English Language and Literature English Language and Literature College of Literature, Science, and the Arts Michigan Publishing Copyright © 2015 by the Regents of the University of Michigan The University of Michigan: An Encyclopedic Survey was first published beginning in 1942. For its 2017 Bicentennial, the University undertook the most significant updating of the Encyclopedia since the original, focusing on academic units. Entries from all versions are compiled in the Bicentennial digital and print-on-demand edition. This book was produced using Pressbooks.com, and PDF rendering was done by PrinceXML. Contents 1. English Language and Literature (1942) 1 W. R. Humphreys 2. English Language and Literature (1975) 22 Richard W. Bailey 3. English Language and Literature (2015) 27 John Knott [1] English Language and Literature (1942) W. R. Humphreys The Department of English Language and Literature, like most college departments, came into existence not by special creation, but by a process of evolution. The earliest program of courses, that for the academic year 1843-44, provided for work in rhetoric, but only in connection with a formidable curriculum in the Greek and Latin languages and literatures. The story of rhetoric’s uncertain and shifting attachments and its later history as a department (between 1903 and 1930), before its definite union with English, are told in a separate article (see Part III: Department of Rhetoric). It is true that even in the 1830’s the teaching of English existed as one of the fainter hopes entertained by the Regents. A resolution offered on June 21, 1837, and tabled on the same day, provided that “until otherwise ordained the Professor of Political Economy shall be also Professor of the Ancient and English Languages.” But no professor of political economy was 2 English Language and Literature appointed; and it was not until 1841 that instruction in any subject was given. The first mention of English literature appeared in the University Catalogue for 1852-53, the first year of President Tappan’s administration. It was Tappan’s policy, however, to publish hopes as well as promises; he believed, no doubt, that publication might make the hopes come true — as, in the long run, many of them did. A professorship of rhetoric and English literature was announced, but no professor was named, and none was appointed. In the scientific course newly added to the classical course, and leading to the bachelor of science degree, work in English language and literature was prescribed for the first and second terms of the freshman year. In the departmental announcement, it was said that “the Professor of Ancient and Modern Languages, and the Professor of Intellectual and Moral Philosophy” would “take charge of this branch, jointly.” These professors presumably held themselves ready to take charge also of the work in English language and literature in the proposed “university course” of postgraduate studies. But, as it is said in the Hinsdale-Demmon History of the University of Michigan (p. 87): It is not now easy to get at the precise facts relative to the graduate work that was really done previous to 1878. In the first place we do not know how many of the so-called Graduate Courses were ever given; no doubt, however, it was a minority. Advanced work in English must have belonged to the weak majority; for before 1860 English language and literature, as well as rhetoric and criticism, had disappeared from the “Programme of studies for the degrees of M.A. and M.S.” In the meantime, however, English had gained the part-time services of a professor. Dr. Haven, who was to return to the faculty later as President, received his first appointment in 1852 as Professor of the Latin Language and Literature; but two years later, having given over this professorship to Henry Simmons Frieze, he became Professor of History and English Literature. In 1856 he resigned. But when in 1863 he returned as President he served as Professor of Rhetoric and English Literature. English Language and Literature (1942) 3 For some time even the study of English literature was rhetorical in its main purpose. The Catalogue for 1854-55 stated: “The survey of our general Literature is necessarily cursory, and is designed chiefly to establish fundamental principles of criticism, and to cultivate correctness and propriety of style.” This seems to carry on the policy announced in the Catalogue for 1852-53 for the study of Greek and Latin: that is, to give the student “knowledge … of those rhetorical principles which will enable a person to express his thoughts in idiomatic and perspicuous English. In this department, therefore, nearly as much attention is paid to the study of English as to the study of Greek and Latin.” Nevertheless, the change in 1854-55 is important: the student is now to be taught the use of English not only from classical but also from English models. In 1856-57, the year after Professor Haven resigned, only rhetoric appears to have survived, and that only as taught by an instructor who also had to teach Greek. In the following year, however, the professorship of history and English literature was filled by the appointment to the faculty of a man who was to become one of its most distinguished members, Andrew Dickson White (Yale ’53, A.M. ibid. ’56, LL.D. Michigan ’67), later best known as minister to Russia, ambassador to Germany, and president of Cornell University. Together with Datus C. Brooks (’56, A.M. ’59), Assistant Professor of Rhetoric and English Literature, he brought renewed importance to the study of the English language and literature. This study was still limited to “members of the Scientific Department.” And, as the following statement shows, its purpose was still largely rhetorical: “The object of this plan is to secure an examination of the principles of our native tongue.” By the year 1858-59, work in English literature had been extended for the second semester of the second year to the classical as well as to the scientific curriculum. An added object of the study is indicated in the promise of “criticism of the Masterpieces of our Literature.” And Assistant Professor Brooks could hardly have avoided getting into literary history in his course: “English Language and Literature, particularly during the Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman Periods, and the Age of Elizabeth.” There is no evidence in the catalogues, however, that expansion had gone so far as to 4 English Language and Literature include graduate work in English. The activity of the undergraduate students, not only in rhetoric but in the English language and literature, seems to have been largely in original compositions and declamations; and “during the last two years the pieces spoken are original.” The tradition of eloquence was still strong. Although Andrew White made valuable contributions to the development of English studies in the University, his main interest was in history. His desire for a professorship exclusively in history was gratified in 1863, when Erastus Otis Haven (Wesleyan ’42, A.M. ibid. ’45, D.D. hon. Union ’54, LL.D. Ohio Wesleyan ’63) returned not only as President but also as Professor of Rhetoric and English Literature. Haven was immediately listed as offering graduate courses in philology and general culture, and a year later English literature was announced for the first time as a senior elective. But such progress as these announcements suggest was probably not substantial; on the contrary, the program in English must before long have suffered considerable shrinkage. For in 1865, President Haven moved over to the professorship of logic and political economy. He replaced his course in philology with one in logic. He continued to offer his course entitled General Culture; but that seems to have been from the beginning not a course in English but in comparative literature. Only Allen Jeremiah Curtis (Kalamazoo ’60, A.M. Michigan ’61), Assistant Professor of Rhetoric and English Literature, was left to carry on the work. Then in 1867, Tyler came. The events of the life of Moses Coit Tyler (Yale ’57, LL.D. Wooster ’75, L.H.D. Columbia ’87) are related in biographical sketches and other passages scattered through University publications and in the notable Jones-Casady Life of Moses Coit Tyler, published by the University of Michigan Press in 1933. The Life must be read by anyone who in our time would know Tyler’s career, his character, and his place in the history of the University and of American scholarship. In 1939 the Board of Regents named one of the new men’s dormitories in the East Quadrangle the Moses Coit Tyler House. In making the announcement the University Record described Tyler as “the English Language and Literature (1942) 5 man who more than any other individual awakened the country to the study of its own literary history.” That this is not an expression of merely parochial pride is attested by many witnesses. Barrett Wendell of Harvard said in an address to the Massachusetts Historical Society: Untiring in research, unfalteringly conscientious to the most minute detail, nor yet ever content until he had so mastered every phase of his subject that he could set forth his results with luminous amenity, Moses Coit Tyler has left for those who follow him through the boundless aridities of our earlier literature only the comparatively agreeable task of generalization. Whatever he actually did was done so well that it need never be done again. (Wendell, 393-94.) The only man who, since Tyler, has done work of comparable importance in the literary history of America is V. L. Parrington, himself a guest member of the Department of English in the summer session of 1927 and known internationally as the author of Main Currents in American Thought.