Showing 10 results

Has now consulted most of the contributors [to the "Annual of New Poetry"] about the draft agreement. There is no objection to Trevelyan being the contributors' representative, and this will 'certainly simplify matters'. The main difficulty seems that the agreement currently considers the "Annual" 'more as a book than as an annual magazine', with the implication that if it were not sold out, or if a new edition were published, the copyright for contributions would never revert to the authors. The contributors expected a contract 'more in the nature of a licence to publish [their] poems in this form for a certain period', and could only agree to something of this kind; they also feel that the proposed length of time before payment is too long. In addition, when [Lascelles] Abercrombie first discussed the scheme last year, the suggested division of profits was sixty per cent to the contributors, forty to the publishers; all the contributors have joined on that understanding, and the proposed allocation of fifty-five per cent to the authors cannot be agreed to.

Rejects Trevelyan's objection to the length of time suggested in the draft contract for payment of the contributors: contributors to an ordinary magazine are indeed 'paid by return', but they have no share in the profits nor voice in decisions about the magazine, while the publisher is free to include advertisements to help pay expenses and boost profits. Does not think the contributors to the "Annual" would wish to contribute to such a magazine, nor would Constable & Co. be interested in publishing one. Trevelyan is right that it had been agreed that the share of profits would be 60 per to the contributors, forty per cent to the publishers; apologises for not noticing that the draft agreement had a different division.

Feels there should be a contract between him and the other contributors if he is to act on their behalf. Comments on: copyright; the title, which was 'arrived at by [Gordon] Bottomley, [Michael] Sadler' and Trevelyan himself; the price. Extended discussion on whether the publishers would be able to refuse republication of poems in other anthologies; Sadler is 'very jealous of G[eorgian] P[oetry]', and Trevelyan has had to make it clear that from the beginning of the scheme the poets were agreed that their plan 'should not prejudice G. P., and that [Eddie] Marsh should have the right of selection' from the "Annual". Marsh seemed to accept this, but said it should be made clear in correspondence, as [Otto] Kyllmann would 'take the strict publisher's view'. Trevelyan agrees that Marsh should ask leave, and the poets should have the right to refuse, but does not think Sadler should be able to do so 'unreasonably'; this would be a 'simple enough' matter if it were not for Sadler's 'jealousy... and his anger at losing "Mrs Lear" [Bottomley's play "King Lear's Wife"] for the "Annual"'; Marsh seems 'quite friendly' towards the "Annual" at present. Comments on proof and division of profits. Does not think they should let Sadler ask for money to republish. There are seven contributors, and [Lascelles Abercrombie?] is an associate, so the free copies provided should be in multiples of eight.

1484 Yale Station, New Haven, Connecticut.—Praises An Introduction to Bibliography, and sends some early examples of references to an author’s earlier work title-pages, compiled from the Monthly Review (Add. MS 355/4/31b–e).

—————

Transcript

1484 Yale Station | New Haven, Connecticut
24 April 1928

My dear Mr. McKerrow,

Praise and appreciation of your invaluable Introduction to Bibliography must by now have become an old story to you; were it not, therefore, for some interesting titles which have fallen in my way during the last few weeks, I should hesitate to bother you with a note telling you of my own delight in it, and of the enthusiastic interest of several undergraduates who discovered it in my rooms, became fascinated, and ended by reading it from cover to cover.

The titles on the enclosed cards are of interest with reference to your discussion of the mention of an author’s earlier work on the title-page of a new one. It happened that when I read this passage (p. 93) I was engaged in going with some thoroughness through the files of The Monthly Review; since I had already worked my way through a great many volumes, I am not prepared to say that the earliest of my references is the earliest actual entry indicating this practice. Nor (and here is the fly in the ointment) have I been able to see copies of any of the books here represented; by a devilish chance our library possesses none of them! All my experience with the Monthly, however, tends to show that their invariable practice was to quote with scrupulous fidelity the title-page of each book reviewed, adding any supplementary information in the body of the review itself.

It seems extremely probable, therefore, that Mr. Sadleir’s suggested date of 1791 for the institution of the practice could be pushed back some years in the second edition of your work. I am sorry to be unable [to] assure you definitely that the actual title-pages read as these entries indicate, and sincerely hopeful that I am not sending you off on a false lead!

Most sincerely yours,
Benjamin C. Nangle

Ronald B. McKerrow, Esqr.
Great Missenden, Bucks.

—————

McKerrow has written at the head, ‘answered 9 May 28’.

