Close

Terms and Conditions

These terms and conditions of use refer to the London Review of Books and the London Review Bookshop website (www.lrb.co.uk — hereafter ‘LRB Website’). These terms and conditions apply to all users of the LRB Website ("you"), including individual subscribers to the print edition of the LRB who wish to take advantage of our free 'subscriber only' access to archived material ("individual users") and users who are authorised to access the LRB Website by subscribing institutions ("institutional users").

Each time you use the LRB Website you signify your acceptance of these terms and conditions. If you do not agree, or are not comfortable with any part of this document, your only remedy is not to use the LRB Website.


  1. By registering for access to the LRB Website and/or entering the LRB Website by whatever route of access, you agree to be bound by the terms and conditions currently prevailing.
  2. The London Review of Books ("LRB") reserves the right to change these terms and conditions at any time and you should check for any alterations regularly. Continued usage of the LRB Website subsequent to a change in the terms and conditions constitutes acceptance of the current terms and conditions.
  3. The terms and conditions of any subscription agreements which educational and other institutions have entered into with the LRB apply in addition to these terms and conditions.
  4. You undertake to indemnify the LRB fully for all losses damages and costs incurred as a result of your breaching these terms and conditions.
  5. The information you supply on registration to the LRB Website shall be accurate and complete. You will notify the LRB promptly of any changes of relevant details by emailing the registrar. You will not assist a non-registered person to gain access to the LRB Website by supplying them with your password. In the event that the LRB considers that you have breached the requirements governing registration, that you are in breach of these terms and conditions or that your or your institution's subscription to the LRB lapses, your registration to the LRB Website will be terminated.
  6. Each individual subscriber to the LRB (whether a person or organisation) is entitled to the registration of one person to use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site. This user is an 'individual user'.
  7. The London Review of Books operates a ‘no questions asked’ cancellation policy in accordance with UK legislation. Please contact us to cancel your subscription and receive a full refund for the cost of all unposted issues.
  8. Use of the 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is strictly for the personal use of each individual user who may read the content on the screen, download, store or print single copies for their own personal private non-commercial use only, and is not to be made available to or used by any other person for any purpose.
  9. Each institution which subscribes to the LRB is entitled to grant access to persons to register on and use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site under the terms and conditions of its subscription agreement with the LRB. These users are 'institutional users'.
  10. Each institutional user of the LRB may access and search the LRB database and view its entire contents, and may also reproduce insubstantial extracts from individual articles or other works in the database to which their institution's subscription provides access, including in academic assignments and theses, online and/or in print. All quotations must be credited to the author and the LRB. Institutional users are not permitted to reproduce any entire article or other work, or to make any commercial use of any LRB material (including sale, licensing or publication) without the LRB's prior written permission. Institutions may notify institutional users of any additional or different conditions of use which they have agreed with the LRB.
  11. Users may use any one computer to access the LRB web site 'subscriber only' content at any time, so long as that connection does not allow any other computer, networked or otherwise connected, to access 'subscriber only' content.
  12. The LRB Website and its contents are protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights. You acknowledge that all intellectual property rights including copyright in the LRB Website and its contents belong to or have been licensed to the LRB or are otherwise used by the LRB as permitted by applicable law.
  13. All intellectual property rights in articles, reviews and essays originally published in the print edition of the LRB and subsequently included on the LRB Website belong to or have been licensed to the LRB. This material is made available to you for use as set out in paragraph 8 (if you are an individual user) or paragraph 10 (if you are an institutional user) only. Save for such permitted use, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt such material in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department.
  14. All intellectual property rights in images on the LRB Website are owned by the LRB except where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited. Save for such material taken for permitted use set out above, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt LRB’s images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department. Where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, reproduce or translate such images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. The LRB will not undertake to supply contact details of any attributed or credited copyright holder.
  15. The LRB Website is provided on an 'as is' basis and the LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website will be accessible by any particular browser, operating system or device.
  16. The LRB makes no express or implied representation and gives no warranty of any kind in relation to any content available on the LRB Website including as to the accuracy or reliability of any information either in its articles, essays and reviews or in the letters printed in its letter page or material supplied by third parties. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) arising from the publication of any materials on the LRB Website or incurred as a consequence of using or relying on such materials.
  17. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) for any legal or other consequences (including infringement of third party rights) of any links made to the LRB Website.
  18. The LRB is not responsible for the content of any material you encounter after leaving the LRB Website site via a link in it or otherwise. The LRB gives no warranty as to the accuracy or reliability of any such material and to the fullest extent permitted by law excludes all liability that may arise in respect of or as a consequence of using or relying on such material.
  19. This site may be used only for lawful purposes and in a manner which does not infringe the rights of, or restrict the use and enjoyment of the site by, any third party. In the event of a chat room, message board, forum and/or news group being set up on the LRB Website, the LRB will not undertake to monitor any material supplied and will give no warranty as to its accuracy, reliability, originality or decency. By posting any material you agree that you are solely responsible for ensuring that it is accurate and not obscene, defamatory, plagiarised or in breach of copyright, confidentiality or any other right of any person, and you undertake to indemnify the LRB against all claims, losses, damages and costs incurred in consequence of your posting of such material. The LRB will reserve the right to remove any such material posted at any time and without notice or explanation. The LRB will reserve the right to disclose the provenance of such material, republish it in any form it deems fit or edit or censor it. The LRB will reserve the right to terminate the registration of any person it considers to abuse access to any chat room, message board, forum or news group provided by the LRB.
  20. Any e-mail services supplied via the LRB Website are subject to these terms and conditions.
  21. You will not knowingly transmit any virus, malware, trojan or other harmful matter to the LRB Website. The LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website is free from contaminating matter, viruses or other malicious software and to the fullest extent permitted by law disclaims all liability of any kind including liability for any damages, losses or costs resulting from damage to your computer or other property arising from access to the LRB Website, use of it or downloading material from it.
  22. The LRB does not warrant that the use of the LRB Website will be uninterrupted, and disclaims all liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred as a result of access to the LRB Website being interrupted, modified or discontinued.
  23. The LRB Website contains advertisements and promotional links to websites and other resources operated by third parties. While we would never knowingly link to a site which we believed to be trading in bad faith, the LRB makes no express or implied representations or warranties of any kind in respect of any third party websites or resources or their contents, and we take no responsibility for the content, privacy practices, goods or services offered by these websites and resources. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability for any damages or losses arising from access to such websites and resources. Any transaction effected with such a third party contacted via the LRB Website are subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the third party involved and the LRB accepts no responsibility or liability resulting from such transactions.
  24. The LRB disclaims liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred for unauthorised access or alterations of transmissions or data by third parties as consequence of visit to the LRB Website.
  25. While 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is currently provided free to subscribers to the print edition of the LRB, the LRB reserves the right to impose a charge for access to some or all areas of the LRB Website without notice.
  26. These terms and conditions are governed by and will be interpreted in accordance with English law and any disputes relating to these terms and conditions will be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.
  27. The various provisions of these terms and conditions are severable and if any provision is held to be invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction then such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the remaining provisions.
  28. If these terms and conditions are not accepted in full, use of the LRB Website must be terminated immediately.
Close

