Further letters are included in XVII, pp. 202-3, and Orwell's letter to the Editor of Million is to be found in The Lost Orwell, pp. 107-8. This is an extract from Orwell's response in Tribune: [...] what I was discussing in this chapter of Wigan Pier was the theory taught to us as children that the working classes are, as it were, smelly by nature. We were taught that the 'lower classes' (as it was usual to call them) had a different smell from ourselves, and that it was a nasty smell; we were taught just the same about Jews, Negroes and various other categories of human beings. In the book, I explained elaborately how I was taught this, how I accepted it, and how and why I afterwards got rid of it. Mr. Miller ignores all this and simply picks out isolated sentences which seem to support his thesis, a method by which anybody can be made to say anything.4
[XVII, 2691, pp. 201-205]
1.Unidentified.
2.Million ran for three issues. It was undated; they are assigned to 1943-45. It was published in Glasgow and carried one of two subtitles: 'New Left Writing' or 'The People's Review'.
3.For Paul Potts, see 1.7.46, n. 5.
4.Orwell wrote, 'That was what we were taught--the lower classes smell' (V, p. 119); the italics are in the original. He then discussed this proposition on the following four pages. It was Somerset Maugham who unequivocally stated that the working man stank. Orwell quoted a dozen lines from Maugham's On a Chinese Screen, the only book, Orwell said, he knew in which this issue 'is set forth without humbug'. Maugham wrote, and Orwell quoted, 'I do not blame the working man because he stinks, but stink he does.' Orwell concluded his discussion by saying, 'Actually people who have access to a bath will generally use it. But the essential thing is that middle-class people believe that the working class are dirty' (V, p. 122).
To Leonard Moore*
3 July 1945
27B Canonbury Square
Islington N 1
Dear Mr Moore,
I had a talk with Warburg about the contract position. He is quite satisfied with my assurance that I will bring him all my future work, subject to books of a special nature (eg. that Britain in Pictures book)1 being allowed to go elsewhere. He is not pressing for a hard and fast contract, but he would no doubt prefer to have one when the other business is settled.
The real trouble is with Gollancz. The contract to bring him my next two novels is still extant, and as he refused to regard Animal Farm as working off one of these, it looks as if he wants to keep to it. At the same time I frankly would prefer not to give or offer him any more books if we can get out of it. I have no quarrel with him personally, he has treated me generously and published my work when no one else would, but it is obviously unsatisfactory to be tied to a publisher who accepts or refuses books partly on political grounds and whose own political views are constantly changing. When I wrote Animal Farm for instance, I knew in advance that it would be a very difficult book to find a publisher for, and having to submit it to Gollancz simply meant that much time wasted. This might happen over and over again, and judging by some of the things he has published during the past year or two, I doubt whether I could now write anything that Gollancz would approve of. For instance, I recently started a novel2. Considering how much work I have to do elsewhere I don't expect to finish it till some time in 1947, but I am pretty sure Gollancz would refuse it when the time comes, unless by that time his views have altered again. He might say that so far as novels go he does not mind what views they express, but it is a bad arrangement to take novels to one publisher and non-fiction to another. For example, that Spanish war book, which is about the best I have written, would probably have sold more if published by Gollancz, as by that time I was becoming known to the Gollancz public. With Warburg these difficulties don't arise. He is less interested in propaganda and in any case his views are near enough to mine to prevent serious disagreement. From Gollancz's own point of view I do not imagine I am a good proposition either. Having me on his list means that from time to time he will publish a book which neither he nor his friends can disapprovedeg of. It seems to me that if he will agree it would be better to scrap the contract. If he won't agree I will keep to the strict letter, ie. as regards two more novels, and I have no doubt I can make this all right with Warburg. Perhaps you could approach Gollancz about this. You can quote this paragraph if you wish.
