2712 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
Washington 7, D.C., U.S.A.

9 September 1951

Mr. Norman Douglas
Capri
Italy

Dear Mr. Douglas:

On returning from vacation I found your note of 16th July enclosing
your suggestions concerning my typescript: "Round Trip to Nepenthe",
and stating that you would soon return the typescript and also send me
a book.

The typescript has arrived, and so has the copy of the 1947 reprint
of *Late Harvest* containing some salty annotations in green ink in your
own hand. I need not tell you how much this has delighted me, nor how
grateful I am for your courtesy in sending me the book and in commenting
at such length on my article.

On one point you did not commit yourself, and I wish you would: Do
you consider the article worth publishing; is it good, bad or indifferent?

I realize perfectly that I have no right to impose further correspon-
dence on you, but your annotations do bring up some points which I should
like to comment on. Here they are: the references to "Page" and "Line"
of my article are as you gave them:

| Page | Line | Your own comments in quotes |
|---|---|---|
| 4 | 10 from top | "You think my Magnus pamphlet 'ill-tempered'? Too restrained, I call it, in view of the provocation. As to that nonsense about Aaron's Rod, see p. 52 of my Late Harvest." |

I read p. 52 (through 54) as you suggested, of *Late Harvest* and find
it to be the same as the section in "Life and Letters To-Day" which I
cited in the footnote as giving your objection to Aldington's statement.
Obviously you are the best authority on what prompted you to write the
pamphlet on Magnus, and this will be taken into account when, as and if
I revise and publish my article. Meanwhile, may I say:

1) On p. 52 of *Late Harvest* an explicit denial from you would have been more convincing to skeptical readers than the request that "the lady please step forward" or the inquiry whether "anyone else" can "divulge the origin of this legend..." In attempting to weigh the evidence in the affair, I was confronted with a direct statement from Aldington and a semi-playful parrying of the point from yourself.

2) "I am far too tough to care tuppence what anybody thinks or says

Notes on Mr. Douglas's comments, p. 2

or writes about me. To Hell with them!" (<u>Late Harvest</u>, p. 52). When I read this passage in L. & L. T. ("Life and Letters To-day" Jan. 1944) it seemed to me that an elaborate sarcasm you employ in the opening pages of the <u>Plea for Better Manners</u> in reference to Lawrence's portrait of you betokened a person who did, indeed, care tuppence and then some about someone who wrote insultingly about your looks, your dress, your manner, your 'manneress', etc. "meanness", etc. It was not obvious that the vitriolic language was caused by what DHL did to Magnus.

3) "I hope that I, who am entitled to half the proceeds, will in due course receive something on account." I could not reconcile this with your letter dated Florence, 26th December, 1921 in which you stated (and this was prior to the date of the <u>Plea for Better Manners</u> - 1924): "<u>Pocket all the cash yourself</u>" -- meaning that Lawrence was to keep the money (letter quoted on pp. 806-7 of <u>Phoenix</u>; the posthumous papers of D. H. Lawrence, edited by Edward D. McDonald, N.Y., Viking Press, 1936). Can you reconcile this for me, since it is vital to whatever statement I am to make about the matter in the revision of the article?

<table><thead><tr><th>Page</th><th>Line</th><th>Your comment in quotes</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>5</td><td>9 from bottom</td><td>"Austro-German? My mother's father was pure German (a Poellnitz, see <u>Almanac de Gotha</u>) and her mother was daughter of the Premier Baron of Scotland. There is not a drop of Austrian or English blood in our family."</td></tr></tbody></table>

Thank you for this correction, which will be duly noted in my revision.

It only remains for me to let you know by what authority I pulled this boner:

Frank Swinnerton wrote of you: "He is not solely a Scot, for his mother was an Austrian." (<u>The Georgian scene</u>, p. 162. N.Y.X, Farrar & Rinehart, 1934).

Richard Aldington wrote of you: "He is half Scot, half Austrian..." ("Errant Knight of Capri" in "Esquire" Dec. 1941, p. 74).

Richard Aldington also wrote of you: "...his mother was Austrian." (<u>Life for life's sake</u>, p.368. N.Y., Viking Press. 1941).

<table><thead><tr><th>Page</th><th>Line</th><th>Your comment in quotes</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>10</td><td>2 from top</td><td>"Two highest passes, not three. The Arlberg is not high. Also not "in a single day", which would have been impossible. Many days' interval between the two passes."</td></tr></tbody></table>

Again thank you for the correction; again my "authority":

"He had ridden one of those penny-farthing bicycles over the three highest passes of Europe in a day -- a prodigious feat of endurance."

Richard Aldington: <u>Life for life's sake</u>, p.369.

