My original comment is pretty long, but I do have some other thoughts.
Thoreau says that classics are “the noblest recorded thoughts of man,” and in some cases, I agree. I think, though, that it’s more accurate to say they are the most influential thoughts of man. Was it noble that Penelope lived like a nun for ten years while her husband shacked up with Circe? Are we learning a noble lesson when we see men deceiving and slaughtering each other over family feuds, misunderstandings, and matters of wounded pride? In what universe are rape, incest, and suicide noble?
To be fair, though, this is just a quibble with word choice. I agree that Greek and Roman classics have shaped the psyche of the Western world and that it is very important to have some level of familiarity with them. From what I’ve read of them, they are also admirable as pieces of art and are probably entertaining and enlightening to see performed. Does that make them noble, though?
Thoreau, elsewhere, makes several references to Hindu texts (did he know Sanskrit, too? How did he read these, if he’s so anti-translation?), which I find remarkably forward-thinking. So it’s pretty interesting that he venerates Greek and Roman lit, and seems at least cognizant of Indian classics, but I’m wondering how he distinguishes which classics are worth reading and which aren’t. What about the Tibetan Book of the Dead, or the Popol Vuh? Their stories, involving gods, heroes, etiological tales, etc. are not so different from the Greco-Roman subject matter he’s talking about.
But I’m being a bit hard on him, because in general, I do agree with the concept of a canon and the cultural importance of literature. It’s just the semantics that get me, as I feel that “noble” is an awfully generous way to describe the PG-13 adventures of classical heroes.