I saw W. J. Turner the other day and asked him about the Britain in Pictures book. He said Edmund Blunden 3 is writing the companion volume and the two will be published simultaneously. I said that as they had had the Ms a year I thought I ought to have some money. The agreed advance was PS50 and I suggested they should give me PS25 now. He said there would be no objection to this and I told him you would write to him, which you have perhaps done already.
Hamish Hamilton wrote to say Harper's would like to see something more of mine. I told him about the book of essays, and perhaps if the Dial Press people turn it down it might be worth showing it to Harpers,deg though I shouldn't think it is much in their line.
Yours sincerely
Eric Blair
[XVII, 2694, pp. 207-8; typewritten]
1.The English People: see the penultimate paragraph. Turner was the general editor of the series.
2.Nineteen Eighty-Four.
3.Edmund Blunden (1896-1974; CBE), poet, editor, man of letters. He contributed to broadcasts to India for Orwell on English literature. His English Villages (1941) is No. 11 in the Britain in Pictures series.
To Lydia Jackson*
1 August 1945
Dear Lydia,
Of course use the cottage second half of August. Even if I did manage to go down there some time, it wouldn't be then.
I am still trying to take that cottage in the Hebrides. I don't know if it will materialise, but if it does, I shall send the Wallington furniture there. That wouldn't be until early next year, however.
I am frightfully busy, but I am glad to say I have got a good nurse who looks after Richard and cooks my meals as well. Richard is extremely well although he is teething rapidly. He is now 141/2 months and weighs about 26 pounds. He can stand up without support but doesn't actually walk yet, and I don't want to hurry him as I am afraid he may be too heavy for his legs. He isn't talking yet, ie. he utters word-like sounds, but no actual words. He doesn't seem to have taken any harm from the many changes in his short life. When you are back, come over and see us both. I am nearly always at home in the afternoons. Richard has his tea about half past four and I have a high tea about seven.
My love to Pat.
Yours
Eric
[XVII, 2712, p. 236; typewritten]
Gleb Struve had written to Orwell on 28 August 1945, saying he had found Animal Farm 'delightful, even though I do not necessarily agree with what one of the reviewers described as your "Trotskyist prejudices." ' He was teaching in the Russian section of a Summer School at Oxford and students were queuing for the book. He had been very amused 'by the pudeur' of those reviewers who had praised the book but had avoided mentioning its real target. He wished to translate Animal Farm, not for the benefit of Russian emigres, but for Russians abroad who could read the truth about their country only when outside it. He asked Orwell whether he had severed his connection with Tribune; he missed his articles. His own book, on Soviet literature, was soon to be published in French with a special preface emphasising the fact that there was no freedom of expression in the Soviet Union.
To Gleb Struve*
1 September 1945
27B Canonbury Square
Islington N 1
Dear Mr Struve,
Many thanks for your letter of August 28th.
I will keep in mind your suggestion about translating Animal Farm, and naturally, if it could be in any way arranged, I should be highly honoured if it were you who made the translation. The thing is that I don't know what the procedure is. Are books in Russian published in this country, ie. from non-official sources? At about the same time as your letter a Pole wrote wanting to do the book into Po
lish. I can't, of course, encourage him to do so unless I can see a way of getting the book into print and recompensing him for his work, and ditto with yourself. If there is any way of arranging this that would allow a reasonable fee to the translators, I would be most happy to do it, as naturally I am anxious that the book should find its way into other languages. If translations into the Slav languages were made, I shouldn't want any money out of them myself.1
No, I haven't severed connection with Tribune, though I have stopped editing for them. I was away in France and Germany between February and May, and my affairs have been disorganised in other ways which obliged me to cut down my journalistic work for some time. However, I am going to start a weekly column again in Tribune in October, but not under the old title.
I am glad your book should bedeg translated into French. My impression in France was that the Soviet mythos is less strong there than in England, in spite of the big Communist party.
I am leaving London shortly for a holiday, but shall be back about the 25th. I would like to meet you if you are in London any time. My phone number is can 3751.
