I read Greek classics - mostly philosophers. I usually have something going as I read modern stuff. And I say, the Greek stuff can be pretty boring. It's a lot of pontificating and observation and doesn't really interest modern readers.
I don't think everyone needs to read 'the classics', but some should.
This comment isn't really intended to sound snobbish, but...
I took Ancient Greek in college, and toward the end of the term was reading "The Clouds" in the original. And it was incredibly funny. But I've never found a non-boring translation.
Which led me to suspect that a lot of the modern rejection of classics comes more from the culture and norms of classical scholars' translations than from anything in the works themselves.
(a similar problem is known to have happened more recently with Dumas' "Three Musketeers", which suffered from English translators whose prudishness cut out a lot of fun bits from the original French)
There is a lot that gets lost in translations. Even from more modern languages where you think translations might well...translate better...fail to translate well due to linguistic differences.
For example, Japanese wordplay doesn't always translate very well to other languages. Since so much of the wordplay relies on similar pronunciation between two words.
私は「今は何時ですか？」ってネコに尋ねました。「ニャぁニャぁ」が返事しました。
"I asked the cat 'what time is it now?' The cat replied 'meow meow'."
Translators note: The Japanese pronunciation for 7 is "なな (nana)" which sounds like ニャアニャア (nyaa nyaa), which is the Japanese onomatopoeia for a cat's meow. I'm not sure if having the cat respond "meow meow" or "seven" is more funny for the English translation. The joke works better in it's original language as the cat could also be responding with "seven".
I was reading a summary of Macbeth with my kids this morning and came across several "lost in translations" from English to English - mainly through changes in pronunciation and meaning of words changing over time. For example, the words "fear" and "fair" would have almost sounded identical in early 1600 leading to a play on words of the two themes in Macbeth.
There are companies which do original-pronunciation Shakespeare and make a point of showing wordplay and rhymes that don't exist in modern English pronunciation. This video has an example:
Just from anime and j-pop I know that Japanese wordplay is off the scale crazy to follow along with, especially when they mix it up with English. When I read Japanese literature in English it is important to read the author's notes or else one can miss huge tracts of plot.
A simple example from pop culture would be the Miku Hatsune concerts "39 Giving Day" where '39' sounds like 'thank you' in English and they play 39 songs. In the credits for the MikuFlick iOS game it says at the end "39 for playing!". It's a simple example of what you mean, but j-pop is rife with this. Visual imagery too, the official video for Morning Misume's An Adolescent Boy is Crying Again on youtube has a fan's explanation of the imagery used, it's honestly a good read. (video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtboKJ4D8zg but can't find the comment among the train-wreck that is YT comments). Posting MM video links on HN, what have I become? cries
語呂合わせ is fun! As a Japanese speaker - I prefer it over the major mnemonic system [0]. I find memorizing "Japanese gibberish" easier than forming nonsensical-but-valid English words.
So instead of forming Japanese words (proper 語呂合わせ ) I'll memorize a string of gibberish Japanese sounds.
In Finland there is a collection of ancient stories or poems - Kalevala. It is something like Iliad and the Odyssey. Language of those poems is really something unique and exceptional. I have been always thinking that it is impossible to really translate it to any other languages. Probably same applies also to original greek works - we who have not studied ancient Greek, can read only bland versions of texts.
It was in Corinth that a meeting between Alexander the Great and Diogenes is supposed to have taken place.[30] The accounts of Plutarch and Diogenes Laërtius recount that they exchanged only a few words: while Diogenes was relaxing in the sunlight in the morning, Alexander, thrilled to meet the famous philosopher, asked if there was any favour he might do for him. Diogenes replied, "Yes, stand out of my sunlight". Alexander then declared, "If I were not Alexander, then I should wish to be Diogenes", to which Diogenes replied, "If I were not Diogenes, I should also wish to be Diogenes."[31] In another account of the conversation, Alexander found the philosopher looking attentively at a pile of human bones. Diogenes explained, "I am searching for the bones of your father but cannot distinguish them from those of a slave."[32]
Surely part of the point is that he was not bowing to arbitrary authority and was getting away with it. Which perhaps says something about the Greek attitude to philosophers. Of course Alexander was taught by Aristotle so perhaps he had a soft spot for philosophers.
