This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are used for visitor analysis, others are essential to making our site function properly and improve the user experience. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Click Accept to consent and dismiss this message or Deny to leave this website. Read our Privacy Statement for more.
Print Page   |   Sign In   |   Register
Literature CfPs for RSA 2019 Toronto
Blog Home All Blogs
This blog is for CfPs for sessions in literature for RSA 2019 Toronto. Members may post CfPs here: sign in to RSA and select "add new post" to do so. Your post should include a title, and the CfP itself should be no longer than 250 words. Adding tags (key words) to your post will help others find your CfP. Make sure the CfP includes the organizer's name, email address or mail-to link for email address, and a deadline for proposals. Non-members may email rsa@rsa.org to post a CfP. Please use the email address of the session organizer posted in the CfP to submit a paper proposal. CfPs are posted in order of receipt, with the newest postings appearing at the top of the blog. Members may subscribe to the blog to be notified when new CfPs are posted: click on the word Subscribe next to the green checkmark above.

 

Search all posts for:   

 

Top tags: Literature  early modern  gender  book history  Poetry  material culture  print culture  Renaissance literature  drama  Iberian Peninsula  identity  women  epic poetry  history of reading  printers  reception history  religion  archival research  art history  catholic reform  classical literature  classical reception  colonial Latin America  cultural history  devotional  digital humanities  history of the book  interdisciplinary  Italian literature  Italy 

Translations of Antiquity from Rome to the Renaissance

Posted By Leon Grek, Wednesday, July 25, 2018

In the course of urging his compatriots not to limit themselves to translating classical works into the vernacular, Joachim du Bellay devotes an entire chapter of his 1549 treatise, La Deffence et illustration de la langue françoyse, to the role of translation in the development of Latin literature. He begins with a question: “If the Romans (someone will say) had not undertaken this labor of translation, by what means then could they have so enriched their language, even to the point of making it equal, almost, to the Greek?” Although Du Bellay himself goes on to argue that the translation of Greek texts into Latin was merely a necessary, but not a sufficient step towards the perfection of Classical Latinity, the argument advanced by his imagined interlocutor reflects the enduring importance of what Denis Feeney terms “the Roman translation project” to Renaissance translators and literary theorists: from Ludovico Ariosto, who links his own imitations of comedies by Plautus and Terence to the Roman playwrights’ adaptation of Greek originals; to Francis Meres, who compares Terence, Germanicus, and Ausonius to a whole host of Elizabethan translators, including “Phaer for Virgils Aeneads, Golding for Ouids Metamorphosis, Harington for his Orlando Furioso, […] and Chapman for his inchoate Homer.”

This panel aims to explore and extend this comparative enterprise, by considering the relationship between ancient and early modern translation cultures from a variety of methodological and disciplinary perspectives. We welcome papers that explore the use of classical Latin translations as authorizing precedents for Renaissance translators, or investigate the Renaissance reception of theoretical, or quasi-theoretical statements on translation by Roman authors, including Terence, Cicero, Horace, and Jerome. But we are also interested in papers that adopt comparative or synchronic approaches to the subject. How do post-Classical Latin translators of Greek texts continue or diverge from the practices of their Classical predecessors? How might our understanding of the Roman translation project be enriched by considering it in terms of early modern vernacularization? And how, in turn, might recognizing the vernacularity of Roman literature complicate our understanding of the evolving interactions between classical, vernacular, and neo-Latin literary traditions throughout the early modern period?

Please send title (15-word maximum), abstract (150-word maximum), keywords, and a brief C.V. to the organizers, Leon Grek (leon.grek@gmail.com) and Adam Foley (adamtoddfoley@gmail.com) by August 10, 2018.

Tags:  classical reception  comparative translation studies  Latin literature  literary translation  the Roman translation project  translation of antiquity  translation theory  vernacularization 

Permalink
 

Classical and Early Modern Epic: Comparative Approaches and New Perspectives

Posted By Caroline G. Stark, Saturday, July 14, 2018

The Society for Early Modern Classical Reception (SEMCR) welcomes proposals for papers to be delivered at the 2019 meeting of the Renaissance Society of America in Toronto. For one of its four panels, SEMCR invites abstracts on the subject of “Classical and Early Modern Epic: Comparative Approaches and New Perspectives”. In particular, we welcome papers offering reassessments of the current state of the field from cross-cultural and cross-temporal perspectives, or proposing new approaches to the connections between classical and early modern epic using methodologies from philology, digital humanities, cognitive studies, visual studies, or world literature.


