University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The Critical Reception Of The Dramas Of Albert Camus In The United States, 1945-1964

(USC Thesis Other)

The Critical Reception Of The Dramas Of Albert Camus In The United States, 1945-1964

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content This dissertation has been
microfilmed exactly as received
69-646
SWAIN, Jeraldine Naomi Luedke, 1922-
THE CRITICAL RECEPTION OF THE DRAMAS OF
ALBERT CAMUS IN THE UNITED STATES, 1945-1964.
University of Southern California, Ph.D., 1968
Language and Literature, modern
University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan
©Copyright by
JERALDINE NAOMI LUEDKE SWAIN
THE CRITICAL RECEPTION OF THE DRAMAS
ALBERT CAMUS IN THE UNITED STATES,
1945-1964
by
Jeraldine Naomi Luedke Swain
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Comparative Literature)
June 1968
UNIVERSITY O F S O U T H E R N C A LIFO R N IA
T H E GRADUATE SC H O O L
U N IV ER SITY PA RK
LOS A N G ELES. C A L IFO R N IA 9 0 0 0 7
This dissertation, written by
_Je ra l_dine_Naomi_Lued ___
under the direction of h&XL... Dissertation Com
mittee, and approved by all its members, has
been presented to and accepted by the Graduate
School, in partial fulfillment of requirements
for the degree of
D O C T O R OF P H IL O S O P H Y
Date JH5e^l968
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
tairtnt
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I take this opportunity to express my sincere
gratitude to Dr. Paul E. Hadley, my chairman, for the for
bearance he has shown me and the advice and guidance he has
given me during the course of my doctoral work. I am most
appreciative of the consideration, cooperation and support
which Dr. Rene Belle has given me during our association.
I am particularly indebted to Dr. Norma L. Goodrich for
her counsel, encouragement and stimulation during the
period in which this work was written. Finally, I am
deeply grateful to my family for their unfailing support.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION............. . ......................... 1
Chapter
I. CALIGULA (1947)............................. 12
Theme, Role, and World View ........... 20
Characters and Characterization ......... 79
Play Form.....................................123
Language, Method, and Style .............. 146
Summary....................................... 171
II. THE MISUNDERSTANDING (1947) 184
Theme, Role, and World V iew................ 194
Characters and Characterization ......... 223
Play Form........................... 246
Language, Method, and Style .............. 225
Summary....................................... 270
III. STATE OF SIEGE (1958) . . ................ 275
Theme, Role, and World V i e w ................ 285
Characters and Characterization ......... 295
Play Form.....................................306
Language, Method, and Style .............. 310
Summary....................................... 316
IV. THE JUST ASSASSINS (1958).................. 321
Theme, Role, and World View ....... 330
Characters and Characterization ......... 342
Play Form.....................................352
Language, Method, and Style................ 358
Summary.......................................362
V. THE POSSESSED (1960)......................... 367
Theme, Role, and World View ....... 377
Characters and Characterization ......... 386
i ii
Chapter
Page
Play Form....................................401
Language, Method, and Style .............. 412
Summary......................................414
VI. CONCLUSION....................................419
APPENDICES............................................ 424
A. Chronological Biography .................... 425
B. Identification of Critics .................. 429
C. Editions..................................... 439
BIBLIOGRAPHY
441
INTRODUCTION
Albert Camus (1913-1960) first attracted the wide- j
spread attention of the critics and the public in 1945-
|
1946 when his novel. The Stranger and his collection of
essays, The Myth of Sisyphus became known outside of
i
France. Almost immediately he was hailed as a distin- !
guished writer of the postwar period. Shortly after the
second World War, it was learned that Camus was not only
a novelist and essayist but also a dramatist who demon-
i
strated an intense interest in the metaphysical, political,!
and social problems of the twentieth century.^-
i
Camus, in fact, had been profoundly interested in all j
aspects of the theatre from the outset of his career.
Shortly after receiving his degree in philosophy from the
University of Algiers, he initiated the establishment of
a theatre— "Le Theatre du Travail" which later became the
"Le Theatre de l'Equipe." Further, he not only collabo-
! rated in the writing of an original drama. Revolte dans
!
| ■'"See Appendix A for a chronological biography of
|Camus.
2
les Asturies, but he also adapted Greek, English, French,
Italian, Russian and Spanish dramas, directed certain
productions, and acted in others. From the beginning
Camus's explicit intention as a dramatist was to offer a
serious interpretation of life at the same time that he
was seeking to create a tragedy in terms of our time and
to develop an elevated language which was natural and yet ]
i
i
worthy of tragedy. Along with Sartre, he followed the i
j
pattern of Andre Malraux who asserted that the artist had
a responsibility to serve as a witness to the suffering
of mankind and to be a defender of the rights of human j
beings.
j
It is the purpose of this study to examine and evalu-
i
ate the scholarly and popular criticism of the dramas of '
: Camus as a means of indicating the American attitude
: toward him as a dramatist and a thinker. Not only from
I
the outset did Camus's dramas encounter considerable
; resistance from the critics in the United States^ but they
also continued to be assailed through 1964. Consequently,
j
; Camus's plays, although they form an integral part of his
i writing, have failed to gain the acceptance which his fic-
i ;
i
; tion now appears to have achieved. It will be seen in the ;
course of this study that the American critics' dissatis- j
3
faction with Camus1s dramaturgy and their dislike for
j
what they considered to be the "existentialist" philosophy j
I
played a large role in the poor reception of Camus's ]
dramas in the United States. While the critics frequently
attacked the "absurdist" or "existentialist" views
expressed in Caligula and The Misunderstanding, they also
repeatedly deprecated— in all the dramas the dramaturgy—
particularly, the characterization, the language, and the j
intellectual approach.^
This work will deal in consecutive order with the
plays, Caligula, The Misunderstanding (Le Malentendu),
/ s
State of Siege (L'Etat de Siege), and The Just Assassins i
(Les Justes), in addition to the adaptation of Feodor
Dostoevsky's The Possessed (Les Possedes).^ Placed
2
See Appendix B for identification of the critics
whose evaluations have been included in this work.
3
See Appendix C for the dates of the editions of
Camus's dramas in France, England, and the United States,
j Because the following works have not been translated into
; English and, therefore, the amount of critical material
| which is available is scanty, this study will not include
I the earliest drama, Revolte dans les Asturies (1937),
| or these adaptations: Calderdn de la Barca's La Devotion
; a la Croix and Pierre de Larivey's Les Esprits (1935);
Dino Buzzati's Un Cas interessant (1955); Lope de Vega's
Le Chevalier d'Olmedo (1957); and William Faulkner's
! Requiem pour une nonne (1957).
4
under the title of each work, the discussion of the criti
cism is centered upon theme, role, and world view; charac
ters and characterization; play form; language, method,
and style.^ Discussions which deal with historical, and
j
literary sources, and the history of ideas (philosophical,;
political and religious ideas related to the dramas) are
included. Based on an analysis of the semi-textual and
the purely literary criticism, a summary which will indi- !
j
cate the main critical trends for each play is placed at
the end of each chapter. Lastly a conclusion will be
j
found at the end of the entire study.
This investigation endeavors to present all the
serious American periodical criticism, available in the
usual course of research, from its beginning in 1945
All purely theatrical criticism concerned with
j Caligula, the sole Broadway production of any of Camus's
i plays in this country, has been omitted because Thomas J.
j McCarthy has already treated this material in 1965 in his
■ dissertation, "American Premiere Criticism of Selected
; Contemporary French Plays Produced on the New York Stage,
1946-1960." A very small amount of premiere criticism con-
i cerned with a French production and "semi-textual" criti-
; cism dealing with the New York Production has been in-
i eluded. By "semi-textual" criticism, it is meant that
j the critics were reflecting upon a production that they
I had seen in Paris or the production in New York City.
5
through 1964. The word criticism is used in the general
sense to include comments and references which may be con
strued as appreciative, evaluative, explicatory, or inter
pretative, regardless of their original contexts. The
reviews of foreign critics which have been translated into j
English have been included because the views expressed may ;
have influenced American critics or they may have conveyed ;
opinions similar to those already held by native critics. j
j
Reviews from the more important American periodicals, |
i
magazines, and trade journals are included as well as
I
critical articles from scholarly journals and bulletins. j
Additional sources of criticism which have been included
are the important reviews from the weekly literary maga
zines of The New York Times, The New York Herald Tribune,
| The Chicago Tribune, and The Christian Science Monitor.
!With the exception of The Christian Science Monitor which
:does not issue a separate literary supplement, these maga-
; zines, containing book and drama reviews, offer a fair
| sample of a journalistic criticism that is fairly care
fully written and that exerts an immediate and lasting
i
j
; impression on the reader. The Christian Science Monitor
i :
I has been included because it enjoys the reputation of
I i
! , 1
ipublishing literary criticism which is comparable to that j
6
of the literary supplements mentioned above. Commentary j
'in books has been omitted because such works cannot be
adequately treated within the limited scope of this study. j
The critics, who have contributed the materials that
are under consideration, are predominantly scholars from
the fields of literature, philosophy, political science
and theology. In the course of the years from 1945 through
1964, American critics have compared Camus to a large
number of both earlier and contemporary writers. Some
critics have discussed the affinities which Camus shared
with the following dramatists: Brecht, Lillo, Monther
lant, Musset, Pirandello, Sartre, Strindberg, Werner, and
i
others. Other reviewers have compared Camus with the
; following novelists: Dostoevsky, Faulkner, Kafka, Mal-
j raux, Melville, Montherlant, and Sartre, among others.
Still other commentators briefly drew attention to the
similarities between Camus's philosophy and that of
Bonho'ffer, Hegel, Kierkegaard, and Pascal.
This present work is arranged chronologically because
! this presentation of the criticism by decades promised to
show more clearly and more readily than in any other organ
ization, not only the growth of interest of the critics
7
but also any changes in their attitudes. This work cuts
one section vertically through time and another section
vertically through the intellectual scale, from the
erudite and trenchant critical insight of Germaine Bree
and Justin O'Brien to the insensitive and politically
biased comments of Felix Gutierrez.
Since it is the purpose of this study to reveal the
reactions of the American critics to Camus's dramas, it
is appropriate to indicate briefly the opinion which a
selected distinguished American critic and producer has
expressed about the attitudes of the American public and
the standards of fellow critics. These views and values
are important because they are reflected in the expecta
tions of the general public and in the reactions of the
i
| critics to. the text and to the performance.
In 1957 John Gassner, in a discussion of American
critical attitudes toward modern tragedy, made these
observations. Many critics insist that it is impossible
to write a tragedy if the doctrine of original sin is not
: accepted, if the characters do not feel a responsibility
| ^"The Possibilities and Perils of Modern Tragedy,"
j Tulane Drama Review, I (June 1957), 5.
8
to God, or if the protagonist, representing man, is de
prived of his belief that his suffering has a spiritual
significance. Other critics deplore the modern tragedy
as "depressing rather than exalting and as topical rather j
than universal." They may also consider it as "too pro
saic, too intellectual or too unintellectual, too active
or too passive, too optimistic or too pessimistic" without
realizing that any one of these qualities can be identi-
j
fied, isolated, and employed to invalidate the tragic
status of a large number of plays, such as Hedda Gabbler,
t
The Lower Depth, Mourning Becomes Electra, and many others.j
Still other critics assert that it is impossible to create j
tragedy with essentially antiheroic figures while they
j
ignore or forget figures such as Richard II and Euripides1 |
Electra. In conclusion, Gassner declared that the more
j persistent traditionalist view held by many critics main
tains that
realistic dramaturgy and prose are incompatible with
tragedy, as are liberalism, meliorism, sympathy with
ordinary persons, skepticism, and modern individual
ism. According to this view, the would-be tragedian,
unless he renounces the ambience of modern thought
and popular art, will end up only with melodrama,
propaganda, pathology, pathos, sentimentality, or just
plain nastiness and pathos, (p. 6)
Because Albert Camus is, of course, a French play
9
wright and most frequently designated as an existentialist
playwright, it seems only just to include a few salient
ideas which an eminent French critic and playwright has
voiced about the American critics' and public's demands
upon a play in contrast with the intentions of the French
i
existentialist playwrights. The views of this critic are |
significant because the conflict between the French inten
tions and the American expectations is largely mirrored in j
the evaluations which the Americans made. j
In 1946, Jean-Paul Sartre remarked that
the theatre . . . as it is perhaps still thought of in
the United States today, is a theatre of characters. J
The analysis of characters and their confrontation was
the theatre's chief concern. The so-called 'situations'
existed only for the purpose of throwing the characters j
into clearer relief, (p. 400)6
The playwrights of France, however, declared Sartre,
|are not nearly so interested in passions, manias, or even
iheredity, environment and plots as the Americans. Sartre
explained:
What is universal, to their way of thinking, is not
i
6jean-Paul Sartre, "Forgers of Myths,” trans. Rosa
mond Gilder, Theatre Arts, XXX (June 1946), 324-335; re-
i printed in Barrett H. Clark's European Theories of the
j Drama, ed. Henry Popkin (New York, 1965), pp. 399-403.
10
[human] nature but the situations which man finds him
self; that is, not the sum total of his psychological
traits but the limits which enclose him on all sides.
(p. 400)
Rather than a play of characters, the French dramatists
are developing a "theatre of situations” because they want
"to explore all the situations that are most common to
human experience, those which occur at least once in the
majority of lives" (p. 401).
Not greatly concerned with "psychology," these play
wrights are, consequently, uninterested in the "word"
which will unravel a passion or in the "act" which will
seem "most life-like and inevitable to the audience."
Instead of a study of the conflict of characters, the
French dramatists want to return to the Greek concept of
tragedy which conceived of passion as "fundamentally
always the assertion of a right." In these dramas there
is a conflict of rights bearing on some general situation,
and the characters, therefore, passionately defend their
rights in situations where the system of values, of ethics,
!and of concepts of one man are opposed to those of another
| (p. 401).
| This new theatre has drawn away from so-called
|"realism" and its plays are "austere." Since the play-
|
11
wrights are primarily interested in situation, the new
theatre shows it at the very point where it is about
to reach its climax. We do not take time out for
learned research, we feel no need of registering the
imperceptible evolution of a character or a plot.
(p. 402)
Sartre concluded that the French dramatists would
consider it a betrayal of the mission of the theatre, "if
it portrayed individual personalities" because these
dramas are intended to address the general public, to
speak in terms of their general preoccupations and anxie
ties in the form of myths which anyone can understand and j
j
i
feel deeply. Not only do the dramatists seek to create a !
i
"moral" theatre but they also want "to attempt to show the |
public the great myths of death, exile, love." Since the
aim of this theatre is to create myths, the playwrights j
!not only strive to maintain a distance between the audience
and the play but they also seek to recapture a little of
the pomp of the ancient tragedies by using a dialogue that
is "utterly simple" and yet dignified (p. 403).
CHAPTER I
I
i
CALIGULA I
(1947) |
Camus began to plan and to write this work, his first
i
major drama of the "absurd cycle" in 1936, although it
reached the Parisian stage fifteen months after The Mis- j
unders tanding. By 1938 Camus had finished the first ver
sion and at this time he intended it to be solely "a
drama of the mind, outside of all contingencies." By
19 40, however, world events were forcing new meanings upon j
i
I
the play, meanings that it was not intended to have. From
i
1939 through 1940, therefore, Camus reworked the 1938 ver- ;
sion^ and it was this version which was first staged in
! 1945 at the Theatre Hebertot in Paris. As Caligula grew
, in popularity, it had three important, later productions.
| Before each of these performances— in 1950 at the Theatre
Hebertot, in 195 7 at Angers, and in 1958 at the Noveau
Theatre de Paris, Camus slightly modified his text.
| Despite the alterations, nonetheless, the play remained
by and large the drama that Camus had originally written.
I There are three main versions of Caligula in existence
! 12
13
today: the 1938 manuscript version that has never been
published; the current 1945 version which Camus himself
called the "definitive" version? and the 1958 version
modified by Justin O'Brien for Sidney Lumet's Broadway
production.
!
When we consider the profile of the critical reception!
of Caligula in the United States, we find that the Ameri- I
can critics' interest in Caligula began in 1945 with a j
brief reference and continued to rise. Camus's arrival in j
New York City in 1946, which had been preceded by that of j
Sartre and Vercors who had praised Camus's works, prompted |
j
at least five critics to publish introductory articles or ‘;
reviews. Although Gilbert Stuart's English translation of
I
Caligula in the next year (1947) sustained the critic's j
interest to the extent that they published nine reviews,
; the critics contributed even more— some twenty articles,
;reviews, and commentaries— from 1958 through 1959. The
reasons for this unprecedented activity were four:
|
(1) Camus received the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1957;
I (2) Alfred A. Knopf published the first American edition
i
| of Camus's four major original dramas, Caligula and Three
Other Plays in 1958; (3) there were persistent rumors
j about a Broadway production of this play; and (4) influen-
14
tial American critics, such as Justin O'Brien, Germaine
Bree, and Genet continued to laud Camus's works. The
scholars and journalists published the maximum number of
sixteen articles and reviews (excluding production criti
cism) in the 60's after Camus was killed in an automobile
accident January 4, 1960 and after the long-anticipated
Broadway production of Caligula finally opened more than
a month after the author1s death.
In turning to the corpus of American criticism con
cerned with Caligula, it becomes evident that from 1945
through 1964 the critics demonstrated a keen interest in
Camus's philosophical position. It was not until the 50'
and the 60's that the scholars went to greater lengths to
search for parallels between Camus and other authors and
|to examine in more detail the aesthetics of his work. At
the end of nineteen years of criticism, a majority of the
critics had come to the following conclusions: (1) the
theme concerned a despot's solitary, logical and nihilis
tic rebellion against the absurd— death or the world as
! it is; (2) Caligula was not Camus in disguise; (3) Camus
i
I was not a depressed and nihilistic absurdist or existen-
I
| tialist; (4) Camus not only shared similar ethical and
j ontological views with some earlier or contemporary and
15
French or foreign authors but he also exhibited similari
ties with these various authors in his characterization
and play structure; (5) Caligula represented the absurd
hero; (6) Caligula was an unsuccessful experiment in com-
i
bining a play of ideas with a tragedy; (7) Camus's lan- i
l
guage was brilliant and totally unsuited to his characters
j
and to the modern theatre; and (8) the author's use of
irony, satire, and symbolism added new meaning to his
drama but these techniques did not prevent the play from
being a failure.
The specific contributions of the critics for this j
play and for the subsequent four will be grouped by
decades under the following headings: (1) theme, role and j
world view; (2) characters and characterization; (3) play
form; and (4) language, method and style.
Before considering the criticism pertaining to
!
Caligula, it would seem helpful at this time to refresh
our memory of it. A resume of the drama, therefore, is
: presented below as an introduction.
i
j
ACT I: The curtain rises with the patricians
worrying about Caligula's absence. No one has seen
| ‘ ■
j the emperor since he attended the funeral of Drusilla,
16
his sister and mistress, three days earlier. While
they await news of Caligula, the patricians discuss
his behavior. An old patrician, thinking Drusilla's
death is the cause of Caligula's conduct, declares
that it is a relief that no one can grieve forever.
The scholarly and reflective Cherea conjectures that
this strange absence of Caligula, whose fondness for
literature appears unseemly in a head of state, bodes
evil. Helicon agrees that Caligula is disturbed by
more than Drusilla's death but he makes no attempt
to explain the emperor's absence or assess its
ultimate meaning. The other courtiers leave, with
the exception of Helicon who watches Caligula quietly
slip into the palace. Dirty and distraught, the
emperor seems to have become another person. Seconds
later, suddenly aware of Helicon, Caligula turns to
him and says that he had been searching for the moon.
Observing that "men die and they are not happy,"
Caligula informs Helicon that he is determined to
gain the moon, happiness, or something impossible
by practicing a rigorous logic. He demands that
Helicon help him in his quest for the impossible.
Later in a verbal exchange with Cherea, Caligula
17
states that since people and values no longer have
any meaning for him, he is at liberty to pursue his
plan to be the one free man in the whole Roman empire.
He sends Cherea and Scipio away to announce his new
plans for Rome. As Caesonia, his old and loving
mistress, pleads in vain for life, love, and the pos
sible, Caligula insists that he intends to tamper
with the scheme of things— that he will make the im
possible the center of life. Then, as Caligula
begins to strike the gong in a frenzy in order to
j
assemble the court, he explains that he must have
j
his public. His public will be his subjects and I
they— the judges, witnesses, accused, and innocent— |
I
all will be considered criminals in his eyes. The
act ends with a horror-stricken and silent court
surrounding him, as Caligula, standing before a
mirror, makes a gesture of rubbing out.his former
image, and stares at the image of his new self.
ACT XI: The act opens when Caligula has been
at work for three years teaching his subjects through
assault, famine, torture, and murder that the absurd
exists. The patricians are now desperate enough to
assassinate him, but Cherea urges them to bide their
time until Caligula's logic has pushed him into mad
ness. Cherea, suppressing all that is sympathetic
with Caligula within himself, has joined the con
spirators. He decided to plot against the emperor's
life, not because he is afraid of Caligula or wants
revenge, but because he thinks Caligula has taught
Scipio, his poet friend, to despair and because he
understands that the emperor will destroy them all
for the sake of his idea. Only Caesonia and Scipio
cannot bring themselves to the decision that Caligula
must or should die. Caesonia continues to hope that
her love will save Caligula; and Scipio too, cannot
totally condemn the emperor whom he loves for Caligula
had taught him to love life, nature, poetry, and
thought before he had committed himself to establish
ing the impossible as the center of the Roman uni
verse .
ACT III; The first scene begins with Caligula
conducting an impersonation of Venus as if he were
the star in a circus. Caligula forces the patricians
to participate in a prayer (a parody of a prayer to
19
the Virgin Mary) to him clothed as Venus and to worship
him with all due ceremony. He intends to show the
patricians that anyone can impersonate fate or the gods
l
I
if he is capricious enough and cruel enough. Later, |
i
first Helicon and then the old patrician warn Caligula
j
that the court, with Cherea as the leader, are plotting :
I
to murder him. Although Caligula remains calm, he j
calls for Cherea. While he is awaiting Cherea, he
approaches a mirror and confides to his image that it j
is too late to turn back, that it is likewise impos-
j
sible to undo what he has done; he must therefore
follow his logic to the very end regardless of the I
consequences. During the conversation with Caligula, \
Cherea frankly tells the emperor why he must be !
destroyed. The act ends with Caligula deliberately
setting Cherea at liberty and burning the sole evi
dence which implicates Cherea in the plot.
ACT XV: The curtain rises on Cherea trying to
persuade Scipio to join the assassination plot, but
the young poet at this time refuses to aid Cherea
because he has learned never to consider any one idea
or side so totally perfect that he is willing to
20
murder for it. At a mock poetry contest on the theme
of death, Caligula is amazed to learn that Scipio
knows the meaning of death. At the end of the con
test, Scipio bides a final farewell to the emperor
whom he still loves.
While the conspirators are preparing to rush
into the palace, Caligula deliberately strangles
Caesonia. After her death, Caligula approaches a
mirror and admits to his image that he has chosen
the wrong way to cope with the absurd. He hates
i
himself. While in despair and fury, he breaks the
mirror, Scipio, Cherea, and others rush in and stab
him. As he is dying, Caligula screams, "I'm still
alive."
i
i
I
Theme, Role, and World View
Considering Caligula to be based on The Myth of Sisy
phus, a majority of the scholars and journalists from 1945
through 1949 regarded the theme as primarily concerned with
j a powerful man's futile, logical, nihilistic and solitary
I revolt against the absurd— death or the world as it is.
i
| Many of these same critics also saw an ethical and a
21
politico-social level to this drama: Caligula represented
totalitarianism, he embodied the destructive consequences
of seeking absolute freedom or he signified the negation
of nihilism. Only one critic explicitly expressed the
view that Caligula was probably Camus in disguise and
another insisted that Cherea was Camus's mouthpiece.
Though most of the critics differentiated Camus from his
hero, the larger number of the scholars and journalists
held that the author advocated the pessimistic and nihilis-i
tic views of the philosophy of the absurd or of existen
tialism rather than of stoicism or of humanism at the time
that he was writing this play. A few critics made some
casual references to Camus's affinities in world view with j
those of American and French literary writers, and Ameri
can, English, and French philosophers.
Apparently the first critic to refer to Camus's
:dramatic work was Henri Peyre who casually mentioned that
both Caligula and The Misunderstanding are centered upon
the neo-stoicism which the author expounded in The Myth of
!Sisyphus.^ Camus "has embodied his ideas concretely . . .
| ^"The Resistence and Literary Revival in France,"
Yale Review, XXXV (Autumn 1945), 91.
22
in two plays, 'Caligula' and 'The Misunderstanding'" (p.
91). French writers, such as Camus, explained Peyre,
found stimulation in the pessimism which they found in the
literature of Faulkner, Dos Passos, and Steinbeck. Not
passive or morbid, the French believed that evil was intro-;
duced into the world by man's delusions about the power
of education, progress, and peace (p. 92). Agreeing that
Caligula and The Misunderstanding are based upon The Myth j
i
i
of Sisyphus, Justin O'Brien declared that the theme con
cerns Caligula's efforts to impersonate the gods, fate or |
the force which is responsible for the absurdity in the j
2 '
universe. Disillusioned with the injustice and the \
misery in life and aware that no one enjoys a freedom that I
does not impinge upon that of another, the cynical Caligula
decides to carry reason to its limit in an endeavor to
gain total freedom from the disorder of human existence.
O'Brien held that although there is an element of denial
in Camus's work, this disaffirmation is merely a reflection
of the very real negation which abides in the world and
2"Boldest Writer in France Today," The New York
jHerald Tribune Weekly Book Review, March 24, 1946, Sec. 1,
p. 2.
23
before which Camus had never capitulated. Instead of
despair, Camus, an absurdist, worked for positive actions
to build a better world with "a new political purity" and
"a new social justice."
Setting aside the theme and role in Caligula, Claude- i
Edmonde Magny directed her attention to the philosophical |
3
views which are inherent in Camus 1s themes. She main- j
j
tained that Camus's insights are neither illuminating nor
supportive. Magny described the viewpoints expressed in
the philosophical-literary works of the existentialists
like Camus, as indifferent and non-Christian rather than
as aggressively atheistic. Although there is "a kinship"
between Gabriel Marcel's Christian philosophy and Camus's, I
it seems . . . Sartre, Camus and the rest had wanted to
deprive religion of its basis, wanted to secularize it
and organize a kind of anti-clerical revivalism opposed
to the contemporary religious revivalism, (pp. 147-148)
Asserting that the existentialist literature is more that
of "disillusion than of despair," Magny concluded that
"the intense desire to deify man has transformed itself
; into a passionate detestation of the human condition.
i
i :
3
"French Literature Since 1940," trans. Martin Green
berg, Partisan Review, XIII (Spring 1946), 147-149.
[Thus] humanism becomes, at least temporarily, anti-
humanism." All the writers, including "the most deter
mined humanists" such as Camus, have had to pass through
this stage (p. 149). j
Eleanor Clark4 and Albert J. Guerard5 agreed that j
Camus's metaphysical view of the world is invalid, if not j
' : I
nihilistic. Clark, linking Camus's life to his writing, j
i
maintained that the theme deals with the "sadism of 'the j
i
lonely power of the destroyer'." The moral of the play is j
i
that Caligula has chosen "the wrong type of absurdity"
because he seeks the truth about man's lot in this world
instead of accepting the illusion that this world is
orderly and reasonable (p. 675). In regard to the philo- j
sophical views which Camus offers, Clark admitted that she !
"is continually tempted to take Camus's general proposi
tions, which could as well be termed the philosophy of
nonsense, merely as autobiography." His tenets violate
"both logic and human experience." She argued that ulti
mately the absurdist viewpoint is "perfectly good neo-Dada
4,,Existentialist Fiction," Kenyon Review, VIII
(Autumn 1946), 675.
^"Albert Camus," Foreground, I (Winter 1946), 59.
25
and like its equivalents after the last war contains
nothing to keep anyone from being a Nazi" (pp. 675-676). j
j
/ t !
According to Guerard, who indicated that this drama j
is based on The Myth of Sisyphus, the theme is concentrated
upon "the analysis of a 'philosopher of the absurd1 who
l
argues to logical but false conclusions" (p. 48). Camus's
work is actually "the spiritual biography of a generation,
the purest example of contemporary skepticism." As young
Wordsworth had suffered, so Camus underwent a period of
self-questioning, and "all his work is, like that of
Wordsworth, open or veiled spiritual autobiography" (p.
i
46). Guerard, after noting that in "Letters to a German
Friend" (1943-1944), Camus had exhorted man to resist the
temptation to be cynical or indifferent to the human
plight, concluded that "in the character of Cherea Camus
expresses his own conviction" (p. 50). Although he
admitted that Camus was not Caligula, Guerard still
attacked Camus's conception of the absurd. Camus's insist
ence upon considering the world as absurd is rooted in a
' "Pascalian pride in pitting his human reason against the
i entire irrational universe." In fact, the Sisyphean hero
exhibits a great deal of pure pride in his stoic resist-
j ence. Guerard continued that sickly and afraid of death
26
like D. H. Lawrence, Camus's ideal of conduct ends as
"the old Epicurean blend of a weary hedonism and a desper
ate stoic pride, with death still overshadowing all" (pp.
51-54). Instead of stressing the absurdity in the world, j
i
which is probably philosophically invalid, Guerard chided, j
Camus should have encouraged men to develop their lucidity j
|
as an instrument to create and to impose order, unity, and j
meaning in the midst of the chaos. Unlike Hume or Santa
yana but like Aldous Huxley, argued Guerard, Camus had to
resist a strong predilection for using two levels of
philosophical truth, "the metaphysical and the human or
every day." In this drama Camus was alert to the danger
!
of combining these two levels because his play demonstrates!
the consequences of such confusion through the emperor's
action? namely, Caligula's crimes originate from this iden
tification of two different levels because
he wants to pattern every day human life . . . after
the cosmic absurdity which he perceives as a scien
tific fact. Cherea (and Camus) oppose this relent
less pursuit of a logical conclusion— but they are not
quite sure why. (p. 56)
ICherea can only pose happiness as a counterthrust to
!Caligula's logic. If, therefore, the cosmic level of
|metaphysical truth is incoherent and unjust, Guerard
i
jinsisted, then the lower human truth should be separated
27
from it.6
In Winifred Smith's opinion, Caligula and The Mis-
understandinq present "two of the dominant themes of art
in modern, perhaps in all, war times: crime and punish-
ment, and death is preferable to life." She asserted
that Caligula conveys a picture of Hitler's regime as well
as depicting "the loneliness of a powerful man and his
endeavor to assert his freedom to act.” Maintaining that
both plays are based on The Myth of Sisyphus, Smith
declared that Camus
is more unmitigatedly nihilistic than his fellow exis
tentialist [Sartre] and . . . gives his audience little
®H. Gaston Hall, "Aspects of the Absurd," Yale French j
Studies, No. 25 (Spring 1960) , p. 28, noted that Camus has
been reproached "for an alleged confusion” between the
|absurd abiding in man's position in the natural order of
;creation and the absurd residing' in his place in society.
"But these aspects of the absurd are not manifested sepa-
:rately, and it is only logically that the second is sub
ordinate to the first. Experience makes no such distinc
tion." The yearning for a clear understanding assumed in
one aspect of the absurd "has never excluded the contrary
[aspect] that human irrationality intensifies that of
nature. Germaine Bree has observed that Camus's Caligula
acts out a double parody: 'the parody of the absurd work
ing of social institutions, the parody of the no less
|absurd workings of fate.'"
I
\ (Rev. of Le Malentendu and Caligula), Books Abroad,
jxxil (Spring 1948), 157.
I
28
hope of proiiess or of relief from present tensions,
rooted as they are in greed and aggressive ambition.
(p. 158)
George Freedley held that Camus seemed to be an
Q
existentialist, and Walter Pritchard Eaton did not dis-
pute his statement. Eaton maintained that his play
demonstrates "the senseless cruelty and vile murder" which ;
results from the hybris of an individual who is corrupted
by limitless power. Looking at the play as a whole, it |
j
is symbolical, concluded Eaton, of "the spiritual despair
and the moral breakdown of Europe."
Discussing Camus's early works in general, Michel
Mohrt maintained that Camus was preoccupied with the theme |
of death and joy in life.^ Having nearly died from
tuberculosis, Camus learned to believe as the ancient
Greek pagans— nothing is more important than life and
i
| happiness. Death is the one supreme evil. Camus's views
: on the human condition, said Mohrt, are "ethics engendered
8
(Rev. of Caligula and Cross Purpose), Library Jour
nal, LXXIII (July 1948), 1029.
^"Symbolist or Realist," The New York Herald Tribune
Book Review, August 15, 1948, Sec. 7:, p. 13.
| "Ethic and Poetry in the Work of Camus," trans.
I Warren Ramsey, Yale French Studies, I (Spring-Summer 1948),
.113-117________- .- ______— - - - - - ___________ _____________
29
by his aesthetics" more than ethics or tenets deliberately
thought out as a particular philosophical system (p. 117).
Anguish and revolt are secondary themes. "A thorough
going Romantic," asserted Mohrt, Camus himself is "the
perfect example of that 1 absurd hero' whom he endeavors to
portray" (p. 113).
11 19
Both Harold Clurman and Eric Bentley agreed that
j
Caligula was an obverse symbol of Camus's idea of how to
cope with the absurd in life. Through Caligula, said |
I
Clurman, Camus intended to say that he and his generation
j
had rebelled against despair and nihilism in the name of
j
humanism because they had learned that a man cannot deny j
|
the humanity of others without destroying his own.
Caligula and The Misunderstanding reflect a state of mind
that World War II had taught the author and his genera
tion: "salvation can come only from facing the facts,
facing the facts before the salve of solution is found"
to the disorder and inhumanity in the world. Holding this
i
-^"Theatre: Plays from Paris," New Republic, CXIX
i (August 16, 1948), 25-26.
! 12"Camus: The Melodrama of Ideas," The New York
i Times Book Review, August 29, 1948, p. 4.
idea in mind, Camus created a humanism from his system of
subjecting to doubt and skepticism all the values which
formerly had been merely taken for granted (p. 26).
Bentley thought that through the emperor, the author
demonstrated "man is a misfit in the universe . . . human
ideals and the facts of the human situation are incommen
surable.
, 14
Like Bentley, neither Rene Blanc-Roos nor Olga
1 ^
Scherer considered Caligula to be the author m disguise.
Blanc-Roos postulated that this play exhibits the conse
quences of "the ethics of the twentieth century carried to
a reductio ad absurdum.” Blanc-Roos did not express any
opinion of the concept of the absurd because "Camus did
not explain it" but he regarded Camus as successful in
"relating the Absurd to the Sublime" (p. 405). Scherer
regarded Caligula as a dramatic exploration of the concept
of the absurd that is discussed in The Myth of Sisyphus.
■^Eric Bentley, "A Note on French Existentialism,"
iBooks Abroad, XX (Summer 1946), 264, insisted that Camus
was an existentialist regardless of Camus's protests to the
contrary.
i
I 14"Albert Camus," Nation, CLXVII (October 9, 1948),
1404-406.
I
j
j -^"Illogical Immoralist," Perspective, II (Autumn
31
In spite of the absurdity and the meaninglessness of the
world, Camus appeared to be saying that man has a dignity
and a value as a human being. Like The Misunderstanding,
this play underscores the idea that ultimately nothing is
ever solved by death. Camus is an "illogical moralist,"
said Scherer, whose humanism stood out in spite of the
philosophy of the absurd which is "perhaps invalid." In
any case, there is a contradiction in Camus's and Caligu
la's whole rationale which not only can be destroyed with
its own weapon of logic but which is also undermined by
the inconsistency in details. Perhaps this very contra
diction, conjectured Scherer, indicates the essence of
Camus's ethical evaluation of man— in spite of disorder
and horror, human dignity surmounts all obstacles. Unlike
Scherer, William Troy failed to find any clear-cut meaning
16
to Caligula— "the final meaning is equivocal." Troy
implied that despair and nihilism are synonymous with the
existentialism expressed in this play.
In conclusion, it has been seen that almost all the
1948), 55-56.
; -^"The Rebirth of Allegory," Hudson Review, I (Winter
119 49), 589.
32
critics considered Camus pessimistic because he demon
strated a defiance of cosmic hostility and ignored the
presence of God. Moreover, his emphasis upon individual
rebellion was most unusual. Most of the scholars and the
i
magazine critics in the 50's will concur in believing that |
i
I
Camus primarily protested the injustice in the human con
dition, but they will not be so certain that the author j
I
had a hopeless view of life.
From 1950 through 1959, almost all the critics
regarded the theme in Caligula as bi-level: ethical and i
j
political as well as metaphysical. Enlarging upon the
»
ideas advanced in the 40's, the majority held that Camus j
was presenting a despot's futile, individual, logical and
nihilistic protest against the absurd— -man's final destiny
or the order of the world as it is constituted. Some of
these same critics believed that Camus was also attacking
man-made evil in the form of totalitarianism or of nihil
ism. Unlike the critics of the 40's, many of these heeded
I the warnings of O'Brien and Clurman, among others, and
I began to examine Caligula more carefully with the result
i
| that they detected the evolution in Camus's thought during
j
the time that he was writing and reworking this drama;
i they became, therefore, opponents of the other half who
33
clung to the idea that Camus held little hope for man. In
either case, the majority stated directly or hinted that
!
Camus was still a philosopher of the absurd or an existen- j
I
tialist more than a humanist or stoic at this time. Only j
i
a minority indicated that they considered Caligula as an
autobiographical figure rather than an obverse symbol of
Camus's conception of freedom, moderation, and responsi- j
i
bility. Instead of fleetingly referring to one or more
authors with whom Camus had affinities, these critics
went to greater lengths to explain in what manner Camus1s
ideas about history, metaphysics and religion were similar j
i
to those of Bonhoffer, Malraux, Montherlant, and Sartre. !
The first critic of the 50 *s to comment upon the
theme, role and world view conveyed in Caligula, Walter A. 1
Strauss-^ remarked that the emperor is not Camus. Holding
to the opinion that the transformation in Caligula's
character is related to the author's own confrontation
with near-death, Strauss was the first among a majority
of the critics to bind Camus's life very closely to his
1 ;
| work. He saw Caligula as "an early link in the chain of
17
! "Albert Camus1 Caligula:1 Ancient Sources and
Modern Parallels," Comparative Literature, III (Sprincr
|1951), 168. j
34
Camus1 s development as a thinker and a writer1 1 and thought
that the source of Camus's preoccupation with life and
I
death lay in his struggle with tuberculosis. In examining j
i
i
the consequences of the philosophy of the absurd, Camus i
demonstrates the moral that the individual must place
value judgments upon his actions in order to safeguard the j
i
i
freedom and happiness of others. In conclusion, Strauss j
believed that Camus, perceiving that Caligula had to be
replaced, chose Sisyphus because the Greek hero realized
i
|
that the absurd is the link between man and the world.
Unlike Caligula, he accepted this burden happily for his j
i
destiny was now his own. Caligula, on the other hand, j
remains desperate in the face of the absurd and steadily
refuses to accept his burden (p. 170}. "Caligula eventu- j
| ally had to be replaced by Cherea and Dr. Rieux" in order
to keep pace with the evolution in Camus's thought (p.
173) .
Kermit Lansner,"^ Rene Galand,"^ and Lurline V. Simp-
18
"Albert Camus," Kenyon Review, XIV (Autumn 1952),
! 567.
19
"Four French Attitudes on Life: Montherlant, Mal-
; raux, Sartre, Camus," New England Modern Language Associa-
j tion Bulletin, XV (February 1953), 12.
35
20 .
son, essentially agreed that Camus was a pessimist.
Lansner described Caligula as "a ruthless presentation of
absurdity." As a work based on The Myth of Sisyphus that
contains the assumptions about metaphysics and the nature
of man which Camus had evolved from his practical experi
ences and erudition, Caligula expresses an "existentialist"
i
and nihilistic view. Not until the composition of his |
j
essays,"Letters to a German Friend"(1943-1944), did Camus, j
said Lansner, begin to seek a way "to transcend the nihi- ;
lism of the earlier works" (p. 572). ;
i
!
In accord with Lansner's remarks, Galand intimated
that Camus himself had suffered the desperation initiated
i
j
by the absurdity of life and of death and had contended
i
with the strong attraction for nihilism which Caligula
| mirrors. The world view conveyed in this play reveals
I that Camus had probably inherited the skeptical and nega
tive struggle of the Dadaists to find meaning to life.
Going beyond political or social protest, Camus engages in
a struggle with the metaphysical issues of man's fate in
j ' :
i
j i
20
j "Tensions in the Works of Albert Camus," Modern
iLanguage Journal, XXXVIII (April 1954), 186.
36
its entirety. Thus, the emperor is an embodiment of
Camus's "violent rejection of man's fate and his revolt
against its essential absurdity." By the time of The Myth
of Sisyphus, "it may seem that . . . Camus did not go far
beyond the Montherlant of Aux Fontaines du Desir, a
Montherlant corrected by Malraux and revised by . . .
Heidegger.1 '21 It was not, Galand implied, until after
finishing Caligula and The Misunderstanding that Camus
21 .
Galand explained that Montherlant m his collection ;
of essays, Aux Fontaines du Desir (1927) and Malraux in an j
essay, D'un jeunesse europeenne (1927) shared the ideas
that there is no God and that the universe is meaningless.
Montherlant maintained that there is no immortality and
that all that exists is equally good and true; while Mai- j
raux agreed that science had failed, God was dead, and the |
idea of man had been destroyed. Later, Malraux concluded j
that the human condition is absurd, life is meaningless,
and man is surrounded by hostile forces which will destroy
him (pp. 10-11). By 1935, Montherlant rejected all values
and saw only futility in everything. Pride alone kept him
from falling into total nihilism. At a later date, when
he had evolved a new Nietzschean scale of values which
demanded lucidity, courage, pride and contempt for weak
ness and sentimentality, he failed to provide man with
imoral standards and a valid guide to action (p. 10). Al-
1 though Malraux stressed the theme of the inevitability of
i death he urged man to unite and to revolt against oppres-
] sive forces in order to give dignity and meaning to life.
| When he ultimately arrived at the conclusion that art en-
; abled man to vanquish fate, then Malraux had reached a new
| humanism (p. 11) .
Sartre shares with Montherlant and Malraux, the idea
that man is a baffling creature who is doomed to eternal
perplexity about his presence in an irrational world. The j
37
devoted his efforts to demonstrating the untenable posi
tion of nihilism and to restoring dignity and meaning to
human life (pp. 12-13).
Simpson regarded Caligula from a psychological per
spective as well as from a literary philosophical view.
From a psychological angle, this play concerns a struggle
to find a solution— the "central tension" is a "somewhat
desultory guest for 'a way out.1' 1 The maze is not depicted
with consistency, for it is variously indicated as inco
herence, injustice, monotony, hopelessness, inertia, or
absurdity. In this instance, Caligula tries to find a
solution through logic (p. 186). From a literary-philo
sophical perspective, this drama conveys the absurdist
and the partly existentialist conceptions to be found in
The Myth of Sisyphus. Although Simpson declared that
"Caligula is sardonically chosen to typify the idealist,
whose undeviating devotion to the 'great idea1 is inter
preted as madness," she found the philosophy of the absurd
I universe has neither a God nor a meaning nor has man any
I purpose. Man therefore, is both absolutely free and
I totally responsible for himself and others. Man must
create a scale of values as well as seek the freedom of
i all men as an end and he must fight against all the forces
| that would suppress freedom and injustice (pp. 13-15).
38
and the existentialist ideas of submission to the daily
task of Sisyphus, without hope and without belief in God,
wholly repugnant (pp. 188-189). Camus's proposed solution
of the absurd through lucidity and scorn for the facts j
reminded her unpleasantly of the views of "De Vigny in j
La mort du loup and Le Mont des Oliviers" (p. 190). j
i |
To Michael Harrington, sympathetic with Simpson's
opinions, Caligula and The Misunderstanding present "an
22
inversion of ontology." They reflect the gloom of
"those . . . prophets of . . . despair . . . Kierkegaard, j
i
Dostoevski, Kafka, Hitler, Stalin, Franco." Camus's i
reasoning reveals "a flaw in the contradiction of his j
i
i
logic by his emotion," with the result that "he comes
i
i
perilously close to a romantic, Shelley-like resolution of
|his despair, of Sisyphus as Prometheus." The overall
problem of these works seems to be "I exist, therefore I
despair." Despite Caligula's apparent welcome of his
death as a sign that men will rebel against the absurd, a
"general tone of hopelessness" pervades the whole (p. 44).
22
i "The Despair and Hope of Modern Man," Commonweal,
iLXIII (October 14, 1955), 44.
39
In Max Cosman's opinion, Camus's view of man and life
2 3
is indeed gloomy. Extremely sensitive to his practical
experiences and to his studies of Danish, French and Ger
man philosophers as well as moved by his studies of Faulk
ner, Caldwell, Dos Passos, Steinbeck and Hemingway and by |
his friends, Sartre and Beauvoir, Camus portrayed "his |
painful awareness of the calculated or accidental dis-
I
sonance to which man is subject" in Caligula. A philoso
pher of the absurd, Camus continued to write " a literature
of despair" until he wrote his novel, The Plague (p. 94).
Contradicting Cosman's opinion, Thomas L. Hanna^ and ;
25 .
Carl A. Viggiani held that Camus called for an affirma
tive approach to life. Hanna, not as preoccupied with
biography as Viggiani, insisted that Caligula and his
reign demonstrate the consequences which are borne of the
endeavors to find the answers to the problems of man in
absolutes— absolutes which exist beyond history or man and
23
"Camus' Hidden Sun," Chicago Review, X (Autumn-
Winter 1956), 94.
^"Albert Camus and the Christian Faith," Journal of
I Religion, XXXVI (October 1956), 232.
25
I "Camus1 L'Etranger,1 1 PMLA, LXXI (December 1956),
j 872.
40
which produce murder and absurdity (p. 224). Speaking in
general of Camus's ethical and religious insights, Hanna
asserted that "Camus . . . has an element of Christianity
in all his literary works— either an idea or a person or
both."26 Viewing life as a trial, and the universe as
hostile but rejecting Christianity and Marxism, Camus
established "a positive humanism" when he exhorted men to
j
revolt in order "to transform the inhumanity of the world"
(p. 232).27 |
26Carl A. Viggiani, "Albert Camus' First Publica
tions," Modern Language Notes, LXXV (November 1960), 594-
595, indicated that as early as March 1932, when Camus
published two articles on Verlaine and Jean Rictus in the
Algerian literary review, Sud, he stressed the idea of j
revolt against a world of suffering and accented the idea i
that art offers an escape from the chaos of life.
In June of the same year, Camus wrote "Essai sur la
musique" in which the influence of Nietzsche is strong.
Viggiani held that this German philosopher probably influ
enced Camus's thought more than any other philosopher of
;the past. At this time not only were Camus's "anti-ration
alism" and "the Christian cast of his vocabulary and sym-
ibols" already apparent but his search for a 'philosophe-
religion1 to fill the void left by the ’death of God' and
! by the failure of science and rationalism were also evi-
! dent.
i
27In 1958, Carl A. Viggiani, "Camus in 1936: The
: Beginnings of a Career," Symposium, XII (Spring-Fall 1958),
: 13, drew attention to the fact that revolt, political and
j perhaps predominantly metaphysical, is a major force in
j Camus 1s writings. The strong current of defiance began
| with his first play. Revolte dans les Asturies and conti- ;
41
In Viggiani*s opinion, though Camus treated the themes
of dignity, fraternity, isolation, estrangement, justice,
lucidity, and revolt, he was obsessed with the idea of j
!
j
death— death and the meaning of life when it is threatened j
by death (pp. 874, 879). "With death and the awareness
i
of death human history and tragedy begin." In the twenti- |
eth century, Camus held that revolt had been perverted and |
transformed into "the nihilism of Stalinism, Facism,
Dadaism, Surrealism, and Formalism." Thus, "this type of
i
nihilism which issues in indiscriminate murder, is incar
nated on the social level in Camus' work by Nada, Caligu- j
la," and others. Camus never wavered in his hatred of
this kind of nihilism. As to Camus's identification with
his heroes, Viggiani was convinced that "despite his fun
damentally romantic nature, Camus has tried to become,
:and to a certain extent he has succeeded in becoming "un
ecrivain objectif.'" Even excluding his earliest stories
and essays, however, "there is abundant evidence that the
rest of his works are equally biographical, that his heroes
I
!
j
: nued through his book of essays. The Rebel. Camus stressed
Christian conceptions, said Viggiani, with which he was
|very well acquainted. His obsession with death, with
|natural evil, and with moral evil together with injustice
I created his affinity for Christian attitudes.
42
are fictional projections of his own developing self."
Viggiani implied that not until the creation of The Just
Assassins did Camus shake off his subjectivity (pp. 969-
870) .
Justin O'Brien* holding to the opinion that the
"leitmotiv" of Camus's work is that every man is an impor
tant member of the human community, referred to Caligula
as a demonstration that the freedom of any one man must
2 8
necessarily encroach upon the freedom of another.
29 30
Charles Rolo and Robert E. Jones agreed that Caligula
is an obverse symbol of Camus's ethical and political
ideas. In Rolo's judgment, Camus has been unjustly
treated in two ways: he has been unfairly, if only
vaguely, associated with the French literature of despair,
and he has been too frequently identified with his protag-
2 8
"Nobel Prize-Winner Camus: A Man Committed Yet
Aloof," The New York Times Book Review, December 8, 1957,
Sec. 7, p. 3.
2^"Albert Camus: A Good Man," Atlantic, CCI (May
;1958), 30.
j
30
"Caligula, The Absurd, and Tragedy," Kentucky For
eign Language Quarterly, V (Summer 1958), 124-125.
43
O -I
onists. Admittedly there is a strong personal element
in Camus’s work but one must beware, nonetheless, of con
sidering the heroes as the creator’s mouthpieces. As for
i
the pessimism which many argue emanates from Caligula, j
i
Rolo insisted that Camus employed the emperor to spotlight
his firm opposition to the nihilistic view that each man
is given license to act without limits because the uni
verse is irrational. Caligula's revolt is the antithesis
of Camus's conception of humanism, which is based on the
i
idea that the liberty of one person ends where the freedom
of another's begins. Through the revolt of the patricians,
j
who rebel against Caligula's logically planned reign of j
[
absolute absurdity that exceeds the absurdity of life
itself, Camus introduced the idea of la mesure and stressed
the concept that no idea is so free of error that one
should give it his total allegiance to the point of kill
ing for it.
31
Rolo advanced two major reasons which partially
| accounted for the poor reception of Camus1s writings as
late as 1958, namely: six volumes of nonfiction and two
plays are not yet translated, and hence unknown to Ameri-
! cans; and though it is imperative to know Camus's philoso-
j phy in order to fully understand his works, some of his
philosophical thought is yet unpublished and those which
are translated. The Myth of Sisyphus and The Rebel, are not
widely read (p. 28) ._________ j
44
At the time that Camus wrote this play, continued
Rolo, he had reached the absurdist stage of thought of
Malraux and Sartre in which he had concluded that reason
was unable to provide the answers to the meaning of life.
Through Caligula, therefore, the author proved that it is
easy to be logical but to carry logic to its extremity
proves the impossibility of justifying moral values.
Caligula represents that stage of Camus's philosophy in
which man's fate is that of Sisyphus who pursues "a
sterile lonely revolt" (pp. 27-31).
Agreeing with Rolo's evaluation of the meaning of
Caligula's role, Jones, using The Myth of Sisyphus as a
key, thought that Camus intended this play to express "an
indictment of the excesses to which a basically ordinary
j yet intelligent man can turn by ignoring the value of
;human life and man's essential dignity" (p. 127). This
work, added Jones, is "in one respect a critique by impli
cation of existentialism." Through his protagonist, Camus
had intended to attack the existentialist philosophers'
;stand. The author had noticed the failure of the existen-
itialists to be consistently logical and thus he had posited
that if in the work of the existentialists the theme of
"the irrational is reason becoming confused and escaping
45
by negating itself," then "the absurd is lucid reasoning j
noting its limits." Instead of successfully demonstrating |
a correction of the existentialists' error, however, Camus j
himself committed the very mistake for which he had criti- j
cized the existentialists because he permitted his own
hero, Caligula, to let his reason negate itself (pp. 124-
125) .
To Louis R. Rossi, however, Camus expounded super-
O p i
ficial and pessimistic ideas. Not only is the notion I
of the absurd an inconsequential idea but Caligula's
j
revolt is also meaningless. Camus's hero, "the absurd man |
i
|
is . . . completely turned to death." This protagonist
|
described in "existential terms, . . . the ideal man of
Camus' essays and novels, beginning with Caligula . . .
| and continuing with The Fall, has remained this absurd
man." Not until this drama was finished, Rossi concluded,
did Camus minimize his preoccupation with "absurdist" or
"existentialist" conceptions and concentrate upon the
problems of evil and guilt (pp. 399-400).
Disputing Rossi's views, Harold Clurman interpreted
32
"Albert Camus: The Plague of Absurdity," Kenyon
! Review, XX (Summer 1958), 399-400.
i . I
46
the theme as concerned with "the flaw in an amoral revolt
33
against the universal injustice of life." Clurman
underlined the idea that Camus proposed humanism as the
answer to coping with the destruction of "ethical dimen
sions" in Europe before Nazism and after the second World
War. Claudia Cassidy, not exhibiting any tendency to
identify Camus with his hero or any negative reaction to
the author's outlook, insisted that this play deals with
34
the problem of human freedom.
35
In contrast with Cassidy, Mary Gregory, O.P., and
36
Howard Dietz were persuaded that Caligula reflected a
bleak, if not hopeless, view of man's plight. Linking
Camus's life to his writing, Gregory held that Camus was
a nihilist. He not only exhibits in this play the "dark
ness of the absurd world and man's depravity" but he also
33
"The Moralist on Stage," The New York Times Book
Review, September 14, 1958, Sec, 7, p. 12.
3^"Four Plays Embodying Camus' Case for Drama," The
Chicago Sunday Tribune Magazine of Books, September 14,
| 1958, Part 4, p. 4.
(Rev. of Caligula and Three Other Plays), Drama
| Critique, I (November 1958), 42.
36
"The French Dramatist: His Limits are Those of
iMan," Saturday Review, December 27, 1958, p. 15.
47
conveys these three ideas: Happiness is an illusion,
reason alone can offer a solution to man's problems, and
one must negate feeling in this world or commit suicide
(p. 42). Dietz, considering Camus's early dramas as varia-
j
tions upon the theme of the absurd, implied that the out- j
look expressed in the plays .is dark because the heroes are
always defeated by the absurd.
i
*5 —j O © I
Bernard G. Murchland, C.S.C. f and Melvin Maddocks
agreed that Caligula is based upon The Myth of Sisyphus
in which the conception of the absurd was fostered by
Camus's life experiences but they differed about the j
author's philosophical stand. Camus's writing is the |
product of his "attempting to translate his own experience ;
i
into a statement of some universal relevance," said Murch- !
land, thus, this drama offers "the culmination" of the
I author's awareness of the absurd which neither reason nor
religion can satisfactorily explain. This period of
: thought, Murchland concluded, was "narrowly atheistic"
I ^"Albert Camus: Rebel," Catholic World, CLXXXVIII
(January 1959), 309.
i
I :
38
| (Rev. of Caligula and Three Other Plays), Christian
Science Monitor, February 12, 1959, p. 7.
48
i
until he wrote "Letters to a German Friend" (19 43-19 44) at |
|
which time Camus displayed a more universal view for his
vision expanded to include the suffering that all men
experience (pp. 309, 311).
Maddocks regarded Camus's view as positive. Lauding
the author for his vigilant concern for politics, Maddocks
declared that only superficially Caligula is a "political"
play. Ultimately this play and the other two that deal
with political absolutes which lead to totalitarianism
move beyond the political level and reach down to the pro-
foundest questions dealing with human freedom, injustice,
i i
and responsibility. The moral of Caligula is that he who
destroys his brother eventually destroys himself (p. 7).
Speaking in general of this play, Peter L. Berger
j
I held that Camus's analysis of the human plight is very
Q Q
close to that of Sartre. For Camus, the philosophy of
^"Camus, Bonhoffer, and the World Come of Age— I,"
Christian Century, LXXVI (April 8, 1959), 417-418. Berger
held that Camus's conception of man, religion, and the uni-
; verse shares similarities with those of Heinrich Boll and
; Simone Weil, part of whose work Camus edited.
In "Camus, Bonhoffer, and the World Come of Age— II,"
Christian Century, LXXVI (April 15, 1959), 450-451, Berger
i explained that Camus's and Bonhoffer's ideas about a man-
! centered philosophy-religion seemed to be more alike than
[ unalike. The Lutheran theologian believed that in 'a
49
the absurd was "a starting point, not by any means the
culmination of his thought.1 1 To Raymond Giraud, Malraux,
Sartre, and Camus seemed "romantic" by 1959 because they
extolled man and had hope.^ They had created heroes who,
protesting both human destiny and a silent God, desired j
to transform the world into something better. At this
time, Caligula and The Flies seem "mellow, inspirational,
courageously moral" (pp. 11-12). For Nathan A. Scott, Jr.,
however, Caligula reflects a gloomy outlook.^ This drama ;
represents Camus's "most concentrated resume of the absurd"
|
and a profound exploration of "the depths of modern nihi
lism. 1 1 The emperor sets out to expose the metaphysical
j
anarchy which rules existence and to take vengeance upon !
world come of age,1 aided by Christianity itself, a time
;would come when there would be no further need of God, of
new religions, or of institutions like the church. Man
would learn to live as a free and responsible agent, to
live for this world only, and to seek happiness for others
as for himself. The highest form of human love would
appear in work, in friendship, and in a united effort
against any evil which threatened man.
40
"Unrevolt Among the Unwriters in France Today,"
I Yale French Studies, No. 24 (Summer 1959), pp. 11-12.
^"The Modest Optimism of Albert Camus," Christian
|Scholar, XLII (Winter 1959), 261.
50
the silent deity. Both Cherea and Caligula realize that
there is no hope but only Cherea is willing to accept this
truth and to modify his expectations of life accordingly.
i
i
Scott concluded that Caligula reveals an "anguish that j
j
grows out of the uncertainty as to whether or not there is j
!
any effective ontological warrant for the continuance of
j
the human enterprise." Although Camus's theory of the
!
absurd shares with Hardy, Conrad, Hemingway, Malraux, and j
I
Sartre, a belief in the "Abyss of Nada in whose servitude
human life is caught" or a conviction that there is a
nothingness at the center of the world, he had been striv- I
I
ing since the midforties to transcend this nihilistic j
|
tenet (pp. 260-61).
In retrospect, it has been seen that although the
larger number of the critics agreed that the theme was
i
primarily concerned with an individual man's revolt against
the absurd in the cosmos, they did not subscribe to the
idea that Camus was advocating cynicism or despair. The
;majority of the critics in the 60's will shift their ideas
j ;
about the theme and their attitudes toward the so-called
i !
t ;
bleakness of the author's world view. The interest in
seeking parallels between Camus's conceptions and those of
lother authors will continue.
51
In the interval from 1960 through 1964, the majority
of the critics, unlike those in the earlier decades,
altered their views to the position that Camus was not
primarily protesting cosmic or natural evil. Rather, he
: j
was exhorting men to rebel against man's evil to man as
well as to defy the indifference of the cosmos. Many, for
!
example, believed that Camus was protesting man-conceived
absolutes in freedom or justice which compound the aliena-
!
tion and suffering in life. A minority, however, clung to
the idea that Caligula's logical, nihilistic, and solitary
protest was aimed at the absurd in the universe— death and j
j
the silence of God. Heeding the warnings of earlier j
critics about jumping to hasty conclusions about Camus's
extreme subjectivity or even solipsism, most of the critics
l ;
iindicated little or no difficulty in distinguishing Camus
from his protagonist. Two critics implied that both the
younger Camus (Caligula) and the older Camus (Cherea)
appeared in this drama. Almost none of the critics
hastened to place Camus into a philosophical school of
thought; and above all, they were certain, regardless of
i
jthe various labels that could be placed upon the author's
Iviews, that Camus was not in any sense of the term a pessi-
j i
mist or a nihilist. Though several critics noted parallels j
52
in Camus's thought with Conrad, Malraux, Brecht, Vigny,
Sartre, and Pirandello, they did not indicate that these
similarities were instances of influence but of affinity
or of ideas shared by more than one writer in the twentieth
i
!
century. Those who undertook to study the analogues and j
i
differences indicated, in each case, the depth and width j
of Camus's background and the necessity to beware of over- j
simplifying his concepts. !
Germaine Bree held that in this early cycle of the
absurd, during which this play was written, Camus had been
!
alarmed by the indifference to life and to beauty by those
|
thinkers who, struggling with the crisis in western
thought, decided that since life is incomprehensible, it
42
is valueless. Rather than upholding the idea that life
I is worthless, Camus examined and rejected in Caligula and
i :
The Misunderstanding the conclusion of Dostoevsky's
Kirilov— God is dead, therefore "we are morally free (pp.
43 >
2-4). Although Bree acknowledged that "the source of
^"Albert Camus: 1913-1960," French Culture Today,
Bulletin of the Cultural Services of the French Emhassy,
I iNew York,[c.1960] , pp. 2-4. :
I !
i 43
Maurice Natanson, "Albert Camus: Death at the
IMeredian," Carolina Quarterly, XI (Spring 1960), 21, ob-
53
Camus' writings can be found in his experience of life,"
she warned that it is very misleading if the reader equates
Camus1s points of view with those of his dramatic charac-
Agreeing that Camus1s life and studies played a large
role in his art and thought, Justin O'Brien and Leon S.
Roudiez held that this play is an example of Camus's
45
"ironical or critical" writing. In his earlier work,
Noces, Camus had depicted a world in which the only evils
against which man had to rebel was "death, the limit to
served that "Camus seems destined for a period of misunder-j
standing before his themes and positions achieve some j
security" in the minds of American readers. This confusion!
arises partly from the fact that Camus's transformation of |
much of his absurdist philosophy has been forgotten or has
never been recognized by Americans, and partly from the
fact that Americans have persisted in considering Camus an
i existentialist in spite of his admission of ignorance about
;some of its tenets.
44
In "Albert Camus, An Essay in Appreciation," The
New York Times Book Review, January 24, 1960, Sec. 7, p. 5,
Bree reiterated that although Camus attempted to elucidate
:through art his own experiences and his own world view,
I still he created Caligula from "latent tendencies in our-
|selves" and "private images of ourselves." Regardless of
|Camus's sympathy for his protagonist, Camus is not Caligu-
! la.
^"Camus," Saturday Review, February 13, 1960, p. 41.
54
man's freedom." Xn Caligula, however, Camus made "an
ironical commentary" on this universe. The emperor's j
i
revolt against death becomes so excessive that he himself j
I
]
becomes the evil against which he fights (p. 21) C. N. ■
Stavrou, essentially concurring in O'Brien's and Roudiez's
opinion of the theme, maintained that probably the main
theme of Caligula concerns the consequences of "excess,
t
46 !
lack of proportion, immoderation."
Stavrou held that Camus, unlike his protagonist,
believed that in the endeavor to destroy or surmount injus-j
tice, suffering, and death, it is reprehensible to cast ■
aside limits, to abjure responsibility for the human race,
I
and to seek solitude as an escape. Although Camus began
j
i from a nihilistic and pessimistic level, he struggled to
transcend this position with a stand which was more com-
I
mensurate with his belief in man as being capable of
mastering his own destiny, He not only refused to judge
: his fellow human beings but he also rejected cynicism,
j
I despair, and pessimism as negations of life. Repudiating
; existentialism and Christianity, Camus, a non-Christian
I !
^"Conrad, Camus and Sisyphus," Audience, VII (Spring
| 1960), 84.
55
more than an atheist, regarded the tenets of humanism as
47
the hope of mankind. Stavrou concluded that Camus has
been unjustly accused of pessimism mainly.perhapsbecause
i
he has shown man's misery more than man's grandeur (pp. 80-
Approving of Stavrou's stand that this play treats
of human excesses, R. W. B. Lewis held that although a
political theme can be read into the pre-war Caligula, it
is more likely that Camus intended to embody in the em
peror "the very idea of extravagance" because Caligula's
4Q
"unlimited power gives the impossible a chance." Through
47
Quentin Lauer, S.J., "Albert Camus: The Revolt
Against Absurdity," Thought,XXXV (Spring 1960), 38-41,
agreed with Stavrou that Camus was an "anti-theist" more
than an "atheist." Although his thought had "existential-
|ist overtones," Camus's stand was really that of "positive
humanism." He s aw the world as absurd but this notion was
a "point of departure and not a principle in the light of
which everything is to be judged." Above all, Camus did
not establish despair as a principle.
48
°Stavrou indicated that Conrad had the same attitudes
that Camus held and he, too, was charged with pessimism.
49
Caligula, or the Realm of the Impossible," Yale
j French Studies, No. 25 (Spring 1960), p. 52.
55
more than an atheist, regarded the tenets of humanism as
47
the hope of mankind. Stavrou concluded that Camus has
been unjustly accused of pessimism mainly.perhapsbecause
i
i
|
he has shown man's misery more than man's grandeur (pp. 80-j
Approving of Stavrou's stand that this play treats \
of human excesses, R. W. B. Lewis held that although a |
i
i
political theme can be read into the pre-war Caligula, it j
is more likely that Camus intended to embody in the em
peror "the very idea of extravagance" because Caligula's |
j
j
"unlimited power gives the impossible a chance.' Through|
47
Quentin Lauer, S.J., "Albert Camus: The Revolt
Against Absurdity," Thought,XXXV (Spring 1960), 38-41,
agreed with Stavrou that Camus was an "anti-theist" more
than an "atheist." Although his thought had "existential
ist overtones," Camus's stand was really that of "positive
humanism." He saw the world as absurd but this notion was
I a "point of departure and not a principle in the light of
which everything is to be judged." Above all, Camus did
not establish despair as a principle.
A Q
Stavrou indicated that Conrad had the same attitudes
that Camus held and he, too, was charged with pessimism.
49
Caligula, or the Realm of the Impossible," Yale
French Studies, No. 25 (Spring 1960), P* 52.
56
the emperor, Camus demonstrated the antithesis of those
very tenets— acceptance of the universe, brotherhood, and
moderation— which at a later date Camus would consistently
cherish and urge other men to follow. Lewis implied that
j
Caligula represents an aspect of the youthful Camus and
Cherea represents the usual side of Camus: Caligula is
|
the nihilist and Cherea is the moderate. j
To Kurt Weinberg, speaking generally, there are both
metaphysical and political themes in Camus's work.~^ j
i
f
Weinberg held that Camus intended to write an ironical j
i
apologia, which not only reflects Pascal but Pascal amended!
i
i
by Nietzsche, for man in a universe from which God is j
j
j
absent. Camus's writing alternates between portraying man |
as an exile in an alien world and depicting man as a
I rebel against the inhumanity of man himself. On the one
hand, the author, perhaps, has stressed more the need for
man to rebel against this godless, irrational, and value
less universe in which man is ruled by chance or fate, cut
I
off from his fellowmen and nature, and inexorably destined
for death. On the other hand, however, Camus had exhorted
~^"The Theme of Exile,” Yale French Studies, No. 25
(Spring 1960), p. 33.
57
men to cling with their utmost tenacity to this earthly
exiled existence in spite of its evils and ultimate des
tiny of nothingness. This tension in Camus's works, con
jectured Weinberg, originated in the rise of the overwhelm-j
ing force of history. Camus became alarmed by the Europeanj
|
eagerness for the reign of reason, for totality, and for
absolutes. To counteract the forces of this world in j
]
which, when the abstract deity of history is substituted
for the abstraction of God, the dignity of the individual
i
soon disappears and beauty quickly vanishes, Camus pleaded j
for an acceptance of "a life limited to the concepts of
earthly and relative, justice and happiness.1 1 Camus seemed
l
to be saying that man must regard compassion, friendship,
moderation, and nature as the keys to the preservation of
i
life (pp. 34-35). This fervent plea, concluded Weinberg,
represents "Nietzsche's amor fati as against revealed
religions, and as against those who have sprung from
Hegelian historicism, the present-day totalitarian ideolo
gies ."
Like Weinberg, Geoffrey H. Hartman saw both political
,and metaphysical themes in Camus's works.^ Considering
j |
j ;
j Camus and Malraux: The Common Ground," Yale French i
58
Camus's writings from an autobiographical perspective and
comparing his views with those of Malraux, Hartman main
tained that "seen as a whole, Camus' work is a critique of
communion; of which the major types are religion, politics,!
!
sexuality, work and speech (art) " (p. 106). Like Malraux,
Camus was convinced that the human plight was explicable
not only in terms of historical or political motives but
i
I
52
also in terms of a metaphysical anguish. Though Camus
refused to judge others, still he knew that evil is more '
universal than totalitarianism, for it is in the very j
nature of all men. Hartman continued that when religion I
Studies, No. 25 (Spring 1960), p. 104.
52
j Hartman said that Malraux had been the first wit-
I ness of the crisis in Europe; he was the first to see the
:danger of Nazism. Convinced of the metaphysical as well as
1 of the political motives behind the human condition, Mal-
; raux refused to hate or to judge others but he was not
;unaware of the universality of evil in men, their capacity
for complicity which produced the inhumanity of man toward
his fellows. Further, he refused to be on the side of
jhistory. Hartman added that despite Camus's admiration
for Malraux's novel. Days of Contempt, and his adaptation
of it, Camus's conception of "the absurde has no real rela
tion to that of which Malraux talks in La Tentation de L'
|Occident." As Rene Galand suggested earlier (p. 36),
; Hartman believed that Malraux's essay, "'D'un jeunesse
! europeenne' seems . . . to have a greater bearing on at
i least the spirit of Camus's inquiry" (pp. 104-110).
59
collapses, Camus held that man’s universal need for "com-
munion," for revolt against this life, for "unity," and j
i
i
for "the idea of man" is supplied by false anti-religious j
i
|
modes— political forces like Fascism or Marxism. When I
politics fill the vacuum left by religion, "communion" j
degenerates into "complicity," revolt into revolution,
"unity" into "totality," and man into "history."
In Caligula the political level deals with Camus1s
exhortation to men to resist "complicity," or guilt, that
is, the temptation "to identify with man at the expense
j
of all men" or the sin of sympathizing with man to the
point of excusing inhumanity in man. Alerted by the "in
tuitions" of Baudelaire, Nietzsche, and especially
Dostoevsky, Camus, like Malraux, was on his guard against
j the "complicity" which is revealed in "the consent of
entire peoples to the hegemony of a few men" (pp. 105-108).
On the metaphysical level, Camus "feels his way
towards a philosophy of indifference in matters of reli-
; gion." Wary of both religion and logic, Camus turned to
! nature as an ideal. Since it demonstrates in its exist-
| ence a vision of reality without hope, he concluded that
i ;
j man should pattern his metaphysical views along the same
i j
j lines. Thus, "true communion in this life springs from a j
60
passionate indifference vis-ci-vis [sic] death and after
life" (pp. 108-109). In Caligula, therefore, "the ques
tion of how to achieve a truly human indifference," of how
to develop and maintain a scorn or an indifference to
death and to afterlife, and "still retain a love of man
kind" is explored (p. 109).
For Samuel Terrien, Caligula is focused upon the fear i
of death and reality of evil. Camus's entire thought
is related to the human . . . preoccupation with death.
For him, the unconscious fear of annihilation is the
fruit as well as the seed of evil. It proceeds from
a metaphysical evil, which prompts him to denounce God
as a murderer, and it procreates historical evil. |
(p. 188)
At this stage, Terrien hinted, Camus seemed to reveal a j
thirst for "stoic heroism and a mystic flirtation with
i
the nada." Terrien gave the impression that Caligula was
|
j
not entirely a fictional hero (p. 189).
Concurring with Terrien's judgment that death is a
theme in this play, Norris Houghton asserted that the
whole work is "preoccupied with death on the physical,
53
"Christianity's Debt to a Modern Pagan," Union
| Seminary Quarterly, XV (March 1960), 187.
61
sensational and metaphysical level."^ Since Camus refused
to accept the universe as it is, the play manifests "nega
tion and alienation" (p. 14).
In Thomas Molnar's opinion, Camus's two major tenets—
the human situation is absurd and the state cannot replace j
55
God--are obsolete outgrowths of his life and erudition.
The cardinal tenet that the human condition in the universe!
is absurd, asserted Molnar, merely "justifies the drifters !
of our tired civilization"; and though Camus appeared to j
be devoted to freedom, he is "like his intellectual peers, i
he does not know what to do with it." If one accepts his
tenet that the world itself has no meaning, then "freedom
merely leads to gratuitous actions." Hence, even if
Camus1s heroes commit suicide in order to prove God does
not exist and in order to feel momentarily endowed with a
supernatural power of destruction, they still "do not know
satisfaction nor do they . . . manage to alter the human
condition" (p. 96). Caligula, for instance, is killed not
because he defies God's commandment or violates the moral
j
54
"Spring Brings Cheer for Theatre-Goers," Theatre,
I II (April 1960), 14.
55
j "Camus, Voice of a Searching Generation," Catholic
j World, CLXXXXI May 1960), 95, 101. j
62
law but because "his subjects are unable to live in a uni
verse without values or meaning." Camus's other primary
tenet, that "the absurd man, the Kirilovs, and the Caligu-
i
las, are dangerous candidates to the divine throne vacated j
by God," merely demonstrates that "the godless state, in
need of absolute proof and justification is more intoler
ant, more cruel than one based on transcendental faith" !
(p. 101).
Disagreeing with Molnar's negative view of Camus's
l
outlook, Alfred Stern observed that Caligula is a demon-
56 ■
stration of "the absurd reduced to the absurd." In
"Letters to a German Friend" (19 43-1944), Stern explained,
Camus upheld the value of the human being and refused to
give the right to mankind to add to the injustice of the
human condition from which men already suffer. In Caligu-
I la, therefore, the author introduces the idea of limit and
: the demand for happiness through Cherea. After writing
The Stranger, Caligula, and The Misunderstanding, the
humanist Camus urged revolt only in order that men may not ;
I add to the misery of the human lot (p. 455). Stern con-
[ !
| ^"Considerations of Albert Camus' Doctrine," Per-
I sonalist, XLI (Autumn 1960), 455. I
63
eluded that in Caligula, State of Siege, and The Just
Assassins the metaphysical revolt against the natural
condition of man and against the whole of creation suc
cumbs "almost entirely to political revolts of men of
specific epochs and countries against their enslavement
by their fellowmen." The people, for example, suffer more
from the despotism of Caligula who tells them 'C'est moi
qui remplace la peste* than from the hostility of the cos
mos (p. 456).
Eric W. Carlson subscribed to the view that Caligula
I
c •n
has a double theme: absurdist revolt and moderation.
To test the ethical implications of his absurdism, Camus j
wrote Caligula and The Misunderstanding, and caused Caligu-;
la to perceive
that even in an absurd universe not all actions are
equivalent, not everything is permissible. Human
nature and human experience set their own limits and
define values without which life is impossible, (p. 304)
From 19 38 onward, concluded Carlson, Camus, though having
|affinities with the existentialists, demonstrated that he
|was a humanist in his approach to the absurd (p. 304).
|
57
"The Humanism of Albert Camus," Humanist, XX (Sep-
!tember-October 1960), 303.
64 |
Affirming Carlson's judgment that Camus has "existen- j
tialist" affinities, Charles I. Glicksberg held that al— j
!
though "Camus . . . is not an Existentialist, either of j
i
j
the Kierkegaardian or Sartrean variety," he did deal with j
CO • , . '
many existentialist themes. Reflecting in Caligula the
metaphysical sickness of his generation (a despair with |
the inhumanity of man and a fascination with nihilism),
I
Camus surmounted these forces by turning to humanism for
j
the values necessary to the preservation of life. In
creating this drama, therefore, which has "nothingness1 1 for;
its theme, Camus carried nihilism to its logical extreme,
and, as in his other dramas and novels, demonstrated the
destructive consequences of a negative revolt against the
meaninglessness of death (p. 51).
Leon S. Roudiez implied that Camus was intensely
; interested in death in this play, not because the author
’ was morbid, but rather because he was so very fascinated
