Rating: 
Summary: Elegy for Hellas
Review: Having majored in 'penniless student of Greek' in college I was surprised to read here that I was in what could be the last generation of this tradition. Although much of the diagnosis is open to debate, perhaps faulty on several points, the controversy has perhaps obscured the basically accurate point the authors seem to be making, that of the passage of a great tradition of learning. The author's indictment of the method of teaching certainly rings true. I arrived with a lot of advanced placement and my knowledge of classics peaked the first week of my freshman year as I ended in a permanent huff over pedantic Wilamowitz style philology and disappointed that that was all there was going to be. So university was at least an opportunity to educate myself in the Western tradition by ignoring the professors. Majoring in classics was a big risk, what a waste.
This is such a provocative and interesting book that one need not agree at all points to find it important reading. And it is strange and sad a high tech civilization seems both unaware and indifferent to the disappearance of this form of education. Part of the problem is that for all its science modern society has no coherent view of history and the authors attempt to rescue the study of Greece from faddish theory is convincing. Their 'utopian' proposal to remedy the university graduate scene is radical indeed, small wonder irate colleagues counterattacked.
This book raises questions beyond its basic thesis. We need a new type of university educational system, that's for sure.
Rating: 
Summary: Smart people can be pretty dumb.
Review: I cannot understand why the authors of this book, like so many other "conservatives," feel the need to condemn non-western cultures as a means of celebrating Classical civilization. The authors' disdain for multiculturalism notwithstanding, we DO like in a multicultural world, and that must be part of our educational system. There is no good reason to say that this or that culture was less than adequate just because we prefer (as I do) the Classical world. Also, the authors' position that fifth-century Athens represented some sort of spontaneous generation completely contradicts all the good work of M.L. West and others who have shown the important linkages between Classical Greece and the Near East. I wish someone could present a coherent argument in favor of a traditional approach to education (like Great Books) without coming off sounding like Aristophanes, Allen Bloom, Rush Limbaugh, Jerry Fallwell, and this book's authors.
Rating: 
Summary: Where it doesn't succeed, it fails nobly and articulately
Review: I don't necessarily approve of the chauvinism of classical learning demonstrated by the authors, in relation to disciplines that they deem trivial and silly for a collegiate education. As useless as an understanding of Attic Greek currently is, they should know that no one chooses a degree for being difficult and unprofitable. One of the traits that they apparently admire most about the Greeks is a healthy pragmatism and common sense, and attaining a doctorate in classical studies seems to contradict any notion of either. :)On the other hand, I can sympathize with their frustrations in trying to teach an uninterested and uninformed student, who views college solely as an income multiplier. I can certainly applaud the courage it takes to defend a system based on absolutes in an environment which recognizes no absolutes but the nonexistence of absolutes. For many of my professors in fuzzy studies, concepts and facts had to packaged carefully to avoid all possibility of slighting the cultural identity of someone in the class. We had the "black Socrates" argument once, and insubstantial as the entire issue was, this argument raged across four entire class periods in charges against the professor for bias and serving racism. I appreciate their candor, even if I agree with the opposition on several points. However, I think it's good enough, just for encouraging a future generation of academics to damn encoded language and stand behind something which they know to be unfashionably true. God knows too little of what we learn in college has any real application in life, but that would be a lesson worth learning for anyone.
Rating: 
Summary: Lively and readable, but misses the point
Review: I found the book articulate, clear, a pleasure to read, and in general a good example of the virtues of studying classical rhetoric (heh!). On the other hand, like many others who have covered the same turf recently, I think that the authors missed the point by choosing to blame the usual suspects: feminists, revisionists, and all the other -ists.
I attended graduate school in the humanities in the late '60's and early '70's, at what was universally regarded as one of the best schools in my field (if not THE best). In the preceding decade, as both faculties and enrollments boomed, universities had begun to model all departments on the paradigm of the sciences. I'm not sure whether this came from desire to give those departments more credibility in a world where science had become a god, or to make it easier for the bureaucratic bean-counters by basing (say) tenure or hiring decisions on the same criteria in all departments. But the upshot was that "academic excellence" became a game in which faculty members competed for points (publications, citations, invited papers), and students were a mere sideshow to the REAL work that went into creating a successful academic career. As an undergraduate during this era, I, like many of my peers, was completely turned off: an academic discipline that I felt was deeply relevant to today's world had been turned into a pseudo-science intelligible only to insiders.
Too many authors write as if academia in the '50's and early '60's was a sort of Golden Age that fell into ruins as various politicized special-interest groups pursued their own agendas under the rubric of "relevance." In fact, if academia hadn't previously turned itself into an esoteric game in which irrelevance was a criterion of "academic excellence," the special-interest groups wouldn't have stood a chance. I feel that in this book Hanson and Heath went for the cheap, popular targets and completely missed the main point.
Rating:
Summary: The classics corrupted by materialist scholars
Review: I have great respect for Mr.Hanson as a classicist.
The teachings of the ancient Greeks (and Romans to a lesser extent) have been corrupted by materialist, post-modernist, and amateaur "scholars" in the past 40 years. The worst of these are the feminists, who use the seclusion of Athenian women to make war on Greek thought and culture. For these women, I have this to say: Have you ever asked Athenian women whether they were upset by the position they had? Maybe they were happy to be housewives and to take care of their husbands and children. There are many examples of famous female poets, teachers, and artists from ancient Greece so no one has the right to say that women were abused by men who did not allow them to have a career. Those who were truly worthy of praise received praise. It is clear that feminist scholars don't have anything to prove so they go out and about trying to destroy real knowledge. Their targets are not only the ancient Greek classics but also later European philosophy. It is clear that whatever they do to destroy classical thought, the classics will endure and rise above them.
