“Putting this resource behind a pay wall will make history more exclusive and elitist. Capitalism and elitism go together, and don’t let any right-wing libertarians tell you otherwise. “
From Airminded 2 July 2009
Gavin Robinson on the RHS’s bibliography
July 21, 2009 by oxoniensisRuth Paley on the cuts at Kew (pasted from H-Albion)
July 14, 2009 by oxoniensisOnline services account for 90% of customer usage? What does this mean? If it is about downloading digitised documents it's a very sloppy statistic because it does not compare like with like. A downloaded document is likely to be no more than 1-3 pages taken from a much larger document (such as a volume of census enumerator returns or a register of wills). It certainly won't be anything like an orderable item produced as an original document because these are rarely listed to that level of detail. Last week I consulted a 'single' document that consisted of 3 boxes, each containing 3-4 rolled files, each of which further contained around 150-200 pieces of parchment. I make that, at a conservative estimate, the equivalent of well over 1000 'downloads'. Ruth Paley www.raceforlifesponsorme.org/ruthpaley > I sent some queries to the National Archives about their proposed > changes and thought members of H-Albion may be interested in their > response. > > Katrina Navickas. > > ===================================== > Thank you for your comments with regards to the proposed changes at > The National Archives. > > Unfortunately we cannot afford to stay open six days a week within our > existing budget and still maintain high quality services. Closing an > extra day will significantly reduce our ongoing running costs, > allowing us to continue to offer an excellent onsite service when we > are open, as well as continue to offer and develop our online service > (which accounts for over 90% of our customer usage). Monday is already > one of our quieter days so will have a lower impact on the public than > closing on any other day. > > We are removing those microfilms/microfiche record series from open > access where there is a suitable online equivalent. This policy has > been in place for several years, and we have already removed a number > of smaller series, however we are now moving into a phase whereby we > are removing some of the much larger series, such as the censuses, and > First World War army service records. > > In most cases the online version provides a level of indexing and > searching not possible with microfilm. We also believe that we could > make better use of the space occupied by the microfilms, in line with > the views of visitors. > > For those readers who need to access to The National Archives' > material on microfilm, we will still retain it, and it can be ordered > if necessary. > > Kind regards > > Jenny > > Jenny Cottle > Senior Marketing Manager, The National Archives > +44 (0)20 8876 3444 ext 2183 > www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
Humanities & Social
Sciences Online
Ruth Wilcock on the National Archives in Peril
July 8, 2009 by oxoniensisToday’s Daily Telegraph newspaper carries an impassioned plea from Ruth Wilcock about the dangers facing Britain’s National Archives at Kew. She draws attention not just to the recently announced prospective closure of its building for one day a week, to its sacking of staff and the withdrawal of documents on microfilm but also to the long-term consequences of moving the Family History Centre from central London to Kew, the downgrading of library facilities and the obsession with digitising popular records. It is a grim litany but sadly a true one. The present government, let alone the NA’s management, hopes that few people will notice this assault on one of the guardians of Britain’s heritage. Ruth Wilcock has drawn this sorry business to wider attention. She deserves our support. The National Archives deserve better treatment too.
The Royal Historical Society’s explanation from H-Albion
July 8, 2009 by oxoniensisThis is the explanation of the Royal Historical Society’s decision to transfer its bibliography to Brepols Publishing next January and for access to become subject to charge. (This text has been pasted from H-Albion.) There is an extremely interesting debate going on about this decision at Brett Holman’s blog, Airminded.
