> Douglas isn't the only one interested--could you cc me on the bc emails?
>
> Curiously,
>
> Michael
Will do, Michael.
With you and Doug both interested in the P/P question, that means there are
prolly more people interested on petc than on SHAKSPER. I have to admit
that the question is pretty narrow, and i wouldn't bother but that i sort of
feel my neck's on the line here.
Odd -- I'm tempted to float My Favourite Conspiracy Theory, which links Van
Vogt, LRon, JWC and +Astounding+, Count Korzykski's _General Semantics_, and
Scientology, but even I occasionally have bouts of sanity.
The bugger is, and why i didn't get round to acing the eejit on SHAKSPER
earlier today, I've managed to lose a key-text, George Watson's _The English
Petrarchists_, which lists the pre-1700 translations of Petrarch. I can do
it without, but documenting the Watson book would be useful, increasing my
street-cred, like. But not only can't i find it on my shelves, I can't even
google it. Beginning to think i might have dreamed this.
Bloody hell, life gets more and more like a Borges story by the minute. All
i really need is to go blind.
Robin
|