Justin Garson has argued, contrary to the claims of proponents of purportedly ahistorical theories of functions, that there are no ahistorical theories of functions. In the interest of satisfying uncontroversial desiderata on a theory of functions, the most influential ahistorical views all smuggle in history. I argue that Garson’s case relies on a misinterpretation of the ahistorical accounts he targets and that the details of the misinterpretation are instructive. They highlight often unquestioned assumptions about how a theory of functions fits into a broader account of scientific practice and what theoretical work a definition of function should do.