Monday, March 3, 2025

Piccadilly Jim, the play. 4.—Reconstruction of the plot

Previous sections:
1.—Introduction. Writing and production
2.—Reception
3.—Ruth Gordon's memoirs. Afterlife

I will now make as complete a reconstruction of the plot of Piccadilly Jim as I am able, by editing into one continuous narrative all the information that can be retrieved from reviews and notices, and intercalating the bits of actual dialogue quoted in the sources. Fortunately for us, audiences in 1919 don't seem to have shared our modern horror of "spoilers," and reviewers didn't hesitate to reveal plot twists or endings, and even reproduce the last lines of the play.

The language of the reconstruction will be that of the reviews, because even when a phrase is not marked as a quotation there is always the possibility that the critic is using expressions taken from the play. However, I won't cite the direct source of every piece of information. The reviews are naturally repetitive and overlap each other. Some are substantial but none quite so as to render the rest useless; whereas some very short news items are our only source for certain valuable details. They are mostly free from mutual contradictions, and when there is a mismatch it is possible to deduce with certainty which one is in error. An exception should be made for the longest and most interesting piece, "Typical Wodehouse Wit," published unsigned in The Washington Post for December 21, p. 5. It is not a regular review, but an overview of some key scenes with extensive quotations, without any criticism of the play, the cast or the performance. It is accompanied by this illustration, with the caption "Mr. Stuart Walker directing a rehearsal of 'Piccadilly Jim' over the shoulders of 'Comrade' P. G. Wodehouse, author of the comedy":

I believe this is some kind of promotional sample sent to newspapers by the producers, showcasing the "typical Wodehouse wit" that prospective theatergoers could count on getting if they decided to invest in a ticket. A similar article can be found, for example, in The Cincinnati Enquirer for March 6, 1927, p. 86, promoting Wodehouse's and Bolton's new play The Nightingale—which was also produced by the Shuberts. Other contemporary examples of this practice could probably be found with a little research. In any case, the Post article is one of our main sources on the plot and dialogue, especially the original parts (not derived from the novels The Little Nugget or Piccadilly Jim).

Some words of caution are in order. Above all, this reconstruction is probably not complete, and it is even possible that some fundamental points are missing. All the synopses at some point or other omit details that could be seen as pivotal, so it's perfectly reasonable to suspect that somehow they all coincided in leaving out the same part of the picture. To take an example: a moment of tension occurs in chapter 23 of the novel, when Gentleman Jack drops the tube of Partridgite, supposedly capable of blowing half of New York to bits. This is an unlikely scene to be left out of the play, both because of its dramatic possibilities and because it leads directly to the dénouement, but in fact only one of the early reviews hints at its presence in some form: "There is a dash of melodrama, consisting of a flash of revolvers, the theft of a safe combination, and the careless handling of a vial of terrible explosive to add zip."

On the other hand, although the play is explicitly based on the 1916 novel, it cannot be assumed that any gaps in this account can be just filled in with information from it. It will become obvious that Wodehouse and Bolton did not feel compelled to follow the original plot, drew freely from The Little Nugget, and added plot that is incompatible with the existing material. Therefore, in this reconstruction we will only include information that can be directly deduced from the notices of the play, trying not to be influenced by our prior knowledge of the novel. To continue the previous example: it seems clear that the scene with the explosive is present in some form, but since in the play the invention is not a failure or a fraud it is also obvious that it was not dropped in such a way as to make it go off.

Finally, we will treat the play as a unique, finished script, ignoring possible changes made to it during the tour. Ruth Gordon's account shows the authors following at least part of the production and touching up the text during rehearsals, but we have no way of knowing how deep the revisions went. As the play's deficiencies became more evident it is probable that whole scenes were dropped or added in an attempt to save it: Wodehouse has left ample testimony of his experience with "fixing" plays in this way, particularly in his and Bolton's reminiscences Bring On the Girls (1953), but also in some of the novels he wrote about this time concerning the theatrical life, like Jill the Reckless (1920) and The Adventures of Sally (1922) (=The Little Warrior and Mostly Sally in the US). Without any clear traces of major revisions, speculating about them would not be a productive exercise.

Tentative reconstruction

The prologue of the play introduces a spoiled young American, Jimmy Crocker, living in London, where he has been dubbed "Piccadilly Jim" on account of his fastidiousness about his dress and his immaculate appearance. He is also characterized by his slangy, irreverent approach to the English language. His wealthy father and stepmother, Mr. and Mrs. Bingley-Crocker, only appear here and at the end of the play: they aspire to take a place in English society but are hampered by Jimmy's escapades. It is revealed that the previous play Jimmy while in his cups had a fisticuff argument with Lord Percy Whipple, the son of a British peer on whose influence Jimmy's stepmother was counting to land a title for his father; and that morning, having been challenged to do so by a friend, he has brought back home a stolen perambulator, not having noticed that it contained a living baby. His friend, called upon the telephone, can offer no further help than to inform Jimmy that it was a house where a black cat washed its paws on the door-step. This is the last straw that decides him to return to America and stop being an impediment for his parents' social aspirations. He will make his own fortune, massing (this being his expressed intention) 10,000 of our well-known dollars within two months.

In Act I Jimmy is in New York, where he discovers to his dismay that dollars do not grow more easily than elsewhere. He explains that he's haunted Wall Street so long in his efforts to become a captain of industry that he's as well known as the statue of George Washington in front of the Subtreasury. But Jimmy's railroad presidential aspirations still remain unfulfilled and, dead broke but still garbed in raiment stylish and swinging his cane, he seeks any old sort of a job that has three meals a day attached. To this end he takes his steps to Mrs. Clarkson's employment emporium, and on the way there saves a red-headed girl (Ann Chester) from being run over by a taxi, and at once falls in love with her.

At the agency we have the humors of a peripatetic Irish cook and encounter again Ann, with no experience or resources save a Vassar college education, in search of a position as governess. His interview with Mrs. Clarkson goes like this:

Mrs. Clarkson—Just what are you looking for?
Jimmy—I'm looking for a job. You seem surprised? Isn't this a job emporium?
Mrs. Clarkson—What kind of job do you want?
Jimmy—I don't care a bit—anything lying round loose.
Mrs. Clarkson (smiling)—What is it—an election bet? Don't you think it rather a pity for you to take work from men who need it so badly and——
Jimmy—Oh, don't let that worry you. I only want a little bit of work—such a small bit it won't be noticed—a door opener or an envelope opener or a window opener—I have quite a reputation as a wine opener.
Mrs. Clarkson—You must excuse me if I remark that this application of yours strikes me as extraordinary in the least degree.
Jimmy—Why? I'm young and active and dead broke.
Mrs. Clarkson (looking at his clothes)—You're dead broke.
Jimmy—You think I don't look it. Ah but Mrs. Clarkson, if one expects to get employment one must be neatly and decently dressed. This faultless crease was obtained with the aid of the mattress upon which I tossed feverishly in my attic room.
Mrs. Clarkson—You really want me to find you work? But isn't there something you'd like to be?
Jimmy—Yes, I'd like to be one of the idle rich.
Mrs. Clarkson—You don't expect me to find you anything like that?
Jimmy—I've always felt that the ideal profession is touching the old dad for another thousand, but I'm resigned to something a trifle more arduous.

