Announcing a new series from Amsterdam University Press
Gendering the Late Medieval and Early Modern World
Series Editors: James Daybell (Chair), Plymouth University;Victoria Burke, University of Ottawa; Svante Norrhem, Lund University; and Merry Wiesner-Hanks, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
This series provides a forum for studies that investigate the themes of women and gender in the late medieval and early modern world. The editors invite proposals for book-length studies of an interdisciplinary nature, including but not exclusively, from the fields of history, literature, art and architectural history, and visual and material culture. Consideration will be given to both monographs and collections of essays. Chronologically, we welcome studies that look at the period between 1400 and 1700, with a focus on Britain, Europe and Global transnational histories. We invite proposals including, but not limited to, the following broad themes: methodologies, theories and meanings of gender; gender, power and political culture; monarchs, courts and power; construction of femininity and masculinities; gift-giving, diplomacy and the politics of exchange; gender and the politics of early modern archives and architectural spaces (court, salons, household); consumption and material culture; objects and gendered power; women’s writing; gendered patronage and power; gendered activities, behaviours, rituals and fashions.
For more information, or to submit a proposal, please contact Erika Gaffney, Senior Acquisitions Editor, at Erika.Gaffney@arc-humanities.org.
Call for papers:
8th Conference of the European network:Gender Differences in the History of European Legal Cultures
NORTH vs SOUTH?
Gender, law and economy in Early Modern and Modern Europe (15th-19th century)
University of Rouen Normandie, 17-18 November 2016
Maison de l’Université, salle des conferences, Place Emile Blondel, Mont St Aignan
The aim of the 8th conference of the network Gender Differences in the History of European Legal Cultures will be to analyse the consequences of different European juridical systems on the development of specific economic roles for men and women. At the core of the comparative analysis, at the European scale, there will be the different economic evolutions of European regions in the early modern and modern times. Customary laws characterized Northern Europe and Roman law characterized Southern Europe, but at the local level there were many differences, depending on urban statutes, craft rules, family structures, political and economic systems.
The conference will question the narrative of the “great divergence” between the economies of Northern and Southern Europe in relation to the opportunities that different juridical systems gave to women and men to act in the society as economic actors. Were they so different? Were women allowed to play a public role, recognised at an institutional level? Which role did women’s property play in the urban economy? And how did a specific kind of marital economy influence the economic development? Are “industrious” and “industrial” revolutions useful tools to understand the economic development and, if it is the case, are they related to specific juridical systems?
Please send suggestions for contributions in the form of an abstract in English or in French (3000 characters max) by July 30th 2016 to : firstname.lastname@example.org and to email@example.com.
For full details follow this link: ENGL_Rouen_CFP_2016
Julie Hardwick’s recent review essay ‘Gender, Credit and Rethinking (Economic) History’ History Workshop Journal (Spring 2016) 81 (1): 253-260 is an incisive piece based in part on her contribution to the workshop ‘Women’s work across time and place: foundations for comparison in pre-census Europe’ at The Centre for Gender History, University of Glasgow in 2014. Surveying the state of the field and drawing on her own research, Hardwick presents a review of Clare Haru Crowston’s Credit, Fashion, Sex: Economies of Regard in Old Regime France (Duke University Press, 2013) to make a compelling case not only for prioritising gender as a critical element of the early modern credit revolution, but for treating gender and credit as central to broader social, political and cultural narratives.