*Office of the Director, Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington.*—Praises *The Editorial Problem in Shakespeare* and discusses the progress of the Folger Library.—————**Transcript***The Folger Shakespeare Library, WashingtonOffice of the Director*December 29, 1942.Dear Doctor Greg:The copy of your “The Editorial Problem in Shakespeare,” came just in time to be a most delightful Christmas gift, and its reading made the holiday season for me very pleasant indeed. I admire, more than I can tell you, the cautious, judicial attitude you everywhere maintain, and the nicety of expression by which you achieve clarity in presenting the most difficult material. The volume will be an absolutely indispensable reference work for all editors of Shakespeare, and a guide in all future research into the origin and nature of the copy lying behind the printed texts of plays. And what a problem that is! I confess that some of the theories tentatively devised to explain the preparation of printer’s copy seem to me too complicated for a procedure that must have been simple and natural. But your clear presentation of the facts and summary of theories will inspire Shakespeare scholars to further efforts. I myself feel an “itch” to get at several of the problems, even though I realize that, except by chance, I would probably have no success. Please accept my deepest gratitude, which I know is shared by all students of Shakespeare, for your inspiring work.The Folger Library continues to grow by leaps and bounds. To that cause I am devoting all my time and energy, for I believe that Shakespeare is the strongest and most lasting link to unite England and America, and that the preservation of that union, political and cultural, is the most important need of the world. I like to think that for centuries to come, young Americans will be flocking to the Folger to study the literature which is both the common product, and the heritage, of our two peoples. And if I can accomplish something towards promoting that end, I am content to sacrifice in part my productivity in research.The progress of the war is a matter of keen satisfaction, and we are now hoping that by the fall we can again have our books back in the stacks and vaults, and our Reading Room crowded with workers.With thanks for the thoughtful gift of your latest book, and best wishes for a happy and prosperous new year, I am,Ever yours,Joseph Q. AdamsDr. W. W. Greg,Standlands, River, Petworth, Sussex, England.JQA:mp—————Typed, except the signature.

*10 Crown Road North, Glasgow, W.2.*—Thanks him for a copy of the list of his writings.

*10 Crown Road North, Glasgow, W.2.*—Comments on Greg’s edition of Jonson’s *Masque of Gipsies*.

*10 Crown Road North, Glasgow, W.2.*—Praises *The Shakepeare First Folio*.

*(Department of English, Princeton University.)*—Is happy for the results of his own research to be included in Greg’s article (‘When was Twelfth Night?’).—————**Transcript**Dear Greg:I have looked over the draft of your article {1} and it seems to me excellent. I shall, of course, be very happy for you to publish it with all the material about me. Someone may come up with a piece of private correspondence which seems to confirm him in his preference for January 5th, but I feel fairly confident that we are right in thinking that the 6th was the day for dramatic celebrations at Court.With all best wishes,Sincerely yours,[*Signed:*] G E BentleyG. E. BentleyGEB/psh—————Typed, except the signature. Probably written at Princeton University.{1} ‘When was Twelfth Night?’, published as the first of ‘Two Notes’ by Greg in *Elizabethan and Jacobean Studies presented to Frank Percy Wilson in Honour of his Seventieth Birthday* (1959), pp. 59–62. For proofs of the article, dated 13 Feb. 1958, see Adv. c. 26. 21.

*Department of English, Princeton University.*—Discusses the results of his investigation into the dates of Twelfth Night celebrations.—————**Transcript***Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey**Department of English*March 29, 1956Sir Walter GregTanners KnapPetworthSussex, EnglandDear Dr. Greg:I am very sorry to have been so long in answering your inquiry about Twelfth Night. The truth is that I, too, was shocked to find that there was any doubt that Twelfth Night celebrations always occurred on the night of January 6th. As soon as I got your letter I referred to several places where I was sure that the identification of the two dates was obvious and found to my amazement that the original record said only Twelfth Night, and the date of the 6th of January, which had been attached to it, was in nearly every instance the work of some 19th or 20th century editor. In deep chagrin I set out to assemble all the evidence I could on the subject, and since this time of year is one in which pedagogical burdens are unusually heavy, it took me some time to assemble the information.On separate sheets I am sending you what I have found. It is not so fully conclusive as one could wish, but it seems to me that the burden of the evidence pretty clearly indicates that the celebrations were on the night of the 6th, not the night of the 5th. I took it for granted that I could go at once to Sir Henry Herbert’s Office Book and by running through the lists of court performances find a number of examples which would prove my case. But I found, as you no doubt have found as well, that all those 6th of January dates seem to be the elucidations of Malone; his quotation marks seem to show that in the original manuscript which he saw Twelfth Night very seldom has a day of the month attached.If you do not agree with me that the evidence I have assembled here makes it seem likely that the normal celebration was on the night of the 6th, I wish you would point it out to me. I have certainly gone on for a long time making an assumption with inadequate evidence.The scurrying around of this search for dates has brought to my mind again how often I need some sort of chronological listing of events. I had always assumed that I would prepare a court† catalogue of performances at court to correspond with the one which Sir Edmund Chambers did for the earlier period, and that this court calendar would be printed in volume VI of the Jacobean and Caroline Stage. I am wondering now if it would not be much more helpful to do more than a court calendar; if it would not be helpful if I put in chronological order all the events directly connected with the production of plays or the affairs of acting troupes or performers. Perhaps this would be more of a job than I think, but as I envisage the work at the moment it could be done by taking every date from the five volumes already in print, and ordering them chronologically. This would need to be supplemented with a certain amount of material from the state papers and contemporary correspondence which I have been unable to identify by title, author, or acting company, and therefore have not been able to use at all in the studies I have made. Examples are occasional sentences in letters of John Chamberlain which say there was a mask at the Middle Temple, but indicates nothing more. Often such sentences can be attached by means of other chronological evidence to a known group or play but more often there is nothing to attach them to and I have had, therefore, to refrain from any discussion at all. Do you think such a list would be as helpful as I do?It further occurred to me that if I could do such a list at once it might be helpful to publish it in some periodical—if I can persuade one to give me space—before volume six appears, and thus encourage interested scholars to notify me about dates I have omitted. All this is very tentative but it is an example of the way you have stirred me up on this January 6th matter. I am very grateful to you, thought† I was certainly uncomfortable for a time.With all best wishes,Sincerely yours,[*Signed:*] G. E. BentleyG. E. BentleyGEB/ps—————Typed, except the signature and a correction.† Sic.

**Transcript**1605/6The title page of the 1606 edition of Jonson’s *Hymenaei* says that the masque and the barriers were “Magnificently performed on the eleventh,/ and twelfth Nights, from Christmas;/ at Court:” John Pory wrote Sir Robert Cotton on 7 January 1605/6 “I haue seen both the mask on Sunday (5th) and the barriers on Munday (6th) night {1}. . . . . The second night the Barriers were as well performed. . .” (H & S *Ben Jonson* x, 465–7) Jonson seems to have thought of the night of the 5th as eleventh night and the night of the 6th as Twelfth Night.1607/8On 5 January 1607/8 John Chamberlain wrote to Dudley Carleton “The maske goes forward at court for Twelfth day. . .” and to the same correspondent he wrote on the 8th “On Twelfth eve there was great golden play at court, no gamester admitted that brought not 300li at least.” (*Letters of John Chanberlain*†, ed McClure, i, 250 and 253) Chamberlain seems to be distinguishing the night of the 5th as “Twelfth eve” and that of the 6th as “Twelfth day”1613/14John Finett wrote “The three and twentieth of *December* 1613 I was sent to the Ambassador of Venice . . . . . with this formall Message . . . . . that if he would be pleased to honour with his presence the Maske of Gentlemen of the Inns of Court to be performed on Twelfe night . . . . .” (*Finetti Philoxenie*, 1656. p. 12)On 5 January 1613/14 John Chamberlain wrote to Sir Dudley Carleton “Master Atturneyes maske is for to morrow, and for a conclusion of Christmas and these shewes together . . . .” (*Letters*, i, 499)Both the S.R. entry and the title page of the Gray’s Inn *Maske of Flowers* say that it was acted “vppon Twelfe Night 1613”1614/15John Finett wrote, “The 5. of *January* 1614. The Earl of Sommerset . . . . . gave me directions to invite the Spanish and the Venetian . . . . . to a Maske of Gentlemen set forth at the charge of his Majesty, and to come at an houre, about six in the Evening to a supper that should be prepared for them in the Council Chamber. They both . . . . . accepted the Invitation and came the next day at the time appointed. . . .” (*Finetti Philoxenis*, 1656. p. 19) {2}5 January 1614/15 John Chamberlain wrote “To morow night there is a maske at court. . . . .” (*Letters*, i, 567) Again on January 12th he wrote in a letter to Sir Dudley Carleton “The only matter I can advertise since I wrote last weeke is the successe of the maske on Twelfe Night, which was so well liked and applauded that the King had yt represented again the Sonday night after. . . .” (Ibid. p. 569–70)1616/17The heading in the 1640 edition of Jonson’s *Christmas His Masque* says only “As It Was Presented At Covrt. 1616” but the line of the song which reads in the folio “*and for Twelfe-night more meet too*” has a variant in the Harleian MS 4955 which reads “this night” instead of “*Twelfe-night*” (H & S *B. J.* vii, 445) Therefore this was presumably the masque performed Twelfth Night 1616/17.On 18 January 1616/17 John Chamberlain wrote to Sir Dudlet† Carleton “On Twelfe Night was a maske wherin the new made earle [Buckingham] and the earle of Mongomerie daunced with the Quene” (*Letters*, ii, 49) Unfortunately the Earl seems to have been created on the 5th, so that this evidence gets us nowhere with our problem.1617/187 January 1617/18 Sir Edward Harwood wrote to Sir Dudley Carleton “. . . . the last night being twelfthnight was the masque, the anti-masque being of little boyes dressed like bottells . . . .” (S. P. Dom. James I, xcv, No,† 8, quoted Sullivan, *Court Masques of James I*, p. 118) Several other letters say the masque was performed on Twelfth Night (See Bentley, *Jac. & Car. Stage*, iv, 669–71)1619/20In the letter of the Venetian ambassador to the Doge and Senate, dated 7 January 1619/20 [i.e. 17 January *More Veneto*] the Ambassador says “Yesterday at the prince’s masque I saw Hay, though hurriedly, and paid my respects” (*C.S.P. Venetian* xvi [1619–20] p. 135). {2} The account of the masque which follows later perhaps was written the night before, since it says “This night, etc” I think I was fooled by this into dating *News from the New World* 7 Jan instead of 6 Jan. (*Jac & Car* iv 663–667) In any case, the Ambassador said on the 7th that the Prince’s masque was on the 6th. Unfortunately there seems no evidence that this masque was called a Twelfth Night one.1620/21On 13 January 1620/21 John Chamberlain wrote Sir Dudley Carleton “That night they [French embassy] had a bal at Whitehall, and on Twelfth Day were invited to the maske there, which was handsomly performed, but that there was a puritan brought in to be flowted and abused, which was somwhat unseemly and unseasonable, specially as matters stand now with those of the religion in Fraunce.” [*Letters*, ii, 333] John Finett wrote “On Twelfeday following, the Ambassador and his chiefe followers were brought to Court by the Earle of Warwick to be present at a Maske.” [*Finnetti*† *Philox.* 1656. p. 71]1621/224 January 1621/22 John Chamberlain wrote to Sir Dudley Carleton “To morow shalbe the Princes maske at court” [*Letters*, ii, 420] The title page of the 1621 edition of Jonson’s *Masque of Augurs* says “Presented on Twelfe night.” This is the only significant piece of evidence I have found that a Twelfth night masque was presented on January 5th. Since it contradicts all the other evidence I have found on the subject, I am inclined to think that Chamberlain was in error. Perhaps he misdated his letter, as I suggested (*Jac. & Car.* iv, 657) though I was there much too confident of the date of Twelfth Night celebrations, and I should have collected evidence of Chamberlain’s misdatings.1622/3“Upon Twelfe night, the Masque being put off, *A Vowe and a Good One* was acted by the princes servants. . . . . Upon Sonday, being the 19th of January, the *Princes Masque* appointed for Twelfte daye, was performed.” [Office Book of Sir Henry Herbert, ed. Adams, p. 50] The fact that Sir Henry uses “Twelfe night” and “Twelfte daye” interchangably as the intended date for the masque, surely indicates that he did not think of the 6th as Twelfth Day and the 5th as Twelfth Night.1633/4“On Monday night, the sixth of January and the Twelfe Night, was presented at Denmark-house, before the King and Queene, Fletchers pastorall called *The Faithfull Shepheardesse*. . . .”This seems to be most conclusive. In Herbert’s other records when he mentions Twelfth Night he does not mention the day of the month; in each instance except this, the date seems to have been added by Malone.1664–9Perhaps it cannot be considered significant in this connection, but I note that Samuel Pepys had celebration parties on the night of January 6th in the years 1664/5, 1665/6, 1667/8, and 1668/9. I note no celebrations on the night of January 5th.—————Typed, except a couple of marginal marks, a few corrections, and the additions mentioned below. The notes are undated, but were probably made not long before **1/6a**, which is dated 29 March 1956. The notes are carelessly punctuated and were evidently typed in some haste. The square brackets are in the original. In the original the headings (i.e. the years) are on the same line as the immediately succeeding text.{1} ‘5th’ and ‘6th’ are written above ‘Sunday’ and ‘Munday’ respectively. The brackets have been supplied.{2} Closing bracket supplied.

