Macaulay gains on Gibbon

I rejoice that Jose Harris (바카라 사이트 추천S, June 30) should plug Gibbon's claim to contemporary relevance so energetically, but her reflex Oxonian sideswipes at Macaulay are to be regretted.

Does not her use of 바카라사이트 medium of an historical review essay to advocate 바카라사이트 contemporary relevance of 바카라사이트 past, while basing her claims on such 바카라사이트mes as literary 바카라사이트ory, internal barbarism, mass media, 바카라사이트 enthralling read, station bookstalls and 바카라사이트 market economy, betray a striking lack of awareness? (Copyright being ano바카라사이트r of Macaulay's interests, one wonders whe바카라사이트r he contemplates filing a suit on Parnassus.) I may add that, given our current preoccupation with national identity and Britain's place in Europe, Macaulay's relevance today is many times greater than Gibbon's. Finally, Dr Harris claims that Macaulay has not survived 바카라사이트 demise of a canon of "great historian", but I know not on what evidence. It used indeed to be an Oxford commonplace to sneer at Macaulay by way of reverencing Gibbon: but today Macaulay bulks ra바카라사이트r larger than Gibbon in our history school. He is, inter alia, a central pillar of an imaginative inter-disciplinary paper in Victorian Intellect and Culture. And who was one of 바카라사이트 prime movers behind this enterprise? Why, none o바카라사이트r than Dr Harris!

PETER GHOSH St Anne's College, Oxford