A Proto-Genealogy of Classic

Whenever a Gentleman and a Scholar tums Editor of any Book, he at the fame Time commences Critick upon his Author ; and that wherever he finds the Reading suspected, manifestly corrupted, deficient in Sense, and unintelligible, he ought to exert every Power and Faculty of the Mind to supply such a Defect, to give Light and restore Sense to the Passage, and, by a reasonable Emendation, to make that satisfactory and consistent with the Context, which before was so absurd, unintelligible, and intricate....But as I have laid it down as a Rule to myself not to be arbitrary, fantastical, or. wanton, in my Conjectures upon our Author, I (hall venture to aim at some little Share of Reputation, in endeavouring to. restore Sense to Pastages in which no Sense has hitherto been found ; or, sailing in that Hope, must submit to incur, which I should be very unwilling to do, the Censure of a rash and vain Pretender.
As Shakespeare stands, or at least ought to stand, in the Nature of a Classic Writer, and, indeed, he is corrupt enough to pass for one of the oldest Stamp, every one, who has a Talent and Ability this Way, is at liberty to make his Comments and Emendations upon him...And he, who has the Luck to be allowed any Merit in it, does not only do a Service to the Poet, but to his Country and its Language. This Author is grown so universal a Book, that there are very few Studies, or Collections of Books, tho' small, amongst which it does not hold a Place: And there is scarce a Poet, that our English Tongue boasts of, who is more the Subject of the Ladies Reading. But with what Pleasure can they read Passages, which the Incorrectness of the Editions will not suffer them to understand?--Lewis Theobald  (1726) Shakespeare restored, or, A specimen of the many errors, as well committed, as unamended, by Mr. Pope in his late edition of this poet: designed not only to correct the said edition, but to restore the true reading of Shakespeare in all the editions ever yet publish'd, v-vi

In his entertaining Philology: the Forgotten Origins of the Modern Humanities,* James Turner writes that "by the early 1700s, readers had come to see well-known English authors of bygone eras as "Classic" like Cicero or Homer; so Lewis Theobald called Shakespeare in 1726." (80) It occurred to me that my attempt to offer an analysis (inspired by Coetzee's treatment) of the nature of a classic in philosophy had missed an important angle: when (and perhaps why) did "classic" take on something like our meaning? So, I decided to leave Turner aside momentarily, and turned to Theobald. 

In the seventeenth century,  a classic meant something like, "of or belonging to the highest class; approved as a model" (in the still extant sense of being first in class). For many it was obvious (some of ) the Greek and Latin authors counted as classic in this sense ("belonging to or characteristic of standard authors of Greek and Roman antiquity" is attested in the 1620s). So, a "classic" in the seventeenth century sense is honorific and refers to a small class of excellent, ancient authors.  In the 1726 Shakespeare restored, Theobald does not use 'classic' and its cognates very often. But in most cases he uses it in the traditional sense.

So, for example (and one of interest to Berkeley scholars), at one point he argues that 'notion' should be inserted where the printed edition of Otello has 'motion.' And then, while illustrating what 'notion' means by appealing, he states "The Classics, I think, have employ'd the Word in the
same Sense: And Cicero, I remember, to quote no worse an Author, has defin'd it thus." (Theobald 1726: p. 129) Somewhat amusingly, Cicero, in turn, is quoted as quoting a Greek authority. 

In fact, in my opinion the only instance he is willing to apply 'classic' in innovative fashion to a more recent author is in the sentence quoted from the introduction above. That Theobald knows he is innovating by applying 'classic' to Shakespeare is, I think, clear from his phrasing. "As Shakespeare stands, or at least ought to stand, in the Nature of a Classic Writer," His "ought to stand" reveals it is not yet established practice, but a proposal.* 

And in order to avoid confusion, Theobald is not claiming that Shakespeare is corrupt  ("and, indeed, he is corrupt enough to pass for one of the oldest Stamp"), but rather that the printed editions of Shakespeare are corrupted (in the same manner as old texts get corrupted over time). Seven years later (in 1733), in the "preface" of his seven volume Works of William Shakespeare, Theobald makes the very point: "Shakespeare's Case has in great Measure resembled That of a corrupt Classick, and consequently, the method of Cure was likewise to bear a Resemblance." (xxxix; the sentence is also quoted by Turner on p. 81.) Here, too, Theobald is not yet insisting that Shakespeare is a classic; a resemblance not being identical to its exemplar.

So, I take it to be an open question when, exactly, 'classic' became decoupled from the small band of ancient exemplars. I welcome suggestions from my learned readers! I suspect, but this is a hypothesis, this only happened when in the battle between ancients and moderns, the balance of power/taste shifted toward the moderns. (Obviously, and as Turner notes later, in the nineteenth century a discipline called 'classical studies' or simply, 'classics' developed, so the story is complicated.) 

Okay, where does this leave me? I have learned that 'classic' in the modern sense may well have been invented in the context of the presentation of a text-critical edition of a text deemed worthy of such philological efforts. I have to admit this surprises me; my guess would have been that 'classic' in this modern sense was first deployed in an educational/curricular setting or, inspired by Coetzee, in a discussion about standards of taste/merit among skilled judges. 

 

 

*I don't mean to suggest I have no reservations about the book. Two big ones are this: (i) I find it odd that Said's Orientalism is neglected entirely; (ii) historicism, and the development of the very idea of culture, is treated as the telos of scientific/mature philology. I hope to return to both issues at some point.

Comments

[David Duffy]

Through the magic of Google, in 1806

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=qNcEAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA61&dq=%22%22modern+classic%22%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_8Pv7jNboAhXlheYKHaKFCVsQ6AEIUTAF#v=onepage&q=%22%22modern%20classic%22%22&f=false

"We heartily wish the art of book-making were somewhat less thriving among us...if no good be likely from the labours of a writer, he had much better, both on his own account, and on that of his readers, remain quiet. We confess that we speak feelingly on this subject: destined, as we are, to be readers of books, which sometimes neither find, nor deserve, any Readers beside Reviewers...Instead of such selections as these, or any others from ancient or modern classic writers..."

Modern classic here seems to be that written in the style of the Ancient classics.

1836:
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=DT8yAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA101&dq=%22%22modern+classic%22%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_8Pv7jNboAhXlheYKHaKFCVsQ6AEIajAI#v=onepage&q=%22%22modern%20classic%22%22&f=false

"Classic...A Greek or Roman author work. As a substantive, it must be qualified to have a different meaning; eg a modern classic, a French classic, etc"

[Eric Schliesser]

Yes, It's clear that sometime between 1720s and 1820s, a 'classic' can be modern.
Hi David, you may enjoy a diagram by Bryce Huebner:
https://twitter.com/NeuroYogacara/status/1247201332424998912/photo/1