Julius Caesar has been an integral part of the global Latin curriculum, including that of the United States, virtually since his death. Caesar’s works, including Commentaries on the Gallic Wars and the Civil Wars, have been used and valued for different aspects within various historical periods and regions of the world. This paper examines the period following the Second World War, 1946-1950 through materials published in The Classical Journal (CJ) and The Classical Weekly (CW), the perceived value of Caesar and his writings, and the suggested role of Caesar within the Latin curriculum at the time in the United States.

Wide-ranging scholarship on the figure of Julius Caesar across the course of two thousand years has regularly included discussions of his writings for their historical value as well as their pedagogical role within Latin courses and curriculum. For example, more recently, these varied discourses have included publications such as Caesar in the Curriculum: Some New Approaches by Fred Mench (1970), “The Power of Tradition: Methods for Teaching Latin in the Context of History of Educational Thought” by Andriy Fomin (2005), and publications such as Latin Curriculum Standards Revised (1990) published by state boards.1 During the postwar period, 1946-1950, CJ and CW were both prominent journals which published scholarly articles on Classics in general and question of Latin curriculum more specifically. An analysis of materials published within these journals will provide an insight into the view of Caesar within the United States scholarly community and the Latin curriculum during the postwar period in both public high schools and colleges. My research in these journals will also provide information on Caesar’s legacy within the broader context of Classical Studies over time in the United States and the context of a changing society during the dynamic years following the Second World War.

The wide range of research on Classics curriculum in the United States, especially Latin curriculum over the centuries, tends to focus on certain time periods and geographic regions. Classics and National Cultures, edited by Susan A. Stephens and Phiroze Vasunia (2010), for example, contains chapters by several authors who discuss the role of Classical Studies within the context of various global cultures, including Ireland, Italy and Japan.2 One particular chapter, by Joy Connolly, discusses the influence and role of Classics within early America.3 The Culture of Classicism, by Caroline Winterer (2002), is representative of the scholarship published on the topic of the role of Classics within wider American society, and not just curriculum.4 Winterer discussed the period from 1780-1910 and focused on the role of Classics within the antebellum period of American history. “Periodical Literature on Teaching the Classics in Translation, 1924-1975: An Annotated Bibliography,” by Edward V. George touched in part on the period directly following the Second World War. However, his work focused more on compiling scholarship that discussed the best practices for teaching Classical literature in translation rather than on teaching Caesar in the original language.5 Though many others have studied Caesar and his writings, in the field of Caesar studies today, there is little analysis of Caesar’s role within Latin curriculum during the period directly following the Second World War. In contrast, a great deal of scholarship during the second half of the 20th century treats contemporary studies of Caesar within the curriculum.6 For example, “The Power of Tradition: Methods of Teaching Latin in the Context of History and Educational Thought,” by Andriy Fomin, discusses traditional methods for teaching Latin, but does not deal in depth with Caesar’s role in the Latin curriculum during the postwar period.[7](#ref17 An analysis of Caesar’s role within the Latin curriculum and community in the years following the Second World War would demonstrate Caesar was perceived and valued by the Classics communities in the United States at the time.

Background information on the history of Classics within the high schools and colleges of the United States provides a necessary basis for an evaluation of the state of Latin curriculum and Caesar’s legacy in the postwar years. Common subjects taught in public high schools during the early period of American history and the American education system included spelling, arithmetics, grammar, history, handwriting, and general sciences.8 Classical Studies was viewed as valuable within American society and education systems from the early stages of American history, to the continued presence of Classical Studies programs in high schools and colleges by the early 20th century.9

A closer examination of CJ and CW will provide additional background information and the context within which to discuss the curriculum materials published in both journals from 1946-1950. CJ, published by The Classical Association of the Midwest and South, began publication in 1905, and is still published four times a year. CW, published weekly by The Classical Association of the Atlantic States, began publication in 1907, and became CW in 1957. Both CJ and CW addressed an audience of Classical Studies and Latin teachers and professors, and the authors published within these journals include both high school and college level Latin and Classical Studies teachers and professors.

STATE OF LATIN CURRICULUM FROM 1946-1950

A number of articles from CJ and CW addressed the Latin curriculum of both high schools and colleges in the United States during the period from 1946-1950. Fully understanding the goals of the Classics communities for the Latin curriculum and programs during the postwar period allows for a more complete analysis of Caesar’s legacy at the time. This section will contain an analysis of articles within CJ followed by an analysis of those published in CW. Articles published in CJ focused on the general Latin education within public schools, the structure of these Latin classes, and the benefits of certain strategies within the Latin curriculum. Analyzing these specific themes is beneficial in identifying the general nature of the Latin curriculum following the war and the general attitude of those within the Classical Association of the Midwest and South towards the Latin curriculum during the postwar years before looking at Caesar in particular.

