May 8, 1950

Professor Thomas Copeland
Quadrangle Club
University of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois

Dear Tom,

How are you and how is springtime in the Windy City? I imagine it is even pleasanter than here, where we have had a very late spring and a very rainy one. That doubtless presages a cold, wet summer, during which time you will be in our midst to cheer us up.

My occasion for writing is to send along the enclosed page from a book catalogue. Since I have ordered an item lower on the page, it seemed acceptable to cut the page in this fashion. And I hope this will be satisfactory for your purposes.

There is little news to report from here. The College English Association had its meeting here last Saturday, which went over quite well. The features of the morning were talks by Cleanth Brooks and Dorothy Bethurum, in which they waved olive branches at each other. The discussion afterward was quite good, also, chiefly the remarks of René Wellek and Bill Wimsatt.

Bill Parker came up from New York, so we did a bit of entertaining while he was our house guest. Probably you know him, and can realize we had a good deal of fun.

I am keeping busy with Spence, and some other things. My one remaining extra-curricular activity is now cutting into my time a good deal, namely the charter business. I have to run a conference here for the National Municipal League on June 2 and 3. Some day it will be history, thank goodness.

Bet me have word from you sometime. And let us know when you will be reaching these parts. Please make my greetings to Ronald and Julia, if you see them.

S

P.S. There must be something in mental telepathy. I had just finished dictating this when the postman brought your letter of May 6. Needless to say, I was delighted to have it.

The Malone letters have me full of anticipation. I am looking forward to them greatly. Also I am glad to know about the time of your arrival, and hope we can meet frequently once you are here. Yes, René will be here most all summer.

THE QUADRANGLE CLUB
CHICAGO

October 9, 1950

Dear Jim,

Here's a sight that's very beautiful
to a few of us. I just got copies of this from
Melvin Loos this morning. He followed our
suggestion very well, don't you think? It seems
to me it sets up the Committee's alternatives
beautifully. There are, as Loos himself pointed
out, a sprinkling of typographical errors, and
I, not he, made the mistake of leaving out the
volume number in the T.L.S. reference on the
Boswell page. But these are trifles in the general
intoxication of the fine letter-press. It's not
every index that manages to look lustrous.

How does the world go? Out here we're
just getting started. I've met each of two classes
twice. I have no Burke course this fall, but will
have one in the winter, one in the spring, which is
twice what I had last year. Things are much as they
were last year, but I'm a little more acclimated.
Mr. Hutchins has everybody in a perfect uproar
again. I had lunch at the Humanities table this
noon, with Ronald Crane and others. The faculty talks
nothing but sedition. They were quoting with glee
one of the full Professors who sat next to Hutchins
at a recent meeting. Hutchins launched one of his
routine bombshells - as I remember it, saying that
no one on the faculty was teaching literature as
literature, or some such poser. The Professor turned
and said, "As Chancellor of this University you ought
either to know a lot more about such matters or
talk a lot less." Hutchins blenched. Or did he?

THE QUADRANGLE CLUB
CHICAGO

I asked Ronald Crane about the Aristotle series for English Institute. He seemed much interested but so far is a little non-committal (say, there's poetry bursting out of the pavement: "little non-committal"). I also asked him to read over a blurb I had written about myself for a Fulbright application. He made one very helpful suggestion, and agreed to be a sponsor. I'll get one other here - in fact I have to - and Ted Hilles and Professor Potter in Sheffield. Four is the number they ask. The Guggenheims aren't so restrained and I'm applying for that too as I told you. I'll put René, again a couple people here, probably Sir Philip Magnus and Dr. Powell. If big names can do it, how could they take it away from me?

I've heard from several sources that the New Haven play season is making a good start. Not that I envy you Steinbeck. By the way, did you see *The Innocents* last year? It got here last week, with an excellent cast; the little girl especially was first rate. It's astonishing how much of the horror and the subtlety they got into play form. That wonderful hellish-looking staircase! Do you ever go to the Art Cinema? The other thing I've seen - worth seeing - since getting here is a fairly ancient French film, *The Devil In The Flesh*. One of those things that they advertise as Adult, and this time it really is. It throws a flood of light, by the way, on the limitations of *Sunset Boulevard*, being again the story of a young man and an older woman but told with some idea of actuality.

I visited some big Hdstein people last weekend, out in Dundee, Illinois. But by gosh, they are selling their herd too, within a month. Are we in a collapsing market, as well as a collapsing world?

THE QUADRANGLE CLUB
CHICAGO

October 31, 1950

Dear Jim,

I don't remember sending you one of
these. I can imagine your enjoying life, though,
even without it. It was addressed to the historians,
who are very businesslike about Burke and will take
him without condiments. When I get around to telling
the literary people the same news, it will have to
be dressed out with more art.

I've talked to Ronald Crane about next week.
He will expect a call from you Monday night the 6th,
and we expect you over on the 8th or 9th. We thought
the 8th might suit you best. Chapman gives his talk
the 9th and perhaps you don't insist on hearing it
again. If you want to, though, and especially if
you'd enter into sherry-and-lunch beforehand (assuming
Chapman will enter in himself), that might be our plan.

Well, that can be settled in your phone
call Monday. I look forward to seeing you.

December 31, 1950

Dear Tom,

After we parted on Thursday evening, bright and early on Friday morning I became involved in a Burke matter on which I should like your advice. Not seeing you on Friday I now write you about it.

Allen Hazen introduced me to Wilson M. Hudson, Jr., of the University of Texas. As you may know, Hudson took a degree at Chicago presenting as his dissertation an index-guide to Burke's "terms." In other words, he took about a thousand key words such as nature, passions, ambition, imitation, etc., and brought together illustrations of Burke's use of these terms. A copy of his dissertation is in the Chicago Library.

The question immediately arises whether this work would be suitable for the Index Society to consider as a possible publication. Hence, I would be grateful if you would drop everything and immediately rush to the shelves in the Library to look over this compendium of Burkeian lore. Seriously though, I should be grateful if you would have a sampling of it and let me hear your opinions of it.

The job was done under various people as I understand it, but principally under Ronald's eye. I have the impression from Hudson that Clarence Faust also encouraged him if he did not do some of the supervising, also. In fact, I shall send a carbon of this letter to Ronald so that when you speak to him on the subject he will be well prepared. Between the two of you I ought to get a very expert opinion on the matter.

There are several questions about the feasibility of publishing it. First of all, I have the impression it is much too long for a "half volume", which is what we are primarily looking for. When you see it perhaps you can form an opinion as to how much can be cut. In other words, it's quite possible that seven hundred key words would be enough, and the others would not be missed.

Another question refers to the edition to which this index-guide is keyed. He says it is to the Little Brown edition in twelve volumes that is also available in England. Knowing nothing about it, I hope this is the standard edition of Burke, and that his dependence on this edition would in no way be a handicap. A frank opinion on this matter would be most important.

Also, I wonder whether he has omitted the use of the published correspondence. In that case, do you think it is a major deficiency? And please give me an idea of whether you think his form would require much revision. He has an idea that he could check the references on his first typed copy, so that it could be used for the printer without re-doing the whole thing.

Professor Thomas O'Copeland

-2-

12/31/50

Your comments would also be welcome on just how important you think the darn thing is. How useful would it be and to whom? I know that a Burke scholar like yourself would like to have it to lure him from the chimney corner, but how much general use can be made of it or should be made of it? Do you believe that it would be enough to print the first arrangement only, which he calls "Words and Works"?

The matter of length is all based on our ancient assumption that your checklist should be issued as one-half of a year's publication. But has it now swollen so much that the bulk will be a whole volume? If there is any way you can estimate the number of pages that your checklist will run to I should like to know about it, since it may cause us to change our assumption which has not been re-examined for some time. Thank you for your opinion on the matter.

The format that Melvin Loos has worked out for the checklist is so attractive that I should not like to tamper with it. However, there might be some advantage in bringing out one big volume on Burke, the same size as Wing. But we couldn't bring one out twice as thick as Wing.

Incidentally, the index to the Art Bulletin is now in the mail, so the Index Society has published its fourth volume. And the third volume of Wing is expected to be ready by the end of February. As you can see, we are really rolling right along. In fact, we are almost up to the current year's publication!

There is no other personal news to add, except we enjoyed thoroughly the chance to be with you on Thursday evening. We thought it was a very good party, though probably we are prejudiced.

s

January 11, 1951

Professor Thomas Copeland
The Quadrangle Club
1155 East Fifty Seventh Street
Chicago 37, Illinois

Dear Tom,

The promptness with which you investigated Hudson's massive work and reported on it is very much appreciated. In consequence I have been able to write him this evening with our decision on the matter. The answer, as you have no surprise to learn, is in the negative.

At least, you can see why I thought it was worth looking into. If it had been what we would like to have it be, the thing could have made a nice companion volume to yours. But alas, it is quite another kettle of fish. Accordingly the learned world will have to struggle along without it.

In writing him I softened the turn down by suggesting that he publish in micro-film. Because of the handful of scholars present and future who will ever be interested in doing much with it, there is no reason that a few microfilm copies properly scattered around the country might not be sufficient. And in that case only a couple of hundred dollars would be involved, not the thousands necessary for letterpress. Also, that would get his name in the bibliographies and make the availability of the work known.

So far no word has come from Ronald about Hudson. Perhaps he is embarrassed that the outside world should have seen this prize dissertation! Or perhaps it is his crowded schedule of other activities. My opinion of the Hudson dissertation is similar to yours: Somewhat more on the M.A. than we like to think such things may be. But evidently he was a problem student, and they were glad to ship him back to Texas even at the price of a degree.

Perhaps this work on your part is not all wasted, since you say that the volume may be of some use to you in the future. I didn't go over the volume quite as thoroughly as you did, but what I saw was enough. What stopped me was to see the fact the "barbarous", "barbarity", and "barbarism" all had supplementaries. Indeed, the more I looked over the various entries the greater his lack of discrimination seemed to be. But we should let Hudson flow serenely on without muddying the waters further.

The article by Maugham in the *Cornhill* I have not yet seen. Your comments on it are very amusing. Incidentally, what is the difference between "popular errors" and Sir Thomas Browne's "vulgar errors." I suspect that Browne's are actually the more popular because the more fascinating. My hair still stands on end when I think of his tale of the beavers protecting themselves from the hunters.

Concerning the size of your volume, I don't know just what the size of half a volume should be or the size of a full volume ought to be. The index to the *Art*

Professor Thomas Copeland

050

1/11/51

Bulletin has just come out, and if I remember correctly that runs to about 426 pages. Even so, it seems thin for such a price as the twelve dollars we charge for a year's membership. I'll simply pass this information along to Ben and let him digest it. Now that his aged mother has finally passed to her reward he will be a little freer to give his attention to academic matters.

Marie-Louise is very pleased that you had such a good time at our little spontaneous party on that Thursday in New York. A nice note also came from Ray Short. I didn't see you sitting there with Milton on Friday morning, though your description is most vivid. Indeed, ever since receiving the Christmas card from Milton depicting him and his bride in their nuptial car he has been very vividly before my eyes. That picture has a particular haunting quality. Perhaps you can define it.

Now I must get back to reforming the city of New Haven. Our charter fight is really boiling up again and I believe this spring and summer will see the matter finally overwith. This threatens to be my last cause, and I hope it won't be a lost one. At present our chances seem at least even.

s

THE QUADRANGLE CLUB
CHICAGO

January 3, 1951.

Dear Jim,

Thanks for your letter, which I didn't see until after noon today. (I'm a day later than you may have expected, having been delayed on my return from the east by the death of one of my first cousins, whose funeral was in Pittsburgh yesterday afternoon.) I haven't examined Mr. Hudson's dissertation yet, and I'm afraid it isn't possible that I should get through it before Saturday morning. But may I give you an interim report on the present estimated size of the checklist, and so forth?

Counting the family letters - to be included - and the missing letters, we figure the grand total of our letters at roughly 6000. The simple chronological list of these will be, say, 50 pages; the alphabetical listing of them (in larger print) will run about 150, not counting the headnotes with names, dates, and sources for 1200 correspondents, or the preliminary recital of sources (which could be put in pretty small print, but it's good and long!) or an appendix of pamphlet letters, or, of course, the Introduction. I'm no artist at this sort of estimate, but I'd be surprised if we were anything short of 250 pages of the size of Loos's specimens. A figure up to or over 300 seems to me more probable.

I heard of this dissertation from Allen, who made no comment on its quality. I assume it is the same one which I heard of at the end of the summer from Ross Hoffman, who had been asked to serve as some sort of outside consultant. Hoffman was scornful. I see no objection to its being based upon

THE QUADRANGLE CLUB
CHICAGO

the Little, Brown edition; it's as nearly standard
as any - many copies in American libraries, and as
you say, some in British too. Its not covering the
correspondence strikes me as a much more serious
limitation. A vast amount of Burke's most important
doctrine is in personal letters. Just at a hazard
I'd also suspect that Burke doesn't lend himself
to a philosophical index; he's philosophical enough
in the sense that his thought is profound and
consistent with itself, but I doubt very much if
his use of words is disciplined enough for an
indexer's purposes. He comes at the same topics
with such different vocabularies on different
occasions, I should think he'd be the despair of
any analyst who wasn't almost as nimble as Burke
himself. Well, I'll have a better impression of
this tomorrow or Friday, and will write you
immediately after the last class of the week.

If it was your "prejudice" to think
that was a wonderful party last Thursday, at least
everyone shared the prejudice. I refer you to
Burke's classic passage on the wisdom so often
embodied in prejudice. "A man makes his virtue
his habit." Ray and I radiated well-being and
affection for the world all the way out to Long
Island.

I'm sorry I didn't get to talk with
you on Friday morning. Milton and I were sitting
a few rows behind you during the papers; like a
couple bird dogs we had come to a point and were
only waiting a time to advance and renew old
acquaintance. But Jim Clifford (not, I think,
from a sense of your danger) brought Donald Bryant
over to shake hands; we ended by having lunch with

The Bestwell Club
OF CHICAGO

February 20, 1951

Professor Thomas Copeland
The Quadrangle Club
University of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois

Dear Tom,

How goes everything? I wish I could write you a full letter now, but
am so involved with a number of other matters at the moment that this
is only a token.

But I did want to send on the enclosed page from a catalogue with the
reference to a Burke letter. Perhaps it is already in your files. In
any case, you can check and see. I believe there is enough data on
the leaf for your purposes.

Everything here seems to be going well. I am very much involved in the
charter drive, again, and we seem to be getting somewhere. At least we
are in the middle of a good fight.

Marie-Louise and the boys are both very well. She takes me out for a
two mile walk before breakfast every morning, so I'm in quite good
shape after all that road work.

Incidentally, I had a nice letter from Ronald the other day reporting
about Elder Olson and his paper to come at the English Institute. It
might be a good thing if you could talk to Olson about the Institute
sometime. In other words, he might like some practical advice from
you about the audience, its nature and level of intelligence. Also,
the fact that the discussion is usually a good deal of fun. And he
might even want suggestions about staying in New York.

From all indications we are going to have a very good Institute. Most
of the programs are made up, and the announcement will be out soon. I
hope you are going to be back in New England in time to attend.

Enough for now. I must run along.

s

Professor Thomas Copeland

-2-

4/11/51

What news have you had from the Guggenheim and Fulbright people? I wish you all kinds of luck with both of them. Rene has already heard that he has received a Guggenheim, as has Jim Clifford at Columbia. Apparently the competition was intense this year, and a number of people are quite disappointed. For example, Maynard was turned down as was Charles Prouty. The official announcements are due this Monday, so undoubtedly you have heard from them already. Be sure to let me know what your plans are in light of the outcome.

The charter scramble continues unabated here. There is a strong attempt to "do nothing" for another two years, which means we are battling the status quo as much as we are battling the evil spirits. Another month and we will know the bad news. But there is a good likelihood that there may be a referendum this November. How I wish it were all over with!

Is there any recent news about the Burke checklist? We expect to have an editorial committee meeting (Index Society) on May fifth. Thus if you have any suggestions or additional information about your manuscript, please let me know. Is there other news on the Burkeian front?

There is little other news to report. On Monday next I am going up to Providence to give a talk before the English Club of Brown. This is graduate students and some of the English Department. I shall talk on "Problems in Editing Spence's Anecdotes", so that you may expect a whole new school to be called the "Providenciales" to spring up. The job comes along slowly, and nearly every step forward uncovers dozens of new problems that previous Popeians had somehow stepped over.

Marie-Louise continues well, despite trouble with an infected tooth. We take a two mile walk before breakfast every morning, which is good medicine for both of us. The boys are both fine also. Tom flew down to Florida and drove back with us. Marshall then took the car and went to Florida with the Princeton Glee Club.

