I agree with much of what you say here. But there are no digressions in Beowulf. I love Jane Austen, but her range is limited, and she only touches lightly upon the very deepest wellsprings of human good and evil. She did not intend to do otherwise. My study of medieval literature and of classical epic and drama shows instead that these works are far more complex than modern novels are, and that we are hard put to read them as they were intended to be read. So when I say that there are no digressions in Beowulf, I mean that the poet has woven together a vast tapestry of motifs that are to be heard as it were simultaneously, each reflecting upon the others as they accrue meanings and associations while we move through the poem. The fight at Finnsburgh is crucial to the whole. Modern novelists do not work that way. Dickens did -- but most people, I find, do not understand what he was doing.
Thank you for this comment! I've never heard it put so starkly as "there are no digressions in Beowulf," but I am perfectly willing to accept that view, and your reasoning makes sense. My general reaction to Jane Austen is essentially identical to what you described, though Austen scholars seem to find much more in her work than I can, and I end up wondering if there's something wrong with me. Or maybe I'm just not motivated to look as deeply because amatory fiction of the eighteenth and early nineteenth century has never appealed strongly to me.
In his essay "Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics," Professor J.R.R. Tolkien speaks about "its lofty tone and high seriousness." We probably need to deepen and nuance the meaning of adjectives like "simple" and "complex" when applied to literary creations. In the case of some modern critics and writers, these can be signs of a sort of evolutionist perspective applied to ancient/classical creations (with the implicit presumption, of course, that moderns are "superior" in comparison to those authors who wrote stylistically "primitive" works). As an argument in favor of Beowulf's complexity, I am happy to quote a fragment from Tolkien's essay: "It glimpses the cosmic and moves with the thought of all men concerning the fate of human life and efforts; it stands amid but above the petty wars of princes, and surpasses the dates and limits of historical periods, however important."
An interesting direction for reflection could be the following: What qualities do avid readers possess that allow them to read with great joy both the "primitive" texts of the Holy Scripture and modern authors like Jane Austen, T.S. Eliot, or E. Hemingway? Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, I've noticed that most "elitists" who consider sacred texts "primitive" hold radical aesthetic opinions that not only ignore Aristotle's classical theories expounded in "Poetics," but also exclude entire types and literary genres that do not conform to their aesthetic "canon." Additionally, I've noticed something else: most of the time, they do not read "fairy stories," myths, and legends. Therefore, they not only exclude authors like Tolkien and Lewis but also consider fairy-tale readers "primitive." If you ask me what is lacking in their case, I would respond: the spirit (i.e., the innocence) of childhood.
That's an insightful perspective, and interestingly, Todorov uses the word "érudition" and "érudites"; I translated the latter as "scholarly," but I suspect that the French word has a slightly more arrogant connotation than "scholarly" and may hint at the lack of a childlike spirit, as you mentioned.
Also, you bring up an important topic that naturally branches off from this one, namely, the narrative and stylistic relationship between ancient texts of great renown (the Bible, the Odyssey, etc.) and the various forms of folk and mythological literature that we have inherited from the ancient or not-so-ancient past.
What is your overall opinion of that book? I have some reservations about it, but I imagine that it has made positive contributions to the modern understanding of the Bible as literature.
Although I also have certain reservations about Frye's work, I believe that a serious discussion about biblical literary archetypes can be opened, including references to his theses in this book. I invoked it in the context of a study about the "hermeneutic tradition” represented precisely by those who analyze literary writings from the perspective of "mythological analysis”—such as Mircea Eliade, Ioan Petru Culianu, Nicolae Balotă, Emil Turdeanu, Anton Dumitriu, etc. Following his own path, Frye came closer to their vision. At the same time, I would emphasize the importance of biblical archetypes in the history of literature. However, a much more substantial theological discussion regarding the value of sacred texts and their differences from "profane" (i.e., secular) literary works must be initiated.
Such a discussion would be tremendously important for the teaching of literature, I think—perhaps we might add in (from a different angle on the myth question) René Girard, who gets really right one of the differences between Scripture and myth which is necessary to preserve the uniqueness of Christian revelation even as we want to show it as the perfection of what myth wanted to be, perhaps.
On the question re profane literature, it seems to me that St. Augustine’s hermeneutics are often taken as simply transferable from Scripture to other literature, and I wonder if it’s possible. The principle of charity makes sense for Christian readers regardless of context; but I think it’s important to note that charity doesn’t mean ignoring the possibility of truly evil intentions in a so-called Great Book. Something else to flesh out elsewhere perhaps.
Yes, the desire to "mythologize" biblical literature, even when this is done with respect for its sacred character, needs to be counterbalanced by awareness that Scripture is fundamentally different from myth (even from a literary standpoint), though it is in a sense the divine fulfillment/perfection of ancient mythoi.