No wonder you say you can find the Greek stuff "pretty boring." There's so much more to Greek literature than philosophy. Try
* Homer - the closest thing the Greeks had to the Bible, yet so different in spirit in that it raises unanswerable questions about the Greeks' beliefs, without affirming them
* Aristophanes - slapstick humor
* Sophocles, Euripides, Aeschylus - the great tragedians
* Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon - some of the greatest historians ever, although they fall somewhat short of our modern standards for historical rigor
* Lysias - mainly valuable as a record of the Greek legal process
* Lucian - for satire (if you don't like philosophers, you'll love Lucian)
Archimedes' "Sand Reckoner" is pretty readable, too. And people have been known to read Euclid for fun. (Or at least as much fun as a modern math textbook.)
Ah, but isn't Homer the father of Greek Philosophy. Many may say it is Socrates, but Socrates calls on Homer more often than I can remember anyone else.
Thucydides is especially interesting for me since he was a historian--but far from being a dispassionate observer, actually played a small role in the history he was trying to describe (as you hint at when discussing their rigor).
" a lot of pontificating and observation and doesn't really interest modern readers"
Can you be clear about what DOES interest modern readers if it's not to understand human nature and the world around us? Or are you second guessing because of the prevalence of Twitter and Facebook?
I think people should read enough from the classics to understand how old some ideas are — we tend to think of certain philosophies, narrative styles, jokes, and other things as relatively modern and usually they're much, much older than that.
Once you understand that, you understand that you can trace ideas through history and sometimes view their genesis and evolution — it adds a lot of perspective.
That's a very valuable lesson and one that can be learned from relatively little reading — after that, one may read or not read according to one's taste. Not everyone is cut out to go straight through Aristotle, or Livy, or what have you. You can get their ideas second hand (or third, or fourth, or five hundredth) - the important part, I think, is learning that intelligence, insight, humor, and wisdom are by no means modern contrivances (and may even have suffered a little over time).
I also think it can be very revealing of just how biased our interpretations are, even without the issues surrounding translation. Our context for interpreting these works is completely different from their contemporary context, yet we still find ideas that resonate with us over 2500 years even though the context needed to understand their original meaning is long gone.
Ovid's The Erotic Poems are a fine and entertaining example of Roman knowledge and wit with regards to human relationships. So much from 2000 years ago is still relevant today if you want to get some tail. Mixed with the continuous references to Greek mythology (for which I was very glad for the authors notes at the back of the book) and you really wonder why classical literature is not a part of the school curriculum now. The breadth of knowledge relevant to today is astounding.
It's really sad that the author feels the need to be so defensive.
Apparently the idea that ancient Europeans, "Oldest Dead White European Males", had a massive contribution to culture is somehow considered wrong and offensive today.
I hope that the author is overreacting and not responding to a real intellectual retardation prevalent in academia.
If you're interested, look up Mary Beard. She is extremely knowledgeable on ancient Rome without the sexist attitude. I've spoken to her a few times, she's a lovely woman who I hold in high regard. Mary did a wonderful series on BCC called "Meet The Romans". A very insightful review. Go Mary!!
There are some areas in academia (esp. among Lit. Crit. and cultural studies types) where the term DWEM (dead white european male) is used to criticize the traditional canon as a kind of cultural chauvinism. I studied Classics where that sentiment was not popular, and it wasn't something historians cared much about. I did have some really disturbing conversations with hard-core feminists and black studies students where they radically misunderstood what they thought they were criticizing, so it's a thing in some domains. There are some people who really think that the ideas of the birthplace of constitutional democratic governance are at the root of authoritarianism and imperialism. The tendency to diminish the accomplishment of the Greeks was much more a thing in popularizing literature (things like Black Athena) than serious academic work. So it depends a lot on the department (and the prof.), and on the type of work they were doing. Oldest Dead White European Males was also the title of a book by Bernard Knox explaining the relevance, originality, and significance of the Greeks.
I want a minimal list of what I should read from the ancient Greeks to get a reasonable understanding of the most important things. Any greek geeks care to comment on what the absolute must-not-be-missed works are? Im trying to learn too many things at once to be comprehensive.
Start with A Brief History of Ancient Greece to get a sense of the social-political-historical context. If you have time, Hamilton's Mythology.
Then Homer. Opinions vary on which translation of the Iliad is best (and it makes a huge difference). I'd stay away from Pope which is more of a remake than a translation. Lombardo is very modern. Lattimore is typically used for academic purposes. I would recommend Fagles.
After that, it depends on what you're into.
