The Mystery of the Member: Identifying a Corpse in Whose Body? (1923), by Dorothy L. Sayers

Dorothy L. Sayers began writing Whose Body?, her first Lord Peter Wimsey detective novel, in London in January 1921, when she was was 27 years old.  A letter that month from Sayers to her mother reveals that the novel rather changed in the writing. In the novel as published the naked body discovered in the bath belongs to a "semitic-looking stranger" who is at first thought might possibly be the vanished Jewish financier Sir Reuben Levy; but in fact the corpse turns out to be that of some other, stubbornly anonymous individual.  But here's how Sayers conceived this plot in her 1921 letter:

My detective story begins brightly with a fat lady found dead in her bath with nothing on but her pince-nez.  [Sayers herself wore pince-nez at this time.]  Now, why did she wear pince-nez in her bath?  If you can guess, you will be in a position to lay hands on the murderer....

By October, when Sayers had finished the novel, the dead body in the bath had altered from a fat woman wearing a pince-nez to a middle-aged Jewish man wearing a pince nez.  I have read, however, that Sayers originally made sufficiently clear that Lord Peter immediately perceived that the corpse had an uncircumsized penis, so that it cannot be Jewish and thus is not Sir Reuben Levy, but that her publishers demanded that she censor this detail and she complied. 

In her 1993 biography of Sayers, Barbara Reynolds thinks there is still left in the text evidence, circumspectly presented, of this circumcision plot and states flatly: "the body in the bath is uncircumsized."  In his Secrets of Crime Fiction Classics (2014), Australian academic Stephen Knight suggests the plot of Whose Body? actually turns on this supposed circumcision plot.  The late crime writer PD James heaps up error on this subject in her book Talking about Detective Fiction:

In Dorothy L. Sayers' first detective novel, Whose Body?, the corpse is found naked in the bath of a nervous and innocent architect, and the book begins with this image.  The first question facing the police--and, of course, her detective Lord Peter Wimsey--is whether this was the corpse of Sir Reuben Levy, the missing Jewish financier.  Whether the victim had or had not been been circumsized would have answered the question at once.  

Lord Peter suavely
examining the body in the bath
(this seems an amazingly good likeness)

For her part Barbara Reynolds writes that in Whose Body? Lord Peter knows at once that the corpse is not Sir Reuben Levy because he espies that the corpse's own peter is uncut, as it were, a detail that Scotland Yard inspectors Sugg and Parker somehow failed to perceive.  However, having read, for the third time, Whose Body?, I just don't see how these accounts make sense, at least going by the edition I have.

In Chapter One Lord Peter learns from his mother, the Dowager Duchess of Denver, that Mr. Thipps, the London architect who is "doing the church roof" at the village of Denver, had been put on the spot back in London by the titular body turning up in his bath.  Whose body is it?  Peter goes to investigate and is soon inspecting Mr. Thipps' bathroom, complete with its naked corpse in the tub.  

At this point there has been no mention whatever made of Sir Reuben Levy.  This is absolutely not the first question facing Wimsey, as PD James insists.  In fact it's not a question for him at all.  

Sir Reuben's name does not come up until page 28 of my edition of the novel, when Sir Peter encounters at his flat Inspector Parker, who tells Peter that he too went to investigate the matter of the corpse in the Thipps tub, even though it is Inpector Suggs' case, because he wanted to see if the "Semitic-looking stranger in Mr. Thipps' bath was by any extraodinary chance Sir Reuben Levy."  Inspector Parker has been tasked with looking into the Levy case, you see.  

Gladys the maid gets in a good look.
Maybe she could answer my question.

Parker sees immediately that the corpse is not Sir Reuben Levy and it's not because of the intactness of the corpse's penis, but because the corpse has a head and a face and the head and face simply are not those of Levy, though Parker allows that the corpse "would really be extraodinarily like Sir Reuben if he had a beard."  Peter agreesthat the dead man can't be Levy: "I've seen the body, and I should say the idea was preposterous upon the face of it."  

But again this has nothing to do with the state of corpse's penis.  Peter's deductions about the corpse are based on his having determined that the dead man came of working class origins, not that his member had been snipped.  

