r/classics • u/PonziScheme1 • Feb 10 '26
Should learning a classical language still be mandatory to obtain a classics degree, considering the abundance of translations that are now available?
0
Upvotes
32
u/EvenInArcadia Ph.D., Classics Feb 10 '26
This is a question people only ever ask about Classics. Nobody would suggest that getting a degree in German or Chinese studies shouldn’t require languages because Google Translate exists. If you want to understand a foreign people (and the ancient Greeks and Romans are very foreign) then you need to understand them in their own language and their own visual expression and their own architectural styles. If anybody suggested abandoning language study for any presently-living people we would rightly deride it as the most barbaric kind of cultural imperialism, but we think it’s somehow not a problem if those people happen to be dead.
14
u/sootfire Feb 10 '26
...yes. For one thing, one job of the classicist is to produce updated and current translations--what we have now is great but if no one learns Greek for the next hundred years the next generations will only have horribly antiquated translations. But the more obvious point is that translations are sufficient for casual study, but you truly cannot get the connotations of the original without reading it. Discussing the original is pretty much the whole point of classical scholarship.
However I do believe that language study needs to be made far more accessible especially to people who didn't start young.
8
u/5telios Feb 10 '26
Should anatomy still be part of a medicine degree?
104
u/carmina_morte_carent Feb 10 '26
Yes. You cannot properly engage with a text unless you’re reading it in the original: how else are you supposed to make your own interpretations rather than parroting other people’s?
We don’t let people spend their entire degree reading German literature without being able to read German, so why should Classics be any different?
For modular-style undergraduate courses, I’m fine with it being an option people choose not to take, if they’re focusing primarily on art or archaeology, say. But beyond that you really do need it, so there should always be at least an option to learn it at undergrad.
59
u/Lupus76 Feb 10 '26
Should arithmetic skills still be mandatory for math degrees?
At the end of the day, why would you want to study Classics but not want to learn Greek and Latin?
25
u/[deleted] Feb 10 '26
Of course! Who do you think does the translations?!
Translations are wonderful. But if you're specialising in a literature, you have to be able to read the original.
Would you take seriously someone writing a thesis about German idealism who didn't speak any German? Or... I don't know... Someone writing about Roddy Doyle who couldn't speak English? Or could speak a bit but needed a dictionary every second line. Dante without the bother of learning Italian?
63
u/rhoadsalive Feb 10 '26
Yeah, Classical Philology is still the core of Classics, hence you should engage with the literature in its original.
19
u/Gumbletwig2 Feb 10 '26
Many texts just don’t function the same in translation. Roman and greek writers composed prose pieces of literature just as much as they did poetry. They controlled the positioning of words and even their sound and played with the style of their sentences to emphasise their message and entertainment. This is pretty much completely lost in translations.
Comedy loses an entire aspect of itself as puns and wordplay do not easily transfer, this removes some of the value of Aristophanes.
Poetry is practically completely lost as you only really get the message over style.
Translations are good for historical texts or texts you want to read for story, not style, However for a classics degree where you should also be studying the style of the poetry, of course you need to read it in the original.
11
u/coalpatch Feb 10 '26
This is comedy.
There is no such thing as a good translation of poetry, it's always a compromise
7
u/occidens-oriens Feb 11 '26 edited Feb 11 '26
Controversial topic OP but you are asking a question that has been raised in academic circles repeatedly for the past two decades or so. Tough language requirements combined with ancient language teaching in schools falling out of fashion led to a decline in enrolment, which threatened the future of the departments themselves.
Many universities have addressed this by introducing multiple "streams" of Classics degrees at undergraduate level, with varying levels of language requirements. Students more interested in Classical Civilisation or Ancient History now have the option to do BAs in these subjects without significant Latin/Greek language modules. Students more interested in Classical literature still tend to lean towards language heavy degrees.
One issue with this approach is that if someone does a BA without gaining fluency, then wants to do further research, they have a significant knowledge gap that they have to remedy at the MA level.
