Since our discussion of historicism last Tuesday, I’ve been thinking a lot about the relationship between historicism and classicism. While these two concepts have different definitions (historicism relating to the parts of history we choose to highlight and classicism seeks to bring forth the ‘best’ of human existence and creation), I’ve found in their application they often intertwine. A great example of this is classic literature, out of Southern Living’s “50 Classic Books Everyone Should Read in Their Lifetime” only 15 of these 50 books were written by women. To be fair, this is a higher number than I was assuming, but it’s clear the classics are still heavily dominated by male writers. Obviously, this is not a result of men being inherently better writers, but rather that they have historically had more opportunities than women. I wonder if had historicism been blind to gender if more women would be considered classic authors. Another great example of this is art. While I am definitely no art history scholar, out of the 10 artists I could name off of the top of my head, Frida Kahlo was the only woman. Maybe that says something about me, but I think it says more about history’s tendency to highlight the feats of men over those of women, which in turn affects the art we consider to be classic.
In full transparency, I think the main reason this topic has been so prevalent in my thoughts is a result of the book I’m currently reading-- Hamnet by Maggie O’Farrell (I hyperlinked the Goodreads summary below if anyone is interested). While I’m still quite close to the beginning of the book, the reason I chose it is that it’s a fictionalized story of William Shakespeare’s family and the death of his son that inspired him to write Hamlet. But, the main thing that drew me in is that Shakespeare is never named in the book, only referred to as the father or the writer. Women have often been left out of the narrative as a result of historicism and as Shakespeare’s works are often thought of as classic I feel like there is a relevant connection that can be made. It is almost an example of reverse historicism in that it details the lives of a family that was left behind by both historicism and classicism. For example, I think most people have at least heard the name William Shakespeare if not actually engaged with his work. I think very few people know the story of his family, of his wife Agnes (who has been written into history as ‘Anne’) who was not only a mother and a wife, but a beekeeper, a healer, and a practitioner of falconry who was both sought after and feared by her peers. In short; she was a badass. Not to mention his son Hamnet, who quite literally inspired one of his most famous works (Hamnet and Hamlet were seen as interchangeable names at the time). While obviously, Shakespeare himself was the writer, and it makes sense that history remembers him, it is interesting it left behind all the people who supported and inspired him. This is definitely my personal belief and not fact, but I feel as though if Agnes had been the writer, history would have remembered the name of her husband as historicism often favors men. But like I’m sure has happened to many other women, while history has forgotten Agnes, it (and classicism) has immortalized her husband.
No comments:
Post a Comment