This would be a rare - and extremely challenging - discussion: the possibility of truly evil intentions in a classical book. Can you provide some examples?
Indeed, this is a significant - and unavoidable - topic. It can become really challenging to show that even in the case of those authors who made a great effort to write "against" ancient texts, they are still very much indebted to them. In any case, they are much more indebted than they think and are ready to admit.
Personally, I found learning ancient languages to be that “quality.” Reading some of Homer in the original, for example, radically improved my ability to appreciate the qualities of premodern literature in general-even that which I cannot read in the original (the Hebrew Scriptures and Beowulf, for example).
An excellent point. Knowledge of foreign and ancient languages in general is a powerful means of opening our hearts and minds to the special genius of ancient literature. Even rudimentary knowledge of Hebrew, for example, can draw the reader into the Old Testament in a new way.
I fully agree that learning classical languages can provide a completely different experience—and understanding, of course—of ancient texts. It is not just about the ability to read very old texts in their original language; it is also about the revelation of the complexity and intricately elaborate structures of those languages. Those who created such languages were not 'primitives' at all!
"it is also about the revelation of the complexity and intricately elaborate structures of those languages"—YES. The complexity of ancient languages is at times almost overwhelming. It would be strange if a culture accustomed to the use of such language were somehow limited to "primitive" forms of poetry and narrative!
Perhaps we should lean into these languages much earlier in Catholic education than many schools do—I think, for all its polemical edge and some things worth disagreeing with, this article emphasizes the mimetic reason why (https://americanmind.org/salvo/great-books-is-for-losers/).
The mimetic formation of young people through ancient language study I think has to be considered an essential matter for the Church going forward—it’s one thing that Orthodox Jews have understood more than modern Catholics, the need to be able to think in union with the tradition, which requires inhabiting the tradition’s language(s), plural in our case.
Yes, we absolutely should. They are very difficult subjects for young people and need not be imposed to excess on those who do not have an aptitude for studies of that nature. But those of a more intellectual inclination need an abundance of Latin, quite a bit of Greek, and some Hebrew, and this is a process that must continue year after year after year. I recently wrote an article for Catholic Family News about medieval education, and I emphasized the fact that the linchpin of the entire medieval educational enterprise was the study of the Latin language, and not just for the purpose of writing Latin documents or reading Latin literature—also for the purpose of understanding language itself, and also for the purpose of participating in the civilizational traditions to which the students belonged.
I wonder how difficult they would be for young people if introduced at a young enough age and not primarily as textual languages but as spoken ones--I've no experience teaching, for instance, spoken Latin, but I have friends who have learned that way (as adults) and have found it much easier.
Thank you, Robert, for this stimulating essay. The qualities of ancient literature that make it great (directness, a raw engagement with the world, man, and God, a certain rugged grandeur of diction, memorable repetition) are very different from those that make modern literature great (a sort of idealized and well-polished verisimilitude of a certain period of time or social class).
Regarding repetition, please note that I gave a much more extensive lecture about this, which can be found here:
I really like the way you summarized the relationship between the ancient and modern literary aesthetic, and I completely agree.
The Rorate Caeli article is more what I had in mind when I was looking for your work on liturgical repetition. I'm going to change the link in the article. Also, is that YouTube video I linked the best one for the repetition topic?
I spent a little bit of time with "Mimesis" a while ago for an academic paper I was writing. I was seeing the tip of a very insightful iceberg but unfortunately never went back to it. I just looked over the list of chapters, and some of them are highly enticing. Thank you for reminding me about it!
It’s not an easy read until you realize that what he is doing is charting different modes of “the representation of reality.” He does an excellent job showing how the modern social realist novel that dominates now is as much a representation as Homer or Genesis, just (as you show in your post) with different rhetorical assumptions about what is real.
I just read Auerbach’s chapter on the Song of Roland—as you said, simply brilliant. It was interesting to see him emphasize and explore characteristics that I brought up in the article: parataxis, repetition, a certain lack of causal/temporal/discursive flow, narrative immediacy. This quote struck me: "It was the vernacular poets who first saw man as a living being and found the form in which parataxis possesses poetic power." He's comparing to late Antique style here, so "first saw" is better interpreted as first _returned_ to the paratactic poetic power of Scripture, which he mentions earlier in the chapter and which leads to a superb reflection on scriptural poetics: "The sublime in this sentence from Genesis is not contained in a magnificent display of rolling periods nor in the splendor of abundant figures of speech but in the impressive brevity which is in such contrast to the immense content and which for that very reason has a note of obscurity which fills the listener with a shuddering awe."
Two days ago I stumbled upon a previously unknown to me Victorian author, Christina Rossetti. Her study and literary comment on the Book of Revelation is profound. I started listening to the audio at page 300 of The Face of the Deep (available on Internet Archive for download) and I marveled as to how this long suffering Anglican mystic poet humbly weaves her artistic light with her knowledge of antecedent Scripture with the verses of the Apocalypse.
