THE PROBLEM OF THE ONE‐YEAR LITERATURE SURVEY COURSE AGAIN

Abstract

N EED I say that I read with much interest and with much sympathy the spirited defense of the one-year survey course in literature by Professor Smith of Chattanooga University? The cause he defends could not very easily find a more competent advocate; and as he does me the honor to quote me repeatedly, I wish first of all to thank him for the extremely courteous tone of his discussion, and for having so fairly stated my viewpoint. He will not be surprised, however, I suppose, if I solicit the favor of a further hearing for my attitude. Moreover, du choc des idees jaillit la lumiere. Before entering on the discussion proper, I must correct two slight misstatements. 1. At least so far, the three-year survey course systematically worked out, is our own at Smith College. I tried, but failed, to introduce it at Bryn Mawr. 2. It might be well to emphasize the fact that our literature course at Smith does not begin in the freshman year, (except for students entering with four units of French); the vast majority of students, about four hundred, enter with three units of French and they are given another year of language before they are considered ready to begin to really grasp literature. Now let us come to the discussion itself. I realize fully the importance of one of the difficulties mentioned by Professor Smith: namely, that there are often students who have only one year at their disposal for a course in French, and who, moreover, are devoting it to French literature when they might as well give it to some other elective. Such students deserve full consideration and ought to get as much as possible within that one year. But this does not do away with my contention that psychologically speaking and because the grasp of our brain is limited (for which we are not to blame) it is impossible to treat satisfactorily the whole of French literature in one year. You cannot put an elephant in a rabbit hole.