"Cronwright-Schreiner is a child" Read the full letter
Collection Summary | View All |  Arrange By:
< Prev |
Viewing Item
of 397 | Next >
Letter ReferenceOlive Schreiner: Katie Findlay MSC 26/2.14.2
ArchiveNational Library of South Africa, Special Collections, Cape Town
Epistolary TypeLetter
Letter Date19 February 1875
Address FromColesberg, Northern Cape
Address To
Who ToCatherine ('Katie') Findlay nee Schreiner
Other VersionsRive 1987: 15
PermissionsPlease read before using or citing this transcription
The Project is grateful to the National Library of South Africa (NLSA), Cape Town, for kindly allowing us to transcribe this Olive Schreiner letter, which is part of its Special Collections. The end of this letter is missing.
1 Colesberg
2 Feb 19th 1875
4 My dearest Katie!
6 I must write to thank you for the money you have so kindly lent me. It
7was very good of you & I shall not fail to return it as soon as I
8receive my first quarters salary.
10 I would have ?left last Thursday but was unfortunate eno to break a
11needle in my foot which became so bad that Mr Weakley was obliged to
12ask the Doctor to come up & cut it out. It is almost well now & I
13shall leave by the next coach for Cradock where Mr Fouchee the farmer
14with whom I am to live will come & fetch me. He only gives me £30 per
15an but aft the first quarter I am to have Mrs Cawoods children &
16several others to teach & hope at least £40. I have been very poorly
17lately but hope the change of air will do me good.
19 I have not hear from Theo or Ettie for more than two weeks. Dear kind
20Theo wrote very kindly offering to pay Papa & Mamma for my board if I
21liked to go home & live with them & also pay all my travelling
22expenses. It was just like his dear loving old heart to think of such
23a thing but I made up my mind when I was quite a little child that as
24soon as I was able I would support myself for I see no reason why a
25woman should be dependent on her friends any more than a man should &
26as long as I am well enough I shall
28[page/s missing]
Rive’s (1987) version omits part of this letter and is also in a number of respects incorrect.