Annual UK Ireland Planning Research Conference,
Oxford Brookes, Sept 10-11th 2014
[for Planning History track]
‘Land planning - F. B Gillie and the elusive middle way’
Michael Hebbert, Bartlett School of Planning, UCL, London
Introduction
The mid-20C marked a high point in the history of Atlantic crossings as rising stars of
American planning - Charles M. Haar, John Reps, Lloyd Rodwin, and later, Donald Foley
and Daniel Mandelker - travelled to see for themselves the planning system established
through the combined effect of the Town & Country (Interim Development) Act 1943,
the Distribution of Industry Act 1945, the New Towns Act 1946, the Town and Country
Planning Act 1947 and the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.
Haar’s 1948 visit, funded by a travelling fellowship from Harvard, resulted in his book
Land Planning Law in a Free Society; a study of the British Town and Country Planning
Act. It was the most perceptive and searching evaluation of Britain’s ‘daring experiment
in social control of the environment’ (1951, 1)
Haar recognized the fundamental constitutional significance of the reforms:
‘the adoption of the Town and Country Planning Act by the country where a
man’s home has long and loudly been proclaimed his castle represents a
significant change in Western thought with respect to the balance struck
between the individual’s rights in land as against those of society’
(1951, 2).
But as Haar saw very clearly, the legislation, the orders, the setting up of legal and
administrative machinery and the making of plans, some of them remarkably bold, were
no more than the preliminary law job. ‘Paper statutes do not a reality make’ (1951, 169).
The next and larger law job would be to implement the new technique of land planning
through the reshaping of towns and countryside. Administratively, it would require a
new generation of trained and qualified planners - as Lewis Silkin himself
acknowledged, ‘the governing factor is that of staff’ (1951, 210). And politically, it would
need the understanding and support of British people. Writing with the guidance of
Charles Abrams and Catherine Bauer among others, Haar’s ultimate purpose in
investigating the 1947 Act was to inform an American readership who he was sure
would also at some stage need to reconsider the balance between private property
rights and shared public interests in a free society.
As with any sphere of public policy, the reinvention of mid-20C town planning depended
less on the enactment of statutes than on the everyday bureaucratic practice resulting.
1
Planning in the war years had been dominated by the promissory rhetoric of
reconstruction, putting a premium on boldness of vision, architectural visualization and
expressive cartography. By the end of the decade the debate was all about planning
practice and its implications for rights of private property owners, the operational
adequacy of local councils, the seniority or otherwise of the Minister within Whitehall,
and the availability or not of personnel competent to calculate land requirements and
judge between competing uses.
The transition to this new phase of invention was signaled linguistically by an emphasis
on land, its use and regulation. Haar’s title and subtitle highlight the recognition that the
statutory town and country planning system was essentially about land rights. The
entire apparatus sprang from the ministerial duty to secure ‘consistency and continuity
in the planning and execution of a national policy with respect to the use and
development of land throughout England and Wales’. This paper considers two aspects
of land discourse circa 1950, a book and a discussion club. Both were linked to a civil
servant involved at the centre of the new planning system, F.B. Gillie.
*
*
*
*
Francis Blaise Gillie was born in 1908 and died in 1981. Taking the civil service entry
examination while an undergraduate at Trinity Hall Cambridge, he joined the Ministry of
Health as Assistant Principal in the town planning sub-division in October 1931.
Another recruit of the same vintage was Evelyn Sharp, and the two of them worked in
the Ministry, first administering statutory schemes for suburban expansion under the
Town Planning Act 1925, then seeing through the enactment of the Town & Country
Planning Act 1932, with its enlarged scope for development control in rural areas
(Sheail 2012). They were transferred to other tasks (initially administration of
emergency hospitals) by the outbreak of war, but returned for the planning of postwar
reconstruction, Sharp as Deputy Secretary and Gillie as Assistant Secretary in the
dedicated Ministry of Town and Country Planning. Within Whitehall, the central
executive of the British state, their task was to operationalize the remarkable legislative
apparatus bequeathed by the wartime coalition and the Labour government of Clement
Attlee, C M Haar’s ‘daring experiment’.
Gillie rose through the civil service ranks to become Under-Secretary to Ministry of
Local Government and Planning (1954), Secretary to the Welsh Office (1957), and then
in 1963-1970, an OECD consultant and UN Advisor in Turkey, Afghanistan and Ireland.
