catagen
发表于 2025-3-23 10:31:43
Edward Channing, Historianit was rather poorly written, included no footnotes, and made several factual errors, it did include some judgments of value. For one thing, Weaver discussed Channing in relation to several “schools” of historiography. Though he admitted that Channing “was critical of all schools whether of history,
羽毛长成
发表于 2025-3-23 17:21:41
veying American historiography since 1890, was quite critical of Channing‘s major contribution, the six-volume History of the United States, contending that it "won only a contemporary reputation which is not wearing well. "l Referring specifically to the second volume of the History, this writer st
Communal
发表于 2025-3-23 19:40:25
http://reply.papertrans.cn/31/3028/302706/302706_13.png
GLOOM
发表于 2025-3-24 01:54:34
Book 1974rican historiography since 1890, was quite critical of Channing‘s major contribution, the six-volume History of the United States, contending that it "won only a contemporary reputation which is not wearing well. "l Referring specifically to the second volume of the History, this writer stated his f
Laconic
发表于 2025-3-24 05:29:10
http://reply.papertrans.cn/31/3028/302706/302706_15.png
thrombus
发表于 2025-3-24 07:52:54
http://reply.papertrans.cn/31/3028/302706/302706_16.png
magenta
发表于 2025-3-24 11:12:05
http://reply.papertrans.cn/31/3028/302706/302706_17.png
fibroblast
发表于 2025-3-24 18:29:36
http://reply.papertrans.cn/31/3028/302706/302706_18.png
jaunty
发表于 2025-3-24 19:51:15
S. Michaelis,J. Feit,Werner Kempfnoon. “No!” Channing replied, almost indignantly, and continued, “Do you know what I am going to do this afternoon? I shall work in the library until it closes, then I shall go home and work.”. This became more and more typical of his habits as the Great Work proceeded.
GLUT
发表于 2025-3-25 02:42:22
http://reply.papertrans.cn/31/3028/302706/302706_20.png