What do you think?
Rate this book
The Devil Knows Latin: Why America Needs the Classical Tradition
Argues that the culture of the United States should be viewed as part of the Greco-Roman Classical tradition, rather than as something new
327 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1999
15 people are currently reading
344 people want to read
About the author
E. Christian Kopff
9 books9 followersDr. E. Christian Kopff is Associate Professor of Classics, Director of the Center for Western Civilization, and Associate Director of the Honors Program at the University of Colorado, Boulder, where he has taught since 1973. He is a Fellow of the American Academy in Rome and has been awarded grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities and the CU Committee on Research. Dr. Kopff also is a frequent speaker before politically conservative and Roman Catholic groups. His wife, Carmen, teaches French at the University of Colorado.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews
December 15, 2010
It's tremendously learned, and mostly well-written, and I want to agree with his message because I think a classics-heavy education is a great idea, but I disagree strongly with almost everything he says. His grand scheme seems to be teaching children Latin rather than social studies, and completely ignoring anything that isn't from what he considers the Western Tradition -- he goes as far as to say that studying Indian and Japanese culture while studying Western culture is "intellectually incoherent" and "poisonous" and says that by studying other cultures we lose what makes our culture great, namely: a solid grounding in history that allows us to produce better technology than anyone else. His thesis, not mine. How he manages that, when most all of our technology is based on Indian number systems and number theory I have no idea. I've written code to make computers do math in Roman numerals. It's excruciating.
Then it's on to savaging postmodernism -- and I appreciate his frustration with postmodernist thought, but his proposed solution, that we repeal the fourteenth amendment and get the state back into churches and vice versa, doesn't strike me as doing *anything* to fix the problems of unbridled cultural relativism. Nor does ignoring the rest of the world.
Oh, I almost forgot the ad hominem attacks on Barthes and Foucault, wherein he thinks that talking about their homosexuality entirely nullifies all the writing they did. But then I realized that his underlying thesis, that you can't separate the person from the words, means he doesn't believe that ad hominem is a fallacy.
Then it's on to savaging postmodernism -- and I appreciate his frustration with postmodernist thought, but his proposed solution, that we repeal the fourteenth amendment and get the state back into churches and vice versa, doesn't strike me as doing *anything* to fix the problems of unbridled cultural relativism. Nor does ignoring the rest of the world.
Oh, I almost forgot the ad hominem attacks on Barthes and Foucault, wherein he thinks that talking about their homosexuality entirely nullifies all the writing they did. But then I realized that his underlying thesis, that you can't separate the person from the words, means he doesn't believe that ad hominem is a fallacy.
June 6, 2019
I read this book because I am interested in the Classical Education movement. I was deeply disappointed that it turned into a nationalist manifesto.
The author blatantly states that studying eastern culture alongside ancient western culture is a waste of time. He even likens it to eating Indian food when you are used to western food. This lacks any kind of sense because the metaphor is not comparable to the diet of the mind. The book drones on with more of this cultural elitism and really turned me off to any of the author’s points.
As someone who has traveled the world both in childhood and adulthood I cannot endorse a book that is so close-minded. I thoroughly believe that teaching the classical western trivium is highly beneficial but I will not begin to believe that those subjects should be the only worldview taught to children who currently reside in the Western Hemisphere. In today’s world a well-educated person should be able to understand the history and world views of others.
I do not recommend this book. There are several books on the classical education model that explain its importance without advocating a close-minded and limited education.
The author blatantly states that studying eastern culture alongside ancient western culture is a waste of time. He even likens it to eating Indian food when you are used to western food. This lacks any kind of sense because the metaphor is not comparable to the diet of the mind. The book drones on with more of this cultural elitism and really turned me off to any of the author’s points.
As someone who has traveled the world both in childhood and adulthood I cannot endorse a book that is so close-minded. I thoroughly believe that teaching the classical western trivium is highly beneficial but I will not begin to believe that those subjects should be the only worldview taught to children who currently reside in the Western Hemisphere. In today’s world a well-educated person should be able to understand the history and world views of others.
I do not recommend this book. There are several books on the classical education model that explain its importance without advocating a close-minded and limited education.
June 27, 2023
Loved the first half, but the second half lost me a bit. A lot of movie references...
