Do I really have to "start with the Greeks?"

Probably Aristotle, but don't start with him, you won't have any context. The "start with the Greeks" thing is misunderstood and taken too literally by a lot of people. The idea isn’t to become a scholar of obscure Greek drama -- you really just need to understand what was influential. Like, if you read Homer, Plato, and Sophocles that's probably a good enough point to jump off from.

I'm just skimming through them desu, I'm reading the Illiad right now and I'm barely paying attention to it since I know what happens anyways.

dont overlook ovid, he is more important to literature than those others, plato is philosophy, aristotle is law

Unread everything you've ever read then start with the Greeks. Not that hard senpai.

>plato is philosophy, aristotle is law
Then what is Socrates?

Ovid was Roman

No. Starting with the greeks is a fucking meme. Drink a dozen 5-hour energy shots and read the dresden files backwards.

a literary device

once you finish that some would say "continue with the romans" and then with the bible and then branch off from there

And who devised it?

Yeah, but what would (You) say? Hypothetically.

Platon.

I would say that (You) should stop worrying so much about this shit and just read what (You) want

What did he devise?

Okay, but what I want is to "start" with the Greeks. Should I just pick "the best Greek" and "start" with "him?"
And why are we dancing like this around the question of whether "Socrates" was a "him" or an "it?"

in a society as conservative as athens, attributing his ideas to socrates allowed him to continue life without being endangering his family or career. plato was upper class rich nigga and socrates was some old dead pal he could deflect onto.

Is Fagles the trusted version of Homer?

Start with the greeks is a meme. It's a stupid answer to a stupid question.

hes the most modern and dramatic

>tfw I can't read anything good because I have to read Homer's dumb shit before anything else

and sophocles, and aeschylus, and ovid, and plutarch, and virgil, and...

>tfw spent 37 years studying history, but I didn't start with Herodotus, so I have to start over.

don't know if you are still in this thread user but do you have any "resume with the romans chart"? And if not, do you know if this one is legit?

Not him, but here's some more recommendations. Also yeah I'd read more Cicero than that chart would have me, but altogether it's pretty solid.
The Jewish Wars might be optional depending on your interest though

thank you, do you think "The deeds of the divine augustus" is worth or can skip it? i only found one book that goes by that name on amazon (there isn't any in bookdepository) and only had 30 pages.

No one starts with the greeks unless prior to 'starting reading' they literally come here first and follow the meme.

Work Your Way Back to the Greeks

The real secret is to STOP with the Greeks. Modernity was a mistake.

the Greeks are always worth reading

I mostly agree with this, but the Christian canon is important as well. New Testament, Augustine, Dante, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton. throw in Ovid so that you understand Shakespeare.

Bullshit chart, there's no reason to read any supplementary literature aside from Lattimore's introductions (this is true even if you aren't reading his translation - he was an insightful man).

Nope. There's still tons of Greek to be read after Aristotle. This is a good reference chart for both Greek and Latin authors: hup.harvard.edu/features/loeb/timeline.html