The Dual Purpose of "Animal Farm"
Author(s): Paul Kirschner
Source: The Review of English Studies, New Series, Vol. 55, No. 222 (Nov., 2004), pp. 759-786
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3661599
Accessed: 26-05-2015 18:29 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Review of English Studies.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 199.180.150.130 on Tue, 26 May 2015 18:29:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE DUAL PURPOSE OF ANIMAL FARM
BY PAUL KIRSCHNER
After
overtheultimate
of
nearly
sixty
yearsdebatecontinues
political
meaning
Animal
toitsuseas propaganda,
butalsotoOrwell's
Farm,owingpartly
original
whichwasartistic
as wellas political.
Thisarticle
concentrates
onthe
purpose,
former
rhetorical
ledto a
purpose.It showshowfictional
strategies
inevitably
conclusion
Orwell's
ownpolitical
actions
andopinions
pessimistic
contradicting
thatcontradiction
to theeffect
of
duringtheperiod1936-46,and attributes
Orwell'schosenliterary
elements
ofthefableandthefairy
genre,combining
tale.The subtitle,
'A FairyStory',indicates
a neglected
aspectof Animal
talethatthrived
in the1920s
Farm-literary
parodyofthe'proletarian'
fairy
and 1930sin Germany,
theUnitedStates,and,tepidly,
in England.A rare
the1930sis quotedin fullas an archetype
ofthe
exampleofsucha talefrom
children's
storiesOrwellmayhave been parodying:
it displays
politicized
rhetorical
and structural
withAnimalFarm.The appealing
striking
parallels
formofsuchstories,
withthefullandaccurate
adoptedbyOrwell,interfered
ofhispolitical
AnimalFarmowesbothitspowerandits
expression
thought.
to theforceandautonomy
ofliterature
more
ambiguity
itself,
todaymenaced
thaneverbythe'gramophone
mind'Orwelldetested.
Whoeverfeelsthe value of literature,
whoeversees the centralpart it plays in the
of
human
must
also
see thelifeand deathnecessityof resisting
development
history,
whetherit is imposedon us fromwithoutor fromwithin.
totalitarianism,
There is some hope . . . that the liberalhabit of mind, whichthinksof truthas
somethingoutsideyourself,
somethingto be discovered,and not somethingthatyou
can makeup as you go along,willsurvive.
and LettersofGeorgeOrwell)
(The Collected
Essays,Journalism
When,a coupleofyearsago,AnimalFarmwas puton stagein China,thelong
about its ultimatemeaningshouldhave been dispelled.It dated
uncertainty
back to 1945, when William Empson warnedOrwell that,since allegory
meansmorethanthe authormeans',his book mightmean 'very
'inherently
different
thingsto different
readers'.1Sure enough,English communists
attackedAnimalFarmas anti-Soviet,whilea conservative
chidedOrwellfor
that
of
is
a
Western
forgetting privateproperty prerequisite personalfreedom.2
the
book
after
Orwell's
hijacked
death,but twentyyearslater
propagandists
interests
George Woodcockfoundit showedthe identityof governing-class
and by 1980BernardCrickhad to cautionagainstreadingit as a
everywhere,
24Aug.1945(OrwellArchive).
Orwell:
A Life
1 LettertoG. Orwell,
QuotedinB. Crick,George
soncalledAnimal
Farm'verystrong
(London,1982),491-2.Empson's
young
Torypropaganda'.
2 Ibid.489.
The ReviewofEnglishStudies,New Series,Vol. 55, No. 222, C OxfordUniversityPress 2004; all rightsreserved
This content downloaded from 199.180.150.130 on Tue, 26 May 2015 18:29:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
760
PAUL KIRSCHNER
In 1998 criticswerestilldebatingwhetherAnimalFarm
caseforrevolution.3
implied'thatrevolution
alwaysendsbadlyfortheunderdog,henceto hellwith
as Empsonsaw,camenotonlyfrom
itand hailthestatusquo'.4The confusion,
readers'prejudicesbut also fromthestoryitself.
in
To show why,I shall exploreOrwell'sclaimto have trieddeliberately
AnimalFarm'to fusepoliticalpurposeand artisticpurposeintoone whole'(i.
to inferOrwell'spurposefromhis
29).s My purposewillbe equallydual: first,
contradictions
thatmade
toexplainthebuilt-inartistic
politicalviews;secondly,
and suggesthowtheymaybe, ifnot
AnimalFarmfinemeatforpropagandists,
In fusingmyownpurposes,I shallnothesitateto
resolved,at leasttranscended.
ethosthattodaymayseemquaintlyarchaic.
evokea socialand intellectual
I
Defininghis 'political'purposeinAnimalFarmto theAmericancriticDwight
Macdonald,Orwellshowedhe was no crusadinganti-communist:
classes
I think
theworking
thatiftheUSSR wereconquered
bysomeforeign
country
...
I
lose
heart
wouldn't
want
to
see
the
USSR
and
would
destroyed think
everywhere
ifnecessary.
aboutit
itoughttobe defended
ButI wantpeopletobecomedisillusioned
and to realizethattheymustbuild theirown Socialistmovement. . . and I wantthe
influence
existence
ofdemocratic
Socialismin theWesttoexerta regenerative
upon
Russia.6
Orwell's artisticaim was to remedywhat England lacked: 'a literatureof
disillusionment
about the Soviet Union' (iii. 272). If we apply Tolstoy's
ofsimplicity,
and
definition
ofart(whichincludesOrwellianhallmarks
clarity,
as theevocationofa feelingonceexperienced
so as tomakeothers
accessibility)
feelit,Orwellhad to evokehis disillusionovertheRussianfailureto achieve
whatto EnglishConservatives
was anathema:socialequality.
The disillusionis conveyedby continuousnegationof whatis beingsaid,
The punningpresentment
throughwit,dramatizedironyand intertextuality.
ofold Major as a 'prizeMiddle Whiteboar' (p. 1)' makesa poorintroduction
to anyspeaker.His boast,'I havehad muchtimeforthoughtas I layalone in
thenatureoflifeon thisearth
mystall,and I thinkI maysaythatI understand
as wellas anyanimalnowliving'(p. 3), notonlybetrayswoolly-minded,
pigsty
3 See G. Woodcock,The CrystalSpirit(London, 1967), 158-9; Crick,GeorgeOrwell,490.
4 Dwight Macdonald, quoted in V. C. Letemendia,'Revolutionon AnimalFarm: Orwell's
in G. Holderness,B. Loughrey,and N. Yousaf (edd.), GeorgeOrwell
NeglectedCommentary',
(London, 1998),24.
5 Volume and page numbersreferto The CollectedEssays,Journalism
and Lettersof George
Orwell,ed. S. Orwelland I. Angus,4 vols. (Harmondsworth,
1970).
6 Letterto D. Macdonald,5 Sep. 1944 (Yale). Quoted in M. Shelden,Orwell:TheAuthorised
Biography(London, 1992),405.
toAnimalFarmand to Orwell'sprefacesareto GeorgeOrwell,AnimalFarm:A
7 All references
FairyStory,ed. P. Davison (London, 2000), and theappendicesto thatedition.
This content downloaded from 199.180.150.130 on Tue, 26 May 2015 18:29:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE DUAL PURPOSE OF ANIMAL FARM
761
it impugnsanimalwisdomin general.Similarly,
his personal
philosophizing;
am
twelve
and
have
old
had
over
four
hundred
children.
Such
resume,'I
years
is thenaturallifeof a pig' (p. 5), makesit doubtfulthatsocialrevolutioncan
improveanimalnature,and his optimistic
prophecythatEnglishfields'Shall
be trodbybeastsalone'(p. 7) is unsettling.
Major's axiomthat'All animalsare
comrades'is quicklyexplodedas thedogs chasetheratsand thenvoteagainst
acceptingthemas comrades,whilethe cat, who hasn'teven listened,hedges
her bets by votingon both sides. And witha blast fromhis shotgun,after
whichthewholefarmis 'asleep in a moment'(p. 8), Jonescompletely
deflates
Major's oratory.
Intertextually,
Major unwittingly
parodiesSaint-Simonand Marxin calling
Man 'the onlycreaturethatconsumeswithoutproducing'(p. 4), sinceMan
does produce,as the animalsfindwhentheyhave to tradewithhim. More
to animallifeas 'miserable,laboriousand short'
ominously,
Major's reference
poor,nasty,brutish,
(p. 3) echoesthefamousverdicton humanlifeas 'solitary,
and
and short'by Hobbes,8whomOrwellsaw as forecasting
totalitarianism,9
the name of AnimalFarm's leaderrecallsa Dostoyevskianview thateverywherethereis always
'a firstpersonand a secondperson.The firstactsand thesecondtakes .... In France
therewasa revolution
and everyone wasexecuted.
Napoleoncamealongandtook
The
the
revolution
is
first
and
Butit
everything.
person, Napoleonthesecondperson.
turnedoutthattherevolution
becamethesecondpersonandNapoleonbecamethe
first
person.'10
The Battle of the Cowshed likewiseevokes not only the failed Western
interventions
againstthe Sovietsin 1918-20,but also the defeatof Europe
by theFrenchrepublicin 1792-5.The Battleof theWindmillringsa special
bell: the repulseof the duke of Brunswickin 1792, followingthe Prussian
in
thatmadethewindmillofValmyfamous.More significantly,
bombardment
1802 Napoleon restoredslavery,abolishedby the Conventionin 1794. The
Rebellionand its fateexemplify
a historicalparadigm."
8 Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan(Chicago, 1952),I. xiii (p. 85).
ed.
9 'Jonathan
InterviewBy GeorgeOrwell',in Orwell:TheLostWritings,
Swift:An Imaginary
W. J. West (New York, 1985), 113.
A Raw Youth,trans.C. Garnett(London, 1916),219.
10 FyodorDostoyevsky,
11 The parallelgainsforcefromtheBolshevists'obsessionwiththeFrenchRevolution.Trotsky
seasons his Historyof theRussianRevolutionand The RevolutionBetrayedwithreferencesto
Danton, Robespierre,and Bonapartism,
callingStalin's triumph'The SovietThermidor'.In a
dramaticdebatebetweenLenin and Kerensky,Lenin demanded:'"Then let us haveone oftwo
on paper... or let
withitsplansforso-calledsocialreform
things:eithera bourgeoisgovernment
us have . . . a Governmentof the proletariat,which had its parallelin 1792 in France."'
Kerensky'sreplywas prophetic:"'We have been referredto 1792 as an exampleof how we
shouldcarryout therevolutionof 1917.But howdid theFrenchrepublicof 1792end?It turned
whichsetbacktheprogressofdemocracyformanya longyear.. . . You
intoa base Imperialism,
our
tell us thatyou fearreaction,"he almostscreamed;"you say thatyou wantto strengthen
and yetyouproposeto lead us thewayofFrancein 1792.. . . Out of thefiery
new-wonfreedom,
This content downloaded from 199.180.150.130 on Tue, 26 May 2015 18:29:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
762
PAUL KIRSCHNER
More obviously,theswitchfromMajor's anthem'BeastsofEngland'to the
to Stalin's
'AnimalFarm'parodiesthatfromLenin'sinternationalism
patriotic
'Socialismin One Country'.The Rebellion,however,copiestheFebruary,not
theOctober,Revolution.In a pamphlet12Orwellmarked'veryrare'and cited
(iv. 85), Maxim Litvinov,the firstSoviet ambassadorto England,told how
spontaneousprotestsbywomenin foodqueues led to riotsin whichCossacks,
thenGuards,joinedthepeople,so that'beforeanyonewas properly
aware,the
and soldiers'.'"The Rebellion,sparked
capitalwas in thehandsoftheworkers
byJones'sfailureto feedtheanimals,is similarly
unplanned:theywintheday
'almostbeforetheyknewwhatwas happening'(p. 12). With historyas his
guide,Orwelldividesthe feelingsthatstarta revoltfromthe ideologyused
to pervertit. Similarly,the spontaneouscouragedisplayedin the
afterwards
Battleof the Cowshed is embalmedin the titles'AnimalHero-First and
Second Class': thefirstofficial
nod to class distinction.
Naturalisticdescriptionis at firstwhimsical(Clover, cradlingducklings
withher foreleg,'had neverquite got her figureback afterher
maternally
fourthfoal',p. 2), but as the Commandments
are chippedawayand the pigthe
managersincreasinglyresemblefarmers,
allegoryrequiresbalancing.
now remindus thatNapoleon
Physicaldetails,previouslyanthropomorphic,
is a pig,sincemorallyhe beginsto seemall too human.Snowballdrawsplans
forthe windmill('witha piece of chalkgrippedbetweenthe knucklesof his
trotter,he would move rapidlyto and fro. . . utteringlittlewhimpersof
excitement'(p. 33)), and Napoleon urinatesoverthem.He signalshis coup
d'etatby 'a high-pitched
whimperof a kindno one had everheardhimutter
before'(p. 35). Animalityis preservedby wordplaywhenNapoleon hiresa
humansolicitornamedWhymper-thesound,we now recognize,made by
a pig.
Disillusionis besttransmitted
fromtheanimals'pointofview.
bynarration
When Muriel spellsout the alteredcommandment
'No animalshall killany
otheranimalwithout
cause'(p. 61), we findthattheanimalshaveforgotten
the
last two wordsof the originalcommandment.
But are our memoriesbetter?
Ransackingthem,we feelthe animals'fadinghopes. And havingbeen kept,
like them,ignorantof theirleader's manoeuvres,we share theirshock at
learningthatNapoleonhas sold thetimberto Frederickandbeencheatedwith
forgedbanknotes.The aim isn'tjustto mimicthediplomaticminuetofWest
and East,eachhopingHitlerwouldattacktheotherfirst;itis to makeus share
the animals' gradual conversionto Benjamin'sview that theirlot cannot
improve-onlyworsen.Yet the verydevicesvindicating
Benjamin'spessimchaos thatyou wishto makewillarise,likea Phoenix,a dictator"'(H. Pitcher,Witnesses
ofthe
RussianRevolution
(London, 1994), 112-14).
12 M. Litvinov,TheBolshevik
Revolution:
ItsRiseandMeaning(London, 1918): 'A Collectionof
Pamphlets,MainlyPolitical,Formedby GeorgeOrwell' (BritishLibrary).
13 Ibid. 27.
This content downloaded from 199.180.150.130 on Tue, 26 May 2015 18:29:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE DUAL PURPOSE OF ANIMAL FARM
763
animals.When,aftertheirinitial
withtherank-and-file
ism bolstersympathy
victory,we are told: 'Some hams hangingin the kitchenweretakenout for
burial' (p. 14), the humorousconceitis endearing;but deepersympathyis
gained by an inside view. Aftera new 'rebellion'is crushed (the word
'revolution',implyinglastingchange,is avoided) and the commandment
againstmurderis broken,a view of the farmon a clear springevening
dissolvesinto the mind of Clover,lyingon the knollwhereshe once fRted
victory:
ithadbeenofa society
Ifsheherself
hadhadanypicture
ofthefuture,
ofanimals
set
freefrom
andthewhip,allequal,eachworking
to hiscapacity,
the
hunger
according
theweak,as shehadprotected
thelostbroodofducklings
withher
protecting
strong
on thenightofMajor'sspeech.Instead-shedid notknowwhy-theyhad
foreleg
cometoa timewhennoonedaredspeakhismind,whenfierce,
dogsroamed
growling
to
and
when
had
watch
comrades
torn
to
after
everywhere,
you
your
pieces
confessing
ofrebellion
in hermind.
to shocking
crimes.
Therewasno thought
ordisobedience
She knewthatevenas things
weretheywerefarbetter
offthantheyhadbeenin the
andthatbefore
allelseitwasneedful
toprevent
thereturn
ofthehuman
daysofJones,
she
would
remain
work
Whatever
outtheorders
faithful, hard,carry
beings.
happened,
thatweregiventoher,andaccepttheleadership
ofNapoleon.
Butstill,itwasnotfor
thisthatshe and all theotheranimalshad hopedand toiled.. . . Such wereher
shelackedthewordstoexpressthem.(pp. 58-9)
though
thoughts,
The inarticulate,
havebeenevictednotfromparadise,
dupedbythearticulate,
but froma dreamof one: now theveryidea of rebellionis dead. Disenchantmentis completebeforethe end of the book,as Squealer proclaimsvictory
overFrederick,and theloyalBoxerasks,'Whatvictory?'
(p. 71), wideninghis
chinkof doubtover Snowball's'crimes'.Yet to the last,the 'loweranimals',
now unableto remember
betterdays,continueto hope. (Memoryforthemis
theenemyofhope.) Literaryform-theirqualityas animals-adds thedeeper
sadnessof losersin thebattleof evolution.
II
So pessimistican outlookis beliedby Orwell'sown lifeand opinionsduring
the years1936-45. Benjamin'sgloomyscepticismis sometimesattributed
to
with socialismafterStalinisttreacheryin Spain,
Orwell's disillusionment
coveredup by the'capitalistanti-Fascistpress'(i. 318). The truthis just the
opposite.Orwellhad seen throughthe USSR longbeforeSpain. In 1940 he
wrote:'All people who are morallysound have knownsinceabout 1931 [the
thattheRussianregimestinks'(i. 583). In 1947
peakofforcedcollectivization]
it 'withplainhorror'for'quite 15 years'(iv. 355). Yet,
he spokeof regarding
two weeks beforeleaving Spain, afterthe Barcelona fightingand being
woundedat the front,he declared:'I . . . at last reallybelievein Socialism,
whichI neverdid before'(i. 301). In TheLion and theUnicorn
(1941) Orwell
advocatednationalization
of land,mines,railways,banks,and big industries;
This content downloaded from 199.180.150.130 on Tue, 26 May 2015 18:29:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
764
PAUL KIRSCHNER
incomeceilings;classlesseducation;and DominionstatusforIndia.In 1946he
recalled:'The Spanishwar and othereventsin 1936-7 turnedthe scale and
I knewwhereI stood.Everylineof seriousworkthatI havewritten
thereafter
since 1936has been written,
and
directlyor indirectly,
againsttotalitarianism
it' (i. 28). 'Socialism'meantequality;
Socialism,as I understand
fordemocratic
'the onlyregime
not,as its enemiesclaimed,loss of liberty.On the contrary,
in
will
the
dare
to
freedom
of
which,
long run,
permit
speech is a Socialist
with
fairer
income
distribution:
'The glaring
regime'(i. 373). 'Liberty'began
ofwealththatexistedin Englandbeforethewarmustnotbe allowed
inequality
mechanistic
Marxistnotion
to recur'(iii. 51). Whilerejecting'the inherently
thatifyoumakethenecessarytechnicaladvancethemoraladvancewillfollow
of itself'(i. 583), he defendedMarx on novelgroundsclaimingthat:
in thesaying:'Whereyour
is contained
themostimportant
partofMarx'stheory
12:
But
before
Marxdeveloped
treasure
there
will
heart
be
also.'
it,
[Luke
34]
is,
your
to it?Whohadinferred
whatforcehadthatsaying
had?Whohadpaidanyattention
fromit-what it certainly
and moralcodesare all a
implies-thatlaws,religions
It wasChrist,
builtoverexisting
relations?
to the
according
superstructure
property
the
it
who
it
to
life.
