Brown's Article Research Articles

Loss is More: Revisiting the Relics of the Medieval Spanish Epic

Abstract: This piece situates itself in a chain of scholarly responses to Ramón Menéndez Pidal's theoretical framing of the "relics" of the medieval Spanish epic. It does so by revisiting Catherine Brown's "The Relics of Menéndez Pidal: Mourning and Melancholia in Hispanomedieval Studies," a seminal article published in La corónica in 1995 (vol. 24, no.1). Brown's article underlines Menéndez Pidal's abiding influence on epic studies and explores his idiosyncratic discourse, and critical framework, of loss and recuperation, understood as both the dearth of surviving texts and as a way of reading the epic's themes and modes. I highlight, in both Menéndez Pidal's Reliquias, and in Brown's assessment of its impact, a willingness to linger on contradiction and to accept that recovering wholeness for the epic tradition requires us to confront loss, partiality, and even futility. Inspired by the vestigial framework set out by Menéndez Pidal, and nuanced and revalidated by Brown, I argue that epic studies today needs to unashamedly inhabit, and to continue to explore, a middle ground that is both fragmentary and brimming with creative potential. Buoyed by Brown's invitation not to despair in the act of reassembling the epic, and maybe even to see tragicomedy therein, I suggest that it is in the very nature and narrative of epic to shape identities from unlikely and varied combinations. Epic's missing pieces are also its imaginative asset.

Letter from the Editors

Letter from the Editors Robert Chiles, Devin R. Lander, Jennifer Lemak, and Aaron Noble This issue of New York History was produced during a time of historical uncertainty in our state and nation as the world dealt with the vicious COVID-19 virus. It is our sincere hope that all of our readers and contributors are as safe and healthy as possible during these trying times. And, it is our sincere hope that the schools, colleges, universities, museums, archives, libraries, and historical sites that make up New York's diverse and vital historical community can fully emerge from this disaster and continue their important work. Also at the time of publication our nation is engaged in protests as well as historical debates inflamed by the brutal killing of George Floyd and the broader intransigence of racism in America. In this context, the editors echo the sentiments expressed by the New York State Education Department Board of Regents: "America's greatness lies in our diversity, our tolerance, and our willingness to accept and welcome others. These are our nation's founding principles. Sadly, these very ideals are now under attack, as some seek to divide us based on our differences. But we know that, ultimately, civility, dignity, compassion, and respect will prevail—they will unify us and will lift us up as a state and as a nation. As a society, we must do better. This is a time to come together."—The Editors Among the most significant contemporary debates related to American political and social identity is that of historical commemoration, encompassing timely questions of historical relevance, commemorative practice, and the modern significance of figures from the American past. From the moment copies of Common Sense hit the streets of Philadelphia in January 1776, Thomas Paine's life and works have remained central to the meaning of the American Revolution—and the site of conflict over the legacy of the War for Independence and the divergent interpretations of American nationhood in the succeeding centuries. For issue 101.1 of New York History, we are proud to partner with Professors Nora Slonimsky and Michael Crowder from the Institute for Thomas Paine Studies (ITPS) at Iona College to present a series of thematic articles exploring the significance and commemoration of the American Revolutionary era. Inspired by conversations initiated at the ITPS Patriot's Day Symposium in April 2019, articles in this issue by Michael Crowder, Robb Haberman, Michael D. Hattem, Christopher F. Minty, and Mariam Touba explore the broad themes of commemoration and politics through multiple methodological [End Page v] lenses—particular public history. The Artifact NY feature by Nora Slonimsky utilizes material culture to analyze these themes and Alisa Wade's Teach NY provides a teaching module that helps students better integrate women into the political culture of late-eighteenth century New York City. The issue proceeds chronologically from the Revolution into the Early Republican period via Kate Brown's article analyzing several key early decisions handed down by New York's Court for the Correction of Errors—decisions that pragmatically balanced competing class interests within the Empire State's increasingly sophisticated commercial polity while simultaneously elevating the Court to national prominence. The final full-length article in this issue considers a time when New York State once again played a prominent role in a conflict with Great Britain: Harvey Strum's essay on antiwar sentiment among members of the New York State Militia during the War of 1812 highlights the fact that the political divides between Republicans and Federalists that began in the days following American Independence remained contentious over twenty years later. As always, we are thankful to the journal's Advisory Board for their continued support and guidance and to the authors featured in this issue for their hard work and dedication to their scholarship. And, we remain ever grateful to our readers, whose continued interest in New York's vibrant history allows this journal to thrive. Sincerely, The Editors: Robert Chiles, Devin Lander, Jennifer Lemak, Aaron Noble and Danielle Funiciello [End Page vi] Copyright © 2020 Cornell University Press

