1 Cardinal Heenan (1905–1975).
2 Slang, for people who are extreme in Anglo-Catholic belief and practice.
3 She interprets this term as “mode of being” in her letter to D. G. Jarvis, 18 October 1940.
4 J. B. S. Haldane (1860–1936), physiologist, author of The Sciences and Philosophy, 1929 The Philosophy of a Biologist, second edition 1936.
5 Sir Arnold Lunn (1888–1974), writer and ski champion.
On 8 October 1940 Derek McCulloch made his first approach to D. L. S. about the series of plays on the life of Christ. He began by asking if she had heard a recent series on Paul of Tarsus by L. Du Garde Peach.1 He referred to an article of hers which he had read in The Guardian2 of 15 March, entitled “Divine Comedy”3 on the subject of Christian drama. It was crammed, he said “with irrefutable advice: I particularly like the line ‘At the name of Jesus, every voice goes plummy’ – we have been on our guard against this danger of humbug for more years than I care to remember.…Mutual confidence is everything between author and producer. Your article, quite apart from all your other work, makes me feel sure that we shall establish this at the outset. Thank you for writing it”.
1 L. du Garde Peach (1890–1975), author of over 400 plays, mainly for radio, ranging from historical and Biblical pieces to contemporary comedies. He founded an amateur theatre group in Derbyshire, known as the Village Players. He was awarded an O.B.E. in 1972.
2 Anglican weekly which ran from 1846 to 1951
3 Later published in Unpopular Opinions (Gollancz, 30 September 1946).
The situation looked promising. D. L. S. replied:
[24 Newland Street
Witham
Essex]
TO DEREK MCCULLOCH
11 October 1940
Dear Mr. McCulloch,
Thank you so much for your very kind and most encouraging letter. I was very glad to hear from you and to find that you as Producer and I as Author were obviously going to see eye to eye over this series of plays. I had been feeling very guilty for not having let you have the first one earlier, but I am now very thankful, as I had somehow gathered from Dr. Welch that the time was only 30 minutes, probably it was my stupidity in misunderstanding him. 45 minutes is a great improvement and I shall not now have to cramp the Bethlehem scene so much by comparison with the Herod scene.
Unfortunately I missed the Paul of Tarsus plays. I wish I had heard them. I am particularly interested to know from you that the children found them enthralling and exciting, because Mr. Fenn suggested that some people had thought them a little too advanced for youngsters, and I was afraid the same criticism might be made of the one I am now doing. When you are writing for children of all ages it is difficult to hit on the highest common factor of their combined intelligence, but I always think it is far better to write a little over the heads of the youngest rather than insult the older ones with something that they think babyish, and I believe Dr. Welch agrees about this. Also I gathered from him that one of the ideas is to catch adults in the net that we spread for the children, and if that is so, then we shall have to get a little above the quite simple and pretty-pretty. As I wrote to Dr. Welch, I am trying to base the whole series on the idea of the Kingdom and I have started by attempting to make real to the listener the complicated political position of Judaea under the Roman Empire. This is so very like that of a tributary state today, either under the British Empire, or in some cases under the Reich, that intelligent children of reasonable age should, I think, be able to grasp the awkwardness of Herod’s position. I know that when I was a child it was never really explained to me why Herod should have been so angry about the birth of a Messiah and it would have made the whole story much more intelligible if somebody had told me. You will have to let me know whether you think, as I have written it, it will be comprehensible to the “middle-aged children”: we cannot really address ourselves for 45 minutes to the toddlers.
As regards the cast: I have allowed for a cast of about 12, some of whom will double so that the bits and pieces of Herod’s court can do duty as supporting characters in the Bethlehem scene. I hope you will not think this is too much of a company. In this play we are embarrassed with three Kings, which rather bulk out the number of actors required.
There are a few characters, of course, who will have to run through more or less the whole series of plays, though they may not appear in each one – such for example as the Blessed Virgin, St. Peter, St. John, and of course, Christ Himself; others will be character parts appearing only in one or two plays as occasion arises. I have also got in the first play a Roman Centurion, who is useful as symbolizing the power of Rome at Jerusalem, and I think he may run all through the series and become at the end the Centurion who said “Truly this was the Son of God”. Gordon McLeod played this kind of part extremely well in He That Should Come. My Herod is a Cecil Trouncer part, but he I think is at Manchester and I don’t know whether we could get him. Our big trouble will be to get a Christ; Raf de la Torre has some claims on this part and his voice is beautiful, but from the producer’s point of view he is difficult. He is very slow at rehearsal and fearfully argumentative. Nobody would be better if one could work on each play for a month. Under present conditions you would perhaps prefer a quicker study. Of course, I don’t know what scope they give you to engage real stars; if you have carte blanche, I think Michael Redgrave3 would be quite a possibility, but of course I have no idea whether he would come and whether they would pay for him, but I do think if we are going to put on Christ that they will have to make an effort to get somebody really first-class. After all, it is a very experimental thing to do and we shall get into the most dreadful trouble if there is anything not quite first-class about the performance.
