February 11-13, 2021, TU Dortmund University, Germany
Confirmed Keynote Speakers:
Angela Esterhammer, University of Toronto
Prof. Peter Kitson, University of East Anglia
Prof. Sharon Ruston, Lancaster University
The era of Romanticism is commonly
understood as a time of unrest and change, perceptibly impacting the lives of
individuals as well as collective entities across multi-faceted boundaries. In
“interlocking interests”, as Raymond Williams claimed in his classic Culture
and Society, “a conclusion about personal feeling became a conclusion about
society, and an observation of natural beauty carried a necessary moral reference
to the whole and unified life of man” (1958: 48). With the French Revolution at
its centre, arguably the decisive historical moment of the era, certain structures
of feeling emerged in liberal and revolutionary circles on the European
continent. As the breaking-apart of Europe’s ancien régimes sparked
drastic changes on political and socioeconomic levels, Romantic thinkers sought
to employ their texts and activities as contributions to a critical
re-evaluation of the status quo. In a Wordsworthian manner, many Romantic poets
understood themselves as prophets of the people, whose duty it was to intervene
in dominant representational discourses and thereby challenge well-established
hegemonic power structures. At the same time, however, Romantic movements must
not be understood as having solely gyrated around the intellectual efforts of
the elitist few. Fruitfully and mutually intersecting with the individual (and
individualised) endeavours of poets, philosophers, scientists, politicians and
entrepreneurs, elements of (popular) culture in a more general sense, such as
consumer resistance, political cartoons, visual arts, fashion, aesthetics, or
cultural rituals like the Grand Tour must also be taken into account to define
the emerging formations of the time.
To understand the complex interplay
of historical momentum, idealist visions of the future as well as Idealist
philosophical conceptions that probed into the conditions of existence per
se, and courageous activism, key concepts of cultural studies may offer
valuable tools for analysis. What we seek to establish with this conference is
an understanding of the sociology of Romantic consciousness via cultural
materialism as a practice to recreate the zeitgeist of a historical
period shaped by numerous forms of intervention. In contrast to approaches to
the Romantic Era that take their cue primarily from literary studies, we would
like to ask contributors to access the period via the methodologies developed
by (British) cultural studies in order to consider Romantic interventions in a
possibly new light. We therefore suggest to look at the decades before and after 1800 by way of
concepts like: representation, discourse, power, hegemony, articulation,
popular culture, identity/subjectivity, class, race, gender, age,
production/consumption, place/space, etc.
While we encourage a broad interpretation of the theme
of intervention, possible approaches may include the following:
Interventions (e.g. the London Corresponding Society, the Pamphlet War)
Social Interventions (e.g. riots, Chartism,
consolidation/subversion of ideology of separate spheres)
Interventions (e.g. the Abolitionist Movement, the Blue Stockings Society)
Economic Interventions (e.g. the suspension of the
Gold Standard, the Great Recoinage of 1816)
and ‘Moral’ Interventions (e.g. Moral Management)
Interventions (conceptualisation of Nature/Culture binary)
Interventions (the politics of Idealism)
Historical Interventions (historiographical
foundations of the idea of the nation-state)
We invite proposals for 20-minute papers and also welcome contributions by early career researchers and postgraduate students. Abstracts of 250 words and a short biographical info (name, affiliation, current research) should be emailed to email@example.com by March 31, 2020
The BARS Executive Committee has established these bursaries in order to support postgraduate and early-career research within the UK. They are intended to help fund expenses incurred through travel to libraries and archives necessary to the student’s research. As anticipated, this year we received a large number of applications, many of which were of a very high quality indeed. Please do join us in congratulating the very worthy winners. Romanticism is alive and kicking, we’re pleased to say!
• Hadi Baghaei-Abchooyeh (Swansea University) • Amy Louise Blaney (Keele University) • Ellen Bulford Welch (University of Sheffield) • Roger Hansford (Independent Scholar) • Annise Rogers (University of Lincoln) • Natalie Tal Harries (Independent Scholar)
Once they have completed their research trips each winner will write a brief report on their projects. These will be published on the website and circulated through our social media. For more information about the bursaries, including reports from past winners, please visit our website.
In this series, we celebrate the 200th anniversary of literary and historical events of the Romantic period. This is the second of a two-part OTD blog by Dr Emily Paterson-Morgan, Director of The Byron Society. The first was released yesterday to mark the bicentenary of Byron completing and Cantos III and IV of Don Juan and dispatching them to England. Click here for the first part.
