The Definition Of literature.

Literature (from Latin litterae (plural); letter) is the art of written work and can, in some
circumstances, refer exclusively to published sources. The word literature literally means
"things made from letters" and the pars pro toto term "letters" is sometimes used to
signify "literature," as in the figures of speech"arts and letters" and "man of letters."
Literature is commonly classified as having two major formsfiction and non-fiction
and two major techniquespoetry and prose.
Literature may consist of texts based on factual information (journalistic or non-fiction),
as well as on original imagination, such as polemical works as well as autobiography,
and reflective essays as well as belles-lettres. Literature can be classified according to
historical periods, genres, and political influences. The concept of genre, which earlier
was limited, has broadened over the centuries. A genre consists of artistic works which
fall
within
a
certain
central
theme,
and
examples
of
genre
include romance, mystery, crime, fantasy, erotica,
and adventure,
among
others.
Important historical periods inEnglish literature include Old English, Middle English,
the Renaissance, the 17th Century Shakespearean andElizabethan times, the 18th
Century Restoration, 19th Century Victorian, and 20th Century Modernism. Important
intellectual
movements
that
have
influenced
the
study
of
literature
include feminism, post-colonialism, psychoanalysis,post-structuralism, post-modernism, r
omanticism, and Marxism.
Distinction Of Literature And Literary Study
Literature is a creative activity, a work of art. While the study of literature is a branch of the
science, especially concerning about literature. However, many of the scientists who blur the
distinction. Some argue that we can not learn or review the literature if it does not try to make
a work of literature such as poetry or drama. This opinion is true, but a literary reviewers just
someone who translated the review of scientific literature into a beautiful language.

As for the opinion that the literary work also includes the work of two or second creation as
the work of Walter Pater 19th-century English poet who describes the work of Leonardo Da
Vinci, Mona Lisa, into the post. And for us it was just a replica and not a literary work.
In fact many argue that literature can not be reviewed. No other can only be read, enjoyed and
appreciated. If this were true, then how literature can flourish? How literature can be
appreciated if it was not explored further. How does a poet could work better if no
examination or criticism of his work?
Maybe that is needed here is an understanding or approach to art, the uniqueness of a work of
literature. So how? One answer is to apply the methods of the natural sciences into the study
of literature. Starting from the origin, causes, conditions that favor the formation of literature
such as economic, social and even the concept of geography even in tracing the evolutionary
biology literature.

But others argue that literature can not be formed without the contribution of the humanities.
Natural science also plays a role in the development of cultural studies of science literature
but also greatly contribute to the development of literary studies. Noteworthy is the purpose
of science is different from the culture of science. Many scientists and historians who argue
that science only includes facts or laws of a general nature while science culture prioritize the
facts that are specific or individual.
To prove this, we can understand the argument that most people like Shakespeare because of
uniqueness, not because of the similarities with others.
So, literature is essentially public, but also special. Literary works constructed from the words
that are 'common'. Literary works do have certain characteristics but it also has properties
similar to other works of art.
It can be concluded that the literature may be generalizable appropriate period or in
accordance with the arts in general but with respect to literary criticism and literary history
prioritize a literary quirk.
The Functions of Literature
Critics have been discussing from very early times about the function or functions of
literature. Though they differ among themselves regarding the other functions of literature,
they are all agreed on one pointthat the main function of literature is to entertain the
readers, or, in other words, to give them pleasure. Longinus was the first critic to lay down
his thesis that loftiness or sublimity in literature has its end-ecstasy, transport, lifting out of
onself.
The value of a work of literature can be assessed, according to Longinus, by introspection on
the part of the reader or hearer: if he is carried away, transported, moved to ecstasy by the
grandeur and passion of the work, then the work is good. The Greek word which it has
become traditional to translate as sublime in English means literally height or elevation, and
Longinus, in his essay On The Sublime, refers to those qualities in a work of literature which
instantaneously create in the reader a sense of being carried to new heights of passionate
experience; sublimity is the greatest of all literary virtues, the one which makes a work,
whatever its minor defects, truly impressive. The ultimate function of literature, and its
ultimate justification, is to be sublime, and to have on its readers the effect of ecstasy or
transport that sublimity has. The sublime effect of literature, for Longinus, is attained not by
argument, but by revelation, or illumination. Its appeal is not through the reason, but what we
should call imagination. Its effect upon the mind is immediate, like a flash of lightning upon
the eye.
Sidney voiced the opinion of Longinus when he said that the chief function of literature
is to move I never heard the old song of Percy and Douglas, he declared, that I found
not my heart moved more than with a trumpet. Dryden was the next critic who cleared away
the ancient stumbling block of criticismthe doctrine that the aim of the writer is to instruct
or make men better in some respect. He asserted that the aim of the writer is, not to teach,
but to please, and he distinguished between literature which is art and literature which is
didactic. Instruction may result from the reading of poetry, but it is not the end: for poesy
only instructs as it delights. Referring to the function of literature to delight and to move, De
Quincey made the distinction between the literature of knowledge, and the literature of power
The function of the first is to teach the function of the second is to move.