I am forwarding a message from Miles Taylor, Director of the Institute of Historical Research, and Colin Jones, President of the Royal Historical Society, responding to some of the issues raised by colleagues over the last week on the H-ALBION discussion lists about the future of the RHS Bibliography. All best wishes, Ian W. Archer General Editor RHS Bibliography of British and Irish History ========================================= Dear Colleagues, We have noted recent postings concerning the announcement of changes concerning the Royal Historical Society Bibliography of British and Irish History. With effect from 1 January 2010, the Bibliography will be renamed Bibliography of British and Irish History (BBIH), and will be run by a partnership comprising the Royal Historical Society (RHS), the Institute of Historical Research (IHR) and the international academic publisher, Brepols publishers. A Press Release and a set of FAQs concerning the change are posted on the websites of both the RHS and the IHR. Please see the home pages of our institutions: http://www.royalhistoricalsociety.org/ or http://www.history.ac.uk/ A number of colleagues on H-Albion and elsewhere have expressed particular concern about one specific feature of the change envisaged, namely, the move from a free to a charging regime. Of course we understand that concern. We thought it would be helpful, therefore, to outline the context for this change, amplifying the points made in the existing information on our institutional websites. Though free at the point of use, the production of the Bibliography entails considerable costs. The value added of the Bibliography depends on high quality indexing which cannot be automated, and the project employs two members of staff. Since 1998, these costs have largely been borne by four generous Project Grants from the Arts and Humanities Research Board/Council (AHRB/C), which allowed the Bibliography to inaugurate its current on-line status in 2002. It should be emphasized that prior to this stream of funding the Bibliography was only available by purchasing a CD-ROM and the hard copy print volumes which added recent publications. The period of free access reflected the ready availability of money for new electronic resources in the first part of this decade. But as projects multiplied, research councils became more concerned about their sustainability. For several years now, we have been in high-level consultations with the AHRC about continuation funding. At every point in these consultations, we made the point about the problems faced by resources such as ours whose utility depends on their being kept up to date, with the additional implications for costs that this entails. However, our discussions with the AHRC left us in no doubt that a further grant was unlikely when our current funding ceases in December 2009. The Council supports individual projects rather than the long-term continuation of research infrastructural resources, and stresses innovation rather than maintenance of existing projects. In this context, the RHS and IHR began working closely together to devise a sustainable future for a resource which we believe is highly esteemed across the globe. We undertook extensive consultation with charitable foundations and with major universities and university libraries. Those consultations were informed by advice from colleagues from The National Archives, from Board-members of NACBS and from one of Britain’s premier university presses. Our quest for alternative charitable support on even a short-term basis was fruitless. All potential major grants had the character of seedcorn money to get a project off the ground, and that they too (like the AHRC) expected a model built around sustainability. Three alternatives presented themselves: a) closure of the inputting service, effectively mothballing the bibliography through placing it as at 31 December 2009 on a university website for an indeterminate period; b) adoption of a cottage industry model for example through “crowdsourcing”; c) commercial partnership to develop as a subscription resource. Our thinking was guided by the twin principles of sustainability and maintenance of high quality. Option a) it should be noted would not be cost free as the web hosting charges involved are not inconsiderable; in any event we were not keen on abandoning a century’s worth of bibliographic endeavour: it was in 1909 that the Society at the instigation of Sir George Prothero began its involvement in the production of bibliographies of British history; the Institute has been an enthusiastic partner since its establishment in the 1930s. Option b) was seen as having potential but would have entailed sacrifice of quality. The Bibliography offers things which crowdsourcing cannot guarantee: i) consistency of indexing (including period covered); ii) identification of what is British or Irish history; iii) finding journals, especially those published by respected local history societies, that do not have a web presence and are not covered by services like EBSCO or even JSTOR; iv) finding chapters in collective volumes. We were extremely reluctant to compromise on the quality of an established resource with a high international reputation. Option c) appeared the only plausible option, and we chose that, exploring the possibilities with several other renowned publishers before deciding on Brepols, who offered an arrangement which most clearly met our academic priorities. IHR and RHS are delighted to have entered into new joint partnership in pursuit of this option with a publisher with an excellent record in and commitment to our field: for almost 15 years, Brepols has operated the International Medieval Bibliography. We also believe that Brepols’s experience in this sector will improve the (already very high) quality of the service that