Showing 353 results

This collection contains correspondence of McKerrow, mainly relating to bibliography and English literature, with various writings by him on the same subjects; early attempts at fiction, verse, and drama; and some personal papers. There are also some family papers, including papers relating to the firm of Brunlees & McKerrow and the estate of Sir James Brunlees, and letters written by McKerrow’s son Malcolm during the Second World War, describing his experiences with the Non-Combatant Corps and the Auxiliary Military Pioneer Corps.

The prospectus states that the Club was established ‘for the publication of photographic reproductions of works of art’.

10 Sheffield Gardens, Kensington, London, W.—Gives information about the Arundel Club.

(With envelope.)

—————

Transcript

10 Sheffield Gardens, Kensington, London, W.
Oct. 26th 1904.

Dear Sir.

I enclose a prospectus of the Arundel Club. In reply to your questions.

1. The reproductions are not limited to any particular school.

2 & 3. Ordinary silver photographs not exceeding 12” x 10”.

4. Anyone joining the club can obtain the 1st series which has not yet been issued. The photos number 15.

5. At present the reproductions or photos are entirely of pictures

faithfully yours
Robert Ross.

R. B. McKerrow.

[Direction on envelope:] R. B. McKerrow Esq | 30 Manchester Street | Manchester Square | W.

—————

Letter-head of the Arundel Club. Ross’s name is printed as Honorary Secretary. The envelope was postmarked at Kensington Sorting Office, W., at 12.15 a.m. on 27 October 1904, and at London, W., at 4 a.m. the same day.

{1} The printed prospectus sent with this letter (MCKW A1/9b) notes that the club was established ‘for the publication of photographic reproductions of works of art in private collections and elsewhere’. See also the Burlington Magazine, vi (1905), 500.

(Sheffield.)—Thanks him for his help with an article on Harvey. Adds further notes on Nashe and brief comments on other subjects.

(With an envelope, postmarked at Sheffield.)

—————

Transcript

7 Feb

Dear McKerrow,

It was very good of you to look at G. Harvey {1} again. I hope you did not go on purpose,—I am so sorry I did not tell you of all my wants at once.

Your corrections are in good time, as I have not received a proof of my N & Q paper. I am sorry to hear of your cold. & hope you are now all right.

Do vote for Cox. {2}

I have got ‘Grace Book Δ’ (a reviewer’s copy) just edited by Venn. It contains all degrees 1542–1589 & other University records. It will be a valuable book of reference—& save one from writing to the Registrary.

I have been reading part of Nashe again in connexion with my paper on Harvey—& send you a few notes on your notes. {3} (I am afraid, rather useless now)

Vol IV

p 154 l 8 for Erogonist, Ergonist

p 156 l 11 fr. bot. Was the Barnard so called from the proverb ‘Bernardus non vidit omnia’?

p 159 n. on 262. 5. Does not ‘book-beare’ mean ‘lectern’?

p 160 n. on 265. 28 Did Barnes write ‘Meg a Court’?

n. on 267 2,3. I suppose Nashe is parodying—‘Here beginneth the first Epistle to the Philippians &c’—but the expression is a clumsy joke if so

p 176 n. on 294. 23. I suppose you take Pistlepregmos as = dealer in Pistles, or Epistles.

p 181 n on 302 13. The louse had 6 feet I suppose like Harvey’s hexameters

p 182 n. on 305 24. Sailors, I am told still divide foreigners into ‘Dutchmen’ (Germans, Scandinavians &c) & ‘Dago’s’ (French, Spaniards &c)

p 183 n. on 305. 22. {4} I suppose Harvey is translating Summa Summarum.

p 189 n. on 313 23. ‘Matthew’ should be ‘Nathanael’—according to the Admissions to Fellowships in S. John’s Coll.

p 191. n. on 322. 31. Is this a certain explanation? Is there other ground for thinking that Nashe’s Lord was a Dudley?

316. n. on 29. 21. Is this to {5} Tho. Freigius? I dont know if he wrote a Paedagogus.

339 n. on 74. 18. Doctor Hum. Does not this refer to the Cambridge use of ‘hum’ as a sign of disapproval? [? scraping the feet—or making a noise with the voice] {6} Cp. Mead’s letter to Stuteville 27 June 1623 (Heywood & Wright’s Camb. University Transactions 315) ‘Mr Lucy ‥ was this week created Doctor ‥ with such distast of the regents that they hummed when he came in.’ {8}

n. on 76. 35. Is not Sir Edw. Dyer more likely? He was a Knight before Greville—but I dont know the dates

359 n. on 114. 16. Tennyson uses it in The Grandmother I think.