Besides giving pleasure or entertaining or moving the readers, literature is supposed to

have other functions as well. One important function is to heighten the awareness of the
reader to certain aspects of life. The dramatic poetry of the Greeks, the works of Aeschylus,
Sophocles, and Euripides were created for festival and ceremonial occasions. They reminded
the great concourse of Athenian citizens of the traditional gods and heroes of history. They
were a civic drama expressive of the place and power of the Greek City States and suggested
that past history and the powers above them were with them. In the original sense of the word
they were political. The outcome was to heighten the awareness of the Greek citizen to what
were then regarded as significant aspects of Greek city life. Again, if we look at the ballad
writers and singers at a later date, we see that in their own way and in their own times, in
traditional fashion, each celebrated events of social significance or the so-called heroic
exploits. They brought news, recounted history, and reconstructed the past of which they had
learnt by word of mouth passed on from generation to generation. Their original purpose was
to entertain and to receive payment for it; but seen in retrospect their effect, their function
was then regarded as significant and of importance. The same is the case with all great works
of literature; they make us aware of the various aspects of life which lay hidden from us.
After reading Hamlet, Macbeth, King Lear we begin to understand more about life and its
intricate problems than we could do before.
Thus the main functions of literature are to entertain and give pleasure to the reader, and
to heighten his awareness of certain aspects of life. Besides these two primary functions,
literature also performs three subsidiary functionspropaganda, release and escape.
Propaganda literature must be distinguished from mere propaganda in which there is nothing
creative. The writer of mere propaganda is simply concerned to popularize facts, ideas, and
emotions with which he is familiar. But propaganda that is literature is a creative influence
irradiating and transforming the writers experience. The idea to be propagated is still alive
and growing in his mind. It is this living and growing idea which the artist communicates to
his reader and thereby transforms his whole attitude to life. He can do so by the direct method
of exposition and exhortation, as Ruskin did, or the indirect method of fiction like Dickens.
Release literature is that in which the dominant motive of the writer is simply the
assuagement of starved needs, the release of pent-up forces in the personality. Romances,
detective stories, thrillers, poems etc. which are written with such originality of perception
and expression that they have a quickening effect on the reader, belong to this category.
Literature of the higher sort which is dominated by release may be wholesome for the writer
and the reader, as it effects purgation or purification.
Literature also provides escape from the grim realities of life, and many people read to
escape boredom. The higher type of literature helps the reader to escape from trivial reality
into significant reality.
To sum up, the primary functions of literature are to delight the reader, and heighten his
awareness of life. The subsidiary functions are propaganda, release and escape; but they
are subordinated to the primary creative functions of literature.

Sastra adalah suatu kegiatan kreatif, sebuah karya seni. Sedangkan studi sastra adalah
cabang ilmu pengetahun khususnya yang menyangkut tentang sastra. Namun, tidak
sedikit dari ilmuwan-ilmuwan yang mengaburkan perbedaan ini. Ada yang berpendapat
bahwa kita tidak bisa mempelajari atau menelaah sastra jika tidak mencoba membuat
karya sastra seperti puisi atau drama. Pendapat tersebut memang ada benarnya, namun