While Mrs. Clarkson absents herself to settle a quarrel in the next room, Jimmy meets Mr. J. Worsely Ford, who is looking for a man who must be "enterprising and resourceful."

Jimmy—If you will cast your eyes in this direction, you will see our handsome hero registering enterprise and resource.
Ford—You surely don't mean you are looking for a job?
Jimmy—The search for employment seems to be met on all hands with surprise.
Ford—I don't think the job I have to offer would appeal to you.
Jimmy—Any job which is attached to a reasonable prospect of three meals a day appeals to me.

Mr. Ford is ostensibly looking for a tutor for his 15-year-old son Ogden; in reality he wants somebody to kidnap him. Ogden is a precocious enfant terrible: his principal failing seems to be smoking his uncle's cigars. His parents are estranged and the boy, by direction of the court, is in the custody of an aunt [Mrs. Peter Pett] in Morristown who spoils him by overindulgence. By kidnapping him Mr. Ford hopes to circumvent the court's decree that the boy has to spend an equal amount of time with each parent.

At the same time, Ann is approached by Ogden's mother, Mrs. J. Worsely Ford, who engages her to pose as a governess, but actually to perform exactly the same service for her.

When Mr. Ford suggests that he gain entrance to the aunt's household by impersonating Lord Something-or-Other, an English nobleman who writes vers libre, Jimmy balks:

Ford—But you're a celebrity—a great free-verse celebrity.
Jimmy—Look here. I've still got a little self respect left. Don't shove me too deep in the calendar of crime.

But he finally accepts, having found out that Ann will also be there working as a governess, and lured by Mr. Ford's promise of $10,000 if he succeeds. 

The second act takes place in the Petts' home. Mr. Peter Pett has invented a marvelous high-explosive, a tube of which he keeps in the safe; he is a patient, delightfully eccentric middle-aged man anxious to be relieved of the society of the loutish boy. Mrs. Pett, a nervous lady intensely bewildered by the whole outfit, has surrounded herself with a salon of high-brow literary types [Mrs. Barnes, Miss Pegrim]. The slangy Jimmy has much difficulty in posing as an English nobleman, and as for poetry he is on the point of unmasking himself when he inadvertently explains his classification of "major league poets" and "minor league poets."

Mrs. Barnes—Come and talk to us. We're so interested in poetry——
Jimmy—Yes. But I—mustn't talk shop all the time.
Miss Pegrim—Why, you haven't so much as mentioned your work since we've been here.
Jimmy—No? Well, you see, I'm trying to keep my mind off it. Doctor warned me I've been concentrating too much. I don't want to join all those over-brainy lads in the booby-hatch.
Miss Pegrim—The—I beg your pardon.
Jimmy—I said I don't want to be committed to a lunatic asylum.
Mrs. Pett—It certainly must be taxing to write as much as you have in the last two years.
Jimmy—Oh, I dare say regular poets don't feel it. From what I've heard Scott and Byron and Mrs Hemens could swing their pens day after day without straining the old bean the least bit but——
Mrs. Barnes—Scott! You don't call Scott a poet?
Jimmy (feeling he has made a mistake)—Wasn't Scott a poet? Who am I thinking of? Who was the bird who wrote "The Lady of the Lake?"
Mrs. Pett—Bird?
Jimmy—Did I say "bird?" (nervous "ha, ha") Bard—I mean bard!
Mrs. Barnes—There are several of your more mystic passages I do want explained to me. Particularly that wonderful verse beginning "Across the pale parabola of joy——"
Jimmy—The—I beg your pardon.
Miss Pegrim—"Across the pale parabola of joy"—You know.
Jimmy (as though he could hardly believe it)—You find that line difficult to understand?
Miss Pegrim (humbly)—A—a little.
Jimmy—Well, well, perhaps I did put a bit—of a reverse English on that one.

Jimmy meets an old friend, Dave Mitchell, also employed in the household and confides in him. Dave imparts some unsettling information on the penalty the law imposes on kidnappers:

Jimmy—I'm kidnaping this boy Ogden for someone that wants him. I have to keep pinching myself whenever he's around or I'd never believe it.
Dave—Who is the poor nut?
Jimmy—The author of his being.
Dave—Author?
Jimmy—Well, one of the collaborators.
Dave—But say—do you know what the penalty is for kidnaping?
Jimmy—Will you please stop making the echoes reverberate with that word? I don't like the sound of it even when it's whispered. Call it something else—say "kissing" and I'll know what you mean. Now, what was it you just asked me?
Dave—I said do you know what you'd get if you were caught trying to kid—trying to kiss this young, fat Ogden?
Jimmy (puzzled for a moment)—Trying to kiss? Oh yes—yes of course. Tell me, what would they do to me if I were to try to kiss the dear little fellow?
Dave—They could give you 20 years.
Jimmy—No court would give me 20 years for depriving someone of the society of Oggie.
Dave—Well here's a law book—look what it says.
Jimmy (scanning book)—Judge, bribery of, juries, ex-criminals forbidden to sit on—K—Keeping unlicensed saloons, Here we are, Kid—that is to say—"kissing." (reads) From earliest times k-kissing has been regarded as one of the most serious crimes. And the kisser has always received the severest punishment. In ancient Rome, the common practice was to cut off the ears of any individual convicted of kissing——" I am glad we are not living in ancient Rome. "The earlier European lawmakers thought death none too excessive a penalty for kissing——" Say, I don't like this book . . . 

[One review informs us that "from now on the plot grows steadily more complicated until simple narrative can do no further justice to it," while another says that "the plot has many unexpected twists, with a real thriller in the last act." It is not clear at which point of this reconstruction the third and last act begins.]

Jimmy finds the object of his expedition falling right into his hands. Ogden makes him a proposition:

Ogden (looking at him appraisingly)—So you're a real live kidnaper! Well, all I can say is the fillum flatters 'em.
Jimmy—Ogden, I fancy you have been having one of your vivid dyspeptic nightmares.
Ogden—Less of it—less of it. I could repeat the spiel you an' Dave had, word for word.
Jimmy—Do you know where little boys go who listen to private conversations?
Ogden—Sure—to the witness stand.
Jimmy—Surely no gentleman——
Ogden—Aw, forgit it! Who says I'm a gentleman? This gentleman gag is something people always pull whenever they're trying to play you for a boob. Now you listen here. They've stopped my allowance, shut down on candy and the movies and engaged a governess to teach me arithmetic. That ain't exactly my idea of a large existence—so if you want to kidnap me, I'm ready to shake hands on it. I know there's money in this kidnapping business, and I reckon I'm one of the best propositions in that line that's lying around loose. How about it—Will we go fifty-fifty on the deal?
Jimmy—You mean you want half of what I get for kidnap—I mean kissing you? You certainly are a fascinating child.
Ogden—Less of it. Do we divvy, or don't we? Talk figures. I'll give you one hour to think it over. I must try and map out some way you can guarantee me the money.
Jimmy—You know, Ogden, I hate to think what's going to happen to Rockefeller and Morgan when you go down to work in Wall street.

A lady detective (Susan Trimble) is stationed in the house, disguised as a housemaid; her job is to watch over Mr. Pett's explosive. She suspects everybody except the real crook (Alan Cootes) who enters the house after Jimmy, also pretending to be the noble English poet, but seeking to steal the invention. Jimmy spots him for an impostor by asking him to explain the same line about the "pale parabola of joy." Cootes, for his part, believes him to be after the secret formula too and hence regards him as a rival. Jimmy manages to thwart the other by snatching a spotlight revolver from him and making use of it at the crucial moment. Somehow Cootes steals at some point the combination of the safe that keeps the explosive, and the tube is dangerously handled on the scene. Jimmy's courage and resourcefulness win the day, the crook is exposed and the explosive is safe.

