No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 January 2009
AT the beginning of the twentieth century in Denmark, as in many other countries, the secondary school (since 1903 called ‘gymnasium’) underwent a fundamental reform. Until that time the secondary-school period had been six years, and Latin had been a subject in it. All pupils had to learn Latin for four years. The last two school-years the pupils could choose between two sides: a linguistic-historical one, with much Latin and Greek (the Greek course being of four years), and a scientific one, a division which was due to J. N. Madvig, the famous Danish latinist, whose influence on the practical organization of Danish schools was enormous through the greater part of the nineteenth century (he was for many years Inspector of Schools and for some years also Minister of Education). By the new law of 1903 the teaching of Latin and Greek was greatly reduced. The gymnasium got at that time the structure which it retains to this day: after a four years' middle school there is a three years' gymnasium, divided into three sides: classics (with Latin and Greek), modern languages (with English and German culture and language), and scientific (with mathematics and science). At the time when this organization of the gymnasium was carried through, the leading spirits of the reform (among whom again a well-known latinist, M. Cl. Gertz, was a primus motor) clearly saw that it would be an irreparable loss if the university men of the future were without the slightest knowledge of antiquity and its importance to modern European culture. Therefore, when they planned the scheme of the gymnasium, they introduced for all pupils of the secondary school one lesson a week throughout the three years which was to be consecrated to Greek literature and art. It was at once made an independent subject in the gymnasium, with marks, examinations, etc., as all other subjects.
1 See my review (in German) of Vilh. Grönbech, , Hellas i–iiGoogle Scholar, in Classica et Mediaevalia, v (1942), pp. 130–6.Google Scholar