Talk:The Nine Tailors

Unspecified source for Image:9tailors.JPG

I found Image:9tailors.JPG and noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. Someone will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If it was obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If there are other files on this page, consider checking that they have specified their source and are tagged properly, too. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 18:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Expanding the stub

This is my first attempt at expanding a novel stub into a full article as per the WikiProject: Novels guidelines. I'm working on themes, allusions, litcrit etc. If I've got the length or balance of the article wrong so far, I'll be glad of feedback from those more familiar with applying the project's guidelines in practice.--Karenjc 18:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The criticism section could be greatly expanded, in my view. Rather than just presenting two quotes, there could be some analysis (with sources) of the opinions expressed. Is the quoted writer correct in saying that the noise of the bells could not actually cause death? Are there mistakes and inconsistencies with regard to the change-ringing in the novel, and if so could someone explain what they are? Not me, sadly, as I know nothing of these matters, but I'd love to read what other people have to say. 91.107.139.89 00:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Meaning of the Novel's title

I note Edward321's cleanup, but I feel that a novel famous for its bell references needs a little explanation about the title. Rather than simply reverting I offer the following for discussion:

Explanation of the title

In some parishes in England the centuries old tradition of announcing a death on a church bell is upheld. In a small village most people would be aware of who was ill, and so broadcasting the age and sex of the deceased would identify them. To this end the death was announced by telling the sex and then striking off the years. Three blows meant a child, twice three a woman and thrice three a man. After a pause the years were counted out at approximately half minute intervals. The word "teller" in some dialects becomes "tailor, hence the old saying "Nine tailors maketh a man".

The bell used in the novel for the announcement is the largest (tenor) bell which is dedicated to St. Paul. Hence "teller Paul" or in dialect "tailor Paul". Sayers is here acknowledging the assistance of Paul Taylor of Taylor's bell foundry in Loughborough, England who provided detailed information on all aspects of ringing to her.

The Keating quote is a little suspect:

as well as breaking a fundamental rule of that esoteric art by allowing a relief ringer to take part in her famous nine-hour champion peal

Quite apart from the perjorative tag "esoteric", it would be normal for a substitute to be used if a ringer was unable to start the peal. At the risk of WP:OR, I have witnessed this myself: mobile pohones and a frantic guess as to who was close enough and capable enough to save a quarter peal. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

There having been no comments on the above for a fortnight, I have moved it into the main article. Any thoughts on the Keating quote? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the point is not that Wimsey was a sub for an indisposed ringer but that during the course of the peal someone (the rector? - it's a long time since I read it) occasionally swaps with one of the ringers to let them have a rest/drink/comfort break. David Underdown (talk) 15:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean, I read Keating as objecting to Wimsey being a part at all. I shall dig out my copy and scim through it to refresh my memory, and consult with my local tower captain.Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I can confirm that during the triple peal of Kent Treble Bob Major in chapter 2 the rector does relieve each ringer in turn during the nine hours. Personally I find the 45 minutes of a quarter peal taxing enough, nine hours of non-stop standing and ringing would put me in hospital or the morgue! I'll talk to the tower captain this weekend. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Remarriage of Will and Mary Thoday

The plot summary (end of next-to-last para) says:

   Will marries Mary again in Bloomsbury under Archbishop's licence, and returns to Fenchurch St. Paul.

I don't see anything in the text that suggests that the Thodays got a special license from the archbishop of Canterbury. As I understand the procedure for getting married in England in the 1930s, either you got a special license, which allowed you to get married right away, or you had banns published for 3 consecutive Sundays -- meaning there's an announcement during the church service that the two parties named want to get married, and if anyone knows why they shouldn't, they should speak up. Not sure how soon after the third reading of the banns the wedding can happen; either the same day or the day after, I think, which puts it at a bit over two weeks.

