APPENDIX A
NOVELS AS A UNIVERSITY STUDY
Some fourteen years ago, in the pamphlet of elective courses of studyopen to the senior and junior classes of Yale College, I announced a newcourse called "Modern Novels." The course and its teacher immediatelybecame the object of newspaper notoriety, which spells academicdamnation. From every State in the Union long newspaper clippings weresent to me, in which my harmless little pedagogical scheme wasdiscussed--often under enormous headlines--as a revolutionary idea. Itwas praised by some, denounced by others, but thoroughly advertised, sothat, for many months, I received letters from all parts of the WesternHemisphere, asking for the list of novels read and the method pursued instudying them. During six months these letters averaged three a day, andthey came from the north, south, east, and west, from Alaska, Hawaii,Central and South America. The dust raised by all this hubbub crossedthe Atlantic. The course was gravely condemned in a column editorial inthe London _Daily Telegraph_, and finally received the crowning honourof a parody in _Punch_.
Things have changed somewhat in the last ten years, and although I havenever repeated my one year's experiment, I believe that it would beperfectly safe to do so. Not only does the production of new novelscontinue at constantly accelerating speed, but critical books on thenovel have begun to increase and multiply in all directions. At leasttwenty such works now stand on my shelves, the latest of which (bySelden L. Whitcomb) is frankly called "The Study of a Novel," and boldlybegins: "This volume is the result of practical experience in teachingthe novel, and its aim is primarily pedagogical."
The objections usually formulated against novels as a university studyare about as follows: (_a_) the study of fiction is unacademic--that is,lacking in dignity; (_b_) students will read too many novels anyway, andthe emphasis should therefore be thrown on other forms of literary art;(_c_) most recent and contemporary fiction is worthless, and if novelsare to be taught at all, the titles selected should be confined entirelyto recognised classics; (_d_) many of the novels of to-day are immoral,and the reading of them will corrupt rather than develop adolescentminds; (_e_) they are too "easy," too interesting, and a course confinedto them is totally lacking in mental discipline. These objections, eachand all, contain some truth, and demand a serious answer.
That the study of fiction is unacademic is a weighty argument, but itsweight is the mass of custom and prejudice rather than solid thought. Inold times, the curriculum had little to do with real life, so that themost scholarly professors and the most promising pupils were oftenplentifully lacking in common sense. Students gifted with realindependence of mind, marked with an alert interest in the life andthought about them, chafed irritably under the old-fashioned course ofstudy, and often treated it with neglect or open rebellion. What ThomasGray said of the Cambridge curriculum constitutes a true indictmentagainst eighteenth-century universities; and it was not until veryrecent times that such studies as history, European literature, modernlanguages, political economy, natural sciences, and the fine arts werethought to have equal academic dignity with the trinity of Latin, Greek,and mathematics. There are, indeed, many able and conscientious men whostill believe that this trinity cannot be successfully rivalled by anyother possible group of studies. Now the novel is the most prominentform of modern literary art; and if modern literature is to be studiedat all, fiction cannot be overlooked. The profound change brought aboutin university curricula, caused largely by the elective system, issimply the bringing of college courses of study into closer contactwith human life, and the recognition that what young men need is ageneral preparation to live a life of active usefulness in modern socialrelations.
That students read too many novels anyway--that is, in proportion totheir reading in history and biography--is probably true. But theprimary object of a course in novel-reading is not to make the studentread more novels, instead of less, nor to substitute the reading offiction for the reading of other books. The real object is (after acheerful recognition of the fact that he will read novels anyway) topersuade him to read them intelligently, to observe the differencebetween good novels and bad, and so to become impatient and disgustedwith cheap, sensational, and counterfeit specimens of the novelist'sart.
"The common problem, yours, mine, everyone's, Is--not to fancy what were fair in life Provided it could be--but, finding first What may be, then find how to make it fair Up to our means: a very different thing! No abstract intellectual plan of life Quite irrespective of life's plainest laws, But one, a man, who is man and nothing more, May lead within a world which (by your leave) Is Rome or London, not Fool's Paradise."
That much of contemporary fiction is worthless, and that the novelsselected should be classics, is a twofold statement, of which the firstphrase is true and the second a _non sequitur_. Much ancient andmediaeval literature read in college is worthless in itself; it is readbecause it illustrates the language, or represents some literary form,or because it throws light on the customs and ideas of the time. Thefact that a certain obscure work was written in the year 1200 does notnecessarily prove that it is more valuable for study than one written in1909. Now it so happens that the modern novel has become more and morethe mirror of modern ideas; and for a student who really wishes to knowwhat people are thinking about all over the world to-day, the novels ofTolstoi, Bjoernson, Sudermann, and Thomas Hardy cannot wisely beneglected. Why should the study of the contemporary novel and thecontemporary drama be tabooed when in other departments of research theaim is to be as contemporary as possible? We have courses in socialconditions that actually investigate slums. I am not for a momentpleading that the study of modern novels and modern art should supplantthe study of immortal masterpieces; but merely that they should havetheir rightful place, and not be regarded either with contempt or asunworthy of serious treatment. The two most beneficial ways to study anovel are to regard it, first, as an art-form, and secondly as amanifestation of intellectual life; from neither point of view shouldthe contemporary novel be wholly neglected.
That many of the novels of to-day are immoral is true, but it is stillmore true of the classics. The proportion of really immoral books to thetotal production is probably less to-day than it ever was before; infact, there are an immense number of excellent contemporary novels whichare spotless, something that cannot be said of the classics of antiquityor of the great majority of literary works published prior to thenineteenth century. If immorality be the cry, what shall we say aboutAristophanes or Ovid? How does the case stand with the comedies ofDryden or with the novels of Henry Fielding? No, it is undoubtedly truethat the teacher who handles modern fiction can more easily find acombination of literary excellence and purity of tone than he could inany previous age.
That a course in novels lacks mental discipline and is too easy dependsmainly on the teacher and his method. As regards the time consumed inpreparation, it is probable that a student would expend three or fourtimes the number of hours on a course in novels than he would in ancientlanguages, where, unfortunately, the use of a translation is all butuniversal; and the translation is fatal to mental discipline. But it isnot merely a matter of hours; novels can be taught in such a way as toproduce the best kind of mental discipline, which consists, first, incompelling a student to do his own thinking, and, secondly, to train himproperly in the expression of what ideas he has.