Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

percy-l - Re: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 2

percy-l AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Percy-L: Literary, Religious, Scientific, and Philosophical Discussion on Walker Percy

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Michael Larson <larsonovic AT gmail.com>
  • To: percy-l AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 2
  • Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2020 14:58:20 -0500

Joe,

Excellent background. Thank you!

ML

On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 2:04 PM <percy-l-request AT lists.ibiblio.org> wrote:
Send Percy-L mailing list submissions to
        percy-l AT lists.ibiblio.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        https://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        percy-l-request AT lists.ibiblio.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
        percy-l-owner AT lists.ibiblio.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Percy-L digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Percy-L Digest, Vol 161, Issue 1 (Joseph Francisco)
   2. Re: Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 1 (Michael Larson)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2020 13:59:01 -0400
From: Joseph Francisco <joe.francisco4591 AT gmail.com>
To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion"
        <percy-l AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 161, Issue 1
Message-ID:
        <CAEg2PpJSKLYfB5cB1pqVFmzsaQ81Hj+5HmPeT=vwP-SP3HKXHQ AT mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

If I can still add to this thread: I just happened to pick the "Morte
Darthur" off of my book shelves and of course I saw two familiar names:
Lancelot and Percival. Certainly reasonable to think that the Dr would have
delved into medieval literature for inspiration, pursuant to the Catholic
quality of his writing.

So this is to say that perhaps it would be helpful, for those who don't
know, or have forgotten, that Lancelot is a knight mired in his sin, unable
to respond to the presence of the Blessed Sacrament, as his heart is
"harder than stone and bitterer than the tree." He later runs across a
hermit and confesses himself, receives council about the error of his ways
and how he might fix them, and is absolved.

Sir Percival, on the other hand, was a knight of near-perfect faith in
Christ. He is rewaded with a strong and beautful horse, while in the
preceding story, Sir Lancelot loses his horse.

Just a little background on what may have been WP's inspiration for his own
characters. Forgive me if I have misreported any details of these dense,
allegorical tales, the language of which features many foreign words and
usages.

--Joe Francisco

On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 5:12 PM Michael Larson <larsonovic AT gmail.com> wrote:

