> coverage of London is poor would be my view of the Lincoln evidence: an unsatisfactory, perfunctory treatment (e.g. St Paul in the Bail >
-
-
-
> dated to 'probably 7thC' following demonstrably unsupportable interpretation of Sawyer! My uncharitable view would be that whilst some >
-
> works cited, incl several that show Sawyer wrong, they've not been fully read...) Perhaps would have worked better as study of Leicester?
-
Rereading it just now, I'd love to say I've altered my view, but can't I'm afraid: v unsatisfactory both re: prior research & the evidence >
-
>, not properly engaging w/ either. Some interesting general ideas & points re: towns, but v v wary given treatment of L.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.