Sterling Professor Research Articles

The perils of national narratives

The perils of national narratives

Gerhard Giebisch (1927–2020): A Leader in Kidney Physiology

Gerhard Giebisch (1927–2020): A Leader in Kidney Physiology

Edward Zigler (1930-2019).

Presents an obituary for Edward Zeigler (1930-2019). Yale University's Sterling Professor Emeritus of Psychology Edward Zigler often encouraged his students and junior colleagues with the refrain, "You are doing God's work," but warned them that they would have to be ready to "Lose, lose, lose" in the process. This dual-pronged exhortation reflected Ed's value that no cause is greater than that of improving the lives of children and their families who are vulnerable because of life circumstances. For more than half a century, Ed was a tireless and devoted champion for children with intellectual disability, children born into poverty, children from minority backgrounds, adults with psychopathology, and many other marginalized groups. Ed's academic legacy is enshrined by his more than 800 scholarly articles, 43 books and monographs, the numerous social and educational programs that have positively impacted millions of children and families in the United States and around the world, and his generations of students who have contributed to the well-being of children and families in many different ways. This extensive and varied tapestry of accomplishments reflects Ed's world view that success in advocacy, public policy, and social programming is dependent on meticulous science, and that science is only meaningful when it enhances the lives of others. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Introduction

Introduction MELVIN I. UROFSKV We go to press just a few weeks after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who in her nearly three decades on the high court was a good friend of the Society and of the Journal. We will have tributes to her in our next issue. This issue is notable in that we have two articles on the same subject, Justice Willis Van Devanter, as well as two articles by the Journal’ s family, as it were. Clare Cushman had been the managing editor of the Journal even before I became editor in the early 1990s, and the high quality of its production is entirely due to her. But Clare is also an officer of the Society, in that she is Director of Publications, as well as a practicing historian. In fact, one of her many titles is Resident Historian at the Society. Her contribution to this issue is “Sons of Ohio: William Rufus Day, Nepotism and his Law Clerks.” The practice of Supreme Court justices hiring young men (and they were all men until the 1940s) as clerks, or as they were of­ ten called, “secretaries,” began in the 1870s, although it would be many years before all justices had clerks. Day, whom Theodore Roosevelt appointed to the bench in 1903, had four sons, and he hired three of them as his clerks. Not only would this nepotism be frowned upon today, but so would the fact that at least one of them kept up an active private law practice while working for the Justice. Timothy S. Huebner’s day job is As­ sociate Provost and Sternberg Professor of History at Rhodes College in Memphis. But he also puts in great effort as the associate editor of the Journal. His Liberty and Union: The Civil War Era and American Constitu­ tionalism (2016) is now considered one ofthe leading studies of that subject. Tim’s article discusses a phenomenon that very few of us knew about, or even that it existed, “Black Constitutionalism.” As he shows, there was an articulate constitu­ tional thought within the African-American community well before the Civil War, as people of color, even if free in Northern states, tried to develop a theory of how they—and their enslaved brethren—fit into the American constitutional scheme. When the Taney Court handed down its decision in Dred Scott, they now had to respond to the Chief Justice’s opinion that blacks could not be citizens. We have two articles on Justice Willis Van Devanter, remembered primarily as one of the Four Horsemen who tried to scuttle reform legislation in the 1920s and then 214 JOURNAL OF SUPREME COURT HISTORY the New Deal in the 1930s. Because he did not write as many opinions as most of his brethren, Van Devanter often shows up on lists of “forgotten justices.” However, Louis D. Brandeis thought highly ofhim, and often sought “Van’s” thoughts on his majority opinions before circulating them. He told Felix Frankfurter that Van Devanter was like a Jesuit, quietly exerting great influence. Both Robert Post, Sterling Professor of Law and former dean ofthe Yale Law School, and Mark Tushnet, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law emeritus at Harvard Law School, are past contributors to the Journal. Moreover, both articles are adopted from the volumes they are writing for the Holmes Devise, Post for that on the Taft Court, and Tushnet for the one on the Hughes Court. It is a usual practice for the authors ofthe Holmes Devise to write biographical sketches of the men who served on that Court. Tushnet is here looking at the man behind the robes, while Post is looking at the unique role Van Devanter played on the Taft Court. Berea College v. Kentucky (1908) is one of the main pillars of the Supreme Court’s ratification of Jim Crow apartheid. Ronald S. Rauchberg is a retired litigation partner at Proskauer Rose, and he writes here about a little known aspect of that case, how the justices adopted scientific racism in deciding that case. Scientific racism was certainly no stranger to Americans in the early decades of the 20th century, and it did not go...

