Print

Print


 Much thanks but the matter is dealt with.
Cheers,
P.

-----Original Message-----
From: erwin welsch
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: 10/5/02 12:34 AM
Subject: Re: Reid publisher

I fear that I am coming in after this has been solved, but forgive me
for repeating. There was a Newcastle upon Tyne Andrew Reid & Co Ltd and
a Boston Reid as well as a couple of others.  Any of these of interest
still?
Erwin

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Montgomery" <  <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
[log in to unmask]>
To: <  <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: Reid publisher


> Thanks Marcia. Yes in fact Read was a close friend before
> and through Eliot's conversion. Read was probably Eliot's source
> for material to do with Thomism. I was trying to help a student,
> but I relly blew it because I had the wrong spelling and the wrong
> first name.
>
> After a chat, I got the student interested in Eliot and Stravinsky
> which is a much more relevant (in terms of experimental art) avenue
> to pursue. E. wrote about S. and S. wrote about E., and S. has a
> good biographical pool to draw on.
>
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marcia Karp [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 1:59 PM
> To:  <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Reid publisher
>
>
> Peter Montgomery wrote:
>
> > Not sure if that'sthe same person. Could be.
> > The person I ant was the object of some pretty vicious
> > satire by Percy Wyndham Lewis, with the result that
> > Reid/Read managed to get him blacklised from publishing
> > and delberately promoted the career of D.B.Wyndham Lewis
> > as a way of obscuring him even further.
>
> Dear Peter,
>     You didn't say that connections with Eliot and Herbert Read (if
he's
> your man) are important to you, but here's one, anyway.
>     Reads _English Prose Style_ was reviewed in the September 13, 1928
> _Times Literary Supplement_. The reviewer had de-lineated Coriolanus
speech
> to Aufidius in Act IV, Scene V of Shakespeare's play, then observed
that it
> was better prose than North's translation of Plutarch.  Eliot
responded with
> a letter.  The quotation may be familiar to some.  The italics are
his:
>
>      I make precisely the opposite observation.  The prose of North is
>      fine prose, the verse of Shakespeare is great poetry.  And
printed
>      as prose, the verse of Shakespeare seems to me to be bad prose.
>      As prose, it is difficult to grasp; as prose, it is badly
>      constructed.  North's I find much superior -- as prose.
>      What I think your reviewer, like many other people, has
overlooked
>      is this: that verse, whatever else it may or may not be, is
itself
>      a system of punctuation; the usual marks of _punctuation_
>      themselves are differently employed.  If your reviewer were
right,
>      the method ought to be reversible; so that some passages of great
>      prose could be converted into fine verse; and I do not believe he
>      can find an example.  [September 27, 1928, _TLS_,  687.]
>
> Marcia
>