Talk:Western canon

Obsolete discussions from 2003 and before archived here.

Dead Link

This link to Harold Blooms canon list seems to be dead,

http://www.literarycritic.com/bloom.htm

Mona Lisa

Could someone explain why the mona lisa is even in the page at all? It isn't referenced in the text.

Number of books in GBotWW

It said 54 volumes under the caption on the picture. I changed it to 61 because the set pictured is the second edition, which has 60 numbered volumes, and an unnumbered one called "The Great Conversation" (which is one of the numbered volumes in the first edition).

Singularity

"Dead white males" (the new expression) wrote books because they were the educated people. A negro couldn't be expected to write books. A slave could be whipped for learning the alphabet. Why would anyone "attack?" I am perplexed. GhostofSuperslum 11:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You are perplexed because you think that there is a logical reason for the attack. Instead, look for emotion, passion, and will as causes.This will terminate your perplexity.72.73.205.104 03:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Benighted

This section is ridden with weasel words. "It has been attacked"? By whom? Is their objection any more refined than "dead white European males"? Are these critics taken seriously by any scholar? This is a simplistic and misleading section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.19.9 (talk) 07:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

more on the debate

i found links that talk some more about the sides of the controversy. http://www.goacom.org/overseas-digest/Discourse/literarycanon.htm http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/107629/ethnic_writers_and_the_western_literary.html

The beginning of the debate section is terrible. That the western canon "do not represent the viewpoints of many others in contemporary societies around the world" is not a failing; hence the name western. A particular cultural viewpoint should not be criticised for its lack of universality; it was never attempting such. 125.238.245.135 (talk) 10:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

National bias

I would think that despite the existence of undisputed masters of Western literature (Homeros, Shakespeare, Goethe, Dante, Cervantes, Camoes, Pessoa, etc.), there would be a lot of bias depending on the scholar's national background. For example, British or American experts would place more emphasis on Chaucer, Dickens, and so forth, while a Frenchman would go into Rabelais and Moliere, an Italian Boccaccio, Petrarch, etc. Especially since the 19th century, the ideal of a universal Western masterpiece is a little rare. Wouldn't there be some kind of dispute over this? Brutannica 07:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As an English-speaking American I have to disagree with you there. The whole course of my education has been "western" in general; that is, the goal universally preached to me was to become cognizant of the world outside our narrow shores (narrow because so far apart as to be isolating). If you were unfamiliar with other European literature you just were not educated. In fact this tradition descends from the rationalist goals of the American Revolution, which was considered only a stage in the universal revolution. The American army scoured Europe, so to speak, for military men who would become international soldiers of fortune and our war memorials are full of their names: Kosciusko, Lafayette, etc etc. The first thing we said on being forced out of our isolationism was "Lafayette we are here." I'm familiar with the ignorant brand of "nationalism" of which you are speaking; it crops up on Wikipedia all the time. These mainly European "nationalists" promulgate any distortion or lie in the interest of their "nation." I myself do not think they are allowed freedom of speech in their own societies, but then, those usually have an "ethnic" basis. I think the Great Books series is truly international; that is, western - they admittedly do not cover the great writings of India, China, Japan and so on - and whenever I see narrow nationalism raising its ethnic-cleansing head I think - oh no, foreign prejudice. Usually those in America who go for the ethnic cleansing idea are not educated enough to use Wikipedia or be interested in Great Books or even know or care what the issues are. They just know they hate people who are different. The rationalist ideal failed them or else they failed it. They cannot avail themselves of our educational resources including Wikipedia. So, I do not believe nationalism played any part in the selection of the western canon. If all the books were French or Greek or Albanian or Russian that is what would be in the great Books series.Dave (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

PS. There's an analogy with opera. The Italians just happened to write the lion's share of the world's best opera. The fact that they dominate compendia does not indicate Italian nationalism, even though Italians may justly be proud of Italian opera. Excelsior. Ciao.Dave (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the OP is correct--and I've done the Great Books program. In colleges, we talk about the Western tradition as a line of texts going back to the Greco-Roman-Judeo-Christian foundation of Western European culture. So in some respects, the Western Canon refers to a particular origin-point in antiquity that is shared by all the modern European national languages. As we move into the Renaissance and into the development of modern languages and modern nation-states, we see that different countries do in fact develop different influences—certain texts become more important in one country than in another, and often these influences are based on language: the French canon will have more French authors, the Germans will have more German authors, etc. So yes, there should be some divergence regarding the line of influence in the past 400 years. Much of the issue is built on which works transcended national boundaries--Shakespeare, Molière, Goethe, Ibsen, Baudelaire and Flaubert have all become international figures. But otherwise, yes, I expect that a French version of "the" canon would use Hugo, Balzac, Zola, Maupassant, Stendahl, Sand and Dumas instead of Dickens, the Brontës, Mary Shelley, Scott, George Eliot, Trollope and Austen, and in place of Irving, Cooper, Hawthorne, Melville, Emerson and Thoreau. Not that any of these are not international, but that at a certain point in the conversation, each country begins to focus more on its own internal tradition. Think of it this way: the Eastern European tradition also builds on the Greco-Judeo-Christian tradition (not so much on Rome), but it's clear that their conversation developed in very different ways, and often with little or no interaction with the Western European tradition. So even the very notion of a Western Canon implies a certain parameter of lineage, one not shared with other cultures who come from the same starting points. Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Patrologia Latina

