A Life in Letters Read online

  This was really to thank you for being so neighbourly from such a distance, & in such weather. One gets hysterical with no one to speak to except the village who are not what you could call soothing.

  I'll let you know what happens next. I have fearful letters to write to relations.

  Love to Mary & Peter,3

  Eileen

  [XI, 432, pp. 127-9; handwritten]

  1.Although Common lived only some half-dozen miles from Wallington, the journey was awkward and he had no car.

  2.He did not leave the sanatorium until 1 September 1938.

  3.Jack Common's wife and son.

  Orwell wrote to Spender on 2 April. Spender, in an undated reply told him that he had arranged to review Homage to Catalonia for the London Mercury. He then broached the matter of Orwell's attitude to him. Knowing nothing of Spender, Orwell had, he said, attacked him, but he was 'equally puzzled as to why when still knowing nothing of me, but having met me once or twice, you should have withdrawn those attacks', and wanted to discuss this. In the meantime, saying how sorry he was to hear Orwell was ill, he sent him his play, Trial of a Judge, which he thought Orwell might care to read if he had little else to do: 'If you can't bear the thought of it, don't look at it: I won't be offended.'

  To Stephen Spender*

  Friday [15? April 1938]

  Jellicoe Pavilion

  Preston Hall

  Aylesford, Kent

  Dear Spender,

  Thank you so much for your letter and the copy of your play. I waited to read the latter before replying. It interested me, but I'm not quite sure what I think about it. I think with a thing like that one wants to see it acted, because in writing you obviously had different scenic effects, supplementary noises etc. in mind which would determine the beat of the verse. But there's a lot in it that I'd like to discuss with you when next I see you.

  You ask how it is that I attacked you not having met you, & on the other hand changed my mind after meeting you. I don't know that I had ever exactly attacked you, but I had certainly in passing made offensive remarks about 'parlour Bolsheviks such as Auden & Spender' or words to that effect. I was willing to use you as a symbol of the parlour Bolshie because a. your verse, what I had read of it, did not mean very much to me, b. I looked upon you as a sort of fashionable successful person, also a Communist or Communist sympathiser, & I have been very hostile to the C.P. since about 1935, & c. because not having met you I could regard you as a type & also an abstraction. Even if when I met you I had not happened to like you, I should still have been bound to change my attitude, because when you meet anyone in the flesh you realise immediately that he is a human being and not a sort of caricature embodying certain ideas. It is partly for this reason that I don't mix much in literary circles, because I know from experience that once I have met & spoken to anyone I shall never again be able to show any intellectual brutality towards him, even when I feel that I ought to, like the Labour M.Ps. who get patted on the back by dukes & are lost forever more.

  It is very kind of you to review my Spanish book. But don't go & get into trouble with your own Party--it's not worth it. However, of course you can disagree with all my conclusions, as I think you would probably do anyway, without actually calling me a liar. If you could come & see me some time I would like it very much, if it's not much of an inconvenience.1 I am not infectious. I don't think this place is very difficult to get to, because the Green Linesdeg2 buses stop at the gate. I am quite happy here & they are very nice to me, but of course it's a bore not being able to work and I spend most of my time doing crossword puzzles.

  Yours

  Eric Blair

  [XI, 435, pp. 132-3; handwritten]

  1.Spender did visit Orwell at Aylesford. Others who made what was often a long and difficult journey were former comrades from the Spanish contingent, who hitchhiked there, Jack Common, Rayner Heppenstall, and Max and Dorothy Plowman, who brought the novelist L. H. Myers.

  2.Green Line buses were long-distance, limited stop, buses that ran from one suburban or country district to another on the outer limits of London proper.

  Homage to Catalonia was published on 25 April 1938, but, as is customary, review copies had been sent out in advance. On a Saturday before Orwell's letter to Gorer, probably 16 April, Gorer sent him a short note to say how 'absolutely first-rate' he thought Homage to Catalonia, as well as a carbon copy of his review for Time and Tide, 'in case they object to its inordinate length', and so that Orwell could let him know before the proof arrived if there were any errors. The review appeared on 30 April.

  To Geoffrey Gorer*

  18 April 1938

  Jellicoe Pavilion

  Aylesford

  Dear Geoffrey,

  I must write to thank you for your marvellous review. I kept pinching myself to make sure I was awake, but I shall also have to pinch myself if T. & T. print it--I'm afraid they'll think it's too long & laudatory. I don't think they'll bother about the subject-matter, as they've been very good about the Spanish war. But even if they cut it, thanks ever so for the intention. There were just one or two points. One is that you say the fighting in Barcelona was started by the Assault Guards. Actually it was Civil Guards.1 There weren't any Assault Guards there then, & there is a difference, because the Civil Guards are the old Spanish Gendarmerie dating from the early 19th century & in reality a more or less pro-Fascist body, ie. they have always joined the Fascists where it was possible. The Assault Guards are a new formation dating from the Republic of 1931, pro-Republican & not hated by the working people to the same extent. The other is that if you are obliged to shorten or otherwise alter the review, it doesn't particularly matter to insist, as you do now, that I only took part in the Barcelona fighting to the extent of doing sentry. I did, as it happens, but if I had been ordered to actually fight I would have done so, because in the existing chaos there didn't seem anything one could do except obey one's own party & immediate military superiors. But I'm so glad you liked the book. Various people seem to have received review copies, but I haven't had any myself yet & am wondering uneasily what the dust-jacket is like. Warburg talked of decorating it with the Catalan colours, which are easily mistaken for a. the Spanish royalist colours or b. the M.C.C.2

  Hope all goes well with you. I am much better, in fact I really doubt whether there is anything wrong with me.3 Eileen is battling with the chickens etc. alone but comes down once a fortnight.