with this life which death destroys.^ Through the emperor,
i
I 50
i "Forms of Madness in Literature," Arizona Quarterly
| XVII (Spring 1961), 51.
59"Camus an(j Moby Dick," Symposium, XV (Spring 1961),
32. Edward L. Burke, "Camus and the Pursuit of Happiness,"
| Thought, XXXVII (Autumn 1962), 389-399, agreed that Camus
65
the author demonstrated that pure logic is not adequate
to the task of coping with evil or with the absurd. The
play demonstrates that there is an irresistible logic that
ends by setting man against creation and the creator, then
against his fellowmen, and finally against himself.
Rosette C. Lamont agreed with Roudiez that Camus is "not a
pessimist"; for him there was simply "no love of life with
out the knowledge of despair."
Melville, Dostoevski, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Kafka,
Gide, Malraux and Char strengthened Camus in his revolt
against conventional morality and taught him to look
with irony upon the absurdity of life.
In Caligula, therefore, the author develops three main
themes: (1) a revolt against the concept of "the culti
vated French bourgeois who knows wine, women and art
alone"; (2) a metaphysical revolt against a godless world
like those of Nietz&che and Gide; and (3) the need for
solitude and the struggle to attain or retain it (pp. 446,
was preoccupied with exploring his own personal problem of
confronting death. Caligula is not a dramatization of the
j abuses of political power but rather a dramatization of
Camus's "intense personal crisis" when tuberculosis
|attacked him. Though Camus hated death, he proved through
;the emperor that it is impossible to flee its power.
i
i
i fj n
"The Anti-Bourgeois," French Review, XXXIV (April
1961), 446
66
451, 453).
Rima Drell Reck declared that Camus's dramas portray
"men struggling with the emotional:and psychological facts
6 T
of alienation by means of man-made justice." Caligula
|
and The Misunderstanding (that appear to Philip Thody in
j
Albert Camus to represent a valueless world because the j
absurd reduces all actions to equal unimportance) are i
i
i
demonstrations of "the essential alienation and grandeur j
of the human conditions." Camus believed that though his j
dramas, like those of Aeschylus, are often despairing,
they are also, like those of Aeschylus, optimistic and
warming (p. 44). "The modern tragedy," for Camus, "stems
from a misunderstanding, a fatal misunderstanding not of
the divine ways of the gods, but of the finite, physical
way of man." Camus's ideal is the Greek golden mean, in
which "man is both related to his natural environment, the
earth, and to man and all that the concept of man implies—
mortality, responsibility, compassion." Reck concurred in
Philip Thody's judgment that Camus's idea of revolt is
j "essentially conservative, bourgeois in its aims, protect-
i
| ®-*-"The Theatre of Albert Camus," Modern Drama, IV
I (May 1961), 42.
67
ing human life against violence and improving the material
and spiritual conditions under which it is lived." The ;
!
search for absolute, transcendent values— total peace,
flawless justice, pure logic— in Camus's humanist vision
i
intensifies human alienation from the self and from others j
(pp. 45-46).
Not disputing Reek's views, Albert Sonnenfeld came to i
the conclusion that the predominant themes of Camus's j
I
works are exile and revolt.
Both concepts are equally applicable since the central
character . . . has invariably been both an exile from
the mass of humanity and a rebel against the meaning
less pattern of life of that humanity. (pp. 107-10 8)
Thus, Caligula, a rebel and an exile, does not comprehend
that "absolute idealism is the twin of nihilism" until
I after he has endeavored to defy the absurd through a futile
i
|quest for the absolute. Sonnenfeld concluded that the
!characters in Caligula, which is based on The Myth of
I Sisyphus, "are acting out [Camus's] own inner drama."
!Camus admired Caligula for his perspicacity in recognizing
|the deception of absolutes and abstractions but he loathed
i
j g2
"Albert Camus as Dramatist" The Sources of His
I Failure," Tulane Drama Review, V (June 1961), 107.
68
him for his inhumanity toward his fellowmen (pp. 111-113).
Andree Kail confirmed Sonnenfeld's conviction that
6 3
this play reflects the thoughts of The Myth of Sisyphus.
For her, Caligula enacts "a man's discovery of the 'absurd'j
and his reaction to it." The themes which Camus develops
are as follows: first, the necessity of attaining lucid- |
ity concerning the human plight; second, the need to revolt;
within human limits, against the absurd? and third, the |
conflict which arises between the desire for solitude and
the need for human love (pp. 202, 204, 206). Kail held
that "Caesonia is the spokesman for Camus' partial answer
to the dilemma of man, which he was to develop later in
j
The Plague." Caesonia wants life and love for Caligula
and she expresses "respect for life and a sympathy for the
anguish of man" (p. 206).
Concurring in Kail's opinion that the theme of revolt
is present, James H. Clancy insisted that this theme is
f i A
the heart of all Camus's dramas. Like Sartre, Adamov,
6 3
"The Transformation of Camus1 Heroes from the Novel
to the Stage," Education Theatre Journal, XIII (October
|1961),202.
i
C A
"Beyond Despair: A New Drama of Ideas," Educational
Theatre Journal, XIII (October 1961), 162.
69
Ionesco and Brecht, Camus rejected primarily the attempt
of the nineteenth century thinkers and writers to place
i
l
man in or adjust man to his environment— an environment
that generally was considered as "scientifically demonstra^
i
ble, mechanistically controlled, determined by factors
that could be analyzed."65 Appearing to confuse Caligula
with his creator, Clancy declared that in this play which
is "pessimistic as opposed to the implied optimism of the
earlier theatre of ideas" and which offers a vision that
i
is "essentially more repugnant," Camus dramatizes "his
despair, his anguish . . . Caligula's defeat is his, as it
is ours, as it is every man's." Clancy maintained that not
until Camus wrote The Just Assassins, which reflects the |
65
In comparing Brecht with Camus, Clancy held that
I Brecht too, rejected the ideas of the nineteenth century,
| but he was more directly concerned with economic, politi-
j cal and social ideas than Camus who was more interested
in philosophical issues. Both, however, believed that
I men must revolt in this world which is dominated by mate-
: rial things (pp. 159, 163). Unlike Camus, who defied the
! absurd, Brecht refused to consider it because he assumed
! that once society is in control another scheme of things,
j that does make sense, can be created. Clancy concluded
| that "Camus' insight is personal, philosophical and
! tragic; Brecht's is social, political and satirical"
(p. 166).
70
concepts of Letters to a German Friend, did he adopt a
humanist position and urge each man to defy economic,
material and social schemes that threaten the establish
ment of ethical values within man himself— modifications
that are imperative if society and the world are to be
humanized (pp. 163-164).
i
In the opinion of Robert J. Starratt, S.J., Camus
demonstrated through his hero the danger in seeking all
|
or nothing, because the search for absolutes terminates
in nihilism.Starratt, using The Rebel as a key to his
1
observations, added that Camus was really dealing with the I
j
problem of sin in Caligula as well as in State of Siege. j
Although Camus had asserted that he did not know the mean- j
ing of sin in "Noces," he acknowledged in The Rebel that
|
there is "human guilt and accuses any man of injustice
who violated the limits of human nature." Thus, "suicide,
murder, totalitarian oppression and even religious ideol-
; ogies are unjustified" because they fail to meet two
i essential needs of human nature: life and freedom (p. 35).
| Like Starratt, Charles G. Hill thought that Caligula
i
i
!
| a"An Analysis of Albert Camus' The Fall,1 1 Cithara,
I (November 1961), 37.
71
was an obverse symbol of Camus's position toward abso
lutes.^^ Caligula, like Alfred de Vigny's Satan, was
moved by pity for man's suffering to undertake the burden
of changing the human condition (p. 158). In spite of
!
Camus's conviction that "the satanic protest" was a roman-
I
tic, futile gesture because "God was responsible for man's
original condemnation," he depicted Caligula as a man who
tried to tamper with the order of the world and to possess
6 8
the absolute. Caligula failed because of his "pride,"
f . 7
"Camus and Vigny,1 ' PMLA, LXXVII (March 1962), 157-
158.
f i 8
Hill, having noted a "vague acknowledgment" by >
Camus himself of the influence of Alfred de Vigny as well j
as the remarks of Roger Quilliott, John Cruickshank, and j
Philip Thody about Camus's affinity with de Vigny, set 1
about examining these two writers. He discovered that de
spite some differences in the moral, social and intellec
tual forces that shaped de Vigny and Camus, they reveal
affinities or attitudes toward metaphysics and religion
ithat are fundamentally similar. Hill noted the following
differences: (1) Vigny tended to be more romantic than
; Camus; (2) Vigny saw evil, in the manner of the romantics,
I as a fatalism whereas Camus said that he saw it, in the
manner of the Greeks, as merely existing side by side with ■
!the good; (3) Vigny had a greater historical sense, theo-
I logically and socially than Camus. He tended to arrive at ;
• his conclusions through intellect while Camus tended to
i arrive at his conclusions through experience and intuition.j
The affinities between de Vigny and Camus which Hall listed j
were as follows: (1) They developed a stoicism in the face!
of the evil and the irrationality in life and the world;
|(2) both considered evil a central problem and tended to j
72
not because of "evil intent."
Agreeing that Camus was opposed to absolutes, Peter J.
Reed thought that Caligula, in addition to Camus's three
later dramas, exhibited Camus's profound interest in and
i
69
concern for justice and law. In Caligula, Camus devel-
' f
oped the following themes in this work: First, since a
perfect justice does not exist, it is a terrible mistake
i
i
to subjugate human life to this ideal; second, the legal
regard it as a force, imposed from the outside, that is
enhanced by the weaknesses of man; (3) they considered hope
one of the greatest of human follies; (4) both were hostile I
to and revolted against a silent God and the indifference j
of the cosmos; (5) they adamantly opposed the attempt to j
replace God with political and social systems; (6) both |
rejected Christianity as a religion of despair and pre
ferred the Greek exaltation of life on this earth; and i
{7) though Camus scorned the Romantics' lament for the :
absence of God, there is as much protest implicit in much
of Camus's work as there is in Vigny's (pp. 156-165).
69"judges in the Plays of Albert Camus," Modern Drama,
;V (May 1962), 55-56. Thomas Landon Thorson, "Albert Camus
and the Rights of Man," Ethics, LXXIV (July 1964), 288,
held that whereas Camus examined and rejected in The
Stranger the idea that the private life as it is can be
properly regulated by an abstract set of absolute moral
and legal norms, in Caligula he studied and rejected the
|thought that society can be successfully governed by the
;absurd. Although Caligula starts to rule on the absurdist
I premise that since there is no right or wrong, everything
is permitted, the dramatic and philosophical suggestion at
the conclusion of the drama is that everything is not
permitted because the absurd carries within itself the
idea of limitation.
73
system of a democratic, bourgeois society can muster no
defense against tyranny and, therefore, is easily adapted
and used by a monolithic power; third, a judge, if an
i
arbitrary administrator of the law, serves the cause of |
i
injustice, for a human being must be considered before the
law; and fourth, a relatively minor flaw in the character
of a man can become a monstrosity if it is permitted to
grow unchecked (pp. 56-57). j
Setting aside the issues of justice and law, Leon J.
j
Goldstein held that this play is mainly concerned with the j
essential loneliness of each man and the attempt of an |
|
7 0 1
individual to gain complete freedom. Since Caligula is
unable to control the universe, he turns to the human
sphere from which he intends to wrest his total freedom |
|
:and begins to destroy the centers of subjectivity of each
of his friends and subjects so that he can turn each of
them into things which he can manipulate at will.
Through the role of Caligula, Camus appeared to
express two ideas: (1) It is impossible to gain absolute ;
I freedom at the expense of the egos of others, and (2) if
I
i
|
^"The Emperor of China as the Emperor of China," Per-
sonalist, XLIII (Autumn 1962), 515-516.
74
total freedom were at all possible, at the most there
could be only one free man. This single free man, of
course, would be utterly isolated from everyone else. It
would appear, Goldstein argued, that Camus thought that
"only an unrestricted ego is free and my freedom depends
upon my capacity to suppress the otherness of the other."
Hence, although Caligula's attempt to obliterate the self
hood of others brought him into a state of total aliena
tion and led him to his own destruction, still Camus
appeared to ignore this aspect of the situation in order
to stress "the absurdity of freedom" (p. 522).^'*'
71
In a comparison of Hegel’s Emperor of China in his
works,. Philosophy of History and Phenomenology of Mind to
Camus's emperor, Goldstein came to the conclusion that
Hegel has a broader conception of freedom than Camus.
| Hegel had posited that history concerns the continuous
expansion of the scope of freedom which hypothetically
originated in China; but in the beginning only one person
! was free and he was the Emperor. Thus, Hegel's Emperor is
the one free man but, unlike Caligula, he did not gain
total freedom by his suppression of the freedom of others.
Rather he was free because his subjects did not possess
|subjectivity, i.e., they were not aware of themselves as
:persons or self-conscious agents. Further, although all
I the Chinese, guilty and innocent, were as degraded as
Caligula's subjects and although there was no distinction
made between a premeditated crime and an accident; still,
;the Emperor did not, as Caligula, mete out punishment even
;when no crime had been perpetrated.
| Hegel predicted that in the course of history as more
jpeople gained more freedom and as new forms for the expres-
j sion of freedom arose, the freedom of each person would
75
Goldstein concluded that it is no accident that the
emperor is stricken with madness, is completely isolated,
and is finally assassinated because:
Caligula's conception of freedom is pathological. And
its frustration is perhaps very well symbolized by
Caligula's failure to win the moon, as if failure to
attain what cannot be attained, and what no one would j
will to attain could be an infringement upon any rea
sonable conception of one's freedom. Caligula fails,
Camus seems to suggest, because his quest is absurd. j
The will to freedom is absurd, for it is the will to j
what, as a matter of fact, cannot be achieved. The
constitution of the universe forbids it. (p. 522)
Not challenging Goldstein's remarks, Claude K.
Abraham came to the conclusion that, along with The Mis
understanding, this play dramatizes the concept of the
72 i
absurd that is promulgated in The Myth of Sisyphus. Not j
become increasingly more compatible with that of others.
For Camus, however, freedom seems to be impossible and an
; absurdity unless the ego is totally free from restraint or
i from any form of sharing freedom with another. Thus, de-
; spite Hegel's reputation as a defender of "statist poli
tics" and Camus's repute as a defender of human freedom,
: there is a conception of freedom in Camus's and Sartre's
! writings which does not resemble at all our most widely
held conception of freedom. Unlike Hegel, who believed
; that a modern self can be fulfilled in "a socioethical
j substance which is shared and is not merely an extension
| of the individual ego," Camus and Sartre are afraid that
|"the other" will destroy their egos (pp. 515-525).
^"Caligula: Drama of Revolt or Drama of Deception,"
Modern Drama, V (February 1963), 451.
76
only is the theme based on Ivan Karamazov's cry, "Every
thing is permitted," but Caligula's joy in his revolt is
also just as hollow as Ivan's was. The emperor's revolt
is both futile and pointless (pp. 452-453).
Louis Z. Hammer, acknowledged that Caligula's reign !
may be considered a parallel with Hitler's Nazism but he
i
stressed what he considered the more important themes |
which revolve around the question whether life has meaning
or not, and the problem of the relation between thought
73
and action. Camus, basing this play on The Myth of j
Sisyphus, examined the tragedy born of the passion for the j
impossible and demonstrated the moral that rebellion must
be guided by love, if it is to be a true rebellion. I
i
Hammer continued that although the young Camus was
attracted to the youthful Caligula for he saw an aspect of
himself in the emperor, the author intended Caligula to be
an obverse symbol of his philosophical stand. Camus
' appreciated the brilliant lucidity which the emperor
; possessed but he was wise enough to know where the emperor
j went wrong (pp. 323-324).
j
I
i
3 7 0
j "Impossible Freedom in Camus' Caligula," Personal-
I ist, XLIV (July 1963), 323-324.
77
In Edward B. Savage's opinion, the theme of Caligula,
like that of Pirandello's play, Enrico IV explores truth
or reality in a world of illusion or a p p e a r a n c e .74 To
Ben Stoltzfus, the theme of Caligula and of the remainder
i
of Camus's works is focused upon a metaphysical revolt
against the human condition and the whole of creation.75
j
This revolt originates in man's feeling like an exile in
l
j
an alien, often hostile environment and in man's hatred of
death (p. 294). The more completely that man is cut off
from certain elemental forces in nature which strengthen
him and give him his capacity for a creative existence,
j
j
the more violently he revolts (p. 301). Camus seems to
j
postulate a premise that man is entitled to a share of
happiness and of self-realization and has a right to
revolt if these desires are unmet. The author, continued
Stoltzfus, envisioned the creative revolt, one within
limits, as an affirmative act and, like Malraux and Sartre
74"Masks and Mummeries in Enrico IV and Caligula,1 1
| Modern Drama, VI (February 1964) , 401.
75
"Camus and the Meaning of Revolt," Modern Fiction
| Studies, x (Autumn 1964) , 293-294.
78
76
thought it gave a significance to life. In this revolt,
man, of course, must seek to secure happiness for others
as well as for himself. Without responsibility, revolt
adds to the burden of alienation and, without love, free-
i
dom fosters the growth of the hatred that makes man destroy!
himself and others (pp. 296-297).
I
To summarize, it has been seen that the critics !
shifted from stressing the importance of Caligula's de- |
fiance of the cosmic absurd to emphasizing the importance
of his flaunting human limits to the point that he created |
nihilism and totalitarianism, states that reinforced the
I
i
!
absurd of the universe. Instead of equating the concep- |
tion of the absurd or the tenets of existentialism with !
despair, the critics came to the conclusion that if Camus
1 76
Stoltzfus indicated that Camus and Sartre were more
alike than different in their philosophical ideas. Mal-
raux, Sartre, and Camus believed that since there is no
God and no hereafter, man had to create his own purpose
and his own morality. If man chooses principles and values
jaccording to his inner being and ignores "traditional
religious and social standards, then logically in total
freedom the outcome of all actions is equivalent and there j
is ho necessity or purpose to life." Malraux, Sartre, and
I Camus agreed, however, that existence was its own reason
i for being (pp. 295-296). Camus's conceptions of the
absurd was much like Sartre's and Malraux*s but he stressed|
the creative aspects of rebellion. Malraux asserted that I
"action" gave meaning to man's life, whereas Sartre held !
1 that "choice" gave importance to life, and Camus urged
79
were not hopeful for the hereafter of man, it did not
mean that he was not hopeful for the destiny of man on
earth. Although after nineteen years of discussion, the
critics' adverse reaction to Camus's world outlook was j
l
overcome, their dissatisfaction with the characterization
will not be changed. |
I
j
Characters and Characterization j
: i
Caligula, as the protagonist, drew the attention of |
j
most of the critics, in the 1940’s, while Cherea, Scipio i
and Caesonia were largely ignored. Those who examined j
i
Cherea and Caesonia agreed that he represented the reason- !
able man who took a relative approach to the absurd while
Caesonia symbolized the power of love. The scholars and |
journalists were persuaded that the emperor was a cynical
:and destructive villain-hero who, envisioning himself as
:a superman, used his absolute power to attempt to escape
;the absurd. A few critics, of course, thought that Caligu-
I la was a symbol of totalitarianism. Most of the critics
I declared or implied that the emperor was an absurd or
|"revolt" as the way to give significance to human life
j (pp. 295-297).
80
Sisyphean hero. The characterization was regarded defi
cient because few of the critics could perceive Caligula
i
j
or the other dramatis personae as concrete and unique j
identities.
The first critic to deal with the characterization in |
the 40's was O'Brien. He disliked the characters, and,
i
calling them "marionettes," implied that they are so
lacking in life that this play would be better read than
i
performed. Fully agreeing with him, Clark thought Calig
ula is an incredible Sisyphean figure. She assumed, how-
i
ever, that "Caligula must be considered a hero and not
the caricature of a gauleiter." Guerard joined the |
detractors. In his opinion, Caligula, even in a French
production, emerges "as an hysterical megalomaniac, rather i
than as a somberly reflective philosopher of the absurd."
Though Camus intended him to be "a frustrated idealist/"
he succumbs to the temptation of joining the cynicism of
imitating the universal injustice that surrounds him and
becomes a "meglomaniac." Caligula, as a rigorous "philoso-
i !
|pher of the absurd," pushes his notion to its logical con-
I elusions with fearful results. Although the emperor is
I
I
ihaunted by a fear of solitude, his pathological fear of
i ;
jdeath drives him to murder and to total alienation. Cherea|
81
does not dispute with Caligula's idea that the world is
absurd or irrational but he does challenge his idea that
B l
he must pursue the absurd to its logical extremity. He
understands, as Caligula does not, that if all acts are
qualitatively equivalent, if there are no value judgments
made, then he or no one else can be happy or even live in
such a world (pp. 50-51). i
i
In contrast with the earlier critics, Smith thought
Camus had portrayed the emperor very well as a lonely man
and as Ka villain hero whose fiendish career parallels
at many points the deeds of Hitler and Mussolini." Mohrt |
did not quarrel with Smith but he added that Caligula is !
intended to be an exceptional and mythical personage. All ;
Camus's characters are intended to stand for the larger
[
- issues that loom behind them as individual human beings
I (p. 118).
Eaton betrayed mixed feelings, with horror, perhaps,
dominant toward the emperor who is at once "amoral" and
"sadistic," "baleful and almost pitiful." Eaton appeared
|to equate Caligula with the superman who inevitably fosters
the growth of nihilism. Implying that the characters are
!symbols more than people, Clurman underscored the signifi-
j . I
j cance of the roles of the characters. If Caligula repre- j
82
sents Camus's conception of the destructiveness of the
absolute idea, then Scipio embodies the constructiveness
of the relative idea that regards the states of right and
wrong or of innocence and guilt as mixed. There is no man
so innocent nor any idea so perfect that one man should I
i
murder another for his or its sake. Thus, unlike Cherea,
Scipio cannot fully condemn the emperor because he is able
to understand Caligula's reactions to the absurd (p. 26).
Bentley held that Caligula is more a disillusioned and
pitiful idealist than an indifferent cynic. Not "a hulk-
!
ing brute but a wounded, sensitive soul," Caligula dis
covers that "life is too absurd even for him, an immoral-
i
ist." It is the presence of this sensitive soul, Bentley |
f
concluded, that saves this play from being a mere melo
drama. Concurring in Bentley's view, Blanc-Roos declared
that the emperor is like Hamlet who was "but mad north-
north-west and endowed by an atrocious clairvoyance."
; Though the emperor's career certainly resembles that of
; Hitler, "the parallel is never obtrusive nor didactic."
Like Bentley and Blanc-Roos, Scherer felt a compas-
■ sion for Caligula, the absurd hero and philosopher, who
conducts his life according to his own idea of logic.
1 Trying to attain the impossible or absolute liberty by
83
asserting all actions are morally the same, he intends to
go beyond the gods themselves and establish the impossible j
j
as the center of all creation. Cherea, prompted more by |
j
practicality than by sentiment, however, helps to thwart
the emperor's plans. Scherer continued, Caesonia, whom
Caligula strangles, is "the only person who perhaps without;
understanding senses the depth and the basic logic of
Caligula's procedures." The final outcome of the play,
i
concluded Scherer, despite Caligula's levelling his idea
of the equality of all acts against human life, proves that
"this death is a victory of what he tried to destroy: It
j
is the triumph of conventions and of the price of other
people's security" (p. 56). i
Despite Camus's tendency to develop Caligula and the
rest of his characters into almost autonomous entities,
l
I Scherer held that Caligula is true to his historical proto-
;type and a plausible hero in his absurd world. Because
of Camus's "genius" of introducing into Caligula's charac
ter "a delicate quality of pathetic greatness," Scherer
I ;
Ifound herself extending her sympathy to the hero rather
t
ithan to his victims, even though she was not really per-
|suaded that the emperor is morally justified or deserves
|her compassion. In contrast with Scherer's approval, Troy j
84
was disturbed by the meaning, of Caligula's role and the
way in which he was developed. He argued, "the emperor
is even more monstrous than his historical model since he
is constructed on the basis that a human individual might
J
really desire to attain absolute freedom" (p. 589). Troy ;
continued that, as a whole, Camus was guilty, like Franz j
Kafka, of too much abstraction in his work (p. 5 88). Un-
i
like Dostoevsky and Melville, who were "interested in the j
individual character in all its depth and contradictori-
i
ness" as well as in giving images and statements about
life, Camus neglected his characters. "None of the Exis- |
i
tentialists has so far created a single character of any j
dimensions," asserted Troy, but perhaps "our age demands
not the unique, but the 'extreme' not the individual, but
the 'typical.tH Troy concluded that the characters,
! representing abstract ideas, lack "the kind of credulity
that we expect from serious drama" (pp. 588-589).
In retrospect, we have seen that the majority of the
critics held that Caligula lacked human qualities and
i
realness. Because they could not sympathize with his
j extreme individualism, or develop an appreciation for
J ethical rather than psychological motivations, or detect
j ;
j the transformations in his character, they considered the j
85
emperor an incredible monster. The critics in the coming
decade will concur in the opinions of their predecessors.
In the 1950's, the critics vied with each other in
offering explanations of the roles of Caligula and the
other characters but they had little to say about the
characterization. Those who addressed themselves to this
|
question were predominantly dissatisfied with what they j
I
believed was a substitution of a mythic reality for a
subjective reality. Almost all indicated, directly or
|
indirectly, that the emperor was an absurd hero who pur
sued his ideal to the point that he became a monster. One i
I
scholar stressed the repetition manifest in the character j
types and their actions.
i
The first critic of the 50's to discuss the charac
ters and the characterization was Strauss. He saw Caligula
both as an example of Suetonius' "monster" and as an em
bodiment of Diderot's "madman."^ Camus modified Diderot's
Strauss observed that Suetonius in his history, De
Vita Caesarum, had described the early and enlightened
months of Caligula's reign as those of a 'prince' but
after Drusilla's death, a sudden illness, and a transfor
mation in the emperor's character, Suetonius called his
| rule that of a 'monster' more than that of a man. It is
I probably this remark, therefore, that moved Camus to depict;
the emperor as a monster. Since Camus used this Roman
86
definition, however, by providing the crazed Caligula
with a purpose— a revolt against the absurd. Obsessed
with his unreasonable demand for the impossible, Caligula,
like Kierkegaard's Abraham who is pushed by an unreasonable:
7 R '
god, seeks to conquer the absurd in life. After he j
history for the basis of most of his drama, his characters |
are all historically documented. Only Scipio is an excep- j
tion and he might have been the distinguished man who
arose in Claudius' reign and succeeded Caligula. Helicon
appears in Judaeus' historical account. Since a good
deal of the borrowings from Suetonius, which appear in the
dialogue, events and personalities are almost verbatim,
the dramatic Caligula is identical, in most respects, to
the historical figure. In regard to Diderot's remark,
Strauss noted that in Jacques, le Fataliste, Diderot said
that "the exercise of complete freedom with a purpose"
would characterize a madman. Strauss concluded that j
although Camus had borrowed material from Suetonius, his
characters and his ideas were uniquely his own (pp. 160-
167) .
^^Strauss indicated that Caligula has an affinity
with Kierkegaard's Abraham and shares certain dramatic
I characteristics and philosophical motives with Dostoev-
i sky's and Kafka's protagonists. Caligula resembles Kierke
gaard's Abraham in that "the latter surmounted by faith
the absurd demand of an unreasonable God. Caligula's as
pirations, though preceeding from a different point of
departure, coincide with those of Abraham."
Caligula tries to create a world in which everyone is
I guilty as in Kafka's Per Prozess, and he betrays a more
| morbidly ironic view than even K's in Das Schloss. Unlike
; Kafka's protagonists, Camus's heroes discerned the absurd
ity and are not misled by hope,
j Caligula shares a "mixture of the characteristics of
i Stavrogin and Kirilov in The Possessed." Caligula has
I Kirilov's uncompromising logic and the same desire to be
87
strangles Caesonia, however, the emperor realizes he is as
guilty as his subjects. He has pursued his absurd logic to
i
the end and captured neither the moon nor the impossible
(p. 162). Strauss insisted that, extremely jittery, rest
less, and consistently overwrought, Caligula suggests his
doom from the outset of the play. Violent in nature and
|
unlimited in his temporal power, Caligula's fanatic pur
suit of his ideal foreshadows his death. The other fig
ures, Cherea, Scipio, and Caesonia serve mainly to illumi- !
nate aspects of the emperor1s character as he moves toward i
total isolation (pp. 164-167). j
I
i
Unlike the majority of the critics, Strauss considered
the roles of the antagonist and the other characters. He
described Cherea as "the counterpoise" to Caligula and he !
postulated that he represented 1 1 the moderate, the reason-
God combined with the temperament and youth of Stavrogin.
Both Stavrogin and Caligula refuse to take responsibility
for their actions and intend to be Ubermensch. As Kiri
lov's absurd logic leads him to his suicide, so Caligula's
absurd logic leads him to his assassination. There is,
however, the difference that Kirilov kills himself for the
sake of other men, whereas humanity has to kill Caligula
for its own sake (pp. 172-173).
88
able, the relativistic approach to 1 absurdism. '1 1 The
values he seeks are decency, security, good health and
good sense" (pp. 168-169). Cherea, epitomizing "the con
solation of faith" understands Caligula but he is com
pelled to oppose him. He knows that the security and the
logic which Caligula is attempting to make compatible will
inevitably end in a nihilism which will be intolerable.
Further, Cherea1s opposition to Caligula becomes adamant
when he becomes convinced that Caligula has corrupted j
Scipio to the extent that the young poet is unable to con
demn totally Caligula's rebellion.
Scipio, said Strauss, represents the symbol of "puri
fication through art" and although he retains his purity
to the end, it is only because he withdraws from the con
spiracy. His devotion to Caligula ends when the emperor
kills his father. Finding he is unable to agree with the
others that Caligula should be killed, he flees the assas-
| sination but he thereby discovers no answer to the absurd-
i ity.^ In his relationship with Caligula, Scipio gained
■ 79 y
Germain Bree, "Camus' Caligula: Evolution of a
I Play," Symposium, XII (Spring-Fall 1958), 43-51, observed
that there are three published versions of Caligula; 1945,
1958, 1960. All three versions follow the same pattern of
89
a clairvoyance that he had never had before but he is not
tempted to become another Caligula. Strauss interpreted
Scipio's role to mean that there was
an implication in Camus's mind that the artist is more
precariously involved in the absurdity of life, and
more likely to conceive of it in absolute terms, than
the sentimentalist (Caesonia) or the reasonable man
(Cherea). (p. 16 8)
Caesonia represents "the simple claim of love over that of
logic." Her acquiescence to Caligula's logic brings about
her own tragic ending and "in Caligula's final isolation
even she becomes superfluous, even love becomes useless"
(p. 167).
In contrast to Strauss, Simpson considered the
action. Probably the: main differences between the 1938
and the 1945 version are as follows: (1) the roles of the
senators and the chevaliers become one; the patricians;
(2) there are poets in the cast; (3) the motif of "rien" is
stressed; (4) the importance of Drusilla's death is de
emphasized and a double dialogue between Drusilla's shade
and Caligula is eliminated; and (5) this version is longer
than the 1938. The 1958 version differs from the 1945
thus: (1) the stage set is important; (2) Helicon's role
: is expanded and he becomes actively engaged in behalf of
; Caligula. He dies fighting for the emperor; (3) Scene 6
I of Act IV is entirely new; (4) Caligula is more concerned
! than in earlier version with moralizing and contemporary
| events; (5) Scipio avoids the conspiracy and flees Rome be
fore the assassination occurs; and (6) this version is the
| longest of the three plays. In Justin O'Brien's adaptation
of the 1958 version for Broadway in 1960, the four acts
j are reduced to two.
i
90
i
i
j
characterization a failure not only in Caligula but also j
i
in The Misunderstanding and in The Just Assassins. The ’
|
protagonist in each work is "a mediocre character imper- j
fectly cognizant of the terms of the problem" in which he j
is entrapped but he "is moved by an instinct to seek the
rational in an irrational universe within the limits of
i
the human condition." The characters are merely puppets,
i
concluded Simpson, which do not engage her interest or j
j
sympathy. As for Caligula, he is depicted as consistently |
amoral, cruel and remorseless. He seeks to equal the gods ]
j
and his uncompromising idealism will not permit him to
choose an alternative route, retreat, or rest. Eventually
he disposes of all human needs— love, happiness, security,
literature— but scorn. Although the emperor succeeds in
I ;
I escaping all restraints, duties, and inhibitions as well
as illusion, he is unable to capture the impossible.
; Without hope, he has to bear the bitterness of being right
; and having to persevere to the end (pp. 186, 188-189, 190).:
! Instead of interpreting the character of Caligula, ;
I
A i
| Viggiani turned his attention to Camus's dictum— "'Etre
| !
classique, c'est en meme temps se repeter et savoir se j
repeter," as it is applied to the character types and I
the basic situations in Camus's novels and plays.___________
91 |
|
Viggiani summarized the basic characters and situations j
i
thus:
the young hero . . . who murders and/or suffers violent
death; the mother-wife-sweetheart-sister who is either
directly involved in the hero's death and/or is killed,
or dies, or remains to suffer the consequences of the
hero's death; [and] the father or father-figure who
directly or otherwise condemns to death or helps to
bring about condemnation of the hero. The other charac— }
ters . . . are of relatively little importance, with I
the exception of the figure of the nihilist. . . . i
(p. 876) |
In this drama the mother figure appears in Drusilla whom j
!
Caligula loves most dearly, and the nihilist is the emperor
i
himself. For Camus, those who kill not only God but also !
men are those who stand for nihilism— a total perversion
of Camus's idea of revolt. |
|
Viggiani continued;
j
The main impulse in Camus' creativity and the shape it
takes in his works seems to belong to a classic psycho
logical category. Embedded in the character and the
plot structure of his works is the fatal attraction of
the mother, the condemnation by the father, and the
rebellion of the son. The incest leitmotiv that
threads discreetly through most of Camus' works breaks
out into the open in Caligula. . . . (p. 876)
Viggiani concluded that out of an essentially Oedipus
complex both Camus's artistic creativity and his concept
of revolt arise (p. 877).
Gregory held that the dramatis personae are "believ- !
j
able." Agreeing with Gregory, Maddocks lauded Camus's j
92 |
portrayal of his characters for he comes to no tidy con- |
|
elusions in their conflicts: he lets them struggle, j
I
]
"caught paradoxically between their identities as self- j
!
!
realizing individuals and as social beings." All the
protagonists exhibit a yearning for a kind of "purity."
"Self-deceit is the primary flaw" in their make-up and !
I
until they can overcome this weakness with "moral courage,";
i
i
until they are absolutely honest, and purify themselves j
of fear, they cannot achieve a "catharsis even when they
I
fail practically— as they all do" (p. 7). He concluded
!
that Caligula is more an idealist than a monster. j
In Jones's opinion, Caligula is an enigmatic figure.
The difficulty arises "because the hero is portrayed with
* i
profoundness and yet in so illusory a manner that on first !
I acquaintance he is completely baffling." Jones was puzzled;
— is the emperor intended to be an absurd hero, as de
scribed in The Myth of Sisyphus, a madman, or what?
Part of the difficulty in interpretation arises from
the fact that there are two levels to the drama. On the
I one level, Caligula appears to be mentally unbalanced. He
|is so intensely shocked by his personal calamity that he
j passes from grief into a kind of madness which is charac-
| ’
i '
j terized by a terrible lucidity and clairvoyance. _____ j
93
Drusilla's death has taught him that men die and are not
happy because of the unpredictability of the irrational
world and its complete unintelligibility to man. In
|
defiance of the absurd or of the gods, the emperor resolves I
to.use his liberty and power, since the world is unimpor
tant, to disown man and the universe. As this kind of mad ■
j
man, Caligula demonstrates "a capricious and illogical j
i
j
madness in denying both the value of human life and the i
world” (pp. 123-124).
On the second and more philosophical level, Caligula
!
represents "an ordinary man, albeit an emperor, who sud- |
i
!
denly comes into contact with the blind irrationality of
the universe." Because Caligula is thrown into a panic in
i
his confrontation with the absurd, he refuses to live
within the humanly possible. The emperor's fanatical and
j
frantic endeavors to gain the impossible results in his
rendering human life as meaningless as the absurd itself
does.
In the end, Caligula's efforts culminate in his total
I
alienation from mankind; he "becomes an aspect of the
!
t
! irrational world himself, and therefore not completely
| :
[human, and his actions thus become those of a monster."
I r ;
Once the emperor and hero of this work becomes a monster, j
94
however, held Jones, he fails to carry out the purpose for
which Camus had intended him— the nobility of reason ob
serving its limits.
At the end, Jones weighed Caligula as a tragic figure j
and found him wanting. He was convinced that Caligula is
not a tragic figure in the absurdist sense of the word or
in the Aristotelian sense for the following reasons:
(1) Caligula does not give meaning to the absurd by revolt-S
j
ing against it as the absurd hero should, but instead he
I
surrenders to the absurd to the point that he becomes part
of it and seeks his own death; (2) he is not keenly con
scious of his fate or of the frustration of living in an
irrational world, but rather he is merely deluded by his
colossal egotism; (3) he is tragic only insofar as a
monster can be tragic because his ambition is limited to
that of equalling the cruelty of the gods; he does not
seek to create a better world; (4) he lacks reason because
I he refuses to live within limits; and (5) he lacks courage
because the motivations for his actions are those of a
!coward (pp. 125-127).
i Ultimately it is Cherea, said Jones, who proves to
I
|be the true absurd hero. Only he thinks clearly enough to
95
recognize the full meaning of the absurd, to understand
that there is no hope, and to limit his ambitions to those
of a reasonable man. !
i
I
!
Apparently ambivalent about Camus's characterization,
|
Henry Popkin on the one hand, asserted that "this tyrant j
i
and mass murderer engages our interest and even our sym
pathy with his ingenious exposures of patrician banality
80
and the illogic of daily life" (p. 501). On the other
hand, Popkin underscored the startling dissimilarity of
Camus's presentation of his characters to that of most
modern dramatists. Implying that the characterization
seems skeletal, Popkin elucidated Camus's method— he chose ]
I
the circumstances and the characters very carefully so
that they perform only the essentials which the play !
demands. There are no casual bystanders and each charac-
i
! ter is ready for action and argument. He selected solely
j
;those heroes who are capable of free choice in their own
1 right. In this regard, Camus's conception of a stage
: character more closely resembled that of Strindberg than
iof Ibsen. In contrast to the majority of modern dramas
j
in which the characters' neuroses are curbed by the play-
Camus as Dramatist," Partisan Review, XXVI (Slimmer j
1959), 501.______________ j
96
wright, the neuroses in Camus's and Strindberg's dramatis
personae are unchecked.
Speaking in general, Giraud held that Camus, like
Malraux and Sartre, created "romantic" heroes: They are
|
romantic in the sense that they protest the world as it
is constituted and struggle for justice and the dignity
of man. Giraud concluded that there is "more of Cain (a i
I
less publicized but more powerful romantic hero) than of
Prometheus in Camus' Martha . . . and Caligula" (pp. 12-
13). According to John Philip Couch, Camus's characters |
!
suffer because their motivations and conflicts are cen-
i
i
81
tered upon ethical and metaphysical considerations. ;
j
Lacking psychological reality, they appear "stiff and con
trived" and lack the complexity and uniqueness that dis- t
tinguish fully developed characters. Scott did not discuss
the characterization but he noted the signification of the
main characters: Both Caligula and Cherea represent the
hopeless man, but Cherea loves life while Caligula hates
I life.
! To recapitulate, it has been evident that, like their
81
! "Camus' Dramatic Adaptations and Translations," I
jFrench Review, XXXIII (October 1959), 28.
97
predecessors, these critics largely ignored the roles of
Cherea, Scipio and Caesonia. When they were considered,
they were described as symbols of reason, relativity, and
love, respectively. One critic voiced the opinion that
Cherea, Scipio, and Caesonia represented conflicting
factions within Caligula himself. In noting the resem
blances between Camus's protagonists and those of Dostoev
sky, Kafka, Malraux, and of Sartre, the scholars demon
strated the depth and extent of Camus's background and
the need to view his characters on more than one level.
The critics in the 60's will continue to debate the
credibility of Caligula and to trace parallels between
Caligula and the characters of other authors.
During the 1960's, a majority of the critics clung
to the idea that Caligula was an abstractly conceived and
; implausible monster. Unlike the critics in the preceding
decades, however, a large number of the scholars came to
the conclusion that although Caligula was allegorical,
mythical or symbolical, he was at the same time plausible
| and realistically portrayed. They did not, of course,
think Caligula reached the stature of the classic tragic
hero. There was very nearly a consensus that the emperor
was an annihilistic individualist and an absurd hero who
98
was led to destruction through his uncompromising idealism
and logic.
/
According to Germaine Bree, the first to comment upon
the characterization in the 60's, Camus's keen eye for the
intricacies of human behavior and nature is reflected in j
o o I
the creation of his characters. Not only "the inordinatej
vanity, self-importance complacency of the human being
i
always evoke[d] in Camus a violent sense of the ridicu- j
lous," remarked Bree, but he also had the capacity for
|
"a quiet detachment in his observation" which enabled him |
i
to develop his characters autonomously. Camus wanted to j
!
be an objective writer, so much so that his characters |
i
generally tend to become "in Camus' terms, 'mythical'; in
O *5 !
our terms, perhaps, more exactly allegorical." Caligula
|epitomizes Everyman, suggested Bree, because he has the
very same "attitudes, feelings and experiences that Camus
felt were latent among us" (p. 5).
It is unfortunate, Bree continued, that the critics
OO /
Bree, "Albert Camus: 1913-1960 . . . ," p. 2.
! 83 *
\ Bree, "Albert Camus, An Essay.. . . " p. 5.
I
i __
99
have failed to detect "a fundamental dimension" in Camus's
works which involves his ambivalence. Despite manifest
differences in situations and attitudes, his characters
are joined to each other by "an ambivalence inherent in
their paradoxical relation to 'us'— an 'us' which involves
QA
Camus as well as his readers."0 In Caligula, Camus de
veloped experience through figures which embody a particu
lar point of view that is progressively intensified.
Enriching the plot with theatrical and dramatic components
as well as creating an intricate play of perspective, the
characters
. . . are impersonators who run away with one of the
many images we may have of our selves, thereby reveal
ing first a certain one-sided, ridiculous side of
things— the ridiculous emptiness of human gestures,
pretenses and poses; and then the ironic incongruity
of a world from which incongruity refuses to be elimi
nated and finally the disparity between the character
himself and the angle of vision from which he emerged,
(p. 42)
/ •
Caligula, concluded Bree, "integrates" in his unique way
;"an extreme humor" which retains him "in the realms of
[fiction, not in the realm of confession or self-analysis"
| (p. 42).
Grain of Salt," Yale French Studies, No. 25
(Spring 1960), p. 42.
100
O'Brien and Roudiez did not discuss the characteriza
tion but they referred to Caligula as "one of the 'violent
Christs'" mentioned in The Rebel (p. 21). Stavrou believed
that Caligula, unnerved by the realization of the absurd- j
ity of life, is driven to "the transvaluation that sees
conventional good and kindness as evil and cruel." Like j
Conrad's Jim in Lord Jim and Kurtz in Heart of Darkness,
Caligula is motivated by an urge to transcend human
O C
limits. The result is that he, like Jim and Kurtz, !
causes his own destruction. Because Caligula refuses to
be reasonable in his demands, Stavrou believed that he
|
must be moved by hate and thus he resembles one of "Sade's j
i
hero-villains" (pp. 84-85, 91). Speaking of the proto- ;
i
type for Camus's heroes, Stavrou held that it is Sisyphus,
85
Stavrou observed that Jim's and Kurtz's crimes are
their "breach of faith with the community of mankind."
:Further, they appropriate to themselves "idealized images
of themselves," too much "courage" and "energy" which
"self-knowledge and experience do not confirm and/or dis-
I cover." Jim and Kurtz confuse "freedom and solitude"
I whereas Caligula confuses "rule-by-love and rule-by—fear."
i Both Conrad and Camus created heroes who, overly zealous
in their pursuit of idealism and fanatically desirous of
|destroying death, find themselves uncovering 'the heart of
idarkness.' Both writers also were fascinated with isola-
! tion of the individual or the theme of the stranger (pp.
|81-82).
Camus always was fascinated with those figures that "scorn
the gods, hate death, and love life" (p. 88) .
Lewis did not agree that Caligula was moved purely by
hate but rather by an uncontrollable impetuosity and a
i
zest for a risk. The characterization of Caligula is sub
jectively handled, said Lewis, and Camus manifested his
sympathy for his protagonist in the manner in which
Caligula evolves as a "curiously, contradictorily engaging j
t
personality" despite the horror he creates.
In Caligula's rush to seize the impossible, he
i
fiercely casts aside every restraint and joyously sur- j
|
renders to his urge to transcend human limits until he |
|
meets a death which is as much a suicide as it is an j
!
assassination (p. 53). Both the young Camus and the |
youthful Caligula express a stubborn refusal to accept the
injustice and unhappiness in the world to such an extreme
that they become antihumanists and nihilists.
Together, the creator and his hero, continued Lewis,
show their rejection of the universe, of God, of brother
hood, and of moderation in three primary ways. First, the
emperor eagerly seeks nothingness and feels triumphant
at his death because his guest for the nada as an end in
itself is fulfilled. Second, Caligula rejects all modera- j
102
tion and perspective in his drive to become a god and to
transcend the limits of man. Able to discern only Venus,
who seems "deceitful, perverse, malicious and utterly
unpredictable," Caligula is urged by Camus to attack the
deity itself, its inexplicability, and its scandalous
!
state of grace as human reason understands it. As indif
ferently as the gods, Caligula begins to brutalize his j
subjects and to destroy their reasons for living. Third, j
Caligula relentlessly seeks total isolation. He absolutely
refuses to trust, pity or succor his fellowmen. Scorn-
I
fully rejecting human fellowship, Caligula pursues a course!
|
of dehumanizing and depopulating the world. He systematic-!
i
ally tests the different kinds of relationships with those j
closest to him, from Caesonia, Scipio and Cherea even to
himself— and he discards them all (pp. 54-57). Cherea
represents Camus's "more customary thematic point" of
■ accepting the silent deity, the absurd, and living as best
as possible under these circumstances. His stand for
moderation and reason, however, is overwhelmed by Caligu-
ila's charm and exuberance (pp. 54-55).
Speaking in general of Camus's characters, Weinberg
i
|declared that they assume mythical dimensions and enigmatic
i
iqualities. His figures, particularly in the early works.
103
are all depicted as the sons of Cain, even the innocent.
Regardless of their social status, they are either absurd
and antiheroic exiles or rebels, singly or collectively.
The solitary and Sisyphean protagonists, such as Caligula j
and Martha, rebel to the point that they appear to be
|
nihilists. Each character is a prisoner, morally and
physically, of indifference, clairvoyance, guilt, or fear, j
Each is isolated from nature, from his fellowmen, from ’
himself, and surrounded by a hostile universe. Weinberg
argued that all these early figures are not existentialis- :
i
tic, however, because they are ruled by "the entirely j
j
classical faturn and participate in a common nature." As
world events influenced Camus's thought, his Sisyphean
i
i
protagonists changed to Promethean ones and thence to j
Caesars (pp. 34-36, 39-40).
For Hartman, the adolescent Caligula is a symbol of
"the world's accomplice," the man who, appalled with things:
as they are, loses all sense of the difference between
: what can be changed and what cannot to the point that he
! joins the forces of death. Essentially agreeing with
| i
Hartman, Terrien perceived Caligula as a hater of all
creation because grief made him want infinity. Trying to
usurp the role of destiny or fate, he merely perpetuates
104
"evil in an access of moribund and lucid dementia" (pp.
187-190) .
According to Houghton, Caligula represents "the
stranger" or man himself in the universe. Not disputing
Houghton's interpretation, Molnar turned to the charac
terization and found it pleasing. "His characters symbolicj
and real at the same time, have not one false note, one
false gesture." These figures are "real" people because
!
the moral problems with which they grapple are born . of j
experience and life itself (pp. 102-103).
i
To Stern, Caligula is the embodiment of the nihilis- |
f
tic view that since the world is irrational, it is without |
|
importance and hence, everything is permitted to man. 1
Cherea represents moderation and the demand for happiness. |
| Differing with Stern, Carlson perceived the emperor as a
i
! Sisyphean or classic absurd hero whose role demonstrates
that rebellion must be combined with responsibility. Like ,
: Camus's other heroes, he is a "symbol" drawn from dramatic |
: sources, fiction, history or mythology,
i Roudiez, comparing Melville's Ahab to Camus's
i
Caligula, declared that Melville's hero is the greater
105
figure.^ Camus himself could not have failed to recog
nize that Ahab is "a greater creation"— a fact that played
a large part in Camus's "unqualified admiration for Mel
ville." To have reached the level of Ahab, Roudiez
asserted, "Caligula would have required a Shakespeare."
Though Caligula is a combination of attributes and a com
plex figure, he still is not wholly satisfactory. His
failure as a tragic hero is "less complete and tragic (in
the Aristotelian sense) 1 1 than Ahab's and he proves to be
"less human" than either Meursault, the hero in The
^^Roudiez held that though Melville's novel concerns
"a drama of the entire being" and Camus's drama treats of
"a drama of the mind," there are resemblances in the ex
periences and characters of the protagonists. Considering j
Roger Quilliot's remarks, and those of Germaine Bree, and
on the basis of his own investigation, Roudiez was con
vinced that since Camus had read Moby Dick by 1941— "Before!
I the writing of La Peste but after that of L1Etranger (1940)
and of the first version Caligula (1938)," the similarities;
i which appeared in Moby Dick and Caligula were those of
"kindred spirits" more than of influence. Roudiez indi
cated the following resemblances: (1) Ahab, too, fought
against evil and was destroyed by a reason that enveloped
all— the universe, the creator, his fellowmen, and the hero
himself; (2) Ahab had received a physical, not a moral
injury, which had caused him to withdraw from society and
then to emerge from seclusion as a changed man; (3) Ahab,
I like Caligula, was an absolute master in his sphere of
j activity, with the result that he forced his crew to bend
| their wills toward his impossible goal; and (4) Ahab, also,
| was fascinated with death— a preoccupation which was not j
’ unhealthy because it was concerned with a love of life
| (pp. 30-33). i
106
Stranger, or Christ. Roudiez concluded:
Torn between symbol and reality, between myth and
history, Caligula, while closely linked with a concept j
. . . remains inseparable from the historical Caligula j
and from modern totalitarian tyrants as well. (p..35) j
I
!
Lamont conceived of Caligula as a satanic figure much j
like Clamence.^ Once passionately in love with life and
devoted to humanity, Caligula turned against man and all ;
p p
creation when he was deprived of love.00 Reck, however,
called the emperor "the most pitiable character of all"
^Richard Lehan, "Camus' American Affinities," Sympo
sium, XIII (Fall 1959), 261, 263, has indicated that Camus
and Faulkner divide their absurd worlds between the vic
tims, who are Sisyphean characters because they endure all
vicissitudes, and the executioners like Joe Christmas (The
Stillness of Light in August) and Caligula or Martha (The
Misunderstanding). Faulkner and Camus were keenly aware
of the force of the demonic with the result that Joe
Christmas incarnates this perverse power as does Caligula.
Like Caligula, Joe Christmas implicitly justifies his
iactions as being no more cruel and evil than the operation
of the natural and social world that surrounds him. Be-
I cause both Faulkner and Camus, however, feel a compassion
for man in his suffering which is constant, "the self-
absorbed hero is always defeated."
^®Lamont noted that Clamence, the hero of the novel.
The Fall, and Caligula have the following similarities:
| (1) both are unreasonable in their approach to the absurd;
! (2) both had once enjoyed life and worked for the good of
j mankind until they failed to find love; and (3) both turn
|to scorn while they perfect their taste for solitude
i ( p . 453).
107
because he is "the most clear-sighted" in his knowledge
of man's destiny. Caligula, who perceives the alienation
inherent in the human lot, tries to match the absurdity
with his own logical and inhuman injustice only to find
!
total self-separation. Appalled to learn that all men are
]
!
unhappy and die and that neither love nor grief are perma
nent, Caligula grows sick with a despair that the patri
cians interpret as madness. Like The Plague in State of
Siege, he sets out to eliminate contradiction and chance
i
in the lives of his subjects. In doing this, of course,
I
he substitutes absolute liberty for relative justice and
becomes the embodiment of disinterested evil. Once he is ]
totally isolated, Caligula realizes that he is weary of ;
the burden of total freedom in a world where none is able
| to judge him for none is innocent. He welcomes death as
. an escape from his unbearable alienation and terrifying
solitude. In the end, Caligula appears to be an ambiguous
figure, a mixture of guilt and innocence, and at once a
victim and an executioner (pp. 46-48, 53).
Speaking of the Camusian theatre in general, Reck
■ acknowledged that for Camus the theatre was
a place where each spectator has a "rendezvous with
himself," where he can experience a self-definition
occasioned by the soliloquies of "those large figures
108
who cry out on the stage."
Camus's interest in the psychological motivations of his
characters was limited, however, because he was more
interested in the destinies of people than in their indi
vidual reactions. For this reason, Camus's dramatis per- I
i
l
sonae have been perceived as puppets rather than human j
i
beings, or, as Pierre-Henri Simon in L'Homme en proces
called them, "symbolic marionettesM (p. 43). In each
drama, concluded Reck, Camus caused his characters to
seek |
self-identity through the pursuit of absolutes. They I
are portrayed as fatally failing to understand that j
self-identity is illusory and unattainable, that the
static resolution they desire is a denial of the very
nature of man, which is eternally separated from clarity I
and from justice, (p. 53)
f
i
Over and over again, the hero is doomed for a death that
i he brought upon himself.
To Sonnenfeld, who reiterated Reek's observation that
i
| Camus's protagonists are destined for a self-created
; fatality, Camus always depicted his heroes as subject to
j an intellectual or spiritual transformation that leads
i
I
j
| them to a different perspective on the human plight. This
|
| new perspective, in turn, sets them upon a new course of
I
| action. The metamorphosis in Camus's heroes is extremely
109
important, continued Sonnenfeld, because it directs one
to the core of Camus's philosophy and to his choice of
literary techniques (pp. 107-108). Unfortunately, however,
Camus has been unable to demonstrate this transformation |
I
|
successfully on the stage. Since he always attempted to |
I
transfer a novelistic hero to the stage, "the problems of
stage technique troubled Camus throughout his career as
a dramatist" (p. Ill). Further, because the characters
are not self-motivated but are moved by Camus himself,
critics like Robert Kemp of Le Monde have complained that
i
they found themselves wondering what Camus means and almost!
!
completely ignoring the character of Caligula or Cherea.
The spectators* loss of interest in the hero and their
failure to understand arises, conjectured Sonnenfeld,
because the transformation in Caligula's character and
! thought that is imperative for the audience to see is un
suitable for the stage. Instead of portraying Caligula's
reactions on the stage, Camus was compelled to employ
[messengers who merely describe the emperor's reactions to
; Drusilla's death. The result is that when the audience
j
does see the emperor, it sees a strangely acting man but
it cannot understand that Caligula, through suffering, has :
discovered Camus's truth that life is absurd and nothing j
110
has meaning except death. Caligula's gestures and his
glances in the mirror lose their impact in the theatre and
the audience fails to comprehend that the reflection in
the mirror represents the Caligula who existed before the
j
play opened. Even the "beautifully written" passages about!
Caligula's vision of death and absurdity are wasted because
j
the audience, not having witnessed the steps of Caligula's I
self-discovery, cannot accept the emperor's insights (pp.
111-112).
Camus's ambivalent attitude toward Caligula raises
another problem in stagecraft. Camus admired the emperor
f
for his lucidity which enabled him to reject the hypocrisy
of the court and the falsity of absolutes and abstractions,I
i
but at the same time Camus despised him for his denial of |
humanity. This ambivalence is supposed to be shared by the
I audience who should see through Caligula's eyes that the
; patricians are social parasites whose pretenses must be
: shattered. When Caligula begins to throw off all re-
| straints, however, then the audience is expected to shift
| its sympathy from Caligula to Scipio, Cherea, and Caesonia
iwho counsel moderation. Sonnenfeld concluded that
1
because we were never really convinced of the validity
of Caligula's theory of the absurd and because the _ ;
j ;
Ill
increasingly degenerate nature of his acts of violence
is revealed indirectly, through the patricians' com
plaints against what has been transpiring off stage,
we are not conscious of the gradual disintegration of
Caligula's personality.
The audience is doomed to remain apart from the action of
the drama despite the playwright's most strenuous efforts ;
to involve us (pp. 112-113).
i
]
Sharply differing with Sonnenfeld's argument that j
j
Camus had merely transfered the techniques of the novel to I
the stage in his characterization, Kail insisted that Camus!
had effectively hastened the pace of the action, and he j
|
had illuminated in a vivid manner the transformation in j
j
Caligula's character by his use of the mirror episodes and j
i
gestures. The episode of the mirror, said Kail, is a
j
"dramatic pantomime" which brings to a climax the transfor-
|mation undergone by Caligula since the beginning of the
play.
As for the credibility of Caligula, Kail lauded Camus
for keeping the emperor true to his historical prototype.
i
Through his exalted rank, his vast power, and his ignoble
i
lend, he teaches us that, despite noble birth and unlimited
jtemporal powers, man is still subject to the anguish of
i
i
|the spirit and to a final destiny of nothingness. Unlike
jtteursault's passivity and delayed comprehension of the ]
112
implications of the human plight, Caligula's reactions are
89
at once appropriate and totally different. If Caligula,
said Kail, had been depicted in the same manner as Meur-
sault, he would have been "anti-dramatic" and "lyric."
Camus was compelled to make Caligula do more than verbal
ize; Caligula has to react in a violent manner. The
emperor forces the patricians to react vigorously because
on I
In her comparison of this play and its hero to the |
novel, The Stranger, and its hero, Meursault, Kail stated
that the novel exhibits the same stress on the necessity |
for an alertness to the meaning of the human situation
and for a comprehension of the finality of death in order
to stir man's awareness and to revive his love for life. j
Meursault's psychological transformation is sparked by his
impending death. Jolted out of his indifference into
lucidity, Meursault reacts with a passionate, if a vaguely
defined, feeling of revolt against his destiny. Unlike
Caligula's immediate and violent reaction to Drusilla's I
death, however, Meursault does not understand the implica
tions of mortality and the value of life until almost the
end of his life. When he does understand, he still remains
; passive and verbalizes his revolt. He remains passive
: because he does not command the vast power or possess the
| fierce spirit that Caligula has. Further, he does not
plan for the future as Caligula does but instead recalls
the past and concludes that it has been good. Although
Caligula's love for woman is sensual, unlike Meursault's
superficial and rather meaningless love, it is something
more. In comparison with Caesonia's love, that of Marie
for Meursault is shallow, selfish, primarily physical,
and concerned with propriety. The loss of Marie's love,
therefore, makes less of an impact upon Meursault than the
I loss of Caesonia*s love does upon Caligula (pp. 201-206).
113
he makes it a point of "killing or being killed," and the
plot is fashioned along these lines. Further, in order
to ensure that the action is probable and that the charac
ter is plausible, Camus had to select an emperor. Only
an absolute ruler is powerful enough to oppose the com
bined forces of law, religion and society in his domain
and to challenge the power of life itself (p. 205).
Unlike the majority of the critics who maintained
that Camus either omitted or slighted the power of love
in Caligula, Kail regarded Drusilla and Caesonia as mean
ingful figures in Caligula's life. Although Caligula is
often contemptuous of women, said Kail, nonetheless,
Drusilla changes Caligula's personality and Caesonia
demonstrates what true understanding and love are. The
role that she plays in Caligula's life is more important
i than that of Scipio's, for she represents not only love
I but also memory, illusion, and the sole link between the
human in Caligula and the others. It is for these reasons
that the emperor is forced to strangle her in his bid for
i
a final and total isolation (p. 206).
Clancy regarded Caligula as an absurd hero who is
!
i
| driven to an irrational revolt. As Camus had discovered
i
!
j that the world was unpredictable and refused to yield to
114
an explanation in terms of human reason, so his hero pro
tests a world which he can neither control nor understand.
Caligula rebels to the edge of madness in his despair with j
|
a world where moral values cannot be justified, evil can- j
not be measured, and man's nature cannot be predicted,
only ignorance, suffering and solitude hold almost undis
puted sway. Unable to secure the impossible, he turns j
to the one goal that he can attain— evil— and becomes an
abomination in his quest for the impossible to the limits
i
of the universe and to the limits of his own nature.
Ultimately, the emperor remains utterly alone with his own j
hateful image (pp. 162-163). In considering Camus's |
|
characterization as a whole, Clancy thought that his j
characters changed little, if at all. Like Brecht, Camus
was more interested in inducing the audience itself to
j think and to change than in demonstrating transformations
in the characters upon the stage (p. 164).
90
Clancy observed that both Camus and Brecht rejected
ithe nineteenth century idea that the playwright and audi-
jence should remain outside of the play: the playwright
| should merely describe the characters and the audience
; should merely observe them. In Camus's and Brecht's opin- :
jion, the playwrights, the spectators, and the stage charac-
j ters should all be involved since they are all confronted
I with the same problem under consideration in the play
(pp. 161, 164)
115
Essentially in harmony with Clancy*s interpretation,
Starratt thought Caligula is an uncompromising and unrea
sonable rebel who parodies fate's inexplicable condemnation
of man. When his attempt to attain the ideal universe of
j
total liberty and absolute clairvoyance is thwarted, he,
like Clamence, turns to annihilation in order to gain
Q I j
nothingness (p. 37).
For Charlotte K. Spivak, Caligula is a first-rate
example of the contemporary heroes commonly depicted in
go
the modern drama and novel. Depicted as exiles who are
either madmen who have rejected all rationality or victims j
I
who have been condemned by this irrational world, "the most
useful hero, among many, is perhaps Caligula because he
purports to be also a tragic hero." A "thwarted idealist"
91
Starratt indicated the following resemblances be-
itween the roles of the heroes in Caligula and in Camus *s
novel, The Fall: (1) like Caligula, "Clamence . . . plays
iat being God by pronouncing judgment [sic] on his clients,
to teach them the torments of freedom and to prepare them
for the slavery of the future"; (2) Clamence also seeks the
:moon or an ideal world of "absolute freedom and lucidity";
|and (3) like Caligula, Clamence refuses all compromises
and when he cannot obtain his ideal, he turns to slavery
ias a means of reaching nothingness (p. 37).
92"The Estranged Hero of Modern Literature," North
Dakota Quarterly, XXIX (Winter 1961), 17.
1X6
who carries ideals to logical and therefore absurd conclu
sions, he decides to play the fate which he cannot under
stand. He passes through three steps of estrangement:
(1) he rejects "society1 * after Drusilla*s death; (2) he
rejects "humanity" to assume the role of fate; and (3) he
rejects "the universe" by committing suicide. Ultimately,
I
he reaches an absolute freedom from all illusion only to
discover that "the 'crazy happiness* brought about by such j
freedom cannot coexist with life" (p. 17). Spivak con
cluded that under Camus's hands, Caligula "the typical
modern hero, an unattached vagrant in the universe, is
exactly what he should be— an embodiment of modern meta
physical 'unreal* reality" (p. 19).
Reed did not discuss Camus's creation of the charac
ters but he implied by his discussion of the themes and
the roles that they are symbols of the relative and abso
lute concepts of justice. With this perspective in mind,
Reed examined the judges, heads of state, the conspirators
I and other active agents in Camus's dramas and decided that
lthe author intended them to represent the "just judges"
|who understand that they are passing sentence upon human
i
beings and who feel a responsibility for their fellowmen;
and the "arbitrary judges'* who disregard their responsi-
117
bility for their brothers in order to further their own
selfish aims or who are concerned only with the letter of
the law and not the spirit. Caligula has once been a
"just judge" but Drusilla's death transforms him into an
"arbitrary judge" who inaugurates a rule of "systematized
i
injustice," and a seemingly minor flaw in Caligula's
character, allowed to grow unchecked because of his abso
lute power, brings about the destruction of the entire j
F
legal structure of Rome. I
The patricians, too, continued Reed, represent an
f
aspect of justice and though they agree that Caligula must j
j
be destroyed they are not "just assassins." Like Judge
Casado in State of Siege, they merely act out of bourgeois
i
morality, out of resentment, or out of self-defense.
Cherea1s case is different, however, because he is not
; moved to join the plot for reasons of hate, fear, or ven
geance— he seeks Caligula's downfall because he knows that
the emperor intends to sacrifice them all for an impossible
j ideal. The true rebel, Cherea, understands that though a
perfect justice does not exist, there is a relative justice
I ;
and it is in this concept of moderation that he is willing
to place his trust. Once Cherea is convinced, after much
| 1
j careful and compassionate deliberation that his judgment !
118
of the emperor is just, he himself confronts Caligula and
unflinchingly risks his own life to carry out his sentence
upon him. Reminiscent of Shakespeare's treatment of j
I
|
Caesar's assassination, Camus caused Cherea, like Cassius, \
\
to enlist the help of "an intellectual," Scipio. Like
I
Brutus, Scipio will lend his name to the conspiracy and
will kill the despot for what he represents and not for j
i
what he is as a person (pp. 55-56). j
Abraham dismissed Caligula with the implication that j
he is an antiheroic, absurd hero who was disappointing.
Hammer, however, aside from noting that Caligula is very
much Camus's own character despite the details which
Suetonius offered, immediately turned to interpreting the
I
i
significance of Caligula's role. Unlike Cherea, the 1
"enlightened reasoner," said Hammer, Caligula refuses to
j
accept the necessity in the order of the cosmos that
jordains what is possible and he is unable to tolerate the
inequities of life and of the universe. Like Dostoevsky's
■ Ivan Karamozov, Caligula rebels according to his idea of
logic against injustice to the point that he condones
• murder. In this extreme revolt against God, life, and
|the universe, he succeeds in liberating himself both from
both nature and the human species. In fact, he becomes a
119
"man-God" in his attempt to usurp the role of the
Q O
Creator. Unfortunately, he overlooks the fact that he
himself is a member of the human race and fails to remember
that "man is a social and political animal, and cannot
|
become himself except with other men." In order to uti
lize the freedom which he has grasped, Caligula strives to
seize the power of life and death; above all, he wants to
i
destroy death. When Caligula is denied this super-power,
however, he has to accept the limited power of destruction.
The result is that since death alone is the nucleus of the j
[
possible, it controls the emperor. Camus demonstrated the j
awe-inspiring power of the possible, nonetheless, by |
i
building his play on Caligula's titanic but futile efforts j
I
to surmount it. Caligula realizes, finally, that man must 1
accept living within the limits of human possibility— a
;possibility that is "defined by the nature men have in
common." It is to this power, then, that Caligula refers
93
Carl A. Viggiani, "Albert Camus' First Publications,"
Modern Language Notes, LXXV (November 1960) , 594-595, indi
cated that in an essay, "Essai sur la musique" (1952),
Camus exhibited a keen interest in Nietzsche's The Birth
I of Tragedy from which he gained the inspiration for the
I absurd man-god in Caligula and the secular saint or rebel
in Les Justes.
120
when he gasps, "I am still alive." This is the first cry
that Caligula ever uttered that honored the force of life
and defied the power of death. On second thought, how-
i
ever, Hammer speculated that Caligula's cry may have meant j
that man's passion for the impossible is eternal (pp. 332- |
333) .
According to Savage, "Camus . . . internalized
Pirandello's devices in order to externalize the inner !
character . . . of Caligula." By using the device of a
play-within-a-play, such as the Venus scene or the dance
episode, Camus illuminated "Caligula's inner being by j
|
their after-effects upon Caligula himself." Savage im- j
plied that this method of developing Caligula's character
was effective although many critics, too oriented to i
twentieth century realism, have failed to recognize its
i
merit. Moreover, Camus deliberately chose to set his
characters apart from reality rather than to make them
represent reality (pp. 397, 400).
The emperor, continued Savage, scorns the patricians'
i
unthinking conception of reality and in the role of a
madman undertakes a relentless investigation of his inner
E :
self— the findings of which he tries to convey to his
i
subjects. The mistaken ideas of the patricians, however,
121
precipitate the crisis that makes Caligula go mad and
9 4
subsequently cause his assassination. Caligula, con
cluded Savage, is never interested only in death because
life is absurd; on the contrary, he is passionately
attached to this life (p. 401).
Stoltzfus, discussing Camus's characters in general,
i
I
held that they are rebels against human destiny and crea- j
i
tion because they are alienated from a benevolent nature !
and threatened by death. The more they are estranged j
from the support of nature, the more violently they rebel, i
Thus, Caligula's revolt is extreme because he regards
both fate and nature as completely destructive. Part of
Caligula's difficulty, however, lies in the fact that he j
|
is unloved. In fact, declared Stoltzfus, "love . . . is !
Q A
Savage indicated that Caligula exhibited the fol-
; lowing similarities to Enrico: (1) Enrico assumes a mad-
| ness in order to enjoy it; it permits him to live peace
fully and to protect himself against what he considers
the madness of his court. Only once did he enter reality
; — when he stabbed Belcredi. (2) Enrico also doubts the
validity of his subjects' ideas about reality, although
they cling as stubbornly to their convictions as Calig
ula's patricians hold to theirs. (3) Unlike Caligula,
: Enrico remains passive and is not interested in communi-
j eating his ideas about his self or the truth to his court.
(4) The mistaken ideas of the psychiatrist produces the
; tragedy and Enrico really becomes mad (pp. 400-401.
122
a dimension totally lacking in Camus' fictional charac
ters." The complete self-realizing relationship of man
and woman is absent from his works. "The only fulfilling
love relationship" that Camus describes "is of man's meta—
j
physical honeymoon with the world of which the physical j
j
union of man and woman is a part." As for the kinds of i
characters which Camus chooses to create, Stoltzfus
observed that "the prototypes for Camus' rebels are Mai— j
j
raux's revolutionaries" whose violence originates from j
i
a sense of alienation from nature, from other human beings j
|
and from the inner self.95 Like the characters of Malraux |
j
and Sartre, Camus's resemble each other because they are
symbols— they elucidate his philosophy (pp. 296-297).
In conclusion, we have seen that whereas Cherea was !
regarded as the emblem of the sensible man and Caesonia
i as the representative of love, Caligula was the symbol of
^Stoltzfus remarked that unlike Camus's protago-
I nists, Malraux's are more obsessed with death and expend
| their rebellion in revolutionary activity because Malraux
I held that action is the only answer to forces which negate
man and his dignity. Malraux's and Sartre's heroes, like
those of Camus, seek lucidity and once they become con-
| scious of the absurd, they are usually committed to a
| struggle, generally social. Like Camus's heroes, those of
Malraux and Sartre react according to the degree of alien-i
! ation, but unlike Malraux, Camus rejected the violence of
I the revolutionary hero (pp. 294-297). :
123
excess and nihilism. The types that the critics said were
reminiscent of the emperor ranged from Everyman, Sisyphus,
the historical emperor, Satan, and Christ to the heroes of
Malraux. Similarities between Camus's heroes and those of
Melville, Pirandello and Sartre were also noted. The con-
j
sensus was that the resemblances between the author's
characters and those of Conrad, Melville, Pirandello,
Malraux, Sartre, and others were cases of affinities.
Only one critic underscored Camus1s intent to make Calig- ;
ula partially a comic and ironic reflection of ourselves.
Testing Viggiani's observations about the author's predi
lection for repeating certain characters and situations,
some critics corroborated his remarks by noting the
resemblances between the emperor and the heroes in Camus's
i
other works. In turning to the play form, we find that
| since the critics could not grant Caligula the stature of
| a classical tragic hero, they could not consider this
; play a successful tragedy.
I Play Form
i
j The critics in the 1940's could not agree upon the
\
!
i category to which Caligula belonged. The forms that they
! !
I suggested ranged from a play of ideas and a melodrama to
i
a morality play. In the end, most of the scholars and
124
journalists appeared to consider Caligula as an extremely
melodramatic play of ideas more than as an allegory or a
morality drama. Though the larger number of the critics
regarded Caligula as a Sartrean type of play, one compared
it favorably with that of Giraudoux or Shaw. Aside from
two critics, the majority of the critics held that this
work was unsuccessful. The gloomy outlook and the defi
cient characterization, discussed in the preceding pages,
were two primary causes of Camus1s failure to create a
successful tragedy. Furthermore, the theatricality in
I
combination with the intellectual subject matter was held
responsible for destroying the unity. The debate whether
Camus or Sartre was the superior playwright was inconclu
sive.
O'Brien, implying that Caligula is, perhaps, a drama
j of ideas, held that this drama is preferable as a closet
drama mainly because the characters are lifeless. For
■ Guerard, the melodrama made Caligula unsuitable for the
; stage. He argued that the stage performance enhanced the
! outer violence to such an extent that the inner meaning
i :
j |
j was concealed. If it were staged in America, he could
not imagine what the reaction would be, although the play
reads and acts well. The violence of the play on stage
125
is quite different from its meditative violence in the
closet. There are subtleties impossible on the stage.
(p. 59)
Countering Guerard's fears, Norris Houghton ventured the
opinion that Caligula would be more successful in New York j
than Sartre's Huis-Clos because "the horror is more exter- !
nalized.Since Camus viewed horror and violence as i
!
concomitants of the absurdity of existence, and since the [
modern audience is more accustomed to violence than pre- ;
!
vious generations of theatre-goers, Houghton speculated
that the spectators would accept this play without taking j
exception. Moreover, he thought "these elements give a
new dramatic motivation" to Caligula. j
To Clark, although Caligula is a Sartrean play and |
resembles Sartre's short story, "Erostrate," as well as
! ;
J the writings of Aragon, still Camus manifested "a greater
sense of form" and "a cleaner wit" in his subject (p. 675).
; Smith agreed that this is a Sartrean play but she chal
lenged Clark's opinion that there was a difference between
Camus's and Sartre's playwriting ability. In Smith's
i
| judgment, they were equal in their ability "to create
96
"Catastrophes and Violent Death," Theatre Arts,
XXXI (March 1947), 52-55.
126
]
dramatic power and theatrical methods of expression.1 1 j
.
Like Sartre, Camus had an outstanding ability to see into
"the destructive forces in human nature."
Mohrt held, "All Camus1 works are bathed in allegory"
and his stories or fables are raised to "the loftiness of
the myth" (p. 117). George Freedley, without assigning
Caligula to a play form, described it as "provocative"
but not comparable to Sartre's dramas.^ Concurring in
Freedley1s evaluation, Eaton declared that Camus was the
inferior playwright of the two and suggested that Caligula
is at once a melodramatic, symbolistic and realistic
play of ideas.
Clurman assigned Caligula to the category of a moral- j
; ity play and observed that "it is enough that the plays
1 are fascinating, we need hardly ask ourselves for the
moment whether the plays are good" (p. 26). Clurman
expressed fear, however, for the reception of these dramas
if they were staged in the United States. The majority
of the commentators, of the press, and of the public,
^(Rev. of Caligula and Cross Purpose), Library
Journal, LXXIII (July 1948), 1029.
127
declared Clurman, would regard the dramas as "cruel" and
"senseless." He continued:
. . . although the plays are cruel they are senseless
only from a peculiarly American standpoint. Only two
kinds of plays are easily understood: the play that
aims at nothing but 'entertainment' through a laugh,
shudder or smirk— and the propaganda play that teaches i
us a lesson, such as that race prejudice is wicked or !
that we all share social responsibility, (p. 25)
With the exception of farce, Clurman observed, it is
imperative that American plays always convey an affirma- j
tive and constructive lesson. An American audience will !
consider a drama both "unpleasant" and "senseless" whenever,
the point of the play suggests a negative inference. It
