SINRS ONE-DAY SYMPOSIUM Renaissance Republicanism

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.0328  Friday, 3 August 2012

 

From:        John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         August 3, 2012 7:43:30 AM EDT

Subject:     SINRS

 

SINRS ONE-DAY SYMPOSIUM

Renaissance Republicanism

 

Saturday, 24 November, 2012

 

School of Arts and Humanities

Pathfoot Building,

University of Stirling

 

From the middle of the sixteenth to the middle of the seventeenth centuries in England, Scotland, and on the continent of Europe the issue of governance was repeatedly addressed. There has been a tendency in scholarship to reason backwards from the English Revolution and to seek to find evidence for these considerations of various alternatives to monarchy. With the publication of a translation of Aristotle’s The Politics in 1598, and with the already extant publication of the writings of George Buchanan and Bishop John Ponet, in addition to Sir Thomas Smith’s De Republica Anglorum (1572), Hooker’s The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity (1596), Lewis Lewkenor’s translation of Contarini’s The Commonwealth and Government of Venice (1599), Bodin’s Sixe Bookes of the Commonwealth (1606), through to Sir Robert Filmer’s Patriarcha (1639), political theorists were particularly fascinated by the concept of ‘republicanism’. This interest also extended into the drama of the period, with settings in Venice and considerable focus on Roman history. Plays by the likes of Shakespeare, Jonson, Webster, and Massinger dramatise elements of the history of Rome and of the Italian city states. In addition to publication and performance, writers such as Fulke Greville circulated their own thoughts on governance, as evidenced in his long poem ‘A Treatise on Monarchy’ (c.1600). In addition, the writings of Machiavelli, Luther, Calvin, and Hobbes all have a significant bearing on this theme.

 

This symposium aims to investigate the ‘republican’ strain in the political and religious thinking of the period and in artistic representations, and seeks to try to distinguish between ‘republicanism’ as an alternative mode of government and criticism, occasional, and/or developed, directed at absolute monarchy. What we discover may indicate a reformulation of ideas about Renaissance censorship, as well as providing a discriminating insight into some of the ways in which critical, or indeed, subversive thinking was possible during this period.

 

The seminar will take the form of a series of short papers (15-20 mins) on any aspect of this rich and complicated theme. 

 

Anyone wishing to offer a paper at the Symposium, please email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Please also complete the following slip and return it by Monday 1 October 2012 to:

 

Dr Angus Vine,

SINRS Symposium,

Division of Literature and Languages,

School of Arts and Humanities,

University of Stirling,

Stirling, FK9 4 LA,

Scotland

 

There is a fee of £35 for the day which will cover coffee, tea, and buffet lunches. Cheques to be made payable to The University of Stirling.

Call for Papers and Submissions 34th Annual Medieval and Renaissance Forum Plymouth State University

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.0327  Friday, 3 August 2012

 

From:        Jini Rae Sparkman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         August 2, 2012 11:01:18 AM EDT 

Subject:     Call for Papers and Submissions 34th Annual Medieval and Renaissance Forum Plymouth State University

 

34th Annual Medieval and Renaissance Forum 

Plymouth State University 

Plymouth, NH, USA

Friday and Saturday April 19-20, 2013

 

Call for Papers and Sessions

“Travel, Contact, Exchange”

Keynote speaker: David Simon, Art History, Colby College  

 

We invite abstracts in medieval and Early Modern studies that consider how travel, contact, and exchange functioned in personal, political, religious, and aesthetic realms.

 

How, when, where, and why did cultural exchange happen? 

 

What are the roles of storytelling or souvenirs in experiences of pilgrimage or Crusade? 

 

What is exchanged, lost, or left behind in moments of contact? 

 

How do such moments of contact and exchange hold meaning today? 

 

Papers need not be confined to the theme but may cover many aspects of medieval and Renaissance life, literature, languages, art, philosophy, theology, history and music. 

 

Students, faculty, and independent scholars are welcome.  

Undergraduate student papers or sessions require faculty sponsorship. 

 

For more information visit www.plymouth.edu/medieval

 

Please submit abstracts and full contact information to Dr. Karolyn Kinane, Director or Jini Rae Sparkman, Assistant Director: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 

Abstract deadline: Monday January 14, 2013

Presenters and early registration: March 15, 2013

 

This year’s keynote speaker is David L. Simon.  He is Jetté Professor of Art at Colby College, where he has received the Basset Award for excellence in teaching. He holds graduate degrees from Boston University and the Courtauld Institute of Art of the University of London. Among his publications are the catalogue of Spanish and southern French Romanesque sculpture in the Metropolitan Museum of Art and The Cloisters and studies on Romanesque architecture and sculpture in Aragon and Navarra, Spain. He is co-author of recent editions of Janson’s History of Art: The Western Tradition and Janson’s Basic History of Western Art. Since 2007 he has co-directed an annual summer course and conference on Romanesque art for the University of Zaragoza, Spain.

