Historicism has been the reigning mode in Marvell studies for some time now. But as critics such as Derek Hirst and Steven Zwicker have shown, some of his work resists thick historicist micro-analysis; its core lies elsewhere. What new and old methods should we deploy, either in resistance to or in tandem with historicism, to further our understanding of this self-denying, enigmatic writer? Should we return to theory, assuming we ever left it? What can, for example, disability studies or cognitive/evolutionary studies reveal? Marvell’s career might look very different through one or more of these grids.
Please send CVs and proposals (max. 150 words) to Alex Garganigo [agarganigo[at]austincollege.edu] by Tuesday, 31 May 2015.