sign in sign up
<<
Home , When the Going Was Good

NEWSLETTER

Volume 14, Number 1 Spring, 1880

THE YEAR'S V'JORK IN WAUGH STUDIES By Paul A. Doyle Jerome Meckler's "Cycle, Symbol, and Parody :n Evelyn Waugh's ," Con­ temporary Literature, 20 !Winter 1979), 51-7;j is a sine qua non for scholars of Waugh's first novel. Intensely well-reasoned and raising one intriguing point after another, the article takeq three well­ known aspects of OF and probes them further than has generally been customary. Among other ideas, Meckler sees the chestnut trees Paul views on his way to King's Thursday as symbols for growth, maturity, and fulfillment which stand in sharp contrast to what actually happens to every­ thing else in the book. Chestnuts and the remodeled King's Thursday symbolize aspects that are lost or useless. "Unless within a viable religious framework, Waugh implies, virtues Ieven a Dickensian virtue such as innocence) and temporal values !including T.S. Eliot's respect for tradition) are hopelessly profane. Unsupported, they become secular parodies of their forr,1er selves, liabilities instead of assets." Meckler also argues that Grimes is "truly a prisoner of life, ... a parodic Christ, able to rise again and again but kept from g'lnuine transcendence." While Grimes parodies natural man, Prendergast is "a parody of spiritual man, an example of fervor without faith." Furthermore, while Pennyfeather is battered by an amoral society, he must also accept blame for innocent "failures of perception." He acquiesces to "life's preference for mismatch and incongruity." At least the prisoner who rejects Paul's caviar "has a commendable sense of pro­ priety: in a sane world, no caviare for prisoners .. , Decline and Fall is considered an atDck on the Bildungsroman of the twenties. "If protagonists do not mature, if the lessons they learn ar8 negative and disillusioning, only parodieo. of coming-of­ age are permissible." Meckler also has much to say about Dickens' world as parodied by Waugh, especially in the prison scenes. "In addition to employing a parodic martyr and a burlesque Christ to pre,

