PAB Entry #3: “The Promise of American Literature Studies”

Graff, Gerald.  “The Promise of American Literature Studies.”   Professing Literature: An Institutional History.  Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987, pp. 209-25.  Print.

Click the cover of Graff's book to find a summary of the entire text at Amazon.com.
Click the cover of Graff’s book to find a summary of the entire text at Amazon.com.

Graff’s chapter, “The Promise of American Literature Studies,” primarily focuses on common debates among literary scholars in the early and middle portions of the twentieth century.  At the forefront of the debate is the rise of the NEW CRITICISM, which is defined as the process of reading a work of literature as an aesthetic object independent of historical context and as a cohesive whole that reflects the cohesive sensibility of the artist (Brewton).  According to Graff, some scholars felt that American literature should seek to merge with American history, a sentiment that had been shared by myriad people throughout the course of America’s history (210).  Nevertheless, the New Criticism sought to alter these stale perceptions, and this fresh method of criticism began to gain momentum after WWI.

As noted in previous annotations related to American literature’s history, early American literature functioned primarily as a political or religious tool, so numerous educated individuals in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries believed that American writings should remain associated with the country’s political and religious history.  Essentially, many Americans did not see their country’s literature as literary; therefore, some influential educators defended American literature with minimal praise or apologized for it, yet they did not see artistic value in it (Graff 212).  As Thomas P. Miller purports, from the mid-1700s, the establishment of new colleges and expansion of print contributed to more individuals being introduced to literature, and this shaped college English studies (57).  Even with new perspectives and the ability to reach a wider audience, the patriotism associated with the literature was immense. This patriotism actually hindered literature’s impact aesthetically and delayed its implementation as a professional field of study for many years (Graff 213).

Graff continues his chapter by examining how proponents of the New Criticism of the early and middle twentieth century tinkered with theoretical methodologies.  According to Graff, theorists like Winters, Maule, and Matthiessen were the “first to apply the methods of the New Criticism to American literature, and in their hands—more than in other field, I believe—the New Criticism became a historical and cultural method” (217).  These scholars allowed America’s history to play a role in literary study through the culture epitomized in fictional works; for example, these critics looked at symbolism in romantic works of literature, and they applied these symbols to Puritan and other historical and cultural roots found in early America.  In fact, these types of thematic and historical connections can still be found today when opening some high school English textbooks.

When opening a high school text, I find Jonathan Edwards’s sermons just a few pages away from Arthur Miller’s Crucible.  Certainly these works are connected historically through the content and themes surrounding Puritans; however, in reality, these works have little in common structurally, stylistically, and chronologically.  As many scholars of the twentieth century began to realize, New Critical processes were just incorporating everything; however, under the surface many critics realized that the same authors and stories were consistently being examined by the New Criticism, and works from the Revolutionary period were being ignored because they did not fit the new critical scheme (Graff 221).  Eventually, as Graff notes, NEW HISTORICISTS established a break, and this critical turn allowed for the progression of other theories and criticisms, like the feminist approach, to gain steam and look at how history and culture have influenced writing (221).

 

Additional Sources:

Brewton, Vince.  “Literary Theory.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.  IEP and its Authors, 2016, www.iep.utm.edu/literary/. Web. Accessed 23 September 2016.