The play ends with Mr. and Mrs. Ford reunited in mutual terror over the possible loss of Ogden; Jimmy gets his $10,000 check. Mr. Pett, in addition to the relief concerning his explosive, is delighted that the reconciliation will remove from under his roof the petted lad whose "will is strong, but whose stomach is weak." His gratefulness is strong enough to make him take Jimmy into his partnership, and give him a half share in the invention.

The last scene, naturally, is devoted to the union of Jimmy and Ann:

Jimmy—Dozens of men have asked you to marry them, of course. But the great thing, Ann, is to be sure—quite sure that it's the right man. Perfect companionship—all that sort of thing. It's best if your husband's business is one that you thoroughly understand and take an interest in—like—well—kidnapping for instance. Why, think, if you were to marry me, we might even get our pictures in that magazine series of "Husbands and Wives Who Work Together." I am—conservatively speaking—a corker. Don't you think you better grab me before all the village lassies begin to flock around?
Ann—I'll think about it. By the way, what did you say your name was?
Jimmy—James Crocker, "Piccadilly Jim." I'm he.
Ann—Mrs. Piccadilly Jim—I'm she.

[According to another source: "reciting his aliases, he pauses lovingly at 'Piccadilly Jim,' giving just the right touch of atmosphere to her 'And I—I am Mrs. Piccadilly Jim.']

* * *
Having exhausted all the available information on the play, the fifth and last part of this study will be a discussion of the relationship between the play on one hand and The Little Nugget, Piccadilly Jim and Leave It to Psmith on the other.

Sunday, March 2, 2025

Piccadilly Jim, the play. 3.—Ruth Gordon's memoirs. Afterlife

Previous sections:
1.—Introduction. Writing and production
2.—Reception

Ruth Gordon's memoirs

The next documents of importance to trace the history of the production are Ruth Gordon's memoirs and autobiographical books, especially My Side: The Autobiography of Ruth Gordon (1976). Ruth Gordon (1896-1985) had a long career in Broadway and Hollywood, crowned with an Academy award (Rosemary's Baby 1969) and two Golden Globe awards (Inside Daisy Clover 1965, and Rosemary's Baby), all as Best Supporting Actress.

In 1918 she and Gregory Kelly had played Lola Pratt and Willie Baxter in the theatrical adaptation of Booth Tarkington's Seventeen. During that time they became a couple and eventually got married in 1921. The huge success of that play, fueled mostly by Kelly's performance, was expected to boost the chances of Piccadilly Jim: practically every notice of PJ makes sure to remind the reader of the connection between the two plays and Kelly's evolution from Willie to Jimmy. Seventeen continued on tour when PJ was launched, with Tommy Kelly replacing his brother Gregory in the lead.


Gregory Kelly and Ruth Gordon, apart from being co-leads
in Piccadilly Jim, were also a couple in real life.
Photos from The Delmarvia Star, November 30, p. 15.

Her opinion of the tour's schedule reveals misgivings that are naturally not reflected in the local notices:

In Minneapolis, we left Seventeen. The company continued to the Coast; Tommy Kelly played Willie Baxter. We were off to New York, to the Algonquin, to rehearsals for Piccadilly Jim.
"We play Christmas week in Wilkes-Barre," said Stuart.
Gregory looked startled. '"Wilkes-Barre's a one-nighter!"
Stuart looked bleak. "That's what the booking office has given us."
"What about trying the Klaw and Erlanger office?" I asked.
"I'm with the Shuberts."
"What do they offer after that?" asked Gregory.
"They'll give us their new Washington house for New Year's week."
"Not the Belasco?"
"Their new."
"The Shuberts built a Washington theatre?"
Stuart looked pained at being pressed. "It's one they're taking over."
"The National?"
"The Garrick."
"That old burlesque dump?"
He became the well-bred Kentuckian. "I have no idea."

Several of the reviews highlight Mr. Pett's role, played in Indianapolis by Aldrich Bowker. As Bowker did not go on tour, his replacement proved complicated:

Some shows have luck, some have trouble. Piccadilly Jim had trouble. The next best part to Gregory's was the rich old man. Stuart engaged James Bradbury; salary, four hundred a week.
"Hey, that's a lot!" said Gregory.
"You'll need his support, Greg; the play's on the weak side."
"I only got two-fifty for Willie Baxter."
"That's Bradbury's salary and we need him."
First rehearsal. James Bradbury brought a lot of color. Everybody felt it. A good choice for the rich man. When we stopped for lunch, Gregory and I and Stuart walked over to Childs; food delicious, also quick.
"Anything but the vegetable soup," I said. "I had it every night when I was job-hunting."
When we got back to the theatre, outside the stage door was the stage manager. "Mr. Bradbury handed in his part." He held out the blue-covered pages and a Lambs Club envelope.
Thanks, but I don't believe I would be worth the money.
James Bradbury
Stuart was furious. It's tough when someone important walks out. "Marie."
Fat Marie came.
"Where's our second list?"
"In Indianapolis. You told me we were set."
"Well, go to Indianapolis and get it. At your own expense." Stuart was on the boil.
"What about William Sampson?" How did Gregory think so fast? Had he hoped Mr. Sampson would play it?
"He's nothing like Bradbury."
"But good."
"Get William Sampson," Stuart said to Marie, and left us.

Sampson was the right choice. Here we see the first appearance of Guy Bolton being involved in the production:

Trouble. Everybody sensed it. Everybody felt insecure. Everybody scowled. Mr. Sampson walked on stage and everyone relaxed.
Small, thin, every gray hair in place, perfectly cut blue suit, white shirt, elegant dark tie, he impressed by his total perfection.
"Mr. Sampson will join us," Stuart announced. "We will go through the first act. Does that please you, Mr. Sampson?"
"Sure."
He didn't sound like an actor. He sounded like people.
The stage manager explained which kitchen chairs were the doors, which the windows, which the desk.
"Ready?" asked Stuart.
There was a stir, stage right.
"Oh, Mr. Bolton." Stuart went over to him.
Why hadn't he come to Indianapolis?
Mr. Sampson, pince-nez on, looked over his part.
"You were wonderful in Be Calm, Camilla," I said.
"Good part. This one isn't."
Gregory saw trouble. "It plays better than it reads. We did it in Indianapolis this summer."
"Who played it?"
"Aldrich Bowker."
Mr. Sampson thought about that. "He must be good."
"Gregory says people are good if they have a good part."
"Everybody doesn't know that."
Stuart walked center stage. "This is Mr. Guy Bolton."
"Don't let me disturb you. Please go on."
Can a voice sound luxurious? Guy Bolton's sounded like Monte Carlo, Palm Beach, the Ritz. Why go to Indianapolis in the summer just to see your play? In summer it's Newport, Deauville, Saratoga, Southampton, depending what month you're discussing.
Mr. Sampson read from his part.
"I'll wager—'"
"Hold it, Greg." Stuart motioned to the stage manager. "Give Mr. Sampson the new lines Mr. Bolton wrote."
"Yes, sir."
Mr. Sampson took a pencil out of his vest pocket. "What's the line?"
The stage manager politely held out the script.
Mr. Sampson adjusted his pince-nez and read, "Well, that's about as welcome as an ice cream freezer would be to an Eskimo in—' Oh, I can't say that stuff."
There was a moment.
Did Stuart dread another Lambs Club letter? "Let's omit that," he said. "Greg, give Mr. Sampson his cue again."
No more Lambs Club letters.