In ecclesiastical literature, the Western canon is widely known as the Patrologia Latina, although I'm not sure how that fits into a general article on literature. ADM (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think the western canon goes far beyond church literature to encompass philosophical, literary, scientific, historical and theoretical texts. Aristophanes68 (talk) 06:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Ludicrous US bias, as usual

I know this article is about the Western canon, but it might be at the very least polite to include some recognition that there are countries outside that great landmass of the western hemisphere, North America.

In particular, the set of university reading lists is exclusively American, containing such internationally respected institutions as Colgate University and St John's College (not the one in Oxford, nor the one in Cambridge, but some two-bit outfit in Annapolis that only offers a single course). Yet there is absolutely no acknowledgement that there are any universities elsewhere in the world, English-speaking or otherwise, and no intimation that anyone outside the borders of the lower 48 would ever read this article, let alone the great works of western culture. 87.114.101.69 (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). — goethean ॐ 15:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm no expert on literary criticism, but isn't "the West" a concept that goes back to the Christian church schism? It seems to me at least that it's older than the 19th Century. 155.101.189.124 (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• A quick note on the Annapolis St. John's--it's not a single course but an entire four-year curriculum. But yes, we do need to expand the list of western canon programs to cover schools outside the USA. Aristophanes68 (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

According to Silvia Federici's 1995 book Enduring Western Civilization: The Construction of the Concept of Western Civilization and Its "Others" the term "the West" in the sense of Western Civilization goes back to the 16th century, when mutually hostile Catholic and Protestant countries joined forced to fight off the Turks in Mediterranean sea battles. The underlying concept, of course, has its roots in the Christian church schism. Centuries later the words "culture" or "civilization" were added, each with their own connotations: Western Culture had connotations of rural, Germanic, tribal, feudal - Western Civilization meant urban, French, urbane, bureaucratic, etc. The Greco-Roman / Judeo-Christian thing is just a modern attempt to define, retroactively, the historical antecedents. Zyxwv99 (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

A Canon is a Canon!

How come this page mentions a canon and afterwards (all along the text...) doesn't point or refer to a single, or several at least agreed by multinational - namely non-english speaking - representative parties, list(s) that can really constitute some sort of canon? Maybe I, a skeptical raised in a catholic country, have a different concept of canon; but being raised in Europe gave me the same kind concept of canon(s) that any north american should have... There are as many canons as views on the world, but if one wants to leave a real global legacy, despite of one's opinion, there's an obligation to at least try to establish the ground basis for a western canon... Whatever that means... A final thought: what really means, nowadays, western canon? Are we really talking about a cultural and social canon that is specific to the west? By the way, what is really (the) west? For us, europeans, the west was, five houndred years ago, just sea, for americans, almost two houndred and thirty years ago, bare lands, for indians (the people of India) and chinese, for more than two thousand years, at least, just land filled with savages, for the persians, the same for almost the same amount of time, and we are back in europe again. We could do this exercise starting in any given point of the globe! Is it really that important to establish, nowadays, a western canon? Shouldn't there be several, real, canons? Shouldn't those canons be comprised? Is it so unreachable to obtain some sort of understanding about what culture, art and thinking, is really about? Zejoao2000 (talk) 07:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

"Dead White Males

Please stop pushing this ridiculous anti cis-white-male agenda. This is racist, sexist and insulting. Otherwise I (and other ciswhitemales) have to take our annual donations elsewhere). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.200.79.163 (talk) 08:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I would add that there is an entire section about the "expansion" of the Western cannon that would, at best, take up a footnote. Just because it happened recently doesn't make it important. I doubt in a hundred years people will remember the name of feminist authors or Marxist scholars. They are a footnote in the history of the entire Western civilization. Shakespeare himself deserves more analysis than anything written in that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C101:1DFC:1BC:B23F:5FA8:528E (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt this. Marxism and Feminism have had a lasting effect on human culture and literature. I think Shakespeare himself is only a minor footnote in the history of theatre, and I would consider him of inferior importance to the likes of Aristophanes, Plautus, and Molière. I consider Tartuffe (1664) and its depiction of religious hypocrisy to be more relevant to the modern world, and far more entertaining, than anything Shakespeare has written. Dimadick (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

