TO IVY SHRIMPTON
15 January 1938
Dearest Ivy,
Many thanks for your letters. Glad to hear John’s flu is better. Let me know to this address whether he is coming up on Tuesday and by which train. If he is only just over flu he had better not come by an early train, had he? There is no point in exhausting him by trailing him round Town. He could either arrive just in time to have some lunch, or he could lunch on the train and I could meet him and take him across. However I leave it to you to decide what he will be up to doing. Just send me a card to reach me Tuesday morning.
Love,
D. L. S.
1 The address of D. L. S.’ flat in London.
[24 Newland Street
Witham
Essex]
TO MARGARET BABINGTON
31 January 1938
Dear Miss Babington,
Many thanks for your letter. I am so glad you have got a good play this year after all your agitations. I have not read Christ’s Comet,1 but I have heard favourable reports of it in theatrical circles. I do hope it will be a very great success; I shall certainly try to come and see it.
Marie Ney, who played the Lady Ursula in The Zeal of Thy House at the Westminster Theatre.
Zeal of Thy House will come on at the Westminster at the end of March, so I don’t suppose Miss Haffenden will come down about the costumes before February 12th; but she may at any time ask to have one or two items, including the angels’ wings, sent up to her for alteration. We hope you will be kind enough to hold the costumes and props for me, if you can possibly find the room, until we are able to have them sent direct to the Westminster theatre. It is difficult to find storage room in London, and it is not good for things to be continually carted about. I do hope you will not find this inconvenient.
We have all been very excited about the production, and have been through some anxious moments; but all appears to be now well, although the contract is not actually signed. I am hoping very much to have quite a number of my original professional actors; Mr. Williams and Mr. Napier2 are with us, of course, and I have great hopes that we shall have also Mr. Quayle, Mr. Winter3 and possibly Michael Gough4 and Tom Morgan5 if they can get back from America.
A little nearer the time, may I send down a few posters and leaflets for distribution in Canterbury? I know that I may rely on my friends there to come and support us in Town, and give us as much publicity as possible.
With best wishes to yourself and all the Friends of the Cathedral,
Yours very sincerely,
[Dorothy L. Sayers]
1 By Christopher Hassall, the play chosen for the Canterbury Festival of 1938. See Kenneth Pickering, Drama in the Cathedral, Churchman Publishing, 1985, chapter 8.
2 Frank Napier, who played the part of Theodatus and assisted in the production.
3 Cecil Winter, who played the part of Cassiel.
4 Michael Gough (b. 1917), who played the part of Simon.
5 Thomas Morgan, who played the part of Gervase.
[24 Newland Street
Witham
Essex]
TO FATHER HERBERT KELLY
7 February 1938
Dear Father Kelly,
I know you will be glad to hear that Zeal of Thy House is coming to London at the end of March; it is being put on by Mr. Anmer Hall1 at the Westminster theatre for a run of one month with Mr. Harcourt Williams as William of Sens, and Mr. Anthony Quayle as Michael and one or two others of my original Canterbury cast. I do hope you will be able to come and see it and send as many friends as you can persuade. It is a little unfortunate that we have to begin in Lent and so close to Holy Week, since the first two weeks of a short run are so very important; we hope, however, that in view of its being a religious play, some good Christian people may be able to reconcile their consciences to going in Lent, and we shall, in any case, run on over Easter week, which ought to be a good one. Perhaps later on, I may send you one or two posters and leaflets to display at Kelham. It is all very exciting, and I do hope we shall do well with the show.
I continue to make interesting discoveries about Christian doctrine as understood by the Laity; a young man of my acquaintance, brought up in some kind of Christianity, was astonished to hear that the Church considered pride to be a sin at all, having always been under the impression that sins of the flesh were the only sins that counted.2 He seemed to think that the main outline of the Faith, as I endeavoured to explain them over a glass of sherry in a pub (I always seem to be expounding the Faith in pubs!), was something quite revolutionary and unheard of, though interesting.
