hide Sorting

You can sort these results in two ways:

By entity
Chronological order for dates, alphabetical order for places and people.
By position (current method)
As the entities appear in the document.

You are currently sorting in ascending order. Sort in descending order.

hide Most Frequent Entities

The entities that appear most frequently in this document are shown below.

Entity Max. Freq Min. Freq
New England (United States) 416 0 Browse Search
United States (United States) 294 0 Browse Search
James Cooper 208 0 Browse Search
Washington Irving 194 0 Browse Search
I. Bryant 172 0 Browse Search
Benjamin Franklin 143 1 Browse Search
Jonathan Edwards 138 0 Browse Search
Europe 130 0 Browse Search
Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania, United States) 108 0 Browse Search
Massachusetts (Massachusetts, United States) 78 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Cambridge History of American Literature: volume 1, Colonial and Revolutionary Literature: Early National Literature: Part I (ed. Trent, William Peterfield, 1862-1939., Erskine, John, 1879-1951., Sherman, Stuart Pratt, 1881-1926., Van Doren, Carl, 1885-1950.). Search the whole document.

Found 137 total hits in 60 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6
Joel Barlow (search for this): chapter 1
in the nineteenth century of the adolescent nation was an indigenous independent national literature. The wrong answer to this demand was given by the enthusiastic patriots who, after the Revolution, advocated the abrogation of English in these States and the invention and adoption of a new language; or compiled, to silence their skeptical English cousins, pretentious anthologies of all our village elegists; or offered Dwight's Conquest of Canaan as an equivalent to Milton's Paradise lost, Barlow's Columbiad as an imposing national epic, Lathrop's poem on the sachem of the Narragansett Indians, The speech of Caunonicus, as heralding the dawn of a genuinely native school of poetry. Our pioneer historian Knapp discreetly hesitates to say whether she of the banks of the Connecticut [Mrs. Sigourney], whose strains of poetic thought are as pure and lovely as the adjacent wave touched by the sanctity of a Sabbath's morn, be equal to her tuneful sisters, Hemans and Landon, on the other sid
Cotton Mather (search for this): chapter 1
History of Plymouth plantation there is hardly a trace of inflation; throughout that grave and noble narrative the Governor cleaves to his purpose to write in a plain style, with singular regard unto the simple truth in all things. But in Cotton Mather one finds already a local pride that looks disdainfully upon the neighbour colonies and deigns only to compare the New England worthies with the prophets and apostles of Palestine. In the more temperate passages of the Magnalia Christi Americana This is the somewhat restricted point of view established in the Introduction. In the composition of the history, the survey of the field, one suspects, was still further restricted by the descent upon Professor Wendell of the spirit of Cotton Mather; for the total effect of the narrative is an impression that the literary history of America is essentially a history of the birth, the renaissance, and the decline of New England. The Cambridge history marks a partial reversion to the positi
Moses Coit Tyler (search for this): chapter 1
and by whom; whatever the books may have been or whoever the men. A similar breadth of historical interest animated Moses Coit Tyler in the production of his notable and still unsurpassed history of American literature from 1607 to 1783. Free from ans who had advanced to their task with a somewhat inflamed consciousness that they were defending the Stars and Stripes, Tyler had still a clear sense that he was engaged upon a great and rewarding enterprise. In his opening sentence he strikes th one thing more interesting than the intellectual history of a man, and that is the intellectual history of a nation. If Tyler had been able to carry his narrative down to the present day in the spirit and manner of the portion of his work which hearles F. Richardson, whose American literature 1607-1885 was published in 1886-8, is rather a protest against the work of Tyler than a supplement to it. His leading purpose is not historical enquiry and elucidation but aesthetic judgment. We have h
George L. Duyckinck (search for this): chapter 1
of that period he forms in general estimates tempered by his confidence that something better is yet to come. In 1855 something better came in the shape of the two large volumes of the Cyclopaedia of American literature by Evert A. and George L. Duyckinck, a work of extensive research, designed, in the words of the authors, to bring together as far as possible in one book convenient for perusal and reference, memorials and records of the writers of the country and their works, from the earlreversion to the position of the earlier historians who looked into the past with interest and into the present and future not without hope. Following in general the plan of The Cambridge history of English literature and of our encyclopaedic Duyckinck, we have made it our primary purpose to represent as adequately as space allowed all the periods of our national past, and to restore the memory of writers who are neglected because they are forgotten and because they are no longer sympathetica
Shakespeare (search for this): chapter 1
