Showing 76290 results

(Engraving published 1 Dec. 1776.)

On printed notepaper, 21 Maxwell Street, Glasgow. - He and Hedderwick are taken aback by Buchanan's note to Mrs Gray. Houghton should see the enclosed correspondence soon, including Macmillan's 'kind, practical letter'; has arranged it by date for Maclehose to number.

Belle Hill, Bexhill. - Astonished by Mrs Gray's attitude which is very different from her late husband's; will send poems directly to Lord Houghton but warns that some will damage David Gray's reputation; offended by doubts as to his best intentions and wishes to sever connection with the Grays and 'an atmosphere in which I breathe so painfully'.

Merkland, Kirkintilloch. - Glad Buchanan's publisher [Alexander Strahan] entrusts the new edition [of her son's works] to Macmillan; asks Buchanan to return David's work to Mr Freeland for assessment by Lord Houghton, Mr Hedderwick and Sheriff Bell; hopes Buchanan will assist in promoting the book when it is published; [no signature].

On printed notepaper, Herald Office, Glasgow. - Buchanan now reports that Strahan has decided Macmillan had better retain the poems; holding a pen still painful.

On printed notepaper, Herald Office, Glasgow. - Since seeing Logan, has been ill with a fever 'like lightning on the brain'. Buchanan writes that Strahan now offers two thirds of the profits from publication of David Gray's poems; asks Logan to consider in the light of Macmillan's offer, and indicate decision.

On printed notepaper, Herald Office, Glasgow. - Robert Buchanan wishes to publish David Gray's poems through Strahan. Mrs Gray should consult Matthew or David Buchanan before deciding.

Belle Hill, Bexhill. - His regard for her late husband. Recommends his publisher Strahan for the new edition of her son's poetry; Freeland will explain terms. Offers any other help he can.

On printed notepaper for 21 Maxwell Street, Glasgow. - Mrs Gray brought the enclosed notes from Buchanan and Freeland. Logan does not think Buchanan is reliable: some time ago Miss James advised David Gray's late father to delay publishing a new edition but recommended Buchanan, to whom many manuscripts were sent; hopes Macmillan can undertake publication instead as Logan does not wish to be associated with Buchanan.

On printed notepaper, Macmillan and Co... 16 Bedford Street, Covent Garden, W.C., London. - Buchanan cannot publish [David Gray's poems] without Mrs Gray's consent. Macmillan could offer her say £50 for the rights and a royalty per copy sold; no great profits anticipated, but David Gray could be dissociated from Buchanan's mediocrity. The late father's alleged authorisation might be a problem; asks if it is worth wrangling over; perhaps Buchan could edit the poems under supervision to curb his vulgarity. Possible purchase of copyright by David Gray's Glasgow friends. Postscript: might call with [W. Aldis] Wright; 'We are going to walk down from London to Glasgow & beg our way'.

‘As from’ 21 Beaumont Street, Oxford.—Discusses the first part of his review of Greg's Editorial Problem in Shakespeare.

—————

Transcript

As from 21 Beaumont Str., Oxford,
25/1/44

Dear Dr. Greg,

I am glad to see from your letter of 13.1., that you are not too much displeased by part I of my review {1}, and I hope the proofs of part II (sent to you, unfortunately and against my explicit instructions, in an uncorrected state [Footnote: ‘You need not me to emend Ashby into Aspley.']) will explain some of the points which seemed doubtful to you at first sight. Certainly you will have realized that I do not treat substantive variants (i.e. variants of substantive witnesses) as all equally available if intrinsically acceptable. ‘Probability of error’ (which includes most of what you call ‘bibliography’) I have always treated as an important criterion, though as one of secondary importance only. You will find more about it in my ‘Textkritik’ (1927), which is to a considerable degree independent of the language of the texts concerned there.

You rightly object to the words ‘a variant in a conflated text being proved to be substantive’. But I do not remember having used it†. What I wanted to point out is this: if in a text b which is mainly derivative (as compared with a), one reading is proved to be substantive (i.e. not derived from a), then every variant of b from a becomes potentially substantive, and must be examined just as if b were substantive in its own right, so that the distinction between sporadic and pervasive conflation becomes useless. That the agreement of a purely substantive witness with a conflated one has quite a different character from the agreement of two purely substantive witnesses I never denied (cf. my notes on Rich. III in R.E.S. 1942). What I criticised is only the classification of witnesses according to their higher or lesser degree of conflation or authority. Not even the fact that F has reprinted or rejected a text does, in my eyes, constitute a class-character.

