Oxford University Press, Music Department (Editorial), 38A Soho Square, London, W.1. - Believes Trevelyan saw the proofs of the volume of essays and lectures by [Donald] Tovey, which is to be published by O.U.P. this year; is keen to find a 'more interesting title' than the present 'Essays and Lectures on Music', which is not only dull but risks confusion with Tovey's "Essays in Musical Analysis" series. Has been suggested that the essay "The Main Stream of Music" should give its name to the book, but this 'probably will not do' [in fact this was the title eventually used]. Encloses an uncorrected set of proofs [no longer present]; Trevelyan will see that the work will be published in one volume, not two as first planned; both he and [Geoffrey] Cumberlege would be very grateful if he can suggest anything. Is also consulting [Hubert] Foss on the subject.
The Clarendon Press, Oxford. - [Kenneth] Sisam was 'making great efforts' to assemble the material enabling a decision on Trevelyan's translation of Montaigne before he left on holiday; he did not succeed and asked Davin to write begging Trevelyan's 'further patience'. Assures him that there is no 'question of quality'; the trouble is that the Press already publishes Trechmann's translation in the 'O.S.A.' [Oxford Standard Authors series], and Florio's in the [Oxford] World's Classics.; it is therefore necessary to weigh up the effect of a new translation on existing editions. Has 'dipped into' Bob's translation and much enjoyed it. Sisam will return at the end of August and will doubtless take up the matter then, while Davin gets 'on with the essential enquiries' and hopes to have 'the matter clarified' by the time he returns.
With initialled request by Clark at the top requesting the letter to be returned.
With a request from the Clarendon Press delegates for Clark and Wright to edit some Shakespeare volumes for them.
(With an envelope directed to F. C. Francis at the British Museum from the Printer to the University, Oxford.)
The papers mainly relate to McKerrow’s Introduction to Bibliography for Literary Students, first published in 1927, and two unpublished works—a bibliography of reprints of 16th and 17th century dramatists, and an essay on the elements of bibliography.
McKerrow, Ronald Brunlees (1872-1940), bibliographer and literary scholar13, Hanover Terrance, Ladbroke Grove, W. - Apologises for not writing sooner; has heard 'a good deal' about Trevelyan from Francis [Birrell?], [Goldsworthy Lowes] Dickinson and [Harry] Norton. Is working on Li Po 'in deference to the wishes of the public', translating, amongst others 'about 15 that have been done before' by Giles, St-Denys, Pound and so on; when it is printed, it may 'amuse' Trevelyan to compare the versions. Has not changed his own opinion of Li Po at all, but is 'taking a lot of trouble with him', he thinks he may be 'making him seem better than he is'. Impossible to get across in translation that Li Po is 'so largely a patchwork': for instance, the reference in the "River Merchant's Wife" to Wei who appears in 'the "Robber Che [Chih]" (chapter 29 of "Chuang Tzu" [Zhuangzi])", or that in another poem to the sailor with whom seagulls played in "Lieh Tzu [Liezi]"; St-Denys had obviously never read Lieh Tzu. The Oxford [University] Press has accepted his "Japanese Poetry: the Uta", which will come out in the spring. Heard a story about Alix [Sargant Florence] in Cornwall: she wanted to try the cream, but was told it 'would only be sold in compliance with a doctor's certificate', so she wrote to James [Strachey] to get one from Noel [Olivier] who refused; supposes this was when she and Norton were in Cornwall. Now she is there with James, who has flu. Lytton is also ill, with shingles. Rather likes Fredegond [Shove]'s poems ["Dreams and Journeys"?] except for 'the sonnets & the mysticism; Norton 'complained they reminded him of country holidays'. Has talked to Adrian Stephen a few times at the [1917?] Club, and likes him 'better than Norton, or Clive [Bell], or James'. Asks if Trevelyan has seen W. H. Davies's new book; has not read it properly himself, but there are some 'good things in it'. Davies was recently annoyed that the newspapers had described his clothes at a poetry reading as 'homely', when his 'buttons alone cost more than anything Yeats had on'. Has had a 'very kind and generous letter from Cranmer-Byng, a quite unsollicited [sic] "peccavi"'.
These papers listed under this head relate to McKerrow’s edition of the works of the Elizabethan writer Thomas Nashe. They comprise letters written to McKerrow between 1905 and 1916, mostly by Professor G. C. Moore Smith, together with an incomplete draft of an article probably written in 1926.
The Works of Thomas Nashe was published in five volumes—the text (Volumes I to III) in 1904 and 1905, the commentary (Volume IV) in 1908, and the Introduction and Index (Volume V), originally intended for Volume IV, in 1910. The last volume also included a series of Errata and Addenda. The first four volumes were published by A. H. Bullen, the fifth by Sidgwick & Jackson; all were printed by Horace Hart. The help provided by the writers of some of the letters in the present file is acknowledged at various points in the work: e.g. Vol. IV, p. 2, note; Vol. V, p. 198, note 2; Vol. V, Supplement, p. 52 (note on Vol. III, p. 126, ll. 31–2).