October 1, 2024
This book, he clearly states that the western tradition is the best one to teach our children in the west. I totally agree with him! He clear in what you think about the West. It’s the best tradition to teach to our children.
May 13, 2011
In his introduction, University of Colorado Classics Professor Kopff, relates the source of his book's title. The late Fr. Ronald Knox, when asked to perform a baptism in the vernacular, responded: "The baby does not understand English and the Devil knows Latin."
The professor recommends the study of classical literature in their original language (likely Latin or Greek). He convinced me by page 26, that we should be learning Latin and that it was by no means a dead language. He tells us, "...of the 100 most commonly used words in English, only 10 or so come from Latin. Of all the English words, however--over a million in the latest dictionaries--more than half are of Latin origin, and those of Greek origin take up much of what remains."
The book is divided into three sections. The first section details the reasons we need to study the classics. The classics are narratives that tell a story and the story relates to who we are as human beings in the Western tradition. Learning the stories of our civilization helps us to put all the pieces of our education together. We begin to understand why we have the history we have and the underlying causes of world events throughout our history. We begin to understand how language, science, math, art and music fit into this enormous puzzle. We begin to understand the part religion, and Christianity in particular, plays. In short, our lives make more sense when we understand how all the pieces fit together and how we fit into the story.
The first section has other great insights as well. For example, the idea that tradition limits our creativity and advancement he puts to rest. He points out "...languages are traditions learned by each generation from the preceding one and then taught to the next." Likewise, religion, science and history, are all built upon traditions. Prof. Kopff points out the beginning of science was in the sixth century B.C., when a man named Thales first proposed the world was "...a rational system, comprehensible to human minds," without relying on ancient gods for explanation. That the world is a rational system is itself a profound idea and one that we too often take for granted today. So, the first assumption in science is that the Universe is ordered and the second is that it is logical. These two ideas go back to sixth century B.C. The third assumption of science is that the Universe is mathematical. This goes back to Pythagoras, who lived at the end of the sixth century A.D. Thus began the tradition of science.
The chapter of the first section outlines the need for the classics and the liberal arts in our grammar schools, high schools and universities. Kopff recommends children in the early years start out learning the three R's, followed by Latin, Greek and mathematics. The other subjects he recommends: history, mythology, English vocabulary and syntax and basics of government, can be taught in relation to the first subjects.
The second section discusses widely varying authors, philologists and philosophers. It was with this section that I found the most difficulty following the thread that links them all together. I felt rather like I'd stumbled into one of his classroom lectures by mistake. I was unprepared and unfamiliar with most of the names he was discussing so intimately. His somewhat frequent references to President Bill Clinton and the Monica Lewinsky scandal were rather amusing though dated. I wondered what the good professor would have to say about our present state of affairs.
The third section discusses popular culture--specifically movies--and how the ones that are most meaningful get their inspiration or find their source in some of the great classics of ancient Greece and Rome. Once again I found myself stumbling along with many of his stories since I haven't seen most of the movies he discusses and those I had seen, I wasn't always as thrilled about them as he was. For example, he thought Disney's "The Lion King" had "character and maturity." I prefer "Beauty and the Beast" for a moral tale of redemption and sacrifice.
The book reads like a collection of lectures put together to make a book. If I had been in his class and read the reading list before attending his lectures, maybe I would've better understood some of his points. Although I liked the book, it's probably not one I'd recommend to homeschoolers who want to know why they should study the classics. Leigh Bortins' book, "The Core: Teaching Your Child the Foundations of a Classical Education," does a much better job of that.
The appendix, aptly entitled, "Doing it on Your Own," would be a great booklet for homeschoolers, especially if it were combined with the first section of the book. Prof. Kopff lists his suggestions for Latin curriculum to do at home, as well as Greek, along with some primary sources that would be good for beginning Latin and Greek students to read in the original.
The professor recommends the study of classical literature in their original language (likely Latin or Greek). He convinced me by page 26, that we should be learning Latin and that it was by no means a dead language. He tells us, "...of the 100 most commonly used words in English, only 10 or so come from Latin. Of all the English words, however--over a million in the latest dictionaries--more than half are of Latin origin, and those of Greek origin take up much of what remains."