In the previous
post, I discussed the first Act of what is, I think, both the worst adaptation of
Byron’s Don Juan and also the funniest in its ham-fisted attempts to simplify
the delicious subtleties of one of the greatest and most complicated poems in
the English language into a low-brow theatrical romp fit for the masses. This is the ‘three-penny Acting drama’ titled Don Juan:
A Musical Drama in Three Acts, attributed to Charles Milner, a bizarre
creation which reduces Byron’s satirical epic to a series of fighting and fornication
scenes complete with a score of
songs and what the author’s stage directions hubristically describe as ‘ballets’.
At the end of Act
I, Juan has seduced (or been seduced by) both the beautiful Donna Julia and her
equally libidinous maid, discovered the cuckolded husband Don Alfonso in a
compromising position with Juan’s own aunt, Donna Inez, and finally sauntered
off stage to take a ship from Spain in search of pastures new. During the brief
interlude, as the curtains lower, the stage directions describe a ‘picture’
showing a ship tossing in storm-swept seas before being struck by lightning, at
which point it slowly sinks.
In a decision that renders this production more like an episode of Love Island (with its insistently titillating emphasis on copulation and conflict), Milner opted to discard Byron’s brilliant cannibalism episode. Perhaps he felt that the killing and eating of the hapless Pedro might put his audience off. Certainly, it doesn’t exactly lend itself to light-hearted ditties and dances – though I imagine the Monty Python team would have been able to make it work. Anyway, I digress.
The curtain rises
on a sea-cave, with a half-naked and unconscious Juan watched over by two
beautiful oriental women. It is worth noting that Milner’s Haidee is far more
insipid and his Zoe far more caustic than their Byronic counterparts, as the
playwright transforms these characters into the stock dramatic figures of the
buxom innocent and shrewish servant, playing to the less-refined tastes of his
When Haidee, who suffers none of the issues with language barriers which render the progression of Byron’s island romance so protracted, offers her person and her wealth to Juan, our hero is all offended aristocratic dignity at the thought of so ‘low’ a connection. His outrage is conveyed in a series of asides to the audience, and it is easy to imagine Laura Honey in her male guise hamming it up:
Juan: Have I the honour then of addressing a princess in her own right, was your father a monarch? Haidee: At least, at home his will was absolute, here he dwelt, and none dared here resist his pleasure: but at most ties he dwelt upon the sea, and brought such treasures thence. Juan: Aye, I understand – contraband, smuggler upon a large scale. (Aside.)Tea. Tobacco. Haidee: And conquered ships, and brought home many captives. Juan: (Aside.)Oh, pirates and cut-throats to boot! This is a creditable connection. Haidee: He died at sea! Juan: (Aside.)Hung at the yard-arm! (II.i)
In a peculiar way,
however, I find this scene more realistic than Byron’s idealised scene of
immediate and improbable romance. As Haidee continues to enumerate her own charms,
including great wealth, our Juan is revealed to be financially, as well as
sexually, shameless. ‘I’m in a good thing!’ he exclaims at last, sweeping
Haidee into his arms and taking her up on all of her offers.
The curtain drops on this touching scene and on wander a group of rollicking sailors bellowing sea-chanties. Their leader, Lambro, appears and we learn that – surprise, surprise – he has not drowned but merely been blown off course. He and his piratical band wander off the stage and the curtain rises once more to display Zoe and a drunken slave, Cyrus, in a ribald scene carefully calculated to appeal to the coarse, jingoistic humour of Milner’s audience:
Cyrus: Well missee Zoe, what you think of all dis fine affair? What do you tink of your misses and of our new massa? Dim diblish hansom, and they like you and me. Zoe: I think that she is mad! Cyrus: As for me, missee, poor black man, me niber tink not at all, it enough for him to workee, workee, when cross old massa make him, and now it enough for him to drinkee, drinkee, now young massa giv him holiday, him very fine man. (II.ii)
This is followed by a deliberately ludicrous
conversation between the newly returned Lambro and Cyrus, the latter’s ears
still ringing from a hefty box on the ears by an outraged Zoe when he suggested
they have sex (‘you no hab me for chum-chum, me bery nice all sugar and brandy’).
