This uniform, literary familiarity of eighteenth-century Americans is directly attributable to the common objective of the early American Latin grammar school, regardless of its geographical location. That objective, from the early seventeenth century through the middle of the eighteenth century, was to prepare young men to meet the entrance requirements of the nearby college. At Harvard College, founded in 1636, these simple requirements were described as early as 1642 as follows: When any schollar is able to read Tully [Cicero] or such like classicall Latine Authore ex tempore, & make and speake true Latin in verse and prose, suo (ut aiunt) Marte, and decline perfectly the paradigmes of Nounes and Verbes in the Greeke tongue, then may hee bee admitted into the Colledge, nor shall any claim admission before such qualifications. Harvard's entrance requirements changed little during the next century. In 1734, for example, similar requirements had to be satisfied to obtain admission to Harvard: Whoever upon examination by the President, and two at least of the Tutors, shall be found able ex tempore to read, construe, and parse Tully, Virgil, or such like common classical Latin authors, and to write true Latin in prose, and to be skilled in making Latin verse, or at least in the rules of Prosodia, and to read, construe, and parse ordinary Greek, as in the New Testament, Isocrates, or such like, and decline the paradigms of Greek nouns and verbs, having withal good testimony of his past blameless behaviour, shall be looked upon as qualified for admission into Harvard College.How many quants think they could have gotten into Harvard in the 17th century?

"Is Harvard for pussies?"This is a distasteful use of a distasteful term, and you are betrer than this. "Is Harvard for kurus/gaine/fourreau" would have been more worthy.But broadly, you are mistaking our (not mine) current unfamiliarity with this subject matter (Latin) with ability, and projecting (nostolgically) onto the past a metric of effort that might be impressive only in our current ignorance, but upon critical reflection: facile. At least for the age.Keep in mind the people *who could afford to do this.*The answer: american toffs. Only they had the disposable income to specialize in this knowledge (it was of as little practical use then as it is now), at great expense (time, effort, tutors). It was a filter rule of 'us' versus 'them.'You could not be plowing your papa's field if you were studying latin.Also Hamilton, as a fellow Catholic, you should know that the primary historical motivating force for the Protestant 'elect' of the USA at that time (at Harvard, Yale, Brown, etc.) to master Latin was to be able to attack Catholics with their own weapon (jargon, terms). While latin is both a mark of scholarship and obscurantism now, it was the prejudice of the 17th & 18th century Protestant both aping, and trying to exceed, the acheivements of Catholic scholars that was the animating ethic of the USA-Protestant love of Latin-centric education. The better to read your Calvin, my son.A better comparison of intelectual capacity is: how many of the 1734 students who took the Harvard enterance exam (in latin) would do well enough to be similarly admitted to Harvard if they took today's SAT? I expect few. Just because few Harvard-bound types would do well on the 1734 exam does not mean it was superior, only there. And specialized.Just as today there are 'cram courses' for the SAT with special schools that typically produce students with scores several standard deviations over the norm, there were schools and tutors back then who did the same for gentlement of means. St. Grottlesex comes to mind, for example."Same as it ever was...same as it ever was...same as it ever was...Same as it ever was...same as it ever was...same as it ever was...Same as it ever was...same as it ever was..." - "Once in a Lifetime," Talking Heads, (Byrne, Weymouth, Franz, Harrison (Harvard '65))

Good heavens. I tried to edit the title to sissies, but have been roundly defeated.Perhaps the sysadmin can assist?

