---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Date: 14 June 2002 00:00 -0500
From: Automatic digest processor <[log in to unmask]>
To: Recipients of VICTORIA digests <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: VICTORIA Digest - 12 Jun 2002 to 13 Jun 2002 (#2002-163)
There are 15 messages totalling 639 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Faith based colleges (6)
2. gentleman in Gaskell (2)
3. gentleman in Gaskell; that's why the lady is a tramp
4. Job Announcement
5. Americans as a Threat to English Society & Class
6. Faith-based Colleges
7. Col. Brine
8. Morris
9. Americans as a danger...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 09:15:56 +0100
From: Paul Lewis <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Faith based colleges
I must say as an English member, I am just amazed that there are Christian
colleges in the USA. Did they start in the 19th century? And why?
Are there also colleges of other faiths in the US? Are there Jewish
colleges, Muslim colleges, Buddhist colleges or, which apparently would suit
some list members, Atheist colleges? Indeed are there degree-giving colleges
which are from Christian factions - Mormon colleges, Catholic colleges etc.
I don't mean of course colleges teaching about those beliefs - I mean
colleges purporting to teach a balanced curriculum such as Victorian studies
but whose teaching staff and students are all drawn from - or to - one
faith.
Is this a 19th century phenomenon? And if so what motivated it then?
I hope this post is back in Patrick's (Augean) stable!
Paul
Paul Lewis
web www.paullewis.co.uk
tel 07836 217311
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 21:46:36 +1000
From: Robyn O'Lery <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: gentleman in Gaskell
In Elizabeth Gaskell's novel "North and South" there is debate between Mr
Thornton and Margaret Hale over the term "gentleman".
While the term seems to have originated from concepts of chivalry, during
the 19th century it seems to have evolved into a broader definition to take
into account the emerging new self-made gentleman, such as Thornton.
Does anyone have any comments on this. Would other readers of this novel
agree or disagree that Thornton is a gentleman ?
...............................
Robyn O'Leary
Undergraduate Student
The University of Queensland
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 07:35:28 -0500
From: James Eli Adams <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Faith based colleges
Surely the phenomenon is not all that remarkable, if one recalls the
history of higher education in England? Compare the evangelical college
demanding "a special relationship with Jesus Christ" (whatever that might
be) with the long-standing requirement that an Oxbridge graduate profess
the 39 articles of the Anglican Church. Given that non-sectarian higher
education in Britain really only begins with the founding of the University
of London, it's hardly "amazing" that religious colleges continue to thrive
in parts of America, proverbially the most religious (at least professedly)
of all western nation-states.
James Eli Adams
Department of English
Goldwin Smith 241
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853
(607) 255-4895/5-6800 fax: (607) 255-6661
At 09:15 AM 6/13/02 +0100, you wrote:
> I must say as an English member, I am just amazed that there are Christian
> colleges in the USA. Did they start in the 19th century? And why?
>
> Are there also colleges of other faiths in the US? Are there Jewish
> colleges, Muslim colleges, Buddhist colleges or, which apparently would
> suit some list members, Atheist colleges? Indeed are there degree-giving
> colleges which are from Christian factions - Mormon colleges, Catholic
> colleges etc.
>
> I don't mean of course colleges teaching about those beliefs - I mean
> colleges purporting to teach a balanced curriculum such as Victorian
> studies but whose teaching staff and students are all drawn from - or to
> - one faith.
>
> Is this a 19th century phenomenon? And if so what motivated it then?
>
> I hope this post is back in Patrick's (Augean) stable!
>
> Paul
>
> Paul Lewis
> web www.paullewis.co.uk
> tel 07836 217311
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 12:52:08 GMT
From: Lesley Hall <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Faith based colleges
> Surely the phenomenon is not all that remarkable, if
one recalls the
> history of higher education in England...
> Given that non-sectarian higher
> education in Britain really only begins with the
founding of the University
> of London
I was recently reading Amy Levy's _Reuben Sachs_
(republished by Persephone Books) and either in the
intro or the footnotes (I don't have it to hand), it
mentions how very recently, relative to the time-frame
of Levy's life and the book's chronology, Jews had
been admitted to Cambridge. (Levy herself spent some
time at Newnham.)
It is also my impression that a number of the newer
universities within the UK originated in sectarian or
dissenting academies of the C19th, but this is not an
area in which I would claim any extensive knowledge.
