[No surviving envelope]
Your short letter of the 27th (by ‘Aquitania’) arrived yesterday morning, and left me somewhat puzzled, as I felt sure that there must have been another letter prior to that, which I feared had gone astray; and my fears were not mitigated when I found at my office an envelope which contained enclosures but no letter. However, I found your long and dear letter of the 24th awaiting me on my return in the evening, and was much relieved. IMurder in the Cathedralunsolicited 1936 New York production;e2EH reports on;a7 am very much beholden to you for such a full and satisfactory report of the performance in New York; but especially thrilled with delight to feel that you should care enough to want to write such a long letter, and I am filled with humble gratitude.
IMercury Theatre, Londonhard to imagine Murder beyond;b3 wish indeed that I could have seen the performance in your company. I cannot imagine the play in such a huge theatre (I am sorry that you did not get your proper seats). It is a great satisfaction to me to learn that the play itself is capable of being played under so different conditions – I had feared that it might be so limited in character as to require the sort of production given at the Mercury. Merely seeing that very amateur production in Dublin made me think that there is a good deal to be learned by seeing various interpretations of one’s work. IIrvine, Harryas Becket in New York;a1 should like to see it done by a Becket who is adequate in stature and appearance, as I gather this Irvine is.1 IMurder in the Cathedralunsolicited 1936 New York production;e2TSE speculates as to textual discrepancies;a8 should like to know whether they use the beginning of Act II as in the first printing (Canterbury version) or as done at the Mercury with a new chorus which is in the second printing. The first is rather obscurely liturgical for a general audience. ASpeaight, Roberthis Becket critiqued by Tandy;b9 ratherTandy, Geoffreyon Speaight's Becket;a9 good criticism of Speaight’s interpretation was made by Tandy in his notice of the B.B.C. performance in his Broadcast Chronicle in the Criterion: that Speaight’s Becket was a man who had always been the austere ecclesiastic – one was not make [sc. made] to feel that he had been a man of worldly pleasure and worldly ambition.2 So there is certainly room for other interpretations. ISpeaight, Robertas Becket;c1 doubt whether Speaight’s rendering of the sermon (and he was at his best when you saw him in London) can be bettered. If the chorus were more mature women than the girls here, so much the better – even one or two older voices would have helped greatly. I gather that the costuming was better in New York. Also that the murder was probably more effective, with a larger stage and bringing in a retinue (though this does not seem to be historically correct); because the murder ought not to be completely visible. But I think that the corpse ought to be concealed by a traverse when the knights make their speeches. BraceBrace, Donaldreports on 1936 New York Murder;a9, who went to the same performance, said that some of the audience missed the irony and applauded the knights.
I was amused by your account of the reporters etc. afterwards; IHinkley, Susan Heywood (TSE's aunt, née Stearns)reports daughter's reaction to Murder;c2 have a short letter also from Susie, according to whom Eleanor was so rattled that she said: ‘but we are only distant relatives’! It gives me so much more pleasure in the performance to think that it was a good one, instead of an indifferent one, for you to see.
DukesDukes, Ashleyrevised plans for New York;b6 thinks (did I tell you) that this production will help, rather than hinder, a later run of the play. He thinks it possible that some good New York producer may make an offer. Now, in view of the excellence of this production, which do you think I should be better advised to do: accept such an offer, if it comes and if it comes from the right quarter, or let Dukes take over the London company with a repertoire of two other plays in the autumn? It seems just possible that the London company, having played so long in a small theatre, might not be able to adapt themselves to the conditions of a New York theatre, and might not make such a success of it as a local troupe. Or do you think that the London company in itself would be an important draw?
IMuir, Edwinreviews TSE's Collected Poems;a1n enclose the first notice of the Collected Poems. Muir is a very nice fellow – his criticism is always quite free from pettiness or malice.3 I was pleased that he liked ‘Burnt Norton’ – though he has evidently only got part of the meaning!4
My darling, you must not worry yourself about being ‘immature’; everybody is immature – when I look back on myself even a year or two into the past, I seem to have been immature. But one shouldn’t be ripe, one should still be growing! It is better than being withered up and sot:5 andThorp, Margaret (née Farrand)TSE on;a3 I hope for her own sake that Margaret Thorp is still immature too, because she has as much need for further growth as the rest of us. IChristianityvirtues heavenly and capital;e1possessed by EH to a fault;c9 don’t want you to lose your exquisite humility – but I always hover between admiration of it and irritation with your being too humble or towards the wrong people or in the wrong ways. Not that I think you ever will lose it, or be any different in that respect. However, for one thing, I must ask you to stop apologising and depreciating yourself as a preamble or postscript to uttering any opinions or passing any judgement on whatever I write!
IChristianityUnitarianism;d9outside TSE's definition of 'Christian';b3 thankChristianityorthodoxy;c4'Christian' defined;a5 youHale, Emilyreligious beliefs and practices;x1compared to TSE's;a5 particularly for the last three pages of your letter, which have been a real help to me. I hope you will not think, in the long run, that I undervalue or despise the fundamental Christianity of people who are not technically Christians; and that you will distinguish between any personal arrogance you may find in me (which is a very serious fault indeed) and my maintenance of impersonal distinctions. I have been aware that at first the two might seem identical to you, and I must pass through a cloud of appearing bigoted and intolerant. But there is a difference between intolerance, and being indifferent to distinctions. The difference in terminology, and the meanings attached to the same words, is something which is not grasped in a hurry.
