Item 1978/1 - Two letters from Christopher Blunt to Ian Stewart and four letters from Ian Stewart to Christopher Blunt with one attachment

7 items, paper

Two letters from Christopher Blunt to Ian Stewart and four letters from Ian Stewart to Christopher Blunt with one attachment:
(a) letter from Ian Stewart to Christopher Blunt, manuscript, single page, on House of Commons letterhead dated from 23 January 1978, thanking CEB for his letter of the 7th and the photographs, advising that he has a cast of the sword/hammer type and sending an offprint. He agrees "about the Theodmaer being kept quiet" but suggests telling Seaby & [B...] in confidence. He says that he has been working on imitations for the PG [i.e. Philip Grierson] Festschrift and is feeling very grateful to CEB for his gift of "the Robert de Bethune with Scottish profile". He notes that he will deal with Droitwich once this "is under control". There is a manuscript note in pencil the upper right margin in CEB's hand that reads "Ack 10/2".
(b) letter from Ian Stewart to Christopher Blunt, manuscript, single page, dated from St George's Road, London SE1, on 28 March 1978, sending the bibliography for Scotland and CEB's Droitwich notes, and mentioning a recent coin acquisition. There is a manuscript note in pen the upper right margin in CEB's hand that reads "Ans 4/4".
(c) letter from Ian Stewart to Christopher Blunt, manuscript,one folio (recto & verso), dated from the House of Commons on 8 May 1978, asking whether it would be convenient for him to come down to Ramsbury during the next brief recess, noting that it would be his last chance for a visit for quite some time. He comments that Michael [Dolley] was well behaved at the last SCBI meeting, which leaves him feeling suspicious. There is a manuscript note in pencil the upper right margin in CEB's hand that reads "Ans 9/5".
(d) letter from Ian Stewart to Christopher Blunt, manuscript, one folio (recto & verso), on House of Commons letterhead dated from 24 May 1978, noting that CEB's "comments about Michael [Dolley] are worrying". He describes the "Droitwich comments" as "only a symptom" and suggests responses on various points, noting that the enclosed extracts from Heffers' latest catalogue will suffice to deal with Cheshire Domesday comment.
(e) photocopy of two pages (63-64) [from Heffers' latest catalogue], attached to the previous item, listing the "new county-by-county printing of Domesday Book". The note about the Cheshire volume states that it covers modern Cumbria, Lancashire and much of North Wales, which "are attached to the account of 'Cheshire' in the original text".
(f) letter from Christopher Blunt to Ian Stewart, manuscript (carbon-copy), two pages on two folios (recto only), dated 25 May 1978, taking notice that the upcoming Glendining sale (7 June, lot 304) features a crux type penny said to be from the same dies as SCBI Ashmolean 506 but describing it as "a base metal forgery". He suggests that he could look at the coin when he is in London on the 5th. CEB then expresses disappointment with Michael Dolley over his behaviour, noting that the problem is becoming known in academic circles and has probably cost him one or more of the various posts he has been trying to get.
(g) letter from Christopher Blunt to Ian Stewart, manuscript, three pages on two folios, dated from Ramsbury on 11 June 1978, beginning with the statement that "Michael Dolley is becoming increasingly a bore" and referring to his correspondence with Miss Colman in which she seconds MD's doubts, giving "valid reasons for doing so". CEB then says that he wrote to David Hill who, according to MD, "has his reference to Nautwich being a DB [i.e. Domesday Book] borough, but no reply. By chance, however, he ran into Drigson [sic; recto Dodgson (John McNeal) has written on Cheshire for the English Place-Name Society series and was surprised at the idea that Nautwich might have been a borough since he always understood Chester to be the only DB borough in Cheshire. On the basis of these two judgements, CEB suggests that they retain what they have written but add a footnote, of which he provides a draft as basis for discussion, and once they agree on the form of words, send the revised text back to [Nick] Mayhew. If any further objections to the paper are raised, CEB proposes that they withdraw the paper from the BNJ with a formal letter of complaint. He then recounts that he recently had a telephone call from Peter Berghaus who said that Otto Mørkholm in Copenhagen received a "terrible letter" from [Michael] Dolley complaining about the Irish section of a research study in the mistaken belief that Mørkholm was the editor and asking him to write a formal letter of apology on the subject to the Royal Irish Academy. He says that "Peter thought he must have made some appalling blunder in somehow missing out Ireland" but adds that he was able to tell him that Dykes had the matter in hand and advised him not to write anything to the RIA. He describes MD's behaviour as "intolerable" and says that he how keeps his correspondence with him to a bare minimum.