European History 1500-1800
Prof Rafe Blaufarb, (Florida State University)
'The Politics of Noble Fiscal Privilege'
Holden Room 103, Senate House, South block, 1st floor at 5 p.m.
Monday, 19 March 2012
The end of Anne Boleyn's life by Matthew Lyons
Matthew Lyons has a fascinating post on his blog covering the letter Alexander Ales sent to Queen Elizabeth I on the last hours of her mother, Anne Boleyn. It can be read via the link here.
Shakespeare and Memory: conference programme
Shakespeare et la mémoire
Programme du Congrès 2012 de la Société Française Shakespeare
Jeudi 22 mars 2012
Après-midi
Président de séance : Gilles Bertheau
14h : Henri Suhamy (Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense) : La mémoire et l'oubli dans les œuvres de Shakespeare
14h30 : Tatiana Burtin (Montréal/Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense) : Shakespeare et la mémoire théâtrale de l’avarice dans The Merchant of Venice
15h : Isabel Karremann (Munich) :Shakespeare and Forgetting
15h30 : Discussion
16h : Pause
Président de séance : Chantal Schütz
16h30 : David Tuaillon (Paris) :Macbeth sous les bombes, Shakespeare sous la neige : un souvenir d’enfance d’Edward Bond
17h : David Pearce : Shakespeare Remembers Shakespeare Remembered
17h30 : Discussion autour d’un thé
Soir : Théâtre de Chaillot, salle Jean Vilar
18h30 : Contes africains d’après Shakespeare, mise en scène K. Warlikowski
Vendredi 23 mars 2012
Matin
Président de séance : Pierre Kapitaniak
9h : Christine Sukic (Reims) : « The safe memorie of dead men » : réécriture nostalgique de l’héroïsme dans l’Angleterre de la première modernité
9h30 : Andrew Hiscock (Bangor) : Shakespeare, the Play of History and the War on Memory
10h : Discussion
10h30 : Pause
Président de séance : Line Cottegnies
11h : Christophe Hausermann (Nancy) : « Worthy Deeds […] eternized in the Books of Memory » : Syncretic Memory in Richard Johnson’s Chivalric Romances and Shakespeare’s 2 Henry VI
11h30 : Jonathan Baldo (Rochester) : Acts of Oblivion in the Second Tetralogy: Shakespeare as Truant Historian or Princely Negotiator?
12h : Discussion
Après-midi
Président de séance : François Laroque
14h : Rencontre avec Krzysztof Warlikowski : animée par Catherine Treilhou-Balaudé et Lucie Vérot
15h : Roger Chartier (Collège de France) : Cardenio retrouvé
16h : Pause
Président de séance : Nathalie Vienne-Guerrin
16h30 : Clara Calvo (Huelva) : Shakespeare, lieu de mémoire
17h : Claire Guéron (Dijon) : What the Audience Remembers in Julius Caesar
17h30 : Atsuhiko Hirota (Kyoto) :
The Memory of Hesione: Intertextuality and Social Amnesia in Troilus and Cressida
18h : Discussion
Soir : Théâtre de Chaillot, salle Jean Vilar
18h30 : Contes africains d’après Shakespeare, mise en scène K. Warlikowski
Samedi 24 mars 2012
Matin
9h30 : Assemblée générale de la Société Française Shakespeare
12h : Déjeuner
Après-midi
Président de séance : Sarah Hatchuel
14h : William E. Engel (Sewanee) : ‘Locative Memory’ and the Circulation of ‘Mnemic Energy’ in The Winter’s Tale
14h30 : Nathalie Vienne-Guerrin (Montpellier/IRCL) :« His meanest garment ! » (Cymbeline, 2.3.133) : Cymbeline et la mémoire des mots
15h : Discussion
15h30 : Pause
Président de séance : Yves Peyré
16h : Peter Happé (Southampton) : ‘You ha’ ’freshed my rememory well’ : Memory in Jonson’s Late Plays
16h30 : Gilles Bertheau (Tours) : Entre mémoire, oubli et ressassement : le héros chapmanien face aux ‘rois modernes’
17h : Discussion
17h30 : OuLiPo : Variations Shakespeare
Cocktail en l’honneur du quarantième anniversaire des Cahiers élisabéthains
Remise du Prix du Mémoire au lauréat 2012 .
Pasted.
