Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Our discussion of Faust will begin on July 29, and the current plan is for an eight week discussion. That means the major read will begin in early October, but I wanted to get moving on the selection before we get immersed in Goethe and to give plenty of time for those without easy access to a bookstore time to get whatever book is chosen.

The random number generator has, as usual, come up with an interesting selection for our consideration, to which are added two moderator nominations. It's a selection which includes novels, philosophy, biography, history, poetry, and science. Something that should appeal to everyone!

As usual, the list will be open for discussion and lobbying for a period until I get around to posting the poll.

Here are our choices in alphabetical order by author, and if you can't find something in this group that interests you, well, what can I say?

Augustine, Confessions
Chaucer, Troilus and Criseyde
Darwin, The Origin of Species
Dostoevsky, Crime and Punishment
Goldsmith, The Vicar of Wakefield
Herodotus, Histories
Lucretius, On the Nature of Things
Spinoza, Theological-Political Treatise

Spinoza's Theological-Political Treatise is not on the bookshelf, so it must be one of the two moderator nominations. I second that :).

My next choice would be Crime and Punishment, but I know Everyman would like us to take a break from the "modern" and read some Greek classics.

Is it an unwritten rule of the group that, if a moderator nominates a book, s/he will lead the discussion if the book is chosen?

Nemo wrote: "Is it an unwritten rule of the group that, if a moderator nominates a book, s/he will lead the discussion if the book is chosen?"

Not a rule, no. It often, perhaps usually, happens, but it's not required.

Nemo wrote: "Spinoza's Theological-Political Treatise is not on the bookshelf,..."

It is now!

I've been working through Adler's "Great Books" list and Lucretius is up in the near future so I hope it wins. On the back of my copy it says that he was heavily influenced by Epicureanism. Sounds like an interesting contrast to the Plato we read last summer?

Genni wrote: "I've been working through Adler's "Great Books" list and Lucretius is up in the near future so I hope it wins. ..."

I am trying to remember which recent book I read (unusually for me) focused initially on Lucretius. Aging memory is temporarily failing me, but maybe somebody else read the same book and remembers it.

Possibly The Swerve by Greenblatt. Anyway I too would be interested in reading Lucretius as it is bound to be a challenge and would be good for a group format.

Everyman wrote: "Genni wrote: "I've been working through Adler's "Great Books" list and Lucretius is up in the near future so I hope it wins. ..."

I am trying to remember which recent book I read (unusually for me..."

Another reason I am grateful for Goodreads. Cataloguing books here has helped me when memory fails more times than I can count. :-)

Will wrote: "I too would be interested in reading Lucretius as it is bound to be a challenge and would be good for a group format."

I remember using many adjectives in my enthusiastic review of Lucretius, such as epic, fun, creative, systematic, logical, but "challenging" is definitely not one of them. Lucretius is very much like Herodotus in that anyone who chooses can enjoy their works without any difficulty.

Everyman wrote: "...and if you can't find something in this group that interests you, well, what can I say? ..."

Because I'm feeling contrary at the moment, I tried to not be interested in any of the books listed - but I failed. :)

I'm kind of leaning towards something that isn't a novel/fiction as it seems like we've had quite a bit of that lately.

But that being said, I'm completely opened to being persuaded as they all look interesting.

Will wrote: "Possibly The Swerve by Greenblatt. Anyway I too would be interested in reading Lucretius as it is bound to be a challenge and would be good for a group format."

Bingo. That was the book. Thanks!

The Swerve is, indeed, a fine book. When I read it, I felt it was as much about the culture of the monks who preserved Lucretius and that of those who discovered it, as it was about his writings. Prescient as they may have been, the vagaries of the ways they could have been lost forever, and yet were found, are the themes of the book as far as I was concerned.

Zeke wrote: "The Swerve is, indeed, a fine book. When I read it, I felt it was as much about the culture of the monks who preserved Lucretius and that of those who discovered it, as it was about his writings. P..."

