{"title":"“What’s religion got to do with it?”","authors":"Achsah Guibbory","doi":"10.1086/706218","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/706218","url":null,"abstract":"E nglish Renaissance literary studies have flourished, thanks in large part to Arthur F. Kinney’s editorship of English Literary Renaissance, even in times when the literary has been taken over by other critical preoccupations. Arthur has always combined high standards, intellectual rigor, and generosity, especially in supporting young scholars.ELRwas born just as I was beginningmy career. It quickly became the premier journal inmy field, and one that I aspired to publish in, but it took me thirty years and two rejections to land an essay in ELR. There have beenmany changes in English Renaissance / EarlyModern Studies—for example, the concern with political history, women’s writing, gender, queer studies, and history of the book. There was also the field-changing “new historicism,” even though the new critics like Cleanth Brooks or later Arnold Stein assumed it was important to know the historical and intellectual contexts of Renaissance literature. Over the years historical scholarship has taken many shapes (I think of Douglas Bush, Rosalie Colie, Marjorie Hope Nicolson), and it might well be in the process of shape-shifting once again. I will return to this point at the end of this essay. My own work has been on seventeenth-century English prose and poetry rather than the sixteenth century or drama. I received my Ph.D. training at UCLA (home of the California Dryden project) where “seventeenth century” was a distinct field from “Renaissance.” Starting with my first scholarly publications, I was interested in ideas of history and temporality—unsurprising given the disruptions and destabilization caused by the EnglishCivilWar, right in themiddle of the seventeenth century. Perhaps the idea of revolutions drew me in. My first book, The Map of Time (1986), came out several years after Stephen Greenblatt’s Renaissance SelfFashioning (1980) and Jonathan Goldberg’s James I and the Politics of Literature (1983) had been published, and Louis Montrose’s important series of","PeriodicalId":44199,"journal":{"name":"ENGLISH LITERARY RENAISSANCE","volume":"50 1","pages":"47 - 53"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1086/706218","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46871943","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Rethinking Early Modern Sexuality through Race","authors":"M. DiGangi","doi":"10.1086/706215","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/706215","url":null,"abstract":"W hen English Literary Renaissance launched in 1971, early modern sexuality studies did not exist. Then again, neither did the feminist, new historicist, post-colonialist, or other “political” approaches that have significantly reshaped early modern literary studies (and the humanities) over the last forty years. Yet whereas feminist and new historicist essays began thickly to populate the pages of Renaissance journals in the early 1980s, studies of sexuality—and of lesbian, gay, or queer sexualities in particular—were slow to arrive. During the 1980s, ELR published only a handful of essays that centered on sex or eroticism. The first explicit treatment of homoeroticism in ELR appeared in 1992 with Joseph Pequigney’s essay on Shakespeare’s two Antonios, followed bymy own essay on non-Shakespearean satiric comedy in 1995. In Sodomy and Interpretation (1991), a book that contributed to the first wave of lesbian/gay earlymodern scholarship, Gregory Bredbeck remarks on the belatedness of sexuality studies by quipping that the analytic triangle of race, class, and gender was never a pink triangle. Yet Bredbeck’s confidence in the critical predominance of race is odd, since, with few exceptions, race was also marginalized in early modern scholarship of that era. Certainly in the studies of sexuality published by Pequigney, Bredbeck, Bruce Smith, Jonathan Goldberg, and Valerie Traub in 1991–1992,","PeriodicalId":44199,"journal":{"name":"ENGLISH LITERARY RENAISSANCE","volume":"50 1","pages":"25 - 31"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1086/706215","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46129245","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Construing Literary Texts, Constructing Linguistic History","authors":"L. Magnusson","doi":"10.1086/706224","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/706224","url":null,"abstract":"T his journal and its founding editor, Arthur F. Kinney, have presided over fifty brilliant years of scholarship focused on the English literary Renaissance. While the word “history” has no part in the journal’s title, the overall impetus has been to “historicize”—and not in any single or onedimensional way. If we were to imagine a triumphal procession of the histories that English Literary Renaissance has brought forth, the New Historicism would have the most elaborate chariot, but what a range of other wondrous exhibitions would pass in review—Histories of Genre, Book and Manuscript Culture, Women’s History, Bodies and Passions, Religion and Religious Wars, Cabinets of Curiosity, Politics and Social Class, Gender and Sexuality, Race and Colonialism, Material Culture, even “Things.” I personally would cheer loudest forELR’s Triumph of Women Writers, given that for my generation bred on an all-male canon ELR’s championing of this emergent field was a truly transformative development. The journal and the discipline’s cultural and historical orientation has fostered a seemingly unending emergence of fresh topics and materials for discovery, and there’s little sign of any slowing down: early modern literary scholars today continue to find the historical seeds for animal studies, evocations of climate change, and a deepening engagement with globalism and diversity. The one key “history,” however, that I find without a significant monument in the journal’s past or the discipline’s projections for the future is the history of language. Mymodest proposal in the optative mood for the future of early modern literary studies is for a more innovative and deeply informed engagement with historical linguistics.","PeriodicalId":44199,"journal":{"name":"ENGLISH LITERARY RENAISSANCE","volume":"50 1","pages":"93 - 