by T. S. Eliot
Yours etc.,
T. S. Eliot1
1–The editor signed his name to this canny apology, printed beneath TSE’s letter: ‘We are extremely sorry that our contributor should have fallen into the mistake which Mr. Eliot specifies. We are quite sure that nothing except a tribute to Mr. Eliot’s high position as a critic and poet was intended in what our contributor wrote. But clearly he was misinformed, and we must express to Mr. Eliot our sincere regret that anything calculated to give him pain or annoyance should have appeared in our columns.’
TO Richard Cobden-Sanderson
TS Texas
1 December 1922
The Criterion, 9 Clarence Gate Gdns
Dear Cobden-Sanderson,
I rang you up today to tell you that I have the manuscript of two more articles for you. Had I been able I should have taken them with me and left them at your office myself, as I do not like to entrust them to the post. If your man is free and if it is desirable to save the time, the envelope will be here tomorrow morning if he calls for it any time after 10.30.
J. W. N. Sullivan has been unable to finish the article he promised me, for private reasons beyond his control. I shall therefore choose over the weekend something to take its place and will let you have it by Monday. I have several papers to choose from, and if there is a little space over I have a short thing of my own if necessary.
I have received from the Atlantic Literary Agency translation of a story by Pirandello which I think is quite good and which I wish to accept.1 Is it safe to assume that these people have the proper translation rights and publication rights in this country, or should I ask them for an explicit statement to this effect before accepting the story?
Yours ever,
T.S.E.
PS I return herewith a postcard in very bad French from a gentleman in Spain named Torre. Will you send him a copy and I will write and ask him to send me copies of any papers in which he notices the Criterion. We need not continue to send it to him if the results do not justify it.
Will you write to Lady R. (I can’t as she did not mention it to me) and say that I have no copies of my photograph, but a London photographer has a very good one which he will sell if she authorises the expense: and ask her (TACTFULLY NOT TRUCULENTLY)!! where she wants to use it and in what way?
I hope your legal difficulties are clearing themselves up.
See Liverpool Post for 30 November 1922. I will send you a copy.
1–See ‘The Shrine’, C. 1: 2 (Jan. 1923), by Luigi Pirandello (1867–1936), author of Six Characters in Search of an Author (1921).
TO Mary Hutchinson
MS Texas
Friday [1 December 1922]
9 Clarence Gate Gdns
Dear Mary,
I was very sorry not to see you. I was in a very deep sleep, and my secretary was coming at 8, and as my nights are seldom more than five hours I usually take a nap before dinner. Vivienne was delighted with the beautiful flowers and wants me to say that she will write to you, and is not averse to seeing you at the end of next week.
Affectionately
Tom
She was out at the hairdressers’ when you came, or she wd have rushed out in the hall to greet you.
TO Gilbert Seldes
CC Valerie Eliot
1 December 1922
[London]
My dear Mr Seldes,
I presume that the announcement of the Dial prize is now made public,1 as the December number must be out, but I think it is just as well that I should let you know that the award has leaked out and reached this country several weeks ago. I should have written to you before but my time has been engrossed by another matter of which I shall tell you. A friend of mine congratulated me a fortnight ago on having received the Dial prize, and when I expressed astonishment, he gave me the following information. He told me that Alfred Kreymborg2 had given him the information with the remark that it was confidential, but that several days later Kreymborg and John Gould Fletcher had lunch with him and had discussed the award quite openly, as an accomplished fact, in the presence of one or two other people, and without any mention of secrecy. I of course, on the understanding I had with you, had not mentioned the matter to anyone, and I am sure that it was not your desire that the award should be known before the public announcement was made in the Dial. I was therefore very much embarrassed on being told of it, and stated that I had only informal knowledge of the matter; and I asked my friend to mention it to no one else. But as there were several other people present on the occasion on which it was discussed, it is very likely now known to a good many.
