The Philological Association of the Carolinas:

1977-1985
Earl J. Wilcox
Winthrop College
When in 1973Charles B. Vail became President of Winthrop College,
he established a series of outreach programs as one of his priorities. Given
the history of the college(when Vail came Winthrop was the South Carolina
College for Women), various initiatives seemed necessary to help change
the image Winthrop had maintained for about ninety years. To implement
the changes, President Vail also made administrative appointments, among
which was a new dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. Shortly
thereafter, then, William C. Moran became Dean of Arts & Sciences, and
Earl J. Wilcox was named to chair the Department of English and Drama.
Both thought that faculty development through scholarship and other professional activities might be productive in helping foster a new image for
the institution.
Winthrop College had had a modest but solid cadre of scholars for
many years prior to the early 1970's. In the History Department, for example, was Mary Elizabeth Massey, the first woman President of the
Southern Historical Association; and among English Department faculty
were John Eells, an Arnold scholar and Hampton Jarrell, a widely-respected
writer. In the Modern and Classical Languages Department, Joseph Zdenek
and his colleague, Lawrence D. Joiner, were reading papers at regional and
national conferences and publishing regularly. Wilcox had been affiliated
with philological associations in Arkansas and Tennessee prior to coming
to South Carolina and had returned to those states, along with Joiner and
Zdenek, to read papers in 1971-76. The time seemed right when Moran
assembled the three colleagues to encourage the establishment of an annual conference similar to other regional philological associations. Wilcox
agreed to be the interim President; Zdenek served as Vice-President; and
Joiner as Secretary-Treasurer. All were elected to these positions at the first
business meeting of the conference.
Before deciding on a format, the dates, or even a name for the group,
the interim officers sent out a questionnaire to scholars in the Carolinas.

69

71

70
Ample enthusiasm existed, they believed, to warrant the first program. President Vail and Dean Moran gave both intellectual and financial support to
the endeavor, and without their belief in the value of the association (not
simply for an image but also for the intellectual stimulation it could provide in the region), the first meeting would never have taken place. Though
it was true, as William Naufftus points out nine years later in Postscript,
that some colleagues in the Carolinas were not encouraging, "courage and
determination" prevailed, and the first annual meeting of the Philological
Association of the Carolinas (quickly shortened to PAC) was held on March
4-5, 1977, at Winthrop College in Rock Hill. Scholars from across the
Southeast assisted in important ways with the first meeting; colleagues not
only at Winthrop but at nearby institutions, such as Clemson, the University of South Carolina, North Carolina State, the University of North
Carolina at Charlotte, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
were also generous in their efforts. This spirit of cooperation and the motivation for the project are reflected in the "presidential remarks" printed in
the first program brochure. There Wilcox wrote,
The inauguration of another professional society for
philological interests may seem an unwise venture during an age
in which many societies abound. However, I am convinced that
our undertaking will prosper. Indeed, the rich program which
we present at this first meeting of the Philological Association
of the Carolinas attests to the need which inspired the founding
of the Association.
During the past decade we have seen a proliferation of
associations devoted to special interests groups: popular culture,
comparative literature, modern literature, humanities, honors,
and other specialized groups. But none of these societies has addressed itself to the generally broad areas which still produce
the most significant scholarship in colleges and universities.
There is currently no organization in the Carolinas which exists
to promote scholarly exchange of ideas within the broad areas
of philological studies.
... We asked your advice about when we should meet and
what kind of format we should use. We also asked for volunteers
to help us organize various sections of this first program; you
responded with alacrity and enthusiasm. This inaugural presentation was organized and is chaired by scholars who have given
generously of their time on behalf of this event. The result is
a program with participants from forty institutions in ten states.
We think this is an auspicious beginning; we applaud your
support and ask your continued interest in the Philological
Association of the Carolinas.
The list of participants at the inaugural meeting is still impressive.
Among the readers were Hugh Holman, Rayburn Moore, Mary Ann Witt,