Apparently both Sir Reuben Levy and the corpse are Jewish and hence circumsized.  Parker tells Peter that Inspector Sugg told him the body in the bath is that "of a well-to-do Hebrew of around fifty," adding contemptuously of Sugg: "Anybody could have told him that."  Someone, he says, presumably struck dead this "tall and sturdy Semite."  So surely, contra the asseverations of Reynolds and Knight, the body in the bath was circumsized and Peter, Parker and Sugg and everyone else who actually looked noticed the fact?  

Even the Dowager Duchess of Denver blurts out the obvious (as she will).  When burbling away about Judaism she says: "of course it must be very inconvenient [being Jewish], what with not working on saturdays and circumsizing the poor little babies...."  Had the corpse been uncirsumsized, surely even dim Inspectopr Sugg would have noticed?

Also, I simply have to disagree with PD James' notion that the state of the corpse's penis would have "at once" established whether or not the corpse was Levy.  Yes, if the corpse had been uncircumsized it could not have been Levy.  But if it were circumsized, as it apparently was, that would not have established that it was Levy.  There were other circumsized men in London, one presumes, besides the unfortunate vanished Jewish financier.

Enduring Young Harmers: Scandal at High Chimneys (1959), by John Dickson Carr

"Would you care to marry the daughter of a vicious murderess?"

"You are concerned with sensationalism, Mr. Strickland."

--John Dickson Carr's Scandal at High Chimneys (1959)

The crime writing of John Dickson Carr, like that of Queen of Crime Agatha Christie, clearly entered into a state of decline sometimes in the 1950s.  Did Christie ever write a truly first-rate detective novel after 1953, the year she published After the Funeral and A Pocket Full of Rye?  The decline was more extreme in Carr's case.  To be sure, he reinvigorated his crime writing in the early 1950s with his impressive historical mysteries The Bride of Newgate (1950) and The Devil in Velvet (1951), but how many really first-rate mysteries did he publish in the Fifties?  Maybe Captain Cut-Throat and Fire, Burn!?  

I have a soft spot for Carr's late Dr. Fell mystery The Dead Man's Knock (1958), which a lot of people seem sort of to hate; but what about Carr's Victorian mystery Scandal at High Chimneys?  When I first read it two decades or more ago I was underwhemed; and having reread it more recently, I found that my feeling about it hasn't changed.  Is it better than Carr's late Sixties mysteries?  Certainly the historical atmosphere is stronger; but the book yet has noteworthy flaws.  

In contrast with the author's other historical mysteries, Scandal at High Chimneys is set in Victorian-era England, specifcally the year 1865, the 28th year of Queen Victoria's reign and the fourth year of her stodgy widowhood.  Carr was not really temperamentally suited to the Victorian era.  One thing a Carr fan will know about their locked room legend is that over and over and over again the author, through his stand-in writer protagonists, condemns puritans as nothing more than canting hypocrites and defends libertines as men (or even women) who at least knew how to live and made no apologies about it.  

notorious party gal
Queen Victoria in 1865 at the time
the novel takes place; she was 45

Basically Carr never forgave Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell for having had Charles I's kingly head lopped off in 1649 and spoiling everyone's fun in England during the Interegnum until his own death a decade later saw the ascension of Charles II.  Aside from the Interregnum itself, there was not a period in English history with which Carr could have been more out-of-sorts than those years when Queen Victoria wore mourning, partook copiously of multi-course meals and glowered at the camera.

Appropriately for a later Carr mystery, Chimneys opens with the ages of two lovely younger women undergoing discussion.  These enduring young charmers are sisters Kate and Celia Damon, who when the novel opens are 20 and 19 respectively. (We aren't leeringly told in this particular Carr opus, however, that the young ladies "look younger" than their actual ages.)  

The sisters' father, the stern and forbidding Victorian criminal prosecutor Matthew Damon, "deeply religious in the old Evangelical way" (a Carr reader will know this means he's really a horny old goat at heart), doesn't seem keen on the girls, one blonde, one brunette, getting married.  He proclaims that they are too young for all that, an assertion at which scoffs his kittenish younger second wife, Georgette Damon.  Presumably Georgette, a former actress, is in her thirties--the sophisticated adventuress age don't you know--while Matthew is 48 but acts 20 years older. 