The book is divided into three sections. The first section details the reasons we need to study the classics. The classics are narratives that tell a story and the story relates to who we are as human beings in the Western tradition. Learning the stories of our civilization helps us to put all the pieces of our education together. We begin to understand why we have the history we have and the underlying causes of world events throughout our history. We begin to understand how language, science, math, art and music fit into this enormous puzzle. We begin to understand the part religion, and Christianity in particular, plays. In short, our lives make more sense when we understand how all the pieces fit together and how we fit into the story.
The first section has other great insights as well. For example, the idea that tradition limits our creativity and advancement he puts to rest. He points out "...languages are traditions learned by each generation from the preceding one and then taught to the next." Likewise, religion, science and history, are all built upon traditions. Prof. Kopff points out the beginning of science was in the sixth century B.C., when a man named Thales first proposed the world was "...a rational system, comprehensible to human minds," without relying on ancient gods for explanation. That the world is a rational system is itself a profound idea and one that we too often take for granted today. So, the first assumption in science is that the Universe is ordered and the second is that it is logical. These two ideas go back to sixth century B.C. The third assumption of science is that the Universe is mathematical. This goes back to Pythagoras, who lived at the end of the sixth century A.D. Thus began the tradition of science.
The chapter of the first section outlines the need for the classics and the liberal arts in our grammar schools, high schools and universities. Kopff recommends children in the early years start out learning the three R's, followed by Latin, Greek and mathematics. The other subjects he recommends: history, mythology, English vocabulary and syntax and basics of government, can be taught in relation to the first subjects.
The second section discusses widely varying authors, philologists and philosophers. It was with this section that I found the most difficulty following the thread that links them all together. I felt rather like I'd stumbled into one of his classroom lectures by mistake. I was unprepared and unfamiliar with most of the names he was discussing so intimately. His somewhat frequent references to President Bill Clinton and the Monica Lewinsky scandal were rather amusing though dated. I wondered what the good professor would have to say about our present state of affairs.
The third section discusses popular culture--specifically movies--and how the ones that are most meaningful get their inspiration or find their source in some of the great classics of ancient Greece and Rome. Once again I found myself stumbling along with many of his stories since I haven't seen most of the movies he discusses and those I had seen, I wasn't always as thrilled about them as he was. For example, he thought Disney's "The Lion King" had "character and maturity." I prefer "Beauty and the Beast" for a moral tale of redemption and sacrifice.
The book reads like a collection of lectures put together to make a book. If I had been in his class and read the reading list before attending his lectures, maybe I would've better understood some of his points. Although I liked the book, it's probably not one I'd recommend to homeschoolers who want to know why they should study the classics. Leigh Bortins' book, "The Core: Teaching Your Child the Foundations of a Classical Education," does a much better job of that.
The appendix, aptly entitled, "Doing it on Your Own," would be a great booklet for homeschoolers, especially if it were combined with the first section of the book. Prof. Kopff lists his suggestions for Latin curriculum to do at home, as well as Greek, along with some primary sources that would be good for beginning Latin and Greek students to read in the original.
December 19, 2014
Mr. Kopff's "The Devil Knows Latin" is a typical example of classical apologia derived from MacIntyre's "After Virtue". The author not only argues MacIntyre's argument for the rejection of the Enlightenment, a return to classical philosophy, and revision of primary and secondary education, he also promotes the elimination of the Great Books curriculum in favor of classical language studies. Both authors ignore the benefits of the scientific method and experiment in favor of pure logic and community values in the static conditions of the pre-Enlightenment world. The real failure in these types of works is that such minds should be focused on synthesizing a postmodernist heritage that combines the logic of the Enlightenment and the humanistic traditions from Classical period, rather than attacking the postmodernists and leaving the human condition in a state of declining irrationality.
Both scholars emphasis the importance of reading in the primary textual language but at the same time refuse to acknowledge the importance of the postmodernists in promoting the critical nature of such activity. They are too caught up in the defense of the Western Judeo-Christian metanarrative up to the Enlightenment to realize that the postmodernists that they criticize and revile are their intellectual comrades in arms against Modernism. Kopff specifically lowers himself to ad hominem attacks, a tactic rather interesting in a classical scholar who promotes logic over rhetoric.