I have no idea how Fletcher or Kreymborg came by the knowledge and had I had the time during the past fortnight I should have attempted to see one of them and investigate his sources. I understand that Kreymborg has now returned to New York, and I daresay that you will be in a better position to find out who betrayed your confidence than I am. It might have been, and for all I know may still be, very annoying in its consequences for both the Dial and myself.
I think it is always as well to trace rumours to their source. I enclose for your private and confidential information two cuttings from The Liverpool Post, one issuing a libellous falsehood about me, and the other retracting the statement. I also enclose a copy of a letter which I have addressed to The Liverpool Post. This matter has given me considerable trouble and I have taken a good deal of expensive legal advice. As I have neither the time nor the private means of conducting a protracted lawsuit, I shall not pursue the matter any farther. I have no knowledge of the source from which this story emanated, but it is obviously a malicious attack from some concealed enemy in London, not necessarily the writer of the paragraph, although it is bad enough to repeat such a story with no foundation. Please do not mention this matter to anyone, as I shall only communicate it gradually to certain persons. But I should be very much obliged if you could keep your eye open for the appearance of this or any similar libel in America. It is possible that the story may be copied by some American paper, and it is also possible that the same person may try to circulate it direct in America where I have not the same means for arresting its spread. I hope that you got my article in time for the December number;3 if not,
I am very sorry, and you must console yourself with the thought that it is the last time that you will be worried by my unpunctuality. I hope to send you something quite soon but the date of its publication will be at your convenience.
Yours always sincerely,
[T. S. E.]
1–The New York Times Book Review had announced the Dial award (to ‘Thomas Seymour Eliot’) on 26 Nov. 1922, 12; repr. in T. S. Eliot, ed. Grant, 135–6.
2–Alfred Kreymborg (1883–1966), poet, playwright and puppeteer.
3–TSE’s ‘London Letter’ on Marie Lloyd, repr. with revision in C. 1: 2, Jan. 1923 (SE).
TO Virginia Woolf
TS Berg
4 December 1922
The Criterion, 9 Clarence Gate Gdns
Dear Virginia,
I was on the point of writing to you over a fortnight ago when an incident occurred which has not left me leisure to write or even enough time to read the Daily Mail. I am enclosing two cuttings from the Liverpool Post one of the 16th November and the other of the 30th, and you will understand that in the time between these two cuttings my mind has been wholly occupied and my time consumed with taking legal advice and writing difficult letters. I have had to see my solicitors a number of times and have also taken advice from a K.C.1 The amount of worry and fatigue, to say nothing of the complete loss of time, involved in a thing like this is incalculable. The length of time between the original paragraph and the apology is explained by the fact that after writing to the Liverpool Post and waiting several days with no reply, I asked their London editor to wire to Liverpool, who replied that my letter had never been received. Some days were thus wasted, and I had to send the letter again and wait, presumably while the editor consulted his contributor and found
to his satisfaction that the libel had no foundation. I have been extremely anxious to avoid the necessity of a libel action, because of the expense, because of the protracted and immense strain which such action involves, and the utter impossibility of carrying on my own work at the same time. However, I do not consider that the reparation offered by the Liverpool Post is at all adequate considering the grossness of the accusation.
I have also received an anonymous letter, stating that the author has heard that a collection is being made for me and that although the author’s means are very small, no one has ever appealed to his charity in vain. He therefore enclosed four three-halfpenny stamps and subscribes himself ‘Your Wellwisher’.
I started to read Jacob’s Room2 before this nasty business began and am now starting again and I hope that I shall have time to read it thoroughly before some new attack is made which will require all the same business over again. It will not be a surprise to you to be told that it is a book which requires very careful reading – I should say compels very careful reading because there is a great deal of excitement in reading it. I can only say so far it seems to me that you have really accomplished what you set out to do in this book, and that you have freed yourself from any compromise between the traditional novel and your original gift. It seems to me that you have bridged a certain gap which existed between your other novels and the experimental prose of Monday or Tuesday and that you have made a remarkable success. But I hope that I shall have more interesting and more detailed observations to make after I consider that I have really mastered the book.
