Covering books and digital resources across all fields of history
Like us on FacebookFollow us on Twitter

ISSN 1749-8155


The editors are happy to accept this review. The review makes an excellent point about the importance of the North in the postwar development of Southern cities, something which we neglected to discuss in the volume. The review also correctly notes the heterogeneity of Southern cities in the volume, which we grappled with in trying to make this collection of essays cohesive.

Firstly, I’d like to thank Solomon for such a thorough and, in the main, positive review. The primary aim of the book is to provide a fresh look at the little-researched origins of the FAI using largely overlooked material found in the archives and press of militants and organizations from countries other than Spain.

I am indebted to John Craig Hammond and Reviews in History for their generous review of my book, and for the opportunity to contribute to the discussion. I largely concur with Professor Hammond’s comprehensive evaluation, so I hope to frame my comments to both reinforce key points he makes as well as speak to some doubts that other scholars have raised about the b

I would like to thank Beverly Tomek for her review of my book, The Slave’s Cause: A History of Abolition, and the editors of Reviews in History for inviting me to respond to it. Let me take care of a few quibbles at the outset and address her more substantial criticism at greater length.

Review Date: 
15 Sep 2016
In the latest of our occasional Reviews in History podcast series, Jordan Landes talks to Arthur Burns and Paul Readman about their new edited collection.
Arthur Burns is Professor of Modern British History at King’s College London, UK.
Review Date: 
15 Sep 2016

In the latest of our occasional Reviews in History podcast series, Daniel Snowman talks to Peter Hennessy about his background, career, influences and forthcoming book.

I would like to thank Mike Sanders for his generous review of my book. He captures both its spirit and narrative astutely and concisely, with a great attention to detail. I’d like to use this response to comment on the theoretical elements that he highlights.

Our main intention for Shakespeare in Ten Acts was to use the 400th anniversary of his death as a milestone from which we would look back at Shakespeare’s evolving reputation and the ways in which each generation has responded to his plays.

I am honored to respond to such a thoughtful review. It’s a thrill to see that my intentions have made sense to (and may have even entertained) a careful reader. Even Mark Power Smith’s central criticism, that my book could have carried on into the 20th century, is an encouraging endorsement.

Marisa Linton has written a model review, locating my book within her expert outline of the narrative of the Revolution and also evaluating it within a changing historiography. I am also gratified that an historian who has brought such depth and freshness to our understanding of the origins and course of the Revolution should be so generous about my overview.