(...) As the discussion went on, it turned out that actually none of the first-class luminaries of world literature had any rightful claim to the label classical, or at most they had only a qualified claim to it—neither Homer nor Aeschylus nor Shakespeare nor even the young Goethe. Sophocles and Vergil fitted the classical ideal best of all.
It is obvious that the scholars Jaeger surrounded himself with had painted themselves into an intellectual corner, but it does not follow from their failure that the Classical should be any less of a problem today than it was in 1930. Classicists teach in departments of classics or of classical studies, they study classical literature and culture, the books they write, and more often buy, appear on the shelves of stores and libraries under the rubric of Classical Studies, and so on. But does anyone stop to ask what these labels mean?
Rarely, and with good reason. Passionate defenses of the Classical were once in vogue, but consensus was never reached and is never likely to be reached; and anyway there is something musty and distasteful about the question, which smacks of belletrism or antiquarianism, and of a dated aesthetics. What have the concerns of a Boileau, a Goethe, or a Werner Jaeger to do with us today?
A great deal, I believe. It is hard to discuss Greco-Roman antiquity without invoking the c-word, and it behooves us at the very least to reflect on the very label by which we designate the cultures of Greece and Rome, and so too the disciplines that seek to grasp them. The label, inherited and ubiquitous, is for the most part taken for granted rather than questioned—or else clung to for fear of losing a powerful cachet that, even in the beleaguered present, continues to translate into cultural prestige, authority, elitist satisfactions, and economic power (if you don’t believe me, try changing your local classics department’s nomenclature and see what reactions you will draw). It is a fair question to ask whether the presumptive epithet classical in classical studies or classical antiquity is justified, or even what it would mean for the term to count as justified at all. More pointedly still, is the designation one that would be recognizable (in some form) to the inhabitants of what we today call the classical world? In other words, was classical antiquity—classical?
Even judging by existing criteria, the answer cannot be an unqualified Yes. (...)
Thank you, Janet_M, for such a clear and crisp intonation.