Question: What type of influence matters in a canon?

[lawpark]

If you think that
a) a canon (national, Western, Eastern, or worldwide) is not completely useless and meaningless, and that
b) at least some consideration of "influence" is needed as criteria for canonical membership,

I would like to ask you, which of the following three senses of "influence" do you think matter the most?
1) How much a text has been read - e.g. number of people, across periods, across locations, in educational system, etc.
2) How much a text has been "ingrained" in the culture - e.g. words / phrases coined or derived by the text, how it has influenced art forms, how many derivative cultural products like TV series, movies, paintings, music are available, etc.
3) How much a text has influenced other texts - e.g. how much a form or style has been followed in subsequent texts, how much literary influence was acknowledged in subsequent key works (e.g. Dante acknowledges Virgil), etc.

... and why?

I have also posed the question on my blog:
http://lawpark.jimdo.com/compiler-s-blog/

[Arrowni]

a) a canon (national, Western, Eastern, or worldwide) is not completely useless and meaningless, and that

I think canons are meaningless but useful or useless but meaningful, take your pick.

b) at least some consideration of "influence" is needed as criteria for canonical membership,

I'd argue influence is not passed from work to work, but through entire groups of texts into others, and hence, cannot be passed into a canon list including exclusively finished works without some twist.


1) How much a text has been read - e.g. number of people, across periods, across locations, in educational system, etc.
Reading is fundamental. Neither geography nor quantity seem to be influential in a canonical reading in any true sense, but since more quantity makes it easier to achieve better reader "quality", I guess it's somewhat important.

Since canons are an exercise on quality -meaning, they revolve around critical reading unlike folk art-, you need to get those readers first, and more readers allow you to reach that quality faster.

2) How much a text has been "ingrained" in the culture - e.g. words / phrases coined or derived by the text, how it has influenced art forms, how many derivative cultural products like TV series, movies, paintings, music are available, etc.


I don't see the cultural variations being related with canon at all. Sure, they exist because the canon exists, but popular and critical recognition are two different animals and unless this kind of exposure leads to more reading -see the answer above-, I don't see any influence on this at all.

3) How much a text has influenced other texts - e.g. how much a form or style has been followed in subsequent texts, how much literary influence was acknowledged in subsequent key works (e.g. Dante acknowledges Virgil), etc.



Arguably this is pretty much what canon means: A highly critical reader is producing texts regarding a certain work and passing it through into the next generation of critical readers. Of course, fictional works are relatively minor in their critical approach but cannot be dismissed. This should be by far the most influential element of the three.

[YesNo]

I usually think of canons as lists of texts you have to acknowledge to be part of a religious group. It defines your membership in that group. I suspect there can also be canons of saints and gods that you would be required to acknowledge or risk being thrown out of the group. Those not part of the group go to some hell, of course, where all the bad pagans, heathens and heretics go. This motivates the good faithful ones to stay in place. Once the canon is set, it doesn't change much.

You would need some sort of clergy to determine what books, saints or gods are on the list. Membership in the group requires that you contribute to the financial and emotional support of this clergy. Membership costs you something. The clergy don't work for nothing and in return you value being part of the group.

Now when it comes to lists of books in general, the clergy would have to be the academics. They get to decide who the high priests are who will make the final decision. The members of the religious body is presumably anyone who speaks the language, but is really restricted to those who respect the clergy. Hell, in this case, is the pain of being labeled as uncultured, unlettered or uncivilized.

The problem with turning literature into something that academics can canonize is that it changes too rapidly. Readers don't wait for academics or even critics drop their nihil obstat on something. They just start reading what they want.

[lawpark]

I usually think of canons as lists of texts you have to acknowledge to be part of a religious group. It defines your membership in that group. I suspect there can also be canons of saints and gods that you would be required to acknowledge or risk being thrown out of the group. Those not part of the group go to some hell, of course, where all the bad pagans, heathens and heretics go. This motivates the good faithful ones to stay in place. Once the canon is set, it doesn't change much.

You would need some sort of clergy to determine what books, saints or gods are on the list. Membership in the group requires that you contribute to the financial and emotional support of this clergy. Membership costs you something. The clergy don't work for nothing and in return you value being part of the group.

Now when it comes to lists of books in general, the clergy would have to be the academics. They get to decide who the high priests are who will make the final decision. The members of the religious body is presumably anyone who speaks the language, but is really restricted to those who respect the clergy. Hell, in this case, is the pain of being labeled as uncultured, unlettered or uncivilized.

The problem with turning literature into something that academics can canonize is that it changes too rapidly. Readers don't wait for academics or even critics drop their nihil obstat on something. They just start reading what they want.

This is a great analogy. Academics definitely call the shots. Membership is not free (among tax payers and tuition payers). With membership there are advantages (a Degree of some sort, can help you find jobs). Hell - uncultured, unlettered or uncivilized.

Even though literature happens too fast ... doesn't matter; just like religious canon rarely stops people from thinking whatever they want.

When the professor of literature asks: "What books have you read over the summer?" You know that answering with anything other than part of the Canon you may be considered to have wasted your summer.

As an advocate for the need for a world canon, I now recognize my implicit, political, priorly unspoken thought is that - "don't you academics dare consider yourself cultured if you have absolutely no basic ideas about basic texts outside of the narrow Western tradition."

[JCamilo]

Actually, being restrict to one group will probally make the work vanish as soon the work vanishes. Take Tolkien, if his work survives the end of tolkien fanboys, it will became cannonical.

Homer is not cannonical due to academy (there is no such thing) but neither due the group that preserved it at first - oral primitive greek storytellers. But it was when his work was accepted, preserved and trasnformed by other groups (such as the copists of alexandria) that his influence was more spread.