  Yours

  Eric Blair

  [XI, 436, pp, 133-4; handwritten]

  1.Orwell was wrong about this. He was later to ask that if a second edition of Homage to Catalonia were published - there was only one English edition in his lifetime and the US and French editions did not appear until after his death - this error should be rectified. The correction has been made in the Complete Works edition (see VI, p. 253 and p. 257, note 102/15).

  2.Marylebone Cricket Club, the then ruling cricket authority. Its tie has broad red and yellow stripes.

  3.According to Orwell's Blood Sedimentation Test on 27 April (and on 17 May), his disease was 'moderately active'. It was not until 4 July that it became 'quiescent'. It is never shown as normal.

  Eileen Blair* to Leonard Moore*

  30 May 1938

  [The Stores] Wallington

  Dear Mr. Moore,

  I promised Eric I would write and tell you the news about him, which is that he is to go abroad for the winter, staying at Preston Hall until he leaves England--that is, probably until August or September. After that we hope he will be able to come home, though not to this house. We think of trying to find somewhere to live in Dorset. All this does not of course mean that he is worse, but only that the position has been made clearer to him. As a matter of fact, the original diagnosis was wrong: he had bronchiectasis and probably no phthisis.1 Apparently there is no point in treating bronchiectasis by the absolute rest that sometimes cures phthisis, and I think he is going to be allowed up as soon as the weather is reasonable.2 He ought a
lso to be able to do some gentle work on the novel in July or August. Of course it's not easy to work in a sanatorium, where people constantly walk about and impose a timetable that probably interferes with the work timetable, but the book seethes in his head and he is very anxious to get on with it. I ought to have written to you some time ago about this novel, when Eric first realised that he couldn't finish it by October, but he then wanted Gollancz to be told that it would be ready anyway before Christmas. Now he thinks that it will be ready in the spring and this seems quite probable. I should be very grateful if you could give Gollancz a message about it in whatever terms you think proper.

  I hear there is a wonderful review of Homage to Catalonia in the Observer,3 but I haven't seen it yet. On the whole the reviews have really been very good don't you think? It's interesting that the C.P. have decided not to be rude--and extremely clever of them to be reticent in the definitely Communist press and to say their little piece anonymously in the T.L.S. and the Listener.4 By the way, do you know when Warburg proposes to pay an advance? We thought he was to pay PS75 in January and PS75 on publication, but perhaps that's wrong.

  Eric is still being extraordinarily amenable and placid about everything, and everyone is delighted with his general condition.

  Yours sincerely,

  Eileen Blair

  [XI, 447, pp. 154-5; typewritten]

  1.Bronchiectasis: chronic viral disease affecting the bronchial tubes; phthisis: tuberculosis.

  2.Orwell was allowed up for one hour a day from 1 June and for three hours a day a week later.

  3.The review, on 29 May 1938 was by Desmond Flower (1907-97; MC), author, editor, publisher. He was Director of Cassell & Co in 1931, then Literary Director, 1938, and Chairman, 1958-70. He was also founder/editor, with A. J. A. Symons, of Book Collector.

  4.The Times Literary Supplement. The Listener was published by the BBC and, amongst other things, printed talks it had broadcast (often shortened). Orwell reviewed for The Listener and it published some of his talks. (See letter of 16.6.38 regarding the review in The Listener.) To the Editor, The Listener

  16 June 1938

  Aylesford

  Review of Homage to Catalonia

  Your reviewer's1 treatment of facts is a little curious. In his review of my book Homage to Catalonia in The Listener of May 25 he uses about four-fifths of his space in resurrecting from the Communist Press the charge that the Spanish political party known as the P.O.U.M. is a 'fifth column' organisation in the pay of General Franco. He states first that this accusation was 'hyperbolical', but adds later that it was 'credible', and that the leaders of the P.O.U.M. were 'little better than traitors to the Government cause'. Now, I leave on one side the question of how it can be credible that Franco's 'fifth column' could be composed of the poorest of the working class, led by men most of whom had been imprisoned under the regime Franco was trying to restore, and at least one of whom was on Franco's special list of 'persons to be shot'. If your reviewer can believe in stories of that kind, he is entitled to do so. What he is not entitled to do is to repeat his accusation, which is incidentally an accusation against myself, without even indicating from whom it came or that I had had anything to say about it. He leaves it to be inferred all through that the absurd charges of treachery and espionage originated with the Spanish Government. But, as I pointed out in great detail (Chapter XI of my book), these charges never had any footing outside the Communist Press, nor was any evidence in support of them ever produced. The Spanish Government has again and again repudiated all belief in them, and has steadfastly refused to prosecute the men whom the Communist newspapers denounced. I gave chapter and verse from the Spanish Government's statements, which have since been repeated several times. Your reviewer simply ignores all this, no doubt hoping that he has so effectually put people off reading the book that his misrepresentations will pass unnoticed.

