OpenCalais Metadata: Latitude: 


OpenCalais Metadata: Longitude: 


North American Society for the Study of Romanticism 1998 Conference Program

Romantic Circles

NASSR Annual Convention, 1998

Note: The formatting of the following program follows the original. We have made only minor changes throughout, correcting obvious errors and making some listings more uniform to facilitate electronic searching.

1798 and its Implications


1995 NASSR Conference

The Cultural Legacies of Romanticism

July 20-23, 1995

University of Maryland, Baltimore County

Conference Director: James McKusick

Conference Schedule


Archive of Romantic Division Sessions at Modern Language Association Annual Conventions (1990- )

Romantic Studies at the MLA, 1990-
English Romantic Period Division Sessions

1990 | 1991 | 1992 | 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998


Romantic Elegy: The Elegiac Mode in Romantic Verse I

Division on the English Romantic Period. Presiding: Stephen M. Parrish, Cornell Univ.

1. "Elegy into Aura," Carol L. Bernstein, Bryn Mawr Coll.
2. "Rewriting Pastoral Elegy: Wordsworth's The Brothers," Bruce Edward Graver, Providence Coll.
3. "'Where Once . . . We Stood Rejoicing': Wordsworth, Scott, and Musings near Aquapendente," Stephen Gill, Oxford Univ.

Romantic Elegy: The Elegiac Mode in Romantic Verse II


Huntingdon, A Celebration of "Lyrical Ballads" (1798), Conference Program (1998)

Romantic Circles


American Conference on Romanticism 1994 Conference Program

American Conference on Romanticism
Annual Meetings, 1994-1998

Note: The formatting of the following program follows the original. We have made only minor changes throughout, correcting obvious errors and making some listings more uniform to facilitate electronic searching.

American Conference on Romanticism

1st Annual Meeting

The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, Pennsylvania

October 14-16, 1994

The Penn State Scanticon Conference Center Hotel

Conference Organizer:

Ray Fleming,
Pennsylvania State University


Kelley, "Introduction"

In recent decades skirmishes about how to read literature and culture have at times polarized critics, who find themselves identified, or identify themselves, with distinct critical dispositions toward either historicism or toward some version of poststructuralist writing, in particular deconstruction, supposed to be suspicious of historicism for espousing an empiricist, neo-positivist perspective on the past. What emerges from this standoff can seem comical or simply bizarre as one side imagines the other as its constitutive other, and as such productive of readings in which something is missing. Deconstructive and poststructural readers who ground their readings in philosophical argument and rhetorical nuance are at the very least bemused by the focus on detail in new historicist readings or the large gestures of cultural studies readings. In reply historicist and cultural critics find the lacunae in arguments from philosophical points of departure damaging to the lived temporality of writing and culture. Although this dispute animates more than one moment of literary study (it has become more marked in Victorian studies), its most sustained version has concerned Romanticism, understood variously since the 1980s as the disputed subject of new historicism and deconstruction. Whatever else it is, Romanticism arises in a moment of extraordinary and divisive recognition of differences among races, peoples, and political programs. And at least since the 1980s, the era has remained the focus of critical dissent as deconstructive, new historicist and other critical arguments debated whose Romanticism was theirs. This debate has in turn helped to shape public understanding of how we read literature and culture now as an enterprise strangely and contentiously divided between thinking about the work of language or the character of historical difference as though each goal could be separated from the other. This opposition is strangely rigid, easy to caricature and, as importantly, easy to dismiss. What gets lost in this critical antagonism is the shimmer of historical and philosophical friction in Romanticism itself and in compelling Romantic criticism in the last decade. Romantic Frictions emphasizes this important critical turn, which supposes that the pressure of Romantic difference is as much historical and cultural as it is philosophical and theoretical and that it is ongoing in critical discourse. So positioned, these essays address the rub of critical differences as the work at hand as well as the work that Romanticism itself frequently performed. Hearing critical voices rather than taking stands, these essays stage frictions that make Romanticism engaging for modern readers, precisely because this era and its modern critics remind us of the value of difference as the work of thought in time and culture. The essays in Romantic Frictions find in Romanticism what philosophical modernity has often found there: a disposition to recognize oppositions that cannot be squared or resolved precisely because they constitute the ongoing work of culture and writing. Such frictions are embedded in a shifting temporal moment whose inner complexity is similarly textured such that neither history nor philosophy assumes a master (and fictional) disguise. Both are instead crosscut and assembled in ways that sustain an inner friction that invites being read.
September 2011

Resource (Taxonomy): 

"The Ruins of Empire and the Contradictions of Restoration: Barbauld, Byron, Hemans"

This essay explores how Regency ruin culture developed at once as the apogee and the ambivalently repressive (and repressed) symptom of British imperialism, articulating the nuances of “Britain’s role in determining the trajectory of the Napoleonic imperial project at moments unstably situated between triumph and catastrophe, commercial and military pre-eminence and social crisis.” Working through Walter Benjamin's comments on ruination in The Arcades Project, Keach marks out how the difference between a “canonical” and “critical” ruin culture depends on gestures of delayed fascination tempered by an “awakening” that throws the ruin into sudden critical knowledge. For Keach, the ruin is indelibly coupled to restoration, thus producing a double movement of destruction and reconstruction that not only operates separately, but is intrinsic to the ideology of the ruin. As fragment, the ruin figures as a remainder of other cultures newly “acquired” and transmuted into the mournful excesses that haunt their reinstallment in pre- and post-Waterloo Britain. Even more, it either constitutes a celebratory surplus that hints at renovation or offers itself as unyielding matter—the debris of political and social violence.
January 2012

Resource (Taxonomy): 

1812.2 - "Lines Written on Reading in the Edinburgh Review Some Remarks on the Continuation of the Slave Trade by Spain and Portugal"

September, 2004

Previous Poem    -    Next Poem

Written on Reading in the Edinburgh Review Some Remarks on the Continuation of the Slave Trade by Spain and Portugal

“M. F.”
The Morning Chronicle (September 14, 1812)

Best of Allies! Britannia tries
    To rescue, by her aid,
A land from foes and public woes,
    Where slavery's a trade.



Subscribe to RSS - Reading