However, some of his best work in the book is found in his review of significant persons and events in the 20th century. He is not Fredric Jameson but his insights are delightful and thought provoking at times. Overall, "The Devil Knows Latin" is a wonderful introduction to this line of thought and a more accessible book than MacIntyre's and well worth the easy read.
Both scholars emphasis the importance of reading in the primary textual language but at the same time refuse to acknowledge the importance of the postmodernists in promoting the critical nature of such activity. They are too caught up in the defense of the Western Judeo-Christian metanarrative up to the Enlightenment to realize that the postmodernists that they criticize and revile are their intellectual comrades in arms against Modernism. Kopff specifically lowers himself to ad hominem attacks, a tactic rather interesting in a classical scholar who promotes logic over rhetoric.
However, some of his best work in the book is found in his review of significant persons and events in the 20th century. He is not Fredric Jameson but his insights are delightful and thought provoking at times. Overall, "The Devil Knows Latin" is a wonderful introduction to this line of thought and a more accessible book than MacIntyre's and well worth the easy read.
November 22, 2013
at first, it seems rather offputting kopff attempts to write on the topic of the classical tradition while doing so for a postmodern attention span. in the beginning of the book, he touches on several topics: the need for the classical tradition in America, a very brief survey of modern economics, and the depravity of modern liberalism, all without delving too deep into his subjects he discusses. however, in the chapter where margaret fuller arrives in Rome and finds her true Self and Home there, the pieces begin to fall into place. following are analyses and biographies of various intellectuals who include J.R.R. Tolkien, James Frazier, and Douglas Young among others who were steeped in the western classics and ultimately made contributions to the conservative culture at large.
this is not a clarion call, but a gentle reminder it is not too late to be initiated into the western classical tradition, and a cogent argument for reviving the humanities in our schools by prying them from the hands of the new critics and postmodern loonies who hijacked them in the sixties and injecting them once again with a good dose of the liberal arts.
this is not a clarion call, but a gentle reminder it is not too late to be initiated into the western classical tradition, and a cogent argument for reviving the humanities in our schools by prying them from the hands of the new critics and postmodern loonies who hijacked them in the sixties and injecting them once again with a good dose of the liberal arts.
September 6, 2016
I think I was biased against this book because it’s based on an illogical and silly anecdote. The story goes that a priest was asked to baptize a baby in the vernacular. The priest said he would not, because “the baby doesn’t know English, but the Devil knows Latin.” That’s not funny; it’s inane. I get that the point is that learning Latin will train the student to be a better thinker, but I don’t really know how learning Latin would keep the Devil at bay. It didn’t work out that well for the Romans.
If you can get past the silly fight-Satan-with-Latin thing, the book does contain some good points about the history of education and how studying ancient languages enhances education. Overall, I think most readers would be better off reading The Latin Centered Curriculum instead, unless you’re just really into the theory and history of classical education. Even as someone who IS really into that subject, however, I have to say that The Devil Knows Latin was not my favorite.
{Read more of my reviews at A Spirited Mind.}
If you can get past the silly fight-Satan-with-Latin thing, the book does contain some good points about the history of education and how studying ancient languages enhances education. Overall, I think most readers would be better off reading The Latin Centered Curriculum instead, unless you’re just really into the theory and history of classical education. Even as someone who IS really into that subject, however, I have to say that The Devil Knows Latin was not my favorite.
{Read more of my reviews at A Spirited Mind.}
February 1, 2010
I have mixed feelings about this book. The first and last chapters relate to the title, as in why we need to understand the classical tradition to further Western Civilization. Mainly he is talking about studying Greek and Latin and changing the rhetoric for our elementary schools. The middle of the book is unrelated schlock. It is a combination of tirades about liberalism, different artists, reviews of films about farmers and Clint Eastwood. And how if we don't return to traditional Christian ethics, the world is doomed. I was so inspired that I took up studying Latin after the first chapter, but was disgruntled after a few more chapters. The stuff is not even related to the proposed subject. Your mileage may vary.
May 13, 2019
Wow, this book was underwhelming... I am hesitant to even put this on my "classical education" bookshelf since only the first few (short) chapters were related to the supposedly unifying topic on the book. This work was pedantic, disjointed, and rambling and even though I agreed with most of the author's premises, it now holds the spot as the toughest book to get through of 2018 for me. Honestly, I don't believe it is worth the read. Peruse the first few chapters and the appendices but please skip Parts II and III if you value your reading time.
