<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Commonwealth to Protectorate</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mercuriuspoliticus.wordpress.com/2008/08/25/commonwealth-to-protectorate/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mercuriuspoliticus.wordpress.com/2008/08/25/commonwealth-to-protectorate/</link>
	<description>A blog (mostly) about early modern culture</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:53:56 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Nick</title>
		<link>http://mercuriuspoliticus.wordpress.com/2008/08/25/commonwealth-to-protectorate/#comment-210</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2008 18:00:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mercuriuspoliticus.wordpress.com/?p=335#comment-210</guid>
		<description>On reflection I think you are right - &quot;original&quot; is probably a better term. Something for me to watch in my use of language, I think!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On reflection I think you are right &#8211; &#8220;original&#8221; is probably a better term. Something for me to watch in my use of language, I think!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: oxoniensis</title>
		<link>http://mercuriuspoliticus.wordpress.com/2008/08/25/commonwealth-to-protectorate/#comment-209</link>
		<dc:creator>oxoniensis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2008 13:58:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mercuriuspoliticus.wordpress.com/?p=335#comment-209</guid>
		<description>This is an interesting, not to say intriguing review. I just wonder, however, if the term &#039;revisionist&#039; is quite appropriate in this context. Ever since Ted Rabb first used it in c.1980, it has been attached with increasing frequency to new views on old subjects. Would it not be better to deploy wording like &#039;radically new&#039; or &#039;original&#039;?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is an interesting, not to say intriguing review. I just wonder, however, if the term &#8216;revisionist&#8217; is quite appropriate in this context. Ever since Ted Rabb first used it in c.1980, it has been attached with increasing frequency to new views on old subjects. Would it not be better to deploy wording like &#8216;radically new&#8217; or &#8216;original&#8217;?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
