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 descending order. Sort in ascending 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 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.).

Found 9,992 total hits in 3,923 results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 ...
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
he last, the Americans of the nineteenth century, have produced literature of any importance. The novelists and the historians, the essayists and the poets, whose names come to mind when American literature is mentioned, have all flourished since 1800. 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 list. When our American criticism treats its facile novelists and poetasters as they deserve, and heartily recognizes and values the works in which the maturest and wisest Americans have expressed themselves, its references to the period prior to 1800 will be less apologetic. For the nineteenth century, too, without neglecting the writers of imaginative 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
f a national literature should have in his ear: There is but 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 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 analysis. He opens his account with a definition of literature well framed to exclude from his consideration most of the important writing in America before the nineteenth century: Literature is the written record of valuable thought, having other than merely
reat periods: the Colonial Era, the Revolutionary Period, and the Present Century. Disclaiming any severe critical pretentions, they exhibited the breadth of their historical interests in the declaration that it is important to know what books 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 rewarding enterprise. In his opening sentence he strikes the note which every historian of a national literature should have in his ear: There is but one thing more interesting than the intellectual history of a man, and that is the intellectual history of
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
s alone. The significance of these features may be emphasized by some reference to the characteristic merits and defects of previous works in this field, to which we are under obligations too extensive for detailed mention. The earliest and the latest historians of a literature have great advantages: the earliest, that he has no predecessors; the latest, that he has many. It is a pleasure to remember Samuel L. Knapp, who in the preface to his Lectures on American literature, published in 1829, easily justified the publication of that interesting and patriotic overture: We have very good histories-narrative, political, military, and constitutional; but I know none, as yet, that can be called literary-meaning by the term, a history of our literature, and of our literary men. You are aware, he continues, that it has been said 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
1 2 3 4 5 6 ...