  I do not expect or wish for 'good' reviews, and if your reviewer chooses to use most of his space in expressing his own political opinions, that is a matter between him and yourself. But I think I have a right to ask that when a book of mine is discussed at the length of a column there shall be at least some mention of what I have actually said.

  George Orwell

  [XI, 452, pp. 160—2]

  Orwell's complaint drew this response from The Listener's reviewer: We have sent the above letter to our reviewer, who replies:

  'Mr. Orwell's letter ignores the major fact that conditions in Barcelona at one time became so bad that the Spanish Government was forced to send in armed police to put down what amounted to an insurrection. The leaders of that insurrection were the extreme anarchist elements allied with the P.O.U.M. It is not a question of "resurrecting" charges from the Communist Press, but of historic fact. I have spent a considerable part of the Spanish war in Spain, and have not relied upon newspaper reports for my information.

  'As I made clear in my review, it was not the intention of the rank and file of the P.O.U.M. to do other than fight against Franco. Being poor and ignorant men, the complexities of the revolutionary situation were beyond them; their leaders were to blame. As for being part of Franco's fifth column, there is no doubt that whoever declined to co-operate with the central government and to abide by the law was, in fact, weakening the authority of that government and thus aiding the enemy. I submit that in time of war ignorance is as reprehensible as malicious sabotage. It is effect that matters, not the reasons for action.

  'I am sorry if Mr. Orwell thinks that I wanted to put readers off a magnificently written book: I didn't: I want people to read it even if, in my opinion, his analysis is wrong. It is the essence of a democracy in peace time that all views should be available to everybody'.

  We are bound to say, in printing our reviewer's reply, that we consider it hardly meets the points made by Mr. Orwell, to whom we express our regrets.--Editor, THE LISTENER2

  1.Philip Furneaux Jordan (1902-1951), journalist, novelist, and reviewer. He was on the staff of the Paris Daily Mail and edited the Riviera edition of the Chicago Tribune. In 1936 he joined the News Chronicle and served as its correspondent in Spain, 1936-37. He later became its features editor and then its foreign correspondent. In 1946-47 he was First Secretary at the British Embassy, Washington, and thereafter Public Relations Adviser to Prime Minister Clement Attlee.

  2.J. R. Ackerley (1896-1967) was literary editor, 1935-59. His support for Orwell despite his reviewer's explanation is telling. (See Ackerley by Peter Parker (1989).) Eileen Blair* to Denys King-Farlow*

  22 June 1938

  [The Stores] Wallington

  Dear Denys,

  When I told you on the telephone that I was more or less writing to you it was quite true. But I was also having flu, although at that time incredulously because the time even of this year seems so odd.

  I hadn't forgotten this money: indeed I have thought of it often with growing appreciation as the 'advance' on the Spanish book went on not coming. Eventually it was extracted by instalments! Poor man--I mean poor publisher. I hope it was time that you didn't need. As a matter of fact I shouldn't have kept the cheque if I'd had any doubt about repaying it almost at once. Or I think not.

  Eric isn't so ill as they thought, as you'll have gathered. He of course has never believed that he was 'ill', but for the first two months or so he appeared to have phthisis in both lungs which could have been pretty hopeless. Now it turns out to be bronchiectasis, which people do go on having more or less indefinitely under really favourable conditions. I suppose he told you that we can probably go abroad for the winter together instead of his going to a sanatorium, & after that we have to find a perfect cottage in one of the southern counties at an inclusive rental of about 7/6. I shall come back early to do this-- They even think that he might leave Preston Hall in August & spend a month or so under normal conditions in England--he must of course be very 'careful' but the treatment really only consists in resting a great deal & eating a lot. We might perhaps stay on a farm so
mewhere. By that time this cottage will be handed over either to the landlord or to an unfortunate old uncle of Eric's who is suggested as a tenant.1

  I'm so glad you went to see Eric & took him out. I think it's really more depressing for him to be in this semi-confinement than to be in bed, & he loved having a party.2 It was particularly nice of you to send that money instead of offering to.

  With many thanks,

  Yours sincerely,

  Eileen Blair

  [XI, 455A, pp. 164-5; handwritten]

  1.Although Orwell's parents had seventeen brothers and sisters between them, the only uncles to whom Eileen could be referring were Charles Limouzin, at one time secretary of a golf club at Parkstone, Bournemouth; George Limouzin, who was married to Ivy; and Eugene Adam, who was married to Nellie Limouzin. None took the cottage.

  2.If the party was to celebrate anything, it might have been for the publication of Homage to Catalonia on 25 April; or a party slightly ahead of Orwell's thirty-fifth birthday, 25 June.

  To Jack Common*