Articles published in CJ from 1946-1950 on the general Latin curriculum of the time highlighted a need for curriculum changes to accompany a changing world. For example, “The General Education Movement and the Classics,” by Dorrance S. White, published in CJ in 1948, discussed in detail the need to develop a General Education curriculum for the changing postwar world. This discussion touched on the quality of teachers, the necessity for good values to be taught in the schools, and the Latin curriculum. The article was based on notes from a round-table discussion concerned with the general education movement occurring at the time.10 Several other articles published in CJ from 1946-1950, including “Preparing for Post-War High-School Latin,” and “Preparing for Post-War High-School Latin Part II,” published in 1946 by Jonah W. D. Skiles, support the concept of a dynamic and transformed Latin curriculum during the postwar years.11

Like “The General Education Movement and the Classics” article, these articles by Skiles are published discussions from panel meetings. Both articles outline potential objectives and goals for Latin classes, including the ability to read, understand, translate texts, pronounce, and write Latin.12 In addition to discussing the structure of Latin courses, Skiles suggests that a Latin curriculum should be dynamic and flexible to the times and social conditions. These articles specifically mentioned the relevance of Latin to modern health, appreciation of domestic life, and vocational training in postwar American society.13 “A Middle Way,” by Grundy Steiner, published in CJ in 1950, discussed the need to change the Latin curriculum in high school and college Latin programs. He suggested the need for a new structure of Latin classes that would balance and mirror the changes in the demographics of the high schools and colleges, especially with respect to the classical studies programs, and that would accompany the changing world and educational environment of the United States.14 Steiner also addressed the needs of the general student population, those who wished to continue on to college, and the average man’s needs in relation to high school Classics curriculum. According to Steiner, the needs of the general student population are met by incorporating Latin and Greek into more general classes, such as science. Teaching Greek and Roman culture in addition to the languages addresses the needs of those wishing to continue to college, and improving English skills meets the needs of the average man.15 “Attitude and Education,” by W. G. Wiegand, published in 1950 by CJ, emphasized the need for change in all high school and college subjects, including Latin, towards more affectionate and caring teachers.16 Concern for the nature of the Latin curriculum and coursework is also evident in “What Can We Learn from the A.S.T.P?,” by Mars M. Westington from CJ in 1946. Westington expressed a concern for the sustainability of knowledge gained in high school Latin courses.17 Westington suggested that some programs, such as the Army Specialized Training Program (A.S.T.P.) which was designed to be faster than at colleges and universities at preparing specialized technicians for the army, rushed Latin curricula and were less effective than those taking a slower and more focused look at Latin.18

Though reform as suggested in these articles is not solely curriculum focused, it is significant when examined in relationship to the curriculum revisions, such as emphasizing the relationship of Latin to the modern world and creating a balanced and effective Latin curriculum for students, called for by other articles published within CJ from 1946-1950. The sentiments towards Latin curriculum of the day suggest that revisions for Latin curriculum were tied to a larger concern for improving and strengthening the Classical Studies programs in high schools and colleges. These articles support the idea that the time after the Second World War was full of change and a general desire for changes in the Latin curriculum of both high schools and colleges within The Classical Association of the Midwest and South.

Numerous articles in CW in the years from 1946- 1950 addressed both the high school and college Latin curriculum. These articles, like those in CJ, expressed a desire for changes in the Latin curriculum and emphasized the changing nature of the Classics curriculum during the postwar period. For example, “Latin and the New Internationalism,” by William Charles Korfmacher (CW 1946) like Skiles’ articles, emphasized the changing world and the necessity of parallel changes to be made in high school and college Latin curriculum.19 Korfmacher’s article discussed the possibilities of Latin serving as a language bridge between world cultures, a means of promoting tolerance, and a way to encourage world unity.20 “Ubinam Gentium Sumus,” by C. Howard Smith, emphasized the changes in society and education in the United States during the postwar period as well as the decline in Classical Studies programs in the United States.21 He discussed a need to change in subject matter of high school and college Latin courses to address the changing society, educational sense, and the need to revitalize the Classical Studies programs in high schools and colleges. He suggested creating a curriculum that was more relatable to students than the history of the Gauls and the story of Aeneas without reducing the quality of Latin education in the schools.22 Smith’s article demonstrates concerns for both the ability of Latin curriculum to meet the needs of the changing society and for the survival of Latin programs in high schools and colleges. “Loquarne Linguis Hominum Aut Disertorum?” by Franklin B. Krauss (CW 1947) emphasized a new order for teaching introductory Latin courses in high schools and colleges that emphasized learning to speak, write and then read Latin works before moving on to harder subjects.23 He outlined some changes made to teaching Latin in high school programs, such as non-traditional sequences of staple Latin works, the incorporation of Latin prose and poetry, and an emphasis on English translations of texts that impacted the order of classes and the depth of subject matter covered in introductory courses.24 Krauss’s ideas are significant because they suggest that the movement towards changing the Latin curriculum was growing and actually being instituted at some schools, such as those he mentioned with nontraditional aspects, by the end of the Second World War.25 These articles show that CW and The Classical Association of the Atlantic States were concerned with the preparation of students for further Latin coursework and careers as well as the nature and sustainability of the Latin programs and curricula in high schools and colleges during the postwar period.

