to thank Stephen Berard, Guy Licoppé, Luigi Miraglia, and Ter-
ence Tunberg for their helpful advice with this article.
2
Conventicula at SUNY Buffalo, Buffalo NY; University of Kentucky, Lex-
ington, Kentucky; Dickenson College, Carlisle, Pennsylvania; Charles Town, West
Virginia; Wenatchee Valley College, Omak, Washington; and West Milwaukee,
Wisconsin. This list comes from the website of the Septentrionale Americanum Lati-
nitatis Vivae Institutum (SALVI), http://www.latin.org/faq/?p=speaking#otherplaces,
accessed February 2, 2012. In 2011 there was in addition a seminar held in Boston,
the Conventiculum Bostoniense, as well as a summer program in Rome run by the
new Paideia Institute. See more on these programs below.
3
Previous conventions in this series: “Docere” (Naples 1998), “Humanitas”
(Naples 2007), “Litterarum Vis” (Budapest 2008). The “Monumenta viaeque” confer-
ence was organized by Professor Luigi Miraglia with the support and collaboration
of the Istituto Italiano per gli Studi Filosofici of Naples.
4
A list of these groups is available at http://www.circuluslatinusinterretialis.
co.uk/html/circuli_latini.html, accessed February 2, 2012.
5
http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagina_ prima and http://schola.ning.com/, both
accessed February 2, 2012.
6
See further below. In what follows, I treat both secondary school and college
pedagogy together because instructors at both levels are faced with the same basic
questions of how to incorporate active Latin into their curricula and what methods to
use, even if the other circumstances of each instructional context are somewhat different.

255
256 C lassical W orld
speakers. 7 Nevertheless, the practice of active Latin in the United States and
Europe has clearly reached a sufficient scale in recent times that it seems
appropriate to consider where it stands as a practice and what its future
might be. At the same time, proponents of active Latin might profitably ask
the same question put by critics—why speak Latin at all?
The most common response to the latter question is that we can better
teach students to read Latin and understand the cultures of Latinity by hav-
ing them engage in a combination of speaking, listening, and writing as well
as reading. 8 Although we still await studies that fully substantiate this claim,
the endorsement of such a combined approach as one legitimate method by
educational bodies in the U.S. demonstrates that at least some educators are
persuaded of its efficacy. 9 In what follows, I propose to offer a broader view
of this and other goals for the use of active Latin by examining some points
in the development of the use of active Latin since the mid-twentieth century,
and by considering in this context some arguments for and against the prac-
tice. Cultural, pedagogical, and experiential aims have animated the increasing
interest in active Latin. By clearly identifying these aims, I hope to make the
movement toward active Latin more intelligible to all, and enable practitioners
to learn more easily from, and contribute to, the work of their fellows.

II. Active Latin in the Recent Past: New Beginnings

Several authors have undertaken to give histories of the Latin language
that trace its use from ancient Rome to the present. 10 My focus will be on
developments in recent decades that have had the most influence on the
current status of active Latin. I first touch briefly on two key points of
earlier history that have served as inspiration for recent work. The first of
these is the continuous tradition of teaching Latin through conversation and
composition, as well as reading, from antiquity onward, that was instituted
formally in European schools universities in the mid-twelfth century, persisted
in full form through the late Renaissance, and had an afterlife in Catholic
seminaries until the mid-twentieth century. 11 This tradition has furnished a
pedagogical precedent for modern practitioners of active Latin. 12 Another
inspiration has been the work of W. H. D. Rouse at the Perse School in

 7
The website http://census.academialatina.org/, accessed February 2, 2012)
announces that the 2009 census is finished. The census was conducted by Edward
Engelsing of Western Washington University.
 8
The designation “active,” rather than “oral,” Latin emphasizes writing as well
as speaking. I will focus on speaking as the less conventional of the two activities,
but use this term to keep both speaking and writing in mind as mutually comple-
mentary forms of active language learning.
 9
See below on these standards.
10
J. Farrell, Latin Language and Latin Culture (Cambridge 2001); T. Janson,
A Natural History of Latin (Oxford 2004); N. Ostler, Ad Infinitum: A Biography of
Latin (New York 2007); and J. Leonhardt, Latein: Geschichte einer Weltsprache.
(Munich 2009). F. Waquet (Latin, or, The Empire of the Sign: From the Sixteenth to
the Twentieth Century [London 2001]) begins in the sixteenth century. Her history
is useful, though it underplays the vibrancy of Latin, particularly in the seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries; T. Tunberg, “Observations on The Empire of the Sign,”
Neulateinisches Jahrbuch 5 [2003] 319–25.
11
T. Tunberg, “The Use of Latin as a Spoken Language in the Humanist Age,”
Journal of Classics Teaching 22 (2011) 8–9.
12
T. Tunberg, “De Instituto studiis Latinis provehendis, quod annum iam deci-
mum in Academia Kentukiana f loret,” Journal of Classics Teaching 22 (2011) 16–18.
 P aedagogus 257
Cambridge, England from 1902 to 1928. 13 Rouse developed a Direct Method
of teaching his sixth-form students with conversation in Latin. The success
of his method led to a series of textbooks, lecture tours, summer seminars
for teachers, and the formation of the Association for the Reform of Latin
Teaching to disseminate understanding of the Direct Method. Rouse’s legacy
has included providing a model for the method advocated by Hans Ørberg
in his 1955 textbook Lingua Latina secundum naturae rationem explicata,
subsequently revised in 1990 under the title Lingua Latina per se Illustrata. 14
These streams of influence were brought together into a post-war move-
ment for the use of active Latin by the founders of the Academia Latinitati
Fovendae (ALF), the international academy for the promotion of Latin based
in Europe. ALF took shape at its first convention in Romania in 1970, with
the mission of promoting Latin language, literature, and culture, and with
its formal activities to be carried out in Latin. 15 Among its founders were
those who had long experience in Latin speaking and composition. 16 ALF
was formed at a time when profound social changes were taking place in
European countries that led to a general skepticism toward the authority
of tradition. One consequence, felt in Europe and the United States, was a
decline of the study of Latin in the 1960s and 1970s. 17 The mission of the
ALF could thus be seen as an early response to the decline of popularity of
Latin in these decades, as well as a more general defense of the international
culture of learning and the cultivation of the classical tradition.
One member of the ALF went on to renew the work of Rouse by founding
an extracurricular active Latin seminar, an initiative that would ultimately
have considerable impact upon the practice of active Latin in later years.
Dr. Joseph Eichenseer, a Bavarian monk who wrote extensively on proper
Latin usage, held his first active Latin summer seminar in Germany in 1973,