ASECS at 50: Interview with Joseph Roach

ASECS at 50:Interview with Joseph Roach Terry F. Robinson (bio) and Joseph Roach Joseph Roach is Sterling Professor of Theater and Professor of English, Emeritus, at Yale University. A theatre historian, stage director, and performance studies scholar, Roach is the author of The Player's Passion: Studies in the Science of Acting (Delaware, 1985; Michigan, 1993), which was recognized by the Barnard Hewitt Award in Theatre History; Cities of the Dead: Circum-Atlantic Performance (Columbia, 1996), which was awarded the James Russell Lowell Prize from the MLA and the Joe A. Callaway Prize for the Best Book on Drama or Theater from NYU; and It (Michigan, 2007). He is also editor, with Janelle Reinelt, of Critical Theory and Performance (Michigan, 1992, 2nd ed. revised 2007), and, most recently, with Margaret K. Powell, of A Cultural History of Hair in the Age of Enlightenment (Bloomsbury, 2019). His essays on theatre and performance history have appeared in journals such as Eighteenth-Century Studies; PMLA; MLQ; Shakespeare Survey; Modern Drama; Theatre Journal; Theatre Survey; The Drama Review; and Theater; as well as in edited collections such as The Global Eighteenth Century; The First Actresses; Bluestockings Displayed; Henry Fielding: Novelist, Playwright, Journalist, Magistrate; From the Royal to the Republican Body; and Politics, Transgression, and Representation at the Court of Charles II. Roach has chaired the Department of Theatre at Sweet Briar College, the Performing Arts Department at Washington University in St. Louis, the Interdisciplinary Ph.D. in Theatre at Northwestern University, the Department of Performance Studies at NYU, and the Theater Studies Program in Yale College. A member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the American Antiquarian Society, he was Principal Investigator on a sequence of three grants from [End Page 181] the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation that funded the World Performance Project at Yale and the Performance Studies Working Group (2003–16). He is the recipient of a Lifetime Distinguished Scholar Award from the American Society for Theatre Research and the Oscar Brockett Outstanding Teacher Award from the Association for Theatre in Higher Education; and he has directed over fifty plays, operas, and musicals. In 2012 he gave the James L. Clifford Lecture; in 2013–14 he served as President of ASECS. Terry Robinson: First, let me say that it is an honor to speak with you as a leading scholar of theatre and performance studies for this ASECS 50th Anniversary interview series. In addition to your many scholarly accomplishments, you are a widely respected colleague and mentor, and I have no doubt that anyone who opens this ECS volume and sees your name will be eager to read your reflections on your career and on your work in long eighteenth-century studies. Joseph Roach: You are very kind to say that, and to do this interview. Robinson: Not at all. It's a true pleasure. I thought we might begin at the beginning? Roach: Sounds good. Robinson: Your initial foray into theatre began as an undergraduate at the University of Kansas, where you acted mainly in modern and contemporary plays. You went on to earn a master's in Elizabethan and Jacobean drama in the U.K. and a Ph.D. in theatre arts at Cornell, which included theory as well as practice. Since graduate school, you have directed plays from every period, and have taught an introductory survey of theatre history that your students called "From Caves to Cats." Given such wide-ranging interests, what is it that drew you—and continues to draw you—to Restoration and eighteenth-century theatre? Roach: If you care for the theatre at all, you love eighteenth-century theatre. Robinson: I agree, of course! But why do you think so? Roach: Because the brilliance of the performers so thoroughly irradiated the artifacts of the period that they still glow. You can read by their light. The many treasures left behind include but are not limited to plays, libretti, scores, prompt books, prologues, epilogues, notated dances, paintings, prints, costumes, machinery, memoirs, reviews, and eyewitness accounts. Other ages of theatre have good sources, but none can produce a diarist who excels Pepys, a portraitist who rivals Reynolds, or critics who can...

