George Orwell: A Life in Letters (83 page)

Have you torn up your clothing book?
⁴
The reaction of everybody here was the same—‘it must be a trap.’ Of course clothes are now sufficiently rationed by price. I think I shall order myself a new jacket all the same.

Yours

Eric

[XX, 3574, pp. 65–6; typewritten]

1
.
Ian M’Kechnie was an estate worker at Ardlussa; Francis Boyle, a roadworker on Jura. Both helped at Barnhill from time to time.

2
.
Israel Zangwill (1864–1926), English novelist and playwright who was one of the first to present the lives of immigrant Jews in fictional form in English literature. He was for a time a Zionist and later served as President of the Jewish Territorial Organization for the Settlement of the Jews within the British Empire, 1905–25.

3
.
Marie Bashkirtseff (1860–1884), Russian-born diarist and painter. Her
Journal
was published posthumously in 1887 and became very fashionable.

4
.
Clothes were rationed during the war. Clothes rationing ended on 1
5 March 1949.

To Leonard Moore*

17 March 1949

The Cotswold Sanatorium

Cranham

Dear Moore,

You will have had Robert Giroux’s letter, of which he sent me a duplicate.

I can’t possibly agree to the kind of alteration and abbreviation suggested. It would alter the whole colour of the book and leave out a good deal that is essential. I think it would also—though the judges, having read the parts that it is proposed to cut out, may not appreciate this—make the story unintelligible. There would also be something visibly wrong with the structure of the book if about a fifth or a quarter were cut out and the last chapter then tacked on to the abbreviated trunk. A book is built up as a balanced structure and one cannot simply remove large chunks here and there unless one is ready to recast the whole thing. In any case, merely to cut out the suggested chapters and abridge the passages from the ‘book within the book’ would mean a lot of re-writing which I simply do not feel equal to at present.

The only terms on which I could agree to any such arrangement would be if the book were published definitely as an abridged version and if it were clearly stated that the English edition contained several chapters which had been omitted. But obviously the Book of the Month people couldn’t be expected to agree to any such thing. As Robert Giroux says in his letter they have not promised to select the book in any case, but he evidently hopes they might, and I suppose it will be disappointing to Harcourt & Brace° if I reject the suggestion. I suppose you, too, stand to lose a good deal of commission. But I really cannot allow my work to be mucked about beyond a certain point, and I doubt whether it even pays in the long run. I should be much obliged if you would make my point of view clear to them.
¹

Yours sincerely

Eric Blair

[XX, 357
5, pp. 66–7; typewritten]

1
.
The ‘book within the book’ suggests Goldstein’s
The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism
was to be cut.

Orwell and the Information Research Department

When Celia Kirwan* worked for the
IRD
, she was, so far as her relationship with Orwell was concerned, far more a close friend than merely a government official. Much of the information here and for 6.4.49 is based on documents in Foreign Office files released by the Public Record Office on 10 July 1996 under the Government’s ‘open government policy’. The permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office to reproduce Crown copyright material is gratefully acknowledged.

The
IRD
was set up by the Foreign Office in 1948. ‘Its creation was prompted by the desire of Ministers of Mr Attlee’s Labour Government to devise means to combat Communist propaganda, then engaged in a global and damaging campaign to undermine Western power and influence. British concern for an effective counter-offensive against Communism was sharpened by the need to rebut a relentless Soviet-inspired campaign to undermine British institutions, a campaign which included direct personal attacks on the Prime Minister and members of the Cabinet and divisive criticism of government policies.’ Among the activities in which it engaged, it commissioned special articles and circulated books and journals to appropriate posts abroad. Thus,
Tribune
, because of its anti-Stalin stance, was widely distributed. Much fuller details relative to 30.3.49 and 6.4.49 will be found in XX, 3590A, pp. 319, 321, 323-5.

On 29 March 1949, Celia Kirwan went to see Orwell at Cranham at the
IRD
’s request. This report, written the following day, and Orwell’s letter of 6 April, are the outcome of that meeting.

30 March 1949

Yesterday I went to visit George Orwell, who is in a sanatorium in Gloucestershire. I discussed some aspects of our work with him in great confidence, and he was delighted to learn of them, and expressed his wholehearted and enthusiastic approval of our aims. He said that he could not agree to write an article himself at present, or even to re-write one, because he is too ill to undertake any literary work at all; also because he does not like to write ‘on commission’, as he feels he does not do his best work that way. However I left some material with him, and shall send him photostats of some of his articles on the theme of Soviet repression of the arts, in the hope that he may become inspired when he is better to take them up again.

He suggested various names of writers who might be enlisted to write for us, and promised to think of more in due course and to communicate them to us. The ones he thought of while I was there were:–

D’Arcy Gillie, the
Manchester Guardian
Paris correspondent, who he says is a serious opponent of Communism, and an expert on Poland as well as on French politics;

C. D. Darlington,*
¹
the scientist. Mr Orwell considers that the Lysenko case should be fully documented, and suggested that Darlington might undertake this;

Franz Borkenau, the German professor, who wrote a History of the Comintern, and has also written some articles recently in the
Observer
.
²

Mr Orwell said that undoubtedly Gollancz would be the man to publish such a series of books as we had in mind. He would have been very willing to act as a go-between if he had been well enough; as it was, he would try to think of someone else who would do so, and he suggested that a glance at a list of Gollancz writers would probably recall to our minds someone who would be able to help us. He says, however, that Gollancz has a one-track mind, and at present it is running along the track of Arab refugees, so it might be a good plan to allow him to get these out of his system before trying to interest him in our plan. He said that Gollancz books always sell well, and that they are well displayed and given the widest publicity.