L- . Even Deedes contributed io 8coop since he had a vast assortment of baggage (294 lbs. excess in Paris.) "when this lot arrived in the Deutsches Haus (called the Pension Dre~sler in the novel), Waugh was enchanted. The cleft sticks were his own idea." Deedes points out that a myster­ ious F. W. Rickett travelled to Abyssinia to sign an oil and mineral rights agreement in secret with on behalf of Standard Oil. Mills and Phillips got the scoop while Waugh was enjoying the uniqueness of distant . Rickett, of course, becomes Mr. Baldwin. In a review article on the Diaries, N;, ..ional Review, 31 (Ma:ch 30, 1979), 431-432, Murray Kempton believes that the various entries have the ultimate power "to compel our loving the teller." Kempton insists that Waugh, no matter how hard he attempted, could not conc2al that "he was a just and indeed a loving man." Kempton emphnsizes Waugh's romantic and sentimental streak. He stresses that negative opinions about him neglected the fact that often the reverse view was true. For example, although Waugh was censured for loving lor·'1s, he quarreled with about every lord he knew. Kempton feels that Waugh preferred his conversion to Catholicism to be associated with aristocracy since to "have it thought otherwise would have betrayed the desperation of his hunt for grace and forgiven<>ss." Although Kempton's interpretation about the Diaries showing Waugh in a favorable light would appear to out-charity the advice in Corinthians, one can't be too harsh oco a critic who can write: "Only an excessive need for objects to rove and worstJip can explain [Waug: ,·:sj scorn for the inadequacies of the available objects." In a shabby essay in The New Leader, 62 (Sept. 24, 1979). 13-19, William H. Pritchard follows the hackneyed lirie that Waugh's early novels are r;"''a gcco, ':Jut that BR. Pin fold, and the are unworthy efforts. Pritchard, alas, is srmply not perceptive enough to understand the stylistic or thematic challenges of the later novels. In regard to style Pritchard lacks the acuteness of Andrew Rutherford, who, writing of the war trilogy, has emphasized that "Waugh is one of the very few modern novelists whose phraseology and syn.tax are themselves a source of..delight, illumination and discovery._ .. The very organization of his sentences, with their conscious el(:gance of syntax, cadences, and punctuation, gives an effect of etioi·tless superiority, of cool urbanity, of detached intelligence in supreme control of its material." In .regard to themes Pritchard appears to be haunted by the old Christian bugbear. His com­ ments on the later fiction remind me of a review ( TLS, Jan. 11. 198C, p. 36) of the movie version of Flannery O'Connor's Wise Blood. Michael Mason, th2 reviewer, pulls in Waugh thus: "Flannery O'Connor was a Catholic. The theme of Wise Bloo,; is that favorite of Catholic novelists, the "Christian malgre lui" lin O'Connor's own phrase). This is Graham Greene or Evelyn Waugh in a wildly remote key .... This kind of religious irony .... is aptto strike non-Catholics as dull (because the iss~es of sin and redemption seem to them unreal) and distasteful." At least Mason is straight­ forward about his bias, and so was Edmund Wilson. Pritchard isn't; for such as he, Catholic material iS the Obstacle which eliminates all other COrlSiderations. In "Evelyn Waugh's and the Problem of Proofs," Papers of the Bibliographical Society ofAmerica, 73 (Fourth Quarter 1979), 481~483, Robert Murray Davis stresses that Waugh made corrections in typescripts as well as proofs. Davis uses several examples from the proof copy and from the first edition copy of Helena to show specific Waugh revisions. Davis wisely urges that Waugh scholars and collectors be on the alert for proof copies, corrected or not, since such copies can indicate changes and developments in Waugh's texts. The Little, Brown reprints occasioned a very appreciative review-essay by R. Z. Sheppatd, Time, 113 (Feb. 12, 1979), 96, 99. Sheppard lauds Waugh's comic genius and calls Sword of Honour a masterpiece "in which the author fully joined the two sides of his nature: the detached satirist and the chivalrous, disillusioned romantic." Sheppard applauds the corpus of Waugh's work for "vitality, matchless craftsmanship, audacious imagination and stinging perceptions." One of Sheppard's most thoughtful comments: "Sea voyages abound in Waugh; indeed he has launched more ships of fools than any other modern writer. There is also much seasickness that often resembles a queasi­ ness with the world itself." Graham Greene has commenced to comment more frequently about Waugh ISee Thomas Gribble's synopsis later in this issue). In a Penelope Gilliatt's profile, New Yorker, 55 (March 26, 1979), 43-44,47-50, Greene is recorded as laughing at the "She gave him the freedom of her narrow loins" line from Brideshead, although it is recorded that he admired Waugh's writing. One anecdote is related: Greene and W;cugh were having dinner at the Alexander Kordas. Waugh b ,came rude and censured Korda for dining there with his mistress. Greene's own mistress was present and when Greene noted this, Waugh responded: "That'.s quite different. Your mistress is married." According to Greene. Evelyn was a very troubled man: "Troubled by guilt and immensely frightened by death.'' Cecil Beaton and Waugh did not like each other, and Beaton extracts his revenge in Self ., --..

