Yesterday I sent you a piece from “Cuneus.”1 I’m afraid it may step on a few political toes. Maybe it could be given to a tame pol.2 I also hear that the Saarbrückener Zeitung came up with a couple more attacks on the 19th or 20th last. Send copies, if possible. If Matz comes back for more, following the mild cuffing I gave him, then I’ll beat him up good and proper, for all my manifest disgust with these roaches.
To me the Frankfurter Zeitung isn’t so much a springboard, more a sort of spring mattress, of the kind we used to see in variety shows, with zebra-striped ticking. It’s my only home soil, and must do for me as fatherland and exchequer. All I want now is time to write my books. Here enclosed — to be returned at some convenient time — is an offer from Fischer. He has also asked Annette Kolb — who wrote me a lovely letter — to ask about my availability. Nor is he the only one. The Verband der Bücherfreunde has been in touch. I won a humiliating victory over Zsolnay. He wrote me an abject letter of apology. In the event of a good offer, I’ll swap Wolff for Fischer, if less good, I’ll just play them off against each other. My stay in Paris is very important just now, because I can follow up the translation, and make connections with the literary establishment here. Unfortunately, my French isn’t quite good enough. The pax with S.3 is opportune because otherwise he could have been a (small) hindrance here. Diplomacy. Don’t you hate it. It’s as much trouble as 3 books.
[. .]
Cottage or apartment in the environs of Paris as cheap (or dear) as near Frankfurt. Only made expensive by travel (40 marks per person, 60 for wagon-lit, 80 for luxury train via Cologne). But why not. Polish newspapers available here for your mother-in-law. (Convey regards, please.) Air is best in May. Possible trips to the Alps, etc. My wife is asking for precise details of Meudon. I’ll let you know. Best New Year wishes from us both.
Kracauer demanded his chapter back. What’s he doing? Best regards.
Health, luck, blessing,
Your old
Joseph Roth
Am writing generation novel.
Have a thick notebook with yellow paper set aside for you.
1. Cuneus: Latin for “wedge,” and Roth’s pseudonym for the politically delicate series on Lorraine and the Saarland.
2. tame poclass="underline" i.e., a colleague from the paper’s political section who will vet it permissively?
3. S.: Sieburg.
59. To Félix Bertaux
Paris, 9 January [1928]
Esteemed Mr. Félix Bertaux,
I was thinking for a long time about your inspired translation1 of “Neue Sachlichkeit,” and came to the conclusion that “l’ordre froid” is far too good for that ugly label, which seems to have reached German literature by way of German painting. It exalts all the productions that sailed under that flag to a level they don’t deserve. The French reader will be inclined to think more of that objectivity than he should, simply by dint of your splendid term. If I were you therefore, I would note that the translation (“l’ordre froid”) is better than the original (Neue Sachlichkeit), and refers not to the achievement but the orientation of most of the so-called Objectives.
Please excuse the advice, and the following too. You will probably be unable to avoid connecting the absence of a truly German novel (in the French sense) with the absence of a truly German society (in the French sense). In this context, can I draw your attention to the newest novel by Annette Kolb (published 1927, chez S. Fischer)?2 It describes nothing less than the last remnants of a cultivated German society. It’s exemplary, less a novel than a symptom, last sign of life of people who no longer exist.
Enclosed, you will find the review by Franz Blei,3 not so much for itself, as for the way it stands in for very many other reviews.
Once again, thank you for your great, humane, and just sympathy.
Ever your
Joseph Roth
1. translation: in Bertaux’s survey, Panorama de la littérature allemande contemporaine.
2. The novel in question is Daphne Herbst (Berlin: S. Fischer, 1928).
3. Franz Blei (1871 Vienna–1942 New York), short story writer, essayist, humorist, editor, and translator of Gide and Claudel.
60. To Félix Bertaux
Monday [early January 1928]
Esteemed Mr. Bertaux,
just got your card! Of course. I’ll be honored and delighted to read your survey,1 even if I’m quite sure you won’t have perpetrated any solecisms. You certainly have finer instincts than German literature professors, so even if you happen not to know something, you’ll be correctly oriented.
I’ll give you my next address in Germany — or is there any chance you can get me the proofs by Wednesday?
I enjoyed myself very much at your house yesterday, and hope to be in a position to invite you to a home of mine one day, if royalties should permit me ever to have one.
Please convey my regards to your wife. I remain your grateful
Joseph Roth
1. Félix Bertaux’s Panorama.
61. To Benno Reifenberg
Kaiserhof, Essen
17 January 1928
Esteemed Mr. Reifenberg,
I got your forwarded letter, thank you! I’ll answer the reader’s letter after this. If it’s physically possible, I’ll try and do corrections and cuts myself. Maybe on the galleys. It’ll save you the trouble, and the awkward entry into a different sentence rhythm. The question mark you allowed to stand is part of the signals of our correspondence: a private code emerging from our conversations — don’t be surprised if others don’t get it. Why didn’t Dr. Feiler go over this feuilleton? Why give it to Dr. Drill1—and for how much longer does the political desk (i.e., not the editorial conference) intend to supervise our feuilletons? If it’s to be a form of censorship, then let it be according to the views of the whole board, not the more or less reactionary — or revolutionary — views of a single politician, whom as an individual I will not allow the right to represent our age better than I do. (I’m not referring to Dr. Drill, whom, as you know, I rate very highly.) I’m going to raise this matter of censorship — if it’s agreeable to you. Or I will make the perfectly reasonable demand that the political correspondents submit their pieces to me for censorship. This absurd supervision is wholly unjustified. We represent the paper no better and no worse than the leader writers.
I enclose something for the books pages, very topical, highly controversial. If you have any doubts about it, feel free to add an editorial preface.
I am writing two more articles for the books pages, namely: Gide and the Congo2 (in a fortnight) and on Benda’s Trahison des Clercs.3 Linguistic analysis in Frankfurt. Could you send me the money for the three articles, so that I get it on or before 20/21. Because on the 23rd I will have to be in Frankfurt again, but I need money here, before that. If so, please wire me that it’s coming, so I’ll be sure to be at home.