i
is almost inconceivable to the public to regard a work of I
|
art, especially a drama, as "a natural outgrowth of a
particular environment." That an artist would deliberately
intend his work to be disquieting or depressing, unless he
is perverse or mad, is simply incredible to Americans
(p. 25) .
Bentley, comparing Camus with Sartre, asserted that
'Caligula' resembles 'The Flies' in being a melodrama
i of antiquity. Like Sartre, Camus gives the characters
i of his melodrama a consciousness of ultimate issues.
They not only live their destiny; they talk it. (p. 4)
| The theatre of Sartre and Camus is a "pretty orthodox
[
| 'drama of ideas'— orthodox, that is, as to dramaturgy."
128
Both, playwrights use "melodramatic" plots into which they
introduce some existentialist discussion. This formula
is "too simple for great drama," and though only the
characterization of Caligula saves the drama from being j
a melodrama, it does strike "a fresh note" in the theatre, i
Bentley concluded if
the melodrama is deftly managed and the discussion is j
brilliant, topical, and weighted with emotion, it will |
yield unusually interesting fare. Compared with the j
best in drama, even with the best in modern drama, the
plays of Sartre and Camus seem contrived and thin.
Compared with the 'year's best* in the commercial
theatres here or abroad, they seem almost sublime. j
(p. 4) I
Q O
An anonymous critic of Theatre Arts and Blanc-Roos
were the only critics who were entirely satisfied with
j
Caligula. The critic of Theatre Arts described this
drama as "a fiery tour de force at once intellectual and
melodramatic"; and Blanc-Roos exclaimed "it is impossible
to emphasize enough the difference in Camus between the
novelist and the playwright." This work is "original" but
"it belongs to a genre firmly established by Giraudoux.
I The closest English equivalent, I suppose, is Shaw's
I 'Caesar and Cleopatra.'1 ' After noting that Gide's Thesee
|
j
1
i 9 8
; Caligula and Cross Purpose (anon, rev.), XXXII,
; Theatre Arts ^October 1948), 94.
129
and Anouilh's Antigone were patterned also upon Giraudoux's
model, Blanc-Roos concluded "Camus is a first-rate drama
tist, and it is to be hoped that with the failure of 'The
Plague* as a novel he will go back to writing plays" (p.
405). Scherer gave the impression that this drama is a
I
thesis play, born of Camus's moralist bent; it is interest
ing and moving but not really good drama. j
i
Troy, speaking generally of Camus's work which he j
considered to be existentialist, implied that this drama
is an allegory. Allegory has been revived, said Troy, !
i
j
because "we are in our times reduced, morally and spirit- i
|
ually, to an 'extreme situation.'" Faced with the terror j
in the human condition and deprived of subterfuges behind
which to hide, we. have been forced to "ever more sharply !
define the terms of our plight; definition is abstraction;
| ;
: and abstraction spells allegory" (pp. 588-89).
To summarize, it has been seen that the larger number
’ of the scholars considered Caligula to be a Sartrean play
; or a combination of a melodrama and a play of ideas. The
| generally unstated assumption seemed to be that if Camus
j had attempted to create a modern tragedy by combining a
tragedy with a play of ideas, he had failed. His attempt
j was unsuccessful because the protagonist was at once too j
130
simple, inhuman, and unsympathetic to be considered a
tragic hero, the rush of action bordered on the unreal,
and the weight of the ideas interfered with the dramatic
effectiveness of the whole. In the 50's, the critics will j
continue to find fault with Caligula.
Like their predecessors, the critics in the 1950's
frequently failed to explicitly assign a form to this play j
I
and failed to agree upon a category. The types of drama
that they listed were: a tragedy, a bitter comedy or
satiric tragical drama, an exercise, a play of ideas, a j
morality play, and a combination of these. A larger num
ber indicated, as the earlier critics had, that Caligula
|
is probably a melodrama and a play of ideas. Although only
two critics seemed to rate this play a success, the larger ■
i number did agree that of Camus's four plays, Caligula was
i the best: it had more life, the characterization was
better, and the presentation of a complex theme was more
satisfactorily treated.
Strauss, the first critic to note the play form of
I :
! Caligula in the 50's, continued the debate about the
! structure. Strauss did not explicitly commit himself
j
i f
about the form but he implied that it is probably a tragedy
131
by observing that the hero bears within himself the seeds
of his tragic ending and the entire play is fashioned
toward this inevitable and fatal resolution. George
Freedley described this drama as "a bitter comedy or a
9 9 '
satiric tragical drama." Lansner dismissed Caligula as
a "more florid exercise" that exhibits "more invention"
I
j
than the later play, The Misunderstanding.
E.ndorsing Lansner's negative appraisal, Simpson !
i
implied that this drama is a disappointing play of ideas
j
which she described thus:
The problems or situations are artifically contrived
and stylistically developed in tricky dialectic para
dox, which reaches the extreme of virtuosity in the
Essays on the Absurd. Excess of brilliance degener
ates into cleverness, and, by the author's own formula,
reduces finally to—absurdity. (p. 190)
By implication, Hanna hinted that Caligula is prob-
!
ably a morality play because Camus is a "philosopher with
serious moral and religious concerns, and all his literary
productions serve as functions of these concerns" (p. 2 32).
I JRolo, also, gave the impression that this drama is perhaps
]
| a morality play and noted that of all Camus's plays,
! "only Caligula has been effective on the stage." Speaking
99(Rev. of Caligula and Three Other Plays), Library
Journal, LXXXIII (July 1952), 2066.
132
in general, O'Brien held that "as a dramatist, actor, and
adaptor many would rank [Camus] with Barrault and Jean
Vilar as an inspired man of the theatre."
|
!
Jones, as indicated in preceding pages, had hoped to :
find Caligula a tragedy but the emperor's motivations and
actions precluded this dramatic form. Of course, Jones j
added, if one judges the hero in the light of the dis- i
j
|
cussion in The Myth of Sisyphus, it is possible that the j
i
j
author did not intend to write a tragedy at all. For
Camus, it was enough that the tragic hero is aware of his j
fate; it is not necessary for the hero to overcome fate
j
(p. 125).
j
To Cassidy, it appeared that Caligula is a play of j
' i
i
ideas whereas to Clurman this drama is a morality play.
| Cassidy was disappointed, however, with the relatively
dull and simple plots compared to those in Camus's short
stories, Exile and the Kingdom. Clurman appraised the
four plays as "good without being important," and of them
I "only one demands a stage production . . . Caligula."
j i
Indeed, continued Clurman, "the main contribution" of
I
Camus's dramas "resides in his message. His work is a
series of parables." Although all the plays lack "organic
j |
drama," they do possess "integrity and spiritual vigor." j
133
In contrast to Clurman, Gregory believed Caligula to be
"an intellectual tragedy," and "the most theatrical" of
the plays.
Contesting Gregory1s opinion, Dietz maintained that
Camus failed to create "modern tragedies" because, unlike
Sisyphus in the essay, the dramatis personae are not per
mitted to convert hopelessness into dignity by confronting
their lots unflinchingly and assuming their burdens.
i
Unfortunately, |
the plays are not always granted this ethical conver
sion . . . the absurd being too frequently posited at
the expense of the people who are not allowed the
humanistic statement that negates the Absurd, (p. 15)
Maddocks, considering Camus an experimenter in
dramatic styles, hesitantly classified this drama as a
tragedy— "Caligula seems to have been conceived as a
tragedy in the classical tradition." Considered in their
entirety, continued Maddocks, the four plays are "more
impressive" than if considered separately. Because "the
stories falter" and there are "long intervals in which
; nothing seems to develop," Camus's theatre fails to main-
i
tain a lively enough pace to sustain our interest.
Popkin observed that the structure and the style of
|
! Camus's dramas surprised the American audience or readers
134
who were unprepared for the eloquent speech, the Gidean
or early Sartrean simplicity in the plot and the direct
ness in argument. Unlike, Cocteau, Giraudoux, or Sartre,
Camus did not "debunk ancient conventional myths and turn
them into instruments of iconoclasm" but in this instance,
chose the "already cynical legend" of Caligula and then
dramatized it straightforwardly without "tricks, sneers !
i
!
or modernity." Thus, compared with the structural intrie- j
j
acies and the extremely theatrical qualities typical of j
the predominant kind of modern play, this drama and the I
i
others appear stark and undimensionalized. One's attention;
is swiftly drawn to the severe lines because j
!
everyone in these plays is ready for action— or, more
often, for argument. Nothing may intervene to dis
tract, irritate or enchant us, to explain the charac
ter or to provide context for the events, (p. 499)
| The major cause of Camus's "dramatic failures," con-
; tinued Popkin, is his honesty, as a writer and as a man.
He posited:
Camus1 strenuous virtue is the key to his plays and
to his defective sense of the theatre. Explicitly
foreswearing 'psychology, ingenious plot devices,
and spicy situations,' he requires that we take him
! in the full intensity of his earnestness or not at
all. (p. 499)
Unlike his fictional writing, observed Popkin, wherein
j Camus uses his method of narration as a shield to prevent j
135
the reader from colliding with his themes and ideas, the
directness in Camus's dramatic works fails to provide
protection against this collision (p. 500) . In conclu-
|
sion, Popkin declared that of all the plays Caligula is j
i
the best because "it has more life and irony than any of j
I
the other plays, and it comes closer than any of the
others to a balanced, qualified statement of a complex
theme" (p. 501).
j
Speaking generally. Couch implied that Caligula is j
a play of ideas by noting that Camus used the stage "as a j
vehicle for ideas." The four plays, moving forward "at a
deliberate, steady pace," depend upon "ethical or meta- j
i
physical conflict for their dramatic impetus." Couch con- j
eluded that he objected not only to the absence of psycho
logical motivation but also to the occasional dichotomy
between what the characters said and what they did— "the
play and the actors' movements are gratuitous," thereby
causing the play to appear to exist for itself.
In conclusion, it has been seen that the scholars
| did not consider Caligula to be a successful play.
| Although they were not as hostile to Camus's viewpoint as
i :
| ;
| previously, they were still convinced that the hero was
| !
j too monstrous to be credible or engaging and the action j
136
was vitiated by the emphasis upon a forensic dialogue that
was concerned with intellectual issues. In the coming
decade, the critics will be no less divided over the play
form than their predecessors were but they will be more
inclined to accept the drama for its own intrinsic merits |
instead of insisting that it meet American standards. ;
The larger number of the critics in the 1960 ls did
not agree upon the play form of Caligula but they did con- j
i
cur in the judgment that this drama was not a success. j
Although, unlike the critics of the earlier decades, j
|
several of these scholars decided that Caligula was a
good drama in spite of its faults, they were not numerous
|
enough to form a majority. The categories to which the j
i
critics assigned this drama were as follows: an extrava
ganza, a play of ideas, a tragedy, an experiment, and a
; morality play. A majority declared or implied that Camus
had errored in experimenting with a combination of tragedy
i and intellectualism. Some of the critics briefly compared
J
j Caligula to Marlowe's Tamburlaine, Musset's Lorenzaccio,
Pirandello's Enrico IV, and Brecht's theatre of ideas.
I The first critic to deal with the play form of
i :
j ;
! Caligula in the 1960's was Lewis. According to him,
| ;
j Caligula is "not a tragedy" but an "extravaganza" which i
137
has as its "inner and actual subject the very idea of
extravagance." It is "an emphatically youthful play about
an emphatically youthful hero" who manifests "the sheer
joy of creation." Like the young Christopher Marlowe in
his early drama, Tamburlaine, Camus in Caligula expresses
"the same self-conscious literary excitement," and "the j
excitement of the discovery of vocation" to the extent j
that "the insatiable aspirations of the hero appear as !
vital analogues to the creative aspirations of the author"
(p. 53). Lewis added that. Caligula contains much "high
comedy" and reveals, unlike most modern plays, a "rich
|
and various" presentation of experience "in the classical j
and Elizabethan manner" (pp. 55-56). j
Lewis warned those critics who contended that Camus
had neither written a great deal for the theatre nor had
I created any very impressive dramatic work against jumping
; to such conclusions. These judgments, explained Lewis,
are misleading because, along with Camus's other writings,
: these dramas form aspects of a whole? each illuminates the
! others already finished and adumbrates those to come.
j
; Consequently,
I Camus* theatrical dimension was large and pervasive;
| and no work, in my opinion, more rousingly illustrates
138
the scope and intent of it— and its dependence, for
full understanding, upon his other writings— than
the first of his plays, "Caligula." (p. 52)
Lewis seemed certain that if there is any question
about the meaningfulness and the brilliance of this play,
i
a large share of the blame could be placed on the Broadway
version of it. He listed the following reasons for the
failure of the play: (1) unlike the text, or the Paris
production in 1958, the American version was overproduced
I
i
to the point that it concealed the inner meaning and the
vitality; (2) extraneous external distractions tended to
!
|
destroy the rhythm of movement in the play from the spec-
: 1
!
tacle and the crowd to the disintegration of personal
relationships; and (3) the characters seemed to have little
j
visible interaction with each other on the stage. Instead |
they appeared to be strangers with the result that the
|
! full impact of Caligula's failure to gain understanding
| or love in his relationships with those closest to him
: was entirely lost. Lewis concluded that the entire per-
; formance was "heavily overproduced; characteristically the
; reviewers praised the product and dismissed the play that
! lay buried beneath it." The play closed for "the wrong
I reasons" but it still remains "cofhplex and extravagant,
i
| nihilistic and exhilarating, perverse and blasphemous and
139
profoundly moral” (p. 58) .
Weinberg did not select a play form but he implied
that Caligula is probably a play of ideas by observing
that it is "'a drama of the intellect' . . . fought out
with illusory monotony" that corroborates Camus's dictum,
"No artist has ever expressed more than a single thing
in different guises" (p. 33). Houghton seemed to believe j
that it is a melodramatic philosophical play of ideas.
He complained, however, that the intent of the play is
i
"cloudy because the metaphysical elements escape." Per
haps, conjectured Houghton, Camus's "dramatic articula
tion of his thoughts is not clear enough" (p. 14)
Hinting that Caligula is a play of ideas, Molnar held
i
i
that it is "a pre-war literary work" and "somewhat dated." I
In the last analysis, Camus "appears today somewhat too
; simple, too rational and timid" (p. 94). With Philip
Toynbee, Molnar judged that Camus was "a brilliant com
mentator" on contemporary problems, but "he has much less
I :
'*'^Quentin Lauer, "Albert Camus: The Revolt Against
| Absurdity," Thought, XXXV (Spring 1960), 44, observed that:
; all Camus's plays are overburdened with ideas which are
; too obtrusively conveyed to be dramatically exciting. The j
j plays end as "too intellectual; they do not merely 'show'; :
I they argue."
140
to say to mankind in general" (p. 95). In conclusion,
Molnar posited that "since Camus based his morality on
men alone, without recourse to God, his works will be
barren and the values he wanted to save will be dispersed" j
(p. 103). Stern explicitly called this play a tragedy
which is based on man's rejection of the Greek ideal of
the golden mean.
Lamont, however, implying that this drama is a
tragi-comedy, declared that
Caligula is the play of a young man, like Musset's '
Lorenzaccio which it resembles . . . [in 1961] Camus' j
emperor begins to look like an enfant terrible, and
the weary wisdom of the judge-penitent of La Chute I
seems closer to our modem spirit." (p. 451).
I
Suggesting that Caligula is not a successful tragedy, |
j
Reck asserted that Camus's dramas embody his thought in
action that is simultaneously "tantalizing and obscure."
After noting that Camus had a predilection for experimen
tation in the theatre as indicated in his use of solilo
quies, group movement, contrast, and divertissements,
; Reck implied agreement with a F.rench and an American
I
j critics' observations. Gabriel Marcel declared that Camus
! failed to present his ideas in a fully dramatic fashion,
and an anonymous critic of Time attacked "the oratory mixed
with soliloquy . . . theatricality with intellectualism"
141
(p. 34) .
Unlike Reck1s reticence■ in grappling with the
dramaturgy, Sonnenfeld flatly stated that Camus's depend
ence upon novelistic techniques rather than upon drama
turgical methods precluded his creating a tragedy.
i
Although most of this play was unsatisfactory to Sonnen- j
feld, he did concede that there are some good scenes— j
those where "Camus' preoccupation with the 'tragedy of
the intelligence' is least apparent." Also, rather reluc
tantly he admitted that "the emperor's terrifying solitude
as his assassins approach comes close to being 'great
i
|
theatre.1" In conclusion, however, Sonnenfeld judged thatj
!
Camus's play failed on two counts: (1) the audience was
j
j
unable to accept Caligula's insight, for they did not see
each stage of his self-discovery; and (2) "Camus' predi-
i
lection for the theoretical, for misplaced lyricism and
pretentious rhetoric" clouded the meaning and destroyed
the unity of his work. Too many critics, insisted Sonnen-
1 feld, such as Germaine Bree, John Cruickshank, Roger
Quilliot, and others have been reluctant to admit Camus's
i ' :
failure as a dramatist. Despite his esteemed achievements
as an adaptor and director, Camus failed as a playwright
because "he consistently tried to force into dramatic form|
142
theme and situations perfect for his prose narrative but
totally alien to the stage" (p. 107).
Kail, challenging Sonnenfeld's stand, insisted that
i
Caligula is a powerful, fully-developed, and clearly
articulated tragedy. In defense of her stand, she pointed i
to Camus's selection of a noble, powerful protagonist and
to Camus's pervasive philosophical viewpoint "which is
the essence of tragedy from the Greeks to our time." Not j
only was Camus inspired by Antonin Artaud's suggestion
that a renovation of the modern theatre should be based
I
I ;
on "cruelty," but he was also affected by the Greek drama j
which called for a proud man to pit his strength against
the overwhelming odds which fate has always held. Artaud
had warned that there is a cruelty
much more terrible and necessary which things can
exercise against us. We are not free. And the sky
can still fall on our heads, and the theatre is made
to teach us that first of all. (p. 203)
Though Camus had added a new element to the ancients'
fatalistic attitude by urging man to reject suicide and
| to find happiness in the lucid awareness of his absurd
j ;
| destiny; nonetheless, the fact remains that Camus placed
! his protagonists against an inhuman fate. Thus, Caligula
j
| ends in "a tragic ending for a tragic figure" (pp. 203-205)i
143
In contrast to Kail, Clancy maintained that Caligula
is a "powerful and stimulating" play of ideas which, like
Brecht's, reflects the intellectual approach through the
"analytical and controlled use of form and subject mat
ter."101 Indeed, it is a "new theatre of ideas" because
j
it neither advocates "the adjustment of man and his en
vironment" as in the earlier plays of this type nor
expounds "that rapprochement is absurd" as the more recent
plays of ideas do. Rather Camus created a theatre which
i
is based upon "fresh and challenging concepts of the uni-
i
verse in which man is central rather than peripheral, is
the instrument rather than the product of change" (p. 166). j
Abraham argued that this play may be viewed as "a
purely philosophical experiment" in which Camus tests his j
logic. Abraham believed that Caligula is to the theatre
t '
i
! what Le Mythe de Sisyphe is to the philosophical essay.
| Along with Le Malentendu, Caligula is Camus's theatre of
; the absurd. Underscoring the "hollow victory" in which
! the play ends, and Caligula's fall from the stature of a
I
10^Clancy observed that like Camus, Brecht developed
"a new theatre of ideas" in which he stressed the mind
and in which man occupies the center of the universe
(p. 166). |
heroic protagonist to a "disillusioned man," Abraham was
convinced that this drama is a great disappointment.
i
Although Caligula recognizes his error, he does not die a j
i
better or happier man, and for this reason, said Abraham, j
the play is unsatisfactory; it is "a drama of deception j
for all concerned" (pp. 451-453). In contrast to Abraham,
Hammer regarded Caligula as a morality play. It is not
a "historical drama" but a play with "a moral" that is
presented with effective symbolic devices. !
!
According to Savage, "Caligula is the artful and j
polished development of Pirandello's basic plan" in Enrico
IV whereas "Henry IV is the visual manifesto, the archi
tectural design . . . of the avant-garde theatre."
Although the structural plans are similar and the tech
niques are similar, Pirandello unlike Camus, who used
"muted and shaded" technical devices, employed "poster
tactics." Savage continued that like Pirandello's Enrico
IV, Camus's Caligula is considered a failure for two main
reasons. First, neither the audience nor the critics were
able to regard Caligula as a traditional play. Apparently
twentieth century realism blinded them to the significance
of the age-old devices, currently unfamiliar, of the play-
145
within-the-play and the assumption of a role by the hero
in this play; they forgot that “the traditional stage is
essentially artificial and stylized" (p. 39 7). Second,
i
because the play deals with the absurd, the critics de- j
cided that to say life is hopeless is tantamount to saying :
it is meaningless. Caligula is considered as a nihilist j
i
in pursuit of death because he is convinced that life is
absurd.
I
Stoltzfus seemed to agree that this play is a sym- j
i
holistic drama of ideas but he also added that it is j
melodramatic. It cannot be a tragedy, implied Stoltzfus,
or even an existentialist play in the Sartrean sense |
i
because of the treatment of the characters. Because Camus i
i
depicted them as ruled by an omnipotent fate, they are
i s !
| incapable of creating their own essences and unable to
: overcome the odds. In Caligula and in those works of
Malraux and Sartre in which the world is regarded as
absurd and purposeless, the role of man degenerates into
; sound and fury that signifies nothing (pp. 300-301).
In conclusion, it has been evident that the scholars'
j objections to Caligula ranged from a disappointment with
i
| Camus's stress upon the conflict of ideas and the mixture
of styles— ironic, farcical, and tragic— to what they
called the irrelevancy of the ideas for today and the
pessimism of Camus's world view. For some, Caligula was
unsatisfactory because he was a stereotyped and symbolical
figure and for others, he was a disppointment because he
was an abnormal and implausible monster. Even Camus's
use of the play-within-a-play technique was ignored or
considered an end in itself rather than as a device to
illuminate Caligula's character. In short, a majority
believed that Camus, instead of creating a modern tragedy,
had created a melodrama by his attempt to fuse a classical
tragedy with a modern play of ideas.
Language, Method and Style
The scholars and journalists in the 1940's were
; reluctant to speak of Camus's writing for the theatre.
; When they did address themselves to it, however, they
unhesitatingly described it as unsuitable for drama. On
j the other hand, they did laud the language in his novels
i and essays as classic and elegant in its clarity and pre
ciseness. Only two critics, who probably attended a per-
|
I formance of Caligula, praised the language as brilliant,
I
j poetical and moving. A large number observed Camus's
147
moralist bent which tended to make him emphasize the ideas
to the detriment of the characterization and the plot.
One critic underscored Camus's tendency to treat his works
as debates about classic philosophical problems. A few
noticed the mood and referred to it as grim, unreal, or
poetical; and others remarked upon the irony and humor
|
which, by its contrast to the general seriousness of the
mood, heightened the impact of the meaning. A majority ;
I
of the critics who discussed the translation found it
much inferior to the original.
i
i
Magny, remarking as a whole upon Camus's writing, j
maintained that existentialist writers, such as Camus and j
Sartre, cultivated a method in their fiction and drama I
that "conceals rather than communicates" their ideas; !
i
I there is "a disjunction between thought and expression"
( p p . 146-147).
Viewing Camus's style in general, Guerard said Camus
writes with "simplicity, clarity and exactness. As a
stylist Camus is the direct disciple of Gide and the
latest descendant of Pascal" (p. 45). His "purely classi
cal, limpid and masculine French lines" are an instrument
I
| for
| the most exact expression of thought and, feeling;
148
even the most abstract thought [is] charged with emo
tion, even the most delicate personal [is] controlled
by a firm substructure of thought, (p. 58)
Mohrt declared that Camus is a poet and all his literature
attests to his genius because "it is suffused with a poetic
!
quality" (p. 116). !
In contrast to the general remarks of Guerard and ;
Mohrt, Eaton declared that in this drama the dialogue is
i
i
just so "much static talk" in a work that takes "a long
time getting into action." Disputing Eaton's remarks, |
Clurman held that the "inflamed rhetoric" and "the j
heightened eloquence and power," reminiscent of Racine,
moved him. Bentley corroborated Clurman's judgment. The
language is brilliant, significant and eloquent; he was
i
aware of "the poetry of phrase" and "the rapidity of the !
rhythm" throughout the play. Contesting Bentley's remarks,
Troy insisted that the dialogue is "largely chatter and
bombast."
Guerard, Mohrt, Clurman, Bentley, Scherer and Troy
explicitly noted Camus's moralist method of writing.
i
According to Guerard, "Camus belongs to the great tradi-
; tion of French moralists who insist on dramatizing the
most dangerous consequences of their own ideas" (p. 46).
i
Mohrt agreed that Camus's works are not only those of a
149
realist and a poet but also those of a moralist. In
Camus1s hands a story becomes a myth and a character be
comes a symbol (p. 113). Clurman held that only a moral
ist would write the type of play which Camus did, and
Bentley appeared to agree. Scherer underscored the sim
plicity of the plot. There is little movement and the
characters are almost autonomous— all that happens is a
verbal analysis of human existence (p. 52). Troy did not
dispute Scherer's opinions. In his judgment the works of
j
the existentialists like Sartre and Camus, seem to be
i
". . . variations on the general form of the Psycho- !
i
machia,1 1 a popular form of writing in the late decadent
Roman period. Each work, and Troy appeared to include
the drama, demonstrates "the battle of the soul with the
body" and the debate revolves around "classic philosophi-
I cal problems: freedom and necessity, truth and illusion,
and essence and existence" (p. 587).
The mood of Caligula was commented upon by Smith,
Mohrt, Eaton, and Scherer. Smith described the atmosphere
j
; as "ferocious" and "desperate," and Eaton agreed that
| t
| there is "a strange air of horror" hovering over the entire
I play. Scherer granted that there is an unusual aura about
| the play, but she described it as a calm, mesmeric, and
150
unreal quality which emanates from the characters and the
course of events. She ascribed this mood to her impres
sion that "all of Camus's literary works are deprived of
complication." Because Camus failed to develop interaction
among the characters, the drama and even the protagonists
themselves convey a feeling of "serenity" in spite of the ]
j
violence. In this unreal world of the play, the most un
bearable things seem natural, and the most heinous of
i
crimes seem to be the only logical resolutions of problems ;
and the only possible conclusions to a chain of reasoning
i
with which one may not agree at all (p. 53).
Concurring with Scherer's observations about Calig-
i
ula's unreal world, Mohrt held that Camus's world is that
of poetry which is always pure. In this poetical uni-
i
verse, there is "no understanding with the gods, with
! society, no temporization with misery and death" to
| corrupt it. It is "a world of suicides, innocent crimi-
| nals, of revolutionary saints."
i 1
Camus's feeling of "transcendent unity" with the
world of "nature," the animals, the elements, and the
i :
: seasons, appear in Caligula where the emperor's "complic-
!
| ity with nature and the moon as well as with poetry and ^
i 1
j :
I absurdity, . . . made him mad and a criminal tyrant" (pp. j
Clark, Mohrt, Blanc-Roos, and Scherer detected the
comic and ironic elements in Caligula. Clark observed
that Camus's skillfully employed sense of form and sharp
wit created "a rarefied world of monstrous irony that
i
!
could hardly fail to appeal to an emotionally exhausted
|
audience." Mohrt, speaking in general of Camus's works, |
i
j
underscored Camus's technique of using "realistic detail j
I
I
and humor" to make his universe plausible. Because his !
settings and his "half-real and half-imaginary towns"
i
possess a remarkable blend of realism and comedy, they
become readily credible. Whereas Blanc-Roos spotlighted
i
the clever humor which he insisted he was unable to stress j
enough and pleaded with the reader not to overlook it,
i
Scherer, too, singled out Camus's "satirical artistry"
j for her highest praise. Selecting the scene in which the
i emperor "satirizes the patricians' concept of beauty" at
: the same time that he humiliates the courtiers by forcing
i them to adore him dressed as Venus, Scherer exclaimed
i 9
that in this episode the mordant irony reaches "the qual
ity of immortal satire."
To recapitulate, it has been seen that most of the
i
i
I
j critics disliked the argumentative and rhetorical dialogue
which revealed little about the personality of the charac
ters and retarded the action. Though the irony and the
symbolism were appreciated by a few, these techniques did
not serve to dissuade the critics from thinking that the
play as a whole was less than satisfactory. In the coming
decade the scholars will continue to find fault with the
language and the stress upon ideas.
The majority of the critics in the 1950's disparaged
the language as contrived and forensic. Only one critic
argued that the polish of Camus's style in his dramas made
his theatre worthy of being ranked with his novels and
essays. A number of scholars again remarked upon the
moralist method of writing and stated or implied dissatis
faction with it. Very few of the scholars even mentioned
the humor and satire and of these, two regarded the humor
as morbid.
Simpson and Cassidy, the first critics to comment
upon the language, agreed that Camus's writing for the
theatre lacked naturalness. Simpson, as indicated earlier
' considered the dialogue an exercise in virtuosity, and
| Cassidy partly agreed with her. The whole of Camus's
; writing is "clean, clear, often scalpel incisive," said
Cassidy, but his dramatic composition "sometimes appeared
153
contrived and remote." Refusing to endorse this view,
Gregory argued that "the writing on the whole is power
ful. "
In opposition to her view, Popkin held that in com-
i
parison with the vocabulary employed in the majority of
the modern dramas, Camus's dialogues are singular in
their formality. Although he acknowledged that Camus had
deliberately chosen a lofty and pure vocabulary in order
to avoid what he called the "communique" style of writing, !
nonetheless, Popkin was not persuaded that such eloquent |
language is appropriate for the characters. Challenging S
j
Popkin's assessment of Camus's style. Couch held that it
is this very "polish" and technically skillful use of j
style which makes Camus's four major dramas "deserve to
| be ranked alongside his most successful novels and essays."
In regard to Camus's approach to writing, Lansner,
Hanna, Rolo, Clurman and Maddocks noted that it was that
of a moralist. To Lansner, Caligula is an example of "the
literature of extreme situations." By presenting prob-
! lems in "situations of perverse purity," a moralist such
: as Camus intended to spotlight the limits of human possi-
|
| bilities and the danger in existence (pp. 567-568). Hanna,
j
| as noted earlier, considered Camus primarily a religious-
154
moral writer. Rolo agreed that Camus's moralist writing
exhibits the Gidean experimental method. Rolo explained
that in this technique the author selects an idea, pur
sues it theatrically to its logical consequences, and j
then lets the reader judge the value of the idea by its
results. Clurman, as indicated in preceding pages, j
j
underscored the moralist bent of Camus, and Maddocks
agreed that it is a primary factor in Camus's writing. |
j
This tendency, according to Maddocks, is responsible for
the slow action in the play. Camus is "a moralist first" |
and thus, he "neglect[s] the action of the stage for the
ideas of the study." Couch implied his agreement with
Maddock's opinion.
The critics, Lansner, Simpson, Freedley, and Popkin
fleetingly referred to the humor and satire in this drama
i but they did not enlarge upon their references. Strauss,
however, underscored Camus's enhancement of passages from
Suetonius with -
| Caligula's own morbid humor (which, incidentally, is
| an integral feature of [Camus's] style in Caligula),
serving to heighten the effect of the 'absurd irony'
of the play. (p. 165)
i i
i
\ Lansner agreed that the comic vein is "macabre." Strauss ■
| also noticed the atmosphere of this drama. In the contest!
155 j
of the poets,
the whole scene is steeped in an atmosphere of un
reality, of brutality mechanically administered, and
is reminiscent of such fantasies as Alfred Jarry's
Ubu-Roi, of David Rousset's reflections on concentra
tion camps, and of Kafka's hallucinatory universe, (p.165)!1
In conclusion, it has been demonstrated that most of
the critics were too intent upon examining Caligula for
its ethical and metaphysical ideas to detect or appreciate !
the mordant humor and the telling irony that Camus intro
duced into the drama. Completely dismayed with the dia
logue, the critics were not convinced that literary
devices or techniques could compensate for this obvious
j
deficiency. The scholars in the 60's will be more aware
j
of the significance of the irony and of the symbolism but
they, too, will not be any more satisfied with the lan-
I guage than their predecessors were.
During the 1960's, the scholars again indicated dis
pleasure, mostly by omission, with Camus's dialogue. In
deed, one critic roundly disparaged the language and no one
i
i challenged his opinion. The few scholars, who noted
j
! Camus's use of comedy or irony as devices to spotlight
his attack upon a silent God and the superficiality and '
! commercialism of perfunctorily practiced religion were
156
impressed with its effectiveness. Two critics debated
the success of Camus's handling of the metamorphosis in
Caligula's character without resolving the problem of
whether the American expectation or Camus's intention
should be the deciding factor. Other scholars discussed,
primarily with approval, the author's use of symbolism
as a technique to add another dimension to the drama. One
scholar lauded the play-within-a-play device, and two
others the structural rhythm which indicated the fluctua
tions in Caligula's conflict between a lust for isolation
and a need for companionship.
Bree, speaking in general of Camus's style, held that
Camus was a moralist who had "a mastery of style almost
unique among his contemporaries." His language is "rich
in imagery" and "highly controlled."
From the Greeks, from the French classics he inherited
his sense of structure, his desire to create balanced,
ordered and carefully stylized works, and through them
to arrive at an objective expression of his own experi
ence, a new experience valid precisely through its
ordering.102
| Agreeing with Bree, O'Brien and Roudiez insisted that
i
] Camus was like the great classic writers in that he
i
I
! 102 ^
, Bree, "Albert Camus, An Essay. . . ," p. 5.
I
j_
157
achieved
nearly perfect harmony between the point of view on
life he suggested and the literary device he used to
convey it to his readers. Each work, each punctuation
sign, belongs exactly where it is and carries its share
of significance, (p. 41)
i
Since the earlier critics discussed Camus*s style in j
general and Roudiez restricted his comments to noting that j
Camus, like Melville, employed lyricism as a means of
highlighting Caligula's meditations upon death, it remained!
I
I
for Sonnenfeld to discuss more fully and to attack Camus's j
i
j
dialogue in Caligula. Sonnenfeld complained that the
!
stylistic shifts which are so brilliant in The Stranger j
are unsuited to the stage. The eloquent and oratorical j
dialogue of Caligula's friends, who plead with him to j
moderate his drive and offer alternatives to his style of
J j
| !
living, turns them into mere "abstractions" in a debate.
When Caligula explains his actions, his dialogue fre
quently becomes unnecessarily "aphoristic." The only
"stylistic antidote" to all the abstraction is provided
by Scipio's poetical dialogue which is, of course, more
i |
| appropriate for Camus's paean to the joy of life. Even
this lyrical dialogue, however, argued Sonnenfeld, appears
too grandiloquent for the stage, especially after the
j
"highly theoretical" language which prevails in most of
158
the dialogue. Sonnenfeld concluded that
in the theatre silence is impossible. To write a good
play, a dramatist must create effective dialogue; and
this is precisely what Camus was unable to do because
he continually transported novelistic techniques into
the theatre, (p. 123)
j
In regard to the comedy in Caligula, Bree, Lewis, |
Terrien, and Kail praised Camus's use of humor and irony
as devices to augment and to intensify the meaning of the j
play, but Sonnenfeld seriously doubted their value in
conveying Camus's intentions to the audience. Bree indi
cated that the humorous element, direct, gentle or mor- j
dant, played an important role in Camus's writing. In I
Caligula, "the humor is ferocious, reaching its climax in
the burlesque scene" where Caligula forces the poets to
1 fjQ
compete under duress for a price. Camus possessed a
j !
| keen understanding of men which in no way impaired his
capacity for detachment. "The detachment brings with it
a very special form of simplicity which supports every
; form of humor, from the lightest to the most deadly.
i In fact, asserted Bree, even though the whole of Caligula
i
is a play focused on the theme of anguish, it is "pro-
103sree, "Albert Camus: 1913-1960," p. 2.
104Bree, "A Grain of Salt," p. 41.
159
jected on stage with a passionately lucid, concrete humor."
Camus utilized materials in which "humor and irony com
bine, an irony inherent in the theme, a humor inherent in
i
its treatment." The inner anguish of Caligula is "all the ;
]
more powerful" because it originates partly in "the 'an
archy of laughter' of which Camus made constant but con
trolled use" (p. 43).
Concurring with Bree1s appraisal of the irony, Lewis
selected the episode in which Caligula impersonates Venus !
i
as a superb example of Camus's skill in employing comedy
i
to illuminate a serious and profound idea. This scene in
which the playwright and his protagonist demonstrate their
defiance and hatred for a mute deity is "as antic and
histrionic as anything in the play" (p. 55) . Like Lewis, - j
Terrien, too, lauded Camus's skillful treatment of a
i biting irony which added another dimension to his work.
In his parody and profanation of the sacred, "the grossly
satirical enactment of the birth of Venus mystery, Camus
argues against the shallowness and the mercantilism of
revealed religions" (p. 189).
I
Sonnenfeld agreed that there was humor in Caligula,
but he seriously questioned its efficacy in conveying
Camus's intentions to the audience or reader. Hard pressed!
160
for time in the theatre, Camus had to shorten drastically
his realistic treatment of societal mores and to reduce
Caligula's efforts to teach the patricians his philosoph
ical ideas to . . brief parodies of fate, justice and
religion." The result is that, without adequate exposi
tion, these episodes fail to express to the audience their !
I
fullest implications and their relevance to the lives of
i
I
the spectators. When Caligula, therefore, caricatures
religion in his impersonation of Venus, the spectators
fail to see that their own lives are ruled by hypocrisy I
!
i
and sham as both Camus and Caligula knew. The audience
dismisses Caligula as a madman who amuses himself with
i
black humor instead of understanding that he is a prophet
of truth (p. 112) .
Rejecting Sonnenfeld's contention that Camus's
; attempts to develop the idea of the absurd and to indi-
; cate character changes were unsuccessful because they
were better fitted to the novel than to the theatre, Kail
j argued that the impersonation of Venus is a successful
i demonstration of Camus's deft use of comedy and that
|
, Camus's utilization of two certain dramatic devices
j strongly conveys the feeling of absurdity. First, Camus
I I
used what Max Beigbeder called "mechanical theatricality" j
161
to spotlight the contrast between "the mechanical and
arbitrary, and the unreal" in both the trial scene in
The Stranger and in Caligula. Second, Camus employed a
device which Beigbeder described as "the interference of
the cabaret," that is, "a display of mimicry and an exag
gerated caricature of the characters to give the impres
sion of absurdity." In this manner Camus communicated ;
to the audience in a direct and rapid way the true condi- j
tion of man. These comic or farcical elements, more !
evident in Caligula than in The Stranger, asserted Kail, I
tend to make the audience or reader more uneasy than a
serious dissertation would ever do. The disquietude of
the audience or reader is, in fact, intensified the more
i
by the fact that, unlike Meursault who is slowly crushed
by society, Caligula survives and dominates society. His
j supreme position reinforces the idea that the absurd does
; not end on earth but extends even beyond this realm (p.
; 205).
Kail continued her defense of Camus's devices for
■ indicating a spiritual metamorphosis by insisting that
Caligula's staring at his reflection in the mirror and
his gesture of touching his face are effective devices of
j communication with the audience. Kail explicated: j
162
The symbol takes precedence at that particular moment
over the factual and the explanatory, the acting over
the actors. The audience is left to meditate on the
portent of this gesture. It is indeed a 'geste drama-
tique par excellence' translating into a physical term
the discovery of the Truth by Caligula. Camus uses
here in a very effective way the essential medium of
the theatre: the visual, (p. 202) j
Kail continued that the gesture substitutes for a torrent
of dialogue and it "provides a direct and powerful means
to transmit at once to the audience the shock of discovery i
j
made by Caligula," his feelings of exultation and his |
|
defiant acceptance of an inescapable fact.
In answer to Sonnenfeld's statement that after his
first play Camus had ceased to experiment with Artaud's
dramatic theories. Kail insisted that, on the contrary,
this mirror device and the gestures, both symbolistic |
devices, are a realization of Artaud's theory which called!
| :
for "a shift of emphasis from the verbal to the physical"
and thereby rediscovers "a primitive, yet total [sic],
; superhuman way to communicate and commune" (p. 203).
Continuing the critics' search for devices and tech-
| niques and their implications, Hammer drew attention to
Camus's use of imagery, symbolism, time, and space whereas
Stoltzfus simultaneously indicated and criticiz.ed Camus's
personification of nature. Hammer noted that in order to
163
enhance even more the moral of the drama, Camus used the
imagery of the natural phenomena of the sun and the moon j
|
in a symbolic way. The sun represents both the possible
and the impossible as well as a life-sustaining force
while the moon represents only the impossible and a cold,
noncreative brilliance. Through the moon which appears j
only when the sun illuminates it, Camus demonstrated the !
relationship between the sustaining force of moderation j
and the sterile force of the absolute (p. 335) . j
In addition to the imagery, Hammer remarked that
i
Camus had taken liberties with the order of space and time
i
in order to convey a special meaning. j
i
Caligula . . . is a kind of poetic dramatist creating
his own version of man's relationship to the nature of
things. The setting is Rome, an aesthetic city, a
sealed-off city, the scene of an inner struggle, the
struggle within Caligula's soul . . . Caligula creates
! a new kind of space in which recognizable human envir
onment disappears, (p. 329)
Every kind of disarrangement is allowed in this "it is a
dream-space, the space of the impossible, a chaotic inner
I world externalized." Like the plague in the "sealed-off,"
i
i "mythical" and "actual" city of Oran in The Plague, Calig-
f
ula's madness produces a dislocation that forces the
people to become aware of reality (p. 330).
i
j The disorder in time is used to illuminate the con
164
flict between youth and age which plays a large role in
the drama. This reversal of time sequence is demonstrated
by the fusing of age with youth. The young men feel old
and weary at the same time that the elderly act as chil
dren and are ignored as children. Since Caligula denies |
a meaningful sequence to life, this fusion and conflict
between the generations is significant. In Caligula’s
Rome, time ceases to have meaning, and there is no future,
"only a prolonged and empty present which must be filled
up." Trapped in this lingering present, Caligula yearns
I
I
for death which will provide the only escape. Despite
being constantly aware of time and trying to impose his
will upon it, the emperor fails to make it move for him
in a meaningful sequence. Hammer concluded that "the dis- |
ruption of the order of space and time is part of the
syndrome that Camus is examining in this play, namely,
the passion for the impossible" (p. 331).
Weinberg casually mentioned Camus's predilection for
certain images in nature, but Stoltzfus directed his
; attention to Camus's proclivity for what he called a
j ;
! "tragic complicity." This "tendency to anthropomorphize
j inanimate objects, his environment and Nature" is a characl
j !
| teristic which Camus shared with other existentialists, !
! w i
165
such as Sartre. This manner of looking at nature and
inanimate objects, said Stoltzfus, is the source of his
tragic view of life. Like Sartre, who was guilty of this
!
tendency in his attribution of human characteristics to
the root which produced Roquentin's nausea, so Camus
i
introduced via metaphors this "pathetic fallacy" into
Caligula? hence,.the moon, symbolic reminder of the trans-
i
itoriness of life, of happiness, and of the honeymoon |
with nature, is described in sensuous terms by Caligula. |
It must be noted, however, added Stoltzfus, that Camus
regarded nature as a source of strength to man. When
J
Caligula's desire for the moon is denied and he meets withj
i
indifference and aloofness, the emperor is stung into a
desperate rebellion (p. 298). Stoltzfus concluded that !
| unlike Malraux and Sartre, Camus did not go as far in sub
jecting his art to his social message. Generally, "Camus'
art possesses that essential blend of form and content
in which form is symbol and in which symbol is content"
(p. 300).
I ;
| Starratt noted Camus's fondness for the play-within-
j
| a-play device, and Savage extended this finding by com-
| paring Camus's technique and goals in the use of this
; i
device with those of Pirandello. To Starratt, there was j
166
a similarity between the novel. The Fall and Caligula,
because Camus used the play-within-a-play as a device in
both works. Caligula, for instance, impersonates the gods
in his attempt to impose a logical meaning on life or to
i
seize the moon, an image which symbolizes an "ideal dream !
world"; and Clamence, Starratt implied, plays the judge-
penitent in his attempt to entrap everyone into a slavery
of guilt (pp. 36-37). j
j
Savage stated that, like Pirandello, Camus utilized
the devices of the play-within-the-play and the assump
tion of a role by the hero within this play in order to i
|
reveal "thesis, character, and action." Camus's theatri- |
cal approach "adopts as its cardinal technique a divorce
ment from reality rather than the more accepted and j
familiar representation of reality" (p. 397). In order to
develop this technique of a separation from reality,
Camus employed the following devices: (1) he chose an
emperor for his hero, an unrealistic figure for the
; twentieth century; (2) Caligula assumes a role within the
| play, that is, he is the emperor but he does not act like
i
one; (3) Caligula plays a role in the play-within-the-
j
| play; and (4) the emperor assumes the role of the audience
167
105
within a play-within-a-play which he creates (p. 398).
Rolo and Simpson had briefly referred to the tension
in Caligula in the previous decades but it was Lewis and
Kail who explored most fully this integral part of the
play.- Lewis noted that the anti-theme of total isolation
is inextricably interwoven into the structure and the j
action of the drama. The structure of Caligula, observed
Lewis,'is "a periodic tension between the lust for isola-
i
tion and the longing for an authentic human encounter that j
moves the action forward." He explained:
Such an 'agon' emerges consistently in the climax of |
each act. For the play is composed of a series of j
analogous movements, beginning in each case with a
relatively crowded stage and thickening into a public j
spectacle of some kind; and then shifting and concen- !
trating into the effort and the revealed failure of
some personal and private relationship. Those paral
lel rhythms are analogues to each other; but they are
I also synedoches, enactments in small, of the entire
and overall action— which is, exactly, a deliberate
movement from the crowded center of a populous Empire
to a position of complete solitude, (p. 56)
The spectacles that occur in the center of each act serve
i to underscore the complete perversion of every aspect—
^Savage held that Pirandello had used in Enrico IV
the very same devices and techniques listed above for the
| same purposes. The only difference lay in that the hero,
j Enrico, was a feigned emperor, not a true one, who acted
| as if he were an absolute head of state (p. 39 8).
168
"the governmental, the social and familial, the religious
j
and the artistic dimensions" of the whole Roman civiliza
tion. In four separate incidents, after each ceremony has
closed and the patricians have departed, Caligula tests
!
and systematically destroys each personal relationship.
When Caligula is finished, he has proven that neither a
"mother-son" nor a "father-son" relationship and neither
an "intellectual companionship of equals" nor a love of i
self can withstand his determination to be totally iso-
j
lated. The absolute solitude in which the emperor is
finally left, declared Lewis, is dramatically correct
j
because both the play and the hero have tended toward this j
i
end from the beginning (p. 57).
Defending Camus against the charges of Sonnenfeld who j
maintained that he had weakened the tension in Caligula
through his use of novelistic methods. Kail insisted that
the play and the novel are very differently handled. The
Stranger moves along in a detailed and slow manner as a
i
Proustian work, and holds up a mirror for the whole novel
i
I as Caligula's mirror reflects the truth in the drama,
i The story for the drama, however, has been concentrated,
i
[ i
the action has been hastened, and the mood intensified
by Camus's employment of the Racinian technique. Like
169
Racine's tragedies, this drama opens after the crisis has
already occurred. Moreover, since Caligula has planned a
course of action which involves the two objectives of
i
teaching the patricians the truth about human destiny and
of achieving the absolute, there are very strong tensions. I
The quickening of interest and the intensification of I
i
|
conflicts rise from the questions whether the patricians
j
will learn the truth, whether Caligula will tire of his
quest for the impossible, and whether. Caligula's thrust
toward solitude will be thwarted by his need for human
j
i
love (p. 206).
i
In conclusion, it has been demonstrated that though
i
the critics agreed that Camus's use of various literary
devices undoubtedly enhanced the depth and the scope of
the ideas and added dimensions to the characters, they
1 were not persuaded that these techniques brought the play
! any nearer to being a success. The contrived dialogue
: that robbed the play of action and the unidimensional
characterization that destroyed the credibility of the
| characters were major obstacles that precluded Camus's
i
j having created a classical tragedy or even an outstanding
| tragicomedy.
i
It seems ironical that in view of all the commentary
170 j
that the critics made concerning the shortcomings of j
Caligula, , almost no one of them considered Stuart Gilbert's!
translation as a possible source of some of their dis
satisfaction. Only three critics expressly commented
upon Gilbert's version of the French original.
Translation
The translation of Caligula drew little critical
comment from the scholar-critics and no reaction from the
newspaper reviewers despite the fact that the drama was
published in English as early as 1947, only four years
after the French edition had appeared in Paris. Of the
three critics who examined Stuart Gilbert's translation
and compared it with the French original, two were dis
appointed with its quality.
As early as 1946, Gu^rard, extolling the simplicity,
lucidity, and preciseness of Camus's writing feared that
i his style, the most difficult to translate, would dis-
; appear in the English version. It would be impossible,
| he said, to capture the feeling, nuance, and the spirit
i (p. 59). Three years later Smith corroborated Guerard's
| misgivings that the rhythm and the style had been lost in
171
the t r a n s l a t i o n . 106 Bentley expressed the frankest and
the most detailed reasons for his profound dissatisfac
tion. He argued that Gilbert had failed to capture "not
only the nervousness . . . the jumpiness but the tender
ness" in the dialogue. He concluded with this critical
assessment:
. . . Stuart Gilbert's job of work may well be enough
to keep Camus off the American stage entirely— not so
much because his English is British as because it is
just lifeless. The abstractness of the dialogue in
Camus's plays,"as in Sartre's is compensated for— and
thus lessened— by raciness of language, poetry of
phrase and rapidity of rhythm. Stuart Gilbert, who
renders the abstractness in all its abstractness, is
the published translator of . . . 'Cross Purpose'
and 'Caligula.' Translator and, I fear, gravedigger.
(p. 4)
Rolo, the last critic to mention the translation,
observed in 1958 that since all Camus's works were very
difficult to translate, the English versions were much
inferior to the original French.
Summary
From the beginning of 1945 through 1964, the American
scholars and journalists contributed less literary criti
cism than philosophical discussion about Caligula because
they found it imperative to clarify for themselves Camus's
intellectual vision in order to understand the nature of
106"two Plays: Caligula and Cross Purpose," Books
Abroad, XXXIII {Spring 1949), 188.
172
his theatrical world. It was not until the middle 50*s
and the 60's, when the critics began to understand the
European ethical and politico-social ambience of the late
1930's and of the 19 40‘s in which Camus had been writing,
that they turned to a fuller treatment of the aesthetics
in his dramas. ■
j
During the interval between 1945 through 1964, the
j
majority of the critics considered Caligula as based on |
I
The Myth of Sisyphus and regarded the theme as focused on
a powerful man's solitary and logically conducted revolt
against death and the injustice in the human lot. Indeed,
a revolt so violent in the pursuit of an ideal that it I
i
I
became a nihilistic rebellion against the whole of
creation. In the 40’s, therefore, the majority of O'Brien,
Clark, Guerard, Smith, Eaton, Mohrt, Clurman, Bentley,
i
j Blanc-Roos, and Scherer were in concurrence that the
theme— Caligula's protest— was mainly metaphysical in
nature. Again, during the 50's, the larger number of
j critics (Strauss, Lansner, Galand, Simpson, Harrington,
l
Hanna, Cosman, Viggiani, O'Brien, Rolo, Jones, Maddocks,
|
, Rossi, Gregory, Dietz, Murchland, Scott) agreed with their
predecessors. Only a minority (Lewis, Terrien, Houghton,
Roudiez, Hammer, Savage, Stoltzfus) in the 60's appeared
173
to regard the theme as primarily or wholly metaphysical.
The idea that the theme was really on two levels— politico-
social as well as ontological— appeared early. Hence,
though Troy was the only critic in the 40ls who seemed to
j
see solely ethical and political implications in this
drama, Smith, Eaton, Clurman and Blanc-Roos included these j
issues as part of the whole theme. In the 50's, Cassidy j
j
gave the impression that predominantly ethical and polit
ical problems were under consideration in Caligula, but
Hanna, Rolo, Jones, Maddocks, Viggiani, and O'Brien
j
regarded these ramifications as another level of the ;
'
theme. The majority of the critics and reviewers in the
j
60's (Bree, O'Brien and Roudiez, Stavrou, Weinberg, Hart- j
man, Molnar, Stern, Carlson, Glicksberg, Lamont, Reck, !
Sonnenfeld, Kail, Clancy, Starratt, Hill, Reed, Goldstein)
I were convinced that Camus depicted a revolt that was
; against the silence and the inhumanity of the cosmos and
: against the alienation and the inhumanity of man to man.
i Although most of the critics in these nineteen years
| of discussion differentiated Camus from his dramatic hero,
j
I some were unable to do so. Frequently those who confused
j
| the author with his protagonist were persuaded that Camus
j was a pessimist and even a nihilist at the time that he
174
wrote Caligula. Predominantly ignoring the roles of
Cherea, Caesonia and Scipio, they failed to see that Camus
presented alternatives to Caligula's way. Because of the
critics' tendency to interpret Caligula in the light of
the author's biography, it was occasionally difficult to
ascertain whether or not the scholars and journalists
thought Caligula was held up as a model for emulation or
as an obverse personification of the tenets that Camus
cherished. Camus's satiric disenchantment with the world
that he was depicting and his symbolical rather than
literal intent in the treatment of his hero was lost upon
many of his detractors. Only eight critics (Mohrt in the
40's; Galand, Viggiani, Murchland in the 50's; Lewis,
Clancy, Sonenfeld, Hammer in the 60's) expressly indicated
that either Caligula or all the heroes in Camus's works
were the author in disguise. Strauss, Lewis, and Hammer
gave the impression that Caligula represented the more
defiant and younger Camus while Cherea symbolized the
more reconciled and older Camus.
Unaware of both the eclecticism of Camus's philosoph
ical stand and the evolution in his thought, the critics
unsuccessfully tried to place him in one ethical or one
philosophical category. In the end, however, the majority
came to the conclusion that Camus was probably more a
philosopher of the absurd or an existentialist than he was
an epicurean, fatalist, hedonist, humanist, or stoic. A
few considered his views to be a combination of two or
more of these philosophical categories. In the 40's,
Magny, Clark, Guerard, Smith, Eaton, and Troy held that
Camus's absurdist or existentialist view was invalid at
best or nihilistic at worst. Only O'Brien, Clurman, and
Scherer, who considered him a humanist, took the opposite
view. By the beginning of the 50's, the critics began to
reverse their stand toward Camus's world view and by the
end of the decade, they were evenly divided as to whether
Camus was a pessimist or not. Strauss, Hanna, Viggiani,
O'Brien, Rolo, Jones, Clurman, Maddocks, and Giraud con
sidered Camus neither desperate nor pessimistic while
Lansner, Galand, Simpson, Harrington, Cosman, Rossi,
Gregory, Dietz, and Scott declared or implied that he was
at the time he was writing Caligula. In contrast to the
earlier critics, from 1960 through 1964, only Weinberg,
Terrien, Houghton, Molnar, Clancy, and Goldstein indicated
that the idea of Camus's affirmative outlook was debatable.
Bree, O'Brien and Roudiez, Stavrou, Lewis, Hartman, Stern,
Carlson, Glicksberg, Roudiez, Lamont, Sonnenfeld, Kail,
176
Reck, Starratt, Hill, Savage, and Stoltzfus were certain
that Camus was not advocating that the reader or the
audience adopt Caligula's solution to the problem of the
absurd. A few critics {Magny, Hanna, Viggiani, Murchland,
Molnar, Berger) were attracted to the Christian ideas that
Camus expressed generally or specifically in Caligula but
they stopped short of considering Camus a crypto-Christian.
Throughout the years of criticism, a large number of
critics made casual references to affinities between
Camus's world view and that of a score or more of American,
Danish, English, French, German, and Russian writers.
Although Guerard, Clark and others made passing references
to various authors with whom Camus shared similarities, it
was not until the 50's that some of the scholars began to
seriously examine the parallels between Camus's philosoph
ical stand and that of other writers. Galand delineated
similarities among Malraux, Montherlant, Sartre, and Camus.
Simpson spotlighted affinities between Vigny and Camus
whereas Berger drew attention.to the kindred views of
Camus and Bonhoffer. In the next decade, Stavrou, Hart
man, Clancy, Hill, Savage, and Stoltzfus outlined parallels
between Camus's ethical, ontological and politico-social
views and those of Conrad, Malraux, Brecht, Vigny,
177
Pirandello, and Sartre. Goldstein developed an ingenious,
if unconvincing, argument that Camus's and Sartre's hope
for the future of human freedom was extremely limited
compared to that of Hegel's. In each case, the scholars
gave the impression that the resemblances were cases of
affinities more than c—.monstrable and indisputable examples
of influence. If other authors had suggested ideas to
Camus, they merely served to confirm the validity of the
ideas he already had or he converted them into thoughts
that were entirely his own for his own particular purposes.
In the last analysis, these studies primarily provided a
glimpse of Camus's extensive literary background and
served to underline the fact that his works are more com
plex than they seem at first glance.
With regard to the characterization, the critics
were convinced from the outset that Camus1s conception of
how to create characters was faulty and this defective
motion was largely responsible for the failure of Caligula.
Generally the characters were considered remote from
reality because they were moved by ethical rather than by
psychological conflicts. Caligula was regarded as an
unsuitable hero; for a few critics, he was too cowardly
to be an absurd hero and for the others, he was too ego-
178
centric and repugnant to be an Aristotelian or an
Elizabethan tragic hero. A few critics, however, (Smith,
Mohrt, Bentley, Blanc-Roos, Scherer in the 40's; Strauss,
Gregory, Maddocks in the 50's; Bree, Lewis, Molnar, Reck,
Kail, Clancy, Spivak, Hammer, Savage in the 60's) argued
that Caligula was a powerful hero who was at once mythical
and credible or symbolical and plausible. Most of the
critics held that the emperor was the representative of
the absurd or the Sisyphean hero who, obsessed with his
ideal, was led through his implacable logic into becoming
a nihilist and monster. Guerard and Clurman in the 40's?
Strauss, Jones, and Scott in the 50's; and Lewis, Stern,
and Hammer in the 60's acknowledged Cherea as the champion
of common sense, moderation, and reason. Scherer, Strauss
and Viggiani, and Kail in the 40's, 50*s, and 60's,
respectively, declared that Caesonia was the emblem of
love.
As the critics sought parallels between Camus's ideas
and those of other writers, so they also sought resem
blances between Camus's heroes and those of other authors.
Strauss began the movement in earnest with his explora
tion of the historical sources for the basis of Caligula.
He discovered that Although Camus had used much of the
material from Suetonius1 De Vita Caesarum— for the forma-
tion of Caligula's character and actions, he had con
verted this material into a totally original work with an
entirely new purpose in mind— the emperor was uniquely
Camus's creation. Strauss also demonstrated differences
and similarities between Caligula and the heroes of Kafka
and Dostoevsky. Lehan underscored the resemblances mani
fest among Caligula and Martha and Faulkner's Joe Christmas
whereas Viggiani drew attention to Camus's predilection
for repeatedly using certain characters and certain situa
tions in his works. During the 60 *s, Stavrou discussed
kindred and different characteristics manifest in Conrad's
Jim and Kurtz and Caligula. Roudiez remarked upon affin
ities between Melville's Ahab and Caligula while Clancy
maintained that Brecht and Camus treated their characteri
zation in a similar manner. Savage demonstrated that
Pirandello's Enrico IV and Caligula shared certain charac
teristics and goals, and Stoltzfus declared that Camus's
heroes are modeled upon Malraux*s heroes. Ignoring other
authors and their protagonists, Lamont, Reck, Kail and
Starratt remarked upon resemblances between Caligula and
the heroes or major characters in Camus's other dramas or
in his novels. The Stranger, The Plague, and The Fall.
180
In considering the play form, the majority of the
critics from 1945 through 1964 agreed that Caligula was
an unsuccessful and abstractly presented experiment in
i
combining ideas and tragedy. Guerard, Eaton, Bentley,
a Theatre Arts critic, and probably Clark and Smith in
the 40's; Lansner, Gregory, Jones, Popkin, and perhaps
Dietz and Maddocks in the 50*s; and Lewis, Houghton, |
|
Lamont, Reck, Sonnenfeld, Abraham, and possibly Savage
i
j
and Stoltzfus in the 60*3 indicated explicitly or implic
itly that Caligula was a combination of ideas and tragedy j
that ended as a melodrama and a play of ideas or as a
j
tragicomedy and a play of ideas. In any case, relatively
few critics referred to this drama as purely a morality
play, a play of ideas, or a tragedy. Although the con- j
sensus was that the deficient characterization played a
[ *
j
large role in the failure of this play, some critics
(Guerard, Freedley, Eaton in the 40's; Simpson, Clurman
in the 50*s; Reck, Sonnenfeld in the 60's) objected to
the mixture of dramatic moods and styles— theatricalism
and intellectualism, farce and tragedy, irony and tender
ness, and oratory and soliloquy— which they believed
j i
|
destroyed the unity of this drama. Other scholars (Dietz,
Abraham) found fault with the world view that Camus
181
expressed; some (Cassidy, Maddocks, Popkin, Couch) dis-
| liked the absence of action and the austere plot; and !
i f
I
| j
| still others (Magny, Houghton, Couch, Reck, Sonnenfeld)
i
i
| complained of a distracting dichotomy between the dialogue
| and the action of the characters.
' |
| Clinging to the naturalist’s and realist's concep- j
; i
| tion of the function of dialogue and refusing to agree j
j that dramatic prose must be larger than life to capture a ;
! lifetime of meaning in two hours, the majority of the j
! i
! ■ !
| critics from 1945 through 1964 maintained that the
i
dialogue was excessively eloquent and rhetorical for the
characters and for the modern theatre. Almost all the
scholars (Magny, Eaton, Troy in the 40's; Simpson, Cassidy,
Popkin in the 50's; Sonnenfeld in the 60's) characterized
I
the dialogue as brilliant and unconvincing. i
j In regard to the method of writing in Caligula, the
! I
I ;
i largest number of critics commented on the moralist j
i !
j method during the 40's and 50's. Guerard, Mohrt, Clurman, !
i
| Scherer, and Troy as well as Lansner, Hanna, Rolo, Clurman,
i
j and Maddocks underscored, occasionally with dismay, :
j ' |
! Camus’s tendency to stress ethical or ontological ideas
j and to emphasize extreme situations rather than characters
and everyday events to express his conception of the
182
human condition. Camus's abstract and intellectual, even
didactic, approach was the source of much of the critics'
dissatisfaction with this play. ;
i
i
Smith, Mohrt, Eaton, and Scherer drew attention to j
|
the desperate, unreal or poetic world in which Caligula |
I
moved. Strauss in the 50*s reiterated that there was an |
i
i
unreal quality about Caligula's world, and Hammer indi- |
cated that Camus's manipulation of the sequence of time
and the symbolic use of natural phenomena heightened the
feeling of being disoriented to reality. Savage advanced
the opinion that Camus, like Pirandello, intended to
create an unreal world by the device of a play-within-a-
play.
Camus's use of comedy and of irony was generally
regarded as an effective technique for augmenting the
force of his ideas and for intensifying the characteriza
tion. Clark, Mohrt, Blanc-Roos, and Scherer in the 40's,
i
Strauss in the 50's, and Bree, Lewis, Terrien, and Kail j
in the 60's lauded these devices but Sonnenfeld viewed
them as ineffectual in revealing Caligula's character.
Aside from Strauss and Lansner, none of the critics
declared that the humor was morbid. Stuart Gilbert's
| translation was considered by a few critics to be markedly
i
| inadequate to the task of conveying the language, the J
| rhythm, and the character of the emperor. To conclude, j
] |
! the majority of the critics decided that Camus had pre- j
! !
! \
! sented us in an abstract manner an unidimensional and |
j disorganized character study in the form of an implied j
|
I dramatic debate in Caligula.
CHAPTER II
THE MISUNDERSTANDING
(1947)
The Misunderstanding (Le Malentendu), although
planned before 1939 and written during 1942 and 19 43,
was not published until four years later. First pub
lished with Caligula in Paris in 1944, this play was
printed, again with Caligula, in English in England in
19 47 and in the United States in 19 47 and 194 8. Because
this work, the second of the dramas belonging to the
"absurd" cycle, was published with Caligula and because
the performance of this drama took place in Paris in
1944, a year before the Parisian staging of Caligula,
almost all the critics considered the two dramas together
in their criticism.
Turning to the record of the fluctuations in the
American critics' interest in The Misunderstanding, we
| find that the pattern of interest more or less followed
that established by the first play, Caligula. The
j _
! critics were less interested, of course, in this drama
than in Caligula; because it was never produced on
184
185
Broadway? and because it depicts an unrelenting, grim
picture of the world. As in the case of Caligula, the
first reference to this play appeared in 19 45 and there
after the interest continued slowly to grow. Dilatory
in examining The Misunderstanding until 1947 when Gilbert j
Stuart's translation, Caligula and Cross Purpose, was pubH
lished, the scholars and journalists partially compen-
i
sated for their earlier indifference by producing at
least eight important articles and commentaries in 194 8.
After 1948, the interest stayed fairly constant until j
Camus received the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1957,
and Alfred A. Knopf published Camus's four major plays
j
in Caligula and Three Other Plays in 1958. The scholars !
and journalists at once turned with intensified interest
to this drama and published ten articles and reviews
of import from 1957 through 1959. With Camus's death in
1960, the number of commentaries briefly rose again but
I leveled off by 1961 to two articles or so and remained at
I
this level through 1964.
In considering the body of criticism, it is evident
that from 1945 through 1964, the critics had difficulty
in curbing their interest in Camus's metaphysical ideas.
| In the 60's, however, a few critics managed to avoid to
i
a degree the tendency to expend a maximum effort upon
interpreting Camus's ethical stand and a minimum effort
186
upon discussing the literary merits of this drama. At
the end of nineteen years of consideration, a majority
of the scholars and journalists arrived at the following
conclusions: (1) the theme concerned man's duty to revolt
in a responsible manner against the omnipresent absurd
in the life of man; (2) the women were not mouthpieces
i
for Camus himself; (3) Camus was not a nihilistic philos
opher of the absurd or an existentialist; (4) Martha
represented the absurd heroine; (5) Camus had a predilec
tion for repeating certain themes and certain characters
in his drama and fiction; (6) The Misunderstanding was an
unsuccessful combination of melodrama and intellectualism;
(7) Camus's dialogue was forensic and inappropriate for
his characters and for the modern stage; and (8) Camus's
i
use of symbolism, though extending the meaning of the
play, added weight to the feeling that Camus's theatrical
world was unreal,
i Before considering the criticism pertaining to The
; Misunderstanding, it seems appropriate to refresh our
memory of it at this time. A resume of the drama, there- '
I fore, is presented below as an introduction.
|
i ACT I: The curtain rises upon the innkeepers,
i the mother and her daughter, Martha, talking about a j
rich traveler who had just rented a room at the inn. j
187
As the women talk they reveal that for years they
have been drugging and drowning every solitary
traveler who looked wealthy. When they have accumu
lated enough money, Martha plans to leave this cold,
dreary, and rainy region and seek a new, comfortable,
and happy life in a warm climate along the sea while
her mother intends just to relax and to rest after
years of poverty and toil. In discussing their life
of crime, the mother admits that she does not look
closely at the travelers, partly because she has poor
sight and partly because it is easier to kill what
one does not know. Unlike Martha, who deliberately j
instigates the action and plots the steps of the j
murders, the mother passively drifts into the murder
ing from the force of habit. When the mother seems j
reluctant to discuss the plans for this new traveler, |
Martha rationalizes and the mother agrees that they
are not as cruel as life*r— at least, their victims
suffer less. The mother adds that since they really
act like chance, they merely hasten an inevitable
cfeath; thus, she cannot feel guilty, only tired. The
innkeepers leave and only the old manservant is left.
When Jan, the son, appears, he silently leaves.
Moments later, Jan is startled to see that Maria,j
his wife, has followed him into the inn. Maria has
188
come to plead with Jan to admit his identity to his
sister, Martha, but he insists upon remaining
anonymous. She fears that his game of anonymity
will lead to serious trouble. When she questions
t
why he made them leave their happy country for this
cold and unhappy Europe, Jan replies that happiness
is not enough for him. He cannot live only for him
self and he believes that he has a duty to return
to his family and to his own country. When Maria
reproaches him for not cherishing their love and
suggests that he has more loneliness than love for
her, Jan replies that he cannot continue to feel
like a stranger or a man without an identity. Jan
forces Maria, against her better judgment, to leave
and to let him pursue his plan of anonymity.
When Martha enters, she asks Jan to supply
information about himself so that she can enter it
into the guest register. Before they can begin, how
ever, Jan asks about the strange and silent behavior
of the manservant. Martha replies that he is a good
servant, if a bit deaf and extremely taciturn. He
never speaks unless it is absolutely necessary. When
they return to filling out the questionnaire, Jan
supplies Martha with a false name, suppresses the
fact that he is accompanied by his wife, and stresses
129
that he is wealthy. Martha is so busy listening
to and planning for this ideal victim that she
returns Jan's passport without looking at it.
All goes smoothly until Jan tries to induce Martha
to discuss her personal ideas about her life and
work, then she harshly cuts him short; she has
no intention of becoming acquainted. When the
mother comes in, Jan finds that she is much easier
to draw into a conversation. He learns that the
years of unrelenting hardship and toil have numbed
her affections and her memories of both her husband
and her children. Martha becomes alarmed at the
sight of the rapport that is quickly building
between her mother and this stranger- and tries to
silence both of them. Finally Martha leaves and
the mother and Jan continue to talk very easily.
When Jan leaves to go to his room, the mother is
left alone to muse upon what has been said. She at
once begins to wonder why she likes this stranger
and why she.inadvertently called him "my son" just
before he left. Then as her thoughts turn toward
the prospect of helping to murder him this’ night,
she finds she dreads the idea. When Martha chides
her for "daydreaming," the mother tells her that
she has no heart for murdering this man. Martha
190
becomes irritated with her mother and makes it
clear that she intends to carry out the usual
plans for lonely travelers, because she needs his
money to gain happiness in a sunny land. The scene
ends with the mother pleading with Martha to wait
just one night before they murder the tourist but
Martha will not relent.
ACT II: The scene opens with Jan, alone, look
ing out the window of his room as dusk is falling.
As he speaks he admits that Maria was right; he is
feeling lonely and very uneasy, especially since
night is approaching. His train of thought is inter
rupted by Martha who brings him some water and fresh
towels. As they talk, Martha apparently begins to
feel an incipient affection for Jan and tells him
that she and her mother wish that he had not come
to the inn. Martha remains half affectionate and
undecided about her plans for his murder until Jan
begins to tell her about the warm beach along which
he used to walk. The more Jan tells her, the more
Martha chokes off her affection and' ceases to waver
in her original intention. Jan's recital of the
beauties of his former homeland renews her ambition
to leave this inn at any cost and seals his death
191
sentence once and for all. Martha abruptly breaks
the rapport that they had been building and makes
an excuse to leave the room. After she is gone,
Jan reflects that the innkeepers are, indeed, strange
people; in fact, after talking to Martha and watch
ing her bizarre behavior, he decides he has been a
fool to leave Maria and begins to question the wisdom
of his plan. Feeling utterly depressed about his
family's failure to recognize him, he pushes the
service bell to see if anyone will answer it. The
manservant finally appears but does not say a word,
and when Jan explains that he was just testing the
bell, he promptly and silently leaves.
On the heels of his departure, Martha suddenly
appears with a cup of tea in which she has secretly
placed a drug. Jan is puzzled but Martha assures
him that it is a customary gesture for their guests.
She leaves and Jan drinks the tea. He has just
finished the last swallow when the mother bursts
into his room. She is somewhat upset when she learns
that he has already drunk the tea and then lapses
into her usual quiet indifference. When the mother
is about to leave his room, Jan is already beginning
to feel drowsy and stumblingly tells the mother that
he does not feel at home in this inn after all. The
192
mother replies that she wondered when he would
discover that fact and says she is sorry that he
has been indecisive. Jan drops into a stupor. Some
time later, the women appear with a lamp and observe
that the drug has worked very well upon this stranger.
The mother wants to wait and to study this man in
the lamplight before they carry him to the river
but Martha is adamantly opposed. While the mother
voices her envy of Jan's peace and repose, Martha
urges her to hurry along with the task. The scene
ends with the mother regretting this action that
they are about to take and predicts that "tomorrow's
dawn will never come."
ACT III: When the curtain rises, it is the
next morning and the women are talking in the inn
while the manservant is sweeping the floor. Martha
seems like another person, happy and energetic, but
her mother merely feels wearier than ever before.
Suddenly the old servant finds a passport and hands
it to Martha, who refuses to read it until he insists.
When she learns that their victim was her brother,
Martha says nothing and chlmly hands the passport
to her mother to read. The mother does not lament
either, but she seems to droop with even more
193
weariness. Almost at once she decides that she
must atone and join her son in the river, Martha
vainly protests that she has a right to live and
that she, her mother, has a duty to help her. The
mother listens but never wavers in her resolution
to end forever the suffering and misery she has
endured and the pain she feels now. After her
mother has gone, Martha rages about her mother's
rejection, her life of hardship, and her lost oppor
tunity for happiness. She knows she must die but
she refuses to die reconciled to a silent God and
to a world of injustice such as this is. She is
interrupted by Maria, who has come to find Jan.
When Martha finally tells Maria that he is
dead and that she and her mother murdered him, Maria
is almost overcome with disbelief, horror, and
sorrow. As Maria laments for her lost love and
joy, Martha tells her that she is unable to under
stand these words. All she knows is that this world
is cruel and that people are unpredictable. She had
once thought that her mother would never leave her
but now she finds that once alone, even though her
mother was her accomplice in crime, this companion
ship had done nothing to remove her essential
isolation. Stung with fury at the sight of Maria's
194
weeping and impatient with her lament that she
will never forget this sorrow, Martha informs her
that her grief will pass, that her love was futile,
and that her husband's death was "in the order of
things." There is no peace or homeland in life or
in death for anyone. Everyone has been cheated
and there is no grief comparable to the injustice
done to man. At the end, before Martha goes to
her death, she tells Maria that there are only two
ways to survive in this world: be as unfeeling as
a stone or commit suicide. As Maria begins to
collapse, she calls for help from God. The old
manservant appears but when Maria-asks him to help
her, he calmly refuses to do anything or say any
thing but "No."
i
Theme, Role, and World View
When the critics turned to discussing the theme,
| role, and world view in The Misunderstanding during the
| 1940's, they generally agreed that this play was based
i
! upon The Myth of Sisyphus. Although they also concurred
in their opinion that the implications of this work were
metaphysical more than political or psychological, they
differed in their ideas about Camus's intentions. The
larger number of the scholars and journalists were
convinced that Camus was proving that human life. is. un^
avoidably subject to the absurd. Other germane ideas
offered were: (1) man is isolated; (.2) the lack of
meaningful communication leads to needless tragedy;
(3) crime brings with it nemesis; and (4) ideals and
reality can never be reconciled. Although just two
scholars indicated that Martha and her mother were mouth
pieces for the author, a majority believed that Camus was
a philosopher of the absurd or an existentialist, and,
therefore, a pessimist. Other critics thought that he
was a neo-stoic or an epicurean-stoic. Only three
scholars, each of whom placed the author in a different
philosophical category, stated or implied that Camus was
attacking Martha’s and her mother's false kind of revolt
against the absurd in life.
