themselves. If I have not been altogether "objective"--for I have
permitted myself to show what I think of Proust--I have at least
avoided having theories about him. I have confined myself to
what he actually did and I have left to psychiatrists (preferably
amateur psychiatrists, who are always so very willing) the task of
providing the explanations.

The other life, the one that Proust created for himself when he
wrote, I have touched on more briefly. I have had something to
say about most of his early pieces and about the various versions
of his novel. In these passages I have been inclined to accept
Proust's view that the process of artistic creation is an incompletely
conscious one and to suppose that this was true in his own case.
Hence I have not attached too much importance to his theories,
even the ones developed at such length toward the end of A la
Recherche du temps perdu. It seems to me that involuntary
memory, for example, has some of the elements of the literary
hoax, and I cannot help regretting that Proust's admirers have
given the doctrine such prominence. Proust was not a philosopher
and no amount of interpretation will ever turn him into one, but
he was a very great novelist and deserves to be represented as such.
Though I have not specified my obligations in footnotes, it will
be quite clear, I am sure, that I have relied on many predecessors,
among whom I should perhaps single out Feuillerat, Kolb, and
Vigneron. Several of my friends, especially Professor Armand
Bégué, Professor Jeanne Grosjean, and Dr. Conrad Rosenberg,
have given me very valuable help.

Canada Lake, New York. R. H. BARKER

-vi-