The second point is more difficult: as I have (I hope still) relations in the U.S.S.R., & as I visited innocent litterateurs there, I
have always followed the policy of publishing nothing about the Sov. Union directly under my own name, because that might easily lead to something frightful being done to people I talked to there. I needn't enlarge on that prospect. Hence if I am to publish anything about Uncle Joe [Stalin] it must be (a) anonymously or under a pseudonym (b) the identity of the author must be really, & not as in George Kennan's case, only notionally secret. I invented the name of John O. Utis for the 'Artificial Dialectic'. Outis means 'nobody' in Greek & you will recall elaborate puns about this in the Odyssey where Odysseus deceives the one-eyed ogre by this means. Also it sounds vaguely like a name which a Lithuanian D.P., let us say, or a Czech or Slovene cd have: & so, plausible for the author of such a piece. Ascoli & possibly a confidential typist may know the secret. Nobody else; & he will certainly be honourable & lock it in his breast, whatever his feelings about where & how the piece is published. Do you ever publish anonymous pieces? if not, I shall, of course, fully understand: since lives depend upon it, I wd obviously rather suppress altogether than compromise on this - I really have no choice. There is only one other person to whom I showed it - Nicholas Nabokov - who has begged it for his 'Preuves' - some Paris anti-Soviet institution. If you do want it, I shd be grateful if you cd give me permission to have it translated, after U.S. publication, into German (The Monat) & French etc.: I shall, of course, never read it aloud myself to anybody: my authorship must remain a secret from as many as possible: but I may let Nabokov have a copy, provided he promises formally not to have it published anywhere (until you reply) but only uses it for informal discussion as a letter from an unknown source, offering various loose ideas. I apologise for this rigmarole - these queer conditions - the recital of the past etc. I hope you'll like it, but I've no opinion, as you know, of anything I write: & if you'ld rather have nothing to do with the piece, pray forget this letter.
Armstrong replies on 30 August. He feels that 'people will see through the disguise', but agrees to the pseudonymity. Shortly thereafter a colleague reads the piece, finding its style difficult and its conclusion unsatisfactory. Armstrong makes these points, tactfully, to Berlin on 10 September, and Berlin (who is in Maine) replies two days later:
You let me off much too gently, of course. Well do I know that, like my unintelligible speech, my prose, if such it can be called, is an opaque mass of hideously under-punctuated words, clumsy, repetitive, overgrown, enveloping the reader like an avalanche. Consequently, of course I shall, as last time, accept your emendations with gratitude for the labour they inevitably cost you. You are the best, most scrupulous, generous & tactful editor in the world: & I shall always, if occasion arises, be prepared to submit to civilising processes - judicious pruning you kindly call it - at your hands [.. .] Although you are no doubt right about impossibility of real concealment, there is, I think, from the point of view of repercussions on my acquaintances & relations in the U.S.S.R., a difference between suspected authorship & blatant paternity. Hence I think it best to stick to a pseudonym. If you think O. Utis (no "John") is silly - I am attracted to it rather - I don't mind anything else, provided you & your staff really do refuse to divulge & guard the secret sacredly. So that I am [open] to suggestions. [. . .]
I don't know whether 'Artificial Dialectic' is at all a good title, or 'Synthetic Dialectic' either: if you cd think of something simpler & more direct - I'd be very grateful. [. . .]
I have just had a line from Ascoli wanting to see the piece again - but he shan't - I'll deal with that & it needn't concern you at all.
Armstrong (17 September) thanks Berlin for his 'untruthful flattery', and shortly afterwards sends an edited script, explaining in more detail the case for revision of the conclusion. After some desperate cables from Armstrong, Berlin writes (30 October):
Do forgive me for my long delay, but Mr Utis has been far from well and overworked. He will be in New York next Saturday, but too briefly - for a mere 4 to 5 hours - to be of use to anyone. But he will, under my firm pressure, complete his task, I think, within the next fortnight and you shall have the result as soon as possible. He is displaying a curious aversion to social life at present, but it is hoped that the completion of some, at any rate, of his labours will restore his taste for pleasure, at any rate by mid-December. I shall certainly keep you posted about the movement of this highly unsatisfactory figure.
All this was composed before your telegram - the technique of your communication has by now, I perceive, been established in a
firm and not unfamiliar pattern of the patient, long-suffering, but understanding editor dealing with an exceptionally irritating and unbusinesslike author who does, nevertheless, in the end respond, apologise, and produce, although after delays both maddening and unnecessary, which only the most great-hearted editor would forgive. But in this case, I should like to place the following considerations before you:
Mr Utis would like a little time in which to incorporate ideas induced in him by casual conversations with intelligent persons - e.g. that the rhythm of Soviet scientific theories is induced by extra- scientific considerations - this being a point useful for consumption by local scientists of an anti-anti-Soviet cast of mind. Also, he feels the need to say something, however gently, to deflate the optimism, which surely springs from the heart rather than the head, of those who like Mr X[12] argue that some things are too bad to last, and that enough dishonour must destroy even the worst thieves; Mr Utis does not believe in inner corrosion, and this, pessimistic as it may seem, seems to be worth saying; he is prepared to withdraw the story about the waiter-steward as being perhaps in dubious taste unless it could fitly appear as an epigraph to the whole, in which form he will re-submit it, but will not have the faintest objection if it is eliminated even in this briefer and more mythological guise;[13]
It would surely be most advisable for the piece to appear after Mr Utis's friend is out of the country and is not put to unnecessary embarrassment or prevarication. He intends to sail back to his monastery towards the end of March or the beginning of April;
A plus B would have the added advantage of making it possible for the incorporation of any new evidence which may crop up in the intermediate period. However, Mr Utis sticks to his original resolution; the manuscript shall be in the hands of the editor within two or three weeks in a completed form ready to print as it stands. Any additions or alterations - which at this stage are neither likely nor unlikely - could be embedded by mutual consent only if there was something really tempting. Mr Utis's name is O. Utis.
I hope this is not too much for you - do not, I beg you, give me up as altogether beyond the bounds of sweet reasonableness and accommodation. I really think that the arrangement proposed is the best all round.