AfterChurch Literature Associationcomments on 'The Church and Marriage';a6 reading the report of the Joint Committee of the Convocations of Canterbury and York on ‘The Church and Marriage’ and the anonymous comments issued as a pamphlet by the Church Literature Association (the latter not very germane to the problem)[,] IUnderhill, Revd Francis, Bishop of Bath and Wellsconsulted on question of divorce;c1 went down to Rochester on Friday for my Lent Confession, and also had a private discussion with the Dean later. He was very sympathetic; andEliot, Vivien (TSE's first wife, née Haigh-Wood)the possibility of divorcing;f2in common and canon law;a5 although the situation remains unchanged, I understand the difficulty more clearly. It is hard to explain because it is so unreasonable! In brief, although the Church does not admit divorce, it can admit (on certain grounds) nullity: that is, it can declare that a particular marriage never was a marriage at all. He thought that in my case grounds for nullity probably could be maintained. But here Church Law (and in this context it doesn’t matter whether it is the Anglican, or the Roman, or any other Church) is contradicted by the State. In Common (or secular) Law, divorce on certain grounds is admitted, but not nullity. FromChristianitysacraments;d3marriage;a2 the point of view of the State, what matters is the contract of marriage, and that alone: the state regards marriage as a contract binding like any other civil contract; whereas the Church regards it as a Sacrament. The Church does not consider that marriage is constituted by the ceremony alone: the State does. The State admits divorce only on the ground of adultery, and even on that ground it enquires to see that there is not collusion – that is, the person being divorced must appear to want not to be divorced, or at least not to have arranged it with the other party. NowCunard, NancyTSE's liaison with;a1 I could not rake up a very brief incident of one evening fourteen years ago – after which I continued to live with my ‘wife’ for ten years – as sufficient grounds: apart from the scandal it would cause by being such an obvious subterfuge. And I am certainly not willing now to commit either adultery or perjury – even if I were convinced that she could be trusted to divorce me for it (and she has nothing to gain, and something to lose, by that step, being the sort of person she is. So the only possibility – and it is a remote one – would be that the State should alter the law so as to give divorce on the same grounds on which the Church gave nullity.
The Church Law is logical on its own grounds; but the State Law is not logical on any grounds.
I can write no more at the moment – this is as tiring to write as it will be to read. I should like just to leave you with the feeling of my endless love and devotion and adoration, and wanting to wrap you in my arms and give you peace.
1.TheIrvine, Harry veteran actor Harry Irvine played Beckett in the production by the Popular Price Theater, at the Manhattan Theater (Broadway and 53rd Street, New York City), for six weeks from 18 Mar. TowardsMurder in the Cathedralunsolicited 1936 New York production;e2attended by Eleanor Roosevelt;a9n the end of the run, Eleanor Roosevelt came to see the play.
2.GeoffreyTandy, Geoffreyon Speaight's Becket;a9 Tandy, ‘Broadcasting Chronicle’, Criterion 15 (Apr. 1936), 475: ‘The broadcast production raised a point which did not occur to me at stage performances: that Mr Speaight fails to show Becket as a man for whom “Fluting in the meadows, viols in the hall” had been a real joy; for whom “Delight in sense, in learning and in thought” had been an essential part of his path to sainthood. I am not blaming Mr Speaight for not achieving anything so difficult; but I am bound to remark that it seems to me to be in the part.’
3.EdwinMuir, Edwin Muir (1887–1959), Scottish poet, novelist, critic, translator: see Biographical Register.
4.Edwin Muir, ‘Mr Eliot’s Poetry’, Spectator 156 (3 Apr. 1936), 622.
5.sot (Fr.): fool.
6.DonaldBrace, Donald Brace (1881–1955), publisher; co-founder of Harcourt, Brace: see Biographical Register.
4.AshleyDukes, Ashley Dukes (1885–1959), theatre manager, playwright, critic, translator, adapter, author; from 1933, owner of the Mercury Theatre, London: see Biographical Register.
1.TheIrvine, Harry veteran actor Harry Irvine played Beckett in the production by the Popular Price Theater, at the Manhattan Theater (Broadway and 53rd Street, New York City), for six weeks from 18 Mar. TowardsMurder in the Cathedralunsolicited 1936 New York production;e2attended by Eleanor Roosevelt;a9n the end of the run, Eleanor Roosevelt came to see the play.
3.EdwinMuir, Edwin Muir (1887–1959), Scottish poet, novelist, critic, translator: see Biographical Register.
2.RobertSpeaight, Robert Speaight (1904–77), actor, producer and author, was to create the role of Becket in Murder in the Cathedral in 1935: see Biographical Register.
2.GeoffreyTandy, Geoffrey Tandy (1900–69), marine biologist; Assistant Keeper of Botany at the Natural History Museum, London, 1926–47; did broadcast readings for the BBC (including the first reading of TSE’s Practical Cats on Christmas Day 1937): see Biographical Register.
16.MargaretThorp, Margaret (née Farrand) Farrand (1891–1970), author and journalist – see Margaret Thorp in Biographical Register.
2.Revd Francis UnderhillUnderhill, Revd Francis, Bishop of Bath and Wells, DD (1878–1943), TSE’s spiritual counsellor: see Biographical Register.