Next we shift over to Carr avatar Clive Strickland, a rising sensation fiction serialist, discussing at his London club with Victor Damon, Kate's and Celia's brother, the matter of just "what's wrong at High Chimneys"--the Damon country domicile.  In the usual matter of Carr characters at this time in Carr's career, Victor maddeningly starts to tell Clive, but is immediately interrupted and sidetracked by someone else.  Then, when queried again by Clive about it, he demurs from talking: "I can't tell you....I can't tell you."  Whatever the reason, however, Victor seems fervently to desire that his sisters marry and get away from some low doings at High Chimneys.  

This is the first of many times in the novel that a character refuses to tell something important they know or is interrupted (or killed even) when about to tell something important they know.  Here are some examples from the book:

"Then it is time for plain speaking--what was that?"

"It's so absurd that I prefer to keep it to myself."

"If you don't mind, I'll keep that to myself...."

"I won't tell you.  It would shock you too much."

Not for nothing does a character beg of another:

"....let us have no more mystification....I beg you to draw it mild and spare me more of your blasted mystification."

This suspensive delay, as it were, is a narrative device which Carr picked up from his radio playwriting that quickly wore out its welcome in his novels.  As his biographer, Doug Greene, explains:

Carr artificially creates what he calls an "atmosphere of tension and hysterics" by overusing his trick of saying obscure things, and by beginning to explain a mystery only to have the revelation interrupted.  I counted thirteen separate instances in Scandal at High Chimneys in which someone, for insufficent reasons, refuses to reveal something. It is easy to sympathize with the protagonist when he moans that although two people say they know who the murderer is, and two more certainly do, "no one will say a word."

just trying to have a little bit of fun
King Charles I (1600-1649)

This is all very true.  Most maddening of all is the second Mrs. Damon, who keeps refusing to speak until just the right moment and of course makes it possible for the murderer to bump her off before she finally--finally!--is about to speak.  You really feel the woman brought death upon herself.  

These stylistic matters--which plague all later Carr books--aside, how is the plot?  Plot is, after all, the main thing in a Carr mystery.  Here, it's...not so great. As in all late Carr, there's a great deal of mysteriousness (one might say blather), with about everyone acting yet mysteriouser and mysteriouser, but the basic mystery is not all that involved.  Let's explain.

At his club Clive Strickland learns an unhappy fact from arrogant Lord Albert Tressider, a sneering snob whom Victor Damon wants to marry his sister Celia.  (He could have been borrowed from one of Carr's swashbuckling Jacobean mysteries).  

Dear me, it seems that Victor's papa Matthew Damon 

"used to have uncommonly queer tastes.  He enjoyed making up to women who committed murder.  He would prosecute 'em, all as virtuous as an Old Testmament prophet.  Afterwards he'd go to Newgate [Prison] and visit 'em any number of times before they were hanged three weeks later.  Of course he pretended it was to pray with 'em and relieve his conscience....[In fact he] was quite spooney about two or three 'em, the young and pretty ones.  It seems he couldn't resist 'em."

Enduring young charms? Daughters darkness and light

Clive soon apprehends that the scandal at High Chimneys is that one of the Damon girls--either dark-haired, spirited Kate whom he loves or blonde, demure and seemingly submisive Celia (it seems like the The Last of the Mohicans' Cora and Alice all over again)--is the daughter of the executed Harriet Pyke (Harriet Vane?), one of Matthew Damon's convicted murderesses (she shot her lover and then for good measure strangled her maid, who witnessed the crime), whom the prosecutor adopted as an infant in a misplaced act of horndog piety and passed as his own and his first wife's child.  Tainted blood!  To his credit, Clive doesn't seem too worried about this (Carr heroes like their women to be worldly sisters under the skin), but, this being the Victorian Age, everyone else seems to be in a dither and frantically searching for their fainting couches.  

But which sister is really the offspring of an enduring young harmer, as it were?  Matthew Damon is shot in his study before he can tell Clive the truth.  Bizarrely, Matthew's killer seemingly is a headless spectre in "a frock-coat, a dark waistcoat, and patterned trousers...of a red-and-white checkered design."  That's something you don't see every day! Carr does manage to give us a frisson or two with this tidbit, but was Damon really killed by a ghost?  Fortunately retired copper Jonathan Whicher, he of the infamous 1860 Road Hill House murder case (aka the Constance Kent murder case), is soon on hand to investigate.  

