SACHEVERELL

See Sitwell’s entry in the Oxford DNB. In his 1999 biography Philip Ziegler describes how the ‘doggerel polemic Rat Week’ ‘excoriated’ the supporters of the Edward VII and Mrs Simpson: ‘Osbert realised that this diatribe, if published, might land him in a flurry of libel actions, but he could not resist having a few copies made and distributed to his closer cronies; Mrs. Greville, Lady Aberconway, Lady Cholmondeley and Philip Frere among them.

See his entry, and those of his siblings, in the Oxford DNB. A 15.5 x 20 cm black and white print, on glossy paper. Worn at edges, and with staining to blank area at top left. Stamped by the publishers on the reverse with ‘Sir Osbert Sitwell. Bt. / 25. 8. 49.’ There is a possibility that this is a signature by Sitwell, but the letter ‘O’ and other features are not quite right.

Two items relating to Sitwell's interview with John Freeman (1915-2014), broadcast in the BBC series 'Face to Face' on 6 May 1959. The two items are from the papers of the programme's producer Hugh Burnett (1924-2011). ONE: Autograph Letter Signed to Burnett. Signed 'Edith Sitwell'. On letterhead of Renishaw Hall, Renishaw, nr. Sheffield. 18 August 1959. 3pp., 12mo. In envelope with Italian stamp and postmark, addressed by Sitwell to 'Hugh Burnett, Esqre. | Television Studio | Lime Grove | London. W.12'.

On 8 x 12.5 cm piece of paper, torn from the end of a letter. In fair condition, aged and lightly spotted. On one side of the slip is the conclusion of the letter: '[...] | Yours very sincerely | Edith Sitwell'. On the other side is the following autograph fragment: '[...] kind of you to invite me to your lumcheon party on Tuesday, and I am looking forward to it so much. I have not seen you for [...]'.

15 pp, narrow folio (14.5 x 38 cm), in the remains of a volume which has been reused and cut up (see below). Although aged and dogeared, the eight pages carrying the accounts are in reasonable condition, with all texts clear and complete, although the last leaf of the eight has the lower third cut away. In remains of original vellum binding, with '17 Maij j683' on front board. The pages are variously paginated in a contemporary hand between 245 and 274.

15 pp, narrow folio (14.5 x 38 cm), in the remains of a volume which has been reused and cut up (see below). Although aged and dogeared, the eight pages carrying the accounts are in reasonable condition, with all texts clear and complete, although the last leaf of the eight has the lower third cut away. In remains of original vellum binding, with '17 Maij j683' on front board. The pages are variously paginated in a contemporary hand between 245 and 274.

12mo, 15 pp. In modern brown paper wraps (easily removed). Clear and complete. In fair condition, on aged paper. Wraps stamped 'J467'. This item has a complicated publishing history (not made easier by the large number of microfilm reproductions listed on COPAC). This copy has 'Price Two Pence.' at the foot of the title, which - with a triangular geometric vignette made up of ten flowers - is enclosed in a frame. The reverse of the last leaf is blank and there is no cancel.

Sitwell and Renishaw collaborated on the play 'Gentle Caesar' (published in 1942), and the last two letters would appear to concern a possible film adaptation. All three items very good on lightly aged paper. Letter One ('Friday Renishaw'): 12mo, 2 pp. 18 lines of text. Apparently written around the time of the play's composition. Sitwell is 'delighted' that Minney is 'already immersed in Pares's book. I have just read the Czar and Empress Marie's Letters.' He has 'marked (in the preface mostly) what I thought helpful for atmosphere, or amusing'.

12mo, 2 pp. Very good. Attractive letterhead with engraved illustration of 'Renishaw Hall | Derbyshire' (last word crossed out by Sitwell). Written in purple ink. Asks if there is 'anything to be made of a curtain-raiser, or short film, which wd. show Napoleon catching the cold, which lost him the Battle of Waterloo? . . It is an amusing idea.' He considers that it is 'sure to have been some very silly person who sneezed at him . . . Or is the idea nonsense!'