Vincent J. Scully Jr. (1920–2017)

Although Vincent Scully's subjects as an architectural historian ranged from Greek temples to the pueblos of the American Southwest, from Park Avenue towers to French classical gardens, it is impossible to think of him without talking first about New Haven, Connecticut, the small northeastern city where he was born on 21 August 1920, the only child of a father who sold Chevrolet automobiles and a mother who was an aspiring opera singer. It was in New Haven that Scully received his formal education, first at Hillhouse High School and then at Yale University, where he earned his bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees and would teach for almost all of his career; it was also in New Haven where he formed his notion of what a city was. The city's famous “nine squares” plan led Scully to think about grids as shapers of cities, as its Victorian Gothic city hall by Henry Austin and its classical post office by James Gamble Rogers led him to think about architecture as civic symbol; similarly, its neighborhood parks and central green led him to think about public space, and its enormous rock outcroppings made him aware of the relationship of landscape to urbanism. New Haven was also the place that shaped his views, increasingly vocal as he grew older, about the failings of urban renewal, modern architecture, and autocratic planning; the incursion of highways into the city's central core (which he would always call “connectors,” using the local parlance) became his model of how not to treat a city. Vincent Scully (photo, Michael Marsland/Yale University). Scully spent almost all of his academic career at Yale, retiring as Sterling Professor of the History of Art in 1991 and continuing to teach as an emeritus professor until 2009, when he was eighty-nine years old. While he …

Jerome A. Berson (1924-2017).

Jerome A. Berson, Sterling Professor Emeritus at Yale University, passed away on January 13, 2017. Berson was a major figure in physical organic chemistry and the study of organic reaction mechanisms, and he published two outstanding books on the history of chemistry.

Book Reviews

Eric Posner of University of Chicago Law School reviews “The Future of Law and Economics: Essays in Reform and Recollection,” by Guido Calabresi. The Econlit abstract of this book begins: “Distinguishes between law and economics, exemplified by John Stuart Mill, and economic analysis of law, exemplified by Jeremy Bentham, in order to consider the meaning of merit goods, the perdurance and proper analysis of altruism and of not-for-profit institutions, the use of the liability rule, and what economics says about the validity and the shaping of tastes and values. Discusses law and economics and the economic analysis of law—the role of the lawyer; merit goods — commodification and commandification; merit goods and inequality; merit goods generally — specific applications and concluding thoughts; altruism, beneficence, and not-for-profit institutions; the relationship of markets and command in the liability role; how tastes and values are ignored; and tastes and values — what economics can tell us about them. Calabresi is a senior judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and Sterling Professor Emeritus at Yale Law School.”