Programme du Congrès 2012 de la Société Française Shakespeare
Jeudi 22 mars 2012
Après-midi
Président de séance : Gilles Bertheau
14h : Henri Suhamy (Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense) : La mémoire et l'oubli dans les œuvres de Shakespeare
14h30 : Tatiana Burtin (Montréal/Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense) : Shakespeare et la mémoire théâtrale de l’avarice dans The Merchant of Venice
15h : Isabel Karremann (Munich) :Shakespeare and Forgetting
15h30 : Discussion
16h : Pause
Président de séance : Chantal Schütz
16h30 : David Tuaillon (Paris) :Macbeth sous les bombes, Shakespeare sous la neige : un souvenir d’enfance d’Edward Bond
17h : David Pearce : Shakespeare Remembers Shakespeare Remembered
17h30 : Discussion autour d’un thé
Soir : Théâtre de Chaillot, salle Jean Vilar
18h30 : Contes africains d’après Shakespeare, mise en scène K. Warlikowski
Vendredi 23 mars 2012
Matin
Président de séance : Pierre Kapitaniak
9h : Christine Sukic (Reims) : « The safe memorie of dead men » : réécriture nostalgique de l’héroïsme dans l’Angleterre de la première modernité
9h30 : Andrew Hiscock (Bangor) : Shakespeare, the Play of History and the War on Memory
10h : Discussion
10h30 : Pause
Président de séance : Line Cottegnies
11h : Christophe Hausermann (Nancy) : « Worthy Deeds […] eternized in the Books of Memory » : Syncretic Memory in Richard Johnson’s Chivalric Romances and Shakespeare’s 2 Henry VI
11h30 : Jonathan Baldo (Rochester) : Acts of Oblivion in the Second Tetralogy: Shakespeare as Truant Historian or Princely Negotiator?
12h : Discussion
Après-midi
Président de séance : François Laroque
14h : Rencontre avec Krzysztof Warlikowski : animée par Catherine Treilhou-Balaudé et Lucie Vérot
15h : Roger Chartier (Collège de France) : Cardenio retrouvé
16h : Pause
Président de séance : Nathalie Vienne-Guerrin
16h30 : Clara Calvo (Huelva) : Shakespeare, lieu de mémoire
17h : Claire Guéron (Dijon) : What the Audience Remembers in Julius Caesar
17h30 : Atsuhiko Hirota (Kyoto) :
The Memory of Hesione: Intertextuality and Social Amnesia in Troilus and Cressida
18h : Discussion
Soir : Théâtre de Chaillot, salle Jean Vilar
18h30 : Contes africains d’après Shakespeare, mise en scène K. Warlikowski
Samedi 24 mars 2012
Matin
9h30 : Assemblée générale de la Société Française Shakespeare
12h : Déjeuner
Après-midi
Président de séance : Sarah Hatchuel
14h : William E. Engel (Sewanee) : ‘Locative Memory’ and the Circulation of ‘Mnemic Energy’ in The Winter’s Tale
14h30 : Nathalie Vienne-Guerrin (Montpellier/IRCL) :« His meanest garment ! » (Cymbeline, 2.3.133) : Cymbeline et la mémoire des mots
15h : Discussion
15h30 : Pause
Président de séance : Yves Peyré
16h : Peter Happé (Southampton) : ‘You ha’ ’freshed my rememory well’ : Memory in Jonson’s Late Plays
16h30 : Gilles Bertheau (Tours) : Entre mémoire, oubli et ressassement : le héros chapmanien face aux ‘rois modernes’
17h : Discussion
17h30 : OuLiPo : Variations Shakespeare
Cocktail en l’honneur du quarantième anniversaire des Cahiers élisabéthains
Remise du Prix du Mémoire au lauréat 2012 .
Pasted.
Round-up
Noah Moxham has some observations on 'What's Newsworthy' at News Networks in Early Modern Europe. His comments can be read here.
English Civil War.org has a comprehensive list of events to be held this spring and summer to be found here.
James Mawdesley (Sheffield University) offers an outline of his research programme on Royalist clergy, particularly in the North of England, here.
Social Sciences has an abstract of a thesis on 'The course and consequences of British involvement in the Dutch political and religious disputes of the early seventeenth century' here. This appears to be available for sale.
English Civil War.org has a comprehensive list of events to be held this spring and summer to be found here.