*Longmans, Green, & Co. Ltd, 6–7 Clifford Street, London, W.1.*—Discusses *Some Aspects and Problems of London Publishing*.—————**Transcript***Longmans, Green, & Co. Limited**6 & 7 Clifford Street, London, W. 1**Ref.* CCB/EAS 4th June, 1956Sir Walter Greg, Litt.D., F.B.A.,River Cottage,Petworth,Sussex.Dear Sir Walter,I have now read all through LONDON PUBLISHING, and some of it I have read twice. It is, however, so full of meat (I can well believe the “thousand pages of . . . foolscap”!) that it is a book which I shall go on using and finding, I am sure, new suggestions to follow up for many years; and I would like to say that it is the sort of book which I should like to have written.I hope you will forgive me if I pick out some points which particularly appealed to me and a few with which I do not agree. My interests being what they are, I found Chapter II a really beautiful account of the Records; I only wish you had found the reason for the high fees charged for certain entrances (p. 39)! I am glad you made (p. 83) a reference, by implication, to the existence of wholesaling, a much neglected subject and one about which it is exceedingly difficult to find evidence. What you say (p. 87) about the financing of a book could not have been more welcome or more succin[c]tly put. On p. 48 you say that Watkins “sometimes acted for the Wardens” as Company licensee; {1} I have wondered about this and can only suggest that, as Treasurer to the partners in the Day and Seres privileges, he was more often on the spot than the master or the wardens; have you any solution?As I see it, the basic problem in the book trade in the first half of the period covered by your book was: “How are the printers to get work?” This is, of course, also a publishing problem; and when printers were proprietors of copies, and particularly when they had patents, they were all right. But there were the trade printers who, from as early as 1558/9 (I 95/6), were establishing this right not to a copy but to the printing of a copy. Is this the sort of right to which you refer in the middle of p. 80? And is it possible that it is the sort of right at which Roberts was aiming with his blocking entries? On the 12th February, 1604 (III 252), he *clearly* established a printing right and I have wondered whether entrances to printers, even when the word “copy” is used, might not often represent a determination to get work rather than an expectation of publishing profit—which anyhow for a printer (unless he had a shop for distribution and exchange) cannot have been easy to make certain of. Might not this limited—printing—right also help to solve some of the imprints which at present appear to be anomalous? (I have not checked this, since the idea has only just occurred to me; and I do agree with your generalization about imprints on p. 89.)May I conclude with a few queries which occurred to me as I read the book?*P. 6, line 7:* ? add “in London” after Company, for there were freemen of the London Company working in the provinces.*P. 8:* Seres’s letter of October, 1582 (II 772), may possibly have been the basis for the 1583 statement you quote.*P. 17, line 3:* The making of regulations *was* allowed, by the Charter. {2}*P. 52, line 9:* “Correctors of the press” were really proof-readers, weren’t they?*P. 71, line 8:* I think the true interpretation of “to the use of the Company” is to be found on III p. 60; and I feel that the Company was trustee for rather than proprietor of the copies which were derelict.*P. 75:* The *Psalms in Metre* were at this stage, 1588, only granted to the Company in languages other than English.*P. 101, line 1:* Watkins has become Wilkins. Roberts was drawing £50 p.a., presumably as part of the payment for Almanacks, up to June, 1618—but on the Poor Account! {2}Please forgive these little pecks, but it has been such a pleasure to wrestle with your book; there are so few people who are as interested in the Company and there is no one so knowledgable. Please also forgive the length of this letter; if you are too busy I hope you will not try to reply to it.Yours with sincere admiration,Cyprian Blagden—————Typed, except the signature.{1} There is a tick in the margin by this statement.{2} There is a tick in the margin by this paragraph.

*Longmans, Green, & Co. Ltd, 6-7 Clifford Street, London, W.1.*—Continues his discussion of *Some Aspects and Problems of London Publishing*.—————**Transcript***Longmans, Green, & Co. Limited6 & 7 Clifford Street, London, W. 1Ref.* CCB/JP 11th July 1956Sir Walter W. Greg,Tanners Knap,Petworth,*Sussex.*Dear Sir Walter,Please forgive the long delay in replying to your kind letter of the 7th of June which arrived just as I was going on holiday. I have only now had time to give it the attention it deserved, and here at last are my answers to the points you raised:—1) You say that the Company dealt with its own copyrights in two different ways, but is there any evidence before 1603 of its paying for the publication of any book except perhaps Withal’s SHORT DICTIONARY in 1586/7 (Arber 1 520)? {1}2) On page 6 of your book you say “This still provides for provincial printing”—but only, according to the Charter, by members of the London Stationers’ Company. A few provincial booksellers (but I am sure no provincial printers) took advantage of this nearer the end of the century, e.g. George Penn of Ipswich 1584 (STC 11720), Nicholas Colman of Norwich 1586 (STC 6564 and 23259) and Christopher Hunt of Exeter 1594 (STC 23697). {2}3) The statement you quote from is the final report of the Privy Council Commission.4) I do feel that there is a real distinction between “Trustee” and “Proprietor”.5) The Roberts reference is from a succession of entries in *Liber computi pro pauperibus* listed in the Transactions of the Bibliographical Society NS Volume VI, 1926, page 355.Yours sincerely,Cyprian Blagden.—————Typed, except the signature and Greg’s marginal notes (see below).{1} Greg has added in the margin, ‘Probably not.’{2} Greg has added in the margin, ‘I should have said ‘contemplates’. It seems to ignore the limitation in the Ch.’

**Transcript**The opinions of the bibliographical school usually stand criticism in so far as they are based on investigation of the external conditions of printing at the time, but that† they are upset by evidence when concerned with the peculiarities of the text itself. The reason is that in the latter case the nature of the “copy” has been determined “auf Grund von stichprobenartig herausgegriffenen Einzelerscheinungen, die dann verallgemeinert wurden” {1}.L. Borinski—————{1} ‘On the basis of randomly-selected individual features, which were then generalised.’

*The Shakespeare Head Press, Stratford.*—Discusses Greg’s edition of *The Merry Wives of Windsor*.—————**Transcript***The Shakespeare Head Press, Stratford-on-Avon*19\. V. 1910.My dear Greg,It was very good of you to send me your edition of the 1602 *Merry Wives*, and I am sure that I shall profit by the study of your Introduction & Notes.As I read the Introduction I was horrified to find on p. XVI “The second is *the late* H. C. Hart.” So poor Hart is dead. This is news to me, and very sad news. I see the “Athenæum” every week but usually fling it into the waste-paper basket after carelessly glancing at it; so I miss notices of the death of friends. Hart used to talk about a Ben Jonson “Glossary,” on which he had been engaged intermittently; and I wonder in what shape he left it. His death is a loss.Your account of the reporting of “John Bull’s Other Island” is very much to the point; and your suggestion that the actor who played the Host of the Garter may have helped the reporter of “Merry Wives” seems quite reasonable.It may be uncritical, but however often I were to print Shakespeare I should always incorporate passages from the 1602 4to. in the Folio text. I can’t see the objection of tacking “I will retort the sum in equipage” on to “Why, then the world’s mine oyster, / Which I with sword will open,” if one puts a full stop and a dash after “open.” The renewed request gives more point to Falstaff’s renewed refusal “Not a penny.”“Cride-game” is a terrible teazer. Hart’s reference to bears seems to me far too peregrinate. What the deuce have bears to do with feasting at a farm house? “Cried I aim?” at any rate gives sense and “Cride-game” is meaningless[.]I shall go closely through your edition, and I thank you for so kindly remembering me.Yours sincerelyA. H. Bullen

*The Hythe Croft, Eynsham, Oxon.*—Draws attention to a reference to a portrait of Edward Alleyn’s father or father-in-law.—————**Transcript***The Hythe Croft, Eynsham, Oxon.*11\. Feb. 1930Dear Greg,The life of Alleyn (by Oldys) in *Biographia Britannica* (1744-66) i. 115 mentions a picture at Dulwich, long thought to be his father, but stated to Oldys to be his father-in-law by one Thomas Waterhouse. The picture gave the age as 59.Did you ever look into this? If father-in-law is right, I should think that it was more likely Henslowe than Woodward.Yrs everE. K. Chambers.

*University College, London.*—Sends Helweg’s answer to Greg’s question (see **1/38**).

*Department of English Language and Literature, University of Manchester.*—Greg’s revelation of the unreliability of facsimile editions will have drastic consequences for his own research.—————**Transcript***Department of English Language and Literature.**The University of Manchester. Manchester, 13.*16 AprilDear Mr Greg,Thank you very much for the trouble you have taken for me, though the authoritative information you now send is a devastating blow to me. I hope that, if the Commons abolish capital punishment for murder, they’ll keep it for traitors & for editors of facsimiles who do not draw attention to their own or other doctorings of their facsimiles. This is not a piece of flippancy: & I think you’ll see why.Fifteen years ago I was invited to what, in the world’s eye, is a more distinguished chair than Manchester’s. I declined, knowing that Manchester was the place in which anything I could do, I could best do. And I’ve therefore had no moment’s hesitation in refusing other feelers since then. But your information knocks the bottom out of my whole scheme of things. For when I determined to remain permanently in Manchester, I began a plan to gather here a mass of facsimiles. I’ve long been chairman of our Library Committee, & for some years, chairman of the book committee of the John Rylands. So the facsimiles I couldn’t buy for myself, I had the means of adding to accessible libraries. I felt it to be the only way to organise scholarship out of London, Oxford, & Cambridge. But the whole scheme depends on the reliability of mechanical facsimiles: & that faith, your letter convinces me, is gone. It’s like a universe toppling on one’s head.I shall survive it, however: but how many students have I misled! The *Pericles* case was more or less casually put to me. Before I go out, I want to do 3 books—Browning, Shakespearian History Plays, & Shakespeare’s Romances. This winter, awaiting proofs of a book out of my Clark lectures, Sh[akespearia]n Tragedy, I began tentatively to look at the Histories & the Romances. Allardyce Nichol† asked me to give a paper at Stratford this summer on *Pericles*. I told him I’d write one, but wouldn’t be able to go to Stratford. So I settled into *Pericles* literature. All the literature convinced me that the only real problem in it was the bibliographical problem of the Quartos: and, so far, the only thing I am certain of is that Qu. 2 is indeed after Qu 1. I have doubts as to whether there is any ground for attributing any of it to Shakespeare: and if any part of it is his, I’m inclined to give it to the *prize*[?] scenes of the fishermen and the brothel. But these are merely moods of my last month, & want further investigation. Nor do the Wilkins, Day, Rowley claims seem to me substantial.So, as my main problem, I’m left with this: what was the relation of Q.1. to the theatre script(s)? Till that is settled, authorship(s) must be little more than Fleay-like speculations. And how can a fellow who depends on facsimiles feel safe in saying anything on that problem? However, I’ll keep at it until I dare think I see something, or until I’m sure that I shall never see anything.I may, of course, as one whose interests haven’t been bibliographical in the technical sense, be wrong in my certainty that Qu 1. *is* before Qu 2. But the kind of conviction I get is illustrated by putting side by side I. iv. 15 (Praetorius texts). Qu. 1 has *toungs*; Qu 2 has *tongues*. Qu 2 often regularises or modernises spelling. I imagine that, Qu 2 printer, seeing the Qu 1 print (and he *must*[,] on other grounds, {1} have had the printed Qu 1 in front of him), took it for an odd spelling of *tongues* & therefore printed *tongues*. But *t* in Qu 1. *toungs* must have been a misprint for l (either accidental or easy MSS confusion), or the word must have been *loungs*, or lungs, & so Qu. 2’s provenance seems in that way explicable. But, as I say, I may be just misled by my ignorance.Yours gratefullyH B Charlton—————{1} ‘on other grounds’ interlined.† Sic.

*King’s College London, Strand, W.C.2.*—Sends brief notes on *Respublica*.(Undated. Postmarked 15 Jan. 1958.)

*(London?)*—Discusses correspondence in the *Times Literary Supplement* relating to *The Shakespeare First Folio* and the Yale facsimile of the First Folio.—————**Transcript**Dear Greg,Thank you for your letter. I fear that you will find in Friday’s TLS an answer {1} so curt as to verge on churlishness concerning C.39, k.15 {2}. I strove for brevity in dealing with the oaf Marsh {3} but still covered more space than I intended.I ran up this afternoon and had a look at the Folio. It was worse than I had at first realised. There are really dozens of foisted-in leaves, too short and rounded at the corners—in all parts of the book, though the Histories are, as one would expect, least interfered with[.] I observed that there were two watermarks apiece for the following ‘conjugate’ leaves—C2, C5; D1, D6; o2, o5; pp2, pp5; rr1, rr6. And there are probably others. I didn’t make a note of ‘conjugates’ with no watermarks.I was determined not to cite Fredson’s review as evidence of my own lack of anti-Americanism and was glad to learn from R. C. Bald {4} that he had written to TLS to make that point.[…]I am undergoing simultaneous bombardments from Maxwell and Hugh Macdonald: they really are indefatigable correspondents. I am glad to hear from the latter that you have been being frivolous in Cambridge.The postcard was written at Ravenna but didn’t get posted till my return.Yours sincerely,John Crow—————Typed, except the signature and a couple of corrections. The top of the letter has been neatly torn off; it is unclear what is missing. The reference to 28 October as ‘Friday’ rather than ‘tomorrow’ indicates that the letter must have been written before the 27th.{1} Crow had written to the *Times Literary Supplement* in response to letters printed in the 21 October issue relating to a lengthy joint review of Greg’s *Shakespeare First Folio* and the facsimile of the First Folio prepared by Helge Kökeritz for the Yale University Press which had appeared the previous week. In the event only two paragraphs of Crow’s letter were published, in which he drew attention to an error and a mistake in his contribution to *Essays and Studies*, 1955.{2} This is the reference-mark of a copy of the First Folio of Shakespeare in the British Library, which Greg had described in his book (p. 45) as ‘magnificent’, but which the *TLS* reviewer had pointed out was a ‘made-up copy’. Greg, in a letter printed in the 21 October issue, responded that, so far as he was aware, the volume in question contained only one sheet supplied from another copy.{3} The *TLS* of 21 October contained a letter from R. C. Marsh defending the Yale facsimile, which had been rather heavily criticised in the previous issue, and accusing the reviewer of anti-Americanism.{4} The *TLS* of 28 October contained a letter from R. C. Bald pointing out that the shortcomings of the Yale facsimile had been mentioned by American scholars (one of whom was evidently Fredson Bowers) in *Modern Philology* and the *Shakespeare Quarterly*.

*Newnham College, Cambridge.*—Thanks him for a copy of the list of his writings.—————**Transcript***Newnham College, Cambridge*17 December 1945Dear Dr GregHow very pleasant to hear from you again and to have this breath-taking list of your writings. It seems almost impossible that one person could have produced so much learned work. I am ashamed to say that I did not know you flirted with economics now and then.I have been thinking of you lately because of a reference in Gow’s Letters from Cambridge. It seems that they have—very properly, as he says—made you an Honorary Fellow. I like to think of you in that Library, as I do whenever I go there. Much more suitable than the old W.T.I.D. {1} environment!I always find it difficult to understand how anyone who has lived in Cambridge can bear London—or indeed anyone else. I love my life here, though I admit it is a very broken one, and includes many journeyings up and down to Committees. I gather from the address on your envelope, which I am using, that you have given up Wimbledon and returned to Sussex. I hope all the family is well and flourishing. All good wishes for Christmas, New YearYours sincerelyMyra Curtis—————{1} The War Trade Intelligence Department, for which both correspondents worked during the First World War.

