Item 1981/2 - Five letters from Christopher Blunt to Ian Stewart, one with attachment, and one letter from Ian Stewart to Christopher Blunt

7 items, paper

Seven letters from Christopher Blunt to Ian Stewart, two with attachments, and one letter from Ian Stewart to Christopher Blunt:
(a) letter from Ian stewart to Christopher Blunt, manuscript, one folio (recto & verso), dated from Baldwin Crescent, London SE5, on 1 January 1982, sending "various things, but mainly an annotated copy of the Ed-chapters [sic] with various suggestions", asking for its return for reference. He says that he has just received comments on Regnald & Bossall, which he needs to examine in more detail.
(b) letter from Christopher Blunt to Ian Stewart, manuscript, one folio (recto & verso), dated from Ramsbury on 7 February 1982, thanking IS for sending the draft chapter for Philip Grierson's book. He also thanks IS for the copies of the Michael Dolley correspondence, noting that he has behaving in this way for some time. He says that they managed to obtain Dolley's comments on their Regnald paper, explaining that Michael Metcalf initially declined to forward copies of Dolley's comments but later agreed to send the relevant parts. He mentions that Dolley told him of a little piece of information that will help their Regnald argument, but suspects that he hadn't thought through the implications for their paper. There is further discussion about Michael Dolley and his long letter to IS, with CEB wondering what IS plans to do about it. He suggests that a diplomatic approach is likely to prove fruitless unless one is prepared to accept all of MD's arguments.
(c) letter from Christopher Blunt to Ian Stewart, manuscript, one folio (recto & verso), dated from Ramsbury on 9 February 1982, expressing delight with IS's chapter for Philip Grierson's 10th-century work but identifying a few points of fact with which he is not entirely happy. On the verso, he turns to further thoughts on the matter of Michael Dolley and his refusal to allow Michael Metcalf to pass on his comments on IS and CEB's Regnald paper. He makes it clear that he does not wish to engage in any kind of negotiation with MD over the comments, since it may go on indefinitely, and says that unless MM feels that he can send them along, he wants to forget the matter, acknowledging that MD is not well.
(d) letter from Christopher Blunt to Ian Stewart, manuscript, single page, dated from Ramsbury on 11 February 1982, enclosing "the four papers to which Michael Dolley refers in the second page of his letter to [IS] of 2 Feb", which he identifies as:

• Dunmore [presumably in reference to: Michael Dolley, 'The 1973 Viking-age coin-find from Dunmore Cave', Old Kilkenny Review (1975), 70–79].
• Hall's list [presumably in reference to: Richard Hall, 'A Check list of Viking-age coin finds from Ireland', Ulster Journal of Archaeology, vol. 36-37 (1973-1974), pp. 71-86].
  -Dolley and Lynn [presumably in reference to Michael Dolley and Christopher Lynn, 'A provisional note on the incidence of coin-hoarding in Viking-age Ireland', Irish Archaeological Research Forum, vol. 3, no. 2 (1976), pp. ?].
• Leggagh [presumably in reference to: Michael Dolley, 'The c. 1843 Leggagh (Nobber) coin-hoard reconsidered', Riocht na Midhe, vol. 5 (1972), pp. 14-21].
  In closing, evidently in reference to: Michael Metcalf, he says that "he obviously is in an embarassing [sic] position and I would guess that MD is using every trick to make him feel more so! If we can help him out, I most gladly would".
  (e) letter from Christopher Blunt to Ian Stewart, typescript, one folio (recto & verso), dated from Ramsbury on 23 February 1982, with attachment (see item (f) below), sending IS "Michael Dolley's seven pages of comments on our Regnald paper". He says that "a lot are irrelevant", "some are trivial", "a number are patronisingly – even offensively – worded", "one, at least, is simply inaccurate", and "one or two are valid". He reiterates his feeling that "MM [i.e. Michael Metcalf, as editor of the Numismatic Chronicle] has got himself into an embarassing [sic] position and we must try and help him out". He proposes to learn from MM whether he intends to send any revised version of their paper to MD. If MM feels obliged to do, he says that MD is bound to raise further queries resulting in a further waste of time, so he suggests withdrawing the paper altogether and publishing it elsewhere, in which case they would invite MD to publish a reply.
  (f) attachment to CEB's letter of 23 February 1982, typescript (photocopy), seven full pages on seven folios (recto only), unattributed and undated but with a manuscript annotation in the upper right corner of the first page in CEB's hand that reads "Dolley comments on Regnald". The photocopy includes a few corrections and additions in Michael Dolley's hand.
  (g) letter from Christopher Blunt to Ian Stewart, manuscript, one folio (recto & verso), dated from the Travellers' Club, Pall Mall, London, on 25 February 1982, explaining that he had a chance encounter with MM [i.e. Michael Metcalf] at Baldwin's, as both of them were "up for the Pyx exhibition at the Goldsmith's Hall". CEB says that MM told him he would be asking MD for comments on any revised version of the paper but will show it to him and probably invite him to produce a reply. CEB says that he told MM that they could produce a revision that meets MM's points and would welcome a reply from MD in the same volume but had no intention of remodelling their entire paper along the lines the MD suggested. In closing, he describes the Pyx exhibition at Goldsmith's as very attractive.

For the letter of Michael Dolley to Ian Stewart dated 2 February 1982 to which Christopher Blunt refers in his letter to Ian Stewart dated 11 February 1982 (see item (d) above) as well as other related correspondence, see JCPP/Stewartby/1/1/DOLLEY/1982/1