35 Diskussion ZpH Jg. 15 (2009), H. 1 among historians, but not all would agree that it necessarily implies an avoidance of the present. Proposition #6 notes that historical research sup- poses a «critical dealing» with what is past, leading to «deeply cherished myths about the past» being destroyed; again this is a fair point about history, although it does not necessarily follow from Propo- sition #5 despite the use of the word «therefore» to introduce it. Under Proposition #7, Depaepe argues that «The methodology of historical research is, perhaps even more than that of other approaches, pre-eminently that of commonsense.» In this case, Depaepe is echoing many historians who have been somewhat impatient with methodology, but hardly takes the argument forward in a reasoned manner. Finally, in Proposition #10, the historical approach and way of thinking are held up as «a possible dam against the terror of the immediately useful», which Depaepe argues is prevalent today. This view would be shared by many other historians, although it does not seem to follow comfortably from Proposi- tion #9 which holds that the history of education should not «envision wagging a finger or providing moralizing wisdom». Depaepe’s constructions of history when put to- gether in this way do not appear particularly coher- ent or consistent, and should certainly not be ac- cepted as representing history as a settled body of knowledge or understanding. It is important for us to remember that the nature of history is problem- atic and contested, and that in appealing to history we should as historians of education be prepared to engage in the arguments around it. The more standard notions of history that Depaepe puts for- ward are also not entirely of a piece with each oth- er and do not always follow logically from each other. Moreover, his more contentious claims are in one respect on the conservative wing of current his- torical thinking and in another way on the radical fringe. His stern warnings about separating the past from the present echo the stentorian tones of old- fashioned types such as the English Tudor historian Geoffrey Elton. On the other hand, his enthusiasm for the endless construction of new, contemporary stories about the past suggests a flirtation with postmodernist critiques of traditional history. Such divergences heighten a general impression of eclec- ticism in the overall account. Depaepe’s «ten commandments» deploy history not as an analytical and methodological framework so much as a rhetorical device that provides a stick and a carrot for historians of education. It is a stick to provide warnings and chastisement, and a carrot to raise hopes of redemption. The original sin here is the tradition of «historical pedagogy». It seems that the history of education was tempted to stray from the path of righteousness and has been wan- dering in the wilderness ever since, further under- mined by the associated sins of «the striving for prestige, status, and power». Apparently also we are «led or seduced by the desire to score points’. These are strictures that suggest a necessity for us to atone for the sins of our ancestors and to live down our past if we are to be admitted into the promised land. In reality, they are evidence of emo- tional scarring in a field of study that is driven by insecurities about its identity and its future direc- tion. I would prefer less of the sackcloth and ashes, and a more inclusive vision. If there is much in our history as a field that might be criticized, we might also point to its successes and achievements, of which there are many. We could also remind our- selves that there is a grand tradition in the history of education that reaches across the diverse con- stituencies of education, history and the social sci- ences. This might indicate a common and integrat- ed mission for our field, with a potential to contrib- ute to education, history and the social sciences alike, rather than divergent and competing paths or frameworks. Depaepe does a passable impres- sion of Moses or Isaiah, but surely it is time for the history of education to move on to a New Testa- ment. Do we need commandments? • Rebecca Rogers As I began to read Marc Depaepe’s «Ten Com- mandments», my first reaction was to wonder whether such assertions were really necessary. Com- mandments suggest crisis, a need for guidance, the sign of a beleaguered subfield, seeking legitimacy. Do we need to be reminded that the history of ed- ucation is history, and that the content of this histo- ry concerns the educational past? Do we need to be reassured that concern for the present is unavoida- ble, but that our task is not to study the present? Do we need to be told that the history of educa- tion, like all forms of history, is a discourse about discourses whose interpretation requires a multi- perspective point of view? As I pondered these dif- ferent propositions, however, and especially as I moved toward the final three, my puzzled expressi- on gradually dissipated. I had, to an extent, seen the light. Not perhaps the light of God, but rather, I saw the usefulness of the exercise. To understand my puzzlement and ensuing illumination a few words of context are necessary. When I began my graduate work in Paris in 1982, I saw myself as an apprentice historian, interested in education, working on the educational past of