Lord Peter makes a point of telling Superintendent Blundell, several times, that he has to find the Thodays within two weeks. When they're found, a day or more later, they haven't gotten [re]married yet. Presumably they're waiting out the banns. Wimsey tells Blundell that it's unlikely the Thodays would think of getting a special license; if they did get one, it would likely have been through Wimsey's agency -- we're told he contacted the archbishop, but not what was said.

Unless someone can point to evidence of a special license from the archbishop, I propose to remove the phrase "under Archbishop's license". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bthoenen (talk • contribs) 09:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

p.233 of Coronet paperback edition; Telegram from Superintendent Blundell to Lord Peter Wimsey "Vicar St. Andrews Bloomsbury says asked perform marriage by license William Thoday Mary Descon both of that parish". Since Wimsey has asked the Archbishop of Canterbury for help, the license is presumably a special rather than ordinary license. See Marriage license#England t & Wales. This is pushing original research, I must admit. HLGallon (talk) 09:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

That is puzzling. It's not clear to me, though, that the license mentioned is a special license from the archbishop of Canterbury, rather than a common license (obtainable from any archbishop, bishop, or archdeacon). For one thing, we never learn what passed between Wimsey and the archbishop. I inferred from context that Wimsey was just checking to make sure the archb. hadn't heard from the Thodays, and to ask to be notified if he did hear. If Wimsey had wanted to help the Thodays get [re]married, he might have asked for a special license on their behalf, but (a) he didn't want them to get married bec. then Mary couldn't testify against Will; (b) a license, special or otherwise, requires the groom to swear that no impediment to the marriage exists, and Will wasn't available to do that; and (c) even if the archbishop were willing to overlook (b), how would the license be conveyed to the Thodays when neither Wimsey nor the archbishop knew where they were? The alternative is that Will obtained a license, special or common; on his own. If he'd gotten a special license (unlikely, in Sayers' time, given his station in life), Wimsey would have heard about it from the archbishop and passed along the intelligence to Blundell. If Will had obtained a common license, why had the Thodays not been remarried by the time the police tracked them down and detained them? There's also the matter of the phrase "both of that parish" in the telegram. As far as I know their parish affiliation wouldn't matter for a marriage by license, but it's relevant for banns. My guess is that either the phrase "by license" in the telegram is a mistake, or the Thodays simply asked about marriage by license. Given these doubts and the lack of any explicit statement that the archb of Canterbury was involved, I still think that in the interests of accuracy we should drop "under Archbishop's license" from the sentence. Bthoenen (talk) 05:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I assumed that, since Will and Mary were not regular communicants at St. Andrews in Bloomsbury, a special, rather than ordinary license would be required. As you say, what Wimsey and the Archbishop said to one another is not discussed in the book (it is gone into in more detail in the TV adaptation), although it is not correct that Wimsey was actively helping the Thodays obtain a license; rather, he was seeking to have Mary Thoday/Deacon questioned before she was married to Will, legally this time, and therefore could not be forced to give evidence against her husband under the law as it then was. This point should be emphasised, but I'll agree that the nature of the license is an assumption rather than explicitly stated fact. HLGallon (talk) 10:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

On a technical note (see wiki page marriage license):

There were two kinds of marriage licences that could be issued: the usual was known as a common licence and named one or two parishes where the wedding could take place, within the jurisdiction of the person who issued the license. The other was the special licence, which could only be granted by the Archbishop of Canterbury or his officials and allowed the marriage to take place in any church.

so a common license from the relevant bishop (presumably London) or archdeacon would be sufficient to overcome the location problem. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Finding no clear justification for attributing Will and Mary's marriage license (if indeed there was a license) to the archbishop, I've removed "under Archbishop's license" from the plot summary. Thanks to HLGallon and Martin of Sheffield for enlightening comments. Bthoenen (talk) 06:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Blood streaming ..

.. across his face from ears and nose. That had Lord Peter at the end of the novel. The corpse should have had the same, but didn't. A small mistake in the conception of "The Nine Tailors". --Stephanie Do (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)