Abstract
In this paper I consider the question of whether Michael Oakeshott's explanation of history as a mode of understanding provides an adequate defence of the subject against the 'postmodern' attack mounted by Keith Jenkins, the noted British philosopher of history. On the whole I conclude that it does not, though it does go quite far in that direction. In the process I discover a considerable amount of agreement between the two philosophers, in particular with regard to the constructed nature of history, but not enough to enable them to arrive at similar conclusions.