Yours sincerely
George Orwell
[XVII, 2737, pp. 274-5; typewritten]
1.Gleb Struve did translate Animal Farm into Russian, in conjunction with M. Kriger, as Skotskii Khutor. It first appeared as a serial in Possev (Frankfurt-am-Main), Nos. 7-25, 1949, and then in two book versions, one on ordinary paper for distribution in Western Europe and one on thin paper for distribution behind the Iron Curtain. Orwell's practice was never to benefit from his work distributed in Communist-dominated countries.
To Kay Dick*
26 September 1945
27B Canonbury Square
Islington N 1
Dear Kay,
I was very glad to get your letter because I had been trying to get in touch with you. When I rang up John o' Londondeg 1 they just said you had left, and I had lost your home address.
I simply haven't any ideas for a story at this moment, and I don't want to force one. Later on I don't know. I did one time contemplate a story about a man who got so fed up with the weeds in his garden that he decided to have a garden just of weeds, as they seem easier to grow. Then of course as soon as he started to do this he would find the garden being overwhelmed with flowers and vegetables which came up of their own accord. But I never got round to writing it.
I note that you will be back in London about the 4th and will get in touch with you after that. I'll try and not lose your address this time. I wish you would come round here some time and see my little boy, who is now aged nearly 17 months. If you come from Hampstead you have to go to the Angel and then take a bus, or if you come from the City you come on the 4 bus to Highbury Corner. I am almost always at home because I don't go to an office now. The child goes to bed about 6 and after that I have high tea about 7.
You may be interested to hear that poor old Wodehouse was most pathetically pleased about the article in the Windmill. I met him in Paris and afterwards heard from him once or twice.
Looking forward to seeing you,
Yours
George Orwell
[XVII, 2754, p. 290; typewritten]
1.John O' London's Weekly was a popular literary journal founded in 1919.
To Leonard Moore*
29 November 1945
27B Canonbury Square
London N 1
Dear Mr Moore,
I have just heard from Erval of Nagel Paris. He says that the contract you drew up for Animal Farm provides for publication in not less than a year, and says that this is an impossible condition. The main reason he gives is that it is not usual in France to publish two books by a foreign writer within 18 or 20 months of one another. Burmese Days is supposed to appear about February, so Animal Farm would clash with it if published in 1946. He also hints that from a political point of view this may not be a happy moment for producing a book like Animal Farm and says Nagel Paris would like to be able to judge the right moment. I fancy the second objection is the real one, as they are so short of books of any kind in France at present that the first consideration would not be likely to carry much weight.
I am going to tell him that I leave the matter in your hands. The point is that we don't want the publication of A.F. put off for 18-20 months if it is at all avoidable. I have no doubt that now such a book would be likely to get a hostile reception in France, but it would in any case be a question of publishing it some time late in 1946, by which time pro-Russian feeling may have worn thin as it seems to be doing here. I don't fancy the book would be suppressed while Malraux has the Ministry of Information. I met him when in Paris and found him very friendly, and he is far from being pro-Communist in his views. Could we at need take it to another French publisher? The Fontaine people asked for it, you may remember. How does the contract stand with Nagel? Have they an option on all my books? I should be glad to hear what you are doing about this.
I had to make a new will when my wife died, and I am just having it put into proper legal form. It is not that there is likely to be much to leave, but I must think of copyrights and reprints. I am naming Christy & Moore as my literary agents and Sir Richard Rees as my literary executor, and I am leaving it to him to sort out whatever unpublished or reprintable material I may leave behind and decide what is worth preserving. I am also leaving records of anything I publish in periodicals, as there might at any given moment be a good deal that was worth salvaging for some kind of reprint. It is just as well to get all this cleared up, what with atomic bombs etc.
Yours sincerely
Eric Blair
[XVII, 2806, pp. 401-2; typewritten]
To Michael Sayers
11 December 1945
27B Canonbury Square
London N 1
Dear Michael,
Please forgive delay in answering. I've been rather overwhelmed since I saw you.