Gordon's memory is not perfect when it comes to the places and dates of the tour: she puts the Wilkes-Barre performances toward the end of December instead of the beginning. However, we can rely on her impression of the general atmosphere. later on she gives us the only glimpse of Wodehouse in the whole story, not very uplifting:

We checked in Saturday, nothing to do till dress rehearsal Sunday. See the play that was closing here? It was a war play starring William Harcourt. We watched it from stage box right. Stage box left, Bolton and Wodehouse watched. The first scene over, stage box left was empty.
"Harcourt'll expect me to come round; I knew him when I was with Mr. Belasco." A reference to Belasco made Stuart feel even more above us.
"Good God, I pity you!" Big, ruddy, white-haired Harcourt shook his head. "This is a dog town—why are you here a week?"
Stuart and Gregory and I walked back to the hotel through cold black streets, not much to say.
"Life on the stage is hard," people say. We didn't say that, but we could have. Very appropriate to anyone playing Christmas in Wilkes-Barre.
In the lobby sat Bolton and Wodehouse, staring.
"Shall we have something?" said Stuart.
Bolton looked at Wodehouse, who looked as if he might burst into tears.
Stuart dealt with the situation. "We'll feel better once we get to work. The crew starts setting up at eight, at ten a line rehearsal in the ballroom."
Wodehouse looked astonished. "This hotel has a ballroom?"
"Ah, yes; all hotels have ballrooms, don't they, Greg?"
"I'm afraid so."
Stuart pointed to what had been the bar. "Let's go in."
A listless waiter was leaning on a small table.
Can you fool yourself? I can. "Mr. Wodehouse, a hot lemonade gives you quite a kick."
"It does?" He was more astonished.
"Want to try?"
"By all means."
Too bad. It didn't succeed. Nor did the play. Bolton and Wodehouse left for New York. "We'll come to Washington," said the note.

Knowing that Piccadilly Jim wasn't going anywhere, Kelly and Gordon started hunting around for alternatives, even though the beginning of a season was not the right time to jump ship. But William Sampson put them in contact with George Tyler, whose company was rehearsing Tarkington's next success Clarence, and naturally welcomed the chance to get the Seventeen leads in it. Gordon conveys Tyler's bluntness on the phone in this way:

"Look here, Kelly, I'll play ball with you. Sunday you and your wife get the morning train out of Atlantic City, I'll call rehearsal for one o'clock. Sunday night, take the sleeper to Washington, open that rattrap Monday, take the sleeper back to New York and I'll call Tuesday's rehearsal at nine-thirty, then you and your wife take the two-thirty that gets you to Union Station at seven. Have dinner on the train, play your lousy show and the two performances Wednesday, and take the sleeper, I'll call Thursday rehearsal at nine-thirty, take the afternoon train to Washington, after the show get on the sleeper, take the afternoon train back for Friday's show, play your lousy two on Saturday, close, take the sleeper, rehearse Sunday morning and next week leave for Chicago. I'll give you five hundred a week, first billing; your wife one-fifty. Talk it over with her and call me, Bryant 1113. Remember I'm counting on your goddam show closing! Don't let me down, Kelly! Goodbye."

The end came as foreshadowed, with relationships strained and everybody just waiting to be out of it all and with their mind in the future rather than the play they were performing:

Five nights on the sleeper, three dinners in the diner, four suppers at the Union Station lunch counter, five Clarence rehearsals at the ideal Hudson Theatre, six nights of Piccadilly Jim at the awful Shubert Garrick, the company feeling blue. Stuart didn't speak to us, I paid a hundred dollars for the sapphire blue velvet evening gown, and the final curtain fell.
"Last act," called the stage manager, and it was.
Some talk that Stuart would reopen with "somebody more suited; Greg is out of his depth."
Nobody believed it. Everybody wrote letters and called up Packard's Agency and Chamberlain Brown, read Variety to see who was casting what.

Afterlife

The production as such died here, but still had a sordid afterlife of litigation over the money invested and lost.

We first read in Variety, January 9, 1920 p. 15 about "a three-cornered fight on between the Shuberts, A. H. Woods and Stuart Walker" concerning Kelly's casting, which could account for the Shuberts' lack of support for the play toward the end: "Woods and the Shuberts had the piece and leased it to Walker. They did not, however, agree with Walker that Gregory Kelly should play the principal role. When Walker persisted the bookings for the future failed to materialize and the play was forced to close." In the January 31 issue, p. 14 "Stuart Walker denies the prevalent rumors there has been between him, A. H. Woods and the Shuberts, a three-cornered fight over 'Piccadilly Jim.' Mr. Walker says he brought the show back to New York to make certain changes he felt were necessary." This proved to be a false hope.

One and a half year later we learn from Variety, June 24, 1921 that Kelly had filed a suit against Walker:

The feud between Gregory Kelly and Stuart Walker, who have been engaged in a stock war here all summer and who are understood to have been at outs for the last year or so, reached the courts last Friday, when Kelly filed suit for $1,000 against Walker.
Kelly claims that Walker owes him the money for a one-fourth interest in "Piccadilly Jim," which they produced together during the 1919 season. The complaint, which was filed in Superior Court, alleges that Kelly gave Walker a check for $1,000 for a one-fourth interest in the show on Dec. 5, 1919, and that subsequently Walker bought it back but never paid for it.

But next year Kelly had to dismiss the suit, according to The Billboard for June 24, 1922 p. 24: in a cross-complaint Walker argued that "the play was not a success, and the company lost money. He said Kelly's share in the cost of preparation of the play was $1,122.85, and that his share in the loss on the production was $2,625.36. After subtracting $1,000 on the sale of the interest, Kelly still owed $1,625.36."

Wodehouse and Bolton were not involved in this, but Wodehouse still had losses connected with the play. In a letter to W. Townend on February 28, 1920 (Ratcliffe pp. 125-126) he wrote:

I am doing quite a lot now with the [motion] picture people. Not original stuff, but selling them my novels. There's a lot of money in it. I got $8000 for Piccadilly Jim, – only to have to disgorge 6000 of it to Comstock, who claimed that it belonged to him because he had commissioned a play on the novel.

Comstock, it will be remembered from the opening post of this series, was Elliot, Comstock & Gest, who first announced PJ in mid-1917. Although we do not know the exact terms of the contract, it may be assumed that he had more solid grounds for his claim than Wodehouse's wording suggests, or else he might not have "disgorged" such a large sum without a fight.

The (lost) 1919 movie Piccadilly Jim featuring Owen Moore to which the letter refers is beyond the scope of this research, but we should note that it was not based on the script of the new play but directly on the book. B. Taves in P. G. Wodehouse and Hollywood (2006) p. 143, based on contemporary plot synopses, has concluded that it remained faithful to the novel.

