As a sixth form student at Belfast Royal Academy, I can still remember some of the things that drew me to the school in the first place.
These included the excellent standard of teaching, the wide extra-curricular activities available in areas beyond sport, but most of all the impressive number of subjects that weren’t available elsewhere.
One of these subjects was Latin, taught in the dedicated Classics department. I found myself loving the subject, and actively looking forward to each lesson.
There was something about the beauty of the language, the interactive teaching from the Cambridge Classics Course and the ancient myths that made me fall in love with this subject.
You could imagine my shock, then, when I found out that Queen’s University here in Belfast had dropped its Classics course. This is part of a trend which has also seen Latin being faded out of schools all over the world.
In Northern Ireland, according to a Language Trends Report conducted by the British Council, fewer than 10% of post-primary schools had Latin timetabled. Perhaps it’s surprising it’s even that high - the NI curriculum doesn’t even support Ancient Languages.
I have always wondered why Latin has such a bad reputation, not only with my peers but also with, it seems, almost everyone else.
That’s why, in the spirit of classical inquiry, I chose to listen to the other side and see why Latin has become so maligned.
One major argument I’ve seen against learning Latin is that studying it in order to learn languages more easily - which is often given as a reason to learn Latin - isn’t worth the effort.
I actually agree with this. You shouldn’t learn Latin to learn another language. But that doesn’t mean its not helpful. In fact, during my time learning German, I’ve found that Latin has offered me a framework to understand other languages easier.
If it helps me in this way for a Germanic language, which is so far removed from Latin, imagine the help it could give for the languages that come straight from Latin; the romance languages of French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian and Romanian.
This help has also applied to my English skills, as around 40% of English words come from Latin roots, if not directly pulled from the language itself. Learning Latin has made my life so much easier; when I see a new word, there’s no need to scramble for Google, or dust off an old dictionary, et cetera, as chances are it comes straight from the Romans.
Another reason I have seen for not teaching Latin is the supposed ‘uselessness’ of it, due to its status as a dead language. Why learn the language of people from thousands of years ago, when we could easily learn others that would help us more, such as Mandarin Chinese, Polish or other modern languages?
Learning Latin has made my life so much easier; when I see a new word, there’s no need to scramble for Google, or dust off an old dictionary, et cetera, as chances are it comes straight from the Romans
I find this argument against Latin ad hominem; that is to say, missing the point. As well as its unparalleled usefulness in helping to learn other languages, Latin can open up many pathways that these other languages simply cannot.
While yes, they may help you speak with people from those regions, or allow for easier travel, what they cannot do is give you a fundamental understanding of subjects like Geography, Law or Medicine by simply knowing the language most words in those subjects use.
There’s a reason why, when asked why he hired mainly classicists, the world’s richest man of the time, J. Paul Getty, answered: “They sell more oil.” Having knowledge in the classics gives you knowledge above other fields - certainly more than with French alone.
Read more: England anthem Three Lions translated into Latin ahead of Euro 2020 final
Now we come to, quite possibly, the simplest argument that I’ve encountered against learning this amazing language and history; the most common objection to studying Latin, one that I’ve even heard from many of my close friends, is the blunt accusation that it’s boring.
‘It is boring to sit in class.’ they argue. ‘and recite over and over the present tense, or translate one ancient myth after another, or hear about one more emperor in a class.’
After all, most people who’ve been in a Latin classroom have heard the rhyme: “Latin is dead, as dead as can be, first it killed the Romans and now it’s killing me.”
I have only one question for these people: did we learn the same subject? In every Latin class, we would learn about the Roman gods, read the writings of Catullus and Cicero in ways translations can’t give you, find out about how these ancient people lived, how their concerns weren’t very different to our own and hear about Nero, Claudius and Julius Caesar.
In no other class could you receive this education. And if this argument really comes down to the subject being dull, then why do I never see maths or other so-called boring subjects treated the same? Anyone can find any subject boring; does resorting to this argument not therefore potentially invalidate all other subjects?
Schools are going backwards, it seems clear to me. More schools should be offering Classics to students. We must give more people the chance to realise that we should not leave this language in the past but instead accept that Latin as a language, history and art form is one that needs brought into the future.
Jamie O’Kane is a lower sixth pupil at B.R.A. who has been on work experience at The Irish News
