【剑桥哲学指南】加缪 234页

\nEDWARDJ.HUGHESIntroductionAlbertCamuswasawriterwhoemergedfromsocialobscuritytobecomeabest-sellingauthorandpost-wariconinFranceandbeyond,winningtheNobelPrizeforliteraturein1957.HisprematuredeathinJanuary1960–heandthepublisherMichelGallimardwerekilledinacarcrashatVille-blevin,southofParis–didnothingtodiminishthaticonicstatus.Yetbehindthistidy,poverty-to-celebrity-to-tragedynarrative,amorecomplexlifestoryandbodyofwritingbeckon.InhisNobelacceptancespeechatStockholminDecember1957,hepointsoutthathislifestoryispartofthecollectivehis-toryofhisgeneration,whichhaslivedthrough‘unehistoiredementielle’(‘an´insanehistory’),onethathashadtocontendwith‘lemouvementdestructeurdel’histoire’(Ess,1072,1074)(‘thedestructivemovementofhistory’).BornontheeveoftheFirstWorldWar,Camuscontinues,heandhiscontempo-rariesreachedadulthoodasHitlerobtainedpowerandasthefirstoftherevolutionarytrialsgotunderwayintheSovietUnion.Andjusttoroundofftheeducationofhisgeneration,astringofconfrontationsfollow–withcivilwarinSpain,theSecondWorldWarandtheconcentrationcamps.Mean-whilethechildrenofthisgenerationfacethespectreofnucleardestruction.Camus’sconclusionisthatadeathinstinctisatworkinthecollectivehistoryofhistimesastyranny’s‘grandsinquisiteurs’(Ess,1073)(‘grandinquisitors’)holdsway.Inaddition,however,Camus’sEuropeannessandmoreparticularlyhisFrenchnesswasinanimportantsenseatypical,skewedbythefactthathewasbornintotheworking-classpoorofcolonialAlgeria,therebyjoiningtheranksoftheso-calledpetitscolonsorsmall-timecolonisers.Thismarginalposition–adriftnotonlyfrommetropolitanFrancebutalsofromtheFrenchcolonialbourgeoisiewhoruledAlgeriaandanunder-classofnativeAlgerianswhoseplightheneverthelesshighlighted1–wastoremaincentraltohissenseofidentity.AFrenchcolonysince1831,AlgeriahadbeendeclaredFrenchnationalterritorybytheFrenchgovernmentofthe1848revolution.Indemo-graphicterms,itwastobecomeFrance’smostFrenchcolonialpossession,1CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nedwardj.hughessothatby1936therewereamillionEuropeanslivingthere,mostlyFrenchbutalsoSpanish,ItaliansandMaltese.BythebeginningoftheAlgerianWarofIndependencein1954,Europeansmadeupaboutone-ninthoftheover-allpopulation.Asacontestedsocialsite,AlgeriawastoprovidethesettingfortheunfoldingofcomplexculturaltensionsthatmanifestthemselvesinCamus’sownlife,inhispublicpronouncementsandpositionsandinhisfictionalcreations.SignificantlyitwasspecificallyasaFrenchAlgerianthathechosetodesignatehimselfwhenthankingtheNobelCommitteefortheirrecognitionofhiswork(Ess,1892).Camuswasalso,then,achildofempire,ofwhatFrenchcolonialcul-turehadlearnedtocall‘laplusgrandeFrance’orgreaterFrance.ThesetwodimensionsinCamus’slife,capturedbyConorCruiseO’Brieninhissuggestivebook-title,AlbertCamusofEuropeandAfrica,weretoremaininseparable.2Theygeneratetensionsanddilemmasthatgototheheartofhisworkandthatshapeandenergisereaders’varyingresponsestoit.Certaineventswerecrucialinbringingthesetensionsintoacutefocus.TheAlge-rianWarofIndependencewasanobviousexample.Wellbeforethat,inMay1945,wefindanothertroublingpointofintersectionontheEuropeanandNorthAfricanaxes.WhilethedefeatofNazismwasbeingcelebratedinFranceandmuchofEurope,AlgeriasawanunleashingofFrenchmili-taryrepressionintheformoftheSetifmassacres,theFrenchcolonialarmy´inflictingmassivecasualtiesonnativeAlgeriansinretaliationforthekillingofEuropeansbyAlgerianinsurgents.Facedwiththeseevents,Camusappearedunabletoappreciatethatcolonialstructuresthemselveswerefundamentaltotheproblem.Weddedtoapolicyofbenigncolonialassimilation,hebelievedthatthesolutionlayintheimplementationofdemocraticFrenchrepublicanstructures.Hisformulationsofthatbeliefweresometimescouchedinalan-guagethatwasuncomfortablyclosetothetriumphallanguageofempire:‘L’Algerieest´aconqu`erirunesecondefois’(‘Algeriaistobeconquereda´secondtime’)washowheexhortedFrenchmetropolitanreadersofCombataweekafterthemassacres.Infairness,whathemeantwhenhesaidthatthissecondconquestwouldbeevenmoredifficulttoachievethanthefirst(thatis,themilitaryconquestofAlgeriainthenineteenthcentury)wasthatdeliveringwholesalepoliticalandeconomicreformwouldbeatallorder.Yethiscallsforsocialameliorationremainwithinthecolonialparadigmandheappearsunabletothinkhiswaybeyondit:‘EnAfriqueduNordcommeenFrance,nousavonsainventerdenouvellesformuleset`arajeunir`nosmethodessinousvoulonsquel’aveniraitencoreunsenspournous’(‘In´NorthAfricaasinFrance,wemustcomeupwithnewformulaeandupdateourwayofdoingthingsifwewishtoensurethatthefuturehasameaningforus’).3Consistentwithhisurgingofreform,Camusremainsoutspokenin2CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nIntroductionhisoppositiontometropolitanFrenchvoiceswhocallforwhatCamuscon-demnsas‘unerepressionaveugle’(‘ablindrepression’).´4Ultimately,then,Camus’ssincerelyheldreformistbeliefsfailedtoencompassthesheerscaleofsocialpolarisationandcolonialmilitarismsignalledbythemassacresinSetif.Nevertheless,asConorCruiseO’Brienforthrightlyobserved,formany´NorthAfricans,FrenchAlgeriawaseverybitas‘repugnantasthefictionofHitler’snewEuropeanorderwasforCamus’.5YetasO’Brienconcedes,Camuswasmostprobablyoblivioustoanysuchanalogy,asweremanyleft-wingintellectualsatthetime.Camuswasmostlikelystillacommunistin1937whenhedevelopedaconceptionofMediterraneanculturewhichtoallintentsandpurposeslegitimisedtheFrenchdominationofAlgeria.6Inthelongertermandparticularlyinthemidtolate1950swiththeAlgerianWarofIndependenceinfullspate,Camusremainedfundamentallyillequippedtoadapttothenascentpostcolonialisminthecountryofhisbirth.Indeed,hefailedtogiveanycredencetothelogicofanti-colonialism.Camus’srootednessinFrenchnesswasdeep.Hewas,ifwearetoheedthesemanticchargeoftheFrenchtermforawarorphan,achildorwardoftheFrenchnation,a‘pupilledelanation’.Belongingtotheranksofcount-lessorphansofparentskilledintheFirstWorldWar(hisfatherdiedfromwoundsreceivedattheBattleoftheMarne),heandhisbrotherLucienwereplaced,asitwerebothsymbolicallyand,inaveryrestrictedsense,econom-ically,undertheprotectionofthenation.7HisconceptionofFrenchnesswasstronglycolouredbyhistoricalmemoryoftheservicehisFrenchAlge-rianantecedentshadpaidtothenation.Hisunfinishednovel,LePremierHomme(TheFirstMan),posthumouslypublishedin1994,isaeulogybothofthosenineteenth-century,small-timecolonialsettlerswhouprootedandmovedtoNorthAfricaandofthesettlers’descendants(aswellasindeedtheirAlgerianArabcontemporaries),whoin1914crossedtheMediter-raneantofightindefenceofFrance.Bypreservingthememoryoftheseloyalpredecessors,CamusimplicitlyshowshisdistasteforFrance’spro-grammeofpost-wardecolonisation.Indeed,hesawFrenchequivocationinrespectofAlgeriaasaformofbetrayal.Camusremaineddeeplysensi-tivetothepatrioticdiscoursethatevokedmemoriesofearlierstruggles.HewasbothinspiredandtroubledbythememoryofmilitarysacrificeintheFirstWorldWar.InthepagesofLePremierHomme,weareoffered,asanexemplarytaleofthatsacrifice,RolandDorgeles’spatrioticwarnovel,`LesCroixdebois(TheWoodenCrosses),fromwhichtheprimaryschoolteacherMonsieurGermain(towhomCamusincidentallydedicatedhisNobelPrizeaddress)reverentlyreadstohispupils(PH,139;FM,114).Inthisway,thelessonsofpatriotismandtheFrencheducationalsystemweremutuallyreinforcing.3CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nedwardj.hughesAsawardofthenation,sotospeak,Camushadentitlementtoaschoolbursary.FrenchcolonialculturewassuchthathisacademicformationwasthatprovidedbythenationallyceesystemandTobyGarfittsetsoutin´detailthenatureoftheeducationCamusreceived(chapter2).ReadingaboutCamus’sliterarytastesinhisbriefessayontheaestheticsofthenovel,‘L’Intelligenceetl’Echafaud’(1943)–hisenthusiasmforMmedeLafayette,theMarquisdeSade,StendhalandProust–wecouldbeforgivenforfor-gettingthathisbackgroundwasveryunlikethatofbourgeois,metropolitanFrance.Yetinhisfiction,lifeasapetitcoloniscentral.Itisactivelycele-bratedinthepagesofL’Etranger,wheretheyoungshippingclerkMeursault,workingintheportofAlgiers,isunexcitedbyhisboss’splanstoopenupanofficeinParisandhaveMeursaultworkthere.ThereasonMeursaultgivesisthat‘toutes(lesvies)sevalaientetquelamienneicinemedeplaisaitpas´dutout’(TRN,1156)(‘onelifewasasgoodasanotherand...Iwasn’tatalldissatisfiedwithminehere’(O,44)).YetnotwithstandingMeursault’sstay-at-home,petitcolonways,fordecadesmanyreaderssawinMeursaultnot,toputitcrudely,aspecificby-productofEuropeancolonialruleinNorthAfricabutratheralargelyinnocent,indeedmartyr-likefigurefallingfoulofanunjust,Absurdworld.AsDanielleMarx-Scouraspointsout(chapter10),Meursaultbecametherebelliousheroofthepost-warandVietnameras.Notsurprisingly,giventheresonanceenjoyedbythetextandtheaccompanying‘literatureoftheAbsurd’tag,Camustendedtobecomesynonymous,formanyread-ers,withhisAbsurdfictionalprogeny,Meursault.IftherunawaysuccessofthenovellargelyobscuredtheculturalseedbedfromwhichL’Etrangeremerged,PeterDunwoodiecruciallyrestorestheFrenchAlgerianistback-dropinhisexaminationoftheoriginsofCamus’sliteraryformation(seechapter11).OnthebackofthesuccessofL’Etranger,Camusbecameacultfigurewhosereputationcametobeentwinedwithanarrayofconditions,causesandconcerns:theworldofyouth,impulsivenessandrebellion;existentialangstandthestrugglewithevil;thedeadeningimpactofsocialhypocrisy,thedreadofconformism,andtheindividual’sstruggletolocatehimselfinsociety.ButifoneofthechallengesinthisCompanionistoaccountforandsituatehistoricallytheiconicstatusthatCamus’sworkacquiredformillionsacrossnationalboundariesduringhislifetimeandafter,oursituationofhisworkneedstoassumeotherdimensionstoo.Weneedtounderstandnotjusttheadulationbutalsotheacrimonyhisworkaroused,particularlyinthelastdecadeofhislifeandintheeraofpostcolonialism.ThisentailsarepositioningofCamus’swork,thehopebeingthatwewillopenupnewwaysofreadingandcontextualisingthecorpus.4CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nIntroductionCamuscontinuestoattractcriticalattention,bothnegativeandappro-batory.AsIemevanderPoelremindsusinchapter1,Bernard-HenriLevy,´writingin1991againstthebackdropofthedeclineofcommunism,accordsCamusaspecialplaceinhisaccountofFrenchintellectualhistory;bycon-trast,EdwardSaid,writingaroundthesametime,seesinCamus’sworkastrongexemplification,indeeda‘clarification’,ofthecultureofempire.8InpostcolonialAlgeria,asCharlesForsdickandDebraKellybothdemonstrate,fortyyearsonfromtheacrimoniousWarofIndependence,anewgenerationofAlgerianFrancophonewomenwriters,alienatedbypost-independenceviolence,hasreclaimedCamusasanadoptivebrother.Thesefluctuationsinthereceptiongiventohisworkprovidetheirownperiod-specificandsituation-specificculturalbarometers.Likewise,thevaryingperspectivesonCamuscollectedinthisvolumenecessarilyreflectmodesofanalysisandappreciationoperatingataparticularhistoricaljuncture.Bythesamelogic,ifwewindbackrapidlytothegenerationofthe1940sinFrance,wefindadifferentsetofcircumstancesandacontrastingreception.Inthatparticulardecade,whichwasdominatedbytheSecondWorldWarandthebleakpost-warperiod,theyoungCamuswasseenastheembodimentofamindset,anoutlookthathebranded‘theAbsurd’.AttheheartoftheAbsurdlaywhatCamussawastheconfrontationbetweenthehumandesireforarationalaccountoftheworldandaworldthatresistedanysuchexplanation.Humanitycravesclarity,CamusarguesinLeMythedeSisyphe,andtheworldappearsgratuitousandirrational.WhilethetermenjoyedprominenceparticularlyinFrenchintellectuallife,theAbsurdcametosuggestmoreawidespreadfeelingofhumanmalaisethanofanytightlyarguedphilosophicalsystem.Camuswaswritinginacontextofcrisisintwentieth-centuryvaluespromptedbythelossofreligiousbelief,bytotalitarianismandbywarbeingwagedonaglobalscale.AsDavidCarrollexplainsinchapter4,themoodinFrance(whichCamussawatfirsthandandwroteabout)wasoneofabjectdesolationandhopelessnessafternationaldefeatandcollaborationwiththeNazis.ForCamuspersonally,itwasalsoatimeofseriousillness.Yethow-everurgenttheterm’sapplicationinthatparticularsetofcircumstances,the‘Absurd’labelhascometobenolessdated,nolesshistoricallyspecificthantheeventsofthewaritself.AsCarrolldemonstrates,Camushimselfassertedinthemid1950sthattheAbsurdwasaphasewhich,howeverimportant,hehadbythenworkedbeyond.Aswithmanyformsofintellectualpack-agingorbadging,theAbsurdtaghaspersisted.Itleavesuswithavestigialreminderof1940sgloom.Yetifweoverplayit,weriskobscuringnotonlytheevolutioninCamus’swritingcareerbutalso,nolessimportantly,con-trastinggenerationalresponsestohisworks.Theprogressiveinterpretations5CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nedwardj.hughesofCamus’soutputhaveledtoamythologisationofhisworkthathasdeliv-eredbothringingendorsementandhostilecritique.ThusexegesisofhisworkprovidedbyFrenchCamusianshasbeenbroadlyaccommodatingandsometimesevenhagiographic.InanAnglophonecontext,ontheotherhand,postcolonialreadersofFrenchliteratureoftengravitatetowardsCamus(hislanguage,characterisationandfictionalsettings)intheirsearchforanexem-plaryincarnationofthecolonialmindset.Thecomplexityandinternalcon-tradictionsofhisworkwouldsuggestitcanusefullybereadinnuancedwaysthatneitheradulationnordemonisationcanadequatelyaccountfor.Ahigh-profileopinion-formerinwar-tornFrance,Camusalsoplayedacentralroleinpost-warculturalandpoliticaldebate.Asaninternationalist,hewasabletolookwellbeyondmetropolitanFranceandFrenchAlgeria.HeengagedpowerfullywithissuessuchasdictatorshipinFranco’sSpainandotherformsoftotalitarianism,bothfascistandcommunist,elsewhereinEurope.InanoutspokeneditorialpublishedinCombattwodaysafterthebombingofHiroshimaon6August1945,CamusvigorouslyattackedtheseductivepresentationoftheatomicbombasatriumphofscientificgeniusintheFrench,AmericanandBritishpress.Rejectingasespeciallyobjectionablethe‘picturesqueliterature’usedtoprettifyandobscurethehorrorofatomicdestruction,Camusconcludedthata‘mechanicalcivilisation’hadreacheditspointofultimatesavagery.9Inapost-warFrancewherecommunistinfluencewasstrong,hebecameincreasinglysceptical,especiallywhennewsbegantoemergeofbrutalStalinistrepression.Heremainedunconvincedbyrevolu-tionaryideology,arguingfromapositionofsocialreformism.AsMartinCrowleydrawsout(chapter7),Camusplacedthefigureofthehumanattheheartofafundamentallymoralpolitics;suchapoliticswouldwork,touseCamus’sterminology,intheserviceofman.Thisvolumeattempts,then,togiveafullaccountofCamus’ssituationsocially,politicallyandculturally.Atthesametime,itseekstoguardagainstanyexclusivefocusonthecircumstantial.ForCamus’sappealasawriterdrawsusbackto,butalsotakesusbeyond,theconditionsinwhichhelivedandworked.Hedidnotconcealhisclaimtobeawriterofthehumancon-dition.HisappealstoamythologicalfiguresuchasSisyphus,aderangedancientrulersuchasCaligula,adehistoricisedtypesuchasDonJuan,showthathedidnotrestricthimselftofictionalsituationscouchedinmidtwentieth-centuryactuality.InL’Hommerevolt´e´,hedismissestherevolu-tionaryinterpretersofHegel’sPhenomenologyoftheSpiritwhoarguethatinareconciledsocialordertherewouldnolongerbeaneedforartsince–inCamus’sdisbelievingformulation–‘labeauteserav´ecue,nonplusimagin´ee’´(Ess,658)(‘beautywillbelivedandnolongeronlyimagined’(R,220)).6CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nIntroductionLikewise,herefusestoacceptMarx’sthesisthatartisdeterminedbytheepochinwhichitisproducedandthatitexpressestheprivilegedvaluesofthedominantclass(ibid.).Inthesameessay,perhapswithSartre,theexpo-nentoftheideathatliteraturehastobeunderstoodintermsofitssocialsituation,alsoinhissights,CamusdelightsintellingthestoryaboutBalzac,whoremarkedattheendofalongconversationaboutpoliticsandthefateoftheworldthatitwasnowtimetogetdowntoseriousbusiness,bywhichhemeanttalkingabouthisnovels(Ess,663;R,226).ThereaderrepeatedlysensesCamus’surgetogetbeyondconstrictingpolit-icalandsocialcircumstance.Innegotiatingtheconnectionbetweentheworldandart,heregularlypreferstoforegroundacutelypersonaldilemmas.Iflife’scircumstancesfortheindividualareoftenconveyedasbeingrestrictiveandsordid,emotionsasoverwhelming,griefasdisabling,Camusencourageshisreadertoseeart,bycontrast,asaformofcompensation,ofcorrec-tion.Appealingtowhathecharacterisesasatraditiontranscendinghistor-icalperiods,CamuswritesenthusiasticallyaboutMadamedeLafayette’sseventeenth-centurynovel,LaPrincessedeCleves`.Here,theprincess’scrip-plingifultimatelysuccessfulstruggleagainstthetemptationofadulteryhasdisastrousconsequencesforherandherhusband.Camusheapspraiseonthehusbandprincewho,eventhoughhewilldieofgrief,usesacontained,measuredlanguagethatdoesnotentertaindespairandmadness.Camusismesmerisedbythisexerciseofcontrol.HeseesthegreatnessoftheFrenchclassicalnovellyinginitsobduratecontainmentoflife’smiseries,initsrefusalofwhatheterms‘bavardage’orchatter(TRN,1896):‘Aucundenosgrandsromanciers’,heasserts,‘nes’estdetourn´edeladouleurdeshommes,maisil´estpossiblededirequ’aucunnes’yestabandonneetqueparune´emouvante´patience,ilsl’onttousmaˆıtriseeparlesr´eglesdel’art’(`TRN,1902)(‘Noneofourgreatnovelistshasturnedawayfromhumansufferingbutitcouldbesaidthatnoneofthemhasgivenwaytoit,that,byexercisingamovingpatience,theyhavedominateditthroughtherulesofart’).Camusdrawsthesesamecharacteristicsintohisownfiction,where,beitMeursault’sself-containment,theresignationofthemotherinLePremierHommeorofSisyphus,orRieux’sunderstatementinLaPeste,apremiumisputonstoicdetachment,onanacceptanceofone’sdestiny.IfinCamus’sestimationthecontainmentofintensesufferingisakeyattributeoftheFrenchclassicalnovel,heseesotherwaystooinwhichartworksagainstlife.Asheconceivesofit,artisaformofutopia,totheextentthatitappealstoandplacatesthehumandesireforunity.Beitart,crimeorreligion,Camusargues,eachrespondstohumankind’s‘desird´eraisonnable’´(‘unreasonabledesire’),whichisto‘donneralavielaformequ’ellen’apas’`(Ess,666)(‘givelifeaformitdoesnothave’(R,228)).Thenovel,then,7CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nedwardj.hughescorrectstheworldbyprovidingfinality:itscharactersrun,inCamus’simage,totheirmeetingwithdestiny,therebyexperiencingaresolution,acompletionthatinrealliferemainsunavailable.Indeliveringasenseofunity,theworkofartresponds,inCamus’sjudgement,toametaphysicalneed(Ess,668;R,229).TheaestheticpreferencesthatCamusisvoicinghereconnectwiththehumanistperspectivewhichholdsatitscentretheaffirmationofhumanendeavourasultimatelyaffirmative.Butlikethevolumemoregenerallyinwhichtheyappear,L’Hommerevolt´e´,theseviewswouldbesubjecttocontes-tation.Thuspost-humanistreadingsofCamushavemappedoutadifferentcriticalterraininwhichhisoftenunapologeticallymoralisingaccountsofthecreativelifeareoftenviewedwithsuspicion.Morebroadly,Europeanhumanism’ssocio-culturallegacywasitselfcalledintoquestionwiththeemergenceofpostcolonialism.Inparticular,Europe’sfailuretoexporttoitscoloniesthehumanistvalue-systemsonwhichitprideditselfisaleitmotifofpostcolonialcontestation.NotwithstandingCamus’sowncampaigningonbehalfofAlgerianrightsinMiseredelaKabylie`,forexample,hispositionandworkhavecometobetheobjectsofclosescrutiny.10ThisCompaniontoCamusisdesignedtoconveysomethingoftheenergy,varietyandgenericrangeofCamus’sworkandtocounterthenarrowingofhiscorpusthathastendedtofollowonfromtheiconicCamus.Itseekstoexplorethecircumstancesofhislifeandwritingcareer,togaugehisliter-aryachievements,andtoexaminetheexposuretopubliccontroversythatheattracted.AimingnottofallintoCamusworship,itpicksupontheunevennessinhispublishedwork,acknowledginghowhisliteraryachieve-mentshelpedpreservecornersofhiswritingthatmightotherwisehavefallenfromview.ThecelebrityCamussecuredonthestrengthofsuccessessuchasL’Etranger,LaPesteandLaChute–landmarksoftwentieth-centuryworldliteraturethathavesoldintheirmillionsofcopiesandbeentranslatedaroundtheworld–wasindeedconsiderable.ButasJeanyvesGuerinpointsout´(chapter6),criticalinterestinhisjournalism,forexample,persistslargelyasaderivativeofthatliterarysuccess.Likewise,andevenallowingforCamus’skeencommitmenttothetheatre,hisplays,asChristineMargerrisondemon-stratesinchapter5,havehadmixedsuccess.Certainlytheyhavenotenjoyedcollectivelythesustainedresonanceandimpactoftheworkofacontempo-rarysuchasSamuelBeckett,whosemoreaccomplishedtechnicaldramatisa-tionofanabsurdhumanconditionhasattractedjustifiablyfullercriticalattention.Nevertheless,asDanielleMarx-Scourasarguesinchapter10,Camus’spuzzlingovercompetingethicalimperativesfeedscentrallyintothedebateaboutjusticeandloveinLesJustes.8CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nIntroductionThefirsttwoofthethreechaptersofParticombinebiographicaloverviewandanaccountoftheculturalandintellectualinfluencesthatshapedCamus’soutlook.Chapter3complementsthesebyexploringCamus’searlycollectionofessaysL’Enversetl’Endroitandgleaningevidenceoftheauthor’scau-tiousmovestowardsautobiographicalwriting.Partiibeginsbyexploringthegenericrangetobefoundinthecorpus:hisambiguousengagementwithphilosophyandthecultoftheAbsurdinLeMythedeSisyphe(chapter4);hisworkintheworldoftheatre(chapter5);hisincreasinglyhigh-profileworkasajournalist,writingandoftencampaigninginthehard-edgedcir-cumstancesofcoloniallifeinAlgeria,theSecondWorldWarandthatwar’saftermath(chapter6).ThesectionthenmovesontoexploreCamus’sverypublicandsometimescontroversialcontributionstoethicalandpoliticaldebate:chapter7looksatCamus’sattempttoarticulateapragmatictheoryofmeaningfulsocialresponsibilityinanageofgenocideandglobalconflict;chapter8addressesthetemptationofviolencethatCamuswrestleswiththroughfictionalprotagonistssuchasCaligula,MeursaultandKaliayev;andchapter9re-evaluatesanemblematicmomentinColdWarculturaldebatein1950sFrance,namelythequarrelbetweenCamusandSartreinthewakeofCamus’scontroversialessaywhichattackedbothfascistandcommunistformsoftotalitarianism,L’Hommerevolt´e´.Chapter10exploresthelove/justiceparadigminCamusandconsidersspecificallyhowfictionalheroinessuchasJanineandDoraworkforareconciliationofspheresthataredeemedirreconcilableinWesternpoliticalthought,namelytheprivateandthepublic.ThefourchaptersinPartiii,finally,aredevotedtothefic-tionaltextsthatarecentraltoCamus’sliterarylegacyandreputation:chapter11chartstheculturalgenesisofCamus’sfiction,takingthereaderthroughsomeoftheearlyprosework,principallyNocesandL’Etranger;chapter12explorestheincrementalaccumulationofmeaninginLaPeste;chapter13unpacksthecomplexbaggageofevasivenessandgarrulousnessthatmakesupLaChute;andchapter14approachesCamus’slasttext,LePremierHomme,inthelightofconcernsaboutlegacyandcollectivememory.NOTES1.Seechapter6,whereJeanyvesGuerindiscussesCamus’sreportingonfaminein´Kabyliain1939.2.ConorCruiseO’Brien,AlbertCamusofEuropeandAfrica(NewYork,TheVikingPress,1970).3.Camusa‘Combat’`,ed.JacquelineLevi-Valensi(Paris,Gallimard,´2002),p.501.ForasenseofthescaleoftheFrencharmyreprisalsagainstlocalAlgerians,seeOlivierTodd,AlbertCamus:unevie(Paris,Gallimard,1996),pp.378–9.4.Camusa‘Combat’`,p.502.9CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nedwardj.hughes5.ConorCruiseO’Brien,Camus(Glasgow,Collins(Fontana),1970),p.48.6.Seeibid.,p.13.ForadetailedconsiderationofCamus’sconceptionofMediter-raneanculture,seePeterDunwoodie’sdiscussioninchapter11.7.SeeTodd,AlbertCamus:unevie,p.24.Thestatusof‘pupilledelanation’entailedamodestentitlementtomedicalcareandaschoolbursary.8.EdwardSaid,CultureandImperialism(London,Vintage,1994),p.224.9.Camusa‘Combat’,pp.569–71.10.FrantzFanon,forexample,writinginLesDamnesdelaterre´(TheWretchedoftheEarth),complains:‘CetteEuropequijamaisnecessadeparlerdel’homme,jamaisdeproclamerqu’ellen’etaitinqui´etequedel’homme,noussavons`aujourd’huidequellessouffrancesl’humaniteapay´echacunedesvictoiresde´sonesprit’(‘ThisEuropewhichneverstoppedtalkingaboutmanandproclaim-ingthatmanwasitssole,anxiousconcern,weknowtodaywithwhatsufferingshumanityhaspaidforeachofthevictoriesoftheEuropeanmind’),Fanon,LesDamnesdelaterre´(Paris,Gallimard,1991),p.372.10CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\n1IEMEVANDERPOELCamus:alifelivedincriticaltimesThelifeofAlbertCamus(1913–60)wasprofoundlyaffectedbythethreemajortragedieswhichdominatethehistoryoftwentieth-centuryFrance:theGreatWar(1914–18),WorldWarII(1939–45)andtheAlgerianWarofIndependence(1954–62).ItisunusualthatCamus’sdestinyshouldhavebeensocloselyboundupwiththatofmetropolitanFrance.AsaFrenchpetitcolonborninAlgeria,hespentmostofhislifeoutsideFrance.Itwasnotuntilhewasinhislatethirtiesthat,asacelebratedwriter,CamussettledinFrancepermanently.AftertheverysuccessfulpublicationofLaPestein1947,hewasabletosetuphouseinthesixtharrondissementinParis,nearthepremisesofhiseditor,Gallimard.Camuswasbornon7November1913,ontheeveoftheFirstWorldWar,inthelittlevillageofMondovinearConstantine,oneofthemajorcitiesofwhatwasthenFrenchAlgeria.HismotherwasofSpanishorigin,hisfatheraso-calledpied-noir,aFrenchmanborninthecolonyandwhosefamilyhadlivedthereforseveralgenerations.Inhislastandunfinishedwork,theautobiographicalnovelLePremierHomme,CamusclaimsthathisforebearshadfledfromAlsaceaftertheFrenchdefeatintheFranco-Prussianwarof1870–1.AccordingtoCamus’sbiographerOlivierTodd,however,theCamusfamilycamefromtheBordeauxregioninthesouth-westofFrance.ThiswouldmakeitmoreprobablethatitwaseconomicratherthanpoliticalreasonsthatledthemtotrytheirfortuneinAlgeria.1Intermsofsocialclass,Camus’sparentsbelongedtothecolony’spoorwhites,whooccupiedanintermediatepositionbetweentheFrenchrulingclass(lescolons),andtheindigenouspopulation,whichconsistedmainlyofArabsandBerbers.WhenCamuswaseightmonthsold,hisfatherwasdraftedintotheFrencharmyandshippedtoFrance,tobecomeoneofthefirstvictimsattheBattleoftheMarne.Hediedon11October1914andwasburiedinSaint-BrieucinBrittany.InLePremierHomme,Camusdrawsastrikingportraitofthefatherheneverknew,showinghimasoneofthecountless,namelesssoldiersfromthecolonieswho,immediatelyontheir13CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\niemevanderpoelarrivalinaforeigncountrytheyweresupposedtoconsiderastheirhomeland,werethrownintothebattle:Onn’avaitpaseuletempsdeleurtrouverdescasques,lesoleiln’etaitpas´assezfortpourtuerlescouleurscommeenAlgerie,sibienquedesvagues´d’Algeriensarabesetfranc¸ais,v´etusdetonsˆeclatantsetpimpants,coiff´es´dechapeauxdepaille,ciblesrougesetbleuesqu’onpouvaitapercevoira`descentainesdemetres,montaientparpaquetsaufeu,`etaientd´etruitspar´paquets.(PH,70)Therewasnotimetofindthemhelmets;thesunwasnotstrongenoughtoerasecoloursasitdidinAlgeria,sothatwavesofArabandFrenchAlgerians,dressedinsmartshiningcolours,strawhatsontheirheads,red-and-bluetargetsyoucouldseeforhundredsofmetres,wentoverthetopindrovesintothefire,weredestroyedindroves.(FM,55)CamusherecriticisestheseeminglycasualwayinwhichmetropolitanFrancedisposedofthelivesofitscolonialsubjectsduringtheGreatWar.ItisalsoworthnotingthattheArabandFrenchsoldiersaredepictedhereasbrothersinarms,dyingtogetheronthesamebattlefield.Fromtheauthor’spointofview,thisisnotacoincidence:boththeArabmassesandthepoorwhitesfromAlgeriawerevictimsofoppressionandsocialinjustice,united,sotospeak,intheircommunalsufferingandintheirprofoundattachmenttotheirnativesoil.Oneseesthetheme’sprominenceinCamus’slatefictionalwritings,suchasL’ExiletleRoyaume(1957)andLePremierHomme(stillunfinishedwhenhediedin1960),atatimewhentheAlgerianWarofIndependencewasbitterlytearingaparttheArabsandtheworking-classEuropeans.YetthisshouldnotblindonetothefactthatthesamethememayalsobedetectedinsomeofCamus’searlieststories,makingitoneofthemorepermanentpreoccupationsinhislifeandart.Camusfoundtheinspirationforhisfirstbook,L’Enversetl’Endroit,pub-lishedinAlgiersbyCharlotin1937,inBelcourt,theworking-classquarterineastAlgierswherehespenthisearlychildhood.Thisalsoexplainsitsinitialtitle:Voixduquartierpauvre(VoicesfromthePoorQuarter).Intheprefacetothesecondeditionpublishedin1958,Camusclaimsthat,inspiteofits‘formemaladroite’(Ess,5)(‘clumsiness’),heconsidersthissmallvolumetobethesourcethatsustainedallhislaterlifeandwork.ItisaboutpovertyandtheAlgeriansunlight,which,accordingtoCamus,makesthemiseryoftheinhabitantsofsouthernlocationslessgrimthanthegreyskiesofthenorth;moreover,theauthorprofesseshisloveforthesparselyfurnishedArabandSpanishhouses,preferringthemtotheapartmentsofthewealthyParisianbourgeoisiethathebecamefamiliarwithafterhehadgrowntobeoneofthemostsuccessfulwritersofhistime.Finally,heconcludesthatifhehad14CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nCamus:alifelivedincriticaltimestorewritetheoriginaltext,hewouldagaincentreiton‘l’admirablesilenced’unemereetl’effortd’unhommepourretrouverunejusticeouunamour`quiequilibrecesilence’(´Ess,13)(‘theadmirablesilenceofamotherandaman’sefforttofindakindofjusticeorlovethatwouldcounterbalancethatsilence’).Thefigureoftheresigned,olderwoman,assheappearsinseveralofthesketchescollectedinthisvolume,wasmodelled,nodoubt,onCamus’sownmother,apartiallydeafandtaciturnfigure.Shebelongstothewomenwhofindthemselves‘auborddelavie’(‘ontheedgeoflife’),asMa¨ıssaBeyputsit,thussymbolisingCamus’shumbleorigins,whichheneverdeniedandwhichlaidthefoundationsforapoliticalandsocialengagementthatlastedalifetime.2Moreover,inoneofthestories,entitled‘Entreouietnon’(‘BetweenYesandNo’),themother’ssilenceisjuxtaposedwiththatoftheownerofaMoorishcafe,wherethenarratormusesuponhispast.Infact,´thereisacontinualinterminglingofthetwospaces:thedesertedcafethat´isabouttoclose,andthehumblelodgingswherethenarratorlivedwithhismotherasachild.Inboth,peoplesittogetherintotalsilence,whichopensupthepossibilityforanother,morecorporealkindof‘communica-tion’.Itconsistsinasharing,nexttooneanother,butnotjointly,ofthesame,strong,sensoryperceptions,whichareboundupwiththeMediterranean:itssmells,itssounds,itslight,itsstarrynights.Thethreesilentfigures,then,ofthemother,theowneroftheMoorishcafeandthechild,canbe´seenastheembodimentofanall-encompassing,Mediterraneanculture,glossingoverallethnicandlinguisticdifferences.InL’Enversetl’Endroit,thegeographicalandother‘continuities’oftheMediterraneanbasinarealsoevokedinaseriesofcolourfulevocationsoftheItalianlandscape,thesmallharboursalongthecoastofIbizaandthesmilesoftheGenoesewomen.AroundthetimethatCamuswasworkingonhisfirstbook,hebecameincreasinglyinvolvedinpolitics.Inthisrespectalso,theideaofaMediter-raneanculturewasofgreatconcerntohim,asismadeclearbythetextofalecturethathegaveattheAlgiersCulturalCentreon8February1937:‘Noussommesd’autantmieuxprepar´esquenoussommesaucontactimm´ediatde´l’Orient,quipeuttantnousapprendreacet`egard...Ler´oleessentielqueˆpourraientjouerlesvillescommeAlgeretBarcelone,c’estdeservirpourleurfaiblepartcetaspectdelaculturemediterran´eennequifavorisel’hommeau´lieudel’ecraser.’´3(WeareallthebetterpreparedforthisbecauseweareinimmediatecontactwiththeOrient,fromwhichwecanlearnsomuchinthisregard...thecitiesofAlgiersandBarcelonacouldplayasmallthoughessen-tialpartintheprocessofrestoringtheideaofaMediterraneanculturethatdefendshumanvalues,insteadofcrushingthem.)CamusopposedItalian15CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\niemevanderpoelfascism’scallforanewRomethatwouldemulateancientRomanimperialgrandeurbyonceagainradiatinggreatnessacrosstheMediterranean,theMareNostrum(‘OurSea’).BydismissingMussolini’srevivalism,heexhortedhisfellowcitizenstosavetheMediterraneanfromtheItalianfascists.InsteadofMussolini’sdreamofthesupremacyofaLatinculturewhichwouldmatchthatofHitler’sGermania,Camusinvitedhisaudiencetorecallyetanotheraspectofagloriouspast:thatofal-Andalus,inwhichthedifferentethnicandreligiousgroupsfromSpainandtheArab-MuslimMediterraneanhadbeenunited.Inthisway,Camusmadeitveryclearthathewasnotonlyopposedtofascism,butthathealsolookeduponArabcultureasasubstantialpartoftheMediterraneanheritage.From1935until1937,CamuswasamemberoftheAlgerianCommunistParty.Inhischoiceofmembership,hewascertainlyinfluencedbyhisformerteacherandmentor,thewriterJeanGrenier.Itislessobviouswhy,afterarelativelyshortperiodoftime,Camuswasstruckofftheparty’sregister.HisfallfromgracetookplaceagainstthebackgroundofgrowingpoliticaltensionbetweenthecommunistsandthenationalistsinAlgeria.Althoughthecommunistshadalreadyfoughtagainstcolonialismsincethebeginningofthe1920s,theywereunhappythatMessaliHadj,theleaderofthenewlycreatedAlgerianPopularParty(PPA),shouldharkbacktocertaintraditionalvaluesinordertoreinforcethenotionofanAlgerianidentity.ThiswasalsothereasonwhyMessalirejectedtheBlum–Violetteplan(1937),accordingtowhichtheFrenchsocialistgovernmentplannedtoofferfullFrenchcitizen-shipto22,000Algerians.InMessali’sview,thisplan,towhichtheAlgeriancommunistswerealsofiercelyopposed,wouldincreasethegapthatalreadyexistedbetweentheassimilatedAlgerianeliteandtheimpoverishedmassesfromthecountryside.4Camus’ssupportforthePPAisalsoillustratedbyhisworkasareporter.InSeptember1938hemetPascalPia,thejournalistandformerSurrealist,whohadrecentlyarrivedfromFrancetobecomeeditor-in-chiefofthenewlycreatednewspaperAlgerrepublicain´.PiahiredCamusasaneditorialsec-retaryanditwasinthispositionthathefirstworkedasajournalist.Hewroteseveralbookreviews,includinganarticleaboutSartre’sfirstnovelLaNausee´,whichhadcomeoutintheautumnof1938.ButcentraltoCamus’scontributionstothenewspaperwerethearticlesheproducedaboutcurrentdevelopmentsinAlgeriaitself,whichseemtohavepreoccupiedhimmoreatthistimethanthegrowingthreatofwarinEuropeorthecivilwarinSpain.CamuswasverycriticalofthewayinwhichtheFrench-Algeriangovern-menthandledtheriseofnationalism.Inthesummerof1939,severalleadingmembersofthePPAwerearrestedanddiedofilltreatmentinAlgerianprisons.5InanarticlepublishedinAlgerrepublicain´,Camuscommented:16CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nCamus:alifelivedincriticaltimes‘Lamonteedunationalismealg´eriens’accomplitsurlespers´ecutionsdont´onlepoursuit’(Ess,1370)(‘TheriseofAlgeriannationalismisbroughtaboutbythepersecutiondirectedagainstit’).InCamus’sview,therepres-sivemeasurestakenbytheFrenchauthoritiesagainstnationalistpoliticalleaderswerenottheonlyreasonforthegrowingdiscontentamongnativeAlgerians.Between5and15June1939,hepublishedtheteninstalmentsofMiseredelaKabylie`.Inthistravelreport,consistingofarticlesabouttheterriblefaminethathadstrucktheKabyliaregion,CamusquestionedtheimpactofcolonialismonthenativeinhabitantsofAlgeria.Heaccusedhisfellowcitizensofsystematicallyexploitingthelocalpopulation,byrefusingthemequalpayandbyprovidingthemwithinsufficientschoolsandmedicalcare.WiththepublicationofMiseredelaKabylie`,CamusbecameoneofthefirstFrenchintellectualstocriticiseovertlytheFrenchcolonialenterpriseinitsoverseasterritories.ButinCamus’scase,hisdenunciationsoftheilltreat-mentoftheAlgerianpeasantsbytheircolonialoppressorsdidnothavethesameimpactontheFrenchpublicas,somewhatearlier,AndreGide’sprotest´againsttheexcessesofcolonialruleintheFrenchCongo,orAndreeViollis’s´condemnationoftheatrocitiesthatwerebeingperpetratedinIndochina.InFrance,allpublicattentionwasnowfocusedontheimpendingwarinEurope.Meanwhile,inAlgeria,PiaandCamushadfoundedasecondnewspaper,LeSoirrepublicain´.TheoutbreakofthewarhadmadethedistributionofAlgerrepublicain´moredifficultanditsawanimportantdecreaseinthenum-berofcopiessold.Bylaunchinganewpaper,theeditorshopedtomakeupforthisloss,butafterafewmonths,Algerrepublicain´folded.Theimpactofthewarwasnotlimitedtoeconomicmatters;italsoaffectedtheethicsofjournal-ism.AlthoughthepressinAlgeriawasplacedundercensorship,thisdidnotpreventCamusfromexercisinghisrighttofreedomofspeech.InfavourofneitherHitlernorStalin,heandPiawere,aboveall,convincedpacifists:theyprotestedagainsttheroundingupofcommunistsaftertheGerman–Russiannon-aggressionpacthadbeenconcludedandtheypublishedextensivelyonthehistoricalbackgroundofthethencurrentsituation,aswellasonthepossibilitiesofrestoringpeace.Aftermanyaltercationswiththecensors,LeSoirrepublicain´waseventuallysuspendedbytheFrenchauthoritieson10January1940.6Theyears1940–2constitutedaturningpointinCamus’scareerasawriter,profoundlyaffectingbothhispoliticalandphilosophicalviews.LivinginoccupiedFrancepartofthetime(andatothertimesintheAlgeriancityofOran),Camuswrotethethreetextsthatwouldestablishhisreputationasoneofthemostimportantwritersofhisgeneration:thenovelL’Etranger17CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\niemevanderpoel(1942),thephilosophicalessayLeMythedeSisyphe(1942)andtheplayCaligula(1944).Thesetexts,togetherwiththearticlesthathewroteforLeSoirrepublicain´,andtheLettresaunamiallemand`,whichappearedintheundergroundpressduringtheGermanoccupation,giveaclearpictureofthewayinwhichtheexperienceofwarandoppressionaffectedthedevelopmentinCamus’swayofthinking.Timeandagain,Camusconfesseshisall-encompassingloveoflife.Hiswritingsaboundwithimagesthatrepresentthephysicalworld.Thepleasur-ableexperienceofswimmingandsunbathingispresentinbothL’Etrangerand‘LaGuerre’(‘War’),anarticlehewroteforLeSoirrepublicain´in1939.TheLettresaunamiallemand`praisethebeautyoftheEuropeanland-scape,asembodiedby‘lespigeonssedetach[ant]engrappesdelacath´edrale´deSalzbourg’(‘theclustersofpigeonstakingofffromthecathedralofSalzburg’),and‘lesgeraniumsrouges[quipoussent]inlassablementsurles´petitscimetieresenSil`esie’(´Ess,236)(‘theredgeraniumsthatgrowwithtirelessenergyinthesmallcemeteriesofSilesia’).In‘LaGuerre’,however,theseimagesofaphysicalworldthatseemsabsurdlyunaffectedbytheatroc-itiesofwaranddestructionarerelegatedtoanirretrievablepast.Fromthis,theauthordrawstheconclusionthat‘c’estbienlapeut-`etrel’extrˆemit´ede´larevoltequedeperdresafoidansl’humanit´edeshommes’(´Ess,1377)(‘losingone’sfaithinthehumanityofmenmayperhapsbetheultimateformofrevolt’).ThishintofpessimismrecallstheanswerthatMeursault,inL’Etranger,givestohisboss,whenthelatteraskshimifhewouldliketochangehiswayoflife:‘J’aireponduqu’onnechangeaitjamaisdevie,qu’en´toutcastoutessevalaientetquelamienneicinemedeplaisaitpasdutout’´(TRN,1155–6)(‘Irepliedthatyoucouldneverchangeyourlife,thatinanycaseonelifewasasgoodasanotherandthatIwasn’tatalldissatisfiedwithmine’(O,44)).ButthesetextsalsoreflectCamus’sstrugglewiththeabsurdityofaworldinwhichGodisnolongerpresent.InCaligula,themaincharacter’slawlessbehaviourcallstomindtheSurrealists’ideaofrevoltagainstacivilisationseenasfundamentallyrestrictive.ItisabehaviouralsoreminiscentofthesenseofrevoltasarticulatedbythemarquisdeSadeintheeighteenthcentury.Inasimilarway,Caligulaclaimstherighttoexercisehisindividualfreedom,evenattheexpenseofthelivesandhappinessofhisfellowmen,andtotallyrejectshumanlaw.Butinthelastsceneoftheplaythetyrantiskilledbyhisbestfriend,Cherea.AlthoughthelattersharesCaligula’sconvictionabouttheoverallabsurdityofhumandestiny,heisrevoltedbythepointlesssacrificeofhumanlivesthatresultsfromit.IfCaligulamarksthebeginningofamajorchangeinCamus’sphilosoph-icalinsights,thisbecomesevenmoreapparentfromthefirstoftheLettres18CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nCamus:alifelivedincriticaltimesaunamiallemand`,publishedin1943:‘C’estbeaucoupquedesebattreenmeprisantlaguerre,d’accepterdetoutperdreengardantlego´utdubon-ˆheur,decouriraladestructionavecl’id`eed’unecivilisationsup´erieure’(´Ess,222)(‘Itdemandsalottofightwhenonedespiseswar,andtoaccepttoloseeverythingwhilekeepingatasteforhappiness,torunheadlongtowardsdestructionwhilebeingguidedbytheideaofasuperiorcivilisation’).InCamus’sview,itispreciselybecauseweclingtolifesomuchthatwefindthestrengthtosacrificeitforafutureofwhichweourselveswillnolongerbepart.InaworldinwhichGodisnolongerpresent,solidarityprovidestheonlypossibleanswertotheabsurdityofhumandestiny.Inthisrespect,Camus’sideaofrevolthasdevelopedfromthecontestingofthelegitimacyofanyhumanlaw,asillustratedbyCaligula,tolayingclaimtoahumanorderinwhichallanswersarehuman.Or,asCamusputsitinL’Hommerevolt´e´:‘L’hommerevolt´e,c’estl’hommejet´ehorsdusacr´eetappliqu´e´arevendiquer`unordrehumainoutouteslesr`eponsessoienthumaines’(´Ess,1688)(‘Therebelismanthrownoutsidethesacredandkeentolayclaimtoahumanorderinwhichallanswersarehuman’).TheLettresaunamiallemand`alsoreadlikeadeclarationoflovetoEuropeanculture.ContrarytotheGermans,itisnotoutofpatriotismortogainsupremacyover‘cetespacecercledemersetdemontagnes’(´Ess,234)(‘thisspacesurroundedbyseasandmountains’)thattheauthoroftheletterswantstofight.Heispreparedtosacrificehislifeinordertodefendasetofspiritualvaluesthatrepresenttohismind‘Europe’,andwhichheconsiderstobe‘maplusgrandepatrie’(Ess,236)(‘mywiderfatherland’).CamusspentthewaryearspartlyinAlgeria,partlyinFrance.In1942,hesufferedarelapseofthetuberculosisthathecontractedinhisadolescentyearsandwasadvisedtospendsometimeinthemountainsinFrance.HestayedinLeChambonsurLignon,aHuguenotvillageintheVivaraisregion.Afterthewar,itsinhabitantsweretheonlycommunityinoccupiedEuropetobeawardedcollectivelytheYadVashemdecorationfortheirsupportofJewishrefugeesduringtheGermanoccupation.ItisnotunlikelythatduringhisstayinthemountainsCamusgotinvolvedwiththeFrenchResistance.Itisequallypossible,though,thatitwasthroughhisfriendPascalPia(livinginnearbyLyons),thathebecameengagedintheCombatgroupoftheResistancemovementin1943.SoonaftersettlinginParis,Camusbecametheeditor-in-chiefoftheclan-destinenewspaperCombat,whichdrewtogetheranumberofResistancegroups.Bythistime,CamushadcometobeaprominentfigureinParisianintellectualcircles.HehadmadefriendswithJean-PaulSartreandSimonedeBeauvoir,aswellaswithhiseditor,GastonGallimard,andhadalsobecomeinvolvedwiththeworldoftheatre.On21August1944,Combat19CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\niemevanderpoelcelebratedtheLiberationofFrancewithaleadingarticle,‘DelaResistance´alaR`evolution’(‘FromResistancetoRevolution’),writtenbyCamus.It´alreadycontainsthecoreofthepaper’sprogrammeforthenextfewyearswhichwastostandforpoliticalrenewalandfreedomofspeech,whilekeep-ingitsindependencefromanypoliticalparty.7Nevertheless,Combathadtooperateundervariousrestrictions.Printingpaperwasscarceandcen-sorshipcontinued,sincethewarinEuropehadnotyetended.Moreover,CombatandtheothernewspapersthathadbeenfoundedduringthedaysoftheResistancehadtocompetewithnewtitles,suchasLeMonde,whichpublisheditsfirstissueon19December1944.8From1944to1947,CamusasCombat’seditor-in-chiefplayedamajorroleinpublicdebateinFrance.InthedirectaftermathofWorldWarII,theformerResistancedividedintotwogroupswhichstronglydisagreedaboutthecountry’spoliticalfuture,thecommunistsandtheadherentsofGeneralCharlesdeGaulle.ThiscontroversywasdeeplyinfluencedbythedramaticeventsinGreece,where,afterthedefeatoftheGermanarmy,abloodybattlewasunleashedbetweentheadherentsoftheformergovernment,nowreturnedfromexile,andtheformerpartisanswhohadfoughttheGermans.AnothermatterofdiscontentinvolvedthepurgestakingplaceacrossFranceintheaftermathofthewar.Camuswroteaseriesofpolemicalarti-clesagainsthisfellowwriterandjournalist,Franc¸oisMauriac.Thelatter,opposingthegeneralclimateofhatredandvengefulness,hadpleadedforclemencytobeshowntoformercollaborators.Camus,inturn,arguedthatjustice,notChristiancharity,shouldguidetheFrenchindealingwiththedarkersideoftheirrecenthistory:‘SinousconsentonsanouspasserdeDieu`etdel’esperance,nousnenouspassonspassiais´ementdel’homme.Surce´point,jepuisbiendireaM.Mauriacquenousnenousd`ecourageronspaset´quenousrefuseronsjusqu’auderniermomentunecharitedivinequifrustr-´eraitleshommesdeleurjustice’(CC,442)(‘IfweagreetomanagewithoutGodandhope,wecan’tsoeasilydowithoutman.Onthispoint,IsaytoMonsieurMauriacthatwewillnotbediscouragedandthatwewillrefuserighttothelastadivinecharitythatwoulddeprivemankindofitsjustice’).AsinLaPeste(1947)andLaChute(1956),Camushereshowshimselftobeahumanistatheart.ItwasalsoduetothishumaniststancethatCamusdefinitivelybrokewithSartreandtheLesTempsmodernesgroupin1951.Tounderstandthiscontroversy,oneshouldbeawareofthehighlypolarisedatmospherewhichdominatedintellectuallifeinFranceduringthepost-waryears.Thissituationwastolastuntilthesecondhalfofthe1970s,whenMarxismfinallylostitsattractionforthemajorityoftheFrenchintelligentsia.InL’Hommerevolt´e´(1951),CamusreproachesMarxismforsacrificingthedefenceofuniversal20CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nCamus:alifelivedincriticaltimeshumanvaluestohistoricalrelativism.HedrawsacleardistinctionbetweentheMarxistprophecy,thatis,thegenerousanduniversalambitiontosecureacertainqualityoflifeforthedestitutemasses,andtherevolutionarypracticewhichresultedfromitandwhichmadeeverythingdependenton,asCamustermedit,historyandnothingelse.Camus’scriticismofMarxismalsoimpliedacondemnationofSartrianexistentialism,whichvaluedtheideaof‘takingaction’,‘makingpoliticalchoices’,atanycost,evenifitlaterturnedoutthatonehadsupportedapoliticalsystemthatwasmostrepressive(aswasthecasewithSartreandSimonedeBeauvoir’ssupportforthenewChinainthe1950s).Itis,therefore,quiteunderstandablethatLesTempsmodernes,withSartreasitsdirector,shouldpublishanunfavourablereviewofCamus’sL’Hommerevolt´e´.Thisledtoalong-lastingpolemicbetweenCamusandSartre’sinfluentialliteraryreview,andresultedinthefinalbreakbetweenthetwoleadingintellectu-als(seebelowchapter9).Sartrebecameafellowtraveller(assympathiserswerecalled)oftheFrenchCommunistParty,whereasCamusturnedawayfromcommunismaltogetheraftertheexistenceoftheGulag–theconcen-trationcampscreatedunderStalin’sregime–wasmadepublicintheWest.Asillustratedbythefictionalworkshewroteduringtheseyears,includ-ingtheplayLesJustesandhismostfamousnovelLaPeste,theconceptofrevolutionandthebloodsheditimplied,evenifitwasmeanttocre-ateabetterworld,becameintolerabletoCamus.Asaresultofhishumaniststanceandfirmanti-communism,hebecameasomewhatlonelyfigureontheFrenchintellectualpost-warscene,wherecommunistsympathiesheldsuchsway.By1954theAlgerianWarofIndependencehadbecomeinevitable.InFrance,SartreandanumberofotherinfluentialintellectualsimmediatelygavetheirsupporttotheAlgeriannationalists,butCamus’spositionwasmoreambiguous.Atthispoint,anoticeabledifferencealsoemergesbetweenthearticleshewroteforL’Expressandothernewsmedia,ontheonehand,andhisfictionalwritingsontheother.Inhis1957essay‘Reflexionssur´laguillotine’,CamuscondemnedthesevereFrenchrepressionoftheFLN(FrontdeLiberationNationale),theAlgerianresistancemovement.But,in´spiteofhislong-lastingcriticismofFrenchcolonialruleinAlgeria,Camuswasalsoopposedtotheideaofanindependent,Arabnation.Infact,evenwhenthehostilitiesamongthethreemainpartiesinvolved–theAlgeriannationalistsfromtheFLN,theFrencharmyandtheright-wing‘secretarmy’orOAS(‘Organisationd’ArmeeSecr´ete’),whichwantedtokeepAlgeria`French–hadreachedapointofnoreturn,CamuscontinuedtofosterthehopeofafederalstatereunitingFrance,AlgeriaandthetwoformerFrenchprotectorates,TunisiaandMorocco.21CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\niemevanderpoelFrom1952untilhisuntimelydeathinacarcrashin1960,Camus’shome-landservedasthemajorlocaleintwoofthefictionalworkshewasworkingon,L’ExiletleRoyaumeandLePremierHomme.AcarefulreadingofthesetextsuncoversamoresubtleapproachtotheAlgeriantragedyandallitencompassedthanthatprovidedbyCamus’sjournalistictexts,whichwere,ofcourse,writtenonthespurofthemoment.9Inhislast,unfinishednovelaswellasintwooftheshortstoriescollectedinL’ExiletleRoyaume,‘L’Hote’ˆand‘LaFemmeadultere’,Camuselaboratesonwhatheseesasthemain`problemofAlgeriansociety:theimpossibilityofcommunicationbetweentheFrenchandArabpopulations,becausetheyspeakadifferentlanguageanddonotmixsocially.‘“C’esttoilejuge?”’(TRN,1618)(‘“Areyouthejudge?”’)theArabprisonerin‘L’Hote’askstheFrenchschoolteacher,ˆwhohasbeenobligedbytheFrenchauthoritiestoguardhimforthenight.ThesefourwordscontainthenightmarishsituationinwhichtheArabpris-onerfindshimselfcaught,inhisnativelandandyetinasocialsystemthatisutterlyalientohim.Asawriter,Camusrevealsthatheisawareoftheanomalyofthesystembut–asthehalf-heartedattemptoftheschoolteachertosavetheprisonerattheendofthenovelshows–heisunabletosolvetheproblem.Therefore,onedoesmorejusticetoCamusasacolonialwriterbystressinghisfundamentalpessimismaboutthefinaloutcomeoftheAlgeriantragedy,inwhichtheunderprivilegedEuropeansofAlgeriawouldbeamongtheprincipalvictims.InCamus’sview,theirfatewasuniversalinthesensethattheyresembledalltheotherethnicgroupswho,asaconsequenceofwarandpoliticalconflicts,hadbeendeprivedoftheirnativesoil.ThisisalsothemainthemeofLePremierHomme.Inthisnovel,aswehaveseen,Camustriedtoreconstructtheunknownhistoryofhisownforebears,thepoorsettlersfromFrance,who,fromtheirarrivalinthecolonyduringthenineteenthcentury,toiledandsuffered,fromonegenerationtothenext,onwhatispresentedasaninhospitableAfricansoil.ButinspiteofthefactthattheysharedthislifeofhardshipandpovertywiththelargemajorityoftheArabpopulation,Camusalsoshowsthedeepriftthatexistedbetweenthetworaces.Thewarystand-offbetweenthem,asChristianeChaulet-Achourhassorightlyargued,couldswitchallofasuddentobloodyconflict.10Itisanironythatin1957,asCamuswasachievingworldwiderecogni-tionasthewinneroftheNobelPrizeforliterature,hewasbecomingincreas-inglyisolatedfromhisfellowwritersinFrance.Neitherhisanti-communismnorhisrefusaltobackthecauseofAlgeriannationalismhadmadehimpopularwiththosewhosetthetoneinParisianintellectualcirclesatthattime.HisfamousbutawkwardremarkmadetoanAlgerianinterlocutorinStockholm–‘Jecroisalajustice,maisjed`efendraimam´ereavantlajus-`tice’(Ess,1882)(‘Ibelieveinjustice,butwilldefendmymotherbefore22CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nCamus:alifelivedincriticaltimesjustice’)–dealtafinalblowtohisalreadydamagedreputationasaprogres-siveintellectual.WhatCamushadreallymeanttosaywasthat,forhim,thereexistednoexcuseforactsofterrorismonanyside.InanarticlepublishedinL’Expresson23July1955,hehadgivenaveryperceptiveanalysisofthespiralofviolenceasithaddevelopedandgrownunderFrenchcolonialruleinAlgeria:L’oppression,memebienveillante,lemensonged’uneoccupationquiparlaitˆtoujoursd’assimilationsansjamaisrienfairepourelle,ontsuscited’abord´desmouvementsnationalistes,pauvresendoctrine,maisrichesenaudace.Cesmouvementsontet´er´eprim´es.´Chaquerepression,mesur´eeoud´emente,chaquetorturepolici´erecomme`chaquejugementlegal,ontaccentu´eled´esespoiretlaviolencechezlesmilitants´frappes.Pourfinir,lespoliciersontcouv´elesterroristesquiontenfant´eeux-´memesunepolicemultipliˆee.´(Ess,1868)(Oppression,evenifbenevolent,andthelieofanoccupationthatalwaystalkedaboutassimilationwithouteverdoinganythingtobringitabout,havegivenrisetovariousnationalistmovements,whichwereideologicallyweakbutcer-tainlyaudacious.Thesemovementshavebeenrepressed.Everyinstanceofrepression,whethermeasuredordemented,everyactofpolicetorture,everylegaljudgementhasincreasedthedespairandtheviolenceofthemilitantsaffectedbythem.Intheend,thepolicehavebredterrorists,whohaveinturnmultipliedthenumberofpolice.)ButthetimeforpeacenegotiationsofthekindCamushadwantedhadlongpassed.Algeriawastoobtainitsindependencein1962,afteralongandbloodybattle,andaboutamillionFrenchweretoleavethecountryimmediatelyafterwards.InthenovelLaChute(1956),onecansensethefeelingofisolationandlonelinessthatCamusasanintellectualexperiencedduringthelastyearsofhislife.Clamence,theprotagonist,isnottobeidentifiedwithhiscreator,AlbertCamus,ofcourse,yetsomeofthereflectionsonhispersonallifeseemclosetoCamus’sown:‘Ah!monami,savez-vouscequ’estlacreature´solitaire,errantdanslesgrandesvilles?...’(TRN,1536)(‘Oh,myfriend,doyouknowwhatitmeanstobeasolitaryfigure,wanderingaroundinourbigcities?...’),asksthenarrator,withoutevenexpectingananswerfromhissilentinterlocutor.Andheconcludeshissoliloquywiththeobservationthatitisneitherpossibletoignoreone’sveryexistencenortoescapefromit:‘Quefairepouretreunautre?Impossible’(ˆTRN,1550)(‘Whatdoesonedotobeanother?Impossible’).In1954CamusreceivedaninvitationtogivealectureinHollandandonthisoccasionhealsovisitedAmsterdam,whichhewouldchooseasthegrey23CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\niemevanderpoelanddrizzlysettingforClamence’sconfessioninLaChute.Inhislecture,Camusspokeonthesubjectof‘TheArtistandhisTime’,thetextofwhichhasonlyrecentlybeenrediscovered.AlthoughwritteninFrench,thelecturewasaimedatanon-French,non-Parisianaudience.ItwasanopportunityforCamus,nodoubt,tospeakmorefreelyabouthisownsituationasanengagedintellectual.Thewritershouldsharethefateofhisfellowmen,hesaid,butshouldrefrainfromforetellingthefuture,stickinginsteadtothatpartofhistoryheknowsfrompersonalexperience;hemustnotbeafraidtopositionhimselfinthemidstofthepublicdebate:‘Theonlypeacethatisattainableforanartististhepeacethatresidesintheheatofthebattle.“Eachwallisadoor”,asEmersonputitsorightly.Letusnotseekadoororanexit,exceptinthewallthatsurroundsus.’11Inthedecadethatfollowedhisdeath,Camus’sintellectualheritagewasconsideredoutofdate.The1960ssawthespectacularriseofthesocialsci-encesinFrance.LeadingintellectualswerenolongerwritersorphilosopherslikeCamusorSartre;theyweretobefoundamonganthropologists,psy-choanalystsandsocialscientists.ItwasonlyafterMarxismhaddefinitivelyceasedtobeamainpointofreferencewithinintellectualcirclesinFrancethatayoungergenerationofFrenchintellectuals,generallyknownas‘lesNou-veauxPhilosophes’(the‘NewPhilosophers’),turnedtouniversalismagainandstartedrereadingCamus.Bernard-HenriLevygaveCamusaspecialplaceinhisessayonFrench´intellectualhistory,LesAventuresdelaliberte´(TheAdventuresofFree-dom)(1991).LevynotonlypraisesCamusforhishumaniststance,butalso´considershimtobeoneofthefirstopponentsofcolonialruleinFrance.Aroundthesametime,EdwardSaid,writinginCultureandImperialism(1993),defendedanattitudethatwasradicallyopposedtothatofLevy.Said´characterisedCamusasoneofthelastcolonialwriterswhosewritingscon-solidateanimperialistvisionoftherelationshipbetweentheOrientandtheOccident.However,giventhefactthatFrancehasonlyjustbeguntocometotermswithitscolonialheritage,inparticularwiththetraumaticyearsoftheAlgerianWarofIndependence,weareonlybeginningtogaugethefullsignificanceofFrenchcolonialruleanditslegacy.NOTES1.OlivierTodd,AlbertCamus,ALife,trans.BenjaminIvry(NewYork,Carroll&Graf,2000),p.4.2.Ma¨ıssaBey,‘Femmesauborddelavie’,AlbertCamusetlesecrituresalg´eriennes.´Quellestraces?(Aix-en-Provence,Edisud,2004),pp.127–33.3.EmileTemime,Unrevemˆediterran´een´(Arles,ActesSud,2002),p.140.24CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nCamus:alifelivedincriticaltimes4.Jean-PierreBiondi,LesAnticolonialistes(1881–1962)(Paris,Laffont,1992),p.216.5.Ibid.,p.228.6.Todd,AlbertCamus,ALife,pp.90–4.7.SeeJacquelineLevi-Valensi’scommentsin´Camusa‘Combat’`,ed.J.Levi-Valensi´(Paris,Gallimard,2002),pp.42–5.8.Ibid.,pp.59–60.9.SeeIemevanderPoel,‘AlbertCamus,oulacritiquepostcolonialefaceau“reveˆmediterran´een”’,´FrancophonePostcolonialStudies2.1(Spring/Summer2004),70–9.10.ChristianeChaulet-Achour,AlbertCamusetl’Algerie´(Algiers,Barzakh,2004),p.98.11.AlbertCamus,‘Dekunstenaarenzijntijd’,trans.LiesbethvanNes,Raster108(2004),154–70(169).25CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\n2TOBYGARFITTSituatingCamus:theformativeinfluencesWhenspeakingofformativeinfluencesonCamus,itwouldbeamistaketoconcentrateexclusivelyonthe‘great’names:Nietzsche,Dostoyevsky,Gide,andsoon.LikeanyFrenchboywithapassionforreading,theyoungAlbertCamuslivedlargelyonadietofadventurestories,amongwhichthehistoricalseriesabouttheswashbucklingheroPardaillanbyMichelZevaco´tookprideofplace(Sartreacknowledgeshisowndebttothisseriesinhisautobiographicaltext,LesMots(Words)).Wellbeforehewasaconfidentreaderhimself,hewasmovedbyRolandDorgeles’sFirstWorldWarnovel`ofthetrenchesLesCroixdebois(TheWoodenCrosses),whichhisreveredprimaryteacherLouisGermainusedtoreadtothepupilsattheendoftermandonotherspecialoccasions:itintroducedhimtoadifferentformofheroismfromthatofPardaillan,andprovidedanessentiallinkwithhisownfather,whohaddiedbeforeAlbertwastwo,fromwoundsreceivedattheBattleoftheMarne.AttheGrandLyceeinAlgiers,whereCamusdiscoveredatotallydifferent´worldfromthatoftheroughworking-classdistrictofBelcourtwherehegrewup,theauthorwhoappealedmosttohimwasprobablyMoliere.Theimpli-`cationsofthatarestilltobeexplored,bothforhisdramaticpracticeandforhisoftenunrecognisedhumour.Bytheageofsixteen,intheclassedepremiere`,hewasbeginningtoexploreoutsidetheschoolsyllabus,andthatwastheyearhisuncleGustaveAcaultlenthimAndreGide’s´LesNourrituresterrestres(FruitsoftheEarth).Gide’slyricalcelebrationofheady,sensualpleasuredidnotimmediatelyspeaktohim.‘AAlger,aseizeans,j’`etaissatur´e´decesrichesses;j’ensouhaitaisd’autres,sansdoute’(Ess,1117)(‘InAlgiers,atsixteen,Iwassaturatedwiththeseriches;nodoubtIwaslookingforsomethingelse’).Itwasinthefollowingyear,1930–1,thatCamusencoun-teredthemanwhowastounlocktheworldofbooksandideasforhim.ThatmanwasJeanGrenier,whoattheageofthirty-twoarrivedbackinAlgiers(wherehehadalreadytaughtforayearin1923–4)toteachphilos-ophyattheLycee.ButGrenierwasnotonlyateacherofphilosophyanda´26CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nSituatingCamus:theformativeinfluencespractisingphilosopherhimself:hehadrecentlybeguntopublishessaysintheNouvelleRevuefranc¸aise(NRF),andhehadevenworkedforawhileforthepublishersEditionsdelaNRF(Gallimard),sothathebroughtwithhimalltheprestigeoftheParisianliteraryworld.Hisaimwaslesstoteachtheofficialsyllabusthantoopenhispupils’mindstocultureinabroadsense.HehadalsorecentlyvisitedSpain,andhisenthusiasmforthecultureofthatcountry(evidentinhisessaysofthenextfewyears)maywellhaveencouragedCamustoexplorehisownSpanishheritage:thefigureofDonJuan,discussedinoneofGrenier’sessays,wastobeofparticularimpor-tancetoCamus,whodevotedachapterto‘LeDonJuanisme’inLeMythedeSisyphe.Grenierwasgenerousaboutlendingbooks,andthefirstthathepassedontoCamusintheautumnof1931(onrestartingtheclassedephilosophieafterayearofillness)wasaslimnovelbyanobscurewriterwhomGrenierhadmetonlyjustbeforecomingtoAlgiers,AndredeRichaud.´LaDouleur(Grief)wasarevelationtoCamus.Thisbookwaslepremierameparlerdecequejeconnaissais:unem`ere,lapauvret`e,de´beauxsoirsdansleciel...Jevenaisd’apprendrequeleslivresneversaientpasseulementl’oublietladistraction.Messilencestetus,cessouffrancesvaguesˆetsouveraines,lemondesingulierquim’entourait,lanoblessedesmiens,leurmisere,messecretsenfin,toutcelapouvaitdoncsedire!`(Ess,1117–18)(thefirsttospeaktomeofwhatIknew:amother,poverty,beautifuleveningskies...Idiscoveredthatbooksofferedmorethanjustescapism.Mymoodysilences,thoseunclearbutimperioussufferings,thestrangeworldaroundme,thenobilityofmyfamily,theirpoverty,myownsecrets,allofthatcouldbeacknowledgedandexpressed!)HefoundsomethingsimilarinLouisGuilloux’saccountofhisfather’ssyn-dicalist(tradesunion)pastinLaMaisondupeuple(TheHouseofthePeople)(GuillouxwasafriendofGrenier’sfromhisadolescenceinSaint-Brieuc).Theseaffirmationsofthevalueofhispersonalidentitysethimfreetoexploreinwritingwhathelatercalledthe‘partobscure’(Ess,1925)(‘thehiddenside’),atermwhichalsocovershisstronglyphysicalappreciationofthenaturalenvironment,anddefineshisdistinctiveformofalgerianit´e´.AnotherwriterthatGreniergreatlyadmiredandrecommendedtohispupilwasProust;andgivenhispassionforsport,thisperiodmaywellhavefoundCamusreadingLesOlympiques(Olympics),byGrenier’sfriendHenrydeMontherlant,withtheprefaceexaltingsportasameansofescapefromoppressivesociologicaldefinition.Duringtheyear,ofcourse,therewerephilosophicaltextsthatthewholeclasshadtoread,someofthemontheofficialsyllabus,andotherschosenby27CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\ntobygarfitttheteachertocomplementtheirstudies.Schopenhauer,NietzscheandBerg-sonwerethreeonwhomGrenierparticularlyinsisted,aswellastheGreekthinkersthatheknewsowell,includingbothPlatoandPlotinus(Camus’sinterestintheGreekswastobefurtherencouragedbyRenePoirierduring´hisuniversitystudies).SchopenhauerhadbeenatthesourceofGrenier’sownvocationasaphilosopher,whileNietzschehadbeencentraltotheanalysisofmodernnihilismthathehadpublishedinPhilosophiesin1924.ItwasNietzsche’sBirthofTragedythathemadehispupilsread,withitsreinterpre-tationoftheGreektraditionanditsmessageofheroicoptimisminthefaceofdespair:Grenier’sportrayalofSuetonius’sCaligulaas‘unNietzschebar-bare’(‘abarbarianNietzsche’)1wastomakeaprofoundimpactonCamus.AlreadybetweenMarchandJune1932severalessaysthatCamushadorig-inallywrittenforGrenierandotherteachersintheclassedephilosophieappearedinthelocalmonthlyreviewSud,culminatinginalongerpieceonmusic(inrelationtoSchopenhauerandNietzsche:thefulltitleofNietzsche’sworkisTheBirthofTragedyfromtheSpiritofMusic)whichGrenierhadcorrectedwithgreatcare.Ifallhispupilsbenefitedfromthislevelofatten-tion,theywereindeedfortunate.OneofthemremindedGreniermanyyearslaterof‘vosadmirables...corrigesdedissertationsurl’unit´eprofondedu´moi’(‘yourwonderful...commentsonouressaysonthedeepunityoftheself’).2Hewasaharshmarker,inagoodFrenchtradition;butthisrigoroustrainingleftCamuswithaloveforphilosophicalinvestigationandadesiretotakeitfurther.ByOctober1932,whenhedidatlastenterthekhagneˆ(orclassepreparatoire´fortheprestigiousParisiangrandesecoles´;thishadbeencreatedtwoyearsbeforebyPierreMartino,DeanoftheFacultyofArts,butcoveredjustoneyearratherthanthenormaltwo,withsomepupilsgoingontodoasecondyearofpreparationatoneofthebigParislycees),Camuswasbegin-´ningtowriteseriously,whichconsolidatedtheburgeoningfriendshipwithGrenier.Althoughtheclasswassmall,numberingonlyadozen,quiteafewofthepupilsfoundGrenier’sclassesincomprehensible.Theirteacherwasalsofairlyfrequentlyabsentthroughillness.Camusandtwoorthreeothers,ontheotherhand,foundhimimmenselystimulating.GermaineBlanchet(MmeBlasi)describesatypicallesson,whichmighthavetodowithideasoffreedom:Audebut,c’´etaitconstruit...Grenierestentraindefairesonexpos´e,il´ecritau´tableau...ettoutd’uncoup,onnesaitpasd’oucelaestparti,ons’envole...`onplane,onplane...c’estuneespeceded`elire...c’´etaitinspir´e...Dece´fait,ilyavaitdesel´evesquinepouvaientpasl’encaisser.`28CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nSituatingCamus:theformativeinfluences(Tobeginwith,therewasaclearstructure...Grenierwouldbegivinghislecture,writingontheblackboard...andsuddenly,withoutwarning,itjusttookoff...weweresoaringhigh...inakindofdelirium...itwasinspired...Soofcoursesomeofthepupilscouldn’tcopewithitatall.)3Grenierintroducedhisstudentstoallsortsofheterodoxmaterial,notleasttheEasterntraditionsofHinduism,BuddhismandTaoism,Westernmystics,andtheradicalRussianJewishphilosopherChestov,whoseexistentialirra-tionalismwasinspiredbytheOldTestamentprophetsandbyDostoyevsky.Dostoyevskywasoneofthemoremainstreamauthorsherecommended,alongwithStendhalandMalraux,whoseLaConditionhumaine(TheHumanCondition)cameoutininstalmentsintheNRFthroughoutthefirsthalfof1933.DostoyevskywasoneofGrenier’sheroes:whenheandLouisGuillouxwerestartingoutaswritersintheearly1920s,GuillouxaimedtobethenewTolstoy,andGrenierthenewDostoyevsky.AswithSchopenhauer,itwasDostoyevsky’sexplorationofevilthatfirstspoketoGrenier,inrelationtohumanfreedom.HelaternotedthatDostoyevsky’sanalysis,inNotesfromtheUnderground,ofman’sawarenessofhistotalimpotencewithinablind,evenabsurdworld,wasverysimilartothatfoundinL’Etranger:4itmaywellhavebeenhisownteachingthatgotCamusthinkingalongthoselines.Itwascertainlythepersonalratherthanthehis-toricalimplicationsofDostoyevsky’sthoughtthattouchedCamusinitially,althoughhecametoseehimasanearlierandmorereliableprophetofnihilismthanNietzsche.Dostoyevskyrevealedthehiddendepthsofhumannature,characterisedbythetragicconflictbetweenthedesirefortruthandthealmostirresistibledesireforunlimitedfreedom(representedbyIvaninTheBrothersKaramazov),inrelationtowhichCamuswastocommentthatDostoyevsky’s‘souffrancepersonnelleestd’yparticiperetdelerefuseralafois’(`TRN,1888)(‘ownpersonalsufferingcomesfromsharinginitandatthesametimerefusingit’).Meursaultwillfindthatthecompatibil-ityoftruthandpersonalfreedomisproblematic,andtheextensionofthedebateinCamus’slaterworkstoincludejusticewillkeepitfirmlyinaDos-toyevskianperspective.HeandGrenieroftendiscussedDostoyevskyintheircorrespondence;andin1950,whenGrenierwaswritingaseriesofarticleson‘lemal’(‘evil’),Camusapprovedenthusiastically,sayingthatitwas‘lesujetcontemporainet,d’unecertainemaniere,leseul’(`Corr,168)(‘thesubjectoftheday,andinasensetheonlysubject’),andimmediatelyreferringtoTheBrothersKaramazov.MeanwhilePaulMathieu,whotaughtFrenchlitera-tureinthekhagneˆ,lostnoopportunitytosharehisenthusiasmforNietzschewithhispupils,alongsidethemoretraditionalRacineandPascal(thesecond29CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\ntobygarfittofwhombothCamusandGrenierlaterheldtobethegreatestoftheFrenchstylists,togetherwithChateaubriand).Facedwiththeseverydiverseexam-plesofheroisminliteratureandthought,GermaineBlanchetrememberedthatGrenier’smainadvicetoCamuswas‘qu’ilfallaitdominer’(‘youmustbeincontrol’).5Camuswasproducingcreativetextsofhisownnow.ItisindeedclearfromhisfirstsurvivinglettertoGrenier,dated20May1932(Corr,11),6thathelookedforguidanceandprobablyspecificcommentsonhisearlyliteraryefforts,andatalaterstageGrenierwouldprovidetheseinquiteextensivedetailonmanyofhismostimportantmanuscripts.CamuswasnaturallydrawntothekindoflyricalessaysthatGrenierwasnowpublishingregularly.