The last we hear about PJ in terms of production is a failed attempt on Wodehouse's part to interest actor-manager Robert Courtneidge in putting on a London production. He wrote to his daughter Leonora on 15 June, 1921 (Donaldson pp. 21-22):

Courtneidge wants to put on the Archie play—to my acute disgust as I think it's rotten. I am trying to double-cross the gang and get him to put on Piccadilly Jim instead.

This failure may have been what prompted Wodehouse to give up on the play and salvage what he could of the new material for his next novel. Note that when he wrote to Leonora on December 21 of the same year he specifically mentioned PJ as a source of inspiration for Leave It to Psmith (Donaldson p. 23):

I have been spending the last two days in a rush of ideas for a new novel. It will be on the lines of Something New and Piccadilly Jim, and it is coming out amazingly.

This relationship will be the subject of the last installment of this series. Before that, it is necessary to reconstruct the plot of the play, as far the quotations and references found in reviews allow us.

Next sections:
4.—Reconstruction of the plot

Saturday, March 1, 2025

Piccadilly Jim, the play. 2.—Reception

Previous sections:
1.—Introduction. Writing and production

Reception

The reviews of Piccadilly Jim were mostly positive at first, but toward the end of December there is a clear decline, which can be illustrated by a few extracts in chronological order:

"Piccadilly Jim," a character that won the admiration of all who read the story when it appeared in the Saturday Evening Post, was presented on the stage last night at the Grand Opera House for the first time. "Jim" proved as popular a stage hero as he did in the book, and judging from the manner in which the play was received "Piccadilly" is destined to enjoy a long and successful career. The play is a mixture of fun and thrills and is most enjoyable. It is packed with laughs and last night's audience seemed to enjoy it to the fullest extent. Although last night's performance was the first on any stage, the production moved with such smoothness that it was impossible to tell it was a premiere. [...]
It has all the earmarks of a real winner, and will undoubtedly capture Broadway when it finally lands there for a run. The company is far above the average seen this season.

Wilkes-Barre Times Leader, December 2, p. 19

(Note that this review ignores the Indianapolis summer season.)

* * *

As Piccadilly Jim, Mr. Kelly exceeds all speed limits for laughs for the authors have broken their own records in the matter of comic ingenuity. And Mr. Walker has gathered a brilliant company to portray the unusual character tangled in their web of blythe humor. Ruth Gordon plays the demure Anne Chester. Burford Hampden as the complacent prize of the kidnappers, Willian Sampson as the patient inventor, Catherine Proctor as the lady detective, Elizabeth Patterson as the cultured Mrs. Pett, Fred Tiden as the nervy burglar, Frank Connor, Grace Hayle, Beulah Bondy, Clare Weldon, Agnes Gildea, Graham Volsey, Dora Matthews, Edgar Stehli, and Ruth Copley make up the imposing cast.

The Meriden Daily Journal, December 13, p. 7

* * *

"Piccadilly Jim," a comedy made in part from a short story by P. G. Wodehouse by that worthy and industrious young man, himself and his favorite accomplice, Guy Bolton, was seen at Parsons's Theater last evening and proved to be a pleasing bit of amusement without at all ruining Mr. William Shakespeare's claim to immortality as a dramatist. Messrs. Bolton and Wodehouse are as considerate as they are prosperous; they are content to have their hands in most of the books of musical plays of the present age and to dash off a comedy here and there; they are willing to achieve fortune and such little things but they simply will not shove good old William Aforesaid Shakespeare off the map. It wouldn't be cricket don't you know, to treat a dear dead Johnny so.
But though not obtaining greatness in the composition and construction of "Piccadilly Jim" the authors have given people who go to see their work excellent reasons for frequent smiles and not a few good laughs; and they have given some clever players some neat opportunities. There was no riotous applause from the audience last evening but there certainly was appreciation for the wit of many of the lines and the brightness of some of the situations. [...]
The story is thin but the telling is bright and the acting of those principally concerned is excellent.

Hartford Courant, December 19, p. 10

* * *

"Piccadilly Jim," the comedy by Guy Bolton and P. G. Wodehouse, presented at the Shubert-Garrick this week, is enjoyable. The fair-sized audience last night felt that way about it, and so expressed itself. Gregory Kelly brings a unique personality to the title role, his remarkable manipulation of the one syllable "Yes" in a long scene with Miss Ruth Gordon and the comedy brought out by his enunciation of that word being a characteristic example of the actor's understanding of humor-provoking diction.

The Washington Evening Star, December 23, p. 25

* * *

"PICCADILLY JIM" may not be another "Seventeen" for Gregory Kelly; but "Piccadilly Jim" is, notwithstanding, a thoroughly entertaining comedy. There's a plenty of laughable-at dialogue, there's a bit of melodrama that thrills, there's a sweet little love story, and there are liberal sprinklings of pure farce that draw continuous chuckles.
No, it's not a record-breaking masterpiece, but it's a mighty delightful way of passing a couple of hours or so—this "Piccadilly Jim" of P. G. Wodehouse and Guy Bolton. [...]
It's all very amusing. And fairly well cast, although one gets the impression that the thing is too new to let the actors get the full value of their parts. But in a short time this will have worn off, and the comedy will be even better than it was last night, when it made a goodly house chuckle continually and roar occasionally.

The Washington Times, December 23, p. 10

* * *

Almost a new category of drama is needed in which to classify "Piccadilly Jim." Its origins are more obvious: popular magazine fiction plus the earlier influence of Mr. George M. Cohan were its inspiration. And it is amusing in effect, albeit this effect is of a somewhat obvious kind. It is neither as deep as a well, nor, fortunately, as broad as a barn-door. In fact, on the latter score, it is without a single word of offense. That alone stamps it as a novelty among present-day farce-comedies. But it is also a bit of a comedy of manners and contains, likewise, more than a hint of that five-year old antique the crook-play with its turns and tricks. Added to all this are aphoristic lines enough to furnish forth a winter's tale to be told around the corner grocery stove. In short, it is an amusing example of opportunism in dramatic technique, the story constantly taking such new tones and directions as the wit of the authors could devise to keep it going. And it does go—as far, apparently, as it was meant to. [...]
In two or three instances certain rôles have been miscast. Odgen, for example, is a precocious child, but the illusion is not heightened by having this part played by an actor with a blue chin and maturity of facial expressions. Time will probably correct many of these details, among which crudity of make-up, in more than one case, unquestionably needs attention. Even with these blemishes, however, the laughter of the first-night audience gave sure indication that "Piccadilly Jim" will be a popular success.

The Christian Science Monitor, December 23, p. 16

* * *

At the Garrick, Gregory Kelly is holding forth in P. G. Wodehouse's "Piccadilly Jim"—a play that offers fair enough entertainment, but one which rather disappointed the critics, who expected a vast deal of fine stuff from the combination of Wodehouse and Guy Bolton.

Earle Dorsey for the Washington Herald, December 25, p. 5

* * *

Stuart Walker's "Piccadilly Jim" at the Shubert-Garrick received rather good notices and was a mighty clever little comedy, with a last act that turned into an old time thriller. The cast was excellent and after the piece is brightened just a little, it being played in a quiet key throughout that rather tired, it ought to be a fair contender for successful honors in New York.

Hardie Meakin for Variety, January 2, 1920, p. 71

* * *

This last prophecy was not fulfilled. By the time the last notice was published Walker had already decided to cancel the play. The last performance had been on December 27 in Washington.