Her first love is clearly expressed, her namesake.
She may be the counterpoint to the captivating yet pretentious literary world of Jane Austin and her heirs.
There was a popular song from the late 60's by John Rowles, "If I Only Had Time"
Why do I feel that is the anthem for us all at this late, near insane hour?
Thank you for this comment, Mike. Christina Rossetti was a fine poet and was actually an Anglo-Catholic influenced by the Oxford Movement. She is _definitely_ in a different category than Jane Austen. You should read her poem "Goblin Market" sometime, if you haven't. It's intense, maybe a bit risqué, but a remarkable work of art and very memorable. I hope you have a merry (and medieval) Christmas!
Like all matters of taste in literature, I wonder if this is that much of a problem. I, for one, find Austen, Dickens, and Brontë incredibly tedious, boring, and self-indulgent and have never been able to complete any of their works. On the other hand, I love Beowulf (also the Iliad and Odyssey), Chaucer, and even the King James version of the Bible. I've never thought of these works as "primitive" in any way.
Granted I may be a minority, but to me comparisons of Austen (essentially a romance writer) to Beowulf or the Bible is like comparing a Harlequin romance paperback to The Chronicles of Narnia...they are just completely different works in intent, structure, and mode of entertainment.
But then I don't have a degree in literature so you can ignore my ignorant opinions...
Possibly…learning a new perspective can always change minds…I used to hate Jackson Pollock until someone pointed out to me he was exploring chaos theory in the only way he knew how.
Interesting essay. I look forward to reading more about the literary via media.
In the mid-1990s, I had a close friend who said he couldn't believe the Bible was the word of God because it was so roughly written and "inferior" as literature compared to many other books. He thought that God (if there were a God) could do better. (He now writes "speculative fiction" including an acclaimed series for middle schoolers that features gender-bending and same-sex attraction.)
I have never known anyone else come out and say this, but this essay makes me think that it's probably not uncommon to subconsciously have this prejudice.
Any great literature requires us to rise to its level and to set aside our prejudices. The same God who came to earth as a baby, born in a stable, despised and rejected, rode a donkey, and died the death of a criminal also deigned to reveal himself to us through "primitive" writing. As always, his humility is striking and invites us to deepen ours.
Thank you for this comment, which supplies a thought-provoking (and sad) case study in precisely the situation that I was discussing and expressing concern about.
I didn't emphasize this or even really mention it in the article, but my concern about the distancing effect is not merely theoretical. It's based partially on my experience teaching university students, though since I don't directly teach Scripture, I had to kind of extrapolate from their relationship with language in general and with other forms of literature.
I’m not sure the contrast is a problem. Isn’t it good to feel the other-ness of Sacred Scripture? What is disrespectful is labeling the style “primitive,” but let’s attribute that to the pernicious error of evolution.
As for the idea of Jane Austen narrating life — now that’s a lovely thought.
It is absolutely good (I would say crucial) to feel the otherness, but I would argue that the otherness will always be there to an adequate extent (if one is actually reading the Bible or a faithful translation, rather than a paraphrase). I don't think that any modern person could become fully comfortable with the narrative and poetic style of the Bible (and especially of the Old Testament). Also, this is why I prefer old translations (KJV, DRB, RV, Geneva Bible, etc.), because the original language of the Bible is inherently "other" (even for speakers of modern Greek or modern Hebrew), and the language of the translation should retain that otherness.
My concern is that the otherness can become too extreme and reach the point where scriptural texts are not only _labeled_ as primitive but actually _feel_ primitive—and therefore maybe dull, bizarre, unrealistic, incomprehensible, aesthetically defective, etc.—to ordinary readers.
Yes, that's one of several reasons to prefer older translations.
I understand what you're saying about the extreme. It's a particular problem, too, because the simplicity deceives one into thinking it could be read without aids. Most people recognize they need help to understand Shakespeare, but they think they can and should tackle the much older texts of the Bible on their own.
A good point—the extensive biblical commentaries composed even in the Patristic era show that helping people to more fully understand and appreciate Scripture was a high priority among scholars and clerics even in the era of the early Church.
Commenting here as an ill-educated one who read aloud to my child all manner of *primitive* literature: folk and fairy tales, the Aeneid, the Odyssey, the Illiad ... and yes, Charles Dickens. Reading with your ears transforms the most nonsensical or tedious-seeming material — thinking of Homer’s lengthy rollcall of ships and their captains and his blow by blow battle scenes — into utterly magical experience of otherness. At least in our experience. So, yeah, if it seems too alien or unmodern, read aloud and find if it doesn’t perhaps become more comprehensible and diverting. Just my (thoroughly unschooled) observation. And I suppose it’s unnecessary to add that reading aloud is essential to apprehending any poetry-type stuff, which I gotta say puts me right to sleep when I only read with my eyes.
