The history of mathematics is nowadays practiced primarily by professional historians rather than mathematicians, as was the norm a few decades ago. There is a strong consensus among these historians that the old-fashioned style of history is "obsolete," and that "the gains in historical understanding are incomparably greater" in the more "historically sensitive" works of today. I maintain that this self-congratulatory attitude is ill-founded, and that the alleged superiority of modern historiographical standards ultimately rests on a dubious redefinition of the purpose of history rather than intrinsic merit.