Henri Peyre, apparently the first American critic
to comment upon The Misunderstanding, observed in 1945
that this drama embodies in a concrete manner the neo
stoic ideas which Camus expounded in The Myth of
Sisyphus.1
It was not until the following year, however, that
the critics began to examine this play more carefully.
1”The Resistance and Literary Revival in France,"
Yale Review, XXV (Autumn 1945), 91.
196
2 3 ^ 4
Justin O'Brien, Delmore Schwartz, and Albert J. Guerard
held that The Misunderstanding deals with Camus's concep
tion of the absurd which he discussed in The Myth of
Sisyphus. O'Brien thought that Camus was exploring the
"blind stupidity of chance" and its terrible effect upon
the life of man. He did not, however, indicate that Camus
was a pessimist because he appeared to be a philosopher
of the absurd. Instead he implied that the author was
optimistic because he urged men to live, to live lucidly
in the present, to enjoy this life since there was no
other, and never to cease to resist the evil on earth.
Schwartz agreed that Camus demonstrated the absurdity
of existence in this drama, but he was not certain that
Camus himself believed in this notion. For Schwartz, it
was indicative of "a lack of conviction in the absurdity
of existence, or a desire to prove its absurdity by
fastening upon the monstrous, the extraordinary and the
I accidental." If, however, existence is indeed absurd,
j
■ o
; "Boldest Writer in France Today," The New York
| Herald Tribune Weekly Book Review, March 24, 1946, Sec. 1,
! p. 2.
i
, f 3
(Rev. of Le Mythe and Le Malentendu), Partisan
| Review, XIII (Spring 1946), 248.
^"Albert Camus," Foreground, I (Winter 1946), 47-48.
19 7
then the daily and usual events should be the proper
subject matter for the absurd or existentialist writer.
Schwartz insisted that "Camus is superior to his ideas;
and the truth of his ideas, insofar as they are true, is
temporal and not metaphysical." His conceptions are
valuable, "not as a description of existence, but as a
description of certain states of existence." With the
completion of The Myth of Sisyphus, Camus formulated
"a modern version of Stoicism" (p. 250).
Guerard, in accord with Schwartz's definition of the
theme, asserted that "L'Etranger and Le Malentendu are,
like the works of Kafka, symbolic presentations of the
world's absurdity." More than merely studying the
psychological problems of isolation and independence,
Camus examined "the larger metaphysical problem" behind
the social or ethical questions (p. 47). Guerard sug
gested that Martha may be the author in disguise when he
i stated that all Camus's work is "spiritual autobiography,"
j
and "the sister [Martha] cries at the end words of defi
ance which seem wrung from the author's deepest pre-
: occupation" (p. 49). Still considering Camus's views
cautiously, Guerard declared, "Le Malentendu would seem,
indeed, as damning a rejection of the 'philosophy of the
absurd' as The Borderers is a rejection of Godwin's in
dividualism and rationalism." This is, he continued,
19 8
Camus' most pessimistic work, the only one in which
he seems to blame human nature as severely as
cosmic indifference. The sister says, "What is
human in me is what I desire, and I think, I'd
crush anything in my way to obtain what I desire."
(p. 49)
Guerard declared that for Camus, "the inn of the
women is the house of life . . . where we are strangers.
[
. . . We are meaningless particles in an absurd and j
j
meaningless world." In this kind of universe, where man
is totally isolated and inevitably doomed to death, good
and evil are meaningless. Guerard concluded that though
Camus argued in 'Lettres a un ami allemand" (1943-1944)
for "a natural human impulse to justice", the murderers
in this work lack this impulse.
According to Winifred Smith, the themes of Caligula
and The Misunderstanding are "crime and punishment and
5 '
death is preferable to life." Camus, she said, was even |
more "nihilistic" than his fellow-existentialist Sartre |
and offered little hope to his audience of relief from
I tension or hope of progress because he demonstrated that
man is motivated by avarice and ruthless ambition
(p. 158) . i
!
Contesting Smith's evaluation, Michel Mohrt, who
spoke in general of Camus's works, insisted that the
5
(Rev. of Le Malentendu and Caligula), Books Abroad,
XXII (Spring 1948), 157.
i
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ j
199
author repeatedly stressed his horror of death, extolled
his love of happiness, and called for a paganistic revolt
6
against all forces that menaced the joy in life. Mohrt
hinted that Martha is probably an obverse symbol of Camus
when he says that the author was a "romantic" and did
little but delineate his own experiences and thoughts in
his works (p. 113).
In George Freedley's opinion, Camus seemed to be an
7
existentialist, and Walter Pritchard Eaton appeared
g
to agree. Eaton held that a symbolism seems to be
present in the theme, "an implication of the spiritual
despair and moral breakdown in Europe." Harold Clurman
affirmed that this play reflects the experiences and feel-
9
ings of Camus's generation. He maintained that Camus
intended to demonstrate that crimes and tragedies occur
because men do not admit that they are brothers; the lack
of real communication leads to the misunderstanding and
i
6
"Ethic and Poetry in the Work of Camus," trans.
Warren Ramsey, Yale French Studies, I (Spring-Summer
1948) , 113.
7
(Rev. of Caligula and Cross Purpose), Library
! Journal, LXXIII (July 1948), 1029.
‘ 8
! "Symbolist or Realist," The New York Herald Tribune
| Book Review, August 15, 1948, Sec. j, p. 13.
9
"Theatre: Plays from Paris," New Republic, CXIX
(August 16, 1948), 26.
20.Q
to the subsequent deaths in this drama. Unlike Eaton,
who implied that Camus was a pessimist, Clurman insisted
that the playwright was a moralist who, speaking for his
generation, intended to prove that men must revolt in the
name of humanism against the evil in the world or suffer |
i
senseless misery and death. j
To Eric Bentley,The Misunderstanding deals with
the role of chance in "modern life"; for both an anonymous
critic^ and Rene Blanc-Roos, ^ the play is focused upon j
the fate of a family. The anonymous critic maintained j
that the drama offers "an iconoclastic message about |
family relationships," and Blanc-Roos regarded the theme I
i
as concentrated upon the tragic destiny of a modern house i
of Atreus, a man and his family cursed and ruled by j
l
chance. Although the anonymous critic ventured no opinion j
about Camus's view of the world, Bentley argued that the
author was an existentialist who had little hope for the
13
human race in the struggle with the absurd; while
"Camus: The Melodrama of Ideas," The New York
Times Book Review, August 29, 194 8, p. 4.
"^Caligula and Cross Purpose (anon, rev.), Theatre
Arts, XXXII (October 1948), 94.
■^"Albert Camus," Nation, CLXVII (October 9, 1948),
406. ;
13
Eric Bentley, "A Note on French Existentialism,"
Books Abroad, XX (Summer 1946), 264 insisted that Camus i
2QX
Blanc-Roos underscored that the characters are ruled by
an implacable fate.
Olga Scherer, agreeing with the majority of the
critics, assented that this drama revolves about the
absurdity in life, the play of chance to which all men
14
are subject. There is no question, said Scherer, that I
j
the author at this time apparently thought that man is an
isolated creature, exiled in a hostile universe, unknown j
]
to himself, and unknown to others, including his own
mother and sister. It seems that in dealing with the !
absurd, man has the choice to be blind, uninvolved, and
unthinking as a stone, or he can yield to his desire for
escape and commit suicide. In any event, concluded
Scherer, although Camus offered little hope for either i
solution to living with the absurd, he did seem to reject j
i
the idea of suicide (p. 55). William Troy did not dis-
15
pute Scherer's negative judgment of Camus's world view.
I was an existentialist, regardless of the author's protests
| to the contrary, and that this drama reminded him of the
old, didactic, and grim German fate dramas.
14
"Illogical Immoralist," Perspective, II (Autumn
1948), 55.
15
"The Rebirth of Allegory," Hudson Review, I (Winter
1949), 487.
202
To recapitulate, it has been demonstrated that
despite assigning Camus1s ethical and ontological views
to various schools of thought, almost all the critics j
I
were certain that Camus did not have any hope for man's i
attaining happiness in an absurd universe. The critics
in the fifties will not be disposed to interpret the
meaning of this play any differently.
j
From the beginning of the 1950's up to the 60's,
most of these scholars and journalists again held that j
The Misunderstanding was based on The Myth of Sisyphus
i
and dealt with metaphysical problems more than with j
political or psychological conflicts. Only two critics
j
briefly noted the psychological implications in the
|
theme. Like the earlier critics, they were divided in j
i
i
their interpretations of what the play meant. For the j
majority, Camus was demonstrating that it is impossible
to escape the absurd in human life. For others, the
author was proving that man's neglect of his brother
! brings disaster upon them both; or that an inclement
climate, ugliness, poverty, and a silent God are the
i
! greatest injustices perpetrated upon man; or that man
| must communicate honestly and sincerely with his fellow-
men lest he visit needless suffering and senseless death
| upon others. Although only four or possibly five critics
i i
l j
mentioned explicitly that the protagonists were the |
203
author in disguise, the majority of the critics, many of
whom linked Camus's life to his writing, still indicated
that Camus was an absurdist or existentialist and was
therefore depressed about the future of man. Other
critics proposed that he was a humanist, a non
existentialist, or a pagan.
Kermit Lansner was convinced that Camus, drawing
upon his personal experiences, offered a merciless
presentation of the absurdity in the life of man in The
16
Misunderstanding. This work is "Undoubtedly the
bleakest thing that Camus has written," asserted Lansner;
a denial of love and life itself pervades the entire
drama (p. 56 8). Essentially agreeing with Lansner,
Lurline V. Simpson explained that Camus spotlighted the
injustice in this absurd world, in which the innocent
17
suffer just as severely as the guilty. A few honest
I words spoken -at the appropriate time could have prevented
i * - '
the deaths of three people. From this work, we learn
i
not only that man is isolated from his fellowmen and from
! God but also that "for the innocent believer as for the
1 6
"Albert Camus," Kenyon Review, XIV (Autumn 1952),
567.
I
!
: 17
l "Tensions in the Works of Albert Camus," Modern
j Language Journal, XXXVIII (April 1954), 188-190.
204
criminal skeptic there is no way out but through individual
quest" (p. 188). Like Caligula, this play reflects the
grim and partially existentialist tenets of The Myth of
Sisyphus (pp. 189-190). Considering this drama from a
psychological perspective, Simpson maintained that in
this drama where the solution to the absurd is sought
in "action," the tensions are mainly those of "the aberra-j
tions of abnormal psychology" (p. 187). The conflicts j
revolve about the following: (1) action and impractica- I
bility versus that of passivity and impracticability;
(2) the conservative role of woman versus the creative |
role of man; and (3) self-realization versus the frustra
tion of an unfulfilled life (pp. 187-188) .
I
Philip Hallie, who linked Camus's writing to his j
i |
life, was convinced that Camus's works deal with "the j
movement from thinghood to the full existence Camus calledj
18
revolt." He treated primarily this kind of progression,;
I "with the task of describing both it and the kind of
false movement which destroys man's freedom, lucidity,
19
and passion." In The Misunderstanding, the author
18
j "Camus and the Literature of Revolt," College
| English, XVI (October 1954), 26.
i
I 19 i
Hallie observed that Camus conceived of existence
as that which makes man different from stones. In Camus's:
opinion, men are capable of enjoying freedom, of under
standing the world lucidly, and of feeling deeply but I
| whenever a man surrenders his liberty, his lucidity, and
205
reveals the essential loneliness of each man and depicts
the false revolt of the mother who, instead of protest
ing for the sake of life and humanism, surrenders to the
absurd by destroying her freedom and lucidity in the
act of suicide (pp. 31-32). Like Simpson, Hallie asserted
that for Camus man has been abandoned by God in a hostile
world. He added that Camus still conceived of revolt
in this period of his life as an individual task which
always ends in "solitude." He concluded that the
author overemphasized the need to revolt and failed to
prove his point that defiance is the only way to relate
to the cosmos (p. 83) .
More impatient with Camus than Hallie, Michael
Harrington held that this play, like Caligula, is based
upon Camus's desperate thought, "I exist, therefore I
20
despair." Konrad Bieber did dispute Harrington's
opinion. He maintained that this work is focused upon
the point which Camus had made in The Myth of Sisyphus,
■ 2 j
: namely, "it is futile to plan in an absurd world."
; his involvement he becomes a thing; he joins the stones
which are 'enslaved by their environment, indifferent,
| and inert (p. 26) .
I
i 2 A
I "The Despair and Hope of Modern Man," Commonweal,
| LXIII (October 14, 1955) , 44.
21
"Engagement as a Professional Risk," Yale French
Studies, No. 16 (Winter 1955), pp. 33-34.
206
Certain of Camus's desperate outlook, Harrington remarked
that this drama is even more grim than Caligula, and
Bieber drew attention to Camus's admission that he had
been filled with despair in the early forties. Bieber
explained further— rthough the author regarded the notion
of the absurd as a starting from which he moved to the
idea of revolt, it was not until 1948 that he explicitly
deplored despair as the forerunner of nihilism and
violence (p. 34). Camus disliked existentialism for what
he called its false conclusions but he defended it as an
adventurous and courageous thought against those who
decried it for what they termed its pessimism, cowardice,
and resignation (pp. 31-32).
In Thomas L. Hanna's opinion, the theme in this
play, as in Caligula, is a quest for values that lie
beyond the limits of man and thereby end in senseless
22
murder which enhances the absurdity in life. In general
! Camus urged men to revolt, said Hanna, in order to human-
i ize the inhumanity in a world where the suffering and
' death of man are unjustified and where evil is neither
explained nor restrained by a silent God. The only genu-
| ine goodness in life resides in man himself and this
i
j goodness can come only from man's struggle to preserve and
I
22
"Albert Camus and the Christian Faith," Journal of
Religion, XXXVI {October 1956), 230.
207
to augment it; it is a unique quality which only man can
know and which only he can safeguard (p. 232).
Camus, posited Carl A. Viggiani, was preoccupied in
all his works with the scandal of death which, contrasted
[
with the joy in life, makes the ultimate fate of every
23
man even more intolerable. In addition to this primary
theme, the author explored problems in human dignity,
innocence, alienation, justice, love, lucidity, and
24
revolt (p. 879). All the author's protagonists are j
I
Camus himself in disguise and they represent the various |
j
stages of the developing author.. Disputing Viggiani's j
implied dismay with Camus's view of the world, Justin !
|
O'Brien believed that, though The Misunderstanding con- |
cerns the blind and fateful play of chance in the life of
man, Camus himself was not a pessimist about man and the
25 '
absurd; rather his "leitmotive" was that men must unite j
against the absurd for the sake of happiness, justice,
i and truth.
i
23"Camus' L'Etranger," PMLA, LXXI (December 1956),
879.
■
24
■ Max Cosman, "Camus' Hidden Sun," Chicago Review,
| X (Autumn-Winter 1956), 93, remarked that this play ex-
! hibits Camus's awareness of "the accidental dissonance"
| to which man is prey.
25
"Nobel Prize-winner Camus: A Man Committed Yet
Aloof," The New York Times Book Review, December 8, 1957,
Sec. 7, p. 3.
208
Charles Moeller thought that rather than an alert
ness to the play of fate, Camus exhibited a painful
sensitivity, because of his own experiences, to the in
justices which bitter poverty, inclement climate, and a
2 6 i
silent God can generate. Only love and justice can
repay the poverty-stricken for their isolation and suffer
ing (pp. 173, 175-176). Not disputing Moeller's remarks, |
Charles Rolo asserted, as he had in the case of Caligula, j
that The Misunderstanding is concentrated upon a revolt i
27
against the hostility that abides m an absurd world. j
Both Moeller and Rolo credited Camus with having a
view of the world and of man which is distinguished for |
I
I
its courage and nobility, but Moeller betrayed reserva- |
!
tions about the validity and the essential optimism of
such a philosophical stand. Moeller, noting that auto- I
biographical elements are present, maintained that accord-|
ing to Camus only joy in nature, in love, and in beauty
| can compensate the humble man for his misery, lighten his
burden of poverty, and restore his hope. Camus, appeared
O G
"Albert Camus: The Question of Hope," trans.
i E. K., L. K., S. H., Crosscurrents, VIII (Spring 1958),
173, 175-176.
^"Albert Camus: A Good Man," Atlantic, CCI (May
1958), 30.
209
to believe that "a happiness of the senses is the only
|
kind of happiness that can be conferred upon men, and it
justifies any sacrifice." This dependence upon nature
as the source of happiness which began as "a romanticism
of solar happiness," later grew into "a religion of
2 8 I
happiness" (pp. 173, 175-176). Moeller continued that
!
although Camus proclaimed that "man can find nobility in
the struggle with no other end but pride and courage in j
the stoic acceptance of his burden," the author did not j
solve the problem of death by calling for pride in decid- j
ing one's own destiny, for a sense of responsibility, or
for the abolition of misery. If Camus's views are not
i
i
desperate, implied Moeller, they are inadequate for human
needs because the power of God is not considered
(pp. 176-177). To Rolo, Camus revealed the stages in ;
the evolution of his thought through his work. Rolo
hastened to add, however, th-at the protagonists are not
i
the author in disguise (p. 29). In this case, the author
j intended to show that he rejected that line of reasoning
i '
j which says that since the world is irrational, man has a
i
I
12 8
I Bernard Murchland, C.S.C., "Albert Camus: Rebel,"
| Catholic World, CLXXXVIII (January 1959), 310, remarked
! that this drama exhibited "Camus' efforts to conciliate
his obsession with the absurd and his mystique of sensual
happiness."
210
license for any irrational conduct (p. 29). Though his
Sisyphean heroes or heroines end in isolated and fruit
less revolt, Camus should be regarded as a humanist. He
always exhorted men to use moderation as their guide and
to be joyful for their awareness of the absurd in life
(pp. 28-31). !
Reino Virtanen, like some of the earlier critics, was |
convinced that the author set out to prove that human
29 i
hopes for a happy outcome are illusory. He drew atten- i
j
tion to the fact that there is more than one misunderstand--
i
ing in this drama; it is not merely a matter of a mistake j
i
in identity. First, Jan was overly confident when he J
assumed that he could pick up the threads of the past so
easily; second, Martha made herself vulnerable to mis- I
i
i
fortune by depending too heavily upon the steadfastness !
i
!
of her mother's affection; third, Maria was misled when
she believed that her shattered life was the result of
mischance; and fourth, Maria was mistaken when she thought
that God would aid her. Virtanen appeared to think that
1 Martha's views were those of Camus (p. 239).
i
According to Claudia Cassidy, the lack of communica
tion is the reason for the chain of events that terminate
i
29
"Camus' Le Malentendu and Some Analogues," Compara
tive Literature, X (Summer 1958), 239.
211
in death. Mary Gregory, O.P., ^ held that the theme
concerns the absurdity in the world and Gregory added
that the author presented a powerful picture of the
depravity of which men are capable. Although Cassidy ven-
I
tured no opinion about Camus's philosophy, Gregory
joined the chorus of dismay with what the detractors
called Camus's hopeless attitude. Gregory charged that
Camus was not only saying that happiness is an illusion
but also that life is so hopeless that man must learn not
to feel lest he commit suicide in his despair over the
absurd in the world (p. 42). j
* ■ i
Challenging Gregory's ideas, Henry Popkin asserted
that though many people have thought this drama to be
"a perfect paradigm of the absurdity of hoping to escape
from poverty or exile," Camus intended to prove that
j
in an unjust or indifferent world, man can save !
himself, and save others by practicing the most
basic sincerity and pronouncing the most appro
priate word. (p. 501)32
30
"Four Plays Embodying Camus' Cause for Drama,"
Chicago Sunday Tribune Magazine of Books, September 14,
1958, Sec. 4, p. 4.
|
i 3i
(Rev. of Caligula and Three Other Plays), Drama
| Critique, I (November 1958), 42.
' 32
"Camus as Dramatist," Partisan Review, XXVI (Summer
1959), 501.
212
Both The Stranger and The Misunderstanding tell us that
"the slightest weakness, the most innocent facetious
impulse will release an absurd and implacable destiny."
Camus, therefore, is not as pessimistic as he would
appear at first glance (p. 501).
Agreeing with Popkin's affirmative interpretation
of this play, Raymond Giraud thought that the author was
protesting against the silence of God and the absurdity
that destroys our freedom, our happiness, and our self-
33
realization. Camus, continued Giraud, was rebelling
against the senseless suffering and inhumanity in the
world and demonstrating that men must rise up in dig
nity, grasp their freedom, and use it to transform the
world into something better than God had given them
(pp. 12-13). To Nathan A. Scott, Jr., however, this
work portrays Camus's sense of existence and a profound
34
anguish. Life and existence cannot be explained and
God is dead. All that is left is emptiness and meaning-
! lessness. Thus The Misunderstanding is a study of the
i "modern nihilism" that an absurd world produces.
33
"Unrdvolt among the Unwriters in France Today,"
Yale French Studies, No. 24 (Summer 1959) , pp. 12-13.
"^"The Modest Optimism of Albert Camus," Christian
Scholar, XLII (Winter 1959) , 260.
213
At the end of the 50's it is evident that though
the critics had gained new insights into the meaning of
The Misunderstanding/ they still had not shaken off the
idea that Camus was exhibiting his grim view of the human
lot in this world through the women and Jan. It re
mained for a majority of the critics in the 60's to j
perceive that Camus was more positive than negative in
his outlook for life and man.
For the first time since the American critics began
to discuss The Misunderstanding, a majority of the
critics curbed their customary zeal for readily cate
gorizing Camus's philosophy of life and finally reached
the conclusion in the 1960's that Camus himself was not
advocating despair or nihilism— despite the desperate
actions and thoughts of his protagonists. With regard
to the insights into the theme, the critics from 1960
j
through 19 64 contributed little that was completely new. I
j
One critic believed that Brecht and Camus resembled each j
!
other in their world view, and another noted resextiblances j
among Malraux, Sartre, and Camus. Like the critics of
i
!
the earlier decades, most of the scholars indicated j
j
directly or indirectly that this play was based on meta- j
physical considerations in The Myth of Sisyphus, but they j
did not agree upon what Camus intended to say. A larger j
number held that Camus was demonstrating that the failure
214
to extend love and aid to one's fellowmen leads to
disaster for all. Other critics advanced the following
germane ideas: (1) it is futile to seek the self in an
absurd world where all is reduced to equal meaningless
ness; (2) man has an evil propensity for abusing the law
or for unfairly judging his fellowmen; (3) one is morally
free in an absurd world where neither good nor evil has
a meaning; and (4) man is an exile in this universe.
For Germaine Bree, who linked The Misunderstanding
with Camus's autobiography, this play is a demonstration
of Camus's vehement denial that because life is incom
prehensible, it is valueless and because there is no
35
personal Christian God, we are morally free. The first
in the sixties to protest against the tendency of some
critics to confuse Camus with his protagonists, Bree
argued that Camus intended to demonstrate his protest
against, not his advocacy for, despair and nihilism.
i
There is no question that the author was aware of the
I
; evil in man and in the world but he extolled life as in
finitely precious in spite of or even because of the
i natural and man-made malevolent forces that threaten it.
"^"Albert Camus: 1913-1960," French Culture Today,
Bulletin of the Cultural Services of the French Embassy,
New York, [c. 1960], p. 4.
215
According to Justin O'Brien and Leon S. Roudiez,
this drama, derived from the author's own experiences,
"ironically re-affirms the themes of 'Noces' through a
36
statement of their opposites." In his early essays,
Camus had painted his exaltation of the splendid and
sunny seascapes and his celebration of the joy of being
alive. In this work, however, Camus depicts a hostile
]
nature and characters who hate the universe, their lot
37
in life, and mankind (p. 21). O'Brien and Roudiez
suggested that Camus was exhorting men to reject, not to I
j
accept, resignation and nihilism. Man had to take a j
definite stand, had to assume his share of responsibility |
I
for his fellowmen, and had to strive earnestly not to do j
anything that might add to the misery already abiding in
the human condition. Unlike the Kierkegaardian or :
Sartrean type of existentialism, Camus's anguish lay in
j his dread of failing to do what might have spared another
i
| human being suffering or death (p. 21).
|
Kurt Weinberg, in contrast with O'Brien and Roudiez,
held that the author maintained a hopeless attitude toward
' 3 6
"Camus," Saturday Review, February 13, 1960, p. 21.|
37
Quentin Lauer, S. J., "Albert Camus: The Revolt
! Against Absurdity," Thought, XXXV (Spring 1960), 39, ob-
j served that in a striking, if gruesome manner, Camus
revealed how the demand for a life of happiness in the sun:
brings catastrophe. j
216
3 8
life. In this play, derived from Camus's own experi
ences, the theme is exile, exile in "this universe of
absurdity and revolt which with the death of God has lost
its unity, and in which all communication appears to have
i
become impossible." Cut off from nature and alienated j
from society, each man, the innocent together with the
guilty, lives an isolated, lonely existence which is
39
surrounded by hostile or enigmatic forces.
I
i
Rima Drell Reck perceived that one of the themes in ]
The Misunderstanding involves the unsuccessful quest for
i
"self-definition under 'the injustice of sky and j
40
climate'." Other themes are the injustice of death j
and the danger of pursuing absolutes. It cannot be de
nied, said Reck, that Camus portrayed a world that has
neither purpose nor value but he succeeded brilliantly in
testifying to the "essential alienation and grandeur of j
i
the human condition" (pp. 44-45). Indicating that personal
3 f t
"The Theme of Exile," Yale French Studies, XXV
(Spring 1960), 35.
39
See Chapter I, pp. 56-57 for further discussion of j
Camus's viewpoint. Leon J. Goldstein, "The Emperor of
China as the Emperor of Rome," Personalist, XLIII (Autumn !
1962), 523, agreed that "the idea of loneliness seems to j
be of central importance" in this work. |
40 i
"The Theatre of Albert Camus," Modern Drama, IV
(May 1961), 42, 48.
217
feelings were undoubtedly present in this play but refus
ing to identify Martha with the author, Reck explained
that Camus clung to the idea that la mesure was the only
hope for man in the struggle against the absurd which is
enhanced by two vast injustices— death and inclement
j
weather. Thus, even if Martha's view of the human lot is
right, continued Reck, she fails to understand the lesson
of Jan's death— "victim and murderer are equally pitiable.”!
If men could understand this, then human’ justice could
begin (p. 50)- Unless both the victims and the murderers
make a concentrated effort to break the hold of the
j
absurd through love and justice, "the round of misunder-
i
standings is endless" (p. 50). |
i
Implying that Camus's viewpoint was pessimistic, j
]
Albert Sonnenfeld argued that the ideas of exile and
i
i
revolt, drawn from the author's own experiences, are the
41
mam themes in all Camus's plays. In th±s work/
Camus demonstrated "the universality of the absurd and
of the absence of redeeming love" (p. 114). Although
Camus tried to depict Jan as modern man who is doomed to
remain a stranger in the world and to remain unknown even
i 4 i
I "Albert Camus as Dramatist: The Sources of His
Failure," Tulane Drama Review, V (June 1961), 107.
218
to himself, unless he gains the love of his fellowmen,
this idea is not clearly presented. Further, Martha's
revolt against absurdity and her search for the promised
land is as futile as Caligula's attempt to grasp the
moon (p. 115).
42 *
Like Sonnenfeld, John H. Clancy believed that Camus !
depicted our world as totally absurd and that he intended j
|
to demonstrate his own anguish and defeat as well as ours
43
in the struggle against evil and a meaningless world.
Like Brecht, Camus refused to accept the facile optimism
44 i
of the nineteenth century. Clancy, however, recognized
that Camus was pleading for man to be responsible for his j
fellowmen, since God was absent from this universe (p. 162).
Tying Camus's life to his writing, Peter J. Reed
regarded The Misunderstanding as a study of the abuse of |
E
law or man's capacity for arbitrarily judging his fellow-
45
men. He assigned Martha and her mother to the category
i
42
"Beyond Despair: A New Drama of Ideas," Educa
tional Theatre Journal, XIII (October 1961) , 163.
43
Alfred Stern, "Considerations of Albert Camus'
! Doctrine," Personalist, XLI (Autumn 1960) , 455, observed
| that as in Caligula, so in this play, Camus demonstrated
I the overwhelming power of the absurd.
44 .
See Chapter I, pp. 68-70 for further discussion of
Camus's and Brecht's views.
45
"Judges in the Plays of Albert Camus," Modern
Drama, V (May 1962), 54. :
219
of the unjust judges because they not only judge Jan
blindly but they also do not want to be enlightened.
Resembling the judge who is preoccupied with executing
the law and wholly indifferent to the humanity of the
j
object of his judgments, the women act on the knowledge j
i
that the less they know about their guest, the easier it '
46
is to condemn and to execute him (p. 54). Reed appeared j
j
to be uncertain whether or not Camus was indeed as de- j
pressed as the play indicates, for he said that "if
i
[Camus] were optimistic," it is because he is convinced j
that there will always be rebels who will step forward
i
to serve as just judges. At any rate, Reed concluded, j
Camus rebelled more against man-made injustice than he !
protested cosmic inequity (p. 57).
i
Emily Zants, challenging Reed's reluctance to credit
Camus with an optimistic outlook, insisted the author !
always urged men to revolt in the name of concrete human-
! ity, not in the name of abstract absolutes or impossible
| ideals, against the absurd in whatever form it might
! 46
Eric W. Carlson, "The Humanism of Albert Camua,"
t Humanist, XX (September-October I960), 304, indicated j
: that this drama was intended to be an exploration of the
ethical values at stake when the philosophy of the absurd j
is uncompromisingly practiced.
220
47
assume. As a whole, Zants continued, Camus's preoccupa
tion was the estrangement of man. In this play, there
fore, he spotlights the tragedy which results when one
human being refuses to enter directly and honestly into
a dialogue with another human being. He who refuses to
talk frankly fails to revolt, he fails to assume his
share of responsibility and thereby permits a man who
otherwise might have been spared to become a victim of
one of the forces of the absurd (p. 34).
Contradicting Zants's interpretation of the theme,
Ralph Behrens asserted that "the mother and the sister
48
are the main mouthpieces" for Camus." Behrens held
that the author's attitude at this time must have been
"nothing but total pessimism" and based his opinion upon
the following points which he thought Camus made in
defense of his despair: (1) man is destined for death
and nothingness whether he has kind intentions toward
others or not, and whether he is innocent or not; (2) God
j
is deaf or totally indifferent to human fear and suffer-
j
| ing; (3) there is no love that is reliable, either from
| God or from man; (4) each human being is utterly isolated;
|
I 47
! "Camus' Deserts and Their Allies, Kingdoms of the
Stranger," Symposium, XVII (Spring 1963), 30-31.
48
"Existential 'Character-Ideas' in Camus' The Mis-
Understanding," Modern Drama, VII (September 1964), 212.
and (5) even the true rebel cannot escape the absurd.
Camus also seemed to suggest through Jan's death that
the world of the rebel cannot be shared by another but
must be earned by each individual through his own
i
actions (pp. 211-212). The play, insisted Behrens, is j
i
primarily concerned with the fatal omnipotence and omni- j
presence of the absurd; Martha's and her mother's
cramped lives at the inn symbolize "the entirety of what
Camus considers bad in contemporary civilization." A
secondary theme concerns the qualities which the true
rebel should possess. According to Camus, it would seem |
that the true rebel must not be "emotional, sentimental, j
or dwell upon memories" lest he encourage a weakening in
his resolution and a hesitation in his actions that will
bring about a tragedy (pp. 211-212).
Ben Stoltzfus agreed with Behrens's opinion of the
49
theme. He declared that the play concerns a profound
i
disenchantment with the human condition and wrong choices
in the use of one's freedom because one's human needs
for love, happiness, and self-realization are not met.
i
Martha, like Caligula, involves herself in a metaphysical j
revolt because, as Caligula learned, "things are not as j
I
I
49
"Camus and the Meaning of Revolt," Modern Fiction j
Studies, X (Autumn 1964), 293-294.
222
they should be." She rebels against alienation from the
world, society, and from herself. She feels especially
strong about her alienation from nature. Camus was
keenly aware of
man's fundamental capacity to be happy when in
contact with certain elemental forces of his
environment from which he draws his strength
and from which spring his capacities for creative
existence. (p. 301)
This kind of bond with nature, Stoltzfus thought, pre
vented Camus from being guilty of "tragic complicity,"
such as Sartre was (p. 301). Undoubtedly Camus sym
pathized with Martha5s hatred of her surroundings and her
frustration with her way of life, but he vigorously con
demned her misuse of her freedom to escape her lot
(p. 29 4). Her wrong choices destroyed her, her mother,
and her brother, and totally shattered Maria's world.
Rebellion without limits, without the love of man, and
| without joy in nature invariably leads to catastrophe
|
| (pp. 298-299).
Though it had taken approximately twenty years before
enough American critics could muster a small majority to
clear Camus of the charges of being a nihilist and a
pessimist, it will be seen, however, that Camus would
never be completely exonerated from the charges that he
was unable to create rounded or three-dimensional
characters.
223
Characters and Characterization
The larger number of the critics viewing The Mis
understanding during the 40's in the same unfavorable
light in which they had Caligula were convinced that the
characterization was disappointing. The scholars and
journalists were agreed that Martha and her mother were
not natural or psychologically true; they were so ob- j
viously manipulated by the author for his own philosoph- 1
ical views that they appeared at once allegorical, flat, j
and incredibly monstrous. One critic drew attention to j
j
the resemblances between Martha and Caligula. Only three i
|
critics did not appear to be disappointed with the char
acterization. In the interpretation of the dramatis
personae most of the scholars believed that Martha was
I
the most interesting figure, if repugnant, and probably |
j
represented the true rebel. In general, Maria was re- j
garded as the symbol of the ordinary woman or mankind,
j
and the old manservant was thought to be a symbol of God. ;
i
O'Brien was the first to hint that the characters j
might be as unreal as Edgar A. Poe's, and Schwartz I
i
agreed by indirection that the characters were not fully I
developed because Camus was preoccupied with conveying
his ideas. Guerard, also, saw them as symbolic figures, j
Moreover, he thought that the mother and the daughter are
as callous as Caligula because, like him, they feel no
224
remorse about their crimes; indeed, they regard life as
more cruel than they are. Obsessed with gaining happi
ness, Martha is as cold-blooded as Caligula, and, like
the Roman emperor, both women hate and defy a deity who
is either a tyrant or who is absent. Though repelled by
the women, Guerard's main objection to the characters was
the number of roles which the murderers play.
They are philosophers of the absurd in the manner
of Caligula. . . . The mother and the sister are
at the same time .the symbolic executors of cosmic
injustice and its helpless victims. (p. 49)
In contrast to Guerard, Smith commented that Camus
demonstrated forcefully the inner destructive forces in
human nature. Clurman, implying'that the characters are
allegorical, nonetheless declared that the women are
credible; brutalized by hard labor, unending hardship, and
unrelieved unhappiness, they merely murder out of force
of habit.
According to Blanc-Roos, the mother and her
daughter are like a "Clytemnestra" and an "Electra" who
murder "Orestes.” He continued: ". . .no man has the
i
power or influence in this barren matriarchy; and even
! the old manservant (God) is helpless, or has at any rate
lost interest in the human race" (p. 46). Unlike Martha,
Jan's wife, who represents "the outside world," mourns
I
j and weeps in the expected manner, but the other women
who know that they are the victims of fate and of the
225.
curse laid upon their house , submit to their destiny with
"a bitter but restrained rancour." The hero, Jan, seems
to be an equivocal figure who at once senses and yet does
not know what will happen to him (p. 406). Mohrt, not
i
appearing displeased with the characterization, argued j
that generally all Camus's characters are deliberately
drawn as allegorical and mythological figures modeled on
Sisyphus (p. 117).
Scherer held that Martha longs for the sun and the
sea because they represent freedom and happiness to her.
j
Unlike the hero of The Stranger, who killed because the
ss’ Uri and sea blinded him, Martha murders because the sun
and the sea are absent (p. 54). Throughout the play,
i
Martha is the prime plotter and the agent of death, while j
j
the mother, resigned and indifferent, murders out of dull j
routine. Although from the beginning she senses that
! sooner or later she will probably murder her own son, she
| reluctantly serves as an accomplice because she is weary
| :
of her long and hard life and feels that her life will
; end in uselessness in any case. Thus, the episode of the
j murder takes place as a natural course of events, the
logical end to an empty and meaningless life. When the
mother does discover the identity of the victim there-
)
fore, she does not cry or lament, and Martha, too, remains j
i
calm and genuinely indifferent until her mother is
226
determined to join her son in a death in which they will
both be unrecognizable. At this point, Martha becomes
frantic; for, even without love or freedom, she had
managed to develop an affection for her mother. Con
fronted with her mother's unalterable decision, Martha
[
accepts the inevitability of her own suicide. She under- j
stands that if she had recognized her brother in time and j
i
if she had not comprehended through his death that no |
one is recognized and that everyone is totally alone,
she would have believed that it would have been possible
to find freedom and happiness on the sunlit beach she
desired. The absurdity in her own life, however, has j
I
taught her that the ideal and the real are not compatible.
i
Before she takes her own life, she tries to enlighten
Maria about the existence of the absurd; but Jan's wife,
fond of this world, contented with human love, and un- I
disturbed by her basic lack of freedom,.fails to under-
; stand Martha's bitterness. Finding Maria's description
*
; of love equally incomprehensible, Martha ends by feeling
I contemptuous of Maria's inability to understand the
I nothingness of her existence (p. 55).
Considering the characterization as a whole, Scherer
observed that the characters seldom interact. Instead,
i
each moves in his own private world from which he cannot
escape and into which no one can enter. Troy, not
227
contesting SCherer's appraisal, implied that the charac
terization is unsatisfactory. Speaking in general of
Camus's works, Troy maintained that the author shared the
inability of his existentialist contemporaries in devel
oping the "unique" "individual" characters for which
Dostoevsky and Melville are famous. Camus's figures,
continued Troy, are "extreme" and "typical,1 1 allegorical |
and abstract with the result that in this play the char
acters lack human dimensions--they are flat and stereo
typed; only the mother's display of feelings after her
crime adds something of the "humanly possible" to the work.
In conclusion, the critics of the 40's were almost
consistently dissatisfied with Camus's failure to pro- j
]
vide his characters with the complexity and the humanity
which they expected and disliked the absence of psycho
logical conflict. The critics of the 50's will be no
less critical.
It quickly becomes evident, in turning to the crit
icism of the 50's, that these scholars and journalists,
like their predecessors, were most eager to discuss the
interpretation of the characters in The Misunderstanding j
i
than to examine the characterization. Generally, the j
critics regarded the old manservant as a symbol of God j
i
and the women and Jan as symbols.of mankind. Martha was j
singled out as the most powerful figure and, perhaps, the
true rebel. One scholar held that Camus elucidated the
228
stages in revolt— the progress from indifference to aware
ness— through the mother and Maria. Two other scholars
underscored the importance of the mother figure to Camus,
with the one ascribing to Camus's Oedipus complex the
origin of his idea of revolt, and the other crediting to
the author's childhood his interest in portraying the for- ;
saken and the poverty-stricken. Three critics briefly
drew attention to the resemblances of the characters in
this play to those in The Stranger and to those of Malraux
and Sartre. One scholar spotlighted Camus's superior j
treatment of his characters in comparison with Lillo's, j
i
Werner's, and Penn's. In regard to the characterization, j
i
i
the majority of the scholars and journalists charged Camus ;
with creating thin and incredible dramatis personae. I
I
i
Only three critics did not appear to be dissatisfied with
Camus's treatment of the characters.
I Lansner had little to say about the dramatis personae
; other than to remark that the grimness in this work is
demonstrated in God being represented as a "speechless
| ;
butler" and Maria as a "Cassandra" who warns Jan about
i
; the risk he takes in refusing to divulge his identity
(p. 56 8). Simpson observed, as she had about Caligula,
that Camus usually chose to portray a "mediocre" character i
I _ |
who, aware of a strange oppression, instinctively seeks to j
escape his unhappy lot. In this work the women and Jan
229
represent mankind and the old manservant represents God.
On another level, Jan is cast as the symbol of the male
or the man who is embarked upon an adventure or a quest— j
the search for his family. He wants to return in order
I
to find his self-identity and to shake off the feeling
that he is an exile. To achieve this self-definition and
to discover an even more satisfying happiness than he
has experienced with Maria, he must, he is convinced, j
fulfill what he considers to be his duty toward his
family. |
In contrast with Jan's questing masculine nature, j
continued Simpson, Maria's womanly nature is conservative j
and passive. She not only finds no catharsis in action,
but her deep love for Jan is also an enemy to Jan's
i
quest, for it is already a complete and perfect realiza- j
tion in itself. Like Maria, Jan's mother is also passive j
and believes that happiness means that state of mind in
which one no longer has duties toward oneself— she has
i
| no plans for her future.
Martha is the only active and searching woman, a
counterpart of Jan's seeking, in the play. Unlike Jan,
however, she is unaware of the meaning of love, joy, or j
!
| sorrow, contemptuous of illusions, and yet starved for
i
life. Her affection and conscience numbed by years of I
monotony, overwork, and hopelessness, she can feel no j
230
remorse for her crime. Despite having stifled all her
feelings of conscience and love, Martha, nonetheless, had
never lost her yearning for happiness. Indeed, Jan's
former happiness in beautiful surroundings and his former
freedom and opportunity for self-fulfillment actually made j
her even less prone to feel guilty. What difference does
i
it make in the last reckoning, thinks Martha, if death
is brought about by a person or by natural causes; death j
is inevitable in any case.
Despite Martha's ruthless drive to escape the trap !
of circumstances and duty in order to achieve her self-
j
realization, she is totally blocked by her mother, who
j
murders merely from the sheer force of habit. The mother,
I
weary of a world in which grief and suffering are meaning-
i
j
less, does not hesitate to reject and to desert her
daughter when she discovers that she has murdered her
! prodigal son. Apparently Jan's return and his death at
■ her hands rekindled her capacity for love for her son.
With the death of her mother and her fellow murderess,
j
| Martha discovers that she not only bears the burden of
0
! '
the guilt for her crimes but also is doomed to suffer a
| premature death. Her mother's suicide has destroyed her
freedom completely. In the end, the innocent Jan as well
as the guilty Martha and her mother die and the bewildered
and naive Maria is left behind to grieve in total isola
tion (pp. 187-188).
In considering the characterizations as a whole,
Simpson was very dissatisfied: Camus's Sisyphean figures
I
are extremely contrived and unsympathetic puppets who do |
not engage her interest in the least (p. 190).
i
Hallie, failing to challenge Simpson's charges of
dull characterization, indicated that the characters
are embodiments of ideas more than they are credible
i
human beings because they demonstrate the author's con- j
ception of the stages of revolt. The mother and Maria j
represent the resigned and the naive until they are jolted |
by death into an awareness of the absurd. The mother, in- 1
j
i
different and even complacent toward her own death and j
j
destiny, was compelled for the first time, after committing!
I
i
the murder, to understand the finality of death, its ab
surdity, and that of the universe. Once fully cognizant
of the absurd, the mother is prompted to seek escape
through death. Maria, the embodiment of man's lot, is
also shaken out of her unthinking attitude into a full
comprehension of her essential isolation when she is con
fronted with her shattered life and when her plea for help |
is rejected by the old man (God) (p. 31).
i
I
Instead of interpreting the roles of the characters,
Viggiani spotlighted, as he had in Caligula, Camus's
232
predilection for repeatedly using certain characters
and certain situations in his dramas and fiction. In
addition to suggesting that the source of Camus's con
ception of revolt lay in his Oedipus complex, Viggiani
observed that the "incest leitmotiv" running through
Camus's works finds its "most regressive" expression in
50
this drama when the son is murdered by his mother. In
conclusion, he noted that in the non-historical plays the
author's protagonists are always dominated by the forces
which are represented by the water or the sea or the sun.
Absent or present, the sun, the moon, the wind, and the
sea or water exert a powerful influence upon the lives of
the characters (p. 879).
Moeller agreed that Camus reveals a predilection for
portraying a mother figure in his works. He postulated
that the silence of the poverty-stricken, work-worn,
and maternal tenderness of his own mother haunted the
author. In defense of his statement, Moeller quoted Roger
!
' Quilliot's remarks in La Mer et les prisons;
. . . the mother of Rieux, of Meursault, of Jan—
all three silent, like his own. . . the mother
remains for Camus more than a memory; she remains
a conscience. She is the sign of an abolished
childhood. . . . she guarantees for us his
fidelity to the world of poverty. (p. 173)
50
See Chapter I, pp. 9 0-91 for a more detailed dis
cussion of the characteristics of Camus's writing.
233
According to Virtanen, Camus stressed the roles of
the women and caused them to respond in a manner which
would reveal their innermost character because he knew
that "the tragic function belongs not to the victim but
to the assassins" (p. 237). Martha is depicted as a very
i
capable and strong protagonist. Hard and fearless, she j
i
lives a bitter and impoverished life and allows herself
i
no illusions but one, that her mother would never leave !
i
!
her. When the mother, however, wanting to atone for her
crime and wishing to rejoin her son, commits suicide, she
forces Martha's revolt to deepen and widen. Now rejected
and left alone with her guilt, Martha's hatred for her
natural surroundings expands to include her human con- ;
dition; and though she must die, she remains defiant
and reconciled to the end. Enraged because her mother's
i
abandonment has destroyed her share of freedom and
happiness, Martha avenges herself upon Maria by tearing
away Maria's veil of complacency and blindness to the
absurdity in life (p. 283).^
' 5 1
| Noting the references.made by Winifred Smith and
Eric Bentley in previous years to the fact that John
| Lillo's The Fatal Curiosity (1736) and Zacharias Werner's
I Der Vierundzwanzigste Februar (1810) were based:on the
j same archetypal tale as The Misunderstanding, Virtanen
undertook the task of comparing these works, in addition
j to Robert Penn Warren's The Ballad of Billy Potts (19 44), i
with this play. In his comparison of the characters,
Virtanen uncovered the following points: (1) Warren and j
Camus, unlike Lillo and Werner, portray innkeepers as j
criminals who have preyed on solitary guests for years;
234
In contrast to Virtanen, Gregory held that the
characters were flat and unreal. Gregory maintained that
the stage figures lack human dimensions to such an extent
that they failed to engage her sympathy; in fact, their
i
incredibility easily prevented the final curtain from
being unbearable— which it would have been if the dramatis |
personae had resembled human beings {p. 42). !
i
Popkin seemed to agree with Gregory, although he
went to the trouble of explaining that Camus deliberately
removed all the distracting complexities from his char- j
acters that he dared and deleted explanations in order to
get as rapidly as possible to the core of the problem that !
he wanted to explore. Like Strindberg, Camus causes his j
I
characters to use their freedom to make their own choices. j
In this drama, Martha and her mother are even more j
audacious because, as criminals, they are liberated from
ordinary scruples (p. 499) .
1 (2) unlike Werner's and Warren's heroes, Camus's pro-
i tagonist had not committed any criminal deed before he
! left home; (3) the heroes in Lillos' and Werner's
i versions return home to repair the family's fortune,
I whereas Warren's hero comes back for a new start and
Camus's returns mainly to find his self-identity; (4) in
each version the son's failure to identify himself leads
to his murder; and (5) in all the versions but Werner's,
in which the son fears his father's curse, the hero
! deliberately keeps his relationship secret in order to
surprise his family or to learn in what way to help them
best. Only Camus portrays the innkeepers as mother and
daughter; the other versions depict a husband, the
murderer, and a wife, the instigator. Lillo's hero is
235
Readily acknowledging that Camus created fiercely
independent characters, Giraud thought that the author,
like Malraux and Sartre, generally created romantic
Promethean protagonists who courageously and proudly
protest against the human condition. Martha, however,
said Giraud, reveals more of the characteristics attrib
uted to "the romantic hero, Cain, than to Prometheus" j
j
(pp. 12-13). The last critic to discuss the characters
in the 50's. Couch joined the earlier critics who had
attacked the characterization. Substituting ethical and
metaphysical conflicts for the more commonly used psycho
logical or societal struggles, implied Couch, detracted
;
from the human qualities of the characters. They prove
to be monotonous, one-dimensional stereotypes because
Camus ignored their development for the sake of his
ideas (p. 2 8) . I
In conclusion, the critics, though they displayed
more inventiveness in their interpretation of the char
acters, exhibited an almost consistent disapproval of
the characterization. Their objections centered on what
they considered to be the implausibility of these one
dimensional and prolix figures who seemed to interact
little, if at all.
"weak, callow, unformed" and certainly not a tragic
figure. Werner's is guilt-stricken and fearful; and
Penn's hero is a "clod" and a "wastrel"— totally unsuit
able for a parable (pp. 234-236).
236
From 19 60 through 1964, the critics, with the excep
tion of three, largely ignored the characterization in
order to concentrate upon the interpretation. Those who
discussed the creation of the characters were dissatisfied
primarily because they were too allegorical to be con
sidered three-dimensional figures. In the interpretation,
five scholars briefly compared Martha's character or
motives with those of Caligula or of Meursault, or with
those of Malraux's protagonists. As in the 50's, the
critics could not agree if Maria or Jan or Martha or all
three were the symbols of modern man or of the stranger.
They appeared to be convinced, however, that the man
servant represented God and that Martha stood for the true
rebel.
O'Brien and Roudiez, the first to discuss the char
acters in The Misunderstanding in 1960, viewed them as
exiles and rebels against suffering and death. Unlike the
true rebel, however, whom Camus praised, these "played
games, ignored their moral responsibilities, and refused
to stay within human limits" (p. 21).
Speaking in general of Camus's dramatis personae,
Weinberg regarded these dramatic figures as exiles and
"reverse images of the hero" whom we ordinarily associate
with tragedy. Like Caligula, Martha is a mythical and
Sisyphean character who rebels against her lot to the
237
point of nihilism. Unlike existentialist characters,
these protagonists are ruled by fate; hence they are not
free to create their own purposes (pp. 34-36).
According to Reck, Martha is motivated to murder
!
because she wants to escape this dreary climate and flee i
to happiness in a sunny climate along the sea. Like
Caligula, she is desperate because life is not what it
should be. The mother is also weary of her surroundings
but she primarily seeks forgetfulness and rest. Camus
carefully underscores that "Martha's desire is human" I
i
1
and that her behavior is not that of a monster but "her
actions in behalf of this desire are human as well." It
i
is evident that j
Martha is no more guilty of the murder than |
her mother who kills by indifference rather
than by interest, and no more or less guilty
than Jan, who had, for a reason never fully
explained, left his family in want and isola
tion for years. (p. 48)
Moreover, Jan is guilty of deliberately destroying his
happiness with Maria in order to find his self-identity
through his family. Thus, the identity which Jan longed
for "will be found in his function as victim, an ironic
i
definition . . . one which is central to all resolutions j
!
in the play" (p..49). I
The only time that the women.show any emotion about |
their way of life is when Jan complicates their impersonal j
routine of murder by trying to make them recognize him.
Both women become somewhat disturbed for different reasons]
i
!
but they proceed with their plans and rationalize their
habit of killing by thinking that life is more cruel than
they (p. 49).
Once discovering the identity of her victim, the
mother is forced by her grief out of habit into a rebirth
of love. Her sorrow finally drives her to commit suicide.I
No grief or remorse stirs Martha, however, when she learns!
that the traveler was her brother. She remains unmoved
and steadfast in her idea that life is bitter and the
world is absurd. In fact, when the frantic Maria sobs !
i
that her grief is boundless and incurable, the pitiless
Martha informs her that even grief does not last in this
world (p. 49). i
Sonnenfeld, rather than interpreting the characters,
I
j
turned to examining them as problems of stagecraft. Like j
the characterization in Caligula, said Sonnenfeld, the
characterization in The Misunderstanding is unsatisfac
tory because Camus tried to transfer novelistic tech
niques into the theatre. In order to develop this thin
plot into a full three-act tragedy, Camus was forced to
! augment the inner drama of his characters and to reduce
I the action. As a means of conveying the innermost
thoughts of his characters, he used two kinds of scenes:
i • ;
i (1) conflicts between the characters and (2) conflicts
| within the characters predominantly expressed in
239
monologues. Whatever tensions these scenes produced,
i
however, they were soon diminished. The scenes lost
their effectiveness through "Camus's inability to create
convincing characters whose actions are motivated by
something other than his own philosophical theories"
(p. 115). Only Maria who is a "personification" of
marital devotion acts normally because she does not under- j
stand what has happened.
!
Jan and Martha are both victims of Camus's manipula- |
tions. First, the audience cannot understand Jan's ‘
refusal to divulge his identity and Camus, unfortunately,
does not give him a good reason for pursuing his game of |
anonymity. When Jan repeatedly ignores opportunities !
i
I
to reveal his identity, the audience becomes exasperated
i
and rejects the validity of Jan's inner struggle because j
they realize that Jan is not withholding his identity for
his own reasons, but instead is being controlled by the
j
! author for philosophical reasons. The idea that Jan
i represents the anonymous stranger or the modern man who
can achieve self-identity only through a spontaneous
i
I manifestation of a love that is absent or even impossible
| in this world cannot be portrayed on a stage where a
character must account for his behavior to the audience.
This conception, of course, would have been successfully
: I
expressed in a novel where there is more time, more
240
scope, and an opportunity for the author to intervene
directly (p. 115).
Second, the reasons for Martha’s criminal career are j
|
baffling. "As in The Stranger, the sun is the real in- I
stigator of the murder." Unlike Meursault, however, who
lived in a sunny land, Martha's lyrical outbursts about
i
the sun have no basis in her experience. Further, her
i
personality seems too cold and callous to make it credible j
that her obsession with the sun means anything other than
i
an opportunity for Camus to use his favorite symbolism. j
Her behavior is inexplicable to the audience until at the j
end of the play, when the audience realizes that her j
reasons are philosophical; the land of the sun represents !
to her the impossible which the moon represented to |
Caligula. Unable to reach the land of the sun, as
j
Caligula was denied the moon, Martha defies the absurd
!
which, even more merciless than she, destroys her
rebellion as it destroyed Caligula's. Unfortunately,
nothing about this power of the absurd is at all clearly
conveyed to the spectator (p. 115).
Clancy did not corroborate Sonnenfeld's criticisms
but he observed that Camus's characters are static like
those of Brecht. In elucidating the significance of the
roles, Clancy remarked that Martha, like Caligula,
!
devotes herself to evil because the absurd makes life
241
cruel and the world lonely for her. Although her
defiance is as hopeless and futile as Caligula's was,
she still refuses, as he, to love an unjust world and a
deity who has permitted such a world to exist. In such a
world, the differentiation between good and evil is a
senseless exercise (p. 163).
Instead of stressing the role of the absurd in this
drama, Reed interpreted The Misunderstanding as a study
of justice and injustice and, consequently, divided
Camus's characters into "arbitrary" judges who care
nothing for humanity and "just" judges who care e/erything
for humanity. Seen in this light, the two innkeepers fall
into the category of the "arbitrary" judges because they
are indifferent to their fellowmen and ready to sacrifice
innocent lives in order to achieve their private goals.
In conclusion, Reed noted that, unlike Meursault in
The Stranger, Martha does not turn to humanism before her
! death, but that she does resemble him in her defiance of
; God (p. 54). Like Caligula, the mother and Martha are
obsessed with finding happiness and peace.
I
I • >
To Behrens it is apparent that
Each of the characters embodies an aspect of Camus'
thought. They are not fully personified abstrac-
I tionsv in the clearcut fashion of allegory but
symbolism is involved. Each character expresses
an idea. (p. 210)
/
241
cruel and the world lonely for her. Although her
defiance is as hopeless and futile as Caligula's was,
she still refuses, as he, to love an unjust world and a
[
deity who has permitted such a world to exist. In such a t
i
world, the differentiation between good and evil is a
senseless exercise (p. 163).
Instead of stressing the role of the absurd in this
drama, Reed interpreted The Misunderstanding as a study
of justice and injustice and, consequently, divided
j
Camus's characters into "arbitrary" judges who care
nothing for humanity and "just" judges who care everything
for humanity. Seen in this light, the two innkeepers fall
into the category of the "arbitrary" judges because they
j
are indifferent to their fellowmen and ready to sacrifice
innocent lives in order to achieve their private goals.
In conclusion, Reed noted that, unlike Meursault in
The Stranger, Martha does not turn to humanism before her
| death, but that she does resemble him in her defiance of
| God (p. 54). Like Caligula, the mother and Martha are
obsessed with finding happiness and peace.
! -n
To Behrens it is apparent that
Each of the characters embodies an aspect of Camus'
thought. They are not fully personified abstrac- |
tionsv in the clearcut fashion of allegory but
symbolism is involved. Each character expresses
an idea. (p. 210)
Of all the characters only Maria seems to have a
normal outlook upon life; she is hopeful, despite the
threat of death, to the very end. She is disappointed,
however, when the old manservant, symbol of God and
humanity, remains indifferent to her suffering. The man
servant's position, unlike Meursault's, "seems to be
one of complete detachment from life, of total indiffer
ence to people." Behrens concluded that it appears
if Camus believed in God, He would resemble this
old man who occasionally appears, bent steadily
on his own inexplicable business, saying nothing,
heeding no one, only seeing to it that the more
mechanical aspects of his job are taken care of,
but not caring a pin what happens to human
creatures. (p. 210)
It is not a coincidence that he finally appears at the
very end of the play in response to a call that he
seems either not to hear or not to understand. In any
case, the result is the same.
Jan appears to be a prototype of the "existentialist
revolte." Despite his happiness, his memories pull him
back to his bid home which represents the ordinary world.
He seems to have failed to achieve a state of individual
ity or independence and his curiosity about his mother
and sister is a weakness that leads to his undoing because
he hesitates to identify himself. Indeed, both Jan and
Camus are really vague about the reason for his secrecy.
Although one can assume that Jan probably meets his death
243
largely through some weakness or lack in his character,
one can just as validly assume that this is merely an
instance that proves death comes to everyone, even to
i
him who has kind intentions toward others and offers to j
share his happiness with them (p. 211) . j
i
Both Martha and her mother, continued Behrens, j
attempt to be rebels, but the mother has three large ob- j
stacles which prevent her from being a genuine rebel, j
namely, she is too old and tired to be successful, she j
is a woman of habit and memory, and she is sentimental.
Accustomed to live by force of habit and retaining
memories because she has lived so long, she is unable
totally to reject this world of base humanity. It is
I
!
easier to surrender than to continue to struggle. Because j
j
she is sentimental, the mother tries to help her daughter, j
|
When she hesitates to murder a man who looks like her
son, however, Martha believes that her mother is not a
I true rebel. Martha judges, consequently, that it is
; fitting that her mother drown herself where her son's
body lay, because emotionalism and memory had weakened
j them both and led them to their deaths (p. 211).
"Repugnant" as she is, stated Behrens, "Martha is
I a true revoltee." Her hatred for her life, her fierce
j |
| longing for freedom, and her unshakable resoluteness to
[
gain this freedom, regardless of its cost, mark her as
I
244
"the incarnation of revolte." Unmoved by the love and
the sentimentality which stirred her mother to reject
her and to die with her son, Martha remains hard and
i
destroys Maria's illusion of love. A symbol of mankind,
Martha is defiant and unreconciled because she has been j
cheated of a place on earth, abandoned by her mother, and
left alone with her crimes. In the end, "she gains a j
f
kind of dignity, horrible yet somehow admirable because
she alone has refused to submit to the tyranny of the |
'order'" (p. 212). Her final act of revolt ends on an
ironic note, however, because her suicide does not escape
"the order of things." In the end, therefore, even the
true rebel cannot avoid the way of the universe (p. 212).
Stoltzfus reasoned that Jan casts aside his happi-
i
ness because he feels exiled as long as others suffer. j
His sense of responsibility finally compels him to return :
i I
! to his family (p. 294). Martha is portrayed as a rebel
j :
whose hate is "the most human element in her," with the
!
i
result that her choice of freedom and revolt is of the
: wrong kind. Denied love and understanding, she becomes
; incapable of love, as Caligula was (p. 296).
| Though Camus suggests that his protagonists need to
love or to be loved, it is "a dimension totally lacking"
in their character. Sharing with Sartre a tendency to
|
anthropomorphize nature, Camus demonstrated that the |
245
benevolence or hostility of nature plays a large role in
the behavior of his heroes and heroines. Yearning for
communion with and solace from a gentle and protective
nature that represents happiness is "the source and the
cause of existential tragedy" (p. 297). Thus, as Caligula
violently rebelled because he failed to capture the moon
or happiness, so Martha desperately rebels because she
is denied the promised land of sunshine or happiness
(p. 300). Patterned upon Malraux's protagonists, Camus's
heroes are not only alienated from the world, from
society, and from the self, but they also resemble each
other because they express the author's philosophy
(p. 295) ,52
To summarize, it is clear that the critics' dis
satisfaction with the characterization was intense from
1946 through 1964. Since the charges that the dramatis
personae were allegorical, antiheroic, implausible, and
i
I one-dimensional were repeatedly made, it follows, as will
j
be seen in the next section, that few of the critics
!
| could bring themselves to describe The Misunderstanding
i
i as a fully realized tragedy.
52
See Chapter I, pp. 121^122 for a further discussion
of the similarities and dissimilarities shared among
Camus, Malraux, and Sartre.
246
Play Form
From 1945 through 1949, the critics, unable to agree
upon the play form of The Misunderstanding, offered a
— ' j
number of categories to which it might belong: a problem j
play, a fate tragedy or a melodrama, a morality play, and
i
i
a tragedy. A majority of the journalists and scholars
declared or implied that The Misunderstanding was a }
melodrama and a play of ideas. Only three critics !
indicated that this drama might be a tragedy. The j
debate about Camus's capabilities as a playwright versus
those of Sartre was inconclusive. In the discussion of
the merits of this dramatic work and Caligula, the |
critics decided that the latter was the better play. i
i
Only one critic was completely convinced that The Mis-
understanding was indisputably a good drama.
| Schwartz, the first to consider the form in the
i 1
I 1950's, was of the opinion that The Misunderstanding was
I like G. B. Shaw's plays, because Camus permitted his
interest in ideas to override the plot, the characteriza
tion, and the dialogue (p. 248). Guerard seemed to imply
i
that this play was a melodrama and pointed to the basis
for the plot, an old tale which, however, he did not
identify. He concluded that this work was a failure—
it was "not successful even in Paris" (p. 59). Smith
agreed that this work is a melodrama which reminded her j
247
of John Lillo's eighteenth century play, The Fatal Curi
osity, even though the form which nemesis takes in The
Misunderstanding is much more horrifying. Though less
ambitious in scope than Caligula, this drama still ex
hibits the author's dramatic power and his knowledge of !
i
theatrical methods which is comparable to Sartre's
(p. 157).
Freedley appeared to consider Camus's drama as an
existentialist problem play and judged it as "provocative"
i
and "valuable" but not comparable to those of Sartre.
In harmony with Freedley's comparison of Camus and Sartre, j
Eaton viewed The Misunderstanding as a combination of
I
symbolism and melodrama. Both Clurman and Troy assigned i
it to the category of an allegorical or morality play.
Clurman acknowledged that it was an engrossing play but
he stopped short of saying it was a "good" play. Troy
conceded that this play is "better dramatically" than
Caligula, but it lacks, as Caligula, the credibility
necessary for a serious play (p. 589).
Bentley, after recognizing that the plot is reminis
cent of the old German Schicksaltragodie, Per vierund-
i ' ;
zwanzigste Februar, explained that The Misunderstanding
"resembles 'No Exit' in being a melodrama of modern life."
He declared that this play, like those of Sartre, is a
combination of a melodrama and a play of ideas. Indicating;
248
a preference for Caligula, Bentley insisted that Camus
used "more appropriate material" and "a more appropriate
method" in dealing with his first drama. This work,
unfortunately, has "a doctrinaire prosiness [that] cannot
be redeemed by sensationalism alone." If Camus had
wished to advance existentialist ideas then he should I
have found a subtler method than he did. Indeed, although j
the construction of the play is really too thin for
distinguished drama— it cannot compare with the great
modern dramas— it is, along with Sartre's plays, "almost j
sublime" in comparison with the commercial theatre.
Blanc-Roos, ' a . , n anonymous critic in Theatre Arts, j
I
and Scherer appeared to regard this play as a tragedy. |
Blanc-Roos insisted that this drama has all the fatality j
of the classical Greek tragedy in which the hero seeks
his own downfall. Camus's artistic skill is revealed in
his ability to make the drama "wonderfully plausible,
j inevitable, and fatal after the manner of the Greek
' tragedy." For Blanc-Roos, Camus was "a first-rate
dramatist." He concluded that "this play is as good as
! the best of Strindberg" (pp. 405-406). The anonymous
! * :
i critic of Theatre Arts maintained that Camus had created
i r " ‘
t
| "a minor-key tragedy with a surprise ending" (p. 94). In
i Scherer's opinion The Misunderstanding
! '
with all the unities set by Aristotle kept intact, \
with the denouement implied from the very beginning, |
249
without any comical elements/ without a single
melodramatic effect, or a major coup de theatre,
it gives the effect of a Greek tragedy. (p. 53)
To summarize, although these journalists and scholars
were undecided about the play form, they were convinced,
with one marked exception, that this drama was less than
|
a success. In the 1950's, the critics continued to j
s
debate the form while they condemned the play. I
The critics paid relatively little attention to the
play form of The Misunderstanding in the 1950's. Only a
few scholars explicitly stated in what category they
placed this drama and, therefore, in what category the j
|
others thought it belonged can only be inferred. A major
ity suggested that Camus had created a hybrid of a melo
drama and a play of ideas. Only two critics lauded this
work without qualifications.
Lansner began the criticism of the 50's with the re-j
mark that this play did not really belong to any well- j
established category; rather, it was merely "an exercise"
which was less "florid" than Caligula. For Hallie, how
ever, it seemed to be a play of ideas because Camus' s para-;
mount concern was the concepts which he wished to convey.
Cassidy partially agreed with Hallie. From Cassidy's j
remarks that the plot is a grim and oppressive tale and i
that Camus's stage is "a platform" for his brilliant mind
to discuss the problems of justice and freedom, it may be
250
inferred that she probably considered this work to be a
play of ideas and a melodrama. According to Couch,
Camus undoubtedly "uses the stage as a vehicle for ideas."
I
Simpson dismissed The Misunderstanding as "a turgid j
|
recital." With its wooden figures and its over-abundance
j
of existentialist ideas, it is barren and contrived.
Popkin noted that this dramatic creation, by virtue of
its austere plot and direct argument, resembles the early j
Gidean or Sartrean play. Considering the unusual behaviorj
53 i
of the porotagonists, it also seems a melodrama. Harold ;
54
Clurman agreed that this play is not a success. The
Misunderstanding is "good" but it is "not important"; it
■
i
does not "'demand a stage production" as Caligula does. I
Like Clurman, Gregory appeared to think that this play is
an unsuccessful morality play. j
Only O’Brien and Virtanen found The Misunderstanding j
worthy of more praise than of criticism. According to
| O'Brien, this play is "an admirable creation of suspense."
In Virtanen's judgment, this play is a "dark play,” like
j
| "Jean Anouilh's pieces noires.1 1 Because Camus placed the
| death scene off the stage and delayed the recognition
i i
i
i 53 I
; See Chapter I, pp. 133-134 for further discussion
I of Camus's writing for the theatre.
I
54
"The Moralist on Stage," The New York Times Book
Review, September 14, 1958, Sec. 7, p. 12.
251
scene until after the women had checked the victim's
papers, Virtanen was certain that Camus not only achieved
great power and dignity but also avoided melodrama. He
concluded that Camus had given this sample tale "an almost
55 I
classic form." !
I
In conclusion, the majority of the critics agreed
that The Misunderstanding was not a tragedy but instead a
melodramatic play of ideas. The stereotyped and unsym-
i
pathetic characters, the strong emphasis upon ideas, and !
I
the prevailing pessimistic outlook precluded this play I
from being considered a classical tragedy. The critics
(
of the sixties re-affirmed the evaluation of their j
predecessors.
The critics almost ignored the play form in the
1960's. Those few who did turn their attention to the
structure were divided in their opinions as to whether !
55
j Virtanen appraised John Lillo's The Fatal Curiosity I
j as a "didactic melodrama" which does not successfully
demonstrate that the hybris which tempted Providence was
} the cause of the crime. It is "contrived" and "hollow."
; Zacharias Werner's Per vierundzwanzigste Februar is also
: "contrived" and fails to prove that power of destiny
| determined the outcome of the play. It relies so heavily
| upon horror, that it is a "horror melodrama," not a
| "tragedy of terror"; and Robert Warren Penn's The Ballad
| of Billie Potts has a "bantering" tone which is unsuitable |
! for tragedy.
j Camus's version, "the most successful of all," does
not separate as Warren's into one element of action and
another element of reflection.. It does not suffer from
"the defects of style" and the "weakness of dramatic !
logic" of Lillo's work, or from the "mechanical artifices" !
of Werner's version (p. 240). I
252
it was a play of ideas, a tragedy, or a melodrama. A
majority came to the conclusion that it was a melodramatic
drama of ideas.
Henry Gouhier was the first -to assert that "Le Mal-
56
entendu is not a tragedy." He reasoned that in order
j
[
for a play to be a tragedy, "there must be some kind of I
[
j
transcendence." It does not matter what the transcendency!
I
is; it may be God, fate, destiny, or chance; but if none j
i
of these is present, then it is "only abused misunder- |
!
standings." Assuming that the absurd is indeed victorious,;
continued Gouhier, the play still "cannot be called a j
i
tragedy because the absurd by definition has no sig
nificance." If one assumes that absurdity has existence,
then the word suggests "the unreasonable but hot the ir
rational. Irrational means an absence of explanation;
i
unreasonable means a lack of signification." Gouhier I
concluded that Camus's perspective is that of "pure mis
understanding" because his very conception precludes man
from having a tragic dimension (p. 19).
In direct contrast with Gouhier, Reck, setting aside
the meaning of the absurd, implied that the drama is a
"The Tragic: Transcendence, Freedom, and Poetry,"
trans. Elizabeth Stambler, Crosscurrents, X (Winter 1960),
15-18.
253
tragedy, the "most tightly knit classic of the plays"
that Camus wrote. It has "a spare plot" that repeats in
I
a varied way "an archetypal pattern." She failed to
■ understand why this play was a "relative failure" since
the language is "beautiful'1 and "simple," the plot is |
closely-knit, and the moments of the most physical action j
do not coincide with those of the greatest intellectual j
intensity. Reck was compelled to think that the primary ;
i
reason for the failure of this play was the "utter :
i
nihilism" which the critics believed it expressed j
i
(pp. 44-45). i
|
In sharp disagreement with Reck/ Sonnenfeld argued i
that The Misunderstanding is a melodrama. He conjectured
that since this play, unlike Caligula, with its "flimsy,
untheatrical plot" has so little "stage actionV and so I
j
little "visual appeal," Camus was reduced to resorting
to "an embarrassing amount of that kind of theatrical
effect which is more appropriate to melodrama." To make
I matters worse, Sonnenfeld implied, Camus added "a heavy
j dose of irony" (p. 116). He concluded that he agreed with
| Camus's own evaluation of this play, when in he Figaro
i 1
| of October 15, 1944, the author had described his work
in "plain terms, a failure" (pT 116).
Contesting Sonnenfeld's appraisal, Clancy described !
this work as a "new play of ideas," like that which Brecht
254
had created. Clancy continued that Camus intended for the
audience to be involved in the play and looked for a change
in them, not in the characters, for only a change in each
individual can finally change society and the order of
things. The result of his work is that
You and he are at the center of the play. What
you have participated in may be a thesis play
rather than a play of character but it is in
tensely human because the thesis concerns you
and not others. (p. 163)57
Behrens implied that The Misunderstanding is a mix
ture of melodrama and intellectualism. Jan's wife is the
only human and normal figure in the play while the others j
I
are wooden and allegorical. Each character appears to
represent an idea drawn from The Myth of Sisyphus.
After some hesitation about which category would fit
The Misunderstanding, the critics finally decided that it
was a melodramatic play of ideas. So far, the scholars
I
and the journalists have been most dismayed with the
allegorical, dehumanized, and symbolical nature of the \
\
characters as well as with the abstract ideas which Camus
tried to convey. In addition to these elements, however,
the critics will find the language and the moralist style j
unsuitable for the modern theatre. I
57
See Chapter I, p. 143 for further discussion of
the "new theatre of ideas."
255
Language/ Method, and Style
As there was relatively little literary criticism
about the play form, so there was little attention paid
to the language from 1945 through 1949. The few who com
mented upon the language, however, were favorably disposed ;
toward it. It appeared that since these critics had
probably seen it performed, they were the most ready to
praise the dialogue. There were few comments about the
moralist style and little was said about the atmosphere |
and symbolism.
O'Brien, Clurman, Blanc-Roos, and Bentley were im- j
* j
pressed with Camus's lofty vocabulary and passionate :
feeling. O'Brien thought that the style is "somewhat like !
I
Edgar A. Poe's art," and Clurman described the dialogue
as having the "grave intensity of a theatric Pascal."
Blanc-Roos noted that the richness of the dialogue offers
every opportunity for an actor or actress to display his
or her virtuosity in expressing the nuances of every
feeling, and Bentley praised the language as brilliant and
stirring. Eaton, however, regarded this play as "even
more clogged by static chatter" than Caligula, and Troy
agreed that the dialogue struck him as "largely chatter
and bombast" (p. 589).
Smith, Mohrt, Eaton, Blanc-Roos, and Scherer drew
attention to Camus's strong attraction for nature and his
skillful use of cosmic phenomena and landscapes to in
dicate moods, character, and ideas. Smith observed that
i
the autumn landscapes, the night scenes, and the storms i
added a great deal to the effectiveness of Camus's ;
portraiture of the two merciless women (p. 157); and
Mohrt underscored the poetic quality of the author's writ
ing, a poetry which originated from his sensitivity to
nature— its colors, fragrance, movements, and sounds.
Eaton affirmed that Camus's feeling for nature is betrayed !
in the skill with which the author created the mood of j
this play. For Blanc-Roos, "the weirdness and terror ]
of an ageless myth" is made the more vivid because Camus
avoided indicating a precise time or place (p. 406).
Scherer, too, remarked that the setting seems to be "in
a timeless land of nowhere," even though a close reading
points to Czechoslovakia as the location of the drama.
Scherer also stressed that because the whole work is
completely fashioned toward a certain end, the world in
which the murder takes place seems to be most real. In
this universe, murder seems logical, there is no feeling
of awkwardness, of the unexpected, or of the accidental j
in the progression of events.
257
Schwartz, in contrast to Scherer, believed that the
extreme and melodramatic situations which Camus used were
incredible. If the absurd does exist, then it should be
readily evident "in any kind of situation." He indicated
i
that Camus's dramatic world was that of a private vision j
!
because Camus depicted only "certain states of existence,"
not the existence of every man in the world (p. 250).
Guerard underscored that Camus's writing concerned violent
actions but he noted that the author was writing in the
honored French tradition of those moralists who demon- j
strated "the most dangerous consequences of their own |
ideas" (p. 46). For Troy, it was not Camus's moralist
techniques which were responsible for his kind of writing
but his existentialist bias. The existentialists, said
Troy, and he included Camus, consistently write dramas j
i
and fiction that elucidate ideas about life but they fail j
j
to re-create or capture the immediacy of life itself. !
Allegorically and abstractly presented, these works tend
i
i
to become monotonous because of the lack of color and of j
I
the complexity of actual living. Too often existentialist ;
I
works assume the dimensions of debates in their grappling
with the classic problems of philosophy, such as freedom
]