And
ever
he
who
uttered
but
was
Marx
since
text,
Gospel,
brought
ofpoliticians,
moralists
and
millionaires
have
been
didso themotives
priests,
judges,
ofcourse,is whytheyhatehimso much.(iii.
underthedeepestsuspicion-which,
121-2)14
Althoughby 'Communism'OrwellusuallymeanttheRussianregimeor its
is ... thepatriotism
advocacy('the "Communism"oftheEnglishintellectual
of the deracinated'(i. 565)), he also used the wordin an ideal sense:
In mid-nineteenth-century
America
menfeltthemselves
freeandequal,werefreeand
ofpureCommunism.
(i. 547)
equal,so faras thatis possibleoutsidea society
theCommunist
thesisthat
Onecanaccept,
andmostenlightened
peoplewouldaccept,
willonlyexistina classless
freewhen
andthatoneismostnearly
society,
purefreedom
oneis working
tobringsucha society
about.(iv.84)
Whathe did notacceptwas 'the quite unfoundedclaimthatthe Communist
oftheclasslesssocietyand thatin the
Partyis itselfaimingat theestablishment
U.S.S.R. thisaim is actuallyon thewayto beingrealized'(iv. 84).
But while recognizingsimilaritiesin practicebetweenNazi and Soviet
regimes,Orwell neverequated fascismor Nazism witheithersocialismor
communism.In 1936 he observedthat,in readingMarxistliterary
criticism,
outsidercan be takenin by the vulgarlie, now so
'even a quite intelligent
ofreligion:'Marx did notsay,at any
14 He also gavenewmeaningto Marx's famousdefinition
rate in that place, thatreligionis merelya dope handed out fromabove; he said that it is
somethingthepeople createforthemselvesto supplya need thathe recognizedto be a realone.
"Religionis thesighofthesoul in a soullessworld.Religionis theopiumofthepeople." Whatis
he sayingexceptthatman does notlive by breadalone,thathatredis notenough,thata world
worthlivingin cannotbe foundedon "realism"and machine-guns?'
(ii. 33). Marxismmeantthat
thequestionofman'splace in theuniverse'cannotbe dealtwithwhiletheaveragehumanbeing's
preoccupationsare necessarilyeconomic. It is all summed up in Marx's sayingthat after
Socialismhas arrived,humanhistorycan begin' (iii. 83).
This content downloaded from 199.180.150.130 on Tue, 26 May 2015 18:29:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE DUAL PURPOSE OF ANIMAL FARM
765
popular,that"Communismand Fascismarethesamething"'(i. 291). He saw
Germanfascismas 'a formofcapitalismthatborrowsfromSocialismjustsuch
featuresas willmakeit efficient
forwarpurposes'(ii. 101), and drewa basic
distinction:
Fascismis irreconcilably
the idea underlying
different
fromthatwhichunderlies
Socialism
ata world-state
offreeandequalhumanbeings.
Socialism.
aims,ultimately,
It takestheequality
ofhumanbeingsforgranted.
Nazismassumesjusttheopposite.
The driving
forcebehindtheNazi movement
is thebeliefin humaninequality,
the
of
of
rule
the
Germans
to
all
other
the
to
world.
races, right Germany
(ii.
superiority
102)
of
For Orwell,Stalinismwas thebetrayalof an ideal,Nazism the fulfilment
ofcapitalism,
one. In 1937he warned:'Fascismafterall is onlya development
and themildestdemocracy,
so-called,is liableto turnintoFascismwhenthe
comes'
The
next
(i. 318).
pinch
yearhe joinedtheIndependentLabour Party
and gavehisreasons:'It is notpossibleforanythinking
personto livein sucha
as
our
without
to
it.
...
One
has gotto be actively
own
society
wanting change
to Socialism'(i. 374).
a Socialist,notmerelysympathetic
looks
The tendencyto equatethescepticalBenjaminwithOrwelltherefore
until
one
that
it
is
who
comes
notices
odd,
Benjamin
galloping,
untypically
brayingat thetopofhislungs,'Come at once!They'retakingBoxeraway!'and
that,as theanimalsstupidlywavegoodbyeto Boxerin thevan,it is Benjamin
on thesideofthat
whoshouts:'Fools! Do younotsee whatis written
van?...
Do you not understandwhat that means? They are takingBoxer to the
knacker's!'(pp. 81-2). The scene echoes the GPU's abductionof Trotsky,
Lev D[avidovitch]
relatedbyhiswife:'I shoutedto themenwhowerecarrying
down the stairsand demandedthattheylet out mysons,theelderof whom
was to accompanyus intoexile.... On thewaydownthestairs,Lvova rangall
the door-bells,shouting:"They're carryingComrade Trotskyaway!"''"
Internally,however,what mattersis thatBenjamintells the animalswhat
as theauthor/narrator
has beendoingforus.
theycannot'read' forthemselves,
the author-not
becomes
authorial
function,
Benjaminsuddenly
By usurping
before
but
safety.He
by placing sympathy
by prudentlykeepingsilent,
becomes'Orwell' when,throughhim,the 'author'suddenlyseems to drop
his maskand showwherehis heartlies.
in fact,Orwellimplicitly
In portraying
Stalinistbetrayal,
arraigns
capitalism
in printthatBoxer'smotto'I willwork
as well.TimothyCook firstremarked
'workhorse'
harder'echoes thatof the immigrant
Jurgisin Upton Sinclair's
in
industry TheJungle(1906).16The
exposureof the Chicago meatpacking
echo is probablydeliberate-Orwellonce praisedSinclair'sfactualaccuracy
(i. 262)-but it is too simpleto say, as Cook does, thatAnimalFarm is an
15 Leon Trotsky,My Life(New York, 1930), 541.
16 T. Cook, 'Upton Sinclair'sTheJungleand Orwell'sAnimalFarm:A RelationshipExplored',
ModernFictionStudies,30/4 (Winter1984),696-703.
This content downloaded from 199.180.150.130 on Tue, 26 May 2015 18:29:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
766
PAUL KIRSCHNER
'answerto the hopefulmessage'17of Sinclair'sbook,to whichJurgislistens
onlyaftertheworkaccidentthat-analogouslyto Boxer'sphysicaldeclineputs him on the capitalistscrapheap.Cook skipsSinclair'smostsensational
theprocessing
revelation:
forsale as lardofworkerswhofellintotherendering
vats-a cannibalistic
touchparalleledinAnimalFarmwhenthepigsbuya case
of whiskywiththe moneytheyget forBoxer,who fulfils
Major's prediction
thatJoneswillone day sell himto theknacker's.Boxer'sfate,in otherwords,
isn't specificto the USSR. Far fromrefuting
socialism,AnimalFarmshows
thattotalitarianism
in socialistclothingendsin theveryevilsofcapitalismthat
led Orwellin 1941to considersocialisminevitable:'The inefficiency
ofprivate
capitalismhas beenprovedall overEurope.Its injusticehasbeenprovedin the
East End of London' (ii. 117).Afterwriting
AnimalFarmhe calledcapitalism
'doomed' and 'not worthsavinganyway'(iii. 266).
WhatOrwelldiscreditedwas notsocialismbut its sham:genuineprogress,
he believed,'can onlyhappenthroughincreasing
whichmeans
enlightenment,
thecontinuousdestruction
of myths'(iv. 56). This has been thewriter'stask
sinceAristophanes,
and in the 1940sit was notconfinedto exposingRussian
communism.When, in 1949, ArthurMiller's naive free-enterprise
idealist
sacked
his
after
former
boss's
WillyLoman,
son,belatedly
thirty-four
yearsby
discoveredan unmarketable
value-'You can't eat an orangeand throwthe
peel away-a manis nota piece of fruit!'-Millereffectively
demythologized
his own country'seconomicsystem.Decades laterhe recalledhow Columbia
PicturesfirstweakenedthemovieDeathofa Salesman,thenaskedhimto issue
an anti-communist
publicitystatementand prefacethe filmby interviews
as
a
On the otherside of the ideologicaldivide
praisingselling
profession.18
Britishpublishers,kow-towingto left-wingreaders and a wartimeally,
rejectedAnimalFarm.Orwell'sproposedprefacewas prescient:
similarly
ForallI know,
bythetimethisbookispublished
myviewoftheSovietregime
maybe
thegenerally-accepted
one.Butwhatuse wouldthatbe in itself?
To exchange
one
is notnecessarily
foranother
an advance.The enemyis thegramophone
orthodoxy
ornotoneagreeswiththerecordthatis beingplayedat themoment.
mind,whether
(p. 106)
At the closingbanquet Soviet tyranny
mirrorsits capitalistcounterpart.
Orwell claimed, however,that he meant to end not with a 'complete
reconciliation
of the pigs and the humans',but on 'a loud note of discord',
'for I wroteit immediately
afterthe Teheran Conferencewhicheverybody
had
established
the
best
thought
possiblerelationsbetweentheUSSR and the
I
West. personallydid not believethatsuch good relationswould last long;
and, as eventshave shown,I wasn'tfarwrong'(p. 113). But if the banquet
parodiesTeheran, the shot that goes home is Pilkington'ssolidaritywith
AnimalFarm's proprietors
in extracting
moreworkforless food than any
17 Cook, 'Sinclair'sJungle',697.
18 ArthurMiller, Timebends:
A Life(London, 1987), 315.
This content downloaded from 199.180.150.130 on Tue, 26 May 2015 18:29:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE DUAL PURPOSE OF ANIMAL FARM
767
otherfarmerin the country:'If you have yourlower animals to contend with ...
we have our lower classes!' (p. 92). Whom 'we' stood for,Orwell made clear in
1942:
The war has broughtthe class natureof theirsocietyverysharplyhome to English
people, in two ways. First of all thereis the unmistakablefactthatall real power
dependson class privilege.You can onlygetcertainjobs ifyouhavebeen to one ofthe
rightschools,and ifyoufailand haveto be sacked,thensomebodyelse fromone ofthe
rightschoolstakesover,and so it continues.This maygo unnoticedwhenthingsare
but becomesobviousin momentsof disaster.(ii. 241)
prospering,
Asked if he had intended a statementabout revolutionin general,Orwell said
that he had meant that
thatkindof revolution(violentconspiratorial
led by unconsciously
revolution,
powerhungrypeople) can only lead to a changeof masters.I meantthe moralto be that
a radicalimprovement
whenthemassesarealertandknowhowto
revolutions
onlyeffect
chuckouttheirleadersas soonas thelatterhavedonetheirjob. The turning-point
ofthe
storywas supposed to be when the pigs kept the milk and apples for themselves
(Kronstadt).Iftheotheranimalshadhad thesensetoputtheirfootdownthen,itwould
havebeen all right.. . . In thecase of theTrotskyists
... theyfeelresponsibleforthe
eventsin theUSSR up to about 1926 and have to assumethata suddendegeneration
tookplaceaboutthatdate,whereasI thinkthewholeprocesswasforeseeable-andwas
foreseenbya fewpeople,e.g. BertrandRussell-fromtheverynatureoftheBolshevik
unlessyoumakeitfor
WhatI wastrying
tosaywas,'You can'thavea revolution
party.
yourself;thereis no suchthingas a benevolentdictatorship.'19
So muchforEliot'sdismissalof the'positivepointofview'inAnimalFarmas
Yet Orwell'sown exegesisis uneasy,sincetheinitial
'generallyTrotskyite'.20
but sponindoctrination
revolt,despite
by the pigs, is not conspiratorial
taneous.It also begs vitalquestions.How can revolutionbe achieved?How
shouldthe'masses''chuckout' leaderswhohaveseizedpower?LeninhopedreckoningwithoutStalin-that education and mass participationwould
revolution-forhim the only kind
naturallyfollowa violentconspiratorial
feasible.Similarly,Orwell assumed in 1940 that revolutionwould come
the
automatically
throughwinningthewar,but latersaw he had 'underrated
of the forcesof reaction'(iii. 339). He continuedto back
enormousstrength
Russia 'because I thinkthe U.S.S.R. cannotaltogetherescape its past and
retainsenoughoftheoriginalideasoftheRevolutiontomakeita morehopeful
phenomenonthanNazi Germany'(iii. 178), but he nailedthe rootcause of
failure:
revolutionary
Throughouthistory,one revolutionafteranother.
. .
has simplyled to a changeof
thepowerinstinct....In
effort
hasbeenmadetoeliminate
becausenoserious
masters,
thelonging
for
atanyratetheoneswho'gotthere',
themindsofactiverevolutionaries,
19 Letterto D. Macdonald,5 Dec. 1946 (Yale). Quoted in Letemendia,'Revolutionon Animal
Farm',24 and, in part,in Shelden,Orwell,407.
20 Letterto G. OrwellfromT. S. Eliot,13July1944(copyin OrwellArchive).Quotedin Crick,
GeorgeOrwell,458.
This content downloaded from 199.180.150.130 on Tue, 26 May 2015 18:29:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
768
PAUL KIRSCHNER
mixedup withtheintention
a justsociety
hasalwaysbeenfatally
tosecurepowerfor
themselves.
(iv.36)
In thislight,Eliot's cavil,'afterall, yourpigsare farmoreintelligent
thanthe
other animals, and thereforethe best qualified to run the farm . . . so that
whatwas needed(someonemightargue)was notmorecommunism
but more
was
facetious.
What
needed
looks
(someone
public-spirited
pigs',21
cagily
realimplementation
oftheideal perverted
mightreply)was,precisely,
by the
in religious
self-serving
pigs-somethingEliot,withhis personalinvestment
wouldhardlyhaveapproved.Even Empson'sobjectionthatthe
conservatism,
Revolutionappeared foredoomedis redundant:Orwell knew that 'all the
seeds ofevilweretherefromthestart'(iv. 35). The depthofhis disillusionis
nevertheless
a measureof his sympathy
withthe hopes betrayed.Fearinga
sell-out of socialism by those waving its flag at home, he chose the
IndependentLabour Partybecause it alone provided'the certaintythat I
wouldneverbe led up thegardenpathin thenameof capitalistdemocracy'(i.
375). When Attleetook over in 1945 Orwell was on his guard:'A Labour
government
may be said to mean businessif it (a) nationalizesland, coal
mines, railways,public utilitiesand banks, (b) offersIndia immediate
Dominion Status (this is a minimum),and (c) purgesthe bureaucracy,
the
as to forestall
army,thediplomaticservice,etc.,so thoroughly
sabotagefrom
theRight'(iii. 448). He facedthedilemma:'Capitalismleads to dole queues,
thescrambleformarkets,
and war.Collectivism
leadsto concentration
camps,
leader worship,and war. There is no way out of this unless a planned
which
economycan be somehowcombinedwiththefreedomof theintellect,
can onlyhappeniftheconceptof rightand wrongis restoredto politics'(iii.
unctionof 'neo-pessimists':
'Men cannot
144). Yet he scornedthe flattering
be made betterby act of Parliament;therefore
I mayas well go on drawing
my dividends' (iii. 82). His answer was to 'dissociate Socialism from
Utopianism'(iii. 83) and seek progressthroughfailureitself:'Perhapssome
is ineradicablefromhumanlife,perhapsthechoicebefore
degreeof suffering
man is alwaysa choiceof evils,perhapseven the aim of Socialismis not to
maketheworldperfectbut to makeit better.All revolutions
are failures,
but
are
not
all
the
same
failure'
they
(iii. 282).
III
None of this philosophycomes acrossin AnimalFarm. In fact,Eliot's red
a troublingcorrelation.
'Class' in AnimalFarm-unlike in
herringhighlights
England-is determinedby nativeintelligence.It is 'the more intelligent
animals'(p. 9) whoseoutlookis transformed
byMajor's speech.The pigsrule
by brainpower('The otheranimalsunderstoodhow to vote,but could never
21 Quoted in Crick,GeorgeOrwell,458.
This content downloaded from 199.180.150.130 on Tue, 26 May 2015 18:29:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE DUAL PURPOSE OF ANIMAL FARM
769
thinkofanyresolutions
oftheirown' (p. 19)). Exceptfortheauthor'salterego
the
On theotherhand,thenoble,
Benjamin, pigsalonelearnto readperfectly.
selflessBoxer,whohas 'no wishto takelife,notevenhumanlife'(p. 28), is of
'stupidappearance'and 'not of first-rate
intelligence'
(p. 2). It is hardnot to
that
it
he
is
that
he
is
is
because
that
must
suspect
stupid
good;
power-hunger
an
of
checked
instinct
accompanyintelligence-unless
by
self-preservation
(Benjamin,who can read as well as any pig, wiselyabstainsfromdoingso).
becomesa
Intelligence-aimingat power,safety,or animalcomforts-itself
satiricaltarget.The Rebellionis at firstbeneficial(a detailprofessional
anticommunistsnaturallyignored).The faultlies not in the theorybut in the
In thepassageOrwelldeemedcrucial,thecleverpigs,includingboth
theorists.
Napoleonand Snowball,privatizethemilkand applesinsteadofsharingthem
out equally,arguingthattheyare brainworkersand thatSciencehas proved
milkand applesnecessaryfortheirwell-being,
withoutwhichJoneswillcome
itscommandagain.A newclasssystemis bornbased on biological
inequality,
of
the
mentsissuednot by the sugar-candy
religion
preachingravenMoses,
of
Science
but by the intellectual
'scientific
(Lenin's
socialism').As
religion
theirpilferedprivilegescoalesce,thepigslearnto walkon theirhindlegs,and
accordinglyteach the sheep to chant,'Four legs good-two legs better',
therebyhypostatizing
managerialfunctioninto ruling-classstatus.The last
altered commandmenton the barn wall-that new English proverb'All
animalsare equal, but some are more equal thanothers'-may come from
ParadiseLost,when Eve decides thathidingher ill-gottenknowledgefrom
Adam will renderher 'moreequal, and perhapsI A thingnot undesirable,
sometimeSuperior'(a professedaim of removing
inequalitymasksa desireto
reverseit). Crick cites Orwell's claim to have discovered'the joy of mere
is appositebothto
words'22readingParadiseLostat Eton,and theattribution
it is the cleveranimalswho
lost paradisesand to intellectualpower-seeking:
become'moreequal'.
