3.Presumably either The Lion and the Unicorn or Critical Essays, both published by Secker & Warburg.
It has long been accepted that, from his childhood, Orwell had shown an interest in science and had indicated he wanted one day to write a book like Wells’s A Modern Utopia (X, 29, p. 45). Sir Roger Mynors (see [?].8.20, n. 2) recalled how, when at Eton, he and Orwell had ‘developed a great passion for biology and got permission to do extra dissection in the biology lab’. One day Orwell, who had remarkable skill with a catapult, shot and killed a jackdaw high on the roof of the College chapel. They then took it to the biology laboratory and dissected it. ‘We made the great mistake of slitting the gall bladder and therefore flooding the place with, er . . . Well, it was an awful mess’ (Remembering Orwell, pp. 18–19).
Scholars have given much thought to when Orwell was prompted to set about writing Nineteen Eighty-Four. When The Lost Orwell was at proof stage, Ralph Desmarais, then undertaking doctoral research at Imperial College London, drew my attention to Orwell’s correspondence with Dr C. D. Darlington. This showed how important was Orwell’s attendance at a lecture given by John Baker at the PEN Conference, 22–26 August 1944 (see 19.3.47, n. 3 below for the lecture). It was already known that Orwell was interested in Lysenko* and his notes for The Last Man in Europe make an obscure reference to ‘The Swindle of Bakerism and Ingsoc’ (XV, 2377, p. 368). We know that Orwell told Warburg that he first thought of the novel in 1943 and Orwell himself wrote that it was the Teheran Conference (28 November 1943) which led him ‘to discuss the implications of dividing the world up into “Zones of influence”’ (XIX, 3513, p. 487). So, whereas Orwell first thought of the novel in late 1943, this exchange of correspondence suggests it was hearing Baker and his citation of Lysenko that prompted Orwell to begin serious work on Nineteen Eighty-Four later in 1944. Lysenko rejected traditional hybridisation theories. Stalin backed his approach to such a degree that opposition to him was outlawed in 1948. He claimed he could vastly improve Soviet crop yield, but after the total failure of his methods they were finally discredited in 1964.
To Dr C. D. Darlington*
19 March 1947
27B Canonbury Square
Islington N 1
Dear Dr Darlington,
Very many thanks for the cutting of your article from Discovery,1 which I read with great interest. I dare say someone had told you that I was interested in this story of Lysenko*, though I rather think we did meet once when I was at the B.B.C.2
I first heard about it in the speech given by John Baker at the PEN Conference in 1944, and afterwards read it at greater length in Baker’s book Science and the Planned State.3 I formed the opinion then that the story as told by Baker was true, and am very glad to get this confirmation. I would like to make use of the information supplied by you in my column some time, but I am no scientist and I hardly care to write about what is first and foremost a scientific matter. However, this persecution of scientists and falsification of results seems to me to follow naturally from the persecution of writers and historians, and I have written a number of times that British scientists ought not to remain so undisturbed when they see mere literary men sent to concentration camps.
I shall try to get hold of your obituary article on Vavilov in Nature.4 I saw it stated in an American paper recently that he was definitely known to be dead.
Yours sincerely,
Geo. Orwell
[LO, pp. 128–31; XIX, 3192A, p. 79; typewritten]
1.C.D. Darlington, ‘A Revolution in Russian Science’, Discovery, vol 8, February 1947, pp. 33–43.
2.Orwell had asked Darlington to broadcast to India for university students on ‘The Future of Science’, 7 July 1942 (XIII, 1170, p. 321); on ‘India and the Steel Age’, 10 July 1942 (XIII, 1220, p. 361); and on ‘Plant or Animal Breeding’, 22 July 1943 (XV, 2088, p. 101).
