CP 04012/en: Difference between revisions

From Corr-Proust Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "<ref name="n3"> Note 3 </ref>")
 
No edit summary
 
(8 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
<languages />
<languages />


=[http://www.corr-proust.org/letter/04012 Jacques Boulenger à Marcel Proust, <nowiki>le 29 décembre 1919</nowiki>]=  
=[http://www.corr-proust.org/letter/04012 Jacques Boulenger to Marcel Proust, <nowiki>29 December 1919</nowiki>]=  
<small>(Click on the link above to see this letter and its notes in the ''Corr-Proust'' digital edition, including all relevant hyperlinks.)</small>
<small>(Click on the link above to see this letter and its notes in the ''Corr-Proust'' digital edition, including all relevant hyperlinks.)</small>


<div lang="fr" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
29 December 1919
29 décembre 1919
</div>


<div lang="fr" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
22 rue Oudinot
22 rue Oudinot
</div>


<div lang="fr" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
Dear Sir,
Cher Monsieur,
</div>


<div lang="fr" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
I'm very happy with the opportunity<ref name="n1" /> which was offered to me to say (very badly: I blame myself) a little of the good that I find in your beautiful book. I have rarely read anything that has excited me more. If I had had a little more space, I would have better explained why. But, after all, what is the point of explaining, or wanting to “explain why”? I would be very concerned, in any case, if you did not take this objection that I make to your "composition" as I understand it myself.<ref name="n2" />. No doubt your book is wonderfully composed according to the laws of your own sensibility. But it seems to me that it is not according to those who presided over the composition of most of the works from “our country”. If you don't find that distinction very clear, please don't blame me, because I did a lot of boxing before dinner and I am dead tired.
je suis très content de l'occasion<ref name="n1" /> qui m'a été offerte de dire (très mal : je me le reproche) un peu du bien que je pense de votre beau livre. J'en ai rarement lu qui m'ait excité davantage. Si j'eusse disposé d'un peu plus de place, j'aurais mieux expliqué pourquoi. Mais, après tout, à quoi bon expliquer, ou vouloir « expliquer pourquoi » ? Je serais bien ennuyé, en tout cas, si vous ne preniez pas cette objection que je fais à votre « composition » comme je l'entends moi-même<ref name="n2" />. Sans doute, votre livre est composé à merveille selon les lois de votre propre sensibilité. Mais il me semble qu'il ne l'est pas selon celles qui ont présidé à la composition de la plupart des œuvres de « chez nous ». Si vous ne trouvez pas cette distinction très claire, ne m'en veuillez pas, je vous prie, car j'ai beaucoup boxé avant le dîner et je suis mort de fatigue.
</div>


<div lang="fr" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
I would be happy to hear that you are doing better and that your prize<ref name="n3" />, so justly deserved, has been officially notified to you, so officially that you can no longer have any doubt that you have received it, despite the incredible maneuvering of the publisher of M. Dorgelès<ref name="n4" />. Everyone remembers so well that you were granted what Jean de Pierrefeu announced to me, a few days ago, that he intended to discuss "the Marcel Proust case" in les Débats<ref name="n5" />. I will answer him in the l'Opinion<ref name="n6" />, if he realizes his project. Here I am, your champion, despite your already having one. I welcome it because À la recherche du temps perdu is certainly the most "original" book that has appeared, to my taste, in ten years. And I love it with all my heart. It is, moreover, one of those books that one cannot love without feeling a deep sympathy for their authors.
Je serais heureux d'apprendre que vous vous portez mieux et que votre prix<ref name="n3" />, si justement mérité, vous a été officiellement notifié, tellement officiellement que vous ne doutez plus de l'avoir eu, malgré la manœuvre inouïe de l'éditeur de M. Dorgelès<ref name="n4" />. Tout le monde se rappelle si bien qu'il vous a été accordé que Jean de Pierrefeu m'annonçait, il y a quelques jours, qu'il a l'intention de discuter « le cas Marcel Proust » dans les Débats<ref name="n5" />. Je lui répondrai dans l'Opinion<ref name="n6" />, s'il réalise son projet. Me voilà votre champion, malgré que vous en ayez. Je m'en félicite parce que À la recherche du temps perdu est certainement le livre le plus « original » qui ait paru, à mon goût, depuis X temps. Et je l'aime de tout mon cœur. C'est d'ailleurs un de ces livres qu'on ne saurait aimer sans éprouver une vive sympathie pour leurs auteurs.
</div>


<div lang="fr" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
Please find here the assurance, dear sir.
Veuillez en trouver ici l'assurance, cher Monsieur.
</div>


<div lang="fr" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
Jacques Boulenger
Jacques Boulenger
</div>


<div lang="fr" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
<ref name="n7" /> <ref name="n8" />
<ref name="n7" /> <ref name="n8" />
</div>


==Notes==
==Notes==
<references>
<references>


<ref name="n1"> Note 1 </ref>
<ref name="n1"> In his letter of [20 December 1919] (CP 03998; Kolb, XVIII, no. 318), Proust expresses his gratitude to Boulenger for the "wonderful" article, although "here and there unjust and false", published in L'Opinion the same day (12th year, no. 51, p. 610-612). This article was reprinted under the title "Marcel Proust — I" in the collection ...But Art is difficult! (Paris, Plon, 1st series, 1921-1922, p. 86-97). [PK, ChC, FP] </ref>


<ref name="n2"> Note 2 </ref>
<ref name="n2"> Also in his letter to Boulenger of [20 December 1919] (see note 1 above), Proust responds to the criticisms of the critic by asserting that he composed his work with “an inflexible although veiled rigor”. [PK, ChC] </ref>