The Primacy of the Present, the Primacy of Place: Navigating the Spiral of History in the Digital World

In her introduction to the english institute's e-book on periodization, the editor, virginia jackson, remarks on the ability of its “digital format” to invite innovative ways of interacting with texts. Marshall Brown's article in the book, for example, allows readers to hear Joseph Haydn's music while they read nineteenth-century literature, giving them an immediate understanding of the musical metaphors Brown uses for describing literary history. Our contemporary presence and capabilities in the digital world, Brown suggests, may help us to understand periods as “linked episodes within the rolling flood of time,” enabling what Jackson describes as “a literary historical process” that “is not progress but wave, not transcendence” but, as Brown writes, “the metrics and bar lines shaping the pulse of history'” (Jackson, par. 4). The authors of On Periodization suggest a practice of periodization that allows for simultaneities: “a new plane of historicity on which several temporalities unfold at once” (Jackson, par. 4). This conception of time is made possible by the present moment, the (relatively) new technologies we have in our midst, through which this e-book is expressed. This “new plane” of simultaneities reflects the primacy of the present in that the technologies we use are actively shaping how we experience literature and literary history (Martin 153–56). Furthermore, while chronological periodization can dis-embed events from their places, our process of reading rhizomically in the digital world may move us to reconsider the primacy of place.

Rapprochement Between Vietnam and the United States: A Response

Vietnam is perhaps the only country in the world to have engaged in so many intensive and marathon negotiations with the US over the past few decades. These include the Paris peace talks of 1968-73, negotiations on the normalization of bilateral diplomatic ties (1992-95), the Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) (1996-2000) and on Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) (2003-06) which paved the way for Vietnam's entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) on 1 January 2007. These negotiations underscored the complexity of the relationship, yet were also instrumental in helping Vietnam and the US to better understand each other. It is difficult to appreciate how far and how quickly the Vietnamese-US relationship has evolved without having a good grasp of the difficulties bilateral ties have experienced over the years. In his article, Professor Brown presents a detailed and comprehensive account of the decades-long rapprochement process in which the national interests--including strategic interests--of both the US and Vietnam influenced the nature and intensity of negotiations. In assessing the history of this rapprochement, it is important to understand Vietnam's perspectives. Geopolitics and the Rapprochement from a Vietnamese Perspective The Vietnamese-US rapprochement should be viewed and analysed from a historical perspective rather than simply looking at developments in bilateral relations since the end of the Vietnam War in 1975. Vietnam and the US have had a long history of engagement that can be traced back to the late nineteenth century when Bui Vien, an emissary of the Nguyen Dynasty, was sent to Washington D.C. in 1873, but failed to secure a meeting with President Ulysses S. Grant to request diplomatic recognition. During the Second World War, the Viet Minh, the predecessor of the Vietnamese Communist Party, and the Office of Foreign Service (OSS), the predecessor of the CIA, joined forces to fight the Japanese. Such cooperation lasted until the end of the war, and though short-lived, the positive experience of cooperation encouraged President Ho Chi Mirth to write a letter to President Harry S. Truman asking for US help to secure Vietnam's independence from France. The letter was intercepted by Allen Dulles, then Director of OSS, and never reached President Truman. Not long after taking power, the Truman administration had decided to support France's reacquisition of its colonies in Southeast Asia in exchange for Paris' support for American policies in postwar Europe. There is still much debate over the question of whether Vietnam and the US would have been able to avoid conflict had President Truman received the letter from President Ho Chi Minh. However, for Vietnam, the lesson was clear: Washington was willing to sacrifice its ideals and push aside the interests of small-sized countries, including Vietnam, in pursuit of its national interests. These initial interactions slowly planted the seeds of suspicion in the minds of Vietnamese leaders regarding US intentions towards Vietnam. Direct intervention by the US in South Vietnam following France's defeat at Dien Bien Phu in 1954 was aimed at halting Beijing-inspired communist expansion in Southeast Asia and preventing the fall of the pro-American regime in Saigon. Ultimately this proved to be a grave mistake by US policy-makers as they fundamentally misunderstood Vietnamese nationalism and the strained history of Sino-Vietnamese relations. As mentioned in Professor Brown's article, there was a missed opportunity for normalizing bilateral ties during 1977-78. On the Vietnamese side of the equation, two factors played an important role: first, Vietnam's lack of understanding of US politics, which led Vietnamese leaders to assume that the Congress would bow to requests made by President Richard M. Nixon on reconstruction aid for Vietnam; and second, their assumption that Southeast Asia was still a leading priority in US foreign policy even after the Vietnam War had ended. …