As I remember your plans, you expect to go to England again this summer. Be sure to let us know if you are going to be able to visit New Haven on your way toward the rising sun. It would be a great pleasure to see you.

8

The Boswell Club
OF CHICAGO

April 13, 1951.

Dear Jim,

Thanks for your long and excellent letter. Now I'm glad I waited to write you. Actually I sat down to it and got half-way through a sheet two weeks ago, to give you the good news that I got the Guggenheim. I got interrupted and derailed and began to think (mere rationalization, surely) that maybe I oughtn't to spill the secret anyway, since the Committee said it was not to be "published" before their official announcement. But, you say, is telling a few of one's good friends publishing? Well, I'm doubtless wrong as usual - especially as usual when I imagine I'm being "correct."

The news brightens the world no little, I must say! It's all the more astonishing when you tell me some of the notable Wheels who didn't get them. I've heard of one such here: our friend Elder Olson (who very likely would have left the country before English Institute had he come through - so there is a brighter side). Ronald Crane I think was very much modified at Olson's rejection, and I'm told wrote the Committee an indignant letter. Poor Ronald has had another much harder blow recently. Rea Keast, who is almost a son to him, got an offer from Cornell - not a full Professorship, but it went as far as tenure. The Department tried very hard to get it met, but it wasn't. Keast therefore said he would leave and I gather it's now quite definite. "All these things are against me!" as old Jacob said when he was losing his favorite sons. I think Keast did the right thing, though quite a few people here feel that he made a mistake. You doubtless have heard that Arthur Mizener is going to Cornell, he as a full Professor. He's earned it, in the big arena.

I didn't get the Fulbright. One is quite enough, of course! My Guggenheim project was far the more interesting of the two. It is more interpretative, less editorial, and doesn't confine me to Sheffield. What I now imagine doing is spending a good part of the fall in England and then lighting out for a better climate; re-appearing with the spring, with, let us hope, a pretty good piece of rough draft to revise, check, etc. How realistic all this is we'll know later.

I have an idea I won't be able to get over there early in the summer. We owe you people a checklist, I seem to remember. That's still the first commitment, and I think I ought to be within prodding distance of Milton during at least part of the summer. Tell your Committee that the deadline which you suggested to us last summer - October 1 of this year - will be met if our feeble powers suffice. I rather think I should

The Boswell Club
OF CHICAGO

spend a week in late June and maybe a week in early July
out at Guilford focussing the Miltonic energies. Then be
somewhere in that neighborhood, as last year, working on
about 1000 small details of identification and the like
to make the thing as perfect as it ought to be. Sail for
England probably in August. What are your own summer plans,
by the way? Do René and Jim Clifford expect to get abroad
early? I'm a little reconciled to this fairly laborious
plan of a summer by the thought that England may be crowded
anyway, what with this Holy Year they're getting up. I'll
have my vacation in a slacker season.

I'm glad to hear that you all enjoyed Florida.
I agree that the cultural life is a good deal this side of
exhilarating. But I've thought often since the war of those
perfect beaches. The warmth, the soft delicious water, the
high clouds; I've never swum under more perfect conditions.
I'm glad to hear your favorable report on Bill Ruff and his
university. I saw Bill at M.L.A., for the first time in
about five years - the first time for as much as a meal
together in closer to eight or nine years. I agree that he
is astonishingly unchanged, and in the favorable sense.
He has his own house now, he tells me.

What news is there to send you from here? Precious
little, really. Hutchins has been followed into retirement
by Colwell; no one was much cut up. This morning's paper
carried the news of the Chancellorship's being given to a
local boy named Kimpton. He has been the candidate most often
mentioned ever since Hutchins' first announcement. All that I
know of him is that he raised a good deal of money for the
University (which put the ace of spades in his hand). Here's
a wholly indelicate anecdote I was told today as being Kimpton's,
and doubtless in reference to his money-raising efforts. A
weight-lifter from this country went to Moscow to put on his
show. Before a large audience he raised a weight that he thought
should have surprised them. Not a murmur of applause. He
raised another bigger one. No response. He half broke his
back on his biggest weight, got it in the air. Silence.
Finally he turned to the audience and asked if there was
anyone who understood English? One man stood up, said he did.
"All right," said the weight lifter. "Fuck you!"

Well, as we were saying, civilization is striking new
lows every day. It's a wonder it doesn't discourage us more
than it does. Right now all my projects are looking more
hopeful than usual. Hoping you are the same. Do write when
you can. Will you give my love to Mary Louise?

April 19, 1951

Professor Thomas W. Copeland
The Quadrangle Club
University of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois

Dear Tom,

Your letter arrived the same day that the Guggenheim awards were in the paper. You can imagine how delighted we were to find your name snuggled in the list. In fact, a lot of your special friends in New Haven were particularly delighted, and everyone of the honors and accomplishments connected with your name in the future will give us added opportunities to beam like a cat that has just tasted cream. The book on Burke and the French revolution should be a wonderful one to write, and I know you will have a grand time doing it.

Your plans sound very interesting. We shall hope to see a lot of you while you are in this neck of the woods. As soon as you arrive be sure to let me know. We expect to be here most of the summer, since I must get some work done now that the charter story is reaching the end of the present chapter. Moreover, we like being here, especially now that we have an air conditioning machine in our upstairs sitting room. With my snuggerie in the basement, I am prepared to be both cool and undisturbed.

Speaking of Burke, enclosed is a clipping from a catalogue that just arrived. I have purchased a few things from this man Hoag, and I think you will find it is carefully catalogued. Perhaps you had a trace of it already. Hoag can probably tell you who buys it, unless you can get the Newberry Library or someone else to do so. Maybe some member of the Boswell Club would crash through for you.

I had luncheon with Rene on the sixteenth, the day that the Guggenheim Awards were announced. He was very pleased, and asked immediately about your plans. He expects to take this coming year off, and possibly go abroad in the spring. But he can work better at home than he can elsewhere, since he has most of the books that he needs available there.

The news you send from Chicago is very interesting. I am sure it will be good for Keast to migrate. But I can also appreciate what it will mean to Ronald. Doubtless Daiches gave him quite a high recommendation. Cornell will have a better department than it has been able to boast for a good many years. As you say, the news about Olson is to the benefit of the English Institute, anyway. I hope that Ronald did not write to the committee, since it's difficult to see how that could accomplish anything. Most letters of indignation should be written, and then carefully posted in the waste basket.

Your note on the Burke checklist is welcome, and I shall see it is brought up at the meeting. In fact, I shall probably write it to Bentley before then. In that way he can be planning on it before the meeting in case he has any thoughts on our schedule.

Professor Thomas W. Copeland

-2-

4/19/51

Last Monday I went up to Brown and gave a paper to their English Club, comprising graduate students and some of the faculty. It was quite a bit of fun, and I enjoyed seeing the place. The attractive old houses on the hill surrounding the University were quite a surprise to me. It is worth a pilgrimage just as much as Cambridge, Massachusetts, or even Charleston. A person could have quite a bit of fun there with a camera. Probably you know it well. At least there is a new group now that knows something about Joseph Spence and the pleasures of being in his snortage.

Again congratulations, and let us know when you will be in New Haven. We are looking forward to a number of good times together.

Enc.

May 14, 1951

Dear Tom,

The enclosure will indicate that someone has been busy, although his interest is not primarily in Burke. But it seemed worthwhile for you to follow up the theft by asking for information for your checklist. And that should interest the suffering party, since it would enable him to ultimately check up on these letters if they ever come to the surface again. You would be the best clearing house to help him do that.

All of us are looking forward to your arrival in this part of the world. Be sure to let us know when the event will occur. We expect to be here most of the time, so that we shall hope to see you soon after your arrival.

Incidentally, and under the rosebush, have you heard much about the talk at Columbia regarding getting out a lot of Burke publications in 1954 to celebrate their big anniversary year? From what I can learn, it is still very "iffy" but if anything does occur about it undoubtedly you will hear early in the game. If we could tie your volume in some way to the benefit of both the Index Society and yourself, then we might be in a position to have something to offer them. But it is still very hush-hush.

Yours ever,

James M. Osborn

s
Enc.

THOMAS W. COPELAND
1554 TIMOTHY DWIGHT COLLEGE
NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT

Life and Letters of Sir Gilbert Elliot.
Ed. the Countess of Minto. 3v., London,
1874, II, 6 - letter of Elliot to his wife,
April 5, 1792:

"Miss Palmer, Sir Joshua's niece, has about £30,000 by his death, and everybody is marrying her. Who should you guess to have the best chance in most people's opinion, but Lord Inchiquin, a fool of at least sixty or seventy years old? Young Dick Burke is the most talked of, then Dr. Blackden, Mr. Malone, Dr. Lawrence, and Walker King. She has as many suitors as Penelope, but all of them taken together would not make one Ulysses."

... I do not know a more heartless sight than the reprint of the Anatomy of Melancholy. What need was there of unearthing the bones of that fantastical old great man, to expose them in a winding sheet of the newest fashion to modern censure? what hapless stationer could dream of Burton ever becoming popular? --The wretched Malone could not do worse, when he bribed the sexton of Stratford church to let him whitewash the painted effigy of old Shakespeare, which stood there, in rude but lively fashion depicted, to the very color of the cheek, the eyebrow, hair, the very dress he used to wear--the only authentic testimony we had, however imperfect, of these curious parts and parcels of him. They covered him over with a coat of white paint. By ----, if I had been justice of peace for Warwickshire, I would have clapt both commentator and sexton fast in the stocks, for a pair of meddling sacrilegious varlets.

Charles Lamb, *Detached Thoughts on Books and Reading*.

October 25, 1951

Professor Thomas Copeland

c/o Professor Potter
21 Slayleigh Lane
Sheffield, England

Dear Tom,
I was just thinking about you and your family.

Not having heard a peep out of you since your departure, I managed to get your address from one of my spies. I don't know why I didn't get it from you before your departure, but somehow took it for granted that it would be easily available, which was not the case.

How are you, and how is all the mining progressing? I hope well, and be sure to let me know all about it. Today, being the day of the national election in England, is probably one not to be forgotten. It will be interesting to see the results, which should be available on the radio this evening.

Have you seen Jim Clifford or any other mutual friends? I have had several letters from Jim, who seems to be having a field day. He has now gone to London, and has been turning up one bit of Johnsonian information after another. In fact, he has turned up a number of good Malone documents for which I am very grateful. As you know, Jim's present address is 10 Bedford Place.

Speaking of Malone, I recently collated the transcripts of the Malone-Boswell correspondence, as prepared in the Boswell factory. The correspondence will be quite interesting to the public I believe, though the casual reader may be killed off at the beginning because so many of the early letters are concerned with corrections for the second edition of the *Hebrides*. The girls in the factory have done a conscientious job of transcribing, though their transcript abounds in amusing mistakes e.g. "or smell it" should be "you omit it." But at least it is a great saving of labor. I won't try to do anything with the edition until I finish with Spence.

Happily, Spence progresses well. Miss Cook is very diligent, and has patience for the tasks that would wear me out. For example, she spent over a week on Holsworth's *Observations on Virgil* (1768) edited by Spence. In it appear a good many of the anecdotes concerning Virgil and the literary associations of Italy, so that I shall not have to print them again in my edition. My rule is when such things are in print elsewhere, it isn't necessary for me to reprint them. They are of tangential interest, anyway.

There is not much other news to report. Doubtless you see the *New Yorker* regularly, and so are able to keep up on some of the items that remind me of you when I see them. The country is on the verge of election madness, and we will be affected with that rash for most of the time until you are back here again.

There is very little New Haven news to report. The chief bone of conversation to be

(over)

October 26, 1951

Professor Thomas Copeland
21 Slayleigh Lane
Sheffield 10, England
c/o Professor G. R. Potter

Dear Tom,

Having mailed a letter to you last night, I was delighted to receive one
from you this morning! That is close timing. I write now to follow up
on a few small points, so that you may be prevailed upon to write again
soon.

Your expedition on the _Georgic_ is very interesting. I hadn't know the
adventures you anticipated. Your reading on the way is also amusing.
Evidently you left it to chance. Ordinarily I carry a briefcase of books
about as heavy as that usually toted by our friend René, and manage to
read about one and three quarters of another.

Speaking of René, we had lunch today, and he was very pleased to see your
letter. He sends his warm greetings. He is very busy, working at home,
and I think covering a good deal of ground. He has promised himself to
start writing on Coleridge on November first, but rather doubts whether it
will take place at that exact moment.

In my letter yesterday I did not tell the name of the author of _God and Man at Yale_ correctly, trying to insert an extra "1" in with my pen after my girl had given the right spelling. You will notice the report on the book in this week's copy of _Time_ and _Life_, if you see either of those worthy sheets. It seems to me too bad that this linen could not have been left in our own family laundry. But apparently the words in the title are of such universal import that they are trying to see whether the answers are not to be found elsewhere.

The plays you are going to see in London sound delicious. We have had a
few terrible ones over in New Haven, and I疑nce when I think of the ones
yet to come. But it does add a bit of spice just the same. The only
Shakespeare I have seen lately was a _Macbeth_ done on television the other
night by "Studio 1", the only good dramatic group on the air. Parts of it
were very good (like the proverbial curate's egg) but in general it was
pretty bad. At least they had courage to try it. And the poetry of many
of the lines (the ones you could hear) were worth the effort of listening
and looking.

We shall look forward to your next letter. In the meantime, all good
wishes for a happy and productive year.

S

c/o Professor G. R. Potter
21 Slayleigh Lane

Sheffield 10

October 22, 1951.

Dear Jim,

This is just to say hello from the
new address. I've been three weeks in the country
now, but as one would say, haven't begun to live
yet. All checking. I spent the first two on
the letters here at Sheffield, and this last on
those down at Lamport. But today I sent Milton
off a great sheaf of errata (which he's to enter
before giving our typescript to Melvin Loos);
so now I can look the whole world in the eye,
the way the Village Blacksmith used to do.

Passage on the _Georgic_ turned out very
well. I can't remember whether I aired my
apprehensions to you, but they all proved to be
baseless. It was advertised as an unreconverted
troopship, on which we might be expected to share
a cabin with seven other people; it had been sunk
in the Suez Canal; I even signed a kind of
disclaimer sheet so that I wouldn't be able to
sue them later if the conditions disappointed me.
Well, how unnecessary. There were so few people
on it that I shared an excellent A-deck cabin with
one other man; food was excellent - I ate at the
Captain's table; there was abundant deck space
and just as much to do as there ever is on ship-
board. I spent a good part of my time reading
_Their Finest Hour_, _Ivanhoe_, and similar classics
from the ship's library. (I'd forgotten that
the story of _Ivanhoe_ is all set in the neighborhood
of Sheffield. Also forgotten my warmer feelings

towards Scott. How pleasant he is, in an
immature way! The dialogue has about the intensity
of the average scholarly preface, but almost
everybody is studying to be Noble in one way or
other: offering to jump off parapets to avert
dishonor, rising from their sickbeds to take part
in tournaments, and all that. About five years
from now I'm going to read another. Mr. Pottle
says _Heart of Midlothian_ is the greatest English
novel. I don't see how it could be, but I dare
say it's fun.)

It took us nine days to get to Liverpool.
That was all right with me. We had excellent
weather. The _Georgic_ is very steady anyway; I
suppose lots of ships would be if they went as
slow as it and the _Veendam_. This by the way
was its last Atlantic crossing; Cunard is "returning
it to the Ministry" - whatever that means exactly -
and it is now to be used out in Korea.

The Sheffield arrangements look promising.
I'm with friends, have two rooms of my own, live
very cheaply but in sufficient comfort. For
Britishers these people are great lovers of warmth.
No room has less than an electric heater. Of
course it may be early to talk. We haven't got really
launched into the autumn yet. We've had some
pretty heavy mists, but nothing the natives would
admit was a fog. Conditions in the library are
still good. They have central heating to use if
they must. By the way, the library has been
cherishing its Burke stuff. They have an excellent
manuscript repairer, who has done a fine job of
strengthening the tattery letters.

I wrote Jim Clifford, but so far we haven't got together. It was wholly my fault. Coming from Connecticut I leaped to the conclusion that Litchfield would be the spelling of Lichfield. As you might expect, the British have a Litchfield but in another county. So a letter I sent Jim urging him to come up here on a weekend only miscarried. I wrote him again, got an answer this time and wrote him again yesterday. I hope we'll work out a meeting soon.

Except for the week in Lamport I haven't been south. That was a pleasant expedition. Lamport is almost too small to be called a village. The crossroads pub where I stayed must be bleak indeed in the winter, but it's in the middle of a lot of delightful rural scenery which gives it great charm at this season.

