“Can curl up, but can’t swim,
Stickly-Prickly, that’s him”?’1
Because, if so, Stickly and Prickly would do very nicely. But I have mislaid my Just So Stories and am not sure of my biological data. Hedge-hogs curl, I know, but do porcupines?
I am hoping before long to get my christening party together. In the meantime I note that carrots, apples, and a simple vegetarian diet will be acceptable.
Yours sincerely,
[Dorothy L. Sayers]
1 Kipling’s words are: “Can’t curl, but can swim – Slow-Solid, that’s him! Curls up, but can’t swim – Stickly-Prickly, that’s him!” The first two lines refer to the tortoise, the last two to the hedgehog. (Recited by the Painted Jaguar in “The Beginning of Armadilloes”, Just So Stories.)
[24 Newland Street
Witham
Essex]
TO DR JAMES WELCH
29 April 1940
Dear Mr. Welch,
You will think I am very rude for not having suggested a meeting with you before this, to discuss the Children’s Broadcasts. I have, however, had so much to do this month, that I felt it would be quite useless even to begin thinking about a new venture at the moment. Anything we arranged in discussion would have been driven out of my mind by pressure of other things. I hope, however, to be able to arrange a meeting with you either in May or June, if you are going to be in London during that period.
There is just one thing I want to make clear before we start. The reason why the rate of payment is less for plays broadcast in the Children’s Hour than for plays performed to adults is, I understand, because it is customary to give the actors far less rehearsal when they are broadcasting to children. I think we shall have to say quite firmly that we are not going to allow these little plays to be rushed through without proper rehearsal. It is delicate and dangerous enough to introduce Our Lord speaking in person, without the additional complication of his having to be played by an actor who has only rushed through the part in a couple of readings. I feel sure that you will agree with me about this, and I think it would be as well to establish the point with the financial authorities before going any further. I will leave it to you to take the matter up, and if you require any support from me in the matter, I shall be glad if you will put me directly in touch with the Department responsible.
Yours sincerely,
[Dorothy L. Sayers]
[24 Newland Street
Witham
Essex]
TO DR. J. H. OLDHAM
20 May 1940
Dear Dr. Oldham,
Thank you very much for your letter. I am very glad you were interested in the address1 I gave at Derby, and so far as I am concerned, I am delighted that you should quote from it in the Christian News-Letter. It will, however, be necessary, or at any rate proper, to obtain the consent of Messrs. Hodder and Stoughton who are publishing the complete address in sixpenny pamphlet form in the course of the next few weeks.2 If you will send them a line, saying how much you propose to quote, they will probably be happy to give their permission, on the understanding, of course, that you mention their name and the fact that they are publishing the pamphlet.
I must apologise to you for not having yet produced the promised paper on the Rights of Man.3 Several things have happened to delay me. First, there was the production at the Torch Theatre of a little play4 of mine which suspended my other activities for nearly a month while I was coping with rehearsals and production. Secondly, I found it, as I expected, very difficult to get my ideas into any sort of organised shape. The Derby address is, in fact, a preliminary effort in this direction and embodies, so far, the result of my cogitations on the subject. I gather that Mr. Wells’s pamphlet has not made quite the effect that was expected of it and, therefore, there is perhaps the less necessity to publish an immediate counterblast. Thirdly, owing to [these] various delays, I am very much behind-hand on a book5 which I had already promised Methuens to deliver to them by the end of June, and which it is really my immediate duty to get on with, since there is here a contractual obligation to fulfil. Finally, of course, the very nerve-racking condition of things in Europe has acted as a brake upon intellectual output – I find it extraordinarily difficult to put my mind to questions of principle when the pressure of the practical situation is so heavy. In plain language, we have all been very much frightened6 and one does not work well in fright.
All these circumstances make it difficult for me to give a definite promise of another News-Letter Supplement. I will, however, do my best. If it is going to be possible to carry on with one’s prearranged plans during the next two months, I expect to be at Canterbury during June, dealing with the Festival revival of The Zeal of Thy House.7 This will again occupy my mind to some extent, though it has enabled me to put off numerous other distractions in the way of outside engagements, and since the play has been done before, I ought to be able to get quite an amount of time free to do some writing while I am there.
