REVDLT AND UBERW !N THE CRIMINAL THEATER
OF isLBERT CAMUS

Thai: (a: the Dan!” (J M. A.

:{CHEGAQQ §TATE UNWERSWY

fisher? Mama Farringfcn
196.5

I 'l

I

,9

O

'\
I'!IJ)’v0,|., .

THESlS

LIBRARY

Michigan State
Univcmty

 

ROOM USE ONLY

REVOLT AND LIBERTY IN THE ORIGINAL THEATER

OF ALBERT CAMUS

BY

Robert Martin Farrington

A THESIS

submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Romance Languages

1965

 

03mm?
.51-‘\{*LD\

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Chapter
I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

III. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
IV. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

ii

INTRODUCTION

In this analysis of revolt and liberty in Albert
Camus' original theater, the objective is twofold; to point
out an evolution in the moral and metaphysical nature of
Camus' treatment of revolt and liberty, and to trace a
corresponding change in esthetic approach or form.

Certain limitations must be established in approaching
these two objectives. The work will therefore be limited to
the following goals: one--an analysis of the personages es—
sential to an understanding of the nature of the revolt and
its liberty. This will include the esthetic or artistic con—
ception of Albert Camus. These major theatrical characters
are four in number, Caligula of the play of the same name,
Martha of Le Malentendu, Diego of L'Etat g§.§i§g§, and
Kaliayev of Les Justes. These four characters will be con-
sidered in the aforementioned order since each play will be
analyzed chronologically.

The other characters will only be treated in their
relationship to the major personages and the contrast that
exists between them. These contrasts will be used to illumi-
nate the position of the character under investigation.

The analysis of this phiIOSOphical and moral evo-

lution will consist of (l) the original position of the

character in relation to the absurd, that is, his confron-
tation with absurdity; (2) his coming to terms with this
confrontation, that is, his revolt and its implied freedom;
(3) the issue of the revolt.

A second goal—-in addition to the metaphysical po—
sition of each character, the character's essential quali—
ties will be considered revealing how Camus has succeeded or
failed in their delineation. In this way we may observe
those qualities which give characters the right to be called
more than "mouthpieces" of a moralist or philOSOpher, but
the creation of an artist.

Considering this second goal, it must be remembered
that the theater for Camus is not principally a "theatre de
these" as that of Jean-Paul Sartre.

It is rather a theater in the more traditional sense,
a work of art not of philosophy with the major concern of
the author being that of artistic honesty to the characters
and the issue of the human situations involved.

Camus was first of all an artist and his theater in
several instances demonstrates many of the characteristics
Of the classic style of theater, e.g., Les Justes and to a
.lesser extent Le Malentendu and L' Etat de._i_g§

In an interview with Paris—Theatre (1958) Camus
states his reasons for choosing to write for the theater and
Ilis desire to create a form of modern tragedy:

J' ai écrit pour le théatre parce que je jouais et
je mettais en scene. Ensuite, j 'ai compris qu' a

cause de ses difficultés méme, 1e theatre est 1e
plus haut des genres littéraires. Je ne voulais
rien exprimer, mais créer des personnages, et

1' émotion, et le tragique. Plus tard, j 'ai beau-
coup réfléchi au probleme de la tragédie moderne.
'Lg Malentendu, L' Etat de Siege, Les Justes sont
des tentatives, dans des voies chaque fois différ-
entes et des styles dissemblables, pour approcher
de cette tragédie moderne.

Again as a witness to Camus, the artist, we note the
choice of themes and plays which he adapted, as well as his
manner of adaptation. In all the works involved there was a
constant concern to maintain his artistic integrity through
faithfulness to the author of the original work.

Camus simply found in these works many instances in
which the problems involved were related to his own concerns.

Stressing the importance in differentiating his dra-
matic art from a philos0phical medium, Camus states in
"priere d'insérer":

Est-ce a dire que 1' on doive considerer le theatre
d' Albert Camus comme un 'théStre philoSOphique'?
Non--si 1' on veut continuer a désigner ainsi cette
forme périmée de 1' art dramatique on 1' action

s 'alanguissait sous le oids des theories. Rien

n 'est moins "piece a these' que Le Malentendu, qui,
se placant seulement sur le plan— tragique, répugne
a toute théorie Rien n 'est plus 'dramatique' que

Caligula, qui semble n 'emprunter ses prestiges qu' a
l'histoire

1Roger Quilliot, "Interviews," Theatre Récits
;§buvelles Albert Camus (Paris, 1962), p. 1713.

 

2Quilliot, "Priére d'insérer," p. 1742.

*Note: All quotes from the text of the four plays
and all other references not footnoted are taken from
Quilliot .

A third goal will be an evaluation of the esthetic
or artistic concerns of Camus and their effect on his style.
These will emerge in a discussion of merits or defects in
style in each individual piece. This discussion will merge
with a consideration of the author's esthetic goal en—
visioned in each individual work.

we will observe several qualities important to Camus
which reoccur throughout the four plays reflected in the
actions of the characters under study. These "passions" may
be seen in the words which he stated as his preferred ones:
"le monde, la terre, 1a douleur, la mere, les hommes, 1e
désert, l'honneur, la misere, lété, et la mer."3

WE witness most of these themes in the four plays,
but one which may be considered most important and of direct
bearing on the first objective of this work is "l'honneur."

A fourth goal will be a retracing of the evolution
in Camus' treatment of the absurd, revolt, liberty, and

their issue. The previous "explication de texte" will be
utilized to demonstrate the evolution or springing forth of
'the two penchants of Camus, one, that of the absurd, and the
Second the revolt its freedom and their issue. These
<iifferent "faces" of the author tied together where possible,

<3ifferentiated where necessary, will evolve into a final

Exosition, the issue of the revolt.

 

 

3Jean-Claude Brisville, Camus (Paris, 1959), p. 223.

This fourth goal represents the fifth chapter, the
preceding four chapters comprising the four plays and their
respective "explications de texte."

A concluding section will present conclusions reached
concerning Camus' final position in his original theater.

At this point it must be mentioned that the several
adaptations, although an integral part of Camus' theater,
will be omitted due to the limited nature of the subject
matter under s tudy.

The following plays were adapted by the author and
may be found in Quilliot: lggs Esprits de Larivey, La

\

Devotion §_L§.Q£gix de Pedro Calderon de la Barca, gg_gg§
.Intéressant de Dino Buzzati, Le Chevalier Q'Olmedo de LOpe
de Vega, Requiem pour une anne de William Faulkner, et Leg
Possédés, de Dostoievski.

Although these works possess certain themes pertinent
to the absurd and revolt, they understandably do not reflect
them as directly as do the original works.

Camus' adaptation of these works, especially Requiem

for a Nun and The Possessed, would make a good subject for a

 

dissertation in itself.

An early work of Camus, Révolte dans les Asturies,

 

IVhich the author called an "Essai de Création Collective"
Iinterests us from a historical and biographical point of
‘Iiew, since it reflects Camus' literary and political views

Eat the time it was written in 1934. The play concerns a

workers' revolt in the Asturias region of Spain on the eve
of the Spanish Civil War. It is a product of the "Theatre
de l'équipe" a group of young artists in Algiers with whom
Camus c00perated to produce the work.

Jeanne Sicard, a witness to the work's creation, as-
serts however in Quilliot's "Presentation" of the work that
it was essentially the creation of Camus. Quilliot depicts
it as an "Oeuvre de circonstance, de prepagande, ."4

Because of the subject matter and prOpoganda nature
of the work, it remains of limited artistic value and for
that reason does not appear of significance to this study.
But it does reveal the budding artistic talent of the young
Camus.

A final point: the analytical approach of this
study will be of a literary nature. That is, the works will
be considered for their literary merit and not as works
specifically written for the theater. Their stage direction
and the mechanical aspect of stage adaptation and histrionics
Inust be omitted since it exceeds the goal of this paper.

In the analysis of these four theatrical creations,
about a dozen critical studies and essays have been utilized,
ias well as the other original works of Albert Camus. These

:include his notebooks, essays, journalistic writings, and

Ifinally his "Recits" and "Nbuvelles."

x

4Quilliot, "Presentation," p. 1844.

His two philOSOphical essays Lg Mythg gg Sisyphe and
I'Homme révolté, have proved to be useful in demonstrating
the evolution in Camus' metaphysical and moral concerns in
his theater.

Although Camus wrote the plays before the essays
which treat in a semi-rational manner the same problems, I
think it is not unfaithful to Camus' theater to refer to

these essays when considered apprOpriate.

CHAPTER I

Camus has chosen the historical figure Caligula to
present his first exposition of the sentiment of the absurd
and the absurd man.

Inspired by his reading of two Roman authors,
Suetonius and Seneca, the author took his Caligula most
likely from Suetonius'Vie des Douze Césars.5

Caligula, the "poete enragé," fits well into Camus'
philOSOphical scheme of life as expounded in his philoSOphi-
cal and moral essay Le Mythg g; Sisyphe. It must be re-
membered, however, that Caligula, written in 1938, was con-
ceived three years before the writing of the "Mythe" in 1941.

Concerning the notion of the absurd, what is Camus'
point of departure? To understand the absurd feeling and
reasoning which drives the emperor to his death in a de-
structive rage, we must turn to Le M2Eh§.§§ Sisyphe and the
sentiment as described by Camus.

Ce monde en lui-mEme n'est pas raisonnable, c'est
tout ce qu'on en peut dire. Mais ce qui est ab-
surde, c'est la confrontation de cet irrationel

et de ce désir éperdu de clarté dont l'appel résonne
au plus profond de l'homme.6

5Quilliot, "Notice Historique," p. 1738.

6Albert Camus, Lg Mythe g; Sisyphe (Paris, 1958),

I). 37.

And referring to the birth of the absurd, Camus
states: "L'absurde nait de cette confrontation entre
l'appel humain et le silence déraisonable du monde." (44)
Camus continues to explain that the absurd feeling springs
forth as the result of a comparison between a certain state
of fact and reality, between an action and the world which
surpasses it. In his definition of the absurd, he says:
"L'absurde est essentiellement un divorce. Il n'est ni dans
l'un ni dans 1'autre des éléments compares. Il nait de leur
confrontation" (48).
This divorce, then, arises between the reasoning mind
of man which calls for clarity and the world which rejects
it. This is seen in the Mythg when Camus states:
Mon raisonnement veut etre fidele a l' evidence qui l' a
éveille. Cette evidence, c 'est 1' absurde C' est ce
divorce entre 1' esprit qui désire et 1e monde qui déqoit,
ma nostalgie d' unite, cet univers dispersé et la
contradiction qui les enchatne. . . . A partir du
moment on elle est reconnue, l' absurdite est une
passion, la plus déchirante de toutes (71- 38).

This "nostalgie d'unité," this longing for the whole is a

good point of departure in a look at Caligula.

"Les hommes meurent et ils ne sont pas heureux."7
A.truth which the emperor Caligula has discovered in the
death of his sister and lover. A simple discovery, but one

XVhich will set the young poet on a logical path of de—

struction which will only end in his own.

k

7Quilliot, p. 16.

10

Drusilla, Caligula's sister-lover dies. Rushing off
with "un regard étrange" the emperor disappears for three

days. Upon his return, he announces the reason for his long

departure and fatigue: "Caligula: C'était difficile a
trouver. . . . Hélicon: Et que voulais-tn? Caligula: La
lune. . . . Simplement, je me suis senti tout d'un coup un

besoin d'impossible. Les choses, telles qu'elles sont, ne
me semblent pas satisfaisantes" (14-15).

This is Caligula's dilemma, the desire for the im-
possible, something which is not of this world, the moon or
perhaps immortality. To Hélicon's retort that this reason-
ing doesn't hold up to the end, Caligula is quick to reply:
"C'est parce qu'on ne 1e tient jamais jusqu'au bout que rien
n'est obtenu. Mais il suffit peut—étre de rester logique
jusqu'a la fin" (16).

Caligula, then presents his plan, that of a pedagOgue
who will show his people the one truth, that of the absurd
condition of man. He will force them to live this truth to
its fullest extent. Finding nothing but lies around him, he
.proposes, with his unlimited powers to force the people to
experience the absurd as he himself has experienced it.

" . . . j'ai les moyens de les faire vivre dans la
‘Vérité. . . . Ils sont privés de la connaissance et i1 leur
rnanque un professeur qui sache ce dont il parle" (16).

For Caesar there is one reality, the ultimate, that

<>f death. All values all petty concerns collapse and dis-

iippear in the face of this final truth. Leveling all other

ll

planes of truth, all morals, everything takes on the same
meaning or lack of meaning. NOthing matters or following
the same logic, everything is of importance. Caligula ex-
presses this new—found truth when he says: "Tout est im—
portant: les finances, 1a moralité publique, 1a politique
extérieure, l'approvisionnement de l'armée et les lois
agraires! Tout est capital, te dis—je. Tout est sur le
meme pied" (21). This then is the first step in his plan to
direct his little "comedy of the absurd."

A second point is the arbitrary nature of death as
experienced in the absurd condition. Caligula, therefore,
decides to put his subjects to death, arbitrarily of course,
following a list established in the same manner. As our

Caesar points out, each of these executions has the same im—

7
9

portance which means they have none. "Au demeurant, moi,
j'ai décidé d'etre logique et puisque j'ai le pouvoir, vous
allez voir ce que la logique va vous couter. J'exter
minerai les contradicteurs et les contradictions" (22-23).
One of the characteristics of the individual who
lives the absurd is his complete liberty of action. "0r si
1'absurde annihile toutes mes chances de liberté éternelle,
11 me rend et exalte au contraire ma liberté d'action."8
The absurd liberates man from his myOpia concerning death
and an afterlife. Since Camus is concerned with man and his

condition on earth, the metaphysical question is dismissed

 

8Mythe, p. 80.

12

as not pertinent to his absurd condition. On the contrary,
acceptance of the religious interpretation, "1a réponse
sacree 1e saut religieux" destroys it. Therefore, the
absurd supplies him with the possibility of a complete free-
dom within this condition. "L'absurde m'éclaire sur ce
point: 11 n'y a pas de lendemain. Voici désormais la
raison de ma liberté profonde" (82).

This is the road which Caligula has chosen to follow
and which will push him on to his inevitably tragic conclusion.
Using his full powers as emperor, which few mortals possess,
he rushes after the moon. The obvious consequence which he
is most certainly aware of, will be dealt with in the follows
ing pages in the section treating "1e suicide supérieur."

Je viens de comprendre enfin l'utilité du pouvoir.

Il donne ses chances a 1'impossible. Aujourdlhui,
et pour tout le temps qui va venir, ma liberte n'a

.\ I. . 0
plus de front1eres. . . . Rejouissez—vous, 11 vous
est enfin venu un empereur pour vous enseigner la
liberte.9

Does he wish to equal the gods as Caesonia, his
mistress, states? He responds to this suggestion: "Ce que
je desire de toutes mes forces, aujourd'hui, est au-dessus
des dieux. Je prends en charge un royaume ou 1'impossible
est roi" (27).

As previously stated, one of Caligula's goals, in
compliance with the absurd, is to render all conditions all

principles the same, to equalize them through a leveling

9Quilliot, pp. 24-25.

13

process. He would mix the sky and the sea, confound ugli—
ness and beauty, transform suffering into laughter.
Je ferai a ce siécle 1e don de l'égalité. Et
lorsque tout sera aplani, l'impossible enfin sur
terre, la lune dans mes mains, alors, peut-étre,
moi-meme je serai transforme et le monde avec
moi, alors enfin les hommes ne mourront pas et
ils seront heureux (27).
His stakes are high, all or nothing, the totality.
As we approach the end of Act One, Caligula's scheme
emerges. Playing the role of director, as well as the
principle actor, he will create a "fete sans mesure."
Ah, c'est maintenant que je vais vivre enfin! .\ .
c'est moi qui t'invite a une fete sans mesure, a un
proces general, au plus beau des spectacles. Et 11
me faut du monde, des spectateurs, des victimes et
des coupables. . . . Faites entrer les coupables.
11 me faut des coupables. Et ils le sont tous. . .
Juges, temoins, accuses, tous condamnes d'avance
(28)!

The stage set, the curtain rises on this drama of the

impossible.

Camus' choice of the protaganist's means to achieve
his end obeys the nature of the absurd man as outlined in
the "Mythe." Since the absurd man is unable to achieve a
unification of his experience, the "moon" in the case of
Caligula, he chooses to multiply his experience. Since our
stay here is of a short duration, a fixed time span beyond
which there is nothingness, the emphasis turns to the
quantity of our experience, its quality losing significance.
Camus chooses four activities by which to achieve this multi—

plicity of action. These four roles are that of the Don

Juan, the Comedian, the Conqueror, and the Creator.

l4

Caligula assumes all of these roles, stressing the Comedian.
Deciding on the "apparaitre" of the actor, he is finally
going to live.10

Why does he proclaim that he is finally living as
this absurd game begins? Describing the Comedian, Camus in-
forms us that comedy directs us towards the surest experi—
ence, that is to say the immediate one. "De toutes les
gloires, 1a moins trompeuse est celle qui se vit.

L'acteur a done choisi 1a gloire innombrable, celle
qui se consacre et qui s'éprouve" (107).

Camus continues to explain that the more lives an
actor has experienced, the better he removes himself from
them. But the time comes when he must leave the stage and
the world. What he has experienced is before him. "11 voit
clair. I1 sent ce que cette aventure a de déchirant et
d'irremplacable" (114). This condition will be seen in the
final scene of the play, when Caligula in a veritable fit of
clairvoyance stands before his mirror. Thus we see in
action what Camus calls "une moralité de la quantité."

Throughout the second act of the play we witness the
emperor's reversal of the normal social order. Along with
the arbitrary executions, he debases the senators, forcing
their wives into prostitution, requiring them to serve him
etc. He successfully terrorizes them into submission.

Through fear and cowardice, they accept his reign of terror,

 

10"L'Homme absurbe," Mythe, pp. 93-124.

15

at least temporarily. He concludes: "Vous avez fini par
comprendre qu'il n'est pas nécessaire d'avoir fait quelque
chose pour mourir" (40—41). His order established, he ex-
plains his murderous logic, stating that we die, condemned
to death from birth, therefore we must be guilty. The will
of Caligula is to teach us of death and its absurdity to
make us live this reality (46—47).

In the final scene of the second act the dialogue
between the young Scipion and Caligula shows us the poet and
the purist which our hero remains. In response to Scipion
who praises the beauty of nature, Caligula verifies his un-
measured passion for life. "Mais je sais trop 1a force de—
ma passion pour la vie, elle ne se satisfera pas de la
nature. . . . Tu es pur dans le bien, comme je suis pur dans
1e mal" (58).

This passion which knows no bounds reverses itself
shortly afterward, and Caligula expresses his solitude
"empoisonnée" of this world. This time the other pole of
the nihilistic "all or nothing" attracts the tyrant and his
"nostalgie du néant" emerges. " . . . ah! si du moins,
je pouvais gouter 1a vraie, 1e silence et le tremblement
d'un arbre" (59)!

Act Three opens as this play within a play continues.
This time the "Comedien" has chosen the gods to impersonate
and today Caligula portrays Venus. Caesonia, Caligula's

tool of implementation of the absurd, announces:

l6

"L'adoration commence. Prosternez—vous et répétez aprés moi
la priere sacrée a Caligula—Venus . . ." (62).

The bitter irony in the incantations presented by
Caesonia show the protaganist's scorn for the gods and their
succor. "Comble-nous de tes dons, répands sur nos visages
ton impartiale cruauté, ta haine tout objective; . . . Toi,
si vide et 31 brulante inhumaine, mais si terrestre, enivre-
nous du Vin de ton equivalence . . ." (64). Informing
Scipion of his designs, Caligula explains that there is only
one way to equal the gods, to imitate their cruelty (67).

Caligula depeuple 1e monde autour de lui et, fidele
a sa logique, fait ce qu 'il faut pour armer contre
lui ceux qui finiront par le tuer. Caligula est
1' histoire d' un suicide superieur. C' est 1' histoire
de la plus humaine et de la plus tragique des
erreurs. Infidele a 1' homme, par fidelité a
lui—meme, Caligula consent a mourir pour avoir
compris qu' aucun etre ne peut se sauver tout seul
et qu'on ne peut etre libre contre les autres
hommes.
With these words, Camus comments on the denouement of this
"tragedy of the intelligence."

As Act Four Opens, Caligula's designs are clear. He
will push his terrible logic to its inevitable conclusion,
his death at the hands of those who refuse to bend before
his reasoning and in whom the revolt emerges. This in-
evitable issue of Caligula's rampage is far from rejected on

the part of the mad emperor. On the contrary, our hero has

accepted this outcome as a natural evolution of his absurd

 

llQuilliot, p. 1728.

l7

revolt. It is expected desired by the emperor, weary of the
demands of his logic but refusing to alter his course. In
any case, it is too late. When Scipion foresees the revolt
about to spring forth, Caligula responds: "J'imagine
difficilement 1e jour dont tu parles. Mais j'en r3ve
quelquefois" (69).