*C/o E.M.C., P.O. Urambo, via Tabora T.T., British East Africa.*—Challenges an inference in *The Editorial Problem in Shakespeare*.—————**Transcript**c/o. E.M.C. | P.O. URAMBO. | via Tabora. T.T. | Brit. East Africa.22/6/49Dr. W. W. Greg.Standlands. Petworth. Sussex. England.Dear Sir,Q4 *Richard II*: 2nd issue 1608.May I respectfully suggest with defference† to yourself as the most distinguished bibliographer of the present day that, possibly, there might be an error in the view that “of” in the title-page of Q4 *Richard II*—2nd issue 1608—provides prima facie evidence that the ‘deposition’ scene is piratical—your *Ed. Prob. in Sh.* O.U.P. 1942 p. xlii, footnote (i).It appears to me, Sir, that this word “of” cannot rightly be explained in (shall we say) Windsorian parlance. Similar uses of this word, which allow ‘in’, ‘at’, ‘from’ etc., occur in (all F):—M. of V.—V. i. 297 [*Added by Greg:* ‘= regarding’]All’s Well.—I. i. 7 [*Added by Greg:* ‘= in’] also IV. ii. 65 [*Added by Greg:* ‘= in’] & IV. iii. 336 [*Added by Greg:* ‘= of or by’]Lear.—I. v. 23 [*corrected to* ‘22’ *by Greg, who has added* ‘= on’]to give three examples only.There are, according to my reckoning, three times as many again, each showing a variation in the use of the word “of”. Similarly, perhaps, Q4 *Richard II*. 2nd issue. {1}I do not here dispute the opinion that the ‘deposition’ passages are, or may be, unaccredited: I venture to suggest only that, on quite strictly bibliographical grounds, there appears to be no evidence to support the belief that this Quarto is thus stigmatized by deliberate piratical infiltration.If it would not be unseemly for you to reply with a view to helping me, in however small a way, in trying to clear up this particular problem, I should, indeed, be greatly obliged to you.—————Incidentally, although I am quite satisfied that I have correctly answered the theory of ‘bad’ and ‘good’ Quartos, I am not sure that the Pavier-Jaggard Quartos, although plainly the “stolne, and surreptitious copies”, are without both bibliographical and textual merit. It is a very, very difficult problem. Where it may lead, I dare not think. I wish Pollard were here.I am in the Holy Study[*Signed:*] K B DanksK. B. DANKS—————The printed address at the head—Welcombe Enclosure, P.O. Songhor, Kenya Colony—has been struck through. In the original some pairs of words are run together, e.g. ‘ofthe’, ‘away’, ‘Iam’. ‘p. xlii’ (the page of the note referred to by Danks) has been written at the head in pencil.† Sic.

*The Clarendon Press, Oxford.*—Discusses terms for publishing Greg’s Lyell Lectures (*Some Aspects and Problems of London Publishing*).

*R.D.#1, Box #422, Farmingdale, New Jersey.*—Disagrees with a statement in *The Shakespeare First Folio* regarding the vision scene in *Cymbeline*.—————**Transcript**R. D. #1 Box #422Farmingdale, New JerseyApril 22, 1958.Mr. W. W. Greg%† The Clarendon PressOxford, EnglandDear Mr. Greg,Recently, while doing some research on the sources for *Cymbeline*, I had occasion to read very carefully *The Rare Triumphs of Love and Fortune*. I was particularly interested in finding in the ‘interpolated’ vision scene (V.iv) of *Cymbeline* suggestions of this source, especially in Jupiter’s speech which appears more ‘Shakespearean’ than the rest.The thought occurred to me that perhaps Shakespeare considered opening his play with a dumb show of some sort, involving the ghosts of ‘them that love and fortune slew’ or Posthumus’ family—all of whom died tragically. (In the source, Mercury, at Jupiter’s behest, brings in a dumb show of tragic victims.) Our author may then have planned to have Jupiter descend in lightening and thunder and give his speech, or at least part (omitting the last five lines) followed by Sicillius’ speech and then the opening of the play as it stands.Of course, I realize that this theory is very conjectural and, indeed, may even have been postulated by others. However, on the basis of an examination of the two plays, I find myself in disagreement with your statement in *The Shakespeare First Folio* (p. 414), “Most critics regard the vision as ‘a spectacular theatrical interpolation’. If this is so, the manuscript containing it can hardly have been Shakespeare’s foul papers.” As the vision now stands in V.iv, I agree that it definitely was ‘a spectacular theatrical interpolation’, but it occurs to me that the germ of the idea was found crossed out or discarded among the foul papers.I am really just a novice at scholarly research and I hope you are not too rudely annoyed by my glaring deficiencies in technique. I am most interested in your opinion on this hypothesis and I would truly consider it a great privilege to receive an answer from one whose work bears an unmistakable stamp of painstaking research and practice. If your time permits, a reply would be much appreciated.Sincerely yours,[*Signed:*] Gertrude DubrovskyGertrude Dubrovsky—————Typed, except the signature and a correction.† Sic.

*The Clarendon Press, Oxford.*—Sends an early copy of *Dramatic Documents from Elizabethan Playhouses*.

*The Clarendon Press, Oxford.*—An advance copy of *Love's Labour's Lost* (the Shakespeare Association facsimile of the 1598 quarto) is being sent under separate cover.

*University College, London.*—Comments on Greg's edition of Jonson's *Masque of Gipsies*.

*Henry E. Huntington Library and Art Gallery, San Marino, California.*—Discusses the Harvard University Press facsimile of the first quarto of *Hamlet*.—————**Transcript***Henry E. Huntington Library and Art Gallery, San Marino, California*May 28, 1931.W. W. Greg, Esq.Park Lodge, Wimbledon CommonLondon, S. W. 19, EnglandMy dear Greg,Thank you warmly for your letter. It is that of a real friend of the Library. Far from resenting your criticisms and suggestions I would assure you that they are borne out in every particular by our own experience. We ought not to have attempted our choicest item as the first of our facsimiles. We have learned a lot but you must give us credit for not having attempted to disguise the faults in our results. When we saw the results we were proud of certain features and disappointed in others but we tried to state the facts, so that students could rely on what we put forth. [*Handwritten in the margin:*] The last page was deliberate—that is the way it is in *our copy*, and we are reproducing the H.E.H. copy.A unique Thomas Wyat item {1} will be out very shortly and that is reproduced by heliotype and we think an improvement, but we are with another item, now going to press, trying to eliminate the intermediate stages and photograph directly upon the block for the printer. I don't correctly understand the process but our photographer and the collotype people are both excited over it.I could, by the way, tell you some interesting stories of the complications of our *Hamlet* reproduction at a distance. We had to read proof exactly as in a printed work and sent certain pages back to be done over because they had *been made legible*.There is another feature of our publications that I want to stress and that is our desire to keep the price within reason. We cannot do things as cheaply as you do in England but they are not expensive according to our standards. They are for scholars, not for collectors.Again thanking you for writing, I amSincerely yours,Max Farrand—————Typed, except the signature, two corrections, and the marginal addition.{1} *Quyete of Mynde*, Wyatt's translation of Plutarch's *De tranquillitate animi*. A facsimile of the copy in the Huntington Library was published by the Harvard University Press in 1931.

*17 Sherlock Road, Cambridge.*—Is glad he liked her article on *Timon of Athens*. Discusses her health.—————**Transcript**Oct. 417 Sherlock RoadCambridgeDear Walter,It was very pleasant to recognise your writing on the outside of an envelope again and very kind of you to say that you had read and agreed with my *Timon* article {1}. Of course it was, as you will have seen, only a general comment, written from outside. I know nothing of the details of the textual evidence and shall look forward to your book to learn that. But I am very glad indeed that you, proceeding from a much more precise & specific criticism, had reached the same conclusion as I did myself, proceeding rather from the psychology of the creative artist. I feel much encouraged. I really do believe that the case is as I indicated there.I have not been seriously ill so much as tiresomely and continuously ill. I was pretty bad for a time in 1940 and have never really recovered from it. Hard work and difficult conditions never quite let one get on one’s feet after a thing of that sort. But I am asking for sick leave for the Jan-Mar term of this session and hope that, by avoiding the hardest term of the year, I shall just be able to make the balance tip the other way & so get a fair start. It isn’t writing that tires me: I can do that lying in bed and it helps to keep me cheerful & to recover. It is teaching that is so exhausting under these conditions—especially after 25 thankless years of it!I sympathise very strongly with your reluctance to leave Sussex. I should feel just the same myself. But I hope we may meet again. My orbit is generally Cambridge-London-Oxford and we might coincide.Very sincerely yoursUna Ellis-Fermor—————{1} ‘Timon of Athens: an Unfinished Play’, *Review of English Studies*, vol. xviii, no. 71 (July 1942), pp. 270-83.

*27 Dafforne Road, Upper Tooting, S.W.*—Agrees to lend him his copy of Collier's *Henslowe*. Discusses the interlude *Hester*.—————**Transcript***27 Dafforne Road, Upper Tooting, S.W.*27.ii.05Dear Mr Greg.i. Henslow. You may have my Collier Henslow† {1} for a week or so with pleasure but unfortunately our friend Mr Bullen has induced me to resume work on the Drama & I shall be using it daily. I cannot spare it before Easter {2}. Would it meet your wish as I shall be in Wimbledon the first *fine* afternoon if I called on you with it between 2.30 P.M. & 5 & read the dates over with you? or could you call on me? if the latter fix your own time.ii. Hester. My knowledge of pre-theatrical enterludes is not deep & as the titles of my books {3} shew they formed no part of my original plan. I lumped Hester & A. {4} with the Shrew &c in blind acquiescence to R Simpson but whether to MS or printed statement I cannot now tell. I should not now venture to say whether the Adm[ira]ls or Chamb[erlai]ns acted in in 1594. I did not know of Collier or Grosarts Godly Queen. I have this afternoon read yours & am greatly pleased with it. I spotted l.l. 542 & 1012 & then found Mr Smith had anticipated me. In l. 985 &c I prefer to read “could not *be* told.” In l. 22 I take “doughty” & “weighty” to be variants for “worthy” not for “sure” & would read “Most dread sovereign King *to you assure*” & refer “Assurance” to a marginal query as a possible reading for ‘assure’. In note on l. 22 dele m in ommitted†. You have let me down very easy for following Collier as to the Chapel children but I am by no means sure of the Wolsey hypothesis. What possible reason could there be for an intitled company to publish an anti-Wolsey play temp. 3 Eliz. & if it was played by an allowed company where is the prayer for the Queen?I will read the Hester again & report dulyYours in hasteF. G. Fleay—————{1} John Payne Collier’s edition of the *Diary* of Philip Henslowe (Shakespeare Society, 1845). Greg’s own edition of the *Diary* had been published the previous year.{2} 23 April.{3} The reference is probably to Fleay’s *Chronicle History of the London Stage, 1559-1642* (1890) and his three-volume *Biographical Chronicle of the English Drama, 1559-1642* (1891).{4} *Hester and Ahasuerus*, a play mentioned in Henslow’s *Diary* (Collier’s ed., pp. 35-6) as having been performed at Newington by the Admiral’s Men and the Lord Chamberlain’s Men on 3 and 10 May 1594.† Sic.

*52 Saddler Street, Durham.*—Discusses Henslowe's *Diary*.—————**Transcript**52, Saddler St.,Durham13th August 1955Dear Sir Walter Greg,Thank you very much for your kind letter. My collaborator, R. T. Rickert, and I have not so far found any fragments of Henslowe's *Diary* additional to those you have noted, and we are most grateful for your list, which provides us with a check. If we should make any new discovery, we will certainly communicate with you. I hope in any case that I may let you know of the progress of the edition when it reaches a more advanced stage. We have just heard that the Cambridge University Press has agreed to undertake it—on a much more modest scale than your edition, but we are going to reprint the whole of the *Diary*, including the pawn and mining accounts.May I say how much I admire your recent book, *The Shakespeare First Folio*?Yours sincerely,R. A. Foakes—————Letter-head of 'The Durham Colleges in the University of Durham'.

*23, Crossgate Peth, Durham.*—Offers to let him see the Introduction to his edition of Henslowe's *Diary* before it is printed.—————**Transcript***The Durham Colleges in the University of Durham*at 23, Crossgate Peth,Durham23 July 1958Dear Sir Walter Greg,A few years ago you kindly encouraged my collaborator, Mr Rickert, and myself, via Professor Allardyce Nicoll, in our proposal to re-edit Henslowe's *Diary*. We have now more or less completed the edition, and most of the typescript is with the Cambridge University Press. But I have held back the Introduction, so that you might have an opportunity of seeing it, should you wish to do so. As I am sure you would expect, we have a number of differences from you in readings in the *Diary*, and while most of them are not very significant, there is one point of some importance. In the list of names on f. 3, you read 'lame Charles alen', and a smudge makes these words appear so; but we think that a correct reading is 'same Charles alen', three separate persons, as the lines against each name, corresponding to the lines against each name in the adjacent column, show. These may be identified as Sam Rowley, Charles Massey and Richard Alleyn (not Edward, who is in the adjacent list). If this interpretation is correct, it has a bearing on the argument in your *Dramatic Documents*.We wondered therefore if you would care to see the section of our Introduction where this reading is discussed; and, should you wish to make any comments, we would be glad to include them in the edition under your name.We also wondered if you would permit us to dedicate our edition to you, as a testimony of the great debt we owe to your work.Yours sincerely,R. A. Foakes—————Typed, except the signature.