As Mr Orwell was for two° years in the Indian Police stationed in Burma, and as he ran a B.B.C. service to the Indians during the war, I asked him what in his view would be the best way of furthering our aims in India and Burma. He said that whatever was the best way, the
worst
was undoubtedly broadcasting, since hardly any of the natives had radio sets, and those who did (who were mostly Eurasians) tended only to listen in to local stations. He thought that one plane-load of leaflets probably did more good than six months broadcasting.

Indeed he did not think that there was a great deal of scope for propaganda in India and Pakistan, where Communism meant something quite different from what it did in Europe—it meant, on [t]he whole, opposition to the ruling class, and he thought that more good would be done by maintaining the closest possible links with these countries, through trade and through the interchange of students. He thought this latter aspect of Anglo-Indian relations very important, and was of the opinion that we ought to offer far more scholarships to Indian and Pakistan° students.

In Burma, he thought that propaganda should avoid ‘atrocity’ stories, since the Burmese were ‘rather apt to admire that kind of thing’, or, if they did not actually admire it, to think ‘If that’s what the Communists are like, better not oppose them.’

Incidentally, he said that the Commander Young,
³
whose wife committed suicide the other day, is a Communist, and is the Naval equivalent, on a more modest scale, of the Archbishop of Canterbury
⁴
—that is, he is called in to confirm the Soviet point of view about matters relating to the Navy. Also, his wife was a Czech; and Mr Orwell wonders whether there is any connection between these two facts and Mrs Young’s suicide.

[XX, 3590A, pp. 318–21]

1
.
See
19.3.47
.

2
.
For Franz Borkenau, see
31.7.37
,
n. 3
.

3
.
Orwell included Cdr. Edgar P. Young in his list of crypto-communists. He wrote, ‘Naval expert. Pamphlets’; under ‘Remarks’, ‘F. T.? Active in People’s Convention. Quite possibly an underground member I should think. Wife (Czech) committed suicide (in slightly doubtful circumstances) 1949.’ Mrs Ida Young was found hanged in their flat on 23 March 1949.

4
.
‘Archbishop’ has been mistakenly written for Dean Hewlett-Johnson, the ‘Red Dean’.

To Sir Richard Rees*

31 March 1949

Cranham

Dear Richard,

Thanks so much for your letter. I send herewith a copy of
P
[
artisan
]
R
[
eview
] with the article I spoke of.
¹
I’d have sent it before, as I thought it would interest you, but I was under the impression that you took in
PR
.
Celia Kirwan was here the other day & she will send me a copy of that number of
Polemic
which I lost & which has the essay on Tolstoy in it. It really connects up with the Gandhi article.

Yes, I must get this will business sewn up. I had my will properly drawn up by a solicitor, then, as I wanted to make some alterations, re-wrote it myself, & I dare say this second draft, though duly witnessed etc., is not legal. Have you got a solicitor in Edinburgh? I am out of touch with my London ones. It is important to get the literary executorship sewn up properly, & also to be quite sure about Richard’s position, because there is some legal difference, I forget what, in the case of an adopted child. In addition I must bring up to date the notes I left for you about my books, which editions to follow, etc. When Avril came back from town she brought some box files marked ‘Personal’ which I
think
have all the relevant stuff in them. Do you think when you are at Barnhill you could go through these files & send the relevant papers to me. I want my will, ie. the second will, dated about the beginning of 1947 I think, the notes I left for you, & a notebook marked ‘Reprintable Essays’
²
which wants bringing up to date. It’s important that your powers should be made clear, ie. that you should have the final say when any definitely literary question is involved. For example. The American Book of the Month people, though they didn’t actually promise, half promised to select my present book if I would cut out about a quarter of it. Of course I’m not going to do this, but if I had died the week before, Moore & the American publishers would have jumped at the offer, ruining the book & not even benefiting my estate much, because whenever you make a large sum you are in the surtax class & it is all taken away again.

I have been very poorly, spitting up quantities of blood. This doesn’t necessarily do any harm, indeed Morlock, the specialist I went to before the war, said it might even do good, but it always depresses & disgusts me, & I have been feeling rather down. There is evidently nothing very definite they can do for me. They talked of doing the ‘thora’ operation, but the surgeon wouldn’t undertake it because you have to have one sound lung which I haven’t. Evidently the only thing to do is to keep quiet. It worries me not to see little R., but perhaps later I can arrange somehow for him to visit me. If I do get up this year I want to take him for a trip to London.

Yours

Eric

Excuse this writing. They’ve forbidden me to use a typewriter at present because it is tiring!

[XX, 3584, pp. 73–4; handwritten]

1
.
‘Reflections on Gandhi’ (see XX, 3516, pp. 5–12).

2
.
See XX, 3728, pp. 223–31, which includes a section on ‘Reprintable Essays’.

Orwell’s letter to Celia Kirwan, which follows, should be read in the context of what the Information Research Department was seeking: those who might reliably represent British interests in writing on its behalf to counteract Soviet propaganda designed to undermine democratic institutions. The copious notes and annotations relevant to this letter will be found in XX, 3590B, pp. 323–7.

To Celia Kirwan*

6 April 1949