-3-

Portrait with Friends: The Selected Diaries of Cecil Beaton, 1926-1974, ed. Richard Buckle (New York: Times Books. 1979). Perhaps the most distast.her sent Wise Blood to Waugh, and his comment was: "If this is really !he unaided work of a young litdy, th it is a remarkable product." This quote, included on the book's dust jacket. aroused the ire of in Flannery's mother: "My mother was vastly insulted. She put the emphasis on if and l3dy. Does he al suppose you're not a lady? she says. Who is he?" II< Two highly significant articles unintentionally omitted from last Spring's "Year's Work." :iese·ve (\I special attention. One of these, Robert Murray Davis's "Clarifying and Enriching': Waugh's Changing Concept of Anthony Blanche," Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America. 72 WI (Third Quarter 1978, 305-320) is a very well-researched and stimulating analysis which focuses on cr one of the most fascinating characters in modern literature. Davis reco;·ds that there are at least to twelve versions (no two identical) of BR including the manuscript and carbon typescript. He notes le: that J study of the no'lel's textual history would require a full length book. (Here is a desirable project.) G1 Davis observes that Anthony Blanche is, of vital importance not only because he is so memor­ WI able, but because he is "the first and most consistent critic of the Flyte family." In the pre-1960 wl editions "Blanche is exotic, rather fascinating and attractive to Ryder, and self-consciously fir eccentric, especially in the speculation about the cause of his stateliness." Before he wrote the 1960 of edition Waugh apparently came to believe that he had made Blanche too appealing; hence he made Rl revisions emphasizing Anthony's "odd appearance rather than the force of his personality." Blanche was also rendered "far less exotic." Further, in the 1960 version some phrases were introduced to 0( indicate doubts about Blanche's truthfulness. Anthony's description of his romance with Stefanie tri de Vincennes was also rendered dull and banal. or Davis also declar0s that in regard to Boy Mulcaster "Waugh pt.. ~o Anthony's dialogue three as widely variant if not contradictory descriptions., .. ra'nging ~·rom clou to degenerate to m3re cad." pc Considering the various revisions in BR, it may be concluded that Waugh "sh'qngthened the portrait ot of Anthony Blanche as a prophet who could view only the secular world, not tne spiritual; only the m manner, not the substance-and even those not always clearly-but who offered p::rtial and some­ times ironic corrective to the principles and examples of other characters." wi , The other article, Martin Stannard's "Work Suspended: Waugh's Climacteric," Essays in be Criticism, 28 (October 1978), 302-320 is a painstaking dissection of the genesis and meaning of WS. ur Stannard contends that by 1939 Waugh faced an artistic dilemma which he himself did not really . sp understand. Waugh, in this view, had written only light novels which lacked "a positive position." His of marriage to Laura Herbert and other Catholic influences pushed him to a "climacteric" witnessed in "li WS. · te' Stannard deals with the differences between the 1942 Chapman and Hall limited edition and br the revised version which appeared in Work Suspended and Other Stories (Chapman and Hall, f\r 1949). The revisions "attempt to disguise and objectify ... a discussion of cieep-rooted personal aesthetic problems," which, among other aspects. intensified the themes of decay and regeneration, io emphasized a quality of, homelessness and distress at privacy being invaded, and tradition thl vanishing. -< Pi'-i,-~ . .a~ --4-