This is a fantastic comment. The oral/aural experience of literature is sadly neglected these days. The predominance of private, silent reading is a recent development! (Beginning in the 18th century or thereabouts.) It's wonderful that you noticed something special when reading aloud the Iliad, the Odyssey, etc., and it's also not surprising when we consider that these works were written with vocal recitation in mind!
This is something I've never considered, and while I do understand how it could be, I don't think it's necessary. This last year, I read both Beowulf and Sense & Sensibility for the first time, and loved both deeply. They reflect different styles and eras, and both had something to teach me. My entire reading life has had the pleasures of both Victorian fiction and fairy tales and I never saw any need to compare one to the other. Or perhaps this essay is a response to a very different kind of reader than I was raised to be?
Hi Emma, thanks for the comment! Yes, an individual reader's experience will certainly vary according to educational background, aptitude, cultural preconceptions, etc. One thing I would say in response is that my concern pertains not merely to enjoyment of these different texts but to the ability to engage with them deeply and feel aesthetically and intellectually united to them. It's certainly possible that someone might spend years reading only Austen, Brontë, Hemingway, etc. and then read and enjoy (translations of) Beowulf or the Exodus narrative, but is that person really engaging with—being transformed by—these texts in the way that we would want? I think it is difficult to say that he or she is, because those literary texts function in objectively different ways, and if one hasn't learned about those older literary modes through extensive exposure, cultural immersion, or formal education, I'm not sure where such ability would come from. To oppose one historical manifestation of literature to another, as you mentioned in your restack note, is simply to acknowledge that these manifestations are indeed different—in language use, structure, characterization, imagery patterns, poetic form, etc.—and therefore involve different modes of reading, appreciating, understanding, and internalizing.
Also, I don't know if you saw Kristi's comment, but she mentioned someone who expressed precisely the problematic distancing effect that I described: "In the mid-1990s, I had a close friend who said he couldn't believe the Bible was the word of God because it was so roughly written and 'inferior' as literature compared to many other books. He thought that God (if there were a God) could do better."
I could mention one of my literature students this year as another example. She is in her senior year of a major similar to an English major, so she has had three years of collegiate exposure to literature (mostly modern literature, apparently). She came to me in distress because the medieval/early modern lit that we were reading was so difficult for her. She didn't know what to do with it. She presumably is a perfectly competent reader of the English language, but when it came to engaging with these texts on a deeper level, she felt somewhat lost.
My experience with non–English majors is even more worrying. Though not everyone needs to be a sophisticated reader of secular literature, we want as many people as possible to benefit in profound ways from the biblical texts that the good God has given us (we would even want illiterate people to be able to hear these stories and be changed by them). What I have seen in the classroom, and in casual interactions with a wide variety of adult Christians, gives me much cause for the concern that I discussed in this article.
Thank you for joining the conversation, and merry Christmas!
I think you have some good points, and I know my (or anyone else's) experience is definitely universal. In my case, I was raised both deeply knowing the Bible (KJV in particular) and more modern literature. I know not every one has that, and I do see how someone exclusively raised on one could fail to appreciate the other.
I may also be misunderstanding a little of your purpose, since I'm reading it as the older form being the de facto better and so should be the only form that people read or enjoy, the newer form being valueless and of no worth. You may not be intending quite as extreme a view as I'm getting, and this was what I was disagreeing with. I think society would be the worse both for losing Beowulf and Austen (or Hugo, or Dosteovsky) - though at the moment, broadly speaking, most people have lost Beowulf, the Iliad, et al, as far as their individual experience goes.
I'm going to correct myself because I realized that I missed this section near the end of your essay: "What can be done? By no means should we stop reading good modern literature. What we need, instead, is more literature, but of a different kind."
I think I might also understand what you're saying a little better by comparison to something I've seen more often, which is that someone who's exclusively read contemporary literature finds it difficult to read anything older than their own lifetime, or a little before. Perhaps also I'm not seeing the difficulty that is clear in your situation as among those I know who are literate in 19th century literature are also literate in the Bible, having been raised, or developed, an understanding of both kinds of literature, and that doesn't sound like what's happening in your classes.
I agree with much of what you say here. But there are no digressions in Beowulf. I love Jane Austen, but her range is limited, and she only touches lightly upon the very deepest wellsprings of human good and evil. She did not intend to do otherwise. My study of medieval literature and of classical epic and drama shows instead that these works are far more complex than modern novels are, and that we are hard put to read them as they were intended to be read. So when I say that there are no digressions in Beowulf, I mean that the poet has woven together a vast tapestry of motifs that are to be heard as it were simultaneously, each reflecting upon the others as they accrue meanings and associations while we move through the poem. The fight at Finnsburgh is crucial to the whole. Modern novelists do not work that way. Dickens did -- but most people, I find, do not understand what he was doing.