Another common theme found in articles published by CW was a focus and interest in Latin curriculum for the less gifted students. “Latin and the Less Accelerated Student,” by Mrs. Harold W. Murray in 1948, and “Latin for the Less Gifted High School Student,” by Margaret Short in 1950 both discussed the ideal structure for Latin courses aimed at less talented high school students.26 “Latin and the Less Accelerated Student,” in particular discussed the benefits of Latin for improving the English skills of less advanced students. The author lists improving communication skills, gaining historical knowledge and perspective, and broadening their horizons to foreign literatures that would benefit them in their future attitudes, perspectives and career paths as the goals of Latin for these students.27 “Latin for the Less Gifted High School Student” by Margaret Short also discussed changes needed in the Latin curriculum for slower learning students.28 A concern for less advanced students, displayed only at the high school level, is significant; it suggests that this concern may have been rooted in a desire to prepare students to advance into college level Latin courses. Separating students at different learning levels would allow them to customize the Latin curriculum and encourage students to either pursue college level Latin programs or find real world applications for their Latin knowledge. Though varied in topics, the articles published by CW show a concern for the state of the postwar Latin curriculum and encourage changes to be made within the curriculum to better prepare students for the changing world and the complexities of the Latin language.

The goals and objectives expressed in both CJ and CW articles suggest there was a common goal for high school and college Latin curriculum and courses during the postwar period and a concern for the nature of the Latin programs and curriculum. According to articles published in both journals, the general goal for Latin curriculum was to broaden the students’ knowledge of history while gaining a working knowledge of the Latin language and culture that would be applicable to the changing world. Taken in relation to the dynamic postwar world, these goals seem representative of the values that were believed to be important in the face of a changing world and society. The differences between the two journals and their approach to the goals and changes of the Latin curriculum are notable, too. There seems to have been more concern for the less advanced Latin students among the publications of CW. Articles published in this journal stressed the importance of modified Latin curriculum for the less gifted students in order to procure the best preparation possible for their future careers or college experiences. This concern is not present in the articles published by CJ. This suggests that CJ was more concerned with creating a standardized curriculum for all students, regardless of learning abilities, or were not interested in less gifted students. The differences between the two suggest that, although there was an underlying movement and attitude towards curriculum revision in high schools and colleges, there were differences among regions, Classics communities, and audiences in the United States after the Second World War.

Both CJ and CW also suggest that the Latin curriculum was viewed as an entire unit rather than as individual courses from 1946-1950. Latin courses were considered part of a larger sequence that would eventually achieve one or several end goals. Consideration of values and the tangibility of the Latin curriculum to high school and college Latin students as well as the most effective means of teaching students seem to have been considered appropriate and necessary when discussing changes for both levels of Latin education. The idea of a unified Latin curriculum is supported by articles in both journals, such as “Loquarne Linguis Hominum Aut Disertorum?” by Krauss and “Ubinam Gentium Sumus” by Smith, which addressed both high school and college Latin curriculum. 29 These articles refer to the stages of Latin learning students have reached rather than their level of education. Considering this structure of sequential courses and goals is beneficial when analyzing the role and treatment of Caesar within curriculum reform articles and discussions from the postwar period, because it can allow a more complete analysis within the confines of the Latin programs in high schools and colleges at the time.

CAESAR IN THE LATIN CURRICULUM FROM 1946-1950

Although there were no articles published in either CW or CJ that directly addressed Caesar’s role in the Latin curriculum during the postwar period, Caesar is mentioned and discussed in several articles published by these journals between 1946 and 1950. Through analyzing the references of Caesar in these articles, it is possible to determine which works of Caesar were used, why they were used, and how they were used at specific levels in the Latin curriculum sequences. It is also possible to deduce the general role of Caesar and the general attitude towards Caesar in the Latin curriculum of high schools and colleges from 1946-1950. Articles from CW will be analyzed first, followed by those from CJ.

CW published articles from 1946-1950 that mentioned the use of Caesar in Latin curriculum. “The Case of Latin on Appeal,” by Julia Finney, was published in 1949 by CW and listed Caesar’s Gallic Wars in a sequence of texts used in the second-year Latin course. There were, however, no specifics regarding which of the seven books of Caesar’s Gallic Wars were used.30 The other articles published in CW did not mention specific works of Caesar used. These articles mentioned Caesar in a wide variety of contexts, such as the level of difficulty of his work, the way his works were approached, and what aspects of his works were emphasized.31 These attributes will be further explored later in relation to the perceived value of Caesar and his role in the sequence of high school and college Latin curriculum. The lack of discussion of specific works of Caesar used in high school and college curriculum suggests that Caesar’s Commentaries on the Gallic Wars were prominent enough in the Latin curriculum at the time, in both levels and communities, that the authors did not feel the need to specify which works they were referring to. This is significant because it rules out the widespread use of Caesar’s other work, the Civil Wars, and it suggests that Caesar’s Commentaries on the Gallic Wars was viewed as a pivotal part of the Latin curriculum at the time.

