Poetry International Poetry International
Poem

Jacques Roubaud

CORRESPONDENCE

LETTER 1
I’ve just received your last letter and am immediately replying. You’ve asked if I’ve received your last letter and if I intend to reply. If I may, please let me point out that your having sent your last letter makes the letter you previously sent no longer the most recent, and if I reply, as I am now doing, it is not in response to your second-to-last letter. I cannot, therefore, satisfy the requests you’ve made in your last letter. I would also observe, by the way, that your last letter does not respond, despite what you affirm (and I quote: “I’ve just received your last letter and am immediately replying”), to the letter in which I queried, lest I am mistaken (but I am not mistaken, I’ve got copies), if you had received my last letter and if you intended to reply. Failing any clarification and response from you on these two points, to which I attach (for good reason, I think) particular importance, I shall, much to my regret, be obliged to interrupt our correspondence.


LETTER 2
I have yet to receive your next letter but shall immediately reply. You ask if I’ve received your last letter and if I intend to reply. You might well wonder how, not yet having received your next letter, I can know that you’ve asked me if I’ve received your last letter and if I intend to reply. The answer is simple: all of your letters, and this one will be your three hundred and seventeenth (I have them all, as well as copies of all of mine) begin thus: “Have you received my last letter? If so (and I would be quite surprised if you had not yet (though, should that be the case, do let me know)), do you intend to reply?” That’s how you began your very first letter to me. That’s how you began your second letter, your third letter, and so on, until your last letter, the three hundred and sixteenth. Reasoning by induction, I’ve deduced that your next letter will begin like the preceding ones. Consequently, I consider myself authorized to reply to it as if I had already received it. And I reply with the following: I’ve just received your last letter and am immediately replying. You’ve asked if I’ve received your last letter and if I intend to reply. If I may, please let me point out that your having sent your last letter makes the letter you previously sent no longer the most recent and if I reply, as I am now doing, it is not in response to your second to last letter. I cannot, therefore, satisfy the requests you’ve made in your last letter. I would also observe, by the way, that your last letter does not respond, despite what you affirm (and I quote: “I’ve just received your last letter and am immediately replying”), to the letter in which I queried, lest I am mistaken (but I am not mistaken, I’ve got copies), if you had received my last letter and if you intended to reply. Failing any clarification and response from you on these two points, to which I attach (for good reason, I think) particular importance, I shall, much to my regret, be obliged to interrupt our correspondence.



LETTER 3
I’ve just read your first letter (dated 23 November, 1960. You have therefore written, on average, since that date, one letter every six and two thirds weeks (there never was an interval shorter than six weeks or longer than seven weeks between two of your letters)) and something has struck me. You had written (I remind you, in case you have forgotten): “Have you received my last letter? If so (and I would be quite surprised if you had not yet (though, should that be the case, do let me know)), do you intend to reply?” Besides, I have no trace, in my archives, where I conserve, in a systematic and absolute fashion, all the letters I receive, and the doubles of those I send—I have no trace, I was saying, of any letter from you prior to the one dated 23 November, 1960, the one whose first sentence I’ve just called to your attention. Nor, for that matter, which is at least as troubling, of that letter from me to you to which you allude in the middle of your letter to me of 23 November, 1960, which bears, in the upper left quarter of the 21x27cm sheet, the format from which you have not deviated in all of these years, in your handwriting, scrawled in pencil, the number 1. Nonetheless, I remember—as one could not more clearly remember—the arrival of your letter of 23 November, 1960. (I had just come home from a working meeting with friends.) The handwriting was strange to me, as was the signature: Q. B. (After forty years, I still know nothing more of your name but its initials.) I immediately replied and our correspondence carries on, forty years later. Since you inform me in that very same letter, the one dated 23 November, 1960, that you conserve in your archives the doubles of all the letters you send and the ones you receive (information you don’t neglect to repeat (I realize now as I look over our correspondence) in all, I did say all of your letters) you have certainly kept a double of the one you mention at the beginning of the letter dated 23 November, 1960. You could therefore easily clarify this little mystery.

LETTER 4
I haven’t received a thing from you in weeks. What is happening?