Thank you for this comment! I've never heard it put so starkly as "there are no digressions in Beowulf," but I am perfectly willing to accept that view, and your reasoning makes sense. My general reaction to Jane Austen is essentially identical to what you described, though Austen scholars seem to find much more in her work than I can, and I end up wondering if there's something wrong with me. Or maybe I'm just not motivated to look as deeply because amatory fiction of the eighteenth and early nineteenth century has never appealed strongly to me.
In his essay "Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics," Professor J.R.R. Tolkien speaks about "its lofty tone and high seriousness." We probably need to deepen and nuance the meaning of adjectives like "simple" and "complex" when applied to literary creations. In the case of some modern critics and writers, these can be signs of a sort of evolutionist perspective applied to ancient/classical creations (with the implicit presumption, of course, that moderns are "superior" in comparison to those authors who wrote stylistically "primitive" works). As an argument in favor of Beowulf's complexity, I am happy to quote a fragment from Tolkien's essay: "It glimpses the cosmic and moves with the thought of all men concerning the fate of human life and efforts; it stands amid but above the petty wars of princes, and surpasses the dates and limits of historical periods, however important."
An interesting direction for reflection could be the following: What qualities do avid readers possess that allow them to read with great joy both the "primitive" texts of the Holy Scripture and modern authors like Jane Austen, T.S. Eliot, or E. Hemingway? Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, I've noticed that most "elitists" who consider sacred texts "primitive" hold radical aesthetic opinions that not only ignore Aristotle's classical theories expounded in "Poetics," but also exclude entire types and literary genres that do not conform to their aesthetic "canon." Additionally, I've noticed something else: most of the time, they do not read "fairy stories," myths, and legends. Therefore, they not only exclude authors like Tolkien and Lewis but also consider fairy-tale readers "primitive." If you ask me what is lacking in their case, I would respond: the spirit (i.e., the innocence) of childhood.
That's an insightful perspective, and interestingly, Todorov uses the word "érudition" and "érudites"; I translated the latter as "scholarly," but I suspect that the French word has a slightly more arrogant connotation than "scholarly" and may hint at the lack of a childlike spirit, as you mentioned.
Also, you bring up an important topic that naturally branches off from this one, namely, the narrative and stylistic relationship between ancient texts of great renown (the Bible, the Odyssey, etc.) and the various forms of folk and mythological literature that we have inherited from the ancient or not-so-ancient past.
It is probably time to (re)discuss Northrop Frye's work, "The Great Code: The Bible and Literature, isn't it"?
What is your overall opinion of that book? I have some reservations about it, but I imagine that it has made positive contributions to the modern understanding of the Bible as literature.
Although I also have certain reservations about Frye's work, I believe that a serious discussion about biblical literary archetypes can be opened, including references to his theses in this book. I invoked it in the context of a study about the "hermeneutic tradition” represented precisely by those who analyze literary writings from the perspective of "mythological analysis”—such as Mircea Eliade, Ioan Petru Culianu, Nicolae Balotă, Emil Turdeanu, Anton Dumitriu, etc. Following his own path, Frye came closer to their vision. At the same time, I would emphasize the importance of biblical archetypes in the history of literature. However, a much more substantial theological discussion regarding the value of sacred texts and their differences from "profane" (i.e., secular) literary works must be initiated.
Such a discussion would be tremendously important for the teaching of literature, I think—perhaps we might add in (from a different angle on the myth question) René Girard, who gets really right one of the differences between Scripture and myth which is necessary to preserve the uniqueness of Christian revelation even as we want to show it as the perfection of what myth wanted to be, perhaps.
On the question re profane literature, it seems to me that St. Augustine’s hermeneutics are often taken as simply transferable from Scripture to other literature, and I wonder if it’s possible. The principle of charity makes sense for Christian readers regardless of context; but I think it’s important to note that charity doesn’t mean ignoring the possibility of truly evil intentions in a so-called Great Book. Something else to flesh out elsewhere perhaps.
Yes, the desire to "mythologize" biblical literature, even when this is done with respect for its sacred character, needs to be counterbalanced by awareness that Scripture is fundamentally different from myth (even from a literary standpoint), though it is in a sense the divine fulfillment/perfection of ancient mythoi.
This would be a rare - and extremely challenging - discussion: the possibility of truly evil intentions in a classical book. Can you provide some examples?
Indeed, this is a significant - and unavoidable - topic. It can become really challenging to show that even in the case of those authors who made a great effort to write "against" ancient texts, they are still very much indebted to them. In any case, they are much more indebted than they think and are ready to admit.
Personally, I found learning ancient languages to be that “quality.” Reading some of Homer in the original, for example, radically improved my ability to appreciate the qualities of premodern literature in general-even that which I cannot read in the original (the Hebrew Scriptures and Beowulf, for example).
