Showing 13 results

31 Endcliffe Rise Road, Sheffield.—Discusses McKerrow’s plan of establishing a journal devoted solely to English studies.

—————

Transcript

31 Endcliffe Rise Road, Sheffield
Nov. 12. 1923

My dear McKerrow,

Many thanks for your kind letter. I am rejoiced to hear that English studies are to have an organ of their own in this country, and that you are to direct it. I have written again & again—to E. K. Chambers I think among others—urging the inadequacy of the MLR to meet the demands made on it & properly to represent English studies {1}—& I have been surprized not to hear earlier of a movement for a Journal devoted to English studies alone.

I pressed on Robertson {2} some time ago (within the last twelvemonths) the desirability of breaking up the MLR so that the English section could appear as a separate Journal. He was evidently against this (believing I suppose that a MLR without English in it could not pay its way)—but said that he thought the solution was a separate Journal for English.

I have at present matter in hand and reviews due that will take all the space for several numbers to come. This means that a book often does not get reviewed in print till 2 years or more after its appearance. It also means that I have to print particularly articles so abstruse or devoid of general interest that they have no chance of getting in elsewhere—& to turn off a popular well-written article—which may be just as valuable—on to some other journal. I have just succeeded in getting an excellent article of Stoll’s on Hamlet into the Contemporary. {3}—There is such an abundance of good matter crying to be published that I hope you will not commit yourself in a hurry to including so much of the nature of Reports of Societies &c. as to limit your powers of publishing the articles & reviews you want. I hope however you will include as the German journals do a page or so of Necrology when required. It has seemed to me sad that the MLR should not be able to include a word on great scholars such as Raleigh & Ker & Vaughan & H. Bradley when they die. {4}

Of course I think the effect on the MLR will be serious. If your standard is as high as ours has been—& it is likely to be higher rather than lower—why should an English student pay for a journal in which English studies occupy only ⅓ of the space as against one in which they hold the field? This is, if the price of your Journal is the same as that of the MLR. Perhaps you will make it less in order to widen your circulation among people who are not actually scholars themselves.

Am I at liberty to send on your letter to Robertson? or are you writing to him?

I understand from your letter that your Journal will not be specially connected with the English Association. However it will no doubt attract the special interest of the E.A. That Association for the last 2 years has made a grant to the MLR to enable it to give 8 more pages to English Of course it will be important for us to know if we may depend on that grant in the future. I am pleased to see that you do not apparently intend giving another quarterly Bibliography.

I suppose you dont intend to pay your contributors—unless for some special articles.

Writing for myself, not for MLR, I look forward with the greatest interest to your Journal. The less it aims at popularity, the more it aims at representing the best English Scholarship, philological, literary-historical, & literary, in my eyes the better—I suppose you will leave articles of technical bibliography rather to the Library?

(I am glad to see that Herford in today’s Manchester Guardian accepts the conclusions of Maunde Thompson &c. as probably sound.) {5}

I dont know if it would be possible to come to any concordat in order to avoid the duplication of reviews. There are a lot of American books sent out by Milford to which justice wd be done if they were reviewed in one English journal only. On the other hand as things are, many books dont get reviewed in the MLR at all. [Footnote: ‘I have not received a copy of the Sir Thomas More book—nor of Herford’s book on Recent Shakespeare Criticism, nor of All. Nicoll’s book on Restoration Drama.’ {6}] The ideal would be for every book of value to be noticed in one journal or the other. I am afraid if this is to be achieved duplication of reviews should be avoided. It might be difficult however to come to any agreement in the matter.

Ever yours
G. C. Moore Smith

—————

{1} Moore Smith was editor of the English section of the Modern Language Review from 1915 to 1927. See MLR, xxxvi (1941). 246.

{2} J. G. Robertson, founder and chief editor of the MLR. See MLR, xxviii (1933), 19.

{3} ‘Recent Criticism of Hamlet’, Contemporary Review, cxxv (1924), 347–57.

{4} Sir Walter Raleigh and C. E. Vaughan died in 1922, W. P. Ker and Henry Bradley in 1923,

{5} The reference is to a review of Shakespeare’s Hand in the Play of Sir Thomas More, ed. A. W. Pollard (1923), one of the chapters of which was written by the palaeographer Sir Edward Maunde Thompson. C. H. Herford was a regular reviewer for the Manchester Guardian.

{6} The books referred to are Shakespeare’s Hand in the Play of Sir Thomas More (see the previous note), A Sketch of Recent Shakespearean Investigation, 1893–1923, and A History of Restoration Drama, 1600 to 1700, all published in 1923.

