In 'An Intentional Demonstration? I defended an argument, suggested by if not directly due to E. D. Hirsch, for the conclusion that one of the truth-conditions of at least some kinds of interpretive statements about poems is that they be underwritten by meanings intended by the author. ' The argument proceeded via a particular example of two evidently contradictory interpretive claims about a poem by Gerard Manley Hopkins. The first premise of the argument claimed that:
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gary Iseminger (1996) studied this question.