Yes, it is too late and besides Caesar would deny
this murderous legic. "La logique, Caligula, i1 faut
poursuivre 1a logique. Le pouvoir jusqu'au bout, l'abandon
jusqu'au bout. NOn, on ne revient pas en arriere et 11 faut
aller jusqu'a 1a consommation" (75)!

This then is the suicide par excellence. And Caligula
is ready. He states that if it is easy for him to kill, it
is not difficult for him to die. As early as the second act
he ignores the plot formed against him. And Helicon con-
firms his master's ends when he states to the young Scipion:
"Je sais aussi que tu pourrais tuer Caligula . . . et qu'il
ne 1e verrait pas d'un mauvais oeil" (54).

Camus has chosen Cherea to represent the revolt. An
intellectual as Caligula, he possesses the opposing logic to
that of the emperor. In Act Two Scene Two he presents to
the patricians his reasons for opposing Caligula. They are
not the same as those of the former. He despises the others'
revolt out of petty concerns thus ignoring the real enemy.
"VOus n'avez pas reconnu votre veritable ennemi, vous lui

prEtez de petits motifs. Il n'en a que de grands. . . . Mais

18

11 met son pouvoir au service d'une passion plus haute et
plus mortelle, . . . voir se dissiper 1e sens de cette vie,
disparaTtre notre raison d'exister, voila ce qui est insup—
portable. On ne peut vivre sans raison. . . . je ne suis avec
vous que pour un temps. . . . Ce n'est pas l'ambition qui me
fait agir, mais une peur raisonnable, 1a peur de ce 1Yrisme
inhumain aupres de quoi ma vie n'est rien" (34-35).

Why is Cherea so aware of the logic which he must
combat and destroy? Because he himself possesses a penchant
towards this feeling. In response to the questioning of
Caligula, aware of the plot against him, Cherea responds:

" . . . on ne peut aimer celui de ses visages qu'on essaie
de masquer an $01" (77).

Cherea also has another idea of the duties of each
man. He wants to be happy and live and one can be neither
if one pushes the absurd in all its consequences as Caligula
has done. His reasoning does not result in a leveling
process as does the emperor's. "Je crois qu'il y a des
actions qui sont plus belles que dfautres"(78).

This confrontation between Cherea and Caesar ends in
the sealing of the mad poet's destiny by his own hands.
Aware that if Cherea whom he admires does not succeed in his
plan, others will, Caligula destroys the evidence against
himself thus assuring his doom. In a sense he is controlling

his own destiny, it is Caligula who is pulling the strings.

"Continue, Cherea, poursuis jusqu'au bout 1e magnifique

 

l9

raisonnement que tu m'as tenu. Ton empereur attend son
repos" (81).

A second personage of interest to the reader because
of his likeness to Caligula as well as his divergences is
the young Scipion. Scipion could well be a young Caligula
before his choice of the absurd reasoning. Scipion is also
a purist a poet. He refuses to join Cherea's forces against
Caligula because of his sympathy for the passion driving the
young emperor. ,

He is in love with beauty. This is witnessed in the
scene between Scipion and Caesar, (II, 14), in which Scipion
lauds the beauty of life. As with Cherea, Scipion could
well be a spokesman for the author since many of his truths
are those of Camus. In protesting the cruelty of Caligula,
Scipion states that there is only one way of balancing the
hostility of this world, and that is poverty. And one might
add modesty (67-68).

Another quality of Scipion which draws admiration
from Caesar is the young poet's reality of life and death.
Unlike the others, he is not a phony. During Caligula's
"poetry reading contest" this reality emerges in Scipion's
poem on death, the only one which the emperor accepts:
"Chasse au bonheur qui fait les gtres purs, Ciel ou 1e
soleil ruisselle, Fates uniques et sauvages, mon délire sans
espoir! . . ." (100).

Concerning this likeness of souls which exists be—

tween the young Scipion and Caesar, part of its origin can

20

be traced back to the murder of Scipion's father by Caligula.
As Scipion states: " . . . c'est la que tout commence.
quelque chose en moi lui ressemble pourtant. La mEme flame
nous brfile 1e coeur. . . . Mon malheur est de tout com-
prendre? (83). With the death of his father, Scipion also
has been given a taste of the absurd. He is suffering and
in despair, but he now resembles the emperor too much to aid
in destroying him. Caligula confirms this when he states:
"Oh! ce ne sont pas ceux dont j'ai tué/les fils ou le pére
qui m'assassineront. Ceux-la ont compris. Ils sont avec moi,
ils ont 1e meme gout dans la bouche" (103).

Act Four brings the inevitable climax to the rage of
Caligula. The tragedy of Caesar's passion is compounded in
this final act with the realization that the road he has
chosen is not the right one.

Caligula's hate is reflected in that of the citizens
who revolt, and jolted from their slumber rise up against
him. Like a scourge he has raised the specter of revolt.
This phenomena will be studied in a later work of Camus,
L'Etat ggigiégg. Cherea describes the nature of this revolt
when, referring to the emperor, he says: "11 force a penser.
I1 force tout le monde a penser. L'insécurité, voila ce qui
fait penser. Et c'est pourquoi tant de haines 1e
poursuivent" (87) .

Caligula himself feels the nihilism which he has un-

lleashed overwhelming him. His solitude complete, the void

 

21

which surrounds him and which he feels within himself, op-
presses him. "Quand vous ates tous la, vous me faites
sentir un vide sans mesure ou je ne peux regarder. Je ne
suis bien que parmi mes morts. Eux sont vrais. Ils sont
comme moi" (102).

There remains only one small sentiment in this void.
And that is a "shameful tenderness" which Caligula possesses
for his aging mistress Caesonia. She is the final witness
to that human being which the emperor was. But this love
which he possessed for Drusilla and of which Caesonia is the
witness, must be destroyed as well if his task is to be com—
plete. His conviction is that nothing has meaning including
love, loved ones, not even their memory, since they are soon
forgotten with death, all is eventually lost. As with
Camus' absurd man, there is no concern with a possible after
life.

With this conclusion, his liberty which he terms an
"insane" happiness is complete. "Mais aujourd'hui, me voila
encor plus libre qu'il y a des années, libéré que je suis du
souvenir et de l'illusion. Je sais que rien ne dure" (106)!

Strangling Caesonia, he completes his destruction of
the human warmth and love he once possessed. The exaltation
in this power, his lucidity in the knowledge of its error
reach a height at this point. As his mistress falls to the

floor, he concludes: "Mais tuer n'est pas la solution" (107).

22

As the men come to carry out his scheme, he turns to
accept its consumation. "Je vais retrouver ce grand vide ou
le coeur s'apaise" (107). Falling beneath the blows of the
conspirators, he cries: "Je suis encore vivant" (108)!

The absurd condition never leaves man as long as he
is alive to experience it. This then represents the first of
Camus' two-part "theatre de 1'impossible."12 To better
understand the purpose of Camus in presenting the plays of
Caligula and Lg Malentendu which will be entertained shortly,
it is valuable to turn to Camus' own comments concerning
these two works. What is his goal in presenting this
theater of the impossible?

. elles [the first two works of Camus' theater]
tentent de donner vie aux conflicts apparemment in-
solubles que toute pensée active doit d' abord
traverser avant de parvenir aux seules solutions
valables. Ce theatre laisse entendre par exemple
que chacun porte en lui une art d' illusions et de
malentendu qui est destinée a etre tuée. Simple-
ment, ce sacrifice libere peut—étre une autre part
de 1' individu, 1a meilleure, qui est celle de la
révolte et de la liberté. Mais de quelle liberté
s 'agit—il?"13

This, then, is the problem posed by Camus. The
absurd destroys our illusions and misunderstandings con-
cerning our existence. What remains is our revolt and its
ensuing liberty. But is the freedom chosen by Caligula the

right one? Camus is firm in his reply to this question. In

his preface to the American edition of his theater, he says

 

12Quilliot, p. 1742.

lBIbid.

 

23

of Caligula: "Mais, si sa vérité est de se révolter contre
le destin, son erreur est de nier les hommes. On ne peut

I . . . l
tout detruire sans se détru1re SO1—meme." 4

Caligula af-
firms this conclusion in his final agonizing speech. Ad-
dressing himself in the mirror he cries:
L'impossible! Je l'ai cherché aux limites du monde,
aux confins de moi-meme. J'ai tendu mes mains, je
tends mes mains et c'est toi que je rencontre, tou-
jours toi en face de moi, et je suis pour toi plein
de haine. Je\n'ai pas pris la voie qu'il fallait,
je n'aboutis a rien. Ma liberte n'est pas la
bonne (107—108).
Camus' conclusion is simple. Caligula's liberty is not the
right one.

This new liberty revealed by the absurd experience
has its limitation. Camus confirms this in the Mythe.gg
Sisyphe when he asserts: "Cette indépendance nouvelle est a
terme, comme toute liberté d'action" (83).

To better understand how Caligula failed not only in
his choice of action in revolt, but in his experience of the
absurd sentiment itself, we must again turn to the "Mythe."
Properly speaking, Caligula is not Camus' idea of "l'homme
absurde."

For Caligula denies that very singular truth which
set him on his rampage, the consciousness of the absurd it-
self. By destroying himself he broke the only tie the only

sustaining factor which the absurd man possesses within in

his condition, his conscious awareness of this absurdity.

 

l

4Quilliot, p. 1727.

 

24

Camus hints at this when he states:
L'unique donnée est pour moi 1'absurde. Le probleme
est de savoir comment en sortir et si la suicide
doit se deduire de cet absurde. La premiere at, au
fond, 1a seule condition de mes recherches, c'est de
preserver cela meme qui m'ecrase, de respecter en
consequence ce que je juge essentiel en lui. Je
viens de le definir comme une confrontation et une
lutte sans repos (49).

In Camus' absurd reasoning, he does not completely
deny the efficacy of reason. It is limited but it has its
place. This Caligula denied trying to push the "raisonne—
ment absurde" to its limit. We see this limitation which
Camus has placed on the absurd man in the following state-
ment: "L'homme absurde au contraire ne procéde pas a ce
nivellement. Il reconnait la lutte, ne méprise pas abso-
lumnet 1a raison [since this is what brought him face to
face with the absurdity in the first place] et admet

l'irrationnel" (56). Camus says the same thing in different

words when he remarks: "L'absurde, c'est la raison lucide

qui constate ses limites" (71).

 

CHAPTER II

The second work in Camus' "theatre de l'impossible"
is the play Lg Malentendu written in 1943. As with Caligula,
its character is ridden with the absurd. Although Camus
seems to have given more importance to the dominating situ-
ation, the major personage, the daughter Martha, possesses
many of the traits of the absurd hero Caligula. She has been
called a female Caligula by one critic.

The plot is simple and old. A.man returns home after
a long absence to renew his relationship with his mother and
sister only unrecognized to be murdered by the two women.

The motive: robbery, so that the two may flee their iso-
lated sad prison in the mid-continent.

.Lg Malentendu lends itself well to the classical

 

tragic situation. And this is what the author has tried to
develop in a modern setting. It must be remembered that as
with Caligula, Camus' aim is not to create a "piece 5 these.
"Rien n'est moins 'piece a thése' que Lg Malentendu qui, se
plagant seulement sur le plan tragique, repugne a toute

théorie."15

The aim as expressed by the author himself is:
"Faire parler 1e langage de la tragédie a des personnages

contemporains, . . ." (1729).

 

lsQuilliot, p. 1742.

25

 

26

Mention of Lg Malentendu is found in L'Etranger when
Meursault in his prison cell discovers a piece of newspaper
which recounts the substance of the plot.

11 relatait un divers dont le début manquait, mais
qui avait du se passer en Tchécoslovaquie. Un
homme était parti d' un village tcheque pour fair
fortune. Au bout de vingt-cinq ans, riche, i1 était
revenu avec une femme et un enfant. . . . Dans la nuit,
sa mere et sa soeur 1' avaient assassiné a coups de
marteau pour le voler et avaient jeté son corps dans
la riviere. Le matin, la femme était venue, avait
revélé sans 1e savoir 1' identite du voyageur. La
mere s 'était pendue. La soeur s 'était jetee dans un
puits.
Camus has retained the gist of this account changing only two
points. The couple has no children and the son is put to
sleep and then thrown into the river.

Roger Quilliot, in a footnote to his presentation of
.Lg Malentendu, points out that this particular story is
found in the legends of many countries dating from the
Middle Ages. He cites two examples: "M. Paul Bénichou m'a
signalé en particulier une vieille chanson du Nivernais: ‘Lg
Soldat tué par gg mere (Littérature et traditions du
Nivernais, Tome I, page 286). De meme, dans Mon portrait
de Louis—Claude de Saint-Martin, cette histoire est rappor-
tée comme un fait divers qui se serait passé 5 Tours en juin
1796" (1780).

The first indication that Camus was envisaging such

a work appears in Carnets in April 1941 "Budejovice, trois

¥

l6Quilliot, p. 1180.

27

actes."l7

Budejovice is a town in Bohemia on the Moldau
river. Quilliot suggests that Camus may have visited this
town in 1936 during his visit to Bohemia as related in

Carnets.

Camus developed the idea of Lg Malentendu during his

 

"exile" spent in the middle of France in the early stages of
world war II. He probably resided in the little hamlet of
Panelier in the "Massif Central" where he stayed at that time
for health reasons. He traveled in the region visiting Lyon
several times. It is also at this time that he first en-
countered other writers and journalists engaged in the re—
sistance movement and these contacts seem to have had an in—
fluence on his eventual decision to enter the movement
himself.

In Nevember 1942 he notes a possible title for the
work: "L'Exilé (ou Budejovice)" (59). This period in Camus'
life was one of solitude in the midst of the nihilism which
surrounded him.

As death, always present in Caligula, solitude is
the dominating theme of Lg Malentendg. This will be pointed
out shortly in the analysis of the play. Camus witnesses
this phenomena when he states:

Je vivais alors, 5 mon corps défendant, au milieu
des montagnes de la France. Cette situation

historique et géographique suffirait a expliquer
la sorte de claustrOphobie dont je souffrais alors

 

1

7Albert Camus, Carnets (Paris, 1962), p. 229.

 

28
et qui se reflete dans cette piece. 0n y respire
mal, c'est un fait.

The stifling suffocating atmosphere which surrounds
and possesses the principal characters of Lg Malentendu is
immediately perceived in the opening of Act One. The mother
and daughter are discussing the new client and potential
victim. In the dialogue, one passion dominates Martha, a
physical union with the sea in the countries of sunlight and
warmth. Camus' first reality, the happiness of physical
pleasure and union, possesses her. Unlike Caligula, there
is no metaphysical drive, no intellectual motivation in her
passion. Although she conceives no limits to achieve her
goal, as we saw to be the case with the mad emperor, her de—
sire is practicable. No moon for Martha, her need is as
near as the sea.

In Scene One, addressing her mother, Martha speaks
of her dream:

Quand nous aurons amassé beaucoup d' argent et que
nous pourrons quitter ces terres sans horizon, quand
nous laisserons derriere nous cette auberge et cette
ville pluvieuse, et que nous oublierons ce pays
d' ombre, le jour ou nous serons enfins devant la
mer dont j 'ai tant révé, ce jour-la, vous me verrez
sourire" (117)'
But the absurd intervenes and thwarts her ambition.
Whereas Caligula sought solace from the agony of his

absurd situation in the "néant" of death, Martha seeks an

escape from this unbearable tension in the peaceful oblivion,

18Quilliot, p. 1728.

29

the empty void which characterizes the body and soul of man
before the blazing sun.

J'ai lu dans un livre qu'il mangeait jusqu'aux ames

et u'il faisait des corps resplendissants, mais

vides par l'interieur. . . . Oui, j'en ai assez de

porter toujours mon ame, j'ai hate de trouver ce

pays ou le soleil tue les questions. Ma demeure

n'est pas ici" (120).

With the entrance of Jan, the returning son, the
tension of the characters' isolation emerges. Like a group
of persons carrying on a dialogue with themselves, their
speeches, like a series of monologues, fail to break the
barriers between them.. Jan's problem is simply to find the
words to say "It is I, Jan." Maria, his wife, a warm simple
person not complicated by the intricacies which Jan demands
of himself, states the simplicity of the solution: "I1 n'y
a qu'un moyen. C'est de faire ce que ferait le premier
venu, de dire: 'me voilé,‘ c'est de laisser parler son
coeur" (123).

Jan, apparently leading a happy life with Maria in a
faraway land of the sun, has decided to return to his family.
Why? He is searching for a renewed attachment to his people
and his land, hunting for a nonexistent duty towards them.
He admits he doesn't need them but perhaps they need him.
Happiness is not everything he proclaims. "Le bonheur n'est
pas tout et les hommes ont leur devoir. Le mien est de
retrouver ma mere, une patrie . . ." (124).

Maria, in contrast to Jan, is content with her love,

an earthly one, and her only reality. To her Jan is living

30

in a dream world. Her solitude, unlike Jan's, would be the
loss of this love. Protesting Jan's explanation of his
dream to conciliate this love with his "duties" to his
family, she states:

Non, les hommes ne savent jamais comment 11 faut
aimer. Rien ne les contente. Tout ce qu'ils
savent, c 'est raver, imaginer de nouveaux devoirs,
chercher de nouveaux pays et de nouvelles demeures.
Tandis que nous, nous savons qu 'il faut se dépecher
d' aimer, partager 1e meme lit, se donner la main,
craindre 1' absence. Quand on aime, on ne reve a
rien. . . . C'est la voix de ta solitude, ce n 'est
pas celle de l'amour (127).

Quilliot parallels well the fundamental difference

which separates this couple.

Mais précisément, elle [Maria] y apparait comme la
femme en général, ou plutot une certaine conception
de la femme charnelle, enracinée dans la terre,
sans complication, par opposition au goat viril de
l' aventure, de la curiosité et du tourment" (1783).

Jan, as mentioned earlier, is an outsider, searching
for a reunion with his family which is impossible to achieve,
and which will end in his death.

A second temptation for Jan is his desire of a
metaphysical union, a love which he does not seem to find in
his relationship with Maria. Referring to Jan, Quilliot
stresses this metaphysical character of his preoccupations.

" la grande tentation de Jan n'étaitelle pas celle d'un
amour divin, qu'il repoussait au nom de l'amour humain et de
l'attachement a la terre" (1784)? It is questionable

whether Jan really resisted this temptation as witnessed in

the fourth scene of Act One.

31

Throughout the rest of the first act we see the ina—
bility of Jan to express his true purpose at the inn. This
illustrates the lack of communication which exists through-
out the play and life in general. When the mother questions
him as to the length of his stay, Jan responds that it will
depend on his reception. To maintain his little act he must
disguise his identity, and in the process his language be-
COmes incommunicable. In response to his explanation,
Martha remarks that it doesn't mean much. To which Jan re-
torts that he is unable to better express himself.

The irony of the speeches takes on added importance
here since each individual reveals his or her real thoughts
to the reader without the other character perceiving them.
This is the tragedy of the entire work.

The character of the mother springs forth more
clearly in the final scene of the first act. She is an old
and tired woman. Her weariness is not only physical, it is
spiritual. She desires one thing, the repose of sleep or
better yet, death.

unlike Martha, in whom the absurd has brought forth
the bitterness of revolt, in the mother it has resulted in
an indifference a weariness in her crimes. She is used up
and the revolt which Martha has learned from her has given
way to a desire for forgetfulness. Lamenting the weight of
the job ahead of her, she complains: "Je suis trop
vieille! . . . Je dois lui donner 1e sommeil que je sou—

haitais pour ma propre nuit" (141).

32

In the opening scene of Act Two, a certain hesi-
tation in her determination to carry through the crime over-
comes Martha. Perhaps it is due to the weariness of the
mother, or perhaps to a certain compassion for the innocence
of her victim. Giving way to her only passion, she is
filled with revery as her brother describes the beauty of
NOrth Africa. Her language assumes a warm human quality
which to this point has been lacking. Jan notes this change
in Martha when he says: ". . . puisque, en somme, nous venons
de laisser nos conventions, je puis bien vous le dire: i1
me semble que, pour la premiere fois, vous venez de me tenir
un langage humain" (150).

Resuming the bitter irony which characterized her
previous speeches, Martha admits her hesitation, but she is
resolute now. Arousing her old desire, Jan has sealed his
own fate.

