the hazards of indiscriminate rummaging in bookshops have introduced me to two volumes of verse which seem to me (though i am ordinarily very sceptical of those grandiose generalizations about racial and national characteristics, so beloved of a certain class of literary people) to illustrate very clearly some of the differences between the french and english mind. the first is a little book published some few months back and entitled les baisers.... the publisher says of it in one of those exquisitely literary puffs which are the glory of the paris book trade: “un volume de vers? non pas! simplement des baisers mis en vers, des baisers variés comme l’heure qui passe, inconstants comme l’amour lui-même.... baisers, baisers, c’est toute leur troublante musique qui chante dans ces rimes.” the other volume hails from the antipodes and is called songs of love and life. no publisher’s puff accompanies it; but a coloured picture on the dust-wrapper represents a nymph frantically clutching at a coy shepherd. a portrait of the authoress serves as a frontispiece. both books are erotic in character, 95and both are very indifferent in poetical quality. they are only interesting as illustrations, the more vivid because of their very second-rateness, of the two characteristic methods of approach, french and english, to the theme of physical passion.

the author of les baisers approaches his amorous experiences with the detached manner of a psychologist interested in the mental reactions of certain corporeal pleasures whose mechanism he has previously studied in his capacity of physiological observer. his attitude is the same as that of the writers of those comedies of manners which hold the stage in the theatres of the boulevards. it is dry, precise, matter-of-fact and almost scientific. the comedian of the boulevards does not concern himself with trying to find some sort of metaphysical justification for the raptures of physical passion, nor is he in any way a propagandist of sensuality. he is simply an analyst of facts, whose business it is to get all the wit that is possible out of an equivocal situation. similarly, the author of these poems is far too highly sophisticated to imagine that

every spirit as it is most pure,

and hath in it the more of heavenly light,

so it the fairer body doth procure

96to habit in, and it more fairly dight

with cheerful grace and amiable sight.

for of the soul the body form doth take;

for soul is form and doth the body make.

he does not try to make us believe that physical pleasures have a divine justification. neither has he any wish to “make us grovel, hand and foot in belial’s gripe.” he is merely engaged in remembering “des heures et des entretiens” which were extremely pleasant—hours which strike for every one, conversations and meetings which are taking place in all parts of the world and at every moment.

this attitude towards volupté is sufficiently old in france to have made possible the evolution of a very precise and definite vocabulary in which to describe its phenomena. this language is as exact as the technical jargon of a trade, and as elegant as the latin of petronius. it is a language of which we have no equivalent in our english literature. it is impossible in english to describe volupté elegantly; it is hardly possible to write of it without being gross. to begin with, we do not even possess a word equivalent to volupté. “voluptuousness” is feeble and almost meaningless; “pleasure” is hopelessly inadequate. from the first the english writer is at a loss; he cannot even 97name precisely the thing he proposes to describe and analyze. but for the most part he has not much use for such a language. his approach to the subject is not dispassionate and scientific, and he has no need for technicalities. the english amorist is inclined to approach the subject rapturously, passionately, philosophically—almost in any way that is not the wittily matter-of-fact french way.

in our rich australian songs of love and life we see the rapturous-philosophic approach reduced to something that is very nearly the absurd. overcome with the intensities of connubial bliss, the authoress feels it necessary to find a sort of justification for them by relating them in some way with the cosmos. god, we are told,

looking through his hills on you and me,

feeds heaven upon the flame of our desire.

or again:

our passions breathe their own wild harmony,

and pour out music at a clinging kiss.

sing on, o soul, our lyric of desire,

for god himself is in the melody.

meanwhile the author of les baisers, always elegantly terre-à-terre, formulates his 98more concrete desires in an alexandrine worthy of racine:

viens. je veux dégrafer moi-même ton corsage.

the desire to involve the cosmos in our emotions is by no means confined to the poetess of songs of love and life. in certain cases we are all apt to invoke the universe in an attempt to explain and account for emotions whose intensity seems almost inexplicable. this is particularly true of the emotions aroused in us by the contemplation of beauty. why we should feel so strongly when confronted with certain forms and colours, certain sounds, certain verbal suggestions of form and harmony—why the thing which we call beauty should move us at all—goodness only knows. in order to explain the phenomenon, poets have involved the universe in the matter, asserting that they are moved by the contemplation of physical beauty because it is the symbol of the divine. the intensities of physical passion have presented the same problem. ashamed of admitting that such feelings can have a purely sublunary cause, we affirm, like the australian poetess, that “god himself is in the melody.” that, we argue, can be the only explanation for the violence of the emotion. 99this view of the matter is particularly common in a country with fundamental puritanic traditions like england, where the dry, matter-of-fact attitude of the french seems almost shocking. the puritan feels bound to justify the facts of beauty and volupté. they must be in some way made moral before he can accept them. the french unpuritanic mind accepts the facts as they are tendered to it by experience, at their face value.