‘LesIlesKerguelen’(‘TheKerguelenIslands’)hadappearedintheNRFinMay1931,andin1932hewasworkingon‘LesIlesFortunees’(‘The´FortunateIsles’).AlthoughstartingfromGrenier’sexperienceofarecenttriptoSpain,withearlyevocationsofBarcelonaandToledo,thisessayfocussesonthemoregeneralpointthat‘ilexistequelqueslieux,quelquesmomentsprivilegi´eso´ulavued’unpaysagitsurnous,commeungrand`musiciensuruninstrumentbanalqu’ilrev´ele`,aproprementparler,`alui-`meme’(‘therearecertainplaces,certainprivilegedmoments,inwhichtheˆsightofalandscapeactsonuslikeagreatmusicianplayingonaveryordinaryinstrumentandtrulyrevealingittoitself’).ForGrenier,suchmomentsofintenserecognition,ofconsonancewithselfandtheworld,arealsotragicremindersofthesolitudeandindeedneant´(nothingness)ofordinaryhumanexistence.Grenier’swritingachieveslyricalandemotionalheightsinthisessay,whileretainingaremarkableclassicalsobriety:Qu’ontravailleaParis,`aLondres,passeencore.Maispartouto`ur`egnent`perpetuellementlesoleiletlamer,ilfautsecontenterdejouir,desouffriret´d’exprimer.Aquoibonremuerlabouedelaplanetequandondemeureau`centredeschoses?EtlorsquelentementsonnaientlescoupsdemidietquetonnaitlecanonduFortSaint-Elme,unsentimentdeplenitude,nonpasun´sentimentdebonheur,maisunsentimentdepresencer´eelleettotale,comme´sitouteslesfissuresdel’etreˆetaientbouch´ees,s’emparaitdemoietdetout´cequietaitautourdemoi.Detousc´otˆesaffluaientdestorrentsdelumi´ereet`dejoiequidevasqueenvasquetombaientpoursefigerdansunoceansans´bords.Encemoment(leseul)jem’acceptaisparlaseuleadhesiondemespieds´ausol,demesyeuxalalumi`ere.Etaum`ememomentsurtouslesrivagesˆdelaMediterran´ee...desmilliersd’hommes´etaientcommemoi,retenant´leursouffleetdisant:Oui.Etjepensaisquesilemondesensiblen’estqu’untissulegerd’apparences,unvoiledechim´ereschangeantesquelanuitnous`dechironsetquenotredouleuressaieenvaindebalayer,ilestpourtantdes´hommesqui,lespremiersaensouffrir,reformentcevoile,reconstruisentces`30CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nSituatingCamus:theformativeinfluencesapparencesetfontrebondirlavieuniversellequisanscetelanquotidiense´tariraitquelquepartcommeunesourceperduedanslacampagne.7(IfyouworkinParisorLondon,thatisonething.Butwhereverthesunandtheseareignperpetually,onemustbecontentwithenjoyinglife,withsufferingandexpressing.Whatistheuseofstirringupthemudoftheplanetwhenoneisatthecentreofeverything?AndwhentheclockslowlystruckmiddayandthecannonfiredfromthefortofSant’Elmo,asenseofplenitude,notasenseofhappiness,butofreal,totalpresence,asifallthecrackswerenowfilled,tookholdofmeandeverythingaroundme.Fromallsidescametorrentsoflightandjoy,cascadingdownanddownandeventuallycomingtorestinalimitlessocean.Inthatmoment(alone)Iacceptedmyselfbyvirtueofthesimplecontactbetweenmyfeetandtheground,betweenmyeyesandthelight.AndatthesamemomentoneveryshoreoftheMediterranean...thousandsofotherslikemewereholdingtheirbreathandsayingYes!AndIreflectedthatiftheexternalworldisonlyafrailtissueofappearances,aveilofchangingchimerasthatwetearasideatnightandthatoursufferingattemptsinvaintobanishforgood,thereareyetthosewho,whilebeingthefirsttosufferfromit,reinstatetheveil,rebuildtheappearances,andsetlifegoingagain–thatuniversallifethatwouldotherwisetrickleawayanddryuplikeaspringinthedepthsofthecountryside.)PassageslikethisweretohaveamajorimpactonthefirstreadersofLesIles(Islands),amongthemCamus.ByNovemberGrenierwasworkingonathirdessay,‘L’IledePaques’.Thestoryofthedyingbutcher,feelingincreasinglyˆvulnerable,isolated,andatthesametimeguilty,andofhisyoungfriend’swell-meaningbutclumsyattemptstocomforthim,isapowerfulandlargelydepressingparableofthehumancondition,anditlacksthecompensatingluminosityofGrenier’searlieressays.Butitwasdeliberatelyconceivedasafoiltotheprevioustwo‘islands’.Camus,forone,wastofind‘L’IledePaques’ˆ(‘EasterIsland’)atleastassuggestiveastheothers,anditcontainstheseedsofbothCaligula(inthereferencetothenarratorreadingSuetonius’slifeofCaligulatothebutcher)andLaChute(intheepisodeswherethebutcherbehavesasakindofjuge-penitent´).TheessaysofNoces,withtheirdoubleemphasisontheintensepresent-nessofthenaturalenvironmentandtheinescapabilityofdeath,areofcoursedeeplyindebtedtothoseofLesIles,andtoothersthatGrenierpublishedinthelocalpress.8ForGrenier,theislandisaplaceofinevitableconfrontationwiththeself,intheabsenceofallotherdistractions,andisthereforeinitsessencemeta-physical.Oneisconfrontedwiththetruestimageofoneself,anditisthatexperiencethatcanthenreleaseone’sinnersong.Theexperienceoftheisland,then,asDeleuzewaslatertoargue,9givesrisetobothphilosophyandartisticcreation.Camus’sinitialresponsetoLesIleswaswrittendown31CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\ntobygarfittforhisownpurposesassoonashehadfinishedthebook,andcommu-nicatedtoGrenieronlylater,inaletter(Corr,13–14).Thereisagenuinedesiretounderstand,asenseofalmostsurprisedrecognition,andatthesametimeafairamountofresistancetoGrenier’slineofthought,whichisstronglyinfluencedbyIndianphilosophyandisconstantlypullingawayfromthehuman,relegatingittotheperiphery.CamusisstrugglingwithGrenier’sessentiallymetaphysicalandpotentiallyantisocialapproach,andwantingtoassertthepossibilityofadefinitivecommitmenttothevaluesofthehere-and-now.Noceswillbethefulleststatementofthatresponse.WhatCamussaysaboutLesIlesinhis‘Notesdelecture’islesscombative,moreappreciative(CAC2,204).Inaletterof1938hewouldbringtogetherthecombativeandtheappreciativesides,recognisingthat‘Cequevousmeditesmerevoltetoujourspendantquelquesheures.Maiscelameforce´ar`efl´echir´etacomprendre.Apr`es,jenesensplusquemagratitudeetmonamiti`epour´vous’(Corr,28)(‘Whatyousayalwaysrevoltsmeforafewhours.Butitmakesmethink,andunderstand.Afterwards,Ifeelnothingbutgratitude,andmyfriendshipforyou’).Camusisdrawndespitehimselftothetragicrecognitionthattruesatisfactionisultimatelyunattainable,andinthepref-acehewrotemuchlaterforaneweditionofLesIlesin1959hegaveGrenierthecreditforinitiatinghimandhishedonisticAlgeriancontemporariesintodesenchantement´(disenchantmentwiththehere-and-now)andhenceintoanappreciationofthelessmaterialisticvaluesofculture.Hewasavidlyread-ingGideatthesametime,butnotforthesensualawakeningexperiencedbysomanyNorthernEuropeanreaders,andwhichwassimplypartofhisAlgerianheritage:rather,hesawinGidethemodelofthecreativeartist,andinhiswriting,‘l’evangileded´enuementdontj’avaisbesoin’(´Ess,1118)(‘thegospelofasceticismthatIneeded’).GrenierthusactedasacatalystforthelastinginfluencethatGidewastohaveonCamus.Inthesummerof1933Grenierandhisfamilymoveduptothe‘Parcd’Hydra’,onthehillsaboveAlgiers,whereCamusandhisfirstwifeSimonewouldalsoliveforashortwhileaftertheirmarriagein1934.Itwasnotalwayseasyforteachersandpupilstogettoknoweachothersocially,butGrenier’swritingofferedadiscreetinvitationtodialogue,andsoprovidedanopening.TheresponsesofCamusandothersencouragedGreniertotaketheinitiativeinestablishingmoreofasocialrelationship,andthenew,big-gerhouseatHydramadeitpossibleforhimtoinvitesomeofhispupilsroundonaSunday.Thissoonbecamearegularfeature,andwasremem-beredwithwarmthandgratitude,forinstancebyCharlesDufourcq,lateradistinguishedhistorianofmedievalSpainandNorthAfrica.10Manyotherscame,includingMax-PolFouchet,thefutureeditorofthepoetryreviewFontaine,AndreBelamich,whowastotranslateLorca,thearchitectJeande´32CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nSituatingCamus:theformativeinfluencesMaisonseul,thesculptorLouisBenisti,andseveralpainters.EdmondChar-´lot,whomGrenierlaterhelpedtosetuphisownbookshopandpublishinghouse,andwhowouldbeCamus’sfirstpublisher,joinedthembeforelong.ItwastobeCharlotwho,withCamus,formedthenucleusoftherevivedEcoled’Alger.ThecolonialtraditionlaunchedbyLouisBertrand(LeSangdesraces(TheBloodoftheRaces),1899;Nuitsd’Alger(AlgiersNights),1930)wasnolongerdynamic,andthewaywasopenforthesetwotogatherroundthemnotonlytheelitegroupwhosecollectiveintellectualadven-turewaslatercelebratedbyFouchet,11butothersignificantwriterssuchasEmmanuelRoblesandtheslightlyolderGabrielAudisio.Ideasofallkinds`werediscussedonthoseSundaysatHydra,andbooksrecommendedandlent:Proust,Chestov(theRussianJewishphilosopher)andmanyothers.Grenierwascertainlysomeonewhoseadvicewasworthlisteningto.From1934onwards,hiscontributionstotheNRFoftenaddressedcurrentpoliticaltopics,iffromanunconventionalangle.Camusrecognisedthathehadsome-thingimportanttosay.‘Lemonded’aujourd’huiestundialogueM(alraux)G(renier)’(Cii,214)(‘TheworldoftodayisadialoguebetweenM(alraux)andG(renier)’):whenCamusjotteddownthisobservationin1947,itwasnotnewtohim.Alreadyin1934,accordingtoOlivierTodd,12hehadidenti-fiedtwovisionsoftheworld,representedbyGrenierandMalraux.Hewaswellawarethatthecommunists,withwhomMalrauxwascloselyassociated,putmanatthecentre,whiletheOrientalphilosopherssaw‘theall’atthecentre,withmanroundtheedge.DespitethepowerfullyricalexpressionsofhumanismthatcanbefoundinLesIles,particularlyintheessay‘LesIlesfortunees’,theattractionoftheIndianmetaphysicalsystemsfocussedonthe´Absoluteisdominantinthevolume,andCamuswasnotwrongtoidentifyinGrenier’sthoughtanimplicitchallengetothephilosophyofactionrep-resentedbyMalraux,mostnotablyinLesConquerants´(TheConquerors)andLaVoieroyale(TheRoyalWay).Inthefollowingyear,1935,Grenierpublishedanarticleentitled‘LecasMalraux’(‘ThecaseofMalraux’),inwhichhedealtnotwithLaConditionhumainebutwithanarticlebyMalrauxthathadappearedmuchearlier,‘D’unejeunesseeuropeenne’(‘OnEuropeanyouth’)(´1927).13Inthisarti-cleMalrauxhadalreadydefinedthedilemmainwhichCamusnowfoundhimself,intermsofwhatNietzschecalledEuropeannihilism.ForMalraux,thisnihilismshoweditselfasanactualappetitefor‘leneant’(‘nothing-´ness’),experiencedas‘intensite’(‘intensity’)andindeed‘grandeur’(‘great-´ness,grandeur’),fortheconquestofwhichthecountriesoftheFarEastofferedalmostunlimitedscope.ItishardlysurprisingthatCamuswasmorereceptivetothiskindofOrientalism(exploredalsoinLaTentationdel’Occident(TheTemptationoftheOccident),1926)thantothatoffered33CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\ntobygarfittbyGrenier.Intermsofhisownwriting,theNietzscheanadventurer-herofavouredbyMalrauxwastoformthesubjectofachapterinLeMythedeSisyphe,andalso,inconjunctionwiththefigureofCaligula(discussedbyGrenierinclassandin‘L’IledePaques’),togiverisetotheepony-ˆmousprotagonistofCamus’sfirstplay,thefirstversionofwhichdisplaysstrongerNietzscheanelements,mostnotablythefascinationwithextremeself-assertion,thanthesubsequentrewritings.Intermsofpoliticalcommit-ment,Camuswasunderpressurein1934tojointheCommunistParty,buthewantedtokeephiseyesopenandavoidbeing‘aveuglepardecourtes´certitudes’(Ess,1159)(‘blindedbyshort-termconvictions’);inthecourseofthenextyear,GrenierwastoencouragehispupiltofollowhisnaturalinclinationsandjointheParty.InOctober1935,Grenier’sarticle‘LaPortefermee’inthe´NRFarguedforthefreedomtochooseaccordingtoone’sown‘profondeexigence’(‘deepimperatives’),andwhileforhimselfthatmeantaphilosophicalandindeedmetaphysicalimperative,herecognisedthatinthecaseofCamusthereweredifferentimperatives.Grenier’sadvicewillhavebeenbasedonCamus’sowndeepneedsatthetimeandtheappropriatenessofexpressingthemintermsofthecurrentsocialandpoliticalclimate,ratherthanonanybeliefthatcommunism(oranyother‘ism’forthatmatter)wastheonlylegitimatecreed.Liketherestofhumanity,Camusneeded‘unelan´versquelquechosequiladepasse’(‘anaspirationtowardssomethingthat´transcendsthehuman’),asGreniersaidinhislecturetotheAlgiersbranchofthe‘Amisd’Esprit’(anationwide‘third-way’movementfoundedbytheleft-wingCatholicintellectualEmmanuelMounier),whichCamusmayindeedhaveattended.14Bothworkersandintellectualsneededtoworkforjustice,butGrenierinterpretedthatintermsofhumandignityinabroadsenseratherthanintermsofaspecificpoliticalprogramme.GrenierandMalrauxenjoyedalongandgoodfriendship,buttheirdif-ferencesofapproachandemphasisweremarked.Thesestemessentiallyfromtheiranalysesofmodernnihilism,andtheconclusionstheydraw.Gre-nierhadgotinontheactearlierthanMalraux,withhistwo-partarticleinPhilosophiesin1924entitled‘LeNihilismeeuropeenetlesappelsdel’Orient’´(‘EuropeanNihilismandtheCalloftheEast’).Thisarticle,publishedunderthepseudonym‘JeanCaves’,alreadycontainsanumberofthemesthatwillrunthroughGrenier’ssubsequentwork.ThereisanacuteawarenessoftheclimateofnihilisminbothEuropeandRussia,stemmingfromananalysisofEuropeancivilisationthatowedmuchtoNietzscheandSpenglerontheonehandandapessimismderivedfromSchopenhauerontheother.15IfGrenier’spreferredsolutionistoheedwhathecalls‘lesappelsdel’Orient’(‘thecall(s)oftheEast’),hedoesnotrecommendanuncriticalOrientalism(suchasthatoftheTheosophists,whotriedtocombineWesternspiritualism34CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nSituatingCamus:theformativeinfluenceswithHinduism,orthedevoteesofGandhi’screedofnon-violentresistancetoimperialism).Hisanalysisoftheheritageofnihilism,andhisdisquietatthecultofaction,weretobeconfirmedbythepoliticaleventsofthe1930s:theriseofthefascistthreatacrossEurope,theattemptedright-wingcoupd’etat´of6February1934inParis,thedisputesovertheFrenchPopularFrontcoalitionof1936–8andtheprospectofrenewedworldconflict.InApril1936GrenierpublishedanimportantarticleintheNRF,‘L’Agedesorthodoxies’.TheproblemwithmodernWesternsociety,Grenierargues,isthattherehasbeenalossoffaithinprinciples,whilethenecessityofactionhasbecomeimperious.Action,onceperformed,isthenusedtofurnishprinciplesforthought.HegivescredittoMalrauxforexploringthisparadoxsoeffectivelyinL’Espoir(Hope),asisclearfromhisopenlettertoMalrauxdated30January1938andincludedinhisEssaisurl’espritdel’orthodoxie.Bothofthemrecognisethatthereisanunbridgeablegapbetweenthoughtandaction.Thechoiceofparticularformsofactionisjustthat,achoice,andnotan‘evidence’(‘anobvious,logicalconclusion’),anditwillinevitably´involvea‘dechirement’(‘agonisingdecision’).Thatofcourseispreciselythe´dilemmathatCamuswillexploreinLesJustesandL’Hommerevolt´e´,andinverymuchthesametermsthatGrenieruseshere:Vaut-ilmieuxetreunenfantouunbourreau?Voilˆacequepeutsedeman-`derunrevolutionnaire...Maisvoiciuncasparticulier,celuidesgensqui´attachenttantd’importanceadeschoses(qu’ilfautbienser`esigner´aappeler`desvieuxnomsdeJusticeetdeVerit´e)qu’ilsonttoutessortesdescrupules´(memequandilssontlancˆesenpleineaction)´afairequelquechosequiaille`contrecesabstractions...telundenosaviateursquitrouveparmomentssonmetierdego´utantetsesentˆalafoisjusticieretassassin.`16(Isitbettertobeachildoranexecutioner?Thatisaquestionthatarevolu-tionarymaywellask...Buthereisaparticularcase,thatofpeoplewhoattachsuchimportancetocertainthings(thatonemustresignoneselftocallingbytheoldnamesofJusticeandTruth)thattheyhaveallsortsofscruples(evenwheninthethickofaction)aboutdoinganythingthatgoesagainstthoseabstractideas...suchasoneofourairmenwhoattimesfindshisjobrevoltingandfeelshimselftobearighterofwrongsandamurdererrolledintoone.)Grenierofferednopracticalsolutions.InthefaceoftheAbsolute,thatwhichisrelativeisindeed‘mensonger’(‘deceitful,alie’).Butsuchaconclusionisuntenable,becauseinhuman.Nevertheless,CamuswasdeeplysympathetictoGrenier’sdesiretofindanalternativetoPrometheus,andhisownchoiceofSisyphusmayhavebeenpartlyinspiredbyahistoricalreflectionin‘LecasMalraux’,whereGrenierhadwritten:‘Notreepoquedeprogr´esmat`eriel´indefiniaabolilerocherdeSisyphe:l’œuvred’uneg´en´erations’ajoute´a`35CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\ntobygarfittl’autre:maiselleainstaurelapens´eedeSisyphedepuislaruinedelam´ethode´d’autoriteparDescartes.’(‘Ourageofunlimitedmaterialprogresshasdone´awaywiththerockofSisyphus:theworkofthenextgenerationcarriesonwherethepreviousoneleftoff:butintherealmofthought,SisypheanthinkinghasdominatedsincethedestructionoftheoldsystemofauthoritybyDescartes.’)17Camus’sinstinctivereactiontoGrenier’sEssaisurl’espritd’orthodoxiewillagainhavebeennegative,buthewasgenerousenoughtorecognisethevalidityofitsarguments.HepinpointsGrenier’smaincon-tentioninafootnoteinL’Hommerevolt´e´asbeingtheneedtopreserve‘lalibertedel’intelligence’inthefaceof‘leprinciped’autorit´e’whichseeksto´reduceittoconformity(Ess,626).Thatisamessagethatisalwaysrelevant,andsoCamuscanhailtheEssaiasstillbeingpertinentfifteenyearslater,eventhoughGrenierhadmadeitquiteclearintheprefacethattheindividualessaysthatconstitutedit‘n’ontpaseupourobjetl’actualite...puisqu’ils´ontet´e´ecritscontreelle’(‘theywerenotaboutcurrentaffairs,indeedthey´werewritteninconsciousreactionagainstcurrenttrends’).18Forhispart,GrenierindicatedlaterthatwhatCamushadappreciatedintheEssaiwassimply‘l’amourdelaverit´e’(‘theloveoftruth’):´19truth,asabulwarkagainstallkindsof‘mensonge’(‘lies’),wasveryimportanttobothofthem.InalettertoCamusin1945,inthecontextofCamus’sforthcoming‘Remarquesurlarevolte’(‘ACommentonRevolt’)(whichGrenierhad´commissionedforavolumehewasediting),GrenierwarnshimagainstthedangersoffollowingMalrauxandundoingthepositiveachievementsoftheNietzscheanrevoltagainstvalues:20‘Pourtantlesvaleurssontdeschosesquienchaˆınentl’homme;etachaquefoisqu’ilencr`eeilseforgedenouveaux´liens’(Corr,111)(‘Butvaluesarethingsthatputmeninchains;andeachtimetheycreatevalues,theyareforgingnewshacklesforthemselves’).Gre-nierneverthelessconsideredMalrauxtobe‘lemeilleurrefletdecequiafaitlagrandeuretlamiseredel’`epoque’(‘thebestreflectionofwhathasgone´tomakethegreatnessandthewretchednessofourage’).21TothatextentCamuswasrighttotakeMalrauxastherepresentativeofonemajorcurrentinthemodernworld,althoughby1947,withhisResistanceepisodebehindhim,Malrauxhadchosenadifferent(Gaullist)kindofengagement.Grenier,ontheotherhand,representedforCamustheuncompromisingintellectual,upholdinganidealthathispupilwouldalwaysaspireto.Camus’sdivisionoftheworldintoaMalraux-campandaGrenier-campwasofcourseartifi-cial.Thepost-warworldwasindeedbecomingpolarised,butMalrauxwasnolongertheleft-wingactivistoftheSpanishCivilWar,andGrenierwascertainlynoAmericanisedliberalintellectual.ThetwoofthemrepresentedtwoverydifferentyetalsouncannilysimilaridealsthatCamusadmiredbutneverfelthimselfabletoemulate;pivotalfigures,ontheborderlinebetween36CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nSituatingCamus:theformativeinfluencesthehumanandthesupra-human,the‘plein’(‘fullness’,‘plenitude’)andthe‘vide’(‘emptiness’,‘thevoid’).Itmayhavebeenthehalf-realisationoftheirunderlyingsimilaritythatinfluencedthechoiceofthenameVictorMalanforthecharacterinLePremierHommewhoisexplicitlyidentifiedwith‘J.G.’(Grenier)inthemanuscript(PH,33):Victor=‘conquerant’(cf.Malraux’s´novelLesConquerants´),Malan=Malraux?Theperiod1931–4wascrucialforCamus’sintellectualdevelopment,anditisclearthatmanyoftheelementsthatheabsorbedinthosethreeyearswereintroducedtohim,andmediated,byGrenier.Theirconversationscon-tinued,inpersonandbyletter,fortherestofCamus’slife.Therewerebriefinterruptions(andacertaincoolingbetween1935and1938duringCamus’scommunistphase),whichhadapositivevalueinhelpingCamustoestablishhisintellectualindependence:heandGrenierwouldnowbeequalpartnersinarelationshipthatcontinuedtobefruitfulforbothofthem.Camus,forhispart,wasnowequippedwithhismajorliteraryandphilosophicalinterlocutors,ofwhomDostoyevskyandNietzschewereprobablythemostimportant,withGrenierhimself,MalrauxandGidecomingclosebehind.Others,suchastheidealistJewish/ChristianthinkerSimoneWeil,wouldappearlater(althoughGrenierhadalreadyintroducedCamustotheworkofRachelBespaloff,whichhasmuchincommonwiththatofWeil).Camus’scollaborationwithEdmondCharlotkepthimanchoredintheEcoled’Alger;andthecontinuingimportanceofthe‘partobscure’(Ess,1925)(‘darkside’),whichisconsideredinchapter3,shouldnotbeoverlooked.NOTES1.SeeJeanGrenier,AlbertCamus.Souvenirs(Paris,Gallimard,1968),p.59.2.UnpublishedletterfromJeanGranarolotoJeanGrenier,24November1967.3.ConversationwithMmeBlasi.4.SeeJeanGrenier,L’Existencemalheureuse(Paris,Gallimard,1957),p.176.5.ConversationwithMmeBlasi.6.Internalevidence,however,suggeststhatthismaybeamisreadingfor20Septem-ber–5and9canlookverysimilar–andthereforethesecondletter,dated25August,infactcomesfirst.7.JeanGrenier,LesIles(Paris,Gallimard,1959(originaledition1933)),pp.89–90.8.SomeofthesewerecollectedinSanta-Cruz(Algiers,Charlot,1937)andtheninInspirationsmediterran´eennes´(Paris,Gallimard,1941),otherswereneverreprinted.9.SeeGillesDeleuze,‘L’Iledeserte’(´1953),inL’Iledeserteetautrestextes´,ed.DavidLapoujade(Paris,Minuit,2002).10.UnpublishedletterfromCharlesDufourcqtoGrenier,11February1964.11.Max-PolFouchet,‘Memoireparl´ee’,´Magazinelitteraire´8(June1967),6,quotedbyJacquelineLevi-V´alensi,AlbertCamusoulanaissanced’unromancier(1930–1942)(Paris,Gallimard,2006,edition´etablieparAgn´esSpiquel),pp.`28–9.37CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\ntobygarfitt12.OlivierTodd,AlbertCamus,unevie(Paris,Gallimard,1996),p.69.13.JeanGrenier,‘LecasMalraux’,LesCahiersduPlateau3(1935),45–7;Andre´Malraux,‘D’unejeunesseeuropeenne’,inAndr´eChamson,Andr´eMalraux,Jean´Grenier,HenriPetitandPierre-JeanJouve,Ecrits(Paris,Grasset,1927).14.ReprintedinJeanGrenier,Essaisurl’espritd’orthodoxie(Paris,Gallimard,1967(originaledition1938)).15.OswaldSpenglerhadpublishedthetwovolumesofhisDerUntergangdesAbendlandes(TheDeclineoftheWest)inGermanin1917and1922:Gre-nier’sanalysiscamewellbeforetheFrenchtranslationofthebookappearedin1931.Schopenhauer’sDieWeltalsWilleundVorstellung(TheWorldasWillandRepresentation)waspublishedin1818.16.Grenier,Essai,p.172.17.Grenier,‘LecasMalraux’,p.45.18.Grenier,Essai,p.11.19.Grenier,AlbertCamus,p.30.20.SeeNietzsche,AlsosprachZarathustra(ThusSpakeZarathustra),1883–5;JenseitsvonGutundBose¨(BeyondGoodandEvil),1886.21.JeanGrenier,Sousl’occupation(Paris,ClairePaulhan,1997),p.223.38CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\n3EDWARDJ.HUGHESAutobiographicalsoundingsinL’Enversetl’EndroitLememevertigequiavaitsaisil’enfantquej’ˆetaisaobscurcimes´yeuxd’homme.(TRN,1423–4)[I]feltthesamehorrorsweepovermenowIwasamanasIhadpreviouslyfeltasachild.1(P,193)ThecollectionoffivebriefessaysthatgotomakeupL’Enversetl’EndroitwerefirstpublishedbyCharlotinAlgiersin1937inalimitedprintrunof350copies.WrittenbyCamusinhisearlytwenties,theessays,whichheded-icatedtohismentorJeanGrenier,includeasometimesrawaccountoffamilylifeforachildgrowingupinrealpovertyinworking-classcolonialAlgiers.Inhisprefacetothesecondeditionpublishedtwodecadeslater,Camusaccountsforhisreluctanceovermanyyearstoauthoriseanewedition.2Whileinsistingthathedeniesnothingoftheportraitoflifecontainedinthecollection,heexpressesdoubtsaboutthewriting,whichheseesasbeingmal-adroitandinplacesunnecessarilyhigh-flown.Yetinspiteoftheiraestheticlimitations,theseearlyessaysstand,heargueswithhindsight,aspotenttes-timonytoachildhoodthatinvolvednotonlyprolongedpovertybutalsowhatheclaimstohavebeengenuinehappiness.InalettertothepoetRene´CharinOctober1953,hewritesofalegacythathecannotignore:‘Oui,renonceral’enfanceestimpossible.Etpourtant,ilfauts’ens`eparerunjour,´exterieurementaumoin´s...j’aigrandidanslesruespoussiereuses,surles´plagessales.Nousnagionset,unpeuplusloin,c’etaitlamerpure.Lavie´etaitdurechezmoi,etj’´etaisprofond´ementheureux,laplupartdutemps’´(Ess,1180)(‘Yes,renouncingchildhoodisimpossible.Andyetonehastoseparateoneselffromit,atleastexternally...Igrewupindustystreets,ondirtybeaches.Weusedtoswimand,abitfurtherout,theseawassopure.Lifeathomewashard,andIwasdeeplyhappy,mostofthetime.’)TheautobiographicalevidencethatwegleanfromL’Enversetl’Endroitdoesnotnecessarilysquarewiththelargelypositivebalance-sheetwhichthelettertoCharconveys.Moreover,Noces,Camus’sothercollection39CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nedwardj.hughesofearlyessaysmuchmorewidelyavailableinhisdaythanL’Enversetl’Endroit,preachedanexuberantcelebrationoflifethatmaskedthedarkersideexploredinthelattercollection.3TheyoungCamusandhisfamilyhadmuchtocontendwith.Hisilliterate,partiallydeafandmutemotherwasanimpoverishedwarwidowwhoworkedasacleaner.Butshewasmuchmorethanavictimofeconomichardship.Alongwithhertwochildrenandabrother,shewasforcedtolivewithhermother,afearedauthorityfig-urewhoisevokedgraphicallybothinL’Enversetl’EndroitandinCamus’slastwork,theunfinishedLePremierHomme,wheretheautobiographicalisagainreadilydetectable.Camus’saccountofthisstrainedcohabitationfeaturesinthefirstessayofthecollection,‘L’Ironie’(‘Irony’).Thepiecesketchesthreebriefscenar-iosinvolvingolderfigures:thefirstfocussesontheisolated,illiterateoldwomanforwhomtheyoungergenerationhavenotime;inthesecond,anelderlymannarratesadventuresofhislifetothreeyoungmenwhoremainunimpressed:‘unvieilhommequivamourirestinutile,memegˆenantetˆinsidieux’(Ess,18)(‘anoldmanwhoisgoingtodieisuseless,heisevenaninsidiousembarrassment’)(BB,18);4thethirdscenarioreconstructsthedomesticsettingexperiencedbytheyoungCamus,stillatschool,hisbrotherwhoworksinaninsuranceoffice,hismotheranduncle,andthefearedmaternalgrandmother.Inherbullyingmanner,thematriarchalfigurenar-cissisticallychallengestheschoolboytodeclarewhichofthetwowomeninthehouseholdheprefers.Obligedtochooseher,theboycanonlyfeel‘ungrandeland’amourpourcettem´erequisetaisaittoujours’(`Ess,20–1)(‘agreatupsurgeofloveforhiseversilentmother’(BB,21)).Whenthegrand-motherdevelopsaliverinfection,sheshowsnodesiretobediscreetinawaythatmightprotectthechildren,preferringinsteadtovomitnoisilyintotherubbishcontainerinthekitchenbeforeresumingtheworkthatshedeems,boastfully,tobecrucialtothefamily’ssurvival.Camusconcludestheessaywithabriefcodawhere,withtheironicdetachmentannouncedbytheessaytitle,thelivesanddeathsofthethreeelderlyfiguresaredrawntogetherasthreecase-studies,‘troisdestinssemblablesetpourtantdifferents’(´Ess,22)(‘threedestinieswhicharedifferentandyetalike’(BB,22)).Ironyisalsoatworkinthewayinwhichthetwoboysviewthegrandmother’ssickness.Wellusedtohertheatricaldisplaysofself-worth(hershowyindustriousnessandherself-righteousness),theycannotconceivethatwhatturnsouttobeherterminalillnessisanythingotherthanyetonemoresadisticperformanceinalifeofpsychologicalmanipulation,orinCamus’sdamningformulation:‘laderniereetlaplusmonstrueusedessimulationsdecettefemme’(`Ess,22)(‘thelastandmostmonstrousofthiswoman’sperformances’(BB,22)).40CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nAutobiographicalsoundingsSignificantly,whentheawarenessofherdeathdawnsontheyoungergrand-son,heexperiencesnoreallossandhisshowofgrievingatthegravesideismerelypromptedbytheoutburstsofthosearoundhim.TherawemotionswhichCamus’sprotagonistevokesinrespectofthegrandmotherarecounterpointedinthesecondessayinthecollection,‘Entreouietnon’(‘BetweenYesandNo’)wheretheunassumingfigureofthemother–againreflectingfaithfullyCamus’sautobiographicalexperience–takescentrestage.Theessayisstructuredaroundadisturbanceofmemory,workingbetweenapresentmomentinthenarrator’searlyadulthoodashesitsinaMoorishcafeontheedgeoftheArabpartofthecityandrecollectionofchildhoodmemoriesoflifewithhismother:‘Jepenseaunenfantquiv`ecut´dansunquartierpauvre.Cequartier,cettemaison!Iln’yavaitqu’unetage´etlesescaliersn’etaientpas´eclair´es’(´Ess,24)(‘Ithinkofachildlivinginapoordistrict.Thatdistrict,thathouse!Therewereonlytwofloors,andthestaircaseswereunlit’(BB,24)).Registeringthe‘voixduquartierpauvre’(‘voicesofthepoordistrict’)wasCamus’sgoalandindeedhehadalreadyusedthisformulationasthetitleforanearlyversionofthematerialthatwastofeedintoL’Enversetl’Endroit.5CamusjuxtaposeswhatnegateslifeandwhatredeemsitinhisevocationofBelcourt,thedistrictinAlgierswherehegrewup.Asworking-classfami-liessitonthestreetoutsidetheirhomesforrecreationonsummerevenings,theboyprotagonistdrinksinthebeautyofthepurenightsky,abeautywhichassumesitsfullappeal,Camusargues,intheeyesofthosenotdis-tractedbymaterialcomfort.Yetthesignsofsqualorareunavoidable:‘Ilyavaitderrierel’enfantuncouloirpuantetsapetitechaise,crev`ee,s’enfonc¸ait´unpeusouslui’(Ess,24–5)(‘Behindthechildlayastinkingcorridorandhislittlechair,splittingacrossthebottom,sankslightlybeneathhisweight’(BB,24)).Theuninvitinginteriorprovidesthesettingforanarrestingportraitofthemother,adescriptionwhich,notwithstandingtheuseofthethirdper-sontodenotebothmotherandson,drawsonautobiographicalexperience.Herselfthedaughterofadominatingmother,shehadbrieflyexperiencedlib-erationthroughmarriage.Butonceawarwidow,sheisforcedbyeconomiccircumstancestoreturntothematernalhome,earningawagewhichshehandsovertothematriarch.Thetaciturnmother’sself-effacingroleallowsthegrandmothertoassumeresponsibilityfortheboys’education,whichsheoverseesinawaythatispunitiveinbothphysicalandpsychologicalterms.Theself-effacementbringsitsowncomplicationsforthechildren.Thus,onthoseoccasionswhentheyoungerboyreturnshometofindonlyhismotherthere,heisdrawnupshortbythisimageofavulnerable,patheticandyetalsoforbiddingfigure:41CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nedwardj.hughesAutourd’elle,lanuits’epaissitdanslaquellecemutismeestd’uneirr´em´ediable´desolation.Sil’enfantentre´acemoment,ildistinguelamaigresilhouetteaux`epaulesosseusesets’arr´ete:ilapeur.Ilcommenceˆasentirbeaucoupdechoses.`Apeines’est-ilaperc¸udesapropreexistence.Maisilamalapleurerdevant`cesilenceanimal.Ilapitiedesam´ere,est-cel’aimer?Ellenel’ajamaiscaress`e´puisqu’ellenesauraitpas.Ilrestealorsdelonguesminutesalaregarder.Ase`sentiretranger,ilprendconsciencedesapeine.Ellenel’entendpas,carelleest´sourde.Toutal’heure,lavieillerentrera,lavierena`ˆıtra:lalumiererondedela`lampeap`etrole,latoilecir´ee,lescris,lesgrosmots.Maismaintenant,cesilence´marqueuntempsd’arret,uninstantdˆemesur´e...´l’enfantcroitsentir,dansl’elanquil’habite,del’amourpoursam´ere.Etillefautbienparcequ’apr`es`toutc’estsamere.`(Ess,25–6)Aroundher,nightthickensandthenhersilenceisagriefwithoutrepair.Ifthechildcomesinatthismoment,heseesthethinshapewithitsbonyshouldersandstops:heisafraid.Heisbeginningtofeelalotofthings.Heisscarcelyawareofhisownexistence,butthisanimalsilencemakeshimcrywithpain.Hefeelssorryforhismother,butisthislovingher?Shehasneverhuggedorkissedhimforshewouldn’tknowhow.Thenhewillstandalongtimewatchingher.Becausehefeelsthatheisseparatefromher,hebecomesconsciousofhersuffering.Shecan’thearhim,forsheisdeaf.Inafewmoments,theoldwomanwillcomeback,lifewillstartupagain:theroundlightcastbytheparaffinlamp,theoil-clothonthetable,theshouts,theswear-words.Butinthemeantimethissilencemarksapause,animmenselylongmoment...thechildthinksthattheupsurgeoffeelinginhimisloveforhismother.Andthismustbeso,becauseafterallsheishismother.(BB,25–6)Ihavequotedatlengthfromthisautobiographicalaccounttogivepromi-nencetoCamus’spained,deeplyambivalentportraitofthemother.Crucially,thenarratorishesitantaboutequatingtheson’spitywithlove.Indeedintheconcludinglinesofthequotation,thestrainedinteractionbetweenthepairexcludesanypossibilityofaffirmative,conventionalrolemodels(thenurtur-ingmother,thelovingson).Thetwenty-two-year-oldCamuswhoauthorsthisintimateportraitcandrawonlynegativeconclusionsfromthefailingrelationship:‘Sameretoujoursauracessilences.Luicro`ˆıtraendouleur’(Ess,26)(‘Hismotherwillalwayshavethesesilences.Hewillgrowinpain’(BB,26)).Thesceneendswiththemother,startledbyherson’sreturn-inghome,sendinghimofftoattendtohishomework.Withresigneddetachment,thenarratorconcludesthatgraduatingtoadulthoodinnowaycompensatesfortheprofoundlack(ofemotionalcommunicationandsustenance)thatmarkedhischildhood.Dutyandsocietalexpectationthusbecomealienating;orasCamusputsitanecdotally,doingone’shomeworkandlateracceptingadulthoodleadonlytooldageand,byimplication,42CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nAutobiographicalsoundingstothealienatingnon-resolutionoftheemotionalconflictsthrownupbychildhood.InCamus’sfictionalworks,themotherfigureconstitutesapointofcontin-uingfascination:inL’Etranger,herdeathandMeursault’ssociallyeccentricresponsetoitarefundamentaltotheensuingdramaofhisincrimination;intheplayLeMalentendu,therelationshipbetweenmother(anddaugh-ter)andsonbecomesahomicidalone;inLaPeste,DrRieux’smotherisportrayedasanidealised,nurturingfigurewhohelpshersonthroughtheemotionalandphysicalstrainsoftheplague.(Bycontrast,hisfriendTarrou,whosewordsarecitedintheepigraphtothischapter,exemplifiestheposi-tionoftheadultchildpsychologicallyscarredbyaparentfigure,inhiscasethefatherwho,asjudge,hasthepowertocondemnpeopletodeath.)6InLePremierHomme,wheretheautobiographicalseamresurfaces,thesearchforthefigureofthefatherheadlinedinthetitleofPartiofthenoveldoesnotexcludeananalogoussearchforthemother.Significantly,however,bythetimeofwritingthislasttext,Camus’sconceptionofthemotherhasmutatedandsheemergesasasuffering,Christ-likefigure(PH,283,295;FM,232,239).Butbychoosing,in‘Entreouietnon’,toitalicisetheline‘L’indifference´decettemere`etrange!´’(Ess,26)(‘Theindifferenceofthisstrangemother!’(BB,26)),Camusalreadycaststheparentfigureasasourceofenduringpreoccupationandenigmainhiswriting.Inthesameessay,theemotionalnegativitycloudingtheportraitofthemotherfindsmoredirectexpressioninthenarrator’saccountofthedomesticdramaheexperiencesasanadultlivingaloneinthesuburbswithadog,twocatsandtheirkittens.Onebyone,thekittensdie,theirmotherunabletofeedthem.Theclimaxcomeswhenthenarratorreturnshometofindthesolesurvivingkittenhalf-eatenbyitsmother.TheseimagesoffailednurtureandparentalviolencefromtheanimalworldallowCamustoexploreemotionalintensityatoneremove,importantly,fromtheset-upwiththemother.Thelatterremainsneverthelessafigureofunresolvedcontradiction.Muchlater,inanautobiographicalreferenceintheappendicestoLePremierHomme,Camusalludestothesequenceofadultrelationshipspanningoutfromthestrained,intimateconnectionwiththemother:‘Maman.Laverit´eestque,´malgretoutmonamour,jen’avaispaspuvivreauniveaudecettepatience´aveugle,sansphrases,sansprojets.Jen’avaispuvivredesavieignorante.Etj’avaiscourulemonde,edifi´e,cr´e´e,br´ulˆeles´etres.Mesjoursavaientˆet´e´remplisad`eborder–maisriennem’avaitremplilecœurcomme...’(´PH,304)(‘Maman.Thetruthisthat,inspiteofallmylove,Ihadnotbeenabletolivethatlifeofblindpatience,withoutwords,withoutplans.Icouldnotliveherlifeofignorance.AndIhadtravelledfarandwide,hadbuilt,had43CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nedwardj.hughescreated,hadlovedpeopleandabandonedthem.Mydayshadbeenfulltooverflowing–butnothinghadfilledmyheartlike...’(FM,244).7Theellipsisdeliverstheemotionallycomplextributetothemother.InhisprefacetothesecondeditionofL’Enversetl’Endroitpublishedin1958,morethantwentyyearsafterthefirst,Camusexpressesanartisticreti-cenceaboutpublicisingtherawemotionscontainedintheseessays.Hewritesofapersonalrecklessnessthatneedstobecheckedandgoesontovauntthemeritsofanartisticre-channellingofpowerfulaffect:‘Jeconnaismondesordre,laviolencedecertainsinstincts,l’abandonsansgr´aceoˆujepeux`mejeter.Pouretreˆedifi´e,l’œuvred’artdoitseservird’aborddecesforces´obscuresdel’ame.Maisnonsanslescanaliser,lesentourerdedigueˆs...Mesdigues,aujourd’huiencore,sontpeut-etretrophautes’(ˆEss,12)(‘Iknowmydisorder,theviolenceofcertaininstincts,thegracelessabandonintowhichIcancastmyself.Tobeconstructed,theworkofartmustfirstofallusethesedarkforcesofthesoul.Butnotwithoutcanalisingthem,surroundingthemwithdikes...Perhapsmydikesarestilltoohightoday’(BB,12)).Camus’slinesconveyaverypalpablesenseofworkinprogress,aswellasanostalgicdesiretoretrieveaffectiveexperiencesidelinedinthequestforartisticcontainment.Heexpressestheurgentaspirationtoestablishthebalancebetween‘cequejesuisetcequejedis’(Ess,12)(‘whatIamandwhatIsay’(BB,13),abalancethathedreamsofsecuringinapromisedfutureworkthatwasinfactnevertomaterialise–CamusdiedlessthantwoyearsafterthepublicationofthesecondeditionofL’Enversetl’Endroit.Intheconclusiontohispreface,Camussetsasakey,longer-termcareergoalthecreationofalanguageandasetofmythsthatwillenablehimtorewriteL’Enversetl’Endroit.Heproffersthedeeplyheld,obscureconvictionthat,shouldhefailtodoso,hewillhavefailedmoregenerallyasawriter.Fundamentaltothisprojectisthefigureofthemother.Ashecontinuestonegotiatewiththeambivalenceofemotionsinplay,heinsistsonthecentralplaceinhisworkof‘l’admirablesilenced’unemereetl’effortd’unhomme`pourretrouverunejusticeouunamourquiequilibrecesilence’(´Ess,13)(‘theadmirablesilenceofamotherandtheeffortofamantorediscoverajusticeoralovewhichmatchesthissilence’(BB,13)).Thesilence,oncesoforbiddingaswesawin‘Entreouietnon’,hasbecomeanobjectofreverenceforthemature,arguablymorecircumspectCamus.Eveninthatearlyessay,truetothemovementsofaffirmationandnegationsignalledbyitstitle,theyoungadultsonandhismothergoontoconversewarmlyaboutthefather,whosedeathintheFirstWorldWaristoplayaprominentroleinLePremierHomme.Nevertheless,toadegreeCamuserasesfundamentalpsychologicalconflictthroughtheconstructionofatidyrole-play,asthefollowingsequenceillustrates:‘C’estvrai,ilneluiajamaisparle.Maisquel´44CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nAutobiographicalsoundingsbesoin,enverit´e?Asetaire,lasituations’´eclaircit.Ilestsonfils,elleestsa´mere’(`Ess,29)(‘It’strue,hehasnevertalkedverymuchtoher.Butdidheeverreallyneedto?Whenyoukeepquiet,thesituationbecomesclear.Heisherson,sheishismother’(BB,29)).Thesyntacticsimplicitylaysclaimtofamilialnormalitythroughthetidydesignationofroles,therebymaskingthecentralproblemofemotionalabsence.Intheconcludinglinesofthesameessay,Camusappearstodigress,protestingaboutsociety’smanipulationoflanguage.Singlingoutthecaseofthemancondemnedtodeath,Camusdismissestalkofthecriminalpayinghisdebttosocietyandturnsattentioninsteadtotherealityofbeheadingthatacommunity’sjusticedelivers.ThealarmthatCamusvoicesanticipatesMeursault’sstudioushorrorofthemechanicsoftheguillotineasvoicedtowardstheendofL’Etranger(TRN,1204;O,107–8).Byconfiguringtheportraitofthemotherandthereflectiononcapitalpunishment,‘Entreouietnon’activatestwoofthekeystimulithatwillenergiseMeursaultinL’Etranger.Ifadisturbanceofmemoryisthetriggerforrecallofdysfunctionalfamilylifein‘Entreouietnon’,dislocationofadifferentkindprovidesthenarra-tivedriverinthetwotravelessaysinthecollection,‘LaMortdansl’ame’ˆ(‘DeathintheSoul’)and‘Amourdevivre’(‘LoveofLife’).CamustravelledtoCzechoslovakiainthesummerof1936andspentanunhappyfewdaysaloneinPrague.‘LaMortdansl’ame’foregroundstheprotagonist’ssenseˆofculturalalienationwhenconfrontedwithaneverydayworldthatisunfa-miliar(itslanguage,foodandpeople).(WemightnoteinpassingthattheplayLeMalentenduisalsosetinwhatispresentedasaland-lockedCentralEurope,farfromtheMediterranean.)Theuprootednesstriggersadeepsenseofestrangement.YettravelbringsitsownparadoxicalrewardinspiteofthestraitenedcircumstancesinwhichthenarratormakeshistriptoPrague.Ashewritesinhishotelroom:‘Etquelautreprofitvouloirtirerduvoyage?Mevoicisansparure.Villedontjenesaispaslirelesenseignes,caracteres`etrangeso´uriendefamiliernes’accroche,sansamis`aquiparler,sansdiver-`tissementenfin’(Ess,33–4)(‘Andwhatotherprofitcanweseektodrawfromtravel?HereIamstrippedbare,inatownwherethenoticesarewritteninstrange,incomprehensiblehieroglyphics,whereIhavenofriendstotalkto,inshortwhereIhavenodistractions’(BB,33–4)).Thisisthehumanpersonstrippedofanyfamiliarbackdrop,theabsent‘decor’anticipatingthesitua-tionofCamus’sheroSisyphus,forwhomthedisjunctionbetweenselfandanirrationaluniverse,betweentheurgetoliveandthebrutefactofhumanmortalityisacauseofdeepalienation.‘Commeunefaimdel’ame’(ˆEss,34)(‘asifmysoulwerehungry’(BB,34))ishowCamus’snarratorexpressesthissenseofexistentialunease.Theyoungprotagonist’spredicamentintensifies45CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nedwardj.hugheswhenhelearnsthatinaneighbouringroominthehotel,amaleresidentmayhavelaindeadforsometime.Camusthususesmelodramatoconnectbacktothe‘deathofthesoul’oftheessaytitle.ThesubsequentjourneyfromPraguetoItalyprovidesthenarratorwiththeopportunitytoreconnectwithlife,asheinitiallypresentsit.Italyishailedasalandafterhisownheartandthequalityofitslight,itspeopleandvariedfoodsprovideallthesupportsnecessary‘pourquinesaitplusetreseul’(ˆEss,37)(‘forthepersonwhocannolongerbealone’(BB,37)).ButultimatelyCamusrefusestosettleforanysimplejuxtapositionbetweenthemorbidatmosphereofthedrabPraguehotelandtheluminousskies,theyouthfulbodiesandthelushfloraoftheMediterranean.ForthebeautyofItalybringshimclosertohisownmortality,to‘l’odeurdemortetd’inhumanite’(´Ess,39)(‘thisodourofdeathandinhumanity’(BB,38)).Camus’syoungnarratoranticipatestheplightoftheheroofLeMythedeSisyphewhenheseesasfundamental‘laconfrontationdemondesespoirprofondetdel’indiff´erence´secreted’undesplusbeauxpaysagesdumonde’(`Ess,39)(‘theconfrontationbetweenmydeepdespairandthesecretindifferenceofoneofthemostbeautifullandscapesintheworld’(BB,39)).Thisdivorcebetweenhumanmortalityandthepermanenceandindifferenceofthenaturalworldfuelstheauthor’sassertionofanabsurdhumancondition.Camus’smother’sfamilycameoriginallyfromMahonontheBalearic´islandofMenorcaandhewasalifelongHispanophile.Theessay‘Amourdevivre’wasinspiredbyatriptoPalmadeMallorcain1935withhisfirstwife,SimoneHiewhomhehadmarriedthepreviousyear(theyweretoseparate´in1936,Camusmarryinghissecondwife,FrancineFaure,in1940).Travel,Camusreflects,hasexistentialconsequences:Carcequifaitleprixduvoyage,c’estlapeur.Ilbriseennousunesortededecorint´erieur.Iln’estpluspossibledetricher–desemasquerderri´eredes`heuresdebureauetdechantier(cesheurescontrelesquellesnousprotestonssifortetquinousdefendentsis´urementcontrelasouffranced’ˆetreseulˆ)...Levoyagenousotecerefuge.Loindesnˆotres,denotrelangue,arrachˆes´atous`nosappuis,privesdenosmasques...noussommestoutentiers´alasurfacede`nous-memes.ˆ(Ess,42–3)Forwhatgivesvaluetotravelisfear.Itbreaksdownakindofinnerdecorinus.Wecan’tcheatanymore–hideourselvesawaybehindthehoursintheofficeorattheplant(thesehoursagainstwhichweprotestsostronglyandwhichprotectussosurelyagainstthesufferingofbeingalone)...Traveltakesthisrefugefromus.Farfromourownpeople,ourownlanguage,wrenchedawayfromallsupport,deprivedofourmasks...wearecompletelyonthesurfaceofourselves.(BB,41)46CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nAutobiographicalsoundingsThus,whetheritbethespectacleofanobeseyoungwomanperforminganeroticdancetoapackedmaleaudienceinaPalmacafeoratriptothecity’sdesertedcloisterofSanFranciscowherethenarratorwatchesawomandrawingwateratawell,Camussees,intheseostensiblycontrastinglocationsandexperiences,humanactivitythatisfundamentallyimpermanentandthus,forhim,deeplymiraculous.InCamus’scharacteristicallytidyformulation,thebreakfromhabitcanawakenbothaloveforlifeandadespairwithliving.Non-routinecanbeperceptuallyenhancing.YetCamusalsowritesof‘lapartobscure’,thedarkersideoflife,andthechoiceofL’Enversetl’Endroitasatitlefortheessaycollectionconnectswiththis.‘L’envers’denotes,amongotherthings,thereverseside,the‘wrongside’ofaclothorfabric,thesidewedonotusuallyseeorarenotmeanttosee;‘l’endroit’ofagarmentwouldmeantherightwayround,theparttobeshown.Asanadolescent,Camusexperiencedseriousillness,sufferingfromtuberculosiswhichwastorecurinadultlife.Hisfamilylivedinconsiderablepoverty(someseehisalmostdandy-likeappearanceasayoungadultasareactionagainstthis).Hiswritingoffersevidenceofpsychologicalscars.Talkoflife’sprecariousness,therefore,ofitsother,‘wrong’side,wascertainlynotsomeabstractnotion.HencethefocusinL’Enversetl’Endroitonlife’stransience,itsabortiverelationships,itspathology,itspenury.Deathformsaleitmotifinthecollection,nowheremoreeccentricallythaninthefinalshortpiecewhichbearstheoveralltitleofthecollection.Herethesolitaryoldwomaninvestsinaburialvaultandhaseverythingpreparedtoreceiveherbodywhenthetimecomes,rightdowntothegiltlettersindi-catinghername.Thecemetery,situatedontheedgeoftown,becomesherregularSunday-afternoondestination.Whensheisclosetodeath,herdaugh-terisalreadydressingherinherburialclothes.Theyoungmalenarrator,bycontrast,watchestheplayoflightintheweakJanuarysun.Alerttotheephemeralnatureofhisperceptions,headviseshisreadertoseizetheday,counsellingthattowasteone’stime(andspurnthemiracleofperception)issinful(Ess,48;BB,46).Strivingtoretrievethesefleetingexperiences,thenarratorimplicitlyrejectsreligiousnotionsofaredemptiveafter-life,argu-inginsteadthat‘toutmonroyaumeestdecemonde’(Ess,49)(‘mywholekingdomisofthisworld’(BB,47)).Consciousnessofafleetingpresentisthegreatprizeforthenarratorthen,eveniftheinstantitselfslipsthroughone’sfingers,inCamus’sanalogy,likedropsofmercury.Butbetweentheimageoftheelderlywomanprematurelyoccupyingherfinalresting-placeandtheappetiteforsentientlivingexpressedbytheyoungnarrator,thelatterdoesnotwanttochoose:‘Legrandcourage’,heconcludes,‘c’estencoredetenir47CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nedwardj.hugheslesyeuxouvertssurlalumierecommesurlamort’(`Ess,49)(‘Greatcouragestillconsistsofgazingsteadfastlyatthelightasondeath’(BB,47)).Camus’searlyessays,then,composedwhenhewasjustintohistwenties,containimportantscenariosandtensionswhichanticipatehislaterwork.Thefamilynexus,whichherepresentsautobiographically,generatesunre-solved,oftenviolentconflictswhichthelaterworkwillreturnto,eitherdirectlyorobliquely:aphysicallyabsentfather(avictimoftheFirstWorldWar);anemotionallyabsentmother;agrandparentalhegemonythatinducesfear;andthefrailchildsiblingswhoinheritthesehandicaps.Eventhecom-pensatorybeautyofMediterraneannaturewhich,inthetwotravelnar-ratives,providesreleasefromanoppressivedomesticenvironmentcannotmaskthehumanfrailtyoftheenrapturedyoungnarratorwhobeholdsit.Camusdeploysaformofrhetoricalshorthandintheseearlypieces,writingoftheinseparabilityofaloveforlifeandthedespairofliving,theamourdevivreanddesespoirdevivre´.Thereconciliationoftheseseeminglypolaroppositesismanifestintheoveralltitleofthecollection,wherethefabricoflifebecomesreversedandunfamiliar.ThetechniqueofdefamiliarisationwastobecomeahallmarkofCamus’swork,astheopeningscenariosandparagraphsofLeMythedeSisyphe,L’Etranger,LaPesteandLaChuteallconfirm.Yettwodecadeson,heconcedesinhisprefacetothesecondeditionofL’Enversetl’Endroitthattheessayssometimesdisplayanimmature,high-flownlanguage.ThelineinwhichCamustwinstheloveoflifeandthedespairwithlivingisonethathespecificallysinglesoutforitsyouthfulbombast(Ess,11;BB,11).Yettheself-criticismquicklysubsidesashereflectsthatwhatwastofollowinhislife(longaftertheessayswerepublishedin1937)didindeedbringhimtodespair:‘jen’avaispasencoretraverselestempsdu´vraidesespoir.Cestempssontvenusetilsontputoutd´etruireenmoi,sauf´justementl’appetitd´esordonn´edevivre’(´Ess,11)(‘Ihadnotyetknowntheyearsofrealdespair.Theseyearshavecome,andhavemanagedtodestroyeverythinginme,except,infact,thisuncontrolledappetiteforlife’(BB,11)).CamusisnotspecificaboutthecausesofanguishbuthisverypublicrowwithSartreintheearly1950s(seechapter9)andtheintellectualandemotionalisolationasahigh-profileFrenchAlgerianthatwentwithitmustsurelyhavebeenpartofthatdejection.CertainlyCamus’smessageofself-defencecanbereadasanobliqueresponsetohisdetractors,whoironicallytypecasthimasthefigureofthejustman.Histacticwas,inpart,topleadguilty.Hearguesthatwhileneverclaimingtobe‘just’himself,hehadassertedthatanindividualshouldindeedstrivetobejust,howeverimperfectly.Yetinadisarmingmove,heasks:canthepersonunabletoenshrinejusticeinhislifepreachjusticetoothers?Hisfinal,self-protectivemanoeuvreinthepreface48CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nAutobiographicalsoundingsistostepoutsidetheethicaldebate,toaffirmthatL’Enversetl’Endroitembodieshisowntribe–‘lesmiens,mesmaˆıtres,malignee’(´Ess,11)(‘mypeople,mymasters,myrace’(BB,12))–andopensupapathwaythatrunsthrougheverythinghehaswritten.IftheconnectionwithfamilyrandeepinCamus,therawexposuregiventokithandkininL’Enversetl’Endroitsignalsacomplexandoftenreluctantautobiographer.NOTES1.ThesearethewordsofTarrouinThePlague.2.RogerQuilliotestimatesthatCamushadcompletedhisprefacetothesecondeditionby1954(Ess,1180).3.SeePeterDunwoodie,‘L’Enversetl’Endroit’and‘L’ExiletleRoyaume’(London,Grant&Cutler,1985),p.9.4.ThetranslationofL’Enversetl’Endroit,BetwixtandBetween,iscontainedinAlbertCamus:LyricalandCritical,trans.PhilipThody(London,HamishHamilton,1967).5.SeeRogerQuilliot’seditorialnote,Ess,1175.ForCamus’searliertreatmentofthismaterialinVoixduquartierpauvre(1934),seeLePremierCamus,suivideEcritsdejeunessed’AlbertCamus(CahiersAlbertCamus2),ed.PaulViallaneix(Paris,Gallimard,1973);fortheEnglishtranslation,seeYW,242–59.TwofragmentsfromVoixduquartierpauvrearealsoreproducedinEss,1209–13.6.ForTarrou’spainedaccountofparentalinfluence,seetheunnumberedchapter6ofPartivofLaPeste.Seealsochapter12below.7.OnthequestionofCamus’smultipleintimaterelationships,seeO.Todd,AlbertCamus,unevie(Paris,Gallimard,1996),p.740.49CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\n4DAVIDCARROLLRethinkingtheAbsurd:LeMythedeSisyphePourtoujours,jeseraietranger´amoi-m`eme.ˆ(LeMythedeSisyphe,Ess,111)ForeverIshallbeastrangertomyself.(MS,18)AfterfifteenyearsIhaveprogressedbeyondseveralofthepositionswhicharesetdownhere;butIhaveremainedfaithful,itseemstome,totheexigencywhichpromotedthem.ThisbookisinacertainsensethemostpersonalofthoseIhavepublishedinAmerica.(MS,vi)1HistoryandresistanceLeMythedeSisyphemaybethemosthistoricallydatedofAlbertCamus’smajortexts,theworkmostclearlymarkedbytheconditionsunderwhichitwaswrittenandthustheonethatmightappeartohaveagedtheleastwellandhavetheleasttosaytomodern-dayreaders.TheessaywaswrittenduringwhatCamusinhis1955prefacetoitsAmericantranslationcalls‘theFrenchandEuropeandisaster’(MS,v),anditisdifficultnottorelateitssenseoftragichopelessnesstoFrance’signominiousdefeatatthehandsofNaziGermany,theOccupationandVichycollaboration.ThetextthatCamusalsocalls‘themostpersonalofthose(hehas)publishedinAmerica’(MS,vi)couldalsobereadasareflectionofhisownstrugglewithtuberculosisduringthisperiod,sincehewassoseriouslyillheexpresseddoubtsattimesthathewouldsurvive.ButperhapsevenmorethanthesehistoricalandpersonalfactorsLeMythemaybedatedbytheconceptoftheAbsurditselftowhichCamus’snameisstilllinkedtoday,eventhoughheadmittedasearlyas1955thathehadalready‘progressedbeyond’(MS,vi)itspropositions.Thepost-wargenerationingeneralquicklymovedbeyondtheAbsurdaswell,whichiswhyitsinteresttodaycouldbeconsideredlargelyhistorical.ButratherthanreconsiderwhatisdatedinCamus’snotionoftheAbsurd,thepresentreadingfocusesonwhatCamuscallsthe‘exigency’underlyingthepropositionshequicklyabandonedafterthewarandtowhichheclaims,at53CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\ndavidcarrollleastuntil1955,hestillremainedfaithful(MS,vi).Ishallarguethatthissame‘exigency’informsCamus’swritingslongafterheabandonedtheconceptoftheAbsurditself,infactthroughouthismuchtooshortlife.RatherthanaNietzschean‘willtopower’,theexigencyisclosertowhatIwouldcalla‘willtoresist’,evenorespeciallywhenresistanceappearshopelessorturnsoutinfacttobecompletelyfruitless–awilltoresistthatisnotsimplyaproductofhistorybutalsoaresistancetohistory.LeMytheappearedonlymonthsafterL’Etranger.ThefactthatthefirsttwoofCamus’stextstoappearoutsideofAlgeriawerepublishedinoccupiedParisindicatesthattheyoungAlbertCamus,likealmostallofFrance’sestab-lishedwriters,agreedtosubmithismanuscriptstoGermancensorshipandhavethempublishedundertheconditionsimposedbytheNazioccupiersofFrance.Topublishundersuchconditionsdidnotinitself,however,reflecteitherpro-Naziorcollaborationistsentiments,sincealmostalloftheFrenchwriterswhowereontheanti-fascistLeftandwhowouldeventuallyjointheResistancecontinuedtopublishthroughoutthewar.AndashorttimeafterhavingagreedtoeliminateachapteronKafkainordertopublishhisessay,CamushimselfjoinedtheResistanceandpublishedtheKafkasectionclan-destinely.IfheowedhisfirstsuccessestoapublicationsystemcontrolledbyNazicensors,healsoriskedhislifeeditingandwritingfortheclandestineResistancenewspaperCombatduringthelastyearsofthewar.IfLaPeste,writteninlargepartduringthelastyearsofthewarandpublishedin1947,describestheconditionsforandlimitsofcollectiveresistancetopoliticaloppression,LeMythecouldbeconsideredtodescribethepreconditionsforandlimitsofindividualresistancetothehumanconditionitself.Tobeornottobe?–theAbsurdandthequestionofbeingNoonewhoreadsLeMythecaneverforgethowitbegins.Notwiththequestionofthegeneralmeaningorpurposeoflife,notwithaninvestigationintothenatureoftheindividualsubjectandhis/herfreedom,notwithadiscussionoftheformativeroleandpurportedendsofhistory–norwithanyotherabstract,philosophicalquestionsofthistype.Itbeginsratherwiththemoreimmediate,practicalquestionofsuicide,whetherlifeisworthlivinginthefirstplace:‘Iln’yaqu’unproblemephilosophiquevraiments`erieux:´c’estlesuicide.Jugerquelavievautounevautpaslapeined’etrevˆecue,´c’estrepondre´alaquestionfondamentaledelaphilosophie.Lerest`e...vientensuite.Cesontdesjeux’(Ess,99)(‘Thereisbutonetrulyseriousphilosophicalproblem,andthatissuicide.Judgingwhetherlifeisorisnotworthlivingamountstoansweringthefundamentalquestionofphilosophy.54CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nRethinkingtheAbsurd:LeMythedeSisypheAlltherest...comesafterwards.Thesearegames’(MS,3)).Whatisthusmostseriousinphilosophy,itsverycondition,islifeitself–whateverlifeisandwhateveritultimatelymeans.Alltherestissecondary,frivolous,nothingmorethanagame–ormuchworse,dogmatism,theworkof‘thegods’.Evenifsuicideispositedasthemostfundamentalphilosophicalproblem,giventhedeeplyemotionalnaturenotjustofthepossibleresponsestothequestionofwhetheroneshouldtakeone’sownlifebutofevenraisingthequestioninthefirstplace,philosophynecessarilycomesupshortwhenitdealswithit.Philosophycanrespondtothe‘onetrulyseriousphilosophicalproblem’onlypartiallyandinadequately,sinceaffectwillinevitablyplayaroleinanyresponseandphilosophy’sdomainisreason,notemotion:C’estl’equilibredel’´evidenceetdulyrismequipeutseulnouspermettre´d’accederenm´emetempsˆal’`emotionet´alaclart`e.Dansunsujet´alafois`sihumbleetsichargedepath´etique,ladialectiquesavanteetclassiquedoit´donccederlaplace,onleconc¸oit,´auneattituded’espritplusmodestequi`procede`alafoisdubonsensetdelasympathie.`(Ess,99–100)Solelythebalancebetweenevidenceandlyricismcanallowustoachievesimul-taneouslyemotionandlucidity.Inasubjectatoncesohumbleandsoheavywithemotion,thelearnedandclassicaldialecticmustyield,onecansee,toamoremodestattitudeofmindderivingatoneandthesametimefromcommonsenseandsympathy.(MS,4,translationmodified)The‘onetrulyseriousphilosophicalproblem’isthuslocatedatthelimitsoforevenoutsidephilosophyitself;itisbothtoohumbleandtooemotionalaproblemforphilosophytodealwithonitsown.Absurdreasoningthusdemandsthatphilosophydomorethanphilosophisewhendealingwiththisfundamentalquestionoflifeordeath.EstrangementInhisgenerallylaudatoryessayonTheStrangerandTheMyth,writtenjustmonthsaftertheirappearance,Jean-PaulSartreagreeswiththegeneralconsensusthatL’Etrangeris‘lemeilleurlivredepuisl’armistice’(‘thebestbooksincethearmistice’).2ButSartreismoresevereinhisassessmentofthephilosophicalmeritsofLeMythe,andassumingtheroleofarigorousprofessorofphilosophyhecriticisesCamusnotjustforhisphilosophicaldeficienciesbutalsoforshowingoff:‘M.Camusmetquelquecoquetteriea`citerdestextesdeJaspers,deHeidegger,deKierkegaard,qu’ilnesemblepastoujoursbiencomprendre’(‘M.Camusshowsoffabitbyquotingpassages55CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\ndavidcarrollfromJaspers,Heidegger,andKierkegaard,whom,bytheway,hedoesnotalwaysseemtohavequiteunderstood’).3Onstrictlyphilosophicalgrounds,LeMythewouldseemtohavelittlevalueforSartre,andinhismindCamus’sessaywouldundoubtedlyhavebeenmoresuccessfulifhehadnotquotedphilosophicaltextsatall.ButLeMytheislessconcernedwithphilosophyassuchorwhatgreatphilosophershavesaidabouttheultimatemeaningoflifethanwithanexperiencethatwouldseemtohaveatbestextremelylimitedphilosophi-calimport:themomentaryfeelingordinarypeoplesometimeshavethatlifesuddenlynolongermakessense.‘Lesentimentdel’absurditeaud´etourde´n’importequelleruepeutfrapperalafaceden’importequelhomme.Tel`quel,danssanudited´esolante,danssalumi´eresansrayonnement,ilest`insaisissable.Maiscettedifficultem´ememˆeriter´eflexion’(´Ess,105)(‘Atanystreetcorner,thefeelingofabsurditycanstrikeanymanintheface.Asitis,initsdistressingnudity,initslightwithouteffulgence,itiselusive.Butthatverydifficultydeservesreflection’(MS,10–11)).Thislossofcertaintyisthemomentwhen‘lesdecorss’´ecroulent’(´Ess,106)(‘thestagesetscollapse’(MS,12))anddailyroutinesandhabitsbreakdown;inthelifeofpeoplewhohaveneverpreviouslyquestionedlife,itiswhen‘le“pourquoi”s’el´eve’`(Ess,107)(‘the“why”arises’(MS,13)).Thecombinationoftheundeniable,unsettlingforceoftheexperienceanditselusivenessistakenbyCamusasanindicationthatsomethingimportantisatstakeinthis‘why’.EventhoughCamusexplicitlycomparesthecontradictoryemotionsfeltatsuchmomentstoaestheticsentimentsandthequestionofthebeautiful,theyarecloserinfacttotheundetermined,conflictedfeelingsdescribedbyKantinhisanalysisnotofthebeautifulbutofthesublime:‘indetermin´ees,´alafois`aussiconfusesetaussi“certaines”,aussilointainesetaussi“presentes”que´cellesquenousdonnelebeau’(Ess,105)(‘indeterminate,simultaneouslyasconfusedandas“certain”,asremoteandas“present”asthosefurnishedusbybeauty’(MS,10,translationmodified)).Suchfeelingsareremotebecausetheirsourceisafortuitousoccurrenceoutsidethecontroloftheindividual,andyetatthesametimetheyaredeeplypresentwithintheselfbecauseoftheirunsettlingemotionalintensity.Whichmeansthattheselfcanfindsolaceorescapefromthemneitherintheworldnorinitself.WhatinterestsCamusespeciallyinsuchfeelingsisthat,‘commelesgrandesœuvres,lessentimentsprofondssignifienttoujoursplusqu’ilsn’ontcon-sciencedeledire’(Ess,105)(‘likegreatworks,deepfeelingsalwayssignifymorethantheyareconsciousofsaying’(MS,10,translationmodified)).Whatthesefeelingssayandareconsciousofsayingmayverywellbeanappropriatesubjectforphilosophicalinvestigation,butwhattheysignify(orsuggest)demandsanextra-philosophicalapproachandtypeofanalysis,one56CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nRethinkingtheAbsurd:LeMythedeSisyphethatrecognisesthelimitationsofwhatcanbedirectlyphrasedandisopentowhatisconveyedindirectlybyallusionorsuggestion.BecausethefeelingoftheAbsurdsignifiesmoreanddifferentlythanwhatanyexplanationoftheAbsurdsays,itisuptootherformsofdiscourse,toliteratureinparticular(andartor‘creation’ingeneral),tosupplementtheinadequaciesofphilos-ophy.Thisleavesphilosophicaldiscoursetheadditionaltasksofexplainingwhyitcannotexplaineverythingandofaccountingforthedistancethatseparatesitfromexperience,affectandart.Theabruptandunexpectedlossoffaithinhabits,routinesandfundamen-talassumptionsandbeliefshasprofoundandlong-lastingeffects:‘Dansununiverssoudainprived’illusionsetdelumi´eres,l’hommesesentun`etranger.´Cetexilestsansrecourspuisqu’ilestprivedessouvenirsd’unepatrieper-´dueoudel’espoird’uneterrepromise.Cedivorceentrel’hommeetsavie,l’acteuretsondecor,c’estproprementlesentimentdel’absurdit´e’(´Ess,101)(‘Inauniversesuddenlydivestedofillusionsandlights,manfeelsanalien,astranger.Hisexileiswithoutremedy,sinceheisdeprivedofthememoryofalosthomelandorthehopeofapromisedland.Thisdivorcebetweenmanandhislife,theactorandhissetting,isproperlythefeelingofabsur-dity’(MS,6)).Thefeelingofradicaldivorce,oflivinginaoncefamiliarbutnowsuddenlyradicallyalienhomeland,ofbeingadriftbetweenpastandfutureandunabletorelyoneithertogivemeaningtothepresent,ofbeingastrangertotheworldandtooneself,mightappeartobecausefordespair,especiallysincetheexilefromself,worldandothersisdescribedas‘withoutremedy’.LeMytherefutessuchadeductionbymakingtheconsciousnessoftheabsenceofremedyforthediscontentsofexistencethereasonforliving–andultimatelyforresistingaswell.Itisthusinacontextofradicalestrangementthatthequestionofsuicideisraised:‘L’absurdecommande-t-illamort?’(Ess,103)(‘DoestheAbsurddictatedeath?’(MS,9)).Camusrespondsthatitdoesnot,sincesuiciderep-resentsaflightfromtheAbsurdconditionitonlyappearstoacknowledgeandthedestructionoftheverytensionsandcontradictionsattheheartoftheAbsurditpretendstoaffirm.Absurdreasoning,asathinkingofdifference,separationanddivorce,strivestomaintainthesetensionsandmakethemthereasonstolive.Camusthusmakeswhatmightlogicallybetakenasan‘invitationalamort’(‘invitationtodeath’),a‘r`egledevie’(`Ess,146)(‘aruleoflife’(MS,64,translationmodified)).‘Ils’agitdevivre’(Ess,146)(‘Thepointistolive’(MS,65))–notinspiteofbutratherbecauseoftheAbsurdandtheradicaldivorceordifferenceattheverycoreofexperience.InsteadoftheCartesian,‘Ithink,thereforeIam’,LeMytheproposessomethinglike‘IexperiencethefeelingoftheAbsurd,thereforeIam’–andthereforeIwillcontinuetobe.57CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\ndavidcarrollWhatCamuscalls‘theconstantpointofreference’oftheessayisthustheindisputablefactofdifference,separationordivorce:‘legouffrequisepare´ledesirdelaconqu´ete’(‘thegulfthatseparatesdesirefromconquest’),‘leˆdecalageconstantentrecequenousimaginonssavoiretcequenoussavons´reellement’(‘thehiatusbetweenwhatweimagineweknowandwhatwe´reallyknow’),‘ledivorcequinousseparedenosproprescr´eations’(‘the´divorceseparatingusfromourowncreations’),‘lefosse(qui)neserajamais´comble...entrelacertitudequej’aidemonexistenceetlecontenuque´j’essaiededonneracetteassurance’(`Ess,110–11)(‘thegap[that]willneverbefilled...betweenthecertaintyIhaveofmyexistenceandthecontentItrytogivetothatassurance’(MS,17–19)).Anditisthe‘gouffre’betweentheindividualandtheworldthatalsoparadoxicallyconstitutesafundamentallinkbetweenthem:‘Cemondeenlui-memen’estpasraisonnable...Cequiˆestabsurde,c’estlaconfrontationdecetirrationneletdecedesir´eperdude´clartedontl’appelr´esonneauplusprofonddel’homme.L’absurded´epend´autantdel’hommequedumonde.Ilestpourlemomentleurseullien’(Ess,113)(‘Thisworldinitselfisnotreasonable...Butwhatisabsurdistheconfrontationofthisirrationalandthewildlongingforclaritywhosecallechoesinthehumanheart.TheAbsurddependsasmuchonmanasontheworld.Forthemomentitistheironlylink’(MS,21)).TheproblemLeMytheraisesishowtocontinuetolivewithorintheAbsurdwithouteitherreducingtheradicalseparationbetween‘manandworld’ordestroyingtheprincipallinkbetweenthem,alinkageofdifferences.Theconsciousnessofthegapseparatingthoughtfromexperiencelocatesthoughtinanalien,inhospitablecontext,whichCamusdescribesas‘adesert’inwhichthoughtispurgedofits‘phantoms’,andreducedtoaskeletonofitself,toalmostnothingatall.InthesectionofLeMytheentitled‘LeSuicidephilosophique’(‘PhilosophicalSuicide’),Camusevokestheworkofaseriesofphilosophershelabels‘existentialists’–Nietzsche,Husserl,Jaspers,Heidegger,Kierkegaard,ChestovandScheler–buthefocusseslessontheirphilosophicalargumentsthanonwhathecalls‘leclimatquileurestcom-mun’(‘theclimatethatiscommontothem’),‘cetuniversindicibleour`egnent`lacontradiction,l’antinomie,l’angoisseoul’impuissance’(Ess,114–15)(‘thatindescribableuniversewherecontradiction,antinomy,anguish,orimpotencereigns’(MS,23)).Ifthedifferentexistentialists’experiencesareall‘neesdansled´esert’(´Ess,117)(‘borninthedesert’(MS,27)),Camusattacksallstrategiesforescapingfromthelimitationsoftheirconditionofbirth,whichisalsotheclimateofhisownthought.Rather,heinsiststhatitisnecessarytoremainwithintheclimateheneverthelesscalls‘meurtrier’(Ess,119)(‘deadly’(MS,29)),whilecontinuingtorejectthemiragesofescapeorsalvationthatsuchaclimatealsoproduces.58CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nRethinkingtheAbsurd:LeMythedeSisypheHopeitselfisamirage,foritisrootedinthedesireforevasionfromtheconditionsofthedesert.Butdespairisequallyillusory.WhatwillremainoftheAbsurdinCamus’slaterworkwhenthenotionitselfhasbeenleftbehindispreciselyaconvictionoftheimportancebothoflucidityconcerningthelimitsofthoughtandactionandthenecessityfor‘uneconfrontationetuneluttesansrepos’(‘aconfrontationandunceasingstruggle’):‘Toutcequidetruit,escamoteousubtilisecesexigences(etenpremierleconsentement´quidetruitledivorce)ruinel’absurdeetd´evalorisel’attitudequ’onpeut´alorsproposer.L’absurden’adesensquedanslamesureoul’onn’yconsent`pas’(Ess,121)(‘Everythingthatdestroys,conjuresaway,orexorcisestheserequirements(and,tobeginwith,consent,whichoverthrowsdivorce)ruinstheAbsurdanddevaluestheattitudethatmaybeproposed.TheAbsurdhasmeaningonlyinsofarasitisnotagreedto’(MS,31)).Affirmedbutnotagreedto,resistedbutnotdenied,engagedinthehopelessbutatthesametimenotdesperatetasksofliving,thinkingandacting,meaningandvalueemergepreciselyoutoftheirabsenceandintheverynihilisticdesertthatbothnegatesthemandmakesthempossible.Butthisissoonlyiftheconditionsofthedesertareacknowledgedforwhattheyare.Theintellectualtaskof‘proceed(ing)beyondnihilism’(MS,v)withoutfallingpreytooneofitsmiragesismadeevenmoredifficult,ifnotimpossible,bythefactthatthefateofaconsciousnessoftheAbsurdistobeboundtotheAbsurdforever.4Camus’sagnosticismconcerningnotjustreligionbutphilosophyandpol-iticsaswellisthusevidentinLeMythe,adecadebeforeitwilltakeonamoredirectlypoliticalforminL’Hommerevolt´e´.Ifinhislatermajoressayhewillattackdialecticalhistory,whetherHegelianorMarxist,andallformsofrevolutionforbeingteleologicalandmessianicandbelievinginthepromiseofanendofhistorythatwouldjustifyanymeansusedtoachievethatend,the‘existentialistphilosophies’evokedinLeMythearecriticisedinsimilartermsfordeifyingtheAbsurd:‘Ilsdivinisentcequilesecraseettrouventuneraisond’esp´ererdanscequilesd´emunit.Cetespoir´forceestcheztousd’essencereligieuse...L’absurdedevientdieu(dansle´senslepluslargedecemot)etcetteimpuissanceacomprendre,l’`etrequiˆilluminetout’(Ess,122)(‘Theydeifywhatcrushesthemandfindreasontohopeinwhatimpoverishesthem.Thatforcedhopeisreligiousinallofthem...TheAbsurdbecomesgod(inthebroadestmeaningofthisword)andthatinabilitytounderstandbecomesthebeingthatilluminateseverything’(MS,32–3,translationmodified)).Camuscallstheexistentialistattitudeaformof‘suicidephilosophique’(Ess,128)(‘philosophicalsuicide’(MS,41)),justashewillinL’Hommerevolt´e´attackideologyingeneralandthelogicthattheendjustifiesthemeansinparticularasjustificationsformurder.Le59CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\ndavidcarrollMythedeSisyphethusinauguratesCamus’slongstruggleagainstphilosoph-ical,religiousandpoliticalideologiesthatpromisesalvationinthefutureattheexpenseoflivinghumanbeingsinthepresent.LikeSisyphus,Camusneversucceededinhistask–butthatwasneverthepoint.Thestruggleitselfwas.What’sartgottodowithit?Silemondeetaitclair,l’artneseraitpas.´(Ess,177)Iftheworldwereclear,artwouldnotexist.(MS,98)InordertoexplainAbsurdexistence,Camusdescribesthreetypesof‘Absurdman’–DonJuan,theactorandtheconqueror–whichheclaimsare‘illus-trations’oftheAbsurdbutnot‘models’tobefollowed(Ess,150;MS,68).Whatthethreefigureshaveincommonislikecertainartists,‘(ils)connais-sentleurslimites(et)nelesexcedentjamais’(`Ess,152)((they)knowtheirlimits(and)nevergobeyondthem’(MS,70)).ThisisalsoCamus’sdefinitionof‘genius’.ButDonJuan,theactorandtheconquerorareonlyincompleteversionsof‘leplusabsurdedespersonagesquiestlecreateur’(´Ess,170)(‘themostabsurdofthecharacters,whoisthecreator’(MS,92,transla-tionmodified)).Iftheawarenessofthelimitationsofthehumanconditionischaracteristicofthosewho‘thinkclearly’,thecreator(theartist-writer)ispresentedasthefigurewho‘thinks’themostclearlyofall.ButtothinkclearlyinCamus’ssenseistoknowthatthoughtitselfislimitedandthere-foretothinkinpartagainstthought.TheAbsurdcreatorcannotfallpreytothemystificationofart,however,sincehe/shealsoknowsthatartislim-ited,thatittooprovidesnoescape,nosalvation.TheAbsurdartistcreateswithinandagainstthelimitsofart;he/shetoocreateswithouteitherhopeordespair.TheAbsurdartistneverthelessexperienceswhatCamuscalls‘unbonheurmetaphysique´asoutenirl’absurdit`edumonde’(´Ess,173)(‘ametaphysi-caljoyinenduringtheworld’sabsurdity’(MS,93,translationmodified)).His/herjoyisnotinchangingtheworld,overcomingthegapthatatthesametimedistanceshim/herfromandlinkshim/hertolife,andcertainlynotinanyillusorytranscendenceoforescapefromthehumanconditionitself.JoycomesratherinwithstandingandthusmaintainingthegapordivorceconstitutiveoftheAbsurd.ForiftheAbsurdisanirreduciblegivenofhumanexperience,ifitistheclimateinwhichthoughttakesitsnour-ishment,thenthechoicecannotbebetweenwhethertoaffirmordenytheAbsurdbutratherwhethertoliveordieofit:‘Onneniepaslaguerre.Ilfautenmourirouenvivre.Ainsidel’absurde:ils’agitderespireraveclui;de60CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nRethinkingtheAbsurd:LeMythedeSisyphereconnaˆıtreseslec¸onsetderetrouverleurchair.Acetegard,lajoieabsurde´parexcellence,c’estlacreation’(´Ess,173)(‘Warcannotbedenied.Onemustliveitordieofit.Soitiswiththeabsurd:itisaquestionofbreathingwithit,ofrecognisingitslessonsandrediscoveringtheirflesh.Inthisregardtheabsurdjoyparexcellenceiscreation’(MS,93)).Theartist-creatorisnotonlythemostcompletelylucidoftheAbsurdtypes;he/sheisalsothemostjoyful,evenif‘absurdjoy’isitselfadividedfeeling,affirmativeandnegativeatthesametime,joyousinaNietzscheansenseandyet‘sanslendemain’(Ess,189)(‘ephemeral’(MS,113)).Absurd‘man’isaboveallanartist–butanartistwhoneverfulfilstheultimateprojectofart:toproduceafinishedwork.Theartistachievesanevengreaterlucidity(andjoy)thantheotherAbsurdfiguresbecausehis/herconsciousness(andjoy)is(are)double:‘Danscetuniversl’œuvreestalorslachanceuniquedemaintenirsaconscienceetd’enfixerlesaventures.Creer,c’estvivredeuxfois’(´Ess,173)(‘Inthisuniversetheworkofartisthenthesolechanceofmaintaininghis/herconsciousnessandoffixingitsadventures.Tocreateistolivedoubly’(MS,94,translationmodified)).Theconsciousnessoftheartist-creatoristhusatthesametimebothsameandother,his/hersandnothis/hers.Thecreator’sconsciousnessisnot,however,self-reflexiveintheHegeliansense,aconsciousnessinandforitselfthathastriumphedovertheimmediacyofexperienceandraiseditselftoahigherlevel.The‘absurdconsciousness’ofthecreatorisnolessgratuitousandlimitedthanexistenceandthehumanconditionthemselves.InartthereisnoescapeorrefugefromtheAbsurd,sincetheworkofartis‘elle-memeunˆphenom´eneabsurde’(`Ess,174)(‘itselfanabsurdphenomenon’(MS,95)).AsthesimultaneousaffirmationofandresistancetotheAbsurd,AbsurdartisthemostfullyabsurdofallAbsurdphenomena,theonemostfullyengagedwithitsirresolvabletensionsandcontradictionsandwiththeleastillusionsaboutitsownultimateeffects.AnAbsurdtheoryofthenovelCamus’sdiscussionofwhatcouldbecalledtheaestheticsoftheAbsurdcul-minateswithadiscussionofthenovel,whichheconsidersboththemostphilosophicalandthemostAbsurdofallliterarygenres–themostAbsurdbecausethemostphilosophical.Opentoandtemptedbyideas,novelistscouldbeconsideredtobefailedphilosophersofsorts,buttheir‘failure’tothinkideasturnsoutactuallytobetheirstrength.AsCamusmetaphor-icallyputsit,novelistswrite‘enimagesplutotqu’enraisonnements’(‘inˆimagesratherthanreasonedarguments’):‘Maisjustementlechoixqu’ilsontfaitd’ecrireenimagesplut´otqu’enraisonnementsestrˆev´elateurd’une´61CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\ndavidcarrollcertainepenseequileurestcommune,persuad´eedel’inutilit´edetoutprincipe´d’explicationetconvaincuedumessageenseignantdel’apparencesensible...Leromandontilestquestionestl’instrumentdecetteconnaissancealafois`relativeetinepuisable’(´Ess,178–9)(‘Thechoicetheyhavemadetowriteinimagesratherthaninreasonedargumentsisrevelatoryofacertainthoughtthatiscommontothemall,convincedoftheuselessnessofanyprincipleofexplanationandsureoftheeducativemessageofperceptibleappear-ance...Thenovelinquestionistheinstrumentofthatsimultaneouslyrelativeandinexhaustibleknowledge’(MS,101,translationmodified)).