Excellent analysis. As you note at the beginning of your post, we won't get anywhere in discussions of the greatest literature unless we can first agree on a definition of "greatness." Utilitarian, emotionalist, and moralist are reasonable candidates. Is there a way of conceptualizing greatness that can incorporate all three? I think so. My preference for defining good (and superlative forms such as great and excellent) is Aristotle's concept of virtue (aretê), measured by how well something performs its function. (Or, stated somewhat differently, the degree to which something brings about a desired effect.) A common example of this concept goodness or virtue is a sharp knife. The function of a knife is to cut, therefore a good (or great or excellent) knife is a sharp knife, because it cuts cleanly and easily. We don't often think about virtues in terms of the ability of something to bring about a desired effect, except in old-fashioned constructions such as "the healing virtue of this herb."
If we start with the aretê conception of goodness, the next question is, "What is the function of literature" (or, more broadly, stories or even language in general). It is probably fatuous to claim that language or stories or literature have only one function or desired effect. Language probably serves multiple functions. But allow me to focus on one possible function of stories that ties together utility, emotions, and morals, which is that stories encourage and reinforce moral behavior. My perspective on morality is that morality evolved to coordinate individuals within small social groups to cooperate with each other. This is not a novel idea; many such evolutionary conceptions of morality have been published. The mechanism by which moral behavior is motivated are our evolved moral sentiments, our species-typical emotions such as compassion, empathy, gratitude, guilt, shame, pride, disgust, and moral indignation, which encourage us to behave in cooperative ways, avoid behaving in antisocial ways, rewarding people who behave cooperatively, and punishing people who behave uncooperatively. Prosocial and antisocial behaviors lie at the heart of stories, defining protagonists, antagonists, and morally ambiguous characters (which probably most accurately describes most of us). As morally ambiguous creatures, capable of both moral and immoral behavior, we need stories to reinforce the former and discourage the latter. Stories can help accomplish this by evoking appropriate emotions, which points to the emotionalist idea of great literature.
My perspective on morality and literature has guided a long collaboration with Joe Carroll on understanding Victorian literature from an evolutionary perspective. A representative publication from our collaboration is the following:
Johnson, J. A., Carroll, J., Gottschall, J., & Kruger, D. (2011). Portrayal of personality in Victorian novels reflects modern research findings but amplifies the significance of agreeableness. Journal
Concerning utility, I realize that this term is often defined in economic and technological terms. But of course the utilitarian philosophers conceptualize utility in terms of how well something brings about human happiness. I would expand this conceptualization of utility to include the ability of something to bring about *any* desired effect, not just human happiness. The idea of utility as "causal efficacy" (the ability of something to bring about a desired effect) brings us full circle to the aretê conception of goodness. I have an essay on goodness as causal efficacy at https://sites.psu.edu/drj5j/real-utilitarianism/ .
None of this answers the question of whether Shakespeare wrote the greatest literature. I don't have an answer to that question, although a direction to look might be whether people behave more morally after reading Shakespeare (or any other literature one might want to study). The main point I want to make is that we need to understand the function of stories in a non-superficial way, that is, from the viewpoint of human evolution. We can superficially explain anything in terms of pleasurable and unpleasant feelings, for example, that people engage in sex because it feels good. But why do we experience some things as pleasurable and others as painful? The answer lies in the way our evolved emotions guided our ancestors toward behaviors that increased reproductive success and away from behaviors that interfered with reproductive success. My working hypothesis is that stories strike evolved emotional chords that encourage moral behavior and discourage immoral behavior, and that this has been going on since time immemorial.
My perspective on storytelling is that a story creates a relationship in power (Nietzsche) between archetypes (Jung). For example:
(Icarus/Faust/Prometheus/Adam) seeks (to fly/knowledge/fire/knowledge), but (the Sun/God/father/God) punishes him. The archetype of the young man with his own ideas is smacked down by the traditional authority.
Children, and adults but especially children, are capable of feeling pain in imagined universes. So when Icarus falls, children are able to imagine the terror of falling from the sky. This is no different from telling children that a stranger will come and kill them if they (cross the street without looking both ways / talk to a stranger / give a stranger their address / drink alcohol). The threat of hell works because of our ability to imagine and empathize -- to imagine ourselves in the place of Icarus.
Here's a different story:
(Perseus/Herakles/St. George/Odysseus/Aeneas) takes a risk and challenges the (Python/Typhon/Hydra/Lion/Dragon/Giant/Gods/Sea). Although he nearly dies, the risk is worth it, because he wins eternal glory.
The archetype of the young man with his own ideas is hailed as a hero because of his bravery, courage, and willingness to sacrifice safety and comfort in exchange for overcoming his enemies.
Just as children feel the pain of falling from the sky, they also feel the thrill of victory. I remember dreams of falling... To be childlike is to be continuously inspired and sensitive to stories, whereas to be dull is to grow cynical about the value of the imagination.
