You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
This comment argues that Kathleen E. Meigs’s paper is historically and historiographically injudicious. By showing a range of historical contexts in which her sources such as books, letters, and memoirs were created, I first question the way Meigs uses Harry Stack Sullivan’s clinical observation as a proxy for his biography. Then I critique Meigs’s use of one person’s memoir referring to Sullivan’s youthful sexual experience as a basis for her argument that Sullivan had a similarly exploitative relationship with James Inscoe. In so doing, I suggest how keeping open multiple histories, not asserting a single interpretation, constitutes the best historical practice when available sources are limited and inconclusive.