This exaltationof brainworkfollowsallegoricallogic ratherthan Soviet
Litvinovpredicted
dogma.'Even themoststubbornamongthe'intellectuals',
in 1918,'willsoon learnthat,afterall, thepeopleis a muchbettermasterthan
thecapitalist,and thata Socialistregimeis likelyto renderthemmorehappy
AnimalFarm,however,invertsHobbes's apology
thana bourgeoisregime.'23
forabsolutism:it is notequalityoffacultiesthatfostersdangerous'equalityof
hope'24but equalityof hope thatfounderson unequalfaculties.Empsonsaw
the paradox:
withitsunescapable
is tosuggest
thatthe
ofthefarmyard,
racialdifferences,
theeffect
that
socialdifferences
too-so themetaphor
Russianscenehadunescapable
suggests
. . . thepigscan
wasalwaysa pathetically
theRussianrevolution
impossible
attempt.
22 Ibid. 123.
54.
23 Litvinov,TheBolshevikRevolution,
24 Hobbes, Leviathan,I. xiii(p. 84).
This content downloaded from 199.180.150.130 on Tue, 26 May 2015 18:29:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
770
PAUL KIRSCHNER
turnintomen,butthestory
is farfrom
onefeelthatanyoftheotheranimals
making
couldhaveturned
intomen...25
The implication
is probablythelastthingOrwellintended:he,ifanyone,knew
thatnothingsuitsa rulingclass betterthana geneticalibi. Rather,he meant
thatanimalkind's
dreamofequalityfounders
becausetheverybrainsneededto
achieveit demandsuperiorstatus:thepowerofreasonbecomesthereasonof
power.
Stressingthepigs' clevernessmayhavebeena swipeat Britishintellectuals,
who alone acceptedthe 'ruthlessideologiesof the Continent'and formedan
'islandofbigotryamidthegeneralvagueness'(iii. 31). In 1940Orwellnoted,
'The thingthatfrightens
me aboutthemodernintelligentsia
is theirinability
to see thathumansocietymustbe based on commondecency,whateverthe
politicaland economicformsmay be.' His 'chief hope' was the ordinary
ofthe
fearofa dictatorship
person'smoralcode: 'I haveneverhad theslightest
I
of
proletariat.. . . But admitto havinga perfecthorrorof a dictatorship
AnimalFarmhe calledBritishintellectuals
theorists'(i. 582-3). Afterwriting
thanthecommonpeople'(iii. 143)and observed:'In
'moretotalitarian-minded
ourcountry. .. itis theliberalswhofearliberty
and theintellectuals
whowant
to do dirton theintellect'(p. 107).
The pigs' intellect,however,may also reflecta historicalscruple.Orwell
admittedthathis knowledgeof Russia consisted'onlyof whatcan be learned
by readingbooksand newspapers'(p. 111). One book he mentionsrespectfully,JohnReed's Ten Days That Shook the World(p. 170), mirrorsthe
but on othergrounds,
paradoxof AnimalFarm. Reed, also anti-intellectual
insiststhattherevolutionwas made by the masses;thattheBolshevikswere
'not richin trainedand educatedmen'.26He identifies
'intellectuals'
withthe
provisionalgovernment,
citinga youngwoman'ssneerat soldiersand workmen arrivingat the Congressof Soviets:'See how roughand ignorantthey
look!'27When an anarchistcalls the Bolsheviks'common,rude, ignorant
Reed snorts:'He was a realspecimen
persons,withoutaestheticsensibilities',
of the Russian intelligentsia'.
he hails 'greatLenin' as 'a
Yet, paradoxically,
leaderpurelyby virtueof intellect;colourless,humourless,
uncompromising
and detached,withoutpicturesqueidiosyncrasies-butwith the power of
explainingprofoundideas in simpleterms,of analysinga concretesituation.
And combinedwithshrewdness,
thegreatestintellectual
audacity.'28
This kindofthingbaffled
Britishjournalists.
E. H. Wilsoncomplainedthat
Lenin frequently
introduced'politicaland economicconceptionswhichcan
to untrained
minds'.PhilipsPricerecalledhimunflatterhardlybe intelligible
inglyas 'a shortmanwitha roundhead,smallpig-likeeyes,and close-cropped
25 Letterto G. Orwell,24 Aug. 1945 (OrwellArchive).Quoted in Crick,GeorgeOrwell,491.
26 J. Reed, TenDays ThatShooktheWorld(1919; New York,1992), 90.
27 Ibid. 26.
28 Ibid. 91-2.
This content downloaded from 199.180.150.130 on Tue, 26 May 2015 18:29:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE DUAL PURPOSE OF ANIMAL FARM
771
hair.... One satspellboundat hiscommandoflanguageand thepassionofhis
But whenit was all overone feltinclinedto scratchone's head
denunciation.
and wonderwhatit was all about.'29RobertBruceLockhart,in Memoirsofa
British
Agent,learnedto respectLenin's 'intellectual
capacity',butat firstwas
his
moreimpressedby 'his tremendous
will-power, relentlessdetermination,
a completeantithesisto Trotsky
and his lack of emotion.He furnished
...
Trotskywas a greatorganiserand a man of immensephysicalcourage.But,
morally,he was as incapableof standingagainstLenin as a fleawould be
againstan elephant.'30
In 1944 he generalizedthat'all
Orwell'sview of Lenin was hypothetical.
to regenerate
lead
to thecellarsoftheO.G.P.U.
efforts
violent
means
societyby
Lenin leads to Stalin,and would have come to resembleStalin if he had
happenedto survive'(iii. 278). In 1946 he coupled Lenin withCromwellas
'one of those politicianswho win an undeservedreputationby dying
Had he lived, it is probablethat he would eitherhave been
prematurely.
thrownout,likeTrotsky,3'
or wouldhavekepthimselfin powerbymethodsas
or
as
as thoseofStalin'(iv. 200-1). This doesnot,
barbarous, nearly barbarous,
make Napoleon a composite.AlthoughLockhart'ssimilefits
nevertheless,
Snowball and Napoleon, the latterprevailsnot by intellectualand moral
ascendancy-no pig matches Lenin there-but by self-seekingcunning.
Orwell specifiedhis targetby alteringhis text to Napoleon's advantage
when the windmillis blown up, to be 'fairto J[oseph]S[talin],as he did
stay in Moscow duringthe German advance' (iii. 407). If he bent over
backwardsto be fairto a 'disgustingmurderer'(ii. 461), he mighthave felt
a qualm in parodyingthe Revolutionminusits mastermind.
The cleverpigs
would make amends:if 'the symmetry
of the story'(p. 113) meantleaving
Lenin out,his distinguishing
mark,at least,could be leftin.
IV
In anycase, Orwellwas boundby theformhe used,one responsiblebothfor
the contradictions
ofAnimalFarmand forits permanent
appeal. Initially,he
describedit as 'a kind of parable'.32A parable makes a point, not fine
distinctions,and a fable is also limited.33It may be because Orwell felt
29 Quoted in Pitcher,Witnesses
110-11, 112.
oftheRussianRevolution,
30 R. H. B. Lockhart,Memoirsofa BritishAgent(London, 1932), 238.
31 Trotskyquotes Krupskayain 1926: 'If Ilych were alive,he would probablyalreadybe in
Betrayed(New York, 1995), 93-4.
prison': TheRevolution
Memoirs(London, 1989), 68.
32 M. Meyer,Not PrinceHamlet:Literaryand Theatrical
33 For example,evenifOrwellhad notstressedthepigs' clevernesstheywouldstillhavehad to
dominate by intelligence,not education. Letemendia ('Revolution on Animal Farm', 17),
however,breachesthe metaphorin blamingthe passivityof the animalson theirbrieflifespan
and 'consequentshortnessof theirmemory',and a class structurefixedby 'theirimmutable
This content downloaded from 199.180.150.130 on Tue, 26 May 2015 18:29:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
772
PAUL KIRSCHNER
constricted
hisbookas 'a littlefairystory
bytheparableformthathe redefined
with
a
it 'A FairyStory'.
and
subtitled
...
politicalmeaning'34 finally
The misnomermeritsattention.AnimalFarm has none of the fairies,
or happyendingsassociated
princes,witches,spells,magictransformations,
Once themetaphoris established,
therestis history.
In
withthe'fairystory'.35
Animal
Farm
has
been
called
a
defined
as
a
fact,
'fable',
'brief,singleepisode'in
whichspeakinganimals,plants,objects,and humansmetaphorically
illustrate
and satirizehumanconduct,although'in practiceitis occasionally
renderedin
termsof othergenericforms:forinstanceas mirchen[folktales](e.g. "Little
moreacutelycomparedpersonsin a fableto
Red RidingHood")'.36Chesterton
or
abstractions
chess
algebraic
pieces,whereasthefairytale
the
Ifnoherowerethere
tofight
revolves
onthepivotofhumanpersonality.
absolutely
...
If
not
that
were
there
is
no
we
should
even
know
they
dragons.
personal
dragons,
shewillsimply
sleep.Fablesreposeon quitethe
princeto findtheSleepingBeauty,
is itself,
The wolf
andwillin anycasespeakforitself.
oppositeidea;thateverything
thefoxwillalwaysbe foxy.37
willalwaysbe wolfish;
AnimalFarmspansbothgenres:thesheepremainsheep; thedogs,dogs; the
cat, a cat; but the pigs, horses,and donkeyall displayelementsof 'human
althoughBenjamin'sworld-pessimism
goesbackto IEsop's fable
personality',
fromrising
'The Oxen and theButchers',in whichan old ox stopshisbrothers
arguingthattheyat leastcauseno needlesspain,butthat,
againstthebutchers,
if theyare killed,inexperiencedslaughterers
will replace them and inflict
'For
be
even
sure
that,
thoughall the Butchers
greatersuffering: you may
will
without
mankind
never
their
go
perish,
beef.'38'Fairytale' ofcoursemay
fits
but
this
simplysignifyfantasy,
hardly AnimalFarm,whichderivesits
authority
preciselyfromhistoricaleventsthatare in turnilluminatedby it.
The subtitlepoints,therefore,
to a parodic impulse,like that which the
functions
on thefarm'.In fact,Benjamin,who stresseshis longevity,
is as passiveas theothers,
themeaningis lost.Their actions,fate,
and iftheyare all made victimsofzoologicallimitations
in intelligence
and differences
mustbe read as human.Lack of previouseducationis a common
extrinsic
factor,but whenthe pigs tryto teachtheanimalsto read,onlyBenjaminattainstheir
thepigs' inbornsuperiority.
proficiency-proving
34 Letterto Gollancz, 19 Mar. 1944,quoted in Crick,GeorgeOrwell,452.
35 The 'fairystory'or contedefies,a terminventedby educatedwomenwho in the 1690s gave
literarypolish to medievaland folktales,does not have 'political'meaning,althoughPerrault
used itto preach'morals'endorsingthesocialorder.(Perraultdid notcall hiscollectionContesde
ou contesdu temps
(Storiesor Tales ofPast Times: With
fiesbutHistoires
passe:Avecdesmoralites
Morals).)
36 D. M. Roemer,in M. E. Brownand B. A. Rosenberg(edd.), Encyclopedia
ofFolkloreand
Literature
(Santa Barbara,Calif.,1998), 195, 198.
to Esop's Fables,trans.V. S. Vernon-Jones,
37 G. K. Chesterton,introduction
illus. Arthur
Rackham(London, 1975), 10.
a community.
38 Ibid. 72. Orwell,however,was modernin makinghis protagonist
A precedent
was Mark Twain's 'The Man That CorruptedHadleyburg'(1899), in whicha self-righteous
townrevisesits motto'Lead Us Not Into Temptation'to 'Lead Us Into Temptation',afterits
renownedhonestyis shownto be skin-deep.
This content downloaded from 199.180.150.130 on Tue, 26 May 2015 18:29:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE DUAL PURPOSE OF ANIMAL FARM
773
Teheran conferenceinspired.But why parodya 'fairystory'for 'political'
purposes?
The answermay again lie in the springsof Orwell's inspiration.In his
prefaceto theUkrainianeditionhe mentionshavingseena carthorse
whipped
and thinkingthat 'men exploitanimalsin much the same way as the rich
exploitthe proletariat'(p. 112), but thisskirtsthe issue.39Othersuggested
'sources' are equally unconvincing.40The parodic mode is more fertile.
Parodiesof magictalesgo back to theirinception,and fableshave also been
butCharlesDickensprovidedtheprecedentoffairy-tale
parodyat
parodied,41
one remove.When George Cruikshank'alteredthe textof a fairystory'to
ofthesale ofspirituous
Prohibition
propagate'doctrinesofTotal Abstinence,
Free
and
Dickens
vowed:
Trade,
PopularEducation',42
liquors,
I meantoprotest
Halfplayfully
moststrongly
& halfseriously
alteration-for
against
any purpose-of the beautiful little stories which are so tenderly& humanly useful to
us in these times when the world is too much with us, early& late; and then to re-write
Cinderella according to Total-abstinence, Peace Society, and Bloomer principles, and
especially for their propagation.43
39 Orwellhad alreadyused the horsein an abandonedwar novel,'The Quick and the Dead',
in theretreatin
wherean officer
sadistically
whipsa dyinghorsenamed'old Boxer','presumably
1918': OrwellArchive,'LiteraryNotebookNo. 1', pp. 14-15.
40 It has been claimedthatOrwellwas directlyinspiredby his own BBC adaptationofIgnazio
Silone's 'The Fox', misleadingly
called 'a politicalallegoryset in a pig farm'(The Lost Writings,
Ticino
ed. West, 60). Formallyit is not 'allegory',but a realisticstoryin whichan anti-fascist
peasantgrowsto like an injuredItalianengineerbroughtinto his house. When the engineeris
identified
as a local fascistspythepeasanthumanelyrefusesto havehim killedby a fellowantifascist,onlyto see himescape withdocumentsleadingto mass arrestsof Italianworkmen.The
peasant emotionallyidentifiesthe treacherousspy with a prowlingfox that has finallybeen
foxincluded,are fleshand blood,and the story
trapped,and hacksit to bits.All thecharacters,
has no relationin formor contenttoAnimalFarm.Crick(GeorgeOrwell,459) morepersuasively
cites the 'influence'of Swift'sHouyhnhnms,which Orwell regardedas havingreached 'the
vitalto
organization'(iv. 252); but the dynamicof transformation,
higheststageof totalitarian
AnimalFarm,is absentfromthe Houyhnhnms'staticworld.
41 After1698 contesde fies were criticizedas extravagantand parodied on the stage: see
G. Rouger,introduction
to Contesde Perrault(Paris, 1967), p. xlviii.They were perennially
parodied,e.g. byVoltairein TheWhiteBull (1773-4) and byGeorgeMacDonald in the1860sand
Oscar Wilde in the 1890s:see J. Zipes, Fairy Talesand theArtofSubversion:The ClassicalGenre
for Childrenand theProcessof Civilization(London, 1983), 104-11, 114-21. Orwellmighthave
readWilde's parodyofthe 'happyending'(e.g. the'Star Child' becomesa good king,yet'ruled
he notlong... And he whocameafterhimruledevilly').JamesThurber,whomOrwelladmired
(iii. 325), delightfully
parodiedthe fablein Fablesfor Our Time(1940). In 'The Owl Who Was
God' Thurbertellshow birdsand beastscome to worshiptheowl as God because he can see in
thedark(assuminghe can see as wellin thedaytime)and becauseby luckhe answersquestions
he knows.Blindlyfollowinghim,theanimalsare hitby a
withthe fewmonosyllables
correctly
and many,includingtheowl,arekilled.Thurber'smoralis: 'You canfool
truckin broaddaylight,
2 vols. (London, 1983),i. 159.
toomanyofthepeopletoomuchofthetime':VintageThurber,
42 Charles Dickens, 'Frauds on the Fairies' (1854), in MiscellaneousPapers/EdwinDrood
(London, n.d.), 202.
43 Quoted in H. Stone,Dickensand theInvisibleWorld:Fairy-Tales,Fantasyand Novel-Making
(New York, 1979),2.
This content downloaded from 199.180.150.130 on Tue, 26 May 2015 18:29:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
774
PAUL KIRSCHNER
Dickenskepthis word.In 'Fraudson theFairies'he denounced'theintrusion
ofa WholeHog ofunwieldydimensionsintothefairyflowergarden',44
adding
in
a moralistic
imagery
parodyof'Cinderella'.The sameyearhe used fairy-tale
thepoorto servethe
Hard Timesto attackeducationaimedsolelyat grooming
rich.4"
Orwellmaywellhaveknown'Frauds on theFairies'.Duringa five-month
sanatoriumcure in 1938 he keptDickens's collectedworksin his room.46In
a BBC versionof'Cinderella',callingit 'thetops
1947he himselfcontemplated
so faras fairytalesgo but ... toovisualto be suitablefortheair'.He imagined
Cinderellaas a wonderful
singerunableto singin tune(nota bad self-parody),
and a godmotherwho cures her: 'One could make it quite comic withthe
voices'(iv. 318-19). Orwell'sparodicidea
wickedsisterssingingin screeching
buthe knewthatpastiche'usuallyimpliesa
sprangfromtechnicalnecessities,
realaffection
forthethingparodied'(iii. 193).Dickensparodiedan abuseofthe
fairytale.
Duringthe 1920sand 1930schildren'sstoriesin theWeimarRepublic,the
United States, and, to a lesser extent,England were again alteredby a
slantto counterclassicfairytalesseen as a tool of
'proletarian'or 'left-wing'
In May 1940,
Orwellat firstthoughtofparticipating.
bourgeoissocialization.47
bias in boys'stories,he wroteto RobertGeoffrey
afterdenouncingright-wing
Trease (author of a left-wingversion of Robin Hood): 'this matterof
intelligentfictionfor kids is very importantand I believe the time is
approachingwhen it mightbe possibleto do somethingabout it'. Orwell,
Trease recalled,had in mind
someLeftish
backedbytheT.U.C.
scheme,
juvenile
publishing
pinkinshade,perhaps
or the Liberal News Chronicle.Not havingread Homageto Catalonia,and being
withthe official
unawareof his disenchantment
Communist
line,I did notfully
if
his
Laurence
and
Wishart
didit,
[Trease'sleft-wing
publishers]
appreciate quipthat,
theywouldwantbookslike'boysoftheOgpu'or'The YoungLiquidators.'
Later Trease realized that 'perhapsOrwell's quip had helped-that false
historyfromthe Rightshouldnot be counteredwithfalsehistoryfromthe
Left'.48
Whether
Orwellfeared
thatleft-wing
wouldturnoutlikethe
boys'stories
tractquotedin his'Boys'Weeklies'
communist
he
essay(i. 529),or whether
waschastened
Frank
Richards's
robust
he
the
by
reply(i. 531-40),49 dropped
44 'Frauds on theFairies',201.
