No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 March 2018
As a genre, book reviews date back to at least the eighteenth century. Although there were earlier precursors, reviews emerged during the Enlightenment and then flourished with the expansion of print culture in the nineteenth century. They often provided readers who could not aspire to owning or even gaining access to valuable books an introduction to their content. Today, reviews remain a “meta-genre” that reflects the changing place of books not only in specific scholarly fields but also in written culture more generally. As Central European History (CEH) celebrates its fiftieth year of publication, it therefore makes sense to spend some time contemplating CEH’s book reviews—past, present, and future.
1 On the history of the book review, see, e.g., Miller, Elizabeth Carolyn, “Reading in Review: The Victorian Book Review in the New Media Moment,” Victorian Periodicals Review 49, no. 4 (2016): 626–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gael, Patricia, “The Origins of the Book Review in England, 1663–1749,” Library 13, no. 1 (2012): 63–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Munck, Thomas, “Eighteenth-Century Review Journals and the Internationalization of the European Book Market,” International History Review 32, no. 3 (2010): 415–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Forster, Antonia, “Avarice or Interest: The Secrets of Eighteenth-Century Reviewing,” Yale University Library Gazette 81, no. 3/4 (2007): 167–76Google Scholar.
2 Miller, “Reading in Review,” 626.
3 “From the Editors” [Unfug, Douglas], Central European History (CEH) 1, no. 1 (1968): 3Google Scholar.
4 See the review by Stearns, Peter N. in CEH 1, no. 2 (1968): 175–81Google Scholar.
5 See Jürgen Kocka’s discussion of the Sonderweg thesis and debate in this commemorative issue.
6 Smith, Woodruff D., “German Imperialism after Wehler: Two Perspectives,” CEH 12, no. 4 (1979): 387–91Google Scholar; Ziemke, Earl F., “Germany and World War II: The Official History?,” CEH 16, no. 4 (1983): 398–407Google Scholar. The books under review were Bade, Klaus, Friedrich Fabri und der Imperialismus in der Bismarckzeit. Revolution, Depression, Expansion. (Freiburg i. Br.: Atlantis, 1975)Google Scholar; Klein, Fritz, ed., Studien zum deutschen Imperialismus vor 1914 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1976)Google Scholar; Forschungsamt, Militärgeschichtliches, Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg, vols. 1–3 (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1979)Google Scholar.
7 Barkin, Ken, “Editor's Letter,” CEH 24, no. 1 (1991): vGoogle Scholar.
8 Blackbourn, David, “Honey, I Shrunk German History,” German Studies Association Newsletter 38, no. 2 (2014): 46Google Scholar.
9 Barkin, Kenneth D., “Thoughts on Thirteen Years of Editing CEH,” CEH 37, no. 4 (2004): 499–500Google Scholar (reprinted in this commemorative issue).
10 Ledford, Kenneth F., “From the Editors,” CEH 38, no. 1 (2005): 2Google Scholar.
11 Lichtenstein, Alex, “Too Apparent to Require Comment,” American Historical Review 122, no. 5 (2017): xv–xixGoogle Scholar.
12 Munck, “Eighteenth-Century Review Journals.”
13 It is unclear whether or not this is a more general development; attempts to canvass other journals for information on this apparent trend produced no substantial responses.