In the next post, Ruth Gordon's reminiscences will give an idea of what the general atmosphere within the company was really like during the rehearsals and tour.

Next sections:
3.—Ruth Gordon's memoirs. Afterlife
4.—Reconstruction of the plot

Friday, February 28, 2025

Piccadilly Jim, the play. 1.—Introduction. Writing and production

Introduction

At some point between 1917 and 1919 Wodehouse and Bolton collaborated on a theatrical adaptation of Piccadilly Jim for American audiences. This novel had been serialized in the Saturday Evening Post between September and November 1916 and published in the U.S. in February 1917. The play was produced in the second half of 1919 by Stuart Walker, starring Gregory Kelly as Jimmy Crocker. It was not a success: after a summer season in Indianapolis it went on tour visiting several cities across the United States but never made it to Broadway.

So far it has not been possible to trace a copy of the script. Wodehouse and Bolton seldom referred to it, and current scholarship (with one exception) has largely ignored it.

Here I will attempt to collect and organize all the information about the play, its production history, plot and dialogue as can be gleaned from news items, reviews, advertisements, some of the actors' (auto)biographical material, and other miscellaneous sources.

Since I will be quoting much of this material in full, it is best to split this study into several posts, each dealing with a separate aspect. This first installment will be an account of the production, with what little is known of the conception and writing process, production company involved, cast and performance dates. The second will be concerned with its reception as reflected in contemporary reviews and eventual cancellation. Then a few extracts from the leading actress' memoirs will hopefully shed some light on what some of the participants thought of the whole enterprise. An overview of the afterlife of the play will make up the next part. The last two posts will refer to the play itself: first I will present a tentative reconstruction of the plot, with such scraps of dialogue as are quoted in the sources; and finally I will compare the reconstructed plot not only with the original Piccadilly Jim but with two other novels: The Little Nugget (1913) and Leave It to Psmith (1923).

It is this comparison that points to the most surprising conclusions, which can be anticipated here since they justify the effort put into this reconstruction. Indeed, the play combines elements from the two earlier novels centered more or less in Ogden Ford, which is not unexpected. But it is also possible to detect a number of original points not found in either that were later picked up in the 1923 Blandings Castle story, such as the characters of Mrs. Clarkson and Cootes, the episode of the crook's revolver, the impersonation of a vers libre poet and above all the iconic line "Across the pale parabola of joy." The latter part of the last section will be devoted to an analysis of the composition of Leave It to Psmith in the light of these findings, and the interpretation of some oddities in its plot, namely the roles of Eileen Peavey and Miss Simmons (Susan).

I am grateful to Neil Midkiff and Ananth Kaitharam for their support, both in the form of encouragement and feedback and providing material I could not have accessed without their assistance, and without which this article would have been finished in half could not have been written.

First news of the play

The exception mentioned above is Tony Ring, Second Row, Grand Circle (2012), pp. 351-2. Ring collected several of the items that will be discussed here and in fact I am indebted to him for some I would probably have neglected otherwise, but I won't summarize his findings at this point since I prefer to expound them in chronological order, filling in the gaps in the history of the production.

The first notice that there was any idea of writing an adaptation of PJ comes as early as mid-1917. A note in the New York Times for June 21, 1917, p. 11, titled "Managers Brave the War.—Elliot, Comstock & Gest Are to Produce Seven New Plays" informs us that a prospectus issued by this theatrical firm had announced this ambitious programme:

a musical version of David Belasco's drama, "Sweet Kitty Bellairs," made by P. G. Wodehouse, Guy Bolton, and Rudolf Friml. It will be called "Kitty Darlin'," and Alice Neilson will be the prima donna. The piece will reach Broadway about Oct. 1. Another is a musical comedy version of George Ade's comedy, "The College Widow," by Mr. Wodehouse and Mr. Bolton, with music by Jerome Kern. It will be produced at the Longacre Aug. 6 with a cast that will include Oscar Shaw, Robert Pitkin, George Graham, Dan Collyer, Carl Randall, Georgia O'Ramey, and Anna Orr. About Labour Day "Chu Chin Chow," the Oriental fantaisie current at His Majesty's, London, will be presented at the Manhattan Opera House.
Other plays scheduled for production are a Russian drama, entitled "The People's King," two plays by George V. Hobart, one a sequel to "Experience," the other, "What Twenty Years Will Do," and a dramatization by Mr. Wodehouse and Mr. Bolton of the former's story, "Piccadilly Jim," "The Wanderer," four "Oh, Boy!" companies, two "Experience," and two "Very Good Eddie" companies will be sent on tour.

As can be seen, Wodehouse and Bolton have a strong presence in their plans. The choice of Piccadilly Jim is hardly surprising, being at that point Wodehouse's latest success.

These paragraphs, however, do not imply that any writing had already taken place, but only that some kind of contract or at least a verbal arrangement had been made to write the play. In Theatre Magazine (September 1917, p. 122) the production was announced for "The New Season 1917-1918," but since it didn't come to fruition until 1919 there may not have been a script by then either. The same magazine in its December 1917 issue, p. 368 had an article on the W&B duo "A Team of Playwrights Extraordinary" with the following passage that still promised PJ for that season:

The activities of the remarkable pair of male Cinderellas are represented during the season of 1917-1918 with "Miss 1917," "The Riviera Girl," "Kitty Darlin'," in which we shall see Alice Nielsen's return from grand opera to comic, "The Girl from Ciro's," "Piccadilly Jim," a dramatization of Mr. Wodehouse's novel of that title, a play, still unnamed, for the Dolly Sisters, "Leave It to Jane," "The Living Safe," an adaptation of the French play "Madame and Her Godson," and a new play for the Princess that will be ready for the little playhouse when "Oh, Boy," its million-dollar tenant, has folded its glittering tent and Arab-like, stolen away.

A little earlier, in the November issue of Vanity Fair (p. 47), Wodehouse had published an article "Dishing Up Fiction in Play Form.—A Crime That Should be Prevented by Law," decrying the habit of turning every new novel into a play, and asking the Legislature to take a hand in the matter, but making an exception of PJ:

That is what the American Drama needs, to give it a new lease of life. I would make a few exceptions, of course. I would permit, for instance, such dramatizations as that of "Piccadilly Jim"—not only because it is impossible for such a story to have too wide a vogue, but principally because the author, a thoroughly worthy fellow, happens to be furnishing a new apartment at a moment when there is an insistent demand on the part of his family for a new car.

Once again, it is impossible to conclude from this tongue-in-cheek reference that any progress had been made on the script, but it does show that the adaptation was present in his mind.

Production and early performances

There is a long gap between the end of 1917 and mid-1919 during which we find absolutely no mention of the play in the press or any other source. Then suddenly, in August of that year, it is announced (e.g. in Variety, August 8, p. 58) at the Murat theater in Indianapolis, where the Stuart Walker Co. had established itself for the summer season. It ran for a week, starting on August 25, before the company went on the road.

The cast during the Indianapolis performances was:

Gregory Kelly: Jimmy Crocker
Ruth Gordon: Ann Chester
Edgar Stehli: Mr. Bingley-Crocker
Beulah Bondy: Mrs. Bingley-Crocker
Aldrich Bowker: Peter Pett (inventor uncle)
Elizabeth Patterson: Mrs. Peter Pett
George Somnes: Alan Cootes
Florence Murphy: Futuristic art fan
Robert McGroarty: ?, prologue
Lael Davis: ?
James P. Webber: ?
Ben Lyon: ?
Helen Robbins: ?
Agnes Horton: ?
Orlo Hallsey: ?