QuoteOne of the most PRACTICAL benefits of studying Latin for high-schoolers is boosting verbal skills and scores on tests like the SAT; students with two or more years of Latin typically score 140-160 points higher on the SAT than their Latin-less peers.Why sissies don't study Latin

DETROIT -- Professor Michele Valerie Ronnick, who teaches the classics at Wayne State University, has been on an intellectual archeological dig of sorts since the early 1990s. "I've been collecting, organizing and preserving information about African Americans involved with the classical subjects of Latin, Greek and mythology," she says. "It started with me wondering this: "Who are the black classicists that deserve to be in the history books?' " Ronnick was determined to find out, and the results of her "dig" went on exhibit this week at the Main Detroit Public Library, the first stop for her photo exhibit, "12 Black Classicists." The exhibit will go on a national tour of colleges and universities when it closes here Sept. 27. The exhibit was funded by the James Loeb Classical Library Foundation at Harvard University. "My research made me realize that there was a whole pattern here, an intellectual chapter of American history that almost nobody knew about," Ronnick says. "I'm trying to connect the dots. It's very exciting." The professor's dozen scholars, 11 men and one woman, taught Greek and Latin at the college level. She says their achievements laid the groundwork for the serious study and teaching of languages (philology) among African Americans. "Everyone who studies language and literature in the U.S. today, be it Italian, Swahili, Sanskrit, English or Arabic, can trace the origin of their disciplines to the scholars featured in this photo installation," Ronnick emphasizes. The professor's search began when she ran across a reference to William Sanders Scarborough (1852-1926) as the first black member of the venerable Modern Language Association. Scarborough, who was president of Wilberforce University in Wilberforce, Ohio, was born into slavery and secretly taught himself to read and write. When he mastered those skills, he went on to learn Greek and Latin. Also featured in the exhibit are Lewis Baxter Moore, who earned a Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania for his work on the Greek tragedian Sophocles and Wiley Lane, the first black professor of Greek at Howard University in Washington, D.C. "I discovered that black schools like Wilberforce, Howard and Hampton (University) taught the classics," says Ronnick, who is white. "But somehow, people in the field became invisible. My exhibit is meant to show that knowledge of Latin, Greek and mythology is not a white elitist thing. The historic African-American classicists were all eggheads in the best sense." Black Classicists

According to Christopher J. Klicka in The Right of Choice: The Incredible Failure of Public Education and the Rising Hope of Home Schooling (1992), “at least ten Presidents were substantially taught through home schooling.” George Washington received most of his education at home by his father and mother. Thomas Jefferson was taught to read by his father at home. John Quincy Adams was completely home schooled until age 14, when he entered Harvard (and Harvard today welcomes home schoolers). Abraham Lincoln received all his education, except for one year, through home instruction. Benjamin Franklin, one of the greatest inventors-scientists of his day, and one of the era’s greatest businessmen, writers, and political leaders, was almost entirely self-educated. He spent a year in a local grammar school, became a dropout, studied one year with a private tutor, and ended all formal education at the age of ten. Thomas Edison had even less formal schooling than Franklin. Whereas Franklin lasted only one year in a one-room school, Edison lasted only three months. At age seven he was expelled from school for being “retarded.” His mother then taught him the basics and he later went on to teach himself science. More recent members of the home schooling hall of fame include: Albert Einstein, Ansel Adams, Agtha Christie, Pearl S. Buck. Irving Berlin, Andrew Wyeth, C.S. Lewis, and William F. Buckley. Literacy in colonial America was in fact nearly universal. Educated for the most part at home, “many a farmer read Greek, and frontiersmen recited the poetry of Ovid and Donne. Thomas Paine’s Common Sense sold 600,000 copies to a population of 2.5 million, twenty percent of which was slave and another fifty percent indentured” (Rhodes, 1992). Oh Oh

