[Sir George Prothero, historian, as editor of the Quarterly Review.] Autograph Letter Signed (‘G. W. Prothero’) and dictated Manuscript Letter to Professor H. W. C. Davis regarding article on H. W. V. Temperley and Paris Peace Conference of 1919.

In addition to the entry for Prothero in the Oxford DNB, see those of H. W. C. Davis (1874-1928) and H. W. V. Temperley (1879-1939), which reveal the interest all three had in the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. Both items in good condition, lightly aged. Each folded once. Both addressed to 'Davis'. ONE: 7 November [1921]. 4pp, 12mo. Dictated, and entirely (including signature) in the hand of an amanuensis. He is ‘delighted’ that Davis will be able to ‘write about Temperley & Co.’ (Temperley published his six-volume account of the Conference between 1920 and 1924), and will be sending the books as soon as he can ‘get the American one which I have sent for’. He will also be sending the number of the Quarterly Review ‘containing Satow’s Art.’ He continues: ‘Temperly is certainly rather prickly & was annoyed with something in Satow’s paper, & in the end I had to be rather short with him’. He thanks Davis for his enquiry after his health: ‘It is not good! but better than it was. I had to spend all last winter abroad which I did not like, & not long after I got back, I broke down again, - but I am pulling round. You see this letter is not in my hand writing, - but it saves time & trouble to dictate.’ His Chichele Lectures [delivered in 1920] at Oxford ‘are really not fit for publication’: they ‘want a lot done’, but he hopes he ‘may be able to publish them some day’. In a postscript he sends belated congratulations to him on his professorship. TWO: 30 March 1922. 2pp., 12mo. Following on from Item One, he begins by informing Davis that the article he agreed to write on the Paris Conference the previous November, for publication that April, is ‘too late for this number, which is all in type, & in page, now, but I shd. be glad to know if I may expect it for the July number.’ The fact that the article is late cannot be helped, but as ‘there have been so many Conferences since that people have ceased to take an interest in Paris’, and he thinks the best way to treat the subject is ‘to bring it into connexion with the later Conferences, showing how these have grown out of the Paris one, & to confine oneself, so far as the books are concerned, to contrasting the views of Tardieu [André Tardieu, Clemenceau’s deputy at the conference] & the Americans with the “official” - or semi-official - Temperley.’ He concludes: ‘I must not publish more than 6000 words, at most, on the subject, & shd. prefer the art. to be shorter, if possible.’