Academics more than not, find the canonnical works and deal with them. They deny and have denied much works which latter were accepted (Robert Louis Stevenson was not an academic sucess when he started, it was the latter appreciation of his popularity that granted his status).

[YesNo]

You're right, lawpark, especially for students. They are the laity.

I also agree with you that the western tradition is too narrow. My favorite texts at the moment are from India, like the Mahabharata, but these are all old texts and already canonized in some way in Hinduism.

One good thing about canonizing books is that they allow people to focus their attention on them to generate a secondary literature.

[lawpark]

Homer is not cannonical due to academy (there is no such thing) but neither due the group that preserved it at first - oral primitive greek storytellers. But it was when his work was accepted, preserved and trasnformed by other groups (such as the copists of alexandria) that his influence was more spread.


There is some truth to what you say - that the appeal needs to be for more than one group.

Though for Homer, it seems like in classical Greek times it was already part of the core of the curriculum for the educated, analogous to Vedas for the Brahmins, or to the Five Classics for the Chinese literati who aspired to be in the government service, or to say Faust for early 20th century Germans. So being tied to one curriculum definitely helps.

Whether to be accepted by other groups had many elements of historical accidents. Take Homer as example, (and my views below are clearly somewhat speculative), Romans learnt initially from the Greeks ... because the Romans themselves started out really with not much. Not that the Greeks were necessary the cultural leaders in their time (arguable for example vs. cultures in the Persian realm), but Greeks culturally were close enough to the Romans so that it was easy for the Romans to borrow. Homer thus was definitely also part of the curriculum in some portion of time in the Western Roman world. The eastern Roman empire essentially used Greek as a lingua franca, and no wonder the Alexandrian copist would thought it worth copying. But after Rome acquired its own classics (e.g. Virgil, Ovid, etc.) and with time could learn from other cultures that might initially be more distant from itself (e.g. Christianity, which ultimately was rooted farther east the Greek), Homer lost its primacy in the western Empire and the middle ages. Of course, western Europe rediscovered Greeks in Renaissance, but I would venture to speculate that the rediscovery focused more on the philosophers (Plato, Aristotle) than Homer. Homer was probably brought in as part of the rediscovery package, more than on its own literary merits per se. In a way, it is not different from how modern Chinese for example discovers the western culture - primary interests at first was in the pure sciences, but then discovers people like Newton and Einstein actually believes in God, and these guys read Aristotle or Spinoza (in case of Einstein), and the search goes on. Only very recently has the Chinese started to translate the Christian classics like Eusebius' Church History. For Homer? I really doubt any Chinese reading it would think it a great work of literature, but most read it because of the reputation of the text in the culture that they want to understand more about.

So I guess what I am saying is that sometimes texts find reasons to be read and preserved because the prestige of the tradition it belongs and then because of its own position in that tradition, rather than directly because how the text itself is appealing to the new receiving group(s).

[JCamilo]

Not only one group, but even more. The "academics" of today (even a single country) have nothing to do with academics of 100 years ago. There is a whole predatory world there, new theories, philosphies, political guidance. Tradition is usually something stronger, besides the barriers of a group.

Now about Homer, Homer was a educational basis, but this happens already centuries after himself (or his imaginary himself). The greek classical culture was already another group or society reckonizing Homer. Of course, primary groups of oral storytellers were around, but by them Homer was reckonized from pure literary sources, philophophers, drama writers. Already a movement of adaptation and apropriation.

The hellenistic influence on Roman and about everyone else (hebrews, egypt, persians, etc) is due to Alexander. He was the one that showed the latter "strategy" of nice conqueror. Preserve a culture but also brings ours, so they would merge slowly in a subtle way. Romans became of course, masters of it. So, when Alexandria's copists became an academic center of short, Homer was already status one. Their work had basically the effect of having versions of homer in other language, even in new greeks. In the end, Homer's greek was slowly forgotten and when Rome became a cultural empire with Augustus, latim was dominant. Virgil raised to a central status, but trully, Homer wasn't lost. He still being exactly what should be canonical "read even if unread". That is why, Dante praises him as a poet's prince.

I would not think the translations of Plato or Aristoteles are more central than Homer. Most philosophers still preserved latim and the church didnt abandon those two. But the english translation of homer, ovid and virgil and the french was the true neo-classic. Homer then, the very important Chapman or Pope works, canonical by itself, which are one of the main influence for a large variety of romantic poets. This without saying the italian humanism had basis on Dante, Ariosto, Petrarca and Bocaccio, while they are have their share of philosophic education, they are following the poetry tradition that started with Homer, even if more roman. Basically you can say, Homer is so canonical that we do not even read him anymore for a thousand years.

[lawpark]

I also agree with you that the western tradition is too narrow. My favorite texts at the moment are from India, like the Mahabharata, but these are all old texts and already canonized in some way in Hinduism.


Which translation of Mahabharata do you read? I have a John Smith Penguin abridged version. The Chicago series seems too heavy going; the Clay Sanskrit Library version is for some reason not based on the critical edition ...

In any case, really amazed by how imaginative the Indians are in terms of story-telling.

[lawpark]

...
The "academics" of today (even a single country) have nothing to do with academics of 100 years ago.
...
Now about Homer ... Already a movement of adaptation and apropriation.
...
Homer then, the very important Chapman or Pope works, canonical by itself, which are one of the main influence for a large variety of romantic poets.
...
they are following the poetry tradition that started with Homer, even if more roman. Basically you can say, Homer is so canonical that we do not even read him anymore for a thousand years.

Interesting asserting that academics now have nothing to do with academics 100 years ago - I think there is at least the "genealogical" teacher-student relationships that would be important. An interesting work on this in the Philosophy realm is The Sociology of Philsophies by Randall Collins.

