Rebels and Christian

8/14/2019 Rebels and Christian

1/15

REBELS AND CHRISTIAN PRINCES:CAMUS AND AUGUSTINE ON VIOLENCE AND POLITICS

G . J . MCALEER

The w orl d of grace a nd t h e world of r e b e l l i o n .

The disappearance of one i s equiva lem t o

t h e appea rance o J t l t e other

- The Rebel

I n The Rebel, 2 A lbert Camus t a k e s i t upon himself t o be t h e coroner

of modernity. No other author has displayed suchawful patience

and cour-age when examining t h e blood-spilling l o g i c s of modernity. The Rebel i s

a document of t h e crimes of nihilism and a soaring p l e a f o r a p o l i t i c s ofr e b e l l i o n s o a s t o provide European thought with a philosophy of hope. ForCamu s , t h e r e i s only hope i f t h e r e i s no submission t o persons, thoughtso r governments t h a t would destroy human s o l i d a r i t y and rob humans oft h e i r d i g n i ty . Camus does not simply r e j e c t modernity e aims a t i t stransformation. Camus has absolutely no nostalgia f o r some glory daysbefore moderni ty. Quite t h e o p p o s i t e . He i n s i s t s throughout The Rebel t h a t

t h e e a r l i e r age o f grace wa s no l e s s d e s t r u c t i v e t h a n modern and contem-porary l o g i c s t h a t have l e d t o n i h i l i s m . Camus has no hope t h a t medieval

t hought can be transformed s o a s t o s u s t a i n human s o l i d a r i t y , but he has

every hope t h a t such i s possible with modern thought: t h u s , h i s theory ofr e b e l l i o n . This essay w i l l a rg ue bot h t h a t Camus does n o t demonstrate t h a t

violence i s i n t r i n s i c t o Christian p o l i t i c s and t h a t h i s own p o l i t i c s of

rebellion i s inadequate t o t h e conditions he himself establishes f o r a

p o s t - n i h i l i s t i c p o l i t i c s .

t A . Camus, Th e Rebel t r a n s . , A . Bower New Yo r k : V i n t a g e 1 9 9 1 ) , 2 1 : ( = R ) .

2 Al t h o u g h not a much - discussed work, Camus said of t h e t e x t I t s the b o o k of mine

wh i c h I value the most . Cited i n Olivier Todd Albert Cainus : A L i f e , t r a n s . B . lvey (New

York: A lf red A . Knopf 1 9 97 ), 3 15 .

Revista Filosfica de Coimbra ? i . / 6 ( / 9 9 9 p p . 2 5 3 - 2 6 7


2/15

2 5 4 G . J . McAleer

A t t h e h e a r t o f August ine s Confessions i s a philosophy of hope basedupon t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f f o r g i v e n e s s . T h e philosophy of t h e Confessions i sp r e c i s e l y , and 1 mean t h i s i n t h e strongest s e n s e , t h e age of grace t h a t

Camus s o vehemently r e j e c t s . The Rebel i s a g r e a t work but one s h e a r ts i n k s when t h e book i s f i n i s h e d and one r e a l i z e s t h a t t h e r e i s not a s i n g l emention of mercy o r forgiveness nly t h e harsh edge of t h e sword ofj u s t i c e . And Camus does n o t pretend otherwise. He mak es i t c l e a r i n t h c

opening pages o f t h e work t h a t what i s of concern i n r e b e l l i o n i s t o s e e

established t h e u n i t a r i a n r e i g n of j u s t i c e . ( R , 2 4) T h e argument of t h i s

essay s h a l l be t h a t Camus cannot provide t h e philosophy of hope t h a t heseeks without a place f o r mercy . This i s not simply t o argue f o r a

moral value t h a t Camus does not recognize a s s u c h . M e r c y ha s no place

i n Camu s p o l i t i c s because i t offends our n a t u r a l sense of j u s t i c e : whellt h e murderer goes unpunished, t h e dignity of t h e victim i s diminished.T h e l o g i c of mercy, f o r Camus, perpetuates i n j u s t i c e . Camu s l o g i c i s notmistaken, and even shared by Augustine. F or Augustine, forgivenessdoes leave i n j u s t i c e unpunished, and i s unacceptable u n l e s s conversion can