I expect to go to London about two weeks hence - will see Antony and Cleopatra if it can be seen by the lower middle class. Mr. Orson Welles in Othello I think I can finesse. Doesn't he have a nerve to try it, though? Apparently Gielgud's company in Winter's Tale is first class, and apparently there's a good Tamurlaine the Great. I'll be choked with the classics by the time I start north again.

Will you give my best to one and all? I hope you find time to write occasionally. It's Burke, by the way, who gave the advice "Live pleasant."

Yours,

Professor Thomas Copeland

-2-

2/15/52

greatly. But it will make quite a difference in their living arrangements from
now on, as you can imagine.

Rene sends his regards. Things are going well with him, except he has had some
health difficulties. Apparently he is allergic to various things, specifically
cheese. Thus he is trying to find what is causing his headaches, and I think is
making some progress. His book marches on apace.

Ditsy Sewall has also been much under the weather. Write him a post card or two,
if you have not been in active touch with him. He has been afflicted with jaundice,
so had to cancel his lecture in the series that has been attracting huge
audiences. All of us are much concerned about his condition, though there seems
to be nothing that mere outsiders can do about it.

Aside from this there is no news of "what killed the dog" variety. If you will
write me a short letter soon, that will prompt a reply, in which I may be able to
crowd a little more gossip. But this present letter really overflows the bounds
of decency.

Marie-Louise sends her cordial greetings, and was very interested in the account
of the London theatre, as well as your other doings.

Yours ever,

James M. Osborn

s

Professor Thomas Copeland

-2-

3/21/52

Spence has made a good deal of progress, though always slowly. Today I finally finished the section on the *Essay on Man* and the so-called *Moral Epistles*. It was a very thorny section, and Miss Cook is still trying to comprehend what it is all about. In other words, once I finish, I have her go over it. The "grand scheme" went through so many stages in Pope's mind, some of them unrecorded, that Spence's fragmentary comments, although they remain in most cases our best authentic source of information, are only part of the whole story. But I don't want to have to write a long appendix on it, since that is an extremity to be avoided wherever possible.

Marie-Louise is well, and sends her greetings. She has turned into a very proficient cook, though the job is getting her down a bit. Tom is here for the spring holidays, and that means the chore of cooking is somewhat increased. But we will get along, somehow.

This has turned out to be another long "instalment", and I hope it will inspire you to a full reply. Doubtless you are seeing the air mail edition of the *New York Times*, so can keep up on events, including the public's attitude toward Fido-Puss Taft. Until you have seen him on television, you don't know what a snarling face can be like. But don't pass this along to your family in Ohio!

Yours ever,

James H. Osborn

P.S. Be sure to allow yourself plenty of time to rumble over the Palatine Hill. The scale of the ruins there was a complete surprise to us. More than anything else it gave us an idea of what Rome in its grandeur must have been like.

April 11, 1952.

Dear Jim,

I was delighted to get yours of
the 21st, long and meaty. It didn't reach me
in Sheffield, but was forwarded here. I am
no longer at the Flora, glamorous and delightful
as it was, but am doing very well at a pensione
across the street which charges less than half
their tariff. I've been here since the first,
and am leaving for Assisi, Perugia, Florence
tomorrow morning. What a place to see! Some
of my indignation at the keepers of hotels and
restaurants I have been transferring in my
own mind to the old Mother Church. At the latter
end of all this power and grandeur the Catholic
nation around it all is as cheating and vicious
as evef. It makes one love the English, by
the way. I've never been anywhere where the
casual acquaintance or the shopkeeper or the
manager of a hotel was so unfailingly decent
and fair. I'm a worse Anglophile than ever,
having been on the continent two weeks. But
aside from these moral considerations, Italy
is an intoxicant. You get so filled with a
swarm of lovely images of statues, pictures,
lovely parks and buildings! They lie at the
base of the mind making you happy, like food
and drink inside you after a wonderful meal;
it's incredible how much one can store up in
even two weeks. I haven't been to the Palatine
yet, by the way, which you recommend so
strongly. But I'm going there today (my last
day here). This is going to be another of our
short letters: our Instalments.

Say, thank you infinitely for this
interest in Stamford's (supposed) interest in me.
I'd heard something on the subject in a letter
from Jim Clifford. But nothing from Stamford,
so I'm much afraid that Wilt was overrating
the extent of their interest. Wilt is an
excellent and very responsible man, as you
know, and I've always felt, saw my position
at Chicago sympathetically but quite realistically.
Chicago has two choked lines of promotion,
unfortunately, which are 18th century and
Criticism. (Crane responsible for both of
them, as you might imagine; he's been so much
the best man and the Maker of Disciples out
there.) Well, I worry about it some, but not
much is gained by worrying much. Don't fear
though that if a good offer comes I will
underrate it. It's Jim Work who is leaving
the hole at Stamford, I take it.

The Burke edition is going through
a rather agonising phase at this moment. My
long letter on method of organization was quite
successful with the Chicago committee. All of
them and all of the prospective editors but
one would now be satisfied with the straight
chronological plan. But the one, Hoffman of
Fordham, is being stubborn about it, and
unfortunately he has permissions, which he
secured before the Press got into this thing,
to publish about a hundred and fifty letters.
At this moment it's a complete mess, and if
Hoffman doesn't ever yield, which seems possible
in his present state of mind, heaven knows where
we stand. By the way, would you say nothing
at all about this - even to René, though that

may be carrying discretion to the ridiculous?
If there's anything I hate it's washing dirty linen
in public; and it isn't clear yet just what our
situation is; I've yet to hear the Chicago
response to a recent ultimatum of Hoffman; I'm
not a man of secrets, as you know, but I wish
you'd regard this as one for the present; you
are my father confessor or I wouldn't tell you
either.

Well, I'm off to the Palatine. The
weather has been ravishing, the last few days.
There hasn't been a day of rain in my two
weeks in Rome, but some of the ffrst week was
chilly. None of it bad weather for sightseeing.

Please give my love to Marie-Louise
and the boys. I'll be delighted if Marshall
is in Chicago next year - hope he'll sometimes
detach himself from mathematics and come and
have a meal with me.

Will you thank René for his interest
in the Stamford situation? I am meeting his
friend Professor Mario Praz this evening.

Yours,

TELEPHONE 46881

TELEGRAMS GRESHAM DUBLIN

GRESHAM HOTEL
DUBLIN

Dear Jim,

I'm not at the Gresham Hotel,
Dublin, at all; I only walked off with
about three of their sheets and envelopes,
and now I find that the latter are a good
size to fit the enclosed off-print.

All goes well. Dublin, about
two weeks ago, went very well indeed;
we've got an Irish editor that's to
dream of, not to tell. We need about
two more American editors and the masthead
will be completely triumphant. I'm
keeping my fingers crossed, but I think
the Chicago people are going to do just
what they ought in the Hoffman affair.
There's no ill feeling at all, but I'm
pretty sure they're going to let him
follow his own plans without making us
alter ours.

Here's a query. I'm now
sitting down to the paper for the
Anglo-American Historians, and I realize
that at some point in it I'll want to
mention the forthcoming checklist. I
can't believe that any <u>historians</u> can
be sold copies (though as I think I
told you, the great Namier asked for one;
I promised him two), but maybe a few of
them might go home and force their
libraries to buy one out of the public
purse. But I certainly won't pass up

any comments on the typographical appearance of our page if we use these
devices?

8. Our proposals as to footnotes tend to make them catch-alls for
mechanical and perhaps trivial facts about letters. Is this carried too
far? Do you think that the mechanical details would unduly obscure more
interesting footnote-material?

Sample Handling of a Letter

9. Heading. There are several questions:

a. Should the heading of each letter begin with a number? There
are certain difficulties when dealing, as we must in this edition, both with
in-letters and with the out-letters of other persons than Burke. (There will
be ordinary out-letters by members of the Burke family, joint letters of
Edmund and other Burkes, letters to which Edmund contributed only a postscript,
and so forth.) A heading that is not numbered has a more informal look,
which might be more attractive to the non-professional reader.

Obviously the omission of numbers in the final printed volume does
not mean that the editors while at work would have to forego the immense
convenience of referring to letters by numbers. They could have their own
temporary numbers, later to be deleted.

b. Does the device of an asterisk at the end of the heading,
sending the reader to a discussion in the footnotes, get around the problem
of those portions of the heading which are editorially supplied? It would
again be reassuring to the non-specialist if we could omit the brackets
which a very strict procedure might recommend (e.g. brackets which might give
a heading like "BURKE to [JAMES BOSWELL] Westminster, Monday 1 March
[1779]" - if all those elements happened to be matters of editorial inference).

42

c. Do we need all the elements I have put into this sample?
Must we have the correspondent's Christian name? (Remember, though, that
he will not always be as well known as Boswell.) Must we give the place
from which the letter is written? Must we give the day of the week?

10. Headnote. Any comments on the content or style of this specimen?
I have, you will notice, used the American spelling of "honor." Shall the
American editors use their own spelling and the British editors theirs, or
should we attempt to agree on one standard for all cases?

11. Text.

a. The text of this letter is given here exactly as Burke wrote
it. How much do we wish to "normalize"? After discussion with a good many
of the persons to be involved, I propose:

(1) That in all ordinary cases we preserve Burke's spelling exactly.
He does not use many spellings which differ from those now in use. His
occasional misspellings are valuable evidence of haste, when they are not
interesting evidence of the limits of his literacy. If for any reason a
misspelling seems a definite defacement of the page, I propose that it be
corrected, but that the editor note the original spelling in a footnote.

(2) I propose that we treat Burke's punctuation on the same
principle as his spelling: that is, preserve it exactly, unless a desirable
alteration is marked by a footnote. Burke does not of course punctuate as
a modern writer would, but to tamper with his system is to disturb the
balance of his sentences and his paragraphs.

(3) As to capitalization, I propose that we do modernize Burke's
practice. It is often extremely difficult for the editor to be sure whether
Burke did or did not intend a capital in a particular case. Sizes are often
just on the border-line. I have been disturbed, too, to find that certain

44

letters seem never to be anything but what I take for capitals. Am I simply
ignorant of the shapes of the letters which were in use? To establish
statistically the normal shapes for capitals and small letters used by Burke
and each of his correspondents might be an extremely difficult task. And the
capitalization, even when there is no doubt whatever about it, doesn't seem
to be managed on any fixed principles. This letter to Boswell illustrates
more than once its quite arbitrary character. Then will we gain enough by
preserving it to justify the effort it would cost us?

(4) The routine abbreviations used by most 18th-century writers (e.g. "w<sup>ch</sup>" for "which," "y<sup>r</sup>" for "your," "y<sup>t</sup>" for "that") I propose that we always silently expand when they occur in the text of a letter. I believe, though, that in the salutation, the complimentary close, and particularly in the lines giving dates and the place from which a letter is written, we might leave abbreviations exactly as we find them. In salutation and close they have some value as indications of haste or of the degree of formality intended. In the date lines - often brief and occasionally very hard to decipher - I think an editor would like to offer his reader a transcript of exactly what he thinks he has seen. Sometimes if the reader has a fact at his disposal which the editor did not have, he will be able from a literal transcript to perceive a correct reading which the editor missed.

(5) Abbreviations other than the routine abbreviations should not be expanded without indications. For example, if Burke wrote "the K" when he clearly meant "the King," or "the D of N" when he meant "the Duke of Newcastle," we may be getting valuable evidence of his opinions of the strictness of certain laws of libel or censorship. The editor should either leave the abbreviations as he finds them, or alter them to bracketed forms: "the K[ing]" and "the D[uke] of N[ewcastle]."

46

b. It has been suggested that the complimentary close of a letter, which often spreads itself out over several lines, might be normally run onto one line like regular text (with of course indication of its line-divisions): "Yr most obedt/ & oblig'd/ humble servt/ Edm Burke." Do you feel the economy of this would justify the procedure? Or would you consider it better to omit closes altogether?

c. The lines giving date and place-from-which-written are sometimes at the beginning, sometimes at the end of a letter. I propose that they be always left exactly where they are. A date-line at the end some editors move up to the beginning. But this may mislead readers; the date at the end may be when Burke finished a letter, not when he began it.

d. As our form of presentation for each letter includes both a full heading supplied by the editor and a literal transcription of whatever date-line the author himself put down, exactly where he put it - obviously we shall occasionally get the case where the editor's line reads, e.g., "Westminster, Monday 1 March 1779" and the author happens to supply just the same facts at the top of his sheet. One will be immediately above the other, and the appearance will be awkward. I see no way of avoiding it, and feel the awkwardness is of no great importance. In many cases a headnote will save appearances. But is there any solution that covers all cases?

12. Footnotes. Am I underestimating the amount of footnote material we should expect when I speak of "half a dozen lines" on the average page? I would appreciate it if you would read over this letter to Boswell (which certainly demands more annotation than nine tenths of Burke's letters will), and insert superior numbers at all points at which you would think a footnote desirable. Don't write the notes - though if you were willing to characterize them ("Simple identification.") or estimate their probable length ("Not over two sentences.") you would help to guide us to a normal practice.

48

the briefest calendar-entry for every surviving letter. I believe a principle suggested by Dr. Cobban would be the editor's most useful guide in deciding what to digest and what to ignore. If a letter of Burke (which we do obligate ourselves to publish) was a reply to a still-extant letter from the other side, the editor would probably want to summarize briefly what was being replied to. He could do this by giving a short *précis* of the other letter in a headnote to the letter of Burke. I have illustrated the method by a sample given below, so I shall not describe it at great length here. An essential part of Dr. Cobban's idea is that the headnote should be, though not in the full-sized type of our main text, in a readable type only slightly smaller, so that the unspecialized reader would normally read the whole headnote along with the main text; the editor could thus make its contents an effective part of his narrative.

Sometimes Burke's letter would have elicited a reply which the editor thought it useful to give his reader immediately after the letter itself. In this case he would make use of a tailnote, exactly analogous to the headnote as to type, method, and the rest, but placed after the text of Burke's letter.

As very frequently though of course not invariably - a headnote aiming at readability and directed to the non-specialized reader would thus be placed at the beginning of a letter, I propose that the somewhat technical information very often inserted at this point be regularly consigned to the bottom of the page and to the smaller type of the footnotes. I mean such information as concerns postmarks, addresses, endorsements, reasons for querying the date, and so forth. I hope such material can be kept to a minimum in this edition. When an editor who has examined the manuscripts sees nothing unusual about the date, the address, the endorsements, etc., I think he might omit them from the record altogether. When he has comments

20

of importance, of course they should be included. Would it be a sound
technique, if an editor has this kind of material to supply, for him to end
the heading (in the example below, the *Edmund Burke to James Boswell, etc.*
in bold-faced type) with an asterisk, which would take the interested reader
to the proper place in the footnotes?

5

Other footnotes than these would be numbered, the numbers
beginning again on each page. The prospective editors whom I have consulted
want annotation to be thorough, especially in such matters as the
identification of minor individuals not covered in the better-known reference
works; but no one consulted seemed to feel that this was an edition that
would "run to footnotes." The use of the headnotes and tailnotes would take
a good deal of background material out of the footnotes. And Burke is not
cryptic. He was a rhetorician; it was his business to make his large and
well-rounded expositions self-explanatory. Many pages should have no footnotes
at all, and perhaps an average page would not have more than half a dozen lines.

10

15

The question of appendices was raised. Most of the editors doubted
that there would be much need for them. They are, however, a useful way of
getting ill-proportioned discussions out of the footnotes, and we agreed that
editors ought to be allowed to use the device occasionally if they chose.

I have spoken above of the temporary indexes we should probably
want at the end of each section. They are forced upon us by our year-to-year
method of publication, and should be as unnoticeable as they can be while
serving their temporary purpose.

20

As will be seen throughout this discussion, we are attempting to
keep the single volume to as simple as possible a plan. Or perhaps I should
say more accurately, we are proposing one very considerable complication of
editorial procedure - that is, our proposed use of the headnotes and tailnotes -

25

22

and aside from that we are trying to be very simple. We may discover later
that a little more apparatus than I have described will be necessary. For
example, a chronological list of Burke's correspondence in the specific
period might be included in each section. Many careful editions include
such lists, and we shall have a checklist of Burke's letters at hand to
adapt and correct for this use if we need it. But it's possible that we
ought to profit by the checklist in an exactly opposite way: since it will
be in print, with a detailed review of the entire correspondence, we can, if
we will, lighten the edition itself of much rather cumbersome detail. This
is the alternative that attracts me, largely because it seems to remove one
kind of impediment to the most general accessibility of the edition. Many
people ought to be encouraged to read Burke's letters, and some of them will
be discouraged by the sight of heaviest scholarly apparatus. Burke's letters have
been neglected and obscured for so long as almost to have lost their proper
public. Isn't this a sound reason for making their presentation now as lucid
and unembarrassed as it can be made?