101"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1086/706224","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44754586","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"“A Great Deale of Good Stuffe”: The Cyberspace Renaissance Continues","authors":"Matteo Pangallo","doi":"10.1086/706227","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/706227","url":null,"abstract":"R eflecting on the promise of the “Cyberspace Renaissance” for the twenty-fifth anniversary issue of English Literary Renaissance in 1995, Leah Marcus hoped that “computerization” would help create “a new, neutral space within which we can re-engage our fascination with ideas of intellectual rebirth and renewal.” The appearance of revolutionary websites such as “Project Gutenberg” marked that year as “an important technological crossroad” for the study of literature and literary history. In terms of digital distance, of course, 1995 is centuries from 2020. In 1995, one of the most radical experiments in textual technology for early modernists was Cambridge’s Editions and Adaptations of Shakespeare, edited by Anne Barton and John Kerrigan, and available on the promising newmedium of CD-ROM for only $4000. The title of the book that got Marcus thinking about computerization suggests how far the digital domain has come in twenty-five years: The Internet Navigator: The Essential Guide to Network Explorations for the Individual Dial-Up User. One of the pitfalls of writing on how technology transforms disciplines is that technology itself transforms so quickly, and often in such unanticipated ways, that acts of futurism risk becoming dated almost as soon as they are written. Nonetheless, it is important to follow Marcus’ example and regularly assess the relationship between technology and our field. Marcus’ claim about the transformative nature of the cyberspace renaissance has proven true, fueled especially by the rise of digital humanities— a thriving subfield (or, more specifically, methodology), with its own journals, monographs, essay collections, conferences, degree programs, and, of course, online resources, but that was barely nascent when Marcus wrote.","PeriodicalId":44199,"journal":{"name":"ENGLISH LITERARY RENAISSANCE","volume":"50 1","pages":"116 - 123"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1086/706227","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43470610","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The World of Renaissance Scholarship","authors":"A. Prescott","doi":"10.1086/706229","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/706229","url":null,"abstract":"W hat follows in this brief essay may strike some as worrisomely personal for amodern scholar raised at first on the principles of the “old new criticism” and the methods of, e.g., I. A. Richards, whose course at Harvard pleased but baffled me, and then on a number of approaches that seemed scary atfirst but now sometimes are, tomany, if not laughably dated then fairly dusty. My academic career has been stupidly scary to me, although English Literary Renaissance has been a major consolation—not for being old-fashioned but for being both legible and alert.","PeriodicalId":44199,"journal":{"name":"ENGLISH LITERARY RENAISSANCE","volume":"50 1","pages":"131 - 136"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1086/706229","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43851829","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Scale of Early Modern Studies","authors":"A. Smyth","doi":"10.1086/706231","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/706231","url":null,"abstract":"I am delighted to be part of this fiftieth anniversary edition of English Literary Renaissance. I have published two essays in ELR, both of which went on to form the core of later books: “Almanacs, Annotators, and LifeWriting in Early Modern England,” in 2008, which became the opening chapter of Autobiographical Writing in Early Modern England (2010); and “‘Shreds of holinesse’: George Herbert, Little Gidding, and Cutting Up Texts in Early Modern England,” in 2012, which I revised into a chapter forMaterial Texts in Early Modern England (2018). I am grateful to Arthur F. Kinney and his colleagues for supporting my work in this way. I also had an essay on the poet William Strode rejected by the journal in 2003, but we won’t linger on that, except to say that it was the right decision, conveyed to me in the signature form of an Arthur letter: gracious, and written on an old typewriter. It’s not often that we are granted the opportunity to pause and think in print about the state of play of our discipline, such is the pressure—particularly in the UK—for research to be quickly converted into published outcome. I’d like to use this welcome pause in an academic culture of haste to reflect a little on scale and early modern studies. Scale has been on my mind for the last couple of years while I’ve been working on early modern printed waste: the fragments of older printed books found in the bindings, paste-boards, and end-leaves of other books. Waste of this kind—like the sheets fromHugh Plat’sGarden of Eden used as paste downs in a copy of John Taylor’sWorkes (1630)—is suggestive and challenging in all kinds of ways, but I’d like to use waste here to track through some of the different scales we might deploy to organize our research. By scale I","PeriodicalId":44199,"journal":{"name":"ENGLISH LITERARY RENAISSANCE","volume":"50 1","pages":"145 - 152"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1086/706231","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43609976","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Painting Milton by Numbers","authors":"K. Poole","doi":"10.1086/706228","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/706228","url":null,"abstract":"S ince this issue celebrates a number (the half-century mark of 50), it seems appropriate to open with some numeric reflections. In the context of my engagement with Milton studies, the last year has presented some interesting figures. 