I am sorry to hear that the production of the News-Letter has reached a critical stage – I feared that this might be the case, in view of the paper and postage question. I hope to hear shortly from you that you find yourself in a position to go ahead – which reminds me to send you the extra two shillings and sixpence to make up my subscription to the full amount to the end of the current year.
With best wishes,
Yours very sincerely,
[Dorothy L. Sayers]
1 “Creed or Chaos?”
2 It was published on 10 June 1940.
3 Nothing is known of this paper.
4 Love All.
5 The Mind of the Maker, which was published on 10 July 1941.
6 By the defeat of the French in the battle on the River Meuse. This was followed by the surrender of France in mid-June.
7 See letter to Dr James Welch, 4 March 1940, note.
[24 Newland Street
Witham
Essex]
TO REV. ERIC FENN
11 June 1940
Dear Mr. Fenn
I suppose I ought to undertake to do the broadcasts on the 11th and 18th August, though I am increasingly uneasy about these personal appearances in the role of Christian apologist. The plays about the life of Christ are a different matter – that sort of writing is my job. When I use the direct appeal, I am constantly haunted by the feeling that I am running counter to my proper calling. I know it is my own fault for ever having started it; one spreads a net, and immediately one becomes tied up in it.
Will you please note that I have to speak in Westminster at 6 o’clock on the evening of the 11th August, so I should be grateful if the B.B.C. talk1 could be as early as possible, so that I may take a breath in between.
Yours sincerely,
[Dorothy L. Sayers]
1 The talks were entitled: “Creed or Chaos: Christ of the Creeds” and “Creed or Chaos: Sacrament of the Matter”.
24 Newland Street
Witham
Essex
TO HER SON
23 June 1940
Dear John,
Thank you for your letters and birthday wishes. Events have been moving so fast that it is difficult to keep up with things.
As regards the Harvest Camp – of course, there ought to be no question of asking my permission. You must do whatever the Government wants you to do, as we all must, without delay or question. Tell your school authorities so. Harvest camps are asked for, and obviously every able-bodied citizen of school age must take part.
Apart from that: stay where you are. You are probably as safe in Oxfordshire as anywhere. This part of the country is more immediately threatened. If I should be killed in an air-raid, you and Aunt Ivy must at once get into communication with my solicitors, Messrs. Hargrave Son and Barrett, 24 John St., Bedford Row, London, W.C.1, who have my will and know how to act. There will not be very much money, I am afraid – nobody will have much money when this is over, even if all goes as well as we can hope.
It is not possible to plan out anything for the future. I shall try to pay the school fees as long as is necessary. In the event of a German occupation of this country, which is possible, though I think not probable, be careful not to advertise your connection with me; writers of my sort will not be popular with the Gestapo. If there should be any question of evacuating to the Dominions, on the other hand, I will take what measures I can. But we are in the front of the battle now, and the great thing is to stay put and work at whatever the defence requires. It may be that your next object should be to make your mathematics useful in connection with engineering or something of that sort. Keep this possibility in mind when the time comes.
Do not be troubled because you are afraid of being afraid. Everybody feels like that. It doesn’t matter, and is nothing to be ashamed of. Do what is asked for – that is all that matters.
Look now at the history you used to find so difficult. England is back now in the centre stream of her tradition – she is where she was in 1588 and in 1815. Spain held all Europe, France held all Europe, they broke themselves upon England; we have got to see that the same thing happens to Germany.1 Foch2 said towards the end of the last war that all would be well, “pourvu que les civils tiennent”.3 That is the truth again, but this time it means us. You have done well at school – do well in this business. If we can stick it out, then, as the vision of Christ said to St. Julian of Norwich: “All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all shall be very well.”4
With love and best wishes,
Dorothy L. Fleming
1 Compare her poem “The English War”, first published in The Times Literary Supplement, 7 September 1940. (Included in Poetry of Dorothy L. Sayers, ed. cit., 1996, pp. 120–122.)
2 Marshal Ferdinand Foch (1851–1929), Generalissimo of Allied Forces in the First World War.
3 Provided the civilians hold out.
4 Julian of Norwich: Showings, ed. E. Colledge and James Walsh, “The Long Text”, 29 (London, SPCK, and Paulist Press, New York, 1978).
The address which D. L. S. delivered in Derby on 4 May 1940, entitled “Creed or Chaos?” (see her letter to the Bishop of Derby, 24 February 1940), was published as a pamphlet by Hodder and Stoughton on 10 June 1940. Dr William Boothby Selbie, formerly Principal of Mansfield College, Oxford, had previously published an article in The Spectator, entitled “The Army and the Churches”, in which he had said:
The rise of the new dogmatism, whether in its Calvinist or Thomist form, constitutes a fresh and serious threat to Christian unity. The tragedy is that all this, however interesting to theologians, is hopelessly irrelevant in the life and thought of the average man…
D. L. S. quoted this and another passage in her address, challenging his view. This prompted Dr Selbie to write to The Spectator as follows:
Doctrine is a Latin word, the root meaning of which is simply teaching, or that which is taught. Christian doctrine, therefore, is just Christian truth, that which is taught about the Christian facts. Dogma, on the other hand, is a Greek word, the root meaning of which is opinion. In theology a dogma is a religious opinion formally and authoritatively stated. Miss Sayers…[restates] some of the Christian fundamentals in a very interesting way and in terms more adapted to human needs than those of the ancient creeds. In other words she elaborates her own system of Christian teaching or doctrine. This is what she believes and how she believes it. Doubtless she would like others to believe it too, and to accept her statement of it, and she has every right to try and persuade them to do so. But she would probably hesitate to turn her teaching into dogma by making it an imposition of faith with the familiar words “This is the Catholic Faith: which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved”.…
D. L. S. replied as follows:
[24 Newland Street
Witham
Essex]
TO THE EDITOR OF THE SPECTATOR
13 July 1940
Dear Sir,
With reference to Dr Selbie’s letter: The dictionary meaning of “Dogma” (apart from its denigratory use) is: “Opinion; the body of opinion formulated and authoritatively stated; a doctrinal system”.1 The relevance or otherwise of Christian doctrine to human life and thought depends precisely upon the dogma, i.e. upon what opinion is held concerning the person of Christ. That is what I have endeavoured to make clear. The Church has formulated and authoritatively stated her opinion – that is, her dogma; and that statement is the statement which sums up all her doctrine, or teaching.
I cannot repudiate too strongly the suggestion that I have “restated some of the Christian fundamentals…in terms more adapted to human needs than those of the ancient creeds”, or that I have “elaborated my own system of Christian teaching or doctrine”. The terms are not mine: they are the terms of the ancient creeds; the doctrinal system is not mine; it is that of the Church. All that I have done is to explain, to the best of my ability, what those terms mean, and what that doctrine is.
It is preposterous to talk about “my hesitating to turn my teaching into dogma”. The teaching (which is not mine) is the teaching of the dogma – which is not mine either. As for the statement: “This is the Catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved”, it is not usually realised that the operative word is “cannot”. That is to say, the Church here brings her statement of opinion to the bar of fact, saying: “Believe or not as you choose, but what judges you will be the unalterable nature of the universe”.
Yours faithfully,
[Dorothy L. Sayers]
1 The definition given in The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary.
[24 Newland Street
Witham
Essex]
TO THE REV. ERIC FENN
14 July 1940
Dear Mr. Fenn,
I hadn’t even begun to consider thinking about the broadcast next month! I’m trying to finish a book on the Creative Mind,1 and some tomfool paper wants to know by next Friday “whether Hitlers have a place in the Divine scheme of things!”!! I know you wanted something on the lines of “Creed or Chaos?” but your letter is with my agents, and I can’t remember whether it was the importance of dogma or the nature of sin you wanted me to talk about.
Curse the publicity anyway. It only encourages people to think I am putting over some new doctrine or interpretation of my own invention. This personal angle on religion is getting on my nerves, and I think I shall have to stop it, and go back to writing nonsense.…
I will talk, if you like, about any of the following: The Christ of the Creeds; the Gospel of Sin; the Judgement of God; the Sacrament of Matter. You will find a convenient “summary” of anything I may have to say about them in “Creed or Chaos?”. But do make it clear that all I propose to do is to explain, to the best of my ability, what the Church thinks about those subjects, and that I am not bringing any “new” lights of my own to bear upon them. I am not a prophet, but only a sort of painstaking explainer of official dogma – “this is the opinion of authority, and what it actually means is this”. …
1 i.e. The Mind of the Maker, published by Methuen, July 1941.
[24 Newland Street
Witham
Essex]
TO DR JAMES WELCH
23 July 1940
Dear Dr. Welch,
Forgive my delay in replying. Life has been full of complications, including, among other things, a wistful magazine editor, anxious to know, instantly, briefly, and at the shortest possible notice, what place Hitlers and such have in the Divine scheme of things, and why – one of those easy little questions to which anybody may be expected to rattle off a reply on the typewriter without thinking twice about it.
What I have been considering with regard to the Children’s Hour plays on the Life of Christ is the general theme of the whole series. The thing must have a direction and unity as a complete work, apart from the unity of each separate play, so that [it] can build into a reasoned structure theologically as well as historically.
; The theme I want to take is particularly that of the kingship of Christ. At this moment, even children can’t help knowing that there is a great dispute going on about how the world should be governed, and to what end, and I think they are fully capable of understanding what the meaning of the quarrel is, if the situation and arguments are put before them in a simple and vivid way. I shall make this business of the Kingdom the framework of the series, and choose incidents that will bring out this aspect of the story – much on the same lines as in He That Should Come, which is also a play about the Kingdom.
The first play will probably be the most difficult to get going on, because it has to set the key for the rest, as regards style, language, treatment, etc. I am trying to get to work on this now; as I said to you the other day, I rather want to start off this theme with the Magi, because there I get the earthly ideal of government – Rome and Herod – brought right into conflict with the Kingdom of God at the beginning of the story. I don’t want to do the Bethlehem shepherds again – partly because I find it difficult to do the same thing twice over, and because they may again repeat He That Should Come for the Christmas broadcast, and audiences would get rather fed up with having to hear me doing the same stuff a second time. But Herod would be breaking new ground; besides, I am rather strong on Herod, who was an engaging old ruffian, to whom the traditional mediaeval treatment has never done justice.
The real job, when the style etc. have been fixed, is making the separate episodes into coherent playlets, each with its own crisis and dramatic unity. I shall probably have to do a certain amount of rather bold dovetailing to get action and plot into each section. I mean, while one could make a pretty little piece of dialogue out of, say, Christ blessing the children, one couldn’t exactly call it a drama, unless one could set it in relation to something else. Certain high-spots, of course, we have ready-made for our theme: the Nativity, the entry into Jerusalem, and so on; and when we come to the Trial and Crucifixion we are, dramatically speaking, on velvet; but there are all sorts of little twiddly bits – such as the tribute-money, and the disciples arguing about who should be the greatest, and the parables of the Kingdom, which, while very relevant to the subject, are just fragments of teaching and dialogue, unless they can be worked into some sort of sub-plot, so to speak. It looks as though I should have to pull myself together and really make up my mind about Judas; – what did that man imagine he was doing? Pilate and Caiaphas and the rest are quite understandable, and from their own point of view highly respectable – one sees exactly what they were after – but Judas is an insoluble riddle. He can’t have been awful from the start, or Christ would never have called him – I mean, one can’t suppose that He deliberately chose a traitor in order to get Himself betrayed – that savours too much of the agent provocateur, and isn’t the kind of thing one would expect any decent man, let alone any decent God – to do. And He can’t have been so stupid as to have been taken in by an obviously bad hat; quite apart from any doctrinal assumptions, He was far too good a psychologist. Judas must have been a case of corruptio optimi pessima;1 but what corrupted him? Disappointment at finding that the earthly kingdom wasn’t coming along? or defeatism, feeling that the war was lost, and one had better make terms quickly? Or just (as the Gospels seem rather unconvincingly to suggest) money and alarm for his own interests? If we can get a coherent Judas we can probably get a coherent plot.
The Letters of Dorothy L. Sayers Vol II: 1937-1943: From Novelist to Playwright Page 21