>I think Shakespeare himself is only a minor footnote in the history of theatre

Regardless of your personal evaluation of Shakespeare's work, this just isn't true; I'd say he isn't even "just a major footnote"---even in non-English-speaking nations: Voltaire criticized him, but also called him a giant, a genius, and sublime; Goethe believed him to be uniquely gifted; Hugo, Tolstoy, Goldoni all considered him to be among the greatest of dramatists; and from personal experience, I can attest that, at least in Uruguay and in Germany, Shakespeare still gets major billing in university and secondary school courses both. Even were all of these luminaries to have rather said that they detested Shakespeare, his influence is still immense, both on other playwrights and on the general public: linguistic constructions of his have become entrenched in English idiom more so than any other author, lists of "most-produced plays" customarily omit Shakespeare (because otherwise he'd always have some share of the top-10), and A Midsummer Night's Dream is probably the most-produced play of all time. Regardless of merit, that's not a footnote.

Himaldrmann (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Debate Section biased

The Debate section only includes authors who argue the canon should be maintained. I agree with these authors mostly, but this makes for a very unbalanced "debate" section. Adding in Nussbaum or Cornel West would be good. It might also be relevant to note that the Canon-ists largely lost the debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.103.26 (talk) 02:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The canon of renaissance poetry

I have suggested on the Talk page of Canons of renaissance poetry[1] the merging of that article be with this one. Comments? Rwood128 (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I have added some relevant material from the Canons of renaissance poetry article, prior to merging this article with this one.

There have been no objections so I will complete the merge shortly. Rwood128 (talk) 13:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Merge: The canon of renaissance poetry

Page moved here following the merge.

Feminist revisions?

Shouldn't this include some discussion of feminist revisions? (e.g. Aemilia Lanyer, Mary Wroth) I don't know the details, so I can't do it myself.--gecian

Page title

This article is mis-named as it is just on English poetry. Furthermore, there is, oddly, no article on English renaissance poetry, or Elizabethan poetry, though there is one on the Metaphysical poets. This is reads more like a scholarly paper (or student essay) than an encyclopaedia article. I suggest that it be re-written to focus more on the poetry, and with just one section discussing the canon. Otherwise it should be part of a much wider discussion of the topic, The Canon in literature. Rwood128 (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

On further thought it would probably be best to merge this article with Western canon. Comments? Rwood128 (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

As there has been no objections I will complete the merge shortly. Rwood128 (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Coming new to this I think it is rather long and over-detailed given the overall shape of the article, even after recent expansions. I think it would be better to add to Elizabethan literature (in the absence of Elizabethan poetry) with a short summary here. Johnbod (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Rwood128 (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Johnbod, on further thought this section is on both Elizabethan and Metaphysical poetry. Perhaps it, along with material from the existing articles, on Elizabethan literature and Metaphysical poets, could form the basis for a new article on British renaissance poetry? Rwood128 (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Certainly that would be ideal, but quite a large job to do well. Don't know about the title though - "English Renaissance" normally stops early into James' reign in Eng. Lit. studies. English poetry is very cursory indeed, and it could go there. All these articles need much better expansion. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

If I can find the time I will revise, including moving material – probably to English poetry. Rwood128 (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I have begun by moving some material to the Elizabethan literature page. Rwood128 (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I have revised this page also - the Metaphysical poets already cover this topic. I may not have followed strict merge protocol here, but everything has been recorded. Rwood128 (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Most of what is in the article Dead white males is already here, so that article is redundant. Rwood128 (talk) 11:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

As there have been no objections the merge will be completed shortly.Rwood128 (talk) 11:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Dead White men merge

Article merged: See old talk-page talk:Dead white men

Susanne Langer

The picture labelled 'Susanne Langer' is not of the philosopher Susanne Langer, and quite obviously so, since it was clearly taken after 1985, which is the date of her death as listed directly below the photo. The photograph actually depicts another Susanne Langer, a Danish politician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.175.151 (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Please advise on the academic context behind the term 'dead white men'

Whilst I respect the fact that the majority of artists in the Western Canon are white men, I question the relevance and practice of including anchors for "Dead white men" to a section of a different name. Whilst the commentary on the under-representation of women and other races is appreciated in this article, I ask for further discussion on the language used regarding both this anchor and the reoccurring theme of "dead white men" in the article's content. The subject of under-representation is an important one, but it could be more brief and less aggressive with regards to this article specifically, and perhaps more suited to a dedicated article of it's own.