be expected; t h i s i s t h e c e n t r a l demonstration of t h e Confessions. Forgive-

ness must be t h e cornerstone of any Christian p o l i t i c s , but Camu s argu-ment i s not e a s i l y answered: i s he not r i g h t t h a t mercy perpetuates i n j u s -

t i c e ?Augustine himself ha s t h e arguments t o b l u n t Camus c r i t i q u e of Chris-

t i a n p o l i t i c s , a s w i l l be shown a t t h e end of a three-stage argument. A t t h ef i r s t s t a g e , I want t o contribute t o scholarship on Camus by showing t h a tThe Rebel i s s t r u c t u r e d by t h e themes of t h e Confessions. I t i s i n t h i s s e c -t i o n t h a t t h e basic p r i n c i p i e s of Camu s p o l i t i c s w i l l be described. How-e v e r , i n r e j e c t i n g t h e age of grace Camus d i d not r e j e c t a l i of Augustine sthought. T h e p o l i t i c s of r e b e l l i o n w i l l be shown t o be t h e same a s one oft h e p o l i t i c a l options defended by Augustine i n The C i t y of God. S p e c i f i -c a l l y , t h e second s t a g e shows t h a t t h e I o g i c of t h e r e b e l i s t h e same a s t h el o g i c of Augustine s Christian p r i n c e . Given t h a t Camus describes himselfa s having thoroughly r e j e c t e d Augustine, and C h r i s t i a n i t y , with h i s theoryof t h e r e b e l , we must a ssume t h a t Camus wa s unaware of Augustine stheory of t h e Christian p r i n c e . A t t h e f i n a l s t a g e , A ugustine s thought s h a l lbe used t o defend a p o l i t i c s of mercy. I t w i l l be seen t h a t no place can befound f o r mercy i n Camu s p o l i t i c s a s h i s t heory of r e b e l l i o n i s underwrit-t e n , and evidently s o a t t h e end of h i s book, by a Man ich ean metaphysicswhich Camus understands t o impose a l o g i c o f r e s t i t u t i o n . Having adopteda Man ich ean metaphysics, Camus r e j e c t s t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of conversion t ot h e good, and therewith mercy. I t w i l l be argued t h a t Augustine need notconcede Camus argument: he c an a cc ount f o r t h e phenomenon of violencewithout recourse t o Manichean p r i n c i p i e s and thereby genera te a philoso-

p p . 2 5 3 - 2 6 7 Revis ta Fi losf ica de Coimbra n . 16 11 9 9 9 )


3/15

Rebels and C r i s t i a n P r i n c e s : Camus and Augustine on Violente and P o l i t i c s 2 5 5

p hy of hope based upon a p o l i t i c s of mercy, which does not lead t oi n j u s t i c e .

Camus counter - theology 3

The reader i s l e f t i n no doubt t h a t Camus i s v i o l e n t l y opposed t o aphilosophy founded on g r a c e . Yet Camu s book i s not without a strangetheology of i t s own, and a t moment s even employs a sacramental language.Camus speaks of t h e r e b e l refusing t o be deprived of t h e personal s a c r a -

ment ( R , 1 5 ) ; The Rebel i s announced a s a h i s t o r y o f European pride( R , 1 1 ) ; Camus aims t o give u s hope f o r a new c r e a t i o n ( R , 1 1 ) ; what t h er e b e l contests i s t h e ends of man and of creation ( R . 2 3 ) ; t h e r e b e l i swilling t o s a c r i f i c e himself f o r t h e sake of t h e common good ; and w i l l

remain f a i t h f u l t o humani t y whic h modernity ha s not ( R , 2 2 ) . Th eexamples could be multiplied hese a r e only taken from t h e f i r s t f ewpages of t h e book nd nor i s t h e theological character of The Rebels u p e r f i c i a l . The counter-theology of Camus i s dominated by t h e samethemes found i n Augustine s Confessions.