LETTER 5 (FRAGMENTS)
I have just received your last letter (finally) and am immediately
replying. You ask if I’ve received your last letter and if I intend to reply.
...
...
PS – You ask how I will answer your next letter if there is no next letter. You wise ass! Nothing’s easier ...
END

BRIEFWISSELING

BRIEF 1
Ik heb zojuist je laatste brief ontvangen en ik beantwoord die onmiddellijk. Je vraagt me of ik je laatste brief in goede orde heb ontvangen en of ik voornemens ben die te beantwoorden. Mag ik je erop wijzen dat het versturen van je laatste brief maakt dat de brief die je daarvoor hebt verstuurd niet langer je laatste brief is en dat ik, als ik je laatste brief beantwoord zoals ik hierbij doe, ik niet antwoord op de brief die nu je voorlaatste is. Bijgevolg kan ik niet voldoen aan je verzoek in je laatste brief. Daarnaast merk ik op dat je laatste brief, in tegenstelling tot wat je beweert (ik citeer: ‘Ik heb je laatste brief in goede orde ontvangen en ik beantwoord die onmiddellijk’), geen antwoord geeft op de brief waarin ik je vroeg, als ik me niet vergis (maar ik vergis me niet, ik heb doorslagen), of je mijn laatste brief in goede orde had ontvangen en of je voornemens was die te beantwoorden. Bij gebrek aan opheldering en antwoord van jouw kant op die twee punten, waaraan ik (met recht, meen ik) enig belang hecht, zie ik er mij tot mijn spijt toe verplicht onze briefwisseling af te breken.

BRIEF 2
Ik heb je volgende brief nog niet ontvangen, maar ik beantwoord hem onmiddellijk. Daarin vraag je me of ik je laatste brief in goede orde heb ontvangen en of ik voornemens ben die te beantwoorden. Je vraagt je misschien af hoe ik weet dat je me daarin vraagt of ik je laatste brief heb ontvangen en of ik voornemens ben die te beantwoorden, aangezien ik je volgende brief nog niet heb ontvangen. Het antwoord is eenvoudig: al je brieven, en deze zal nummer 317 zijn (ik heb ze allemaal, evenals de doorslagen van al mijn brieven), beginnen aldus: ‘Heb je mijn laatste brief ontvangen? Zo ja (maar het zou me zeer verbazen, mocht je die nog niet hebben ontvangen (en anders, laat het mij weten)), ben je voornemens die te beantwoorden? Zo begon de eerste brief die ik van je heb ontvangen. Zo begon ook de tweede, de derde, en zo voort tot je laatste brief, nummer 316. Door inductie leid ik daaruit af, dat je volgende brief zal beginnen zoals de voorgaande. Bijgevolg vind ik het gerechtvaardigd om erop te antwoorden alsof ik de brief nu al had ontvangen.
Ik antwoord je als volgt: Ik heb zojuist je laatste brief ontvangen en ik beantwoord die onmiddellijk. Je vraagt me of ik je laatste brief in goede orde heb ontvangen en of ik voornemens ben die te beantwoorden. Mag ik je erop wijzen dat het versturen van je laatste brief maakt dat de brief die je daarvoor hebt verstuurd voortaan niet meer je laatste brief is en dat ik, als ik je laatste brief beantwoord zoals ik hierbij doe, ik niet antwoord op de brief die nu je voorlaatste is. Bijgevolg kan ik niet voldoen aan je verzoek in je laatste brief. Daarnaast merk ik op dat je laatste brief, in tegenstelling tot wat je beweert (ik citeer: ‘Ik heb je laatste brief in goede orde ontvangen en ik beantwoord die onmiddellijk’), geen antwoord geeft op de brief waarin ik je vroeg, als ik me niet vergis (maar ik vergis me niet, ik heb doorslagen), of je mijn laatste brief in goede orde had ontvangen en of je voornemens was die te beantwoorden. Bij gebrek aan opheldering en antwoord van jouw kant op die twee punten, waaraan ik (met recht, meen ik) enig belang hecht, zie ik er mij tot mijn spijt toe verplicht onze briefwisseling af te breken.

