The VLT-FLAMES Tarantula survey: XX. The nature of the X-ray bright emission-line star VFTS 399

Context: The stellar population of the 30 Doradus star-forming region in the Large Magellanic Cloud contains a subset of apparently single, rapidly rotating O-type stars. The physical processes leading to the formation of this cohort are currently uncertain. 

Aims: One member of this group, the late O-type star VFTS 399, is found to be unexpectedly X-ray bright for its bolometric luminosity-in this study we aim to determine its physical nature and the cause of this behaviour. 

Methods: To accomplish this we performed a time-resolved analysis of optical, infrared and X-ray observations. 

Results: We found VFTS 399 to be an aperiodic photometric variable with an apparent near-IR excess. Its optical spectrum demonstrates complex emission profiles in the lower Balmer series and select He i lines-taken together these suggest an OeBe classification. The highly variable X-ray luminosity is too great to be produced by a single star, while the hard, non-thermal nature suggests the presence of an accreting relativistic companion. Finally, the detection of periodic modulation of the X-ray lightcurve is most naturally explained under the assumption that the accretor is a neutron star. 

Conclusions: VFTS 399 appears to be the first high-mass X-ray binary identified within 30 Dor, sharing many observational characteristics with classical Be X-ray binaries. Comparison of the current properties of VFTS 399 to binary-evolution models suggests a progenitor mass 25 M_⊙ for the putative neutron star, which may host a magnetic field comparable in strength to those of magnetars. VFTS 399 is now the second member of the cohort of rapidly rotating "single" O-type stars in 30 Dor to show evidence of binary interaction resulting in spin-up, suggesting that this may be a viable evolutionary pathway for the formation of a subset of this stellar population.

Official histories of parliament and the nature of the union of 1707:a forgotten episode in Anglo-Scottish academic relations

The Scottish Committee on the History of Parliament was established in 1936 as an offshoot of Col. Josiah Wedgwood's scheme for a collaborative ‘history of parliament’ researched and written on biographical lines. Circumstances, however, determined that the Scottish history would take a separate path. When Wedgwood's scheme was revived in 1951 an unsuccessful attempt was made to reintegrate the two projects. Discussions between the respective managing committees were conflicted and often bad-tempered, focussing on different interpretations of the nature of the united parliament created in 1707. The Scottish committee insisted that it was a new constitutional entity, while the English saw it as a continuation of the Westminster parliament with Scottish MPs added. This story of mutual incomprehension illustrates the profound differences between Scottish and English academics in the writing of parliamentary history, and also reveals a hitherto unobserved element in the development among leading Scottish jurists of a strain of ‘legal nationalism’ based on their interpretation of the constitutional significance of the Union.

Commentary on An Enquiry into the Nature and Origin of Literary Property (1762)

One of a number of published commentaries contributing to the mid-eighteenth century debate concerning the nature of literary property. The author of An Enquiry sought to repudiate the concept of a natural authorial property right existing at common law. In so doing, he specifically engaged with various aspects of William Warburton's earlier commentary (see: uk_1747), as well as presenting arguments that drew upon the nature of property in general, the differences between the right claimed by proponents of the common law right and other acknowledged incorporeal properties, the similarities between patents and copyright, the history of literary property, the experience of other jurisdictions (drawing upon Venice in particular), and the consequences that would follow from conceding the existence of a perpetual right both for authors in particular and society in general. This commentary, in turn, drew its own response in the guise of A Vindication of the Exclusive Rights of Authors, to their own work (1762).