This note uses the Rorschach framework of interpretation to clarify the difference between speaking of a historian's “literary skill” and a historical work's “literary qualities.”
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
HexterJ. H.Review of M. White, The foundations of historical knowledge and A. C. Danto, Analytical philosophy of history. New York Rev., 1967, 8(2), 24–28. (a)
2.
HexterJ. H.Reply. New York Rev., 1967, 8(5), 29–31. (b)
3.
PlumbJ. H.Review of S. Loomis, Paris in the terror. New York Times Book Rev., 1964, 113 (38,767), pp. 3, 38. (a)
4.
PlumbJ. H. Review of NamierL. and BrookeJ., Charles Townshend. New York Rev., 1964, 3(8), 20–21. (b)
5.
StarkS.Toward a psychology of knowledge: Hypotheses regarding Rorschach movement and creativity. Percept. mot. Skills, 1965, 21, 839–859.
6.
StarkS.Suggestion regarding drama, inner creation, and role-taking (empathy): I. Dramatic arts and dramatic dreaming. Percept. mot. Skills, 1968, in press.
7.
WhiteM.Letter to editor. New York Rev., 1967, 8(5), 28–29.