seorang penelaah sastra hanyalah seseorang yang menerjemahkan hasil telaah

sastranya ke dalam bahasa ilmiah yang indah.
Adapun yang berpendapat bahwa karya sastra juga mencakup hasil karya kedua atau
second creation seperti karya Walter Pater penyair Inggris abad-19 yang
mendeskripsikan karya Leonardo Da Vinci, Mona Lisa, ke dalam tulisan. Padahal bagi
kita itu hanyalah sebuah tiruan dan bukan sebuah karya sastra.
Bahkan banyak yang berpendapat bahwa sastra tidak dapat ditelaah. Tak lain hanya
bisa dibaca, dinikmati dan diapresiasi. Jika hal tersebut benar, lalu bagaimana sastra itu
bisa berkembang? Bagaimana sastra itu dapat diapresiasi jika tidak ditelaah lebih jauh.
Bagaimana seorang penyair bisa berkarya lebih baik lagi jika tanpa telaah atau kritikan
terhadap karyanya?
Mungkin yang diperlukan di sini adalah pemahaman atau pendekatan terhadap seni,
kekhasan sebuah karya sastra. Lalu bagaimana caranya? Salah satu jawaban adalah
dengan menerapkan metode ilmu alam ke dalam studi sastra. Mulai dari asal, penyebab,
kondisi-kondisi yang mendukung terbentuknya sastra seperti kondisi ekonomi, sosial
bahkan konsep geografi bahkan biologi dalam menelusuri evolusi sastra.
Pendapat lain mengatakan bahwa sastra tidak dapat terbentuk tanpa adanya
sumbangan dari ilmu budaya. Ilmu alam juga berperan dalam perkembangan studi
sastra namun ilmu budaya juga sangat berperan terhadap perkembangan studi sastra.
Yang perlu diperhatikan adalah tujuan ilmu alam berbeda dengan ilmu budaya. Banyak
ilmuwan maupun sejarawan yang berpendapat bahwa ilmu alam hanya mencakup faktafakta atau hukum-hukum yang bersifat umum sedangkan ilmu budaya lebih
memprioritaskan fakta-fakta yang bersifat khusus atau individual.
Untuk membuktikan hal tersebut, kita bisa memahami pendapat yang mengatakan
bahwa kebanyakan orang menyukai Shakespeare karena kekhasannya, bukan karena
persamaannya dengan orang lain.
Jadi, karya sastra pada dasarnya bersifat umum namun juga khusus. Karya sastra
dibangun dari kata-kata yang bersifat umum. Karya sastra memang memiliki ciri khas
tertentu tetapi juga memiliki sifat-sifat yang sama dengan karya seni yang lain.
Sehingga dapat disimpulkan bahwa karya sastra dapat digeneralisasikan sesuai periode
tertentu atau sesuai dengan kesenian pada umumnya tapi dengan memperhatikan kritik
sastra dan sejarah sastra yang lebih memprioritaskan kekhasan sebuah karya sastra.

Fungsi
Sastra
Kritikus telah membahas dari zaman awal tentang fungsi atau fungsi sastra. Meskipun
mereka berbeda antara mereka sendiri mengenai fungsi lain sastra, mereka semua sepakat
pada satu titik-bahwa fungsi utama sastra adalah untuk menghibur pembaca, atau, dengan
kata lain, untuk memberi mereka kesenangan. Longinus adalah kritikus pertama untuk
meletakkan tesisnya bahwa kemuliaan atau keagungan dalam literatur memiliki end-nya
ekstasi,
transportasi,
'mengangkat
keluar
dari
onself
".
Nilai karya sastra dapat dinilai, menurut Longinus, dengan introspeksi pada bagian dari
pembaca atau pendengar: jika dia terbawa, diangkut, pindah ke ekstasi oleh kemegahan dan
gairah kerja, maka pekerjaan tersebut baik. Kata Yunani yang telah menjadi tradisional untuk