James Mawdesley (Sheffield University) offers an outline of his research programme on Royalist clergy, particularly in the North of England, here.
Social Sciences has an abstract of a thesis on 'The course and consequences of British involvement in the Dutch political and religious disputes of the early seventeenth century' here. This appears to be available for sale.
Sunday, 18 March 2012
On the historiography of the English Civil War
Over the last three years, I have become more sympathetic to Keith Livesey’s blog, A Trumpet of Sedition. I have grown to like him too. This is partly because he is an unrepentant Marxist of a kind much more common when I was an undergraduate and postgraduate in the 1960s. He believes that the events of the period between 1640 and 1660 were a genuine revolution, that they had as their principal causes antecedent economic and social changes and that they paved the way for the emergence and triumph of capitalism in England with all the momentous consequences that had for the world as a whole in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Christopher Hill, it is no surprise to find, is one of his heroes in the ranks of professional historians and he is no less interested in the Communist Party’s group of historians that flourished in the late-1940s and until the mid-1950s. This is a perfectly respectable and defensible position although not one that I accepted either in the 1960s or subsequently. (One of my favourite conversational gambits when confronted by a Marxist four or five decades ago was to deny that there had been a ‘Revolution’ in a recognisably Marxist sense at all.)
Keith Livesey recently (13th March) commented on the views of the Editor of History Today, Paul Lay, on the contents of a revised National Curriculum for history. He agreed with Paul Lay that it should cover the English Civil War and offered his agreement if the former meant “that the English Revolution paved the way for capitalism to flourish in England”. But he was apprehensive that Paul Lay seemed to belong to a group of historians who “have sought to revise previous Marxist historiography of the English Civil War.” He went further when he expressed the view that Paul Lay and other revisionist historians had downplayed the role of economics in people’s actions at that time. “Lay’s real beef is with Marxist historiography .... Lay blames Marxist historians such as Christopher Hill for using base and superstructure to best understand the civil war. Lay believes that the demise of Marxism has once again brought the role of religion as the main driving force behind civil war. Lay has the right to his ideology but the constant attack by revisionists and their apologists is doing untold disservice to those students who wish to have a multi rather than one dimensional understanding of the civil war.”
I am sure that Paul Lay, if he so wishes, is perfectly capable of responding to these criticisms. Nonetheless, there are some important points that need clarifying for the record. There was never a time when Marxist interpretations of the English Civil War or the English Revolution constituted an established historiographical orthodoxy in this country (the United Kingdom). Nor did they do so in the United States. Hugh Trevor-Roper, John Cooper and Jack Hexter’s criticisms decisively punctured the sub-Marxist explanations of Tawney, Stone, Hill, and others: this was why there was such an explosion of advanced research into the gentry’s fortunes and the experience of counties from the late-1950s onwards. Christopher Hill himself came to the view by the 1970s that the events of the 1640s were not the result of the rise of the bourgeoisie but the precondition for such a rise later in the seventeenth century. He was severely criticised by figures like Norah Carlin for such apostasy.
The second major point that I should make is that ‘Revisionism’ as it came to be termed had a very short life-span. It was born in the mid-1970s with Conrad Russell’s work on the Parliaments of the 1620s and was defunct after 1990-1991 when his works on The Causes of the English Civil War and The Fall of the British Monarchies 1637-1642 appeared in print. There has been no campaign of continuing criticism of Marxist historiography in this area or of Christopher Hill’s body of work because both have, in general terms, ceased to be regarded as relevant by academic historians. The debates amongst historians of the Civil War period have moved on a very long way over the last twenty years or more. No historian that I know maintains that economic and social changes before 1640 were unimportant or unrelated to the events of the years thereafter. But very few would maintain that economic and social changes in themselves were decisive in determining the outcomes of the military struggles between Royalists and Parliamentarians in England or the conflicts in Ireland and Scotland. Much more sophisticated connections between intellectual and popular culture, between literacy levels and political and religious changes, between the rise of aristocratic constitutionalism and the demands of landed and mercantile elites have been developed since Christopher Hill’s prime. The terms of the debates will no doubt continue to change. That is right and proper in academic history. Whigs, Marxists and Revisionists have had their day and now belong to the students of intellectual historiography.