Thereafter he lectured on planning to international students first at the Institute of
Social Studies in The Hague then at the American University of Beirut, publishing
textbooks on two scales: Basic Thinking in Regional Planning (1967) and An Approach to
Town Planning (1971). In his later years he attended the 1977 conference of the
Planning History Group, and corresponded with Gordon Cherry about planning history,
circulating personal recollections of the inter-war Ministry of Health that recently
provided the basis for a Planning Perspectives paper by John Sheail (2013). The present
paper draws on two as yet unarchived boxes of drafts, minutes and correspondence
relating to postwar planning. Here I focus particularly on the launch in 1950 of the Land
2
Use Society and the 1951 publication by Liverpool University Press of Gillie’s treatise on
‘land planning‘.
*
*
*
*
Some Principles of Land Planning (1951) was written by Gillie in his time as Assistant
Secretary with the Ministry of Town and County Planning. His co-author Patrick
Lawrence Hughes - a fellow-official based in the Ministry’s North West office in Palatine
Rd Didsbury - contributed principally as a reviser and editor. Some Principles of Land
Planning seems to have been written in 1948 and springs directly from the authors’
experiences on the administrative front line within the Ministry of Town and Country
Planning. In stark contrast to the richly documented Land Planning in a Free Society,
Gillie & Hughes is devoid of footnotes, references, illustrations, case-studies and
appendices. When the typescript was submitted to the publisher John Murray his
anonymous reviewer advised rejection on the grounds that it was neither detailed
enough for specialists nor attractive to lay readers - it needed illustrations,
photographs, and examples ‘to humanize the subject and bring it home visually’. The
reviewer added:
‘Naturally I have wondered too about the title on account of the tendency of
“planning” to become an unpopular word. I wonder if some more catch-phrase
title might be devised, such as “Your Land and Mine - Some Principles of
Planning It”. I do not suggest that this is very good, but it conveys my feeling that
the present title may be slightly repellent to the layman’.
The authors responded to Murray that they had no intention of making the book more
attractive and accessible, since too much planning literature was already of that ilk.
Liverpool University Press accepted the manuscript soon after. It was cleared for
publication by the Secretary to the Ministry, whose notes and comments on the
manuscript indicate the revision of just a few phrases about the difficulties of
implementing the 1947 Act that might be seized upon with joy by ‘the die-hard antiplanners’.
The text defnes planning unequivocally as the management of competing demands for
land. Its art lies not in opposing but in harnessing those forces and driving them
skillfully. It may not necessarily require a plan as such but it does require knowledge
and skills, which are the topic of Some Principles. The book is an attempt at ‘working out
basic conceptions and fundamental principles. Any kind of planning must involve taking
thought for the future, but the literature of town and country planning [a literature
which, by the way, gets no acknowledgement or citation in the book] has given little
attention to the nature of the thinking which the subject requires’ [1951 3].
The book begins with an administrative definition: planning is a system of public
control, established to resolve land use conflicts in the manner that best serves the
public interest.
To resolve land use conflicts is the essence of planning control, and primarily
determines the form which planning control takes. Many current
misconceptions derive from failing to understand this fundamental point, and
from the idea that planning control aims at promoting the welfare of a
3
particular type of use which has greater virtue than others. Planning control can
never be wedded to any single interest. Its object must always be the promotion
of all land using interests which are of value to society, necessarily
subordinating one to another in particular circumstances, but never giving any
one interest an automatic predominance’ [1951 4].
Having set up this quasi-judicial definition of planning control, the authors proceed to
examine ‘Those Who Are Controlled’ and ‘The Controlling Agents’. The former category
include public agencies as well as private interests of every kind, the essential question
being always whether development offers satisfactory use of a site in the light of other
foreseeable claims upon it. This decision-making function is exercised primarily with
local authorities, especially at county scale, subject to greatly-increased coordination
and policy direction from Whitehall. The authors express doubts about the ability of
local decision-makers to exercise their control powers:
The present situation is remarkable, not so much for ambitious ventures by local
planning authorities into new fields, as for evidence that some local authorities
find it difficult to adjust themselves to the increased important of their planning
function’ (1951 13].