> Rhonda,
>
> That is an interesting speculation. Of course, the true priest always
> presents the Immaculate Christ, right, specifically in the mass and the
> sacraments? But then in this case, we can't really say that Lance's
> confession is a sacramental one. In fact, it is clearly not. So the role of
> Percival is indeed reduced more to friend than priest, in which case the
> emphasis on fellow sinner is more apt. On the other hand, Percy paints the
> dramatic situation to suggest a sacramental setting, the confined cell, the
> silence of the priest throughout all the long confession, the fact that the
> listener IS a priest, etc.. So he is playing with both ideas. The silence
> of Percival speaks volumes, though. There is in it both a pregnant judgment
> and a way to bear it, I suspect. But that is in the pages we do not see ...
>
> Mike
>
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 11:04 AM <percy-l-request AT lists.ibiblio.org> wrote:
>
>> Send Percy-L mailing list submissions to
>>         percy-l AT lists.ibiblio.org
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>         https://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>         percy-l-request AT lists.ibiblio.org
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>         percy-l-owner AT lists.ibiblio.org
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Percy-L digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>    1. Debt Forgiveness and Lancelot (Michael Larson)
>>    2. Re: Debt Forgiveness and Lancelot (RHONDA MCDONNELL)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 17:37:13 -0500
>> From: Michael Larson <larsonovic AT gmail.com>
>> To: percy-l AT lists.ibiblio.org
>> Subject: [percy-l] Debt Forgiveness and Lancelot
>> Message-ID:
>>         <
>> CAMmLp8iMYv2ks-wmUo9y6RJEDu_RffaEvsYYYfm1sjM5Wp+GWQ AT mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>>  Debt forgiveness is for the ignorant (those who know not what they do)
>> and
>> for the repentant, those who are sorry for their wrongs and aim to amend
>> their lives. This latter implies a belief in an objective moral order.
>>
>> In *Lancelot*, three ways are proposed (p. 255-57): 1) Sodom: the way of
>> the modern world (i.e. rejection of an objective moral order), 2) Lance's
>> way (i.e. a return to an objective moral order, enforced with an iron
>> fist:
>> a new version of the Old Law), 3) Percival's way: the way of the Church
>> (i.e. acceptance of an objective moral order, but mercy for the penitent:
>> a
>> return to the New Law, a.k.a. Christendom).
>>
>> The world at present is in the final throes of the first way, but Lancelot
>> and Percival agree that the future of humanity cannot continue in this
>> way.
>> They agree beyond any doubt that it will be either the second or the third
>> way, but not both. And we know which of the two Percy, the author, is
>> asserting by the final words of the novel, when Lancelot asks Percival,
>> "Is
>> there anything you wish to tell me before I leave?" and Percival, who has
>> been the silent hearer of Lance's 255-page confession, responds, "Yes."
>>
>> Probably he will tell Lance that without sorrow for his sins, the new
>> beginning he envisions is as doomed as the modern world.
>>
>> Mike Larson
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <
>> https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/percy-l/attachments/20200701/b1713152/attachment-0001.html
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 22:56:25 +0000
>> From: RHONDA MCDONNELL <rhonda_mcdonnell AT msn.com>
>> To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion"
>>         <percy-l AT lists.ibiblio.org>
>> Subject: Re: [percy-l] Debt Forgiveness and Lancelot
>> Message-ID:
>>         <
>> DM6PR14MB26173BA65586259A43104B7AE46C0 AT DM6PR14MB2617.namprd14.prod.outlook.com
>> >
>>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> Thanks for the perspective, Michael. Wondering what Father John is going
>> to say has taken up some mental energy on my end, as well. I?ve always
>> imagined that he would note Lance?s hypocrisy and, as a stand in for God,
>> present the ?maculate Christ? as Tom Moore sees in Love in the Ruins. In
>> other words, Father John would speak to Lancelot not as a judge or even a
>> priest, but as a fellow sinner who is, even so, a believer.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Rhonda McDonnell
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jul 1, 2020, at 6:38 PM, Michael Larson <larsonovic AT gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> ?
>> Debt forgiveness is for the ignorant (those who know not what they do)
>> and for the repentant, those who are sorry for their wrongs and aim to
>> amend their lives. This latter implies a belief in an objective moral order.
>>
>> In Lancelot, three ways are proposed (p. 255-57): 1) Sodom: the way of
>> the modern world (i.e. rejection of an objective moral order), 2) Lance's
>> way (i.e. a return to an objective moral order, enforced with an iron fist:
>> a new version of the Old Law), 3) Percival's way: the way of the Church
>> (i.e. acceptance of an objective moral order, but mercy for the penitent: a
>> return to the New Law, a.k.a. Christendom).
>>
>> The world at present is in the final throes of the first way, but
>> Lancelot and Percival agree that the future of humanity cannot continue in
>> this way. They agree beyond any doubt that it will be either the second or
>> the third way, but not both. And we know which of the two Percy, the
>> author, is asserting by the final words of the novel, when Lancelot asks
>> Percival, "Is there anything you wish to tell me before I leave?" and
>> Percival, who has been the silent hearer of Lance's 255-page confession,
>> responds, "Yes."
>>
>> Probably he will tell Lance that without sorrow for his sins, the new
>> beginning he envisions is as doomed as the modern world.
>>
>> Mike Larson
>>
>> ----------------------------------
>> * Percy-L Discussion Archives:
>> https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/percy-l/
>>
>> * Manage Your Membership:
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l
>>
>> * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org
>>
>> * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <
>> https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/percy-l/attachments/20200701/f414ce88/attachment-0001.html
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Subject: Digest Footer
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Percy-L mailing list
>> Percy-L AT lists.ibiblio.org
>> https://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> End of Percy-L Digest, Vol 161, Issue 1
>> ***************************************
>>
>
> ----------------------------------
> * Percy-L Discussion Archives: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/
>
> * Manage Your Membership:
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l
>
> * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org
>
> * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/percy-l/attachments/20200802/a520eddc/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2020 14:02:16 -0500
From: Michael Larson <larsonovic AT gmail.com>
To: percy-l AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 1
Message-ID:
        <CAMmLp8id_u=xsOtt8+An72cvgPQ8M1we7RFUxZ_8j4OQVki47g AT mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Tom,

Thanks for the post.

