PARIS LETTER
683
the rediscovery of an essential structure of human consciousness beyond
historical contingencies. From this, going back to Hegel and Marx
seems a rather difficult enterprise, one,
in
any case, that requires a lot
of explaining.
Yet,
10
and behold, in the first attack against
L'Homme Reuolte
launched in the June issue of
Les Temps Modernes
by one of Sartre's
faithful disciples, Francis Jeanson, this critic found no better line of
attack than to accuse Camus of "anti-historicism." His arguments can
be summarized as follows: (1) by rejecting the cult of History which
seems to him characteristic of the nihilistic revolutions of our time,
Camus places himself "outside of history," in the position of the
Hegelian "beautiful Soul," which wants to remain pure of all contact
with reality, and is satisfied with the reiteration of an abstract Idea
void of all dialectical energy; (2) by criticizing Marxism and Stalinism,
Camus accomplishes an "objectively" reactionary task, as proved by the
favorable reviews of his book in the bourgeois press; (3) intellectual
disquisitions are a fine thing, but the task (the "choice") of the moment
makes it imperative to struggle in favor of the emancipation of the
Indo-Chinese and the Tunisians, as well as in defense of peace; this can–
not be done effectively
if
one attacks the CP, which, at this particular
moment, is the only force capable of mobilizing the masses behind such
a struggle.
This was bad enough. Much worse, and much sadder, is the fact
that, in his answer to Camus' "Letter to the Editor of
Les Temps
Modernes,"
Sartre himself did little more than restate
his
disciples's
arguments.
In his "Letter," Albert Camus had addressed the following remarks,
among others, to Sartre: "To legitimate the position he takes toward
my book, your critic should demonstrate, against the whole collection of
Les Temps Modernes,
that history has a necessary meaning and a final
outcome; that the frightful and disorderly aspect that it offers us today
is sheer appearance, and that, on the contrary, in spite of its ups and
downs, progress toward that moment of final reconciliation which will
be the jump into ultimate freedom, is inevitable. . . . Only prophetic
Marxism (or a philosophy of eternity) could justify the pure and
simple rejection of my thesis. But how can such views be upheld in your
magazine without contradiction? Because, after all, if there is no human
end that can be made into a norm of value, how can history have a de–
finable meaning? On the other hand,
if
history has meaning why
shouldn't man make of it his end?
If
he did that, however, how could
he remain in the state of frightful and unceasing freedom of which
