Showing 2 results

7 Moreton Road, Oxford.—Is too busy to review the Nonesuch edition of Congreve for the Review, but suggests others who might be able to do it.

(Letter-head of Corpus Christi College.)

—————

Transcript

7 Moreton Road,
Corpus Christi College, Oxford
25 April 1924.

Dear McKerrow,

I have your letter of the 8th of March before me, and I have been reminded of it by Greg, and I am really ashamed of myself. For what they are worth, I had better give you the extenuating circumstances; after your letter arrived I was worried for a fortnight by an abscess in the eye, and read very little and wrote not at all. And I put off replying, as one does, until I could find the man for this job; and I haven’t found him. And I have just finally finished off the proofs of six various volumes for publication this spring, which has been a heavy task. None the less, I owe you a sincere apology.

You had not told me anything (before your letter) about the Review of English Studies, but I am delighted to hear of it, and wish it success: it is certainly wanted. It would be an excellent thing to have an article on the editing of the Nonesuch Congreve; {1} I would (as you guessed) have loved to do it myself if only I had time; but the only man I could think of was F. P. Wilson, who is competent enough, though Congreve is a little late for him. But he’s just got married and been on his honeymoon and is sure to be busy; {2} I’ll mention it to him when I can catch him (he has the book—I gave it him for a wedding present!) but I am not very hopeful. If he won’t, I think Isaacs (now a Lecturer in Wales—an old pupil of mine here) would do it well, if I could get him to. {3} But probably by now you may have got someone yourself; will you send me a card?

Put me down as a subscriber, of course; and I’ll try to get you others. And all good wishes for your editorship!

Yours very sincerely
H. F. B. Brett-Smith.

I was glad that your letter appeared in the Mercury. I haven’t managed to get up to London yet.

—————

{1} Montague Summers’s edition of The Works of William Congreve had been published in four volumes by the Nonesuch Press the previous year. A letter about it by McKerrow (see the postscript) was printed in the March number of the London Mercury (ix. 526), but no review ever appeared in the Review of English Studies.

{2} Wilson had married Joanna Perry-Keene, one of his pupils, on 15 March. See ODNB.

{3} Jacob Isaacs was an undergraduate at Exeter College between 1919 and 1921, but was assigned Brett-Smith as his tutor because there was a shortage of Fellows at his own college. From 1921 to 1924 he was assistant lecturer in English at the University College of North Wales, Bangor. See ODNB.

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.