Je vous remercie seulement de m' avoir parlé des pays
que vous connaissez. . . . I1 a réveille en moi des
desirs qui, peut-etre, s 'endormaient. S' 11 est vrai
que vous ten1ez a rester ici, vous avez, sans 1e
savoir, agné votre cause. J' étais venue presque
décidée a vous demander de artir, mais, vous 1e
voyez, vous en avez appele a ce que j' ai d' humain,
et je souhaite maintenant que vous restiez. Mon
gout pour la mer et les pays du soleil finira par

y gagner (151).

Jan's dilemma is clarified as this scene closes.
'Phe strangeness of his hosts' language puzzles him as well
as these strangers themselves. But it is not only the soli-

tnade and the lack of communion which surrounds him. They

SPring forth from his own nature. Martha, in response to

33

his remark concerning the queerness of the hotel, retorts:
"Peut-etre est-ce seulement que vous vous y conduisez de
faqon etrange" (152).
Jan's doubts and anguish rise at this point.

Et voici maintenant ma vieille angoisse, 15, au

creux de mon corps, comme une mauvaise blessure

que chaque mouvement irrite. ’Je connais son nom.

Elle est peur de la solitude eternelle, crainte

qu'il n'y ait pas de reponse (152).

Finally, aware that no response is forthcoming, he
decides to leave. But it is too late, for Martha has al-
ready served him the tea which will put him to sleep. Ex-
plaining his error to the mother, he states: " . . . j'ai
1e sentiment de m'étre trompé et de n'avoir rien a faire ici.
Pour tout dire, j'ai l'impression pénible que cette maison
n'est pas la mienne" (156).

During Act Two Scene Six, as Jan explains his
reasons for leaving to the mother, the technique of an un-
wonted tragic dialogue dominates. Like a series of mono-
logues, each person's lines, reasonable and apparent in his
own eyes, become incoherent and foreign to the other. There
is a complete lack of even a desire to communicate.

The mother, although pitying Jan's lack of decision,
feels only her weariness and desire for rest. Witness the
following comments:

Je vous comprends, Monsieur, et j'aurais voulu que
les choses s'arrangent pour vous. . . . Quand les
choses s'arrangent mal, on ne peut rien y faire.

Dans un certain sens, cela m'ennuie aussi que\vous
’ I ’ O Q I O
ayez dec1de de partir. Mais je me dis qu'apres

34

tout, je n'ai pas de raisons d'y attacher de

l'importance (157).
The mother's indifference dominates this speech. As Jan
falls asleep and the two prepare to dump him into the river,
the mother envies his sleep, the nothingness which awaits
him. " . . . oh, je l'envie de dormir maintenant et de
devoir mourir bientot . . ." (161).

Thus the issue of this modern tragedy is prepared.
Martha confirms what Jan has decided. This house is not his
nor is it anyone's. "S'il avait compris cela plus Vite, 11
se serait épargné et nous aurait évité d'avoir a lui apprendre
que cette chambre est faite pour qu'on y dorme et ce monde
pour qu'on y meure" (162).

This speech of Martha's is interesting from a techni—
cal point of View: Camus explains the difficulty of achieving
his avowed goal in his preface to the American edition of
his theater when he points out:

Rien de plus difficile a vrai dire puisqu 'il faut
trouver un langage assez naturel pour‘etre parlé des
contemporains, et assez insolite pour rejoindre 1e
ton tragique. Pour approcher de cet idéa1,j'ai
essayé d' introduire de l' éloignement dans les
caracteres et de l' ambiguité dans les dialogues. Le
spectateur devait ainsi éprouver un sentiment de
familiarite en meme temps que de dépaysement (1729).
As witnessed in the sixth scene of the second act, he seems
to have succeeded.
But the preceding speech of Martha is marked by the

unlikelihood of a tone which, commonplace in a house foreign

to its occupants, terminates in a symbolic allusion to the

35

fact that this world is made for us to die in. Quilliot sup-
ports this conclusion when he remarks: "Il [Camus] a
plusieurs fois repris sa piece, . . . gommant certains propos
qui sentaient trop le symbole métaphysique. . . " (1784).

According to Quilliot, this is particularly the case
in Act Two Scene Eight and Act Three Scene One where the
author lightens the dialogue and gives it more vivacity and
a tragic density.

The players, having fulfilled their roles, the ab-
surd takes charge. The Third Act is laden with the situ—
ation of the two women caught in the hands of destiny. The
dialogue, up to this point, cerebral and devoid of a human
quality, takes on a much more lyrical vain. This is es—
pecially the case of Maria. Martha, the hope of achieving
her goal swelling in her, cries: "11 me semble que j'entends
déja la mer. 11 y a en moi une joie qui va me faire
crier. . . . Je redeviens la jeune fille que j'étais. De
nouveau, mon corps brele, j'ai envie de courir" (163—164).

The denouement begins with the discovery of the
murdered client's identity. Reading her son's passport, the
mother recognizes that her role has ended. Previously de—
void of meaning, her life takes on a new sense in the reali-
zation of a renewed love for a son whom she has murdered.

. mon vieux coeur, qui se croyait détourné de tout,

vient de reapprendre 1a douleur. . . . Et de toutes
fa ons, quand une mere n'est plus capable de recon-
na tre son fils, c'est que son role sur la terre est
fini. . . . je viens d'apprendre que j'avais tort et
que sur cette terre ou rien n'est assure, nous avons

nos certitudes. L'amour d'une mere pour son fils
est aujourd'hui ma certitude"(l65).

36

Discovering a reason to live, the mother has found as well a
reason to die. " . . . cet amour est assez beau pour moi,
puisque je ne peux vivre en dehors de lui" (166).

The resignation of the mother before her fate raises
the revolt long contained within Martha. Her dreams are
slipping away. Concerning the mother's resignation before
her condition, Martha proclaims:

Vous tenez un langage que je méprise et je ne puis
vous entendre parler de crime et de punition. . . .
Et sous 1e vain prétexte qu' un homme est mort, vous
ne pouvez vous dérober au moment ou j 'allais re—
cevoir ce qui m 'est dfi. . . . Vous me frustrez de
tout et vous me 'Btez ce dont il a joui" (166- 168).

The first scene of the third act terminates in a
tender exchange between the mother and daughter in which
Martha claims the love which the mother owes her but has
never shown her. But it is too late. (La mEre): "Mais je
n'ai pas cessé de t'aimer. Je 1e sais maintenant, puisque
mon coeur parle; je vis a nouveau, au moment oh je ne puis
plus supporter de vivre" (169). What is stronger than the
distress of Martha? (La mEre): "La fatigue pent—etre, et
la soif du repos" (169).

Martha's monologue in the second scene of Act Three
evokes certain lyrical passages of N0ces19 in which Camus
praises the physical joys of his native Algeria. The

following lines could well have been taken from one of

Camus' earlier poetic essays: "Il est des lieux pourtant

 

19Albert Camus, NOces Les Essais XXXIX (Paris, 1950).

37

éloignés de la mer ou le vent du soir, parfois, apporte une
odeur d'algue. 11 y parle de plages humides, toutes sonores
du cri des mouettes, ou de greves dorée dans des soirs sans
limites" (170).

Frustrated in all her turns, Martha's tender elo—
quence in praising the faraway sea turns into hate and anger
and her revolt like that of Caligula will only find its issue
in death. Unlike Maria who will turn to God for aid, Martha
will leave this world her reconciliation frustrated. Re-
ferring to her mother, she cries:

Qu' elle meure donc, puisque je ne suis pas aimée!
Que les portes se referment autour de moi. Qu'elle
me laisse a ma juste colere' Car, avant de mourir,
je ne leverai pas les yeux pour implorer le ciel.
La—bas, ou l' on peut fuir, se délivrer, presser son
corps contre un autre, rouler dans la vague, dans
ce pays défendu par la mer, les dieux n 'abordent
pas. . . . Oh' je hais ce monde ou nous en sommes
réduits a Dieu. Mais moi, qui souffre d' injustice,
on ne m' a pas fait droit, je ne m 'agenouillerai
pas. Et privee de ma place sur cette terre, reje-
tée par ma mere, seule au milieu de mes crimes,

je quitterai ce monde sans etre réconcilee (170-
171).

As in the final scene of Act Two, the unequalness of
this monologue is apparent. The highly lyrical quality of
the first half simply does not balance the final expressions,
of a metaphysical character. Martha throughout the play is
an individual obsessed by the physical pleasures of the body
which she has not experienced. The final sentence of this
tirade doesn't parallel with the preceding lines. It is

Camus and his concern for the metaphysical who intercedes on

Martha's behalf and the personage suffers as a consequence.

38

In the final scene in which Martha is confronted
with Maria, the contrast between the two sharpens. Martha
witnesses this gulf between them when she states: "I1 n'y
a rien de commun entre nous." And when Maria proclaims her
love for the dead man and the suffering which is tearing her
apart, Martha's reply is that of the absurd reasoning.

"Vous parlez décidément un langage que je ne comprends pas.
J'entends mal les mots d'amour, de joie ou de douleur" (173-
174).

Maria's solitude is complete as is Martha's. The
latter's mistake was to think that the crime united her to
her mother, but she recognizes the solitude of her crime
when she avows: "Mais je me trompais. Le crime aussi est
une solitude, meme si on se met a mille pour l'accomplir.

Et il est juste que je meure seule, apres avoir vécu et tué
seule" (177).

There remains the task of affirming the order of
things and Martha jumps at it with a vengeance. It is her
role to drive Maria to despair, to teach her this newly dis-
covered truth. "What is this order? That of the absurd,

Celui ou personne n 'est jamais reconnu. . . . Pour-
quoi crier vers la mer ou vers 1' amour? Cela est
dérisoire. Votre mari connatt maintenant la ré-
ponse, cette maison épouvantable ou nous serons
enfin serrés les uns contre les autres. . . ;

Priez votre Dieu qu 'il vous fasse semblable a la
pierre. C'est 1e bonheur qu'il prend pour lui,
c'est 1e seul vrai bonheur" (178-179).

As with Caligula, Martha's taste for the "néant" ap-

pears here, an issue from this heart-rending tension which

39

is the absurd condition, an attraction toward the mute un—
conscious nature of the mineral world the rocks, trees etc.

The author clarifies this desire to be nothing, this
"goG&.du néant" which we observed in Caligula in the followe
ing remarks from Le Mythe.ge Sisyphe:

Si j 'étais arbre parmi les arbres, chat parmi les
animaux, cette vie aurait un sens ou plutot ce
probleme n' en aurait point car je ferais partie de
ce monde. Je serais ce monde auquel je m '0ppose
maintenant par toute ma conscience et par toute
mon exigence de familiarite (74).

we now witness the final scene of the third act
where on Martha's exit, Maria turns to God to implore his
pity. The old servant enters and simply answers "no" to the
begging of Maria for aid. This scene resembles the second
scene of Act Two when Jan calls for a "response" and the
servant appears refusing to speak.

Camus seems to have chosen the servant as a symbol
of the absence of answers to our condition. He could be con-
sidered God or destiny or the absurdity, whatever one wishes
to call him. But as the author states:

Quant au personnage du vieux domestique, il ne symbo-
lise pas obligatoirement 1e destin. Lorsque la
survivante du drame en appelle a Dieu, c 'est lui qui
repond. Mais c 'est, peutzétre, un malentendu de
plus. S' 11 repond "non" a celle qui lui demande de
1' aider, c 'est qu 'il n' a pas en effet 1' intention

de 1' aider et qu' a un certain point de souffrance

on d' injustice personne ne peut plus rien pour
personne et la douleur est solitaire.

 

ZOQuilliot, pp. 1728—1729.

40

This conclusion by the author would seem to sum up the final
situation of the tragedy. Suffering and pain the injustice
of this world beyond a certain point must be endured alone.

What conclusions may be drawn from Le Malentendu?

 

What is Camus' purpose in the development of such a pessi—
mistic work? Considering the "blackness" and pessimism of
the play, Camus states:

Il n 'empeche que la noirceur de la piece me gene
autant qu 'elle a géné 1e public. . . . je pro-
poserai au lecteur: 1°) d' admettre que la mora-
lité de la piece n 'est pas entierement negative;
2°) de considerer Le Malentendu comme une tenta-
tive pour créer une tragedie moderne (1729).

 

Considering the first point proposed by the author,
Camus states:
Sans doute, c'est une vue tres pessimiste de la
condition humaine. Mais cela peut se concilier
avec un optimisme relatif en ce qui concerne
1' homme. Car enfin, cela revient a dire que tout
aurait été autrement 51 1e fils avait dit: "C' est
moi, voici mon nom.Ce1a revient a dire que dans
un monde injuste ou indifferent, 1' homme peut se
sauver lui-meme, et sauver les autres, par 1' usage
de la sincérité la plus simple et du mot le plus
juste (1729).
A certain optimism does exist in regard to man. For
Camus it is simply a question of the greatest honesty
possible. As Maria expresses to Jan, it is simply a matter
of saying "Here I am."
Concerning the second point cited above, it is
questionable how successful the author was in rendering this
work a modern tragedy. In another preface found in Camus'

archives and undated, Camus, defending his goal in_L§

Malentendu states:

 

41

Le malheur n'a qu'un moyen de se surmonter lui—meme
qui est de se transfigurer par 1e tragique. . . .
Lg Malentendu tente de reprendre dans une affabu—
lation contemporaire les themes anciens de la
fatalite. C'est au public a dire si cette trans—
position est reussie (1785).
The public, of course, as well as the critics, responded
cooly to the presentation of the work.21
In the same preface cited above, Camus notes that it
would be false though to assume that this play defends a sub—
mission to fatality. On the contrary, he points out that it
is a play of the revolt and could be considered to involve a
moral of naturalness. This supports the conclusion noted
above. Camus continues that if man wants to be recognized,
he must simply identify himself. If he remains silent or
lies, he dies alone and all that surrounds him is devoted to
misfortune (1785).
“Le Malentendu represents the second of Camus' two-
part theater of the impossible. With-Caligu1a it was an im—
possible character, in the case of the latter play it is a
question of an impossible situation. In both cases the ab-
surd which dominates ends in revolt and a murderous liberty
of the protaganists. we have seen that this freedom as en-
visaged by the author is not the right one.
But the question arises, then, what is the right

freedom? What path should one follow in this revolt emerging

from the absurd condition? This is the central problem to

 

21Cruickshank, p. 17.

42

which Albert Camus turns in the second half of his theater.
As we have seen, the first two works concerned the problem
of the individual and his absurd experience ending in a form
of revolt against this experience which Camus concluded was
not the right one. But the revolt did not emerge as the
central issue. The tragedy of the absurdity of the experi—

ence of Caligula and Martha lies in the absurd itself, not so

much its issue.

CHAPTER III

We now turn to Camus' third and fourth theatrical
works in which the revolt, its form, and especially its

liberty are questioned. If Caligula and Le Malentendu may

 

be considered as a "theater of the impossible," I think it
is not too simplified to consider the last two original
works of Camus, L'Etat fig Siégg and Les Justes, as a theater
of the possible.

The fact that the absurd reasoning is only a point
of departure appears early in Le Mythg_gg Sisyphe. The
author points this out when he states in a short note to "Le
Mythe:" "Mais il est utile de noter, en meme temps, que
1'absurde, pris jusqu'ici comme conclusion, est considéré
dans cet essai comme un point de départ" (11).

When Camus turned to the result of the absurd, the
revolt, as outlined in his second philosophical essay,
L'Homme révolté, he again insisted on the importance of the
character of the absurd as analyzed in Le MX£2§.§§ Sisyphe.
The absurd reasoning which might logically end in suicide is
rejected and Camus goes on searching for another truth re-
vealed by the absurd, that of the revolt.

. . l'on prétend se maintenir dans 1'absurde,

négligeant son vrai caractere qui est d'etre un
passage vecu, un point de depart, l'equivalent,

43

44
en existence, du doute méthodique de Descartes.
L' absurde en lui-meme est contradiction. 22
It is important at this point to consider this
"logical" conclusion from the absurdity which springs forth
before the lucid consciousness of man. That is suicide.
But suicide, whether it be the "superior" one of Caligula or
that of Martha escaping her crimes, destroys this unique
"truth" which for Camus is the lucidity of the absurd
condition.
Thus, one of the author's conclusions in the Mythe
.gg Sisyphe, is that individual suicide, a possibly natural
"logical" conclusion of the "raisonnement absurde" is not
the desired issue of this condition. Here is how Camus out-
lines this reasoning:
C' est ici qu' on voit a quel point 1' experience absurde
s 'eloigne du suicide. On peut croire que le suicide
suit 1a révolte. Mais a tort. Car 11 ne figure pas
son aboutissement logique. I1 est exactement son
contraire, par le consentement qu 'il suppose. Le
suicide, comme 1e saut, [existentiel] est 1' ac-
ceptation a sa limite. . . . A sa maniere, 1e sui—
cide résout 1' absurde. ll 1' entraine dans la meme
mort. Mais je sais que pour se maintenir, 1' absurde
ne peut se résoudre. Il échappe au suicide, dans
la mesure on 11 est en meme temps conscience et
refus de la mort (77).
To remain faithful to this absurd truth one must reject
death and as a consequence suicide as well.
A notable difference between the two stages of

Camus' theater is a turn from an individual experience of

the absurd and its solitude to a group or collective

 

22Albert Camus, L'Homme révolté (Paris, 1951), p. 19.

45

experience. Paralleling this is an extension of Camus' con—
cern regarding individual suicide. He now turns to murder
or collective suicide from which the group suffers. This is
the case, of course, whether it be logical crime or suffer-
ing caused by the arbitrary nature of the absurd. The former
is the condition of modern man and that which seems of most
concern to the author, that condition in which crime has
been rendered "logical."

Mais a partir du moment ou, faute de caractére, on

court se donner une doctrine, des 1'instant ou le

crime se raisonne, il prolifere comme la raison

elle-meme, i1 prend toutes les figures du syllo-

gisme. Il était solitaire comme 1e cri, 1e voila

universel comme la science. Hier juge, i1 fait la

loi aujourd'hui.2
Once an isolated arbitrary force, the absurd takes on the
form of modern logic. Crime, once considered the exception
is intellectualized and becomes the rule. Given this legali—
zation of crime, now it is a question for Camus of finding
out whether innocence, from the moment it acts, can prevent
itself from killing. And the absurd sentiment and its
liberty render murder not only logical, but possible.

Before turning to the second part of the author's
original theater, a final change, an evolution in the
character of the absurd and revolt in the personages, must
be noted.

As we observed, Caligula and Lg Malentendu were

marked by an individual revelation of the absurd condition.

 

23H.R., p. 13.

46

Isolation and solitude characterize both Caligula and Martha.
They are alone in their separation as in their revolt.

The absurd and its characteristics are abstract in
these plays. They tend to be metaphysical in nature. The
death of Drusilla is not the real cause of Caligula's madness.
It is what this loss revealed, our condemnation to death and
its ensuing leveling of meaning which we attach to our ex—
istence. Even Martha whose object of revolt is a more con-
crete attainable goal, in her case the sun and sea and this
far away land where man finds happiness in forgetfulness,
finds herself in a hOpeless impasse. we find here the more
general abstract quality of man's absurd condition.

However, in the second half of Camus' theater, there
is an effort to render the nature of the absurd more con—
crete, in the case of L'Etat g§.§i§gg through personifi-
cation. The author brings it down out of its abstract meta-
physical realm thus making revolt against it more feasible.
In L'Etat ggl§i§gg two individuals represent two facets of the
absurd, disease and death.

On the other hand the so-called absurd hero, al-
though in my opinion in the case of Dora and Kaliayev of Egg
Justes well delineated, tends in the author's effort to
emphasize the group or collectivity in revolt, to become
more abstract dehumanized losing the individual strength
which Caligula possesses. This will be developed further in

the treatment of Les Justes.

47

This is especially the case in L'Etat gg Siege and
is one of the reasons for which this work was the least
enthusiastically received of the four works treated in this
analysis.

This change in Camus' conception of the absurd and
man's revolt can be traced back to the Second WOrld war and
his experience in the Resistance movement in France. It is
here that Camus was most directly confronted with a kind of
absurdity, in this case war and its atrocities. Camus was
obliged to turn away from a personal more narrow concept of
the absurd, adapting it to a universal collective experience.

This attitude concerning the solidarity of collective

\

a un ami allemand. 24

revolt already appears in Lettres

In these letters revolt becomes a positive cry for
justice in the name of man. It is no longer the negative
despairing cry of a Caligula or Martha.

Speaking to an imaginary German friend and protest-
ing against the road chosen by Nazi Germany, Camus states
this self—evident truth:

Pour tout dire, vous avez choisi 1' injustice, vous
vous etes mis avec les dieux Votre logique n 'etait
qu 'apparente.