Lambro thus learns about his daughter’s affair with Juan and stalks off in high
dudgeon towards the palace.
Here, the audience finds a scene of deliciously
over-the-top fantastical luxury and after a series of songs extolling the
delights of drunken hedonism and true love, accompanied by what the stage
directions optimistically call ‘a Characteristic ballet’, Lambro bursts in. The
angry father attempts to shoot Juan, Haidee shrieks and flings herself
protectively in front of him, Lambro’s ‘ruffians rush in’, Juan is overpowered
during yet another interminable fight scene, Haidee collapses and her lover is
Thus concludes Act II.
We re-join the hapless hero in the third and final Act, and Milner clearly couldn’t resist the opportunity for yet more crude vulgarity in the combination of a Spanish nobleman, a British sailor and a Constantinople slave market. It is here that we meet Will Johnson, probably the only truly funny character in this somewhat laboured theatrical production. Although based on Byron’s experienced man-of-the-world John Johnson, whereas the original character is a subtly John Bullish sort of figure, Milner’s Will Johnson is himself a caricature of the brash, ruddy-faced symbol of Englishness found in contemporary satires and prints.
The brave but buffoonish sailor, whose mouth is stuffed with naval cant and expletives, takes Juan under his wing and offers an amusing commentary on the ongoing sale proceedings in a series of humorous asides:
Johnson: Pick-‘em out, damme it that chap don’t think he’s selling red herrings
Johnson: Does he mean chimney ornaments?
Johnson: Split my mainsail, they are rare judges here, it’s the first time I was ever complimented on my beauty. (III.ii)
Bought by the eunuch Baba, Johnson and Juan are hustled into the palace haram. While Juan is carried away, Johnson remains onstage and catches sight of a British naval frigate sailing on the Bosporus in the distance. His ‘true heart of [presumably English] oak’ is predictably heartened by the sight.
Juan, meanwhile, has been led into an oriental
paradise. Brought before the unsurprisingly beautiful Gulbayez, he responds
with a typically rakish fervour, gobbling up her hand with passionate kisses.
Having got her attention, he then coyly refuses to consummate the relationship
until she grants him his freedom, and in the following scene the two of them
haggle like fishwives at a market stall. Suddenly, this mercenary sexual
foreplay is interrupted as Baba bursts in to warn his adulterous mistress that
her husband, the Sultan, approaches. Juan is bundled, protesting, into a
woman’s robes in the nick of time.
Unlike Byron’s version, where the next canto opens
with a disguised ‘Juana’ infiltrating the labyrinthine depths of the seraglio
and ogling a succulent bevy of nubile odalisques, Milner couldn’t resist
including one final fight scene (his musical drama has all the predictability
of a Jason Statham movie). Juan, instead of concealing his identity, casts off
his feminine clothing and starts to fight with the Sultan’s attendants. Just
when it seems he will be overpowered, Johnson bursts through the window with a
horde of British sailors recruited from the nearby naval frigate, saving the
day to cries of ‘Old England for ever’. On this rousing note, Juan and his
Surprisingly, however, the stage directions suggest
that after the gallant Johnson and his troupe return to the ship, accompanied
by much ‘splitting of mainsails’ and ‘damme’s’, it is sunk by Turkish canon
fire. ‘The Sultan triumphs’ conclude the stage directions laconically. This
deliberate undercutting of patriotic fervour makes for an inexplicably downbeat
ending to a light-hearted but decidedly odd production.
Lacking finesse and arguably the most maladroit adaptation of Byron’s poetic masterpiece, there is nevertheless a peculiar charm to Milner’s Don Juan: A Musical Drama in Three Acts, and I hope that one day someone will decide to put on another performance of it!
In this series, we celebrate the 200th anniversary of literary and historical events of the Romantic period. Today, on the 19th of February 2020, we celebrate the bicentenary of Byron completing and Cantos III and IV of Don Juan and dispatching them to England. This is the first of a two-part OTD blog by Dr Emily Paterson-Morgan, Director of The Byron Society.
On February 19th, two hundred years ago today, Byron sent his publisher John Murray ‘four packets containing Cantos third and fourth of D J‘ .