Good insights regarding Homer already adapted and appropriated in classical Greek period.

In many of these discussions, it came out that the modern Canon was really largely influenced by the Romantics in the early 19th century. Maybe not so much a coincidence that it was also the time of industrial revolution which formed the basis of Europe's global dominance for the next century.

For the Italian poets, my way of phrasing (using your "appropriation" terminology), would be that the Italian poetic tradition appropriated the Roman one, which in term has appropriated the Greek one, which appropriated Homer as its founder.

To push this further, what I was saying in the last post was that ultimately the English appropriated the Italian tradition, and as Chinese tried to understand the "Western" tradition (mostly through the English version nowadays, though it had its Japanese and Russian phrases), Homer entered the broad canon list ... yet it is by no means clear it was due more to the texts' underground power than the sheer historical facts (or accidents) of prestige.

[JCamilo]

Well, there is several different academic aspects that changed. It is more democratized. For example, in my country it was small, almost devoted to specific institutions (medicine, engineering, law). Today is another thing. But even USA: the democratization of teaching pushed the academies to accept minorities, women, etc. The political bigotony is obviously over to several aspects. The responsability of teaching is also different. More people from lower economical classes are present. Etc. This of course changed the perpection and acts of a group, hence you see Bloom, an old timer academic and his school of ressentment and the conflicts towards some traditional works. Also the technology was produced different needs and answers.

Well, the romantics was in many aspect the effective globalization of englightment theories and also national aspects. We still very much romantics (Adorno has theorized that romanticism was englightment and enlightment was in curse until the first world war.) I would say we are in a period of criticism of romanticism. Also, it is age of cataloguing and inclusion. You only need to think a canon (works to be preserved) if you want to preserve them and create some guideline for "teaching".

As the italians, yes, that is how it worked, maybe with the meddling of middle age catholic thinkers (which also appropriate greek culture thru romans). And that is the canon is action. An author does not even need to be read.

I think, even us in west, read Homer more due to prestige than the power of text. Most readers lacks the capacity or experience to enjoy epic long poems. I would assume, he is more read by editions in prose, abrigaded versions, etc.

[lawpark]

It may sound strange, but it looks like (German-style research) university system, despite the huge changes over generations, are still the same system in the sense that the Catholic Church is still the same church now vs. 1000 years ago - in the sense of institutional continuity. If one wants to do the wild chase, any professor in the current university system are trained and certified by the prior generation of professors who are in turn certified by the prior generation of professors. As an institutional system, the specific criteria may have evolved but there is continuity. Of course, it was a bit of an exaggeration what I just said - in places like China it didn't start in early 19th century, instead, it started in early 20th century when many traditional-styled scholars were invited to be professors say in Peking University, and it was exactly that generation whose works are considered "classics" by the current academia. That is, I believe, one of the reasons why Kant is considered classics - he just happens to be a great thinker, more importantly though, he happens to be a great thinker at a time when the research university system is being fully institutionalized, and that institution system was (in hindsight) "destined" to become the dominant form of higher education institutions globally.

[JBI]

It's more about esteem than influence. One can, for instance, appreciate a work like Smart's Jubilate Agno while acknowledging it as rather without influence until the really recent era (being unpublished).

Influence usually comes with esteem, but esteem is not based on influence, a work is not influential because it is canonical, it is not canonical because it is influential, it is canonical for any number of reasons, the sole criteria being that people hold it in high regard as integral to their vision of canon.

[lawpark]

It's more about esteem than influence. One can, for instance, appreciate a work like Smart's Jubilate Agno while acknowledging it as rather without influence until the really recent era (being unpublished).

Influence usually comes with esteem, but esteem is not based on influence, a work is not influential because it is canonical, it is not canonical because it is influential, it is canonical for any number of reasons, the sole criteria being that people hold it in high regard as integral to their vision of canon.

So JBI you are saying:
Esteem --> Influence --> Canonization?


凤尾香罗薄几重，碧文圆顶夜深缝。
扇裁月魄羞难掩，车走雷声语未通。
曾是寂寥金烬暗，断无消息石榴红。
斑骓只系垂杨岸，何处西南待好风。

Just curious: why did you have ... between the third couplets and the forth couplet in your signature?

[Heteronym]

It seems very simple to me. Several writers like a specific book of another writer, everyone flocks to copy it, it becomes important, it joins the canon.

[lawpark]

It seems very simple to me. Several writers like a specific book of another writer, everyone flocks to copy it, it becomes important, it joins the canon.

But this model may not explain texts like Quran.

[Heteronym]

It's not a work of literature. It's a religious scripture. I thought were discussing a literary canon.

[JBI]

So JBI you are saying:
Esteem --> Influence --> Canonization?


凤尾香罗薄几重，碧文圆顶夜深缝。
扇裁月魄羞难掩，车走雷声语未通。
曾是寂寥金烬暗，断无消息石榴红。
斑骓只系垂杨岸，何处西南待好风。

Just curious: why did you have ... between the third couplets and the forth couplet in your signature?

I quoted directly from the translation. Not my translation so I cannot say why that was done, I assume for effect.

Seven-character-regular-verse
Li Shangyin
TO ONE UNNAMED IV

A faint phoenix-tail gauze, fragrant and doubled,
Lines your green canopy, closed for the night....
Will your shy face peer round a moon-shaped fan,
And your voice be heard hushing the rattle of my carriage?
It is quiet and quiet where your gold lamp dies,
How far can a pomegranate-blossom whisper?
...I will tether my horse to a river willow
And wait for the will of the southwest wind.


The forum staff pleasantly informed me that Chinese language signatures were not in keeping with forum rules, so I used the translation I could find in the public domain.