My response to people who would denigrate the greatness of Shakespere would be much less "long well thought out article" and much more "act of physical violence". But thats just me
Excellent analysis. As you note at the beginning of your post, we won't get anywhere in discussions of the greatest literature unless we can first agree on a definition of "greatness." Utilitarian, emotionalist, and moralist are reasonable candidates. Is there a way of conceptualizing greatness that can incorporate all three? I think so. My preference for defining good (and superlative forms such as great and excellent) is Aristotle's concept of virtue (aretê), measured by how well something performs its function. (Or, stated somewhat differently, the degree to which something brings about a desired effect.) A common example of this concept goodness or virtue is a sharp knife. The function of a knife is to cut, therefore a good (or great or excellent) knife is a sharp knife, because it cuts cleanly and easily. We don't often think about virtues in terms of the ability of something to bring about a desired effect, except in old-fashioned constructions such as "the healing virtue of this herb."
If we start with the aretê conception of goodness, the next question is, "What is the function of literature" (or, more broadly, stories or even language in general). It is probably fatuous to claim that language or stories or literature have only one function or desired effect. Language probably serves multiple functions. But allow me to focus on one possible function of stories that ties together utility, emotions, and morals, which is that stories encourage and reinforce moral behavior. My perspective on morality is that morality evolved to coordinate individuals within small social groups to cooperate with each other. This is not a novel idea; many such evolutionary conceptions of morality have been published. The mechanism by which moral behavior is motivated are our evolved moral sentiments, our species-typical emotions such as compassion, empathy, gratitude, guilt, shame, pride, disgust, and moral indignation, which encourage us to behave in cooperative ways, avoid behaving in antisocial ways, rewarding people who behave cooperatively, and punishing people who behave uncooperatively. Prosocial and antisocial behaviors lie at the heart of stories, defining protagonists, antagonists, and morally ambiguous characters (which probably most accurately describes most of us). As morally ambiguous creatures, capable of both moral and immoral behavior, we need stories to reinforce the former and discourage the latter. Stories can help accomplish this by evoking appropriate emotions, which points to the emotionalist idea of great literature.
My perspective on morality and literature has guided a long collaboration with Joe Carroll on understanding Victorian literature from an evolutionary perspective. A representative publication from our collaboration is the following:
Johnson, J. A., Carroll, J., Gottschall, J., & Kruger, D. (2011). Portrayal of personality in Victorian novels reflects modern research findings but amplifies the significance of agreeableness. Journal
of Research in Personality, 45, 50-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.11.011
Concerning utility, I realize that this term is often defined in economic and technological terms. But of course the utilitarian philosophers conceptualize utility in terms of how well something brings about human happiness. I would expand this conceptualization of utility to include the ability of something to bring about *any* desired effect, not just human happiness. The idea of utility as "causal efficacy" (the ability of something to bring about a desired effect) brings us full circle to the aretê conception of goodness. I have an essay on goodness as causal efficacy at https://sites.psu.edu/drj5j/real-utilitarianism/ .
None of this answers the question of whether Shakespeare wrote the greatest literature. I don't have an answer to that question, although a direction to look might be whether people behave more morally after reading Shakespeare (or any other literature one might want to study). The main point I want to make is that we need to understand the function of stories in a non-superficial way, that is, from the viewpoint of human evolution. We can superficially explain anything in terms of pleasurable and unpleasant feelings, for example, that people engage in sex because it feels good. But why do we experience some things as pleasurable and others as painful? The answer lies in the way our evolved emotions guided our ancestors toward behaviors that increased reproductive success and away from behaviors that interfered with reproductive success. My working hypothesis is that stories strike evolved emotional chords that encourage moral behavior and discourage immoral behavior, and that this has been going on since time immemorial.
My perspective on storytelling is that a story creates a relationship in power (Nietzsche) between archetypes (Jung). For example:
(Icarus/Faust/Prometheus/Adam) seeks (to fly/knowledge/fire/knowledge), but (the Sun/God/father/God) punishes him. The archetype of the young man with his own ideas is smacked down by the traditional authority.
Children, and adults but especially children, are capable of feeling pain in imagined universes. So when Icarus falls, children are able to imagine the terror of falling from the sky. This is no different from telling children that a stranger will come and kill them if they (cross the street without looking both ways / talk to a stranger / give a stranger their address / drink alcohol). The threat of hell works because of our ability to imagine and empathize -- to imagine ourselves in the place of Icarus.
Here's a different story:
(Perseus/Herakles/St. George/Odysseus/Aeneas) takes a risk and challenges the (Python/Typhon/Hydra/Lion/Dragon/Giant/Gods/Sea). Although he nearly dies, the risk is worth it, because he wins eternal glory.
The archetype of the young man with his own ideas is hailed as a hero because of his bravery, courage, and willingness to sacrifice safety and comfort in exchange for overcoming his enemies.
Just as children feel the pain of falling from the sky, they also feel the thrill of victory. I remember dreams of falling... To be childlike is to be continuously inspired and sensitive to stories, whereas to be dull is to grow cynical about the value of the imagination.
My response to people who would denigrate the greatness of Shakespere would be much less "long well thought out article" and much more "act of physical violence". But thats just me
my favourite chaucer verse :
This Nicholas anon leet fle a fart,
As greet as it had been a thonder-dent,