5

10

15

24

SAMPLE HANDLING OF A LETTER.

A. Heading [in bold-faced type, large] :
BURKE to JAMES BOSWELL Westminster, Monday 1 March 1779

B. Head-note [in a type size intermediate between that of the text and that of the footnotes] :

Burke's first letter to Boswell. In the year preceding it Boswell had written Burke three letters, whose chief purpose, as he said frankly, was to win the honor of a correspondence with him. The first two, dated 3 March 1778 and 6 November 1778, seemed to have little other purpose. The third spoke also of some violent outbreaks of anti-Catholic feeling in Scotland, precipitated by Sir George Savile's bill in Parliament for repealing some of the penal laws against Catholics. Savile's bill did not actually apply to Scotland, but it had been promised that a bill similar to it and applicable to Scotland would be moved. Riots in Edinburgh induced the Government to disown this promise. Boswell in his third letter, dated 22 February 1779, asked Burke to reassure him - anonymously if he chose - that no one in Parliament still intended to move a toleration bill for Scotland, which Boswell was sure would produce a rebellion.

In both his second and third letters Boswell reproached Burke for having refused to vouchsafe him a reply.

C. Text:

5

10

15

26

My dear Sir

Your goodness is indeed inexhaustible; But great as my faults are
they do not make such a demand upon it as you imagine. I have had the
misfortune of missing the third Letter you speak of; & before your last, only
*one* came to my hands. But as I was not so early as I ought to have been in
acknowledging the honour of that one, my fault is greater than I fear I am
able to attone for; & I tell you of the failure of the other, because I do
not wish that my crime should have any aggravation.

I had heard some account of the Subject of your Letter before I
received it from you. It would have been against the Spirit of the act of
Union if Scotland did not, at some time or other partake of the disorders
that prevail in the constitution of the British Family. I do confess indeed,
that I did not expect, that our dear Sister, who in the rigour of her Prudery,
had shown such outrageous Zeal, & decreed such severe penances against other
frail & offending parts of the household, should make such a slip herself as
to give her a fair Title to the Stool & White Sheet. But these things will
happen as long as the very best of us are only made up of mere rebellious
flesh & blood.

28

As to the Riot which has been performed, & the rebellion which is
threatned, they have at least the advantage of diversifying the Scene of our
modern contentions. A religious war was not exactly the thing I expected in
my time. I thought it possible, that even at the other side of the Tweed, a
man might be allowed to say his prayers in Latin without any gross violation
of the native, inherent, essential privileges & immunities of the broad Scotch.

I admit, that the Ears of heaven may be more delighted with these accents;
yet as the other Tongue may be as intelligible there (though not so pleasing)
I think a little of it might be borne at Edinburgh with<sup>t</sup> making a very serious
quarrel of the matter. These Romans of our day are not quite so dangerous an
Enemy to Galgacus & his Warriours, as they were 1700 years ago; or as some
of their descendents were a century or two since; I cannot conceive, that
Bishop Hay is so dreadful a person as Julius Agricola; or that Mr. Macdonald
with all his Grocery, & Mr. Bagnal with all his crockery Ware, are altogether
so formidable as Sixtus the fifth with his Bulls.

You certainly have a right to a rebellion in your Town; & of course
we must leave the matter & fashion of that gratification to your own Choice.

30

But with<sup>t</sup> presuming to arraign any ones fancy, I confess, that the American
rebellion is more to my Taste than that which you are cooking in the North.
I think it relishes as well to resist an act of Taxation as an Act of
Toleration; & it would hurt me rather more to have the Excise in my own house,
than the Mass in my Neighbours. I take it for granted, that there are good
reasons for every thing you do. But I am apt to be as much puzzled with
moral Mysteries as others are with religious. I do not yet clearly comprehend,
why it should be right, to burn mens houses & to despoil them of their Goods,
because somebody is supposed to intend them an Act of Kindness; & I should
not think the difficulty perfectly removed, though it were proved beyond
contradiction, that the sufferers were consenting to, or even actually
desirous of such a Benefit. Full as little do I understand why the University
should share the Fate of the Masshouses; & why the use of the Citadel of
Edinburgh should be to afford a place of refuge to your most learned
professors & most eminent Writers. But time I suppose will clear up all
those deep Mysteries.

You ask me, whether, after His Majesties' Ministers have given up
the Scotch toleration Bill, any other Members intend to bring it in? Indeed

5

10

15

32

I am so struck with the admiration of this heroic act of Magnanimity in our Ministers, that I do not aspire to the most distant imitation of it. Besides being at 400 good Miles distance from the coercive Arm of the Edinburgh powers, I _will_ not tell what I intend to do, or to give my reasons for it, (as Falstaff says) on compulsion, though they were as plenty as Blackberries; & as to what others 5 intend to do, I really do not know. Oh poor Government, how art thou fallen! that Government which so many wise Tories & good nursing loyalists have been cramming & nourishing into Strength, has been so overfed, & so diseased by high living, that instead of standing firm on its legs by all the good things that have been put into its belly, it is got so gouty, that it can hardly be supported by crutches. However we continue the old Course with:<sup>t</sup> being discouraged by Events; & are dying according to art & by the best rules that are possible.

The loan was voted in the Committee on Wednesday last. Lord North was ill on Friday, & the Taxes are put off until today. They talk of a five per Cent on all commodities subject to the Excise, except Malt; a tax on Post chaises; 15 but in what manner to be laid on I cannot collect. The Duties of last year have not produced a great deal more than one third of what they were given for.

34

If we cannot continue to raise 700,000 a year by the present duties, the publick Creditor must fall on the sinking fund; this last year the Want of a proper & sufficient specifick security diminished that fund by 400,000£.

I dined with y. most faithful & most obedi. humble Adj. &

We had a very good day, as we had not a sentence, word, syllable, Letter,
comma, or tittle, of any of the Elements that make politicks. Adieu &
believe me with great Esteem & regard

Dear Sir

y. most faithful

& obey. humble Adj.

10

Westminster

Edm Burke

Monday March 1. 1779

36

MISCELLANEOUS QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION

General Plan.

1. After very full discussion of the relative advantages of the plan of arrangement proposed last summer (which was to isolate eight or ten of Burke's most important correspondences for separate treatment) against an arrangement which would preserve a strict chronological order for all letters, it was found that all of those now interested in the edition were favorable to the latter scheme. It is a scheme, none the less, which has a very important disadvantage: it makes the problem of handling letters to Burke rather difficult. The most novel and doubtless most controversial feature of this project as now framed is the solution proposed for this problem. Are you satisfied that there is no better way than I offer for dealing with the letters to Burke which we want to include? An alternative suggestion which the Chicago Press would seriously consider is that of including all the in-letters of certain important correspondences (e.g. Rockingham or Fitzwilliam) in large appendices to our volumes. This would achieve complete publication for those correspondences, which our other method, as described above, does not promise.

2. The dates which have been chosen to mark the dividing lines between sections have not been chosen without discussion, but there has been no chance to reread all the Burke correspondence to be sure of their appropriateness. Yet for obvious reasons the Press would like us to agree as soon as we possibly can about the boundary lines of volumes. Is there any line which you suspect ought to be reconsidered before we submit these eight sections as final? Do any of the sections (not just the lines) strike you as wrongly defined and deserving of further study?

38

3. Have you any comments on the proposal that we have a small
temporary index for each section, roughly in the form described?

Plan of a Single Volume.

4. Have you any point you would like to bring up as to the physical
appearance of the volumes? I have not gone into matters relating to
dust-jackets, illustrations, page-headings, and so forth, which must be
settled some time. Comment on any such matters will be appreciated.

5. Do you agree to the remarks about introductions?

6. Do you agree that our exhaustiveness should extend only to the
printing of Edmund Burke's letters? There is a problem about even those
which is not treated above: the problem of letters which were intended as
pamphlets though Burke threw them into the form of letters (Letter to a
Noble Lord, Letters on a Regicide Peace, and some rather harder cases).
I know no sure principle by which to distinguish these from Burke's private
letters, at least on any ground of external form. What I should suggest
is that the editors simply agree among themselves which "letters" are
really pamphlets, and list them in the introduction to the first volume
of the edition - announcing that we intend to exclude these, but otherwise
print all of Burke's correspondence.

7. Do the three options suggested give an editor as much freedom as
he will need in dealing with i. e. letters and Burke family letters? Do you
agree that the first two options would not be likely to account for more
than twenty per cent of our final bulk? This is a guess which I should be
glad to have challenged. What guess do you think could be made as to the
space likely to be occupied by headnotes and tailnotes? Should we try to
agree to a limit on the size of any single headnote or tailnote? Have you

40

THE CORRESPONDENCE OF EDMUND BURKE

Those who are going to work upon this edition must come to agreement on many points relating to the general plan and to details of procedure. As agreement when it is reached will be binding on all co-workers (if we are to avoid a great deal of difficult transatlantic discussion), I should like to get a show of opinion now as to those problems we are able to anticipate. These sheets are to allow you to record your opinions on such problems. Will you run through the summary statement of our plans and principles which I have drawn up, and see on what points you wish to object to it or supplement it? To make everyone's task of objection as easy as possible, I have usually given my own opinions in the statement baldly and with no qualifications, as though they were our final decisions. Of course nothing has been finally decided yet. It would be very much to the advantage of this project, however, if at least the problems raised here could be decided for all editors before, say, the end of this summer.

The sheets are designed to be a kind of working folder. When you have read what I have to say, on the left-hand page as it opens, will you jot down objections and write in supplementary questions on the right-hand side? Don't bother to record assents, if any; they will be assumed if you return me sheets on which nothing has been written. But please be extremely free about making even minor objections and qualifications, and particularly about calling attention to other problems which may not have occurred to me.

GENERAL PLAN

This is a project for publishing all of the letters of Edmund Burke. To carry it out properly will require the printing not only of all letters by Burke but of a generous selection of letters to him and at least a few letters by members of his immediate family - who often wrote on his behalf, and whose activities were very closely bound up with his. The inclusion of letters not by Burke will always be for the reason that they are necessary illumination of his letters. Some modern editors, of course, would insist that this principle should carry us to the point of including all letters that were ever written to him, if they happen to have survived.

Our interpretation of the principle is rather that it requires us to begin with the letters Burke himself wrote, and to build up around them the background which an intelligent reader would like to have when going through them consecutively. This background will include some of the most important of the "surrounding letters" printed entire, others printed in part, and still others summarized briefly in the manner described below.

All letters will be arranged in a single chronological series. Though the total number is not great (at least as important correspondences go; there are in the neighborhood of 1600 surviving letters by Burke), the great range of subject matter makes it desirable that a fairly large number of editors should cooperate in the project. Specialists on British politics of Burke's period, on Ireland, on India, on the French Revolution, and so forth, are necessary to clear up many details by annotation, but much more to assess Burke's achievement in the numerous fields in which he was active.

All the prospective editors consulted thus far have agreed that the best manner of subdividing the total project is to give each one of them a

2

particular period of Burke's life for which he shall be responsible - that
period to be covered in a volume by itself completely under his control. It
is understood, however, that each editor, besides the responsibility for his
own period, shall assume responsibility for some large general topic which
may spread over the periods of the other editors. For example, Burke's
interest in Ireland extended through his whole career. The editor who besides
having a period of his own is the general Irish consultant will help out his
fellow editors when letters falling into their periods require detailed
knowledge of Ireland. He will be helped in return by the American consultant,
the Indian consultant, the French, and so forth. Such help might be
acknowledged by affixing initials to specific footnotes, if all the editors
approve that procedure.

As far as possible we should make the chronological subdivisions of
the project correspond to real stages in Burke's career, so that the volumes
succeed each other somewhat as do the chapters in a biography, each having a
subordinate unity of its own. This is not as hard to achieve as it might
sound. Though Burke's interests were so various, he usually had at any one
time a leading preoccupation - the Party, or India, or France - to which he
himself subordinated everything else. An editor will not be unfaithful to
reality if he allows this dominant interest to be the unifying principle
of his volume.

It is necessary, of course, to mark carefully the point at which
each new interest appears, or becomes dominant. After a good deal of
discussion with the prospective editors, I propose the following subdivisions
of the total correspondence. I shall comment briefly on the kind of unity
each subdivision might have. To make this especially obvious, I suggest a

5

10

15

20

25

4

subtitle for each, such as might eventually be chosen for use on the
dust-jacket of a volume. This is only to illustrate a procedure and not to
fix these titles. Obviously each editor will make such decisions for himself,
if we all agree at the proper time that subtitles are desirable.

It would be convenient, however, if we could settle it now which
letters are to fall into which subdivisions, so I am proposing the following
as the permanent provinces of the individual editors:

1. January, 1744, through June, 1765. As Burke made his connection with Lord Rockingham, which was his entrée into English politics, in July of 1765, this first subdivision is all in the nature of a prologue. It would include all letters we have from the first 36 years of Burke's life. It might be called *Years of Preparation*.

10

2. July, 1765, through June, 1770. This section would cover Burke's first five years in the Whig party. Its chief interest would be the development of the Rockingham group and of Burke's philosophy of Party - summed up in the *Thoughts on Discontents* which appeared in the spring of 1770. A subtitle might be *Growth of a Party*.

15

3. July, 1770, through 1774. This is an explorative and somewhat unfocussed period of Burke's career. As his leading interests, besides that in the Party, are doubtless America and India, a subtitle *Problems of Empire: America, India* might describe it.

20

4. July, 1774, through June, 1779. A letter written from Bristol in late June of 1774 made the first proposals that Burke might be asked to contest a seat in Parliament for that city. His reply, dated July 1, 1774, would be the first letter in this volume. It begins a new phase of his career, for which a volume-title might be *Member for Bristol*. The election and Burke's relations with his Bristol supporters for the first few years are exceptionally well recorded in letters. Later he paid less attention to the city, and I believe we would be justified in breaking off this section before he actually lost his seat. June, 1779, would put the break at the end of a five-year period. As a general rule our breaks are placed in mid-summer: that is, after the close of one parliamentary session and before the next (often with a new set of interests) is being actively prepared.

25

30

35

5. July, 1779, through June, 1782. The autumn of 1779 saw the British nation deeply dissatisfied with the course of the American war, and in a mood for major reforms. The period which Professor Butterfield recently treated as a unit in his *George III, Lord North, and the People* was marked by the agitations of the Yorkshire Association and similar

4

6

PLAN OF A SINGLE VOLUME

As the subdivisions of the correspondence have been chosen for
the convenience of the editors, to mark stages in Burke's career which are
likely to be manageable, it is not to be expected that all volumes can be
of precisely equal size. Though estimates now can be only approximate, I
would predict that two of the sections named above (numbers 3 and 6) would
produce volumes slimmer than "normal," and one (number 7) a definitely
over-sized volume. The first two I should think would not be far enough out
of line to give any awkwardness to the appearance of our set. If section 7
were as over-sized as I am expecting, it could easily be split into two
volumes; this would bring our total to nine volumes and an index - not
at all a bad size.

5

10

Several people with whom I have talked have cautioned against too
tall a volume: complaining that they thought the Yale Walpole or the
Princeton Jefferson just a little too heavy for ideal convenience. Most of
the prospective editors were pleased with the format of the Toynbee-Whibley
*Letters of Thomas Gray* when I suggested it as a model for size. I believe
it is what printers call a demi-octavo.

15

Now as to contents. None of the editors thought the introduction
of this kind of a volume would have to be very long. Most agreed that
something in the neighborhood of 25 pages would probably be enough. The
introduction, in other words, would not be a history of the period nor an
extended monograph, but an essay pointing out whatever kind of unity the
particular section might have - hence the interest it was most likely to
offer the reader. If there is a general agreement to aim at this kind of an
introduction, no doubt it will be wise to allow the individual editor

20

25

10

considerable leeway as to length; if he finds, say, that his critical remarks involve a disagreement with some widely-held opinion as to Burke or a phase of his career, he may wish to present his case in 50 pages rather than 25.

Undoubtedly the most difficult problem in handling a correspondence is the problem of "the other end of the wire." Almost no one is now satisfied with what was once a fairly common practice: that of putting all surviving letters of the principal person involved (e.g. Edmund Burke) into a single numbered sequence by themselves and calling it a Complete Correspondence. Nearly everything is wrong with that method. In historical reality the principal person carried on relations with scores or hundreds of other minds; in this odd mutilation of reality all the others are removed and he is left speaking out into the void, or into a rapidly changing series of voids, like a loquacious Robinson Crusoe. The record as thus published has no right to be called *correspondence*; the most essential element of correspondence, its reciprocal character, is exactly what has been neglected.

