The perception that historiography is rhetorical could not be more contemporary. In recent years the traditional view that “the research of truth is the main task of the historian” has come under fire. Social scientists, linguists, and theorists of narrative have shown how much historical and fictional accounts have in common, playing down whatever realities might lie behind them. Their concern is with how historical narratives use rhetoric, or persuasive language, to construct meaning instead of innocently conveying it. On that basis, historical narrative is not regarded as veridical and it cannot be subject to refutation. Instead, it has been argued, truth in history is determined by the readers of historical texts - the expectations and principles of a given reader in a particular time and place can be seen as far more crucial than any universal standards of veracity. Hayden White, who promoted a markedly rhetorical conception of modern historiography in the 1970s, went so far as to affirm that historical truth is determined merely by “concomitance with the scholarly practices and standards prevailing among the community of professional historians” - presumably the standards and practices prevailing in today's universities. An affirmation like that should not go unchallenged.