Rating:
Summary: Important Wake-up call!
Review: I thoroughly enjoyed this book. Itawoke in me a new desire to reclaim a classical education (which I am now doing by learning Ancient Greek!). It is important in today's era of "multiculturalism" to recognize that not all cultures are created equal. The Greco-Roman tradition gave us the foundation for our own form of a Democratic Republic. While it is the PC fashion now to criticize the Greeks for their treatment of women and slaves let us not forget that many countries/cultures still engage in slavery (West Africa), or brutal treatment of women (Islamic). As so elegantly pointed out, the *only* culture which took major steps to eradicate these inequities were the Western ones and most specifically the United States. Even in Ancient Greece, many voices (Aristophanes, Euripides) can be read as speaking out against social injustice. If we let the classics die in our colleges and universities upon the sacrificial altar of feminism, multiculturalism, or political correctness, we will have lost part of the American soul and more importantly - our intellectual heritage! This book is a clarion call to what is so wrong in academia today and to the fact that we had best wake up before it is too late! By the way - I am a liberal, but not a radical leftist!
Rating:
Summary: Important Wake-up call!
Review: I thoroughly enjoyed this book. Itawoke in me a new desire to reclaim a classical education (which I am now doing by learning Ancient Greek!). It is important in today's era of "multiculturalism" to recognize that not all cultures are created equal. The Greco-Roman tradition gave us the foundation for our own form of a Democratic Republic. While it is the PC fashion now to criticize the Greeks for their treatment of women and slaves let us not forget that many countries/cultures still engage in slavery (West Africa), or brutal treatment of women (Islamic). As so elegantly pointed out, the *only* culture which took major steps to eradicate these inequities were the Western ones and most specifically the United States. Even in Ancient Greece, many voices (Aristophanes, Euripides) can be read as speaking out against social injustice. If we let the classics die in our colleges and universities upon the sacrificial altar of feminism, multiculturalism, or political correctness, we will have lost part of the American soul and more importantly - our intellectual heritage! This book is a clarion call to what is so wrong in academia today and to the fact that we had best wake up before it is too late! By the way - I am a liberal, but not a radical leftist!
Rating:
Summary: A silver book with a golden message
Review: I've gotten a kick out of reading others' impressions of this book. As a former Classics B.A., I can sympathize with lots of sides of this argument, and so the book comes off a little bombastic. That said, the message that classical education should be saved from extinction is a very important one, and deserves as wide an audience as possible. The issue is relevant to everyone, on one of any number of levels: the importance of history, the value of translation, the psychological insights into ancient culture and therefore human nature, I can go on. Studying ancient languages,as a general exercise, can serve a valuable individual, and en masse cultural purpose in the pursuit of meaning and the construction of better ways of living for the present. It runs the gamut of educational value: as philosophy, as politcal science, as psychology. I think most people, at least in theory, would agree with this. All the authors are saying is that the value of studying ancient languages is simply not being preserved by any particular stewards, as in centuries past. They are concentrating on Greek and Latin because those ancient languages are the key to understanding our Western culture. They are not saying that Chinese or South American ancient languages are less import PER SE, they are simply saying that Greek and Latin are the MOST RELEVANT languages to our Western culutre, whose values have influenced more and more cultures across the world. These values- democracy, equality, freedom, etc.- are taken for granted by my post-Vietnam generation, and so studying their roots may not seem very PRACTICAL. But one can only hope that some cultural awakening may open more young peoples' eyes to the value of understanding the past and the rich intangible personal rewards of initimately knowing an ancient text. Which brings me to the point of contention most fervently drawn out by the authors: that the intrinsic value of classical stewardship (as "the keepers of the flame") seems to have been lost in a selfish, uppity, ridiculously esoteric publishing game that leads the profession, and its subject matter, into a dead end. Although it is important to find new ways of looking at things to reach new understanding, the authors seem to suggest that it's more important at this point in time to abandon the incestuous pursuit of arcane, often boring and largely irrelevant dintinctions and "discoveries" and re-assume the duty of passing on tradition. I'm not saying that comparative studies of literature and language are without purpose; rather, the degree to which it has become the focus of Classics departments in the US seems to have reached the point of absurdity. Granted, there is intense competition for very few jobs, so who could be blamed for scraping the bottom of the intellectual barrel for kernels of academic novelty? But at what price? Whatever it is, it's too great. That seems to be what the authors are saying, and I think the authors say it courageously. The need for this book being great as it is, its sometimes extreme tone and POV can be overlooked. On a personal note, If there were more jobs in academe, especially Classics, I would have probably foregone the business world. But there is a culutral amnesia that belittles the value of understanding the past, and thus the demand for Classics classes is just low. This book is very valuable, in that it courageously draws first blood against the cultural forces threatening the preservation of the historical roots of the West.
Rating:
Summary: Read this book!
Review: If you are on a Classics faculty somewhere, you will either love this or hate it. If you're a layman, chances are you will find it riveting. A well-written, devastating critique by two insiders.
Rating:
Summary: As funny as Swift
Review: If you care at all for the future of Greek studies in the United States, read this wonderful book. It's a blistering attack on all the DWEMophobic, ahistorical, advocacy-group-oriented cultural imbecilities that have been foisted on classical studies (and everything else worth preserving) over the last 30 years. Boy, do some scholars and pseudoscholars take it on the chin! (Check out some of their outraged comments below.) A dead-on-the-money "Nike" for Hanson and Heath.
|