365. n. on 126. 31,2 See Pedantius l 194. {9}

Ever yours
G. C. Moore Smith

I am glad to hear your patient has got to Canada.

[Added on the back of the envelope:] Secker is going to print Tubbe. {10}

[Direction on envelope:] R. B. McKerrow Esq | 4 Phœnix Lodge Mansions | Brook Green | Hammersmith | London W

—————

The envelope, which has been marked ‘Notes on Nashe’, was postmarked at Sheffield S.D.S.O. at 1 p.m. on 7 February 1911, and at Paddington, W, at 7.15 p.m. the same day.

{1} Gabriel Harvey’s letter-book, in the British Library (MS. Sloane 93). Moore Smith’s paper ‘Gabriel Harvey’s Letter-Book’, which appeared in Notes and Queries on 3 April (11th series, iii. 261–3), included a number of corrections to the edition of the letter-book prepared for the Camden Society by E. J. L. Scott in 1884, prefaced by the following acknowledgement: ‘For some of the corrections below I am indebted to Mr. R. B. McKerrow, who was kind enough to look at the MS. for me after I had left London.’ The corrections supplied by McKerrow are dis-tinguished in the article by asterisks.

{2} Harold Cox, the Liberal candidate for the constituency of Cambridge University in the by-election held in this year.

{3} The succeeding notes relate to Nashe’s Strange Newes and Have With You to Saffron-Walden.

{4} ‘22’ is a mistake for ‘32’.

{5} Reading uncertain.

{6} The opening square bracket is original; the closing one has been substituted for a round one.

{7} Single inverted comma supplied in place of double inverted commas.

{9} Moore Smith had made this observation before in his letter of 13 November 1908 (MCKW A2/6).

{10} Moore Smith’s selection of the works of Henry Tubbe (d. 1655), a minor poet. In the event this work did not appear till 1915, when it was published by the Clarendon Press. Cf. MCKW A2/12–13.

The White House, Tite Hill, Englefield Green.—Suggests meeting to discuss some small points. Once these are settled, far fewer questions are likely to arise. Would like to know more about the initial stages of his work on Shakespeare.

—————

Transcript

at The White House, Tite Hill,
Englefield Green. Surrey.
30 April 1936

Dear Dr. McKerrow,

Thank you for your letter. I am sorry I didn’t manage to answer it yesterday. I was out most of the day and the rest of the time was taken up by an accumulation of domestic chores & errands that had to be attended to. I think it would be a great saving of your time if I saw you one day next week. I hate to think of all the energy you have had to squander in writing short essays on the many (and often trivial) points I have raised. Any time on Monday, Thursday or Friday {1} would suit me—so will you say what day and time is best for you? A number of small points have cropped up since I sent the first pages of I Henry VI—mere trivialities, largely concerning arrangement etc., that would take long to settle if I saw you but would take a fair time to wrestle with by letter. When these are disposed of I don’t think there is ever likely to be such a running fire of questions as there has been and I should be able to get along with some confidence that I am doing the right thing. I will post tomorrow the rest of Act I in case any of my difficulties necessitate reference to books that arn’t at your office.

I have gone through the notes you sent yesterday in reply to my questions. Thank you for being so patient with me! I am afraid that I must have encroached on a great deal of your time, but I feel now that I should be able to get along for the most part under my own steam. A great many of the questions I have raised about Steevens and the Variorum are, I think, due to the fact that you had told me that you had begun by collating these editions and, later, decided to turn them out; hence, I think, I am perhaps unduly suspicious that references to them are survivals of earlier intentions that you arn’t going to follow out.

Thank you for your letter of this morning. I was going to ask you whether I might mark in pencil, on your MS., corrections I had made in the typescript as this will not only save me the bother of making a list of my alterations but will also save you the trouble of referring to an extra set of papers to see what I have done.
I intended you to keep the checked carbon copy you returned {2} (as well as the clean one) so that you would know what I had done, so I will send it back with the things tomorrow. I will also endeavour to answer any counter-queries in your replies to mine. A way of getting round one or two difficulties has occurred to me, so I’ll send my suggestions along in case they are any use.

