I would like to thank Frederik for his thought-provoking query. In haste,
I hope I can make the following observations/comments/suggestions, some
more irrelevant than others...
As to the level of Latin needed to produce reliable research:
This would have to be of an infinitesimally high, if one is working in
isolation from a community of scholars. Fortunately, all of us have contact
with Latin scholars: either with professional colleagues (faculty AND
students) at a university, or -- thanks to the Net -- with generous
cyberfriends we've never met (yet). So, we don't have to be professional
philologists before tackling sources dealing with medieval religion.
Indeed, I am always heartened when people I consider to be at the very
peak of the medieval scholarly pyramid (by merit of their publications and
teaching, not simply by administration) admit in all candor that their
Latin is weak. I've heard this said by many people at all levels; and
while there are times that this is said in false modesty, it's when the
'great ones' say it that one is inclined to believe them.
Ideally, one's formation in medieval Latin should include exposure to a
range of sources and levels of difficulty, given the length of time one
has to dedicate to the language (as a distinct element from the work one
does on one's own research). Given Frederik's situation of having 50 hours
of time to devote to the teaching of medieval Latin, I would propose
(after saying 'Well done, and lucky you!') that you use a twofold
approach. The first would be to use a book that assumes little or no
knowledge of medieval Latin, and quickly brings them up to a competent
level; such a book, in English and in print, could be John F. Collins, *A
Primer of Ecclesiastical Latin* (Washington: Catholic University of
America Press, 1985); another one I would find useful in a different
linguistic context is M. Flad, *Le latin de l'Eglise, etudie d'apres la
grammaire et la liturgie* (Paris: Desclee de Brouwer, 1938). These would
be supplemented by readings of selected sources dealing with a range of
genres, erudition and centuries. Two examples of printed sourcebooks are:
Charles H. Beeson, *A Primer of Medieval Latin. An Anthology of Prose and
Poetry* (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1953); and K.P.
Harrington, *Mediaeval Latin* (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1953).
You can get a lot of good work done in 50 hours of class time. The base
that your students will have after taking this course will in most cases
be sufficient for them to tackle the (printed) primary sources they will
be using, I believe, for the rest of their lives, given the presence of
university colleagues and libraries, and people elsewhere to whom they
might turn (like some of us on this list, I'd like to think).
I hope this doesn't seem like a set of 'ludicrously high requirements'!
:-) I like to think that it's a reasonable approach, and invite replies as
to whether others agree or disagree.
Cheers, George
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|