Agatha Christie's Secret Notebooks

by John Curran

  Notes for Sparkling Cyanide are scattered over ten Notebooks. Although published in December 1945, the novel was serialised six months earlier in the UK and 18 months earlier in the USA. A copy of the typescript had already been sent to Christie’s US agents by January 1944, so this title was completed by the end of 1943. It is a very elaborated version of the short story (and subsequent radio play) ‘Yellow Iris’, which was first published in July 1937. The basic plot in both is the same but a different murderer is unmasked at the end of the novel.

  Sparkling Cyanide is another example of a favourite Christie gambit—a poisoning drama. Its dramatic unexpectedness during a social occasion recalls a similar scene, ten years earlier, in Three Act Tragedy and foreshadows another one many years later in The Mirror Crack’d from Side to Side. However, some reservation remains as to the feasibility of the scheme. Is it really likely, especially in view of the subsequent investigation, that no one notices the incorrect seating arrangement that is vital to the success of the plot? The preparation and mechanics of this are masterly and the telling of it is very daring (re-read Book I, Chapter 2 and admire the audacity of even the name) but while the concept is undoubtedly clever, the practical application of it is somewhat doubtful.

  There are structural similarities to Five Little Pigs with the reminiscences of six people of an earlier poisoning, although, unlike the earlier novel, they are not in the form of written accounts. We discover Rosemary Barton through the eyes of the suspects, including her killer, with a different picture emerging in each account. Through individual memories, in the first 70 pages of the book, we see her as wife, sister, niece, lover, friend, adulterer and, finally, victim. While the portrayal is not as full as the earlier novel it is still admirably drawn.

  The most concentrated notes appear in Notebooks 13 and 63 with 18 pages each. The other eight Notebooks that feature Sparkling Cyanide have anywhere between one and six pages of disjointed notes, including a few false starts and some repetition. Despite name changes the characters as sketched in Notebook 35 below are immediately recognisable. As can be seen, the alternative title (under which it was published in the USA) emphasises the ‘murder in retrospect’ aspect of the novel:

  Remembered Death ‘Here’s Rosemary—that’s for Remembrance’

  Book I

  ‘Sweet as remembered kisses after death’

  What must I do to drive away remembrance from my eyes?

  Beginning of In Memoriam

  Rosemary

  Iris…shadows—the beginning of it all

  Book

  Remembered Death—girl’s name is Rue

  Remembered Death

  Rosemary (dead)—husband—George Barton—acts very suspiciously—he is a businessman

  Stephen Fane [Faraday]—R’s lover

  Lady Mary Fane—his wife—cold proud clinging jealous

  Tony Getty [Tony Morelli aka Anthony Browne]—former lover of R’s apparently in love with Viola [Iris]

  Ruth Chambers [Lessing]—George Barton’s sec[retary]—efficient girl—may be in love with him

  Lucilla Drake—old pussy—cousin—lives with them—has a son in S. America—ne’er do well

  Murder (of George or V[iola]?) by son who is secretly married to Ruth

  Col. Race on job

  In Notebook 63 we see the novel beginning to take shape, with six characters thinking about Rosemary:

  Remembered Death Six people are remembering Rosemary Blair [Barton] who had died last November

  Sandra—R. her hatred of her—her suspicion that St. doesn’t care for her

  Iris—puzzling it out—letters etc.—George’s manner—Anthony’s coming—the Faraways [Faradays]

  Stephen—his life—meeting S—calculated advance—the marriage—Rosemary—shock—infatuation—the awakening—her attitude—after the birthday

  Anthony Browne—thinking of R—wondering how he could ever have been attracted—her facile loveliness. His name—‘a nice name’—eminently respectable—borne by chamberlain to Henry VIII

  Ruth

  It all began with Victor—interview in office with George. Her…undesirable relation—my wife—tender-hearted—girlish affection for him—he’s got to get out of the country—Argentine cash.

