In an article titled, The Two Canons: The Biblical Books and the Great Books, Dr. Christopher Perrin compares the formation of the Biblical Canon to that of the Great Books.
A canon, he rightly notes, is the rule, measure, or standard by which something abides by. For example, the criteria for which books belong in the bible ultimately reduce to whether these books are inspired by God. If Catholicism is true, then the Catholic Church rightly judges which books belong in the bible because she is guided by the Holy Spirit, and cannot be led into error in matters of faith and morals. Since the canon of Scripture pertains to faith, it follows the Church cannot be in error in regards to the canon of Scripture. These books are rightly compiled and recognized as Scripture because Christ’s Church, which is a lawful authority, compiled and recognized them as such.
What, then, is the rule, measure, or standard that the great books abide by? According to Dr. Perrin, the true, good, and beautiful is that very standard. Such books must have enduring excellence, be in harmony with Christian teaching, and ask the profound and universal questions relevant to mankind. He writes,
“Will Christian educators, seeking to wisely guide their students, recommend the same books to their students? Do you imagine that Professor Basil would have you read the same books as Professor Augustine? Certainly their books lists will be the same if they are using the same standards of the true, good, and beautiful–books of enduring excellence, in harmony with biblical teaching, that ask the profound, continuing, universal questions.”
For the moment, let us set aside the question of whether Perrin’s criteria is adequate and authoritative. Let us assume that it is. Does this criteria adequately account for the canon of the great books?
Well let’s take a look at some passages from these thinkers. Let us begin with Machiavelli.
“For my part I consider that it is better to be adventurous than cautious, because fortune is a woman, and if you wish to keep her under it is necessary to beat and ill-use her; and it is seen that she allows herself to be mastered by the adventurous rather than by those who go to work more coldly. She is, therefore, always, woman-like, a lover of young men, because they are less cautious, more violent, and with more audacity command her.”
Machiavelli, The Prince, Ch 25.
What is the true, the good, and the beautiful insight that Machiavelli offers? He tells us that fortune is a woman who needs to be won over. To win her over, she must be beaten and kept under control, since women love a young, violent, and audaciously commanding man. Contributing to this great conversation that displays such enduring excellence, Nietzsche writes, “‘Thou goest to women? Do not forget thy whip’ Thus spake Zarathustra.” (Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Ch 18.) Ah, what can be in more accord with Sacred Scripture?
Concerning this same topic, Francis Bacon also adds to “the great conversation.” Discussing the value of the ancient Greek philosophical tradition, he writes,
As for its value and utility it must be plainly avowed that that wisdom which we have derived principally from the Greeks is but like the boyhood of knowledge, and has the characteristic property of boys: it can talk, but it cannot generate, for it is fruitful of controversies but barren of works.
Francis Bacon, The Great Instauration, Preface.
The founder of the modern scientific method offers us another insight into the true, good, and beautiful work. Bacon suggests that Ancient Greek philosophy is akin to boyhood in knowledge. It can talk, but it cannot generate or procreate. What Francis Bacon claims to offer is a philosophy that is akin to a man, one that generates and produces works. In order to produce such works, this philosophy, i.e. the principles of the scientific method, must rule over and master mother nature. (Cf. The New Organon, Book 1, Aphorism 3.)
We can continue to go through the canon of the great books and find instances of certain authors rejection of what people call the true, good, and beautiful. But rather than do that, consider the following argument. The advocates of the great books call one entrenched in these works a “participant in the great conversation.” This conversation is not amongst authors who agree. For example, Plato and Aristotle seem quite opposed to the thought of Machiavelli, Montaigne, Bacon, Hobbes, Rousseau, Kant, and the like. But if they all taught the true, the good, and the beautiful, they could not be opposed. Thus, either only some of the authors teach the true, the good, and the beautiful, or none of them do. Either way, by the testimony provided by some of the “great books” authors themselves, the criteria for the great books canon cannot be the true, the good, and the beautiful.
Now let’s answer some objections. First, one might claim that I have assumed a universal understanding or interpretation of “the true, the good, and the beautiful,” when in reality these concepts are interpreted differently in other cultures, societies, and peoples. Let us assume for the moment that these concepts are conditioned by one’s historical and cultural point of view. If that’s true, then classical education is founded upon a logical fallacy, that of equivocation. For we call these works true, good, and beautiful, yet we mean something different. Thus, the definition of “great books” is really just relative to certain peoples rather than something objective. There can thus be no objective standard or criteria for the Great Books. Rather, we become the measure of what belongs in the canon. In this view, we side with the sophist Protagoras, making ourselves the measure of all things.
Another might object on the basis that when say a work needs to be true, good, or beautiful, it doesn’t follow that it needs to be true, good, or beautiful in all aspects. A work could be included in the canon for its historical significance or influence on a people, despite the fact that some of its content contradicts the true, the good, and the beautiful. But consider the fact that not all historical significance or influence is a good thing. A person may be vicious but also influential. Now we must ask a question. Do we want those who are receiving a great books education to be educated in what is virtuous or what is vicious? Obviously, we want them to be educated in what is virtuous. Therefore, we must not educate them in what is vicious. Since not all works in the great books promote virtue, such as Machiavelli’s The Prince or Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra, the criteria for the canon cannot be the true, the good, and the beautiful. If we wish to defend the criteria of the great books, we must either look for a different criteria, or using this criteria, modify works from the canon.
To summarize, we may put the argument in the form of a syllogism.
Premise 1: If the Great Books canon is determined by the standard of the true, the good, and the beautiful, then all works in the canon must promote these concepts.
Premise 2: But not all works in the canon promote these concepts. (For example, Machiavelli, Bacon, and Nietzsche, to name a few. Furthermore, they contradict the ideas found in earlier thinkers like Plato and Aristotle.)
Conclusion: Therefore, the criteria for the Great Books canon cannot be the true, the good, and the beautiful.
The above argument is valid, as it is a conditional syllogism that argues by denying the consequent. The first premise is admitted to be true by Great Book advocates. The second premise is an observation made through reading the great books.
In order for the argument to be false, one must show that either the second premise is false, or that the terms “true, good, and beautiful” are defined in a way to include works from authors who contradict one another. Otherwise, the argument stands.
