November 24, 1936.

Mr. Denis Johnston

61 Landsdown Road

Dublin, Ireland.

My dear Denis Johnston: –

I am sending you these lines in a spirit of deep and sincere gratitude.

I did not particularly like the former English translation of the play. I found that the language had suffered from the translation, because the various characters had lost some of their color and their language showed too much similarity.

You have given the play a new poetic vision. I feel very keenly how you have immersed your thoughts into the action and the characters and as a consequence the form is so very beautiful. For as I see it, what we call form, is only the expression of capacity for love of the author. The more an author loves the material, which is the underlying thought of his play and the figures that appear in such material, the more overwhelmingly proportions his style will take on. I am sure you share my views: great form in art is another word for great love.

If I take the liberty to make some suggestions, I do this because you gave me permission to do so and because I am convinced that by doing so the play will gain in depth and in the theatrical possibilities. I have learned one thing from experience: two authors cannot collaborate in one play, but they can advise each other advantageously.

Act 1. Scene 1. Wonderful. The atmosphere is dense; the characters live. The characters take on form and color, the layout of the play is built up splendidly. I only believe that before the curtain falls, the action should be a little strong and dramatically more accentuated.

Act 1. Scene 2. I have no remarks to make. But one, that possibly Thin interrupts the action unnecessarily twice by taking testimony.

Act 2. Scene 1. As a matter of principle I should like to say: Judging the scene from a juridical point of view it is extraordinarily true to life. The scene will arouse the deep interest of every attorney. It shows very plastically the English jurisprudence and how it is possible for a clever Attorney to insert an element, which might otherwise be avoided: the evolution of the character of the defendant. But the scene is too long for a theatrical scene, for the layman has a different interest than the lawyer. The layman is not so much interested in the law, as he is interested in the characters, who fall under such law.

In my opinion the dialogue between the Defending Counsel, the Prosecuting Counsel and the Judge are too long. They would be compressed considerably, so that the dramatic climax, that is that Dr. Chavasse falls into a trap, in spite of the fact that his defense counsel is trying to avoid this, could be accelerated, i. e. that this scene could be shown with greater speed. This scene is suffering from a mistake, which I fully understand, because you as a lawyer, have too often seen the nets of the law close in on unsuspecting human beings. In this scene the law plays a much more prominent part than the characters and that should be avoided. This scene should bring out further what has begun in the first scene: the picture of the characters of Dr. Chavasse and Anice and particularly the relationship between Dr. Chavasse and his wife, between Chavasse and Anice and between Anice and Mrs. Chavasse. I believe this could be accomplished in the following manner:

A great shortening of the first scene of the second act. After the curtain falls upon Harrican’s words:

“Dr. Chavasse, is it true that prior to your wife’s death you had been living in adultery with Dr. Anice Hollingshead, and that eighteen months ago you procured and abortion?”

the stage is darkened, for the span of several seconds. Then the action begins again and Anice goes on the witness stand.

For the following action I have two alternative suggestions:

1) Anice is on the witness stand. During the giving of her testimony she becomes excited, and makes so many contradictory statements and finally after being told by the States Attorney that it is a question of Dr. Chavasse’s life and death, she gives false testimony in order to save Chavasse and is arrested. That would close the scene.

The third scene of Act 2 would follow, the juryman who opposes the sentence most vigorously could say, he does not understand the motives. Another juryman could begin to explain everything to him, the front stage is darkened and on the rear stage is shown a short condensed scene of some years out of the private life of Dr. Chavasse particularly between him and his wife, Anice and the child. That scene would have to be given in condensed form and would have to treat with actualities out of the lives of these people, but it would have to be treated in such a manner that the characters are brought out strongly and that the sympathy and antipathy of the audience in the fate of these people is deepened. After this scene the jury scene proceeds and ends with the verdict.