BRIEF 3
Ik heb zojuist je eerste brief (de dato 23 november 1960) gelezen. Je hebt me dus sinds die datum gemiddeld om de zes-en-tweederde week een brief geschreven (er waren nooit minder dan zes weken en nooit meer dan zeven weken tussen twee van je brieven). Nu is er iets dat me is opgevallen. Je schreef me (ik herinner je eraan, voor het geval je het bent vergeten): ‘Heb je mijn laatste brief ontvangen? Zo ja (maar het zou me zeer verbazen mocht je die nog niet hebben ontvangen (en anders, laat het mij weten)), ben je voornemens die te beantwoorden?’ Nu is er geen spoor in mijn archief, waarin ik systematisch en absoluut alle brieven bewaar die ik ontvang, evenals alle doorslagen van de brieven die ik verstuur, er is geen spoor, zeg ik, van een brief van jou vóór de brief van 23 november 1960, waarvan ik je zojuist aan de eerste zin heb herinnerd. En evenmin, wat niet minder verontrustend is, van die brief van mij waarnaar je verwijst in het midden van je brief van 23 november 1960, die in mijn archief het nummer 1 draagt, door mijn hand in potlood geschreven in de linkerbovenhoek van het in vieren gevouwen vel van 21x27, een formaat dat je al die jaren trouw bent gebleven. En toch herinner ik me de komst van je brief van 23 november 1960 alsof het gisteren was (ik kwam net thuis van een werkvergadering met vrienden). Het handschrift was me onbekend, evenals de ondertekening, Q.B. (na veertig jaar ken ik van je naam nog altijd niet meer dan de initialen). Ik heb je onmiddellijk geantwoord, en veertig jaar later duurt onze briefwisseling nog altijd voort. Aangezien je me, in diezelfde brief, dus de brief van 23 november 1960, zegt dat je in je archief doorslagen bewaart van alle brieven die je verstuurt, alsook van alle brieven die je ontvangt (informatie die je zonder mankeren herhaalt (ik merk het nu ik onze briefwisseling herlees) in al, ik zeg wel al je brieven), heb je zeker een doorslag bewaard van de brief waarover je spreekt aan het begin van je brief van 23 november 1960. Je moet dus gemakkelijk dit raadseltje kunnen ophelderen.

BRIEF 4
Ik heb nu al zeven weken niets van je ontvangen. Wat is er aan de hand?

BRIEF 5 (FRAGMENTEN)
Ik heb zojuist (eindelijk!) je laatste brief ontvangen en ik beantwoord die onmiddellijk. Je vraagt me of ik je laatste brief in goede orde heb ontvangen en of ik voornemens ben die te beantwoorden.


PS – je vraagt me hoe ik je volgende brief zal beantwoorden, als er geen volgende brief is. Je bent zeker de slimste thuis, hè! Niets is makkelijker…
EINDE

Correspondance

LETTRE 1
Je viens de recevoir ta dernière lettre et j’y réponds immédiatement. Tu me demandes si j’ai bien reçu ta dernière lettre et si j’ai l’intention d’y répondre. Je me permets de te faire remarquer que l’envoi de ta dernière lettre fait que la lettre que tu m’as envoyée précédemment n’est plus désormais ta dernière lettre et que si je réponds comme je suis en train de le faire à ta dernière lettre, je ne réponds pas à celle qui est maintenant ton avant-dernière lettre. Je ne peux donc satisfaire à la demande que tu me fais dans ta dernière lettre. J’observerai par ailleurs que ta dernière lettre ne répond pas, contrairement à ce que tu affirmes (je te cite: « J’ai bien reçu ta dernière lettre et j’y réponds immédiatement ») à la lettre où je te demandais, si je m’abuse (mais je ne m’abuse pas, j’ai les doubles) si tu avais bien reçu ma dernière lettre et si tu avais l’intention d’y répondre. En l’absence d’éclaircissements et de réponses de ta part sur ces deux points auxquels j’attache (à bon droit je pense) une certaine importance, je me verrai, à mon regret, obligé d’interrompre notre correspondance.

