2. Graff, Gerald, Professing Literature: An Institutional History (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987); Bloom, Allan, The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today's Students (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987); Derrida, Jacques, Acts of Literature, ed. Attridge, Derek (New York: Routledge, 1991); Guillory, John, Cultural Capital the Problem of Literary Canon Formation, ACLS Humanities E-Book (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993); Attridge, Derek, The Singularity of Literature (London: Routledge, 2004); English, James F., The Economy of Prestige: Prizes, Awards, and the Circulation of Cultural Value (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005).
3. This presentation, given in May 2016, was one stage of a larger collaborative project called “‘Literature/Littérature’: History of a Word,” which involves researchers from the Stanford Literary Lab; the Sorbonne, Paris; Loyola University New Orleans; and the Max Planck Institute, Frankfurt.
4. David McClure, e-mail message to author, June 20, 2016.
5. Williams, Raymond, Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985).
6. Hughes, Linda K., “SIDEWAYS!: Navigating the Material(ity) of Print Culture,” Victorian Periodicals Review 47, no. 1 (2014): 1–30, 1–2. Hughes makes an argument for “sequential rather than ‘data mining’ approaches to reading periodicals” (2), a framework that describes her method of transforming texts into three-dimensional historical debates, as when she reframes Arnold's essays on culture as part of a longer conversation.
7. DeWitt, Anne, “Advances in the Visualization of Data: The Network of Genre in the Victorian Periodical Press,” Victorian Periodicals Review 48, no. 2 (2015): 161–82. DeWitt argues that readers create genre retrospectively in 1880s periodicals. She points out that “even the drastic expansion of the canon that Moretti calls for ignores the ‘large mass of facts’ that constitute Victorian print culture, an oversight that becomes all the more problematic given the well-established imbrication of novels with the periodical press” (162).
8. Williams, Keywords, 152 (emphasis mine).
9. Williams, Keywords, 145. “Poetry had been the high skills of writing and speaking in the special context of high imagination; the word could be moved in either direction. Literature, in its C19 sense, repeated this, though excluding speaking,” but in recent years, he adds, “literature and literary … have been increasingly challenged by concepts of writing and communication which seek to recover the most active and general senses which the extreme specialization had seemed to exclude” (154). He also notes that “in relation to the past, Carlyle and Ruskin, for example, who did not write novels or poems or plays, belong to English literature” (152).
10. “literature, n.,” OED Online.
11. The database is designed to “enable new lines of inquiry into canon formation, the evolution of disciplines, pedagogical change, and institutional history” (“About—The Open Syllabus Project,” http://opensyllabusproject.org/faq).
12. English, Thomas H., “Contemporary Literature,” South Atlantic Bulletin 5, no. 1 (1939): 1–6; The Norton Anthology of English Literature, 9th ed., ed. Abrams, M. H., Greenblatt, Stephen, et al. (New York: Norton, 2012); Hart, Chris, Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination (London: Sage, 1998). If one restricts the search to “English,” the third book listed in the results is a reference source: Harmon's, William A Handbook to Literature, 12th ed. (Boston: Pearson, 2011).