*The British Museum.*—Answers questions about *The English Schoolmaster* (1580) and refers to McKerrow’s books and papers.—————**Transcript***The British Museum, London, W.C.1*4 Nov. 1942Dear Greg,Had your letter been here half a day later The English Schoolmaster {1} would have been on his way to more desirable quarters! {2} Thank goodness, *all* the case books will soon be got away.It does contain Psalms. Here is the list of them1\. Psalm 119, pt 1 & 2, in prose in “Cranmer’s” version. [Next came Proverbs, c. 4, in the Geneva version.] {3}2\. Psalms 1, 4, 50. vv. 1-11, 51. vv. 1-10, 67, 104. vv. 1-9, 112, 113, 120, 126, 148. vv. 1-6, all in Sternhold and Hopkins[’] version. {4}It seems odd to find the two different prose versions being used. But the whole book is a curious and interesting one.I hope to be able to let you have proofs for the Jubilee volume soon; but I am still awaiting an† vital contribution {5}.I am glad to know that you have a note ‘on the stocks’!You would have been mildly interested in the suggestions propounded in the paper by O. M. Willard, which I read at the last meeting of the Society. It is an attempt to work out statistically a relation between the size and number of original editions of pre-1640 books and the numbers of surviving copies. The whole thing is rather flimsy, but it does at any rate make one cock a more wary eye at the records of copies both in STC and elsewhere.Yours sincerelyF. C. Francis.P.S. I started on a brief list of McKerrow’s books, last week end; but it is still doubtful if Mrs McKerrow wants to sell. She feels, I think, that she doesn’t want to do any thing which the boys may regret later. But many of the books are only useful to a specialist.P.P.S. I am mildly interested in Charles Crawford; is there much known about him? McKerrow has some of his MS. notes.—————Letter-head of *The Library*. Francis’s name appears below the word ‘Editor’, with the address shown.{1} Presumably *Le maistre d'escole Anglois*, or *The Englishe Scholemaister*, by Jacques Bellot (1580) (STC (2nd ed.) 1855).{2} Greg had presumably asked that the book should not be evacuated out of London.{3} The square brackets are in the original.{4} Greg has written in pencil in the margin ‘Day’s’ followed by an indistinct word.{5} See Oliver M. Willard, ‘The Survival of English Books Printed before 1640: a Theory and some Illustrations’, *The Library*, 4th series, xxiii. 171-90.† Sic.

*Department of Printed Books, British Museum.*—Answers questions about later editions of *The English Schoolmaster*.

*The British Museum, London, W.C.1.*—Is sending copies of the two volumes of the *Bibliography of the English Printed Drama*, specially bound for Greg by the Colophon Club.

*Trinity College, Cambridge.*—Thanks him for a copy of *The Shakespeare First Folio*.

*Trinity College, Cambridge.*—Praises *The Shakespeare First Folio*.

*The Clarendon Press, Oxford.*—An advance copy of *The True Tragedy of Richard Duke of York* (the Shakespeare Association facsimile of the 1595 quarto) is being sent under separate cover.

*254 Corps Delivery Squadron, Royal Armoured Corps, British Army of the Rhine.*—The Staatsbibliothek in Hamburg has been destroyed. Will ask about the fate of the contents.—————**Transcript**254 Corps Dely SqnRAC BAOR. {1}14 Jan 46Dear Dad,I found the Staatsbibliothek in Hamburg to-day and went to have a look at it. It seems to have been completely destroyed. There was however an entrance in one corner which appeared to be in use, but there was a notice on the door saying “No admittance without the authority of the Military Government,’ so I will see Mil. Gov. next time I am in Hamburg & see what they know about the fate of the contents of the Library.Much loveEvan.—————{1} 254 Corps Delivery Squadron, Royal Armoured Corps, British Army of the Rhine.

(Greg:) *(Place of writing not indicated.)*—Asks about the binding of the Capell First Folio.(Adams:) *Trinity College, Cambridge.*—Describes the binding of the book.(Pre-paid and self-addressed by Greg. Probably sent to Adams as an enclosure. Only Adams’s message is dated.)

*School House, Sir Thomas Rich’s, Gloucester.*—Asks permission to use Greg’s edition of *Respublica* for a school production.

*King’s College, Strand, London, W.C.2.*—Describes a fragment of an Elizabethan play in manuscript owned by Sir Israel Gollancz.—————**Transcript***King’s College, Strand, London, W.C.2*22d November 1931.Dear Dr Greg,I have just been reading *Elizabethan Dramatic Documents* with great interest. Did you know that Sir Israel Gollancz, some four weeks before his death {1}, secured a fragment of an Elizabethan play in manuscript? It consisted of a single sheet of paper, about 10" x 6", folded into two leaves. The writing was on both sides, in an Italian script (I believe), & was part of a Dialogue between some Oriental personages in the *Tamburlaine* style. It was not, apparently, part of any known play, but in style seemed to date about 1588–1594. The lines seemed to me to have been prepared as a literary text, except that instead of being written in the usual way, the book had been made to open sideways. If it had been prepared as an actor’s part this would have been a convenient arrangement enabling him to hold the book & turn over with the left hand, leaving the right free for sawing the air. There were, I believe, no cues; nor was the page thumbed in the middle as would be natural in a book much handled. These details are not wholly reliable: I only saw the ms. for a few minutes & a long time ago.Sir Israel may have shown it to you; but he seemed to be keeping it secret at the time. Anyhow, it is worth noting as one more of the collection of Eliz. dramatic documents.Yours very sincerelyG. B. Harrison—————Letter-head of the Shakespeare Association.{1} Gollancz died on 23 June 1930.

*10 Southwood Lane, Highgate Village, London, N.6.*—Suggests that certain names in *Hamlet* have a Danish origin.—————**Transcript***10 Southwood Lane, Highgate Village, London, N.6*16 June 1932.Dear Chambers,Why not the Danish: Valdemar, (Saxo: Waldemarus)?I don’t know whether Belleforest included other tales from Saxo in his Histoires tragiques, but if he did he could hardly have avoided the name Valdemar, by far the most frequent in Saxo.I believe that there is every reason to think that S. purposely added to the local colour, not only by the obvious Rosenkrantz and Gyldenstjerne but by two other names, which have not been recognized as Danish. Several years ago Dr. Perret drew my attention to the name *Yaughan* in the grave-digger scene, which looks suspiciously like an English phonetic transcription of Danish: Johan.—Also *Yorick* must be Danish. Perret suggested Erik, and I think he is right when we bear in mind that the Jutland form of the name is Jerrik, pronounced exactly like Yorick. I consider that far more likely than Jørg(en), which I believe Dowden mentions on the authority of Magnússon {1}.Doesn’t it look as if, of the 6 Danish names in ‘Hamlet’, Shakespeare had got the 2: Rosenkrantz and Gyldenstjerne right from often seeing them written or printed, (of all the Danish ambassadors to the English court in those days every second is sure to have been a Rosenkrantz and every third a Gyldenstjerne); that Voltimand or Valtemand is a scribe’s or printer’s error for Valdemar(us), while in the case of Johan and Erik S. had his knowledge by hearsay from Burbage and the rest who returned from Helsingør in 1585?—Where the H in Hamlet comes from I have never been told. Who was the cockney that could not leave the good Danish name alone? The Frenchman couldn’t possibly have been the culprit.Yours sincerely,J. H. Helweg.—————Typed, except the signature and a few corrections.{1} See Edward Dowden’s edition of *Hamlet* (1899), p. 195, note.

*9005 Woodridge Road, Pinecrest, Alexandria, Virginia.*—Thanks him for two facsimile editions of Shakespeare quartos, and discusses the progress of his work.—————**Transcript***9005 Woodridge Road, Pinecrest, Alexandria, Virginia*24 October 1957Dear Sir Walter,Some weeks ago I received, with the compliments of the Clarendon Press, a copy of the new facsimile of Q1600 *Henry V*; and now Q1598 of *LLL* has also come. As I can only suppose that you are responsible for these kindnesses, please let me thank you most heartily.My work goes forward fairly steadily—yet slowly, because (in part) of new discoveries as to relationships between the Folio and other Jaggard books. (The Folio, for instance, was begun about when Wilson's *Christian Dictionary* was being finished—and so pretty certainly not until 1622. Types manifestly damaged in course of work on the Wilson prelims appear in very early quires of F.) I shall not have my job done by the end of this year, but I hope to have the results written up, if not printed, before too many more months have passed.With thanks and best regards,Sincerely yours,Charlton Hinman

*'As from' 11 Highgate West Hill, London, N.6.*—Thanks him for his comments about the copy for *Pericles* (the first quarto).—————**Transcript**as from 11 Highgate West HillLONDON N.6.May 30, 1957Sir Walter Greg,Tanners Knap,Petworth,Sussex.Dear Dr. Greg,Your kind answer to my enquiry concerning *Pericles* was forwarded to my temporary address in Devon.Your comments and thoughts are helpful. You have strengthened my doubts about the idea of mixed copy, a tempting but very improbable solution of the problem. The suggestion that one may be able to account for those features in the text that look like foul papers by postulating that the reporter made additions and changes in his copy is at least a good hypothesis to work on. If I will not be able to arrive at more definite conclusions after further analysis of the text, such sound thinking is at least a step in the right direction. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.Yours sincerely,F. David Hoeniger.

*23 Birchington Road, West Hampstead, N.W.6.*—Discusses the date and handwriting of Harley MS. 7650 (containing *The Country Captain*, a play by the Duke of Newcastle).—————**Transcript**23, Birchington Rd.,W. Hampstead, N.W.6,5\. iii. 1932.Dear Dr. Greg,Thank you very much for your generous acknowledgements in *Dramatic Documents*. I have been consulting Francis Needham, the Welbeck Librarian, about the hand of Harl. 7650 {1} and the *E.S.* {2} Though unable to identify the writer he tells me that the extra leaf in the Harl. MS. is in the hand of John Rolleston, Newcastle's secretary, and he dates it between ?1638 and 1649. May I ask what your dating of the MS., c. ?1635, is based on? I understand the play was performed about 1639.Yours sincerely,R. G. Howarth.—————{1} Harley MS. 7650 contains the text of *The Country Captain*, a play by the Duke of Newcastle.{2} Perhaps a reference to *The Elizabethan Stage*, by E. K. Chambers.

*The Houghton Library, Harvard University.*—Discusses extant copies of the 1608 quarto of *King Lear*.—————**Transcript***Library of Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, The Houghton Library.*August 25, 1943Dr. W. W. GregStandlandsPetworth, SussexDear Dr. Greg:I am afraid I have been guilty of a bit of carelessness. Since Pforzheimer didn't have the 1608 *King Lear*, I didn't check my census very carefully, but I can account for the figure as follows:Besides the copies listed in the Short Title Catalogue, I had notes that there were three copies in the British Museum. They are recorded in the 1880 catalogue as C.34.k.19; C.12.g.27; and C.34.k.20. [*Added in the margin by Greg:* 'they are [1619]'.] The STC credited Yale with a copy, which apparently they don't have. [*Ticked by Greg.*] I had a note that the Folger Library had two copies, one a large fragment. My description of the Folger copies is as follows:*1608 Pide Bull*Gott—not seen! Butter ed. [*Added by Greg:* '[1619]'.]Fragment—Halliwell rarities 750. C1–L2. 173 x 123. [*Ticked by Greg.*]Green mor. for Halliwell, ca. 1880.(This is a later note)—Quaritch tp. in fac. bt. 1936. 7 x 5 inches. [*Ticked by Greg.*]I also had noted that Quartich† in their Catalogue 436 had a copy, which is now in the Folger and presumably makes a third copy, unless the Gott edition is not there or is a 1619 edition. [*Added by Greg in the margin:* 'as in Bart.']The difficulty is that you must remember that my census was finished in 1936 and in type in 1937, although not published until 1942. Where I would differ from the Bartlett and Pollard *Census* would be with regard to the Gott copy in the Folger and the third British Museum copy, which of course may be sold and might conceivably be one of the copies listed in the *Census*, or the 1619 ed., as well as the Yale copy.With kindest regards,Sincerely yours,Wm. A. JacksonP.S. Of all the known copies, I suppose, in point of condition, the Harvard copy is the finest.—————Typed, except the signature, the postscript, and a number of additions. The square brackets in Greg's additions are in the original.

*University College, London.*—Discusses his review of Greg’s parallel-text edition of *Doctor Faustus* and his ‘conjectural reconstruction’ of the play.—————**Transcript***University College London, Gower Street, W.C.1*June 18. 1951.Dear Sir Walter,It was of course a great honour to me to be given the task of reviewing your *Faustus* books {1}, & it is a still greater one to have a letter from you in which, instead of pouncing on me for my presumption, you seem to take serious notice of my views. I was aware that in venturing to disagree with you I was showing great temerity. But fearlessness in the expression of views honestly come by was one of the things I learnt from you to aim at when I was your M.A. student. I gratefully remember how you encouraged me—& never more than in a long M.A. oral examination—to argue my own views while you patiently corrected some of my fallacies & errors.Thank you very much indeed for *The Rationale of Copy-Text*. Although I was already familiar with the article, it is something that I am delighted to possess. And I wish to say at once how much I welcome in it your firm statement of a principle which must surely command general acceptance. When I first read it it gave me pleasure to find you putting the weight of your authority against the too-mechanical school of editing, & I am saddened to discover how much I now seem to be tarred with their brush. I had not seen this article at the time I wrote my review. (You will know only too well how long these things are in the press.) How substantially I should have altered my review if I had seen the article first I don’t know. I should certainly have wanted to modify the passage about its being “more scientific” to follow the generally more reliable authority: for the phrasing at least makes me seem to be holding the very position your article attacks. I hope, however, you will have observed that I elsewhere use the word “scientific” in praise of your own practice; & I hope my third paragraph on p. 83 may have suggested that I am not really an advocate of mechanical procedures. Indeed, as I have said, I accept the principle which your article would apply “whenever there is more than one substantive text of comparable authority” (p. 29). If I had to defend the criticism I made in the paragraph beginning at the foot of p. 83, I should do so on the ground that the two Faustus texts are, as you have so convincingly shown, not of “comparable authority.” And I should appeal to your principle that the choice of substantive readings should be “determined partly by the opinion the editor may form respecting the nature of the copy from which each substantive edition was printed.” The difference between us, I think, finds a focus in the word *partly*. It is a question of *how much* weight you should allow to your opinion of the general nature of the *Faustus* A & B texts. For my part I wished you had allowed more weight than you did to the fact that your opinion of A in general was a low one.As for the date, this is something that has always troubled me. Every couple of years or so I go over the evidence afresh as I take each new batch of students through their Marlowe & warn them against making their much-loved generalizations about Marlowe’s dramatic (and spiritual) ‘development’ without so much as inquiring into the chronology. For myself I *can* only leave the matter open; & I have always regretted that in his 1932 introduction Dr Boas expressed himself so confidently & then in his book on Marlowe made his acceptance of the 1592 date for *Faustus* integral to the plan of his argument. Students, of course, are only too eager to catch hold of a conclusion without the need of examining the evidence!There is always a tendency for a review to give more emphasis—or at least more space—to those matters on which the reviewer does not fully agree with the author. Up to a point this is no doubt justified; for it is precisely those things which admit of a difference of opinion which it is desirable to have aird. But of course in the present case what I said by way of disagreement over particular details was intended to be read only within the context of my very great admiration for the work as a whole. I am glad to find from your letter that I do seem to have made this context of general admiration clear, & I am grateful to you for having read my review so justly. Indeed I am flattered that you should have read it with such care. That alone repays me for the pains I took over it.Yours very sincerely,Harold Jenkins.—————{1} Jenkins’s review of Greg’s parallel-text edition and conjectural reconstruction of Marlowe’s *Doctor Faustus*, in the *Modern Language Review*, vol. 46 (1950), pp. 82-6.