I think I am using the term "rhetoric" in a broader sense than you are.
That is to say, I am not using it as a synonym for "persuasion," though
persuasive effect would certainly be a component of rhetoric. Then again,
so would critical thinking--as well as the use of logic and grammar, to
round out the classical trivium--and several other skills. The rhetorical
act involves everything, from start to finish, that goes into the eventual
communication of what one believes to be true. It is possible to be very
skilled in many or all of those components and still to misapprehend the
objective truth of the thing being examined. That was the point I was
making. It follows, then, from my use of "rhetoric" that "critical
thinking," especially in the way that you have defined it (i.e. as a
conscious attempt to discover truth, often in consultation with the
arguments of others) cannot be, or at least should not be, divorced from
the art of rhetoric. If it is divorced, it is more likely to be sophistry
than rhetoric.

My use of "elegance" and "cohesion" was merely the naming of two specific
elements of rhetoric, not meant to be comprehensive but rather to
illustrate how portions of a skill set might be differentiated from the
objective truth toward which the skill set is being employed.

The following statement of yours is interesting:

"... regardless of how sure we may be that we've tp what's true, it never
flips over into The Truth once and for all. Every conclusion, having better
or worse reasons for believing it is true, is open to debate. This is, I
think, is the inescapable predicament of finite bodies that think in an
infinite universe."

What you describe here is definitely accurate with regards to the
individual who is attempting to perceive a truth that cannot be proven
deductively. Lacking infinite knowledge, we must always make our assertions
in the framework of what is more or less probable. Aristotle explains this
well in his discussion of inductive reasoning in the service of rhetoric.
However, from the side of whatever is actually true (about whatever is
under consideration), the once-and-for-all-ness is not subject to human
error or ignorance or blindness. In other words, the objective truth
doesn't need an escape clause, like we do, to change positions based on new
information.

Let's take the Catholic Church's claim to be the divinely appointed
authority (and consequent protection from error) in matters of faith and
morals. That claim is either objectively true, or it is not. Individuals
can examine the claim, as Percy did, and decide it is more or less probable
and make their decisions accordingly, but the reality of the situation just
is what it is, regardless of the finite mind's ability to assess the odds.

When you say this, "If that's Lance's confession, it sounds more like a
kind politician's unapologetic 'apology' to me. I really don't see how it
could warrant any kind of absolution or release," I am in complete
agreement with you. And the rest of your analysis in that paragraph seems
spot on to me as well. That's why I said, in the very beginning of this
discussion, that Lance is surely not about to be "absolved" by Percival
when the novel ends. Yes, of course, his "confession" has been cathartic,
and he believes he has found the means of a restart, as you call it. But
that is not how Percival sees it. He has something more to tell Lance. The
whole novel has been leading up to this moment where Lance feels finally
purged of his side of the story and is now ready to move on and live (self)
righteously in defiance of a world gone mad. And now Percival is finally
ready and willing to speak. Brilliantly, his words will occur off camera.

In your final paragraph, you seem to be saying that Percy himself is,
through the novel, changing the notion of sacramental confession into
existential confession, as Lance perhaps does. But this is to ignore the
role of Percival, who, in the final pages of the novel, could not be more
clearly distinguished from Lance. And your speculation that Percy is
rejecting "the illusions of an objective moral code or truth" seems
entirely unfounded, given that neither Lance nor Percival makes such a
rejection. In fact, they are united in their opposition to the modern
world, which has indeed abandoned the notion of objective truth. Their
solutions to that problem, however, are quite different.

Best,
Mike

On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 11:00 AM <percy-l-request AT lists.ibiblio.org> wrote:

