Later correspondence

Scope and Content

This series consists principally of correspondence from the mid-late 1980s, which had not been ordered into either of the two main sequences above, although the earlier material here overlaps in date with some of the other correspondence files. Most of the correspondence was carried out by Brian Cox, although there are some letters to other editors which were passed on to Cox to add to the CQ files; there are fewer copies of outgoing letters in this sequence. The majority of the correspondence is with contributors to CQ and relates to the submission and acceptance of work, alterations, proof-reading, publication and payment. Correspondents include contributors of poetry, critical articles and short stories; fiction was first published in Vol. 28, No. 3 (autumn 1986), when Maureen Duffy took on the role of fiction editor. There is a considerable degree of overlap between writers represented in this correspondence and in the earlier sequences. Contributors' correspondence also covers topics such as individuals' current work and education issues. There is a very small amount of more general correspondence, relating to issues like copyright permissions and requests for back copies of CQ. The correspondence comes to an end in mid-1989, when Brian Cox stood down from his role as General Editor, to take a less active role and share editorial responsibilities with Brian Loughrey, Colin MacCabe, Kate Pahl and Maureen Duffy.

Most of the material in CQA1/3/2 has been moved to the CQ archive from Brian Cox's own archive, where it was stored in a miscellaneous file which also contained papers relating to a poetry in education festival in Manchester and a small quantity of personal correspondence. The bundle listed here relates solely to CQ matters, principally to the twenty-fifth anniversary issue of the journal and to a collection of CQ articles on Shakespeare published as a volume.


Arrangement of the correspondence is chronological in yearly bundles, aside from a small bundle of undated material which was impossible to date from context. Papers from this period had not been arranged alphabetically and were in some chaos. In places (principally in the later 1988-9 period) correspondence dating from a particular year or relating to a specific number of the journal was stored together with the relevant literary manuscripts for that period; elsewhere (largely during the 1984-7 period) it had been separated into rough correspondence files. The current chronological arrangement is a compromise, but it best represents the way the correspondence originally accumulated and enables readers to access a specific period (and thus specific issues of the journal). Within each bundle, arrangement is alphabetical, as it seems that this was the preferred method of arranging the earlier correspondence.