‘Some find it difficult’ was a diplomatic understatement of Gillie’s belief that neither the
personnel nor the administrative structures of the postwar planning system were equal
to the tasks set up for them by the 1944 and 1947 Acts. The point is developed through
consideration of each of the major land uses - agriculture, mineral working, industry,
housing, transport, ‘amenity’ and urban renewal. In each case the authors emphasize the
complexity and inter-relatedness of the policy issues, the risks of localism, and the need
to consider the short-term requirements of production as well as long-term
improvements when determining the national interest.
The concluding chapters return to general observations about the need for planning to
be pragmatic, realistic, aware to the need for ‘earning the nation’s daily bread here and
now’ [1951 76], and in designing the future city not to progress too far ahead of public
opinion, the perceptions and values of the man in the street:
‘Overcoming the Briton’s innate conservatism must be recognized as one of the
main problems of all planning work. It is part of the planner’s job to gauge how
far he can convert opinion to his view within the time at his disposal . . . The
discussion of pros and cons is always a laborious process which it is natural for
technicians to avoid. It is natural, too, that they should wish to avoid their plan
being compromised by the ebb and flow of public opinion. It is however part of
the fundamental conception of land planning that any changes made should be
reasoned ones. [1951 44-5]
The book is puzzling in its level of generality and lack of reference to specific literature,
plans, cases, places or named individuals. The style was repeated in Gillie’s later texts on
regional and town planning, and may explain why none of his three books was widely
reviewed or noticed. Pierre Merlin’s brief note on An Approach to Town Planning in the
Annales de Géographie (1974) deplored that work’s dry off-putting format, adding that
4
its generalized perspective made it ‘vague but not synthetic, theoretical but not
vigorous’ 1. Generalism, however, was the basic currency of Gillie’s work as a senior
administrator and a writer of official reports. Written explicitly for ‘the serious student
of the subject’, Some Principles presented planning as a sober administrative task of
balancing multiple claims on the nation’s limited supply of land. Its severest critique was
of lightheartedness and airy-faeryism, characteristics presumably of the ‘plan boldly’
school of reconstruction plans.
As Planning Outlook’s book reviewer observed (1951, 89), there could be no better text
for anyone wishing to understand the approach adopted by government officials
responsible for the town and country planning. However, the book’s mandarin emphasis
on the discernment of the generalist administrator could be misconstrued. The
Economist of March 3rd 1951 greeted the publication with a leading article, ‘The Town
Planners’ Dream’. The editorial asked what had gone wrong with planning, a system
producing the minimum of results with the maximum of friction. It characterized the
1947 Act as a legislative blunder that had imposed rigid bureaucratic scrutiny over
private developments - down to the last hencoop ‘while Ministers and public corporations engross whole stretches of countryside
for their pet projects, cheerfully handing off the local planning authority with
talk of national necessities’.
The Economist drew the conclusion that since Government was incompetent to
determine the ‘best’ use of land by administrative action, it should allow freer play of the
economic factors which the 1947 Act had smothered. A degree of deregulation did
follow the Conservative election victory of 1951: but as C M Haar correctly foresaw, the
fundamentals of the 1947 Act proved irreversible. So the planning process remained as
described in Some Principles, an administrative balancing between numerous competing
claims on land use - agriculture, house-building, industry, quarrying. The concept of
inviting the players to a select discussion club flowed naturally.
*
*
*
*
The Land Use Society was a discreet London-based club where eminent consultants,
academics, business leaders and civil servants could meet to discuss planning matters
on a confidential basis. Founded in 1950, the society seems to have continued until the
late 1970s, but little is known either about its origins or its demise. We learn from the
Gillie archive that in 1977 the society’s Treasurer, the property developer Leslie Bilsby,
wrote to founder-members asking for their recollections, since records were very
incomplete. Gillie replied with a narrative which can be supplemented with his own set
of the first five years of the society’s papers and minutes.
The context was that an elaborate new planning system had been started but there were
very few ideas to give it life. ‘A number of us had become increasingly depressed at the
low standard of thinking that was prevalent in planning by 1950’. Gillie was at that time
Assistant Secretary in the Ministry of Local Government and Planning, and J R (Jimmie)
James was Research Officer. His diary entry for October 13th 1950 reads:
‘Lunch with James to discuss with him my idea of a dinner of heretical planners.
Found him depressed and warmly sympathetic to the idea’.
