Terms and Conditions

These terms and conditions of use refer to the London Review of Books and the London Review Bookshop website ( — 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.


Vol. 28 No. 16 · 17 August 2006

Search by issue:

Let Jerusalem go

Freud gives a striking example of a good dream interpretation made by Alexander the Great’s counsellor. On the eve of a battle fought for the city of Tyre, the obscene figure of a satyr, dancing wildly, appeared in Alexander’s dream. The counsellor ignored the figure and focused instead on the word satyros, which he deciphered as ‘sa Tyros’: ‘Tyre will be yours.’ Perhaps, today, as the IDF tries to ‘pacify’ the same city of Tyre, we should reverse the focus, and concentrate on the figure of the satyr. What orgy of violence will be unleashed if the IDF does conquer Tyre?

The mystery of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, of which the war in Lebanon, discussed by Elias Khoury, Rasha Salti and Karim Makdisi, is another horrific symptom, is why it has persisted for half a century when everybody knows the only workable solution: the withdrawal of Israel from the West Bank and – conclusively – Gaza, the establishment of a viable Palestinian state and, as part of that process, a compromise over the status of Jerusalem. How often has peace seemed possible, only for everything suddenly to fall apart, demonstrating the frailty of the negotiated compromise? There is, in effect, something neurotic in the Middle East conflict: everyone sees how the obstacle can be got rid of, and yet no one wants to remove it, as if there were some pathological libidinal benefit to be gained by persisting with the deadlock.

If there ever was a passionate attachment to the lost object, a refusal to come to terms with its loss, it is the attachment of Israelis and many diaspora Jews to the ‘Holy Land’ and above all to Jerusalem. The present troubles are supreme proof of the consequences of such a radical fidelity, when taken literally. For almost two thousand years, when the Jews were fundamentally a nation without land, living in exile, their reference to Jerusalem was a negative one, a prohibition against ‘painting an image of home’ or indeed against feeling at home anywhere on earth. Once the return to Palestine began a century ago, the metaphysical Other Place was identified with a specific place on the map and became the object of a positive identification, the place where the wandering which characterises human existence would end. The identification, negative and positive by turns, had always involved a dream of settlement. When a two-thousand-year-old dream is finally close to realisation, such realisation has to turn into a nightmare.

Brecht’s joke a propos the East Berlin workers’ uprising in 1953 – ‘The Party is not satisfied with its people, so it will replace them with a people more supportive of its politics’ – is suggestive of the way Israelis regard the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza. That Israelis, descendants of exemplary victims, should be considering a thorough ethnic cleansing – or ‘transfer’ – of the Palestinians from the West Bank is the ultimate historical irony.

What would be a proper imaginative act in the Middle East today? For Israelis and Arabs, it would involve giving up political control of Jerusalem, agreeing that the Old Town should become a city without a state, a place of worship, neither a part of Israel nor of a putative Palestine, administered for the time being by an international force. By renouncing political control of Jerusalem, both sides would gain, because they would see Jerusalem become a genuinely extra-political, sacred site. What they would lose is only what deserves to be lost: the reduction of religion to a counter in a game of political power. Each side would have to recognise that this renunciation would constitute a liberation for itself, not merely a sacrifice made for the other.

Back to Brecht – and the Caucasian Chalk Circle, in which a biological mother and a stepmother are in dispute over a child and appeal to a judge. The judge takes a bit of chalk and draws a circle, then he places the baby in the middle and tells the two women that the first to pull the child out of the circle will get him. When the stepmother sees that the child is being hurt, she lets him go and, of course, the judge gives her custody, claiming that she has displayed true maternal love. One should imagine Jerusalem along these lines: whoever truly loves Jerusalem would let it go rather than see it torn apart.

Slavoj Žižek

Up West

As an ex-worker in Joan Littlewood’s Theatre Workshop at Stratford East, I can assure David Edgar (LRB, 20 July) that while we did everything we could to attract an East End audience they preferred to go up west for their entertainment. If the posh Sundays didn’t like a Joan show the theatre was virtually empty. I remember playing in The Celestina to fifteen off-duty nurses with free tickets. But when Ken Tynan in the Observer and Harold Hobson in the Sunday Times acclaimed Brendan Behan’s The Hostage, the pan-London audience streamed eastwards and the theatre was full.

Robin Chapman
St Hippolyte, France

Self-Righteous Editors

According to Jeremy Waldron, advocates of free speech ‘squirm’ when asked if they would protect speech that might increase the risk of violence (LRB, 20 July). That remark assumes a link between hate speech and acts of hatred. However, in stable, mature and prosperous democracies, no such link has ever been demonstrated, just as there is no good evidence that a diet of TV violence has turned people into murderers. Indeed, it is doubtful that a study could be designed to test the correlation between hate speech and general intolerance: public attitudes are influenced by too many factors. Studies have convincingly shown that individuals are harmed by hate speech when it is aimed directly at them. But no civil libertarian seriously advocates protecting that kind of speech.

