Considers some of the questions relating to the general nature of explanation and interpretation in history: "What is the relationship between an 'interpretation' of an historical event, in which we try to state its meaning or value, and an 'explanation' of that event, in which we try to say how it was connected with other events and why it happened as it did? What sort of issue is raised when we speak of the 'meaning' of historical events, and what sort of evidence can we give to support such statements when we make them? What, if any, are the standards by which we can appraise the relative merits of competing interpretations of history? Finally, does it make any sense to speak of being objective with respect to interpretations of history?" Holds that historical explanation does not differ radically from that of other disciplines, yet they do not usually have a predictive or retrodictive value. (Susan Peabody) (Abstract via Allan Megill)