Latin Set Texts – Emma Williams: Latin tutor

GCSE Latin set texts – why students struggle

Few things risk being so damning as the insight of a one-to-one tutor. As an ex-classroom teacher myself, I am painfully aware just what a difficult job teaching is, and how it is entirely possible to leave some students behind, despite your best efforts. It is from this perspective that I come to this topic.

It is obvious and undeniable that many of the students I work with have been well-taught: they have simply lost their way or misunderstood for a variety of complex reasons. Others, I must confess, I do wonder what’s been happening in their classroom. Whatever the truth of the situation, once a student has indeed lost their way with their studies, it can be a Sisyphean endeavour for them to rejoin the road to success without support. As I write these reflections on what the students I am paid to help have missed and misunderstood about set text work, it is in the full consciousness that there will have been some members of my own classes over the years that became lost by the wayside. A classroom teacher who can claim otherwise is a rare creature indeed.

Set text work remains one of the biggest challenges that students face when they reach GCSE level in their Latin studies. Suddenly, there’s a whole new world of real, unedited Latin in front of you, some of it in verse. The expectation we place upon students to cope with this is frankly mind-boggling. Imagine asking a student of French to study Molière, Maupassant or Descartes at GCSE level: this is what we are asking students to do in Latin. The whole thing is frankly ridiculous, and I have written before about what a pointless exercise the whole business is, but given that the exam boards resolutely refuse to change their approach, we’re stuck with it. What follows are some observations about students who struggle with this element of the exam.

Perhaps the most striking thing I notice about some students’ understanding of the literature is the fact that those who are struggling with the set texts cannot articulate the very basics of what they are about. Teachers are often under enormous time pressure when it comes to the huge swathes of literature they must plough through, and – as a result – they often dive straight in to working through the text line by line, and do not find the time to ensure that their students understand the basic meaning and purpose of the text.

Currently, this is manifesting itself most strikingly with the Virgil text prescribed last year and this year for OCR (selections from the opening of Aeneid 1) and the Love & Marriage texts for Eduqas. For one student studying the latter, it took me more than one session with her to establish which texts she was studying, so non-existent was her grasp of what had been covered. With the Virgil, teachers have a particularly difficult task: how much to tell students who may have little to no knowledge of epic and/or mythological stories in general? Aside from this, however, is notable that not one single student that I have worked with during the last 18 months has had even the slightest inkling of an idea that Carthage had significance for a Roman audience. I find this genuinely sad. I cannot think of anything more important than explaining to them that the Carthaginian empire was a rival superpower that the Romans had overturned some 150 years before Virgil was writing. In a series of three conflicts between Rome and Carthage, Rome was ultimately victorious and utterly destroyed Carthage in 146 BCE. While the wars themselves were history to someone writing in Virgil’s time (the 1^st century AD), the experience and trauma of these conflicts, especially the long and harrowing campaigns of Hannibal, were a central and formative part of Roman collective memory and crucial to their self-definition. The Carthaginian Wars quite literally defined them as indefatigable warriors and the global superpower of their age.

Beyond this surely fundamental understanding of why Virgil is banging on about Carthage at the start of his epic work, no student that I have worked with understands or can define what an epic work is. I cling to the notion that they must have been taught this, but I can only assume that they are given this information in lesson one and that their teachers then assume that it has stuck. Such things are crying out to be used as a regular Do Now or similar quick retrieval task: what is an epic? Who was Homer? How is Virgil imitating him? A student should be able to tell us that an epic is a lengthy poem, written to be publicly performed, and focusing traditionally on tales of battle and self-definition; they should also understand that the gods and destiny play an important role in epic and that epic is a genre that evolved through the Greek oral tradition and that Virgil is doing something rather special by canonising this into a definitive Roman origin story in Latin. These basic notions really need to be revisited regularly to ensure that students remember them.

Beyond the fundamentals, the biggest mistake made by classroom teachers in my experience is their excessive focus on style, over and above teaching students how to learn the text. At this point, we come to the crushing reality and the reason why I believe that set text work is such a monumentally pointless waste of students’ time: the Latin is too hard for GCSE-level students to grasp in full, meaning that their only option is to rote-learn the text in English. Few classroom teachers labour under the illusion that this is not the case, but few also realise just how much guidance students need in order to do this necessary and time-consuming task successfully. When I was teaching, I learned to drill students on the best methodology for rote-learning, modelled it for them and then gave them short bursts of classroom time to start doing so, while I monitored them. It was essential, in my view, for me to see it demonstrated that students had understood the methods I had shown them and were trying them out. Students can be remarkably stubborn when it comes to study skills, and unless it is literally demonstrated to them that a method works, they will ignore your advice and go it alone. As a result, they will fail. Students who have been shown how to learn the text successfully come to realise that the demonstrated methods work and will stick with them.

The final issue with classroom set-text teaching arises out of a combination of two issues I have already raised: teachers being under time pressure to push ahead with the text line by line, combined with an excessive focus on stylistic features. What this means is that teachers generally introduce a new bit of text and talk about its stylistic features at the same time. The reality for novices is that this will be impossible to follow. My advice to students is always to attempt to get ahead of the class with the rote-learning, so that they are looking at a section of the text that they understand when their teacher starts talking about style. This gives them a better chance of following what the teacher is saying. When I was in the classroom, I would take the students through the meaning of the text and set them to learn it before I said anything about its stylistic features. It worked infinitely better than expecting them to follow what I was saying when working through a new bit of text.

Fundamentally, classroom teachers must remind themselves that students can achieve around 80% in the exam with only the haziest of grasps when it comes to the stylistic features of the text. The vast majority of their marks come from knowing the text, and yet this aspect of their studies is given the least amount of focus in the classroom. In their anxiety to help students with the most difficult aspects of the examination, many classroom teachers overlook the low-hanging fruit: how to help them to achieve the bulk of their marks.

Should somehow the fates allow

“Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate.”

Carl Jung

“What does he mean by ‘the Fates’ … ?” a student asked me this week. It was while I was helping her to learn the opening of this year’s Virgil set text, which contains the line with which I have titled this blog post.