Cervantes’ by Roberto González Echevarría

Reviewed by: Cervantes’by Roberto González Echevarría James A. Parr González Echevarría, Roberto. Cervantes’ Don Quixote. New Haven: Yale UP, 2015. Pp. 369. ISBN 978-0-30019-864-5. The present volume is an anomaly: a transcript of the lectures for a semester-long course in English for students of comparative literature and Spanish, given at Yale by Sterling Professor Roberto González Echevarría. There is also a highly unusual redundancy: several of these lectures can be viewed on You Tube. John Rutherford’s excellent translation is supplemented by selections from the exemplary novellas, John Elliott’s Imperial Spain, and some classic essays on the Quixote. Topics that claimed my attention are history, law, perspectivism, intertextuality, Freud, grand themes, etymologies, characters and their interactions, Renaissance and Baroque (shades of Geistesgeschichteand the Zeitgeist!), close reading, and how part 2 rewrites part 1. The author illustrates beautifully and repeatedly that literature is made from other literature. His focus is on mimesis rather than diegesis, characters rather than characterization, novel and romance rather than satire, and perspectivism rather than point of view. There are remarkable insights along the way. There are also noteworthy oversights, errors, or misreadings. For instance, on pages 31 and 50: “no quiero acordarme” means simply “I don’t recall”; it is formulaic, not volitional. For page 36, compare Martín de Riquer’s devastating commentary on the knighting farce. On page 45, the defense of Don Quixote’s illogic concerning the disappearance of his library ignores the fact that he is always misguided in part 1 in his assessments of reality, as the narrator, Sancho, or another character will make clear. Perspectivists sometimes quote a more ample statement by Don Quixote that what seems to you, Sancho, to be one thing may seem to me another, and to a third person something else, but they never quote the words preceding his foundational assumption that there are loose amongst us evil enchanters who transform things before our eyes. Therefore, we see different things. On page 50, it becomes clear that our author’s concept of “the narrator” is a global one, encompassing any and all. On page 218, the sentence “Notice that Dulcinea here is Casildea de Vandalia” seems to blend Don Quixote’s lady into Sansón’s. On page 221, regarding the lion episode, foolhardiness and reckless endangerment of others can hardly be dignified as courage. On page 270, Cárcel de amormight be mentioned as a precursor to Cervantes’s epistolary experiments. Page 286 does not make clear that fablais a factor only in part 1. On page 314, it is indecorous to describe British scholars of the hard funny book school as being hard mainly “in their brain arteries.” Focusing now on three issues of greater import. First, it puzzles me that someone who has such a keen analytical mind and eye for detail—who repeatedly reminds students to be alert to details—would choose to ignore aspects of how the story is assembled, told, and transmitted. Three early instances include: the obvious differences in motivation and attitude toward Don Quixote that characterize the first and second pseudo authors; the first is ironic, dismissive, and negative; the second is naive, gushing, and highly motivated, but he appears too late in the game to reorient the reader to his Romantic perspective in the few pages he is allotted; his witless reference to aged maidens who went to their grave as intact as the mothers who bore them is priceless. The narrative metalepsis or transgression of narrative level or frame at the end of part 1, chapter 8, goes without mention, despite the fact that George Haley’s classic article is required reading. This is the first appearance of the editorial voice of the text, and it represents a changing of horses in mid-stream, the quite remarkable replacement of one extradiegetic-heterodiegetic (frame) narrator by another. Perhaps more important, however, is the contrast, within the first nine chapters!, of hard and soft readings, with implicit criticism of the soft or Romantic approach avant la lettre. One searches in vain here for illustrations of focalization or the disnarrated. Second, there...

Book review: Finance and the Good Society

The Book Finance and the Good Society was written by Robert J. Shiller who is the Sterling Professor of Economics at Yale University, a bestselling author of books like Irrational Exuberance and a Nobel Prize Laureat in Economics together with Eugene Fama and Lars Peter Hansen in 2013.

Beyond the Pleasure Principle

In reasoned progression he outlined core psychoanalytic concepts, such as repression, free association and libido. Of the various English translations of Freud's major works to appear in his lifetime, only one was authorized by Freud himself: The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud under the general editorship of James Strachey. Freud approved the overall editorial plan, specific renderings of key words and phrases, and the addition of valuable notes, from bibliographical and explanatory. Many of the translations were done by Strachey himself; the rest were prepared under his supervision. The result was to place the Standard Edition in a position of unquestioned supremacy over all other existing versions.Newly designed in a uniform format, each new paperback in the Standard Edition opens with a biographical essay on Freud's life and work -along with a note on the individual volume-by Peter Gay, Sterling Professor of History at Yale.

