It seems counter-intuitive, then, to imagine the * intentional meaning* of After Lorca as a set of plans or blueprints pre-existing the work, and the interpretive task as one of recovering the author's intentions as they existed prior to the work. The whole process is suffused with intentionality and meaning, but there would be nothing decisive about any possible reconstruction of authorial intention.

Suppose we really found Spicer's blueprints. They would be fascinating, but then we would have to compare them with the work as it actually existed. The prior plan would be another text, and if it contradicted our readings of After Lorca we couldn't automatically give it a privileged status.

So a theory of speech-acts largely relying on short example-sentences does not really apply.

And what kind of a speech-act is a translation, anyway? That's very weird to think about. "What did you mean by translating that text?" Is it the meaning of the text translated? But that is not "my" meaning at all. Is it my reason for translating it? The effect I *intended*?