It was quite the question, and I fear that the explanation I gave at the time was somewhat inadequate. The concept of fate occupied a central place in the intellectual, religious and cultural life of the Romans and the Greeks, so it’s pretty difficult to sum it up in a few words.

To the ancient Greeks, fate was an inexorable power, both mysterious and inevitable and superior even over the will of Zeus himself. For the Romans, who inherited and transformed much of Greek thought, fate was deeply connected to the popular Stoic vision of a rational, ordered cosmos; they also saw it more as synonymous with the will of Jupiter (the Roman counterpart of Zeus). In both civilisations, fate also represented the tension between divine or natural necessity and human free will, raising the perennial and still-relevant question of the extent to which humans have individual agency.

Greek mythology presents fate as a divine force, which governs both gods and mortals, personified as the Moirai. One of the Moirai, named Clotho, spins the thread of life; Lachesis measures it, and Atropos cuts it, ending a life at its appointed time. The Moirai possess these powers beyond the will of Zeus, who may alter much but cannot contravene what has already been “spun” by the Fates. In Homer’s Iliad, Zeus wishes to save his son Sarpedon from death, but his wife Hera reminds him that to do so would be to disrupt the cosmic order by going against the Fates. Zeus reluctantly yields to fate and allows Sarpedon to die, thereby preserving the balance of the universe. The Moirai represent a worldview in which destiny is fixed, human freedom is constrained and even divine will has its limits. Similar beliefs are expressed by the writers of Dr. Who. In the episode entitled “The Fires of Pompeii” (2008), the 10th Doctor explains to his companion that some points in time are fixed (meaning that he is not allowed to change them), while others are in flux (these are events he is allowed to alter). He cites the destruction of Pompeii as a fixed point that cannot be interfered with, contrasting it with other events in which he is allowed to intervene. When his companion asks him how he knows which events are fixed and which are not, he replies, “Because that’s how I see the universe. Every waking second, I can see what is, what was, what could be, what must not … That’s the burden of the Timelord.” This, according to the Greeks, was also how Zeus and the other Olympian gods understood the universe.

The Homeric epics are saturated with such references to fate. In the Iliad, heroes such as Achilles and Hector know that their deaths are inevitable and even foretold, yet the glory they attain depends on how they respond to this certainty. Achilles was told that he could choose between a short, glorious life or a long, obscure one — yet even this choice existed within the framework of a predetermined destiny: would a man such as Achilles ever make a choice other than the one that he did? Was he even capable of doing anything differently? In 2012, the popular atheist thinker Sam Harris wrote a book entitled Free Will. He doesn’t believe that free will exists, and his argument is based on the fact that we act according to our nature and life experiences, both of which are beyond our control.

Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex was the quintessential exploration of fate in Greek thought and I have written about it before. The play dramatises the life of Oedipus, King of Thebes, who attempts to escape a prophecy that he will kill his father and marry his mother. In his efforts to avoid his fate, Oedipus unwittingly fulfills it, thereby bringing plague and ruin to his city. The tragedy lies not simply in the events but in their inevitability. From the beginning, the audience knows the prophecy and it understands that Oedipus’ attempts at escape will be futile: the entire point of the play is to underscore the futility of man’s attempts to resist fate.

Oedipus Rex shows how human intelligence, agency and hubris all in fact drive our destiny. The play also raises profound questions about knowledge and ignorance. Oedipus is a solver of riddles — he famously defeated the Sphinx by answering its riddle — but he cannot solve the riddle of his own life. His relentless pursuit of the truth, motivated by noble intent, leads him to self-destruction. This suggests that fate operates not only through external events but also through the very character and choices of individuals. Oedipus’ determination to know ensures the fulfillment of his destiny. Thus, fate is not an external imposition but an immanent necessity, woven into the fabric of human identity and action. Just as Achilles by his very nature cannot choose anything other than his glorious, short life.

Early Greek philosophy began to transfer the mythological sense of fate into a subject for rational inquiry. Early thinkers such as Heraclitus (for whom we have only fragmentary evidence) reportedly spoke of a universal logos, a rational principle that orders the cosmos, suggesting that he viewed fate as a kind of cosmic law. The Presocratic philosopher Anaximander, likewise known to us only in fragments, saw existence as governed by a principle of necessity, whereby beings pay “penalty and retribution” for their existence in accordance with a cosmic order. The early philosophers thus sought to reconcile human agency with the necessity of fate, a notion that modern philosophers are still wrestling with.

Plato presented a cosmos governed by necessity, but also shaped by the rational will of the divine craftsman. In the Myth of Er at the end of the Republic, souls choose their next lives, but only within the framework of a cosmic order in which the Fates play a central role. Human responsibility remains, but choice occurs within the constraints determined by destiny. Aristotle emphasised causality and the principle of necessity: every event follows from prior causes. He allowed room for contingency and human deliberation, particularly in ethics, where rational choice plays a central role; but even so, Aristotle’s universe is governed by what he calls the Unmoved Mover, and necessity prevails.

The Romans inherited the Greek concept of fate but adapted it to their own religious and political culture. For them, fatum literally meant “what has been spoken,” reflecting its origin in divine speech or decree. Fate was not only the domain of the Parcae, the Roman equivalents of the Moirai, but was also closely tied to Jupiter, the supreme god. Unlike the Greek Zeus, who often appears to be constrained by fate, Jupiter was more frequently depicted as the very source and guarantor of fate in Roman literature. He embodied the sovereignty of divine order, and fate was his will, which was expressed in the unfolding of history. When Jupiter nods his head, stuff happens.

