symploke is a comparative theory and literature journal, committed to interdisciplinary studies, intellectual pluralism, and open discussion. It is a forum for scholars from a variety of disciplines to exchange ideas in innovative ways. Most of the journal's issues address topics of special interest that open new avenues of inquiry and research. Scholarship focusing on the interrelationship of philosophy, literature, cultural criticism, and intellectual history is of particular interest. However, articles on any aspect of the intermingling of discourses and disciplines will be considered.

The University of Nebraska Press extends the University's mission of teaching, research, and service by promoting, publishing, and disseminating works of intellectual and cultural significance and enduring value. We primarily publish nonfiction books and scholarly journals, along with a few titles per season in contemporary and regional prose and poetry. On occasion, we reprint previously published fiction of established reputation, and we have several programs to publish literary works in translation. Through our paperback imprint, Bison Books, we publish reprints of classic books of myriad genres. Our primary mission, defined by the University through the Press Advisory Board of faculty members working in concert with the Press, is to find, evaluate, and publish in the best fashion possible, serious works of nonfiction..

This item is part of a JSTOR Collection.
For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions
Copyright 2016 symplokē
Request Permissions