George Orwell: A Life in Letters
Page 31
Dear Mr Moore,
Many thanks for your letter.1 It is awkward about Gollancz. I don’t however remember anything in that contract about full-length novels. As I remember it, it simply referred to my next three works of fiction (you could verify that from the contract.) If so, Animal Farm which is certainly a work of fiction (and any way what is ‘full-length’) would be one of them. But even so there is one more novel to be accounted for. Do you think it would be possible to arrange with Cape that Gollancz had the refusal of my next novel (or two novels if Animal Farm doesn’t count), on the understanding that all other works went to Cape, including novels after the Gollancz contract ran out? In that case I should only be going away from Cape for one or at most two books. (Incidentally, I don’t know when I shall write another novel. This doesn’t seem a propitious time for them.) I shouldn’t in any case go to Gollancz again for non-fiction books. His politics change too fast for me to keep up with them. Could you find out what Cape thinks about that?
Meanwhile how do we stand about the book of reprints? Cape could have that too if he wants it. But the Dickens essay, which I should like to reprint, was in a Gollancz book. Has he the copyright of that, or have I? I have only one more essay to do, then I can start assembling the book.
I am sorry about Keep the Aspidistra Flying, but I don’t think it worth reprinting a book I don’t care about. If you tell Lane’s I don’t want that one done I dare say they’ll be readier to close with Coming up for Air.2
I hope it will be O.K. with Cape and this book won’t have to start on its rounds once again. I do want it to see the light this year if possible.
Yours sincerely
E. A. Blair
[XVI, 2485, pp. 250–1; typewritten]
1.Jonathan Cape wrote to Victor Gollancz on 26 May 1944 to say that he was inclined to publish Animal Farm, and to publish Orwell’s future work. He wished to know whether that would be acceptable to Gollancz. On 1 June, Gollancz wrote to Moore, pointing out that he had a contract dated 1 February 1937 to publish three novels by Orwell, only one of which, Coming Up for Air, had been delivered. He argued that his rejection of Animal Farm did not affect that agreement. Moore then wrote to Orwell—his letter has not been traced—and this is Orwell’s response.
2.Penguin Books did not publish Coming Up for Air in Orwell’s lifetime. It was reprinted in the first of Secker’s Uniform series in May 1948.
To Leonard Moore*
24 June 1944
10a Mortimer Crescent NW 6
Dear Mr Moore,
It is a pity about Cape’s.1 I rang up T. S. Eliot, telling him the circumstances, and shall give him the other copy of the MS on Monday. I have no doubt Eliot himself would be on my side in this matter, but, as he says, he might not be able to swing the rest of the board of Faber’s.
About the contract with Gollancz. If 30,000 words is not ‘full-length’, what does amount to full-length? Is an actual amount of words named in our existing contract? 2 If not, could we get from Gollancz a definite statement as to what he considers a full-length work of fiction. It is clearly very unsatisfactory to have this clause in the contract without a clear definition of it.
Yours sincerely
Eric Blair
[XVI, 2494, pp. 265–6; typewritten]
1.Jonathan Cape wrote to Victor Gollancz on 26 May 1944 to say that he was inclined to publish Animal Farm. His principal reader, Daniel George, and C. V. Wedgwood, then working for Cape, both strongly urged publication. However, on 19 June 1944, Cape wrote to Leonard Moore to say he would not publish the book. He did have some anxiety about Orwell having to offer his next two works of fiction to Gollancz, but the basis for the rejection was the representation made to him by ‘an important official in the Ministry of Information’ whom he had consulted. He had come to the conclusion that it would be ‘highly ill-advised to publish [it] at the present time’, partly because it was not a generalised attack on dictatorships but was aimed specifically at the Soviets, and partly because the ‘choice of pigs as the ruling caste’ would be especially offensive. (Crick gives the full text of this letter, with background details, pp. 454–56.) Inez Holden, in a letter to Ian Angus of 27 May 1967, summarised Cape’s reason for the rejection and Orwell’s reaction: ‘He said he couldn’t publish that as he was afraid “Stalin wouldn’t like it”. George was amused at this. I will quote what he said on this: “Imagine old Joe (who doesn’t know one word of any European language) sitting in the Kremlin reading Animal Farm and saying ‘I don’t like this’”’. It is now known that the ‘important official in the Ministry of Information’ was Peter Smollett, the alias for Peter Smolka, an Austrian who had come to England in the 1930s and was a Soviet spy, codename ‘Abo’. Smollett’s deception was so successful that he was not only appointed OBE by a grateful Britain, but the Soviets thought he had been turned and came to disregard him (see The Lost Orwell, pp. 207, 210–12).
