René Martin-Guelliot to Jean Paulhan, 1912, 1

5.12.12

I received your letter concerning the bimonthly issue as opposed to the bimonthly.

I admit what you say about collaboration (easier in articles than in notes, etc.): I partly responded to that yesterday.
For reading, there is truth, certainly, in what you say (constant dose given to a number). On the other hand

1. with many articles, there is a greater chance that everyone will find something to their liking; more
2. with only one or 2 articles the false idea ([known] interpretation of a political party article, etc.) is more likely not to be combated [sic].
3. In fact, among readers, No. 36 and the documents are successful: there are people who only read that. I therefore see the bimonthly issue as issue 36 plus the [good] single article (argument of the extremes) with certain notes from issue 36 being replaced by sections somewhat capable of arousing curiosity.

I also believe that in reality there will not be much difference in the effect produced; because an extremely important point of view is the point of view of convenience for me. You feel very well that organized as the Spectator is, it is impossible to appear every 15 days without increasing my work and costs (written or printed addresses, haste from printers, I cannot deprive myself of travel either, etc., health reasons: suppose I have[sic] a flu for 8 days). In fact the monthly number is already beyond my strength since this year when I have been practically alone for 3 months, with the sole exception of you, and where I would be without this exception now. I can provide, from myself or others, an article every 2 months! That's the maximum. And now, I ask of your friendship the opposite service to that which I asked in my penultimate letter; that of now waiting for the new regime to tell me about it. Your reflections (apart from points of detail which after reflection and consultation I judged to be inaccurate) seemed correct to me, but currently unrealizable. Please understand that if I ask you this, it is in no way rigorous, I will always be happy with a detailed objection that could be useful and it is even less that I blame you in the least: it would be as absurd for you to think so as for mine to have this feeling.
It's because I'm a little rushed with work at the moment and despite myself I'm too absorbed in ruminating on your thoughts: things would be completely different if we could talk in person. Note that basically, or rather on the bottom, I am absolutely of your opinion (*). I designed the fortnightly Spectator and I still see it as such. Note that if you were living in Paris and if Muselli was good at something, in other words if there were 3 "me" or 1 "me" and 2 "you", it would be possible but, believe me, it is not and the monthly is practically no longer possible given my habits (**), your absence, the occupations of Pareau, Collet, the nullity of Muselli: alas! superiora inferioribus determinantur!

II

The bimonthly mode will at worst be a one-year trial; the reading mass is too unknown for us to be able to reason enough about it to predict that this year, even considered lost, which is not proven, will have a great influence on future success, which is so problematic.
I was speaking to you from the point of view of convenience, there is another that of intelligence, easier to handle (if not more important) than that of success; I want to try to make myself understood by those who, at least, read me (it is perhaps a vicious circle): the double number will be a more convenient instrument for me from this point of view. You answer me: provided that we read it, and you are right, but those who read it, even fewer in number, I am confident that they understand me better.

So 2 things to ask you for the moment.
1° Truce of 15 days, like in Tchataldja, to let me do my number. And if you have already responded to my letter yesterday, write me a note upon receipt of this one to tell me that the matter is understood.
2° Try to send me by the 14th the small summaries or rather an indication of what you especially wanted to highlight in your articles and main notes.

Best regards, thank you again for what I sense of very real interest for me in your letter, thank you also for the reflections that you suggest to me.

R.M.G

(*) My nerves are a little tired: the bimonthly deadline would be unbearable.
(**) It is precisely because I agree with you that I ask you not to insist: it makes me regret too much not being able to accomplish the thing.