Stannard theorizes that the reason why Waugh never completed WS w~s that "he had failed to resolve the aesthetic problem of rendering the subjective objectively. 'Objectivity' in his post-war work relies on the assumption of a higher reality ultimately governing the action, where the 'determining character of the human soul' is 'that of being God's creature with a defined purpose.' No such dimension had been build into Work Suspended and Waugh may have decided that to continue his normal, externalized anaiysis of behaviour was meaningless; ... He had effected the stylistic but not the thematic transformation." Although I personally believe that the chaos of the 1939 period with the war pressures, rather than the difficulty of adding a 'supe:·natura!' dimension, was responsible for the unfinished novel, I find Stannard's theory worthy of reflection, and it must be recorded that his research has been per­ formed in an exemplary manner. Stannard also quotes very brief excerpts from three of Wi"ugh's unpublished IGtters-one to Laura Herbert and two to John Betjeman. Hopefully we will see these epistles in the long promis~?d edition of Letters. The latest word from London in that the correspondence will appear this Spring. The BBC-TV production of BR (scheduled for PBS te!ev!sion in tt'>e United States) featuring a rented Aloysius and Lawrence Olivier as Lord Marchmain is likewise expected this year. If both projects appear as predicted, 1980 should be a vintage year for mulled clarEJt. WAUGH IN THE SOVIET UNION -THE WAR TRILOGY By Jeffrey·"-· Manley Waugh seems to have gained considerable pu;Jularity in, of all places, the Soviet Union. With the recent release of the War Trilogy,' the Soviet publishing establishment has now made gvailable in Russian translation eight of the novels as well as several shorter pieces. Previous volumes include a combined edition of (Prigorshnia prakha) and Pu! Out More Flags (Ne zhaleite flagov)' and a collec+ifJn containing (Morz/.:aia plot'), (Vozvrashchenie v Braidskhed), The Loved One (Nezabvennaial,' and severai stories.' Waugh, who is rendered into Russian as tv/in Vo (looks funny, but sounds about right), might well be amused by some of the interpretations and analyses of his work offered by Soviet literary critics. In his introduction to the War Trilogy, the most ambitious of the Soviet undertakings thus far to see print, ihe editor (A.M. Shevchenko) notes (with appl'; ;nt approvali 'Vaugh's ability "shame­ lessly to ridicule English bourgeois society as an alienated, spiritually empty class." Similarly, Guy Crouchback is described as having "lost his faith in the ideals of bourgeois society" and as welcoming the war as an opportunity to shake off his spiritual lethargy and "to fight against Fascism, which personified in his eyes the worst tendencies of the contemporary epoch.'' Finally, the editor finds significance in wh.:.t he interprets to be Waugh's deliberate contrast of the British Army's loss of its sense of honor, duty, dignity, and courage with England's own recognition of the bravery of its Russian allies by the presentation of the Sword of Honor to the citizE:~s of Stalingrad-' It is obvious that the Soviet editors' g;·eatest problems of both interpretation and translation occurred in the Yugoslav sections of the book. Thus, although the introduction indicates that the translation contains only "insignificant abbreviations" of the text, in fact huge chunks have been omitted from the Yugoslav section (Chapter10, "The Last Battle") with not so much as a footnote or asterisk to indicate what amount to wholesale deletions.' The most glaring deletion is the entire portion of the book dealing with, and all references to, the clewish refugees. The editors succeed in obliterating without a trace and without an apology what to many readers rnay be one of the more meaninqful (albeit sentimental) sections oft he book.' Perhaps not surprisingly, anything even mildly critical of the Partisans is also deleted- again without any indication. Thus, the "former Minister of the Interior" is written completely out of the book, perhaps because of his connectionswith the Jewish refugees or perhaps becaw,e of his unsavory personality.' The suggestion (p. 719) that tho Partinns rnay have been less th&n circum- , spect in their dealings with the priests are deleted, while t!1ose describing antireligious activities '·of the Ustachi remain intact. The statement on the same page th:ot the local population engaged in {"little fighting" against the Ustachi depredations and that there is little visible differer;ce between '~territory liberated by the Partisans and that occupied by the enemy (D. 773) are also omi'cted. The ";§,briefing provided ior Frank de Souza (pp. 756-57) to put him poiitical.ly "in the pictu;e" dmps out ei;And so forth. "'"i~'- :fii>~i Finally, the most petty cuts of all relate to the seemingly harmless but unflattering references c::;~,!o Russians. In the listing of activities taking place in Bari (p. ','17), the editors delete all reference to "~.~i!~e Russians' relabelling of American tins in Cyrillic to proclaim them produce of the U.S.S.R. i!j¥~.ardly a key passage but perhaps enough to raise questions deemed by the censors to be better lett ,,,:;]:Jifnanswered. And de Souza's sheepish admission (p. 780) that Tito took up with the Russians and _j;;~'irJ'r:'l.;f; . •'. t:'i1;_~~-- -· ...... -·- ---~·-•·•-·· "'''•'·'••'·""·•''"' ·•···•";~"''''""~'""-''·-;.··,·-·C•·-•'-""''~•~-,,.. •. ,-•,_.-.,,.• ,_,., ,.; • ' -· ' -5-