Challenges in Global Financial Services

This is an edited transcript of the proceedings of the Yale Law School Center for the Study of Corporate Law’s Sullivan & Cromwell Conference on Challenges in Global Financial Services, which was held on September 20, 2013. The conference brought together policymakers, legal practitioners, members of the financial community, and academics from finance, economics and law to discuss the current challenges in the organization and regulation of global financial services. The roundtable consisted of four panel discussions. The first panel considered “Bank Capital and Liquidity Requirements.” Panelists were Stijn Claessens, Assistant Director, Research Department, International Monetary Fund; Michael H. Krimminger, Partner, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP and former General Counsel, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC); Andrew Metrick, Deputy Dean for Faculty Development & Michael H. Jordan Professor of Finance and Management, Yale School of Management; and Roberta Romano, Sterling Professor of Law and Director, Yale Law School Center for the Study of Corporate Law. Ian Ayres, William K. Townsend Professor of Law, Yale Law School, moderated. The second panel addressed “Bank Transparency and the Financial Crisis.” Panelists were Robert J. Giuffra, Jr., Partner, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP; Gary B. Gorton, Frederick Frank Class of 1954 Professor of Management and Finance, Yale School of Management; Henry T. C. Hu, Allan Shivers Chair in the Law of Banking and Finance, University of Texas Law School, and former Director, Division of Risk, Strategy, and Financial Innovation, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission; and Frederick Schauer, David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law. Donald Kohn, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution and former Vice Chairman, Federal Reserve Board, moderated. The third panel focused on the “Accountability and Structuring of Systemically Important Financial Institutions (SIFIs).” Panelists were H. Rodgin Cohen, Senior Chairman, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP; Edward J. Kane, Professor of Finance, Boston College; Andrew W. Lo, Charles E. and Susan T. Harris Professor, MIT Sloan School of Management and Director, MIT Laboratory for Financial Engineering; and John F. Simonson, Deputy Director for Systemic Resolution Planning and Implementation, Office of Complex Financial Institutions, FDIC. The moderator was Henry B. Hansmann, Oscar M. Ruebhausen Professor of Law, Yale Law School. The fourth panel on “Cross-Border Resolution” had the following panelists: James W. Giddens, Chair, Corporate Reorganization and Bankruptcy Group, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP and Liquidation Trustee, Lehman Brothers Inc. and MF Global Inc.; Seth Grosshandler, Partner, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP; Richard J. Herring, Jacob Safra Professor of International Banking & Professor of Finance, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania; and Jonathan R. Macey, Sam Harris Professor of Corporate Law, Corporate Finance, and Securities Law, Yale Law School. The panel was moderated by John D. Morley, Associate Professor of Law, Yale Law School. Note: Erica Gorga, Roberta Romano and Natalya Shnitser are editors, not authors, of this paper.

Wordsworth’s Bibliographers

Review Essay: Wordsworth’s Bibliographers Mark Lafayette Reed. A Bibliography of William Wordsworth: 1787-1930. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2013. cxxvi+1238. $295. W ordsworth bibliography has remained in a curiously unsatisfactory state. Most of the earliest attempts, compiled in the late 19th century, were appendages to collective editions of Wordsworth’s poetry, and these are woefully lacking in the kind of bibliographical detail that booksellers, collectors, and scholars alike depend on.1 Twentieth-century bibliographies of Wordsworth are, on the whole, less unsatisfactory. Wise, Broughton, Patton, Healey, and Metzdorf offer fuller bibliographical de­ scriptions, Healey especially, but in each case the bibliographers compiled catalogues of particular collections—the Ashley Library, the Cornell Wordsworth collection, the Amherst Wordsworth collection, and the Tin­ ker Collection at Yale (Reed xi—xii).2 They were not attempting a comi . The earliest bibliography, “a Bibliography of the successive editions of the Poems which were published in Wordsworth’s lifetime,” was prepared by William Knight for the newly-formed Wordsworth Society in 1882. It was published as “Bibliography ofthe Poems of Wordsworth,” The Transactions oj the Wordsworth Society 1 (1882): 5—16, and contains no physical description, except for the occasional “4to.” or “8vo.” J. R. Tutin’s bibliography was appended to The Complete Poetical Works of William Wordsworth, ed. John Morley (Lon­ don and New York: Macmillan and Co., 1888), 897-912 (Reed, 692). Ernest Dowden also included a bibliography in his seven-volume edition of The Poetical Works of William Words­ worth (London: George Bell & Sons, 1892), 7:306—28 (Reed, 782—83). A more comprehen­ sive bibliography was included in William Knight’s The Poetical Works of William Wordsworth, 8 vols. (London and New York: Macmillan & Co., 1896). It can be found in 8:327-432 (Reed, 829-31). 2. Leslie Nathan Broughton, The Wordsworth Collection Formed by Cynthia Morgan St.John and Given to Cornell University by Victor Emanuel (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1931). George Harris Healey, The Cornell Wordsworth Collection: A Catalogue ofBooks and Manuscripts Presented to the University by Mr Victor Emanuel Cornell 1919 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, J957)- Cornelius Patton, The Amherst Wordsworth Collection: A Descriptive Bibliography (Amherst, MA, 1936). Robert F. Metzdorf, The Tinker Library: A Bibliographical Catalogue of the Books and Manuscripts collected by Chauncey Brewster Tinker, Sterling Professor ofEnglish Litera­ ture, Emeritus and Keeper of Rare Books in the Yale University Library (New Haven: Yale Uni­ versity Press, 1959). Thomas J. Wise, A Bibliography of the Writings in Prose and Verse of Wil­ liam Wordsworth (London: privately printed, 1916); Two Lake Poets: a Catalogue of Printed SiR, 53 (Fall 2014) 457 458 BRUCE E. GRAVER prehensive bibliographical study ofWordsworth’s separate printed publica­ tions. To an Americanist, this would seem an almost incomprehensible situation: Americanists have the extraordinary Bibliography ofAmerican Liter­ ature to depend on, as well as fine individual bibliographies for most major American writers. But for scholars trying to study Wordsworth’s publica­ tion and reception history, both in his lifetime and especially in the years after his death, and for collectors and book-dealers trying to determine the rarity and value ofparticular books, there has been no single work to guide them. With the publication of Mark Lafayette Reed’s magnificent new Bibliog­ raphy of William Wordsworth 1787-1930, all that has changed. Over a career of some 50 years, Reed has not been a 250-page-monograph kind of a scholar; instead, he has always published in twos—two volume sets, every two decades. His two-volume Wordsworth Chronology, published in 1967 and 1975, totals 1050 pages; his two-volume edition of the 13-Book Prelude, published in 1991 and the centerpiece of the Cornell Wordsworth, con­ tains over 2350 pages; his two volume Bibliography, the crown upon his life­ time’s efforts, weighs in at something over half that, a mere 1238 pages, not counting the 125 pages of introduction and preliminaries. It is, and will re­ main, a foundational work for Wordsworth scholarship. No one, not even its reviewers, will read it straight through, cover to cover to cover to cover. But anyone serious about how Wordsworth presented himself to the public, or interested in how later publishers and editors...

