I haven’t forgotten The Harvest of Victory,2 but they had run out of copies at the Times Book Club. I’ll try Smith’s when I’m back in Town.
Love.
Mother
1 The quotation from Hamlet, I, 3, echoed here, is: “Costly thy habit as thy purse can buy, But not express’d in fancy; rich, not gaudy”.
2 See letter to John Anthony, 6 November 1938.
[24 Newland Street
Witham
Essex]
TO MILTON WALDMAN1
12 December 1938
Dear Mr. Waldman,
It was most delightful to get a letter from you, and I hope you will forgive my not having answered it earlier; I was away from home dashing about in hotels and had not the leisure to deal with it properly at the time. As a matter of interest I should be most delighted to hear the facts about the Elizabethan spy murder, though I would not, with my very small historical knowledge, very readily undertake the task of embodying it in a Chronicle. You are perfectly right in supposing that there was a Wimsey among Walsingham’s young men; he was one of the innumerable sons of the Elizabethan duke, whose family rapacity was so wittily rebuked by the Queen (see a hitherto entirely unedited paragraph of Harington)2. There has always been a certain strain of detective talent in the Wimsey family; witness Duke Peregrine, who, in the reign of Charles II, boldly undertook the defence of a pair of Norfolk witches and triumphantly secured their acquittal, not without a certain amount of peril to himself. He was an early Fellow of the Royal Society, and did some useful investigations into the action of arsenic; his adventures I propose to write some day, if I can find the time and the ability. I am most anxious to hear more about the Elizabethan one; it may have been Piers, who was a son of the first wife, or one of the two hopelessly indistinguishable Jocelyns! or even the mysterious Nicholas, whose existence is only attested by a mutilated brass in Duke’s Denver Church. What with the duke’s many wives and his wives’ many husbands and the inextricable confusion in which their separate and combined families have involved the genealogical trees of that period, even Cousin Matthew3 is at the moment totally unable to say definitely which Wimsey was which, and would be immensely grateful for any light on the subject.
May I take this opportunity of saying what I have always wanted to say, of the enormous delight I have had from your books, especially the two about Elizabeth.4 They are among the books which I read and re-read for sheer delight.
With many thanks, and hoping to hear more from you about this most exciting Wimsey episode.
Yours sincerely,
[Dorothy L. Sayers]
P.S.
It is quite true that there have been sixteen Dukes of Denver; the duchy is an old one, taking seniority after Norfolk. I have some of the early genealogy worked out, and shall be happy to show it to you at any time. The first Duke (not the third, as Peter inaccurately says in one passage) was that notorious “cat’s paw”, who was a friend of Warwick the Kingmaker and of whom it was said:
“When the cat sits on the bear’s shoulder
Craft doth make treason bolder.”5
1 Milton Waldman (1895–1976), American-born author and publisher.
2 Sir John Harington (?1560–1612), translator of Ariosto’s Orlando Furioso. The reference is an example of the spoof historicity which D. L. S. so much enjoyed.
3 See Busman’s Honeymoon, “Epithalamion, 2”.
4 Probably King, Queen, Jack: Philip of Spain Courts Elizabeth, 1931 and Elizabeth, Queen of England, 1933.
5 See letter to Wilfrid Scott-Giles, 18 February 1936, The Letters of Dorothy L. Sayers: 1899–1936, pp. 368–369.
1939
The crisis of war
[24 Newland Street
Witham
Essex]
TO VAL GIELGUD
2 January 1939
Dear Val Gielgud,
How is the British public re-acting to the show?1 Has the B.B.C. been buried under a shower of brick-bats? I have received a dozen or so bouquets, and enclose the relevant portions of those which might interest you. I am particularly pleased by the letter from Mr. John Rhode2 (the detective writer) describing the effect on his village audience, and I like also the one from the vicarage family, who have previously suffered from Nativity plays!
May I again say how very much I appreciate the fine cast and production you gave me, and the sympathy and patience which you extended to the author.
