Reflections on the Patristic, Medieval, and Renaissance 2016 Conference

Reflections on the Patristic, Medieval, and Renaissance 2016 Conference October 20, 2016

David Russell Mosley

Description English: A panoramic shot of Villanova University. (We actually met at the conference center, but I didn't take a picture of it and can't find one for free) Date	18 March 2010 Source	Own work Author	Alertjean (CC BY 3.0)
Description
English: A panoramic shot of Villanova University. (We actually met at the conference center, but I didn’t take a picture of it and can’t find one for free)
Date 18 March 2010
Source Own work
Author Alertjean
(CC BY 3.0)

Ordinary Time
20 October 2016
The Edge of Elfland

Hudson, New Hampshire

Dear Readers,

As I’ve already mentioned, this past weekend I drove down to Villanova for the annual Patristics, Medieval, and Renaissance (talk about a mouthful) Conference, or PMR for short. Since starting undergrad, I have been to 6 conferences (some of them more than once), and so far, I must say, this one has been my favorite. I’ve you’ve never been to an academic conference, I must say that I feel you are quite lucky and yet I also pity you. Academic conferences can be, even for academics, incredibly boring as you go from paper to paper listening to topics in which you have little to no interest and are not useful for your own research. On the other hand, even at conferences such as those, one can often find a good group of fellow academics with whom one can eat meals, talk about your research (or complain about the conference), and––most importantly––people to get drinks with at the end of the day. Other conferences have wonderful papers and plenary speakers and time to spend with colleagues.

Of course, even if the papers are themselves good, and especially if you are presenting, there is the issue of the questions asked by the audience. There are several kinds of question-asker at conferences. The most rare is perhaps the person asking a genuine question either to gain further understanding of the topic or in order to have a genuine dialog about the topic presented. Then you have the, I know you talked about X, but what about Y people. Now sometimes, these questions are legitimate. For instance, say you just presented a paper on devotion to Mary in the fifth century and someone asks you a question about Nestorius. Maybe you didn’t talk about Nestorius because you were looking at other issues, but Nestorius is fairly important to this issue. But other times the connection is more tenuous. I once presented a paper on the Trinity and deification in Gregory of Nazianzus and Augustine of Hippo and got asked questions about the same topic in John Chrysostom. I got asked this question, because the person asking it was working on Chrysostom at the time. Which leads me to the next, but related kind of question-asker: I know you talked about X, but I’m an expert on Y and want you to talk about my expertise. This person isn’t necessarily interested in your paper as such, but in how they make it about their own research. This person is often also the final kind of question-asker (that I can think of right now): the question-commenter. This person doesn’t actually have a question. Rather, they want to make a statement. It might be very related to your topic, but it usually isn’t. More often it’s related to their own topic and the comment is really to make them the center of the attention rather than you (who actually ought to be the center of attention, or at least your ideas should be). Fortunately, I heard few of the final kind at PMR.

I think perhaps the main reason I so enjoyed PMR this year is because it was hospitable. I am not a medievalist or a historian or a thomist and yet my paper on Aquinas, the Eucharist, and dinner was well-received (critically, of course) by historians, theologians, and thomists. I have to admit that I was quite worried about my paper prior to presenting, especially since it was coming together so late in the game (though not nearly so late as some I could, but won’t, name). And yet, people seemed to be engaged by it. They liked my ideas, even if they wanted greater clarity than I could provide at the time. Even if someone thought my paper absolute rubbish, they were kind enough not to say so (although sometimes we need to hear that). At other conferences, though not many of the ones I’ve attended, there can be a rather staunch competitiveness, as if we need to prove ourselves to each other by tearing each other down. This was not the case at PMR. What is more, they were more than welcoming to the many theologians (that is, people are not first, or often even second, historians) who were in attendance. It is true that many of the papers, including the plenaries, were not directly related to the theological work I do, but that didn’t matter in such a hospitable and collegial environment. PMR was a chance to listen as well as to speak for me. A chance to learn about other fields, to remember that conferences are not purely utilitarian.

Now I will admit, that I would love to see a conference such as PMR which pulls in excellent scholars from all around that focuses more directly on theology and philosophy. Still, I fully intend to find a way to attend PMR again next year. My experience was excellent and I would like to repeat it. So, if you have historical or theological/philosophical interest in the patristic, medieval, or renaissance (assuming you believe the renaissance happened) periods, I highly recommend you consider coming to next year’s conference. Make sure you check out the Facebook group for the conference and get in touch with the inestimable Dr. Kevin Hughes (the director and organizer of these conferences) if you want to know more about it.

Sincerely,
David


Browse Our Archives