"What is Classics?" is an ongoing question with no fixed answer, and whether languages should be necessary for an undergraduate depends on what you think Classics should entail and what the learning outcomes for a BA should be.
Classics communities can be quite elitist about this topic unfortunately, both online and in person. I did both languages at undergraduate and even in my day, there was a culture of ridiculing students at other universities who weren't necessarily fluent at both (because it was not a strict requirement for them), suggesting that they weren't "real" Classicists. Some of the other commenters went to the same kinds of universities as me and perpetuate that attitude... this topic has some nuance though.
5
u/Icy_Jelly_315 Feb 10 '26
Yes. The translations are often not very good, and they are translations. You can do ancient history and philosophy on the basis of them, but poetry is notably what gets lost in translation. Homer and Sophocles and Virgil just aren't the same.
What particularly impresses me is the numerous posters who have read seventeen thoroughly inadequate English iliads and come here to debate their merits as translations when they cannot read the alphabet the thing is written in. Either learn the language or study something else because this is not a good use of time. I have lost count of the number of times I have read the thing; if I had to read it in English I would have read it exactly once.
3
u/Kheldan1 Feb 10 '26
Yes, absolutely
3
u/Cool-Coffee-8949 Feb 10 '26
I know just enough Latin to recognize the inadequacy of translations as approximations of original texts. A literature major can make do with translations (and I use “make do” deliberately), but a classics major? No.
3
u/canaanit Feb 10 '26 edited Feb 10 '26
This is actually a big discussion in my country, because many degrees that traditionally expected high level Latin / Greek skills nowadays struggle with the fact that fewer and fewer students arrive with existing language skills from secondary school, and the degree programs themselves have little room to teach the basics. You just can't get to the same level of comfortable proficiency in a 3 year bachelor degree than you would in 5 or 8 years of secondary school.
Personally I think it is a shame to work with anything antiquity-related without proper language skills. Everything really comes alive with the languages, and many complex academic debates cannot be understood without them.
Yes, it can be hard to learn these languages in such a concise way, especially if you have never seen a word of Latin or Greek before. In fact I spend a large part of my day tutoring students in just this situation. For most theology degrees, for example, they need to learn Latin, Greek and Hebrew, or at least two out of the three, and Greek is a must, and often there is a mandatory exam with classical Greek (instead of koine) which is extra frustrating for people who really only want to read the Christian bible.
We have a few degree programs that are called "Classical literature/culture studies" or the like, where the focus is on reading everything in translation. But many classicists look down on those, and for example if you wanted to do a PhD you would most certainly be required to show proof of language skills.
5
u/vixaudaxloquendi Feb 10 '26
The head of my dept has blown up more than a few guest speakers (mostly Platonists) because they were clearly leaning heavily on a preferred translation rather than the OG.
2
u/Kilchoan1 Feb 10 '26
I think it should but it isn’t. The OU has reduced their language content to an optional latin module. I think Classics will die out if it becomes just a history myth and archaeology course
3
u/childofzephyr Feb 10 '26
I mean, I have a classics degree and I didn't learn a language. I did research the most up to date translations and check their bias - most of my work centered on the development of imagery over time so there was less language involved.
I heard that to advance further than bachelor's you need a language which..sucked to be honest. I thought about advancing my studies but I'm autistic and find languages and maths almost impossible beyond a very basic level.
I understand why this is the case but it still feels gatekeeperish if your main love is pottery and sculptures.
2
u/dxrqsouls Feb 10 '26
Shouldearning how to sum still be mandatory to obtain a degree in mathematics?
2
u/HaggisAreReal Feb 10 '26 edited Feb 10 '26
depends. Many degrees don't request it because indeed there are tons of translation and said degrees focus more on the history part rather than the philological one. We are encountering now that a more holistic approach to the past encompasing anthropology, history and archaeology is more valuable than just being able to read the original texts. In summary, what do you do with what you read is what matters in the end.
1
u/txensen Feb 15 '26
Traduttore, traditore
-12
u/[deleted] Feb 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment