spacestationtrustfund's review
2.0
Originally published in 1949, Gilbert Highet's classic yet undeniably outdated and superannuated text has long since been replaced by other scholars. I would still recommend it to any academic interested in the topic, but only in the context of a university-level critical space (or if you're just very good at critical thinking); otherwise, there is genuinely not much use for the book.
As Highet notes in the very first sentence, the book was intended to be "an outline of the chief ways in which Greek and Latin influence has moulded the literatures of western Europe and America," and, as such, it works quite well. In terms of precise accuracy, however, there are many and major errors, predominantly regarding linguistic development, cultural phenomena, and interactions between European nations in the Middle Ages and Renaissance. I wrote a whole paper on this stuff, quite a while ago, and I'm not going to dig it out of wherever it is, but I will repeat a couple of examples.
The book is shot full with racism, orientalism, and cultural supremacism. Example: "The Greeks invented nearly all the literary patterns which we use: tragedy and comedy, epic and romance, and many more." It is ludicrous to ascribe an entire genre to the ancient Greeks, as diverse a society as they were, while also ignoring the immense influence Sumerian (first written story ever), Japanese (first novel), Egyptian (first recorded theatre*), and other cultures had on the development of literature and its associated cultural patterns.
Furthermore, although I am (understandably, I hope) predisposed to be a bit touchy where Middle Eastern and/or Arab cultural influences are being overlooked, it is by no means the only example. Highet spends quite some time on the American-European Symbolist movement and its origin in "classical material" (the chief of which are Mallarmé, Valéry, Pound, and Eliot, selon Highet), while almost entirely avoiding mentioning the monumental influence bastardised Chinese poetry had on more than one of the above.
There is, of course, the to-be-expected lack of acknowledgement of the fact that Christianity developed from Middle Eastern Judaism. There is a significant overlook of the contribution of Spain to the Renaissance (wonderfully delineated by María Rosa Lida de Malkiel). There are frequent misunderstandings or outright inaccuracies regarding language:
But I critique because I love, genuinely. This is not a bad book, whatever that means, merely an outdated one, in the same way Lucretius's De Rerum Natura is outdated yet still valuable. Highet (rightly) calls Juvenal misogynistic. He's unintentionally relatable when discussing André Gide ("He admired Wilde for two chief reasons. Wilde was an artist, with a lofty conception of the artist’s place in society, and a technique which curiously blended sensuality and restraint; and he was a homosexual, with the courage of his perversions"). He does, at one point, call Pound "ignorant and brash." And Highet says a lot of very good stuff about translation:
//
*Highet is correct that Western theatre originated in ancient Greece; however, the earliest recorded theatrical events date back to ca. 2000 BCE with the "passion plays" (or "pyramid texts") of ancient Egypt, which recounted the myth of Osiris.
**To give him credit: "Our modern world is in many ways a continuation of the world of Greece and Rome. Not in all ways—particularly not in medicine, music, industry, and applied science. But in most of our intellectual and spiritual activities... etc." Lip service, perhaps, but better than nothing.
As Highet notes in the very first sentence, the book was intended to be "an outline of the chief ways in which Greek and Latin influence has moulded the literatures of western Europe and America," and, as such, it works quite well. In terms of precise accuracy, however, there are many and major errors, predominantly regarding linguistic development, cultural phenomena, and interactions between European nations in the Middle Ages and Renaissance. I wrote a whole paper on this stuff, quite a while ago, and I'm not going to dig it out of wherever it is, but I will repeat a couple of examples.
The book is shot full with racism, orientalism, and cultural supremacism. Example: "The Greeks invented nearly all the literary patterns which we use: tragedy and comedy, epic and romance, and many more." It is ludicrous to ascribe an entire genre to the ancient Greeks, as diverse a society as they were, while also ignoring the immense influence Sumerian (first written story ever), Japanese (first novel), Egyptian (first recorded theatre*), and other cultures had on the development of literature and its associated cultural patterns.
When the Roman empire fell civilization was nearly ruined. Literature and the arts became refugees, hiding in outlying areas or under the protection of the church.That ought to be initial-majuscule Church. Here Highet is only referring to Western civilisation; the rest of the world was doing quite fine, the Byzantine Empire (né Eastern Roman) included. It will probably come as no surprise that Highet does not discuss the transmission of the classics.** Instead, he says things like, "The first [language] which has left a large and mature literature of its own is Anglo-Saxon, or Old English. After it came French; then Italian; and then the other European languages," which entirely ignores Middle Eastern literature (already a thriving ecosystem during the early Middle Ages) and East Asian literature (a well-refined art form by that point). Highet also repeats and reinforces staid depictions of civilisation versus barbarism which demonise non-Western (and, often, non-white) cultures as underdeveloped, uncivilised, uncultured, and subsequently therefore undeserving of basic humanity. Now, the fact that this is only intended to cover Greek and Roman influences on only Western literature is a handy excuse for much of this, but I personally believe that it is not only inaccurate but also frankly irresponsible to circumvent the importance mediaeval Arab culture had on the Graeco-Roman classics when attempting to present an historical timeline of Western literature. I do not care how much you want to avoid the fact that most mathematics and the numerical system itself (including the very word "algebra") are derived from Arabic; the influence of Arab astronomers, surgeons, linguists, scientists, etc.; the reality that a solid majority of the "Western" classics would have been entirely lost if not for Arab intervention. That does not matter. It is not an acceptable excuse.
Furthermore, although I am (understandably, I hope) predisposed to be a bit touchy where Middle Eastern and/or Arab cultural influences are being overlooked, it is by no means the only example. Highet spends quite some time on the American-European Symbolist movement and its origin in "classical material" (the chief of which are Mallarmé, Valéry, Pound, and Eliot, selon Highet), while almost entirely avoiding mentioning the monumental influence bastardised Chinese poetry had on more than one of the above.
There is, of course, the to-be-expected lack of acknowledgement of the fact that Christianity developed from Middle Eastern Judaism. There is a significant overlook of the contribution of Spain to the Renaissance (wonderfully delineated by María Rosa Lida de Malkiel). There are frequent misunderstandings or outright inaccuracies regarding language:
The division [between the Western and Eastern Roman Empire] runs down between Poland and Russia, and is shown in their writing. Although Polish and Russian are closely related languages, Poland (converted from Rome 965) uses the Roman alphabet, and Russia (converted from Byzantium 988) uses the Greek alphabet. But both the modern emperors called themselves Caesar—Kaiser in the west and Czar, or Tsar, in the east.Emphasis mine. Polish and Russian are not "closely related" languages. Both are in the broader Slavic language family, which goes like this:
Indo-European → Balto-Slavic → Slavic → East Slavic (→ Belarusian, Russian, Ukrainian, Rusyn), South Slavic (→ Eastern South Slavic [→ various dialects], Western South Slavic [→ various dialects]), West Slavic → Czech-Slovak (→ Czech, Slovak), Lechitic (→ Polish, Pomeranian [→ Kashubian, West Pomeranian], Polabian), Sorbian (→ Lower Sorbian, Upper Sorbian).Keep in mind that the Balto-Slavic branch of the Indo-European linguistic family is technically only hypothetical. But still: Polish and Russian are quite different. Polish is an Indo-European → Balto-Slavic → Slavic → West Slavic → Lechitic language, and Russian is an Indo-European → Balto-Slavic → Slavic → East Slavic language.
But I critique because I love, genuinely. This is not a bad book, whatever that means, merely an outdated one, in the same way Lucretius's De Rerum Natura is outdated yet still valuable. Highet (rightly) calls Juvenal misogynistic. He's unintentionally relatable when discussing André Gide ("He admired Wilde for two chief reasons. Wilde was an artist, with a lofty conception of the artist’s place in society, and a technique which curiously blended sensuality and restraint; and he was a homosexual, with the courage of his perversions"). He does, at one point, call Pound "ignorant and brash." And Highet says a lot of very good stuff about translation:
Translation [...] enriches the style of the translator’s language. This is because any distinguished book when translated usually carries with it many stylistic patterns which the translator’s language does not possess. It may, for instance, be written in a form which does not exist in the new language. When it is translated, the form will be naturalized. If it is in poetry, its metre may not exist in the new language, in which case it must be copied, or a satisfactory metre must be devised to render its effects. Almost certainly it will contain images which are new, and which can be imported with all the charm of novelty. And often it will embody fresh, interesting, and highly developed verbal devices produced by years or generations of experiment and evolution, which can be copied or adapted in the recipient language. From the translation, if it be a good one, these patterns are then imitated by original writers, and soon become a perfectly native resource.Highet states that "languages are not dead if they are still read; historical events are not dead if they still produce results." In the purely literal sense I disagree (that's not how linguistic classification works), but in the broader theoretical sense I am wholly in agreement. Culture, I would argue, retains power as long as it is studied and understood. This is not to say that undesirable aspects of culture should be re- or suppressed in order to avoid repeat offences, per se, because studying and understanding negative cultural events can also rob them of their power. What is most important is understanding.
//
*Highet is correct that Western theatre originated in ancient Greece; however, the earliest recorded theatrical events date back to ca. 2000 BCE with the "passion plays" (or "pyramid texts") of ancient Egypt, which recounted the myth of Osiris.
**To give him credit: "Our modern world is in many ways a continuation of the world of Greece and Rome. Not in all ways—particularly not in medicine, music, industry, and applied science. But in most of our intellectual and spiritual activities... etc." Lip service, perhaps, but better than nothing.
skrivena_stranica's review against another edition
1.0
Might use later to cite in my research but when it comes to this book... There are so much better books. This author must be on good terms with Harold Bloom, there is this same way of writing and self-absorption. For Middle Ages, read Le Goff, for other parts of history and literary history... I believe there are enough better authors. Yes, it wasn't easy to write book as big as this one, to read all those books, but maybe there is reason why people usually don't do it.
More...