At the same time, it is not as easy as it may look to correct the absurdities of this method. The way correction is usually attempted is by the copious use of footnotes, in which the letters written to the principal person are summarized or quoted. An unusually studious reader, willing to read as many footnotes as he is offered, certainly may get most of the story he wants in this way - though even he will probably be conscious of some effort which he would be willing to be spared. But for the more normal, "popular" reader, who is put off by any great depth of footnotes on the page, this solution of the problem is extremely unsatisfactory. If he submits to it at all, he is uncomfortable; he is much more likely to decide that it makes the reading of letters too artificial and dusty a business, which he finds it no great privation to cross off his list of pleasures.

12

Some recent editors of letters, very conscious of the main problem, have adopted what may seem the only perfect solution, of printing _all_ letters to or from their principal correspondent. This fully recognizes the reciprocal nature of correspondence, and it appeals to the 20th-century love of the completely exhaustive. Yet it too has its limitations if regarded as a general solution applicable to all cases. It ideally suits a set of circumstances which does not always occur: an interchange of letters between two people whose letters are equally worth preserving, equally free from any dull spots (such as might tempt to departures from the absolutely exhaustive), and if possible which are likely to appeal to the same set of readers and buyers. Justification of the method will be perfect if each of the writers has made this particular correspondence a thing isolated from other parts of his life (not connecting itself, for example, with other correspondences carried on at the same time, about which a reader might be curious).

Obviously single correspondences seldom have all these characteristics at once. But this method shows a weakness too when it is extended beyond the single to all the numerous correspondences of a given writer. Again let us admit that there is the ideal, most favorable case. If like Horace Walpole a writer made it his business to have a small number of very large correspondences - each extending, say, to several volumes when printed - then a Complete Correspondence can include them all without looking too scrappy. But suppose, what often happens, that the principal writer had various and often trifling dealings with hundreds of persons; and what is also very likely, suppose that the letters which have survived (perhaps in his collected papers) are mostly letters _to_ him rather than letters _by_ him. A Complete Correspondence which tries to be exhaustive on just this principle may look very miscellaneous indeed.

14

A further problem which any consistent theory of the editing of correspondence must face is the problem of duplication. If we adopt the principle that Edmund Burke's correspondence ought to contain all the letters written by and to him: not only the hundred or so letters he wrote to Lord Rockingham, but the hundred or so others that Rockingham wrote to him - then we must ask, should a Complete Correspondence of Lord Rockingham, if one is attempted, proceed on a similar principle, and print all the letters of Burke and Rockingham over again in order to attain its own exhaustiveness? Several of Burke's connections are themselves worthy of Complete Correspondences some day, and for several others, at least their letters to Burke have already been put into print. Does our theory of exhaustiveness demand complete coverage of all these letters? Such a theory if widely applied would end in a great deal of duplication.

I grant that these are speculative problems at the present time. There are not many Complete Correspondences being attempted, and if each one of them carried exhaustiveness to the furthest possible extreme, they would not actually over-lap very often. True, but there is an answer even to this realistic line of argument. As serious scholars we ought to avoid setting precedents which other scholars (and publishers) will find it very difficult to follow. The publishing of correspondences ought to go on, as it scarcely can if today's editors set a standard which is too extravagant for any successors who are likely to appear.

I believe that the Burke Correspondence should aim at only one principle of exhaustiveness: that of including all of the letters of Edmund Burke which have survived. What it includes beyond that may be very considerable in bulk - I think it might reach to a third or even a half of the bulk of Burke's own letters - but it should still be understood as

16

having been included to complete the story as the editors feel it should be
completed, and not because we have made any commitment to print more than
Burke himself.

But of course we too must in some way meet the problem of "the
other end of the wire." Not only the essence and reality of a correspondence
but most of its (very desirable) readability vanishes if we lose the sense of
dialogue. Some method must be found of preserving this without chaining
ourselves to the principle of publishing all the in-letters, or to following
any other such invariable and mechanical rule. I believe that the answer is
to be found in allowing our editors a great deal of discretion in the use of
three options. If a letter to Burke or by a member of Burke's family is of
obvious use to us (as, if Burke answered it point by point, or if it was
clearly written on his behalf), the editor may elect to print it entire - in
the same sort of type and with the same sort of heading, annotation, etc.,
as would be used for a letter of Burke's own. Or if, as will fairly often
happen, a considerable passage of a letter, but not all of it, has this kind
of usefulness, he may elect to print this passage - again with the type and
apparatus we should use for a Burke letter, but of course with indication
that he is printing less than the full text. These two methods, I should
imagine, would not actually be used for a very large number of letters;
perhaps the two of them together would account for something between ten and
twenty percent of the correspondence in the whole edition.

The third option at the editor's disposal - that of briefly
digesting letters without quoting their texts - would be the normal way of
representing what was going on at the "other end," or in the correspondence
of the other Burkes. But this too, be it understood, would always be used
at the editor's discretion; we would not engage ourselves to supply even

18

November 7, 1952

Professor Thomas Copeland
The Quadrangle Club
Chicago, Illinois

Dear Tom,

What a pleasure it is to be home again! We had a superb trip, but living out of suitcases for three months is a bit wearing. When we get together I shall hold you by the lapel and tell you why you should visit Athens and Istanbul on some of your future travels.

The best news concerns our stop at Geneva, where we saw Ditsy and Til Sewall several times. He certainly has blossomed like the rose, and is the Ditsy of old. The whole thing is a wonderful testimony to the value of a Ford Foundation Fellowship. He is having a very interesting time, also, with both his contacts in Geneva and his reading there. First I believe they were not so favorably impressed, but that's likely to be the case whenever strangers find themselves in a new town. But they are not staying strangers for long, and already seem to know a wide circle comparatively speaking.

They have a very attractive apartment, which is in no way limited to the fact that there is an original Poussin and Salvadore Rosa on the walls, among other oils. The youngsters are having a grand time at the International School, also. We had a five mile walk in the foothills with Ditsy one day, the occasion for a lot of good conversation, as well as a number of fond remarks about you.

How goes the great work? I look forward to hearing from you sometime. And also I hope to see you on the Sunday after Thanksgiving Day. We are coming to Chicago for Thanksgiving and perhaps there will be other chances to have a glimpse of you too. Marshall reports a very interesting session with you one evening.

Because we have been home such a short time I don't have much news to report. But we did get here in time to vote. I haven't seen Rene, but gather that he is only partially recovered. He goes downtown only the three days a week that he teaches.

Now for two Burke items. As you may have known, a Ph. D. thesis was done at Edinburgh University by one J. E. McCabe, on "The Attitude of Edmund Burke toward Christianity and the Churches." It was done under the direction of Professor Burleigh and Professor Pares. I mention it on the possibility that he might in some way be useful to you in the edition, perhaps in connection with his special interest in answering any questions along that line.

The next item is that there will be sold at Sotheby's on the twenty fourth of November, Lot 220, an item described as follows:

"Fitzwilliam (Lord), A series of 29 autograph letters signed 1840-1844, all relating to the papers and correspondence of Edmund Burke."

I am planning to place a modest bid on this item, and if I get it, one of my purposes is to let you look the thing over. However, if you want to be sure of getting

1155 East 57th Street
Chicago 37, Illinois

December 6, 1952.

Dear Jim,

Your long letter gave me great pleasure even though I'd seen you in the meantime. The part about Ditsy warms the heart. Let no one say the Ford Foundation never did a good deed. If Hutchins goes to Hell (and we can assume it if there is a Hell!) he ought to get one chance of being drawn out of the flames, like the old lady with the carrot.

The very day after I talked with you over the phone I had a long interview with the Dean here. My own situation is as bad as I had supposed (knowing the College's position, I doubt if it could be better); they are prepared to extend my contract for one year to give me more time to try to raise foundation money. But one great alleviation of the general misery is that they are willing that I talk with Columbia at once.

I have already taken them up, and written letters to Professor Powell and Mr. Sulzberger. I am also writing today to Jim Clifford and Allen Hazen. Heaven knows whether there's anything there at all, and like enough if there is, they will be a long time clarifying the situation. By the way, I asked each of them to treat this as still confidential. The Chicago Press is willing to give up, if Columbia can show that they are better able to carry this thing through; but they haven't given up as of now, and it seems to me it would be quite unfair to them for anyone to say yet that Chicago had abandoned its original intention.

Here's a rather recent description of the little beauty. I hope you are establishing a file labeled BURKE CORRESPONDENCE - to which I offer this.

See you soon.

Yours,

The private papers of Edmund Burke, after being withheld from the
general use of scholars for a century and a half, were finally opened in
the spring of 1949. Since that time it has been possible, as it never
was before, to undertake a thorough edition of Burke's correspondence.
Of the value of such an edition, Professor Pottle of Yale said recently:

> There is no doubt at all about the importance
> of Burke's correspondence. In some ways he
> was the greatest man of his age, not merely
> in political theory but also in eloquence.
> He is of interest to scholars in many fields
> of study. It would be impossible to elect a
> more impressive historical publication than
> the complete letters of Burke.

Scholars are well aware that their knowledge of Burke is far
below the level of their knowledge of his chief contemporaries.
Burke was, as Dr. Johnson put it, "the first man everywhere" in his
day, and his reputation since his death has risen higher than it ever
was in his life. He has been called the greatest of English orators and
the greatest of English political thinkers; Hazlitt and Matthew Arnold
agreed that he was the greatest of English prose-writers. Yet - largely
because his papers were kept back - the amount of research done upon him
has never kept any proportion to such estimates of his stature. In a period
which is erecting vast monuments to Johnson, Boswell, Horace Walpole, Jefferson
Diderot, and many less significant 18th-Century figures, Burke has yet to
receive an adequate biography, his works have not been edited in a century

-2-

and a quarter, and his *Correspondence* as now printed contains not more
than one-tenth of his surviving letters.

Such a situation, now that it can be remedied, is itself a strong
incentive to the study of Burke. There is always value in keeping the
historical record in proportion. There is also value in pushing forward
any investigation at a time when it can help and be helped by other
important investigations in its field. Work on Burke at the present time
will run parallel to half a dozen of the greatest undertakings of modern
scholarship.

None the less, Burke's claim to our attention must not be left as
a mere claim to a place in historical research. His true importance lies
in the present usefulness of his thought. He is one of the greatest, if
not the greatest, of those who can teach the modern world the political
wisdom it needs. John Morley once said of a group of Burke's writings
(those dealing with the American Revolution) that taken together they
composed "the most perfect manual in our literature, or in any literature,
for one who approaches the study of public affairs, whether for knowledge
or for practice." And Burke was - what was extremely rare in his century -
a politician who habitually looked beyond the boundaries of his own nation,
and was willing to weigh the claims even of men in other continents in the
same scale as the claims of his own countrymen. He pleaded the cause of the
American colonists in the British Parliament; Whitelaw Reid later called him
"Our Foremost Friend in Britain." But he also pleaded the cause of India,
in the famous Impeachment of Warren Hastings. When the violence of the
French Revolution exiled tens of thousands of Frenchmen, he pleaded their

-3-

cause too at the bar of world opinion. He struggled incessantly in England against the wrongs done his native Ireland. He was a great practical internationalist, whom a Hindu or an Irishman or an American, of his own time or now, could truly call "Our Foremost Friend in Britain."

The range of his sympathies has not been so widely recognized as the range of his thought, but in some ways it is even more extraordinary.

Renewed study of Burke, if done on an adequate scale, must begin with the largest body of his unpublished writing: his correspondence. This is the main bulk of the newly-opened material; to have it properly edited and available for criticism is the pre-condition of all other work.

When in the summer of 1951 Professor Copeland proposed a complete correspondence, The University of Chicago Press consulted dozens of scholars in America and England as to the usefulness of the project. A passage from Professor Pottle's letter of comment has already been quoted.

Other scholars showed similar enthusiasm. Professor George Sherburn of Harvard began his reply.

> If I am slow in answering your letter concerning an edition of the letters of Edmund Burke, it is because Harvard was slow in getting to its commencement, and not because I hesitate to speak up about the project. I am all in favor of it. When I was on the Columbia faculty Nicholas Murray Butler very much wished that the Department of English would undertake a big edition of Burke, and an edition of his letters is fully as desirable as an edition of his works, which after all are available, while the letters are not. Professor Copeland is the best man in the world to undertake such an edition, and your Press could hardly take on a more distinguished project.

-4-

Dr. R. W. Chapman of Oxford said of the importance of a new edition:

Burke is the greatest of the British sympathizers with the American claims, a great politician and a great writer. An American publication of his correspondence would almost rank with the Jefferson project.

Professor Herbert Butterfield of Cambridge entered fully into the need for the work:

I do not think that Professor Copeland has at all over-stated the importance of Edmund Burke as an historical figure. For historians not merely of English history in general he is recognized to be one of the most important figures in the eighteenth century, and a man of the greatest significance to students of the development of ninetenth-century thought. Hitherto the study of this man has been constricted, however, by the fact that so much of the key material was unavailable, and for this reason his biography has been a somewhat blurred and dim affair - not at all adequate to the greatness of the man. Professor Copeland does not exaggerate the importance of the materials which have opened to scholarship only since 1949 - materials which have already attracted the attention of a number of English scholars. It is realized here that a new stage has been reached in the study of Edmund Burke, and already quite important things have been brought out by a number of scholars, some of whom, however, are publishing small items in a piecemeal way in one periodical and another - which is not entirely satisfactory. In any case the existing printed correspondence of Burke is more inadequate when seen in relation to the stature of the man than in almost any other case that I can call to mind. I feel quite sure that a full-scale Burke correspondence would be calculated to an unusual degree to correspond with the needs of scholarship at the present day, especially as now in any case a new epoch in the study of Burke has undoubtedly opened. I am not clear that Professor Copeland will have exhausted all the possible sources of Burke material during his stay in England, as Burke had so many contacts; but there can be no doubt that the opening of the Fitzwilliam papers to scholars in Sheffield and Lamport Hall releases the main documents and the really essential ones, and signalises the date when for the first time a first-class publication of Burke correspondence is practicable. I personally believe that the sooner the work is undertaken the better.

- 5 -

Professor Leo Strauss of Chicago spoke of Burke's present place in
philosophical thoughts

No words need be wasted on the significance of Burke for
political philosophy. But it is perhaps necessary to
mention the fact that the importance of Burke for
political philosophy is in a process of almost constant
increase. Burke owed his fame within political
philosophy primarily to the circumstance that he
was the greatest exponent of the classic or
conservative thought. The experience of the
Russian revolution and its consequences has
converted and is converting an ever increasing
number of men to a conservative point of view.
Burke is today acquiring a general ascendancy
in Western thought which he never enjoyed before.

Given this state of things and given the further
fact that Burke's political philosophy is inseparable
from his day to day thoughts and statements on
political subjects, there exists today a genuine
interest in everything he wrote. An edition which
would make accessible materials that hitherto were
not available will be welcomed by everyone interested
in the basic and permanent political issues.

These are specimens of enthusiastic comment. A full sheaf of the
responses received by the Press can be supplied if it is desired to
measure the quantity as well as the quality of the encouragement given
the proposals.

December 7, 1952

Professor Thomas Copeland
The Quadrangle Club
East 57th Street
Chicago, Illinois

Dear Tom,

This is just a hasty note, to say that yesterday I was in New York, and
had a session with Jim Clifford. Unfortunately, I have nothing good to
report. I raised the question specifically and he said that this situ-
ation has now "blown over", if I remember his metaphor.

Apparently there is no possibility of Columbia being interested in the
Burke edition. I don't know just why, but he was very final in his at-
titude toward it. And that also seemed to take care of the possibility
of an opening there. Naturally, I found this rather negative, but at
least there is some value of knowing the situation. That is all I can
offer.

At the Modern Language Association you can of course try to talk with him
again, but your plans had better center elsewhere. In the meantime, I
shall keep my ear to the ground, and if I have any bright ideas, shall
let you know. Of course, I shall talk to Rene and any other friends that
it seems worth sounding out.

There is little other worry, except that we are back home again, and are
snowed under with accumulated mail and other obligations. I never felt
less like the Christmas season, and so am even more confirmed in my preju-
dice that it is a Frankenstein created by the merchants.

Here the local dovecoats have been fluttered a good deal by the announce-
ment that three masters have resigned. They are Gordon Height, Sawyer
and Ted Green. Apparently they are finding it very difficult to get
people who will take the job, which is sometimes referred to as being
"master of revels."