  George

  Thinking of his wife—(drinking?)—maudlin—what a pretty thing she was—always knew he wasn’t young enough. He’d made up his mind to it—all the same when he’d first had an inkling—the letter—blotting paper—written to whom—that fellow Browne? or that stick Stephen Faraday.

  Notebook 21 has a sketch of the table of the first party (Rosemary is included) and, like the reference in the short story version to the location of the first dinner, seems to be set in New York rather than London. It is possible that Boyd Masterson was a forerunner of Colonel Race:

  George has had letter—‘Your wife was murdered’

  His oldest friend Boyd Masterson—latter consults with Iris—Iris meets Tony—staying with Stephen Fane M.P. and Lady Mary Fane.

  The Party

  George Barton

  Iris

  Tony

  Stephen

  Mary [Sandra]

  Carolyn Mercer (R’s girlfriend) [dropped, possibly in favour of Ruth]

  Boyd Masterson

  Lucilla Drake (elderly cousin)

  Sparkling Cyanide’s fatal seating plan—see opposite page.

  These three cramped drafts, from Notebook 25, of the table from Sparkling Cyanide show ‘Rosemary’ in two of them, indicating the first fatal dinner-party.

  Oddly, the following single page is in the middle of the plotting of Five Little Pigs, giving the impression that it was dashed down as Christie thought of it. There are two years between publications, but it must be remembered that an empty page was all Christie needed to get her idea down. Chronology was not a factor.

  Remembered Death Possible developments

  Black out—snapdragon? At Savoy—performers—indecent song—everyone listens breathlessly—not to miss words. Waiter and drinks—Lights go up—Viola [Iris] gets up to dance—drops bag—young man replaces it on table—on next seat—therefore—a man dies—George Barton

  Although Ruth and Victor were always the front-runners for villains, providing, as they do, a more unexpected solution, other characters were also considered. In the second extract below, from an earlier draft, Charles is George Barton and Pauline is Iris Marle:

  A. George—kills Rosemary—keep control of money—she is going to leave him. Then Iris because she too will demand money—Lucilla Drake will leave it in her hands. He manufactures letter—work up the ‘murdered’ idea—ropes in Race

  B. Victor Drake—arranges it with Ruth—Ruth to marry George—R. slips cyanide in R’s handbag. Victor as waiter puts it in her glass. Iris inherits money—not George—is keen on Gerry—Ruth and Victor (married) decide to act—Victor ostensibly in S. America. Ruth puts cyanide in Stephen’s pocket—letter in Iris’s bag (from Stephen to Rosemary)—bag replaced wrongly on table—therefore Iris sits down wrong place—George drinks the poison

  C. Victor is the man and he is also Gerry Wade [Anthony Browne]—in with Ruth—plot laid between them

  Killer could be

  Charles—(first death suicide)—has misappropriated P’s

  [Pauline, later Iris] money

  Or

  Anthony (really V’s lover?)—killed her—Charles finds out—means to separate them—Charles is killed

  Or

  Pauline? Killed her sister

  Death Comes as the End 29 March 1945

  In Egypt in 2000 BC, wealthy landowner Imhotep shocks his family by bringing home a new young wife, Nofret, who antagonises the entire family. Murder soon follows, but the evil at the heart of the family is not appeased by a single death and the killer strikes again…and again…and again.

  Long before the current vogue for mysteries set in the past, Agatha Christie was a pioneer. Death Comes as the End, written in 1943, was
an experiment created at the instigation of Stephen Glanville, professor of Egyptology and a friend of Max Mallowan. He provided her with much of the basic information and gave her books to study in order to get details correct.

  Considered purely as a classical detective story this novel does not pass the key test. There are no clues for the reader to spot and interpret, thereby arriving at a logical solution. But as a tense and readable whodunit, it passes with flying colours. And as a believable picture of a family not sure who to trust within their own family circle, it is totally believable. Most of the usual ingredients of her other novels—police resources and post-mortem analyses, telephones and telegrams, fingerprints and footprints, formal investigation and inquests—had to be abandoned. So, while not a firstclass Christie, it is nonetheless a major achievement.