As for the equation, both influence and canonization come from the same place, esteem, but influence does not lead to canonization necessarily. For instance, Influence <---- Esteem ---->canonization, not your way around by my estimate.

[Junglord]

It all depends on how white, middle-class and male the writers are.

[JBI]

It all depends on how white, middle-class and male the writers are.

Or how Chinese, or how anything. The Chinese Canon seems more ethnocentric then, for instance, the so called Western one, and we don't hear anyone calling Chinese readers bigots now do we? Then again, it all comes back to esteem.

[lawpark]

It's not a work of literature. It's a religious scripture. I thought were discussing a literary canon.

But most canon includes Bible, and Bloom's one includes Quran. Historical work-wise, Herodotus and al-Tabari were really not imitated afterwards. Nor (as far as I understand) Shanameh imitated later on (I could be wrong here)? It sounded to me the "imitation" and "anxiety of influence" mostly happens in the Western Epic realm of literature.

Personally, I also don't think Shakespeare is really imitated much, unless you take the Harold Bloom's view that Shakespeare invented humanity and thus everyone writing about humans are struggling with Shakespeare ...

[lawpark]

The forum staff pleasantly informed me that Chinese language signatures were not in keeping with forum rules, so I used the translation I could find in the public domain.

As for the equation, both influence and canonization come from the same place, esteem, but influence does not lead to canonization necessarily. For instance, Influence <---- Esteem ---->canonization, not your way around by my estimate.

Nice to know about the signature part - at least you got the author's name in Chinese there, otherwise I would never have found out which poems it was ...

In your "formula", it makes me feel that esteem is almost synonymous as being canonized ... is it a tautology or is it really not?

[lawpark]

It all depends on how white, middle-class and male the writers are.

St. Augustine might not have been white ... most authors that are famous now were probably upper-class, and Jane Austen was clearly ... female, I hope.

[Calidore]

St. Augustine might not have been white ... most authors that are famous now were probably upper-class, and Jane Austen was clearly ... female, I hope.

If George Eliot can be female, who knows? Maybe Jake Austen liked writing girly novels but didn't want his buddies to make fun of him.

[lawpark]

Good point, possibly the canon includes authors who are transgender ... just possibly

[JCamilo]

But most canon includes Bible, and Bloom's one includes Quran. Historical work-wise, Herodotus and al-Tabari were really not imitated afterwards. Nor (as far as I understand) Shanameh imitated later on (I could be wrong here)? It sounded to me the "imitation" and "anxiety of influence" mostly happens in the Western Epic realm of literature.

Personally, I also don't think Shakespeare is really imitated much, unless you take the Harold Bloom's view that Shakespeare invented humanity and thus everyone writing about humans are struggling with Shakespeare ...

Of course the Quran is a work of literature. And of course, several writers liked it and used it as reference afterwards. Anyways...

Herodotus was widely imitated. The Chronicles format - a prose format for accounts that are historical - is the model of history until today. Not to mention you can find some of his stories even in Brother Grimms (the ring of Policrates became a faery tale, for example).

Anyways, imitation only in western? How so? If that was true, the poetic formats developed on east would not became a model. And you even have for example, modern japanese literature which is build upon the "imitation" or "no imitation" of western models. I am pretty sure Confucio was widely imitated, fables like Pachahantra (may have spelled wrongly) spread, parables styles that are in every culture, etc.

Now, Anxiety of influence... You have to assume this happens somewhere first...

As Shakespeare, he is of course copied. First, the Shakespeare canon is a result of imitation, we do not have really access to all Shakespeare original works, but how they were collected after his death. People still quote him daily. He changed structure of drama. Several romantic poets used his verses. How many versions of Romeo and Juliet do you know? Heck, even Agatha Christie to kill Hercule Poirot imitated Iago.

[JBI]

Of course the Quran is a work of literature. And of course, several writers liked it and used it as reference afterwards. Anyways...

Herodotus was widely imitated. The Chronicles format - a prose format for accounts that are historical - is the model of history until today. Not to mention you can find some of his stories even in Brother Grimms (the ring of Policrates became a faery tale, for example).

Anyways, imitation only in western? How so? If that was true, the poetic formats developed on east would not became a model. And you even have for example, modern japanese literature which is build upon the "imitation" or "no imitation" of western models. I am pretty sure Confucio was widely imitated, fables like Pachahantra (may have spelled wrongly) spread, parables styles that are in every culture, etc.

Now, Anxiety of influence... You have to assume this happens somewhere first...

As Shakespeare, he is of course copied. First, the Shakespeare canon is a result of imitation, we do not have really access to all Shakespeare original works, but how they were collected after his death. People still quote him daily. He changed structure of drama. Several romantic poets used his verses. How many versions of Romeo and Juliet do you know? Heck, even Agatha Christie to kill Hercule Poirot imitated Iago.

To look to the top of the Western Philosophical canon, take Plato.

Do the Gods like something because it is good, or is something good because the Gods like it?

Is something influential because it is good, and therefore canonized, or is it canonized and good because it is influential?

You see my problem - the discussion usually comes from a major problem when dealing with the two notions, canonical works in general are influential because they are esteemed, and therefore canonized, not the other way around.

People read Homer, or listened to him, there were other bards, but he took, his poems were loved, and so were influential, he became canonical because those around him admired him.


Sophocles was one of many playwrights. His reputation comes from people loving his work - agon is the force behind canonization of course, but influence wasn't what made him win, the quality of the work was - he was held in high regard by the judges, and so won. He became a name, earned a reputation, and so, people judged him a good model to copy.


Columbus wrote a letter telling the Queen he found land - huge influence, how many people read that as canonical literature?

