|Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 20:45:24 -0800 (PST)
From: Linda Wright <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Parturient Montes (was Aipolic vs bucolic) (fwd)
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Forwarded for Dr. Thomas.
|---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 23:41:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Richard Thomas <email@example.com>
Subject: Parturient Montes (was Aipolic vs bucolic)
I thought my reply to Van Sickle's unsollicited self-promotion in BMCR 2000-10-19 was, rather than angry, mildly ironic, and meant merely to amuse, if perhaps in a slightly mercenary way (in its urging readers to judge for themselves by purchasing my book -- which they may still do by going immediately to http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0472108972 /instrvmentvmlitt .
I also allowed as how "scholarly erasure" might be more common than
Van Sickle allowed. For instance it could occur if a learned journal (such
as AJP) sent in 1988 a two-volume commentary on Virgil's Georgics
(let's say, by myself) to a reviewer (let's say, John Van Sickle), who
then failed to produce a review, or at least a satisfactory one, of that
commentary, with the result that AJP never covered it. Which actually happened.
Richard F. Thomas E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
"Right now I can't read too good