and necessity of truth and illusion.
Now, at the end of the 40fs, we find that a major
ity of the critics have praised the language, but a number
258
have pointed to the lack of universality in Camus's pic
ture of the world, an unreality for which his moralist
technique seems to be held partially responsible. In the
coming decade, it will be seen, a general disapproval of
i
the language will turn into a chorus of dismay and the
dissatisfaction with the plot and the action will in
crease. j
In the 1950's, the majority of the critics objected
to the language of The Misunderstanding. The consensus
|
was that the brilliance of the words, the loftiness of
tone, and the eloquence of feeling were inappropriate for
a modern drama which was more a melodrama or a play of
ideas than a tragedy. A number of critics underscored
the moralist technique of writing that Camus used.
Camus's manipulation of the setting in order to add scope
and depth to the meaning of the play, however, was noted i
by only a few. One scholar called attention to the
| author's use of multivalent names and to his use of the
j sun and the water as symbols of forces that control his
i characters. The larger number of the critics demonstrated
I !
! an impatience with the slow pace of action and dismay
with the thin plot.
| The first critics to attack the vocabulary were
Simpson and Cassidy who disliked the polished dialogue.
j
Simpson accused Camus of having created a dialogue, couched
in devious paradox, that begins with an excessive j
259
"brilliance" and ends in mere "cleverness" and "absurd
ity." Cassidy agreed that the writing is occasionally
"contrived" and "aloof" and added that it prevents Camus'
dramas from having the dramatic effectiveness that is so
evident in his short stories. Hallie, however, lauded
the "passionate and lucid" vocabulary which is typical
of all Camus's writing.
Gregory and Popkin were convinced that the language
is too artificial and abstract to reveal the personality
of the characters. "The dialogue is nothing more than
a stiff exchange of ideas," insisted Gregory. Some of
the scenes are undoubtedly "powerfully written" but "the
play as a whole does not ring true" (p. 42) . In accord
with Gregory, Popkin held that the loftiness and the
purity of Camus's vocabulary makes it unsuitable for
modern drama; rather such eloquence and formality are
I more appropriate for forensics or oratory. Instead of
| revealing the innermost character of the dramatis per
sonae, it merely advances the arguments about ideas.
j
| Popkin concluded that the emotional directness and the
(
: startling honesty in Camus's dialogues are good reasons
for Camus's failure to become a first-rate playwright
(pp. 499-503).
In contrast with Popkin's appraisal of Camus's
language and its role in Camus's failure in achieving
268
the status of a distinguished dramatist. Couch argued that
"the polish and stylistic virtuosity" of all Camus's
dramas entitle them to the same high regard accorded to
his novels and essays (p. 27). Virtanen, too, held that
in this play, "the dignity and restraint" with which the
author treated an old "unprepossessing subject" was
deserving of praise. Rolo found that all Camus's writing
is brilliantly expressed— it is filled with gem-like
aphorisms, subtle feelings, lyrical notes, and elegant
simplicity.
Moeller briefly mentioned Camus's fascination with
nature, as did Lansner and Virtanen but it remained for
Simpson and Viggiani to treat it more fully as a basis
for Camus's symbolism. Although O'Brien had earlier
casually mentioned the irony in this work, Viggiani pin
pointed one of the most ubiquitous and telling ironical
devices which Camus used.
! Lansner credited the setting and its unrelenting
I
I harshness with a large role in the forging of the cruel
j and ruthless character of the innkeepers and in providing
| an appropriate and dramatic backdrop for the grim events
that transpire. The very absence of the sun and the sea,
|
I for example, is a prime motivator in pushing Martha
toward murder (p. 56 8). Simpson also noted the symbolism
of unscalable and impenetrable walls in the leaden skies
261 j
and the forbidding landscape which menacingly surround
the protagonists. The lowering mountains and the dark
sky close in about the characters in a manner suggesting
the total isolation of man. He is alone with his con
science and there is nowhere to 3&Q& but up. There is i
i
also symbolism in the old servant's refusal to answer
Jan's anguished query, "Is solitude eternal?" (p. 188).
Virtanen arrived at the same conclusion as Simpson— the
setting does play a significant part in developing the
i
mood of the entire play and in foreshadowing the events toj
be enacted.
In agreement with the other critics' evaluation of
the role of nature, Viggiani observed that Camus fre
quently employed the sun to symbolize fertility, love of
life, and joy in youth; and water (particularly the sea)
to symbolize freedom, love, and regeneration. For Camus, |
water represents the mother, a key figure in all his fic-
j
tional and dramatic writing. "There is internal evidence,"
said Viggiani, "that suggests the identification on an
unconscious level of mother and sea, la mere and la mer,
which are as omnipresent . . . as the sun and father
5?
Virtanen observed that unlike John Lillo, Zachariasj
Werner, and Robert Penn Warren, Camus was quick to seize
upon the power which an isolated and eerie setting could |
provide (p. 237) .
262
figures" (pp. 873-874). The most clear-cut exception
to the symbolization of water as a healer and a pre
server, however, occurs in this play where Martha's long
ing for the sun and the sea moves her to throw the drugged
Jan into the river which takes his life (p. 878).
In addition to the symbolism and mythological im- j
plications, Viggiani remarked upon the author's use of
multivalent names which often add an ironical note. By
utilizing common names which designate family relation
ships and realistic characters or types and proper names j
which are in the.New Testament or are associated with
the Christian tradition, Camus succeeded in adding further
dimensions to his writing. Moreover, he seemed occasion
ally to deform certain words phonetically to achieve
t
certain effects or meanings. In this play, for instance, |
the name Le Vieux may be a deformation of Dieu; "Le Vieux,;
described as 'sans age,' is a grotesque surrogate of
| God" (p. 872).
I Since most of the critics manifested a dissatisfac-
! tion with the dialogue in The Misunderstanding, it was
not surprising that the larger number of them registered
an impatience with the slow pace and a dismay with what i
they called a contrived or thin plot. Most of them
seemed to ignore the fact that Camus was a moralist in j
his concerns and in his writing. Lansner was the first
263
to note that this drama is an example of "the literature
of extreme situations" which is created to illuminate the
limits of man and the precariousness of the human condi
tion. Simpson thought that the problems and situations
are fabricated and highly contrived. Hallie agreed that
the situations are extreme when he protested that Camus
failed to give a balanced picture of man's relationship
with the world— man is not always the prisoner of nature
as Camus would have us believe (p. 83). Though Camus was
working in the tradition of the famous French moralists,
he did not present "the artistic and philosophical rich
ness" of Montaigne, Pascal, La Rochefoucauld, or Rousseau
(p. 83). Hallie concluded that there is too much repe
tition in Camus's works with the result that there seems
to be a paucity of themes” and plots. Hanna seemed to
disagree with Hallie. He implied that the author re
sembled Pascal in his broad and perceptive examination of
moral, religious and philosophical issues concerning the
! nature of man, of evil, and of destiny, which face every
| man. Rolo noted that Camus used the experimental Gidean
method which involves taking an idea and carrying it fic
tionally or dramatically to its logical conclusion, and
leaving the reader to judge it by its consequences. Of
course, this kind of writing is not the best for the
theatre— unfortunately, it is "too intelligent" and
264
sacrifices showmanship for content (p. 29). Clurman
agreed that the value of Camus's drama lies in its
"message." All "his work is a series of parables."
Viggiani and Popkin agreed that Camus's drama
tended to be thin in plot and heavy in ideas. Viggiani,
as noted in the preceding pages, indicated that the plots
are simple and repetitive. Popkin agreed and warned that
these starkly skeletal stories run directly counter to
the taste of the general public for elaborate stories and
spicy situations. Cassidy hinted that Camus's emphasis
i
upon ideas and language causes the movement in the drama |
i
to languish to the point of reducing the dramatic impact,
and Couch concurred. The author's didactic intent inter
feres with the action and diminishes the variety in the
.plot.
In conclusion, the critics of the 50's centered
I
their attacks upon four interrelated points: the lan-
!
I guag©, the moralist technique, the scanty plot, and the
! lack of action. Though three critics continued to con-
j ■
| sider the question of the suitability of Camus's dialogue ;
for the theatre in the 60's, the others turned to the
imagery and the symbolism.
From 1960 through 1964, only two critics discussed
|
the dialogue and they were diametrically opposed in their j
r
! j
views. A majority, however, indicated approval, with one j
26S
exception, of Camus's use of imagery and symbolism as
devices to enhance the impact and the meanings of his
drama.
O'Brien and Roudiez, though the first to praise the
language and the style in the 60's, did not mention
Camus's writing for the theatre. Reck, however, did
notice the dialogue and described it as "beautiful" and
"simple." The irony, she was certain, adds extra emphasis
to the significance of the drama.
Disputing Reek's statements, Sonnenfeld argued that
the heavy-handed irony was inappropriate in a melodrama.
Further, in addition to "a flimsy, untheatrical plot,"
the language is also utterly unsuitable. In fact, in
sisted Sonnenfeld, the main weaknesses in this play are
to be found in the "unconvincing dialogue" and the speech
in
polished aphorisms . . . which look fine in
print, in the novels of Gide, Malraux and Camus
himself, but which sounds strangely hollow in
the theatre, where abstraction is the playwright's
greatest enemy. (p. 106)
Moreover, the language is to blame for the defective
characterization. The "abstract sonorous sentences,"
coming from a humble and simple woman who is wavering
between sympathy and cruelty, are "completely out of
character" for the mother, and the "sudden intrusions of
lyricism" in Martha's speeches are even less appropriate
266
than the mother's. Only Maria speaks in a normal fashion
or in other than metaphysical terms because for her there
is no inner drama. Sonnenfeld concluded that the
characterization as a whole was weak because Camus "simply
forces his theories into his characters' speeches"(p.116).
In relation to the imagery and symbolism, O'Brien
and Roudiez observed that Camus repeatedly used the sunny !
and warm African settings and those of cold and dark j
, I
Europe, or the open sunlit seacoast settings and those !
i
of overcast land-locked locations as symbols of joy and j
of sorrow, or of compassion and of indifference. Reck
affirmed that the "grim and overpowering" setting gives
the tone of the drama. In contrast to the other critics,
»
Sonnenfeld, although he pointed to the sun as the in
stigator of the crimes in this play as it was in Caligula, ;
argued that symbolism was unsuitable in a melodrama such
; as The Misunderstanding.
Weinberg drew attention to the imagery of the sea
and the sun as well as to the symbols of Prometheus and
; Sisyphps, and Stoltzfus casually indicated the symbolism
for which the sun and the moon stand. Emily Zants, how
ever, made by far the most important contribution to the
59
meaning of the symbolism. Zants declared that there is i
59 '
"Camus' Deserts and Their Allies, Kingdoms of the j
Stranger," Symposium, XVII (Spring 1963), 30. j
26(7
a whole network of symbols which Camus used in portray
ing the estrangement of his characters in his fictional
and dramatic writing. For Camus, the man who is the
stranger in this world is he who seeks absolutes or takes
refuge in the world of nature in order to escape respon- j
i
sibility. Camus always causes this man to meet death j
(p. 30). In each work, continued Zants, rocks are always
found in the terrain in which the stranger walks. Talk
of joining or identifying with rocks symbolizes man's
temptation to join with the world of nature and turn his
back on his fellowmen. As a stone is a relatively more j
enduring element in the world, so it represents the j
individual's temptation toward "the permanence and the
absolute, the temptation to cease the dialogue" (p. 31).
j
In Camus's works, "rivers do not have the life-
sustaining qualities of the sea," Zants observed, "they
| are like man's destiny*— a one-way street to death." !
Hence, as in The Misunderstanding, the river symbolizes
a betrayal of that which makes life worth living and in-
j dicates a profound estrangement of the characters. In
| each instance, the survivor generally renounces his con
cern for others; he repeatedly refuses to commune with j
another so that the other can be spared destruction by i
one of the terms of the absurd. Martha's lack of sympathy,i
j
for example, disqualifies her forever from the happiness
and peace of the sea; "it is her 'malentendu' as to the
meaning of a free, happy life on the beach" (p. 34).
The sun also plays an important symbolistic role in
the lives of Camus's characters. In fact, the estranged
individual is often helped to become even more alien&ted
by the sun which symbolizes ideals which have become ab- j
solutes that sa'tisfy man's longing for clarity. When the
estranged man or stranger gains total isolation, usually
at sunset, the vision of the sun makes him realize that
his ideals have meaning only in regard to men and virtu- -
ally no meaning apart from human beings in the silence
and solitude of the night. Always those who exceed human
limits in the daylight will suffer the penalty of death
and lose their right to live in the sun. When a man
refuses to help his brother, said Zants, he has joined I
j
the world or the absurd and will only see his guilt and j
assume his responsibility for his denial at night (p. 39).:
Even if the sun is absent, it still exerts a powerful
influence upon men. When it is portrayed as shining con
stantly, it represents ideals that have become ideologies
and absolute systems that deny man. Yet if there is no
sun, then there are no ideals to help the stranger or j
man to confront the contradictions of the absurd. Either j
way, Camus portrays man doomed for death by one factor
of the absurd or by the whole universal absurd. Though
269
there is the injustice of refusing to communicate in The
Misunderstanding, the injustice of the climate predomi
nates (p. 36). By his repeated use of murders, plagues,
and wars, concluded Zants, Camus restates the temptation
of Odysseus on Calypso's island to remain in eternal
confrontation with the absurd or to yield to one of its
terms. Only by revolt can the estranged man rejoin his j
I
fellowmen (p. 40) .
After nineteen years of discussing The Misunderstand
ing the critics still did not indicate a total acceptance j
of the dialogue as suitable for the theatre or a complete
reconciliation with Camus's moralist method that stressed
ideas, presented extreme situations, limited the story
to essentials, and reduced the pace. Most agreed, how
ever, that the language per se was lucid, polished, and
rich. The symbolism was regarded as an effective tech-
j
nique to highlight Camus's ideas about the absurd. De
spite all the criticism, it is an interesting fact that [
almost no one examined the translation of this drama.
i
Translation i
” j
j
From 19 45 through 19 57, only three critics, Bentley, i
6 0 I
Smith, Blanc-Roos, made any effort to compare the i
"Two Plays: Caligula and Cross Purpose," Books
Abroad, XXIII (Spring 19 49), 188.
270
French original with Gilbert Stuart's English translation j
s
which was published in 19 47. Blanc-Roos said that j
i
j
Stuart's work was "excellent" and predicted that it would j
i
be a great success upon the stage. Smith and Bentley, how
ever, though discussing primarily the translation of j
|
Caligula, disagreed with Blanc-Roos. Bentley deplored the !
loss of the nuances of meaning and the absence of feeling
61
while Smith criticized the suppression of Camus's rhythm.
In 1958, Rolo remarked that in general all Camus's works
have suffered in translation because beneath their decep- ;
i
i
tive simplicity there is a subtlety of thought, a pre- |
j
cision of word, a lyricism, and a rhythm that are extremely j
j
difficult to translate. Rolo was the only critic to
mention the translation from 1958 through 1964.
Summary
From the inception of the criticism in 1945 through
: 1964, the journalists and scholars exhibited more interest
I in Camus's ethical and ontological ideas in The Misunder-
i '
i standing than they did in his dramaturgy. The majority
!
| of the critics, through the nineteen years of discussion,
j j
! regarded this drama as based on The Myth of Sisyphus and
i J
j I
61 '
See Chapter I, pp. 170-171 for further discussion j
of the translation.
271
held that the implications of The Misunderstanding were
primarily metaphysical rather than political, psycho
logical, or social. The consensus was that Camus demon
strated the unavoidable power of the absurd over human j
life. The absurd took many forms— from indifference and
isolation to injustice and death. |
Although relatively few scholars and journalists j
i
(Guerard in the 40's; Bieber, Harrington, Viggiani, j
I
Moeller, Virtanen in the 50's; Clancy, Behrens in the 601 s)|
declared that the protagonists were Camus's spokesmen,
nonetheless, the majority of the critics believed that
Camus's viewpoint expressed the hopelessness and nihilism
of the philosophy of the absurd or of existentialism.
Only a minority in the 40's (Mohrt, Schwartz, O'Brien,
I
1
Clurman) and in the 50's (Hanna, O'Brien, Rolo, Popkin,
Giraud) argued that the author was positive in his atti
tude toward man and life. It was not until the 60's that
finally almost all the critics (Bree, O'Brien and
Roudiez, Reck, Zants, Stoltzfus) insisted that the pro
tagonists were the obverse symbols of Camus's own ethical
and moral standards for human conduct in an absurd world.
The characterization in The Misunderstanding was con-;
sidered deficient— the protagonists and the other dramatis j
personae, aside from Maria, were allegorical, incredible, j
and monstrous— by nearly all the critics from 1945 through;
272
1964. As in the case of Caligula, the dismay with the
characterization played a crucial role in the critics'
dissatisfaction with this entire drama. Generally the j
i
scholars and journalists regarded Martha as the repre- |
sentative of the absurd heroine, Maria as the ordinary |
woman, and the old manservant as God. j
i
As the result of tracing parallels between the char- j
i
acters in The Misunderstanding and those in Camus's other ;
works, some critics (Guerard, Scherer in the 40's;
Viggiani, Popkin in the 50's; Reck, Sonnenfeld, Behrens
in the 60's) suggested that there was a repetition in
Camus's characters by observing that almost the same char
acters appear in each work. Virtanen underscored the
I
superiority of Camus's treatment of his characters in
contrast to those of Lillo, of Werner, and of Warren.
With regard to the play form, the majority of the
critics through the years stated or hinted that The Mis
understanding was a combination of melodrama and intellec-j
tualism. Only a few critics (Blanc-Roos, Scherer in the
40's; Virtanen in the 50's; Reck in the 60's) seemed to
!
| be convinced that this work was a tragedy. For the
remainder of the critics, the thin plot, the negative
viewpoint, and the implausible and monstrous characters !
! I
played a large part in preventing this drama from being
a classical or modern tragedy. j
I
273
The dialogue was admired by almost all the critics
(O'Brien, Clurman, Blanc-Roos, Bentley) in the 40's,
but by the end of the 50's, most of the critics (Simpson,
Cassidy, Gregory, Popkin) were certain that the eloquence j
and formality of the dialogue suited neither the char
acters nor the modern theatre. Reck and Sonnenfeld, the
only scholars to deal specifically with Camus's writing j
for the stage in the 60's, assumed diametrically opposed |
positions on the merits of the dialogue. j
|
|
The larger number of the scholars and journalists j
(Smith, Mohrt, Eaton, Blanc-Roos, Scherer in the 40's; j
Viggiani, Simpson in the 50's; O'Brien and Roudiez, Reck,
Weinberg, Stoltzfus, Zants in the 60's) lauded Camus's
i
|
use of imagery, irony, and symbolism as effective tech- j
j
niques to highlight the character of his personages, the j
mood of the play, and his ideas about the absurd. The |
critics, however, had mixed feelings about Camus's
I i
| moralist bent which seemed to be partially responsible for
| his stress upon ideas and his use of extreme situations
for his plots. Schwartz, Guerard, and Troy in the 40's,
| and Lansner, Simpson, Hallie, Rolo, Clurman, Popkin,
|
Cassidy, and Couch in the 501s maintained that Camus's
experimental method did not produce the best material for
1 ' I
converting into drama. In sum, it seemed to the critics
j
that Camus had produced, in addition to Caligula, another |
274
abstractly presented, fiercely intellectual, melodramatic
and stereotyped character study in the form of an im
plied debate.
CHAPTER III
STATE OF SIEGE
(1958) |
State of Siege (L'Etat de siege), probably begun
i
during 1947, was published in Prance in 1948 by the I
Gallimard Publishing House and staged in Paris at the
Marigny Theatre on October 27, 1948. In the preface to j
the French edition of this play, Camus explained that in
1941 Jean-Louis Barrault, a distinguished French director
who had been inspired by Antonin Artaud's discussion of (
r
i
the plague as a myth, wished to create a dramatic spec- |
tacle based on Defoe's Journal of the Plague Year. Since !
j
Barrault had been favorably impressed with Camus's novel, j
The Plague, it was natural that he turned to Camus to
write a script for him. Camus accepted the request, and
i
, they became collaborators in this dramatic endeavor.
i - i
| After several consultations, however, they decided to
j . ■
set Defoe aside and to begin anew. Eventually they agreed
that this work must be based on a myth which everyone !
could understand; and that it must be cast in the form of j
| an allegorical spectacle, comparable to an old morality
i I
play or a Spanish auto sacramental. Above all, it must
convey a positive ethical point of view; it should be
276
a hymn to freedom set within the framework of a poetico-
didactic spectacle.
In Camus's preface to the American edition of Caligula
and Three Other Plays (1958), he underscored the fact that
this play was M. . . in no sense an adaptation of my novel
t
The Plague," and he drew attention to his characters which j
he intended to be symbols. The theme, he declared, is |
i
!
concentrated on "the only living religion in the century j
i
of tyrants and slaves--I mean liberty." Despite Camus's j
explanations and the defense of this work, however, the
American critics were predominantly hostile to it.
Upon turning to the growth of the American critics’
interest in State of Siege, it becomes readily apparent
that, in contrast with Caligula or even The Misunderstand-
ing, the critics made Tittle effort to examine this drama.
j
Although this work had been published and performed in !
i
France as early as 1948, the critics completely ignored it
from 1948 through 1957, with the exception of Carl A.
Viggiani, Germaine Bree and Justin O'Brien. Not until
after Alfred A. Knopf's edition of Camus's four dramas,
Caligula and Three Other Plays, appeared in 1958 did the j
scholars and journalists stir out of their indifference I
j
enough to contribute more than a few casual remarks in ref-|
erence to this drama. One can only assume that the delayed
277
English translationf the unfavorable French reviews about
the Parisian performance, the absence of a stage per
formance on Broadway, and the appearance in English of
Camus's other works— two novels, The Plague (1948) and j
The Fall (1956-1957)j two books of essays, The Rebel
i
(1954) and The Myth of Sisyphus (1955); a book of short j
i
stories, Exile and the Kingdom (1958); and the books of !
newspaper articles, Actuelles I, II, and III (1961)—
i
were the primary reasons for the critics' neglect of Statej
i
!
of Siege. Camus's receiving the Nobel Prize for Litera- i
;
ture in 1957 probably was the stimulus for the four |
reviews that appeared in 1958 and the three in 1959.
Camus's death in 1960, however, prompted the scholars and
journalists to produce eight important reviews and refer
ences , the maximum number in one year concerning this
l
play. By the end of 1960, the reviews diminished from i
four in 1961 to one in 1964. Throughout the years, to |
the best of my knowledge, not a single critic commented
i ’ *
| on Gilbert Stuart's translation of this play.
; - When we consider the criticism relating to this play I
from 1950 through 1964, we find that almost all the
i
critics arrived at the following conclusions: (1) in
! the 50's they said that the theme dealt with the need of
men to oppose any force that robs men of justice, freedom,
or happiness, and in the 60's they wrote that the theme I
278
treated the exhortation that men must resist the man-made
evil of totalitarianism; (2) Diego was the rebel hero and
probably represented Camus's innermost views about the
human condition; (3) Camus was not depressed about the
future of man; (4) the characterization was generally
defective; (5) State of Siege was an unsuccessful morality j
i
play presented as total theatre; (6) the language was
forensic and unconvincing, the action was almost non
existent, and the plot was too thin to be interesting;
and (7) the irony and humor added to the effect of Camus's j
|
moral. In order to facilitate our understanding of the j
body of criticism which will follow, a resume' of the plot
of State of Siege has been placed below.
PART I: While the curtain rises, an air-raid siren j
wails and a crowd of citizens of the city of Cadiz, Spain
are standing in the city square and staring in apprehension
at the appearance of a huge comet. The citizens are
j
| certain that the comet forebodes a catastrophe, and Nada,
the city drunkard and scoffer, gleefully assures them
that serious trouble is indeed about to visit them. In
the foreground, Diego, the hero of the play, and Victoria,
his beloved, talk about their coming betrothal. They are
overjoyed that Judge Casado, Victoria's father, does not
oppose the match. Suddenly a herald pushes into the crowd
279
and in an effort to calm the citizens/ feara proclaims,
that the governor has decreed that this comet portends
no disaster. At once a chorus chants that the governor
has spoken— all will be well and life will continue in
its usual fashion.
When dawn arrives, the governor and his alcaldes >
appear in the square and repeat that there is no cause j
for alarm. On the heels of their assurances, however, j
an actor who had been performing in a street show suddenly|
i
drops to the ground and dies. At once a wave of fear
begins to rise as the rumor spreads that the actor died
from the plague. Terror quickly changes into panic as
more and more citizens begin to fall and to die. In the
midst of this turmoil, while a priest declares that the
plague is a punishment and urges the people to rush to j
1
the church to pray for forgiveness for their sins, the I
i
governor is still insisting that there is no reason for
] this outrageous behavior.
i
j Meanwhile, Judge Casado has fled to his home, bar-
; ricaded himself in it to avoid further contamination, and
| refused to permit his wife even to search for their
| !
daughter, Victoria, who is still in the plague-stricken
city. Instead, he orders his wife to begin to hoard food, |
and to offer help to no one, while he is occupied with
praying for his life. Moments later, Victoria is seen !
280
wandering in the frenzied crowd., She finally finds Diego
who, wearing a plague-doctor1s mask, is frantically work
ing to save the growing hosts of ill and dying. Victoria
pleads with him to leave them and flee with her, but he
refuses to do so, although he himself is much afraid of
catching the plague and dying.
Suddenly a fat, uniformed man (The Plague), accom
panied by his Secretary (Death), appears in the square and
demands that the governor hand over his power to him.
The governor refuses to do so, until The Plague demon
strates his monstrous efficiency in killing citizens.
In view of this kind of power, the governor hastily sur
renders his administration upon The Plague's promise of
safety for himself and his family as well as for his
alcaldes and their families. The Plague spares Nada
because, as a nihilist, he would be a useful instrument
for the new regime.
The Plague has an alcalde sign his new regulations
; into law and has the town criers announce the new orders
|
which include the following restrictions: (1) no one
may aid or shelter a plague victim; (2) all those sus
pected of being infected must be reported to the author
ities; (3) all the city gates must be shut and remain
j closed; (4) each citizen must wear a gag; and (5) death
| will be administered to each in a logical and orderly
281
fashion. His regime, declares The Plague, will bring the
city the benefits of absolute order, complete silence,
and total justice.
As the city gates begin to swing shut one by one,
some people manage to escape outside the walls, while
the chorus warns that with the gates closed, the citizens
will be held captive within a city of death. The city
will be a-tomb because they will be deprived of the puri
fying south wind and the life-giving water of the sea.
j
I
Part II: The scene opens with The Plague issuing
orders to the citizens to work faster, to build more |
observation towers, to erect more barbed-wire fences, and
to stoke up the death ovens. Meanwhile the Secretary is
badgering the citizens with detailed printed forms which !
i
must be filled out. In this regime each citizen is
required to carry numerous certificates and formal docu-
!
i ments. Nada is the only citizen who is enjoying his life
and his position in The Plague's administration. He
delights in the bureaucracy (the time spent in prying
| into private affairs, the complex and nonsensical rules
devised for every occasion, the vast amount of energy
expended on routines and paper work) in the ensuing break
down of human communication, and in the crumbling of human
resistance to the system. Execution, occupation, and
282
concentration— these are the slogans of The Plague's
regime.
As The Plague is giving orders, Diego interrupts him
and promptly becomes embroiled in a quarrel with him and
the Secretary. The Plague, infuriated with Diego's
audacity, orders him to be killed. Before the execution
can be accomplished, however, Diego flees to the Judge's |
home. The Judge, to Diego's surprise, refuses to shelter j
him or the old family servant whom the Judge suspects is I
|
evil because she is ill. Instead of helping Diego and i
the servant, the judge intends to hand them over to the
authorities as soon as possible.
In the argument which ensues about the Judge's in- |
tentions, the Judge betrays that he has been motivated
most of his life by a hate which he has masked under his j
rigorous administration of the law. His arbitrariness is
such that even if a law were to become criminal, he would
i consider it a just law, merely because it was the law. As
the Judge refuses to relent in his plans to deliver them
! to the authorities, Diego in an effort to save his life
threatens to infect the only young son in the family. To
i
! the horror of Diego and Victoria, the Judge admits that
I
j he is totally indifferent to the fate of his son or to
i
that of his wife. He and his elder daughter still hate
both the boy for his illegitimate birth and the wife for
283
the adultery of which this boy was born ten years ago.
To the pleas of the wife for her and her son's rights to
love, compassion and understanding, the Judge turns a
deaf ear. Unable to bear the hateful Judge any longer, j
Diego leaves and Victoria follows him.
Once together, Diego admits to Victoria that he
i
feels ashamed of his love for her because he is terrified
of death. Victoria tries to console him by confessing
i
that she also fears death. As they embrace, the Secretary
l
suddenly appears and forces them to stand apart. Thor-
i
oughly upset by this display of love which is forbidden ;
i
!
in the realm, the Secretary brands Diego for death. ;
Furious, horror-stricken, and terrified, Diego turns upon
Victoria and demands that she die with him. Sensing his j
sudden envy of and hate for her, she refuses Diego's j
request until his love for her regains control of him.
Once Diego is purged of his hate, Victoria tells him
i that her love for him is profound enough to sustain her
courage to die for him.
As Diego gradually regains his courage, he resolves
to take a boat ride on the sea which has been off-limits
| to everyone. His efforts to reach the sea are blocked,
i however, by the Secretary. In the ensuing argument with.
i i
| her, even though the Secretary accidentally kills the
i -
boatman before his eyes, Diego refuses to cringe before
284
her. The part ends with Diego having completely regained
his courage and feeling healthy once again. The Secretary
now admits that she is unable to control anyone unless he
is afraid of her.
Part III: The curtain rises upon Diego, now the j
leader of his fellowmen, exhorting them to throw away
their gags and to rebel against The Plague and Death. The
i
Plague and his Secretary try to regain control but the
rebellion steadily grows. A momentary setback occurs in
the revolt, however, when a citizen snatches the Secre- ;
j
tary's record book and permits the Judge's elder daughter |
to visit death upon Victoria, her sister. Immediately
a crowd gathers about the book and each citizen sets about
avenging himself upon his neighbor. Diego has to destroy
the record book before the indiscriminate and vindictive
murdering can be stopped. Moments later, Victoria in the
throes of death, is brought before Diego, The Plague,
and the Secretary. j
In a last effort to regain his power, The Plague
i
offers to save Victoria's life if Diego will forfeit his.
His most cunning offer is that he will let them both live, !
i
if Diego will surrender the freedom of the city. Diego, j
|
however, refuses to surrender the freedom of the city or \
to let Victoria die. When he offers his own life there
fore, The Plague promptly accepts it. The part ends with
285
Nada who, having reflected upon the price of Diego's
sacrifice, casts himself into the sea to drown when he
notices that the same old and familiar crowd of corrupt,
opportunistic, and power-mad politicians are returning to
j
city government once more. j
Theme, Role, and World View
In considering the criticism relating to the theme,
role, and world view from 1950 through 1959, we find that
the majority of the critics were convinced that Camus |
I
was exploring the problem of revolt against the absurdity |
of both man-made and natural evil. A lesser number saw j
the theme as concerned with a revolt primarily against the
evil of totalitarianism. The critics, with the possible
exception of one, agreed that Camus's ethical and polit
ical stand indicated a positive outlook and they seemed
to think that Diego was probably the author's spokesman.
Although Camus had denied that this drama was an adapta
tion of The Plague, still a few critics persisted in
I looking to the novel for comparisons in themes and one
i
l
I critic consulted Actuelles I, a collection of newspaper
! i
j articles from 1944-1948. One critic held that the same j
i |
I themes run through every genre that Camus used.
Viggiani,•the first critic to discuss the themes
in all Camus's works, declared that the author is
286
obsessed with the idea of death as well as with the mean-
1
ing of life that comes from confronting death. In
addition to other themes running concurrently through his
work, Camus was also interested in the consequences of
nihilism which Nada incarnates. Viggiani implied that
only after this play did Camus succeed partially in becom-
2
m g an objective writer.
Justin O'Brien held that Camus "dramatizes the
allegory of 'The Plague' through the personification of |
]
3 ^
beneficent and malevolent forces at war." In D. W. I
|
i
McPheeter's view, Camus was attacking totalitarianism, j
4 <
particularly that in Spain. It is not a coincidence that
Camus chose Cadiz for the setting of this play when he
had attacked Franco's regime in Actuelles I (19 50). For
Claudia Cassidy also, State of Siege is "an allegory j
i
j
of the police state" whose victims are not only men as j
5
a mass but also man as an individual. Harold Clurman, j
i
I i
! i
! 1"Camus' L'Etranger," PMLA, LXXI (December 1956), 879.
!
2
| See Chapter I, pp. 41-42, for further discussion
of Camus's subjectivity.
■ 3
"Nobel Prize-Winner Camus: A Man Committed Yet
Aloof," The New York Times Book Review, December 8, 1957, !
Sec. 7, p. 3. !
4 x
"Camus1 Translation of Plays by Lope and Calderon," j
Symposium, XII (Spring-Fall 195 8),55. I
I
5"Four Plays Embodying Camus' Case for Drama," The I
Chicago Sunday Tribune Magazine of Books, September 14, j
1958, Sec. 4, p. 4. j
287
agreeing with Cassidy, saw the theme as focused upon evil
in the form of political tyranny.*’
According to Mary Gregory, O.P., this play demon
strates that there must be limits to revolt and a priority
7
in values. Camus demonstrated a shift in his philosophy
i
in this work because now he advocates that men should join j
together, for the sake of all, against the absurd instead :
]
of rebelling solitarily, for the sake of one's own prin- j
|
ciples, against the absurd. This change in thought is j
positive. In order to transcend the absurd, now the j
i
author portrays a man who is forced out of the self or
out of the individual and thus becomes identified with
others. Melvin Maddocks ventured the opinion that though j
this work deals on the surface with politics, especially
j
totalitarianism, it really extends beyond— to problems
i
dealing with the proper relationship of one man with
8
! another. Can man be free and yet behave responsibly
j toward others, or can man be free and yet have justice
i
for all? Maddocks concluded that this work encompasses
i :
"The Moralist on Stage," The New York Times Book
| Review, September 14, 1958, Sec. 7, p. 12.
7
Caligula and Three Other Plays; Drama Critique, I
(November 195 8) , T 2 T . -
8
"Rev. of Caligula and Three Other Plays," Christian
Science Monitor, February 12, 1959, p. 7.
288
the widest implications of the novel The Plague, which
had as its basis the same myth which this play has.
To recapitulate, most of the critics regarded State
of Siege as an extension of Camus's concern with divine
and human injustice. None of the scholars and journalists,!
aside from possibly one, questioned the optimism of the |
I
author, and they gave the impression that Diego embodied !
i
Camus's stand toward evil. !
t
In the interval from 19 60 through 1964, the scholars j
added little new to their interpretation of the themes \
i
i
I
but they did enlarge upon the ideas which had already been j
advanced in the previous decade. These critics differed
with those in the earlier period, however, because they
appeared to consider the revolt against totalitarianism
as probably the primary theme. All the critics seemed
i
to regard Diego as the rebel who voiced Camus's affirma- j
i
tive stand except for two, one of whom held that the j
Judge's wife was Camus's mouthpiece and the other who
maintained that Nada and Victoria also presented points
of view which Camus held. Only two critics were hesitant
about considering Camus1s attitude toward man as positive.
j
A few critics turned to the novel The Plague, for ideas |
1
about the theme, and one seemed to have consulted The i
i
I
Pall. Two others turned to Actuelles I and still others i
i
considered The Rebel in their evaluations. I
282
According to Justin O'Brien and Leon S, Roudiez,^
State of Siege exhibits Camus's abiding hatred for all
forms of nihilism, fanaticism, and totalitarianism and
underlines the author's belief that just to revolt is not
I
enough but that the revolt against oppression must be
guided by love (pp. 21, 41).^ Kurt Weinberg agreed that i
Camus was protesting against the human trend toward
deification of totalities, of history, and of reason.j
j
He concluded that at this time the author had a j
!
"Nietzschean amor fati" outlook. In contrast to Weinberg,
Quentin Lauer, S.J., was convinced that Camus was empha-
12 !
sizing his revolt against death. Camus revealed his J
i
hatred for death and showed that "it can be conquered by I
facing it uncompromisingly, with full awareness." Thus,
since Diego was unafraid of death, he was able to save
the whole city (p. 44).
9
"Camus," Saturday Review, February 13, 1960, pp. 21,
j 24.
■^Robert Donald Spector, "Camus' Bold Mind, Kind Heart
j as Revealed in His Essays," The New York Herald Tribune
i lively Arts and Book Review, February 12, 1961, p. 33,
repeated that this play is a warning against the catas
trophe which totalitarianism brings.
^"The Theme of Exile," Yale French Studies, No. 25
(Spring 1960), p. 36. See Chapter I, pp. 56-57, for a
| fuller treatment of Camus's ethico-political views.
12
"Albert Camus: The Revolt against Absurdity,"
Thought, XXXV (Spring 1960), 44.
29.0
13
Differing with Lauer, Robert H. Bryant held that j
i
the theme deals with a political rebellion, a revolt !
against man-made oppression rather than a rebellion
14
against natural and moral evil as in the novel The Plague.
The moral of the drama is that both "unrestricted freedom j
and absolute regulation are deadly." Men must learn that
revolt involves "limits or a tension between freedom and ;
order" (p. 451). This drama, continued Bryant, reflects j
the third stage or "revolt" stage of Camus's thinking
which he developed between 1945 and 1951. At that time j
i
he rejected the stand that quantitative experiences were j
preferable to qualitative and a solitary revolt was ;
preferable to a communal one. Above all, one must ac- j
|
tively combat oppression to the point of being ready to !
!
die for one's convictions. Camus, at this stage, still j
rejected God but he thought the struggle for the sake
| of mankind was worth the pain and even death (pp. 446-450).
13 ;
"Albert Camus' Quest for Ethical Values," Religion
; in Life, XXIX (Summer 1960), 451.
14
I Alfred Stern, "Considerations of Albert Camus'
Doctrine," Personalist, XLI (Autumn 1960), 456, agreed j
that "the metaphysical revolt" against the human lot and j
creation changed, in this play as it had in Caligula, into j
S "a political revolt of men of specific epochs and countries j
against the enslavement by fellowmen." The Plague stands
for the Hitlerian dictatorship and its idea of justice in |
his plan to bring total order and absolute justice to all. I
George Kateb, "Camus' 'La Peste': A Dissenting View,” !
Symposium, XVII (Winter 1963) , 297, agreed that unlike the j
nbvel The' Plague, this work "Camus exp'licitly says is about !
totalifariinl~5irc. * i
291
Stanley Hoffman agreed that the play is not only an
admonition against the tyranny of totalitarianism and a I
study of what sacrifice resistance demands, but it also
exhibits Camus's hatred for and warning against man's j
temptation to play the "judge^penitent," a role that per- j
petuates nihilism and despair (p. 212).^ Camus's faith i
j
in men affirmed his ethics:
. . . the world may be senseless, but men are
not; they are the creators of values and of
order. But the values and the order they j
realized are legitimate only if justice is |
served. (p. 212)
Although "Camus had tender love for men," concluded j
Hoffman, "he was devoid of illusions" (p. 213).
j
In Richard Gilman's judgment, Camus was not just
attacking the evil of totalitarianism in general— he was
I
specifically protesting against the political tyranny of
the dictatorship of Franco and that of the Catholic church
I . „ . 16
i x n Spain.
15
"Homage to Camus," Massachusetts Review, I (Winter
; 1960), 212.
I
j "Two Voices of Camus," Commonweal, LXXIII (Febru-
! ary 24, 1961), 553. Gilman explained that when Gabriel
Marcel chided Camus for using Spain as the setting for
this play, Camus replied with his open letter, "Why
Spain?" (Combat, Dec. 1948), in which he asserted that the j
stifling of the spirit and of freedom in Spain was as
monstrous as the concentration camps in Russia and the Nazi;
terror (p. 553).
292
Rima Drell Reck saw several of the central themes
17
of Camus's recits in "simplified form" in State of Siege.
First of all, Camus allegorizes the Plague as "a specific
injunction against bureaucracy, and all forms of totali
tarianism." Second, the play is a study of the passion
for absolutes which isolate men and rob them of dignity
|
and life. In this case, the absolute is perfect justice— \
i
as logical and inhuman as Caligula's concept of justice.-
That anyone should attempt to formulate a man-made perfect
justice is to be ignorant of the fact that man's justice
is always necessarily relative. All that man can know is
j
there are limits and these can be retained only by prac- |
|
ticing moderation. Third, the drama treats of the revolt j
against the absurd which makes life senseless and which
thwarts man's search for his limited share of happiness
18 . ■
(pp. 45-46). Reck continued that not only Diego voices
Camus's ideas but Nada and Victoria also express Camus's
viewpoints. On the basis of the scene where the citizens
frantically take revenge upon each, other, Reck concluded
17
"The Theatre of Albert Camus," Modern Drama, IV
(May 1961),50.
18 I
Leon J. Goldstein, "The Emperor of China as the |
Emperor of Rome," Personalist, XLIII (Autumn 1962), j
523-524, remarked that "the idea of loneliness seems to I
be of central importance" in this drama. Under the stress
of The Plague's'reign, each man retreats into himself.
29.3
that Camus was not wholly optimistic about man's capacity
for rendering true justice.
Albert Sonnenfeld, too, argued that Camus intended
the theme to be broader and more inclusive than just a
j
question of political revolt against totalitarianism; j
i
Camus's works always concern "exile from the mass of !
!
E
humanity" and revolt against "the meaningless patterns" j
E
19
of life. Camus's decision, however, to permit The j
j
Plague to appear on stage in the dress of a Nazi officer
i
I
limited the scope of the theme. Actually, the work is i
a dramatization of the whole myth of the plague which is I
j
(
an impersonal force of evil. Moreover, unlike the earlierj
j
works, this, drama demonstrates that an awareness of the |
I
i
!
absurd is not an end in itself nor is the revolt per- j
!
I
mitted to be irrational; rather the hero not only begins j
!
with a consciousness of the absurd but he also must revolt
in a rational manner in order to initiate collective
action (p. 118). j
| In Peter J. Reed's opinion, Camus was presenting four |
i i
i •
main ideas in State of Siege: (.1) it is impossible to
establish a perfect justice; (2) an arbitrary administrator
of a just law can change that law into an instrument of I
I
I
19
"Albert Camus as Dramatist: The Sources of His
Failure," Tulane Drama Review, V (June 1961), 118. ;
294
injustice and tyranny; (3) the legal system of any bour
geois and democratic society can easily be perverted by
a monolithic power; and (4) a relatively minor flaw in
the character of a person worsens if it is given an
20
opportunity to grow unchecked. Through Diego Camus
demonstrates his idea of the rebel, and through the
Judge's wife Camus voices his defense of the human right
to love, dignity, and justice. Reed concluded that
"Camus' attack on the judge in L'Etat de Siege is the j
most violent and complete to be found in his theatre." |
It is a stronger indictment than that of Tarrous' father
i
in The Plague or the accusation of the judge in The
Stranger (p. 50). If Camus is optimistic about man's
success in reaching and/or maintaining justice, it is to
i
be found in Camus's belief that there will always be j
|
rebels and "just judges" who will be ready to defend real j
justice with their lives (p. 57).
21
Edward T. Gargan held that this play was a warn
ing to men that totalitarianism anywhere, including that
in Spain, drove men to despair; the only hope for man was
20
"Judges in the Plays of Albert Camus," Modern
Drama V (May 1962) , 57.
!
21 .
"Revolution and Morale m the Formative Thought |
of Albert Camus," Review of Politics, XXV (October 1963), !
494.
295
to resist guided by moderation and to develop a justice
22
guided by compassion.
By the end of 1964, the critics were certain that
Camus had presented one of the most important issues of
our times, the human penchant for seeking absolute answers
as a panacea for the ills of men and the price that this
tendency exacts in injustice, suffering and death.
Though the critics wholeheartedly approved of Diego's
struggle, they were unable to generate any enthusiasm for
him as a character on the stage.
!
Characters and Characterization !
In the interval from 19 50 through 1959, almost all
the critics were convinced that the characters were
stereotyped and puppet-like figures. One critic drew
attention to the consistent types of characters in all
Camus's works, and another held that all the personages
were equally faulty regardless of the drama under con-
| sideration. Still another critic pointed out the resem
blance between Caligula and Diego and held that the
i i
i
22
Thomas Landon Thorson, "Albert Camus and the Rights !
of Man," Ethics, LXXIV (July 1964), 289, agreed that in |
this work Camus was developing a political philosophy in
which to revolt means to be moderate in the means used to
ameliorate the human condition.
296
protagonists were interesting despite their being alle
gorically presented. There was a consensus that The
Plague represented the power of totalitarianism and that
Diego symbolized the rebel.
Viggiani drew attention to the repetition in the
characters, in their behavior, and in the psychological
meaning of their roles. ^ Diego-, representing the rebel |
hero, sacrifices himself for the sake of a better future j
I
]
for others. Judge Casado, however, is cast as the father j
i
figure whom Camus generally depicted as an agent of j
punishment or of death. Nada, of course, is the nihilist
(pp. 875-876).
O'Brien, Cassidy, and Clurman indicated by indirec- I
tion that the characters are allegorical while Gregory !
flatly called them "pure abstractions." To Maddocks, j
i
though the characters are allegorical, they are, nonethe- j
j
less, engrossing and life-like in their conflict between j
their desire for maximum personal freedom and their
i
realization that they must practice limitation in order
to safeguard the rights of others. Diego is like Caligula i
in that he seeks liberty but his search is more complicated!
because he is in love and he is afraid to die. Like
23
See Chapter I, pp. 90-91 for a further discussion j
of this characteristic in Camus's writing. j
Camus's other dramatic heroes, Diego seeks to overcome
his blind-spot which is his unawareness of his own com
plicity in setting the stage for the domination of The
24
Plague.
Popkin, agreeing with the earlier critics that the
characters are dehumanized, declared that these figures,
like those in the other plays, suffer from being stripped
of multidimensionality. They are supplied with no back
ground, provided with no context, and motivated by no
psychological reasons which might add more life-like
qualities and more plausibility to them (p. 499) . Couch
was in accord with Popkin. The dramatis personae are
stiff and monotonous because they are moved by ethical
conflicts and they talk more than they act (p. 28).
In the 50's, therefore, all the critics unanimously
held that the characters were allegorical and all but
one of them thought they lacked credibility. Further,
two critics noted the repetition in the types of char
acters. In the 60's the critics will be no less dis
appointed than these, scholars and journalists were.
Although few critics expressly discussed the charac
terization or even offered an interpretation of the
24
See Chapter I, pp. 91-92, for further observations
upon Camus's characterization.
298
characters in the interval from 1960 through 1964, there
is an implication that the characters were too static
and uncomplicated to be fully-realized figures. After
noting the resemblance between these figures and those in
Camus’s other works,, one critic indicated that Diego j
represented the rebel, the Judge the smug judge-penitent,
and Victoria love and beauty. Another scholar held that
the attempt to personify forces and ideas, and to show in
a character changes that were suitable only for a novel
was destined for failure from the outset. Still another
critic thought the Judge was the embodiment of hypo- |
|
critical bourgeois morality and the Judge's wife stood
i
for human rights to dignity, love, and pardon whereas j
Diego symbolized the affirmative approach to injustice
and The Plague represented the cynical approach to the !
i
human condition. The Secretary was an embodiment of |
Camus's hatred of the death penalty.
Lauer and Bryant implied, and Gilman, Reck, and
! « 1
| Sonnenfeld declared that the characters were flat and
lifeless. Gilman, speaking of Camus's work as a whole,
declared that the author occasionally employed his char-
i * !
| |
acters "mechanically, as vehicles, emblems or demonstra- j
tions, that being the cause of most of his instances of
i
creative failure" (p. 552). Reck agreed they were stereo-
i
types and turned to an interpretation of the roles. The !
299
characters, said Reck, "strongly recall Camus1 recjts"
and the figures in his other dramas. The new order,
established by The Plague and his Secretary, in which men
die according to a logical and planned list is reminiscent
of Caligula and Martha. As they considered their crimes i
less cruel than the suffering meted out by the absurd in
I
I
life, so The Plague regards his plan for order as more
humane than that of chance. Nada, representing nihilism,
voices Camus's conviction that
because men allow evil and injustice to prevail in
human institutions as long as their personal lives
are undisturbed, they are ripe for a total evil
which will take away the restricted pleasures they
value. (p. 50) j
I
Judge Casado, Victoria's father, does not hesitate |
i
to turn against his own offspring in order to save his j
own life. He is portrayed like Clamence, le juge-penitent,
but without Clamence's ironic self-awareness. By means
of the characterization of Casado, Camus not only strongly
| expressed his dislike of judges but he also underscored
j
the fact that, the intended victims are not any less un
just and vengeful when they have the opportunity to judge;
they too are eager to become executioners. Camus's idea |
about man's gift for dispensing justice is clear (p. 51). j
Diego behaves, in the beginning, like his fellowmen |
because he refuses to face the truth that The Plague has
come. Instead, he considers only his own happiness until
300
he realizes that The Plague's system means to stifle the
happiness of everyone, namely, that it intends to bring
absolute justice and to sacrifice all without discrimina
tion for this ideal. Once he understands that, as in
I
i
i
Caligula's regime, every subject is suspect in its system, |
Diego rebels. It is the renewal of Diego's sense of j
dignity which finally moves him to defy The Plague and to
conquer his fear of death. Victoria, however, who re
presents simple human values, was never afraid and was
willing to risk all to keep life and love. When she dies,
Diego realizes that he was responsible for her death
because he was so busy helping his fellowmen. By causing
Diego to offer his life for hers and causing Victoria to j
I
triumph, Camus intended to say that the most easily
destroyed values of the earth— love and beauty— are
vindicated (p. 51).
In contrast with Reck, Sonnenfeld expressed a sharp |
dissatisfaction with the characterization in State of
| Siege. The primary problem for this play, as for the ;
earlier ones, is
the difference between novelistic time and i
dramatic time [which is] the greatest
stutobling block to Camus' adaptation of
essentially novelisric conceptions to the
exigencies of the stage. (p. 119)
First of all, Sonnenfeld argued, Camus insisted upon try
ing to portray inner transformations within the characters
and he consistently failed to do so. As- in the earlier
plays, so in this drama of intelligence the characters
must become aware of the absurd and then revolt in such a
way that it results in a collective action. Camus un
fortunately did not succeed in communicating these
metamorphoses to the audience. Another problem which
Camus failed to solve satisfactorily was the number of
characters. "This wide diffusion of important characters
is an additional handicap to Camus' stage ambitions in
State of Siege" (p. 118). In the novel there is time to
develop the characters, even the minor ones, into life
like beings but in this play the shortage of time prevents
the development of the personae dramatis; they ". . .
tend to become dehumanized abstractions, speaking in
i
the stock phrases of their particular occupation" (p. 120)J
The judge, therefore, is depicted as "a bitter
caricature of the inflexible servant of the law," and the
priest is "equally stereotyped; he talks like a villain
in an anti-clerical play" (p. 120). It is revealing that i
the list of characters consists mainly of titles, with !
i
only the hero and the heroine having proper names. j
The core of the dramatic interest in the play is
the gradual emergence of Diego as a rebel; and as typical
of his earlier works, Camus has the hero confronted with
a choice depicted in contrasts between "the banal and the
302
poetic, the absurd and nature, and the sea and the plague."
Diego's love of the sea makes him finally rebel. When
he refuses to be thwarted in his wish to take a sea
journey and sees that his revolt has rendered the Secre
tary powerless, he learns the power of revolt. Unlike
Rieux, however, Diego does not persuade others to join
his revolt by his actions, instead he urges rebellion by
talking (p. 120).
In order to convey The Plague's symbolic role as an
impersonal and totally destructive force to the audience,
Camus was forced to use a character. When the author
chose to make the character appear as a Nazi officer, the
universality of the symbol was lost. At the sight of a
Nazi uniform all associations, religious, literary, and
historical about the myth of the plague immediately are
forgotten and all that remains is ". . . a very sarcastic
but not unlovable petty bureaucrat" (p. 119). Moreover,
Camus failed to demonstrate that The Plague is most |
insidious in its gradual power to demoralize a whole city, j
not at the moment of a victim's death. In order to
express the almost imperceptible corrosion of The Plague,
Camus needed the leisurely pace to be found in a novel
(p. 117).
In addition to the problems listed aboye, Camus had
to cope with the difficulty of placing crowd scenes on
303
the stage, since this play tells about the reaction of
a whole city to being enslaved by the enemy. The task
is complicated by the fact that the crowds of citizens
are not part of the background but are in effect one of
the major .characters in the play. Camus "... unfor-
tunately elected the most obvious solution to his problem
when he created an enormous cast." The result is a
"cluttered" stage and "chaos" which is only partially
attenuated by the occasional choreographic movements of
the crowd. "The silent, patient suffering of the . . .
population, so moving in the novel, is clearly impossible
to realize in the theatre" (p. 119).
Reed did not discuss the characterization itself
but turned his attention to an interpretation of the
characters. He said that the .Judge represents "hypo
critical bourgeois morality" and the "arbitrary .Judge" who
cherishes the law and cares nothing for the human being
who is being condemned. The Judge reveals a hard-hearted |
and vengeful attitude in preaching to the people that they ;
are guilty and will be punished by God. He shows no love i
of justice and no compassion even for his own daughter, !
j
for his old faithful servant, or for Diego. Fearful of
The Plague, the judge barricades himself in his house and J
I
ignores his daughter, Victoria, in order to make his own !
|
peace with "God whom he regards as the Judge of Judges
whose system of justice is as harsh and arbitrary as his
304
own." His hypocrisy is revealed when he decides to eject
the old servant because she has the plague. Since she
has the plague, the Judge assumes that she is being
punished for being evil and he refuses to tolerate having
his house contaminated. As for Diego., the Judge refuses
him shelter partly because he is sick with the plague,
and partly because the law which the dictator handed down
expressly forbade giving shelter to anyone. When Diego
remonstrates with the Judge about his decision, Casado
replies he administers the law because it is the law,
not because of what it says; and he adds that if the
law commits a crime, then the crime is no longer a crime
but the law (pp. 4 8-49).
When the Judge's wife, speaking'for Camus and re
presenting the values of humanity, the right to love,
dignity, honesty, and pardon takes Diego's part, she
reveals that the Judge has not upheld justice or right in
| the past and he himself realizes his hypocrisy. Casado's
smug reply to her accusations is that the law is on his
side and it will salve his conscience (p. 50).
The Plague, however, is even a more ruthless and
dangerous Judge than Casado and he "carries legal justice
to the extreme." He considers his law to be perfect
justice and ignores the fact that, since it is totally
lacking in human feeling and devoid of human rights, it
305
is an arbitrary law. Although both Casado and The Plague
administer law without justice, the evil of The Plague
is the greater because he has the absolute power and total
inhumanity. Camus made the point that "what is an un-
pleasant weakness in Casado becomes a terrifying evil in
the hands of a monolithic power like the Plague" (p. 50).
The Plague represents the cynical view that no one enjoys
happiness that is not a misfortune for someone else and
for this reason, he urges Diego to ignore the people, to
save his own life, and to preserve his future with j
Victoria (p. 51).
The Secretary, the personification of death, is a
fitting power behind the Plague because she passes judg
ment in an as unfeeling manner as Casado or the Plague.
Camus probably utilized the Secretary's accidental killing
of an innocent sailor, conjectured Reed, to underscore
his hatred of the death penalty which, once exacted from
the innocent, can never be undone. The one hope that i
i
Camus offers against arbitrary justice is revolt which i
Diego represents.
When Diego learns to' overcome his fear of death, he j
destroys the power of death. The Secretary, after she
kills Diego, is finally touched with pity for man and a
loathing for death to the point that she refuses to
support The Plague's regime any longer. Without the power
306
of death at hie disposal, of course, The Plague is help"
less and has to surrender (p. 51).
In conclusion, the critics were united in their
opinion that the characters were unsatisfactory because
they were static and symbolical. Although the scholars'
dismay with the characterization was pronounced, it was
not any less than that they expressed with the play
form.
Play Form
The critics had extremely little to say about the
play form of State of Siege during the interval of 1950
through 1959. Those scholars who did mention it unani
mously declared it an unsuccessful allegorical play.
O'Brien merely commented that State of Siege is an
allegory in which the myth of the Plague is personified
and Cassidy concurred. Clurman labeled this drama a
morality play that, like Camus's other plays, is "good"
, but not "important." Although it exhibits "spiritual
vigor and integrity" and presents a pertinent "parable,"
it lacks the "organic" development that i's characteristic
' ) ...
of the best drama.
Gregory agreed that the play form is allegorical,
and she, too, found it interesting only for the author's
ideas about revolt. , She evaluated State of Siege as "the
weakest" play of the four (p. 42). Couch implied that
307
the form is allegorical and discovered that the occasional
discrepancy between the dialogue and action is jarring
(p. 2 8). The plays are too obviously created for the
purpose of demonstrating Camus's ideas. State of Siege
is "a kind of medieval morality play," said Maddocks;
25
considered by itself, it is not good. Popkin, speaking
of the dramas as a whole, maintained that Camus's Sartrean
plays, with the possible exception of Caligula, are un
successful. Because Camus was too honest to lend himself
to the subterfuges which the theatre demands, he failed
to create the intricate plots and the life-like characters
that public taste demands (p. 499).
In retrospect it is very apparent that the critics
in the 50's were completely dissatisfied with the play
form which failed to present living characters and an
integrated and realistic panorama of life. In the next
decade, the scholars will still register a consistent
dislike for the play form.
From 1960 through 1964 the scholars were unanimously
agreed that State of Siege was at once too thin in ideas
and too theatrical to be successful. Most argued that
■this play lacked the intellectual complexity of Camus' s
25
See Chapter I, pp. 91-92, for more details about
Camus!s characterization.
308
other dramas— an absence that the color, choreographic
movements, and the music could not conceal. Moreover,
this very attempt at total theatre destroyed the unity of
this work.
O'Brien and Roudiez did not explicitly assign this
play to the category of an allegory but they did remark
that it lacks the "ambiguities" which the other plays
have. They concluded that "a play born of anger, it is
too direct and obvious, and has proved to be, and rightly
so, the least successful of his productions" (p. 40).
According to i ? Lauer, this work shares with Camus's other
plays the quality of being "too intellectual" to be
wholly successful. The author does not dramatize his
views through his characters and plot but debates them
throughout the length of the drama (p. 44).
Reck found that she, too, had to agree that this
drama is a failure. Camus had wanted to present an
"allegory" of the myth of the plague to the audience by
means of a "spectacle" which deliberately combined all
the forms of dramatic expression, from lyrical monologues
to collective theatre, from pantomime and simple dialogue
to burlesque and a chorus (p. 44). Despite the super
abundance of visual elements and the rapid, even noisy
action, however, this play "with its simple allegory in
which the Plague evidently stands for bureaucracy and
309
the collapse of human values in society fails to offer
enough for the mind." "The least successful" of Camus's
dramas. State of Siege is "one of his few creations to be
criticized on artistic grounds" (p. 50).
Sonnenfeld viewed the form of State of Siege as an
example of total theatre. Camus unsuccessfully tried
"to recreate the myth of the Plague as 'total theatre,'
a synthesis of drama, ballet, mime and music." In Sonnen-
feld's opinion,
the broad range of action, with stress on
crowds and frequent changes in locations
proved to be an insurmountable obstacle to
Camus' attempt to adapt the myth. . .to
the limited spatial potential of the stage. (p. 117)
State of Siege, continued Sonnenfeld, is Camus's "most
ambitious and least successful play." Although it had a
variety of dramatic dialogues, from the lyrical and the
tragical to the satirical and the farcical, stylized
choreographic movements by the chorus, ingenious lighting
effects, and background music by Arhufc Honegger,
the total product is rather like a Cecil B.
de Mille Biblical sage. . . . We are so over
whelmed by the spectacle that what the characters
are saying seems of relatively minor importance.
(p. 107)
Dismayed with the absence of a traditional structure
and unprepared for the emphasis placed upon visual elements
and body movements, the critics were convinced that
Camus's and Barrault's collaboration had been unsuccessful.
The critics did not cease their assault upon this, work
with their attack upon the play form hut also included
Camus's language, method, and style in their displeasure.
Language, Method, and Style
Almost all the critics during the interval from 1950
through 1959 found fault with the language in State of
Siege— it was not appropriate to the characters and it
was too oratorical for the modern theatre. Only one
critic insisted that the precise word and the delicate
nuance of feeling were worthy of the praise accorded to
Camus's novels and essays. Many critics disliked the
spare plot and absence of movement in the story— defects
which they seemed to attribute partially to Camus's
moralist bent. The only literary elements that were not
attacked were Camus's use of irony and symbolism. The
i
few who noted these techniques were in accord that they j
augmented the meaning of his drama, even though these
techniques probably added to the overall abstraction.
j
Cassidy implied that the language did not fit the
characters by remarking that Camus's writing for the i
theatre is occasionally fabricated and strained. Gregory I
agreed that the dialogue is "forced and unreal" (p. 42).
I
Although Maddocks appeared to consider the language as !
suitable to the characters and to the ideas because it
311
is concise, honest, and simple, Popkin objected to the
dialogue because its grandiloquence is more suitable for
oratory than for the modern theatre. Couch was the sole
critic to argue that the brilliance of Camus's language
and style in State of Siege should place this drama in
the same distinguished rank granted to the author's
novels and essays.
As the critics disparaged the language, so they found
fault with the lack of movement and the scanty plot in
this work. Cassidy and Clurman, by indirection, indicated
a disappointment with the plot and the action. Cassidy
called attention to the absence of dramatic impact and
hinted that Camus's emphasis upon ideas and language
reduced the movement to an unsatisfactory minimum. Clur
man, by emphasizing the allegorical nature of the play
and Camus's moralist concerns, suggested that the story
is simple and the action minimal. Maddocks, Popkin, and
Couch were in accord with Cassidy and Clurman. After
declaring that Camus is "first of all a moralist,"
Maddocks implied that for this reason there are long
periods of inactivity in the play while the author is
occupied with promulgating his ideas. Popkin suggested
that Camus's moralist preoccupations are responsible for
the absence of a complex plot, the directness in speech,
and the lack of movement? Couch did not contest Popkin's
appraisal.
312
In regard to Camus's use of irony, humor, and symbol
ism, the critics offered little commentary. Maddocks
mentioned, without explaining, that this work exhibits
"an effective strain of irony and mordant humor, perhaps
more than any other Camus work" and casually remarked that
"tyranny is symbolized as a loathsome pestilence."
According to Germaine Bree, Camus writes about "closed
worlds" which are "closely bound to his personal world
2 6
of mental anguish and physiological effects." Embodying
his ideas and feelings in symbols, Camus created a uni
verse in this play in which the sluggish air represents
incarceration and oppression while the sea breeze symbol
izes a release from tyranny and death. Viggiani also
underscored that as the author frequently used in his
other works the religious myths in which the sea is a
symbol of regeneration and the sun is frequently a symbol
of destruction, so in this play the sea and the breeze
represent freedom and the renewal of life whereas the
comet (a sun symbol) stands for the Plague or destruc
tion (pp. 877-878). In addition to using symbolism
Viggiani noted that in this drama, too, Camus sought ob
jectivity and further meanings by using plurisign names,
such as Victoria (Virgin Mary) or Nada (nothingness).
26
"Albert Camus and the Plague," Yale French Studies,
No. 8 (Fall-Winter 1951), p. 96.
313
To recapitulate, the majority of the critics of the
50's subscribed to the opinion that Camus's emphasis
upon ideas led to an abstract presentation that robbed the
language of the naturalness, the story of the interest,
and the plot of the movement which the best drama demands.
Apparently the only positive literary merit which the
critics could find was Camus's utilization of symbols.
The critics during the interval from 1960 through
1964 completely ignored the language in State of Siege
with the exception of two who addressed themselves to the
dialogue and two who commented at large upon Camus's
style. Those who remarked upon the dialogue in particular
and those who discussed the style in general did not
agree. Camus's preoccupation with ideas to the detriment
of the plot and of the movement' in the story inuerred the
critics' displeasure as it had in the previous decade.
Only Camus's use of irony and symbolism per se escaped
criticism.
Reck implied that Camus failed to present his ideas
concretely enough; the characters and their dialogue did
not support the action. Unlike Reck, Sonnenfeld did not
hesitate to depreciate vigorously the dialogue for being
what he considered bombastic. "Camus," argued Sonnenfeld,
"seems to lose all stylistic control when composing
dialogue." Unlike the restrained lyricism which makes his
314
descriptions of nature so memorable in his novels, it
becomes in this play "a veritable flood of imagery."
When the chorus describes the effects of'the Plague upon
the city, their lines are filled with "purple" passages
which sound "contrived and rhetorical when spoken by a
chorus" (p. 119). Diego, too, is guilty of speaking in
a baroque manner. When he becomes aware of the power of
revolt, he tries to persuade the citizens to follow him
by "sermons in praise of revolt [that] are written in
that bombastic style which Camus himself condemned in his
novels and essays" (p. 121). Differing with Sonnenfeld
but speaking in general, O'Brien and Roudiez insisted that
Camus's perspective and the literary device that he used
combine into a nearly flawless whole.
In regard to Camus's moralist method of writing,
Lauer declared that the argumentation in this play im
pairs the impact that the dramatic whole should have upon !
the audience; and Bryant implied that since Camus was a |
i
moralist, he unfortunately concentrated more upon ethical
and moral issues than upon creating fully developed char
acters and an interesting story. Gilman ventured the
opinion that, with the possible exception of The Stranger
and The Just Assassins,
if anything, Camus' art is likely to decline,
relatively in our estimation, as we become aware
of its frequently provisional nature and its
lack of real imaginative size. The plays and
315
the stories for all their interest and vigor,
are technical experiments that do not wholly
come off or they are psychological notations
of what was troubling or attracting Camus
but for which he had not found adequate means
of expression. (p. 552)
Camus's use of symbols was only casually mentioned
by O'Brien and Roudiez, who noted that the author used
personification in portraying good and evil forces and
that he depicted cities enclosed by land as symbols of
death and oppression and cities open to the sea as signs
of life and freedom. H. Gaston Hall observed that Camus
used the personification of human irrationality in the
figure of The Plague in order to underline the absurdity
27
of the natural order. In other words, Camus created a
double parody of man and natural absurdity as he did in
Caligula. Not disputing Hall's observation, Emily Zants
reiterated O'Brien and Roudiez's observations that the
2 g
sea symbolized regeneration and liberty. It was for
the sake of this source of renewal that the mothers had
the courage to protest The Plague's barring the children's
right to the sea. Turning to the satirical element in
this work, Gargan spotlighted Camus's mordant comment
27
"Aspects of the Absurd," Yale French Studies,
No. 25 (Spring 1960), pp. 28-29.
2 8
"Camus' Deserts and Their Allies, Kingdoms of
the Stranger," Symposium, XVII (Spring 1963), 32, 34.
i
i
316
upon the corrupt administrators who returned to lead the
French Republic after World War II by portraying them
as the cowardly, dishonest, and opportunistic politicians
who return to the government of Cadiz, after The Plague
has been defeated by the sacrifices of others (p. 491).
In conclusion, it is manifest that though the
critics praised Camus's language in general, they did not
consider it effective in the theatre. Moreover, the
critics again indicated a dissatisfaction with Camus1s
moralist bent. The critics did not quarrel with Camus's
skill in using symbols per se but it is possible that
I
these techniques added to the chronic dissatisfaction
with the abstraction.
Summary
I
i
In consideration of the theme, role, and the world
outlook in State of Siege in the interval from 1950 throu#i|
1959, a majority of the critics (Viggiani, O'Brien,
j
Maddocks, Gregory) were convinced that the theme was con
cerned with the need for men to revolt against any force
that enhanced the absurd and robbed men of freedom,
justice, and life. A minority (McPheeters, Cassidy, Clur- |
man) thought that the theme was concentrated upon the j
political evil of totalitarianism. Since the critics had
read The Plague and The Rebel, none of them, but, per
haps, Viggiani, believed that Camus's hopes for the
317
human condition were dim. As the protagonist of the play,
Diego, engaged the most attention from the critics who
regarded him as the rebel hero and, probably, Camus's
mouthpiece.
From 1960 through 1964, the scholars mainly con
cerned themselves with examining the ideas which had been
advanced in the earlier decade. The larger number of the
critics (O'Brien and Roudiez, Weinberg, Bryant, Hoffman,
Gilman, Reck, Reed, Gargan), however, shifted from think
ing that the theme dealt with both natural and man-made
evil to that of regarding the theme as focused upon the
absurdity created by men. All the critics, with the ex
ception of Reck and Reed, seemed to consider Camus's stand
as positive and most appeared to think that Diego repre
sented the rebel protagonist with whom Camus identified
himself. Reck thought Camus was defending human values
through Victoria as well as through Diego, and Reed was
1 convinced that the Judge's wife spoke for Camus.
| With reference to the characterization, almost all
the critics from 1950 through 1959 (O'Brien, Cassidy,
Clurman, Popkin, Couch)'and a majority of the scholars
from 1960 through 1964 (Lauer, Bryant, Gilman, Reck,
Sonnenfeld) were dissatisfied with the dehumanized and
psychologically remote characters. Throughout the length
of the drama, they remained symbols of abstract ideas,
such as revolt, nihilism, love, and other concepts.
318
In regard to the play form, all the critics
(O'Brien, Cassidy, Clurman, Gregory, Popkin, Couch,
Maddocks) in the decade of the 50's declared or implied
that State of Biege was an unsuccessful play. It was an
unsuccessful morality play the abstraction of which was
probably the most dismaying fault of all. In the decade
of the 60's, the larger number of the critics (O'Brien
and Roudiez, Gilman, Reck, Sonnenfeld) still held that
this play was a failure. O'Brien and Roudiez, Reck, and
Sonnenfeld considered it a morality play presented within
the framework of a spectacle or of total theatre. They
came to the conclusion that State of Siege ended as a
hybrid— half morality and half social drama— with the
result that the plurality of dramatic styles and forms
|
in addition to the jumble of contemporary allusions in
combination with the myth of the plague left this play
without a coherent form or subject.
With respect to the language, method, and style,
! the critics attacked the dialogue, the plot, and the
i
absence of movement in the 50's. Cassidy, Gregory,
i
Popkin, and Couch, the larger number of the scholars,
clearly criticized the lofty language which did not j
i
!
comment upon the action or give enough insight into the !
i
characters. The majority, Cassidy, Clurman, Maddocks, ;
■ |
Popkin, and Couch, also assailed the absence of substance j
319
in the story and the lack of movement other than that
created by the dialogue e They hinted that Camus's
moralist bent was the source of these defects. Only
Maddocks approvingly noted the irony and humor while
Bree and Viggiani referred to the religious and mytho
logical symbols that Camus used with great effect. j
From 1960 through 1964, the majority of the
scholars (Lauer, Bryant, Reck, Sonnenfeld) again attacked
the dialogue as forensic and unconvincing. The incom
patibility of the action and of the language detracted
from Camus's ability to communicate his ideas. Lauer,
Bryant, Gilman, Reck, and Sonnenfeld were also dis
appointed with the thin plot and the absence of richness
in ideas. Reck and Sonnenfeld, in particular, were
critical of the total theatre which Camus used. In their
opinion, this presentation only served to divert the
audience from grasping what comparatively little inner j
meaning there was. O'Brien and Roudiez, and Zants
I
favorably noticed that the symbolism added another dimen-
sion to the drama. Hall approvingly noted the parody
i
which underlined Camus's conception of the dual absurdity— j
i
cosmic and human— in life, and Gargan praised the satire j
1
upon the politicians. ]
i
!
In conclusion, although the critics attacked the |
earlier plays for poor characterization, unconvincing
320
dialogue, and lack of movement, they, were at least stimu
lated, if occasionally irritated, by the ideas. The
absence of conceptions and complexities, however, in this
drama, already weakened by other faults, predestined it
for a failure in the eyes of the critics. There is no
doubt that as a result of State of Siege, Camus *s reputa
tion in the United States as a playwright suffered its
severest blow.
i
I
CHAPTER IV
THE JUST ASSASSINS
(1958)
Camus's last original drama. The Just Assassins
(Les Justes), written during 1948 and 1949, was first
performed in Paris at the Theatre Hebertot in 1949. It
was not published in France, however, until a year later
nor translated in the United States until 1957 when
Elizabeth Sprigge and Philip Warner placed their version
of the drama on microfilm. A year later, Alfred A. Knopf
published the first book form (Stuart Gilbert's transla
tion) in Caligula and Three Other Plays. Like Caligula,
this is a historical play. Camus used Bernard Taft's
translation of Boris Savinkov's Memoirs d'un terroriste i
;
for much of his story, and three of his main characters j
and their dialogues.
Like State of Siege, The Just Assassins did not j
]
attract the attention of the American critics that Caligulaj
I
and The Misunderstanding did. It, too, probably suffered
in the United States because of the publication of Camus's
other works to which the critics were more attracted. The
critics contributed only seven commentaries and reviews
322
before Camus received the Nobel Prize for Literature.
After 195 7, however, the reviewers published seven
pieces of criticism in the interval between 1958 and
1959, and the critics published an equal number of com
mentaries and reviews in 1960 after Camus's death. There
after, the scholars lost interest, with the result that
the articles dropped to four in 1961 and even fewer from
1962 through 1964. No one commented upon Stuart Gilbert's
translation of this drama.
With reference to the body of criticism per se, it
is manifest that the critics from 1950 through 1964 were
not successful in turning critical attention from Camus's
i
ideas to his writing. Aside from two important reviews
in the beginning of the 50's, the more aesthetically
oriented criticism did not appear until the late 50's and
the 60's. At the end of fourteen years of commentary, a
'majority of the critics arrived at the following con
clusions: (1) The primary theme spotlighted the ethical
question of whether the end justifies the means in the
j
| struggle to improve the human lot via the revolution;
(2) Camus's outlook, expressed in The Plague and The Rebel,
and reflected in this work was positive, although he was
a non-Christian and an absurdist or a humanist;
(3) Kaliayev appeared to be Camus's spokesman; (4) the
characterization is deficient; (5) The Just Assassins was
323
an unsuccessful melodramatic play of ideas; (6) the
language was inappropriate for the modern stage; and
(7) the movement of the whole play was unsatisfactorily
slow. To aid us in understanding the criticism which
will follow/ a resume' of the plot of The Just Assassins
has been placed below.
ACT I: The curtain rises on a sparsely furnished
apartment with Dora and Boris, two of the conspirators,
standing silently in the center of the room. The
silence is broken by a doorbell. Boris goes out and