Likewise, Christopher Smart wrote Jubilate Agno which was first published in the 20th century - his poem is canonical because contemporary critics value it, not because it was imitated or influential - it really wasn't, until it somehow, almost by accident, made it into the English canon.

[stlukesguild]

Do the Gods like something because it is good, or is something good because the Gods like it?

Is something influential because it is good, and therefore canonized, or is it canonized and good because it is influential?

You see my problem - the discussion usually comes from a major problem when dealing with the two notions, canonical works in general are influential because they are esteemed, and therefore canonized, not the other way around.

Sophocles was one of many playwrights. His reputation comes from people loving his work - agon is the force behind canonization of course, but influence wasn't what made him win, the quality of the work was - he was held in high regard by the judges, and so won. He became a name, earned a reputation, and so, people judged him a good model to copy.


Columbus wrote a letter telling the Queen he found land - huge influence, how many people read that as canonical literature?

Likewise, Christopher Smart wrote Jubilate Agno which was first published in the 20th century - his poem is canonical because contemporary critics value it, not because it was imitated or influential - it really wasn't, until it somehow, almost by accident, made it into the English canon.

Bingo!:thumbsup:

Vermeer is a "canonical" painter... one of the greatest of the Dutch "golden age"... in spite of the fact that he was largely ignored until the late 19th/early 20th century

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6016/5999917902_4dd1b70a5d.jpg

Cezanne is not a great artist because of his influence on Picasso and Cubism... although that may explain why he figures more within the art history texts than Bonnard or Vuillard. Cezanne is a great artist because he made more than a few damn good paintings.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6001/5999918068_50452dba5f_b.jpg

[Junglord]

Or how Chinese, or how anything. The Chinese Canon seems more ethnocentric then, for instance, the so called Western one, and we don't hear anyone calling Chinese readers bigots now do we? Then again, it all comes back to esteem.

Well it looks like I ignorantly assumed we were talking about the western canon. Niether the less all the people deemed within the Western literary canon are Male, white and upper/middle-class. It's just a fact, and that shows the majority's shallow, prejudice hearts inlight of literature.

[stlukesguild]

Niether the less all the people deemed within the Western literary canon are Male, white and upper/middle-class.

Sappho
Emily Dickinson
Emily Bronte
Charlotte Bronte
Jane Austen
Marina Tsvetaeva
Anna Akhmatova
Marguerite Duras
Ingebourg Bachmann
Elizabeth Bishop
Elizabeth Barrett Browning
Toni Morrisoin
Marianne Moore
George Eliot
George Sand
Elizabeth Gaskell
Mary Shelley

As for race... let's use our brains here. Exactly how many educated Blacks or Asians are we to imagine lived in the West (Europe) prior to the 20th century?
America doesn't even enter the Western Canon until the 19th century and one can't imagine many slaves having the free time to write books... nor many African-Americans after slavery having the education needed.

Even so... we do have Alexandre Dumas and Alexander Pushkin... and certainly check out Joaquim Maria Machado de Assis.

As for class... writers came from all over the social spectrum. You have authors like Sir Walter Raleigh, Sir Edmund Spenser, Dante who were born of the aristocracy or socio/political/economic elite. You have other writers like William Blake, César Vallejo, Jean Genet, Arthur Rimbaud, Charles Baudelaire, etc... who were born poor and/or spent much of their careers in poverty.

Of course the majority of the writers were probably middle-class for the simple reason that the majority of the population is middle class.

It's just a fact, and that shows the majority's shallow, prejudice hearts inlight of literature.

Let me guess... you're in PC class 101? How does the fact that the literature of the predominantly white West (Europe... and later the Americas), in which women and non-whites were not afforded equal education until recently, is as a result predominantly written by white male writers tell us anything about the majority's shallow prejudice? It would seem that your negation of literature outside of the Western Canon, which is becoming increasingly absorbed by Western readers, would be more prejudiced than the fact that there aren't more black writers in the Western Canon when there simply weren't more black writers period.

[stlukesguild]

Personally, I also don't think Shakespeare is really imitated much...

Seriously? You really don't see all the writers after Shakespeare who were profoundly impacted by his work: Milton, Goethe, Schiller, Victor Hugo, Shelley, Blake, Proust, Joyce, Beckett, J.L. Borges, Melville, Cormac McCarthy, etc... These just scrape the surface. It should be pointed out that being influenced by another artist doesn't necessarily in work that is clearly derivative. Shakespeare and the King James Bible are the two towering sources of literature in the English language.

[JCamilo]

JBI, i agree, works are famous due to their appeal. Not because they are true. Darwin had appeal. Not aesthetical of course (he was lousy even for scientific academic standard), but his defensors are good. They increased his appeal. Sometimes good scientific theories are not popular, they do not provoke any appeal.

But then, I do not think appeal is the only factor for canonization. Antithesis too. Works who are combated, burned down, and return are part of this process.

But I think Columbus letter is read due the canonical status. Their readers are more likely history students and they read it after historical evidence, experience, etc. A reason why the work was canonized.

[ralfyman]

A canon matters most because there are too many works to read and one cannot read all of them. And ultimately, professional critics are needed in forming that canon.

[Arrowni]

Quality work is second to readership. Always. Mostly because quality work is done by readership.

[JBI]

Niether the less all the people deemed within the Western literary canon are Male, white and upper/middle-class.

Sappho
Emily Dickinson
Emily Bronte
Charlotte Bronte
Jane Austen
Marina Tsvetaeva
Anna Akhmatova
Marguerite Duras
Ingebourg Bachmann
Elizabeth Bishop
Elizabeth Barrett Browning
Toni Morrisoin
Marianne Moore
George Eliot
George Sand
Elizabeth Gaskell
Mary Shelley

As for race... let's use our brains here. Exactly how many educated Blacks or Asians are we to imagine lived in the West (Europe) prior to the 20th century?
America doesn't even enter the Western Canon until the 19th century and one can't imagine many slaves having the free time to write books... nor many African-Americans after slavery having the education needed.