At Chimneys as well, I should mention, we find a butler named Burbage and his daughter Penelope, an eyewitness of the "ghost" who seems inspired by The Moonstone's Rosanna Spearman.  (In his Notes for the Curious at the end of the novel Carr calls Rosanna "the most moving and effective character in the book.")  Also there's Rollo Thompson Bland, a pompous older society doctor--a favored "type" of Carr's--and a prying housekeeper, Mrs. Cavanaugh, "a middle-aged, straight-backed woman full of piety and unctuousness," so we know that  she's up to no good, anyway!

In his Notes to the Curious Carr forthrightly allows that he pays scant attention to Victorian poverty and filth, because, heck, that's just not much fun! "[S]qualor and degradation are not necessarily interesting no matter how pitable," he explains.  He's writing a mystery not a social document.  And that's fair enough.  He does, however, give us one of his creepy hebephiliac moments about preteen girls, when he has Georgette Damon observe of London slum girls: "They think very little of a 'virtue' they lose as a matter of course when they are eleven or twelve years old." Huh!

Did poor Victorian girls in England lose their virginity "as a matter of course" when they were 11 or 12?  To whom exactly did they lose it?  Carr certainly seems to have some interest in this subject, as I have noted before, here and here.

Though it's not an exercise in historical social realism, Chimneys is, to be sure, competently enough put together as a mystery, but the telling of the tale is flurried, the characters uncompelling and the central deception ploy is seemingly cribbed from an earlier mystery by another famous mystery author, just as Carr's immediately previous detective novel The Dead Man's Knock seemingly cribs from Dorothy L. Sayers' Gaudy Night.  Having forgotten most of the book's plot in the two decades or more interval between my readings, I was still able to spot the trick immediately; and thus I read the rest of the novel merely for confirmation of my near-certain suspicion.  Just call it The Suspicions of Mr. Evans.

So regrettably the book all fell rather flat for me.  I recollect Carr's slightly later The Witch of the Low Tide (1962) as a better mystery than Chimneys, but I'll have to reread that too again someday.  Later Carrs tend to yield disappointments, I find.  

Some Porlock Pickings: Two additional thoughts on Philip MacDonald's "Martin Porlock"

Whence did our prolific lad Philip MacDonald derive the pen name "Martin Porlock"?  My theory: he got the name by combining two villages in far northeastern Devon, about twenty-five miles apart by Exmoor National Forest, Combe Martin and Porlock.  One of the early crime fiction books MacDonald wrote with his father Ronald, The Spandau Quid, was said to show great familiarity with Devon.  

You can see Combe Martin and Porlock above in the northeastern corner of the map.  

Next, where did the name of the titular house "Friar's Pardon" in Mystery at Friar's Pardon come from?  I'm guessing from Rudyard Kipling's 1909 short story "A Habitation Enforced," about an old dilapidated house in rural southern England named Friar's Pardon.  In his detective novel The White Crow MacDonald alludes suggestively to having read Kipling's book Soldiers Three as a boy.  I'm betting that he read more than his fair share of Kipling.

My thoughts, anyway!  What say you, my English and worldwide Anglophile readers?

Dead Cat Bounce: The Wraith (1931), by Philip MacDonald

One more Philip MacDonald detective fiction review and then on to something else.  This one's of The Wraith, the sixth Anthony Gethryn crime novel and the first of three which the author published in 1931.  By the way, I now think this is the correct chronological bibliographical information on the Gethryn novels.  

