Classics and the Western Canon discussion

We have occasional debates in this group about what makes a classic, and while it's always an interesting conversation, I doubt that we've ever arrived at a definition. In 1944, T. S. Eliot delivered an address entitled, "What is a Classic?" in which he makes Vergil an exemplar of the classic. Hard to argue with that. But Italo Calvino asks something a little different in the title of his essay "Why Read the Classics?"

For the interim read we invite you to take a look at Calvino's short essay entitled just that: Why Read the Classics?

https://whumspring2010.files.wordpres...

1. Calvino offers a number of definitions of a classic, almost as if he's thinking out loud as he's answering the question. Does he finally answer the question the essay poses?

2. Which definition appeals to you most?

3. His first definitions address the past of both the work at hand and the reader. Some books are so powerful, for whatever reason, that they become foundational for us. What classics have helped to form you as a reader or a person?

Italo Calvino is always fun to read, and I think this short essay is a classic in itself. I hope you enjoy it.

He doesn't include age as a criterion. I thought classics had to stand the test of time.

The essay inspires me to re-read CS Lewis’ “An Experiment in Criticism.”

The definition that struck me most is that the classic’s don’t necessarily teach you things you didn’t know prior to reading. They express an eternal truth in a unique way, one that you already know subconsciously or know in a different way.

It brings to mind the Great Conversation where all these minds interact within a shared tradition.

There is so much I love about this essay, but this is one of my favorite sections:

There should therefore be a time in adult life devoted to revisiting the most important books of our youth. Even if the books have remained the same (though they do change, in the light of an altered historical perspective), we have most certainly changed, and our encounter will be an entirely new thing.

I try to make it a point to read Don Quixote once every ten years for this very reason. Reading the novel each time is like visiting an old friend and, in the process, discovering something new about your friend and yourself because you are not the same person you were ten years ago.

I love this essay! Specially this part: "There is nothing for it but for all of us to invent our own ideal libraries of classics. I would say that such a library ought to be composed half of books we have read and that have really counted for us, and half of books we propose to read and presume will come to count—leaving a section of empty shelves for surprises and occasional discoveries."

Roger wrote: "He doesn't include age as a criterion. I thought classics had to stand the test of time."

Good point. Some of his definitions are objective, such as "a classic is a book that has never finished what is has to say," but most of them are subjective. This makes sense to me inasmuch as there are no classics without readers to think of them as classics, but it also highlights the difficulty in giving an objective definition of what a classic is. For that I think there would have to be some kind of cultural consensus, and that has to happen over time.

Thank you for the opportunity to read and discuss this essay.


For me, a classic is a book that can alter my perception in such a way that the person I am now wouldn't exist if I hadn't read it.

"Every rereading of a classic is as much a voyage of discovery as the first reading"

For me, this book is James Joyce's Ulysses. Each time I read it, I do it along with my former selves who have read it in the past. They are watching me closely in their brown mackintosh coats, curious about what I might discover.

Emil wrote: "For me, this book is James Joyce's Ulysses. Each time I read it, I do it along with my former selves who have read it in the past. They are watching me closely in their brown mackintosh coats, curious about what I might discover.
..."

Your reading group reminds me of Stephen's comment:

"We walk through ourselves, meeting robbers, ghosts, giants, old men, young men, wives, widows, brothers-in-love, but always meeting ourselves. "

I have a copy of Ulysses that I found at a garage sale 30 years ago. Each time I read it I make margin notes in a different color so I can meet my previous selves, of which there are six at this point. My twenty-something self was fascinated by Stephen and merely amused by Bloom. Now I find the opposite is the case, and the book has only become richer over time.

There are a few elements that I look for when defining a classic aside from some of the others mentioned. It has to have excellent if not superior story telling. You cannot have any banal or redundant fillers. How does the author use language, such as breadth of vocabulary and precise descriptions. Is the writing beautiful and edifying? In other words, has the author honed his craft to such an extent that it becomes art.