‘Towriteinimages’istohavemoreconfidenceinexperiencethaninthought,morecertaintyintherelativityofdescriptionthaninthepretensionsoflog-icalanalysisandsystematicexplanation.Itistorefusetosaymorethanexperienceallowsonetosay.CamususesidenticallanguageinareviewhewroteinAlgerrepublicain´(20October1938)ofSartre’sLaNausee´(Nausea):‘Unromann’estjamaisqu’unephilosophiemiseenimages.Etdansunbonroman,toutelaphiloso-phieestpasseedanslesimages.Maisilsuffitqu’elled´ebordelespersonnages´etlesactions,qu’elleapparaissecommeuneetiquettesurl’œuvre,pourque´l’intrigueperdesonauthenticiteetleromansavie’(´Ess,1417)(‘Anovelisneveranythingbutaphilosophyputintoimages.Andinagoodnoveltheentirephilosophyhaspassedintotheimages.Butthephilosophyneedonlyspilloverintothecharactersandactionforittostickoutlikealabel,theplotlosesitsauthenticity,andthenovelitslife’).5Whileanticipatingabrightfutureforthisfirst-timenovelist,Camusnonethelesscriticisesthenovelforwhatheclaimsis‘cedes´equilibresisensibleentrelapens´eedel’œuvreetles´imagesouellesejoue’(`Ess,1418)(‘thenoticeablelackofbalancebetweentheideasintheworkandtheimagesthatexpressthem’).6Inotherwords,Sartre,byremainingtoophilosophical,didnotsucceedinputtinghisentirethoughtintoimages.Thuslongbeforetheirseriouspoliticaldifferencessur-faced,SartreandCamusdisagreedovertherelationshipthatshouldexistbetweenphilosophyandliterature.ForCamus,Sartrewastoophilosophicalanovelist;forSartre,Camuswastooliteraryaphilosopher.TheoppositeofthephilosophicalnovelforCamusis‘leromanath`ese’`(‘thethesis-novel’),whichCamuscalls‘laplusha¨ıssabledetoutes’(Ess,191)(‘themosthatefulofall’(MS,115–16)).Itistheproductof‘philosopheshonteux’(‘philosophersashamedofthemselves’)whowanttoillustrateideasorprovearguments,notof‘penseurslucides’(‘lucidthinkers’)whoknowthelimitsofallideasandthuswhattheydonotknowandcannotsay.Thelatterwritenottodemonstratetruthbuttoresistthetyrannyofestablishedorimposedideas;theyarethepost-Nietzscheanliteraryprecursorsof‘l’hommerevolt´e’(‘therebel’).´62CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nRethinkingtheAbsurd:LeMythedeSisypheTheaestheticsoftheAbsurd,ifsuchatermmakessense,isthusrootedinthediversityandinexhaustibilityofexperienceandnottheunityandfinalityofideas:‘Toutepenseequirenonce´al’unit`eexalteladiversit´e.Etladiver-´siteestlelieudel’art’(´Ess,191)(‘Allthoughtthatabandonsunityglorifiesdiversity.Anddiversityisthehomeofart’(MS,116)).Givenitsemphasisondiversityratherthansameness,onlittlenarrativesratherthangrandormeta-narratives,onfragmented,incomplete,openworksratherthanuni-fied,finalisedforms,andfinallyitsinsistenceontherelative,thecorporalandtheindividualratherthantheuniversal,thespiritualandthecollective,LeMythedeSisyphecouldbeconsideredtolaytheaesthetic-philosophicalgroundworkforthemoreexplicitlypoliticalresistancetototalitarianismwhichwillcharacteriseCamus’swarjournalismandpost-waressays.ForwhattheAbsurdartistcanneveracceptistheuniversalapplicabilityoftheIdeaitself–anyIdea,whetherreligious,philosophical,aestheticorpolitical,whetheritbethatofGod,Being,or‘Man’,ontheonehand,orofapeople,race,classorHistoryitself,ontheother.‘IlfautimaginerSisypheheureux’7TheconcludinglineoftheshortsectionofLeMythethatrecountsthestoryofSisyphusisasstrikingandunforgettableastheopeningpagesoftheessaydevotedtosuicide.AndyetSisyphus’shappinessremainsaperplexingissuegiventhefruitlessnessofhistaskandthetotallackofhopeforanychangeinhiscondition.Iftheworstpunishmentinventedbythegods,asCamusclaims,isthatof‘letravailinutileetsansespoir’(Ess,195)(‘futileandhopelesslabor’(MS,119))–inotherwords,whatfromtheperspectiveoftheAbsurdcouldbeconsideredthehumanconditionitself–howisitpossibletoimagineSisyphushappywithhismiserablefate?Andhowcouldweeverbehappyifourownconditionandfateresemblehis?AndwhoarethesegodswhocondemnSisyphus(whocondemnus)tosuchastate?Andwhatiftherearenogodsandinagodlessworldourfateneverthelessdoesnotchange?Orifwerejectthosewhopresentthemselvesasgods–orassuperhumanhumans–andwhodefeatusinwar,dominateandpoliticallyoppressusandappeartohavedeterminedourfateonceandforall,sothatnoactofresistancewouldappeartohaveanychanceofsuccess?Whatdoesitmeantobehappyinsuchcircumstances?AndwhywouldCamusendhisessaywithsuchanaffirmationofjoy?ThespecificcrimeforwhichSisyphusispunishedisfordisobeyingthegodswhoallowedhimtoreturntoearthafterhisinitialcondemnationtohell.InCamus’sversionofthemyth,Sisyphus’srevoltagainstthegodsisrootedinhisrefusaltogiveupthesimplejoysandpleasuresofearthlyexistence:63CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\ndavidcarroll‘quandileutdenouveaurevulevisagedecemonde,goutˆel’eauetlesoleil,les´pierreschaudesetlamer,ilnevoulutplusretournerdansl’ombreinfernale’(Ess,195)(‘Butwhenhehadseenagainthefaceofthisworld,enjoyedwaterandsun,warmstonesandthesea,henolongerwantedtogobacktotheinfernaldarkness’(MS,120)).Sisyphus’scrimeintheeyesofthegodsisthustheterriblecrimeofenjoyinglifeandscorningtheall-powerfulgodswhohavecondemnedhimtoanafter-lifeofmisery:‘sonmeprisdesdieux,sa´hainedelamortetsapassionpourlavie’(Ess,196)(‘hisscornforthegods,hishatredofdeath,andhispassionforlife’(MS,120)).Forhisdefiance,hereceivesaspunishment‘cesuppliceindicibleoutoutl’`etres’emploieˆanerien`achever.C’estleprixqu’ilfautpayerpourlespassionsdecetteterre’(Ess,196)(‘thatunspeakabletortureinwhichhisbeingexertsitselftoaccomplishnothing.Thisisthepricethatmustbepaidforthepassionsofthisearth’(MS,120,translationmodified)).Camus’sversionofSisyphusisnotanepic‘twilightofthegods’,however,butratheralittlenarrativeofeverydayhumanresistance.Sisyphusrefusestoacceptthepowerofthegodsandtheircontroloverhislife,butheisalsolucidaboutandthusaccepts,asheresists,thelimitsoftheconditiontheyimposeonhim,whichinanycasehecannotchange.Andinunderstandingthateverythingisnotpossibleandcontinuinghismeaninglesstaskwiththisknowledge,heishappy,eveniforperhapsbecausehisworkisuselessandhe‘accomplish(es)nothing’.The‘nothing’heaccomplisheseachtimehepusheshisrockuptotheverytopofthehillisinfactthe‘something’ofart.Perhapseventhe‘something’ofapoliticsofrevolt.Hisworkmayneverinfactbefinishedandwillalwayshavetoberedone,hewillneverremainatthesummitofaccomplishmentformorethananinstantbeforehemustbeginagain,butitisthebesthecanhopefor,andforCamusthisismorethanenough.InarecentstudyLeMythehasbeencalledapost-Marxistwork:‘ToMarxism’sclaims,Camus’sabsurdismrepliedthatnoneofourlaborscansolvethetragedyofdeathorgivesensetotheworld.ThereisnodirectmentionofMarxismorCommunisminTheMythofSisyphus,butthecri-tiqueiseverywhereimplied...(Thetext)wastherefore...post-Marxistratherthanpre-Marxist.’8AndperhapsnowhereisthischaracterisationmoreappropriatethaninthesectionofLeMythedevotedtoSisyphus,espe-ciallyif‘post-Marxist’ismeanttobedistinguishedfromanti-Marxist,whichCamus’spost-warpoliticalessaysbecome.Sisyphus’sluciditymaybeequaltothatoftheAbsurdartist,butthephysicaleffortnecessarytoaccomplishhistaskresemblesmorecloselythelabouroftheworker.If‘Sisypheestleherosabsurde...autantparsespassionsqueparsontourment’(´Ess,196)(‘Sisyphusistheabsurdhero...asmuchthroughhispassionsasthroughhistorture’(MS,120)),hisconditionisthatoftheworkerinmodernsociety,64CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nRethinkingtheAbsurd:LeMythedeSisyphewhose‘destinn’estpasmoinsabsurde’(Ess,196)(‘fateisnolessabsurd’(MS,121)).Sisyphusisthe‘proletairedesdieux,impuissantetr´evolt´e,(il)conna´ˆıttoutel’etenduedesamis´erablecondition...Laclairvoyancequidevaitfaire´sontourmentconsommedumemecoupsavictoire.Iln’estpasdedestinquiˆnesesurmonteparlemepris’(´Ess,196)(‘proletarianofthegods,powerlessandrebellious,[he]knowsthewholeextentofhiswretchedcondition...Theluciditythatwastoconstitutehistortureatthesametimecrownshisvictory.Thereisnofatethatcannotbesurmountedbyscorn’(MS,121)).Sisyphus’sfateissealed,hissituationwithouthope,tragic.ButtheworkerisalsodescribedbyCamusasatragicfigure,butonly‘auxraresmomentsouil`devientconscient’(Ess,196)(‘atraremomentswhenhebecomesconscious’(MS,121)).LeMythesaysnothingmoreastowheresuchaproletarianconsciousnesscouldleadinthecaseoftheworker,however,especiallyifheweretojoinwithothersinactiveprotestandthenresistance.Sisyphus,how-ever,islucidandthustragicatalltimes,butespeciallyeachtimehewalksbackdownthehilltobeginhistaskanew.Hisresistancetothegodsandhisconditionisthusmorepsychologicalthanactive,moreawilltoresistancethanresistanceitself.AndinCamus’sstoryhisresistanceissolitary,thatofan(the)individualnotaclassorcollectivity.Itisonlyastartingpoint–apossibleoriginforanotherformofhistory(orhistories)differentfromthedialecticalhistoryoftheclassstruggleandwithanendthatisunknownandunknowable.TheconsciousnessofSisyphus,atthesametimeproletarianandartist,ispresentedinLeMytheasbothanaestheticandpoliticalvalueinitself,eventhoughtheconditionsofhisenslavementarenotchangedeitherbyhisunceasinglabourorhislucidity.CamusmakesSisyphus’slucidityabouthisconditionandhisscornforhistormentorsindicationsofhis‘victory’overboth,buthisvictoryisindividualandpsychological,notcollectiveandhistorical.Sisyphus’shappinessisasublimejoy,afeelingofpleasureinoraspain,butnosenseisgivenintheessaythatheisanticipatingjoiningwithotherswhosharehisscornforthegodsandwanttodomorethanpushrocksrepeatedlyuphills.1942,theyearofLeMythe’spublication,wasalsotheyearthatideasofcollectiveresistancefinallybegantobeputintopracticeinFranceonalargerscalethanbefore.Sisyphus’sjoyinwhatcouldbecalled‘passiveresistance’couldthusbeconsideredastep,nomatterhowsmall,onthewaytoactiveresistance;hiswilltoresistthepreconditionforactualresistance.ThissamewillorexigencycanbefoundinCamus’slaterworkaswell–inbothhispoliticalandliterarytexts.WhatcouldbeworsethanSisyphus’sfate,onemightstillbeinclinedtoask?AndyetCamusencouragesustoaskatthesametimewhatfatewouldinfactbebetter?Asthepreconditionforother,moreactiveformsof65CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\ndavidcarrollresistanceandasanexpressionofscornforthegodswhocontrolSisyphus’sfatebutwhohavenotsucceededindestroyinghisconsciousness,hiswillorhisattachmenttolife,thatis,hisfreedom,itisperhapsnotthatdifficulttoimagineSisyphushappyafterall.CamuswillsoonabandonSisyphusandtheAbsurd,buthewillnotabandonhisconvictionthatallgodsandallpoliticalandreligiousIdeasandideologiesshouldberesisted.Hewillnevergiveuphisconvictionthatthegreatestvalueofall–beforepolitics,beforehistory,beforejustice–ishumanlifeitself,nomatterhowlimited,oppressiveortragicthehumanconditionandanyparticularpoliticalsituationactuallyis.Inspiteoftuberculosis,inspiteofthedefeatofFrance,inspiteoftheOccu-pationandVichycollaboration,inspiteofphilosophicalnihilism–faut-ilimaginerCamusheureux?NOTES1.PrefacetothefirstAmericaneditionofTheMythofSisyphus,reproducedintheEnglisheditioncitedonp.vi.2.Jean-PaulSartre,‘ExplicationdeL’Etranger’,inSituationsi(Paris,Gallimard,1947)(originallypublishedFebruary1943),p.99;‘Camus’s“TheOutsider”’,inJean-PaulSartre,LiteraryandPhilosophicalEssays,trans.AnnetteMichelson(NewYork,CriterionBooks,1955),p.24,translationmodified.3.Situationsi,pp.101–2;LiteraryandPhilosophicalEssays,p.26.4.IwouldarguethatthemostinterestingandsuggestivereadingofLeMythedeSisypheisstillthatofMauriceBlanchot,‘LeMythedeSisyphe’,FauxPas(Paris,Gallimard,1943).5.‘OnJean-PaulSartre’sLaNausee´’,inAlbertCamus,LyricalandCriticalEssays,trans.EllenConroyKennedy(NewYork,VintageBooks,1967),p.199,transla-tionmodified.6.Ibid.,p.201.7.Ess,198;‘OnemustimagineSisyphushappy’(MS,123).8.RolandAronson,CamusandSartre(ChicagoandLondon,UniversityofChicagoPress,2004),p.73.66CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\n5CHRISTINEMARGERRISONCamusandthetheatreAlthoughCamus’sessaysandprosefictionhadaprofoundimpactonthepost-wargenerationinFranceandelsewhere,thisislesstrueofhistheatricalworks,whichhadmixedsuccessduringtheauthor’slifetime.Hissecondplay,LeMalentendu,inwhichthereturning,unidentifiedadultsonismurderedbyhismotherandsister,hadadifficultreceptionin1944.Caligula,Camus’searliestplay,wasmoresuccessfulin1945,seemingtochimewithaudienceswhohadundergonethehorrorsofNazioccupation,anditranforalmostayear.L’Etatdesiege`,acollaborationwithJean-LouisBarrault,closedafteronlyseventeenperformancesin1948andhasrarelybeenstagedsince,butLesJusteswaswell-receivedin1949,runningforover400performances.AlthoughCamuswrotenomoreplays,hecontinuedhislifelonginvolvementwiththetheatre,producingsixadaptationswhichhehelpedtostage,andthinkingnotonlyofwritingaplayonDonJuan,butofreworkingLeMalen-tenduandL’Etatdesiege`.HistheatricalworksarestillproducedthroughouttheworldandsincetheturnofthemillenniumLesJustes,CaligulaandLeMalentenduhavebeenontheLondonstage.Yetsuchproductionsarerareandalthougharticlesonsingleplayshavebeenpublishedandneweditionsproduced,thefewbook-lengthstudiesofthetheatredatemainlyfromthe1960sand1970s.1ThecontrastbetweenthereceptionofCamus’sotherwritingsandhisplaysisevenmoremarkedwhenoneconsidershisenduringpassionforthetheatre.Inparticular,hestressedhispleasureinworkingwithothers,aformofcollaborationheassociatedwithhistimeatCombat,orearlierwhenhewasinvolvedinamateurtheatreinAlgeriawiththeThe´atreduˆTravailin1936,andtheThe´atredel’Equipe,whichhefoundedinˆ1937andforwhichhebegantowriteCaligulawithaviewtoactingtheleadingrole.Itisparticularlyironicthattheonlyareaofhiscreativeproductioninvolvingdirectengagementwithotherswasalsotheleastsuccessful,forreasonswhichseempartlyrelatedtotheinteractiveordialogicalnatureofthetheatreitself,whichrequiresengagementwithothersonanumberoflevels67CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nchristinemargerrisonbesidesthoseentailedinputtingonaplay.Someofthegreateststrengthsofthefictionalwritingsbecomeweaknessesonthestage;whereasCamus’sfictionalfirst-personnarrativesareasourceoffascination,thesometimeslongtheatricalmonologuescausedcomplaintsofdidacticismandinaction.Moreover,Camusseemedunabletoputhimselfintheplaceofhisspectatorsandanticipatetheirreactions,orvisualisetheeffecthisscenesmighthave.ThemajorchallengeCamusfacedasaplaywright(onethatheconsistentlyrejected,seeingitasaresortto‘psychology’)layinputtinghimselfintheplaceofotherstobringopposingviewstolife.Althoughawareoftheaudience’simportance,includingtheminthecollab-orativeenterprisewhenspeakingintheEquipe’smanifestoofthe‘complicite´del’acteuretduspectateur’(TRN,1692)(‘complicityoftheactorandspec-tator’)inconsentingtothesameillusion,Camusseemsnottohaveenvisagedthemeasureofaudienceautonomythistheatricalpactentailedinpractice.In1940hewrotethatthetheatrewassubjecttoauniversalsuffrageandmustreceivetheagreementofall(Ess,1405),buttheseremarksweremadebeforeCamus’sownplayswereputtothat‘vote’.Bythisstandardhejudgedthat,asLeMalentenduhadbeenrejectedbythemajorityofaudiences,itwas‘inplainterms,afailure’.2ThisreactionistoCamus’scredit,andhetriedtomodifyLeMalentenduaccordingly,butsuchaudienceresponsesprovokedanincreasinglydifficultrelationshipwithhispublicandthecritics.Inthissense,Camus’senthusiasmforcollectiveactivityinthetheatrewasmarredonlybyothers’capacityforindependentjudgements.Paradoxically,ontheonehand,likesport(withwhichheoftencomparedit),Camusvaluedthetheatre’scollectiveandegalitariannature.Ontheotherhand,healsocalledithismonastery(TRN,1715),ameansofescapingoth-ers.Increasingly,itbecameahavenfromtheburdensoffameandfellowintellectualsinwhosecompanyhefeltunease(TRN,1723).Camus’scom-mentsrecallhisattitudeinhisyouthfulwritingstowardsartitself,whichhesawasanescapefromsordidrealityintoamoreperfectworld,aviewreflectedsometwentyyearslaterinL’Hommerevolt´e´,wherethecreationofacloseduniverseenablestheartistto‘refai[re]lemondeasoncompte’`(Ess,659)(‘reconstructtheworldtohisplan’(R,221)).Onemightaddthatlikesportorthemonasticlife,thisself-enclosedtheatricaluniverse,withpre-determinedrulesofbehaviour,ismorepredictable,moreeasilycircum-scribedthanwidersociety.Moreover,inthetheatreothersareplayingaroledefinedandtosomedegreecontrolledbytheartisthimself,withoutthethreateningimpenetrabilitytheyposedtheyoungauthorinhisyouthfulwritingsandearliestessays.3Camus’sgeneralemphasisonegalitarianismandinterdependenceinthetheatrecontrastswithhisviewsontheartist’sposition.Fromhisreadings68CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nCamusandthetheatreintheearly1930s,inparticularNietzsche’sTheBirthofTragedy,Camuswasdevelopingaconceptionofthegod-likestatusoftheartist.WhenintheEquipe’smanifestoheintroducesthetheatreas‘unartdechairquidonnea`descorpsvibrantslesoindetraduireseslec¸ons’(‘anartofthefleshwhichgivesvibrantbodiesthetaskoftranslatingitslessons’),satisfyingalsothe‘besoindeconstructionquiestnaturelal’artiste’(`TRN,1692)(‘needforconstructionthatisnaturaltotheartist’)onedetectsechoesofNietzsche’sApollonianartistgod,thedivinesculptorshapingthisworld,creatingformfromthe‘flesh’ofhumanity.Similarly,inthesectionontheactorinLeMythedeSisyphewheretheactoriscomparedtoasculptor,Camusassertsthat‘Laloidecetartveutquetoutsoitgrossietsetraduiseenchair’(Ess,160)(‘Theruleofthatartrequiresthateverythingbemagnifiedandtranslatedintoflesh’(MS,76,translationamended)),whileinL’Hommerevolt´e´heclaimsthatthegreatestsculptureseekstocapture‘legeste,lamineouleregardvidequiresumeronttouslesgestesettouslesregardsdumonde’(´Ess,660)(‘thegesture,theexpression,ortheemptystarewhichwillsumupallthegesturesandallthestaresintheworld’(R,222)).SpanningthecourseofCamus’scareer,suchcommentsrevealacontinuityinhisviewoftheprivilegedroleoftheartist.Theyindicate,moreover,afeatureofCamus’stheatricalworksthathasbeenaperennialfocusofcriticism,thereductionoftheOthertoanemptyvessel,areceptaclefortheartist’svision.Thereferencetothe‘emptystare’seemslessadistillationofhumanitythanthetransformationofothersintosoullessbodies,obliteratingallthatmakestheindividualdistinctivelyhuman.OnemighttakeissuewithCamus’sdefinitionofthetheatreas‘larealisationcollectivedelapens´eed’unseul’(´Ess,1405)(‘thecollectivereal-isationofthethoughtofasingleindividual’),butthismayexplainwhyhewasquicktocorrectwhatheperceivedasmisinterpretationsofhiswork,ortoinsistonwhathehad‘really’meant.AlthoughmostnotablythecasewithL’Etranger,CamuswaslikewiseanxioustoclarifythemeaningsofCaligulaandLeMalentenduinwayswhichseemdidactic,retrospectivelygivingtheplaysmoralconnotationsatoddswiththeoriginalcontextinwhichtheywerewritten,aswhenheclaimedthatLeMalentenducontainedanunderly-ingoptimismorthatCaligulawasanillustrationofthedangersofoverstep-pingthelimits.Ifaudiencesofthe1940ssawconnectionsbetweenCaligulaandthewar,Camusrejectedsuchassociations,writingtoJeanPaulhanin1943thatithadgiventheplayanunintendedmeaning.4SuchattemptedcorrectionsmayexplainhiscontinuinginsistencethatCaligulawaswrittenin1938.Asoriginallyconceived,Caligula,inwhomtheyoungplaywrightsawhimself,wasaheroicfigurewhosetragedylaypreciselyinhisstatusasasuperior,yetmortalindividualstandingabovethemassesinthemanner69CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nchristinemargerrisonoftheNietzscheanartist-godorpoet.However,astheresearchofA.JamesArnoldhasdocumented,theplayunderwentseveralrevisionsbeforeits1944publicationandashewasworkingonthefinalversioninthesummerof1943CamusshiftedthebalancetowardsCaligulaasatyrant,strengtheningtheroleofChereainopposingthemurderousEmperor(CAC4,168–70).Theplay’sstronglyNietzscheandimensionwastoneddown(perhapsbecauseofNietzsche’sappropriationwithinNaziideology)andCamus’sdevelopingpreoccupationwithrevoltwasreinforced–althoughweseelittleevidenceofthesocialsolidaritywhichwastobeintegraltothewriter’slatertheoryofrevolt,asexpressedintheslogan‘Jemerevolte,doncnoussommes’(´Ess,432)(‘Irebel–thereforeweexist’(R,28)).Thesesuccessivereworkingshaveleftcontradictorytraces,forCaligularemainsaheroicandevenChrist-likeorDionysianfigurewhoacquiescesinhisowndeath,yethischaracterisalsoregardedasapenetratingstudyofadictator,whichwasnotCamus’soriginalintention.Indeed,inArnold’sopinionthisremodellingoftheplaymadeitahybridtext;whatstartedoutasthethirdpartofatriptychontheAbsurd(withL’EtrangerandLeMythedeSisyphe)becameinsteadthesecondcousintoL’Hommerevolt´e´(CAC4,171,175).Atthesametime,Camuswasmak-ingsimilarchangestoLeMalentendu,developingtheroleofJan’swife(whodidnotoriginallyappearuntilthefinalact)inopposinghiscourseofaction.Maria’s‘Tamethoden’estpaslabonne’(´TRN,128)(‘Yourmethodisn’ttherightone’(COP,117,translationamended))thusechoesCaligula’s‘Malib-erten’estpaslabonne’(´TRN,108)(‘Myfreedomisn’ttherightone’(COP,103)).ButifChereaprovesanambivalentopponentbecauseheunderstandsCaligula,MariaismystifiedbyJan’sbehaviour.Generallyregardedastheonly‘human’presenceintheplay(howeverstereotypical),sheisnotinte-gratedonthesameintellectuallevelastheothercharactersandhermoreemotionalreactionsseemtheonlyoneswithwhichanaudienceislikelytosympathise.Camus’sretrospectiveclaimthatinanunjustworldamancansavehimselfandothersthroughsincerity(TRN,1731)–aclaimvoicedbyMariaalone–isevenlessconvincingifwebelieveMartha’sdeclarationthatshewouldhavekilledherbrotherevenhadheidentifiedhimself(TRN,168;COP,146).Conflictsbetweenauthorialintentionandaudiencereceptionmaybemorestarkinthetheatrewhere,uniquelyamongstCamus’swritings,therecipi-entofthemessageispresentandmayopenlyreact,threateningCamus’snotionofharmonious‘complicity’.IfthesolitaryreadermaysometimesfeelcoercedbyCamus’sprose,asColinDavisargueselsewhereinthisvolume,adifferentdynamicoperatesinthetheatre,whereunexaminedassertionsmayprovokeresistanceintheaudience,thusthreateningthetheatricalillu-sion.AlthoughCamuslaterdenieditwasaphilosophicalplay(TRN,1730),70CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nCamusandthetheatrethisseemstometobethecaseinCaligula,withitsratherinflatedclaimsconcerningCaligula’s‘philosophy’andtheunrelenting‘logic’ofhisactions.CherearejectsCaligula’smethodsyetdeemshisphilosophyirrefutable,join-ingtherevoltthroughself-interesttocombat‘unegrandeidee’(‘agreatidea’)´whichcoulddestroyeverything(TRN,34;COP,53).Astothatphilosophy,althoughCherearefersdirectlytotheAbsurdwearetoldonlythatitthreat-enshiswishtoliveandbehappy;inordertobefreehesometimesdesiresthedeathofthoseheloves,orwomenforbiddentohim:‘Pouretrelogique,ˆjedevrais...tuerouposseder’(´TRN,78)(‘Werelogiceverything,I’dkillorfornicate’(COP,82–3)).But‘logic’isnottheissuehere.Likewise,Caligula’sdiscoverythat‘Leshommesmeurentetilsnesontpasheureux’(TRN,16)(‘Mendie;andtheyarenothappy’(COP,40))elidesempiricalfactandsub-jectiveopinion,seemingtoconferoneachequalvalueasauniversaltruth.Yetthereisnologicalconnectionbetweenthetwo,andneithercananylog-icalconsequencesbederivedfromthem,andthespectatorirritatedbysuchidiosyncraticusesoftheterm‘logic’mayonlybecomemorealienatedbyitsrepetition.ThereceptionoftheplaysseemstohavecausedariftbetweenCamusandhisaudience,andatleastonecritichasdetectedanirritabilityinsomeofhisprefaces,particularlyinthe1958AmericaneditionoftheplayswhereheattemptstoprescribethecriteriabywhichCaligulashouldbejudged(TRN,1730).5InadifferentillustrationofwhatColinDavisseesasCamus’sradicalexclusionofreaderdissent,theauthortheneffectivelydismissesthosewhodonotsharehisparticularmodelofthe‘true’theatre,recommendingthattheysparethemselvesthetroubleofreadingfurther,whilstpointedlywelcomingthosewhoremain.Abandoningtheyouthfulidealofharmonious‘complicity’,Camusfirmlyprioritisesthewishesoftheplaywrightoverthoseoftheaudience,warningthathispreferenceisfortheclassicaltraditionandGreektragedy,whichdealswithhumandestiny.Althoughpsychology,ingeniousanecdotesorpiquantsituationsmightamusehimasaspectator,theyleavehim,hesays,indifferentasanauthor(TRN,1733–4).Insomeways,thesewordsmightbeseenasanattempttodeflectcriticismawayfromtheplaysthemselvesbyrelocatingtheprobleminthemindsofthosewhodonotappreciatetheclassicaltheatre.Inhis1955Athenslectureon‘L’Avenirdelatragedie’(‘TheFutureof´Tragedy’)CamusseesthepsychologicalasunderminingthetragicgenreandidentifiesEuripidesastheplaywrightresponsibleforthedeclineofGreektragedythroughhisconcentrationonindividualpsychology(TRN,1707;SEN,198).Camusclaimsinhislecturethatthematerialconditionsfortherebirthoftragedyarefavourable,beginningwiththereformsofCopeau,whoreturnedpowerintothehandsofplaywrights(TRN,1703;SEN,194).671CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nchristinemargerrisonCamussuggeststhatthetwogreatperiodsoftragedyinWesternhistory,ancientGreeceandeighteenth-centuryEurope,eachmarkedatransitionfromformsofreligiousthinkingtoindividualismandrationalism,reflectedinthemovementfromthesacredtopsychologicaltragedy.ClaimingthattragedyisbornintheWesteachtimecivilisationishalfwaybetweenasoci-etyregulatedbyreligiousbeliefandonebuiltaroundman,hesuggeststhisstagehasbeenreachedincontemporarysociety,whereman’sfaithinthepowerofreasonischallengedbytherecognitionthathehaslimits.Theideaofthe‘limit’or‘balance’recursinL’Hommerevolt´e´andiscentralinhisAthenslecturetohisdefinitionoftragedywhere‘lesforcesquis’affrontentdanslatragediesont´egalementl´egitimes,´egalementarm´eesenraison’(´TRN,1705)(‘theforcesconfrontingeachotherintragedyareequallylegitimate,equallyjustified’(SEN,196)).Hesuggestsanequaltensionbetweenthedivineorderandman’srebellionagainstthatorder,illustratingthisbyrefer-encetoAeschylus’PrometheusBound;Prometheusisbothjustandunjust,buthisoppressor,Zeus,alsohasrightonhisside.Inmelodrama,bycontrast,onlyonesideisjustifiable.Thus,forCamustheconstantthemeoftragedyisofabalancewhichmustbemaintainedandalimitwhichmustnotbetransgressed;thosewho,throughblindnessorpassion,destroythisbalanceareheadingfordisaster.Consideringtheeventsofthefirsthalfofthetwentiethcentury,Camus’sconvictionthatheandhiscontemporarieslivedinatragicagewasentirelyunderstandable,buthisattemptstoestablishaspecificparallelbetweenthisandearlierperiodsoftragedyareproblematical.Camus’sperhapsanxiousmethodislesstopersuadeorexplainthantoinstilagreementthroughaseriesofassertions(amethodadopted,attimes,inhisplays).ThecommentthatwithRacinethetragicmovementconcludesintheperfectionofcham-bermusic(TRN,1708;SEN,200)mayimpress,butcarriesnoexplanatorypowerunlessthelistenerisfamiliarwithitssource.7AlthoughproblemsarisingfromCamus’sattractiontovague,overarchingtheoriesofsocialchange(orstasis)aremorepertinenttodiscussionsofL’Hommerevolt´e´,thisapproachalsoseemstocharacterisehistheatricalaims,wherehepri-oritisestheabstract‘rule’ordefinitionovertheparticular,speaksof‘forces’tothedetrimentofdialogueorviewpointandprefersabstractiontospeci-ficity.DespitehislifelongemotionalandideologicalattachmenttoanidealofGreece,itisunclearwhetherCamuswasasfamiliarwithGreektragedyashisreferencestothesubjectmightleadsometobelieve.8ThosefamiliarwithNietzsche’sTheBirthofTragedy(whichCamushadreadby1932)willdetectclearechoesofthisworkinCamus’slecture,andthestrongcontinu-ityinhisthinkingaboutthetheatrestemspartly,inmyview,fromhisalle-giancetoNietzsche:hisrejectionofpsychology,whichheredefinedin193772CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nCamusandthetheatreas‘action’ratherthanintrospection(Ci,48),coincideswiththebeginningsofhiswritingcareer;andhismodificationstoCaligulaandLeMalentenduareattributabletohisredefinitionoftragedyasabalancebetweenequallylegitimateforcesin1943(Cii,103).NietzscheidentifiesWagnerasthesourceforarebirthoftragedyintheWest;CamuslookstotheworkofcontemporaryFrenchplaywrights,andassociatedhimselfwiththisenterprise,claimingatdifferenttimesthatallhisplayswereattemptstocreatemoderntragedy(TRN,1715,1730).Asinhis1958preface,sucharethecriteriabywhichhesoughttobejudged.Yet,evenintermsoftheequilibriumhesoughttoestablishbetweenequallylegitimateforcesinconfrontation,hisplaysarguablyfailtodelivertragicgreatness:inCaligulaallthemajorcharactershavesympathyandadmirationfortheEmperor,whosemainopponents,thepatricians,arecowardlyandself-serving;inLeMalentenduallthreemainprotagonistsoverstepthelimit,andCamus’sadjustmentstotheroleofMariafailtoprovideanequalbalancebetweenopposingviews.Thewriter’sattentionto‘forces’inhisAthensspeechcannotdisguisethenaivetyofhisunderstandingofsocialforcesandstructures,asisillustratedbyhistreatmentofdestiny,whichisreducedontheleveloftheeverydaytothefigureoftheoldservantwhounaccountablydistractsMarthaandhermotherfromdiscoveringJan’sidentity.ThishardlyreplicatesthenotoriousficklenessoftheGreekgods.OnthemetaphysicallevelthisforceisreplacedbytheAbsurd.ButfortheaudiencesofAeschylustheworkingsofthedivineorderwereafamiliarandlivedrealityanditis,Ithink,highlyquestionablewhetheranabstractandunexplainedtheory,whosetransfertothestagerobsitofmeaning,canadequatelysubstituteforthisfundamentalstructureofGreeksociety.DespiteCamus’sdismissalofmelodramaasasimplisticoppositionbetweenajustandanunjustforce,thisdefinitionseemsinfacttobeappli-cabletohisownplays,particularlyL’Etatdesiege`,wheregoodandevilareopposed:LaPeste’sslaughterofthetownspeopleisunambiguouslyevil,whileDiego’srebellionagainstthiscanonlybeapproved.Similarly,theide-alsoftheRussiananarchistsofLesJustesareadmirableandthedilemmaislesswhetherviolenceisjustifiedintheattempttocreateafairsocietythanwhetheritispermissibletomurderchildrenintheprocess.Kaliayev’srefusaltodosoisuncontroversialandthenihilisticStepan,soblindedbyhisemotionsthathedreamsofdestroyingallofMoscow,islessaworthyopponentthanacaricature.Camus’slasttwoplaysplacegreateremphasisonthepersonaldimensionandsomemightarguethatamoreequalten-sionbetweenthepersonalandthepoliticalviewpointsisestablished,yetelementsofcaricaturepersist.DiegoandVictoriainL’Etatdesiege`areone-dimensionalcharacterswhoseroleisclearlytoillustratetheplaywright’s73CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nchristinemargerrisondevelopingphilosophyoflimits.ButDiego’slovehasethicallimits,whereasVictoriaappearstohavenone,insistingheshouldputtheirlovebeforeallheavenandearth(TRN,297),andshewouldwillinglysacrificetheentiretowninexchangeforhislife.MarginalfigureselsewhereinCamus’swork,womenoccupyamorecentralroleinthetheatre,wheretheymustnec-essarilyspeak.ThesimplisticassumptionarisingfromthisthatCamus’stheatricalwomenvoiceapowerfulcritiqueofmasculinityismistaken,inmyview,andonlysustainableinisolationfromaconsiderationofCamus’sthoughtasawhole.Victoria’sclaimsillustratethathersisfarfromanequallylegitimateopposingviewpoint.Withouttiesofaffectiontofriends,childrenorfamily,withoutallegiancetoanysocialinstitution,thissolitarywomanrepresentsprivatelifewithavengeance.ThereisnosocialsolidarityinthispersonalsphereandKaliayevandDiego,eachconcernedwithethicalconsid-erations,mustwithdrawfromtheall-consumingloveofthecoupleinfavourofcollectivepoliticalaction.Anextremeversionofotherfemalecharacters,VictoriasharesthecontemptofMaria,ortheGrand-DuchessofLesJustes,formen’srefusaltoplacelovebeforedutyandhonour.AlthoughthelackofpsychologicaldepthinLesJustesseemsanimpediment,consideringtheplay’streatmentofemotionalextremes(loveandhatred),theportrayalofDoraislesscrudeinthesensethatshestrugglesbetweenhercommitmenttothecauseandherloveforKaliayev.Buthisdeathresolvesthisconflictwithherdecisiontorejoinhimbyvolunteeringtodiethrowingthenextbomb.Placingheremotionsbeforejustice,shecomestoresembleStepan–ashehelpfullypointsout.Indeed,despitesomeinternalevidenceintheplay,theverylackofpsychologicaldepthmakesitunlikelythattheaudiencewouldarriveindependentlyatthisconclusionwithoutStepan’scomment.Follow-ingCamus’sdefinitionoftragedy,Dora,likeVictoriaorStepanandunlikeKaliayev,isdrivenbypassiontotransgressthelimit(TRN,1705;SEN,196).Butthisdoesnotmakehertragic.Onecritic,DavidBradby,whodoesnothesitatetoapplytheterm‘melodrama’toallCamus’stheatre,observesthattragiccharactersmustbetornapartbytheircontradictions,but(likeDora)Kaliayevalsoresolvestheseinhis‘limitedrevolt’,dyingnotasatragicfigurebutasanexemplaryrebel.9AsinthecaseofDora’stransformation,internalcontradictionsrequirepsychologicaldepthratherthanexternal‘direction’.Itisdifficult,however,tofeelemotionalinvolvementwithsomeofCamus’scharacters,whoseemlittlemorethanmouthpiecesforabstractideas.ForthesakeofcredibilitytheextraordinaryeventsofLeMalentendudemandafocusoncharacterandmotive,yettheaudienceisaskedtobesatisfiedwithametaphysi-calinterpretationofasituationwhichis,fromtheoutset,barelyaccept-ableinhumanterms.Camus’scommentsonEuripidesshowheassigned74CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nCamusandthetheatre‘psychology’apivotalroleinthedeclineoftragedy,althoughthiscritiquecouldbereadasmaskinghisowninabilitytocreateanindividualfromtheinside.Hisapproachtothetheatreoverlapswitheverydaylifewhen,inanechoofhis1958prefacetotheplays,hesaysinhisprefacetoL’Enversetl’Endroitthathehaslearnedlessaboutothersthanabouthimselfbecause‘macuriositevaplus´aleurdestinqu’`aleursr`eactionsetquelesdestinsse´rep´etentbeaucoup.J’aiapprisdumoinsqu’ilsexistaient’(`Ess,10)(‘Iaminterestedmoreintheirdestinythanintheirreactions,anddestiniesbarelydifferonefromanother.Ihaveatleastlearntthatotherpeopledoexist’(SEN,23)).ItistemptingtothinkthatCamuswasmakingavirtueofneces-sitywithhisemphasisontheuniversalasopposedtotheparticular,onformovercontent,onthe‘emptystare’ratherthanhumancomplexity,seekingrefugeinuniversalrulesratherthanfacethechallengeoftheOther.Yet,thisrecoursedoesnotabsolvetheplaywrightoftheneedtocreateinter-nalcoherenceinhisstagecharacters,ortoendowthemwithrecognisablyhumanqualities.Theproblemhereliesnotinthepresenceorabsenceofa‘psychological’dimension,butintheatrophyoftheOther.Inmyview,Camusdeclinesadialoguewithhisaudience,denyingthemsufficientinformationtoparticipateactivelyintheinterpretativeprocess.ThisstandsinsharpcontrasttothetragediesofAeschylus,whereweunder-standthemotivesofcharactersandempathisewiththeirplight;aboveall,theyhavepersonalitiesandhistorieswhichlendtheirbehaviourinternalcoherence.TheOresteiaisnotdevoidofahumandimensionand,howeverelevateditsprotagonists,theyinviteourinvolvement.Withindefinedparam-eters,Aeschylusengageshisaudienceactivelyintheinterpretativeprocess,encouragingindependentjudgementanddebateratherthantherequirementpassivelytoaccept.Theunpredictableexternalworldofothersseemstohavebeenthreat-eningtoCamus,andonecannotdoubthisvulnerability,expressedinhisincreasinglydefensivereactionstocriticismsofhiswork.Camus’stendencytocompartmentalisehislifeandotherpeople,reflectedinthedivisionofhisworkintogenres(fiction,playsandessays),appearstohavebeennecessarytohiswritingpractice.Ineacharea,onlyhehascompleteknowledgeandtheillusion,atleast,ofcontrol.Inchoosingtowriteplays,hesethimself,Ithink,thegreatestchallenge,notbecauseofhisproclaimedaimsbutforthemorepracticalreasonthatthisentailsbringingotherpeopletolifeandbeingabletoputoneselfintheplaceoftheOther.NotthatCamuswasunabletocreatefascinatingcharacters;thatofMeursaulthasfuelleddebateaboutL’EtrangersinceitspublicationandthedramaticmonologuedeliveredinLaChuteoffersacomplexpsychologicalportrait.Likewise,interestinCaligulasustainstheplaybut,asIhavenoted,theyoungplaywrightpassionately75CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nchristinemargerrisonidentifiedwithCaligulainhiseverydaylife;equally,forJeanGrenier,Camus’sformerteacher,mentor,andlifelongfriend,CamuslikewisesawhimselfasthesolitaryanddominatingDonJuanhedreamedofputtingonstage.10JustasRieuxandTarrouvoiceaspectsoftheauthor’sthoughts,ChereaalsoexpressesCamus’sopinionsasarticulatedinLettresaunami`allemand.Thus,themaincharactersoftheplaysengageinthe‘dialogues’ofauniversewhereallmen(ifnotallwomen)arecastintheimageoftheirCreator.ItisperhapsnotsurprisingthatCamusdefendedhistwoleastsuccessfulplaysintermsoftheir‘resemblance’tohim,anexpressionthatpointsupthecoincidencebetweenhislifeandtheatricalinvolvements.11TheentireuniversewasavasttheatreforCamus,wroteRogerQuilliot,hiseditor(TRN,1689),whileforGrenierCamussawthemanofthetheatreasasecondgod.12In1959Camussaidthatinsolitude‘l’artisteregne,maissurlevide’`(‘theartistreigns,butoveravacuum’),whereasinthetheatrehedependsonotherstoachievehisaims(TRN,1723).Ironically,asin‘LaMortdansl’ame’,wherethespeakerfillshisworldwith‘formessemblablesˆamoi’(`Ess,38)(‘formsinmyownlikeness’(SEN,54)),hefilledhistheatricaluniversewitheitherimagesinhisownlikeness,orthe‘emptystare’ofbodiesonastagethatwasnotmerelyameansofpeoplingthatvacuum,butofcreating,directingandcontrollingamicrocosmicuniverse.Paradoxically,itisaworkthatescapestheself-imposedrulesofCamus’stheatre,namelytheprosefiction,LaChute,thatprovidesuswiththewriter’sgreatestdramaticmonologue.There,Clamence,theself-proclaimedactor,mightbespeakingforCamushimselfwhenhesaysthatthesportsstadium,orthetheatre‘quej’aiaimeavecunepassionsans´egale,sontlesseulsendroits´dumondeoujemesenteinnocent’(`TRN,1520)(‘whichIlovedwithanunparalleleddevotion,aretheonlyplacesintheworldwhereIfeelinnocent’(F,65)).Here,thespaceofinnocenceisthatplacewheretruthandfalsitymerge,orwheretheartificeoftheSelf,openlyacceptedassuch,acquiresauthenticity.AlthoughCamuscertainlydidnotidentifywithClamence,nev-erthelessaparallelmightbedrawnbetweenthelatter’sworldandCamus’stheatricaluniverse:Jenepouvaisdoncvivre...qu’alaconditionque,surtoutelaterre,tousles`etres,ouleplusgrandnombrepossible,fussenttournˆesversmoi,´eternellement´vacants,privesdevieind´ependante,pr´etsˆar`epondre´amonappel`an’importe`quelmoment,vouesenfin´alast`erilit´e,jusqu’aujouro´ujedaigneraisles`favoriserdemalumiere.Ensomme,pourquejeviveheureux,ilfallaitque`lesetresquej’ˆelisaisnev´ecussentpoint.Ilsnedevaientrecevoirleurvie,de´loinenloin,quedemonbonplaisir.(TRN,1510)76CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nCamusandthetheatreIcouldlive...onlyonconditionthatalltheindividualsonearth,orthegreatestpossiblenumber,wereturnedtowardsme,eternallyvacant,deprivedofindependentlife,readytorespondtomycallatanymoment,doomedinshorttosterilityuntilthedayIshoulddeigntofavourthemwithmylight.Inshort,formetolivehappilyitwasessentialfortheindividualsIchosenottoliveatall.Theymustreceivetheirlife,sporadically,onlyatmybidding.(F,51,translationamended)LikeClamence’sInterlocutor,thetheatreaudienceisasintegraltotheper-formanceastheactorsthemselves–exceptthattheInterlocutorandaudi-encefollownoscript.AsClamencediscoverswhenhiscircleofadmirersbecomesatribunal(TRN,1515;F,58),otherscontainthethreateningcapac-ityforjudgement.However,astheabovequotationsuggests,thealternativeisto‘reign’overanemptyandsterileworld.Caligula,the‘pedagogue’,hasalreadyrealisedthis.Hekillshissubjectsinordertoteachthemthemeaningoflife–andbecausehehasthepowertodoso.Yet,Camussug-gests,Caligula’serrorliesinhisdenialofothers:‘Onnepeuttoutdetruire´sanssedetruiresoi-m´eme’(ˆTRN,1729)(‘Onecannotdestroyeverythingwithoutdestroyingoneself’).Fewofushavesuchpower–orinclination–but(alongwiththethemeofjudgement)thisthemerecursinCamus’swork.Asoneofthoserarespaceswheresuchtemptationsmightbeplayedout,perhapstheunlimitedpowerofferedbythetheatreexplainswhatdrewCamustoanarenawheretheworld,andothers,mightberecreatedandperfectedaccordingtotheartist’s‘plan’.UnfortunatelyforCamus,perhaps,thefinaljudgementonwhetherhesucceededinthisaspirationlieswithhisaudience.NOTES1.RaymondGay-Crosier,LesEnversd’unechec:´etudesurleth´e´atred’AlbertˆCamus(Paris,Minard,1967);IlonaCoombs,Camus,hommedethe´atreˆ(Paris,Nizet,1968);E.Freeman,TheTheatreofAlbertCamus:ACriticalStudy(Lon-don,Methuen,1971);VirginieLupo,LeThe´atredeCamus:unthˆe´atreclassique?ˆ(Villeneuve-d’Ascq,PressesUniversitairesduSeptentrion,2000).2.LeFigaro,15–16October,1944,citedinEnglishbyJohnCruickshankinAlbertCamusandtheLiteratureofRevolt(NewYork,OxfordUniversityPress,1960),p.202.3.Seemy‘StrugglingwiththeOther:GenderandRaceintheYouthfulWritingsofCamus’,inJamesGiles(ed.),FrenchExistentialism:Consciousness,EthicsandRelationswithOthers(Amsterdam,Rodopi,1999),pp.191–211.MorepertinenttothepresentdiscussionisColinDavis’streatmentof‘ViolenceandEthics’inthisvolume(seechapter8).4.Coombs,Camus,hommedethe´atreˆ,p.80.77CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nchristinemargerrison5.SeeFernandeBartfeld,‘LeThe´atredeCamus,lieud’uneˆecriturecontrari´ee’,in´J.Levi-Valensi(ed.),´AlbertCamusetlethe´atreˆ(Paris,IMEC,1992),p.182.6.ThedirectorJacquesCopeau(1878–1949)wasanearlysourceofinspirationforCamus,who,whensettinguptheThe´atredel’Equipe,sawCopeau’sinfluenceˆasprovidingadominanttheme(TRN,1713).ForCopeau,thetextitselfwasparamount,takingprecedenceoverstagingandactors.Healsostressedtheactiveparticipationofaudiencesintheperformance.7.OnepossiblesourceisOswaldSpengler,TheDeclineoftheWest,2vols.(London,AllenandUnwin,1971),whocharacteriseschambermusicasthesummitofWesternart(vol.i,p.231).Spengler’s‘morphology’ofhistoryunderliesmuchofCamus’sthinking,ashere.8.ForaninvestigationofthissubjectandCamus’suseofsecondarysources,seePaulArchambault,Camus’HellenicSources(ChapelHill,UniversityofNorthCarolinaPress,1972).9.DavidBradby,ModernFrenchDrama1940–1990(Cambridge,CambridgeUniversityPress,1991),p.50.10.JeanGrenier,AlbertCamus:Souvenirs(Paris,Gallimard,1968),p.118.11.CamusnotonlyclaimedthatL’Etatdesiege`wastheplaythat‘resembled’himthemost(Ess,1732),healsosaidthisaboutLeMalentendu.SeeOlivierTodd,AlbertCamus,unevie(Paris,Gallimard,1996),p.476.12.Grenier,Souvenirs,p.118.78CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\n6JEANYVESGUERINCamusthejournalistFromanearlyageCamushadwantedtowriteyetitwasnotbychoicethathebecameajournalist.Histuberculosismeantthathecouldnotbeateacherandsohehadtofindsomeotherpathway.Hedoesnotappeartohavecon-sideredusinghisexperienceasanactorandproducertoturnprofessional.Hewasbyturnseditorialsecretary,reporter,leaderwriterandeditor-in-chief.Camusdidnotliketoclaimtobean‘intellectual’ora‘philosopher’.Hecalledhimselfan‘artist’,a‘witness’,occasionallya‘professionaljournal-ist’.Heonceadmittedthathefeltthatjournalismwas‘unedesplusbellesprofessionsquejeconnaisse’(Ess,1565)(‘oneofthefinestprofessionsthatIcanthinkof’).HisfriendJeanDanieladdedthatforCamus,journalismwasnotanexilebutakingdom,somethinginwhichhefeltathome.1YetitwasCamus’sliterarysuccessesthatweretopreservetherecordofhisjournalisticachievements.IfhehadnotwrittenL’Etranger,LaPesteandCaligula,thenActuelleswouldcertainlynotexistasabook.Who,apartfromtheoddhis-torian,wouldeverhaveheardofanobscurereporterforAlgerrepublicain´?TheleaderwriterforCombatwouldhavebeenaboutaswellknownasfel-lowjournalistsonthepapersuchasMarcelGimontandGeorgesAltschuler.L’Expresswouldnothavetriedtosignhimup.Algerrepublicain´Algerrepublicain´waswhereCamuscuthisteeth.From6October1938to28October1939,thiswasthenameofalittlenewspaperwhichwasthemouthpiecefortheidealsofthePopularFront,whichhadcometopowerinFrancein1936.Thepaper’sgestationhadbeenalongoneanditslaunchactuallycoincidedwiththesigningoftheMunichAgreement.ButwhereasbytheninFrancethePopularFrontwasinitsdeaththroes,itappearsthatinAlgierstheyremainedunawareofthis.Thousandsofsmallshareholdershadtobefoundasownersofthepaper.EssentiallytheseshareholderscamefromtheEuropeanmiddleclasses.Amongstthemwereteachersofallkinds,79CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\njeanyvesguerinbusinessmenandgovernmentworkerswhoweremembersofunions.Theyincludedsocialists,democrats,republicansandseculargroups.WhatunitedthemwastheiroppositiontothefascismofHitler,MussoliniandFranco.Itwasacampaigningnewspaperbutwithnodeclaredpoliticalaffiliation.Fromtheoutsetitwasshortofmoneyandremainedsotoitsdyingday:itscirculationfellrapidlyfrom20,000to7,000copies.Fewofitswriterswereprofessionals;mostwerebeginnersbut,likeCamus,theysoonlearnedthejob.Algerrepublicain´hadnoconsistenteditorialline:itsintentionwastoappearrepublicaninanecumenicalway.Intheautumnof1939,thepaperproducedasanoffshoot,aneveningpublication,LeSoirrepublicain´.ThejournalistPascalPia,aformerSurrealistandanti-conformistwhowasclosetoMalraux,likedCamus’swritingandmadehimitseditor-in-chief.Inthisrole,Camuscarriedonaguerrillawaragainstcensorship,usingtacticsnotunlikethoseoftheFrenchsatiricalweeklyLeCanardenchaınˆe´,whichsinceitsfoundationin1916hadworkedtocombatofficialpropaganda.InJanuary1940,LeSoirrepublicain´wasbanned(LeCanarditselfceasedtobepublishedbetween1940and1944).ForCamus,theadventurewasover.TheshareholdersthoughtitwasallhisfaultandhehadtoleaveAlgeria,hishomeland.Atotalof150articlesareattributedtoCamus.Some,forLeSoirrepublicain´,werewrittenundervariouspseudonyms(Alius,Demos,Ir´en´ee,´Marco,JeanMersault,VincentCapable,Zaksetc.).Atthetime,CamuswasanactorandproducerforatheatregroupthatwasaffiliatedtotheCom-munistparty.Algerrepublicain´servedashisschoolofjournalism.Atfirsthewasjustarewriterofnewsdespatches,astringer.Itwas‘disappoint-ing’,hewrotetohisteacher,JeanGrenierin1938,nothingbut‘leschiensecras´esetdureportage’(´Corr,33)(‘storiesaboutdogsbeingrunoverandbitsofreporting’)buthelikedthefactthatitlefthimtimeforhiswriting.Camuswasareporter,attimesevenagreatreporter,andcertainlyamanwhoworkedinthefield.HewasaliterarycritictooandamongstthenovelsandessaysreviewedinhisliterarycolumnwemaynoteSartre’sLaNausee´(Nausea)andLeMur(TheWall),Nizan’sLaConspiration(TheConspiracy),Montherlant’sL’Equinoxedeseptembre(SeptemberEquinox)andBernanos’sScandaledelaverit´e´(ScandalofTruth).Heonlywroteaboutthebooksandauthorsthatheliked.Camus’sworkwasprimarilythatofinvestigatingandreportingfacts.Heactedasacourtreporter,andusedsuchoccasionstotakethelidoffthings.Healwaysmadetheeventhisstartingpoint,evenifitwasjustsomeminornewsitem,beforetryingtoexplainitssocialandpoliticalimplica-tions.Forexample,hewroteseveralreportsaboutagasexplosionina80CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nCamusthejournalistworking-classdistrictbeforeaccusingtheMayorofAlgiersofnotcaringaboutthemisfortunesofhisfellowcitizens.‘Unmairedignedecenomnes’enerveninesef´ache.Ils’intˆeresseausortdesesadministr´es,leurfaitdis-´tinguerlesvraisresponsables,neleurenveutpasdesetrouverdesorient´es´parlebrusquemalheurquilesfrappe’(FC,202)(‘Amayorworthyofthenamewouldnotgetangryorupset:hewouldtakeaninterestinwhathap-penedtothepeoplewhoelectedhim.Hewouldshowthemwhowasreallyresponsibleandwouldnotresentthefactthatpeoplearedisturbedbythesuddenmisfortunethathasbefallenthem’).AttimesitwasasamoralistratherthanasacitizenthatCamuswroteeditorialsaboutwhathehadwitnessed.Asacampaigningjournalist,CamuseschewedthelyricalprosewhichwassimultaneouslytheverystuffofNoces.Admittedlythesubjectdidnotlenditselftosuchtreatment,notwhenhehadtotalkaboutthetowncouncil’sbudgetorreportontheagriculturecommittee.Occasionally,hewouldgoinformockeryorpolemics;hehadhisbetesnoiresˆ,suchasthe‘unfortunate’MayorofAlgiers,AlgerianworthiesandthethenFrenchPresident,EdouardDaladier.Whenthemayorcameintoconflictwithmunicipalemployees,Camuswrotelengthyjustificationsoftheirclaims.HewasquitescathingaboutDaladier,whohadwontherighttogovernbydecree.ThesacrificesthePresidenthadcalledforalienatedtheunionsandthecivilservants.Butdidthisreallymakehimapathfinderforfascism,asCamusasserted,orthemanwhodugthegravefortheFrontPopulairegovernment?ThefirstofaseriesofarticlesonDaladierprovidesfactsandfigures.2ThesecondcallsDaladieradictator’sapprentice.3Thethird,moreinterestingly,isa‘dialogue’inwhichCamusimagineswhatthePresident,whoiscunning,sureofhimselfandpaternalistic,andahumbleemployeemighthavetosaytoeachother.Theinterviewisbrokenoffwhen,havingrunoutofarguments,thePresidentcallsintheguards.4AswellasDaladier,towhomhistorianswouldconsiderCamushadbeenunfair,itwasprofessionalpoliticiansthattheyoungjournalisttargeted.Camusfollowedthepro-Dreyfustradition,takingapassionateinterestinanumberofcauses.HedevotedelevenarticlestothetrialofMichelHodent,anoverscrupulousemployee,thevictimofaplotbypowerfulcolonialinter-ests.HethentookupthecaseofSheikhOkbi(aMuslimdignitaryaccusedofhavinginstigatedthemurderofahigh-rankingreligiousofficial),andsub-sequentlythatofanumberoflocalsaccusedofsettingfiretoshacks.Inallthreecases,Camuswasattackinganadministrationprimarilyinthralltoimportantcolonialinterests.Hehadnohesitationaboutsaying‘I...’andwasdiscoveringthepowerofhispen:thankstohim,bothMichelHodentandthesheikhwereacquitted.81CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\njeanyvesguerinIn1958,whenCamuscollectedtogetherhisjournalisticwritingonAlgeriainActuellesiii:ChroniquesAlgeriennes(1939–1958)´,ofthosearticleswrit-tenbefore1940,hekeptonlysevenoftheelevenwhichgotomakeuptheseriesentitledMiseredelaKabylie`.Thesesupporttheviewthathedidnotwaitfortheoutbreakofwarbeforetakinganinterestinthelandofhisbirth.Inthesearticles,heisnottryingtowriteapolemical,anti-colonialpoliticalpamphlet.Neitherthetime,northeplacenorthesupportingmateriallendsitselftosuchanapproach.LikeAndreGidewhen,inadifferentgenre,he´wroteVoyageauCongo(VoyagetotheCongo)(1927),Camusispresentinganeyewitnessreport,thingsthathehasseenandrefusestopresentwithsomekindofexoticgloss.5Moreover,theverb‘see’recursconstantly(FC,280,285,286,287,289,etc.).Camusrecords:‘J’aivuaTiziOuzoudesenfants`enloquesdisputeradeschienskabyleslecontenud’unepoubelle’(`FC,286)(‘InTiziOuzouIsawchildreninragsfightingwithKabyledogsoverthecontentsofarubbishbin’).Thereporterconfessesthathefeels‘conscience-stricken’(‘jemesentaisunemauvaiseconscience’)(FC,280).‘Riennevautleschiffres,lesfaitsetl’evidencedescris’(´FC,281)(‘Nothinghasgreaterimpactthanthefactsandfiguresandthecriesofsuffering’).50%aumoinsdelapopulationsenourritd’herbesetderacines.(FC,285)(Atleastfiftypercentofthepopulationarelivingongrassandroots.)Al’ecoled’Azerou-Kollal,sur´110el´eves,onencompte`35quinefontqu’unseulrepasparjour.AMaillot,onestimea`4/5edelapopulationlenombredesindigents.(FC,290)(AttheschoolinAzerou-Kollal,35ofthe110pupilshaveonlyonemealaday.Itisestimatedthatfour-fifthsofthepopulationofMaillotisdestitute.)TiziOuzouaunmedecincommunalpour´45000habitants.(FC,305)(TiziOuzouhasonelocaldoctorfor45,000inhabitants.)Camusprovidesawealthofstatisticstodemonstratetheoverpopulation,themassunemploymentandthederisorywages;inshort,whatheseesasaslaveeconomy(FC,295).Theconclusionthatemergesisthat‘lamisere`[decepays]esteffroyable’(FC,333)(‘thewretchednessofthiscountryisfrightening’).Anentirepopulationisbeinghumiliated.Thefactthattheroadnetworkisinabadstate,thattheschools,forwhichthepeopleareclam-ouring,andthedispensariesaresofewandfarbetween,thatthereisawatershortage,allthisisthefault,notoftheinhabitants,butofthecolonialgovernment.Kabyliahasbeenlefttorot.Afewactsofcharityarenosubstituteforaconstructivesocialpolicy(FC,291).Inhisconclusion,82CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nCamusthejournalistAlgerrepublicain´’sreporterclaimsthatitisnotanindictmentthathehaswritten.Heisaskingthepoliticianstoaccepttheirresponsibilitiesforonce.Hemakesafewsuggestionshimselfforimmediatemeasurestobetaken.Camus’sinvestigationwastohaveanimpactfarbeyondtheusualreader-shipofAlgerrepublicain´.Significantly,itimmediatelyprovokedareassuringcounter-reportinthepoliticallyconservativeLaDep´echealgˆerienne´.Ithasbeensaidthat,whengivenresponsibilityforLeSoirrepublicain´,Camusgaveitalibertarianpolicyandoutlook.Inhisview,itwasnotonlyNaziGermanythatwasresponsibleforthewar;neighbouringcountrieshadtotakeashareoftheresponsibilitybecauseoftheirself-interest.Inthelongterm,theirsovereigntyhadtobereduced.Thestateofwarmeantthatonlythegovernmentswereheard,whereasthepeoplethemselvesweresimplydragoonedintoserviceandrequiredtobecomemerepawnsinthegameofinternationalpolitics.Atthesametimeasattemptingtoconceiveinternationalrelationsinaverynewway,Camusoptedforastrategyofharassmentandprovocation.Thestateofwarhadeffectivelyreintroducedcensorship.Nowitwaslesseasythaneverto‘mainteniruneopinionlibre’(FC,718)(‘upholdfreedomofthought’),to‘servirlaverit´e’(´FC,717)(‘servethecauseoftruth’),topreserve‘lesdroitsdelafroideraison’(FC,50)(‘therightsofthecoldlightofreason’):now‘lebourragedecrane’(ˆFC,717)(‘brainwashing’)wastheorderoftheday.Camuswroteunderavarietyofpseudonyms,reprintingnumerousextractsfromnewspapers,historicaldocumentsandbothclas-sicsandmoderntexts(forexamplethearticle‘War’fromtheDictionnairephilosophique,whichwaspartlycensored)inacolumnheaded:‘Awartimeviewof...’Theaimwastomakereadersthink,tochallenge,topointoutthediscourseandthetruthaboutwar.Theinevitablehappened:thegeneralgovernmentsuspendedthepublicationofthenewspaper.InalettertohismentorJeanGrenier,CamusconfessedtowhattheSoirrepublicain´shareholdershadaccusedhimof,namelyofhavingcarriedonapersonalcampaign:‘J’enaidoncfaitunjournalal’usagedecequejecroyais`vrai.C’estadirequej’yaid`efendulalibert´edepensercontrelacensure´etlaguerresanshaine’(Corr,38)(‘SoIdidturnitintothevoiceofwhatIbelievedtobethetruth.Thatis,Iusedittodefendfreedomofthoughtagainstcensorshipandwarwithouthatred’).LeSoirrepublicain´founditdifficulttoreconciletheanti-fascismwhichwasitsraisond’etreˆandthelibertarianpacifismofitsyoungeditor-in-chief.Basically,Camushadtriedtofightwhatheknewallalongwasalosingbattleinsupportofindividualandcollectivefreedoms.6Hewastotakeuparmsinthisbattleagainlaterbutinquitedifferentcircumstances.Inthemeantimehehadlosthisjoband83CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\njeanyvesguerinhadtomovetoFrance,wherePascalPiarecruitedhimas‘secdac’,editorialsecretary,onParis-Soir.Whilehepublishednothingatallinthispaper,hefoundoutwhatamajorpopularnewspaperwaslike.CombatTheLiberationof1944sawthebirthofnumerousperiodicals,withmanywritersturningthemselvesintojournalists.Franc¸oisMauriacconsideredjournalismtobeaperfectformoflitteratureengag´ee´,orsociallycommittedliterature,andCamuswouldcertainlyhaveagreed.Hehadjoinedtheactiveresistancein1943and,attherequestofPascalPia,becameeditor-in-chiefoftheclandestinenewspaperCombat.Whenliberationhappened,henaturallyremainedinpost.Hisrolewassimultaneouslytoruntheeditorialteam,toengageindebateandtobringinnewideas.Healsofulfilledtheroleofprincipaleditorialwriter.Therewas,however,oneexceptiontothis:coin-cidentallyintheweekspriortothebloodyquellingoftheAlgerianuprisinginSetif,hedispatchedhimselfasareportertoAlgeriaandbroughtbacka´seriesofeightarticles.SixweretobereprintedinChroniquesalgeriennes´.Initially,Combathadacirculationof200,000.Withitsyouthful,plu-ralistteam,thepapersawitselfasthevoiceofresistance.Itwasalsotheintellectualpaperoftheperiod1944–7or,toquoterespectivelyGeorgesHeneinandRaymondAron,‘thenewspaperforSaint-Germain-des-Pr´es’´and‘themosthighlyregardedpaperinthecapital’sliteraryandpoliticalmilieux’.7Itsreadershipwasyoung,madeupofteachers,studentsandtradeunionists.Thecollaborationist(i.e.pro-Nazi)presshadleftsupportersoftheResis-tancewithfeelingsofshameanddistaste.Thepressofthe1930sinparticularhadbeennotoriouslycorrupt.FromtheendofAugust1944,DeGaullewasputtingintoeffectlawsgoverningthepress.Atthesametime,withoutactu-allymentioningtheselaws,Camuswastryingtosetacodeofpracticeforareformedpress.Forhim,becausethemissionofthepresswastoservethepublic,thepresshadtobefreedfromfinancialties(Ess,264).‘Vigilance’and‘responsibility’mustbeitswatchwords.An‘unflinchingobjectivity’mustwinoutoverempty‘rhetoric’(Ess,265).Inasecondarticle,Camusdevelopstheideaof‘criticaljournalism’.Hewrites:‘Onveutinformerviteaulieud’informerbien.Laverit´en’ygagne´pas’(Ess,265)(‘Therearesomewhowanttoinformquicklyratherthaninformingproperly.Itisthetruththatsuffers’).Itisbettertobethesecondwithaccurateinformationthanthefirstwithinformationthatturnsouttobewrong.‘Onchercheaplaireplut`otqu’ˆa`eclairer’(‘Peopletrytoplease´ratherthantoenlighten’),sacrificingtruthintheinterestsofsentimentality84CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nCamusthejournalistorscandal.Camuswritesthat‘legoutdelavˆerit´en’emp´echepaslaprisedeˆparti’(Ess,266)(‘atastefortruthdoesnotprecludetakingastance’).Inordernottobepartisan,‘lecommentairepolitiqueetmoraldel’actualite’(‘political´andmoralcommentaryoncurrentevents’)needs‘distance’,‘scruples’;‘uneideedelarelativit´e’(‘anunderstandingofmoralrelativity’)(´ibid.).InhisonlynewsreportpublishedinCombat,‘CriseenAlgerie’(‘CrisisinAlgeria’),he´puttheseprinciplesintoeffectandstudiouslyavoidedechoingtheofficialline,unlikeSartreintheSovietUnionandCuba.8Makingthedistinctionbetweenfactandopinionwas,forCamus,anabso-luterule.Inademocracy,‘lesoucid’objectivite’(‘aconcernforobjectivity’)´preventsany‘partipris’or‘solidaritesyst´ematique’(‘bias’or‘systematic´support’)andlikewiseobviously,itsopposite,systematicopposition.Theimportantthingis,asCamuspresentsit,fidelitytoone’sownprinciplesandtothepromisesonehasmadetooneself.9Inordertospeakthetruthyouhavetospeakclearlyandfairly.Youcanprotestwithoutgivingoffenceandrebukewithoutresortingtoslander.Therewasnoquestionatthatperiodofspeakinginhackneyedphrases.Writingundercoverhadtaughtauthorsandwritersboththe‘weight’andthe‘cost’thatwordscouldhave(Ess,1489).‘Adestempsnouveaux,ilfaut,sinondesmotsnouveaux,dumoinsdesdispositionsnouvellesdemots’(Ess,267)(‘Newtimesneed,ifnotnewwords,atleastusingwordsinnewways’),‘Unlangageclair’(Ess,1524)(‘clearlanguage’),‘unlangagerespectable’(Ess,264)(‘languageworthyofrespect’),‘destermesclairsetirreprochables’(´Ess,1549)(‘clearandirreproachableterminology’).ThisamountstoaleitmotifwhichistypicalofCamus.Elsewhereherefersto‘[l’]effortd’exactitude’(‘thestruggletobeprecise’)and‘larecherchedenuances’(Ess,1489)(‘thesearchfornuance’).Thecriticalfunctionisopposedtotheideologicalfunction.JeanGrenierhadwarnedCamusagainst‘lesdoctrinesabsoluesetinfaillibles’(Ess,282)(‘doctrinesthatwereabsolutistandclaimedtobeinfallible’).Awriterofedi-torialsraisesquestions;hedoesnotbombardhisreaderswithanswers.Hedoesnotprovidethelightoftruth;hejusthelpspeopletoseeclearly.Intheirreviewsofthepress,LeMonde,LeFigaroandFranc-tireurfrequentlyquotehiseditorialsbutnotalwaysinfriendlyterms.Hisclaimstothemoralhighgroundprovokeenvyandirritation.Camusfoundthathehadtospellouttheideathathedidnotconsiderthathehad‘leprivilegedelaclairvoyance`etlasuperiorit´edeceuxquinesetrompentjamais’(‘theprivilegeofbeing´clairvoyantortheadvantageofnevermakinganymistakes’)butwassimplytryingto‘collaborerauneœuvrecommune...parl’exercicep`eriodique´dequelquesreglesdeconscience’(‘collaborateinasharedproject`...byapplying,fromtimetotime,afewmodestrulesdictatedbyconscience’).1085CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\njeanyvesguerinRejectingsensationalism,Camusurgesjournaliststoappealtotheintelli-genceoftheirreadersandnottotheir‘sentimentality’.Thearticlesonjournalisticethicswritteninthesummerof1944hadagreatimpactandseemedutopian.Nevertheless,whatstrikesoneonreread-ingthemisthefactthattheyaresoverygeneral.Itiseasytoseethattheappealtothespiritofcriticismandto‘intellectualhonesty’,scrupulousnessandvigilancewasthebetterreceivedbecauseitfollowedonfromfourlongyearsinwhichthepresshadbeensubjecttoorders.Camuslaiddownafewprinciplesandrequirements.Bynotbeingafraidtousehigh-soundingphrases,hewas,basically,statingthatpoliticsshouldbeboundbyethics.WhethersignedCamus,AlbertOllivierorsimplyanonymous,theCombateditorials,atleastinitially,weretheresultofcollectivediscussion.From1945onwards,theeditorialsfollowandsometimescontradicteachother.WheretheeditorialteamofCombathadbeenofonemindin1944,itsubsequentlybecamepluralist.PascalPiaallowedCamustoexpressoneopinionand,thenextday,AlbertOllivierorRaymondArontoarguetheopposite.Partoftheeditorialteam,includingCamus,MarcelGimontandGeorgesAltschuler,continuedtoexpresssocialistideas,whilstitisobviousthatanother,includ-ingPia,OllivierandAron,waslookingmoreandmoretowardsDeGaulle.Whilstrivaldailieswerechurningoutreassuringcertainties,Combat’swaver-ingunsettleditsreaders.In1950,Camusbroughttogetheracarefullychosenselectionofhisedi-torialsinabookwhichhecalledActuellesi.‘Cevolume’,hewrote,‘resume´l’experienced’un´ecrivainm´elˆependantquatreans´alaviepolitiquedeson`pays...Lespagesquisuiventdisentsimplementque,silalutteestdifficile,lesraisonsdelutter,ellesdumoins,restentclaires’(Ess,251–2)(‘Thisvolumesumsuptheexperiencesofawriterwho,forfouryears,gotinvolvedinthepoliticallifeofhiscountry...Thepageswhichfollowaresimplymeanttosaythat,whilstthestrugglemaybeadifficultone,atleastthereasonsforstrugglingremainclear’).AtthetimewhenhewaswritingL’Hommerevolt´e´,heoptedtoreproducethosearticleswhichwereclosesttobeingessaysordis-sertationsandexcludedthegreaternumberwhichwerereactionstocurrenteventsandwhichheconsideredtobeephemera.OfCamus’sarticlesforCombat,posterityhasretainedhisdebatewithMauriac.Camusarguesforthepost-Occupationpurgetobedirectedattherulingclasswhichhadbetrayedorfailedthecountry;suchwouldbethepriceofitsrenewal.Mauriac,thoughttobeinclinedtowardsclemency,wasafraidtheremightbeblunders,insistingthatthepurgeshouldbestrictlycircumscribedandthattheruleoflawshouldprevail.Thedis-agreementofthesetwoleadinglightsfromradicallydifferentsocialandculturalbackgroundswasapoliticalone.Thecourseofevents(andGeneral86CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nCamusthejournalistDeGaulle)wentMauriac’sway,andCamusacknowledgedhiselder’svictory.AsaneditorialistatCombat,Camussuccessfullyinfluencedevents:hehelpedpreventaCommunistPartytakeoverofthenationalResistancemovement;on17May1945,heprotestedsuccessfullyagainstdelaysintherepatriationofdeporteesfromDachau(Ess,303–5),reporting‘avecjoieetsatisfaction’(‘withjoyandsatisfaction’)twodayslaterthatAmericanforceshadsuppliedthemeansnecessarytosecurethis.Elsewhere,how-ever,hisinfluencewasmuchless.HedevotedseveraleditorialstoFranco’sSpain,thegreatpoliticalcauseofhisgeneration.11YetFrancowastoremaininpowerforanotherthirtyyears.TheeightarticlespublishedundertheheadingNivictimesnibourreaux(Ess,329–52)inNovember1946meritparticularattention.Thecollectionisareflectiononrevolt,revolutionandviolence(offeringanalternativetoMerleau-Ponty’sexplorationof‘progres-siveviolence’inHumanismeetterreur(HumanismandTerror)of1947),anappealtotakeMarxismoutofFrenchsocialism,atheoreticalconsider-ationoftheprojectforreformandapleaforanewinternationalorder.12Itincludesanexpressionwhichwastobecomefamousbutwhoseauthor-shipisoftenerroneouslyascribedtoRaymondAron:‘lafindesideologies’´(‘theendofideologies’).Any‘absoluteutopias’areanachronistic,uselessanddangerousinarapidlychangingworld(Ess,338).TosuchideasCamusopposesa‘penseepolitiquemodeste,c’est-´a-dired`elivr´eedetoutmessian-´isme,etdebarrass´eedelanostalgieduparadisterrestre’(´Ess,335)(‘amodestpoliticalphilosophy,thatis,onefreeofanymessianicideasoranyhankeringafteraheavenonearth’).Nivictimesnibourreauxmadehisbreakwiththeradicalidealisttendencyofficial.Inmanywaysitisaprophetictextwhichraisesthemajorquestionsofthetwenty-firstcentury.13Pia’sCombathadalifespanoflessthanthreeyears.Camushadplayedanintermittentrole.InJune1947hewithdrewinordertogiveprioritytoliterature:LaPesteappearedatthistimetowidespreadacclaim.Twoplays,L’Etatdesiege`andLesJustes,weretofollowandhewasalsoworkingonL’Hommerevolt´e´.Thushewasrelyingonfictionandessaywritingtomakehisviewsknown.WhereasCamushadstoppedcommentingoncur-rentaffairs,SartrehadapermanentcolumninLesTempsmodernesandRaymondAronandFranc¸oisMauriaceachhadtheirsinLeFigaro.L’ExpressIn1955CamusjoinedthestaffofthethenweeklyandlaterdailyL’Expresswherehiscolumnalternatedwiththatofhisoldadversary,Mauriac.Hewasgivenafreehandandwroteonsuchsubjectsastheconditionoftheworking87CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\njeanyvesguerinclass,anti-ArabracismandMozart’sbicentenary.Fortheonlytimeinhisjournalisticcareer,heendorsedapoliticalparty,supportingPierreMendes`France’snon-Communistleft-wingFrontrepublicainintheelectionsofJan-´uary1956.14Asignificantproportionofhisthirty-fivecolumnsrelatetotheAlgerianWar,whichobsessedandtormentedCamus.Hefeltthat,inFrance,thepress–atermheusedpejoratively–wasdoingitsjobbadly,thatitwasbecomingachannelforprejudice.HeconsideredthathisclosepersonalknowledgeofAlgeriameantthathehadadutytoactasahistorian.HisintentionwastoeducatehismetropolitanFrenchreadersbypatientlyexplaininglittle-knowntruths:first,thesocialandpoliticalfrustrationoftheArabmasses,whohadhadquiteenoughofpromisesthatwereneverkept;thenthebitternessoftheFrenchAlgerians(whomheneverreferstoaspieds-noirs)whowerealwaysassumedtobewealthycolonialists,whereasthevastmajorityofthemwereordinarywage-earnersorsmallbusiness-men.Healsopointedoutthepoliticalresponsibilitiesofthemetropolitandeputiesandgovernmentswho,bygivingwaytothepowerfulcolonialists’representatives,hadreducedtheArabelitetodespair.Asacolumnistandchronicleroftheevents,hewantedtobelievethatitwasnottoolateandthattheworstoutcomecouldbeavoided(CAC6,41).Thisiswhy,oncehearrivedathisdiagnosis,hesuggestedapproachesandputforwardproposals:hewascountingontherepresentativesofthetwocommunitiesinAlgeriatalkingtoeachother(CAC6,87).Inasecondseriesofarticles,herevealedhisplanforaciviltruceaimedatavoidingthesheddingofinnocentbloodandpreventingextremism.YetwhenCamuswenttoAlgeriainJanuary1956,hiscourageousbututopianinitiativefailed.Thegovernmenthaddonenothingtosupportit.InFebruary1956,isolatedandawareofhisinabilitytoinfluenceevents,hewastoleaveL’Express.SeveralofCamus’sL’ExpresscolumnscontinuedtheapproachthathehadtakeninhisCombateditorials,asiftoshowthattheirauthorhadnotchanged.Hiscolumnof11November1955,forexample,discussestheatomicbombandthebalanceofterror.15ItclearlyalludestothecelebratededitorialwhichhadappearedonthedayfollowingtheHiroshimabombinAugust1945butalsototheideaofan‘endtoideologies’.TopayhomagetoGandhi,whoispresentedastheanti-Lenin,isoncemoretoaffirmnon-violence.ThethreecolumnsconcernedwithFranco’sSpainarefurtherproofofCamus’sfaithfulnesstohisownideas.ThethreeperiodsofjournalisticactivitythatIhavebrieflypresentedherearequitevaried.TheyoungformerCommunistworkinginAlgiersinthelate1930splayshispartinamilitantenterprise–takingupcauses,occasionallyengaginginpolemic–andclearlyenjoysdoingso,whilealsodiscoveringhow88CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nCamusthejournalistcomplexthingscanbe.AtCombat,theResistancememberholdsastrategicposition:hehaspowerandinfluenceinpubliclife.Andfinally,atL’Express,thecelebratedauthorlendstheweightofhisprestigetoanewspaperwhereheisbasicallyjustanextra.Camus’sfirstwishwastobeawriter,anartist.Forhim,journalismwasinitiallyawayofearningaliving.Heacquiredatasteforitbutdidnotaccorditanypriority.TheeditorofAlgerrepublicain´continuedtoruntheThe´atredel’EquipeandtoworkonˆCaligula.ItwasbecauseheconsideredthatCombatlefthimtoolittletimetowriteLaPestethathebegantotakehisdistancefromthenewspaperinSeptember1945.AndwhenhecametoleaveL’Express,itwasinordertofinishLaChute.AsforCamus’snovels,theypresentacriticalimageofthepress.Clamence,inLaChute,considersthatreading‘thepapers’shouldbeseenasbeingonthesamelevelasfornication.InL’Etranger,Meursaulttooreads‘thepapers’andfornicates.Beforehistrial,areportercynicallytellsMeursault:‘Voussavez,nousavonsmonteunpeuvotreaffaire.L’´et´e,c’estlasaisoncreusepourles´journaux.Etiln’yavaitquevotrehistoireetcelleduparricidequivaillentquelquechose’(TRN,1185)(‘Youknow,we’veblownyourcaseupabit.Thesummer’sthesillyseasonfornewspapersandtherewasonlyyourstoryandtheoneabouttheblokewhokilledhisfatherthatwereanygoodatall’).Thejournalistsseemfrivolous.Onlyoneappearstopayanyrealattention.