The impact of clinical trials legislation on clinical pharmacology: problems and solutions

The article by Morris Brown on the impact of clinical trials legislation on clinical pharmacology [1]makes very sorry reading, as does the editorial appearing in the same issue, although less so than the Brown article. There is so much that is inaccurate in this article that it compromises the legitimate validity of his argument that bureaucracy in this country hampers clinical research. It so happens that, in my so-called retirement, I am closely involved with the research ethics review process throughout Europe, being co-chairman of the European Forum for Good Clinical Practice (EFGCP) Ethics Working Party and the EFGCP Ethics Officer, as well as having served on UK research ethics committees (RECs) for over 12 years, now being the alternate vice-chairman of Cambridgeshire 4 REC, which used to be the former East of England MREC. I was responsible for initiating the report on the structure and function of RECs published in the International Journal of Pharmaceutical Medicine in February 2007 and kept up to date on an annual basis on our EFGCP website (http://www.efgcp.be). I am therefore in a very strong position to maintain that the UK can be proud that it has as good a grasp of research ethics as any other European state, and I would be willing to debate that vigorously in public. Sadly, Brown has not acknowledged the efficiency that now demonstrably pervades the research ethics review system in this country, allowing himself to be overwhelmed by the deficiencies of the R&D Governance process in this country, with which the National Health Service has lumbered itself. This, I freely acknowledge, is a nightmare that only recently might have shown a first sign of waking itself up. Coupled with academic regulations, with which clinical pharmacologists might well be encumbered, too, I can therefore understand the frustration that Brown demonstrates, though it is partially misdirected. Without wishing to be personal in a letter to the Journal, I would remind Brown and his clinical pharmacology colleagues that one of the most irritating aspects of an application to a REC is the inadequacy of many patient information sheets, whether they come from pharmaceutical companies or academic departments. By and large, clinical pharmacologists ought to be as good as any group in the production of comprehensive yet comprehensible patient information sheets that, above all, are able to be understood by the patients who are the intended subjects of research projects. Time taken to produce a really good patient information sheet must be time well spent, as the time needed to take on board the concerns of a REC may well be much greater than for the drafting of a decent document in the first place. Referral back by a REC must be frustrating to an investigator, but the time taken to deal with the REC concerns can be minimized, and it is not right to accuse RECs of delaying tactics when the time taken for a response by an investigator may well be very protracted. Of more fundamental concern is Brown's clear lack of understanding of what research ethics are all about. No doubt Brown is a very sound medical ethicist and he tells us that medical ethics was his first academic interest. But research ethics is quite different from mainstream medical ethics. It is because RECs are established to look after the interests of patients who are the subjects of clinical research projects that they include in their membership lay persons as well as experts. The National Research Ethics Service (NRES) has ensured that all the members of RECs are properly trained in the principles of research ethics, and Brown's comments on the membership of RECs in his article are insulting in the extreme. It is the intelligent lay persons as well as the doctors, nurses, lawyers, statisticians, pharmacists, teachers and so on who are found on RECs that safeguard the interests of patients—and at Cambridgeshire 4 we operate to strict deadlines. I hope that readers of your Journal will recognize the efficiency with which research projects are dealt with by the NRES, through its research ethics committees, and will all contribute to putting pressure on other aspects of the research approval process that are still deficient. None declared.