Kerstin wrote: "There are a few elements that I look for when defining a classic aside from some of the others mentioned. It has to have excellent if not superior story telling. You cannot have any banal or redund..."

I can agree with this in part, sometimes, but I suppose we have to make a distinction between different kinds of classics. Kant was not a stellar prose stylist. Aristotle didn't even write his own stuff. Plato is one of the few philosophers who was able to express abstract ideas with style, but his style isn't what made his work classic, though that certainly helped his work stand the test of time. Maybe philosophy and novels and poetry and science have their own special qualities to qualify as "classic."

It was mentioned earlier that age should be included as a criterion for identifying a classic, i.e. that a classic has to stand the test to time. I'm wondering if the age and/or level of maturity of the reader plays a role in any of this. Calvino says:

Youth brings to reading, as to any other experience, a particular flavor and a particular sense of importance, whereas in maturity one appreciates (or ought to appreciate) many more details and levels and meanings.

I'm not suggesting young people can't enjoy the classics. I'm sure they can and they do. But I am wondering if one has to have experienced some of the hard knocks of life that come with aging in order to fully appreciate the details and levels of meaning in a classic.

I guess what I'm asking is this: is it just the classic that has to stand the test of time? Or does the reader have to have some time under his/her belt in order to fully appreciate a classic?

Thomas wrote: " Maybe philosophy and novels and poetry and science have their own special qualities to qualify as "classic."

I would say so. "Literature" is a generic term which we subdivide into different genres, and each of these genres have their own characteristics.

Tamara wrote: "I guess what I'm asking is this: is it just the classic that has to stand the test of time? Or does the reader have to have some time under his/her belt in order to fully appreciate a classic?"

The answer, I would say, is both. When we look at fiction you have to start with a good story. It is the story that draws us in. The good stories have levels of meaning that reveal themselves over time. It doesn't matter whether we are reading Charlotte's Web or The Brothers Karamazov. We can draw tremendous joy from rereading a book that we've always loved. I see this especially with my grandchildren. It is amazing to me how often I can read the same book to them again and again and they don't seem to tire of it. They just love to be in the world it creates. Maybe those of us who love to read the classics have retained that child-like wonder when we immerse ourselves into these timeless stories.

My reaction is that this essay explores the topic without reaching a final resolution, and maybe that’s appropriate to its intuitive and creative approach.

My favorite of his examples is the one of a book/author you engage with by ardent disagreement. He gives the example of Rousseau. I read most philosophy this way, questioning and counter-arguing as a way of understanding, but I think he means an author who provokes your disagreement as well as respect.

He also offers yet another example through the authors he lists as classics. I had to look up some of these as I’d never heard of them. As usual, my reading list gets longer…Lucian, de Retz, Quevedo.

And, I find that each age brings something different for me as a reader. For example, reading the Iliad as a young woman, I saw the folly and senselessness of war and could sympathize with Thersites’ view of Agamemnon. Reading it in middle age, I noticed how the details of the imagery create a picture of a long gone world, and the careful way the poet gives each warrior an individual death, so each has a different path to the same end. Reading it now, I expect I’ll see something different, that was always there implicit in the text, but not seen by me up till now.

I've really enjoyed the comments on this read.

Tamara wrote: "It was mentioned earlier that age should be included as a criterion for identifying a classic, i.e. that a classic has to stand the test to time. . . I am wondering if one has to have experienced some of the hard knocks of life that come with aging in order to fully appreciate the details and levels of meaning in a classic."

I agree with Tamara's point in that I feel I have gained a deeper understanding of the classics as I've grown older, but I don't think that's due to the hard knocks I've experienced so much as the wider reading I have done. In other words, books have more meaning for me as I have a greater context in which to place them.

Donnally wrote: "I don't think that's due to the hard knocks I've experienced so much as the wider reading I have done. In other words, books have more meaning for me as I have a greater context in which to place them..."

Great point! It may be a combination of factors: greater life experiences coupled with more extensive readings.