In a series of popular books, Americans have been informed why Johnny can’t read; why Johnny can’t tell right from wrong; and why Johnny can’t write, lead, concentrate—and still can’t read. For the most part, however, they are not being told (despite the p.r. blurbs) what they can do about it. To repair the damages of an entire century of cultural vandalism, we are told to teach phonics or “good literature” or give positive reinforcement.The most obvious difference between American college graduates of 1903 and those of 2003 is that the former knew Latin and the latter know, more or less, nothing. Any program of rebuilding, therefore, will begin with the revival of the classical tradition. Anyone can learn the basics of reading and writing, but few people can read and write well if they have never studied Latin, and those who have been cut off from the Greek classics are deprived of the deepest and strongest current of human wisdom and beauty that has flowed into Christendom.In 1819, Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to John Brazier, expressed gratitude to his father for providing him with a classical education.Among the values of classical learning, I estimate the luxury of reading the Greek and Roman authors in all the beauties of their originals. And why should not this innocent and elegant luxury take its preëminent stand ahead of all those addressed merely to the senses? I think myself more indebted to my father for this than for all the other luxuries his cares and affections have placed within my reach; and more now than when younger, and more susceptible of delights from other sources. When the decays of age have enfeebled the useful energies of the mind, the classic pages fill up the vacuum of ennui, and become sweet composers to that rest of the grave into which we are all sooner or later to descend.For Thomas Jefferson and John Adams (to name only two Founding Fathers of the American republic), the study of the Greek and Latin classics was more than a luxury to be enjoyed by cultivated gentlemen. The classics were an essential resource for their understanding of political liberty and the indispensable foundation of any true education.While Latin has always been, for men of Western Europe and America, the gateway to all humane learning, Greek, to those who are lucky enough to study it, provides the platform for higher stages of study; and the beauty of the Greek language, for those who have really learned it, is a source of almost indescribable pleasure. As Dr. Johnson (the wisest Christian moralist in our language) observed, “Greek, sir, is like lace. Every man gets as much of it as he can.” This was said in an age when men wore as much lace as they could afford. Jefferson may have preferred republican corduroy, but he agreed with Johnson on the Greek, and, as he grew older, he salted and peppered his letters with learned discussions of Greek meter and antiquities. I find the same thing happening myself and find more to think about in the 100 lines of Euripides or Sophocles with which I begin the morning than in all the journals, newspapers, weblogs, and news broadcasts that will cast their polluted pall over a day that dawned so fair.To this issue of Chronicles, a number of classical scholars and teachers have contributed essays on the advantages of studying the classics and on the particular insights to be gained from reading specific Greek works. Our issue is not offered as a blueprint for studying Greek, much less as a shortcut to instant proficiency in the classics. It is meant only to ring a few bells in the memories of those who might once have dreamed of learning Greek and to stiffen the resolve of parents who have resolved to give their children a gift beyond price, which even the poorest families can afford.Oh oh

QuoteA better comparison of intelectual capacity is: how many of the 1734 students who took the Harvard enterance exam (in latin) would do well enough to be similarly admitted to Harvard if they took today's SAT? I expect few. Just because few Harvard-bound types would do well on the 1734 exam does not mean it was superior, only there. And specialized.A better question would be how many of the 1734 student who took the Harvard entrance exam in Latin have read and understood the Federalist Papers before admission? How many of them will be forced to read them after admission? The Federalist Papers were written by another home schooled moronic Hamilton along with Jay and Madison.

How many of the Harvard admissions of 2004 would last 30 minutes in socratic debate with the admissions of 1734?

"One of the regrets of my life is that I did not study Latin. I'm absolutely convinced, the more I understand these eighteenth-century people, that it was that grounding in Greek and Latin that gave them their sense of the classic virtues:the classic ideals of honor, virtue, the good society and their historic examples of what they could try to live up to." (David McCullough, Historian and author, on understanding the Founding Fathers http://www.neh.fed.us/whoweare/mccullou ... rview.html)