Ideology

Michael Brown's article “Ideology and the Metaphysics of Content” (ST 8, 1983) reminds us of what was at stake in the transition from ideology critique to cultural studies. Through an ethnomethodological close reading of the opening part of Marx's Capital, Brown teaches us that this text is educative before it is didactic and that its meaning is historical and available only in the encounter with the reader, an encounter that produces both reader and text. There is no room here for a correct content independent of reading in history. Brown's example is used to stage an encounter in teaching, in a British business school, between undergraduate students and reports of the current financial crisis, approaching the crisis phenomenologically. The article concludes with a discussion of mutual promises and possession in the world of finance.

Editorial

Editorial

Lipids in health and disease: quantity, quality, and more

Lipids in health and disease: quantity, quality, and more

Retrieval dynamics and brain mechanisms

Experiments on memory-retrieval dynamics support the hypothesis that different mechanisms mediate processes of familiarity and recall (recollection). The minimal retrieval time for accurate recognition and frequency judgments is about 100 msec earlier than the minimal time to judge details such as modality or location. The difference is consistent with neurophysiological evidence. Retrieval dynamics data are also relevant to other aspects of Aggleton & Brown's target article.

Mere functional characterization is not enough to understand memory circuits

What exactly is going on via fornical connections? Aggleton & Brown's target article correctly stresses their importance, but a detailed understanding of their role in memory appears to require fresh research approaches.

Neuropsychological assumptions and implications

Some of the assumptions underlying the arguments in Aggleton & Brown's target article are reviewed; discrepancies/predictions are pointed out in relation to human lesion studies. A&B's proposal is interesting, but it may require harder, confirmatory evidence before it can be considered to be all-encompassing.

Charles Brockden Brown's Edgar Huntly : The Picturesque Traveler as Sleepwalker

CHARLES BROCKDEN BROWN'S EDGAR HUNTLY: THE PICTURESQUE TRAVELER AS SLEEPWALKER Beth L. Lueck* Charles Brockden Brown's Edgar Huntly: or, Memoirs of a SleepWalker (1799) stands as an early landmark in American literature for its original use of the picturesque traveler convention to characterize the protagonist and to develop theme. Because the picturesque tour had been popular in England for little more than a decade when Brown first began writing, its use in an American novel at the close of the eighteenth century is remarkable. Although Brown's borrowing of British aesthetics for landscape description, notably the picturesque and the sublime, is not original in American literature, even at this early date, he is one of the earliest American writers to place himself consciously within the British aesthetic tradition. Moreover, the use of the picturesque traveler not only as subject, but also as a narrative device and as a method of developing theme in the novel, is strikingly original in Brown's writing and creates a fictional work of great depth and complexity. In Edgar Huntly's repeated excursions into the wilderness, Brown attempts to relocate the picturesque tourist onto American soil. But the protagonist's imitating the picturesque tourist is unsuccessful and even ludicrous. The resulting disjunction between picturesque conventions and American landscape suggests that, without some sacrifice of credibility or without a consideration of the potentially dangerous New World landscape, the picturesque tour as it was known in Great Britain could not be readily transplanted to America. Brown was familiar with British uses of the picturesque and sublime and was interested in adapting these conventions as ways of looking at and appreciating American landscapes. The evidence of Brown's knowledge of aesthetics comes from the articles he wrote or edited for The Monthly Magazine, and American Review (1799—1800) and The Literary Magazine, and American Register (1803—08), both of which he edited . Articles in both periodicals attest to their editor's continued interest in aesthetics.' In one essay that appeared the year after Edgar Huntly's publication, Brown recommends '"the pleasure which the beauties of nature afford'" to persons of a cultivated mind. For those ignorant souls *Beth L. Lueck is an Assistant Professor of English at the University of WisconsinMilwaukee . She has published an article in the Walt Whitman Review and is currently working on a book on picturesque travel in American literature. 26Beth L. Lueck whose poverty of imagination and vocabulary brings them to call every scene merely "pretty" or "fine," he enthusiastically recommends the study of picturesque beauty in the works of William Gilpin, who is "eminent for displaying the principles of landscape," particularly in his Remarks on Forest Scenery (1791). Brown also advises that the landscape enthusiast read Ann Radcliffe's novels and those of other "commentators upon Gilpin" who travel in search of picturesque beauty.2 Brown only alludes to picturesque travel in this early article, but he devotes a later essay in The Literary Magazine to the subject, an article which has been ignored by most critics.3 "Men of true taste," according to Brown, appreciate all kinds of beauty in nature, including picturesqueness and sublimity. "In a word," he concludes, "they reverence and admire the works of God, and look with benevolence and pleasure on the works of men." Brown's article concentrates on those in search of the picturesque: "Of all kinds of travellers, or pedestrian hunters, those that travel in search of the pleasure of the picturesque are the fewest in number , particularly in America, but perhaps they are the most judicious in their choice of an object of pursuit." From this point on, Brown lets "a great traveller of this kind," William Gilpin, speak in favor of picturesque travel. Indeed, most of the article quotes verbatim from Gilpin's essay "On Picturesque Travel" (1792).4 In Gilpin's description of the objects and characteristics of picturesque travel, three key phases are evident: pursuit, attainment, and recollection and recreation. First, the picturesque traveler pursues landscape beauty, always searching for new scenes; second, the traveler attains the objective and enjoys both the initial impact of the scenery and an examination of it by the rules of painting; third...