In 1958 the five volumes were reprinted by Basil Blackwell under the editorship of F. P. Wilson. This reprint included, in the last volume, a Supplement of explanatory notes, comprising the Addenda originally appended to Volume V, together with further notes de-rived, firstly, from McKerrow’s annotated copy of the work and the material inserted in it; secondly, from printed sources; and, thirdly, from information sent to Wilson by other scholars. Wilson mentioned that McKerrow himself had intended at one point to publish the various additional information he had accumulated since 1910:
‘About the year 1925, soon after the appearance of W. P. Mustard’s valuable notes on Nashe’s classical sources [Modern Language Notes, xl. 469–76 (Dec. 1925)], he began to prepare an article, but unfortunately he did not do more than draft a brief introduction and some rough notes on Nashe’s borrowings from Lloyd’s Pilgrimage of Princes (cf. i.38.20–39.22).’
The article in question—the contents of which were duly incorporated in the Supplement—is A2/21. It does not appear, however, that Wilson used any of the other items in this file in preparing the Supplement.
Reference is made in Moore Smith’s letters to three of his own publications, namely ‘Gabriel Harvey’s Letter-Book’, an article for Notes and Queries (11th series, iii. 261–3 (1911)), his edition of Gabriel Harvey’s Marginalia (1913), and Henry Tubbe (1915), a selection of poems by a minor poet of the 17th century.
The Clarendon Press, Oxford. - Trevelyan will think he has treated the question about Montaigne with 'scandalous negligence'; hopes he can forgive him, as he has had 'very heavy pressure of administrative work for some time'. The Press liked Trevelyan's translation and 'personal selection', but such a book would be more in the line of the London and New York houses who 'know about the market for books'. They have already published Trechmann's complete translation; Sisam thinks Trevelyan has 'the advantage of him at many points', but still his version is in print, set up when printing was at 'half its present price'. The London and New York houses did not think they could sell Trevelyan's selection at a price rather more than the complete Trechmann. Sisam waited for a while, hoping that 'conditions might improve', but unfortunately in the publishing world everything is 'getting always scarcer and dearer'. Hopes that Trevelyan will not think the delay in giving this 'disappointing answer' is due to a lack of interest or appreciation for his translation.
The Clarendon Press, Oxford. - Thanks Trevelyan for his letter of 27 May: sorry to have kept him waiting so long regarding [his translation of] Montaigne. The 'stoppage of coal and fuel... reversed the tendency to increase book production', and there was 'no prospect' of improvement. Was therefore unfair to a project like Trevelyan's to 'try and decide about it in these bleak months'. Montaigne falls more within the remit of Oxford University Press's than that of the Delegates [of the Clarendon Press] which is these days largely restricted to academic work, and the London and American houses have 'rather tied themselves' to [the translation by Emil Trechmann]. But if Trevelyan sends the rest of the manuscript so they can get the 'effect of the selection', promises to give it consideration and a 'reasonably quick answer'; wishes they could judge manuscripts 'on their merits and not under the rule of necessity'.
The Clarendon Press, Oxford. - Thanks Trevelyan for his letter of 15 January with the book and manuscript; asks him to excuse Sisam's 'apparent neglect': has been away a while and now has the 'very heavy business of the beginning of term' to deal with. Has not yet had time to read Trevelyan's translations [of Montaigne: see 22/16-17, 21/83] or take advice; is unsure whether the translation might come under [Oxford University Press's] London Department's remit rather than the Delegates' but will go into it as soon as possible and write again.
Oxford University Press Music Dept., 36 Soho Square, London, W.1. - Very kind of Trevelyan to write about Peterkin's retirement, and send him his "From the Shiffolds". Will continue to help the Press in various ways, as they have asked, and is 'very glad to do so', but this will be in the 'background' so he will not have the 'heavy responsibility of the lsat few years and... be tied down' as he is now. Is not giving up for reasons of health, though has been told he should take things easier: always thought of himself as 'simply the utility man who had to step in... when Foss dropped out', and keep the department going through the war; now feels the 'post war conditions' should be the concern of the younger men whom he has been training. Wants to take up many interests again, though doubts whether he will want to return to composing: has 'had enough of music' at the Press. '[Donald] Tovey matters are well in hand', and his "Essays" should be published in spring. All the Tovey material Foss had collected was sent up to Dr [Molly] Grierson a while ago; thinks she has found things she wanted. Saw the first chapters of her book [a biography of Tovey] some time ago and liked them, but has no recent news of it. Sends best wishes to Trevelyan and his wife for Christmas and the New Year.
