You recommend the classical tradition as the basis of the curriculum and you have described some of its benefits. How is your approach different from that of other groups promoting the classics?

In one form or another, this question has been put to me many times. I prefer not to comment on what other people or groups are doing, because I fear that I might misinterpret their intentions or do them an injustice, but I can speak in broad terms.

First there is the term tradition. A tradition is what is handed down from generation to generation or, still better, the process by which things are handed down. Thus we can speak of the tradition of a literary text, meaning the process of copying manuscripts, correcting them (or corrupting them) and, finally, the history of published editions. We also speak not just of the "traditions" of Christianity (e.g., marriage ceremonies, customs at Easter) but of the Tradition, that is, the Sacred Tradition, the body of truth, guided by the Holy Spirit and handed down through the apostolic tradition.

In this sense, the classical tradition begins with Homer (the first texts of which we have knowledge) and extends to our own time and beyond. This tradition is not simply a body of knowledge or set of books, but a living and vital set of habits, methods, customs that change and evolve, decay and revive. The classical tradition of 6th century Greece was quite distinct from the tradition of 5th century (AD) Rome or 12th century Paris or 15th Century Florence. As traditions come down through time, they grow by accretion but they also lose much. Quintilian and Catullus and Lucretius were lost to the Middle Ages but restored in the Renaissance, while Bachylides was only given back to us in the 20th century.

Traditions are inherently conservative and it is quite dangerous to attempt radical innovations, even if those innovations seem to be in the guise of a restoration. We cannot restore the classical tradition of Cicero's time or St. Thomas's time--any more than we can restore the Church of the apostles--because we know too little, especially in the case of the Church. To search for "primitive" Christianity is a perilous undertaking, but the same is true of the ill-advised campaign to restore classical Latin in the Renaissance or the contemporary attempt to restore the Medieval curriculum.

The Trivium and Quadrivium were relevant to their own time, but have little use today. In the Medieval period, astronomy was important for several reasons, notably in showing there was a divinely arranged order in the universe. A study of scientific study today is more likely to be along the lines of Carl Sagan's "billions and billions of stars" whose existence proves the littleness of man and the non-existence of God. It is not that astronomy is not interesting and useful--as a boy it was my passion--but today it is best taught to children as a form of naturalist study. Just as children should be encouraged to learn the names of trees and flowers, they should learn the major stars and constellations. There are also, to take another topic, better ways of teaching rhetoric and dialectic than were practiced in the Middle Ages.

The Middle Ages produced magnificent works of poetry and philosophy, which--contrary to the snobbish inclinations of many classicists including myself at an earlier age--should be included in the curriculum, but there is a lack of order and structure in so much Medieval literature that makes it far less useful in training the young.

If Petrarch, Valla, and Salutati were misguided in breaking with Medieval Latin, which served as a valuable international vernacular, Dorothy Sayres was no less misguided in calling for restoration of Medieval Latin as the standard for schools. But, and this is an important point, both Renaissance humanists and Dorothy Sayres are today part of the tradition.

The classical tradition, then, is not fixed or static but alive and growing, and it is constantly being reinterpreted by poets, historians, scholars, and even film makers. There is, however, a core: the languages and literatures of ancient Greece and Rome. The primary objective of classical studies is not to produce a classical philologist--though that has been and might still be a worthy profession--but a certain kind of human being.

Back to the question. Where our approach is somewhat different from many others is in 1) recognizing the breadth and length of the tradition and refusing to fixate on only one aspect, 2) insisting on the highest standards possible of language training, 3) applying that language training to English to produce a style that is correct, pure, simple, clear, and beautiful, 4) emphasizing accurate historical knowledge of the past (as opposed to propaganda) as a means to understanding the present, and 5) reviving the common-sense wisdom of the ancient world (as expressed in poets, orators, and philosophers) as a wholesome corrective to the fanatical ideologies spawned by the Renaissance, Enlightenment and French Revolution, whether they go by the name of liberalism, "humanism," Marxism, nationalism, national socialism, democratism, egalitarianism, Freudianism, structuralism, poststructuralism, deconstructionism, Scientology, gender studies, and economism, etc.

Thus for us the study of classics is both worthy in itself, as any honorable activity is, and instrumental in training the mind and tongue, but also as a means to liberating this and future generations from the tyranny of a leftist revolution that has been going on since at least 1500. So far we have only taken the first few baby steps. With more support, we shall develop an entire curriculum for use in private schools, home schools, and those communities of friends that are the true basis of humane learning.