13
C. Stray, “Success and Failure: W.H.D. Rouse and Direct-Method Classics
Teaching in Edwardian England,” Journal of Classics Teaching 22 (2011) 5–7.
14
D. Carter, “Hans Oerberg and his Contribution to Latin Pedagogy,” Journal
of Classics Teaching 22 (2011) 21–22.
15
From the section “de proposito et sede” in the ALF charter at http://www.
academialatina.org/statutum.html, accessed February 2, 2012. The foundation of the
ALF was the culmination of a movement for living Latin that had had its first formal
event in the “Viventis linguae Latinae causa Conventus Universus” conference held
in Avignon, France, in 1956. The event was organized by the Rector of the Univer-
sity of Nancy, Professor Jean Capelle. Partly in response to the strident nationalism
that contributed to World War II, Professor Capelle wished to reassert Latin as the
language of international scholarly communication (J. Capelle, “Le latin ou Babel,”
L’education nationale [October 23, 1952] 7–8; J. Capelle and T. H. Quigley, tr., “Latin
or Babel,” CJ 49 [1953] 37– 40); see Waquet (above, n.10) 266. The specific goals
discussed in this first meeting were to establish the restored pronunciation of Latin
as the modern standard, to create a brief grammar that would allow those with little
experience to use the language, to create vocabulary for things or notions peculiar
to the modern world, to adapt modern techniques for the teaching of Latin. Several
conferences were held after this, and participants went on to take part in the found-
ing of the ALF in 1967 (G. Licoppé, “Academiae Latinitati Fovendae: qualis fuerit
origo, spes, haesitatio et frustratio,” lecture given to ALF Conference, July 24, 2006).
16
One of these was the distinguished Professor of Latin Literature Michael
von Albrecht, who, much in the manner of Montaigne, grew up speaking Latin with
his father.
17
For the decline in the U.S. overall and other factors at work, see K. Kitchell,
“The Teaching of Latin,” The Encyclopedia of Education, ed, J. W. Guthrie (New
York 2003) 1413– 416.
258 C lassical W orld
with the goal of improving the understanding of Latin and its active use. 18
In a similar vein, in 1985, Father Reginald Foster began offering his “Aes-
tiva Romae Latinitas” summer sessions, in which he offered free instruction
in the history of Latin literature and stylistics, employing his own active
learning techniques and using sites in the city of Rome as touchstones in
the history of Latinity.
As these seminars began to foster the practice of active Latin in Europe,
the United States saw its own revival of interest in spoken Latin. This shift
was manifested in part in changing educational requirements. In 1986, the
New York State Latin for Communication standard incorporated criteria for
responding to teachers’ questions, reading aloud, and dictation. 19 An article in
the Foreign Language Annals of 1991 recapitulated the recommendations of
the 1989 and 1990 sessions of the meetings of the American Council on the
Teaching of Foreign Languages in recommending a four-skills, communica-
tive approach common to modern language classrooms. 20 Beyond the formal
curriculum, 1995 saw the foundation by Professor Terence Tunberg of the
conversational Latin seminars in Lexington, Kentucky, which grew out of
Professor Tunberg’s experience in active-Latin circles in Europe.
The trend toward increasing use of oral Latin was met with a splenetic
attack by Professors Robert Ball and J. D. Ellsworth in a 1996 article in
the Modern Language Journal entitled “The Emperor’s New Clothes: Hy-
perreality and the Study of Latin.” 21 Ball and Ellsworth derided what would
seem to be the unimpeachable study of Latin authors from the Renaissance
to the present day, or “Neo-Latin,” as “bizarre.” 22 They characterized those
interested in the use of active Latin as having an “obsession” with a notion
of authenticity in the past, and concluded that classics instructors “cannot
save [their] profession by pretending to resurrect the language of the ancient
Romans or by asking prospective teachers to don their togas in celebration
of America’s Disneyland Roman World.” 23 Typical of their peremptory and
dismissive tone is their trump example. They claim that the insufficiency
of Latin for real communication is demonstrated by the fact that, if there
were a sudden conflagration in an American classroom, the teacher would
immediately abandon Latin to shout “Fire!” in English to the students. 24 Of
course, had a fire broken out at the “Monumenta viaeque” conference in Rome
in 2010, perhaps the only good way to have alerted all the Latin speakers
from diverse nations in attendance would have been to shout “Incendium!