‘Etj’aieul’impressionbizarred’etreregardˆeparmoi-m´eme’(ˆTRN,1186)(‘IhadthepeculiarimpressionthatIwasbeingwatchedbymyself’),thefirst-personnarratorsays.Itisclearthattheartisthasportrayedhimselfinthecornerofthepicture.InLaPeste,thereisahighlycritical,nottosaysardonicviewofthepress.‘Thepapers’(andtheexpressionismeanttobederogatoryinthisnovel)changefromfrivolousexploitationofeventstoembarrassedconcealmentofthem.‘Lapresse,sibavardedansl’affairedesrats,neparlaitplusderien’(TRN,1245)(‘Thepress,whichhadhadsomuchtosayabouttheaffairoftherats,nowhadnothingtosayaboutanything’).Theepidemicaffectingthepopulationisreferredtoallusively.Thepapers(whichsignificantlyneitherTarrounorRieuxreads)prevaricate,refusetonametheplagueandtrotoutthecommuniquesissuedbythe´prefecture´.ThenarratorofLaPesteintendshisroletobeto‘prendreletondutemoinobjectif’(´TRN,1468)(‘toadoptthetoneofanobjectiveeyewitness’).His‘task’is:‘dire“ceciestarrive”´lorsqu’ilsaitquececiest,eneffet,arrive’(´TRN,1221)(‘tosay:“thisiswhathappened”whenheknowsthatthisisindeedwhathappened’).InthefirsttwopartsofLaPeste,thenarratoroftenreferstoRambertas‘thejournalist’.HehasarrivedfromthemetropolistolookintothewayoflifeimposedontheArabs.Rieuximmediatelyaskshimwhetherheis89CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\njeanyvesguerinpreparedto‘tellthetruth’andtogiveaneyewitnessreportwithoutholdinganythingback.Atfirsthetriestothinkofwaystogetawayfromatownwherehefeelshimselftobeanoutsiderbutthenheallowshimselftogetinvolvedinthestruggleagainstthedisaster.‘Maintenantquej’aivucequej’aivu,jesaisquejesuisd’ici,quejeleveuilleounon.Cettehistoirenousconcernetous’(TRN,1389)(‘NowthatIhaveseenwhatIhaveseen,Iknowthat,likeitornot,Idobelonghere.Thisisamatterwhichconcernsallofus’).CamushasgivenRambertseveralofhisownpersonalitytraits:hisloveoffootballandhissenseofhappiness,forexample.AtAlgerrepublicain´,Camushadbeenareporterandaliterarycritic.AtCombat,wherehehadhadsomepower,hehadinsisted,‘poureviterle´melangedesgenres’(´Ess,1926)(‘soasnottoconfusedifferentgenres’),onnotappearingasanauthor.HeleftthepaperinordertowriteLaPeste.Hedidnotevenpublishanextractofhisnovelinit,whereasPascalPiahadobtainedlongextractsofLaLuttecontrel’ange(TheStrugglewiththeAngel)fromMalraux.Camus’scommentaryonLeMalentenduappearedinLeFigaro.Heplayednopartinanyoftheliterarydebatesoftheperiod.OneevenhasthefeelingthattheartsandletterspagewaslookedafterbyPascalPia,whohadbeenwritingintheNouvelleRevueFranc¸aiseasfarbackasthe1920sandwhohadalreadypublishedoneworkinthisfield.Thepaperhadanimpressiveline-up:ithadrecruitedtheprominentcriticsMauriceNadeauandJacquesLemarchand.Although,intheeuphoricatmosphereofthefirstfewweeks,CamushadobtainedreportagesfromJean-PaulSartreandSimonedeBeauvoir,itwassubsequentlyPiawhosucceededinpersuadingleadingwriterssuchasthenovelistsAndreGideandGeorges´Bernanos,theleaderoftheSurrealistmovementAndreBreton,theleft-wing´CatholicphilosopherEmmanuelMounierandotherstomakeoccasionalcontributionstoCombat.Camus’sinfluenceontheliterarypageswasalmostnon-existent.IthasoftenbeensaidthatpoliticsinFranceisveryliterary.AtCombat,Camustriedtobeveryprofessional.Hiseditorialsareexercisesinreflection,notinrhetoric.TheyarenotadornedwithbiblicalorclassicalquotationslikethoseofMauriac,whichwerewrittenatthesameperiod.MalrauxandBernanos,thewriterswhomCamusadmires,arereferredtoindirectly.JournalisticwritingandthewritingofnovelsaretwoareasthatCamusintendedtokeepseparate.Thisdoesnotmeanthatthewritercompletelyforgetsthatheisanauthor.Forexample,hewascarefulabouttheend-ingsofhisarticles.ThefinalwordofhisCombateditorialsisoftensome-thinghigh-flown:justice,injustice,reason,truth.Ithasalsolongbeennotedthattherearestrongintertextuallinks,aprocessofrecyclingofformulæandimagesbetween,forexample,NivictimesnibourreauxandTarrou’s90CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nCamusthejournalistautobiographicalrevelations.Similarly,theeditorialof22December1944,dealingwiththeenforcedseparationoflovedones,containsathemealsotobehighlightedinLaPeste.16CamusremainednostalgicaboutCombat.Hewrote(1September1944)thatthejournalistisahistorianoftheday-to-day.Newspaperreportinghadbeenaschoolofwritingforthefutureauthor.Whenputtingtogethersmallnewsitems,hehadrefinedhisvisualsense.Bytheendofthe1930s,hehadlearnedhowtodepictcharacters,toreconstructasituation,asmaybeseenfromtheeyewitnessmaterialrecordedinthefirstvolumeofhisCarnets.InL’EtrangerandLaPeste,journalistsarechatterboxes.ThereisnothingtoproveitbutneithercanweexcludethepossibilitythatthegarrulousClamenceinLaChutemighthavebeenajournalist.Whetherheisattackingjournalistsorpoliticians,wehaveseenthatCamusgenerallyusestheword‘rhetoric’inapejorativesense.Itreferstoadiscoursethatisextravagant,insincereandinauthentic.Hisownisconcisebutelegant.Withitsstrictlyfixedform,theeditorialgenrefitsCamus’sclassictalent.AshewroteinhisCarnetsinOctober1938:‘Laveritableœuvred’artestcellequiditmoins’(´Ci,127)(‘Thetrueworkofartistheonethatsaysless’).Allaneditorialneeds,hesays,is‘uneidee,deuxexemples,troisfeuillets’(‘oneidea,twoexamples,´threepages’)andanewsreport:‘desfaits,delacouleur,desrapprochements’(‘facts,colourandtheabilitytomakeconnections’).17NOTESThisisanabridgedversionoftheauthor’soriginaltextinFrenchandhasbeentranslatedbyMikeRoutledge.1.JeanDaniel,‘LeCombatpourCombat’,Camus(Paris,Hachette,coll.Genieset´realit´es,´1969),p.78.2.‘Chezlestravailleurs.Laspeculationcontrelesloissociales’,´Algerrepublicain´,12October1938,231–2.3.‘LesTravailleurscontrelesdecrets-lois’,´Algerrepublicain´,27November1938,233.4.‘DialogueentreunpresidentduConseiletunemploy´e´a`1200francsparmois’,Algerrepublicain´,3December1938,234–7.5.Thesurveyisaccompaniedandsupportedbyphotographs.6.PhilippeVanney,‘AlbertCamusdevantlaguerre’,Bulletind’etudesfranc¸aises´(UniversityofTokyo)19(1988),19–55and21(1990),1–30.7.GeorgesHenein,‘Lettre´a`HenriCalet,16avril1948’,GrandesLargeurs2(autumn/winter1981),66;RaymondAron,Memoires´(Paris,Julliard,1985),p.287.8.Combat,13to23May1945.9.‘IlparaˆıtqueCombatachanged’orientation’,´Combat,9February1945.10.‘Autocritique’,CC,345.91CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\njeanyvesguerin11.‘Nosfreresd’Espagne’,`Combat,7September1944,174–6;‘Acettememeˆplace...’,Combat,5October1944,231–5;‘L’Espagnes’eloigne’,´Combat,7–8January1945,435–8.Seealso‘Pourquoil’Espagne?’,CC,345.ThisarticleisareplytoGabrielMarcel,whohadreproachedCamusforsituatingL’Etatdesiege`inSpainratherthaninaCommunistcountry.12.Foradiscussionof‘progressiveviolence’,seechapter7.13.PhilippeVanney,‘Aproposd’unelecture:Nivictimesnibourreauxd’AlbertCamusoulaproblematiquer´evolutionnairedanslesrelationsinternationales’,´Bulletind’etudesfranc¸aises´(UniversityofTokyo)17(1986),36–67.SeealsoMauriceWeyembergh,‘Nivictimesnibourreaux:continuiteourupture?’,in´JeanyvesGuerin(ed.),´Camusetlepremier‘Combat’(LaGarenne-Colombes,EditionseuropeennesErasme,´1990),pp.109–24,andinthesamevolumeJoelRoman,‘HistoireetutopiedansNivictimesnibourreaux’,pp.125–34.14.‘Explicationdevote’,L’Express,30December1955.15.‘LeRideaudefeu’,L’Express,11November1955,93–7.16.‘LaFranceavecubeaucoupdetrag´edies’,´CC,402–5.17.Daniel,‘LeCombatpourCombat’,p.91.92CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\n7MARTINCROWLEYCamusandsocialjusticeAcrosstherangeofCamus’swritings,twotermsrepeatedlyringoutastheexpressionofhisfundamentalconcerns:‘man’and‘justice’.Thetwoarepro-foundlylinked:Camus’sresolutebeliefintheimportanceofsocialjustice,andhiscontributionstotheglobalpoliticaldebatesofhistime–includ-ingthoseconcerningtheSecondWorldWar,colonialism,theatombombandtheColdWar–areinseparablefromhisaffirmationofthevaluesheattachestothefigureofthehuman.ItisimpossibletofindanexampleofakeyCamusianinterventioninthecauseofsocialjusticewhichdoesnotargueitscaseviareferencetothehumanasitscorelocusofvalue.Thischap-tertriestoaddressCamus’sconcernforsocialjusticebyexploringsomeofitsmoralandconceptualframeworks.IdonotproposetodetailCamus’svariousinterventionsassuch,asthesearediscussedelsewhereinthisvol-ume.Rather,withreferencetosomeofthesekeymoments,IwillattempttodrawoutsomethingofthevaluesbywhichCamusisdriven.AndIwillbeusingthefigureofthehumanasthecommonthreadbywhichthesevaluesareheldtogether(or,attimes,bywhichtheyareheldintension).Sometimes,thisfigureexpressesavirile,heroicresolve;sometimes,itcanbepatheticallyvulnerable.ButforCamus,‘man’willneverquitebeeffaced;andthepointofthispersistenceisthecallforjusticeitunceasinglyarticu-lates.Myaimherewillbetoprovidesomesenseofthisirreduciblevalueofresistance.(Anoteonterminology:asistypicalofthinkersofhistime,Camushabit-uallyuses‘l’homme’(‘man’)torefertohumanityingeneral,despiteitseffacementofthefemalepartofhumanity,aneffacementwhichhassincethenquiterightlybeensubjectedtofeministcritique.(Indeed,despitethiscritique,‘l’homme’isstillmuchmorewidelyusedinFrenchthoughtthan‘man’isinEnglish.)Thismasculinistbiasdoesmorethanplacehiminhiscontext,however:itisalsoapartofhisparticularversionofhumanism,inwhichvirilityandfraternityareoftenkeyvalues.WhendelineatingCamus’s93CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nmartincrowleythought,therefore,Iwillusehisterm,‘man’;whendiscussingmattersmoregenerally,Iwillreverttolessexclusivetermssuchas‘humanity’and‘thehuman’.)DemandingjusticeCamus’sconcernforsocialjusticemaybroadlybedividedintotwocate-gories.First,thereisthekindofconcernmostreadilyidentifiedwiththeideaofsocialjusticeassuch,inwhichwhatisatstakeistheequitableorgan-isationofsocialstructures,especiallyastheserelatetothedistributionofwealth.Secondly,Camus’scommitmenttotheideaofjusticeisalsoartic-ulatedthroughhisengagementwithworldhistoricalevents.Accordingly,Iwillherediscussfirst,thestraightforwardegalitariandemandforsocialjus-ticeintheconventionalsense,asexpressedinCamus’searlyjournalismoncolonialAlgeriaandatthetimeoftheLiberationofFrancetowardstheendoftheSecondWorldWar;andsecondly,thedebatesconcerningthenotionofjusticeinthecontextofnationalandglobalpoliticsthatcontinuefromtheLiberationviaLesJustestoL’Hommerevolt´e´.Ineachoftheseinstances,Camusisalsomotivatedbyhissenseofthefundamentalinjusticeofthehumancondition(putsimply:thatwesufferanddieinthemidstofamean-inglessuniverse).Iwillindicatetheinfluenceofthisdimensionbrieflywhereappropriate,andwilladdresstheproblemsitintroducesintoCamus’sposi-tiontowardstheendofmydiscussionofhisengagementwiththedemandsofjusticeonaworldhistoricalscale.Camus’sconcernforsocialjusticeinthestrictsensereceivesitsmostdra-maticearlyexpressioninthearticlesonpovertyinKabyliapublishedinAlgerrepublicain´from5to15June1939,manyofwhichCamuschosetogrouptogetherinActuellesiiiunderthetitleMiseredelaKabylie`(Ess,903–38).Thetitleofthefirstofthese,‘LeDenuement’(‘Destitution’),givesaclear´senseofthethrustofCamus’sreports:hisaimistoforcerecognitionofthebarehumansufferinginquestion,inorderthenmoreurgentlytoposethequestionofthepoliticalactionwhichoughtresponsiblytobetaken.Heproceedsbyacombinationoffactual,oftenstatisticalexposition,intense,powerfullypatheticdescriptionandconclusionsexpressedinatoneofcon-trolledanger.Themoralcentreofthismethodislocatedinitsevocationofspecificinstancesofterribleimpoverishment,suchasthechildrenwhofightwithlocaldogsoverthecontentsofdustbins,whoarriveatschoolnakedandinfestedwithlice,orwhopassoutfromhungerwhilethere(Ess,907–8).AnticipatingthatofPhilippeOthoninLaPeste,thescandaloussufferingofthesechildrenisabrutefactwhoseimmediaterealitydemandsrestitution,hereofthepovertyitdeclares(Ess,909).Camus’sarticlesaccordinglyseek94CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nCamusandsocialjusticetogobeyondthehumanitarianresponsetheyalsoevoke.Whileheacceptsthepossibleusefulnessofcharityinsuchasituation,heisbitterlycriticalofwhathehasseenoftheeffectsofcharitableinterventioninKabylia.Whenthestarvinghavebacktaxesdockedfromtheirwages,hewrites,charita-bleworks‘constituentuneexploitationintolerabledumalheur’(´Ess,913)(‘constituteanintolerableexploitationofmisfortune’).Thus:‘Jenecroispasquelacharitesoitunsentimentinutile.Maisjecroisqu’encertainscas´sesresultatslesontetqu’alorsilfautluipr´ef´ererunepolitiquesocialecon-´structive’(Ess,912)(‘Idonotbelievethatcharityisauselesssentiment.ButIbelievethatinsomecases,itsresultsare,andthatinsuchcaseswemustpreferconstructivesocialpolicy’).Camus’sinterventionconstitutesademandforsocialjusticeassuch,ashedenouncestheexploitativeeconomicstructurewhichunderpinstheimmediatecrisis.Thoseinchargeofthecolo-nialadministrationpresideovera‘regimed’esclavage’(´Ess,915)(‘regimeofslavery’),inwhichtentotwelvehours’workadayearnssixtotenfrancs,thelowwagesjustifiedbyvariousargumentsinbadfaith.Since‘l’exploitationseuleestlacausedesbassalaires’(Ess,917)(‘exploitationaloneisthecauseoflowwages’),theonlysolutionisnotcharitable,butrathereconomic:‘Iln’yapasd’issueacettesituation.Cen’estpasendistribuantdugrainqu’on`sauveralaKabyliedelafaim,maisenresorbantlech´omageetencontrˆolantˆlessalaires.Cela,onpeutetondoitlefairedesdemain’(`Ess,918)(‘Thereisnowayoutofthissituation.Kabyliawillnotbesavedfromfaminebydistributinggrain,butbycuttingunemploymentandregulatingwages.Thiscanandmustbedonerightaway’).Destitutionisaresultoflowwages;wagesarelowbecauseunemploymentproducescompetitioninafreelabourmarket;theansweristoincreasethenumbersemployedbythestateinmajorbuildingworks,andtoextendprofessionaltraining,allowingworkersarea-sonablelevelofincome.Morebroadly,itwillalsobenecessarytomanageemigrationthroughoutKabylia,AlgeriaandthesouthofFrance,toregulatewagesproperly,andtoincreasethevalueofKabylia’sagriculturalproduc-tionbyincreasingitsquantityandqualityandstabilisingitsmarketprice(Ess,929–33).Anticipatingbyhalfacenturycontemporarydebatesconcern-ingeconomicrelationsbetweentheso-calledFirstandThirdWorlds,Camusinsiststhatjusticedemandsnotintermittentcharity,butstructuraleconomicreform.ThispositionisreaffirmedintheseriesofarticlesfromCombatin1945collectedasCriseenAlgerie´(Ess,939–59),anditsmoralforceechoesinanimportantdenunciationofracismandtorturefrom1947(Ess,321–3);butitencountersitslimitinthemid1950s,whenCamus’sperhapsunder-standablerefusaltoconsiderhisownclass,working-classFrenchAlgerians,asstructurallycomplicitintheinjusticesofcolonialism,providesapowerfulfactorinthehistoricalfailureofhispreferredsolutiontotheAlgeriancrisis.195CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nmartincrowleyCamuspresentshisdemandsinMiseredelaKabylie`asdrivenbythetwinprinciplesofgoodeconomicsenseandhumanjustice,thelatteroccasionallyrhetoricallycedinggroundtotheformerinasubtleassertionoftheircom-binedforce:‘Cen’estpasseulementl’humanitequiestfoul´eeauxpiedspar´lessalairesasixfrancs,maisaussilalogique.Etparlesbasprixdespro-`ductionsagricoleskabyles,onneviolepasseulementlajustice,maisaussilebonsens’(Ess,929)(‘Itisnotonlyhumanitywhichistrampledonbywagesofsixfrancsaday,butalsologic.AndthelowpriceofKabylia’sagriculturalproductionviolatesnotonlyjustice,butalsocommonsense’).Arehisreportssomehowunpatriotic,asksCamus?(Thisis1939,afterall.)Fine;butwhatispatriotismwithoutjustice?Ilparaˆıtquec’est,aujourd’hui,faireactedemauvaisFranc¸aisquederev´elerla´misered’unpaysfranc¸ais.Jedoisdirequ’ilestdifficileaujourd’huidesavoir`commentetreunbonFranc¸ais...Mais,dumoins,onpeutsavoircequec’estˆqu’unhommejuste.Etmonprejug´e,c’estquelaFrancenesaurait´etremieuxˆrepresent´eeetd´efenduequepardesactesdejustice.´(Ess,936)(Apparently,torevealthepovertyofapartofFranceis,today,tobeabadFrenchman.Ihavetosaythatitisdifficult,today,toknowhowtobeagoodFrenchman...Butitisatleastpossibletoknowwhatconstitutesajustman.AndIpersistinthinkingthatFrancecanbenobetterrepresentedanddefendedthanbyactsofjustice.)AndifwenowmoveforwardfiveyearstothedemandsforsocialjusticeexpressedinsomeofCamus’seditorialsforCombataroundtheLiberation,wediscoverthatthiscombinationofalanguageofjusticeandhumanitywithacallformeaningfuleconomicchangehassurvivedthewaryearsintact.On1October1944,Camusspellsouthisvisionofsocialjustice:anecon-omyorganisedoncollectivistprinciples,alliedtoaguaranteeofpoliticalfreedoms.‘Nousappelleronsdoncjusticeunetatsocialo´uchaqueindividu`rec¸oittoutesseschancesaudepart,eto´ulamajorit`ed’unpaysn’estpas´maintenuedansuneconditionindigneparuneminoritedeprivil´egi´es’(´Ess,1527)(‘Weshallthereforecalljusticeasocialstateinwhicheachindividualstartswithequalopportunity,andinwhichthecountry’smajoritycannotbeheldinabjectconditionsbyaprivilegedfew’)(BHR,57).Whatisneeded,hewritesinFebruary1945,isthecreationofatruepopulardemocracy,withacollectivisteconomy,inthecontextof‘unefed´eration´economique´mondiale,oulesmati`erespremi`eres,lesd`ebouch´escommerciauxetlamon-´naieserontinternationalises’(´Ess,1551)(‘aworldeconomicfederation,inwhichrawmaterials,commercialmarketsandcurrencywillbeplacedonaninternationalbasis’(BHR,106,modified)).AndinMay1945,Camus96CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nCamusandsocialjusticeapplaudsDeGaulle’splantobringcredit,alongwiththeproductionofcoalandelectricity,undernationalcontrol(Ess,1556).Thepreviousmonth,how-ever,CamushadbeenseverelycriticalofDeGaulle’sfailureinhisspeechof2Apriltocelebrate,alongsidesuchnationaltalismansasJoanofArcandHenriIV,thenation’straditionofinsurrection(Ess,1555).Atthistime,Camusseeshisdriveforanauthenticpopulardemocracyasarevolutionarydemand,asthetrueprojectoftheworkingclass(Ess,1545),andasbeing,inthetitleofapiecepublishedinResistanceouvri´ere`inDecember1944,‘Auservicedel’homme’(Ess,1544)(‘Intheserviceofman’),inwhichaproperlymoralpoliticswillanswer‘cedesirsimpleetardent,ressentiparla´majoritelaborieusedupays,devoirl’hommeremis´asaplace’(`Ess,1545)(‘thissimple,burningdesire,feltbythecountry’sworking-classmajority,toseemanrestoredtohisrightfulplace’).Theaimcannotbehumanhappiness,wroteCamusinOctoberofthatyear:themiseryofthehumanconditionwouldmakethatavainaspiration.‘Ils’agitseulementdenepasajouterauxmiseresprofondesdenotreconditionuneinjusticequisoitpurement`humaine’(Ess,1528)(‘Itissimplyamatterofnotaddinghumaninjusticetoalltheotherprofoundmiseriesofourcondition’(BHR,58)).Themetaphys-icalappealhereservestomotivatetheeconomicargument:here,atleast,wecanminimisetheunhappinessthatisourlot.Anditis,aseverinCamus,themetaphysicalinvocationof‘man’thatgivesthedemandforsocialjustice,expressedinproposalsforeconomicredistribution,itsmoralvalidity.JustifiedviolenceForthebroadlyprogressivereader,allofthisisdoubtlesseasyenoughtoaccept.ButCamus’spreoccupationsatthistimeincludeanother,moredif-ficulttopic,whichconnectshisthoughttotheglobalpoliticsofhistime,andwhichwilldominatethepublicpresenceofthisthoughtforthenextdecade.Thistopicistheproblematiclinkbetweenjusticeandviolence.AtthetimeoftheLiberation,thisisfamouslyexpressedinthepolemicbetweenCamusandFranc¸oisMauriacoverthejustifiabilityofexecutionaspartoftheepuration´(theprocesswherebyFrancesoughttopurgeitselfofitscollab-orationistlinkswithNazism):withinthisdebate,CamusrejectsMauriac’sinvocationofforgiveness,andarguesinfavourofexecutionasaninstrumentofjustice.Francehaswithinit,‘commeuncorpsetranger’(‘likeaforeign´body’),aminorityoftraitors.‘C’estleurexistencememequiposedoncleˆproblemedelajusticepuisqu’ilsformentunepartvivantedecepaysetquela`questionestdelesdetruire’(´Ess,1536)(‘Theirveryexistenceposestheprob-lemofjustice,fortheyconstitutealivingpartofthiscountry,andwemustdecidewhetherwewilldestroythem’(BHR,72)).Inthenameof‘legoutdeˆ97CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nmartincrowleyl’hommeetl’espoirdesagrandeur’(‘abeliefinmanandthehopeofachiev-inghisgreatness’),‘nousavonschoisid’assumerlajusticehumaineavecsesterriblesimperfections,soucieuxseulementdelescorrigerparunehonnetetˆe´desesp´er´ementmaintenue’(´Ess,1536)(‘wechoosehumanjusticewithallitsterribleimperfections;hopingonlytomakeupforthesebyholdingdesper-atelytoourhonesty’(BHR,72,modified)).Arguingfor‘unejusticeprompteetlimitee’(‘justice...appliedswiftlyandforalimitedtime’),Camusclaims´thathislanguageisthatof‘unegen´erationd’hommes´elev´esdanslespectacle´del’injustice,etrang´ere`aDieu,amoureusedel’hommeetr`esolue´aleservir`contreundestinsisouventderaisonnable’(´Ess,1537)(‘agenerationofmenbroughtupwiththespectacleofinjustice,menwhoarestrangerstoGodbutloversofhumanity,menwhoareresolvedtoservehumanitydespiteadestinythatissooftenmeaningless’(BHR,72)).Being‘intheserviceofman’meansnotjustfurtheringthecauseofeconomicjustice:italsomeansbeingpreparedtopunishtheinjusticeofthosewhohavebetrayedhim.Thereisanimpliedcontinuitybetweentheepuration´andthefinalstrugglesoftheResistance:inbothcases,violenceisnotdesired,butisthenecessarymeanstoajustend.Acoupleofmonthsearlier,on24August1944,amidsttheLib-erationofParis,Camuswrotethat‘Letempstemoigneraqueleshommesde´Francenevoulaientpastuer,etqu’ilssontentreslesmainspuresdansune´guerrequ’ilsn’avaientpaschoisie’(‘TimewillbearwitnesstothefactthatthemenofFrancedidnotwanttokillandthattheirhandswerecleanwhentheyenteredawartheyhadnotchosen’);‘Unefoisdeplus’,heconcluded,‘lajusticedoits’acheteraveclesangdeshommes’(Ess,255)(‘Oncemorejusticemustbeboughtwiththebloodofmen’)(RRD,27).Andthelessonofthisisindeedthatforcemustbeembracedwhennecessary,andhencethatforgivenesswillhavetogivewaytojustretribution:‘Quioseraitparlericidepardon?Puisquel’espritaenfincomprisqu’ilnepouvaitvaincrel’ep´ee´queparl’ep´ee...Cen’estpaslahainequiparlerademain,maislajustice´elle-meme,fondˆeesurlam´emoire’(´Ess,259)(‘Whowoulddarespeakhereofforgiveness?Sincethespiritfinallyunderstoodthataswordisneededtoconquerasword...Itisnothatredthatwillspeaktomorrow,butjusticeitself,basedfirmlyonmemory’(BHR,43)).Threeyearslater,Camuswouldcometotheconclusionthathehadbeenonthewrongsideinthispolemic(seeEss,371–2).Whatisofinteresthere,however,isthewayinwhichhisrhetoricof‘man’andof‘justice’canserveendswhichtosaytheleastmightbeconsideredintension.ForthroughoutthearticleswrittenaroundthetimeoftheLiberation,wecanseeCamusstartingtowrestlewiththequestionthatwouldpreoccupyhimoverthecomingyears,andwhichconstitutedtheprincipalframethroughwhichhewouldengagewiththeglobalpoliticsofthisperiod:thequestionofjustified98CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nCamusandsocialjusticeviolence.Evenasheadoptsamoraleconomyofregrettablemeansandjusti-fiedendsinrelationtotheResistancestruggleandtheepuration´,heattemptstodenythissamemoraleconomylegitimacywhenitisdeployedinthenameofacommunistrealpolitik.Althoughhewantsnothingtodowiththosewhopeddleanti-communism,andsoalignshimselfwiththecommunistsagainsttheirenemies,Camusnonethelessinsiststhat‘nousnesommespasd’accordaveclaphilosophieducommunismeniavecsamoralepratique’(Ess,273)(‘weagreeneitherwiththeCommunists’philosophynorwiththeirprac-ticalethics’(BHR,59)).Theymayagreeonmattersofsocialjustice,butCamus’sCombatandthecommunistsare,heinsists,separatedbythefactthatthecommunistsresortto‘unephilosophiedel’histoiretrescoh`erente’´(Ess,273)(‘averycoherentphilosophyofhistory’(BHR,60,modified))inordertojustifytheirpoliticalrealism.Onthis,Camusiscategorical:‘Nousl’avonsditmaintesfois,nousnecroyonspasaurealismepolitique’(´Ess,273)(‘Aswehavesaidinnumerabletimes,wedonotbelieveinpoliticalrealism’(BHR,60)).(‘Politicalrealism’describesapositionwhich,fromthepremisethatcomplicitywithviolenceisinevitable,justifiesitsownuseofviolencebyinvokingthenecessityoftheenditseeks.)ThisrepresentsthecrucialearlyappearanceofCamus’srejectionofthemoraleconomyofwhatheseesasaMarxistpoliticaleschatology(inwhich,accordingtocriticssuchasCamus,theclaimtohaveidentifiedinadvancetheend-goalofhistoryservestojustifyviolenceseenasservingthatend).ThisrejectionisofmajorimportanceinthedevelopmentofCamus’sthoughtandpoliticalactivity;itwouldculminatemostfamouslyinthepolemicoverL’Hommerevolt´e´andthejustifiabilityorotherwiseofwhatwasreferredtoas‘progressiveviolence’(namely,violencewhichachievesakindofstrategicjustificationbyvirtueofthefactthatitaimstoridtheworldofviolence).2‘Lajus-ticesocialepeuttresbiensefairesansunephilosophieing`enieuse’,Camus´declares(Ess,281)(‘Socialjusticecanberealisedwithoutbrilliantphilos-ophy’(BHR,85)).Themessianicdoctrineofinevitableprogress‘s’autorisedel’amourdel’humanitepoursedispenserdeservirleshommes’(´Ess,281)(‘preachesloveofhumanitysoastoexemptitselffromservingmen’),asopposedtoanalternativeformofsocialism,which‘necroitpasauxdoc-trinesabsoluesetinfaillibles,maisal’am`eliorationobstin´ee,chaotiquemais´inlassable,delaconditionhumaine’(Ess,282)(‘doesnotbelieveinabso-luteandinfallibledoctrines,butratherinthetenaciousefforts–perhapschaoticbutalwaysuntiring–toimprovethehumancondition’(BHR,86)).Inthemidstofwhathealsopresentsashisrevolutionarydrive,Camusrevealsthathewillhavenotruckwitharevolutionwhichknowsthatitisjustifiedinadvancebyaninevitableend.Violencecanbejustified,ifatall,onlyasanunwelcomenecessity,tobeadoptedinfullawareness99CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nmartincrowleyofitsunacceptability,andnotexcusedbyanexternal,supposedlyinfalli-ble,historicallaw.ThisargumentwillreturninrelationtoLesJustesandL’Hommerevolt´e´,andIwillcomebacktoitshortly.First,though,itisworthbrieflyconsid-eringthelanguageof‘man’throughwhichCamusjustifieshisposition.Itisastonishing,forexample,thatevenasherejectsaneschatologicalcom-munismbydeclaringinNovember1944,‘Noussavonsavecquellerapidite´lesmoyenssontprispourlesfins,nousnevoulonspasden’importequellejustice’(‘Weknowhowquicklythemeansbecomeconfusedwiththeends;itisnotjustanykindofjusticeweseek’),hestates:‘Carils’agitdefaire,eneffet,lesalutdel’homme...Ils’agitdeservirladignitedel’hommepar´desmoyensquirestentdignesaumilieud’unehistoirequinel’estpas’(Ess,279)(‘Indeed,thisisaquestionofsavinghumanity...Thisisaquestionofservingthedignityofmanbymethodsthatremaindignifiedinthemidstofahistorythatisnot’(BHR,76,modified)).AndwehavealreadyseenthatinDecember1944,Camusisnotaversetopresentingtheachievementofsocialjusticeasthehistoricmissionoftheworkingclass‘sanscesseenmarcheverslagrandevictoire’(Ess,1545)(‘ceaselesslymarchingtowardsitsgreatvictory’).Thenextmonth,however,Camuswouldadopthismoreusualpositioninrelationtothesalvationof‘man’,declaringthat‘Sansavoirl’ambitionderaisonnabledelesauver,noustenonsaumoins´aleservir’(`Ess,287)(‘Wedonothavetheunrealisticambitionofsavinghim;wetryonlytoservehim’(BHR,105)).Butthesetwoaberrant,unexpectedlymessianicmomentssignalthestrugglehereforownershipof‘man’asthekeytermofvalueinthesedebates.Resituatingthesedebatesaboutthemoralityofleftistpoliticalactionalongsidethoseaboutjustretributionwithwhichtheyarecontemporary,itiscompellingtonotethatCamusrefusesthemoraleconomyofdesiredendsandjustifiedmeansintheformerdebateandallowsitinthelatterbytheverysameappealto‘man’asanirreduciblevalue.‘Sinousconsentonsanous`passerdeDieuetdel’esperance’,writesCamusinrelationtothe´epuration´,‘nousnenouspassonspassiaisementdel’homme...nousrefuserons´jusqu’auderniermomentunecharitedivinequifrustreraitleshommesde´leurjustice’(Ess,287)(‘IfweconsenttodowithoutGodandhope,wecannotsoeasilydowithoutman...wewillrefuseuntilthefinalmomentadivinecharitywhichfrustratesthejusticeofmen’(BHR,105,modified).Thefinalirreduciblevalue,‘man’istossedthiswayandthat,hereaffirm-ingamessianicfaithinsocialjusticeoraneschatology(‘jusqu’auderniermoment’)ofjustretribution,hererefusingpreciselythismoraleconomyinthenameofgoodsenseandhistoricalmoderation.100CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nCamusandsocialjusticeCamus’srejectionof‘politicalrealism’underpinshisinterventionsinthepost-wardebatesoccasionedprincipallybytheexistenceoftheSovietlabourcamps(markedinFrancenotablybythevoicesofKoestlerandRousset,denouncingSovietviolence,andMerleau-Ponty’stheorisationof‘progres-siveviolence’).3PriortoL’Hommerevolt´e´,theseinterventionscomepri-marilyintheessayscollectedasNivictimesnibourreaux(Ess,329–52),andtheninCamus’sresponsestothecriticismoftheseessaysbyEmmanueld’AstierdelaVigerie(Ess,353–68).InaworlddominatedbytheoppositionbetweenSovietcommunismandAmericancapitalism,andstillmarkedbytheinjusticeofcolonialism,Camusattemptstofindapositionwhichwouldbeaslittleaspossiblecomplicitwiththeviolenceandexploitationofeachoftheseregimes.Heisnotsonaive,hesays,astoexpectaworldwithoutviolence:whathewantstoachieveisaworldinwhichviolenceisnotgivenafalselegitimacybysomeoverarchingpoliticalproject.‘Murder’(hissynec-dochicfigureforpoliticalviolence)isinevitable,saysCamus,astheonlywayonecanopposetheworldofviolenceisbyrunningtheriskofviolence(Ess,334):Jenediraidoncpointqu’ilfautsupprimertouteviolence...Jedisseulementqu’ilfautrefusertoutelegitimationdelaviolence,quecettel´egitimationlui´vienned’uneraisond’Etatabsolue,oud’unephilosophietotalitaire.Laviolence´estalafoisin`evitableetinjustifiable.Jecroisqu’ilfautluigardersoncaract´ere`exceptionneletlaresserrerdansleslimitesqu’onpeut.(Ess,355)(SoIwillnotsaythatallviolenceshouldbeabolished...Isaymerelythatviolencemustberefusedalllegitimacy,whetherthislegitimacybederivedfromanabsoluteraisond’Etatoratotalitarianphilosophy.Violenceisbothinevitableandunjustifiable.Ibelievewemustkeepitasanexceptionandlimititinsofarasthisispossible.)CamusheredevelopsargumentshehadusedtojustifytheResistance(thehandsoftheFrencharepurebecausetheydidnotwantthewartheyhadtofight)andtheepuration´(theimperfectionsofhumanjusticecanbecorrectedbyadesperatehonesty:seeEss,255and1536,asdiscussedabove).Violenceisacceptableonlyifitisknowntobeunacceptableandpractisedassuch.Itisabsolutelyunacceptableifitisraisedtothelevelofaprincipleorerectedintoaninstitution.Thus,withspecificreferencetotheSovietcamps:‘Lescampsnemeparaissentavoiraucunedesexcusesquepeuventpresenter´lesviolencesprovisoiresd’uneinsurrection’(Ess,365)(‘Thecampsseemtometolackanyofthereasonswhichmightexcusetheprovisionalviolenceofanuprising’).Convulsiveviolenceinresponsetointolerableinjusticeisacceptable(aslongasitknowsitiswrong);violencejustifiedbyappeals101CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nmartincrowleyto‘historicalnecessity’isnot.Inwhatisagraveproblemforhisposition,Camusdoesnotaddresstheproblemofaconvulsiveuprisinginspiredbyanunderstandingofhistoricalnecessity:thetwoare,inhisterms,incompatible.Essentially,thisproblemderivesfromCamus’sconflationofmetaphysicalandsocialinjustice.(ThisconflationismostclearlyatworkinLaPeste,inwhich,asSimonedeBeauvoirandRolandBarthesamongstothersobserved,humaninjusticeisproblematicallytranslatedbyametaphysicalsymbol.4)Wehaveseenabovethatthedriveforsocialjusticemaybemotivatedbythedesiretoinstituteatleastthejusticethatishumanlypossible,againstafundamentallyunjustexistentialcondition.‘Lagrandeurdel’homme’,forCamus,‘estdanssadecisiond’´etreplusfortquesacondition.Etsisacon-ˆditionestinjuste,iln’aqu’unefac¸ondelasurmonterquiestd’etrejusteˆlui-meme’(ˆEss,258)(‘Man’sgreatness...liesinhisdecisiontobestrongerthanhiscondition.Andifhisconditionisunjust,hehasonlyonewayofovercomingit,whichistobejusthimself’(RRD,30)).‘Lajustice...nevapassanslarevolte’(´Ess,271–2)(‘Thereisnojusticewithoutrevolt’):asCamusarguesintheopeningsectionsofL’Hommerevolt´e´,revoltispositiveinitselfinasmuchasitaffirmsahumanvalue,byrefusingtoaccepttheabsur-dityofhumanexistence(whichCamushabituallyterms‘injustice’).Thisiswhyitisnecessaryforreactiveviolencetorecogniseitsownunacceptability:onlybydoingsocanitcontinuetoaffirmthevalueoflifewhichisattherootofanymovementofrevoltauthenticallyintouchwithitsmetaphys-icalimplications.Butthejustificationofanyspecificrevoltisthusderivedfromitsexistentialattituderatherthanitssocialbasis:ifourconditionperseisunjust,itbecomesimpossibletotellwhenviolentreactionmightbespecificallyacceptable,whatmightjustifyrevoltinsocialterms.ViolencemayalsobejustifiedforCamusiftheperpetratoracceptstopaythepriceofitsunacceptabilitybysacrificinghisorherownlife.ThenamewhichforCamuscrystallisesthepositionheisattemptingtoformulateisthatofKaliayev,theterroristRussianrevolutionaryof1905,whosecaseisdiscussedatlengthinL’Hommerevolt´e´andformsthebasisofLesJustes.InthepositionrepresentedforCamusbythe1905revolutionaries,murderiscompensatedbysuicide:‘Unevieestalorspayeeparuneautrevieet,de´cesdeuxholocaustes,surgitlapromessed’unevaleur’(Ess,575–6)(‘Alifeispaidforbyanotherlife,andfromthesetwosacrificesspringsthepromiseofavalue’(R,138)).Thesefiguresaredistinguishedbythefactthat‘Ilsnemettentdoncaucuneideeau-dessusdelaviehumaine,bienqu’ilstuentpour´l’idee’(´Ess,576)(‘Thereforetheydonotvalueanyideaabovehumanlife,althoughtheykillforthesakeofideas’(R,138)).Andinanote,Camusconcludes:‘Deuxracesd’hommes.L’untueuneseulefoisetpaiedesavie.L’autrejustifiedesmilliersdecrimesetacceptedesepayerd’honneurs’(Ess,102CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nCamusandsocialjustice578)(‘Twoverydifferentspeciesofmen.Onekillsonlyonceandpayswithhislife.Theotherjustifiesthousandsofcrimesandconsentstoberewardedwithhonours’(R,141)).Ifitkeepsitsexceptionalquality,murderremainsattachedtosomekindofpersonalresponsibility,remainsuncomfortable,andsocontinuestoaffirmthevalueitapparentlydenies(seeCii,214).Thecombinationoflocalreactionagainstagreaterevil,convulsiverevoltagainstmetaphysicalinjustice,andthewillingnesstogiveone’sownlife,affirmsavaluebeyondtheimmediatehistoricalsituationandallowsviolencetoachieveatemporaryjustification,asopposedtothepseudo-justificationofviolenceintermsofhistoricalprocess.5EmptyjusticeCamus’slogichereisdubious,tobesure.Insurrectionaryviolenceisjustifiedperse,aslongasitisconvulsiveenoughtodeclareitsmetaphysicalroots.Suicidebombing–ofanappropriatelyguiltytarget–isjustifiedperse.ThereisnothinginCamus’sargumentsthatwouldallowustodistinguishbetweendifferentinstancesofreactiveviolence,todecidewhethersomemightbejustifiedandothersnot:theonlydistinctionstobemadearebetweentheexistentialattitudesoftheperpetrators,whichisprettyflimsygroundformoraldebate.TheframehereistheproblematicCamusderivesfromDos-toyevsky’sTheBrothersKaramazov:intheabsenceofabsolutevalue,howcanwefindaprinciplethatmightstopustorturingeachother?IntheLettresaunamiallemand`,Camusacknowledgesthatthisabsenceimpliesethicalrel-ativism(andsoseemstopermitNaziviolence),beforeinsistingthat‘man’–indeed,his‘destiny’,inanothermomentofaberranteschatology–constitutesanirreduciblemorallimitwhichjustifieslocalisedviolenceinreactionagainstsomegreaterevil(andsojustifiestheResistance)(seeEss,213–43,esp.228).Butclaimingthat‘man’providesanirreduciblevaluewhichwillalwaysjus-tifyresistancetoevildoesnotbringusmuchclosertounderstandingwhatkindsofresistancearejustifiedandwhy.Inthissense,Camus’s‘justice’offerslittleeffectivepurchaseonactualdecisions.WemightcontrastitwithMerleau-Ponty’sargumentinHumanismeetterreur(HumanismandTerror)that,whilethevictoriousarenotalwaysjustified,justicewithoutvictory–withouteffectiveaction–ismeaningless.Camus’sconceptionofjusticecanseemabstract,andtohavelittleincommonwithcontemporarydiscussionsofsocialjustice,fromwhichtheCamusiantoneofdesperatemetaphysicalextremityisprettymuchabsent.ButthistonereflectsthefunctionofthisconceptionofjusticeasCamus’shonestresponsetotheextremityoftheeventsthroughwhichitwasforged.ItsproblematicevaluativecriteriamayrenderCamus’sjusticeempty,oruseless;butitatleastkeepsopenaradical103CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nmartincrowleydemandtowhichanypoliticswhichisnotjustopportunismmustsomewhererespond,andhighlightsthedifficultieswhichbesetthenecessaryattemptstoexpressthisdemandindeterminate,pragmaticaction.Bywayofconclusion,wemightbrieflycompareCamus’sconceptionofjusticewiththatdevelopedbyamorerecentthinker,namelythephilosopherJacquesDerrida(1930–2004).UsuallyassociatedwiththephilosophicalandpoliticalcritiquesofthehumanismofCamus’sgenerationproposedbythosewhocametoprominenceinthe1960s,DerridaneverthelessoccasionallyshowsfascinatingpointsofconvergencewithCamus,ofwhichthequestionofjusticeisaparticularlyintriguingexample.Justice,forDerrida,isaradicaldemandtowhichanyparticularinstanceofjudgementmustseektorespond,butwhichitcanneverentirelyfulfil.6TobetruetothedemandsofjusticeisnevertoknowthatIambeingjust.Justice,onthisreading,muststrivetoremainempty,whilealsoreachingdeterminatedecisions:injusticewouldpreciselybetheresultofajusticethatthoughtitknewthelimitsofitsduties.ThedifferencebetweenCamusandDerridaisthatCamushasmomentswhenhethinksitispossibletoknowwhatjusticeis.Buthecomestotheagonisedpositionthatjusticecanonlybehonouredbyagenuineawarenessofandresponsibilityfortheinevitableinjusticeofmyattemptstobejust.Thissoundsuseless,cutelyparadoxicaland,attimes,likeastrangeformofbadfaith.Andweareboundtoaskwhatistherealdifferencebetweena‘progres-siveviolence’justifiedbyitsattachmenttoitsownabolition,andareactive,convulsiveviolencejustifiedbyknowledgeofitsownunacceptability?ForCamus,however,inaworldofunavoidableviolence,thelatteratleasthasthesimpleadvantageofbeinglikelytodolessdamage.And–asforDerrida(seeforexamplehissustainedpublicparticipationinthestruggleagainstapartheidinSouthAfrica)–thedemandsofstraightforwardsocialjusticearenotsuspendedbythismetaphysicalperplexity.Camus’sjusticemaywellbeempty,then.Buttoanextent,atleast,thismightbeaswelcomeasitisshocking.NOTES1.Onthis,seeespeciallyEss,961–1018,andRogerQuilliot’scommentary(Ess,1839–47).2.On‘progressiveviolence’,seethecrucialinterventionbyMauriceMerleau-Ponty:Humanismeetterreur(Paris,Gallimard,1947).3.ArthurKoestler,DarknessatNoon(London,Cape,1940),andTheYogiandtheCommissar(London,Cape,1945);DavidRousset,‘Ausecoursdesdeport´es´danslescampssovietiques’(´1949),Lignesn.s.2(May2000),143–60;andMerleau-Ponty,Humanismeetterreur.Onthesedebates,seeSimonedeBeauvoir,LaForcedeschoses(Paris,Gallimard,1963),pp.121–6,216–22,and279–80;EricWerner,Delaviolenceautotalitarisme(Paris,Calmann-Levy,´1972);and104CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nCamusandsocialjusticeMauriceWeyembergh,AlbertCamusoulamemoiredesorigines´(Brussels,DeBoeck,1998).4.DeBeauvoir,LaForcedeschoses,p.279;RolandBarthes,‘LaPeste’,inCEuvrescompletes`,ed.EricMarty,5vols.(Paris,Seuil,2002),vol.i,pp.540–5;foracriticalaccountofsuchresponses,seeTonyJudt,TheBurdenofResponsibility(Chicago,UniversityofChicagoPress,1998),p.105.5.Ontheseproblems,seeStephenEricBronner,Camus:PortraitofaMoralist(Lon-don,UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1999),pp.91–2;andJeffreyC.Isaac,Arendt,CamusandModernRebellion(London,YaleUniversityPress,1992).6.SeeespeciallyJacquesDerrida,Forcedeloi(Paris,Galilee,´1994).105CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\n8COLINDAVISViolenceandethicsinCamusAct3scene6ofCaligulastagesakeyencounterbetweenCaligulaandCherea,Camus’smurderousprotagonistandoneofhiseventualassassins.Here,thetwomenarticulatetheethicalimpasseattheheartofthephilos-ophyoftheAbsurd.CaligulasuggeststhatChereamustbelievein‘quelqueideesup´erieure’(´TRN,78)(‘somehigherprinciple’(COP,83));Chereadoesnotentirelyacceptthis,butneitherdoesheentirelydenyit:Cherea:Jecroisqu’ilyadesactionsquisontplusbellesqued’autres.Caligula:Jecroisquetoutessontequivalentes.(´TRN,78–9)Cherea:Ibelievesomeactionsare–shallIsay?–morepraiseworthythanothers.Caligula:Ibelievethatallareonanequalfooting.(COP,83)Chereausesanaesthetictermratherthanamoralonetocharacterisehisposition:someactionsare‘plusbelles’(literally‘morebeautiful’)thanothers,notinherentlybetterormorejust.Caligula’sretortthatallactionsareequivalentdoesnotnecessarilycontradictCherea’sargument,sinceneithermanassertstheexistenceofahighervaluewhichwouldmakeitpossibletodistinguishbetweenoneactionandanotherinstrictlyethicalterms.Itisalsosignificantherethatneithermanseriouslytriestopersuadetheothertochangehisviews.Eachstateswhathebelieves,butmakesnoattempttoofferprinciples,reasonsorexplanationswhichwoulddemonstratethevalid-ityofhisownopinion.Wearepresentedherewiththeconfrontationoftwopositionswhicharecoherentwithintheirownterms,butwhichareutterlyincompatible.Onemanbelievesthatsomeactionsarepreferabletoothers,whilsttheotherinsiststhatnoactionhasinherentvalueaboveanyother.ChereadoesnotregardCaligulaasdemonstrablywrong,thoughhedeemshispositiontobeunacceptable.Hisnextspeechdrawsakindofimperativefromhisviewsevenasherefrainsfrommoraljudgement:‘tuesgenantetˆilfautquetudisparaisses’(TRN,79)(‘you’repernicious,andyou’vegottogo’(COP,47)).106CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nViolenceandethicsinCamusThisscenegivesdramaticformtooneofthecentralissuesofCamus’swriting:theproblemofestablishingvaluesandinparticularofdeterminingtheconditionsunderwhichviolencemightbejustified.MurderappearsinCamus’stextsasanextremeactwhichcausesbothhorrorandfascination.Facedwiththetemptationtokill,hischaractersconfrontanurgentethi-calquestion:whatiswrongwithmurder?When,inL’Etranger,Meursaultencountersamanonabeachandshootshim,hemayhavelittlejustifica-tionforkillinghim,butneithercanhethinkofanygoodreasonnotto.Othersareperceivedasvaguelythreateningtothesubject’swellbeing,orelsetheyimpedetherealisationofhisdesiresordreams.Sokilling,beitforthesakeofpoliticalendsoronlyforself-interest,wouldseemanaturalresponse,andonewhichcannotbeauthoritativelyprohibitediftheexistenceofuniversalmoralvaluesisdenied.TheAbsurdposesaversionofthesameethicalquandarywhich,laterinthetwentiethcentury,wouldbecentraltothedebatearoundwhatcametobecalledpostmodernity:whatvaluescantherebeifnonecaneverbelegitimatedinthelightofsomesecureultimatetruth?CamusstatestheproblemeloquentlyatthebeginningofL’Hommerevolt´e´:Sil’onnecroitarien,sirienn’adesensetsinousnepouvonsaffirmeraucune`valeur,toutestpossibleetrienn’ad’importance.Pointdepournidecontre,l’assassinn’anitortniraison.Onpeuttisonnerlescrematoirescommeonpeut´aussisedevouer´asoignerlesl`epreux.Maliceetvertusonthasardoucaprice.´(Ess,415)Ifonebelievesinnothing,ifnothingmakessense,ifwecanassertnovaluewhatsoever,everythingispermissibleandnothingisimportant.Thereisnoproorcon;themurdererisneitherrightnorwrong.Oneisfreetostokethecrematoryfires,ortogiveone’slifetothecareoflepers.Wickednessandvirtuearejustaccidentorwhim.(R,13)Here,CamussoundsuncomfortablylikeCaligula.InL’Hommerevolt´e´moregenerallythough,hewillplaytheroleofCherea,concedingtheexistenceofanethicaldilemmabutendeavouringtoovercomeit.ThisdilemmaisdramatisedinacuteforminCaligula.IntheunresolveddialoguebetweenCaligulaandChereaweseeatensionattherootoftheplay.WeknowthatCaligulamustbewrong,thathisprojectofmakingpeoplemoreintenselyawareofthevalueoflivingbyconfrontingthemwiththeever-presentthreatofrandom,meaninglessdeathisinsaneandinadmissible;butitisnotsoeasytoproducedecisiveargumentstoprovethatheiswrongifwedenythevalidityofallestablished,objective,transcendentalvalues.Moreover,inopposinghimChereaallieshimselfwithcorrupt,reactionaryforces,andheendsuphelpingtorestorepreciselytheself-blindedconditionthatCaligula107CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\ncolindaviswantedtoabolish.TheplaydoesnotcondoneCaligula,yetitdrawsitsseductionanddramaticpowerfromCaligula’sexorbitantdesirefortheimpossible.PerhapsforCamusthisseductionwastoostrongforcomfort,becausehewouldspendmuchoftherestofhiscareertryingtoresistit.TheencounterbetweenChereaandCaligulaisrewritteninthediscussionbetweenStepanandKaliayevinAct2ofLesJustes,butheretheambiguityhasbeenexpunged.AllsympathyisforthehumanerevoltofKaliayevratherthanStepan’suncompromisingjustificationofviolenceinthenameofsomedis-tantideal.AsspectatorswemayfeelmoresecureaboutwhosesidewearesupposedtobeonthaninCaligula.Theplayoffersanintellectuallyunthrillingyetsanejustificationofviolenceanditslimits.IsitlegitimatetoassassinateaGrandDukewhosymbolisesanunjust,despoticregime?Yes.Isitlegitimatetokillyoungchildreninthenameofarevolutionaryideal?No.Violencecanbeethicalaslongasitsperpetratorsacceptthat,asDoraputsit,‘Memedansladestruction,ilyaunordre,ilyadeslimites’(ˆTRN,338)(‘Evendestructionhasarightandawrongway,andtherearelimits’(COP,187)).CamushasnowapparentlydetachedhimselffromtheseductionofCaligulaandpositionedhistextandhisspectatorslessambiguouslyonthesideofCherea’ssensiblerestraint.AsCamusinsistsinthecourseofthecon-troversyoccasionedbyhisNivictimesnibourreaux,hedoesnotadvocatecompletenon-violence.Herefersto‘deterriblesviolencesquine[lui]ontposeaucunprobl´eme’(`Ess,355)(‘terribleactsofviolencewhichposed[him]noproblem’)committedduringtheOccupation.However,heinsiststhatnoprincipleoridealcanjustifymurder;andinhissketchesofaphilosophyoflimitsinL’Hommerevolt´e´and‘L’Exild’Hel´ene’heattemptstodemonstrate`thatviolencecanhaveethicaluses,evenifitcanneverbefinallylegitimated.Indeed,therebel’sdilemmaispreciselythattherecanneverbefinallegiti-mation.Therebelmayturntoviolenceinordertocurtailviolence,butshecannotbecertainofthejustificationoroutcomeofherchoices.Actionsareundertakeninriskandcontradiction,andultimatesuccessisneverassured.SothequestionofviolenceisattheheartofCamus’swritingandhisethi-caldeliberations.Hewasconstantlyperplexedbythequestionofwhetherornotviolencecouldbejustifiedandwhatendsitcouldlegitimatelyserve.HisverypublicandmuchdiscussedriftwithSartreintheearly1950sservedtodelimitthecontextthroughwhichhisethicshavebeenconsideredeversince,withcriticssidingwithCamusorSartredependingontheirowninclinations.Camus’ssupportershaveadmiredhimfordefendingthevalueofhumanlifeoverabstractprinciples,whereashisdetractorshavecriticisedhimforintel-lectualinconsistencyandforfailingtofaceuptodifficulthistoricalandpolit-icalchoices,mostnotablyovertheAlgerianWarofIndependence.Recently,108CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nViolenceandethicsinCamusthough,therehavebeenvaluableattemptstoescapefromtheCamus/Sartredichotomy,andtosuggestdifferentintellectualcontextsforunderstandingCamus’sethics;forexample,hisworkhasbeendiscussedinconjunctionwiththethoughtofSimonedeBeauvoir,MauriceBlanchotorEmmanuelLevinas.1SuchreassessmentshavehadthebenefitofrestoringsomeoftheinterestofCamus’swriting,emphasisingforexampleitsacutesensitivitytoalterityanditsagonisedawarenessthatfailureinevitablyhauntsanyeth-icalproject.TheaimofthischapterisnotprimarilytocontributetothisreassessmentofCamus’stheoreticalconceptionofthelinkbetweenethicsandviolence.Rather,Iwanttosuggestthat,forallitsintellectualserious-ness,thetheoreticalandethicaldiscussionofmurderinCamus’sessayscanbeunderstoodasananxious,defensiveneutralisationofthefascinationwithgratuitousviolencewhichemerges,sometimes,inhisfictionaltexts.Thephilosophicalquestion,‘Underwhatcircumstancesisviolencejustified?’,isaccompaniedandendangeredbyadesiretodestroytheOther,adesirewhichhauntsandremainsirreducibletoanyethical,moralisingdiscourse.Anillustrationofthisisprovidedbytheveryfigurewhoseemstoexemplifythepossibilityofanethicaluseofviolence:KaliayevinLesJustes.KaliayevbelievesthatkillingtheGrandDukeisjustified,butthatkillingthechildrenwhoaccompanyhimonthefirstassassinationattemptisnot.Hetherebyacknowledgestheexistenceofalimitwhichrestrictsthelegitimateuseofviolence.BlanchothasdescribedKaliayev’sinabilitytokillthechildrenintermsofanencounterwithothernessasitistheorisedbythephilosopherEmmanuelLevinas.2InsuchanencounterthesightofthefacerevealstheOtherinallitsvulnerabilityandenjoinsthesubjecttodonoharm.Thisreading,however,overlooksthealtogethermoreambiguoustermsinwhichKaliayevdescribestheexperience.Initially,theprospectofkillingtheGrandDukegiveshimrealjoy:‘moncœurs’estmisabattredejoie,jetelejure’`(TRN,332)(‘myheartbegantorace,withjoy...yes,withjoy’(COP,182)).Whenheseesthechildrenhefindshimselfunabletoact;buthedoesnotatfirstattempttoexplainthisonethicalgrounds.Onthecontrary,hisresponsetothemisonlyahair’sbreadthfromextremeviolence:‘S’ilsm’avaientregarde,jecroisquej’auraislanc´elabombe.Pour´eteindreau´moinsceregardtriste’(TRN,332)(‘IftheyhadlookedatmethenIthinkIwouldhavethrownthebomb,ifonlytoshutoutthesadlookintheireyes’(COP,182–3)).ForLevinas,theencounterwiththefaceoftheOtherleadstoanacknowledgementoftheBiblicalinjunction‘Thoushaltnotkill’.TheOther’sfaceforbidsmurder‘throughtheoriginallanguageofhisdefencelesseyes’.3InKaliayev’saccount,aglimpseoftheOther’svulnerableandsadfacerisksprovokingmurder.Kaliayev’sreluctancetoharmthechildrenappearstobeboundupwithspontaneousviolentimpulsestowardsthem.Afew109CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\ncolindavislineslaterKaliayevreferstoearlierexperiencesofanxietyaboutharmingchildren:‘Autrefois,quandjeconduisaislavoiture,cheznous,enUkraine,j’allaiscommelevent,jen’avaispeurderien.Derienaumonde,sinonderenverserunenfant.J’imaginaislechoc,cettetetefrˆelefrappantlaroute,ˆa`lavolee...’(´TRN,333)(‘Intheolddays,whenIusedtogodrivingonourestateintheUkraine,Ialwaysdrovelikeamadman,becauseIwasn’tafraidofanything...exceptofrunningdownachild.Thatwasmyonlyfear.Iusedtoimaginetheshock,thesmallheadhittingtheground...’(COP,183)).Hisfearofharmingachilddoesnotactuallycausehimtoslowdown.Indeed,hisvivid,graphicimaginingoftheeffectofanaccidentonachild’sheadmightevensuggestthatthedesiretoharmunconsciouslyoutweighsanyprotectiveinstinct.SoKaliayev’srecollectionofhispastinUkraine,whichispresumablyintendedtoexplainwhyhecouldnotkillthechildrenintheGrandDuke’scarriage,might,then,suggestsomethingquitedifferentfromanethicalchoice.Atthemomentofaction,heisparalysedbyhisverydesiretokill,adesiresooverwhelmingthatitdestroystheethicalstand-ingofthesubjectpreciselywhenanethicaljustificationismostanxiouslyinvoked.ThisreadingisatthefurthestpossibleremovefromtheethicalpositionsexplicitlyadoptedinNivictimesnibourreauxorL’Hommerevolt´e´.Camus’sstatedconcernistogetbeyondtheethicalimpasseoftheAbsurd.Thefactthattherearenogiven,universalvaluesorprinciplesmustnotbeallowedtoreduceallactions,asCaligulawouldhaveit,toequivalence.InLeMythedeSisypheCamusupbraidedaphilosophicaltraditionwhichacknowledgedtheAbsurdonlyinordertoturnasidefromit.ButmuchofCamus’sownwritingcanbereadasstagingtheimpossibilityofmaintainingoneselfunflinchinglyinthedomainoftheAbsurd.EvenMeursault’sresignedsubmissiontothemechanismsofthelawinthesecondhalfofL’Etrangersuggestsapreferenceforasystemwhichjudgesandcondemns,howeverunjustly,overasustainedexposuretotheAbsurdinwhichnooverarchingauthorityorvaluescanbediscerned.4InCamus’slateressays,revoltserves,ifnotasagenuinelytranscendentalvalue,thenatleastasapseudo-transcendentalvalue,sinceitenablestherebeltoresistthesenselessnessencounteredintheexperienceoftheAbsurd:‘Larevoltena´ˆıtduspectacledeladeraison,devantunecondition´injusteetincomprehensible.Maisson´elanaveuglerevendiquel’ordreau´milieuduchaosetl’uniteaucœurm´emedecequifuitetdisparaˆˆıt’(Ess,419)(‘Rebellionarisesfromthespectacleoftheirrationalcoupledwithanunjustandincomprehensiblecondition.Butitsblindimpetusclamoursfororderinthemidstofchaos,andforunityintheveryheartoftheephemeral’(R,16)).BothCamus’sethicsandhisaestheticsnowbecomeanendeavourtocorrecttheflawintheworldwherebythehumanlongingforsense,order110CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nViolenceandethicsinCamusandcoherenceiseternallyfrustrated.Revoltaspirestointelligibilityevenifitdoesnotyetknowhowtoestablishit;andassuchitisinflatdenialofthefoundinginsightoftheAbsurd,accordingtowhichsenseiswhathumankindbothmustandcannothave.Writingitselfbecomesthecreativeforumwheretheprospectofintelligi-bilitywillbesustained.Camus’sprosestrainstoachieveanaphoristicself-evidencewhichonlythemostill-willedreadercouldpossiblyfailtoaccept.So,withbreathlessand(Isuspect)anxiousrapidity,theopeningpagesofL’Hommerevolt´e´establishthesolevaluewhichwillallowustoescapefromtheethicalimpasseoftheAbsurd:humanlife.Camus’sargumentisessen-tiallyverysimple:ifIdonotkillmyself,itmustbebecauseIacceptthatmyownlifeisanecessarygood;ifIacceptthisformyself,thenImustacceptitforallothersaswell,sothatifIrejectsuicideIalsorejectmurder.InJillCapstick’ssuccinctsummary,‘ThekeytermofCamusianethicsisthegivenvalueofhumanlife.Consequently,anyactofauthenticrevoltmustsimultaneouslyrejectallthatviolateshumandignityandaffirmtheworthofallhumanbeings.’5ThesolitaryexperienceoftheAbsurdhasnowbeenovercomebythecommunityandsolidarityestablishedthroughCamus’snewcogito:‘Jemerevolte,doncnoussommes’(´Ess,432)(‘Irebel–thereforeweexist’(R,28)).Howcompellingisthisargument?Notvery,ifwearetojudgebyitssub-sequent(lackof)influence,andtheharshcriticismstowhichitwassubjectedbyJeansonandSartre.Itis,tosaytheleast,oddthatanargumentthatbeginsinthefrustrationofrationalitythroughtheexperienceoftheAbsurdendsbyendorsingaformofuniversalistrationalismasitinsiststhatIextendtoallhumanbeingsthevalueswhichIassertasvalidformyself.More-over,therhetoricaloverkillthatpermeatesCamus’sargumentativeproserisksdistractingratherthanpersuadinghisreader.Whendiscussingthelinkbetweensuicideandmurderforexample,Camusallowshisreadernospacefordissent:Comment,sansuneconcessionremarquableaugoutduconfort,conserverˆpoursoileben´eficeexclusifd’untelraisonnement?D´esl’instanto`ucebien`estreconnucommetel,ilestceluidetousleshommes.Onnepeutdonnerunecoherenceaumeurtresionlarefuseausuicide.Unespritp´en´etr´edel’id´ee´d’absurdeadmetsansdoutelemeurtredefatalite;´ilnesauraitaccepterlemeurtrederaisonnement.Vis-a-visdelaconfrontation[entrel’interrogation`humaineetlesilencedumonde],meurtreetsuicidesontunememechose,qu’ˆilfautprendreourejeterensemble.(Ess,416;myemphasis)Howcanone,withoutindulgingone’sdesireforcomfort,keepforoneselftheexclusivebenefitsofthisargument?Themomentlifeisrecognisedasa111CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\ncolindavisnecessarygood,itbecomessoforallmen.Onecannotfindlogicalconsistencyinmurder,ifonedeniesitinsuicide.Amindthatisimbuedwiththeideaoftheabsurdwilldoubtlessacceptmurderthatisfated;itcouldnotacceptmurderthatproceedsfromreasoning.Inviewofthatconfrontationwhichtheybothrenderimpossible,murderandsuicidearethesamething;onemustacceptthembothorrejectthemboth.(R,14)Therhetoricalquestionwithwhichthisextractbeginsimpliesthattheanswerisknownbeforethequestionisevenasked,andthatnoonecoulddenyitingoodfaith.Therestofthepassageassertsaseriesofcertaintiesandimpossibilitieswhichallownomarginofdoubt.ThereisherenoneofthetensionandhesitationinherentinthefraughtdialoguebetweenCaligulaandCherea,withwhichthischapterbegan.Theissueshavenowbeenresolved,andChereahasdecisivelywontheargument.Wearerequiredonlytolistenandtolearn.However,perhapsCamus’sprose,throughtheverymarkersofconfidencewhichruleoutanypossibilityofdisagreement(‘Onnepeut’,‘ilnesaurait’,‘ilfaut’)(‘Onecannot’,‘itcouldnot’,‘onemust’),weakenshiscasebyoverstatingit.Thedissentingreaderisrhetoricallydeniedanyvalidpositionfromwhichacounter-argumentmightbemounted,butwemightendupfeelinglesspersuadedthanbatteredbyCamus’sover-confidentprose;andthesuspicionmayarisethatthepersonCamusismostanxioustoconvinceishimself.Theassaultonthereaderhereisallthemoresignificantbecauseitcon-tradictstherespectrequiredbyCamus’sethicalposition.Inprinciple,revoltentailsopennesstotheOtherbecauseitgesturestowardsaflawlesscommu-nityofallhumans:‘L’individun’estdoncpas,aluiseul,cettevaleurqu’il`veutdefendre.Ilfaut,aumoins,tousleshommespourlacomposer.Dans´larevolte,l’hommesed´epasseenautruiet,decepointdevue,lasolidarit´e´humaineestmetaphysique’(´Ess,426)(‘Thereforetheindividualisnot,inhimself,anembodimentofthevalueshewishestodefend.Itneedsatleastallmentocomprisethem.Whenherebels,amanidentifieshimselfwithothermen,and,fromthispointofview,humansolidarityismetaphysical’(R,22–3;translationmodified)).ButthisapparentopennesstotheOtherandtheethicalgenerosityitentailsarealsodisturbinglytotalising.Evenallmenarenotenough,sinceCamusbizarrelyinsiststhatthevaluetobedefendedrequires‘aumoins,tousleshommes’(‘atleastallmen’).Whatismorethaneverybody?IassumeherethatCamusisnot,inwhatwouldforhimbeanunprecedentedaccessoffeministself-critique,taking‘leshommes’(‘men’)toreferonlytomen,soallowingsomewomenintothesphereofsolidarityaswellasallmen.TheapparentwillingnesstoembraceothernessinfactleavesnoroomfortheOtherwhomightresisttheperspectiveoftheself.All112CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nViolenceandethicsinCamusothershavetobethesame;allareimplicatedinthevaluesandinthesoli-darityforwhichCamusargues.Nonemaybeleftout:‘Mais,qu’ilmanqueunseuletreaumondeirremplac¸abledelafraternitˆe,etlevoil´ad`epeupl´e’´(Ess,685)(‘Butifonesinglehumanbeingismissingintheworldoffra-ternitythenthisworldisimmediatelydepopulated’(R,245–6)).6Whilstpleadingforinclusiveness,thetextisactuallyperformingtheradicalexclu-sionofthedissentingreader.Itarguesfor‘mesure’(‘measure’)ratherthan‘demesure’(‘excess’),butitsownarrogationofaspeakingpositionwhich´extinguishesalldoubtandsummonsintoitsorbitallmen(atleast)isitselfexcessive.Orviolenteven.IncallingonustorefrainfrommurderingtheOther,Camuswritesinamannerwhichis,inthetermIhaveusedelsewhere,altericidal(i.e.Other-killing),becauseitdeniestheOtheranyindependentposition.7SothelanguageofCamus’stextcontradictsitskeyargument,asitdeniesalterityattheverymomentthatitpurportstoopenupthesolitarysubjecttothecommunityofothers.Solidarity,inthislight,turnsouttobeanexclusivepactratherthanagenerouslyinclusivenotionbecauseitisintolerantofdif-ference.ThismismatchbetweenCamus’slanguageandhismessageisallthemorestrikingwhenL’Hommerevolt´e´insists,precisely,onthevalueofclar-ity.Revoltaimstoachieveanopencommunicationbetweenfreesubjects,whereasambiguityisassociatedwithdeath:‘Chaqueequivoque,chaque´malentendususcitelamort;lelangageclair,lemotsimple,peutseulsauverdecettemort’(Ess,687)(‘Everyambiguity,everymisunderstanding,leadstodeath;clearlanguageandsimplewordsaretheonlysalvationfromit’(R,247)).ThisobviouslychimeswiththeviewexpressedinLaPestebyTarrou,accordingtowhom‘toutlemalheurdeshommesvenaitdecequ’ilsnetenaientpasunlangageclair’(TRN,1426)(‘allourtroublesspringfromourfailuretouseplain,clear-cutlanguage’(P,208)).Thedemandforclarityisclearenough;theproblemisthatitdoesnotreflectCamus’sownperfor-manceaswriter,particularlyinhisliterarytexts.InLaPeste,tociteanotableexample,Tarrou’sdesirefor‘unlangageclair’(‘plain,clear-cutlanguage’)isfrustratedbyatextinwhichsenseandinterpretabilityareconstantlyatissue.InTarrou’sownnotebooks,Rieux’schronicle,Grand’ssentenceorPaneloux’ssermons,meaningisneverunambiguouslygiven.Itmustalwaysbepainstakinglyextractedfromthedataofexperience,anditmustthenberepeatedlyre-workedandrevised.Thenovelasawholeis,bycommonagree-ment,anallegory,thoughthisdesignationservestoopenupitspotentialforinterpretationratherthantocloseitdown.TheepigraphfromDefoe,whichcommendsrepresenting‘n’importequellechosequiexistereellementpar´quelquechosequin’existepas’(TRN,1215)(‘anythingthatreallyexistsbythatwhichexistsnot’(P,3)),potentiallyshattersanyauthoritativereading113CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\ncolindavisofthetextbyimplyingthatitcouldbeaboutanything.TheearlyconsensusthatitwasaboutEvilortheOccupationsimplifiedthenovelbyoverlookingsomeofitstensionsandambiguities,andintheprocessnoticeablyfailedtoprovidecomprehensive,coherentandpersuasivereadings.Sowithpassingyearscriticsseemtobelesscertainofwhatthenovelmeansthantheywereimmediatelyafteritspublication.8Camus’swritingisatitsmostchallengingandintriguingpreciselyatthemomentswhenitdisturbsthesmoothsurfaceofmeaningandreveals,lurk-ingunderneathit,anenigmaticcorewhichresistseasyconceptualisation.Theverytitlesofhisearlyessaysimplyacontextinwhichmeaningisunstable:‘L’Ironie’,‘Entreouietnon’,‘L’Enversetl’Endroit’.FromMeur-sault’sdisjointed,gap-riddennarrativeinL’EtrangertoClamence’sover-smoothmonologueinLaChute,whichcomestogetherwiththewarning‘Nevousyfiezpas’(TRN,1500)(‘Don’trelyonit!’(F,36)),Camusexploreswaysofdisturbingintelligibilityandsuspendinghisreaders’senseofinter-pretativeassurance.Weareconstantlyremindedthatwehaveunderstoodtoomuchortoolittle;wemaybemystifiedbywhatwasessentiallysim-ple,orwemayhavehastilysimplifiedwhatwasinherentlycomplex.Onhisfinalcanvas,Jonas,thedisturbedprotagonistof‘Jonasoul’artisteautravail’fromL’ExiletleRoyaume,writes‘unmotqu’onpouvaitdechiffrer,´maisdontonnesavaits’ilfallaityliresolitaireousolidaire’(TRN,1654)(‘awordthatcouldbemadeout,butwithoutanycertaintyastowhetheritshouldbereadsolitaryorsolidary’(EK,115)).Thedifferencebetweensolitaireandsolidairemaybeminimal,butitisalsocrucial.Thetextinsistsontheword’sunreadability,andbyextensiononitsownpervasiveambigu-ity.Inthesamecollection,thestory‘L’Hote’playsonthetwomeaningsofˆl’hoteˆasguestorhost,asitposesthequestionofwhichofitscharactersisactuallyathomeinAlgeriaintheviolentyearspriortoindependence:Daru,thewhiteteacher,ortheallegedlymurderousArabtowhomheplayshostforanight.Eachoccupiesthepositionofbothhostandguest,andneitheroccupieseitherpositionfully.Theambiguityofthewordhoteˆhascometocharacterisetheirentirerelationwiththelandtheyinhabit,anditcreatesagulfbetweenthemwhichfrustratesanyprospectoftheseamlesssolidaritywhichremainedCamus’sdrivingfantasy.9Camusinsistsonclarityasanantidotetoviolence,yethisownargumenta-tivediscourseisbullyingandcoercive;andheassociatesambiguitywithmur-der,whilsthistextsareriddenwithunresolvedinterpretativetangles.Eitherway,hisreadersareconfrontedwithtextswhichdonotachieveaplacidmarriageofmessageandmedium.InL’Hommerevolt´e´,CamusenvisagesameetingofselfandOtherwhichleadstocommunityandsolidarity.Themeet-ingoftextandreader,though,ismoreakintothewary,distrustfulencounter114CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nViolenceandethicsinCamusinwhatremainsthemosthauntingandenigmaticpassageinCamus’swrit-ing,thesceneonthebeachinL’EtrangerwhereMeursaultshootstheArab.ThisistheveryoppositeoftheLevinasianencounterwhichBlanchotsawinLesJusteswhenKaliayevrefusestokillthechildren,andwhichmaybeachievedatleastmomentarilyin‘L’Hote’whenDarupreparesamealˆforhisArabguest/prisoner.10Insuchanencounter,theselfperceivesintheothernessoftheOtheraninjunctiontotakeresponsibilityforandtopro-tectitsvulnerability.InL’Etranger,ontheotherhand,theArab’sothernessisseenasanintolerablechallengetothemurderoussubject’swell-being.MeursaultdescribeshowtheArab‘avaitl’airderire’(TRN,1168)(‘seemedtobelaughing’(O,59)).Itisnotevencertainthatheisactuallylaughing;butinanycaseheisnotlaughingatMeursault,justlaughing,indifferenttoMeursaultandatthesametimemockinghisentireexistence,exposinghimtohisownabsentcentre.Inthealtericidalfantasylurkingbehindthescene,theOtherpossessessomethingthatIcannothave,s/heisathomewhereasIaminexile,andthusIamrobbedofwhatmighthavebeenmine.Meursaultrespondswithviolencetothisimaginarytheftofbeing.HisactionisatafarremovefromCamus’sattempttofoundcommunityinrevoltthroughhis‘Jemerevolte,doncnoussommes’(‘I´rebel–thereforeweexist’).Rather,theimplicitcogitohereis:IkillthereforeIam,IkillthatwhichisotherthanmesothatIcanexistasmyself.ThispassagefromL’Etrangerdepictsthestand-offbetweenselfandOtherasessentiallyviolent.Meursaultkills,atleastinpart,because,likeCaligula,hecanseenogoodreasonnotto.Laterprotagonists,suchasRieux,Kaliayev,orDaru,endeavourtocreateaspaceinwhichethicalresponsibilityispossible,butviolencecontinuestolurkinthebackgroundofeventhemostethicallyoptimistictexts.InthefinalpagesofLaPesteCottardshootsran-domlyintothecrowd,andisviciouslybeatenbythepoliceonhiscapture;in‘L’Hote’theArab’sdecisiontogotoprisonleadstoathreatonDaru’slife.ˆEvenKaliayev,asIsuggestedearlier,maybeparalysedasmuchbytheawfulforceofhisdesiretokillasbyhisreluctancetoharmthechildren.Camus’stextscanbeseenasrepeatedlyre-staging,withgreaterorlesserlucidity,theconfrontationbetweenCaligulaandCherea,embracingandresistingmurderwithouteverbeingfullyabletojustifyoneresponseovertheother.IndeedCherea,likeKaliayev,canonlyputanendtomurderbycommittingithimself.HisreasonsmaybedifferentfromCaligula’s,atleastinasfarashecanarticulatethemhonestly,buttheresultisthesame.Theassassi-nationofCaligulacontinuesthesequenceofmurdersthatitisintendedtoterminate,soitisnowonderthatCaligula’sfinalwordsare‘Jesuisencorevivant!’(TRN,108)(‘I’mstillalive!’(COP,104)).Hemaydie,buttheprin-cipleofsenselessviolencewhichheembodiesisimplementedagaininthe115CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\ncolindavisverymomentofhisdeath.Violenceis,asCamusputsitindefenceofhisNivictimesnibourreaux,‘alafoisin`evitableetinjustifiable’(´Ess,355)(‘atthesametimeinevitableandunjustifiable’).Camus’sdoggedrefusaltogivelegitimacytoviolencemaybethefoundationofthemoralstaturehehasacquiredamongsthisadmirers;butitisalso,ashistextsconstantlyremindusboththroughtheirdepictionsofmurderandthroughtheirsuspensionofinterpretativecertainty,anirrelevanceinfaceoftheconvictionthatvio-lenceagainstthethreateningOtheristhesubject’smostfundamentalformofself-assertion.Ontheonehand,then,thereisinCamus’swritingadesireforclarity,unity,community,coherenceandinnocence;ontheotherhand,thereistheknowledgethatcontradiction,conflictandambiguityarecomponentsoftheconditionofhumankind.ThistensionisreflectedthroughoutCamus’swrit-ing.Atmomentsitinsistsonapolemicalclarityachievedwithaschoolboyswaggerwhichcanbeirritatingorevenembarrassingmorethanitisper-suasive.Buthiswritingcanalsobeintriguinganddisturbing,asitfracturescertaintiesandlaunchesitsreaderintoareasofethicalandsemanticambigu-itywhichallownoreadyresolution.CamussometimessideswithCherea;butCaligula’sterriblemelancholy,hissensethatonlyanescalationofviolencecouldsweepawaythenonsenseoftheworld,alsohangsoverhiswriting.Hewishesto,butcanneverquite,expungethefundamentalinsightthatbeforeallethicsisthesimpledesiretokill,toacquirebeingbyannihilatingwhatendangersmyfullpossessionoftheworld.Initspervasivesabotagingofhisreaders’,hisprotagonists’andperhapsitsauthor’shermeneuticsecurity,hiswritingmakesamockeryofthedesireforstableidentities,valuesorconcepts.Atitsmostparadoxicallyintense,thebestitcanofferisamelan-cholicallyfraughtprospect:ifweareluckywemightachievea‘culpabilite´raisonnable’(Ess,420)(‘limitedculpability’(R,17)),oraspiretobe‘meur-triersinnocents’(Ess,700)(‘innocentmurderers’(R,260)).ButwecanneverknowforsurethatweareCherearatherthanCaligula,KaliayevratherthanMeursault.WhatisfascinatingaboutCamus’swritingarenottheanswersthathisessaysattempttoofferus,buttheintellectualdeadlocksinwhichhistextsengagehisreaders.Thecontradictionsanduncertaintiesaresometimessub-mergedbeneathapolemicalflourish,butsometimestheyre-surfacethroughtheveryrhetoricalconfidencewhichaimedtostiflethem.Withoutitsten-sions,Camus’swritingwouldbeblandly,bloodlesslyassertive;withthem,itmaintainsitsraw,uneasybewildermentinfaceofitsinabilitytoansweritsanditscentury’sfoundingquestion:whynotkill?FacedwiththeOther,whyshouldn’tIjustdestroyittopreservemyownbeing?116CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nViolenceandethicsinCamusNOTES1.Seeinparticulartwoground-breakingdoctoraltheses,whichhaveinformedthediscussionthroughoutthischapter:JillCapstick,‘Re-readingCamus’sEthics’,unpublisheddoctoralthesis,UniversityofOxford(2003),andElizabethHart,‘LevinasianEthicsandtheWorksofAlbertCamus’,unpublisheddoctoralthe-sis,StateUniversityofNewYork(1997).OnCamusandLevinas,seealsoColinDavis,EthicalIssuesinTwentieth-CenturyFrenchFiction:KillingtheOther(Bas-ingstoke,Macmillan,2000),and‘TheCostofBeingEthical:Fiction,Violence,andAltericide’,CommonKnowledge9.2(2003),241–53.2.SeeMauriceBlanchot,‘Tupeuxtuercethomme’,LaNouvelleRevuefranc¸aise3(1954),1059–69.IamindebtedtoJillCapstick’s‘Re-readingCamus’sEthics’fordrawingmyattentiontothisarticle.3.EmmanuelLevinas,BasicPhilosophicalWritings(Bloomington,IndianaUniver-sityPress,1996),p.12.4.ForamoredetailedreadingofthisaspectofL’Etranger,seeDavis,‘TheCostofBeingEthical’.5.JillCapstick,‘MasteryorSlavery:TheEthicsofRevoltinCamus’s“LesMuets”’,ModernandContemporaryFrance11.4(2003),453–4.6.Camusisalludingheretoawell-knownlinefromLamartine’spoem‘L’Isolement’:‘Unseuletrevousmanque,ettoutestdˆepeupl´e’(‘Onesinglebeing´ismissing,andeverythingisdepopulated’)(CEuvrespoetiquescompl´etes`,Paris,Gallimard(Pleiade),´1963),p.3.7.SeeDavis,EthicalIssuesand‘TheCostofBeingEthical’.8.OnproblemsofreadingLaPeste,seeforexampleEdwardJ.Hughes,AlbertCamus:LePremierHomme/LaPeste(Glasgow,UniversityofGlasgowFrenchandGermanPublications,1995);JohnKrapp,‘TimeandEthicsinAlbertCamus’sThePlague’,UniversityofTorontoQuarterly68.2(1999),655–76;andColinDavis,‘InterpretingLaPeste’,RomanicReview85:1(1994),125–42.9.Formoredevelopedethicalreadingsof‘L’Hote’,seeJillBeer(Capstick),‘ˆLeRegard:FacetoFaceinAlbertCamus’s“L’Hote”’,ˆFrenchStudies56.2(2002),179–92;andElizabethHart,‘Faceaface:l’`ethiquel´evinasiennedans“L’H´ote”’,ˆinLionelDubois(ed.),LesTroisguerresd’AlbertCamus(Poitiers,LesEditionsduPont-Neuf,1995),pp.172–7.10.SeeHart,‘Faceaface’,pp.