One day (when you have the time!) I should very much like to know how you hacked your way through the Shakespearean jungle when you began. It must have seemed such an overwhelming tangle that I should be interested to know what the initial stages were. I hope you arn’t really depressed to find that Henry VI has got a little scratched as you dragged him through! I don’t see what process could have been adopted other than that of trial and error and, as the first play to emerge from the wood, it seems to me that it was inevitable that it would suffer some damage. I hope you feel that the collation notes have been worth the effort. In reading the Cambridge collation notes this last week I have been very much struck by the much greater range, economy and effectiveness of your method.

When you write don’t trouble to give me a choice of time or days. Unless anything unexpected crops up, I can call at your office whenever it is most convenient for you.

Yours sincerely,
Alice Walker.

—————

Typed, except the signature and a correction.

{1} 4, 7, or 8 May.

{2} The copy collation-notes denominated (b) in MCKW A4/7, comprising two sheets, namely pp. 1–2 of item 3(b) in MCKW A4/11.

67 Selborne Road, Southgate, N.14.—Chadwick has declined to join the panel.

—————

Transcript

67 Selborne Road, Southgate, N.14

I am sorry to say that Chadwick refuses: I have had a letter from him, and he says he has so much other work he can undertake no other liabilities. Sorry

R. W. Chambers

[Direction:] R. B. McKerrow Esq. | 3 Adam St | Adelphi | W.C.2.

—————

Postmarked at Palmers Green at 11.30 a.m. on 8 January 1924.

(Dated at Tokyo.)

(Typed draft of an article for the 11th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.)

54 Scarsdale Villas, W.8.—Declines to join the advisory panel for the new Review. Will send for Chambers’s book tomorrow.

—————

Transcript

54 Scarsdale Villas | W.8
Dec. 30

Dear Chambers,

Many thanks for the proof of the Review circular, which I am altogether glad to read; & as many for the invitation to have my name added to the panel. But this, I am sure after reflection I ought not to accept. My powers of work have been diminishing fast in 1923, and I am anxious to finish some things to add to un-collected pamphlets, and to get a volume out while I can. And for this purpose I mean to diminish what I do for the English Assn, and perhaps leave the Publications Sub-committee when the Annual Meeting comes; and, you will see at once, I could not do this and yet undertake anything of at all the same kind. But I am sorry, and none the less grateful.

I am delighted to see that your book is out and shall send for it tomorrow, and I congratulate you. Let us hope that tomorrow will not be so filthy as today, and that 1924 will start fair.

Yours sincerely
A. C. Bradley

10 Chadlington Road, Oxford.—Offers to support the new journal.

—————

Transcript

10 Chadlington Road, Oxford
Dec. 29 1923

Dear Chambers,

Chapman has just shown me a proof of a leaflet you are sending out about a new Journal of English Studies; & I see you ask for support. I should be delighted to stand in with you, & do anything I could to help. I have long wished for such a periodical, but was never in a position to bring it about.

By issuing this leaflet you start the New Year well.

Yrs ever
George Gordon

(Oxford.)—Gordon would probably join the panel, if asked.

—————

Transcript

P 4509

28 Dec. 1923. {1}

My dear Chambers,

I spoke to Gordon—I hope this was not indiscreet, as I had already heard a good deal from Simpson and from McKerrow. I think he would go on the panel if you asked him, and I think he would be worth having. He has, I believe, a wider range than anyone—now W.P. is gone {2}—being a very good classic and a respectable medievalist as well as thoroughly at home in all the modern periods.

But please regard this as no more than a well-intentioned suggestion, which does not expect any answer.

Yours sincerely
R. W. Chapman

E. K. Chambers Esq.

—————

Letter-head of The Clarendon Press, Oxford. The printed address has been struck through.

{1} The first two figures of the year are printed.

{2} W. P. Ker, who died on 17 July.

(The Clarendon Press, Oxford.)—Clarifies the Press’s policy towards the new journal, and agrees to join the panel, with certain provisos. Chambers’s ‘great work’ is already being referred to as if it were a familiar work of reference.

—————

Transcript

P 4509
28 December 1923

My dear Chambers,

Many thanks for your letter. My recollection (confirmed by my notes) is that we bade you God speed if you could secure the weight of Bradley’s name; but were afraid that if any less authoritative modernist were named as editor, the journal might look too like an unpaid duplicate of the Literary Supplement. Nor could we, though we had thought for ourselves, hit on anyone suitable who was likely to be able to give the necessary time, especially in view of the modest remuneration that we then (I think) contemplated.