34 Percy Street, Liverpool. - Does not often have both leisure and a 'lucid mind' these days; is too tired at the end of the day [after munitions work] and is ever more respectful of Germany as 'only a very great nation could have so managed the affairs of Europe' as to get him out of bed at 6.30 every morning. Managed to give his attention to the agreement [proposed by Constables for the publication of "An Annual of New Poetry] on Sunday; Bob seems to agree with him on the main points. He and the others have 'no right' to ask Bob to act as their representative, but it would be 'an enormous convenience in every way' if he did; Bob must decide only on personal grounds and not consider the rest of them, as he has 'better work than niggling with publishers'. Promises not to sue him if he does act as go-between. Is sure the contract 'must not be signed as it stands' and needs to be 'radically' altered; the problems may be due to 'barefaced swindling, or... unbusiness-like stupidity' and since they are dealing with a publisher 'either is probable', but the root is that the contract does not make any allowances for the 'special nature of the publication' as an annual magazine containing material that is to be republished in future. Might be wise to consult the Society of Authors; is a member himself and could do this for Bob. Bob should get advice from Gordon [Bottomley] and J[ohn] Drinkwater as they are 'clear headed people', while Wilfrid [Gibson] is also good at dealing with publishers; otherwise, does not think it necessary to share the contract around once it is 'fairly settled', since the poets already know the sorts of terms they are getting. Does not feel that a contract between Bob and the other poets is necessary. The first thing to do is to get the contract amended to give the publishers a 'licence to publish our poems in this form for a certain period' which then expires and returns all rights to the authors automatically. Returns Bob's "Remarks" [20/59?], in case he wishes to send them to someone else; has pencilled some suggestions on the contract and adds further comments in the letter, numbered by relevant point in the contract: these include rights of quotation; what would happen if an "Annual" poem appeared in [Marsh's] "Georgian Poetry"; proportion of profits paid to the poets; authors' copies; sections of the contract which should be altered or omitted. He and his family hope the Trevelyans are all well; they themselves are 'fairly so - or fairly so-so'. Grateful for the intervention, 'so promptly & efficaciously', with the Italian Red Cross on behalf of [John Yates of Blackburn, see 1/67? In this case the intervention probably by Bob's brother George].

[Draft letter by R. C. Trevelyan in pencil on the back of the first two sheets]. Trevelyan tells [Otto] Kyllmann that Mr [Michael] Sadler has asked him to write to Kyllmann in future regarding the "Annual". Discussion of the draft contract with Constables: the division of profits should be returned to the original 60% for the poets; Mr Sadler now agrees that the contributors should have the right to republish after, say, a year, but says that Constables should be free to reprint the "Annual" for as long as they wish, which the poets object to; payments should also be made sooner than suggested.

The Gallows, Ryton, Dymock. - The Gallows, Ryton, Dymock. - Has not yet spoken to Wilfrid [Gibson], but will do as soon as he sees him. He himself thinks 'very well' of Bob's scheme [for the "Annual of New Poetry"]; they should not worry about competing with "Georgian Poetry" and "New Numbers". True that "Georgian Poetry" 'is not asleep but sleepeth', as he understands, but "New Numbers" is 'dead as nail in door'. Cannot hurt "Georgian Poetry", which has 'never pretended to any monopoly', covers a 'much wider poetic field' and has a 'more aristocratic circulation'. Furthermore the first number of the "Annual" is likely to come out first, and will offer "Georgian Poetry" an 'attractive quarry to pick from', since it is 'frankly [Eddie] Marsh's own personal anthology [emphasised] of modern poetry', while in the "Annual" they would be 'trying to put as many of our wares before the public' as possible; however, would be best to see if Marsh objects. Regarding 'Mrs Lear' [Gordon Bottomley's play "King Lear's Wife], Marsh always said that Gordon's offer to let him print it first as 'great generosity', but the offer was on the understanding that "Georgian Poetry" would be published at once; since this did not happen, surely the offer is also off. Has always thought 'Mrs Lear' should be published as soon as possible.