Life experience, which includes wide reading. Because reading itself is an experience. When I first read The Odyssey, I was a young man in high school. How could I know what my life would bring, what my journey would be like? Now I’ve just reread it (Emily Wilson’s translation), and when I read Odysseus' finding himself in a mist on an unfamiliar shore, an old man, I can grasp the whole journey. Here I am in an old man’s body, in a place the young man would never recognize.
But Since I did read it when I was young, I can appreciate the whole span and see Odysseus’s journey as my own.

I'm responding to this discussion after some time because it often takes me a while to recognize what's rattling around in my mind. There's some conflation/confusion in this discussion between two things that aren't the same: a classic and a masterpiece.
The classics are the works that have been read for a long time and have informed the growth of our civilization. They are the works one must be acquainted with in order to be educated. A masterpiece, on the other hand, is something else. It is a little harder to define what a masterpiece is. I don't think it has much to do with craft. It has something to do with some genius doing exactly what he set out to do. I have heard the phrase 'an instant classic.' According to my definition, there can be no such thing.
Look at the Athenian dramatists for instance. These works are undoubtedly classics. The myths and legends they tell are fundamental to Western civilization. Much literature and art would be incomprehensible without an awareness of these works. But are they all masterpieces? By no means. Some of them are barely plays. Much of Aeschylus is almost impossible to understand. Much of Euripides is clearly sloppy work he wasn't much interested in. But there are works, such as Agamemnon, Oedipus Rex, or The Bacchae that are that rare thing: both a classic and a masterpiece.
Ulysses is a masterpiece. Is it a classic? Time will tell.

Donnally wrote: "I'm responding to this discussion after some time because it often takes me a while to recognize what's rattling around in my mind. There's some conflation/confusion in this discussion between two ..."

Great point! Indeed, people usually mix the two categories. Both those who likes the idea of classics and the ones that despise this label. Some people don't accept that classics can be criticized. For them, classics are above criticism, when this is stupid. Everything can be criticized. Those that don't like this label, when they criticize the idea of a classic they also confuse the two concepts (but it's not out of nowhere, usually it's a response to the first group).

For me the most fascinating thing about this essay is how easily it turns from the question it poses: Why Read the Classics? to What is a Classic?

Kind of like how almost every investigation of ethics or aesthetics in Plato boils down to the one big question: What is the Good? The answer will always be ambiguous and unsatisfactory, and yet we still make judgements about what is good and what is bad art. Sometimes those judgements change. Sometimes they don't, sometimes for centuries.

Thomas wrote: "For me the most fascinating thing about this essay is how easily it turns from the question it poses: Why Read the Classics? to What is a Classic?

Actually, I think they're pretty much the same question.

I like your noting the distinction between "classic" and "masterpiece," but I struggle to think of an example of something that is one but not the other. To become a "classic" I think requires some time, or durability. And also, since we are reading "The Western Canon," a work must have gained some recognition by Authority. Thus arises a controversy about what is excluded. I'm not coming up with examples. Or disagreements about works whose inclusion is disputed. Maybe Justine by de Sade?

I believe a masterpiece is a concept more objective. A classic depends on the era and on the geography. Journey to the West is a Chinese classic, the Mahabharata is an Indian classic, the Divine Comedy is a european classic. Each one of these books co-create the culture where they live on and at the same time they were created by that same culture. But none of them are classics to the other cultures. They have not shaped the other cultures. But all of them are masterpieces.

El burlador o el convidado de piedra by Tirso de Molina is a Spanish classic, but if you ask any person outside Spain, hardly the general public would know it.

Aphra Behn wrote some great plays and poems, but she was forgotten by the public for some centuries. She made a lot of success in her lifetime. A classic is a concept that is subject to how history flows. It relies on human decisions. Something may be a masterpiece but historical or sociological ideologies might willingly put that work in oblivion. A culture that loathes a specific ethnic identity will not allow that identity to prevail, for example.