*Department of English, University College, London.*—Comments on his review of Greg's edition of Jonson's *Masque of Gipsies*.

*Bospowes, Hayle, Cornwall.*—Discusses the relationship between English miracle plays and Cornish drama.—————**Transcript***Bospowes, Hayle, Cornwall*Martinmas, 1922.Dear Sir,Very many thanks. It seems evident that though casual allusions to the rood-legend are to be found in the English miracle plays, they do not make it their groundwork or tell it in full, as the Cornish plays do.The expression “þe Kyngis tree” in the York play is interesting. Of course the “Kyng” may be Christ and the allusion may be to Psalm. XCV. 10, which in the Old Latin, Ambrosian & Mozarabic Psalters reads: “Dicite in gentibus (or nationibus) quia Dominus regnavit (Moz. regnabit) *a ligno*”. St Jerome cut out *a ligno*, but it got into the well known hymn of Venantius Fortunatus, “Vexilla Regis prodeunt”. But in the Cornish “Origo Mundi”, King David has the three trees, which had grown up from the three rods which Moses planted on Mount Tabor, which had been cut from the trees which grew from the three pips given to Seth by the angel, transplanted to Jerusalem, and adorned the one tree into into which they grew with a garland of silver. So the “Kyng” may be David.Your quotation from the Chester Descent into Hell about the Oil of Mercy is Gospel of Nicodemus XIV. 3–5 done into almost literal English verse. I dare say it will be found that the whole of the play is versified Nicodemus, for that is the source of the details of the Harrowing of Hell story, though its foundation is no doubt 1 Pet. III. 18, 19 and the “descendit ad inferos” of the baptismal formula of the local Roman Church, which we commonly call “The Apostles’ Creed”.What I was trying to get at was whether any of the English plays could be said to be the originals of the Cornish.[At this point hooters & things went off to announce the eleven o’clock commemoration of St Armistice, who has temporarily deposed St Martin. To resume:] {1}I think from what you say that it is evident that no such plays exist. But all existing English scriptural plays are Northern or North-East Midland[.] There are none from the South and South-West, none from Exeter, Bristol or even London, as far as I know. If the Cornish 15th century dramatists copied from anything English, it would be from their more immediate neighbours, but as I suggested to Pollard, there might be a French original, or possibly a Breton. The metre of the Cornish plays is a common medieval Latin one. Lines of seven syllables, rhyming in various orders, AABAAB, AAABAAAB, ABABAB &c. or AABCCB &c &c. with sometimes four-syllabled lines alternating with seven-syllabled couplets or triplets, and sometimes whole passages of four-syllabled lines, rhyming variously. The normal metre is that of the Pentecost Sequence “Veni, Sancte Spiritus”. Syllables are carefully counted and there is hardly a faulty line out of the 8734 of the 15th century trilogy. Judging from the specimens given in Pollard’s book {3], the English plays are less monotonously regular, and do not seem to use that metre in any of its forms as a regular thing. The later Cornish plays (St Meriasek, 1504, and the Creation play of 1611) aim at using the same metre, but the St Meriasek is much more varied in its order of rhymes and the Creation much less accurate in counting its syllables. But both aim at lines of seven or occasionally four syllables, and the rhymes are never of two syllables. I think the influence of Latin rhyming verse is evident in the Cornish, but not much in the English plays. But I think the Cornish may well be original compositions founded on legends common to all Christendom, as well as on the Bible. The St Meriasek, which is really three plays, the Life of St Meriadoc, Bishop of Vannes, the Legend of Constantine of Sylvester, and the rather unedifying episode of the Filius Mulieris from the Miracles of Our Lady, is quite original unless part of the first is from a Breton play. The second & third are taken direct as to story from the Legenda Aurea, and passages of the original Latin are quoted in the stage directions.With renewed thanksYours sincerelyHenry Jenner.There is no alliteration in Cornish mediæval verse, nor any indication [of] the Welsh “cynghanedd” (correspondence of consonants). Nor is there in Breton. Modern Breton verse copies French & I suppose Cornish merely copied Latin.Do you know anything about French miracle plays? And their verse?—————{1} The square brackets at the beginning and end of this paragraph are in the original.{2} *English Miracles Plays, Moralities, and Interludes*, edited by A. W. Pollard, 1927.

*The British Academy.*—Refers to the provision of photographic copies to meet the needs of destroyed libraries in Europe, and asks Greg to write a memoir of A. W. Pollard.—————**Transcript***The British Academy, Burlington Gardens, W.1*May 4th, 1944.My dear Greg,Thanks for Sisam’s letter and the copy of Simon’s. If there is time to raise the matter on the 17th, I will do so; if not, I think we can take it up without referring to the Council. It is all the more necessary in view of the movement to meet the needs of destroyed libraries in Europe by the multiplication of photographic copies and micro-films.At the Council on the 17th we shall have to provide for the memoir of Pollard. I hope you will be willing to undertake it. Any details that might be required with regard to the Museum service could be easily supplied.Yours sincerely,F. G. Kenyon.

*Three Ways, Edenbridge, Kent.*—Refers to accounts of the battle of Alcazar.—————**Transcript**“Three Ways”,Edenbridge,Kent.February 3/1930.Dear Dr. Greg,It was my intention that you should keep the photograph of Peele’s signature.In your Alcazar and Orlando, p. 7[,] you refer to a ballad in the Roxburghe Collection on the battle of Alcazar. I have been unable to find this. Could you give me the reference?Do you know Les Sources Inédites du Maroc de 1530 à 1845 (1905, etc.) by Le Comte Henry de Castries? There is a mass of material here about the battle.Yours sincerely,T. Larsen.

*Three Ways, Edenbridge, Kent.*—Continues his discussion of accounts of the battle of Alcazar, and suggests that some of his research might be embodied in a bibliography.—————**Transcript**“Three Ways”, | Edenbridge, | Kent.February 11, 1930.Dear Dr. Greg:Thank you very much for your letter. The Stucley ballad, of course, I know. There are seven copies of this in the British Museum, two in the Bodleian, and four elsewhere. The impression I got from your statement, however, was that there was also a ballad dealing with the battle itself.I have not yet had time to go through the Castries material; and so cannot say whether this will throw any light on Peele’s obscure names. One of them “Celybin,” I think he must have adapted from Marlowe’s “Celebinus” (*2 Tamb.*)[.] The others I cannot trace.Castries, however, has discovered the original of the Histoire veritable. This is a manuscript account of the battle, written in by one Luis Nieto, a preaching friar, who accompanied Sebastian’s army. The manuscript, which is now in the National Library at Madrid, was not printed until 1891; and accordingly it is not possible that Peele could have known it.In the course of my researches I have had occasion to go through the play-lists, biographical dictionaries, and so on of the 17th, and 18th, Centuries; and it has occurred to me that a bibliography of this material might be useful to other investigators. Do you think this would be worth doing? I know your own work, of course; perhaps you have in mind the completion of such a bibliography yourself.I am told that you are preparing a full census of the Elizabethan plays. In this connexion, would my census of the Peele plays be of any use to you? If so, I should very glad to send you a copy when I complete the final bibliography for my edition.Yours sincerely,T. Larsen

*Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford.*—Sends birthday greetings and praises Greg's *Editorial Problem in Shakespeare*.

*Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford.*—Sends a list and praises Greg's *Variants in the First Quarto of ‘King Lear’*.

*108 Lexham Gardens, Kensington, W.*—Is puzzled that there is no reference in the new Capell Catalogue to John Soowthern’s *Pandora*.—————**Transcript***108 Lexham Gardens, Kensington, W.*Feb. 2. 1904.Since I first wrote to you I am rather puzzled by my inability to find in the Capell Catalogue any reference to John Soowthern’s *Pandora*—the Musique of the Beautie of his Mistresse Diana, 1584, of which a perfect copy is at Britwell, and copies without the title page—the only others apparently known—are, it is usually stated, at the Brit. Mus. and in the Capell collection. Ritson, according to Heber’s Catalogue, described the Capell copy. Heber also speaks of the copy, and so does Corser. It is rather puzzling to find no trace of it in the new catalogue. I know the Museum imperfect copy, which once belonged to Steevens.I believe there is only one other copy known of Thomas Watson’s “Ould facioned loue &c.” I recently examined it in Sion College Library.Sidney Lee.[*Direction:*] Dr Aldis Wright, | Trinity College, | Cambridge.—————Postmarked at Kensington, W., at 8.30 p.m. on 2 February 1904.

*Office of the President, Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, New York.*—Asks permission to reprint Greg’s text of Jonson’s *Sad Shepherd* alongside the late Alan Porter’s completion of the poem.

*Office of the President, Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, New York.*—Thanks him for permission to reprint the text of his edition of Jonson’s *Sad Shepherd*.

*30 Manchester Street, Manchester Square, W.*—Accepts a dinner invitation and praises her son’s article in *The Library*.—————**Transcript***30 Manchester Street, Manchester Square, W.*6 May ’08Dear Mrs Greg,I am very glad to be able to accept your kind invitation to dine with you on Saturday next {1}.Everyone is delighted with Walter’s article in the ‘Library’, really a most brilliant piece of work and one that must give him a permanent position among the foremost of Shakespearian scholars. I think Trinity should be proud of their Librarian.Thanking you for the invitation.Yours very sincerely,Ronald B. McKerrow—————Greg has written at the head in pencil: ‘False dates in Sh. Quartos | ‘Library’ April 1908’.{1} 9th.

*Office of the Director, Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington.*—Discusses the proofs of Greg’s *Variants in the First Quarto of ‘King Lear’*.—————**Transcript***The Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington**Office of the Director*December 6, 1939Dear Dr. Greg:My heart leapt up when I beheld your handwriting on a parcel of proofs, for I hoped that you had resumed work on the Bibliography. We have speculated more than once on the fate of the bibliography, now that rare books are stored in places of safety. If there is probability that they will remain long in storage, could you transfer your notes to America and continue your work here?Although I must confess to having had a momentary feeling of disappointment, I am almost overwhelmed with admiration for the ingenuity and cogency of your explanation of the phenomena of the Pide Bull Lear. Except for the tabulations, I have read the proofs with the keenest pleasure. There has been no time for reflection, but I doubt if it is possible to adduce any evidence that might lead me to reject your conclusions.Meanwhile, however, perhaps I can send you one or two bits of information in time for you to use them. In the supplementary volume issued in 1871 to conclude the series of Ashbee facsimiles (*A Collection of Lithograpic Facsimiles of the Early Quarto Editions of the Separate Works of Shakespeare: . . . in forty-eight volumes*), Halliwell-Phillips writes as follows (Preface, pp. 6–7):". . . Different copies also vary considerably in {1} the sharpness or illegibility of the impressions; while few accidents are more common than the dropping of letters and points out of the formes, or the erroneous reversals of letters. In all these minute circumstances, different copies of the same edition will show numerous variations."The above remarks apply, of course, only to minute points, in which the difficulties are to be ascribed solely to the carelessness of the early printers. A far wider and more important series of questions arises from the singular circumstance that it was the custom of all the printers of these dramas to keep the texts in formes, printing a few copies at a time, and perpetually altering and correcting the text as each impression was required. In consequence of this practice, there are few copies, even of the same editions, which do not exhibit various readings. In one instance, that of the Pyde Bull edition of King Lear, 1608, no two copies have yet been found which agree with each other. {2} Our facsimile of course, therefore, cannot pretend to include every reading, a feat which could only be accomplished by giving facsimiles of all the twelve known copies; and an attempt to carry out such a design would have been impracticable with the means at our disposal, nor would the result be commensurate with the vast expense." {3}The facsimile itself, Number Fourteen of the surviving 31 copies as attested on a fly leaf by Ashbee and Halliwell-Phillips, is dated 1868 and has no prefatory matter whatever. {4} In volume 14 of H.-P.’s edition of Shakespeare, I find the following passage: {5} “It has been generally stated that there were three distinct impressions of the date of 1608, but a careful examination of every available copy has convinced me that this is not the case. It has, however, elicited the singular fact that while all the copies of the second impression of 1608 exactly correspond, {6} no two copies of the first [i.e. Pide Bull] have yet been found which contain precisely the same text, alt-hough evidently printed from one set of forms. It appears that the forms used for the first impression were kept standing, and that alterations were made upon the printing of each small issue of copies.” (p. 363). [This vol. is dated 1865 {7}.] {8}I am sending this by air mail to save time, with due propitiatory offerings to Mercury, Zephy-rus and what other deities may be interested in its swift delivery.The proofs shall go at once to Bowers, who is at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.Sincerely yours,James G. McManawayP.S. At the time I checked the running titles, I gave little thought to the number of presses used by Okes and hope that I didn’t actually commit myself on paper.Please excuse the messy appearance of this letter—it was typed post haste, and there was no time for re-copying.Dr. W. W. GregJollycot71 Pagham BeachBognor, SussexEngland—————Typed, except the signature, the second paragraph of the postscript, and a few corrections. Greg’s additions are all handwritten. The square brackets are all in the original.{1} Followed by two vertical lines and ‘begin page 7 here’, in pencil.{2} There is a pencil line in the margin by this sentence and the first part of the next.{3} The double inverted commas in this paragraph and the preceding one have been supplied.{4} There is a pencil asterisk in the margin, probably referring to this sentence.{5} The beginning of the quotation has been marked with a horizontal line in the margin, in pencil.{6} These two words have been underlined by Greg and marked ‘not q. true’ in the margin, in pencil.{7} Date underlined in pencil and marked with a cross in the margin.{8} The information in this paragraph was incorporated in the ‘postscript’ to Greg’s *Variants* (p. 190).

