ENGLISH AND FRENCH

Evening Post, Volume CXXVII, Issue 88, 15 April 1939, Page 20

ENGLISH AND FRENCH

.TRADE IN BOOKS

POPULARITY OF OPPOSITES

;(Written for the "Evening Post" by

A.M.)

It is a commonplace that of the making of books there is no' end, and that no Englishman can hope to read more than a very small fraction of the worthwhile books written by his countrymen, to say nothing of the ocners. But his own country is only one of many. Every civilised country has its literature, and every such literature has its good books. The Englishman may Jneet that rather annoying type who says: "Of course, you've read 'The Superstition of Morality,' by Ivan Fzemysll." The said "Superstition of Morality" is probably printed in a limited English edition by an obscure publisher. What's to be done about it? I don't know, except to box on, as they say, and try to read what one can. Fortunately some of the best foreign literature is made accessible in English translation, and if one has time one can get glimpses into the minds of other nationalities. - There is, for example, a very important Russian work on.the philosophy of history. A friend of mine is reading it, and he tells me it's wonderful, but I gather it is not easy going. . Perhaps he'll lend it to me. I cannot help reflecting that there is so much of classical English history I haven't read. ONE COUNTRY TO ANOTHER. The mention of foreign books makes some of us wonder how much the literature of one country circulates in another, and especially what is the vogue of English books abroad. Interesting information about this crops up now and then in the papers—that Oscar Wilde was (I don't know what has happened since the new blood-and-iron regime came in) very popular in Germany; that in the same country within recent years /Edgar Wallace has had a large sale;, that Galsworthy, travelling in Central.Europe in his last years, saw his novels in all the bookstalls. There is an illuminating article in a recent "Listener" of this traffic between England and France, by Andre Maurois, who himself is one'of the most popular French writers in England. Maurois is the author of one of the wittiest and the most acute studies of the British temperament, and his books on Shelley and Disraeli have been widely read in Britain. It is true it has been said of his "Ariel" that it deals with everything about Shelley except his poetry, and I am told they say in Paris that he writes deliberately for the English market, but, his knowledge is exceptional and his conclusions about the popularity of English boaks in France are well worth noting. He begins with Shakespeare, the first English writer known to the reading Frenchman, and comes down to writers of the present generation, such as Virginia Woolf and D. H. Lawrence. FAVOURITES; IN FRANCE. What the Freiifcfe "iwitn their adherence to the dramatic unities, used to:, say about Shakespeare :-:is pretty well known, so it may surprise some to read that "Shakespeare is an integral part of the literary knowledge of even slightly cultured Frenchmen.'" Two later English classics have a large public in France—"Robinson Crusoe" and^ "Gulliver's Travels"—and it is interesting to note that the irony of Swift's literary fate is repeated in FranceHe is read largely by children. Poets suffer by translation; it is impossible, saysM. Maurpis, to put Keats, Shelley, or Swinburne into French, and therefore they are almost unknown to the generalJFrencfr public. Pope is not read at: all. Next to Shakespeare, Byron is the best-known English poet, as, to the surprise of English people, he is in other parts of the Continent. M. Maurois thinks it is the man rather than his work that has won French sympathy, but the general explanation of Byron's popularity abroad seems to be that he was a great force, and his message is easily understood. Walter Scott was very popular in the early part of the nineteenth century, and helped to form the art of-Victor Hugo and' Dumas, but is nearly forgotten by present-day. French youth. There is a similar neglect iri British countries. Dickens has many friends' in France. French children read him and "Marcel Proust acknowledged him 'as his master. Thackeray, however, so M. Maurois implies, has not beert read. Stevenson* Kipling, and Con* rad appeal to French youth because they satisfy the love of adventure. SOMETHING NEW WANTED. The reference to Thackeray seems surprising, for Thackeray's art is much more akin to the French genius in letters than that of Dickens. And this brings me to the most interesting point made by M. Maurois, that the French reader is inclined to look in English books for' qualities he does not find in his own.J This is well 'illustrated in the reception of. more recent authors.- "Kipling and Wells are as famous in Paris as they are in London," and- both are typically English. But the: two recent English writers who modelled themselves most assiduously oh French methods—Arnold Bennett and George Moore—do not interest the French public. Similarly Bernard Shaw, whose wit is of the kind that should appeal to France, has had only one real success', in France— ♦'St. Joan." I wonder how much the same tendency operates in England. It would1, account partly for the popularity of Tolstoi and other Russians, and of Flaubert and Anatole France. Arnold Bennett, though he was influenced by French writers, when asked to name the best twelve novels, chose them all from the Russian. Another point made by M. Maurois is that the French are readier than the English to face the realities of life. The' Englishman likes fantasy and extravagance, but net the Frenchman; it offends his love of logic. When M Maurois translated David Garnett's "Lady Into Fox," Frenchmen wrote and asked him if he had gone mad. A village doctor assured him that a woman could not be changed into a fox; it was phygiologically^mpossible. M 7 Maurois might have "added that the French cannot appreciate the "Alice" books. It is incomprehensible to a French professor that a mathematics don at Oxford should have written nonsense. It is true Wells's fantastic stories are appreciated, but Wells takes care to base them on a scientific explanation. A MODERN MST. The list of modern English authors read in France is surprisingly large. D H Lawrence and Aldous Huxley have had a public, for some years because they write with frankness about! ideas and feelings"to which Freudian theories have drawn attention. A large batch of women novelists are widely read— Virginia Woolf, Katherme M»nsfirld. Margaret Kennedy, Rosa-J

mund Lehmann, V. Sackville-West, and others. No one was more surprised than Rosamund Lehmann when "Dusty Answer" captured Paris; she kept assuring ;her Fra'nch admirers that it was -not. a great book. There is a Katherine Mansfield Society m France, arid members make an annual pilgrimage to her grave. And Edgar Wallace and Agatha Christie . (excuse me mentioning them together), and other writers of thrillers, have, says, M- Maurois, "become as much a part of the daily happiness of thousands of French people as they have over here." It is ah impressive list, which- shows that English cultural influences are stronger abroad than some would have us believe. I should like to see an article written on similar lines about French books in England. Among the classics there are "Candide" and the novels of Dumas and Victor Hugo, and, to a lesser degree, .those of Flaubert. In recent years there has been Anatole France, who now seems to be suffering a decline. Proust has an enthusiastic following, but it is limited. Among contemporary writers, leaving out of account purveyors of sensation, there are M. Maurois himself, Romain Rolland, Georges Duhamel, whose book on the art of letters was recently the subject of two articles ' in this column, Andre Malraux, Celine, and Colette, I put forward the opinion hesitatingly that there is v a good deal more English literature read in France than French in England. M. x Maurois thinks that among his countrymen political friendship has bred spiritual friendship. If so, there should be reciprocity.