With best wishes for the New Year,
Yours very sincerely,
[Dorothy L. Sayers]
1 The Nativity play, He That Should Come, which had been broadcast on radio on Christmas day.
2 See letter to John Dickson Carr, 3 March 1937, note 2.
[24 Newland Street
Witham
Essex]
TO JOHN RHODE1
2 January 1939
Dear John Rhode,
Thank you so much for your letter; it was very kind of you to write. I am very glad you enjoyed the Nativity play, and also that it had the effect you described on your pub audience. I was particularly pleased to hear this, because I had a mild struggle with the gentleman at the B.B.C.2 who is humorously described as the Director of Religion, and had told him in almost the very words of your village elder that I felt it important to get people to believe that the characters in the Bible were real people like ourselves, and not just “sacred Personages” apart from common humanity. So it was extremely gratifying to hear that in one case at least the desired effect had come off.
With best wishes to you both for the New Year, and again many thanks,
Yours very sincerely,
[Dorothy L. Sayers]
1 See letter to John Dickson Carr, 3 March 1937, note 2.
2 The Rev. Dr F. A. Iremonger. See letter to him, 26 October 1938.
[24 Newland Street
Witham
Essex]
TO THE EDITOR OF THE GLASGOW HERALD
2 January 1939
Dear Sir,
In his very kind notice of my broadcast play, He That Should Come, your critic “A. P. S.” makes especially favourable mention of Robert Adams1 in the role of Balthazar; “the little Irish lilt in his voice being”, he says, “for no apparent reason in perfect keeping with the part of an Ethiopian monarch”. He will, I think, be interested to have this little mystery explained and the reason made apparent. Mr. Adams is, in fact, not an Irishman but a man of colour, and what your critic’s ear, with so sure an instinct, seized upon and recognised as appropriate, was the very beautiful and characteristic quality of a genuine negro voice. I am greatly indebted to Mr. Val Gielgud, the producer, for the great care and trouble he took in the casting, and, in this particular instance, for giving me “the real thing”, and I am very glad that the excellence of Mr. Adams’s performance in this small part should have received the praise it deserved.
I am, Sir,
Yours faithfully,
[Dorothy L. Sayers]
1 Robert Adams, b. 1906, in British Guiana. His early films included Sanders of the River and King Solomon’s Mines.
[24 Newland Street
Witham
Essex]
TO DOROTHY ALLEN
2 January 1939
Dear Dorothy…
It seems to be now definitely agreed that the tour of Zeal is to start on February 6th, [and] letters have been sent out to that effect. We have had a period of alarm over the weekend, due to the fact that Ben[n] Levy1 had offered Billie Williams2 a magnificent part in London, and Billie Williams had got agitated owing to the fact that the tour dates were not settled; the excitement has now, however, died down, and Billie is with us. You should have heard me being managerial and firm to Mr. Levy on the phone.
I have had quite a number of fan letters about He That Should Come, many of them saying that they hope to see the play either in print, on the stage or broadcast again. I have decided not to print the broadcast version, but to wait until I can find time to make a stage
adaptation when we can print that.3 We seem to have got away with it all right in the Press. For next Christmas it would be, I think, a good thing to get into touch with some of the American broadcasting companies and see if there is any chance of getting a good broadcast over there.
I am coming up to Town on the 5th, so that if I am needed for anything, I shall be available.
With best wishes,
Yours ever,
[Dorothy L. Sayers]
1 Benn Wolfe Levy (1900–1973), playwright.
2 i.e. Harcourt Williams.
3 She did so and the stage version was included in Four Sacred Plays, Gollancz, 1948.
Ever since the production of The Zeal of Thy House and the publication of her articles “The Greatest Drama Ever Staged”, “The Dogma is the Drama” and “The Triumph of Easter”, religious bodies had been seeking D. L. S.’ help. One of these was the Church Social Action Group, who set themselves to keep a watch on newspapers and journals in order to seize opportunities of combating anti-Christian views. D. L. S. agreed to help them and was assigned the task of keeping an eye on John o’ London’s Weekly.1 Her first action was to challenge an article by Professor Julian Huxley entitled “Life Can be Worth Living”.
1 The journal ceased its independent existence in 1962, becoming incorporated with Time and Tide, which itself ceased to exist in 1986.
[24 Newland Street
Witham
Essex]
TO THE EDITOR OF JOHN O’LONDON’S WEEKLY
2 January 1939
Dear Sir,
PROFESSOR HUXLEY’S ARTICLE
One ought not, perhaps, to expect a scientist to be a logician; nevertheless, it is a little surprising to find Professor Huxley1 committing himself to the pronouncement: “Even if a god does exist behind and above the universe as we experience it, we can have no knowledge of such a power.” This kind of reasoning is known as petitio principii, or “begging the question” – that is, it assumes in advance the truth of the very conclusion it sets out to prove.
The statement makes, in fact, a double assumption: first, that if God exists, He does so only “behind and above” the universe of human experience, and not also within it – a premise which no Christian theologian would accept for a moment. This highly disputable assumption forms the basis for another, namely: that in whatever mode God exists, man can have no knowledge of Him. Here we have one of those universal negatives that are so notoriously awkward to prove.
Professor Huxley is perfectly entitled to rebut evidence as to God’s existence, or man’s knowledge by any arguments that may seem good to him, but not to sweep the whole matter out of court by an assertion which, however confidently advanced as a self-evident proposition, is, in fact, no more than an expression of personal opinion.
Yours faithfully,
[Dorothy L. Sayers]
1 Sir Julian Huxley (1887–1975), biologist and writer, brother of the novelist Aldous Huxley.
[24 Newland Street
Witham
Essex]
TO MARGARET BABINGTON
3 January 1939
Dear Miss Babington,
Thank you so much for your beautiful little book, which is one of the most charming series of drawings I have ever seen. Thank you, also, for your letter; I am very glad indeed to hear that the acoustics of the Chapter House are being firmly tackled, it will make a very great difference to the comfort of the actors if something can be done about it. I believe Mr. Williams is going to approach you in any case, to see whether it is possible to get the use of a room for some of the early rehearsals, as it is easier for the actors to get together in the comedy parts in a smaller space where they are not swamped, so to speak, by their surroundings.
I am getting on as fast as possible with Faustus,1 but have been held up very much by the work necessary on the broadcast Christmas play; as soon as I have anything ready, I will send it along to you.
With best wishes for the New Year,
Yours very sincerely,
[Dorothy L. Sayers]
1 Her second play for Canterbury, later entitled “The Devil to Pay”. Among other titles she considered were “Pact with the Devil”, “The Devil’s Bargain”, “Dr Cheat-the-Devil”, “The Sale of a Soul”, “Seller of Souls”.
On 28 December 1938 J. D. S. Hunt of the Amalgamated Press Ltd wrote to inform D. L. S. that the B.B.C. intended to include Sexton Blake1 in a new programme at the end of January. To coincide with the first week of this broadcast, he planned to bring out a special issue of The Detective Weekly2 in which Blake was to feature. He asked D. L. S. if she would send a few lines for publication.
[24 Newland Street
Witham
Essex]
TO J. D. S. HUNT
3 January 1939
Dear Sir,
In reply to your letter, I am hoping to send Sexton Blake my cordial good wishes for a prolonged and successful career. I enjoyed his adventures greatly in my childhood, and even at a very much later age might have been found a little sheepishly demanding his latest adventure from the local newspaper shop. You may remember that when I published the short adventure of Sexton Blake in the Evening Standard series of Great Detective Stories, I wrote a brief introduction,3 which sums up what in a more serious and scholarly manner I might have to say about this. I enclose a copy of this, and if the Evening Standard has no objection, you might like to reproduce it in your special issue.
Yours faithfully,
[Dorothy L. Sayers]
1 The stories about Sexton Blake, over 3500, were written by a syndicate of nearly 200 authors. The first story, “The Missing Millionaire”, by Harry Blythe (1852–1898, pseudonym Hal Meredith), appeared in December 1893 in a boys’ weekly paper, The Halfpenny Marvel, launched by Harmsworth the previous month. The Union Jack, another Harmsworth weekly for boys, which lasted from 1894 to 1933, carried many other Sexton Blake stories, as did other magazines. In 1915 the Sexton Blake Library initiated a full-length novel, published in instalments, between 1915 and 1925. The last novel, Sexton Blake and the Demon God, was published in 1978.
2 This journal has not been traced.
3 A feature entitled “Detective Cavalcade”, consisting of a daily series of detective stories, edited by D. L. S., ran from 29 July to 1 September 1936. No story by Sexton Blake was included.
[24 Newland Street
Witham
Essex]
TO R. STOKES1
3 January 1939
Dear Mr. Stokes,
I fear I have been rather late, owing to pressure of work, in coping with Professor Julian Huxley’s article in the Christmas number of John o’ London’s Weekly, which I enclose in case you have not seen it. I have, however, despatched the enclosed letter, which I hope they will print; I was careful not to enter into argument with Professor Huxley, thinking it better to point out the monstrous assumption made in the marked paragraph and leave it at that. It is, I fear, precisely these obiter dicta2 of scientists, which are dangerous to the uneducated mind, since they insidiously take for granted propositions which never have formed part of orthodox doctrine, and then proceed to refute them with a remarkable air of plausibility.
I suggest that it would now be a good thing for someone to pounce on the interesting statement made on December 23rd by “Enquiring Layman”, that old-fashioned orthodoxy was bankrupt long ago, and ask what precisely he means, if anything, by old-fashioned orthodoxy. These are the wounds with which we are wounded in the house of our friends. It is, at any rate, a statement which again takes a great deal for granted, and one would like to know what. I must leave “Enquiring Layman” to you, since I cannot write a second letter; a vigorous high-Churchman with a sense of humour would probably tackle it best.
Yours faithfully,
[Dorothy L. Sayers]
1 A member of the Church Social Action Group.
2 Latin: things said incidentally.
as from 24 Newland Street
Witham
TO HER SON
8 January 1939
Dear John,
Your question is a complicated one; and that is why I have had to take a little time to answer it.
First of all, this question of being “really” a mathematician, writer, or what not.
I imagine that what both you and Mr Cosgrove mean by “real” is what I prefer to call “creative”. There are creative mathematicians, who are mentally as much unlike the merely clever worker in figures as the great musical composers are unlike the brilliant executants. In the same way, the true creative writer is quite unlike the man of letters, whose talent is critical or interpretative.
Of one thing you can be sure: if you are a creator in any particular medium, you will end by discovering the fact. Nothing can prevent the genuine creator from creating or from creating in his own proper medium. All that education can do is to make matters more or less easy for him. If, by somebody’s mistake, he gets started off with the wrong equipment, or shoved into the wrong job, he will (if he has the essential guts of the creative artist) eventually equip himself and get himself out into the right job, but he may waste a lot of time and energy by the way.
On the other hand, you may quite possibly not be creative in that irresistible and self-determining way; you may be only a brilliant executant in one form or other. In that case, it is much more important that you should start off in the right direction, because you will have less power to put yourself right again.
In any case, I agree entirely with Mr Cosgrove that the pursuit of mathematics, or indeed of any pure science, is deadening and narrowing to the mind, unless contact is kept up with the “humanities”. I don’t mean this merely from the point of view of personal relationships. The thing that (in my opinion) tends to hamper the work of scientists in these days, and to diminish its value, is that they tend to work in isolation from the general body of thought. At present, those scientists who try to relate their work to a comprehensive scheme of philosophy are distrusted, both by philosophers and by their fellow-scientists. The reason, I think, for this unfortunate state of things is, precisely, that they are too strictly specialised; so that the philosophic side of their work is amateurish and bad. I believe there will be a reaction, in the next few generations, to a synthesis of science and philosophy,1 which will help to correct the present disjunction of these two activities.
The Letters of Dorothy L. Sayers. Vol. 1 Page 14