An excellent point. Knowledge of foreign and ancient languages in general is a powerful means of opening our hearts and minds to the special genius of ancient literature. Even rudimentary knowledge of Hebrew, for example, can draw the reader into the Old Testament in a new way.
I fully agree that learning classical languages can provide a completely different experience—and understanding, of course—of ancient texts. It is not just about the ability to read very old texts in their original language; it is also about the revelation of the complexity and intricately elaborate structures of those languages. Those who created such languages were not 'primitives' at all!
"it is also about the revelation of the complexity and intricately elaborate structures of those languages"—YES. The complexity of ancient languages is at times almost overwhelming. It would be strange if a culture accustomed to the use of such language were somehow limited to "primitive" forms of poetry and narrative!
Perhaps we should lean into these languages much earlier in Catholic education than many schools do—I think, for all its polemical edge and some things worth disagreeing with, this article emphasizes the mimetic reason why (https://americanmind.org/salvo/great-books-is-for-losers/).
The mimetic formation of young people through ancient language study I think has to be considered an essential matter for the Church going forward—it’s one thing that Orthodox Jews have understood more than modern Catholics, the need to be able to think in union with the tradition, which requires inhabiting the tradition’s language(s), plural in our case.
Yes, we absolutely should. They are very difficult subjects for young people and need not be imposed to excess on those who do not have an aptitude for studies of that nature. But those of a more intellectual inclination need an abundance of Latin, quite a bit of Greek, and some Hebrew, and this is a process that must continue year after year after year. I recently wrote an article for Catholic Family News about medieval education, and I emphasized the fact that the linchpin of the entire medieval educational enterprise was the study of the Latin language, and not just for the purpose of writing Latin documents or reading Latin literature—also for the purpose of understanding language itself, and also for the purpose of participating in the civilizational traditions to which the students belonged.
I wonder how difficult they would be for young people if introduced at a young enough age and not primarily as textual languages but as spoken ones--I've no experience teaching, for instance, spoken Latin, but I have friends who have learned that way (as adults) and have found it much easier.
Thank you, Robert, for this stimulating essay. The qualities of ancient literature that make it great (directness, a raw engagement with the world, man, and God, a certain rugged grandeur of diction, memorable repetition) are very different from those that make modern literature great (a sort of idealized and well-polished verisimilitude of a certain period of time or social class).
Regarding repetition, please note that I gave a much more extensive lecture about this, which can be found here:
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2019/02/the-benefits-and-beauties-of-liturgical.html
I really like the way you summarized the relationship between the ancient and modern literary aesthetic, and I completely agree.
The Rorate Caeli article is more what I had in mind when I was looking for your work on liturgical repetition. I'm going to change the link in the article. Also, is that YouTube video I linked the best one for the repetition topic?
Yes, the video more or less matches the text at Rorate. (There were some variations in the spoken lecture.)
Have you read Auerbach’s “Mimesis”? He does a brilliant job showing the differences in “realism” across the Western tradition.
I spent a little bit of time with "Mimesis" a while ago for an academic paper I was writing. I was seeing the tip of a very insightful iceberg but unfortunately never went back to it. I just looked over the list of chapters, and some of them are highly enticing. Thank you for reminding me about it!
It’s not an easy read until you realize that what he is doing is charting different modes of “the representation of reality.” He does an excellent job showing how the modern social realist novel that dominates now is as much a representation as Homer or Genesis, just (as you show in your post) with different rhetorical assumptions about what is real.
I just read Auerbach’s chapter on the Song of Roland—as you said, simply brilliant. It was interesting to see him emphasize and explore characteristics that I brought up in the article: parataxis, repetition, a certain lack of causal/temporal/discursive flow, narrative immediacy. This quote struck me: "It was the vernacular poets who first saw man as a living being and found the form in which parataxis possesses poetic power." He's comparing to late Antique style here, so "first saw" is better interpreted as first _returned_ to the paratactic poetic power of Scripture, which he mentions earlier in the chapter and which leads to a superb reflection on scriptural poetics: "The sublime in this sentence from Genesis is not contained in a magnificent display of rolling periods nor in the splendor of abundant figures of speech but in the impressive brevity which is in such contrast to the immense content and which for that very reason has a note of obscurity which fills the listener with a shuddering awe."
I can also recommend his essay on “sermo humilis”—the Christian mixing of high and low style. I am happy you enjoyed his reading of Roland!
Insightful as always Robert... thank you!
Two days ago I stumbled upon a previously unknown to me Victorian author, Christina Rossetti. Her study and literary comment on the Book of Revelation is profound. I started listening to the audio at page 300 of The Face of the Deep (available on Internet Archive for download) and I marveled as to how this long suffering Anglican mystic poet humbly weaves her artistic light with her knowledge of antecedent Scripture with the verses of the Apocalypse.