I should like to have the title3 of the story you are giving me in order that it may be mentioned in the list of contents of No. 3 which I am putting into No. 2. I should also be very glad to have the story itself as soon as you can let me have it; it could be set up at once and also it would be a very great help in enabling me to gauge how much space to allow to other contributors.
I hope that you and Leonard are both well and I hope that I may see you before very long.
I have not mentioned this business of the Liverpool Post to anyone except the few people I have consulted; please do not divulge it to anybody. I am very tired indeed at present, and I only hope that I may be able to get a little comparative rest for a few weeks.
Yours always,
Tom.
I rely upon neither you nor Leonard mentioning this Liverpool Post affair to anybody.
1–King’s Counsel, a senior barrister.
2–Her Monday or Tuesday (stories) had appeared the previous year.
3–VW, ‘In the Orchard’, C. 1: 3 (Apr. 1923), 243–5.
TO Thomas Lamb Eliot
TS Reed College
4 December 1922
9 Clarence Gate Gdns
Dear Uncle Tom,
I received from mother the day before yesterday a draft for the equivalent of $10 and a copy of a letter which you had written to her. I am writing first of all to thank you very warmly for the gift, and also to tell you how very much touched and pleased I am at the memorial of which it forms a part. All of father’s children had such deep admiration for him that I am sure they will all, like myself, be more pleased at reading your letter and thinking of the feelings which dictated it than they will be even at receiving the gift. It has always been a source of great regret to me that father’s benefactions to the city of St Louis should have been performed in such a modest way that his memory will not endure there longer than the lives of a few friends and his descendants. Your remembrance and your letter have I am sure given as much pleasure to me as they can have done to anybody.
I hope that you and all the family are in very good health and will be for many years to come; I hope that we may meet again perhaps in England and perhaps in America. You must come over and see us!
With very many thanks and with the keenest pleasure in your letter. Vivien sends her kind regards –
I am,
Always sincerely your nephew,
Tom.
TO Sydney Schiff
TS BL
4 December 1922
9 Clarence Gate Gdns
Dear Sydney,
Vivien has reported to me a conversation which she had today with Violet on the telephone. As I understand that you have now a positive attitude in the matter of the anonymous letter, I have decided to let you know about an affair which is indicated by the enclosed cuttings. Please keep these cuttings by you in order that you may refer to them if occasion arises.
This affair has caused me intense worry for a fortnight and has occupied the whole of my time. As you will see at once the question of taking legal proceedings has had to be gone into carefully and with no delay. All of my time has been spent in difficult and harassing correspondence and in consulting my legal advisers. Needless to say we do not consider this reparation adequate.
I have not yet revealed this affair to anyone except those people whom I have consulted legally. I must ask you not to mention it to anyone. If any conversation arises in your presence, as some day it no doubt will, you will have certain of the facts at your disposal and therefore no misunderstandings can occur when you are present.
Yours always,
Tom.
TO Richard Aldington
TS Texas
7 December 1922
9 Clarence Gate Gdns
Dear Richard,
You will not I know think I have neglected you. I should have written to you at the weekend to tell you how things were getting on but that one event has followed another so rapidly that I have had no time to write or to keep you in touch. I find myself very worn out with this affair and have had to spend today in bed.
I think that I have not written to you since receiving the first cutting from the Liverpool Post. I immediately took the matter up with my solicitor and also invoked the aid of Bruce Richmond who has been most extraordinarily kind and helpful. The letter that you see in the enclosed cutting is the combined result of his, my solicitor’s, a K.C.’s, and my own labours. After sending the letter I waited four days and having no response I went to the London office of the Liverpool Post and had them wire to Liverpool who replied that no letter had been received from me. It is most extraordinary as the letter was expressed and posted in my own hand. There was nothing to do but to send another copy which I did and received an acknowledgment. After two days more the letter which you see appeared. I have since written, again taking advice, to find out that the motive which they ascribe to their contributor is incompatible with such a story.