There is little else to report. Rene seems back in full bloom again, but
he is about the only one I have seen. Between now and the time when we
meet again, I shall probably have more news of your many friends.

Let me hear from you, and I shall look forward to our chance for a reunion
in Boston, or perhaps earlier in New Haven.

8

January 6, 1953

Professor Thomas Copeland
The Quadrangle Club
East Fifty Seventh Street
Chicago, Illinois

Dear Tom,

Just a word to tell you again how much we enjoyed seeing you in Boston. Be sure
to keep me informed of any developments in the Burke line. I hope your New York
conversations came to something. But Rome wasn't built in a day.

We thoroughly enjoyed your friend Herbie Muller. I can see why you and he are
so congenial.

Incidentally, this is what Ditsy Sewell had to say recently on the post card,
"Your visit gave us a tremendous lift, and the cultural legacy you left me in
Herb M's book is proving rich and fruitful. I can't set it down! I'll get it
back to you somehow - but first I must <u>finish</u> it. He has a free, fighting
style that I find most exhilarating; even when he overdoes it, you have a feel-
ing that he knows what he's up to. By all means see to it that Tom reads it
<u>pronto</u>, if he hasn't already."

Do you remember our telling you about the former student, who harangued us on
the bus about how cruel you had been to him? I have just had a note from him,
and his name is Stanley B. Kearl. A piece of his sculpture has just won the
first prize from the Italian Society of Contemporary Arts. He says there is a
chance that he may be back to America sometime this year, and I shall take oc-
casion to ask him if he is still smarting under your treatment of long ago!

There is no other news to report at the moment. We haven't been in circulation
much, though we did go to the Waith's for New Year's Eve. It was a very jolly
party. When there is something worth writing you about, be sure that you can
expect to hear it.

Marie-Louise sends fond greetings.

S

January 22, 1953

Professor Thomas Copeland
The Quadrangle Club
East Fifty Fifth Street
Chicago, Illinois

Dear Tom,

How goes life? We have looked forward to hearing from you, and perhaps once you reach a lull we may have the favor of a line or two.

This letter is to report on a few small matters. First of all, I don't know how recently you heard from Ditsy, but this letter was just too good to keep to one's self. Please return it after you have had a chance to read it. It certainly is wonderful the experiences they are having. Fortunately, they took a taxi, or we wouldn't think it was quite so wonderful.

Secondly, I picked up another Burke letter, which gives me two to report to you on. One of them came with a typewritten copy, so I won't bother to transcribe it. Make a draft if you wish, and if you ever want a print let me know, so that I can compare the text with the original. It is superscribed or docketed "Beaconsfield Dec: 6th, 1795 Mr. Burke R.z. A better idea: If you do copy it, keep this transcript and send me the copy. It'll be that much closer to the original.

The other letter is also to an unspecified recipient. But you ought to be able to find who was in charge of appointments at the University of Glasgow at that time. I am enclosing a transcript.

Doubtless you have heard the other news from here. The appointment of Luther Noss as Master of Silliman and Tom Bergin as Master of Timothy Dwight has caused some fluttering of the dovecotes, but is now a matter of history. Pierson College and a successor for French at Jonathan Edwards are still to come, probably later in the year. Apparently they have difficulty getting good people for the jobs, because of the financial demands not to mention other aspects.

There is also a good deal of furore over a decree passed by the Corporation cutting the budget by $420,000.00. A hundred and twenty of that comes out of faculty salaries, meaning no promotions and some pruning. The general feeling is that it is a policy stupidly misapplied. The purpose is to pay for the Physics Building in a certain number of years. Morale is at a fairly low ebb in a good many quarters.

Enough for now. We are about to see the pre-Broadway production of Rosalind Russell in a musical of sorts based on *My Sister Eileen*. Let us hope it is superior to most of the tripe that has been exposed to the local air recently.

Marie-Louise joins in fond greetings. We had a grand time seeing you in Boston, and are especially grateful to you for the very pleasant session with Herbie Muller. Have you read his book yet? Evidently people feel that an English professor should not venture into the upper atmosphere. He seems to be damned by both the English profession and the philosophershistorians.

S
Inc.

THE QUADRANGLE CLUB
CHICAGO

January 27, 1953.

Dear Jim,

Thanks for your letter of a couple
weeks back. I'd better "acknowledge" it before
everything gets washed away again, as it seems to,
at roughly two-week intervals. I'm just out of a
flu-bed, and feel the whole world is a lot more
unstable than it ought to be. "Siker my head very
totty is" - the only line I can remember from the
<u>Shepheards Calender</u> - pretty well describes the
situation.

Yes, how pleasant M.L.A. managed to be,
for once! I owe the largest part of my own enjoyment
to you and Marie Louise and to our friend Herbie
Muller, whom I contrived to see about twice a day
for a meal or a drink. He is a very buoyant spirit,
as you could see. Our final session, in your room,
I certainly enjoyed.

I don't ask that you check my statement
by a careful reading, but here is a more complete
hymn in praise of Burke than you have yet had in your
hands. Very full-throated and fine, calculated to
bring foundations running after us like the children
of Hamlin. A present for the file, at least.

As you say, Rome wasn't built in a day.
One of our foundations is acknowledging a little
interest; I saw three in all when in New York. I
got a good contact out of Jim Clifford's gent from
Thomas Nelson - who turned out to be Mr. Giacomini, as
you guessed. He thinks they are interested in the
British rights.

Do you get any new word on the state of the
Index Society? Probably its head is as totty as mine,
but we'll hope that Time the healer...

THE QUADRANGLE CLUB
CHICAGO

January 31, 1953.

Dear Jim,

Thanks for your own letter and Ditsy's -
not to mention the two of Burke's. They came to
cheer me in a mild flirtation with flu which knocked
the stuffings out of last week.

This is no letter, for I'm not nearly up
to date on anything yet. But I thought I'd better
send you back your enclosures and thank you for them.
You're right about the Old Ditsy, I see. It sounds
as if we almost lost him! I'm delighted to hear that
they'll be in Oxford in the spring; it's a lovely
fate. It'll do Til a world of good, I imagine. She
is a little stuffy about the British, or so I always
thought.

Ronald Crane went through Chicago this
weekend, on his way to the lush appointment at
Carlton. We had a long talk about the edition
and a great deal else. By a coincidence he finished
his drink and was heading out the front door when
Marshall arrived; he and I had a most enjoyable dinner
together. I think he's liking the life here; he'd
been conducting a class himself, which of course is
wonderful experience; experience I certainly never
got in graduate school.

I don't doubt we can track down both the
Burke letters, though I haven't yet. Do you suppose
there'll be a chance next summer for me to get your
Burke holdings (pretty extensive, counting those
Will Burke-Macartney) onto a microfilm? They'll not
be abused or promiscuously printed.

I had a cheerful letter from Powell this week.
Do you expect to have his spirits at 75? I suppose
you will; I don't expect to get to 75.

Love to Marie Louise.

> There is no doubt at all about the importance of
> Burke's correspondence. In some ways he was the
> greatest man of his age, not merely in political
> theory but also in eloquence. He is of interest
> to scholars in many fields of study. It would be
> impossible to elect a more impressive historical
> publication than the _complete_ letters of Burke.

Scholars are well aware that their knowledge of Burke is far
below the level of their knowledge of his chief contemporaries, Burke
was, as Dr. Johnson put it, "the first man everywhere" in his day,
and his reputation since his death has risen higher than it ever was
in his life. He has been called the greatest of English orators and
the greatest of English political thinkers; Hazlitt and Matthew
Arnold agreed that he was the greatest of English prose-writers.
Yet--largely because his papers were kept back--the amount of research
done upon him has never kept any proportion to such estimates of his
stature. In a period which is erecting vast monuments to Johnson,
Boswell, Horace Walpole, Jefferson, Bishop Percy, and many less sig-
nificant 18th-Century figures, Burke has yet to receive an adequate
biography, his works have not been edited in a century and a quarter,
and his _Correspondence_ as now printed contains not more than one-
sixth of his surviving letters.

-2-

None the less, Burke's claim to our attention must not be left
as a mere claim to a place in historical research. His true importance
lies in the present usefulness of his thought. He is one of the
greatest, if not the greatest, of those who can teach the modern world
the political wisdom it needs. John Morley once said of a group of
Burke's writings (those dealing with the American Revolution) that
taken together they composed "the most perfect manual in our literature,
or in any literature, for one who approaches the study of public affairs,
whether for knowledge or for practice." And Burke was--what was
extremely rare in his century--a politician who habitually looked
beyond the boundaries of his own nation, and was willing to weigh the
claims even of men in other continents in the same scale as the claims
of his own countrymen. He pleaded the cause of the American colonists
in the British Parliament; Whitelaw Reid later called him "Our Foremost
Friend in Britain." But he also pleaded the cause of India, in the
famous Impeachment of Warren Hastings. When the violence of the French
Revolution exiled tens of thousands of Frenchmen, he pleaded their
cause too at the bar of world opinion. He struggled incessantly in
England against the wrongs done his native Ireland. He was a great

-3-

Renewed study of Burke, if done on an adequate scale, must begin with the largest body of his unpublished writing: his correspondence. This is the main bulk of the newly-opened material; to have it properly edited and available for criticism is the pre-condition of all other work. When in the summer of 1951 Professor Copeland proposed a complete Correspondence, The University of Chicago Press consulted dozens of scholars in America and England as to the usefulness of the project. A passage from Professor Pottle's letter of comment has already been quoted. Other scholars showed similar enthusiasm. Professor George Sherburn of Harvard began his reply:

> Burke is the greatest of the British sympathizers with the American claims, a great politician and a great writer. An American publication of his correspondence would almost rank with the Jefferson project.

-5-

Given this state of things and given the further fact
that Burke's political philosophy is inseparable from
his day to day thoughts and statements on political
subjects, there exists today a genuine interest in
everything he wrote. An edition which would make ac-
cessible materials that hitherto were not available will
be welcomed by everyone interested in the basic and
permanent political issues.

Encouraged by both the quality and the extent of the interest
in their project, the officers of the Chicago Press took the plan of
a complete edition of Burke's letters to the University's Board of
Publications. The Board expressed strong interest in such an edition,
and authorized the Press to invite Professor Copeland to serve as its
general editor--his first task to be that of perfecting a general plan
of the work.

-6-

GENERAL PLAN OF THE EDITION

This is a project for publishing all of the letters of Edmund Burke. To carry it out will require the printing not only of all letters by Burke but of a generous selection of letters to him and at least a few letters by members of his immediate family--who often wrote on his behalf, and whose activities were very closely bound up with his. The inclusion of letters not by Burke will always be for the reason that they are necessary illumination of his letters. Some modern editors, of course, would insist that this principle should carry us to the point of including all letters that were ever written to him, if they happen to have survived. Our interpretation of the principle is rather that it requires us to begin with the letters Burke himself wrote, and to build up around them the background which an intelligent reader would like to have when going through them consecutively. This background will include some of the most important of the "surrounding letters" printed entire, others printed in part, and still others summarized briefly in the manner described below.

All letters will be arranged in a single chronological series. Though the total number is not great (at least as important correspondences go; there are in the neighborhood of 1600 surviving letters by Burke and nearly twice that number to him), the great range of subject matter makes it desirable that a fairly large number of editors should cooperate in the project. Specialists on British politics of Burke's period, on Ireland, on India, on the French Revolution, and so forth, are necessary to clear up many details by annotation and to assess Burke's achievement in the numerous fields in which he was active.

-7-

All the prospective editors consulted thus far have agreed that the best manner of subdividing the total project is to give each one of them a particular period of Burke's life for which he shall be responsible--that period to be covered in a volume by itself under his own control. It is understood, however, that each editor, besides the responsibility for his period, shall assume responsibility for some large general topic which may spread over the periods of the other editors. For example, Burke's interest in Ireland extended through his whole career. The editor who besides having a period of his own is the general Irish consultant will help out his fellow editors when letters falling into their periods require detailed knowledge of Ireland. He will be helped in return by the American consultant, the Indian consultant, the French, and so forth.

As far as possible we should make the chronological subdivisions of the project correspond to real stages in Burke's career, so that the volumes succeed each other somewhat as do the chapters in a biography, each having a subordinate unity of its own. This is not as hard to achieve as it might sound. Though Burke's interests were so various, he usually had at any one time a <u>leading</u> preoccupation--the Party, or India, or France--to which he himself subordinated everything else.

It is necessary, of course, to mark carefully the point at which each new interest appears, or becomes dominant. After a good deal of discussion among the prospective editors, the following subdivisions were generally accepted. To make obvious the kind of unity each sub-division might have, each is here given a subtitle, such as might eventually be chosen for use on the dust-jacket of a volume. This is

-8-

only to illustrate a procedure and not to fix these titles. Obviously
each editor will make such decisions for himself, if all agree at the
proper time that subtitles are desirable.

1. January, 1744, through June, 1765. As Burke made his connection with Lord Rockingham, which was his entree into English politics, in July, 1765, this first subdivision is all in the nature of a prologue. It would include all letters we have from the first thirty-six years of Burke's life. It might be called *Years of Preparation*, or simply *Early Years*.

2. July, 1765, through June, 1770. This section would cover Burke's first five years in the Whig Party. Its chief interest would be the development of the Rockingham group and of Burke's philosophy of Party--summed up in the *Thoughts on Discontents* which appeared in the spring of 1770. A subtitle might be *Growth of a Party*.

3. July, 1770, through June, 1774. This is an explorative and somewhat unfocussed period of Burke's career. As his leading interests, besides that in the Party, are doubtless America, India, and Ireland, a subtitle *Problems of Empire: America, India, Ireland* might describe it.

4. July, 1774, through June, 1779. A letter written from Bristol in late June of 1774 made the first proposals that Burke might be asked to contest a seat in Parliament for that city. His reply, dated July 1, 1774, would be the first letter in this volume. It begins a new phase of his career, for which a volume-title might be *Member for Bristol*. The election and Burke's relations with his *Bristol* supporters for the first few years are exceptionally well recorded in letters. Later he paid less attention to the city, and I believe we would be justified in breaking off this section before he actually lost his seat. June, 1779, would put the break at the end of a five-year period. As a general rule our breaks are placed in mid-summer: that is, after the close of one parliamentary session and before the next (often with a new set of interests) is being actively prepared.

5. July, 1779, through June, 1782. The autumn of 1779 saw the British nation deeply dissatisfied with the course of the American war, and in a mood for major reforms. The period which Professor Butterfield recently treated as a unit in his *George III, Lord North and the People* was marked by the agitations of the Yorkshire Association and similar groups in other counties, by demands for repeal of the penal laws against Roman Catholics, by a mild kind of an Irish Revolution, by the first attempt at parliamentary reform (which Burke opposed), and by the debates on Burke's own bill for Economic Reform. Burke had an important role in each of these struggles. A possible title for this section would be *Reform*.

-9-

6. July, 1782, through June, 1789. The Marquis of Rockingham died on July 1, 1782. This changed Burke's position in the Whig Party, in Parliament, and in the country. Henceforth for several years he was very much on the defensive. He was committed before this time, but he committed himself even more deeply in the middle 80's, to the unpopular cause of Indian reform. In the late 80's his unwise conduct in the debates over the Regency Bill sacrificed much of the respect he still enjoyed. He was perhaps at the low point of his entire career in the spring of 1789. A general title for these years might be *Against the Tide*. Or if that seems to strain for effect, *The Indian Cause* would name the main preoccupation of this period.

7. July, 1789, through June, 1794. The French Revolution gave Burke a wholly new interest, which rapidly became the dominant interest of his life. His analysis and judgment of the Revolution began almost as soon as the first riots. A volume beginning in the month of Bastille Day and continuing to the height of the Terror could be called simply *Revolution*.

8. July, 1794, until Burke's death in July, 1797. Burke had retired from Parliament in late June of 1794. This and a long retreat from the public eye which followed the death of his son on August 2 make this summer a last natural break in his career. Henceforth he was out of active life. Many people, however, still valued his counsel, and applied to him for advice. He became a kind of general oracle, and carried on an active correspondence. *Elder Statesman* would well describe this phase, or if that has now become a slightly hackneyed term, simply *Retirement*.

The volumes should be fully indexed. As the eight sections are expected to come out one by one over a considerable period--perhaps as long as ten years--readers will doubtless want *some* indexing before the end.

This could be supplied by giving each section at its appearance a brief temporary index (which might be confined to names and book-titles) with the understanding that a full-scale permanent index would come out at the end of the series. Or alternatively, each section could be given its own full index, so that it would always stand independent of the other sections. Decisions as to indexing seem to depend even more than other decisions on the extent of editorial funds.