Caesar’s Commentaries on the Gallic Wars are prominent in Latin curriculum articles published by CJ during the postwar period. Like the articles published in CW, the majority of articles published in CJ did not specify which of Caesar’s works were used. They did, however, reference using Caesar as a staple of the curriculum in high schools and colleges.32 “What Can We Learn from the A.S.T.P?,” by Mars M. Westington, from 1946 mentioned that Caesar’s Gallic Wars was used when discussing the disadvantages of rushing the Latin curriculum in expedited Latin programs such as the Army Specialized Training Program (A.S.T.P.).33 This again supports the notion that Caesar’s Gallic Wars were widely enough used that they did not need to specify books or topics in these articles. “A Latin Teacher Looks at the ASTP,” by Elizabeth Grone, discussed the teaching of Latin within the Army Specialized Training Programs (A.S.T.P.) and included a line from Caesar’s Civil Wars when discussing how memorization of Latin phrases can help with learning forms.34 “Toward Improvement of High-School Latin Curriculum. Report of a Symposium Held in Nashville, April 4, 1947,” by Fred S. Dunham and several others, was published by CW in 1947 and mentioned Caesar’s Gallic Wars and Civil Wars as part of a list of possible Latin texts to use in high school Latin curriculum.35 These two articles are significant because they suggest that, while Caesar’s Gallic Wars was the most prominently used in high school and college Latin curriculum during the postwar period, other works of Caesar were considered when discussing high school curriculum. By comparing the treatment of Caesar’s works within both journals it is possible to conclude that Caesar’s Commentaries on the Gallic Wars were frequently used across the country in both high school and college Latin curriculum as part of the larger Latin course sequence prior to the Second World War. Significantly, this suggests that Caesar’s perceived value may have been established prior to the Second World War; however, it also suggests that Caesar’s desired placement within the Latin curriculum may have been more closely tied to the changing atmosphere of the Latin curriculum at the time than to previously established constructs.

THE PERCEIVED VALUE OF CAESAR’S COMMENTARIES ON THE GALLIC WARS

Through an examination of the articles that mentioned the use of Caesar’ works, first in CW and then in CJ, it is possible to determine the perceived value of Caesar’s works, including the Commentaries on the Gallic Wars within both publications and the general Latin curriculum of the postwar period. This allows for a greater understanding of the prominence of Caesar and his role within the larger Latin curriculum of the time period. It is also possible to make some conclusions regarding American values in the Classics programs of the United States based on what aspects of Caesar’s works were most valued. An examination of these articles suggests that Caesar was viewed as valuable for both the cultural and grammatical aspects of his writings.

In CW, Caesar’s writings are discussed as being valuable mainly for their cultural aspects and to some extent for their grammatical aspects within both high school and college Latin curriculum. “Latin and the Modern Languages,” by Emilie Margaret White, CW 1948, discussed the differences between past and modern teachings of Caesar; she discussed how past courses rushed through Caesar and focused on memorization over understanding, while modern Latin courses took more time analyzing his works. She also addressed the benefits of learning modern languages at a young age and her hope for moving the beginning years of Latin studies to eighth grade.36 This suggests that Latin instructors were viewing Caesar and his works as increasingly important within the Latin curriculum by the postwar period. Frances L. Baird, in “Experiments in Teaching Latin Vocabulary” published by CW in 1948, discussed the usefulness of Caesar and other Latin authors in teaching vocabulary to students. According to Baird’s article, Caesar was useful for identifying and teaching important vocabulary to students while they read Latin.37 This article supports the idea that Caesar’s works were valued for their grammatical aspects. In “Latin and the New Internationalism,” published in 1946, William Charles Korfmacher discussed the abilities of Latin to provide a means for students to foster a better sense of English and language in general as well as a sense of tolerance and universality.38 He also mentioned the ability of Latin, and texts such as these of Caesar, to gain perspective on life and work. According to Korfmacher, Latin can provide students with an openminded perspective on life that encourages hard work in areas, such as language studies, that will benefit the students in their future careers.39 This article gives the impression that Caesar was part of a larger goal to use Latin texts to emphasize life lessons, such as the ability to address problems in several ways, that students could retain after they were done taking Latin.40

Articles from CJ displayed similar perceived values regarding Caesar’s Commentaries on the Gallic Wars. In CJ from 1946-1950, Caesar’s works are generally discussed as being most valuable for their cultural aspects in high school and college level Latin curriculum; however, they are also mentioned for their grammatical value. “What Can We Learn from A.S.T.P.?” discussed the relationship between a student reading Caesar and his ability to later apply that knowledge to discussions of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar and the history of the decline of the Roman Republic.41 This suggests that Caesar was viewed as important within the larger context of Roman history, and the cultural aspects, including those related to the military and Roman life, of his works would have been the most emphasized and valued by high school and college Latin courses. “A Latin Teacher Looks at ASTP,” by Grone emphasized the importance of the cultural aspects within Caesar. Grone mentioned that students would more easily understand simpler texts, such as those written during the medieval period; however, she also mentioned that Caesar could only be replaced if the cultural and additional values found in Caesar could be replicated and maintained in the curriculum by another text.42 Grone’s tone within the article suggests that it would not be possible to replace the cultural aspects of Caesar with another reading. This shows that Caesar was viewed as one of the more valuable cultural sources. Skiles also mentioned the cultural values of Caesar’s works. This article stated that students should be encouraged to focus on the aspects of society that can be learned from reading Caesar instead of focusing on grammar.43 Ullman and several others, mentioned the grammatical value of Caesar several times.44 This article mentioned the higher level of forms study necessary with Caesar, and it also emphasized some of the more advanced grammatical elements needed for Caesar, such as subjunctives.45