At this point, Don Juan was already infamous, widely denounced by reviewers and readers alike for its sexual and religious infidelity, its political effrontery, and general tone of satirical bravado. The British Critic dismisses Don Juan as a ‘narrative of degrading debauchery […] not only begotten but spawned in filth and darkness’. The Edinburgh Review condemns the ‘poisoned strains’ of a poet who ‘dethroned virtue and piety’ in his struggles to ‘exalt and endear scenes of conjugal infidelity’. The Quarterly Review, meanwhile, expressed fears for those ‘on whom its poison would operate without mitigation’ and kindle ‘ungovernable passion’, presumably resulting in a wave of orgiastic degeneracy spreading across England . Murray himself seems to have viewed it as an incredibly high-risk form of cultural terrorism; ‘the die is cast as in a gambling game’ he wrote to Byron the day after ‘having fired the Bomb’ of Don Juan into the unsuspecting public .
Unsurprisingly given this sort of fervid histrionics, commentaries, adaptations and continuations abounded. One of the first (radical publisher William Hone being typically quick off the mark to seize an opportunity to hurl abuse at his staunchly Tory competitor) was Don John: or Don Juan Unmasked, written and released by Hone just a week after Byron’s ‘Bomb’ first hit the shelves in June 1819. This was followed by Don Juan Canto The Third, again poking fun at Murray’s shamefaced embarrassment about his pet poet’s stylistically and thematically provocative epic satire, which led him to conceal both of their identities when the first two Cantos were published. ‘[D]on’t think you can bamboozle folks’ Hone writes tauntingly in the Preface. He then assumes Byron’s voice in the opening stanza:
Miss Haidee and Don Juan pleaded well; At least my publisher of late so tells me, Although the world he does not chuse to tell, Yet, every body knows ‘tis he who sells me: To sing what furthermore the pair befel, (As he declines my book and thus compels me, Because my “guinea trash” he will not own,) I send this Canto in to Mr. Hone. 
With unanticipated foresight, pre-empting both the
popularity of cheap editions of Don Juan with the lower classes and the
rift between poet and publisher, these lines suggest that Byron has despaired
of his priggish publisher’s mealy-mouthed morality and decided to offer his ‘guinea
trash’ to the more open-minded and popularist Hone.
Meanwhile, Murray’s furtive behaviour (‘the world he does not chuse to tell’) paved the way for an inevitable series of piracies. Perhaps the best known, thanks to Isaac Robert Cruikshank’s gorgeous illustrations – which possess all the colourful vibrancy, attention to detail, and staginess of the best satirical prints produced by his famous father – is George Smeeton’s Don Juan Cantos I – V. I was lucky enough to snap up a copy last year (Fig 1) at a bargain price as, sadly, it is missing one of the illustrations.
This pirated edition was only possible because Murray also published Cantos III-V anonymously, despite favourable responses from many of his coterie. ‘What sublimity! what levity! what boldness! what tenderness! what majesty! what trifling! what variety! what tediousness!’, exclaimed John Wilson Crocker flamboyantly on returning Cantos III and IV. He then vehemently castigates Murray for the ‘great injustice’ he did Don Juan by his frightened refusal to affix his and Byron’s names to the publication, ‘smuggl[ing] it into the world and, as it were, pronounc[ing], it illegitimate in its birth’ .
But it is not the piracies or the parodies which I want to consider today, but rather the adaptations.
There is one particularly ham-fisted production which, for sheer awfulness, takes the proverbial biscuit. Yet for years it has exerted a peculiar fascination, luring me back again and again. This is the ‘three-penny Acting drama’ titled Don Juan: A Musical Drama in Three Acts, attributed to Charles Milner (fig 3) . It is a truly bizarre mishmash of stock Byronic tropes, actual lines lifted from the original Don Juan, slapstick comedy, and unnecessarily numerous fight scenes, all enmeshed in the narrative framework of the first five cantos of Byron’s amatory epic. Attempting to reproduce the light-hearted bawdiness of early eighteenth-century cuckolding comedies – which Byron so successfully adapts in the burlesque tone of ‘Donny Johnny’ – Milner only achieves the sort of heavy-handed heartiness found in Victorian music halls and the Christmas Panto .