Even so... we do have Alexandre Dumas and Alexander Pushkin... and certainly check out Joaquim Maria Machado de Assis.

As for class... writers came from all over the social spectrum. You have authors like Sir Walter Raleigh, Sir Edmund Spenser, Dante who were born of the aristocracy or socio/political/economic elite. You have other writers like William Blake, César Vallejo, Jean Genet, Arthur Rimbaud, Charles Baudelaire, etc... who were born poor and/or spent much of their careers in poverty.

Of course the majority of the writers were probably middle-class for the simple reason that the majority of the population is middle class.

It's just a fact, and that shows the majority's shallow, prejudice hearts inlight of literature.

Let me guess... you're in PC class 101? How does the fact that the literature of the predominantly white West (Europe... and later the Americas), in which women and non-whites were not afforded equal education until recently, is as a result predominantly written by white male writers tell us anything about the majority's shallow prejudice? It would seem that your negation of literature outside of the Western Canon, which is becoming increasingly absorbed by Western readers, would be more prejudiced than the fact that there aren't more black writers in the Western Canon when there simply weren't more black writers period.

It's just an ironic rant.

Take for instance a concept of world literature, and then narrow your focus to the American academies, and you get that. A population obsessed with its own literature, which is predominantly male, and white.

English people did it worse, and English literature was canonized for the Indian people to read and study whiteness, to be emulated. The tradition as a whole is generally more male dominated than other traditions, and that is why in English, as well as to a lesser extent in other European traditions we see a presence of women using male names to get published, all the way through the Brontes and George Eliot.

In contrast, you take sociological frameworks and traditions such as the culture of Ancient China, and you see that in poetic representation, women generally were always there - from Confucius downward. Strangely enough, Chinese culture was far more misogynistic than anything Western chauvinist pigs cooked cook up, to the point where the educated, rich aristocratic women - the top of the totem poll - by the Qing dynasty were not even allowed outside, so they could just sit in their father or husband's home fighting with the other wives or concubines, though not running far since their feet were severely mutilated. Still, there are many great Chinese female authors, and many great imitators of female voice and tropes even amoungst male authors.


The Japanese canon in contrast is loaded with excellent female voice, especially in the early days, though Japan didn't really turn particularly misogynist until the Mongol invasion - women on the highest end were more or less equal during the Kamakura period, with the ability to inherit lands equal to those of their male counterparts, and power in politics granted (the second major Shogun after all was female). IF education is the question, Japanese men didn't pick up on literacy as quickly as women - Women had the benefit of "women's script" that is, indigenous writing of Japan thought too unscholarly for the male aristocrats, and therefore set the stage of the bulk of the canon when their male counterparts failed to figure out Chinese properly and then later switched over.


Now lets take a third, shorter tradition of literature - that of Canada. In general I would say something like 75% of an imagined canon would be female authors, and of that probably 70% or more are minority or marginalized peoples. That canon doesn't seem to really be too misogynist or racist.

But no, an American academy just dilutes itself with ranting how there aren't enough female Americans in the American canon, or African Americans in the American canon and forces this weird warped view of literary history onto the world. Ok, Americans are misogynist bigots - that's the message they are telling me. That doesn't mean I have an association with it, and that doesn't mean I am a male chauvinist pig because of it, or racist.

Simply put, one tradition's dark history is not relevant to the entire world tradition - one country's insecurity and inner conflict is not the entire world canon. The resentment stems from American culture clashes, and to a lesser extent English culture clashes, not from, for instance, Canadian presence.

It's ironic that you'll find at every given moment thousands of academics digging archives and libraries searching for female authors and misogyny in American letters. If these people were so righteous in their promotion of unheard of female authors why can't they just pick up a Canadian novel? Not American enough? not English enough for these scholars' British counterparts?

[Mr.lucifer]

Hell, I would say that the Canadian canon beats the American canon just by being from Canada.

[Calidore]

There has to be a law against firing canons across international borders.

[lawpark]

JBI, i agree, works are famous due to their appeal. Not because they are true. Darwin had appeal. Not aesthetical of course (he was lousy even for scientific academic standard), but his defensors are good. They increased his appeal. Sometimes good scientific theories are not popular, they do not provoke any appeal.

But then, I do not think appeal is the only factor for canonization. Antithesis too. Works who are combated, burned down, and return are part of this process.

But I think Columbus letter is read due the canonical status. Their readers are more likely history students and they read it after historical evidence, experience, etc. A reason why the work was canonized.

I tend to agree here that appeal is definitely a factor initially, and maybe for longer. But once it is canonized somewhat, it almost does not matter (or not matter) as much that it is no longer appealing to even majority of readers), but held dear by a group of caretakers (like modern academics). I am a little bit more familiar with the situation in history - I've read that in most universities there would be a professorship for classical Greek history, but in the western world (at least, in Europe and US together), there was just one professorship devoted to history of the Persian Empire. Well, which empire had more people or controlled more land then? Clearly the Persians. By why the focus on Greek history? It is probably the institution feeding on itself.

All this is to say that the fundamental appeal - while needed somewhat for sure, might not explain the whole story.

[lawpark]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]
As for race... let's use our brains here. Exactly how many educated Blacks or Asians are we to imagine lived in the West (Europe) prior to the 20th century?


I think we might need to think a bit more here ... Asians actually are numerically much stronger than Europe ... and just Chinese (if you consider them Asians) have printing just about 500 years longer than Europe, with being literate as pretty much to get to the most coveted career path of being a literati-bureaucrat. Just based on a general sense of history, I am pretty sure Europe can at best match Chinese in number of literate / educated folks in 18th century, thus, it would be a pretty good guess that Europe in the 19th would have at best as many educted population as the rest of the world added together.

