On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 1:39 PM, <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Was this excerpt below listed as Sourcenote 73 in your
> article (p. 28)?.... Was this meant perhaps as Sourcenote 74? The ultimate
> reference seems to
> be for the April 1878 story.
Yes -- when the article was formatted for printing, the numbering of the
endnotes got thrown off. I've included a corrected set of endnotes with the
right numbers at the end of the pdf, but I'm afraid it's still a bit
> If the "idea of the phonograph" is taken to mean the "phonograph
> principle", aren't we still stuck with the traditional date (July 18)?
Yes, that must have been about when everything "came together" -- although
the whole idea was laid out pretty clearly in the (apparently incomplete)
document of July 17 as well. I sure wish we had the first page of his notes
from *that* day!