Crisis on Infinite Campuses

Clearly my blogging impulses have waned these last two years. Perhaps as the project upon which I've been working has developed, my willingness to share it has diminished; once I decided it was worth protecting, I decided to protect it. Protect it from what, you ask? That's where the silly comes in. Rather than share early and often as part of a network of knowledge-producers, I elected to narrow the channels of communication and save my scholarship for what perhaps are too often held out as the ultimate end-products of academic endeavor. Articles and monographs still make the man, or so I've been led to believe, and while what I post here probably has the cross-section of a mosquito on the radar screen of academia, I'm still reticent to tip my hand and put other, faster, smarter, better writers onto what I hope will one day make my name. This strikes me as a shame and counter to my own inclinations; I know I'm not alone in this, and I likewise know there are those who are actually exploring new avenues and other options.

But, it seems, they do so somewhat at their peril, and perhaps it's having spent the last year (two years? five?) being churned through the machine that's left me simultaneously too frustrated to risk speaking my mind and too institutionalized to risk publishing my work five or ten kilobytes at a time or in other unconventional ways.

Or perhaps I'm just be tired of logging in to reject comments from bots, phishers, scammers, and all the other bottom-feeders of the illicit pharmaceuticals industry.

At the moment, then, I'm posting not to offer anything in the way of 18th-century interest but rather to process some emotions recollected in an unexpected because increasingly infrequent moment of tranquility.

At a recent gathering of some seriously profound thinkers representing multiple periods, disciplines, and professions, I was privy to some equally profound discussions about the future not only of literary study but of the humanities in general and the university system at large. The news, as you'd expect, is not good. The word "crisis" came up severally, and while some attempted to attach it to a sense of opportunity, I was left to confront my professional mortality without yet having been dipped by my heel in the waters of tenure. So--while we (there's only a limited kind of "we," really; within it there is an inescapable if potentially shifting "us, them, you, they" hierarchical structure based around seniority, experience, tenure, methodology, even technological know-how) have a shot at seizing the day and reshaping our brand of intellectual endeavor into something new and newly sustainable, a lot of the energy that might be put towards that goal can't be converted from potential to kinetic. Or at least, not easily.

During the course of the proceedings, a conversation came up regarding modes of publication (traditional presses, Open Book, et al.) and what present faculty would tell their graduate students about which roads to take. The question was then put to the three graduate students in the room, and I spoke rather strongly--perhaps even insensitively--as to my intentions. If given a choice been a prestigious UP or a non-traditional venue, I'd opt for the former. I should very much like to explore other options, but I don't want to risk being the Betamax (or Laserdisc, or HD-DVD, or what have you) of my scholarly generation. Not a perfect analogy, of course, but a genuine concern. One takes risks in being an early adopter of a technology that isn't currently and then doesn't become the industry standard.

As I spoke, I noticed several of the Powers present nodding their heads in vigorous agreement, as if the issue was an absolute no-brainer. Minutes later, I was encouraged by someone else not to "chicken out" of non-standard publication. The phrasing was, I genuinely think, meant to be encouraging, but it does suggest the extent to which even devotees recognize that the move requires some measure of intestinal fortitude, and while their successes demonstrate the "high risk, high reward" payoff mentioned by yet another person there, I rather think it's asking too much of people who are essentially burning off their twenties (and I daresay in some cases a good portion of their thirties) in graduate school to put their forties on the line by trying to time the market. If anything about the event cheesed me off, it was hearing from both the Digital Humanities people whose positions didn't preexist them and from the Tenured Proponents of Radical Difference delegation that the people with the least job security and the worst job prospects (graduate students) should be the drivers of change. How do you push without leverage?

Of course, we'd like to be agents of change--or at least, I'd like to, and I have a project in mind that's more in the line of database creation. There's a research question I have that can't be answered without a new tool, so I (along with, I hope, a group of like-minded individuals some of which, unlike me, actually know what they're doing) will have to build the tool. But, as I clucked at the time, first things first. No one's not going to give me tenure because I have a monograph. What, though, is the acceptance rate in the humanities departments around the country--you know, the two or three that are hiring--for people who show up with only non-traditional dissertative projects in motion and no book in sight? Sure, I thought, YOU'D hire or tenure that person, and by gum so would I, but without wholesale, system-wide institutional change, potentially excluding yourself from eight of the ten places hiring approaches either heroism or martyrdom. I'm all for heroes, of course, and certainly I sometimes find my brand of sniveling pragmatism a little cringe-worthy, but I have to believe I can find a via media between the Charybdis of radical innovation and the Scylla of academic conservatism. If I'm lucky enough to get a book published (massive, gargantuan if), I might then find myself better positioned to advocate for change. At any rate, I haven't got much of a choice in the matter if the department I join has made publish-or-perish the law of the land. And none of us has much of a choice in the matter of which departments we join.

