The recent decision by the Classics Department at Princeton University to no longer require knowledge of ancient languages ​​from its graduates caused a great uproar in the United States, as well as in Greece.

In both countries, this decision was characterized as “ostracism” or “cancellation” ancient Greek in the name of political correctness, combating “structural racism” and attracting black or Hispanic students whose interests – or, by implication, abilities – do not include language learning. And this, combined with the infamous views of Dan El Padilla Peralta, a member of the same Department, that racism, slavery, racial science and colonialism are rooted in antiquity and survive on the idealized image of antiquity reproduced by classical studies.

This correlation is completely unfounded. Antiquities are not canceled for reasons of political correctness. They are made optional – and only for students who do not intend to continue their studies in graduate school – simply because American secondary education has practically abandoned the teaching of ancient languages. Few students—not just blacks or Hispanics—are adequately prepared and, intimidated by the prospect of compulsory language learning, are turning to other fields, and the number of majors in classics has been hopelessly reduced.

The Department’s decision, which makes the study of ancient civilization available to more students, is not aimed at destroying, but at reviving classical studies. Indeed, faculty graduates who have been between six and nine years old in recent years were thirteen last year. And if it is perhaps too early for final conclusions, this optimistic assessment is justified by another event of particular importance to us.

This is because classical education in Greece, from the 18th century to the present day, is based on a pernicious assessment that, in the words of Josephus Moisiodakas, despite all his disagreements with the teachings of the ancients of his time, “the purposeful end of reading is the main understanding of the Greek language” – an assessment that requires excessive attention to grammar and syntax, which have since characterized the teaching of the ancients in our country. In contrast, Princeton’s decision sees “understanding Greek” as a means of understanding and evaluating the achievements and imperfections of ancient civilization. And since it is much easier to come into contact with ancient texts in translation than to read in the original, one would expect that fewer students would study ancient texts if this were not mandatory.

However, just the opposite happened: instead of five and nine, as in the previous two years, thirteen students were enrolled in the ancient language, and in Latin, from nine and twelve, respectively, there were twenty!

Antiquities are not canceled for reasons of political correctness. They are becoming optional simply because American secondary education has abandoned the teaching of ancient languages.

Perhaps unexpected, but certainly welcome, this development implies that the absence of a language “barrier” encourages more students to become familiar with antiquity through translations. Contrary to the American proverb, “Familiarity breeds contempt,” exposure to antiquity stimulated their interest, made its study more attractive, and convinced them of the importance of the language to which they devoted themselves, voluntarily, with awareness of its usefulness. Ultimately, the optional study of the ancients led to an increase in those who consider it necessary.

As regards the American university, still more so the Greek secondary education, for which the ancients, although their role was limited, remain obligatory and arouse in the students a revulsion to the point of hatred. The issue was already preoccupying Enlightenment scholars, and the exclusive emphasis on grammar angered Korai: “(It’s a paradoxical thing, but unfortunately true) the modern generation will benefit more from those who burn than from those who write grammars.”

Over 200 years later, nothing has changed. Koray’s complaints have survived unchanged in modern Greece, where, as one modern scholar writes, “the teaching of grammatical phenomena becomes … an end in itself, since grammar is taught quite separately from ancient Greek.”

The proper beginning of the study of antiquity is a general acquaintance with its institutions and teaching from the translations of authors who are able to interest students. Formally, knowledge of the language should be seen as a means to understanding antiquity, and not as an end served by carefully reading defiled texts just for the sake of examples of the linguistic rules they may contain.

In two years, an American schoolboy can read ancient texts that even six of us could not learn in school – Korai’s central problem: “I ask if this is fair, while aliens recreate the works of their maternal ancestors in corrected versions, we, the proud descendants of those we accept, offended by the hand of illiterate editors, or, to be honest, while they are eating the pure bread of the Greek table, we will drink ourselves, or eat the bran of the Greek table. rootless grammar. Nothing changed.

In our relationship with antiquity, just as in modern Greek education, again in the words of Moisiodakas, “the negligence and negligence of antiquity prevails.” And, perhaps, it is useful for some purposes. We will need to discuss this another time.

Mr. Alexandros Nekhamas is a professor at Princeton University.