top of page
Search
  • Writer's pictureAlexandra Sills

Would a Classicist By Any Other Name Smell as Sweet?

Updated: Jan 25, 2023

Having come to the realisation that my posts here seem to do better if I have a bee in my bonnet over something, I did make a weak resolution to nevertheless avoid posting many more 'longform subtweets.' I was beginning to feel like Britta Perry; my easily ignited indignation is the mustard on my cheek.


On the other hand, I've never been very good at standing idly by when something irritates me. At the risk of becoming The Woman Who Complains About Everything, I have yet again been presented with something exasperating. I was reading an otherwise innocuous article that I could otherwise relate to. I wrote over a year ago about my personal beef with Latin teaching in the UK. I'd be lying if I said that my HE experience with Latin wasn't a massively anticlimactic flop. It's something that I've had to come to terms with, and I am wary of repetitively banging this particular drum. Accusations of chips on shoulders may hold a grain of truth and yet still sting.


Since I've written about why ancient languages are a frigging nightmare to start learning from scratch at undergrad level and about how flagellating oneself to avoid being chucked in with the Studies/Civ also-rans is de rigeur, I won't repeat myself too much. But my depressing experience should go some way to explaining how heartening it was to see another working class Brit writing about how learning these languages is an uphill struggle, even if in this case they were lucky enough to study them a little at a state school. I'm very envious, as my comprehensive school didn't even offer Ancient History. The author writes:


"I remember when I was struggling with my Ancient Greek exams, the course leader invited me for a mandatory meeting to discuss the possibility of my changing courses to ‘Classical Civilisations’ and dropping the Greek altogether. ‘Absolutely not’ was my resolve. I’m a Classical purist, even if Ancient Greek is hard as nails."

Dear reader, I let out an audible groan. I may have uttered a few expletives. I had that same conversation, as my first year exams results came in. I proudly clutched a history exam marked 70%+ in one hand and a Compensated Fail in Latin sheepishly in the other. It was clear, given the teaching/assessment styles, where my strengths lay. With a few more contact hours and alternative methods of assessment, I may have thrived. We'll never know. I quietly switched to Classical Studies. It takes me longer than I'd like to translate an inscription, (though I just about can at a glacial pace,) but to be fair I have yet to average below a 70 in a single ancient history module. But if I'm reading what the author correctly, my projected 1:1 will be inferior to their own degree, which they describe as having 'scraped through.'


Yes, it's that old, slightly fusty air of superiority from a philologist. 'Classics,' i.e languages, is "pure." I think it would be a fair assumption to extrapolate from this that Studies/Civ or even classical archaeology are 'impure.' Impurity is rarely described as a positive trait.


"Curiously, I was the only person at my university to graduate with a degree in Classics that year. Most of my friends on my ‘course’ were Archaeologists, Ancient Historians, and Classical Civilisations students. This meant that, whilst my modules on Ancient history and Archaeology were filled with friends that I could work alongside, my language classes were more lonely."

There's nothing actually curious about this. There are a lot of people who have had that dreaded conversation about switching. I suspect those from a working class background have it more often, so it's so upsetting to see a working class classicist imply that they are stronger than their classmates who changed course. From conversations with peers via Twitter, I am not alone in believing that languages teaching in UK universities leaves a lot to be desired, even at Oxbridge and Russell Groupers. A lecturer can be as devoted and inspiring as mine, but if the modules are conducted at a breakneck pace with exams as the heaviest weighted form of assessment, even dedicated students will continue to struggle.


The more I speak to my peers, the more I believe that the Classics versus Civ/Studies divide is less to do with strong versus weak. The gulf seems to more accurately reflect which group demonstrate the most masochistic tendencies. The author's own experiences sound quite miserable, for all their academic purity. It's odd that the author doesn't question why studying languages in HE need to feel quite so akin to being strapped to medieval torture devices. But then, one can't elevate oneself above talented historians and archaeologists if one doesn't preserve the process of learning an ancient language as some kind of academic Everest. There was one guy in my class whose degree outside of mandatory history modules was almost purely Latin and Greek. He would be the first to admit that he succeeded because he studied to the exclusion of almost everything else. The man is a machine, and even then the hours he put in were punishing. If I'd have been so hyper-focused for three long years (including every summer school course he could get his hands on,) I'm not sure I'd be able to call my university experience enjoyable.


So if we can bin the strong v. weak definition, and if the masochist label offends, there's another way we can explain what separates linguists from those on Diet Classics courses. I would suggest that natural talent is a major factor. Some people are great with languages. Some aren't.


I've been in classes and twitter discussions with Classics students who can read texts in their original languages but not formulate a single meaningful comment on what they've read. Those same classes are populated with people who can't tell a deponent from a dative, but can analyse Aristotle and Virgil in translation with enviable ease. I've seen archaeology students dive into fieldwork on an Aegean island with no shade or potable water with vigour whilst Classics students hunker underneath the tarpaulin shade complaining that scrubbing dust off of potsherds is backbreaking labour. And that's not to suggest that natural archaeologists are merely physically hardy. I am awestruck by how intuitive archaeologists can be; how they can spot stratigraphical changes in the ground that to me are completely imperceptible, or tell the age and provenance of the humblest little pot sherd by little more than sight and touch. These are talents that have nothing to do with how many wheelbarrows of dirt one can haul across a site in a day. To be able to turn a few stones into an interpretation of a settlement is an amazing skill.


And so, yet again, we find ourselves presented with the same tired debate about who is a classicist with a capital C. It doesn't matter where your superpowers lie if it's anything other than conjugating some sodding verbs. See how the author separates themself from the archaeologists, ancient historians et al in his classes. They're not Classicists. We will never, ever disprove that Classics is a multi-specialism field if we don't dissipate this acrid fug of superiority. This is crucial, because it follows that the historians, archaeologists and art historians among us will continue to be told (and believe) that we are therefore inferior. You can't create a dichotomy between philology and Everything Else just because you're ace at declensions. I'll remind readers that we're discussing undergraduate level; that's an awfully early stage to casually assume any sense of supremacy.


It's exhausting enough constantly hearing this egotistical bullshit from the silver spooners with their Gucci schooling, but when a fellow working class classicist grabs the opportunity to promote themselves above their peers whilst implicity degrading their classmates, it's very discouraging, particularly given the platform. What is more worrying is that the author has gone into teaching, presumably in the state sector.


I wish that we, as a field, could all get along like we used to in middle school, I wish I could bake a cake filled with rainbows and smiles and everyone would eat and be happy... In all seriousness, all I want is for us all to acknowledge that we all have differing strengths and weaknesses. We all have something valuable to contribute. We can all applaud those contributions. We can all help each other overcome our personal stumbling blocks. Some of this, I suspect, will only come about with curriculum/assessment overhauls and name changes and the eating of a few serving of humble pie. In the meantime, can we leave the petty one-upmanship be? It's not a good look.



445 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Who Is(n't) Joining AncientBluesky?

This week I made the decision to mothball my main Twitter account, despite everything I owe to it. I may as well, having checked some statistics. I'm shown so few tweets now, unless I go through click

With an Eye to the Future

I've just started my MA dissertation. The time has come to say something original, and to stop merely relaying what others before me have said. Anyone who has studied the ancient Mediterranean at this

A Crash Course in Classics Bluesky

Twitter/X/Twix is now little more than a creaking wreck. You may notice that your engagement is down, you aren't seeing who you want to see, and Nazis with blue checks outnumber even the spammy ads. B

bottom of page