18
These became biannual events held in various European countries until 2006.
Dr. Eichenseer passed away in 2008. Among the participants in these seminars was
Guy Licoppé, who would go on to found the Latin-language journal of Latinity
Melissa in 1986.
19
J. Wills, “Speaking Latin in Schools and Colleges.” CW 92 (1998) 27–34.
20
M. G. Abbott, “Priority: Classics: Critical Instructional Issues in the Classics
for American Schools.” Foreign Language Annals 24 (1991) 27–37.
21
R. Ball and J. D. Ellsworth, “The Emperor’s New Clothes: Hyperreality and
the Study of Latin,” The Modern Language Journal 80 (1996) 77–84.
22
Ball and Ellsworth (above, n.20) 78.
23
Ball and Ellsworth (above, n.20) 79–80, 82.
24
“The pretending would cease very quickly and give way to the students’
native language if a situation were suddenly to develop in the classroom requiring
the immediate attention of all those present. For example, if a fire were suddenly to
break out in the school, the teacher would not attempt to make his or her students
understand the problem in Latin but would simply shout: ‘Fire! Get out of here!’”
Ball and Ellsworth (above, n.20) 80, n.7. We might equally well ask what would
happen if a fire should blaze up in a class of American students learning French.
 P aedagogus 259
Aufugite!” This fact points to the limited and dyspeptic vision of authors
who make no allowance for at least the possible utility of active Latin. 25
The vituperative tone of Ball and Ellsworth’s critique is unfortunate,
because it distracts from the legitimate concerns the authors raise. These
include the question of the effectiveness of a communicative approach as
compared to conventional instructional methods, 26 what it would mean to
have the sort of culturally authentic communication described in the New
York State standards, and whether one motive for adopting these methods
was a perceived need to keep pace with the instruction methods of modern
foreign languages. 27
Some of these questions were addressed in a more balanced article pub-
lished in 1998 by Professor Jeffrey Wills advocating the use of spoken Latin
in schools, colleges, and universities. 28 Wills notes that, in addition to state
standards such as those of New York, a joint committee of the American
Philological Association (APA) and the American Classical League (ACL)
had in 1998 published a document entitled “Standards for Classical Language
Learning” that called for an oral component to language requirements. By the
time of his writing, the New York State Department of Education document
“Learning Standards for Languages other than English” also required from
1996 onward that students be able to “respond appropriately to questions based
on oral communication or reading passages.” 29 Wills observes that certain
teaching practices that had been emphasizing oral Latin for some time were
still continuing: “In this century, Latin oratory was a staple of Jesuit schools
until a generation ago, the Natural Method text Lingua Latina by Hans Ørberg
still has a small but devoted following, and the Rassias method has been
used at Dartmouth for ancient as well as modern languages.” 30 As examples
of a further surge of interest in oral Latin, Wills notes the “recent popular-
ity of summer oral Latin programs” and the “ACL Oral Latin task force.”
Wills gives five reasons in favor of the use of oral Latin. Spoken Latin
represents an additional method that teachers may use to reach certain students
more effectively. It provides variety to the Latin classroom without shifting
focus from the language itself (as opposed to, say, the discussion of Roman
culture in English). Spoken Latin can overcome the “affective filter,” or, in

25
One wonders, incidentally, how the authors would have responded to the
fact that the early and distinguished American scholar of Latin, Gonzalez Lodge,
inf luenced by Rouse, advocated the use of oral methods in the classroom (G. Lodge,
“The Oral Method of Teaching Latin,” CW (1910) 66 – 69).
26
To the best of my knowledge, this is an area where basic research comparing
outcomes has yet to be done.
27
Ball and Ellsworth (above, n.20) 78–82. E. Hinkel (“Current Perspectives on
Teaching the Four Skills,” TESOL Quarterly 40 [2006] 109–31) cautions that a task-based,
communicative approach is not sufficient for academic preparation, which suggests the
importance of maintaining concurrently the conventional rigor of Latin instruction, with
its insistence on the correct acquisition of grammatical forms. Practitioners of active
Latin have at times drawn support for the use of spoken exercises in language learn-
ing by citing the existence of different learning styles among students, including one
that responds best to speaking and listening rather than, e.g., the visual presentation
of information. The literature review of H. Pashler, M. McDaniel, et al. (“Learning
Styles: Concepts and Evidence,” Psychological Science in the Public Interest 9 [2009]
105–19) concludes that there is in fact no evidence for such styles, though of course an
active Latin approach calls for reading and writing as well as speaking and listening.
28
Wills (above, n.19) 27–34.
29
http://www.p12.nysed.gov/ciai/lote/pub/lotelea.pdf, accessed February 2, 2012.
30
This and the following quotation from Wills (above, n.19) 28.
260 C lassical W orld
other words, put students in a positive mood receptive to learning. Students
simply demand it—many come to their first Latin classes with the expectation
that they will be able to speak the language much as their peers in other
foreign language classes do, and are disappointed when they cannot. Finally,
Wills finds oral exercises, at least in the form of substitution and transfor-
mation drills, to be simply effective teaching methods. 31 Wills concludes by
pointing out two potential limitations to the active approach. He contends
that the use of active Latin will fade when the topics the students need to
discuss are beyond their Latin abilities. He also remarks that the primary
obstacle to speaking Latin is not a lack of ability or enthusiasm on the part
of the students, but rather the inability of teachers to use Latin actively and
their consequent fear of the practice. 32
At least the first of these objections can be answered—there is no reason
that a students’ ability to discuss a variety of topics cannot grow along with
her Latin knowledge. Even with his reservations, however, the arguments of
Wills carried the day, as is clear from subsequent teaching standards. In 1997,
a joint APA-ACL Task Force published its “Standards for Classical Language
Learning,” which advocated a “five Cs” set of goals for the Greek and Latin
classrooms. These included: Communication, Culture, Connections (with other
disciplines), Comparisons (with one’s own culture), and Communities (inte-
grating knowledge of classical antiquity into a modern multicultural world).
The Communication goal includes the requirement that students “use orally,
listen to, and write Latin or Greek as part of the language learning process.” 33
Since 1997, the need for active Latin in the classroom has been reasserted
by professional classics organizations as part of school and university cur-
ricula. Beyond the establishment of standards, the practice of active Latin
itself seems to have grown significantly as well. I turn to both of these results
presently, but first want to take stock of how the developments outlined so
far bear upon my main question—what are the goals of those who advocate
or practice active Latin? In general terms, we might say that the goals of the
ALF are broadly cultural: to preserve and keep vibrant Latinity as a resource
for and influence upon European and world culture. In this effort, there is a
sense that the arts and thought transmitted by Latin can serve as an anchor
and source of unity in a modern world without agreed-upon reference points
for social and political behavior. Wills himself deliberately focuses on the
nearer goal of improving teaching in the Latin classroom, and his position was
institutionalized by the adoption of standards that incorporate active Latin.
But Wills and the authors of these standards also join the ALF in express-
ing a shared concern for the uncertain state of Latin and classical studies.

