"What makes somebody a classicist?"

[StephenGoranson]

The subject line is borrowed from a book review recently posted at Bryn Mawr classical reviews, BMCR 2023.04.40.
Jeremy Swist (Brandeis U.) reviewed the following book:

Quentin J. Broughall, Gore Vidal and antiquity: sex, politics and religion. Routledge monographs in classical studies. Abingdon; New York: Routledge, 2022. Pp. 198. ISBN 9781032285337 $136.00.

The review begins as follows, the first paragraph [note: there may be (?) additional definitions]:

"What makes somebody a classicist? A graduate degree awarded after intensive study of classical languages, literature, and civilization? A deep and sustained intellectual interest in Mediterranean antiquity, regardless of professional credentials? Or is it, as Friedrich Nietzsche might have agreed, the actual embodiment of Greek or Roman identity and ideals in one’s manner of living, as opposed to “we philologists” who merely examine these cultures with cold detachment? Perhaps these three criteria are not mutually exclusive, and the title ‘classicist’ is not as important as what one actually does with interest in and knowledge of the ancient world. The epigraph of the introduction to Quentin J. Broughall’s Gore Vidal and Antiquity, “I am a Stoic, a Roman, a classicist,” is unequivocal that Vidal (1925–2012) opted for a variant of the third definition. The biographical sketch that immediately follows makes clear that Vidal also meets the second, although not the first: his profound interest in classical literature and civilization extended neither to the advanced study of Greek or Latin language, nor to enthusiasm for education or academia as either a student or potential scholar. Broughall’s monograph validates those who, like Vidal, claim the classicist label despite a lack of either language training or university diplomas, and demonstrates what a wide influence and cultural force, for good or ill, can be exerted by a non-academic, or alt-academic, classicist."

<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://bmc ... 7DbA4RyPWh$ >

[billd89]

The essay link.

I think of Ludwig and Emma Edelstein as definitive Classicists, they seem to check all the boxes. Ludwig attended Joachim-Friedrichs-Gymnasium and received an education which placed special value on Latin, Greek, and the German classics. "Classical philology led Edelstein into his pursuit of ancient philosophy and classics at the University of Berlin" -- secondary education leading to a diploma in the Classics (history, literature, philosophy, etc.) makes one a Classicist.

Wife Emma was his scholarly partner; although I cannot prove she ever taught Greek or Latin, it is entirely plausible she did. However, she certainly worked at senior museum tasks at the Walters Art Gallery of Baltimore for five years, where her expertise apparently involved researching Graeco-Roman artifacts. On this basis, in addition to her published (and famous) translation work on Asclepius, I would argue that Emma was even an "academic."

Reading their biographies, one cannot doubt they lived as Classicists in academia: at Johns Hopkins, at Berkeley, at Oxford. In a letter to her old professor, in the mid 1950s, she even calls themselves (Mr. & Mrs.) "pagani." A lifelong devotion to the field -- in whatever capacities allowed -- makes one a Classicist. She is also the anonymous spiritual godmother to millions; SHE had the Vital Spiritual Experience which is the Archetype for that 'Therapeutic' Paradigm which they created for the Rockefellers, at Johns Hopkins in 1938.

(Later, Ludwig preferred the term "Humanist"; I don't think he ceased being a Classicist for that.)