Part between pp. 94 and 95 - Letter from Paul Maas to W. W. Greg

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.