menerjemahkan sebagai luhur dalam bahasa Inggris berarti harfiah tinggi atau elevasi, dan
Longinus, dalam esainya On The Sublime, mengacu pada sifat-sifat dalam sebuah karya
sastra yang seketika menciptakan dalam pembaca rasa yang dilakukan ke ketinggian baru dari
pengalaman bergairah, keagungan adalah yang terbesar dari semua kebajikan sastra, salah
satu yang membuat sebuah karya, apa pun cacat minor, benar-benar mengesankan. Fungsi
utama sastra, dan pembenaran utamanya, adalah untuk menjadi luhur, dan memiliki pada
pembacanya efek ekstasi atau transportasi yang memiliki keagungan. Efek luhur sastra, untuk
Longinus, dicapai bukan dengan argumen, tetapi melalui wahyu, atau iluminasi. Daya
tariknya tidak melalui alasannya, tapi apa yang harus kita sebut imajinasi. Dampaknya
terhadap
pikiran
langsung,
seperti
kilatan
petir
pada
mata.
Sidney menyuarakan pendapat Longinus ketika ia mengatakan bahwa fungsi utama sastra
adalah untuk "bergerak" "Aku tidak pernah mendengar lagu lama Percy dan Douglas,"
katanya, "yang saya temukan tidak hatiku bergerak lebih dibandingkan dengan terompet" .
Dryden adalah kritikus berikutnya yang dibersihkan batu sandungan kuno kritik-doktrin
bahwa tujuan dari penulis adalah untuk mengajar atau "membuat pria lebih baik dalam
beberapa hal". Ia menegaskan bahwa tujuan dari penulis adalah, tidak mengajar, tetapi untuk
menyenangkan, dan ia membedakan antara sastra yang seni dan sastra yang didaktis.
Instruksi mungkin hasil dari pembacaan puisi, tetapi tidak akhir: untuk 'Posy hanya
menginstruksikan karena kelezatan ". Mengacu pada fungsi sastra untuk menyenangkan dan
bergerak, De Quincey membuat perbedaan antara literatur pengetahuan, dan sastra
kekuasaan-"Fungsi yang pertama adalah untuk mengajarkan" fungsi yang kedua adalah untuk
bergerak.
"
Selain memberikan kesenangan atau menghibur atau memindahkan pembaca, sastra
seharusnya memiliki fungsi lain juga. Salah satu fungsi penting adalah untuk meningkatkan
kesadaran pembaca untuk aspek-aspek tertentu dari kehidupan. Puisi dramatis dari Yunani,
karya-karya Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides dan diciptakan untuk acara-acara festival dan
seremonial. Mereka mengingatkan concourse besar warga Athena para dewa tradisional dan
pahlawan sejarah. Mereka adalah sebuah drama sipil ekspresif dari tempat dan kekuatan
Serikat Kota Yunani dan menyarankan bahwa sejarah masa lalu dan kekuasaan di atas mereka
berada bersama mereka. Dalam arti asli kata mereka 'politis'. Hasilnya adalah untuk
meningkatkan kesadaran warga Yunani untuk apa yang kemudian dianggap sebagai aspek
penting dari kehidupan kota Yunani. Sekali lagi, jika kita melihat para penulis dan penyanyi
balada di kemudian hari, kita melihat bahwa dengan cara mereka sendiri dan dalam waktu
mereka sendiri, dengan cara tradisional, masing-masing peristiwa dirayakan signifikansi
sosial atau yang disebut 'heroik' eksploitasi. Mereka membawa berita, menceritakan sejarah,
dan merekonstruksi masa lalu yang mereka telah belajar dari mulut ke mulut diteruskan dari
generasi ke generasi. Tujuan awal mereka adalah untuk menghibur dan menerima
pembayaran untuk itu, tetapi terlihat dalam retrospeksi efeknya, fungsi mereka kemudian
dianggap sebagai signifikan dan penting. Sama halnya dengan semua karya sastra besar,
mereka membuat kita sadar akan berbagai aspek kehidupan yang tersembunyi dari kami.
Setelah membaca Hamlet, Macbeth, Raja Lear kita mulai memahami lebih banyak tentang
kehidupan dan masalah rumit daripada yang kita bisa lakukan sebelum.
Jadi fungsi utama sastra adalah untuk menghibur dan memberikan kesenangan kepada
pembaca, dan untuk meningkatkan kesadaran mengenai aspek-aspek tertentu dari kehidupan.
Selain dua fungsi utama, sastra juga melakukan tiga anak-fungsi 'propaganda,' 'release' dan
'melarikan diri.' Propaganda sastra 'harus dibedakan dari sekedar propaganda di mana tidak
ada yang kreatif. Penulis propaganda semata hanya berkepentingan untuk mempopulerkan
fakta, gagasan, dan emosi dengan yang dia kenal. Tapi propaganda yang adalah sastra
merupakan pengaruh kreatif penyinaran dan mengubah pengalaman penulis. Gagasan yang
akan disebarkan masih hidup dan tumbuh dalam pikirannya. Ini adalah ide yang hidup dan