Garden Corner, West Road, Cambridge. - Glad that Robert approves [of the excerpts from their father's letters to Bob, to be included in George's "Sir George Otto Trevelyan: A Memoir"]. Has arranged for a cheap edition of their father's "Life of Macaulay" to be published by the Oxford [University] Press in their "World's Classics" series, since the Nelson's edition sold out a few years ago.
86 Banbury Road, Oxford.—Declines to join the advisory panel, but expresses his support. Objects to a passage in the prospectus contrasting English and German scholarship.
—————
Transcript
86 Banbury Road,
Merton College, Oxford {1}
6 Jan. 1924.
Dear Greg,
I fear I mustn’t. The invitation has pleased me greatly. But in view of the number of my odd jobs here, and above all of my obligations to the Press—all of which eat up too much of my time for my own work—I dare not take on any new responsibility. I cannot promise to give the Review the active support of contributing to it, and I doubt if in any capacity I should be likely to do enough to justify the presence of my name on the panel. Of course I am all in favour of the Review, & I mean to push it here, and of course I am prepared—should you ask me—to offer my opinion now and then for what it may be worth. But I shan’t be playing fair if I appear to promise more.
May I even now as a token of my good will offer an opinion on the first sentence of the prospectus? It would be much improved if it stopped at the word ‘country’. The reference to Germany is unfortunate. I for one do not feel it ‘something of a disgrace’ that we have not had an Anglia and an Englische Studien. All the vital, productive movements in English scholarship during my time have started in this country, and have been carried on most efficiently in this country. What has Germany given us since 1900, or 1890? Why is it a disgrace not to have had the German machinery if our output is better than what Germany has given us with her vaunted equipment? I am afraid that the writer of the sentence whoever he was (I am sure it wasn’t you) was unconsciously administering to the further swelling of the German head, and indulging quite unnecessarily, and perhaps inopportunely, in the English pastime of self-abasement.
My best wishes for the New Year.
Yours sincerely
D. Nichol Smith.
—————
{1} This printed address presumably ought to have been struck through.
110 Banbury Road, Oxford.—Is concerned that the cheque [for Smith’s work on the Hypnerotomachia] may have been inadequate. Discusses some points of vocabulary. Is glad Smith has found a house in Cambridge. Must work hard at his lectures on religious poetry in order to be able to go to Italy at the end of the week. Does not expect that any of his work [on the Hypnerotomachia] will be printed except perhaps an essay on the vocabulary; OUP have refused and the initial response from Methuens was not encouraging. Is sickened by the international situation; his real motive for suggesting the Daily Worker and Reynold’s [see 1/112] was that he hoped that Smith might be able to use his pen ‘in the interests of truth’. ‘I find the dishonesty of the Times appalling.’
The Clarendon Press, Oxford.—The misunderstanding as to the relationship between the Press and the new journal came about in a natural way. Offers to discuss the matter further, and expresses the Press’s goodwill towards the enterprise.
—————
Transcript
P 4509
The Clarendon Press, Oxford
9 Jan. 1924 {1}
My dear McKerrow
This is a private letter in the sense that it expresses only a personal opinion. But I am filing a copy of it for convenience—I have no means of keeping papers in order outside this office!
Thank you very much indeed for writing so friendly and so frank a letter. Like you I regret the turn events have taken, in one respect; but it happened very naturally. We understood that we should hear again, if any thing were projected; but we were then talking to representatives of the English Association; and I understand that the Assn as such has nothing to say, so hasnt said it. I see, too, the way in which the conclusion was arrived at, that it would be useless to ask me to consider the later scheme; though I think that conclusion was not really deducible from the previous discussion about an editor. I wish you had asked!
Now I have been wondering whether I ought to ask if we can do any thing to assist you e.g. in the USA and Dominions. I hesitate to do so—much as I should like to help—because I dont want even to seem to poach; because I see that if we had ‘a foot in it’ we should be somewhat committed if (say) you went in to liquidation with a view to reconstruction; lastly, because it is clear to me that the Review would be much more attractive to us if it were offered as a new thing than if it were relinquished by its original publishers—because of course such relinquishing must suggest (to purchasers and advertisers) a financial loss and a disappointing circulation.
I may already have written either too much or too little! If you make no reply I shall not be surprised or offended. But if you would like to have some further discussion, I dont think it could do any harm—you know that we are well-disposed to the enterprise in any event.
I shall be at Amen Corner {2} on Monday, {3} and could be free 11–1, or after 3.
Yours sincerely
R. W. Chapman
R. B. McKerrow Esq.
—————
{1} The first two figures of the year are printed.
{2} The address of the Press’s London warehouse.
{3} 14th.