5
Curiously, Gillie’s idea coincided with a slightly earlier initiative by the lawyer Frank
Layfield. On September 15th 1950 he had convened at Brown’s Hotel Albermarle Street a
Formation Committee meeting for ‘A New Society for the Study of Physical Planning’. As
explained in Layfield’s memorandum to attendees, of whom Gillie was one:
‘The establishment of a comprehensive system of planning has given rise to
many new and sometimes unforeseen problems. The enormous increase in its
scope and jurisdiction is a far cry from the days when planning meant little more
that suburban layout. The technical skills which are now involved are many and
various and much thought has yet to be given to the way these skills can
contribute to the task and their relation to each other. . .
It is felt that there is a clear and urgent need for a new body which would have
as one of its first objects the task of uniting all those working in or for physical
planning, On this foundation it should be the aim of such a Society to promote
the study and development of a new broad, adaptable and realistic policy for
contemporary physical planning, based upon a National Plan’.
Layfield envisaged this ‘Proposed New Planning Association’ as a broad membership
organization capable of accommodating the many different professional groups (Table
1) and specialized interests involved in the planning system. Its activities might include
conferences, publications, discussion groups, reports, and the provision of a library and
information resource. He suggested three classes of membership: ‘ordinary’; ‘associate’,
for active professionals in the field, perhaps carrying the right to employ suitable letters
to denote membership; and ‘fellowship’ as a mark of genuine distinction. However, the
organization that emerged was very different in character - a select, confidential
discussion group, its brief minutes marked ‘Confidential’, with an explicit understanding
that the names of members would not be published, discussion would be off the record,
and any publications and statements anonymous.
Frank Layfield, Blaise Gillie, the landscape architect Sylvia Crowe, and the government’s
chief cartographer Christie Willatts formed a Scrutiny Committee to identify potential
founder-members: as Gillie noted in his diary for October 24th 1950, ‘vital to keep out
people who waffle’. Thirty persons were to be invited by personal approach. Table 2
gives the membership as it stood by the time of the society’s third meeting, held at the
House of Commons on March 1st 1951. Numbers increased only slightly, reaching 36 by
the time of the first Annual General Meeting, held in the School of Planning Library, 35
Gordon Square, on June 10th 1952. By now it had been agreed that the society should
stick to what the valuer Bryan Anstey called the ‘intimate and powerful’ model, and the
title of ‘Land Use Society’ had prevailed over alternatives such as ‘Planning Society’ and
‘Planning of Land Use Society (PLUS)’. Members comprised a cross section of
professionals, public officials, developers, consultants and experts, all based on London
or the Home Counties. They included E.F. Mills of the Estates Department of Imperial
Chemical Industries Ltd. (ICI), and W.A. Duke, gravel quarry owner, of Thames Ballast
(Shepperton) Ltd. Among the academics David Glass and Dudley Stamp of LSE had only
a fleeting involvement. Regular academic participants from 1952 onwards were Gerald
Wibberley of Wye College, a founder member; Gunther Hirsch (Agricultural Economics
Institute, Oxford); Otto Koenigsberger (London School of Hygiene and Tropical
Medicine); the geographer Sydney Wooldridge joined and offered his chambers at King’s
6
College London as the Society’s meeting place; and the economist Nathaniel Lichfield
(UCL), whose obituary in the Guardian described the society as ‘a discussion and dining
club of civil servants, academics and private sector developers which encapsulated the
new attitudes’ .
Blaise Gillie’s file of Land Use Society papers covers the first three years to the end of
1952, resuming with partial coverage from March 1955 to the Annual General Meeting
in July 1958. The earliest meetings discussed general aspects of the planning system
such as the problem of land values and the role of local government. Presentations of
original research were found to offer the best stimulus to discussion. Gerald Wibberley,
agricultural economist of Wye College, presented a paper on rural communities that was
debated paragraph by paragraph over two meetings in July and September 1952. A
paper on the challenges of urban renewal and economic strategy in Sheffield by the civil
servant J. R. James, future founder of the Sheffield University school of planning,
provided meat for three evenings of discussion from October to January 1953.
Subsequent meetings addressed the planning problems of Tyneside, Manchester and
Glasgow. Desmond Heap spoke on ‘Land Use and its Control by the Executive’. William
Holford presented a paper on the need for a three-dimensional approach to design and
his UCL colleague Nathaniel Lichfield spoke on the economics of development. For the
November 1953 meeting architect Sergei Kadleigh joined the valuer Bryan Anstey, a
founder member of the Society, to present the theory of ‘multiple land use’,
incorporating diverse activities in different levels of mega-structures. Their ‘High
Paddington’ project never left the drawing board but ‘High Barbican’ very soon would.