LETTRE 2
Je n’ai pas encore reçu ta prochaine lettre mais j’y réponds immédiatement. Tu m’y demandes si j’ai bien reçu ta dernière lettre et si j’ai l’intention d’y répondre. Tu te demanderas peut-être comment, n’ayant pas encore reçu ta prochaine lettre, je peux savoir que tu m’y demandes si j’ai bien reçu ta dernière lettre et si j’ai l’intention d’y répondre. La réponse est simple: toutes tes lettres, et celle-ci sera la trois-cent-dix-septième (je les ai toutes, ainsi que les doubles de toutes mes lettres) commencent par: « As-tu reçu ma dernière lettre? Si oui (et je serais fort étonné que tu ne l’aie pas reçue encore (si c’était le cas, fais-le moi savoir)), as-tu l’intention d’y répondre? ». C’est ainsi que commençait la première lettre que j’ai reçue de toi. C’est ainsi que commençait la deuxième, la troisième, et ainsi de suite jusqu’à ta dernière lettre, la trois-cent-seizième. Raisonnant donc par induction, j’en déduis que ta prochaine lettre commencera comme les précédentes. Je me considère en conséquence autorisé à y répondre comme si je l’avais dès maintenant reçue. Et je te réponds comme suit: Je viens de recevoir ta dernière lettre et j’y réponds immédiatement. Tu me demandes si j’ai bien reçu ta dernière lettre et si j’ai l’intention d’y répondre. Je me permets de te faire remarquer que l’envoi de ta dernière lettre fait que la lettre que tu m’as envoyée précédemment n’est plus désormais ta dernière lettre et que si je réponds comme je suis en train de le faire à ta dernière lettre, je ne réponds pas à celle qui est maintenant ton avant-dernière lettre. Je ne peux donc satisfaire à la demande que tu me fais dans ta dernière lettre. J’observerai par ailleurs que ta dernière lettre ne répond pas, contrairement à ce que tu affirmes (je te cite: « J’ai bien reçu ta dernière lettre et j’y réponds immédiatement «) à la lettre où je te demandais, si je ne m’abuse (mais je ne m’abuse pas, j’ai les doubles) si tu avais bien reçu ma dernière lettre et si tu avais l’intention d’y répondre. En l’absence d’éclaircissements et de réponses de ta part sur ces deux points auxquels j’attache (à bon droit je pense) une certaine importance, je me verrai, à mon regret, obligé d’interrompre notre correspondance.

LETTRE 3
Je viens de lire ta première lettre (elle date du 23 novembre 1960). Tu m’as donc écrit, en moyenne, depuis cette date, une lettre toutes les six semaines deux tiers (il n’y a jamais eu d’intervalle de moins de six semaines et de plus de sept entre deux de tes lettres) et quelque chose m’a frappé. Tu m’écrivais (je te le rappelle, au cas où tu l’aurais oublié): « As-tu reçu ma dernière lettre? Si oui (et je serais fort étonné que tu ne l’aie pas reçue encore (si c’était le cas, fais-le moi savoir)), as-tu l’intention d’y répondre? ». Or, je n’ai aucune trace, dans mes archives, où je conserve de manière systématique et absolue, toutes les lettres que je reçois, et des doubles de toutes celles que j’envoie, je n’ai aucune trace, dis-je, d’une lettre de toi antérieure à celle du 23 novembre 1960, dont je viens de te rappeler la première phrase. Ni, d’ailleurs, ce qui est au moins aussi troublant, de cette lettre de moi à laquelle tu fais allusion au milieu de ta lettre du 23 novembre 1960 qui, dans mes archives, porte, de ma main, inscrit en haut à gauche du quart de feuille 21x27, format dont tu ne t’es jamais départi pendant toutes ces années, au crayon, le n°1. Pourtant, je me souviens on ne peut plus clairement de l’arrivée de ta lettre du 23 novembre 1960 (je venais de rentrer chez moi après une réunion de travail avec des amis). L’écriture m’était inconnue, ainsi que la signature, Q.B., (je ne connais toujours pas, après quarante ans, autre chose de ton nom que tes initiales). Je t’ai répondu immédiatement, et notre correspondance, quarante ans plus tard, dure encore. Comme tu me dis, dans cette même lettre, celle du 23 novembre 1960, que tu conserves dans tes archives des doubles de toutes les lettres que tu envoies comme de toutes celles que tu reçois (information que tu ne manques pas de répéter (je le remarque en relisant notre correspondance) dans toutes, je dis bien toutes tes lettres) tu as certainement conservé le double de celle dont tu parles au commencement de la lettre du 23 novembre 1960. Tu pourras donc éclaircir aisément ce petit mystère.

LETTRE 4
Je n’ai rien reçu de toi depuis sept semaines. Que se passe-t-il?