tumbuh mana artis berkomunikasi dengan pembaca dan dengan demikian mengubah seluruh
sikapnya terhadap kehidupan. Dia dapat melakukannya dengan metode langsung eksposisi
dan nasihat, seperti Ruskin lakukan, atau metode tidak langsung fiksi seperti 'Dickens.
'Rilis sastra' adalah bahwa di mana motif dominan penulis hanyalah keredaan kebutuhan
kelaparan, pelepasan terpendam kekuatan dalam kepribadian. Roman, cerita detektif, thriller,
dll puisi yang ditulis dengan orisinalitas seperti persepsi dan ekspresi bahwa mereka memiliki
efek mempercepat pada pembaca, termasuk dalam kategori ini. Sastra dari jenis yang lebih
tinggi yang didominasi oleh 'release' mungkin sehat bagi penulis dan pembaca, karena efek
penyucian
atau
pemurnian.
Sastra juga menyediakan 'melarikan diri' dari realitas suram kehidupan, dan banyak orang
yang membaca untuk menghindari kebosanan. Jenis sastra yang lebih tinggi membantu
pembaca untuk melarikan diri dari kenyataan sepele menjadi kenyataan signifikan.
Singkatnya, fungsi utama sastra untuk menyenangkan pembaca, dan meningkatkan kesadaran
hidupnya. Fungsi anak adalah 'propaganda', 'release' dan 'melarikan diri', tetapi mereka
tunduk pada fungsi kreatif utama sastra.
fahmie arjen beckham
fahmibeckham37

Definition: What is literature? Why do we read it? Why is literature important?

Literature is a term used to describe written and sometimes spoken material.
Derived from the Latin litteratura meaning "writing formed with letters," literature
most commonly refers to works of the creative imagination, including poetry,
drama, fiction, nonfiction, journalism, and in some instances, song.
Why do we read literature?
Simply put, literature represents the culture and tradition of a language or a
people. It's difficult to precisely define, though many have tried, but it's clear that
the accepted definition of literature is constantly changing and evolving.
For many, the word literature suggests a higher art form, merely putting words on a
page doesn't necessarily mean creating literature. A canon is the accepted body of
works for a given author. Some works of literature are considered canonical, that is
culturally representative of a particlar genre.
But what we consider to be literature can vary from one generation to the next. For
instance, Herman Melville's 1851 novel Moby Dick was considered a failure by
contemporary reviewiers. However, it's since been recognized as a master work,

and is frequently cited as one of the best works of western literature for its thematic
complexity and use of symbolism to tell the story of Captain Ahab and the white
whale. By reading Moby Dick in the present day, we can gain a fuller
understanding of literary traditions in Melville's time.
In this way, literature is more than just a historical or cultural artifact, but can
serve as an introduction to a new world of experience.

Why is literature important?

Ultimately, we may discover meaning in literature by looking at what the author
writes or says, and how he or she says it. We may interpret and debate an author's
message by examining the words he or she chooses in a given novel or work, or
observing which character or voice serves as the connection to the reader. In
academia, this decoding of the text is often carried out through the use of literary
theory, using a mythological, sociological, psychological, historical, or other
approach to better understand the context and depth of a work.
Works of literature, at their best, provide a kind of blueprint of human civilization.
From the writings of ancient civilizations like Egypt, and China, to Greek
philosophy and poetry; from the epics of Homer to the plays of Shakespeare, from
Jane Austen and Charlotte Bronte to Maya Angelou, works of literature give
insight and context to all the world's societies.
Whatever critical paradigm we use to discuss and analyze it, literature is important
to us because it speaks to us, it is universal, and it affects us on a deeply personal
level. Even when it is ugly, literature is beautiful.
Also Known As: Classics, learning, erudition, belles-lettres, lit, literary works,
written work, writings, books.
Examples: "The difficulty of literature is not to write, but to write what you mean;
not to affect your reader, but to affect him precisely as you wish." -- Robert Louis
Stevenson
"The person, be it gentleman or lady, who has not pleasure in a good novel, must
be intolerably stupid." -- Jane Austen, Northanger Abbey.
Don't be satisfied with stories, how things have gone with others. Unfold your
own myth. -Rumi
Ill call for pen and ink and write my mind. -- William Shakespeare, Henry VI.
SHARE
PIN