returns with Stepan, who has just returned from three
years imprisonment from an unnamed region for political
intrigue. He has been returned to Russia by the Party
to help destroy the regime of the Grand Duke. From the
outset, Stepan indicates that he is a driven man. He
refuses to rest or even to chat with his old friends
about the past; instead, he asks about the plans for the
destruction of the Grand Duke. When Boris tells Stepan
I who his associates will be, Stepan immediately bridles
at the title of "poet" for Ivan (Yanek) Kaliayev, and
declares that the name of poet for a terrorist is totally
A
unsuitable. When Dora is introduced to Stepan and warns
Stepan about the delicacy he must use in handling the
bombs that she makes, she is stunned to see him smile at
324
the mention of death. She is further shaken when Stepan
wants to know how many bombs it would require to destroy
Moscow. The conversation is interrupted by Alexis,
another conspirator, who informs the others that he has
made a sketch of the route that the Grand Duke will
follow and the places at which it would be best to throw
the bomb. When Alexis admits that he finds it difficult
to lie, Stepan replies, "Everybody lies, what's important
is to lie well." Alexis explains that when he was ex
pelled from the university for telling the truth, he
decided that it was not enough to denounce injustice; one
has to act and even die for it. As a conspirator, he still
has to tell falsehoods, however, and he hates this duplic
ity to the extent that he anticipates his death, for then
he will have to lie no more. Yanek enters with a smiling
face that contrasts sharply with the gloomy seriousness
of the other conspirators and the hard-eyed, stiff, and
suspicious demeanor of Stepan. When Dora leaves, Stepan
demands to be the first to throw the bomb but Boris
! refuses to substitute him for Yanek. Probably annoyed by
]'
i , i
this rebuff, Stepan turns upon Yanek and tries to pick a
. quarrel with him. In the course of the conversation,
Yanek irritates Stepan by saying that if the plot fails, i
i
they must commit suicide in order to avoid capture and
shame. Stepan disgustedly remarks that the true
325
revolutionary would never think of coinmitting suicide, he
cannot love himself that much. As the conversation
changes into an argument, Stepan reveals his contempt for
Yanek's attitudes. When Yanek observes that he is a
i
revolutionary because he loves life, Stepan retorts that
he loves something higher than life— justice. He adds
that he came here to kill a man, not to prattle of love
or of justification. Stepan stalks off and Dora reappears.
Upon Yanek's angry and hurt query about Stepan's behavior,
Dora replies that Stepan does not like anybody. He is
always like that. While talking with Dora, Yanek reveals
his sadness and loneliness. He used to have many friends
and happy times but now he has only the conspirators for
his friends and, although he wanted them to love him, he
always seems to anger them. When he exclaims that he
joined the revolutionaries for the sake of life, Dora
reminds him that what they are giving is not life but j
|
death. Yanek cannot agree— they are killing so that the j
innocent will inherit the world. Dora replies that nothing
is so simple, especially taking lives. In reply, Yanek j
|
asserts that he intends to die on the spot; in that way
he can feel innocent of crime. Dora suggests that the
scaffold is even a worthier way to die because in that way
one dies twice, one repays twofold for the life taken.
Yanek eagerly accepts her suggestion. When Dora warns him
326
about losing his determination to throw the bomb, if he
should meet the eye of the Grand Duke, Yanek replies that
his hatred will keep his hand steady.
ACT II: The scene opens at night. Boris and Dora
j
are waiting in the apartment for the sound of the ex
plosion of the bomb which Yanek intends to throw. As
they pace the floor and worry, Dora and Boris learn that
each one has private misgivings about his present role in
life and each regrets the past when there was gayety, wine
and dancing. When the tension of waiting is almost un
bearable, Alexis bursts into the apartment to say that
Yanek did not throw the bomb. When Yanek, in tears,
returns, they jump to the conclusion that he had lost his
courage. He explains that he had no compunction about
killing the Grand Duke but when he saw that the young and
innocent Duke's niece and nephew were in the carriage, he
refused to kill them too. As Yanek pleads for his friends'!
judgment upon his decision, Boris, Alexis and Dora admit
| he was right. Only Stepan is coldly furious. He can see
i ■ j
no point in being sentimental over two healthy royal
children when thousands of other children are starving
every day. Dora replies that there are limits even in |
destruction and that, if moderation is not used, the
revolution will be loathed by all. Stepan exclaims that
327
either there are no limits or they do not believe in the
revolution and in their right to rebel. Yanek observes
that if Stepan has his way, he can see the threat of al~
ready another despotism which will make him (.Yanek) into
a common murderer, not a just executioner of an idea and
a martyr. Stepan insists that justice alone is important
but Yanek replies that he will not kill the living for a
problematic future.
ACT III; It is two days later. The plot has been j
reactivated and Yanek is about to assassinate the Duke.
Before Yanek leaves the apartment, however, Alexis asks
to talk privately to Boris. In this conversation Alexis
reveals that since he cannot carry out his part in another
assassination attempt, he wants to be transferred to a
committee or something else. He does not mind espionage,
he says, if he is not forced to see the results. When, he '
| is finally captured, Alexis concludes, he will be glad to
!
die, for death will provide an end to his having to make
decisions. Decisions have upset him most of his life.
When Alexis leaves, Boris picks Stepan to take his place.
Yanek declares that he will carry on as planned, even
though he can feel the hatred in himself and see the
cowardice and the violence in others which killing pro
duces. Hatred brings no happiness, he says, but he hopes
328
that his action will go beyond hatred to love. Dora re
minds him that blood and violence always brutalize. As
agents of justice, they can and will have no right to
happiness, warmth or love. As the conversation continues,
Dora reveals that she yearns for a love devoted to another
person, not a love devoted to an ideal. She occasionally
longs to turn her back on the ugliness and even the in
justice in the world in order to share in the community
of all men. Upon her probing, whether he loves her more
than his ideal of justice, Yanek will only admit that he
loves her equally with justice, there is no difference.
Thereupon Dora remarks that they all really live in an
unending winter where summer is forgotten because they
are "the just ones." After Yanek leaves on his mission,
Dora induces Stepan to admit that since love has been
|
tortured out of him, he is motivated by hate (it is better i
than numbness) for his fellowmen. I
!
i
ACT IV: The curtain rises on Yanek in prison
awaiting hanging for the assassination of the Grand Duke.
Almost at once, Yanek meets Poka, the peasant, who, having i
!
killed three people in a drunken rage, has become the
hangman as well as the guard's helper. He has taken this
position because for every man he hangs, he has a year
subtracted from his own sentence. Foka soon reveals that
i
329
tie understands nothing and cares nothing about Yanek’s
ideas of shame, justice, or justification. In fact, he
pities and scorns Yanek as' a young and pleasant but
slightly daft fool. After Foka leaves, Skuratov, the
chief of police, enters Yanek’s cell. He runs the gamut
from appealing to Yanek’s love for his comrades to his
innermost fears in an effort to make Yanek betray his
comrades. Yanek steadfastly evades answering his ques
tions and refuses his offers. When he leaves, the Grand
Duchess enters his cell. She has come to induce Yanek
3
to repent and to ask God for forgiveness. Yanek refuses j
her also.
ACT V: It is predawn darkness in the apartment in
which Boris, Stepan, and Dora wait for news of Yanek.
They wonder if he will betray them or if he will be
hanged. Dora is positive that Yanek will never betray
them but Stepan is not so certain. When Alexis and Stepan j
leave to meet a friend who will attend the execution, Dora j
| begins to question the methods and goals of the conspir
ators. She suspects that they have not chosen the right
path because they speak only of death in this group. More-
I
over, she has a feeling that all their deaths will be in
vain because they have shown a dangerous pride in assuming
they can banish the sorrows of the world. Such hybris will
330
certainly be punished. Indeed, it is very possible that
the future will see new terrorists arise who will murder
indiscriminately and refuse to pay for their murders.
When Alexis and Stepan report that Yanek did not betray
them and faced death unflinchingly, Dora's will to live
vanishes and she now pleads to be the one to throw the
next bomb. Death is the only solution to the nothingness
which her life has become. When the others hesitate to
grant her wish, Stepan defends her request and observes
that now she is like him.
Theme, Role, and World View
The majority of the scholars and journalists from
1950 through 1959 maintained that the primary theme in
The Just Assassins dealt with the ethical and social
question whether the end justifies the means in pursuing
the goal of a better society. Others thought germane
themes treated the problems of the rights of the individual
versus those of society, the rights of the innocent versus!
| those of the guilty, and the nihilism born of the search
for total answers. Almost all the critics agreed that
Camus was not a pessimist and that this play should be
interpreted in terms of the ideas advanced in The Rebel. j
There seemed to be a ; tacit agreement that he was an
existentialist or an absurdist. The larger number of the
331
scholars indicated that Kaliayev was probably Camus's
spokesman.
1 2
Michel Mohrt and Nicola Chiaromonte, the first
critics to remark upon The Just Assassins, based their
evaluations upon a performance that they saw in Paris.
Mohrt, who hinted that The Rebel served as the basis for
this play, declared that the primary theme deals with
Camus's rejection of the idea that the end justifies the
means in the rebellion against injustice. He thought j
that the following secondary themes were also considered:
I
(1) Can a better society be established upon an unjust
and criminal foundation; (2) does good ever come out of
evil; and (3) do individuals have a right to love and
I
happiness when these conflict with an obligation to
resist an evil which is thrust upon them. All these
ideas, continued Mohrt, are identical to those explored inj
The Plague, The Stranger, in "Les Meurtriers delicats" in j
La Table Ronde, and in Sartre's Les Mains Sales. Chiaro
monte essentially endorsed Mohrt's statements; he thought
the overall area that Camus was exploring was "the ulti-
j _ :
mate, validity of the terrorists' moral universe," of theiri
' i ..
^■"Three Plays of the Current Paris Season," Yale
French Studies, No. 5 (Spring-Summer 1950), p. 101. j
2
"Paris Letter," Partisan Review, XVII (September-
October 1950), 711.
333
tension can be maintained between responsibility and
free will, and that the end ever justifies the means.
The Just Assassins, Simpson underscored, is composed of
paradoxes
of loving life, loving liberty and loving people,
while taking life, destroying liberty, and impos
ing the will of the apostles of justice on a
resistant unconverted people. (p. 189)
Simpson, unlike the other scholars, gave the impression
that this drama is a dramatization of the ideas delineated
5
in The Myth of Sisyphus.
In Konrad Bieber's opinion, Camus dramatized one
of the major issues in The Rebel: "Does the revolu
tionary have the right to murder the innocent as well as
g
the tyrant?" The author shows that the narrowness in
i
the revolutionaries' task has dehumanized even the j
j
idealist to the point that the concept of justice is j
pleaded over love (p. 33). By 194 8 Camus had abandoned
the pessimism of the early 40's and had turned to the idea!
I
that men must form a united revolt against the injustice j
I
and struggle to recreate man and the earth -(p. 34) . Camus ;
hated the abrupt violence of the revolution and the con- |
!
cept that revolution is an end in itself (pp. 35-36). In
5
See Chapter I, pp. 37-38 for a further discussion
of Camus's views.
g
"Engagement as a Professional Risk," Yale French
Studies, XVI (Winter 1955),33.
332
hope in the Revolution, as well as the anguish of the
individual conscience when it is faced with a painfully
specific choice.
Not contesting Chiaromonte's judgment, Winifred
Smith asserted Camus was still preoccupied, as in his
previous play, with the ideas of justice and injustice
3
and continued his debate in this work. Camus's examina
tion and rejection of faith in revolution apply especially
to today's world where millions of people, not just a
small group of intellectuals, accept the idea that it is
not criminal or self-defeating to kill or be killed for
the sake of an unknown future (p. 29).
Lurline V. Simpson held that this play, unlike
Caligula and The Misunderstanding, did not deal with
4
"psychological maladjustments." She was of the opinion
that there are two kinds of unsettling questions— intellec-j
tual and moral— which Camus raised. First, there is the j
j
intellectual doubt whether an immediate justice will not
be destroyed by a new and later injustice; and second,
I
there are the moral doubts about the rights of the indi-
j
vidual against the masses, of the innocent versus those j
of the guilty as well as the doubts that the necessary
(Rev. of Les Justes), Books Abroad, XXV (Winter
1951) , 29.
^"Tension in the Works of Albert Camus," Modern
Language Journal, XXXVIII (April 1954), 189.
an earlier article, Bieber stated that Csmus was fas^
cinated with the idea of an idealist-terrorist and con^
eluded that of all the characters in this work./
the personality most akin to Camus is undoubtedly
Kaliayev . . . whose enthusiasm for the cause of
freedom never blinded him to the fact that crime
is a stepping stone to the liberation of the
individual.7
Carl A. Viggiani clung to his opinion that/ in this
play, as in the others, Camus was interested in death
and the significance that life assumes when it is
o
threatened with destruction. Hence/ Camus rejected the
rebel who, killing both man and Godr becomes a nihilist
like Stepan. For the first time, Camus, continued
Viggiani, created a protagonist who is a composite of
several characters, a hero who is more fictional than
g
autobiographical.
To Claudia Cassidy, the author demonstrated that he
who kills for an idea must be prepared to sacrifice his
own life for his transgression against the human right
t
7
"The Rebellion of the Humanist," Yale Review, XLIII
(Spring 1954), 474.
8"Camusl L'Etranger," PMLA,LXXI (December 1956) , 874.
- ■ ' ■ ■■, H. XI V >1 '
9
See Chapter I, pp. 41-42, for a more detailed dis
cussion of Camus's protagonists.
335
to live."*"^ Mary Gregory, O.P., asserted that, as in
State of Siege, Camus was defending purely human values
over any other kind of values.She implied that though
Camus was an existentialist, he urged that there must be
limits in revolt and one must make value judgments to
avoid catastrophe for the solidarity of the human race.
The most workable way to cope with the absurd is to j
transcend it by joining others in a revolt against it.
William F. May, considering The Rebel as the basis
for The Just Assassins, noted that Camus exhorted men to
cease overreaching themselves by developing absolutes
12
and then concluding by justifying the violation of man.
It is a kind of sinful pride that endeavors to create
human absolutes, such as Marxism, that contradict them-
!
selves at a terrible price in human lives. May con
tinued that for Camus man betrays a dangerous hybris in
|
attempting to imitate God, the supreme death-bringer and
destroyer. "Human pride is responsible for the human work !
erf murder which is compounded by the divine work of
| murder." Unlike God, however, who remains silent, man I
i
"Four Plays Embodying Camus' Case for Drama,1 1 The
Chicago Sunday Tribune Magazine of Books, September 14,
1958, Sec. 4, p. 4.
|
{Rev. of Caligula and Three Other Plays), Drama
Critique, I (November 1958), 42-43.
12
"Albert Camus: A Political Moralist," Christian
ity ana Crises, XVIII (November 24, 1953), 165-166.
336
tries to excuse his murders by ideologies (p. 167). As
Camus refused to believe in God and refused to play the
role of God, so he rejected political realism and polit
ical futurism. He believed that the present is not a
I
I
mere instrument in the hands of God or of the state; and j
the means are always part of the end (p. 168).
Essentially agreeing with May's views, Melvin
Maddocks held that Camus explored the point at which there
i
i
is a conflict between freedom and responsibility or
justice, and in this instance he demonstrated that "the
search for freedom must destroy the individual as a per-
13
sonality with private wants and private loyalties."
In conclusion, we have seen that the critics of the
50's, with fdw exceptions, agreed that the theme concerned
an ethical and social more than a metaphysical issue. It
was focused upon Camus's rejection of the trend toward j
absolutes and toward the cynicism or oversimplification
which holds that the means and the end can be totally
separated from each other. Most of the critics appeared
i
i i
to regard Kaliayev as the author's mouthpiece. In the
i
60's, the critics, with little variation, will concur in
the judgments of the 50's.
13
(Rev. of Caligula and Three Other Plays), Christian I
Science Monitor, February 12, 1959, p. 7. !
337
The scholars, from 1960 through 1964, continued to
discuss mainly the ideas which the critics of the earlier
decade had already advanced. Although most of the critics
agreed that the theme was focused upon the nihilism in
herent in the notion that an absolute can be attained or j
i
that the end has nothing to do with the means, it was
again not clear whether they thought Kaliayev was Camus or
not. Since almost none of them clarified this point, one
can assume that they thought Kaliayev was the embodiment
of Camus's stand toward revolution and totalities. Most
of the scholars regarded this work as a dramatxzatxon of
the tenets presented in The Rebel and concurred in their
opinion that Camus was neither a Christian nor a pessimist.;
^14 15
Germaine Bree and Julian N. Hartt agreed that
Camus hated the human tendency to place faith in absolutes !
for the answers to human misery. According to Bree, in
i
Camus's second phase, the Promethean phase which this
play reflects, the author examined and rejected the
search for total freedom, or total justice, "the pursuit
I of an 'idealism' which justifies the murder of man in the
!
i 4
"Albert Camus: 1913-1960," French Culture Today,
a bulletin in English published by the Cultural Services
of the French Embassy, New York, [c. 19 60],p . 4. !
I
15 !
"Albert Camus: An Appreciation," Christianity and ;
Crises, XVIII (February 8, I960), 7. j
338
name of a problematic utopia of tomorrow." Bree under
scored that Camus is not Kaliayev. Camus dramatized his
ideas in The Rebel in this play, declared Hartt, and re
vealed his profound suspicion of any moral idealism that
would attempt to remake man. Idealism begins with lofty
purposes and all too frequently degenerates into oppression
and indiscriminate murder while the mouthing of idealistic
thoughts still reverberates. Hartt described Camus's
hatred of death as that of a "hedonist's recoil." He in
sisted, however, that although Camus was an atheist, he
did not despair but instead urged man to create truth
and to do his utmost to alleviate suffering (pp. 7-8).
Justin O'Brien and Leon S. Roudiez, who were the
only critics to declare openly that Camus was really
ambivalent toward Kaliayev, described this work as an
"ironical" or critical play.^ Camus sympathizes with
Yanek when he rejects Stepan's reasoning and refuses to
kill the innocent along with the guilty. Nonetheless,
the author condemns Yanek's idea that murder can ever be
justified or Yanek's feeling that he should be forgiven
for turning his friends into fanatics who will establish
the precedent for future large -scaled political murders.
"Camus," Saturday Review, February 13, 19 60,
p. 21.
339
In Kurt Weinberg's view, Camus always treats of
17
exile and revolt in his writing. Implying that this
play is based on The Rebel, Weinberg asserted that Camus's
attitude of revolt against the hostile cosmos changed
into a revolt against the hostility of man toward man.
Alarmed by the trend toward substituting political ideol
ogies for God, the author, reflecting a "Nietzschean amor
fati,1 1 urged man to accept death, to moderate their
desires to the humble joys of this earth and to refrain
from joining in broad movements that end in a massive
destruction of life (p. 40).
Concurring with Weinberg, Alfred Stern implied that
this drama reflects the thoughts expressed in "Letters to
18
a German Friend" (194 3-1944). In fact, Camus rejected
the idea of revolution so strongly, asserted Stern, that
he glorified "the individual rebel, the anarchist" in
this "magnificent monument," The Just Assassins. Eric W.
Carlson, linking The Rebel to this drama, labeled Camus's
world outlook as "a political humanism" because the author j
was adamantly opposed to the deification of history or j
17
"The Theme of Exile," Yale French Studies, No. 25
(Spring 19 60), p. 40.
18
"Considerations of Albert Camus' Doctrine,"
Personalist, XLI (Autumn 1960) , 456.
340
19
or of reason. Under absolute ideologies, Camus was
certain that justice, truth and true revolt are destroyed.
To counteract the tendency to use individual or mass
violence in the service of an abstract ideal— because
murder defeats and contradicts the very idea of the
rebel's idea of the community of man— Camus held that the
individual rebel must be willing to pay for murder with
his own life. Only by sacrificing his own life, does the
rebel cancel his guilt and crime and "rise above history
at the moment of his death" (p. 307).
Essentially agreeing with Carlson, Rima Drell Reck
thought that the theme, drawn from The Rebel, revolved
about the conspirators' "attempt to redeem the myth of
absolute justice with their lives, sacrificing the rela-
20
tive truths which alone are available to man." Camus
pleaded for men not to sacrifice life for a relative
justice in which the line between the executor and the
criminal is extremely thin. The humanist author under
scores that all men are at once guilty and innocent
(pp. 51-53).
19
"The Humanism of Albert Camus," Humanist, XX
(September-October 1960), 307.
20
"The Theatre of Albert Camus," Modern Drama, IV
(May 1961), 42.
1
341
Albert Sonnenfeld asserted that this play, "not pre
dicated on the audience's a priori acceptance of Camus's
personal notion of the absurd," deals with the ethical
question "if ideals are corrupted when unworthy means are
21
employed to bring about their realization." For James
i
H. Clancy, this work is based upon "Letters to a German
Friend'1 - (1943-1944) , in which Camus called for men to
22
affirm justice and create happiness for others. Camus
shows that he did not abandon Caligula's premise about
2 3
life but he did go beyond Caligula's conclusion (p. 163).
Essentially in concurrence with Clancy, Peter J. Reed de
clared that Camus demonstrated that there must be limits
24
m revolt.
In Edward L. Burke's judgment, the author no longer
bears witness "to his own personal contact" with suffering
25
and absurdity but to that of all men. Based on The
21
"Albert Camus as Dramatist: The Sources of His
Failure," Tulane Drama Review, V (June 1961), 121.
22
"Beyond Despair: A New Drama of Ideas," Educa
tional Theatre Journal, XIII (October 1961), 163.
23
See Chapter I, pp. 68-70, for a more detailed dis
cussion of Camus's views.
24
"Judges m the Plays of Albert Camus," Modern
Drama, V (May 1962) , 52. See Chapter I, pp. 72-73, for
a further discussion of Camus's views on revolt.
25
"Camus and the Pursuit of Happiness," Thought,
XXXVII (Autumn 1962) , 401.
342
Rebel, this drama presents "the question of violence and
its relative necessity in human affairs." Camus knew
that one cannot remain aloof, in order to stay unsullied
while others suffer; nonetheless, it is impossible for
one to become involved in political action without being
sullied. Burke concluded that Camus remained an atheist |
and a rebel against absurdity but he went beyond the |
absurd reasoning, indicated in The Myth of Sisyphus,
which called for defiance of cosmic evil (pp. 403, 405).
To sum up, it is clear that the scholars regarded
The Just Assassins as a study of the relationship between
I
ethics and politics. Kaliayev expressed Camus's belief j
that the rebel must develop and maintain a capacity for
sustaining a tension between necessity and the inexcus
able. Moderation and responsibility must be practiced in
the struggle to ameliorate the human lot for oneself and
i
for others. Although the critics obviously commended
Camus's theme, they could not commend his development of
\ :
j :
! his characters through whom he expressed his ideas. j
! ;
Characters and Characterization
There was almost a consensus from 1950 through 1959
that Camus did not develop his characters in The Just
Assassins fully enough to engage the reader's or audience's
” " " , j
sympathy for them as people. As to the meaning of the
roles, the critics were agreed that Kaliayev symbolized I
343
the true rebel while Stepan represented the false rebel.
Few explicitly noted the importance of Dora's role. One
critic noted that stereotypes from Caligula reappeared
in this drama and two other critics stressed the repeti
tion of characters throughout Camus's works.
The first critic to remark upon the characters in The j
Just Assassins/ Michel Mohrt, held that they are symbols
or embodiments of ideas and myths which have been repeated
from one work to another. The figures and their history
are the same as those already mentioned in "Les Meurtriers j
1
delicats," and in the story of The Misunderstanding which !
had been related in The Stranger. Mohrt indicated a
weariness with the repetition of the dramatis personae
(pp. 101-102). j
Suggesting that the characters are more abstractions !
than fully developed people, Chiaromonte posited that
Yanek represented "the idea of the full-blooded indi
vidual, capable of love, of joy, of intense natural im
pulses, who is a terrorist in addition, out of moral
necessity" (p. 711). Since he refuses to accept the in
humanity which his mission demands, he can only suffer
it, knowing that the inevitable retribution of his mission
will be death. Stepan, continued Chiaromonte, is the !
|
counterpart of Kaliayev, and represents a passionate
i
forerunner of the Stalinist who firmly believed that the
343
the true rebel while Stepan represented the false rebel.
Few explicitly noted the importance of Dora’s role. One
critic noted that stereotypes from Caligula reappeared
in this drama and two other critics stressed the repeti
tion of characters throughout Camus's works.
The first critic to remark upon the characters in The
Ju3t Assassins/ Michel Mohrt, held that they are symbols
or embodiments of ideas and myths which have been repeated
from one work to another. The figures and their history
t
are the same as those already mentioned in "Les Meurtriers
delicats," and in the story of The Misunderstanding which
had been related in The Stranger. Mohrt indicated a
weariness with the repetition of the dramatis personae
(pp. 101-102).
Suggesting that the characters are more abstractions
than fully developed people, Chiaromonte posited that
Yanek represented "the idea of the full-blooded indi
vidual, capable of love, of joy, of intense natural im
pulses, who is a terrorist in addition, out of moral
necessity" (p. 711) . Since he refuses to accept the in
humanity which his mission demands, he can only suffer
it, knowing that the inevitable retribution of his mission
will be death. Stepan, continued Chiaromonte, is the
counterpart of Kaliayev, and represents a passionate
forerunner of the Stalinist who firmly believed that the
344
individual should regard himself as only an impersonal
agent in the scheme of fate. "He is willing to accept
any inhuman task for the sake of the Idea" (p. 711).
Smith hinted that she considered the characters as j
symbols of ideas, and Simpson acknowledged feeling no j
sympathy for these dehumanized stereotypes either.
Simpson noticed that "some of the types of Caligula seem 1
to have been reincarnated": there is the "zealot," the
"idealist," and "the reasonable reformer." The characters
are sincere in their devotion to their goal but their !
|
motives vary from "devotion to an ideal, love of fellows, j
hatred and vengeance [to] submission to the organization."
The dramatic climax is reached when Kaliayev refuses to
betray his companions and dies as a martyr to the purity
of the idea. Only Dora senses the rashness of their j
I
decision to try to rectify the injustice of the nation
and feels that their pride will be punished (pp. 189-190). i
! Addressing himself to the characters in general,
I
Viggiani held that there are always three about whom the
plot is woven: a doomed son or hero, a tragic mother-
| sister-wife-sweetheart, and a punitive father. In some
|
instances, Camus adds the figure of the nihilist. In this
work, Kaliayev is like Meursault and, unlike Stepan, the
nihilist, because he accepts the necessity of paying with
his own life for the life that he took. Camus always
345
intended the nihilist to represent the idea of the sys
tematic and wholesale murder of man for the sake of an
absolute (pp. 883-884). Dora is the mother figure who
leads the hero to his death and then plans to die herself
whereas the police officers represent the father figure
who is generally associated with authority or death in
some form (p. 875).
Cassidy indicated obliquely that she regarded the
characters as flat, but Maddocks thought that they are
credible and wholly satisfactory. They are plausible
because they, suffering from self-deceit, are allowed to
resolve as best they can the conflict between their
"identities as self-realizing individuals and as social
beings." They all ultimately "fail" on a practical level.
Henry Popkin agreed that the characters, unlike those in
2 6
most modern dramas, are austere and stark. Because the
i
protagonists are murderers, Popkin implied that they were j
melodramatic in nature. John Philip Couch concurred in
Popkin1s evaluation of the characters: without complexity
and psychological motivation, they appear rigid and
monotonous.27
!
26 ' ■
"Camus as Dramatist," Partisan Review, XXVI (Summer !
1959), 499.
27
"Camus' Dramatic Adaptations and Translations,"
French Review, XXXIII (October 1959) , 28.
346
To conclude, the consensus was Camus1s characters
lacked life. Rather than people they were symbols of
attitudes toward the conflict of ideals and efficacity in
revolution. Holding Kaliayev to be the main character,
almost all the critics failed to notice Dora's role
which indicated Camus's reservations about Kaliayev's
belief that to offer one's life in compensation for a
murder is not enough. Like these critics, those in the
60's will find fault with Camus's characterization.
In the interval between 1960 and 1964 only three
critics addressed themselves to an examination of the
characterization in The Just Assassins, and the three
unanimously agreed that the characters were stereotyped.
The consensus was that Kaliayev represented Camus's stand
toward justice and revolution and Stepan was the obverse
symbol of Camus's views. Two critics remarked upon the
j
similarities between the characters in this play and |
those in the three earlier plays. |
According to Weinberg, the first critic to take up j
the problem of characterization, all of Camus's characters j
are depicted as "exiles" who, since they share a common
human nature and are ruled by fate, are not really j
existentialist in their nature. From Promethean and noble
rebels, the protagonists, blinded by an abstraction,
change into fanatics and murderers who sacrifice everyone
347
for the ideal future (pp. 39-40). To Richard Gilman,
the author's fictional and dramatic figures are person
ifications of abstract ideas.
Reck, after indicating that the dramatis personae
are deficient in psychology and puppet-like, turned to
29
explaining the meaning of the roles. Reck described
Kaliayev and Dora as protagonists who are caught between
a misjudgment of a moral obligation toward an ideal of
pure justice and an overwhelming feeling of pity for man.
Only Stepan, who failed to see any ambiguity in the goal
of the terrorists, wanted the revolution to succeed regard
less of its costs because ". . .he loves justice more
than life" (pp. 51-52). Because the "poetic and emotional"
Kaliayev refuses to throw the bomb the first time, Stepan
views him as a man who tries to heal only the sickness of
today and not that for all time. Kaliayev and Dora, how-
!
ever, refuse to murder indiscriminately; there must be
order and limits even in destruction. Since the hero and j
|
heroine consider themselves accountable for the injustice |
in the world, they sacrifice their own love and pity for
|
2 8
"Two Voices of Camus," Commonweal, LXXIII (Febru
ary 24, 1961), 552.
29
See Chapter I, pp. 107-108, for further discussion
of Camus's characterization.
348
the future of others. Unfortunately, despite their con
cern for the future, Dora feels totally alienated and
senses that her own and her compatriot's gestures are
born of pride. Unlike Dora, Kaliayev does not feel
estranged, nor does he hesitate to murder because he is
certain that he can atone for his crime with his own life.
The full irony in the drama is revealed when
Kaliayev, convinced that dying for an ideal can justify
it, learns that Foka, a man who had killed three men
in a drunken rage, has his sentence shortened by a year
for each man he hangs. In spite of this blow to his
conception of justice, Kaliayev does not waver in his
determination, nor does he betray his comrades; he dies
believing that the absolute justice for which he died
will exonerate him.
Dora is the only figure who suspects that the moral
position of all the conspirators is wrong. When she
hears Kaliayev's death cry, she suddenly understands for
the first time the absurdity in their own lives. She
finds her only comfort for the future in being the next
to throw a bomb and the next to die. In death she will
escape the void created by the destruction of human
values (pp. §2-53}.
Sonnenfeld did not dispute Reek's interpretation,
but he did quarrel with the manner in which Camus
349
developed the characterization. Because the performers
are neither permitted to act out several important scenes
on the stage nor able adequately to verbalize their inner
feelings, maintained Sonnenfeld, they become lifeless and
stock characters. Moreover', the inner moral struggle of
Kaliayev when he hesitates and then refuses to kill the
I
children as well as the Grand Duke is really "narrative
material." It is not surprising, therefore, that when
the assassination is finally accomplished, "... the
audience shares the emotions of the character who is
looking out of the window, not those of the assassin him
self." The burning idealism and "selfish need for martyr
dom" which inspires Kaliayev's refusal to betray his
comrades at the cost of his own life "... are only
partially communicated to the audience." The audience
does not see the mental anguish which Kaliayev underwent
'
as he was led to the gallows. [
Not contesting Sonnenfeld’s observations, Clancy j
i
turned his attention to the meaning which Camus assigned
to Kaliayev's role and to Jan's role in The Misunderstand-I
i
ing. Both Jan and Kaliayev understand, remarked Clancy,
that the most meaningful goal in life lies in seeking to
obtain felicity for others. They know that "... there |
i
i
is no individual salvation., no happiness in solitude"
(p. 163). In comparing Kaliayev with Caligula, Clancy
350
argued that neither Kaliayev nor Camus rejected Caligula's
premise; they merely advance beyond his nearsighted con
clusion that there is no way to cope with the absurd.
Unlike Caligula, Kaliayev intends to destroy an idea, not
a man, and the life which he destroys he will pay for
with his own (pp. 163-164).
Reed examined this play for characters who played the
roles of "arbitrary judges" and "just judges" and asserted
that the chief characters played roles which could be
interpreted from this perspective. He thought that
Kaliayev and Dora, "young humanists," resemble Diego in
their revolt against the unjust judges, such as the Grand
Duke, Stepan, Skouratov and the Grand Duchess. The Grand
Duke, of course, represents a whole system of injustice
but since he does not appear on the stage, the rebels
themselves ironically become judges. Stepan, not a true
rebel, is the only "arbitrary judge" among the rebels
because he, like Martha in The Misunderstanding, is con
cerned solely with the end and has no scruples about the
means of attaining his ideal. - When Kaliayev is jailed,
he becomes the judged. Skouratov, of course, at once
decides he is guilty and tries to induce him to feel
guilty enough to turn into a traitor. The Grand Duchess
also judges him guilty because he refuses to ask for
pardon from God, an act which would have made his revolt
351
absurd. The Grand Duchess represents a . . hypocrisy
and bourgois morality" like that of Judge Casado because
she would have preferred the children, the innocent, to
be killed rather than her husband, the guilty (pp. 52-53) .
Kaliayev is a "just judge" who represents "humani
tarian thought and a love of the living," as Diego does in
State of Siege. In his role as a rebel, he opposes the
arbitrariness of Stepan; and in the role of a destroyer,
he becomes a judge in the question of whether the innocent
are entitled to any rights. Whe he decides not to throw
the bomb and to spare the innocent, he in turn is judged
by his comrades. Kaliayev is innocent in Camus's eyes,
said Reed, because his reason for refusing to throw the
deadly explosive is based on human feeling. Both Camus
and Kaliayev believe that a crime cannot be separated
from its motive and they always remember that the judged
is first, a fellow human, then second, a law violator
(p. 52).
In the prison the hero becomes a judge again and
concludes that he is innocent because he destroyed the
idea of injustice, and for the life he took he will
atone with his own. Reed concluded that Kaliayev's
plight is very like that of Meursault.
Each is found guilty by those judging him
more because of his failure to comply with
a hypocritical standard of morality than
because of the crime he stands accused of,
352
and each refuses to turn from love of man to
a repentance before God. (p. 53)
To recapitulate, it has been seen that the critics
disapproved of symbolical characters who were involved in
a conflict of ideologies more than in a conflict of
personalities. Moreover, some of the critics hinted at
the repetition in Camus's characters by comparing
Kaliayev to the protagonists in the three earlier dramas.
As they found fault with the characters, so the critics
will be no less critical of the play form.
Play Form
From 1950 through 1959, the critics could not agree
whether The Just Assassins was a tragedy, a play of
ideas, a melodrama, a historical play, or a morality
play. The majority indicated that it was probably a
combination of a melodrama and a play of ideas. No one
was bold enough to describe this work as a successful i
tragedy.
Mohrt observed that The Just Assassins, reminiscent j
i of a French classical play in that the death scenes occur ;
! !
| off stage, offers a good deal of discussion but "no
action" (p. 101). Mohrt disliked all the acts but the
second in which "the moving instant and the only one" j
■ I
occurs when Kaliayev is unable to throw a bomb which will
kill innocent children and he has to return, with his
353
mission unaccomplished, to try to explain to his silent
compatriots his feelings, justifications and scruples.
A strong feeling of "pathos" develops from this long plea
of Kaliayev's in which he wrestles with absurdity. The
height of the dramatic impact also occurs in this scene
I
I
where the conspirators await the explosion of the bomb.
Two acts later, this scene and the tension are repeated, !
i
but "it fails to carry" (p. 102).
After remarking that too many critics have tended to
assess Camus's works upon their philosophical merits
and moral power and not upon their literary virtues,
|
Mohrt asserted that as a literary work, The Just Assassins
is not "good" theatre, despite its dealing with important
issues. He concluded, "It most certainly is not Camus' j
best play, it is not as good, or as alive, as his Caligula j
and Le Malentendu" (p. 101). j
Chiaromonte concurred with Mohrt's evaluation of the
]
play. He speculated that the only reason why Parisian
l
i
I audience went and applauded is because the subject matter
1 reminded them of the Resistance and their hopes and plans
\ 1
i ' i
for the future. Chiaromonte observed:
i
The primary weakness of the play can be discovered
in the fact that Camus failed to take into con
sideration the main difficulty which every action
and each protagonist repeatedly raised, namely, the
problem of the ultimate validity of the conspirators'
moral premise.
354
Camus was too involved with anchoring the conflict to the
agony of the individual conscience, too entangled in a
painfully specific choice, to handle the question of the
moral premise. Because he failed to deal with this
difficulty, which is the real core of the work, we end
up with ". . . a funeral commemoration les justes. . ."
(pp. 710-711). Chiaromonte concluded that the play is
"... a moving performance, but not a convincing one.
It is pathetic but not dramatic" (p. 711).
Smith called the drama both a "debate" and a "trag-
j
edy" which was treated in the French classical style with
all the violent action placed off-stage. The "tension"
of this drama originates in its applicability to the
modern world, and a "cruel irony," as indicated in the
i
title, is manifested in the course of the drama.
Simpson did not explicitly identify the form of this
play but conceded that although it is ". . . composed
| |
largely according to formula," there are "dramatic over-
i
j tones" manifested in "the inescapable moral solitude" of
! the conspirators, and an "oppressive threat of the classic*
| !
j 'hyjbris' pervades the whole." Only the woman character
senses the presumption in the choices and actions of the
conspirators. The dramatic climax is reached when the
imprisoned Kaliayev is tempted to doubt the integrity of
his fellow compatriots (p. 189).
355
Harold Clurman laconically declared that this
morality play, like the other three plays, is "good," but
30
not "important" as drama, while Gregory commented that
this play is "dramatically sound," "interesting" and
"stimulating." Maddocks evaluated The Just Assassins
as a "realistic work based on history" but it is over
burdened with abstraction. This drama, however, does
succeed in conveying in a simple and majestic manner
Camus's profound concern for man. Popkin indicated that
this play was largely a failure as were The Misunderstand
ing and State of Siege. Couch agreed that this play of
ideas was not successful.
We have seen that the scholars were convinced that
The Just Assassins failed to be a successful tragedy,
because the action was painfully slow and the characters
were melodramatic and stereotyped figures. In^the 60's,
however, the critics will come to the conclusion that
this play is not as mediocre as their predecessors
thought.
From 1960 through 1964, the critics suggested two
main categories to which The Just Assassins might belong;
(1) a play of ideas, and (2) a tragedy. A majority
declared or implied that it was a successful drama of
i
I
30
"The Moralist on Stage," The New York Times Book
Review, September 14, 1958, Sec. 7, p. 12. ]
356
ideas. One critic, however, hinted that this work was a
combination of a melodrama and a play of ideas.
O'Brien and Roudiez were the first critics in the
60's to indicate that The Just Assassins is a "critical"
play thereby implying that it may be a play of ideas.
Quentin Lauer also declared that this ia a thesis play
which, because Camus stressed the ideas to the detriment
31
of the action, is a failure. Disagreeing with Lauer,
Stern described it as a "magnificent" work and "a power
ful tragedy" (p. 451). Contradicting Stern, Gilman
asserted that in contrast with his other unsuccessful
plays, The Just Assassins is "Camus' best play, as well
as one of the clearest, most intense expression of his
principal themes and a reliable guide to his universe"
(p. 552). Reck referred to this play as "Camus' expression
of 'tragedy in modern dress'." In spite of citing
Robert Kemp's observation in La Vie du Theatre that "the
essential words . . . are pronounced at moments when the
I
drama . . . absorbs the spectator's nervous energy" with
the result that the audience fails to grasp the full !
i
import of the dialogue, Reck concluded that Camus's "most !
i
successful plays have been Caligula and Les Justes which
31
"Albert Camus: The Revolt against Absurdity,"
Thought, XXXV (Spring 1960), 44.
357
share a common theme" Cp- 44). In Sonnenfeld1s opinion,
however, this play is an unsuccessful attempt to create a
tragedy. "An essay would seem to be a more appropriate
form" for the moral problem on which the play is based.
Camus turned to the drama because "the essay did not
offer the dialectical situation that Camus needed" to
make the listeners aware of the complexity of the ethical
problem confronting the revolutionary. In the theatre,
Camus could stage "a series of debates" in order to
develop more fully the favorable and unfavorable points of
view toward his ideas. Although the conceptions "are
absorbing at times because of the relevance of the
topics," nonetheless, Sonnenfeld thought that the debates
would have been more effective in a novel. To read
philosophy is less painful than to hear it '(p. 122).
The best act in the play, continued Sonnenfeld, is
the fourth because all the action takes place in view of
the audience. All the other acts show little movement
because the characters endlessly philosophize and merely
describe the action (p. 121). The main obstacle to
Camus's success as a playwright is his stubborn attempt
"to force into the dramatic form themes and situations
perfect for his prose narratives but totally alien to the
stage" (p. 107). Clancy maintained that Camus developed
a "new theatre of ideas" in which he himself, the audience
and the actors are all involved. He implied that this
drama is a successful work even though Camus's theatre is
. . . a theatre founded on the dark premise of
no-sense, against which man, because he is man,
is forced to revolt; a world of no-values, in
which man must strive, no matter what the
failure, to establish value; a tragic but human-
centered world in which 'revolt is justified by
failure and purified in death.' (p. 164)
The critics agreed that the emphasis upon ideas and
the forensic dialogue as well as the unrealistic, puppet
like characters precluded The Just Assassins being a
tragedy. As a modern play of ideas, however, it was
pertinent and stimulating. Though the critics finally
conceded that this work was good, they could not generate
any enthusiasm for the dialogue.
Language, Method, and Style
A majority of the critics attacked the language of
The Just Assassins as inappropriate for the characters
and the modern theatre. Only one critic held that the
style was admirable. Some attacked the repetition of
images, myths, and themes and almost all held that Camus's
fondness for ideas and language robbed the play of the
movement necessary to develop the characters and to hold
the audience's interest.
Simpson began the attack by declaring that Camus's
style is excessively polished. He displayed an extreme
35 8
and the actors are all involved. He implied that this
drama is a successful work even though Camus's theatre is
. . . a theatre founded on the dark premise of
no-sense, against which man, because he is man,
is forced to revolt; a world of no-values, in
which man must strive, no matter what the
failure, to establish value; a tragic but human-
centered world in which 'revolt is justified by
failure and purified in death.' (p. 164)
The critics agreed that the emphasis upon ideas and
the forensic dialogue as well as the unrealistic, puppet
like characters precluded The Just Assassins being a
tragedy. As a modern play of ideas, however, it was
pertinent and stimulating. Though the critics finally
conceded that this work was good, they could not generate
any enthusiasm for the dialogue.
Language, Method, and Style
A majority of the critics attacked the language of
The Just Assassins as inappropriate for the characters !
and the modern theatre. Only one critic held that the
style was admirable. Some attacked the repetition of
images, myths, and themes and almost all held that Camus's
fondness for ideas and language robbed the play of the
movement necessary to develop the characters and to hold
the audience's interest.
Simpson began the attack by declaring that Camus's
style is excessively polished. He displayed an extreme
359
"virtuosity” that finally degenerated into "cleverness"
and pure absurdity (p. 190). Clurman hinted that the
language is formal, intellectual, and moral, declaring
all Camus's dramas are important only for their'parables."
Cassidy agreed that the language is oaccasionally arti
ficial and oratorical. Popkin joined the chorus of
complaints in insisting that this dialogue is appropriate
for forensics but defective for the stage. Only Couch
considered the sharply honed style as worthy of the
highest praise.
The slow pace and the repetition in this drama
irritated Mohrt. He disliked all the acts but the first
because "they dragged and were superfluous." Further,
he indicated boredom with the repetition of ideas, themes,
images, and myths which Camus used from one work to the
next, even though he realized that this characteristic
demonstrated the unity of Camus's works (p. 102). Later,
Viggiani largely reiterated Mohrt's findings. Simpson
declared that the "problems and situations" are fabricated
and unconvincing; and Cassidy implied that the dramas are
all lacking in dramatic impact because color and movement
are Missing. Maddocks, Popkin, and Couch concurred. In
their opinion this play, like the others, suffered from
a thin plot and little action because of the author's pre
occupation with debating ideas.
360
The consensus was that Camus failed to write an
interesting story and convincing dialogue. The critics
refused to accept Camus's substitution of speech for
physical action and literary language for spoken language.
In the 60's, the critics will be no less hostile.
Prom 1960 through 1964, the scholars who discussed
the language in the dramas were also dissatisfied. Pew
mentioned the symbolism or the irony and the contribution
of these techniques to the meaning of the whole.
Speaking of Camus's style as a whole, Hartt described
it as "spare and austere"; it has only "clear and clean"
lines (p. 7). In accord with Hartt's opinion, O'Brien
and Roudiez held that generally Camus's style is that of
a classic writer: every word and every punctuation sign
are significant. Lauer, however, seemed displeased with
Camus's writing for the theatre. He implied that the
language was not convincing but rather abstract and formal
because the dialogues were exchanges in a debate.
Sonnenfeld pointed out that because Camus adhered
closely to the plot and the dialogue in Boris Savinkov's
Souvenirs d'un terroriste, on which the play is based, he
"... partially avoided his usual pitfall: excessive
abstraction in the dialogue" (p. 121). Yet, despite the
relevancy of the moral issue of the "ends and means,"
"... the characters pursue endless philosophical debates
361
. . . so deadly here." At another point Sonnenfeld re
iterated that this play "... seems verbose, if not
boring," a weakness which he attributed to two possible
factors: (1) the dull quality of the French translation
of the dialogue in Savinkov's work; and (2) no action on
stage to add meaning and variety. Sonnenfeld concluded
that in this work, as in the earlier plays, Camus was a
failure as a playwright because he tried to force into
dramatic forms themes and situations which were suitable
for fiction but totally inappropriate for the stage, and
because he insisted upon clinging to novelistic tech
niques in the theatre, he failed to create a suitable
dialogue (p. 123).
The critics almost totally ignored the atmosphere,
the irony, and the symbolism. As only Reck noted the
32
setting, so only O'Brxen and Roudiez, and Emily Zants
mentioned the symbolism. Reck declared the atmosphere to
be "almost Dostoevskian in character: a small sordid room
in which demented exaltation alternates with utter
despair" (p. 51). O'Brien and Roudiez casually mentioned
that Camus used grey skies and cold climates to symbolize
indifference or suffering. Emily Zants went further and
32
"Camus' Deserts and Their Allies, Kingdoms of
the Stranger," Symposium, XVII (Spring 1963), p, 37.
362
insisted that a whole webwork of symbols supports the
alienated state in which Camus's characters move. As
Kaliayev's prison represents isolation, Zants explained,
so Dora's complaint of the eternal winter and the coldness
in which she and her fellow conspirators live signify
their estrangement from mankind. Because Dora and her
compatriots seek total justice, they are really seeking
totality, not unity.
In conclusion, it is evident that though The Just
Assassins was considered in a more favorable light than
the earlier play. State of Siege, it failed to attain the
success which Caligula achieved or even the interest
which The Misunderstanding commanded.
Summary
Prom the outset the critics were more interested in
the ideas expressed in The Just Assassins than they were
in the aesthetics. Aside from two aesthetically oriented
articles in the early 50's, most of the more important
literary criticism appeared in the 60's. From 1950
through 1964, the consensus was that this play, based on
The Rebel, continued the exploration of the primarily
ethical and political problems of justice that Camus began
in State of Siege. Almost all the critics (Mohrt, Chiaro
monte, Smith, Simpson, Bieber, Cassidy, Gregory, May,
363
Maddocks in the 50's; and Bree, Hartt, O'Brien and
Roudiez, Stern, Reck, Sonnenfeld, Clancy, Reed, Burke
in the 60's) considered the theme to be concerned with
the conflict between ideals and expediency in the revolu
tionary movement. Only Viggiani, in the 50's, considered
the problem of death to be the main theme, and Weinberg,
in the 60's, thought exile was as important a theme as
the revolt against absolutes.
A majority of the critics within these fourteen years
did not indicate that they went beyond considering the
more obvious conflict between Stepan and Kaliayev with
the result that, failing to consider Dora's significance,
they appeared to consider solely Kaliayev as Camus's
spokesman. In the 50's, only Mohrt and Viggiani expressly
said that Camus was not Kaliayev while May and Simpson
hinted agreement with their views. In the 60's, only
Bree and O'Brien and Roudiez underscored that Camus's
ideas were not embodied in his hero and Reck implied that
she agreed.
Although from 1950 through 1964 there was a tacit
agreement that Camus was a non-Christian, the critics in
the 50's either did not venture an opinion or implied that
Camus was probably an existentialist. In the 60's, how
ever, a majority of the critics {Reck, Carlson, Reed,
Clancy, Sonnenfeld) held the opinion that Camus was more
a humanist than an existentialist.
In regard to the characterization, the consensus from
1950 through 1964 was that the dramatis personae in The
Just Assassins were puppets and symbols. In the 50's,
the majority, Mohrt, Chiaromonte, Smith, Simpson, Cassidy,
Popkin, and Couch,-were dissatisfied with the characters,
and in the 60 Vs, again the majority, Gilman, Reck and
Sonnenfeld, were equally displeased. Only Maddocks
thought that the dramatis personae were three-dimensional.
Bieber, in the 50's, hinted that there was the same
tlbermensch quality about Kaliayev that Caligula had
possessed, while Simpson spotlighted the similarity
between the idealist, the fanatic, and the reasonable
man types in Caligula and those in this work. Mohrt and
Viggiani agreed that repetition was evident net only in
the ideas but also in the characters. In the 60's, Clancy
and Reed also remarked upon the similarities between
these characters and those in The Misunderstanding. Most
i
of the critics accepted Kaliayev as the representative
of the true rebel hero and Stepan as his counterpart, the
i
false rebel. j
In reference to the play form, the critics from 1950
i
through 1959 did not agree upon the structure. Mohrt
held that this work was a tragedy in the French classic
style, while Smith called it a tragedy and a debate.
Maddocks considered The Just Assassins a historical and
365
a morality play and Clurman assigned it solely to the
category of a morality play. Chiaromonte, Simpson, and
Popkin hinted that it was probably a melodrama and a
thesis play, while Couch implied that it was a play -of
ideas. Regardless of the play form with which they
identified this work, Charomonte, Popkin, Couch, Gregory,
Clurman, Simpson, and Mohrt maintained that The Just
Assassins was less than a good play.
From 1960 through 1964, only Lauer and Clancy clearly
designated The Just Assassins as a play of ideas. O'Brien
and Roudiez, and Gilman hinted that it belonged to this
category. Stern asserted that this play was a tragedy
and Reck implied agreement. Sonnenfeld hinted that this
play was a melodrama and a thesis play. Unlike their
predecessors, however, the majority, Stern, Gilman, and
Clancy, were certain that this drama was a success in
spite of Lauer's and Sonnenfeld's protestations to the
contrary. j
In considering the language, the critics unanimously j
concluded that the dialogue failed to reveal the character
of the dramatis personae and sounded awkwardly forensic
in a modern theatre. In the 50's, the majority, Simpson, |
Cassidy and Popkin, deprecated the dialogue and, in the
60's, Lauer implied, and Sonnenfeld clearly voiced, dis
appointment with the language. Only Hartt, and O'Brien and
I
366
Roudiez, speaking of Camus's style in general, were
pleased with its clarity and elegance.
During the 50's, Simpson assailed the plot as fab
ricated and Mohrt, Cassidy, Maddocks, Popkin and Couch
lamented the lack of action. Viggiani noted the repeti
tion in characters, ideas and symbols, and Mohrt declared
that this repetition made Camus's work rather wearisome.
In the 60's, only O'Brien and Roudiez, Reck, and Zants
briefly mentioned the symbolism and the setting that
added new meaning to his drama.
To conclude, although more nearly successful than
State of Siege, The Just Assassins failed to please the
majority of the critics, who implied that Camus had ex
perimented in combining a tragedy with a play of ideas
and had failed. The critics agreed that the ideas were
stimulating but the absence of individualized characters,
the lack.of movement, and the use of a contrived language
j
were faults too large to be overlooked.
i
I
CHAPTER V
THE POSSESSED
(1960)
The Possessed (Les Possedes), an adaptation of
Dostoevsky's The Possessed, was published in Paris in
1959 and performed in the Theatre Antoine in 1960. Only
a year later it was translated by Justin O'Brien and
published in England and in the United States in 1960.
For almost twenty years, Camus, who admired Dostoevsky
profoundly, had pondered the task of converting this
novel into a drama. He knew the novel thoroughly, and
when he was writing this adaptation, he constantly con
sulted Dostoevsky's Notebooks and a complete version of
• The Possessed. This drama is like Caligula and The
Assassins in that a substantial portion of the story is
based on history. In this case, Shatov is the historical
Ivanov, who was killed in Moscow in 1869 by fellow members
of a nihilist group of which Netchaiev (Peter Verkhovensky)
was the leader.
Although The Possessed was generally acclaimed in |
Paris, the American critics did not consider it in depth
until it was published in 1960 by Alfred A. Knopf. At j
16 8
this time, of course, the critics contributed the largest
number of articles and reviews— eleven. By the end of
1961, however, the critics lost all interest and the
criticism abruptly ceased. Probably the primary reason
for the neglect of this drama can be found in John Philip
Couch's remarks in reference to Camus's earlier and un
translated adaptations, "It is unfortunate that Camus'
reputation as a novelist and an essayist has so completely
obscured the recognition of his talents as an adaptor
and translator.1 1 ^
In turning to the criticism pertaining to The
Possessed, it is readily apparent that the critics fol
lowed the pattern that they had set for the earlier
plays— they assessed it according to its metaphysical,
religious and political ideas more than according to its
literary merits as a work of art. From 1959 through 1961,j
a majority of the critics concluded the following:
(1) the primary theme was concerned with the tragedy j
born of various forms of immoderation— political, social j
and philosophical; (2) Camus himself was not disguised
in any one of the protagonists; (3) the author's outlook
in this play, which seemed to reflect the ideas expressed
in The Rebel, was positive. The critics almost totally
j
^-"Camus' Dramatic Adaptations and Translations,"
French Review, XXXIII (October 1959), 28.
369
ignored the question of whether Camus was an existen
tialist or a humanist; (4) the characterization was
pleasing and Stavrogin was probably the main character;
(5) The Possessed was a good adaptation and a successful
example of total theatre; and (6) the dialogue was
totally unsuitable for the characters. As an aid in
following more easily the criticism which will follow,
a resume of the plot of The Possessed has been placed
below.
PART I
Andre Grigoriev, the narrator, opens the drama by
giving the background to the action about to unfold. He
ironically introduces Stepan Verkhovensky and his theories
and activities that brought him into conflict with the
Czar. He tells of his flight to Varvara Stavrogin's
estate and his tutoring of Nicholas Stavrogin, son of
Varvara.
SCENE JL: Varvara informs Stepan that Nicholas, her
son and his former student, is about to arrive. She is
worried because she has heard rumors to the effect that
he has lived a debauched life. As they continue to con
verse, it is revealed that Varvara plans to marry Lisa
Drozdov, daughter of her friend, Prascovya Drozdov, to
Nicholas and that Stepan himself is upset to learn that
370
his own son, Peter Verkhovensky, is returning home too.
Peter and his father have little affection for each other.
Shortly after this conversation, Stepan's friends,
Grigoriev, Liputin, Shigalov, Shatov, Virginsky, and
Gaganov, come to talk politics. As the discussion of
politics continues, it becomes obvious that almost each
one is interested in changing the institutions of Russia
except Shatov and Gaganov, who hold a conservative view
point. Gaganov replies to each revolutionary idea, "I
. refuse to be led around by the nose." Shatov, as he
listens to the discussion, steadily grows more impatient.
Finally, he tells them that none of them really love
their country or their own people; they know nothing
about what the masses really want, for they have lost
contact with them. Just before Shatov is ready to leave
the meeting, Varvara and Nicholas appear. Nicholas acts
strangely and as the conversation again picks up, he
suddenly seizes Gaganov by the nose and leads him into
the center of the room. When Stepan attempts to make
Nicholas apologize to Gaganov, Nicholas bites Gaganov's
j ear.. In the midst of the general consternation, Nicholas
suddenly collapses in a kind of epileptic seizure.
371
SCENE 2: In this scene we learn that Dasha,
Varvara's ward and Shatov1s sister, had had a love
affair in Geneva with Stavrogin. Now Varvara plans to
marry Dasha to Stepan. When Varvara tells both Dasha
and Stepan her plans for them, neither is pleased.
Stepan is especially shocked for he has loved Varvara
herself for years, but he agrees to the match to please
Varvara and to gain some badly needed money.
SCENE 3: Grigoriev goes to visit Shatov. Since
Shatov is momentarily gone, Grigoriev talks to Kirilov,
the man who is determined to commit suicide some day in
order to prove that he can overcome his fear of death
and exercise his power to become God himself. When Shatov
and Grigoriev converse, we learn that Maria, Shatov's
wife, has left him for Stavrogin and that Shatov owes a
large sum of money to Stavrogin. Shatov reveals that he
has lost interest in the aims of the nihilist group that j
gathers at Stepan's and that he has been accused of
betraying this group, his former political colleagues, to j
the authorities. Maria Lebyatkin, Captain Lebyatkin's I
crippled and mentally unbalanced sister and Stavrogin's
secret wife, joins Shatov and Grigoriev and complains of
the Captain, who bullies her and beats her.
372
SCENE 4: Varvara, accosted by Maria Lebyatkin at
church, gave Maria money and then took the crippled
woman to her home. Varvara now intends to find out if
it is true that the crippled woman is Stavrogin*s wife.
No one admits knowing this woman, however, until Peter
Verkhovensky joins the interrogation. Peter informs
them that Nicholas, out of pity, takes care of Maria and
the Captain passes off Nicholas's generosity as a just
payment for some unknown dishonor done to his family.
Then Peter informs the group that his father is dreading
his marriage for he is sure it has been planned to cover
a scandal. Varvara, in a towering rage, orders Stepan
out of her house at once and forever.
PART II
SCENE 5: Peter urges Stavrogin to permit him to
»
murder Maria and her brother so that Stavrogin is free
to marry Lisa, but Stavrogin refuses to listen. Shortly
thereafter, Peter and his father meet and from their
quarrel we learn that Peter is a bitter, hateful, and
malicious destroyer. If he gains political power, he in
tends to raze every institution and to destroy every
value in Russia.
373
SCENE 6: Stavrogin remarks upon Kirilov's pistol
collection and questions Kirilov about his determination
to commit suicide. Kirilov believes so strongly in an
eternal life on earth and in nature that Stavrogin is
reluctant to think Kirilov the atheist that he holds
himself to be. As Stavrogin talks first to Kirilov and
then to Shatov, we learn that Stavrogin is responsible
for Kirilov's atheism and Shatov's profound belief in
Christ. Shatov suggests that Stavrogin feels guilty about
something and thus he pursues evil and hopes for punish
ment. Guilt and the need to atone made Stavrogin marry
Maria.
SCENES 7-10: Fedka, an escaped convict, offers to
commit murder for Stavrogin for money.
Stavrogin warns the Captain that Peter and his
political colleagues are planning to murder him for
denouncing them to the governor. When Stavrogin, having
decided to make his secret marriage public, goes to see
Maria, she is afraid of him. She explains that she
dreamed that she was killed by a man who resembles him
and that she knows he loves Lisa.
Fedka again offers to murder the Lebyatkins and
though Stavrogin does not give his permission for this
deed, he gives Fedka some money.
374
' Gaganov's son unsuccessfully attempts to kill
Stavrogin in a duel and Stavrogin seems to regret the
outcome.
SCENE 11: Dasha reveals her love for Stavrogin but
is badly shaken when he tells her of the incident with
Fedka. Peter discusses with Stavrogin his plans for the
political future of Russia. Although Stavrogin is con
temptuous of both Peter and his political group, he tells
Peter how to unify his group and secure their steadfast
allegiance by having the four members murder the fifth
member, Shatov, on the pretext that he betrayed the
group.
SCENE 12: Peter lays plans to murder Shatov and
Kirilov permits Peter to place blame on him after he
has committed suicide. Peter pressures his members into
agreeing to murder for the good of the cause. When
Shatov angrily leaves the meeting, Peter directs the
group's attention to his so-called treachery.
SCENE 13: Stavrogin refuses to be the leader of
Peter's nihilists and Dasha pleads with Stavrogin to
visit the priest, Tihon.
SCENE 14: Stavrogin tells the story of his three
years of debauchery. He confesses to his crime of
375
violating Matriocha and then of allowing her to commit
suicide without even trying to stop her. Ever since then,
Stavrogin has been burdened with guilt. Afraid to take
his own life, Stavrogin proposes to publish his guilt as
a means of doing penance. The priest, however, interprets
this plan to be unregenerate, defiant, and proud. Tihon
finally sends Stavrogin away— he is incurable.
PART III
SCENE 15: Stepan packs his belongings and leaves
Varvara's home. When she learns that the workers are
rioting and the town has been set up afire, she is con
trite and sets about trying to find Stepan and bring him
back
SCENE 16: Lisa and Stavrogin spend one night to
gether and decide that they do not love each other. Peter
announces that the Lebyatkins' bodies have been found.
Apparently they had been murdered by Fedka.
| j
SCENE 17: Lisa rushes back to the burning city and j
is killed on the outskirts by angry townspeople. j
j
SCENE 18: Maria returns to Shatov and he is over
joyed to have her return. Once the baby is born he
plans to start a new life.
376
SCENE 19: Shatov appears in forest to show two of
his former party friends where the printing press is
buried. Peter's group sets upon Shatov and while they
hold him/ Peter murders him.
SCENE 20: Fedka discloses that Peter arranged for
the Lebyatkins to be murdered.
SCENE 21: Peter holds Kirilov to his promise to
accept the blame for Shatov1s murder. Once Kirilov writes
the note and dies/ Peter rushes to cross the border
before the authorities capture him. The members of
Peter's group, however, confess to Shatov's murder and
are jailed.
SCENE 22: Varvara brings Stepan back and before he
dies, he repents and asks forgiveness for his previous
political and religious teachings. He compares Russia
to the sick man in St. Luke's Gospel from whom evil j
spirits were driven into pigs, symbols of him and his
I
i
son and their teachings. Dasha tells Stavrogin that she j
loves him in spite of what he has done. Amazed and deeply i
j
moved, Stavrogin rushes away saying there is something j
he must do. Later a servant discovers that he has hanged j
himself. !
Theme, Role/ and World View
Almost all the critics in 1959 subscribed to the
idea that Camus explored and rejected in The Possessed
the nihilistic universe created by man's refusing to live
within human limits and his abjuring-responsibility for i
his fellowman. Other scholars said that Camus was demon
strating in addition to the main themei (1) the destruc
tion born of guilt; (2) the ruin wrought by the misunder
standing of freedom; (3) group action as not necessarily
the best solution to the problem of solving political
evils; and (4) the loss and recovery of religious faith.
None of the critics appeared to equate Camus with any one
protagonist, although one scholar was convinced that the j
i
author was particularly sympathetic with Shatov and
Stepan. Although only one critic explicitly called Camus
a humanist, the consensus was that he was defender of
i
human values above all other considerations. There i
j
i
seemed to be an unspoken assumption that this work gen
erally mirrored the ideas explicated in The Rebel, despite |
i
the fact that one scholar insisted that Camus was reject-
i
ing the idea of the group action that he had endorsed in J
his last book of philosophical essays. j
*
An anonymous critic in Time, initiating the criticism j
relating to The Possessed, asserted that Camus partly
wrote his play in order to illuminate Dostoevsky's belief,
378
v
". . .if there is no everlasting God, there is no such
.9
thing as virtue." Camus ponders the questions of freedom
without God and the perpetration of political mass murder,
under the aegis of an absolute, for the sake of life and
the future. Although Camus rejected Dostoevsky's solution
of returning to God and the earth, he regarded the Russian
novelist as "the real nineteenth century prophet, not Karl
Marx."
Genet held that although this play adheres closely to
Dostoevsky's novel, Camus focused it more by emphasizing
the "nihilist references to the new Russia of liberty
3
and logic and to the great Slav freedom lying ahead."
Agreeing that the question of nihilism arises, Warren
Ramsey was of the opinion that in this drama, based
primarily on The Rebel, there are three major themes:
(1) each individual is important? (2) there must be
a limit which must not be exceeded by each individual;
and (3) group judgment is not a practical solution to
4
action. By studying the characters whom Camus stressed,
2
"Dostoevsky via Camus," Time, February 9, 19 59,
p. 61. |
3 y
(Rev. of Les Possedes), New Yorker, March 7, 1959,
p. 102.
4
"Albert Camus on Capital Punishment: His Adaptation
of The Possessed," Yale Review, XLVIII (Summer 1959), '
640.
379
Ramsey came to the conclusion that Camus's philosophical
stand had changed. Camus had lost interest in the absurd
hero or the Ubermensch and replaced him with the ordinary
man who rebels against man-made evils more than against
cosmic evil. Now the author extolled the rebel who is
capable of maintaining a tension between individual
revolt and an affirmation for solidarity or a balance
between individual right and the general right. As a
humanist, Camus showed his concern about what man does
with his freedom once he has it, especially when freedom
once gained, seems limitless, and leads to murder. The
author also indicated a change of attitude toward group
action. "Camus does not clarify the nature of the author
ity against which the rebel should rebel or suggest a
group within which he may act." Moreover, he "casts
doubt on the efficacy of the small group," which appeared
to be his answer to the problem of action in The Rebel. j
Lastly, Camus developed the theme of "the loss and re-
I
discovery of faith" {pp. 6 36-639). j
In Kenneth Tynan's opinion this play concerns the
motives that impel nonproletarians to become revolutionary |
leaders and demonstrates the price in suffering, murder |
and in self-destruction that is exacted when the motives
380
5
of a revolution are misunderstood.
We have seen that although the scholars and jour
nalists hesitated between believing that the theme was
more ethical, political and social in nature than meta
physical, they approved of Camus's stand. Moreover, they
did not think that Camus employed any protagonist for his
mouthpiece. Generally the critics of the 60's will concur
in these judgments.
The critics from 1960 through 1964 added little to
the discussion of the theme, role, and world view that
was totally new. Indeed, they reiterated that the primary
theme concerned the havoc wrought in human lives by the
nihilism produced from immoderation. Only one critic
assumed that Camus was emphasizing that political freedom
was not feasible for mankind. Only two scholars appeared
to confuse Camus with his protagonists. The consensus was
that Camus, rejecting rigid ideas that degenerate into
absolutes, had an affirmative outlook upon the lot of man.
Solely one critic held that the author's views were
utterly bleak, and another believed that Camus was still
attracted to the superman idea of The Myth of Sisyphus.
5
"Direct from Paris," New Yorker, Oct. 3, 1959,
pp. 10j 29; reprinted in Tynan on Theatre, Penguin Books
(Harmondsworth, Middlesex, 1964), pp. 223-224.
6 7 381
Robert Donald Spector and Claudia Cassidy, the
first critics to comment upon The Possessed in the 60's,
agreed that in this work Camus demonstrated the power of
nihilism to enhance the absurd in human life. Spector
held that Camus concentrated upon the struggle to give
meaning to life or to the absurdity in life that
Dostoevsky raised in his study of nihilism. He shared
with the Russian novelist the following themes: First,
the question of suicide, raised by Kirilov and explored
by Stavrogin; second, the concern for affirmation in the
midst of negation; and third, an awareness of suffering
and of tragedy in human existence (p. 10). Cassidy said
that Camus demonstrated the nihilism of today in which the
protagonists, representing modern men, want to love and to
believe and cannot do either. The themes of suicide, guilt!
j
and revolution intertwine throughout this drama (p. 4). i
j
Melvin Maddocks concurring with Cassidy's views !
I
asserted that "the problem of nihilism lies at the heart j
8 i
of this work." This supplies "the unresolved tension" !
6
"Albert Camus' Last Drama," The New York Herald
Tribune Book Review, March 13, 1960, p. 10. !
7
"Double Brilliance in the Last Finished Work of j
Camus" (rev. of The Possessed), The Chicago Sunday |
Tribune Magazine of Books, March 13, 1960, p. 4.
9
(Rev. of The Possessed), Christian Science Monitor,
March 31, 1960,p . 17.
that one feels throughout the drama. Complementary
aspects to the theme of nihilism are freedom and free
choice; guilt; empty bourgeois liberalism; and the pursuit
of absolutes. Unlike many authors of today, Camus en
gaged the mood of his age, the feeling, "I don't care,"
in order to fight its nihilism, not to embrace it.
Maddocks concluded that "these divided characters, war
ring within themselves, "represent recognizable divisions
within Camus as in Dostoevsky" (p. 17). In contrast with
Maddocks, Richard Lipsett impatiently dismissed the theme
as "concerned with philosophical fanatics whose person
alities are composed only of their own brand of fanat-
9
icism. "
|
According to Warren Ramsey, whose remarks seem at this
time to be based on a performance, Camus very success
fully demonstrated that "there are disturbing parallels
between Russia in the 1860's and the rest of the world in I
I960."10 Dostoevsky, alarmed by the obsession with i
absolutes and the rise of nihilism, placed the blame for
i
these destructive forces upon the superficial Western |
S
liberalism that was sweeping Russia. Above all, he was |
9
(Rev. of The Possessed), Theatre, I (April I960}, 46.
*
10(Rev. of Les Possedes), French Review, XXXIII
(April 1960), 517.
383
warning of the gulf that lay between the intelligentsia
and the general public (p. 517). Quentin Lauer, S.J.,
thought that Camus was exhibiting "the violence, pathos,
suffering and affections of the nihilistic universe that
11
Dostoevski created." One of the main ideas that Camus
wanted to convey appears in Tihon's and Stavrogin's con
versation, in which they discuss "the atheist and the
indifferent Christian or the Christian of perfect faith."
Lauer concluded that Camus revealed an aspect of himself
in each of the protagonists (p. 200).
A minority of one, Felix Gutierrez, chose to think
that Camus was arguing against man's capacity for
12
liberty. Camus gives, Gutierrez said, "a dark and dis
pirited view of the possibilities for human freedom.
Challenging Gutierrez, Hazel E. Barnes declared Camus's
play stands "as an absolute rejection of the nihilism
13
which the early Camus had refused." Camus had nothing
but scorn for those who use principles or ideas of any
11
{Rev. of The Possessed), America, CIII (April 30,
1960), 200.
12
"Pastiche1 ; (fev. of The Possessed) , Mainstream,
XIII (May 1960), 62. :
13
"Measure of Magnificence," Prairie Schooner, XXXIV
(Summer 1960), 118-119.
384
kind to justify murder, who find it easier to kill than
to think, change or re-evaluate their ideas (p. 118).
Melvin J. Friedman agreed that Camus's rejection of
14
nihilism is manifest in this work. The author revealed
that man's inability to communicate and to love produces
a feeling of indifference and despair. Peter Verkho
vensky 's revolutionary proposal is, indeed, a clear
anticipation of Soviet Russia and "the search for God in
a nihilistic, social framework is close to certain
problems of the atomic age" (p. 35).
Robert Tracy began his criticism by underscoring,
"without any disparagement intended," that Camus had been
exploring all his life ideas and problems that Dostoevsky
15
had first posed. Tracy immediately attacked the drama
because instead of stressing Dostoevsky's intention to
attack the "Westernizing liberals," Camus de-emphasized
16
this theme. Tracy continued that although Camus was
■^"Camus' Last," Progressive, XXIV (August 1960), 34.
\
15 !
"Albert Camus Revisited," Carleton Miscellany, II
(Spring 1961), 70. Tracy explained that Camus had ex- \
amined Dostoevskian ideas in The Myth of Sisyphus and j
The Rebel and duplicated in his own "austere" way "the
sociopolitical qualities of The Possessed" in The Plaguej
The essential matter of Brothers Karamazov and Crime and
Punishment appeared in The Stranger while the Russian
nihilist figure emerged in The Just Assassins and in The
Rebel (p. 74).
16
Tracy insisted that Dostoevsky regarded liberal
theorizing as the origin of the anarchy and nihilism in
385
attempting to follow Dostoevsky's advice to isolate the
"basic idea" in his novel, he "was guilty of seriously
oversimplifying his source" by concluding that the primary
17
ideas are "suicide" and "Stavrogin."
Preoccupied from the time of The Myth of Sisyphus
with the idea of suicide, asserted Tracy, it is not sur
prising that Camus attributed "excessive importance" to
Kirilov's problem of suicide. Suicide, however, is just
one of the concerns of the novel and to stress it as
Camus did is to simplify Dostoevsky's position too much.
Camus's emphasis upon Stavrogin and his guilt is another
example of oversimplification: Stavrogin is only one
symptom of the evils which threatened Russia (pp. 72-73).
Tracy held that Camus not only narrowed the scope
of the novel but he also, unfortunately, narrowed its
ultimate concerns because he reduced Dostoevsky's
question, "Where does man fit in God's universe?" to
Russia and he intended to demonstrate "the ultimate re- j
sponsibility of the theorist for the practical application j
of his ideas" through Stepan. Stepan's salvation from !
the "demon" of liberalism, his repentance and his sub- !
sequent peace do not appear as major themes in Camus's i
adaptation (pp. 72-73).
17
According to Tracy, Dostoevsky himself doubted
that his novels could be successfully adapted to the stage.
If one attempted to convert them, however, Dostoevsky sug
gested that the adapter should dramatize a single episode
or so or extract the "basic idea? of the novel and treat
it in a new way (pp. 70-71). |
"Where does man fit in society?" Both are vast questions
but the first contains the second (p. 76). It would
seem that Camus ia "a little ill at ease" where Dostoevsky
speaks of divine matters. In summarizing the emphasis
and the insights which Camus brought to his dramatic
version of the novel, Tracy declared:
. . . it seems clear that he wishes to stress
the empirical over the metaphysical, the
criminal over the sinner, the political over
the religious, the busy over the aimless,
the active over the contemplative, Mephis-
topheles over Faust, Old Scratch over the
Prince of Darkness. (p. 76)
From the beginning to the 1960's, the critics clearly
exhibited a predominantly favorable attitude toward the
theme and Camus's stand toward the extremes of revolu
tionary activity and metaphysical revolt. Next, we shall
see that they also manifested a pleasure in Camus's
creation of the characters whom they considered fully
developed and psychologically believable.
Characters and Characterization
In the year of 1959, the larger number of the critics
maintained that Camus's characters in The Possessed were
engrossing and life-like. Confronted with more than one
major protagonist, however, they had difficulty in decid
ing who the single most important hero was— Stavrogin
and/or Peter appeared to be their choice. Whereas the
387
consensus was that Peter Verkhovensky represented the
nihilist and foreboded the Stalin to come, the critics
described Stavrogin as symbolizing variously: (1) modern
man, (2) the guilty man, and (3) the superman. One
scholar postulated that both Stepan and Shatov represented
the rebellious ordinary man whom Camus preferred at this
time to his earlier Pbermensch.
An anonymous critic in Time asserted, "Stavrogin is
the chief protagonist" as he was Dostoevsky's "most
memorably monstrous character." Under Camus's adroit
guidance, "Stavrogin emerges as a modern man, a desperate
seeker of God who does not know where to look," and as a
man who "longs to be a sort of Nietzchean superman"
(p. 62>. In disagreement, Genet suggested that Peter
Verkhovensky, representing "the power-mad Stalin to come,"
is the main character.
Differing with both the earlier critics, Ramsey
thought that Stepan Verkhovensky and Shatov are the more
significant characters, with Stavrogin, Kirilov, and
Peter Verkhovensky as slightly less important. All the
characters reveal their nature by their reactions when
another man's freedom is destroyed— when another man is