Keith Livesey recently (13th March) commented on the views of the Editor of History Today, Paul Lay, on the contents of a revised National Curriculum for history. He agreed with Paul Lay that it should cover the English Civil War and offered his agreement if the former meant “that the English Revolution paved the way for capitalism to flourish in England”. But he was apprehensive that Paul Lay seemed to belong to a group of historians who “have sought to revise previous Marxist historiography of the English Civil War.” He went further when he expressed the view that Paul Lay and other revisionist historians had downplayed the role of economics in people’s actions at that time. “Lay’s real beef is with Marxist historiography .... Lay blames Marxist historians such as Christopher Hill for using base and superstructure to best understand the civil war. Lay believes that the demise of Marxism has once again brought the role of religion as the main driving force behind civil war. Lay has the right to his ideology but the constant attack by revisionists and their apologists is doing untold disservice to those students who wish to have a multi rather than one dimensional understanding of the civil war.”
I am sure that Paul Lay, if he so wishes, is perfectly capable of responding to these criticisms. Nonetheless, there are some important points that need clarifying for the record. There was never a time when Marxist interpretations of the English Civil War or the English Revolution constituted an established historiographical orthodoxy in this country (the United Kingdom). Nor did they do so in the United States. Hugh Trevor-Roper, John Cooper and Jack Hexter’s criticisms decisively punctured the sub-Marxist explanations of Tawney, Stone, Hill, and others: this was why there was such an explosion of advanced research into the gentry’s fortunes and the experience of counties from the late-1950s onwards. Christopher Hill himself came to the view by the 1970s that the events of the 1640s were not the result of the rise of the bourgeoisie but the precondition for such a rise later in the seventeenth century. He was severely criticised by figures like Norah Carlin for such apostasy.
The second major point that I should make is that ‘Revisionism’ as it came to be termed had a very short life-span. It was born in the mid-1970s with Conrad Russell’s work on the Parliaments of the 1620s and was defunct after 1990-1991 when his works on The Causes of the English Civil War and The Fall of the British Monarchies 1637-1642 appeared in print. There has been no campaign of continuing criticism of Marxist historiography in this area or of Christopher Hill’s body of work because both have, in general terms, ceased to be regarded as relevant by academic historians. The debates amongst historians of the Civil War period have moved on a very long way over the last twenty years or more. No historian that I know maintains that economic and social changes before 1640 were unimportant or unrelated to the events of the years thereafter. But very few would maintain that economic and social changes in themselves were decisive in determining the outcomes of the military struggles between Royalists and Parliamentarians in England or the conflicts in Ireland and Scotland. Much more sophisticated connections between intellectual and popular culture, between literacy levels and political and religious changes, between the rise of aristocratic constitutionalism and the demands of landed and mercantile elites have been developed since Christopher Hill’s prime. The terms of the debates will no doubt continue to change. That is right and proper in academic history. Whigs, Marxists and Revisionists have had their day and now belong to the students of intellectual historiography.
Posts to note
Essex Voices Past has some images of the devil in the late-medieval and early modern period that are well worth examining here.
languagehat has a fascinating post on Adam Nicolson's discussion of the survival of a yeoman's library in the village of Troutbeck in Westmorland. It can be accessed via the link here.
The Eagle Clawed Wolfe has an interesting post on the rebellion of Dumbarton's regiment in 1689. It can be read here.
Purdue University has posted a notice of a talk by Professor Isabel Jaen Portillo on 30th March on the subject of Cognition and Gender in Early Modern Spanish Literature here.
languagehat has a fascinating post on Adam Nicolson's discussion of the survival of a yeoman's library in the village of Troutbeck in Westmorland. It can be accessed via the link here.
The Eagle Clawed Wolfe has an interesting post on the rebellion of Dumbarton's regiment in 1689. It can be read here.
Purdue University has posted a notice of a talk by Professor Isabel Jaen Portillo on 30th March on the subject of Cognition and Gender in Early Modern Spanish Literature here.
University of Southern California and the Huntington Library: Andrew W.Mellon Post-Doctoral Teaching Fellowship in Early Modern Visual Culture
Andrew W. Mellon Postdoctoral Teaching Fellowship in Early Modern Visual Culture, 2012-2014.
The fellowship has an annual salary in the first year of $59,000, plus fringe benefits and a yearly $2,000 research/travel allowance. The fellow will teach one course per semester in Dornsife College and participate in relevant EMSI and VSRI programs. EMSI, founded in 2003, is a partnership between the University of Southern California and the Huntington Library.