Which brings me to another instance of what I lacked the temerity to say in the room. It's by way of recommendation, and rather more in the line of put up or shut up than was strictly appropriate for someone of my station to offer to his betters. If you are a tenured faculty member who strongly believes that the current model and modes of scholarly production and distribution are approaching or have arrived at obsolescence, that there's an emergent need to alter (or creatively destroy) our disciplinary course, that, in short, there really is a crisis on infinite campuses, I expect your most recent traditionally produced and published monograph to have been your last. Your next conference presentation will reject the premise of the academic conference; your next article (if there is another article) will not appear in a traditional journal. If you stop reifying the generic conventions of academic output, then it'll be much easier for the movement to pick up speed. One of you engaging in a new kind of collaborative work, blogging your research, or tweeting your way through a conference does more to change old genres and elevate new ones than ten of me doing the same. Well, fifty of me. Ten of someone five times better than me. This is what tenure is for. At my end of the clock, one of the speakers very poignantly argued, the system tends to produce conservative output--not only in its form but in its content. People on the other side of that perhaps too-Holy Line of Demarcation can change the system from within. You simply cannot tell your vulnerable advisees to damn the torpedoes while you continue to work on the Next Big Thing to come out of Chicago or Cambridge. Unless, of course, Chicago and Cambridge are going to change the way they do things too.

That's what I should have said. At the time, though, it seemed clear that nobody in the room had much to offer by way of a plan, and somehow the question that resulted in the above tirade -- what would you tell your graduate students to do -- managed to go unanswered by anyone but a graduate student who had already made up his mind.

We all want to believe in what we do. We have to believe that some kind of new order will emerge out of what is impossible to see as anything but chaos. I think we agree that we can't go on like this; I know we don't agree on what to do next. If you have graduate students, what are you telling them to do?

By Force or Guile

We'll move right past the amount of time it's been since I last posted as it will only recall to me how much time has gone by since I've done anything the least bit substantive.

This won't be substantive either, as it's a call for help. I expect that once the semester's Job Market michigas has ended, I will have plenty of time to pursue this line of inquiry myself (time that would be better spent preparing to go on the the Job Market again the following year, though we'll jump off that bridge when we come to it), but I'm feeling twitchy and frustrated so I thought I would do as many have done before me and turn to the internet to solve all of my problems.

I'm sure there's an easy way I could do this myself, but I'm too flustered to find it, and I want answers, so I'm asking you. I might soon put the question to the C-18L list as well, but for the moment I lack the nerve, and it's not really an 18th century question.

I'm intersted in pursuing the origins and history of the phrase that I've taken for this entry's title. Most likely, you know it from Paradise Lost, specifically Book I, lines 121-22, as spoken by Captain Hubris himself:

"We may with more successful hope resolve
To wage by force or guile eternal war..."

Google (surprisingly) returns (via Bartleby.com) Wordsworth's sonnet "Malham Cove" in the first position*:

"Was the aim frustrated by force or guile,
When giants scooped from out the rocky ground..."

For the most part, though, Google gives Milton and his Satan ownership of the phrase, and while there were many subsquent users, I'm more interested in Milton's predecessors. Dryden came after, but he retroactively gave it to Virgil in his translation of the Aeneid:

"But truly tell, was it for Force or Guile,
or some Religious end, you rais'd the Pile? (ll. 201-02).

I'm guessing he got it from Milton. A likely (or at least reasonable, or at very least possible) source for Milton is Spenser's The Faerie Queene, V.IV.XXI:

"For all those Knights, the which by force or guile
she doth subdue, she fowly doth entreate..."

A variation also occurs in Sir Thomas Wyatt's "Complaint Upon Love to Reason, with Love's Answer," and it's the earliest occasion of it I have come across thus far:

"Since I was his, hour rested I never,
Nor look to do; and eke the wakey nights
The banished sleep may in no wise recover
By guile and force, over my thralled sprites."

It's likely, then, that it was already current and colloquial by Milton's time and that he simply plucked it from the air. Those I have talked to about it have suggested this or that translation of the bible for a source; one has offered Machiavelli as a possible point of origin, and I must say The Prince does seem a likely candidate given Satan's political business in Paradise Lost (talk about entering a new Principality--that joke will make sense in just a second), but I'd have to find the right contemporary English translation to verify it. Obviously Wyatt knew his Italian fairly well, but I don't know the precise date he composed the above. The Prince, for what it's, appeared in 1532, and Wyatt died ten years later.

The 1910 Harvard Classics translation of The Prince contains the closest corollary phrase to that made (more) famous by Milton:

"Whoever, therefore, on entering a new Princedom, judges it necessary to rid himself of enemies, to conciliate friends, to prevail by force or fraud, to make himself feared yet not hated by his subjects..." (29).

"Force or fraud" is or was, a very superficial search suggests, no less common a construction or pairing as "force or guile." That said, Edward Dacres' 1640 English translation of The Prince renders the above lines as follows:

"Whoever therefore deemes it necessary in his entrance into a new Principality, to secure himself of his enemies, and gain friends, to overcome either by force, or by cunning, to make himself belovd or feard of his people..." (56).

So here we have force and cunning. Not quite force and guile, which is really what I'm after. And this is the earliest traslation of The Prince available to me through EEBO.

I don't have an argument to make about this phrase--at least, not yet--and if it's simply one of those stock phrases that enjoyed (and is still enjoying something of a) vogue, there probably isn't an argument to make. I'm guessing it predates Machiavelli by a fair bit, but I'm already well out of my element. Has anyone out there come across this phrase, and precisely this phrase, before the mid-sixteenth century? I feel certain it must be out there somewhere.

So--to borrow from Jerome K. Jerome--these are just the idle thoughts of an idle fellow. But any tips or leads would be very much appreciated, if for no other reason than to satisfy my undirected and unfruitful curiosity.

*This post is now the first return in a Google search for "by force or guile." How odd!