Showing 65 results

A list of the books that he is sending from his father [Duncan Crookes Tovey]'s library.

(Letter-head of the Houghton Library.)

Transcript

[…]

In your Court Records p. 93 (13 April 1603) you may care to refer to Arber II. 38. There was a London edition of the Lepanto published by Stafford and Hooke, 1603. A copy was in Bindley IV. 410—Heber IV. 1189—Britwell (private cat. of Eng. poetry II. 220, but not, apparently sold at Sotheby’s, see Checklist). See Arber III. 232.

[…]

Regarding memorials to A. J. Butler and the Gioliti Press.

Park Lodge, Wimbledon Common, London, S.W.19.—Discusses the signatures of Nashe’s Summer’s Last Will and Testament.

—————

Park Lodge, Wimbledon Common, London, S.W.19
4 Nov. 33.

Dear McKerrow

I wonder whether you have ever worried over Summer’s Last Will since you finished your Nashe?.

One small point I can add to your description. {1} F1 is mis-signed ‘D’ in all copies. In copy a at the BM the D has been erased & an F stamped in by hand. F2–4 are of course always D2–4.

Now it looks as if this most unusual misprint ought to be connected with the cancelling of C3–4. Query did they, in setting up these four pages omit a whole chunk of text (equal to 14 pages about), & then go merrily on with sheet “D”, only discovering the error when the latter was printed off? If so sheets D-E were printed to replace C3–4 & contain the matter of the original C3–4 plus the omitted matter. This does not seem very likely, seeing that the text runs on without any dislocation or obvious adjustment. Of course the large type directions & song of E2 & E2v might be an adjustment to make the matter fit: but similar large type songs occur on H1–2v where there is no apparent need for adjustment!

I wish you would just consider this—if it had not already occurred to you—and let me know what you make of it. I don’t see any obvious chunk of matter that might have been omitted or added.

Ever yours
W. W. Greg

—————

Letter-head of the Malone Society (Greg is listed as Hon. General Editor). This letter was formerly inserted between pp. 72 and 73 of McKerrow’s own copy of his Works of Nashe, vol. iii (Adv. c. 25. 74), though it relates to a passage on a different page (see below).

{1} The reference is to the words ‘Leaf F 1 is signed F in a’ on the penultimate line of the Works of Nashe, Vol. III, p. 227. In the copy from which this letter was removed, McKerrow has underlined the second ‘F’ and written ‘over printed’ in the margin.

Standlands, River, Petworth, Sussex. - 'I have been reading... your racy memoir of Gaselee...

Park Lodge, Wimbledon Common, S.W.19.—Responds to McKerrow’s inquiry about a book in an unusual format.

—————

Transcript

Park Lodge, Wimbledon Common, S.W.19
near Tibbets Corner
24 Apr. 1929

Dear McKerrow

Yes. I see your difficulty & I am not sure whether the case can be made to fit into any of our formal categories. After all in bibliography we are dealing with a human element which presents infinite capacity for variation. All we can hope to do is to group normal behaviour into types.

I suppose what really constitutes an xo is that there are x pages in a forme, not primarily anything to do with the folding of a sheet. This seems to follow when we consider printing on vellum, in which case sheet has no real meaning. (From this it would follow of course that a folio printed a page at a time is not a folio at all.)

In that case your book would be an 8o not a 12o. But since we can as a rule tell more or less how a sheet was folded & not how the pages were arranged in the forme I should still prefer for practical purposes to call it a 12o. Something else may have been printed on the other third sheet at the same time as the 8 pp. of the book!

Yrs
W.W.G.

—————

The ‘o’s in the expressions ‘xo’, ‘8o’, and ‘12o’ are superscript in the original.

(On the back is part of a bibliographical description by Greg—apparently dated Dec. 1908—of an edition of The Contention of the Two Famous Houses, York and Lancaster.)

Dated 22 March (4 April) 1913, Jurjew (Dorpat), Russia, concerning arrangements to consult MS O.3.23, sent to his university library.

