An indigenous canon of letters, Ross argues, had been both the hope and aim of English authors since the Middle Ages. Early authors believed that promoting the idea of a national literature would help publicize their work and favour literary production in the vernacular. Ross places these early gestures toward canon-making in the context of the highly rhetorical habits of thought that dominated medieval and Renaissance culture, habits that were gradually displaced by an emergent rationalist understanding of literary value. He shows that, beginning in the late seventeenth century, canon-makers became less concerned with how English literature was produced than with how it was read and received. By showing that canon-formation has served different functions in the past, The Making of the English Literary Canon is relevant not only to current debates over the canon but also as an important corrective to prevailing views of early modern English literature and of how it was first evaluated, promoted, and preserved.

Trevor Ross teaches English at Dalhousie University. He is the author of The Making of the English Literary Canon: From the Middle Ages to the Late Eighteenth Century.

Trevor Ross' profile page

"An important analytical history of the cultural perceptions of English literature ... strongly recommended, particularly for graduate students, researchers, and faculty." CHOICE "The Making of the English Literary Canon is the definitive historical account of literary canon making in English. Lucidly written and soundly researched, it makes accessible a vast body of materials that has barely received the critical attention it deserves. The book covers an impressive range from the medieval and Renaissance periods through to the end of the eighteenth century. Comparing various forms of canon making, from the fifteenth-century antiquarians' lists to Samuel Johnson's Lives, Ross brings together writers who are never usually considered within the bindings of a single book. Ross's sociological approach to the questions of literary production, consumption, and reproduction will provide an important corrective to some aspects of knee-jerk Foucauldianism among New Historicists." Marcie Frank, Department of English, Concordia University