Comment by simonw
1 day ago
> Academic life was dominated by Latin and, to a lesser extent, Greek. The exact share varied, but the classical languages took up generally at least half of teaching hours, and sometimes as much as 80 percent, especially earlier in the century.
That's so weird to me. How did that tradition hold on for so long? Where did it come from? Who thought that was a good idea?
This theory continues in modern elite American Universities -- they exist not to provide job skills but to deliver a "liberal education" -- one that teaches students to think, be moral, etc. (I read from the brochure here).
Those Ivies that have more job-oriented programs tend to have (at the least) those schools looked down upon in comparison to the more 'pure' academic pursuits, e.g. Cornell's Hospitality school.
While Ivies are not tied strictly to America's true upper class, serving more as a means of entry into the upper-middle and lower-upper, this sort of signaling is an important part of some of the soft benefits they provide students -- it would be gauche to be worried about a job, ne c'est pas?
It's a thing in other countries as well. Schools which teach the classical languages in Belgium are called humaniora (literally 'more human'). About 30% of my classes were Latin and ancient Greek but we would also have more in depth art history classes.
They would lack in other education (like math and sciences) in theory but as it's also the place the best students get their education they tend to just force you to learn both (which is against some protocols afaik).
n'est-ce pas ? Sincerely,the French grammar police
Surely you mean the police grammar French
Alours. merci monsieur
USA universities have lately corrupted the meaning of the word "liberalism", turning it into its opposite. So-called "liberal education" doesn't exist anymore.
Signals must to be costly in order to be effective
Also also hard to fake and easy to slip in. You throw in a Latin quote in your conversation and either the other person gets it and you both know you're the proper class, or they don't and you both know you're higher up the ladder than they are.
This is repeatedly used in Yes, Minister to demonstrate the large class gap between Sir Humphrey (and Bernard) and Jim Hacker.
1 reply →
> Signals must to be costly in order to be effective
Utter bollocks.
A safety pin though ones nose and a pair of ripped tights costs nothing, and signals who one is (or wishes to be) very loudly and clearly.
That signal certainly sounds pretty costly to me, it would not be effective at signaling intelligence though.
Yup. It’s the shibboleth. Cuius regio, eius religio, and all that.
Spent my childhood at boarding school having my head stuffed full of Latin and Greek. Forgotten all of it.
Remember that religious study was the driving force behind much of the education that went on for a long time. If you view some version of the bible as literal divine word, learning the language it's written in makes sense.
The Catholic church only allowed mass to be delivered in a language other than Latin in the 1960s. If you wanted to simply understand what was said, you had to learn it.
you're wrong the church originally did the Mass in Rome in Greek and it allows it in several other languages in other regions from the beginning. When the Mass was changed to latin in Rome it was the speaking language of the people. Learning latin was about important for most of the western history because pretty much every important book was written or translated to Latin
The Anglican church (to which virtually all of the Victorian elite belonged) had phased out Latin since the 17th century. Likewise Victorian scientists, eg Darwin, wrote in English. (If they needed to correspond with their peers abroad, they might use Latin, but many would learn French, German, Russian...)
Its use in the Catholic church probably helped Latin survive as long as it did, but by the 19th century it was already an impractical relic whose prestige in English schools came partly from the fact that it had no actual application.
This is why grammar schools are so called, they're talking about Latin grammar
The term comes from the trivium: grammar, logic, and rhetoric. Yes grammar is literally part of it but more generally it's the learning of facts and definitions.
To know another language is to possess a second soul - Big Chuck aka Charlemagne.
Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius wrote an entire journal in Greek in the middle of enemy territory. "You could leave life right now. Let that determine what you do and say and think.". Historians criticize his Greek fluency.
Academia in Britain was intimately connected to membership of the church and, thus, to the ability to speak Latin to hold services. It held on beyond that tenure out of both momentum and prestige.
That was true in medieval times. From the start of the early modern (e.g. Henry VIII) the Church of England used English for services.
The prestige also accrued because it was the language of the educated in Europe for a long time.
Henry the Eighth never allowed vernacular service, that was his son Edward the VI.
I agree, but latin was the language of the educated in Europe because of the (Catholic) church, and the universities pre-date the C of E by several hundred years.
I was going to answer with just "the church" but the OP specifically asked about academia.
2 replies →
All academia used latin until quite recently. Because all books were written in latin.
Why do you think all animal species have a latin name? You think the ancient romans classified them?
> Why do you think all animal species have a latin name?
Good god! This proves you have _completely_ missed the point!
The reason scientic names are in lattin, is BECAUSE it is a dead language. The scientific name can therefore never be confused with the many local/regional names for a species which will always be in a living langage.
1 reply →
Genuinely bizarre comment. Why do you think the books were written in latin?
14 replies →
Who thought understanding, in depth, the fundamental bases of their legal system was a good idea?
the clergy.