J' ai choisi la justice au contraire, pour rester
fidele a la terre. ’Je continue a croire que ce monde
n' a pas de sens super1eur. Mais je sais que quelque

chose en lui a du sens et c 'est 1' homme, parce qu 'il
est le seul etre a exiger d' en avoir (73— 74).

 

24Albert Camus, Lettres §.gg ami allemand (Paris,

1948).

48

Camus' experience and its interpretation are changing
as witnessed by this passionate protest in Letters 39 §.§E£'
man Friend. As contrasted to the desperate nihilistic cry
of Caligula against his condition and in favor of an im—
possible goal, the author has turned to a cry of revolt a-
gainst this nihilism, and in favor of the one thing in this
world that does matter, which has a self-evident meaning,
man.

Turning back again to the problem of freedom in the
revolt, perhaps the central issue in all of Camus' original
theatrical works, we turn to L' Etat de Camus con-
tinues his quest for the "right" liberty, the one which will
not betray man.

L'Etat gg.§i§g§ differs from Camus' other three
plays in that it was a joint effort presented with Jean-
Louis Barrault. Barrault directed the play and was at least
partly responsible for the maze of technical effects used in
its production. It is not known how much direct influence
Barrault exercised on Camus? development of the play, but
it was probably considerable.25

Camus, in his introduction to the play, comments on
the multiplicity of its structure.

[I1 s 'agit] . . . d' un spectacle dont 1' ambition
avouee est de meler toutes les formes d' expression
dramatique depuis le monologue lyrique jusqu' au

theatre collectif, en passant par le jeu muet, le
simple dialogue, la farce et 1e choeur; . . . (187).

 

25Cruickshank, p. 209.

49

The structure of the work lacks the unity of the other three
plays and consequently as a theatrical effort it suffered.
Of all Camus' works, this play is certainly the most
didactic. Concerned primarily with the scourge of the
plague, he widens it symbolically to all forms of tyranny
which beset man. This includes those of a physical social
or moral nature, man-made or of an origin other than man.
Camus' choice of Spain as the setting of his work is
worth noting since it gives us an insight into his purpose in
the work; that of relating the plague with the tyranny of
modern totalitarian bureaucracies whether they are communist
or fascist.
In a response to Gabriel Marcel on why he chose
Spain as the site of this work, the author states:
Aucun spectateur de bonne foi ne peut douter que
cette piece prenne le parti de 1' individu, de la
chair dans ce qu 'elle a de noble, de 1' amour
terrestre enfin, contre les abstractions et les
terreurs de l'Etat tolitaire, qu 'il soit russe,
allemand ou espagnol. . . . Oui, malgré 1a commisé-
ration de nos grands politiques, c 'est tout cela
ensemble qu 'il faut dénoncer. Et je n' excuserai pas
cette peste hideuse a 1' Quest de l' EurOpe parce
qu 'elle exerce ses ravages a 1' Est, sur de plus
grandes étendues.
The Opening scene stage direction of L'Etat gg Siege
suggests Camus' intention to draw a parallel between the
plague and the invasion of Hitler's armies as a form of

o \
scourge. "Ouverture mus1ca1e autour d'un theme sonore

rappelant 1a siréne d'alerte" (189).

 

26Albert Camus, "Pourquoi l'Espagne," Actuelles
(Paris, 1950), pp. 242-244.

50

The scene begins with a supernatural symbol, a comet
which appears in the sky of Cadiz, Spain.

As the citizens gather in the town square forming a
sort of chorus functioning as spokesman for the peOple, we
are introduced to the first important personage of the play.
Nada, ["nothing," in Spanish] appears. It is soon obvious
that the author has chosen Nada to represent the nihilist.
Serving as an observer, and a spokesman for nihilism, his
only concern is alcohol. 'Moi, je parle a ma bouteille"
(191).

Shortly afterward, Nada introduces himself: "

ivrogne par dédain de toutes choses et par dégoGt des
honneurs, raillé des hommes parce que j'ai gardé la liberté
du mépris, . . ." Scorn characterizes Nada and hate as well.
Anticipating the fate of his fellow citizens, he cries:
"Non, vous n'etes pas dans l'ordre, vous Etes dans le rang.
Bien alignés, la mine placide, vous voila mars pour la
calamité" (192-193).

A judge in his own fashion, Nada finds it better to
be an accomplice of the heavens rather than their victim
(192-193). Camus' view of the functions of a judge in our
society is apparent in Nada's speech. His attack then turns
to the church and its role in "encouraging" modern tyranny.

Diego, our hero, now appears, and refutes the
vauntings of Nada regarding his nihilism. We have a glimpse

of a man full of pride and a sense of honor. He is an

idealist and a man of an extreme naivety.

51

Nada, approving the government's desire to ignore
this "bad omen" [the comet] which must be considered a false

sign, points out: c'est l'heure de la vérité . . . "
(195)! The road is now open to the scourge.

The first in a series of moral dialogues, so charac-
teristic of Camus' theater, ensues. Contrasted to the nihil—
ism of Nada, who proclaims to be above all things, and like
a god, desires nothing, Diego claims that no one is above
honor which gives life meaning and man his reason for being.
Convinced that this belief in man holds him above calamity,
Diego is concerned with one thing, being happy.

Personne n'est au-deSsus de l'honneur. . .\. Elle
m'attend. C'est pourquoi je ne crois pas a la
calamite que tu annonces. Je dois m'occuper
d'étre heureux. C'est un long travail, qui de—
mande 1a paix des villes et des campagnes (196).

Ignoring the warnings, the people turn to drink and
forgetfulness. Nature is good and her bounties many.
"Buvons jusqu'a l'oubli, i1 ne se passera rien" (198)!

At this point, Victoria, the judge's daughter enters,
and in a lyrical dialogue between her and Diego their love
emerges.

In the following pages the different figures of
society are presented. First the astrologer, the "wiseman"
comes forward. For Camus, he is another individual who
plays on the people's ignorance and superstition. He pro-

claims ironically: "Je ne suis pas responsable de ce qui

n'a pas eu lieu" (202)!

52

Following the astrologer, the actors appear hypo-
critically complementing the citizens. Ironically and with

bitter humor they announce:

Ouvrez vos beaux yeux, gracieuses dames et vous,
seigneurs, prétez l'oreille! Les acteurs que
voici, . . . vont jouer, . . . pour l'edification
du public de Cadix, 1e plus averti de toutes les
Espagnes (202-203)!

Next the governor appears on the scene. The parallel
between this character and the rightist government of Spain
is apparent when he declares: "Le changement m'irrite,
j'aime mes habitudes! . . . Rien n'est bon de ce qui est
nouveau. . . . Je suis le roi de l'immobilité" (204—205)!

The nihilists heartily approve this position and
the people follow suit.

(Le choeur): Rien n'est changé! Il ne’se passe rien,
i1 ne s'est rien passe! . . . En verite, tout est en
ordre, 1e monde s'equilibre, . . . C'est le midi de
l'annee, 1a saison haute et immobile! . . . Sages!
Nbus resterons sages puisque rien ne changera jamais
(205).

As they all attempt to lose themselves in forgetful—
ness, the dialogue rises to a crescendo which reaches its
height with the arrival of the plague.

_.,o--—\

If) As the plague arrives, fear and superstition en—
couraged by the responsible authorities, e.g. the priest and
the government, seize the people. Each group repeats its
conclusion concerning the threat of the plague. The church
offers repentance before the punishment of God for the

people's sins. The astrologer says that the stars are at

fault, the government that the people must be forced to

53

ignore the situation. Forgetfulness is the answer. The
irony of these speeches is bitter and forceful but most open
and instructive.

An example of this obvious social disparagement on
the part of Camus, is the speech of the priest who, exhort-
ing the people in a fire and brimstone manner, urges them to
publicly confess their sins. He continues: "Je m'accuse
pour ma part, d'avoir souvent mangué de charité" (210).
Camus' social criticism is obvious, too much so in fact,
thus dulling the dramatic impact of the speeches.

The stage is now set for the scourge in all its col-
lective horror. Interesting to note is that in its initial
production L'Etat ggigiéqg was performed by actors dressed
as German storm trOOpers. They represented the personage of
the plague and his entourage.27

Diego, the medical student, appears at this point,
aiding the sick. He is followed by Victoria seeking to
escape the scourge in the arms of her lover.

A major conflict emerges at this point which will
continue as one of the more important moral issues of the
play. Diego must choose between the warmth and forgetful-
ness offered him by Victoria and the bitter intellectual
sacrifice involved in the revolt. (This theme reoccurs in
Les Justes which will be treated later.) Victoria exclaims

to Diego: "0h! Diego, c'est enfin toi! Enleve ce masque

 

27Cruickshank, p. 212.

54

et serre-moi contre toi. Contre toi contre toi; et je serai
sauvée de ce mal" (212):

Horror stricken, Diego cannot ignore the sickness.
His illusion of happiness and honor as man's lot begins to
disintegrate. He rebuffs Victoria while assuring her that
the evil cannot endure for long. Possessing hope in the
future, he assures her: "Cela va finir. Je suis trop jeune
et je t'aime trop" (213).

The chorus, Camus' mouthpiece here, announces the
absurd feeling which the plague and death have established.
In a lyrical vain they chant: "Qui a raison et qui a tort?
Songe que tout ici bas est mensonge. I1 n'est rien de vrai
que la mort" (214).

At this point, the plague enters the stage. It is
personified by a fat little man accompanied by his female
secretary, evidently death; both are in uniform. Their
purpose is to administer the scourge, to establish a
bureaucratic tyranny, an evident allusion to modern totali-
tarianism. In short time the "new order" is established,
the government and its officials quickly fleeing. To facili-
tate their work, they need to obtain the consent of those
submitted to the new "reform" and this goal is quickly
achieved with a few "radiations" performed by the secretary
in her notebook.

With the willing help of Nada, quickly drafted by
the secretary who recognizes his usefulness, as well as the

"Alcade," who serves as an intermediary, the new "ordonnance'

55

is initiated and the "réglementation" and "ordres" of the
plague emerge (219-220). Camus' allusion to the Nazi occu—
pation of France during the Second WOrld War is inescapable.
The author again remarks through the chorus: "L'Etat,
c'était lui, [the governor] et maintenant, il n'est plus
rien. Puisqu'il s'en va, c'est la Peste qui est l'Etat"
(222).

Establishing different interdictions by means of
several messengers, the arbitrary totalitarian nature of the
plague used as a symbol is well delineated in the following
prohibition recited by the fourth messenger:

Il est severement interdit de porter assistance a

toute personne frappée par la maladie, si ce n 'est

en la dénonqant aux autorités qui s 'en chargeront.

La dénonciation entre membres d' une meme famille

est particulierement recommandée et sera récom—

pensée par 1' attribution d' une double ration

alimentaire, dite ration civique (224).
In the preceding lines, the play loses its reality. Camus'
didactic purpose and moral concern overwhelm the dramatic
integrity of the play.

The chorus, chanting lyrical praises to the sea, the
people's saviour, reminds one of the poetic passages of such
early essays of Camus as Ngggg. They evoke the sea, the
deliverer, the pacifier. "Qui me rendra les mers d'oubli,
l'eau calme du large, ses routes liquides et ses sillages
recouverts. A la mer! A la mer, avant que les portes se
ferment" (225)!

The chorus as a lyrical expression of the author

seems too forced. Commentary of a poetic nature, the above

lines change to a more rational metaphysical quality.

56

As the priest flees, all the traditional forms of
authority collapse, ceding to the will of the new order.

At this point we see Camus' concept of the partial
innocence of man related to those forces of nature and his
condition over which he has no control. The choir chants:

Freres, cette détresse est plus grande que notre
faute, nous n' avons pas mérité cette prison'
Notre coeur n 'était pas innocent, mais nous A
aimions le monde et ses étés: ceci aurait du
nous sauver (227)!

Proclaiming the "state of siege," the plague begins
his reign, first separating men from women. The solitude of
death is part of this new order.

vous allez apprendre a mourir dans l'
ordre. . . . vous ne mourrez plus par caprice,
Le destin, desormais s 'est assagi, apris
ses bureaux (229).
One can not help but think of the reign of Caligula and his

murderous logic.

Continuing this monologue, the plague comments on

the establishment of his reign. "Je vous apporte le silence,
l'ordre et l'absolue justice. . . . Mais j'exige votre
collaboration active" (229-230). To render his functioning

most efficient, collaboration is mandatory. Here lies for
Camus the nature of a tyranny as well as the seed of its
downfall, eventual revolt.

The bureaucratic systematized nature of modern to-
talitarianism appears as the plague and his secretary intro—

duce "les perfectionnements de la comptabilité" (233).

57

The stage directions which open this second part of
the play also contribute to the symbolic nature of the
plague. Cadix has been turned into a sort of concentration
camp with its functionaries and charnel houses. As with
Caligula, the citizens' very right to exist is questioned.
They are condemned, their only reprieve a "certificat d'exis-
tence" distributed arbitrarily and which is "provisoire et a
terme" (236).

(MixTurning to the figure of the plague itself, Camus
”seems to be alluding to the two natures of the absurd, one——
that of man's condition or destiny exemplified by diseases
such as the plague, and of course the final absurdity, death.
A second trait is the absurd condition created by man himself,
whether it be the individual in his nihilism or the mass
murder unleashed by modern collective ideologies.

‘N' The absurd reasoning of Caligula in denying man's
innocence and very existence because he is condemned to die
can be seen in the words of the "secretary." “NOtre con-
viction, c'est que vous Stes coupables. Coupables d'gtre
gouvernés naturellement. Encore faut-il que vous sentiez
vousrmemes que vous etes coupables" (239).

Again the "concentration" nature of the order is
seen in the words of the plague: "Je les ai concentrés.
Jusqu'ici ils vivaient dans la dispersion. . . . Maintenant

ils sont plus fermes, ils se concentrent" (243)!

be e

dea1

in;

lat.

tr
fu
pa
il

Th.
cor

fa]

58

Nada continues to execute the orders of the plague,
destroying understanding and communication. Dialogue must
be eliminated to achieve his goal, that of nothingness and
death.

In order to enhance the besieged nature of Cadix,
the.following stage directions are illuminating: "Lumiere
au centre. On apercoit en découpure des cabanes et des
‘barbelés, des miradors et quelques autres monuments hostiles"
(248).

Proclaiming his innocence, Diego flees as the chorus
in a long monologue proclaims the pe0p1e's despair and iso-
lation. In a veritable cry of the heart they chant:

Nous, nous sommes devenus sages. Nbus sommes ad-
ministrés. Mais dans le silence des bureaux,
nous écoutons un long cri contenu qui est celui
des coeurs séparés et qui nous parle de la mer
sous 1e soleil de midi, de 1' odeur des roseaux
dans 1e soir, des bras frais de nos femmes.

Mais le seul refuge est la mer dont ces murs nous
séparent. Que 1e vent se leve et nous pourrons
enfin respirer . . . (249- 250).

As we meet the judge, Victoria's father, again the
travesty of officialdom emerges when the judge explains his
function. "Je ne sers pas la loi pour ce qu'elle dit, mais
parce qu'elle est la loi. . . . Si le crime devient la loi,
il cesse d'gtre crime" (251).

We find again a reasoning which can lead to tyranny.
The judge with the law on his side and his own hatred an ac-

complice, typifies this "new" justice. His position is not

far from that onyada. Desiring peace and sleep they both

59

have chosen nihilism, Nada in his alcohol and the judge in
the law. In driving Diego from his home where he has iso-
lated himself and his family, the judge cries: "Je dénoncerai
cet homme qui a causé ce trouble! . . . je 1e ferai au non

de la 101 et de la haine" (256).

The full nature of the crisis which Diego will con-
front surges forth in an exchange between Victoria and Diego.
It is apparent that he is torn between the love and diversion
which Victoria offers him and his duty towards his fellow
man in the face of the absurd. Rejecting Victoria's sug-
gestion that they turn away from their condition, he replies:
"Mais je suis trop fier pour t'aimer sans m'estimer" (258).

As Diego is drawn to Victoria by the force of their
love and his desire to escape, the "secretary" interrupts
their efforts contaminating Diego with the plague. His
solitude is complete now. Embracing Victoria, he cries out:
"Ah! Je hais ta beauté, puisqu'elle doit me survivre!
Maudite qui servira a d'autres! La: Je ne serai pas seul!
Que m'importe ton amour s'il ne pourrit pas avec moi" (260)?

As Victoria makes a last plea for Diego's love, he
rejects it, casting his .th with the people suffering from
the scourge.

Non! Désormais, je suis avec les autres, avec ceux
qui sont marques! Leur souffrance me fait horreur,
elle me remplit d'un dégoGt qui jusqu'ici me re-

tranchait de tout. Mais finalement, je suis dans
la meme malheur, ils ont besoin de moi (261).

60

Completely lucid, his last hope of evasion snatched away,
Diego cries out: "Ils ont interdit l'amour! Ah! Je te
regrette de toutes mes forces" (262)!

Marking the contrast between man, his honor and duty
to his fellow man, and the love of a woman, Victoria ex-
claims: "Je ne connais que mon amour! . . . Je suis sourde
[to the cries of the others] jusqu'a la mort! . . . Mes yeux
ne voient plus! L'amour les éblouit" (262).

Victoria's desperate cry in favor of her only reality,
her "raison d'etre," that of her love for Diego, appears here
to be the most dramatically worthy language of the play. The
following passage parallels well Victoria with Maria of Le
Malentendu.

Je ne vais pas encore me charger de la douleur du
monde! C'est une tache d'homme, cela, une de ces
taches, vaines, stériles, entétées, que vous en-
treprenez pour vous detourner du seul combat qui
serait vraiment difficile, de la seule victoire
dont vous pourriez etre fiers (262-263).
Camus' Victoria appears to the reader as the most real the
most human personage of the play.

There is one misfortune to fight in Victoria's eyes
and that is found within Diego himself. For Victoria, it
is that which separates them, not only Diego's physical im-
parity, but a humanitarian duty to his fellow man. But
Diego's solitude prevents him from conquering it. "Le
malheur est trop grand pour moi." Victoria's succor useless,

Diego flees. Victoria, left alone exclaims: "Ah! Solitude"

(263-264)!

61

Victoria's position is then intellectualized by the
female chorus which wails its lost joys, awaiting the return
of the wind from the sea with its promises of corporal
pleasure. " . . . le souvenir des mers libres, le ciel
désert de l'été, l'odeur éternelle de l'amour" (264).

Fleeing the city, Diego encounters the "secretary"
engaging her in a conversation. As death describes her work,
a matter of statistics to her, our hero is disgusted. His
despise and fury rising, he proclaims the revolt.

Le coeur me vient a la bouche tant vous me répugnez!

. . Mais je vous en.préViIls,un homme seul, c 'est
plus genant, ga crie sa joie on son agonie. Et moi
vivant, je continuerai a déranger votre bel ordre
par le hasard des cris. Je vous refuse, je vous re—
fuse de tout mon Qtre! . . . i1 y a dans l' homme
une force que vous ne reduirez pas, une folie claire,
melee de peur et de courage, ignorante et victorieuse
a tout jamais. C' est cette force qui va se lever et
vous saurez alors que votre gloire etait fumee (270—
273).

This cry of outrage, a passionate plea in favor of man, re—
sembles in many respects the long emotional outcries which
characterize Letters 39.; German Friend.

The "secretary" laughs in response to this diatribe.
Diego slaps her, his fear disappearing as well as the marks
of the plague's contamination, and with them the scourge's
terror. The power which the tyranny of the plague and his
entourage has wielded is gone. Death herself explains the
nature of the plague and its "machine," faced by revolt.

Du plus loin que je me souvienne, il a tou'ours
suffi qu' un homme surmonte sa peur et se revolte

pour que leur machine commence a grincer. Je ne
dis pas qu 'elle s 'arrete, 11 5 'en faut. Mais

62
enfin, elle grince et, quelquefois, elle finit
vraiment par se gripper (273).

With the loss of his fear before death, death her—
self loses her influence upon Diego and she retires. Re-
moving the gag which covers a fisherman's mouth, obviously a
reference to the efforts of the "order" to repress communi—
cation, dialogue returns and with it the sea breeze.

The third part of L'Etat Q§I§i§qg, the denouement,
opens with the revolt which has arisen from Diego's refusal
to bend before the plague and death. Directing the people
in this uprising, Diego transforms an individual "no" into a
collective revolt.

At this point it is worthwhile to turn to Camus'
principal essay on the revolt, L'Homme révolté, to witness
his more formal rational description of the emergence of re-
volt.

"Dans l'expérience absurde, la souffrance est indi-
viduelle. A partir du mouvement de révolte, elle a con-
science d'étre collective, elle est l'aventure de tous.