The close link between Jupiter and fate is perhaps as a result of the Roman mindset. The Romans viewed themselves as destined to rule the world. Virgil’s Aeneid, Rome’s great epic of self-definition and indeed the origin of my client’s question, presents the destiny of Rome as the ruling nation as ordained by Jupiter. Aeneas, the dutiful hero, is guided not by personal desire but by obligation to his fated mission, which was to found the Roman race, the future governors of the world. Whenever Aeneas hesitates, wavers from or questions his path, Jupiter and the gods remind him of his destiny, which cannot be avoided. Thus, Roman self-definition entwined the concept of fate with their own historical power, giving it a collective and political dimension absent from the primarily individual focus of fate as viewed by the Greeks. One can only imagine what it must have been like to be a Roman reading Virgil, being told that you are quite literally destined to rule the world.

The Stoics, the Greek philosophers most popular among Roman intelligentsia, gave the most systematic philosophical account of fate in antiquity, one that deeply influenced Roman intellectual life. Fate for the Stoics was synonymous with the rational order of the cosmos, governed by divine reason (logos). Everything that happens is determined by an unbreakable chain of cause and effect, which is itself the expression of divine providence. Fate, then, is not blind necessity but rational order. Chrysippus defined fate as “a rational principle of the things that happen in the world, or the chainlike connection of causes”: nothing occurs by chance; all events follow from prior causes, and the entire universe unfolds according to divine reason. Perhaps strangely, this did not imply fatalism in the sense of resignation; for the Stoics, freedom consisted in aligning one’s will with fate, embracing what happens as necessary and good because it proceeds from divine reason. The Stoics believed that individuals could not control fate but they also argued that individuals had free will. So an individual person is like a dog tied to the back of a wagon. Whatever the dog’s actions, the wagon will go on its way. So how does the dog have free will? Well, he can resist the wagon and be dragged along, impeding the wagon’s progress and damaging himself along the way. Alternatively, he can trot along like a good dog and help the wagon to proceed smoothly. Or, as Sam Harris puts it in his 21st century book on free will that I mentioned earlier, “a puppet is free, as long as he loves his strings.”

Roman Stoics like Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius elaborated on the vision of the dog tied to the wagon. Seneca famously wrote, “Fate leads the willing and drags the unwilling.” The wise person accepts fate willingly, finding peace in conformity with necessity. Epictetus, a former slave (let’s think about that for a moment, in the context of free will!), emphasised that while external events are determined by fate, individuals retain freedom in their judgments, attitudes and responses. Thus, freedom exists within fate: we cannot change events, but we can choose how to face them. Marcus Aurelius, in his Meditations, repeatedly counsels acceptance of the order of nature, viewing fate as part of a benevolent cosmic plan. For him, to rebel against fate is to rebel against the universe itself. This approach to life has had a profund influence that resonates to this day and is used by psychologists when working with clients to help them understand what is and is not within their control. It is also expressed rather beautifully in the serenity prayer still used by Christians today and also used by the addiction support group, Alcoholics Anonymous: “God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can change, and the wisdom to know the difference.”

Fake news: ancient style

The notion of “fake news” is generally considered to be a feature of the modern world. Yet, while the proliferation of false narratives and the digital means to both invent and spread them at high speed is indeed a modern problem, the issue of fake news is not in itself entirely new.

I have recently been ploughing my way through the four new Latin set texts listed by OCR for GCSE examination in 2026 and 2027. One of the prescriptions included two prose texts, one a letter by Pliny the Younger and another an extract from Attic Nights by Aullus Gellius. Both stories involve wild animals and I was vaguely familiar with both of them, indeed the one by Aullus Gellius is quite remarkably famous. Pliny claims that his story about dolphins is “true, but very similar to fiction” — the modern saying “stranger than fiction” would perhaps express the sentiment he is going for. He claims that the source of his story is unquestionably reliable and there is good reason to believe that the source is Pliny the Elder, who was the younger Pliny’s uncle and in many ways a father to the younger Pliny. Pliny the Elder tells a very similar story in his own work, so it seems plausible that the passionate academic and naturalist was indeed the source of this story. A shame, because the story is clearly hugely exaggerated.

The tale reports that a city in the province of North Africa had a large estuary, which the locals used for fishing, sailing and swimming. One day, some boys in the lake were joined by a dolphin, who engaged with them and played. So far, so plausible: dolphins are indeed famously intelligent and sociable and there are many documented modern accounts of dolphins playing with humans in the water. The truth of the story is stretched somewhat when the dolphin takes a boy on his back and carries him out to sea, but even this I could just about accept. What I cannot accept is that eventually the dolphin becomes so enamoured with the boy that he regularly hauls himself out of the water to spend time with him on land, returning to the water only “when he gets too hot”. No, Pliny, that didn’t happen. Fake news.

The tale by Aullus Gellius is the one about Androcles and the lion, a famous story about a man who escapes the dreadful fate of being killed by wild beasts for the entertainment of the Roman crowd. When Androcles is approached by the lion, it turns out to be the very same lion that he had helped with an injury and befriended whilst fleeing cruel treatment by his master, again in the province of North Africa. The story was later adapted and turned into a Christian triumphalist tale, with various versions popping up and placing a different protagonist at the centre of the lion-taming. The whole story is beyond ludicrous, but Aullus Gellius claims that his source (who is named as Apion Plistonices, a Hellenised Egyptian and the author of a work on all things Egyptian) “saw the event as an eyewitness” in the city of Rome. The event he claims to have seen was the lion refusing to attack Androcles, which in fact was not uncommon in wild beast hunts. The animals were starved but terrified and their handlers had little to no idea how to look after them. Most of them died en route from Africa and those that did survive usually had to be goaded into attacking their victims. So, the notion of a lion not leaping enthusiastically on its prey is perhaps entirely plausible; however, the idea that it “gradually and calmly approached the man as if recognising him, then moved his tail in the manner and way of dogs showing affection” does not sound in any way plausible to me.

There is no doubt that authors in the ancient world struggled with a significant amount of ignorance, thus they were vulnerable to fake news just as much as we are. Ironically, their vulnerability to fake news and propaganda was perhaps caused by the exact opposite problem to the one that we face: in the ancient world, news spread incredibly slowly and came largely through word of mouth. Was it easier for an emperor to maintain an aura of mystique when nobody saw him, except perhaps as an etching on a coin? Certainly, we have evidence that emperor worship was more common in the distant provinces, places where the reality of the man would never be seen.