I believe some intervention may be warranted or some context needs to be introduced. If the term "dead white males" or equivalent is somehow academic terminology, I welcome the reintroduction of the anchor, but I would advise that it's nature may be more welcome to another article specifically for the sociological implications of the Western Canon and not this article specifically, or that the phrases' context be explicitly detailed in the article's content. Does any alternative article exist to encompass the discussion for which this term is relevant? HJBristow (talk) 23:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

In addendum and after researching the previous article for which a merge was introduced, I believe the previous page and reference for 'Dead white men' is deprecated, and has no need to be anchored here excluding legacy referencing. If the anchor serves a purpose beyond legacy referencing for a removed article and talk-page, it's reintroduction makes sense, but for now I would advise to avoid this anchor. It's previous context and purpose is both deprecated and documented on this talk-page. HJBristow (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The removal of the "anchor" seems reasonable. I too don't like the phrase "dead white men", but the subject of the under-representation of women is very relevant to this article. Some academic context can be found in two quotations in the article. Rwood128 (talk) 11:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

After reviewing the cited articles pertaining to the phrase, I still maintain that the terminology is not defined explicitly enough to warrant an anchor. Whilst the phrases "dead white males" and "The Oldest Dead White European Males" are similar, it still stands that no established terminology is maintained, and that said similar terminologies are not prevalent enough in academic or historic discourse. To introduce titles and headings (therein anchors) for colloquialisms and unestablished pseudo-academic terminologies is not in the nature of an encyclopedia.

Regardless, further and more-specific citations to support the term could be researched, wherein the anchor could be reintroduced safely. In summary, more supporting research for the term is needed to reintroduce the anchor "dead white men", as the existing citations do not provide proof for it as an established academic or common terminology. Again, comments appreciated. HJBristow (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I do not understand your comment, because I fully agree with you about the "Anchor".

Yes, "dead white males" is more of a catchy, journalistic phrase. I'd prefer an article that gave equal weight to the positive changes that have taken place during recent history. That is focussing more on recent achievements by women, and on the influences of other culures on the West – especially the Middle East in literature (don't forget the Bible!), architecture and painting. Eastern music has been a major influence on Western music since at least Debussy, and then there is the influence of African art on modernism. There is also the growing achievement of non-white writers. See also the influence of Indian literature on Leo Tolstoi!

Hope you are able to make some improvements. Rwood128 (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments regarding this change. I also agree with your suggestion of new articles for relevant influences on the Western canon. Perhaps such pages would alleviate the sociological commentaries from this article. Whilst appreciated, I believe they would be better suited on dedicated pages. HJBristow (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

You may be right, perhaps the sociological content could be reduced, and maybe the gender balance question could be treated with more subtlety. Rwood128 (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I've just done a little copy editing but could not find "sociological commentary" that wasn't useful in providing a context for this subject. Can you, HJBristow, give examples that you think are not appropriate? Rwood128 (talk) 12:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the edits you made were specifically on the issue I considered, and I thank you for these changes - I agree with them all.

I would ask the relevance of including race under the heading Feminism and the artistic canon in the statement following a citation for Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?: "...analyzes the embedded privilege in the predominantly white male...". The article for 'Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?' makes no comment on the race of the men in question. The words 'race' and 'white' are not even used in this referenced article. Whilst I respect the fact that the artists of the Western canon were white, needless inclusion of this assumption seems redundant in a section specifically on gender inequality. Surely race and gender are two separate issues, and to include commentary on racial bias within a heading on feminism seems odd (imo). This blend of gender and racial bias is a common theme in articles such as this one, when I believe the two concepts are disparate and should be presented so.

But the copy edits you made were sound. Thank you for this contribution. HJBristow (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Clearly the article needs a section on Black writers, so I'll try and add something on Afro-American writers. Rwood128 (talk) 15:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Hope that my addition isn't too sociological? The organizational structure of this article probably needs to be revised. Rwood128 (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

If you can find enough content for a dedicated section, by all means, so long as the section doesn't seem tokenistic or pandering. Perhaps it would be better to mention the contributions of black artists in the sections for which artistic medium is specific, and not in a dedicated black artists section. Include black artists just as artists by merit in the other sections, and mention they are black in-passing if it is relevant to the discussion i.e. They were persecuted yet their art powered through. On the other hand, perhaps the persecution of black contributors to the Western Canon is great enough to entail a dedicated section. I'm no expert on the subject, so I cannot say. An unbias and academically established opinion is needed on this subject (An expert), I feel. HJBristow (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks HJBristow for the helpful comments. The section on "Black writers" follows on from what is suggested under "The expansion of the literary canon in the 20th century" section, as well as the various section which discuss women. You, however, make a good point, and perhaps, there can be some merging/re-organising within the "expansion of the cannon" section, as well as more attention to major non-white artists, who have succeeded in the last hundred years, like, for example, Derek Walcott, Sir V. S. Naipaul and Salmon Rushdie. Furthermore, it would be good if the important influence of non-European culture on the West was generally highlighted a little more. Rwood128 (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• I have restored the anchor. "Dead white males/men" is essentially a term from academe, which has been around for over 25 years now - try this gbook search. Johnbod (talk) 02:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

This article is more focused on debating the status of women in the canon than explaining the Western canon itself.

