It is gratifying to read that Tom Crook recognises the depth of primary research that lies behind our analysis and interpretation of public health in Edinburgh and the early career of Sir Henry Littlejohn.
It is extremely gratifying for an author to be faced with a review which takes his or her book on its own terms, and presents it much as it was intended. The description of the book provided by Paul Fouracre is absolutely fair – and the additional points raised (especially with regard to Mark Hovell) are genuinely enlightening.
It is a pleasure to read Jonathan Stubbs’ thoughtful review of my book. I am grateful to him for his engaged and informed comments, and also to Reviews in History for offering me the opportunity to respond. By and large, Stubbs’ summary of the book strikes me as accurate and astutely observed.
I am most grateful to Dr Young for his review, which stresses all the main points that I wanted to make about Cardinal Pole’s character and life. I would simply like to add a few glosses to what he and I have said.
I am very grateful to Dr Bothwell for his conscientious review and for the many positive things he has said about my book. As a young scholar, it is with some trepidation that one reads a first review from a senior colleague and Dr Bothwell’s generosity is thus received with pleasure and a little relief.
I would like to respond to the review by David Monger of my book Organized Patriotism and the Crucible of War: Popular Imperialism in Britain, 1914–1932. Dr.
I’m grateful for James Baker’s generous review, especially coming as it does from an expert curator, historian, and engaged digital humanities practitioner. He effectively summarises the key arguments of the book about the eversion of cyberspace and the emergence of the new digital humanities.
I would like to thank the reviewer for a generous and careful engagement with the arguments I present in my book.
There are only two points I would like to make in response to Professor Grayson’s generous review of The Cambridge History of the First World War. Both relate to our sense that we stand at an important moment in the development of a new approach to the history of the Great War. The first point concerns language.