45 See A. Bony, 'Realite et imaginairedans Hard Times',Etudesanglaises,23/2 (Apr.-June
1970), 168-82.
46 Crick,GeorgeOrwell,367.
47 See Zipes, FairyTalesand theArtofSubversion,
135-64.
48 G. Trease,A Whiff
ofBurntBoats (London, 1971), 155,and Laughterat theDoor (London,
toTrease and to TheAdventures
1974),26, 27. I thankNicholasTuckerforcallingmyattention
of
theLittlePig (see below).
49 Richardsviewedhappinessin youthas the best preparationforlatermisery:'At least,the
He may,at twenty,
be huntingfora job and notfindingitpoor kidwill have had something!
This content downloaded from 199.180.150.130 on Tue, 26 May 2015 18:29:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
775
THE DUAL PURPOSE OF ANIMAL FARM
in children's
literature
idea and insteadpursuedhis interest
by adapting
Andersen's
'The Emperor's
New Clothes'fortheBBC in November
1943,
the
justbeforehe set out to counter'falsehistoryfromtheLeft' by stripping
USSR of its emperor'sclothesin AnimalFarm.
In doingso, he mayhave been partlyreactingin a Dickensianwayto leftwingchildren'sstories.One I recallvividlyfrommyown childhoodwas the
titlestoryofa bookletbyHelen Kay (pseud.Helen ColodnyGoldfrank)
called
The
'To
the
of
the
BattleintheBarnyard.50 preface,
Children
WorkingClass',
read:
Dear Comrades:
Once upona time,a longlongtimeago,a bookappearedcalled,'FairyTales for
Children.'
Butthiswasa longtimeago,andthebookhassincerunoutof
Workers'
print.
to every
anew.I offer
thisbookas a challenge-achallenge
Now,we arestarting
readerto writefor'Us Kids.'
of theYoung
These storieswerepennedwhenI was a 'Pioneer.'As a member
ofAmerica,
I felttheneedofsucha children's
book.Later,whenI cameto
Pioneers
I evenmoreclearly
sawthedemandforsuchstories.
workwithyounger
comrades,
Today, the Pioneer movementis growing..
.
. Farmers' childrenand kids of
arerapidly
themwithour
joiningourranks.We mustfurnish
unemployed
parents
I amgladtomakethisstart.
literature.
All tellof theclass
Severalof thesestoriesdeal withrealand livingchildren.
foryou.I hopeyou'll
Anoldercomrade
toldmesome.Everyonewaswritten
struggle.
likethem.
Comradely
yours,
HELEN KAY
Kay's prototypewas a collectionof German 'proletarian'fairytales by
HermyniaZur Mtihlen,translatedand publishedin Chicago by the Daily
WorkerPress in 1925,51and she saw herselfas marchingin the ranksof
'An oldercomradetoldme
(Note herclaimto authority:
revolutionary
history.
not
would
some'.) Paraphrase
adequatelyconveythe spiritof her story.I
it
in
full:
therefore
give
aboutthatin advance?He may,at thirty,
whyshouldhis fifteenth
yearbe cloudedby worrying
anyway,
get the sack-why tell him so at twelve?'Makingchildrenmiserablewas unjustifiable
but 'the adult will be all the moremiserableif he was miserableas a child' (i. 537). Richards's
forpre-1914Englandwouldhave appealed
and affection
honestpatriotism,
anti-intellectualism,
to the authorof ComingupforAir.
50 New York: WorkersLibraryPublishers,1932.
154-5. Of aristocratic
51 Zipes, Fairy Talesand theArtofSubversion,
birth,Zur Mtihlen(18831951) studiedMarxismin Switzerlandand joinedtheCommunistPartyin Frankfurt-am-Main.
to Viennaand in 1938fledto England.Her tales,aimedat raisingthesocial
In 1933she emigrated
themmodels of a fairerworld,appearedin communist
consciousnessof childrenand offering
to Fairy Tales,
children'smagazinesduringthe 1920s:see J. Zipes (ed.), The OxfordCompanion
Freundeerzahlen(1921), is in the
(Oxford,2000), 561-2. Her firstcollection,Was Peterchens
BritishLibrary.
This content downloaded from 199.180.150.130 on Tue, 26 May 2015 18:29:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
776
PAUL KIRSCHNER
Battlein theBarnyard
Out in thecountrywherethefieldsare greenand thesunshineis golden,an old farm
standsbetweentwo grovesof tallpoplartrees.On thisfarmtherelivedat one timea
happycolonyof healthychickens.
Now the yardwherethesechickenslivedwas filledwithveryfertilesoil. The rich
groundcontaineda plentifulamountof wormsupon whichthechickenslived.There
werelongskinnyworms,shortstubbyworms,and big fatworms.There wereas many
and
kindsof wormsas thereare people. Besides wormsa greatvarietyof caterpillars
life.
bugs helpedthesechickslead a healthywell-nourished
In a corneroftheyardwherethechickensscratchedawaytheirtimerana refreshing
spring.This springwas usedbythechickensto quenchtheirparchedthroatsin thehot
summerdays.
Many a happyday was passedby theseroostersand hens.The chickenswouldrise
withthe sun, scratchforworms,drinkwaterfromthe spring,cacklingand crowing
merrilyall the while.The hens would lay eggs-and thentell the worldabout it in
delight.
to say,'I've laid
'Cut-cut-cut-ca-deh-cut!'
theywouldcry.Justas iftheyweretrying
an egg,the loveliestwhiteegg!'
The littledownychickswouldplaytagand leapfrogbetweentheireatingtimes,to
whileawaythetimeuntiltheyin turnwouldgrowup and becomehensand roosters.
The cockswouldstrutaboutthefarmin theirconceitedmanner,crowingand asking
theworldifithad notnoticedtheirhandsomeplumage.'Cock-a-doodle-do!''Am I not
a handsomebird.Am I not. Am I not!'
Then at the settingof the sun the chickenfarmwould becomedarkand silentclosed in theembraceof slumber.
On thisfarm,however,therewas one veryslyuglyrooster,whohad lostmostofhis
in hisquarrelsand fights
finefeathers
withtheothermoresociableinmatesofthefarm.
He wouldalwaystakeadvantageoftheyoungchicks.Beinga verylazyfellowhe would
forworms.
tryto getout of doinghis own scratching
For instance,whena youngercockwoulddigup a daintymorselfromtherichloam,
such as a livelyyoungearthworm,
thisuglymonsterwouldimmediately
pounceupon
his comrade'sdinnerand gobbleit all up. Yes, everysinglebit of it. This nastyhabit
made himverymuchhatedby all the otherson the farm.
One daytheentirecolonywas amazed.They werein factso astonishedat thesight
hens
beforetheireyesthatwordsactuallyfailedthem.Even someofthemoretalkative
who alwayshad somethingto cackleabout,couldn'tfindtheirtongues.
Dear littlecomrades,it actuallywas an unusualsight,fortherebeforetheireyes,
theysaw forthe firsttimethis nastyroosterscratchingaway forworms!But what
surprisedthemeven more was thatthis greedycreaturedid not eat the wormshe
unearthed.He put themaway.As manywormsas he dug up he wouldlayin a pile on
the ground.
The inhabitants
ofthecolonybecamenervous.Such a stateofaffairs
wasimpossible.
They wereunableto understandit. Somethinghad to be done aboutit.
One eveningat the settingof the sun, a huge mass meetingwas called. It was
advertisedfarand wide by the youngcocks,who would perchthemselveson high
fencesand, flappingtheirwings,wouldcrowtheorderforthemeeting.
At thisgathering
theroosterwas askedbythepatriarchs
and industrious
hensofthe
colony,whatthemeaningof the hugepile of wormsmeant[sic].
The roosterpromptly
answered.'Here, I havea hugepileoftastybugs,catterpillars
This content downloaded from 199.180.150.130 on Tue, 26 May 2015 18:29:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE DUAL PURPOSEOF ANIMALFARM
777
[sic],and worms.. .' He paused cleverlyto let theaudiencetakein thesight.'If you
willgiveme thecornerofthisyardwherethespringruns-and allowme to keepit all
to myself-I will giveyou in returnthathuge pile of food.'
Withoutfurtherthoughtthe chickencommunitydecided to do as the rooster
bargained.His foodwas evenlydividedamongall the membersof thevillageand in
returnhe receivedthatsectionof the yardwherethe cool springran.
The chickensgossipedamongthemselves-tellingeach otherhow stupidthe old
roosterwas to desirethatbitoflandin returnforthedeliciouspileofeatables.Afteran
houror so everyoneretiredforthenight.The sun setand thefarmwas darkand silent.
The nextmorningthechickensaroseas usual.The sun was up and shiningbrightly.
The inmatesof the farmgrewvery
The day became veryhot and uncomfortable.
habit
strolled
over
to the springto quenchtheirthirst.
and
as
was
their
they
thirsty
However,as theycamewithinreachofthepreciouswater,themeanroosteraroseand
said:
'Cock-a-doodle-do!
This springdoes notbelongto you.
It's mine,you cannotdrinkhere!'
chickensexclaimed,'What do you mean,yours!It is everyone's.'
The thirsty
in returnforthe
The cockimmediately
answered,'Didn't yousellitto me yesterday
foodthatyou have alreadyeaten.'
You cannotkeep the water
A youngrebelliouscock criedout, 'But we are thirsty.
fromus. We wishto drink.'
The roosterreplied,'For everydrinkofwaterthatyoutakeout ofmyspring,I will
in returntaketwoworms!'
Since thechickenswereverythirsty
theyconsentedto thisarrangement.
The pile of wormswhichtheold miserlycockreapedfromthetoilof thechickens
beganto growby leaps and bounds.As a matterof factit grewso largethathe alone
could notcareforit. So he hiredtenofthestrongest
youngroosterson thefarmto be
his policemen.
Their job was to take care of and to protecthis hoard of worms.In return,he
promisedto give themenoughwaterand foodto live on, no morenor no less. No
less-because he had to have stronghuskywell-nourished
policemento takecare of
and guardthesurplusthathe now livedupon.He wouldgivethemno more-because
thiswickedroosterwantedmoreand moreforhimself.
wenton fora longtime.The chickencolonylostitsusual happy
This stateofaffairs
satisfiedexpression.They did not crow as joyouslyas theydid before.The young
chickenswere afraidto be merry.They were underfedand undernourished.
They
could no longerplay withoutfearof disturbingthe selfishcock. The hens could no
They now had to
longerlay good eggs,becausetheylackedfood,and entertainment.
laborfromsunriseto sunsetso thattheycouldhaveenoughfoodto liveon,and enough
foodto giveto thecruelroosterin returnforthewaterthattheyso badlyneeded.
The chickswho werebornduringthisperiodweregenerallynotstrongenoughto
live. Most of themdied and the tragicpartwas thatthosewho did survivetookthe
conditionthatnow existedforgranted.They thoughtit was impossibleto live any
otherway.
His daughteralso grewbigger
On theotherhandtheroostergrewbiggerand fatter.
Neitherhad to work.They merelyateand playedall day.They livedoffthe
and fatter.
toiland sweatof theirfellowchicks.
This content downloaded from 199.180.150.130 on Tue, 26 May 2015 18:29:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
778
PAUL KIRSCHNER
Now, on the farmtherewas a duck,a veryhandsomegracefulduck. He would
waddleand quackall throughthechickenfarm.One daytheroosterdecidedto marry
his daughterto theduck,in orderthatshe wouldbecomea duchess,and so be one of
the nobility.
The roosterwentup to theduckand said,'If youmarrymydaughter,and so make
hera duchess,I willgiveyoua shareofmygroundsand makeyoua partnerinmyfood
association.You willnothavetoscratchforyourworms,butwillliveoffthewormsthat
theotherchickensscratchup. You willlead a lifeof luxuryand play,ifyou do this.'
The duckagreed.And so theyweremarried.They had littlearistocratic
duck-chicks
bornto lead livesof idleness.
One day one of theroosterswas tiredof feedingthemean cock,and goinghungry
himself.He ranup singlehandedto theold miserand startedto fighthim.Of course,
killedbythepolice.This incidentaddedto thesuffering
and to the
he was immediately
conditionsoftheotherchickens.But theyalwaysremembered
downtrodden
thebrave
cock.
young
Soon afterthisoccurred,theuglymisergotanotheridea. He calledoversomemore
chickens.He toldthemthathe wouldpaythemmorethanthepolicemaniftheywould
act as preachers.
'Your duty,'he said,'is totellthechickensto be submissiveandobeyme,theapostle
of the lordin the heavensabove. If theyare submissiveand do everything
I and my
to
will
order
them
when
die
to
and
there
lead
do,
heaven,
family
they they
go
happy
lives.But, if theyrebeltheywill go down to thefiresof hell and burnforever.The
hardertheyworkhereon earth,thebettertimetheywill have in heaven.'
As timewenton thechickensslavedharderand harder,and theroostergrewricher
and richer.They began to believewhateverthe preacherchickenstold them.They
thoughtthat conditionsmust alwaysbe as theyare. That the greateramountof
chickensshouldbe poorand thata privilegedfewmustliveoffthewealththatthepoor
chickensscratchedup.
One youngand energetic
cockwhowas deeplyimpressedbyall thegoingson,began
to think.He thoughtand planned,and othershelpedhim.Then theyall decidedthat
theonlywayto savethechickensofthefarm,and themselves,
fromendlessslaverywas
hisdaughter,
theduchess,herhusband,theduck,and
bydrivingouttheselfishrooster,
the aristocratic
also theirprotectors,
the policemen,and especiallythe
duck-chicks,
preachers.
Secretleaflets
wereprintedand spreadoverthecolonyforthechickensto readandto
learn the truth.Huge mass meetingswere called and the exploitedchicks were
organizedintobattalionsto driveout theiroppressors.
If theywon thebattletheywould
The chickencolonywas in a stateof excitement.
againbe freechickens.If theylost-no one wantedto thinkof that.They mustwin.
And dearlittlecomrades,theydid win.They certainly
werevictorious.They drove
theold roosterand hisprotectors
outoftheirlivesforever.
The meancockand his lazy
good-for-nothing
familywerekilled.The preachersand policemenfledfromthefarm.
No one has everheardof themsince.Perhapsthe wolvesate them.
Now in the summerwhenthe fieldsare greenand the sunshineis goldenin the
country
youcansee thehenshappilylayingeggs,andtheotherchickensscratching
away
forworms.They havelearnedtheirlesson,and neveragainwillanyonebe able to trick
themintoslavery.The littlechicksplaytagand leap-frog
in theirmerryway.You can
hearthemgo 'Peep-peep-peep!'The roostersstrutaroundthefarmand crow,'Cock-adoodle-do!'The henscry,'Cluck-cluck-cluck!'
They are all contentedand equal.
This content downloaded from 199.180.150.130 on Tue, 26 May 2015 18:29:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE DUAL PURPOSEOF ANIMALFARM
779
As faras I know,the onlyextantcopy of Kay's bookletis in Harvard's
WiednerLibrary.A studentof mine52tracedit forme twenty-five
yearsago:
otherlibraries,he said, had 'removed'it duringSenatorJoe McCarthy's
inquisition.On a falleveningin 1995I visitedtheWiednerand askedto see it.
A guard,happilywaivingtherules,tookme downto thestacks,and thereit
was,itssoftbrownand buffcoveras I had lastseen it welloverhalfa century
beforein the guestloungeof a holidaycamp patronizedby skilledlow-paid
workers.It was then(likemyself)nineor tenyearsold, but stillcirculating.
Like Combrayfroma teacup,a bygonehopefulethosrose beforemymental
visionas I leafedthroughKay's stories-'Bread', 'High Hat Ants', 'Strike
Secret'-and saw whathad worriedlibrarians.In one story,'Us AlleyKids',
blackand whitechildrendefying
JimCrow organizedthepoor ofbothraces
a
threat
that
againstexploitation:
nearlymaterialized
thirtyyearslaterin the
marchMartinLutherKing was planningat thetimehe was
last,'integrated'
murdered.By thenWorkersLibraryPublisherswas longextinct.53
Today,the
premiseof Battlein theBarnyardis obsolete.As a FinancialTimesjournalist
sanguinelyremarked:'Long considereda basic right,wateris now being
The word'Comrade'(whichOrwellthought
lookedat as a goodinvestment.'54
off
needn't
is on AnimalFarm,for
be
banned,as itfinally
putpeople socialism)
thereis littleriskofitsuse betweenmembersofcontending
national,religious,
or sexualinterest
ethnic,linguistic,
groups.In thenewRussia theSong ofthe
and pensioners
VolgaBusinessmanproclaimstheblessingsbroughtto workers
turned
Soviet
Orwell's
by
apparatchiks
freebooting
ending
capitalists-giving
a propheticresonancemissingfromKay's.55
Yet, despitesuch progress,few'greatbooks' I have read since childhood
haveleftme withas vivida memoryas Kay's,downto thecoverdrawingofthe
routofthemiserlyroosterand his clan. That factseemsto me relevantto the
enduringpowerofAnimalFarm.The secretofKay's impacton me as a child
52 RogerWebster.
to traceKay or anothercopyright-holder.
53 I have triedunsuccessfully
54 A. Mandel-Campbell,'Water could make yourcup runnethover', Financial Times,16-17
Feb. 2002, 'Weekend' section,p. xxii. Privatefirmshave acquired 85% of the world'swater
distribution
(UBS Investment,
July/Aug.2001, p. 23). AlthoughNGOs arguethatprivatization
strikesthepoorestand thatwateraccessshouldbe freeor chargedat costprice,theWorldWater
Forumdoes notrecognizewateras a 'basic humanright'.The WorldCommissionon Water,an
armoftheWorldBank,considersita profitable
resource,especiallyin poorcountries(Le Monde,
menaceprofits,
firmscan
24 Mar. 2000,p. 40). Fromtheboardroomthislooksideal.If regulators
invokejob losses. On the otherhand,CEOs who boostthesharepriceby sackingworkersearn
biggerbonuses,and if theyhave to be sackedin turntheyare replaced,as in Orwell'sday,by
otherslike themselves,but rewardedfortheirfailurebeyondthe wildestdreamsof Orwell's
was drivenout of
Privatization,
however,sparksconflict.VivendiEnvironment
contemporaries.
27 Aug. 2002, p. 1). Anotherfirm
Herald Tribune,
Tucuman Province,Argentina(International
whathas beencalledtheworld'sfirstcivilwarover
doubledthewaterpricein Bolivia,provoking
water(Le Point,30 Aug. 2002, p. 87). Kay's far-fetched
metaphoris today'sfait divers.
suffered
55 'Whilemillionsoftheircountrymen
collapsinglivingstandards,declininghealthand
increasingalcoholism,a few [Russians]made enoughmoneyto join the ranksof the world's
richestmen' (FinancialTimes,6/7 Apr. 2002, p. I).