*(Folger Shakespeare Library?)*—Has been reading the proofs (of Greg’s *Bibliography of the English Drama*?) and enumerating STC books in the Folger.

*(Folger Shakespeare Library?)*—Thanks him for a note of a variant reading in *The Merchant of Venice*. Is puzzled by some thing in the first quarto of *Pericles*.(Undated. Postmarked 24 May 1957.)

*Exeter College, Oxford.*—Asks what copy of the First Folio Greg used in writing his *Variants in the First Folio of ‘King Lear’*.

*Exeter College, Oxford.*—Discusses variants in the texts of *King Lear*.

*Flat 1, Milford House, 117 Hurst Street, Birmingham.*—The terms ‘book’ and ‘plot’ are still used in technical senses in the theatre.—————**Transcript***Flat 1, Milford House, 117 Hurst Street, Birmingham*19\. 3. 32.Dear Sir,*“Dramatic Documents from the Elizabethan Playhouses”.*On page 193 you say “Exactly how late the use of Book as a technical term survived is not very clear.” It occurs to me that you may be interested to know the† it is still used among actors. It is not written; the prompt copy is no longer headed “The Book of The Farmer’s Wife”, but it is nearly always referred to in the theatre as “the Book”. A nervous actor, uncertain of his part, will enquire anxiously “Who’s on the Book to-night?” And a stage manager will instruct his assistant to take over the control of the stage by telling him to “hold the Book”. Is it possible that the expression “To hold the book” is a survival of the old term “book-holder”? In the “Short Glossary of Theatrical Terms” compiled by my friend W. G. Fay {1}, one finds—“Hold the Book”.—Is to take the prompt copy of the play and prompt the actors.”The “Plot” is also in everyday use in the theatre, though it has changed somewhat from its Elizabethan ancestor. Every play has its “Scene plot”, “Property plot” and “Lighting plot”. The two latter are not so very different in appearance from the old ones. The sheet is divided into scenes, and, in the one case the moveable properties, in the other case the lighting, are given, in order, for each scene. The scene plot is generally a ground plan of each “set”.I feel that I am presumptuous in offering information to so exact a scholar as you, but there are many stage terms that are little known, I think, outside the theatre, and some of them may have been in use as far back as the period in which you are particularly interested.With grateful thanks for the enjoyment and information I have derived from your books.Yours very truely†,Bache MatthewsDr. W. W. Greg,Park Lodge,Wimbledon Park,S.W.19.—————{1} Full stop supplied in place of a comma after ‘W’.† Sic.

*Department of English, University of Durham: King’s College, Newcastle upon Tyne.*—Draws attention to an apparent error in *The Shakespeare First Folio*.—————**Transcript***University of Durham, Department of English**King’s College, Newcastle upon Tyne, 1*3.8.55.Dear Sir Walter,In working on *Timon*, I’ve noticed a curious slip in your *F.F.*, p. 411, n. 2. ‘Flavius’ has the authority of text and prefixes in I.ii. Unless you are meaning to express doubt whether this really is the ‘Steward’ of later scenes—but surely I.ii.154 ff. leaves no doubt about it. At II.ii.194, by the way, I doubt whether Sh. actually wrote ‘Flaminius’—‘Flavius’ scans better—tho’ it’s what the rest of the scene demands.Yours sincerely,J. C. Maxwell

*University of Durham: King’s College, Newcastle upon Tyne.*—Comments on the text of Jonson’s *Masque of Gipsies*.

*National Library of Scotland, Edinburgh.*—Thanks him for a copy of the list of his writings.

*Trinity College, Cambridge.*—Thanks him, on the College's behalf, for a copy of his *Bibliographical and Textual Problems of the English Miracle Cycles*.

*32 George Street, Hanover Square, W.*—Is glad the reprints are satisfactory.

*Senior Common Room, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth.*—Challenges certain theories relating to quarto editions of *Hamlet* and *King Lear*.—————**Transcript***Senior Common Room, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth*29. I. 48.Dear Dr Greg.May I trespass on your time once more with one or two *Hamlet* queries?On p 64 of your *Editorial Problem* you state that “no part of the ‘good’ quarto was set up from the ‘bad’.” I don’t quite see how you arrive at this conclusion. Dover Wilson, I note, has allowed that the Q2 printer was occasionally compelled to refer to Q1 & points to identical spellings as evidence. My own somewhat cursory comparison of the Qs leads me to the conclusion that the Q2 editor {1} was dependent on Q1 for spellings, punctuation & capitalization. Only occasionally, of course. I don’t set very much store by the punctuation, but identical specimens of capitalization [e.g. Porpentine, Serpent, (noble) Youth, Crowne, Orchard, Hebona(?), Gloworme, Mole, Pioner, Anticke (disposition), in I. 5: Rat, Ducket in III. 4: Mason, Shypwright, Carpenter, Doomesday, Doue, Cat, Dogge, in V. i.], {2} together with the spellings, seem to establish some bibliographical link between the two Qs. I suspect that Q2’s ‘Videlizet’ arose from Q1 ‘viz.’ & that its absurd S.D. ‘Enter old Polonius with his man or two’ is the printer’s attempt to make sense out of ‘Montano’, since that name would doubtless convey nothing to him.I am led, consequently, to surmise that the Q2 printer did use Q1 to a greater extent than Wilson allows. It might, I suppose, be argued that both Qs were set up by the same compositor & that he had his own set notions about spelling, punctuation & use of capitals, but this seems, on the face of things, unlikely. I suspect that the compositor used Q1 & the MS. more or less simultaneously, relying exclusively on the MS. when he found Q1 manifestly corrupt. Q1 would thus be what I would term a pervasive influence.If I am right, it would seem that an editor cannot be sure about the authority of Q2; that, as with Q & F of *King Lear*, when the two Qs agree they are less trustworthy than when they differ. The ‘solid flesh’ crux seems a pertinent example. The printer was using Q1 for this scene & reproduced its spellings: loose (for lose), obay, pre thee, tronchions, gelly etc. The MS. afforded him sollidd flesh {3} which he simply took as confirmation of Q1. ‘sallied’, probably because he did not distinguish between *e* & *d*. Clearly F. carries authority here.I hope shortly to send Francis a paper on the *Hamlet* Q1 pirate. I have accepted H. D. Gray’s identification of Marcellus as the pirate & have been able considerably to expand his suggestion that the same actor played Lucianus. The implication is that the pirate was present not only in the Dumb show & the inner play, but also in those scenes in which Hamlet speaks with the players. Hence, at certain fairly well defined points. Q1. may have authority over Q2 & F. This it certainly appears to have in Lucianus’s speech & in the few lines immediately preceding it. {4}One further query concerning stenographic reporting of *King Lear*. I am not quite clear whether you & other supporters of this hypothesis presuppose that the pirate produced his text from a single performance. Some such notion seems to lie behind Kirschbaum’s denunciation of the theory—my own impression is that a competent stenographer would have to witness at least two performances before he could produce such a text as the *Lear* Quarto of 1608. The point that Matthews, Kirschbaum & the rest seem not to have realised is that the pirate could have taken the whole play down in longhand if he had had the opportunity & the patience to attend a sufficient number of performances.I should be interested to hear whether your edition of *Dr Faustus* is due for early publication. I look forward to it as a potential solvent of many problems.Yours sincerely.James M. Nosworthy—————Marked ‘p. 64’ at the head in pencil (cf. the beginning of the second paragraph).{1} Greg has underlined this word and put a question-mark in the margin.{2} The square brackets are in the original.{3} 'sollidd flesh' is preceded by a superior ‘x’, perhaps to indicate that this is a conjectural MS. reading.{4} Greg has marked this sentence with a vertical line in the margin.

*Senior Common Room, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth.*—Discusses the text of *3 Henry VI*, the latest Malone Society publications, and Coleridge’s reading of *Doctor Faustus*.

*Senior Common Room, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth.*—Comments on statements in *The Shakespeare First Folio* relating to *Macbeth* and *Troilus and Cressida*.—————**Transcript***Senior Common Room, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth*16\. XI. 55.Dear Sir Walter.I have been looking at your latest pronouncements on *Macbeth* & *Troilus* as I am working on the texts of these two plays. I hope that the ensuing comments will seem interesting rather than impertinent.*Troilus*p 339. “your (read that) braine”. Do you imply a misprint? I take “your” to be the common colloquial usagep 340. The ‘Epistle’ doesn’t ring true to me. I have just completed a paper putting forward the novel, if hazardous, view that it was probably vamped up from a special Prologue used at the Inn of Court performance (as a substitute for the regular Prologue). The legal jokes seem well-fitted to such an occasion, but they seem (to me) incredible in an ‘epistle’ of 1609.p 348. The notion that “the grand possessors” = the King’s Men may be a red-herring. It’s another legal joke, & “possessors” in law signifies persons other than the owners. ‘scape’ in the preceding sentence is also a legal joke. See “possessor” & “escape” in O.E.D. It rather looks as if “the grand possessors” are to be identified with the earlier “grand censors”.p 350. My examination (as yet incomplete) fully endorses Alice Walker’s view that the transcript was not Shakespeare’s. It was evidently made by someone (whom I’d tentatively identify with the author of the Epistle—or “Prologue”) who was an amateur of rhetoric. And I’m afraid that where variants occur, it is the Folio which is normally correct. When he found Shakespeare’s rhetorical figures objectionable or unintelligible, he simply omitted them. The test case is probably “the abiect neere’ which the Folio despite emendators) gives correctly.*Macbeth*p 389. Metrical irregularities are frequent & distressing—but it was a habit of Compositor B to produce unmetrical lines. I’m not so sure about these as evidence of cutting.p 391 (esp. note 10.) Several musical copies of the songs were made & must have been preserved in the theatre. There was no need for the words of the songs to be added to the prompt-book, & the Folio S.D. show the book-keeper doing all that was really necessary from his point of view. One MS of Robert Johnson’s setting of ‘Come away, come away’ was used by Stafford Smith & Rimbault & another survives, I believe, in the Folger. His setting of ‘In a maiden time profest’ (from *The Witch*) survives in the hand of John Wilson in the Bodleian. The two Witch Dances, assuming that these were the ones also used in *The Masque of Queens*, are in B.M. Add MS. 10,444 (an important & sadly neglected collection of masque tunes). I have not been able to trace a setting of “Black spirits & white”. Incidentally this musci served as the tap-root for the *Macbeth* music attributed to Matthew Locke.p 391. I agree that Hecate is not Middleton. She is, in fact, Shakespeare. The echoes from *Titus Andronicus* & *The Merry Wives* are unmistakable. No imitator is likely to have sought these out—especially from such sources. The passages are, of course, interpolations necessitated by the introduction of the songs.p 391 (note 13.) The Sergeant = Pyrrhus analogy is mine rather than Wilson’s, though many of the points in my *R.E.S.* note were anticipated by Coleridge.p 395. I think the ‘copy’ was probably a transcript of the prompt-book, though I’m not sure that Wilson’s reasons for this belief will stand the test. It certainly seems that we are concerned with a MS., the work of someone who was addicted to ‘ey’ spellings—hence *weyward*/*weyard*, *Seyton*, *Seyward* (which are *not* compositors’ spellings). He also used tildes fairly often, I think—hence “Can post with post” for “Came etc”, & elsewhere ‘then’ for ‘them’.{1} I wonder whether it is possible to identify him on the grounds of these two habits?p 396 (note A). Doesn’t Weird Sisters imply that they were ministers of Fate? ‘Weird’ is a noun, isn’t it? I thought it was Scott who first used the word adjectivally. The three ladies are an unmitigated nuisance anyway. They “three virgins wondrous faire” in Heywood’s *Hierarchie*. I sometimes wonder whether Shakespeare really knew what to make of them.Please forgive this hideous smear which has just happened.{2}Yours sincerelyJ. M. Nosworthy—————{1} Full stop supplied. The preceding word is at the end of a line.{2} There are a few ink-blots below.

*Cwm Cottage, Aberystwyth.*—Asks for Greg’s help in connection with his work on the text of *Macbeth*.—————**Transcript**Cwm Cottage, Aberystwyth.October 2nd.Dear Sir Walter,My study of *Macbeth* is proceeding apace, but I am getting into rather deep waters textually, and wonder whether you can help.I am now clear that the 1612(?) revision, including the Hecate material, was made by Shakespeare. This, if correct, means that the copy for the Folio was something in which only the author and the book-keeper were concerned, and eliminates Middleton or any other third party. It was, I think, somewhat untidy copy, and certain irregularities, especially in I. ii and IV. i., suggest that it was the prompt-book itself, and not a transcript. On general grounds I am tempted to conclude that it was Shakespeare’s fair copy, marked by the book-keeper, and used as a prompt-book, but I am short of positive evidence. Author-spellings are mainly confined to proper names, though ‘Apparation’ (as in *Cymbeline*) is suggestive.The point, then, is this:—if the third party is eliminated, does this in any way affect the conclusions which you have reached in *The Shakespeare First Folio*?I shall ask you to take my Hecate conclusions on trust. The evidence is extraordinarily intricate and would only carry conviction if set out at inordinate length. But I feel that if you can suspend disbelief for the moment, you will certainly be able to throw some light on my textual darkness.Yours sincerely,J. M. Nosworthy—————Typed, except the signature and a correction. The printed address, ‘Coleg Prifysgol Cymru, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth’, has been struck through.

*Carl H. Pforzheimer Library, Hidden Brook Farm, Purchase, New York.*—Returns Greg’s memo (not present), annotated with the requested readings from the Pforzheimer copy of *Respublica*.

*The Athenaeum, Pall Mall, S.W.1.*—Discusses the performance history of *The True Tragedy of Richard Duke of York*.

*Bel Respiro, Alassio (Italy).*—Reflects on the manner in which manuscripts of *The Canterbury Tales* were produced.

*40 Murray Road, Wimbledon, S.W.*—Sends fiftieth birthday greetings. Suggests giving Gwendolen Murphy an honorarium.(Letter-head of the Bibliographical Society. Dated Tuesday.)