The Rasp 1924

The White Crow 1928

The Noose 1930

The Link 1930

The Maze, in US Persons Unknown 1930

The Wraith 1931

The Choice, in US The Polferry Riddle 1931

The Crime Conductor 1931

Rope to Spare 1932

Death on My Left 1933

Warrant for X, in UK The Nursemaid Who Disappeared 1938

The-Wood-for-the-Trees (short story, second place finish in Queen's Awards) 1947 

The List of Adrian Messenger 1959

It's all a bit confusing, honestly, because some of the Gethryn novels were published first in the United States, sometimes under altered titles (see above).  With his fifth Gethryn mystery The Maze, which was actually published originally in the U.S. under the title Persons Unknown at the end of 1930 and in England over a year-and-a-half later (1932!), MacDonald first attempted to do something new with his Gethryn crime fiction: what he subtitled, in the American edition, "An Exercise in Detection"--in other words, a "pure" detective novel, in which Gethryn analyzes an inquest transcipt to discover the identity of the murderer.  The novel anticipates in this way the documentary popular "Crimefile" mysteries of the late Thirties.  

With the next installment of the Gethryn crime investigation saga, The Wraith, MacDonald has Gethryn in 1931 talking over with his wife Lucia and a mystery writer friend named Toller his first murder case, one from over a decade earlier from 1920, several years before the events detailed in the debut Gethryn detective novel, The Rasp.  The book is mostly narrated by Anthony himself, as he recalls the events from that time, though part of the novel is told as well in third person in 1931.  The novel appears never to have been reprinted in paperback (though the Collins Crime Club reprinted it several times in hardcover) and consequently is one of the more obscure Gethryn titles.  

Which is too bad, because The Wraith is, in my opinion, one of the better Gethryn titles, along with The Maze and Rope to Spare, the latter of which I recently reviewed here. It's actually rather reminiscent of Rope to Spare with Gethryn sojourning at an inn at a quaint, obscure English village. In The Wraith the village is the East Anglian habitation of High Fen, and the inn is The Good Intent. 

Like in Rope to Spare, not to mention the non-series detective novel Mystery at Friar's Pardon, also published in 1931, events come to center on a country house, Fridays (in Rope it was Corners).  This is the home of John Manx, one of the amateur gentleman scientists beloved of between-the-wars detective fiction and mystery thrillers.  Manx, 53, whom Gethryn skeptically calls "a man with a few degrees and a lot of money," is said to be philanthropically "engaged in cancer research."  

terrifi Italian giallo edition of
The Wraith (Il Fantasma)
see Death Can Read

Manx's blue-eyed, Titian-haired, "admirably-shaped" wife Joan, 31, has two "semi-permanent" neer-do-well male relations, her blond-haired second cousin Arthur and her dark-haired brother William. On the scene as well are Manx's dependent sister Penelope Marsh and niece Mary Manx.  There's also Paul Grimdale, Manx's secretary, who is smitten with Joan.  

Also featuring in the tale are the Reverend Battersby-Pickersgill and his wife and, rather more significantly, a certain Alfred Georgius Host, a disfigured Great War veteran and "cripple" who leases the West Lodge of Friday.  A confirmed eccentric, he lives alone with a brood of beloved cats (not Manx cats as far as I know).  

Someone, as the tale transpires, is cruelly and gruesomely killing off Host's cats, driving the poor man to distraction.  Animal cruelty abominators be warned!

Host accuses Manx, the cancer researcher, of vivisecting his poor creatures.  When Manx is found shot dead right between the eyes in his detached study known as the Hut, Host is the prime suspect, especially after the gun turns out to be his, but the case turns out to be rather more complicated than that....

Alfred Host
on the Collins
reprint cover.
I don't do the 
whole cover
because its a
spoiler, for 
shame Collins!

Inspector Ruddock of the local police was lent to Gethryn for intelligence work during the late war, so of course he invites Gethryn, as coppers will, to help him on the case.  Unfortunately Ruddock soon has everything ass-backwards and Anthony has to save the day, by means of some extremely high-handed methods, the sort of which Sapper's at time rather fascistic character Bulldog Drummond doubtlessly would heartily have approved.  

The Wraith is a highly classical case, employing classic mystery devices of deception in a fun, bravura way.  It's shorter than most if not all of the other Gethryns, some 70 or 75,000 words I estimate, and it would have been even shorter had the author not chosen to shift constantly between past and present, a device which gives the novel more of a modern feel and adds probably 10,000 words that could have been omitted had the events been told more directly.  

Suggesting the comparative paucity of story, Gethryn actually solves the case about two-thirds of the way through and spends the rest of his time trying to extract a confession, keeping the police in the dark.  This confession extraction, if you will, happens as well in Rope to Spare and, to a less time-consuming extent, in Friar's Pardon.  You might say the thriller element simply will make its presence felt in a MacDonald detective tale somewhere.  

