Bridget Murnaghan challenged the notion that a classicist's
area of professional expertise is confined to Greek and Latin and
that professional growth or survival strategies should be based on
this assumption. In particular, she stated that there is no reason
to think that professors of (e.g.) English are better able to
teach classical literature in translation than are professors of
classics. Rather, since there clearly is a market for such
courses, classicists should work both at training our own graduate
students to teach them and also at helping colleagues in other
fields to teach (e.g.) classical literature in translation with
due awareness of the factors that distinguish it from (e.g.)
English literature.
Jim O'Donnell came at the problem from a slightly different
angle by asking early in the discussion who "we" are: do the
issues being addressed in these discussions concern students of
the Greek and Latin languages and literatures (philologists), or
also historians, archaeologists, and others? Alessandro Schiessaro
later returned to this point, asking whether classics should
define itself as a "discipline" (e.g. "classical philology") or a
"field" or "area study" (e.g. something akin to the totalizing
model of "klassische Altertumswissenschaft" encompassing
literature, material culture, history, philosophy, etc.)?
Along these lines, some participants felt that the field should not be defined merely as a collectivity of specialists in widely differing areas, but should insist on breadth of expertise in individual scholars. Judy Hallett asked why, given that field originally defined itself as an extremely broad interdisciplinary pursuit, is it now commonly perceived as the preserve of specialists who are not open to input from other fields. Richard Thomas remarked that classicists need to be willing to teach subjects other than their own research and to teach introductory courses. Jim Halporn spoke of his early experience teaching T. S. Eliot despite having no formal graduate training in English, but noted that such experiences seemed to be less common nowadays. Julia Gaisser agreed, and suggested that classicists needed to remember one of the ideals of liberal education, namely that it trains the individual not in any specific craft, but to assess situations, define tasks, and perform them well on one's own resources. Christine Perkell spoke of the need for classicists not only to be broadly trained, but to be able to address non- specialist as well as specialist audiences, including non-academic ones.
[To proceed to section 2.1, click here.]