Obviously, it was not just the way that news was proliferated in the ancient world that was the problem, it was their relative ignorance when it came to matters of science. While philosophy, studied and practised rigorously by many academics in the ancient world, was the mother of science and Aristotle is rightly hailed as the father of the scientific method, he and other philosophers had little past knowledge to build upon in the field of biology. While the ancient thinkers made quite remarkable observations in the fields of what we would now call mathematics and astronomy, they really were a right bunch of dullards when it came to biology, I’m afraid. I would strongly advise you not to take any of their health advice, particularly when it comes to female biology!

One of the most depressing things about the ancient philosophers is how tightly constrained they were by their own cultural blindness. For me, it is a sobering lesson that even the most brilliant minds in the history of time have been deadened by their cultural milieu. Take someone like Aristotle: I would argue that his intellect is one of the greatest that man has ever seen. His fascination with everything, his breadth of knowledge and interests, his capacity for learning, his ability to understand that morality is complex and nuanced (something really not grasped by any of his philosophical predecessors) and his tentative forays into what we would call the scientific method, all of these things and more make him a genuine phenomenon. Yet this man argued doggedly that some people are “natural slaves” and wrote a whole treatise on what a jolly good idea slavery was. Slavery in the ancient world wasn’t really questioned by any of the great thinkers. Some, particularly the Stoics, argued against the cruel and unusual treatment of slaves, but none really made the case that slavery in and of itself was an aberration of morality. This, more than anything, should prove to us that people are always at the mercy of the time in which they are born: however great their intellect, it remains very difficult for them to leap outside of the assumptions that they have been presented with as the cultural norm.

One of the many reasons for studying the ancient world is to be able to view a whole society through a dispassionate lens. It is much easier, for example, to talk about the concept of slavery when you are talking about something that happened in a society that existed 2000 years ago, whose ills do not feel like your responsibility on any level. It is much safer than discussing the much more recent transatlantic slave trade, for example, indeed I know plenty of modern historians who do not consider it to be an appropriate topic for younger students: it is, quite simply, too raw. Further than this, what few people seem capable of grasping is that the ancient world should give us cause to reflect on our own ignorance. If some of the greatest minds that have existed since the dawn of time could get some things so spectacularly wrong, then what concepts are we failing to grasp? What will our successors be horrified by in the future? What will they laugh at? How will we seem uninformed? What are our inevitable blind spots? What, indeed, are we lying about?

Photo of a recent anti-Trump protest at LA International Airport by Kayla Velasquez on Unsplash; nice to see the correct use of the subjunctive on a placard!

Who needs decent resources?

It is an absolute miracle. For the first time in the history of the subject, a publisher has produced a complete Anthology, containing all of the OCR GCSE Latin set texts for examination in 2027 and 2028. In an unprecedented move, someone has had the ground-breaking idea of actually publishing the resources that OCR wish teachers to teach and children to study. Such radical thinking can only be attributed to a stroke of genius.

Previously, it may surprise non-specialists to know, only some of the GCSE Latin literature texts were published in a modern format and only some of those publications were formally ratified by OCR. What an incredible leap of imagination it must have taken for the intelligentsia behind the wheel at OCR to think of the idea of a published Anthology of all the texts that they have selected, in the fancy modern format of a book! To be fair, they have been very busy coming up with their dramatic new rebrand, an imminent name switch from “OCR” to “Cambridge OCR”, billed in an email they sent me this week as “an exciting change”. Fundamentally, it means that a group currently called OCR, which stands for “Oxford, Cambridge and Royal Society of Arts” will now become “Cambridge Oxford, Cambridge and Royal Society of Arts”. I hope that’s clear.

Anyway, back to the majestic leap of imagination that is the new Latin Anthology. Not only has someone printed the texts out, they have even glued the pages together! It really is quite the thing. And get this. You can buy it through the publisher, you can buy it through bookstores, you can even buy it on Amazon! Did you know that you can purchase books on Amazon? Imagine my excitement. What relief and joy this publication will bring! Obviously, it will be aimed at students, will it not? Or perhaps aimed rather at teachers, as a complete preparation tool? I was breathless with anticipation. However, within five minutes of glancing through my much-anticipated purchase, it became apparent that this Anthology was an attempt at both of these things and a success at neither.

The first thing to note about the publication is the distinctly bizarre “endorsement statement” from OCR (soon to be Cambridge OCR) at the beginning. It states that while “the teaching content of this resource is endorsed by OCR” (for which I read that they’ve managed to select the correct bits of the text) we are told that “all references to assessment, including assessment preparation and practice questions of any format/style, are the publisher’s interpretation of the specification and are not endorsed by OCR.” Erm, okay. There follows some further language of accountability avoidance that goes on for quite some time, but the general gist is a clear and rather anxiety-inducing attempt by the board to distance themselves from the statement printed on the front cover, which is that the book is “endorsed by OCR”. Does this even happen in other subjects?! Maybe it does, but it seems distinctly odd. Either the book is endorsed or it isn’t, surely?

Things then get worse. The preface and “how to use this book” both seem to slide and shift constantly between the implication that the resource is aimed at teachers for preparation purposes and that it is aimed at students as a workbook. The result of this apparent attempt at dual purpose (or perhaps confusion/indecision as to the purpose at all), is unsurprising: the Anthology fails in its attempt to achieve either of these things. Whether this is the fault of the publisher or the authors is impossible to tell, but it really is a tangible fail.

So far, I have only worked through the Virgil text (extracts from Book II of the Aeneid), and I am already half way to despair. Firstly, despite its promise in the preface to students and non-specialist teachers that the book “aims primarily to help readers understand what the Latin means” there is one rather glaring omission. The authors do not provide an English translation of the texts. For the love of God, why not?! As a friend and fellow tutor put it to me in a message last week, “If [OCR are] going to be so picky as to what they allow … they might as well provide [a translation] and put everyone out of their misery.” Exactly this. In mark schemes over the years I have frequently seen phrases such as “do not accept [perfectly legitimate translation of the word in my reasonably well-informed opinion]”. So, teachers are still expected to somehow divine what it is that examiners will and will not consider to be an acceptable translation of every single word and phrase in every single text. It is genuinely exhausting and I simply do not understand why we have to play this game every single year. Just give us the translation that you approve of, for crying out loud.