-10-

PLAN OF A SINGLE VOLUME

As the subdivisions of the correspondence have been chosen for
the convenience of the editors, to mark stages in Burke's career which
are likely to be manageable, it is not to be expected that all volumes
can be of precisely equal size. Though estimates now can be only
approximate, it does not look as if those volumes which will be slimmer
than "normal" will be enough so to damage the appearance of the set.
Two sections, those numbered 4 and 7 in the above list, may be enough
over-sized to be split into two volumes apiece.

Several scholars who were consulted about format cautioned
against too tall a volume: saying that some of the recent scholarly
editions seemed to them too heavy for ideal convenience. Most editors
favored what the printers call a demy-octavo size.

Now as to contents. None of the editors thought the introduction
of this kind of a volume would have to be very long. Most agreed that
a length in the neighborhood of twenty-five pages would probably be
enough. The introduction, therefore, would not be a history of the
period nor an extended monograph, but an essay calling attention to
whatever kind of unity the particular section might have—hence the
interest it was most likely to offer its reader. If there is general
agreement to aim at this *kind* of an introduction, no doubt it will be
wise to allow the individual editor considerable leeway as to length;
if he finds, say, that his critical remarks involve a disagreement with
some widely-held opinion as to Burke or a phase of his career, he might
wish to present his views in fifty pages rather than twenty-five.

The Correspondence will aim at only one principle of exhaustiveness:

-11-

that of including all the letters by Edmund Burke which survive. Yet as
indicated above, these letters will be surrounded by other letters, and
portions and summaries of letters, which are useful to complete the story.
These may extend to as much as a third or even a half of the bulk of
Burke's own letters, but they are always to be understood as having been
included as background. An editor will have three choices as to the
handling of such background. If a letter to Burke or by a member of
Burke's family is of obvious use (as, if Burke answered it point by point,
or it was written on his behalf), the editor may elect to print it
entire—with the same sort of heading, annotation, and so forth, as
would be used for a letter of Burke's own. Or if, as will fairly often
happen, a considerable passage of a letter, but not all of it, has this
kind of usefulness, he may elect to print this passage, again with the
apparatus he would use for a Burke letter, but of course with indication
that he is printing less than the full text. These two methods together
might account for something between ten and twenty per cent of the
correspondence in the whole edition.

The third option at the editor's disposal—that of briefly
digesting letters without quoting their texts—will be the normal way
of representing what went on at the "other end," or in the correspond-
ence of the other Burkes. But this too, be it understood, will always
be at the editor's choice. We will make certain that either in the
edition itself or in an exhaustive checklist which is already approved
for publication, every letter in the Burke correspondence is recorded;
but we do not engage ourselves to supply even the briefest calendar-
entry for each letter. Perhaps a principle suggested by Dr. Cobban

-12-

will be the editor's most useful guide in deciding what to digest and
what to ignore. If a letter of Burke (which we do obligate ourselves
to publish) was a reply to a still-extant letter from the other side,
the editor will probably want to summarize briefly what was being
replied to. He can do this by giving a short *précis* of the other letter
in a headnote to the letter of Burke. An essential part of Dr. Cobban's
idea is that the headnote should be, though not in the full-sized type
of the main text, in a readable type not very much smaller, so that the
unspecialized reader will normally read the whole headnote along with
the main text; the editor can thus make its contents an effective part
of his narrative.

Sometimes Burke's letter will have elicited a reply which the
editor thinks it useful to bring to the attention of his reader, though
not to print at length. In this case he can supply a tailnote, exactly
analogous to the headnote in type, method, and the rest, but placed after
Burke's letter.

Annotation should be thorough, especially in such matters as the
identification of minor individuals not covered in the better-known
reference works, but no one consulted seemed to feel that this was an
edition that would "run to footnotes." The use of the headnotes and
tailnotes would take a good deal of the background material out of the
footnotes. And Burke is not cryptic. He was a rhetorician; it was his
business to make his large and well-rounded expositions self-explanatory.
Many pages should have no footnotes at all, and perhaps an average page
would not have more than eight or ten lines. An ideal of this edition
should be to have as simple an appearance as is possible, even at the

-13-

cost of omitting some of the scholarly apparatus which modern editors
love to supply. Burke's letters have been neglected and obscured for
so long as almost to have lost their proper public. Surely this is a
reason for making their presentation now as lucid and unembarrassed as
it can be made.

-14-

SAMPLE HANDLING OF A LETTER

The following may serve to illustrate the proposed manner of
treating each letter. Some letters, of course, will differ from the
sample in not requiring headnotes; perhaps some will not require foot-
notes. It is not necessary to illustrate the tailnote here, since
mechanically it will exactly resemble the headnote.

A. Heading _in boldface type, large_?

To James Boswell 1 March 1779

B. Miscellaneous Information about the Text _in type-size of footnotes_?

Source: MS at Yale. Addressed (on wrapper): To James Boswell Esqr.
Edinburgh. Endorsed: Rec<sup>d</sup> Mar 4.

C. Headnote _in type-size intermediate between that of text and that of footnotes_?

Burke's first letter to Boswell. In the year preceding it
Boswell had written Burke three letters, whose chief purpose, as he said
frankly, was to win the honor of a correspondence with him. The first
two, dated 3 March 1778 and 6 November 1778, seemed to have little other
purpose. The third, besides reproaching Burke for not answering the
other two, spoke of some violent outbreaks of anti-Catholic feeling in
Scotland, precipitated by Sir George Savile's bill in Parliament for
repealing some of the penal laws against Catholics. Savile's bill did
not actually apply to Scotland, but it had been promised that a bill
similar to it and applicable to Scotland would be moved. Riots occurred
in Edinburgh and Glasgow, and the Government disowned this promise.
Boswell in his third letter, dated 22 February 1779, asked Burke to
reassure him--anonymously if he chose--that no one in Parliament still

-15-

D. and E. Text with Footnotes:

My dear Sir

Your goodness is indeed inexhaustible; but great as my faults
are they do not make such a demand upon it as you imagine. I have had
the misfortune of missing the third letter you speak of; and before your
last, only _one_ came to my hands. But as I was not so early as I ought
to have been in acknowledging the honour of that one, my fault is
greater than I fear I am able to atone for; and I tell you of the
failure of the other, because I do not wish that my crime should have
any aggravation.

I had heard some account of the subject of your letter before I
received it from you. It would have been against the spirit of the Act
of Union if Scotland did not, at some time or other partake of the dis-
orders that prevail in the constitution of the British Family. I do
confess indeed, that I did not expect, that our dear Sister, who in the
rigour of her Prudery, had shown such outrageous Zeal, and decreed such
severe penances against other frail and offending parts of the household,
should make such a slip herself as to give her a fair title to the Stool
and White Sheet. ¹ But these things will happen as long as the very best
of us are only made up of mere rebellious flesh and blood.

As to the riot which has been <perpetrated>, and the rebellion
which is threatned, they have at least the advantage of diversifying the
1. The traditional punishment for a scold was the ducking stool; fornicators and adulterers did penance in a white sheet.
2. Blotted in the MS; a more precise transcription of what appears would be "p>p< >d."

-16-

scene of our modern contentions. A religious war was not exactly the
thing I expected in my time. I thought it possible, that even at the
other side of the Tweed, a man might be allowed to say his prayers in
Latin without any gross violation of the native, inherent, essential
privileges and immunities of the broad Scotch. I admit, that the ears
of heaven may be more delighted with these accents; yet as the other
tongue may be as intelligible there (though not so pleasing) I think a
little of it might be borne at Edinburgh without making a very serious
quarrel of the matter. These Romans of our day are not quite so danger-
ous an enemy to Galgacus³ and his warriours, as they were 1700 years ago;
or as some of their descendants were a century or two since; I cannot
conceive, that Bishop Hay⁴ is so dreadful a person as Julius Agricola;
or that Mr. Macdonald⁵ with all his grocery, and Mr. Bagnal⁶ with all his
crockery ware, are altogether so formidable as Sixtus the Fifth with his
bulls.

You certainly have a right to a rebellion in your town; and of
course we must leave the matter and fashion of that gratification to your
own choice. But without presuming to arraign any ones fancy, I confess,
that the American rebellion is more to my taste than that which you are

3. Or Galgacus; a Caledonian chieftain defeated in 84 A.D. by the Romans under Agricola.

4. George Hay (1729-1811), Roman Catholic Bishop of Daulis and Vicar-Apostolic of the Lowland District of Scotland. On 3 February an Edinburgh mob had plundered his chapel house and library. He went to London, where Burke took up his cause. (See below, letter to Patrick Bowie 30 Mar 79. There are six letters of Hay to Burke preserved at Sheffield.)

5. In the Edinburgh riots of 3 February a mob had attacked the shop of Daniel Macdonald, a Roman Catholic grocer. Boswell had wished to intervene to disperse this mob, but was dissuaded (Boswell Papers, xiii, 199).

6. The *London Chronicle* for 13-16 February 1779 printed a letter dated 9 February reporting on anti-Catholic riots in Glasgow. The writer of the letter said: "One Bagnal, I am afraid, is totally ruined."

-17-

cooking in the North. I think it relishes as well to resist an act of Taxation as an act of Toleration; and it would hurt me rather more to have the Excise in my own house, than the Mass in my neighbours. I take it for granted, that there are good reasons for every thing you do. But I am apt to be as much puzzled with moral mysteries as others are with religious. I do not yet clearly comprehend, why it should be right, to burn mens houses and despoil them of their goods, because somebody is supposed to intend them an act of kindness; and I should not think the difficulty perfectly removed, though it were proved beyond contradiction, that the sufferers were consenting to, or even actually desirous of such a benefit. Full as little do I understand why the University should share the fate of the Masshouses; and why the use of the Citadel of Edinburgh should be to afford a place of refuge to your most learned professors and most eminent writers.⁷ But time I suppose will clear up all those deep mysteries.

You ask me, whether, after His Majesties' Ministers have given up the Scotch Toleration Bill, any other Members intend to bring it in? Indeed I am so struck with the admiration of this heroic act of magnanimity in our Ministers, that I do not aspire to the most distant imitation of it. Besides being at 400 good miles distance from the coercive arm of the Edinburgh powers, I _will not_ tell what I intend to do,⁸ or to give my reasons for it, (as Falstaff says) on compulsion.

7. In the riots of 3 February Burke's friend William Robertson the historian, Principal of Edinburgh University, had ordered the college gates closed and placed a guard of 200 men within; Catholics of the city were offered refuge in Edinburgh Castle (Boswell Papers, xiii, 199).

8. On 18 March Burke presented in the House of Commons a Petition from the Catholics of Edinburgh and Glasgow, requesting protection from the rioters and compensation for their lost property (_Parliamentary History_, xx, 322-27).

-18-

though they were as plenty as blackberries;⁹ and as to what others intend to do, I really do not know. Oh poor Government, how art thou fallen! That Government which so many wise Tories and good nursing loyalists have been cramming and nourishing into strength, has been so overfed, and so diseased by high living, that instead of standing firm on its legs by all the good things that have been put into its belly, it is got so gouty, that it can hardly be supported by crutches. However we continue the old course without being discouraged by events; and are dying by art and by the best rules that are possible. The loan was voted in the Committee on Wednesday last.¹⁰ Lord North was ill on Friday, and the Taxes are put off until today. They talk of a five per cent on all commodities subject to the Excise, except malt; a tax on post chaises; but in what manner to be laid on I cannot collect.¹¹ The duties of last year have not produced a great deal more than one third of what they were given for. If we cannot continue to raise 700,000 a year by the present duties, the publick creditor must fall on the sinking fund; this last year the want of a proper and sufficient specifick security diminished that fund by 400,000£.¹²

9. I Henry IV, II, iv, 241.

10. In Committee of Supply on 24 February the House adopted a proposal to raise a loan of £7,000,000; the report was adopted by the House next day. Lord North admitted in Committee that the conditions demanded by the subscribers were so onerous that he had reduced his demands from £8,000,000. Burke had taken an active part in this debate (*Parliamentary Register*, xii, 6-8).

11. Burke's advance information was correct except that in the debate North offered to exempt from this excise surcharge soap, candles and leathers in addition to malt, so as to reduce the burdens on the poorer members of the community. In substitution the prohibition on the import of foreign cambrics was raised so that the revenue obtained from duty on them could be restored. Burke strongly opposed the measure as a whole (*Parliamentary Register*, xii, 12-23).

12. Burke's figures do not agree with those officially brought forward by North in the debate of the same evening (*Parliamentary Register*, xii, 14-16).

-19-

I dined with your friend Dr. Johnson on Saturday at Sir Joshua's.
We had a very good day, as we had not a sentence, word, syllable, letter,
comma, or tittle, of any of the elements that make politicks. Adieu
and believe me with great esteem and regard

Dear Sir

your most faithful

and obedient humble servant

Westminster

Edm Burke

Monday March 1. 1779

-20-

PERSONS AND TIMES

When the University of Chicago's Board of Publications approved this project in principle in July of 1951, the University Press asked Professor Copeland if he would serve as general editor. Upon his agreeing, the Press asked him to supply them with a list of scholars who would compose an advisory committee for the enterprise, and another list of those who would edit individual volumes; they also asked for a tentative schedule of delivery dates for final manuscripts, and certain estimates of length. If all of these could be supplied satisfactorily, the Press stated that the University of Chicago would be willing to make definite commitments for the publication of the correspondence at its own expense. This expense of publication it was explained informally did not extend to *editorial* expense--which for a project of this kind is of course no small item. But the Press thought, as did Professor Copeland, that if an advisory committee of the right kind were enlisted, and if competent working editors were found (and would agree to practical deadlines), the task of raising editorial money ought not to be impossible. Professor Copeland was to be in England on a Guggenheim Fellowship in the academic year 1951-52; he was encouraged to talk with scholars in both England and America on at least a fair assurance that publication would be feasible.

The following scholars have expressed their willingness to serve upon an advisory committee for the edition:

Dr. Julian Boyd of Princeton University

Professor Ronald S. Crane of the University of Chicago

Professor Allen T. Hazen of Columbia University

Professor Charles L. Mowat of the University of Chicago

Professor Lewis B. Namier of Manchester University

-22-

BUDGET

The following are some of the expenses now forseeable:

Establishing of a central office. At some place there must be a work-room with the requisite files, card indexes, reference works, and other equipment to serve as the main Burke "factory." No doubt the logical place for this is in Sheffield, where the largest body of the papers now is. The Librarian and staff of the Sheffield Library have already shown the greatest cordiality to our enterprise; they would probably agree to give us "permanent" work-space. Having such a space, our first task would be to build up a complete file of the Burke correspondence.

As explained more fully in a paper of Professor Copeland's which is attached ("Problems of Burke's Letters"), though the bulk of Burke's letters are at Sheffield, there are still about 2,000 letters by and to Burke which have wandered elsewhere. Reproductions of these scattered letters must be procured, so that a full-scale Burke file may be built up: to contain, either in the original or in copy, every letter by or to Burke.

Such a file, as the heart of a Burke archive, must be supplemented by several other important files. There should be a calendar of the non-letter material known to exist in manuscript; a considerable portion of the Fitzwilliam Burke collection is non-letter material which has not yet been properly sorted. Files must be prepared which will give a complete and accurate review of all of Burke's speeches, pamphlets, and miscellaneous writings; it is a measure of the neglect Burke has suffered that no lists giving this information are now available. A card file of books and articles about Burke must be made reasonably complete.

-23-

When indexing procedures have been established, the work of indexing
should be begun in the central office.

At least one permanent editorial worker besides the general
editor will be necessary to carry out these tasks. In the early period
of the enterprise, while machinery is being set up and routines agreed
upon, it is suggested that both this worker and the general editor be
based in Sheffield. In the first year there will also be a steady need
for a typist-assistant. Perhaps by the third year the general editor
could return to his main teaching job, doing his editorial work thence-
forth on the side and in his summers; since all contingencies cannot be
foreseen, however, it would be helpful if he could count upon one
additional full year on the project--either to follow directly on the
first two or to be held in reserve for a later period in the life of
the enterprise. We are warned that there are always emergencies in a
project of this extent.

Probably no steady typist-assistant will be needed after the
first year. The permanent sub-editor ought to be able to carry on as
the sole full-time member of a central office, hiring temporary steno-
graphic aid if necessary.

**Assistance to the working editors.** The editors who have agreed to work for us have asked for no pay or royalties. They should not, however, be put to major expense in carrying out their tasks. We should supply them with the microfilms and photostats they must have, and cover the costs of typing their "copy" for the printer. If possible we should pay for the secretarial help they will need in making their transcriptions of letters and in re-checking proofs. Each editor should also have a small

THE QUADRANGLE CLUB
CHICAGO

February 17, 1953.

