RoR: Forum

Post 0

Friday, May 25, 2007 - 7:58am

Link

Edit

Funny thing about this famous "quotation". Though it is a great thought, widely repeated and cited -- and one that I enthusiastically endorse -- I can find no confirmation that Orwell ever actually said this in these exact words.

Here's another, slightly more elegant rendition of the quotation:

"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."

Because one of our writers cited this quotation in a movie review in the June issue of The New Individualist, for the better part of a week prior to its publication last month I tried to fact-check its veracity. I can confirm that Orwell uttered quite similar sentiments in different, although less eloquent words. According to one source:

In his essay on Rudyard Kipling (1942), Orwell wrote: "[Kipling] sees clearly that men can only be highly civilized while other men, inevitably less civilised, are there to guard and feed them." . . . And in his "Notes on Nationalism" (1945) he wrote: "Those who 'abjure' violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf."

The last version seems the closest to the famous rendition that you cited, Ted. Clearly, Orwell believed the basic idea expressed here; but I cannot confirm that he ever expressed it in these exact words. Not as far as I've been able to determine, and I've even phoned around the country consulting Orwell scholars. (Incidentally, this is what reputable writers and editors are supposed to do, folks.)

If Orwell did utter those stirring words, it may have been during a wartime BBC broadcast on April 2, 1942. I saw one reference to the quotation citing that date, and I've been trying to get to someone who may have access to archived broadcast transcripts in order to put this question to rest. So far, no luck. The transcript of that broadcast, if it exists, may be in a published collection titled Orwell: The Lost Writings by W.J. West; but I don't have access to the book, and no real time to pursue this further.

Anyway, if Orwell didn't say this, he should have.

Because it's true.

Post 1

Friday, May 25, 2007 - 9:14am

Link

Edit

Thanks, Bob. Funny thing is, I doubted this quote for one reason, the use of the word people. Orwell preferred Anglo-saxon, and I would have expected him to use another term. I figured maybe he was using the p for alliteration with peacefully and sleep. The only other truly Latinate word is violence. (Because is a mixture.) For this reason, I posted the website from which I took the attribution.

I too am sure Orwell would have approved of the sentiment, and am interested to see that you mirrored my doubts.

Ted

Post 2

Friday, May 25, 2007 - 1:23pm

Link

Edit

Orwell made this comment during the Second World War; it was during his April 4th (1942) broadcast for the Eastern (India) section of the BBC.

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 5/26, 1:01pm)

Post 3

Friday, May 25, 2007 - 2:33pm

Link

Edit

George, can you cite a source for this? Preferably, a place where there is a transcript? I'd be grateful.

Post 4

Friday, May 25, 2007 - 5:01pm

Link

Edit

Thanks, George.

T

Post 5

Friday, May 25, 2007 - 7:06pm

Link

Edit

From here: http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/ctc/faq.htm

is this:

Rough Men

Did George Orwell ever say: "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf?" Or: "We sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm us?"

Not exactly. But he did make comments that were along similar lines. In his essay on Rudyard Kipling (1942), Orwell wrote: "[Kipling] sees clearly that men can only be highly civilized while other men, inevitably less civilised, are there to guard and feed them." (Thanks to Keith Ammann for this). And in his 'Notes on Nationalism' (1945) he wrote: "Those who "abjure" violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf." (Thanks to Parbety). Where the rough men crept in is anyone's guess.

Post 6

Friday, May 25, 2007 - 9:45pm

Link

Edit

I think it's a faulty quote. Many of the so-called "rough men" are just individuals that know better, like the hunters of old who knew the forests and wildlands, even if they themselves became less polite in the process. Thus making themselves seem supposedly rough, rather they themselves are simply less apt to consider the opinion of an ill informed outsider to such conditions and situations, as an artist takes no opinion of his/her work but his/her own as they too only know better for his/her-self. None the less, that's why I see this quotation is incomplete, and possibly dangerous. Does it imply that violent humans are guarding less violent humans? I don't think so, but for those with a Straussian view of the world would conceive it as a sanction toward naked violence in civilization, and supposedly necessary in the protection and security of a nation (which I believe it is not, because in the end, all humans want to live, it's a matter of explaining to most that violence is not the default route in doing so.). Ultimately, I prefer my own 'quote' in contrast to it, "it is the wise and deft that protect us from evil, either by stern words of fair warning or by a precise blow against the enemy."

-- Brede

Post 7

Saturday, May 26, 2007 - 8:26am

Link

Edit

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because gentle men think cleanly, clearly, and correctly about law and liberty. Our freedom isn't remotely dependent upon lawless tyrannical thugs.

Post 8

Saturday, May 26, 2007 - 10:46am

Link

Edit

bullshit

Post 9

Sunday, May 27, 2007 - 6:43pm

Link

Edit

Who sees what in which now?

Post 10

Sunday, May 27, 2007 - 8:54pm

Link

Edit

Is that Gilda Radner in a bathing suit?????
(Edited by robert malcom on 5/27, 8:54pm)

Post 11

Sunday, May 27, 2007 - 9:20pm

Link

Edit

Somehow, Zantanovich has segued from "rough men" to "tyrannical thugs." To what Harley is ejaculating, he remains unclear. I was alluding to the fact that one's response to a statement which should, within its context and with a little generosity, be clearly interpreted as in favor of supporting volunteer patriots instead as if it were advocating jackbootery is a Rorschach which tells more about him who responds in ire than it does about the dead man who uttered it. I was going to post a hand-mirror, but couldn't find one that didn't reflect a little girl.

Now that you mention it, I do see Radner...

Ted

Post 12

Monday, May 28, 2007 - 9:38am

Link

Edit

Ted It's hard to imagine that this was a random ink blot. Was it supposed to be? It's very graphic, to my eye, anyway. Now I've revealed my inner self to you.

Sam

(Edited by Sam Erica on 5/28, 9:44am)

Post 13

Monday, May 28, 2007 - 10:03am

Link

Edit

It was the first image that I found in google under Rorschach, so to that extant, it was random. The mind will tend to interpret any bilaterally symmetrical form with curves as biological, either as a body or a face. But I agree, Sam, this form seems to have a woman in white with black breasts and a phallus in black below her.

Ted