Amusingly if you are a fan of the series, Gethryn brings in Spencer Hastings, his old pal from his literary review, The Owl, to help him out.  A couple of journalist on the staff of The Owl appear in Rope to Spare, by the way.

JRR Tolkien colleague Charles Williams, a keen critic of detective fiction who preferred the outre sort of writer like MacDonald and John Dickon Carr, declared of The Wraith: "It is a creepy, ghoulish, facinating case, and suits Gethryn, who is an intellectual public-school sadist if ever there was one." 

Definitely this case brought out not only the sadist in the cruel cat killer but in Gethryn himelf, who seemingly will stop at almost nothing in the name of justice.  This is a novel which should film well, if one could get over certain logistical hurdles....

What does the title of the book mean, you may be asking yourselves?  Well, you'll have to read this one for yourself and see, when it's reprinted. It hasn't been in English, as far as I know, for nearly ninety years.  

I do have one quibble with what might have been dubbed Gethryn's First Case, however, besides the one that everyone who reads it will inevitably have.  It has to do with  

SPOILER DON'T READ IF YOU HAVENT READ THE BOOK

the matter of Host's background war record.  Police get that information, we are told, from diaries at the West Lodge.  Oh, come now, they would not have checked for his war record from the war office?  How slipshod can you get?!  It is interesting in light of MacDonald's own possibly embroidered war record, however.

END SPOILER ALL SAFE NOW

No Joke! Mystery at Friar's Pardon (1931), by Philip MacDonald as Martin Porlock

Mystery writer Philip MacDonald completed the manuscript of Mystery at Friar's Pardon in August 1931 and in England it was published, under his new mystery writer pseudonym Martin Porlock, in October.  The book was not published in the United States.  Pardon was one of seven (!) novels published that year by MacDonald, the others being the Anthony Gethryn opuses The Wraith, The Choice and The Crime Conductor, the nonseries serial killer thriller Murder Gone Mad and the mainstream novels Harbour and Moonfisher, published under another pseudonym, Anthony Lawless.  

With four crime novels under his own name under his belt, MacDonald evidently decided he needed a pseudonym for his non-Gethryn mysteries.  Even Murder Gone Mad, which I call non-series, actually has as its lead investigator Inspector Pike from the Gethryn series.  

1931 was the author's peak productive year as a novelist: in 1930 he published four novels and he would go on respectively to publish two and three novels in both 1932 and 1933; all of these crime novels. There was one Martin Porlock novel apiece in 1932 and 1933, respectively Mystery in Kensington Gore and X v. Rex, though in the United States the two novels were published under MacDonalds own name, under the titles Escape and The Mystery of the Dead Police.  Both of these mysteries are thrillers, in contrast with Pardon, which is a genuine detective novel.  

MacDonald achieved Edgar Wallace rate of production in 1931, but the quality of the books he published that year was surprisingly good under the other circumstances.  One of them, Murder Gone Mad, is generally deemed a crime fiction classic.  Another, Mystery at Friar's Pardon, has been acclaimed as a classic locked room mystery by some afficanados.  Because the novel was not published in the United States, however, copies have been very hard to find for nearly a century now.  

There is a lot in Pardon to appeal to classic detective fiction fans.  For one thing, as mentioned above it's a true detective novel, which, truth be told, MacDonald mysteries not always were.  For another the book's trappings are highly classical. The setting is a party at a haunted country house, the murder an impossible crime in a locked room.  What's not to like, hey?  Let's go into some details.

The protagonist is series sleuth Anthony Gethryn stand-in Charles Fox-Browne, your classic between-the-wars not-so-young gentleman--when the novel opens he's "at the beginning of his thirty-fifth year"--on his uppers.  We get five pages (all of Chapter II) of his backstory, largely unneeded although it's of interest that Charles' martial history in the Great War seems to bear considerable resemblance, somewhat embellished, to the author's own.  

