Call for Papers: IHR conference on 'Corruption and Scandal in the Early Modern World, 1500-1800' (pasted)

 

CFP: Corruption and Scandal in the Early Modern World, 1500-1800

5th and 6th June 2025

Institute of Historical Research, Senate House, London

Scandals and instances of corruption shock and delight, and are recurring themes in political and institutional spheres. Reactions to these events shape politics, and provide key insights into the socio-religious and political outlooks of the societies in which they take place. In the early modern period, the meanings of scandal and corruption extended beyond our modern understanding of these terms. Concentrating on 1500-1800 - a time of religious, political, and social development and upheaval - this interdisciplinary conference seeks to explore various instances, responses to, and perceptions of scandal and corruption across Europe and the wider world. Through this event, we seek to explore specific examples of scandal and corruption, reflect upon these terms in their broadest senses, including religious, political, bodily, economic, legal, and institutional, and foster discussion about the meanings of these culturally contingent sets of perceptions. 

Organizers Amilia Gillies [Kent], Antonio Pattori [Oxford], and Florence Eccleston [The Courtauld Institute]) are seeking applications for 20-minute papers on topics relating to the themes outlined above. We welcome submissions from those at any stage of education or career, in fields of study including, but not limited to, history, literature, religious studies, and sociology. Please send abstracts, of c. 250 words, and a brief bio by 10th March. Please also indicate if you would prefer to present in person or online. All applications and queries to be sent to ihrscandalandcorruption@gmail.com

 

Contact Email
ihrscandalandcorruption@gmail.com

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Finding out about what is going on in early modern history beyond this country

One of the puzzles I face most days concerns what is going on in early modern history in English-speaking countries beyond these shores. I have a reasonable understanding of the seminar papers being offered here and of the conferences being or about to be held. Most of the websites of relevance are known to me and I am, broadly speaking, aware of the names of historians working in the areas I am interested in. Google alerts and social media help to fill in the gaps. Where I am much less well informed arises from the activities of early modern historians in north America, in Australia and New Zealand. Despite having some regular contacts on the other side of the Atlantic, I have to work hard to search the myriad history departments and learned societies of the U.S.A. and Canada. Oddly enough, this does not appear to be so large an issue with countries in Europe where I conduct regular searches for publications and theses, conferences and seminars of potential interest. It would be good ...
Read more

Simon Healy has died

Image
  I am extremely sorry to report that Simon Healy, who worked for the History of Parliament Trust's 1604-1629 section for many years,  has died. I remember him as a very cheerful and engaging conversationalist. My condolences go to his widow and their two children.
Read more

Centre and Locality: review reflections

  Quite by chance, I was browsing on Twitter last Friday (9 th April) when I spotted on Edward Vallance’s site a reference to a video conference organised by William Clayton of the University of East Anglia at the end of last month. Further searches led me to William Clayton’s review of the book edited by Chris Kyle and Jason Peacey, Connecting Centre and Locality: Communication in early modern England, which appeared under the auspices of the Manchester University Press in 2020 and which Clayton had reviewed for The Seventeenth Century in its most recent issue. [1] This is a subject which interests me and I did give some thought to responding to William Clayton’s largely laudatory comments. However, I was also conscious that I had not read this collection of essays and was thus less well equipped than I should be for assessing either the book or William Clayton’s review. There was, however, one historiographical issue upon which I did feel qualified to comment. Right at the st...
Read more