I do agree. Lucretius was the hinge on which the book opened, but not the primary focus.

But it brings to mind something I have been thinking about as I read a book of the history of the English country house which is based in considerable part on the letters and diaries which have survived over the centuries. And I sometimes marvel that we have as much literature as we do from ancient times, given that it all had to be handwritten.

And I wonder what historians five hundred years in the future will have to work with. There are almost no personal letters any more, certainly very few which compare with the letters of past centuries. Everything is email or Twitter, and will any of this survive the centuries? Just from twenty years ago I have piles of 8 inch and 5 inch and 3-1/4 inch floppy disks most of which are useless and their contents lost. I read with pleasure the letters of Jane Austen, of Johnson, of Jefferson, and many others. Who will want in two hundred years to publish "the emails of _____"?

I haven't read the Spinoza selection, but I've been dipping into a book about the Theological-Political Treatise with the intriguing title: A Book Forged in Hell: Spinoza's Scandalous Treatise and the Birth of the Secular Age. The title is a bit overstated, but the Treatise was by all accounts a daring work, and it still is considered one of the foundational texts of the Enlightenment. Among other things he argues against a literal interpretation of Scripture. The Calvinists of the powerful Dutch Reformed Church were none too pleased with this.

Spinoza is best known for his Ethics, but apparently he broke off writing the Ethics to write the Treatise, in part because he had friends who were jailed for publishing work that questioned accepted Christian ideology. He had already been excommunicated from the Jewish community due to his unconventional views on the Divine, so he was familiar with intellectual intolerance. (Despite his views and his excommunication, he is today considered a major figure in modern Jewish thought, at least historically speaking.)

I've looked at the Ethics but didn't get too far because it seems like a book to study rather than read, and I wasn't up for that at the time. Very rigorous stuff. (Interestingly, George Eliot produced the first English translation of the Ethics. Apparently she liked his attacks on superstition.)

But the Theological-Poitical Treatise looks much more approachable than the Ethics, and I'm sure it would provide for a lively discussion if chosen.

The poll has been posted.

https://www.goodreads.com/poll/show/1...

Is it bad that I want to read the Spinoza just because he was so often referenced in P.G. Wodehouse's Jeeves & Wooster stories? (For anyone who hasn't read them, Jeeves was the fantastically-clever valet to the idiotic Bertie Wooster. Jeeves used to relax by reading Spinoza, and this fact was often used as evidence of Jeeves' vast intellect.)

Not all Lori! I read The Stepford Wives and 1984 because other authors referenced them in their writings...

The notoriously difficult philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein said that Wodehouse's short story, "Honeysuckle Cottage" was the funniest thing he'd ever read. (Not that this helps Spinoza at all.)

Lori wrote: "Is it bad that I want to read the Spinoza just because he was so often referenced in P.G. Wodehouse's Jeeves & Wooster stories? "

No. Indeed, others might also want to read it because of the Lawrence Block book "The Burglar who Studied Spinoza."

^Phew! I feel much better now. Thanks, everyone.

I'm surprised that The Origin of Species is leading the poll. It is "something that everybody wants to have read and nobody wants to read", except perhaps in a group read setting.

Nemo wrote: "I'm surprised that The Origin of Species is leading the poll. It is "something that everybody wants to have read and nobody wants to read", except perhaps in a group read setting."

A bit of a surprise to me, too, but if the group decides it's what they want to read, we'll have a great discussion of as we have with other selections I was initially dubious about.

Reading Darwin is not the best way to learn about natural selection. That would come from a more recent work, since we have much more evidence now and it's much better organized and understood. It might be a good way to learn something about the history of science--how a scientist gropes his way through the data he has to a new paradigm. But it's 700 pages long--a big effort for a narrow topic, perhaps.

