Showing 15 results

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.

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).

Board of Education.—Will expect him tomorrow (for the meeting of the advisory board). Discusses whether the range of the periodical should include education.

—————

Transcript

Board of Education
6. xii. 23

Dear McKerrow

I will expect you tomorrow, Friday, at 5 p.m.

As to the range of the periodical, there are two distinct points.

(a) Have we not enough, and perhaps more than enough, ground to cover, without entering upon the educational field at all? This is a point which I should of course not press if the general opinion is against me.

(b) How far can I, personally, take any responsibility for a journal which discusses education? Here your draft doesn’t help me much, because I should boggle much more at discussion of education “policy” than of educational “methods”. It is not a very important point, because it is not in the least necessary that I should be one of the nominal “proprietors”.

You might however consider the following alternative, which possibly covers all that you really contemplate.

“From time to time articles of a more general nature will give an account of recent progress in the various branches, or will discuss the relation of English to other studies and to the intellectual life of the country.”

Then omit from the next paragraph the words “but wider questions of principle and policy will not necessarily be excluded”.

Yrs sincerely
E. K. Chambers

1 Briar Hill, Purley, Surrey.—Approves McKerrow’s plans for the first number. Will try to contribute something to the second.

(Dated 25 July. The year is clear from the context.)

—————

Transcript

1 Briar Hill, Purley, Surrey
25 July

Dear McKerrow

Many thanks for your long letter about the R.E.S. which I wish I could have saved you by a meeting in town, but I have been fearfully rushed lately trying to get free from the red tape tentacles of the Board. {1} With luck I ought to be disentangled this week. I think your preface A.1. & I hope you will put it in just as it is. {2}

I sat next to E. K. Chambers the other day at a committee & he wanted to know when I was going to do my promised article for you. But I think you have quite enough about Shakespeare for No. I & I will really try & get something done for No. II. I rejoice to hear that you are hoping to print in the autumn & I think it is quite a good notion to date it Jan 1925. I am here until Aug. 22nd, after which we go away for three weeks.

Yours ever
J. Dover Wilson

—————

{1} The Board of Education.

{2} See Review of English Studies, i (1925), 1–3.

Three Beeches, Balerno, Midlothian.—Thanks him for a copy of his Prolegomena, and praises it. Has just returned from Germany, and finds it hard to believe that a war is coming.

(With envelope.)

—————

Transcript

Three Beeches, Balerno, Midlothian
5.5.39

My dear McKerrow,

The Prolegomena arrived by the first post this morning & I fell to at once. I had to run off to the University at 11, but have read enough to realise how grateful we all ought to be to you & how gently you have handled my serial theorisings, a good deal of which I have ceased to believe myself! And then this afternoon I had your letter. My dear man, you little know the thickness of skull I have developed after 18 years of editorial adventure {1} or you could not imagine I should be anything but delighted with your friendly thwackings. Think of EKC’s {2} bludgeon for example; yet we are still friends. Indeed I even gave him £100 prize the other day!.

I am sorry to hear about Colin & Malcolm. But I think you’ll find that they will be allowed to finish their course & hope that there will not be a war.

I have just returned from a fortnight in Germany, where I was overwhelmed with kindness by all, & cannot believe a war between our two nations is coming. Anyhow it’s the most peaceful country in Europe to look at. I left them all dancing round maypoles!

Yours ever
J.D.W.

Many thanks for the book. I am so glad you have got it out. Kindest regards to Mrs McKerrow. My wife & I laughed over your tirade against N.C. {3}—quite a pleasant man really & a keen Shakespearean

[Direction on the envelope:] Dr R. B. McKerrow | Picket Piece | Wendover | Bucks

—————

The envelope was postmarked at Edinburgh at 8.30 p.m. on 6 May 1939.

{1} The reference is to the period since the publication of the first volume in the Cambridge Shakespeare in 1921, though Dover Wilson had in fact been invited to help edit the series in 1919. See ODNB.

{2} Sir Edmund Chambers.

{3} Neville Chamberlain, the prime minister. ‘There is probably no prime minister who knew his Shakespeare better than Chamberlain’ (ODNB).

Board of Education.—Suggests sending copies of the prospectus to the English Association’s Publications Committee. Is concerned that the position of Bradley’s name may lead correspondents to write to him.

—————

Transcript

Board of Education
28. ii. 24

Dear McKerrow,

The Prospectus looks very imposing with its enlarged list of names, and I think your proposed procedure is quite sound.

Might you now send a batch to Houghton {1} for distribution to the Publications Committee of the E. Assn at their next meeting (2nd Thursday in March, I think), with a covering letter bespeaking the welcome and support of the Assn?

It is a little awkward that Bradley’s name comes first (although it looks well), because it may lead people who get copies, if anyone does, without a covering letter, to write to him.

I rather wish you had added on the print, even at this stage, “Communications to R.B.McK. and your address”. It might be well to tell B., if anything not clearly meant as personal does come to him, to send it to you for acknowledgment and reply.

Yrs sincerely
E. K. Chambers

—————

{1} A. V. Houghton, secretary of the English Association from 1912 or 1913 to 1938.

19 Clarence Gate Gardens, N.W.1.—The suggested Review is sorely needed, and she will gladly be a member of the advisory panel.

(Chambers has added a brief note to McKerrow dated 21 Jan.)

—————

Transcript

19 Clarence Gate Gardens, N.W.1
Jan. 20 ’24

Dear Mr Chambers

Please excuse delay in replying to your letter of Dec 27, but I am only just back from America, & found it awaiting me.

I welcome the suggested Review; it is indeed sorely needed, & it is a reproach to us that we have nothing of the kind.

I will gladly be a member of the advisory panel.

I hope it will be possible to start publication soon.

Yrs sincerely
Caroline F. E. Spurgeon

[Added at the head by Chambers:]

Dear McKerrow.

Please add her to the advisory list, and keep this.

E.K.C. 21/i

The Hythe Croft, Eynsham, Oxon.—Draws attention to a reference to a portrait of Edward Alleyn’s father or father-in-law.

—————

Transcript

The Hythe Croft, Eynsham, Oxon.
11. Feb. 1930

Dear Greg,

The life of Alleyn (by Oldys) in Biographia Britannica (1744-66) i. 115 mentions a picture at Dulwich, long thought to be his father, but stated to Oldys to be his father-in-law by one Thomas Waterhouse. The picture gave the age as 59.

Did you ever look into this? If father-in-law is right, I should think that it was more likely Henslowe than Woodward.

Yrs ever
E. K. Chambers.

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.