the Bibliography provides. We are particularly pleased that Brepols is whole-heartedly committing to this venture at a very difficult time in the business cycle and with university library budgets under strain. The new partnership promises to allow the Bibliography to adapt swiftly to changing technology in this area. We wish to stress that the new arrangements involve genuine partnership. Editorial continuity between BBIH and the RHS Bibliography is very substantial. Our immensely-respected and long- serving RHS Literary Director, Dr Ian Archer, will continue in the role of the BBIH’s Academic Editor. The IHR’s Dr Jane Winters, a highly-experienced and key member of the existing team, will take on the enhanced role of Publishing/Technical Editor. There is continuity too in the paid staff on the project at the IHR. In addition, the new arrangements will involve increased financial input from both the IHR and the RHS, who are joint partners in the enterprise. Colleagues would like more information about subscription prices. Brepols has a tradition of reasonable subscription prices, which has also been an element in our decision. Subscriptions prices will take into account to a certain degree the budgetary difficulties libraries face at the moment. A pricing schedule has been worked out for the UK that recognizes the funding from which the BBIH has benefited in the past and that takes into account the size of interested institutions. We encourage scholars worldwide to pursue with Brepols through their librarians the idea of involvement in consortia deals. If you want to know what a subscription to BBIH will cost for your institution we advise to contact Brepols directly ( brepolis@brepols.net <mailto:brepolis@brepols.net>) We also have negotiated with Brepols the introduction in 2012 of a preferential rate for Fellows of the RHS and Friends of the IHR. We would also point out that access to BBIH will be free onsite at the IHR from 1 January 2010. It is also worth noting that, in the light of its extensive past financial support for the project, AHRC required us to justify our strategy of a move from free to subscription service. The AHRC stipulates in such cases that the charging model adopted is designed for sustainability rather than profitability, and that it will not exclude the key target audience from accessing the material (i.e. the costing model is not prohibitive and that there is some evidence to demonstrate that the resource could still be accessed widely). We believe that colleagues will be reassured that the AHRC accepted that our model (which included still-confidential guidelines on pricing) met these requirements. Several commentators have expressed concerns about independent scholars; we share those concerns, and will be keeping an eye on the take-up of individual subscriptions. But it should be noted that the evidence of our user surveys suggests that usage is overwhelmingly concentrated in the HE sector. We have noted among colleagues who have commented on plans for the Bibliography a wish to know if there is anything they can still do to help the situation. In the long term, growing awareness of the difficulty of sustainability for research resources like the Bibliography could stimulate a debate across the arts and humanities sector – and hopefully change the policies of research councils worldwide. In the short term, there is one very concrete way that that colleagues can help to make the BBIH as widely available and as cheap as possible: that is, to bring to bear all the pressure that they can manage on their local and institutional libraries to show a willingness to subscribe to what we believe is a fundamental research tool for the international historical community. We hope that these comments are of help and that colleagues will work with us in order to make the BBIH a resounding success. As always, we remain open to suggestions about how the service can be enhanced and its outreach extended. Miles Taylor Colin Jones Director President Institute of Historical Research Royal Historical Society Miles .Taylor@sas.ac.uk c.d.h.jones@qmul.ac.uk
Birkbeck’s ‘Revolution and Evolution’ conference 25th July
July 7, 2009 by oxoniensisThe Birkbeck Early Modern Society
AGM and ‘Revolution and Evolution’ Conference
Saturday 25 July 2009, Room 532, Birkbeck, Malet St
09.30 Registration, tea and coffee in room 538
10.00 AGM
10.30 Stephen Brogan: welcome to conference, introductions, opening comments
10.40 Session 1: Chair: Sue Dale
Harman Bhogal, ‘John Deacon and John Walker: The Evolution of Demonological Thought in Early Modern England’
Stefania Crowther, ‘Revolution and Evolution in the Publishing Marketplace at the Close of the Interregnum: The Case of Sarah Jinner’s Almanac and Prognostication’
11.40 Tea and coffee, room 538
12.00 Session 2: Chair: Nigel Carter
Kate Meaden, ‘Revolution or Evolution in Medicine’
Karen Baston, ‘Northern Newtonians: An Exploration of the Sources of Charles Areskine’s Theses Philosophicæ of 1704’
13.00 Lunch, room 538
14.00 Session 3: Chair: Robin Rowles
Steve Cornish.,‘The Buildings after the Great Fire: Evolution or Revolution?’
Rei Kanemura, ‘“Let Rome in this History be a Witness”: The History of Rome and the Late-Elizabethan Crisis’
Simon Moore, ‘Remembering the Revolution: Lucy Hutchinson and Country House Poetry’
15.30 Tea and coffee, room 538
15.50 Session 4: Chair: Timothy Alves
James Arnold, ‘Fateful Harbingers: A Cultural Revolution on the French Operatic Stage, 1770-89’
Anne Byrne, ‘Burying the King without Ceremony: Evolution or Revolution in the Funeral Rites of Louis XV’
16.50 Stephen Brogan, facilitate closing remarks
17.00 Wine reception, room 538
Each session consists of 2 or 3 papers, each of which is twenty minutes long; once these have been read there is then a further twenty minutes for questions and discussion.