`176–7.117CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\n9CHARLESFORSDICKCamusandSartre:thegreatquarrelWhen,duringaspeechonthefutureofEuropedeliveredinBrusselsinFebruary2005,PresidentGeorgeBushcitedasentencefromLaChute,itisunlikelythatheintendedtostirupmemoriesoftheinfamousquarrelbetweenCamusandSartrethathadoccurredoverfiftyyearsbefore.However,byevokingClamence’sunderstandingoffreedomas‘along-distancerace’(F,97)(‘unecoursedefond’(TRN,1544)),BushunwittinglycitedfromCamus’sclearandbitterparodyofSartreinwhichtheprotagonistpresentshimselfasa‘partisaneclair´edelaservitude’(‘anenlightenedadvocateofslavery’),before´claimingthatheusedtospreadtheword‘freedom’onhistoastatbreakfast(TRN,1543;F,97).Bush’sneo-conservativeappropriationofCamusasacriticofterroristviolenceaccordinglybackfired,fortheauthoraimstoindictthose–SartreandhiscolleaguesatLesTempsmodernesincluded–who,heclaims,babbleonaboutfreedomwhilstatthesametimeexploitingitsrhetoricasaconvenientsmokescreenfortheirownoppressivepurposes.Theanecdoteistellingforanumberofreasons:notonlydoesitsuggesttheenduring,resonantlegaciesoftheCamus–Sartredispute;italsoservesasawarningtothosewhoignoretheambiguitiesofthatdispute,andattemptinsteadtopresentitsprincipalplayersinreductivelyideologicalterms.1DespitethepersistentpresenceofCamusandSartreinFrenchculture,itisdifficultfivedecadesontoimaginethepublicinterestgeneratedbythephilo-sophical,literaryandideologicaldebatesunderpinningtheirverypersonalquarrel.The1952exchangeofarticlesneverthelessachievedthestatusofanationaldispute,continuingaGallictraditionofhighprofileintellectualfeuds.Therewaswidepresscoverageoftheacrimoniousexchanges,andFrancisJeanson,intheinitialarticlethathadeffectivelysparkedthecontro-versy,statedaccuratelythatthedisagreementencapsulatedsomeofthemosturgentissuesofhistime.2Thequarrelremainsadefiningelementincontem-poraryperceptionsofthetwomen.Inaddition,ithaspersistedasamodelofoppositionality,withCamus’sroleinstrumentalisedinavarietyofsubse-quentinterpretationsforseeminglyabstractpurposes:allowingexploration118CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nCamusandSartre:thegreatquarrelofcontemporaryapproachestotraumaandthe‘crisisinwitnessing’;permit-tingananti-communistandanti-totalitariancritiqueoftheresidualpatternsofColdWarpoliticalthoughtinMitterrand’sFrance;orpositing,throughthecontrastingpresentationofavindicatedCamusandademonisedSartre,thepossibilitiesofmoderationwithinrevolutionarythought.3Itis,how-ever,inpostcolonialdebatesthattheseprocesseshavebeenmostappar-ent,fortherenewedprominenceofaseriesofkeyanti-colonialintellectuals(e.g.theMartinican-bornpsychologistandtheoristofanti-colonialstrug-gleFrantzFanon(1925–61)andtheTunisiannovelistandessayistAlbertMemmi(1920-))hastriggeredareassessmentofcertainFrenchmetropoli-tanfiguresinthelightofpostcolonialconcerns,occasioningincertaincasesamarkedchangeincriticalfortunes.Camus’sregulardenigrationasnostalgicimperialisthas,forinstance,beenmatchedbyaprogressiverehabilitationofSartreasaleadinganti-colonialthinker,andwhileCamus’s1950sequivoca-tion,self-contradictionandprevaricationoverAlgeriahaveattractedcriti-calreactionsfromprominentcommentatorssuchasConorCruiseO’BrienandEdwardSaid,Sartre’santi-colonialactivityhaspermittedhissteadyreassessment.ThequarrelbetweenCamusandSartreiscustomarilysituatedaroundthepublicationoftheformer’sL’Hommerevolt´e´(Ess,407–709),relatingtheirreparablebreakdownoftheirrelationshiptotheincreasinglyacrimoniousexchangesinLesTempsmodernesregardingthebook.Despitetheundeni-ableimpactofthisepisode,exploredindetailinarecentstudybyRonaldAronson,theaimofthischapteristosuggestthatthequarrelhasamuchlongerhistory,notonlystretchingbacktoembryonicincompatibilitiesfoundincriticismsthetwomenmadeofeachother’sworkbeforetheyactuallymet,butalsoreflectedinthedivergentpositionstheyadoptedontheAlgerianWarintheaftermathoftheirpublicrupture.Itispossible,thechapterargues,toseeCamusandSartreengaginginacontinuedifindirectdialogueoverthewar,whichitselfbeganovertwoyearsafterrelationsbetweenthemhadirreconcilablybrokendown,andendedtwoyearsafterCamus’sprematuredeathin1960.DespitetheregularconflationofCamusandSartreunderabannerofpost-warexistentialism,significantdifferencesseparatedthetwomen.Indeed,theywereincreasinglyunwillingtoacceptanyconnectionintermsofintel-lectualschools,withCamusendeavouring–from1945onwards–toavoidthestatusofjuniorpartnerbydistinguishinghisownpersonaltakeontheAbsurdfromSartre’smoresystematicexistentialism.Inbiographicalterms,thedifferencesbetweenSartre(fromabourgeoisfamilyandwithapres-tigiousParisianeducation)andCamus(borntoworking-classparentsinMondoviandbroughtupincolonialAlgeria)aremarked;inphilosophical119CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\ncharlesforsdicktermsthesedistinctionsareequallyclear,withPeterRoylepresentingSartreasan‘existentialphenomenologistinthegrandEuropeanphilosophicaltra-dition’,andCamusasa‘disabusedheiroftheEnlightenment’.4TheinitialcontactbetweenCamusandSartrewasindirect,fortheyreviewedeachother’sbooks,in1938and1943respectively,withasharedmixofadmirationandreserve.Camus,ayoungandpoliticallyactiveliterarycriticforAlgerrepublicain´,foundinLaNausee´echoesofhisownconcernwithabsurdity,butdistancedhimselffromwhathesawasthenovel’sphilo-sophicalabstractionaswellasSartre’sfailuretoputtoanyclearpurposethefreedomachievedbyhischaracters(Ess,1417–19).ItisunknownwhetherSartrewasawareofthisjudgement,buthisreviewofL’EtrangerinLesCahiersduSudfiveyearslaterwasagenerousone,grantingthetextthestatusofaphilosophicalnovelinaVoltaireantradition.Withprofessorialovertones,hequestionsCamus’sunderstandingofJaspers,HeideggerandKierkegaard,butgoesontocelebratetheanti-conventionalhumanismofthetext’sabsurdisthero,highlightingthesuccessofthestyleadoptedbytheauthor.5InSartre’sview,therefore,Camusissuccessfulasanovelist,butnotasaphilosopher:thetriumphofstyleoverintellectualcontentisanaccusa-tionthatwouldsurfaceintheexchangesleadingtotheirruptureadecadelater.ThepairfirstmetatthepremiereofSartre’sre-workingoftheElectra`story,LesMouches,in1943,andtheirinstantrapportledtoaseeminglyclosefriendshipandfruitfulcollaboration.SartreinitiallyinvitedCamustoappearinhisexistentialistdramaHuisclos,althoughtheplaywaseven-tuallyadoptedbyaprofessionalcompanyandproducedin1944;andinthefinalstagesofthewar,CamusinvolvedSartreinwritingforCombat,requestingfromhimaprominentarticletomarktheLiberationofParisandsendinghimin1945asitscorrespondenttotheUnitedStates(whereheopenlypraisedCamus’spoliticalcommitment).Astheyemergedasfetedˆpost-warcelebrities,thepairplannedaco-editedjournalandothercollab-orativeprojects(bothintellectualandpolitical).WhenSartrehadearliersuggestedthatCamusjointheeditorialboardofLesTempsmodernesin1944,however,Camusdeclined,andalthoughhecitedinexplanationhisowneditorialcommitmentsatCombat,itispossibletotrackaseriesofdivergencesofopinionduringtheimmediatepost-waryearsthatculmi-nateinthe1952quarrel.Camus,forinstance,wroteinAugust1945oneoftheonlycritiquesintheFrenchpressofthebombingofHiroshima,avoidingtheapocalypticovertonesofSartre’scommentsontheeventinLesTempsmodernesthreemonthslater;theappearanceoftheHungariannovelist,philosopher,historianandessayistArthurKoestler(1905–80)intheirintellectualmilieu,andhisexposeofStalinistpractices,ledCamusto´120CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nCamusandSartre:thegreatquarrelbecomeanopponentofSovietcommunismtoanextentthatSartrehimselfrejected;andin1948thepairfirstquarrelledpublicly,inanexchangeofarticlesoverthenatureofdemocracyinJeanDaniel’smonthlypublicationCaliban.IntheseCalibantexts,thereisalreadyasenseofthetwomenshapingtheirviewsinrelationtoeachother,withthereformistCamus’smoder-ationandrespectforwhatheperceivedasthepositiveaspectsofbour-geoisdemocracyaccentuatingtherevolutionarySartre’sincreasingradical-ism.Indeed,whereasinthe1940sfundamentaldifferencesoverimportantphilosophicalquestionsmayhavebeendisguisedbysharedvocabularyandanevidentmutualrespect,closeexaminationofthedecadeprecedingthe1952quarrelsuggeststhattheirrupturewasinmanywaysinevitable,evenpre-programmed.ItwasthepublicationofL’Hommerevolt´e´in1951thatbroughtthesetensionstothefore.Camus’stextpresentsrevoltasameansoftransformingindividualresistanceintocollectivesolidarity;atthesametime,itsuggeststhatthepotentialofrevolthadbeenbluntedbytheFrenchRevolution,and–inlinewiththetendencyofrevolutionarymovementstoadoptanincreasinglytotalitariandirection–beentransformedintoviolenceandoppression.Asareflectiononthenatureofhistoryandtheroleofthepoliticallycommittedintellectual,thestudyquestionswhetherthetakingofanother’slifecaneverbejustified,and–inanimportantdivergencefromaSartreanviewofrevolutionaryviolence–claimsthattheendsshouldbeseenassanctified,andnotjustified,bythemeans.TheconnectionsCamuscreatesbetweenrevolutionaryhistoryanditsaftermathinStalin’sRussiaareclear,andalthoughheattemptstoresurrectaFrench‘syndicalist’tradition,hisbookrapidlybecamethetargetofFrenchcommunistsandtheirfellowtrav-ellers,forwhomitepitomisedanaive,utopianandultimatelyconservativeinterventioninoneoftheprincipaldebatesoftheday.InthepoliticalclimateoftheColdWar,withthecollapseofanyhopesofsocialrevolutioninFrance,Sartre(andtoalesserextentCamus)hadbrieflyflirtedwiththeideaofcreatingathirdpoliticalforce,the‘Rassemblementdemocratiqueetr´evolutionnaire’.Whenthisprojectfaltered,itbecameclear´thatanymiddlegroundwasrapidlydisappearing:Sartre,inhisdesiretotakesidesinacountryheperceivedasincreasinglyanti-communist,driftedtowardstheFrenchCommunistParty(PCF);Camus,strugglingtotranscendpolitics,foundhimselfincreasinglyunwillingtoalignhimselfwithanyortho-doxyorcommoncause.Itwasthisself-imposedsolitudethatmeantthatCamus’spositioninthe1950swouldbecomeoneofextremepersonaldiffi-culty,asituationaccentuatedbyhisapparentrefusaltoclarifyhisviewsonthoseveryphenomena–freedom,justice,violenceandrevolt–onwhichhehadpreviouslycommentedatlength.Sartre’sangryresponsetoL’Homme121CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\ncharlesforsdickrevolt´e´wasnotsurprising,for(althoughSartreisnevermentioneddirectlybyname)Camus’sstudymaybereadasadirectchallengetohimandtohisemergingviewsonrevolution.Indeed,theseobliqueallusionssetthetoneforthesubsequentdispute,inwhichcommunicationwasconductedeitherbyproxyorindistinctlyimpersonalterms.Sartre,seeminglyoffendedbyCamus’sfailuretonamehim,refusedtocommentinprintonthebook.L’Hommerevolt´e´waseventuallyreviewedinLesTempsmodernesbyhissecretaryFrancisJeanson,whose‘AlbertCamus,oul’amerˆevolt´ee’(‘Albert´Camus,ortheRebelliousSoul’)isanacerbic,evenviolenttext,accusingitssubjectofquietismandaloofness,abstractionsreflectedinwhatJeansonsawasCamus’sexcessivelyelegantliterarystyle.Centraltothereviewwasacritiqueofanti-historicism,anobservationthatnotonlyimpliedthatCamushadfailedtounderstandMarx,butalsothathehadrejectedthecommitmenttojusticeimplicitinhisResistanceactivity.CamushimselfinterpretedJeanson’sreview–fromitshighlyironictitleonwards–asacalculatedactofhumiliation.Herespondedprovocatively–addressinghisowntexttotheimpersonal:‘MonsieurleDirecteur’(‘DearEditor’)–asifSartreandnotJeansonhadwrittenthepiece.RemindingSartreoftheirfriendshipandofhisownpoliticalactivism,Camuschargedexis-tentialistswithcomplicitywithStalinism,andaccusedLesTempsmodernesofwilfullymisunderstandinghiscentraltheses.Inself-defence,hestatedthatthebookdidnotdenyhistorybutinsteadengagedwiththosewhomhistoryblindedtopresentsuffering(alludingheretoSovietworkcamps).Inadamningstatement,Camusclaimedthatthereviewersupportedrevoltagainsteverything‘saufcontrelepartietl’Etatcommunistes’(‘excepttheCommunistPartyandthecommuniststate’).6Infact,Sartre’sradicalismneverledhim–orLesTempsmodernes–toapproveoftheviolentpoliticalextremesoftheSovietUnion,andaJanuary1950editorialco-authoredwithMerleau-Pontyhadevendenouncedworkcamps.However,asaresultofthevehemenceofthedispute,itsparticipantsendeduprepresentingpositionstheydidnotnecessarilyespouse–positionsthatgofarbeyondSartre’sexis-tentalistinterpretationofMarxism,attemptingtoreconcilefreedomwithpredetermination,andCamus’sleft-leaningrejectionofcommunism–inordertotransformthetwomen,respectively,intounapologeticStalinistandreactionaryapologistforWesternexpansionism.Sartre’sresponse,whichappearedinthesameissueasCamus’s,wasmoreoverhighlypersonalandreflectstheextenttowhichhehadbeenriled.Hismagisterial,ifoccasion-allysnidedismissalofCamus’sphilosophicalcompetenceignorestheethicalambitionsofL’Hommerevolt´e´,andproceedstodemolishthework’sauthor.AccusingCamusofarroganceanddisengagementfromstrugglesforjusticeaswellasabstentionfromhistoricalaction,hetrackstheshiftsinhisnow122CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nCamusandSartre:thegreatquarrelformerfriend’sthought,damninglyconcludingthathismoralityhadbeentransformedintomoralism.7Jeansonconcludedthequarrelwithasecond,lengthyarticle,8andCamusdraftedafinaldefenceofhistext,onlypublishedafterhisdeath(Ess,1702–16),buttheobviouslypublicsidetothedisputewasalreadyover.Moreover,thecontroversywaseclipsedbythegrowingAlgeriancrisis,inthecon-textofwhichitisnowincreasinglyunderstood.Suchananalysisisnotsimplytheinterpretationofcontemporaryconcernsthroughahistoricalsituation.AlthoughtensionsbetweenCamusandSartremanifestedthem-selvesinopposingattitudestoMarxism,theirquarrelwasatthesametimeunderpinnedbyagrowingawarenessintheearly1950softheroleofanti-colonialisminpost-warFrenchculture.Jeanson’sinitialsalvointhedis-putehad,forinstance,includedreferencetoCamus’sfailuretoaccountfortheMadagascanrevoltof1947,USnapalmattacksonVietnamandthetreatmentofaTunisianarrestedbytheForeignLegion.Thewideningofthedebateisthusclearfromtheoutset.Camuswaspiquedbytheintimationthathewasdisengagedfromquestionsofcolonialjustice,remindingJeansonthathehadbeeninvolvedinthemforalmosttwodecades.InhisanalysisofthebadfaithunderpinningJeanson’sreview,thisfocusonracismandcolonialismispresentedbyCamusasameansofavoidingdiscussionofStalinism,forhimtheissuecentraltoL’Hommerevolt´e´.Inresponse,SartresawinCamus’swould-befraternalrelation-shipwithindigenousAlgeriansabourgeoispaternalismreplacingdirectactionwithrhetoric(apointreiteratedinJeanson’ssecondarticle,whereheaccuratelyforeseesCamus’salarmatanti-colonialnationalism);heevenclaimsthatCamus’sembarrassmentovertheVietnameseindependencestrug-gleisgeneratedbyhisconfusionovertheMarxistallegiancesofcolonialnationalism:asenslavedsubjects,theVietnamesehavetherighttorevolt;buttheircommunist-inspiredrevolutionturnsthem,forCamus,intotyrants.FocussingontheNeo-DestourParty’schallengetoFrenchcolonialruleinTunisiainlate1951,SartrecriticisesCamus’sabstractcommentsonhistory,claimingthat‘leproblemen’estpasdeconna`ˆıtresafinmaisdeluiendonnerune’(‘theproblemisnottoknowitsend,buttogiveitone’).9CamusandSartre’sfriendshiphadbeenovershadowedfromtheoutsetbypolitics,inwhichitislikelythatSartreinitiallyconsideredCamushissuperior.Forwhiletheformerhadspent1934–5inBerlin,studyingtheworkofthephenomenologistphilosopherEdmundHusserl(1859–1938)andlackinganyapparentinterestinhisimmediatepoliticalcontextoftheriseofNazism,CamuswasalreadyactiveintheAlgerianCommunistParty,leadingitstheatretroupe(beforeeventuallybeingejectedfromthepartyin1937forrefusingtoaccepttheterminationofitscampaignforindigenous123CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\ncharlesforsdickcivilrights)andindictingthesocialconditionsofcolonialAlgeriainAlgerrepublicain´(Ess,903–38).DuringtheOccupation,itwasCamuswhotookrisksasananti-fascisteditorattheResistancedailyCombat,whileSartreconcentratedoncompletingL’EtreetleNeant´(BeingandNothingness).Bythe1950s,however,itwasasifthetableshadturned.Sartre,whohadonceadmiredCamusastheepitomeofthecommittedintellectual,foundhimselfpoliticised,whilstCamuswithdrewincreasinglyfromdirectengagementinpolitics.Moreover,thepublicationofL’Hommerevolt´e´maybeseentohaveplayedacatalyticrole,foritwasintheyearfollowingthequarreloverthetextthatSartrepubliclysidedwiththeFrenchCommunistParty–thePCF–withoutbecomingapartymember.Itwas,however,hisbreakwiththePartyinNovember1956overitssupportoftheSovietinvasionofHun-garythatledtohisincreasedanti-colonialradicalism.Aseriesofkeyarticles(subsequentlypublishedasSituationsv)appearedoverthenextsixyears,andSartrealsoprovidedprefacesfortextsbyAlbertMemmiandFrantzFanon.10Although,followingtheirdispute,Sartre’spublicsilenceonCamuswasnotbrokenuntilthelatter’sdeathin1960,itwasclearthatthebreakhadhadaprofoundeffectonhisthinking;conversely,thedisputeledtoCamus’sincreasingpublicsilenceandhisgrowingsensethroughoutthe1950sofiso-lationandbetrayal.MovingbeyondPCFpositionsoncolonialism,SartreemergedasaThirdWorldactivistwhosepublicpronouncementsandwrit-ings,aimingtoanalysecolonialismwhilstarguingfordecolonisation,canbeinterpretedasaclearretorttoCamus’sownsilenceandindecision.NowhereisthisclearerthaninSartre’s‘Lecolonialismeestunsysteme’(‘Colonialism`isaSystem’),alecturedeliveredattheSalleWagraminParison27Jan-uary1956,shortlyafterCamus’sownaddressinAlgierscallingforaciviliantruce(Ess,991–9).Thetextmaybereadtocontainaseriesofveiledrefer-encestoCamus,whoseneo-colonialmystificationofthecolonialsystemisindictedinSartre’scritiqueofsocio-economicexplanationsandofnotionsof‘Franco-Muslimfraternity’.Mockingtheideaofreform,Sartreunder-linesthesystemicnatureofcolonialism,gesturingalreadytowardsFanon’sadvocacyofviolentanti-colonialstrugglethatSartrehimselfwouldlaterespouse.RecognisingthatanyliberalsolutiontotheAlgeriansituationwasimpossible,Sartre’santi-colonialwritingsareconcernedwiththereassertionoftheagency(ordirect,independentactions)ofthecolonised.Despiteitsrelianceonanapologyforviolence,whichhewouldlaterpartiallyattenuate,Sartre’salternativeinsightintothesituationallowedhimtoseethemajorshiftsunderway,leading–ashesawit–tothedecolonisationnotjustofAlgeriabutalsoofFranceitself.InSartre’sanalysis,colonialismoperatedasasystemthatdehumanisedbothcoloniserandcolonised,drawingtheFrench124CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nCamusandSartre:thegreatquarrelintoaself-destructivecycleofoppression:‘ilestnotrehonte,ilsemoquedenosloisoulescaricature;ilnousinfectedesonracisme’(‘Itisourshame;itmocksourlawsorcaricaturesthem.Itinfectsuswithitsracism’).11ItisonthispointthathediffersfromCamus,whoseengagementinques-tionsofAlgerianidentitydatedbacktothe1930s,whenhehaddevel-opedanunderstandingofMediterraneanculturethatcelebratedAlgerianspaceasonemarkedbydiversityandreciprocalenrichment.However,asPeterDunwoodiehasdemonstrated,thisnewmodeltendedtoincludeaMuslimpresencemerelystrategically,andwascharacterisedbyanimplicitEurocentrism.12Thepossibilityofashared,hybridcultureisnotbroached,andthesocialdivisionsregulatingcolonialsocietyareaccordinglyperpet-uated.AstheAlgerianWarprogressedandArabagencyinNorthAfricabecameirrefutablyapparent,thisfraternalMediterraneanidealfoundered;butCamus,doggedlyconsistentinhisapproachandrefusinganymajorchange,failedorrefusedtoacknowledgesuchashift,preferringtodismissAlgerian(andwiderArab)nationalismasaSoviet-inspiredplot.Camushadneverthelessbeenoneofthefirstpieds-noirstoaddressthepovertyoftheindigenouspopulationandadvocatesocialchange,privileginginhis1939articlestheneedforeducationaswellassocialandeconomic(ifnotpolit-ical)equalitywiththeFrench.Moreover,in1945,reportingontheSetif´massacres,CamuswasoneofthefewFrenchjournaliststodiscusstheimpli-cationsofcolonialviolence,althoughhepersistedinassumingthatanysolu-tiontothecurrentsituationwouldhavetobeframedinthetraditionsofFrenchrepublicandemocracy:‘C’estlaforceinfiniedelajustice,etelleseule,quidoitnousaiderareconqu`erirl’Alg´erieetseshabitants’(´Ess,959)(‘Itistheinfiniteforceofjustice,andthatalone,thatmusthelpustoreconquerAlgeriaanditsinhabitants’).Despitetheirchallengetocontemporaryortho-doxies,thesetexts–bypresentingacolonialsituationinsocio-economictermsandrefusingtocountenanceanAlgeriaoutsideFrenchcontrol–rejectthepoliticisationSartrewouldsubsequentlyforeground,andrevealaper-sistentlyreformistbeliefinthevaluesofcolonialFrance’s‘civilisingmis-sion’andtheoldassimilationistideal(forcingthecolonisedtoadjusttoandadoptthevaluesandculturesofthecoloniser)onwhichthiswasbased.WhatConorCruiseO’BrienandEdwardSaidhaveseenasCamus’sfailuretoincorporateAlgeriansintofictionalwritingisaccordinglymatchedbyanultimaterefusalofAlgeriansubjecthoodinthepoliticalworks.Thisissurprising,fortheanalysesproposedbyCamusandSartreemergefromsimilarinitialpremises.Inhis1955articlesinL’Express,forinstance,CamuspresentsSetifasareflectionofcolonialintransigence,whichispartly´responsibleforadescentintoviolence(Ess,969–98).Sofar,hisanalysisseemssimilartothatofSartre;yethecontinuesbyquestioningthegrounds125CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\ncharlesforsdickonwhichtheAlgerianscoulduseviolencetofurthertheircause.Itisatthisjuncturethat,advocatingthepeaceconferencewhoseprincipalaimshouldbeaciviliantruce,CamusrevealsafailuretounderstandtheimplicationsofFrenchdefeatin1954atDienBienPhu(thefinalbattleoftheIndochineseWar,thateffectivelyendedthecolonialpresenceofFranceintheregion)andtheinexorablemovementtowardsthedismantlingofEmpireinitsthenpresentform.EvenrevelationsabouttortureinAlgeria,towhichSartre’sresponsewasswiftandsavage,failedtoalterhisopinions.WhereasSartre’sanalysiswasimpersonalandreliantontheidentification(anddismantling)ofoverarchingsystems,Camusresortedtoanincreasinglyambiguous,personalandevenautobiographicaltone,describinghisengagementas‘lalonguecon-frontationd’unhommeetd’unesituation’(Ess,900)(‘thelongconfrontationofanindividualandasituation’).WillingtocriticisetheoppressiveSovietoccupationofHungaryinOctober1956aswellastheuseoftheguillotineinFrance,hefailedtoacknowledgeparallelsbetweenthissituationandthecontinuedFrenchpresenceinAlgeria,andincreasinglyretreatedintopublicsilence.ThissilencemarksanendtoconstructivesolutionsonceithadbecomeapparenttoCamusthathisearlierassimilationistbeliefsincreasinglylackedviability.AngeredbySartre’srepeatedallusionsandattackedforhiscon-tinuedsilence,Camusfinallypublishedin1958theself-justificatory‘Algerie´1958’,whoseaimwastodemonstratethathecouldbefaithfultotheconceptofuniversaljusticewhichunderpinnedhisœuvre,whilstatthesametimeremainingamemberofhiscommunityoforigin.Anyattempttooccupyamedianpositionwas,however,underminedbyarefusaltorecognisethelegitimacyofArabnationalism–whoseromanticprematuritywasdismissedintheclaimthat:‘Iln’yajamaiseu...denationalgerienne’(´Ess,1012)(‘TherehasneverbeenanAlgeriannation’).Camusseemedincapableofacknowledgingtheimpossibilityofreplacingcolonialismwithasystemofco-existencethatwouldleaveexistingFrenchauthorityintact.Moreover,despitehiscondemnationofFLNviolence,hiscommentaryappearedtoprecludecriticismofeithertheFrenchgovernmentorthedestructiveactionsofhisownFrenchAlgeriancommunity.Camus’sunderstandingoftheAlgeriansituationhadthusevolvedlittlesincethe1930s,whenasocialandeconomiccritiqueofthecolonialsituationhadpresentedtheFrenchpresenceasaguaranteeoffairness.Hisanalysesinthe1950sreflectacontinuedpaternalismandfailuretoacceptthefeasibilityofAlgerianindependence;theyprojectanimaginaryAlgeriathatdoesnotsomuchnegatehistoricalrealityasofferautopianreconfigurationofit,dependentonacontradictoryfictionofcommunitycharacterisedbyasharedcultureandtheharmoniousco-existenceofdifferentethnicgroups.Camus’s126CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nCamusandSartre:thegreatquarrelnotionofacountrygroundedinMediterraneanculturetendedtodownplayanyindigenousArabcontribution,notleastbecauseanysharedculturetowhichhealludedwaspredominantlyFrench.Inthe1958‘Avant-propos’toChroniquesalgeriennes´,Camushonoursthepied-noirtraditioninAlgeriaasoneofworking-classpatriotism(Ess,897–9),seemingtoapprovetheendofcolonialismwhilstfailingtoacceptanyderacinationofthecommunityintowhichhewasborn.Moreover(andsurprisinglygivenhiscriticalreactionstotheFrenchmassacresinMadagascarin1947;Ess,321–3),hecontinuedtoignoreanimpendingsenseofhistoricalinevitability,‘seeing’,inEmilyApter’sterms,‘onenationwheretherewereatleasttwo,[projecting]continentalholisminthefaceofincipientbinationalantagonism’.13AnoutburstatapressconferenceinStockholminDecember1957,duringwhichCamushadbeenrepeatedlyinterruptedbyanAlgerianstudentintheaudience,isoftencitedasevidenceofhisabdicationofuniversaljusticeinfavouroftheinterestsofthesocialgroupfromwhichheoriginated:‘Jecroisalajustice,maisjed`efendraimam´ereavantlajustice’(`Ess,1882)(‘Ibelieveinjustice,butwilldefendmymotherbeforejustice’).Farfrombeingaspontaneousexpressionofemotion,thiscommentechoesearliersentimentsexpressedbyCamus,14andthesentenceiscustomarilyreadasastatementofsolidaritywiththepieds-noirsorasaretreatfromrationalpoliticsintoaffectiveautobiography.Thepied-noirpoetJeanSenacimmediatelyattacked´Camusforfailingtoacknowledgehisdutytodefendbothhismotherandjustice,15butthestatementmayalsobeinterpretedasacriticismofthoseforwhomabstractprinciplesweremorevaluablethanhumaninterrelationships,agroupintowhich,inCamus’seyes,Sartrewouldcertainlyhavefallen.ThiscritiqueofSartresurfaceselsewhere,forinstanceincommentsonthosewhoarewillingto‘excuserdeloinl’unedesviolencesetdecondamnerl’autre’(Ess,895)(‘toexcusefromadistanceonetypeofviolenceandcondemnanother’).Moreover,aftertheStockholmevent,Camusattemptedtodiffusethecontroversybyclaiminggreatersolidaritywiththestudentthanwith‘beaucoupdeFranc¸aisquiparlentdel’Algeriesanslaconna´ˆıtre’(Ess,1883)(‘manyFrenchpeoplewhospeakofAlgeriawithoutdirectknowledge’),aphrasebywhichheagainseemstotargetFrenchintellectualssuchasSartre.Camus’sinability,despitehisprofessedcommitmenttoauniversalnotionofjustice,toseebeyondaFrenchcolonialmindset,wasanalysedastutelybyalargelysympatheticcommentator,AlbertMemmi,whodubbedhima‘colonisateurdebonnevolonte’(‘coloniserofgoodwill’).´16Thephraseisausefulone,foritencapsulatesthecontradictionsofCamus’sposition:incapableofimaginingafutureforAlgeriaoutsidetheframeofcolonial-ism,heneverthelessstrovetoavoidtheintransigentandincreasinglyvio-lentconservatismofextremistsinthepied-noircommunitybyenvisaging127CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\ncharlesforsdickworthyyetultimatelyimplausiblesolutionssuchastheciviliantruceinearly1956.Despitethefactthatadvocacyforthiscauseearnedhimthehostil-ityofextremistsinhisowncommunity,CamuspersistedinhisrefusaltoaccepteithertheAlgerians’righttoself-determinationortheirinherentabil-ityforself-government(seeingtheindependencestruggleaspartofaNasser-inspiredArabimperialistproject).Evenasdiplomaticanswersbecameincreasinglyunfeasible,Camusproposed–ashehadinthelate1930s–eco-nomicandsocialsolutionstowhatwasanunambiguouslypoliticalsituation.Aronsonsumsupthetensionsunderpinningthecolonialdimensionofthequarrel:‘Inthenameofservingtheoppressed,Sartreacceptedoppression.Inlovinghispeople,Camusmutedhisusualdenunciationofoppression.Eachonewashalf-right,half-wrong,lockedintotwoseparatebutmutu-allysupportingsystemsofbadfaith.Nolongercouldeitherlearnfromtheother.’17ItisarguableneverthelessthatinhisfictionalwritingsCamusfacedachangingsituationinawaythathecouldnotinhisessaysandjournal-ism.LePremierHommemayattempttocreateanuneasilynostalgicfictionofthepied-noircommunity’srootednessinAlgeria,buttheshortstoriesofL’ExiletleRoyaumeseemtosuggestamoreambiguousposition,acknowl-edgingtheineffectivenessorevenpotentialcomplicityinherentinambiva-lenceorneutrality,suggestinganinevitabilityofhistory,anddelineatingtheimpossibilitiesofthecommunityoutlinedinhisnon-fictionalwork.JamesLeSueurdescribesCamus’sseemingdislocationfromthepoliticalmain-streamduringtheAlgerianWarasa‘posthumousblessing’sincehisfearsoverAlgeria’sfuture(andinparticularovertheanti-democratictendenciesoftheFLN)havebecomeincreasinglytrue.18Indeed,thereisatendencytopresentFrancophoneAlgerianliteratureasaculturalphenomenonspanningthewarof1954–62,inwhichconnectionsaretobefoundbetweencolonial,anti-colonialandpostcolonialwriters.TheAlgeriannovelist,historianandfilm-makerAssiaDjebar(1936–),forinstance,placesCamusattheheadofthethreeprocessionsofthedeadinLeBlancdel’Algerie´(TheWhiteofAlgeria),associatinghimaccordinglynotonlywiththreeverydifferentkeyfigureswhoalsodiedintheperiodimmediatelybeforeindependence(FrantzFanon,MouloudFeraounandJeanAmrouche),butalsowiththevictimsoflaterassassinationsduringthe1990scivilwarinAlgeria.19Asapied-noirauthor,Camus’sprominencehereisstrikingifnotcontroversial,butDjebar,presentingherselfasanintellectualheirtoCamus,transformshimintotheleaderofamultilingualgatheringofwriterschallengingintegrisme´(politicsinformedbyaradicalinterpretationofIslam,andtheimpositionofasinglelanguageoridentitythataccompaniesthis)andprovidinganalternativevisionofAlgerianliteratureinthetwentiethcentury.InCamusaOran`(CamusinOran),AbdelkaderDjema¨ıexploresmorecloselythe128CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nCamusandSartre:thegreatquarrelrelationshipbetweenCamusandtheplaceofhisbirth,andAzizChouaki,inLesOranges(TheOranges),similarlyweavesCamusbackintohisunrulypageantofcolonialandpostcolonialAlgeria.WhethertheserecentrelocationsofCamusareeitherevidenceofpost-colonialreappropriationorofareforgingoffraternityinthefaceofcon-temporaryhistory,whattheysuggestisamovebeyondthestalemateinher-entinpartisanapproachestotheCamus–Sartredebate,accordingtowhichcommentatorstendtopresentthemselvesasCamusianorSartrean,obligedaccordinglytobecondemnatoryorlaudatorybyturn.InatextwrittenintheaftermathofCamus’sdeath,Sartredescribestheirviolentdisagreementas‘justanotherwayoflivingtogetherwithoutlosingsightofoneanotherinthenarrowlittleworldthatisallottedus’.20InhisunpublishedandundatedresponsetoSartre’sarticleinLesTempsmodernes,Camusconcedesasimi-larpointaboutthetwomen’srelationship,implyingthathisadversarywas‘unedenosvoixinterieuresquenousserionstent´esdefairetaireetqu’il´fautquenousecoutions’(´Ess,1716)(‘oneofourinteriorvoicestowhichwemustlistendespiteanytemptationtosilenceit’).Itisthissenseofreciprocityorcomplementarity,presentableevenasadialecticalinterdependence,thatperhapsbestilluminatestheclashbetweenCamusandSartre,aswellasthecontinuedresonancesoftheirexchangethroughoutthefivedecadesthathavefollowed.NotonlydoestheCamus–Sartrequarrelrevealthecomplexitiesofthedecolonisationprocess,andtheoftenviolentlyopposedaffectiveandintellectualpositionsthisbespoke;butalsoitsuggeststheneedtoreconsidertheirexplosiverelationshipinourcurrentcontext.DespitetheendoftheColdWar,Camus’sdisputewithSartreretainsanurgencysinceitinvolvesissuesunresolvedbydecolonisationthatcontinuetoshapethepresent:strug-glesfornationalautonomywithinstructuresofglobalisedpower;theroleofviolenceinpoliticalaction;thehegemonicrelationshipofthenorthernandsouthernhemispheres;questionsofhomelessness,marginalisation,identityandself-situation,ofdisplacementandpostcolonialcohabitation.NOTES1.AseriesofaccountsoftherelationshipbetweenCamusandSartrehasbeenpublished:RonaldAronson,CamusandSartre:TheStoryofaFriendshipandtheQuarrelthatEndedIt(ChicagoandLondon,UniversityofChicagoPress,2004);GermaineBree,´CamusandSartre:CrisisandCommitment(London,CalderandBoyars,1974);LeoPollmann,SartreandCamus:LiteratureofExistence,trans.HelenandGregorSebba(NewYork,Ungar,1970);andPeterRoyle,TheSartre–CamusControversy:ALiteraryandPhilosophicalCritique(Ottawa,UniversityofOttawaPress,1982).ForanEnglishtranslationoftheprincipaltextsinthedispute,seeDavidA.SprintzenandAdrianvandenHoven(eds.),SartreandCamus:AHistoricConfrontation(Amherst,HumanityBooks,2004).129CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\ncharlesforsdick2.FrancisJeanson,‘AlbertCamus,oul’amerˆevolt´ee’,´LesTempsmodernes79(1952),2070.3.SeeShoshanaFelman,Testimony:CrisesofWitnessinginLiterature,Psycho-analysisandHistory(NewYork,Routledge,1992),pp.172–8;ClaudieandJacquesBroyelle,LesIllusionsretrouvees:SartreatoujoursraisoncontreCamus´(Paris,Grasset,1982);andSusanDunn,‘FromBurketoCamus:ReconceivingtheRevolution’,Salmagundi84(1989),214–29.4.Royle,TheSartre–CamusControversy,p.87.5.SeeJean-PaulSartre,‘ExplicationdeL’Etranger’,inSituationsi(Paris,Galli-mard,1947),pp.92–112.6.SeeAlbertCamus,‘LettreaudirecteurdesTempsModernes’,LesTempsmod-ernes82(1952),331.7.SeeJean-PaulSartre,‘Reponse´aAlbertCamus’,`LesTempsmodernes82(1952),334–53.8.SeeFrancisJeanson,‘Pourtoutvousdire’,LesTempsmodernes82(1952),354–83.9.Sartre,‘Reponse´aAlbertCamus’,`352,emphasisintheoriginal.10.SeeJean-PaulSartre,Situationsv(Paris,Gallimard,1964).11.Ibid.,p.48;ColonialismandNeocolonialism,trans.AzzedineHaddour,SteveBrewerandTerryMcWilliams(London,Routledge,2001),p.47.12.PeterDunwoodie,WritingFrenchAlgeria(Oxford,ClarendonPress,1998),pp.188–9.13.EmilyApter,‘OutofCharacter:Camus’sFrenchAlgerianSubjects’,inContinen-talDrift:FromNationalCharacterstoVirtualSubjects(ChicagoandLondon,UniversityofChicagoPress,1999),pp.65–6.14.MarkOrme,‘Retourauxsources:CrisisandReappraisalinAlbertCamus’sFinalPronouncementsonJustice’,ModernandContemporaryFrance11.4(2003),466–7.15.SeeJamesD.LeSueur,‘TheUnbearableSolitudeofBeing:theQuestionofAlbertCamus’,inUncivilWar:IntellectualsandIdentityPoliticsduringtheDecoloni-sationofAlgeria(Philadelphia,UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,2001),p.114.16.SeeAlbertMemmi,‘Camusoulecolonisateurdebonnevolonte’,´LaNef,Decem-ber1957,95–6.17.Aronson,CamusandSartre,p.225.18.SeeLeSueur,‘TheUnbearableSolitudeofBeing’,p.87.19.WritteninthecontextoftheviolentcivilwarthatdividedAlgeriathroughoutthe1990s,LeBlancdel’Algerie´(Paris,AlbinMichel,1995)istheauthor’sattempttowriteanalternativenarrativeofhercountrythatpresentsitspast(andbyextensionitspresent)accordingtoare-configuredsetofmemories.Onthecom-plex,contradictorymeaningsofDjebar’stitle,seeElizabethFallaize,‘InSearchofaLiturgy:AssiaDjebar’sLeBlancdel’Algerie´’,FrenchStudies59.1(2005),60–1.20.CitedinBernardMurchland,‘CamusandSartre:theAnatomyofaQuarrel’,inMichel-AntoineBurnier(ed.),ChoiceofAction:TheFrenchExistentialistsonthePoliticalFrontLine,trans.BernardMurchland(NewYork,RandomHouse,1968),pp.175–94(p.175).130CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\n10DANIELLEMARX-SCOURASPortraitsofwomen,visionsofAlgeriaAlthoughcountlessbookshavebeenwrittenonAlbertCamus,criticalmono-graphsdevotedtoportraitsofwomeninhisworksareextremelylimitedinnumber.Todate,onlytwobookshaveappearedonthesubject:AnthonyRizzuto’sCamus:LoveandSexualityandGeraldineMontgomery’sNocespourfemmeseule:lefemininetlesacr´edansl’œuvred’AlbertCamus´(Nup-tialsforWomanAlone:theFeminineandtheSacredintheWorkofAlbertCamus).Nevertheless,anumberofarticleshavebeendevotedtothefemi-nine,andespeciallythematernal,inCamus’sfictionandtheatre.WiththeposthumouspublicationofLePremierHommeinMarch1994,consider-ableattentionhasonceagainfocussedonthemotherfigureinhiswork,associated,morethanever,withCamus’sbelovedhomeland,Algeria.ThemotherfigureiscentraltoCamus’swork,evenwhensheismoreabsentthanpresent,asinL’Etranger.Infact,anumberofabsentwomenhauntCamus’sfiction:Rieux’swifeinLaPesteandthewomanonthebridgeinLaChute,tocitebuttwoexamples.Asforsupposedlysecondarychar-acterslikeMarieandevenmoresotheArabnurseinL’Etranger,theyareanythingbutminorfigures.Camushimselfremarkedin1959thatthecharac-tersdearesttohimwere,alongwithCeleste,thecaf´e-ownerin´L’Etranger,Marieand,fromLesJustes,Dora(Ess,1922).Withrespecttothenurse,whomveryfewcriticshaveconsidered,PatrickMcCarthydevotesanelo-quentalbeitbriefessaytothiswoman–watchingovertheFrench-Algeriandead–who,inherassociationwithMeursault’smother,alreadyforeshad-owsthepsychoanalyticalandpoliticaldimensionthatwillcharacterisethesecondpartofthenovel.1AlthoughwomenarerarelytheprotagonistsinCamus’sworks,they,nonetheless,playkeyrolesinrefininghisphilosophicalandpoliticalthought.Nevertheless,whiletheyoccupycentrestageinsuchtheatricalworksasLeMalentenduandLesJustes,theirpresenceismuchmoreemblematicintheprosefiction.Theirabsence-presencehasoftenbeeninterpretedintermsoftheArab-Other,akeysubjectofpostcolonialstudies.131CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\ndaniellemarx-scourasTheprecariousstatusofwomenisthusviewedinrelationtothatoftheindigenous,Algerianpopulation.2Clearly,thethreewomeninLeMalentenduandDorainLesJustes,piv-otallyassociatedastheyarewiththefundamentalnotionsofdesireandviolence,arecentraltoCamusianthought.Furthermore,thatashortstoryisentitled‘LaFemmeadultere’isnosmallmatter.Thisis,infact,theonly`Camusianfictionaltexttohaveawomanasitsleadingprotagonist.BothLesJustesand‘LaFemmeadultere’illuminate,inahighlyperson-`alisedmanner,Camus’sconflictingpositionswithrespecttotheideologicalclimateofthepost-warandColdWaryears.ThesetextsshedimportantlightontheCamusofthelaterpartofhiscareer,thetwentieth-centuryiconwhomanagedtobecome,inthecourseofafewyears,oneofthemostcriticised,ridiculedandhatedFrenchintellectuals.ThisistheCamuswhorefusedtosurrendertotheabsolutistpoliticsoftheColdWarera,arefusalbroughttotheintellectualforebythepublicationofL’Hommerevolt´e´in1951andtheensuingpolemicthatpittedCamusagainstotherFrenchintel-lectuals.Beforehecouldrecoverfromthispolemic,CamushadtodealwiththeAlgeriancrisis.EventhoughmanyFrenchintellectualsturnedtoThirdWorldismtosalvageMarxisminthewakeofSovietrepressioninHun-garyin1956,Camuswasnotobligedtotakethisrouteforhehadnotbeenafraidtodealwiththeburningquestionsoftotalitarianismandideologicallysupportedterrorisminthelate1940sandearly1950s.Furthermore,whilemanyFrenchintellectualslikeSartre‘discovered’Algeriaafter1November1954,Camushadalreadyspokenoutagainstcolonialpolicyinthemidandlate1930s.UnlikeSartre,hewouldnotsideuncriticallywiththeAlgerianLiberationFront.Afterhisanti-communism,Camusthusestrangedhim-selffurtherinFrenchandAlgerianintellectualandpoliticalcircleswithhispositionsonAlgeria.Camus’soriginalproposalthatanAlgeriangov-ernmentbecomprisedofpieds-noirsandArabswasseenbytheLeftasacontinuationofcolonialismandbytheRightasabetrayalofl’Algerie´franc¸aise.ComparingthepoliticalstancesofCamuswiththoseofhisdisciple,JeanSenac,duringtheAlgerianwar,HamidNacer-Khodjaclaims–asmanycritics´beforehimhavedone–thatwithrespecttosuchconceptsasjusticeandviolence,Camusalwaysplaceshimselfonastrictlymoral,evensentimentallevel.3IndismissingCamus’spoliticalstances,Nacer-KhodjareferstoLesJustesinlightoftheoutbreakoftheAlgerianrevolutionfiveyearslater.Withtheadventofpostcolonialtheory–andtosomedegree,evenearlier,withsuchprecursorcriticsasConorCruiseO’Brien–ithasbecomecommonpracticetorereadCamus’sworkspriorto1November1954intermsofthishistoricalwatershed.Asaresult,wetendtoforgetthatanovellike132CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nPortraitsofwomen,visionsofAlgeriaL’Etrangerwasnotalwaysreadascolonialfiction.Furthermore,thatanalreadyemblematiccharacterlikeMeursaultcouldbecometherebelliousheroofthepost-war,Vietnamandevenpunkeras,beforebecomingthebogeymanofpostcolonialstudies,isunusual,tosaytheleast.NeilOxenhandlerevenclaimsthatheidentifiedwithMeursaultin1945,becauseasayoungAmericansoldier,hehadkilledaGerman:‘wehadbothchangedourlivesbyanactofviolence...Thissetusapart,givingusadestinythatcouldneverbejustified’.4Camusalwaysmaintainedthatviolencewasbothinevitableandunjusti-fiable(Ess,355).Inordertomakehiscase,heoftencentredhisargumentonthecostofcivilianlives,particularlytheunnecessarysufferingofchildren,atropethatheborrowedfromDostoyevskyandwhichisalsoattheheartofLaPeste.IfCamusisnotabouttotolerateaGodthatallowsthesufferingofchildren,heisevenlesswillingtoacceptthejustificationofterrorismandviolenceinthenameofanotherabstractentity,suchasHistory.‘Noussommesautempsdelaprem´editationetducrimeparfait’(‘Wearelivingin´theeraofpremeditationandtheperfectcrime’),wroteCamusintheopen-inglinesofL’Hommerevolt´e´(Ess,413).InthewakeoftheSecondWorldWar,whatfascinatedCamusabouttheyoungRussianterroristsofFebruary1905wasthefactthatforthelasttimeinWesternhistorythespiritofrevoltencounteredthatofcompassion(Ess,573).ThepoetIvanKaliayevinLesJusteshasoftenbeenconsideredaspokespersonforCamus’sideasontheexceptionalcharacterofviolenceandtheneedforlimits.Nevertheless,theseideasareessentiallyfashionedbyhiscompanion,DoraDoulebov.Kaliayev’srefusaltokillinnocentchildrendefinitelyraisesmoralquestionsthatahard-corerevolutionarylikeStepanFedorovisnotwillingtoaccept.Stepandoesnotsufferfromatenderheart;hebelievesthattherevolutionwilltriumphonlywhentheystopworryingaboutthechildren(TRN,336).InhismemoirsontheBattleofAlgiers,YacefSaadi,theAlgerianmilitant,whoplayshimselfinGilloPontecorvo’s1966filmclassic,LaBatailled’Alger,explainsthebombmissionof30September1956toZohraDrif,SamiaLakhdariandDjamilaBouhired,andaskswhethertheyhaveanyobjections.Oneofthewomen,‘encoreprisonnieredelamoralequ’onenseigneaux`ecoliers’(‘stillsubjecttoaschoolchildren’smorality’),exclaimsthatthere´arealsocivilians,thatis,womenandchildren,intheplacestheymustbomb.Afteracknowledgingthatthisisindeedthecase,butthattheFrenchhavesub-jectedthemtoviolenceforoveracentury,Saadiconcludes:‘Bien!Revenonsmaintenantauxchosesserieuses.Vousavezdevantvoustroisbombes.Une´pourchacuned’entrevous’(‘OK!Let’sgetbacktoseriousmattersnow:infrontofyouarethreebombs,oneforeachofyou’).5InLesJustes,Stepantooremarksthatonlythebombisrevolutionary(TRN,311).Obviously133CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\ndaniellemarx-scourasSaadidoesnotsharethemoral,evensentimental,concernsofthesewomenwhowouldgodowninhistoryasthefirstAlgerianstoplantbombsthatkilledcivilians.TheirconcernsarenotverydifferentfromthoseofKaliayevandDora,‘thedelicatemurderers’,orthoseofCamushimselfinhis‘Appelpourunetrevecivile’(ˆ22January1956),whichpreceded,byonlymonths,theescalationofviolencethatwouldgodowninhistoryastheBattleofAlgiers.LesJustespredatestheAlgerianrevolutionbyseveralyears.Itdrama-tisestheconcernsCamuswroteaboutinNivictimesnibourreauxandL’Hommerevolt´e´,post-warreflectionsontheensuingColdWaryearsandtheirManicheanpolarities.LesJustesisadramatisationofhistoricalevents,whicharealsodiscussedinthesectiononindividualterrorism,‘TerrorismeIndividuel’,inL’Hommerevolt´e´.ForCamus,the‘delicatemurderers’arethelastmenandwomen,inthehistoryofrevolt,torefusenopartoftheircon-ditionortheirdrama(Ess,573).Intheforewordtotheplay,CamusexplainsthathepreservedKaliayev’sname,outofrespectandadmiration‘pourdeshommesetdesfemmesqui,danslaplusimpitoyabledestaches,n’ontpasˆpuguerirdeleurcœur’(´TRN,1834)(‘forthosemenandwomen,who,inthemostmercilessoftasks,werenotabletorecoverfromtheirheart’).NotbeingabletoletgooftheheartisanobleenterpriseintheeyesofCamus,forwhomhappinesswasasvitalasjustice.InSoleilsd’hiver(WinterSuns),anotherFrenchAlgerian,JeanDaniel,reiteratesthecentralplaceofhappi-nessinCamus’swork,notingthatwithoutthisextraordinaryloveoflife,wewouldnotbeabletounderstandtheneedforconceptualisingwhatassailsthislove.6AlreadyinCombat(22December1944),Camushadaskedwhatwouldbethepointofjusticeifwedidnothavethechancetobehappy(Ess,299).Thequestforhappiness,rootedinthecorporalandnotdissipatedinsomeabstraction,possessessuchfeminineprotagonistsasDoraandJanine,theheroineof‘LaFemmeadultere’,andallowsustounderstandwhyaplay`devotedtorevolutionaryterrorismwasalsomeanttobealovestory;orwhyawoman’sunsatisfiedyearningsin‘LaFemmeadultere’foreshadowedthe`endofFrenchAlgeria,whichisalsocentraltoLePremierHomme.Thepublicandtheprivate,thepoliticalandthepersonal,areneverreallydisassociatedinCamus,andalludetoadifferentethic,whichweshalldiscussshortly.RogerQuilliotmaintainsthatinwritingLesJustes,Camuswantedtocre-ateasuccessfullovescene(TRN,1823).Thiswasaratherunusualpropo-sitionforaplaydevotedto‘delicatemurderers’.AlthoughCamus’slyricaltextssuchasNocesarehighlyerotic,lovescenesarenotthenorminhiswork,and,whenpresent,usuallyevokeotherquestions,oftenphilosophicalorpoliticalinnature.134CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nPortraitsofwomen,visionsofAlgeriaOftenconsideredtobeoneofthemostimpressivedramasofpost-warFrance,LesJustes,thecriticJohnCruickshankargues,notonlyprovidedCamuswithasubjectthat‘permittedaharmoniousrelationshipbetweenhisideasandhisdramatictalent,butenabledthesetwoelementstostrengthenoneanotherandcombinetoproduceapowerfultheatricalexperience’.7Ineffect,historicaleventslikethefailedandthesuccessfulassassinationoftheGrandDukeoccuroffstage,whereasdiscussionsofjustice,terrorismandlovetakecentrestage.WecouldeasilydismisssuchatheatricalstrategybyclaimingthatCamus’stheatrewasessentiallyatheatreofideasand,thus,itwouldhavebeendifficulttostagethetwoassassinationattempts.Whilecertainlyplausible,thestagingornon-stagingofcertaindramaticeventsalsounderscoresCamus’sideas.EugeneKouchkineremarksthatthemost`beautifullovescenethatCamuseverwrote,whichalreadyappearsintheCarnetsin1949,comprisesthestructuralepicentreoftheplay.8ItappearsinActiii,severaldaysafterKaliayev’sabortedassassinationattemptandbeforehissecond,successfulone.KaliayevseekstodistinguishhimselffromStepan,whoplacesjusticeabovelifeitself.Heclaimsthathe,onthecontrary,becamearevolutionarybecausehelovedlife(TRN,320).AlthoughKaliayevisinterestedinarevolutionthatwillgivelifeachance,Dorawillrevealtheinherentcontradictionofthisidealistbelief:‘Etpourtant,nousallonsdonnerlamort’(TRN,322)(‘Andyetwearegoingtoadministerdeath’).AsKaliayevcontinuestojustifytherevolutionaryactinthenameoflife,notingthattheyconsenttobeingcriminalssothattheinnocentwillinherittheearth,Dorasoundsthedeathknell:‘Etsicelan’etaitpas?’(´TRN,322)(‘Whatifitdoesnotworkoutlikethat?’).Ironically,itisayoungwomanwhoquestionstherevolutionaryidealsofthisyoungpoet,claimingshehasmoreexperienceintheorganisation.GeraldineMontgomeryrightlynotesthatDora’sscepticismconcerningtheterroristactioncomesfromherprofoundinstinctoflife,whichsafeguardsherfromthetooabstractreasoningofKaliayev.9Doraisnotmorenaive,idealisticorsentimentalthanKaliayev;rather,sheismorecoherent.Shedoesnotavoidreason,butratherpushesittoitslogicallimits,whichhappentoapplytolifeitselfhere.AsKaliayevferventlyassumeshismissionofassassinatingtheGrandDuke,Doraremindshimthathewillhavetolookatthemanheisabouttokill;hewillneedtorealisethatheisindeedkillingamanandnotjustadespot:‘Unhommeestunhomme.Legrand-ducapeut-etredesyeuxˆcompatissants.Tuleverrassegratterl’oreilleousourirejoyeusement.Quisait,ilporterapeut-etreunepetitecoupurederasoir.Ets’ilteregardeˆace`moment-la...’(`TRN,325)(‘Amanisaman.PerhapstheGrandDukehasgentleeyes;perhapsyou’llseehimsmilingtohimself,scratchinghisear.Perhaps–whoknows?–you’llseealittlescaronhischeekwherehe135CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\ndaniellemarx-scourascuthimselfshaving.And,ifhelooksatyou,atthatmoment...’).Doraisnotexactlyshoutingoutrevolutionarysloganshere,butratherspeakingasthoughshewerethinkingofalovedone.TheAlgerianfreedomfighterLe¨ılaDjabaliadoptsasimilarperspectiveinherpoem,‘Pourmontortion-naire,leLieutenantD...’(‘Formytorturer,LieutenantD...’),composedatBarberousseprisoninDecember1957.10Afterdescribingthetorturesheunderwentthere,sheaddresseshertorturer,askinghimwhetherhiswifestirredhiscoffeethatmorning;whetherhismotherthoughthelookedwell;andwhetherhecaressedhischildren’shair.Injuxtaposingtheexceptional(revolution)ortheparenthetical(torture)withnormal,everydaylife,Djabaliremindsusthattorturersandexecutionersarealsoordinarypeople,capableofloveandcompassion.ByappealingtothehumaninLieutenantD,Djabalisetsadiscourseofcompassionandtendernessagainstarealityofcrueltyandviolence.Shedoesnotseektodismissthehorrorsassociatedwithwaracts.Heroppositionaldiscourseisnolesseffectivethanonefoundedonhatred.Furthermore,Camus’sDoraisnotallthatdifferentfromtheprotagonistsofArabwomenwritingonwar,suchasEvelyneAccad,AssiaDjebarorYaminaMechakra,whoaffirmlifeoverdeath.Somethingverydifferentoccurswhenlifeisputbackintothearenaofwar,andrevolution,forthatmatter.WhenAct1endswithKaliayev’sremarkthathewillkillwithjoy,anoxymoroniftherewereeverone,weareleftwonderingastowhetherhehasnotalreadyfulfilledwhatbothheandDoraultimatelyfear:theywillthenendup‘spittinginthefaceofbeauty’(TRN,322).DoraistheonlyrevolutionarywomaninCamus’swork.AlthoughCamuswrotesympatheticallyinL’Hommerevolt´e´aboutKaliayevandVoinarovsky,terroristswhorefusedtokillchildrenandwomen,healsoalludedtotheyounggirlVeraZassulich,whoin1878gaverisetoRussianterrorism,byshootingdownGeneralTrepov,thegovernorofSaintPetersburg(Ess,571).TheessentialcontradictionthatDoraembodiesasbothawoman(technicallyacivilian)andarevolutionaryrelates,infact,tothetensionbetweenloveandjustice,whichmarksCamus’s‘secondcycle’(theoneofLaPeste,LesJustesandL’Hommerevolt´e´).MichaelWalzerarguesthatCamus‘attempteddifferentformulations,alwaysmaintaininganantinomythathemightbetterhaveavoidedbystatingsimplythatajusticewithoutroomforlovewouldbeitselfunjust.Ithinkthatiswhathebelieved;itiswhathiscriticscommonlydeny.’11IfDoraandKaliayev’srelationshipishamperedbytherevolutionarycause,thecontradictionsofthelatterarealsounravelledbytheveryexistenceoftheiramorousrelationship.Kaliayevwasunabletokillbecauseofthepres-enceoftheGrandDuke’syoungnieceandnephewinthecarriage.MauriceBlanchotmaintains:‘Lesenfants,lafemme,leurinnocencenesontrien136CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nPortraitsofwomen,visionsofAlgeriad’autrequelevisagedugrand-duc,cevisagenuqueDoraavaitparavancefaitvoiraKaliayev’`12(‘Thechildren,thewoman,theirinnocencearenothingotherthanthefaceoftheGrandDuke,thatbarefacethatDorahadshownKaliayevpreviously’).ItisDorawhohascalledattentiontothatkeymomentwhenKaliayevmustacknowledgethehumanbeingoffleshandbloodbeforehim,whocouldverywellbehisalterego.Recognisinglimitsmeansrecog-nisingtheprecariousthresholdthatseparateslifefromdeath.Stepan,ontheotherhand,haslittletoleranceforsuchtriflinghumanmatters.Forhim,therearenolimitsifonetrulybelievesintherevolution.Infact,hisso-calledlovefortheRussianpeopleisconstructeduponalogicimplyingend-lesskilling.WhenDorarefusestoacceptsuchaphilosophyinthenameoflove,Stepanreplies,‘Tuesunefemmeettuasuneideemalheureusede´l’amour’(TRN,336)(‘Youareawomanandyouhaveanunfortunateideaoflove’).This‘unfortunate’love,whichmakesDoraawoman,isattheheartofAct3.DorawantsKaliayevtoadmitthatheiscapableoflovingherinaconcrete,selfish,evenunjustway:‘ilfautbienunefoisaumoinslaisserparlersoncœur.J’attendsquetum’appelles,moi,Dora,quetum’appellespar-dessuscemondeempoisonned’injustic´e...’(TRN,353).(‘Onehastopouroutone’sheart,atleastonce.I’mwaitingforyoutocallme,Dora,tochoosemeoverthisworldpoisonedbyinjustice...’).DorawantsKaliayevtocometotermswiththefactthat‘L’amourestinjustice,maislajusticenesuffitpas’(Cii,318)(‘Loveisinjustice,butjusticeisnotenough)(Nii,250).Loveplaceslimitsonrevolt.Wheninthefinalact,Doraasksifsheisstillawoman(TRN,392),consideringthatshehasvolunteeredtosetoffthesecondbomb,Stepanisquicktoremarkthatsheislikehimnow.However,thisisfarfrombeingthecase.Dorahasnotbecomeanactualbombcarrier,andconsequentlyacandidateforexecution,becauseofloftyideals–likeStepan,wholoveshumanityintheabstract–butbecauseshelovesKaliayevandwishestobereunitedindeath.ThelastlineoftheplaybelongstoDora:‘Yanek!Unenuitfroide,etlamemecorde!Toutseraplusfacilemaintenant’ˆ(TRN,393)(‘Yanek!Acoldnight...andthesamerope.Everythingwillbeeasiernow’).AccordingtoCruickshank,‘thisishersolutionnowthatshecannothaveKaliayev’slove,justasitwashissolutiontotheconflictbetweenhiscon-scienceandhispoliticalactions’.13Obviously,revolutionarieswouldques-tionhermotivesandCamus’sfinalstatementonindividualterrorism.ForDorawillfinallyacknowledgethatitismucheasiertodiefromone’sinnerconflictsthantolivewiththem(TRN,385).MontgomeryarguesthatDoracannotgoanyfurtherinlove.Indesiringtobehangedbythesameropeasthatofherlover,Doraalsodiesfortherevolution.Ultimately,however,itis137CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\ndaniellemarx-scourasherloveforKaliayevthatallowshertobecomeanactualbombcarrierandnotjustabombmaker.Montgomeryperceptivelynotesthatwithoutthisloveshecouldhaveremained‘awoman’,forshewouldnothavesetoffthebomb.Althoughtherevolutionmayhavejeopardisedherfemininity,tothepointofevenclaimingherlover,Dora–inaskingwhethersheisawomannowthatshehasagreedtobeabombcarrierandinconsequentlyaskingfortherighttodieinthenameofhernegatedfemininity–becomesonceagainalover,andthusawoman,indeath.14Inthefinalanalysis,Doraistheonlyoneactinginthenameoflove.Anumberofcriticswouldarguethatsheisnolongerarevolutionary,butamerewoman;or,worse,thatthereisnoplaceforwomeninCamus’sphilos-ophyofrevolt.SuchistheopinionofthecriticJeffreyIsaac,whoclaimsthatthereisnotasinglefemalerebelorheroinCamus’swork.Thisisbecausewomenstandfor‘stability,nurturance,happiness,theprivate–forcomfortandsafety.ThecharactersofCæsoniainCaligula,VictoriainStateofSiege,andDorainTheJustAssassinsrefusetherebelliouslogicoftheirmalepart-ners,admonishingtheminthenameofintimacyandsimplelove.’15AlthoughIsaacconcedes–inafootnote–thatDoramaybetheexception,insofarassheisapoliticalagent,andthusaco-equalofKaliayevandtheothermen,heneverthelessconcludesthatevenshe‘manifestscharacteristically“feminine”traitsandconcerns’.16YetitispreciselyherpoliticsofthebodythatallowsDoratocutthroughtheidealisticrhetoricofbothKaliayevandStepan.Byherverybody,throughherintimatebeing,Doraunravelsthecontradictionsthatplaguetheserevolutionaries.Fromtheso-calledprivatespacewhere‘loveisinjustice’–sincelovealwaysfavoursthenearandthefew17–Doraquestionstheso-calledpublicspacewhere‘justiceisnotenough’.InanoriginalstudyonCamusianrebellionandfeministthought,Eliza-bethAnnBartlettdemonstratesthat,contrarytowhatanumberofmalecriticshaveclaimed,Camus’swomen‘securearebellionthatisfaithfultoitsorigins’,onethatisnot‘disembodied’.BartletttakesissuewithIsaacwhenheclaimsthatitismenwithintegritywhoforsaketheirbodiesandtheirwomeninthenameofjustice.ForBartlett,rebelswhoseparate‘theirbodiesfromtheirminds,theirpassionsfromtheirideas,lovefromjustice’forgettheiroriginsand,asaresult,allowtheirrebelliontobecomesomethingelse.18Bybringingfeministtheory(onethatdismantlesthedichotomyinWesternpoliticalthoughtbetweenpublicandprivate)tobearonCamusianrevolt,BartlettisabletoclaimthatCamusdoesnotisolatethesphereoffamilyandloveinanon-politicalrealm;rather,‘thevaluesrepresentedandnurturedthereinarefundamentaltorebellion’.19Inmanyrespects,Bartlett’sperspectiveshedsfurtherlightonWalzer’sincisivetheoreticaldevelopmentofwhatwasinitiallyacurtdismissalofCamusbySimonedeBeauvoir,who138CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nPortraitsofwomen,visionsofAlgeriahadremarkedthatthehumanistinCamushadgivenwaytothepied-noir.ThistalkaboutjusticethatmasksamerelylocalloveisviewedinapositivelightbyWalzer.Indefendinghismotheroverjustice,Camuscommittedthecrimeoflove.20Ofcourse,noteveryonethoughtlikeCamus,whowastoooftendismissedaspoliticallyincorrect.Decadeslater,Algeriawouldgivebirthtofundamen-talistterroristswhothoughtnothingofrapingtheirsistersandslittingthethroatsoftheirmothers,ofbashingtheheadsofbabiesinthenameof‘jus-tice’.Inthelightofthe‘second’AlgerianWar,thatistosaythecivilwarofthe1990s,whotodaywouldnotchooseone’smotheroverjustice?HowironicthatCamushasbeensooftencondemnedinthenameofsentimentalmoralism,when,forhim,theonlyseriousmoralquestionwasmurderitself(Cii,172).WiththepublicationofLePremierHommein1994,internationalatten-tiononceagainturnedtoCamusandthediscoveryofa‘lostworld’:FrenchAlgeria.21However,asJeanDanielaptlynotedinLeNouvelObservateur,Camus’sunfinishednovelappearedatatimewhentheFrenchinAlgeriawereforcedtoleave,onceagain,fearingfortheirlivesinawarthatwouldleavethousandsofciviliancasualtiesinitswake.22WhatatragictwistoffatethataworkkeptintheclosetforsomanyyearsbythoseclosetoCamuswhofearedthathewouldonceagainbemisreadwithrespecttoAlgeria,waspublishedattheheightofthesecondAlgerianWar.Furthermore,thequasi-simultaneouspublicationofReflexionssurleterrorisme´(ReflectionsonTerrorism)andDenisSalas’sLaJusteRevolte´(JustRevolt),alongwiththefirstFolioeditionofActuellesiii(Chroniquesalgeriennes)´in2002onlyservestoreinforceCamus’spertinenceasathinkerinthewakeof9/11andotherrecentmanifestationsofterrorism.23Actuellesiiiwasmetbyaglacialsilenceatthetimeofitsfirstpublicationin1958.CriticsofCamus–whowerelegionatthattime–feltthathehadnothingofworthtosayaboutAlgeria,whenhebrokehisvowofsilenceinpublishingthiscollectionofessaysdatingbackto1939.Inhindsight,themostbitterillusionwithrespecttoAlgeria,sharedbybothAlgerianandFrenchelites,wasperhapslesstheThird-Worldist,MarxistslantoftherevolutionthanthevisionofapluralistAlgeriabasedontheco-existenceandequalityofherdifferentethnic,religiousandlinguisticcommunities.Camussharedthisillusion,evenif,unlikeSenac,hedidnotsupportindependence.´ItisevenarticulatedinActuellesiii.LaunchedbySenacinJune´1953,theliterarymagazineTerrassesadvocatedapluralisticAlgeriathatnolongerdistinguishedbetweenFrenchandAraborBerberwriters.ThesoleissueevertoappearcontainedtextsbysuchwritersasEmmanuelRobles,Jean`Daniel,MohammedDib,KatebYacine,MouloudFeraounandCamus.The139CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\ndaniellemarx-scourasfragileandephemeralnatureofthisculturalenterpriseforeshadowedwhatwouldsubsequentlytakeplaceonapoliticalfront.CamusgaveSenac‘Retour´aTipasa’,astunningessayonthebelovedsite`ofhisyouth,wherehefirstlearnednottonegatewhathishandscouldtouchandwhathislipscouldcaress,ashewroteinthemuchearlierpiece‘NocesaTipasa’(`Ess,59).Itistherethathefirstlearnedtolovewithoutlimits.Surroundedbybarbedwirenow,theRomanruinsofTipasatowhichhereturnsyearslatermarkanoriginalplenitudemarredbythebarbedwireoftyrannies,war,policings,thetimeofrevolt(Ess,870).AlthoughhisloveforTipasahasbeenmitigatedbythelessonsofHistory,Camuscanstillaffirm,in1952,thatnomatterhowarduoustheenterprise,hewillseeknevertobeunfaithfultoeitherbeautyorthehumiliated(Ess,875).ThesehumiliatedincludeCamusandhisbeloved,thosewho,in1962,wouldbecometherapatries´(‘repatriated’)orpieds-noirs.Camus’spassionforAlgeriawasnotorious.On15January1943,hemadethefollowingseductiveremark:‘Pourl’Algerie...´c’estlapassionsansfreinetl’abandonalavolupt`ed’aimer.Question:Peut-onaimerunpays´commeunefemme?’(Cii,73)(‘ForAlgeria...IhaveunbridledpassionandIsurrendertothepleasureofloving:Canoneloveacountrylikeawoman?’(Nii,54)).Perhapswecouldattributeadoublemeaningtothisquestioninconjunctionwith‘LaFemmeadultere’,wherethestoryistold`fromtheperspectiveofthefemaleprotagonist.Ahighlyeroticundertonepervadesthisshortstory,wheretherepresentationofthefemalebodyanddesireitselfexistnotonlyinoppositiontothecolonialparadigmassociatedwiththeinstitutionofmarriage,butalsoinconjunctionwithwhatthefemaleprotagonistJaninecannotattain:theAlgeriaofAlgerians.Whileliterarycritics–anduniversitystudentsforthatmatter–havepon-deredendlesslyoverJanine’scuriousintercoursewiththeelementsatoptheterraceparapet,Ihavealwaysbeenmoreinterestedinwhatwastakingplacebelow:thesocialintercourse,orlackthereofinthisAlgerianhinterland,mod-elledonLaghouat,whichCamusvisitedinDecember1952.Thereisthatremarkablescene–justscreamingtobefilmed–inthesquare,beginningwiththemomentinwhichJanine’shusband,thepied-noirtravellingsales-manMarcel,rubshishands,whilelookingaffectionatelyatthetrunkinfrontofthem.Janinethencallsout‘Look’.Fromtheotherendofthesquare,aproudanddistinguishedArabisadvancingtowardsthem.HeremindsJanineoftheFrenchofficersthatshehasoccasionallyadmired.AlthoughtheArabiscomingtowardsthem,heislookingbeyondthem,carryinghimself,withthedignityofageneral:‘Oui,ilsavaienttousicicetaird’orgueil,maiscelui-la,vraiment,exag`erait’(´TRN,1568)(‘Yes,allofthemherehadthatlookofpride;butthisone,really,wasgoingtoofar’).Thesquaremaybeempty,140CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nPortraitsofwomen,visionsofAlgeriabuthewalksstraighttowardsthetrunkwithoutseeingit,andwithoutsee-ingthem.Asthedistanceseparatingthemrapidlydecreases,Marcelseizesthehandleofthetrunk,pullingitoutoftheway.TheArabpasseswith-outnoticingandheadstowardtheramparts.Janinecatchesherhusband’sdespondentlookasheasserts:‘Ilssecroienttoutpermis,maintenant’(TRN,1568)(‘Theythinktheycangetawaywithanythingnow’).AlthoughJaninedoesnotsayanything,shedespisestheArab’sarroganceandsuddenlyfeelsunhappy.TheArabsclearlyhavetheupperhandhere.WhoeversaidthatArabs–andwomen–wereneglectedcharactersinCamus’swritingobviouslyfailedtoconsiderthetrulydisruptivespacetheyoccupyinthisstory.HowhumiliatingitmustbeforthisFrenchAlgerianmaletobenddownandmovetheinfamoustrunksothatthe‘proud’Arabcanpass!JudgingbythemannerinwhichMarcelalsoholdstightlytothelittlecanvassuitcasesetbetweenhiskneesintheopeningsceneofthestory,itisclearthathisaffectionisforhismaterialpossessions,nothiswife;whereasJanine’sadmirationisfortheArabOther,nothercolonialspouse.ThefactthattheArabcrossingthesquarelookslikeFrenchofficersJaninehasadmiredisnotperchanceeither.For,intheopeningsceneofthestory,whileMarcel’sattentionisfocussedonhissuitcase,JaninefeelsthegazeofaFrenchsoldierandeventuallyblushes.HerfirstreactionuponnoticingthegazewastonotethatthemanlookingatherwasnotanArab(TRN,1561).UnlikeMarcel,whoisdesperatelyclingingtohismaterialpossessions,forhiscolonialidentityisboundupwiththem,Janineiseagertoberidofherexcessbaggage,whichispersonifiedbyherverybody.Shelongsforabodythatwilltakeuplessspace,liketheAlgerianssheobservesaroundher:abodyboundtotheearthanddeemedworthyoflocalrecognition.Takinguplessspacemeansbeinganintegralpartoftheland,fromwhichJaninefeelsvisiblydetached.Ironically,thoughshefeelsconspicuous,nooneisreturninghergaze.Herphysicaldiscomfortendsupassumingaseductivequality.However,atbest,sheonlycantakefrightenedpleasurefromtheburnousesthatbrushagainstherasthreeArabmencyclepast.Sheracestowardsthefort,where,withherbodyleaningheavilyagainsttheparapet,shewillconsummatethesexualactalone.Identity,forCamus,hasalwaysbeenassociatedwithanacutesenseofplace,evenwhenitisarticulatedintermsofnon-belongingorexile.TheplightofMarcelandJanineaspieds-noirswithoutbearingsintheAlgerianhinterlandclearlyrevealstheconnectionbetweenspaceandidentity.Theiridentityischallengedbyanever-shrinkingspace.ForMarcel,itisreducedtothespaceofthecanvasbagandtrunktowhichhedesperatelyclings;forJanine,itisinteriorisedinherbody.Hermarriageinthiscolonialsociety141CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\ndaniellemarx-scourashasmadeheranundesirablebeing.Itisthereforenotsurprisingthatshewillseektoconsummatethesexualactbeyondthewallsoftheconjugalroom,inalandscapeapparentlydevoidofcolonialmarkers.Theinsatiablethirstforbeauty,andthesensualhappinessthatcomeswithit,whichstillhauntsCamusin‘RetouraTipasa’(`Ess,871),cannoteasilybequenchedinthisparchedinterior,farfromtheMediterraneancoastthatmarkstheyouthfulCamusofthemid1930s.Here,in‘LaFemmeadultere’,everythingisstone.TheAlgerianlandscape,whichcriticsclaim`Camushidbehind,actuallyspellsoutabarrennature,whichparallelsthebarrennessofoneofitscharacters.JanineandMarcelarechildless.Rizzutofittinglyremarksthat‘Camus’scharacters,forthemostpart,havenobiolog-icalfuture’.24Couldthisfictionalrealitybehintingattheimpossiblefuturehauntingthepieds-noirs?Thesettingforthisshortstoryisclearlynotthatof‘NocesaTipasa’.In`fact,themetaphorofmarriagetakesonoppressive,evenbloodyconnota-tionsinActuellesiii,whereitisusedtorepresentthedifficultrelationshipbetween‘French’and‘Arabs’inAlgeria.Conceivedin1952andinitiallypublishedin1954byCharlotinAlgiers,‘LaFemmeadultere’anticipates`theimpossibledialogueCamuswouldadvocateinhis‘Appelpourunetreveˆcivile’inJanuary1956.Anunsatisfiedyearningforlove,whichcanonlybeconsummatedintheorgasmicpresentofadulterywiththebelovedland,revealsanothersideofAlgeria,bothgeographicallyandhistorically.FortheAlgeriaofthe1950sisnolongerthatofthe1930s,andanewbackdrop(aswellasanewnation)isinorder.IfAssiaDjebarcouldclaimthatCamushadonlyembracedthecoastinNoces,whereasshe,asanAlgerianwomanwriter,hadclaimedtheentireregion,includingthehinterland,whatcouldbesaidthenabout‘LaFemmeadultere’,whichtakesCamusevenfurthersouththanDjebar’swritings?