Lesley Hall
(Honorary Lecturer at the 'godless institution in
Gower St')
[log in to unmask]
website:
http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~lesleyah
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 09:18:24 -0400
From: "Terry L. Meyers" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Faith based colleges
> the
> history of higher education in England? Compare the evangelical college
> demanding "a special relationship with Jesus Christ" (whatever that might
> be) with the long-standing requirement that an Oxbridge graduate profess
> the 39 articles of the Anglican Church.
Weren't the very earliest universities closely linked to
theological studies and to the education and training of clergymen,
clerks, and monks?
Certainly the institution dearest to my own heart had it made
clear by the reigning monarchs in 1693 what its task was to be (see
below, first six lines of the wonderfully endless periodic sentence
of the second paragraph).
William and Mary, legally speaking, is still a royally
chartered university, but broke its link with the Established Church
at the time of the American Revolution. It did continue to have
strong connections with the Episcopal Church for most of the 19th
Century, finally becoming fully secular in the early 20th Century,
when financial needs drove us into the loving arms of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, where we have ever since been more or less
happily nestled.
From our Charter:
WILLIAM AND MARY, by the grace of God, of England, Scotland,
France and Ireland, King and Queen, defenders of the faith, &c. To
all to whom these our present letters shall come, greeting.
Forasmuch as our well-beloved and faithful subjects,
constituting the General Assembly of our Colony of Virginia, have had
it in their minds, and have proposed to themselves, to the end that
the Church of Virginia may be furnished with a seminary of ministers
of the gospel, and that the youth may be piously educated in good
letters and manners, and that the Christian faith may be propagated
amongst the Western Indians, to the glory of Almighty God; to make,
found and establish a certain place of universal study, or perpetual
College of Divinity, Philosophy, Languages, and other good Arts and
Sciences, consisting of one President, six Masters or Professors, and
an hundred scholars more or less, according to the ability of the
said college, and the statutes of the same; to be made, increased,
diminished, or changed there, by certain trustees nominated and
elected by the General Assembly aforesaid, to wit, our faithful and
well-beloved Francis Nicholson, our Lieutenant Governor in our
Colonies of Virginia and Maryland; Wm. Cole, Ralph Worm[e]ley,
William Byrd and John Lear, Esquires; James Blair, John Farnifold,
Stephen Fouace and Samuel Gray, clerks; Thomas Milner, Christopher
Robinson, Charles Scarborough, John Smith, Benjamin Harrison, Miles
Cary, Henry Hartwell, William Randolph and Matthew Page, gentlemen,
or the major part of them, or of the longer livers of them, on the
south side of a certain river, commonly called York river, or
elsewhere, where the General Assembly itself shall think more
convenient, within our Colony of Virginia, to be supported and
maintained, in all time coming.
_________________________________________________________________________
Terry L. Meyers voice-mail: 757-221-3932
English Department fax: 757-221-1844
College of William and Mary
Williamsburg, VA 23187-8795
_________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 14:50:50 +0100
From: Michel Faber <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: gentleman in Gaskell; that's why the lady is a tramp
Robyn O'Leary wrote:
> In Elizabeth Gaskell's novel "North and South" there is debate between Mr
> Thornton and Margaret Hale over the term "gentleman".
>
> While the term seems to have originated from concepts of chivalry, during
> the 19th century it seems to have evolved into a broader definition to
> take into account the emerging new self-made gentleman, such as Thornton.
>
> Does anyone have any comments on this. Would other readers of this novel
> agree or disagree that Thornton is a gentleman ?
In his book 'Mere Christianity', C.S. Lewis, although post-Victorian,
gives a disapproving summary of the evolution of the word.
"The word 'gentleman' originally meant something recognisable; one
who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you
called someone "a gentleman" you were not paying him a
compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not "a
gentleman" you were not insulting him but giving information. There
was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman;
any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an
M.A. But then there came people who said -- so rightly, charitably,
spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully -- "Ah, but surely the
important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the
land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who
behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in that sense Edward is far
more truly a gentleman than John?" They meant well. To be
honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing
than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing. Worse still,
it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man "a
gentleman" in this new, refined sense becomes, in fact, not a way of
giving information about him but a way of praising him: to deny that
he is "a gentleman" becomes simply a way of insulting him. [In the
same way that] a 'nice' meal only means a meal the speaker likes,
[the term 'gentleman' now] means hardly more than a man whom the
speaker likes."
Lewis talks as if the dilution of meaning here is a well-meaning
revision by the same people who formerly used the word correctly.
In talking this way, he ignores what I would suggest is the true cause
of the change -- the class element.