murdered. Ramsey continued that Camus in The Myth of
Sisyphus saw "the question of man's unlimited freedom
388
developed with "the most admirable amplitude' in
18
Kirilov." In this new version of The Possessed, how
ever,
neither the question nor the character is devel
oped with much amplitude. . . . The Kirilov
of the play [unlike Dostoevsky's] has little or no
access to polite society, so his ideas can have
no touchstone virtue there. The narrator . . .
plays down Kirilov's theorizings with an irony
that Dostoevsky permits only to the somewhat
oafish Liputin. (p. 636)
In fact, Camus stressed Kirilov's "bizarre traits through
out the play and his role is correspondingly restricted"
(p. 636). Kirilov, however, is shown as refusing to
take any other life but his own for this kind of murder
would be negation of the freedom he seeks to affirm
(p. 639).
Because of Camus's restoration of "Stavrogin's Con
fession" ((a portion of the novel that Dostoevsky had
never published for fear of censorship and punishment),
Dostoevsky's Stavrogin moves forward a little more into
the foreground. Stavrogin's youthful pranks are "con
centrated upon Gaganov alone" and acted out before us.
Ramsey did not strongly object to this inclusion of
Stavrogin's strange behavior but yet he had a feeling that
18
Ramsey explained, "Kirilov, 'hero of the absurd,'
living overstatement of a freedom acknowledging no
limits, is the first of a line we find prolonged in the
"K" of Kafka, in Camus' early Caligula, in the plays of
Samuel Beckett and in Eugene Ionesco" (p. 636).
389
we are at this point nearer to Duhamel's
Salavin . . . to Gide and the various bits
of gratuitous misconduct in which his char
acters indulge, than to Dostoevski's
Stavrogin. (p. 637)
In de-emphasizing the roles of Kirilov and Stavrogin,
Camus paid greater attention to the role of Stepan Ver
khovensky. Stepan is not a "hero of the absurd" by any
means, but he is "one like ourselves as Camus now wishes
to write about." Though Camus omitted "some of the ancient
wisdom of the child" in Stepan for he "is less of a fool
than he is here made out to be," he does reveal he is an j
|
"incipient rebel" who reveals a capacity for an affirma
tive revolt (p. 637). In his choosing "all or nothing,"
which he must, when he leaves Varvara Stavrogin and when
he rejects the immoderate both in himself and in his
son, he reveals that he has become a man of revolt. He
learns "to live, and die and to be a man" rather than to
aspire for the humanly impossible as Kirilov does.
|
Although Shatov is not a rebel in Camus's sense of
the term for he decides "to live as God and Russia will,"
still he is a very important figure. The affirmation
toward which he strives, for his faith is imperfect, must
I
be made in the world of the sacre, which Camus distin
guished from the rebel's world. The rebel, appearing
before or after a period in which the sacre has been
ascendant, seeks to found "a human order wherein all
390
solutions will be human, that is, reasonably formulated"
(p. 638). Ramsey believed that Camus's interest in
Shatov moved him to undertake the task of adapting the
novel. In this version, therefore, unlike in Dostoevsky's,
the Shatov incident assumes an importance it may not have
had since 1869. Camus focused upon Shatov rather than
upon Kirilov in an effort to force the audience to make
up its mind. What do we do when we have a flagrant in
justice, a murder, committed before our very eyes?
Shatov, therefore, the rebellious victim, stands at the
center of the problem men must confront, Camus believed,
"as they pass from the 'age of negation,' the age of
Kirilov and the hero of the absurd, into our own 'age of
ideologies'" (p. 639).
Camus was not sympathetic with Stavrogin because
he cannot make a decision. Though Stavrogin does not
arrange for the murder of his wife and her brother, he
does nothing to prevent it. This inability to act is
the reason that the priest Tihon sent him away. Ramsey
concluded that the characters which are presented best
I
I
and most engagingly are those most like Tarrou in The
Plague (p. 640).
Tynan held that "there is a lot to carp at in
M. Camus' dramatization." Although it runs for nearly
four hours, "many of the domestic and romantic
391
relationships are left scamped or nebulous, and the end
is a concertina of catastrophe" with Shatov, Peter's
father, and Stavrogin dying in succession "like melo
dramatic clockwork." The two characters whom Tynan
noticed in particular were Peter and Stavrogin. Peter,
the plotter and fanatic, is unaware that his reasons for
executing Shatov are founded on personal resentment and
not. on revolutionary zeal. "This lack of self-knowledge
is what makes Peter indestructible; he survives through
ignorance." Stavrogin, however, whom Peter idolizes,
gains
i
a sort of self-knowledge and commits suicide,
realizing that the savage, nihilistic behaviour
for which he is notorious arises out of an
expiatory need to be regarded as an unpardon
able monster. (p. 29)
He is thrust toward this action by a past in which he felt
responsible for a young girl's suicide. Stavrogin, con-
j
eluded Tynan, is "the literary progenitor of Arthur I
|
Koestler's hero in Arrival and Departure/'who realized I
I
one day that he was doing the right revolutionary things
for the wrong psychological reasons. i
In conclusion, it has been manifest that the critics,
.on the whole, were pleased with the psychological realness
of the characters and their development through inter
action. In the 60's, the critics will continue to praise
the characterization and to debate the question of who is
the main character.
392
From ,19 60 through 1964, the majority of the critics
consistently regarded the characterization as satisfac
tory and broadened the interpretation of the roles of
the characters. Though the critics disagreed about the
importance of the various dramatis personae, a majority
finally concluded that Stavrogin was the key figure in
the play while Stepan was the second major character.
The consensus was that Stavrogin represented the man who
could not love and yet who felt guilty for his crime
against Matriocha, whereas Peter represented the malicious
and willful destroyer, the power-mad manipulator who was
motivated purely by hate. Almost all the critics implied
or declared that Stepan was the symbol of the well-
intentioned, muddle-headed, and weak liberal while Shatov
stood for the Christ-like man. Although Shatov was a
religious man, not an atheist, he did understand that
compassion, justice and love must guide any rebellion.
Kirilov represented the nihilism of suicide. Disen
chanted with life and obsessed with freedom, he resolved
upon suicide to demonstrate that he was capable of assum
ing the role of God. Only one critic thought that Kirilov
was so important to Camus that he had served as a proto
type for his other heroes, just as Kirilov had served as
a model for the heroes of Gide, Kafka, and Beckett. Still
another critic, postulating that Stavrogin was the major
39 3
character, regarded the other protagonists as aspects
of Stavrogin's character.
Spector and Cassidy, the first critics to discuss the
characters in the 60's, expressed an interest in Stavrogin
and Peter. Spector held that Stavrogin represents "the
wanton seducer of all innocence," the guilt-laden, while
Peter Verkhovensky symbolizes "the demagogic, half-mad
plotter," and Shatov is "the Christ-like figure who sig
nifies Dostoevsky's hope for Russian salvation." All these
characters are intensely and realistically portrayed
(p. 10). Cassidy agreed that "none" of the characters is
"dull." Camus had done a masterful job of transferring
these characters to the stage. Stavrogin is "the cat
alyst" who, "touched with Dostoevski's own epilepsy, a
hero by nature and instinct, [is] rotting in the stig
mata of guilt." Stepan is "a wry sketch" and Kirilov is
"both child-like and inscrutable." Peter, of course,
"the opportunist's formula for revolution," is working
on a plan for the Soviets— "enslavement, purges, and
all" (p. 4).
i
Maddocks explained that the reader can feel Camus
"standing shoulder to shoulder with Dostoevsky, sharing
[
the burden and resisting these despairing characters."
As desperate a lot as ever seen in a novel, they are:
Stepan, a "bankrupt liberal"; the "obsessed" Kirilov,
394
struggling with "freedom and free choice"i Peter Verkho-
vensky, a "horror-fiction image of what the heart becomes
when the philosophy of the means justifies the end is
carried to its logical extreme"; and Stavrogin, searching
for "punishment" as others search for rewards. Despite
his interest in the meaning of the roles, Maddocks in
sisted that "one of the major shortcomings" in the play
is that the characters, unlike those in the novel, are
"abstractions . . . pale and hysterical" (p. 17).
Lipsett heartily agreed that the characterization is
tansatisfactory. He declared the "only true character
studies found in the play are of Varvara . . . and Stepan,
two very minor roles." Lipsett continued, "Current
French drama" consists of "pallid, hollow characters mov
ing through contrived situations with the heavy hand of
the author always visibly guiding them" (p. 46). Ramsey
did not indicate the dissatisfaction that Lipsett did.
To him, the characters are true to psychological reality
and Camus clearly revealed their inner conflicts. Ramsey
disliked the absence of one single main protagonist
but conceded that the fault lay with Dostoevsky more than
with Camus. Thus, in working with this novel, Camus
found that "each guiding conception of a character was to
break down into the 1 doubleness' of the major Dostoevski."
In the nature of things, therefore, a single protagonist
395
19
was an impossibility to realize. In the confusion, it
should come as no surprise that Camus concentrated his
play upon "the sentimental liberal Stepan Verkhovenski."
In conclusion, Ramsey wondered why Camus, having intended
to be complete, deleted Karmazinov who represented the
liberal Turgenev whom Dostoevsky so savagely satirized
(p. 517).
In harmony with Ramsey's views, Lauer held that "the
characters are alive." They are "undoubtedly still
Dostoevski's characters, but they are Camus' characters
too; they are his by legitimate adoption" (p. 200). In
contrast with Lauer, Gutierrez registered only dis
approval. First of all, the narrator, "calm and ironic,"
behaves "so cool and worldly" that one is never con
vinced of anything but that he is "only gossiping about
the suffering." Unlike Dostoevsky's narrator, Camus's
is "only supercilious toward all the people and his in
volvement with them remains at an attenuated, moralizing
level at best" (p. 62). "Perhaps, unconsciously,"
Gutierrez continued, "Camus has lost the real center of
19
Ramsey explained that Dostoevsky himself began with
Nicholas Stavrogin, but he soon found that this "theo
retical -nihilist" was being overshadowed in his creator's
mind by Peter Verkhovensky, "the practical nihilist."
Then "Kirilov, the self-murderer and Shatov, the murdered
exerted their successive and tangential claims" (p. 517).
The Possessed and is left inadvertently with only a
device which is even more clumsy in the theatre than in
literature" (p. 63). Secondly, Gutierrez disliked Camus’s
concentration upon Stepan Verkhovensky1s return to
religion on the deathbed. Though this action is logical
in Dostoevsky, in Camus's characterization "it seems
simply gratuitous and a forced happening." In spite of
this being the climax of the play, Gutierrez concluded,
"it carries no conviction," for though Dostoevsky believed
in God and devils, Camus did not. Gutierrez finally
queried, "Is this Camus's comment on our world?" (p. 63)
Barnes thought that Kirilov is Camus's favorite
character and that this is evident in his adaptation
(p. 118). Friedman agreed and added that Camus's own
engimatic heroes are patterned on or developed from
20
Dostoevsky's Kirilov (p. 33). Of course, Dostoevsky's
characters are familiar to readers of the novels of Gide,
Kafka, Beckett as well as of Camus himself (p. 35).
20
Eric W. Carlson, "The.Humanism of Albert Camus,"
Humanist, XX (September-October 1960) , 303,- observed
that "... Caligula, Meursault . . . and Jesus the man-
god" are examples of Camus's absurd hero. In The Pos
sessed, "Kirilov discovers the absurdist truth: If God
does not exist, man has a 'dreadful freedom' to determine
his own life. Kirilov fancies that Jesus at his death
found his torture to have been useless." Carlson conducted
that "these various 'heroes of our time' represent a
style of life that can be played equally well by every
man."'
397
Friedman continued that "Stavrogin is the unifying char
acter even more in the play than in the novel." Stavrogin
is "something different for each person" and he gives
sustenance to each character because each dramatis per
sona learns something about himself by gazing into the
mirror of Stavrogin1s mind. As a result, "his relations
. . . with the other characters— who in a sense are all
imperfect aspects of him— are thoroughly ambiguous." Not
until the end of the play do we learn the problem— "he
cannot genuinely communicate or sympathize with any of
the other characters." The narrator, however, clearly
serves as not only the stage manager but also as the
Greek chorus because he comments upon the action and
passes moral judgments (p. 34).
According to Tracy, because Camus oversimplified
Dostoevsky’s ideas in his endeavor to make this complex
and unwieldy novel into a neat and logical drama, he was
misled into stressing characters who were not intended
to be so spotlighted. Both Kirilov and Stavrogin,
I therefore, are given more importance than t^ie Russian
novelist was willing to grant them, and Stepan, Dosto-
21
evsky's major character, is both altered and neglected.
21
Tracy maintained that there are three main char
acters in "a deliberate parody of the Trinity" in the
novel: Stepan Verkhovensky, Peter, and Stavrogin. Of
the three, Stepan is the theorist who is responsible for .
398
Camus's Stavrogin emerges at once as "more enig
matic and understandable" than the novelistic figure. He
is more mysterious because "his fall occurs without any
serious reference to the metaphysical concerns" that are
essential to the novel. He is more understandable because
by restoring "Stavrogin's Confession" to the place that
he did, Camus explained most of Stavrogin's aberrations
as remorse for the violation of a child. Tracy flatly
stated that "this violation is an expression rather than
the cause of Stavrogin's state of mind" {p. 73).
Like Stavrogin's, Stepan's character is changed for
the worse through oversimplification. He is not only
inappropriately portrayed as "a comic figure" but, even
worse, "a comic figure of the wrong sort, one out of
domestic comedy. . . . He should have further dimen
sions." He might have been better portrayed with a
"monstrous sentimentality and self-pity," some "intellec-
tia; softness," and "a touch of the dark clownishness" of
Feodor Karamazov {p. 75) .
the evils threatening to engulf Russia. Stepan is of
Dostoevsky's generation and, as his creator once did,
Stepan toys with Western ideas. Unlike Dostoevsky who was
purged of his ideas in prison in Siberia, Stepan escapes
the purges and flees to the estate of Stavrogin's mother.
Since he escapes punishment, he does not repent and he
continues to spread his ideas to his son, Peter, to his
pupils, Lisa and Stavrogin, and to others. Because of
his ideas, all come to disaster but Peter, who escapes to
plot another day. Stepan himself is saved from the "demon"
who "possessed" the others by contact with Holy Russia
in the form of the Gospelseller (p. 73).
399
Tracy also found fault with "the clearly diptychal
arrangement" by which Shatov, representing Dostoevsky's
ideas, is neatly debated by Kirilov, representing the
atheist and the philosopher of suicide. "The deliberate
opposition is too obvious" to make good drama (p. 75).
In addition to his disapproval of Stepan, Stavrogin,
Kirilov, and Shatov, Tracy regarded the narrator as dis
appointing for he fails in his purpose— to increase the
confusion— and ends as "an explanatory device and little
more." To be sure he is present, but "he is barely a
character" and he strikes us "as a colorless simpleton"
with his muddled accounts of events which we see later
22
with our own eyes (p. 72).
Tracy was not only displeased with the treatment of '
the characters whom Camus had retained but he was also
dissatisfied with the absence of those characters whom
Camus deleted. First, Tracy believed that since Stepan's
salvation through the Gospelseller is an important theme
in the novel, the Biblichl tract seller should have been
22
To Tracy, Dostoevsky's narrator is a puzzled, con
fused and timid as well as a credulous and ignorant man
who is rarely wholly certain of what is transpiring.
Dostoevsky deliberately created him in this way in order
to reflect the better the bafflement of the respectable
citizens of the town. He wanders in and out of the novel,
sometimes interpreting events— often incorrectly— and
adding to the reader's confusion and impatience. He ex
emplifies "one of the most brilliant manipulations of
point of view in literature" (p. 72).
400
included in the drama instead of being replaced by the
"vague intimation" that some peasants had talked to Stepan
and saved him. Second, the deletion of Karmazinov and
especially that of the governor and his wife detracted
from the meaning of the drama because they represent
"the social and political break-down which accompanies
the spiritual one." Third and finally, without the town
or a sense of the town as a bewildered chorus— its shock,
fear, anger and ultimate horror when the town burns in
the rioting— much of the impact of the actions of the
protagonists is lost. "Camus does as well as the stage
permits" in depicting this final night,
but it is an impossible task without the back
ground of a disorganized and baffled citizenry.
. . . We never realize the effect of the action
on all lives, the way in which Stavrogin's enig
matic actions and Peter's plots spread terrpr _
through every level of society. (pp* 75-76)
Tracy concluded that since Camus stressed the
ethical and sociopolitical more than the metaphysical
and religious ideas, the character who is best developed
is the least idealistic, Peter Verkhovensky. If Stav
rogin is like "Milton's Satan" then Peter is "Satan
shrunken into the serpent" and ready to spread havoc
among men {p. 76).
In retrospect, it is evident that despite the dis
pleasure of a few critics with the omission of some
characters, or the emphasis on Stavrogin and Kirilov, or
401
the flatness of the narrator, most of the critics seemed
eager to praise the characterization. In contrast with
this directness, the reluctance of the critics to identify
a play form stands out the more clearly.
Play Form
During 1959 the critics manifested unanimity in fail
ing to identify explicitly the play form of The Possessed;
thus, it can only be inferred that two of the three con
sidered The Possessed to be a melodramatic epic drama.
At any rate, they agreed that it was an interesting and
successful adaptation. One critic noted that there were
novelistic elements and though he implied that they were
unsatisfactory, he did not explain his misgivings.
A critic of Time, aside from commenting that there
are many scenes, did not mention any form but described
the play as one that "roils with the deluded intrigues of
nihilists, whom Camus makes strongly reminiscent of modern
Marxists" (p. 61). Genet, too, failed to mention the
dramatic form, but she emphasized the twenty-four scenes
enacted on the stage— scenes that ranged from murder
and epileptic seizure to childbirth— and the twenty-
three characters. Despite Camus's cutting, the play
lasted four hours and was "the most important and the
most appreciated of the Paris winter season" (p. 101).
402
Ramsey did not explicitly commit himself- about the play
form either. He was skeptical of Camus's conviction
that the thought in the novel was already expressed in
dialogue, that it had the necessary scenic touches, and
that all it needed was "ordering" for the stage. Ramsey
postulated:
. . . Dostoevsky hardly seems the one best cal
culated to lend him strength where he needs it
in the theatre. Camus is here losing sight of
the distinction between genres on which he him
self insisted in his essay on the moralist
Chamfort. (p. 634)
Ramsey concluded that although "we may suspect that Camus
is not as Sartre in the creative realm, primarily a
dramatist," Camus did change the novel into "a memorable
play." In the light of the pertinency of the themes for
today— his concern for individual freedoms and the
characters who appear with new meaning "many of our
questions about novelistic versus dramatic form dwindle
away" (p. 6 40).
Tynan agreed that this play is successful— consider
ing the bulk and the complexity of the novel, "I thought
it a surprisingly successful job." He concluded:
After seeing The Possessed, I decided M. Camus
had attempted the impossible with a great deal
of literary skill. . . . My mind looks forward
to his new venture rather more eagerly than my
eyes and ears. (p. 29)
The critics agreed that The Possessed, though filled
with many melodramatic scenes and a great deal of
403
discussion, was an engrossing drama. A few critics of
the 60's, unlike their predecessors, will venture definite
opinions about the structure of this work.
From 1960 through 1964, the few critics who came to
grips with the play form were badly divided in their
opinions. The categories which they chose ranged from
an experiment, a satire, a comedy, or a morality play to
a tragic or epic drama in which there was a mixture of
dramatic forms and styles. Most of them agreed, how
ever, that this play was a stimulating and successful
adaptation of Dostoevsky's novel.
Spector and Cassidy regarded The Possessed as an un-
disputably successful drama. Spector declared that
Camus "did not impair the quality of the original" but
instead by restoring "Stavrogin*s Confession" gave the
work "greater direction." Although he had to cut the
novel, "Camus retained all that was necessary to achieve j
the dramatic effect of Dostoevsky's satire of Russian !
F
revolutionaries and the tragedy of the frustrations of j
human love and belief." Moreover, the adaptation was j
faithful to the novel as it progressed, according to CamusJ
from "satiric comedy to drama and then to tragedy." The
drawing room action where the querulous and ineffectual
revolutionary chatter goes on has "an air of delightful
fantasy at the same time that it ridicules the bizarre
404
Western 'liberalism'" that had become the vogue in nine
teenth century Russia. These scenes achieve 1 1 a dramatic
intensity consistent with the realism of the novel.1 1 Out
of Stepan's struggles to give meaning to his life and from
Peter's plot against Shatov, "the drama like the novel
rises to tragic pathos." Spector finished, "Perhaps an
original play would have been more desirable but Camus made
Dostoevsky's novel a work very like his own" (p. 10).
Cassidy described this play as "a brilliant work in two
dimensions, that of Camus and of Dostoevsky." Much of
the magnetism derives from what Camus called Dostoevsky's
"prophetic book." The play should be "stunning in per
formance" and it will draw readers to the novel which
together with the present play will be a joint legacy for
mankind (p. 4).
Challenging Cassidy's opinion, Maddocks and Lipsett
were convinced that the abstraction made this play less
than a success. Although this last work serves as j
"a fair summation" of Camus's career, said Maddocks,
"the extraordinary immediacy of the novel has been lost,"
the sense of "vibrating life" has vanished, and the
numerous scenes make this work seem "a movie script" more
than a drama. He concluded that "in comparison with
Dostoevsky, a giant in the novel and in thinking, Camus
may be in the first rank neither as a fictionist nor as
405
a philosopher." Camus's "special achievement," however,
is that "he combined his two talents, surprisingly rare
as a combination, with more devotion than almost any other
contemporary."
Lipsett, implying that this work is a didactic
morality play with its lifeless characters and contrived
situations, complained that "the plot is twisted to suit
the needs of the lecturer-dramatist. French dramatists
have become preachers, too intrigued with the sound of
their own voice" (p. 46).
Disagreeing with Lipsett and taking issue with
Camus's belief that Dostoevsky's novel lends itself
readily to the stage, Ramsey underscored the fact that
this is a good adaptation but as long as writers insist
upon adapting novels to the theatre, they will always be
trapped in the conflict between their obligation to the
novelist and to the requirements of the stage.. Some of
the best adaptations, such as Camus's with twenty-two
tableaux and Gaston Baty's Crime and Punishment with
twenty, will err on the side of novelistic abundance. In
works where the novelist's vision is the guiding force,
the more unobtrusive the decor, or the less it adds to
the complexity, the better (p. 517).
Ramsey insisted that although this play is "not a
shapely work of dramatic art" and "the twenty-two tableaux
406
are episodic, overcrowded and lack a protagonist," these
defects are mainly traceable to the novel itself.
Camus's task was far more difficult than Charpah's.23
Ramsey continued:
With all its excesses and shortcomings, this is
the best adaptation of The Possessed that I know.
It is more dramatic than the Moscow Art Theatre
version, where problems were turned back un
solved to a more conspicuous narrator. It is
more literary, more intensely concerned with
getting at psychological reality than that version
subject to the variation of Nicholas Bataille's
Company. Camus' long pondering over the meanings
of Dostoevsky has led to a work registering the
divisions of characters with rare fidelity. (p. 517)
Lauer, not disputing Ramsey's views, declared that
in this work "Camus has come of age as a dramatist"
(p. 199). Unlike the other works which always give the
impression that Camus "was experimenting with dramatic
techniques," this play of "almost heroic dimensions" is
a success (p. 200). In sharp disagreement with Lauer,
Gutierrez depreciated Camus's effort as ". . . such a
fraudulent work— both as- an adaptation of the novel and
as a piece of theatre writing— that one's first reaction
is to dismiss it entirely." Written in "naturalistic
23
Ramsey explained that Andre Charpah, a French actor-
author was working on The Insulted and Injured of Dosto
evsky in the theatre of Alliance Franpaises ais Camus's
Possessed was being played at the TheStre Antoine in
Paris. In comparison with Camus's version, Charpah's was
"a controlled and a controllable work" (p. 516).
407
scenes" that clash with the narrator who speaks directly
to the audience "in the technique of the epic theatre,"
the play is being reviewed only because "Camus i£ a
Nobel Prize winner." Gutierrez continued, Camus "has
been sold to us by those who want us to see the world as
gloomily and pessimistically as Camus did." Gutierrez
finished:
. . . it is difficult to answer . . . why Camus
wrote and produced a bad adaptation of The Pos
sessed. If it is difficult to be sympathetic
with Dostoevsky's motives, it is even more so
with Camus's. (p. 63)
Barnes implied that this play was a successful
"satire" against poor reasoned political attitudes and
an attack on those who flee into vague aestheticism in an
attempt to forget the world's injustice (p. 118). If
Friedman did not think that this work was an outstanding
success, neither did he consider it mediocre or a fiasco.
Holding that Camus himself looked upon his works as
"experimental exercises," Friedman was of the opinion
that though novels are difficult to convert to the stage,
"Camus had learned to handle another's material by adapt-
ing Requiem for a Nun" and other novels (p. 34). He
believed that it was appropriate that Camus should end
his career with The Possessed because Dostoevsky's writ
ing had haunted Camus since The Myth of Sisyphus (p. 33).
Although "Camus' most important work was done in the
4Q8
novel, the philosophical tale, and the essay," this drama
is an important final addition to the Camus canon and it
is as timely politically as his Reflections on the Guil
lotine. Friedman postulated: "It is probably as
successful a literary work as "The Stranger and The Plague
and has the same chance of survival as any other work" by
Camus (p. 35).
Wholly enthusiastic about The Possessed, Blanche
Knopf, publisher and wife of Alfred A. Knopf, asserted:
I believe it is one of the greatest plays in
Camus's thinking and words that I have ever
seen; much more than a play, because the com
bination of Dostoevsky and Camus is a perfect
marriage. I think it will live as one of the
most extraordinary of Camus's works. (p. 84)24
In direct opposition to Knopf, Tracy held that
although Camus's The Possessed opened to critical acclaim
in Paris, in January 1959, "On the whole, Camus has
failed to bring Dostoevsky's novel to the stage" (p. 76).
First of all, because the characters are easily visualized
and the dialogue so skillfully created, Camus, like
other writers, was deceived into thinking the adaptation
25
to the stage would be relatxvely easy. Actually the
24
"Albert Camus xn the Sun," Atlantic Monthly, CCVII
(February 1961), 84.
25
As examples of unsuccessful attempts to adapt
Dostoevsky's novels to the stage, Tracy listed, among
others, Stanislavsky's treatment of The Possessed;
Nemirovich-Danchenko's and Jacques Copeau's version of
409
dramatic elements merely served to hide the fact that
"the extremely complicated and tortuous lines of action
make the task an almost impossible one." Indeed, in sub
jecting this complex and untidy novel, symbolic in form
of the chaos that it describes, to his desire for logic
and for clarity, Camus distorted the novel: much of the
richness in ambiguity is lost and even a certain falsity
is introduced.
In trying to maintain "a mediation between the novel
and the drama," Camus produced "an uneasy compromise"
in which he endeavored to retain some of the formal con
ventions of the novel at the same time that he attempted
to bring out as sharply as possible the "basic ideas."
To preserve the balance Camus tried to keep
. . . some of the fluidity of prose narrative by
using a certain amount of non-illusory staging,
direct address to audience, scenes played before
the curtain, and the like, all of them devices
necessary in a complex play of twenty-two scenes
(cut to twenty in the performance). (p. 71)
"Many of these devices are used well enough," Tracy
conceded, but "the most important of them, the narrator
. . . is handled so clumsily that the whole play is
weakened." The confusion that the narrator is supposed
The Brothers Karamazov; and Rodney Ackland’s adaptation
of Crime and Punishment. (pp. 70-71)
to increase is almost lost in the reading. On the stage,
the effect is worse yet because he dominates the stage
to the extent that "inevitably he appears to be holding
the whole thing together"— an impression that Dostoevsky
did not give at all in his novel (p. 72) .
Second, Tracy castigated Camus for the position of
the confession scene at the end of Part II which Tracy
believed gave it excessive importance. The result is
that the scene becomes "the key to Stavrogin's character"
and "the whole latter part of the play seems to depend
from this confession." This makes the action evolve all
too simply from the facts given in it and not from the
complex of causes that Dostoevsky intended. Moreover,
Tracy continued, this confession is "dramatically weak"
because the most important episode, the violation of the
little girl, necessarily must be related. If it has to
be narrated, then the scene probably should not have been
retained at all, especially "when Dostoevsky thought so
little of its importance that he chose to omit it from
the published novel." Further, "the narrator in the
novel . . . even suggests that the whole atrocious story
is untrue" (pp. 73-74).
Third, Tracy disparaged the motivation behind
Stavrogin's decision to marry Maria— he wanted to do
penance. He thought that the marriage is thus explained
411
"a bit too patly" in the confession scene. The result,
declared Tracy, is that the marriage "becomes one in a
chain of events which leads to an orderly if tragic con
clusion" instead of "one of many parallel symptoms of a
restless and unhappy spirit bent on 'living ironically'1 1
(p. 74) .
Fourth, Tracy chided Camus for staging scenes which
he thought should have been narrated and relating others
which he held should have been performed. On the other
hand, the staging of the confession scene was unwise not
only because "it is less relevant than Camus seems to
think" but also because it is "inherently undramatic";
it is actually "a long narration." On the other hand,
the episode in which Stavrogin leads Gaganov by the nose
and then bites his ear should have been recounted because
the narrator's relating this behavior would have made it
seem "manic, ugly, frightening." Performed on the stage, 1
• j
however, it succeeds in being "merely slapstick" (p. 74). !
Fifth, Tracy insisted that since Camus was a volun- j
i
tary prisoner of the theory and structure of Dostoevsky's
!
novel, he should have surrendered his freedom to develop
his material and to speculate in his own way. In taking
liberties with the novel, in response to his bent to
organize the material logically and neatly, Camus's
"tidying up becomes a dangerous abuse."
412
Tracy concluded that Camus had failed as an adapter,
as a dramatist, and as a philosopher. This does not mean
to say, however, that work is not "interesting reading,"
"vigorous," and even "occasionally . . . provocative and
illuminating reading but in toto one that few readers of
Dostoevsky will be willing to accept." Remarking that
perhaps Camus's sudden and tragic death should have pre
vented him from judging this play so harshly, Tracy in
sisted that he had to move quickly
. . . because I feel that the cultists are
already at work. It would be a serious mis
understanding of Camus1 place in literature
if this play were considered a sort of
testament, if it were elevated to an im
portance which it can never bear simply because
it is his last work. (p. 77)
Despite the complaints about the numerous scenes,
the inclusion of the confession scene, and the abstraction,
the critics believed that this adaptation was generally
a successful dramatic work. Their approval,'however,
did not extend to Camus's dialogue.
i
i
i
Language, Method, and Style j
From 19 59 through 196 4 very few critics commented upon
the dialogue per se. All of those who did, with the ex
ception of one, however, joined forces in deprecating the
language as unsuitable for the theatre. Concomitant with
the objections to the language, there was an undercurrent
413
of feeling that the play would have benefited from more
action and less discussion.
First to complain mildly was Tynan who noted that
Camus placed a great deal of emphasis upon "words and
ideas rather than on mise en scene." Then Maddocks added
his disapproval of what he considered to be verbiage:
"A sheer wordiness," not present in the novel, creates
"another limitation" in this play in spite of the degree
of cutting. Gutierrez held that Camus's "epigrammatic
statements" and "moralizing" are not convincing. It
merely underscores Camus's "lack of knowledge . . . and
compassion for human suffering," factors that Dostoevsky
displayed (p. 62). In contrast with the other critics,
Lauer implied that the language is not dramatically
deficient. He argued that all the other plays but this
one indicate that Camus's intellect interfered with his
artistic talent (p. 200). The last critic to refer to
the language, Albert Sonnenfeld, held that Camus was
incapable of creating effective dialogue because he |
26 !
introduced novelistic techniques into the theatre. The |
F
|
endless rhetorical debates are deadly and reduce the j
i
action to a minimum.
2 6
"Albert Camus as Dramatist: The Sources of His
Failure," Tulane Drama Review, V (June 1961), 123.
414 ■
Although the critics concluded that the vocabulary
was overly formal and the approach excessively abstract,
none of them but one, even glanced at the English trans
lation.
Translation
Tracy, the only critic to consider Justin O’Brien's
translation of this drama in the three years of criticism,
found fault to a degree with it. He had "a few qualms"
about the literal rendering of some of the lines— for
instance, "I have a fiacre" is too literal for "J'ai
la un fiacre" (p. 76).
In conclusion, it has been manifest that the critics
admitted through the years of criticism that this drama,
unlike Camus’s original plays, was by and large a success.
Although it pleased most of them in theme, philosophy,
and characterization, they clearly rejected the language.
In the eyes of the critics, Camus still had failed to
create a convincing dialogue and to let the action speak
for itself.
Summary
From the beginning to the end of the criticism per
taining to The Possessed, the critics exhibited a tendency
to evaluate this work in terms of its ethical and socio
political ideas and their significance to the audience
415
or the reader rather than in terms of its aesthetics as
a literary work. From 1959 through 1964, the majority of
the critics (a Time critic, Genet, Tynan in 1959; Spector,
Cassidy, Maddocks, Lipsett, Ramsey, Lauer, Friedman,
Barnes in the 1960's) held that Camus demonstrated and
rejected the needless suffering and death that occur
when a fanatic pursuit of an absolute produces a nihil
istic world. Each man is sacred but no man is entitled
to assume the role of God or of Caesar. Many critics
underscored that the nihilism born of guilt or of
suicide was also a very important theme. Only Gutierrez
believed that Camus was saying that the human yearning
for freedom was futile.
Almost none of the critics gave any indication that
they thought one or more of the protagonists were Camus
in disguise. In 1959, however, Ramsey hinted that Stepan
and Shatov might have been Camus's mouthpieces. In the
1960's, Maddocks and Lauer were of the opinion that each
protagonist represented an aspect of Camus himself, while
Barnes and Tracy pointedly referred to Kirilov as the
character whom Camus liked best.
Although the problem of Camus's being an existen
tialist or a humanist was dropped, all the critics, with
the exception of Gutierrez, indicated that Camus's atti
tude was positive— he was fighting for moderation and
responsibility in human affairs. Ramsey indicated that,
though Camus had turned his back on the absurd hero's or
superman's answer to the human condition, he seemed to
have also rejected advocating group action as superior
to individual rebellion. Tracy regretted that Camus had j
i
focused upon Stavrogin instead of Stepan because in so
doing he had reduced the metaphysical problems posed by
Dostoevsky to socio-political questions.
The larger number of the critics in 1959 (Gen£t,
Ramsey, a Time critic) and in the 1960's (Cassidy, Spector,
Ramsey, Lauer, Friedman) agreed that Camus's characters
were absorbing, lively and plausible. Only Tynan com
plained in 1959 about the neglect of characters who
should have been more fully developed, and Maddocks, j
i
Lipsett, Gutierrez, and Tracy in the 1960's objected to
the allegorical quality, the omission of characters, or
I
the emphasis upon the "wrong" characters. Almost all the j
critics (a Time critic, Tynan in 1959; Cassidy, Maddocks,
Lauer, Friedman, Tracy in the 1960's) believed that
Stavrogin, the symbol of a man "possessed" by nihilism
and guilt, was the key protagonist. Stepan was considered
an important but secondary figure. Friedman not only
postulated that Stavrogin was the most important character
and that all the other protagonists represented aspects
of Stavrogin*s character but he also declared that Camus’s
heroes were patterned after Dostoevsky's Kirilov.
In relation to the play form, the majority of the
critics, by implication or declaration, held that this
play was generally a successful adaptation along the
lines of the epic theatre. Almost half the critics
(Ramsey, Spector, Gutierrez, Barnes, Tracy) were con
vinced that the drama contained a variety of dramatic
forms (comedy, melodrama, fantasy, tragedy) and styles
(realistic, satiric, melodramatic,fantastic, tragic).
Only Maddocks argued and Lipsett implied that this adapta
tion was a morality play.
The language was vigorously criticized by almost all
the critics who examined it. Tynan, in 1959, and Maddocks,
Lipsett, Gutierrez and Sonnenfeld in the 1960's, main
tained that the dialogue did not express the character of
the stage figures. Only Lauer believed that for the
first time in his playwriting career, Camus managed to
control his propensity for an excessively intellectual |
!
vocabulary and an overabundance of dialogue.
i
The one critic, Tracy, who mentioned O'Brien's trans
lation, found fault occasionally with what he defined as
an excessively literal translation of the French into
the English.
418
To summarize, as The Possessed was considered by and
large a success in Prance, so it was regarded in the
same light by the American critics. With this play Camus
repaired some of the damage done to his reputation after
the resounding failure of State of Siege and the failure,
though less total, of The Just Assassins.
CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSION
In this study we have been concerned with the plays
of Albert Camus in regard to their reception in the
United States between the years of 1945 and 1964. After
having examined the criticism pertaining to these plays,
we are able to reach certain conclusions and to summarize
our findings. The following points seem eminently worthy
of note.
From the beginning of the criticism under considera
tion .through 1964, the critics tended to assess Camus's
original dramas, Caligula, The Misunderstanding, State of
Siege, and The Just Assassins, as well as the adaptation
The Possessed more in terms of their ethical and moral
values than in terms of their literary merits. This
tendency arose because the critics found it necessary to
clarify for themselves Camus's intellectual vision before
they could understand the nature of his theatrical world.
The world view conveyed in Caligula and The Misunderstand
ing made it necessary to consider these dramas as a unit,
apart from the last two plays, State of Siege and The
Just Assassins, and separate from the adaptation. From
420
the inception of the criticism in 1945, the critics re
ceived the world view expressed in Caligula with con
fusion, dismay and outright hostility until the 50's when
they began to modify their opinions. Their adverse
reaction to the ideology reflected in The Misunderstanding,
however, continued through the 50's. By the end of 1964,
the critics finally concluded that Camus1s outlook in both
dramas was not pessimistic or nihilistic. The critical
adverse reaction to the dramaturgy in these dramas re
mained fairly constant from 1945 through 19 64.
The consensus was that the ontological and politico-
social views of Camus were those of a non-Christian writer
and of a pessimistic absurdist who regarded life as mean
ingless, the cosmos as hostile, and man as alienated not
only from himself but also from his fellowman. We have
examined examples of the negative attitude towards the
broad and partially existentialist viewpoint in the remarks
of Magny, Guerard, Clark, Simpson, Gregory, Weinberg,
Molnar, Behrens, and others.
In resisting the author's view of modern man and of
his lot, the critics have indicated that Camus was not
related to everyday reality or to the world as it is. He
created a theatrical universe in accordance with his per
sonal and priv&te view of the world, an imaginary sphere,
inhabited by dream-world characters, both prolix and
421
unbelievable. Camus's abstract and disoriented approach
to reality was confirmed in the eyes of the critics by
the stereotyped characters and by the author's predilec
tion for rhetoric in lieu of a convincing dialogue and of
an action sufficient to develop the characters. Clark,
Schwartz, Guerard, Hallie, Weinberg, and Behrens, among
others, indicated that the author's dramatic world mani
fested a distorted vision of reality and that the char
acters were dehumanized puppets.
In addition to their displeasure with the unreal
world and the incredible characters presented in the
theatre, the critics demonstrated clear reservations
towards the author's emphasis upon individualism. The
underscoring of both the importance and the isolation of
the individual they regarded as a disquieting concern for
making man, not God or society, the measure of things;
they also found in Camus an abnormal sensitivity to the
alienation of the individual. Such solicitude for the
spiritual health of the ego resulted in heroes and hero
ines believing that they were entitled to a share of
happiness and that they, therefore, had a right to rebel
against the world as it is constituted, becoming villadm-
heroes and monsters. Abjuring moral and social respon
sibility because they were alienated from meaningful
relationships with the self, with the universe, and with
422
other men, the protagonists became terrible supermen.
Clark, Troy, Hallie, Hanna, Weinberg, and others indicated
a displeasure and an uneasiness with this apparent focus
upon individualism.
In regard to the reception accorded State of Siege
and The Just Assassins, the critics received the ethical
and sociopolitical views which were expressed in these
dramas with immediate approval. They were dissatisfied,
however, with the dramaturgy. In particular, they found
fault with the characters whom they could not regard as
credible. This deficiency in characterization seemed to
be attributed more to Camus's intellectual and moralist
bent (which would have found more suitable expression in
a non-dramatic form) than to his outlook upon the world.
Clurman, Couch, Maddocks, Popkin, Sonnenfeld and others
manifested their dismay with such an intellectual approach
to drama. Camus's language was simultaneously regarded as
inappropriate both for the characters and for the modem J
theatre; it remained thus the major reason for the ab- |
!
sence of action. Unlike the other original dramas and the j
adaptation, State of Siege was criticized for its lack of
substance or ideas.
The Possessed, like the last two original plays,
received the approbation of the critics for the optimistic
world view that it conveyed. The critics found the
423
dramaturgy/ with the exception of the characterization,
less than satisfactory, however. The characters, unlike
those in all the other plays, were lauded nevertheless
as engrossing and as fully plausible. The only detract
ing note voiced about the ideology and the characters was
from those critics who objected to the revival of the
emphasis upon the absurd rendering life meaningless.
They also objected to the stress upon the individualism
of Kirilov and Stavrogin.
The studies of affinities, in themes and dramaturgy,
between Camus and foreign, native, earlier, and/or con
temporary writers emphasized at once the general
tendencies in the themes and the styles of modern writing
that belong to the litterature problematique and the
individual and personal response that Camus made to these
ideas and techniques that are identified with our modern
age. Like such writers as Malraux, Sartre, Kafka, and
Montherlant who expressed a disquietude with contemporary
human affairs and sought meaning in experience, Camus
made his own particular contribution to "problematical"
literature.
APPENDICES
424
APPENDIX A
CHRONOLOGICAL BIOGRAPHY
1913 Albert Camus born in Mondovi, Algeria, November 7
1914 Death of father at Battle of the Marne.
1918-
1930 Grade school in Belcourt.
1923-
1930 Lycee of Algiers ,
1932-
1936 University of Algiers. Diplome d'etudes
superieures on "Rapports de l'hellenisme et du
christianisme, a travers les oeuvres de Plotin
et de Saint Augustin."
1935 Establishment of "Le Theatre du Travail" which
later became "Le Theatre de l'Eguipe."
1937 Drama: Revolte dans les Asturies.
Essays: L1Envers et l'endroit (Algiers-Charlot).
1938 Essays: Noces (Algiers-Charlot); newspaper staff
Alger-Republicain.
1940 Newspaper staff: Paris-Presse.
1942 The Resistance.
Newspaper: Combat.
/
Novel: L1Etranger (Gallimard-Paris).
Essays: Le Mythe de Sisyphe (Gallimard-Paris).
426
1943 Essay: first of "Lettres a un ami allemand.1 1
19 44 Newspaper: Editor-in-chief of Combat.
Drama: Le Malentendu suivi de Caligula
{Gallimard-Paris).
Stage: Le Malentendu produced in Theatre des
Mathurins, Paris.
19 45 Stage: Caligula produced in Theatre Hebertot,
Paris.
Essays: Lettres a un ami allemand (Gallimard-
Paris) .
Essay: "Remarque, sur la revolte" (Gallimard-
Paris) .
, Travel: Camus in the United States.
19 47 Novel: La Peste (Gallimard-Paris).
Essay: Promethee aux enfers (Palimugre-Paris).
1948 Drama: L*Etat de siege (Gallimard-Paris).
Stage: L'Etat de siege produced in Theatre
Marigny, Paris.
I
1949 Stage: Les Justes produced in Theatre Hebertot,
Paris.
! 1950 Drama: Les Justes (Gallimard-Paris).
Essays: Actuelles I (Chroniques 1944-48)
(Gallimard-Paris).
i
! Essay: Le Minotaure ou la halte d'Oran
(Gallimard-Paris).
i
j Stage: Caligula produced in Theatre Hebertot,
Paris.
1951 Essays: L1Homme revolte (Gallimard-Paris).
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
427
Break with Sartre.
Essays: Actuelles IX (Chronigues 1948-53)
(Gallimard-Paris).
Stage: Calderon de la Barca's La Devotion a la
Croix at lingers.
Stage: Pierre de Larivey's Les Esprits at Angers.
Translation: Calderon de la Barca's La Devotion
a la Croix (Gallimard-Paris).
Adaptation: Pierre de Larivey's Les Esprits
(Gallimard-Paris).
Essays: L'Ete.
Adaptation: Dino Buzzati's Un Cas interessant
(L1Avant-Scene-Paris).
Novel: La Chute (Gallimard-Paris).
Stage: William Faulkner's Requiem pour une nonne
produced in Theatre des Mathurins, Paris.
Adaptation; Requiem pour une nonne by William
Faulkner (Gallimard-Paris).
Short Stories: L'Exil et le royaume (Gallimard-
Paris) .
Essay: Reflexions sur la peine capitale (Calmann-
Levy) in collaboration with Arthur Koestler.
Stage: Lope de Vega's' Chevalier d'Olmedo at
Angers.
Translation: Lope de Vega's Chevalier d'Olmedo
(Gallimard-Paris).
Stage: Caligula at Angers.
Nobel Prize Speech: "Discours de Suede."
1958
1959
1960
1962
428
Lecture: "L'Artiste et son Temps" at Uppsala,
Sweden.
Speech and lecture: "Discours de Suede" and
"L'Artiste et son Temps" (Gallimard-Paris).
Essays: Actuelles III (Chronique algerienne
(1939-1958) (Gallimard-Paris).
Stage: Caligula produced at Nouveau Theatre,
Paris.
Stage: Feodor Dostoevsky's Les Possedes produced
in Theatre Antoine, Paris.
Adaptation: Les Demons (Les Possedes), Les Freres
Karamazoff (Gallimard-Paris).
Death of Albert Camus, January 4.
Stage: Caligula produced in the Fifty-fourth
Theatre, New York City, February 16-March 19.
Director Sidney Lumet.
Articles and essays: Resistance, Rebellion and
Death (Knopf-New York), tr. Justin < O'Brien.
Notebooks: Carnets: mars 1935-fevrier 1943
(Gallimard-Paris).
V
APPENDIX B
IDENTIFICATION OF CRITICS
Abraham, Claude K.
Scholar-critic; French Dept., U. of 111.; articles
(17th c. French lit.)
Barnes, Hazel E.
Scholar-critic; Philology & Philosophy; Classics
Dept., U. of Colo.; editor; translator; articles
& books (literature & philosophy)
Behrens, Ralph
Scholar-critic; English-Comparative Lit., Ark. State
College; articles (English & French lit.)
Bentley, Eric
Scholar-critic; Drama-Comparative Lit.; Drama Dept.,
Columbia U.; director; editor; producer; translator;
articles & books
Berger, Peter L.
Scholar-critic; Institute of Church & Community,
Hartford Seminary Foundation; articles & books
(religion)
Bieber, Konrad
Scholar-critic; French-Italian Dept., Conn. College;
articles & books (French lit. & German-French
literary relations)
Blanc-Roos, Rene
Critic; contributor to The Nation
Bree, Germaine
Scholar-critic; French Dept. Institute for Research
in The Humanities, XJ. of Wis.; editor; articles &
books (modern French lit.)
430
Bryant, Robert H.
Scholar-Critic; religion-philosophy; Theology Dept.,
Centre College, Ky.
Burke, Edward L.
Scholar-critic; Philosophy Dept., Loyola U.
Carlson, Eric W.
Scholar-critic; English Dept., Conn. U., articles
(American & English lit.)
Cassidy, Claudia
Critic; music & drama, Chicago Journal of Commerce
Chicago Sun; Chicago Tribune; contributor to
Burns Mantle Yearbook
Chiaromonte, Nicola
Critic; director of Italian review, Tempo Presente
Clancy, James H.
Scholar-critic; Speech-Drama Dept., Stanford U.;
articles (drama)
Clark, Eleanor
Critic; novelist; articles; essays; reviews; wife of
Robert Penn Warren
Clurman, Harold
Scholar-critic; director; producer; drama critic for
The Nation; articles & books (drama)
Cosman, Max
Critic; contributor to Theatre Arts, Pacific
Spectator, Chicago Review
Couch, John Philip
Scholar-critic; Romance Languages Dept., Woman's
College of N.C., articles (Spanish lit.)
Dietz, Howard
Critic; librettist; newspaper reporter; advertising
& publications for MGM Studios
431
Eaton, Walter Pritchard
Critic; drama, N.Y. Tribune, N.Y. Sun, American
Magazine; articles & books
Fowlie, Wallace
Scholar-critic; French Dept., Bennington College;
editor; translator; articles & books
Freedley, George
Librarian-critic; Curator of Theatre Collection at
New York Public Library; articles & books (drama)
Friedman, Melvin J.
Scholar-critic; English-Comparative Lit.; Comparative
Literature Dept., U. of Md.; articles (American,
English & French lit.)
Galand, Rene
Scholar-critic; French Dept., Wellesley College;
articles & books
Gargan, Edward T.
Scholar-critic; History Dept., U. of Wis.; articles
& books (European history & Papal history)
Gassner, John
Scholar-critic; Drama Dept., Yale; director; editor;
producer; translator; articles & books
Genet
Critic; Litt. D. Smith College; over-seas
contributor to The New Yorker; articles & books
(French lit.)
!
Gilman, Richard
Critic; contributor to The Commonweal
Girard, Rene N.
Scholar-critic; French Dept., Stanford; editor;
articles & books (history of ideas & comparative
lit.)
432
Giraud, Raymond
Scholar-critic; French Dept., Stanford; articles &
books (19c French lit.)
Glicksberg, Charles I.
Scholar-critic; English Dept., Brooklyn College;
articles & books (American lit. & religion)
Goldstein, Leon J.
Scholar-critic; Philosophy Dept., New York City
College; articles & reviews (philosophy & social
service)
Gouhier, Henri
Scholar-critic; Philosophy, Faculte des lettres de
Paris; novelist; articles & books (drama &
philosophy)
Gregory, Mary, O.P.
Scholar-critic; Sisters of Mercy; Gwynedd-Mercy
College
Gutierrez, Felix
Critic; contributor to Mainstream
Guerard, Albert J.
Scholar-critic; Comparative Lit.; English Dept.,
Stanford; articles & books (English & French lit.)
Hall, H. Gaston
Scholar-critic; Glasgow U.; Yale
Hallie, Philip P.
Scholar-critic; Philosophy Dept., Wesleyan U.,
Conn.; Editorial board of The American Scholar;
poet; articles & books (humanities & philosophy)
Hartman, Geoffrey H.
Scholar-critic; Comparative Lit.; English Dept.,
U. of la.; articles & books (American, English &
European lit.)
433
Hammer, Louis Z.
Scholar-critic; Philosophy Dept., U. of Southern
Calif. (Los Angeles)
Hanna, Thomas L.
Scholar-critic; Philosophy-Religion Dept.,
Hollins College, Va.; articles & books (19th c.
& 20th c. philosophy)
Harrington, Michael
Critic; assoc, editor of The Catholic Worker;
U. S. Govt, adviser on poverty and unemployment;
articles
Hartt, Julian N.
Scholar-critic; Divinity School, Yale; articles &
books (philosophy & religion)
Hill, Charles G.
Scholar-critic; Modern Languages Dept., Brooklyn
College; articles (French lit.)
Hoffman, Stanley
Scholar-critic; Law-Political Science, Harvard;
articles & books (international relations, law &
political science)
Houghton, Norris
Scholar-critic; Drama Dept., Vassar; designer;
director
Jones, Robert Emmett
Scholar-critic; French Dept., U. of Pa.; articles
& books (comparative lit. & drama)
Kail, Andre'e
Scholar-critic; French Dept., U. of Colo.; articles
Kateb, George
Scholar-critic; Political Science Dept., Amherst
College
434
Lamont, Rosette C.
Scholar-critic; French—Comparative Lit. Dept.,
Queens College, N.Y.; articles (drama & poetry)
Lansner, Kermit
Critic? contributor to Kenyon Review
Lauer, Quentin, S.J.
Scholar-critic? Philosophy Dept., Fordham U.;
editor-consultant for Thought? articles & books
(philosophy & religion)
Lehan, Richard
Scholar-critic; American Lit. Dept., U. of Calif.
(Los Angeles); articles (American, English &
European lit.)
Lewis, R. W. B.
Scholar; critic; English Dept., U. of Texas?
articles & books (American, English & European lit.)
Lipsett, Richard
Critic? contributor to The Theater
Maddocks, Melvin
Critic; staff critic for The Christian Science
Monitor
, ----------------------
j
I Magny, Claude-Edmonde
Scholar-critic; French novelist
I May, William F.
Scholar-critic; Religion Dept., Smith College;
contributing editor for Christianity and Crisis
j McPheeters, D. w.
| Scholar-critic; Romance Languages Dept., Syracuse;
articles & books (Spanish lit.)
435
Moeller, Charles
Scholar-critic; Literature-Theology Dept., Louvain,
France; articles & books
Mohrt, Michel
Scholar-critic; English Translation Dept., Gallimard;
essayist; novelist; French Dept., Yale; articles &
books (American & French lit.)
Molnar, Thomas
Scholar-critic; Modern Languages Dept., Brooklyn
College; articles & books (French literature,
education & foreign relations)
Murchland, Bernard G., C.S.C.
Scholar-critic; Philosophy Dept., U. of Notre Dame;
editor, translator
Natanson, Maurice
Scholar-critic; Philosophy Dept., U. of N.C.; books
& articles
O'Brien, Justin
Scholar-critic; French Dept., Columbia; adapter,
editor, translator; books & articles
Peyre, Henri
Scholar-critic; French Dept., Yale; books &
articles; twelve honorary doctorates
I
| Popkin, Henry
| Scholar-critic; English-Drama Dept., New York U.;
editor; drama critic for London Times; articles
(American & English drama)
Ramsey, Warren
Scholar-critic; French-Comparative Lit. Dept.,
U. of California (Berkeley); articles & books
(French lit. & history of ideas)
436
Reck, Rima Drell
Scholar-critic; French-Comparative Lit. Dept.,
La. State U.; translator, articles (French &
Russian lit.)
Reed, Peter J.
Scholar-critic; English Dept., U. of Washington
Rolo, Charles
Critic; contributor to The Atlantic
Rossi, Louis R.
Scholar-critic; Northwestern U.
Roudiez, Leon S.
Scholar-critic; French Dept., Columbia; managing
editor of French Review; articles & books
Savage, Edward B.
Scholar-critic; Comparative Literature; English
Dept., Hope College, Holland, Mich.; articles
(drama)
Scherer, Olga
Scholar-critic; U. of Louisville
S chwar t z, Delmore
Critic; dramatist; essayist; novelist; poet;
editor of Partisan Review; poetry editor of New
Republic; Doubleday & Co.
Scott, Nathan A.
Scholar-critic; Theology-Literature Dept., Divinity
School, U. of Chicago; co-editor of Journal of
Religion; lit. ed. of Christian Scholar; articles
& books
Simpson, Lurline V.
Scholar-critic; Romance Languages Dept., U. of
Wash,; articles (19th c. French lit.)
437
Smith, Winifred
Scholar-critic; Comparative Lit. Dept., Vassar;
critic for Books Abroad; articles (drama & novel)
Sonnenfeld, Albert
Scholar-critic; French Dept., Princeton; articles
& a book (drama & novel)
Spector, Robert Donald
Scholar-critic; English Dept., Long Is. U.;
articles (English & Scandinavian lit.)
Spivak, Charlotte K.
Scholar-critic; English Dept., Fisk U.
Starratt, Robert J., S. J.
Scholar-critic; Cranwell School, Lenox, Mass.
Stavrou, C. N.
Scholar-critic; English Dept., State U. College
(Potsdam, N.Y.); articles (American, English &
French lit.)
Stern, Alfred
Scholar-critic; Languages & Philosophy Dept.,
California Institute of Technology; books &
articles (literature & philosophy)
Stoltz-fus, Ben
Scholar-critic; French Dept., U. of Calif.
(Riverside); novelist; articles
Strauss, Walter A.
Scholar-critic; Romance Languages Dept., Emory U.;
articles & books (French & Comparative lit.)
Terrien, Samuel L.
Scholar-critic; Theology Dept., Union Theological
Seminary, editor; articles & books
Thorson, Thomas Landon
Scholar-critic; Political Science Dept., U. of
Ontario, Can.; articles
438
Tracy, Robert E.
Scholar-critic; English Dept., U. of Calif.
(Berkeley); editor; contributor to Oxford Companion
to the Theatre
Troy, William
Critic; critic for The Nation; 70 articles & essays
(literature)
Tynan, Kenneth
Scholar-critic; Magdalen College, Oxford; actor;
director; producer; script editor British Theatre
St Television; drama critic for The Spectator,
Evening Standard, Daily Sketch, The Observer,
Encounter; The New Yorker. Harper 1s Bazaar,
Holiday. The Atlantic; books (theatre)
Viggiani, Carl A.
Scholar-critic; Romance Languages Dept., Wesleyan U
Conn.; managing ed. of Romanic Review; articles
(French lit.)
Virtanen, Reino
Scholar-critic; French Dept., U. of Neb.; articles
(French lit. & philosophy)
Weinberg, Kurt
Scholar-critic; Foreign Languages & Comparative Lit
Dept., U. of Rochester, N.Y.; articles & books
(French & German lit.)
| Zants, Emily
Critic; Columbia U.
s
APPENDIX C
EDITIONS
French
Le Malentendu suivi de Caligula (Gallimard-Paris), 1944.
L'Etat de Siege (Gallimard-Paris), 1948.
Les Justes (Gallimard-Paris), 1950.
Les Possedes (Gallimard-Paris), [c. 1958], 1959.
English
Caligula and Cross Purpose (H. Hamilton-London), tr.
Stuart Gilbert, 1947; 1948; 1957.
Caligula and Three Other Plays (Knopf-New York), Trans
atlantic Series, 19 62.
The Possessed (H. Hamilton-London), tr. Justin O'Brien,
1960.
The Collected Plays of Albert Camus (H. Hamilton-London),
1965.
American
Caligula and Cross Purpose (New Directions-Norfolk, Conn.),
tr. Stuart Gilbert, 1947; 1948.
The Just Assassins (Microfilm), tr. Elizabeth Sprigge and
Philip Warner, 1951.
439
440
Caligula and Three Other Plays (Knopf-New York), tr.
Stuart Gilbert, 1958; Vintage 1962.
Caligula: A Drama in Two Acts (Knopf-New York), adapter
Justin O'Brien, 1961.
The Possessed (Knopf-New York), tr. Justin O'Brien, 1960;
Vintage 1962.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
441
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Plays by Albert Camus
Caligula and Cross Purpose (Caligula et Le Malentendu).
Translated by Gilbert Stuart. Norfolk, Conn.: New
Directions, 1947.
I Le Malentendu, piece en trois actes, Caligula, piece en
! quatre actes. Paris: Nouvelles Revue Frangaises,
I 1947.
/ \
L'Etat de Siege, spectacle en trois parties. Paris:
i Gallimard, 1948.
I Les Justes, piece en cing actes. Paris: Gallimard, 1950.
! — — — -— —
! Les Possedes, piece en trois parties. Paris: Gallimard,
! 1959. Collection of "Le Manteau d'Arlequin."
i Caligula: A Play in Two Acts. Translated and adapted by
I Justin O’Brien. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1960.
; The Possessed, A Play in Three Acts. Translated by
: Justin O'Brien. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1960.
; Oeuvres Completes. V: Theatre, VI: Adaptations et
| traductions. Andre Sauret, editeur. Paris:
Imprimerie Nationale, 1961-1962.
i Caligula and Three Other Plays. Translated by Stuart
i Gilbert. New York: Vintage Books, Random House and
Alfred A. Knopf, 1962.
Theatre, recits, nouvelles. Preface par Jean Grenier,
j Textes etablis et annotes par Roger Quilliot.
Bibliotheque de la Pleiade. Paris: Gallimard, 1962.
442
Periodicals
443
Abraham, Claude K. "Caligula: Drama of Revolt or Drama
of Deception?" Modern Drama, V (February 1963), 451-
453.
Barnes, Hazel E. "Measure of Magnificence," Prairie
Schooner, XXXIV (Summer 1960), 115-119.
Becker, William. "Some French Plays in Translation,"
Hudson Review, IX (Summer 1956), 277-288.
Behrens, Ralph. "Existential ’Character-Ideas' in Camus'
The Misunderstanding," Modern Drama, VII (September
1964), 210-212.
Bentley, Eric. "A Note on French Existentialism," Books
Abroad. XX (Summer 1946), 263-264.
_________. "Camus: The Melodrama of Ideas" (rev. of
Caligula and Cross Purpose), The New York Times
Book Review, August 29, 1948, p. 4.
Berger, Peter L. "Camus, Bonhoffer and the World Come of
Age-I," Christian Century, LXXVI (April 8, 1959), '
417-418.
_________. "Camus, Bonhoffer and the World Come of
Age-II," Christian Century, LXXVI (April 15, 1959),
450-452.
Bieber, Konrad. "The Rebellion of the Humanist" (rev. of
The Rebel), Yale Review. XLIII (Spring 1954), 473-
475.
_________. "Engagement as a Professional Risk," Yale
French Studies. No. 16 (Winter 1955), pp. 29-39.
Blanc-Roos, Rene'. "Albert Camus," Nation, CLXVII
(October 9, 1948), 404-406.
Bree, Germaine. "Albert Camus and the Plague," Yale
French Studies. No. 8 (Winter 1951), pp. 93-100.
. "Camus' Caligula: Evolution of a Play,"
Symposium, XII (Spring-Fall 1958), 43-51.
444 I
Bree, Germaine. "Albert Camus," French Culture Today.
A bulletin in English published by the Cultural
Services of the French Embassy. New York, (c. 196Q). j
P p . 1-5.
_________. "Albert Camus: An Essay in Appreciation,"
The New York Times Book Review, January 24, 1960,
Sec. 7, pp. 5, 14.
|
_________. "A Grain of Salt," Yale French Studies, No. 25
(Spring 1960), pp. 41-43. |
j
Bryant, Robert H. "Albert Camus' Quest for Ethical j
Values," Religion in Life, XXIX (Summer 1960),
443-452. |
j
Burke, Edward L. "Camus and the Pursuit of Happiness,"
Thought. XXXVII (Autumn 1962), 391-409.
Caligula and Cross Purpose. Anon. rev., Theatre Arts,
XXXII (October 1948), 94.
Carlson, Eric W. "The Humanism of Albert Camus,"
Humanist, XX (September-October 1960), 293-313.
Cassidy, Claudia. "Four Plays Embodying Camus' Case for
Drama," The Chicago Sunday Tribune Magazine of
Books, September 14, 1958, Part 4, p. 4.
_________. "Double Brilliance in Last Finished Work of
Camus" (rev. of The Possessed), The Chicago Sunday j
Tribune Magazine of Books. March 13, 1960, Part 4,
p. 4.
Chiaromonte, Nicola. "Paris Letter," Partisan Review.
XVII (September-October 1950), 707-714.
Clancy, James H. "Beyond Despair: A New Drama of
Ideas," Educational Theatre Journal. XIII
(October 1961), 157-166.
Clark, Eleanor. "Existentialist Fiction," Kenvon Review.
VIII (Autumn 1946), 674-678. j
!
!
j
445
Clurman, Harold. "Theatres Plays from Paris" (rev. of
Caligula and Cross Purpose), New Republic. CXIX
(August 16, 1948), 25-26.
(
i
i_________. "The New Moralities," New Republic. CXXV
I (August 6, 1951), 21-22.
i
t
i . . . . . . . .
j_________ . "The Moralist on Stage," The New York Times
Book Review. September 14, 1958, Sec. 7, p. 12.
Cosman, Max. "Camus' Hidden Sun," Chicago Review, X
(Autumn-Winter 1956), 93-97.
Couch, John Philip. "Camus1 Dramatic Adaptations and
Translations," French Review, XXXIII (October 1959),
27-36.
j_________ . "Camus and Faulkners The Search for the
1 Language of Modern Tragedy," Yale French Studies.
No. 25 (Spring 1960), pp. 120-125.
Dietz, Howard. "The French Dramatists His Limits are
Those of Man," Saturday Review, December 27, 1958,
pp. 14-15.
;"Dostoevski Novel Staged by Camus." Anon rev., New York
Times, January 31, 1959, Sec. 7, p. 13.
"Dostoevski via Camus." Anon, rev., Time, February 9,
1959, pp. 61-62.
;Eaton, Walter Pritchard. "Symbolist and Realist"
(rev. of Caligula and Cross Purpose), The New York
Herald Tribune Review. August 15, 1948, Sec. 7,
p. 13.
;Fowlie, Wallace. "The French Literary Mind," Accent,
| VIII (Winter 1948), 67-81.
|
jFreedley, George. (Rev. of Caligula and Cross Purpose).
j Library Journal. LXXIII (July 1948), 1029.
j
I _________ . Caligula and Three Other Plays, Library
j Journal. LXXX (July 1952), 2065-66.
446
Friedman, Melvin J. "Camus' Last" (rev. of The Possessed),
Progressive, XXIV (August 1960), 33-35.
Galand, Rene. "Four French Attitudes on Lifer
Motherlant, Malraux, Sartre, Camus," New England
Modern Language Association Bulletin. XV
(February 1953), 9-15.
Gargan, Edward T. "Revolution and Morale in the
Formative Thought of Albert Camus," Review of
Politics, XXV (October 1963), 483-496.
Gassner, John. "Forms of Modern Drama," Comparative
Literature, VII (Spring 1955), 129-143.
_________. "The Possibilities and Perils of Modern
Tragedy," Tulane Drama Review, I (June 1957), 3-17.
Genet. (Rev. of Les Possedes). New Yorker, March 7, 1959,
pp. 101-102.
Gilman, Richard. "Two Voices of Camus," Commonweal.
LXXIII (April 24, 1961), 552-553.
Girard, Raymond. "Unrevolt Among the Unwriters in
France Today," Yale French Studies, No. 24
(Summer 1959), pp. 11-17.
Glicksberg, Charles I. "Forms of Madness In Literature,"
Arizona Quarterly, XVII (Spring 1961), 43-53.
Goldstein, Leon J. "The Emperor of China as the
Emperor of Rome," Personalist, XLIII (Autumn 1962),
515-526.
Gouhier, Henri. "The Tragic: Transcendence, Freedom
and Poetry," translated by Elizabeth stamble,
Crosscurrents, X (Winter 1960), 15-28.
Gregory, M., O.P. (Rev. of Caligula and Three Other
Plays), Drama Critique. I (November 1958), 42-43.
447
Guerard, Albert J. "Albert Camus," Foreground, I
(Winter 1946), 45-59.
Gutierrez, Felix. "Pastiche" (rev. of The Possessed),
Mainstream, XIII (May 1960), 62-63.
Hall, H. Gaston. "Aspects of the Absurd," Yale French
Studies, No. 25 (Spring 1960), pp. 26-32.
Hallie, Philip. "Camus and the Literature of Revolt,"
College English. XVI (October 1954), 25-32, 83. .
Hammer, Louis Z. "Impossible Freedom in Camus'
Caligula.1 1 Personalist, XLIV (Summer 1963), 322-336.
Hanna, Thomas L. "Albert Camus and the Christian Faith,"
Journal of Religion. XXXVI (October 1956), 224-233.
Harrington, Michael. "The Despair and Hope of Modern
Man," Commonweal. LXIII (October 14, 1955), 44-45.
Hartman, Geoffrey H. "Camus and Malraux: The Common
Ground," Yale French Studies, No. 25 (Spring i960),
pp. 104-110.
Hartt, Julian N. "Albert Camus: An Appreciation,"
Christianity and Crisis. XX (February 8, 1960),
7-8.
Hill, Charles G. "Camus and Vigny," PMLA. LXXVII
(March 1962), 156-167.
I
i
! Hoffman, Stanley. "Homage to Camus," Massachusetts
| Review, I (Winter 1960), 209-217.
Houghton, Norris. "Catastrophes and Violent Deaths,"
Theatre Arts. XXXI (March 1947), 52-55.
- "Spring Brings Cheer for Theatre-Goers"
(rev. of Caligula), Theatre. II (April 1960), 14.
448
Jones, Robert Emmet. "Caligula, The Absurd, and Tragedy,"
Kentucky Foreign Language Quarterly, V (Summer 1958),
123-127.
Kail, Andr^e. "The Transformation of Camus' Heroes from
the Novel to the Stage," Educational Theatre
Journal, XIII (October 1961), 201-206.
Kateb, George. "Camus1 'La Peste': A Disserting View,"
Symposium, XVII (Winter 1963), 292-303.
Knopf, Blanche. "Albert Camus in the Sun," Atlantic
Monthly, CCVII (February 1961), 7-7, 9, 84.
Lamont, Rosette C. "The Anti-Bourgeois," French Review,
XXXIV (April 1961), 445-453.
Lansner, Kermit. "Albert Camus," Kenyon Review, XIV
(Autumn 1952), 562-578.
Lauer, Quentin, S.R. (Rev. of The Possessed), America,
CIII (April 30, 1960), 199-200.
________ . "Albert Camus: The Revolt against Absurdity,"
Thought, XXXV (Spring 1960), 37-56.
Lehan, Richard. "Camus' American Affinities," Symposium,
XIII (Fall 1959), 255-270.
LeSage, Laurent. "Literature in France, 1953," French
Review, XVII (January 1954), 173-181.
Lewis, R. W. B. "Caligula, or the Realm of the Impossi
ble," Yale French Studies, No. 25 (Spring 1960),
pp. 52-58.
Lipsett, Richard. (Rev. of The Possessed), Theatre,
April 1960, p. 46.
Magny, Claude-Edmonde. "French Literature Since 1940,"
translated by Martin Greenberg, Partisan Review,
XIII (Spring 1946), 145-154.
449
Maddocks, Melvin. (Rev. of Caligula and Three Other
Plays), Christian Science Monitor, February 12,
1959, p. 7.
_________. (Rev. of The Possessed), Christian Science
Monitor, March 31, 1960, p. 17.
May, William F. "Albert Camus: A Political Moralist,"
Christianity and Crisis, XVIII (November 24, 1958),
165-168.
McPheeter, D. W. "Camus' Translations of Plays by Lope
and Calderon," Symposium. XII (Spring-Fall 1958),
52-64.
Moeller, Charles. "Albert Camus: The Question of Hope,
translated by E.S., LfK., S.H., Crosscurrents. VIII
(Spring 1958), 172-184.
Mohrt, Michel. "Ethic and Poetry in the Work of Camus,"
translated by Warren Ramsey, Yale French Studies. I
(Spring-Summer 1948), 113-118.
_. "Three Plays of the Current Paris Season,"
Yale French Studies. No. 5 (Spring-Summer 1950),
pp. 100-106.
Molnar, Thomas. "Camus, Voice of a Searching Generation
Catholic World. CLXXXXI (May 1960), 94-96, 101-103.
Murchland, Bernard G., C.S.C. "The Literature of
Despair," Commonweal. LXVII (February 21, 1958),
527-530.
_. "Albert Camus: Rebel," Catholic World.
CLXXXVIII (January 1959), 304-314.
Natanson, Maurice. "Albert Camus: Death at the
Meredian," Carolina Quarterly. XI (Spring 1960),
21-26, 65-69.
450
O'Brien, Justin. "Boldest Writer in France Today,” The
New York Herald Tribune Weekly Book Review,
March 24, 1945, Sec. 1, p. 2.
________ . "Nobel Prize-Winner Camus: A Man Committed
Yet Aloof," The New York Times Book Review.
December 8, 1957, Sec. 7, p. 3.
_________. "'Caligula* Defined," New York Times,
February 14, 1960, Sec. 2, pp. 1, 3.
' ______ , and Leon S. Roudiez. "Camus,"' Saturday Review.
February 13, 1960, pp. 19-21, 41.
Peyre, Henri. "The Resistance and Literary Revival in
France," Yale Review, XXXV (Autumn 1945), 84-92.
________. "The French Literary Scene," Yale Review,
XXXIX (Winter 1950), 263-273.
Popkin, Henry. "Camus As Dramatist," Partisan Review,
XXVI (Summer 1959), 499-503.
Ramsey, Warren. "Albert Camus on Capital Punishment:
His Adaptation of The Possessed," Yale Review,
XLVIII (Summer 1959), 634-640.
_________. (Rev. of Les Possedes), French Review,
XXXIII (April 1960), 516-517.
Reck, Rima Drell. "The Theatre of Albert Camus,"
Modern Drama. IV (May 1961), 42-53.
Reed, Peter J. "Judges in the Plays of Albert Camus,"
Modern Drama. V (May 1962), 47-57.
Rolo, Charles. "Albert Camus: A Good Man," Atlantic.
CCI (May 1958), 27-33.
Rossi, Louis R. "Albert Camus: The Plague of
Absurdity," Kenvon Review. XX (Summer 1958), 399-
422.
Roudiez, Leon S. "Camus and Moby Dick," Symposium, XV
(Spring 1961), 30-40.
Sartre, Jean-Paul. "Forgers of Myths," translated by
Rosamond Gilder, Theatre Arts, XXX (June 1946),
324-335.
Savage, Edward B. "Masks and Mummeries in Enrico IV and
Caligula," Modern Drama, VI (February 1964), 397-
401.
Scherer, Olga. "Illogical Immoralist," Perspective, II
(Autumn 1948), 53-60.
Schwartz, Delmore. (Rev. of Le Mvthe and Le Malentendu),
Partisan Review, XIII (Spring 1946), 246-250.
Scott, Nathan A., Jr. "The Modest Optimism of Albert
Camus," Christian Scholar, XLII (Winter 1959),
251-274.
Simpson, Lurline V. "Tensions in the Works of Albert
Camus," Modern Language Journal, XXXVIII (April
1954), 186-190.
Slochower, Harry. "The Function of Myth in Existential
ism," Yale French Studies, I (Spring-Summer 1948),
42-52.
Smith, Winifred. (Rev. of Le Malentendu and Caligula).
Books Abroad,XXII(Spring 1948), 157-158.
_________. "Two Plays: Caligula and Cross Purpose,"
Books Abroad, XXIII (Spring 1949), 188.
_________. (Rev. of Les Justes), Books Abroad. XXV
(Winter 1951), 29.
Sonnenfield, Albert. "Albert Camus as Dramatist: The
Sources of His Failure," Tulane Drama Review, V
(June 1961), 106-123.
452
Spector, Robert Donald. "Albert Camus' Last Drama"
(rev. of The Possessed), The New York Herald Tribune
Book Review, March 13, I960, p. 10.
________ . "Camus' Bold Mind, Kind Heart as Revealed in
His Essays," The Hew York Herald Tribune Lively Arts
and Book Review, February 12, 1961, p. 33.
Spivak, Charlotte K. "The Estranged Hero of Modern
Literature," North Dakota Quarterly. XXIX (Winter
1961), 13-19.
Starratt, Robert J., S. J. "An Analysis of Albert
Camus' The Fall." Cithara, I (November 1961), 27-38.
Stavrou, C. N. "Conrad, Camus and Sisyphus," Audience,
VII (Spring 1960), 80-96.
Stern, Alfred. "Considerations of Albert Camus'
Doctrine," Personalist. XLI (Autumn 1960), 448-457.
Stoltzfus, Ben. "Camus and the Meaning of Revolt,"
Modern Fiction Studies. X (Autumn 1964), 293-302.
Strauss, Walter A. "Albert Camus' Caligula? Ancient
Sources and Modern Parallels," Comparative Litera
ture, III (Spring 1951), 160-173.
Terrien, Samuel. "Christianity's Debt to a Modern Pagan," j
Union Seminary Quarterly Review. XV (March 1960), I
185-194. !
!
Thorson, Thomas Landon. "Albert Camus and the Rights of
Man," Ethics. LXXIV (July 1964), 281-291.
Tracy, Robert. "Albert Camus Revisited" (rev. of The
Possessed), Carleton Miscellany, II (Spring 1961),- I
70-77.
Troy, William. "The Rebirth of Allegory," Hudson Review.
I (Winter 1949), 587-589.
453
Tynan, Kenneth. "Direct from Paris," New Yorker,
October 3, 1959, pp. 10, 29.
Viggiani, Carl A. "Camus' L1Stranger," PMXA. LXXI
(December 1956), 865-887.
_________. "Camus in 1936: The Beginnings of a Career,"
Symposium. XII (Spring-Fall 1958), 7-18.
_________. "Camus and the Fall from Innocence," Yale
French Studies. No. 25 (Spring 1960), pp. 65-71.
_________. "Albert Camus' First Publications," Modern
Language Notes. LXXV (November 1960), 589-596.
Virtanen, Reino. "Camus' Le Malentendu and Some
Analogues," Comparative Literature, X (Stammer 1958),
232-240.
Weinberg, Kurt. "The Theme of Exile," Yale French
Studies, No. 25 (Spring 1960), pp. 33-40.
Zants, Emily. "Camus' Deserts and their Allies, Kingdoms
of the Stranger," Symposium, XVII (Spring 1963),
30-40.
SUPPLEMENTARY READING LISTS
(ENGLISH AND FRENCH)
ENGLISH
Barnes, Hazel E. The Literature of Possibility. Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press, 1959.
Bentley, Eric. In Search of Theatre. New York: Alfred
A. Knopf, 1953.
_________. The Playwright as Thinker. Cleveland:
Meridian Books World Publishing Company, 1946.
Block, H. M. and R. G. Shedd, eds. Masters of Modern
Drama. New York: Random House, 1962.
Bree, Germaine, Albert Camus, "Columbia Essays on Modern
Writers," No. 1. New York: Columbia University
Press, 1964.
_________. Camus. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers Univer
sity Press, 1959.
_________. Camus. Revised edition. New Brunswick, N.J.:
Rutgers University Press, 1961.
_________. Camus. Revised edition. New York: Harbinger
Book, Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1961.
Brustein, Robert. The Theatre of Revolt. Boston:
Atlantic Monthly Press, Little, Brown and Company,
1964.
Clark, Barrett H. European Theories of The Drama. With
a supplement on the American Drama newly revised by
Henry Popkin. New York: Crown Publishers, 1965.
Clurman, Harold. Lies Like Truth. New York: The Mac
millan Company, 1958.
Corrigan, Robert W. and James L. Rosenberg. The Context
and Craft of Drama. San Francisco: Chandler Pub
lishing Co., 1964.
455
Cruickshank, John. Albert Camus and the Literature of
Revolt. New York: A Galaxy Book, Oxford University
Press, 1959, 1960.
Curtis, Anthony. The Masque: New Developments in the
French Theatre. London: Curtain Press, 1948.
Esslin, Martin. The Theatre of the Absurd. New York:
Garden City, 1961.
Fowlie, Wallace. Jacob’s Night: The Religious Renascence
in France. New York: Sheed & Ward, 1947.
_________. Dionysus in Paris: A Guide to Contemporary
French Theatre. New York: Meridian Books, Inc.,
1960.
Friedman, Maurice. To Deny Our Nothingness. New York:
Delacorte Press, 1967.
Gassner, John. Masters of The Drama. 3rd revised and
enlarged edition, Dover Publications, Inc. New York:
Random House, 1940, 1957.
_________. The Theatre in Our Times. New York: Crown
Publishers, 1954.
_________. Form and Idea in Modern Theatre. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1956.
_________, ed. Twenty Best European Plays on the American
Stage. New York: Crown Publishers, Inc., 1957.
_________. Theatre at the Crossroads. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, 1960.
Green, Garrett. A Kingdom Not of This World: A quest for
a Christian ethic of revolt with reference to the
thought of Dostoevski. Berdyaev and Camus. Stanford,
1964. (Stanford Honor Essays in the Humanities,
No. 8.)
457
Guicharnaud, Jacques and June Beckelman. Modern French
Theatre from Giraudoux to Bechett. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1961.
Hanna, Thomas. The Thought and the Art of Albert Camus.
Gateway Edition. Chicago: Henry Regnery Company,
1958.
’ ____ . The Lyrical Existentialists. New York:
Atheneum, 1962.
Hubble, Thomas N. "The Act itself and the Word: The
study of abstraction versus the concrete in the
work of Albert Camus." Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, University of Southern California,
1965.
; Jones, Robert Emmet. The Alienated Hero in Modern French
Drama. University of Georgia Monographs, No. 9.
Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1962.
King, Adele. Camus. Writers and Critics Series.
Edinburgh and London: Oliver and Boyd, 1964.
| Kronenberger, Louis, ed. The Burns Mantle Yearbook:
The Best Plays of 1959-1960. New York: Dodd,
Mead & Company, 1960.
i Lane, Ronald Willis. "Camus' Ethic of Absurdity and
Revolt." Unpublished Master's Thesis, University
of Southern California, 1964.
| Lewis, Allan. The Contemporary Theatre. Foreword by
| John Gassner. New York: Crown Publishers, Inc.,
! 1962.
}
| . . . . ...............
| Lewis, R. W. B. The Picaresque Saint. New York:
j Keystone Book, J. B. Lippencott Company, 1956,
1958.
Maquet, Albert. Albert Camus: The Invincible Summer,
translated by Herma Briffault. New York: George
Braziller, Inc., 1958.
458
McCarthy, Thomas J. "American Premier Criticism of
Selected Contemporary French Plays Produced on the
New York Stage, 1949-1960." Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, University of Southern California,
1965.
Pucciani, Oreste F., ed. The French Theatre Since 1930.
New York: Blaisdell Publishing Company, Ginn and
Company, 1954.
Scott, Nathan A. Albert Camus. London: Bowes & Bowes,
1962. Series Studies in Modern European Literature
and Thought.
Spiller, Robert E., Willard Thorp, et al. Literary
History of the United States. Revised edition in
one volume. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1953.
Thody, Philip. Albert Camus: A Study of His Work.
New York: Grove Press, 1957, 1959.
________ . Albert Camus. 1913-1960. Revised edition
of 1959. London: Hamish Hamilton, 1961.
Tynan, Kenneth. Tynan on Theatre. Harmondsworth,
Middlesex: Pelican Penguin Books, Ltd., 1964.
Published as Curtains by Longmans, Green, 1961.
Wetherell, Frank Doster. "Albert Camus and the Kingdom
of Nature." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
University of Southern California, 1964.
Williams, Raymond. Modern Tragedy. London: Chatto
and Windus, 1966.
FRENCH
Alberes, Rene Marill. Les hommes traques. Paris:
La Nouvelle Edition, 1953.
_________. L*Adventure intellectuelle du XXe siecle:
1900-1963. Troisieme edition, revue et augmentee.
Paris: Albin Michel, 1959.
_________ and Pierre de Boisdeffre, et al. Camus. Paris:
Hachette, 1964.
Ambriere, Francis. La galerie dramatique, 1945-1948:
le theatre frangais depuis la liberation. Paris:
Correa, 1949.
Artaud, Antonin. Le theatre et son double. Paris:
Gallimard, 193 8.
Barrault, Jean-Louis. Reflexions sur le theatre. Paris:
Vautrain, 1949.
f i
_________. Je suis homme du theatre. Paris: Editions du
Conquistador, 1955.
Beigbeder, Marc. Le theatre en France depuis la
liberation. Paris: Bordas, 1955.
Blanchet, Andre, S.J. La litterature et le spirituel.
Tome III. Paris: Montaigne, 1961.
Boisdeffre, Pierre de. Une histoire vivante de la
litterature d1aujourd'hui: 1939-1960. Troisieme
edition revue et augmentee. Paris: Le Livre
Contemporain, 1960.
_________. Metamorphose de la litterature de Proust a
Sartre. Tome II. Paris: Alsatia, 1952.
_________. Des vivants et des morts: temoignages 1948-
1953. Paris: Editions Universitaires, 1954.
459
460
Bonnier, Henri. Albert Camus ou la force d'etre. Paris:
Emmanuel Vitte, 1959.
Brisville, Jean-Claude. Camus. Paris: Gallimard, 1959.
Brodin, Pierre. Presences contemporaines. Tome I.
deuxieme edition revue et augmentee. Paris:
Nouvelles Editions Debresse, 1955.
Chaigne, Louis. Vies et oeuvres d1ecrivains. Tome II.
Paris: F. Lanore, 1957.
Durand, Anne. Le cas Albert Camus. Paris: Fischbacher
et Hachette, 1961.
Gadourelc, Carina. Les innocents et les coupables. The
Hague, Netherlands: Mouton & Company, 1963.
Kemp, Robert. La vie du theatre. Paris: Albin Michel,
1956.
Luppe, Robert de. Albert Camus. Paris: Temps Present,
1951.
Majault, Joseph. Camus: revolte et liberte. Paris:
Editions du Centurion, 1965.
> Jean Maurice Nivat, et al. Litterature de
notre temps. Tournai, Belique: Casterman, 1966.
Marce1, Gabrie1. L'Heure theatrale de Giraudoux a Jean-
! Paul Sartre. Paris: Plon, 1959.
i
i
i
j Mauriac, Claude. Hommes et idees d1auiourd'hui. Paris:
Albin Michel, 1953.
Maurois, Andre. De Proust a Camus. Paris: Librairie
Academique Perrin, 1963.
Moeller, Charles. Litterature du XXe siecle et
christianisme. Tome I. Tournai, Belique:
Casterman, 1954.
461
Mounier, Emmanuel. L'Espoir des desperes. Paris:
Editions du Seuil, 1953.
Nguyen-Van-Huy, Pierre. La metaphvsique du bonheur chez
Albert Camus. Neuchatel, Suisse: Editions de la
Baconniere, 1963.
Picon/ Gaetan. Panorama de la nouvelle litterature
frangaise. Nouvel edition refondue. Paris:
Gallimard, 1960.
Pillement, Georges. Antholocrie du theatre francais
contemporain. Tome III. Paris: Editions du
Belier, 1948.
Quilliot, Roger. La mer et les prisons: essai sur
Albert Camus. Paris: Gallimard, 1956.
Rousseaux, Andre. Litterature du vinqtieme siecle.
Tome III. Paris: Albin Michel, 1949.
Simon, Pierre-Henri. Presence de Camus. Bruxelles:
La Renaissance du Livre, 1961.
_________. Temoins de l'homme: la condition humaine dans
la litterature contemporaine. Paris: Armand Colin,
1951.
________ . Theatre et Destin: la signification de la
renaissance dramatique en France au XXe siecle.
Paris: Armand Colin, 1959.
| Surer, Paul. Le theatre frangais contemporain. Paris:
Societe d1Edition et d1Enseignement Superieur, 1964.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