Memoirs of Fellows and Corresponding Fellows of the Medieval Academy of America

Memoirs of Fellows and Corresponding Fellows of the Medieval Academy of America

In memoriam: María Rosa Menocal: (Cuba 1953-USA 2012), Sterling Professor of the Humanities and Director of the Whitney Humanities Center, Yale University

In memoriam: María Rosa Menocal: (Cuba 1953-USA 2012), Sterling Professor of the Humanities and Director of the Whitney Humanities Center, Yale University

A Conversation with Karl K. Turekian

Editors' Note Each year, the editorial board invites a distinguished member of the oceanographic community to contribute a prefatory chapter; this year, we were delighted when Karl Turekian, Sterling Professor of Geology and Geophysics at Yale, accepted our invitation. Over the course of a long and productive career, Dr. Turekian has pursued his interests in marine and atmospheric geochemistry by using natural radioactive and radiogenic isotopes to study Earth's evolution and the impacts of global change. He has also directed both the Center for the Study of Global Change at Yale and the Yale Institute for Biospheric Studies. In this interview, conducted by his former student Kirk Cochran, Dr. Turekian tells the story of his early career and discusses some of the major scientific challenges and opportunities faced along the way. His personal account of the rise of geochemistry is a charming story of how chance events and personalities impact scientific careers. His technical insight into the future of this field is illuminating, particularly for scientific outsiders who appreciate the central role of geochemistry in discerning and understanding patterns of global change. –Craig A. Carlson and Stephen J. Giovannoni, Editors

