- External URL
- Correspondence Details
-
Sent From (Definite): Edward NettleshipSent To (Definite): Karl PearsonDate: 25 Sep 1907
- Current Holder(s)
-
Holder (Definite): University College London: Special Collections
- No links match your filters. Clear Filters
-
Sent from Edward Nettleship
25 Sep 1907
Description:‘I like your additions to the M.S. But please let me speak quite frankly to you about it. I am desirous that we should publish a work on albinism which shall be as “classical” for the next 50 years as Cornaz’s has been for the last 50. I can’t possibly do this alone, and out joint work will give a double circulation to the memoir & a double guarantee, that its points have been twice thought out. You can make what changes or suggestions you like in the draft – one of us must write the first draft – and we can talk our points where we don’t agree. Now will you tell me quite definitely that you feel I may put some statement that you don’t care for in conclusion or expression under your name & therefore would rather not have your name attached? Or, whether you think there are certain parts, I am doing & you are not, & that is the source of your desire? In the case please remember that you are also doing & going to do much that I am not; and if you really think it necessary we can add a word of preface stating our responsibilities for different parts. I would, however, prefer homogeneity. I shall look through & satisfy myself so far as my knowledge extends, that your work is right, & you can do the same for mine. I am ready to take the rest on faith, because I know you to be a conscientious worker in your own territory.’
-
Sent to Karl Pearson
25 Sep 1907
Description:‘I like your additions to the M.S. But please let me speak quite frankly to you about it. I am desirous that we should publish a work on albinism which shall be as “classical” for the next 50 years as Cornaz’s has been for the last 50. I can’t possibly do this alone, and out joint work will give a double circulation to the memoir & a double guarantee, that its points have been twice thought out. You can make what changes or suggestions you like in the draft – one of us must write the first draft – and we can talk our points where we don’t agree. Now will you tell me quite definitely that you feel I may put some statement that you don’t care for in conclusion or expression under your name & therefore would rather not have your name attached? Or, whether you think there are certain parts, I am doing & you are not, & that is the source of your desire? In the case please remember that you are also doing & going to do much that I am not; and if you really think it necessary we can add a word of preface stating our responsibilities for different parts. I would, however, prefer homogeneity. I shall look through & satisfy myself so far as my knowledge extends, that your work is right, & you can do the same for mine. I am ready to take the rest on faith, because I know you to be a conscientious worker in your own territory.’