Union Society, Cambridge. - Hopes Bob will be visiting soon. Is 'very busy' getting to know people, 'finding plenty of friends of a younger generation' so he will 'not feel shelved next year'. This is important as 'both [Ralph] Wedgwood and [G.E.] Moore are particularly lazy' about doing so: Moore is 'much more wrapped up in his metaphysics' and this 'seems to make him quite unconscious of the outside world'; he 'never says a word at Hall' or makes any effort to get to know anyone; it is 'really rather sad', for himself, and because he 'might be so very valuable' if he tried 'to influence people or educate them'; he is 'a king of debate' and they have 'grand meetings [of the Apostles' Society] largely owing to him. Hopes that their relation [Walter] Greg, 'a man of very great ability', will be chosen for the Society this year. Young [Felix] Wedgwood is 'very [emphasised] young, but very clever and original... If his brother is the Puritan he is the cavalier'. Was at '[Godfrey] Locker-Lampson's place' recently seeing their library; was most interested in the original Blake editions; the "Songs of Innocence" are 'most wonderful"; describes the "Tiger" in detail. Bob should try and see Blake's books at the B[ritish] M[useum], as they give a different idea of Blake than the '"Book of Job", where there is more thought and possibly [emphasised] less genius', though George himself likes that best. Would like to tell Bob about an interpretation he has of the "Book of Thel".

Park Lodge, (Wimbledon).—Sends the first volume of the Variorum edition of Beaumont and Fletcher, and discusses The Elder Brother.

—————

Transcript

Park Lodge
Apr. 25. 02.

Dear McKerrow

Here is the first vol of the Beaumont & Fletcher. {1} Bullen has had my work ever since Tuesday week. {2} I saw him yesterday when he said he was just going to go through it.

Thanks for note about “blanket”. {3}

The you-ye figures are not quite so striking in the Elder Brother but are still noteworthy. I have had to divide the ye’s into “pure” & “contracted” i.e. used in contractions such as y’are, t’ye, t’ee, ’ee etc. These latter are not unfrequent in the more colloquial parts of Massinger. My results are

[The first three numbers after each name below are arranged in columns headed you, ye, and y’. The numbers in brackets are the sums of the amounts in the last two columns.]

Totals

Massinger. 129 | 3 | 12 | (15)
Fletcher. 189 | 45 | 26 | (71)

Percentage

Massinger 89·5 | 2·1 | 8·4 | (10·5)
Fletcher 72·7 | 17·3 | 10· | (27·3)

From this it would appear that the real distinction lies in the use of unelided ye. It is necessary of course to have a considerable basis of observation for the figures to be of any use. I have also got some noticeable figures regarding ’em & them.

[The first two numbers in the entries below are arranged in columns headed ’em and them.]

Totals

Massinger 5 | 25
Fletcher 25 | 9

Percentage

Massinger 29·4 | 70·6 | = 100
Fletcher 73·5 | 26·5 | = 100

I have not got the figures for any other play of Massingers.

I enclose a photo {4} I came across the other day (I dont want [it] back) which seems to show that at that time there was no such wall in the chancel as you were speaking of at Melrose.

I was in the B.M. the Monday & Tuesday after we came home {5} & hoped to meet you but didnt. I was also in for a bit yesterday.

Hoping to see you some time soon

Yours ever
Walter W. Greg

—————

Vertical lines have been supplied to separate the numbers in the tables.

{1} A preliminary version, perhaps a proof, of the first volume of the variorum edition of The Works of Francis Beaumont and John Fletcher published by G. Bell & Sons and A. H. Bullen in 1904. It contained The Maid’s Tragedy, Philaster, A King and No King, The Scornful Lady, and The Custom of the Country, the first two plays edited by P. A. Daniel, the rest by R. Warwick Bond. The second volume, published in 1905, contained Greg’s edition of The Elder Brother, together with The Spanish Curate and Wit Without Money edited by McKerrow, Beggars’ Bush edited by P. A. Daniel, and The Humorous Lieutenant edited by R. Warwick Bond. In his introduction to The Elder Brother Greg discussed and applied various tests that had been suggested to determine which parts of the play were written by Fletcher and which by Massinger. These included an examination of the relative frequency of the forms you and ye, suggested by McKerrow, and of the forms ’em and them, as proposed by A. H. Thorndike in The Influence of Beaumont and Fletcher on Shakspere (1901). The first table in the present letter was reprinted in the introduction, and the totals in the second table were quoted.

{2} 15 April.

{3} Cf. Greg’s note on The Elder Brother, IV. iii. 194 (Works of Beaumont and Fletcher, ii. 76).

{4} There is a faint transfer of the image on the letter.

{5} The reference to Melrose in the previous sentence suggests that Greg and McKerrow had recently been to Scotland together.

(Undated. Postmarked 29(?) Jan. 1905.)

Park Lodge, Wimbledon, S.W.—Confirms that there is a cancel in the British Museum copy of an edition of works by Thomas Killigrew.

Wishes to collate his proofs of Jephet's Nahum with the MS.

Park Lodge, Wimbledon Common, S.W.19.—Discusses conflicting evidence relating to the 17th-century printer Alice Norton.

(Dated Saturday. Letter-head of the Bibliographical Society.)