I say this because I should be sorry that you or anyone should think that we would not have welcomed the enterprise with this editor and this ‘panel’. But of course I guess that this editor could not have been secured except on the terms indicated by the prospectus.

I am honoured by the invitation to join your panel, and very gladly accept it. My limitations will be understood. I could not sign any book review or survey; and it might be best that I shouldn’t review on any terms. I might, again, have to withold† interesting information, though in general I am in favour of as much publicity as possible about books in preparation. Perhaps I ought to add, ex abundante cautela, that if at any time it were desired to a[c]quaint the panel with facts which it was not desired that another publisher should know, I should of course expect to be excluded.

Subject to these limitations I shall be very glad indeed to give any help I can. Please put me down for two copies—one personal and one for the Secretary, Clarendon Press. I send you this in duplicate, that you may send McKerrow a copy if you like; and I have deposited a copy in the archives here.

I hope the reviews of the great work {1} have given you satisfaction. Not many books are referred to on publication as if they were already familiar works of reference.

Yours sincerely

E. K. Chambers Esq.,
Board of Education, London S.W.1.

—————

Carbon-copy of a typed original. There is no signature, though the letter is evidently from R. W. Chapman. Chambers struck through the last paragraph before sending the letter on to McKerrow.

{1} The Elizabethan Stage.

† Sic.

25 Craven Hill Gardens, Hyde Park, W.2.—Will be glad to help. Suggests sending notices to various other colleagues. Is looking forward to reading Chambers’s new book (The Elizabethan Stage).

—————

Transcript

p.t. {1} 25 Craven Hill Gardens, Hyde Park, W.2
Dec. 28. 23

Dear Mr Chambers,

Certainly, I shall be glad to help in any way I can. Thanks for asking me. It is worth while to send notices to my colleagues, Professor R. Dewar & Mrs. Dodds & Mr. R. Bennett; also to the following:— {2}

Professor J. Crofts. University of Bristol
Miss Birkhead. [University of Bristol]
Mr L. C. Martin. [University of] Liverpool
Mr A. M. Clark. 7 Harrison Rd. Edinburgh.
Miss Kimpton. 32 Leigh Rd. Highbury. N.5
Miss S. Rose. The Firs. Yeovil
Miss M. L. Lee. 77 Banbury Rd. Oxford.
Mr Ch. Singer. 5 North Grove. Highgate Village. N.6.

May I congratulate you on the appearance of your book {2} which I long to read?

Yours sincerely,
Edith J Morley

Please don’t address me by my title {3} in private life: it is meant only for official use.

—————

Chambers struck through the last paragraph and the postscript before sending the letter on to McKerrow with MCKW A3/8a.

{1} ‘Post to.’

{2} In the MS the succeeding names and addresses are arranged in two columns, and the words in square brackets are represented by ditto marks. A full stop has been supplied after some of the names.

{3} The Elizabethan Stage.

{4} Professor.

15 Waterloo Place, S.W.—Is unable to use the accompanying MS.

(With envelope. The date is that of the postmark.)

Board of Education.—Encloses letters from some of those invited to join the advisory panel, and suggests an alteration to the prospectus.

—————

Transcript

Board of Education
1 Jan. 1924

Dear McKerrow,

Elton, Chapman, and Miss Morley agree to join our panel. I think you had better file and keep the letters I enclose. We are asking Gordon; are we not?

Elton’s letter partly concerns other matters, but he says

“I shall be happy to join your panel and do what I can, but could not write much, being deeply booked for some time ahead. The Review is much wanted and the idea excellent.”

I also send Bradley’s letter. Perhaps we can turn the wording of the Prospectus, when we print it off, so as to leave room for the names of those in like case. From Miss Spurgeon I have not heard yet.

Yrs sincerely
E. K. Chambers

—————

This letter was accompanied by letters to Chambers from Edith J. Morley, R. W. Chapman, George S. Gordon, and A. C. Bradley (MCKW A3/8b–f).