2.Annotated in Moore’s office: ‘Agreement only states “full-length.”’
To T. S. Eliot*
28 June 1944
10a Mortimer Crescent NW 6
(or Tribune CEN 2572)
Dear Eliot,
This Ms.1 has been blitzed which accounts for my delay in delivering it & its slightly crumpled condition, but it is not damaged in any way.
I wonder if you could be kind enough to let me have Messrs. Faber’s decision fairly soon. If they are interested in seeing more of my work, I could let you have the facts about my existing contract with Gollancz, which is not an onerous one nor likely to last long.
If you read this MS. yourself you will see its meaning which is not an acceptable one at this moment, but I could not agree to make any alterations except a small one at the end which I intended making any way. Cape or the MOI, I am not certain which from the wording of his letter, made the imbecile suggestion that some other animal than the pigs might be made to represent the Bolsheviks. I could not of course make any change of that description.
Yours sincerely
Geo. Orwell
Could you have lunch with me one of the days when you are in town?
[XVI, 2496, p. 269; handwritten]
1.Of Animal Farm. The Orwells’ flat was bombed on the very day he dated his letter to Eliot.
To John Middleton Murry*
14 July 1944
Tribune
Dear Murry,
Thanks for your letter 1. I have not the text by me, but you wrote in an article in the Adelphi something that ran more or less as follows:
‘We are in the habit of describing the war between Japan and China as though it were a war in the European sense. But it is nothing of the kind, because the average Chinese expects to be conquered. That is what the history of thousands of years has taught him to expect. China will absorb Japan, and Japan will energise China. And so also with India.’
If this is not praise and encouragement of the Japanese invasion of China, and an invitation to the Japanese to go on and invade India, I don’t know what it is. It takes no account of what has been happening in China since 1912 and uses exactly the same argument (‘these people are used to being conquered’) that was always brought forward to justify our own rule in India. In any case its moral is, ‘don’t help the Chinese’
As to the general charge of ‘praising violence’ which your correspondent refers to. Many remarks you have made in recent years seem to me to imply that you don’t object to violence if it is violent enough. And you certainly seem or seemed to me to prefer the Nazis to ourselves, at least so long as they appeared to be winning.
If you’ll send the book along I’ll naturally be glad to give it a notice, but I might have to turn it over to someone else, though I’ll do it myself if possible. I am smothered under work, and also I’ve been bombed out and we have a very young baby,2 all of which adds to one’s work.
Yours,
George Orwell
[XVI, 2509, p. 288; typewritten]
1.On 11 July 1945, Murry wro
te to Orwell saying that a correspondent (possibly Dr Alfred Salter, 1873–1945, a sponsor of the Peace Pledge Union) had asked him to comment on Orwell’s statement in a review that Murry had praised the Japanese invasion of China. Murry told Orwell that he was ‘given to taking pot-shots’ at him and suggested instead that he tackle him frankly by reviewing his latest book, Adam and Eve.
2.The Orwells had adopted Richard Blair (born 14 May 1944 in Greenwich) in June. Orwell reviewed Adam and Eve in the Manchester Evening News on 19 October 1944 (XVI, 2565, pp. 432–4). Although not without criticism it concludes, ‘This is an interesting book and a good antidote to the current notion that we should all be perfectly happy if we could get rid of Hitler and then go back to 1939 with shorter working hours and no unemployment.’
To Rayner Heppenstall*
21 July 1944
Tribune
Dear Rayner,
Herewith that book.1 About 600 words perhaps? I’d like you very much to draw little Richard’s horoscope.2 He was born on May 14th. I thought I had told you, however, that he is an adopted child. Does that make any difference to the horoscope? Don’t forget to look me up if you do get to town. The above is the safest address for the time being.