Discrepancies in Statistical Evaluation

Sir .—In a recent issue of AJDC , 1 Brown commented on the inappropriateness of calculating the mean and SEM of ordinal To quote, A precondition for the use of SEM is interval or ratio data. This reader is disconcerted by how frequently the editors of AJDC allow this type of statistical blunder to appear on the pages of their journal. In the very issue containing Brown's article, the mean±SEM of Apgar scores are calculated and used to compare groups of babies. 2 This same error appears in subsequent AJDC articles in reference to Apgar 3,4 and risk 5 scores. Perhaps the editors of AJDC should pay closer attention to Brown's article.

Worth Reading!

Steve Brown's article, “Microcomputers in the School Office: The Example of Springfield School District and a Survey of OSSC Members,” OSSC Bulletin, Vol. 28, no. 5 (January 1985), tells how Springfield School District automated their school office by buying an OCLC M300 Workstation for their school library, using the extra time and capabilities of the Workstation for other activities. OSSC Bulletin (OCLC ♯2153848) is a publication of the Eugene, OR, Oregon School Study Council.

Letter: Periodic health examination.

Comments1 March 1976Periodic Health ExaminationCHARLES O. BRANTIGAN, M.D.CHARLES O. BRANTIGAN, M.D.Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-84-3-344_4 SectionsAboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail ExcerptTo the editor: Spitzer and Brown's article (Ann Intern Med 83:257-263, 1975) questioning the value of the periodic health examination approaches the subject from a theoretical point of view. D. A. Davinroy and I, in tabulating the results of 1100 consecutive military physical examinations, have examined their value by analyzing the basic assumptions implicit in a periodic health-examination program.Proponents of the periodic examination base their advocacy on several assumptions: [1] that there exists in the general population a large reservoir of latent or unrecognized disease discoverable by physical examination; that such disease responds to therapy; that early therapy of... This content is PDF only. To continue reading please click on the PDF icon. Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAuthors: CHARLES O. BRANTIGAN, M.D.Affiliations: 1427 S. Humboldt Street Denver, Colorado 80210 PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Metrics 1 March 1976Volume 84, Issue 3Page: 344-345KeywordsArmed forces ePublished: 1 December 2008 Issue Published: 1 March 1976 PDF downloadLoading ...

The Argument against the Physiological Determination of Female Roles: A Reply to Pierre L. van den Berghe's Rejoinder to Williams' Extension of Brown's Article

American AnthropologistVolume 75, Issue 5 p. 1725-1728 Free Access The Argument Against the Physiological Determination of Female Roles: A Reply to Pierre L. van den Berghe's Rejoinder to Williams' Extension of Brown's Article1 SHARLOTTE NEELY WILLIAMS, SHARLOTTE NEELY WILLIAMS University of North Carolina, Chapel HillSearch for more papers by this author SHARLOTTE NEELY WILLIAMS, SHARLOTTE NEELY WILLIAMS University of North Carolina, Chapel HillSearch for more papers by this author First published: October 1973 https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1973.75.5.02a00360Citations: 2 1 I am grateful to Judith K. Brown of Oakland University, David Pilbeam and J. Kenneth Smail of Yale University, and Frederick D. McEvoy and John Gulick of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, for reviewing a first draft of this article and offering useful comments. AboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL References Cited American Anthropological Association 1972 Resolutions and Amendments Pass. Newsletter 13(6): 1. Brown, Judith K. 1970 A Note on the Division of Labor by Sex. American Anthropologist 72: 1073– 1078. Ford, Barbara 1970 How They Taught a Chimp to Talk. Science Digest 67: 10– 17. Goodall, Jane Van Lawick 1967a Mother-Offspring Relationships in Free-Ranging Chimpanzees. In Primate Ethology. Desmond Morris, Ed. Chicago: Aldine. Goodall, Jane Van Lawick 1967b My Friends the Wild Chimpanzees. Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Society. Goodall, Jane Van Lawick 1971 In the Shadow of Man. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Kortlandt, Adriaan 1962 Chimpanzees in the Wild. Scientific American 206: 128– 138. Kortlandt, Adriaan 1967 Reply. Current Anthropology 8: 255– 257. Kummer, Hans 1971 Primate Societies—Group Techniques of Ecological Adaptation. Chicago: Aldine. Reynolds, Vernon 1964 The “Man of the Woods.” Natural History 73: 44– 51. Rowell, Thelma E. 1966 Hierarchy in the Organisation of a Captive Baboon Group. Animal Behaviour 14: 430– 443. Rowell, Thelma E. 1969 Long-Term Changes in a Population of Ugandan Baboons. Folia Primatologica 11: 241– 254. Time 1970 The Education of Sarah. Time 96(12): 51– 52. Van den Berghe, Pierre L. 1972 Sex Differentiation and Infant Care: A Rejoinder to Sharlotte Neely Williams. American Anthropologist 74: 770– 772. Williams, Sharlotte Neely 1971 The Limitations of the Male/ Female Activity Distinction Among Primates: An Extension of Judith K. Brown's “A Note on the Division of Labor by Sex.” American Anthropologist 73: 805– 806. Citing Literature Volume75, Issue5October 1973Pages 1725-1728 ReferencesRelatedInformation

Teaching the Neophyte

To the Editor:— Professor Willis Brown's address as Chairman of the Section on Obstetrics and Gynecology, Who Teaches the Neophyte? (JAMA187:287 [Jan 25] 1964) is a refreshing, unbiased restatement of old truths. Several thoughts can be added to his very clear presentation. The professor of grantsmanship will be with us a long time, in spite of many criticisms against him. None of us shoots Santa Claus, even if we criticize his baggy clothes, obesity, lack of haircut and a shave, or his refusal to use the front door. One very important teacher of neophytes was not mentioned in Dr. Brown's article, ie, other neophytes, on residency staffs, who have graduated a year or two ahead of their juniors. The paradox of delayed clinical teaching is worsened by the fact that some of our most eager teachers are still waiting for the ink to dry on their diplomas. The

“Statistical Significance in Psychical Research”

WE think it is important that readers of Nature should not be led by Mr. Spencer Brown's article on “Statistical Significance in Psychical Research” (Nature, July 25, p. 154) to think that there is ground for doubting the validity of the experimental work of the past twenty years in establishing the reality of phenomena commonly referred to as extra-sensory perception.