III. Exuberance Without, Slow Change Within

I turn now to more recent developments in active Latin and the goals they
embody. If the previous period in the use of active Latin was characterized
by experimentation and a certain amount of doctrinal controversy, we might
consider the last fifteen years as a period that has seen: 1) the theoretical ac-
ceptance of active Latin as one among an eclectic group of teaching methods,
2) a slower embrace of such methods in school and university classrooms,
and 3) a substantial growth in the extracurricular interest of teachers and
students in the practice of spoken Latin.

31
Wills (above, n.19) 31–34.
32
Wills (above, n.19) 34. A judgment echoed by Leonhardt (above, n.10) 294.
33
http://department.monm.edu/classics/cpl/standards.pdf, accessed February 2, 2012.
 P aedagogus 261
As evidence for the acceptance of active Latin methods in the United
States, consider the 2008 Joint APA-ACL Task Force Report, “Standards for
Latin Teacher Preparation.” 34 The authors of the standards write that “unlike
their colleagues who teach modern foreign languages, where oral proficiency
in all three modes of communication is stressed, most beginning Latin
teachers will normally be expected to focus their attention on developing
students’ reading proficiency.” 35 Nevertheless, they make oral proficiency,
or at least awareness of oral techniques, part of the necessary education of
Latin teachers. They set the goal that “beginning teachers demonstrate an
awareness of the three primary approaches for teaching Latin in the U.S.
today: grammar-translation, reading in context, and oral-aural. They know
how to implement features of all three approaches in a variety of instructional
situations.” 36 The standards thus embrace the idea that teachers need to be
broadly trained in Latin teaching techniques, including active Latin instruc-
tion, so that they can then apply them as appropriate to their instructional
setting. The New York State Department of Education standards continue
to require that students be able, for example, to “speak Latin with accurate
pronunciation, appropriate phrase grouping, voice inflection, and expression
in controlled classroom situations.” 37
Convincing large-scale evidence of the introduction of active Latin methods
in the classroom is difficult to gather, but we might consider a few examples.
Certain teachers known to me have been using these methods in a thorough-
going way with success. 38 Standard textbooks such as Ecce Romani call for
the use of some oral exercises, as do, to a greater extent, new ones such as
Latin for a New Millenium. As mentioned, some teachers continue to use and
advocate Ørberg’s Lingua Latina text. Certain universities have made use of
oral Latin approaches as well. 39 The year 2000 saw the foundation of the
Academia Vivarium Novum by Professor Luigi Miraglia in Italy, which now
offers a one-year college-level curriculum entirely in Latin. 40 In the same

34
http://www.aclclassics.org/pdf/LatTeachPrep2010Stand.pdf, accessed Febru-
ary 2, 2012.
35
See above, n.34, p.16.
36
See above, n.34, p.11.
37
http://www.p12.nysed.gov/ciai/lote/lotestands/lotelat1b.html, accessed Febru-
ary 2, 2012.
38
For example, Ms. Anna Andresian of the Regius Jesuit High School in Denver,
Colorado, who reports improved interest and outcomes from active Latin methods.
Her work earned her the 2012 American Philological Association Award for Excel-
lence in Teaching at the Precollegiate Level.
39
Professor Martha Davis of Temple University has used the Ørberg textbook.
Professor Stephen Berard of Wenatchee Valley College in Wenatchee, Washington,
who is preparing an active Latin textbook entitled Vita Nostra: Subsidia ad Col-
loquia Latina, uses active methods in his Latin instruction just as he does in his
German and Spanish courses. Professor Diane Johnson of Western Washington Uni-
versity uses active methods in both her ancient Greek and Latin courses. I myself
use spoken Latin in intermediate Latin instruction and in a graduate Latin course,
as discussed below.
40
The Academy was founded on the island of Vivara in the Bay of Naples in
1990, and began accepting students in 1996. The population is largely college students
who receive credit for a year at the Academy, as well as some college graduates.
The Academy currently does not accept female students due to restrictions from
the owners of its site, the Legionaries of Christ. See http://www.vivariumnovum.it/
accademia/Eng/, accessed February 2, 2012. At the high-school level, the Belgian
private “Schola Nova,” open to boys and girls, teaches its Latin, Greek, and medieval
history classes all in Latin (http://www.scholanova.be/EN/secondary.html).
262 C lassical W orld
year, Professor Tunberg and his colleague Professor Milena Minkova began
offering an M.A. curriculum in Latin studies at the University of Kentucky
that likewise employs only Latin for instruction. 41 A 2009 history of the Latin
language by a German author reports that free exchanges in spoken Latin
have lately been eagerly taken up in European classrooms. 42
These curricular efforts, however robust, nevertheless remain the excep-
tion. In contrast to the modest rate of change in the classroom, however, the
interest in extracurricular participation in active Latin learning opportunities
has burgeoned in recent years. One index is the number of participants and
applicants to the conversational Latin seminars of Terence Tunberg since their
inception. At the first of these events, in 1995, there was a concern that there
might not be enough participants to conduct the conversational activities.
The number of registrants has since grown to 72 in 2009 and 73 in 2010. 43
Furthermore, the sheer number of extracurricular Latin events has multiplied
considerably since 1995. Much as Professor Tunberg found a model in the
conversation seminars of Dr. Eichenseer, several of the participants in Professor
Tunberg’s early seminars have gone on to found their own summer programs
in various parts of the U.S., each with its own character. 44 To a certain extent,
they may compete for the same audiences, though some participants will at-
tend more than one, but the continued existence and success of several such
seminars suggests that the interest in active Latin in the U.S. is continuing to
rise or has at least reached a new plateau. Other events, such as the summer
Latin program of Father Reginald Foster, have held steady since their inception,
though he himself has relocated from Rome to the U.S. and a new group has
now taken up summer active Latin instruction in the Eternal City. 45 Profes-
sor Miraglia has also hosted several large-scale conferences on Latin and