This content downloaded from 199.180.150.130 on Tue, 26 May 2015 18:29:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
780
PAUL KIRSCHNER
laynotin contentbutin form.Max Frischonce ascribedthepeculiarforceof
marionettes
to the factthat,unlikeactors,theydon't have to 'makebelieve',
Animalsrepresenting
but are bodied forthas nakedcreationsof the spirit."6
humansoperatesimiliarly.17Like 'Battlein theBarnyard',
AnimalFarmgains
forcefromelementsof the fableand themagicfolktale whilecorresponding
mirrorsKay's. Kay's idyllic
strictlyto neither.Orwell's storystructurally
closed
a
slumber
precedesthe insidiousriseof a
prelude
by peacefulnight's
selfishcapitalisttyrant,
revoltand a return
conspiratorial
ultimately
provoking
to theidyllicstatusquo ante.Orwell'sparodicutopianpreludeis also followed
by a peacefulnight'ssleep,but thenby conspiracyand a rebellionpavingthe
ideologicaltyrantand even more
way forthe insidiousrise of a collectivist,
less
well
than
Orwell in fusingartisticand
fares
hopelessoppression.Kay
Beneath
the
communist
catchwords,her nostalgiafor a
politicalpurpose.
happystateofnatureis closerto Rousseauthanto Marxor Lenin,farfromthe
Neveropen-endedstoriesof Zur Miihlen,whomshe claimedas a model.58"
theless,thekinshipbetweenOrwell'sstoryand Kay's is obvious:thecollective
to oppression,theword'Comrade'used
the gradualhabituation
protagonist,
seductivelyby Kay, ironicallyby Orwell,and the calculatedslippagefrom
symbolicto directstatement(havingestablishedthe youngroostersas the
miser'spolicemenKay can say thatthe hungryroosterwas 'killed by the
police';Orwell,afterhavingNapoleon'sdogsripouttheyoungpigs'throatsin
a metaphorconveyingforcedconfessionand execution,can creditNapoleon
withthe cry 'Death to humanity').Both storiesuse preachersand private
police,Orwell'smoresubtly.WhenNapoleon'sprivatearmyofdogswagtheir
tailsto theirmaster,theyremindus thata dog is Man's bestfriend.Andwhen
the preachingravenMoses, initiallychasedoffthe farm,laterreappears,the
pigstoleratehim,evengivinghima dailygillofbeer,as ifto say'Stickaround,
entente
youmaybe needed.'This hasbeentakento symbolizeStalin'swartime
withtheOrthodoxChurch;moregenerally
itreflects
thepotentialconvenience
ofreligionto dictators(Hitlerviewedhis concordatwiththeCatholicChurch
as propitiousforhis waron Jews).59Finally,ifOrwelland Kay bothplayon
words,Kay's duck-duchessand hens that'alwayshad somethingto cackle
about' seem frivolous,whereasOrwell's ham-burialhas dramaticpoint.In
bothstoriesthekeywordis 'equal', but Orwell'sturnsit upsidedown.
56 Max Frisch,'Uber Marionetten',
in Tagebuch1946-1949(Zurich,1964), 154.
57 The Parisiancrazeforfablesand literary
contesdefeesin thelate 17thcenturycoincidedwith
one formarionettes
(see Contesde Perrault,ed. Rouger,293 n. 2). Perraulthimselfmade the
connection;dedicating'Peau d'ine' he affirmed,
'Qu'en certainsmomentsl'espritle plus parfaitI
Peut aimersans rougirjusqu'aux Marionettes'.(ibid. 57.) The mostsensibleReason,he added,
oftenweariedof its vigiland enjoyeddozing,ingeniouslyrockedby talesof Ogre and Fairy.
58 See Zipes, Fairy Tales and theArtofSubversion,
154-5.
59 See J.-D. Jurgensen,
Orwell,ou la Routede 1984 (Paris, 1983), 154,and J. Cornwell,Hitler's
Pope (London, 1999), 151 ff.
This content downloaded from 199.180.150.130 on Tue, 26 May 2015 18:29:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE DUAL PURPOSE OF ANIMAL FARM
781
V
the familylikenessbetweenKay's
Despite, or because of, theirdifferences,
likeliterary
and
Orwell's
makes
Animal
Farm
look
story
parody.Was parody
intended?In 1946 Orwell recognized,'I am not able, and I do not want,
completelyto abandonthe world-viewthatI acquiredin childhood(i. 28).
Magic tales,althoughescapist,werepartof thatworld-view.In 1947,while
a parodyof 'Cinderella'and hopingfora re-broadcast
of 'The
contemplating
New
to
'Little
Red
Orwell
Hood'
for
Clothes',
Emperor's
agreed adapt
Riding
theBBC's Children's
Hour.Like Dickens,he wouldprobablyhaveresentedthe
Withhispenchantfor
abuseoffairytalesforpropaganda,whichhe detested.60
as a pastiche
parody,he mightwellhaveregardedAnimalFarm,once written,
of left-wing
children'sliterature.
Whetherhe intendedit as such is moreconjectural.There is no evidence
thathe knewof Kay or Zur Miihlen,whose storieswere not publishedin
readerwithcosmopolitan
leftEngland.On theotherhand,foran omnivorous
in
literature
and a specialinterest 'proletarian'
and ephemeral
wingcontacts61
writing-whohad workedin 1934-5 in a Hampsteadsecond-handbookshop
doing'a good deal ofbusinessin children'sbooks. . . ratherhorriblethings'
(i. 274),-nothingcan be quiteruledout. In anycase Orwellcouldhaveseena
mild strainof left-wingchildren'sliteraturein the CooperativeUnion's
'CooperativeBooks forYoung People': 'fairyplays' and storiesenvisaging
In 1937,the
whereno workerwas eversackedowingto bad trade.62
factories
Works
60 See P. Davison,ed. TheComplete
ofGeorgeOrwell(London, 1998),viii.116.According
thattherightkindof
to GeorgeWoodcock,OrwelljustifiedworkingfortheBBC 'by contending
man could at leastmakepropagandaa littlecleanerthanit wouldotherwisehavebeen . .. buthe
soon foundtherewas in factlittlehe could do, and he lefttheBBC in disgust'(quoted in Crick,
OrwellnamedtheParty'storturechamber,Room
GeorgeOrwell,418). (In NineteenEighty-Four
aimednotat truthbut 'to do as
101,aftera BBC conference
room.)For Orwell,a propagandist
muchdirton his opponentas possible'(iii. 262). Propagandatook'just as muchworkas to write
thatthefinishedproductis worthless(iii. 293). Yet
somethingyoubelievein,withthedifference
I don'tmean
he madeone exception:'I havealwaysmaintainedthateveryartistis a propagandist.
a politicalpropagandist.If he has any honestyor talentat all he cannotbe that.Most political
propagandais a matterof tellinglies,notonlyaboutthe factsbut aboutyourown feelings.But
to imposea
everyartistis a propagandistin the sense thathe is trying,directlyor indirectly,
visionof lifethatseemsto him desirable'(ii. 57). In AnimalFarmOrwelldoes thisby exposing
the betrayalof such a vision.
to PartisanReviewfrom1941 to 1946,and praisedDwightMacdonald's
61 Orwellcontributed
reviewPolitics.By 1944 he had the New York addressof RuthFischer(pseud. ElfriedeEisler,
1895-1961),the one-timeGeneral Secretaryof the GermanCommunistPartyand authorof
for
Stalinand GermanCommunism
(iii. 334). Her hatredof Stalin-she neverlostheradmiration
Lenin-led her to denounceher brotherGerhartas an agentof the Comintern,and her other
brother,the composerHanns Eisler, as a communist'in a philosophicalsense' to the UnAmericanActivitiesCommitteein 1947; thiseventuallyled, in 1948,to Eisler'sexpulsionfrom
the United States:E. Bentley(ed.), ThirtyYearsof Treason(London, 1971), 55 ff.,73. Among
Orwell's papers in the BritishLibraryis a manuscripttranslationof a German socialist's
accountofthefallofBerlin,otherversionsofwhichappearedin Fischer'snewsletter
eyewitness
'The Network'(Nov.-Dec. 1945) and in Politics(Jan. 1946). FischervisitedOrwellon 17 June
to me by PeterDavison).
1949 (iv. 565; confirmed
62 For example,J. R. Carling,Each forAll: A Fairy Play in ThreeScenes(1923); Winifred
This content downloaded from 199.180.150.130 on Tue, 26 May 2015 18:29:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
782
PAUL KIRSCHNER
yearin whichOrwellsaid he firstthoughtof AnimalFarm,Gollancz'sLeft
Book Club publishedboth TheRoad to WiganPierand a left-wing
children's
F.
Le
The
Adventures
the
Little
and
Other
Stories
Gros
and Ida
book,
of
Pig
by
Clark.63Gollanczmayhave planteda seed.64
Orwell'spoliticalopinionswere,besides,hardlyoriginal.Some had been
inscribedin literaryhistoryby thatversatilefemmede lettresand nostalgic
historianof rural mannersGeorge Sand during the revolutionof 1848.
Sand declaredherselfcommunist
Privately,
intheyear50 ofourera.Formeitis theidealofadvancing
as peoplewereChristian
thereligion
thatwilllivea fewcenturies
hence.ThusI cannot
be tiedbyany
societies,
ofthepresent
communist
since
all
are
rather
dictatorial
and
think
formulas,
theycanbe
No religion
is established
setup without
theaidofmorals,
habitsandconvictions.
by
force.
Publicly,she denouncedelectionsorganizedin May 1848 against'chimerical
communists':
Ifbycommunism
... weare
youmeana conspiracy
readytotrya grabfordictatorship
notcommunists.... But if,by communism,
youmeanthedesireand thewillthat,by
all meanslawfuland admitted
therevolting
of
bythepublicconscience,
inequality
extreme
wealth
andextreme
should
vanish
to
for
the
start
of
make
poverty
hereby
way
anddaretotellyouso.65
trueequality,
yes,wearecommunists
Like Orwell,she wanteda revolutionpreserving
'commondecency'.
Nor was Orwell alone on the leftin condemningRussian communism.
Whateverthe seeds of AnimalFarm theywereencouragedto sproutby an
anarchistpamphletin his collection:The RussianMyth.66"
AlthoughGeorge
Young, Cloudsand Sunshine:A FairyPlay (1922); L. F. Ramsey,Fairiesto theRescue,a Fairy
BookletwhichCarriestheCo-operative
Play (1926). H. B. Chipman,Meri-ka-chak:A Children's
Now: A Yarnfor YoungPeople(1939). Some arein
Message(n.d.); F. M. Campling,It's Different
the BritishLibrary;othersare in the Co-operativeUnion Library,HolyoakeHouse, Hanover,
Manchester,or appearedin its sales catalogue.
63 In the firsttwo stories,a 'kindlyrobber'givesthe littlepig forChristmasa silvernecklace
stolenfroma fatduchess.He tellsthe pig to giveit to his mother,who complainsshe owes the
farmerback rent:
'He's a cruelmeanman.He does no work,and makesall theanimalspayrent.The horsehas to
payrentnow forhis stablesand thefowlsfortheirhen-house,and thecowsforthecow-shed.'
'Good heavens,'said the littlepig. 'But wheredo theyget themoneyfrom?'
His motherbeganto weep bitterly.
'It's veryhard,'she said. 'The fowlshave to taketheir
eggs to marketto raisethe moneyand the cows have to taketheirmilkand the horsehas to
carryloads to and froforthe neighbours.'(p. 28)
64 There wereprobablyothers.Trotsky'sTheRevolution
Betrayed(1937) mayhave suggested
thesubject,and evenan anglefromwhichto treatit. Describingforcedcollectivization,
Trotsky
hurricanehittheanimalkingdom.The numberofhorsesfell55
writes,'But themostdevastating
per cent . . .' (p. 40).
65 Quoted in AndreMaurois,Lilia, ou la viede GeorgeSand (Verviers,Belgium,1952),372,382
(my translation).
66 London: FreedomPress, 1941.
This content downloaded from 199.180.150.130 on Tue, 26 May 2015 18:29:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE DUAL PURPOSEOF ANIMALFARM
783
and veryable
Woodcockcaughthimout on thetitle,Orwellcalledit 'a terrific
anti-Sovietpamphlet'(ii. 210, 259). The coverread:
is
andeconomic
oftheRussianpolitical
To Communists
andothers,
criticism
system
the'Worker's
State'andplayintothe
tothem,
tocriticise
is tobetray
taboo.According
handsofthecapitalist
class.
weaskthequestion:
is Russiaa Socialistcountry?...
Butin thispamphlet
is abolished
and
as oneinwhichinequality
Ifwedefine
a Socialist
StateorCountry
shownthat
freedom
whereeconomic
and political
exist,thenit canbe conclusively
to theirillusions;
existin Russiatoday.By clinging
noneofthesepre-requisites
by
andbystubbornly
to theRussianregime
as thegoaloftheBritish
workers;
looking
sincere
theCommunist
rankandfile,however
tofacethefacts,
theymaybein
refusing
theworkers
ofthiscountry.
aremisleading
theirbeliefs,
The Russian Myth anticipated the premise of Animal Farm:
of
leadnottotheemancipation
tactics
wherever
Bolshevist
theyareappliedwillalways
of
from
thechainswhichnowenslavethem,noreventothedictatorship
theworkers
state.
or
totalitarian
to
the
absolute
lead
theproletariat.
By allowing
inevitably
They
topassoutoftheir
ownhandsintothoseofa
ofproduction
powerovertheinstruments
buta slavery
willachievenotliberty
theworkers
so-called
revolutionary
government,
as badorworsethanthattheysoughttoescapefrom.67
truesocialismfromwhattheBolshevikshad established:
It distinguished
ofindustry
as the
andagriculture
ofMarxism...urgeStatecontrol
Thepropagandists
the
workers
as
the
socialism
ButAnarchists
aimofrevolution.
emancipation
of
regards
... To overthrow
privatecapitalismonly
fetter
freedevelopment.
fromall theforceswhich
to theblindest
in its placewillonlyappearprogress
Statecapitalism
to enthrone
ofutopiangradualism.68
devotees
ThreeyearsearlierOrwellhad asked,'Is [Stalin'sregime]Socialism,or is it
a peculiarlyviciousformofstate-capitalism?'
(i. 369). But he did nottakethe
and
linethatthecall to defendtheUSSR 'madebytheCommunists,
anarchist
echoedby Churchilland Roosevelt'was a call 'to defendtherulingclique in
Russia':
in commonwiththe soviet
have no interests
Britishand American
imperialists
the
is to fight
workers. The onlywayto aid theRussianworkers
unremittingly
....
the
aloneprovides
herein England.Similarly,
classstruggle
revolutionary
struggle
fortheworld
NazismandFascism.Onlybyfighting
German
onlymeansofdestroying
and
freedom
from
achieve
can theworkers
revolution
tyranny
poverty,
everywhere
wars..
.69
In 1938Orwellhimselfhad calledtheslogan'Guns beforebutter!'a dodgeto
denywage rises:theworkers'realenemieswere'thosewho tryto trickthem
their interestswith those of their exploiters,and into
into identifying
whateverymanualworkerinwardlyknows-thatmodernwaris a
forgetting
racket'(i. 368). But whenthebombscamehe putfirstthingsfirst.By 1940he
was 'attackingpacifismforall [he] was worth'(ii. 34), and in 1941 he noted:
67 TheRussianMyth,26.
68 Ibid. 28-9.
69 Ibid. 30.
This content downloaded from 199.180.150.130 on Tue, 26 May 2015 18:29:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
784
PAUL KIRSCHNER
'The most interestingdevelopmentof the anti-warfronthas been the
see PartisanReview,
[sic-a misprintfor 'interpenetration':
interpretation
8/1 (March-April1941), 109] of the pacifistmovementby Fascist ideas,
(ii. 69).
especiallyantisemitism'
Orwell'smoralforcewas his politicalindependence:his denunciation,
in
of
with
both
its
class
windowpane-clear
prose,
privatecapitalism
money-based
of the left-wing
privilegeand 'the shallowself-righteousness
(i.
intelligentsia'
587) holdingup thetrainof theUSSR's emperor'srobes.Orwell'shatredof
propagandamakesit all themoreironicthat,withinthreeyearsof his death,
the CIA and the ForeignOfficedistributed
doctoredversionsof his masterpiece. A cartoonfilmvettedby the CIA's PsychologicalStrategyBoard
suppressedthe closingparallelbetweencapitalistand porcineexploitation.
In the CIA's happy endinga counter-revolution
deposed the pigs.70The
ForeignOfficecirculateda comicstripin whichOld Major resembledLenin.71
That Orwellshouldhave had his purposetamperedwithin thenameof the
'freeworld'to shielda systemforwhichhe saw 'manifestly
no future'(iv. 429)
thatpurpose,
is, of course,disgusting.Yet AnimalFarm only halffulfilled
since the pathos of the failureof a specificrevolutionimpliesa general
statementabout the impossibility
of any revolution.This derivesnot from
latentconservatism
or a sourchangeof politicalcolours,72
but fromthevery
formthatmakesAnimalFarmwhatEdmundWilsononcecalled'longliterary
'thesymmetry
ofthestory'meantsynopsizing
the
rangeliterature'.
Preserving
of
the
animals
and
on
of
their
oppression
parodically focusing betrayal
hopes
of thepigsmaybe readas
aftertheRebellion.Hence thefinalmetamorphosis
just a partingshotat them,not necessarilyas a backhanderat capitalismas
well. A seriousaccountof hardshipsbeforethe Rebellion,whilestillmainand ravenouspower-hunger,
tainingthelinkbetweenorganizingintelligence
would merelyhave dividedthe interest.But if,as the parablesuggests,the
alternative
to privatecapitalismis 'Animalism',
thenbetterthedevilyouknow.
Orwell'sconvictionthatcapitalismwas deservedlydoomedwas occultedby
70 See F. S. Saunders,WhoPaid thePiper?TheCIA and theCulturalCold War(London, 1999),
293-5. Saundersremarks,'Curiously,the critiqueof America'sintelligence
bureaucratsechoed
theearlierconcernsofT. S. Eliot and WilliamEmpson,bothof whomhad writtento Orwellin
1944 [sic]to pointout faultsor inconsistencies
in the centralparableofAnimalFarm.' Orwell's
own 1946BBC versionkeepsthelastlineand praiseofmoreworkforless food.Fredericis gone,
and 'Farmer 1', who drops his aitches while Napoleon speaks like a gentleman,replaces
Pilkington,thus audiblyconfusingpigs and humans:see P. Davison, The CompleteWorksof
GeorgeOrwell,viii. 192.