Yours
Eric
[XVI, 2515, p. 295; typewritten]
1.Presumably Stephen Hero, to which Orwell refers, 17 July 1944 (XVI, 2511, pp. 290–1).
2.Heppenstall had offered to cast this horoscope and sent it on 14 October but said he seemed to have lost the technique and feeling for casting a horoscope (XVI, 2558, n. 2, p. 420).
When Richard was adopted in June, Eileen gave up her job at the Ministry of Food. Orwell told Leonard Moore that the flat in Canonbury Square, which the Orwells were to rent, would be theirs on 1 September but they would probably move in only on 9 September, although it proved to be later. In the following letter, Eileen writes, ‘When and if Richard comes’; he was therefore not then living with them. It is possible that the reason for the journey north was to see Richard at the O’Shaughnessy family home near Stockton-on-Tees. Although Eileen had left the Ministry of Food when she wrote this letter, she evidently still had some of the Ministry’s headed paper.
Eileen* to Lydia Jackson*
Wednesday [9? August 1944]
Ministry of Food
Portman Court
Portman Square
London W 1
Dear Lydia,
I didn’t know where to write to you and indeed I don’t know whether this is a very good idea because one of Gwen’s letters to Florrie took ten days in transit. However we’ll hope.
So far as I can see the cottage is going to repeat its Disney act. Two babies are now supposed to be going into residence, one with a mother and father the other with a mother (fortunately the father is in Normandy or somewhere). I pity them but it’s satisfactory to have the space so well used. Mrs. Horton1 has seen the space now so it’s her responsibility. And about that, I thought I might come down for an hour or two while you’re there and pack away some of our oddments—papers chiefly. I’ve arranged that the old tin trunk can stay locked but I think it would be a good idea to put it in the bottom of the larder (if it’ll go) and also that the linen chest will be used for our things or yours. They’re providing their own linen of course and will bring it in something in which it can be kept. I expect they will move most of the furniture about and the two passage rooms will go into use again. By the way, do you . . .° (There was a long interruption on the telephone and I can’t at all remember what this important enquiry was.)
But I have remembered what I really wanted to write to you about. It was a confession. Lettice Cooper* and her sister went down to the cottage for the week-end. Barbara the sister is in the act of recovering from a nervous breakdown and this life is not good for her. She won’t go away without Lettice and Lettice couldn’t free herself for the week-end until just before it came. Then she did but of course it was too late to make any ordinary arrangements. They had a lovely time they say. Mrs. Anderson2 swore she would clean on Tuesday and I hope she did but Lettice has a curious liking for housewifery and doubtless did clean quite well herself; the real crisis was about the sheets as usual—they carried one but couldn’t well do more than that. Anyway I hope you don’t mind. It seemed a pity to have the place empty for the bank holiday and I couldn’t contact you. Seeing how much they enjoyed it and how well they looked I rather hoped that all these babies wouldn’t like the place after all. It would be fun to send people down all the time and I don’t think it need have been empty for a night for the rest of the summer anyway. But of course it won’t be empty!
Can I come to tea? It’s a bit of a job because we are going North with Gwen on the 17th [August] to help with the luggage primarily. But I could manage Saturday or Monday—or Sunday I suppose but the travelling back is so ungodly. It’ll have to be a compressed trip because we are also more or less in the act of moving. We have a flat in Canonbury Square—at least references are now being taken up and we shall have it unless the bombs beat us to the post which is rather likely. It’s a top floor flat and there have been numbers of bombs in the vicinity though the square itself has lost nothing but a window or two. I rather like it, in fact in some ways I like it very much indeed. The outlook is charming and we have a flat roof about three yards by two which seems full of possibilities. Disadvantage is that to get to it you climb an uncountable number of stone stairs—to get to the flat I mean; to get to the roof you climb one of those fire-escape ladders with very small iron rungs. I don’t know how Richard will be managed if the bombing ever stops. I thought we might have a crane and sling and transport him the way they do elephants in the films but George thinks this unsuitable.