abruptly abandoned his British allies is also omitted. In what is perhaps the most serious insult to Waugh's intelligence as well as that of the Soviet 1' reader, the editor in his introduction cites as evidence of W<~ugh's "recognition of the Yugoslav people's contribution to the effort in the fight. against Fascism" a ..;uotation of Joe Cattermole's statement (p. 711) that "The partisans are pinning down three times as many troops as the whole Italian campaign." How or why a character such as Cattermole can be taken as the author's voice is not explained. Indeed, Guy (who is generally. accepted as speaking for Waugh) remained skeptical F to the end as to the value of the Partisan war efforts and several of the expressions of this skep,;cism il remain in the Russian text.S tl The editor concludes his discussion of theYugoslav sec~ ion by claiming that "Guy Crouch buck tl was convinced that the Yugoslav people considered their true frie;,ds to be not the English and il the Americans but the Russians." It was, in fact, Cattermole again (p. 712), not Guy, who came to tr ihat conclusion. fr Oddly enough, the "State Sword" chapter is :1ot heavily censored. This despite its inclusion of f; Waugh's rather bitter descriptions of the slavish ho;":'1age paid to the Russians by the British Govern­ tl ment, and ~uch caricatures of the emerging, fashionable left wing tendencies as Elderberry, Sir a Ralph Brompton, et al. 10 This may be explained by the fact that different translators worked on the j, two sections. Or, it may simply be the case that the editors overlooked the political implications of u these passages. g To be fair, perhaps one should not be overly critical of the Soviet editors. Their job is not an '' enviable one. After all, oetter that a major modern English author such as Waugh should be selected E for translation and made widely available to the Russian-speaking audience, even in a bowdlerized edition, then that his works should not be kn.own to them at all. However, even recognizing t: •e g obvious limits of literary freedom in the SovietUnion, one would wish the censors to be more forth­ 1 right in admitting to the extent ar,d context of their deletions." If it is not already too late, the copy­ r' right holders should at least exercise more diligence over future Soviet translation efforts, if any. il NOTES d 1 Ofitsery i dzhentl'meny, Voenizdat !Military Publishing House), Moscow, 19'77. According to the L publication notes, 65,000 copies were printed. The text used for the translation is the 1965 n recension. 2 lzdatel'stvo Molodaia Gvardiia (Young Guard Publishing House), Moscow, 1971. 3 The Loved One had previously appeared ina periodical, lnostrannaia Literature (Foreign Litera­ tl're), No. 2, 1969. F 'The collection appeared as part of a series called Masters of Contemporary Prose and was pub­ lished by lzdatel'stvo "Progress" (Progress Publishing House), Moscow, 1974. The four stories included in the collection are "Cruise" (Morskoe puteshestvie}, "Mr. Loveday's Little Outing" (Koroten'kii otpusk mistera Lavdea), "An Englishman's Home" (Dam anglichanina), and F "Tactical Exercises" { Takticheskie zaniatiia). 5 The editor discusses various possible Russian translations of the words "Sword of Honor"- e.g., Shpaga chesti, Mech pocheta, and Pochetnyi mech- but fails to explain why none of these was chosen as the title for the Soviet edition. The selected title (Ofitsery i dzhentl'meny) has the advantage of sounding "more English" to the Russian ear than would any of the suggested renderings of "Sword of Honor". But one can only speculate as to whether this formed the basis for the choice. 6 The 1965 recension, which forms the basis for the translation, also contained some notable omissions. However, it is clear from the text that these are not the "insignificant abbreviations" to which the editors admit. 'With the omission of the Je•.vish refugee sect'ions goes what is surely one of the key scenes in this part of the book. This is Mme. Kanyi's innocent reference (p. 788) to the will to war among even non-Fascist elements and Guy's confession that he "was one of them." However, Guy's positive reaction to the beginning of the war and his ambivalence to Fascism at that time (pp. 14-15) remain unexpurgated in the Soviet edition. Page and chapter references to the English text R are from the 1966 Little, Brown edition. ' The unflattering description of the "partisan 'general staff' ·· (pp. 721-22) disappears altogether. 'Thus, Guy's revelation to Richie-Hook thatthe blockhouse attack is "humbug" laid on to impress the American General (p. 775) and his expression of impatience at the lack of a Summer of­ fensive despite delivery of all of the Allied supplies (p. 779) remain in the Russian text. However Guy's somewhat curt rejoinder to de Souza's suggestion (p. 757) that the American General wilf • witness genuine fighting is deleted. " However, Waugh's "zealous, arthritic communist" (p. 550) who had painted SECOND FRONT