Most of this cast didn't go on tour; I have underlined the names common to this and the next list, which can be regarded as the main roles with the exception of A. Bowker (whose replacement will be discussed later on in R. Gordon's memoirs). Unfortunately the notices don't specify what role some of these actors played. V. B. Fowler wrote about these performances in Variety, September 5, p. 37:

The Bolton-Wodehouse humor is more than sparkling—most of it is brilliant. Delicious new slang will give the show some invaluable advertising when it is staged in earnest.
The plot runs smoothly. The play is without technical faults. The characters range from the quaintly serious to the flippantly ridiculous. There is a dash of melodrama [...]
The cast showed fears for the piece on the opening night, which were entirely unjustified. They strengthened during the week so that equal praise should be bestowed on [list of actors].

The tour took place during the whole of December and was to land on Broadway for New Year. From notices and adverts, its itinerary can be reconstructed thus:

- Wilkes-Barre (PA), Dec 1 to 3, Grand Opera House
- Wilmington (DE), Dec 4 to 6*, Playhouse
- Atlantic City (NJ), Dec 8 to 13, Globe
- New Haven (CT), Dec 15 to 17, Shubert
- Hartford (CT), Dec 19 to 21, Parsons’
- Washington (DC), Dec 22 to 27, Shubert-Garrick
* Including a benefit matinée performance on December 5 for the Actors’ Fund of America. See Delmarvia Star, November 30, p. 15.


Ad in the Delmarvia Star, November 30, 1919, p. 14
announcing the Wilmington performances.


Ad in the Washington Times, December 21, 1919, p. 23.

The cast during the tour, or at least for the last week in Washington, was:

Gregory Kelly: Jimmy Crocker
Ruth Gordon: Ann Chester
Edgar Stehli: Mr. Bingley-Crocker
Beulah Bondy: Mrs. Bingley-Crocker
William Sampson: Peter Pett
Elizabeth Patterson: Mrs. Peter Pett
Burford Hampden: Ogden Ford
James Kearney: Bayliss
Clare Weldon: Mrs. Clarkson
Frank Conno: J. Worsely Ford
Grace Hayle: Mrs. J. Worsely Ford
Graham Velsey: Dave Mitchell
Ruth Copley: Mrs. Barnes
Dora Matthews: Miss Pegrim
Catherine Proctor: Susan Trimble
Fred Tiden: Alan Cootes
Agnes Gildea: Katie

Such are the more or less hard facts I have been able to collect concerning the production. The next post, then, will be devoted to the reception of the play during this tour and its demise.

Next sections:
2.—Reception
3.—Ruth Gordon's memoirs. Afterlife
4.—Reconstruction of the plot

Tuesday, February 11, 2025

The Hunting of the Borneo Wire-Snake

In chapter 7 of Wodehouse's The Girl on the Boat Eustace Hignett relates his first meeting with Jane Hubbard, the famous big-game hunter:

She talked to me about this elephant gun, and explained its mechanism. She told me the correct part of a hippopotamus to aim at, how to make a nourishing soup out of mangoes, and what to do when bitten by a Borneo wire-snake. You can imagine how she soothed my aching heart.

The second sentence (not present in the US version of the novel, Three Men and a Maid) is baffling: while everyone knows what hippopotami and mangoes are, the "Borneo wire-snake" cannot be found in any zoology book, and there is very little in the context to go by and give the name to some other species. All we know is that it is probably venomous, or else its bite wouldn't require special treatment.

A little digging uncovers Wodehouse's probably literary source. In Edgar Wallace’s 1913 novel Grey Timothy ch. 18 we read:

Brian politely declined an invitation to visit the reptile house in the basement, though the old man promised him something very rare in the shape of a new variety of wire snake from Borneo.

Wodehouses's and Wallace's appreciation for each other's stories is well documented, among other things, in the fact that each dedicated books to the other.

The snake, however, doesn't play a role or get another mention in Grey Timothy, so the hunt needs to proceed elsewhere. The Internet Archive provides the next clue, in the works of James Dyer Ball (1847-1919) born and raised in Canton, China to an American missionary and his Scottish wife, and author of a number of books which contributed significantly to a better understanding of Chinese culture in the West. One of these, perhaps the most successful, was Things Chinese; or, Notes connected with China (1892), a sort of encyclopedia of Chinese topics, drawn from the author's personal experience as well as his extensive reading: The first entries: Abacus, Abatement, Aboriginal Tribes, Acupuncture give an idea of the scope of the work. In the fourth edition (1903), pp. 630-1 we read under the entry for Snakes:

The Gardins is a snake not often seen; but it is found in Hongkong and elsewhere in the Kwongtung Province. It is said by the Chinese to be the most deadly of all snakes, no cure being possible for its bite. It is even found on the housetops, or roofs, rather. Its name in Chinese is t'eet seen she [t'ieh hsien shê], or iron-wire snake; it is generally black in colour; but is also seen of a sort of rusty brown shade, is about 7 or 8 inches in length, and of the size of a thick piece of iron wire.

Here we have, then, an "iron wire snake", except that this is not its English name but a literal translation of the Chinese name 鐵線蛇 (apparently this would be tiě xiàn shé in modern transliteration). It is venomous, even fatally so, matching the one for whose bite Jane Hubbard has a countermeasure, while Wallace is not explicit on the subject. The main problem, of course, is that Dyer Ball found it in Hong-Kong, 2,400 km from Borneo, not to mention the sea in between. If we concede this gross inexactitude on his part, we may venture the hypothesis that Wallace took the name directly or indirectly from Dyer Ball, attached a different location to it, and Wodehouse in turn borrowed the new species as "Borneo wire-snake". For the name Gardins I haven't been able to find an explanation yet.

Because the fact remains that Dyer Ball's book wasn't just the most popular text to have brought the name "wire snake" to English-speaking countries: so far it is the only non-specialized contemporary source found. The next occurrence online repositories have to offer is the China Medical Missionary Journal for October 1901, pp. 303-4, with a somewhat graphic report from a cautious correspondent:

Dr. H. N. Kinnear, of Foochow, writes as follows:—
Iron Wire Snakes.
"I am curious to know what experience other workers in China have had with what our Foochow people call the 'Iron Wire Snake.'
A year ago there came to our clinic a boy of nineteen, who reported that when he was eight years' old he was playing out of doors, probably wearing no clothing, when one of these little snakes wrapped itself around his penis at about the middle. It was impossible to get it off for some hours and the resulting ulceration had left a deep sulcus of cicatricial tissue entirely surrounding the organ and interrupting the urethra. The urethra was of full calibre on both sides of the fistula. He came to us because he was about to marry and wished the imperfection removed, but left again before anything was done for him.
My students fully credited the story of the snake, and told me that they sometimes fasten themselves upon the fingers of men working in gardens, strangulating them until they slough off, that they have also been known to strangulate the tails of cattle in the same way. The popular belief seems to be that it is almost impossible to remove them when once wrapped around a part.
The snake is about six inches long, shaped much like a common earth worm, has about the same diameter, a trifle smaller perhaps and darker in color. Have seen a specimen, but have not done any experimenting with my own fingers for the sake of science. Am willing to gain a knowledge of the subject at second hand if any one is ready to impart it."