I confess to having no idea what kind of witness the common source of Q1 and Q4 of R. and J. was if there was any common source. But I do think the subject requires a new treatment, since Tycho Mommsen’s parallel, the ‘Perkins Folio’, has gone, and the later editors have as far as I see completely failed to see the problem.

I am writing this from London where I had to stay for some days; so please excuse the bad ink and the worse style. There will be I am afraid more discussion about part II of my review, and I am at your disposal for any further explanation you shoud† want from me. I shall be especially grateful for your criticism of the conjecture in my Postscript.

With my best thanks for your kind letter

I remain sincerely yours
P. Maas.

—————

Written in purple ink.

{1} The first part of Maas’s review of The Editorial Problem in Shakespeare, printed in the October 1943 issue of the Review of English Studies. The second part appeared the following January. Cf. GREG 2/2, pp. 92–4.

† Sic.

21 Beaumont Street, Oxford.—Comments on the second part of his review of Greg's Editorial Problem in Shakespeare.

—————

Transcript

21 Beaumont St., Oxford, 22. 3. 44.

Dear Dr. Greg,

Our last letters are both of 25. 1., therefore they crossed. I delayed my answer, because I expected the revised proofs {1}. After having waited in vain for a month I cycled to Long Wittenham, only to hear that the revised proofs had been sent to the printer without my Imprimatur. I tried to get at least the obvious mistake ‘printer’ for ‘publisher’ in the last note rectified {2}. This too failed. I am now told that the correction will be executed in a second and more presentable set of offprints of part I + II of my review. Vedremmo.

Thus I must apologize for having exaggerated your agreement with Shaaber; I had confused ‘persuasively’ with ‘convincingly’. I am less sure that I was wrong in interpreting the colophon of F as a kind of signature. Cannot the difference between the colophon and the title page correspond to a change in the ownership? I have not seen any discussion of the subject posterior to 1924.

With many thanks for your kind remarks

Yours sincerely
P. Maas.

—————

{1} The proofs of the second part of Maas’s review of Greg’s Editorial Problem in Shakespeare for the Review of English Studies, printed in the January 1944 issue.

{2} Greg corrected the mistake in his own copy of the review. See GREG 2/2, p. 94.

Inscription in Welsh on back.

The largest surviving portion of Wittgenstein's nachlass containing his working papers 1914-1951

The archive includes diaries 1952-59, records of self-analysis 1939-59, correspondence 1925-1980s, student notes of G E Moore's lectures 1923-24, academic papers (many fragmentary) ?1920s-1980s

Sixty-six lectures on constitutional history written in Winstanley's hand on loose sheets of paper, each headed with a lecture number and title, accompanied by a holograph book list relating to study of the 16th century and an incomplete lecture/review? on George I and his relationship with his Cabinet and Secretaries of State. The items are undated but presumably date from one of Winstanley's tenures at Cambridge, i.e. 1906-14 and 1919-35.

The papers consist of correspondence, diaries, subject files, writings, other Whewell papers, family papers, and later papers of others. The family papers include those originally gathered by Whewell's first wife Cordelia (née Marshall) and his second wife Lady Affleck (née Ellis). The papers of Lady Affleck's brother and Whewell's friend Robert Leslie Ellis now form a subset of this collection. The collection is further described in the System of arrangement field below, and materials received by gift and by purchase are described in the Related units of description field below.

Diaries kept by Frederic Watkyn-Thomas (36 items, 1926-1963); diaries kept by Diana Watkyn-Thomas (27 items, 1929-1952), including her "Diaries of the War" series (12 volumes, 1939-1943) with another war diary not so titled from 1944. Both series include holiday diaries jointly written by husband and wife, describing their regular fishing trips to Scandinavia and Iceland and long summer stays there.

Frederic revised all the diaries in the last ten years of his life, adding dates and specifications such as '?Our last visit to Kolåsen' (B25); he also used a printed diary for 1956 to create a summary of the main events of his life from 1906 onwards, recording events on each day in previous years such as theatre performances, letters received, reunion dinners in College and holidays. He also revised the commonplace books in which he collected newspaper cuttings, wrote book revisions, reported conversations, and noted his observations on specific subjects throughout his life; in these revisions he added dates, subjects, and re-arranged the contents.