How do you get pupils analysing style for themselves?

Set texts and the search for style points can bring many pupils – even good linguists – down to earth with a bump. How exciting, finally, to read Latin poetry in the original! How demoralising to find the whole process almost impenetrable!

What can we do to a) reassure pupils and b) empower them to ‘read well’ for themselves?

Key to consider, in my view, is what types of ‘style point’ you introduce, and then the timing of that introduction in the text-reading and revision programme.

Broadly, I would identify three sorts of style point that pupils will need access to:

1. Content: what details are put where – and what they mean
2. Language: how vocab, grammar, syntax constitutes meaning
3. Devices: rhetorical embellishments like hendiadys

These categories of course overlap and mutually support (and sometimes resist) each other. But in my experience, it’s worth establishing these categories when as a class you make your first steps gingerly into the realm of close textual criticism. Why?

First, it helps to pin down what ‘style’ might mean in a Latin text. As an ex-English teacher, I know too well the inhibiting effect of nebulous terminology. And even the word ‘style’ generates a surprising range of meanings from a class of teenagers – let alone the words ‘figurative’, ‘rhetorical’ or ‘form’.

Second, it reassures pupils that the high-flown flashy stuff is not their primary focus. They don’t need to be trained versifiers. They don’t need to navigate the murky waters of Victorian critical jargon. Most of what they’ll want to identify and ponder will actually be within their reach – stuff like the clustering of adjectives in a passage, or the choice of a conditional clause, or reference to something mentioned elsewhere.

And finally, categories 1 and 2 insist on closer engagement with what’s actually there in the text and how the Latin has been put together.

And the use of Latin – conjunctions, clauses, participles, whatever – is rarely just instrumental.

Or, in the memorable words of Terry Eagleton: ‘it is not as though the language is a kind of disposable cellophane in which the ideas come ready-wrapped’.

Language-pure points are also an opportunity to consolidate and reinforce their language acquisition. Closing that gap between language and literature: is this not the aim of these papers, after all?

1. What should they think about?

Now, pupils love the flashy stuff. It feels like new learning, it sure sounds impressive and initially they enjoy that temporary glimpse ‘into the mystic’ of Latin verse composition. But what are the drawbacks of starting with chiasma, anastrophe etc.? How else could you open the door of practical criticism?

To illustrate what I’m getting at, let’s just apply the categories I’ve identified to a bit of text: lines 526-532 of the current Aeneid 2 prescription for OCR GCSE.

ecce autem elapsus Pyrrhi de caede Polites,

unus natorum Priami, per tela, per hostis

porticibus longis fugit et vacua atria lustrat

saucius. illum ardens infesto vulnere Pyrrhus

insequitur, iam iamque manu tenet et premit hasta.               530

ut tandem ante oculos evasit et ora parentum,

concidit ac multo vitam cum sanguine fudit.

How to get pupils analysing and evaluating a) the content b) the use of Latin and c) the literary devices? Below are three mock-ups of the passage where something of interest has been identified. First off – what have I highlighted? What is the significance of these details? What might your pupils suggest?

1. Content

2. Latin

3. Literary devices

What I had in mind…

1. Domestic details – creating contrast between past stability and present upheaval
2. Historic present main verbs – intensity of chase, density of action (& position of insequitur)
3. Elision – ‘slow patches’ in the line & fateful collision of illum and ardens

There are plenty of other ways I could have skinned this:

1. Content: blood/death/war words
2. Latin: shift to the perfect tense from ut; adverbs – only temporal, and iam iamque so close to tandem
3. Devices: ecce (Aeneas? Virgil?); repetition/ asyndeton of per

That’s a helluva lot from one small chunk. And that’s before considering word order or alliteration – the two traditional refuges of GCSE candidates. What I’m keen to stress, though, is that content and Latin usage – sensible, accessible categories – can comfortably supply all the thoughtful and convincing points your pupils need.

2. When should they start thinking about this?

The second part of this post will address the question of timing. Which of these categories should you target when? All three at once? As you go? Once you’ve finished translating the whole thing?

‘Interleaving’ is the word, I believe.

The image above would turn the stomach of a statistician, I know. But it does usefully illustrate a few core principles in planning when to bring in the three different analytical ‘filters’ I’ve set out in this post.

a) Content is king: a solid grip on every little detail gives you access to most of the paper’s questions.

b) Bring in ‘use of Latin’ points after a few weeks, when they’re more confident translating the text.

c) Don’t let devices dominate the discussion. These are less accessible, can quickly inhibit pupils. At best it becomes ‘train-spotting’ and at worst spoon-feeding.

d) Interleave: keep each of the three pots boiling while you translate the text, alternating like the bars in my pseudo-chart.

e) Address ‘style’ – especially content and grammar-analytical stuff as you translate for the first time. This, if well-judged, can reassure pupils, strengthen their language skills and avoid the unsavoury Easter holiday situation where they memorise a literal translation (because they’ve not thought enough about the Latin) and memorise the style points (because the analysis has always been passive).

Interleaving regular, low-stakes practice at identifying bits of detail and Latin usage is – in my view – the key to getting pupils confident, independent and experiencing something that is actually educationally worthwhile. I am convinced that contact with the set texts – positive or negative – is the great determiner of how many pupils pursue Latin and Greek after Year 11. It is crucial that they feel like they’ve achieved something for themselves. Meaningful, honest progress – as distinct from just a good GCSE grade – is what pupils buzz off.

What do you think?