Archaism denotes the use of disused language: the retrieval of words, word orders and sounds from the literary past. Yet designating something ‘archaic’ prompts questions about what is present and historical, alive and lifeless, native and foreign, in a time and place of writing. Archaism is indexical, positing a ‘here and now’ which separates and selects from a ‘there and then’ of defunct resources. By drawing attention to what is incorporated and expurgated in genres and traditions, archaism invites comparison not just between periods, but also between languages and media.

Archaism can be a method of revival, but also a process of elimination. Owen Barfield (1928) finds that the unstable relation between archaism and innovation has often sparked disagreement among schools and styles. The elevated style of one era tends to supply the archaic style of the next. Purporting to be old-fashioned, archaism really fashions the old as it clears the way for invention. Since it is caught between entombing and exhuming tradition, archaism often risks nostalgia about lost words and ways of life. Recent studies narrow upon the political contests and convictions of belonging which motivate archaic practices. Lucy Munro (2013) shows that archaism is a ‘crucial barometer’ of attitudes towards nation and monarchy in early modern poetry, as it tends to expose belief in ancestral continuity. Annmarie Drury’s study of Victorian translations (2015) shows how pseudo-archaic language and forms helped to differentiate and domesticate the languages and lives captured in Britain’s empire. 

Together, Drury and Munro signal a move towards historicising archaic practices and situating them in regimes of spatiotemporal organisation. They distil new questions for comparative research. How does archaism relate to other temporally ambiguous forms like anachronism, neologism, imitation, pastiche and forgery? What happens to genres like epic, pastoral, fantasy and nonsense when viewed in a broken continuum of archaic styles? Does archaism always succumb to prevailing ideologies of time, nation and race, or can it generate liberating insights into language and social change? 

This seminar invites papers which reflect on archaism in any language or languages: as a feature or technique in literary writing; as a problem in cultural history; as a means of criticising or protecting social norms. Contributions which illuminate the interspaces of archaism – how archaic practices borrow resources from other languages and cultures – are especially welcome.

In addition to those above, possible topics include (but are not limited to):

• Archaism in/as translation;
• Archaism in revolutions and reactions;
• Revivals of alliteration, quantitative metre and ballads;
• The relation between archaic words and archaic rhythms;
• Archaism as a register of foreignness or primitivism;
• Regional dialects, nation languages and synthetic vernaculars;
• Archaism as queer or effeminate language.