literature there was, by the middle of the last century, a wholesome reaction represented in Rufus Wilmot Griswold's introduction to his Prose writers of America (1847). Since this old demand is still reasserted from year to year, it may not be amiss to reprint here Griswold's admirable reply to it. Some critics in England, he says, expect us who write the same language, profess the same religion, and have in our intellectual firmament the same Bacon, Sidney, and Locke, the same Spenser, Shakespeare, and Milton, to differ more from themselves than they differ from the Greeks and Romans, or from any of the modems. This would be harmless, but that many persons in this country, whose thinking is done abroad, are constantly echoing it, and wasting their little productive energy in efforts to comply with the demand. But there never was and never can be an exclusively national literature. All nations are indebted to each other and to preceding ages for the means of advancement; and our
1775 AD (search for this): chapter 1
d by foreigners, and often repeated, that there was no such thing as American literature; that it would be vain for anyone to seek for proofs of taste, mind, or information, worth possessing, in our early records; and some of our citizens, who have never examined these matters, have rested so quietly after these declarations, or so fondly denied them, that the bold asserters of these libels have gained confidence in tauntingly repeating them. The great epoch in our history-the revolution of 1775-seemed sufficient, alone, to many of the present generation, to give us, as a people, all the celebrity and rank, among the nations of the earth, we ought to aspire to, without taking the trouble to go back to the previous ages of heroick virtue and gigantick labours. Many of the present generation are willing to think that our ancestors were a pious and persevering race of men, who really did possess some strength of character, but, without further reflection, they are ready to allow that a
1913 AD (search for this): chapter 1
inative literature who have been most emphasized by our literary historians, we have attempted to do a new service by giving a place in our record to departments of literature, such as travels, oratory, memoirs, which have lain somewhat out of the main tradition of literary history but which may be, as they are in the United States, highly significant of the national temper. In this task we have been much aided by the increasing number of monographs produced within the past quarter of a century upon aspects of American literary history. Such collections as A Library of American literature, edited by Edmund Clarence Stedman and Ellen M. Hutchinson in 1889-90, and the Library of Southern literature (1908-13), compiled by various Southern men of letters, have been indispensable. In the actual preparation of the work we have been indebted for many details to the unsparing assistance of Mrs Carl Van Doren, who has also compiled the index. June, 1917. W. P. T. J. E. S. P. S. C. V. D.
1908 AD (search for this): chapter 1
inative literature who have been most emphasized by our literary historians, we have attempted to do a new service by giving a place in our record to departments of literature, such as travels, oratory, memoirs, which have lain somewhat out of the main tradition of literary history but which may be, as they are in the United States, highly significant of the national temper. In this task we have been much aided by the increasing number of monographs produced within the past quarter of a century upon aspects of American literary history. Such collections as A Library of American literature, edited by Edmund Clarence Stedman and Ellen M. Hutchinson in 1889-90, and the Library of Southern literature (1908-13), compiled by various Southern men of letters, have been indispensable. In the actual preparation of the work we have been indebted for many details to the unsparing assistance of Mrs Carl Van Doren, who has also compiled the index. June, 1917. W. P. T. J. E. S. P. S. C. V. D.
1847 AD (search for this): chapter 1
ian romances of Cooper, the philosophy of Emerson and Thoreau, the novels of Hawthorne, Longfellow's Evangeline, Miles Standish, and Hiawatha were responses to this encouragement of the game — to the nation's willing an expression of its new American consciousness. Against the full rigour of the demand for an independent national literature there was, by the middle of the last century, a wholesome reaction represented in Rufus Wilmot Griswold's introduction to his Prose writers of America (1847). Since this old demand is still reasserted from year to year, it may not be amiss to reprint here Griswold's admirable reply to it. Some critics in England, he says, expect us who write the same language, profess the same religion, and have in our intellectual firmament the same Bacon, Sidney, and Locke, the same Spenser, Shakespeare, and Milton, to differ more from themselves than they differ from the Greeks and Romans, or from any of the modems. This would be harmless, but that many perso
1607 AD (search for this): chapter 1
ks have been produced, and by whom; whatever the books may have been or whoever the men. A similar breadth of historical interest animated Moses Coit Tyler in the production of his notable and still unsurpassed history of American literature from 1607 to 1783. Free from the embarrassment of the early historians who had advanced to their task with a somewhat inflamed consciousness that they were defending the Stars and Stripes, Tyler had still a clear sense that he was engaged upon a great and day in the spirit and manner of the portion of his work which he brought to completion, the need for our present undertaking would have been less obvious. Unhappily the next noteworthy historian, Charles F. Richardson, whose American literature 1607-1885 was published in 1886-8, is rather a protest against the work of Tyler than a supplement to it. His leading purpose is not historical enquiry and elucidation but aesthetic judgment. We have had enough description, he declares; we want analy
1 2 3 4 5 6