From my mailbox today:
Futhark is a new journal dedicated to the publication of scholarly studies based on premodern texts (prior to 1945) from a humanistic perspective, though not necessarily philological.
Dunno, I always thought that ‘premodern’ meant before 1800 or thereabouts.* I suppose it’s inevitable, however established our basic historiographical period conventions may seem right now, that it should be updated and that ‘modern’ is going to be a continually moving target.** (OED: “Of or relating to the present and recent times, as opposed to the remote past; of, relating to, or originating in the current age or period”; “Characteristic of the present time, or the time of writing; not old-fashioned, antiquated, or obsolete; employing the most up-to-date ideas, techniques, or equipment”. Etc, etc. And I don’t even want to start on all the varieties of usage for ‘early modern’.)
But still, anything more than 60 years old is now classified as ‘premodern’?
*Not that I’ve ever liked ‘premodern’, I should point out. As an undergrad, I once wrote a
fantastically profound snotty and precocious essay mostly about everything wrong with the concept ‘premodern’ (or perhaps it was ‘preindustrial’) – just because the term happened to appear in the essay question. I got away with it, as I recall.
**Well, unless someone somewhere can come up with a new concept to replace it altogether, I suppose (and I mean something less lame than ‘postmodern’).