For how long have we been learning about art and literature by analyzing works that are considered to be pivotal? Does it go all the way back to the Epic of Gilgamesh?
For context: This question was inspired by a conversation I had with a friend. We were arguing whether or not it's better to teach literature by analyzing "lesser" works in a series or to retroactively select pieces that can be defined as "classics".
Semi-related: Does the "classics" method of studying the humanities give a false perspective? Classes that used this narrative left me with the idea that the humanities spent a lot of time stagnant, only to be changed by a handful of influential figures that popped up every generation or so.
To answer your question, here is a brief history of the tradition of ‘humanities’ and study. The primary educational paradigm that dominated the Hellenistic world, and the Roman empire, was founded on a tripartite division of education. Boys would first learn letters, basic grammar, reading and writing, then move on to analysis of classical texts, including extensive memorisation, to textual analysis, literary criticism, composition, rhetorical training. In late antiquity this was sometimes followed by a separate period of philosophical training. But this basic pattern, and the combination of various literary-critical studies under the overall label of rhetoric, formed the core of upper-class education pattern in Late Antiquity. Here lies the origins, distant, of most modern disciplines within the humanities.
Things shifted in the middle ages. There was less emphasis on literary-critical studies of this kind, a great emphasis on philosophical models of dialectic and logic, and both general interest and ability in these kinds of humanistic disciplines foundered. While the middle ages were not ‘dark’ in the typical sense of the word, the shift and focus of learning was elsewhere. In this sense the renaissance really was a rebirth of some kinds of humanistic disciplines. Petrarch and his successors did not merely dig up lost texts that had languished in monastic libraries. They re-invigorated a passion, and an ability, in the Latin language that had long languished. They made possible a genuine study of texts as texts, and things like textual analysis, literary criticism, etc., began to appear as works of erudition. However, and this is important to remember, all this was simply seen as a single enterprise of learning. The modern notion of humanities disciplines does not emerge until much later.
All through this time, even in the medieval period, education in literature was focused on ‘classic’ texts. In late antiquity and again in the renaissance, certain authors (Vergil, Cicero, for instance), and certain texts, simply dominated educational curricula.
It is not until the 19th century that you see literature studies appear as a distinct field of the humanities. Although both vernacular literature, and study of vernacular literature, appears beforehand, most study of literature in the 18th century was geared towards teaching students to write better. In the early 19th century you see courses appear that studied vernacular literature for its own merits and the emergence of a field that we might call early literary criticism. This too was focused on significant or major works of artistic merit. It’s not until this same period that you see editors producing critical editions of, say, Shakespeare.
I would argue that the ‘dethroning’ of a notional ‘canon’ of significant, influential ‘must-read’ works actually did not take place within literary criticism until as late as the 1960s, and in some places later.
Does this help answer your question? I could add some more if you have further questions.