Leave a comment below!
He discovers, with perhaps a bit of a shock, that a book from the late 19th century could print passages of untranslated Latin, Greek, French and perhaps even German and trust in the resources of the reader to discern its meaning.
As a footnote: untranslated Latin and Greek could appear in late 19th-century books because it was taken for granted that all educated readers would have learned Latin and Greek. This was because, in turn, all schoolboys who went to a certain kind of ancient and exclusive private school, would have learned Latin and Greek: Latin remained a required subject at all of the six ancient universities in the UK well into the 20th century. It was likewise taken for granted that a gentleman would acquire a minimum of French or German as a "polish" - and this area of study was also open to gentlewomen, though women were, in the 19th century, strongly discouraged from attempting to learn Latin and Greek.
The existence of books which took for granted that their audience would be able to read Latin, Greek, and perhaps French or German is not indicative that standards of education have fallen since the 19th century, but that in the 19th century, a book written for an "educated audience" would have a far smaller audience than in the 21st century - Latin and Greek passages in a book would have meant its target audience was men whose families could afford to send them to certain private schools and then to certain ancient universities.
For an interesting discussion of the difference between changes in what's taught and decline of standards, see 1895 exam at Snopes.
That seems to prove the thesis submitted - that education now is more broadly available, but it is of a more shallow sort.
That does seem to hold true, at least for non-technical areas. Current education (and hence, thought) is aware of more subjects, but with less mastery of each. The river runs wide and fast, but not deep. Of course, with Desperate Housewives on, who has time to read a book that requires deep thinking.
c matt: That seems to prove the thesis submitted - that education now is more broadly available, but it is of a more shallow sort.
Only if you accept the 19th century education standard that Latin and Greek are the only subjects that add depth to education.
While this is a possible viewpoint, I have to say it's not one I could support.
Finding untranslated Latin in Christianity and Classical Culture by Cochrane, circa 1940 was a bit of a shock but both Latin and Greek were required for entrance into British quality universities up until the early 1960's, I think. I suspect the supression of these language studies was part of a project to disassociate minds from classical thinking and the ability to think. E.G. West proves, I think, that English education was quite well done prior to the imposition of government schools.
Mr. Dixon, it is remarkable that you mention Cochrane's book, because that is precisely the volume I had in hand when the idea for this article struck me. Fortunately, my Liberty Fund edition includes translations of the Latin and Greek. I can make a decent guess at Latin, but Greek is, well, Greek to me.
Leon: I suspect the supression of these language studies was part of a project to disassociate minds from classical thinking and the ability to think.
Given the upset caused by two sonnets of Catullus that were assigned to Latin O level students to translate a couple of years after I studied Latin in school in the UK, I'm prepared to bet that any active suppression of Latin was caused by Paul Cella's co-religionists who didn't want their children reading stuff like:
Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo,
Aureli pathice et cinaede Furi,
qui me ex versiculis meis putastis,
quod sunt molliculi, parum pudicum.
nam castum esse decet pium poetam
ipsum, versiculos nihil necesse est;
qui tum denique habent salem ac leporem,
si sunt molliculi ac parum pudici,
et quod pruriat incitare possunt,
non dico pueris, sed his pilosis
qui duros nequeunt movere lumbos.
vos, quod milia multa basiorum
legistis, male me marem putatis?
pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo.
One thing that is unavoidable, however, in a good Classical education: to know that the nonsense talked of all ages always condemning homosexuality and same-sex partnerships as much as 20th-century America does, is indeed pure rubbish.
No wonder, indeed, that Latin and Greek fell into disuse in the US...
(And, since I do find Poem 16 distinctly unpleasant, to any other Latinists, the much nicer:
Verani, omnibus e meis amicis
antistans mihi milibus trecentis,
uenistine domum ad tuos penates
fratresque unanimos anumque matrem?
uenisti. o mihi nuntii beati!
uisam te incolumem audiamque Hiberum
narrantem loca, facta nationes,
ut mos est tuus, applicansque collum
iucundum os oculosque suauiabor.
o quantum est hominum beatiorum,
quid me laetius est beatiusue? )
Sodomites love filth. Modern filth, ancient filth, crude filth and subtle filth. Latin, Greek, Urdu, English filth - no matter. It nourishes their diseased souls and corrupted minds.
It may not even be Latin and Greek languages per se that cause the demise, but the lack of any meaningful requirements of classical philosophy. The vast number of students on US campuses today are enrolled in programs more fitting to a technical trade school. The typical university degree mill requires only 6 hours of philosophy out of 120 hours to get their job certif- I mean, degree. And we expect these kids to know how to think?
I pretty much agree with your assessment on the notion of Progress, but, as a someone who sees civil unions as a fine compromise, I don't see why two consenting adults who want to devote themselves to each other cannot do it and have some basic legal rights to protect and support one another. It just seems their decision to do so doesn't really affect me, it doesn't make me want to "turn gay" nor does it make me hate the institution of marriage. The majority of folks always will be hetero and, truly, God only knows why some aren't. I understand part of the thrust of your argument is the legal ramifications, what with the dubious Lawrence v. Texas rationale, but really its just two people wanting to devote themselves to each other, and I think that is a good thing.