LETTRE 5 (FRAGMENTS)
Je viens de recevoir (enfin!) ta dernière lettre et j’y réponds immédiatement. Tu me demandes si j’ai bien reçu ta dernière lettre et si j’ai l’intention d’y répondre.
...
...
PS – tu me demandes comment je répondrai à ta prochaine lettre s’il n’y a pas de prochaine lettre. Gros malin, va! Rien n’est plus facile ...
FIN
Close

CORRESPONDENCE

LETTER 1
I’ve just received your last letter and am immediately replying. You’ve asked if I’ve received your last letter and if I intend to reply. If I may, please let me point out that your having sent your last letter makes the letter you previously sent no longer the most recent, and if I reply, as I am now doing, it is not in response to your second-to-last letter. I cannot, therefore, satisfy the requests you’ve made in your last letter. I would also observe, by the way, that your last letter does not respond, despite what you affirm (and I quote: “I’ve just received your last letter and am immediately replying”), to the letter in which I queried, lest I am mistaken (but I am not mistaken, I’ve got copies), if you had received my last letter and if you intended to reply. Failing any clarification and response from you on these two points, to which I attach (for good reason, I think) particular importance, I shall, much to my regret, be obliged to interrupt our correspondence.


LETTER 2
I have yet to receive your next letter but shall immediately reply. You ask if I’ve received your last letter and if I intend to reply. You might well wonder how, not yet having received your next letter, I can know that you’ve asked me if I’ve received your last letter and if I intend to reply. The answer is simple: all of your letters, and this one will be your three hundred and seventeenth (I have them all, as well as copies of all of mine) begin thus: “Have you received my last letter? If so (and I would be quite surprised if you had not yet (though, should that be the case, do let me know)), do you intend to reply?” That’s how you began your very first letter to me. That’s how you began your second letter, your third letter, and so on, until your last letter, the three hundred and sixteenth. Reasoning by induction, I’ve deduced that your next letter will begin like the preceding ones. Consequently, I consider myself authorized to reply to it as if I had already received it. And I reply with the following: I’ve just received your last letter and am immediately replying. You’ve asked if I’ve received your last letter and if I intend to reply. If I may, please let me point out that your having sent your last letter makes the letter you previously sent no longer the most recent and if I reply, as I am now doing, it is not in response to your second to last letter. I cannot, therefore, satisfy the requests you’ve made in your last letter. I would also observe, by the way, that your last letter does not respond, despite what you affirm (and I quote: “I’ve just received your last letter and am immediately replying”), to the letter in which I queried, lest I am mistaken (but I am not mistaken, I’ve got copies), if you had received my last letter and if you intended to reply. Failing any clarification and response from you on these two points, to which I attach (for good reason, I think) particular importance, I shall, much to my regret, be obliged to interrupt our correspondence.



LETTER 3
I’ve just read your first letter (dated 23 November, 1960. You have therefore written, on average, since that date, one letter every six and two thirds weeks (there never was an interval shorter than six weeks or longer than seven weeks between two of your letters)) and something has struck me. You had written (I remind you, in case you have forgotten): “Have you received my last letter? If so (and I would be quite surprised if you had not yet (though, should that be the case, do let me know)), do you intend to reply?” Besides, I have no trace, in my archives, where I conserve, in a systematic and absolute fashion, all the letters I receive, and the doubles of those I send—I have no trace, I was saying, of any letter from you prior to the one dated 23 November, 1960, the one whose first sentence I’ve just called to your attention. Nor, for that matter, which is at least as troubling, of that letter from me to you to which you allude in the middle of your letter to me of 23 November, 1960, which bears, in the upper left quarter of the 21x27cm sheet, the format from which you have not deviated in all of these years, in your handwriting, scrawled in pencil, the number 1. Nonetheless, I remember—as one could not more clearly remember—the arrival of your letter of 23 November, 1960. (I had just come home from a working meeting with friends.) The handwriting was strange to me, as was the signature: Q. B. (After forty years, I still know nothing more of your name but its initials.) I immediately replied and our correspondence carries on, forty years later. Since you inform me in that very same letter, the one dated 23 November, 1960, that you conserve in your archives the doubles of all the letters you send and the ones you receive (information you don’t neglect to repeat (I realize now as I look over our correspondence) in all, I did say all of your letters) you have certainly kept a double of the one you mention at the beginning of the letter dated 23 November, 1960. You could therefore easily clarify this little mystery.

LETTER 4
I haven’t received a thing from you in weeks. What is happening?