For example, there is a sub-section after every single section about women and feminism relating to the subject. The philosophy section has more discussing the status of females in Western philosophy than actually discussing the canon of Western philosophy itself. The music section discusses, and uses as a picture, the work of Clara Schumann, who might at best make up a footnote of what is typically studied in most major western conservatories, while neglecting to even mention Mozart, Haydn, Wagner, etc... The debate section is the second section, before actually discussing individual aspects of the cannon, and takes up about as much space as all of the previous space as all of the previous material put together. I motion that most of this content be moved to a separate page, and a controversy section be added at the bottom of the article summarizing the material found in the "debate" section and linking to the more detailed page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.250.87 (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Re philosophy and music, I suggest that you can easily remedy this. Otherwise a discussion of the lack of women in the canon, and the reasons for this, is especially relevant. In fact more attention might well be paid to the emergence of major women musicians, painters, sculptors, poets, novelists, philosophers and dramatists, etc. in the twentieth century. Rwood128 (talk) 17:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Problem: Who defines "major" figures here? We need sources for that. Dimadick (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Support splitting the article. Clara Schumann is in, but Monteverdi is not. "Dante, Homer and Virgil in Raphael's Parnassus fresco (1511), key figures in the Western canon" says the image caption, but they are not mentioned in the article...

The article should be split into Western canon and, say, Critique of the Western canon. The opening sentence is the key to the article: "The Western canon is the body of books, music, and art that scholars generally accept as the most important and influential in shaping Western culture." What there is in the article on this subject is submerged under a mass of what could/ should/ would have been 'influential in shaping Western culture' (but was not). The essence of the subject, of consensus and of continuity, of agreement on the core common across all of western culture is lost in the shrubbery. We need to lose the shrubbery to be able to see the few trees and try to salvage the article. Scarabocchio (talk) 11:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

You have a point: Clara Schuman is certainly not a major composer. However, the reasons for the absence of major women composer, until recently, has a place here. I think that the article should be revised rather than divided. Also more importantly Momteverdi, Dante, etc. should be added. I'll try and do something in the next few weeks. Rwood128 (talk) 11:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

On further thought a new article may well be necessary: one that discusses the historical reasons for absence of women from the Western canon. Though the absence of key male figures is probably a more significant problem with this article. Also the article doesn't address the rise of major women composers, such as Sofia Gubaidulina and Kaija Saariaho, in more recent years. Some canonical women writers are also absent, such as Marianne Moore and Emily Dickenson Rwood128 (talk) 12:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I think that there is a lot in the article that would be happier elsewhere .. perhaps the article on western culture (rather than the canon)? but yes, an article specific to women would be a good and valuable alternative. Good plan. Scarabocchio (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know that I fully agree with the idea, that "a lot in the article that would be happier elsewhere". The question of how the canon was formed, along with the debate about what should be included, is relevant and serves to make the article more interesting. This includes the endeavours of feminists to get more women included in the canon. Where I do agree is that some major figures both men and women are missing and that the article does stray of topic at times. I have edited out some of the over-emphasis on minor figures. Part of the problem maybe that the phrase "Western canon" can mean, both the greatest writers, painters, musicians, etc., and all that are worth including in a complete history of western culture. and therefore studied.

On another point the word "western" is problematic: that is, the article does not consider sufficiently the influence of non-western culture on the so-called western cannon, starting with the ancient Greeks – the Bible is of course the prime example – or the addition of non-western writers, composers, etc. to the canon, especially in the last hundred years. Rwood128 (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Western canon

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Western canon's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "gale":

• From Glossary of literary terms: "Glossary of Terms". Gale Cengage.
• From Barbara Hepworth: Gale, Matthew "Artist Biography: Barbara Hepworth 1903-75" Retrieved 31 January 2014.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Debate outside America?

The thinkers named in the 'Debate" section are all Americans. Does this mean that there is no debate (or less of a debate) in France, Russia, Germany, Italy, UK, etc.? Also is the main debate about literature? Rwood128 (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

In practice I think the debate is very largely American. Even in Britain it is only followed with mild interest, partly because academic courses teaching the canon as a canon are rare to non-existent here. The same issues come up in British academia, but in a more fragmented way. Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Western canon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mario%2Bvargas%2Bllosa
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://kevinscharp.com/Kevin%20Scharp%20-%20%20Diagrams.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140307082145/http://www.coastonline.org/mml/topic/topicsSearch_detail.php?id=312 to http://www.coastonline.org/mml/topic/topicsSearch_detail.php?id=312
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140812153638/https://www.twu.ca/academics/fhss/english/great-books-reading-list-09-2008.pdf to https://www.twu.ca/academics/fhss/english/great-books-reading-list-09-2008.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Sigmund Freud

Under the section "Classic Book" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_canon#Classic_book), Sigmund Freud's name is listed as "Some of the writers who are generally considered the most important in Western Literature". Obviously I agree that Freud was very influential, but should he be under this particular section? Freud's writings, to my knowledge, are exclusively treatises, or at leas the vast majority of them are. He's not exactly a writer of Literature, like Goethe or Joyce or even Camus (who still wrote fiction and plays, as well as treatises), but more a writer of Psychoanalysis -- he's more a Thinker than a writer.