> Send Percy-L mailing list submissions to
>         percy-l AT lists.ibiblio.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         percy-l-request AT lists.ibiblio.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         percy-l-owner AT lists.ibiblio.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Percy-L digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Percy-L Digest, Vol 161, Issue 25 (Thomas Gollier)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2020 15:25:03 -0700
> From: Thomas Gollier <tgollier AT gmail.com>
> To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion"
>         <percy-l AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Subject: Re: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 161, Issue 25
> Message-ID:
>         <CAMVPF1Ftj_55BrafJ6MSB5V8iabcLuU_1AYdDhzum9yAj=
> hSdg AT mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Mike,
>
> Good to hear from you.
>
> You brought me up short with your reference to me teaching a "rhetorical
> skill set," since I'm adamantly opposed to
> mixing rhetoric, in the sense of persuading others, with critical thinking.
> However, the standard of "consistent and
> complete" ? I not sure where "elegant and cohesive" came from ? is the
> basis of persuading others, but critical
> thinking, while it uses the same standard, is more concerned with
> persuading oneself as to what one should believe
> is true. Critical thinking, at its best, is a self-conscious back-and-forth
> collective effort toward discovering
> truth. While "consistent" may be deductive, however, "completeness" is
> inductive, so regardless of how sure we may be
> that we've tp what's true, it never flips over into The Truth once and for
> all. Every conclusion, having better or
> worse reasons for believing it is true, is open to debate. This is, I
> think, is the inescapable predicament of
> finite bodies that think in an infinite universe.
>
> What I found more interesting, though, and that you find, presumably on the
> basis of an objective moral code, both
> "Lance *and* Margot to be untrustworthy in serious ways." If that's Lance's
> confession, it sounds more like a kind
> politician's unapologetic "apology" to me. I really don't see how it could
> warrant any kind of absolution or
> release. At first, their relationship was "transactional." He offered the
> Southern aristocracy; she offered Texas
> money. And, they did seem to share the common objective of refurbishing of
> their house. But when the house was done,
> he remarks, she seemed to be done too. If the relationship were purely
> transactional, the transaction was completed,
> and each could have simply moved on. But no, the confession consists in the
> explanation or recounting of how
> something more had formed in their marriage, what I am calling a "moral
> bond" between them, and that she, not Lance,
> had betrayed it. He even seems to try to convince himself that the sexual
> infidelity should not be such a big
> deal, but it is, and it irrevocably broke that bond between them with such
> finality that he must have video evidence
> of the act itself. His "confession" is a matter of coming to understand the
> causes and consequences of what had
> happened, the crimes he had committed, so as to find the absolution or
> release that would allow a restart to his
> life. Is that even possible after such crimes?
>
> Personally, what I really like about this novel is that it sharpens the
> contrasts and contours of Percy's
> existentialism, and in the process it, somewhat paradoxically, makes his
> personal Catholicism more comprehensible to me.
> He seems to take the "confession" ? the thing that apparently attracted him
> to Catholicism in the first place ? and
> makes it into something different from the repentance and forgiveness (that
> is not forgiveness) it is within the
> Church. I would argue more generally that he rejects the depersonalizations
> of abstract Gods and Churches, the
> illusions of an objective moral code or truth. Perhaps that's a bit
> speculative? But he does, I think, try to the
> bring or give what truth those things can have for us to bear on our actual
> existence.
>
> Thanks
> Tom
>
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 1:35 PM Michael Larson <larsonovic AT gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Tom,
> >
> > You're not annoying me. I appreciate the dialogue. I'll try to respond.
> >
> > I'll start with your question: " How does the notion of a 'hierarchy of
> > subjectivity' come from the possibility of infinite subjective
> > interpretations and the fact some of those interpretations are better
> than
> > others?"
> >
> > It comes contained in the last part of your question itself: "... the
> fact
> > that some of those interpretations are better than others." If some
> > interpretations are better than others, a hierarchy is by nature already
> > established and an objective standard is likewise already implied.
> >
> > When you speak of how you grade student writing, you are talking about
> > evaluating their display of a rhetorical skill set, not about their grasp
> > of the truth. Those are two different things. Either one can be judged
> > hierarchically. Elegance and cohesiveness of communication make a scale
> > that is independent of what is true. One person may offer an elegant
> > defense and plenty of cohesive reasoning as to why the earth is flat.
> > Another person might stumble through a weak defense of the spinning
> globe.
> > We might rank the former ahead of the latter in the skill set of
> rhetoric,
> > but we might rank the latter ahead of the former in his apprehension of
> the
> > truth as to the physical nature of the earth.
> >
> > The same is true when we look at a piece of literature: one person might
> > write beautifully about something that goes quite astray of what the
> story
> > means while another person might struggle in attempting to articulate
