The question which it is my intention to explore in the pages which follow is, What makes an historical reconstruction acceptable? But before I begin, it seems appropriate to say something about the term "historical constitution,' particularly since so far as I know I am the only one who uses it. Such perverse idiosyncracy ought not to be indulged, yet in the present case some justification can be offered. I am not wedded to the term for its own sake, but it does seem to suit my purpose admirably. What I am trying to do when I use it, is to avoid using the established alternatives, because those alternatives carry along with them suggestions about history and historical knowing which I should want to reject.