Victoria University, University College, Liverpool - Thanks him for the book ['Passages of the Bible']; wishes someone would publish a Poetry of the Bible with a preface indicating the date and authorship of the Bible; thinks 'Purple Patches' a good name for a book and a good idea.

[headed notepaper] Secretary for Scotland, Dover House, Whitehall. - Thanks Robert for his letter; has told Caroline about the train. Will be at Welcombe and very glad to see him. Sir George is responsible for recommending a candidate to the Queen for the new professorship of English Literature at Aberdeen, which must be filled before the end of the year; will be happy to hear frim Mr [Walter?] Raleigh.

Letter declining invitation to the 1905 Apostles' dinner.

The Shiffolds, Holmbury St. Mary, Dorking. - Writes in support of the candidature of his friend [Hasan] Shahid Suhrawardy for a vacant post on the League [of Nations] Secretariat: has known him well for about twenty years and thinks him 'the most intelligent Indian' he has known, though lacking in ambition. Mentions that his uncles are politicians - one [Abdullah al-Mamun al-Suhrawardy] has recently died - and his father a retired High Court Judge in Calcutta. [Robert] Bridges and Walter Raleigh thought highly of him. Has a very good knowledge of Indian and European politics; is by no means a fanatic, often finding Hindu liberal politicians more sympathetic than 'his own Mahommedans', and by temperament and having lived in Europe is 'very detached and international' in outlook, as well as 'generously democratic and pacifist'. Expects he has written to Lord Lytton and Harold Williams, who supported his application for a similar position a while ago; the objection was then that he was not in touch with Indian feelings, but he has lived in India for some time since then.

From Arthur B. Cane, Austen Chamberlain, Ernest R. Debenham, Frank Gillson, L. N. Guillemard, Stanley M. Leathes, Theodore Morison, F. S. Oliver, Arthur Platt, W. A. Raleigh, R. Ll. B. Rathbone, A. H. Smith, H. Babington Smith, H. F. Stewart, Arthur H. Studd,. C. S. Whibley, H. F. Wilson.

63 Canning Street, Liverpool - Explains why he doesn't like Macaulay; doesn't see how Frazer can put in both the acquittal of the Bishops and the Hastings trial as they both have the same 'old oaken rafters', the difference being that in the Hastings trial he stops and gives a history of the rafters and their cost in modern currency; the period from 1600 to 1740 is his favourite for prose.

4 Onslow Gardens. - Has only just read "The Bride of Dionysus", which George gave him, and found it 'delightful'. Had been reading the two odes about Theseus by Bacchylides the day before, inspired by a remark by 'W.P.K.' [William Paton Ker] in his "Art of Poetry", and so was pleased by the reminiscences of them in Bob's poem. It is an 'exercise', but the kind which can 'come from a poet'; wishes there were more like it. Finds Phaedra a little undeveloped as a character, but Theseus, Ariadne, Minos and Dionysus are 'great figures'. Has just received the Oxford Calendar with the news of his own nomination for the Chair of Poetry, but [H. W.] Garrod will be appointed since he will get the 'local vote'; when he reads Ker, [Walter] Raleigh and [A.C.] Bradley it is 'almost (not quite!) a delight to think [his] chances are very small!'. Adds a postscript saying that he sees that George is lecturing at Oxford.

30 contains poem, 'Fifteen for All'.

Tyn-y-Fron, Betwys-y-Coed [sic: Betws-y-Coed]. - Knows Bessie will send this on to Bob at Settignano when she has read this. They are staying for a few days here with an aunt of Jan's [Ethel Arnold], then will go to Stocks; will be in London again on 9 October. Is lecturing at Bradford a week today, staying with the Herbert Joneses; will remember Bob and Bessie to them. Looks forward to seeing Bessie this or next month. Very good of Bob to read George's book ["Garibaldi and the Thousand"] before writing to thank him for him; 'immensely gratified' that Bob approved of it so completely, though this may be more praise than he deserved, since the "Times" which otherwise gave the book 'a blast of trumpets in favour' still finds his style 'unchaste in places'. However, it would be much worse if Bob had not taken him 'in hand over "[England under] the Stuarts". There are 'so few critics', and they never appear in print on history books 'which escape all literary [emphasised] criticism'. [Walter] Raleigh's "Wordsworth" seems a 'very fine book' to George, who is 'becoming more and more a Wordsworthian'. In a postscript over the page, Janet sends love; George confirms that he wrote all he knew 'about Cavour's and the King's thoughts', since Cavour 'contradicts himself' in his letters and the King's papers have not been published.