No sooner had the copy of the Liverpool Post arrived than I received an anonymous letter signed ‘Your Wellwisher’ stating that the writer had heard that a collection was being taken up for me and that although the writer’s means were small no claim on his charity was ever in vain and he therefore enclosed four postage stamps with the hope that this would help to strengthen my poetry until I became poet laureate!
These things have made a complete interruption in my work for several weeks as well as leaving me with a feeling of utter exhaustion. I will write again as soon as I have time, with so much work in arrears.
Yours ever
Tom.
FROM Richard Aldington
MS Valerie Eliot
7 December 1922
Malthouse Cottage, Padworth, Near Reading, Bucks.
Dear Tom,
The news in your letter fills me with indignation and I waste my imagination in wondering who could be so petty, so base, so disgusting as to send you that anonymous letter. I feel conscience-stricken at the part I have unwittingly played in making this possible, yet I do not know how to express to you my sorrow that all this should have happened to annoy you, from an impulse which was meant very differently. Truly, may you reflect that indiscreet friends are a hundred times more dangerous than open enemies. As to ‘Bel Esprit’, I cut off from its public manifestations months ago – but that doesn’t help you.
I wish I might console you for these déboires [annoyances]. If I sa
y they are the common lot of men of genius you will feel the implied compliment inadequate to cover the affront to your honour. If I declare that an anonymous insult is no insult, because it comes from a coward, that will not take away from your headache. And if I send you a few rags from the wardrobe of Zeno and Epicurus, I carry coals to Newcastle. Try to think though that persecution precedes its opposite, that venom exerts itself always against what is noblest and finest, and do not turn the fine edge of your mind by hacking with it.
Such thoughts probably come merely as an additional irritant, since they proceed from the tranquillity of one whose withers are unwrung. But let me repeat that I will sign and make public any announcement or disclaimer you like to dictate. Beyond this I do not know what I can propose; if there is anything, suggest it.
Meanwhile, I hope your rest will enable you to get this business out of your head and to regain tranquillity.
I am sending you later a copy of Jackson’s To-Day, which has a pleasant air of good-fellowship about it.
Yours as always
Richard.
TO Henry Eliot
TS Houghton
8 December 1922
9 Clarence Gate Gardens, N.W.1
Dear Henry,
It was kind of you to send your wire of congratulations although I gathered from your letter of the 11th November that you are more pleased with the Prize than with the work for which it is bestowed. I am sorry that you did not really like the poem. There is a good deal about it that I do not like myself, but I do not think that my own reasons for finding it short of what I want to do are reasons which are likely to occur to any of its critics. It is very difficult to anticipate what particular kind of misunderstanding will become current about anything one writes. I consider my Sweeney poems as serious as anything I have ever written, in fact much more serious as well as more mature than the early poems but I do not know anybody who agrees with me on this point except Vivien and William Butler Yeats who have both said much the same thing about them. You say you are trying to be honest and you ask me to give you the benefit of the doubt if you seem malicious. I confess that your attitude toward literature often seems to me unnecessarily complicated by the motives which you impute to the author, for example what you say about Saintsbury as well as what you say about myself. I think that you do not take things (even things such as my own which do not seem at all simple) simply enough, and I think that a simple person who is not worried as to whether they ought to like a thing or not and does not approach a thing with an attitude of suspicion frequently gets a truer impression than the more sophisticated who are constantly occupying their minds in dissecting art and the impressions it makes on them. But such simple sensitive natures, especially in this age of great chatter and great consumption of printed chatter, are very rare. I have a long letter to write to you on this and other subjects, but I must defer it for the present. I must write again about the Hydraulic Stock, because it is more important for me to choose the right moment for getting rid of it and it is for reasons which I will explain later most important that I should be able to convert it into something which would bring a certain if considerably diminished return.