139: the number of essays that the prize committee I served on for the Milton Society of America had to consider for the 2017 James Holly Hanford article award (and 7: the number of monographs specifically on Milton that qualified for the Hanford book award, and 9: the number of titles eligible for the John Shawcross award for scholarly editions, reference works, or chapters on Milton, and 8: the number of eligible titles for the Irene SamuelMemorial award for a multi-authored volume pertaining to Milton). Approximately 70: the number of people who showed up on a weekday morning at the Philadelphia Free Library to hear my public lecture “Who Was John Milton?” (assigned title), part of the Achieving Immortality Lecture Series: Four Great Poets and the Cultures that Shaped Them. Approximately 70: the average age of these attendees. 12: the number of students who enrolled this last semester for my undergraduate Milton course. 12: the number of said students who had never heard of John Milton before registering for the course. 8: the number of said students who had never heard of Paradise Lost before registering for the course. 2: the number of English majors in the course. 5: the number of academic positions mentioning “Milton” in the 2016–17 MLA Job List, and 1⁄2: the number of those academic positions specifically dedicated to Milton. If we are painting a picture of the current state of things Miltonic by the numbers, these figures yield confusion, a word that Milton extensively","PeriodicalId":44199,"journal":{"name":"ENGLISH LITERARY RENAISSANCE","volume":"50 1","pages":"124 - 130"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1086/706228","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42253326","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"A Tribute to Arthur F. Kinney","authors":"Elaine V. Beilin","doi":"10.1086/706210","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/706210","url":null,"abstract":"I n his extraordinary fifty years as editor, Arthur F. Kinney has been the admired source of wisdom for English Literary Renaissance, working with managing editors and the editorial board to realize his initial vision of a journal publishing the best scholarship on early modern literary texts in relation to their readers and times. Generations of board members and scholars have benefited from his encyclopedic knowledge of the period; his appreciation for a vast range of texts, some well beyond common knowledge; his far-reaching network of colleagues; and his commitment to publishing original scholarship. Long a brilliant student of humanism, Arthur himself represents its best attributes, welcoming a copious and capacious array of essays, perspectives, and new research to the pages of the journal. Under Arthur’s stewardship, for instance, in the early 1980s ELR began publishing texts by early modern women writers, along with essays and “Recent Studies” by scholars in that burgeoning field. From the start, Arthur encouraged reviewers to write substantial, detailed editorial reports that assist authors to revise their work, a practice that has proved particularly supportive of early-career scholars. At board meetings, his genial presence at the head of the table has generated conversation, eased disagreements, and created a serious sense of purpose leavened by good humor. His long service, marked by a generous commitment of time, energy— and wisdom—continues to inspire the ELR community of scholars.","PeriodicalId":44199,"journal":{"name":"ENGLISH LITERARY RENAISSANCE","volume":"50 1","pages":"vi - vi"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1086/706210","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42259319","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jonathan Dallas, Chevis N Shannon, Christopher M Bonfield
{"title":"The effect of hospital characteristics on pediatric neuromuscular scoliosis fusion cost.","authors":"Jonathan Dallas, Chevis N Shannon, Christopher M Bonfield","doi":"10.3171/2019.7.PEDS19194","DOIUrl":"10.3171/2019.7.PEDS19194","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Spinal fusion is used in the treatment of pediatric neuromuscular scoliosis (NMS) to improve spine alignment and delay disease progression. However, patients with NMS are often medically complex and require a higher level of care than those with other types of scoliosis, leading to higher treatment costs. The purpose of this study was to 1) characterize the cost of pediatric NMS fusion in the US and 2) determine hospital characteristics associated with changes in overall cost.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients were identified from the National Inpatient Sample (2012 to the first 3 quarters of 2015). Inclusion criteria selected for patients with NMS, spinal fusion of at least 4 vertebral levels, and elective hospitalization. Patients with no cost information were excluded. Sociodemographics, treating hospital characteristics, disease etiology/severity, comorbidities, length of stay, and hospital costs were collected. Univariable analysis and multivariable gamma log-link regression were used to determine hospital characteristics associated with changes in cost.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 1780 weighted patients met inclusion criteria. The median cost was $68,815. Following multivariable regression, both small (+$11,580, p < 0.001) and medium (+$6329, p < 0.001) hospitals had higher costs than large hospitals. Rural hospitals had higher costs than urban teaching hospitals (+$32,438, p < 0.001). Nonprofit hospitals were more expensive than both government (-$4518, p = 0.030) and investor-owned (-$10,240, p = 0.001) hospitals. There was significant variability by US census division; compared with the South Atlantic, all other divisions except for the Middle Atlantic had significantly higher costs, most notably the West North Central (+$15,203, p < 0.001) and the Pacific (+$22,235, p < 0.001). Hospital fusion volume was not associated with total cost.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A number of hospital factors were associated with changes in fusion cost. Larger hospitals may be able to achieve decreased costs due to economies of scale. Regional differences could reflect uncontrolled-for variability in underlying patient populations or systems-level and policy differences. Overall, this analysis identified multiple systemic patterns that could be targets of further cost-related interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":44199,"journal":{"name":"ENGLISH LITERARY RENAISSANCE","volume":"25 1","pages":"713-721"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2019-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85386245","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