This i s not n e c e s s a r i l y s u r p r i s i n g . Camus t h e s i s f o r h i s teaching degree,

written when he was 2 2 , had t h e t i t l e : Christian Metaphys ics andNeoplatonism: P l o t i n u s and S a i n t Augustine. Although Camus even a t t h i s

r e l a t i v e l y e a r l y date had r e j e c t e d C h r i s t i a n i t y , h i s biographer n o t e s , t o

prepare h i s t h e s i s , Camus c a r e f u l l y read and s c r i b b l e d i n t h e margins of t h e

t wo volumes of Augustine s Confessions i n t h e Gamie r C l a s s i c s e d i t i o n . 4

This e a r l y reading of Augustine appears t o have l e d t o a l i f e - l o n g appre-

c i a t i o n of Augustine. I n h i s Carnets, Camus w r i t e s , t h e only g r e a t Chris-

t i a n mind who looked t h e problem of e v i l i n t h e f a c e was S a i n t Augustine.

He wound up with t h e t e r r i b l e `N o man i s g o o d . . .5

The presente ofCatholicism i n La Peste i s t h e J e s u i t Paneloux whose s p e c i a l i t y i s Augustineand t h e Catholic w r i t e r J u l i e n Green r e p o r t s Camus comment a t a publicl e c t u r e hosted by t h e Dominicans, I am your Augustine before h i s con-

v e r s i o n . 1 am debating t h e problem of e v i l . And 1 am n o t g e t t i n g p a s t i t . t

3 The Rebel i s famously a countering t e x t Camus t a r g e t s i n t h e t e x t a r e many:

s u r r e a l i s m ; communism; l i b e r a l i s m ; f a s c i s m ; t h e t h e n and s t i l l f a s h i o n f o r d e S a d e ; a n 3 a -

z i n g l y , even t h e French R e v o l u t i o n ; and a l s o , h i s own p r e v i o u s a b s u r d i s m .The c a t a s t r o p h ct h e t e x t b r o u g h t t o Camus i n c l u s i o n i n t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l c i r c l e s o f F r a n c e i s well-documentcd

i n Todd s d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e Sartre-Camus d e b a t e : s e e Todd, 3 9 7 -3 1 0

4 I b i d . , 4 4 .

5 I b i d . , 2 2 9 .6 I b i d . , 2 3 0 .

Revista Filosfica de Coimbra n . I 1 6 (1 99 9) p p . 2 5 3 - 2 6 7


4/15

2 5 6 G . J . McAlee r

Had Camus been a s f a m i l i a r with The C i t y of God (had he ever read i t ? )a s with t h e Confessions, he would have appreciated t h a t t h e l o g i c t h a t s t r u c -t u r e s The Rebel - and which i s quoted i n t h e epigraph t o t h i s essay - i ss h a t t e r e d by t h e concept of t h e Christian p r i n c e .

J u s t a s t h e Confessions i s a descr iption of Aug us ti ne s ( and by exten-s i o n , o u r ) I o s t u n i t y ( C , 249) s o r e b e l l i o n i s s u e s f rom a blind impulse t odernand order i n t h e midst of chaos, and unity i n t h e very h e a r t of t h eephemeral. ( R , 1 0 ) The c e n t r a l focus of Camus work concerns a l o s t i n -nocence t h a t begins a search f o r a reasonable c u l p a b i l i t y . ( R . 1 1 ) A s s h a l lbe s e e n , t h e C h r i s t i a n prince bears j u s t such a g u i l t . Augustine i s e s p e c i a l l yc onc er ne d b y t h e l o s s of innocence. The e n t i r e Confessions might be s a i dt o be propelled both by t h i s l o s s and Augustine s f a s c i n a t i o n with why weso avidly seek t o l o s e our innocence ( C , 4 3 , 46 1 2 2 ) . From t h e exampleof t h e pear t r e e t o b i s a n a l y s i s of concupiscence , our seduction and l o s s ofinnocence i s t h e t o p i c of A ugustine s thought.

