Existing accounts of Rochester’s early years are thin or in error in terms of historical context. His father was a notable Royalist exile and favorite of Charles II—indeed, his companion on his flight from Worcester in 1651. His own childhood was spent under the aegis of his mother in the household of her first husband. Rochester’s enrollment at Wadham College, Oxford, was probably a precaution against the possibility that General Lambert’s radical army would return triumphant from its confrontation with Monck’s troops on the Scottish border and exact revenge on Royalist houses. He was given extraordinary prominence in the university’s collections of verses celebrating the restoration of the monarchy and again in the triumphalist degree ceremony of 1661. Indeed, Rochester’s treatment at Oxford bordered on what would have been appropriate for a royal prince. The Lee connection, and especially the background presence of his mother, also remained important, even during the years of Rochester’s “debauchery.”
In this essay, Sara Hale examines evidence of bilingualism in a cluster of Latin epistolary odes composed by English authors and the responses to them in both Latin and English. Such a study sheds light on the social and interactive nature of eighteenth-century literature and extends the force of contemporary epistolarity to include extended correspondence between languages. This is important not only for the study of Horatian reception but also for a full understanding of the manuscript and literary culture of the period in Britain, in which Latin poetry played a prominent role. An appendix presents editions of three of the poems.
In this essay, Humberto Garcia examines the chivalric romance tropes informing the correspondence between the Armenian freedom fighter Emin Joseph Emin (1726–1809) and his patronesses Elizabeth Montagu, Elizabeth Carter, and Catherine Talbot. To master English politeness, Emin played a humble knight-errant or “Persian Slave” before his exotic Queen Montagu. The working-class foreigner thereby presented himself as a patriotic gentleman, while his female friends expanded their gender roles by adopting cosmopolitan identities. This reciprocal self-fashioning responded to a crisis in British masculinity caused by military setbacks during the Seven Years’ War. The essay points to transnational affiliations that were wider than the ethnocentric patriotism that scholars have assigned to Bluestocking correspondents’ nationalist self-conception.
Notes and Documents
This essay is the first study of a ninety-foot-long pedigree roll made for Elizabeth I in 1558–60 and now preserved at Hatfield House. Conceived and supervised by Edmund Brudenell of Deene Park—a Catholic gentleman and an amateur antiquary and genealogist—the pedigree traces Elizabeth’s descent from the Creation, via Adam and Eve, to the mythical and historical British, Saxon, and Norman kings. It also features the genealogies of European royal houses, the descent of the most important English aristocratic families, numerous textual extracts containing historical information, and lavish heraldic decorations. In the present essay, Sara Trevisan explores the sources and content of the pedigree roll—an intersection between medieval and early modern traditions of royal genealogical discourse—and discusses its making, its social and political function, and the strategies it employed to construct a celebration of the queen’s right to rule.
Richard Cantillon, an Irish-French economic theorist and financier, is not well known today, despite his influence. But he may be pictured in a famous family portrait by Nicolas de Largillière that now hangs in the Louvre. In this essay, Mark Thornton examines evidence of Cantillon’s connections to Largillière as well as related paintings to argue that the Cantillons could be the subject of the portrait.
Queries and Discussion
Library Company of Philadelphia Post-Doctoral Fellowships for 2019-2020
Deadline for applications: November 1, 2018
National Endowment for the Humanities Post-Doctoral Fellowships support research in residence at the Library Company on any subject relevant to its collections, which are capable of supporting research in a variety of fields and disciplines relating to the history of America and the Atlantic world from the 17th through the 19th centuries. NEH Fellowships are for individuals who have completed their formal professional training. Consequently, degree candidates and individuals seeking support for work in pursuit of a degree are not eligible to hold NEH-supported fellowships. Advanced degree candidates must have completed all requirements, except for the actual conferral of the degree, by the application deadline, November 1, 2018. Foreign nationals are not eligible to apply unless they have lived in the United States for the three years immediately preceding the application deadline. NEH fellowships are tenable for four to nine months. The stipend is $4,200 per month.
