Parker
Parker's description of English as the child of speech and linguistics is interesting, and certainly makes it easy to remember the history he is detailing, but it seems to me that he takes it a little too far – although he only writes about this for a couple of pages, by the time he moves on the metaphor seems a little tired. However, if he is using this metaphor to convey the hostility, or at least suspicion, between departments of speech, linguistics, and English, he has certainly done that well. I believe the reason the metaphor bothers me so much is that it conveys so much negativity.
I did enjoy his history of the teaching of English. I never considered that so much of literary criticism (even of English works) was conducted in Latin. It is also interesting that poetry was considered separately from other forms of literature. He makes a good point in showing how the increase in the number of universities was a reaction against elitism and exclusiveness, and that this same reaction caused an increase in the study of modern literature and language as opposed to only the classics.
It is somewhat ironic that freshman composition, the course no English professor seems to want to teach, is what finally enabled English professors and departments to become fully entrenched in the university structure. What is perhaps least important to English professors is the very thing that enabled their continued existence. This seems like a good parallel to the metaphor of English as the ungrateful child of speech and linguistics.
Horner
Horner makes a very interesting point in relating how religion affected the development of education in Britain. However, I did find it odd that the educational institutions that were exempt from religious edicts were the first to teach in English – it seems it would be important for future clerics to learn in English, since they would be trying to reach the English people with their message and the common people would be much more likely to relate to someone who was well versed in their various dialects and colloquialisms (however, I can also easily see how an association with religion would tie education to Latin).
I have to wonder what the purpose was for women to attend a university when they were (at first) not allowed to obtain a degree. Of course learning for its own sake is an admirable pursuit, but it doesn’t seem that a lot of women would have been able to take advantage of the availability of higher education since they would be incurring cost but would not receive any kind of degree or ability to advance. Was this just a way to warehouse women (I would assume upper-class) for a few years?
On Parker:
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your thoughts on the metaphor. I was even tempted to write my blog post in metaphor form. Since my entire blog post is on the status of composition, I won't go into that part here.
On Horner:
I think there are (at least) three reasons why religious institutions didn't teach in English. The first is that traditional sermons where usually administered in Latin, and clerics needed to know Latin in order to have a "pure" translation of their texts. The second is probably because Latin mystified their congregation, and it kept the cleric separate from the "common people" (I don't think they were as concerned about class barriers as we are today). Third is probably related to the entrenched faculty at those religious institutions. I doubt they felt it important to make themselves more accessible to the masses; even today, some faculty at liberal arts colleges think that making higher education into a commercial commodity is a sin (never mind that it has been one since the Industrial Revolution and the Progressive movement).
As for women, I'm not sure many attended (or were allowed to attend) college, really. I'd love to see some statistics on that. But if they did... well, let me use an example. In Utah, there is a joke that LDS women go to BYU to get their "MRS" degree. Universities can be an excellent class separator, ensuring that upper-class women associate only with upper-class men. And one usually only marries the class that one associates with.
I'd like to comment on your question about the value of educating women at universities when they couldn't get degrees or use their acquired knowledge professionally. Chalice hinted at what I'm thinking in her response. Like Chalice, I've heard of this mythical "MRS" degree, in my case the last time (thankfully) was in the early 1980's (it was applied to me by the mother of a now-defunct boyfriend). But it is Mary Mary Wollstonecraft's 1792 Vindication of the Rights of Woman: with Strictures on Political and Moral Subjects that gives us a plausible answer: women should be educated so that they may contribute to society. Stating in her preface that “my main argument is built on this simple principle, that if [woman] be not prepared by education to become the companion of man, she will stop the progress of knowledge and virtue; for truth must be common to all". (Vindications, 109). Further, the latter half of the nineteenth century did see a growth in professions for women that then spawned the need for formal education: nurses, librarians, and teachers, to name but a few. In particular, the library sciences were a natural fit for women, who were seen as the nurturers of education. But more importantly, it was one of the few areas where women could get professional work. Librarians had been predominantly men until the mid to late 1800's; afterwards, the profession shifted almost exclusively to women. Who needed higher education to do this work.
ReplyDelete