So my question/concern is this: Since Freud only write psychoanalytic treatises (that's my understanding), should Freud be removed from that list? If he shouldn't, should we place other philosophical/psychoanalytical writers on that list, such as Plato and Nietzsche? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Johnny (talk • contribs) 22:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Artistic merit

Would it make sense to merge Artistic merit with this article? Rwood128 (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC) The Western canon "includes works of fiction, non-fiction, poetry, drama, music, art, sculpture, and architecture generally perceived as being of major artistic merit" (from the lede),Rwood128 (talk) 14:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

On further thought artistic merit seems to be a broader term that can include works that are not necessarily part of a canon. Rwood128 (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Western canon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927042834/http://doi.contentdirections.com/mr/greenwood.jsp?doi=10.1336%2F0313268762 to http://doi.contentdirections.com/mr/greenwood.jsp?doi=10.1336%2F0313268762
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151118102558/http://www.radikal.com.tr/haber.php?haberno=167161 to http://www.radikal.com.tr/haber.php?haberno=167161
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://jsp/Interstitial.jsp?seconds=5&date=1229507105000&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.derkanon.de%2Finterviews.html&target=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20081217094505%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.derkanon.de%2Finterviews.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Some of the writers who are generally considered the most important in Western literature

This list of writers is getting to be excessively long and it doesn't include the whole world. I'd suggest reducing it to, say, no more than a dozen and including all continents. The selection will obviously be, at times, subjective and there is a tendency to a bias toward certain languages, in particular English. But some names are fairly obvious: Homer, Shakespeare, Dante, Tolstoy, (Joyce?), plus representatives from Asia, Latin America, Africa, and maybe Oceania. Also, say Ibsen for Scandanavia, and Goethe for the German language. Who for the French? Who for North America?–Henry James maybe? Kafka to represent Eastern Europe and Jewish writers possibly? Are there any objections to this culling of the current list? The fact that any list is a purely representative and subjective selection should be made clear. Who might represent Asia, Africa, and Latin America? Rwood128 (talk) 12:14, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

No, cull away. A reminder: the title of the article is Western canon - it would be wrong to include anyone else. It should in fact be possible to find a referenced list of a dozen or so. I'd suggest a hidden Pharoah's curse against additions. Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Johnbod, however, the canon also includes works from non-Western societies, most notably the Bible, and is also valued by non-Western societies. The article states, for example, "Since the 1960s the Western literary canon has been expanded to include writers from Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. This is reflected in the Nobel prizes awarded in literature".

The lead needs to be revised, beginning with something like: <The Western canon is the body of high culture–literature, music, philosophy, and works of art–that is highly valued: works that have achieved the status of classics. These works do not necessarily originate in the West, and are also appreciated throughout the world>.

The term Western canon is dated, with the suggestion of a colonial superiority to other (more primitive) cultures. Rwood128 (talk)

So? Paul August ☎ 18:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is the subject of the article, dated or not. Plus I think the current text overplays the demise of the dead white males. If writers from Africa, Oceania etc really were in the canon, by definition you wouldn't need to ask who they were! That's the point of a "canon". Johnbod (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I asked for advice because I'm not an expert in World literature, e.g. I know that Wole Soyinka is a major African writer but is he the greatest non-white writer that Africa has produced?–Chinua Achebe?–and maybe, Johnbod, it is too earlier to add Soyinka to the canon? Advice from someone who is more knowledgeable would be helpful. Perhaps only writers who died over a 100 years ago should be included? This applies to most authors listed here. But Marquez (d. 2014) is the only author from Latin America and Wole Soyinka (still living) the only African. Kafka died in 1924 and the rest over 100 years ago.

The following is a possible list. It includes writers/works from all continents except Oceania, various regions of Europe, and women writers (the Great Book lists tend to be largely dominated by male authors). This is my selection but it is baed on longer lists. Not a list of the 19 greatest writers ever, which would anyhow be equally subjective. Emily Dickinson is there, rather than say Melville or James, because she is a woman. But she is also a major poet; perhaps the first great woman poet after Sappho, and probably the first great woman poet in the English language. There is still a bias towards Europe rather than the World as a whole-and dead white men. There are 19 authors/works, in this prelimenary list (I need to check the chronology):

Homer, Sappho, Mahabharata, Gilgamesh, Vergil, A Hundred and One Nights, Murasaki Shikibu, Cao Xueqin, Dante, Shakespeare, Cervantes, Racine, Goethe, Tolstoy, Ibsen, Emily Dickenson, Kafka, Wole Soyinka, Gabriel Garcia Marquez.