Her first love is clearly expressed, her namesake.
She may be the counterpoint to the captivating yet pretentious literary world of Jane Austin and her heirs.
There was a popular song from the late 60's by John Rowles, "If I Only Had Time"
Why do I feel that is the anthem for us all at this late, near insane hour?
A very Mary/Christ Mass to you and yours!
Thank you for this comment, Mike. Christina Rossetti was a fine poet and was actually an Anglo-Catholic influenced by the Oxford Movement. She is _definitely_ in a different category than Jane Austen. You should read her poem "Goblin Market" sometime, if you haven't. It's intense, maybe a bit risqué, but a remarkable work of art and very memorable. I hope you have a merry (and medieval) Christmas!
Like all matters of taste in literature, I wonder if this is that much of a problem. I, for one, find Austen, Dickens, and Brontë incredibly tedious, boring, and self-indulgent and have never been able to complete any of their works. On the other hand, I love Beowulf (also the Iliad and Odyssey), Chaucer, and even the King James version of the Bible. I've never thought of these works as "primitive" in any way.
Granted I may be a minority, but to me comparisons of Austen (essentially a romance writer) to Beowulf or the Bible is like comparing a Harlequin romance paperback to The Chronicles of Narnia...they are just completely different works in intent, structure, and mode of entertainment.
But then I don't have a degree in literature so you can ignore my ignorant opinions...
I wonder if an understanding of the depths in Austen might change this for you, erniet--I think her fundamentally different than Dickens and the Brontë sisters. For instance, Julia Yost in this short essay (https://www.wisebloodbooks.com/store/p150/Jane_Austen%27s_Darkness%2C_by_Julia_Yost.html) aims to show the darkness in Austen that makes her much more than a romance author. (Review here: https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2024/10/jane-austens-novels-are-darker-than-you-think; author discussing later on in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcTWgTLDW20).
Robert, I wonder what you'd think after reading this essay also.
Possibly…learning a new perspective can always change minds…I used to hate Jackson Pollock until someone pointed out to me he was exploring chaos theory in the only way he knew how.
Thanks, I’ll give it (the essay) a read.
Interesting essay. I look forward to reading more about the literary via media.
In the mid-1990s, I had a close friend who said he couldn't believe the Bible was the word of God because it was so roughly written and "inferior" as literature compared to many other books. He thought that God (if there were a God) could do better. (He now writes "speculative fiction" including an acclaimed series for middle schoolers that features gender-bending and same-sex attraction.)
I have never known anyone else come out and say this, but this essay makes me think that it's probably not uncommon to subconsciously have this prejudice.
Any great literature requires us to rise to its level and to set aside our prejudices. The same God who came to earth as a baby, born in a stable, despised and rejected, rode a donkey, and died the death of a criminal also deigned to reveal himself to us through "primitive" writing. As always, his humility is striking and invites us to deepen ours.
Thank you for this comment, which supplies a thought-provoking (and sad) case study in precisely the situation that I was discussing and expressing concern about.
I didn't emphasize this or even really mention it in the article, but my concern about the distancing effect is not merely theoretical. It's based partially on my experience teaching university students, though since I don't directly teach Scripture, I had to kind of extrapolate from their relationship with language in general and with other forms of literature.
I’m not sure the contrast is a problem. Isn’t it good to feel the other-ness of Sacred Scripture? What is disrespectful is labeling the style “primitive,” but let’s attribute that to the pernicious error of evolution.
As for the idea of Jane Austen narrating life — now that’s a lovely thought.
It is absolutely good (I would say crucial) to feel the otherness, but I would argue that the otherness will always be there to an adequate extent (if one is actually reading the Bible or a faithful translation, rather than a paraphrase). I don't think that any modern person could become fully comfortable with the narrative and poetic style of the Bible (and especially of the Old Testament). Also, this is why I prefer old translations (KJV, DRB, RV, Geneva Bible, etc.), because the original language of the Bible is inherently "other" (even for speakers of modern Greek or modern Hebrew), and the language of the translation should retain that otherness.
My concern is that the otherness can become too extreme and reach the point where scriptural texts are not only _labeled_ as primitive but actually _feel_ primitive—and therefore maybe dull, bizarre, unrealistic, incomprehensible, aesthetically defective, etc.—to ordinary readers.
Yes, that's one of several reasons to prefer older translations.
I understand what you're saying about the extreme. It's a particular problem, too, because the simplicity deceives one into thinking it could be read without aids. Most people recognize they need help to understand Shakespeare, but they think they can and should tackle the much older texts of the Bible on their own.
A good point—the extensive biblical commentaries composed even in the Patristic era show that helping people to more fully understand and appreciate Scripture was a high priority among scholars and clerics even in the era of the early Church.