  Part of the difficulty interpreting the Notebooks for this title is the fact that the names of the characters change throughout the 80-odd pages of the five different Notebooks. At various times the character who appears in the novel as Nofret is also called Ibunept, Nebet, Ibneb and Tut. And, of course, it is not possible to be sure if the names refer to male or female characters.

  Christie writes in her Autobiography that ‘Houses were far more difficult to find out about than temples or palaces.’ And in Notebook 9 we find 16 pages of notes on ‘Life and Customs in Ancient Egypt’ with details of everyday life (the page references are to some of the volumes borrowed from Stephen Glanville):

  Bead bracelets or gold rings with green glazed scarabs P.110 P.46 also

  Embalming 21ST D. P.111 and 55

  The making of papyrus paper P.114

  Description of bow and arrow P.127

  Description of Scribe outfit P.14

  Description Foundation dynasty P. 51

  Description mummification etc. P.55 and P.57

  Notebook 46 contains the initial sketch for the family. Although some of the names do not correspond with those in the novel, the characters are all recognisable:

  Middle Kingdom Setting Characters

  Ipi—(old mother) Tyrant? Devil? Wise? [Esa]

  Father—old fusser—kindly—a nuisance [Imhotep]

  Meru—(elder son) Good boy of family—a bit dull—inwardly resentful? [Yahmose]

  S—? Bad boy of family—not at home—Troublemaker [Sobek]

  H—Spoilt young son—precocious [Ipy]

  Concubine—Victim? Beautiful in danger or Evil—full of power [Nofret]

  M’s wife—a shrew [Satipy]

  S’s wife—gentle creature or an Emilia? [Kait]

  A daughter—energy—resolve [Renisenb]

  N—family friend—shrewd—lawyer like maybe tell in 1st person [Hori—but the ‘1st person’ idea was not pursued]

  Hepshut—mischief maker [Henet]

  The basic situation is described in Notebook 13:

  Nofret arrives—everyone cruel to her—she is fierce to them—her tales of foreign cities—the way she stirs up strife—Hori says always there underneath. She writes by scribe to Imhotep—Imhotep replies furious to family—he returns—settlement of land on her. She dies—scorpion stung her—everyone knew—Rensenb troubled—then remembers a scene between Nebet and Seneb

  The notes for this novel include another example of Christie’s system of arranging scenes by allocating letters to them. It is interesting to look at the following page from the Notebooks and compare it to the novel. Although it is headed Chapter 15, the scenes are in fact scattered through Chapters 15, 16 and 17. But her final decision (‘A.C.D.—then BB’) is followed through. I have added the relevant chapter headings to each scene:

  Chapter XV

  A Esa and Henet [15 iii]

  B Henet and Imhotep [16 i]

  C Renisenb and ‘Everything is Fear’—meets Aapene—Why do you look at me strangely? Then sees Yahmose—discusses it with him—who could it be? [15 iv]

  D Renisenb Yahmose and his father—Y. more authority [15 v]

  E Kait and Renisenb [15 vii]

  F Renisenb. Teti and Kameni—his eyes on her—strong children [15 vii]

  G Renisenb and her father—marriage [17 i]

  H Ren. and Kameni—love talk—the amulet—broken—she goes home—looks in box—Henet finds her with it—H’s hints [17 ii and iii]

  Who dies next?

  A.A. Esa—from unguent—or perfumed oil

  B.B. Aahene [Ipy]

  Yes, B.B. after cheeking Henet [15 vi] who complains to Imhotep

  So: A.C.D.—then B.B.

