Response to 2/4 Readings

Considering the political, societal, and interpersonal importance that writing has held for over two thousand years, it may come as a surprise to modern students that composition as a field of study did not exist in colleges and universities until late into the 19th century. Furthermore, this early form of rhetoric and composition was devoid of research until decades later. Although all of our assigned readings deal with this history (one of them is even written by a vital participant in it), the first two deal with the origins, while “Where Did Composition Studies Come From?” investigates the changes wrought in the mid to late 20th century.

The first paper we were assigned to read, “Introduction.” The Origins of Composition Studies in the American College, does exactly as its title would infer, that is, investigate the beginnings of composition in American colleges. Prior to the 1870s, the goal of college was “building character, not to supply useful knowledge” (Brereton 3). This older model also stressed the study of Latin and Greek classics, as opposed to English. Even after the development of the English department, composition classes were spread out, and usually taught as electives, as students were expected to have knowledge of writing from their secondary schools.

In the 1870s, Harvard President Charles W. Eliot and writer Adams Sherman Hill created what can be called the first modern composition program. Changes brought about by this program included a placement examination and the consolidation of composition classes to the freshman year. In his essay “An Answer to the Cry for More English”, Hill discusses the results of this placement examination. In a pompous tone (Was I the only one who thought Hill was kind of a jerk?), Hill claims that half of the students taking the exam failed it. He catalogues all the numerous mistakes found in these exams, such as spelling, factual and grammatical errors, taking time to mock students, stating that some would “put commas […] between words that no rational being would separate from one another” (Hill 50) Hill goes on to chide the secondary schools for the low quality of students they are churning out, and then lists his criteria for what he believes a good English teacher should be; “The teacher of English should be equally quick to detect faults and to recognize merits of every description, and should know how to stimulate his pupils’ minds till they are as fresh and alert at the desk as on the playground. He should possess special qualifications, for his task is at once difficult and important.” (Hill 52) These standards sound highly unrealistic to me, especially if teachers in Hill’s day were paid the same low wages as they are today.

Hills solution to the lack of quality writers applying to college “to give to English two hours or more a week during the Freshman year […] schools would be made to feel that their labors in this direction were going to tell upon a pupil’s standing in college as well as upon his admission.” (Hill 52) The delegation of composition to a first year class can be seen as the beginning of several detrimental attitudes towards rhetoric and composition. As Brereton himself says, “putting composition into the first year was a recognition of its newly developed remedial overtones: freshman year was to make up for what preparatory schools had failed to teach. That goes a long way to explain composition’s lowly status.” (Brereton 18) To this day, a large amount of freshman composition classes are taught by part-timers and graduate assistants. This was not the only negative mind-set regarding composition to be born out of Hill’s actions, a statement he made saying that “rhetoric was an art, not a science” affirmed contemporary views that rhetoric could not be researched; only taught.

The matter of whether rhetoric is an art or a science is one that is explored in “Where Did Composition Studies Come From?” by Martin Nystrand et al. Nystrand’s insanely comprehensive article chronicles different attitudes, forms of research, and fields of rhetoric and composition. Nystrand discusses the concept of “new romanticism”, which holds that composition should be free from control and regulations. On the other hand, new classicism states that “certain aspects of the creative process can be taught.” (Nystrand 269) Nystrand supports the latter conclusion in his essay, as do most people studying composition (I would assume.)

As someone who minored in linguistics, I found the relationship between early rhetoric studies and linguistics fascinating. I recognized many of the areas of research in linguistics that Nystrand brought up; however, I had never realized the extent to which they corresponded with composition studies. It is appropriate that my field of emphasis for my M.A. is entitled language/composition theory study, a title that emphasizes the relationship between the two.

I enjoyed the thorough treatment given to the history of rhetoric given in "A Brief History of Rhetoric and Composition" (which was brief, I suppose, given the amount of time it covers.) As someone who loves Roman history, one aspect that I found fascinating was the loss of Cicero and Quintilian's works until the Renaissance. Having read some Aquinas works, it makes me interested in how rhetoric changed after the discovery of Cicero and Quintilian's writings.

Another aspect of historical rhetoric that attracted my attention is what was said in the "Rhetoric in the Eighteenth Century: The Scottish Influence" section. Some rhetoricians believed that a "correct and pervasive style" would not only create good works of writing, but good people as well. I find this a stretch, as I'm sure that there are plenty of examples of horrible people who write very well.