The perceived values of Caesar within articles from both journals suggest that there was more of an emphasis placed on Caesar’s cultural lessons, followed by grammatical lessons. The emphasis on the value of cultural lessons within Caesar’s works suggests that the Classics communities in the United States, and perhaps American society as a whole, were concerned with creating a strong generation that was capable of dealing with the changing world after the Second World War. This is supported by the previous discussion of the state of the Latin curriculum in high schools and colleges in the United States during the postwar years. Several articles discussed the importance of using Latin to cope with the changing society and to better prepare students for various futures. It is possible that Caesar’s perceived value was high during the postwar years because his works were capable of exemplifying the cultural values being emphasized at the time.

THE PLACEMENT OF CAESAR WITHIN THE LATIN CURRICULUM

The perceived values of Caesar’s work for grammar, language, and cultural aspects influenced the placement of his works within certain years of high school and college Latin curriculum during the postwar years. The dynamic atmosphere of the Classics communities during the postwar period suggest that Caesar’s placement within the Latin curriculum may have been partially linked to the desired revisions of the Latin curriculum at the time. Articles published in CJ will be analyzed first, followed by those from CW.

Articles published in CJ demonstrate that the desired and actual placements of Caesar’s Gallic Wars during the postwar period were in the intermediary high school and college Latin courses. Westington in 1946, discussed the teaching of Latin within the Army Specialized Training Program and the appropriateness of similar teaching strategies within more general high school Latin courses and curriculum.46 Westington mentioned that the rushed nature of the Latin curriculum would cause a non-military student learning Caesar in the first year to more quickly forget his knowledge of Latin.47 This statement suggests that Westington was not a proponent of emphasizing Caesar in introductory Latin courses. Grone discussed the difficulty of Caesar’s writings for Latin students and mentioned that Caesar was typically used in the second year of Latin.48 Grone’s tone, much like Westington’s, seems to propose that Caesar was most appropriate for more advanced Latin classes.

Like the articles published in CJ from 1946-1950, those in CW tend to suggest that Caesar is an appropriate intermediary text for Latin students in high school and college Latin programs. “Loquarne Linguis Hominum Aut Disertorum?” by Krauss suggested Caesar was applicable for Latin curriculum after students had a working knowledge of the language.49 Despite the fact that Krauss suggested a slightly different order for introductory Latin and gaining a working knowledge of Latin, the idea of having Caesar later in the curriculum is found in other articles published by CW at the time. “Nihil Est Quod Latine Dici Non Possit,” by Goodwin B. Beach in 1946, asserted that Caesar’s works were not suitable for a first-year Latin course.50 “Latin and the Modern Languages,” by White, discussed the placement of Caesar before the reading of Cicero and Virgil.51 In “The Case of Latin on Appeal,” published in 1949, Julia Finney mentioned Caesar as one part of multiple units in a second year Latin course.52 These three articles suggest that Caesar was generally used as an intermediary between learning the basics of Latin and reading more complex Latin texts. Though these articles place Caesar in the intermediary Latin curriculum of both high schools and colleges, other articles published by CW state that Caesar was actually used in some introductory Latin classes. “Reminiscences,” by Karl P. Harrington, mentioned that the emphasis on Caesar should be moved out of the introductory courses if only two years of Latin were going to be taken.53 Francis W. Schehl, in “The Survival of Classical Languages,” stated that students should have at least a year and a half of Latin before attempting Caesar’s writings and that Caesar should be taken out of the introductory Latin courses in both high schools and colleges.54 In “Latin for the Less Gifted High School Student” Short specifically mentioned that Caesar was used during the second semester of Latin courses.55 These articles show that Caesar was still used as part of introductory courses in high schools and colleges during the postwar years; however, the attitudes of Harrington and Schehl towards Caesar’s use within introductory courses suggests that there was a movement to make Caesar’s Gallic Wars solely intermediary texts.

From analyzing discussions in CW and CJ of actual and suggested placements of Caesar and his works within the Latin curriculum, it is possible to conclude that some high school and college Latin programs had already moved Caesar to an intermediate level. There is also evidence that there was a movement to remove Caesar from the introductory courses in those programs that still had his works in the curricula of the first semesters. From these conclusions, it is possible to infer that the actual and desired placements of Caesar within the intermediate level of Latin curriculum in both high schools and colleges in the United States was linked to the perceived cultural values of Caesar’s works. As shown in the articles that discussed the state of the Latin curriculum, American society was concerned with the creating a culture that was capable of dealing with the changing postwar world, and Caesar’s placement within the intermediate levels of the Latin curriculum would have provided students time to develop skills needed to read his writings. This would allow the cultural aspects of Caesar’s works to be emphasized without having to focus too much on grammar. Caesar’s writings contained some useful grammar, too, which would have allowed for a good combination of culture and grammar at the intermediate level. The importance placed on finding the proper location for Caesar within the high school and college Latin curriculum reinforces that the perceived value of Caesar at the time was high; it also suggests his writings were highly valued within the larger context of the Latin curriculum and Classics communities, and met the desired educational values present across the country during the postwar years.