*Chesneye, King’s Road, Lee-on-Solent.*—Praises his *Editorial Problem in Shakespeare* and refers to her work for the Fleet Air Arm.—————**Transcript**Chesneye, King’s Road, Lee-on-Solent.27.12.42.My dear Walter,I have had it in mind this long time to write to you, first to thank you for your “Editorial Problem”, & second to tell you my whereabouts. But I am an incorrigibly bad correspondent, & then too, I wanted to finish reading your book, which I haven’t done yet! That is no reflection on it, which I find wholly admirable. And it was, in my opinion, very badly needed. Mr McKerrow’s “Prolegomena”, while fine in many ways, was capable of leading the young sadly astray.And now I have to thank you equally sincerely but in a very different plane for the little book about Scotland. The pictures are enchanting, & it is good to be remembered by old friends. I know the adage about a gift-horse, so I will refrain from comment on the text!I finally got back to work at the end of October, and after a peripatetic month, I settled down here to do drafting for the specialized locals at R.N. Air Stations all over the country. It is an interesting job, for the Fleet Air Arm is developing at a great rate, & so far a light one. My health is positively rude & I am living a very easy life.Unfortunately Lee is very inaccessible. The ferry from Portsmouth to Gosport & then an infrequent & crowded bus is the best transport; otherwise you have to pay 7/6 for a taxi to Fareham, where you get only a slow train. Nevertheless, I hope to get to River when the days grow longer.Please give Betty my love, & this brings all of you warmest good wishes for 1943, a year which really ought to bring us appreciably nearer peace.As ever affectionately,Eleanore

*Whitehouse Green, Sulhamstead, Berks.*—Asks for advice in selling some books.

*Milton Court Hotel, London, S.W.7.*—Thanks him for a book (his edition of *The Masque of Gipsies*). Discusses her health and the new Queen.

*35 Charlwood Road, Putney, S.W.15.*—Urges him not to feel bad about the mistake in the facsimile edition of *The Merchant of Venice*.

*24 Newland Street, Witham, Essex.*—Thanks him for a copy of Doctor Faustus (either Greg’s parallel-text edition or his reconstruction of the play), and reflects on the ways in which a dramatist’s words may be altered by actors and others.

*19 Wilton Crescent, Wimbledon, S.W.19.*—Agrees with his view of the resemblances between *King Leir* and *Hamlet*.

*National Library of Wales, Aberystwyth.*—Thanks him for his letter about Holinshed.

*(Huntington Library, California.)*—Gives details of a manuscript (Jonson’s *Gypsies Metamorphosed*) in the Library.

*61 Old Road, Headington, Oxford.*—Praises Greg’s edition of Jonson’s *Masque of Gipsies*, which he has used in preparing a reissue of his own edition of Jonson.

*61 Old Road, Headington, Oxford.*—Praises Greg’s edition of Jonson’s *Masque of Gipsies*.

*The Clarendon Press, Oxford.*—Asks for a copy of Greg's *Facsimiles*, and refers to facsimile series under consideration.

*The Clarendon Press, Oxford.*—Is glad he likes the book (*Dramatic Documents from the Elizabethan Playhouses*).

*The Clarendon Press, Oxford.*—Apologises for a slip in the printing of *Dramatic Documents*.

*The Clarendon Press, Oxford.*—Maas was pleased with Greg’s comments on McKerrow’s *Prolegomena* and suggests he read Housman’s *Manilius*.—————**Transcript***The Clarendon Press, Oxford*11 November, 1940.*Please quote* 4641/K.S.My dear Greg,Maas, who is very keen on the theory of textual criticism, was greatly pleased with your comments on McKerrow’s *Prolegomena*, and will later on offer some comments on the points at issue. He asked whether you had Housman’s *Manilius* Vol. I because sections IV and V challenge the sacredness of the copytext. This caused me to read Housman’s Introduction, which I began with great pleasure in his wit and brilliance, but ended with distaste because of his ill-concealed malevolence, which is not often found in great scholars.Yours sincerely,Kenneth SisamDr. W. W. Greg.—————Typed, except the signature and a comma.{1} Paul Maas, the German classical scholar and Byzantinist, was the author of an influential work on textual criticism first published in German as *Textkritik* (Taubner: Leipzig and Berlin, 1927), when it formed Part VII of Gercke-Norden’s *Einleitung in die Altertumswissenschaft*, Vol. I. An English translation by Barbara Flower was published in 1958 under the title *Textual Criticism*. When Maas fled Nazi Germany in 1939 Sisam arranged for a post to be created for him at the Clarendon Press. He was briefly interned on the Isle of Man in the summer of 1940 (*ODNB*), but evidently returned to the OUP shortly afterwards.

*The Clarendon Press, Oxford.*—Is sending a copy of Housman’s *Manilius*, Vol. I.—————**Transcript***The Clarendon Press, Oxford*15th June, 1942.*Please quote* 4641/K.S.Dear Greg,Thank you for your letter and card of 12th and 13th June. I am sending you a copy of Housman’s *Manilius*, volume I. Whenever I take up this Introduction, I get great pleasure from reading a few pages, and then his vanity and bad manners gradually overcome my admiration for his gifts and wit. Besides, not all of it is up to the highest standards: he heaps together errors from all kinds of MSS. and periods, without analysis and without a warning that one is not entitled, for each MS., to assume that it has passed through all the conditions that have affected other MSS.I hope my belated letter reassured you. Your proofs arrived safely, and, in fact, were formally acknowledged on 27th May and 1st June. The posts in these days are still uncertain.Yours sincerely,Kenneth SisamDr. W. W. Greg,Standlands, River, Petworth.—————Typed, except the signature.

*The Clarendon Press, Oxford.*—Praises Greg’s *Editorial Problem in Shakespeare*.—————**Transcript***The Clarendon Press, Oxford*19th October, 1942.*Please quote* 4729/K.S.My dear Greg,Our Publicity man being away, I signed on Saturday a formal letter to you about your advance copy, but I should like to say how pleased we are to produce a book of this serene and permanent kind in war-time when so much that is written is written for the moment. It is a splendid performance, and I hope you will not find that we have done our part badly in war-time. The binding cloth has lost some of the depth of colour which I used to like, but it is the best of its kind we can get nowadays when matching isn’t easy.I hope you will still find more books to write. A great age of Shakespeare scholarship is coming to an end, and we ought to have its record.Yours sincerely,Kenneth SisamDr. W. W. Greg,Standlands, River, Petworth.—————Typed, except the signature.

*(The Clarendon Press, Oxford?)*—Refers to the date of Greg’s edition of *The Assumption of the Virgin*.(Conclusion only.)—————**Transcript**The case of *The Assumption of the Virgin* is an odd one. The title page has the date 1915, but in fact it was published in January 1916, and our catalogues have kept the later date against the title page. Such are the woes of bibliographers!Yours sincerely,Kenneth Sisam—————Typed, except the signature. The top part of the sheet has been torn neatly away.

*86 Banbury Road, Oxford.*—Discusses Greg’s 'new vampt' edition of *The Old Wife’s Tale*.

*Yondercott, Budleigh Salterton, South Devon.*—Cites readings from a copy of Nahum Tate’s *King Lear*.

*20 Merton Street, Oxford.*—Praises Greg’s ‘McKerrow’s *Prolegomena* Reconsidered’.—————**Transcript**20 *Merton* Street, *Oxford* {1}29 June ’41Dear Greg,*McKerrow’s ‘Prolegomena’ Reconsidered* is admirable. The time had come for some one in authority to speak of the abdication of the editorial function and to point out that the reaction against eclectic methods may be carried too far. The editors who ‘seek refuge’ (excellent!) in the rigour of a mechanical rule are no better than printer’s readers,—indeed they only try to do what a printer’s reader can usually do better. It is particularly fortunate that this warning should have been uttered by you. The ‘Prolegomena’ called for it. The trouble about that book to my mind is that it is in the main a summing up of what has been going on for some time, with insufficient recognition of what more has to be done and in what directions advances can be made.Yours everD. Nichol Smith.—————{1} The first line of the printed address has been altered by hand from ‘Merton College' to ‘20 Merton Street’.

*20 Merton Street, Oxford.*—Is honoured that Greg has dedicated his book (*The Editorial Problem in Shakespeare*) to him.

*Altan, Glandrommond, near Annalong, Co. Down.*—Praises the published version of Greg’s Lyell Lectures (*Some Aspects and Problems of London Publishing*).

*31 Endcliffe Rise Road, Sheffield.*—Discusses Greg’s account of John Phillip.

*17 Sherlock Road, Cambridge.*—Thanks him for a copy of *The Editorial Problem in Shakespeare*.

*The Master’s Lodge, Trinity College, Cambridge.*—Praises Greg’s *Editorial Problem in Shakespeare* and refers to his friendship with McKerrow.

*5 Selwyn Gardens, Cambridge.*—Thanks him for a copy of his *Pastoral Poetry and Pastoral Drama*.—————**Transcript***5 Selwyn Gardens, Cambridge*June 15—1906My dear Greg,Never was any one more terribly in arrear that I am with my acknowledgement and thanks for your very kind gift of the ‘Pastoral Poetry and Pastoral Drama’. In a moment of weakness I thought I would write when I had read it through, and having begun upon it instantly, I expected to reach this consummation in a short time. But the necessity of preparing for term, lectures, etc made me lay it aside, and then came term itself, and the result is that my ‘short time’ is now nearly 3 months! Well, I hope you will believe nevertheless that I have greatly admired your learning, and shall go over the ground again, now that vacation has at last arrived—this very day I was released from College work—with increased profit, I am sure. Many of your little problems are quite out of my range of criticism, but I can appreciate the general discussion, and the subject is curiously interesting. I have to thank you also for your kind reference to my ‘Four Essays’.—I am quite alone at present, Mrs Verrall and my daughter having gone to Switzerland for a month or so. You probably know that I have become and continue to be very lame. But luckily I am able to carry on my work. Are you likely to be visiting Cambridge any time this summer? Until August my engagements are such that I can hardly count on being here at any given time. But in early August we shall certainly be settled for a time. Perhaps you could run down for a night.Yours very trulyA W Verrall

*Leddon Cottage, Welcombe, Bideford, Devon.*—Discusses the implications for the Oxford Shakespeare of the work of Bowers and his students.—————**Transcript**Leddon Cottage, Welcombe, Bideford, Devon.17 June 1951Dear Sir Walter,Thank you very much indeed for the loan of University of Virginia Studies III {1}. I shall be returning it tomorrow. I was very glad to have the opportunity of reading at greater leisure the articles of Professor Bald and Professor Bowers and was, of course, especially glad to have a copy of your paper.I am very much interested in the work of Professor Bowers and his students. It is, in many ways, a mercy Dr. McKerrow got no further with his project than he did. The trouble was, I think, that he knew quite well he oughtn’t to start publication until at least the preliminary work was done for all the plays, but had already spent so long on laying the foundations that he felt he must make a start. I am sure it was a mistake. I doubt if it is any use attempting an edition on the Clarendon Press scale until it is known how far copies of the Folio and quartos differ among themselves and until we have better date {2} for discriminating between the work of compositors and collators in Folio texts printed from corrected quartos. I am getting on as best as I can with the latter line of investigation, but it is hampering not to have facsimiles of all the quarto editions used for Folio texts.Professor Nicoll crawled over the *Othello* muddle. I have since heard that the Shakespeare Survey Board celebrates April 23rd (when the meeting was held) rather well and doubtless some poor and unhappy head was responsible for the confusion.I hope you have enjoyed your visit to the sea.With many thanks,Yours sincerely,Alice Walker.—————Typed, except the signature.{1} *Studies in Bibliography*, vol. 3 (1950-1). The volume contained three papers: ‘Editorial Problems—A Preliminary Survey’ by R. C. Bald, ‘The Rationale of Copy-Text’ by W. W. Greg, and ‘Some Relations of Bibliography to Editorial Problems’ by Fredson Bowers.{2} A slip for 'data'.

*Leddon Cottage, Welcombe, Bideford, Devon.*—Praises Greg’s *Shakespeare First Folio* and refers to current bibliographical work on Shakespeare.—————**Transcript**Leddon Cottage, | Welcombe, | Bideford, | Devon.16 May 1955Dear Sir Walter,The arrival of your book on Saturday was the greatest surprise and pleasure to me. It was very kind of you to remember me. I knew from Fredson Bowers that you had a book on the stocks, though I had not grasped that it was on so heroic a scale. I am greatly enjoying your balanced account of how matters stand.As you say, the march of events is now beyond the ability of print to keep up with, but I judge that it will be a long time before anyone can give a coherent account of the printing of the Folio, as I don’t think the pattern is self-contained. Neither Schroeder’s conclusions nor Hinman’s forthcoming article (of which he sent me a copy) make sense in relation to compositors’ stints and the pattern must include, I think, some book or books being printed concurrently.I hope all is well with you. We have had a gruelling winter as we were snow-bound or ice-bound for weeks, but at any rate no germs survive the rigours of this coast. We are looking forward very much to having Miss Willcock in Bude permanently after the summer, when she retires, and I hope she won’t be too much absorbed by her house and garden (especially the latter) to have no time for Shakespeare. I get on with my old spelling texts, but there seems no hurry called for until Hinman has finished his work.It seems a pity in some ways that the project for a new facsimile was abandoned, but I suppose what is really wanted is a composite volume or volumes based on Hinman’s collation. But if the facsimile projected provided an incentive, this is to everyone’s good and I look forward to the companionship and help of your book in my own more trifling endeavours.With my warmest congratulations,Yours, most gratefully,Alice Walker.—————Typed, except the signature and a comma.