. ····- ··-·- ...... - ....• ·········-·······················-·· -6-

NOW on a Great College Street brick wall in the Soviet version is described only as "a certain (kakoi-to) communist." 11 In the cl1apte> "The Last Battle" over 28 pages of text have been deleted. GRAHAM GREENE'S LATEST ON WAUGr-J By Thomas Gribble On October 4, Graham Greene broadcast a half hour appreciation of Waugh's novels on BBC Radio 3. He began by saying how appropriate it was for the writer of Decline and Fall to have died in the lavatory. Greene's overall view of Waugh's writings will su;·prise no one. His main point was that the novels expres$ed the conflict between the romantic and the satirist. He also made the poir.t that the tragedy of Waugh's first marriag•3 never left his mind and was always in his work. As far as individual novels are concerned, Greene now thinks that Bridesheadis one of his best. Waugh wrote to him that the only reason for BR was "nissen huts and spam and black outs." Greene likes Helena for its writing and thinks Pinfold is

P:escl•tt, Orville. New York Times, 17 October 1950, 29. Reed, Henry. Listener, 44 (30 Septer.'.ber 1950), 515. Sykes. Christopher, Tablet, 196 (21 Oc:ober 1950), 351-352. Toynbee, Philip. Observer, 5 October 1950, 7. Truth, 10 November 1950, 499. Controversy: Meath, Father Gerald. "Mysteries and Moralities", Tablet 198 (27 October 1951), 295-296. In a review of Dorothy Sayers, The Emperor Constantine, Meath made a disparaging remark about Helena. EW replied 3 November 1951, 324 (Checklist 606); Joseph H. Sutclitfe and Rachel Attwater wrote letters 10 Nov,ember 1951, 344 attacking Waugh's rudeness to Meath: EW responded 17 November 1951, 364 (Checklist 607); Fc;ther Martin D'Arcy wrote to defend Waugh, 24 November 1951, 384; F~ther Meath replied to D'Arcy, declaring his good inten­ tions, 1 Decamber 1951, 403; Ronald Knox smoothed the matter over, 8 December 1951,437. Reviews of Men at Arms ' Calder-Marshall, Arthur. Listener, 48 (18 September 1948), 477. Connolly, Cyril. Sunday Times, 7 September 1952, 5. Duckett's Register, 7 (July 1952), 83. Hopkins, Gerard. Time and Tide, 33 (13 September 1952), 1044. lgoe, W. J. Duckett's Register, 7 (November 1952), 137-138. Millar, Ruby. National and English Review, 139 (October 1952), 237-238. Morton, Frederick. Reporter, 7 (25 November 1952), 39-40. Muir, E. Observer, 7 September 1952,7. Prescott, Orville. New York Times, 14 .Oc\ober 1952, 29. Smith, Harrison. Washington Post, 12 October 1952, 10. Times Weekly Review, 18 September 1 (152, 15. Truth, 10 October 1952, 385. Reviews of Love Among the Ruins Bloomfield. Paul. Manchester Guardian, 5 June 1953, 4. Brooke, Jocelyn. Time and Tide, 34 (30 June 1953), 725-726. Connoliy, Cyril. Sunday Times, 31 May 1953, 5. Lean, Tangye. Spectator, 190 (29 May 1953), 712. Rhodes, Anthony. Listener49 (18 June 1953), 1023. Tracy, Honor. New Statesman and Nation, 45 (13 June 1953), 709. Times Literary Supplement, 5 June 1953, 361. Times Weekly Review, 11 June 1953, 14. Reviews of Tactical Exercise Newsweek, 44 (18 Octot;er 1954), 108-111. Poore, Charles. New York Times, 16 October 1854, 15. Washington Post, 17 October 1954, 6e. Reviews of . Corke, Hilary. Encounter, 5 (August 1955), 82-87. Davies, Robertson. Saturday Night, 15 October 1955, 30-31. lgoe, W. J. Duckett's Reqister, 10 (August 1955), 151-152. MacCiaren-Ross, ,). Listener, 54 (14 July 1955), 75. Millar, Ruby. National and English Rev.'ew, 145 (August ·i9G5), 118-121. Newsweek, 11 July 1955, 83. · · Oakes, Philip. Truth, 15 (July 1955), 903. Poore, Charles. New 'lark Times, 7 Jt.i!y 1955, 25. Roscoe, G. D., Boston Sunday Globe,·.1o July 1955, 66. Smith, Stevie. Observer, 3 July 1955, 11. Wyndham, Frarcc;s. London Magazine, 2 (August 1955), 78-79. Catholic Hearld, 8 JL'Iy 1955, 3. Sunday Times. 3 July 1955, 5. Times Waekly Review, 7 July 1955, 1-2. Reviews of The Ordeal of Gilbert Pinfold. Crane, Milton. Washington P0st, 11 h,ugust 1957, 7. Foss, John. Books and Bookman, 2 (July 1957), 30. Hutchens, John K. New York Herald Tribune, 16 August 1957. Lehmann, John. London Magazine, 4 (September 1957), 9. 11. National Review. 4 (12 October 1957). 335.

