The Mountain View Trolley was established on July 10, 1907, after booming tourism increased the need for transportation between Stroudsburg and the town of Delaware Water Gap. In the late 1800s, visitors began flocking to the region to enjoy the beautiful scenery and pristine wildlife. Built by the J. R. Brill Company in Philadelphia, the Mountain View Trolley ran on a narrow-gauge track and was capable of hauling a large number of passengers. The trolley cars operated on overhead wires and battery power and ran year-round, shuttling residents and visitors and working as a school bus for local schoolchildren. The introduction of motor coaches and automobiles brought about the end of the trolley age, and the Mountain View Trolley ended its run in September 1928.

Papers on major themes in current scholarly work on the medieval crusade, including the Templars and Jewish-Christian polemics. These papers explore major themes in recent scholarship on the medieval crusade and its religious, political and cultural context, re-evaluating the issue of "were the Templars guilty?" and suggesting their problem was one of organisation; one study looks at the impact and effect of the crusade on Jewish-Christian relations, another at crusaders and their interaction with indigenous Christians in the county of Edessa as a case study of developments in other crusader states; and there are papers on Peter the Hermit, on the political and religious context and impact of the Fourth Crusade, on the influence of the crusade on Piers Plowman, and on the political context for the failure of crusading ideals in fifteenth-century Burgundy. Contributors ALFRED ANDREA, ROBERT CHAZAN, KELLY DEVRIES, CHRISTOPHER McEVITT, THOMAS MADDEN, JONATHAN RILEY-SMITH, WILLIAM E. ROGERS, JAY RUBINSTEIN SUSAN J. RIDYARD is Professor of History, University of the South.

A wide range of new scholarship on Chaucer's poetry. This collection of essays makes available a wide range of new scholarship on Chaucer's poetry. Opening essays address the issues of "Chaucerian representation" and "Chaucerian poetics", arguing for the multiplicity and complexityof what Chaucer "represents" and for the importance of his dual Anglo-French background in enabling him to articulate that complexity. Chaucer's use of Ovidian and Ciceronian sources and ideas is examined, and his pursuit of simplicity and suspicion of "delicacy"; the potent issues of sexuality and spirituality, and money and death (with Chaucer's own ending and his thoughts on last things) complete the collection. Contributors: DEREK BREWER, HELEN COOPER, PAUL DOWER, JOHN V. FLEMING, JOHN HILL, TRAUGOTT LAWLER, CELIA LEWIS, R. BARTON PALMER, WILLIAM PROVOST, JOHN PLUMMER, WILLIAM ROGERS.

In Interpreting Interpretation, William E. Rogers searches for a model for literary education. This model should avoid both of two undesirable alternatives. First, it should not destroy any notion of discipline in the traditional sense, terminating in the stance of Rorty's "liberal ironist." Second, it should not regard literary education as an attempt to cause students to ingest a pre-determined mix of facts and cultural values, terminating in the stance of E. D. Hirsch's "cultural literate." From the semiotics of C. S. Peirce, Rogers develops the notion of interpretive system. The interpretive system called textual hermeneutics is used to interpret interpretation. From that perspective, the world looks like a text. Applying the principle rigorously allows an articulation of the problematic relations among interpretation, philosophy, and language itself.

Interpreting Interpretation clarifies the conception of textual hermeneutics as an ascetic discipline by showing the consequences of this conception for interpreting canonical texts and for humanities education in general. Discussions of poetry by Robert Frost and by John Ashbery illustrate how this conception applies to an analysis of literary texts. Ultimately, the book offers a Peircean alternative to the educational theories implied in the pragmatism of John Dewey and of Richard Rorty. Rogers provides a new vocabulary for talking about what people are doing when they read, write, speak, and hear interpretive statements about texts. The new vocabulary acknowledges the great difficulty of "teaching texts" in the face of postmodern anxieties about pluralism, relativism, or nihilism. What emerges is not curriculum but method--an argument that the humanities teach not texts but interpretive systems.