Le mal qui éprouvait un seul devient peste collective" (35).

But a most important characteristic of this revolt
is its positive nature. The author points out that the
rebel's refusal is not a renouncement. He is a man who also
says yes.

Apparemment negative, puisqu 'elle ne crée rien,
1a révolte est profondément positive puisqu 'elle

révele ce qui, en 1' homme, est toujours a
défendre (32).

_ - E O‘CJEF‘I'P—I.
. ‘ -

-m- - w rm.

-' ‘1‘! (is; '.‘j.¢, .‘f; '

 

 

.‘L

 

;l:'—v1'.w' ’ '- ' '

 

 

63

The rebel thus becomes the defender of certain human values.
An individual has an innate value and dignity which cannot
be denied through imprisonment or murder. He shares this
value with all other men, the realization of which brings
him in defense of them. ". . . 1e mouvement qui dresse
1'individu pour la défense d'une dignité commune a tous les
hommes" (31).
As with Diego, Camus' rebel refuses to be reduced to

a statistic, a thing of little significance when viewed from
a historical point of view. He possesses certain qualities
in common with all men and which must not be denied. Turn-
ing to the long speech of Diego before death, we see these
qualities.

Mais dans votre belle nomenclature, vous avez

oublie la rose sauvage, les signes dans le ciel,

les visages d' été, la grande voix de la mer, les
instants du déchirement et la colere des hommes

(271)!
And the author confirms this common nature expressed
by Diego when he states in L'Homme révolté:
La révolte est dansl.'homme,le refus d' étre traité
en chose et d' etre réduit a la simple histoire.

Elle est 1' affirmation d' une nature commune a tous
les hommes, qui échappe au monde de la puissance

(307).

This statement may be contrasted with the existen-
tialist philosoPhies which deny the existence of a permanent

and universal human nature as well as values derived from

such a nature.

64

Pointing out this basic difference existing between
Camus and an existentialist writer such as Jean-Paul Sartre,
Cruickshank contrasts them well in the following note:

Sartre asserts that values do not pre-exist. They

are simply invented or made by a man as he performs
acts and accepts choices in the process of living.
These "invented values" combine to form an image of
man in general such as the individual considers he
ought to be. No doubt Camus is unsure about the
metaphysical status of values, but he does make

some of them independent of the individual. He is

not saying that such values are absolute or eternal in
the traditional sense. But contrary to Sartre he finds
their pre—existence, in some form, essential to his
picture of what it means to be a human being (97).

Turning to the final part of the L'Etat gg Sie e,
we witness Diego directing the forces organized to combat
the scourge. Aware of the nature of the intimidation exer—
cised by the tyranny, he proclaims:

N'ayez plus peur, c'est la condition. Debout tous
ceux qui le peuvent! . . . Relevez le front, voici
l'heure de la fierte! . . . O sainte revolte, refus
vivant, honneur du peuple, donne a ces baillonnes
la force de ton cri (275)!

Admirable as the ardor of Diego may be, as well as
his lucidity in revolt, this passage demonstrates the diffi-
culty which Camus seems to have encountered in finding a
dramatic medium between the didactic aims inherent in his
theater, the metaphysical concerns expressed through his
characters, and a certain theatrical warmth, a human quality
which his creations sometimes lack. Rising to the point of
allegory, the dialogue loses its dramatic impact. This was

the case in the Malentendu when Martha at times lost all

human credibility.

65

The chorus continuing in a lyrical vain chants:
"Voici revenu 1e bruit des sources que le soleil noir de la
peste avait évaporées" (280).

Struggling against fear, hate and ignorance, Diego's
battle for the minds of the people, his fight to overthrow
the established order, begins.

Unfortunately, Diego's sense of common collective re-
volt experienced at the end of part two, a lucidity in the
face of the absurd, is not shared by the other members of the
group. As victory seems near and the people rally around
Diego, the following words of the chorus are revealing:

Ils fuient. L'été s'acheve en victoire. . . . Et
la victoire alors a le corps de nos femmes sous
la pluie de l'amour. . . . 0 mon amour, le desire
creve comme un fruit mfir, 1a gloire des corps
ruisselle enfin. . . . Ce sont les fates de la
victoire, allons chercher nos femmes (285)!

Solidarity is non-existent, "l'inconscience," a lack
of lucidity characterizes these people. The plague has not
even departed and they are rushing off to their habitual
diversions hurtling back to the oblivion from which the
plague has separated them.

As noted above, Diego's oneness with his fellow
citizens in revolt is not What it might first appear to be.
And his essential solitude, his isolation from the group
even in revolt, reasserts itself in the final scene of the
play when the plague confronts Diego with his greatest moral

decision. His commitment, ironically in favor of the soli—

darity of the revolt is tested.

66

Seeing that the citizens have rallied around Diego,
the plague sensing his own defeat before the revolt, makes
one last move. He strikes down Victoria and as a kind of
blackmail holds her hostage promising to render her to Diego
if he renounces his effort to fight. Diego vividly expresses
his despair at the thought of losing his love. "Ne me
quitte pas, la terre est froide. Mon amour, mon amour!

Si tu meurs, pendant tous les jours qui me restent a vivre,
il fera noir en plein midi" (285)! we see here the image
dear to Camus of the black sun of noon.

In the following passages a lyrical warmth arises, the
lines losing their earlier metaphysical quality. It is the
heart which speaks.

A.mouthpiece for women, the female chorus comments
on Diego's heart—rending tension so important to Camus in
that this is the true nature of the revolt against the
absurd. "L'homme crie vers l'impossible, la femme souffre
tout ce qui est possible. . . . Ce corps était ta patrie
sans laquelle tu n'est plus rien! Ta mémoire ne rachetera
rien" (286)!

Tempting the hero with the physical realities of
existence, the plague offers Diego these as well as his
woman. Responding negatively, Diego asserts: "Ma vie n'est
rien. Ce qui compte, ce sont les raisons de ma vie. Je ne
suis pas un chien" (288).

The plague, admitting his position, that of a master

of all or nothing, points out that if Diego escapes from his

67

grasp, the city will follow our hero. This is a part of the
rule of the "new" order. Diego asserts its origin in man, a
part of his very nature, when he says: " . . . elle est
plus grande que toi, plus haute que tes gibets, c'est la
regle de nature. Nous avons vaincu" (289).

Finally the "peste" plays his final card, that of
the choice between Diego's own death with the liberation of
Cadix, or Victoria's release and the continued siege of the
scourge.

Diego's response is Camus' own. "L'amour de cette
femme, c'est mon royaume a moi. Je puis en faire ce que je
veux. Mais la liberte de ces hommes leur appartient. Je ne
puis en disposer" (289). The one reality for the author,
the most tangible of all man's values, that of life itself
and the liberty which this value entails cannot be reduced
to the whims or reasoning of any other man.

Attacking the reasoning of modern collective ideolo-
gies where we find the individual expendable and replaced by
history, Diego expresses the author's criticism of this
logic.

Il faut’tuer pour supprimer le meutre, yiolenter
pour guerir l'injustice. ‘11 y a des siecles que
cela dure! il y a-des siecles que les seigneurs
de ta race pourrissent 1a plaie du monde sous

prétexte de la guerir, et continuent cependant

de vanter leur recette, puisque personne ne leur
rit au nez" (290)!

The passion and sincerity with which Diego protests

against this reasoning informs us of Camus' concern regard-

ing the dangers of modern political ideologies.

68

If we turn again to L'Homme revolté, we find an effort

 

on Camus' part to demonstrate the betrayal of the revolt
which characterizes modern political or philos0phic ideolo-
gies. Whether it be the superman of Nietsche and its adap-
tation by Nazi Germany, or Hegel's concept of historical
determinism as interpreted by Marx and then rendered sacred
by his followers, in both cases modern man by deifying in
the first case himself or in the second history has betrayed
the revolt. For Camus this revolt is faithful to the indi-
vidual from whom it springs forth.28
Germaine Brée in describing Camus' treatment of

modern revolt, points out its nature and the point beyond
which it is lost in revolution:

Revolt is then defined by Camus as the "impulse that

drives an individual to the defense of a dignity

common to all men." It involves the idea of a

measure of liberty and a measure of justice; it con-

tains an affirmation of human solidarity which, in

its turn, serves as a limit for revolt itself. The

"NO" thrown in the face of a violation that has

gone beyond a certain limit is spoken in the name

of all men and presupposes that the slave's revolt

must stop at the moment when it reaches that limit.

If, in his turn, the slave claims absolute freedom,

he then becomes the master to some other slave whose

right he violates.

Thus we find the limit of the revolt in its very

premise, the individual and his innate worth as well as a

limited freedom and justice in whose name revolt erupts in

the first place.

 

28"La révolte historique," H-R-a PP- 133‘299°

29Brée, p. 223.

69

The refusal to Observe this original premise is what
Diego attacks.

There follows a polemic discussion in which the
plague casts doubt on the very human solidarity for which
Diego has committed himself.

Diego's response is that of an idealist aware of the
limitations of his commitment. But his duty is to serve the
others. "Je sais qu'ils ne sont pas purs. Moi non plus.

Et puis je suis né parmi eux. Je vis pour ma cité et pour
mon temps" (290).

Continuing, Diego states the limits which the revolt,
as defined by Camus, has set on man's freedom:

11 est vrai qu'il leur arrive d'etre laches et
cruels. C'est pourquoi ils n'ont pas plus que
toi 1e droit a la puissance. Aucun homme n'a
assez de vertu pour qu'on puisse lui consentir
1e pouvoir absolu (291).

Compassion highlights Diego's plea in favor of man
against this scornful tyranny.

Although it is not denoted in this dialogue, perhaps
the real tragedy of Diego's situation is the following point
which the scourge cruelly brings out: most men, although ac-
cepting Diego's commitment because they are forced to rather
than from a conscious decision, remain indifferent to Diego's
motives. Rejected by Diego in favor of a certain compassion

for his fellow man and his innocence, the above observation

nonetheless remains valid.

70

The tension and sacrifice chosen by the hero become
even more tragic in their essential singularity. But then
this is the very nature of the absurd hero who in the
lucidity of the basic futility of his efforts, remains faith—
ful to his condition rejoicing in this lucidity.

As with "Sisyphe" who obstinately sticks to his task,

30 With-

Camus insists: "Il faut imaginer Sisyphe heureux."
in the absurd condition itself, the grandeur of man is
manifest.

Diego's victory is near. The plague, realizing this,
admits that if Diego had given in to his proposition, all
would have been lost including Victoria and Diego himself.
"Tu vois, il suffit d'un insensé comme toi . . . L'insensé
meurt évidemment. Mais a la fin, tat ou tard, 1e reste est
sauvé" (292)!

As we approach the end of the play, an interesting
dialogue occurs between death and the plague in which their
functions are contrasted. The hatred and scorn of the
plague, or of any tyranny, is opposed to death which has be-
come fatigued, a worn out old woman.' She is arbitrary, im-
personal, disassociated from man, but tyranny borrows its
hate and cruelty from man.

Remembering her former nature before she became as-

sociated with the plague, she notes: "J'étais libre avant

o I .
vous et assoc1ée avec le hasard. . . . J'eta1s la stable.

 

30Mythe, p. 166.

71

Mais vous m'avez mise au service de la logique et du regle—
ment" (293-294).

So the plague and his traveling companion death,
leave in search of new hunting grounds, new accomplices and
new victims. Content with his work, the plague informs the
people of his ideal; that surpassing the whims of God in his
vengeance and good will, he, the force of evil, has chosen
power and domination alone. "L'idéal, c'est d'obtenir une
majorité d'esclaves a l'aide d'une minorité de morts bien
choisis. Aujourd'hui, la technique est au point" (296).

But the plague, far from being vanquished, always
carries with it the ever present danger of return, in this
case on the heels of those returning authorities who re-
linquished their control to it in the first place. The
Plague witnesses this fact when it declares upon the return
to Cadix of the authorities:

Ecoutez! Voici ma chance qui revient. Voici vos
anciens maitres que vous retrouverez’aveugles aux
plaies des autres, ivres d'immobilite et’d'oubli.
Honneur aux stupides puisqu'ils preparent mes
voies! Ils font ma force et mon espoir (296)!

However there remains honor and pride which end up
in revolt. "(La Secrétaire): "Neus triompherons de tout,
sauf de la fierté" (296).

There is one consolation for the tyrannical plague
and that is the suffering of Diego, both physical and moral.
To save the honor of his revolt and to comply with the

terrible exigency of the tension of his commitment, he must

sacrifice himself before it. But as we observed earlier,

72

this truth which demands allegiance even to death is not
shared by Victoria. To Diego's assertion that he is happy
since he did what needed to be done, Victoria has one re—
sponse. "NOn. Il fallait me choisir contre le ciel lui—
meme. Il fallait me préférer a la terre entiere" (297).

Diego's strength has nothing to do with Victoria and
her love. As Diego observes, it is a force which devours
everything wherein happiness has no place. He is pure in his
strength but has dried up in his fight, no longer a man, un-
able to experience the pleasures of this world. Even his
love for Victoria is the pure love of the soul, something
which Victoria cannot admit. There is no consolation for
her in this kind of love. When Diego proclaims: "Je t'ai
aimée de toute mon ame," she responds with a cry: "Ce
n'était pas assez. Oh, non! Ce n'était pas encore assez!
Qu'avais-je a faire de ton Sme seule" (298)! This same
difference will emerge in Les Justes with respect to
Kaliayev's love for Dora.

Mourning the death of Diego, the women protest
against those men who, deserting their female companions,
prefer an idea and pursuing it only encounter death.

Mais les hommes préferent l'idée. Ils fuient leur
mere, ils se détachent de l'amante, et les voila
qui courent a l'aventure, blessés sans plaie,

morts sans poignards, chasseurs d'ombres, chanteurs
solitaires, appelant sous un ciel muet une im-
possible réunion et marchant de solitude en soli-

tude, vers l'isolement dernier, la mort en plein
désert (298)!

73

Thus Diego dies, remaining faithful to his one truth,

his love for man and justice, his revolt.

Nada, Observing the arrival of the Old administration,
that of forgetfulness, of habit and hypocrisy, bitterly de-

nounces their order:

Les voila! Les anciens arrivent, ceux d'avant, ceux
de toujours, . . . Le soulagement est général, on va
pouvoir recommencer. A zéro, naturellement. Voici
les petits tailleurs du néant, vous allez etre
habillés sur mesure. . . . Au lieu de fermer les
bouches de ceux qui crient leur malheur, ils ferment
leurs prOpres oreilles. Nous étions muets, nous

allons devenir sourds. . . . le sang de ceux que vous
appelez les justes illumine encore les murs du monde,
et que font-ils: ils se decorent . . . (299)!

As they arrest Nada, he proclaims the arrival of the
"new" justice. Camus' answer to his tirade is a simple one.
The chorus chants that there is no justice in this world,
but there are some limits. "Et ceux-la qui prétendent ne
rien régler, commes les autres qui entendaient donner une
regle a tout, dépassent également les limites" (300). Both
orders are in the wrong in Camus' eyes, that one which does
nothing as well as that which pretends to give one answer to
all things, to right all wrongs.

Nada administering his own justice, thus escaping
that of a society which he scorns, jumps into the sea. Like
Caligula, the issue of his nihilistic reasoning is death.

He cries out before departing: "Adieu, braves gens, vous
apprendrez cela un jour qu'on ne peut pas bien vivre en
sachant que l'homme n'est rien et que la face de Dieu est

affreuse" (300).

74

The fisherman, describing (in a lyrical vain) the
drowning of Nada,'eings" the vengeance of the sea, the
people's protector, exclaiming: "Elle nous venge. Sa
colere est la n8tre. Elle crie le ralliement de tous les
hommes de la mer, la réunion des solitaires. O vague, O mer,
patrie des insurgés, voici ton peuple qui ne cédera jamais"
(300).

In a hodge-podge Of dramatic expressions, from two
long dramatic monologues by the women and Nada to the didac-
tic exclamations of the chorus and the stiff poetic con-
clusion of the fisherman, L'Etat g§.§i§qg comes to an end.

Although the final scene served well its purpose as
a vehicle for the metaphysical and moral concerns of Camus,
as a dramatic piece it leaves a lot to be desired. The
transition from the semi-lyrical lamentation Of the women's
speech, to the purely social criticism of Nada's monologue,
and then on to several didactic comments before concluding
in a forced lyrical vain, all of this in three final pages
gives us no impression of experiencing a dramatic reality.
Camus gets his point across but as a dramatic expression
L'Etatlg§.§i§g§,lacks.

Dramatically speaking none of the characters, except
for Victoria, Offer us a feeling of verisimilitude.
Victoria remains warm and alive attached to her human vi—
tality, one of the flesh and warmth of female love. The

others however remain too cerebral, too attached to the

75

author and his metaphysical concerns. They never come alive
as theatrical realities.

Roger Quilliot in his "Presentation" of the work,
gives us a hint as to the reasons for the technical failure
of the play. Jean-Louis Barrault had long dreamed of adapt—
stage. After reading Camus'-L§_£§§E§, Barrault turned to
Camus, requesting his collaboration in the realization of
his dream. Camus accepted, attracted as he was by Barrault's
idea Of "théatre total," that is, a theater which uses all
forms Of dramatic expression.

Quilliot points our that Barrault was expecting a
lyrical Camus, the Camus of Caligula or Ngggg which fit into
his scheme of the theater. But Camus at that time was the
ironic author of La.§§§t§, the editorialist of "Combat."

Quilliot concludes:

les deux hommes, . . . monterent un spectacle
tant8t lyrique et surchauffé, comme 1e désirait
Barrault, tantOt aristophanesque, proche de la revue
ou de la bouffonnerie absurde, comme le voulait Camus.
Cette hésitation fut cause sans doute que la piece
manqua d' unite et fut accueillie froidement" (1812—
1813).

What conclusions may we draw from L'Etat g§.§i§qg
concerning the revolt and its liberty?

At this point in the evolution of the philosOphical
and moral positions of Albert Camus, a trait appears which

was not emphasized in the earlier forms of revolt in his

theater. This involves a certain measure or moderation.

76

There are limits which must be drawn beyond which, as we saw
earlier, the revolt is betrayed.

The chorus witnesses the existence of these limits as
well as the error Of those who fail tO heed them. This
failure may consist of exceeding them in doing nothing or
trying to resolve everything.

Turning to the problem of freedom, which we have ob—
served to be inherent in the revolt, it does not emerge
forcefully in L'Etat d§.§i§qe since it was not the major con—
cern of the protaganist, Diego. His problem was the diffi-
culty of being faithful to the revolt, but liberty was not
the central issue. In fact, in Observing the conclusions
announced by the chorus, we get the impression that the
author added them as an afterthought, since they add nothing
to the essentially tragic situation of Diego nor to its de-
nouement. It becomes pure polemics.

we must turn to the final work in the original
theater of Camus to see a much more complete treatment of

the freedom involved in the revolt.

CHAPTER IV

Les Justes seems to have emerged during the period

1945 to 1947 when Camus, while preparing L'Homme révolté,

 

was concerned with the problem of revolt and its liberty.
In Carnets mention is made of an essay on the revolt ap—
pearing as early as 1945 as well as in an article "Remarque

sur la révolte," published in L'Existence during 1945. From
31

 

this article came the first chapter of L'Homme révolté.

 

The Just Assassins seems to have crystallized by
June 1947 when we may read in Carnets: "Ire Série. Absurde.
L'Etranger, Lg Myths gg Sisyphe, Caligula, Lg Malentendu.
2e Série. Révolte. LE Fests et annexe, l'Homme révolté -----

e Série. Le Jugement. .Lg Premier homme, etc."

Kalyaev ----- .3
(201).

During most Of these years, while the author was
preparing l'Homme révolté, the problem of murder and its
relationship with revolt and revolution were his major con—
cerns.

In April 1946 we find the following.note in Carnets:

Révolte, commencement: 1e seul probléme moral
vraiment serieux c'est le meurtre. Le reste vient
apres. Mais de savoir si\je puis tuer cet autre
devant moi, ou consentir a ce qu'il soit tue,
savoir que je ne sais rien avant de savoir si je

puis donner la mort, voila ce qu'il faut apprendre
(172).

 

3lQuilliot, p. 1814.

77

78

Quilliot remarks in his "Presentation" to LEE
Justes that the author, after a controversy with Mauriac on
"les lois d'exception," left his journalistic work and
plunged into a study of Russian history through two works,
.5.921.l§.£§2£§? by Hersen (1947) and le Développement des idées
révolutionnaires fig Russie. Quilliot brings out the probable
origin of Les Justes when he states: "Apparement pendant
plusieurs mois, l'étude du terrorisme, comme preparation a
LLHOmme révolté, et la mise en chantier des Justes se
confondent."32

The play seemed to be taking form in July 1947 ac-
cording to an entry in Carnets: "Piece. La Terreur. Un
nihiliste. La violence partout. Partout 1e mensonge.
Détruire, détruire. Un réaliste. Il faut entrer a l'Okhrana.
Entre les deux, Kaliayev.--NOn, Boris, non“ (204).

