Re issues of developing interest in a number of postings, we quote by way of summary J. Miller's opening paragraph:
"On the undergraduate curriculum ... I agree with what I take to be the consensus of the group that 1) we should maintain strong programs in Latin and Greek, while insisting that such study not be conducted in a vacuum, i.e., that students supplement their language study with work in ancient history and culture; 2) we Classicists have a responsibility to offer courses on classical subjects in English translation--Myth, Roman Civ. and the like--aimed largely at the general undergraduate population but also with a view to our own majors; and 3) we should not think of the undergraduate major in Classics as primarily pre-professional in nature."
Miller then went on to develop points of difference between his own more traditionalist views of the classical undergraduate curriculum and those of some others:
"Where I would differ with some is in questioning the advisability of offering majors in Classical Civilization which involve very little study of Latin or Greek. Why do I feel this way? The miscellaneous quality of many department's--or, indeed, many college's--offerings in classical non-language courses militates against Classical Civ. as an integrated field of study. At some schools most such courses are elementary in nature, so that a student's major program might consist of few advanced-level courses. Without a required concentration in one of the subfields of Classics--e.g. philosophy, art, religion--the student might not reach the depth of study that one generally wants in a college major. Just as important, the major in Classical Civilization with few exceptions will not put a student in a position to pursue Classics in graduate school. This fact differentiates the major in Class. Civ. not only from the traditional language and lit. major in Classics but also from nearly all other college majors. In this sense the major should have an asterisk... I also agree with Bob Cape that the ancient languages are the heart of the matter. For me this means not only vigilance against threats to our usually small third-year Greek courses, but also that the major in Classical Civilization needs a good dose of language study, certainly more than the one year some programs require, and preferably some advanced-level work in Latin or Greek-- maybe just one course at this level On the other hand, language-based Classics majors should broaden their horizons with work in ancient history and art. In other words, I support your call for a greater integration of the language and civilization experience in our undergraduate programs. But to me this means beefing up the language side of the Civ. major as much as it does reinvigorating a language-only program in Classics with some attention to history, religion, art, philosophy and other aspects of ancient culture."
A sharply contrasting map for undergraduate study in Classics was presented by C. Pavur: 1) improve language instruction, making it significantly more thorough, and 2) transform the old, low level Classical Civ. major into an ambitious and widely-ranging course of study in the ways classical antiquity engages subsequent history and thought--ranging across the literary, philosophical, psychological, and sociological landscape from antiquity to the present: "What I am asking for regarding classical humanities may be somewhat vague, but let me just say here that in the same way we begin with Greece and proceed on to Rome, so should we continue on to the later cultural elisions, trying to engage the most memorable or instructive or humanistically valuable moments (e.g., Augustine, Aquinas, Dante, Petrarch, More, Erasmus, Montaigne, Gracian, Goethe, Nietzsche, Marx, Emerson, etc.) Each of these figures deeply engaged antiquity, and we can see much more deeply into antiquity with their help. It would be a profoundly satisfying humanistic education to undertake a vigorous engagement with such figures." Some found the idea of such radical modification of the curriculum promising, while others voiced reservations about the post- graduate viability of such a major. Is there a professional niche for someone educated in a Classical Civ. or Humanities program apart from in the "other" professions of medicine, law, etc.? Need there be? What will be the repercussions for Classics graduate programs if students with minimal language preparation but wide learning and experience in other respects begin to look to Classics as a career?
M. Williams addressed himself to some valuable shorter-term recommendations, now focusing on graduate training rather than undergrad major configurations, that will function well within existing graduate curricula: keep emphasis on work in the languages and literatures, but encourage coursework outside of Classics to broaden intellectual horizons. He spoke about the positive effects of such intellectual forays and brings with that some urgency: "I strongly urge grad departments to encourage greater breadth of training." D. Hooley, editorializing here, adds that breadth is so important because it is where we are seen to be vulnerable. And, again, I'd say that while asking students to forage outside for things we can't offer is good, it's equally good to start bringing some of that outside in--that is, into our own curricula and talk. Berkeley's graduate survey of literary theory is a good model; others are possible (secondary/modern reading lists to go along with students' Latin and Greek reading lists; proseminars introducing new approaches to Classics and issues that may touch Classics, ...) Can we think of some more?
We ended this section with a question or two: Does Classics currently have a "disciplinary model" and is it viable still? Better, in what ways is it (if it exists) or is it not viable? What are things people would like to see remain as they are, what changed? How much can we do to accomodate our discipline to the academic and social realities we face without losing sight of what we think we are as Classicists?
To go on to Section 3, click here.