THE MYSTERIOUS CENSORSHIP

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18757, 10 January 1923, Page 6

THE MYSTERIOUS CENSORSHIP

STRANGE FEAR OP FRENCH AUTHORS. LOTUS CLASSICS BANNED. (From Ock Own Correspondent.) AUCKLAND, January 9. In an article regarding censorship of books in tho dominion the New Zealand Herald says: As far as it is known among representative importers of books and technical publications on biological subjects, there appears to be a mystery about the censorship. Who determines whether publications are or are not to be regarded as indecent documents and banned from sale and circulation, and who determines the composition of the “index expurgatorius?’’ There ri no definite answer. It appears, however, that tho system of book censorship is managed in conjunction with the importation of dainty fabrics and highly coloured flannelette. “All that we know about the ban on books,” said an Auckland importer of books and publications, “is that the right of prohibiting tho landing of books that have been banned is exercised by the Customs Department. We do not know with whom lies the responsibility of determining whether or not a book is indecent. It is not likely that such a responsibility would be thrust Upon the landing waiter at the wharf. No doubt there is a high official somewhere who is responsible for the ban on certain Ibboks, but our difficulty is to know exactly to-whom we should appeal when in doubt. This difficulty affects our business. It is part of our ordinary duty to study the merit of new books, and quite frequently W;6 are restrained from importing certain books because of the uncertainty as to their fate at the hands of the unknown censor. M o have been a very long time in business ns direct importers for the trade, and I have no hesitation in saying that tho New .Zealand demand has never shown any preference for pornographic stuff. Such rubbish has often had a big sale simply through attempted prohibition, which meant a free and undeserved advertisement.” The same importer produced a Customs Department list, of books and publications which had been submitted to the Comptroller’s office, and which were regarded as covered by prohibition. The list included four publications from one office, which has always hail a wide notoriety for lecherous allusions, though in the country of its production, and elsewhere, neither the authorities nor the people appear to be squeamish about the raw stories and jokes. One of the prohibited books is by Victoria Cross, and three more are separate works c f brilliant French authors. Of these one is by Daudet, another by Gautier, and tlie third by M. Brioux, whose book was dramatised and staged here and elsewhere ns “Damaged Goods,” without demoralising the sturdy New Zealanders. It i 3 the "lotus” series of French classics that has fallen foul of the prim authorities in New Zealand. The volumes banned are “Sapho,” by Daudet, and “Mdllo. de Mauphin,” by Gautier. These may be too warm for the glacial morality of the dominion, but London and Paris would laugh to learn that they are considered to be indecent, in progressive New Zealand. It is probable that the prejudice against Gautier's romance has been- accentuated by tho fact that one of the earlier translations circulated in New Zealand ivns done in lurid colours, and a prosecution followed. The new translation Is said by experts to be scholarly and charming. It. is mentioned b} r an Auckland bookteller that, while one of the two expurgated French novels which are now banned ■was magisterially condemned in Christchurch and n shipment confiscated and deit was not so in Auckland. The circulation of it does not appear to have niade Auckland any worse, and there is no visible proof that the prohibition of (he book has made Christchurch any better.