The English upper classes used, and continued until very recently to
use, the word 'gentleman' in its technically correct sense. Indeed
there are still relics of the class system -- compilers of Debrett's
Peerage, elderly baronets, retired brigadiers who while away their
days writing angry letters to The Times, etc -- who insist upon the
old usage. The change came from the lower classes, who used the
term admiringly about anyone who impressed them as being 'well-
bred'. The phrase "He was a real gentleman" (or 'gennulman') is
often quoted in late Victorian and 20th century fiction, almost always
spoken by lower-class people who are struck by someone's
manners but lack the social connections to judge the true 'facts' of
the case.
Of course the term 'lady' has undergone a parallel evolution.
Best wishes,
Michel Faber
[log in to unmask]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 10:40:34 -0400
From: Herbert Tucker <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Faith based colleges
At 07:35 AM 6/13/02 -0500, you wrote:
> Surely the phenomenon is not all that remarkable, if one recalls the
> history of higher education in England? Compare the evangelical college
> demanding "a special relationship with Jesus Christ" (whatever that might
> be) with the long-standing requirement that an Oxbridge graduate profess
> the 39 articles of the Anglican Church. Given that non-sectarian higher
> education in Britain really only begins with the founding of the
> University of London, it's hardly "amazing" that religious colleges
> continue to thrive in parts of America, proverbially the most religious
> (at least professedly) of all western nation-states.
I dare say the preponderance of the American colleges founded in the 19th
century were not just faith-based but downright denominational. My alma
mater, Amherst, for instance, was founded in 1821 as a Congregationalist
refuge from the corrosive Unitarianism in and around that faith-based
school Harvard in distant faith-founded Cambridge. Haverford, Oberlin,
Swarthmore, Davidson, Bates. . . . some of these colleges have dissolved
the sectarian bonds, some haven't; and the spectrum from de jure to de
facto allegiance is broad indeed at present.
Herbert Tucker
Department of English
219 Bryan Hall
University of Virginia 22904-4121
[log in to unmask]
434 / 924-6677
FAX: 434 / 924-1478
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 10:44:54 -0500
From: "Jason A. Pierce" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Job Announcement
As a tenure-track faculty member at a Baptist-affiliated institution and a
practicing agnostic, I must say I feel fortunate that my personal beliefs
and the institution's doctrinal traditions have never clashed. Indeed,
though Mars Hill College is "an academic community rooted in the Christian
faith" (to quote from the first line of the mission statement), the campus
community is remarkably diverse in terms of its faiths; faculty members
identify themselves not only as Baptist but also as Jewish, Catholic,
Episcopalian, Congregationalist, Wiccan, Methodist, Presbyterian, and
Buddhist, to say nothing of the agnostics, atheists, and otherwise
religiously non-aligned.
How does this relate to Victorian studies? On my part, I can say that I
have never felt even the least iota of pressure to in any way adapt my
syllabi to the college's doctrines. I have used Darwin, Huxley, and
Strauss in my courses and never had any problems whatsoever. (The general
education curriculum, which includes a course titled "Critique: Faith and
Reason," also makes significant use of Darwin.) Perhaps because as a group
they are somewhat more spiritually self-aware than students attending
secular institutions, my students respond enthusiastically to texts that
touch on issues of religion and faith, even when those texts challenge
their own beliefs.
That said, Mars Hill is not representative of Christian higher education --
nor is any institution, I would argue. An individual I know who got a job
teaching nineteenth-century British literature at another institution found
that his beliefs and the college's requirements (adhering to a statement of
faith, avoiding topics deemed by the trustees not in keeping with the
institution's doctrine) were too much at odds for him to stay in his tenure-
track position. Private colleges and universities are much more diverse
than many individuals who have experienced only secular public universities
seem to realize. At one end are the institutions that have religious
backgrounds but are now all but secular -- e.g., Duke (Methodist), Harvard
(Puritan/Congregationalist), Wake Forest (Baptist), Penn (Quaker) -- where
academic freedom is the mainstay. (Brandeis, mentioned in an earlier post,
notes on its website that it was established by the American Jewish
community but that it has been explicitly nonsectarian since its
founding.) At the other end are the institutions with clear religious
affiliations -- e.g., Bob Jones, Liberty, Oral Roberts -- where
institutional doctrine may very well influence what and how one teaches,
including in a Victorians course (riding the ragged edge, but I'm still on
topic). In between is a panoply of institutions that variously define
themselves as "Christian," "in the Christian tradition," "rooted in the
Christian faith," or what have you. The fact that an institution uses the
term "Christian" (or any other religious term) in its mission statement,
promotional literature, or job announcements does not necessarily preclude
academic freedom, as some of us may be wont to believe.
