As a devoted reader of Reviews in History, I must first thank the editors for selecting my book for review, and for extending an invitation to respond to Robert Cook’s excellent review essay. Second, I thank Professor Cook for his trenchant insights and analysis, and for his overall support of my book. I particularly commend him for his elegant summation of its themes and ideas.
The reviewer is right in reflecting on the value of adding ‘user contribution’ features to the website. When Manuscripts Online was developed Jisc and digital humanities institutes such as the HRI were exploring the potential role and value of user generated content across a range of digitised resources.
I’d like to thank Craig Friend for taking the time to review my book and engage with a variety of issues raised by my work. His negative evaluation is disappointing. But more troubling is that many of his criticisms, I feel, are unwarranted and misleading. I am required, therefore, to respond at length to his review.
We should be delighted that the tradition of harsh criticism is still alive in the academic world. And I am grateful to the editors of Review in History for inviting me to repond to the long review of my book by Elena Russo. Apparently, ten years after the original publication, the book still seems to merit a detailed discussion, and even, it would seem, a demolition.
I would like to thank Thomas Munck for his thoughtful and careful critique and acknowledge the justice and value of many of his critical as well as positive judgments about my series on the Enlightenment and the revolutionary era.
The parliamentary papers of the UK are one of the most important sources for the history of the UK and its former colonies in the 18th and 19th centuries, in their original form a series of thousands of printed reports.
I am very grateful to Charlotte Methuen for her generous and sophisticated review. A broader engagement with the historiography would have benefitted this study, not least in the area of the theological origins of science. I don’t think, however, that I am divorcing science and conscience in quite the way she suggests.
I am grateful to Prof. Bulman for taking the time to write such a long review of my book.
Considering the glowing nature of Dr O’Donnell’s review, I hope that I won’t be thought churlish in making a few comments in response to it.
I am deeply grateful to Susan Heydon for her thoughtful, considerate, comprehensive, and helpful review of my book. Heydon provides not only a clear and concise summary of the book and (most of) my arguments, but also excellent suggestions for possible improvements to my book and on the scholarship of smallpox eradication more generally.