41
Professors Tunberg and Minkova founded the Institute for Latin Studies at
the University of Kentucky in 2000 as a special curriculum within an existing M.A.
program. The curriculum consists of four graduate courses entirely in Latin, and
offers a certificate at graduation. Since its foundation, the Institute has come to at-
tract scores of applicants each year. Further information at http://www.uky.edu/AS/
Classics/institute_eng.html, accessed February 2, 2012.
42
Leonhardt (above, n.10) 294.
43
For the latter criterion, see the seminar announcement, http://www.as.uky.
edu/academics/departments_ programs/MCLLC/MCLLC/Classics/Conversational/Pages/
ConversationalEnglish.aspx, accessed February 2, 2012.
44
The Conventiculum Bostoniense, hosted by the University of Massachusetts
at Boston, is a full credit course held in a seaside town. The Conventiculum Buf-
faloniense, hosted by the University at Buffalo, SUNY, offers a three-day program
with a focused series of activities in an energetic and convivial atmosphere. The
Conventiculum Dickensoniense, hosted by Dickenson College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania,
features the pedagogical expertise and active Latin experience of Professors Tunberg
and Minkova. The Rusticatio, which takes place in Charles Town, West Virginia, is
hosted by Professor Nancy Llewellyn, and emphasizes pedagogical instruction balanced
with informal conversation during pleasant communal cooking and dining. The Conven-
ticulum Vasintoniense, hosted by Wenatchee Valley College in Wenatchee, Washington,
features excursions into the natural environment as well as the city of Seattle to give
participants the stimulation of speaking in Latin about their actual surroundings. Fur-
ther information for each of these can be found online with a search for their names.
45
Due to health problems, Father Foster held his sessions in Milwaukee, Wis-
consin in summer 2010. A new “Living Latin in Rome” program run by the recently
founded Paideia Institute offers a five-week spoken Latin program in Rome from June
to July. The organizers are former students of Father Foster and aim to keep alive
his tradition of speaking and learning Latin in Rome. Further information on this
program is available at http://paideia-institute.org/latin, accessed February 2, 2012.
 P aedagogus 263
classical studies attended by participants from around Europe, the United
States, and other countries, with great success. 46
Three factors help explain the contrast between the marked increase in inter-
est in the extracurricular practice of active Latin and its slow adoption in the
schools. The first of these are the circumstances of the active Latin seminars.
However crowded these events may be, some participants are unlikely to be
in a position to directly influence teaching curricula. At the University of
Kentucky seminars, a significant number of participants attend to enrich their
knowledge of the texts of Christianity, 47 while others are independent scholars.
Another explanation for the disparity between participation in extracur-
ricular active Latin activities and the slow adoption of these methods in
schools and colleges may be the inertia of institutional structures. At my
own university, for example, first-year Latin courses are taught by graduate
students. The Latin faculty has long approved the possibility of experimenting
with an active Latin approach in the first year, using the Ørberg textbook,
which would make it possible conduct some second-year classes entirely in
Latin. This change would require, however, a program of training graduate
students that we have not yet found sufficient time to put in place.
Finally, and most centrally, despite their endorsement by APA-ACL, ac-
tive Latin methods may continue to be seen by instructors as insufficiently
effective, or too difficult to adopt. 48 The underlying dilemma instructors
face is how to preserve the rigor of the conventional grammar–translation
method that has been a great strength of classical language education, while
reaping the benefits of an active approach. 49 Many, including myself, believe

46
See above, n.3.
47
A substantial number attend out of a desire to improve their Latin in order to
study the sacred texts of Christianity, a motivation which may, but need not, coincide
with the desire to learn and practice Latin pedagogy. In my own experience of over
a decade at the Kentucky Conventiculum, which I believe has the largest number of
participants of any of the U.S. seminars, a fifth to a quarter of the participants seem
interested in improving their language skills to better understand their religion. This
group tends to use the ecclesiastical Latin accent, while others often use the restored
pronunciation (with no difficulty on either side), though there are many who choose their
accent for aesthetic or other reasons. For those who seek a spoken Latin environment
with a Christian emphasis, Christendom College hosted a Latin immersion summer
program in 2011 for high-school juniors and seniors, with the stated goal of introducing
“aspiring Latinists to the beauty and power of the ancient language of the Church.”
Christendom College also uses active Latin methods in its first-year Latin instruction
(http://christendom.edu/academics/depts/classics.shtml, accessed February 2, 2012).
48
Some have argued that Latin instruction is necessarily a different enterprise
from modern language instruction, and so should develop a modern pedagogy of its
own that does not give active use a central role. On this view, by imitating the meth-
ods of the modern foreign language classroom, Latin instructors invite unf lattering
comparison to the f luency of speakers of modern languages and so risk relegating
themselves to the status of a poor cousin. For one view of this debate, see the comments
of L. Pearcy (“Review of LaFleur, R. ed. Latin for the 21st Century: From Concept
to Classroom,” BMCR 1999.08.03 [1999]) on “National Standards and Curriculum
Guidelines,” the contribution of M. Abbott, S. Davis, and R. C. Gascoyne, to R. A.
LaFleur, ed., Latin for the 21st Century: From Concept to Classroom (Glenview, Ill.,
1998). Other prescriptions discussed in this volume for improving Latin instruction
include a greater attention to contemporary linguistic terminology on the part of
teachers and developing precise reading strategies for students.
49
The conclusion of S. MacDonald, “Krashen & Second Language Acquisition
(SLA) Theory—A Re-Evaluation of How to Teach Classical Languages,” Journal of
Classics Teaching 22 (2011) 3–5.
264 C lassical W orld
that the customary drilling of students on grammar inculcates a precision of
thought that greatly benefits further scholarly study but also carries over as
a skill into other areas for those whose profession and interests lie outside
the academy. But I have also seen how speaking and writing Latin can
bring a much deeper and more fluent knowledge of the Latin idiom that not
only significantly improves reading comprehension—ultimately the primary
first-order aim of Latin instruction—but itself forms part of the bedrock of
cultural understanding that is the larger goal of classical studies. New texts
are being produced that offer the prospect of resolving this dilemma, such
as a recently produced grammatical supplement to Ørberg’s works 50 and the
textbooks that incorporate oral and composition exercises mentioned above.
The most coherent vision for a college curriculum combining conventional
and active Latin methods known to me is that proposed by Professor Stephen
Berard. Berard teaches German and Spanish as well as Latin, and draws the
structure of his curriculum from the modern language classroom. He proposes:
Pure language study, conversation, and composition in the
first year; more language and cultural studies and some
easy literature in the second year; less difficult great works
in the third year; and the more and important and/or more
difficult works in the fourth year . . . plus perhaps even
more advanced study of grammar and composition. Although
the teacher will not have native-level fluency, he/she will
be able to do this teaching credibly and creditably if he/
she makes it clear to the students that both teacher and
students are on a learning adventure. 51
Professor Berard’s vision does not depart wholesale from the conventional
classical language curriculum. Rather, it foresees time devoted to active
language production in the first two years that leads into a more enriched
appreciation of Latin literature in the third and fourth years. The Ørberg
course offers one set of complementary texts for this sort of curriculum.
I share with Professor Berard the belief that students educated in such a
program would become better readers and scholars of Latin. As Berard writes:
If this is done . . . and done right, even though the students
will be introduced to the great literature at a later point
in their studies, I absolutely guarantee that, when they do
get to that point, they will be able to read the great works
both more quickly and with more understanding. The pro-
cess will start out slower, but the result will be better . . .
far better. Virtually everyone who learns to speak Latin
and who keeps at it for a few years says that their reading
comprehension shoots up. 52
Berard gives as an example his own increased reading facility and that of
a student who, after some experience speaking Latin, enrolled in a prestigious
graduate classics program to find herself far ahead of even advanced gradu-
ate students in her reading ability. Berard’s proposal will of course require