3.In the lecture at the PEN Conference that Orwell heard Baker give, Baker reiterated his objection to scientific planning, specifying Trofim Denisovich Lysenko* as a case in point: ‘A good example is provided by the appointment of one Lysenko to be an Academician in the U.S.S.R. and Director of the Soviet Academy of Agricultural Science’. After describing Lysenko’s rejection of Western genetics and his insistence that Soviet researchers adopt his own beliefs, Baker concluded: ‘The case of Lysenko provides a vivid illustration of the degradation of science under a totalitarian regime’ (John R. Baker, ‘Science, Culture and Freedom’, in Herman Ould, ed., Freedom of Expression: A Symposium (1945), pp. 118–19 which Orwell reviewed, 12 October 1945, XVII, 2764, pp. 308–10). See also third paragraph from the end of ‘The Prevention of Literature’ (XVII, 2792, p. 379) for Orwell on the uncritical attitude of some scientists to the Soviet persecution of creative writers.
4.C.D. Darlington and SC Harland, ‘Nikolai Ivanovich Vavilov, 1885–1942’, Nature, 156 (1945), p. 621.
To Brenda Salkeld*
20 March 1947
27B Canonbury Square
Islington N 1
Dearest Brenda,
I tried to phone you last night but couldn’t get any sense out of the phone.
In case this reaches you in time on Friday morning. I’m afraid Friday is hopeless for me. I’m going out to lunch, and, little as I want to, I believe I have got to go out to dinner as well. I shall be at home during the morning up to about 12.30, and during the afternoon. So ring if you get the chance.
I have now literally no fuel whatever. However it isn’t quite so stinkingly cold, in fact we’ve distinctly seen the sun on more than one occasion, and I heard some birds trying to sing the other morning. I’ve been frantically busy but have now cleared off the more urgent stuff. I’ve only one more job to do and hope to get that out of the way before we leave for Barnhill, as I do so want not to have to take any bits and pieces of work with me. We have arranged to leave on April 10th, and if I can fix the tickets are going to fly from Glasgow to Islay, which ought to cut out about 6 hours of that dismal journey. Richard has had a nasty feverish cold and he had a temperature two days, but I think he’s all right now. Do make sure to see me before we go, and try and fix up about coming to stay at Barnhill. I think after this stinking winter the weather ought to be better this year.
Take care of yourself and try and give me a ring tomorrow. Perhaps you could look in for a cup of tea, say about 3 or 4 in the afternoon?
Much love
Eric
[XIX, 3195, pp. 80–1; typewritten]
Arthur Koestler*
21 March 1947
27B Canonbury Square
Islington N 1
Dear Arthur,
Thanks for your letter. Ref. the Freedom Defence Committee. It is a very small organisation which does the best it can with inadequate funds. The sum they were appealing for on this occasion was £250, and they got somewhat more than that. Naturally they want an assured income to pay for premises and staff, and regular legal assistance. What they actually have at present is some small premises and one secretary, and the (I imagine) rather precarious aid of one lawyer who does not demand much in the way of fees. Of course one can do very little on such a tiny establishment, but they can hardly make it larger unless people do give them money. I think up to date they have done a certain amount of good. They have certainly taken up quite a few cases and bombarded secretaries of state etc. with letters, which is usually about all one can do. The point is that the N.C.C.L.1 became a Stalinist organisation, and since then there has been no organisation aiming chiefly at the defence of civil liberties. Even a tiny nucleus like this is better than nothing, and if it became better known it could get more money, and so become larger. I think sooner or later there may be a row about the larger aims of the Committee, because at present the moving spirits in it are anarchists and there is a tendency to use it for anarchist propaganda. However, that might correct itself if the organisation became larger, because most of the new supporters would presumably be people of ordinary liberal views. I certainly think the Committe
e is worth £5 a year. If 9 other people have guaranteed the same sum, £50 a year assured is quite a consideration. It would cover stationary°, for example.
I am going back to Jura in April and hope then to get back to the novel I started last year. While in London I’ve been swamped with footling jobs as usual. The weather and the fuel shortage have been unbearable. For about a month one did nothing except try to keep warm. Richard is well and is talking rather more—in all other ways he seems fairly forward. Please give my love to Mamaine.
Yours
George
[XIX, 3196A, p. 84; typewritten]
1.National Council for Civil Liberties.
