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. 32 No. 13 · 8 July 2010

Search by issue:

Enemies of All Mankind

It isn’t true, as Stephen Sedley asserts, that ‘slaving became assimilated in international law to piracy, a capital offence,’ after Britain and the US outlawed the slave trade for their nationals in 1807-8 and the Congress of Vienna issued a moral condemnation of the trade (LRB, 24 June). For more than four decades after Britain criminalised the slave trade, the judges who administered international law in British courts considered it a legal activity for foreigners. The key judgment was Sir William Scott’s in the case of Le Louis. Scott, the senior judge in the High Court of Admiralty, overruled the condemnation by the Freetown vice-admiralty court of a French slaving vessel in 1817, and upheld the ‘natural’ right of the French crew to resist an unlawful search. (Twelve men from the Queen Charlotte had been killed in seizing Le Louis.)

Scott’s opinion was a masterly summation of customary international law with respect to the freedom of the high seas. The law’s fundamental principles were, first, ‘the perfect equality and entire independence of all distinct [sovereign] states’ and, second, their ‘equal right to the uninterrupted use of the unappropriated parts of the ocean for their navigation’. On the high seas ‘no one state, or any of its subjects, [had] a right to assume or exercise authority over the subjects of another.’ The right of visit and search, which belligerents legitimately exercised in wartime in the interests of self-defence, could not lawfully be exercised in peacetime, without a prior treaty establishing that right. Since the search of Le Louis had been unlawful, any evidence of slaving so revealed could not be part of the legal case for condemning the vessel.

Scott demolished the Crown’s contention that the declarations of the European powers at the Congress of Vienna condemning the slave trade as repugnant to the principles of humanity and universal morality sufficed to make it a crime on a par with piracy, which all states had a right and duty to suppress. Slavery was a legal institution in British dominions and buying and transporting African slaves had once been a legal business actively encouraged by British governments. Slaving, Scott argued, ‘cannot be deemed a legal piracy’:

It wants some of the distinguishing features of that offence. It is not the act of freebooters, enemies of the human race, renouncing every country, and ravaging every country in its coasts and vessels indiscriminately; but of persons confining their transactions (reprehensible as they may be) to particular countries. It is not the act of persons … assaulting coasts … against the will of [African] governments and the course of their laws, but of persons [carrying] on a traffic not only recognised but invited by the institutions and the administrations of those barbarous communities.

Scott warned the British executive that British courts administering international law were bound to respect the legality of slave-trading by nationals of states which had not positively outlawed the activity: if their slave cargoes were seized by the Crown’s officers, then they had to be restored to them; ‘and if not taken under innocent mistake, to be restored with costs and damages’. Although he did not award costs and damages to the plaintiff in what was a ‘test’ case, Scott’s judgment opened the way for foreign slave-traders to sue British naval officers for financial restitution if they broke international law in suppressing the slave trade, and they had considerable success.

Bernard Waites
Hunworth, Norfolk

The Shudder

My expectations of pieces by Frank Kermode are, by now, such that when one comes along on any contents page it’s the first I turn to. I think, though, that ‘Eliot and the Shudder’ (LRB, 10 June) merits more than my private appreciation.

What I tend to do when I find myself enjoying an article to the point that I decide it will join an uncounted but plentiful number of other pieces in the several boxes stored here and there in my home, is to circle passages, sentences, paragraphs with a ballpoint; this, unstartlingly, to make a specific referring-back simpler and swifter. These circled areas aren’t always a matter of original deep-thinkings; they can equally well be quotations or simple reminders of cherished thoughts or images which have slipped further from me than they should have done.

What happened with this latest Kermode contribution was that these circlings multiplied to the point of pointlessness: I’ve just counted them and they number 19, probably, if I were to spend the day on this, an all-time record. In no particular order, Tennyson’s ‘The blue fly sung in the pane’; the ‘bewildering minute’ quoted from The Revenger’s Tragedy in a letter from Eliot to Spender; Kermode’s description of how usage changes (‘the language had to move over to admit the upstart’); Eliot/Gottfried Benn’s poet, who ‘cannot know what words he wants until he has found the words’; Kermode’s own formulation of an Eliot procedure, ‘surrender, then contemplate, then do something about it’; the forceful reminder of the mind-quietening quality of Shakespeare’s ‘strong toil of grace’; Kermode’s ‘Eliot lost his love for Donne; it was consumed by his passion for Dante’; (Eliot again) ‘the quality of surprise which Poe declared to be essential to poetry’; and Charmian’s response, in Antony and Cleopatra, to a Roman soldier’s question regarding the dead queen. I think the four pages of this essay the finest I have read in the LRB, this issue or any other.