50
New aids such as J. M. Neumann, Lingua Latina: A College Companion
(Newburyport, Mass., 2008) aim to make this possible.
51
S. Berard, “Perennial Latin in the Modern World: Where Should We Now
Be Heading and Why?” Lecture to the California Classical Association, Southern
Section Annual Meeting, April 18, 2009, Los Angeles, CA.
52
Berard (above, n.51).
 P aedagogus 265
instructors at the college and secondary school levels who are willing to
incorporate active Latin into their teaching. This desideratum, in turn, waits
upon the continuing and increased use of Latin as a means of communication.

IV. Quo tendimus?

I return now to the main question of this survey: what are the current aims
of the practitioners of active Latin? I address this question by characterizing
what I see as the goals of three leaders in the area of active Latin. I should
say first that no doubt the ultimate aim of each of these individuals is that of
the philosophers, general human flourishing, and that each ultimately sees the
cultivation of Latin letters and the study of antiquity as a means to that end.
Nevertheless they understandably come to focus on more immediate objectives
that lead to that larger goal, and it is this focus in the area of active Latin
that I will endeavor to represent faithfully. Others may have different and
equally worthy aims; these are simply the ones with which I am the most
familiar, and most of what follows I relate largely from personal experience.
Nancy Llewellyn, Associate Professor of Latin at Wyoming Catholic Col-
lege and organizer of the Rusticatio Virginiana, is the leading exponent of
the use of modern methods in active Latin teaching. In her Rusticatio sum-
mer seminar and at lectures and demonstrations elsewhere, she advocates
the Rassias approach mentioned by Professor Wills in his 1996 article, and
has adapted and advocated other energetic and systematic techniques, such
as the Total Physical Response method, for the Latin classroom. 53 If her
ultimate goals transcend pedagogy, the emphasis in her work as an advocate
of active Latin nevertheless falls upon teaching activities and how they can
be improved for better learning. Professor Llewllyn might thus be said to
represent a continuation of the program laid out by Professor Wills, where
the focus is the early-stage school, college, or university classroom. The aim
is improved instruction leading to a better understanding of the tradition of
Latin and its culture among future researchers and the general public.
Professor Tunberg is also a strong proponent of the use of active Latin in
teaching Latin and is convinced that using Latin for communication and active
discourse with students enhances the quality of both learning and teaching. He
and his colleague Professor Minkova have created an introductory textbook