<ref name="n3"> Note 3 </ref>
<ref name="n3"> L'Académie Goncourt had awarded Proust its prize for À l'ombre des jeunes filles en fleurs on 10 December 1919 by six votes out of ten, against the four received by Les Croix de bois by Roland Dorgelès (CP 03973; Kolb, XVIII, no. 293). [ChC] </ref>


<ref name="n4"> Note 4 </ref>
<ref name="n4"> The “maneuvering” of which Boulenger speaks, and also mentioned by Proust in his letter of [20 December 1919] (CP 03998; Kolb, XVIII, no. 318), consists of the distribution of misleading advertisements in the press, reproducing the headline: “Les Croix de bois: Prix Goncourt” in large print, followed by “4 votes out of 10” in small print (see for example Le Figaro of 18 December 1919, section “Bookstore”, p. 3). This commercial action by Albin Michel was to cost the publisher of Les Croix de Bois a fine of 2,000 francs in damages. [PK, ChC] </ref>


<ref name="n5"> Note 5 </ref>
<ref name="n5"> Pierrefeu's article, “Le Cas de M. Proust”, would appear in Le Journal des débats on 2nd and 3rd January 1920, p. 3. [FP] </ref>


<ref name="n6"> Note 6 </ref>
<ref name="n6"> Boulenger's response, "On M. Marcel  Proust", would appear in L'Opinion of 10 January 1920, p. 43-45: it was reprinted under the title “Marcel Proust — II” in ...But Art is difficult!, p. 97-106. [FP] </ref>


<ref name="n7"> Translation notes: </ref>  
<ref name="n7"> Translation notes: Raw translation for placement; need to clean up dates, etc.  On 20 Nov Marcelitaswann corrected one 'no.' </ref>  


<ref name="n8"> Contributors: </ref>
<ref name="n8"> Contributors: Marcelitaswann, Yorktaylors </ref>


</references>
</references>

Latest revision as of 06:59, 21 November 2022


Other languages:

Jacques Boulenger to Marcel Proust, 29 December 1919

(Click on the link above to see this letter and its notes in the Corr-Proust digital edition, including all relevant hyperlinks.)

29 December 1919

22 rue Oudinot

Dear Sir,

I'm very happy with the opportunity[1] which was offered to me to say (very badly: I blame myself) a little of the good that I find in your beautiful book. I have rarely read anything that has excited me more. If I had had a little more space, I would have better explained why. But, after all, what is the point of explaining, or wanting to “explain why”? I would be very concerned, in any case, if you did not take this objection that I make to your "composition" as I understand it myself.[2]. No doubt your book is wonderfully composed according to the laws of your own sensibility. But it seems to me that it is not according to those who presided over the composition of most of the works from “our country”. If you don't find that distinction very clear, please don't blame me, because I did a lot of boxing before dinner and I am dead tired.

I would be happy to hear that you are doing better and that your prize[3], so justly deserved, has been officially notified to you, so officially that you can no longer have any doubt that you have received it, despite the incredible maneuvering of the publisher of M. Dorgelès[4]. Everyone remembers so well that you were granted what Jean de Pierrefeu announced to me, a few days ago, that he intended to discuss "the Marcel Proust case" in les Débats[5]. I will answer him in the l'Opinion[6], if he realizes his project. Here I am, your champion, despite your already having one. I welcome it because À la recherche du temps perdu is certainly the most "original" book that has appeared, to my taste, in ten years. And I love it with all my heart. It is, moreover, one of those books that one cannot love without feeling a deep sympathy for their authors.

Please find here the assurance, dear sir.

Jacques Boulenger

[7] [8]

Notes

  1. ↑ In his letter of [20 December 1919] (CP 03998; Kolb, XVIII, no. 318), Proust expresses his gratitude to Boulenger for the "wonderful" article, although "here and there unjust and false", published in L'Opinion the same day (12th year, no. 51, p. 610-612). This article was reprinted under the title "Marcel Proust — I" in the collection ...But Art is difficult! (Paris, Plon, 1st series, 1921-1922, p. 86-97). [PK, ChC, FP]
  2. ↑ Also in his letter to Boulenger of [20 December 1919] (see note 1 above), Proust responds to the criticisms of the critic by asserting that he composed his work with “an inflexible although veiled rigor”. [PK, ChC]
  3. ↑ L'Académie Goncourt had awarded Proust its prize for À l'ombre des jeunes filles en fleurs on 10 December 1919 by six votes out of ten, against the four received by Les Croix de bois by Roland Dorgelès (CP 03973; Kolb, XVIII, no. 293). [ChC]
  4. ↑ The “maneuvering” of which Boulenger speaks, and also mentioned by Proust in his letter of [20 December 1919] (CP 03998; Kolb, XVIII, no. 318), consists of the distribution of misleading advertisements in the press, reproducing the headline: “Les Croix de bois: Prix Goncourt” in large print, followed by “4 votes out of 10” in small print (see for example Le Figaro of 18 December 1919, section “Bookstore”, p. 3). This commercial action by Albin Michel was to cost the publisher of Les Croix de Bois a fine of 2,000 francs in damages. [PK, ChC]
  5. ↑ Pierrefeu's article, “Le Cas de M. Proust”, would appear in Le Journal des débats on 2nd and 3rd January 1920, p. 3. [FP]
  6. ↑ Boulenger's response, "On M. Marcel Proust", would appear in L'Opinion of 10 January 1920, p. 43-45: it was reprinted under the title “Marcel Proust — II” in ...But Art is difficult!, p. 97-106. [FP]
  7. ↑ Translation notes: Raw translation for placement; need to clean up dates, etc. On 20 Nov Marcelitaswann corrected one 'no.'
  8. ↑ Contributors: Marcelitaswann, Yorktaylors
Retrieved from "https://corrproust.web.illinois.edu/wiki/index.php?title=CP_04012/en&oldid=10285"