71 See Guardian,17 Mar. 1998,p. 7.
72 Three monthsafterthepublicationofAnimalFarmOrwellsnubbedan invitation
to speakon
Conservative
YugoslaviafortheLeague ofEuropeanFreedombecauseit was 'an essentially
body
whichclaimsto defenddemocracyin Europe but has nothingto say aboutBritishimperialism'.
He explained: 'I belong to the Left and must work inside it, much as I hate Russian
totalitarianism
and its poisonousinfluencein thiscountry'(iv. 49). Simon Leys deplores'the
persistentstupidityof a Left that,insteadof at lastbeginningto readand understand[Orwell]
had scandalouslypermitted
theconfiscation
ofitsmostpowerfulwriter':Orwell,ou l'horreur
de la
politique(Paris, 1984),46 (mytranslation).
This content downloaded from 199.180.150.130 on Tue, 26 May 2015 18:29:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE DUAL PURPOSE OF ANIMAL FARM
785
thedesignofAnimalFarm,which,whileraisingit to thelevelofmoralsatire,
made it near-perfect
materialforpropagandists
of the status
simultaneously
quo.
If literaryformhinderedOrwell'spoliticalpurpose,it also confirmed
the
existenceofliterature
of
In
theories.
that
he
had no fearofa
stripped
declaring
dictatorshipof the proletariatbut a 'perfecthorrorof a dictatorshipof
theorists'Orwell affirmedhis faithboth in the moral code of ordinary
If the dominanttheoristsof his day have withered,
people and in literature.
othersnow proliferate.They suggestthat, since words do not perfectly
representreality,theycan mean whateveryou choose, with the corollary
that searchingforobjectivetruth(and backingargumentsby evidence)is
pointless.The onlycriterionof truthbecomespower,withcarteblancheto
anyonewho can wield it. Otherstheorizethat,sincereadingand writingare
conditionedby sex, criticalstandardsshould differfor male and female
authors.Imagination,
once used to transcendsexualbarriers,is expectedto
raise them. In the politicaland economicsphere,theoristsproclaimthat
civilizationhas reachedits ultimateperfectionin unfettered
capitalism,as
intoan
Hegel thoughtit had in thestate,whileothers'deconstruct'literature
expressionof Westernracismand imperialism.The fairytale is again a
battlefield
forpolitical,sociological,and psychological
theorists"heedlessof
thegrimadmissionbya famouspoliticalexilewhomOrwellreadwithinterest:
'Theory is not a note whichyou can presentat any momentto realityfor
payment.'"
effect
of totalitarianism
on literature
Alongwiththestifling
(ii. 163,iv. 88)
one of Orwell'sbugbearswas the 'invasionof literature
by politics'(iv. 464).
Socialistshad no monopolyof mentaldishonesty.
Rather,
ofanypolitical
seemstobe incompatible
withliterary
acceptance
discipline
integrity.
Thisappliesequallytomovements
likePacifism
andPersonalism,
whichclaimtobe
73 See Zipes,FairyTalesandtheArtofSubversion,
60 ff.,179ff.Zur Mtihlenwasrediscovered
in
a waveof 'counter-cultural'
children'stalesadvocatingcollective
Germanyin the 1960s,starting
controlby workersof theirlabour.Englandand theUnitedStatespreferred
feminist
fairytales.
Zipes, who has editeda volumeofthem(Don't Bet onthePrince(London, 1986)), welcomesthe
'upsetting'effectof makingCinderellarebellious,or havingSnow Whiteorganizinga band of
robbers.Mercifully,
difficult
to determine
however,he grantsthat'it is extremely
exactlywhata
childwillabsorbon an unconsciouslevel' (Fairy Talesand theArtofSubversion,
191,57). Orwell
himselfhas drawnfeminist
fire,the chargebeing'not thathe treatedwomenbadlybut thathe
thembadly.In his novels,the femalecharacters(includingthemarein AnimalFarm)
portrayed
are sketchyor vapid' (D. Honigmann,FinancialTimes,1-2 June2000, 'Weekend'section,p. v).
If Comrade Orwell wrongedFeministWoman, feministsmightrecall Eileen Blair's part in
AnimalFarm.Eileen toldhow,unprecedentedly,
herhusbandwouldreadhis day's workto her
and welcomeher criticisms
and suggestions(Crick,GeorgeOrwell,451). Her friendsattributed
the humourin thebook to her influence(Shelden, TheAuthorised
Biography,
408), and Orwell
said thatshe had helpedin planningit (iv. 131). Significantly,
he askedher advice,perhapsto
of childhood'(The Lost Writings,
help himcapturewhathe called in a broadcast'the atmosphere
ed. West,88). She maydeservecreditforthetoneofthebook,includingsuchhumoroustouches
as themare's frivolousvanity.
74 TheRevolution
Betrayed,109.
This content downloaded from 199.180.150.130 on Tue, 26 May 2015 18:29:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
786
PAUL KIRSCHNER
outside
theordinary
in-ism
Indeed,themeresoundofwordsending
political
struggle.
seemstobringthesmellofpropaganda.
arenecessary,
andyettheyare
Grouployalties
to literature,
so longas literature
is theproduct
ofindividuals.
poisonous
(iv.468)
Since bothleftand righthavetriedto annexAnimalFarm,it is timeliterature
putin itsclaim.Totalitarianism
mayseemlessofa threatthanin Orwell'sday,
but witha firmcalled'Narration,Ltd' recruiting
authorsto writepropaganda
and companies,75
novels 'sponsored'by governments
the literarynatureof
AnimalFarmneedsaffirming.
Its politicalambiguities
are irresolvable,
but its
universalmoral satire emergesmore stronglyas the USSR fades from
memory.In China, wherethe CommunistPartyhas pragmatically
equated
with workersas a 'productiveforce'in an effortto
privateentrepreneurs
broadenits sociologicalbase (as Orwelltold socialiststo do in The Road to
WiganPier),AnimalFarmis unlikelyto be takeneitheras a redundantattack
on a defunctUSSR or as an endorsement
ofa capitaliststatusquo, butsimply
as a warningagainstpower-seekers
wieldingthejargonof theoryto establish
To Orwell,whodefineda realsocialistas 'one whowishes. . . to see
tyranny.76
tyrannyoverthrown',77this would have seemed a good symptom.In our
ofAnimalFarmmaybest
West,however,thecontradictions
theory-bemused
it
in the perennial
as
be circumvented
by reading
literarycounter-parody
for
a
to
In
his
the
of
enchant.
struggle
left-wing
'fairystory',
power
pastiche
Orwellfusedartisticand politicalpurposeto chasea twentieth-century
Whole
Hog out of theflowergardenof children'sliterature.
Geneva
75 Independent
on Sunday,1 Sept. 2002, p. 10.
76 The director-adapter
morediplomatic.His playopenednear
ShangChengjunwasnecessarily
the Great Hall of the People in Beijing,wherethe CommunistPartyhad just electedits new
leaderswithall therigidconformism
ofAnimalFarm.Mr Shangknewtheymightstophis play,
... Sure, [it] satirises
but his commentwas apt: 'Many people read the book narrow-mindedly
the Soviet Union, but I thinkthe phenomenonit describessuitseverysocietyand era. I don't
wantto makea judgmentin thisplay-whethersocialismor capitalismis good or not. WhatI
wantto expressis thatno matterwhichsocietypeoplearein, iftheywantto be theirownmasters
and duties.If theyare indifferent,
theyhave responsibilities
lazy and don't wantto vote,any
social systemwill fail'(FinancialTimes,16/17 Nov. 2002, p. 3). In Orwell'swords,thepeople
mustknowwhento chuckout theirleaders-but whatiftheylose faithin theefficacy
ofvoting?
77 TheRoad to WiganPier (Harmondsworth,
1963), 194.
This content downloaded from 199.180.150.130 on Tue, 26 May 2015 18:29:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Revolution on Animal Farm: Orwell's Neglected Commentary
Author(s): V. C. Letemendia
Source: Journal of Modern Literature, Vol. 18, No. 1 (Winter, 1992), pp. 127-137
Published by: Indiana University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3831551
Accessed: 26-05-2015 18:31 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Indiana University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Modern Literature.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 199.180.150.130 on Tue, 26 May 2015 18:31:50 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LETEMENDIA
\.C.
UNIVERSITY
OF TORONTO
Revolution
Orwell's
IN THE
LAST
SCENE
on
Neglected
Animal
Farm:
Commentary
OF GEORGE
ORWELL'S
"fairy tale," Animal Farm, the
humbler animals peer through a window of the farmhouse to observe a horrible sight: the
from their temporary allies, the
pigs who rule over them have grown indistinguishable
The animals' fate seems to
human farmers, whom they originally fought to overthrow.1
mirror rather closely that of the common people as Orwell envisaged it some six years
before commencing Animal Farm: "what you get over and over again is a movement of
the proletariat which is promptly canalized and betrayed by astute people at the top, and
then the growth of a new governing class. The one thing that never arrives is equality.
The mass of the people never get the chance to bring their innate decency into the control
of affairs, so that one is almost driven to the cynical thought that men are only decent
when they are powerless."2
Obviously Animal Farm was designed to parody the
Yet it has also been interpreted by
betrayal of Socialist ideals by the Soviet regime.
various readers as expressing Orwell's own disillusion with any form of revolutionary
political change and, by others, as unfolding such a meaning even without its author's
It is time now to challenge both of these views.
conscious intention.
Orwell himself commented of Animal Farm that "if it does not speak for itself,
it is a failure."3 The text does indeed stand alone to reveal Orwell's consistent belief not
only in democratic Socialism, but in the possibility of a democratic Socialist revolution,
but there is also a considerable body of evidence outside Animal Farm that can be shown
The series of events surrounding its publication, and
to corroborate this interpretation.
Orwell's
own consistent attitude towards his book provide evidence of its political
1
George Orwell, Animal Farm (Harcourt Brace, 1946), p. 118.
are to this edition and are given parenthetically.
Further references to the text
2
Sonia Orwell and lan Angus, eds., The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George
Orwell (Penguin, 1971), Vol. I, p. 372.
(This four-volume collection will be referred to
henceforth as CEJL). Even when Orwell wrote this, in deep distress after his experience of the
Spanish Civil War, he was not completely pessimistic, as he remarked with some surprise: see
Homage to Catalonia (Penguin, 1984), p. 220.
3
CEJL, HI, p. 459.
V.C. Letemendia, "Revolution on Animal Farm: Orwell's Neglected Commentary."
Journal of Modern Literature, XVIII: 1 (Winter 1992), pp. 127-137.
?1994
Temple University.
This content downloaded from 199.180.150.130 on Tue, 26 May 2015 18:31:50 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
128
V.C. LETEMENDIA
Meanwhile, of the two extant prefaces written by Orwell, the one designed
meaning.4
for the Ukrainian edition, composed in 1947, is of particular political interest.5 Orwell's
with his friends and acquaintances
on the subject of Animal Farm
correspondence
a
further
information.
source
of
Some
of
these
letters are well known to Orwell
provides
but
his
with
scholars,
Dwight Macdonald, with whom he became friends
correspondence
when he was writing for the American journal, Partisan Review, does not appear to have
been fully investigated.
Macdonald himself raised a direct question about the political
intent of Animal Farm and was given a specific answer by Orwell, yet this fascinating
evidence has apparently been neglected, in spite of the generous access now available to
his correspondence
in the Orwell Archive.6
Commentators on Orwell find it easy to conclude from Animal Farm the utter
despair and pessimism either of its author, or of the tale itself.7 It must be remembered,
however, that through his allegory Orwell plays a two-sided game with his reader. In
some ways, he clearly emphasizes the similarities between the beasts on Animal Farm and
the humans whom they are designed to represent; at other times, he demonstrates with
both humor and pathos the profound differences separating animal from man?differences
which in the end serve to limit the former. In doing so, he forces his reader to draw a
distinction between the personalities and conduct of the beasts and those of the human
world. Of course, the animals are designed to represent working people in their initial
4
Much of Orwell's other writing, particularly that which is contemporary to the creation of
Animal Farm, also supports the interpretation offered here. See, for example, CEJL, III, pp. 83 and
280-82; "Tapping the Wheels," Observer, 16 January 1944, p. 3. This is not to mention Orwell's
radical writings of the earlier war years, exemplified by his revolutionary enthusiasm in The Lion
and the Unicorn (see CEJL, II, pp. 74-134) and his two essays for Gollancz' The Betrayal ofthe
Left (1941), "Fascism and Democracy" and "Patriots and Revolutionaries" (pp. 206-14 and 23445). After Animal Farm, Orwell's position remained unchanged; see, for example, "The British
General Election," Commentary, November 1945, pp. 65-70, and "What Is Socialism?"
Manchester Evening News, 31 January 1946, p. 2.
5 For the Ukrainian
preface, see CEJL, III, pp. 455-59; see also "The Freedom of the Press,"
The Times Literary Supplement, 15 September 1972, pp. 1036-38.
6 The author would like to
thank the staff ofthe Orwell Archive, University College, University
of London for their very kind assistance in searching out the relevant materials for this discussion,
as well as for their help in finding resources for the larger work on Orwell's politics of which it
is but a small part. She would like to thank the estate of the late Sonia Orwell and Martin Secker
& Warburg for permission to publish extracts from their collection of Orwell's correspondence.
She would also like to thank the Yale University Library for permission to publish extracts from
the Dwight Macdonald Papers and for its generosity in making available to her copies of other
letters in their Manuscripts and Archives collection. This article was obviously accepted for
publication (28 March 1990) before the appearance of Michael Shelden's Orwell: the Authorized
Shelden's thorough research uncovered the Macdonald
Biography (Heinemann, 1991).
correspondence, quotations from which were employed for the purpose of biographical, rather than
political, analysis.
7
See, for example, Patrick Reilly, George Orwell: the Age's Adversary (Macmillan, 1986),
pp. 266-67; Alan Sandison, George Orwell: After 1984 (Macmillan, 1986), p. 156; Alok Rai,
Orwell and the Politics of Despair (Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp. 115-16; Stephen
Sedley, "An Immodest Proposal: Animal Farm," Inside the Myth (Lawrence & Wishart, 1984), p.
158; and Alex Zwerdling, Orwell and the Left (Yale University Press, 1984), pp. 90-94.
This content downloaded from 199.180.150.130 on Tue, 26 May 2015 18:31:50 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
REVOLUTION
ON ANIMAL
129
FARM
economic, and political position in the society not just of Animal Farm
The basic antagonism between working class and capitalist
England in general.
strongly emphasized by the metaphor: pig and man quarrel fiercely at the end
story. The diversity of the animal class, like the working class, is equally stressed
social,
but of
is also
of the
by the
Just because all have been subjected to human
differing personalities of the creatures.
will
as a united body once they take over the farm.
not
mean
that
act
this
does
rule,
they
The qualities which, for Orwell, clearly unite the majority of the animals with their
human counterparts, the common working people, are a concern for freedom and equality
in society and a form of "innate decency" which prevents them from desiring power for
any personal gain. While this decency hinders the worker animals from discovering the
true nature of the pigs until the final scene, it also provides them with an instinctive
feeling for what a fair society might actually look like. Yet Orwell was obviously aware,
in using this metaphor, that the animals differ fundamentally
from
Unlike
the
of
the
beasts
are
limited
men,
majority
counterparts.
naturally
Moreover, their
lifespan and the consequent shortness of their memory.
physical types deny them the versatility of humans. Their class structure is
their human
by their brief
differentiated
in the way
metaphor, then, cannot be reduced to a simple equivalence,
reduce the seven Commandments
of Animal Farm to one.8
in spite
Evidently the animals lack education and self-confidence
role which most of them played in the first rebellion and, in the case
Orwell is not implying by this the hopelessness
of
naturally stupid.
that the pigs
fixed by their
immutable functions on the farm: a horse can never fill the role of a hen. The class
structure of human society, in contrast, is free from such biological demarcations.
These
two profoundly limiting aspects of the animal condition, in which men share no part,
The
finally contribute to the creatures' passivity in the face of the pig dictatorship.
of the active
of some, are
a proletarian
revolution:
he rather points to the need for education and self-confidence
in any working
if it is to remain democratic in character.
Both of these attributes, he
further to suggest, must come from within the movement itself.
The crude
class movement
appears
proletarian spirit of the common animals necessarily provides the essential ingredient for
a revolution towards a free and equal society, but it needs careful honing and polishing
if it is not to fall victim to its own inherent decency and modesty.
If this simple,
instinctive decency is to be preserved in the transition from revolution?which
is all too
the construction of a new society?which
is not?other
kinds of virtue are also
necessary and must at all costs be developed by the working class if it is not to be
betrayed again. The text itself, however, hints at disaster for the rule of the pigs. Their
single tenet asserting that some animals are more equal than others is in the end a
meaningless absurdity. In spite of their great intellectual gifts, the pigs are ultimately the
most absurd of all the farm animals, for they are attempting to assume a human identity
which cannot belong to them. It is left to the reader to ponder the potential for political
easy?to
The
change, given the evident weakness and vanity at the core of the pig dictatorship.
final scene of the book, moreover, reveals the disillusionment of the working beasts with
their porcine leaders, an essential step in the process of creating a new revolution.9
8 A full
discussion of the animal-human metaphor and its political purpose is not within the
of
this
brief study, but is elaborated upon fully in the author's doctoral dissertation, "Tree
scope
from Hunger and the Whip': Exploring the Political Development of George Orwell" (University
of Toronto, 1992).
9
Raymond Williams, in his George Orwell (Viking, 1971), shares this view: see pp. 74-5.
This content downloaded from 199.180.150.130 on Tue, 26 May 2015 18:31:50 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
130
V.C. LETEMENDIA
Evidence external to the text of Animal Farm is not required to establish the
Yet an examination of Orwell's attitude towards the
political meaning within its pages.
book during the difficult period in which he tried to have it published only strengthens
the conclusions drawn here. Even before Animal Farm was finished, Orwell was quite
aware that it would cause controversy because of its untimely anti-Stalinist message, and
he predicted difficulties in publishing it.10 He was, of course, correct: the manuscript
the latter case on the
was refused by Gollancz, Andre Deutsch, and Jonathan Cape?in
advice of the Ministry of Information.
Meanwhile, Orwell declined an offer to publish
the book in serial form in Lady Rhondda's Time and Tide, explaining that the politics of
for his tale, only to be turned down by T.S. Eliot at
the journal were too right-wing
The end of the story is well known to
Faber and Faber, his next choice of publisher.