Related
literature?
Literature
- What
isFree
the difference
between
fiction and
Escape
literature
Interpretive
Dictionaries
literature
and Glossaries
of Literary
Terms
Sign
Up for
Our
Newsletters

About TodayLiving HealthyClassic Literature

SIGN UP

CLASSIC LITERATURE CATEGORIES

How To Succeed in
Your Literature Class
Ads

Book. Andres Harambour / iStockphoto

By Esther Lombardi
Classic Literature Expert

Whether you're taking an English class in high school or registered for a literature class in
college, learn steps you can take to succeed in your literature class. Listening, reading, and
being prepared for your class can make a dramatic difference in how you understand the
books, poetry, and stories for your class. Read more about how to succeed in your literature
class.
Difficulty: Easy
Time Required: Varies.
Here's How:
1. Be on time for your literature class.
Even on the first day of class, you might miss out on important details
(and homework assignments) when you're even 5 minutes late for class.
In order to discourage tardiness, some teachers refuse to accept
homework if you're not there when class starts. Also, literature teachers
may ask you to take a short quiz, or write a response paper in the first
few minutes of class--just to make sure that you read the required
reading!

2. Buy the books you need for the class at the beginning of the
semester/quarter.
Or, if the books are being provided, be sure you have the book when
you need to start your reading. Don't wait until the last minute to start
reading the book. Some literature students wait to buy some of their
books until half-way through the semester/quarter. Imagine their
frustration and panic when they find that there aren't any copies of the
required book left on the shelf.
1. Be prepared for class.
Be sure you know what the reading assignment is for the day, and read
the selection more than once. Also, read through the discussion
questions before class.
2. Be sure you understand.
If you've read through the assignment and the discussion questions, and
you still don't understand what you've read, start thinking about why! If
you're having difficulty with the terminology, look up any words you
don't understand. If you can't concentrate on the assignment, read the
selection out loud.
3. Ask questions!
Remember: no matter how stupid you may think your question is, there
are probably other students in your class who are wondering the same
thing. Ask your teacher; ask your classmate; or ask for help from the
Writing/Tutoring Center. If you have questions about assignments, tests,
or other graded assignments, ask those questions right away! Don't wait
until right before the essay is due, or just as the tests are being passed
out.
CONTINUE READING BELOW OUR VIDEO

Test Your General Science Knowledge

rystal
ownload Pdf
ead Online

D
R

heres a new definition of literature in town. It has been slouching

toward us for some time now but may have arrived officially in 2009, with
the publication of Greil Marcus and Werner Sollorss A New Literary
History of America.Alongside essays on Twain, Fitzgerald, Frost, and
Henry James, there are pieces about Jackson Pollock, Chuck Berry, the
telephone, the Winchester rifle, and Linda Lovelace. Apparently, literary
means not only what is written but what is voiced, what is expressed, what
is invented, in whatever form in which case maps, sermons, comic
strips, cartoons, speeches, photographs, movies, war memorials, and music
all huddle beneath the literary umbrella. Books continue to matter, of
course, but not in the way that earlier generations took for granted. In
2004, the most influential cultural figure now alive, according
to Newsweek, wasnt a novelist or historian; it was Bob Dylan. Not
incidentally, the index to A New Literary Historycontains more references
to Dylan than to Stephen Crane and Hart Crane combined. Dylan may
have described himself as a song-and-dance man, but Marcus and
Sollors and such critics as Christopher Ricks beg to differ. Dylan, they
contend, is one of the greatest poets this nation has ever produced (in point
of fact, he has been nominated for a Nobel Prize in Literature every year
since 1996).