[JCamilo]

I tend to agree here that appeal is definitely a factor initially, and maybe for longer. But once it is canonized somewhat, it almost does not matter (or not matter) as much that it is no longer appealing to even majority of readers), but held dear by a group of caretakers (like modern academics). I am a little bit more familiar with the situation in history - I've read that in most universities there would be a professorship for classical Greek history, but in the western world (at least, in Europe and US together), there was just one professorship devoted to history of the Persian Empire. Well, which empire had more people or controlled more land then? Clearly the Persians. By why the focus on Greek history? It is probably the institution feeding on itself.

All this is to say that the fundamental appeal - while needed somewhat for sure, might not explain the whole story.

That is quite easy (even if half of greek classics are about the Persians are coming): Greeks have more appeal. Even to the persians who loved to be conquered by Alexander. Dont forget, those institutions were not even born and egyptians are preserving greeks better than greeks themselves.

Anyways, I would say appeal still matters once or while. One of the canonized authors that almost can match Homer is Aesop. In fact, Fables and alike never went out of fashion. They were never the prime form of narrative, but they never faded like Epics narrative poems did. The basic ideas still the same. Why? The appealing of simplicity of narrative, moral allegories, etc. are strong that we keep using fables at daily basis. They are still written and read.

[Pierre Menard]

Well it looks like I ignorantly assumed we were talking about the western canon. Niether the less all the people deemed within the Western literary canon are Male, white and upper/middle-class. It's just a fact, and that shows the majority's shallow, prejudice hearts inlight of literature.


Utter nonsense.
StLukes dealt with your post better than I could, but it would be wise to actually research history a little better rather than swallow whatever you would like to believe. You'll see that there is great diversity in influential writers worldwide throughout history and that, whilst there isn't as many writers from minorities (though quite a lot still exist as stlukes and history will tell you), there are indeed logical reasons for it. But they do still exist.

[lawpark]

That is quite easy (even if half of greek classics are about the Persians are coming): Greeks have more appeal. Even to the persians who loved to be conquered by Alexander. Dont forget, those institutions were not even born and egyptians are preserving greeks better than greeks themselves.

Anyways, I would say appeal still matters once or while. One of the canonized authors that almost can match Homer is Aesop. In fact, Fables and alike never went out of fashion. They were never the prime form of narrative, but they never faded like Epics narrative poems did. The basic ideas still the same. Why? The appealing of simplicity of narrative, moral allegories, etc. are strong that we keep using fables at daily basis. They are still written and read.

The Greeks ruled Egypt during the Ptolemies for something like 250 years ... Greek definitely has more literary works than Persia - but about the political situation itself? People like studying the small wars or the alliance among the Greek cities more than the Persian Empire, that is hard to understand.

Persians ruled their conquered land for 200 years. Alexander? Take that aside, even Seleucids are much underrated vs. Alexander - sheerly because of prestige rather than real achievement in establishing rule.

Aesop has appeal, but do people read Pancantra (sic? I am not even sure I can spell it correctly!) from India? Same type of stuff presumably, but I definitely have heard more about Aesop since growing up than the Indian versions.

[JCamilo]

Well, Alexander has appeal. It is not how long he lived and of course, persian kings had appeal too (like I said we have dramas about the persian-greece wars, we have Xenophon, we have Herodothus who dealt with the matter), but Alexander rule, small as it is, was the prototype of rome. Plus his style of conquest grant him the welcoming in the conquered countries, so his culture can be imposed there.

Many people read Panchartantra(albeit the same type of stuff is more or less true, the tales of Panchartantra are somehow more long, more like the greatmother of 1001 nights, albeit of course, most people reckonize some links with Aesop) but of course, most of them are in India. But Aesop appeal is not hard to reckonize, the very aspect unity of effect, etc from modern short stories are there. They are stuff you can tell to someone in a casual meeting.

[lawpark]

It is truly baffling how and why Alexander has had so much appeal ... more than Cyrus (who has good press since Herodotus' time), more than Seleucius / Antiochus (the true folks that allow Greek to have any influence in the core part of the old Persian empire), and more than Genghis Khan (clearly larger realm of conquest, and empire sustained much longer). Maybe because Alexander rode on the back of classical Greek culture? But part of Greek's appeal was because of Alexander? ... something about appeal / esteem / influence / canonicity is still not making sense to me ...

[JCamilo]

Alexander is more a forefather of Rome than any of those. That is why, altough Cyrus still with big appeal.

[lawpark]

And even Rome - the appeal for Europe seems to be the unified empire for Europe (and beyond), while for US seems to be the (once) democratic republic that somehow stills drive a war machine and is a world hegemon.

But the fact that the democratic republic couldn't sustain itself (and became an Empire), and then as Empire, which gets transformed into a military dictatorship -- clearly not as welcomed in the modern world vs. civil bureaucratic government -- even this does not detract from Rome's appeal somehow.

[stlukesguild]

I think we might need to think a bit more here ... Asians actually are numerically much stronger than Europe ... and just Chinese (if you consider them Asians) have printing just about 500 years longer than Europe, with being literate as pretty much to get to the most coveted career path of being a literati-bureaucrat.

My comment was addressed to the complaint that the so-called Western Canon was almost wholly dominated by white, middle-class, men. The reasons for the absence of women in the arts seems obvious to anyone with the most basic inkling of history (and even so there are more than a few exceptions). The exclusion of non-whites seemed equally obvious when we are talking about the literature predominantly of Europe... with the inclusion of the Americas around 1850 when one considers just how few Asians, Blacks, or other minorities lived in Europe... let alone were educated and literate.