To understand Camus' goal in writing Les Justes it
is worthwhile to turn to the text of "Les Meurtriers
Délicats" published in January 1948 in La Table Ronde. This
article later became the title of a chapter in LLHgmmg
révolté in which the author traces the historical origins of
Les Justes.33

The student Kaliayev and hiscpmrades worked together

in the "Organization de Combat" of the Socialist Revolution-

ary Party.

 

3ZQuilliot, p. 1814.

33Ibid., 1819.

79

But this revolutionary group differed from many Of
its contemporaries. In contrast to those which followed, it
possessed certain scruples as well as doubts concerning the
efficacy Of a revolution without limits.

Ils Sont venue a la terreur, poussés par une exigence
personnelle autant que par leur systeme politique.

Et 5 'ils y ont vécu, . . . ils n 'Ont jamais cesse

d' y etre déchirés. L' histoire Offre peu d' exemples
de pratiques qui aient souffert de scrupules jusque
dans la mélée (1819).

Their revolutionary career was shortlived. In 1903
Kaliayev joined the terrorist group at the age of twenty-six.
Two years later the so-called "poet" was hung. Kaliayev,
unlike his fellow terrorists, believed in God. A few
minutes before an attack he was seen kneeling before an icon,
a bomb in one hand crossing himself with the other. But, as
Camus points out, he rejected organized religion, and in his
cell before his execution he refused any religious succor
(1820).

Because of the clandestine nature of the enterprise,
the revolutionary group lived in solitude.

Ils ne connaissent pas, sinon de fa on abstraite,

la joie puissante de tout homme d' action en contact
avec une large communauté humaine. Mais le lien qui
les unit remplace pour eux tous les attachements
(1820).

In a "Priere a'insérer" written in 1949, the author
presents a short note describing the situation of these
"meutriers délicats" from which Les Justes was adapted.

En février 1905, a Moscou, un groupe de terroristes,
appartenant au parti socialiste révolutionnaire,

organisait un attentat a la bombe contre le grand-
duc Serge, oncle du tsar. Cet attentat et les

80
circonstances singuliéres qui l'ont précédé et
suivi font le sujet des Justes (1826).

The author continues pointing out that as extra-
ordinary as it might appear, several Of the situations in
the play are historically true. However, this does not mean
that the Just Assassins is a historical play. All Camus'
characters with the exception of Stépan, chosen by the
author to contrast Kaliayev's personality, truly did exist.
But his effort here is to render what was already true
believable (1826).

Before turning to the play, we should take notice Of
its structure and Camus' goals in utilizing the form which
he did. The author's avowed goal was the creation of a dra-
matic tension classical in nature. Quilliot confirms this
when he states: "Il semble que Camus ait adopté des le
début 1e mouvement classique de la piece, assez proche de
celui de Polveucte, avec ses cinq actes et ses dépassements
successifs" (1816).

More than any other of his works, it appears that
Camus considered the situation of Les Justes to possess the
elements necessary for the creation of a drama in the
classic tradition. Again in his "Priere d'insérer" the
author recognizes this purpose when he states:

J' ai essayé d' y obtenir une tension dramatique par
les moyens classiques, c 'est—a—dire l'affrontement
de personnages égaux en force et en raison (1826).

we will examine the author's success in achieving this goal

after a closer look at the work itself.

81

In defending the style chosen for Les Justes, and
again revealing the influence Of the classic theater,

especially that of the Greeks, Camus asserts:

" 11 me semble qu 'il n 'est pas de theatre sans
langa e et sans style, ni d' oeuvre dramatique valable
qui, a 1' exemple de notre theatre classique et des
tragiques grecs, ne mette en jeu le destin humain
tout entier dans ce qu 'il a de simple et grand. Sans
prétendre les égaler, ce sont la, du moins, les
modeles qu 'il faut se prOposer" (1827).

If we look at Camus' own definition of the tragic
element in the theater, we can better understand what he was
trying to achieve with Les Justes. Let us look at the major
points which Camus dealt with in his lecture on the future
of the tragedy pronounced in Athens, Greece.

Voici quelle me para1t‘8tre la difference: [between
the tragedy and the melodrama] les forces ui s 'af-
frontent dans la tragedie sont egalement legitimes,
egalement armees en raison. Dans le mélodrame ou le
drame, au contraire, l' une seulement est légitime.
Autrement dit, la tragedie est ambigue, le drame
simpliste. Dans la premiere, chaque force est en
méme temps bonne et mauvaise. Dans le second, l'une
est le bien, 1'autre le mal. . . . La formule du
mélodrame serait en somme: "Un seul est juste et
justifiable" et la formule tragique par excellence:
"Tous sont justifiables, personne n 'est juste.

C' est pourquoi 1e choeur des tragedies antiques
donne principalement des conseils de prudence. Car
il sait que sur une certaine limite tout le monde a
raison et que celui qui, par aveuglement ou passion,
ignore cette limite, court a la catastrophe pour
faire triompher un droit qu 'il croit etre 1e seul a
avoir. Le theme constant de la tra edie antique est
ainsi 1a limite qu 'il ne faut pas depasser. De part
et d'autre de cette limite se rencontrent des forces
egalement legitimes dans un affrontement vibrant

et ininterrompu. Se tromper sur cette limite,
vouloir rompre cet équilibre, c 'est s 'abimer. 34

 

34Quilliot, "Sur 1'Avenir de la tragédief'p. 1703.

82

This is the case with Caligula, who, as we saw in
the climax of the play, mistaken about this limitation,
broke this equilibrium and was lost.

As an example of this pure form of the tragedy,

Camus takes Aeschylus' Prométhée enchainé.

 

. . il est permis de dire que c est, d' une part,
1' homme et son désir de puissance, d' autre part le
principe divin qui se reflete dans le monde. 11 y
a tragédie lorsque l' homme par orgueil (ou meme
par betise comme Ajax) entre en contestation avec
l' ordre divin, personnifie dans un dieu ou incarné
dans la société. Et la tragédie sera d' autant plus
grande que cette révolte sera plus légitime et cet
ordre plus nécessaire (1704).

What destroys this tension or equilibrium which is
the tragedy? Anything which within the tragedy tends to
break this tension destroys the tragedy as well. If there
is no way in which to contest the divine order and there is
only fault and repentance then there is no tragedy. What
remains is the religious drama, mystery, or parable.

Inversely anything which frees the individual and
submits the universe to a human law, above all by the ne—
gation of the mystery of existence, again destroys the
tragedy (1705). we cannot help but wonder if Camus was
thinking of his own Caligula when he made these statements.

Concluding his definition of the qualities of the
tragic element, Camus states:

La tragédie nait entre l' ombre et la lumiere, et
par leur opposition. Et cela se comprend. Dans
le drame religieux ou athee, le probleme est en

effet résolu d' avance. Dans la tragedie idéale,
au contraire 11 n 'est pas résolu. Le heros se

83

revolte et nie l' ordre qui l'opprime, 1e pouvoir
divin, par 1' oppression, s 'affirme dans la mesure

e on on le nie. Autrement dit la révolte a
elle seule ne fait pas une tragédie. L' affirmation
de l'ordre divin non plus 11 faut une révolte et
un ordre, 1' un s 'arcboutant a 1' autre et chacun
renforqant 1'autre de sa propre force. . . . Le
heros nie l' ordre qui le frappe et 1' ordre divin
frappe parce qu Wl est nié. Tous deux affirment
ainsi leur existence réciproque dans 1' instant
meme ou elle est contestée. Le choeur en tire 1a
legon, a savoir qu '11 y a un ordre, que cet ordre
peut etre douloureux, mais qu 'il est pire encore
de ne pas reconnaitre qu 'il existe. La seule puri-
fication revient a ne rien nier ni exclure, a ac-
cepter donc 1e mystere de 1' existence, la limite
de 1' homme, et cet ordre enfin ou 1' on sait sans
savoir. (1705- 1706).

It must, of course, be remembered that the author
was speaking here of the ideal tragedy in the tradition of
the ancient Greeks or the tragedy of the Renaissance.

Camus notes that form and content make a whole, the
literary creation. Modern dramatists are in search of a
tragic form or language which may create for us a modern
renaissance of the tragedy in the tradition of Sophocles,
Shakespeare, and Racine (1708-1709).

Let's turn now to Les Justes in order to analyze
Camus' endeavor to create a form of modern classic drama,
his effort to obtain "une tension dramatique par les moyens
classiques."

The first act opens on the return, after three years
in prison, of Stepan, a member of the terrorist group. The

party has sent him to join the group in order to kill the

Grand Duke.

84

We immediately become aware of the hate which Setpan
has accumulated during his absence. There is one thing which
matters to Stepan and that is the arrival of liberation day
for the Russian people. To hurry it along there is the bomb
and its terror. When Kaliayev's nickname the Poet is
mentioned, Stepan reacts suspiciously. To a remark of
Annenkov, the leader of the group, that Kaliayev finds
poetry revolutionary, Stepan responds: "La bombe seule est
révolutionnaire" (311).

Voinov, a young revolutionary and idealist enters.

He has mapped the route from the palace to the theater. An-
nouncing his reason for joining the group, he says: "J'ai
compris qu'il ne suffisait pas de dénoncer l'injustice. Il
fallait donner sa vie pour la combattre. Maintenant, je suis
heureux" (314).

At this point we meet the protaganist, Kaliayev, who
arrives replacing a member killed in a previous incident.

He brings the news of the Duke's plans to attend the theater.
this particular week.

Kaliayev strikes us immediately as a happy indi-
vidual. Laughing often, he reveals an honest joy and love
of life. He hardly seems the revolutionary type. Recalling
earlier times when he and Dora were happy together, he re-
marks to the latter: "Tes yeux sont toujours tristes, Dora.
I1 faut etre gaie, il faut etre fiere. La beauté existe, la
joie existe . . . (316)!

Full of fervor and determination, Kaliayev, who has

been chosen to throw the bomb at the Grand Duke's carriage,

85

is ready. Desiring to give his life to the cause, he inti-
mates throwing himself under the horses if he fails to throw
the bomb. Exalted, he suggests suicide if the attack on the
Duke fails. He must give his life in a kind of suicidal
idealism, the sacrifice taking on more importance than the
cause for which it is made.

Stepan finds Kaliayev's attitude that of a bored
bourgeois who enters the revolutionary movement to find ex-
citement and amusement. It is no game for Stepan. "Mais
pour moi, la haine n'est pas un jeu. Nous ne sommes pas 1a
pour nous admirer. NOus sommes la pour réussir" (310). For
Kaliayev it is love of life which brought him into the move-
ment, not boredom.

The sharp contrast between the two emerges. Kaliayev
justifies his role out of love for the Russian pe0ple and a
justice which serves them, while Stepan's justification is
his despise and hatred, acquired in prison.

Speaking for the group, Annenkov declares: "Nous
tuons ensemble, et rien ne peut nous séparer" (321).

Turning to Kaliayev we see that as the others, he
wants to sacrifice himself to the cause. But unlike Stepan
he loves life, a paradox which begins to emerge at this
moment.

Comme eux, je veux me sacrifier. . . . Seulement,
la vie continue de me paraitre merveilleuse.
J'aime la beauté, le bonheur! C'est pour cela
que je hais le despotisme. . . . La revolution,

bien sfir! Mais la‘révolution pour la vie, pour
donner une chance a la vie, tu comprends (322)?

86

And Dora, anticipating the contradiction in their ideology,
expressing a doubt, unable to feel Kaliayev's optimism con-
cerning their goal, states: iEt pourtant, nous allons
donner la mort" (322).

Kaliayev's reasoning is that of the just assassins.
They accept murder to build a world where no one will be
murdered. Accepting the role of criminals, they have done
so so that finally the world will be full of innocent peOple.

Dora, on the other hand, more experienced, and wiser
perhaps than young Kaliayev, questions the arrival of this
innocent world.

For Kaliayev there is one solution. "Mourir pour
l'idée, c'est la seule faqon d'étre a la hauteur de l'idée.
C'est la justification" (323). With these words, Kaliayev
expresses their justification, their sole justification.
They must give their own lives as a kind of exchange for the
life they take in order to justify their act of terrorism.

Again Dora raises another problem which they will be
obliged to face; that is the human personal contact involved
in killing the Duke. Dora brings this out when she
conjectures:

Un homme est un homme. Le grand—duc a peut-étre des
yeux compatissants. Tu 1e verras se gratter l'oreille
Ru sourire joyeusement. Qui sait, il portera peut—
etre une petite coupure de ra301r. Et s'1l te re—
garde a ce moment-la . . . (325).

Thus the two major dilemmas of Kaliayev's situation

emerge. His very firmness almost violence in his response

87

to Dora's projection of these problems informs us of the
conflict involved between these realities and his idealistic
goals. .

Kaliayev must kill the Duke, a highly demanding task
for a young man who loves life and peOple. It would be fine
if he could remain indifferent to the act, his mind fixed on
the goal, a just one in his eyes. But he must blow a man to
pieces, a warm breathing individual, watch the blood and
life run out of him and that is a different story.

Secondly, there remains the possibility that this
innocent world for which Kaliayev will sacrifice the Duke
and himself, may never arrive.

Thistfluniis the predicament as the first act closes,
the assassination set for the following day when the Duke
will pass in his carriage.

As Act Two Opens, we see Annenkov and Dora awaiting
the bombing by Kaliayev, voinov and Stepan. In the conver-
sation which follows, Annenkov reveals his nostalgia for his
earlier days, carefree and full of the joy of living. "Sais-
tu que je regrette les jours d'autrefois, la vie brillante,
les femmes . . . Oui, j'aimais les femmes, le vin, ces nuits
qui n'en finissaient pas" (328).

Their exchange appears warm and credible as Dora ex-
presses her fear and Annenkov his longing for the pleasures
of life.

No bomb is thrown, however, and Kaliayev returns re-

vealing the presence of the Duke's niece and nephew in the

88

carriage. Their presence caused him to hesitate, not ful—
filling his mission. His belief: "Tu n'as pas 1e droit"
(331)! we haven't the right to destroy innocent beings no
matter how just our goal may be.

In a long monologue, Kaliayev's feelings regarding
the children appear. The language here strikes us as lyri-
cal, not the cerebral dramatically improbable lines of
Diego.

Je ne pouvais pas prévoir. . . . As—tu regardé des
enfants? Ce regard grave qu'ils ont parfois. . .
Ils ne riaient pas, eux. Ils se tenaient tout
droits et regardaient dans le vide. Comme ils
avaient l'air triste! Perdus dans leurs habits de
parade, les mains sur les cuisses, le buste raide
de chaque cote de la portiere. . . . Ces deux
petits visages sérieux et dans ma main, ce poids
terrible. . . . Oh, non. Je n' ai pas pu. .
J'imaginais 1e choc, cette tete frele frappant

A small debate ensues in which the merits of
Kaliayev's decision are weighed by the group. Dora,
agreeing with Yanek, contradicts Stepan whose logic, one of
hate, demands a totality in their revolution. Stepan's
opinion emerges when he states: "Quand nous nous déciderons
a oublier les enfants, ce jour-la, nous serons les maitres
du monde et la révolution triomphera" (336).

Stepan, the nihilist, would stop at nothing to achieve
their goal even if all the Russian people were to reject his
revolution. And to Dora's suggestion that if his idea were

carried out, all of humanity would hate it, Stepan replies:

"Qu'importe si nous l'aimons assez fort pour l'imposer

89

a l'humanité entiére et la sauver d'elle-meme et de son
esclavage" (336).

Annenkov sides with Dora and Kaliayev, agreeing that
there are limits. "Mais quelles que soient tes raisons, je
ne puis te laisser dire que tout est permis. Des centaines
de nos freres sont morts pour qu'on sache que tout n'est pas
permis" (337).

Stepan here becomes the spokesman for the revolution—
ary and although the discussion takes on a polemic nature,
it does not seem as forced as the dialogues of the same
nature which we observed in L' Etat de Siege.

What are two children when thousands of Russian
children die every year? Stepan's argument is a convincing
one. "Alors choisissez 1a charité et guérissez seulement 1e
mal de chaque jour, non 1a revolution qui veut guérir tous
les maux, presents et a venir" (337).

Continuing his revolutionary reasoning, he exclaims:

11 n' y a pas de limites. La vérité est que vous ne
croyez pas a la révolution . .v. Si vous croyiez
totalement, completement, si vous étiez 5 rs que

ar nos sacrifices et nos victoires, nous arriverons

a batir une Russie liberée du despotisme, une terre

de liberte qui finira par recouvrir le monde entier,
si vous ne doutiez pas qu 'alors, l' homme, libére de ses
maitres et de ses préjugés, levera vers 1e ciel 1a

face des vrais dieux, que peserait la mort de deux

enfants? . . . Et si cette mort vous arrete, c 'est
que vous n'fites pas surs d' etre dans votre droit
(338).

Stepan, spokesman for the modern revolutionary, paints us a
perfect picture of these "meurtriers délicats." His words

ring true.

9O

Dora claims that the death of the two children
wouldn't prevent a single child from starving to death.
"Mame dans la destruction, il y a un ordre, 11 y a des
limites" (338).

Kaliayev, in defending his position, appears as
Camus' mouthpiece: "J'ai accepté de tuer pour renverser 1e
despotisme. Mais derriere ce que tu dis, je vois s'annoncer
un despotisme qui, s'il s'installe jamais, fera de moi un
assassin alors que j'essaie d'etre un justicier" (338).

Again we see not only an allusion to modern totali—
tarianism but the predicament of Kaliayev which we observed
at the end of Act One. That is he must justify the murder
of one man to ensure the end of persecution and murder of
all men. But will this goal ever arrive? Kaliayev's de—
fense of man's innocence, noble and sincere here, contrasts
sharply with Stepan's choice of ignoring it so that it may
someday take on a greater meaning. Kaliayev feels that one
must be very sure justice will arrive in order to deny every
thing which makes life worth living. Stepan is convinced of
it but Kaliayev still has doubts.

Remaining faithful to Camus' ideal of the revolt,
refusing to sacrifice those for whom the rebel has risen up,
Kaliayev cries out their innocence:

. . . j' aime ceux qui vivent aujourd' hui sur la meme
terre que moi, et c 'est eux que je salue. C' est
pour eux que je lutte et que je consens a mourir.

Et pour une cité lointaine, dont je ne suis pas shr,
je n' irai pas frapper 1e visage de mes freres. Je

n' irai pas ajouter a 1' injustice vivante pour une
justice morte (339).

91

At this point, a value related to the human value,
fundamental in the revolt, emerges. This is honor for which
Diego remained faithful even to death.

Declaring the inseparable character of the revolution
and its honor, Kaliayev states: " . . . tuer des enfants est
contraire a l'honneur. Et, si un jour, moi vivant, la revo—
lution devait se séparer de l'honneur, je m'en détournerais"
(340).

Accepting the decision of the group to wait until the
Duke is alone, Stepan reaffirms his belief that "la terreur
ne convient pas aux délicats" (340).

But Kaliayev, refusing to accept Stepan's declar—
ation that they have chosen to be murderers, continues to
remain faithful to his own conviction. That is, that one
must die in order that murder may not triumph, thus in—
suring one's innocence (341).

The opening scene of Act Three involves a touching
exchange between Voinov, the youth, and Annenkov. Informing
Annenkov of his fear, Voinov reveals his shame and despair
for failing the group. The dialogue, full of tenderness and
gravity, discloses Voinov's anxiety in face of the human
side of the terrorist act. Voinov finds himself too close
to the act of terrorism, something for which he is not made.

Tandis que se tenir debout, quand 1e soir tombe sur
la ville, au milieu de la foule de ceux qui pressent
1e pas pour retrouver la soupe brfilante, des en-
fants, 1a chaleur d'une femme, se tenir debout et

muet, avec le poids de la bombe au bout du bras, et
savoir que dans trois minutes, dans deux minutes,

92
dans quelques secondes, on s'élancera au-devant d'une
caleche etincelante, voila la terreur (346).

Unable to make that terrible decision of throwing
the bomb, Voinov retires from an activist role in the group
reflecting: " . . . 11 me sera moins difficile de mourir
[condemned to death] que de porter ma vie et celle d'un
autre a bout de bras et de decider du moment ou je precipi—
terai ces deux vies dans les flammes" (347).