I had a very kind letter from Mr. Eric Fenn,3 asking permission to give an amateur performance of the play at a Student Conference; in view of the London production I had to refuse this permission, but he has very kindly undertaken to do all he can to help in getting publicity for our production.
With kindest remembrances,
Yours very sincerely,
[Dorothy L. Sayers]
1 Anmer Hall (Alderson Burrell Horne), actor, producer and manager (1863–1953).
2 Possibly the young man quoted in “The Other Six Deadly Sins” as asking: “I did not know there were seven deadly sins: please tell me the names of the other six”. The talk, given to the Public Morality Council, Caxton Hall, Westminster on 23 October 1941, was published in Creed or Chaos? (Methuen, March 1943).
3 The Rev. Eric Fenn, Presbyterian Minister, Secretary of the H.Q. of the Student Christian Movement from 1926 to 1937, later Assistant Director of Religious Broadcasting, B.B.C.
24 Newland Street
Witham
Essex
TO IVY SHRIMPTON
28 February 1938
Dearest Ivy,
It has just come to me that I have forgotten to send you the money for John’s last holiday – I enclose £5 to cover his bed and board and the little account you enclosed.
He goes up for his scholarship exam1 at the beginning of the month, as you know, and Mr Tendall has arranged for him to stay with friends in Town, as I have nowhere to put him and shall be down at the theatre all day. Then he will have told you about his holiday trip abroad. I think this will be a good thing for him, as he is now old enough to remember what he sees. I don’t know where I shall be on April 5th when they break up, but I suggest it would be nice if you could contrive to come up to Town that day (if you can find somewhere to park the youngsters) and then you and he could meet and go to see Zeal of Thy House at the Westminster. Of course I would pay for the tickets and your railway-fares etc. This would give you an opportunity of seeing him before he starts off abroad. Mr Tendall can put him up in Broadstairs for the 2 or 3 nights before they set out as it obviously isn’t worth while for him to trail to Oxford and back for a couple of nights.
It has been very hard work getting the play arrangements going, but I think it’s going to be all right now and a good show. We start rehearsals etc. on Tuesday. Aunt Maud is better but not yet really right after the nasty attack she had at Christmas. She is going away for a couple of weeks tomorrow – not, thank goodness, to Cornwall – I hope she won’t pick up anything fresh.
I had a depressing letter from Shirley the other day, asking for money. She said she had had an operation in the breast and that Aunt Lil2 was ill – I don’t know with what. I sent her £50, which was as much as I thought I could well spare under all the circumstances. After all, I never actually met any of them.
Best love,
Dorothy
1 For Malvern College, a boys’ public school. He was then at a preparatory boarding school in Broadstairs, Kent. He won the scholarship.
2 Lilian Sarah Leigh (her mother’s sister), married to Norman Logan, who lived in California. Shirley was their daughter. They also had a son named Kenneth, who came to London with his wife later that year. See letters to Ivy Shrimpton, 18 June and 6 November 1938, and letter to her son, 27 June 1938.
[24 Newland Street
Witham
Essex]
TO MAURICE BROWNE1
5 March 1938
Dear Maurice,
I am so sorry you should have had to wait to see the announcement of Zeal in the papers. The minute it was fixed up with A. B. H.2 – about a fortnight ago, I think, or more – I dashed in to 10 Golden Square and told Marjorie,3 adding messages of regret and affection for you. She must have forgotten to tell you; but my intentions were good!
We are rehearsing and I think it’s going to pan out very well, despite a certain cramping of the angels here and there by theatrical conditions. Tony Quayle, the little beast, backed out at the last moment to go to the Gate, of all places; so Michael is being played by Alan Napier – his robes have had to be let down 8 inches! One actor is returning from America to play for us – his ship has caught fire and he can’t now sail till Wednesday – I only hope the Queen Mary doesn’t now blow up or hit an iceberg! So we have our little ups and downs, you see. Nevertheless, we hope to open on March 29th and to see you there to wish us luck.
Love,
[Dorothy L. S.]
1 See letter to him, 12 March 1937, note 1.
2 i.e. Anmer Hall: See letter to Father Kelly, 7 February 1938, note 1.
3 Marjorie Vosper, her dramatic agent.
[24 Newland Street
Witham
Essex]
TO MRS STEVENSON1
6 April 1938
Dear Mrs. Stevenson,
Many thanks for your letter. I am glad you liked the article2 in the Sunday Times, and I hope you also liked the play, The Zeal of Thy House; I gather that you saw it at Canterbury. I should like very much to come down and speak to you at Tewkesbury on one of the dates you mention, especially as my friend, Frank Napier, who produced Zeal for me, is producing Saint Joan3 for you, and I should have wanted in any case to come and see the production, so if you will let me know which day you prefer, I will endeavour to think out something to say. I must warn you, however, that I have a way of upsetting people by what I do say – I have just been accused of heresy in the pages of Punch of all papers! However, if you are ready to take the risk, so am I. (The Punch man is, in my opinion, a vile agnostic, and I have written and told him so!)
I hope your Festival at Tewkesbury4 will be a very great success. The business for Zeal is building up slowly in London, and we hope that all those who are interested will come and see the show before it is too late, since it is only on for a limited run. I wonder whether you will help us by distributing the enclosed leaflets to anybody who may be interested.
Thank you so much for your kind invitation.
Yours sincerely,
[Dorothy L. Sayers]
1 A member of the Religious Drama Society.
2 “The Greatest Drama Ever Staged is the Official Creed of Christendom”, first published in The Sunday Times, 3 April 1938. Later published, with the shorter title, “The Greatest Drama Ever Staged”, as a pamphlet together with “The Triumph of Easter” (Hodder and Stoughton, 2 June 1938). Subsequently included in Creed or Chaos? (Methuen 1947).
3 By George Bernard Shaw.
4 Tewkesbury was planning an appeal to raise funds for the repair of the tower and east chapel of the Abbey. The Religious Drama Society was organizing lectures on “The Meaning and Purpose of Religious Drama Today”. D. L. S. agreed to give one on 11 July. The title was “Author, Actor and Audience”.
[24 Newland Street
Witham
Essex]
TO S. DARK1
6 April 1938
Dear Mr. Dark,
I am glad to hear from Miss King that you liked my article2 in the Sunday Times; it was written in a rather bludgeoning style, because it was originally intended for the Daily Mail, who asked for an article on that subject, but when they saw it were afraid to print it!
In the meantime I have been accused of heresy in the pages of Punch; I have drafted an answer to the editor, though, of course, they allow one no opportunity for public rejoinder. I enclose a copy of that reply, in the hope that possibly you might be interested in raising the same question in the columns of the Church Times. It is, of course, always dangerous to put forward any theological statement, particularly in paradoxical form and expression, but it seemed to me so important to stress the reality of Christ’s human suffering and His participation in that suffering with His Divine Personality, that I was ready to take the risk. To keep the exact middle course between Arianism3 and Docetism4 is always difficult, but one has to try and do it if one is not to lose the whole meaning for us of the Incarnation.
Thank you for your kindly interest in the play.
Yours sincerely,
[Dorothy L. Sayers]
1 Editor of The Church Times.
2 See letter to Mrs Stevenson, dated 6 April 1938, note 2
3 See letter to Father Herbert Kelly, 4 October 1937, note 3.
4 The heretical belief that Christ’s body was either a phantom or of celestial substance.
[24 Newland Street
Witham
Essex]
TO THE EDITOR OF PUNCH
6 April 1938
Dear Sir,
It is seldom wise to answer the observations of critics, and in the present case, as I am aware, useless, since the pages of Punch are not open to correspondence and an attack from that quarter permits no public rejoinder. Nevertheless, since your dramatic critic1 has seen fit to accuse me of “free and easy theology”,2 I feel that I must enter an objection privately, and I should be obliged if you would pass it on to the right quarter. The theology of the last scene of The Zeal of Thy House is strict enough, and “High Church Divines”, so far from demurring, have endorsed it.
There is no question of denying the operation of the Holy Ghost; on the contrary, Michael mentions it specifically: “For you the task, for you the tongues of fire.”3 But unless we are to fall into the Docetic heresy of supposing the Humanity of Christ to have been a mere phantasm, we must allow all the temptations and sufferings of that Humanity to have been a reality. The first great temptation and the last great temptation are, significantly, almost identical: “If Thou be the Son of God, cast Thyself down.”4 “If Thou be the Son of God, come down;”5 and the answer to both is a refusal. To deny the reality of the temptation and the refusal is to deny the reality of the Humanity.
I have made William of Sens say: “Could God, being God, do this?” (i.e. suffer the agony of human frustration) and the reply is: “Christ, being Man, did this.” But that which was done by Christ’s Humanity on the Cross was done once and for all: “But this man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God.”6 The rest is indeed for the Holy Ghost, “qui et semper aderat generi humano;”7 but it will not do to confound the Persons of the Holy Trinity; that way lies heresy indeed.
Yours faithfully
[Dorothy L. Sayers]
1 Douglas Woodruff (1897–1978), editor of The Tablet (1936–1967), on the editorial staff of The Times (1926–1938) and on the staff of the B.B.C. (1934–1936).
2 The tone of the review was condescending and the actual words used were “very free and easy theology” (Punch, 6 April 1938, p. 384).
3 The Zeal of Thy House, the archangel’s words to William, scene 4, in the speech beginning, “Christ, being man, did this…”
4 Matthew, chapter 4, verse 6.
5 Matthew, chapter 27, verse 42.
6 Epistle to the Hebrews, chapter 10, verse 12.
7 Latin: who likewise has ever sustained the human race. D. L. S. quotes these words in her Introduction to The Man Born to be King (Gollancz, 1943, pp. 27–28).
24 Newland Street
Witham
Essex
TO HER SON
7 April 1938
Dear John,
I hope this will catch you before you leave tomorrow. I meant to write yesterday, but I got the dates mixed.
I’m so glad you’ve had such a good term and distinguished yourself all ov
er the place and now I hope you’ll have a really grand trip. It sounds a most delightful tour. I enclose £1 tip for you to spend on this and that as you go.
I have had a very hard month or so working on the play. Did you and Aunt Ivy get to it all right and enjoy yourselves? And did you think the angels handsome?
Best love and have a good time.
Your loving
Mother
[24 Newland Street
Witham
Essex]
TO CLIFFORD MATTHEWS1
7 April 1938
Dear Mr. Matthews,
Your sister, Irene, has passed me on your letter; thank you for saying that the authors’ names shall be given correctly in your future announcements. I am very busy at present, and afraid have not time to write out a clear cut description of all the characters in Busman’s Honeymoon. I did do this once, and handed the ms.2 to my collaborator, who is now frantically searching for it; if she finds it, I will send it on to you. The great thing to remember about Peter is that the presentment of his character and appearance should be taken from the later books, e.g. Gaudy Night and the novel of Busman’s Honeymoon, and not from the earlier ones, since he is twelve years older in the Honeymoon than in Whose Body? and has developed considerably in the intervening period. Physically, he should ideally be five feet nine and a half inches, clean shaven, fair hair brushed straight back, hawk-nosed, fine hands, nervously energetic and with rather a light, not booming sort of voice. At the time of the play he was forty-five. Harriet is dark, with an interesting rather than beautiful face, sparely made, physically and mentally sturdier than Peter, with a rather beautiful voice; she is about thirty-three. Bunter should be a couple of years older than Peter, and precise rather than pompous in manner; slight, not paunchy. This may help you to go on with unless and until the original character sketches can be found. The other people in the play do not appear in any of the other books, and the producer may use his imagination. Barrie Livesey3 was, to my mind, the ideal Crutchley, because he had both the attractive physical appearance, which accounts for Miss Twitterton’s infatuation, and also that touch of something uncontrolled, which suggests the possible murderer.
The Letters of Dorothy L. Sayers Vol II: 1937-1943: From Novelist to Playwright Page 10