LETTER 5 (FRAGMENTS)
I have just received your last letter (finally) and am immediately
replying. You ask if I’ve received your last letter and if I intend to reply.
...
...
PS – You ask how I will answer your next letter if there is no next letter. You wise ass! Nothing’s easier ...
END

CORRESPONDENCE

LETTER 1
I’ve just received your last letter and am immediately replying. You’ve asked if I’ve received your last letter and if I intend to reply. If I may, please let me point out that your having sent your last letter makes the letter you previously sent no longer the most recent, and if I reply, as I am now doing, it is not in response to your second-to-last letter. I cannot, therefore, satisfy the requests you’ve made in your last letter. I would also observe, by the way, that your last letter does not respond, despite what you affirm (and I quote: “I’ve just received your last letter and am immediately replying”), to the letter in which I queried, lest I am mistaken (but I am not mistaken, I’ve got copies), if you had received my last letter and if you intended to reply. Failing any clarification and response from you on these two points, to which I attach (for good reason, I think) particular importance, I shall, much to my regret, be obliged to interrupt our correspondence.


LETTER 2
I have yet to receive your next letter but shall immediately reply. You ask if I’ve received your last letter and if I intend to reply. You might well wonder how, not yet having received your next letter, I can know that you’ve asked me if I’ve received your last letter and if I intend to reply. The answer is simple: all of your letters, and this one will be your three hundred and seventeenth (I have them all, as well as copies of all of mine) begin thus: “Have you received my last letter? If so (and I would be quite surprised if you had not yet (though, should that be the case, do let me know)), do you intend to reply?” That’s how you began your very first letter to me. That’s how you began your second letter, your third letter, and so on, until your last letter, the three hundred and sixteenth. Reasoning by induction, I’ve deduced that your next letter will begin like the preceding ones. Consequently, I consider myself authorized to reply to it as if I had already received it. And I reply with the following: I’ve just received your last letter and am immediately replying. You’ve asked if I’ve received your last letter and if I intend to reply. If I may, please let me point out that your having sent your last letter makes the letter you previously sent no longer the most recent and if I reply, as I am now doing, it is not in response to your second to last letter. I cannot, therefore, satisfy the requests you’ve made in your last letter. I would also observe, by the way, that your last letter does not respond, despite what you affirm (and I quote: “I’ve just received your last letter and am immediately replying”), to the letter in which I queried, lest I am mistaken (but I am not mistaken, I’ve got copies), if you had received my last letter and if you intended to reply. Failing any clarification and response from you on these two points, to which I attach (for good reason, I think) particular importance, I shall, much to my regret, be obliged to interrupt our correspondence.



LETTER 3
I’ve just read your first letter (dated 23 November, 1960. You have therefore written, on average, since that date, one letter every six and two thirds weeks (there never was an interval shorter than six weeks or longer than seven weeks between two of your letters)) and something has struck me. You had written (I remind you, in case you have forgotten): “Have you received my last letter? If so (and I would be quite surprised if you had not yet (though, should that be the case, do let me know)), do you intend to reply?” Besides, I have no trace, in my archives, where I conserve, in a systematic and absolute fashion, all the letters I receive, and the doubles of those I send—I have no trace, I was saying, of any letter from you prior to the one dated 23 November, 1960, the one whose first sentence I’ve just called to your attention. Nor, for that matter, which is at least as troubling, of that letter from me to you to which you allude in the middle of your letter to me of 23 November, 1960, which bears, in the upper left quarter of the 21x27cm sheet, the format from which you have not deviated in all of these years, in your handwriting, scrawled in pencil, the number 1. Nonetheless, I remember—as one could not more clearly remember—the arrival of your letter of 23 November, 1960. (I had just come home from a working meeting with friends.) The handwriting was strange to me, as was the signature: Q. B. (After forty years, I still know nothing more of your name but its initials.) I immediately replied and our correspondence carries on, forty years later. Since you inform me in that very same letter, the one dated 23 November, 1960, that you conserve in your archives the doubles of all the letters you send and the ones you receive (information you don’t neglect to repeat (I realize now as I look over our correspondence) in all, I did say all of your letters) you have certainly kept a double of the one you mention at the beginning of the letter dated 23 November, 1960. You could therefore easily clarify this little mystery.

LETTER 4
I haven’t received a thing from you in weeks. What is happening?

LETTER 5 (FRAGMENTS)
I have just received your last letter (finally) and am immediately
replying. You ask if I’ve received your last letter and if I intend to reply.
...
...
PS – You ask how I will answer your next letter if there is no next letter. You wise ass! Nothing’s easier ...
END
Sponsors
Gemeente Rotterdam
Nederlands Letterenfonds
Stichting Van Beuningen Peterich-fonds
Ludo Pieters Gastschrijver Fonds
Lira fonds
Partners
LantarenVenster – Verhalenhuis Belvédère