The Historical Journal, celebrating the publication of its 50th volume this year, continues to publish papers on all aspects of British, European, and world history since the fifteenth century. The best contemporary scholarship is represented. Contributions come from all parts of the world. The journal aims to publish some thirty-five articles and communications each year and to review recent historical literature, mainly in the form of historiographical reviews and review articles. The journal provides a forum for younger scholars making a distinguished debut as well as publishing the work of historians of established reputation. Instructions for Contributors at Cambridge Journals Online
Cambridge University Press (www.cambridge.org) is the publishing division of the University of Cambridge, one of the world’s leading research institutions and winner of 81 Nobel Prizes. Cambridge University Press is committed by its charter to disseminate knowledge as widely as possible across the globe. It publishes over 2,500 books a year for distribution in more than 200 countries. Cambridge Journals publishes over 250 peer-reviewed academic journals across a wide range of subject areas, in print and online. Many of these journals are the leading academic publications in their fields and together they form one of the most valuable and comprehensive bodies of research available today. For more information, visit http://journals.cambridge.org.
This item is part of a JSTOR Collection.
For terms and use, please refer to our
The Historical Journal © 1963 Cambridge University Press