A very different sort of objection might come from those who wonder whether learning Latin as a truly communicative tongue is worth while, because such a knowledge might involve learning some vocabulary for, and talking about things not mentioned by Virgil, Cicero, or Livy. As stated above, our goal is a conversational latinity very close to what we find in texts. But this doesn’t mean sticking exclusively to only those subjects discussed in standard authors. Latin a real language, as is proven by the immense body of literature in Latin on all subjects produced long after the Romans were extinct and gone. So why should we be hesitant about discussing subjects from time to time not found in typical school texts? So much the better, we say, for stimulating one’s ability to think in appropriate and correct Latin sentences unsupported by the memory of familiar passages. And if the discussion of such new material might occasionally involve the use of a term that rarely or never appears in canonical texts, the speakers (provided they are doing what they are supposed to) are still using the Latin language, with its correct structures, grammar, and even idioms. The occasional untypical or new word doesn’t have to make the linguistic structure less Latin. The main thing is to maintain a continuous, uninterrupted flow of discourse in the environment of the target language, with all of its patterns, a linguistic environment that is never punctured or interrupted simply because someone wants to make a comment that leads outside the confines of a text, or a prescribed set of circumstances.
Our goal in the conventicula is to create an environment in which teachers can develop some ability to use Latin freely on a truly extempore basis, and on the spur of the moment. Nobody after just one conventiculum is going to become a perfect orator, but a lot of people make remarkable progress even in single seminar, and come away able to voice a considerable variety of thoughts in correct Latin. And, of course, there are certain veterans of several conventicula, who have become very proficient indeed. In the conventicula, other than our prejudice in favor of as much active Latin as possible in the classroom, we neither advocate nor teach any particular pedagogic methodologies or strategies. We see our job as simply helping people to acquire some ability to use Latin actively - what they do with it in the classroom is up to them.
In addition to the active use of Latin, which is of course the cornerstone of what we are trying to do, another element has also remained constant in the conventicula and in the series of graduate courses based on the conventicula. We take special care to present Latin in its true historical light as a rich, and culturally fundamental literary tradition extending far, far beyond the temporal boundaries of pagan antiquity. We are the first to agree that works by certain canonical authors, such as Vergil, Ovid, and Cicero, are seminal, and take care that these authors, or others of their contemporaries who are equally fundamental, are always represented in our readings. But we always include an approximately equal amount of material from other sectors of latinity, including Christian authors, some medieval ones, and especially authors of the humanist and early modern period, whose works, written usually in highly classicizing Latin, constitute some of the fundamental monuments of European literature, scholarship and science. I have argued at length elsewhere why this should be standard practice across the board in Latin pedagogy, and those who want to read a more detailed explication of the case can look at “Latinitas: The Misdiagnosis of Latin’s Rigor Mortis,” American Classical League Newsletter, 22. no. 2, Winter 2000, pp. 21-26. Here it will suffice to just briefly indicate some of the main arguments for our wide scope of reading and textual material:
- to show teachers and participants what is out there, and some of the wonderful stuff they can add to more standard readings;
- to constantly point out that study of the Latin tradition is not merely a matter of studying ancient relics, such as gladiators and broken columns;
- to take advantage of the fact that more modern texts in Latin often deal with issues and thoughts that are more immediately accessible to students;
- to emphasize the interdisciplinary, and above all, multi-cultural reality of most of the Latin tradition;
- to promote more contact and elements of common interest with teachers of other languages and literatures; and,
- very significantly for our purposes, acknowledging and adopting the post antique and non-Roman part of Latin is a stimulus and example for those interested in writing and speaking Latin now.
In short, therefore, our conventicula and graduate courses are devoted to promoting a wider view of Latin as a literary tradition, as well as, and along with, inculcating an active command of Latin as a true language. And we find that this second goal is strongly supported by the first one, because Latin, unlike most other languages of ancient, long gone races, had not merely a huge tradition of active usage long after it ceased to be anyone’s native tongue, but continued to produce a rich and complex literature. In light of this we see ourselves as much or more as restorers and followers than as innovators.
