« Dennett's Faustian Bargain, revisited | Main | RIP: Patrick Colonel Suppes, 1922–2014, Eulogy and Apologia »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Margaret Atherton

On the other hand, the specialty rankings are supposed to be rankings not just lists of departments where there are people doing good and interesting work. Everyone of the departments that appear on the rankings have people working in early modern whose work I admire and do my best to keep up with. But the groups, to be honest,appears to me to be entirely random. I have no intuition that explains to me why the people in the departments so ranked should be in one group rather than another. I agree with Eric that there are notable omissions, but I am also troubled by the unmotivated nature of this enterprise.

Aaron Garrett

King's is a massive oversight. Between Antognazza, Reid, and Milton they have three of the finest early modernists in their respective areas I know. Maria Rosa and Jasper's recent books are to my mind also two of the most important books in early modern in a long time. Maria Rosa's has been justly celebrated. Jasper's has been overlooked a bit, due to the fact it is on an unfashionable figure, but it is a groundbreaking work that reshuffles our understanding of the period. I can't imagine anywhere much better to go.

Aaron Garrett

And I even forgot Thomas Pink!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Here's a link to my past blogging (and discussions involving me) at: New APPS.


Blog powered by Typepad