CAESAR’S LEGACY

From analyzing the state of the high school and college Latin curriculum as seen in the academic world and publications of CJ and CW during the period directly following the Second World War, several conclusions can be made about the legacy of Caesar at that time. Caesar was present and prominent within the Latin curriculum of high schools and colleges in the postwar years. The lack of specification regarding his works suggests that he was well known and established in the Latin curriculum of both educational levels by 1946. An analysis of articles from both journals, CJ and CW, demonstrates that Caesar was viewed as valuable for high school and college level Latin courses mainly for his cultural aspects, but also for grammatical aspects, such as vocabulary. The perceived value of Caesar created and resulted in debates over his placement at certain levels within the Latin curriculum. Articles provide evidence that Caesar’s placement was being made more uniform and stable within the intermediary levels of the Latin curriculum in high schools and colleges in the United States.

This movement towards revising the curriculum and Caesar’s placement within it was seemingly catalyzed by the global changes that followed both World Wars and the cultural values of the Classics communities and American society that were placed on the Latin curriculum during the postwar years. Caesar’s ability to teach students about culture, history, and values exemplified the cultural lessons that Classics programs wanted to incorporate into both high school and college programs, which reinforced Caesar’s role as a crucial figure within the Latin curriculum during the period directly following the Second World War.

NOTES

1 Fred Mench, Caesar in the Curriculum: Some New Approaches (Oxford, OH: American Classical League, 1970).
Andriy Fomin, “The Power of Tradition: Methods for Teaching Latin in the Context of History of Educational Thought,” American Educational History Journal, 32.2 (2005): 202-207.
Dover Delaware State Dept. of Public Instruction, Latin Curriculum Standards. Revised (Dover, Delaware: State Board of Education, 1990).
2 Susan A. Stephens and Phiroze Vasunia, ed., Classics and National Cultures (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010).
3 Stephens and Vasunia, 78-99.
4 Caroline Winterer, The Culture of Classicism: Ancient Greece and Rome in American Intellectual Life 1780-1910 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002).
5 Edward V. George, “Periodical Literature on Teaching the Classics in Translation, 1924-1975: An Annotated Bibliography,” The Classical World, 69.3 (Nov., 1975): 161-199.
6 Fred Mench, Caesar in the Curriculum: Some New Approaches (Oxford, OH: American Classical League, 1970). Richard Gummere, The American Colonial Mind and the Classical Tradition: Essays in Comparative Culture (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963).
Meyer Reinhold, Classica Americana: The Greek and Roman Heritage in the United States (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1984). R. Middlekauf, “A Persistent Tradition: The Classical Curriculum in Eighteenth Century New England,” William and Mary Quarterly 18 (1961): 54-67.
7 Andriy Fomin, “The Power of Tradition: Methods for Teaching Latin in the Context of History of Educational Thought,” American Educational History Journal 32.2 (2005): 202-207.
8 Charles Carpenter, History of American Schoolbooks (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1963).
9 Winterer, 10-43.
10 Dorrance S. White, “The General Education Movement and the Classics,” The Classical Journal 44.2 (Nov., 1948): 85-94.
11 Jonah W. D. Skiles, “Preparing for Post-War High-School Latin,” The Classical Journal 42.1 (Oct., 1946): 9-13. Jonah W. D. Skiles, “Preparing for Post-War High-School Latin Part II,” The Classical Journal 42.2 (Nov., 1946): 93-96.
12 Skiles, “Preparing for Post-War High-School Latin,” 9.
13 Skiles, “Preparing for Post-War High-School Latin,” 9.
14 Grundy Steiner, “A Middle Way (A Classical Program for Today),” The Classical Journal 46.3 (Dec., 1950): 134.
15 Steiner, 134-136.
16 W.G. Wiegand, “Attitude and Education,” The Classical Journal 45.4 (Jan., 1950): 164-169.
17 Mars M. Westington, “What Can We Learn from the A.S.T.P?,” The Classical Journal 42.2 (Nov., 1946): 82-85.
18 Westington, 83.
19 William Charles Korfmacher, “Latin and the New Internationalism,” The Classical Weekly 39.16 (Mar.4, 1946): 122- 124.
20 Korfmacher, 122.
21 C. Howard Smith, “Ubinam Gentium Sumus,” The Classical Weekly 41.12 (Mar.15, 1948): 187-190.
22 Smith, 188.
23 Franklin B. Krauss, “Loquarne Linguis Hominum Aut Disertorum?,” The Classical Weekly 40.20 (Apr. 21, 1947): 154-160.
24 Krauss, 155-156.
25 Krauss, 155-156.
26 Mrs. Harold W. Murray, “Latin and the Less Accelerated Student,” The Classical Weekly 41.11 (Mar.1, 1948): 167-172. Margaret Short, “Latin for the Less Gifted High School Student,” The Classical Weekly 43.9 (Jan. 30, 1950): 139-141.
27 Murray, 168.
28 Short, 139-140.
29 Krauss, 163-164.; Smith, 188-189.
30 Julia Finney, “The Case of Latin on Appeal,” The Classical Weekly 42.7 (Jan. 10, 1949): 110.
31 Goodwin B. Beach, “Nihil Est Quod Latine Dici Non Possit,” The Classical Weekly 40.6 (Dec. 2, 1946): 42-45.
Emilie Margaret White, “Latin and the Modern Languages: 1948,” The Classical Weekly v. 42, n.1 (Oct. 4, 1948): 6-10. Francis W. Schehl, “The Survival of the Classical Languages,” The Classical Weekly 41.9 (Feb. 2, 1948): 134-138.
Karl P. Harrington, “Reminiscences,” The Classical Weekly 40.15 (Feb. 24, 1947): 114-118.
32 Lucy A. Whitsel, “Old Wine in New Bottles,” The Classical Journal 44.5 (Feb., 1949): 325. B.L. Ullman, et al., “Toward Improvement of the High School Latin Curriculum II: Report of a Symposium Held at Milwaukee, April 2, 1948,” The Classical Journal 44.2 (Nov., 1948): 105.
33 Westington, 83.
34 Elizabeth Grone “A Latin Teacher Looks at the ASTP,” The Classical Journal 41.4 (Jan., 1946): 153.
35 Fred S. Dunham et al., “ Toward Improvement of the High- School Latin Curriculum. Report of a Symposium Held in Nashville, April 4, 1947,” The Classical Journal 43.2 (Nov., 1947): 84-85.
36 White, 6, 10.
37 Frances L. Baird “Experiments in Teaching Latin Vocabulary,” The Classical Weekly 42.6 (Dec. 20, 1948): 93.
38 Korfmacher, 122.
39 Korfmacher, 123.
40 Korfmacher, 123.
41 Westington, 83.
42 Grone, 152.
43 Skiles, “Preparing for Post-War High-School Latin Part II,” 95. 44 Ullman, B.L. et al., “Toward Improvement of the High-School Latin Curriculum II: Report of a Symposium Held at Milwaukee, April 2, 1948,” The Classical Journal 44.2 (Nov., 1948): 97-143.
45 Ullman B.L. et al., 121, 123.
46 Westington, 83.
47 Westington, 83.
48 Grone, 152.
49 Krauss, “Loquarne Linguis Hominum Aut Disertorum? (Concluded),” 163-164.
50 Beach, 42.
51 White, 6-7.
52 Finney, 110.
53 Harrington, 116.
54 Schehl, 137.
55 Short, 140.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Secondary Sources