Letters

Vol. 27 No. 3 · 3 February 2005

Search by issue:

The Usual Suspects

Stephen Sedley underestimates the shift in evidentiary standards that may follow the creation of a national DNA database (LRB, 20 January). DNA evidence possesses enormous power as a corroborative instrument, but is less reliable when used as the sole basis to identify suspects. The larger and more comprehensive the DNA database, the less reliable the evidence, as the number of accidental matches increases correspondingly. There will be a greater likelihood of miscarriages of justice, especially since juries will treat DNA evidence with great reverence. There is a significant risk that, with a national database in place, serious, expensive and difficult detective work will be avoided in favour of merely rounding up database matches and grilling suspects, with a consequently disastrous reduction in the standards of proof.

Thomas Davies
Guildford, Surrey

Was Will a papist?

In judging the document supposedly discovered in the roof space of Shakespeare’s father’s house in Henley Street in 1757 ‘too good to be true’, Colin Burrow joins the ranks of those who reject the notion of Shakespeare’s Catholicism (LRB, 20 January). I do not claim that Shakespeare was a papist. On the contrary, his religion, along with much else about the man rather than his work, remains inaccessible; but the adherence of John Shakespeare to the faith is hardly in doubt. Take the piece of paper discovered in 1757. It was not a ‘will’ in the ordinary sense, but a copy of St Charles Borromeo’s ‘Last Will of the Soul’, to which John’s subscription declared him to be ‘an unworthy member of the Holy Catholik religion’. Malone, who transcribed the document at the time, may later have had doubts about its authenticity, but he need not have worried. In 1923 a Spanish version of Borromeo’s testament printed in Mexico City in 1661 was discovered by the Jesuit scholar Herbert Thurston; and in 1966 an English edition of 1638 was found, closely resembling Malone’s text. Neither Malone nor his informant John Jordan, who was certainly capable of forgery, could have known about these authentic copies of the Borromeo text. And we know that Campion and Parsons asked for thousands of copies of it to be distributed in England. Sammy Schoenbaum, who provided most of the facts, had his own reservations as to the value of the Borromeo text as evidence of John Shakespeare’s Catholicism. I am not so cautious.