Which day? With preference Saturday or Monday. No. Posts being as they are, I think I’ll come on Saturday unless I hear to the contrary, and hope to see you. I expect I shan’t get on the bus anyway but I’ll come some time in the afternoon and leave in the late afternoon, having put away the papers and possibly collected one or two things. When and if Richard comes I’ll be wanting a few things but probably the best thing to do will be to leave them for the moment in the linen chest so that they don’t get bombed before they’re used. I meant to brood on this when I went over with Mrs. Horton but she had to get back and we only had half an hour in the cottage which didn’t leave much time for brooding.
See you on Saturday I hope.
With love
Eilee.3
[Handwritten postscript] (One thing I want to do with you is to check up on the things you want out of the garden. Kay wants you to have the crops of course but she’d better be forewarned so that the apple disaster isn’t repeated the day they arrive.
Also I want to arrange to buy the coal and the Calor Gas.
[XVI, 2528A, pp.323–6; typewritten with handwritten postscript]
1.Mrs Horton was evidently the new tenant of The Stores at Wallington.
2.Mrs Anderson was one of the Orwells’ neighbours at Wallington; she often looked after their affairs in their absence.
3.Eileen signs off with an indecipherable scrawl. She possibly writes ‘With best wishes/Eilee.’ but it is a little more likely that it is ‘With love/Eilee.’—and the degree of scrawl is indicated by interpretations that see two and three words here. What is clear is that there is no final ‘n’ to ‘Eilee’, which may have been a name she was familiarly called at the Ministry of Food.
To Leonard Moore*
15 August 1944
Care of The Tribune
Dear Mr Moore,
Thanks for your letter of 14th August. Yes, it is O.K. about Gollancz retaining the rights of Wigan Pier.
I think Warburg is going to publish Animal Farm—I say ‘I think’, because although W. has agreed to do so there may be a slip-up about the paper. But so long as we can lay hands on the paper he will do it. So that will save me from the trouble of doing it myself.
I am now doing that essay I spoke to you of,1 &
I shall then be able to compile the book of essays, but I shall have to find someone to do the typing as I have not time to do it myself.
We are, I think, taking a flat in Islington at the end of this month, & I will let you have the address when we move in.
Yours sincerely
E. A. Blair
[XVI, 2533, p. 335; handwritten]
1.‘Raffles and Miss Blandish’ was completed on 28 August 1944, according to Orwell’s Payments Book. It was published in Horizon, October 1944 (XVI, 2538, pp. 345–58).
To Leonard Moore*
29 August 1944
Care of The Tribune
Dear Mr Moore,
I have just seen Warburg. He has definitely arranged to publish Animal Farm about March 1945, so perhaps you can get in touch with him about the contract. He is willing to pay an advance of £100, half of this to be paid about Christmas of this year. I shall give him an option on all my future books, but this can be arranged in such a way as not to tie me down if for some special reason I want to take a book elsewhere. I have finished the final essay for the book of essays, & as soon as possible I will get the whole thing typed & send you a copy. Warburg presumably won’t be able to do it till some time next year, but meanwhile we should make an attempt at an American edition. The Dial Press have asked to see this book & I more or less promised to send it to them.
Yours Sincerely
E. A. Blair
P.S. My address as from Sept. 1st will be 27B Canonbury Square Islington London N. 1 but I probably shan’t move in there till Sept. 8th, so Tribune is the safest address for the time being.
[XVI, 2539, p. 358; handwritten]
[Ivor Brown]* to Dr Thomas Jones*
14 October 1944
Dear T. J.,
I would be very grateful for your opinion on this review by George Orwell, which I held out of the paper this week.1 It came in very late and there was not time to talk it over with him. It seems to me that the whole tone of it breathes a distaste for Christianity, which would be offensive to a great many of our readers and, almost certainly, to Lord Astor. I dont,° myself, complain as a member of the Faith who is pained, but simply as the Editor of a paper having a tradition of Protestant christianity, which I believe the Chairman of Directors is eager to maintain. That does not mean that a reviewer like Orwell need be barred from such topics, but it does mean that he should endeavour to express himself in a different way.