<table><thead><tr><th>Page</th><th>Line</th><th>Your comment in quotes</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>14</td><td>First footnote</td><td>"A pure invention. Please cut it out. The correct facts are given on p.198 of <u>Looking Back</u> (U.S.</td></tr></tbody></table>

Notes on Mr. Douglas's comments, p. 3

Page Line Your comment in quotes (continued)

14 First footnote Edition), and I can let you have a photo of the Under-Secretary of State's letter to me. This is one of some twenty often damaging misstatements in a well-meant article. If you want the truth, don't go to this kind of literature."

Yes, I should like very much to have a photograph of the Under-Secretary of State's letter to you, and would be glad to pay whatever the reproduction would cost.

Of course I shall remove footnote 24 from my article, except insofar as I may refer to the matter by way of refuting Aldington's statement, which was my authority ("Esquire" Dec. 1941, p.74). I presume you do not object to publicizing your denial -- or to the quotation of any other material in your two pages of comments.

After reading once again p.198 of my edition of *Looking back* I gather that I am correct in stating that it was the love affair that brought about the departure from Russia, but that the business about the secret police who "would doubtless have killed" you is, as you say, "A pure invention."

14 10 from top "Hasty? On the contrary, very deliberate."

Correction noted; the word "hasty" deleted.

17 14 from bottom "There are many patches of trees on Capri, not only one, and I never dreamt of putting a fence round any of them. I should like to put a fence here round somebody's imagination."

Correction noted; amendment will be made in revision of article.

Muriel Draper quotes you as saying (on Capri in 1906 when she first met you): "'Tea? No,' he said; 'but I will take you to see some trees, the only real trees there are left on this hellish little island. Come along.'" (p.104)

"Finally, the stony little path stopped before a gate in a high wooden fence. Douglas took a key out of his pocket, put it in a lock of the gate in front of us, turned it, opened the gate and pushed me in.

"'There,' he said. 'There are some trees -- the only ones on the island. You call all these orange stands trees? Go in there and look at these -- I own them. They, and the land they grow on, are the only things I own in the world...'" (p.106)

"...built a fence around the few remaining trees of Capri to watch them die." (p.108)

Source: Muriel Draper: *Music at midnight* (N.Y., Harper, 1929). The same material was used in an article she wrote for "Harper's Mag." for April 1928, pp.562-569 entitled "Buffetings in a South Wind."

Notes on Mr. Douglas's comments, p. 4

<table><thead><tr><th>Page</th><th>Line</th><th>Your comment in quotes</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>17</td><td>3 from bottom</td><td>"He calls me uncle, as others do, for fun."</td></tr></tbody></table>

Correction noted; am changing the wording accordingly.

<table><tbody><tr><td>21</td><td>2 from bottom</td><td>"All wrong. It never entered my head to sell books out-right in those days. I was all for the royalty-system, and my contract with Secker is now lying before me. He gave me an advance of Lst.100, after the book had been vainly hawked about among some twenty English and American publishers. I still receive royalties."</td></tr></tbody></table>

No comment, except to say that the world seems to be full of frustrated novelists. You already have the reference I used (in footnote 43).

<table><tbody><tr><td>22</td><td>7 from top</td><td>"'Didn't get one cent.' I should like to know why I am supposed to talk such rubbish."</td></tr></tbody></table>

Same comment as above, except that the footnote this time is 44.

<table><tbody><tr><td>23</td><td>11 from top</td><td>"Cerf. See Postscript to Introductory Note of the 1942 English Edition of <u>South Wind</u>. This is <u>important</u>. N.B. Opposite the title-page of this 1942 Edition may be read 'Reprinted 1944'. And the Postscript to Introductory Note is also dated 'April,1944'. Queer!"</td></tr></tbody></table>

I purchased what I took to be "the 1942 English Edition of *South Wind*." It contains an "Introductory Note" by the author, but it has no postscript to it. My copy, opposite the title-page, shows no dates: it bears merely the words "By the Same Author" followed by a listing of three books: *Siren land*, *Old Calabria*, and *Fountains in the sand*. Turning the title-page and looking at the verso (in the hope that this was what you meant when you said "Opposite the title-page") I found only, at the top, "Martin Secker & Warburg, Ltd. 22 Essex Street, London, W.C.2" and then, down at the middle of the page, this information: "First Published - 1917 Nineteenth Edition 1935 New Edition - 1942" (and a pencilled notation by myself: "Not listed in the <u>Cumulative Book Index</u> until January 1944", and referring to the 1942 edition. As you doubtless know, the <u>Cumulative Book Index</u>, a supplement to the <u>United States Catalog</u>, corresponds to the <u>English Catalogue of Books</u> and to Whitaker's publications). At the bottom of the page appears: "Printed in Great Britain by Bishop & Sons Ltd., Edinburgh." That is all that is printed on the verso. Opposite the verso begins the "Introductory Note", consisting of four numbered pages of small print, but bearing no postscript. The total number of pages in the book (apart from unnumbered leaves) is 448.