`25Atthattime,DjebarwasobviouslydismissingCamus’slegitimacyasanAlgerianwriter.ItwouldtaketheAlgerianCivilWarofthe1990sforAlgerianwritersandcriticstogiveCamusbackhisAlgerianit´e´.NeverthelessCamus’sidentitycrisisasaFrench-Algerianwriterhasnotyetbeenresolved.InAlbertCamus.Assassinatpost-mortem(AssassinationPost-Mortem)(2005),theAlgeriancriticMohamedLakhdarMaougallamentsthevisibleabsenceofCamusinthe2004Franco-Algerianencounter,‘L’Anneedel’Alg´erie’(‘TheYearof´Algeria’).ThatAlgeriacontinuestoassassinatehimpost-mortemisnotallthatsurprisinggiventhatshehasyettorealisehermuchdesireddemocracy.However,thatFrancedidnotgivehimaplaceofhonourinthisyearofcommemorationsistrulydisturbing.26MaougalproposestogiveCamusbacktoFrance,atatimewhenFrance,perhapsevenmoresothanAlgeria,142CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nPortraitsofwomen,visionsofAlgeriaispreytowhatthecriticHel´eB´ejireferstoelsewhereasaculturalradicalism´thatcannotaccommodatetheOther.27NOTES1.PatrickMcCarthy,‘TheFirstArabinL’Etranger’,RevueCELFANReview4.3(1985),25–6.2.See,forexample,LouiseHorowitz,‘OfWomenandArabs:SexualandRacialPolarizationinCamus’,ModernLanguageStudies17.3(Summer1987),54–61.3.HamidNacer-Khodja,AlbertCamus.JeanSenacoulefilsrebelle´(Paris,EDIF,2004),p.64.4.NeilOxenhandler,LookingforHeroesinPostwarFrance.AlbertCamus,MaxJacob,SimoneWeil(Hanover,DartmouthCollege/UniversityPressofNewEngland,1996),p.20.5.YacefSaadi,LaBatailled’Alger(Algiers,EntrepriseNationaleduLivre,1984),p.284.6.JeanDaniel,Soleilsd’hiver.Carnets1998–2000(Paris,Grasset,2000),p.219.7.JohnCruickshank,AlbertCamusandtheLiteratureofRevolt(NewYork,GalaxyBooks/OxfordUniversityPress,1959/1960),p.215.8.EugeneKouchkine,‘`LesJustes:letragiquedel’amouretdurenoncement’,inJacquelineLevi-ValensiandAgn´esSpiquel(eds.),`Camusetlelyrisme(Paris,EditionsSEDES,1997),p.161.9.GeraldineF.Montgomery,Nocespourfemmeseule.Lefemininetle´sacre´dansl’œuvred’AlbertCamus(Amsterdam/NewYork,Rodopi,2004),p.272.10.DeniseBarrat(ed.),Espoiretparole(Paris,Seghers,1963),pp.99–100.11.MichaelWalzer,‘AlbertCamus’sAlgerianWar’,inTheCompanyofCritics(NewYork,BasicBooks,1988),p.138.12.MauriceBlanchot,L’Entretieninfini(Paris,Gallimard,1969),p.279.13.Cruickshank,AlbertCamusandtheLiteratureofRevolt,p.219.14.Montgomery,Nocespourfemmeseule,pp.283–4.15.JeffreyC.Isaac,Arendt,Camus,andModernRebellion(NewHaven,YaleUni-versityPress,1992),p.233.16.Ibid.,p.307,n.17.17.Walzer,‘AlbertCamus’sAlgerianWar’,p.137.18.ElizabethAnnBartlett,RebelliousFeminism:Camus’sEthicofRebel-lionandFeministThought(NewYork,Palgrave/Macmillan,2004),pp.14–15.19.Ibid.,p.16.20.Walzer,‘AlbertCamus’sAlgerianWar’,pp.138,145.21.See,forexample,TonyJudt,‘TheLostWorldofAlbertCamus’,NewYorkReviewofBooks41.16(6October1994),3–5.22.JeanDaniel,‘LeSuicided’unenation’,LeNouvelObservateur14–20(April1994),28.23.J.Levi-ValensiandD.Salas(eds.),´AlbertCamus:Reflexionssurleterrorisme´(Paris,NicolasPhilippe,2002);D.Salas,AlbertCamus:LaJusteRevolte´(Paris,Broche,´2002).143CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\ndaniellemarx-scouras24.AnthonyRizzuto,Camus.LoveandSexuality(Gainesville,UniversityPressofFlorida,1998),p.4.25.AssiaDjebar,‘Afterword’,inWomenofAlgiersinTheirApartment(Charlottesville,UniversityPressofVirginia,1992),p.177.26.MohamedLakhdarMaougal(ed.),AlbertCamus.Assassinatpost-mortem(2005),(Algiers,EditionsAPIC,2005),pp.11–12.27.Hel´eB´eji,‘Radicalismecultureletla´¨ıcite’,´LeDebat´58(January–February1990),47.144CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\n11PETERDUNWOODIEFromNocestoL’EtrangerInFebruary1937twenty-four-yearoldAlbertCamusdeliveredtheopen-ingaddressatthelaunchofanewMaisondelaCultureinAlgiers.HeplacedtheundertakingsquarelywithintheculturaldebategoingoninanAlgiersdominatedbyagroupofwell-establishedEuropeanartistsandintel-lectualsknownasthe‘Algerianists’,supporters(undertheleadershipofthenovelistsLouisBertrandandRobertRandau)ofthereactionarypoliticsofMauriceBarresandCharlesMaurrasinmainlandFrance.AsCamus’stitle`madeclear,fortheyoungpeoplelaunchingthisnewventure–agroupofself-styled‘left-wingintellectuals’(Ess,1321)unitedthroughuniversity,amateurtheatre,politicalactivism–theissueofthedaywas‘Lacultureindigene.La`nouvelleculturemediterran´eenne’(‘IndigenousCulture.TheNewMediter-´raneanCulture’).Totoday’s(postcolonial)reader,thistitlemightsuggestananthropologicalassessmentofacolonisedcultureanditsabsorptioninto,andcontributionto,anew,perhapshybridised,culturalconstruct.Thestatedobjective,announcedwithahighseriousnessscarcelyveiledbyadeclaredmodesty,wouldseemtoreinforcethisperception:‘servirlaculturemediterran´eenne,contribuer´al’`edification,danslecadrer´egional,d’unecul-´turedontl’existenceetlagrandeurnesontplusad`emontrer.Nousvoulons´seulementaiderunpaysas’exprimerlui-m`eme.Localement.Sansplus.Laˆvraiequestion:unenouvelleculturemediterran´eenneest-eller´ealisable?’´1(‘toserveMediterraneanculture,tocontribute,withinaregionalframe-work,totheconstructionofaculturewhoseexistenceandgrandeurarewidelyrecognised.Wesimplywishtohelpacountryexpressitself.Locally.That’sall.Therealquestion:isanewMediterraneanculturepossible?’).Toalistenerin1937,ontheotherhand,bothtitleandopeningstatementwouldhavebeenprovocative,ratherthanconsensual,becausethepositionsimplied–onwhatwasindigenous,newor‘Mediterranean’,butalsoonthemake-upofanindigenous‘culture’–werehotlycontested.AsCamus’srhetoricmakesclear,hislecturewasinfactamanifesto,bothpolemicalandprospec-tive.Theself-contradictionsevidenttherein–a‘widelyrecognised’culture147CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\npeterdunwoodiesomehowstillopentoquestionsregardingitsfeasibility;aMediterraneanculture,yetthelocalculturalexpressionofaspecificcountry–derive,nodoubt,fromhisdualobjective.Thiswas,firstly,todeclarethegroup’shos-tilitytotheEurocentric,confrontationalandsomewhatprovincialculturalidentityfosteredbyAlgerianism;andsecondly,tosignalallegiancetoanalternativegeoculturalspacelabelled‘Mediterranean’.2Camus’searlylyri-calessays,L’Enversetl’Endroit(1937)andNoces(1939),aregroundedinthisengagement,andinreviewingtheculturalandpoliticalcontextthereofinthefirstpartofthischaptermyobjectiveistoshowhowtheattitudesandvaluesembodiedthereinhelpusunderstandtheunprepossessingheroofCamus’sbest-knownwork,L’Etranger(1942),discussedinthesecondpart.ItwastoLouisBertrandandthecolony’sFrenchhistorians(GastonBoissierandStephanGsellinparticular)thattheEuropeansinAlgeriaowedtheself-representationwhich,bythe1930s,hadhardenedintotheEuro-centriccolonialistdoxathattheMaisondelaCulturegroupopposed.Attheheartofthisdoxa(andoftheassociationofwritersitspawned)laythenotionof‘LatinAfrica’,theraciallyexclusivebedrockofaEuropeanAlge-rianregionoflagrandeFrance,aprovinceactivelyparticipatinginFrance’snationalsaga(thoughfrequentlyatoddswithitsrepublicanideals).ThematerialbaseforthisethnicallybiasednotionlayprimarilyinthewealthofarchaeologicalremainsbeingmappedthroughoutAlgeriaatthattime,likethegreatruinsatCherchellandTipasa,ThimgadandDjemila.Theessenceoftheconstruct,forwhichthesevestigesservedasanchors,layinprivileginghistoricaltimeandanterioritywhilerelegatingasinsignificant,indeedartifi-cialandillusory,boththepresentandtherecentpast.InthewordsofLouisBertrand:‘AtraversleMediterran´eend’aujourd’hui,jereconnusleLatinde´touslestemps.L’Afriquelatineperc¸ait,pourmoi,letrompe-l’œildudecor´islamiquemoderne.Elleressuscitaitdanslesnecropolespa´¨ıennesetlescat-acombeschretiennes,lesruinesdescoloniesetdesmunicipesdontRome´avaitjalonnesonsol.’´3(‘Throughtoday’sMediterraneanmanIrecognisedtimelessLatinman.LatinAfricawasthrustingthroughthetrompe-l’œilofthemodernIslamicdecor.Itwasbeingreborninthepagannecropolises´andtheChristiancatacombs,intheruinsofthecoloniesandtownsRomehadspreadacrosstheland.’)EvenwheremodifiedbylaterMusliminvadersinaprocessofadaptation,Bertrandclaimedin1921,theregionremainedstubbornly‘Latin’.4Treatedasmeresurfaceillusionpeddledbyagenera-tionoforientalisingRomanticprejudice,theArab/BerbercivilisationoftheMaghrebwasderided,thenelidedwithinanimaginarygeographyof‘virginterritory’.ThiswasthenclaimedastherightfulinheritanceoftheEuropeansettler,mythologisedbyBertrandasanaggressive,conqueringManofAction148CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nFromNocestoL’Etrangerwhoreconfiguredthecolony’simaginaryandsocio-economicspacesasexclusivelyEuropean,thankstoa‘Latinspirit’saidtobeactivelyforgingan‘intellectualregionalism’basedonthevaluesandtraditionsofAthensandRome.Thisisthediscourse–carrieroftheselectivehistoryandcolonialistcul-turalandeconomicprojectoperativeinpre-warAlgeria–thatCamusisseek-ingtocounterinhisMaisondelaCulturespeechof1937.Intheopeningparagraph,hischosenterms,‘Mediterraneanculture’and‘Mediterraneanregionalism’,masktheshiftthatheisproposing,remappingaculturalspaceinheritedfromGreece,andtherebyrelativisingtheimpactofRome:‘Toutel’erreurvientdecequ’onconfondMediterran´eeetLatinit´eetqu’onplace´a`Romecequicommenc¸adansAthenes’(`Ess,1321)(‘ThemistakeiscausedbymergingMediterraneanandLatin,andlocatinginRomewhatbeganinAthens’).5TheanterioritywhichwasthecornerstoneoftheAlgerianistworldviewisthusacknowledged,butreappropriated.Itwas,claimedCamus,themisunderstandingregardingculturalregionalismthathisspeechaimedtodissipate,andthealternativethatheproposesisgroundedinasystematicdenunciationofthe‘Roman’.Itmixesthecultural,politicalandpersonalinastructuredpolarisationreplicatedintheessayshewaswritingatthattime(L’Enversetl’Endroit,Noces).The‘racecurieuseetforte...[les]hommesdebraill´es,[la]vieforteetcolor´ee’(‘aninquisitive,strongrace,carefreemen,´astrong,colourfullife’)aresaidtolinkthevariousMediterraneanpeo-plesinasinglecommunity(Ess,1322),alivingreality,andseparatethemfromRomeandtheRomanswhoconstructedonlyanabstractandconven-tionalMediterranean(Ess,1323).TheMediterranean,Camuscounters,‘estailleurs.Elleestlanegationm´emedeRomeetdugˆenielatin’(´Ess,1324)(‘lieselsewhere.ItconstitutesanegationofRomeandtheLatinspirit’).6ThisresoundingrejectionoftheAlgerianistline(anditsinfluentialright-wingFrenchmetropolitanequivalent)isaccompaniedbyanequallyforcefuldenunciationofMussoliniandHitler,purveyorsofa‘Latinorder’drivenbyawarlikespiritandasoullessviolence(Ess,1324),onlies,pompandastiflingself-restrainttotallyforeigntothejoiedevivreofthepeoplesoftheMediterraneanbasin(Ess,1322).Theclaimtoanimmediate,direct,personalcontactwiththevitalityoftheregionistypicaloftheambiguitiesformulatedinCamus’slecture.Beyondtheoppositiontothe‘Romanisation’ofAlgerian/Mediterraneanhistory,andtheready-madeandessentialistcounter-assertionsregardingavitalitysup-posedlyspecifictotheluckyinhabitantsoftheMediterraneanregion(butnotto‘Romans’),itisunclearwhereCamuslocatestheMediterraneanintheearlytexts.Itisonthese,nevertheless,thatcriticshaverepeatedlybasedtheclaimtohis‘mediterraneity’andhisstatusasanAlgerianwriter.Elements149CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\npeterdunwoodieofaresponsearediscernibleintheassertiveness,ifnotthecoherence,ofthe1937lecture:Bassininternationaltraversepartouslescourants,laM´editerran´eeestdetous´lespaysleseulpeut-etrequirejoignelesgrandespensˆeesorientales.Carelle´n’estpasclassiqueetordonnee,elleestdiffuseetturbulente.Cego´uttriom-ˆphantdelavie,cesensdel’ecrasementetdel’ennui,lesplacesd´esertes´amidi`enEspagne,lasieste,voilalavraieM`editerran´eeetc’estdel’Orientqu’ellese´rapproche.Nondel’Occidentlatin.(Ess,1324–5)(Aninternationalbasincriss-crossedbynumerouscurrents,theMediterraneanisperhapstheonlycountrytohavelinkswithmajoreasterndoctrines.Foritisdiffuseandturbulent,notclassicalandordered.Theall-embracingtasteforlife,thesenseofennuiandofbeingcrushed,Spain’sdesertedmiddaysquares,thesiesta,thesearetherealMediterranean.ItisclosertotheOrientthantotheLatinWest.)TheessaysofNoces,writtenin1937–8,mightbeexpectedtoillustratethisencounter.Whattheirlyricismactuallyreveals,however,isaEurocentricexperiencemixingthevitalityandsensualityoftheauthor,anovertreap-propriationoftheiconsof‘Algerianity’(theRomanruinsofTipasaandDjemilainparticular)andtherejectionoftheethos(oflabourandpos-session)embodiedinthecolony’ssettlers.Camus’slyricismarticulatestheintensityofsubjectiveexperience,theprofusion,indeedexcesswhichgreettheindividualwillingtoabandonhim/herselfto‘Nature’.Itthusprivilegesthepresent,immediacy,spontaneity.Andifitspoignancycanbeheightenedbyawarenessoftheephemeralityoftheexperienceandtheinevitablereturnofafeelingoflossandseparation(keyfeatureofL’Enversetl’Endroit),itresolutelyexcludesthenostalgiaoftheRomantics,thefacileexoticismofori-entalisingtravel-writersandthehistoricityforegroundedbyLouisBertrand.Onlyahistoriancanseekahistorylessonamongruins,Camusprotestsinanunusedpassagefor‘NocesaTipasa’,in`1937–8.Infact,heconcludes,whattheyteachisbothmoreimmediateandmorespiritual:theirfunctionisnottoanchortheindividualintime(anAlgerianiststrategydesignedtolegitimisetheoccupationofspace),buttobeaprivileged,almostsacred,space,aspaceoutsidetemporality(Ess,1350).Itisherethattheindividualcan,unexpectedly,fleetingly,experiencethefusionthatCamusevokesin‘LeVentaDj`emila’:‘Sansarr´et,ilsifflaitavecforceˆatraverslesruine`s...Jemesentaisclaquerauventcommeunemature.Creusˆeparlemilieu...ma´peausedessechaitjusqu’´aneplus`etrelamienne;j’ˆetaispoliparlevent,´usejusqu’´al’`ame.J’ˆetaisunpeudecetteforceselonlaquellejeflottais,puis´beaucoup,puiselleenfin.’7(Ess,62)(‘Itblewceaselessly,andwithforce,amongtheruins.Ifeltmyselfflappinginthewindlikeasail.Hollowed150CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nFromNocestoL’Etrangeroutfromwithin,myskindriedoutandfeltnolongermine;thewindpol-ishedme,erodedmyverysoul.IfeltasmallpartofthatforceonwhichIwasdrifting,thenverymuchpartofit,andfinallyfusedwithit’).WhilesuchexperiencesaretherarecasesinwhichCamus’swritingisfreedfromtheboundsofcontemporarysociety(whichswampMeursaultinPartiiofL’Etrangerand,inmetaphoricalguise,exhaustRieuxandhiscompan-ionsinLaPeste),therhetoricofNocesgeneratesaheadymixofphys-icality(indeedsexualisedcontactwithNature)andmythologisingreflec-tionposingasphilosophicalquestioning.Voicingtheanguishedyetsatiatedself-consciousnessofbeing-in-the-world,totalabsorptioninthehere-and-now,itfashionsatwentieth-centuryhedonismrivenbytheawarenessthat‘lemondefinittoujoursparvaincrel’histoire.CegrandcridepierrequeDjemilajetteentrelesmontagnes,lecieletlesilence,j’ensaisbienlapo´esie:´lucidite,indiff´erence,lesvraissignesdud´esespoiroudelabeaut´e’(´Ess,65–6)(‘intheend,theworldalwaysdefeatshistory.ThecryfromDjemila’sstones,echoingaroundthemountains,theskyandthesilence,hasadeeppoeticresonanceforme:lucidity,indifference,thetruesignsofdespairorbeauty’).WhatcharacterisestheseexceptionalexperiencesofCamus’snarra-tor,thoughrarelyhischaracters,isasuspendedmoment,occasionallyoneofstasis,inwhichconsciousnessoftheselfslipsimperceptiblyintoabsorptioninimmediatesurroundings,viatheheightenedreceptivenessofthesenses,sexualisedaslegrandlibertinage(Ess,56).8Immersedintheimmediacyofa‘natural’world,aspaceinwhichthetimelessnessofoldstonesispairedwiththeeruptivegrowthoftheflowersandgrassesthatoverrunthem,Camus’snarratorlivesanintenselyprivateexperience.ThiscounterstheAlgerianists’privilegingofthetoposofaction,thecreativedestructiondriv-ingsettlersociety,ontheonehand;andontheother,itarticulateswhatwastobecomealastingfeatureofCamus’sthought,namelytheculturaldividebetweenMediterraneanhedonismandnorthernEurope’sthin-bloodedratio-nalists,accusedofbeingestrangedfrombothnatureandwhatLouisBertrandcalledthevillessolaires(sun-drenchedcities),soprominentinCamus’sownwriting.9Thecultural,intertextualinputintotheMediterraneanconstructelab-oratedinNoces,althoughessential,canberaisedonlyverybrieflyhere.Itwasfashionableinthe1930s,andcanbetracedforinstanceintheworkofthepoetPaulValery(includinghis´1936Algierslecture,‘Impres-sionsdeMediterran´een’(‘AMediterranean’sImpressions’))and,especially,´intheworkofthephilosopherandessayistJeanGrenier,Camus’steacher.10Themediationthroughartunsettlestheonce-popularcriticalargumentthatCamus’sMediterraneanimaginaryresultedsolelyfromtheimmediacyandintensityofexistentialexperience.Itservesasareminderthatthisimaginary151CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\npeterdunwoodiewasconstructedinpartthroughareworkingofvaluesrenderedurgent,locally,bytheunrelentinglypolarisednatureofcolonialrelationsinAlge-riaand,globally,bythespreadoffascism–especiallytheItalianversionwhoseyouthful,physicalvitalityandcultofthebody(shornofMussolini’sponderousRomanisationandgrandiloquenttheatricality)hadbeengreetedenthusiasticallyinFrancebywriterslikeDrieulaRochelle.11Thisalternative,MediterraneanhumanismwasalsoactivelypromotedinAlgeriafromthe1920s,especiallybyGabrielAudisio,afriendandwriteronlyafewyearsolderthanCamusbutgreatlyadmiredbyAlgeria’syounghopefulsinthe1930s,notleastasanauthorpublishedbyGallimardinParis.12InaseriesoflocallyinfluentialtextsAudisioroundlyrejectedtheraciallyexclusiveself-glorificationofthe1930–1celebrationsmarkingthecentenaryofFrenchcolonialruleinAlgeria,andturnedtoaparadigmaticMediterraneantext,theOdyssey,andamythicalfigure,Ulysses,inordertopromotealively,indeedboisterous,alternativeformofmediterraneity,asCamusclaimed.13Thesea,thesun,physicality,adventureand,aboveall,movementconstitutedtheessenceofthisvision,ajoyousevocationofyouth-fulnessandunbridledappetite.Itwasexpressedthroughavocabularyandanimagerywhichprivilegeworkandfreedom,notinthepetty-bourgeois,graspingembodimentpopularisedbythecolony’sAlgerianistnovel,butinpicaresquestoriesofseafarerswhosharewiththeirmythicalGreekancestorthejoiedevivre,vitalityandcamaraderieofports,ships,travel:‘atoute`heure,leplaisirdudepart’(‘atanymoment,thepleasuresofdeparture’).´14TheMediterraneanforAudisiowasthusaspaceofpleasure,indeedexcess,ofyouthfulexuberance,diversity,healthyanimalityandthecultofsatiety.Histextspromotedanexpansive,non-conflictualmediterraneity,aspaceoffreedom(lelargeoropensea)inwhichworkmergeswithseafaring,erasingfrontiersanddeviatingfromtheMuslim–EuropeanconfrontationhardeninginAlgeria(andleftlargelyunchangedbythebriefperiodingovernmentinFranceoftheFrontPopulairein1936).Camus’smediterraneitysharedmuchofthis,butitevokedmoreeasilycircumscribedspaces,whetherincoastalAlgeriaorsouthernEuropeantownslikeFlorenceorFiesole.ThisdistinctionisimportantinsofarasithelpsusrecognisethatinAlgeriatheexperiencesmappedinthelyricalessaysofNoces,likethesolipsistictete-ˆa-t`etewiththeˆnaturalworldevokedlaterinL’Etranger,couldbedeemedtoexistonlyinthepreservedmarginsof,andinanartificiallysuspendedtimewithin,thecolonialsystem:Non,cen’etaitpasmoiquicomptais,nilemonde,maisseulementl’accordet´lesilencequideluiamoifaisaitna`ˆıtrel’amour.Amourquejen’avaispaslafaiblessederevendiquerpourmoiseul,conscientetorgueilleuxdelepartager152CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nFromNocestoL’Etrangeravectouteunerace,needusoleiletdelame´r...et[qui],deboutsurlesplages,adressesonsourirecompliceausourireeclatantdesesciels.´(‘NocesaTipasa’,`Ess,60)(No,Iwasnotwhatcounted,northeworld,butsimplytheharmonyandsilencethatawakenedlovebetweenus.ItwasalovewhichIwasnotnaiveenoughtoclaimasmyown;Iwasconsciousandproudtobesharingitwithanentirerace,bornofthesunandsea,standinguprightontheshore,andwhosecomplicitoussmilewasturnedtothebrightsmileofitsskies.)Camus’scoastalimaginaryproducedamythologisingevocationofa‘race’firmlyandintenselygroundedinleisuretimeandpleasure.15TheappealtoEuropeanfantasiesonEdenicspacesandtothedesiretodissociatetheselffromitshistoricalresponsibilitiesviaanintenserelationshipwithNature,wasclearlydrivingthisconstruct.16Theunsaidonwhichitwasbased,how-ever,istheexistenceofreserved,protectedspaces–markedonAlgeria’sbeaches(and,nodoubt,itsarchaeologicalsites)bysignswhichread:‘Inter-ditauxmendiants,auxchiensetauxArabes’(‘Nobeggars,dogsorArabs’).17Asacentralsignifier,the‘Mediterranean’allowsanundefinedexpansionofsuchfantasisedspaces,thussidesteppingtheissuethatL’Etrangerwilllaterconfront,namelythefactthatthepleasure-ladenspacesinventedbytheEuropeanarealsoalwaysspacestraversedby,andclaimedby,theindigene`(asthenativeinhabitantswerecalled).IfwenowlookbacktoCamus’s1937Algierslecture,wecanseethatwhileintellectualacknowledgement,andacongenialhybridisation,ofEast–West,Muslim–Christian,arelauded,theevidencecalledupontogroundtheclaimremainsstrictlyEurocentric:thelinguisticunityofRomancelanguages;theGuildsandOrdersofmedievalandfeudalEurope;acivilisationabletoabsorbforeignideasanddoctrines(Ess,1325).AsJeanSarocchiremarkstartlyinaspecialissueoftheperiodicalPerspectivesdevotedtoCamusandtheMediterranean,theclaimsmadeinthatlecture-manifestoare‘unguepierˆd’erreursetd’inexactitudes’(‘ahornets’nestoferrorsandimprecision’),andCamus’smediterraneityaproblematicdreammarredbyethnocentricity.18Inthesameissue,oneshouldadd,othercriticswholeheartedlyadheretoCamus’sposition,onthecontrary,eulogising‘unemythologiedureel,´fondeesurunv´eritablemythedelaM´editerran´ee’(‘amythologyofthereal,´groundedinaveritableMediterraneanmyth’),19and‘unlieusymbolique,sourcedeverit´e,de“vraiesrichesses”’(‘asymbolicspace,sourceoftruth´and“trueriches”’).20Camus’sMediterranean,onehastoconcludewithSarocchi,isclearlynotthatofgeographers,culturalhistorians,economistsorpoliticians.Hislyricalessaysoftheperiodrevealthatitisaprivileged,imaginarygeography,indeed153CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\npeterdunwoodiearguablya‘personalmyth’founded,imaginatively,onanumberofessential,definingvalues:abundance,excess,spontaneity,generosityandsensuality,theDionysian.21ThemostlucidsummaryofthatEurocentricparadigmisprovidedbyCamushimselfin1938,theyearaftertheopeningoftheMaisondelaCultureandduringwhichhewasfinalisingthetextsofNoces.Inanintroductiontoanewperiodical,Rivages,launchedasanalternativetothecolony’sdominant,Algerianistpublications,hewrote:Al’heureoulego`utdesdoctrinesvoudraitnoussˆeparerdumonde,iln’est´pasmauvaisquedeshommesjeunes,suruneterrejeune,proclamentleurattachementacesquelquesbiensp`erissablesetessentielsquidonnentunsens´anotrevie:mer,soleiletfemmesdanslalumi`ere.Ilssontlebiendelaculture`vivante,leresteetantlacivilisationmortequenousr´epudions.(´Ess,1330–1)(Atatimewhenthetastefordoctrinesisstrivingtocutusofffromtheworld,itisgoodthatyoungmen,inayoungland,proclaimhowattachedtheyaretothosefewperishableandessentialthingsthatgivelifeameaning:sea,sun,andwomeninthelight.Thesethingsbelongtolivingculture,andtherestisadeadcivilisationthatwereject.)Whereascustomarily,economics,labourandcommerceconstitutetheval-uesshapingcolonialspace,theeasyhedonismofthefiguresinthequotationiscentraltotheimpactofNoces,nodoubt,astheevocationofacarefreespacelocatednotatthemarginsofcoloniallife(asmighthavebeenexpectedwhenprojectingautopia),butatthecentreofaconsciousremappingofcolo-nialspace.CamusgoesbeyondthathedonisticalternativeandusesNocestopromoteanasceticismwhichgeneratesitsownalternative,starklyricism.Moreover,tothecolonialthemeofrootednessthroughlabourandowner-ship,andtheperceptionofspacesolelyintermsofprofitabletransformation,Camusopposesastateofpermanent‘deracinement’(‘uprootedness’)viathe´evocationofaharshmineralworld.Inthisworldtheindividualhasnoplace;yetlikeamirage,itistantalisinglyoffered,asthe1952shortstory‘LaFemmeadultere’makesclear:‘Au-dessusdud`esert,lesilence´etaitvaste´commel’espace...La-bas,plusausudencore,`acetendroito`ulecielet`laterreserejoignaientdansunelignepure,la-bas,luisemblait-ilsoudain,`quelquechosel’attendaitqu’elleavaitignorejusqu’´acejouretquipourtant`n’avaitcessedeluimanquer’(´TRN,1569–70)(‘Abovethedesert,thesilencewasasvastasthespace...Inthedistance,stillfarthersouth,atthepointwhereskyandearthmetinapureline,itsuddenlyseemedtoherthat,there,somethingawaitedher,somethingofwhichuntilthatmomentshehadbeenunawarealthoughithadalwaysbeenlacking’).Butthisfantasy,thatshecouldjointhedesertnomadsinasupposedlyprivilegedspace,wasopenlycontradictedinasectionofCamus’s1939essay‘LeMinotaure’,entitled154CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nFromNocestoL’Etranger‘LeDesert´aOran’(‘TheDesertatOran’),whoseopeninglineseffect`apoignant,nostalgia-ladenforeclosure:‘Iln’yaplusdedeserts.Iln’y´aplusd’ˆıles’(Ess,813)(‘Therearenomoredeserts,nomoreislands’).Onceagain,itisclearlynotphysicalgeographythatisatissuehere.Thelossisthatofanimaginarygeography–ofelemental,primordialspace–because‘ledesertlui-m´emeaprisunsens,onl’asurchargˆedepo´esie’(‘the´desertitselfhasacquiredmeaning,itisnowoverladenwithpoetry’)(Ess,814).Theconsciousnessand/orthequestofEuropeanprotagonistslikeJanine(‘LaFemmeadultere’)andDaru(‘L’H`ote’),orthenarratorwhocon-ˆfrontstheurbandesertin‘LeMinotaure’,arethushauntedbytheawarenessthattheydonot‘belong’intheworldtheysoardentlyseektoembrace.Inatense,disjointedsentencethatreplicatestheheroine’sheightenedexcitementandinnertension,Janinecomestorealisethat‘ceroyaume,detouttemps,luiavaitet´epromisetquejamais,pourtant,ilneseraitlesien,plusjamais,´sinonacefugitifinstant,peut-`etre’(ˆTRN,1570)(‘thisrealmhadbeeneter-nallypromisedtoher,andnever,however,woulditbehers,neveragain,exceptinthisfleetingmoment,perhaps’).AndinthecaseofDaru,Camusgrantshimaburdensomeconclusion:‘danscedesert,personne,niluinison´hoten’ˆetaientrien.Etpourtant,horsdeced´esert,nil’unnil’autre,Daru´lesavait,n’auraientpuvivrevraiment’(TRN,1617)(‘inthisdesertnobody,neitherhenorhisguest,meantanything.Andyet,outsidethisdesertnei-therofthemcouldlivereally’).Camus’scharacters,onemightconclude,areconstructedaseitheroutsidercharacters,likeJanine,typifiedbythemalaiseofthethresholdalwaysabouttobecrossed;orinsidercharacters,likeDaru,threatenedbytheexcommunicationthatchallengestheirsenseofbelonging.Bothconstructs,however,constituteresponsestoanexistentialdriveforrootednesswhich,asamoreopenlypersonaltextlikeL’Enversetl’Endroithighlights,canbeovercomeonlybydivestingtheselfofsuchillusionsandconsciouslyadoptingthespiritofdetachmentfosteredbytheAbsurd:Cequimefrappaitalorscen’etaitpasunmondefait´alamesurede`l’homme–maisquiserefermaitsurl’homme.Non,silelangagedecespayss’accordaitacequir`esonnaitprofond´ementenmoi,cen’estpasparcequ’il´repondait´amesquestions,maisparcequ’illesrendaitinutiles.Cen’`etaitpas´desactionsdegracesquipouvaientmemonterauxlˆevres,maisceNadaqui`n’apunaˆıtrequedevantdespaysagesecras´esdesoleil.Iln’yapasd’amourde´vivresansdesespoirdevivre.´(Ess,44)(Whatstruckmethenwasnotaworldmadetomeasureforman–butonewhichclosedinonman.No,ifthelanguageofthesecountriesharmonisedwithwhatsoundeddeeplywithinme,itwasnotbecauseitansweredmyquestions,155CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\npeterdunwoodiebutbecauseitrenderedthemsuperfluous.Itwasnotaprayerofthanksthatcametomylips,buttheNadathatcouldonlyhaveoriginatedinacountrycrushedbythesun.Therecanbenoloveoflifewithoutdespairatlife.)NoceswentunnoticedinmainlandFrance.L’Etranger,ontheotherhand,publishedinParisin1942,wasanimmediatesuccess,thankslargelytoan‘ExplicationdeL’Etranger’publishedbyJean-PaulSartreintheResistanceperiodicalLesCahiersduSudofFebruary1943.22ForsomeitwasabrilliantupdatingoftheFrenchnovel’sconcernwithmoralissues;forothersadefenceofindividualism;whileyetothersreadinitanantidotetotheguilt,grey-nessandself-flagellationimposedonadefeatedpopulationinVichyFrance.Sartre’sarticle,andthepublicationinDecember1942ofCamus’sMythedeSisyphe,sweptthenovelupintherisingenthusiasmforthe‘Absurd’,aninterpretationreinforcedbythestark,unrelentingevocationofexisten-tialangstdrivingtheplaysthatCamuscompletedatthattime,CaligulaandLeMalentendu.Forallofthesereadings,thespatialsettingofthenovel(thecolonialarena),recognisedascentralbytoday’sreader,remainedlargelyundiscussed,nodoubtbecauseAlgiersandthesurroundingcountrysideweremerelyfamiliarelementsofasunnyFrenchcoastaldepartement´,23andthelivesdescribedwerebanal,working-class,indeedresolutelyunremarkable.Asforthehero’scrime,thetextitselfreflectsironicallyonthefactthatthekillingofanArabisdevoidofinterestandmightmakethepagesofthemetropolitanpressonlybecausetheircorrespondentwasfillingintimewhileawaitingthetrialofaparricide(TRN,1185–6).Today,onthecontrary,wecannotescapetheinstitutionalisedviolenceofthatcolonialsituation,andwhentheheropumpsfivebulletsintotheinertbodyofananonymousArabfoundoccupyingthecoolspacethathehadbeenseeking,itisthechallengetothebeach’sprotectedstatusthatMeursaultconfronts,andthestasislyricallyevokedinNocesthathedisrupts:‘l’equilibredujour,lesilenceexceptionnel´d’uneplageouj’avais`et´eheureux’(´TRN,1168)(‘theharmonyoftheday,theexceptionalsilenceofabeachwhereI’dbeenhappy’).When,in1959,RobertChampignylaunchedareadingofL’EtrangerfreedfromthephilosophisinginterpretationprevalentsinceJean-PaulSartre’s‘Explication’,heconvincinglyportrayedtheprotagonistasa‘paganhero’.Hewas,nodoubt,respondingtothe‘saveurunpeubarbare’(‘slightlybar-barianflavour’)thatGabrielAudisioprivilegedinhisownnovelsandthatCamusforegroundsinthefirstpartofanearlyessay,‘Amourdevivre’(1936),andthroughout‘L’Ete´aAlger’(`1937–8).24Theeschewaloftheconvention-allymoralinthefaceofnaturalabundancewascentraltothesexualisedlyri-cismofeverydaylifeevokedinNoces–‘uneprecipitation´avivrequitouche`augaspillage’(Ess,72)(‘anappetiteforlifethatbordersonwastefulness’).156CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nFromNocestoL’EtrangerItwasreassertedintheamicablemockerytowhichCamussubjectsOraninthe1939essay‘LeMinotaureoulahalted’Oran’(publishedin1954);anditisencapsulatedinauniquemomentinL’Etrangerwheretheopacityofthehero,steadfastlymaintainedviathesubject’smutenessandtheritualisedverbosityofthelegalsystem,isfleetinglypenetrated:‘mesbesoinsphysiquesderangeaientsouventmessentiments’(´TRN,1172)(‘myphysicalneedsoftengotinthewayofmyfeelings’).OneofthekeyrolesofPartiofthenovelis,precisely,theillustrationoftheextenttowhich,inbothlifestyleandattitude,theprotagonistisindistin-guishablefromthespontaneous,uncomplicated,Europeanbarbaresdevoidofself-awareness(a‘peuplesansesprit’),butdevotedtosensualsatisfac-tion.Thesearethepeoplewho,Camus’searlyessaysavow,populatethecolony.25Meursault’ssingularitythusliesmoreinhisreticencethaninhismuch-discussedamoralism.Sucharepresentationisinmarkeddistinctiontotheenergetic,conqueringheroesoftheAlgerianistnovelwhoareportrayedashard-working,self-sacrificingagentsengagingdirectly,oftenaggressively,inFrance’sappropriationofAlgerianlandandwealth.Themuch-hypedpassivity,laissez-allerandindifferenceoftheshipping-officeclerkMeur-saultensurethathecanbereadasuntouchedbythiscolonialeconomy.Hisactionswerethusoftenreadbycriticsmerelyintermsofpsychology(antiso-cialapathy)orofthephilosophyoftheAbsurd(lucidityinthefaceofsocietalillusion).Buttoseeknofurtherthanthisinterpretationistobecomplicitousinelidingthepolitical,henceperpetuatingtheerasurewhich,forinstance,allowsforonlyEuropeanwitnessesduringthetrial(thusmarginalisingboththevictimandhissister).Tocompletethepicture,weneedtorecognisethattheheroofL’Etranger,inbothhis(in)actionandhisperceivedinarticulateness,isalsotheembod-imentofCamus’scounter-claimsregarding‘Mediterraneanman’,fore-groundedincharacterisationslikethosereferredtoearlier.EveryepisodedetailedinPartiofL’Etranger,locatedoutsidetheworldofwork(asim-plebackdropevokedonlyviasummaryorincongruousdetail),conformstothismodel.Hence,inPartii,whencogitationandmemoryreplacephysi-calpleasureandimmediacy,thehero’spositionisgroundedexplicitlyinthelossofwhatCamuscalledinhisRivagesarticlethefewperishable,essen-tialthings(‘cesquelquesbiensperissablesetessentiels’(´Ess,1330))thatgivelifeameaning:‘Parexemple,l’enviemeprenaitd’etresuruneplageetdeˆdescendreverslamer’(TRN,1180)(‘Forexample,Iwouldhavetheurgetobeonabeachandtogodowntothewater’);‘J’aiditqu’ilyavaitdesmoisquejeregardaiscesmurailles...Peut-etre,ilyabienlongtemps,yavais-jeˆchercheunvisage.Maiscevisageavaitlacouleurdusoleiletlaflammedu´desir:c’´etaitceluideMarie’(´TRN,1209)(‘IsaidIhadbeenlookingatthese157CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\npeterdunwoodiewallsformonths.Perhaps,wayback,Ihadlookedforafaceinthem.Butthatfacewasthecolourofthesunandtheflameofdesire:itwasMarie’s’).Thisawareness,acquiredinprison,derivesfromthefactthatheisnowfullyconsciousoftheinanityofregrettingwhatisnolongeraccessible,sinceheismotivated,onthecontrary,bythatappetiteCamusidentifiedasessen-tiallyMediterranean:‘jen’avaisjamaispuregrettervraimentquelquechose.J’etaistoujoursprisparcequiallaitarriver,paraujourd’huioupardemain’´(TRN,1197)(‘Ihadneverreallybeenabletofeelremorseforanything.Iwasalwayscaughtupinwhatwasabouttohappen,caughtupintodayortomor-row’).Whendesireisforestalled,astheclosingparagraphshows,aship’ssirenannouncesonly‘desdepartspourunmondequimaintenant[lui]´etait´ajamaisindiff`erent’(´TRN,1211)(‘departuresforaworldtowhich[he]wasnowforeverindifferent’).Camus’sherothusconfronts(andlearnsfrom)thetruththattheseafaringjeunessemediterran´eenne´ofhisfriendandcolleagueAudisiohadbeenabletoevade,themomentwhenclosureisimposedonanindividual‘project’(toadoptSartre’sterm),liveduntilthenasthefreedomencapsulatedinthecentralAudisiantoposreferredtoearlier:‘atouteheure,`leplaisirdudepart’(´Hommesausoleil,p.62)(‘atanymoment,thepleasuresofdeparture’).Thefamousa-literarylanguageofL’Etranger,whatRolandBarthescalleda‘zerodegreeofwriting’,26andtheapparentexistentialuninvolvementofitshero,maskatfirstreadingthiscontinuitybetweenthenovelandCamus’slyrical,highlypersonal,pre-warwriting.ItscolonialAlgerianbackgroundcontinuedtoattractlittlecommentuntilthe1970s,whenthecriticConorCruiseO’BriensubjectedL’Etrangertoanovertlypoliticalreading.YetO’Brien,intheopinionofaleadingpostcolonialcriticlikeEdwardSaid,letCamusoffthehookbygrantinghimalessimplicatedposition‘onthefron-tiersofEurope’andennoblinghimasthe‘voiceofWesternconsciousness’.27Ifthereaderistotakeatfacevaluethehero’sclaimthatheis‘absolumentcommetoutlemonde’(TRN,1173)(‘justlikeeveryoneelse’)–anotherrareinsightintohismake-upparsimoniouslyinscribedinthetext–thenitisnolongermerelyasEveryman,intheuniversalisingreadingpropagatedbymanycritics.Moreconcretely,itisinhisstatusas‘colonialman’thathisself-confessedindistinguishability(hence,problematically,hisrepresentativ-ity)resides.Thelimitsofthemuch-discussedintrospectionandlucidityofPartiiarethusendowedwithacollectivesignificance,signalledintwowaysinthetext.Firstly,inthehero’sfailuretounderstandthetransformationofthemundane‘qualitesd’unhommeordinaire’(´TRN,1196)(‘thequalitiesofanordinaryman’)28into‘deschargesecrasantescontreuncoupable’(´ibid.)(‘crushingaccusationsagainstaguiltyman’).29Andsecondly,inthenarra-tive’sreticenceregardingthehostilitybornofunwantedEuropean–Muslim158CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nFromNocestoL’EtrangerproximityinParti.Inthesecondpartofthenovel,thelanguageofassess-mentandreason–‘j’aicompris...pourlapremierefois...jepeuxdire`que...lefonddesapensee,sij’aibiencompris...’(‘Iunderstood...for´thefirsttime...Icansaythat...hisargument,ifIunderstoodhimcor-rectly...’)–overliesthelanguageofphysicality,needanddesire–‘j’avaischaud...j’avaisenviededormir...j’avaisenviedeserrersonepaule´par-dessussarobe...’(‘Ifelthot...Ifeltlikesleeping...Iwantedtosqueezehershoulderthroughthedress’).Itannouncesthestagesatwhichthegenial,unthinkingandseeminglypassivepleasure-seekerofanAlgiersshippingofficeisforcedintoself-reflexiveconsciousness,yetmaintainshisstanceofdetachment.ThemanuscriptofthenovelshowsthatCamustookgreatpainstoensurethathisprotagonistiscondemnednotforthe(seem-inglyincidental)killingofanArab,butforunselfconsciouslyparadingthatattitudeofself-satisfied,animalbanality(alackofso-calledspiritualityperi-odicallydenouncedinmainlandFranceand,indeed,bycolonialintellectualsthemselveswhenincollectiveself-flagellatingmode).Itisonthisegotistical,all-consumingtasteforlife,emphaticallyforegroundedinCamus’s1937lec-ture,thatMeursault’sclosingoutburstisfounded,inoutspokendefianceofStateandChurch(in)justice.30ButthereisnoplaceinthatvalorisedmodelforEuropean–Muslimco-existenceandequality,andwhile‘ilesttoujoursinteressantd’entendreparlerdesoi’(´TRN,1195)(‘it’salwaysinterestingtohearpeopletalkaboutyou’),thereisclearlynointerestintalkingorhearingaboutthevictim.Indeed,theprotagonisthimselfconcludesthat‘onabeau-coupparledemoietpeut-´etreplusdemoiquedemoncrime’(ˆibid.)(‘alotwassaidaboutme,andperhapsmoreaboutmethanaboutmycrime’).Camus’sprotagonistischaracterisedmorebyinattentivenessandconfu-sion,partlyasaresultofphysicaldiscomfort,partlybecausehehasnot(yet)transcendedthecomplacentimmediacyheshareswiththeEuropeancommunity.Inhighlightingdetailsinanotherwisedepersonalisedspaceinwhichhefeelssuperfluous(‘petitbruitcontinudepapierfroisse,´eventails´depaille,costumeneuf,boutondecuivre,levreinf`erieuretoujoursunpeu´gonflee’(´TRN,1187,1190,1191))(‘acontinuouslowrustlingsound,fansofwovenstraw,anewsuit,abrasscollarstud,thelittlepoutofherlowerlip’),thetextunderlinestheextenttowhichtheconsciousnessoftheheroisfocalisedontheconcrete,thepresent,theeveryday.Camus’snovel,seeminglyingestationby1938,shouldthusbereadinrelationtotheculturalmove-menthedefinedinRivages,later(somewhatmisleadingly)labelledthe‘Ecoled’Alger’:‘unmouvementdepassionetdejeunesse[qui]estnesurnosrivages’´(‘apassionateandyouthfulmovementbornonourshores’),markedby‘unebarbarieharmonieuseetordonnee’(‘aharmoniousandorderedbarbarity’)´(Ess,1330–1).31ThechildishgamesplayedonthestreetwithEmmanuelorin159CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\npeterdunwoodietheseawithMarie,theabsenceofambitionand,aboveall,hisapathy,thussignalasignificantreorientationofthecolonialhero,positioningMeursaultoutsidethematerialisticeconomyofthecolony,butstillwithinitsbiasedracerelations.Byvalorisingonlythehedonistic‘jeunesdieux’(‘younggods’)and‘bar-bares’ofthis‘Mediterranean’settlercommunity,Camusneverthelessforgedaniconforpost-warEurope:‘lajeunessedumondesetrouvetoujoursautourdesmemesrivages...[N]ousautresmˆediterran´eensvivonstoujoursdela´memelumiˆere.Aucœurdelanuiteurop`eenne,´lapenseesolaire,lacivilisa-´tionaudoublevisage,attendsonaurore’(L’Hommerevolt´e´(Ess,703);myemphasis)(‘theworld’syouthisalwaystobefoundonthesameshores...[We]Mediterraneansalwayslivebythesamelight.InthedepthoftheEuro-peannight,solarthought,adouble-facedcivilisation,awaitsthedawn’).MuchcriticalattentionhasbeenpaidtothenotionofdualisminCamus’swork,adualisminwhich,likeAudisio,heprivilegeslucidity,theawaken-ingfromroutine,intotheexistential(butahistorical)awarenessdiscussedearlier:‘iln’yapasd’amourdevivresansdesespoirdevivre’(´Ess,44)(‘therecanbenoloveoflifewithoutdespairatlife’),anditsethicalconsequence:‘Cen’estplusd’etreheureuxquejesouhaite,maisseulementd’ˆetrecon-ˆscient’(Ess,49)(‘Inolongerwishtobehappy,merelytobeconscious’).Thecontrasting,seeminglylessspontaneousstyleofPartiiofL’Etrangerarticulatesthisevolution,the‘aventureintelligente’(‘intelligentadventure’)ofCamus’shero,leadingtohisconsciouslyembracingthe‘vieabsurde[qu’il]avaitmenee’(´TRN,1210)(‘theabsurdlifehehadled’).Thepleasuresoflifeasafreeman,theillusionthatsurvivalispossibleorthatotherscanbemadetounderstand,thestrugglebetweeninstinctandintelligence,eachissloughedoffinturnuntiltheherocomesfacetofacewiththetruth–withwhichhehadseamlesslycoincidedinParti.32Lucidityhere,inotherwords,bringsconsciousnessoftheoutsidernessproclaimedinthenovel’stitle,allowingMeursaulttogetbeyondthedangerinherentinconvention,in‘laviesociale[qui]risque...d’enfaireunpantindepourvud’´ame’(‘sociallife,whichˆrisks...turninghimintoasoullesspuppet’).33Intheenforcedimmobilityofincarceration,Camus’sherothusreachesthelimitsoflucidself-awarenessandself-fulfilment(inaradicalalternativetoAlgerianistvalues):‘Moi,j’avaisl’aird’avoirlesmainsvides.Maisj’etaiss´urdemoi,sˆurdetout...Oui,ˆjen’avaisquecela.Maisdumoins,jetenaiscetteverit´eautantqu’elleme´tenait’(TRN,1210)(‘ItlookedasthoughIwasempty-handed.ButIwasconfident,aboutme,abouteverything.Yes,thatwasallIhad.ButatleastIhadaholdonthistruthjustasmuchasithadaholdonme’).IntheopinionoftheFrenchAlgeriannovelistsoftheinterwaryears,thetraitwhichbestcategorisedtheirworkwas‘muscular’writing,thereflection160CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nFromNocestoL’Etrangerofatough,no-nonsensepeoplewho,inthewordsofLouisBertrand,hadlearnedto‘becomebarbariansagain’,andhencecouldonlyviewwithdis-dainwhattheyhadlongderidedastheeffeminate,intellectualoutputofmetropolitanFrance.34Inmarkedcontrasttothatliterarytrendinthecolony,inanarticlepublishedinConfluencesin1943,Camusvoicedhisadmirationforthe‘classical’Frenchnovel(ofMmedeLafayette,StendhalandProustforinstance)inwhichhesaw‘uneconceptionparticulieredelaforce’(`TRN,1897)(‘averyparticularconceptofstrength’),laterdefinedasanintense,unwaveringconcentrationonacertainconceptionofmanthatintelligenceseekstohighlightviaalimitednumberofsituations(TRN,1898).Inhiscon-clusion,thisconceptionisidentifiedwithanidealsitewheretheforcesofdes-tinycomeupagainsthumanchoice(TRN,1900).Inthisperspectivetheideaofvirilitythatheholdsupasamodeltocontemporaryreadersis‘l’exercicesuperieurd’uneintelligencequin’adecessequ’elledomine’(´TRN,1902)(‘thehigherexerciseofanintelligencewhichstrivesuntilitovercomes’),nottheanimalenergydeployed,oftendestructively,intheworksofhisAlgeriancontemporaries.In1950,however,henotedthathisownworktodatedidnotactuallyconformtothemodelheadmiredsincehehadcreatedonly‘desetressansmensonge,doncnonrˆeels.Ilsnesontpasaumonde.C’est´pourquoisansdouteetjusqu’icijenesuispasunromancierausensouon`l’entend.Maisplutotunartistequicrˆeedesmythes´alamesuredesapassion`etdesonangoisse’(Cii,325)(‘beingswhoharbournolies,hencearenotreal.Theyarenotpartoftheworld.Andthat,nodoubt,iswhytodateIamnotanovelistascommonlyunderstood.Rather,anartistwhocreatesmythstosuithispassionandhisanguish’).ThattheheroofL’Etrangershouldhavebecomeaniconicfigureofthesecondhalfofthetwentiethcenturycan,nodoubt,belargelyattributedtomyth’sabilitytoserveasvehicleforthezeitgeistorworldviewofageneration.Thetragic(andsupposedlyMediterranean)hedonismeulogisedbycriticsislodgedinanunlikelychampionwhoseambitionistogetthroughtheworkingweekcompetentlysothathecanenjoytheresolutelybanalpleasuresoftheweekend.Tobefrustratedbyhim,asreadersoftenare,istobelievethatthereis(shouldbe)moretolife.YetthevaluespromotedinL’Etranger,andintheearlyessays,areresolutelygroundedinthetangibleandthevisible,‘jouissance’(‘pleasure’)inaworldinwhichtranscendenceismereillusion–‘lesfureursdel’eternelleadolescence’(‘theunbridledforces´ofeternaladolescence’),asCamuswastowritelaterinanunusedpageforL’Hommerevolt´e´(Ess,1658).Hence,perhaps,theirresonanceforthepost-warperiod,attractedbytheovertamoralityandbytheinarticulate,un-thought-throughchallengetofixedpositionsandorthodoxperspectivesenactedbytheprotagonist.InwritingLaPeste(1947),Camuswasatpainsto161CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\npeterdunwoodieconfrontthemoralconsequencesofthatstance,counteringsolipsismwithsocialconscience:‘iln’y[a]pasdehonteapr`ef´ererlebonheur.“Oui,dit´Rambert,maisilpeutyavoirdelahontea`etreheureuxtoutseul”’(ˆTRN,1389)(‘thereisnothingshamefulaboutpreferringhappiness.“True,”saidRambert,“buttherecanbesomethingshamefulaboutbeingtheonlyonewhoishappy”’).Inidentifyinghimselfas‘anartistwhocreatesmyths’ratherthanacon-ventionalnovelist,Camusispointingtoanalternativewritingstrategy,theimportanceofwhichisperhapsbestrevealedinalittletextof1952onHermanMelville,whomCamuspraisesasacreatorofmyths,indeedofasingle,all-consumingquestmyth‘construit...surleconcret,nondanslemateriaudur´eve...[C]hezMelvillelesymbolesortdelarˆealit´e,l’image´naˆıtdelaperception’(TRN,1909–10)(‘based...onwhatisconcrete,notonthestuffofdreams...InMelvillethesymbolgrowsoutofreality,theimagespringsfromperception’).ThatthisdescriptionalsofitsCamus’sownapproachbecomesclearwhenwerelateittoa‘dialogue’includedinhisCarnetsof1942,triggeredbycontemporaryreviewsofL’Etranger:‘Vousmepretezl’ambitiondefairerˆeel.Ler´ealismeestunmotvidedesens...´S’ilfallaitdonneruneformeamonambition,jeparleraisaucontrairede`symbole’(TRN,1933)(‘YoumaintainthatIstriveforthereal.Realismisaworddevoidofmeaning...IfIhadtoarticulatemyambition,Iwould,onthecontrary,talkaboutsymbols’).Theadvantageofsymbols,onemightargue,isthattheyconstitutenodesofresistancetoreadingsseekingclosureand,onthecontrary,embracethepolysemywhichencouragesaconstantlyrenewedengagementwiththetext.Itisinthisspiritthatthepresentreadingisproposed,areadingwhichreinsertsL’EtrangerintothecolonialAlgeriancontextoutofwhichitdeveloped,andintotheproblematicmediterran´eit´e´evokedinNoces,metaphorforthereworkedEuropean–MuslimcontactzoneinwhichCamusand‘Ecoled’Alger’colleagueslikeGabrielAudisiohopedaspiritoffraternityandexchangewouldreshapethecolony’salwaysinsecurefrontiers.NOTES1.JeuneMediterran´ee´,1(April1937);inEss,1321–7.2.Fordetails,seeP.Dunwoodie,WritingFrenchAlgeria(Oxford,Clarendon,1998).3.LouisBertrand,PrefacetoLeSangdesraces(Paris,Ollendorf,1899),xiii.4.LouisLambert,inLaRevuedesdeuxmondes(December1921),488.5.TheattackbyGabrielAudisio,Camus’sfriendandfellowwriter,wasnolessdirect:‘Parmilesprovocationsdelalatiniteilfautrangercequej’appellele´prejug´efavorable,´asavoirqueRomeatouteslesvertus,touslesm`erites,atout´162CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nFromNocestoL’Etrangerinvente,qu’onluidoittout,etquetoutcequinouspara´ˆıtbiendanslemonde,c’estaRomequ’ilfautl’attribuersansh`esitation’(´LeSeldelamer(Paris,Gallimard,1936),p.96)(AmongtheprovocationsgeneratedbytheLatinideaonehastoincludewhatIcallpositivebias,namelytheideathatRomehaseveryquality,everymerit,inventedeverything;thatweoweiteverything;andthateverythingwefindworthwhileintheworldhastobeattributedunhesitatinglytoRome).6.ThisassertivenessagainmatchesAudisio’sbluntnessinLeSeldelamerwhereheinsists:‘LemondenecommencepasavecRome,etilnefinitpasavecRome.LaMediterran´eenonplus.EtlaM´editerran´een’estpasRome’(p.´101)(‘TheworlddidnotstartwithRome,anditdoesn’tendwithRome.NordoestheMediterranean.AndtheMediterraneanisnotRome’).7.InhisnotesCamusrefersto‘LeVentaDj`emila’as‘theessayonruins’(´Ci,47).8.InoneoftheonlyreviewsofNocestoappearinFrance(OFALAC,1939),GabrielAudisiohighlighted‘asensitivityandaspiritofmeditationwhichgiveNorthAfricanwritinganewaccent’,Lottman,AlbertCamus.ABiography(NewYork,Braziller,1980),p.194.9.Thevillessolairesalsoexplicitlycounterthevillesd’or(‘citiesofgold’)frequentlyevokedbyBertrand;seeinparticularLesVillesd’or:AlgerieetTunisieromaines´(Paris:Fayard,1921).10.SeeJeanGrenier,AlbertCamus.Souvenirs(Paris,Gallimard,1968).GreniernotedinparticularthatCamuswasespeciallysensitiveto‘lapassiondusoleil’(‘passionforthesun’),Inspirationsmediterran´eennes´,p.30.SeealsoTobyGarfitt’sdiscussionofGrenierinchapter2.11.See,forexample,Gilles(1939)andEcritsdejeunesse(1941).12.SeeCamus’sstudentfriendMax-PolFouchet,Unjour,jem’ensouviens...Memoireparl´ee´(Paris,MercuredeFrance,1968),p.43.13.GabrielAudisio,Hommesausoleil(1923),Heliotrope´(1928)and,mostdirectly,JeunessedelaMediterran´ee´(1935)anditssecondvolume,LeSeldelamer(1936).14.AtypicalsourceofinfluenceinthisareaforCamuswouldhavebeenGabrielAudisio.See,forexample,Audisio,Hommesausoleil(Maupre,´LeMoutonblanc,1923),p.62.15.Gide,forinstance,waswellawareofthepoliticalsignificanceofthedisplacementeffectedbyAudisio.16.Theinsistenceonyouth,seeminglyunremarkableintextsofthe1930swhichprivilegebeauty,vitality,andthebody,furthersthisescapistperspectivesinceyouthiswithoutapastandhencewithouthistoricalresponsibility.17.TheselectivenatureofplaceinCamus’slyricalessaysisbestexemplifiedbycontrastingitwithanovellikeFantomesausoleilˆ(Paris,Gallimard,1949),writtenbyhisdemythologisingcontemporaryandfriend,Jean-PierreClot.18.JeanSarocchi,‘LaMediterran´eeestunsonge,Monsieur’,´Perspectives.Revuedel’Universiteh´ebra´ıquedeJ¨erusalem´5(1998),109–29(111).19.J.Levi-Valensi,‘Terrefaite´amon`ame:pourunemythologiedurˆeel’,´Perspectives5(1998),185–97(186).20.F.Bartfeld,‘Anti-Mediterran´eeetlyrismedel’exil’,´Perspectives5(1998),213–25(213).21.SeealsoM.ElHoussi,‘CamusouledesirdeM´editerran´ee’,´Africa,America,Asia,Australia15(1993),29–39;N.Stephane,‘LaMerheureuse’,´Europe77(October1999),132–44;R.Davison,‘MythologisingtheMediterranean:The163CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\npeterdunwoodieCaseofAlbertCamus’,JournalofMediterraneanStudies10.1–2(2000),77–92.22.‘L’Explication’wasreprintedinSituationsi(Paris,Gallimard,1947),pp.99–122.ForanEnglishtranslation,see‘Camus’s“TheOutsider”’,inJean-PaulSartre,LiteraryandPhilosophicalEssays,trans.AnnetteMichelson(NewYork,CriterionBooks,1955),pp.24–41.23.AlgeriawasalreadyaholidaydestinationwithanEnglish-languagenewspaper,andhometoBritishandFrenchartists’colonies.24.R.Champigny,Surunherospa´ıen¨(Paris,Gallimard,1959).25.SeeTRN,1186,1188,1195,1196,1197,1199.26.R.Barthes,LeDegrez´erodel’´ecriture´(Paris,Seuil,1953).27.E.Said,CultureandImperialism(London,Vintage,1994),p.209.SeealsoC.Achour,L’Etrangersifamilier(Algiers,EnAP,1984).AlthoughCamus’spersonalpoliticalinvolvementinthe1930sand1950shasbeencomprehensivelystudied,itisoccasionallystillsubjecttogrosslyinflatedclaimslikethatofDenisCharbitin‘Camusetl’epreuvealg´erienne’whereheisgivenstarstatusas‘oneofthe´first,ifnotthefirstFrenchAlgeriantodrawattentiontocolonialexploitationandoppression’,Perspectives5(1998),157–81(160).28.AfiguretheFrenchcall‘MonsieurTout-le-monde’.29.Theissueofguiltinacolonialcontext,bothmoralandhistorical,istreatedatlengthinLePremierHomme.30.SeeCi,29–30fortheimportanceattributedtothispassage.31.TheoxymoronshowsthatbarbariehasactuallybeenresemanticisedbyCamus.Audisio’spositionisremarkablyclosetoCamus’s:‘quandl’Afriquevousreprend,ellevousenseignequ’ilnefallaitpasluidemanderd’autrestylequelavie,d’autretraditionqued’etreˆ,d’autreracequelabeautedesracesm´elˆees’(´LeSeldelamer,p.18)(‘whenAfricaseizesyouagainitteachesyouthatoneshouldhaveaskedfornootherstylethanlifeitself,noothertraditionthanbeing,nootherracethanthebeautyofmixedraces’).32.Theinstinct/intelligencetensionisoneofthe‘ambivalences’Camus,AudisioandtheBerberpoetJeanAmroucheidentifiedasconstituentsofthe‘Mediter-raneanspirit’ataconferenceinParisin1947–alongwithaction/meditation,balance/violence.CamusalsomakesitacentralpoleofL’Hommerevolt´e´:‘LaMediterran´ee,o´ul’intelligenceestsœurdeladurelumi`ere’(`Ess,702–3)(‘TheMediterranean,whereintelligenceisthesisterofthehardlight’).InUlysseoul’intelligenceAudisioseesdualismasanessentialfactor,inflectingtheirwritingsthroughtensionssuchasRomanticism/Classicism,euphoria/despair,materialpleasure/thecallofthespiritual.33.Camus,L’Express,April1957.34.SeeLouisBertrand,‘NietzscheetlaMediterran´ee’,´LaRevuedesdeuxmondes25(1915),181–2.ThemaintargetsoftheFrenchAlgeriannovelistswereGideandProust.164CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\n12MARGARETE.GRAYLayersofmeaninginLaPeste‘Deuxiemes`erie:lemondedelatrag´edieetl’espritder´evolte’(´Ci,229)(‘Secondseries:theworldoftragedyandthespiritofrevolt’)(Ni,193),wroteCamusinApril1941,andthescatterednotesandsheetsofwhatwastobecomeLaPesteacquiredfurthershapeandcontext.Havingcompletedthecycleof‘theAbsurd’,inaFrancetornbywarandenemyoccupation,Camushadforsometimebeenconvincedthat‘Siignoblequesoitcetteguerre,iln’estpaspermisd’etreendehors’(ˆCi,167)(‘Howevervilethiswarmaybe,noonecanstandasidefromit’(Ni,139)).SuchaconvictionisatworkthroughoutCamus’ssecondcycle,whichincludesLaPeste(1947),theessayL’Hommerevolt´e´(1951)andtheplaysL’Etatdesiege`(1948)andLesJustes(1949).Inkeepingwiththiscycle’sexplorationoftragedyandrevolt,LaPestechroniclestheimprisonment,exile,oppressionandsufferingexperiencedbythecitizensofOranwhenaplaguestrikes.Yetthenovelalsodramatisesthevictoryofhumanspiritandsolidarityoverthatwhichwouldthreatenanddismemberit:aplague,anenemyoccupation,existenceitself.Inalludingtosuchvariedformsofoppression,Camusasserted,referringtohisexperienceoftheGermanoccupation:‘Jeveuxexprimeraumoyendelapestel’etouffementdontnousavonstoussouffertetl’atmosph´eredemenace`etd’exildanslaquellenousavonsvecu’(´Cii,72)(‘Iwanttoexpressbymeansoftheplaguethestiflingairfromwhichweallsufferedandtheatmosphereofthreatandexileinwhichwelived’(Nii,53)).Yet,hewenton–announcingthetext’svariouslayersofmeaningandtheirdynamicoscillationbetweeneventandabstraction,literalandfigurativemeaning,chronicleandallegory–‘Jeveuxdumemecoupˆetendrecetteinterpr´etation´alanotiond’existence`engen´eral’(´Cii,72)(‘Iwantatthesametimetoextendthatinterpretationtothenotionofexistenceingeneral’(Nii,53)).Thesestrataofmeaningarealsoemphasisedinthenovel’sepigraphfromDefoe’sRobinsonCrusoe:‘Ilestaussiraisonnablederepresenteruneesp´eced’emprisonnementparuneautre`quederepresentern’importequellechosequiexister´eellementparquelque´chosequin’existepas’(TRN,1215)(‘Itisasreasonabletorepresentone165CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nmargarete.graykindofimprisonmentbyanother,asitistorepresentanythingthatreallyexistsbythatwhichexistsnot’).1AnexhortationtoreadLaPesteonvariouslevels,itarguesforthelegitimacyofrepresentingonesortofimprisonmentbyanother–andforconcluding,ultimately,withRieux’selderlypatientinthenovel’sclosingpages,‘Maisqu’est-cequec¸aveutdire,lapeste?C’estlavie,etvoilatout’(`TRN,1472)(‘Butwhatdoesthatmean–“plague”?Justlife,nomorethanthat’(P,295)).The‘imprisonment’withwhichtheDefoeepigraphopensLaPesteisthusacentralexperienceinthenovel,asisitsattendantcondition,solitude.Indeed,‘Tous’,wroteCamusin1942ofthecharactersinwhatwastobecomeLaPeste,‘sontrenvoyes´aleursolitude.Sibien`quelaseparationdevient´gen´erale´...Faireainsiduthemedelas`eparationlegrandth´emeduroman’`(Cii,80)(‘Allareforcedintosolitude,sothatseparationbecomesthegeneralcondition...Makethethemeofseparationthemainthemeofthenovel’(Nii,60,translationmodified)).Wequicklynoticetheisolationofeachofthemaincharacterswithinacertainirremediablesolitude.ThedepartureofDrRieux’swifeinthenovel’sopeningpagesonlyseemstoemphasisethedistancethatinhabitsthecouple;puttingheronthetraintothemountainretreattheyhopewillbringacuretoherillness,Rieuxpromisestheywillmakeafreshstartuponherreturn(TRN,1225;P,8).ThesecretiveCottardperverselyrevelsintheplague’sextensionofhisownsolitudeandisolationtoallcitizensofOran,whiletheoutsiderTarroufindsintheplagueanimageforhisownsolitarymoralconvictions.City-clerkGrandishauntedbyhisfailuretoretainthewifeheloved,andjournalistRambertyearnsforhisfar-awaymistress.Alongwithsuchfeelingsofsolitudeandseparationcome,necessarily,thoseofexile,ofalossofhomeandrootedness:feelingsCamushimselfmusthaveknownkeenlyinthesummerof1942when,havingreturnedtoOranfromFrancein1941tolivewithhiswifeFrancine,heagainfellillwiththetuberculosisthathaddoggedhimsincehisteenageyears,obliginghimtoleaveAlgeriaforaretreatnearunoccupiedStEtienne,France,inthehopeofrestoringhishealth.However,theAlliedlandingsinNorthAfricajustafewmonthslaterandthesubsequentoccupationofallofFrancebytheGermanarmyessentiallyclosedcontactwithFrance’sNorthAfricancolonies.CommunicationbetweenCamusandFrancinebecametenuousandsporadic.‘Ilyadesmoisquejesuissansnouvellesdetoi’(‘I’vebeenwithoutnewsofyouformonths’)wroteCamustohersoonaftertheLiberationofFrance.2FortheAlgerian-bornCamushimself,then,solitudeinFrancebecameinextricablyexperiencedasexile,andwenoticethatoneoftheearlytitlesheconsideredforhisnovelwasLesExiles´(TheExiles);indeed,thetitlehegavetheexcerptpublishedinDomainefranc¸aisin1943was‘LesExiles´danslapeste’(‘ThePlagueanditsExiles’)(TRN,1959–67).166CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nLayersofmeaninginLaPesteCamus’sownexperienceofphysicalandemotionalexileduringthewarisevokedinthenovelthroughtheordealofjournalistRambert.HebecomesanexemplaryvictimofOran’sclosedgates,for,separatedfromhismistressandhomeinParis,hisimprisonmentisalsoanexile–andassuch,typifiestheemotionalexileexperiencedbyallcitizensofOranseparatedfromlovedones.Suchexilebringsthestingofmemoriesofaformerlifethatmayormaynothaveanylinktoapossiblefuture(TRN,1276;P,67).Bereftoffondconnectiontoarememberedpastorafutureinvestedwithhope,Oran’scitizensarestrandedinanendlesspresent:‘iln’yavaitpluspournousquedesinstants’(TRN,1367)(‘nothingwasleftusbutaseriesofpresentmoments’(P,175)).Thedivestitureofpastandfuture,however,isonlythebeginningoftheplague’sprogressivedestruction,asevenwithinthewastesofaneternalpresent,communicationamongcitizensfalters.Strugglingtoexpresshisownsolitaryandsingularanguishincarefullywroughtlanguagethatnonethe-less,however,failstoreachhisfellows(TRN,1280;P,72),eachprisoneroftheplaguediscoversnewextremesofsolitude.Forunderthecoercionofcommonspeech,obligedtocommunicate‘surlemodeconventionnel,celuidelasimplerelationetdufaitdivers,delachroniquequotidienne’(TRN,1280)(‘usingthecurrentcoinoflanguage,thecommonplacesofplainnar-rative,ofanecdoteandofdailyevent’(P,72,translationmodified)),Oran’scitizensareforcedtoconveytheirsufferingthroughbanalityandconventionasthepriceofcommunication.Thelanguagewithwhich,likeRambert,oneseeksurgentlytocommunicatethesingularityofone’sownexperience–thedifferencesofone’sowncase–isflattenedtoacommoncoin,toaneutral,conventional‘chronique’.Intriguingly,however,thenarrator–DrRieux,asweonlydiscoverinthefinalpages–hereusestheprecisetermhegiveshisownaccountinhisefforttoprovideanimpartialrenderingofcollectiveexperience.Andthroughthisoverlappinguseof‘chronique’,weareimplicitlyinvitedtoconsiderthecostbornebythenarrator’saccount:thepriceinsilencingandsuppressingindi-vidualexpressionsoastofavourRieux’sdeliberatelycollectiveandhistoricaltestimony.Rieux’schronicleitself,inprivilegingthecollectiveovertheper-sonal,representsadeliberatechoiceinfavourofsolidarity,theexperienceofthegroupovertheexperienceoftheindividual.Yet,again,hisadditionaluseof‘chronique’toimplytheflattening,theemptying,ofauthentichumancontactundertheimpactoftheplague,implicitlyinvitesustoappreciateallthathisown‘chronique’excludes.Alongsidethegeneralisedflatteningofcommunicationimposedbytheplague–thereductionofhumancontacttolamecliche–wemightnotice´otherexamplesofstrainedorfailedcommunicationinthenovel.Thereis,for167CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nmargarete.grayinstance,theendlesslyrewrittenopeninglineofGrand’sunwrittennovel.HisobsessiveandstalledefforttolaunchhistrottinghorsewomanintoherMaymorningisundoubtedlyconnectedtohisoriginalfailuretofindthewordsthatwouldhavekepthiswife,Jeanne,withhim(TRN,1286;P,78).Whenlettersarebannedaspotentialbearersofinfection,RambertinvitesRieuxtomakeuseofhisownsystemofclandestinecorrespondence.YetRieuxdiscoversdifficultyinwritingtohiswife,asthoughhehadsomehowlostthelanguageheneeded(TRN,1431;P,250).Increasingly,theplaguecoercestheimprisonedcitizensofOranintosilence,aswithoutrecoursetoletters,theyareforcedtocollapseallsentimentintothechoppyclichesoftelegrams:´‘Vaisbien.Penseatoi.Tendresse’(`TRN,1274)(‘Amwell.Thinkingofyou.Love’(P,65,translationmodified)).WenoticethatsuchtelegraphicdensityandrestraintfindsananalogueinRieux’schronicle,withitsownrestraint,itsevenness,itsunderstatedness.Inhisopeninglines,Rieuxsuggeststhattheeventsheisabouttorecountareabitoutoftheordinary.Suchmeasuredtones,forsoextremeacatastrophe,lendfurthernuancetoRieux’sdeliberatelycollectivechronicle,suggestingadditionalreasonsforhischoicetoomitallpersonalexperience.Aswesawabove,Rieuximplicitlyinvitedustorecognisetheomissionofthisexperience–andindeed,tacitly,theimpoverishmentofhisaccountasaresult.Butwebegintohaveasensethatthisomissionisperhapsmorecomplicatedthanwehadrealised;wewonderwhetherRieuxhasnotimposedsuchobjectiveconditionsuponhischronicleinanefforttoavoidthedangerof‘infection’byexcessandsentiment.Wearenotsurprisedtonoticehissomewhatstiffmention,indescribingajubilantOranattheendoftheplague,ofembracingcouples‘quinecraignaientpasdesedonnerenspectacle’(TRN,1464)(‘whowereunafraidofmakingaspectacleofthemselves’(P,287,translationmodified)).Andyet,thissameno-nonsenseapproachbecomesaweaponagainsttheplague,asweseeinRieux’seffortstopersuadetheauthoritiestotakemoredecisivemeasures.WhenRieuxsucceedsinforcingthePrefecture´tocallameetingattheplague’sonset,allpresentatlastagreeontheneedtoact‘commesilamaladieetaitunepeste’(´TRN,1259)(‘asthoughtheepidemicwereplague’(P,49)).Inirritatedirony,Rieuxflingstheirownsqueamish,hypotheticallanguagebackattheassembleddoctorsandPrefect,doublingnegativestoendwithaterseandterrifyingpossibility:‘Disonsseulementquenousnedevonspasagircommesilamoitiedelavillenerisquaitpas´d’etretuˆee,caralorselleleserait’(´TRN,1259)(‘Mypointisthatweshouldnotactasiftherewerenolikelihoodthathalfthepopulationwouldn’tbewipedout;forthenitwouldbe’(P,49)).AndRieux’sdemandsfordirect-nessoflanguageandactionareultimatelyadoptedinthecurtgovernmental168CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nLayersofmeaninginLaPestetelegramclosingPartiofRieux’schronicle,‘Declarezl’´etatdepeste.Fermez´laville’(TRN,1269)(‘ProclaimastateofplagueStopclosethetown’(P,61)).Suchdirectness,however,whileinitiallyameansofcombatingtheplague,becomesyetanothersoberingsymptomofitscrushingeffectonallcommu-nication.Humanexpressionisreducedtothegroansandcriesofvictims,whichbecome,forOran’soppressedandhardenedcitizens,asortofnaturalornormallanguage(TRN,1310;P,107).Ultimately,humanexchangeissplinteredintosilenceasOranisreducedto‘unenecropoleo´ulapeste,la`pierreetlanuitauraientfaittaireenfintoutevoix’(TRN,1359)(‘anecropo-lisinwhichplague,stoneanddarknesshadeffectivelysilencedeveryvoice’(P,166)).3Asanultimateimageofthiscoercionintosilence,suffocationbecomesacentralsymptomoftheplague’svictims.ThecontextofCamus’sownrespiratoryillnessallowsustoappreciatemorekeenlyLaPeste’simagesofasphyxiation,asCamussawinhisownvisceral,corporealexperienceofsuf-focationananalogytolifeundertheGermanoccupation.WhileintheUnitedStatesin1946,hewrites,amidstimpressionsofhistravels,‘Peste:c’estunmondesansfemmesetdoncirrespirable’(‘Plague:aworldwithoutwomenandthusunbreathable’).4Imagesofasphyxiationproliferateinsuchaworld,assymptomsoftheplague(TRN,1234;P,17);asthehushedanddesperatepleasoftheliving(TRN,1395;P,206);asthemuffledfootfallsinasilencedcity(TRN,1369;P,178);asthestiflingskyandair(TRN,1397;P,208)thatsealtheprisonofOran.Consequently,ofcourse,theabilitytobreathemarksresistancetotheplague;itisoneofthefirstsymptomsofrecoveryfromthefever,andmarksraremomentsofrespite,asinRieux’sfraternal,wordlessswimwithTarrou–where,strangelyhappy,Rieuxbreathesatlength,listeningtoTarrou’sownbreathing(TRN,1429;P,246).Ultimately,dwindlingfatalitiesindicatethat‘enfinilallaitetrepermisderespirer’(ˆTRN,1441)(‘finallyonewasgoingtobeallowedtobreathe’(P,259,translationmodified)),inadenselyfiguralaswellasliteraluseoftheimage.Yetsuffocationisonlyonesymptomenduredbytheplague’svictims;beyondsuchsilencing,theplaguecarriesoutadismemberingofthebody,boththebodyphysicalandthebodypolitic.Indeed,theplague’shistrionic‘ecart´element’,ordrawing-and-quartering,ofthesufferingbodybecomes`itselfemblematicofadislocatedsocialorder.Victimsofthediseaseevoke,throughtheirdisjointedlimbs,‘uneattitudedepantin’(TRN,1230)(‘aclock-workdoll’(P,14));asthediseaseprogresses,however,thevarioussymptomsmapan‘ecart´elementint`erieur’(´TRN,1249)(‘internaldismantling’(P,37,translationmodified)).Extendingtheimageofdismemberment,Paneloux–who,inaninitialsermon,hadarguedthattheplaguewasdivineretributionforlossoffaith–pronouncesasecondsermon,thisoneundertheimpactof169CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nmargarete.graythedeathofOthon’sson.Init,heemphasisesthesufferingofchildrenandtheneedtofacesuch‘dismemberment’ofmeaningasfaith’sultimatechal-lenge,amomentoftruthinwhichoneiscalledto‘toutcroireoutoutnier’(TRN,1402)(‘believeeverythingordenyeverything’(P,214)).Exhortingadwindledcongregationtoremainwithinthescandalandcontradictionofsuchdismantledmeaning,Panelouxurgesfidelityto‘cetecart´elementdont`lacroixestlesymbole’(TRN,1402)(‘thatgreatsymbolofallsuffering,thetorturedbodyonthecross’(P,214)).Indeed,Paneloux’sowncontortedbody,discoveredhalf-thrownfromhisdeathbedafteramysteriousillnessthatmayormaynothavebeentheplague,woulditselfseemtoremainfaithful,initsveryposture,tothetorturedbodyonthecross.Ambiguously,however,wearenottoldwhetherornotheisfoundstilltobeclutchinghiscrucifix,ashehadthroughoutthefever(TRN,1410;P,223).Despitehisexhortations,Panelouxthusembodiesafaiththat,undertheimpactofthesufferingofinnocents,becomesitselfshaken,‘ecartel´e’;andwearenot´surprisedtolearnthatinanearlierversionoftheepisode,Panelouxlosthisfaithaltogether.5Extendingtheimageof‘ecart´element’tothebodypolitic,wenoticethe`plague’sdislocationofsocialhealth,signalledbythenarrator’sopeningindi-cationthattheeventsheisabouttorecount‘n’...etaientpas´aleurplace’`(TRN,1219)(‘wereoutofplace’(P,1)).Theproperplaceandpositionofcivicorderisemphasisedinthenarrator’sobservationthatuntiltheclos-ingofthecity,eachcitizenhadpursuedhisoccupations‘asaplaceordi-`naire’(TRN,1273)(‘inhisordinaryplace’(P,63,translationmodified)).Undertheplague,however,‘toutsedetraquait’(´TRN,1324)(‘everythingwasbreakingdown’(P,125,translationmodified)).Suchsocialdislocationisparticularlyvisibleinthedeteriorationofburialdecorumimposedbytheescalatingnumbersofplaguevictims.Soastoevadeadecencyitcannolongeraccommodate,thecitydecidestoburyvictimsatnight.Inaclimacticimageofthesocialandcorporealdismembermentwroughtbytheplague,ambulancesrushbackandforthinburlesquehaste,piledeverhigherwithcontortedbodiestobedumpedintomassgraves.‘Onenterrapele-mˆele,lesˆunssurlesautres,hommesetfemmes,sanssoucideladecence’(´TRN,1362)(‘thislastremnantofdecorumwentbytheboard,andmenandwomenwereflungintothedeath-pitsindiscriminately’(P,169))runsRieux’sdescriptionofthescene’smacabre,dislocatedpuppetry.Sogruesomeandhistrionicaspectacleofthedrawnandquarteredbody,bothcorporealandsocial,recallsCamus’sdramaticdesignationforhissec-ondcycleasthatof‘tragedie’.Forwehavebecomeincreasinglyawareof´thestrainbetweenRieux’sresolutelymeasured,documentaryaccountandthetragicspectacleordramaproducedbytheplague.Suchstrainisperhaps170CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nLayersofmeaninginLaPesteparticularlyvisibleinthedescriptionofRieux’s‘calm’reactiontohiswife’sdeath,announcedbytelegram:indeed,areactionsocomposedthatRieuxhimselfattemptstojustifyit,framinghisexplanation,however,withtheambiguous‘sansdoute’(‘nodoubt’):‘Voilapourquoi,sansdoute,ledocteur`Rieux,aumatin,rec¸utaveccalmelanouvelledelamortdesafemme’(TRN,1459)(‘That,nodoubt,explainsDrRieux’scomposureonreceivingnextmorningthenewsofhiswife’sdeath’(P,280)).Inthemiddleofhisnarra-tion,Rieuxremindsusofhisefforttoavoid‘leseffetsdel’art,saufencequiconcernelesbesoinsel´ementairesd’unerelation´apeupr`escoh`erente’(´TRN,1365)(‘artisticeffect,exceptthoseelementaryadjustmentsneededtopresenthisnarrativeinamoreorlesscoherentform’(P,173)).Yet,giventhesignifi-cantdramaticvalueoftheeventsherecounts,weareonlytooacutelyawareoftherisingtensionbetweensuchdramaandthenarration’sneutralityandrestraint.Indeed,despitehisclaims,Rieux’smeasuredaccountbetrays,invariousways,effortstoconveythedramaofallhewitnessed.Rieux’schronicleoftheonset,rise,triumph,declineanddisappearanceoftheplagueisneatlydivided,forinstance,intofiveparts.Himselfaplay-wright,authoroftheplaysCaligula,LeMalentenduandLesJustes,aswellasoftheatricaladaptationsfromtheSpanish,French,EnglishandRus-sian,Camuswasonlytoodeliberatelystructuringhisnovelaccordingtothefiveactsofclassicaltragedy.Moreover,suchtragicundertonesacquireexplicitdramaticforceandimpactwhenCottardandTarrouattendaperfor-manceofGluck’stragicopera,OrpheeetEurydice´.ElegantcitizensofOranexchangegreetingsastheytaketheirseats,intentnottomisstheircuesinunwittingperformancesintheauditoriumitself;for,playingurbanerolesofsuaveself-delusioninadramamoredesperate,morecompellingthanthatonstage,spectatorsdeludethemselvesthat‘l’habitchassaitlapeste’(TRN,1381)(‘eveningdresswasasurecharmagainsttheplague’(P,189,trans-lationmodified)).Yetthisspectators’dramaanditsillusionofnormalcyisexploded,broughtdownassuddenlyanddecisivelyasthesingerplayingOrpheehimself;for,overcomebytheplagueduringthethirdact,hecollapses´grotesquely,takingthestagesetswithhim,beforethehorrifiedspectators.Thiseruptionofanexplicit,classicaltragedy–thatofOrpheusandEurydice–withintheplague’sowntragiceventsprovidesaparticularlyvisi-bleillustrationofdramaticforcesatworkwithinRieux’snarration.WemightreadsuchdramaintermsofCamus’sownvisionforLaPesteasatextofrevolt,for,betweenthelinesofRieux’stautlycontrolledcadences,wesensehisefforttoconveytheessentialtriumphofthehumanspirit.Itisthroughthistriumph,despitesufferingandloss,thatthespiritofrevoltamongOran’scitizensbecomesclear–andwebegintounderstandthepurpose,despitehisexplicitclaimstothecontrary,ofthedramawithwhichRieuxendows171CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nmargarete.graycertainepisodesofhisnarration.Thereis,forexample,thelong,detaileddescriptionofTarrou’sillnessanddeath:apassagewereadinagonisingsuspense,tornbetweenwhatweknowoftheplague’sdeadliness,anditsrare,capriciousclemency.Inthispassage,Rieux’scharacteristicrestraint,ashedescribeshispowerlessness,yieldstometaphorinanimageofTarrou’sbodydisappearingfromhisgrasp:‘Cetteformehumainequiluiavaitet´e´siproche,perceemaintenantdecoupsd’´epieu,br´ulˆeeparunmalsurhu-´main,torduepartouslesventshaineuxduciel,s’immergeaitasesyeuxdans`leseauxdelapesteetilnepouvaitriencontrecenaufrage’(TRN,1457)(‘Thishumanform,hisfriend’s,laceratedbythespear-thrustsoftheplague,consumedbysearingsuperhumanfires,buffetedbyalltheravagingwindsofheaven,wasflounderingunderhiseyesinthedarkfloodofthepesti-lence,andhecoulddonothingtoavertthewreck’(P,277)).TheimageofTarrou’sbodysinkinginthe‘waters’oftheplaguebeforeRieux’seyesisallthemoreironicandresonantwhenwerecallthe‘waters’oftheirswim,withitswordlesscommunion,friendshipandsolidarity.Indeed,theseahasalwaysofferedabackdroptotheirfriendship;Rieux’sdesiretoconfideinTarrouoccursashelooksthroughthewindowatthevagueanddistantsea(TRN,1323;P,123),whileTarrousimilarlychooses,asthesettingforconfidinginRieux,arooftopterracewithaviewoftheindistinct‘palpitation’whereseaandskymeet(TRN,1419;P,234).Itisthecontextofthisfriendshipimplicitlyembracedbytheseathatlendsfurtherpathostothe‘shipwreck’ofTarrou’sbody.