Dear Jim,

Back in the harness. Harness indeed. I
thought I would be writing you yesterday morning,
as soon as I'd heard how the Press felt about doing their
duty; but I had no time for it at all yesterday.

It looks now as if there were no doubt of
either the Press or the University. Money talks; they
are in a very co-operative mood. Poor Grodzins, who's
had scarcely anything go right in months, was bursting
with enthusiasm and is now full of plans of activity.
We're doing up some sample sheets this week or next.
I'll send you on a copy I hope.

Say, a thought strikes me about your remarks
about the checklist. You mentioned going to the
Bollingen Foundation. I can't remember that I told you
of having gone to them at Christmas time, and left our
complete literature in their hands, where doubtless it
still is. My introduction to them was through Hayden
Carruth, formerly of the Chicago Press and now of the
Ford Foundation (a subsidiary organization of it
called Inter-cultural Publications, Inc., which gets
out *Perspectives*, *Diogenes*, and for all I know other
posh magazines of the same kind). Carruth would help
us in any way he could, I know; he felt both regretful
and a little guilty maybe at the time - last July -
that he faded out of the picture when Burke was in
greatest need of him. I talked with him on the phone
last Friday morning before going on to New Haven. He
thought Barret (or perhaps Barrett; I haven't seen the
name written out) at the Bollingen was an exceptionally
good man to take our kind of problem. I was told that

December 9, 1952.

Dear Jim,

Thanks for the letter and report. Dear me, how everything seems to go the same way, these days! Practically everything that has happened since August has happened in about this same uncomfortable and frustrating way. Well, I'm (fortunately) getting calloused, so that it worries me less than it would have in September. Of course Jim could be wrong, though I don't a bit expect it. I had a note of acknowledgement from Mr. Sulzberger, saying he would "take the matter up at once to determine whether or not it would be possible for Columbia to reinterest itself in this publication." If he'd take it up and get some encouragement among the Rockefeller trustees, I suppose that would mean something.

See you soon.

1155 East 57th Street
Chicago 37, Illinois
March 23, 1955.

Dear Jim,

I hope that one part of our conversation last night was clear enough. I had put this monumental list of Mrs. Backhouse's collection into the mail on Saturday - I hope it reached you this morning - and thought I'd better mention it to you before it descended on you. A letter from Mrs. B. herself came this morning, which I am enclosing as it probably will give you some idea of the situation. The two people who have told me what she is like (I've never met her) agree that she's a thoroughly good person, somewhat unworldly, but the kind who would do everything to help out our edition. But they agree that she is given advice by two lawyers who may be less worldly and less manageable. I was somewhat disturbed, as I told you last month, at her inclination to sell, and more disturbed, when I heard about three weeks ago, when Mr. Lamb of the Sheffield Library (which has had the collection on deposit for about a year) wrote me that she had ordered him to send her collection back to her. Today's letter is a great relief in one respect, for it appears that she has not yet sent her papers to London for evaluation or sale. Also she sounds very friendly, as she did in the only other letter I ever had from her, which was last July.

Mr. Lamb, Dr. Hayes of the National Library of Ireland, and Miss Coates of the National Register of Archives are all worried at the idea her papers may be scattered, if they get into the hands of Maggs or Sotheby's. That would be a shame, of course. I asked Dr. Hayes whether he had any interest in buying them for the National Library. He said he really couldn't afford to, especially since he had spent £70 having them microfilmed; but if someone would buy the Burke items he would bid for the rest of the collection (far the greater bulk of it, but of less value). I told him of what you had said last month. He replies that he would bid as high as £200 for the non-Burke items...

Oh hell, if you'll allow me the expression. This is no way to give you the facts. On second thought I am inclosing you the letters I have had from Mrs. Backhouse (the July letter and today's) and Dr. Hayes and Mr. Lamb. I believe you can rather easily make out what the situation is. If you care about making a bid, I dare say Dr. Hayes's advice as to a figure is good. At least he does a lot of this sort of work and is a very keen man. If the list of the collection doesn't really

March 24, 1955

Dear Tom,

Ever since your telephone call on Sunday I have been in a glow of pleasure over
your happy situation. It means so much in so many ways. But especially it will
mean a lot to future generations, who can thank you for making Burke available to
them.

One point in all our congratulations should be the recognition that this is not a
piece of luck, but the result of thinking and hard work on your part. In fact, it
should give you quite a feeling of accomplishment as well as confidence for the big
job ahead.

I told Rene about your good news, and he was just as pleased as I am. We are look-
ing forward to seeing you in New Haven sometime, so be sure to tell us what part of
the summer, if any, you will be in this section of the world. According to present
plans, we shall be here all summer except for long week-ends and a few special
expeditions.

Now for the Backhouse collection. The catalogue arrived very promptly on Monday
morning and I have made a cursory run through it. It is obviously an interesting
collection of material. The Burke items are the cream of the crop, and that in-
cludes not only the correspondence but also the letters of other people with refer-
ences to Burke. But the other materials should be of considerable interest, also.
That means the Crabbe letters, the Edgeworth material, and even the three letters
of William Penn. As far as the other items are concerned, it is difficult to tell
from the brief listing just what their merits may be, if any.

From the fact that you sent the catalogue air mail I gather there is some hurry in
the matter. If so, please let me know at once. The price you mention is probably
fair enough, though I should be inclined to make it five hundred pounds (or guineas
if necessary) instead of this slightly higher amount in dollars. Or, do you think
they would like to have dollars deposited over here? Probably it couldn't be done
that way, anyway. The offer would have to be contingent on permission to export
the materials, but that shouldn't be difficult, since they are not official in any
way.

I am not certain about the position of the Irish library: must they have a part in
the deal, or would that depend on the purchaser's wishes? In other words, I
wouldn't want to be tied down to the proposition of turning everything but the
Burke material over to them. So, let me know again. Any details you care to send
will be most welcome.

There is not much other news to report. All of us are well, and are looking forward

March 26, 1953

Professor Thomas Copeland
The Quadrangle Club
155 East Fifty Seventh Street
Chicago 37, Illinois

Dear Tom,

My promptness in writing you means that I did so without benefit of your very full
and welcome letter. Your letter and the enclosures make the matter fairly clear.

I think the procedure from now on is quite simple and straightforward. You can
write to Mrs. Backhouse and tell her that largely on your recommendation "a friend
at Yale" is willing to pay $1,500. for the collection. But it is understood that
this includes any other family papers of the same period (before CA 1870) in the
possession of the family. This is to take care of any extra letters that may some-
how be found lying around the house, as happened in the case of the Boswell things.
You can tell her the payment can be deposited here or in England and in dollars or
in sterling, according to her choice. But it presumes the right to export them, and
will be paid on arrival in this country. You can probably think of some tactful way
to say "of course", in mentioning these letter factors.

In writing her you may want to mention that you have had professional advice from
the librarians in England, and they consider this a good round figure. Furthermore,
you don't think you could ask your friend to go any higher, since you have shown
him the letter from the professionals in England. Moreover, this seems to be a
good price considering the response from the British institutions. And dealers are
notorious for being interested only in the cream, where they have to allow for a
very large mark-up in presenting their purchases to the public; which also explains
their slowness in payment unless they get things for a song. Of course they wouldn't
be able to pay in dollars, if she might have dollars in mind.

These are just suggestions. If the transaction does go through, I wish you would
keep it fairly quiet. When the time does come to talk about it, price should not be
mentioned anywhere. Other details, such as the directions for shipment, etc., can
wait until we are ready to close the deal. Be sure to let me know if any other
questions occur in your mind.

The other news in your letter is welcome. I shall look forward to the sample page.
As you say, it is miraculous the effect on the press and other people once you have
the wherewithal to make the thing move. I am sure the letters from your fellow work-
ers will be most enthusiastic. You are right to keep the amount secret, since noth-
ing is to be gained by having it known.

So much for now. I am up to my ears in reading the typescript for Volume I of the
new edition of Dryden. In fact, my detailed comments will fill a good many sheets
of paper. I hope it doesn't discourage the new editors too much! They have done a
very impressive piece of work.

March 27, 1953.

Dear Jim,

Thanks for yours. There isn't
anybody whose congratulations make me feel
so good. Not posterity, in spite of your
kind predictions. I hope things are going
to roll smoothly for a while now. I've
always noticed that for me the hardest time
(say in writing anything) is when it isn't
quite sure that anything's *there*; when I'm
persuaded that it exists and only needs
perfecting, it usually gets much easier
and much pleasanter.

Thanks too for the catalogue
pages you enclosed. I hadn't looked up
this set of references, and now I do it
turns out that one is new, and the others
nail down letters for which we had only slight
references in old catalogues.

I gather your letter was written
before my last got to you. Maybe that answered
all queries. I recommend study of Hayes's
comments; he is a clever negotiator, I'm
sure. I don't think he at all insists on
having the non-Burke items; in fact my guess
is that he would be content with having filmed
the collection and is only bidding to do his
part in preventing a disastrous scattering.
But you have his letters now, and can probably
answer that question from the phrases he uses.

Perhaps there's no desperate haste;
after I'd put that list into an air-letter
I rather wondered at my own anxiety. Naturally
the edition will feel a little safer when
the chance of a scattering is ended; we'd like
to feel we had time to make thorough checks on
Mrs. B.'s items. I'd also say that there was
less to fear from the airy hopes of either
Mr. B. or the other lawyer-friend, if negotiations

were over before many people in England heard
we had a grant from Carnegie. We have agreed
to suppress the exact figure in talking with
our editors, so maybe that isn't a fearful
risk.

I should think £500 would be about
as good as $1500 to start things off with Mrs.
Backhouse. You notice it was a figure Hayes
used in his first letter to me..

Let me know what you decide, in any
case. Do you think it would be well for me to
drop notes to Hayes, Lamb, and Miss Coates
if you make Mrs. B. an offer? They are entirely
on your side and I think all would be greatly
relieved if the collection could be kept in one
piece.

Life is perverse even in moments when
things go well. On the heels of Carnegie's
final decision we got a letter from the
Bollingen Foundation expressing considerable
interest in helping us.

Love to Marie Louise. I'm delighted
to hear that you are going to be in New Haven
in the summer. I'm going to try to get the
Burke-Boswell job done for Ted Hilles before
sailing in mid-August, and hope that will justify
some of our long pleasant lunches with you,
Ray, Bill Wimsatt, and others in late June and
July. I have a 25th reunion - don't you too?
this June.

Yours,

March 31, 1953.

Dear Jim,

Here's my "business letter" to
Mrs. Backhouse. I covered as much as I could
of the ground: encouraged her to save herself
trouble and uncertainty, without, I hope, seeming
to press her too hard. I'm afraid there is
an excellent chance anyway that the papers are
in Maggs' hands by now. If they are only
there for an estimate, she might close at
once, to save herself trouble. But she
certainly might also procrastinate. If you
are worried by anything I have omitted, I'd
be glad to drop her a note to supply the
deficiency.

I'll keep you informed, and of course
name no figures to anyone else.

April 6, 1953

Professor Thomas Copeland
1155 East Fifty Seventh Street
Chicago 37, Illinois

Dear Tom,

Very many thanks for sending along the copy of your letter to Mrs. Backhouse. I think that it covers the subject very well. Certainly, the situation is now entirely up to her. If she realized that the things had been microfilmed already, she would see that the cream of the value has been taken off by that one act! But we shall now see what her answer may be.

Your point about the Leadbeater papers still in her possession is tactfully made. We shall see what the next step is after she has responded. And we shall also see how important it is to her that the things should be kept together. Certainly you have crashed through handsomely as far as she is concerned. I shall await word of her reply.

There is not much news to report from here. Probably you have seen the article on "The Chicago Critics" by Bill Wimsatt in the current issue of Comparative Literature. What is the Chicago reaction to the piece? Both Rene and I are dying to find out. And what is your reaction, too?

Rene and Bill are fine. We have taken to having lunch together on Mondays. And we look forward to having you here in a couple of months. Rene is in good fettle these days, and I trust you enjoyed his article on Croce. Volume I of his history is in the hands of the Oxford Press, and he is awaiting their response to it. Bill has been a bit naive in his open admiration of McCarthy, which causes concern to some of his friends.

On Thursday I was in New York and saw Jim Clifford and Allen Hazen. Both of them are very excited over your success with getting the nest egg for Burke. They are dickering with the University of Illinois Press, as you probably know, about the edition of Dr. Johnson. Allen is going to Texas to give some lectures and then up to Chicago, so you may see him there. Jim is very busy with Young Sam.

A letter from Powell also indicates he is delighted at the news from you. And Sherburn also wrote me about it. So, you can see that your success is on everybody's lips. Sherburn is more of an admirer of yours than you might suspect, since these things don't often come to the surface. He is down at Duke on some sort of a mission at the moment.

Did I ask you if you read Krutch's article in the current issue of The American Scholar? But I think you would particularly enjoy the article "Do Economists Know Anything?". I thought it was hilarious to see the demonstration that they don't, and the lame excuses in the second part as to why we shouldn't hold them to account. Don't miss it.

Work on Spence progresses. About fifty thousand words are now typed up, and it makes

Professor Thomas Copeland

-2-

4/6/55

one feel a bit less ephemeral to see it in this shape. But there are miles to go
before I sleep.

Marie-Louise is fine, except that her mother is very ill, and we fear near the end.
Tom is here for his Easter holidays, so the house echoes with music from one instru-
ment or another nearly all day long. Marshall was here for just two nights, and
spent the rest of the time roaring around the countryside. He reports a very inter-
esting evening with you before the Easter vacation.

So much for now. I shall look forward to your next letter, and especially to hear-
ing the reaction from Mrs. B. At least you have crashed through and brought the
matter to a head, and we shall see whether her husband begins to do as your friend
in Ireland postulated, namely to translate the sum into cases of whiskey!

s

P.S. As you may know, the theses supplement of the _Bulletin_ of the Institute of Historical Research lists a couple of people working on Burke. At Edinburgh, J. E. McCabe is working under Professors Burleigh and Pares on "The attitude of Edmund Burke toward Christianity and the churches."

Similarly, at the University of London P. T. Underdown is doing a Ph. D. in ex-
tension on "Edmund Burke as a member of Parliament for Bristol, 1774-1780." There
is no supervisor listed.

April 20, 1953

Dear Tom,

Your "not a letter: a bulletin" communication was much appreciated. It will be interesting to see what Mrs. Backhouse decides to do. If she has any fantastic ideas of what the papers will bring, then she will be in for some disillusionment, I fear. Just why the coronation year would be a good time is difficult to comprehend.

Sotheby's will possibly give her a slightly higher estimate, because it is true that when things are sold piecemeal they bring higher sums. But she would have to pay the Sotheby commission, and the papers would then be dispersed into many dealers' hands. So, we shall see whether she really does want to keep them together or prefers the possibility of them bringing a little more money. In any case, be sure to let me know when you hear something.

We are glad to have your bulletin about having dinner with Marshall and Bro Crane. Marshall telephoned the other evening, but I had to be out with a couple of Holstein men who were passing through this neck of the woods. Evidently he is working particularly hard, primarily because he finds he needs to. As he may have told you, he plans to be home for the early part of the summer but go back to Chicago and take his MA examinations in August. Considering the draft situation is hanging over him, he is probably wise to pick it up as he goes on his way.

The letter from Ditsy Sewall is simply superb. He has a very fresh sense of observation, and one can be thrilled vicariously by seeing all of the pleasure he gets from this experience. What a contrast to some of the blase people that we know. The Ford Foundation has certainly put its money to good use in selecting him.

I must write him, since we know Dorchester very well. His reference to the Sound-scriber is amusing, and I intend to continue to make the most of it. A generation ago people felt that the typewriter was a mechanical intrusion in correspondence.

There isn't very much news here, except what you may have already heard. Sid Lovett has been appointed master of Pierson College: in many ways it is a pastoral job. And Bob French retires in June, with a year of absence afterward. That is the only one of the four masterships about which people can gossip at cocktail parties.

As you may have heard, Bill Wimsatt has received a Ford Fellowship for next year. I wish we could cure his phobia about traveling, since it would make a big difference to him to see England at first hand instead of through the printed page. The award of the Guggenheim scholarships will be something to watch, since I understand that Gordon Haight, Cleanth Brooks and Bill DeVane have all applied. We couldn't expect three in one department, and you know how Louis Wright feels about the new critics!

April 22, 1953,

Dear Jim,

Nothing like cultivating the
habits of business-like people. When I
received this on April 13 I immediately
slipped it into an envelope for you to see.
I slipped the envelope into my pocket for
the post, and found it there this morning.

Will you send it back to me
some time, so I can send the lady her answer?