February 3, 2013
This book was simply a collection of articles from Kopff. If the book title was "A Collection of Articles by E. Christian Kopff" then I could've enjoyed it more. The book was disjointed and not very cohesive. Each individual article was interesting and at times thought-provoking.
January 30, 2009
Really good.
February 24, 2018
Skaars 20 jaar later, en ons praat steeds dieselfde taal.
Kortom: hoe kan jy die toekoms in 'n lugleegte bou slegs op grond van eietydse waardes en inligting (of gebrek daaraan)? Hoe kan enige kritikus in die letterkunde onwaarhede toedig aan 'n skrywer (Hineininterpretierung), die werklike eksegese as "indoktrinasie" beskou, en jou onbetroubare woord wet maak? Dis nutteloos! Met vriendelike verwysing na die aanbidders van Julia Kristeva, die postmoderniste, die dekonstruksie. En almal wat die groot klomp gemors skryf in vaktydskrifte van die letterkunde. Daar is eeue se geskiedenis, manuskripte, verhandelings en foute wat gemaak is - en net herhaal sal word. Maar nee, hierdie groep mense weier om daaruit enigiets te leer. Wel, die geskiedenis leer ons ook: Uit niks kom niks.
Tradisie het te make met die verfyning en om die kennis van dwarsdeur die eeue juis in 'n nuwe tydperk bruikbaar te maak en aan te pas. Nie om dit radikaal wortel en tak uit te ruk en in die proses Pandora se doos oop te ruk nie.
Maar mense, ek dag iets is fout met my. En daar bevestig die skrywer net my denke op bl. 154: die kerke moet weer Hebreeus, Grieks en Latyn vir die mense leer - dan sal ook die kerk weer relevant word. Duits is ook glad nie 'n slegte keuse nie!
Kopff gaan soms bietjie te ver om die natuurwetenskap gering te skat, aangesien ook die natuurwetenskap, biologie en ook die chemie sekere vaste universele beginsels het, al is dit nou meer veranderlik as die onveranderlike, gestolde grammatika van Latyn en Grieks en die formules van die Wiskunde.
Kortom: hoe kan jy die toekoms in 'n lugleegte bou slegs op grond van eietydse waardes en inligting (of gebrek daaraan)? Hoe kan enige kritikus in die letterkunde onwaarhede toedig aan 'n skrywer (Hineininterpretierung), die werklike eksegese as "indoktrinasie" beskou, en jou onbetroubare woord wet maak? Dis nutteloos! Met vriendelike verwysing na die aanbidders van Julia Kristeva, die postmoderniste, die dekonstruksie. En almal wat die groot klomp gemors skryf in vaktydskrifte van die letterkunde. Daar is eeue se geskiedenis, manuskripte, verhandelings en foute wat gemaak is - en net herhaal sal word. Maar nee, hierdie groep mense weier om daaruit enigiets te leer. Wel, die geskiedenis leer ons ook: Uit niks kom niks.
Tradisie het te make met die verfyning en om die kennis van dwarsdeur die eeue juis in 'n nuwe tydperk bruikbaar te maak en aan te pas. Nie om dit radikaal wortel en tak uit te ruk en in die proses Pandora se doos oop te ruk nie.
Maar mense, ek dag iets is fout met my. En daar bevestig die skrywer net my denke op bl. 154: die kerke moet weer Hebreeus, Grieks en Latyn vir die mense leer - dan sal ook die kerk weer relevant word. Duits is ook glad nie 'n slegte keuse nie!
Kopff gaan soms bietjie te ver om die natuurwetenskap gering te skat, aangesien ook die natuurwetenskap, biologie en ook die chemie sekere vaste universele beginsels het, al is dit nou meer veranderlik as die onveranderlike, gestolde grammatika van Latyn en Grieks en die formules van die Wiskunde.
September 29, 2017
I wouldn't read again or recommend. Kopff is arguing that the "permanent things embedded in tradition are good things for human life, and that they have not yet entirely vanished from the Western landscape." And that "true creativity is always the acquisition of the old in order to fashion beautiful and meaningful things for the present."