53
It is possible that the energetic active Latin methods explored by Professor
Llewllyn may become more necessary to meet the learning habits and expectations
of contemporary students. Recent reports and studies have suggested that the internet
and other modern technologies are leading to a younger generation that can sustain
an interest in learning primarily by quick acquisition of information or stimulation,
as opposed to self-directed and laborious study (e.g., June 10, 2010 Economist ar-
ticle “Stay on Target” on software to block the internet as a distraction: http://www.
economist.com/node/16295664). N. G. Carr (The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing
to our Brains [New York 2010]) cites a 2008 study by the research and consulting
company nGenera that interviewed 6,000 young people who have grown up with the
internet; for one of the conclusions was that young people of this generation do not
read linearly, but skip around looking for information of interest. P. Babcock and
M. Marks (“Leisure College, USA: The Decline in Student Study Time,” American
Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research 7 [2010] 1–7), report that college
study time has declined from an average of 24 hours per week in 1961 to 14 hours
per week in 2003. None of this means that Latin teachers should cease requiring
students to read intently. But it may suggest that students might respond best to a
combination of approaches, some of which are more interactive. It also suggests that
at least some students will be more willing to enter or remain in a Latin classroom
that offers the opportunity to engage in dynamic exercises.
266 C lassical W orld
that offers oral exercises in each chapter, and both of them have written
manuals of Latin prose composition. Professor Minkova, in particular, has
made a substantial effort in the pedagogical materials she has published and
elsewhere to promote both speaking and writing as activities that mutually
reinforce Latin acquisition and improve reading fluency. 54
Despite his interest in applying a range of teaching strategies from the mod-
ern classroom, however, Tunberg argues that a classical language instruction
must nevertheless differ from that of modern, national vernacular tongues. He
points out that the structure and therefore the standards of correct expression are
fixed in model texts, and are not evolving in Latin as they do in the national
languages, and that Latin teachers aim more exclusively at the reading and
understanding of literature and do so sooner in the teaching process than their
colleagues in the modern languages. For these reasons, he suggests that some
approaches developed by theorists of second-language acquisition in the context
of current national languages might be less productive for Latin, unless such
techniques can be accommodated to the needs of classical language learning.
He is also convinced that many activities currently taken for granted in classical
language pedagogy, including conventional exercises that emphasize syntax and
grammar, are fully consistent with active Latin and can be profitably used in
combination with the constant engagement of students in the target language.
But in public lectures and private conversations, Professor Tunberg has
also articulated a broader vision of which elementary instruction is one part.
As an early advocate of active Latin, Tunberg developed a response to critics
like Professors Ball and Ellsworth who ridiculed the practice for its supposed
aspirations to restore Latin to modern vernacular usage. Tunberg’s most distant
ambition is rather to make Latin the language of scholarly spoken and written
discourse among classicists, or at least Latinists. His model is the intellectual
discourse carried out by Erasmus and his correspondents in the early modern
period, when Latin was no longer the language of a country but remained the
common medium of communication among those that studied its literature, as
well as those in other academic fields. Through his many labors in this area,
Tunberg has at least succeeded in setting the conditions for this change in the
United States. One can imagine that schoolteachers, who on the whole seem
more receptive to new teaching methods than college and university instructors,
will continue adopting these methods, and thereby build in the expectation for
active Latin use among future students and, eventually, university faculty. One
could then expect that a common Latin discourse across all levels of instruc-
tion, and in scholarship, could emerge that would substantially improve the
understanding of Latin and the cultures of Latinity.
Finally, Professor Miraglia of the Accademia Vivarium Novum in Rome
has advanced what might be the most ambitious agenda for active Latin,
one that in fact does approach the very goals of the philosophers. On many
occasions, including in his closing remarks to the 2010 “Monumenta viae-
que” conference, Miraglia has spoken of his strong conviction of the need
to renew the ethical foundation of modern culture by drawing wisdom and
inspiration from the best art and thought of the classical world, read and
discussed in the original languages. Those who have heard Miraglia speak in
Latin know that he is an eloquent and moving orator, and that his discourse
is infused with a deep knowledge of classical and early modern literature
and a passion for humanistic learning.
54
E.g., M. Minkova, An Introduction to Latin Prose Composition (London
2001), in addition to M. Minkova and T. Tunberg, Readings and Exercises in Latin
Prose Composition: From Antiquity to the Renaissance (Newburyport, Mass., 2004).
 P aedagogus 267
As with other leaders of the movement toward active Latin, it is perhaps
easy for those looking on from afar to dismiss Miraglia as quixotic. 55 Indeed,
it may be difficult to argue that the most logical prescription for combating
moral corruption and anomie is for the whole population, or a subset suf-
ficient to have an impact, to devote itself to deep study of cultural products
read in the original Greek and Latin. One could imagine ostensibly more
direct routes to cultural and moral renovation, if such is required, such as
a program of broad humanistic learning from works in translation of many
times and cultures. Yet Miraglia’s agenda can in fact be seen as part of such
broader advocacy for the importance of the humanities to promotion of human
flourishing and the education of citizens. In this respect, Miraglia’s views
do not differ much from those of distinguished public intellectuals in the
United States such as Professor Martha Nussbaum, who has recently argued
in scholarly works and public articles for the value of the humanities in
these terms. 56 And one must acknowledge that, like Professor Tunberg, Pro-
fessor Miraglia has, at a minimum, been successful in laying the groundwork
for his larger goals. He has so far managed to bring into being a thriving
academy whose students possess an astounding fluency in Latin—it is truly
their everyday language—and to create a conference series that has energized
teachers across Europe and beyond.