Commenting here as an ill-educated one who read aloud to my child all manner of *primitive* literature: folk and fairy tales, the Aeneid, the Odyssey, the Illiad ... and yes, Charles Dickens. Reading with your ears transforms the most nonsensical or tedious-seeming material — thinking of Homer’s lengthy rollcall of ships and their captains and his blow by blow battle scenes — into utterly magical experience of otherness. At least in our experience. So, yeah, if it seems too alien or unmodern, read aloud and find if it doesn’t perhaps become more comprehensible and diverting. Just my (thoroughly unschooled) observation. And I suppose it’s unnecessary to add that reading aloud is essential to apprehending any poetry-type stuff, which I gotta say puts me right to sleep when I only read with my eyes.
This is a fantastic comment. The oral/aural experience of literature is sadly neglected these days. The predominance of private, silent reading is a recent development! (Beginning in the 18th century or thereabouts.) It's wonderful that you noticed something special when reading aloud the Iliad, the Odyssey, etc., and it's also not surprising when we consider that these works were written with vocal recitation in mind!
This is something I've never considered, and while I do understand how it could be, I don't think it's necessary. This last year, I read both Beowulf and Sense & Sensibility for the first time, and loved both deeply. They reflect different styles and eras, and both had something to teach me. My entire reading life has had the pleasures of both Victorian fiction and fairy tales and I never saw any need to compare one to the other. Or perhaps this essay is a response to a very different kind of reader than I was raised to be?
Hi Emma, thanks for the comment! Yes, an individual reader's experience will certainly vary according to educational background, aptitude, cultural preconceptions, etc. One thing I would say in response is that my concern pertains not merely to enjoyment of these different texts but to the ability to engage with them deeply and feel aesthetically and intellectually united to them. It's certainly possible that someone might spend years reading only Austen, Brontë, Hemingway, etc. and then read and enjoy (translations of) Beowulf or the Exodus narrative, but is that person really engaging with—being transformed by—these texts in the way that we would want? I think it is difficult to say that he or she is, because those literary texts function in objectively different ways, and if one hasn't learned about those older literary modes through extensive exposure, cultural immersion, or formal education, I'm not sure where such ability would come from. To oppose one historical manifestation of literature to another, as you mentioned in your restack note, is simply to acknowledge that these manifestations are indeed different—in language use, structure, characterization, imagery patterns, poetic form, etc.—and therefore involve different modes of reading, appreciating, understanding, and internalizing.
Also, I don't know if you saw Kristi's comment, but she mentioned someone who expressed precisely the problematic distancing effect that I described: "In the mid-1990s, I had a close friend who said he couldn't believe the Bible was the word of God because it was so roughly written and 'inferior' as literature compared to many other books. He thought that God (if there were a God) could do better."
I could mention one of my literature students this year as another example. She is in her senior year of a major similar to an English major, so she has had three years of collegiate exposure to literature (mostly modern literature, apparently). She came to me in distress because the medieval/early modern lit that we were reading was so difficult for her. She didn't know what to do with it. She presumably is a perfectly competent reader of the English language, but when it came to engaging with these texts on a deeper level, she felt somewhat lost.
My experience with non–English majors is even more worrying. Though not everyone needs to be a sophisticated reader of secular literature, we want as many people as possible to benefit in profound ways from the biblical texts that the good God has given us (we would even want illiterate people to be able to hear these stories and be changed by them). What I have seen in the classroom, and in casual interactions with a wide variety of adult Christians, gives me much cause for the concern that I discussed in this article.
Thank you for joining the conversation, and merry Christmas!
I think you have some good points, and I know my (or anyone else's) experience is definitely universal. In my case, I was raised both deeply knowing the Bible (KJV in particular) and more modern literature. I know not every one has that, and I do see how someone exclusively raised on one could fail to appreciate the other.
I may also be misunderstanding a little of your purpose, since I'm reading it as the older form being the de facto better and so should be the only form that people read or enjoy, the newer form being valueless and of no worth. You may not be intending quite as extreme a view as I'm getting, and this was what I was disagreeing with. I think society would be the worse both for losing Beowulf and Austen (or Hugo, or Dosteovsky) - though at the moment, broadly speaking, most people have lost Beowulf, the Iliad, et al, as far as their individual experience goes.
I'm going to correct myself because I realized that I missed this section near the end of your essay: "What can be done? By no means should we stop reading good modern literature. What we need, instead, is more literature, but of a different kind."
I think I might also understand what you're saying a little better by comparison to something I've seen more often, which is that someone who's exclusively read contemporary literature finds it difficult to read anything older than their own lifetime, or a little before. Perhaps also I'm not seeing the difficulty that is clear in your situation as among those I know who are literate in 19th century literature are also literate in the Bible, having been raised, or developed, an understanding of both kinds of literature, and that doesn't sound like what's happening in your classes.