US law protects hate speech; France routinely punishes it. Yet, given the recent episodes of ethnic unrest in France, the desecration of Jewish cemeteries, the existence there of an efficiently organised racist political party at the highest level of national politics, or even the fact that a person of colour was appointed to a prime news-reading spot on a major network for the first time last month, no one can seriously argue that its bans on hate speech have been more successful in promoting racial tolerance than American freedoms have.

European bans on hate speech, far from suppressing intolerant views, allow them to be highlighted by high-profile judicial proceedings. In the US, Holocaust denial has received little significant media attention in recent years. In France or Austria, by contrast, figures such as David Irving or Robert Faurisson have attracted headlines precisely because they were violating bans on hate speech or Holocaust denial.

Eric Heinze
Queen Mary, University of London

Mystery Man

Adam Shatz speculates that the ‘well-known French-Jewish Trotskyist’ whom Michel Warschawski was surprised to find reading Gershom Scholem on a train in 1974 was Ernest Mandel (LRB, 3 August). This is highly unlikely: Mandel was Belgian and would have been reading the Financial Times or a detective story. Much more plausible candidates are Daniel Bensaid or Michael Loewy (who is Brazilian but has lived in France for a long time), both of whom have written very well about Scholem’s friend Walter Benjamin.

Alex Callinicos
King’s College London

Climb every mountain

Jeremy Harding quotes from Michela Wrong’s I Didn’t Do It for You: ‘Only a people’ – the Italians – ‘that had already thrown railroads across the Alps and the Dolomites would have dared take on the Eritrean escarpment’ (LRB, 20 July). In fact, most of the railways in the Dolomites were built not by the Italians but by the Austrians when the Dolomites were still part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. It was the Austrian Südbahngesellschaft, for example, which decided in the 1860s to build the 130 km Pustertal Valley railway from Lienz to Franzensfeste, linking the eastern and western halves of Austria for the first time. The line was opened on 20 November 1871 and the railway company celebrated by distributing 6000 guilders among the poor of the valley. The railway company’s pension fund correctly forecast that the railway would open up the valley to tourists, and invested very profitably in building hotels such as the Grand in Toblach; the hotel is still there.

Anthony Caston
Tervuren, Belgium

Why not Brazil?

John Lanchester wonders why the opening game of the World Cup no longer features the reigning champions (LRB, 20 July). This year, for the first time, the champions no longer qualified automatically and since it was (just about) possible that Brazil would not qualify, the opening match was switched to feature the hosts.

Dave Boyle
Hove, East Sussex

How to Fold a Sari

Peter Campbell’s article on Bellini and the East at the National Gallery (LRB, 25 May) reminded me of Titian’s Madonna and Child of c.1511, sometimes labelled ‘La Zingarella’ or ‘The Gypsy Madonna’, in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. The silk fabric background looks like a Karnataka sari from India: Titian has even painted the folds that are caused by the way saris are folded for storage, which remain when the cloth is spread out.

Joanna Kirkpatrick
Boise, Idaho

A cold coming they had of it

Lancelot Andrewes’s 1620 Christmas sermon, which inspired T.S. Eliot’s ‘Coming of the Magi’ and is absent from my edition of his Selected Sermons and Lectures, is not out of print, as Eamon Duffy said in his review (LRB, 3 August), but is available in P.E. Hewison’s Lancelot Andrewes: Selected Writings (Carcanet, 1995).

Peter McCullough
Lincoln College, Oxford

Like San Michele

Tom Shippey (LRB, 8 June) and David Wasserstein (Letters, 6 July) find ancient libraries whose contents might compare with Umberto Eco’s San Michele in The Name of the Rose. But I doubt if any library before the 20th century could have taken the form Eco describes: a labyrinth of stone walls perched at the top of a tower above a scriptorium of ‘spacious immensity’, with other rooms below. Eco specifies that the vault of the scriptorium is supported by ‘sturdy pillars’, but no architect would have placed such a ponderous structure as a library, to say nothing of its ‘huge cases, laden with books’, at the very top of a building. This structural absurdity, necessary for the plot, rather diminishes my pleasure in the book.

Andrew Wilton
London SW11


Jeremy Adler begins his review of Brigitte Hamann’s Winifred Wagner by remarking that ‘Hamann tries very hard to be fair to a subject who, one might think, scarcely deserves it’ (LRB, 6 July). No one could accuse Adler of fairness to Hamann. What Hamann has done, and to my mind with extraordinary patience and exemplary scholarship, is to describe the life of a notorious, lifelong Nazi, who died in 1980, yet also to show what pressures were on her, and how her personality led to her bizarre adoration of Hitler. Adler writes, for instance, that Hamann ‘intimates’ that Hitler ‘was “wrongly" imprisoned’. What she actually wrote is that ‘Winifred now worked harder than ever on behalf of the allegedly victimised and wrongly imprisoned Hitler’; ‘allegedly’ clearly covers both verbs. Later on, Adler claims that Hamann refers to Wagner’s notorious anti-semitic Das Judentum in der Musik as ‘that little 1850 publication’, although the context makes clear that Hamann is paraphrasing a letter of Winifred’s to a friend.

Michael Tanner
Corpus Christi College, Cambridge

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.