Note that we are told to embark on "this enormous, unprecedented innovation", despite most homosexuals not really being interested in getting married.
See Massachusetts. Despite being a 'gay' mecca, the state has less than 36,000 homosexuals who elect to live as couples (.54% of the population). There have been around 5,400 'gay marriages' performed in Mass. since it was made legal, which would be less than 1/3rd of the state's homosexual couples.
Of course, the real motivation behind 'gay marriage' isn't marriage at all, it's coercing acceptance...
Well, Paul, if you have been hefting Cochrane around I found it heavy lifting. My latin did not reach Catullus but he certainly was amusing in translation. I think it was Jacob Burchhardt's writing on the Italian Renaissance where the complaint was lodged by prostitutes in Venice about the astounding number of male prostitutes who were giving the girls more competition than they wanted. Of course, the usual lot of homosexuals over most of history was to be put to death. It was remarked in the 1860's, however, as an addendum, that despite this, it did seem that in each age and country there were homosexuals-it was Schopenhauer's observation. I think the Catholics have this pegged correctly as an objective disorder-as did American psychologists until they got tired of having their meetings shut down by the disordered. Aquinas also gives a good argument, as usual, as to the rights of community-reflected, I think in Jaffa(but I'm not sure). Jesurg gives interesting perspectives.
Cochrane is indeed heavy-lifting, but you sure learn alot.
carter: Note that we are told to embark on "this enormous, unprecedented innovation", despite most homosexuals not really being interested in getting married.
Well, if that's the case, it won't be an "enormous innovation", will it? 
It really is no innovation at all. Various fools in history have attempted it. The problem here is that all sorts of folks have opinions without much if any learning or wisdom. Randy Shilts died of AIDS but before so doing he wrote important and informative works concerning what was then called Gay Related Syndrome, GRID, Gay Plague, Gay Bowel Syndrome, Gay pneumonia, etc. Our society would have been much better off following Mr.Buckley's advice about tattoos.
Sit on it and rotate, for you love to be sodomized, Papylus.
Well, he could have gone further and proposed a user tax. Folks that bring costs on to society ought to bear those costs themselves. At the time WFB was writing in National Review the social costs were unknown.
Speaking of Cochrane, that particular book would be of value to Jesurgislac so as to come to a better understanding of what Paul's co-religionists are conserving. Jesurgislac loses his wager concerning the demise of Latin and Greek among the learned. I have since read that the demise of Latin was greatly desired by those who disliked the Roman Catholic Church. Which brings to mind a quotation of value for your consideration." Rome and the Atheist have gained: These two shall fight it out-these two; Protestantism being retained For base of operations sly by Atheism".
Going to our government schools we note their current crisis in the inculcation of "values" to which they are restrained because "principles" seem to only have grounding in religions. Values are relative.
One way of testing principles is to ask the question, "What if everyone did it?" As for example, we have the principle, "Thou shalt not murder". If everyone murdered society would not exist. If everyone failed to murder prospects for society are greatly improved.
Homosexuality is promoted, perhaps without wit, from what I would call secularists. Others would call them Protestants. The Roman Catholics seem to have a nuanced postiton concerning homosexuals. Well, they have been around for a couple of thousand years and have seen it all.
What if everyone were homosexual? While Aquinas probably did not ask this question exactly (I really don't know)his answer about homosexuality mirrors the effect upon society that murder does. A society that does not propagate goes extinct.
It would seem then that promotion or tolerance of homosexuality or murder both have dire effects upon society. The current definition of people with homosexual tendencies as being objectively disordered then makes sense. It does not mean that homosexuals are evil-they are just objectively disordered.
I think there is a passage in the New Testament to the effect of looking thru a glass darkly. I think it bears relation to another saying, perhaps in the same New Testament, "Lust darkens Intellect". I think we can see this in the shallow arguments of Jesurgislac but more clearly in a more towering intellect like Andrew Sullivan.
A great number of homosexuals can be cured, perhaps the great majority of them. There seem to limits to what psychologists can currently accomplish. Child molesters, for instance, seem to be incurable.
A first step seems to be knowing or learning that the wager was lost. E.G. Jesurgislac offered a wager concerning Paul's co-religionists (whoever they might be). Objectively, he has lost that wager. However, with darkened intellect it might not be very easy to see that loss or that in terms of what normal human beings are, that homosexuals are objectively disordered.
As to Paul's co-religionists, his namesake I think, noted that if Christ not be Risen that they(Christians) were the worst of fools. You cannot be much more honest than
to put such in writing. What are then, the probabilities? One could do worse than to study Pascal's Wager.
Meanwhile, a new theory concerning the less than 3% of us who are homosexuals. They are remnants, sort of like male nipples. They somehow survive in Darwin's world but to what purpose? Evolutionary theory ought to, by walking the cat backwards, give us some clues. The model for this would be the AIDS virus not affecting certain homosexuals in spite of identical behavior. A scientist then, by tracing his family history found that his distant English relatives survived the plague when most did not in their tiny village. What protected against the plague also protected against AIDS.
I don't have answer concerning male nipples or homosexuals and don't propose a utilitarian framework.
Commenting by HaloScan