The book is primarily an argument for the ideas of the Western tradition and only incidentally about Latin, for "traditions we value, whether science of Christianity, are best expressed in the tongues that helped form them." I had expected more of a straightforward argument for the original languages.
The book started off well enough, tracing the history of Western civilization, the meandering genealogy of language, and the rise and fall of Latin and Greek in the schools. The many famous characters and tropes all appear here.
In the second and third parts of the book, Kopff essentially launches into blame and and praise speeches, explaining why evil men are evil or why classically educated men in touch with tradition created great art and then trying to somehow connect such individuals back into his narrative. It was a rambling, poorly-supported rant that was more screechy radio personality than rational defense of the great tradition.
The book does contain a useful epilogue with some actual advice that is unlikely to be ever implemented.
The book is primarily an argument for the ideas of the Western tradition and only incidentally about Latin, for "traditions we value, whether science of Christianity, are best expressed in the tongues that helped form them." I had expected more of a straightforward argument for the original languages.
The book started off well enough, tracing the history of Western civilization, the meandering genealogy of language, and the rise and fall of Latin and Greek in the schools. The many famous characters and tropes all appear here.
In the second and third parts of the book, Kopff essentially launches into blame and and praise speeches, explaining why evil men are evil or why classically educated men in touch with tradition created great art and then trying to somehow connect such individuals back into his narrative. It was a rambling, poorly-supported rant that was more screechy radio personality than rational defense of the great tradition.
The book does contain a useful epilogue with some actual advice that is unlikely to be ever implemented.
October 5, 2022
This book is terrifying. Even if one ignores the blatant political and ideological aspects that try to convince us that everyone would be better off if white christian’s were the only people in charge, the actual written arguments in this book are simply horrible. For those reviewers saying “well written” - what were they reading? The logic in this book goes from “if a, then q” with zero explanation or cohesion. I wanted a book that would explain the benefits of a classical education and instead got Christian nationalism and poorly researched ranting. Do not recommend to any reader, regardless of belief system.
April 26, 2019
1.5 - did not accomplish what it was trying to do. Did have some good suggestions for further reading/study.
December 17, 2022
If you are smart (or received a classical education), you may enjoy this book! I personally had to look up many references online.
August 29, 2016
Chris Kopff is a classics professor at the University of Colorado with a reputation as one of the best and most accessible teachers on campus. In this book, he argues that the classical tradition of studying the best Greece and Rome have to offer, together with the Western Tradition as it has developed since the Hellenic Age, all in the works' original languages, is critical to understanding and critiquing our society. He also argues that only by studying and understanding these works is true creativity - i.e. adding something significant - as opposed to merely ephemeral novelty possible. It is a persuasive argument, and well argued by Professor Kopff.
Professor Kopff does not deny the existence or value of traditions other than that of Western Civilization. He merely argues that we, as the inheritors of western culture, must be able to understand it in order to live within it, and, possibly, add something new. I would add that since the modern world is the creation of Western Civilization, that culture deserves to occupy a special place within educational regimes worldwide, regardless of whether one's home culture is Confucian, or Hindu, or whatever.
Given the subject matter, one might expect Professor Kopff's discussion to be limited to dry academic texts. However, he also ranges widely through contemporary literature and films to make his points.
It may be argued that Professor Kopff's proposed curriculum would be so focused and demanding that it would leave little time for other worthwhile subjects, such as modern languages, non-western history, specialized scientific subjects, engineering, and so forth. Perhaps, but then again Professor Kopff's ideas have not really been tried out. My expectation is that an intelligent and motivated student could gain much of what Kopff's curriculum would provide, while still leaving space in college and graduate school for more specialized subjects, and of course plenty of material for lifetime study and reflection.
All in all, this is a book well worth reading.
Professor Kopff does not deny the existence or value of traditions other than that of Western Civilization. He merely argues that we, as the inheritors of western culture, must be able to understand it in order to live within it, and, possibly, add something new. I would add that since the modern world is the creation of Western Civilization, that culture deserves to occupy a special place within educational regimes worldwide, regardless of whether one's home culture is Confucian, or Hindu, or whatever.
Given the subject matter, one might expect Professor Kopff's discussion to be limited to dry academic texts. However, he also ranges widely through contemporary literature and films to make his points.