I have done the Herod scene and as soon as I have recast and expanded the Bethlehem scene and the final tail-piece in which Herod orders the Massacre of the Innocents, I will send the manuscript along for you to look at.
In the meantime may I say that after your letter I look forward very much to working with you.
Yours sincerely,
[Dorothy L. Sayers]
3 (Sir) Michael Redgrave (1908–1985).
[24 Newland Street
Witham
Essex]
TO ANTHONY GILBERT1
17 October 1940
Dear Anthony Gilbert,
Many thanks for your letter, I enclose the cheques signed.
It is very sad about Helen Simpson. I had been afraid for a long time that things were going that way. I did not think it was much use doing anything about flowers, she died in the country, but they did not tell me when or where the funeral was to take place and I felt that by the time we had got the details and despatched a wreath, it would be too late, but there is no reason why we should not send something to be put on the grave if we can find out where this is. It was stupid of me not to ask her secretary at the time. She rang me up from London but had had some difficulty in getting through and I did not quite get my wits about me. It is a frightful job to get calls to Town from here2 but if you would like to ring up the Children’s Hospital, I expect they would be able to tell you about it.
I have just sent out a notice to the Club3 saying that this does not seem a good time for Dinners, but that if anybody would like a Lunch, I should be glad if they would communicate with me. I am glad to know that you are all right so far. I imagine that the Club premises are still standing since nobody has told us they are not. I don’t know whether we ought to put the Minute book and some of those prints in a place of greater safety, and I don’t quite know what place is of greater safety. We have a good cellar in Gt. James Street4 but just at present I understand we are surrounded by time bombs,5 but I will leave it to you to take any action you think desirable.
It might be a good thing to send the Minute book down here. We get a few bangs and bumps in the neighbourhood most nights but not in such profusion as London.
Wishing you safe and sound,
Y
ours sincerely,
[D. L. S.]
1 Anthony Gilbert (1899–1973), a woman detective novelist. Her real name was Lucy Beatrice Malleson. She had two other pseudonyms: J. Kilmeny Keith and Anne Meredith.
2 Owing to war-time congestion on telephone lines.
3 The Detection Club.
4 Beneath her London flat at No. 24.
5 This is the time of the Blitz on London.
[24 Newland Street
Witham
Essex]
TO DR. W. W. GREG1
18 October 1940
Dear Dr. Greg,
Thank you so much for your kind note. We shall feel the loss of Helen Simpson very much; she had one of the finest minds I know and an extraordinarily vivid personality. I don’t think I ever met anybody who was so intensely interested in every kind of person and thing she encountered on her passage through life, and I feel that her death at this moment is a blow not only to her friends but also to the country; she would have taken a vigorous part in the post-war re-building.
Muriel Byrne, who is staying with me, I hope for some little time, thanks you very much for your message and asks me to send her love and say that she is writing to you and hopes very much to come and see you before very long. She is finding this place rather more peaceful than London, though to be sure we get a series of bumps and crashes most nights, but not quite so loudly or so persistently as they do in Town.
With again much gratitude for your kind thought and hoping that you are all keeping safe and well.
Yours sincerely,
[Dorothy L. Sayers]
1 Sir Walter Wilson Greg (1875–1959), mediaevalist and Shakespearean scholar.
[24 Newland Street
Witham
Essex]
TO D. G. JARVIS1
18 October 1940
Dear Miss Jarvis,
Thank you for your letter; I am glad you were interested in my little pamphlet, “Creed or Chaos?”
The doctrine of the Trinity is, I think, not nearly so puzzling as it sounds, but it would take rather a long time to expound it in a letter. (As it happens, I am writing a short book2 which has some bearing on the subject, from the point of view of the creative artist, who keeps a kind of “working model” of the Trinity inside his own mind, forming a useful analogy to the Great Trinity that created the world.)
I think the two points about which one is most likely to get confused are: (a) the word “Person”, which does not mean, theologically, what it means in every-day English – i.e. an entirely separate character, but is a (not very happy) translation of the Greek hypostasis, meaning, rather, a distinct mode of being; (b) the phrase “Son” of God, which tends to suggest that the Second Person of the Trinity begins and ends with the human Jesus. That, of course, is not what is meant at all – Jesus is God the Son manifested in human nature, but the Godhead of the Son existed and exists eternally, and is the Creator “by whom all things were made”. In some ways I think St. John’s phrase “the Word of God” is easier to understand than “the Son of God”. If you try taking – let us say, any beautiful line of poetry in which the thought is perfectly expressed by the words, and try to distinguish in your mind between the thought and the word, you will probably get some idea of what is meant by saying that “the Father” and “the Son” are the same and yet distinct (or, as the theologians put it, two Persons but the same Substance). If you then try again to distinguish the Thought and the Word from the Meaning which they have for you, you will get some idea of what is meant by saying that the Spirit is also a distinct Person, but still the same Substance. Or take a book – any book – and ask yourself: which is the actual book – the general idea of the book in the author’s mind, the succession of words and scenes that make up the book as he planned it all out, or the book as you read it yourself? You will probably find it hard to decide, and may end by saying: Each is the book, and the whole book, and all three together are one and the same book – and I can only know any of them because one of them (the second) has been manifested in material ink and paper (the second person incarnate).
The theory that Jesus was only a very good man is, of course, perfectly tenable – but, for the reasons given in “Creed or Chaos?” it gets one precisely nowhere, and can scarcely be called “Christianity” in the sense that the Christian Church understands the word.
Yours very truly,
[Dorothy L. Sayers]
1 Identity unknown.
2 i.e. The Mind of the Maker.
[24 Newland Street
Witham
Essex]
TO DEREK MCCULLOCH
25 October 1940
Dear Mr. McCulloch,
Very many thanks for sending the St. Paul plays,1 which I shall very much enjoy reading.
I am driving on with the Magi, who are getting rather talkative – owing no doubt to the sudden expansion of their Lebensraum2 to twenty minutes instead of ten! I think Robert Donat3 would probably be a very good choice; as it happens I don’t know his work very well except on the films, but I believe he is a very intelligent and sympathetic actor, which is what we want. In addition to those qualities I feel that the third indispensable thing is a voice which is essentially alive and flexible. Technically the most exacting feature of the part is the immense range of expression it will demand, from the fieriest denunciation to the most compassionate tenderness all telescoped into a very few minutes.
The one kind of Christ I absolutely refuse to have at any price whatsoever, is a dull Christ; we have far too many of these in stained-glass windows.
I am so glad you can count on Robert Farquharson,4 he is an excellent actor and I am sure he will be sympathetic because he so much enjoyed being the Greek gentleman in He That Should Come. The Virgin Mary always presents a certain amount of difficulty – again in getting rid of the stained-glass window touch; that is, she has got to be sweet without being sentimental. The part itself presents difficulties in this way, especially as we have to cope with the feelings of Roman Catholics, to whom she is almost as divine as her Son, and deeply dyed Protestants, who regard everything about her with the deepest suspicion. However, that is my funeral. I hope to let you have the script of the first play next week.
With best wishes,
Yours very sincerely,
[Dorothy L. Sayers]
1 By L. du Garde Peach. See introduction to letter to Derek McCulloch, 11 October 1940, note 1.
2 German: living space.
3 Robert Donat (1905–1958), stage and film star.
4 Robert Farquharson (1877–1966). He acted the part of Ephraim, a Gentleman of Herod’s Bedchamber, in the first play.
[24 Newland Street
Witham
Essex]
TO REV. DR JAMES WELCH
25 October 1940
Dear Dr Welch,
I am anxious to find out whether there is a regular Evening Hymn sung by Jewish families in their household devotions. I want it to finish off the Bethlehem scene in the Children’s play. I think you told me you had a Jewish friend1 who would be ready to furnish details of this kind and I should be very glad if you could ask him whether there is such a thing and whether he can supply the traditional words and music. If there is no such thing, I will write one myself.
I have been in communication with Derek McCulloch, who has been very nice, and it looks as though we should be able to work together very well.
Trusting you are carrying on in reasonable comfort, despite Hitler,
Yours very sincerely,
[Dorothy L. Sayers]
1 Dr Welch enlisted the help of the Chief Rabbi, Dr Hertz, who supplied the traditional airs which are used in plays five and seven.
24 Newland Street
Witham
Essex
TO THE EDITOR OF TIME AND TIDE
26 October 19401
Sir,
MR WINSTON CHURCHILL
I should like to voice my appreciation of Maurice Collis’2 article on Wi
nston Churchill. We cannot be told too loudly or too often of the need for restoring to the man of vision the control of public affairs. For a long time, many of us have watched with distress and alarm a growing tendency to entrust our national destinies to the heedless hands of the “plain man”, while despising the man of vision as a visionary. That, when the inevitable doom was fulfilled and our agitated repentance took place, we should have found the right man ready and waiting seems almost more than we deserved.
Mr Churchill has reaffirmed in us the classic virtues; is it perhaps a little exaggerated to say that these are “very distinct from Christian virtues”? A certain sentimentality in our religious attitude sometimes leads us to forget that the four “natural” virtues, recognized by the Schoolmen as the Cardinal Virtues on which all the rest depend, are Justice, Prudence, Temperance (i.e. Measure), and Fortitude – and these have a strongly “classical” sound. We might do worse than adopt them as a national watchword. The three “theological” virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity are more mystical and paradoxical – to believe when all is betrayed, to go forward when things are desperate, and to love the unlovable. Two of these, at any rate, are not altogether absent from our present leadership; and we shall probably need to learn the third, if the next European settlement is not to go the way of the last.
Finally, may I take this opportunity of congratulating Time and Tide on its careful observance of the cardinal virtue of Temperance in dealing with ministerial and other errors at the present time. Criticism is an excellent thing, and the corner-stone of our liberties; but when it degenerates into malignant and indiscriminate abuse, it not only outruns Prudence, overthrows Justice, and undermines Fortitude, but defeats its own ends by evoking an obstinate and resentful antagonism to criticism of any kind. From this intemperate virulence, your paper has kept singularly free; and that is no small achievement.
The Letters of Dorothy L. Sayers. Vol. 2, 1937-1943: From Novelist to Playwright Page 23