Don Coles
York University, Toronto

Between Toast and Marmalade

I may have been an early beneficiary of Keith Thomas’s working methods as a historian, which he explained in his Diary (LRB, 10 June). Some years ago I tried out my first paper on the Muggletonians for his research seminar. I raised a question with him the next morning at breakfast. He instantly went to a side room and came back with a fat envelope marked ‘Muggletonians and animals’. He scattered its contents on the kitchen table. I found what I needed, if my memory is correct, at a point somewhere between the toast and the marmalade.

William Lamont
Lewes, East Sussex

A Sonnet a Minute

It seems strange to write or review a book called The Art of the Sonnet without mentioning Raymond Queneau, who, in addition to his other achievements, was the most prolific sonnet-writer ever (LRB, 24 June). The ten sonnets in his Cent mille milliards de poèmes all have the same rhyme scheme and scansion so that lines from any sonnet are interchangeable with the corresponding lines of any of the others. The pages of the Gallimard edition are cut between the lines so that they can be moved to make any of the 1014 different combinations. Queneau calculated that at a rate of a sonnet a minute (45 seconds to read the sonnet and 15 seconds to move the lines) all day every day, it would take 190,258,751 years (more or less) to read them all.

Mark Etherton
London W2


Tony Wood may think that we will never know for certain who was behind the killing of Anna Politkovskaya, but the lead investigator into Politkovskaya’s murder, interviewed by Novaya Gazeta, said in October 2007 that the list of those suspected of ordering the murder had been reduced to four; more recently, Petros Garibyan said the ongoing investigation has now narrowed its focus to two suspects (LRB, 24 June). Gathering sufficient evidence and bringing one of those individuals to court will be another matter. As concerns the other accomplices in the crime, Wood implies that a retrial would ‘consist simply’ in finding the ‘right’ people on whom to ‘pin the crime’. This is evidently not the view either of Politkovskaya’s colleagues at Novaya gazeta or of the attorneys, Karinna Moskalenko and Anna Stavitskaya, who represented the family at the trial. What would frustrate Politkovskaya most, I suspect, is Wood’s attitude: his view that ‘nothing has changed, nothing can change.’ She never felt that way. Buoyed by the self-assurance she inherited, growing up as a part of the Soviet elite, she constantly chivvied and agitated the police, the army and the prosecution service to investigate abuses and detain those responsible. By not taking the trial of her killers seriously or, for that matter, the trials of the men who murdered Dmitry Kholodov and Igor Domnikov, Wood fails to register the shift in Russia since the late 1990s from total impunity to partial justice.

John Crowfoot
Beccles, Suffolk


Peter Campbell writes that the new East London Overground line runs south from Dalston Junction to Crystal Palace and West Croydon (LRB, 10 June). No it does not, at least not from here: it runs north from West Croydon and Crystal Palace to Dalston Junction. He quotes the view that New Cross is ‘rubbish’, and while he ruminates on the view at Wapping, he doesn’t deign to name the South London stations, let alone visit them. Well, I have news for Mr Campbell. We in South London enjoy the idea of a new line which speeds us northwards to places we had never even heard of, such as Haggerston. George Melly wrote of the transpontine divide which represents a psychological chasm between those living north and south of the Thames. Some of us savour these cultural differences; Campbell seems to relish his ethnocentricity.

Peter Gillman
London SE25

Peter Campbell has lived in South London for nearly 50 years.

Editor, ‘London Review’

Hitchens: love him or hate him

David Runciman says Christopher Hitchens’s book Hitch 22: A Memoir is ‘very hard to like’ (LRB, 24 June). I disagree. Although I have never met Hitchens, I found the Hitchens I met in this book to be irresistible. In both style and substance I found him to be a cross between Shaw and Wilde: like them, always beautifully lucid, funny, profound, witty, warm, generous, a little romantic, and very passionate about the causes he embraces.

Sabah Salih
Danville, Pennsylvania

David Runciman nicely compares Christopher Hitchens to one of Carl Schmitt’s political romantics, but there is also an echo of the Nazi jurist himself in Hitchens’s writing. Schmitt famously argued that all politics is based on a violent, primordial distinction between friends and enemies. Whether as Trotskyist provocateur or neoconservative schmoozer, Hitchens has always tended to see politics as a clash of personalities, and above all, as an occasion to declare his own loyalties. When he broke with friends such as Edward Said, who did not share his views on the ‘Islamofascist’ menace, and befriended Paul Wolfowitz, he was merely applying Schmittian logic. It has been a short step for him from the permanent revolution to the war on terror.

Henry Finlayson
London N1

Sudyu na mylo

Simon Kuper’s piece about Spartak Moscow mentions the terrace chant of sudyu na mylo, ‘turn the referee into soap’ (LRB, 10 June). When I was a student in Russia in the 1980s the chant had it that the referee was ‘on the soap’, not that he be turned into it. This, it was explained, meant that the ref was using soap as a lubricant to engage in sexual practices not approved of by the Party. This change in meaning over the years probably counts as progress in Soviet terms but indicates the continued failure of the Soviet consumer goods industry.

Neil Robinson
University of Limerick

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.