Milner’s Don Juan is a much more typical effusion of this traditional character that Byron’s, despite his fresh-faced youth, an aristocratic libertine comprised of flash and flattery. Not content with having conquered the lovely Julia’s heart, in the opening scene he also successfully seduces her maid Antonia. Launching into one of the periodic bouts of badly-written song which punctuate this theatrical pantomime he tries to kiss her:
Juan: Come hither, fair one, let me sip The balmy dew from off thy lip, Nor turn that charming face away, In which the beams of beauty play. Antonia: Desist, thou trifler, come not near, Beware the rising anger here; Did pertness ever equal this, I dare you sir to steal a kiss. (I.i)
Methinks Antonia doth protest too much and it is somewhat unclear exactly who is being seduced in these lines. Cue an amorous embrace, romantically lit by flickering torches. An added eroticism was produced by the fact that the female manager of the theatre, Laura Honey, played the role of Don Juan, producing a succession of titillatingly quasi-sapphic encounters as the young Spaniard dallies first with Antonia (played by a Mrs Young) and Julia (played by a Miss Robinson), then Haidee (Miss Holmes), and finally Gulbayez (Miss Grossteste).
After Juan and Antonia leave the stage in search of Julia, the audience meets the mistress herself, alone in her boudoir as she compares her husband (‘old barebones’) and her dashing young lover. At this point we are treated to the first of a series of extremely heavy-handed attempts to re-forge Byron’s brilliantly fluid conversational verses into prose. And what plodding, pedestrian prose it is. Instead of the subtle nuances of Julia’s delusive psychological sophistries which Byron creates, Milner offers the following passage, so clunky that one might almost be tempted to read it as a deft parody of the stock theatrical character of the adulterous wife – if the laboriousness with which it was constructed wasn’t so painfully obvious:
I am married, and therefore, ought to give up all idea of love, that’s certain, and yet, Juan is so handsome – so amiable – so vivacious – so – I can’t tell what he is – all that a young lady could wish in a lover – thus to abandon him, will be a terrible struggle, and very unpleasant – I will take advantage of Don Alfonso’s absence to see him once again, in the hope that my example may inspire him with fortitude, to persevere in the path of honour and virtue. (I.ii)
Following Juan’s entrance, Milner has the lovers sing some slightly nauseating duets, interspersed with stilted conversation that, again, draws on Byron’s original.
Indeed, Milner is as shameless in his plagiaristic appropriations as Byron – ‘the mocking bird of our Parnassian ornithology’ . These range from the list of abstract ideals which force Julia to remain chaste (‘prudence, honour, virtue’), to Alfonso’s entrance ‘with half the city at his back’. At the same time, in the colloquialised adaptations, such as Antonia’s claim to prefer ‘a good stout cavalier’ over a scrawny little ‘cock-sparrow’ like Juan, we see Milner catering to the appetites of his audience, using recognisable English idioms to familiarise the foreign setting.
Following the farcical bedroom episode when Alfonso and his hordes search for the now-concealed Juan, the blustering cuckold pleads for forgiveness and blames his intrusion on an informer’s lies (‘a scoundrel whose ears I will cut off in the morning’). His grovelling ceases when he discovers a man’s hat (Milner seemingly deeming a hat funnier than shoes) and a slapstick fight scene follows during which Juan eventually escapes and stumbles home.
Subsequently, in the first notable divergence from Byron’s text, the audience is treated to a heatedly amorous scene between Alfonso and his lover Donna Inez. Inexplicably transformed from Juan’s mother into his aunt, Inez retains the same priggish pretence of public virtue – a virtue which in no way prevents her from conducting a torrid affair with her married neighbour (offering opportunity for further ribaldry and innuendo, doubtless much to the delight of the audience).
When Juan bursts in, Alfonso dashes behind a curtain, crouching unsteadily on a table in a split stage scene which allows the audience to both watch Juan and Inez’s conversation and chortle at Alfonso’s outraged asides as he learns that it is his young neighbour who has cuckolded him:
Juan: You don’t know what a pleasure it was to treat such a jealous, addlepated, old, ugly curmudgeon. Alfonso: Old and ugly am I? […] Miserable Don Alfonso! (I.v)
Suddenly the table breaks, triggering a scene of comedic chaos as Alfonso rolls around on the floor, Inez screams, and Juan strides off chuckling to himself. Much hilarity, no doubt, ensues. Thus concludes Act I.
Click here for the second part of this OTD blog, complete with raucous sailors, drunken servants, a somewhat dubious ‘ballet’, and dramatic scenes of fearsome conflict and oriental romance.
Letter of the 21st of February referring to the previous Saturday’s post. L. Marchand, Byron Letters and Journals (BLJ), VII.42.