Peer Review

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.0326  Thursday, 2 August 2012

 

[1] From:        John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         August 2, 2012 4:23:05 AM EDT

     Subject:     RE: SHAKSPER: Peer 

 

[2] From:        Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         August 2, 2012 4:43:31 AM EDT

     Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Peer 

 

 

[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------

From:        John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         August 2, 2012 4:23:05 AM EDT

Subject:     RE: SHAKSPER: Peer

 

I take Larry Weiss’s point,

 

BUT there is a danger that he is likely to fall into the very trap that he wishes to get out of. NO reviewer should be bothered by the ‘wrath’ of a disappointed scholar, and in any event, the reviewer’s not knowing the identity of the writer (especially in the case of journal submissions) should take care of the fear factor. Clearly, particular journals have particular slants, and anyone submitting material to them needs to know this. A heavily theoretical piece submitted to a journal that resists theory is asking for trouble.  The real problem is that scholars invest their careers in publication of this kind, so that a rejection—with perfectly good and sound reasons attached (as they should be) – is too easily translated into something personal. The trouble is that publishers and editors know this and therein lies the problem.

 

Editors make decisions but those decisions need to be transparent.  The practice in a number of journals is to give feedback to contributors, and often that feedback will take the form of advice on how to improve the piece if it is considered not to be ready for publication. On the other hand, the pressure to publish (especially in article form) often results in submissions that are badly written and it is, among other things, an editor’s job to make sure that what appears in a journal is of a high standard. Established scholars with reputations have choices. Younger scholars, upon whose shoulders the full pressure of publication rests, are forced by the structure of the profession in its present heavily bureaucratised form, to place career before scholarship. Unless and until that binary is reversed then the process of submission and editing will always generate the paranoia that we have seen operating in what started this debate in the first place. 

 

Cheers

John Drakakis 

 

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         August 2, 2012 4:43:31 AM EDT

Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Peer

 

Larry Weiss writes of peer review:

 

> It would be preferable, however, for referees to

> recuse themselves if they infer the identity of

> the author. Perhaps Gabriel, who wants a pure

> double-blind scheme, will agree.

 

Agreed. If the anonymity is compromised—either because the referee recognizes the work, or (as with Downs’s case) the author identifies herself—the referee’s opinions should not count. But the obligation to ensure this sort of thing is the editors’, as they must be able to justify the journal’s practices to the publisher and (more importantly) to external audits such as the UK’s Research Excellence Framework (REF). The referee’s responsibility ends with telling the editors about the loss of anonymity.

 

Gabriel Egan

Peer Review

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.0325  Wednesday, 1 August 2012

 

From:        Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         July 31, 2012 11:37:07 PM EDT

Subject:     Re: Peer/SHand

 

Gabriel Egan feels that “having previously advised a writer on their work [should not disqualify] a referee from reporting on the version presented to a journal, so long as the double-blind process is upheld.”  

 

I previously expressed my preference for a double-blind review process, because that system would minimize the influence that a writer’s reputation or lack thereof could have on the reviewer. Obviously, that goal is served by maintaining the anonymity of the writer; it is not important for that purpose that the reviewer’s identity be concealed.  Other desiderata are served by keeping the referee’s identity a secret from the writer, as the current system does, not the least of which is protecting him or her from the wrath of a rejected scholar. But it seems to me that fairness requires a reviewer at least to disclose to the journal any prior interaction with an author whose identity can reasonably be inferred, at least involvement with respect to the subject of the paper. That would allow the journal to select a different reviewer if it wished or to allow the writer a right of reply to a negative report.  It would be preferable, however, for referees to recuse themselves if they infer the identity of the author. Perhaps Gabriel, who wants a pure double-blind scheme, will agree.

 

Upcoming Hiatus

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.0324  Wednesday, 1 August 2012

 

From:        Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         Wednesday, August 1, 2012

Subject:     Upcoming Hiatus 

 

Dear SHAKSPER Subscribers,

 

On Saturday, I leave for my biennial trip to the UK. 

 

Whereas in the past I liked to spend a week in Stratford, a week in London, and a week in the countryside, this summer, in no small part to the Olympics, I am just going to the International Conference, so I will only be away for a week and will possibly have Internet access. Please keep submissions coming, but if you have something pressing to communicate, you probably should strive to submit it today or tomorrow. 

 

I look forward to seeing the renovated Memorial Theatre, even though I was a fan of the Courtyard where I saw the amazing Hamlet with David Tennant and Patrick Stewart and the equally amazing Henry 6 plays—that was a blood pack to remember at the end of 3H6.

 

Hardy

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.