Briggs, Ward. “The Golden Age of Classics in America: Greece, Rome and the Antebellum United States.” Religious Studies Review 36.4 (Dec., 2010): 292.

Davis, Sally. Latin in American Schools: Teaching the Ancient World. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991.

Dover Delaware State Department of Public Instruction. Latin Curriculum Standards. Revised.

Dover, Delaware: State Board of Education, 1990.

Fomin, Andriy, “The Power of Tradition: Methods for Teaching Latin in the Context of History of Educational Thought.” American Educational History Journal 32.2 (2005): 202-207.

George, Edward V. “Periodical Literature on Teaching the Classics in Translation, 1924-1975: An Annotated Bibliography.” The Classical World 69.3 (Nov., 1975): 161-199.

Gummere, Richard. The American Colonial Mind and the Classical Tradition: Essays in Comparative Culture. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963.

LaFleur, Richard A. The Teaching of Latin in American Schools: A Profession in Crisis. Decatur, GA: Scholar Press, 1987.

Mench, Fred. Caesar in the Curriculum: Some New Approaches. Oxford, OH: American Classical League, 1970.

Middlekauf, R. “A Persistent Tradition: The Classical Curriculum in Eighteenth Century New England.” William and Mary Quarterly 18 (1961): 54-67.

Reinhold, Meyer. Classica Americana: The Greek and Roman Heritage in the United States. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1984.

Stephens, Susan A. and Phiroze Vasunia, ed. Classics and National Cultures. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Winterer, Caroline. The Culture of Classicism: Ancient Greece and Rome in American Intellectual Life 1780- 1910. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002.

Primary Sources

Alcaro, Mrs. Marion Walker. “Good Teaching…” The Classical Weekly 43.7 (Jan. 16, 1950): 106.

Baird, Frances L. “Experiments in Teaching Latin Vocabulary.” The Classical Weekly 42.6 (Dec. 20, 1948): 92-94.

Bassett, Edward L. “Classical Studies in Present-Day Holland.” The Classical Journal 44.5 (Feb., 1949): 328-332.

Beach, Goodwin B. “Nihil Est Quod Latine Dici Non Possit.” The Classical Weekly 40.6 (Dec. 2, 1946): 42-45.

Brewster, Ethel H. “The Place of Latin in the Post-War Curriculum.” The Classical Weekly 40.3 (Oct. 28, 1946): 18-23.

Brown, Ruth Wentworth. “Classical Echoes in the Poetry of Philip Freneau.” The Classical Journal 45.1 (Oct., 1949): 29-35.

Brown, W. Edward. “On Beginning the Study of Greek with Homer.” The Classical Journal 44.3 (Dec., 1948): 220-222.

Carr, W.L. “A Point of Order.” The Classical Weekly 41.1 (Oct. 6, 1947): 9-14.

