European Literature [antikvár]

EDITORIAL FOREWORD The English have never been as insular in their reading habits as occasional critics have supposed. Today, more English readers than ever, on both sides of the Atlantic, have some contact with the literature of the European continent. There is a wide public for the increasingly abundant translations of European classics, and many people follow the work of contemporary authors as soon as it is translated, often within weeks of its original publication abroad. Apart from those who enjoy reading at leisure whatever they find attractive, there are others who pursue courses of more systematic reading, usually in a foreign language, and for some academic purpose. And in schools and universities there are also many students, besides those concerned directly with literary history and criticism, who need sometimes to look up basic information about an author or a text. The growing interest in Europe as a supranational community may find in literature the most accessible aspect of a common cultural heritage; the more frequent the occasions when it is discussed, the more frequent the questions and references to which such discussion gives rise. This book is meant to provide basic ' answers to the more obvious questions about European literature since the fifth ' century a.d. i Which are the more important European authors? Which are their main works? What, briefly, are these about? What editions and translations are available? What . critical commentaries are to be recommended ? f' ¦ Thes^are the questions which the contributors to this volume have had in mind. ? ¦ They have only included a few details about each author's life, in order to place him and to throw light on his work. Minor works have often not been mentioned and consequently some authors have received very brief notices. Nevertheless, prolific ^^ authors have inevitably tended to claim the most space, and it should be said that | the length of an article should not be understood as any exact indication of a writer's | excellence. In the case of some philosophers, the biggest part of their works has not t been described at all, but only an aspect of it which happened to be important for j'l literary reasons. The same is true of several historians, a class of writers not generally ? included, except where tradition has granted them some degree of literary standing. ' But it is to be admitted that the convention which acknowledges Michelet and Taine, but not Ranke or Burckhardt, is somewhat arbitrary. Indeed, all the borderline decisions to include or omit an author have seemed arbitrary. Does Ortega's writing really have more connexions with literature than Gentile's, or Keyserling's more than Berdyayev's? Any comparison tends to look odious when it results in the exclusion of an author, the more so when judgement has to be made on purely literary grounds - grounds which are notoriously liable to the most impure subjective error. This liability has been particularly great where there has been such fierce international competition for the available space. » I i ¦M