Abstract
Gives a good account of the covering law model, its background, and its reception. Argues that the model is so misleading that it ought to be abandoned as a basic account of the logic of explanation in history. Its brevity, clarity, and intelligence make it still worth reading. It is especially good as an introduction to the previous literature relevant to the covering law model, including the "idealist" philosophers of history, Collingwood and Oakeshott. Along with #Scriven's articles, Dray's book seems to have been largely responsible for the demise of the covering law model. An objection that can be raised against Dray is that he tends to assimilate the telling of what was the case to explanation. For example, he sees the "filling in of missing information" as explanatory, where it is better seen as a telling or recounting (160). Thus he participates in the general "inflation" of explanation that follows in the wake of the covering law model. See the review article by #Passmore, "Law and Explanation in History," which makes this and other points. Dray's book is discussed at length by #Ricoeur, Time and Narrative, 1:121‑31. (Abstract via Allan Megill)