It may be argued that Professor Kopff's proposed curriculum would be so focused and demanding that it would leave little time for other worthwhile subjects, such as modern languages, non-western history, specialized scientific subjects, engineering, and so forth. Perhaps, but then again Professor Kopff's ideas have not really been tried out. My expectation is that an intelligent and motivated student could gain much of what Kopff's curriculum would provide, while still leaving space in college and graduate school for more specialized subjects, and of course plenty of material for lifetime study and reflection.
All in all, this is a book well worth reading.
May 28, 2015
Several extended quotes from this book warranted entry into my personal reading log... at certain points early in this book, I think the author very clearly and accurately diagnosed aspects of our culture.
Maybe it's just me, but the author also lost me in a few places of the book, sometimes when the author referenced someone or something unfamiliar to me. Sometimes I would read his points of view and think to myself that the author sees and understands truly and plainly, but sometimes I caught myself thinking that this book was unnecessarily biased. My personal view before reading this book was that a truly classical, Western education is rare but probably the best education a person could have, and reading this book of course reinforced my opinion.
Maybe it's just me, but the author also lost me in a few places of the book, sometimes when the author referenced someone or something unfamiliar to me. Sometimes I would read his points of view and think to myself that the author sees and understands truly and plainly, but sometimes I caught myself thinking that this book was unnecessarily biased. My personal view before reading this book was that a truly classical, Western education is rare but probably the best education a person could have, and reading this book of course reinforced my opinion.
June 21, 2012
Not exactly what I was expecting. He seemed to ramble on about people I know nothing about, only to make a point that more-or-less went over my head. Maybe the historical figures mentioned in the book would be familiar to someone who was already taught in the classical tradition, but not to me. Of course, someone taught in the classical tradition would not need to read this book in the first place, so I'd have to say this author missed his audience by a long shot. I was expecting to be shown, through evidence and argument, why the classical tradition should come back. I guess I should never judge a book by its title.
March 26, 2013
Since I was born fascinated with yesteryears it is no surprise I found a classicist living inside me with a lifelong curiosity about Greece and Rome. Since I grew up in an education system largely devoid of the classics I encountered later in life, I came away thinking I was short-changed when I attempted to tackle the more complex literature of previous centuries. This book argues the importance of a classical education and claims that cutting ourselves away from the thoughts and reasoning from which our civilization was born would be to invite disintegration to the foundations of our country and our society. The argument is compelling and worth the read.
January 25, 2011
An eclectic collection of essays which make for quick and thought-provoking reading on their own. Together they demand more mental effort to see how they make a unified case for "Why America Needs the Classical Tradition." Dr. Kopff certainly succeeds, however, in opening the eyes of the reader to the deep roots of classicism that permeate American culture, and to the fact that true "classical" education is not begun until Latin and Greek are the basis for a curriculum.
July 9, 2015
While I am an advocate of his advice on teaching the Great Books and learning Latin, Greek, and mathematics -- he is too dogmatic (and yes, prejudice) to consider any other beliefs than that of conservatism which ultimately invoked my vacillate rating of the book.
I only read this book about halfway through and then was too agitated to pursue reading since the author redundantly libeled anyone else who was not of the same political belief.
Decent book; too partisan to conservatism.
I only read this book about halfway through and then was too agitated to pursue reading since the author redundantly libeled anyone else who was not of the same political belief.
Decent book; too partisan to conservatism.
January 12, 2013
An excellent read. Kopff makes the argument why we need the classical tradition. But the way he does it is through very interesting writing, and an examination of our culture, both popular and elite. The Devil Knows Latin is a good read all the way around, especially the chapters on American films. I loved the section on the Godfather more than any other.
February 18, 2016
I read this for a paper I was researching. The middle section seems to drag and he seems to spend too much time telling us what is wrong with liberal scholars and their desire to do away with tradition. I wanted more about the classical tradition. I was hoping for more of a how-to book and a lot of it is more of a how-not-to book.
March 2, 2008
Read this book! Brilliantly exposition of the absolute need for the primacy of Classics in American education. I tend to ignore Kopff's occasional forays into religious musings, but even in them he is brilliant.
August 8, 2014
I enjoyed all the examples that were cited throughout this book. The author is obviously very intelligent! However, he seems to be a little harsh towards the American education system. I don't disagree with his views, but it could have been articulated in a less abrasive way!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews