Editorial Intervention Research Articles

A Listing of Inventories, Sales, and Advertisements Relating to Flutes, Recorders, and Flageolets, 1631-1800 (review)

Listing of Inventories, Sales, and Advertisements Relating to Flutes, Recorders, and Flageolets, 1631-1800. Compiled by David Lasocki. Blooming - ton, Indiana: Instant Harmony, 2010. [iv, 358 p. E-book, file size 2.23 MB. No ISBN. $12.75.] Appendices. This self-published e-book extends the compilation the author began with A Listing of Inventories and Purchases of Flutes, Recorders, Flageolets, and Tabor Pipes, in David Lasocki, ed., Musicque de joye: Proceedings of the Inter - national Symposium on the Renaissance Flute and Recorder Consort, Utrecht 2003 ([Utrecht: STIMU Foundation for Historical Per - formance Practice, 2005], pp. 419-511; also available at http://library.music.indiana .edu/reference/inventoriesto1630.pdf; accessed 10 January 2011). The present listing (version of 26 May 2010) is arranged chronologically and then alphabetically by city within four main sections: Europe except for newspapers (161 pp.), advertisements in newspapers (40 pp.), advertisements in American newspapers (129 pp.), other English-language advertisements (mostly from India; 7 pp.), plus three appendices: Dutch references to the recorder and flageolet after 1800 (7 pp.), references to the recorder in American newspapers after 1800 (2 pp.), and additions to the previous listing for 1388-1630 (11 pp.). Lasocki's citations from inventories and sales records consist mainly of direct quotations extracted from previously transcribed sources-all fully credited-with translations into where needed. Lasocki was seldom able to consult the original sources, but the transcriptions on which he relies seem generally accurate, although the veracity of the primary documents of course cannot be confirmed. Usually he quotes only phrases referring specifically to flutes and related instruments, but sometimes he provides lengthy passages, for example from estate inventories, that place the instruments in welcome context. Lasocki lifts newspaper advertisements from databases and facsimiles, both online and in print, as well as from previously published studies. Newspaper ads are notorious for typographical errors but Lasocki lets the ads speak for themselves with minimal editorial intervention. Nevertheless, because readers cannot distinguish errors in the originals from possible typos in transcription (for example, Dairy for Daily, p. 292), the originals must be consulted before these ads are quoted further. Dis - crepancies that occasionally occur between Lasocki's versions and, for example, transcriptions of the same ads by Nancy Groce, Musical Instrument Makers of New York; Directory of Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century Urban Craftsmen (Stuyvesant, NY: Pen - dragon Press, 1991) ought to be resolved. That American listings far outnumber ones here might be explained by the greater number of historical American papers that have been made readily accessible; similarly, London newspapers have been surveyed more thoroughly than papers from other cities. The paucity of Italian, Belgian, Spanish, and other European listings suggests that statistical conclusions regarding the relative popularity and spread of various flute types would be premature. In addition to searching databases, Lasocki has combed material from an impressive range of printed secondary sources, mostly journal articles and local music histories. bibliography of these publications would have been useful in itself and would have reduced redundancy, as when Louis Pichierri's Music in New Hampshire, 1623-1800 (New York: Colum - bia University Press, 1960) is cited thrice in full on two adjoining pages. Incidentally, it is disconcerting to find entries from Argentina, Colombia, Mexico, and French colonial North America, and Romania in the Western Europe except for British section. Extracts regarding the recorder in America after 1800 never mention the word recorder; instead they use the old-fashioned term English flute. …

From the manuscript to the screen: Implementing electronic editions of mediaeval handwritten material

From the manuscript to the screen: Implementing electronic editions of mediaeval handwritten material This paper describes the electronic editing of the Middle English material housed in the Hunterian Collection at Glasgow University Library (GUL), a joint project undertaken by the universities of Málaga, Glasgow, Oviedo, Murcia and Jaén which pursues the compilation of an electronic corpus of mediaeval Fachprosa in the vernacular (http://hunter.filosofia.uma.es/manuscripts). The paper therefore addresses the concept of electronic editing as applied to The corpus of Late Middle English scientific prose with the following objectives: (a) to describe the editorial principles and the theoretical implications adopted; and (b) to present the digital layout and the tool implemented for data retrieval. A diplomatic approach is then proposed wherein the editorial intervention is kept to a minimum. Accordingly, features such as lineation, punctuation and emendations are every now and then accurately reproduced as by the scribe's hand whilst abbreviations are yet expanded in italics. GUL MS Hunter 497, holding a 15th-century English version of Aemilius Macer's De viribus herbarum, will be used as a sample demonstration (Calle-Martín - Miranda-García, forthcoming).

Historical Document Richard Windeyer

The following is the text of a lecture by Richard Windeyer, taken from the manuscript in the Mitchell Library, Sydney (Call No. NPL MA 1400). It is catalogued as c. 1842, however 1844 is more likely. On 29th April 1844 there was an advertisement in the Sydney Morning Herald for a course of lectures at the City Theatre in Market Street arranged by the Commercial Reading-Rooms & Library: ‘R. Windeyer Esq MC June 7 Rights of the Aborigines’. Windeyer had spoken on the topic in 1842 in a debate, but what follows is the text of the later lecture in full. It has been prepared by Jim Windeyer, and is here presented with as little editorial intervention as possible. In the manuscript Richard Windeyer makes reference to excerpts from other sources but does not transcribe them. As these passages are essential to his argument (and it is likely that he read them in his lecture), they have been included.

Manly and Rickert and the Failure of Method

Vance Ramsey, in his extended defense of Manly and Rickert's The Text of the Canterbury Tales, makes the following assertion: Contrary to the absolutists, no intelligent person can doubt that taste and must be exercised by any editor worthy of the name, but they should be the very resort of an editor and not the first. I doubt whether anyone with experience of editing Middle English texts (as Ramsey had not) would formulate the problems of editorial intervention in such a categorical way. Nor is it clear what absolutists (whatever the term is intended to mean) he has in mind. And if learning, taste and judgment are to be the last resort of the editor, what is to be the first? It is worth applying this question to the editorial activities of Manly and Rickert, that is, to those portions of their work specifically concerned with presenting a text of the Canterbury Tales, volumes 3 and 4. These volumes have important practical implications for their larger undertaking. One might reasonably assume that the very first procedural matter that any editor would wish to establish would be the choice of the base text, which will provide the lemmata for the edition, that is, the forms against which other witnesses will be collated. Normally such a base text would also provide, in general terms, the orthographic forms for the text, what are now termed its accidentals.

Serenaden: Nr. 1 D-dur für grosses Orchester Opus 11, Nr. 2 A-dur für kleines Orchester Opus 16 (review)

Reviewed by: Serenaden: Nr. 1 D-dur für grosses Orchester Opus 11, Nr. 2 A-dur für kleines Orchester Opus 16 Jacquelyn Sholes Johannes Brahms. Serenaden: Nr. 1 D-dur für grosses Orchester Opus 11, Nr. 2 A-dur für kleines Orchester Opus 16. Herausgegeben von Michael Musgrave. (Neue Ausgabe sämtlicher Werke, Ser. I: Orchesterwerke, Bd. 5.) Munich: G. Henle, 2006. [Frontispiece (3 facsimiles), 1 p.; Vorwort, p. vii; Abkürzungen und Sigel, p. ix–x; Einleitung, p. xi–xxvii; Zur Gestaltung des Notentextes, p. xxviii–xxix; Besetzung, p. xx; score, p. 1–337; Anhang A, p. 338; Anhang B, p. 339; Krit. Bericht, p. 341–406; Verzeichnis der Abbildungen, p. 407. ISMN M-2018-6008-4; pub. no. HN 6008. Cloth. $486.] The new complete edition of the works of Johannes Brahms addresses several shortcomings of the original Johannes Brahms sämtliche Werke, edited by Hans Gál and Eusebius Mandyczewski, and published in twenty-six volumes by Breitkopf & Härtel in 1926–27. It is perhaps not surprising that there are problems with the original "collected works" edition, given that the entirety of its editing and publication was completed within a period of five years (during which time, furthermore, Mandyczewski's productivity was limited due to illness) and under significant financial constraints (as reported by George Bozarth in his "Editing Brahms' Music," Brahms Studies 2 [Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1998], 2). The haste with which the old edition was produced resulted in texts of inconsistent reliability, with numerous errors—particularly involving misplaced or missing dynamic and articulation markings—riddling some of the works (again see Bozarth, this time his "Brahms's Posthumous Compositions and Arrangements: Editorial Problems and Questions of Authenticity," Brahms 2: Biographical, Documentary, and Analytical Studies, ed. Michael Musgrave (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 71 ff.). In compiling their edition, Gál and Mandyczewski consulted only a limited number of sources. With few exceptions, these were restricted to documents available in Vienna or among the holdings of the Breitkopf & Härtel archives. For many works, the sources consulted consisted of one autograph, the original published edition, and the composer's Handexemplar, i.e., his annotated copy of the first edition. Some of the errors in the Sämtliche Werke may be blamed on the editors' heavy reliance on the first editions and on the Handexemplare. Gál and Mandyczewski viewed the latter—and in the absence of corrections therein, the original editions—as definitive. This is problematic, for not only do the original editions in fact contain various inaccuracies that arose during hand-copying or engraving, and were overlooked by proofreaders including the composer himself—a phenomenon reported by Donald and Margit McCorkle, and in various essays by Robert Pascall—but Brahms sometimes made amendments in autograph copies rather than in his Handexemplare. Furthermore, as Pascall has pointed out, the Handexemplare were for Brahms's personal use; thus the annotations they contain may have been experimental rather than reflecting the composer's final wishes, which might be more reasonably ascertained by examining Brahms's correspondence with his publishers, as well as later editions and perhaps transcriptions. Such sources were almost entirely neglected in the compilation of the original Sämtliche Werke. Among the many other important documents not consulted [End Page 180] but now known and available are fair copies, engravers' models, and publishers' proofs, some of which were known to Gál and Mandyczewski but were excluded for purposes of expediency and/or financial feasibility, or were simply unavailable. McCorkle ("Five Fundamental Obstacles in Brahms Source Research," Acta Musicologica 48, no. 2 [July–December 1976]: 263), suggests that publishers Rieter-Biedermann and Simrock deliberately withheld some of the relevant manuscripts in their possession in order to "retain their monopoly as publishers of Brahms in the face of the encroaching Breitkopf & Härtel Sämtliche Werke." There are other drawbacks to the original Sämtliche Werke. For instance, the editors unfortunately kept their commentary and annotations extremely brief and limited, indicating neither the nature nor frequency of discrepancies between source texts, declining to explain the methodology they employed in handling those discrepancies, and omitting indications of editorial intervention, thus rendering...

Bruhns and his instruments

Nicolaus Bruhns is one of a number of organists whom J. S. Bach, according to his obituary, took as models for study. This perhaps propelled Bruhns into modern prominence rather earlier than some others of his north German organist contemporaries, with Fritz Stein and Martin Geck's edition for Peters appearing in 1939. For many years this was the only available edition, and for its date it was an exemplary and clear text with little editorial intervention. This new edition by Harald Vogel draws together more recent scholarship, for instance the relationship of letter-tablature handwriting between Pachelbel, Johann Christoph Bach and the young J. S. Bach which only became apparent following the discovery of the Weimar Organ Tablature in 2005. Bruhns was an organist and violinist of great brilliance, having studied organ with Buxtehude and violin with his uncle Peter Bruhns in Lübeck. It is a great tragedy that so little of his music has survived, although I suppose one can still hope for some further discoveries. He stands as one of the last north German organists still writing the classic large-scale sectional praeludia brought to such perfection by his teacher Buxtehude, whilst his single surviving chorale fantasia on Nun komm, der Heiden Heiland is one of the finest in the repertory. His skills as a virtuoso violinist are evident in the many string-inspired textures in his keyboard writing, and the anecdote from Mattheson of his playing the violin with double-stopping whilst accompanying himself on the organ pedals rings completely true when the violin parts in his cantatas are taken into account. There is one central section of the Nun komm fantasia with two intertwining treble parts which is particularly suggestive of the Mattheson tale, and having tried it with one of the Baroque violinists I work with, I can report that it works splendidly, rather in the manner of the violin writing of Biber. No wonder the young Bach was so interested to copy this music!

Guy of Warwick 1661, ed. Helen Moore. * The Famous Victories of Henry the Fifth 1598, ed. Chiaki Hanabusa. * JOHN FLETCHER, The Woman's Prize, ed. Meg Powers Livingston.

MONDAY, 30 July 1906, was a remarkable day. At University College London a meeting was held attended by F. S. Boas, E. K. Chambers, W. W. Greg, R. B. McKerrow, and A. W. Pollard, among others, at which it was decided, ‘that there existed a need for the reliable transmission of early modern playtexts for use by scholars and students.’ The meeting resolved, ‘that a Society, to be called The Malone Society, be formed for the purpose of producing accurate copies of the best editions of early plays.’ It was named after Edmond Malone (1741–1812) whose labours in making available a wide range of primary materials relating to the study of Elizabethan and Jacobean drama, as well as producing one of the most influential editions of Shakespeare in 1790, seemed worthy of commemoration. Now these men, among others, were also the founders of what has been called the New Bibliography. This new methodology, for method was a main thrust of the movement, was grounded on a thorough understanding of the book as a physical object and involved studying the operation of the book trade, the technical procedures of setting, printing, proofing, binding, and selling books. The New Bibliographers rediscovered what the classical and biblical textual critics had always known: in the real-time history of a text, the only moment that reveals any information about the correct form of the text is that moment when it moves from one form to another and from which the later form survives. Where some earlier English editors had gone wrong was in neglecting the ways texts have been transmitted and in viewing the text as an abstraction with a life of its own outside of real time and space. To put into operation such a method, not to say theory, as set forth by the New Bibliographers what was needed was a constant reference to original documents and a systematic regulation of editorial intervention in edited texts. That is what the Malone Society reprints sought to provide. And provide it they did.

Manly and Rickert and the Failure of Method

Manly and Rickert and the Failure of Method A. S. G. Edwards Vance Ramsey, in his extended defense of Manly and Rickert's The Text of the Canterbury Tales, makes the following assertion: "Contrary to the absolutists, no intelligent person can doubt that learning, taste and judgment must be exercised by any editor worthy of the name, but they should be the very last resort of an editor and not the first."1 I doubt whether anyone with experience of editing Middle English texts (as Ramsey had not) would formulate the problems of editorial intervention in such a categorical way. Nor is it clear what "absolutists" (whatever the term is intended to mean) he has in mind. And if "learning, taste and judgment" are to be the "last" resort of the editor, what is to be the first?2 It is worth applying this last question to the editorial activities of Manly and Rickert, that is, to those portions of their work specifically concerned with presenting a text of the Canterbury Tales, volumes 3 and 4. These volumes have important practical implications for their larger undertaking. One might reasonably assume that the very first procedural matter that any editor would wish to establish would be the choice of the base text, which will provide the lemmata for the edition, that is, the forms against which other witnesses will be collated. Normally such a base text would also provide, in general terms, the orthographic forms for the text, what are now termed its "accidentals." The term "accidentals" derives from the influential editorial theory [End Page 337] of W. W. Greg in his classic paper "The Rationale of Copy-Text."3 Although Greg draws his examples in this essay from Renaissance texts, his formulations drew on considerable experience of Middle English works and he had also made extended study of the problems of manuscripts of the Canterbury Tales.4 According to Ramsey, Greg had also been in correspondence with Manly and Rickert in the 1920s and 1930s.5 It is clear that the experience of medieval literature helped to shape his thinking.6 The idea of copy-text makes a clear distinction in textual authority between the accidentals (the spelling forms) of a base text and its substantive readings. Greg suggests that generally the earliest surviving witness (that closest in time to the author's original) provides authority for accidentals, while questions of substantive variation between witnesses can be assessed on a case-by-case basis using a full range of editorial resources (including doubtless "learning, taste and judgment"). Greg's formulation offers a clear and flexible statement of method: establish the choice of copy-text to provide a formal basis for a text, but emend its substantive readings on appropriate grounds. It is a statement of method that, in the case of the Canterbury Tales, invalidates the lengthy and fruitless debate over the textual superiority of Hengwrt or Ellesmere that Manly and Rickert conduct through assertion rather than the presentation of evidence.7 For any edition of the work must perforce [End Page 338] take Ellesmere as its copy-text on wholly pragmatic grounds: it is early, dialectally consistent and, more compelling, it is the more complete of the two (Hengwrt lacks of course The Canon's Yeoman's Tale and much of The Parson's Tale and the Retraction), and it offers a more convincing order. Any debate about the superiority of particular readings in Hengwrt (or indeed other manuscripts) remains a matter of individual editorial judgment. Most editions now begin by identifying their "base text" or "copy-text" (the terms are often used synonymously). Such a statement might reasonably be seen as the "first resort" of any editor. But not Manly and Rickert. Their textual methodology of course predates Greg's paper, but it has always been editorial convention to identify the text on which an edition is based. They do not. They do identify the grounds for one aspect of their textual procedure. They state: "As the basis for collation we chose Skeat's 'Student's Edition.'"8 Although they give no more details, the edition they used is presumably W. W. Skeat's one-volume Student's...

Amended Texts, Emended Ladies: Female Agency and the Textual Editing of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight

Amended Texts, Emended LadiesFemale Agency and the Textual Editing of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight Paul Battles Sir Gawain and the Green Knight has been fortunate in its editors. Their painstaking labor has given us a lucid, intelligently glossed, and helpfully annotated text, and every critic who works on the poem is indebted to their efforts. A list of the poem's editors reads like a "who's who" of Middle English textual criticism, and their work fully deserves the praise that has been bestowed upon it. Yet the judgment of even the best editors is not infallible, and it behooves literary critics to scrutinize their decisions, particularly when it comes to emendations that affect the interpretation of the poem. There is always the danger, to borrow A. E. Housman's phrase, of not correcting the scribe but revising the author.1 One problem that has received surprisingly little attention is how editorial decisions have shaped readers' perceptions of women in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Even as feminist critics have, especially in the past two decades, convincingly shown that women are central to the poem's action,2 editors have obscured or even erased their role in the text. Such is the case not only in older editions, where it might be expected if not condoned, but also in the most recent and authoritative ones. Significant editorial changes are often passed uncritically from one edition to the next, with little evidence that the rationale and evidence for emending have been carefully [End Page 323] weighed. The result of these interventions, though no doubt unintended, has been to seriously misrepresent the text and to distort the poem's attitude toward women. To illustrate the persistent and far-reaching nature of these changes, I will examine three representative cases of editorial intervention in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Each involves a different type of intervention and concerns a different woman or group of women. The common denominator for these changes is that they all reduce women's agency and subordinate them to men, even when the poem implies—or expressly states—that the opposite is true. I On the first day that Lady Bertilak visits Sir Gawain in his chamber, she urges him to woo her because Gawain excels all other knights. She extols his beauty, humility, honor, and courtesy, and says that, if she had to choose a husband, it would be him. Gawain claims to be unworthy of her praise and reminds the Lady that she is already married. As their conversation draws to a close, she reflects on her inability to sway Gawain: she cannot tempt him "‘Þaʒ I were burde bryʒtest,' þe burde in mynde hade" ("Though I were the most beautiful of ladies," the lady thought) (1283), because—as the text continues—he is completely preoccupied with his impending fate (1284–87). Most editors attribute this thought to Gawain by altering I to ho and changing the second burde to burne, so that the emended line reads: "Þaʒ ho were burde bryʒtest, þe burne in mynde hade." This verse remains one of the most-discussed in the poem. Doubts about the emendations were already voiced by Oliver F. Emerson in 1922, and shortly thereafter the changes were rejected as unnecessary by J. R. R. Tolkien and E. V. Gordon.3 In 1973, George Sanderlin made a detailed and persuasive argument for retaining the manuscript reading, as did Sharon M. Rowley some thirty years later.4 Nevertheless, most editors continue to emend.5 The [End Page 324] following analysis will reinforce and extend the case against emending. At stake in this debate is the role critics attribute to Lady Bertilak: What are her motives for seducing Gawain? How much does she know about her husband's plans? Is she his obedient pawn or his co-conspirator? Since some of the reasons for emending involve the immediate context of line 1283, it will be helpful to quote verses 1280–89. In order to defer, for the moment, questions about how best to punctuate these verses, they are cited from the facsimile:6 þus þay meled of muchquat til mydmorn pasteand ay...

Plant genomes. Genome dynamics vol. 4

This book explores some of the latest research in the field of plant genomics with an emphasis on genome dynamics in Poaceae and the role of retroelements and polyploidy in establishing genome diversity. It comprises a collection of eleven short papers, including some by the finest practitioners of the subject. Most papers are of review style, although a few have included small amounts of new data. The book is not designed to be read from cover to cover as each paper stands alone, and whilst this leads to a little redundancy between chapters, the majority of papers are well worth the read. Several papers, such as those by Deragon et al. and Messing and Bennetzen, explore the contribution of transposable elements (especially retroelements) to angiosperm genome structure, diversity and evolution. The papers review a substantial body of evidence demonstrating that these elements are responsible for much of the genomic dynamism reported across angiosperms. At a more focused level, a review of the rice genome is provided by Sasaki, whilst an overview of current in-depth maize genomic research is given by Rafalski and Tingey. Further evidence of extensive genome fluidity and dynamism is also exhibited in terms of nuclear genome size. Grover et al.'s review clearly outlines our current understanding of the significant mechanisms that have contributed to the overall pace and direction of genome size change (both up and down) over evolution. The other substantial component of angiosperm genome structure that is explored is polyploidy (or whole-genome duplication), which has so characterized and shaped angiosperm divergence. The paper by Paterson describes the impact of paleopolyploidy on angiosperm diversity, while Sampedro and Cosgrove outline how the collinear organization of genes in duplicated syntenic blocks can be used to infer evolutionary relationships between species, and the particular pitfalls that may arise using such approaches. The fate of duplicated genes has been the focus of much research and the excellent paper by Freeling examines different hypotheses (i.e. gain-of-function, subfunctionalization, and balanced-gene-drive) that have been proposed to explain patterns of duplicate-gene retention following polyploidy. Analysing the increasing amounts of comparative sequence data being generated, Freeling concludes that balanced-gene-drive rather than subfunctionalization is the most likely mechanism responsible for duplicate-gene retention. In addition to these central foci in the book, there is a paper on plant sex chromosomes by Charlesworth and one on plant centromeres by Lamb et al. The latter explores exactly what the plant centromere is, with recent data clearly showing that this essential structure is largely the product of epigenetic modifications rather than genetic sequence. There is also a paper on small interfering RNAs by Meyers et al. that provides a valuable marker for the state-of-knowledge in this young, but undoubtedly important field in relation to genome dynamics. Unfortunately the paper is likely to age rapidly. Overall, the book presents us with state-of-the-art information in most areas of plant genome dynamics. We say ‘in most areas’, however, because there is nothing significant on tandem repeats, which comprise a substantial fraction of plant genomes, and it does not mention ribosomal DNA (rDNA) or telomeres, despite significant advances in our understanding of their evolutionary and functional dynamics over the last few years. Furthermore there is no allusion to the avalanche of high-throughput sequence data that is on the brink of arriving. The quality of the presentation is high, although there could have been a bit more editorial intervention in places to strengthen or remove a few weak sections to some manuscripts that crept through, and to enhance poorly explained figures. Nevertheless the book is free of minor errors and this small criticism should not deter the reader from buying this specialist book. This book is suitable for anyone with a research or high-level teaching interest in genome dynamics in angiosperms. In summary, this book effectively establishes that the angiosperm genome is highly dynamic, and provides insights into the key processes and mechanisms that contribute to that dynamism, particularly polyploidy and retroelements. It provides a good overall marker of our current knowledge in most areas. We are pleased to have read it and feel it would make a valuable addition to our collection or a library.

Problems in Editing John Donne's Letters: Unreliable Primary Materials

AbstractThis paper is part of a Literature Compass panel cluster on the forthcoming Oxford edition of Donne's letters.Margaret Maurer introduces the cluster which offers papers by the three editors and seeks to examine the new directions the edition will pursue. The papers were originally delivered to the members of the John Donne Society in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, in February 2008.The cluster is made up of the following articles:‘The Oxford Edition of Donne's Letters: Well Underway’, Margaret Maurer, Literature Compass 5 (2008), DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-4113.2008.00598.x.‘“Apparitions, and Ghosts”: H(a)unting Donne's Letters’, M. Thomas Hester, Literature Compass 5 (2008), DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-4113.2008.00599.x.‘“Only in Obedience” to Whom? – The Identity of a Donne Correspondent’, Dennis Flynn, Literature Compass 5 (2008), DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-4113.2008.00600.x.‘Problems in Editing John Donne's Letters: Unreliable Primary Materials’, Ernest W. Sullivan, II, Literature Compass 5 (2008), DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-4113.2008.00601.x.***This essay examines some of the difficulties in producing the kind of edition of Donne's prose letters that everyone would like – one that establishes the canon, dates, recipients, and texts that accurately represent what Donne wrote. By examining the texts of the two Donne letters that survive in holograph as well as in various seventeenth‐century printings (letters to Edward Herbert and Lady Kingsmill) as well as one to the Duke of Buckingham that survives in holograph and in a nineteenth‐century transcription and printings, I show how editorial intervention and physical degradation have so compromised the texts of some of the letters in Donne's Letters to Severall Persons of Honour (1651) and A Collection of Letters, Made By Sr Tobie Mathews (1660) and even in the holograph to Buckingham that the surviving texts (including their dates and recipients) of nearly all of Donne's letters are problematical. Worse, the evidence shows that the changes to the originals would not have been recoverable had these few holographs not survived. Any edition of Donne's prose letters, then, will have to attend to risk assessment as well as to the traditional features of an edition.

Figures de l'histoire de France dans le theatre au tournant des Lumieres 1760-1830

The importance of national history in late eighteenth-century and romantic theatre has long been recognized; the implicit claim to the originality of the present volume (proceedings of a conference held in Pau in May 2002) is the focus on the historical character, rather than the event or period. It covers a useful range of material from spoken and musical theatre, including discussions of such characters as Henry IV, Mary Stuart, Louis IX, Clovis and others. Contributions are of mixed quality, and the volume is marred overall by fairly frequent errors; mostly typographical, but sometimes historical, such as the reference to Marie-Antoinette's marriage ‘en 1770 au tout nouveau roi Louis XVI’ [acceded 1774] (p. 24). The work usefully takes a perspective of longer term development, from ‘Les Lumières’ to Romanticism, with a liberation from the forms of classicism (p. ix). But an opportunity has been missed to ask some fundamental questions about the attendant issues which that raises, such as the breakdown of genres, the ways in which this vogue for ‘national history’ might be related to the development of stadial historiography, whether the Revolution does anything particular with historical characters; not to mention whether a general evolution is discernible. To do so is of course much harder with a collective volume; but the introduction could have set out the issues much more helpfully. Indeed, when the individual chapters are case studies of admittedly obscure works, without such editorial work the volume feels like little more than the sum of its parts. The start- and end-dates of the volume are also somewhat questionable. Together, they are taken to englobe ‘le tournant des Lumières’, yet 1830 is rather late to mark the end of the Enlightenment (not to mention for a publication such as SVEC), and it is unclear why 1760 has been chosen as a beginning: many historical works date from before, as the editors note. There are some vague references to ‘patriotism’ and to a renewal of the repertory (which repertory?), but that is all. 1765, with its arguably watershed work Le Siège de Calais, might be a better bet, but one wonders, in the light of articles centred on Hénault's François II (1747), and on Meyerbeer's Les Huguenots (1836), whether the dates have really been thought through at all. More seriously, though, several contributions needed tighter editorial intervention. I question the usefulness of Simonin's rubrics on pp. 25–26 (particularly, ‘Onomastique’, a one-paragraph list of names with no critical comment whatsoever, or ‘Dramaturgie’, which explains that the plays are written in verse); several articles are padded out with appendices whose necessity is at best debatable (Bourdin, Cooper), whereas Guermès's article on Meyerbeer makes no reference to the music, and her sole musicographical reference is Kobbé's opera book. Naturally, there are some fine readings here too (Delon, Flammarion, Biard, Krakovitch, particularly), but they are very much in the minority. SVEC is a prestigious and highly regarded series, and this volume falls well below its usual standard.

The Revivifying Word: Literature, Philosophy and the Theory of Life in Europe's Romantic Age by Clayton Koelb

MLR, 104.4, 2009 1099 Iwona Piechnik contrastively discusses adposition development in Balto-Finnish and Romance, or more particularly French, noting a trend from postposition to preposition in the former and an opposite drift in the latter. Mariana Tutescu con siders themedieval opposition de revs de dicto and its fundamental importance in the expression ofmodality in logic and language, and Maria Iliescu offers a brief account of the lexical trajectories ofpartenaire, entrevue, budget fromOld French into English and back into French before entering Romanian. The other contributions are of a rather different character and may appeal less to the French specialist. Three consider Latin topics: Hannah Rosen exa mines earlier editorial emendations of the conjunction sed; Heikki Solin calls attention to two second-century ad attestations involving pronominal te in a context demanding the nominative tu and suggests these are early examples of the generalization of the accusative; and Tuomo Pekkanen explores the sources of Horace's references to northern lands, identifying especially the Greek writ ers Aristeas and Pytheas. The five remaining essays are highly varied in na ture.Anna Bochnakowa presents a seventeenth-century Polish multilingual dic tionary; Juhani Harma and Elina Suomela-Harma investigate dedications and textes d'hommage in theses defended at the University of Turku 1640-1828; Witold Manczak, invoking somewhat questionable lexical material, places the origin of the Goths in the extreme south of Germania rather than in Scandi navia; Outi Merisalo gives an account of the correspondence between theGerman philologist Ludwig Traube (d. 1907) and Werner Soderhjelm (d. 1931), the pi oneer of philology in modern languages in Finland; finally, Saara Nevanlinna explores the various nouns designating the pigeon' frommedieval English on ward. The volume is nicely presented with very few misprints. The only regret is perhaps that a littlemore editorial intervention did not take place. A thematic grouping of contributions, not necessarily that attempted above, would surely have been preferable to just setting out the essays according to the alphabetical order of the authors' names. Moreover, the use of Swedish and German in two of the essays does stand out as anomalous inview of the adoption of French or English elsewhere. None the less, this collection is a scholarly feast and ismuch to be welcomed. University of Bristol Rodney Sampson The RevivifyingWord: Literature, Philosophy and theTheory ofLife inEurope's Ro mantic Age. By Clayton Koelb. Rochester, NY, andWoodbridge: Camden House. 2008. xiv+205 pp. $75; ?40. ISBN 978-1-57113-388-5. For readers familiar with Clayton Koelb's previous books, in particular Kafka's Rhetoric: The Passion ofReading (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1989), In ventions ofReading: Rhetoric and theLiterary Imagination (ibid., 1988), and The Incredulous Reader: Literature and theFunction ofDisbelief (ibid., 1984), it should come as no surprise that in this, his most recent work, he chooses as his focus fictional readers, acts of reading, and cthedrama of revivification' in order to draw 1100 Reviews attention to a fruitful point of intersection between the rhetoric of philosophy and the rhetoric of fiction during the Romantic century: the apostle Paul's well known proposition that the dead lettercan be revivified by the living spirit' (p. ix). While much inkhas been spiltby scholars ofRomanticism, Koelb's novel approach produces a highly original reading of a selection of Romantic texts in an attempt to locate the liminal state between living organisms and dead matter, an essential enterprise, he argues, of Romantic authors and thinkers. Koelb establishes his goal from the outset: 'to demonstrate how one strand of philosophic thought about the relation between Tiving spirit' and 'dead letter'per meated Romantic literature fornearly a century' (p. 12). He bases his understanding of'the Romantic century on thatof William Galperin and SusanWolfson, 'who have suggested redefining Romanticism as "an intellectually and historically coherent century-long category, 1750-1850, which we [Galperin andWolfson] unabashedly call 'TheRomantic Century"" (p. ix). Such unabashed declarations are problematic fornumerous reasons, and subsequent claims often prove more suspect than apo dictic. To borrow from Lovejoy, such a lapidary approach toRomanticism(s) would appear to lack discrimination. For instance, JohannGeorg Hamann, a philosopher who worked within a German Enlightenment context, and who exerted a consider able influence on Sturm und Drang...

Mit akulturowości tekstów nieliterackich na przykładzie literatury z dziedziny psychologii

The language function is one of the criteria for dividing translated texts into literary and non-literary ones. The latter are supposedly acultural, i.e. free from cultural and intertextual references. Such an approach may lead to translation errors. Translators who focus entirely on that branch of knowledge that a given text refers to and on related terminology may overlook cultural and intertextual elements. Th is not only ignores the intention of introducing them into the text, but also changes the meaning of passages in which they are included. The analysis of two books concerning psychology and psychotherapy: Systems of Psychotherapy. A Transtheoretical Analysis and Personality Disorders in Modern Life provides ample examples of introducing implicit references to the Bible and literary masterpieces into psychological discourse. Despite the label of scientific texts, American psychological literature is characterized by numerous hidden quotations from other sources, thus becoming deeply rooted in the intertextual space, in order to allow readers to imagine psychic conditions described. Consequently, in translating such texts, translators cannot limit themselves to a thorough knowledge of psychology, psychotherapy and terminology connected with those areas, but must also be observant enough to notice intertextual traces and then be able to localize them and interpret them correctly. Otherwise the translation may alter the original meaning or introduce ambiguity which is not welcome in such texts.This paper analyses selected examples of intertextuality in psychological literature and their translations. In each case, editorial intervention was required since the lack of recognition of such elements or their incorrect interpretation resulted in various types of translation errors. The conclusion off ered from this discussion is that translators must bear in mind that all texts are of a hybrid nature, and a narrow specialized approach may not guarantee an error-free translation.

Breaking the frame: How Edith Wharton's short stories subvert their magazine context

This article focuses on the restrictive nature of the American magazine in both the Gilded Age and Progressive Era of mass publication, the two periods in which Wharton published seventy-eight of her short stories. I consider the textual disunity often created by the use of illustrations, including advertisements, and the challenge to authorial autonomy presented by editorial intervention. I argue here that this material frame influenced Wharton's narrative strategies in her shorter fiction and examine how she successfully subverts the cultural frame in which her texts were placed, using apparent restrictions to add depth and complexity to her stories. To my knowledge, this is the first sustained study of the interaction between Wharton's short stories and their magazine frames, and the first focus on the subversive nature of her narrative strategies in her shorter fiction, in terms of challenging their material context.

Kvadratnye metry, opredeliaiushchie soznanie: Gosudarstvennaia zhilishchnaia politika v SSSR. 1921-1941 gg , and: Kak vlast'narod k trudu priuchala: Zhilishche v SSSR: sredstvo upravleniia lud'mi. 1917-1941 gg by Mark Grigor'evich Meerovich (review)

170 SEER, 86, I, 2008 intellectuals and political opponents of Bolshevism, many ordinary middle class Russians managed to obtain exit visas or unofficial permits and to get to Berlin, Prague and Paris, as well as London, Manchuria, Hong Kong, San Francisco. It has been calculated that as many as twomillion leftthe country during and in the immediate aftermath of theCivil War, among themmany thousands ofJews.Weimar Germany was especially attractive toRussian and Jew alike: of the roughly 250,000 formerRussian subjects living there in 1925, some 65,000 were Jews, while theRussian law society inGermany, founded in 1920,was made up entirely ofJews. A fifth of theRussian trade, industrial and finance union inParis were Jewish entrepreneurs (p. 495). Budnitskii also shows thatRussian politics continued to function in its?migr? setting (though he omits mention of the Russian Nazi Party in Germany or the Russian Fascists in the Far East), and he demonstrates that emigration did nothing to dilute the prejudices of the antis?mites. On a positive note, emigration of prominent Jewish figuresmeant thatwhen the question of a Jewish post-war settlementwas discussed in the international arena, theJewish Diaspora, and by implication theJews ofRussia and Eastern Europe, were represented by authoritative voices. Budnitskii's research ismost thorough. He has consulted a wide range of central, regional and personal Russian archives, as well as archives in London, Leeds, New York and Stanford; and his secondary sources, inRussian and English, are impressively inclusive.His book isa valuable addition to the study ofRussian-Jewish historywhich, inRussia, began essentially only in the last year or two of the Soviet era, and which has by now seen the publication of a substantial number of valuable learned works. StAntony'sCollege Oxford H. Shukman Meerovich, Mark Grigor'evich. Kvadratnye metry, opredeliaiushchie soznanie: Gosudarstvennaia zhilishchnaia politika v SSSR. ig2i-ig4i gg. Soviet and Post-Soviet Politics and Society, 5. Ibidem, Stuttgart, 2005. 209 pp. Notes. Appendix. 22.00 (paperback). Meerovich, Mark Grigor'evich. Kak vlast' narodk trudupriuchala: ^hilishche vSSSR ? sredstvo upravleniialud'mi. igiy-ig4i gg. Soviet and Post-Soviet Politics and Society, 7. Ibidem, Stuttgart, 2005. 143pp. Notes. Appendix. 22.90 (paperback). These two short studies of Soviet housing policy in thepost-revolutionary and Stalinist periods byMark Grigor'evich Meerovich, an historian of architecture at Irkutsk State Technical University, are the fifth and seventh volumes to appear in the book series 'Soviet and Post-Soviet Politics and Society', published in Stuttgart by the Ibidem press. Under the enterprising and innovative editorship ofAndreas Umland, thisnew series (launched October 2004) specializes in 'narrowly focussed' and 'empirical' scholarship on 'understudied' topics in the history of the former Soviet bloc from the early twentieth century to the present. Almost uniquely, it publishes work in REVIEWS 171 English, German and Russian, thus playing a valuable role in bringing work by scholars inCentral and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union to the attention of a farwider readership than theywould receive were they to be published only in their own countries. However, while similar ventures promoting the dissemination of East European and Eurasian scholarship to an international audience, such as the historical journal Ab Imperio (based in Kazan', Russian Federation), have a large team of editors enforcing strict academic controls on published work, the Ibidem series is somewhat weaker in this regard. The two books here under review are prime examples of how an undertaking tobring post-Soviet academic output directly to Western read ers, highly praiseworthy in itself,can come unstuck without intensive editorial intervention. Meerovich gets off to a bad start, introducing his first volume with an ill-considered and provocative polemic, thepatronizing tone ofwhich reminds this reviewer of the ritual condemnations ofWestern 'bourgeois' historiogra phy trotted out in the introductions tomost Soviet-era works of historical analysis. European researchers who have studied early Soviet housing policy, he asserts without any evidence or references to substantiate his claim, have 'bought' the regime's own self-justifying explanation that the wholesale destruction of housing stock during theCivil War, and lack of resources for its subsequent reconstruction, accounted for thehousing problems itfaced and solutions it devised in the interwar period. 'The European could not think differently',Meerovich declares. 'Surely Soviet power couldn't have...

Out of Mind, Out of Sight

THE ROUND TABLE1Ol 10 Participants at the Round Table expressed some concern at what they saw as a dearth of analytic discourses (with the exception ofpsychoanalytic ones) on the subject ofpleasure. I disagree, as Nicola MacDonald's impressive bibliography makes clear. I list only a few (non-psychoanalytic) examples: Roland Barthes, The Pleasure ofthe Text, trans. R. Miller (Oxford and New York: Oxford Universiry Press, 1990); Janice Radway, Reading Romance: Women, Patriarchy, andPopular Literature (Chapel Hill: University ofNorth Carolina Press, 1991); Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction: A Social Critique ofTaste, trans. R. Nice (Boston: Harvard University Press, repr. 1990; 2002). There are hosts of similar examples to be found in feminist theory, semiotics, and cultural studies. Out of Mind, Out of Sight LAURIE A. FINKE and MARTIN B. SHICHTMAN There is an interesting slippage in the call for papers for this roundtable that ought to give us pause. It begins in the title, with 'Cloaks of Invisibility.' One of the thirteen treasures of the Island of Britain, recounted in Rachel Bromwich's Welsh Triads, is KingArthur's cloak that enables its wearer to become invisible while still seeing everything around him: 'whoever was under it could not be seen, and he could see everyone.' This cloak is a sign ofthe wearer's status; it will notwork for the unworthy. Since only a king (in this caseArthur) or the champion ofa king can wield it, it is ultimately a sign ofhis sovereignty (and, ofcourse, ofhis masculinity, as the pronoun was meant to suggest; the triads list another cloak that renders visible what is usually invisible; to wit, a woman's virginity, but that is another essay).zArthur's mantle offers itswearer extraordinary powers ofsurveillance; to be able to seewithout being seen is the hallmark of Foucault's panopticon, the model of contemporary biopower. If there is an analogue in our profession (literary studies) to this power conferred by the cloak it lies in the claims to scientific objectivity and tationality that render the investigator (in our case the academic reader/critic) invisible and that are the cornerstone of the modern university. These claims were staked out for literary studies at the turn of the twentieth century largely by medievalists like John M. Manley, R.K. Root, George Lyman Kittredge, J.S.P. Tatlock (himselfan Arthurian), and others at a timewhen thevanguard ofthe profession was represented by German-trained philologists promoting the systematic and scientific study of medieval texts.3 The 'scientific' approach to literary studies required strategies of invisibility by which literary scholars could limit the proliferation, circulation, and meaning ofthe texts they were studying by attributing to the author readings that were their own. This is the sort ofinvisibility that Sealy Gilles and Sylvia Tomasch describe in Manly and Rickert's painstaking editorial procedure for their edition of The Canterbury Tales. The edition, based on 'scientific principles,' was supposed to 'discover' without editorial intervention the authentic text and the authentic poet, but managed by this sleight of hand to invent the American Chaucer, 'the 102ARTHURIANA middle class poet ofdemocratic values.4 This is the sort of invisibility that we all by and large take for granted every time we invoke an author's name to ratify our own assertions. Yet the call for papers invokes the trope ofinvisibility as a sign not ofour (that is Aurthurians') power but ofour powerlessness: 'To what extent,' it asks, 'areArthurian texts and scholars marginalized (or self-marginalizing), not only within the larger domain of medieval studies, but within the domain ofliterary studies?' We are to understand from this that out cloaks of invisibility disable rathet than enable us; they render us marginalized, that is powerless, irrelevant, unread, unremarked, uncited, trivial, neglected, ignored, disregarded, and overlooked. This kind of invisibility strikes us as rather more like what we encounter in the first season episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, 'Out ofMind, Out ofSight,' in which a perpetually ignored high school student named Marcie has been rendered literally invisible by her classmates' neglect and proceeds to use her invisibility to get revenge for their slights. To some extent such complaints of neglect are a standard feature of our professional rhetoric. What field does not consider its contributions to...

Ezra Pound's Cantos: A Compact History of Twentieth‐Century Authorship, Publishing and Editing

AbstractThis paper forms part of a Literature Compass cluster on Modern Book History. The full cluster is made up of the following articles:‘Between Then and Now: Modern Book History’, Kate Longworth, Literature Compass 4 (2007), 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2007.00474.x.‘Ezra Pound's Cantos: A Compact History of Twentieth‐Century Authorship, Publishing and Editing’, Mark Byron, Literature Compass 4 (2007), 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2007.00475.x.‘ “The Making of the Book”: Roy Fisher, the Circle Press and the Poetics of Book Art’, Matthew Sperling, Literature Compass 4 (2007), 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2007.00476.x.‘Bakhtinian “Journalization” and the Mid‐Victorian Literary Marketplace’, Dallas Liddle, Literature Compass 4 (2007), 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2007.00477.x.‘Manuscript in Print: The Materiality of Alternative Comics’, Emma Tinker, Literature Compass 4 (2007), 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2007.00478.x.‘Lost in a World of Books: Reading and Identity in Pre‐War Japan’, Susan C. Townsend, Literature Compass 4 (2007), 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2007.00479.x.***Ezra Pound's modernist epic poem, The Cantos, was composed over almost six decades of the twentieth century. Its publication history – from the earliest instalments in little magazines in the nineteen‐teens to collected and posthumous editions – entails several challenges to traditional notions of literary completion, authorial control, justified (and unjustified) editorial intervention, and collaboration between authors and scholars intent on ‘cleaning‐up’ apparently corrupted texts. Pound's cultural engagements (particularly politics and economics), creative pursuits and personal history inflect some of these aspects of his text's literary and bibliographical career over the last ninety years (for example, his incarceration by the United States Army during the Second World War and the subsequent loss of his status as the legal owner of his written words). In this paper I will indicate some challenges to literary and bibliographical convention arising from Pound's text as well as from his personal circumstances and his relations with his principal editors: T. S. Eliot at Faber and Faber, and James Laughlin at New Directions. I will also address some challenges to editing Pound's text today: the ways in which competing printed versions and ancillary materials might be brought to bear on persistent questions of status and permissible editorial agency; the role of technology in attempts to ‘clean up’ Pound's text; and the way in which editorial theory might assist in reflecting upon the kind(s) of authorial status and editorial mediation at work in this distillation of so much history and cultural production. Pound's epic poem can be seen to challenge the very boundaries of the text and the book in radical ways, both in modernist and in contemporary (including electronic) modes.

The Rockefeller Boys

The Rockefeller BoysShimshon Bichler and Jonathan NitzanShimshon Bichler1POB 4283, Jerusalem, Israel 91-042, [email protected]1POB 4283, Jerusalem, Israel 91-042, [email protected]2Department of Political Science, York University, 4700 Keale Street, Toronto, Ontario M3J 1P3, Canada, [email protected]Search for more papers by this author[email protected] and Jonathan Nitzan2Department of Political Science, York University, 4700 Keale Street, Toronto, Ontario M3J 1P3, Canada, [email protected]1POB 4283, Jerusalem, Israel 91-042, [email protected]2Department of Political Science, York University, 4700 Keale Street, Toronto, Ontario M3J 1P3, Canada, [email protected]Search for more papers by this author[email protected]Published Online:April 2007https://doi.org/10.1521/siso.2007.71.2.243PDFPDF PLUS ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations About Previous article Next article FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 71Issue 2Apr 2007 Information© S & S Quarterly, Inc.PDF download

Review of Handbook of multicultural perspectives on stress and coping.

PAUL T.P. WONG and LILIAN C.J. WONG (Eds.) Handbook of Multicultural Perspectives on Stress and Coping New York: Springer, 2006, 636 pages (ISBN: 0-387-26236-9, C$89.95 Hardcover) Reviewed by ANDREW G. RYDER, DONALD H. WATANABE, and ANGELA J. RING A major, but unavoidable, disadvantage to cross-cultural psychological research is its complexity. Human nature allows for an incredible range of psychological and cultural diversity; combining these two domains leads to a bewildering array of concepts, theories, hypotheses, and research findings. It is easy for us to secretly envy at times our colleagues who can act as though universality of their constructs is assumed beyond question. At same time, there has been a growing recognition that a science of human behaviour that ignores humans in interaction, or behaviour in context, will, at best, provide us with indigenous psychology of Western culture. Paul and Lilian Wong's edited Handbook of Multicultural Perspectives on Stress and Coping does not shy away from challenges inherent in cross-cultural work. In their opening chapter, they establish quickly that they are setting out to do more than simply compare cultures on established markers of stress and coping. In addition, perhaps primarily, they wish to broaden our very ideas of what stress and coping actually are by taking seriously ways in which these concepts are understood in different cultures. Particularly welcome in this regard is full consideration of religious, spiritual, and existential modes of coping, modes that are extremely common throughout world - and probably more common in the West than is commonly acknowledged by largely secular psychologists. Following introductory chapter, first section deals with a range of theoretical issues. Chapters 2, 3, and 7 provide good coverage of relevant theory, although there is considerable overlap. Chapters 4 and 5 are particularly interesting reviews of Buddhist and Taoist coping, whereas Chapter 6 provides a more general treatment of religious and spiritual coping. It is unfortunate that only a few traditions are represented and, in fact, one could easily imagine an entire book detailing notions of stress and coping from a variety of religious and spiritual perspectives. Chapter 8, in contrast, made for a confusing read. Complicated, but potentially valuable, ideas on a biosocioexistential model of posttraumatic responses were buried under unusually difficult prose. As some of other chapters also suffered from unclear writing, and even from frequent typographical errors, reader gets sense that more editorial control and intervention would have helped considerably. The first two chapters of second section, on methodological issues, provide a valuable overview of problems specific to cross-cultural research. Chapter 9 describes general cross-cultural issues such as measurement equivalence, translation, and scale development, whereas Chapter 10 examines problems with use of self-report stress and coping scales across cultures. Wong and colleagues contribute Chapter 10, a particularly long (60+ pages), but valuable look at Coping Schema Inventory. This chapter could easily have been divided into two or even three parts. The first part provides a thorough review of coping literature, including a critique of existing coping scales. Inclusion of this material as a separate chapter near beginning of book might have helped reduce overlap throughout. The authors then describe resource-congruent model of effective coping, another potential stand-alone chapter. Much of remaining material consists of a meticulously described three-stage research program, presented at a much greater level of detail than most of other chapters. The third section opens with a concise review by John Berry, leading acculturation researcher, on acculturative stress. He presents his acculturation framework at a culture-general level, setting stage for specific examples that follow. …