The authors’ (or perhaps OCR’s) decision not to provide a translation causes further, compounding inadequacies in their notes, since they frequently fail to give sufficient thought to their suggestions for the translation of individual words. For example, they suggest the translation “waves” for both undas and fluctus, when those two words occur very close together and surely need differing translations to avoid confusion and to mimic the original Latin; in the same lines, the authors provide “raised” for the participle arrecta, then “rise above” for superant, which comes very soon after it. Following their instructions, this would render the lines:

pectora quorum inter fluctus arrecta iubaeque
Their chests raised above the waves and their blood-red crests

sanguinae superant undas.
rising above the waves.

Not only does this fail to do Virgil any kind of justice, it lacks clarity for the novice reader. The authors’ failure to sit down and decide how they would render a full and competent translation of the lines in their entirety (a task which will be asked of the 16-year-old novices who will be examined on this text) leads inevitably to some thoroughly confusing suggestions on their part for the translation of individual words. This is merely one example, but I found multiple cases throughout the Anthology which evidenced this lack of coordinated thinking.

In addition to the conspicuous omission of an approved translation and the knock-on effect that this has on the notes, the notes are disappointing in other ways. While some of them provide useful textual support, there have been times when I have wanted to wail in frustration. My exasperation stems from the authors’ palpable lack of clarity about the purpose of this Anthology, their inability to decide their target audience. Here is just one example of what I mean: at the end of the first section of the Virgil text, Aeneas claims reluctance to recount the painful story of how the Greeks sacked Troy. He says, quamquam animus meminisse horret luctuque refugit, incipiam: “although my mind shudders to remember and recoils in grief, I shall begin.” I would love someone to explain to me the purpose of the facing note in the Anthology, which relates to the final word of this section: it says, “what tense is incipiam?” Ugh. Obviously, I can tell you what tense incipiam is, because I am a Latin teacher: I do not need help with recognising the future tense. But if I were needing help with this (for example, if I were a student, or if I were a non-specialist who was wrestling with the material), then what is the point of asking me a question to which I may not know the correct answer? This is exactly the kind of infuriatingly pointless annotation that is useful to precisely nobody. For a subject expert, it is superfluous; for a novice, it is maddeningly unhelpful.

I am honestly quite a cheerful person, with a positive outlook. Yet, with so many people in institutions that have power and influence over my own working life so unrelentingly mediocre at what they do, it is becoming increasingly difficult to remain sanguine.

The thrilling anticipation of GCSE “reform”

In the last week or so, news has been trickling in from clients who sat the final GCSE Latin exam on June 3rd. Everyone seemed pleased with the content, with no nasty surprises reported. Once again, it was relatively easy to predict the kinds of questions that would come up, as the papers are – broadly speaking – quite formulaic and unsurprising. This is perhaps to balance the fact that the content is so extremely difficult for candidates at GCSE level to cope with. The content is tough to learn, the exam itself is straightforward for candidates who have taken on the challenge, which broadly amounts to one long game of memorisation.

Given that we have a new government, who are currently doing a curriculum review, teachers are braced once again for GCSE reform. I find it difficult not to be horribly cynical about the whole thing, largely because I have been in education long enough to know that these so-called reforms usually amount to change for the sake of it, particularly in my subject. Since I started teaching in 1999, there have been multiple changes to the curriculum, none of which have made any tangible difference to its aims and outcomes, all of which have generated a pointless avalanche of work. As I started work in schools during my training year, GCSE reform was taking place, the first changes to the GCSE syllabus since its introduction in 1988. Those exams in my subject lasted only until 2003, when the exam was changed again, followed by yet further changes in 2010 and then again in 2018. According to this pattern we are thus due for further changes, yet the government has outlined no concrete plans for syllabus reform as yet.

There has been much general discussion about reducing the number of subjects, accompanied by the inevitable Gove-bashing, which remains the favourite sport of most educationalists of a political bent. Everybody joins in the fun, to tedious applause from the stands. There have also been the usual rumblings about “modernising” the curriculum, with talk of essential topics such as “sustainability”, “climate science” and “media and digital literacy”. This was reported on in March, when the government released an interim report on its curriculum review. Given that there has to be notice to make changes from the beginning of when the new syllabus would potentially be taught and that the course lasts two years, it doesn’t look like the GCSE exams will be changing all that soon, but change they will.

To illustrate the monumental pointlessness of these reforms, let’s take what changes OCR made to the Latin GCSE in 2018. The biggest change they made was to switch from 4 exams to 3, which was something of a blessing. In place of the two language exams, they reduced this to one, making it 50% of the total marks instead of two exams worth 25%. In a quite remarkable display of collective inertia, they more or less took the two prior exams and turned them into one, which will explain to younger teachers why the exam is divided into Section A and Section B, with the two halves having absolutely no content linking them: the current exam is quite literally two exams glued together. Yes, it’s that pathetic. In the literature, they did little to nothing more than switching around the 8 and 10 mark questions: the 8-marker used to be the mini-essay, the 10-marker used to be the extended style question, whereas now it’s the other way around. That was pretty much it. One other thing they did was to make it possible to study both verse or both prose texts, which to this day I suspect was actually an error on their part: the examinations for these options are scheduled on the same day at the same time, and I don’t think the exam Board would have actually planned it like that. Most schools, I think, don’t even realise that it’s possible: as a classroom teacher, I certainly didn’t, until it was pointed out to me by David Carter when I interviewed him for my podcast.