Pasted from Early Modern Intelligencer
Cuts at the National Archives
July 5, 2009 by oxoniensisI have seen via the Air-minded blog that there are going to be cuts out at the National Archives in Kew. It will not open on Mondays, staff are being laid off, there will be charges for parking cars, and so on. All this while Gordon Brown is arguing that nothing will happen after the recession to the public sector!
Clifford Davies in the Times Literary Supplement
July 2, 2009 by oxoniensisCliff Davies, of Wadham College, Oxford has a letter in The Times Literary Supplement today commenting on the lack of response to his argument in the TLS a year or so ago (13th June, 2008) that the term “Tudor” was hardly used in the sixteenth-century either by the rulers or by the ruled in England. He also chides Anthony Fletcher for his use of the term when reviewing Kevin Sharpe’s Selling the Tudor Monarchy in the TLS two weeks ago. Davies ends by challenging Fletcher to say whether he thinks it “of no importance that historians should continue the indiscriminate use of a term which has acquired massive and misleading resonance, even though it had little purchase in the minds of contemporaries?” An academic argument may well be brewing here.
Paying for the RHS’s bibliography
July 1, 2009 by oxoniensisThe news announced yesterday that the Royal Historical Society’s Bibliography (available via the Institute of Historical Research’s website) is to be taken over and run as a fee-paying venture by Brepols Publishing from the start of next year is depressing. I understand that the Arts and Humanities Research Council (like other benefactors of the bibliography) has limited funds and cannot be expected to support this project indefinitely into the future. I also understand that its staff’s salaries need to be paid and its other costs must be met. But to make the service fee-paying for institutions and individuals is a retrograde step. Brepols Publishing is a commercial company and must seek to make a profit. This move is definitely not in the interests of history or of academic and other historians. The enthusiasm, moreover, of the IHR’s press release yesterday for this change leaves a sour taste. Please think again.
Derek Hirst
June 30, 2009 by oxoniensis
Catholics and Protestants in 16th-century England
June 29, 2009 by oxoniensisLooking back on the religious strife of Reformation and post-Reformation England is a melancholy process in the eyes of modern people. Persecution for reasons of faith, torture and execution seem wholly abhorrent to the twenty-first century. Historians of Tudor England have very largely freed themselves from the confessional biases that shaped their predecessors’ writings. For that reason, the letter from Brian Conneller in the letter column of today’s The Times newspaper is misconceived and inappropriate. No one denies the personal trauma that the Princess Mary suffered when her father, Henry VIII, and her mother, Catherine of Aragon, separated and were ‘divorced’ or that she felt deeply the changes to the practices of her Catholic faith introduced by her father and, after 1547, by her half-brother, Edward VI. She was persecuted for her faith and, in turn, persecuted Protestants when she came to the throne in 1553. But Thomas Cranmer was not principally responsible for her father’s divorces nor for the trials and executions of More, Fisher, the Carthusians and other adherents of Catholicism. It is absolutely untrue to claim that Mary’s successor, Queen Elizabeth, was a tyrant – she was, in fact, a conservative Protestant much less interested in theological niceties than her Privy Councillors. She was careful not ’to make windows into men’s souls’ and, as a result, saw Catholicism wither and largely die in the first twenty years of her reign. By 1580, England was an overwhelmingly Protestant country. The appearance of Catholic priests trained on the continent had two objectives: one was to shore up the faith of the one to one and a half per cent of the population that still adhered to the old faith; the second was to prepare the ground, in alliance with the Papacy and Philip II of Spain, for circumstances in which Elizabeth could be deposed and Catholicism be restored. Elizabeth’s regime naturally took preventative measures and treated those working for her overthrow either as potential or actual traitors. It was not a pretty process; it did claim martyrs to Catholicism; and it did preserve England’s Protestantism. At this distance in time, we need to recognise why the participants acted as they did, not to make the mistake of painting Catholics as exemplars of virtue and Protestants simply as persecutors or vice versa. Mr Conneller’s defence of Queen Mary is a throwback to a historiography of religious conflict that died generations ago.