Philosophy? Pre-Socratics -> Plato -> Aristotle. What you choose here again depends on what you're into. There's politics, metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics, etc.
History? Herodotus -> Thucydides -> Xenophon (The Landmark series for all 3)
To grok their sense of life, the absolute best book is "The Greek Experience" by Cecil M. Bowra [1]. No other modern book will give you as much (I've read dozens; this one I first read 14 years ago). It's about 200 pages long.
It covers the unity of the Greeks, their heroic outlook, the gods, the city and the individual, the good man and the good life, myth and symbol, imagination and reality, the plastic vision, and the place of reason.
If you're attracted to philosophy and its history, consider Wilhelm Windelband's history of ancient philosphy [1]. One of the best histories, focused on essentials.
Alexander Stepanov (co-author of the C++ standard template library) has been teaching a class at A9 on important works of civilization. The focus is on the most influential works---that is, the works that were read and influenced the development of western civilization. The lectures are online at YouTube:
Unfortunately, it would be easier to consume as audio files as the video adds little. The lectures to date have been on the Greeks but the course is ongoing and will come up to more modern times, ending with Martin Luther King.
On the Nature of Things (De rerum natura) by Lucretius is a fascinating glimpse at the foundation of scientific thought from the 1st century BC. I just finished reading it; it's an interesting mix of combining logic with observation to try to understand physical phenomenon. He gets many things wrong from a modern understanding of physics; but there are many prescient ideas including the idea of indivisible particles of matter and that much of what we interpret as "solid" is primarily composed of empty space.
I think it's important to note that Lucretius was a poet not a philosopher or scientist. He didn't invent the ideas he related he was trying to preserve them for posterity.
I think the point was essentially that Greek and Latin as languages were only taught to the upper classes, those who pay for their education at private schools up to age 18. Those people, educated in subjects not open to the commoners, and at additional expense, then have an advantage when applying for a place an Oxford/Cambridge on the classics courses. Those courses then take in a disproportionate number of upper class students. Thus, the British class system is continued and reinforced by those universities that have been criticized in the past for not taking enough commoners.
Ie, they form a club based on talking dead languages no-one else understands and use Greek/Latin as a qualification for being included in the club, as well as where you were educated.
Class is very much a thing in the UK in certain circles. I have known people to succeed where others were forced to fail because of where they were educated.
A great thing that you will learn from reading the ancient classics is that people such as the Greeks and Romans were much closer to our modern ideals of science and society than people of even 500 years ago, despite living in a completely different world. I think the collapse of ancient civilizations was one of the most culturally damaging events of human history, and we are lucky that we managed to revert, at least partially, the decay of knowledge that ensued.
> Also, that's a pretty Europe centric view. Have you looked at eg China?
Culturally damaging events can be restricted to (relatively) small areas of the world. Conversely, Mao’s “Cultural Revolution” was also a culturally very damaging event in human history, despite being restricted to one (other) area.
The idea that nothing that happened in Europe is relevant because there are other parts of the world, too and that considering an event in Europe to be potentially world-changing is “pretty Europe centric” is one of the reasons that few people outside humanities consider the field any more relevant to reality than, say, string theory.
So, yes, stuff happened in China, too. Doesn’t mean that stuff didn’t also happen in Europe and that both stuff happening in China and stuff happening in Europe can affect the course of history.
That was a provision, as one may never be fully aware of how much was there to begin with, considering that we're talking about a flourishing period for so many things (about which we've managed to savage knowledge).
There were big libraries, like the one in Alexandria, that were destroyed. Nobody knows exactly what was there, although we have several lists of books that have not made into the modern world.
One thing that bothers me is the author remark that the Greeks never had any organised state like structure except for the Macedonian kingdoms ..yes they did for like 1000 years. It was called the Byzantine empire. Before the modern Greek state appeared the Greek diaspora used to identify itself not as Greek but as romai ... Citizen of the eastern roman empire.
While there seems to be a rich seam of culture that can be mined from the ancient Greeks, does the source of the ideas really matter? If we're looking to teach about the ideas behind human culture in schools, could we not incorporate the ideas from the Greeks, Romans, etc... in some form of Sociology course (like Sociology but with an expanded remit)? Can also use the ideas from the ancient world to enhance Critical Thinking courses and History courses and Literature courses.
I guess what I'm saying is I'd prefer to see the fruits of the ancient world to be used to enhance a broad range of subjects, to help us contrast them with ideas throughout our history, rather than treating it as a single subject.