So, we wait with bated breath for the latest “reforms”, curious as to whether they will actually reform anything or whether they will be the usual pointless jiggling that necessitates nothing more than teachers getting their heads around a new set of criteria and re-writing all their resources in line with the new plan. No doubt the board will tweak the vocabulary list, offering teachers the exciting opportunity to edit every single quiz and every single test they have written, as well as to check every single resource that they have created in order to verify whether it includes any of the words that have been removed or added. I hate to be that person, but in all honesty – what is the point? The changes to date have always been immaterial, resulting in nothing but more work for an already-beleaguered profession, which is losing its members in droves. I fail to see how any of the impending changes are likely to be any different.

What GCSE students don’t know about the Aeneid

Since last week, when I wrote again about the power of one-to-one tutoring, I have had even further cause to reflect on its essential benefits.

It would come as shock, I suspect, to most classroom teachers, the extent to which students forget, misinterpret or loftily ignore what they have no doubt been taught in school. I say “no doubt” because I refuse to believe that students have never been taught the basic background to the texts that they are studying, despite their protestations.

What does happen, I believe, is that teachers over-estimate students’ ability to absorb and remember complex material. It certainly came as a shock to me when I started to read more about how memory works (a criminally overlooked field of study in my training) and came to realise just how much repetition is required for students to grasp the basics. In this blog post, I plan to outline the opening few lines of one of the current OCR set texts and explore the things that have puzzled, baffled and troubled the students I have worked with this year. I hope that this will enlighten readers as to the extent that some students struggle with complex material.

One of this year’s texts is taken from Virgil’s Aeneid Book 1. It starts at line 13, so as close to the beginning of the text as one could wish for. This potentially makes for a much easier life than the times when a set text has been taken from Book 10 or Book 12. One would have thought that it would be an easy task to get students to comprehend the basic facts of what the text is about and its core purpose. Well, one would have thought wrongly. With only one exception, the students requesting my help with the Virgil text this year have not been able to define what an epic is, nor were they able to say what Virgil’s purpose was in writing the Aeneid. Most of them swore blind that they’d never been taught the definition of an epic. Beyond this, they have all been baffled to the point of total and utter confusion as to who the Trojans were and what on earth they had to do with the Romans and their self-definition. So, let’s look at some extracts from the opening lines of the text and see in more detail what’s been troubling my charges.

urbs antiqua fuit, Tyrii tenuere coloni,
There was an ancient city, [which] Tyrian settlers inhabited,

Karthago, Italiam contra Tiberinaque longe
Carthage, opposite Italy and the far-distant mouth of the Tiber,

ostia, dives opum studiisque asperrima belli;
rich in resources and most formidable in the practices of war;

Out of those who have requested help with the Virgil, most of them were unable to tell me where Carthage was and why it’s described as a formidable stronghold. None of them – genuinely no exceptions – understood the historical fact that the Romans had destroyed Carthage over 100 years before Virgil was writing. While I would not for one moment expect any of them to have detailed knowledge of the three Punic Wars, I was a little surprised that none of them seemed to be conscious of the fact that Virgil was writing in a world in which this rival superpower had been razed to the ground decades earlier, and that this was a crucially important part of how the Romans defined themselves. Does it seem likely that this was never mentioned by any of their teachers? I think probably not. Is it likely, however, that this was perhaps mentioned once in the first lesson and then rarely – if ever – reiterated? That, I’m afraid, seems plausible. I think teachers need to think very hard about what’s happening in the first couple of lessons of set text work. When you present the students with the text, their minds are completely preoccupied with the length of it and how on earth they are going to cope with learning it; they are thus even less likely to absorb any background information you’re giving them.

Very few students were able to tell me what the Tiber is (a river in Rome, as iconic to the Romans as the Thames is to Londoners) and none of them seemed to understand how Carthage is “opposite” Italy. Carthage lay on the other side of the Mediterranean sea, located on the coast of north Africa, in what we now call Tunisia – indeed, it kind of bulges out into the sea and looks to be the bit of land mass in Africa that is closest to Italy. Perhaps it is because my own sense of direction and general geography is so embarrassingly poor that I always look all of these places and features up on a map and contextualise them for myself in detail. Do teachers assume that their students’ knowledge of geography is as sound as their own? Maybe so, and if so, I guess my advantage is that my own geography is so awful that I assume absolutely nothing! Anyway, the text and the description of Carthage continues:

quam Iuno fertur terris magis omnibus unam
[one] which Juno is said to have cherished more [than] all [other] lands,

posthabita coluisse Samo; hic illius arma,
valuing [even] Samos the less;

Now we’re getting on to the meat of the text and what Virgil is building up to in this opening section. He sets out to explain why Juno, the queen of the gods (most students didn’t know that, by the way), has a massive beef with the Trojans. Here, he highlights the fact that Juno values Carthage even more than Samos. What’s he on about? My students didn’t know. Samos, an island off the coast of modern-day Turkey, was the birthplace of Juno and a centre of her worship. The fact that she values it less than Carthage highlights the importance of Carthage to her and hence her overwhelming desire to protect it. This is why Virgil mentions Samos.

progeniem sed enim Troiano a sanguine duci
But indeed she had heard [that] a breed [would] arise from Trojan blood,

audierat, Tyrias olim quae verteret arces;
which would one day overturn the Tyrian stronghold;

hinc populum late regem belloque superbum
from this would come a nation, wide-ruling and superior in war,

venturum excidio Libyae: sic volvere Parcas.
for the destruction of Libya: thus were the Fates unrolling.

