Roman Law and Common Law. By the late W. W. Buckland and Arnold D. McNair, c.b.e., ll.d., q.c., f.b.a., Fellow of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge. Second edition revised, by F. H. Lawson, d.c.l., f.b.a., Professor of Comparative Law in the University of Oxford and Fellow of Brasenose College. Reprinted with corrections by J. C. Hall, m.a., ll.b., Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge. [Cambridge: University Press. 1965. xxii, 423 and (index) 16 pp. 70s. net.]

1966 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 292-293
Author(s):  
C. C. Turpin
Mediaevistik ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 315-318
Author(s):  
Jane Beal

Matthew Cheung Salisbury, a Lecturer in Music at University and Worcester College, Oxford, and a member of the Faculty of Music at the University of Oxford, wrote this book for ARC Humanities Press’s Past Imperfect series (a series comparable to Oxford’s Very Short Introductions). Two of his recent, significant contributions to the field of medieval liturgical studies include The Secular Office in Late-Medieval England (Turnhout: Brepols, 2015) and, as editor and translator, Medieval Latin Liturgy in English Translation (Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications, 2017). In keeping with the work of editors Thomas Heffernan and E. Ann Matter in The Liturgy of the Medieval Church, 2nd ed. (Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications, 2005) and Richard W. Pfaff in The Liturgy of Medieval England: A History (Cambridge University Press, 2009), this most recent book provides a fascinating overview of the liturgy of the medieval church, specifically in England. Salisbury’s expertise is evident on every page.


Author(s):  
James Herbert

This chapter discusses the antagonism and resistance directed against the ARHB. When the Dearing Report first appeared, the University of Oxford stood against the establishment of a separate Research Council for humanities. It expressed doubts about the new public funding of such a new organization and on the transfer of control of expenditure away from the universities to a council envisaged as the instrument of a national policy for research in arts and humanities. Cambridge University also expressed, albeit not as adamantly as Oxford, their disapproval of a Humanities Research Council. Adding to these disapprovals were the conflicts it had caused in the contemporary UK political life, particularly with devolution. In the devolution process of the UK government, one of the devolved powers was education, which created adverse effects on the formulation of Humanities Research Council. The AHRB also met with criticism from other councils including the journals and newspapers of the UK.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document