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

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

Chronicling the History of American Literary Studies

Chronicling the History of American Literary Studies

Advanced and professional studies in American literature blossomed slowly and painstakingly, for it took nearly 250 years for studies in American literature to gain any substantial ground, and even then, the studies were far from prominent.  The reasons behind American literature’s crawl toward relevancy are manifold; however, one problem was produced at the onset of American colonization.  The question that has plagued scholars for more than a century is whether early American writings are “American” or “British,” and this dilemma rages because some critics consider early American writings as purely British due to the fact that America remained a group of English colonies from the early 1600s to the late 1700s (Kropf 18).  Nevertheless, the earliest approaches to American literary studies were either eclectic, where scholars recognized any text by a person on American soil as “American,” or nationalistic, where scholars only denote an American text that culturally or politically articulates and stimulates the national literary identity (Kropf 17-18).  Even with this opposing view, American literary criticism did not function as a sphere of study or inquiry due in part to a lack of interest and a lack of literature that merited study, for as Kropf writes, “Eighteenth-century literature was not literary in any meaningful sense; that is, was not original, romantic, or especially ‘expressive’ in nature” (18).
Meanwhile, eclectic and nationalistic proponents were/are in accordance that the Revolutionary period in America provides a moment in history when literary culture first becomes visible.  This is the time when “opinion first begins to polarize around liberal demands for cultural as well as political independence versus Tory loyalty to British and European supremacy” (Graff 106).  While a devotion to patriotism was immense, the study of American literature was rare, for the ability to write and speak persuasively claimed precedence over reading (Miller 16).  Through war, which eventually became an even larger factor in the expansion of American literary studies, criticisms of literature begin to arise between progressives versus retrogrades and radicals versus conservatives (Graff 105).  However, despite these conflicted reactions to literature, no formal critical study of American literature existed until the mid to late 1800s.  According to Elizabeth Renker, American literature begins to receive minimal attention in American colleges in the 1870s, and in the 1880s, a few colleges offer American literature as an independent course: Dartmouth, Smith, Wellesley, Mount Holyoke, Wisconsin, Indiana, Notre Dame, and Iowa (352).

Although it took more than 100 years, Dartmouth College was one of the first institutions to offer American literature studies.
Although it took the school more than 100 years, Dartmouth College was one of the first institutions to offer American literature studies.

While some universities added courses devoted to American literature, most institutions considered the subject as unscientific, irrelevant, or too feminine in nature; therefore, American literature continued to wage a heated battle for space in English departments and for acceptance during the first four decades of the twentieth century (Renker 347).  Renker goes on to write, “The institutional expression of the notion that American literature was a subject fit for women but not for serious male scholars was dramatic” (352).  While many university leaders looked at most literature as effeminate, a majority of institutions focused devoutly on science.  As Bruce McComiskey writes in English Studies: An Introduction to the Discipline(s), by the 1880s, most American universities based their values on the model of the German research university where scientific methods were the paramount form of academic scholarship (6).  Therefore, in order to combat the lack of science, along with the femininity associated with studying literature, “Professionalization demanded that English reshape its soft image, and philology emerged as a powerful tool for effecting this defeminization,” and in time, “Scientific methods of philology gave the profession of modern languages ‘weight and dignity’” (Renker 348).  Unfortunately, philology could not and would not support the study of American literature. “Although philology had been an effective tool for establishing English in the university, it was not deployed in the service of American literature, too recent and too thin a body of texts to lend itself to philological investigation” (Renker 350).

Even though philology typically only applied to British, Greek, or Roman literature, the paramount basis for study of American literature finally occurred at the conclusion of WWI.  “America’s place on the battlefield was in fact a great boon for American literature’s professional fortunes.  The surge of nationalism produced by the Great War fostered an interest in America’s literature both here and abroad” (Renker 357).  In fact, Renker goes on to note that almost twice as many American literature classes were offered at universities after the war’s end, and American literature began to have importance in numerous European countries because America’s culture and institutions became more respected (357).  Prominent schools that had not prioritized American literary studies now had reason to integrate new programs and courses.  For example, The American Studies Group at Yale endorsed their more advanced program by articulating that it would make major contributions to the mutual understandings of people around the world in order to secure peace and would provide foreign students with the opportunity to discover the principles of American democracy (Holzman 79).  Furthermore, with this newfound desire to study American literature, myriad branches of criticism would begin to form, and other areas of study continued to grow after WWII.

Works Cited

Graff, Gerald. “An Ideological Map of American Literary Criticism.” Revue Francaise D’etudes Americaines 16 (1983): 101-21. JSTOR. Web. 13 September 2016.

Holzman, Michael. “The Ideological Origins of American Studies at Yale.” American Studies 40.2 (1999): 71-99. JSTOR. Web. 13 September 2016.

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

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

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

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

*Click on the link below to take a short survey focusing on your notions regarding early American literary studies:

https://docs.google.com/forms/u/1/d/10iquqG6RAfWyd4eJBv7aEyuJ-xqbEEqjwVQoR3F6mXE/edit