‘Ilnepouvaitriencontrecenaufrage’,Rieuxtellsus,speak-ingofcourse,asweincreasinglysuspect,ofhimself.‘Ildevaitrestersurlerivage,lesmainsvidesetlecœurtordu,sansarmesetsansrecours,unefoisdeplus,contrecedesastre’(´TRN,1457)(‘Hecouldonlystand,unavailing,ontheshore,empty-handedandsickatheart,unarmedandhelplessyetagainundertheonsetofcalamity’(P,277)).Forallthemasteryandcontrol,therestraintanddisciplineofRieux’snarrative,forallthehealingheisabletoaccomplish,heneverthelessremainsvulnerable,humanandthusoneofus:confrontingcircumstancesthatoverwhelmandengulfhim,buttowhichherefusestosuccumb.Rieux’snarrationalsotendselsewheretowardsthedramatic,asintheaccountofRambert’sultimatedecision,theveryeveningofhisplannedescape,tostayandfighttheplague.WhenRambertgoestoseeRieux,wepresumeitistoinformthedoctorthathisescapewillbecarriedoutatmidnight;butwediscoveronlyintheepisode’sclosinglinethatRamberthasinfactalreadycancelledtheplansoastojointheranksofthesanitaryteams.WehaveinRambert’sstunningreversalaresoundingdemonstra-tionofsolidarity,renderedallthemoreapparentpreciselythroughthedra-maticshapewithwhichRieuxendowstheepisode.Inanswertothequestion172CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nLayersofmeaninginLaPesteTarrouasksRambertatmidnight,thehourplannedforhisescape–astowhetherRamberthasinformedhiswould-beliberatorsofhisdecisiontostayinOran–Rambertturnshishead.‘J’avaisenvoyeunmot,dit-ilaveceffort,´avantd’allervousvoir’(TRN,1390)(‘“I’dsentthemanote”–hespokewithaneffort–“beforecomingtoseeyou”’(P,200)).Rambert’sadmissionistheepisode’sclosingline,whichlendsityetfurtherweightanddrama.Itisthroughsubtlydramaticstory-tellingofthissortthatRieuxemphasisesthevictoryofhumansolidarity.ForasRambertexplains,‘ilpeutyavoirdelahontea`etreheureuxtoutseul’(ˆTRN,1389)(‘itmaybeshamefultobehappybyoneself’(P,199)).Rambert’sdramaticchoiceinfavourofsolidarityoverhisownhappinessemblematisesOran’sresponsetotheplague.ForatTarrou’sinitiative,citizensorganisethemselvesintoteams,fightingthedis-easeasbesttheycan,andcountingamongtheirranksmembersasdifferentasPanelouxandJudgeOthon;theexhaustedGrandspendseveningsdevot-inghisclericalskillstothecause.Inyetanotherexampleofthesolidaritywithwhichthecityrespondstotheplague,andtowhichhischronicletes-tifies,Rieuxpointstothestunningfactthatthroughouttheepidemic,therewasneverashortageofnursesandgrave-diggers,despitetheirgreaterriskofinfection(TRN,1362;P,170).WemightnowdistinguishtwocountervailingmovementsinLaPeste.Ontheonehand,thereistheeffectivecollapseofthehumancarriedoutbytheplagueinitsasphyxiationanddismembermentofthephysicalandsocialbody,itspull‘dufonddelaterre’(TRN,1234)(‘fromthedepthsoftheearth’(P,19))ofthehumanintooblivion.Ontheotherhand,thereisthenarration’sresistancetosuchoblivionthroughtheimplicitdramatisation,thespectacleorstaging,ofthistragedyinfiveacts.Thesetwomovements,themovementtowardseffacementandthemovementtowardsspectacle,convergeinthedeathsceneofJudgeOthon’sson.InasearingrepriseofthedramaticsceneattheOperaHouseinOran,whereTarrouandCottardwerespectatorstotheunplanneddramaofOrphee’scollapse,Rieuxand´Tarrounowbecomeunwillingspectatorstothedrawn-outdramaofthechild’sdeath:‘l’agonied’uninnocent’(TRN,1394)(‘thedeath-throesofaninnocentchild’(P,205)).Thechild’s‘ecart´element’–ordrawingand`quartering,aswehaveseeninRieux’srecurringtermfortheplague’seffectuponthebody–isrecountedinstarkdetailasheisshakenbytheplague’stypicallydismembering,convulsivemovements:theagitationandstiffeningofhisbodybyturns;thecurlingupandflingingopenoflimbs;theclaw-likehands;thelonginhumanplaint.Ultimately,thechild’sskeletalbodyassumestheposeofa‘crucifiegrotesque’(´TRN,1394)(‘agrotesqueparodyofcrucifixion’(P,205)).Thisdramatisationoftheplague’scrushinganddismembering,itsdrawing-and-quarteringofthismostinnocentofbeings173CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nmargarete.grayinasacrificialcrucifixion,promptsRieux’sonlyoutburstinthenarrative,flungatPaneloux:‘Ah!Celui-la,aumoins,`etaitinnocent,vouslesavezbien!’´(TRN,1396)(‘Ah!Thatchild,anyhow,wasinnocent–andyouknowitaswellasIdo!’(P,207)).Rieux’srevoltagainsttheplague’smeaninglessevilsummarisesandexpressesourownreaction.Andsuchprotestinvolvescryingout,likeRieux,againstoppression.Thehumanvoicepersists,emergingfromtheplague’scarnageandoppression,resistingtheplague’sefforttosilenceit.ThereisRieux’sownvoiceitself,withitstestamenttosolidarity:‘pournepasetredeceuxquisetaisent’(ˆTRN,1473)(‘sothatheshouldnotbeoneofthosewhoholdtheirpeace’(P,296)),explainsRieuxofhisdecisiontorecountOran’sordeal.Grand’simmobilisednarrativeultimatelyrenewsandregeneratesitselfinhislettertoJeanne,aletterbegunfurtherdownonthemanuscript’sfinalpage:agesturetowardsresponsibilityandapology,anopeningontoapossiblereconciliation,afteryearsofdistanceandsilence:‘MabienchereJeanne,c’estaujourd’huiNo`el’¨(TRN,1434)(‘MydearestJeanne,todayisChristmasDay’(P,253)).Sterileandstallednarrationthustransformsitself,becomingapostrophe,address,directaction–itstorturedstartsandstops,itshesitationandimmobilityyieldingatlasttothepromiseofmovement.Yet,convincedheisdyingoftheplague,Granddemandsthatthemanuscriptbeburned;equallyconvincedthatGrandislost,Rieuxcomplies,throwingthemanuscriptintothefire.ButGrandimprobablyrecovers,andthedashedpromiseofchange,bearingitspossibilityofanewbeginningwithJeanne,isrestored:‘Ah!Docteur...j’aieutort.Maisjerecommencerai.Jemesouviensdetout,vousverrez’(TRN,1435)(‘Yes,doctor...Iwasover-hasty.ButI’llmakeanotherstart.You’llsee,Icanremembereveryword’(P,254)).Similarly,Tarrou’svoicewouldseemtobelosttotheplague,suffocated,cruelly,asoneofitslastvictims;yetRieux,likeGrand,‘remember[s]everyword’(P,254),andquotesTarrouatlengthwithinhischronicle.Thedif-ferentdiscoursebroughttoRieux’saccountthroughTarrou’sconfessionoffersaperspectiveunavailabletoRieux’sresolutelyhistoricaldepictionofacollectiveevent.ForTarrou’svoiceoffersamoralandmetaphoricalviewoftheplaguethatcounterbalancesnotonlyPaneloux’sinitiallacer-atingclaimfortheplagueasdivineretribution,butRieux’sownaccountasastrictlyhistoricalchronicleof‘curiousevents’(P,1).Originally,Rieux’sinsertionofTarrou’snotebookswithinhisownaccountappearedpotentiallytoofferarivalchronicle,thoughRieuxappearscarefultoconsignTarrou’snotesto‘secondary’importance,suggestingthattheyoffer‘unefoulededetailssecondairesquiontcependantleurimportance’(´TRN,1236)(‘ahostofsecondarydetailswhichyethavetheirimportance’(P,22,translationmodified)).SuchcaretorelegateTarrou’snotebookstosecondarystatus174CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nLayersofmeaninginLaPesteissignificantlyabsent,however,fromRieux’ssubsequentaccountofTar-rou’sconfession.Tarrou’smonologue,moreover–initiatedbyTarrouwithhisquestiontoRieux,‘Voulez-vousquecetteheuresoitcelledel’amitie?’´(TRN,1419)(‘Wouldyoulikethistobeamomentoffriendship?’(P,235,translationmodified))–wouldnotseemimmediatelypertinenttoRieux’sresolutelycollectivechronicle.QuotedatsuchlengththatitappearsentirelytoovertakeRieux’sownaccount,usurpingitforarivalpurpose,Tarrou’sconfessioninsteadopensupforthereaderadimensionRieuxhadexplicitlyrefusedinhisadoptionofanobjective,chronicler’svoice.Indirectingthereadertotheplague’ssymbolicimportancethroughTar-rou’sconfession,Rieuxsubtlyintegrateswithinhischronicletheallegorytowhichhehimselfrefusesallallusion.For,recountingtheshockofhisdis-coverythathisfairlyordinaryfather,amagistrate,regularlyrequestedthedeathpenaltyinthecourtroom,Tarroudescribeshisresolutiontorefuseallthatbringsdeath,forwhateverreason(TRN,1425;P,242).Suggestingthatweareallcomplicitinthedeathofinnocents,Tarrouassertsthatwemustnonethelessfightanyforcethatbringsdeath;andthisincludesmaintainingvigilance,aswell,againstthepotentialeachofuscarrieswithinourselvesforinfectionbysuchaplague,whateverformsuchevilmighttake.Tarroudescribesthemorallonelinessofhisstruggle,explainingthatheknowshehasnoplaceintoday’sworld:‘apartirdumomento`uj’airenonc`e´atuer,`jemesuiscondamne´aunexild`efinitif’(´TRN,1426)(‘onceI’ddefinitelyrefusedtokill,Idoomedmyselftoanexilethatcanneverend’(P,243)).ByquotingTarrouatlength,RieuximplicitlyinvitesustoreadOran’sordealsymbolically,asTarrouhimselfdoes;inthisway,Rieux’sresolutelyfactualchronicleallowsusaccesstothemultiplelayersofmeaningthatmaybereadintotheplague.GiventhesetracesofstrainwithinRieux’schronicle–thetensionbetweenthesingularityandpathosoftheindividual’s(includingTarrou’s)experienceoftheplagueandRieux’sefforttoprovideanobjective,historicalchronicle,hisconvictionthatheshouldspeakforall(TRN,1469;P,291)–itisstrik-ingthathechoosestoconcludewithanaccountofonecitizenforwhomhecouldnotspeak,themaddenedCottardfiringonthecrowd.Rieux’sownexplanationforhischoicetoclosehischronicleinthiswayischaracteris-ticallyneutral,evenenigmatic:‘Ilestjustequecettechroniqueseterminesurluiquiavaituncœurignorant,c’est-a-diresolitaire’(`TRN,1469)(‘Itisfittingthatthischronicleshouldendwithsomereferencetothatman,whohadanignorant,thatistosaylonely,heart’(P,291)).Rieux’schoicesoberlyemphasisesthepersistenceofanundomesticatedsolitudedespitehisownexperienceofallthatisnoble,beautifulandresilientinhumansolidarity.Andthepresenceofsuchperversion,scandaloustoRieux’sdemonstration,175CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nmargarete.grayprepareshissoberconclusion,followingthedescriptionofajubilantOran:solidarity’svictorycanneverbedefinitive,fortheplaguemightalwaysreturn(TRN,1473–4;P,297).LaPestethuswarnsusthatthesolitaryandscan-dalousheartisalwaysreadytoawaken,liketheplague,totestandthreatenthecollective.Solidarity’svictoryisatbestfragile,asRieux,listeningfromwithinOran’sclosedgatestothe‘terriblepowerlessness’offar-awayradiovoicesofsolidarity(TRN,1332;P,134),hadalreadyrealised:powerlessvoicesperhapssuggestive,onadeeperlevel,oftheessentialfragilityofeventhemostrobusthumansolidarity.DespiteRieux’ssoberconclusion;despitecriticalobjectionstotheabsenceofindigenous,Algerianvoicesandexperiencesinthenovel;6despiteCamus’sowndespairingconviction,in1946,‘jetrouvecelivremanque’(‘Ifeelthis´bookisafailure’);7itwasimmenselysuccessfuluponitspublicationin1947,selling22,000copiesinjusttwoweeks.8Itssuccesshasneverwaned.Todate,overfivemillioncopieshavebeensold,insomethirtylanguages.AsCamushimselfassertedtoRolandBarthesin1955,themovementfromL’EtrangertoLaPesteisthatfromsolitudetosolidarity.9InaFrancestrug-glingtoemergefromthetrauma,humiliationanddeprivationofWorldWarII,Rieux’saccountofthetriumphofhumansolidarityoveroppression,theresistanceofsuchsolidaritytoanyevilthatwoulddestroyit,broughtwel-comesolaceandencouragement.CamuswastogoontodevelopthethemeofrevoltinhisessayL’Hommerevolt´e´,publishedin1951.InLaPeste,how-ever,asearlyas1947,wealreadyneedtoimagineSisyphusnolongermerelyhappy(asCamusarguesinLeMythedeSisyphe),butinrevoltagainstallthatwouldcrush,suffocateanddismantlethehuman.NOTES1.TheepigraphtoLaPesteistakenfromtheprefacetoVolumeiiiofDanielDefoe’sRobinsonCrusoe.2.AlbertCamus,LettertoFrancineCamus,31August1944.QuotedinOlivierTodd,AlbertCamus,unevie(Paris,Gallimard,1996),p.501.3.Theefforttoresistsuchoppression,tospeakoutagainstthatwhichwouldimposesilence,wasCamus’sown,asjournalistandultimatelyeditoroftheResistancenewspaperCombatduringtheGermanoccupationofFrance.4.AlbertCamus,Journauxdevoyage,ed.RogerQuilliot(Paris,Gallimard,1978),p.42.Englishtranslation(modified)isbyHughLevick,fromAlbertCamus,AmericanJournals(NewYork,ParagonHouse,1987),p.45.5.RaymondQuilliot,‘“LaPeste”:Presentation’(´TRN,1942).Pointingtothe‘Casdouteux’(‘QuestionableCase’)diagnosisonPaneloux’sdeathcertificate,EdwardHughesextendsthisambiguitytoPaneloux’sshakenfaith;theuncertainpathologyofPaneloux’sdeaththusrepresents‘afinalironyinthecaseoftheonceuncom-promisingpreacherwhohadtradedsohappilyintheologicalcertainties’,Albert176CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nLayersofmeaninginLaPesteCamus:LePremierHomme/LaPeste(Glasgow,UniversityofGlasgowFrenchandGermanPublications,1995),p.69.6.ConorCruiseO’Brien,amongothercritics,haspointedtotheabsenceofindige-nousvoicesandexperiencesinLaPesteinhisAlbertCamusofEuropeandAfrica(NewYork,Viking,1970).7.AlbertCamus,LettertoPatriciaBlake,8July1946,quotedinTodd,AlbertCamus,p.569.8.Todd,AlbertCamus,p.603.9.AlbertCamus,LettertoRolandBarthes,11January1955(TRN,1973–5).177CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\n13DAVIDR.ELLISONWithheldidentityinLaChuteFollowinguponfouryearsofnearsilenceafterthecontroversywithSartreinLesTempsmodernessurroundingthedisputedphilosophicalclaimsofL’Hommerevolt´e´,thepublicationin1956ofLaChutedispelledanyprema-turenotionthatCamusmighthavelosthisconsiderabletalentsandintellec-tualrelevanceasawriter.Inatightlystructuredimaginativefablecentredinanexaminationofhumanduplicityremarkableforitsmixtureoflucidityandferociouswit,Camusmadehisreturntocentrestagebothassertiveandenigmatic.OfallCamus’stexts,andincontradistinctiontotheoutspokenstraightforwardpresentationofLePremierHommewhichwastofollowit,LaChuteisthemostresistanttoourunderstandingasreaders,fortwoessentialreasons:(1)itishighlypersonal;itsrhetoricalmodeisthatofamonologicalconfession;and(2)iteludesourgraspbyalludingtonumerousotherworksofliteratureintheWesterntradition,fromtheBiblethroughDantetoDostoyevsky,tosuchadegreethatwehavedifficultyseparatinglev-elsofmeaninginanefforttoattainthework’ssemanticcore.OfallCamus’stexts,LaChutehasgeneratedthebroadestdiversityofcriticalreadingspre-ciselybecauseoftheapparentlyuncontrollablemultiplemeaningsthatinherewithinitspersonalandallusivepotential.1Plot,structure,themesForreadersfamiliarwiththeevolutionofCamus’sworkuntil1956,LaChutecontainsanumberofsurprises.Themoststrikingoftheseisthesettingofthenovel–whichisnolongerthesun-infusedlandscapeofNorthAfrica,butthefog-envelopedwateryhorizonofHolland.DrawinginpartonhisownremembrancesofashorttriptoTheHagueandAmsterdaminOctober1954andinpartonliteraryandculturalartefacts,CamuschosetoplacetheactionofhisironicalnarrativeinalocationthatrepresentedforhimtheantithesisofthestarkgeographicalandaestheticsobrietyhefounddominantintheMediterraneanworld.Inevitably,thereaderwhocomestoLaChutewitha178CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nWithheldidentityinLaChuteclearmemoryofL’Hommerevolt´e´andespeciallyofitslyricalconclusiononthenotionsof‘mesure’(‘measure’,‘moderation’)and‘penseesolaire’(‘solar’´orenlightenedthought)willfindinthesettingofthenovel–atobacco-andgin-filledsailors’barinthered-lightdistrictofAmsterdam–aconsciousandstudiedreversalofthevaluesCamushadsoughttodefineinhisphilosophicaltreatiseof1951.Inthesimplestofdefinitions,wesaythatironyisafigureofspeechwherebyonesaystheoppositeofwhatonemeans:inthecaseofLaChute,itwouldseemthattheentiretyofthetextisironical,inthatitsaystheoppositeofwhatCamushadassertedinaphilosophicallydiscursivemodeinL’Hommerevolt´e´.Atafirstlevel,itispossibletoseeinLaChuteabelatedandtextuallycomplex‘reading’ofL’Hommerevolt´e´inwhichCamus,insteadofcriticis-ingmodernmanfornotrecognisinghislimitsandfordenyinghisdoublenatureasbeastandmoralbeing,createsinthenovel’sduplicitousprotagonistanalteregowhorevelsinunlimitedself-indulgenceandintheinauthenticproclamationofhisessentialsuperiority.WhereasinthefinalpagesofhisphilosophicaltreatiseCamushadstatedthatallequivocallanguage,everymisunderstandingcouldleadtoviolenceanddeath,that‘lelangageclair,lemotsimple,peutseulsauverdecettemort’(Ess,687)(‘onlyclearlanguage,thesimpleword,cansaveusfromthisdeath’),inhisnovelheportraysananti-herowhoselanguageisconsistentlyambiguous,whoseironicalcir-cumlocutionsweaveadizzyingandobscuringwebaroundthenotionsofinnocenceandjusticethatlie,tantalisingintheirnear-absence,atthecentreofthetext.UnlikeLaPeste,inwhichthevoiceofDr.Rieuxwasthatofachron-iclerspeakinginthenameofhisfellowcitizens,LaChuteisconstructedasadialogueinwhichonlyonevoiceisheard,asadialoguethatmaybetheimaginaryprojectionofonemonomaniacalconsciousness.ThechattyprotagonistcallshimselfJean-BaptisteClamenceandintroduceshimselftohissilentinterlocutorwithpoliteceremonyinanAmsterdambarexoticallynamed‘Mexico-City’.Asawhole,thenarrativeisachronologicallycom-plicated,unfoldingdevelopmentonthecareerandpersonalityofClamence.Themorewereadofthenovel,themoreweknowaboutitsprotagonist,themoreweunderstandwhyamateriallysuccessfulParisianlawyerwhoenjoyedtheadmirationofhiscolleaguesandtheadulationofhisclientsgraduallybecamedisillusionedwithhisprofession,lostallself-esteem,andmovedtoAmsterdamtobecome‘judge-penitent’inameeting-placefortheexiledanddisinheritedofthemodernworld.InordertogainapreliminaryunderstandingofLaChute,weneedtodeterminewhoClamenceisandhowheevolvedfromhisParisidentitytohismaskedpersonaatthe‘Mexico-City’.Thistaskismadedifficultbythefactthatthenarrativeasawholefunctions179CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\ndavidr.ellisonasaconstantandconsistentwithholdingoftheprotagonist’sidentity.JustasinNietzsche’slateaphoristicwritingsaveildoesnotconcealthetruthbutmerelyanotherseriesofveils,intheuniverseofLaChuteamaskseemsmerelytohidemoremasks.2Thenarrativeisorganisedintosixchaptersofmoderatelength,eachofwhichcontributescumulativelytoajagged,fragmentedportraitofCla-mence.Inthefirstchapter,wemeettheprotagonistinhisbaranddiscoverhimtalkingtoanunnamedinterlocutorinthesecond-personformalform.WhenClamence,inthefirstsentenceofthetext,says:‘Puis-je,monsieur,vousproposermesservices,sansrisquerd’etreimportun?’(ˆTRN,1477)(‘MayI,Monsieur,offermyserviceswithoutrunningtheriskofintruding?’(F,5)),thereaderhastheimpressionthatheorsheisbeingaddressed;indeed,Camushasconstructedhistextinsuchawaythatthe‘you’(vous)towhomClamencespeaksmightbeanypersonwhopicksupacopyofLaChute.Thisimpressionisdispelledsomewhatlateronwhentheinterlocutorbeginstoassumehisowntraitsofidentityandcharacter,whenhebecomesmoreparticularisedasaspecificpartnerinthedialogue,butitisimportanttothedynamicofthenovelthatthereaderbeplacedinthesometimesuncomfort-ablepositionofdirectlyparticipatinglistener.Inthefirsttwochaptersofthenovel,thepictureClamencepaintsofhispastlifeshowsamaninpossessionofintelligence,wit,charmandjusttherightdoseofcynicismforthemanagingofacomfortableexistenceinadecadentEuropeancapital.Yetatonepointinhisconfidentstoryachinkinthearmourappears:heremembersaneveningwhen,afteraparticularlysatisfyingday,preciselywhenhehadbeguntoexultinafeelingofpoweranddomination,hesuddenlyheardanexplosionofinexplicablelaughterathisback(TRN,1495;F,30).Itturnsoutthattherepressedoriginofthislaughteroccurredsometwoorthreeyearspreviously,whenhewascrossingthePontdesArtsovertheSeineriver.Havingnoticedalonewomanleaningoverthebridge’sparapet,andbrieflyawareofhersensualcharm,Clamencecontinuedonhiswayuntilheheard‘lebruit,qui,malgreladistance,meparut´formidabledanslesilencenocturne,d’uncorpsquis’abatsurl’eau’(TRN,1511)(‘thesound–which,despitethedistance,seemeddreadfullyloudinthemidnightsilence–ofabodystrikingthewater’(F,52)).Momentslater,heheardarepeatedcrythatgrewgraduallyfainter,butdespitethesesignsofdistressandofimpendingdisaster,hedidnotturnaround,butregainedtheisolatedcomfortofhisParisapartment.Immediatelyafterthetellingofthiscentral,all-determiningevent,Clamenceandhisinterlocutorconcludetheireveningwalkandarriveattheprotagonist’sAmsterdamresidence,whichthelatterdescribes,significantly,asanabri,or‘refuge’(TRN,1511;F,53).Webegintounderstand,atthemidpointofLaChute,thatthecomplex180CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nWithheldidentityinLaChutehistrionicsoftheprotagonistare,ononelevel,astrategyofavoidance:hisverboseassertionsofageneralisedhumanguiltconstituteanattempttohidefromhisownguilt,whichisspecific,concrete,andreal.Inchapters4and5,aftertheaccountofClamence’sinactiononthebridge,welearnhowtheParisianlawyertransformshimselfinto‘judge-penitent’.ThiscrucialturnorreversaloccursonceClamencedecidesthatabsoluteinnocenceisanimpossibility,thatallpeopleareguilty,thatevenJesusChristfallsshortofperfectionandtherebydeservesourforgiveness.Aswereachtheendofchapter5,Clamence’sremarksbecomeincreasinglybitteranddevastatinglyironical:Deslors,puisquenoussommestousjuges,noussommestouscoupablesles`unsdevantlesautres,touschristsanotrevilainemani`ere,un`auncrucifi`es,et´toujourssanssavoir...Danslasolitude,lafatigueaidant,quevoulez-vous,onseprendvolontierspourunprophete.Apr`estout,c’estbienl`acequejesuis,`refugi´edansund´esertdepierres,debrumesetd’eauxpourries,proph´etevide`pourtempsmediocres,Eliesansmessie,bourr´edefi´evreetd’alcool,ledoscoll`e´acetteportemoisie,ledoigtlev`eversuncielbas,couvrantd’impr´ecationsdes´hommessansloiquinepeuventsupporteraucunjugement.(TRN,1535)Wherefore,sincewearealljudges,weareallguiltybeforeoneanother,allChristsinourcheapway,onebyonecrucified,alwayswithoutknowing...Insolitudeandwhenfatigued,oneisinclined,afterall,totakeoneselfforaprophet.Whenallissaidanddone,that’sreallywhatIam,havingtakenrefugeinadesertofstones,fogs,andstagnantwaters–anemptyprophetforshabbytimes,Elijahwithoutamessiah,stuffedwithfeverandalcohol,mybackupagainstthismouldydoor,myfingerraisedtowardsathreateningsky,showeringimprecationsonlawlessmenwhocannotendureanyjudgement.(F,86)Inthesixthandfinalchapter,Clamencereceiveshisinterlocutorathome,inthe‘refuge’ofhisapartment.Here,hecontinueshisreflectionsonthegeneralisedguiltthatenvelopshumankindinthecenturyofworldwarsandconcentrationcamps,butnowdescribesthatguiltinunmistakablyreligiousterms,borrowingfromChristianimageryforthedevelopmentofhistheories.Atthebeginningofthechapter,healludestoanepisodeinhispastthatisfarthestremovedfromthenarrativepresent–aperiodduringWorldWarIIinwhichhewasinternedinaNorthAfricanprisoncamp.Heexplainsthathisfellowprisoners,inadesiretocreateaformofsocietalorderwithintheirgroup,electedhimtheir‘pope’.Hisrolewasnotonlythatofprisoner-representativetotheauthorities,butalsothatofleaderandexemplarwhoincorporatedthevaluesofhissmallsociety.Heassumedhisdutiesplayfullyatfirst,butsoonbegantotakehimselfseriously.Oneday,hedrankthe181CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\ndavidr.ellisonwaterofadyingcomrade,justifyingthisactiontohimselfasfollows:‘lesautresavaientbesoindemoi,plusquedecelui-ciquiallaitmourirdetoutefac¸on,etjedevaismeconserveraeux.C’estainsi,cher,quenaissentles`empiresetleseglises,souslesoleildelamort’(´TRN,1541)(‘theothersneededmemorethanthisfellowwhowasgoingtodieanyway...Ihadadutytokeepmyselfaliveforthem.Thus,moncher,empiresandchurchesarebornunderthesunofdeath’(F,93)).WiththisepisodewelearnthatClamence’sownguiltextendsfartherintothepastthanthedramaticallypresentedbridgesequence.Atthesametimewediscoverinhisownpersonaladventureanallegoryofthepoliticalprocesswherebyoneindividual,inproclaiminghisownsuperiorityoverothers,beginstheprocessofdictatorialdomination.TheChristianimageryintroducedbytheironicaluseoftheword‘pope’inacontextofmiseryandduplicityisexpandeduponinafurtherdevelop-mentinchapter6thatisfraughtwithreligioussymbolism.ClamenceaskshislistenertoopenacupboardthatcontainsapanelfromtheVanEyckaltarpiececalledTheAdorationoftheLamb.Thispanelhadbeenstolenin1934fromthecathedralofSaint-BavoninGhent(Belgium),hadoccupiedaconspicuousplaceonthewallsofthe‘Mexico-City’forawhile,thenwasremovedtoitscurrentlocationinClamence’sroom.Theonepanelintheprotagonist’spossessionisgenerallyreferredtoas‘TheJustJudges’:itdepictsfamousandmorallyirreproachablejudgesonhorsebackwhohavecometoadmiretheMysticLamb,whostandsintheadjoiningcentrepanelandwhofigurestheinnocenceofJesusChrist.SincethepaneloftheJustJudgesisnolongerinproximitytotheMysticLamb,Clamenceexultsinhisownprivateachievement–whichconsistsofhavingseparatedjusticefrominnocence.Itisthisseparationthatallowshimtoexercisehisduplicitous‘profession’ofjudge-penitent.Assumingthemultiplemasksofafalseandpretentiouspenitence,Cla-mencenotonlyconcealshisidentityinanonlyapparentlyrevealingconfes-sionaldiscourse,butalsoimplicateshisinterlocutorinagameofguiltanddeceit.Attheveryendofthenovel,theprotagonistdiscoversthathislistenerisalsoaParisianlawyer.WhatClamencehasbeensayingthroughouthisnar-rativecanbeconsideredanechoofwhathisinterlocutorcouldhavesaid,andmightnowsayifhedecidestoacceptClamence’sinvitationtoconfesshisownpastguiltyactions.ThenarrativestructureofLaChuteiscircular.Clamencehasrelatedastorythatcannowberepeatedbyhislistener,who,intellinghisstory,caninviteanotherpersontoconfess,adinfinitum.Wordsengendermorewords,andguiltisinfinite.Atthesametime,ofcourse,sincetheinterlocutorhasneverspokeninthetext,hemaybeafigmentofCla-mence’simagination(the‘other’lawyermaybetheverboseprotagonist’s182CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nWithheldidentityinLaChuteownmirrorimage)–inwhichcasethesupposeddialoguecollapsesintoaceaselessself-engenderingmonologue.Doubtlessweshallneverknowwhichofthesestagings–themonologicalorthedialogical–isthe‘true’one,since,asClamencesays(truthfully):‘ilestbiendifficilededem´elerlevraidufauxˆdanscequejeraconte’(TRN,1537)(‘it’sveryhardtodisentanglethetruefromthefalseinwhatI’msaying’(F,88)).InterpretativeIssuesUntilnow,Ihaveemphasisedcertainkeyelementsofthenovel’sovertnarra-tiveorganisationandhighlightedsomeofitssalientthemes.ButLaChuteisanenigmatictextthatcannotbereducedtosimpleschemasandthatinvitesinterpretativelabour.Inwhatfollows,withoutanypretencetoexhaustive-ness,Ishallraisesomeinterpretativeissuesinthreedistinctareas:thenovel’selaboratelyconstructedsetting;theunusual(forCamus)preponderanceofreligiousmotifs;andthenarrativecomplexityofLaChuteasitcomparestoCamus’spreviousfictions.ThesettinganditsconnotationsInchoosingAmsterdamasthelocationforLaChute,CamuscapitalisedonhistoricalandliteraryconnotationsthatnecessarilysurroundthecityinthemindofacultivatedEuropeanreader.ThenovelistemphasisestwoperiodsofAmsterdam’shistory–itscolonialperiod(theeraextendingfromthesev-enteenthuntiltheearlynineteenthcenturywhenHollandadministeredtheDutchEastIndies)andtheyearsofWorldWarII.Inthefirstcase,CamusremindsusthatthecommercelinkingHollandtotheIndiesincludedtradenotjustinspices,exoticfoodstuffsandaromaticwood,butalsoinslaves.WhenClamenceandhisinterlocutortaketheireveningwalkthroughthecitystreets,theformerpointsouttwoornamentalcarvedheadsonapartic-ularlyeleganthouse:theseheadsrepresented‘Negroslaves’(F,34),andthehousebelongedtoamanwhoowedhisconsiderablewealthtothesellingofthesepeople.Withtypicalirony,Clamenceexplainsthattheonlyimportantdifferencebetweenthecolonialperiodandourmodernageisthatourrichancestorhadthecouragetoproclaimdirectlyandemphatically‘Voila,j’ai`pignonsurrue,jetrafiquedesesclaves,jevendsdelachairnoire’(TRN,1498)(‘Yousee,I’mamanofsubstance;I’mintheslavetrade;Idealinblackflesh’(F,34)),whereastodaythesuccessfulentrepreneurhasmoreliberalviews(hewillsignmanifestosagainstman’sinhumanitytoman),butinstitutestheequivalentofslaveryinhisdehumanisingfactories.183CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\ndavidr.ellisonJustasoneissurroundedbyevidenceofAmsterdam’scolonialpast,byvisualrepresentationsofthesinsoftheCityFathers,inthesamewayoneisnecessarilyremindedofthemoreimmediatepast–theyearsofWorldWarIIinwhichtheJewishpopulationofthecity(andoftheNetherlandsasawhole)wassubjecttopersecution,deportationandultimatedeathinNaziprisoncamps.Attheverybeginningofhisstory,ClamencetellsusthathelivesintheJewishquarterofthecity(TRN,1481;F,10),andonseveraloccasionsheusestheterms‘liquidation’and‘clean-up’(lessivage)inalludingtothetenetsofNaziideology,wherebythe‘impure’non-AryanelementsofEuropeansocietyweretobeflushedoutofthecontinentinamassive‘cleansing’operation.Naturally,thenumerouscanalsofAmsterdam(acityoftencalled‘theVeniceoftheNorth’)playedaroleinCamus’semphasisonliquidimageryassuch,includingtheunpleasantmetaphorsofliquidationandlessivage.WaterdominatesasthesinglemostimportantsymbolinLaChute,notonlythroughitsownconnotativepotential,butalsoinitsoppositiontootherelementsandsymbols.Thus,whenClamenceassertsthattheconcen-triccirclesofAmsterdam’scanalsresemblethecirclesofHell,healludestoDante’sInferno,butreplacestheimageryoffireusedbytheItalianpoetwithhisownwaterimagery(TRN,1483;F,13).Lateroninthenarrative,indescribingthe‘negativelandscape’oftheZuyderzeewithitsblendingofgreyskyandflatgreysea,theprotagonistspeaksof‘unenfermou’(‘aflabbyhell’)inwhich‘l’espaceestincolore,laviemorte’(‘spaceiscolourlessandlifedead’)(TRN,1512;F,54).UnlikeclassicalChristianemblemsofhell,whichrestontheclearilluminatingpowerofflame,Camus’spersonalrewritingofourfallenstateaccentuatestheblurringofboundaries,thementalandspiritualconfusionofthemodernhumanbeing,who,abandonedbyGodandbyalltranscendence,doesnotknow,inafundamentalsense,whereheorsheis.UnliketheChristians,forwhomanalmightydeityhasestablishedthefrontiersofgoodandevil,andunliketheancientGreeks,whonavigatedamongislandswhose‘echinesansarbrestrac¸aitlalimiteduciel,leurrivage´rocheuxtranchaitnettementsurlamer’(TRN,1525)(‘treelessbackbonemarkedthelimitoftheskyandtheirrockyshorecontrastedsharplywiththesea’(F,72)),theinhabitantsofthemodernworldmaketheirvoyageinliquidimprecision,unawareofallfrontiers,unabletofindtheirwayagainstanebuloushorizon.ReligionLaChuteisuniqueamongCamus’snovelsinthatitmakesconsistentuseofareligiousvocabulary.Inthefirstplace,thenameoftheprotagonistis184CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nWithheldidentityinLaChuteJean-BaptisteClamence–adoubleallusiontoStJohntheBaptist,theNewTestamentfigurewhopreparesthewayforJesusChrist.Notonlyisthefirstnametransparentlythatofthesaint,butthelastname,Clamence,playsontheLatinpresentparticipleclamans,meaning‘crying’,whichistobefoundinthelegendaryexpressionthatdescribesJohn’sarduouswanderingsandpreachings:voxclamantisindeserto–thatis,thevoiceofonecryinginthewilderness.Fromtheverybeginningofthenovel,Camusironicallyequatesthedisabusedruminationsofhisprotagonistwiththeactofprophecy.ButwhatseparatesClamencefromtheprophetsoftheBibleishisownempti-nessofcharacter,hismoralvacancy,aswellasthefactthathisprophecyannouncesnothingconcreteorreal.ThereisfurtherironyinCamus’schoiceofClamence/clamansasanameforhishero.Theepithetof‘Baptist’waschosenforJohnforobviousandliteralreasons:hisrolewastopurify,intheactofbaptismbywater,thosepeoplewhoawaitedtheMessiah.Clamence,however,isnotonlyimpureinageneralsense(thatis,morallyunadmirable),butthemomentatwhichhecouldhavedemonstratedthecourageofagen-uinemoralchoiceoccurswhenhedoesnotjumpintothewatertosaveadrowningwomanfromdeath.Theplungeintowaterthatpromisespurifi-cationfortheChristianistheplungenottakenbyClamence.TheessentialroleofJean-BaptisteClamenceistoreversethevaluesonwhichChristianmoralityisconstructed.WhereastheactionsofStJohnandJesusexemplifiedthenotionofagape–thatis,brotherlyloveorcharitywhereinallhumansdemonstratetheiressentialequalityandoneness–theactionsandthemadfantasiesofClamencecentreindreamsofpoweranddomination.Thus,whenheimagineshisownbeheading(inanallusionnotjusttotheendofL’Etranger,buttotheendofthelifeofStJohn,whoseseveredheadwaspresentedonasilverplatterbySalometoKingHerod),itisnotasasacrificeinthenameofChristiancharity,butratherasadeviousmethodforobtainingthesubservientadmirationofhis‘public’:‘Au-dessusdupeupleassemble,vous´el´everiezalorsmat`eteencorefraˆˆıche,pourqu’ilss’yreconnaissentetqu’anouveaujelesdomine,exemplaire.Toutserait`consomme,j’auraisachev´e,nivuniconnu,macarri´eredefauxproph`etequi`criedansledesertetrefused’ensortir’(´TRN,1551)(‘Abovethegatheredcrowd,youwouldholdupmystillwarmhead,sothattheycouldrecognisethemselvesinitandIcouldagaindominate–anexemplar.Allwouldbeconsummated;Ishouldhavebroughttoaclose,unseenandunknown,mycareerasafalseprophetcryinginthewildernessandrefusingtocomeforth’(F,107)).Clamence’sself-debasementemergesinastrategyofconfessionaldiscoursethataimsatthehumiliationofhisinterlocutor.Clamence’sgeniusconsistsinhisdiscoverythatonecanhumiliateone’sopponentatleastaseffectivelyby185CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\ndavidr.ellisonbeginningbelowhislevelasbyreigningaboveit.PenitenceaspractisedbyClamenceismerelyasteptowardstheattainmentofjudgementalsuperiority.TheimportanceofChristianimageryinCamus’snovelbegins,ofcourse,withthetitleofthevolume.InnaminghisworkTheFall,CamusalludestotheepisodeinGenesisinwhichAdamandEve,theoriginalhumaninhabi-tantsofEden,aredrivenoutoftheirearthlyparadise.TheBiblicalepisodedescribesthehumanbeing’sfallfromgrace,andhis/herfallintothehard-shipsandconstraintsoflifeinthenaturalandsocialworlds.Camusplayswiththenotionofthefall:first,whenClamence,indescribinghisearly,self-satisfiedParisdays,admits:‘libredetoutdevoir,soustraitaujugementcommealasanction,jer`egnais,librement,dansunelumi´ere`ed´enique’(´TRN,1489)(‘freeofanyduty,shieldedequallyfromjudgementasfrompenalty,IfreelyheldswaybathedinalightasofEden’(F,22));later,whentheunknownwomanfallsfromthebridge(TRN,1511;F,52–3);andfinally,when,discoveringhisownduplicity,Clamencebeginstofall,literallyandinexplicably,inpublicplaces(TRN,1515;F,58).InClamence’scase,fallingrelatestotheimportantandpervasivethemeoflaughterinthenovel.Tofallinfrontofone’sfellowhumansistoloseface,toceasebeingsuperiorandtobecomethemereobjectofsomeoneelse’samusement.Camusrecog-nisesthatcrueltyisneververyfarfromlaughter,sincebothlaughterandcrueltyderivefromthesuperiorityofonepersonoveranother.AsClamenceprogressestowardshisfinalstatusasjudge-penitent,heunderstandsthathecanregainhismasteryoverothersbylaughingathimself.Bybecomingastrategicironist,byforcinghislistener(s)toidentifywithhisnarrative,heeventuallyreversesthesituationandregainscontrolofhisstageddialogue.Inhisessay‘Del’Essencedurire’,BaudelaireassertedthatChristneverlaughed,thatthecomicalassuch,beingbasedonaverynon-charitablediscrepancyinpowerbetweenthepersonwholaughsandtheobjectofhismerriment,wastherefore‘Satanic’inmode.3ItwasSatan,disguisedasaserpent,whocausedthefallofhumankind.Inhisuseofmordantirony,inhiseffortstoundermineinnocenceandseparateitfromjustice,Clamencealignshimselfwithhistortuouspredecessor.NarrationIfCamus’sthreenovelsretaintheattentionofthereadingpublictoday,itisnotjustbecauseoftheideastheyexpressbutalsobecauseoftheirsubtleandappropriatenarrativeforms.CamusheightenedthedramatictensionofL’Etrangerbyconstructingitsymmetricallyaroundthreedeaths(thatoftheprotagonist’smotheratthebeginning,thatoftheArabinthemiddleofthestoryandthatofMeursaulthimselfattheend).Thecentralplacement186CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nWithheldidentityinLaChuteofthemurdersceneatthebeachcallsattentiontothecentralityoftheactwithinthetext;formandcontentcoincideandilluminateeachotherinthisonetheatricalmoment.ForLaPeste,aworkthatdepictsnotthestruggleofanindividualagainsthisfatebuttheplightofanentirecommunity,Camuschosetheformofachronicleinwhichthepersonalityofthenarratorisnotallowedtointervene.WhatDrRieuxtellsoftheepidemicanditseffectsisnotinhisownname,butinthenameofOran’scitizenry.Theactionofthenovelbuildsslowlyandgradually,andhastheoverallstructureofafive-actclassicaltragedy.IncomposingLaChute,Camusfacedadelicatebalancingact.Ontheonehand,hisprotagonistbeingrepresentativeoftheexcessesandunreasonofourtime,thenovelistneededtogivehimfreereintoexpresshimselfwithappropriatehyperbole.ThediscourseofClamencecouldnotappearcon-trolledfromtheoutsidelestitloseitspowerofdisorientationanddislocationofthereader’ssensibilities.Ontheotherhand,however,foranironicaltaletoexercisemaximumrhetoricalpower,itmustbetightlyconstructedandconcentratedinitseffects.Camusmanagedtoreconcilethesetwooppositedemandsthroughanastutemanipulationofthetext’sformalpotential.BystructuringLaChuteasaconversationinwhichonlythe‘unhinged’pro-tagonistspeaks,andbyallowingtheconversationtoseeminterminableinitslabyrinthinemeanderingsasitstretchesoverseveraldaysandseverallandscapes,theauthordrawshisreaderintoClamence’sweb,intothedizzy-ingperverselogicofhisduplicitousarguments.Atthesametime,however,underneaththesimplechronologicalprogressionoftheconversation(fromtheinitialmeetinginthe‘Mexico-City’throughtheeveningwalkinthecitytotheexcursionontheZuyderzeetothefinalmeetinginClamence’sroom),Camushascreatedasubterraneantemporalarchaeologythatthereadergraduallyexcavatesasheorshemovestowardstheconclusionofthebook.ItisthesubtleandcomplexlayeringoftemporallevelsthatgivesLaChuteitsdensityandthatallowsthenarrativetosaysomuchelliptically.AlthoughCamusdoesnotintendhisnoveltobe‘realistic’ornarrowlymimetic(forthisreason,veryfewspecificdatesaretobefoundinthetext),neverthelesshemakesitpossibleforthereadertoreconstructfiveseparatenarrativelevels,whichIshalldesignatebynumber,movingfrompresenttomostremotepast:1.Currentconversation:thedialoguebetweenClamenceandhisinterlocu-torthatbeginsinthe‘Mexico-City’oneeveningandconcludesjustafewdayslaterinClamence’sroom.Weareinpost-warEurope,mostlikelyinthelatefortiesorearlyfifties.187CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\ndavidr.ellison2.Clamence’srecentpastinAmsterdam:invariousrapidallusivecomments,theprotagonistrelateshisearlydaysintheDutchcityandhisassumptionoftheroleofjudge-penitent.ItisduringthisperiodthattheVanEyckpaintingappears,firstonthewallofthe‘Mexico-City’,theninClamence’sapartment.3.Clamence’slifeaslawyerinParis:thisperiodincludestheearlydaysofself-satisfactionaswellastheuncomfortableepisodesonthebridgesofthecity.Wecanassumethatagoodpartofwhatisdescribedatthisleveloccursimmediatelyafter1945.4.Clamence’slifeinprisoncamp:thisepisodetakesplaceduringWorldWarIIafter1942(weknowthisbecausethenarratoralludesbrieflytotheAllies’occupationofNorthAfricavia‘OperationTorch’).FromthistemporallayersubsistsonlytheonecrucialremembranceofClamenceas‘pope’.5.ThetheftoftheVanEyckpainting:thisisanactualhistoricaleventthattookplacein1934(the‘JustJudges’panelofthealtarpiecewasindeedstolenanditsunknownlocationwasamatterofspeculationforyears).Clamenceis,ofcourse,nottheoriginalthief,butisdepictedbyCamusasparticipatingintheprocesswherebythepaintingremainsremovedfromitsrightfulplaceandhiddenfrompublicview.LikeL’Etranger,LaChuteisconstructedaroundacentralpoint.Justasitisnecessarytograsptheimportanceofthemurdersceneinthefirstnovel,inthesamewayourinterpretationofLaChuteasanaestheticwholewilldependonthewayinwhichwereadthesceneonthebridgeinwhichClamencedoesnotact.Inafundamentalsense,thedramaticcentreofLaChuteoccursatthedeepestremoveoflevelthree,theoriginalbridgescenethatsplitstheprotagonist’slifeintoa‘before’ofunquestioningegocentricpleasureinakindofEdenandan‘after’ofduplicityintheself-chosenroleofjudge-penitent.Levelfiveremainsoutsidetheessentialnarrativeframeandrelatestoleveltwo;levelfouraddsdepthtoourunderstandingofClamence’shumanweaknessandlendsresonancetothepervasivethemeofpoliticaldomination,butitdoesnothavethecentralcausativestatusoftheepisodeonthebridge.Inacuriousway,LaChuteappearstobeastudiedrewritingofL’Etranger.Bothtextscentreonanindividual,onacentralmomentinwhichheactsinacriminalfashionandontheproblemofhisguiltandmoralresponsibility.InL’Etranger,theentiretyofthenovelhingesonthemurdersceneandonthewayinwhichthereaderchoosestojudgetheprotagonist’sinvoluntary,dream-likekillingoftheArab.InLaChute,thecentraleventisnotaviolent188CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nWithheldidentityinLaChuteaction,butapassiveavoidanceofhumanintervention.Intheeyesofthelaw(ofsociety)ClamencewouldappeartobelessguiltythanMeursault;afterall,thelawdoesnotprescribethatwemustjumpoffbridgestosavepeoplewedonotknow.Nevertheless,therhetoricofthetexthasusbelieving,fromtheverybeginning,intheguiltoftheprotagonist.ThereisnoquestionthatClamenceisnotonlyguiltyofaspecificcrimeofpassivity,butthatheincorporatesandexemplifiesthemoralnullityofhistime.BetweenthewritingofL’EtrangerandtheappearanceofLaChuteliesWorldWarII–itsviolence,itswholesaledestruction,itsprisoncamps,itscarefullyplannedandplottedlessivages.GoneistheRomanticpathoswithwhichCamusportrayedMeursaultaspursuedbyablindfateandmisunderstoodbyahypocriticalsociety.AshedemonstratedinLaPeste,evilisnotconvenientlylocatedinanexteriorsocialorpoliticalentity,butliesdormantwithinusall.LaChutemovesbeyondthesoberexpositoryclarityofLaPesteandmanifeststheubiquitouspresenceofevilwithinlogicandwithinlanguageitself.WithLaChute,inanexplosionofformalandrhetoricalbrilliance,Camuswrotehismostallusive,mostdemanding,andmostcomplexwork.Inhislastcompletednovel,hediagnosedtheillsoftheagebutofferednosolutions,noprescriptionsforanimprovingofthehumancondition.InLaChuteCamusgaveliteraryformtotheexcesses(demesure´)hehadcriticisedinL’Hommerevolt´e´.Unliketheseriousphilosophicaltreatise,however,theironicalnovelremainswithinthefoggyconfusionofnorthernclimes.Ironically,itmaybethatbysinkingintothisdarknessCamusachievedahigherclarityofperceptionandjudgementthaninhisnostalgicsolarmythofadisappearingMediterraneanunity.NOTES1.ForasubtlediscussionofLaChuteas‘disdainfulconfession’andasrhetori-callydeviousmonologue,seeMauriceBlanchot,‘LaChute:LaFuite’,inL’Amitie´(Paris,Gallimard,1971),pp.228–35.Forapsychoanalyticalapproachtothenar-ratoraswitness,seeShoshanaFelman,‘Camus’“TheFall”,orTheBetrayaloftheWitness’,inShoshanaFelmanandDoriLaub,Testimony:CrisesofWitnessinginLiterature,PsychoanalysisandHistory(NewYork,Routledge,1992),pp.165–203.Ontheliteraryintertextsofthenovel(particularlyDante,BaudelaireandDostoyevsky),seeF.W.Locke,‘TheMetamorphosesofJean-BaptisteClamence’,Symposium21(1967),306–15,andDavidEllison,‘CamusandtheRhetoricofDizziness:LaChute’,ContemporaryLiterature24.3(Autumn1983),322–48.OntheimportanceofVanEyck’s‘JustJudges’panelofTheAdorationoftheLambasiconicintertextforthenovel,seeJeffreyMeyers,‘Camus’TheFallandVanEyck’sTheAdorationoftheLamb’,Mosaic7.3(1974),43–51,andMargaretGray,‘Les189CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\ndavidr.ellison“JugesIntegres”deClamence:Unelecturepsychanalytiquede`LaChute’,inLionelDubois(ed.),AlbertCamusentrelamisereetlesoleil`(Poitiers,Pont-Neuf,1997),pp.73–80.2.Foranironicaldevelopmentonthedeludedimpulsetounveilthetruth,seethefourthparagraphofthePrefacetothesecondeditionofNietzsche,TheGayScience,WithaPreludeinRhymesandanAppendixofSongs,trans.WalterKaufmann(NewYork,VintageBooks,1974),p.38.3.CharlesBaudelaire,‘Del’essencedurireetgen´eralementducomiquedansles´artsplastiques’,CEuvrescompletes`,ed.ClaudePichois,2vols.(Paris,Gallimard(BibliothequedelaPl`eiade,´1976),vol.ii,pp.525–43.190CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\n14DEBRAKELLYLePremierHommeandtheliteratureoflossCequ’ilsn’aimaientpasenlui,c’etaitl’Alg´erien.´(PH,318)WhattheydidnotlikeinhimwastheAlgerian.(FM,253)ThefocusofthisfinalchapterwillbeCamus’sunfinishedtextLePremierHomme,publishedposthumouslyin1994,andtheexplorationofhisrela-tionshiptoAlgeriainanarrativeconcernedwithpersonalorigins,family,andthehistoryandthepresentofacommunity.Bornintothepoorpied-noircommunityinAlgeriain1913,Camusinhisliteraryexplorationofidentitynecessarilyengagesnotonlywithaper-sonalhistory,butalsowiththecollectivehistoriesofNorthAfricaandofEuropeancolonialism,andspecificallywiththepolitical,socialandculturalconfigurationof‘FrenchAlgeria’.ThosecollectivehistoriesareintegraltoanunderstandingofthepluralnatureoftheMaghreb.InthoseshortstoriesinL’ExiletleRoyaume(1957)whichexplicitlytakethecountryofhisbirthastheircontext,anincreasinglytroubledrelationshipwiththeAlgeriaoftheperiodisalreadyevident.TheemphasisherewillbeonLePremierHommeasaworkoftheimagination.JustasCamus’simaginationwashauntedinthelate1950sbytheincreasingviolenceoftheAlgerianWarofIndepen-denceandthepoliticalpolarisationitbrought,sothisliteraryexpressionofimpossiblereturnandpotentiallyirretrievablelosscontinuestohaunttheimaginationofreaders,criticsandwriters.This‘returntoCamus’tookvariousformsinthe1970s,1980sandespeciallythe1990sfollowingtheimmenseinternationalpublishingsuccessofLePremierHommein1994,andofOlivierTodd’sbiographyin1996.1Recentreadings,influencedbypostcolonialtheoryanditsemphasisonthepowerrelationsbetweenformerlycolonisedregionsandthecolonisingpowers,haveputCamus‘inthedock’toanswerforalistofoffencesrangingfromovertracism,forexampleinL’Etranger,to‘specialpleading’inthedefenceof‘FrenchAlgeria’inLePremierHomme.2IwanttoarguethattheambiguitiesofCamus’swritingandoftherepresentationofmemoryin191CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\ndebrakellytheAlgeriancontextaremorecomplexandintensethantrialbypoliticalconvictionallows.Readwithinaframeworkextendingbeyondpostcolonialtheorytomem-orystudies,LePremierHommeisatextof‘mediation’inthesensethatAveryGordondefines‘haunting’asaparticularformofmediation:‘Asaconcept,mediationdescribestheprocessthatlinksaninstitutionandanindividual,asocialstructureandasubject,andhistoryandabiography.’3ThenarrativeofLePremierHommeishauntedbythesilencesofthepast(thedeadfatherandotherwardead;thealmostsilentmother;thedeafuncle;theincuriosityaboutthepastmanifestedbythepoor;thedeadofthecemeteryofSolferino)andofthepresentthatwillsoonbecomeapast(theAlgerianWarofInde-pendencewilleffacethecollectivehistoryoftheFrenchAlgerians).Theactofwritinginvolvesvariousformsofmediation:betweentheindividualandtheinstitutionthatistheFrenchcolonialsystem,includingthenotionof‘FrenchAlgeria’;betweenthesubjectandthesocialstructuresofthefamilyandofthepoorsettlercommunityintowhichCamuswasborn;andbetweenthehistoryofFrenchcolonialismandpersonalbiography.Thischapteraims,inaddition,therefore,toenableus‘toappreciateCamus’sveryrealcontributiontoanunderstandingofthetraumasofcoloni-sationanddecolonisation’.4Indeed,Camus’stextsharesmanyofthepre-occupationsofNorthAfricanpostcolonialwritinginFrenchwhichincludesseveralautobiographicaltextspublishedfromtheperiodoftheindependencestrugglesinthe1950sonwards.Thesetextsengagenotonlywiththeques-tionofindividualself-expressionandidentity,butalsowithcollectivesocial,ideologicalandhistoricalcontextsinthewakeofEuropeancolonialism.Yet,astheprominentArabo-BerberAlgerianwomanwriterAssiaDjebarnotes,whilesheiscurrentlyperceivedastheembodimentofan‘Algeria-woman’,andissolicitedwithintheWesternliteraryandcriticalestablishmentassuch,Camus’sclaimtoanAlgerianidentityhasbecomesuspectatthispointinthehistoryofcolonialismandpostcolonialism.5HistoricalambiguitiesVieuxcimetieredescolons,l’immenseoubli.`(PH,303)Oldsettlercemetery,immenseoblivion.(FM,244)TheaccusationthatCamus’snarrativemythologisesnotjusthimselfbutalsothewayinwhichAlgeriawascolonised,andthelivesofitspoorsettlercommunity,wouldappeartodamnthebookfromthestart.EmilyAptersumsitup:‘Forcriticssteepedinpostcolonialperspectives,Camus’snametriggersnotonlyadeplorablerecordontheAlgerianWarthatrightlycost192CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nLePremierHommeandtheliteratureoflosshimfriendshipsontheleft,butalsohissystematicnullificationofArabcharacters,particularlyevidentinL’Etranger,LaPesteandtheshortstoriesinL’ExiletleRoyaume.’Yetshealsonotestherecentrecuperationandre-appropriationofCamusasa‘universalfreedom-fighter’byAlgerianexilesanddissidentsaspartofawiderreactionagainsttheriseoffundamentalisminAlgeriainthe1990s.6Theaimhereisnottore-treadgroundthathasbeencomprehensivelycov-eredbyseveralcriticsconcerningthehistoricalandpoliticalcircumstancesofFranceandAlgeriainthesecondhalfofthe1950s,andCamus’spositionasaverypublicintellectual.7TherewereevidentcontradictionsbetweenCamus’spoliticalstanceontheconditionoftheArabandKabylepopula-tionsofAlgeriaandhiscallsforreforms,forexampleinMiseredelaKabylie`(1939)and‘CriseenAlgerie’(´1945),andhisfictions,whichomitanyrefer-encetothecolonialsystemanditsoppression,andinwhichtheindigenouscharacterslackindividualidentity.Camusisaccusedofde-historicisingthecolonialpastandprivileginghisloyaltytotheEuropeansettlercommunityattheexpenseofthevaluesofjusticethathechampionedelsewhereinhispoliticalwritings.Suchaccusationsfocusespeciallyonchapter7ofLePre-mierHommeandJacquesCormery’svisittotheoldsettler,Veillard.TheattackonCamusforhisidealisedimageofcolonialAlgeriahasalineagethatcanbetracedbacktoAlbertMemmi’sanalysis,inTheColoniserandtheColonised,ofcoloniser–colonisedrelationsandoftheprivilegedposi-tionofeventhepoorpieds-noirscomparedtothemajorityoftheindigenouspopulations.8ThefactsofthecolonialsituationinAlgeriahavebeenanalysedfromanumberofperspectives.Sociologicalresearch,forinstance,hasshownthatin1954thepieds-noirsconstituted11percentofthepopulationofAlgeria,whileholding50percentofallavailablejobsinindustry.However,thelivesofthevarioussectorsofthepopulationvariedwidely,asAssiaDjebar’sownworkingthroughofherchildhoodasthedaughterofaneducatedArabprimaryschoolteacherintheFrencheducationsystemduringthe1930sand1940smakesclear.InmanyreadingsofLePremierHomme,theissueofpovertythatdestinestheworking-classsettlertoanonymityisevaded.YetasCamusinsists,itisnotonlythewarthatthreatenshiscommunity,foritsstatehasbeenandcontinuestobeoneofoblivion;thepoormarkonly‘lestracesvaguesduchemindelamort’(PH,79)(‘fainttracesonthepathtodeath’(FM,62)).ThecriticDavidCarrollhasarguedthatCamus’snotionofanAlgeriainwhichtherewouldbejusticeforbothEuropeanandArabAlgeriansisverydifferentfromtheFrenchstate’sversionof‘FrenchAlgeria’(asitisfromthatofAlgeriannationalists).9AndfollowingCruiseO’Brien’sargumentcloselywhilearrivingataverydifferentconclusion,NancyWood193CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\ndebrakellyarguesthatLePremierHommeshowsCamustryingtocometotermswithalegacythatheknowstobeimplicatedincolonialoppressionbutthatcannotbereducedtothatalone.ForWood,Camusisengagedintheconstructionofahistoricalmemorythatincludesallthe‘ambivalences,butmoderatestheextremes’,attemptingto‘inventforhimselfandhiscommunityahistoricalmemorythatcouldbeinvokedaspartofAlgeria’scollectiveheritage’.Wood’scounter-argumentalsotakesuptheideathatLePremierHommeismorecomplexthanCruiseO’Brien’sreadingallows,andlocatesthekeysiteofthiscomplexityinCamus’sresearchintoAlgeria’scolonialhistory(evidentinthenotesfortheunfinishednovel):‘however,thesememoriestakeonsuchahallucinatoryandambivalentcharacter’,Woodnotes,thattheyundermineratherthansecureanypatrimonialclaimandtheprojectconstitutesfinallyadefensivehistoricalmemory.10‘Hallucinatory’isatermusedbyCruiseO’BrientodescribeCamus’sver-sionofcolonialAlgeriadevoidofapastbeforethearrivaloftheEuropeans;itisalsoatermusedbyFreudtodescribeanelementoftheprocessofmourningtowhichIwillreturn.CarrollconcludesthatCamuswriteshisshortstoriesandhislastnoveltoexpressahistorythatheknowsalreadytobelost,indirectlyrevealinginhisfictionwhathecouldnotadmitoracceptinhispolitics:AlgerianindependenceandthedepartureandexileofFrenchAlgeriansfromthecountry.Camuscounters,then,Memmi’sanalysisofsuf-feringinthecolonialsystem(althoughMemmididrecognisethepoorsettlerasvictimalso),andtherebysetsaboutcollapsingthebinaryoppositionofcoloniserandcolonised.Thisisnottodenythedifferencesbetweenculturesviolentlyoppressedbycolonialismandaculturecreatedbythecolonialsystem,andwhosefateisthereforeinextricablyboundupwithitsdefeat.YetitisclearthatforCamus,hiscommunity,itswayoflifeandhisownidentityarebeingdeniedbybothsidesinthestruggleofthecolonyforindependence–toreturntotheepigraphatthebeginningofthischapter,whattheydidnotlikeinhimwastheAlgerian.Thetheycertainlymeansthe1950sParisianleft-wingintelligentsiaopposedtocontinuingcolonisation;itcouldalsoencompassvariouselementsinthelocalnationaliststruggleuncomfortablewithCamus’sclaimstobeAlgerian.Furthermore,whileitistruethatinthestateofthetextaswehaveit,thecommemorationofthepied-noircommunitycanbereadattheexpenseoftheArabwhoremainslargelyanonymousasincolonialistdiscourse,thereareequallyplansfortheelaborationofanativeAlgeriancharacter–arebeloftenreferredtoasSaddok–inthe‘NotesandSketches’appendedtothemainbodyofLePremierHomme.ThevarioussketchesofdialoguesbetweenCormeryandSaddokgiveavoicetoAlgeriannationalistdiscourse,andCamus’splanforwhathereferredtoasthelastpartoftheworkwastoseeJacquesexplaining194CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nLePremierHommeandtheliteratureoflosstohismother‘laquestionarabe,lacivilisationcreole,ledestindel’Occident’´(PH,307)(‘theArabquestion,Creolecivilisation,thefateoftheWest’(FM,246)).ApterarrivesatasimilarconclusiontothatofCarroll:thetextiswrit-tenintheknowledgeofthedefeatofFrenchAlgeria.11Historicalrupturebroughtaboutbydefeatleadstolossonboththepersonalandcollectivelevels.TextualambiguitiesJevaisraconterl’histoired’unmonstre.L’histoirequejevaisraconter...(PH,300)Iamgoingtotellthestoryofanalien.ThestorythatI’mgoingtotell...(FM,241)Political,economicandculturalloss,therefore,areallevident,yetintheactofwritingthereistherestorationofamemory,defensiveorotherwise,destinedtobelost,butwhich,throughitsinscriptioninLePremierHomme,endures.AssiaDjebarperceivesLePremierHomme(indirectoppositiontoCruiseO’Brien’sanalysisofitasatextthatindulgesinnostalgia,amelo-dramaoftheselfbyawriterwhohasregressed)toberather‘thefirstnovelbyanewforty-sixyearoldwritercalledCamus’.12Whilenotexperimentalinthewayofothertextsofthe1950s(forexamplethoseof‘newnovelists’suchasAlainRobbe-Grillet,RobertPingetandMichelButor),thereisinthequesttoconfigurethe‘mythicalhomeland’theneedtocreateaparticularsetoffigures,signsandsymbols,andinsodoinganembryonicpoeticsoflossandofloveiselaborated.13Thetext’sambiguityandcomplexityisnotsolelypoliticalandhistorical.TheprojectofLePremierHommeisfirstlya‘writerly’one,whichisnottosuggestthatsuchalife-writingproject(likeothersofitstype)ismerelyanintellectualprojectthattakeslittleaccountof,andmakesnoimpacton,therealitiesofapostcolonial(butnotpost-imperial)world.Thedifficultyliesintoleratingthetensionbetweenthetext’shistori-calcontextanditsstatusasaworkoftheimaginationthatcannotbejudgedsolelyonpoliticalsensibilities.Ambiguityandcomplexityresideinthetext’sformanditsprocesses,asinitspolitics.AsinthetextualdynamicsofNorthAfricanautobiographicalprojectsofdiverseoriginsfromthe1950stothepresentday,thereisafocusonthepresentoftheactofwriting,ontheactofcreationaswellasonrecollectionandtheretrievalofhistory,askingwhatitmeanstobeacolonisedorpreviouslycolonisedsubject.Camusposesthequestionofwhatitmeanstobea‘FrenchAlgerian’throughthefigureofJacquesCormery.Thedifferencefromthe‘FrenchfromFrance’isinsistedupon,andtherelationshipwiththemetropolitan195CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\ndebrakelly‘centre’istroubled.Franceis‘uneterreinconnuedel’autrecotˆedesmers’´(PH,31)(‘astrangelandontheothersideoftheseas’(FM,21))inwhichhisfatherdied,buthaslittlemeaningforJacques.WhiletheculturalspaceofCamus’stextisnotasharedone,remaining‘alien’totheindigenousculturesaroundit,LePremierHommeisamediatingtextwithinthecontradictionsandambiguitieswhichconstitutethepostcolonialworld.ItsharesseveralofthethemesthatrecurintheworkofNorthAfricanwriters:povertyandexclusion,andtheiraccompanyingshame;therealitiesofeverydaylifeincolonialandpostcolonialsystems;interactionsinthehomeandwiththeoutsideworld;theexperienceofschoolandsocial-classdifferences;edu-cationandalienationfromthefamilyandthecommunity;workinglives;injustice;racism;poverty;therelationshipoftheindividualtohistory,topower,totheOther;thestrugglefortheexpressionofapoliticsofself-determinationfortheindividual,thecommunity,thenation.14Colonialismdistortstheidentityofthecolonisedsubject;ithasequallymadea‘mon-ster’ofCormery.Cormeryisa‘monster’onapersonallevel,createdbyaneducationthatalienateshimfromhisbackground;onthecollectivelevel,theFrenchAlgerianisa‘monster’createdbythecolonialsystem.Aquestfortheoriginsofthecreationofthemonstergoeswellbeyond‘nostalgia’,andcomestoinvolvepersonalandpoliticalrisk.Thisisafurtherchar-acteristicsharedwithNorthAfricanautobiographicalwriting,whererisktakesmanyforms,andwheretheimageofsacrificefrequentlyprovidesapervasivemetaphor.Thecreativeprocessbecomesatestimonytoawayoflivingandwritinganecessaryinterventiondespitethepoliticalandpersonalcost.Camus’sremembranceissubjectivecertainly–itissociallyconstructedasishistory.Yetamultiplicityofmemoriesmustbeheldsidebyside,asmustamultiplicityofhistories,ifwearetomakesenseofthepostcolonialworld.Loss,loveandtheinscriptionsofhistoryEnsomme,jevaisparlerdeceuxquej’aimais.Etdecelaseulement.Joieprofonde.(PH,312)Inshort,IwantedtospeakofthoseIloved.Andofthatonly.Intensejoy.(FM,250)LePremierHommeembodiesotherknowledgethansolelythatofhistory,aknowledgeprovokedinCormerybytheexperiencein‘levastechampdesmorts’(PH,29)(‘thevastfieldofthedead’(FM,20))intheSaint-Brieuccemeterywhen‘letempssedisloqu(e)’(PH,317)(‘timegoesoutofjoint’(FM,253)).Thisnewcourseoftimedemandsanewexpression:apoetics196CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nLePremierHommeandtheliteratureoflossthatisatonceoneofloveandofloss,‘groundinghistoryinlove’andcreatingatextwhere‘ultimatelyknowledgewastodefertolove’.15Fromtheverybeginningofthetext,themaincharacterispresentedasbelongingbothtoEuropeandtoAfrica,bornintotheworldinanarrativeofBiblicaldimensions.ReadalongsidetextsbyotherNorthAfricanwriters,thisrecoursetoasetofwhatIhavetermed‘preferredmyths’inordertoelaborateanindividualselfhoodisarecurrentfeatureofthosewhohaveenduredthemultipleeffectsofcolonisationandthentriedtocometotermswiththeseinwriting.Camuswritesoftheimpactofcolonisation,resultinginlossforallthoseinvolved,evenifsubsequentlysomeretrievalandreconcili-ationwithfracturedidentitiesispossible.Thelossofgenerationsissymbol-isedinthedoublescenesofthecemeteriesatSaint-BrieucandSolferino.ThepowerofinscriptionslostandfoundprovidesarecurringdynamicinthenarrativesofwriterssuchasKhatibiandDjebar,asitdoesinsomeofthewritingofJacquesDerrida,anAlgerianJewwholikewiseimaginesthe‘languageofanindecipherablehistory’andwhoseeswritingandeffacementasinextricablylinked:‘tomeditateonwriting,whichistosayalsoonefface-ment...istomeditateconstantlyonwhatrendersunreadableorwhatisrenderedunreadable’.16SarocchireadsthetombatSaint-Brieucasrevealingthevanityofanyinscription,andthetombsatSolferinoasunderminingthepossibilityofmakinganythingendureinwriting,yetthenarrativeofLePremierHommepersistsinitselaborationofaninscriptioninhistory.17Theselfofthewriterisinthepresentofwriting,notonlyintheaccumula-tionofautobiographical‘facts’orintherewritingofahistoryeithererasedorappropriatedbyothers.Ifthepostcolonialstateisoneofbecoming,inwhichanewrelationshipisopenedupwithtimeandspace,Camus’sunfin-ishednovelseemstoanticipatetheneedforthewritertoengagewiththisprocess.Losstakesmanyformsinthetext,eachtimeboundupwithlove:loveforthefather(andintheend,thequestforthefather–the‘recherchedupere’of`thetitleofPartOneofthenovel–leadsnottoretrieval,buttoirredeemableloss);loveforthemother,whoislosttothechildandtotheadultinhersilenceandilliteracywhen‘cequ’ildesiraitleplusaumonde,(c’)´etaitquesamere´luttoutcequiˆetaitsavieetsachair’(´PH,292)(‘whathewantedmostwasforhismothertoreadeverythingthatwashislifeandhisbeing’(FM,238));lovefortheunclewhorepresentsthe‘tribe’thatCormeryhasleftbehind;loveforthegrandmother–eventhoughsheistheincarnationofauthority–wholooksathimwith‘unesortedetendressedesesp´er´ee’(´PH,153)(‘asortofhopelesslove’(FM,127));loveforMonsieurBernard,mediatorbetweenJacquesandtheFrencheducationalsystem,betweenJacquesandhisfamily,bothlivinganddead,andbetweenJacquesandthoselostintheFirstWorld197CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\ndebrakellyWar,bothArabandFrench;loveforMalan;lovefortheforgottendeadintheSolferinocemetery;loveforthelandofAlgeriaitself.Isthis‘nostalgia’?Sincealargepartofmemorystudieshasfocussedontraumaticmemory–theHolocaust,theeffectsofcolonisationonthecolonised–anymorepositiverolefornostalgiahasbeendeemedsuspect,despitethefactthatinitsety-mologicalsense,itevokesnotonlythereturn,butalsopain,andapainthatmaybeforeverunresolved.MiekeBalhasdelineatedaspacefornostalgiabetween‘ordinary’and‘traumatic’memory,andascribestoitanempower-ingroleifitis‘criticallytemperedandhistoricallyinformed’;nostalgiais‘astructureofrelationtothepast,notfalseorinauthenticinessence’.18IfLePremierHommeiswritteninthefullunderstandingoftheconsequencesoftheAlgerianWarofIndependence,thisisnotasurrendertonostalgia,butpartoftheworkofmourningandloss.Theaimoftheelaborationofacollec-tivememory–whichisarguablyCamus’spurposeinLePremierHomme–istocreate‘auseablepast’forthecreationofagroupidentity.Incontrasttohistory,thisreflectsa‘committedperspective’,belongingtoonegroupandnottoothers:‘Collectivememorytendstobeimpatientwithambiguityandtorepresentitselfasrepresentinganunchangingreality,soitprovidesaparticulartextualresourceforcreatingaparticularkindofcommunity.’19YetsincetheFrenchAlgerianshavenofuture,ratherthanexpressing‘anunchangingreality’,LePremierHommeisabookofmourning.InFreudianterms,nostalgiaisasubstituteformourningandpreventsanycomingtotermswithloss.The‘workofmourning’isthestruggleoftheegotodetachitselffinallyfromthelovedobjectsoastobecomefreeagain,aprocesstowhichLePremierHommepoints.Mourningisakindofrememberingand,unlikenostalgia,willendinlettinggo.Contemporarywriters,how-ever,havenotyetletgoofCamus,aswillbeexploredintheconcludingsection.LePremierHomme,mourningandthehauntingofmodernmemoryIln’yavaitplussouscettedallequecendresetpoussieres.Mais,pourlui,son`pere`etaitdenouveauvivan´t...(PH,32)Underthatslabwereleftonlyashesanddust.But,forhim,hisfatherwasagainalive...(FM,22)Toreturntothenotionofhauntinginvokedatthebeginningofthischapter,AveryGordonwrites:‘Theghostisnotsimplyadeadormissingperson,butasocialfigure,andinvestigatingitcanleadtothatdensesitewherehistoryandsubjectivitymakesociallife.’20Cormeryishauntedbyhis198CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nLePremierHommeandtheliteratureoflossfatherandbytheforgotteninthegravesofSolferino;CamusishauntedbyeventsinAlgeria,andallthemoreintenselyinthewritingofLePre-mierHommefrom1958onwards,whichcoincidedwithhispublicsilenceonthecountryofhisbirth;writers,criticsandreaderscontinuetobehauntedbyCamus.TherecurrenceofthemetaphorofspectresandghostsisstrikinginthecriticaldiscourseonwritingsnotonlybyCamusbutalsobyotherswithreferencetotheAlgerianWaringeneral.ForSarocchi,LePremierHommeisa‘spectrographie’(‘spectrography’)ofFrenchAlgeria;itprovides‘aspectralanalysis’,notapoliticalone,ofCormery’sdes-tinyandofthatofhiscommunity;andthisspectreisalwaysthatofthefather.21ItisonthecreativeaspectsofsuchhauntingthatIwishtoend.CamusandhisfictionshauntcontemporaryNorthAfricanwriting,especiallybywomen,recurrentlyinthecaseofAssiaDjebar.22Djebarmakesthepointthatconsciousnessoflossisparadoxicallyalmostrestorativeandthattheconsciousnessitselfthereforemustbepreserved:‘Ilyadeuxsortesdeperte:ilylapertequivoushanteetlapertequevousoubliez,l’oublidelaperte...Leterriblec’estl’oublidelaperte’(‘Therearetwosortsofloss.Thereisthelossthathauntsyouandthelossyouforget,theforgettingofloss...Theterriblethingistheforgettingofloss’).23Camusshareswiththesewomenwritersameditationonpersonalandcollectiveloss,tothepointwhereitispossibletospeakofapoeticsoflossincontemporaryNorthAfricanwriting.Arewomenattemptingtoreconciletheoppositionbetweencoloniserandcolonised,andtoidentifywithamanwhowouldhavebeenexcludedfromfullparticipationintheAlgeriaconstructedbynationalistdiscourseafterindependence,justastheyhavebeenobligedaswomentotakeupambiguouspositionseversince?InadditiontoAssiaDjebar,lossisalsoadynamicofthewritingoftheAlgerianJewishpied-noirHel´eneCixous,`her‘Algeriance’asshecallsit.InNinaBouraoui’sautobiographical´Garc¸onmanque´(Tomboy)(2000),thewriterdescribesherselfas‘madeofthelandofAlgeria’.InavocabularythatclearlyechoesL’Etranger,the‘violentsun’ofAlgeriarevealsthatsheisnota‘real’Algerian,andyetshecannotgobacktoFrance.InashortstorybyMa¨ıssaBey,ayoungAlgerianmalenarratorremembersreadingL’Etrangerinschool.ThenarrativeisatoncecriticaloftheimplicitcolonialistdiscoursethatremovestheArab’ssubjectivity–MeursaultfiresattheArab‘withacapitalAasifitwashisname’–andoftheviolenceofcontemporaryAlgeriansociety:‘Onlytheblokesheredon’tblamethesun.’24ThehauntingismoresustainedinAssiaDjebar’sLaDisparitiondelalanguefranc¸aise(TheDisappearanceoftheFrenchLanguage),inwhichthe199CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\ndebrakellyprotagonistBerkane,almostfiftyyearsoldandanexilefromAlgeriafortwentyyears,returnstohiscountryandovertlyacknowledgesthememoryofCamus.25Berkanetooishauntedbyhisfather’sshadow,afatherwhofoughtintheSecondWorldWarforFranceanddiessoonafterindependence.AfterdisappearinginacarcrashinKabyliaonhiswaytoacampwherehewasimprisonedbytheFrenchin1962,BerkaneleavesbehindanunfinishedautobiographicalprojectentitledL’Adolescent(TheAdolescent),writteninFrench,his‘languedememoire’(‘memorylanguage’).Berkane’sdeathisalso´‘unfinished’,inthewaythatAssiaDjebarhasdescribedthatofCamus;hisreturnhasbecomeadisappearance,andhisghostreturnstohaunthisFrenchlover,Marise.Theunfinishedtextistheonethatthereaderhasjustread,writtenagainsttheviolentbackgroundofthe‘disappearanceoftheFrenchlanguage’astheprofessionalclassesexilethemselvesfrom1990sAlgeriaandtheriseoffundamentalism.AnothercommunityisnowthreatenedwitheffacementandtheconsequencesofviolenceinAlgeriacontinuetohaunt.Atatimewhenissuesofnationalidentityareincreasinglydiscussedintermsofculturalandcollectivememoryratherthanintermsoftheidentityofthenationstate,andwhenstrugglesforminorityrightsarealsoorganisedaroundquestionsofculturalmemory,areadingofLePremierHommeleavesuswithanotherapparitionofthe‘firstman’.The‘turntomemory’isatoncearesponseto,andasymptomof,rupture,lackandabsence.Thediscourseofculturalmemorycan‘mediateandmodifydifficultandtabooedmomentsofthepast’.Theproblemisthattheappealtomemoryoverhistorymay‘displaceanalysisbyempathy,politicsbysentiment’.26Onanysiteofconflictthereisequallyastruggleformemory,anditiscertainthatmemorymakesclaimsthatwillnotbeacceptabletoeveryone.ThepointisnottoblameorexonerateCamus‘asacoloniser’;itisrather,asSarocchiexpressesit,toseehowsuccessfullyorotherwiseheinterpretsa‘politicalambiguity’.27ThecolonisationofAlgeriabyFranceandCamus’srelationshiptoitisrathermorethana‘politicalambiguity’,althoughSarocchi’spointregardingblameorexonerationisimportant.Aworkofliteraryimaginationthatengageswithmemorywork,LePremierHommeisaninterpretationofhistoryandpersonalexperiencethathauntsandcontinuestotellusmuchabouttheanxietiesofcontemporarypostcolonialcultures.NOTES1.N.Wood,‘ColonialNostalgiaandLePremierHomme’,VectorsofMemory.LegaciesofTraumainPostwarEurope(Oxford,Berg,1999),pp.143–4;O.Todd,AlbertCamus,unevie(Paris,Gallimard,1996).200CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nLePremierHommeandtheliteratureofloss2.A.Haddour,ColonialMyths.HistoryandNarrative(Manchester,ManchesterUniversityPress,2000);P.DunwoodieandE.J.Hughes(eds.),ConstructingMemories:Camus,Algeriaand‘LePremierHomme’(Stirling,StirlingFrenchStudies,1998);N.Harrison,PostcolonialCriticism.History,TheoryandtheWorkofFiction(Cambridge,Polity,2003).3.A.F.Gordon,GhostlyMatters.HauntingandtheSociologicalImagination(Min-neapolis,UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1997),p.19.4.E.J.Hughes,LePremierHomme/LaPeste(Glasgow,UniversityofGlasgowFrenchandGermanPublications,1995),p.87.5.A.Djebar,Cesvoixquim’assiegent`(Paris,AlbinMichel,1999),p.224.See,forexample,autobiographicaltextsbyMouloudFeraoun,AlbertMemmiandAbdelkebirKhatibi.