Program in Early American Economy and Society (PEAES) Post-Doctoral Fellowships support research in the collections of the Library Company and other nearby institutions into the origins and development of the early American economy, broadly conceived, to roughly 1850. The fellowships provide scholars the opportunity to investigate the history of commerce, finance, technology, manufacturing, agriculture, internal improvements, economic policy making and other topics. Applicants may be citizens of any country, and they must hold a Ph.D. by September 1, 2019. The stipend is $40,000 for the academic year, or if the award is divided between two scholars, $20,000 per semester.
Senior scholars are particularly encouraged to apply. The Library Company’s Cassatt House fellows’ residence offers rooms at reasonable rates, along with a kitchen, common room, and offices with internet access, available to resident and non-resident fellows at all hours. All post-doctoral fellowships are tenable from September 1, 2019 through May 31, 2020, and fellows must be in continuously in residence in the Philadelphia area for the duration of their fellowships.
THE DEADLINE FOR RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS IS NOVEMBER 1, 2018 with a decision to be made by December 15. Make just one application; you will automatically be considered for all the fellowships for which you are eligible. To apply, go to librarycompany.org/neh-and-peaes-post-doctoral-fellowships-application/ to fill out an online coversheet and upload a single PDF containing a brief résumé, a two- to four-page description of proposed research, and a writing sample of no more than 25 pages. In addition, two confidential letters of recommendation should be submitted online in PDF format using the form provided on the application page.
Candidates are strongly encouraged to inquire about the appropriateness of the proposed topic before applying. For more information about the NEH award, contact James Green via telephone (215) 546-3181 or e-mail email@example.com. For more information about the PEAES award, email Cathy Matson at firstname.lastname@example.org.
International Graduate Students Workshop
Date: October 11-12, 2018
The University of Delaware and Winterthur Museum, Garden & Library
Call for Applications due June 8, 2018
With the generous support of the Terra Foundation for American Art, the University of Delaware’s Department of Art History and the Winterthur Program of American Material Culture will host a two-day International Graduate Student workshop on October 11 and 12, 2018. This workshop is part of a series of events in October 2018 to launch the project “In Search ofGlobal Impact of Asian Aesthetics on American Art and Material Culture.” (http://sites.udel.edu/globalaestheticasiaamerica/)
We invite graduate students from a variety of fields, from all regions of the world,
to submit a short abstract of a dissertation in progress or a project that: 1) redefines the canon of art history, with a focus on the multidirectional impact of Asian aesthetics on American art and material culture, and/or 2) proposes new interpretations of the transcultural and transhistorical flow of aesthetics that not only redefine the geocultural boundaries of Asia and North America, but also rethink methodological formations of aesthetic emergence.
We strongly encourage proposals that consider the flow of global aesthetics beyond the circulation of objects, as well as those that examine “Asia” and “North America” as discursive structures or cultural constructs in connection with other world regions such as Africa, Europe, South America, among others. In sum: How do design ideas, patterns, and aesthetics travel across the globe, even when objects do not?
To apply, send a short abstract written in English (300-500 words) and a 2-page CV to:
“email@example.com” by June 8, 2018.
Applicants will be notified of decisions by July 8, 2018. Successful applicants will be invited to submit a dissertation chapter or excerpt, or paper, (9000-10000 words), to be pre-circulated and read before the workshop. Official respondents are: Partha Mitter (Sussex, emeritus), Dorothy Ko (Barnard/Columbia), Lee Glazer (Freer/Sackler Galleries), Marco Musillo(Kunsthistorisches Institut in Florenz), with the Terra Foundation's guest critics: Zhang Gan and Chen Anying (Academy of Arts and Design, Tsinghua, Beijing), in addition to the faculty workshop advisors from the Department of Art History and the Winterthur Program of the University of Delaware.
Lodging and meals are provided for invited participants throughout the workshop. Applicants seeking travel support should include in the application a letter demonstrating the need and a budget plan.
In addition to the Terra Foundation, we thank the following organizations for their support: The University of Delaware’s Office of Graduate and Professional Education and the Center for Material Culture Studies, with grants from the Unidel Foundation and National Endowment for the Humanities.
THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH for all your help with this issue. I gathered all your comments and sent them along to the chair of our ICSM program. No response other than him thanking me and saying the comments were interesting but at least he did pass them along to the entire committee. I thought the comments were great and I really appreciated the help. If nothing else, I have lots of material for setting up the game and having a deep, intellectual conversation with my students about terminology. What could be better?!