Other contributions included papers from sand and gravel industry and a brilliant
exposition by Sylvia Crowe on the necessary but non-existent concept of landscape
planning.
Blaise Gillie was transferred from London to Cardiff late in 1954. Before departing he
gave a last contribution to the Land Use Society on ‘The Role of the Administrator in
Recent Developments of Town and Country Planning’. The paper offers a succinct
summary of his theory of the planning process. On the one hand, the administrator faces
the political sphere, with its economic interests, its single-issue bodies, its idealistic
reformers and its ‘emotionally charged’ and ‘easily inflamed’ public opinion. On the
other hand the administrator faces his technical specialists - the platoon of ‘geologists,
planning technicians, architects, valuers, lawyers, landscape designers etc.’ whom it is
his task to co-ordinate. As in all his writings, Gillie is at pains to establish a critical
distance from the specialists:
‘The administrator must depend very heavily on his experts, but his attitude
towards them cannot be a purely passive one. Besides understanding what they
say to him, he must understand the nature and potentialities of their special
disciplines, since otherwise he cannot question them intelligently. Unless he is
stimulated to questioning he will never take in the full meaning of what they tell
him’.
While acknowledging that this characterization reflected the dichotomy between an
élite administrative grade and technical levels within British civil service culture, Gillie
asserted that any planning system must depend upon a sceptical and questioning
treatment of expert knowledge: ‘specialist advice always needs a good deal of digestion
7
before it can be made a practical part of community policy’. It was for this reason that
we find him on many occasions questioning the concept of ‘survey before plan’ :
problem-definition and data-collection were too important to be left to experts. G.P.
Hirsch of Oxford University’s Agricultural Economics Research Unit thought otherwise.
Joining the Land Use Society in October 1952, he argued strongly for the autonomy of
expertise: ‘the planner has to leave the controversy to the administrators and
politicians, but he must provide for the controversy the simple objective facts as they
exist’ 2. Hirsch favoured Lewis Mumford’s five-stage model of the planning process: ‘(a)
Survey - the facts; (b) Analysis - elucidation of the needs; (c) Plan - the solution; (d)
Acceptance of plan; and (e) Implementation of the plan’. Gillie commented:
‘I believe it is a serious error to consider survey as the first stage, because you
cannot survey intelligently till you have formulated certain questions in your
mind. . . Facts are not the objective stable things that they are sometimes
believed to be’ 3.
*
*
*
*
Blaise Gillie’s writings and papers give insight into a theory of planning centred on the
role of the generalist administrator, a ‘person of broad education and knowledge’. It was
exactly the definition advocated by the Schuster Report on Qualification of Planners,
submitted to Parliament in September 1950. Sir George Schuster (1881-1982) - lawyer,
soldier, banker, colonial administrator, industrialist, educationist - epitomized the ideal
of the talented, versatile amateur in British public service and most of the committee
shared his Oxbridge background (Eversley 1973, 315).
The Schuster report
differentiates the routine sphere of planning regulation from ‘work requiring very high
qualities at the top’ (1950, 23). This work is not in itself a specialism, since it embraces
multiple specialisms - and (quoting Professor Eva Taylor) practically no branch of
learning is completely irrelevant to planning - but it requires first class intellectual
qualities:
‘Everything else that we have to say is secondary in importance to this’
(1950, 44)
In the years after 1950 British planning education and qualifications would follow a
path very different from that envisaged by Blaise Gillie and mapped out by the Schuster
Report. Another American sabbatical visitor, Lloyd Rodwin an MIT economist, put his
finger on the weak point of the system, its Achilles Heel:
‘Rigorous socio-economic analysis and systematic research rank among the key
weapons of the planners. They have been neglected, partly because many
planners do not yet know how to use them. If this is true, and not soon
recognized, the results of planning policies may not be significantly better than
those of the free market; and the reaction may be as decisive as that which
overtook laissez-faire.’ (1953,34)
Rodwin observed a general absence of systematic research, lack of interest on the part
of universities, almost complete neglect of the social sciences, and a Town Planning
Institute clinging to a narrowly technical qualification requirement, ‘aided and abetted
by the traditional British civil service distinction between policy makers and
administrators, and the technical staff’ (1953, 25).