*27 Oakleigh Park North, Whetstone, N.20.*—Praises Greg’s *Shakespeare First Folio* and refers to Cairncross’s work on *Henry V*.—————**Transcript**27 Oakleigh Park North,Whetstone,N.20.14 Feb., 1956.Dear Greg,I have just read your *The Shakespeare First Folio* with very great pleasure. In the last few years there seems to have been so much imperfectly founded speculation that it is most welcome to have a balanced appraisal and a clear analysis of the present position. I do congratulate you on its achievement. Indeed, it has stimulated in me the desire to do further work on dramatic texts—for me a kind of luxurious recreation whereby I can shuffle off the immoral evil of form-filling and return-making.Cairncross, using the methods of Alice Walker, has suggested that the copy for F *Henry* V was based on Q1 and Q3 corrected by reference to a playhouse MS (unspecified) and eked out my MS sheets in places where the corrections or additions were extensive. The arguments are highly ingenious, but, I think, strained; inevitably they raise further difficulties.With all good wishesYours sincerely,J. H. Walter

*Town Mill House, West End, Bruton, Bath, Somerset.*—Offers evidence for Kyd’s authorship of *King Leir* and a version of *Hamlet*.—————**Transcript**Town Mill House, West End,Bruton, Bath, Somerset.Mar. 11, ’40.Dear Sir,There is not even a moderate likelihood that the *Times Lit Sup.* would care to insert any letter I chose to send them, though it is a bare possibility that they might forward to you such a missive. I therefore take the liberty, I hope forgiven, upon me to communicate directly with you {1} on the subject broached in the issue of Mar. 9 {2}.In J. M. Robertson’s *Introduction to the Study of the Sh. Canon*—a book you must know, since your name appears in it to some purpose—the first of your *Leir* parallels is noted on p. 387. The inference Robertson drew from it is that Kyd was in part responsible for both *Leir* & *Hamlet*, a deduction with which I entirely agree. I carry this conviction farther than Robertson. I believe that the *Hamlet* First Quarto is almost entirely Kyd’s work. For the play echoes not only the *Spanish Tragedy*, but others—*e.g. Leir*, *1 Jeronimo*, and *Selimus*—in which Kyd can be seen to have taken a hand. Simple evidence, in fact, exists for the theory, founded on Nashe’s ‘innuendo’, that Kyd wrote a pre-Shakespearian *Hamlet*, some of which is embodied in the present play. Did you know, by the way, that “sea-gown”, once-used in *Hamlet*, is also in *Leir*?I have made a close study of Kyd for the past ten years, & the outcome of this is the knowledge that Kyd is a far greater poet & much more prolific than he is generally held to be. I can produce, not one, but hundreds of his lines of which “Shakespeare” afterwards availed himself. You will find some of them at the end of the accompanying reprint from *Notes & Queries* {3}, in which I have tried to throw light upon *Leir*’s authorship. I originally intended to include the *Hamlet* parallel in the list, but rejected it because it did not come up to my standard of consonance. But I think you will agree that it does tend to support the theory of Kyd’s authorship of both *Hamlet* & *Leir*.I see no reason to believe that Shakespeare’s *Lear* postdates the publication of the old *Leir*. I am much more inclined to the view that the latter was brought out (although, of course, written some years earlier) on the morrow of the production of Shakespeare’s master-piece, & that its issue was a crude attempt to foist on the public a spurious offspring for a true one. *King Leir* is surely the play with that name that was entered on S.R. on May 14th, 1594, & of this there may have been earlier editions than the one that has come down to us. That Shakespeare read the old *Leir* in manuscript is highly probable: it is tolerably certain, if we can assume that the play found its way from the Queen’s to the Chamberlain’s by purchase.May I end by apologising for the recital of these trifles? for such they must appear to one with so vast and profound knowledge of Shakespearian studies.Faithfully yoursW. Wells—————{1} Followed by a superfluous full stop, the succeeding words of the sentence having evidently been added as an afterthought.{2} In a letter by Greg printed in this issue (p. 124) he pointed out that two passages in the old chronicle play *King Leir* appear to be echoed in *Hamlet*, and solicited the views of others on the matter.{3} ‘The Authorship of *King Leir*’, *Notes & Queries*, 6 Dec. 1939, pp. 434–8. See also the same writer’s ‘Thomas Kyd and the Chronicle-History’, ibid., 30 Mar. 1940, pp. 218-24, and 6 Apr. 1940, pp. 238-43, and ‘*Alphonsus, Emperor of Germany*’, ibid., 28 Sept. 1940, pp. 218-23, and 5 Oct. 1940, pp. 236-40.

*Worcester College, Oxford.*—Gives details of 16th and 17th-century plays in the College Library.

*17A Northmoor Road, Oxford.*—Refers to the preparation of forthcoming Malone Society volumes, and to his own Clark Lectures.

*17A Northmoor Road, Oxford.*—Discusses the grounds for attributing *Respublica* to Udall.

*30 Cumnor Hill, near Oxford.*—Comments on the letter to himself in Greg’s book (*Some Aspects and Problems of London Publishing*).

*The Bungalow, Briar Hill, Purley, Surrey.*—Suggests that a fragmentary plot printed in Greg’s edition of the *Henslowe Papers* may be a pre-Shakespearian form of *All’s Well That Ends Well*.

*Briar Hill, Purley, Surrey.*—Praises Greg’s *Two Elizabethan Stage Abridgements*, and thanks him for the dedication.

*University of Edinburgh.*—Thanks him for a copy of *The Editorial Problem in Shakespeare*.—————**Transcript**University of Edinburgh10.XI.42My dear Greg,Very many thanks for *The Editorial Problem* just received. I have read several of the chapters & passed it on to Duthie for the time to read you on *Lear* as he’s working on that just now. When I get it back I propose (now!) to write you a long letter about it. All I will say at the moment is that it seems at the top of your form, that I shall no doubt, as usual with your books, suck thereout no small advantage & that I only wish what you call ‘The’ problem was the only problem an editor had to face—it has seemed to one editor the least of his problems lately.I read your friendly reference to myself at the beginning with very great pleasure: to be linked in this way with Aldis Wright is indeed an honour.I hope that all continues to go well with your family in this disastrous world. My boy is now a Lance Cp.l† in the S.A.M.C. {1} but so far has not got farther than Port Elizabeth.Yours everJ. Dover Wilson—————{1} South African Medical Corps.† Sic.

*Balerno (Midlothian).*—Offers to send a list of misprints in the second quarto of *Romeo and Juliet*.

*Three Beeches, Balerno, Midlothian.*—Discusses the printing of quarto editions of *Romeo and Juliet* and *King Lear*, with particular reference to misprints.

*Balerno (Midlothian).*—Suggests that a phrase in the second quarto of *Romeo and Juliet* has been misprinted.

*Trinity College, Cambridge.*—Thanks him, on the College’s behalf, for his *Catalogue* of the Capell Collection.—————**Transcript***Trinity College, Cambridge*22 January 1904My dear GregI have the great pleasure of conveying to you by desire of the Council the thanks of the College for the admirable Catalogue of the Capell Collection which you have completed with such care. For the first time it will be possible for outsiders to know what it really contains.Believe me to beYours very sincerelyW. Aldis WrightV. M. {1}Walter W. Greg Esq.—————{1} Vice Master.

*28 St John’s Wood Terrace, N.W.8.*—Comments on Greg’s edition of Jonson’s *Masque of Gipsies*.—————**Transcript***28 St John’s Wood Terrace, N.W.8*16 Feb. 1952Dearest Walter,Thank you very much indeed for sending me your latest indiscretion {1}! I have chortled inwardly with delight at your planting it on the B.A.—a nice bit of quiet fun. The critical apparatus lends it such an overwhelming air of respectability, however, that I doubt if reviewers will even see the fun, much less dare to comment on it. There is an enormous disinfectant power in the study of variants, the printing of parallel texts, & a volume with everything handsome about it. I am only halfway through the Introduction, so far, as I have had a very busy week & at one & two a. m. my brain—or rather its remnants—is not up to this close reasoning; but I hope to have a few more wits to tackle the rest next week. I am once again overwhelmed by the amount of steady work you get through—it seems only the other day that you got out the *Faustus*. I wonder what you now have on hand for the next?Yes, my bone man seems pleased with me, & now gives me a 3 weeks gap between treatments; but of course from his point of view this weather is the worst possible. I was particularly lucky to have a thoroughly mild autumn when he originally dealt with the vertebrae & sciatica two years ago: it enabled him to get me right in half the time.Do you come up at all for B.A. or Bibl. Soc. meetings these days? And if so, what about coming to lunch or meeting me for lunch in town sometime? Do let me know if there is a possibility. Much love & again very many thanksMuriel—————{1} Greg’s reconstruction of Jonson’s *Masque of Gipsies*, published by the OUP for the British Academy.

*(Kristiania, Norway?)*—‘All good wishes for Xmas. I hope you haven't seen this one before.’(Illustrated with a photograph of a skier at Kristiania (renamed Oslo in 1925). The writer is identified as ‘B. Dowson’ in the original typed list, but the grounds of the identification are unknown.)

(A supplement to the references on p. 57 of *The Editorial Problem in Shakespeare*. Formerly inserted in Greg’s copy of the book (Adv. c. 26. 3).)

**Transcript**[…] evidence how Butter came by the text, but (as with other piracies) the play was topical & popular, & therefore worth stealing. But put case that Butter managed to ‘borrow’ a […]Also, after re-reading your essay in the new collection of *Modern Sh. Criticism* {1}, I would like to query Theobald’s famous ‘babbled’. My impression of misprints from copy is that on the whole a printer is more likely to make errors in the body of a word than in the first letter or two: that is, he is more likely to have misread table for talke than for babbled (even if the form is bable). Moreo-ver not only does Q1 of Henry V give ‘talk of floures’, but talk is aesthetically a better word in the context than babbled, because Mistress Quickly’s sentence reaches its rhythmical climax in ‘green fields’—it is not‘and a babled——of green fields’but (with growing incredulous sympathy)and a talke of GREEN FIELDS![…]COPY—‘Well’, sighed Essex, ‘it may be so’PRINTER‘Gos’, sighed Essex, ‘it may be so’.—there being no possible resemblance between even my ‘Well’ & ‘Gos’.PROOF READER (brightly) ‘Query—Gosh!’The most illuminating experience I ever had was when a printer made 22 mistakes—mostly wrong words—in a 2000 word introduction. Of these not more than 10 could be allowed as mis-reading of the copy. The man was simply thinking of something else. In the reading of any M.S.—from a private letter to a learned paper—[…]—————{1} The reference is probably to Greg’s ‘Principles of Emendation’, as reprinted in *Aspects of Shakespeare* in 1933.

(The draft passage corresponds to parts of pp. xviii-xix of the published text.)—————**Transcript of the notes**The variation in the headlines, as determined by Professor Bowers {1}, raise† a difficulty in the way of my solution of the problem by showing that it would involve delay at several points, and it is quite possible that we may have to look for an alternative. At the same time I do not think that the new facts are irreconcilable. My theory was designed to allow the printing of *each sheet* with a minimum of delay: Professor Bowers raises the question of delay *between sheets*[.] But suppose that the sheets of *Lear* were being printed alternately with those of some other book, or, which is perhaps more likely, as stop-gaps between those of a work which was held to demand greater care and deliberation in composition and correction. In that case the difficulty of delay between sheets wou[l]d disappear, and we should have an explanation of the pooling of the headlines. Of course, if printing were strictly alternate we should be at a loss to explain the setting of a third skeleton forme: but there is no need to assume that it was; sheets B and C may have been printed together to fill an unusually long interval in the other work.—————{1} The reference is presumably to the article mentioned on p. 49 of Greg's *Variants in the First Quarto of ‘King Lear’*.† Sic.

(On the back are a few words from the manuscript of a book or article.)

(Perhaps originally part of a letter to Greg. Marked at the head in pencil, ‘From Tucker Brooke’.)

(Docketed, ‘Grissell Plays.’ The first four sentences were printed, in a revised form, in Part III of the Malone Society’s *Collections* (1910, for 1909), pp. 217–18.)

(Letter-head of Merton College, Oxford. For the date, cf. **1/92**.)

**Transcript**He who begins by worshiping†, through fear of consequence, a God he does not respect, will end by sending his fellow to hell for refusing to to the like.You begin by assuming a deity responsible for all the iniquity of nature. You then proceed to the monstrous assertion of his benevolence. You end by citing his example to condone your own iniquities.You throw the burden of the future upon a supposedly omnipotent and, illogically enough, at the same time benificent† power, and having thus divested yourself of all responsibility, proceed, quite logically, to justify your own morality.—————† Sic.

(Marked by Greg, ‘This seems to me great rubbish.’)

(Marked ‘1635. A2. TCC’.)

(Marked ‘Wadham’ on the back.)

*(The Clarendon Press, Oxford?)*—Maas is particularly interested in the considerations which lead an editor of Shakespeare to follow the copy-text.(For the date and the identification of the correspondents cf. **1/87**, which was probably typed with the same typewriter (note especially the capital ‘K’).)—————**Transcript**Maas is, of course, not a Shakespearian scholar and knows nothing of “bibliography”. But he has an acute mind for any inconsistency, and tireless industry. He has made some excellent criticisms on McKerrow’s proofs and Introduction to *Richard III*. The point which really interests him is one in which I refuse to become enmeshed i.e. the basic considerations which lead a Shakespearian editor to stick to the copy-text. Exactly when does he alter the copy-text? Under what conditions does McKerrow discuss in notes {1} the variant readings of the Quarto? On all these points he thinks there is a lack of clear statement and consistent practice in the proofs. The first issue—the different approach to the text of the modern school of Shakespearians—is the one he would like to discuss with you some day; because he is interested in the general principles of textual criticism, and the extent to which they can be applied outside the classics.[*Typed in the margin:*] x except the critical introduction {2}—————Typed.{1} The three lines from ‘enmeshed’ to ‘notes’ have been marked with a pencil line in the margin.{2} The initial 'x' is raised above the line. These words apparently refer to something in the next paragraph, of which only the top of a superior ‘x’ can be seen.

(The account is subscribed ‘Paid to a/c 5 Dec. 55.’ The printed notice was issued by R. E. M. Wheeler, Secretary to the Academy.)

(Annotated by Greg.)

*Bodleian Library, Oxford.*—Supplies two lines from the Bodleian’s copy of (the Hayes quarto of) *The Merchant of Venice*, which is presently in ‘limbo’.(The writer’s initials are indistinct. Self-addressed by Greg and probably sent by him as an enclosure.)

*(Bodleian Library, Oxford.)*—Supplies two readings from the Bodleian’s copy of the Hayes quarto of *The Merchant of Venice*.(Undated. Postmarked 8 Apr. 1942. The writer’s initials are indistinct. Self-addressed by Greg and probably sent by him as an enclosure.)

*(Bodleian Library, Oxford.)*—Confirms the reading of four lines in a copy of (the 1599 quarto of) *Romeo and Juliet*.