Yours sincerely,
Geo. Orwell
[XIX, 3179, p. 53; typewritten]
1.This sentence had been annotated in the left-hand margin in Warburg's office: 'Go & see VG.'
2.The rights had reverted to Orwell on 22 November 1946 because the book had been allowed to go out of print for an agreed period of time.
On 7 March 1947, Ihor Szewczenko wrote to Orwell seeking a preface to Animal Farm. The Ukrainian translation had been given to the publisher in the early autumn of 1946. On 19 February 1947, the publisher requested a preface, regarding it as essential to the satisfactory reception of the book in Ukrainian. Szewczenko explained that delays had arisen because he had moved from Munich to Belgium (where the book was being printed), although he still worked in Germany, and because of difficulties in sending letters to Germany. Although the printer and publisher of Animal Farm had been licensed by the occupying powers, Szewczenko did not know whether a licence to publish Animal Farm had been applied for by them. If Orwell could not send a preface, he was asked to provide biographical notes.
Szewczenko then set out the political background of the publishers. They were, in the main, Soviet Ukrainians, many of them former members of the Bolshevik Party, but afterwards inmates of Siberian camps and who were 'genuinely interested' in the story. He reassured Orwell that 'AF is not being published by Ukrainian Joneses' - a reference to the farmer in Animal Farm.
To Ihor Szewczenko*
13 March 1947
27B Canonbury Square
Islington N 1
Dear Mr Szewczenko,
Many thanks for your letter of the 7th, which I received today.
I am frightfully busy, but I will try to send you a short introduction to A. F. and to despatch it not more than a week from hence. I gather that you want it to contain some biographical material, and also, I suppose, an account of how the book came to be written. I assume that the book will be produced in a very simple style with no illustrations on the cover, but just in case it should be wanted I will send a photograph as well.
I was very interested to hear about the people responsible for translating A.F.,1 and encouraged to learn that that type of opposition exists in the USSR. I do hope it will not all end by the Displaced personsdeg being shipped back to the USSR or else mostly absorbed by Argentina. I think our desperate labour shortage may compel us to encourage a good many D.Ps to settle in this country, but at present the government is only talking of letting them in as servants etc., because there is still working-class resistance against letting in foreign workers, owing to fear of unemployment, and the Communists and 'sympathisers' are able to play on this.
I have noted your new address and presume you will be there till further notice. I shall be at the above address until April 10th, and after that at the Scottish address. I think you have this, but in case you have not I will give it you: Barnhill Isle of Jura Argyllshire scotland.
Yours sincerely
Geo. Orwell
[XIX, 3187, 3188, pp. 72-4; typewritten]
1.This seems to be a slight misunderstanding. Szewczenko was undertaking the translation (it appeared under the pen-name Ivan Cherniatync'kyi).
To Victor Gollancz
14 March 1947
27B Canonbury Square,
Islington N 1
Dear Gollancz,
I believe Leonard Moore has already spoken to you about the contract which I still have with you and about my wish to be released from it. I believe that the contract that still subsists between us is the one made for Keep the Aspidistra Flying in 1937, which provided that I would give you the first refusal of my next three novels. Coming Up for Air worked off one of these, but you did not accept Animal Farm, which you saw and refused in 1944, as working off another. So that by the terms of the contract I still owe you the refusal of two other novels.
I know that I am asking you a very great favour in asking that you should cancel the contract, but various circumstances have changed in the ten years since it was made, and I believe that it might be to your advantage, as it certainly would be to mine, to bring it to an end. The position is that since then you have published three books of mine1 but you have also refused two others on political grounds,2 and there was also another which you did not refuse but which it seemed natural to take to another publisher.3 The crucial case was Animal Farm. At the time when this book was finished, it was very hard indeed to get it published, and I determined then that if possible I would take all my future output to the publishers who would produce it, because I knew that anyone who would risk this book would risk anything. Secker & Warburg were not only ready to publish Animal Farm but are willing, when paper becomes available, to do a uniform edition of such of my books as I think worth reprinting, including some which are at present very completely out of print. They are also anxious to reprint my novel Coming Up for Air in an ordinary edition this year, but, not unnaturally, they are only willing to do all this if they can have a comprehensive contract giving them control of anything I write.
From my own point of view it is clearly very unsatisfactory to have to take my novels to one publisher and at the same time to be obliged, at any rate in some cases, to take non-fiction books elsewhere. I recognise, of course, that your political position is not now exactly what it was when you refused Animal Farm, and in any case I respect your unwillingness to publish books which go directly counter to your political principles. But it seems to me that this difficulty is likely to arise again in some form or other, and that it would be better if you are willing to bring the whole thing to an end.
If you wish to see me personally about this, I am at your disposal. I shall be at this address until about April 10th.
Yours sincerely,
Geo. Orwell
[XIX, 3191, pp. 77-9; typewritten]
1.The contract was not actually made 'for' Keep the Aspidistra Flying (which had been published on 20 April 1936), but it referred to it. The first clause of the draft contract (all that survives) states 'EB grants to G exclusive right to publish in English next 3 "new and original full-length novels" after Keep the A.' This was signed on Orwell's behalf - he was in Spain - by Eileen, who was empowered so to do. The three books published since then were The Road to Wigan Pier, Coming Up for Air, and Inside the Whale. Only the second is a novel, of course. Orwell could, perhaps, have mentioned that he had also collaborated with Gollancz on The Betrayal of the Left.
2.The two refused on political grounds were Homage to Catalonia and Animal Farm. Although there was no doubt that Animal Farm was refused on political grounds, Gollancz had a point that - whatever Orwell may have felt, it was hardly 'a work of fiction of standard length'. The contract - if it repeated the wording of the draft - did specifically refer to 'full-length novels'.
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 k
nown 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 PS250, 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 Committee is worth PS5 a year. If 9 other people have guaranteed the same sum, PS50 a year assured is quite a consideration. It would cover stationarydeg, 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 on
e 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 raprochementdeg 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