Category: ENGL810-PAB Entry 1

PAB Entry #1: “Resistance and Change: The Rise of American Literature Studies”

Renker, Elizabeth. “Resistance and Change: The Rise of American Literature Studies.” American             Literature 64.2 (1992): 347-365. JSTOR. Web. 13 September 2016.

Renker’s essay focuses on the rise of American literature as a discipline in American universities, particularly at Johns Hopkins.  Since Hopkins believed firmly in the sciences, the school powers were not apt to incorporate literary fields, especially fields that were perceived as effeminate, like American literature (347).  Eventually, due to the diligence and power of one faculty member at Hopkins who became the first to offer and teach American literature at the university, John Calvin French, students were able to study this discipline from 1906 until French’s departure in 1927 (351).  Once French left, American literature courses were once again removed from the catalog; however, American literature courses ultimately became more prominent due to elevated interest and patriotism after WWI and WWII. Even though Renker meticulously concentrates on American literature’s rise at Hopkins, she also discusses the lack of attention American literature received at other universities and among scholars in general.

John Calvin French was the first major proponent of American literature at Johns Hopkins, and he left his mark at the university through his published texts.
John Calvin French was the first major proponent of American literature at Johns Hopkins, and he left his mark at the university through his published texts.

According to Renker, American literature began to receive minimal attention in American colleges during the 1870s, and very few institutions of higher learning offered studies in American literature before the end of the 19th century (352).  As noted by Bruce McComiskey in English Studies: An Introduction to the Discipline, when referencing Gerald Graft’s statement that there were no academic literary studies in America until the last portion of the 19th century, the modern university’s inception is actually what introduces English studies into the mainstream (McComiskey 6-7). Essentially, most private schools felt that American literature was inconsequential, public schools were more focused on sciences, and other schools just felt that the subject should be for women (352).  Nevertheless, even in the late 1800s and early 1900s, high schools were “spending a substantial amount of time on the subject” (Renker 356).  Just like in American high school’s today, the importance of America’s culture and history was prevalent in the works of American literature; therefore, public high schools could direct their readings and teachings toward all enrolled students, whether those students would eventually attend college or not.

Meanwhile, one way that the defeminization of literature occurred was due to the impact of philology. PHILOLOGY, which was defined by one Hopkins professor as, “the application of scientific method to the study of literature,” helped give the profession of modern languages dignity and importance (348).  Bruce McComiskey also focuses on philology’s influence in America, for philology incorporates historical and cultural contexts into its study (McComiskey 8).  Although philology did not mesh well with American literature, it did help transition some scholars to a new way of thinking about texts.  Philology’s impact on American literary studies is debatable, and while it may have assisted in bringing American literature to light, “it was not deployed in the service of American literature, [American literature contained] too recent and too thin a body of texts to lend itself to philological investigation (350).  While this may seem ludicrous to suggest, since there were plenty of American texts available in the late 1800s, the fact remains that scholars, students, and professors were not as familiar and did not find value in works of American literature at that point in history.

Additional Sources:

McComiskey, Bruce, ed. English Studies: An Introduction to the Discipline(s).  Urbana, IL:           NCTE, 2006. Print.

*To view the full text version of Renker’s essay, click the link below (ODU login will be necessary):

http://www.jstor.org.proxy.lib.odu.edu/stable/pdf/2927840.pdf

PAB Entry #2: “The Nationalistic Criticism of Early American Literature”

Kropf, Carl R. “The Nationalistic Criticism of Early American Literature.” Early American Literature 18.1 (1983): 17-30. JSTOR. Web. 13 September 2016.

The purpose of Kropf’s essay is to examine how early American literature was perceived and studied at different moments in history.  He begins by noting that two major critical traditions dominated the study of early American literature from the onset: ECLECTIC and NATIONALISTIC approaches.  The scholars who transmitted the eclectic approach were often in the minority, for they felt that any writing formulated within the colonies should be considered American writing; however, nationalistic scholars were apt to believe that the only writing that qualified as truly American was writing that was defined as having a foundation in patriotism, anticipating a national movement, or contributing to a newfound national identity (17-18).  While these two critical sides bickered, there was still very little study of literature in America occurring, for many scholars believed, “Eighteenth-century literature was not literary in any meaningful sense; that is, was not original, romantic, or especially ‘expressive’ in nature” (18).  Since this was the case, reading was not the dominant force in early American colleges either; in fact, as Thomas P. Miller writes in The Evolution of College English, colonial colleges rarely had books at all, and the focus between the 1740s and the American Revolution was on drafting persuasive compositions (16).

This is definitely logical, since many examples of early American/Revolutionary literature tend to be political in nature, and while they don’t focus on entertainment, they are certainly informative or persuasive. This continues to be the case in public high schools where some teachers articulate the importance of Puritan literature, slave narratives, and Revolutionary documents/oratories.  Nevertheless, even these studies often lack any aspect of entertainment, which is probably one major factor in why the area of study took so long to grow in America.  As Kropf attests, American literature continues to be an unpleasant experience for students, “It seems unlikely that many modern students ever reread Puritan sermons for the fun of it” (23).  As an 11th grade English teacher, I can completely understand Kropf’s sentiments, for it can often seem impossible to make the stringent Puritan culture relatable or entertaining to modern-day students, many of whom have never been to church once.

http://ponderingprinciples.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Puritans-Laugh.jpg
Puritans are not usually viewed as jovial or entertaining, much like their literature.

Overall, Kropf writes that the burgeoning of American literary studies really didn’t gain any steam until the 1940s; in fact, he writes that it was mostly “ignored as a respectable subject of scholarly inquiry” (19).  Meanwhile, another factor contributing to the difficulties associated with a framework for American studies was early American literature’s distinctiveness.  “American literature, in contrast and uniquely among national literatures, defines itself according to geographical and political criteria” (21).  If this isn’t enough, problems arising from historical standpoints also created a hazy mode of early American study.  According to Kropf, in reference to many early studies of early American literature, “the typical treatment of early American literature is reminiscent of the treatment accorded the Old Testament in studies of typology,” and he notes that “the entire nationalistic approach to early American literature has generated a body of criticism that is dominated more by the muse of history than by the must of literature” (22).  This lack of an aesthetic approach definitely hindered many potential scholars of literary study from seriously investigating and delving into early American literature for over two centuries.

Additional Sources:

Miller, Thomas P. The Evolution of College English: Literacy Studies from the Puritans to the             Postmoderns.  Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2011. Print.

*To view the full text version of Kropf’s essay, click the link below (ODU login will be necessary):

http://www.jstor.org.proxy.lib.odu.edu/stable/pdf/25056493.pdf