Every month my SiM mailbox yields at least one paper that has clearly lost its way. It was meant for Speculum, October, or perhaps Psychology Today, but it somehow wound up here, at a journal that may incorporate, but does not concentrate on, direct study of the Middle Ages, literary theory, or mental tendencies. I cannot always be sure who is to blame for these mix-ups, especially when the introductory letter is addressed to “Prof. Johnson,” “Mr. Levey,” or the ubiquitous “Whom It May Concern.” But I suspect the problem usually begins with authors who are confused as to the definition of medievalism. I therefore thought it was high time to ask scholars who have long been associated with SiM to address the nature and parameters of our field.

Of course, owing to other commitments, and an admittedly short deadline, not all of the invitees were able to answer my call in time for this volume of SiM. And no two respondents seem to have interpreted my request in quite the same manner. But all of them have, I believe, answered in thoughtful and important ways. Kathleen Verduin gives a brief history of the founding of Studies in Medievalism, particularly as regards its approach to the field. Clare A. Simmons traces the roots of the term “medievalism” in nineteenth-century England and discusses the relevance of those origins to the development of the field.