The problem of how to conceive and write “universal history” A is increasingly haunting the imaginations and troubling the consciences of historians in the West. We live in one world, but our historiography is still national, or at most regional. We no longer really believe that piling the known historical facts higher and higher will save us, but we still hopefully support antiquarianism and monographic research. Professional historical writing has thus lost all power to influence the man in the street because its thought-frame is parochial, myopic, and so irrelevant to the modern world. It cannot prepare us to understand the world we live in unless it casts off Leopold von Ranke's Europe-centered mentality and becomes truly “universal” in attitude and perspective. Or so it seems to one particularly articulate British historian, Geoffrey Barraclough, in History in a Changing World, a volume of essays recently published.