Assessing Dodd-Frank

This is an edited transcript of the proceedings of the Yale Law School Center for the Study of Corporate Law’s Weil, Gotshal & Manges Roundtable on Assessing Dodd-Frank, which was held on April 1, 2011. The roundtable was jointly sponsored with the Yale Law & Business Society and Yale Journal on Regulation, and brought together policymakers, legal practitioners, members of the financial community, and academics from finance, economics and law to discuss the principal legislative response to the financial crisis. The roundtable consisted of four panel sessions. The first session, “Overview,” was introduced by Robert Post, Dean and Sol & Lillian Goldman Professor of Law, Yale Law School. Panelists were Viral V. Acharya, Professor of Finance, New York University Stern School of Business; John Geanakoplos, James Tobin Professor of Economics, Yale University; Gary B. Gorton, Frederick Frank Class of 1954 Professor of Management and Finance, Yale School of Management; and Lawrence S. Makow, Partner, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. Roberta Romano, Sterling Professor of Law and Center Director, moderated. The second session addressed, “‘Too Big to Fail’ and the New Resolution Authority.” Panelists were Thomas C. Baxter, Jr., General Counsel and Executive Vice President, Legal Group, Federal Reserve Bank of New York; Jeffrey N. Gordon, Alfred W. Bressler Professor of Law, Columbia Law School, Randall D. Guynn, Head, Financial Institutions Group, Davis Polk & Wardwell; and Andrew Metrick, Deputy Dean for Faculty Development, Theodore Nierenberg Professor of Corporate Governance, Professor of Finance and Faculty Director of the Millstein Center for Corporate Governance, Yale School of Management. Alan Schwartz, Sterling Professor of Law, Yale Law School, moderated.The third session considered “Housing and Mortgage Reform.” Panelists were Christopher J. Mayer, Senior Vice Dean and Paul Milstein Professor of Real Estate, Finance & Economics Division, Columbia Business School; Robert J. Shiller, Arthur M. Okun Professor of Economics, Yale University; Susan M. Wachter, Richard B. Worley Professor of Financial Management and Professor of Real Estate and Finance, University of Pennsylvania Wharton School; and Peter J. Wallison, Arthur F. Burns Fellow in Financial Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute and Member, Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. The moderator was Robert C. Ellickson, Walter E. Meyer Professor of Property and Urban Law, Yale Law School. The fourth session, “Assessment,” had the following panelists: Michael S. Barr, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School and former U.S. Department of Treasury Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions; H. Rodgin Cohen, Senior Chairman, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP; Eugene A. Ludwig, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Promontory Financial Group LLC and former Comptroller of the Currency; and Jonathan R. Macey, Sam Harris Professor of Corporate Law, Corporate Finance, and Securities Law, Yale Law School. The panel was moderated by Shyam Sunder, James L. Frank Professor of Accounting, Economics, and Finance, Yale School of Management.

AMERICANIST VISIONS: STANLEY T. WILLIAMS, WASHINGTON IRVING, AND CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS

1 R A M E R I C A N I S T V I S I O N S S T A N L E Y T . W I L L I A M S , W A S H I N G T O N I R V I N G , A N D C H R I S T O P H E R C O L U M B U S R O L E N A A D O R N O Stanley T. Williams (1888–1956), Sterling Professor of American Literature at Yale, played a major role in bringing American literature out of the shadows as a specialty subject within the English literature curriculum and into the spotlight, establishing a complete curriculum in American literature at Yale, his alma mater. His several books on American literary history spread his academic influence to universities in the United States, and his lecturing in Europe and teaching of American literature in settings from the University of Upsala in Sweden to the University of Mexico in Mexico City extended it abroad. A native of Meriden, Connecticut, Williams earned his B.A. degree at Yale the year The Yale Review was founded. His subsequent degrees were also from Yale (M.A., 1914; Ph.D., 1915), and he joined the Department of English as an instructor in 1915. Rising through the ranks, he was named Sterling Professor in 1944. He was chair of the department from 1939 to 1945 and, until nearly the time of his death at age sixty-eight, he served as director of graduate studies for American Studies. Williams had become interested in American literature when taking over a course previously taught by the influential William 2 A D O R N O Y Lyon Phelps, and legend has it (actually, my source, more than a decade ago, was a former student, Helen Rand Parish, in Professor Williams’s Masters seminar in 1928–29) that Williams would stride into the classroom and, while the English literature graduate students silently expressed their disdain (as only graduate students can) for his subject, would inform one and all that, apart from giving biographical details of the authors to be read and a few words about their historical circumstances, he would not be o√ering any formal seminars until such time as his students had read enough of the pertinent literary works to o√er intelligent discussion about them. He concentrated that course on Hawthorne , Emerson, and Melville, arguing that there were great contributions to be made to the study of American literature, particularly on those authors, and he was fond of citing Emerson’s rousing ‘‘The American Scholar’’ oration of 1837: ‘‘Our day of dependence, our long apprenticeship to the learning of other lands, draws to a close.’’ Williams’s scholarly work on North American literature stood out at the time because it was a ‘‘prophet’s cry in the wilderness,’’ but today his equally prophetic call for an interest in the Hispanic heritage in American literature is pertinent: these days the hemisphere -spanning reach of both Americanist and Latin Americanist scholars is a matter of fact, not speculative divination. All this probably came about because Williams’s most extensive Americanist scholarly contributions were devoted to ‘‘America’s first man of letters,’’ Washington Irving (1783–1859). Literally tracing Irving’s footsteps in Spain, Williams became persuaded of ‘‘the deep, compulsive influence’’ upon Irving of Spanish literature and culture, and it led him in his last book, published the year before his death, to ponder the ‘‘dignity and splendor of this Spanish tradition in the literature of the United States.’’ In two volumes, Williams’s The Spanish Background of American Literature (1955) examined the presence of interest in Spanish and Spanish American culture on this continent from the seventeenth-century English colonies through the nineteenth- and twentieth-century United States to 1950. He then singled out for monographic study the ‘‘major interpreters in American Literature of Spanish and Spanish American culture,’’ whom Williams identified as Washington Irving, George Ticknor, William Hickling Prescott, William Cullen Bryant, A M E R I C A N I S T V I...