(Note: For those VICTORIAnists looking for a position like Union's who are
wary of the "Christian" label, it might be worth pointing out that the
advertisement do not mention the candidate's making a statement of faith,
which is required by many institutions.)
Best of luck to the job seekers,
Jason Pierce
Dr. Jason A. Pierce
Assistant Professor of English & Acting Webmaster
Mars Hill College
http://users.mhc.edu/facultystaff/jpierce/
[log in to unmask]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 12:11:10 -0500
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: gentleman in Gaskell
Robyn O'Lery asks if Thornton in Elizabeth Gaskell's novel "North and
South" is a "gentleman" according to Gaskell, according to readers today.
I think it's clear that Gaskell implicitly argues that he is -- as
evidenced in that he's destined to marry Margaret Hale! And readers
today, using our vague definition of "gentle" as "admirable" or maybe
merely "likable," will have no problem -- or rather, may miss the problem
of class here.
But actually Thornton's situation is more complicated: he was
apparently BORN a "gentleman" or anyway closer to the landed class than he
appears. His father lost his money and killed himself; Thornton had some
classical education in his childhood, before he had to work in a shop
(low status and pay) to support himself, mother and sister. So
Gaskell is not matching her "lady" heroine with a man actually born to
labor in a shop, a factory, or a field.
Mary Haynes Kuhlman, Ph.D.
Department of English
Creighton University
Omaha, NE 68178 USA
402-280-2526 [log in to unmask]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 14:12:42 -0400
From: Diana Archibald <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Americans as a Threat to English Society & Class
Dear Michele and other list members,
Charles Reade's _The Bloomer_ (1857) features a second generation
American woman descended from a younger son of fine family in
England. The heroine is a rich heiress who inherits the British
family estate (which her father bought before he died) and who
marries the boy next door. Of course, complications stand in the way
of the match--namely her insistence on wearing "The American
Costume," i.e. bloomers. At a fancy ball in New York, she proposes,
"Dance in your own way, dress in your own way, and let your neighbors
have their way--that is the best way!" She changes her tune later
when her fiance leaves the country upon hearing of her "disgrace."
By the end of the novel, the narrator remarks, "America takes two
hundred thousand English every year. We have got this one Yankee in
return, and we mean to keep her." And her MONEY, I would add, but
that's merely my interpretation.
The quotation does bring up a key point, though--any discussion of
Americans as threat to the English class/social system should
consider how emigration contributed to attitudes toward the prodigal
nation. Millions of British citizens emigrated in the Victorian
period, and the top destination throughout almost all of that period
was the U.S.--not the various Imperial destinations. While the mass
emigration of the poor did certainly relieve some pressure on
England, it also provided labor for a nation that was rapidly
developing into a strong competitor.
At the risk of appearing self-serving, I hope you won't mind if I
mention that my book _Domesticity, Imperialism, and Emigration in the
Victorian Novel_ includes a long chapter on representations of
America in Dickens, Reade, Trollope, and Thackeray. (Other chapters
feature Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.) The book is due out in
July, University of Missouri Press, and includes an extensive
bibliography which you may also find useful.
--
Diana C. Archibald
Assistant Professor of English
University of Massachusetts Lowell
61 Wilder Street, Suite 3
Lowell, MA 01854
tel: (978) 934-4199
fax: (978) 934-3097
email: [log in to unmask]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 14:15:32 -0500
From: "Doris H. Meriwether" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Faith-based Colleges
Let us not forget that Browning, as a Congregationalist, was barred from
entering Oxford or Cambridge and so relied on "home-schooling" for his
higher education. And, as someone has already mentioned, those who did
the Oxbridge route, were equipped to hold clerical positions in the
Anglican Church.
Doris Meriwether
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 08:17:37 +1000
From: Ellen Jordan <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Faith based colleges
"Given that non-sectarian education only begins in Britain with the
founding of the University of London . . ."
It should also be remembered that in 19th century Britain the Anglican
church put up its own resistance to the move to non-sectarian university
education. The foundation of University College, London, was soon followed
by the foundation of King's College. The "dissenting" colleges which
gradually developed into provincial universities were matched by Durham,
paid for by the cathedral chapter. The group working for women's education
at Oxford actually split over the issue, and two colleges were founded, the
non-denominationatl Somerville and the specifically Anglican Lady Margaret
Hall.
Although I don't have any exact information on this, I imagine some of the
institutions that became universities in the latest round of higher
education restructuring must be descended from the teachers' colleges
founded by the two religious societies (Anglican and Non-conformist) that
pioneered elementary schooling in the first half of the 19th century.
