VAN Sittert's review article, which included coverage of my The
1770–1950 (Oxford, 2003), contained so many inaccuracies and misrepresentations that it is difficult to let it pass. These undermine many of the points he purports to make, on both small and substantive issues. The Journal
History is one of our few journals of record and I would like to set the record straight. I have only limited space for this rejoinder, and it will be impossible to take up all relevant questions.