I'm "well educated" in the classics by most standards (I studied Latin for the better part of the decade, can spot recite poems and speeches, &c) and I think that reading "the greats" as a whole is a kind of category error: classical antiquity is a period of 1.5 millennia spread across the better part of Southern Europe and Northern Africa. Reading them as a uniform narrative is like trying to draw a line from the beginning of the Ottoman Empire to the California Gold Rush: the history is all there, but a thematic connection is tenuous.
If you want to read classics in general, I suggest picking a subject you like (plays, epics, poetry, military history) and expanding in circles. You can even pick a modern author as a guide; I can personally recommend both SPQR[1] and Introducing the Ancient Greeks[2] as excellent histories of their respective cultures.
[1]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/28789711-spqr
[2]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23316534-introducing-the...
http://www.greatconversation.com/10-year-reading-plan
The Harvard Classics is a similar set of books that pre-dates Britannica's set. It has a 15 minutes a day reading list for the year. The reading list is in volume 50.
With 20 books per year, this list implies that spending only ~2.5 weeks on each book would be both possible and fruitful. I doubt that very much.
I recommend it. The organization is really nice; the years get more “difficult” as you go on and within each year the works are ordered chronologically. In this way it’s very approachable.
It’s not long before you start seeing references between the books, something referred to as The Great Conversation. I find that really exciting; it’s makes the stories richer in the same way as when you get steeped in the lore of some fantasy world… but it’s with ideas that shaped _our_ world.
Last thing I’ll say is that the ideas in the books aren’t a unified block. There is often disagreement between ideas, and sometimes explicitly called out. For example, Montaigne says he thinks Plato gives too much license to children to determine the topics they should study. Montaigne thinks instead it should be more prescribed. It’s moments like that, when you see two sharp minds disagreeing on such a topic that you ask yourself what _you_ believe. Then you can geek out on how that question was answered by Dewey and others that shaped what modern education is today.
Really a delight to go through.
I imagine some improvements in our understanding have been made since Gibbon’s time, and I’d def seek those out before walking around claiming I “know” what happened back then, but as an entry point is was a great, if a little bit too wordy, read.
Like, I know someone who got a degree in Classics and the core curriculum seems to be reading and translating Greek + Latin + a modern language, either French, German, Italian, or modern Greek.
Example course:
"Roman Invective and Verbal Abuse
An exploration of the world of Roman verbal assault. Readings in Latin will range from inscriptions on sling bullets and walls, to scurrilous pamphlets, to formal full-blown invective speeches. We will investigate especially how themes within Roman invective reveal broader cultural values."
"The Roman Novel
Students will read substantial portions of the two surviving Roman novels, Petronius’ Satyricon and Apuleius’s Metamorphoses (or Asinus Aureus). In addition to improving reading speed and ability, the class will introduce the genre of the ancient novel. Students will be assigned secondary readings relating to the novels and will be expected not only to translate, but also to give oral reports on assigned topics and provide commentary on designated sections of the text."
You also concentrate in literature, archeology, or history.
You're right that Junior and Senior classes then learn more and stop worshipping just at the feet of Greek and Roman statues. That's a good thing. Education is more than these two cultures ad nauseam.
Point still stands, it's a decent overview, and I'd really like college students to go for breadth, not depth. You want to deep-dive, go get a PhD. (Or read on your own, it's cheaper that way ;)
BTW, watch Troy with Brad Pitt. It's got its points but it really deemphasizes the gods. It takes liberties but it's fun.
Then read the Odyssey. The Odyssey is a little stranger because it's kind of told backwards.
Then Virgil's Aeneid. Virgil is 'plagiarizing' Homer and steals a minor character Aeneas; so it helps to know the Iliad+Odyssey to get the homage. There is a really good course/podcast on the Aeneid by Susanna Braund from Stanford.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/virgils-aeneid/id38423...
There is also the Harvard class, the Ancient Greek Hero, which may help.
https://online-learning.harvard.edu/course/ancient-greek-her...
Thucydides The Peloponnesian War has great parallels and lessons. In the middle of the war, some idiots ( Alcibiades) decide to attack Sicily because it was going to be easy and the war will pay for itself; they get their asses kicked. You can read this as an allegory for Iraq, an expensive pointless distraction led by idiots. There's also the Siege of Melos.
Yale has a good course by Donald Kagan (Project for a New American Century Donald Kagan) that has background for all this.
Start with Xenophon, which is what they’d start school boys on for Greek translation. Either read his dialogues with Socrates, his “education of Cyrus” (hey, non-western!) or “Anabasis.” The last one is probably the most exciting.
Alternatively, Herodotus is fun, but you won’t read the whole thing. It is good to dip in and out of. Oh, Plutarch’s “Life of Alexander (the great)” is not too long and better than a history, because he focuses on his character and telling personal stories.
Once you get going, Plato is frikkin amazing. But you have to want it— or have a guide or group. I personally like “the Parmenides” because it is mind bending. Or the symposium to hear from a brilliant lady philosopher about the nature of love.
Oh, then if you want something fantastic, read Iamblicus’ “Life of Pythagoras.” It is very well written and will change your concept of the western world.
Hell to the fuck yeah, when you get to Plato, you have to want it. I still haven't made it through the Republic.