I see where you're coming from, but poems, plays, and sculpture are "the fruits of the ancient world." A work like the Iliad only comes around once every few millennia, and no synopsis will frame its ideas so starkly.
The Iliad and The Odyssey are two of the most thrilling pieces of literature available to a reader today, and they both pose difficult moral questions. I just can't imagine a sociology textbook writer formulating a "What do you think: Glory, or Contentedness?" segment as compelling as the entire arc of Achilles' role in the battle for Troy.
So yes, the lessons of the ancient world are applicable to a broad range of subjects, but the art is also valuable in and of itself.
"So yes, the lessons of the ancient world are applicable to a broad range of subjects, but the art is also valuable in and of itself."
True, but I did mention studying these works through Literature courses, would this not be a suitable way to approach The Iliad and The Odyssey?
I guess I'd rather have a greater amount of flexibility in the education system for bringing together both old and new ideas. Whilst there's certainly plenty of material worthy of study from the activity of the ancient Greeks, what about other periods of time? If we have a separate course on the classics, should we have a course on the Renaissance as well (for example)?
52 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 122 ms ] threadI don't think everyone needs to read 'the classics', but some should.
That's because you're only reading the boring ones! Aristophanes is still funny and very worth reading today for a typical person, in my opinion.
I took Ancient Greek in college, and toward the end of the term was reading "The Clouds" in the original. And it was incredibly funny. But I've never found a non-boring translation.
Which led me to suspect that a lot of the modern rejection of classics comes more from the culture and norms of classical scholars' translations than from anything in the works themselves.
(a similar problem is known to have happened more recently with Dumas' "Three Musketeers", which suffered from English translators whose prudishness cut out a lot of fun bits from the original French)
For example, Japanese wordplay doesn't always translate very well to other languages. Since so much of the wordplay relies on similar pronunciation between two words.
私は「今は何時ですか？」ってネコに尋ねました。「ニャぁニャぁ」が返事しました。
"I asked the cat 'what time is it now?' The cat replied 'meow meow'."
Translators note: The Japanese pronunciation for 7 is "なな (nana)" which sounds like ニャアニャア (nyaa nyaa), which is the Japanese onomatopoeia for a cat's meow. I'm not sure if having the cat respond "meow meow" or "seven" is more funny for the English translation. The joke works better in it's original language as the cat could also be responding with "seven".
I also came across this interesting article on Kurosawa's interpretation of Macbeth, http://www.academia.edu/3306558/Lost_in_Translation_Reconsid...
I suspect there is a lot lost in translation, which can be challenging when reading old texts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s
A simple example from pop culture would be the Miku Hatsune concerts "39 Giving Day" where '39' sounds like 'thank you' in English and they play 39 songs. In the credits for the MikuFlick iOS game it says at the end "39 for playing!". It's a simple example of what you mean, but j-pop is rife with this. Visual imagery too, the official video for Morning Misume's An Adolescent Boy is Crying Again on youtube has a fan's explanation of the imagery used, it's honestly a good read. (video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtboKJ4D8zg but can't find the comment among the train-wreck that is YT comments). Posting MM video links on HN, what have I become? cries
So instead of forming Japanese words (proper 語呂合わせ ) I'll memorize a string of gibberish Japanese sounds.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mnemonic_major_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes_of_Sinope
It was in Corinth that a meeting between Alexander the Great and Diogenes is supposed to have taken place.[30] The accounts of Plutarch and Diogenes Laërtius recount that they exchanged only a few words: while Diogenes was relaxing in the sunlight in the morning, Alexander, thrilled to meet the famous philosopher, asked if there was any favour he might do for him. Diogenes replied, "Yes, stand out of my sunlight". Alexander then declared, "If I were not Alexander, then I should wish to be Diogenes", to which Diogenes replied, "If I were not Diogenes, I should also wish to be Diogenes."[31] In another account of the conversation, Alexander found the philosopher looking attentively at a pile of human bones. Diogenes explained, "I am searching for the bones of your father but cannot distinguish them from those of a slave."[32]
No wonder you say you can find the Greek stuff "pretty boring." There's so much more to Greek literature than philosophy. Try
* Homer - the closest thing the Greeks had to the Bible, yet so different in spirit in that it raises unanswerable questions about the Greeks' beliefs, without affirming them
* Aristophanes - slapstick humor
* Sophocles, Euripides, Aeschylus - the great tragedians
* Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon - some of the greatest historians ever, although they fall somewhat short of our modern standards for historical rigor
* Lysias - mainly valuable as a record of the Greek legal process
* Lucian - for satire (if you don't like philosophers, you'll love Lucian)
Can you be clear about what DOES interest modern readers if it's not to understand human nature and the world around us? Or are you second guessing because of the prevalence of Twitter and Facebook?