Have you contacted the game author, Nick Proctor? He is a knowledgeable historian, and there is probably a reason he used that terminology in the game. Usually RTTP games try to be as accurate to the historical setting as they can. This can lead to some antiquated terms being used (but there are limits-- no actual slurs are allowed!), but usually the game book explains why that decision was made. Nick's email is firstname.lastname@example.org
I have used that game, btw. It's a very good tool for teaching about that period!
In my edition of The Dividing Line Histories of William Byrd II of Westover (Chapel Hill: UNC Press for the Omohundro Institute for Early American Culture and History, 2013) I used the term "Indians" in accordance with the "Guide for Writing About Virginia Indians and Virginia Indian History" issued by the Virginia Council of Indians in 2008. I am aware that a controversy exists concerning the terminology, but wherever possible I think it is appropriate to adopt the usage preferred by indigenous people themselves. Several nations have published their own preferences, and it may be possible to locate such a document pertaining to the indigenous people concerned in the Forest Diplomacy program.
In case you're not already familiar with it, Robert Warrior authored a helpful essay on this topic titled "Indians" in the edited collection Keywords for American Cultural Studies (NYU Press, 2014).
While we're on the topic of offensive terminology, I'm far more concerned about the "Forest Diplomacy" moniker that you plan to use in your activity. As a specialist in American Indian history and early American history, who is also a Native person, I consider this to be a dated phrase that unnecessarily exoticizes that practices of diplomacy that were taking place among tribal nations and between tribal nations and colonial powers. James Merrell's 2014 essay "Second Thoughts on Colonial Historians and American Indians" (WMQ, 2012) does critical work reminding us of the power the terminology we use in our teaching and our writing about Native peoples, and the biases that are often embedded in these terms.
Best wishes with your new course,
Alyssa Mt. Pleasant
University at Buffalo (SUNY)
I would submit that it is far from a settled matter for a number of reasons. First and foremost, are the number of folks in this category who do not want to be called “Native American.” A large number of my Indian friends want to be called Indian. It is what they call themselves, it is what the law refers to them as, it is part of the name of the federal bureaucracy that provides services to tribes and reservations.
It also isn’t settled, however, because there are plenty of other appellations. “First Nations” is a term that has come into vogue, first in Canada, and now increasingly in the United States. Atlanticists are increasingly calling American Indians “Amerind” peoples, based on linguistic classification.
Finally, your committee makes a good point about how we speak of the past. We obviously do not want to embrace archaic language that is offensive to those who it references, but at the same time, to historicize a people and a time period often finds us using the terminology in the sources.
I hope that is somewhat helpful in considering the topic.
University of Tennessee
It is my experience since becoming a historian in my second career that American Indians prefer to be called "American Indians" (after their tribal identification, of course). This comes from asking members, especially when I was a historian with the National Park Service and worked on many projects with tribal historians and other tribal members, as well as in my own research and writing, and the overwhelming response I received was "American Indian" was preferred almost to a man and woman. I am no longer with the NPS, but I understand the agency conducted a survey before compiling its style guide a few years ago, and the respondents overwhelmingly preferred "American Indian." While some answered "either" was "acceptable," many more expressed the view that they felt "Native American" was offensive, paternalistic and racist. When I asked a Cherokee colleague in @ 2003 or 2004, who had been the tribal historic preservation officer before coming to NPS, said, "if you were born here, you're a native American." Then he said "those who prefer 'Native American' generally fall into one of three categories: (1 ) those who work for the government; (2) those who work on university campuses; and (3) white people who claim to be 1/32 Cherokee." When I was working on the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Commemoration, 2004-2006, I attended a national conference on the topic, and the presenters were divided in their usage. All the Indian historians called native peoples INDIANS; while the only ones who used "Native Americans" were white academics. I understand the Associated Press style guide has recently dropped its insistence that "Native American" is the preferred term in light of other recent surveys.
I believe either term is acceptable, as is “indigenous peoples” or simply “Native,” although it is always preferable to refer to the tribe or community when possible.