> what
> > is essentially a deep understanding of that same story. Of course, we are
> > most pleased when the two skills--communication and apprehension--are
> > joined in a single work. Take, for example, Tolkien's marvelous essay (a
> > lecture, actually), "The Monsters and the Critics." Prior to that
> lecture,
> > many well-known scholars had failed to grasp both the artistic genius and
> > the deep layers of meaning in *Beowulf*. In fact, they disdained many of
> > the very things that Tolkien was able to rescue--and not because his
> > subjective interpretation was more popular. It wasn't. In fact, it wasn't
> > fully known until he put it into words, but when he did, many objective
> > truths about the poem were made manifest to anyone who cared to see them
> > and especially to those who had always had a sense for them but lacked
> the
> > articulation. In short, Tolkien's interpretation was better than that of
> > prior critics, and people knew it. They knew it because it is possible
> for
> > humans to recognize when something is objectively true, especially when
> it
> > provides relief against that which has been less than fully true.
> >
> > What I am asserting here seems in direct opposition to what you say a
> > little later in your post: "I propose to my students that the reason for
> > objectively seeking out different interpretations is not to pick the
> right
> > one." My first thought about this is that there might not be a "right
> one."
> > The presence of several interpretations is no guarantee that any of them
> > has a good grasp on what is being interpreted. Alternatively, they might
> > all be basically "right," more or less, though perhaps with differing
> > levels of rhetorical effectiveness. In any case, I would always encourage
> > my students to compare and contrast, to evaluate arguments, to measure
> what
> > they read against reality, insofar as they have access to it. When the
> > object is truth, then everyone--critics and readers--is essentially
> working
> > together toward the same goal, though some with more success than others.
> >
> > But it sounds like, for you, the object is not so much truth as it is to
> > work out a kind of subjective *average *in one's own mind. You say, "[The
> > reason for seeking out different interpretations] is to get a
> non-objective
> > sense of the center and most comprehensive comprehension of all those
> > various interpretations." There is nothing wrong, of course, with
> > understanding a variety of interpretations, but if the end of that
> > understanding is merely to find the center of that variety, then we have
> > diverted our gaze from the object under consideration and shifted it to
> the
> > amalgamated opinion of the considerers. This is not exactly pure
> > subjectivism, which would be interested only in one's own opinion, but it
> > is a kind of preoccupation with potential means rather than the use of
> > those means toward their natural end: to arrive at truth regarding the
> > object under consideration.
> >
> > In your paragraph about morality, I'm not sure I follow the shift from
> > moral code to moral bond. To recognize a moral code, whether subjective
> or
> > objective, is a different mental act than to trust a neighbor not to harm
> > you. The former is concerned with classification (i.e. this is good, this
> > is evil) while the latter is concerned with prudential judgment (I
> predict
> > that you will not burn my house down). So once again, both acts can be
> > present: I can judge (whether accurately or not) that someone's burning
> > down my house would be an evil act even as I also judge (whether
> accurately
> > or not) that I do not think you will commit this act. Then if you do
> > actually burn down my house, I will know that my trust was misplaced; the
> > house will go up in smoke, but the classification of arson as evil will
> be
> > quite untouched by those flames.
> >
> > It's true that if this happened, I would no longer trust you not to burn
> > my house down. And yes, it's also possible, depending on how much I
> trusted
> > you to begin with, that I might start to doubt, in general, my judgment
> of
> > who is trustworthy and who is not. But to lose trust in others or in
> one's
> > ability to assess the trustworthiness of others is not the same as losing
> > the sense that some things are moral and that other things are immoral.
> >
> > I too find Lance and Margot to be untrustworthy in serious ways. The acts
> > that reveal their untrustworthiness are also acts I understand to be
> > objectively immoral. I would argue further that to even speak of trust
> and
> > distrust once again implies an objective sense of morality in the one who
> > trusts or distrusts. What makes us trust someone are typically things
> > understood to be morally good: honesty, forthrightness, patience,
> > stability, etc.. What makes us distrust someone are typically things
> > understood to be morally bad: lying, deception, short-temperedness,
> > fickleness, etc.. We know these things. Deep down.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/attachments/20200801/b15d82af/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Percy-L mailing list
> Percy-L AT lists.ibiblio.org
> https://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 1
> ***************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/attachments/20200802/1f708b64/attachment.html>

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
Percy-L mailing list
Percy-L AT lists.ibiblio.org
https://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l


------------------------------

End of Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 2
***************************************


  • Re: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 2, Michael Larson, 08/02/2020

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page