8
Further reinvention was needed, and Land Use Society members such as Nathaniel
Lichfield, Otto Koenigsberger, L.S. Jay, Michael Wise and Christie Willatts would play an
active part in it. But that is another story.
*
*
*
*
‘C.F.R.’ (1951) [book review] ' SOME PRINCIPLES OF LAND PLANNING.' By F. B. Gillie
and P. L. Hughes’ Planning Outlook Series 1, 2, 2, 87-89
Economist (1951) ‘The Town Planner’s Dream’ The Economist, 3, 3
Fahy E M (1972) [Book review] ‘The Cork Sub Regional Planning Study’ Irish Geography
6, 4, 508-509
Gillie F B and Hughes P L (1951) Some Principles of Land Planning Liverpool: Liverpool
University Press
Gillie F B (1967) Basic Thinking in Regional Planning The Hague & Paris: Mouton
Gillie F B (1971a) An Approach to Town Planning The Hague & Paris: Mouton
Gillie F B (1971b) The Cork Sub-Regional Planning Study Dublin: An Foras Forbartha
Haar C M (1951) Land Planning Law in a Free Society: a study of the British Town and
Country Planning Act Cambridge: Harvard University Press
Hebbert M (1983) ‘The Daring Experiment: Social Scientists and Land Use Planning in
1940s Britain’ Environment and Planning B 10 3-17
Larkham P (1997) ‘The Continued Rise of Conservation’ Built Environment 23, 2, 88-91
Lichfield N, Adams D, Needham B, Teitz M, Wenban-Smith A (2003) ‘The Concept of
Planned Development: a Presentation and Commentaries on the Contribution of
Nathaniel Lichfield’ Planning Theory & Practice, 4, 1, 45-71
McKie R (1972) [book reviews] ‘Urban Residential Patterns by R. J. Johnston; An
Approach to Town Planning. by F. B. Gillie’ The Economic Journal 82, 327, 10931096
Merlin P (1974) [book review] ‘Un ouvrage sur l'urbanisme An Approach to Town
Planning, (Publications de l'Institut of Social Studies, The Hague) by F. B. Gillie
Annales de Géographie, 83e Année, 458, 464
9
MTCP (1950) Report of the Committee on Qualifications of Planners (Chairman Sir George
Schuster) Ministry of Town & Country Planning, and Department of Health for
Scotland, Cmd 8059, London : HMSO
Moran P (1968) [book review] ‘Basic Thinking in Regional Planning (Publications of the
Institute of Social Studies, Series Maior, vol. XIV) by F. B. Gillie’ L'Année
sociologique, Troisième série, 19, 523-524
Rodwin L (1953) ‘The Achilles Heel of British Town Planning’ Town Planning Review, 24,
1, 22-34
Scott, Lord Justice Leslie (1948) ‘Principles and Practice of Land Use’ Journal of the Town
Planning Institute 34, 84-92
Sheail J (2012) ‘British inter-war-planning: the recollections of a government official’
Planning Perspectives 27, 2 285-96
___________________________________________________________________________________________
MH
17.vii.14
10
Table 1
‘Principal professionals concerned with Planning’
source: Memorandum for Formation Committee Meeting 15th September 1950
(a) Sociologists and Demographers
(b) Economists and Statisticians
(c) Geographers and Geologists
(d) Architects and Landscape Architects
(e) Engineers and Surveyors
(f) Lawyers and Administrators
The Planning Society, Membership Spring 1951
source: Minutes of the Third Meeting 1st March 1951
G. Bell Barker (chairman)
J W R Adams
Bryan Anstey
Brian Bell
C D Buchanan
W H Corrie
Sylvia Crowe
F G Davidson
Desmond Donnelly
W A Duke
Miss W M Fox
Blaise Gillie
D V Glass
R Goodman
D P Kerrigan
Frank Layfield
William Luttrell
H T MacCalman
Godfrey Samuel
Dr Dudley Stamp
A E Telling
Noel Twedell
G P Wibberley
E C Willatts
‘Le parti pris de généralité conduit à être vague sans être synthétique, théorique sans être
vigoureux’ (Merlin 1974, 464)
1
Letter of G.P. Hirsch to F. B. Gillie, November 8th 1952
3 Letter of F.B. Gillie to G.P. Hirsch, October 8th 1952
2
11