False Prophets In Fiction: Camus, Dostoevsky, Melville, And Others

PDF

The Act Itself And The Word: A Study Of Abstraction Versus The Concrete In The Work Of Albert Camus

PDF

Form As Theme: A Study Of Andre Gide

PDF

The Giant And The Dragon Of The Folk Epic

PDF

'Guingamor,' 'Guigemar,' 'Graelentmor,' 'Lanval,' And 'Desire': A Comparative Study Of Five Breton Lays

PDF

The Literary Styles Of Jean-Paul Sartre And William Faulkner: An Analysis, Comparison, And Contrast

PDF

An Examination Of Three Major Novels In World Literature In The Light Of Critical Precepts Derived From Tolstoy'S "What Is Art?"

PDF

The Literary Kinship Of Leo N. Tolstoy And Romain Rolland: A Comparativestudy Of The Epic Dimensions Of 'War And Peace' And 'Jean-Christophe'

PDF

Studies In The Contemporary American And British Science Fiction Novel

PDF

Theological And Dramatic Concepts Of The End Of Man In The Middle Ages

PDF

The Reception Of American Literature In Germany, 1861-1871

PDF

The Balzac Book Of Ernst Robert Curtis

PDF

The Proteges Of Lancelot: A Study Of Malory'S Characterization Of Lancelot In The 'Morte Darthur'

PDF

Narrative Purpose In The Novella

PDF

'Antigone': A Study In Critical Method

PDF

The ideal landscape in drama

PDF

Plutarch On The Glory Of The Athenians: A Reassessment

PDF

American premiere criticism of selected contemporary French plays produced on the New York stage 1946-1960

PDF

Albert Camus And The Kingdom Of Nature

PDF

The Game-Play In Twentieth-Century Absurdist Drama: Studies In A Dramatictechnique

Asset Metadata

Creator Swain, Jeraldine Naomi Luedke (author)

Core Title The Critical Reception Of The Dramas Of Albert Camus In The United States, 1945-1964

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Comparative Literature

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Literature, Modern,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Hadley, Paul E. (committee chair), Belle, Rene F. (committee member), Goodrich, Norma Lorre (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-640307

Unique identifier UC11360954

Identifier 6900646.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-640307 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 6900646.pdf

Dmrecord 640307

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Swain, Jeraldine Naomi Luedke

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA