Please forgive this long letter and this profusion of documents. When I see you – soon I hope – I hope to have some more concrete suggestions to offer.
Yours very sincerely,
(Dorothy L. Sayers]
1 Dr Oldham invited her to contribute an article on the meaning of Christmas. She agreed to do so but warned: “I always get hauled over the coals for talking about Him as though He was somebody real”. Her article, entitled “Is This He That Should Come?”, was published as supplement No. 8, included in the Christmas issue. The archbishop of York (The Most Rev. Dr William Temple) wrote to Dr Oldham, “How magnificent Dorothy Sayers is!”. The Rev. Dr James Parkes also wrote: “Dorothy Sayers is superb, magnificent. The Christian Newsletter would have justified its existence on that supplement alone”.
2 John Macmurray (1891–1976), author and broadcaster. D. L. S. is probably referring to his book Creative Society (1935).
3 i.e. the Russo-German Pact of August 1939, or Russia’s invasion of Poland on 17 September.
4 Namely, the project entitled collectively “Bridgeheads”, a series of books intended to prepare readers’ minds for post-war social reconstruction. The first of them was her own book The Mind of the Maker (Methuen, 1941).
5 This is the earliest mention of the Statement of Aims. (See James Brabazon, Dorothy L. Sayers: The Life of a Courageous Woman, Gollancz, 1981, Appendix, pp. 278–282.)
6 Helen Simpson.
7 D. L. S. herself.
8 Muriel St Clare Byrne.
9 Denis Browne, surgeon, husband of Helen Simpson.
24 Newland Street
Witham
Essex
TO MURIEL ST CLARE BYRNE
23 October 1939
Dearest Muriel,
Well, dash it, if it comes to that, how about A Day in the Life of an Inoffensive Citizen, anxious only to toil for the nation’s good.
9.20 – Breakfast – 2 letters from persons applying for the situation.
9.30 – Invent new kind of batten, while waiting for husband to vacate bath.
9.40 – Bath and dress.
10.10 – Secretary arrives, dizzy with anti-cholera inoculation.
10.15 – Cook says another young person has called about situation.
10.19 – Interview young person.
10.25 – Send secretary out to buy screws to mend cigarette-box broken by outgoing housemaid. Order meals.
10.30 – Ring M.S.B. about W.E.A.1
10.45 – Start on letter to Sec. of W.E.A.
10.50 – Stop to mend cigarette-box – unsuccessful.
11.00 – Continue letter to W.E.A. Sec.
11.10 – Listen to Secretary’s symptoms and say she had better go home till after lunch.
11.20 – Continue letter to W.E.A. Sec.
11.30 – Irritated by failure of cigarette-box to function. Mend it again (one of the automatic kind, made in Japan, with interior like intoxicated spider). Successful.
11.50 – Draft letter to W.E.A. Sec. & further letter to Sec. of C.S.U.2 at Newnham, offering to lecture on Nov. 9.
12.30 – Feel it is too late to start on Christmas Message to Nation. Saw batten preparatory to experiment with new idea. (Mem: husband has borrowed best saw.)
1.00 – Lunch. Remind Cook prospective housemaid arriving 2.15 & will she meet her at station.
1.30 – Present housemaid says, can I tell Cook name of prospective housemaid. Tell her Dora Wybrook.
1.35 – Suddenly recollect, not Wybrook but Wymark. Convey correction to Cook.
1.40 – Feel Disintegrated. Cut out & hem grey border.
2.00 – Front-door bell rings. Nobody to answer it. Cook at station, housemaid changing.
2.5 – Call housemaid down to answer door.
2.6 – Caller turns out to be Dora Wymark, train having arrived 16 mins. earlier than Passenger Enquiries (L’pool St.) said it would, so that Cook missed her at station.
2.8 – Explanations. Take D.W. to kitchen and leave her there.
2.10 – Uneasy feeling of expectation. Sew border.
2.30 – Hearing Cook return, apologise for error in information. Sew border. Cook and D.W. exploring avenues, and the house.
3.00 – D.W. returns. Interviews. Says she would like to come.
3.5 – Interview Cook separately. She is willing.
3.10 – Engage D.W.
3.12 – Hunt house for change to pay D.W.’s fare.
3.20 – Return to library. Secretary says she is feeling better.
3.25 – Telephone. Mysterious caller for husband. Fetch husband.
3.30 – Husband says message is from local baker, asking why we have changed to rival baker. Did not know we had. Refer husband to Cook.
3.35 – Return to library. Sign letters, & try to understand where everything is.
3.40 – Ring Bun, and tell her must urge Ed. Spectator make up his mind about Wimsey letters and must soothe Gollancz about blurb. Bun says Hodder and Stoughton interested in booklets provided they are (a) religious or educational & (b) edited under my supervision; hopes of really embracing scheme for getting stuff out. Say, Excellent – perfectly ready to edit anything provided others do most of the work.
3.45 – Return to library. Dismiss Secretary with good wishes & wedding-present.
3.55 – Try to think about Christmas message to nation.
4.10 – Local joiner arrives to ask what it was I wanted done about battens & fly-gallery. Explain model theatre to him and work the curtains. Place order. Ask about spot-lights and cleats. Local joiner says he has friend with diploma for making models of things, but he is in R.A.F. Reserve and may go any minute – also is “busy courting”.
4.40 – Try to think about Christmas message to nation. Disintegrated.
4.45 – Disintegrated.
4.50 – Abandon message to nation. Try to put batten together.
4.57 – Joiner’s friend arrives unexpectedly.
5.00 – Tea-bell rings. Tell husband I am engaged with joiner’s friend. Explain too hurriedly and have to explain again.
5.5 – Joiner’s friend very intelligent and voluble. Says he will explore avenues.
5.20 – Tea (cold).
5.50 – Come up to Library and write letter to M.S.B.
So there you are. At any rate, I have engaged the housemaid.
I enclose my letter to W.E.A. Sec. If you think it is all right, will you post it, if not, will you ring me. I was afraid of something too vague and idealistic, so put in all that stuff about education and housing, etc.; but it is difficult not having been able to get hold of Scott T.
Love
D.
1 Workers’ Educational Association.
2 Christian Students’ Union.
I enclose copy of my previous letter to Coutts and his reply (original). Please hold on to these. I forgot to ask Miss Lake to do copies, and anyhow we were both disintegrated.
24, Great James Street
London, W.C.I
England
TO MISS JONES1
11 November 1939
Dear Miss Jones,
How delightful to hear from you after all this time! Of course I remember you very well! I am afraid I was always a most undesirable member of the sixth form, and especially hopeless at mathematics!
I am very glad you feel that my two Canterbury plays have enabled me to make good in your eyes. I had a very enjoyable time while they were being produced and run in London.
I remember that I once caused scandal at school by too great a liking for the company of actors, and that I disturbed the minds of the authorities by informing them that the Stage was my rightful place! Despite all attempts to hold me on the straight and narrow path, I have eventually found my way into the Theatre, though only as an author, and after a delay of thirty years; I regret to say that I was perfectly right, and that I enjoy the theatre enormously. Unhappily, of course, the war has rather interfered with that kind of activity for the moment.
I heard from
Miss Douglas2 a little time ago, and also from Miss White.3
I hope you are keeping fit and well. If your sister is with you, please remember me to her.
With kindest remembrances, and with many thanks for your charming letter,
Yours very sincerely,
[Dorothy L. Sayers]
1 Another voice from the past. Miss Jones was a mathematics mistress at the Godolphin School, Salisbury. She was not one of Dorothy’s favourite teachers. See The Letters of Dorothy L. Sayers: 1899–1936, “School”, pp. 44–45.
2 The former Headmistress.
3 Miss F. M. White, who taught D. L. S. French and German. See The Letters of Dorothy L. Sayers: 1899–1936, “School”.
24 Newland Street
Witham
Essex
TO IVY SHRIMPTON
27 November 1939
Dearest Ivy,
Please forgive (a) my using up on you portion of paper-supply on which diabolic agency (unidentifiable, but thought to be departed kitchen-maid) upset ink! (b) my delay over the account. For some time I was beginning to wonder whether there was going to be any money to pay any accounts! However, I have now got my activities with publishers taped for the next few months, and I imagine that things will carry on till the war is over; when that happens the whole nation will go bankrupt together, so it won’t matter!
Yes, John must have been having some fun at Blenheim – though uncomfortable, probably, when the first excitement was over. He did well with his School Certificate1. Oh, yes, Aunt Lil and Co. always think England is being shattered into little pieces, whenever anything happens. People seem to get so excitable living in America. I believe it’s the air of California, or something that goes to the head – hence the Hollywood glamour!…
Best love,
D. L. S.
1 Equivalent of G.C.S.E. (General Certificate of Secondary Education)
[24 Newland Street
Witham
Essex]
TO MRS G. HEDDERWICK1
1 December 1939
Dear Mrs. Hedderwick,
Thank you very much for your kind letter about the Wimsey papers.2 I am so glad you enjoy them. It seemed a fairly good idea to try and push a little quite serious comment on the present times across in this rather frivolous way. The Editor tells me he intends to continue the series and I hope perhaps you will help both him and me by directing the attention of any Wimsey lovers to the Spectator, which, like most intelligent journals, is having a hard row to hoe under war conditions.
I quite agree with all you say about the series of mistakes we have made about peace, but it is so difficult to persuade people that there is no panacea for our troubles and that even peace can only be kept going by strenuous struggles.
Thanking you again very much for your encouragement,
Yours sincerely,
[Dorothy L. Sayers]
1 Identity unknown.
2 War-time letters and documents exchanged among members of the Wimsey family and their friends, published in The Spectator between 17 November 1939 and 26 January 1940.
1940
A false start
24 Newland Street
Witham
Essex
TO SIR HUGH WALPOLE1
3 January 1940
Dear Sir Hugh,
By all means make use of my name on your books and manuscripts committee, if you feel that it is of any use. (Note: that I have a foolish fancy for always having it written with the “L” in the middle.)
I cannot promise to contribute money, because I am very short of it, nor yet skill and knowledge, of which I have none in this connection. I could, however, turn up occasionally at committee meetings and vote as I am instructed, which is, I take [it], all that is required.
How do you find yourself in the midst of all this shemozzle? I am trying to do a little mild propaganda in the way of articles and lectures, but I can’t say I think the official people give us a very inspiring lead. If you are in Town, perhaps you would lunch with me one day when I am up. I am there fairly often, though less often now that I am not doing anything in the theatre.
With all good wishes,
Yours very sincerely,
Dorothy L. Sayers
1 Sir Hugh Walpole (1884–1941), author of over 40 novels, of which the best remembered are Mr Perrin and Mr Traill (1911) and The Herries Chronicles (1930–1933).
[24 Newland Street
Witham
Essex]
TO VAL GIELGUD
13 February 1940
Dear Val,
I clean forgot on Friday to thank you for my lovely lunch. It made me feel so much like a giant refreshed that I delivered a determined assault upon the searchlight position at Bethnal Green. It required great determination, because the whole place seemed shut up and deserted, with not even a sentry, nor nothing, but after walking round four times and peeping through the bars, I encountered an enormous sergeant who took me into the orderly room and allowed information to be extracted from him. I should never have persevered in a north-easterly wind if it had not been for your good burgundy.
I am sending a copy of Begin Here1 with love and gratitude.
You will think about doing that article, won’t you, on the need for constructive listening? I feel pretty sure the Fortnightly would rejoice to have it as part of the series they are now doing. In the meantime, I will promise to think hard about a detective play for radio.2
With all good wishes and again many thanks,
Yours ever,
[D. L. S.]
1 Begin Here: A War-Time Essay (Gollancz, 20 January 1940).
2 Nothing is known about a new radio play by D. L. S. around this date. She did adapt her short story, “The Unsolved Puzzle of the Man with No Face” as a play, which was broadcast on 3 April 1943, the first in the new series, “Saturday Night Theatre”. (See also her letter to Stephen Hobhouse, 7 April 1943.) In 1948 her play Where Do We Go From Here? was broadcast on radio as part of a series of six 30-minute plays by members of the Detection Club. See also her letter to Val Gielgud, 24 February 1941.
On 5 February 1940 the Rev. Dr James Welch, who had become Director of Religious Broadcasting at the B.B.C., wrote a letter to D. L. S. which was to have momentous consequences. It would appear that he was prompted to do so by the favourable reception of her Nativity play He That Should Come. His letter began:
Dear Madam,
I am writing to ask whether you could help us in our work of religious broadcasting for children.…
I have long been conscious that some consistent Christian teaching might be given in dramatic form and I have long wanted to find someone who could write a series of thirty-minute plays on the Life of Our Lord. The children we have in mind are those between the ages of seven and fourteen. I had thought either of a dramatic retelling of the Gospel story, or even the dramatic imaginative telling of Our Lord on earth today. I feel that we might rightly and reverently use direct speech, but my mind is not quite made up about this yet. You may well imagine the good that such a series of about twelve plays might do, broadcast regularly to millions of children and adults. It seems to me a wonderful opportunity which ought to be taken. I believe that you are probably the only person who could take it.…
D. L. S. replied:
[24 Newland Street
Witham
Essex]
TO THE REV. DR JAMES WELCH
18 February 1940
Dear Sir,
Forgive my long delay in replying to your letter of the 5th February. Just at present I have so much on hand that it is very difficult to see when I shall be able to undertake any additional work; indeed, in the matter of radio plays Mr Val Gielgud has been before you, clamouring for a detective drama which I have weakly promised to write if I can possibly manage it.
The sort of series you suggest, of little dramas from the New Testament, is a thing I have frequently thought I should like to do, but it would, of course, entail a good deal of ve
ry careful thought and, consequently, a good deal of time. Your suggestion is exceedingly tempting, and if you are not in a great hurry for the series is just the thing I should enjoy attempting, but it would not be honest to accept it without warning you that I should not be able to get down to it for the next two or three months at the earliest.
If I did do it, I should make it a condition that I was allowed to introduce the character of Our Lord Himself, and to present the play with the same kind of realism that I used in the Nativity play He That Should Come. I feel very strongly that the prohibition1 against representing Our Lord directly on the stage or in films (however necessary from certain points of view) tends to produce a sense of unreality which is very damaging to the ordinary man’s conception of Christianity. The device of indicating Christ’s presence by a “voice off”, or by a shaft of light, or a shadow, or what not, tends to suggest to people that He never was a real person at all, and this impression of unreality extends to all the other people in the drama, with the result that “Bible characters” are felt to be quite different from ordinary human beings.
It seems to me that in broadcasting we are freed from any of the obvious objections which attend the visual representation of Christ by an actor, and are protected from the vulgarities and incongruities which the ordinary theatrical or film producer might import into a stage or screen representation. Radio plays, therefore, seem to present an admirable medium through which to break down the convention of unreality surrounding Our Lord’s person and might very well pave the way to a more vivid conception of the Divine Humanity which, at present, threatens to be lost in a kind of Apollinarian2 mist. The only difficulty I foresee is in a right choice of language. It would not, of course, be suitable to give to Christ any speeches which do not appear in the Scriptures, but if all the other characters “talk Bible”, the realism will be lost, whereas if they talk modern English we may get a patchwork effect. However, the difficulty is not really insuperable; it is just a question of choosing language which is neither slangy on the one hand, nor Wardour Street3 on the other. This difficulty did not, of course, arise in the mediaeval mystery plays, whose authors were quite prepared to let Christ say anything that seemed natural and appropriate, but we could not go so far as this without arousing roars of disapproval among the pious.4 It is not that the thing cannot be done but that it requires a good deal of careful consideration and cannot be done in a hurry. I should like, if I may, to think it over and perhaps discuss it with you at some time, always provided, of course, that you can contemplate putting off the series until, let us say, the Autumn. Perhaps you will let me know what you feel about this.
The Letters of Dorothy L. Sayers, Volume 2 Page 18
