CORRESPONDENCE

To the editor:

In his review of Scott Lucas’ “Orwell” [Nov. 9], Norman Birnbaum writes: “[Lucas] rightly describes as sordid Orwell’s surreptitious denunciation in 1949 of 36 other writers to the British intelligence services....” I am amazed to see that Birnbaum can still endorse without any questioning this despicable piece of disinformation. Its real nature was first exposed by Christopher Hitchens in “Why Orwell Matters” (Basic Books), which I had the pleasure to review here last year. Furthermore, some six months later, the full record of this affair was finally set straight in a long and detailed analysis by distinguished British scholar Timothy Garton Ash, who had access to the original document: What Orwell wrote was not “a surreptitious denunciation ... to the British intelligence services” but a private communication to a close friend (Celie Kirwan, who was working in the Foreign Office), and what he did was “unexceptionable -- certainly not ‘sordid’!” (Ash’s article originally appeared in The Guardian; I read its reprint in The Australian, June 28-29, 2003.) Again, Henri de Montherlant’s melancholy observation is proven right: “Most people do not read. If they read, they do not understand. And those who understand forget.”

Simon Leys

Canberra, Australia

Norman Birnbaum replies:

*

I’ve now reread both the articles by Timothy Garton Ash and the relevant segment of Christopher Hitchens’ book. (I share Simon Leys’ good opinion of Ash and indeed retain my good opinion of my friend, Christopher.) Celia Kirwan, to whom Orwell gave his list, was indeed a friend -- but she asked Orwell for the list in her capacity as an official of a secret unit at the Foreign Office.

Hitchens conflates Orwell’s public opposition to Stalinism with his confidential relationship, through Ms. Kirwan, with the British government. I quote Ash: “What remains unsettling about the actual list sent to Celia is the way in which this symbol of political independence and journalistic honesty is drawn into collaboration with a bureaucratic department of propaganda, however marginal the collaboration.” That is rather close to what I said but did not excite Leys’ fury -- which is utterly displaced. As for de Montherlant, tres bien -- but I prefer an English voice: “Adieu, and take thy praise with thee to heaven! Thy ignominy sleep with thee in the grave. But not remember’d in thy epitaph.” Having defended Orwell’s reputation in my review, I find myself on the side of (an earlier) Prince of Wales.