Once you understand that, you understand that you can trace ideas through history and sometimes view their genesis and evolution — it adds a lot of perspective.
That's a very valuable lesson and one that can be learned from relatively little reading — after that, one may read or not read according to one's taste. Not everyone is cut out to go straight through Aristotle, or Livy, or what have you. You can get their ideas second hand (or third, or fourth, or five hundredth) - the important part, I think, is learning that intelligence, insight, humor, and wisdom are by no means modern contrivances (and may even have suffered a little over time).
The understatement of the century, or you are too nice.
I think people should read enough from the classics to understand how few new ideas there are
Apparently the idea that ancient Europeans, "Oldest Dead White European Males", had a massive contribution to culture is somehow considered wrong and offensive today.
I hope that the author is overreacting and not responding to a real intellectual retardation prevalent in academia.
Then Homer. Opinions vary on which translation of the Iliad is best (and it makes a huge difference). I'd stay away from Pope which is more of a remake than a translation. Lombardo is very modern. Lattimore is typically used for academic purposes. I would recommend Fagles.
After that, it depends on what you're into.
Philosophy? Pre-Socratics -> Plato -> Aristotle. What you choose here again depends on what you're into. There's politics, metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics, etc.
History? Herodotus -> Thucydides -> Xenophon (The Landmark series for all 3)
Theater? Oresteia, Medea, the Theban Cycle.
Mythology? Hesiod.
I would recommend it to anyone who wants to trace the thoughts of the Greeks forward to WW2 era-ish, thoroughly enjoyable read.
It covers the unity of the Greeks, their heroic outlook, the gods, the city and the individual, the good man and the good life, myth and symbol, imagination and reality, the plastic vision, and the place of reason.
[1] http://www.amazon.com/dp/1857991222
[1] https://books.google.com/books?id=bSsrlxw7l2YC
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHxtyCq_WDLXzT_CgYPtj...
Unfortunately, it would be easier to consume as audio files as the video adds little. The lectures to date have been on the Greeks but the course is ongoing and will come up to more modern times, ending with Martin Luther King.
Ie, they form a club based on talking dead languages no-one else understands and use Greek/Latin as a qualification for being included in the club, as well as where you were educated.
Class is very much a thing in the UK in certain circles. I have known people to succeed where others were forced to fail because of where they were educated.
Also, that's a pretty Europe centric view. Have you looked at eg China?
Culturally damaging events can be restricted to (relatively) small areas of the world. Conversely, Mao’s “Cultural Revolution” was also a culturally very damaging event in human history, despite being restricted to one (other) area.
The idea that nothing that happened in Europe is relevant because there are other parts of the world, too and that considering an event in Europe to be potentially world-changing is “pretty Europe centric” is one of the reasons that few people outside humanities consider the field any more relevant to reality than, say, string theory.
So, yes, stuff happened in China, too. Doesn’t mean that stuff didn’t also happen in Europe and that both stuff happening in China and stuff happening in Europe can affect the course of history.
What knowledge was lost then, that made the past 'better' (for a morally neutral meaning of that word)? (please don't say 'damascus steel')
I guess what I'm saying is I'd prefer to see the fruits of the ancient world to be used to enhance a broad range of subjects, to help us contrast them with ideas throughout our history, rather than treating it as a single subject.
The Iliad and The Odyssey are two of the most thrilling pieces of literature available to a reader today, and they both pose difficult moral questions. I just can't imagine a sociology textbook writer formulating a "What do you think: Glory, or Contentedness?" segment as compelling as the entire arc of Achilles' role in the battle for Troy.
So yes, the lessons of the ancient world are applicable to a broad range of subjects, but the art is also valuable in and of itself.
True, but I did mention studying these works through Literature courses, would this not be a suitable way to approach The Iliad and The Odyssey?
I guess I'd rather have a greater amount of flexibility in the education system for bringing together both old and new ideas. Whilst there's certainly plenty of material worthy of study from the activity of the ancient Greeks, what about other periods of time? If we have a separate course on the classics, should we have a course on the Renaissance as well (for example)?