Makes some tentative suggestions. The more poets on the magazine the less profit per poet; the poets should be chosen carefully, then there should be 'no editorial censorship on actual poems', since it would be difficult to choose an editor and communal editorship would be 'the devil'; the only control over contributions should be in the matter of space, and it would be best for the publisher to do this - suggests Constables as they 'are anxious to publish modern verse', and 'young Michael Sadler is... very nice & intelligent'. List of poets to contribute more important than the publisher: so far, provisionally, they have Gordon [Bottomley], [Thomas Sturge] Moore, Wilfrid [Gibson], Bob and Lascelles. Would also suggest Ralph Hodgson, W. H. Davies and R[obert] Frost; does not think there are others 'worthy to stand in our company, except of course [W. B.] Yeats & [John] Masefield', who would probably not join in. Frost thinks Walter de la Mare the 'greatest of living poets'; he himself does not rate him so highly, but would be happy to include him as a contributor. The profits for each number should be divided amongst the contributors, 'irrespective of space occupied'. Would like to talk to Bob about the scheme, rather than merely communicating in writing. Will see Bottomley when he goes to Grange [over Sands], and meanwhile may be in London soon; will let Bob know if he is. Feels 'honoured' to have been brought in so early the scheme's existence, and thinks it might be a great success. Catherine [his wife] is doing 'very well': apart from 'local effects of the operation' [for breast cancer] she feels better than she has done for a while; he thinks she also looks better. The two elder boys [David and Michael] are at Grange, and they will join them soon with baby [Ralph]. Was 'delightful' to see Bessie the other day.

The Gallows, Ryton, Dymock. - Sure the scheme [for an "Annual of New Poetry"] is a good one; just hopes he will be able to take part in the first number. Glad Bob agrees with his suggestions; likewise he agrees with Bob's. Their feelings regarding [Walter] de la Mare seem to agree, but thinks they should invite him to contribute anyway. Would prefer himself not to be known as 'one of the inviters' and for Bob and Gordon [Bottomley] to be known as the 'scheme's promoters'. Would willingly approach [Ralph] Hodgson, [W. H.] Davies or [Robert] Frost if Bob wanted, as this would 'easily come in on the score of personal acquaintance'; however would not like [John] Drinkwater, for example to hear Lascelles had been 'organising a poetic periodical' to which he had not been invited, and would prefer him to see him as a contributor only. Bob 'know[s] what poets are'. Will not mention the scheme at all except in reply to someone raising the subject, or unless authorised by Bob, but since Drinkwater may hear of it could be 'disastrous to [their] friendship if he understood the affair as an opportunity seized by Wilfrid [Gibson]' and Lascelles to 'shed his company in poetry'. Thinks that they should see what [Thomas Sturge] Moore thinks about the proposed list of poets before approaching any of them; the scheme would be 'gravely weakened without him'. His proposal of Constables for publisher was 'entirely tentative', and some of the poets may object, but there is no reason why approaches should not be made; [Michael] Sadler is a 'person one could talk to'; it must be made clear that 'he is to bear all risks - even if we do not mean it'.

365 Shimo-Ogikabo, near Tokio.—Congratulates him on the success of his book.

—————

Transcript

365 Shimo-Ogikabo, near Tokio, Jan. 23, ’28

Dear Dr. McKerrow,

This evening I happened to notice Sir Michael Sadler’s† review on your new book entitled “An Introduction to Bibliography”, which appeared in The Observer Dec. 18, 1927. Sir Michael says: Judged from one aspect Mr. Williams’s deft little work is a “Mods” preceding the McKerrow “Greats”. In another place, he adds: Dr. McKerrow has produced what must for long remain the essential text-book for the more advanced grades of students alike of printing history, of bibliography, and even of book-collecting . . . . .” Please accept my sincere congratulation upon your success.

Yours very sincerely
Tsuneji Aidzu

[Direction:] Dr. R. B. McKerrow, | “Enderley” | Little Kingshill | Great Missenden | Bucks, ENGLAND [Added at the head in red pencil:] Via Siberia

—————

There are three Japanese stamps. The postmarks are illegible.

† Sic.

Woodlands, Addlestone, Surrey.—Thanks him for his kind remarks about the Observer review (Sadleir’s review of An Introduction to Bibliography), and discusses early title-page attributions.

—————

Transcript

Woodlands, Addlestone, Surrey
30 XII 27

Dear Mr McKerrow

It was kind of you to write about the Observer review {1}—especially as I was so spacebound I couldn’t say half the things I wanted to. Its a very find book and should become the standard authority.

I am much interested about the amazingly early titlepage attribution. {2} It must be a very isolated case. I have recently acquired a large collection of old novels of late XVIII and early XIX century which belonged to a friend of mine. They need a lot of arranging; but I had deter-mined—when I read your pleasant reference to my search for examples—to go through them in time and note several comparatively early examples. I think I can beat the “The School for Widows”. Even though a XVII century one has turned up, a few dates from the period when the habit became general would be an interesting record.

Michael Sadleir

—————

{1} Sadleir’s review of An Introduction to Bibliography, which appeared on 18 December.

{2} Presumably one of those added to the footnote on p. 93 in the second impression.