All these reviews come from Donald H. Reiman’s The Romantics Reviewed: Contemporary Reviews of British Romantic Writers.
J. Murray to Byron July 16th 1819, in Andrew Nicholson The Letters of John Murray to Lord Byron.
For more on these texts, see Peter Cochran’s transcript and editorial commentary here, and the transcript and commentary from the editor of the Hone Archive here.
John Wilson Croker to John Murray, 26 March 1820.
Don Juan: A Musical Drama in Three Acts (London: W. Strange, 1837). The only extant copies are published in 1837, but David West Brown has convincingly suggested it was originally sent to the Lord Chamberlain in 1828 and performed at the City of London Theatre shortly thereafter in English and Empire: Literary History, Dialect, and the Digital Archive.
Samuel Taylor Coleridge, quoted in Andrew Rutherford’s Byron: Critical Heritage.
This is a call for papers for a small symposium on Romanticism, which wil form part of the larger Athens Institute for Education and Research (ATINER) Conference on Literature that is held in Athens in June each year (this year June 1-4).
The Symposium on Romanticism will be hosted by Professor William Davis of Colorado College.
Anyone interested should follow this link for all pertinent information, including the call for papers, fee structure, and housing options: https://www.atiner.gr/litrom. Registration, fees, housing, etc. are all handled by ATINER.
Anyone wishing to make a proposal will also need to use the form provided by the ATINER website (available also through the link above).
This is a Call For Papers for a session at MLA 2021
This bicentennial panel, which will be held at the MLA in Toronto and sponsored by the Byron Society of America, will examine Byron’s work written or published in 1821, including Marino Faliero, Sardanapalus, Heaven and Earth, Cain, and Werner.
Please submit 250 word abstracts by 26 March 2020 to Omar F. Miranda, at the University of San Francisco (firstname.lastname@example.org )
The 2021 MLA Annual Convention will be held in Toronto
from 7 to 10 January 2021.
We are glad to announce the publication of the most recent issue of The BARS Review (No. 53, Spring-Autumn 2019). The issue contains a total of fifteen reviews of recent scholarly work within the field of Romanticism, broadly conceived. Six of the reviews compromise a ‘spotlight’ section on ‘Romantic Ideas’.
If you have comments on the new number, or on the Review in general, we’d be very grateful for any feedback that would allow us to improve the site or its content. Mark Sandy would also be very happy to hear from people who would like to review for BARS.
Editor: Mark Sandy (Durham University) General Editors: Ian Haywood (University of Roehampton) and Anthony Mandal (Cardiff University) Technical Editor: Matthew Sangster (University of Glasgow)
The AHRC-funded project ‘Books and Borrowing 1750-1830:
An Analysis of Scottish Borrowers’ Registers’ is currently advertising for two
postdoctoral researchers (one full-time for three years, one part-time for one
Applications are invited for two posts as Research Fellows for the ‘Books and Borrowing, 1750-1830: An Analysis of Scottish Borrowers’ Registers’ project funded by the AHRC, in the Division of Literature and Languages, University of Stirling. The posts offer early career researchers the opportunity to lead and conduct research on historic libraries in Scotland. The project is led by Dr Katie Halsey, University of Stirling, with Dr Matthew Sangster of the University of Glasgow, and fifteen partner and supporting organisations across Scotland. The successful applicants will collaborate closely with the PI, the investigating team, and the project partners in terms of the project deliverables and high impact outputs.
The successful candidates will be responsible for the following specific duties:
1) photographing, transcribing, digitising and interpreting historic library borrowing records drawn from specified historic libraries across Scotland; 2) in conjunction with the rest of the project team, analysing this data and producing excellent research outputs relating to it, including journal articles and database paratexts; 3) knowledge exchange and public engagement work relating to specific partner libraries and other stakeholders 4) working with the two other Research Fellows on the project to organise a major international conference on the latent potential of digital archives; 5) liaising with the Digital Humanities Research Officer as needed to develop the project webpage, interface, and database.
The research will contribute to uncovering and reinterpreting the history of reading in Scotland from 1750 to 1830, reshaping our understanding of a key period in Scotland’s past. Scotland’s high rate of literacy in the period means that it is unusually rich in extant library borrowers’ registers, possessing more surviving records than any other nation in the UK, despite having less than one-tenth of England’s population. As a whole, the project will photograph, transcribe, publish and analyse an extensive corpus of at least 150,000 historic library borrowing records drawn from thirteen diverse libraries across Scotland.