In this decision of Voinov and the description of
his impasse, we anticipate the same gravity in Kaliayev's
predicament when the time arrives for the bombing.

we now turn to one of the principal scenes of the
play, one of tenderness and love. Quilliot suggests, I
think reasonably, that the intention of Camus at the start
of the play was twofold: one, to treat love and its re—
lationship with politics and the revolutionary mind and
secondly to take on the problem of murder and the ab-
straction it supposes (1815).

Here, the first of Camus' preoccupations appears ac-
cording to Quilliot: " . . . réussir enfin une scene
d'amour" (1815).

In previous treatment of love, Camus' effort re-
mained on a basically metaphysical plane. With the love of
Caligula for Drusilla, of secondary importance in.galiggla,
that of Jan for Maria, with the exception of a few speeches
of the latter, and Diego and Victoria, again excepting

Victoria's declarations of her love, the nature of these

93

respective relationships remained abstract and symbolic in
nature.

Quilliot finds here and with reason, that Camus suc—
ceeds in rendering the love between Kaliayev and Dora a real

one .

Cette fois, Camus, en contrepoint de ce terrible
amour de l' humanité qui anime les terroristes, a
tenu a esquisser la possibilité pour Dora et
Kalia ev d' un amour normal, chargé de tendresse
et d' eg01sme, par dela 1' injustice et les révo—
lutions. La grande scene de l' acte III, la plus
belle scene d' amour qu 'ait écrite Camus, nous 1a
trouvons dans sa quasi-intégralite dans les
Carnets de l947-—la toute premiere en quelque
sorte (1815).

As Dora and Kaliayev are left alone, we are im—
mediately aware of Kaliayev's distress and a certain sadness.
The tension involved in this "just" action is emerging. It
is not as simple as Kaliayev had imagined, and the abstract
love which justifies this act is heavy to bear.

Dora, denying her female sensibility, concludes that
those who truly love justice have no right to a love, at
least an earthly one. Their love is of another nature, for
all the peOple. But its abstract nature leaves nothing to
grasp for support. It is solitary and apparently
unreciprocal.

Nbus l'aimons d'un vaste amour sans appui, d'un
amour malheureux. NOus vivons loin de lui, en:
fermés dans nos chambres, perdus dans nos pensees.
Et 1e peuple, lui, nous aime-t-il? Sait—il que
nous l'aimons? Le peuple se tait. Quel silence,
quel silence . . . (351).

In a terrible solitude, they remain alone sequestered with

this idea of a humanitarian love.

94

The following speech by Dora is eloquent and
poignant, full of nostalgia for the physical love to which
she aspires. Referring to Kaliayev's pure absolute love,
she states:

C'est l'amour absolu, 1a joie pure et solitaire,
c'est celui qui me erle en effet. A certaines
heures, pourtant, je me demande si 1' amour n 'est
pas autre chose, 3 'il peut cesser d' etre un mono-
logue, et 5 '11 n' y a pas une réponse, quelquefois.
J' imagine cela, vois-tu: 1e soleil brille, les
tetes se courbent doucement,1e coeur quitte sa
fierté, les bras s 'ouvrent. Ah' Yanek, si 1' on
pouvait oublier, ne fut—ce qu' une heure, 1' atroce
misere de ce monde et se laisser aller enfin.

Une seule petite heure d' ég01sme, peux-tu penser
a cela (351)?

Dora questions Kaliayev's love for the people. Does it
possess this transport which Kaliayev terms tenderness? Is
it full of sweetness and abandon or the flame of vengeance
and revolt? And what about his love for her?

Kaliayev, however, cannot love like others. His
love for Dora remains pure, unifying itself with his love of
justice and the revolutionary cause.

Recalling her days as a student before she inherited
this terrible passion for justice, Dora wonders if Kaliayev
would love her with a selfish tender love if she were not a
"juste," if she were not a part of the organization.

Je me souviens du temps ou j 'étudiais. Je riais.
J' étais belle alors. Je passais des heures a me
promener et a rever. M' aimerais—tu légére et
insouciante? . . . il faut bien une fois au moins
laisser parler son coeur. J' attends que tu m' ap-

pelles,‘ moi, Dora, que tu m 'appellespar-dessus ce
monde empoisonne d' injustice . . . (353).

95

Kaliayev's response identifies once more his love for Dora
with that of his duty, and Dora bitterly renounces her self-
centered h0pe. Giving up a warm human affection, she
chooses the cold ideal love of Kaliayev as she responds:
Je t'aime du meme amour un peu fixe, dans la justice
et les prisons. L'été, Yanek, tu te souviens? Mais
non, c'estl'e'terne‘l hiver. Nous ne sommes pas de ce
monde, nous sommes des justes. Il’y a une chaleur
qui n'est pas pour nous. Ah! pitie pour les justes
(353)!

Dora casts her lot with Kaliayev and his "love." As
he leaves for his mission and they say their goodbyes, Camus'
stage direction is revealing. "Dora va vers lui. Ils sont
tout pres l'un de 1'autre, mais ne se toucheront pas" (354).

As we saw in the historical commentary, "Les
Meurtriers Délicats," Kaliayev crosses himself before the
icon upon his exit. Stepan observes that although Kaliayev
is not practising, "Il a l'fime religieuse, pourtant" (355).
Yanek has refused to reject God in the same manner that he
has retained a limit within his revolt.

The following remark by Stepan contrasts the two
men: "Pour nous qui ne croyons pas a Dieu, i1 faut toute la
justice on c'est 1e désespoir" (355). For Stepan it must be
all or nothing.

As the report of the explosion reaches the apartment
the solidarity of the group, and especially that of Dora
with Kaliayev and his commitment, is seen in the following

exchange between Stepan and Dora: (Dora): "C'est nous qui

. I .
l'avons tué! C'est nous qui l'avons tue! C'est m01."

96

(Stepan): "Qui avons—nous tué? Yanek?" (Dora): "Le grande
duc" (357).

With the beginning of the fourth act, the full
nature of this dramatic tension, which Camus expressed his
desire to achieve, reveals itself.

Through three individuals, Kaliayev, imprisoned, ex-
periences the heart-rending ordeal of fidelity to his com—
mitment, rendered painful from doubts raised as to its
efficacy.

Foka, a common criminal, enters Kaliayev's cell to
clean up. In the ensuing conversation, the protagonist
learns of Foka's complete ignorance and disinterest in the
cause of social justice. Even more ironic is Foka's role,
that of a hangman. He is pardoned a year of his sentence
for each execution. The striking irony of the situation in-
tensifies in the following exchange: (Kaliayev): "Tu es
donc un bourreau?" (Foka): "Eh bien, barine, et toi" (364)?

Kaliayev's second visitor is Skouratov, a crafty
police commissioner. His role is, of course, to turn Yanek
from his avowed goal of going to his death to render his act
innocent. Yanek, his eyes set on the abstract, that is
tyranny and justice, refuses to focus his attention on the
particular, in this case the Grand Duke and his bloody
assassination.

Skouratov's first move, we learn, was to send Foka
in order to give Kaliayev a view of one of the "innocents,"

the mass for whom he has sacrificed the Grand Duke.

97

The policeman has now come to offer our hero grace.
Kaliayev is determined in his sacrifice, but his weak spot
is personal human relations which he has tried to escape in
the abstract and which Skouratov will use to his advantage.

(Kaliayev): "Je suis prEt a payer ce qu'il faut.
Mais je ne supporterai pas cette familiarité de vous a moi.

J'ai lance 1a bombe sur votre tyrannie, non sur un
homme" (366).

Kaliayev deals in ideas here, the police commissioner
in individuals. As he says:

Que voulez-vous, je ne m'interesse pas aux idées,
moi, je m'interesse aux personnes. . . . Ce qui
n'est pas une idée, c'est 1e meurtre. Et ses conse—
quences, naturellement. Je veux dire le repentir
et le chStiment (367).

Skouratov offers the peace of heart inherent in re-
pentance and the desire of reparation and a new term on life.
By accepting to live, Kaliayev would in the process bring
about the arrest of his comrades, but ensuring their escape
from the scaffold.

This Kaliayev refuses and the policeman draws his
third card. Quizzing Yanek about his reasons for sparing
the Grand Duchess and the children, Skouratov touches the
contradiction inherent in Kaliayev's act. "Alors une
question se pose: si l'idée n'arrive pas a tuer les enfants,
mérite—t—elle qu'on tue un grand-due" (369)?

With this remark Skouratov has the Grand Duchess

enter. Her role is that of a Christian, to try and save

Yanek's soul and as an individual to remind him of the

98

husband whom he has destroyed and the suffering he has
brought upon her.

Skouratov departs and remarks ironically: "La voila.
Apres la police, 1a religion! On vous gate décidément.

Mais tout se tient. Imaginez Dieu sans les prisons. Quelle
solitude" (370)!

The visit of the Grand Duchess proves to be the most
difficult trial for Kaliayev. The solitude and suffering of
the widow moves Kaliayev, a sensitive individual. Again we
see the female personage, as in the three previous plays,
grasping after those realities of the flesh which are torn
from them by fate. Their men leave them to chase after
ideas which the women fail to comprehend.

She recounts those little details of an individual
nature which, as we observed with Skouratov, force Yanek to
lose View of the ideas on which his sight is focused. "J'ai
vu. J'ai mis sur une civiere tout ce que je pouvais trainer.
Que de sang! J'avais une robe blanche . . . Sais-tu ce qu'il
faisait deux heures avant de mourir? Il dormait. Dans un
fauteuil, les pieds sur une chaise . . . " (372).

Trying to prove that Kaliayev, like the others, is
unjust, she continues:

Ma niece a un mauvais coeur. Elle refuse de porter
elle-meme ses aum8nes aux pauvres. Elle a peur de
les toucher. N'est-elle pas injuste? Elle est in—
juste. Lui du moins aimait le paysans. Il buvait

avec eux. Et tu l'as tué. Certainement, tu es in—
juste aussi (373).

99

In her eyes not even the children, whom the terrorists
spared, are innocent.

Pleading with Yanek to accept to live and consent to
be a murderer, she offers the forgiveness of God who would
justify him. But Kaliayev's God is not the same as her
Christian God. And " . . . 1a Saint Eglise . . . n'a
rien a faire ici" (373).

Referring to the Duchess and her race as his enemy,
Yanek laments the predicament he and his brothers have
chosen for themselves. "Il y a quelque chose de plus abject
encore que d'etre un criminel, c'est de forcer au crime
celui qui n'est pas fait pour lui. Regardez-moi. Je vous
jure que je n'étais pas fait pour tuer" (374).

The author confirms the essentially innocent nature
of these "meutriers délicats" and the paradox of their com—
mitment.

Ce petit groupe d' hommes et de femmes, perdu dans la
foule russe, serrés les uns contre les autres, choisi-
sent 1e métier d' exécuteurs auquel rien ne les dis—
posait. Et c 'est ici que la parenté de ces @tres

s 'affirme. Ils vivent en effet sur le meme paradoxe,
unissant en eux le respect de la vie humaine en
genéral et un mépris de leur propre vie, qui va

jusqu' a la nostalgie du sacrifice supreme (1820).

Refusing to pray with the Grand Duchess, Kaliayev
doubts any reconciliation with God. His only solace is his
fidelity to his comrades. To pray to God would be treason.

J' ai une longue lutte a soutenir et je 1a soutien—
drai. Mais quand 1e verdict sera prononce, et

1' execution prete, alors, au pied de l' échafaud,
je me detournerai de vous et de ce monde hideux

et je me laisserai aller a l' amour qui m 'emplit
(375).

lOO

Kaliayev is no longer the young naive lover of
beauty whom we met in the first act. In the tension which
characterizes his paradox, the world has grown bitter and
"hideux." He has made a commitment to his fellow revo-
lutionaries and to man in general. For this he must kill
one man for the supposed betterment of all men.

The paradox, that he must kill to prevent men from
being killed and suffering, is heart-rending, the tension
shattering. He obviously has doubts as to its efficacy.
This appeared in the exchange between him and the prison
warden in the final act. Why does Yanek doubt? Who is to
say that the day of justice will ever arrive for the whole
society?

His one possible justification is to give his own
life in a sort of swap, a payment or restitution for the
life which he must sacrifice. To justify himself and his
act in this manner, he believes in the equal value of human
life and that one life taken away can be repaid by another.

But as his love widens its scope to include all men,
it loses that which characterizes an individual love. This
"amour pour la creature" which was at first full of warmth
and tenderness has become, as Dora observed (III, 352),
filled with "la flamme de la vengeance et de la révolte."

Kaliayev, driven to despair, repeats the only solu—
tion acceptable to him.

Mourir avec elle! [la creature] Ceux qui s'aiment

aujourd'hui doivent mourir ensemble s'ils veulent
’ I O I I
etre reun1s. L'1njust1ce separe, la honte, la

101

douleur, 1e mal qu'on fait aux autres, 1e crime

separent. Vivre est une torture puisque vivre

separe . . . (375).
With these words we think back to Dora's remark on his love,
" un vaste amour sans appui, . . . un amour malheu-
reux . . . . C'est l'amour absolu, 1a joie pure et solitaire,

(351).

The Grand Duchess is unable to recognize this "love"

which Yanek expresses. As he elaborates, his love for Dora
and humanity crystalize joining in a whole in the following

speech:

Mais ne eut-on déja imaginer que deux gtres re-
nongant a toute joie, s'aiment dans la douleur
sans pouvoir s'assigner d'autre rendez-vous que
celui de la douleur? Ne peut on imaginer que la
meme corde unisse alors ces deux etres (376)?

we understand now the note which precedes the play,

a quote from Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet (IV, 5): "0
love! 0 life! Not life but love in death."

Life and love as it is offered to us by life are in-
tolerable for Kaliayev. How can one truly love another indi-
vidual when within the framework of a society men are being
persecuted by other men? Kaliayev's conclusion is that one
cannot love in a terrestrial sense under these circumstances.
His solution: to give his life for a greater more abstract
love, an idea. This idea holds that if he gives his life
for the betterment of all men, his act of murder is justi-
fied and in a sense he has consumated this humanitarian

love. It is in this sense that he is able to join his love

for Dora to that of all men. Thus he resolves the conflict

102

between a personal self-centered tenderness which he feels
for Dora and his desire to serve his fellow man.

Failing to sway Kaliayev, Skouratov's last resort is
a threat to announce to the newspapers Yanek's full re—
pentance thus leading his comrades to believe that he has be-
trayed them. Kaliayev's response is short. "Vous ne con—
naissez pas leur amour" (377).

Act Five, although in a sense anticlimactic, retains
the dramatic tension of Act Four in the experience of Dora
as she learns of Kaliayev's execution and thus his fidelity.
Voinov has returned to the group motivated by Yanek's trial
speech in which he justifies his decision. "Si je me suis
trouvé a la hauteur de la protestation humaine contre la
violence, que la mort couronne mon oeuvre par la pureté de
l'idée" (381-382).

Dora, full of bitterness and remorse, shares this
terrible paradox which Yanek must carry to his death. Her
only wish is that the execution move swiftly.

But is death the only answer to the predicament?
Dora thinks not when she exclaims:

Si la seule solution est la mort, nous ne sommes‘pas

sur la bonne voi. La bonne voie est celle qui mene

a la vie, au soleil (383).
This tension proves heavy to bear and Dora is full of doubt.
"Il va mourir. Il est mort peut-etre déjé pour que les
autres vivent. Ah! Boria, et 31 les autres ne vivaient pas?

Et s'il mourait pour rien" (383)?

103

we are conscious here of the figurative death of
Dora with Yanek's approaching execution. "J'ai si froid
que j'ai l'impression d'étre déja morte" (384).

As with Yanek, the doubts and contradiction of
Dora's dilemma press down upon her, warping her previous
vision of life.

Mais c'est avec un coeur joyeux que j'ai choisi cela

et c'est d'un coeur triste que je m'y maintiens.
C'est facile, c'est tellement plus facile de

mourir de ses contradictions que de les vivre (385).

Finally Stepan arrives revealing Kaliayev's exe-
cution. Recounting his death in minute detail, Stepan reas—
sures Dora of Kaliayev's constancy to the very end. During
the four hour wait for the execution he speaks not a word.

Dora, joining the ranks of the just assassins,
realizes that her role as a woman is finished. There re-
mains the terrible joy of Yanek's sacrifice. In bitter
irony, she cries:

Yanek n'est plus un meurtrier. . .’.‘Il a suffi d'un
bruit terrible et le voila retourne a la joie de
l'enfance. Vous souvenez-vous de son’rire? Il
riait sans raison parfois. Comme il etait jeune!

Il doit rire maintenant. Il doit rire, 1a face
contre la terre (392)!

Accepting her plea to throw the next bomb, Annenkov
recognizes that she is useless now except to follow in
Kaliayev's footsteps. There remains but death for her. "Je
la lancerai. Et plus tard, dans une nuit froide
Yanek! Uhe nuit froide, et la meme corde! Tout sera plus

facile maintenant" (393). Dora's final statement witnesses

her renouncement of her love for Yanek turning it to the

104

group. Her identity and personal desires disappear and she
functions as a part of the revolutionary whole.

Of all the works of Albert Camus, Les Justes seems

 

to have complied most closely with his expressed ideal of
"une tension dramatique" obtained by classic means, "c'est-
a-dire l'affrontement de personnages égaux en force et en

raison" (1826). Kaliayev carries this contradiction to the
limit, his death.

Turning againtx3"Les Meurtriers Délicats," we find
the author's direct comment on this contradiction inherent
in "L'organisation de Combat.

Un 51 grand oubli de soi-meme allié a un si profond
souci de la vie des autres permet de supposer que
ces meurtriers délicats ont vécu le destin révolte
dans sa contradiction la plus extreme. On peut
croire qu' eux aussi, tout en reconnaissant le
caractere inevitable de la violence, avouaient
cependant qu 'elle est injustifiée. Nécessaire et
inexcusable, c 'est ainsi que 1e meurtre leur ap-
paraissait, . . . Et des lors, incapables de justi-
fier ce qu 'ils trouvaient pourtant nécessaire, ils
ont ima iné de se donner eux-memes en justification
et de repondre a la question qu' ils se posaient par
le sacrifice personnel. Finalement, 1e meurtre

s 'est identifie en eux avec le suicide. Une vie est
alors payée par une autre vie. . . . Cette contra—
diction ne se résoudra pour eux qu' au moment dernier.
Solitude et chevalerie, deréliction et espoir ne
seront surmontés que dans la libre acceptation de la
mort. Mais c 'est alors la paix étrange des victoires
definitives (1823— 24-25).

Although certainly not as pessimistic as Caligula
or Lg Malentendu, Les Justes does end with a negative con-
clusion. The revolt again ends in the death of the pro—
tagonist as in the other works we've analyzed. Is this the

only answer to the absurd? Is this the only possible

105

resolution between revolt and liberty? The answer to this
question is found in the words of Dora in the final act:

"Si la seule solution est la mort, nous ne sommes pas sur la
bonne voie. La bonne voie est celle qui mene a la vie, aux
soleil" (383).

we may conclude that this is not the only answer and
that Camus remains faithful to "1e soleil" of his fatherland
and the road that leads to life not death. We shall take
another look at the image of this sun in the conclusion.

There are certainly, however, some positive elements
involved in this contradiction. One is the nature of the
revolt which springs forth in the tension, an inherent part
of it. " . . . les revoltés de 1905 nous enseignent, . . .
que la révolte ne peut conduire a la consolation et au con-
fort dogmatique" (1824-1825).

On a fait du progres depuis, il est vrai, et la

haine qui pesait sur ces ames exceptionnelles comme
une intolerable souffrance, est devenue un systeme
comfortable. Raison de plus pour évoquer ces grandes
ombres, leur uste révolte, leur fraternité difficile,
les efforts demesurés qu 'elles firent pour se mettre
en accord avec 1e meurtre--et pour dire ainsi ou est
notre fidelité (1826).

Admitting that their only apparent victory is a
triumph over solitude in their fidelity to each other, Camus
demonstrates here a certain limit to the revolt to which the
just assassins remained faithful. This is contrasted to

modern revolution in which these limitations are brushed

aside and the fidelity betrayed along with the revolt.

106

Perhaps the most positive truth which emerges from
Les Justes is this "mean" inherent in the limits attached to

the revolt. Camus stresses this point in the following

comment:

Mais i1 serait faux d' en conclure que tout s 'équi-
libre et qu' a l' égard du probleme qui est pose ici,
je recommande 1' inaction. J' ai seulement voulu
montrer que 1' action elle- -meme avait des limites.

11 n 'est pas de bonne et juste action que celle qui
reconnait ces limites et qui, s '11 lui faut les
franchir, accepte au moins la mort. Notre monde
nous montre aujourd' hui une face répugnante, juste-
ment parce qu 'il est fabrique par des hommes qui

s 'accordent le droit de franchir ces limites, et
d'abord de tuer les autres, sans jamais payer de
leur personne. C'est ainsi que la justice d'aujourd'—

hui sert d'alibi aux assassins de toute justice
(1826—1827).