In the shadow of a rising nationalism, epic poetry has taken on an ever greater importance through its mediation of national identity and as a focal point of reference and contestation. Even within rarefied scholarly discussions, the study of the genre, like epic itself, can appear to dominate other material, whether less canonical genres or non-Western epic. While the genealogical bonds between classical and early modern epic can seem to strengthen national ideologies and academic conventions, however, the content of the poems often works against such assumptions. Moreover, increasing diversity in research methods and scope, especially through collaboration, enables the scholarly community to renew the study of epic in more expansive and imaginative ways. Our panel aims, therefore, to reflect on the reception of Greco-Roman epic in early modernity partly as a topic in its own right, and partly as a means of understanding more general issues of theory, practice, and canonicity in literature and culture at large.


Proposals responding to recent developments in the scholarship might address, but are not limited to, one of the following questions:


- In light of recent work by Mazzotta, Ramachandran, Laird, and others, how might attention to worldmaking, post-colonial thought, and classical reception in the New World reframe our understanding of the relationship between ancient and early modern epic?


- Does the study of the relationship between classical and early modern epic have anything to gain from comparison with non-Western material, e.g., the Indic tradition? More generally, what are the advantages and disadvantages of analysing these traditions in terms of genealogy, ecology (cf. Beecroft), cosmopolitanism (cf. Pollock), or other systemic relationships?


- What light can cross-disciplinary approaches, especially those using computational tools (cf. Coffee and Bernstein) or cognitive models (cf. Jaén and Simon), shed on continuities and disjunctions between ancient and early modern forms of the genre?


- How did the idea of epic change as a genre during the early modern period, in particular given the different transmission histories of classical epics, especially works in ancient Greek? How might the growing attention to neo-Latin literature affect the fields of epic and/or reception studies?


- Are there developments in the aesthetics of a particular period that shed light on goings-on elsewhere? Besides substantial interest in the sublime (Cheney) and the mock-epic (Rawson), recent work has also focused on the quotidian (Grogan). More generally, what comparative understanding of epic can be gleaned from a study of contemporary critics and theorists, e.g., Horace or Tasso?


- What areas of research in early modern epic might benefit from the contributions of classicists without an extensive background in the field, and vice versa?


The Society is committed to creating a congenial and collaborative forum for the infusion of new ideas into classics and early modern studies, and hence welcomes abstracts that are exploratory in nature as well as abstracts of latter-stage research.


Abstracts of no more than 150 words and a short CV of no more than 300 words should be sent as separate email attachments to caroline.stark@howard.edu (see the RSA's abstract guidelines and CV guidelines and models).  The abstracts will be judged anonymously: please do not identify yourself in any way on the abstract page.  Proposals must be received by August 10, 2018.


Please include in the body of the email:


• your name, affiliation, email address

• your paper title (15-word maximum)

• relevant keywords

Tags:  classical reception  epic 

Permalink
 

Connecting with the ancients: Philological reception in the Renaissance

Posted By Caroline G. Stark, Friday, July 13, 2018

As an Associate Organization of the Renaissance Society of America, the Society for Early Modern Classical Reception (SEMCR) invites proposals for papers on classical philology in the Renaissance to be delivered at the 2019 meeting of the Renaissance Society of America in Toronto.


Renaissance engagement with the linguistic and literary culture of antiquity - whether in the form of language study, textual transmission, or translation - constitutes a relatively coherent body of evidence through which to understand the processes of and motivations for ‘receiving’ the classics. Renaissance appropriations of Greek and Latin philology become vehicles of cross-cultural communication in an increasingly divided early modern Europe.  We welcome proposals that highlight the mutual benefits arising from closer engagement between classicists and early modernists on the topic of classical philology in the Renaissance.


The Society is committed to creating a congenial and collaborative forum for the infusion of new ideas into classics and early modern studies, and hence welcomes abstracts that are exploratory in nature as well as abstracts of latter-stage research.


Abstracts of no more than 150 words and a short CV of no more than 300 words should be sent as separate email attachments to caroline.stark@howard.edu (see the RSA's abstract guidelines and CV guidelines and models).  The abstracts will be judged anonymously: please do not identify yourself in any way on the abstract page.  Proposals must be received by August 10, 2018.


