The New England Quarterly, founded in 1928, is best described by its subtitle, A Historical Review of New England Life and Letters. Through major essays, memoranda and edited documents, reconsiderations (of scholarly editions, influential interpretive texts, and essays published in NEQ), essay reviews, and book reviews, NEQ authors help readers evaluate the history of civilization in New England. NEQ publishes essays covering any time period, from the presence of Native Americans through the present day, and any subject germane to New England's history, for example, the region's diverse cultural production and political philosophies, its race relations, labor struggles, religious controversies, and the organization of family life. The journal's focus also broadens beyond the region to treat the migration of New England ideas, people, and institutions to other parts of the United States and the world.

The New England Quarterly is an independent journal that is overseen by The New England Quarterly, Inc., a nonprofit organization with a board of directors. It receives support from its sponsors: the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Northeastern University, the Massachusetts Historical Society, and the Massachusetts Cultural Council. The journal's stated mission is to encourage the study of New England's history and culture and, through quarterly publication and related activities, to enlighten the public about their significance and diversity. Starting with Volume 80 (2007), The New England Quarterly has been published by The MIT Press. Please visit http://www.mitpressjournals.org/neq for information on subscriptions and current issues.

This item is part of JSTOR collection
For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions
The New England Quarterly © 1995 The New England Quarterly, Inc.
Request Permissions