24-08-2019, 08:31 AM
(24-08-2019, 06:39 AM)ReneZ wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Strictly speaking, that should be 1622, the time of his death. It could have been added in 1622 but not after.Ah yes, good point.
I wasn't trying to reopen the old "could have been made at any point" argument, just arguing for terminological exactitude...