(Typed draft, with revisions. The sheets appear to fall into seven sections: ff. 1–12, 13–14, 15–17, 18–21, 22–23, 24, and 25–28. The first is an early draft of the essay as a whole, while the rest, which are typed with a different ribbon, contain revised or additional passages. Folios 2 and 16 are each a carbon-copy of the preceding sheet; f. 17 is a carbon-copy of which the original is wanting; f. 22 is a slip containing a different (probably earlier) version of the first paragraph of f. 23. As for the date, note (1) the reference to the Japanese publication of 1900; (2) the reference to the third edition of Basil Hall Chamberlain’s Things Japanese, published in 1898, not the fourth, published in 1902, and similarly (3) the reference to the first edition of E. F. Strange’s Japanese Illustration, published in 1897, and not the second, published in 1904; and (4) the reference to the ‘South Kensington’ Museum, which had been renamed the Victoria and Albert Museum in 1899. In any case, it seems likely that this essay, like B4/6–7, was written not long after McKerrow’s return from Japan.)

Two of these items, B8/1 and B8/4, are not by McKerrow but by Willy Bang.

The White House, Tite Hill, Englefield Green.—Asks whether to remove certain references from the collation notes to 1 Henry VI.

—————

Transcript

at The White House, Tite Hill,
Englefield Green. Surrey.
24 April 1936.

Dear Dr. McKerrow,

Thank you for your letter. When you next write will you tell me whether you would like me to discard the fairly numerous references to Steevens and the Boswell Variorum that occur in the I Henry VI collation notes {1}—i.e. such references as occur in the ordinary course of collation, leaving, of course, all such references to these editions as indicate that they originated a textual reading. I don’t know whether this is clear. To take an imaginary example—shall I sub-stitute F2–Cap. for F2–Ste. but leave Ste., Mal.–Hart? If references to editions other than those generally collated have to be discarded I may as well omit them and save you the bother of cor-recting them in typescript. I will, of course, make a list of any alterations made of this kind.

I notice, by the way, that there are two Arden editions of I Henry VI. {2} My checking on the pages I sent was done with the 1st (1909).

There is just another point I would like to mention about punctuation. You will see that on the first page of the typed collation notes I sent (under I. i. S.D.) Rowe’s comma before the Earl of was included in the lemma (following your MS.). There seem to be a number of *analogous cases where a mark of punctuation ought to be included in the lemma but isn’t. Shall I insert whatever is required? Although a lemma such as

, the Earl of]

is logical and truthful, it looks odd. {4}

Yours sincerely,
Alice Walker.

—————

{1} McKerrow had originally intended to include the Steevens edition and the Boswell Variorum among those editions ‘generally collated’, but changed his mind. See Prolegomena, p. 72, and MCKW A4/9.

{2} The Arden edition of 1 Henry VI was edited by H. C. Hart, who also edited the other two Parts. The second (revised) edition came out in 1930.

{3} The asterisk refers to the following footnote: ‘*For instance, in I Henry VI, I. iv. 17–8 where F1 reads

Now doe thou watch, (17)
For I can stay no longer. (18)

and Pope omits line 18 the lemma ought to read

18 , For . . . longer]

Shall I alter this & similar cases accordingly?’

(The brackets around the line-numbers in the quotation have been supplied.)

{4} McKerrow’s discussion of punctuation in lemmas in the Prolegomena (pp. 76–7) does not make clear his intention in cases of this kind.

31 Endcliffe Road, Sheffield.—Is indignant at the Athenaeum’s treatment of McKerrow’s Works of Nashe. A copy of Agrippa’s De Vanitate is for sale.

(Dated 18 Sept. With an envelope, postmarked 18 Sept. 1910.)

—————

Transcript

31 Endcliffe Rise Rd. Sheffield
18 Sep

Dear McKerrow,

I must express my indignation at the way in which the Athenæum has treated Nashe. {1} It is beyond anything.

I suppose you dont want a copy of Agrippa de Vanitate &c? {2} There is one to be had here for
10/–.

Ever yours
G. C. Moore Smith

[Direction on envelope:] R. B. McKerrow Esq | 4 Phoenix Lodge Mansions | Brook Green | Hammersmith | London W

—————

The envelope was postmarked at Sheffield at 8.15 p.m. on 18 September 1910.

{1} The reference is to a review of the fifth volume of the Works of Nashe in the Athenaeum of 17 September (p. 336), in which McKerrow was criticised, among other things, for his want of ‘literary craftsmanship’.

{2} Cornelius Agrippa’s De incertitudine et vanitate scientiarum atque artium declamatio invectiva, first published in 1530 and frequently reprinted. There does not appear to have been a collected edition of Agrippa’s works, so perhaps the ‘&c’ indicates that the book was bound up with others.