I think Roger makes a very good point. Darwin's work is historically significant; perhaps one of a short shelf-full of the most significant works in history. And it is stylishly written (from the excerpts I have read). But, alone, it will not shed as much light on his own theory as other, later, books could do. We might as profitably read a good biography--and that is not the purpose of this group.

Roger wrote: "Reading Darwin is not the best way to learn about natural selection. That would come from a more recent work, since we have much more evidence now and it's much better organized and understood. I..."

Also, why interest in The Origin of Species versus The Descent of Man, if one is going to explore the writings of Darwin?

It might be argued that Darwin’s the most important book on the list - offering at least one element for our self-image that is not just arbitrary. But as a scientific text it can be - and has been - improved upon, so if we want to understand evolution there are better choices. It’s a paradox, but just because Darwin’s theory has been so fruitful, we are less inclined to read the original.

Of course, just as we study Freud or Marx as scientific dead ends (interesting because of the cultural turmoil they caused), we may also read Darwin from an historical point of view. An approach in which his errors are at least as important as his insights. However, I believe that a general reader interested in the classics for other than aesthetic reasons, is usually better served with a recent interpretation.

Lucretius is also an interesting case. The humanists, I understand, were excited by the quality of his Latin verses, but I doubt whether many of us can enjoy this long poem in translation. And if, on the other hand, it is Epicurean thinking we are interested in we would probably profit more from a modern exposition (Greenblatt’s "Swerve" may be useful for the philosophy, though as history it has been severely criticized, I believe with good reason).

Why vote for reading The Origin of the Species? The old saying “de gustibus non est disputandum” (In matters of taste, there can be no dispute) may be the best response since everyone’s vote is going to reflect their own preferences. In my case, I’ve read all but one of these books (the Spinoza) and would happily reread most of them. So why did I vote for The Origin of the Species? Darwin fascinates me because he was one of those innovative thinkers who looks at the same world as everyone else and comes to a radically different conclusion. (Of course, Wallace also arrived at the same answer, just a little later). While much more is known about the mechanics of genetics, Darwin’s theories are still debated and discussed as scientists continue to debate exactly how evolution plays out in populations. His theory in general remains controversial, a case where science has gone one way and a large portion of popular opinion another. It’s one of those books, like Pilgrim’s Progress, that casts a very large shadow since Darwin’s ideas of evolution and survival of the fittest have played a role in economics and social theory since the book was published. I also checked my ppb copy with print that my middle-aged eyes find readable, and it’s 512 pages including the notes and index.

Susan: I may well be wrong, but I thought Wallace actually arrived at the theory first, or at least simultaneously. My understanding was that this is what forced Darwin to overcome his reluctance to go public and rushed him to his presentation.

Wendell: Could you elaborate on why you think Greenblatt's history is lacking? I enjoyed the book, though I was not bowled over by it. I actually found the parts about the monks more interesting than the parts about Lucretius.

My understanding is that Darwin had arrived at the idea first and spent years developing his theory. Then Wallace sent him his manuscript with the same idea, creating an ethical dilemma for Darwin because although he had discussed his ideas with friends, he had kept putting off publishing. I'd have to dig around to find the reference and it's certainly possible there are different interpretations of the events that led to Darwin getting primary credit.

"Few events inspire more speculation than long and unexplained pauses in the activities of famous people. Rossini crowned a brilliant operatic career with William Tell and then wrote almost nothing for the next thirty-five years. Dorothy Sayers abandoned Lord Peter Wimsey at the height of his popularity and turned instead to God. Charles Darwin developed a radical theory of evolution in 1838 and published it twenty-one years later only because A. R. Wallace was about to scoop him." Darwin's Delay from Ever Since Darwin by Jay Stephen Gould

@30 from Susan. Yes. This clarifies. It is how I recall it too. I believe part of Darwin's reticence was that he sensed how his theory would upend traditional Christian doctrine and feared the pain to his pious wife.