The Institute sponsors 75 to 90 scholarly presentations each year, has an annual conference, an annual workshop with the William and Mary Quarterly, and together with the University of Pennsylvania Press sponsors a book series on “The Early Modern Americas.” The VSRI is a new initiative that brings together faculty and graduate students investigating visual culture from an interdisciplinary perspective. It draws on the existing strengths of the Visual Studies Graduate Certificate at USC, and on the rich collections in the larger Los Angeles area, including those of the Huntington Library, Getty Research Institute, Getty Museum, and LACMA. For its initial three years (2012–15), the VSRI will focus on the theme “Visual Evidence.”
To apply, please submit the following materials to the USC Web site: a cover letter discussing research and publication goals and teaching, a C.V., a dissertation abstract, and a writing sample. Two letters of recommendation should be submitted directly by the referees; at least one of them must discuss the applicant’s teaching abilities. The deadline for the receipt of all materials is March 30, 2012.
To be considered, candidates must have completed all of the requirements for the Ph.D. by August 15, 2012. Review of applications will begin immediately and will continue until the position is filled. More information about the specific job duties and instructions for applying, can be found at the USC jobs Web site, http://capsnet.usc.edu/ers. Please reference requisition #012650. Inquiries should be directed to emsi(at)usc.edu. Information about EMSI programs can be found at usc.edu/emsi and information about the VSGC at http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/visualstudies/. Details about the Huntington’s holdings can be found at huntington.org. USC strongly values diversity and is committed to equal opportunity in employment. Women and men, and members of all racial and ethnic groups, are encouraged to apply.
Pasted.
The fellowship has an annual salary in the first year of $59,000, plus fringe benefits and a yearly $2,000 research/travel allowance. The fellow will teach one course per semester in Dornsife College and participate in relevant EMSI and VSRI programs. EMSI, founded in 2003, is a partnership between the University of Southern California and the Huntington Library.
The Institute sponsors 75 to 90 scholarly presentations each year, has an annual conference, an annual workshop with the William and Mary Quarterly, and together with the University of Pennsylvania Press sponsors a book series on “The Early Modern Americas.” The VSRI is a new initiative that brings together faculty and graduate students investigating visual culture from an interdisciplinary perspective. It draws on the existing strengths of the Visual Studies Graduate Certificate at USC, and on the rich collections in the larger Los Angeles area, including those of the Huntington Library, Getty Research Institute, Getty Museum, and LACMA. For its initial three years (2012–15), the VSRI will focus on the theme “Visual Evidence.”
To apply, please submit the following materials to the USC Web site: a cover letter discussing research and publication goals and teaching, a C.V., a dissertation abstract, and a writing sample. Two letters of recommendation should be submitted directly by the referees; at least one of them must discuss the applicant’s teaching abilities. The deadline for the receipt of all materials is March 30, 2012.
To be considered, candidates must have completed all of the requirements for the Ph.D. by August 15, 2012. Review of applications will begin immediately and will continue until the position is filled. More information about the specific job duties and instructions for applying, can be found at the USC jobs Web site, http://capsnet.usc.edu/ers. Please reference requisition #012650. Inquiries should be directed to emsi(at)usc.edu. Information about EMSI programs can be found at usc.edu/emsi and information about the VSGC at http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/visualstudies/. Details about the Huntington’s holdings can be found at huntington.org. USC strongly values diversity and is committed to equal opportunity in employment. Women and men, and members of all racial and ethnic groups, are encouraged to apply.
Pasted.
Saturday, 17 March 2012
Duke University Law School Lecture on 'Torture, Confession and Proof in Early Modern Europe'
Duke University Law School 3037
19th March, 2012 from 12.15 to 1.15 p.m.
Professor John Martin (History Department, Duke University) will give a talk entitled "Torture, Confession, and Proof in Early Modern Europe." Lunch will be served. For more information, please contact Patrick Jamieson at patrick.jamieson@duke.edu.
Pasted.
19th March, 2012 from 12.15 to 1.15 p.m.
Professor John Martin (History Department, Duke University) will give a talk entitled "Torture, Confession, and Proof in Early Modern Europe." Lunch will be served. For more information, please contact Patrick Jamieson at patrick.jamieson@duke.edu.
Pasted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)