"Socratic debate with the admissions of 1734?"This presumes that Socratic debate is the acme of the form. How many in the admissions of 1734 would stand up against the Forensics team of 2004? Different ages: different forms. Socratic dialogie today both informs and enlightens, and also amuses, since it led to so many absurd conclussions. And remember, charletans like I.F. Stone turned to the classics to burnish their self-image before death."Agtha Christie, Pearl S. Buck. Irving Berlin, Andrew Wyeth, C.S. Lewis, and William F. Buckley."In the cases of Christie, Buck, Wyeth, Lewis, and Buckley, they were not home schooled by Mom at the kitchen table, but home-schooled by private (expensive) tutors.When young men once entered into Oxford of Cambridge they would write their name (enroll) and next to it write Public, XXXXX or 'Private.' The 'public' meant that they went to a (private) prep school, the 'private' ment they were tutored at home by a governess and/or tutor."Educated for the most part at home, “many a farmer read Greek, and frontiersmen recited the poetry of Ovid and Donne." Rhodes doesn't define 'farmer' here, but I suspect he means Jefferson-types rather than the 40 acers and am ule types when he says 'many a farmer read Greek.'

This presumes that Socratic debate is the acme of the form. How many in the admissions of 1734 would stand up against the Forensics team of 2004?Undefeated.I see now that my formal education began in the Law School...they introduced me to the liberal arts...It is sad but true that the only place in an American University where the student is taught to read, write and speak in the law school. The principal, if not sole, merit of the case method of instruction is that the student is compelled to read accurately and carefully, to state accurately and carefully the meaning of what he has read, to criticize the reasoning of opposing cases, and to write very extended examinations in which the same standards of accuracy, care, and criticism are imposed. It is too bad that this experience is limited to very few students and that at about age twenty-two. It is unfortunate the teachers have no training in the liberal arts as such. The whole thing is on a rough-and-ready basis, but it is grammar, rhetoric, and logic just the same, and a good deal better than none at all.One may regret too that the materials upon which these disciplines are employed are no more significant than they are. No case book is a great book...One may regret that no serious attempt is made in the law schools to have the student learn anything about the intellectual history of the intellectual content of the law. At only one law school that I know of is it thought important to connect the law with ethics and politics... Law school did begin my formal education. Though it was too little and too late, it was something, and I shall always be grateful for it." - Robert M. Hutchins [from The Autobiography of an Uneducated Man]Different ages: different forms. Socratic dialogie today both informs and enlightens, and also amuses, since it led to so many absurd conclussions. Socratic dialogue can lead to error, therefore Socratic dialogue cannot teach the truth. This is an elementary logical fallacy.I'll leave it to you or others to tell me which one.And remember, charletans like I.F. Stone turned to the classics to burnish their self-image before death.The Classics can lead to error, therefore the Classics cannot teach the truth. This is an elementary logical fallacy....In the cases of Christie, Buck, Wyeth, Lewis, and Buckley, they were not home schooled by Mom at the kitchen table, but home-schooled by private (expensive) tutors.For those who can't afford, one will be provided for you...Rhodes doesn't define 'farmer' here, but I suspect he means Jefferson-types rather than the 40 acers and am ule types when he says 'many a farmer read Greek.'Please provide proof for your assertion. I'm curious how those Black Classicists pulled it off.

Different ages: different forms.Hegel, Heidegger, Derrida and Nietzsche agree with you.

QuoteJohn Henry Cardinal Newman, in his 1851 discourse on elementary education, illustrates the ease with which the verbalizers and memorizers are spotted in an oral examination by providing two sample transcripts of oral examinations covering grammar, history and geography.69 The first transcript compellingly demonstrates the weak performance of a student who has been indoctrinated while the second illustrates a student who knows what he is about and has mastered what he has read.70 For Newman, it is better if our students understand "a little, but well" rather than know a great deal of information about a variety of topics yet be incapable of true analysis and understanding. It is better if a student learns to "compare one idea with another; adjust truth and facts; form them into one whole, or notice the obstacles which occur in doing so. This is the way to make progress; this is the way to arrive at results; not to swallow knowledge, but (according to the figure sometimes used) to masticate and digest it."

How many in the admissions of 1734 would stand up against the Forensics team of 2004? A casual perusal of the Lincoln-Douglas debates and the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papersshow that the team of 2004 would be decisively defeated, just as Socrates defeated Protagoras.I am also curious about Abraham Lincoln's educational background