ABSTRACT
What causes should a responsible historian describe in order to explain an historical event? And what conditions should an historian mention to explain why one event occurred rather than another?
Some writers think there is no rational answer to these questions. Keith Jenkins, for example, assumes that there is an infinite number of causes for any event, and no rational way of deciding which should be included in an explanation. He says the causes apparently form
an infinite chain spreading backwards and outwards [from the event being explained] which you somehow have to cut into despite the fact that no method (and no amount of experience) can provide you with any logical or definitive cut in (or ‘cut out’) points in order to give a sufficient and necessary explanation.