Thinking that reference to the 1946 edition by the same publishers might throw some light on this, I consulted that, but this did not help (it just reminded me, when I glanced over the Introductory Letter, that I agree thoroughly that the loss of the passage that ended the original book is a matter for bitter regret).

I shall consult the Rare Book Room in the Library of Congress, as I am

Notes on Mr. Douglas's comments, p. 5

Page Line

23 11 from
top

(my comments -- continued)

quite curious to see the passage of which you say: "This is _important_."

Just why my copy of the 1942 edition of _South wind_, which I took the trouble to import during the war, should lack the Postscript to which you refer is more than I can say. One reason why I make it a practice at the University Library to import English editions as well as to purchase American editions of works published in both countries is that, with fair frequency, one will find an "Author's Note" or (as in this case) a "Postscript" missing from the American edition, but present in the English one. However, this is the first instance in my experience of an English edition _exported_ without a passage which, apparently, the "domestic" edition contains.

While on this subject, let me say that the copy of _Late Harvest_ which I purchased (importing it, of course, since it was not published in this country at all) bears on the verso the information "First published 1946" and contains no "Author's Note". The copy you sent me bears on the verso the statement: "First published 1946. Reprinted 1947," and contains an "Author's Note" on pp.vii-viii(which, in my edition, appeared as an un-numbered page, blank on both sides except for the word "Retrospective" following p.vi). What I take exception to here is the publisher's statement in the _20_ copy you sent me: "Reprinted 1947". The book is _not_ a reprint. It bears a substantial addition of material by the author -- and that is sufficient to require the designation "enlarged edition" or "revised edition" or whatever phrase may be called for. Ordinarily, publishers cause all sorts of trouble by issuing _reprints_ as "new editions" -- I had some things to say on this subject which the Editor of "The Bookseller" (London) was kind enough to print a couple of years ago in the form of a "letter to the Editor".

In conclusion, referring to the verso in my own 1942 edition of _South wind_, I wonder what Secker means by "Nineteenth Edition". Have there actually been 19 editions of _South wind_? If so, they have escaped not only my scrutiny but also that of the editors of the CBI XXXXXX "out here" and the ECB "over there".

24 5 from
top

"As Mr. Douglas seems to think'. Where do I seem to think? I wish people would not make (and print) bad guesses as to what I am thinking."

You "seem to think" on p.2 of your _Introductory Note_ to the 1942 Secker and Warburg ed. of _South wind_ where you state: "...at a time when the book was still advertised as a best seller and some 300,000 copies -- if I am correctly informed -- had already been bought." This statement of yours was published in 1942; Mr. Howard C. Lewis' letter, containing the offending remark, appeared in 1943 (in the June 24th issue of the London "Bookseller"). I don't know where Mr. Lewis got his information, but it could have been from your 1942 statement.

Notes on Mr. Douglas's comments, p. 6

| Page | Line | Your comment in quotes |  |
|---|---|---|---|
| 28 | 9 from top | "For Together read Alone." |  |
|  |  | Of course. Thank you. |  |
| 33 | 2 from top | "A failure? So I thought, but was wrong. The facts are given on p.VIII of Willie King's Introductory Letter to the 1946 edition of South Wind." |  |

I slipped up badly here. The correction should have been made before
the mss. was mailed to you. Again thanks.

34 3 from top "Bitter? Not bitter enough. A slanderer like Lawrence deserves all he can get."

All right: for "bitter" read "intensely bitter". Or possibly you would prefer "justifiably bitter"? That, however, would imply a greater knowledge of the quarrel than at present I possess. I hope to have more knowledge than I now have when you (if you care to) tell me something about the letter cited from Phoenix on p.2 of this letter. Not that it's any of my dam business.

34 8 from top "accepted a gift etc.' I have disposed of this and other twaddle on p.52 of Late Harvest."

No comment: covered above.

35 6 from bottom "Financial failure'. 670 copies sold at a guinea -- or was it thirty shillings? -- apiece is not what I call a failure. And I forget how much the publisher subsequently paid for the commercial Edition. By this time I had realized the weak points of the royalty-system."

Illustrates the danger of trusting to impressions. My impression in
this case arose partly from <u>inherently</u> unpopular nature of the text itself
(e.g. cf. your comment pp.354-5 of <u>Looking back</u>: "It lacks the admixture
of saccharine which is prescribed by the taste of today..."), and from
the fact that for several years second-hand booklists were crowded with
copies offered at a fraction of the original price "in original state",
i.e. publishers' overstock.

38 11 from top "The good offices of Orioli". Sorry to spoil a fairy-tale. Orioli was not in Florence at that time."

Aldington trouble again. On p.376 of his *Life for life's sake* the
whole story is there in black and white, even down to who was present at
the time it happened (Lawrence, Frieda, Pino, yourself and -- by possible
inference -- Aldington himself). What the devil *did* happen - if anything?