In so doing, the project will complete pioneering new research in the histories of reading and the ideas. Our corpus will be the largest yet constructed in this field. Building on previous smaller-scale work by the PI and CI, the Books and Borrowing project will extrapolate the impacts of the Scottish Enlightenment, Romantic ideologies and disciplinary specialisation from a large-scale evidentiary base. This research will test previous narratives that over-emphasize the secular character of the Scottish Enlightenment and privilege the ‘Big Six’ Romantic poets over writers such as Buffon, Rollin and Tillotson, whose works were much more widely read.
The richness of the records also offers an unrivalled opportunity to interrogate a central tenet of Scottish identity and nationhood: the often unquestioned assumption that Scotland offered greater opportunities to ‘lads o’ pairts’ –talented labouring-class readers – than the other British nations. This assumption continues to dominate educational and political discourse today. The project will pay proper attention to previously ignored or marginalised communities of readers, including women and the young, in its revealing hitherto lost histories of book use and knowledge communities in Scotland.
Full details regarding both jobs can be seen on the University of Stirling website here.
The closing date is the 1st of March 2020. We’re particularly interested in researchers
with completed PhDs demonstrating advanced expertise in one or more of the
following fields: Romanticism, Eighteenth-Century Studies, Library History,
Book History or Scottish Studies.
In Charlotte Lennox’s 1752 novel, The Female Quixote, an eighteenth-century Countess is horrified when she is asked by the romance-obsessed heroine to relate her ‘adventures’, professing: ‘The word adventures carries in it so free and licentious a sound in the apprehensions of people at this period of time, that it can hardly with propriety be applied to those few and natural incidents which compose the history of a woman of honour.’
The idea that during the long eighteenth century virtuous wives were increasingly relegated to the domestic/private sphere, their legal and economic identities subsumed into that of their husbands, is a long-standing one. However, recent and ongoing research is challenging the orthodoxy of this narrative and demonstrating that the roles available to married women were more complex, nuanced and dynamic than mainstream assumptions have generally allowed. For example, Elaine Chalus has explored women’s engagement with politics and the electoral process; Joanne Begiato’s examination of the divorce process has shed light on the lived experience of married women; Amy Louise Erikson has interrogated the laws relating to women’s property ownership; and Briony McDonagh has examined inter alia how landowning wives managed the combined duties of married life and estate management. However, research specifically relating to ‘wives’ is often buried amongst the wider topic of ‘women’, and cross-disciplinary patterns and conclusions relating purely to married women may be lost or go unrecognised.
On Friday 19th June, Southampton Centre for Eighteenth-Century Studies (SCECS) will host a one-day conference to bring these revisionist narratives together and examine the role(s) of the wife as seen through the fields of literature, social and economic history, law, art history and material culture. Papers are invited on the following topics:
• The economic and financial autonomy of women following marriage • Feme sole traders • The visibility of single versus married women in the literature of the period • Wives’ involvement in politics and public life • Working wives • Women and the divorce process • Inheritance and the transmission of property through the female line • Trusts, property ownership and separate estate • Wives as educators • Conduct literature and wives • The married woman as literary heroine • Quasi-marriages and kept Mistresses • The married female body • Material culture, fashion and taste • Housewifery • Wives as guardians of morality and social order • The historiography of the wife: change or continuity?
Please submit abstracts of up to 500 words with a short bio to the conference organisers Kim Simpson & Alison Daniell email@example.com by 1 March 2020. For future updates follow @AdventurousWiv1
The Byron Society invites applications for a PhD bursary of £3,000 for 2020-2021.
Applications are open to new and existing full-time PhD students enrolled at a UK university and working on a thesis addressing any aspect of the life, work and /or influence of the poet Lord Byron. Applications are also welcomed from those studying multiple poets or authors, including Byron.
Each bursary covers just one year, however multiple applications can be made and postgraduates whose research focuses solely on Byron can receive up to three annual bursaries. (Those who study Byron alongside other poets and authors can only be awarded one bursary).
Applications can be made by students with additional sources of funding, but please list these in your application. The applications should also include a summary of the applicant’s academic record, an outline of his / her proposed research and the names of two referees who may be contacted. Please also state what year of study you are in.
For more details about this award and past recipients, and to submit your application, click here.