I have asked all of my students to tell me who “the breed that would arise from Trojan blood” are, which could absolutely come up as a one-mark question in the exam. Until I explained, very few of them understood that it was the Romans. They seemed genuinely unsure about the point of the Aeneid‘s opening, which is to highlight how difficult the goddess Juno made it for the Trojans to make it to Italy, which was their destiny. Why were they headed to Italy? Again, when asked, students had not grasped the fact that Aeneas and the rest of the Trojans were refugees, survivors of the Trojan War and in search of a new city now that theirs had been destroyed. It seems remarkable given current events in both Europe and beyond that students seem to find this resonant fact so easy to forget. Has the analogy with modern refugees setting sail across dangerous waters ever been drawn for them? I do hope that is has, but again, maybe that’s happened only once. Students had failed to grasp that the Trojans are trying to get to Italy and that Juno is trying to prevent this because she is trying to prevent the Roman empire from existing and thus to prevent the destruction of Carthage by the Romans. Now, here’s what’s really interesting: I have explained this multiple times and in multiple ways to several different students individually, and most of them have really struggled to grasp it. I suspect it’s partly because they are having to think about multiple timelines and this is difficult for younger people; I also think it might have something to do with the fact that some of what they are being told is historical fact and some of it is legend – they genuinely find it difficult to get a handle on what it all means and how it fits together. I am still thinking about how it could be better explained in the future, since it’s clearly a lot more difficult to understand than those of us who are subject experts realise.

necdum etiam causae irarum saevique dolores
not even now had the causes of [her] resentment and bitter griefs

exciderant animo: manet alta mente repostum
left [her] heart: deep in her mind remained the far-off

iudicium Paridis spretaeque iniuria formae,
judgement of Paris and the insult of her beauty scorned,

et genus invisum, et rapti Ganymedis honores.
and her enmity towards the tribe and the honours paid to the stolen Ganymede.

Here, Virgil lists the reasons that Juno has for hating the Trojans. It seems that students find this really difficult, too. This is perhaps because they must grasp two separate things: firstly, they must understand that Juno’s over-arching reason for hating the Trojans is that they are destined to give rise to the Romans, who will eventually destroy her beloved Carthage. They find this really difficult to grasp, as I explained above. In addition, they must also understand that Juno has some other more petty reasons for hating the Trojans, mentioned here by Virgil. She has a general enmity towards the tribe because it is descended from someone called Dardanus, who was the son of her husband Jupiter as a result of one of his numerous extra-marital affairs. Thus, the existence of the entire Trojan race was an insult to Juno. In addition (and this is the only story that most of the students seemed familiar with) there was the beauty contest between three goddesses that Paris, a Trojan prince, was given the dubious task of judging. His choice was ultimately the cause of the Trojan War, since the bribe he was offered by the winner (Venus) was the most beautiful woman in the world, which was Helen, who happened to be married to a Greek. Hence, when Paris claimed his prize, the Greek tribes waged war upon the Trojans. More importantly for our purposes, the fact that Juno was not selected as the winner of the contest was yet another slight against her by a Trojan. The third petty reason mentioned, the “honours paid to the stolen Ganymede” is all about Jupiter’s promiscuity again. Ganymede was a handsome Trojan that Jupiter took a fancy to and abducted, yet another insult to his wife. (Note: Ganymede was not, as one of my students was absolutely convinced of, a horse. Not that taking a fancy to a horse was beyond Jupiter, miind you, but that isn’t what happened in the story).

his accensa super, iactatos aequore toto
Inflamed further by these [things], she kept the Trojans [who were] left by the Danaans

Troas, reliquias Danaum atque immitis Achilli,
and by ruthless Achilles far-distant from Latium, storm-tossed in every corner of the sea;

arcebat longe Latio, multosque per annos
and for many years

errabant, acti fatis, maria omnia circum.
they wandered around all the oceans by an act of fate.

tantae molis erat Romanam condere gentem!
Such a great undertaking it was to found the Roman race!

Here, Virgil sums up his overall point: that it is Juno’s hatred of the Trojans and her fear of their impending destiny, which causes her to work against their journey and to thus postpone their fulfilment of fate. One of the final things that I have noticed students really struggle to grasp is that fact that Juno knows full well that she won’t succeed: as a goddess, she can see the past, the present and the future, and she knows that the destruction of Carthage by the Romans is fated and inevitable. Still, she’s going to do everything in her power to prevent, or at least delay, the inevitable. I find it interesting that young people should struggle to understand this very human kind of motivation – that we might still strive for something that we already know is doomed to failure in the longterm. I guess they haven’t had experience of it yet.

Before teachers feel too dismal, I should point out that I do tend to specialise in working with students who really struggle with the subject. That said, what has been interesting this year is that almost all of my students have struggled with this text, even the high-fliers. I hope that this post has given some food for thought. It is so easy to assume that students have understood what we have told them, so easy to imagine they are following what we say. Until we delve a little deeper – one of the immense joys of working one-to-one as I do now – we can delude ourselves that they have understood the point of a text and are following its meaning.

On bugbears and juxtaposition

An old Head of Department from many years ago used to start his Year 7 German course in the same way every year. Every year he would ask students to name any famous Germans they could think of. Every year he hoped to hear names like Michael Schumacher or Boris Becker, or perhaps one of the countless famous German composers from over the centuries. Every year he was given Hitler. It never seemed to occur to this lovely man that perhaps there was a better way of starting off his first German lesson. Something made him do the same thing over and again and I think a bit of him somehow relished the inevitable disappointment. We all have our crosses to bear in our chosen subjects.

For anyone who teaches or touches upon Roman culture, for us it’s waiting for the inevitable moment when a child will inform us that the Romans used to eat so much at their dinner parties that they would go and make themselves sick so that they could eat more. I’ve even overheard the guides at Pompeii help to perpetuate this myth by mischievously telling tourists that any random passageway that they can’t account for is a “vomitorium”, where guests would relieve themselves to create space for more gluttony. They know that this is nonsense. The confusion seems to have come from the word vomitorium itself (which actually was used by the Romans to refer to any passageway leading crowds out of a public building) combined with satirical pieces such as Trimalchio’s Feast, sometimes called The Millionaire’s Dinner Party, which describes the imagined excesses of dinner parties held by the nouveaux riches. We also have the disapproving remarks of authors such as Seneca, who wrote of slaves cleaning up the vomit of drunks at banquets and criticised what he saw as the excesses of Rome. It’s a depressingly familiar picture for anyone who has worked in a hotel or similar establishment in modern Britain; wealthy Romans were no more or no less gluttonous than the comfortably-off in any society, especially those societies which have alcohol at the heart of their culture.