World literature is another issue altogether. Undoubtedly the literature of China, Japan, India, Persia, etc... can quite well rival that of the West

[stlukesguild]

Greek definitely has more literary works than Persia

That is certainly debatable. It may seem as such to us considering our limited access to Persian literature and the fact that Greece was long seen as the foundation of the West... resulting in a level of scholarship, research, translation, and archaeology far beyond that expended upon the literature of Persia. Most who have read Firdowsi rank him as an equal to Homer, Virgil, or Dante... yet how many here have even heard of him... let alone read the Shahnameh?

[JBI]

I think we might need to think a bit more here ... Asians actually are numerically much stronger than Europe ... and just Chinese (if you consider them Asians) have printing just about 500 years longer than Europe, with being literate as pretty much to get to the most coveted career path of being a literati-bureaucrat.

My comment was addressed to the complaint that the so-called Western Canon was almost wholly dominated by white, middle-class, men. The reasons for the absence of women in the arts seems obvious to anyone with the most basic inkling of history (and even so there are more than a few exceptions). The exclusion of non-whites seemed equally obvious when we are talking about the literature predominantly of Europe... with the inclusion of the Americas around 1850 when one considers just how few Asians, Blacks, or other minorities lived in Europe... let alone were educated and literate.

World literature is another issue altogether. Undoubtedly the literature of China, Japan, India, Persia, etc... can quite well rival that of the West

The big question is how is study mapped now - for instance, for an European one traditionally would study ones own vernacular vaguely, but focus on Latin, and to a lesser extent after Erasmus, Greek classics as models of education. Later vernacular was mixed in, with German and Italian and French being paired in (and to a lesser extent Spanish and Portuguese) with French being the dominant one.

For Koreans and Japanese people, it was always to turn back to Chinese classics - Genji for instance, in the text has a penchant for Chinese - Koreans had a long history of turning toward Chinese education, and to writing in Chinese up until the 20th century as a form of scholar-class pursuit. Chinese people, in contrast, tended to always only think of their own language, that is, in the classical form, nevermind the regional dialects popping up everywhere, and the outdatedness of the endeavor.


Now with the entering of globalization, if we want to look at how to understand the world of literature, with language being the primary method of understanding, the options are wide open.

One, for instance, can more or less study any language in any order one wants with a base language of English. One can be fluent in any number of languages in any order.

Traditionally, those who study Chinese literature seriously usually look toward Japanese criticism and comparison. Likewise, those who study Chinese philosophy tend to look toward French as a relevant language for scholarship.


The connection through academies provides a world of wild opportunities, if one is thinking of world literature in the global context. Likewise, it also funds the fuel behind translation, which is important in determining what is exactly counted in world literature.

Countries already have picked up on this, and everyone wants their culture read, as it allows for a self-created image of oneself to be internationally exported. British people make a killing selling themselves off as Shakespeare-like-James-Bond-like well groomed gentlemen. The French government is working on keeping the stereotype of French people away from rude and more toward romantic and passionate, the German government is promoting a sense of itself as scholar nation, the United States persists with its image as world savior, captain America to the rescue. All these constructs are part of the big fight of world literature. Our problem is understanding who is counted within the concept of world.

Today's options are rather staggering. We have come a long way from even the Goethe days, Goethe being perhaps the first great World Literature advocate, but still it makes one wonder when the great wave of Arabic, or Persian or Indian literature will hit the mainstream here. For a culture so obsessed with images of Arabs, I am shocked at how difficult it is for me to get a good anthology on Arabic Poetry, much less Persian. Likewise, India seems to do better, but it still feels like there is a wall between the cultures.

Japan was lucky (in some respects) in that the American funding helped bring a generation up enjoying their art and literature. Something like Manga or Anime is an interesting culture exchange, especially since there is a wide range of possibilities, made even more accessible by the American government pouring boatloads into translation and academic grants. Korean literature and culture was less lucky, but I hear now there is huge funding for Korean studies in many universities.

Simply put, what we include in our group of "The world" must first be monitored and translated, it must be accepted. Indonesian literature, for instance, is not first on anyone's list here presumably, whereas Russian literature may very well be - we need to understand why that is before we can talk of a world literature, and white males and who is represented.

[JCamilo]

I suppose his comment was that the canon would not have more white guys since chinese, indians, arabians would not be white guys. But of course, chinese, indians, arabians have also they system of exclusion and cultural imposition just like western have.

But this is irrelevant, even the white european guy was not an unity (the germans will laugh off spanyards, italians consider them more latin than portuguese, etc). So, it is pretty much irrelevant as influence. The good works will leave this area of interest to remain read outside those confort zones. H.G.Hagard is pretty much a good minor example. He survives when people care little for england, imperialism, africa...

[lawpark]

Greek definitely has more literary works than Persia

That is certainly debatable. It may seem as such to us considering our limited access to Persian literature and the fact that Greece was long seen as the foundation of the West... resulting in a level of scholarship, research, translation, and archaeology far beyond that expended upon the literature of Persia. Most who have read Firdowsi rank him as an equal to Homer, Virgil, or Dante... yet how many here have even heard of him... let alone read the Shahnameh?

Sorry for having misread your other comments. On this one, my original comments refer specifically to classical Greek vs. Persian as during the same timeframe (i.e. during the "Achaemenid" Empire). Based on what we do have now, I think we definitely have more Greek texts than old Persian Empire texts ... but of course, it did always make me wonder why the Persians would have left so little texts to posterity - given the obvious fact that the Empire clearly uses literacy as a means of Empire (clearly so from Cyrus' cylinder or the Darius' inscriptions) - was it an issue of lack of creation or more an issue of preservation?