In her reply, Shirley set out her concerns at some length. Francis’s behaviour had been, from the start, confusing; there was “a sort of detachment that did not fit at all with the fact that he wanted to see me constantly.” The invitation to travel to Spain had been made at a dinner party, “obviously feeling that this had no implications that might prevent its being said before other people.” She added that “in all these weeks of being with me Francis has never so much as held my hand.” A few days before he flew out, Francis sent her a coyly “anonymous” letter, advising “that FS had been involved with another woman when he met me, felt he had committed himself to her, did not know how he could extricate himself—the point being that he would rather have SH. Could I advise?” A correspondence continued in this stylised vein, between “Lo Scrittore” and “La Scrittrice.” Francis began, “A writing friend tells us of meeting a seemingly marvellous writing girl by chance (as much chance as can be present at such moments) at a party given by a far from usual mutual friend,” but he owned that it all now seemed to have been “too good to be true!” and that he felt it might be best “to try to salvage an ‘amitié littéraire’” from it all. Shirley responded:

Lady authoress has statement to make … For her part she may say that she does not believe in Chance. That she has no accompaniment and is in fact sola solissima. That the quasi-accompaniment to the party, while congenial, is of quite other inclinations … She must impress upon her readers … that she is of serious nature in such matters, that her experience in this direction has been of a kind that has tended to keep her sola solissima, always allowing for rare possibilities occurring at parties given by common friends … Scrittrice is trying to think of examples of amitié littéraire …