One way to sense the difference between late Medieval and early Renaissance Italy is to read the amatory poetry of Dante and his friends and then compare it with Lorenzo and Poliziano, who do not so much write about loving this or that girl but something more like "Of all the girls I've ever loved..." A number of things had happened, though it is interesting that several of these neopagan loverboys, Botticelli, Pico della Mirandola, and Politian himself, were driven to repentance and remorse by Savonarola.

It is a simple economic fact that children today, along with the elderly, are burdensome where previously they had been beneficial. This wasn't so in the ancient world; it is on of modernity's great systemic disgraces, but I don't know quite where the pre-industrial switch began.

Hesiod, the ancient world's most brazen misogynist, declared that all men are miserable because they must either marry a woman or not; if they do, then they will be cursed by femininity, and if they don't, then they will be cursed by a lonely death.

The presupposition is that, even if you utterly hate and/or despise women, at least you must surely want *children*, at least to take care of you in your old age. So even if you can't stand married life and are nothing but a completely selfish archaic Greek, having children is still an irreducible desideratum. Even the graceless and loveless find children *useful*!

Industrialization tends to make children economically worthless, because everything they can do, machines can do better (this is of course a big part of modernity's death-preference). My guess re. Renaissance intellectuals is that their connections with Italian courts separated them from value-generation, which was possible only in a post-Medieval, money-centered economy (allowing the separation of foedus and manor). But perhaps TJF has more to say about Renaissance barrenness-love, not simply as a matter of fact (or as an instance of libido dominandi, which is even in Lucifer's case merely derivative) but as a matter of (nascent?) systemic corruption.

We might say more about children's value in a feudal-manorialist economy, at various levels in such a society, but I'd likely be accused of distributist tendencies...

The Renaissance understanding of the ancient world is a very big topic. Generally speaking, Renaissance humanists were interested in recovering texts, correcting their Latin on classical models, and learning Greek. Petrarch, for all his effort to detach himself from the Medieval world and celebrate the ancients, remained a Medieval man. Poliziano, more than a century later, had much better classical Latin and knew Greek quite well. The development of a historical methodology and philology, however, took a good deal of time, and each age reads into the ancients what it is looking for. Some Renaissance men were looking for an excuse for hedonism and they found it, and ever since pious Christians have turned away from the classics on moral grounds. I haven't thought much about Renaissance Italy since my graduate school days, but this year it is mostly what I am doing.

Then I'll post something on the first scene of the Agamemnon tomorrow at the latest. Whether you or anyone will learn something is one thing. You will certainly get a point of view not commonly taught.

Interesting. I was thinking only in the purely literal seperation of sex and procreation manifested in today's widespread acceptence and celebration of contraception; I never considered the intellectual roots of the schism. It seems we've been heading down this road for longer than I previously thought.

Dr. Fleming,

The word "Renaissance" is supposed to reflect the rebirth of the classical world. But, how badly did the Renaissance misunderstand Greek and Roman culture in general. I realize that is probably a long subject, but perhaps you could point out some basic starting points. We seem to be losing our energy with Xenophon, so I'm up for Oresteia or Agamemnon anytime. I read both last spring, but would have enjoyed some guidance. I'm fairly sure I missed alot that was there.

A digression on natural goodness. Philosophers generally accept what they take to be Hume's distinction between "is" and "ought" and the gulf between them that prevents us from leaping from fact to value. Stephen R.L. Clark some years ago did a good job of showing that Hume has been overinterpreted. This is important because a rigid fact/value distinction would seem to be inconsistent with his generally Aristotelian bent (one that he shares with other Scottish Enlightenment thinkers). It seems to me that all I needed to show, in Politics of Human Nature, was that there are natural tendencies in the created order that, if followed, are conducive to human happiness. (My late friend Sam Francis disagreed with me on this, but in those days he was a rigid materialist.) This is what, for example, Bishop Butler tried to do in his famous Analogy. Revelation perfects our understanding of the moral order but it does not entirely overturn it. As Paul observes, we are looking into a distorted mirror here on earth, but we are not looking into complete darkness.

Thus, JE is perfectly correct to object to any crude reduction of moral questions either to sociobiological or other material explanations. On the other hand, we are not angels but animals with a soul and/or mind, which is compelled for the most part to work through our organic body. So the question would seem to be, why, considering our natural propensities, we have chosen a sexual morality that is both evil (in the Christian sense) and apparently self-destructive? To answer that would require at least a book, but I do believe that the separation of sex and procreation was part of the Renaissance misunderstanding of pagan sexual mores. Thus Lorenzo and Poliziano with their cheerful celebrations of Eros. The darker side of this can be seen in all the alchemical and magical remedies to prevent or cure the disease of pregnancy--the majority of recipes, according to some scholars. When this is set beside the parallel attempt to create life in test tubes--one of Paracelsus pet projects--we begin to see the outlines of the world we live in. Yes, they thought they were pagans when in fact they were only anti-Christian hedonists, prating about the soul and Platonic love. In a slightly different context, namely Venice, Browning wondered: "What of soul was left, I wonder, when the kissing had to stop?" I don't know if this will persuade JE, but I fear that an old pedant is beginning to lose the attention of his readers. For a more prolonged discussion of this we could set up a separate column or blog. JE is free to send me a message via webmaster. I am, understandably, reluctant to publicize the email, but I will respond.

Finally, thanks to Mr. Cooney for making the issue at hand plain and clear. Should we wrap up Xenophon or consider the second half of the Oeconomicus? In either event, it has been requested that we take up Aeschylus' Oresteia, which I promised years ago, or at least the Agamemnon. As for translations, I don't recommend Lattimore--quite the contrary. Smyth's old Loeb is fairly clear and the text is quite conservative. My dissertation director Douglas Young did a very literal verse translation published by Oklahoma, which I went over with him, largely to suggest verbal clarity and rhythmic patterns. A straightforward prose translation would be better than something ultrapoetical.

JE's discussion is a little bit over my head, but I'd like to try to respond to the specific question of our gnostic attitudes towards sex, and their particular consequences for women.

The foundation for the Catholic Church's teaching on sexuality, is "What God has joined together, let no man put asunder." The results of splitting apart the dual purposes of sex was discussed brilliantly in Humanae Vitae.

A brief synopsis: First, there is an increase in infidelity, which causes pain, anger, and resentment within families. This has a cyclical effect, and ultimately disrupts the well being of society, and perverts the moral order. Second, we become slaves to our passions. This is especially damaging to young people as they are constantly tempted to things they lack the faculties to resist. Contemporary experience and ancient wisdom reveal that nobody can be truly satisfied when they exist in this kind of servitude. It is far worse than physical slavery. The third result is probably most relevant to the unhappiness of women today. I'll quote the encyclical:

"Another effect that gives us cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equillibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection."

This may be at the heart of why so many women are empty and miserable. Most women seem to have a deep desire for affection and a stable, constant relationship with a man. I sense this is why watching romance comedies and Lifetime Network are so popular with women. They don't seem quite concious of what they are lacking, and they look for it--as the songs says--in all the wrong places. Contrary to what feminists say, a woman is happiest when she is loved and treated with dignity by her husband, has a full household of children, and receives the blessings of Christ and His Church. A proper understanding of sexuality, then, is a source of joy and stability. The misuse of this powerful gift causes great pain on a personal level, and chaos in society. "What God has joined together, let no man put asunder."

My wife has only one concern: will she have sufficient funds to support herself after I die. She wouldn't be reluctant to get a job, if necessary; however, lacking experience and education, she doesn't think she will be qualified for one that pays very much.