LETTERS: Mythology: Correspondence with editors.
Edith Hamilton to her editors
1938-1950
A collection of 32 letters from Edith Hamilton to Little, Brown editors Charles Raymond Everitt (25 ALS and 2 TLS), Mr. Blanchard (2 ALS) and Angus Cameron (3 ALS); 1938-1950. Hamilton writes her letters on stationery with her address printed at the top, or types them on plain paper; rectos and versos, ca. 90 pages total; and signs each “Sincerely yours, Edith Hamilton.”
In each letter, Hamilton discusses in detail her classic, Mythology: Timeless Tales of Gods and Heroes (1942), which she published when she was 74 years old. Her first letter to Everitt is evidence that he presented her with the idea for writing it. Hamilton writes, “I should like very much indeed to talk over with you the question of writing such a book as you suggest” (September 21, 1938).
These letters chronicle Hamilton’s work on the book, from start to finish. She discusses content, order of stories, illustrations, the title, and responds to readers’ criticisms. The letters illustrate her expertise in the Classics and show how she wished to present the stories clearly and logically, so a contemporary audience could learn from and enjoy them.
In some of the early letters, Hamilton discusses the work of her two predecessors, Thomas Bulfinch and Charles Gayley, who published books on mythology for contemporary audiences, and whom Hamilton wished to exceed in terms of accessibility and expertise on the subject. Hamilton succeeded: Mythology is recognized as the definitive volume – it is still used as a foundational mythology text in high schools and colleges – and Hamilton is renowned as “the greatest woman Classicist.”
In the final letters, Hamilton mentions a new project she wanted to pursue on the Bible. This book was later published as Witness to the Truth: Christ and His Interpreters (1949).
Together with:
Hamilton, Edith. “Changes to be made in Mythology”; autograph manuscript; one leaf; 2pp.; sent with November 2, 1943 letter. Regarding changes Hamilton requested to be made in the reprint of Mythology; changing words, adding spaces, and making general clarifications.
Unknown. “Note for Miss Hamilton,” 1p. manuscript; in pencil; unsigned. First line in the note reads, “Additions marked by the author and changes in Index will be made as far as space adjustment permits. Chart changes will be made.” This is followed by two exceptions to those chart changes.
Hamilton, Edith. Biographical form, filled in in typescript, 2pp.;
_____________ Typescript, 7 lines, listing Hamilton’s “Tastes, Superstitions, Ambitions
and Unusual experiences;
_____________ Biographical paragraph, typescript carbon, 17 lines.
Description:
Hamilton began her research on Mythology by reading Bulfinch’s Mythology (1881) and Gayley’s Classic Myths in English Literature (1898); in fact, Gayley’s book was based off of Bulfinch’s Mythology. She was critical of both works. She describes Bulfinch’s book as “dated,” explaining that he makes reference to poets that were no longer known by the late 1930s; there was no “method in the way the stories follow each other”; and there was no evidence that Bulfinch actually read Greek (November 9, 1938). She goes on to explain that
My task, as I see it, would be to make a book as readable as Bulfinch undoubtedly is; not any longer than he is – a bulky volume would not be anything [ ] so good for this purpose; and at the same time, a book properly arranged as regards earlier myths and later stories, and one that goes a bit in to the way the myths may have originated and the way they developed. A book a little more grown-up than Bulfinch – but only a little. (ibid.)
After writing Everitt another letter that month, Hamilton’s letters cease for over a year; presumably she was busy working on the book during this period. Her next letter to Everitt begins, “The mythology book is two-thirds done and by far the most difficult part. The rest should go quickly” (November 20, 1939). She then shares her process:
What I am doing is to tell the important stories in enough detail to make them – I hope – interesting. Those that are uninteresting and unimportant I propose to tell very briefly, in encyclopedic fashion, at the end of the book. In between these two classes there are a number that could be not tiresome if told in sufficient detail. The length of the book you want should, of course, be the guide here. I am certain, and I have no doubt you will agree, that the book must be comprehensive, as Bulfinch is not, but as Gayley is. People must be able to find in it every mythological personage – otherwise Gayley will score over me, dull though he is. (ibid.)
At the close of this letter, Hamilton raises the issue of how it should be illustrated; a subject she would discuss continuously over the course of her correspondence with Everitt. She writes that it must be illustrated, or else “Gayley would have a great advantage over me otherwise” (ibid.), and that the pictures “should not be those over-familiar Greek statues, but taken from the Greek vases and curios which directly illustrate the myths.” This letter is wonderful not only for the enthusiasm that Hamilton expresses for the project, but also for her vision of something fresh on the subject, and her desire to surpass the achievements of her male predecessors.
As Hamilton’s work progressed, she sent her manuscript to Everitt for his feedback. In mid-January, 1940, she sends a lengthy response (4 typed pages) to Everitt’s report. She agrees with his assessment that the book needs clarification throughout – “I must always write for the reader whose mind is a virgin page mythologically speaking” (January 20, 1940) – and goes on to provide seven points that she wishes to include in the final part of the book, among them: a “straight account” of the Olympians and the most important minor divinities; followed by the major stories of the gods arranged “into a connected whole as far as possible”; then the minor stories; an encyclopedia; a genealogy and an index of the Greek and Roman gods; and, lastly, a brief account of Norse mythology.