Park Lodge, S.W.19.—Draws attention to an early title-border containing a representation of a printing press.

—————

Transcript

Park Lodge SW19
Tuesday

Do you know a representation of a printing press in an engraved title-border by F. Vallegio? I dont know for what book the border was made but it was used for an ed. of Bonarelli’s Filli di Sciro, n.p. 1607 or later. It is of course very late & the drawing is very bad, but so far as I can see from Madan’s list it is the earliest Italian example.

Yrs
W.W.G.

[Direction:] Dr. R. B. McKerrow | 44 Museum St | W.C.1

—————

Postmarked at Putney, SW15, at 11.15 p.m. on 26 June 1928.

(Undated. This list was compiled in response to a letter from G. E. Durham dated 23 Sept. 1927 (Add. MS a. 457/2/1) and a version of it was received by Durham on or before the 26th (Add. MS a. 457/2/3). The persons, etc., listed are A. W. Pollard, W. W. Greg, Miss H. C. Bartlett, Miss E. M. Albright, Prof. Max Förster, Miss Field, Frank Sidgwick, Louvain Library, Sir Israel Gollancz, G. C. Moore Smith, and J. M. Manly. A note has been made of those who were also written to, and those from whom acknowledgements were received.)

Park Lodge, Wimbledon Common, S.W. 19.—Thanks him for a copy of his book, and comments on it. Refers to his own forthcoming publications.

—————

Transcript

31 Endcliffe Rise Road, Sheffield
23 Oct. 1927

My dear McKerrow,

It is extremely kind of you to send me your Introduction to Bibliography, as though my bookshelves did not give sufficient evidence of your generosity already. Very many thanks.

The book is crammed with instruction for all literary students such as noone else could have given as well, and I hope you will find that there is a great demand for it everywhere. I suppose you will get it reviewed in Germany.

You are very scrupulous in making acknowledgment of little observations made by other people. As to ‘Bassifie’ {1}, I think Brett-Smith told me that in the Bodleian copy this curious mistake is corrected. (is not found).

p. 137. last line. You assume that 1581 = 1580/1, not 1581/2. Is this certain?

I notice that in one little point of usage you differ from me. I should say ‘this went on down to 1840’ (regarding Time as a river)—you say ‘up to 1840’ (as though it were a mountain). I imagine that there is plenty of authority for your use, but it always seems to me unnatural.

I dont know why my Warton Lecture of May 20 is not yet out, at least I have had no copies sent me & have not seen any note of its publication. I am getting in Dorothy Osborne proofs. {2} Parry has seen the Introduction & written very amiably about it, so I think he is not going to raise difficulties.

I have not found a reviewer for Lawrence’s Haward Lectures on The† Physical Condition of the Elizabethan Public Playhouse.

Greg prefers not to review Lawrence’s books. I suppose you wont undertake it?

Ever yours
G. C. Moore Smith

—————

Moore Smith customarily omitted apostrophes from words like ‘dont’ and ‘wont’.

{1} See An Introduction to Bibliography, p. 242.

{2} i.e. proofs of his edition of The Letters of Dorothy Osborne to William Temple, published by the Clarendon Press in 1928. The letters had previously been edited by Sir Edward Parry.

† Sic.

Park Lodge, (Wimbledon).).—Comments briefly on points relating to the Vulgate, the Second Quarto of Soliman and Perseda, and A Looking Glass for London and England.

(Dated Saturday. Postmarked 8 Oct. 1932.)

67 Selborne Road, Southgate, N.14.—The suggested article by Greg is too contentious to use as a specimen of the format of the new journal. Is not up to date with work on Chaucer, but will try to find someone else to write on that subject.

—————

Transcript

67 Selborne Road, Southgate, N.14

Dear McKerrow

Very many thanks for writing so fully.

I was rather afraid that if we were going to circulate any specimen of the format of the Review, Gregs article would look rather like rubbing it into Atkins. {1} I was very glad indeed to read Gregs article in the M.L.R. but as a specimen of a new Journal it is almost as contentious as certain things I have written myself. (“Woe is me my mother that thou hast born me, a man of strife & contention.”) {2}

I’d awfully like to write something for the Periodical: but I am not up in recent Chaucer work, I fear. I’ll try & think of someone who could do that satisfactorily. Thank you for asking me.

Yours
R W Chambers

[No direction.]

—————

{1} Greg had criticised J. W. H. Atkins’ edition of The Owl and the Nightingale (1922) in his article ‘On Editing Early English Texts. Some Bibliographical and Palaeographical Considerations’, Modern Language Review, xviii (1923). 281–5.

{2} Jeremiah xv. 10, slightly misquoted.