55
That is, unfortunately, the tenor of a New Yorker profile that treats him as
something of a curiosity (R. Mead, “Letter from Italy: Latin Lover,” The New Yorker
[September 17, 2001] 107–17).
56
M. C. Nussbaum, Love’s Knowledge: Essays on Philosophy and Literature.
(Oxford 1990); M. C. Nussbaum, Upheavals of Thought: The Intelligence of Emotions
(Cambridge 2001); and M. C. Nussbaum, Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the
Humanities (Princeton 2010). Professor Nussbaum delivered a concise defense of the
humanities in the New York Times in response to the announced closing of several
programs, including classics, at the University at Albany, SUNY (M. C. Nussbaum,
“Cultivating the Imagination” New York Times, October 17, 2010). In a similar vein,
Professor Miraglia himself recalled in his 2010 address Cicero’s defense of letters in
pro Archia 12–14. Miraglia also inveighed against what he sees as the pedantry and
obsession of the modern academy with minutiae rather than the main art and meaning
of ancient literature. To illustrate his view of the modern situation as one instance
of a long-standing problem, he cited David Ruhnken’s (O. Nikitinski, ed., Davidis
Ruhnkenii Oratio de doctore umbratico [Naples 2001]) censure of pedants in his 1761
address upon assuming the Latin chair at Leiden, The Learned Scholar: deinde hae
ipsae litterae, quanquam maxima elegantia et suauitate censen­tur, habent tamen hic
illic spinas vepresque, non illas quidem a scriptorum ingenio, sed a barbari temporis
inscitia et corruptela. in quibus senticetis cum isti, nescio qua mentis prauitate ducti,
libentius desideant, quam in laetis amoenisque uiridariis, necesse est ingenium etiam
exasperari, et uelut horridum hispidumque reddi. huc accedit insanum minutiarum
studium, quod proprium est litteratoribus otiosis. gerris enim crepundisque tractandis
animus ad eam humilitatem abiicitur, ut nullius nisi leuis, minutae, et puerilis rei
cogitationem suscipere possit (“Although the works [of antiquity] are considered to
exhibit the greatest polish and attraction, they still have here and there certain nettle-
some parts, not through the intention of their authors, but through the ignorance and
failures of the unwitting ages that transmitted them. When certain scholars, possessed
by some inexplicable perversity, waste time grasping such lifeless thistles rather than
dwelling in fertile and delightful gardens, it is no surprise that they should become
petty and peevish, or rather as intractable and thorny as the subjects they treat. Add
to this their mad excitement over minutiae, which should if anything be a matter for
grammarians to engage in their off hours, not scholars in their studies. By dealing
regularly with such trivialities and baubles, the mind is reduced to such a diminished
state that can engage only the most insubstantial, picayune, and childish matters”).
268 C lassical W orld
V. Conclusions
How, then, do we assess these different goals for the use of active
Latin? First, we can observe that they are mutually compatible, and most
practitioners of active Latin pursue some version of them simultaneously.
The program of Professor Miraglia seems to differ from the ALF’s broader
goal of the promotion of the humanities for greater understanding and social
harmony mainly in its greater note of urgency. Improved Latin instruction
ultimately contributes to the same end. If active Latin holds the promise of
making learning seem vital and exciting, then this energy will help improve
learning and naturally lead to a better humanistic understanding of Roman
and other cultures.
If the goals of spreading humanistic understanding and doing so by bet-
ter instruction perhaps seem obvious, the goal of making Latin the language
of scholarly discourse is less so. This may be because it is difficult to
imagine the joyful exuberance evident in many active Latin classrooms and
extracurricular seminars cascading down academic hallways. Professors of
classics are rightly interested in ensuring the soundness of our understand-
ing of antiquity. As those with the most time to study ancient matters, they
have the depth of knowledge to determine what a faithful representation of
the Latin language and antiquity would be. They may be concerned that the
casual use of spoken Latin is a distraction from serious study, but also that
the construction of an easier Latin for speaking may dull our sensitivity to
the less tractable, truly foreign parts of the language. And it is true that
a spoken Latin language must necessarily adapt itself to modern age. Few
Latin speakers attempt to reckon the days of the months in Kalends, Nones,
and Ides, much less date even ancient Roman years by consulships. But then
the practice of dating years in sequence from the birth of Christ began in
the sixth century with Dionysius Exiguus, leading to an unbroken tradition
in Latin and the vernacular languages that can be comfortably adopted by
contemporary Latin speakers. Such measures in fact show that, as in the
days of Erasmus, Latin can become a functional language without abandon-
ing fidelity to the ancient Roman tongue.
In his 2009 book on the history of the Latin language, the German scholar
Jürgen Leonhardt writes that in Europe classical scholars until recently ob-
jected that speaking Latin was an antiquated practice predating the epoch of
rigorous study. He reports, however, that these objections have largely given
way to an attitude that does not recommend spoken Latin in a thoroughgoing
way, but allows that it might have a place in the education of researchers
and students more generally. 57 We may be beginning to see such a change
starting to take hold in American academia as well.
To conclude, I would like to add my own perspective to those of the dis-
tinguished leaders in the area of active Latin outlined above. I am myself a
speaker of Latin. I conduct my second-year undergraduate Latin course and
my graduate poetry survey partly in Latin. 58 I run a weekly spoken Latin
table that attracts a small group of undergraduate and graduate students. I
have participated in the workshops at Kentucky and the 2010 “Monumenta
viaeque” conference in Rome. And, for the last four years, together with col-
laborators, I have run a three-day workshop on spoken Latin at my university.

57
Leonhardt (above, n.10) 294.
58
In the second-year Latin course, I alternate instructional days in English
and Latin. In the graduate poetry survey, I spend the first fifteen minutes of each
class speaking with students in Latin about the life and works of the author before
returning to English for remainder of the class.
 P aedagogus 269
I certainly share the goals of the active Latin advocates mentioned so
far. I hope that the use of active Latin improves my pedagogy and will
do so for the students and teachers I work with. I am becoming more and
more convinced that, as the title of one textbook puts it, omnia dici pos-
sunt latine: we can in fact say everything in Latin. My one reservation has
been that in the most technical discussions of, for example, poetic figures
or archaeological method, it would be confusing and cumbersome to deploy
proper Latin equivalents for modern notions. Professor Tunberg has shown,
however, that equivalents can most often be found. I have also learned that,
when necessary, we need not hesitate to follow the model of the Romans
themselves, who were willing to adopt technical vocabulary from the Greek.
To take one example, I am willing to employ the term intertextualitas to
indicate the range of meaning that the word denoted by the English “inter-
textuality,” at least until I find a better Latin equivalent. I also share with
Professor Miraglia the belief that a deeper understanding of antiquity cannot
but add some measure of wisdom to our modern lives.
Nevertheless, if I look closely at where I choose to place my emphasis,
it is not on the loftiest goals, on making headway for Latin as a medium of
scholarly communication, or even on pedagogy. Most often my immediate
goal is rather to foster the joy of learning and communicating. I often find
this joy easier to convey in Latin, a language that is special for each of us
who uses it, that no one owns, where the construction of every sentence
can have charm, and the use of a half-remembered word or phrase brings a
shared pleasure of recognition.
If I try to describe this pleasure further, I would liken it to the experience
of hearing a good joke. When we hear a joke, we experience a sudden and
unexpected mental connection, a firing of synapses that somehow creates a
spark of delight. Speaking Latin does something quite similar, as speakers
and listeners constantly experience new connections firing between Latin
words they learned in the classroom and everyday topics of conversation.
The pleasure produced seems to me universally understood by Latin speakers,
if rarely identified and discussed. It is perhaps one of the reasons for the
marked humanity and good will I find among participants in spoken Latin
events. If I can help create occasions that elicit such fellow feeling and
thereby advance our understanding of the cultures of Latinity, then I will
have achieved at least my own modest aims as a speaker of Latin.
University at Buffalo, SUNY NEIL COFFEE
Classical World 105.2 (2012) ncoffee@buffalo.edu