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

ISSN 1749-8155


I am grateful for the effort to which Mr. Robinson went to read my book and to write such an extensive critique. Unfortunately, he misunderstands the purpose of Cambridge's New Approaches to African History series and the book’s target audience.

I’m grateful to Dr Máirín Mac Carron for her thoughtful and generous review of my book. She is absolutely right to point out that the most difficult aspect of this kind of study is the limitations of the surviving source material.

I would like to thank Professor Nenadic for her thoughtful engagement with Gender and Enlightenment Culture in Eighteenth-Century Scotland. Perhaps I shouldn’t be, but I am somewhat gratified that I raise as many questions as I answer.

I would like to thank the reviewer for her comments. I am pleased that my argument has been appreciated and the originality of the approach praised.

By the looks of it, Dr. White has developed a profound interest in what he calls a refugee story. Indeed, half of this eight-page trashing of my recent book is reserved entirely to what could be construed as a framework to his forthcoming work. While I certainly look forward to any and all such contributions to the study of ‘the refugee’, I am disappointed that Dr.

I wish to thank Dr Moulton for her generous and thoughtful review of my book, and the editors of Reviews in History for inviting me to respond. Dr Moulton’s insightful comments made me think again about the difficulty of integrating women’s history into broader historical accounts and also about the need to keep insisting on such integration.

The authors are happy to accept this review but would also like to add a short comment.

The eminent environmental and world historian, John McNeill, apparently both loves and hates my book. He writes: ‘As a story of innovation and achievement in the history of the West, this is a fine book, with many insightful passages and interesting details. As a comparative history, it is peppered with intellectual disasters’.

I am grateful for the chance to respond to Elisabeth Mincin’s review of my book because, for all her goodwill and expertise, she does not engage far with my reading of the Alexiad and, where she does, she often misrepresents it.

As an historian, she makes two main points about the Alexiad itself: that it is a flawed history yet a history of real events nevertheless.

This formidable and scholarly volume, a major contribution to urban, social and cultural history, is first and foremost a tribute to one of its co-authors, Charles McKean, the distinguished architectural historian, who sadly died when the book was being written.