At the opening of the novel we find the cleverly named Fox-Browne (the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog) installed at a modest private hotel for ladies and gentleman (and Charles is very much a gentleman); but soon enough he has accepted a providentially offered position with Enid Lester-Greene, a popular romantic novelist, as her manager at her newly purchased Jacobean country estate, Friar's Pardon, designed by real-life famous architect Sir John Vanbrugh.  

Several of the mansion's previous owners have died mysterious deaths, the most recent of which was, so it is said, an inexplicable death indoors by drowning, but our Mrs. Lester-Greene is very much a wordly materialist who scoffs at such tales as silly superstition.  

Oh, such folly, dear Enid!

MacDonald has some fun mocking the romantic dreck Enid Lester-Greene publishes--the novels named are Paradise for Two, Sir Galahad Comes Home, Oasis Love (a reference to The Sheik, of course), Kismet and Drusilla, The Man in Homespun and A Star Despite Herself.  Enid is not a terrible person, but she is your standard overbearing murderee, who spends close to half of this long novel giving her family members and dependents reasons to kill her on account of her domineering ways.  

Of them we have:

first edition (I have no idea what the cover depicts)

Enid's sulky daughter Gladys Lester-Greene

her lovely niece by marriage, now divorced, Leslie Destrier 

Lord Pursell of Mitcham, a Wodehousian silly ass aristocrat whom Enid wants to marry her daughter Gladys

Major Claude Lester, Enid's scoundrelly brother

Norman Sandys, Enid's smooth secretary

Mrs. Barratt, the housekeeper at Friar's Pardon and some sort of distant relation

and, last but not least, at least in terms of social position, Lady Maud Vassar, an authority on the supernatural and occult (like Lady Cynthia Asquith?)

There is a lot of talk about supernatural doings at Friar's Pardon, poltergeists disturbing the guests by throwing vases around and such, but Enid dismisses all these manifestations as so much folderol.  However, it's Enid herself who ends up mysteriously dead, like previous owners of the mansion.  She is discovered expired in her locked study, drowned despite the fact that there is no water or source of water present in the room.  

An impossible murder in a locked room?  Heavens to Carter Dickson! 

While MacDonald declines to present the local police, who are nicely characterized, as incompetent idiots--Inspector Willis (didn't Freeman Crofts have an Inspector Willis?) even has "a manner which was very nearly that of a gentleman"--they make no headway with the case and seem perfectly content to have Charles Fox-Browne, the obligatory amateur gentleman on the scene, assist them.  He's an old friend and war colleague of the outspoken police doctor, Riley.  They were together at "that Chateau Leroy business," don't you know.

Collins Crime Club boasted that Friar's Pardon was their
most successful "first book" by crime writer--though in fact
 "Martin Porlock" had already published about a dozen novels
and most of them were criminous

The baffled police end up convinced that the murder has no rational explanation, but "Foxy," as Riley calls him (Foxy is his old nickname from the war and. I'm guessing, public school), knows better.  It is he who cracks the case, first by showing how the crime must have been committed, and then, after the police arrest the wrong person, by revealing who the actual worldy fiend really was, by means of a dramatic seance confession scene.  

In the name of honest reviewing, however, I have to allow that Mystery at Friar's Parson is by no means a perfect mystery story.  The locked room aspect of the mystery itself is uninspired, for example.  

Also Pardon is another MacDonald 100,000 worder by my count, which I feel is too long for a conventional detective novel.  It's slow to get to the book's single murder and the supernatural stuff isn't done with the spooky conviction that John Dickson Carr would have brought to the matter in the Thirties.  But the plot is quite well-structured and the impossible crime is very nicely constructed and clued indeed. One particular bit to the murder is somehow repellently, stupendously ghoulish, anticpating a later famous tale.  I could easily see this book inspiring Carr himself.  

Sadly, Pardon as mentioned above was only ever published in England and it is quite rare today. Evidently there was not enough visceral excitement in it for the American crime fic fans.  But modern fans of vintage classic puzzlers should enjoy it.  Observed a contemporary newspaper reviewer: "The inevitable murder, if gruesome, is undeniably original in execution, and the solution of the mystery surrounding it is neat and plausible."  I fully agree!  Collins itself declared it "one of the most ingenious stoeies that the Club has ever published."  Certainly MacDonald's murder mechanics are ingenious and memorable.