The difference between two great nations can be illustrated by the coincidence that at this moment both France and England are engaged in discussing the memorial of a literary man.  France is considering the celebration of the late Zola, England is considering that of the recently deceased Shakspere.  There is some national significance, it may be, in the time that has elapsed.  Some will find impatience and indelicacy in this early attack on Zola or deification of him; but the nation which has sat still for three hundred years after Shakspere’s funeral may be considered, perhaps, to have carried delicacy too far.  But much deeper things are involved than the mere matter of time.  The point of the contrast is that the French are discussing whether there shall be any monument, while the English are discussing only what the monument shall be.  In other words, the French are discussing a living question, while we are discussing a dead one.  Or rather, not a dead one, but a settled one, which is quite a different thing.

When a thing of the intellect is settled it is not dead:  rather it is immortal.  The multiplication table is immortal, and so is the fame of Shakspere.  But the fame of Zola is not dead or not immortal; it is at its crisis, it is in the balance; and may be found wanting.  The French, therefore, are quite right in considering it a living question.  It is still living as a question, because it is not yet solved.  But Shakspere is not a living question:  he is a living answer.

For my part, therefore, I think the French Zola controversy much more practical and exciting than the English Shakspere one.  The admission of Zola to the Pantheon may be regarded as defining Zola’s position.  But nobody could say that a statue of Shakspere, even fifty feet high, on the top of St. Paul’s Cathedral, could define Shakspere’s position.  It only defines our position towards Shakspere.  It is he who is fixed; it is we who are unstable.  The nearest approach to an English parallel to the Zola case would be furnished if it were proposed to put some savagely controversial and largely repulsive author among the ashes of the greatest English poets.  Suppose, for instance, it were proposed to bury Mr. Rudyard Kipling in Westminster Abbey.  I should be against burying him in Westminster Abbey; first, because he is still alive (and here I think even he himself might admit the justice of my protest); and second, because I should like to reserve that rapidly narrowing space for the great permanent examples, not for the interesting foreign interruptions, of English literature.  I would not have either Mr. Kipling or Mr. George Moore in Westminster Abbey, though Mr. Kipling has certainly caught even more cleverly than Mr. Moore the lucid and cool cruelty of the French short story.  I am very sure that Geoffrey Chaucer and Joseph Addison get on very well together in the Poets’ Corner, despite the centuries that sunder them.  But I feel that Mr. George Moore would be much happier in Pere-la-Chaise, with a riotous statue by Rodin on the top of him; and Mr. Kipling much happier under some huge Asiatic monument, carved with all the cruelties of the gods.