I'd love to meet again, but I haven't many spare dates before Christmas. Dates I could manage would be Monday 17th or Friday 21st, for dinner either day. I can't arrange any lunch times at present, because I'm in the throes of getting a secretary1, and when she starts I want to see how the time works out.
I don't think I could fairly be described as Russophobe. I am against all dictatorships and I think the Russian myth has done frightful harm to the leftwing movement in Britain and elsewhere, and that it is above all necessary to make people see the Russian regime for what it is (ie. what I think it is). But I thought all this as early as 1932 or thereabouts and always said so fairly freely. I have no wish to interfere with the Soviet regime even if I could. I merely don't want its methods and habits of thought imitated here, and that involves fighting against the Russianisers in this country. The danger as I see it is not our being conquered by Russia, which might happen but depends chiefly on geography. The danger is that some native form of totalitarianism will be developed here, and people like Laski, Pritt, Zilliacus, the News Chronicle and all the rest of them seem to me to be simply preparing the way for this. You might be interested in the articles I wrote for the first two numbers of Polemic.2
Looking forward to seeing you.
Yours
George
P.S. Nearly everyone calls me George now though I've never changed my name.3
1.Miss Siriol Hugh-Jones (see XVII, afternote to 2689, pp. 199-200).
2.'Notes on Nationalism', Polemic 1, October 1945 (XVII, 2668, pp. 141-57) and 'The Prevention of Literature', Polemic 2, January 1946 (XVII, 2792, pp. 369-81). Orwell records payment for the former of PS25 on 15 May 1945 and of PS26 5s on 12 November 1945. 'The Prevention of Literature' was translated and published in French, Dutch, Italian and Finnish journals.
3.This important letter was one of two addressed to Michael Sayers discovered as this volume was in the press. The editor is extremely grateful to Michael Sayers (now aged 98 and living in New York) and his sons, Sean and Peter, for permission to publish it. In his first letter of 29 November 1945, O
rwell expresses pleasure in hearing from Mr Sayers and suggests meeting over lunch. Sayers, Rayner Heppenstall and Orwell had shared a flat in 1935 (see letter to Heppenstall, 24.9.35, n. 1).
To G. H. Bantock
Late 1945-early 1946
These extracts are from a letter Orwell wrote to G. H. Bantock (1914- ), who was then doing research for his L.H. Myers: A Critical Study, published in 1956. Myers had died in 1944. (See 19.2.46, n. 1).
I was staying with him when war broke out. He spoke with the utmost bitterness of the British ruling class and said that he considered that many of them were actually treacherous in their attitude towards Germany. He said, speaking from his knowledge of them, that the rich were in general very class-conscious and well aware that their interests coincided with the interests of the rich in other countries, and that consequently they had no patriotism--'not even their kind of patriotism,' he added. He made an exception of Winston Churchill. . . .
. . . I didn't see Leo very frequently during the war. I was in London and he was generally in the country. The last time I saw him was at John Morris's flat.1 We got into the usual argument about Russia and totalitarianism, Morris taking my side. I said something about freedom and Leo, who had got up to get some more whisky, said almost vehemently, 'I don't believe in freedom.' (NB. I think his exact words were 'I don't believe in liberty.') I said, 'All progress comes through heretics,' and Leo promptly agreed with me. It struck me then, not for the first time, that there was a contradiction in his ideas which he had not resolved. His instincts were those of a Liberal but he felt it his duty to support the USSR and therefore to repudiate Liberalism. I think part of his uncertainty was due to his having inherited a large income. Undoubtedly in a way he was ashamed of this. He lived fairly simply and gave his money away with both hands, but he could not help feeling that he was a person who enjoyed unjustified privileges. I think he felt that because of this he had no right to criticise Russia. Russia was the only country where private ownership had been abolished, and any hostile criticism might be prompted by an unconscious desire to protect his own possessions. This may be a wrong diagnosis, but that is the impression I derived. It was certainly not natural for such a sweet-natured and open-minded man to approve of a regime where freedom of thought was suppressed.