This chapter shows how Peter Railton's analysis can be such a guideline—and one that accepts a wider range of explanations than most other guidelines do. This ecumenism is the main reason why the author thinks Railton deserves to be known to historians. The chapter presents Railton's general analysis, comparing it with C. G. Hempel's in order to appreciate better how it builds on and improves upon the latter. The chapter helps to highlight the specifics of Railton's approach. It shows the advantages of Railton's account for the analysis of historians' explanatory practice, using an example from everyday historiography. The central concept of an ideal explanatory text provides a framework for historiographical explanation that is dynamic in that it invites the historian to search for ever-more explanatory information. Another advantage of Railton's analysis is that it accommodates structural explanations, which make no use of causal information about either individual or collective agents.