This chapter focuses on the historian of philosophy. There is a certain amount of historical evidence in the case of philosophy, mainly in the form of texts, or rather copies thereof, but also of inscriptions or even of archaeological remains. The historian has to collect this evidence, evaluate it, and reconstruct, on its basis, a history which is sufficiently supported by it to make it difficult, if not impossible, to think of an equally plausible, or even more plausible, account that fits the evidence as well. The difficulty is not only that it has become a matter of considerable controversy whether there actually is one characteristic way in which historians ought to go about their business and which way this may be. It also should give one pause for thought that, in fact, general historians do not write history of philosophy. This suggests that the historiography of philosophy is not just a matter of applying the historical method to a particular history. Clearly, the most important point here is that it takes some special competence to write the history of a discipline. Having the competence of a contemporary philosopher allows one to tell which arguments are acceptable and which are not.