A ROMANTIC CIRCLES RESOURCE
This survey originally was posted to NASSR-L. In the interests of expanding its scope, we are re-posting it here at Romantic Circles.
A number of us talked at the business meeting at the last NASSR convention about the vanishing of our field per se from the recent job lists--poignantly, just at the moment that "Romanticism" or the field "Formerly Known as Romanticism" is being reconfigured, revitalized, expanded, recanonized. Although there are a number of positions for which Romanticists, or R-era specialists, might compete with Victorianists or 18th-c specialists, the field itself has made a scant appearance on the last two job lists at least: this year's list, for instance, had only 5 positions and one post-doc identified as "Romantic." What seems to be happening is that Romanticism is being tacked on to the end of the long 18th c. in job-descriptions (i.e. British literature 1700-1830) or at the front of 19th c positions. While we see the point in these downsizing times of having to be responsible for more than 40-50 years, we do not think it healthy for "Romanticism" either to be marginalized as a late emergence from the 18th c or, as Tilottama put it, "the adolescence of the Victorian age." If there has to be a century mandate, why not 1750-1850?
At this point, before calling for CPR, we would like to get a better informed sense of the state of the field as it exists in our institutions. To this end, we are asking you to answer a questionaire to the best of your knowledge. The results will be forwarded to Susan and then posted here at Romantic Circles.
Thanks for your help.
View the Responses.
View the NASSR-L debate of January 1997