Please include in the body of the email:


• your name, affiliation, email address

• your paper title (15-word maximum)

• relevant keywords

Tags:  classical literature  classical reception  philology  translation  transmission 

Permalink
 

Ancient Enmities: Classicism and Religious Others

Posted By Caroline G. Stark, Friday, July 13, 2018

Renaissance Europe sought to define itself in relation to multiple models, prominent among which were ancient Greco-Roman culture and contemporary non-Christian (as well as Christian heterodox) cultures. The Humanist emulation of classical ideals in text and image occurred within a larger context of religious, ethnic, and frequently military interactions: the expansion of the Ottoman Empire, harassment from North African Corsairs, mass migrations of Jews, and internecine tensions resulting from the Protestant Reformation. The “classical” provided a discourse through which scholars and artists could negotiate a religious, national, or pan-European identity transhistorical in scope yet ultimately presentist in defining “the other”. This panel seeks to explore the function of the classical and classicism across these identities in both textual and material sources.

Points of contact between classical culture and religious others turned antiquity into a battleground of competing traditions. Underlying such tensions was a longstanding sense dating from Homer and Herodotus onwards of classical identity as culturally and geographically contested, its meaning located variously in Western Europe, the Mediterranean, and the Near East. Both as traces of ancient ethnographies and as largely presentist rhetoric, projections of classical identity in the Renaissance could be deployed in numerous and diverse ways. Trojan ancestry was claimed not only by various European noble lines, such as the Habsburgs and the Estes of Ferrara, but also by the Turks. Orthodox Greeks under Ottoman rule were ostracized as the barbaric descendants of their enlightened ancestors. Antiquarians in post-Reconquest Spain invented Roman origins to Andalusi architectural marvels, while Roman ruins in North Africa and the Ottoman Empire, represented both visually and through ekphrastic description, fueled dreams of European conquest. At the same time, the means by which the classical past were known could be diminished or lost: despite its importance during the Medieval period for accessing intellectual traditions, for example, Arabic struggled to maintain its place in European scholarship as a learned language alongside classical Greek and Latin, and even as other distant foreign traditions, such as Egyptian Hermeticism, fascinated artists and scholars.

The panel addresses two areas that have been the focus of recent research in Renaissance studies: intercultural relations and concepts of temporality. While the importance of the classics for European identity has been extensively studied, their role in defining what lay beyond Europe’s margins has received less attention. Some scholarship, however, has shown the potential richness of the field: Craig Kallendorf’s reading of the Aeneid’s portrayal of colonized entities (The Other Virgil, 2007), for example, and Nancy Bisaha’s study of the competing portrayals of the Ottoman Turks as either Goths, Vandals, Scythians or heirs to the Trojans and Romans (Creating East and West, 2006). Furthermore, the panel seeks to understand the temporal and explanatory concepts undergirding various early modern genealogies, ethnographies, and histories. Although a topic of theory since Warburg, the problem of time and temporal relations in early modernity has received renewed attention with the publication of Nagel and Wood’s Anachronic Renaissance (2010). Applied beyond the original domain of art history, Nagel and Wood’s ideas prompt a wider re-evaluation of the importance of antiquity in framing our understanding of Renaissance Europe. At stake is a view of the central conflicts in Europe’s formative years not as exclusively early modern events, but rather as events crucially shaped by the vital force of classicism.

Potential topics include:

-- How did differing claims to Greco-Roman heritage shape religious rhetoric and antagonisms? How did the interpretation of classical texts evolve with the shifting needs of their early modern readers, either in marginalizing or legitimizing particular groups? How do these texts transcend class lines, especially among the uneducated and illiterate?

-- How did different national traditions of Humanism approach the contrasting degrees of religious alterity? How did classical writings and thought provide agency for marginalized groups?

-- How can a deeper knowledge of classical texts reshape historical understandings of crusades, jihads, reformations, expulsions, and heresies? In teaching these encounters, what pedagogical methodologies can guide students toward recognition of the pervasive relevance of these texts?


Abstracts of no more than 150 words and a short CV should be sent as separate email attachments to pramit.chaudhuri@austin.utexas.edu (please see RSA guidelines for abstracts and CVs). Abstracts will be judged anonymously, so please do not identify yourself in any way on the abstract page.  Please include the following in the body of your email:

• your name, affiliation, email address

• your paper title (15-word maximum)

• relevant keywords

Proposals must be received by August 10, 2018.


Organized by David M. Reher (University of Chicago) and Keith Budner (UC-Berkeley) with the sponsorship of the Society for Early Modern Classical Reception (SEMCR)

Tags:  classical reception  classicism  ethnographies  genealogies  histories  identity  intercultural relations  marginal  temporality  the other 

Permalink
 
Membership Software Powered by YourMembership  ::  Legal