  And this is the order as it appears in the published novel:

  A Esa and Henet [15 iii]

  C Renisenb and ‘Everything is Fear’—meets Aapene—Why do you look at me strangely? Then sees Yahmose—discusses it with him—who could it be? [15 iv]

  D Renisenb Yahmose and his father—Y. more authority [15 v]

  B.B. Aahene [Ipy]. Yes, B.B. after cheeking Henet [15 vi]

  The Notebooks offer a solution to at least one tantalising puzzle concerning this novel. In her Autobiography, Christie writes:

  Stephen [Glanville] argued with me a great deal on one point of my denouement and I am sorry to say that I gave in to him in the end…If I think I’ve got a certain thing right in a book—the way it should be—I’m not easily moved from it. In this case, against my better judgement, I did give in. It was a moot point, but I still think now, when I re-read the book, that I would like to re-write the end of it…but I was a little hampered by the gratitude I felt to Stephen for all the trouble he had taken and the fact that it had been his idea in the first place.

  It is not entirely clear what she means by ‘the end of it’—does she mean the identity of the killer or the manner of revelation? If she means a more dramatic final scene we shall never know, although this would seem unlikely as the setting of the denouement clearly echoes the earlier murders of both Nofret and Satipy. But if she had a different killer in mind, she had already lined up a few candidates:

  Henet—hated wife—and all children—eggs on Ibneb—then kills her

  Henet—loves old boy—killed first wife—and second ‘sister’—determined to destroy Ibneb—pretends to suck up to her

  Hori—in league with Ib? She is to gain ascendancy over old woman—Hori has speculated—blame is to be put on Meru

  Hori and Ibneb are buddies—he arranges for her to meet old boy—puts him up to deed of settlement by pretending to object—she then rats or is going to—he kills her—then pretends—she is revenging herself on family—final scene with Renisenb—you Hori—young cousin rescues her

  Son (bad lad) comes in—speaks to concubine—he likes her—idea is they are in it together

  And there was another fascinating idea that never made it to the printed page at all. In Notebook 13 Christie toys with the idea of having a modern parallel running alongside the historical one. Indeed it is possible to see, even in these brief notes, similarities between the ancient and modern characters. The old professor and his young wife are Yahmose and Nofret, Julie is obviously Henet, Regina is a latter-day Renisenb and Edward and Silas could be Sobek and Ipy:

  Modern start—Old professor or Chancellor—his young wife—he brings out son and son’s wife—widowed daughter and child

  Julie (ancient Mademoiselle who has stayed with them)—young archaeologist who has stayed with them

  Discovery of Tomb Letters—Including one from to dead wife who is accused of killing Tut

  Author’s second wife died suddenly—she took drug by mistake

  Young wife dies—quarrel between father and son and wife—F[ather] says new will—all to Ida

  Julie and portrait of Eleanor (first wife) who was going to come back

  Elaborated

  Dr. Elinor Solomon Oppenheim

  Ida—his young wife

  Julie the faithful maid and companion ex-governess

  Edward Mervyn Oppenheim—dependent on father—is he archaeologist

  Charlotte—sculptress—or musician (pianist)—or his
torical—or political writer

  Charlotte’s brother—Richard—the archaeologist

  Regina Oppenheim a widow with children—Oscar Walsh

  Jeremy Walsh—a young writer—psychic—deductive—knows too much about people

  other son Silas

  From the phrase ‘Young wife dies’, paralleling the death of Nofret, Imhotep’s young wife, it would seem that the parallels were to extend to further than family relationships. However, the idea was not pursued any further than these short notes—of course, if it had been it would have meant shorter stories within each period.

  These two aspects—the alternative ending and the parallel narrative—make this an even more fascinating novel than heretofore suspected, even without bringing the groundbreaking feature of the historical setting into the discussion. Seemingly complete and interlocking as it is, it would seem that Christie was ready to embroider a few more threads through her narrative. It is entirely probable that had she pursued her present-day parallel, she would have revealed yet another solution; after all, if both branches of the story had arrived at the same destination, a distinct sense of anticlimax would have resulted. So a unique background produced one actual solution, another intended one and a possible third.