Denying the very existence of a Western canonical culture on behalf of a political agenda supposed to promote other cultures is nonsensical and counterproductive. This article is about the Western Canon, not about an hypothetical World Canon, which could be the subject of another article. Furthermore, the list provided is purely arbitrary and is not based on any source. Vidcaw (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Vidcaw, please note that Harold Bloom includes the works of other cultures in his list (as do other Great Books lists). You might also check more carefully the sources that were provided. Yes, the authors were selected, but so is any list. The criteria is stated above and they were selected from good sources. I also think that the selection should be as short as possible-I aimed for a dozen but was defeated! What criteria would you prefer? What number of writers should be included?

It has been argued that Dostoyevsky is a greater writer than Tolstoi, and maybe Molière should be included rather than Racine, but the authors/works listed are just some of the greatest writers/works. Maybe Soyinka is too young but I was trying to include major from all continents. My main source was:

"Top 100 Works in World Literature by Norwegian Book Clubs, with the Norwegian Nobel Institute

The editors of the Norwegian Book Clubs, with the Norwegian Nobel Institute, polled a panel of 100 authors from 54 countries on what they considered the “best and most central works in world literature.” Among the authors polled were Milan Kundera, Doris Lessing, Seamus Heaney, Salman Rushdie, Wole Soyinka, John Irving, Nadine Gordimer, and Carlos Fuentes. The list of 100 works appears alphabetically by author. Although the books were not ranked, the editors revealed that Don Quixote received 50% more votes than any other book." Rwood128 (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Unless someone can produce a good argument for listing almost 60 authors, I suggest that we return again to no more than twenty. This shorter list should only include writers whose works have become classics–say works published no later than the early 20th century– (Kafka's The Castle was published in 1926). It will have to include mainly white males. Rwood128 (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

No list will win unanimous approval, that's a fact. But any reduction of the list should be grounded on some reliable sources. The Norwegian Book Clubs list is made of 100 books. You can't just reduce this list to 20 books on personal preferences and pretend it's a source. By the way, this list, as any other one, cannot be considered as unbiased since half of the authors polled were Anglophone. Though, thegreatestbooks.org/ list is interesting since it's generated by an algorithm from 119 lists from a variety of reliable sources. Vidcaw (talk) 01:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

But isn't the current list of 50+authors based on personal choice? There are many lists of Great Books and choosing any one as a source is also a matter of personal choice. So what is to be done? The basic problem is a visual one; that is the current long list is indigestible. Rwood128 (talk) 10:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Harold Bloom has 26 names on his basic list, so I'd suggest that we use that, while emphasizeing that this is his personal choice. Rwood128 (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Half of the 26 names on Harold Bloom's list are Anglophone authors and he publicly recognised that it should not be regarded as an objective and comprehensive canon. It's of course a reliable source but his choices are undisputably biased and represent those of an English scholar. Who can seriously state that Samuel Johnson, Emily Dickinson or Wordsworth hold a more important position in the Western Canon than Boccaccio, Camoes, Schiller, Hugo, Flaubert or Dostoevsky ? Though, I agree that the current list is visually too long. Maybe we should simply skip this list since it's not really enligthening and has no scientific value. Vidcaw (talk) 13:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Vidcaw, that's a good idea: both lists in this section are in fact more or less covered by Bloom's "four ages" that follows. There is an obvious emphasis on white males but that is dealt with in the article. Rwood128 (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Vidcaw, Johnbod, and other editors, should anything be done? Rwood128 (talk) 13:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

My experience of articles like this is that if there is no list, people will very quickly add one, and then others keep adding to it, which is where we came in. Some sort of list is a reasonable expectation of the reader. A referenced list of up to 30, with a note sternly deprecating un-discussed additions, is the best way to go. Johnbod (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

There is a similar list under "Bloom's four ages", and this includes works. Rwood128 (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

References

"Literary canon" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Literary canon. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 26#Non-canonical until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. SWinxy (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Purging article of WP:SYNTH