Weldon Thornton, George M. Harper, Robert J. Niess, Richard Finneran,

plus sixty-five others. In addition, the eminent Dante scholar, Wallace
Fowlie (Duke), was the first banquet speaker at the 1977 meeting. All in
all, seventy-twopapers were read, encompassinga wide range of philological
disciplines. From the first, a genuine spirit of intellectual pursuit flavored
with congeniality, warmth, and camaraderie characterized the PAC
meetings. This tone was fostered both by the good will and intelligence of
colleagues such as Hugh Holman and Don Joiner, both of whom have died
since the founding of the organization. Their urbanity and joie de vivre
infected everyone who worked closely with the founding of PAC, and such
attitudes account yet for the pleasant memories one has in recalling the early
meetings of the group.
Beginning with the second meeting in 1978, a regular feature of PAC
has been the reading of works in progress, followed by a wine and cheese
reception, each Thursday evening as conferees begin to gather for the main
program on following days. Suggested by Richard Calhoun, this prologue
to each meeting has delighted all who have managed to arrive on Thursdays.
Survival has sometimes been a key ingredient in these gatherings, as witness
unexpected snow storms which stranded or delayed several on their way
to Rock Hill in 1978and again in Charleston in 1983. Grace Freeman, Mark
Stedman, Susan Ludvigson, Fred Chappell, Guy Owen, Robert Bristow,
William Price Fox, Heather Ross Miller, Shelby Stevenson, and others have
provided evidence of the remarkable wealth of creative writing in the
Carolinas through the reading of their works in progress at PAC.
In addition to poets and fiction writers, other distinguished guests have
addressed PAC audiences. Among these are Morse Peckham, Wallace
Fowlie, Cleanth Brooks, Doris Betts, Stephen Spender, John Dowling,
James Laughlin, and Blyden Jackson. Each has added to the variety and
richness of the Southern hospitality that continues to flourish each spring
when PAC assembles.
Perhaps the surest sign of the maturation of PAC is the variety of activities in which the organization now engages. For instance, early on a colleague suggested that honoring a Carolinas scholar annually would enliven
the conference. Accordingly, in 1980, C. Hugh Holman was the first to
be honored with a special section of papers written by former students and
colleagues. In subsequent years, Edouard Morot-Sir, Blyden Jackson, Germaine Bree, and others have been so honored. Another example of the
PAC's diversity and growth is the awarding of an annual prize for the best
paper read at the conference. " 'Mirrors Arranged in a Circle Around One
Center': The O'Connor Mystery Cycle," was Andrea Sanders' (Francis
Marion) work which was named recipient of the first Joiner Prize in 1985.
The award honors the late Don Joiner. An equally impressive indication

72
of growth and strength is Postscript, the publication of the Philological
Association of the Carolinas. Edited first by C. Michael Smith and currently by William F. Naufftus (both of Winthrop), the journal epitomizes
the high quality of essays read annually. Significantly, the second volume
(1985), while containing only thirteen essays, represents seventy-six papers
nominated from a total of 315 read at the 1983Citadel and the 1984Chapel
Hill meetings. Remarks by the editor in the Introduction to Vol. 2 reiterate
the ways in which the journal is a microcosm of PAC. He notes, "The collection.. .attempts to suggest the variety of critical approaches presented at
our conferences; new critical analyses, and even appreciations, are as
welcome as structuralist and poststructuralist readings..." (iii). The esprit
de corps of PAC is thoughtfully stated in Naufftus's view of the manner
in which Postscript mirrors the association as a whole:
Another healthy sign of diversity has carried over from the
conference programs; senior faculty with national and international reputations here rub shoulders, or pages, with temporary
instructors, exigencyfaculty, and assistant professors whose doctoral diplomas were presented as recently as last summer. No
conscious effort was made to bring about this result, but the
nature of our organization guaranteed that a representative
volume of our best articles would be authored by both established scholars and new members of the profession (iii).
Most impressive of all features of the first decade of PAC are the
statistics indicating the variety and scope of the more than 850 papers read
at the annual meetings. Few surprises dot the list of papers grouped according to literature by various countries: American Literature (300); England
(148); Spain (93); France (72); Germany (43); Ireland (38); Latin America
(29); Italy (4); Scotland (3); and three broader categories, Classics(17);Comparative Literature (20); and a catch-all group, Miscellaneous(46). ~ot surprising, too, the overwhelming majority of the papers could be called simply
literary criticism (640),though pedagogical papers (21), studies in biography
(18), linguistics (11), and film (14), also suggest the cosmopolitan flavor
of scholarship in the organization. A regular and popular feature also has
been the inclusion of a number of special sessions each year. Fifty-four of
these have been arranged by PAC members during the first decade.
Reemphasizing the deep involvement of faculty from five institutions
in PAC is the number of readers who have appeared on the program during the first decade. In addition to 83 readers from non-Carolinas schools,
the other institutions providing readers include The University of South
Carolina (68), UNC-Chapel Hill (45), Clemson (35), Winthrop College (27);
.

and UNC-Charlotte(15).
Finally, a word about future prospects for PAC seems in order. To
say the least, the membership holds the key to any future success of the

73
organization. However, the difficult task of assembling the program, finding readers to referee papers, locating reliable persons to help with local
arrangements, and attending to a thousand other chores that must be done
to bring off a successful conference--these are even more integral keys to
future stability. The editor of Postscript (Vol. 2, vi) quite appropriately
lists the diligent officers who have helped recently, and to that list could
be added such gentlemen scholars as George Geckle and Alva Ebersole,
recent hosts who both epitomize the generosity necessary to make a PAC
meeting worthwhile. Likewise,the untiring efforts of the first three secretarytreasurers--Joiner, Smith, and Naufftus--must not go unnoticed. Though
the structure of the association is gradually evolving so that future officers
may not be compelled to give of their time in such an all-consuming manner as past officers, without an enthusiasm and a determination similar to
theirs, PAC cannot flourish as attractively as it has. Similarly, the efficient
manner in which William Thesing, Joel Myerson, and William Edmiston
at the University of South Carolina are currently conducting the business
of the group is noteworthy. Future executive committees, steering committees, and others in charge of the annual program would be wise, therefore,
to include seasoned workers from past programs in each planning session.
Whatever structure PAC takes, it will have to compete with the superb job
the officers of the first decade have done in providing a program ~hat has
been versatile, hearty, and, above all, exciting.