The Value of the Secret History

Nietzsche seems to be a reoccurring theme in this bolg which is quite funny, for although I own copies of his work and like to make reference to him and often think of him as I read things, I'm doing a bit of a Bayard as far as he is concerned.  This really reflects the concerns of this blog; access and right to knowledge, understanding and value, investment in what one is told one should know.  The Secret History begins with a quote from Nietzsche about the classics, their foreignness for young people and suggestion that perhaps they will always remain so.  Donna Tartt writes a novel where students strive to become familiar with ancient Greek and their failure in comprehension plays out like a Greek tragedy.  Nietzsche asserts that the origins of philology are troubled because there is no way of knowing if one should ever be suited to understanding the Greeks and Romans and it is with this sentiment that Tartt explores the issue of the canonical.
   
In their articles both Barbara Herrnstein Smith and John Guillory discuss the issue of curriculum producing the canon (which is not surprising, Guillory spends so much time quoting Herrstien Smith I felt like I had deja vu).  This brings to mind Cassonova's world of letters where every text is in competition with each other, for other mediums effect the popularity and reading of books like weekend paper book reviews and a certain talk show host's book club.  But I digress.  Tartt has an extreme version of canon formation for one teacher prescribes every text and then these books are used to teach everything from history to art and philosophy.  So limited is the range of educational resources and focus Richard notes that of his classmates only he and Bunny are aware of the moon landing.  It is ignorance of an astonishing kind.  All of the students in the Greek class principally have Julian as their only teacher.  Julian chooses not only the style and content of the classes but, because of his ability to intoxicate the students, controls how they think as well. Richard believes that Henry killed himself to prove the 'high cold principles' Julian had taught them to use, but I think Henry did it because he realised - once Julian reacted to hearing to the murders - that he had perhaps not understood Julian at all.


Knowledge is certainly power;but in The Secret History it is also the bringer of destruction.  The very thing which undoes the Greek class is the study of Greek itself.  The Greek and its literature is the only signifier of cultural values in the novel and these lead to and justify murder in a most succinct way.  How can we value their knowledge when it transforms into explicit violence, sublime or otherwise?  We could assume as Henry does that it was a misunderstanding of the classics which leads to the tragedy of the novel but I think what Tartt is suggesting that it is a lack of perspective which caused it, just as Henry and the others increasingly see murder as the only way to deal with Bunny.  


We can read this as a warning about too strict adherence of the canon which is prescribed by only a few people and almost never challenged.  Julian's canon is too tight to be allowed to breath and point by which the poison enters the air; it is a toxic mix for the class members.  In the  end Richard chooses his own literature to study.  They are still tragedies, but better reflect the humanity and error in 'sin unpunished and innocence destroyed'.  Ancient Greek taught Richard the beauty was terror, beauty was harsh.  Only when he searches a wider canon can he understand 'the extravagance of tricks with which evil presents itself as good.'