What about a swimming p

Akkademja tal-Malti,

Let me start with the good things: the book’s proofreading is impeccable. It’s one of the few Malta-published books I have recently read which has absolutely no spelling mistakes. Where I disagree with the proof-reader is only on the gender of l-Ordni (as in ‘the Order of St John’, not in ‘the command’): l-Ordni ta’ San Ġwann is masculine, l-ordni li jħallas is feminine. Otherwise, it’s topnotch work. Kudos.

The design is neat, consistent and easy to read. Where I disagree is only on the fact that the reproduction scale used for certain documents is too small, making it difficult to read certain details. Otherwise, it’s top-notch as well. Again, kudos.

The choice of contributors is also good, even though I have to highlight two negative points. Let me start with these, then I’ll say something about the contributors.

Firstly, it is understood that in a contributed volume like this one, it is the Editor who gives purpose to the book and decides on its style and structure, and chooses and chases the contributors for their contributions. Now, whereas the book says that the Editor was Joseph P. Borg, Professor M.A. Falzon opens his contribution by stating that he was invited to contribute by two other people. So it seems that there was a figurehead editor (Joseph P. Borg) and at least two de facto editor(s). I might be wrong, but books don’t usually have “editor- ial boards”, so this aspect is a bit messy and, sorry to say, amateurish.

Secondly, the choice of contributors strengthens the perception of an ‘Exclusive Club’ which needs ‘big names’ to buttress its credibility. The work smacks of selfserving aspirations, as if credibility can be acquired by association or by diffusion. This dilutes the overall effect of the otherwise good work of the ‘big names’ invited to contribute.

For indeed, the ‘big names’ are really big in the local context. Even a cursory look at the Table of Contents will yield an impressive list of contributors who, as expected, have written insightful and intelligent pieces. The pity is that there are no contributors’ biographies. Regarding the contents of Giovanni Bonello’s contribution, I cannot express an opinion because he graciously mentioned a small piece of information I forwarded to him a couple of years back and there is thus a conflict of interest. As to the methodology, however, I do not have any compunction about saying that, from a scientific point of view, it is to my mind the best contribution to the volume.

Which leads me to the contributions of the members of what I am cheekily calling the “Vassalli Exclusive Club”. Whereas this is essentially a book about history, certain contributors feel as though they were Ben Stiller in A Night at the Museum. I don’t know if you remember that particular series of movies. It was about a bloke who must have really underperformed in history when he was at secondary school, but he’s still recruited as the night custo- dian in a museum. The members of this “Exclusive Club” are like night custodians in a museum full of historical artefacts and they really don’t know what to make of them. I feel like shouting Mark 8:18 at them!

Flesh and blood: the key to Vassalli

Ivan Said’s contribution to the book is well-written and well-researched, but it lacks polishing. For instance, why does Mr Said offer his own translations into Maltese without quoting the original in English, particularly considering that the texts he cites go back some 200 years? Given the precedent established by the Case of the Trambusto Guerriero Mess (and a Half) – on which I’ll spend a few sentences further down – I would have expected a more prudent attitude from the editor(s).

That said, Mr Said has passed a most acute, I would say brilliant, remark on Vassalli, which is at once unsophisticated and yet brimming with wisdom. I think it should be quoted in its entirety (I beg to be forgiven for leaving out the Maltese original – space is the issue here): “This essay shows us that, at the end of the day, [...] Vassalli, despite [his] great intellectual prowess, was only flesh and blood like anyone else, with [his] strong points and his weaknesses” (p. 306). It might sound bland if not even pedestrian but in reality it is a very strong reminder to soi-disant professional