HOW LINCOLN EXPLAINED DEMOCRACY

The Yale ReviewVolume 99, Issue 1 p. 48-55 HOW LINCOLN EXPLAINED DEMOCRACY DAVID BROMWICH, DAVID BROMWICH Sterling Professor of English.Search for more papers by this author DAVID BROMWICH, DAVID BROMWICH Sterling Professor of English.Search for more papers by this author First published: 22 December 2010 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9736.2011.00689.xAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport 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 Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Volume99, Issue1January 2011Pages 48-55 RelatedInformation

A Conversation with Robert A. Dahl

Editor's Note Robert A. Dahl, the foremost living theorist of democracy, is the emeritus Sterling Professor of Political Science at Yale University, where he received his Ph.D. in 1940 and where he spent virtually his entire academic career. After five years working for the government—as a management analyst at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, then as an economist in the Office of Price Administration and the War Production Board, and finally as a member of the Army—he returned to Yale in 1946. With colleagues Charles Lindblom, Robert Lane, and others, he helped build the first modern department of political science, a department that asked major substantive questions while using the best social science techniques available at the time. In the interview that follows, which I conducted on March 30, 2008, Dahl grounds his motivation for studying democracy not only in his academic encounters but also in his experiences growing up in Alaska, attending public schools there, and working with longshore workers as a boy. He does not want to replicate the utopian visions of classical philosophers. His commitment is to the development of an empirical model of democracy that guides scholars in their efforts to determine the extent of democratization throughout the world as well as in the United States. Normatively, he is committed to a democracy that recognizes the rights and voice of all who have a legitimate claim to citizenship. Although he is known for his arguments about the procedures democracy requires, some of his most important work deals with the distribution of power. He engaged in debate with elitist theorists such as C. Wright Mills and Floyd Hunter, who argued that a small elite determined virtually all important policy decisions. Dahl's book Who Governs?, winner of the 1962 Woodrow Wilson Prize of the American Political Science Association, makes a very different set of claims. There Dahl analyzes decision making in several policy arenas and finds different key actors influencing the outcomes. The debate did not stop there, of course, but Dahl transformed the style of argument by investigating how decisions were made and who made them. Dahl continued to study and contemplate democracy, winning a second Woodrow Wilson Prize in 1990 for Democracy and Its Critics. By his admission, he concluded his writing career with a second edition of How Democratic is the American Constitution in 2003 and On Political Equality in 2006. Robert Dahl has received numerous honors. He was a Guggenheim fellow in 1950 and 1978, a fellow of the Center for Advanced Study in Behavioral Sciences in 1955–1956 and 1967, and an elected member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, American Philosophical Society, National Academy of Sciences, and British Academy (as a corresponding fellow). He served as President of the American Political Science Association in 1966–1967. He was the 1995 recipient of the Johan Skytte Prize in Political Science. He holds numerous honorary doctorates in addition to other major awards in recognition of his remarkable standing in the profession. The editorial committee of the Annual Review of Political Science was unanimous in its selection of Robert Dahl as the author of this first prefatory article by a distinguished living scholar to be published in our pages. -Margaret Levi