"The relationship of the subject of history to the education of architects re-mains unclear. Only by understanding past events, or better, by rejectingthem In favor of alternative representations, will the prostect for clarifi-cation improve. This paper incorporates history into proposals for sur-roundings in a way not dissimilar to that of the application of science to en-gineering . The title of this paper encapsulates the conclusion reached andthe process of investigation favored.Reflection on twenty-five years of teaching allows for assessment of suc-cess. Exercises for design instruction from this period, all of which entailedhistorical considerations, provide data for generaizations. Summarily, fivetypes are examined: first, information about a building without resort todescription; second, information about the process of one building's design;third, descriptions of surroundings from fact; fourth, descriptions of build-ings from fiction and fifth, naming of buildings or parts there of.The aim of this pedagogy is the representation of objects that could exist.Proposals are directed toward existence by the modal character of the argu-ments used to explain relationships, for example, between persons and sur-roundings. The world envisioned must be one of necessity, as Saul Kripkesuggests. This world requires questions appended to the five exercises of thefollowing sort. What if these are the facts? What if this is your procedure?What if this were to become real? What if this is not an accurate represen-tation? And, what's In a name?Also, there are historigraphical questions. Marcel Proust's Remembrance ofThings Past and Samuel Beckett's analysis of it provide some elaboration.Hugh Trevor-Roper's Valedictory Lecture of 1980 at Oxford provides for apoint of departure: sensation in terms of alternative prospects such thathistory can be imagined. This is a discovery that both Proust and Beckett were on the verge of making. The prospect of imagining history contributesto understanding its worth adn there is a model gained.It representations, eternal or nearly so, can be developed on a mode) of im-agined history, then, rules can be prescribed for design. Patterns and chainsconstrain, but, they are the best we can hope for, unless we're satisfied withstories. Another lesson is in the pedagogy. There concerns are separatedwhereas these normally are expressed simultaneously in planning.The truth of planning is in the buildings that are built. Exercises that re-quire students to suspend their own increduality cannot be justified by theinstructors enthusiasm for play or for pedagogy. Only one exercise has beenpredictably successful. As argued by C. S. Peirce a century ago, naming re-quires an understanding of a more absract name for past things, one which isentailed in the not-so-simple question: "What's that?"The conclusion is this: if history is to be written other than as substitutionof one story for another, then, it has to be written as the testing of writingthat has the prospect of rule or law. Otherwise there is no history. It hasbeen obvious for some time that there is nothing other that what's ahead.Now, we must realize that only by backing forward will we be able to knowwhat's coming."