Two Tall Books, by Abelardo Morell. Courtesy the artist and Edwynn Houk Gallery, New York City

The idea that literature contains multitudes is not new. For the greater part
of its history, lit(t)eratura referred to any writing formed with letters. Up
until the eighteenth century, the only true makers of creative work were
poets, and what they aspired to was not literature but poesy. A piece of
writing was literary only if enough learned readers spoke well of it; but
as Thomas Rymer observed in 1674, till of late years England was as free
from Criticks, as it is from Wolves.
So when did literature in the modern sense begin? According to Trevor
Rosss The Making of the English Literary Canon, that would have been
on February 22, 1774. Ross is citing with theatrical flair the case
of Donaldson v. Beckett, which did away with the notion of perpetual
copyright and, as one contemporary onlooker put it, allowed the Works
of Shakespeare, of Addison, Pope, Swift, Gay, and many other excellent

Authors of the present Century . . . to be the Property of any Person. It

was at this point, Ross claims, that the canon became a set of
commodities to be consumed. It became literature rather than poetry.
What Ross and other historians of literature credibly maintain is that the
literary canon was largely an Augustan invention evolving from la
querelle des Anciens et des Modernes, which pitted cutting-edge
seventeenth-century authors against the Greek and Latin poets. Because a
canon of vastly superior ancient writers Homer, Virgil, Cicero
already existed, a modern canon had been slow to develop. One way
around this dilemma was to create new ancients closer to ones own time,
which is precisely what John Dryden did in 1700, when he translated
Chaucer into Modern English. Dryden not only made Chaucers work a
classic; he helped canonize English literature itself.
The word canon, from the Greek, originally meant measuring stick or
rule and was used by early Christian theologians to differentiate the
genuine, or canonical, books of the Bible from the apocryphal ones.
Canonization, of course, also referred to the Catholic practice of
designating saints, but the term was not applied to secular writings until
1768, when the Dutch classicist David Ruhnken spoke of a canon of
ancient orators and poets.
The usage may have been novel, but the idea of a literary canon was
already in the air, as evidenced by a Cambridge dons proposal in 1595
that universities take the course to canonize [their] owne writers, that not
every bold ballader . . . may pass current with a Poets name. A similar
nod toward hierarchies appeared in Daniel Defoes A Vindication of the
Press (1718) and Joseph Spences plan for a dictionary of British poets.
Writing in 1730, Spence suggested that the known marks for ye
different magnitudesof the Stars could be used to establish rankings such
as great Genius & fine writer, fine writer, middling Poet, and one
never to be read. In 1756, Joseph Wartons essay on Pope designated
four different classes and degrees of poets, with Spenser, Shakespeare,
and Milton comfortably leading the field. By 1781, Samuel
JohnsonsLives of the English Poets had confirmed the canons

constituents fifty-two of them but also fine-tuned standards of

literary merit so that the common reader, uncorrupted with literary
prejudice, would know what to look for.
In effect, the canon formalized modern literature as a select body of
imaginative writings that could stand up to the Greek and Latin texts.
Although exclusionary by nature, it was originally intended to impart a
sense of unity; critics hoped that a tradition of great writers would help
create a national literature. What was the apotheosis of Shakespeare and
Milton if not an attempt to show the world that England and not France
especially not France had produced such geniuses? The canon anointed
the worthy and, by implication, the unworthy, functioning as a set of
commandments that saved people the trouble of deciding what to read.
The canon later the canon of Great Books endured without real
opposition for nearly two centuries before antinomian forces concluded
that enough was enough. I refer, of course, to that mixed bag of politicized
professors and theory-happy revisionists of the 1970s and 1980s
feminists, ethnicists, Marxists, semioticians, deconstructionists, new
historicists, and cultural materialists all of whom took exception to the
canon while not necessarily seeing eye to eye about much else. Essentially,
the postmodernists were against well, essentialism. While books were
conceived in private, they reflected the ideological makeup of their host
culture; and the criticism that gave them legitimacy served only to justify
the prevailing social order. The implication could not be plainer: If books
simply reinforced the cultural values that helped shape them, then any old
book or any new book was worthy of consideration. Literature with a
capital L was nothing more than a bossy construct, and the canon, instead
of being genuine and beneficial, was unreal and oppressive.
Traditionalists, naturally, were aghast. The canon, they argued, represented
the best that had been thought and said, and its contents were an
expression of the human condition: the joy of love, the sorrow of death,
the pain of duty, the horror of war, and the recognition of self and soul.
Some canonical writers conveyed this with linguistic brio, others through a

sensitive and nuanced portrayal of experience; and their books were part of
an ongoing conversation, whose changing sum was nothing less than the
history of ideas. To mess with the canon was to mess with civilization
itself.