Orwell scholars: Orwell went finally to Frederick Warburg, who accepted the manuscript,
and upon its publication in August 1945, it was well received and soon selected by the
Club.11 Orwell's interest in the major publishing houses, as well
Book-of-the-Month
as his reluctance to approach Frederick Warburg as a first choice and his willingness at
one desperate point to pay himself to have the work reproduced in pamphlet form show
that he wanted it to reach the public at all costs and to address as wide an audience as
Naturally, Lady
possible from as unprejudiced a political context as he could find.
journal would not have been suitable: his purpose was not to congratulate
or even liberals on the failure ofthe Russian Revolution, however scathing
his criticism of the Stalinist regime within the allegory.
Furthermore, Orwell stood
to
alterations
the
text,
particularly in the instance of his
firmly against any suggested
no
he
He
made
excuses for Animal Farm?as
the
Bolsheviks
as
of
pigs.
representation
Rhondda's
conservatives
must have considered its message to be
would in the case of Nineteen Eighty-Four?and
he
no
releases
to
correct misinterpretations
of the book
for
offered
press
fairly clear,
from either right- or left-wing political camps.12 On the contrary, it rather seems that
he was proud of the quality, as much as the political timeliness, of the book and expected
it to require no external defence or explanation; this opinion did not appear to change.13
Some further indication of Orwell's own view of Animal Farm may be found
in the two prefaces he wrote for it. Of the two, only the Ukrainian preface was actually
Its original English version, written early in 1947, has never been found, and
published.
This presents the
only a translation from the Ukrainian is available to Orwell scholars.
or
subtle
of
various
errors
alterations
that
meaning might have remained
possibility
10Bernard
Crick, George Orwell: a Life (Penguin, 1980), p. 450; for an indication of Orwell's
own fears about the unpopularity of his book, see CEJL, HI, pp. 71-2, 118-19 and 168-70.
11For full account of the
a
publication problems and the reception of Animal Farm, see Crick,
pp. 452-58 and pp. 487-90.
12 For
an account of Orwell's own criticism of Nineteen Eighty-Four, the conditions under
it was written, and the statement which he issued in order to correct political
misinterpretations of it, see Crick, pp. 546-51 and 565-70.
which
13 For evidence of his
apparent satisfaction with the book, see CEJL, I, p. 29. His friend
William Empson recalls him complaining when the book first appeared that "'not one of [the
reviews] said it's a beautiful book.'" See Audrey Coppard and Bernard Crick, eds., Orwell
Remembered (BBC, 1984), p. 183.
This content downloaded from 199.180.150.130 on Tue, 26 May 2015 18:31:50 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
REVOLUTION
ON ANIMAL
FARM
131
uncorrected by the author when it was first translated from English to Ukrainian.14
Written two years after the English preface, the Ukrainian piece obviously betrays a
purpose very different from that of its predecessor, as a result supplying the reader with
far more direct commentary on the text. Orwell makes it clear here that he "became
more out of disgust with the way the poorer section of the industrial
pro-Socialist
workers were oppressed and neglected than out of any theoretical admiration for a
His experiences in Spain, he states, gave him first-hand evidence of
planned society."
the ease with which "totalitarian propaganda can control the opinion of enlightened people
in democratic countries." Not only were the accusations against Trotskyists in Spain the
same as those made at the Moscow trials in the USSR; Orwell considers that he "had
every reason to believe that [they] were false," as far as Spain was concerned.
Upon his
observers
return to England, he discovered "the numerous sensible and well-informed
believing the most fantastic accounts of conspiracy, treachery and sabotage which the
press reported from the Moscow trials." What upset him most was not the "barbaric and
undemocratic methods" of Stalin and his associates, since, he argues, "It is quite possible
that even with the best intentions, they could not have acted otherwise under the
prevailing there." The real problem, in his view, was that Western Europeans
could not see the truth about the Soviet regime, still considering it a Socialist country
when, in fact, it was being transformed "into a hierarchical society, in which the rulers
have no more reason to give up their power than any other ruling class." Both workers
and the intelligentsia had to be disabused of this illusion which they held partly out of
and partly because of an inability to comprehend totalitarianism,
wilful misunderstanding
conditions
"being accustomed to comparative freedom and moderation in public life." To make
possible, then, a "revival of the Socialist movement" by exposing the Soviet myth, Orwell
writes that he tried to think of "a story that could be easily understood by almost
and which could be easily translated into other languages."15
He claims that although the idea came to him upon his return from Spain in
the details of the story were not worked out until the day he "saw a little boy,
everyone
1937,
along a narrow path, whipping it
perhaps ten years old, driving a huge cart-horse
whenever it tried to turn." If the horse could only become aware of its own strength, the
boy would obviously have no control over it. Orwell found in this a parallel with the
way in which "the rich exploit the proletariat," and he proceeded from this recognition
"to analyse Marx's argument from the animals' point of view." For them, he argues, the
idea of class struggle between humans was illusory; the real tension was between animals
and men, "since whenever it was necessary to exploit animals,
them." The story was not hard to elaborate from this, Orwell
not actually write it all out until 1943, some six years after
conceived of. Orwell declines to comment on the work in his
speak for itself, it is a failure." Yet he ends with two points
all humans united against
continues, although he did
the main ideas had been
preface, for "if it does not
about details in the story:
14
Peter Stansky and William Abrahams, in their Orwell: the Transformation (Granada, 1981),
also consider this worth mentioning: see p. 185. Peter Davison, at present in the process of editing
The Complete Works of George Orwell, has already discovered a surprising number of mistakes
or changes made during the past publication of Orwell's work in English: it seems logical that the
potential inaccuracies of a re-translated translation uncorrected by its original author should be
contemplated seriously. For a brief account of Davison's discoveries, see The Sunday Times, 2
March, 1986, p. 5.
15
CEJL, III, pp. 455-8.
This content downloaded from 199.180.150.130 on Tue, 26 May 2015 18:31:50 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
132
V.C. LETEMENDIA
first, that it required some chronological
rearrangement of the events of the Russian
and, second, that he did not mean pigs and men to appear reconciled
completely at the end of the book. On the contrary, "I meant it to end on a loud note of
discord, for I wrote it immediately after the Teheran Conference [parodied by the final
Revolution,
scene in Animal Farm] which everybody thought had established the best possible
relations between the USSR and the West. I personally did not believe that such good
relations would last long. . . ."16
It seems, then, that as much as Orwell wanted to explain how he had arrived at
Soeialism and at his understanding of totalitarianism, he sought to indicate in this preface
to Ukrainian readers how workers and intelligentsia in Western Europe, but especially
in England, misperceived
the difference between the Soviet Union of 1917 and that of
Animal Farm was, according to its author, an attempt to
and
later.
twenty
thirty years
veil
the
however, he
mythical
shrouding the Stalinist regime; simultaneously,
strip away
was trying to renew what had been lost through this deception and to revive the original
It seems possible to conclude that Orwell is suggesting
spirit of the Socialist movement.
the presence of just such a double intention within the allegory. One point in the preface,
Orwell's reference to the animals' view that the real
however, requires clarification.
class struggle lay between animals and humans suggests, in the context of the allegory,
the absence of any significant class struggle between members of the ruling class?or
humans?since
they will readily forget their differences and unite to oppress animals.
This appears confusing when applied to Marx's theory, which Orwell claims as the
theoretical basis of this insight, and furthermore it does not capture the thrust of the story
itself, in which the divisions between animals are exposed in detail, rather than those
between humans, or even between humans and animals.17 But Orwell makes it quite
clear here that he refers to an animal perspective in defining the class struggle as one
humans and beasts. Certainly the point of departure was, in both the Russian
situation and in this particular allegory, the identification and removal ofthe most evident
class of oppressors.
In this initial movement, the oppressed class was not mistaken
between
politically; what came afterwards in both instances, though, demonstrated that the first
movement of revolutionary consciousness
had not been sustained in its purity, since the
Orwell's remark in the preface
goals of the revolution gradually began to be violated.
that "[f]rom this point of departure [the animals' view of the class struggle], it was not
difficult to elaborate the rest of the story" cannot be taken as an admission that the
16
CEJL, III, pp. 458-59.
17
Stephen Sedley concludes from this that "[t]he muddle is remarkable" and that "the book
begins and ends by debunking" the idea ofa class struggle between animals and humans, whether
it be attributed to the animals or to Orwell himself (Sedley, p.161). Rai, meanwhile, argues from
the Ukrainian preface thatnAnimal Farm had been intended as an allegory of the common people,
awaking to a realization of their strength and overthrowing their oppressors," but that "[i]n working
out the fable, however, in the winter of 1943-4, the euphoria collapsed" (Rai, p.l 15). Rai seems
to forget Orwell's own comment at the beginning of the preface that the idea for Animal Farm was
linked to his experience in Spain and explicitly designed to debunk the Soviet myth. This already
suggests a story with a far from idyllic ending. It was only after the idea had been conceived of,
according to Orwell, that he decided on the details of the story. It would thus appear likely that
Orwell had thought through the political message of his story long before the winter of 1943.
This content downloaded from 199.180.150.130 on Tue, 26 May 2015 18:31:50 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
REVOLUTION
animals'
ON ANIMAL
FARM
133
was perfectly correct.18
Of course, the book debunks such a
of
in
the
class
struggle,
spite of its initial accuracy.
simplistic interpretation
the
divisions
within
the
animal
ranks, Orwell is cautioning his
By revealing
perspective
reader to question the animal view ofthe class struggle, for the crucial problem that even
of the real enemy is the
the wise Old Major does not predict in his identification
of
the
this
pigs. By allegorical implication,
points rather interestingly to
power-hunger
Orwell's identification of a flaw in the Marxian theory of revolution itself. Although its
starting point is clearly the animals' partially accurate but insufficient analysis ofthe class
struggle, the allegory in its course reveals more and more drastically the inadequacy of
such a view as a basis for post-revolutionary
Part of Old Major's vision is
society.
indeed debunked, while the truth of the initial insight about class struggle is never denied,
and the story, as has been seen, ends on a note of hope.
Orwell's final point in the
the
mild
constitutes
correction
and
only
very
apology that he would make about
preface
the text, even though he had had roughly two years to assess the critical response?and
hence the variety of misinterpretations?circulating
about Animal Farm.
Here he is
warning his reader about the subtlety of his allegory: pigs and humans may come to look
the same at the end, but they are still essentially enemies and share only a greed for
For it is indeed the dispute between farmers and pigs which completes the
power.
transformation of pig to man and of man to pig.
If the Ukrainian preface was written for an unknown audience, the English
preface was designed for readers with whom Orwell was much more familiar. Written
in 1945, when he was still bitterly upset over the difficulties
of printing unpopular
political commentary in wartime Britain, the English preface is concerned not with the
content of the story but with the question of whether he would be free to publish it at all
because of current political alliances, intellectual prejudices, and general apathy over the
need to defend basic democratic liberties.19
Attacking as he does here the political
toadying of the Left intelligentsia
Animal Farm as a lesson for
in Britain to the Stalinist
the
well-educated
as
regime, Orwell presents
much as the uneducated.20
Meanwhile, the fact that he makes no reference in this preface to the details of the book
indicates his strong confidence in its political clarity for English readers, although his
bitter tone shows, as Crick suggests, Orwell's acute sense that he was being "persecuted
for plain speaking" before Animal Farm was published.21
Since the English preface
18
19
CEJL, ffl, p. 459.
"Freedom ofthe Press," pp. 1036-38.
20 Orwell considered that
many such intellectuals had substituted for love of their own country
a far more slavish regard for the Soviet Union. For his ideas on this issue, see "Notes on
Nationalism," CEJL, III, pp. 410-31. In other writing ofthe time, his language was even stronger
than that of the English preface: see, for example, p. 263.
21
Crick, p. 463. Orwell was not, however, the only writer to feel this: as his friend Arthur
Koestler explains, "George and I were the only anti-Stalinists who could get printed. We felt we
were persecuted by the New Statesman etc, and what appalled us was not just the refusal to print
what we had written, but the systematic suppression of fact so that people simply did not know
what was going on. Sources of truthful information were the privately circulated news sheets.
. . . But people like Beaverbrook suppressed a great deal. I remember the 'Beaver' saying how we
all liked 'Uncle Joe' and therefore mustn't say too much against him." (Coppard and Crick, eds.,
pp. 167-68).
This content downloaded from 199.180.150.130 on Tue, 26 May 2015 18:31:50 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
134
V.C. LETEMENDIA
does not actually offer an interpretation of Animal
intention, it is necessary to look for this information
on the subject.
Orwell
Farm explaining Orwell's political
in his more private communications
explicitly on his book to his friends Geoffrey Gorer and
Crick states that Orwell gave a copy of Animal Farm to Gorer
having marked in it the passage in which Squealer defends the pigs' theft of the milk and
He told Gorer that this "was the key passage."22 This emphasis of Orwell's
apples.
is reiterated and explained more fully in a letter to Dwight Macdonald written shortly
after Animal Farm first appeared in the United States, in 1946. Macdonald was one of
Dwight
commented
Macdonald.
a group of American intellectuals who had broken with Soviet Communism as early as
1936 and had gone to work with Philip Rahv and William Phillips on Partisan
Review.23 From January 1941 to the summer of 1946, Orwell had sent regular "letters"
to the review and had had cause to correspond with Macdonald fairly frequently.
Macdonald was later to move to the editorship of Politics, described by Orwell in a letter
to T.S.Eliot as "a sort of dissident offshoot" of Partisan Review, and had already
a review written by Orwell that had been rejected for political
Evening News.24 This shared political understanding soon
a literary friendship which lasted until Orwell's death in 1950.25
In September 1944, Orwell had already written to Macdonald
Given that only a few months separated
views about the Soviet Union.
championed
Manchester
reasons by the
developed into
expressing his
the completion
of Animal Farm from this letter, it seems safe to assume that the views expressed in both
To Macdonald, Orwell stated, "I think the USSR is the dynamo of
might be similar.
world Socialism, so long as people believe in it. I think that if the USSR were to be
conquered by some foreign country the working class everywhere would lose heart, for
the time being at least, and the ordinary stupid capitalists who never lost their suspicion
of Russia would be encouraged."
Furthermore, "the fact that the Germans have failed
to conquer Russia has given prestige to the idea of Socialism.
For that reason I wouldn't
want to see the USSR destroyed and think it ought to be defended if necessary."
There
is a caution, however: "[b]ut I want people to become disillusioned about it and to realise
that they must build their own Socialist movement without Russian interference, and I
want the existence of democratic Socialism in the West to exert a regenerative influence
upon Russia." He concludes that "if the working class everywhere had been taught to be
as anti-Russian as the Germans have been made, the USSR would simply have collapsed
22
Crick, p. 490.
information.
It is a pity that Crick does not provide here the source of this important
23 David
Caute, The Fellow Travellers (Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1973), pp. 88-9; see note.
See also Crick, p. 392.
24
See letter from Orwell to T.S.EIiot, 5 September 1944 in the Orwell Archive, reproduced
kind
by
permission of of the estate of the late Sonia Orwell and Martin Secker & Warburg. For
details ofthe rejected book review, see CEJL, III, pp. 169-70.
25 An
indication of its depth is that Sonia Orwell, when first considering the possibility of
contravening her husband's dying wish and authorizing a biography of him, wrote to Macdonald
to see if he would undertake it. He accepted with enthusiasm, but she later withdrew her offer,
having decided that it was too early for a biography to appear. See correspondence between Sonia
Orwell and Dwight Macdonald in the Orwell Archive.
This content downloaded from 199.180.150.130 on Tue, 26 May 2015 18:31:50 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
REVOLUTION
ON ANIMAL
FARM
135
in 1941 or 1942, and God knows what things would then have come out from under their
stones. After that Spanish business I hate the Stalin regime perhaps worse than you do,
but I think one must defend it against people like Franco, Laval etc."26
In spite of its repressive features and its betrayal of basic human freedoms, then,
Orwell still considered the Soviet regime to be vital as an example to the working class
What was most
The real danger lay in the idea that it defined Socialism.
everywhere.
needed was a new form of democratic Socialism created and maintained by the people.
He offers meanwhile the possibility that such democratic forms of Socialism elsewhere
might actually have a benign effect on the Russian regime.27 In the allegorical context
of Animal Farm, Napoleon's dictatorship would still seem to be a step forward from that
to Orwell's letter, the rule of "the ordinary stupid
of the human farmers?according
For animals outside the farm, it would provide a beacon of hope?so
long
capitalists."
as the truth about the betrayal taking place within was made plain to them. For it would
now become their task to build their own movement in a democratic spirit which might,
in Orwell's words, "exert a regenerative influence" on the corruption of the pigs' realm.
When Animal Farm finally appeared in the United States in 1946, Macdonald
wrote again to Orwell, this time to discuss the book: "most of the anti-Stalinist
intellectuals I know . . . don't seem to share my enthusiasm for Animal Farm.
They
claim that your parable means that revolution always ends badly for the underdog, hence
to hell with it and hail the status quo. My own reading of the book is that it is meant to
apply to Russia without making any larger statement about the philosophy of revolution.
None of the objectors have so far satisfied me when I raised this point; they admit
explicitly that is all you profess to do, but still insist that implicit is the broader point.
. . . Which view would you say comes closer to your intentions?"28
Orwell's reply deserves quoting in full: "Of course I intended it primarily as a
But I did mean it to have a wider application in so
satire on the Russian revolution.
26 Letter from Orwell to
Dwight Macdonald, 5 September 1944, Dwight Macdonald Papers,
Manuscripts and Archives, Yale University Library; copy in Orwell Archive, reproduced by kind
permission of the estate of the late Sonia Orwell and Martin Secker & Warburg. Orwell made a
similar point in a later letter to Frank Barber, in which he states: "My attention was first drawn
to this deliberate falsification of history by my experiences in the Spanish civil war. One can't
make too much noise about it while the man in the street identifies the cause of ?ocialism with the
USSR, but I believe one can make a perceptible difference by seeing that the true facts get into
print, even if it is only in some obscure place." (15 December 1944, Orwell Archive), reproduced
by kind permission of the estate of the late Sonia Orwell and Martin Secker & Warburg. At this
date, of course, Orwell was still waiting for Animal Farm to "get into print"; it might be that his
comment about "some obscure place" could refer to the book itself.
27 In another letter to Macdonald written at the time that Orwell was involved with his final
novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, he argues with an optimism which might surprise some of his critics:
"Communism will presently shed certain unfortunate characteristics such as bumping off its
opponents, and if Socialists join up with the CP they can persuade it into better ways" (2 May
1948, Dwight Macdonald Papers, Manuscripts and Archives, Yale University Library; copy in
Orwell Archive).
28
Letter from Dwight Macdonald to Orwell, 2 December 1946, Dwight Macdonald Papers,
Manuscripts and Archives, Yale University Library; copy in Orwell Archive. The argument to
which Macdonald objects is still a favorite with Orwell's critics on the Left: Stephen Sedley offers
it in his critique of Animal Farm (Sedley, op. cit.).