Patrick Collinson
Trinity College, Cambridge

Chemistry Lesson

Tim Flannery says that carbon dioxide gas is ‘three times as voluminous as the coal burned’ (LRB, 6 January). As a good approximation coal may be considered to be carbon. A mole of carbon has a mass of 12.011 g and, since its density is 1.8 g/cm3, a mole of carbon has a volume of 6.67 cm3. On the other hand, a mole of CO2 (or a mole of any gas at standard temperature and pressure) has a volume of 22,400 cm3. So the gas is more like three thousand times as voluminous as the solid.

Bernard Liengme
St Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, Canada

Pursued by Bearists

Despite Helen Cooper’s understandable caution about performing bears (Letters, 6 January), there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that polar bear cubs taken away from their mother before they are weaned (as these bears certainly were) can be successfully and safely reared by humans, until they mature aged about four. Richard Davids’s Lords of the Arctic: A Journey among the Polar Bears (1982) offers many such stories, both reported and first-hand. Cubs are very friendly: Davids and his crew rescued one which had been detached from its mother and it ‘pressed against us, purring in a rough kind of chuckle. The pilot he liked especially and curled round his neck while we searched for the missing mother.’ That bear cubs bond readily with humans makes Cooper’s imagined fraught backstage less plausible.

It is unlikely that King James ‘lent’ his possessions for use in the public theatres. I suspect that the cubs (which belonged to the king and were kept in the Tower menagerie, not in Henslowe’s bear-garden) were used only in the court performances of the revamped Mucedorus, The Winter’s Tale and Oberon, all of which probably took place between February 1610 and February 1611. The bear cubs were born in November or December in either 1607 or 1608, and so had not yet reached ‘bear puberty’.

I also take issue with the notion that these bears needed to be trained to perform. Only people need comic timing. Stage animals make us laugh when they get something ‘wrong’, or when human actors exploit their comic potential. Andrew Gurr has noted that ‘Exit, pursued by a bear’ is, uncoincidentally, the moment in The Winter’s Tale when tragedy turns to comedy. The white bear scenes in Mucedorus are pure comedy. I would argue that the cubs’ comic function is performed by their appearing at all, not by any specific behaviour.

Finally, in the additions to the 1610 Mucedorus, Mouse carefully exits backwards, keeping a close eye on the direction in which he last saw the white bear, only to reverse into it. Surely this is possible only if there are two white bears? The manoeuvre is a deliberate surprise for the audience as well as for Mouse, and it is a joke prompted by there really being two white bears in theatrical circles in 1610. Cooper admits that the increase in stage-bear activity might be a response to the cubs, but how much better an explanation would be their actual involvement.

Teresa Grant
University of Warwick

If Alan Bennett . . .

Alan Bennett may be right about the surprise of many inhabitants of the Lune Valley at the suppression of Cockersands Abbey, and thus at the end to supplies of fresh fish, but the date of surrender was 1539, not 1536 (LRB, 6 January). Henry VIII’s commissioners, visiting the abbey in 1536 under the mandate of the Act of Suppression, found that the abbey’s income totalled £366 4s 1d – well over the £200 determined by the crown as the benchmark for a functioning abbey. They also reported the church and monastic buildings as being largely in good repair. Moreover, most of the 22 monks, aged between 29 and 60, petitioned to remain in the religious life. When the end came three years later, therefore, in the case of Cockersands at least, it wasn’t the mercy killing of a dying beast that some traditional views of the Dissolution suggest. Cockersands was founded in 1184 by a hermit on the beach near the Lune Estuary, and the last remaining abbey building, the octagonal chapter-house, which survives on a local farm, can be visited from the Lancashire Coastal Path. Because it was a Premonstratensian, not a Benedictine monastery, the monks had a pastoral role in the local community as well as a contemplative one within the cloister.