Plutarch Parallel Lives has a lot of really good biographies. Pick any. Hell, pick Life of Antony.
Herodotus is fun but junk. Thucydides is tough but meaty. Switching to the Romans, Tacitus Agricola is awesome.
Read Gorgias Encomium of Helen (short), I think he's the only Sophist we have, and you might think Plato was a little tough on him.
Republic is to be avoided for the same reasons. There is great stuff in there, but maaaan. Will check out your recs!
Also, what should I read if I like the poetry of Pope, but I want the poetry to be grittier and truer to the tone of the original, (i.e. I'm fine with changes to the content for the sake of poetics, so long as they don't hide or transfigure the original's emotional content).
To be fair TFA does not make this distinction clear, and conflates “the classics department” with “the classics” to make a rhetorical point (and a good one, imo).
Admittedly, this is really confusing, and it'd make a lot more sense to call one of those "classical" things something else, but I'm not in charge of naming things (any more).
I think for a academic department, Classics would be Ancient Greece and Rome, not Shakespeare (which would be in the English department).
I edited my post a little though to address that West is talking about both, but only one is actually in danger.
https://www.openculture.com/2014/01/harold-bloom-creates-a-m...
And what is this definition of 'politics' anyway?
I intended nothing either way; I was informing people about the book. Please don't include me in your politicize-everything motivations.
Context is an essential part of meaning. If you don't know the context of something, you are going to misunderstand and be misled. If I yell 'fire!' in a crowded movie theater, it means something different than it does at a gun range, or huddled over some kindling in in driving rainstorm at a campsite. In this case, the context was political. We need to be able to talk about politics without actually doing it; some try to pretend politics doesn't exist, but that's a lie. It seems to me that you felt that it could not be talked about, it had to be done. Don't try to impose that on me, please.
by whom?
I stopped reading it with the idea that just about anybody's else's list would likely be superior.
Obviously YMMV. Brought back the memory seeing it here. Would be really interested if someone had a different reaction to it.
Reads like the work personally transported you.
From there, you can go on and read yourself what interests you, and while I typically have little use for the prospect of learning by video rather than reading, humanities / philosophy / literary study is one example in which you will get a lot more from the material if you find a lecture that accompanies it.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9ff15w4ufviWfv9UfIuByA
Even as a humanities grad who has been through a lot of this stuff once, I find myself listening to his lectures for nostalgia's sake. Humanities classes are fun, that's why people still go to them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Books_of_the_Western_Wor...
"Classics" refers specifically to Greek and Roman literature from around ~700 BC to ~200 AD.
The podcast moves chronologically through western literature. Each episode focuses on a single text, placing it in its historical context. It goes quite deep - e.g. the Iliad + Odyssey sections add up to roughly 12 hours of audio, and the section on Greek drama is particularly strong.
You can really feel that it is a passion project made with care.
https://www.sjc.edu/academic-programs/undergraduate/great-bo...
This petty squabbles over Western Canon and Classics is just culture war nonsense.
Have fun, find joy and beauty, challenge and wisdom. The classics are renowned for a reason and I find them most appealing, engaging, and get the most from them when I think that the book was written by an ordinary, flawed person; there's a personality, their interior world, their experiences, their own vision, their blind spots, just like me and my ordinary neighbor - it's not scripture, there's another person in the room. Then - holy cow, it's incredible that a human created it. I think our instincts provide a good indication of what we are ready for - based on what we've learned so far and what state we are in for learning.
Also, it took me time to not see classics as tests, and to be comfortable not understanding everything. I'm probably not going to understand everything on the level of the authors of humanity's greatest works (and in their field of specialty at the pinnacle of their achievement), or of the experts who study them, or sometimes even of my ordinary neighbor - they will see things I don't; it's not a race. Sometimes, after reading something else, after more life experience, I return to them and they made more sense. Being honest with myself about what I don't understand helps me gain much more than people who fake it (to themselves and to others). For one thing, I know my strengths and weaknesses and can address them; for another, when there's something I don't grasp, I don't deny its existence (to protect my ego) or twist it into something I already think - I give myself an opportunity to learn more.
If nothing strikes you now, a short history of the ancient world might be a good starting point. It would provide ideas on what to read next, and lot's of context - even modern classics often reference or reflect ancient ones. Britannica provides excellent histories for non-specialists, long enough to take it seriously but shorter than book-length, written with personality and the author's voice voice, and usually by real experts (e.g., leading scholars). If nothing grabs your attention, I'd start with their history of Ancient Greece.
Also, I strongly recommend getting annotated editions of the books, which will explain many of the references which may be obscure to non-specialists, or no longer common knowledge.
Finally, I recommend subscribing to the Oxford English Dictionary, which is fantastic for understanding the history of a concept and all the different ways it has been perceived and expressed over time (with the actual quotes from the people who create and use the words). When you encounter a concept that feels alien - either the word itself or how it's used, a quick lookup in the OED provides immediate sense and context, and gives you some grasp of it. It's really a remarkable work of knowledge - the history of (almost) every concept ever put into words.
But the real shortcut to a classical education is to learn absolutely anything that is so esoteric that normal people don't learn or get taught it, and then act as if it's mystically powerful and makes you special for no clearly defined reason. A dead language is a good one.
You've fallen for this trap and will find that there's no there, there, other than some cool books.