ext_6150 (
gehayi.livejournal.com
) wrote
in
erastes
2008-11-03 03:07 pm (UTC)
no subject
I'd go with an author's note at the back, stating that yes, the year was 1648 by the way people then reckoned time, but that this would confuse contemporary readers, so you stuck with the modern dating system.
(
30 comments
)
Post a comment in response:
From:
Anonymous
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
OpenID
Identity URL:
Log in?
Dreamwidth account
Account name
Password
Log in?
If you don't have an account you can
create one now
.
Subject
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
Formatting type
Casual HTML
Markdown
Raw HTML
Rich Text Editor
Message
[
Home
|
Post Entry
|
Log in
|
Search
|
Browse Options
|
Site Map
]
no subject