This is presumably from Fuzhou, quite a different region of coastal China; and it is certainly a different species, not venomous but dangerous in its own peculiar way. We may assume that by "what our Foochow people people call the 'Iron Wire Snake'" is the same 鐵線蛇 as in Dyer Ball's account, but the conclusion will be that a common name was applied to unrelated species in different regions.

Coming now to modern sources, several online Chinese zoological guides apply the name both to the collared reed snake (Calamaria pavimentata), and to the brahminy blind snake (Indotyphlops braminus), very different between them, which supports our last conclusion. None of these is venomous, so the identity of Dyer Ball's specimen remains a mystery, but the description in the medical journal suggests the I. braminus. The last extract I have to quote confirms this. Geoffrey Herklots in The Hong Kong Countryside (1959), pp. 111-2 contributes this anecdote which shows that the tradition about the dangers of handling this dumb chum was hadn't died out:

IRON WIRE SNAKE
After an interval of more than six and a half years my wife, children and I once again lived together in a house with a garden. A first consequence was the inevitable blister at the base of the third finger of the left hand the result of a soft hand in contact with the hard handle of a spade. A piece of ground was dug, which in the month of March was as hard as a tennis court, but it yielded some interesting specimens in the form of iron wire snakes. The first one was claimed by my small daughter and transferred to a cigarette tin together with some earth and a worm. There was a small hole at the top of the tin and through this hole the snake escaped during the night but another took its place and it was carried in triumph to school and exhibited.
This primitive and degenerate snake, Typhlops braminus resembles a short piece of highly polished iron wire hence the common local name of  t'it sin she, iron wire snake. Unlike a piece of wire it is extremely agile. It is the only local snake whose tail ends in a sharp point. When the snake desires to burrow into the earth it inserts the tip of its tail in the ground, thus providing anchorage, and using the tail as a lever moves its body backwards or forwards as desired. Its food consists of soft-bodied insects and worms. It possesses eyes but they are largely hidden by scales and so the snake is practically blind. This small reptile, three or four inches in length does not lay eggs as do many snakes, but brings forth its young alive. It is of course perfectly harmless to man but many Chinese believe that if it twines around a finger it will not release its hold until the finger has dropped off, but the Chinese, like the British, have many curious beliefs about snakes. Many people regard snakes as slimy creatures whereas they are never slimy, their skin stroked in the right direction being as pleasant to touch as silk. Rubbed the wrong way it is rough to the touch except when the snake is a burrower like this species which, like the mole, may be stroked in any direction without rubbing against the grain. The number of these snakes I dug up in this small patch of ground surprised me—four in sixteen square yards. If it was a representative piece of Hong Kong the number per square mile of the Island would reach astronomical figures.

———

This is as far as our hunting for the Borneo wire-snake has taken us. It may be that there are other missing links to be unearthed, but the main takeaway is that the language barrier still makes writing about things Chinese as much a matter of uneducated guesswork for the 21st century internet-based researcher as for the 20th century novelist.

Wednesday, January 29, 2025

A Gentleman of Leisure: a variorum edition

 A Gentleman of Leisure (variorum edition) (PDF, 2,535 KB)

This is the third project of its kind I've completed. It is out of schedule: the next one was supposed to be The Little Warrior (UK Jill the Reckless), but a flurry of activity at Madame Eulalie around the 1910 book editions of A Gentleman of Leisure (US The Intrusion of Jimmy) made it more practical to concentrate on this one while it was still fresh in the mind.

The preparation of each of these texts has its own challenges, and forces the editor to make decisions that require some kind of justification. In the case of AGoL, the choice of the base text took some thinking. For other texts the first UK edition seemed a natural choice, as it clearly was in itself an evolution on previous versions, and also was more or less the established text for all subsequent editions, barring minor corrections or editorial deviations. AGoL, on the other hand, underwent at a relatively early stage a substantial revision between the first UK edition (Alston Rivers, 1910) and the 1921 Jenkins text, which would become the standard for the novel's later history. This alone would seem to mark it as the author's "definitive" version, and to justify giving it priority. But things are not so simple, since the Jenkins edition has some significant deletions from the previous version, and one always has misgivings about relegating genuine Wodehouse text to the footnotes. In the end, after much hesitation, the Jenkins text came on top.

The apparatus is longer than that of the two previous variorums, and this is due mostly to the British editors removing many of the peculiarities of Spike Mullins' speech. Again I was in doubt whether it was really worth it to record every time an' and fer in the American edition was changed to and and for. In the end I decided to keep them, on the principle that it will be easier to remove them later if I ever change my policy in this regard, and also that drawing the line between what is worth noting and what isn't is not so simple. As a result, the number of footnotes soared to over a thousand—or t'ousand, as Spike would say.

Side note: since I hope to keep adding to the number of variorum editions, I've created a separate page with a general presentation of the project, a list of finished documents and (eventually) ancillary material. This will be permanently available as a link in the nagivation bar at the left of the blog.

Monday, January 27, 2025

George Morrow's "Sports" Series

Wodehouse's "forgotten sports" gag spans 46 years:

  • Forgotten Sports of the Past—Splitting the Straw. (The Little Warrior ch. 14, 1920)
  • Forgotten Sports of the Past—Number Three, Meeting the Mater. ("Something Squishy", 1924)
  • Forgotten sport of the past—Waving the Tortoise. (Sam the Sudden ch. 24, 1925)
  • Cruel Sports of the Past—Beating the Steak. (Spring Fever ch. 17, 1948)
  • Forgotten sports of the past. Squaring the housemaid. (Uncle Dynamite ch. 9, 1948)
  • Forgotten Sports of the Past—Getting The Scenario. ("Genesis of a Novel", 1966)

All these are a reference to the equally long-lived "Sports" series of cartoons by George Morrow (1869-1955), published in Punch since at least 1910 as variations of "Cruel/Forgotten Sports of the Past". These generally had the structure "X-ing the Y", Y often being the name of an animal, and involved a pun.

Morrow has a fairly complete Wikipedia page. See also his obituary in Punch, January 26, 1955, and his entry in the Dictionary of Twentieth Century British Cartoonists and Caricaturists. Add to the bibliography George Morrow, His Book (1920) available online; and see a collection of cartoons at the Punch website.

Below are all the examples I could find of "Sports" in Punch, ranging 30 years. Click each image to expand. Possibly there are others, but they are not so easy to locate in online repositories like the Internet Archive or HathiTrust. Some day someone will compile a comprehensive index of the magazine for the 20th century. The incredible Curran Index unfortunately (but naturally) stops at 1900.

Wodehouse also recalled two of these in "Falconry: Who Needs It?", published in Playboy in November 1956:

READING A BOOK not long ago about popular sports of the past, I was interested to note how few of them have succeeded in keeping their grip on the public taste. They had their day and vanished never to be heard of again. I suppose about the only one that has survived into our modern age is haberdashery. You still find dashing the haber going on. But what of knurr and spell? Or boxing the compass? Or mocking the turtle? (A cruel sport, this last. The players stood in front of their turtles and made wisecracks about their faces, and the competitor who was the first to get his turtle good and sore won the chukker.)



March 23, 1910


April 27, 1910


May 11, 1910


July 20, 1910


February 21, 1912


June 27, 1917


February 18, 1925


May 18, 1931


June 15, 1932

March 20, 1940