This content downloaded from 199.180.150.130 on Tue, 26 May 2015 18:31:50 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
V.C. LETEMENDIA
136
(violent conspiratorial revolution, led by
can
only lead to a change of masters. I meant the
people)
unconsciously
power-hungry
moral to be that revolutions only effect a radical improvement when the masses are alert
and know how to chuck out their leaders as soon as the latter have done their job. The
turning point of the story was supposed to be when the pigs kept the milk and apples for
If the other animals had had the sense to put their foot down
themselves (Kronstadt.)
have
it
would
been
all
then,
right. If people think I am defending the status quo, that is,
I think, because they have grown pessimistic and assume there is no alternative except
In the case of the Trotskyists, there is the added
capitalism.
dictatorship or laissez-faire
that
feel
for
events in the USSR up to about 1926 and have
they
responsible
complication
to assume that a sudden degeneration took place about that date, whereas I think the
much that I meant that that kind of revolution
whole
was foreseen by a few people, e.g. Bertrand
process was foreseeable?and
Russell?from
the very nature of the Bolshevik party. What I was trying to say was,
'You can't have a revolution unless you make it for yourself; there is no such thing as
a benevolent dictatorship.'"29
Yes, Animal Farm was intended to have a wider application than a satire upon
the Russian regime alone. Yes, it did indeed imply that the rule of the pigs was only "a
Yet it did not condemn to the same fate all revolutions, nor for a
change of masters."
moment suggest that Farmer Jones should be reinstated as a more benevolent dictator
than Napoleon.
According to Orwell's letter, the problem examined by Animal Farm
concerns the nature of revolution itself. Unless everyone makes the revolution for him
or herself without surrendering power to an elite, there will be little hope for freedom or
equality. A revolution in which violence and conspiracy become the tools most resorted
or unconsciously
to, one which is led by a consciously
power-hungry
group, will
inevitably betray its own principles.30
Failing to protest when the pigs kept the milk
and apples for themselves, the other animals surrendered what power they might have had
to pig leadership.
Had they been "alert and [known] how to chuck out their leaders"31
once the latter had fulfilled their task, the original spirit of Animal Farm might have been
The book itself, Orwell makes clear in his letter, was calling not for the end
salvaged.
of revolutionary
hopes, but for the beginning
of a new kind of personal responsibility
on
29 Letter from Orwell to
Dwight Macdonald, 5 December 1946, Dwight Macdonald Papers,
Manuscripts and Archives, Yale University Library; copy in Orwell Archive. It is interesting to
compare this statement with one made by Orwell in a commentary on Randall Swingler's Violence
published in Polemic, V (September-October, 1946), pp. 45-53: "I do not believe in the possibility
of benevolent dictatorship, nor, in the last analysis, in the honesty of those who defend dictatorship.
Of course, one develops and modifies one's views, but I have never fundamentally altered my
attitude towards the Soviet regime since I first began to pay attention to it some time in the
nineteen-twenties.
But so far from disappointing me, it has actually turned out somewhat better
than I would have predicted fifteen years ago" (p. 53).
30
This is not to argue that Orwell defended pacificism; his fighting in Spain and his urgent and
frequent attempts to join the army during the Second World War demonstrate his acceptance ofthe
need for violent combat in order to defend basic human liberties. Yet he was evidently aware of
the ease with which violence and conspiracy could be turned against the initial purpose which
seemed to justify them. In the text of Animal Farm, Boxer's sorrow at the necessity of violence
even in the struggle to overthrow human rule suggests a deeper wisdom than he is often given
credit for (see pp. 36-7).
31 Letter from Orwell to
Dwight Macdonald, 5 December 1946.
This content downloaded from 199.180.150.130 on Tue, 26 May 2015 18:31:50 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
REVOLUTION
ON ANIMAL
FARM
137
The most important barrier in the way of such a democratic
the part of revolutionaries.
Socialist revolution was the Soviet myth: if people outside still thought that that particular
form of revolution could succeed without betraying its goals, nothing new could be
The final note of Orwell's letter is optimistic: if people mistook his
accomplished.
message for a conservative one, it was precisely their problem. They had no confidence
In a sense, they
in the possibility of an alternative to either capitalism or dictatorship.
would be like those animals who, when forced into making a choice between a false set
the return of Farmer Jones or unquestioning obedience
of alternatives by Squealer?either
to consider the possibility of a third choice, a democratic
to the rule of the pigs?failed
For although Orwell was prepared to provide a fairly detailed
Socialist society.
explanation of his animal story for his friend Macdonald, his letter makes it quite evident
that the burden of understanding Animal Farm still lay with its reader.
Given the striking congruity between the text and Orwell's political commentary
about it, it would be rash to argue that he had lost control of his allegory in Animal
If it takes time and effort to expose the political intricacies behind the stark prose
of his animal fable, this must have been partly his intention: the lesson of democracy was
not an easy one to learn, and the next revolutionary move towards democratic Socialism
could surely not be allowed to repeat the mistakes of Old Major. Still, we may wonder
if the grain of hope provided by the final scene of the book is not, in this light, too
Yet if Orwell had presented an
insubstantial to feed a new generation of revolutionaries.
Farm.
easy political resolution to the horrors of totalitarianism, his warning would lose its force.
detached from the urgent need for personal
His reader could remain complacent,
involvement in political change so emphasized by the animal allegory. If he had designed
a political solution for the other beasts, furthermore, he could be accused of hypocrisy:
argument both inside and outside the text rested on the proposition that the
people had to make and retain control of the revolution themselves if they wanted it to
remain true to its goals. The deceit of the pigs was not the only failure on Animal Farm,
for the foolish simplicity of the other animals and, indeed, of Old Major's naive idea of
his whole
revolutionary change were as much to blame for the dictatorship which ensued. Orwell
had to warn his readers that their apathy and thoughtlessness
were as dangerous as blind
admiration for the Stalinist regime. Only when all members of society saw the essential
need for individual responsibility and honesty at the heart of any struggle for freedom and
equality could the basic goals of Socialism, as Orwell saw them, be approached more
Meanwhile, no single revolutionary act could create a perfect world, either for
closely.
the animals or for the humans whom they represent in the story. Acceptance of the
notion of class struggle could not lead to an instant transformation of society unless those
who would transform it accepted also the difficult burden of political power, both at the
time of and after the revolution.
While the most corrupting force on Animal Farm was
the deception practiced upon the other animals by the pigs, the greatest danger came from
the reluctance ofthe oppressed creatures to believe in an alternative between porcine and
human rule.
Yet it was in the affirmation of dignity, freedom, and equality tacitly
provided by the nobler qualities of the presumed lower animals that Orwell saw the
beginnings of such an alternative. So it is that, in the last moment of the book, he leaves
open the task of rebuilding the revolution on a wiser and more cautiously optimistic
foundation.
This content downloaded from 199.180.150.130 on Tue, 26 May 2015 18:31:50 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Why I Write
by George Orwell
From a very early age, perhaps the age of five or six, I knew that when I grew up I should
be a writer. Between the ages of about seventeen and twenty-four I tried to abandon this idea, but
I did so with the consciousness that I was outraging my true nature and that sooner or later I
should have to settle down and write books.
I was the middle child of three, but there was a gap of five years on either side, and I
barely saw my father before I was eight. For this and other reasons I was somewhat lonely, and I
soon developed disagreeable mannerisms which made me unpopular throughout my schooldays.
I had the lonely child's habit of making up stories and holding conversations with imaginary
persons, and I think from the very start my literary ambitions were mixed up with the feeling of
being isolated and undervalued. I knew that I had a facility with words and a power of facing
unpleasant facts, and I felt that this created a sort of private world in which I could get my own
back for my failure in everyday life. Nevertheless the volume of serious — i.e. seriously
intended — writing which I produced all through my childhood and boyhood would not amount
to half a dozen pages. I wrote my first poem at the age of four or five, my mother taking it down
to dictation. I cannot remember anything about it except that it was about a tiger and the tiger
had ‘chair-like teeth’ — a good enough phrase, but I fancy the poem was a plagiarism of Blake's
‘Tiger, Tiger’. At eleven, when the war or 1914-18 broke out, I wrote a patriotic poem which
was printed in the local newspaper, as was another, two years later, on the death of Kitchener.
From time to time, when I was a bit older, I wrote bad and usually unfinished ‘nature poems’ in
the Georgian style. I also attempted a short story which was a ghastly failure. That was the total
of the would-be serious work that I actually set down on paper during all those years.
However, throughout this time I did in a sense engage in literary activities. To begin with
there was the made-to-order stuff which I produced quickly, easily and without much pleasure to
myself. Apart from school work, I wrote vers d'occasion, semi-comic poems which I could turn
out at what now seems to me astonishing speed — at fourteen I wrote a whole rhyming play, in
imitation of Aristophanes, in about a week — and helped to edit a school magazines, both
printed and in manuscript. These magazines were the most pitiful burlesque stuff that you could
imagine, and I took far less trouble with them than I now would with the cheapest journalism.
But side by side with all this, for fifteen years or more, I was carrying out a literary exercise of a
quite different kind: this was the making up of a continuous ‘story’ about myself, a sort of diary
existing only in the mind. I believe this is a common habit of children and adolescents. As a very
small child I used to imagine that I was, say, Robin Hood, and picture myself as the hero of
thrilling adventures, but quite soon my ‘story’ ceased to be narcissistic in a crude way and
became more and more a mere description of what I was doing and the things I saw. For minutes
at a time this kind of thing would be running through my head: ‘He pushed the door open and
entered the room. A yellow beam of sunlight, filtering through the muslin curtains, slanted on to
the table, where a match-box, half-open, lay beside the inkpot. With his right hand in his pocket
he moved across to the window. Down in the street a tortoiseshell cat was chasing a dead leaf’,
etc. etc. This habit continued until I was about twenty-five, right through my non-literary years.
Although I had to search, and did search, for the right words, I seemed to be making this
descriptive effort almost against my will, under a kind of compulsion from outside. The ‘story’
1
must, I suppose, have reflected the styles of the various writers I admired at different ages, but so
far as I remember it always had the same meticulous descriptive quality.
When I was about sixteen I suddenly discovered the joy of mere words, i.e. the sounds
and associations of words. The lines from Paradise Lost —
So hee with difficulty and labour hard
Moved on: with difficulty and labour hee.
which do not now seem to me so very wonderful, sent shivers down my backbone; and the
spelling ‘hee’ for ‘he’ was an added pleasure. As for the need to describe things, I knew all about
it already. So it is clear what kind of books I wanted to write, in so far as I could be said to want
to write books at that time. I wanted to write enormous naturalistic novels with unhappy endings,
full of detailed descriptions and arresting similes, and also full of purple passages in which words
were used partly for the sake of their own sound. And in fact my first completed novel, Burmese
Days, which I wrote when I was thirty but projected much earlier, is rather that kind of book.
I give all this background information because I do not think one can assess a writer's
motives without knowing something of his early development. His subject matter will be
determined by the age he lives in — at least this is true in tumultuous, revolutionary ages like our
own — but before he ever begins to write he will have acquired an emotional attitude from
which he will never completely escape. It is his job, no doubt, to discipline his temperament and
avoid getting stuck at some immature stage, in some perverse mood; but if he escapes from his
early influences altogether, he will have killed his impulse to write. Putting aside the need to earn
a living, I think there are four great motives for writing, at any rate for writing prose. They exist
in different degrees in every writer, and in any one writer the proportions will vary from time to
time, according to the atmosphere in which he is living. They are:
(i) Sheer egoism. Desire to seem clever, to be talked about, to be remembered after death,
to get your own back on the grown-ups who snubbed you in childhood, etc., etc. It is humbug to
pretend this is not a motive, and a strong one. Writers share this characteristic with scientists,
artists, politicians, lawyers, soldiers, successful businessmen — in short, with the whole top crust
of humanity. The great mass of human beings are not acutely selfish. After the age of about
thirty they almost abandon the sense of being individuals at all — and live chiefly for others, or
are simply smothered under drudgery. But there is also the minority of gifted, willful people who
are determined to live their own lives to the end, and writers belong in this class. Serious writers,
I should say, are on the whole more vain and self-centered than journalists, though less interested
in money.
(ii) Aesthetic enthusiasm. Perception of beauty in the external world, or, on the other
hand, in words and their right arrangement. Pleasure in the impact of one sound on another, in
the firmness of good prose or the rhythm of a good story. Desire to share an experience which
one feels is valuable and ought not to be missed. The aesthetic motive is very feeble in a lot of
writers, but even a pamphleteer or writer of textbooks will have pet words and phrases which
appeal to him for non-utilitarian reasons; or he may feel strongly about typography, width of
margins, etc. Above the level of a railway guide, no book is quite free from aesthetic
considerations.
2
(iii) Historical impulse. Desire to see things as they are, to find out true facts and store
them up for the use of posterity.
(iv) Political purpose. — Using the word ‘political’ in the widest possible sense. Desire
to push the world in a certain direction, to alter other peoples’ idea of the kind of society that
they should strive after. Once again, no book is genuinely free from political bias. The opinion
that art should have nothing to do with politics is itself a political attitude.
It can be seen how these various impulses must war against one another, and how they
must fluctuate from person to person and from time to time. By nature — taking your ‘nature’ to
be the state you have attained when you are first adult — I am a person in whom the first three
motives would outweigh the fourth. In a peaceful age I might have written ornate or merely
descriptive books, and might have remained almost unaware of my political loyalties. As it is I
have been forced into becoming a sort of pamphleteer. First I spent five years in an unsuitable
profession (the Indian Imperial Police, in Burma), and then I underwent poverty and the sense of
failure. This increased my natural hatred of authority and made me for the first time fully aware
of the existence of the working classes, and the job in Burma had given me some understanding
of the nature of imperialism: but these experiences were not enough to give me an accurate
political orientation. Then came Hitler, the Spanish Civil War, etc. By the end of 1935 I had still
failed to reach a firm decision. I remember a little poem that I wrote at that date, expressing my
dilemma:
A happy vicar I might have been
Two hundred years ago
To preach upon eternal doom
And watch my walnuts grow;
But born, alas, in an evil time,
I missed that pleasant haven,
For the hair has grown on my upper lip
And the clergy are all clean-shaven.
And later still the times were good,
We were so easy to please,
We rocked our troubled thoughts to sleep
On the bosoms of the trees.
All ignorant we dared to own
The joys we now dissemble;
The greenfinch on the apple bough
Could make my enemies tremble.
But girl's bellies and apricots,
Roach in a shaded stream,
Horses, ducks in flight at dawn,
All these are a dream.
It is forbidden to dream again;
We maim our joys or hide them:
3
Horses are made of chromium steel
And little fat men shall ride them.
I am the worm who never turned,
The eunuch without a harem;
Between the priest and the commissar
I walk like Eugene Aram;
And the commissar is telling my fortune
While the radio plays,
But the priest has promised an Austin Seven,
For Duggie always pays.
I dreamt I dwelt in marble halls,
And woke to find it true;
I wasn't born for an age like this;
Was Smith? Was Jones? Were you?
The Spanish war and other events in 1936-37 turned the scale and thereafter I knew where I
stood. Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or
indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it. It seems to me
nonsense, in a period like our own, to think that one can avoid writing of such subjects. Everyone
writes of them in one guise or another. It is simply a question of which side one takes and what
approach one follows. And the more one is conscious of one's political bias, the more chance one
has of acting politically without sacrificing one's aesthetic and intellectual integrity.
What I have most wanted to do throughout the past ten years is to make political writing
into an art. My starting point is always a feeling of partisanship, a sense of injustice. When I sit
down to write a book, I do not say to myself, ‘I am going to produce a work of art’. I write it
because there is some lie that I want to expose, some fact to which I want to draw attention, and
my initial concern is to get a hearing. But I could not do the work of writing a book, or even a
long magazine article, if it were not also an aesthetic experience. Anyone who cares to examine
my work will see that even when it is downright propaganda it contains much that a full-time
politician would consider irrelevant. I am not able, and do not want, completely to abandon the
world view that I acquired in childhood. So long as I remain alive and well I shall continue to
feel strongly about prose style, to love the surface of the earth, and to take a pleasure in solid
objects and scraps of useless information. It is no use trying to suppress that side of myself. The
job is to reconcile my ingrained likes and dislikes with the essentially public, non-individual
activities that this age forces on all of us.
It is not easy. It raises problems of construction and of language, and it raises in a new
way the problem of truthfulness. Let me give just one example of the cruder kind of difficulty
that arises. My book about the Spanish civil war, Homage to Catalonia, is of course a frankly
political book, but in the main it is written with a certain detachment and regard for form. I did
try very hard in it to tell the whole truth without violating my literary instincts. But among other
things it contains a long chapter, full of newspaper quotations and the like, defending the
Trotskyists who were accused of plotting with Franco. Clearly such a chapter, which after a year
or two would lose its interest for any ordinary reader, must ruin the book. A critic whom I
4
respect read me a lecture about it. ‘Why did you put in all that stuff?’ he said. ‘You've turned
what might have been a good book into journalism.’ What he said was true, but I could not have
done otherwise. I happened to know, what very few people in England had been allowed to
know, that innocent men were being falsely accused. If I had not been angry about that I should
never have written the book.
In one form or another this problem comes up again. The problem of language is subtler
and would take too long to discuss. I will only say that of late years I have tried to write less
picturesquely and more exactly. In any case I find that by the time you have perfected any style
of writing, you have always outgrown it. Animal Farm was the first book in which I tried, with
full consciousness of what I was doing, to fuse political purpose and artistic purpose into one
whole. I have not written a novel for seven years, but I hope to write another fairly soon. It is
bound to be a failure, every book is a failure, but I do know with some clarity what kind of book
I want to write.
Looking back through the last page or two, I see that I have made it appear as though my
motives in writing were wholly public-spirited. I don't want to leave that as the final impression.
All writers are vain, selfish, and lazy, and at the very bottom of their motives there lies a
mystery. Writing a book is a horrible, exhausting struggle, like a long bout of some painful
illness. One would never undertake such a thing if one were not driven on by some demon whom
one can neither resist nor understand. For all one knows that demon is simply the same instinct
that makes a baby squall for attention. And yet it is also true that one can write nothing readable
unless one constantly struggles to efface one's own personality. Good prose is like a
windowpane. I cannot say with certainty which of my motives are the strongest, but I know
which of them deserve to be followed. And looking back through my work, I see that it is
invariably where I lacked a political purpose that I wrote lifeless books and was betrayed into
purple passages, sentences without meaning, decorative adjectives and humbug generally.
1946
THE END
George Orwell: ‘Why I Write’
First published: Gangrel. — GB, London. — summer 1946.
5