Mick,

Yes, he did say it in unbelievably horrible penmanship, in a letter dated May 22, 1770. Then a second copy in clearly legible handwriting, with text identical to 75A, was sent to Percy from Parsons five years later, without a letter. This is supposedly the "original." The story does not add up. And some of what he said in his letter makes no sense at all.

At the very least you should agree with me that since 1904, when Horace Walpole's letters were published, the earliest date for Lord Lovel should have been updated to 1765 (Walpole). It is the earliest material proof that Lord Lovel ever existed as a ballad. I don't think Walpole's version should be excluded because it's a funny one. We are not Victorians. Horace Walpole should have that important spot, not Percy. It's like 110 yrs overdue.

What I would like to do is to send you these papers and you can pass them around to get others opinions and then when and if you reach some sort of consensus, you can let me know about it. Or we can discuss it but I hate to take anymore time away from your life that you can't get back.

I am dog sitting until Friday AM and then I will be back at my own computer where I have them stored. If you message me your email address, I will send them as attachments.