Eye-roll inducing as this was, my personal bugbear of misinformation I simply cannot wait to hear is different. I tell myself I have to go there to prevent students from getting it wrong in their exams, but in truth there’s a bit of me that cannot resist it for my own torture. When working on the literature, I always ask every GCSE candidate what they think the term juxtaposition means. Almost without exception, students will tell me that the word means “contrast”. On an exceptionally good day, they will tell me that it means “putting things next to each other in order to create a contrast”. In actual fact, it means “putting things next to each other” and this may be done in order to highlight a contrast.

While I hate to be a massive Latin bore, I’m afraid this is yet another case where a simple knowledge of the Latin roots of words can help. To juxtapose has its origins in the Latin words iuxta (which means “next to”) and iungo (“to join”, also notable in derivatives such as join, conjunction, conjugation, conjugal) alongside the Latin word positus (“place” or “position”). It quite literally means “a placing next to”: there is no mention of the notion of contrast in the original etymological meaning of the word. The frequency with which the technique is used to highlight a contrast means that it is arguably justifiable to include this in the definition, but the etymological roots of the word really must be prioritised. Fundamentally, juxtaposition is placing a word or phrase next to another word or phrase, often but not exclusively to highlight a contrast.

Unfortunately, students (and teachers) Googling the word will find an avalanche of quotations using the word to mean simply and exclusively “contrast”. Just this morning I spotted a horrendous meme quoting American guitarist Dean Ween of all people: “the juxtaposition of fishing and touring couldn’t be greater”. Sigh.

Another part of the problem with this misunderstanding is that English really isn’t very good at doing juxtaposition. Our language requires too many supplementary words to make sense, plus we cannot muck about with word order in the way that Latin can without a serious change in meaning. Word order is sense-critical in the English language: “man bites dog” means the opposite of “dog bites man”. Latin, being an inflected language (i.e. one where the endings of the words dictate their meaning and role) has the advantage in that an author can place words next to each other with ease – certainly to highlight a contrast or frankly to do whatever he wishes.

The good news is that once a student realised what juxtaposition means it becomes much easier to spot in Latin. Once a student understands that it simply means placing words next to each other, they can assume that an author as adept as Virgil has always done so for a reason – it does not have to be limited to the concept of highlighting a contrast. An author may juxtapose a string of sounds, for example, or indeed words with a similar rather than a contrasting meaning. It’s entirely up to him.

Photo taken in Athens by Alexandra on Unsplash

Last-minute help?

This is the first of two remarkably busy weeks working with a very large number of Year 11s during their school holidays, preparing for the forthcoming GCSE examinations. Many of these students have approached me in just the last few weeks seeking help, and it is remarkable how much can be achieved in a short time prior to the final exams.

Many clients are surprised by the assurance that help can be worthwhile at this late stage. Many contact me in a state of panic or near despair, convinced that the situation is unsalvageable and unsure why they’re even asking for my advice. Yet within a few weeks it is possible to have an impact on a student’s confidence and their attainment, so long as you know what to focus on.

First and foremost, it is essential to assess the particular areas with which a student is struggling. This in itself can be a challenge, since many students (and certainly their parents) can struggle to identify where the problems lie. Students often present with nothing more than the fact that they need help with “the grammar”, so I rely largely on my own detective work to get to the bottom of what can be done to improve the situation. At a late stage of intervention this may well not mean delving into complex material, nor indeed trying to ask them to learn basic fundamentals. At this stage, it’s about identifying and selecting some concrete things to address that will gain them a win.

One thing that can be tackled head-on is their performance in the grammar questions, which make up 10% of their language mark. The examiner is remarkably repetitive and we are now in possession of enough past papers to prove this concept. Showing students every single past paper in quick succession, focusing entirely on the grammar questions and demystifying what it is that the examiner is looking for in their answer can be a real game-changer. In just one session it is usually possible to help get most students to the point where they can achieve 8 or 9 out of 10 in that section. To achieve full marks, students require a whistlestop tour of the uses of the subjunctive, which is a question the examiner has asked every single year, and that can take up another session or two. The uses of the subjunctive are another relatively easy win because most exam papers contain at least 5-10 sentences containing one of these constructions, so an understanding of how to translate those clauses gains them a significant margin.

There are further gains to be had if we have time to look at several practice papers as they can be coached on the types of phrasing that come up on a regular basis. I have identified a collection of common phrases that appear on exam papers with striking regularity, and a student who is perhaps overwhelmed with vocabulary learning can benefit from focusing their revision on these phrases. In addition, I have a list of high-frequency words that come up time and again on exam papers. Focusing on the high-frequency words will not gain a student a top grade in the exam (you need all the vocabulary for that!) but it can be a real game-changer for students who are struggling at the pass-mark.

Some students come to me for help with the literature and the majority of the time it is because they are completely overwhelmed by how to go about committing the texts to memory. I have written before on the fact that too many teachers tend to assume that students have the knowledge, experience and skills to rote-learn vast quantities of material without support, but in my experience, this really is not the case. My grades went up significantly when I started to assume that students did not have this knowledge and I taught them explicitly how to go about the process. Likewise, my grades went up when I took the risk of allowing them short bursts of class time to make a start on the process – this afforded me the opportunity to model the process and then monitor them using it. Many students are resistant to advice when it comes to study skills, so it’s important to ensure that they do give effective methodologies a chance so that they can be converted to the process. If left to their own devices, many students will ignore the suggestions made by their teachers, attempt to do it their own way and fail.

I am finding the work that I am doing immensely rewarding. Just this week I had a particularly heartening message from a client saying that her son is really seeing a difference. “He’s just said to me “ a few weeks ago I wouldn’t have had a clue and now I am getting them all right”. So grateful.” This particular student has been through exactly the process I have outlined above – I took him on a whistlestop tour of the uses of the subjunctive, we reviewed all the grammar questions on past papers and now we’re onto as many practice papers as we have time for, tackling some further easy wins such as time phrases along the way. Once the student is on board with the notion that it is never too late to turn their performance around, it’s quite remarkable what can be achieved.