To Victor Gollancz*
25 March 1947
27B Canonbury Square
Islington N 1
Dear Gollancz,
I must thank you for your kind and considerate letter, and I have thought it over with some care. I nevertheless still think, if you are willing to agree, that it would be better to terminate our contract. It is not that anything in the book I am now writing is likely to lead to trouble, but I have to think of the over-all position. Neither Warburg nor anyone else can regard me as a good proposition unless he can have an option on my whole output, which is never very large in any case. It is obviously better if I can be with one publisher altogether, and, as I don’t suppose I shall cease writing about politics from time to time, I am afraid of further differences arising, as in the past. You know what the difficulty is, ie., Russia. For quite 15 years I have regarded that regime with plain horror, and though, of course, I would change my opinion if I saw reason, I don’t think my feelings are likely to change so long as the Communist party remains in power. I know that your position in recent years has been not very far from mine, but I don’t know what it would be if, for instance, there is another seeming raprochement° between Russia and the West, which is a possible development in the next few years. Or again in an actual war situation. I don’t, God knows, want a war to break out, but if one were compelled to choose between Russia and America—and I suppose that is the choice one might have to make—I would always choose America. I know Warburg and his opinions well enough to know that he is very unlikely ever to refuse anything of mine on political grounds. As you say, no publisher can sign blind an undertaking to print anything a writer produces, but I think Warbug is less likely to jib than most.
I know that I am asking a great deal of you, since after all we have a contract which I signed freely and by which I am still bound. If you decide that the contract must stand, of course I shall not violate it. But so far as my own feelings go I would rather terminate it. Please forgive me for what must seem like ungraciousness, and for causing you all this trouble.
Yours sincerely
Geo. Orwell
[XIX, 3200, pp. 90–1; typewritten]
To Victor Gollancz*
9 April 1947
27B Canonbury Square
Islington N 1
Dear Gollancz,
I should have written several days earlier, but I have been ill in bed. Very many thanks for your generous action.1
Yours sincerely,
George Orwell
[XIX, 3211, p. 122; typewritten copy]
1.Gollancz’s generous action was to relinquish his right to publish Orwell’s next two novels – in effect, Nineteen Eighty-Four.
To Sonia Brownell*
12 April 1947
Barnhill,
Isle of Jura
Dearest Sonia,
I am handwriting this because my typewriter is downstairs. We arrived O.K. & without incident yesterday. Richard was as good as gold & rather enjoyed having a sleeper to himself after he had got over the first strangeness, & as soon as we got into the plane at Glasgow he went to sleep, probably because of the noise. I hadn’t been by plane before & I think it’s really better. It costs £2 or £3 more, but it saves about 5 hours & the boredom of going on boats, & even if one was sick its° only three quarters of an hour whereas if one goes by sea one is sick for five or six hours, ie. if it is bad weather. Everything up here is just as backward as in England, hardly a bud showing & I saw quite a lot of snow yesterday. However it’s beautiful spring weather now & the plants I put in at the new year seem to be mostly alive. There are daffodils all over the place, the only flower out. I’m still wrestling with more or less virgin meadow, but I think by next year I’ll have quite a nice garden here. Of course we’ve had a nightmare all today getting things straight, with Richard only too ready to help, but it’s more or less right now & the house is beginning to look quite civilized. It will be some weeks before we’ve got the transport problem fully solved, but otherwise we are fairly well appointed. I’m going to send for some hens as soon as we have put the hen house up, & this year I have been also able to arrange for alcohol so that we have just a little, a sort of rum ration, each day. Last year we had to be practically T.T. I think in a week everything will be straight & the essential work in the garden done, & then I can get down to some work.
I wrote to Genetta1 asking her to come whenever she liked & giving instructions about the journey. So long as she’s bringing the child, not just sending it, it should be simple enough. I want to give you the complete details about the journey, which isn’t so formidable as it looks on paper. The facts are these:
There are boats to Jura on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. You have to catch the boat train at Glasgow at 8 am, which means that it’s safer to sleep the preceding night at Glasgow, because the all-night trains have a nasty way of coming in an hour or two hours late, & then one misses the boat train. [Directions for travel, for similar details about travel see 16.6.46] If you want to go by plane, the planes run daily (except Sundays I think), & they nearly always take off unless it’s very misty. The itinerary then is:
10.30 arrive at Scottish Airways office at St Enoch Station, Glasgow (the air office is in the railway station).
11.15 leave by plane for ISLAY. (Pronounced EYELY).