After this, Hamilton’s letters cease again for nearly a year. In December, 1940, she writes “I sent you today the MS of the Greek part of the book, complete except for the list of the authorities for each story….The title bothers me a great deal. I can think of nothing better than Mythology, Greek, Roman, Norse” (December 12, 1940). Hamilton goes on to discuss the problem with ordering the stories in the book. “As regards my arrangement, I have come to the conclusion that a really satisfactory one cannot be devised for a mythology. There is no logical arrangement, no inherent order in the stories” (ibid.) She also mentions that she tries not to mention too many names in each story, for clarity’s sake, and that she prefers to use the familiar forms of names; i.e., Castor and Pollux instead of “Polydeuces.”
Around this time, Everitt gave Hamilton’s manuscript to a professor to read and critique; Everitt sent Hamilton the professor’s thoughts, and she responded to Everitt at length. Apparently, the professor believed the book was suited more to children than adults, and Hamilton was chagrined by this accusation. She writes,
I have had in mind to tell each story in the way it was told in the original source. I have regarded them not as my own stories to be made attractive and dressed up, but as Pindar’s or Ovid’s story, to be reproduced as accurately as possible. So when I retell a story of Hesiod’s, who is a very simple and child-like writer, the tone of it is very different from that in any of the sophisticated Roman poets’ stories – or, of course, from that in the Greek tragedies. (February 5, 1941)
She continues,
I believe that my idea is a sound one. But these very clever men failed to see it. That is a real failure on my part and I must do something to make it good. Shall I write a brief statement of the way I have conceived of the book? (ibid.)
Hamilton was sensitive and responsive to criticisms like these; see also her letter from August 24, 1942. After her book was published, an English critic wrote to Everitt about it; Everitt forwarded this to Hamilton, and Hamilton responds to it at length, mostly discussing content.
In the spring of 1941, as the book was nearing completion, Hamilton turned her attention to the title; it took more than six months for her to and Everitt to reach a decision. Hamilton preferred something simple, like Mythology of the Western World; she explains, “I hate a title that does not tell what the book is about” (August 28, 1941). Everitt must have suggested adding the phrase “Gods and Heroes” to the title, as Hamilton writes, “I thought ‘A Book of Gods and Heroes’ bad because Mr. [Steele] Savage had very recently illustrated ‘Gods and Heroes,’ and there might be a danger of the two getting hopelessly confused” (November 19, 1941; Savage also did the illustrations for Hamilton’s book). Again, Hamilton says her preference is for a “simple, factual” title – and explains that she thinks Mythology “has more chic” – but remains confident in Everitt’s judgment. Mythology: Timeless Tales of Gods and Heroes incorporates both Hamilton’s and Everitt’s preferences.
In her letters to Blanchard, Hamilton discusses details regarding the Index to Mythology; and in her letters to Cameron, she updates him on the progress of Witness to the Truth, thanks him for sending her a reading copy of Samuel Shellabarger’s Prince of Foxes (1947), and discusses the design of a new dust-jacket for an updated edition of Mythology.
After Mythology was published, Hamilton presented Everitt with an idea for a new book. “I am seized with a desire to do a soldier’s Bible – a small volume, attractive binding and with good legible print. Containing only the very best in the Old & New testament – tremendously cut…I know the Bible almost by heart – I could get that book ready in a week or two!” (December 9, 1943). Everitt clearly supported this idea, but it did not happen as quickly as she had hoped. This book was published as Witness to the Truth (1949; see also October 21, 1945 letter, in which Hamilton discusses a minor content issue with Everitt).
Hamilton (1867-1963) was an author and Classicist born in Germany and raised in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Her father started teaching her French, Latin, German and Greek when she was seven years old, and she attended Miss Porter’s School and Bryn Mawr College. After college, Hamilton and her sister, Alice, traveled to Germany to study at Leipzig and Munich. Alice had graduated with a medical degree from the University of Michigan. She later worked at Hull House and then became the first woman professor at Harvard. At the time, women were not allowed to enroll in European universities; they were, however, allowed to audit classes, and the Hamilton sisters were among the first women to do so. In her classes, Edith was forced to sit on the lecture platform with the professor, in a chair facing the rest of the class, so the male students would not interact with her.
Hamilton did not earn a doctoral degree in Munich as she had hoped. Instead, she returned to the States and took up a post as the head of the Bryn Mawr Preparatory School for Girls in Baltimore, which she held for twenty-six years.
After retiring from the Bryn Mawr School, Hamilton moved to New York and published articles on Greek drama. She was sixty-two years old when her first book, The Greek Way, was published in 1930 (it later became a Book-of-the-Moth Club choice in 1957); this was followed by The Roman Way (1932). She also published The Prophets of Israel (1936), Three Greek Plays (1937), The Great Age of Greek Literature (1943), Spokesmen for God (1949), Echo of Greece (1957), and Collected Dialogues of Plato (1961).
Hamilton, surprisingly, did not travel to Greece or Rome until the late 1950s when she was 90 years old and was made an honorary citizen of Athens. She also received honorary degrees from the Universities of Rochester and Pennsylvania.
(#12474)
Print Inquire