Albert Camus holds up here for all to see the ex-
ample of the "meurtriers délicats" as a kind of guidepost,
a point of reference for modern revolutionaries.

Aux hommes de 1903, du moins, les doutes n'ont
jamais manque. Le plus grand hommage que nous
puissions leur rendre est de dire que nous ne
saurions, en 1947,1eur poser une seule question
qu 'ils ne se soient déja posee et a laquelle,

dans leur vie ou par leur mort, ils n 'aient en
partie répondu" (1819).

we turn now to the second preoccupation of Camus in
the work, that is the love of Kaliayev and Dora and its para-
doxical union with an ideal love of humanity. It is
questionable how successful Camus was in integrating this
theme into the general context of the historical situation

involved, that is the problem of the revolt and its

limitation.

107

First of all, Camus seems to have succeeded in
rendering most believable the love between Dora and Yanek
and its conflict with a pure love for humanity. Witness the
love scene between Dora and Kaliayev analyzed on pages 93

to 95.

Germaine Brée in an interesting note on Les Justes

 

concludes that Camus followed Savinkov's Souvenirs d'un
terroriste35 too closely in creating the scenario and dia—

logue of Les Justes. According to Brée the characters suffer

as a consequence.

Although Camus's characters are essentially the same
as Savinkov's (except that Camus tightens the link
between Dora and Kaliayev), because of the tenseness
of the dramatic action something of their flesh and
blood reality is sacrificed with the weight of their
everyday personality and of their past. They tend
to become voices, not human beings, to designate po-
sitions taken, parts recited.36

Camus rejects just such a criticism as witnessed by
Quilliot. Quilliot, in referring to Camus' description of
the drama of Dora and Yanek as "1e drame d'une époque,"
quotes Camus directly.

On nous reproche de faire des hommes abstraits. Mais
c 'est que 1' homme qui nous sert de modele est ab-
strait d' ignorer 1' amour, mais c 'est que 1' homme

(qui nous sert de modele) est incapable d' amour,

etc. , etc. , . . . Le vieux militant communiste qui
voit ce qu 'il voit est ne 3 'habitue pas: "Je ne

veux pas guérir de mon coeur (1816).

But the mixing of the two themes previously mentioned

does seem to weaken the play structurally. Camus' effort to

 

35Payot, (Paris, 1931), pp. 112—166.

36Brée, p. 161.

108

remain faithful to the historical situation, thus dedicating
the final acts strictly to the tension of the revolt and the
trials of Kaliayev, seems to have sacrificed the tragic po-
tential inherent in the love between Dora and Yanek.

Brée suggests this structural defect when she cites:
Structurally, the play would have been stronger if
Camus, instead of following the successive episodes
of the murder, had concentrated our attention on one
of these episodes, focusing the conflict either on
Kaliayev alone or on both Dora and Kaliayev. . .

Indeed both plot and characters suffer from the
episodic nature of the action as Camus faithfully
follows its outer line of development (162).

It appears that in marked contrast to his previous
work L'Etat g; Siege, Camus has to a certain measure suc-
ceeded in an effort to depersonalize the dramatic creation
of Les Justes.

The weaknesses which we observed in Le Malentendu
and L'Etat gs Sie e, in which the metaphysical concerns of
the dramatist emerge and dominate the character e.g. Martha
and Diego, become less apparent in Les Justes. Dora in our

eyes is most credible, as is Yanek, especially in the

confrontations in prison.

CONCLUSION

Turning now directly to the goal of this paper, we
will retrace briefly the absurd as experienced by each of
the major characters. Secondly, we will consider their method
of coming to terms with the absurd. After a look at this
confrontation, we may attempt a certain synthesis and indi-
cate some final conclusions concerning all four plays.

Caligula and Le Malentendu comprised for Camus what

 

he termed "un theatre de 1'impossible." That is, the im—
possible character of Caligula and the impossible situation
of Le Malentendu.

we have noted that the absurd dominates both plays,
in the first instance impersonated by the mad emperor who de—
cides to push the absurd condition to an extreme. In Lg
Malentendu it is less apparent, but none the less emerges in
the tragic series of misunderstandings which lead to the
deaths of Jan, his mother, and Martha. Here the absurd takes
the form of circumstances or destiny.

The characters, although in the final analysis re—
sponsible for their dilemma, were also the victims of
several pure mishaps in which chance played a major role.
They weren't completely conscious of the absurd or the possi-

bilities for action which it reveals.

109

110

In Caligula the absurd condition was intellectualized
by the protaganist. In other words, Caligula, fully aware
of the absurd and therefore of the resultant choices Open to
him, chose to push the absurd to its extreme instead of
fighting it. It became a form of intellectual exercise.

we observed in the Mythg gg Sisyphe, that when a man
chooses to accept the absurd as valid, a certain freedom ap-
pears, opening new roads of possible action. This is a re-
sult of a leveling process of morality and ethics inherent
in the absurdity. This liberty is essential to and a part
of the revolt dealt with more completely in the latter two
theatrical works of Camus.

The liberty chosen by Martha and Caligula, a
murderous one, ended in their own deaths by suicide.

In both cases the protagonist himself observes that
this choice was not the right one and this the author con-
firms. The absurd which dominates the first two works
emerges into revolt but an unjust one.

In the second half of Camus' theater, it is a con—
sideration of the revolt itself which predominates as well
as concern for its form. In other words the "how" of the
revolt emerges. The liberty, which we observed in the first
two works to be an essential quality of the absurd man's
experience, now takes the spotlight.

Diego's essentially tragic position is the terrible

choice between fidelity to the revolt and therefore to his

lll

fellow man, thus sacrificing himself, or stopping short of
the supreme sacrifice and betraying his commitment to his
fellow man as well as a corresponding honor. For Diego, the
question is simply of remaining faithful to the revolt and
its honor in the face of death.

Kaliayev's position is similar but of a more so-
phisticated nature. His paradox also comprises death as a
component of fidelity to the revolt. But of more importance
is the emphasis on the kind of revolt, and above all its
liberty whose justification entails a form of suicide.

Another point is the fact that revolt dominates ng
Justes whereas it does not emerge until the final part of
L'Etat pp £2393.

With ng Justes there is a dramatic tension charged
with moral implications also true of L'Etat g2 Sié e, but
not as "vraisemblable."

As noted above Camus is especially concerned here
with the form of revolt, the how.

In this sense, the latter half of Camus' theater is
concerned with the possible, the first half with the im—
possible. The second half begins with agiven recognition
of the absurd condition, but deals principally with the re-
volt and its form, whereas the first half remains at the
level of the absurd reality, never rising above it. The
first half is a negative cry against the absurd (a form of
nihilism) the Second a positive cry for (in favor of man) a

form of humanism and optimism.

112

Although Diego testifies that there are limits to
oppression beyond which man rises up in revolt, in Egg
Justes the experience of the rebel is more advanced. It is
he who is faced with the choice of accepting certain limi-
tations or assuming the role of master against whom he re—
volted. It is here that the revolt will be followed or
pushed to its natural conclusion which is revolution and a
renewed oppression.

Thus a basic value emerges in L'Etat gg.§i§gg and

dominates Les Justes. This is a human nature which all men

 

share and which the revolt reveals and defends. It is the
recognition of this basic human value whidh causes Diego to
revolt.

In Les Justes it is in favor of this intrinsic value

 

that Kaliayev limits this revolt. In this way he remains
loyal to man, its source of illumination.

This is the same self—evident assumption for which
Camus declared his support in the Lettres_§.gg gm; allemand.

A final characteristic and one which proves to be a
basic concern in all of Camus' works, is moderation. The
one mark or trend which dominates Camus' original theater is
an evolution towards a definite emphasis on "mesure" in the
liberty of revolt.

In Caligula and Lg Malentendu it was absent or not

emphasized. We saw it emerge in L'Etat gg Siege when Diego

declares a limit to the tyranny of the scourge.

113

And it dominates and is the major motivating force
0f Les Justes.

Let us take a closer look at this important quality
for Camus which emerged at the very beginning of the absurd
experience and which never ceases to influence his writings.

Camus' very first work, a group of essays entitled
L'Envers_gt L'Endroit, was printed for the second time in
1958 since the first edition was quite limited. In the pre-
face to this second edition, the author expresses for us not
only the dominant theme of these essays, but the very truth
which never ceases to influence his writings:

Pour corriger une indifference naturelle, je fus
placé a mi—distance de la misere et du soleil. La
misere m 'empecha de croire que tout est bien sous
la soleil et dans 1' histoire: le soleil m 'apprit
que 1' histoire n 'est pas tout. Changer la vie, oui
mais non le monde dont je faisais ma divinité. 37

Quilliot expresses the author's fidelity to this
balance which he inherited from his native Algeria when he
states:

L' équilibre est au commencement. Toute l' oeuvre
est d' une rare continuité. De 1937 a 1953, i1

n 'est guere pour Camus que deux problemes, le
suicide et le meurtre, qu' on ramenerait aisément
a l'unite. 11 n 'est aussi que quelques themes
qui vont par couples: La prison ou l' échafaud
et la mer ou le soleil, la solitude on 1' exil

et 1' amour ou la fraternite, la passion et

1' indifference l' innocence et la morale, la
démesure et les limites. 38

 

37
p. 14.

38
Albert Camus (Paris, 195677'ET_2€5}——_'—_—

Albert Camus, L'Envers gt L'Endroit (Paris, 1958),

114

we must again turn to L'Homme révolté to observe the

author's effort to express in a rational form this "mean"

which we have uncovered. It is the lands which surround the

Mediterranean especially the Greek civilization to which

Camus turns to discover this truth, "the golden mean" of the

ancient Greeks.

Here is how the author characterizes this "pensée

grecque" which he terms "La pensée du midi":

Ce contrepoids, [to the revolutionary mind] cet es-
prit qui mesure la vie, est celui-la méme qui anime la
longue tradition de ce qu 'on peut appeler la pensée
solaire et ou, depuis les Grecs, la nature a toujours
été équilibrée au devenir.39

The Greek ideal of preexisting values contrasted to

modern historical determinism (where the values do not pre-

cede the action but follow it) we see in the following words

of Camus:

two

Mais l' absolutisme historique, malgré ses triomphes,
n' a jamais cesse de se heurter a une exigence in-
vincible de la nature humaine dont la Mediterranée,
ou 1' intelligence est soeur de la dure lumiere,
garde le secret (359).

Camus shows us that measure and revolt are simply
sides of one coin:

La mesure n 'est pas le contraire de la révolte.

C' est la révolte qui est la mesure, qui l' ordonne,
1a défend et la recrée a travers l' histoire et ses
désordres. L' origine meme de cette valeur nous
garantit qu 'elle ne peut etre que déchirée. La
mesure, nee de la révolte, ne peut se vivre que
par la révolte. Elle est un conflit constant,

 

39H.R., p. 357.

115

perpétuellement suscité et maitrisé par l'intelli-
gencg. Elle ne triomphe ni\de 1'impossib1e ni de
l'abime. Elle s'equilibre a eux (360-361).

After considering Camus' "mesure," another funda-
mental difference may be seen in the contrast between this
value and Sartre's existentialist philos0phy. For Camus re—
volt is innocent whereas revolution historically has been
guilty since it betrays the very essence of revolt, man.

Cruickshank contrasts this viewpoint with that of
Sartre in the following note:

Sartre, in his essay on Baudelaire, takes the
opposite view to Camus on the question of the rela-
tive merits of revolt and revolution. The aim of
the metaphysical rebel, he says, is to keep intact
the abuse from which he suffers so as to be able to
continue his rebellion against them. The revo-
lutionary, on the other hand, is actively concerned
to change the world of which he disapproves. He
seeks future values by inventing them and fighting
for them here and now. From Sartre's point of view
Camus' preference for revolt over revolution is
sentimentality, ineffectualness and "bad faith" in
the existentialist meaning of the term (103).

Again regarding this equilibrium, it may also be
observed in the "Mythe" where a fidelity to the absurd con-
dition itself required this measure. "Il y a ainsi des
dieux de lumiére et des idoles de boue. Mais c'est le
chemin moyen qui mene aux visages de l'homme qu'il s'agit de
trouver" (139).

But man for Camus never loses these temptations of
"all or nothing" which would destroy this balance. "Quoi
que nous fassions, la démesure gardera toujours sa place

dans le coeur de l'homme, a l'endroit de la solitude."4O

 

4O"La pensée de midi," H.R., 361.

116

we witnessed this in the final words of Caligula, "Je suis
encore vivant."

Camus again and again uses the sun and its light as
symbols of this measure which is the "pensée de Midi." As
with all the major symbols of his work, they can be traced
back to his early writings. This fidelity to the light of
the south appears in the essays entitled LLEEé which came
out in 1954, paralleling the publishing of L'Homme révolté.
In the essay "L'Enigme," Camus states:

Je n' ai jamais cessé, pour ma part, de lutter contre

Ce déshonneur. . . . Au plus noir de notre nihilism,
j 'ai cherché seulement des raisons de dépasser ce
nihilism. . . . par fidélite instinctive a une

lumiere ou je suis ne et ou, depuis des millenaires,
les hommes ont appris a saluer la vie jusque dans la
souffrance. . . . Au centre de notre oeuvre, fut-
elle noire, rayonne un soleil inépuisable, 1e meme
qui crie aujourd' hui a travers 1a plaine et les
collines. 41
There remains the second objective of this paper, a
consideration of Camus' ideal of an esthetic unity or synthe-
sis in which form and content are one.
we have observed the problem which Camus confronted,
a long process of depersonalization. He was not always suc-
cessful and his metaphysical ideas often imposed themselves
on his work. This proved to be the case with Martha in Lg
Malentendu and certainly Diego in L'Etat g; Siege. Camus

remarks in Quilliot: "Depuis mes premiers livres (Neces)

jusqu'a Lg Corde [Camus' original title for Les Justes] et

 

41Albert Camus, L'Eté (Paris, 1954), p. 133-134.

117

_LjHomme révolté, tout mon effort a été en réalité pour me
dépersonnaliser, . ." (1817).

Camus seems to have been most successful when he
dealt with human relationships in human terms as we observed
with several of the female characters as well as with
Caligula and perhaps to a lesser extent, Kaliayev. His
theater breaks down dramatically, however, when he deals
with philOSOphical or metaphysical symbolism. This was
obvious inng Malentendu and L'Etat g; §i§g§.

For Camus, stylisation created problems when he
moved from the more lyrical personal expressions of a play
like Caligula, in which he seemed most at ease, to the col-
lective nature of a work like L'Etat ggigiégg. It must be
remembered that his goals were ambitious ones, for example
the use of multiple forms in L'Etat gg Siégg. Although Lg
Malentendu does not treat the group the collectivity, the
author's desire to express the abstractions of the absurd
harm the work as a dramatic creation.

The intellectual forces at work in Camus' dramatic
art, at the expense of individual or psychological fidelity,
is well described by Brée when she says:

The stage in Camus's hands, therefore, becomes the
"décor" of a mental universe, and the characters
that live their short lives upon it are reasons,
emotions, forces, inner and outer attitudes, which
try to impose their own form upon the play, cre-
ating the situation and the inner dynamism of the
action. Alle orical in nature, these two plays
[L'Etat g; Siggg and Les Justes], have very little

connection with the current "well—made" psycho-
logical or realistic play, and yet by their very

118
realistic technique they remain outside the realm
of the so—called poetic drama (176-177).

Pointing out that the characters in L'Etat gg Si‘ e
lose their personality and turn into abstract virtues or
vices, Brée states:

the spectator must accept the characters not
as personalities but as abstract forces incarnate,

They are there in their positive forms:
courage in Diego, pure love in Victoria, for ex—
ample; and in their negative form they are per—
verted incarnations: law without justice in the
judge, government without power in the governor,
power without humanity in the Plague (176).

Camus' goal, as we saw in the introduction to Les
Justes, was the search for and realization of a style which
‘would accomplish his dream of the creation of a modern
tragedy. The style and content would merge as one in the
equilibrium and tension which characterizes the classic
tragedy.

The closest the author seems to have come in achieving
this goal is Les Justes where he achieves a definite tension
between the universal and the individual in regards to con-
tent. It has been criticized however for unevenneSs in
style and an abstraction in the characters.

we may conclude that what Camus has accomplished in
dramatizing his metaphysical concerns in the theater, he
lost in the corresponding diminuation in dramatic style.

To sum up the preceding synthesis which terminates

this analysis, Brisville states it well in the following

words:

119

Da sa fidélité a une terre ou l'exces est de regle
a sa croyance en une instinctive mesure humaine, du
besoin d' épuiser 1e champ du possible a la morale
des limites, l' oeuvre d' Albert Camus s 'inscrit en-
core ici dans son mouvement double et son balance—
ment profond.

In concluding this paper, it is important to note
that any particular work or group of works of an author, any
one style among many styles must be considered as one view
of the whole of the work, one side of the pyramid which is
his work. They all help illuminate this whole. This is
true of the works of Albert Camus. The author asserts this
when he states:

Je ne crois pas, en ce ui me concerne, aux livres
isolés. Chez certains ecrivains, 11 me semble que
leurs oeuvres forment un tout ou chacune s 'éclaire
par les autres, et ou toutes se regardent. 43
In choosing the original theater of Albert Camus, we

have thus attempted to analyze and describe one side of the

pyramid, to give one glimpse of the whole.

 

42Brisville, p. 38.

43Ibid., p. 255.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brée, Germaine. Camus. New York, Chicago, Burlingame,
1964.
Brisville, Jean-Claude. Camus. Paris, 1959.

Camus, Adbert. Actuelles (Chroniques 1944—1948). Paris,
1950.

Camus, Albert. Actuelles I; (Chroniques 1948-1953). Paris,
1953.

 

 

Camus, Albert. Actuelles III Chronique Algérienne (1939-
1958). Paris, 1958.

Camus, Albert. Carnets Mai 1935-Février 1942. Paris, 1962.
Camus, Albert. Carnets Janyigr 1942—Mars 1951. Paris, 1964.
Camus, Albert. Discours gg §u§g§. Paris, 1958.
Camus, Albert. .§§.Myth§:g§ Sisyphe. Paris, 1942.
Camus, Albert. L'Envers_§§ L'Endroit. Paris, 1958.
Camus, Albert. .nggé. Paris, 1954.

Camus, Albert. Lettres éugg ami allemand. Paris, 1948.

Camus, Albert. L'Homme révolté. Paris, 1951.

 

Camus, Albert. Nbces Les Essais XXXIX. Paris, 1950.
Camus, Albert. Theatre Récits Nouvelles. Paris, 1962.

Cruickshank, John. Albert Camus and the Literature 9;
Revolt. New York, 1960.

 

De Luppé, RObert. Camus. Paris, 1963.
Doubrovsky, Serge. "Sartre and Camus: A Study in Incarcer—

ation," Yale French Studies, Twenty-Five (Spring
1960), 85-92.

120

121

Durand, Anne. .Le Cas Albert Camus (L'Epggue Camusienne).
Paris, 1961.

 

 

Hanna, Thomas. The Thought and Art of Albert Camus.
Chicago, 1958.

 

 

Hartman, Geoffrey H. "Camus and Malraux: The Common
Ground," Yale French Studies, Twenty-Five (Spring
1960), 104—110.

 

Hourdin, Georges. .QQEEE.LE.£E§E§- Paris, 1960.

King, Adele. SEEEE- Edinburgh and London, 1964.

Lebesgue, Morvan. Albert Camus par lui—mEme. Paris, 1963.
Majault, Joseph. Camus révolté gt liberté. Paris, 1965.

Maquet, Albert. Albert Camus: The Invincible Summer. New
York, 1958.

Matthews, J. H., ed. Configuration critique d'Albert Camus.
Paris, 1961.

Mounier, Emmanuel. "Albert’Camus ou l'appel des humiliés,"
L'Espoir des desesperes. Paris, 1953.

Nicolas, André. Une Philosophie gg l'existence Albert Camus.
Paris, 1964.

Parker, Emmett. Albert Camus The Artist in the Arena.
Madison and Milwaukee, 1965.

Camus. Paris, 1956.

Quilliot, Roger. .La Mer gt les prisons essai sur Albert

Rousseaux, Andree. "La‘Morale d'Albert Camus," Littérature
_gu Vingtieme Siecle. Paris, 1953.

 

Scott, Nathan A. Albert Camus. New York, 1962.

Thody, Philip. Albert Camus A.Study 2; His WOrk. New York,
1959.

IGAN

 

””WMmin“Milli“i’flfliflflfllflflfimfifS