Here in Australia, by the way, we have a Catholic University that was
founded only a few decades ago - or even more recently (I don't have any
exact information on this either).
Ellen Jordan
University of Newcastle
Australia
[log in to unmask]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 16:43:48 -0400
From: "Roberto C. Ferrari" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Col. Brine
I'm trying to find biographical information on a Colonel Brine. He would
have lived in or around Shaldon, Teignmouth, in Devon around the year
1871. He was married. The 1881 census lists a retired Colonel named John
James Brine, born ca. 1825, living in Devon, although his wife is not
listed (perhaps she had died by then, if this is the same individual).
At this point, I'm trying to find sources that might assist me in
identifying in any print sources who Colonel Brine was. He isn't in the
DNB, nor in a few other general Who Was Who guides. I am completely
ignorant about Victorian military sources or information, so I'm not sure
where to start with that. I've tried using some of the links from the
Victoria Research Web, unsuccessfully, but I may have missed something.
Any thoughts? Thanks in advance.
Roberto C. Ferrari
Florida Atlantic University Library
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1904 01:05:46 -0700
From: sue zemka <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Morris
Dear Steve,
Thanks for remembering this and having the courtesy to write. Sorry for my
slowness to respond. I've been on a small vacation in the mountains for the
past few days, breathing smoke. At the rate the fires are going out here the
whole state will be in flames by July, unless we get a good dousing, which
seems unlikely. But putting aside the threat of environmental disaster and
turning to utopia, I'll try to recover my Morris question, which had to do
with _News from Nowhere_.
In the course of your paper, you mentioned that Morris wrote no formal
literary criticism. I was wondering about Morris's treatment of Victorian
novels in NFN, and what you thought about the possibility of reading it as a
kind of embedded critical statement on the subject of contemporary
literature, specifically the novel (e.g. Boffin, the Dickens fan and
would-be novelist; the grumbler and his nostalgia for the varied literature
of the past; finally, Ellen's tirade against her grandfather's literary
nostalgia.) Put simply, the statement would be something like this: that for
Morris after 1884 the Victorian novel is a lesser art form because it is the
quintessential artistic expression of an inequitious society, and in its
future perfection, society will not need such literary escapism anymore. I
think one could argue that this is consistent with the novel's internal
division between a melancholia associated with the Victorian present and the
(half-convincing?) faith in future satisfaction and delight. In other words,
that division is consistent with the irony of Morris writing a novel which
expresses dissatisfaction, even unhappiness, with the novel form, the
necessity of which is based on bourgeois social reality. But then, Morris's
persistence with poetry and translation and book-making might make all of
this untenable.
For all I know, this is a small and familiar topic to Morris scholars that
was put to rest long ago, in which case I thank you for letting me air this
concern privately instead of in front of the Morris Society. If you do know
of some published criticism which touches upon this topic (the
representation of the Victorian novel in NFN, to be exact, and/or its
ramifications for Morris's attitudes towards literature in general), I will
be much obliged.
In my anxiety to remember an idea that was never more than half-baked, I've
forgotten to mention that I enjoyed your paper very much, and took
prodigious notes which now I can't find, so I hope that it appears in print
someday. If you have a copy on file maybe you would be willing to email me?
But I know some people are reluctant to circulate material in that fashion,
so I understand if you'd rather not.
Sincerely,
Sue Zemka
----------
> From: Stephen Arata <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Morris
> Date: Thu, May 30, 2002, 6:21 AM
>
> Dear Sue,
>
> While working on William Morris yesterday, I came across a note
> I'd
made
> to myself about the conversation we didn't quite have at the MLA after the
> session on Pre-Raphaelitism and modernism. I had been meaning to follow up
> on that, and regret not doing it before now. This may long since have
> disappeared from your consciousness, but if you do happen to recall
> whatever suggestions you were giving to give me in New Orleans, I'd very
> much like to hear them.
> Hoping you're well and that the summer is as welcome there as it
> is
here.
>
> Best,
>
> Steve Arata
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Stephen Arata
> Associate Professor of English
> University of Virginia
> 434-924-7105 (phone)
> 434-924-1478 (fax)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 20:33:22 EDT
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Americans as a danger...
For a lop-sided and comical take on this see Tom Taylor's play "Our
American Cousin" (probably most famous for being the play Lincoln was
watching when he was assassinated). Sue Doran
------------------------------
End of VICTORIA Digest - 12 Jun 2002 to 13 Jun 2002 (#2002-163)
***************************************************************
---------- End Forwarded Message ----------
|