Dunham, Fred S. “What Language Do You Speak?” The Classical Journal 42.8 (May, 1947): 455-464.

Dunham, Fred S., Harold B. Dunkel, Gerald F. Elise, Henry C. Montgomery, Lenore Geweke,

Dorrance Stinchfield White, Mark E. Hutchinson, Carolyn Bock, Jonah W.D. Skiles. “Toward Improvement of High-School Latin Curriculum. Report of a Symposium Held in Nashville, April 4, 1947.” The Classical Journal 43.2 (Nov., 1947): 66-90.

Dunkel, Harold B. “Latin and the Curriculum.” The Classical Journal 42.1 (Oct., 1946): 19-22.

Finney, Julia. “The Case of Latin on Appeal.” The Classical Weekly 42.7 (Jan.10, 1949): 108-111.

Gratia, Mary. “Translation in Beginning Latin.” The Classical Weekly 42.14 (Apr. 18, 1949): 219-222.

Grone, Elizabeth. “A Latin Teacher Looks at the ASTP.” The Classical Journal 41.4 (Jan., 1946): 151-155.

Gunter, Helen Clifford. “Audio-Visual Aids and the Classics.” The Classical Journal 44.2 (Nov., 1948): 145-156.

Harrington, Karl P. “Reminiscences.” The Classical Weekly, 40.15 (Feb. 24, 1947): 114-118.

Hart, Charles R. “A Middle Way (A Classical Program for Today).” The Classical Journal 46.3 (Dec., 1950): 134-136.

Kaulfers, Walter V. “Latin by Popular Demand.” The Classical Journal 45.2 (Nov., 1949): 84-91.

Korfmacher, William Charles. “Latin and the New Internationalism.” The Classical Weekly 39.16 (Mar. 4, 1946): 122-124.

Krauss, Franklin B. “Loquarne Linguis Hominum Aut Disertorum?” The Classical Weekly 40.20 (Apr. 21, 1947): 154-160.

Krauss, Franklin B. “Loquarne Linguis Hominum Aut Disertorum? (Concluded)” The Classical Weekly 40.21 (May 5, 1947): 162-164.

Murray, Mrs. Harold W. “Latin and the Less Accelerated Student.” The Classical Weekly 41.11 (Mar. 1, 1948): 167-172.

Oliver, Revilo P. “Modern Latin.” The Classical Weekly 44.13 (Mar. 12, 1951): 193-203.

Pritchard, John Paul. “The Chips That Were Left.” The Classical Weekly 39.20 (Apr. 15, 1946): 154- 157.

Schehl, Francis W. “The Survival of the Classical Languages.” The Classical Weekly 41.9 (Feb. 2, 1948): 134-138.

Schnabel, Ellis A. “The Personal Pronoun of the Second Person in Latin Teaching.” The Classical Weekly 42.3 (Nov.1, 1948): 40-45.

Short, Margaret. “Latin for the Less Gifted High School Student.” The Classical Weekly 43.9 (Jan. 30, 1950): 139-141.

Skiles, Jonah W.D. “Planning for Post-War High- School Latin.” The Classical Journal 42.1 (Oct., 1946): 9-13).

Skiles, Jonah W.D. “Planning for Post-War High- School Latin Part II.” The Classical Journal 42.2 (Nov., 1946): 93-96.

Smith, C. Howard. “Ubinam Gentium Sumus?” The Classical Weekly 41.12 (Mar. 15, 1948): 187-190.

Tompkins, Hazel. L and Frederick W. Horner. “Vergil in Grade X. Can It Be Done?” The Classical Journal 44.3 (Dec., 1948): 216-220.

Ullman, B.L., Warren C. Seyfert, Stephen M. Corey, Gerald F. Else, George H. Lucas, Ethel L. Chubb, Donald G. Baker, Robert C. Stone, Clyde Murley, Carolyn Bock, Grayden W. Regenos, Lenore Geweke, Harold B. Dunkel. “Toward Improvement of the High-School Latin Curriculum II: Report of a Symposium Held in Milwaukee, April 2, 1948.” The Classical Journal 44.2 (Nov., 1948): 97-143).

Westington, Mars M. “What Can We Learn form the A.S.T.P?” The Classical Journal 42.2 (Nov., 1946): 82-85.

White, Dorrance S. “The General Education Movement and the Classics.” The Classical Journal 44.2 (Nov., 1948): 85-94.

White, Emilie Margaret. “Latin and the Modern Languages: 1948.” The Classical Weekly 42.1 (Oct. 4, 1948): 6-10.

Whitsel, Lucy A. “Old Wine in New Bottles.” The Classical Journal 44.5 (Feb., 1949): 323-327.

Wiegand, W.B. “Attitude and Education.” The Classical Journal 45.4 (Jan., 1950): 164-169.


Photo of Ashley Williams

Ashley Williams is pursuing dual degrees in history and classical studies with a minor in medieval and early modern studies. She is graduating in May 2013. She is pursuing dual degrees in History and Classical Studies with a minor in Medieval and Early Modern Studies. Dr. Trudy Harrington Becker of the departments of religion and culture and history.