In 1939 the Earl o f Crawford and Balcarres told members o f the Historical Association that “ many o f our own historians seem to fear that attention to prose, or rather the effort to make it attrac­ tive, must detract from the merit o f the history-in short, that history is a picture which requires no frame, a precious stone which needs no setting.” 1 The speaker was right, for the absence o f elegance from the majority o f English historical writings o f the present day is deliberate. Most English historians want to make it abundantly clear that they are not men o f letters. Some o f them readily banish correctness as well as elegance for the sake o f showing the world beyond a peradventure that history is not an art. The style o f the late H. W . Temperley was invariably ugly, not seldom incorrect. Yet the Master o f Peterhouse was a man o f culture who knew what he was doing. G. N. Clark, one o f the leaders o f his profession, uses an impeccable style, but its leanness and its avoidance o f flowers proclaims the deliberate intention o f keeping his personality and his rich experience o f life out o f the severe reports in which he presents the results o f his scholarly investigations. G. M. Trevelyan, a master o f beau­ tiful prose, does not enjoy the approval o f the professionals o f history in this country. His books are so clearly works o f art that there are some who would gladly question his scholarship. Unhappily for them, England under Queen Anne and the Garibaldi series are as learned as they are readable.