Historical Dictionary of French Literature by John Flower (review)

This is a puzzling but not uninteresting volume, one that, on first glance, appears simply to be a reference work, something that sits on the shelf waiting to be of service for quick information about dates, movements, and who wrote what. This punctual use is certainly possible, and indeed it is likely that most of those who come into contact with the work will take such a fragmentary view, turning directly to the individual entries in the main alphabetically organized section, such as those on individual writers, including Jean Froissart, Marie N’Diaye, Max Jacob, and Marie de France; on literary movements or styles such as Petrarchism, Decadence, Dadaism, and the Philosophes and Classicism (but not the Précieuses or the Baroque); on genres such as Detective Novel, Bande Dessinée, Gay Writing, and Blasons (but not Comedy, Essay, Sonnet, or Tragedy); on specific publications such as La Peste and La Princesse de Clèves (but not Phèdre), the journals Esprit and La Nouvelle Revue française (but not the Mercure galant); on various institutions such as the Comité national des écrivains, the French Communist Party, and Éditions Grasset; certain historical events such as the Commune, the Algerian War, and May 1968 (but not the Fronde). On closer inspection, however, John Flower’s work is more of the nature of an essay on literature and the literary life in France over a millennium. This more interesting aspect appears, in part, from the choice of articles — what is included and what is not — and also, in part, from the simple quantitative assessment of importance. For instance, Pierre Corneille gets nine lines, while Crébillon fils merits sixty-six. Choderlos de Laclos deserves thirty-eight (there is no entry for the Liaisons dangereuses). Drieu La Rochelle appears vastly more important with his one hundred and fifty-five lines. Among astounding absences are Pascal, Montaigne, and Madeleine de Scudéry. There are no entries for Le Cid, Phèdre, or Tartuffe. Maître Pathelin also fails to appear, and in fact there is no entry for Farce or for Mystère. If one looks at the Dictionary as a reference work, such radical unevenness would be a fault. After all, a reader looking up Molière would expect to find the names of at least one or two of his plays, but would find none listed for this author. Flower decidedly lacks sympathy for literature prior to the eighteenth century. His account of Classicism seems not to take into account any research done in the last fifty years. However, readers interested primarily in twentieth-century literature may find it rewarding to peruse this volume.