'Translated Verse': Milton's Latin Poetry in the Long Eighteenth Century

This chapter assesses ways in which the emergence in the long eighteenth century of a cluster of verse translations of Milton’s Poemata engendered an intellectual discourse and debate on translation itself, not dissimilar to the magazine warfare of the day. It argues that poetical renderings of Milton’s Latin verse, and the biographical and literary contexts in which they appeared, facilitated the interrogation of key issues that are still being debated by modern translation theorists: the nature and function of translation; the viability of rendering a source text in a target language that is also in this instance a poetic language; the potential ‘fetters’ which, in Drydenesque terms, might constrain ‘the verbal copier’; or by contrast the quasi-liberating fluency, the ‘fluent strategy’, attendant upon recourse to verse as translational medium; canonicity, amplification and omission; the much-debated issue of authorial equivalence, evinced here, it is suggested, by the editorial showcasing of the translator; and not least, the perennial question of translation as reading and critical interpretation. In short, verse renderings of Milton’s Latin poetry and the debates that they engendered assume a not inconsequential place in the history of translation theory, which, as Venuti notes, is forever concerned with ‘the changing relationships between the relative autonomy of the translated text and two other categories: equivalence and function.’

.

John Rich as Opera Patron

This article traces the sustained support that theatre manager John Rich offered to operatic endeavours in 18th-century London. Rich effectively entered the contemporary discourse regarding the valid definition of opera through the kinds of works he supported, and also through the prefatory comments to two works staged at his theatre.

Race, space and politics in Mid-Victorian Ireland: the ethnologies of Abraham Hume and John McElheran

There has been much scholarly debate about the significance and influence of racialist thinking in the political and cultural history of nineteenth-century Ireland. With reference to that ongoing historiographical discussion, this paper considers the racial geographies and opposing political motivations of two Irish ethnologists, Abraham Hume and John McElheran, using their racialist regimes to query some of the common assumptions that have informed disagreements over the role and reach of racial typecasting in mid-nineteenth-century Ireland. As well as examining in detail the racial imaginaries promulgated by Hume and McElheran, the paper also argues for the importance of situating racialist discourse in the spaces in which it was communicated and contested. Further, in highlighting the ways in which Hume and McElheran collapsed together race, class and religion, the paper troubles the utility of a crisp analytical distinction between those disputed categories.

Lost in translation: Public policies, evidence-based practice, and Autism Spectrum Disorder

Prevalence rates of autism spectrum disorder have risen dramatically over the past few decades (now estimated at 1:50 children). The estimated total annual cost to the public purse in the United States is US$137 billion, with an individual lifetime cost in the United Kingdom estimated at between £0.8 million and £1.23 million depending on the level of functioning. The United Nations Convention for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has enshrined full and equal human rights—for example, for inclusion, education and employment—and there is ample evidence that much can be achieved through adequate support and early intensive behavioural interventions. Not surprisingly, most governments worldwide have devised laws, policies, and strategies to improve services related to autism spectrum disorder, yet intriguingly the approaches differ considerably across the globe. Using Northern Ireland as a case in point, we look at relevant governmental documents and offer international comparisons that illustrate inconsistencies akin to a “postcode lottery” of services.

Incorporating Severity and Risk as Factors to the Fardal Cost-Effectiveness Model to Create a Cost-Benefit Model for Periodontal Treatment

Background: A previously described economic model was based on average values for patients diagnosed with chronic periodontitis (CP). However, tooth loss varies among treated patients and factors for tooth loss include CP severity and risk. The model was refined to incorporate CP severity and risk to determine the cost of treating a specific level of CP severity and risk that is associated with the benefit of tooth preservation.

Methods: A population that received and another that did not receive periodontal treatment were used to determine treatment costs and tooth loss. The number of teeth preserved was the difference of the number of teeth lost between the two populations. The cost of periodontal treatment was divided by the number of teeth preserved for combinations of CP severity and risk.

Results: The cost of periodontal treatment divided by the number of teeth preserved ranged from (US) $ 1,405 to $ 4,895 for high or moderate risk combined with any severity of CP and was more than $ 8,639 for low risk combined with mild CP. The cost of a three-unit bridge was $ 3,416, and the cost of a single-tooth replacement was $ 4,787.

Conclusion: Periodontal treatment could be justified on the sole basis of tooth preservation when CP risk is moderate or high regardless of disease severity.