Thursday's Notes

by Cliopatria

In the University of California system, scum rises to the top. There may be different explanations of why it includes no historians.

"Nasty, brutish and not that short," Economist, 16 December, looks at the Battle of Towton. Hat tip.

Parag Khanna,"Future shock? Welcome to the new Middle Ages," Financial Times, 28 December, may need some attention from A Corner of 10th Century Europe, Got Medieval or In the Middle.

Daniel Mendelsohn,"God's Librarians: The Vatican Library enters the twenty-first century," New Yorker, 3 January, looks at the reopening of Rome's Vatican Apostolic Library. For a tantalizing taste of its extraordinary riches, see Macy Halford's slideshow,"Treasures from the Vatican Library," New Yorker, 27 December.

David Blight,"Cup of Wrath and Fire," Disunion, 28 December, considers Frederick Douglass's welcome of South Carolina's secession.

Andrew O'Hagan,"They don't say that about Idi Amin," LRB, 6 January, and Adam Kirsch for the TLS, 29 December, review Saul Bellow's Letters, edited by Benjamin Taylor.

In Steve Mangold,"Barbour wrong on Yazoo history," Clarion Ledger, 28 December, the best friend of Haley Barbour in their youth corrects the Mississippi governor's memory.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Jonathan Jarrett - 1/4/2011

I think that only applies if I've actually bought the publication; what they're regulating there is access to their website. There is as yet no good law on this in the UK.

Jonathan Dresner - 1/4/2011

I don't think a scholarly response would be considered either an abstract or summary: I'd think it would fall under the fair use exception for reviews and scholarly work.

Jonathan Jarrett - 1/4/2011

It may well deserve attention, and if I could I'd do it here, but the registration terms and conditions more or less prevent it:

You may however republish or redistribute “Summaries” of FT articles if you comply with the conditions set out below. “Summaries” can be either an “extract” or an “abstract”. By “extract” we mean 30 words copied verbatim from an FT article which are inserted into a longer original work . By “abstract” we mean a 30 word non-verbatim summary of the news or facts reported in an FT article which does not form part of a longer work.

Though one could probably rise to this challenge, it wouldn't really give the author a fair crack of whatever whip he or she deserves... I'm having a look but won't promise anything. If something can usefully be said, however, I'll say it here of course.