In the following scene Act 3 Scene 1. at the office of the Prosecutor it should be brought out immediately that Anice gave false testimony, that she was under suspicion for a short time or was in prison, and was set free but that she has taken up the fight for the freedom of Dr. Chavasse. Furthermore at the end of the play in the scene between Chavasse and Anice it should be brought out, that Anice through all her trouble has developed a great understanding for the troubles and the injustice of others and that as a human being she has grown. Because she has grown through suffering, she realizes much more distinctly that Dr. Chavasse has not grown but has remained the same Chavasse, he always was. That he was blind and always will be and she cannot bear injustice. Her love for him was a thing of the past when the play opens. His suffering again made him “attractive” in her eyes and there is a possibility that for a short span of time she even believes her love for him had been reawakened. When he no longer suffered and the element of pity predominated, she realizes clearly and definitely that she no longer can live with him and that she must travel a different path.

It would be possible, without endeavoring to be grossly propagandistic, to show, that she desires to rise above her own small private life, to take part to a more marked degree in the fate of others.

Second alternative. Condensing of the Court scene as before. Darkened stage as before. Court scene is continued. Testimony of Dr. Chavasse and Anice, which should show more clearly their relations to one another and their previous life (for instance a very passionate testimony scene of Anice). The circumstantial evidence against Dr. Chavasse becomes more definite, the Prosecuting Attorney makes a few remarks about the relationship of the three people to one another and now the scene between Dr. Chavasse, the dead woman, Anice and the child is shown on the rear scene or else on the front scene, in which latter case the court scene would have to be darkened. The scene should end on a note, which leaves no doubt in the mind of the spectator, that Dr. Chavasse is being condemned to death. In this case the jury scene could be eliminated altogether. (I doubt whether the jury scene is necessary at all in the play as it now stands). There is no new print and it is an undramatical scene, which retards the action.

There is something which should be avoided. Namely that the action becomes static. The action should always remain lively and at all times new outwardly or psychological moments must be added.

Let me say collectively: the basis of the three people concerned must be so formed, that they arouse a deep interest in the audience. Sometimes now the center of the play becomes a juridical mistake and juridical mistakes can never hold an audience. Only people upon whom the mistakes are forced can hold an audience.

This drama must contain more than the fact that circumstantial evidence is almost always wrong. Besides I have another personal small request.

Please eliminate the sentence of Poer:

“You’re just another stick to beat the Government with”

There are so many cases of injustice in the world to-day and one cannot keep quiet. This sentence might easily lead to the impression, that the fight against the injustices of the state are not always carried on as a matter of an ideal, but that the political element is the main thing.

I know you understand what I mean to convey thereby.

May I just tell you, that I think your characterizations are simply marvellous. I believe that people like Mapother, Poer, Mary Quirke, Harrican, Seamus Ua Caoilte are splendid and I hope, since all the traits are there, the characterizations of Anice and Dr. Chavasse will also develop perfectly.

Concerning the title I feel neither “The Blind Goddess” nor “Blind Man’s Buff” are really good ones. As I wired you I suggest:

“One never Knows.”

I have already interested a publisher for the printing of the American edition. For England I have John Lane. As title on the book I suggest:

One never knows

A play in three acts by Ernst Toller

adapted by Denis Johnston.

For many reasons, particularly, however, so that there is no more reference to the old play, I should like to avoid the title “Blind Goddess”.

One more question: Have you a definite arrangement with Madden? I have looked around here for an intelligent and capable agent. Madden is personally a charming man. But I do not think that he would be the best agent. Therefore may I ask you if there would be any difficulties if I were to choose another agent for the play. Please wire me if you agree. If you could just add a word to this telegram what you think about my suggestion I should be happy.

It is splendid that the Abbey Theatre will give the play for the first time. I am only sorry that I cannot witness the performance. But my sojourn in America is longer than I at first thought. My lecture tour will not end before January 15th and end of January the premiere of “Draw the fires” will take place at the Princess Theatre, New York.

Once again. I thank you deeply and sincerely for your work and I should be happy if my foregoing remarks, which I have made because I admire you as an author, and because I very distinctly feel a bond of friendship between us. Please let me hear from you soon.

With kindest regards to you and your wife

Yours ever

Ernst Toller.