Critics have argued that the Active1 approach to Latin is not, in fact, an effective way to learn the language. This misconception appears to stem at least in part from misunderstandings regarding teaching methodology, such as the belief that teachers who use these methods neglect grammar or do not in fact introduce students to ‘real’ original Latin, but simplified versions of the texts created by the teachers themselves. As someone who learned Latin primarily through the Active Method, I can attest that this is an unrealistic representation. These methods are not used at the expense of formal grammar instruction; they are a different way of teaching grammar that also stresses the importance of acquiring a large vocabulary for the purpose of more fluent reading. Nor do such courses never progress to the reading of authentic Classical Latin. I will use online descriptions of Active Method courses to demonstrate this.

Over 2023, many universities and policy organisations in the higher education (HE) sector are working to create guiding principles and guidelines for the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in HE Teaching and Learning (T&L). Despite these guidelines, students remain unsure if and how they should use AI. This article discusses the AI information sessions held over the Autumn 2023 term in the Department of Classics at the University of Reading, which aimed to provide students with the knowledge and tools to make informed judgements about using AI in their studies. These sessions discussed the benefits and drawbacks of generative AI, highlighting training data, content policy, environmental impact, and examples of potential uses. Staff and student participants were surveyed before and after these information sessions to gather their opinions surrounding AI use. Although at least 60% of participants had previously used generative AI, 80% of participants were apprehensive of or against using generative AI tools for learning purposes following the AI information sessions. By providing staff and students with the ethical considerations surrounding generative AI, they can make an informed judgement about using AI in their work without misplaced faith or excessive fear.

In November 2022, ChatGPT 3.5 was released on a public research preview, gaining notoriety for its ability to pull from a vast body of information to create coherent and digestible bodies of text that accurately respond to queries (OpenAI, 2022). It is able to recognise the grammar and vocabulary of ancient languages, translate passages, and compose texts at an alarmingly accurate and rapid rate. For teachers, this AI has had mixed reviews. Some fear its ability to produce well-written work effortlessly, while others are excited by its abilities to push the boundaries of current teaching practices. This paper explores how well ChatGPT explains grammatical concepts, parses inflected forms, and translates Classical Latin, Ancient Greek, and Classical Sanskrit. Overall, ChatGPT is rather good at working with Classical Latin and Sanskrit, but its abilities with Ancient Greek are deeply problematic. Although it is quite flawed at this time, ChatGPT, when used properly, could become a useful a tool for ancient language study. With proper guiding phrases, students could use this AI to practise vocabulary, check their translations, and rephrase grammatical concepts.

Most people who use the word ‘Latin’ as the name of a language in antiquity (not Medieval or Neo-Latin therefore) seem unaware that Latin was a continuum made up of many different varieties, Classical Latin (which they identify with Latin) being only one of them. So when they talk of spoken Latin they mean spoken Classical Latin, no other variety from antiquity being available that is suitable to be spoken. This is ironic on two counts. First, the overwhelming majority of native Latin speakers did not speak Classical Latin at all. Secondly, the small minority of people who did speak it did not do so routinely as a language of everyday conversation, but only on certain formal occasions and in certain public situations. They spoke routinely the appropriate form of their first language, the form that was used by a social, cultural and educational elite. This was not Classical Latin, which was not an acquired form of Latin but one that was learned as if it were a second language. What the language they did speak routinely was like we do not know, and no doubt it comprised several different registers, as languages do. Whether they realise it or not, people who engage in informal conversations in formal Classical Latin today are not re-enacting any authentic experience that was to be had in the ancient world.