I've been removing a large amount of content from this article as I do not believe any of it can be verified in reliable, secondary sources. In general the largest part of the article appears to be unsourced complaints about the under-representation of underrepresented groups, combined with attempts to add works by those groups to this page in order to "canonize" them. This is, of course, not how wikipedia works. On the other side of the debate, there appears to be a broad assumption that originated with the creation of the article that "the West" is a coherent term or that it has the same meaning when applied to art, music, philosophy that it does when applied to literature. However, I can't find any reliable sources on what the philosophical or musical or visual canon allegedly is - so the inclusion of those topics in this article appears to constitute WP:SYNTH. Quite frankly, nobody in scholarly sources seems to have cared much at all about a "Western canon" as such until after Harold Bloom wrote a book about it, so if little enough of this article survives attempts at verification I will propose merging this article with The Western Canon - as it's not clear right now that enough verifiable information exists to support this article in its own right. - car chasm (talk) 06:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The article has been much too long & too little referenced, with I think lots of student additions, but I very much doubt that a merge proposal would succeed - I would certainly oppose. I don't see the benefit of of many of your changes. For example removing dates from a list of figures doesn't seem helpful to the reader. You should probably tag more, and just cut less. Johnbod (talk) 11:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I think my main concern with tagging some of the information rather than removal is that a lot of the information is actually wholly incorrect or not at all verifiable - for example, the assumption that an author receiving a Nobel prize or a painter being in Vasari's book makes them "part of the canon" is a bit of a reach if there are no scholarly sources to back that particular case up. I'm not sure yet myself whether I think a merge is appropriate - but the main reason I would lean in that direction is that there's very little scholarly work on "canonical" literature before Harold Bloom's book, so if most of the discourse on "the canon" is a reaction to that book, it belongs in that article. Most of the sources I could find discussing a musical or artistic "canon" are about works that are not included (but the author supposes should be), but there's actually very little I can find that attempts to canonize any list of composers or painters or whatever... so it seems like "the canon" in those non-literary cases is more of a figure of speech to most of its users than a real list that can be defined.

For the dates I removed, I saw those as redundant with the fact that each figure is already sorted under the century in which they lived - but I won't object if someone adds them back in. - car chasm (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Carchasm Just wanted to say thank you, please continue. Some stuff might be more relevant to an important article we do not have yet, on the universal canon (non-Western, global). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Video Games?

I feel like video games as of now have been added to the canon, and I feel we should have a section in this article for them Alena 33 (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

and you have a reliable source for that? (Ref WP:NOR). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Western Canon a collection of various other canons?

Would the page benefit from being clearer regarding how the western canon is partly a mosaic of a variety of other canons for example, the Platonic canon, Reinassance Canon, Romatcism Canon, and soon on. I found a few references on this issue, I'm just wondering as to what would be the best way to format this information into the article. Some ideas:

- Disclaiming this information in the introduction

- Adding a list section of the various canons that form the wider western canon

- perhaps the latter can be a replacement to the current list of philosophies by time period (since the other canons are also related to specific time periods for the most part)

Let me know what you guys think! Pincermitosis (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Support. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Of course one can break down the "canon" in numerous ways, but I don't think this is usual in RS. The whole point of a "canon" is it can also form a single unit; we wouldn't need an article otherwise. Johnbod (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I understood User:Pincermitosis's proposal as being a way to (re)organise this article rather than a whole new set of articles (which I too would oppose).

Pincermitosis, perhaps it would be best if you would spell out your idea in more detail, please? Also, would you list the citations you found, please? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The main text is already sub-divided - possibly too much. It is true that the very short lead doesn't really prepare the reader for this, & I'd have no objection to a para there summarizing what lies below (or even two paras). Btw, see the "Purging article of WP:SYNTH" section above on the difficulties of sourcing more specific "canons". Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I definitely don't think we should make a set of new articles. I think that we could mention the other canons or movements rather, with references related to themselves, and use these canons, or at least these literary/philosophical/cultural/artistic movements, to make a sort of timeline (not a visual timeline, just section it into a timeline) of the evolution of the western canon. This way sort of making this article more standard with the general look of other Wikipedia articles but also more linear, more tidy.

These are examples of possible subsections:

• Classical Antiquity (c. 8th century BCE – 5th century CE)
• Early Christian and Late Antiquity (c. 1st – 6th century)
• Medieval Era (c. 5th – 15th century)
• Renaissance (c. 14th – 17th century)
• Baroque (c. 1600 – 1750)
• Enlightenment (c. 18th century)
• Neoclassicism and Romanticism (late 18th – mid-19th century)
• Realism and Naturalism (mid-19th century)
• Modernism (late 19th – mid-20th century)
• Postmodernism and Contemporary (mid-20th century – present)

The way the article's sections are structured at the moment seems to be kind of incoherent, random and lenghty. I think some of the present sections (e.g. debate) can stay, I'm not saying let's delete everything and start again, just restructure it a little bit. I think chronology makes the most sense, it's probably the best way to present the vast amount of information already present in the article.

So while we might struggle to find references that specifically mention how various canons are part of the western canon, we can definitely find/already have references (e.g. Bloom) that talk about how different movements contributed towards the assembling of the western canon. From these movements we only pick the relevant works (as in the ones referred to as canonical). Pincermitosis (talk) 11:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)