Andrew Jotischky
Lancaster

Alan Bennett, taking his tour around Burford church in Oxfordshire last October, must not have noticed the signatures of the Levellers who were briefly imprisoned in the church in 1649 after Cromwell had crushed their mutiny, and who scratched their names in the lead of the font while waiting to be shot outside the church door in the morning.

Christopher Small
Isle of Lismore, Argyll

Alan Bennett wishes there were a register of war memorials in this country. The UK National Inventory of War Memorials was established in 1989 and is an ongoing project to compile a comprehensive record of war memorials of all kinds. It currently has records for 50,000 of the estimated 54,000 memorials. The information in the inventory can be accessed by contacting the Imperial War Museum. It is intended to create online access, when funds permit.

Nick Chapple
London SE24

If Alan Bennett finds himself at Stokesay again, he should have another look at the war memorial in the churchyard: the side against the hedge has a list of the names of men who returned alive to the parish from World War One. I’ve never noticed a list of returnees on any memorial elsewhere.

Virginia Warren
Cambridge

More work! Less pay!

Enrico Berlinguer’s 1977 ‘austerity’ programme was not simply a matter of resisting a rising tide of consumerism, as Federico Varese has it (LRB, 6 January). The austerità that Berlinguer and the union leader Luciano Lama urged on Italian Communists combined a wage freeze with a ‘war on waste’ – ‘waste’ specifically included absenteeism, wildcat industrial action and university occupations. Berlinguer and Lama’s principal targets were not apathetic consumers but unruly activists.

In the previous five years, Autonomist Marxists and other radical social movements had carved out a space to the left of the Communist Party, mobilising around slogans such as ‘More pay! Less work!’ With the simultaneous emergence of the youth-based ‘movement of 1977’ and the doctrine of ‘austerity’, this cycle of contention reached its peak. In one emblematic confrontation, Lama was surrounded by demonstrators derisively chanting ‘More work! Less pay!’ The Communist response was marked by intransigent brutality, verbal and on occasion physical. The Party leadership denounced their radical opponents as Fascists, asked for a crackdown by the state and demanded that all waverers rally to the defence of Italian democracy.

The PCI’s scorched-earth tactics brought the cycle of contention to a halt, at the cost of widespread political demobilisation and disenchantment: the Party’s membership fell every year from 1977 until its dissolution in 1991. Despite his communitarian rhetoric, Berlinguer’s actions indirectly fostered the individualistic consumerism of the 1980s – and ultimately the ascent of Berlusconi.

Phil Edwards
University of Manchester

With a Smile

I was prompted by Frank Kermode’s piece on The Merchant of Venice (LRB, 6 January) to look out André Gide’s comments on the play in his journal. In his entry for 30 June 1923, he writes of the ‘frightful injustice that is smilingly imposed’ on Shylock:

If Shakespeare were animated by Christian sentiments, what a fine occasion to show them here! But no, Portia’s clemency does not for a moment become that of the Gospels, and it is by no means in the name of Christ that the Duke sets up a doctrine of forgiveness in opposition to the Jew’s legitimate and fierce intransigence. His daughter and his fortune are taken from him; never for an instant is it admitted that the feeling of his legitimate right is confused with his desire for revenge. He is now ruined, deserted, flouted; and they want to force him to become a Christian!

Sylvia Elias
London SW3

They booed

Neal Ascherson sees a connection between the Ukrainian orange revolution of 2004 and the Paris revolution of 1848 (LRB, 6 January). Attending the gala performance of Taras Bulba that opened the autumn season at the Kiev opera house last September, I was reminded that the Belgian revolution of 1830 began in the opera house in Brussels. The audience in Kiev clapped enthusiastically as bouquets were presented at the end of a lusty performance of Gogol’s tale of Zaporogian Cossacks giving 17th-century Polish occupying forces a bloody nose. A young woman staggered on with a bouquet in a basket so large it had to be placed on the stage, rather than in the hands of a soloist, and a voice announced that the bouquet was from the prime minister, Viktor Fedorovich Yanukovich. The clapping stopped abruptly, there was some booing, the performers looked awkward and pointedly avoided the offending bouquet.

Andrew Sheppard
Exeter

Read anywhere with the London Review of Books app, available now from the App Store for Apple devices, Google Play for Android devices and Amazon for your Kindle Fire.

Sign up to our newsletter

For highlights from the latest issue, our archive and the blog, as well as news, events and exclusive promotions.