------·--~----~~·------8-

Nemerov, Howard. Partisan Review, 24 (Fall 1957), 602-604. Newsweek, 19 August 1957, 93-94. Prescott, Orville, Naw York Times, 12 August 1957, 17. Singer, Burns. Encounter, 9 (October 1957), 78-80. Sunday Times, 21 July 1957, 6. Toynbea, Philip. Observer, 21 July 1957, 13. Times Weekly Review, 1 August 1957, 10. a Urquhart, Fred. Time and Tide, 38 (3 August 1957), 972. 'k Weales, Gerald. Reporter, 17 (5 September 1957) td Williams, David. Truth, 19 July 1957, 830-831. h; Times (London), 8 June 1960, ·16. About Pinfold on radio. td Reviews of The World of Evelyn Waugh. l- Greenfiilld, Meg. Reporter, 18 (26 June 1958), 38c40. 7. Poore, Charles. New York Times, 12 Apri, 1958, 17. Reviews of Mgr. Ronald Knox. Bowra, C. M. London Magazine 6 (December 1959), 63-65. Corbishley, Thomas. Catholic Herald, 9 October 1959, 3. Raymond, J. Sunday Times, 11 Octob"'r >959, 16. Greene, Graham. Observer, 11 Oc:o0er 19S!l 22. Leslie, Shane. Time and :idA, 40 (10 Odober i%9), 110. Times, 8 October 1959, 15. · Reviews of Tourist in Africa. Connolly, Cyril. Sunday Tim2s, i~ September 1960, 27. Reviews of Unconditional Surrender. Blakestone, Oswell. Books and Bookmen. 7 (December 1961 ), 34. Connolly, Cyril. Sunday Times, 29 October 1961, 31. lgoe, W. J. Catholic Herald, 1 December 1961, 9. Kenny, H. A. Boston Globe, 7 January 1962, 68. Kinnaird, Clark. 'vew 't'ork Journal-American, 7 January 1962. l McMillan, George. Washington Post, 7 January 1962, E 7. Pitman, Robert. Sunday Express, 29 October 1961, 6. I Time Weekly Review, 2 November 1961, 10. Reviews of . j Fuller, J. Guardian Weekly, 7 September 1964, 11. lgoe, W. J. Catholic Herald, 2 Or.tober 1964, 9. Jameson, Peter. Time and Tide, 45 123 September 1964), 22. I LeJeune, Anthony. Books and Boqkmen, 10 (October 1964), 37,50. !I Mortimer, Raymond. Sunday Times, 13 September 1964, 33. I Times, 10 Septe!l'ber 1964, 15. i Toynbee, Philip. Observer, 10 September 1964, 24. • Reviews of Sword of Honour. Sunday Times, 12 September. 1965,49.

.. The Evelyn Waugh Newsletter, designed to stimulate research a<~d continue interest in the life ·\ and writi<~gs of Evelyn Waugh, is published three times a year in April, September and December ·'),(Spring, Autumn, and Winter numbers). Subscription rate $3.00 a year. Single copy $1.25. Checks or i{ money orders should be made payable to the Evelyn Waugh Newsletter. Notes, brief essays, and ';~,news items about Waugh and his work may be submitted, but manuscripts cannot be returned 'fm\unless accompanied by a stamped, self-addressed envelope. Address all correspondence to Dr. P. i!f:_A. Doyle, English Dept., Nassau Community College, State University of Nrw York, Garden City,