Wendel wrote: "Of course, just as we study Freud or Marx as scientific dead ends (interesting because of the cultural turmoil they caused), we may also read Darwin from an historical point of view. An approach in which his errors are at least as important as his insights."

If the book is voted in, that's the spirit in which I would approach it. Not as a textbook of natural selection, which as several point out there are much better texts on (and what atrocious grammar that was!), but first as showing the process of intellectual development and scientific endeavor which brought a whole new theory of human development into Western intellectual thought, and also to help understand the enormous intellectual upheaval which it brought into Western thinking.

Actually, the argument of "modern books are better" could be made of almost any classic scientific or historical work, but I argue that it is as important to understand the development of scientific and historic thought and how we got where we are as it is to understand its current status. There is a lot in Plato which we now reject, but just to see his process of thought, even when he's wrong, is of value.

Zeke wrote: "Wendell: Could you elaborate on why you think Greenblatt's history is lacking? ..."

I found the historical problems concerning Greenblatt’s book best formulated by prof. John Monfasani. But in fact there seem to be two different strands of criticism that we may differentiate between.

The first problem is that Greenblatt sketches a very simplified and one-sided image of the 'medieval mind', which has shocked some connoisseurs. Of course, the idea that a single poem destroyed 'medieval superstition' and led us into our brave new world is a bit silly. Historians prefer to dwell on continuity, in this case to contemplate the slow change in the balance of power in the western mind from the 8th century renaissance to the 12th century renaissance, going on to the early 14th century renaissance and the High Renaissance, not forgetting the apotheose in the Enlightenment.

But hey, a caricature is not necessarily wrong, and a guy writing popular history deserves some space. I find it very disappointing that schooled historians seem so often wishy-washy when it comes to popularization, leaving the field to journalists, or, worse [:-)], professors of literature. So it is only the second line of criticism that is really damaging Greenblatt’s case. Because now it is argued that he is not just exaggerating, neglecting the importance of long-term developments, but presenting a view that has no relation to reality at all, that is plainly wrong.

Monfasani follows this line when he concentrates his criticism on the fact that Greenblatt has no prove what’s however that Lucretius poem influenced Western development, let alone ushered us into the era of modernity. That Montaigne and Jefferson were impressed is not enough. This view accords with my less informed reaction, which must have been just the opposite of what Greenblatt intended. While I initially enjoyed the book (Greenblatt knows how to tell a tall story) I gradually started to wonder how it could be that a line of thought as interesting as the Epicurean apparently had so little influence. Not even Poggio seemed to have appreciated what Lucretius tried to say, only the way he said it.

So in the end Greenblatt's book felt like a mighty ride along the runway, but lacking lift-off. Which once again indicates that popular history is not a simple thing to do (and I'm not sure that prof. Monfasani understands the common reader when he suggests that in stead of Greenblatt he should try The History of Scepticism: From Savonarola to Bayle).

PS: perhaps I should add a link to a review by Michael Dirda - another reserved critic.

Well, the poll wound up with a three-way tie in the raw vote with six votes for each of the top three options. However, we use a weighted voting system here, where posters with 1-99 posts made count as 1 vote, those with 100-299 count as two votes, and those with 300 or more posts made count as 3 votes.

On that basis, the weighted voting was:
Goldsmith, The Vicar of Wakefield: 12 votes
Lucretius, On the Nature of Things: 10 votes
Darwin, The Origin of Species: 9 votes

On that basis, the top two finishes will go into a run-off, which I will post right now.

Not much action on the run-off poll yet. If you're planning to vote, you only have a few more days.

Well, the poll is closed.

The raw vote was even -- 6 for each.

So we go to the weighted vote.

And the weighted vote is, TA DA

Goldsmith, The Vicar of Wakefield -- 10 votes
Lucretius, On the Nature of Things -- 10 votes

So -- we read both. And let's go in that order -- Goldsmith then (after an Interim read) Lucretius.

:) it appears we can't make up our minds about these two books.