|
WHY THE GREAT BOOKS AREN'T SO
GREAT
Note: This article was originally
published in the March issue of the CLAA newsletter, the Examiner.
by William C. Michael
March 1, 2009
 The talk about classical
education usually centers on the "great books". Study programs
audaciously proclaim their disdain for textbooks and their reading of
the "original sources". It is assumed that education in the "good ol'
days" consisted of reading and small group discussions, where teenagers
put the ideas of the classical masters to the test. With minds
crammed with the knowledge of mythology, history, geography and
literature, they read the classics and could give a detailed description
of every soldier Aeneas faced, every port Odysseus entered and every
sinner Dante met in hell.
Unfortunately, this is all wrong. What destroyed classical education was
the preference for information rather than skills. When we read
Francis Bacon declaring in the 1620s that "Knowledge is Power!" we find
the motto not of classical learning, but of its abandonment. It
was the desire for "encyclopedic" knowledge that characterized modern
learning--as far back as the 1600s, when Reason was rejected as the
means to truth and the Senses (and scientific instruments) set in its
place.
We must begin by understanding that the classical authors were
masters of the liberal arts themselves. Depending on when the authors
wrote, the liberal arts may have been more or less clearly defined than
at other times, but whether we read Moses or Dante, we read men who are
writing within a certain framework of knowledge and skill. This
framework becomes the key by which we may rightly understand and
appreciate their meaning and merits.
St. Paul provides us with guidance here, when he asks, "For what person
knows a man's thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him?"
It is impossible for us to understand a man's meaning unless we share in
his spirit. By our own study and mastery of the classical liberal arts,
we "put on" the spirit of the masters who have gone before us. We then
read their works with a secret discernment of their goals, methods and
resources. Without this spirit, the masters' writings are sealed books
to us, whose meaning, as St. Paul warns, we cannot expect to understand.
Therefore, the notion that "Socratic discussion" (which is
really not Socratic at all) is the means by which classical
literature is to studied is incorrect. Students and teachers
who are ignorant of the classical liberal arts are unprepared to enter
into the interpretation and enjoyment of the classical masters in the
same way that people who deny the Christian faith are unsuited to
interpret Scripture. Sure,
they may find lessons and enjoyment in them, but it these are unlikely to be the
lessons and enjoyment
that the authors intended.
For example, Homer was recognized as the prince of poets throughout
history. What virtues gained him such fame? The Roman orator
Quintillian tells us in the tenth book of his
Institutio Oratoria. Homer
was to be read for his demonstration of all of the virtues offered by
the art of rhetoric. This included his meter, his language, his
arrangement, his use of rhetorical figures, and so on. Homer was
studied for his ability to train orators. Nevertheless, students in
"great books" courses with no knowledge of the elements of Rhetoric or
the sound of heroic verse, sit with their English translations of Homer,
imagining themselves to be reaping the benefits of their "classical"
education.
Second, when classical schools spoke of Humanities courses, especially
in the Christian tradition, they were not occupied with reading lists
but a small number of choice writers: Cicero, Caesar, Livy, Virgil and
Horace. Humanities was not a literature survey course and anthologies were not
welcome. Consider, again, the words of Quintilian and consider whether
the great books courses that surround us would have gained his approval:
"We should read none
save the best authors and our reading must be almost as thorough as
if we were actually transcribing what we read. Nor must we study it
merely in parts, but must read through the whole work from cover to
cover and then read it afresh."
It requires no proof that the popular "great books" courses are not
doing this as they drag students across hundreds of pages of
reading--all in English translation. The vision that guides these "great
books" programs is not informed by masters of the classical liberal
arts, but principles of modern education with its hunger for trivia.
In the end, students will be "smart", but not skilled.
 To
attack the faults of others without providing a remedy of my own would
be unfair and I will not leave readers without an answer. The Classical Liberal Arts Academy has developed a
Humanities and Literature program that not only claim to be classical,
but actually are
classical in both philosophy and pedagogy. First, by re-establishing
the foundation of classical language mastery, focusing on the three
traditional divisions of composition (Oratory, Poetry, History) and
teaching the principles of Rhetoric we restore the spirit of the craft.
You can see a sample lesson from the Humanities course by clicking on
the image above. Second, by removing Literature from the core curriculum and restoring it
to its proper place as an independent and life-long enrichment program,
we take the pressure off students and allow them to absorb the original
readings.
CLAA Classical Humanities Program
(See sample reading guide above)
CLAA Literature Program
Reflection:
Would anyone (especially Catholics!) suggest that the best way to
understand Sacred Scripture is through discussion? Why then do many
recommend this approach to the "Great Books"?
|