´6.E.Apter,‘OutofCharacter:Camus’sFrenchAlgerianSubjects’,ModernLan-guageNotes112.4(1997),502,500.7.C.CruiseO’Brien,AlbertCamusofEuropeandAfrica(NewYork,TheVikingPress,1970);‘TheFall’,TheNewRepublic,19October1995;E.Said,‘CamusandtheFrenchImperialExperience’,inCultureandImperialism(London,Vintage,1994(1993)),pp.204–24.8.Portraitducolonise´prec´ed´ede´Portraitducolonisateur(Paris,Gallimard,1985(1957))hasbeenarguablytheNorthAfricanJewishwriterAlbertMemmi’smostfamoustext.9.D.Carroll,‘Camus’sAlgeria:Birthrights,ColonialInjusticeandtheFictionofaFrenchAlgerianPeople’,ModernLanguagesNotes112.4(1997),522.10.Wood,‘ColonialNostalgia’,pp.153,155,160.11.Apter,‘OutofCharacter’,514,516.12.Djebar,Cesvoix,p.232.13.J.Sarocchi,LeDernierCamusou‘LePremierHomme’(Paris,Nizet,1995),p.163.14.D.Kelly,AutobiographyandIndependence.SelfhoodandCreativityinNorthAfricanPostcolonialWritinginFrench(Liverpool,LiverpoolUniversityPress,2005).15.T.Garfitt,‘LePremierHomm(ag)e:GroundingHistoryinLove’andD.Walker,‘KnowingthePlacefortheFirstTime?’,inDunwoodieandHughes(eds.),Con-structingMemories,pp.1,20.16.J.Derrida,Points...Interviews.1974–1994(Stanford,StanfordUniversityPress,1995),p.119;Haddour,ColonialMyths,p.170.17.Sarocchi,LeDernierCamus,p.120.SarocchinotestheBiblicaldimensionsofthenarrative,p.28.18.M.Bal,J.CrewandL.Spitzer,ActsofMemory.CulturalRecallinthePresent(HanoverNHandLondon,UniversityPressofNewEngland,1999),p.xi.19.J.V.Wertsch,VoicesofCollectiveRemembering(Cambridge,CambridgeUni-versityPress,2002),pp.31,66.20.Gordon,GhostlyMatters,p.8.21.Sarocchi,LeDernierCamus,pp.96,149.22.Djebar,Cesvoix,pp.224–32,whereshemeditatesonCamus’s‘unfinished’textandonhis‘unfinished’death;LeBlancdeL’Algerie´(Paris,AlbinMichel,2003),pp.103–4.InthecaseofDjebar,itisclearthatherreadingofLePremierHomme201CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\ndebrakellyhasfacilitatedwhatcouldbetermedareconciliationwithCamus.EarlierinCesvoixquim’assiegent`,shewritesthatshetookaconsiderabletimetorecogniseherrelationshiptohim(p.221).23.A.Djebar,‘LeTerritoiredeslangues’,inL.Gauvin(ed.),L’Ecrivainfrancophonealacrois`eedeslangues:entretiens´(Paris,Karthala,1997),p.30.24.N.Bouraoui,Garc¸onmanque´(Paris,Stock,2000),p.36;M.Bey,‘Unjourdejuin’,Nouvellesd’Algerie´(Paris,Grasset,1998),pp.46–7.25.A.Djebar,LaDisparitiondelalanguefranc¸aise(Paris,AlbinMichel,2003),p.92.26.Theseargumentssummarisetheideasofseveralcriticsinthefieldofmemorystudies:A.Huyssens,TwilightMemories:MarkingTimeinaCultureofAmnesia(London,Routledge,1995),p.5;Baletal.,ActsofMemory,p.vii;K.HodgkinandS.Radstone(eds.),ContestedPasts.ThePoliticsofMemory(London,Routledge,2003),pp.11–12.27.Sarocchi,LeDernierCamus,p.44.202CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nEDWARDJ.HUGHESPostfaceWhoreadsCamus?Werewetofocusontheadmittedlynarrowworldofacademicpublicationsandinterest,wemightwellconcludethatCamushascometobeanauthormorewrittenaboutoutsideFrancethaninsideit.ItwasinFranceintheearly1970sthathewasnotoriouslydismissedasanauthorwhosephilosophyisonlysuitableforsixth-formstudy.1Longbeforethat,asOlivierToddremindsus,SartrewasdecidedlypatronisingaboutthephilosophicalshortcomingsofLeMythedeSisyphe,althoughsomewhatmoreapprovinginhisresponsetoL’Etrangerwhenthesetextsappearedin1942.2YetCamus’sabilitytoattractmassaudiencesbothwithinthehexagonandbeyondisundisputed.JeanyvesGuerinreportedinthe´1990sthatstatisticallyspeaking,CamusremainedtheauthormostwidelyreadbyschoolpupilsanduniversitystudentsinFrance.3InarecentsurveyforFrenchtelevision,Camuswasplacedfifty-ninthinapolltoestablish‘lesplusgrandsFranc¸aisdetouslestemps’(‘thegreatestFrenchpeopleofalltime’),aboveSartre,whooccupiedninety-fifthplace.4IntheEnglish-speakingworld,hisworkregularlyfeaturesonundergraduatereadinglistsforcoursesontwentieth-centuryFrenchliterature,politicsandphilosophy.HowweapproachatextlikeLeMythedeSisypheisarguablyimpor-tantforanyapproachtoCamus’sworkmoregenerally.Wecan,asSartredid,dismisstheessayasphilosophicallyunconvincing,justaswecancriticiseL’Hommerevolt´e´asaroughandreadyhistoryofEuropeanideas,asapatch-workofthatcontinent’scultural,philosophicalandpoliticalhistory.DavidCarrollmakestheimportantpointthattheauthorofLeMytheislessinter-estedinanywisdomabouttheultimatemeaningoflifethatmightarriveviagreatphilosophythaninthevisceralfeeling,experiencedbyordinarypeople,thatlifemayabruptlylosemeaning:‘Lesentimentdel’absurditeaud´etour´den’importequelleruepeutfrapperalafaceden’importequelhomme’(`Ess,105),warnsCamus(‘Atanystreetcorner,thefeelingofabsurditycanstrikeanymanintheface’(MS,10–11)).Moreover,forCarroll,Camus’stakeontheSisyphusmythandhisrefusalofanybignarrativemarksanearlyphase203CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nedwardj.hughesinacareer-longbattleagainstideologicalcertainties,whetherphilosophi-cal,politicalorreligious.Inarelatedway,ColinDavisdemonstrates(aswesawinchapter8)howthevainquestforsecureultimatevaluesinCamus’sreflectionontheAbsurdanticipatesthedebateaboutethicalvaluecentraltowhatweconvenientlylabelpostmodernity.InCamus’sworkgenerally,weregularlyfindthesameconsciousloweringofphilosophicalhorizonsidentifiedinLeMythe.Heviewsscepticallythepromiseoflonger-termsalvationheldoutbybothChristianityandMarx-ism,preferringtosituatemanyofhisheroesinahereandnowthatwillnotmutateintosometranscendent,redemptiveorder.Thisinsistenceonabanalpresent,onlimits,iscentraltoCamus.TheEverymanheconstructsfromthisordinarinessformsakeydimensionofhisappealtogenerationsofreaders.IntheseductiveportraitofMeursaultthathepaintsinhisprefacetotheAmericaneditionofTheOutsiderpublishedin1958,heevokeshisprotago-nist’srun-of-the-milllifestyle,histypicalityashewanders,‘enmarge,danslesfaubourgsdelavieprivee,solitaire,sensuelle’(´TRN,1928)(‘inthemargins,inthefaubourgsofprivate,solitary,sensuouslife’).Forthegeneralreader,theappealisoneofrecognition.Meursault’sunexceptionalbiographyseemstomapreadilyontoafamiliarstyleofurbanlivinginthemodernworldchar-acterisedlessbycommunityandkinshipthanbyisolationandalienation;ontoaculturallandscapedeniedtheconsolationofreligiousorpoliticalcertainties;ontoaworldofmundaneness(itisnotcoincidentalthatCamusshouldchoosetheunfashionable,working-classfaubourg,theinnersuburbwithitsconnotationsofsocialordinariness,asthelocusofMeursault’scon-frontationwiththeeveryday;orindeedthatabarinAmsterdam’sred-lightdistrictshouldbewhereClamenceholdscourtinLaChute,ameeting-place,asDavidEllisonremarks,for‘theexiledanddisinheritedofthemodernworld’(seeabove,p.179).YetinL’Etrangerwefindanarrestingtransitionfromthisobscuritytoapositionofsocialprominence.Forhowevermarginalafigurehecuts,Meursaultleadsaprivatelifethatdeliversitsowndramabycatapultinghimintoapublicsphere.Indeed,thedeclamatorytoneintheclosinglinesofthenovelwhenheexpressesthewishthathisexecutionbeanoccasionforantagonisticpublicspectacleconfirmstheparadoxwherebythefigureofsocialmarginalityandsingularitybecomesnotonlyanobjectofpublichatebutalsoapointofculturalidentificationformillionsofreaders.Camusregularlyworksthiscuspbetweensocialanonymityandthespot-light,betweenprivateandpubliclives.Hisuseoftheconfessionalstyleofnarrativeisparticularlyeffectiveindrawingouttheprivateanddrawinginthereader.ThedramaticopeninglineofL’Etrangerdisarmsuswithitsforthrightintimacy.InLaPeste,asMargaretGrayexplains,Tarrou’sconfes-sionformsacounterpointtoRieux’sconsciousadoptionofthemoreneutral204CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nPostfacechronicler’stonewhencalledupontobearwitnesstomorecollectivesuffer-ing.AndasDavidEllisonidentifiesinhisanalysisofLaChute,thedynamicofthatnovelrequiresthereadertooccupytheuncomfortablepositionofbeingdirectlyembroiledinClamence’sphoneyworld.Clamence’sduplic-itousverbosityimplicatesusanddestabilisesourvaluesystems.Hisinau-thenticitycontrastspowerfullywithMeursault’suntutoredcandour,withTarrou’sanguishedself-examination,withJanine’suncontrollablefloodsoftearsattheendof‘LaFemmeadultere’.`Socialanonymityandthecrushingburdenoflife’sordinarinessfindspecif-icallygenerationalexpressioninL’ExiletleRoyaume,whereCamusconveysanacute,palpablefeelingofmid-lifeunfulfilment.Totheinarticulatedissat-isfactionofthemanualworkerYvarsin‘LesMuets’,wecanaddJanine’sstruggletoextricateherselffromasenseofdeepprivatedesperationin‘LaFemmeadultere’.Janinemayexperienceafleeting,ecstaticreleasefromher`situationinhercommunionwiththedesert;morepessimistically,Yvars,onstrikeandfacedwithhisowndiminishingphysicalstrength,contendswithaknowingresignationunmitigatedbyanyprospectofcollectivesyn-dicalisttriumph.BothprotagonistshavelongsincebeenestrangedfromthesensuousexuberanceofyouththatisgivensuchfreereininCamus’searlycollectionoflyricalessays,Noces.YetasDanielleMarx-Scourasobservesinchapter10,Janine’sprivatedesperationcanbemappedontoamoregen-eralised,FrenchAlgeriansenseofdisconnection,thedawningawareness,feltkeenlybyCamus’swomanprotagonist,ofunredeemedexclusionfromtheAlgeriaofAlgerians.Aredemptivecontrasttothistaleofexilelivedinthecolonyisprovidedwhen,inthelaststoryinthecollection,‘LaPierrequipousse’,setinasignificantlyexoticlocationawayfromNorthAfrica,D’Arrast’speripheralpositioninrelationtoatribelivingintheSouthAmer-icanjungleistransformedasheisusheredintothehubofcommunitylife(TRN,1686;EK,152).Returningtothestrandofsocialordinariness(andbyimplicationtothebondbetweenauthorandreaderthatthishelpssolder),weseetheveryconsciouscultivationoftheeverydayinCamus’swork.Histurningawayfromthehigh-flownandthecerebralisstrategic.Inabrieflatetextentitled‘Del’insignifiance’(‘OnInsignificance’)publishedin1959(TRN,1903–6),Camuswritesironicallyofhisdesiretocompileananthologyofinsignif-icance.WhilenotingthemockingtoneinCamus’spiece,RogerQuilliotexplainsthatthebasisforhisessaywasinfactamuchmoreseriousdraftonthesamesubjecttobefoundintheCarnetsinearly1945(TRN,1903).QuilliotremindsusthatCamususedthemotifofinsignificanceextensivelyinbothL’EtrangerandLaPeste,wheretheroutineandthequotidianformthebedrockofexperienceforthelikesofMeursaultandGrand.AsCamus205CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nedwardj.hughesarguesinL’Hommerevolt´e´,charactersinanovelinhabitaworldthatisnei-thermorebeautifulnormoreedifyingthanourown(Ess,666;R,229).Inhisdefenceofthenineteenth-centuryFrenchAlgeriansinLePremierHomme,bycontrast,Camusstressesthearduousmaterialconditionsconfrontingthenewlyarrivedpetitscolonsfordifferentstrategicends(seechapter7ofPartiofthenovel).Forbyrepresentingthematerial,physicalrealityofearlycoloniallifeasaformofhellonearth,Camushelpsconstructaformofsettlermartyrology.Camus’sfictionalworkconnectspowerfullywithhisownworld.ItformsabridgebetweenFranceanditsmostimportantcolonialpossession,Algeria,aconnectionwhichhesetsoutmatter-of-factly(somemightsayincongru-ously)inhisNobeladdresswhenhespeaksof‘laplupartd’entrenous,dansmonpaysetenEurope’(Ess,1073)(‘mostofus,inmycountryandinEurope’).HecanwriteaboutFranceasanoutsider,aswhenhecomplainsinLePremierHommeofthecountry’ssoot-fillednortherncities,wheretheproliferationofplasticandnylongoodsanddrab,discolouredadvertisingpostersdiscouragethealienatedMediterraneanvisitor(PH,26;FM,17).Yetasawar-timejournalistoftenbasedinFrance,hewritesasaninsider,bothcapturingandhelpingtoshapethenationalmood.Indeed,forgenerationsofWesternreaders,Camus’sFrenchnesswasasmainstreamasWesterncolonialdominancewasunproblematical.ThehistoryofthereceptionofL’Etrangerbearsthisout.ForasPeterDunwoodieexplains,MeursaultremainedfordecadesauniversalisedEveryman,withhisstatusas‘colonialman’eitherblindlyoverlookedorconvenientlyoccluded.Dunwoodie’sinferredparadigmofgenerationalreadingsofthenovelpromptsustothinkfurtherabout‘colonialman’andaboutmodesofread-inginapostcolonialframeofreferenceandbeyond.Tothatend,andbywayofasomewhatserpentineconclusion,IwanttospeculateaboutatinypocketofL’Etrangerwhereweareabletoseeretrospectivelytheintercon-nectednessofAlgeriansandFrenchAlgerians.ThemomentoccursduringtheprisonsceneearlyinPartiiofthenovelwhenMarievisitsMeursault.Sheissurrounded,andoutnumbered,byMoorishwomenvisitingtheirmen-folk.CamusdepictsthelocalArab-speakingfamiliesasliterallyprovidingabackgroundmurmurastheysquatwhileEuropeaninmatesandtheirvisitorsshouttobeheard:‘Malgreletumulte,ilsparvenaient´as’entendreenparlant`tresbas.Leurmurmuresourd,partideplusbas,formaitcommeunebasse`continueauxconversationsquis’entrecroisaientau-dessusdeleurstetes’ˆ(TRN,1178)(‘Inspiteofthedin,theyweremanagingtomakethemselvesheardbytalkinginverylowvoices.Theirmuffledmurmuring,comingfromlowerdown,formedakindofcontinuofortheconversationsgoingback-wardsandforwardsabovetheirheads’(O,72–3)).Itistemptingtoreadthe206CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nPostfaceideaofthebassocontinuoasanemblemofCamus’stiestoAlgeriagenerally;aswehaveseen,thesituationinhishomelandwastobeoneofthegreatleitmotifsofhiswritingcareer.Fromtheearlycampaigningjournalismin1939whenhehighlightedtheplightoftheKabylesinMiseredelaKabylie`towhatwastoprove,inCamus’sshortlife,theend-of-careercampaigninginLePremierHomme,thistimeonbehalfoftheFrenchAlgeriansettlers,weseeatenacious,indeedobdurateengagement.FouroftheshortstoriesintheL’ExiletleRoyaumecollectionconstructcontrastingfictionalsituationswhichdramatisetheEuropean’sengagementwithNorthAfrica.‘LesMuets’and‘LaFemmeadultere’wehavealready`considered.Twoothersdepicttraumaticchoicesandtheintimidatingconse-quencesofposition-taking.In‘L’Hote’,theculturallyliberalFrenchAlgerianˆschoolteacherDaru,forcedtoholdasprisonerovernightanativeAlgeriansuspectedofmurder,canshowhischargenothingbutfraternalhospitality.Yetbeingcastintheroleofjailermeansthatheisafterwardsthreatenedwithrevengefromtheprisoner’sArabbrothers.In‘LeRenegat’,theyoung´EuropeanmissionarysetsouttoconquerAfricanresistancetoChristianity,tosee,ashewouldhaveit,goodprevailoverevil.Yetheendsupaliterallymutilated,alienatedsubject,tornbetweenAfricaandEurope.DerangementistheconsequenceofhisManicheanconfrontationofthesetwoculturalspaces.Withhistonguecutout,hebecomestheincarnationofinarticulacyandofcrudeculturalconfusionandbigotry.ThefluctuationsinCamus’sownpositioninregardtoFrenchAlgeriahavebeenporedoverandhisposition-takingdissected.Apostcolonialreadingoftheprison-scenecameofromL’Etrangermightwellviewwithunderstand-ablesuspicionthebassocontinuoattributedtothenativewomen(takingitasamarkerofculturalhierarchyinwhichNorthAfricansareroutinelyanddismissivelyassigneda‘murmuresourd’,amerebackdroptoEuro-peanconversation).CertainlythenarrativethreadofL’Etrangersuggestsaformofsocialapartheid,dramatisedinthestand-offbetweenMeursaultandhisunnamedArabadversary.Thatsaid,inthesceneintheprisonvis-itingroom,NorthAfricansaredescribedassucceedingincommunicating,whereasEuropeansstraintodoso.Inpositingthiscontrast,MeursaultasnarratorisarguablygivingvoicetoanunderlyingEuropeaninsecuritythatpersistsinspiteofobviouscolonialsupremacy.Yetnewcontextspromptandlegitimisenewreadings.Sixtyyearson,anumberofAlgerianwomenwritershaveadoptedCamusasafraternalfigure,aswehaveseeninchapter14.Fromthevantagepointofhindsight,wemightthenrevisitthepageofL’Etrangerthatprecedestheprisonscene:here,atthebeginningofhisperiodofincarceration,Meursaultexplainstofellowinmates(mostofwhomareArabs,touseCamus’smodeofdesignation)thereasonforhis207CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nedwardj.hughesimprisonment.Hisuntutored,frankaccountisgreetedwithsilencebutthisthengiveswaytoanexchangeinwhichtheprisonersexplaintohimhowtoarrangethemattingtoformabed.Thecell,andthesharedmiseryitrepre-sentsforitsinhabitants,thusbecomesaculturallypluralspacewhichNorthAfricanandEuropeanprisonersoccupy.Howevertenuously,thegroupsceneenactsaprovisionalformofuneasyinterethniccohabitation,albeitontheperipheryofsociety.Itdeliversasharingofspace,albeitparenthetically,intheregimented,punitivesurroundingsoftheprisonregime.Significantly,thistenseconfigurationofissuesandcharacters–homicide,fraternity,NorthAfrican,European–formsthetemplatealsousedbyCamusin‘L’Hote’.Itˆsuggeststheauthor’sabidingpreoccupationwithwhatispresentedastheproblematicsofinterethniccohabitation.Intoday’spostcolonialorder,inwhichWesternurbanspacesoftenserveasthemeetinggroundfortheoncecolonisedandtheoncecolonising,Camus’sfictionalportraitsof‘colonialmen’suchasMeursaultandDaruserveasareminderofhistoricaldivisionsandmindsets.OnecritichasreferredtoL’Etrangerasa‘cool,elegantandstartlingbook...thecreationofanauthorlivinginaprecariouspresentanduncer-tainofhisfuture’.5TheprecariousnessinquestionencompassedCamus’sill-healthandthediresituationoftheSecondWorldWar,notforgettingthevolatilityofthesituationinAlgeria(thebloodycolonialmassacresatSetif´inMay1945servedasareminderofthat).Camuswaskeenlyawareofafundamentalconditionalityfacingthewriter(aswell,ofcourse,asfacinghisgenerationmoregenerally).AsheremarkedinhisNobeladdressinStock-holminDecember1957,thewriteris‘obscurouprovisoirementcel´ebre,`jetedanslesfersdelatyrannieoulibrepouruntempsdes’exprimer’(´Ess,1072)(‘obscureorprovisionallyfamous,thrownintotheshacklesoftyrannyorfreeforatimetoexpresshimself’).TheunpredictablefuturefacingtheauthorofL’EtrangerwastobringCamusbothfailureandfame:nationalandinternationalcelebrityasanovelist;thebitterpublicrowwithSartreandLesTempsmodernes,andbeyondthatthedecolonisationdebate,with,asCharlesForsdickdrawsoutinchapter9,theradicallydivergingaffectiveandintellectualpositionsthisengendered;acomplicatedprivatelifeinvolvingnumerousextra-maritalrelationships;self-imposedsolitudeashispositionbecameincreasinglyisolatedinthe1950s;theNobelPrize,which,althoughhereceiveditattheexceptionallyearlyageofforty-fourforwhattheNobelcommitteesawasan‘authenticmoralengagement’withthefundamentalquestionsofhisday(Ess,1893),cameironicallyatagreatlowinCamus’slife;thebeginningoftheendforFrenchAlgeria;andhisownprematuredeath.WritinginhisprefacetotheChroniquesalgeriennes´in1958,Camusconcededthatthelongconfrontationbetweenanindividualandaparticular208CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nPostfacehistoricalsituation(hewasreferringtohisengagementwithAlgeria)wasnotwithouterrors,contradictionsandhesitations(Ess,900).Indeed,heseeshisAlgerianchroniclesasthehistoryofafailure(Ess,899).Yetthissenseoftheauthor’sfallibility,hisacceptancethathehasmadeerrorsofjudgementand,aboveall,hiscalltotoleranceprovideuswithnotonlygoodreasonstorevisithisworkbutalsopotentiallywithgoodlessonstodrawfromit.InamemorialtributeinJanuary1960,JohnCruickshankremindedhisaudi-encethat,inCamus’swords,‘everyauthenticworkofartisagiftofferedtothefuture’.6InthecaseofCamus,thisprolepticgivingentailsabodyofworktoberead,understood,puzzledandarguedover,bothinrelationtothecircumstancesinwhichheproduceditand,nolessimportantly,withintheconditionsofourcontemporarysituationandbeyond.‘Desintoxiquer´lesespritsetapaiserlesfanatismes’(Ess,899)(‘Toremovethetoxinsfrompeople’sminds,toassuagefanaticisms’)was,asJeanyvesGuerinremindsus,´Camus’ssincerelyutteredcalltotheintellectual.7Theappealoftheprescrip-tionendures,asdoesthechallengeofCamus’scomplicatedlegacy.NOTES1.J.-J.Brochier,AlbertCamusphilosophepourclassesterminales(Paris,Balland,1970).2.OlivierTodd,AlbertCamus,unevie(Paris,Gallimard,1996),p.309.3.JeanyvesGuerin,´Camus:Portraitdel’artisteencitoyen(Paris,Bourin,1993),p.10.4.Seehttp//programmes.france2.fr/leplusgrandfrancais/8709130-fr.php).5.G.V.Banks,Camus:L’Etranger(Glasgow,UniversityofGlasgowFrenchandGermanPublications,1992),p.1.6.J.Cruickshank,AlbertCamusandtheLiteratureofRevolt(NewYork,OxfordUniversityPress/GalaxyBooks,1960),p.xx.7.Guerin,´Camus,p.281.209CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nGUIDETOFURTHERREADINGPRIMARYWORKSBYCAMUSAlbertCamuseditorialiste´a‘L’Express’(mai1955-f`evrier1956)´(CahiersAlbertCamus6),ed.PaulSmets,Paris,Gallimard,1987.Caligula:texteetablid’apr´esladactylographiedef`evrier1941:suivide‘Lapo´etique´dupremierCaligula’(CahiersAlbertCamus4),ed.A.JamesArnold,Paris,Gallimard,1984.Camusa‘Combat`’(CahiersAlbertCamus8),ed.JacquelineLevi-Valensi,Paris,´Gallimard,2002.Carnetsi,ii,iii,Paris,Gallimard,1962–89.Essais,ed.RogerQuilliot,Paris,BibliothequedelaPl`eiade,´1965.Fragmentsd’uncombat,1938–1940(CahiersAlbertCamus3),eds.JacquelineLevi-´ValensiandAndreAbbou,Paris,Gallimard,´1978.Journauxdevoyage,ed.RogerQuilliot,Paris,Gallimard,1978.‘LettreaudirecteurdesTempsmodernes’,LesTempsmodernes82(1952),317–33.LaMortheureuse(CahiersAlbertCamus1),Paris,Gallimard,1971.LePremierCamus,suivideEcritsdejeunessed’AlbertCamus,ed.PaulViallaneix(CahiersAlbertCamus2),Paris,Gallimard,1973.LePremierHomme(CahiersAlbertCamus7),Paris,Gallimard,1994.The´atre,Rˆecits,Nouvelles´,ed.RogerQuilliot,Paris,BibliothequedelaPl`eiade,´1962.AvailableinEnglishtranslationAlbertCamus:LyricalandCritical,trans.PhilipThody,London,HamishHamilton,1967.AmericanJournals,trans.HughLevick,NewYork,ParagonHouse,1987;London,HamishHamilton,1989.BetweenHellandReason,trans.AlexandredeGramont,London,UniversityPressofNewEngland,1991.CaligulaandOtherPlays:Caligula,CrossPurpose,TheJust,ThePossessed,trans.StuartGilbert,London,Penguin,1984.ExileandtheKingdom,trans.JustinO’Brien,London,Penguin,2002(1962).TheFall,trans.JustinO’Brien,London,Penguin,2000(1963).TheFirstMan,trans.DavidHapgood,London,Penguin,1996.AHappyDeath,trans.RichardHoward,London,Penguin,2002(1973).210CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nguidetofurtherreadingLyricalandCriticalEssays,trans.EllenConroyKennedy,NewYork,VintageBooks,1967.TheMythofSisyphus,trans.JustinO’Brien,London,Penguin,2000(1975).Notebooksi:1935–1942,trans.PhilipThody,NewYork,Knopf,1963.Notebooksii:1942–1951,trans.JustinO’Brien,NewYork,Knopf,1966;NewYork,MarloweandCompany,1995.TheOutsider,trans.JosephLaredo,London,Penguin,2000(1983).AlsotranslatedasTheStranger,trans.MatthewWard,NewYork,Knopf,1988.ThePlague,trans.StuartGilbert,London,Penguin,1963.TheRebel,trans.AnthonyBower,London,Penguin,1971;reprintedwithanewintroductionbyOlivierTodd,London,Penguin,2000.Resistance,Rebellion,andDeath(partialtranslationofActuellesi,iiandiii),trans.JustinO’Brien,London,HamishHamilton,1961.SelectedEssaysandNotebooks,trans.PhilipThody,London,Penguin,1979.SelectedPoliticalWritings,trans.anded.JonathanH.King,London,Methuen,1981.YouthfulWritings,trans.EllenConroyKennedy,NewYork,Knopf,1976.BiographyLottman,HerbertR.,AlbertCamus:aBiography,London,WeidenfeldandNicol-son,1979;NewYork,Braziller,1980;reprintedLondon,Axis,1997.Alsoavail-ableinFrenchtranslation,AlbertCamus,trans.MarianneVeron,Paris,Seuil,´1978.Todd,Olivier,AlbertCamus,unevie,Paris,Gallimard,1996;translated(inabbre-viatedform)asAlbertCamus,ALife,trans.BenjaminIvry,London,Chatto&Windus,1997;NewYork,Carroll&Graf,2000.CorrespondenceCorrespondanceAlbertCamus/JeanGrenier,ed.MargueriteDobrenn,Paris,Gallimard,1981.CRITICALWORKSAchour,Christiane,L’Etrangersifamilier,Algiers,EnAP,1984.Apter,Emily,‘OutofCharacter:Camus’sFrenchAlgerianSubjects’,ModernLan-guageNotes112.4(1997),499–516.‘OutofCharacter:Camus’sFrenchAlgerianSubjects’,inContinentalDrift:FromNationalCharacterstoVirtualSubjects,ChicagoandLondon,UniversityofChicagoPress,1999,pp.61–75.Archambault,Paul,Camus’sHellenicSources,ChapelHill,UniversityofNorthCarolinaPress,1972.Arnold,A.J.,Caligula:texteetablid’apr´esladactylographiedef`evrier1941:suivide´‘LapoetiquedupremierCaligula´’(CahiersAlbertCamus4),Paris,Gallimard,1984.Aron,Raymond,Memoires´,Paris,Julliard,1985.Aronson,Ronald,CamusandSartre:TheStoryofaFriendshipandtheQuarrelthatEndedIt,ChicagoandLondon,UniversityofChicagoPress,2004.211CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nguidetofurtherreading(Aronson,Ronald),‘Sartre,Camus,andtheCalibanarticles’,SartreStudiesInterna-tional7.2(2001),1–11.‘TheThirdManintheStory:RonaldAronsondiscussestheSartre-CamusconflictwithFrancisJeanson’,SartreStudiesInternational8.2(2002),20–67.Audisio,Gabriel,Hommesausoleil,Maupre,LeMoutonblanc,´1923.Heliotrope´,Paris,Gallimard,1928.JeunessedelaMediterran´ee´,Paris,Gallimard,1935.LeSeldelamer,Paris,Gallimard,1936.Ulysseoul’intelligence,Paris,Gallimard,1945.Backan,Ahmed,CamusetSartre:deuxintellectuelsenpolitique,Lille,ANRT,2004.Bal,M.,J.CrewandL.Spitzer,ActsofMemory.CulturalRecallinthePresent,Hanover,NHandLondon,UniversityPressofNewEngland,1999.Banks,G.V.,Camus:‘L’Etranger’,Glasgow,UniversityofGlasgowFrenchandGermanPublications,1992;firstpublished:London,Arnold,1976.Barrat,Denise(ed.),Espoiretparole,Paris,Seghers,1963.Bartfeld,Fernande,L’Effettragique.Essaisurletragiquedansl’œuvredeCamus,Geneva,Champion-Slatkine,1988.‘LeThe´atredeCamus,lieud’uneˆecriturecontrari´ee’,inJacquelineL´evi-Valensi´(ed.),AlbertCamusetlethe´atre:ˆActesduColloquetenuaAmiensdu31mai`au2juin1988,Paris,IMEC,1992,pp.177–85.‘Anti-Mediterran´eeetlyrismedel’exil’,´Perspectives5(1998),213–25.Barthes,Roland,‘LaPeste’(1955),inCEuvrescompletes`,ed.EricMarty,Paris,Seuil,2002,5vols.,vol.i,pp.540–5.LeDegrez´erodel’´ecriture´,Paris,Seuil,1953.Bartlett,ElizabethAnn,RebelliousFeminism:Camus’sEthicofRebellionandFem-inistThought,NewYork,Palgrave/Macmillan,2004.Beer(Capstick),Jill,‘LeRegard:FacetoFaceinAlbertCamus’s“L’Hote”’,ˆFrenchStudies56.2(2002),179–92.Beji,H´el´e,‘Radicalismecultureletla´¨ıcite’,´LeDebat´58(January–February1990),45–9.Bertrand,Louis,LeSangdesraces,Paris,Ollendorf,1899.LesVillesd’or:AlgerieetTunisieromaines´,Paris,Fayard,1921.Bey,Ma¨ıssa,Nouvellesd’Algerie´,Paris,Grasset,1998.‘Femmesauborddelavie’,AlbertCamusetlesecrituresalg´eriennes.Quelles´traces?,Aix-en-Provence,Edisud,2004,pp.127–33.Biondi,J.-P.,LesAnticolonialistes(1881–1962),Paris,Laffont,1992.Birchall,Ian,‘CamuscontreSartre:quaranteansplustard’,inDavidH.Walker(ed.),AlbertCamus:lesextremesetl’ˆequilibre´,Amsterdam,Rodopi,1994,pp.129–50.Blanchot,Maurice,‘LeMythedeSisyphe’,inFauxPas,Paris,Gallimard,1943,pp.65–71.‘Tupeuxtuercethomme’,LaNouvelleRevuefranc¸aise3(1954),1059–69.L’Entretieninfini,Paris,Gallimard,1969.‘LaChute:LaFuite’,inL’Amitie´,Paris,Gallimard,1971,pp.228–35.Bloom,Harold(ed.),AlbertCamus,Philadelphia,ChelseaHouse,1989.AlbertCamus’s‘TheStranger’,Philadelphia,ChelseaHouse,2001.Bouraoui,Nina,Garc¸onmanque´,Paris,Stock,2000.212CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nguidetofurtherreadingBraun,Lev,WitnessofDecline.AlbertCamus:MoralistoftheAbsurd,Rutherford,NJ,FairleighDickinsonUniversityPress,1974.Bree,Germaine,´Camus,NewBrunswick,NJ,RutgersUniversityPress,1959.CamusandSartre:CrisisandCommitment,London,CalderandBoyars,1974.Bree,Germaine(ed.),´Camus:ACollectionofCriticalEssays,EnglewoodCliffs,NJ,Prentice-Hall,1962.Brochier,J.-J.,AlbertCamusphilosophepourclassesterminales,Paris,Balland,1970.Brodziak,Sylvie,etal.(eds.),AlbertCamusetlesecrituresdu´xxesiecle`,Arras,ArtoisPressesUniversite,´2003.Bronner,StephenEric,Camus:PortraitofaMoralist,London,UniversityofMin-nesotaPress,1999.Broyelle,ClaudieandJacques,LesIllusionsretrouvees:Sartreatoujoursraisoncon-´treCamus,Paris,Grasset,1982.Capstick,Jill,‘MasteryorSlavery:TheEthicsofRevoltinCamus’s“LesMuets”’,ModernandContemporaryFrance11.4(2003),453–62.Carroll,David,‘Camus’sAlgeria:birthrights,colonialinjusticeandthefictionofaFrenchAlgerianpeople’,ModernLanguageNotes112.4(1997),517–49.AlbertCamus,TheAlgerian:Colonialism,Terrorism,Justice,NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,forthcoming.Champigny,Robert,Surunherospa´ıen¨,Paris,Gallimard,1959.AlsoavailableasAPaganHero,trans.RowePortis,Philadelphia,UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,1969.Charbit,Denis,‘Camusetl’epreuvealg´erienne’,´Perspectives5(1998),157–81.Chaulet-Achour,Christiane(C.Achour),AlbertCamus,Alger:‘L’Etranger’etautresrecits´,Paris,Seguier,´1999.AlbertCamusetl’Algerie´,Algiers,Barzakh,2004.Chouaki,Aziz,LesOranges,Paris,Milleetunenuits,1998.Clot,J.-P.,Fantomesˆausoleil,Paris,Gallimard,1949.Cohen-Solal,Annie,‘Camus,Sartreetlaguerred’Algerie’,inJeanyvesGu´erin(ed.),´Camusetlapolitique,Paris,L’Harmattan,1985,pp.177–84.Coombs,Ilona,Camus,hommedethe´atreˆ,Paris,Nizet,1968.Costes,Alain,AlbertCamusetlaparolemanquante:etudepsychanalytique´,Paris,Payot,1973.Cruickshank,John,AlbertCamusandtheLiteratureofRevolt,NewYork,OxfordUniversityPress/GalaxyBooks,1959/1960.Daniel,Jean,Camus,Paris,Hachette,coll.Geniesetr´ealit´es,´1969.‘LeSuicided’unenation’,LeNouvelObservateur(14–20April1994),28–9.Soleilsd’hiver.Carnets1998–2000,Paris,Grasset,2000.Davis,Colin,‘InterpretingLaPeste’,RomanicReview85.1(1994),125–42.EthicalIssuesinTwentieth-CenturyFrenchFiction:KillingtheOther,Basingstoke,Macmillan,2000.‘TheCostofBeingEthical:Fiction,Violence,andAltericide’,CommonKnowledge9.2(2003),241–53.Davison,Ray,Camus:TheChallengeofDostoevsky,Exeter,ExeterUniversityPress,1997.‘MythologisingtheMediterranean:TheCaseofAlbertCamus’,JournalofMediter-raneanStudies10.1–2(2000),77–92.213CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nguidetofurtherreadingdeBeauvoir,Simone,LaForcedeschoses,Paris,Gallimard,1963.Debout,Simone,‘SartreetCamus,temoinsdelalibert´e’,´ModernLanguageNotes112(1997),600–7.Deguy,Jacques,‘SartrelecteurdeL’Etranger’,AlbertCamus(LaRevuedesLettresModernes),16(1995),63–83.Deleuze,Gilles,‘L’Iledeserte’(´1953),inDavidLapoujade(ed.),L’Iledeserteetautres´textes,Paris,Minuit,2002.Derrida,Jacques,Forcedeloi,Paris,Galilee,´1994.Points...Interviews.1974–1994,Stanford,StanfordUniversityPress,1995.Dine,Philip,‘FightingandWritingtheWarWithoutaName:PolemicsandtheFrench-AlgerianConflict’,AURIFEX,2(2002)(http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/aurifex/issue2/dine.html).Djebar,Assia,‘Afterword’,inWomenofAlgiersinTheirApartment,Charlottesville,UniversityPressofVirginia,1992,pp.159–211.LeBlancdel’Algerie´,Paris,AlbinMichel,1995.‘LeTerritoiredeslangues’,inL.Gauvin(ed.),L’Ecrivainfrancophonealacrois`ee´deslangues:entretiens,Paris,Karthala,1997,pp.17–34.Cesvoixquim’assiegent`,Paris,AlbinMichel,1999.LaDisparitiondelalanguefranc¸aise,Paris,AlbinMichel,2003.Djema¨ı,Abdelkader,CamusaOran`,Paris,Michalon,1995.Dostoyevsky,F.,NotesfromtheUnderground,trans.JaneKentish,Oxford,OxfordUniversityPress(World’sClassics),1991.Drake,David,‘Sartre,CamusandtheAlgerianWar’,SartreStudiesInternational5.1(1999),16–32.Dunn,Susan,‘FromBurketoCamus:ReconceivingtheRevolution’,Salmagundi84(1989),214–29.Dunwoodie,Peter,Camus:‘L’Enversetl’Endroit’and‘L’ExiletleRoyaume’,London,Grant&Cutler,1985.Unehistoireambivalente:LedialogueCamus-Dostoıevski¨,Paris,Nizet,1996.WritingFrenchAlgeria,Oxford,ClarendonPress,1998.FrancophoneWritinginTransition:Algeria1900–1945,Berne,PeterLang,2005.Dunwoodie,PeterandEdwardJ.Hughes(eds.),ConstructingMemories:Camus,Algeriaand‘LePremierHomme’,Stirling,StirlingFrenchPublications,1998.ElHoussi,M.,‘CamusouledesirdeM´editerran´ee’,´Africa,America,Asia,Australia15(1993),29–39.Ellison,DavidR.,‘CamusandtheRhetoricofDizziness:LaChute’,ContemporaryLiterature24.3(Autumn1983),322–48.UnderstandingAlbertCamus,Columbia,UniversityofSouthCarolinaPress,1990.Felman,Shoshana,‘Camus’“TheFall”,orTheBetrayaloftheWitness’,inShoshanaFelmanandDoriLaub,Testimony:CrisesofWitnessinginLiterature,Psycho-analysisandHistory,NewYork,Routledge,1992,pp.165–203.Fitch,BrianT.,TheNarcissisticText:AReadingofCamus’sFiction,Toronto,Uni-versityofTorontoPress,1982.Fouchet,M.-P.,Unjour,jem’ensouviens...Memoireparl´ee´,Paris,MercuredeFrance,1968.Freeman,E.,TheTheatreofAlbertCamus:ACriticalStudy,London,Methuen,1971.214CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nguidetofurtherreadingGarfitt,(J.S.)Toby,‘Grenier,Malraux,Camus’,Europe897–8(January–February2004),208–23.Garfitt,J.S.T.,‘GrenierandCamus:FromLesIlestoLaChute’,ForumforModernLanguageStudies17.3(1981),217–29.‘LePremierhomm(ag)e:GroundingHistoryinLove’,inDunwoodieandHughes(eds.),ConstructingMemories,pp.1–8.Gay-Crosier,Raymond,LesEnversd’unechec:´etudesurleth´e´atred’AlbertCamusˆ,Paris,Minard,1967.Giles,J.(ed.),FrenchExistentialism:Consciousness,EthicsandRelationswithOth-ers,Amsterdam,Rodopi,1999.Gordon,A.F.,GhostlyMatters.HauntingandtheSociologicalImagination,Minneapolis,UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1997.Gray,MargaretE.,‘Les“JugesIntegres”deClamence:Unelecturepsychanalytique`deLaChute’,inLionelDubois(ed.),AlbertCamusentrelamisereetlesoleil`,Poitiers,Pont-Neuf,1997,pp.73–80.Grenier,Jean,LesIles,Paris,Gallimard,1959(1933).AlbertCamus.Souvenirs,Paris,Gallimard,1968.Sousl’occupation,Paris,ClairePaulhan,1997.Grenier,Roger,AlbertCamus.Soleiletombre:unebiographieintellectuelle,Paris,Gallimard,1987.Guerin,´Jeanyves,Camus:Portraitdel’artisteencitoyen,Paris,Bourin,1993.Guerin,Jeanyves(ed.),´Camusetlapolitique,Paris,L’Harmattan,1985.Camusetlepremier‘Combat’,LaGarenne-Colombes,Editionseuropeennes´Erasme,1990.Haddour,Azzedine,ColonialMyths:HistoryandNarrative,Manchester,Manch-esterUniversityPress,2000.‘TheCamus–SartreDebateandtheColonialQuestioninAlgeria’,inCharlesFors-dickandDavidMurphy(eds.),FrancophonePostcolonialStudies:ACriticalIntroduction,London,Arnold,2003,pp.66–76.Hargreaves,Alec,‘CaughtintheMiddle:theLiberalDilemmaintheAlgerianWar’,NottinghamFrenchStudies25.2(1986),73–82.‘CamusandtheColonialQuestioninAlgeria’,MuslimWorld77(1987),164–74.Harrison,Nicholas,PostcolonialCriticism.History,TheoryandtheWorkofFiction,Cambridge,Polity,2003.Hart,Elisabeth,‘Faceaface:l’`ethiquel´evinasiennedans“L’H´ote”’,inLionelDuboisˆ(ed.),LesTroisguerresd’AlbertCamus,Poitiers,LesEditionsduPont-Neuf,1995,pp.172–7.Henein,Georges,‘Lettre´aHenriCalet,`16avril1948’,GrandesLargeurs2(autumn/winter1981),66.Hodgkin,K.andS.Radstone,ContestedPasts,LondonandNewYork,Routledge,2003.Horowitz,Louise,‘OfWomenandArabs:SexualandRacialPolarizationinCamus’,ModernLanguageStudies17.3(Summer1987),54–61.Hughes,EdwardJ.,AlbertCamus:LePremierHomme/LaPeste,Glasgow,UniversityofGlasgowFrenchandGermanPublications,1995.‘CamusandtheResistancetoHistory’,inE.J.Hughes,WritingMarginalityinModernFrenchLiterature:fromLotitoGenet,Cambridge,CambridgeUniver-sityPress,2001,pp.102–34.215CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nguidetofurtherreadingHuyssens,Andreas,TwilightMemories:MarkingTimeinaCultureofAmnesia,London,Routledge,1995.Isaac,JeffreyC.,Arendt,CamusandModernRebellion,London,YaleUniversityPress,1992.Jeanson,Francis,‘AlbertCamus,oul’amerˆevolt´ee’,´LesTempsmodernes79(1952),2070–90.‘Pourtoutvousdire’,LesTempsmodernes82(1952),354–83.Jones,Rosemarie,Camus:‘L’Etranger’and‘LaChute’,London,Grant&Cutler,1994.Judt,Tony,‘TheLostWorldofAlbertCamus’,NewYorkReviewofBooks41.16(6October1994),3–5.TheBurdenofResponsibility,ChicagoandLondon,UniversityofChicagoPress,1998.Kelly,Debra,AutobiographyandIndependence.SelfhoodandCreativityinNorthAfricanPostcolonialWritinginFrench,Liverpool,LiverpoolUniversityPress,2005.Khatibi,Abdelkebir,Maghrebpluriel,Paris,Denoel,¨1983.King,Adele(ed.),Camus’s‘L’Etranger’:FiftyYearson,NewYork,StMartin’sPress,1992.Knapp,BettinaL.,CriticalEssaysonAlbertCamus,Boston,MA,G.K.Hall&Co.,1988.Knauss,P.R.,ThePersistenceofPatriarchy:Class,GenderandIdeologyinTwentieth-CenturyAlgeria,NewYork,Praeger,1987.Koestler,Arthur,DarknessatNoon,London,Cape,1940.TheYogiandtheCommissar,London,Cape,1945.Kouchkine,Eugene,`‘LesJustes:letragiquedel’amouretdurenoncement’,inJacque-lineLevi-ValensiandAgn´esSpiquel(eds.),`Camusetlelyrisme,Paris,EditionsSEDES,1997,pp.161–71.Krapp,J.,‘TimeandEthicsinAlbertCamus’sThePlague’,UniversityofTorontoQuarterly68.2(1999),655–76.Kritzman,LawrenceD.,‘Camus’sCuriousHumanismortheIntellectualinExile’,ModernLanguageNotes112.4(1997),550–75.LeSueur,JamesD.,‘TheUnbearableSolitudeofBeing:theQuestionofAlbertCamus’,inUncivilWar:IntellectualsandIdentityPoliticsduringtheDecolonisa-tionofAlgeria,Philadelphia,UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,2001,pp.87–127.Levi-Valensi,Jacqueline,‘Terrefaite´amon`ame:pourunemythologiedurˆeel’,´Perspectives5(1998),185–97.Levi-Valensi,Jacqueline(ed.),´AlbertCamusetlethe´atre:ActesduColloquetenuˆa`Amiensdu31maiau2juin1988,Paris,IMEC,1992.Camusa‘Combat’`,Paris,Gallimard,2002.Levi-Valensi,JacquelineandDenisSalas(eds.),´AlbertCamus:Reflexionssurle´terrorisme,Paris,NicolasPhilippe,2002.Locke,F.W.,‘TheMetamorphosesofJean-BaptisteClamence’,Symposium21(1967),306–15.Malraux,A.,‘D’unejeunesseeuropeenne’,inAndr´eChamsonetal.,´Ecrits,Paris,Grasset,1927.Maougal,MohamedLakhdar(ed.),AlbertCamus.Assassinatpost-mortem,Algiers,EditionsAPIC,2004.216CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nguidetofurtherreadingMargerrison,Christine,‘StrugglingwiththeOther:GenderandRaceintheYouthfulWritingsofCamus’,inJ.Giles(ed.),FrenchExistentialism:Consciousness,EthicsandRelationswithOthers,Amsterdam,Rodopi,1999,pp.191–211.Masters,Brian,Camus:aStudy,London,Heinemann,1974.McBride,WilliamL.,‘ThePolemicinthePagesofLesTempsmodernes(1952)ConcerningFrancisJeanson’sReviewofCamus’TheRebel’,inSartreandExistentialism,8vols.,Hamden,CT,Garland,1997,vol.viii,pp.79–93.McCarthy,Patrick,Camus.ACriticalStudyofhisLifeandWork,London,HamishHamilton,1982.‘TheFirstArabinL’Etranger’,RevueCELFANReview4.3(1985),23–6.AlbertCamus:‘TheStranger’(LandmarksofWorldLiterature),Cambridge,CambridgeUniversityPress,1988;secondedition2005.Memmi,Albert,‘Camusoulecolonisateurdebonnevolonte’,´LaNef,12December1957,95–6.Portraitducolonise,´prec´ed´ede´Portraitducolonisateur,Paris,Gallimard,1985(1957).Merleau-Ponty,Maurice,Humanismeetterreur,Paris,Gallimard,1947.Meyers,Jeffrey,‘Camus’TheFallandVanEyck’sTheAdorationoftheLamb’,Mosaic7.3(1974),43–51.Montgomery,GeraldineF.,Nocespourfemmeseule.Lefemininetlesacr´edans´l’œuvred’AlbertCamus,Amsterdam/NewYork,Rodopi,2004.Murchland,Bernard,‘CamusandSartre:theAnatomyofaQuarrel’,inMichel-AntoineBurnier(ed.),ChoiceofAction:TheFrenchExistentialistsonthePoliticalFrontLine,trans.BernardMurchland,NewYork,RandomHouse,1968,pp.175–94.Nacer-Khodja,Hamid,AlbertCamus.JeanSenacoulefilsrebelle´,Paris,EDIF,2004.O’Brien,ConorCruise,AlbertCamusofEuropeandAfrica,NewYork,TheVikingPress,1970.Camus,Glasgow,Collins(Fontana),1970.‘TheFall’,TheNewRepublic,16October1995.Orme,Mark,‘Retourauxsources:CrisisandReappraisalinAlbertCamus’sFinalPronouncementsonJustice’,ModernandContemporaryFrance11.4(2003),463–74.Oxenhandler,Neil,LookingforHeroesinPostwarFrance.AlbertCamus,MaxJacob,SimoneWeil,Hanover,NH,DartmouthCollege/UniversityPressofNewEngland,1996.Pollmann,Leo,SartreandCamus:LiteratureofExistence,trans.HelenandGregorSebba,NewYork,Ungar,1970.Rioux,Jean-Pierre,andJean-Franc¸oisSirinelli(eds.),LaGuerred’Algerieetles´intellectuelsfranc¸ais,Brussels,Complexe,1991.Rizzuto,Anthony,Camus.LoveandSexuality,Gainesville,UniversityPressofFlorida,1998.Roman,Joel,‘HistoireetutopiedansNivictimesnibourreaux’,inJeanyvesGuerin(ed.),´Camusetlepremier‘Combat’,LaGarenne-Colombes,EditionseuropeennesErasme,´1990,pp.125–34.Rousset,David,‘Ausecoursdesdeport´esdanslescampssovi´etiques’(´1949),inLignesn.s.2(May2000),143–60.217CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nguidetofurtherreadingRoyle,Peter,TheSartre–CamusControversy:ALiteraryandPhilosophicalCritique,Ottawa,UniversityofOttawaPress,1982.Saadi,Yacef,LaBatailled’Alger,vol.i,Algiers,EntrepriseNationaleduLivre,1984.Said,Edward,Orientalism:WesternConceptionsoftheOrient,London,RoutledgeandKeganPaul,1978.CultureandImperialism,London,Vintage,1994(1993).Sarocchi,J.,LeDernierCamusou‘LePremierHomme’,Paris,Nizet,1995.‘LaMediterran´eeestunsonge,Monsieur’,´Perspectives.Revuedel’Universite´hebra´ıquedeJ¨erusalem´5(1998),109–29.Sartre,Jean-Paul,‘Reponse´aAlbertCamus’,`LesTempsmodernes82(1952),334–53.‘ExplicationdeL’Etranger’,inSituationsi,Paris,Gallimard,1947,pp.92–112.Alsoavailableas‘Camus’“TheOutsider”’,inJean-PaulSartre,LiteraryandPhilosophicalEssays,trans.AnnetteMichelson,NewYork,CriterionBooks,1955,pp.24–41.Situationsv,Paris,Gallimard,1964;translatedasColonialismandNeocolonial-ism,trans.AzzedineHaddour,SteveBrewerandTerryMcWilliams,London,Routledge,2001.Showalter,Jr,English,ExilesandStrangers:AReadingofCamus’s‘ExileandtheKingdom’,Columbus,OhioStateUniversityPress,1984.‘TheStranger’:HumanityandtheAbsurd,Boston,Twayne,1989.Siblot,Paul,andJean-LouisPlanche,‘Le8mai1945:el´ementspouruneanalysedes´positionsdeCamusfaceaunationalismealgerien’,inJeanyvesGu´erin(ed.),´Camusetlapolitique,Paris,L’Harmattan,1986,pp.153–75.Sprintzen,David,Camus:ACriticalExamination,Philadelphia,TempleUniversityPress,1988.Sprintzen,DavidA.,andAdrianvandenHoven(eds.),SartreandCamus:AHistoricConfrontation,Amherst,HumanityBooks,2004.Stephane,N.,‘LaMerheureuse’,´Europe77.846(October1999),132–44.Suther,JudithD.,EssaysonCamus’s‘ExileandtheKingdom’,Jackson,MS,UniversityofMississippiRomanceMonographs,1980.Tarrow,Susan,ExilefromtheKingdom:APoliticalRe-readingofAlbertCamus,Birmingham,UniversityofAlabamaPress,1985.Thody,Philip,AlbertCamus,1913–1960,London,HamishHamilton,1961.vanderPoel,Ieme,‘AlbertCamus,oulacritiquepostcolonialefaceau“reveˆmediterran´een”’,´FrancophonePostcolonialStudies2.1(2004),70–8.Vanney,Philippe,‘Aproposd’unelecture:Nivictimesnibourreauxd’AlbertCamusoulaproblematiquer´evolutionnairedanslesrelationsinternationales’,´Bulletind’etudesfranc¸aises´,UniversityofTokyo,17(1986),36–67.‘AlbertCamusdevantlaguerre’,Bulletind’etudesfranc¸aises´,UniversityofTokyo,19(1988),19–55;and21(1990),1–30.Vulor,EnaC.,ColonialandAnti-ColonialDiscourses:AlbertCamusandAlgeria,Lanham,MD,UniversityPressofAmerica,2001.Walker,David(ed.),AlbertCamus:LesExtremesetl’Equilibre:ActesducolloqueˆdeKeele,25–27mars1993,Amsterdam,Rodopi,1994.‘Knowingtheplaceforthefirsttime?’,inDunwoodieandHughes(eds.),ConstructingMemories,pp.9–20.Walzer,Michael,‘AlbertCamus’sAlgerianWar’,inTheCompanyofCritics,NewYork,BasicBooks,1988,pp.136–52.218CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nguidetofurtherreadingWertsch,J.V.,VoicesofCollectiveRemembering,Cambridge,CambridgeUniversityPress,2002.Weyembergh,Maurice,‘Nivictimesnibourreaux:continuiteourupture?’,in´JeanyvesGuerin(ed.),´Camusetlepremier‘Combat’,LaGarenne-Colombes,EditionseuropeennesErasme,´1990,pp.109–24.AlbertCamusoulamemoiredesorigines´,Brussels,DeBoeck,1998.Williams,JamesS.,Camus:‘LaPeste’,London,Grant&Cutler,2000.Wood,N.,‘ColonialNostalgiaandLePremierHomme’,inVectorsofMemory:LegaciesofTraumainPostwarEurope,Oxford,Berg,1999,pp.143–66.Young,RobertJ.C.,Postcolonialism.AnHistoricalIntroduction,Oxford,Blackwell,2001.‘Sartre:the“African”Philosopher’,inJean-PaulSartre,ColonialismandNeo-colonialism,trans.AzzedineHaddour,SteveBrewerandTerryMcWilliams,London,Routledge,2001,pp.vii–xxiv.219CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nthecambridgecompaniontocamusAlbertCamusisoneoftheiconicfiguresoftwentieth-centuryFrenchliterature,oneofFrance’smostwidelyreadmodernliteraryauthorsandoneoftheyoungestwinnersoftheNobelPrizeforLiterature.AstheauthorofL’Etrangerandthearchitectofthenotionof‘theAbsurd’inthe1940s,heshottoprominenceinFranceandbeyond.Hisworkneverthelessattractedhostilityaswellasacclaimandhewasincreasinglydrawnintobitterpoliticalcontroversies,especiallytheissueofFrance’splaceandroleinthecountryofhisbirth,Algeria.Mostrecently,postcolonialstudieshasidentifiedinhiswritingsasetofpreoccupationsripeforrevisitation.SituatingCamusinhisculturalandhistoricalcontext,thisCompan-ionexploreshisbest-sellingnovels,hisambiguousengagementwithphilosophy,histheatre,hisincreasinglyhigh-profileworkasajournalistandhisreflectiononethicalandpoliticalquestionsthatcontinuetoconcernreaderstoday.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nTHECAMBRIDGECOMPANIONTOCAMUSEDITEDBYEDWARDJ.HUGHESQueenMary,UniversityofLondonCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\ncambridgeuniversitypressCambridge,NewYork,Melbourne,Madrid,CapeTown,Singapore,SaoPaulo˜CambridgeUniversityPressTheEdinburghBuilding,Cambridgecb28ru,UKPublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyCambridgeUniversityPress,NewYorkwww.cambridge.orgInformationonthistitle:www.cambridge.org/9780521549783CCambridgeUniversityPress2007Thispublicationisincopyright.Subjecttostatutoryexceptionandtotheprovisionsofrelevantcollectivelicensingagreements,noreproductionofanypartmaytakeplacewithoutthewrittenpermissionofCambridgeUniversityPress.Firstpublished2007PrintedintheUnitedKingdomattheUniversityPress,CambridgeAcataloguerecordforthispublicationisavailablefromtheBritishLibraryisbn978-0-521-84048-4hardbackisbn978-0-521-54978-3paperbackCambridgeUniversityPresshasnoresponsibilityforthepersistenceoraccuracyofURLsforexternalorthird-partyinternetwebsitesreferredtointhispublication,anddoesnotguaranteethatanycontentonsuchwebsitesis,orwillremain,accurateorappropriate.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nCONTENTSNotesoncontributorspageviiAcknowledgementsxChronologyxiPreliminarynotesandabbreviationsxviiIntroduction1edwardj.hughesparti:biographyandinfluences1Camus:alifelivedincriticaltimes13iemevanderpoel2SituatingCamus:theformativeinfluences26tobygarfitt3AutobiographicalsoundingsinL’Enversetl’Endroit39edwardj.hughespartii:themes,preoccupationsandgenres4RethinkingtheAbsurd:LeMythedeSisyphe53davidcarroll5Camusandthetheatre67christinemargerrison6Camusthejournalist79jeanyvesguerinvCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\ncontents7Camusandsocialjustice93martincrowley8ViolenceandethicsinCamus106colindavis9CamusandSartre:thegreatquarrel118charlesforsdick10Portraitsofwomen,visionsofAlgeria131daniellemarx-scouraspartiii:textsandcontexts11FromNocestoL’Etranger147peterdunwoodie12LayersofmeaninginLaPeste165margarete.gray13WithheldidentityinLaChute178davidr.ellison14LePremierHommeandtheliteratureofloss191debrakellyPostface203edwardj.hughesGuidetofurtherreading210Index220viCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nNOTESONCONTRIBUTORSdavidcarrollisProfessorofFrenchandDirectorofEuropeanStudiesattheUniversityofCalifornia,Irvine.HisbooksincludeTheSubjectinQuestion:TheLanguagesofTheoryandtheStrategiesofFiction(1982);Paraesthetics:Fou-cault,Lyotard,Derrida(1987);andFrenchLiteraryFascism:Nationalism,Anti-Semitism,andtheIdeologyofCulture(1995).HeisalsoeditorofacollectionofessaysentitledTheStatesof‘Theory’(1989,1994).HehasrecentlycompletedabookentitledAlbertCamus,TheAlgerian:Colonialism,Terrorism,Justice(forth-coming).martincrowleyisSeniorLecturerinFrenchattheUniversityofCambridge.Hispublicationsinclude:Duras,Writing,andtheEthical:MakingtheBrokenWhole(2000);RobertAntelme:Humanity,Community,Testimony(2003);andRobertAntelme:L’Humaniteirr´eductible´(2004).Heiscurrentlywritingabookonconceptionsofthehumaninpost-1945Frenchthought.colindavisisProfessorofFrenchatRoyalHolloway,UniversityofLondon.Hisresearchfallsprincipallyintheareaofpost-warFrenchfictionandthought,withaparticularinterestintheconnectionsbetweenethicsandliterature.HisprincipalpublicationsareMichelTournier:PhilosophyandFiction(1988);ElieWiesel’sSecretiveTexts(1994);Levinas:AnIntroduction(1996);EthicalIssuesinTwentieth-CenturyFrenchFiction:KillingtheOther(2000);FrenchFictionintheMitterrandYears:Memory,Narrative,Desire(co-authoredwithElizabethFallaize,2000);andAfterPoststructuralism:Reading,StoriesandTheory(2004).peterdunwoodieisProfessorofFrenchLiteratureandHeadoftheDepartmentofEnglishandComparativeLiterature,Goldsmiths,UniversityofLondon.Hismostrecentbook-publicationsareWritingFrenchAlgeria(1998)andFrancophoneWritinginTransition(2005).HeiscurrentlyworkingonthesubjectofcolonialismandproselytismintheworkofLouisBertrand.davidr.ellisonisProfessorofFrenchandComparativeLiteratureattheUniversityofMiami.HeistheauthorofTheReadingofProust(1984);viiCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nnotesoncontributorsUnderstandingAlbertCamus(1990);OfWordsandtheWorld:ReferentialAnxi-etyinContemporaryFrenchFiction(1993);andEthicsandAestheticsinEuropeanModernistLiterature:FromtheSublimetotheUncanny(2001).charlesforsdickisProfessorofFrenchattheUniversityofLiverpool.HeistheauthorofVictorSegalenandtheAestheticsofDiversity:JourneysbetweenCul-tures(2000)andTravelinTwentieth-CenturyFrenchandFrancophoneCultures:thePersistenceofDiversity(2005),andco-editorofFrancophonePostcolonialStudies:aCriticalIntroduction(2003).Heiscurrentlyco-editingavolumeonPostcolonialThoughtintheFrancophoneWorld(2008),andcompletingatype-scriptentitledRepresentingtheRevolutionary:theAfterlivesofToussaintLouver-ture.HiscriticaleditionsofVictorSegalen’sEquipee´andEssaisurl’exotismeareforthcoming.tobygarfittisFellowandTutorinFrenchatMagdalenCollege,Oxford.HeistheauthorofTheWorkandThoughtofJeanGrenier(1898–1971)(1983),andofnumerousarticlesonGrenier,Mauriac,Green,LaTourduPin,CamusandMakine,amongothers.HiseditedvolumesincludeoneentitledDanielHalevy,´HenriPetitetlesCahiersVerts(2004),andanotherdevotedtothecontemporarywriterSylvieGermain(SylvieGermain:rosedesventsetdel’ailleurs,2003).Hehasrecentlycompletedafull-scalebiographyofJeanGrenier,LaDiscretiond’un´maıtreˆ(forthcoming).margarete.grayisAssociateProfessorintheDepartmentofFrenchandItalianatIndianaUniversity,Bloomington,Indiana.SheistheauthorofPost-modernProust(1992),andofarticlesonProust,GeorgeSand,Beckett,Camus,SimonedeBeauvoirandtheBelgianwriterJean-PhilippeToussaint.Hercur-renttypescript,entitledStolenLimelight:Gender,Display,andDisplacementinTwentieth-CenturyFrenchandFrancophoneNarrative,isunderreviewforpublication.jeanyvesguerinisProfessorofFrenchattheUniversityofParisIII(LaSorbonneNouvelle).Hismainareasofresearcharetwentieth-centuryFrenchthe-atre(Audiberti,Ghelderode,Ionesco,Claudel)andlalitteratureengag´ee´(Camus,Malraux,Sartre).HeistheauthorofLeThe´atreˆd’Audibertietlebaroque(1976);Camus,portraitdel’artisteencitoyen(1993);Audiberti.Centansdesolitude(1999);andArtnouveauouhommenouveau.Moderniteetprogressismedans´lalitteraturefranc¸aisedu´xxesiecle`(2002).Heistheeditorofseveralcollectivevolumes,includingtheDictionnairedespiecesth`e´atralesfranc¸aisesduˆxxesiecle`(2005).edwardj.hughesisProfessorofFrenchStudiesatQueenMary,UniversityofLondon.HeistheauthorofMarcelProust:aStudyintheQualityofAwareness(1983);AlbertCamus:‘LaPeste’/‘LePremierHomme’(1995);andviiiCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nnotesoncontributorsWritingMarginalityinModernFrenchLiterature:fromLotitoGenet(2001).Heisco-editor,withPeterDunwoodie,ofConstructingMemories:Camus,Algeriaand‘LePremierHomme’(1998).debrakellyisProfessorofFrenchandFrancophoneLiteraryandCulturalStud-iesattheUniversityofWestminsterandDirectoroftheGroupforWarandCul-tureStudies.SheisanAssociateFellowoftheInstituteofGermanicandRomanceStudies,UniversityofLondon.ShehaspublishedwidelyinthefieldsofTextandImageStudies(especiallytheearlytwentieth-centuryParisianavant-garde),WarandCultureStudiesfocusingonFranceinthetwentiethcentury,andFrancophonePostcolonialStudies.HermajorpublicationsarePierreAlbert-Birot.APoeticsinMovement,APoeticsofMovement(1997)andAutobiographyandIndependence.SelfhoodandCreativityinPostcolonialNorthAfricanWritinginFrench(2005).christinemargerrisonisaTutorinFrenchStudiesatLancasterUniversity.SheistheauthorofanumberofarticlesonCamusandiscurrentlycompletingabookonhim,‘Cesforcesobscuresdel’ame’ˆ:Women,RaceandOriginsintheWritingsofAlbertCamus(forthcoming).Sheisalsojointeditorofaforthcomingvolumeonpost-independenceAlgeria,L’Algerie:quaranteansapr´es`.daniellemarx-scourasisProfessorofFrenchatOhioStateUniversity,Columbus,Ohio.Sheisco-editorofthereviewResearchinAfricanLiteraturesandeditedthatreview’sspecialnumberon‘DissidentAlgeria’(1999).SheistheauthorofTheCulturalPoliticsof‘TelQuel’:LiteratureandtheLeftintheWakeofEngagement(1996);LaFrancedeZebda:1981–2004(2005);andofnumerousarticlesonFrench,FrancophoneandItalianliterature.iemevanderpoelisProfessorofFrenchLiteratureattheUniversityofAmsterdam.Herbooksinclude:TravelingTheory:FranceandtheUS(1999,withSophieBertho),andCongo-Ocean:unchemindefercolonialcontrovers´e´(2006).Shewasappointed‘ChevalierdanslesArtsetlesLettres’bytheFrenchgovern-mentin2004forherworkinthefieldofFrancophoneliterature,andhaspublishedwidelyonFrancophoneMaghrebinliterature,FrenchModernistwritingandcolo-nialism.Sheiscurrentlydirectingaresearchproject,fundedbytheNetherlandsOrganisationforScientificResearch(NWO),onthenewMoroccanliteraturesinFrench,SpanishandDutch.ixCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nACKNOWLEDGEMENTSMyfirstthanksgotothecontributorstothisvolume.Theyhaveshownacommitmenttotheprojectthathasbeenimmenselyencouragingthrough-out,ashastheirengagementwithCamus’sworkandtheissuesitraises.IwanttothankinparticularCharlesForsdickforhisexcellentadviceonanumberofissues.IalsothankMikeRoutledgeforhistranslationofchapter6andtheFrenchDepartmentofRoyalHolloway,UniversityofLondonforitsverygeneroushelp.WarmthanksgotothestaffofCambridgeUniversityPress,inparticulartoLindaBree,RacheldeWachter,MaartjeScheltens,JoannaBreezeandAudreyCotterell,whocombinedtoguidemethroughthevariousplanninganddeliverystagesofthebook.ThanksarealsoduetoEamonnHughesforhishelpwiththeIndex.Theacknowledgementofindebtednesswouldnotbecompletewithoutasincereexpressionofgrati-tudetotheanonymousreadersatCambridgeUniversityPress.Insuggest-ingmanyexcellentmodificationstomyinitialvolumeproposal,theyhavegreatlyinfluencedandimprovedtheshapeofthisbook.Needlesstosay,anylimitationsinitsoverallconceptionremainmyownresponsibility.xCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nCHRONOLOGY7NovemberBirthofAlbertCamus.Hisworking-classparents,Catherine1913Hel´eneSint`esandLucienAugusteCamus,arelivinginthe`villageofMondovinearConstantine,inAlgeria.AFrenchcolonybetween1831and1962,AlgeriahadbeendeclaredFrenchnationalterritorybytheFrenchgovernmentinthemidnineteenthcenturyandwasadministeredasthreedepartmentsoftheFrenchnation.August1914Camus’sfamilymovetoAlgiers,livingintheworking-classdistrictofBelcourt.11OctoberDeathofCamus’sfatherasaresultofwoundsreceivedatthe1914BattleoftheMarne.HeisburiedinaFrenchwarcemeteryinSaint-BrieucinBrittany.May1920CamusandhisbrotherLucienacquiretheofficialstatusof‘pupillesdelanation’orwarorphans.OctoberCamusbeginshissecondaryeducationattheGrandLyceein´1924Algiersandthusentersaculturallyverydifferentworldfromthatofhis‘petitcolon’(working-classcolonial)background.1930–1Frenchcelebrationstomarkthecentenaryofthecolonialoccu-pationofAlgeria.DecemberCamus,diagnosedashavingtuberculosis,isforcedtointerrupt1930hisstudiesattheGrandLycee.Hislifewillbeblightedby´intermittentill-health.1931–4KeyperiodinCamus’sintellectualdevelopment.Histeacherandmentor,thewriterJeanGrenier,opensuptheworldofphilosophicalideasforhim.xiCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nchronology16JuneCamusmarriesSimoneHie.Themarriagewillendtwoyears´1934later.1935CamusjoinstheAlgerianCommunistParty.1936OutbreakoftheSpanishCivilWar.CamuswillproveanoutspokensupporteroftheSpanishRepublicancauseovertheyears.PublicationofRevoltedanslesAsturies´.CamusinvolvedinamateurtheatreinAlgeriawiththeThe´atreduTra-ˆvail.HewillgoontofoundtheThe´atredel’Equipeinˆ1937.SummerCamustravelstocentralEuropeandItaly.19361937CamusdeliverstheopeningaddressatthelaunchofthenewMaisondelaCultureinAlgiers(8February).Hisfirstbook,L’Enversetl’Endroit,dedicatedtoJeanGrenier,ispublishedinAlgiersbyEditionsCharlot.CamusisexpelledfromtheAlgerianCommunistPartyforopposingtheParty’sendingofitscampaignforindigenouscivilrights.InNovember,hebeginsworkattheInstituteofMeteorologyinAlgiersandwillworkthereuntilSeptember1938.SeptemberThewriterPascalPia,editor-in-chiefofanewnewspaper,1938Algerrepublicain´,hiresCamusasaneditorialsecretary.Thepaperrunsfrom6October1938to28October1939.20OctoberCamus’sreviewofSartre’sLaNausee´(Nausea)appearsin1938Algerrepublicain´.23MayPublicationofcollectionoflyricalessays,Noces.19395–15JuneCamuspublishesaseriesofground-breakingnewspaper1939articles,‘MiseredelaKabylie’.Althoughhisworkisnotanti-`colonialist,itlaysbarethecatastrophiceconomicimpactofcolonialismontheKabyliaregionofAlgeria.HiscritiquecomesatatimewhenmetropolitanFranceshowsnointerestinthestateofaffairsinAlgeria.SeptemberPascalPiaandCamusfoundasecondnewspaper,LeSoir1939republicain´.10JanuaryFollowingconflictwiththecensors,LeSoirrepublicain´is1940suspendedbytheFrenchauthorities.xiiCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nchronologyMarch1940CamusarrivesinParistoworkforParis-Soirasa‘secdac’,oreditorialsecretary.Althoughhedoesnotpublishinthispaper,hefindsouthowabigpopularnewspaperworks.HewillspendthewaryearspartlyinFrance,partlyinAlgeria.DecemberCamusremarries.HissecondwifeisFrancineFaure.19401940–2Camusworkingontextsthatwillestablishhisreputationasoneofthemostimportantwritersofhisgeneration:thenovelL’Etranger(publishedMay1942),theessayLeMythedeSisyphe(December1942).TheplayCaligula,writtensub-stantiallyinthelate1930s,ispublishedin1944.1942Camussuffersarelapseoftuberculosis.1943Sartre’sverypositivereviewofL’EtrangerappearsintheResistanceperiodicalLesCahiersduSud.CamusisactivelyengagedwiththeCombatgroupoftheResistancemovement.Hebecomeseditor-in-chiefoftheclandestinenewspaperCom-bat.PublicationofthefirstoftheLettresaunamialle-`mand.CamusbeginsworkingfortheGallimardpublishinghouse.1944TheplayLeMalentendureceivesanindifferentreception.1944toWritingforCombat,Camusplaysaninfluentialrolein1947publicdebateinFrance.HeisnowaprominentfigureinParisianintellectualcircles.Hewritesofthejournalistasahistorianoftheday-to-day(Combat,1September1944).May1945ThousandsofindigenousAlgeriansarekilledbytheFrencharmyinSetifinretaliationforthekillingofEuropeans.Coin-´cidentallyatripCamusmadeasareportertoAlgeriaendedimmediatelypriortothemassacres.8AugustCamuswritesanoutspokencondemnationofthebombing1945ofHiroshimainCombat.HeisoneofthefewjournalistsinFrancetodoso.SeptemberFirstperformanceofCaligula.Theplayisasuccess.1945March–JuneCamustravelstotheUnitedStatesandCanada.1946xiiiCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nchronologyNovemberCamuspublisheseightarticles,reflectingonrevolt,revolu-1946tionandviolence,undertheheadingNivictimesnibour-reaux.Camus’spositionwillcontrastmarkedlywiththeviewsexpressedbythephilosopherMauriceMerleau-PontyinHumanismeetterreur(HumanismandTerror),publishedin1947.10JuneLaPeste,writtenmainlyduringthelastyearsofthewar,is1947published.22,000copiesaresoldinjusttwoweeks.OctoberFirstperformanceofL’Etatdesiege`.Theplayclosesafteronly1948seventeenperformances.SummerCamustravelstoSouthAmerica.1949DecemberFirstperformanceofLesJustes.Theplayisasuccess.19491950AcarefullychosenselectionofCamus’seditorialsappearinavolumeentitledActuellesi.18OctoberPublicationofL’Hommerevolt´e´.19511952FrancisJeanson’shostilereviewofL’Hommerevolt´e´appearsinLesTempsmodernes.TheensuingacrimoniousexchangesinvolvingSartreandCamusacquirethestatusofanationaldispute.InthewakeoftheLesTempsmodernesquarrelandgivenCamus’santi-communism,hebecomesanincreasinglyisolatedfigureinFrenchintellectualmilieuxofthe1950s.DecemberCamusvisitsLaghouatintheAlgerianhinterland.The1952landscapewillprovidethesettingfor‘LaFemmeadultere’.`1953PublicationofActuellesii.1954PublicationofL’Ete´.InOctober,CamusmakesabrieftriptoTheHagueandAmsterdam.1NovemberOutbreakofwhatwastobecometheAlgerianWarof1954Independence.1955CamusbecomesacolumnistatL’Express.JanuaryCamusvisitsAlgeriaandcallsforaciviltrucethere.Themove1956failsandhispositionbecomesfurthermarginalised.xivCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nchronologyFebruaryHeleavesL’Express.1956May1956PublicationofLaChute.SeptemberCamus’sadaptationofFaulkner’sRequiemforaNun1956(Requiempourunenonne)isperformed.NovemberSovietinvasionofHungarytosuppressHungarianuprising.1956CamuswillcitethisexampleoftotalitarianrepressioninhisdisputewithMarxist-leaningintellectualsinFrance.15MarchSpeakingattheSalleWagraminParis,Camusexpresses1957solidaritywithHungarianintellectualsandworkers.Hedis-missesStalinistcultureasrepressiveandpropagandising.1957PublicationofL’ExiletleRoyaume.DecemberCamusreceivestheNobelPrizeforliteratureinStockholm.He1957dedicateshisacceptanceaddresstohisprimary-schoolteacher,LouisGermain.Atapressconference,whenpressedaboutFrenchArmyviolenceintheAlgerianWar,hemakesthecontroversialstatementthathewilldefendhismotherbeforejustice.1958CamusdrawstogetherhisjournalisticwritingsonAlgeriainActuellesiii:ChroniquesAlgeriennes(1939–1958)´.Hepub-lishes‘Algerie´1958’,justifyinghispositiononthesituationthere.HeopposescolonialoppressionbutatthesametimeunderscorestherightsofAlgeria’s1.1millionEuropeans.1959Camusisworkingonwhatwillremainhisunfinishednovel,LePremierHomme.4JanuaryCamusandhispublisherfriendMichelGallimarddieinacar1960crashsouthofParisinVilleblevin.July1962Algeriabecomesindependent.1970ConorCruiseO’Brien’sreadingofCamusasacolonialauthortakesCamusstudiesinanewdirection.Subsequent,postcolo-nialreadingsofhisworkwillextendthiscritique.1990sCamus’sreputationisinsomemeasurerestoredinthewakeofthedeclineofcommunism.InFrance,Bernard-HenriLevy´endorseshiswork.AbloodycivilwariswagedinAlgeriabetweenthemilitarygovernmentandIslamicfundamentalistsxvCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nchronology(theF.I.S.).ThegruesomeviolenceindirectlypromptsafavourablereappraisalofCamus’sworkbyanumberofAlgerianFrancophonewomenwriters,amongthemAssiaDje-bar.DjebarlinksCamustothevictimsofassassinationscar-riedoutbyAlgerianfundamentalists(LeBlancdel’Algerie´(TheWhiteofAlgeria),1995).1994PublicationofCamus’sunfinishednovel,LePremierHomme.Theworkisaninternationalpublishingsuccess.xviCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\nPRELIMINARYNOTESANDABBREVIATIONSTwoFrenchtermsregularlyusedinthepagesofthisbookderivefromthecontextofcolonialFrenchculturethatCamusknewwell.Thefirstofthese,petitcolon,literally‘smallcolonial’,meansamemberofthecolonialEuro-peanworkingclass.Thesecondterm,thepieds-noirs(literally‘blackfeet’),historicallydesignatedthestokersonacoal-poweredboatwhowouldhaveworkedbarefoot–manyofthestokersonFrenchboatsintheMediterraneanintheearlytwentiethcenturywereinfactindigenousAlgerians.Butfromthemid1950son,pieds-noirscametomeantheFrenchAlgeriansandpartic-ularlythosewhosteadfastlyconsideredAlgeriaastheirhomeland(forsomeobservers,thetermindeedcarriedconnotationsofcomplicitywithcolonialmilitarism).ItwasnotadesignationthatCamushimselfchosetouse.WithAlgerianindependencein1962,lespieds-noirscametosignifytheFrenchAlgeriansrepatriatedtoFrance.TitlesandtranslationsQuotationsfromCamus’spublishedworksaregivenbothintheFrenchoriginalandinEnglishtranslation,withpagereferencestobothsourcesindicated.Wherepublishedtranslationshavebeenmodified,thisissignalledinthetext.Occasionally,contributorshaveprovidedtheirowntranslations;wheretranslationsarenotattributed,thisisalwaysthecase.ReaderswillfindfullbibliographicaldetailsofCamus’spublishedworkinthe‘GuidetoFurtherReading’attheendofthisvolume,buttheymayfindithelpfultohaveasummarylisthereofthosemainworksbyCamusthatarecitedinthevolume,togetherwiththeEnglishtranslations.Thelistissetoutinalphabeticalorder,theexceptionbeingthatthetitlesofindividualtextswithinalargertext(forexampleindividualsectiontitleswithinacollectionsuchasL’ExiletleRoyaume)arelocatedtogetherasasub-categoryatthatpointinthelist).TheoriginaldateofpublicationoftheFrenchtextsisindicatedinparenthesis.xviiCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\npreliminarynotesandabbreviationsActuellesi(1950)CurrentChroniclesiActuellesii(1953)CurrentChroniclesiiActuellesiii(ChroniquesCurrentChroniclesiii(Algeria)algeriennes)´(1958)(ThethreevolumesofActuellesarepartlytranslatedinResistance,Rebellion,andDeath)‘Algerie´1958’(1958)‘Algeria1958’‘Appelpourunetrevecivile’(ˆ1956)‘AppealforaCivilTruce’Caligula(1944)CaligulaCamusa‘Combat’`(2002)Camusat‘Combat’Carnetsi:mai1935-fevrier1942´Notebooksi(1962)Carnetsii:janvier1942-mars1951Notebooksii(1964)LaChute(1956)TheFall‘CriseenAlgerie’(´1945)‘CrisisinAlgeria’L’Enversetl’Endroit(1937)BetwixtandBetween‘L’Ironie’‘Irony’‘Entreouietnon’‘BetweenYesandNo’‘LaMortdansl’ame’ˆ‘DeathintheSoul’‘Amourdevivre’‘LoveofLife’‘L’Enversetl’Endroit’‘BetwixtandBetween’L’Etatdesiege`(1948)StateofSiegeL’Ete´(1954)Summerincluding‘LeMinotaureoulahalted’Oran’‘TheMinotaurortheHaltatOran’‘L’Exild’Hel´ene’`‘Helen’sExile’‘RetouraTipasa’`‘ReturntoTipasa’L’Etranger(1942)TheOutsider(alsotranslatedasTheStranger)L’ExiletleRoyaume(1957)ExileandtheKingdom‘LaFemmeadultere’`‘TheAdulterousWoman’‘LeRenegat’´‘TheRenegade’‘LesMuets’‘TheSilentMen’‘L’Hote’ˆ‘TheGuest’‘Jonasoul’Artisteautravail’‘TheArtistatWork’‘LaPierrequipousse’‘TheGrowingStone’Fragmentsd’uncombat,1938–1940FragmentsofaCombat,(1978)1938–1940xviiiCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\npreliminarynotesandabbreviationsL’Hommerevolt´e´(1951)TheRebelLesJustes(1949)TheJust(alsotranslatedasTheJustAssassins)Lettresaunamiallemand`(1945)LetterstoaGermanFriendLeMalentendu(1944)CrossPurpose‘MiseredelaKabylie’(`1939)‘PovertyinKabylia’LaMortheureuse(1971)AHappyDeathLeMythedeSisyphe(1942)TheMythofSisyphusNivictimesnibourreaux(1946)NeitherVictimsnorExecutionersNoces(1939)Nuptials‘NocesaTipasa’`‘NuptialsatTipasa’‘LeVentaDj`emila’´‘TheWindatDjemila’‘L’Ete´aAlger’`‘SummerinAlgiers’‘LeDesert’´‘TheDesert’LaPeste(1947)ThePlagueLePremierCamus(1973)YouthfulWritingsLePremierHomme(1994)TheFirstMan‘Reflexionssurlaguillotine’(´1957)‘Reflectionsontheguillotine’FrencheditionsusedFortheoriginalFrenchtextsbyCamus,thetwo-volumePleiadeeditionofhis´workhasbeenused:vol.i:The´atre,ˆRecits,Nouvelles´,Paris,Bibliothequede`laPleiade,´1962;vol.ii:Essais,Paris,BibliothequedelaPl`eiade,´1965.Thiseditioncontainsthebulkofhisfictionalworksandpoliticalandphilosoph-icalessays(thefirsttwovolumesofanew,substantiallyextendedPleiade´editionofCamus’scompleteworksappearedin2006).ForworksnotcontainedinthePleiadeedition,the´CompanionmakesuseoftheavailableGallimardeditions.AbbreviationsThefollowingabbreviationsofFrenchandEnglisheditionsofCamus’sworksareusedthroughoutthevolume,withaccompanyingpagereferences.Fullbibliographicaldetailsoftheseeditionscanbefoundinthe‘GuidetoFurtherReading’attheendofthevolume.BBBetwixtandBetween(containedinAlbertCamus:LyricalandCritical)xixCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007\npreliminarynotesandabbreviationsBHRBetweenHellandReasonCACCahiersAlbertCamusCCCamusa‘Combat’`Ci,Cii,CiiiCarnets,vols.i,iiandiiiCOPCaligulaandOtherPlays:Caligula,CrossPurpose,TheJust,ThePossessedCorrCorrespondanceAlbertCamus/JeanGrenierEKExileandtheKingdomEssEssaisFTheFallFCFragmentsd’uncombat,1938–1940FMTheFirstManHDAHappyDeathMHLaMortheureuseNi,NiiNotebooks,vols.iandiiMSTheMythofSisyphusOTheOutsiderPThePlaguePHLePremierHommeRTheRebelRRDResistance,Rebellion,andDeathSENSelectedEssaysandNotebooksTRNThe´atre,Rˆecits,Nouvelles´YWYouthfulWritingsxxCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2007