12 noon arrive Islay.
Hire a car (or take a bus) to the ferry that leads to Jura.
About 1 pm cross ferry.
Hired car to LEALT.
It’s important to let us know in advance when you are coming, because of the hired car. There are only 2 posts a week here, & only 2 occasions on which I can send down to Craighouse to order the car. If you come by boat, you could probably get a car all right by asking on the quay, but if you come by air there wouldn’t be a car at the ferry (which is several miles from Craighouse) unless ordered beforehand. Therefore if you proposed coming on, say, June 15th, it would be as well to write about June 5th because, according to the day of the week, it may be 4 or 5 days before your letter reaches me, & another 3 or 4 days before I can send a message. It’s no use wiring because the telegrams come by the postman.
You want a raincoat & if possible stout boots or shoes—gum boots if you have them. We may have some spare gum boots, I’m not sure—we are fairly well off for spare oilskins & things like that. It would help if you brought that week’s rations, because they’re not quick at getting any newcomer’s rations here, & a little flour & tea.
I am afraid I am making this all sound very intimidating, but really it’s easy enough & the house is quite comfortable. The room you would have is rather small, but it looks out on the sea. I do so want to have you here. By that time I hope we’ll have got hold of an engine for the boat, & if we get decent weather we can go round to the completely uninhabited bays on the west side of the island, where there is beautiful white sand & clear water with seals swimming about in it. At one of them there is a cave where we can take shelter when it rains, & at another there is a shepherd’s hut which is disused but quite livable where one could even picnic for a day or two. Anyway do come, & come whenever you like for as long as you like, only try to let me know beforehand. And meanwhile take care of yourself & be happy.
I’ve just remembered I never paid you for that brandy you got for me, so enclose £3. I think it
was about that wasn’t it? The brandy was very nice & was much appreciated on the journey up because they can’t get alcohol here at all easily. The next island, Islay, distills whisky but it all goes to America. I gave the lorry driver a large wallop, more than a double, & it disappeared so promptly that it seemed to hit the bottom of his belly with a click.
With much love
George
[XIX, 3212, pp. 122–4; handwritten]
1.Janetta Woolley (now Parladé) was a friend of those who ran Horizon and Polemic. She may have met Orwell through her former husband, Humphrey Slater* but it seems more likely it was through Cyril Connolly*. At this time she had changed her name by deed-poll to Sinclair-Loutit, whilst living with Kenneth Sinclair-Loutit: their daughter, Nicolette, then nearly four years old, is the child mentioned in this letter. Sonia Brownell had suggested to Orwell that Nicolette would be a suitable same-age companion for young Richard, hence Orwell’s invitation, but in the event Janetta and Nicolette did not go to Jura. Kenneth Sinclair-Loutit also knew Orwell, having been in the Spanish civil war as a doctor in the International Brigade and had first met him in Spain.
The following letter is in reply to one from Dwight Macdonald of 9 April 1947. Macdonald said that since his last letter to Orwell he had decided to devote the May–June issue of Politics to the USSR and the issue after that to France. There would therefore be no room for even an abridged version of Orwell’s ‘Lear, Tolstoy and the Fool’ until September–October at the earliest. He would hold on to the article but would give it to someone else if Orwell wished. It was never published in Politics. He asked Orwell for help in compiling a reading list of 50–60 books and articles ‘which might be called the basic ones for the layman if he wants to understand Russia today’. Had Orwell any ‘pet discoveries’? What ten books would he recommend to a friend ignorant of Russia but seeking enlightenment? He also wanted another 50–60 titles of more specialised books on the best in Soviet art, movies, literature. He said he had no friendly contacts with the higher editors of The New Republic. His friends were being ‘weeded out at a great rate’, and he guessed that Orwell’s column ‘As I Please’ would not be published now that ‘the mag has become well-vulgarized by the Wallace crowd’. He suggested Orwell ask his agents to approach The Nation. Macdonald had airmailed his profile of Henry Wallace, because, since Wallace was now in England, Orwell might care to tell his readers about it. He confirmed that he had received payment for the shoes he had obtained for Orwell (the shoes which, unfortunately, proved too small).
George Orwell: A Life in Letters Page 45