And t h e p a r a l l e l s continue. Rebellion i s an experience of a new i d e n -t i t y ( R , 1 4 - 5 ) , a moment when t h e r e b e l discerns within h e r s e l f an e t e r n a l

n a t u r e , a l i v i n g v i r t u e , says Camus ( R , 2 7 7 ) . This nature graces us a l lwith a shared objective i d e n t i t y . Th e communi ty established through t h i scommon i d e n t i t y i s mark ed by a borderline ( R , 1 3 ) , a l i m i t i n t e r n a l t o

a l i , functioning a s a law t h a t must not be t r a n s g r e s s e d . Nihilism ha s bro-ken humanity; i n Camu s a n a l y s i s , i t ha s c ros sed t h e forbidden f r o n t i e r .( R , 284) Rebel li on t u r n s t o n i h i l i s m , argues Camus, when t h e r e b e l f o r g e t sher s p e c i a l o r i g i n i n t h e n a t u r a l communi ty of human s o l i d a r i t y . I t i s f o r -getting t h i s shared i d e n t i t y t h a t makes murder possible: Rebelliousthought, t h e r e f o r e , cannot d ispense with memory. . . I n studying i t s actionsand i t s r e s u l t s , we s h a l l have t o s a y , each time whether i t remains f a i t h f u lt o i t s f i r s tnoble promise o r i f , through indolence o r f o l l y, i t f o r g e t s i t s o r i g i -

n a l purpose and plunges i n t o a mire of tyranny o r s e r v i t u d e . ( R , 2 2 ) Re-b e l l i o n the essence of love ( R , 1 9 ) - - when an a s s e r t i o n of a primor-d i a l memory ha s i t i n i t s power t o move t h e person f rom s o l i t u d e t o a news o l i d a r i t y t h a t ought never t o have been l o s t .

There i s perhaps no other book which i n s i s t s on so c e n t r a l a r o l e f o r -memory a s t h e Confessions and t h e r o l e t h a t memory plays i s t h e s a m e a si n Camu s thought. T h e Confessions demonstrate t h a t confession i s an a c tof love generating p r e c i s e l y t h e same movement a s r e b e l l i o n : one s bro-kenness i s healed through

a new intimacy t h a t ought never t o have beenl o s t ( C , 4 3 , 1 6 4 ) . Memory r e c a l l s Augustine t o a s o l id a r i t y and co mmu n i tyhe shares with God.7 Memory i s one of t h r e e aspects of t h e i m a g o dei

7 S a i n t A u g u s t i n e , C o n f e s s i o n s , t r a n s . , R . S . P i n e - C o f f i n (London: P e n g u i n , 1 9 6 1 , 2 1 0 2 5 0 : ( = C ) .

p p . 2 5 3 - 2 6 7 Revista Filosfica de Coimbra n . 16 ( / 9 9 9 )


5/15

Reb els a nd C r i s t i a n P r i n c e s : Camus and Augustine o n Violence and P o l i t i c s 2 5 7

which g i f t s t h e s o u l with an objective i d e n t i t y ( C , 2 3 1 ) whose preservationw i l l a l s o be t h e preservation o f human s o l i d a r i t y i t s e l f ( C , 8 1 - 2 ) . Forgettingplays an i d e n t i c a l r o l e f o r each t h i n k e r . The n i h i l i s t f o r g e t s her commoni d e n t i t y with her victims and f a l i s i n t o brokenness i n terms i d e n t i c a l t oAugustine s f a l l i n t o brokenness and h i s i na b i l i t y n o t t o h u r t o t h e r s throughf o r g e t t i n g t h a t he i s imago d e i .

Despite Camus a n a l y s i s of modernity a s a s e r i e s o f v i o l e n t , murderousl o g i c s , i t i s evident t h a t Camus does not r e j e c t modernity wholesale f o r h i sprimary charge against t h e reign of grace i s i t s demand t o accept my s -t e r y ( R , 5 5 ) , t h e s e c r e t me r c y of God ( C , 2 5 0 ) . The Rebel ha s a constantl o g i c of t h e reasonable opposed t o t h e mysterious, and c h i s d e s p i t e t h e f a c tt h a t t h e o r i g i n o f t h e borderline i s l e f t unspoken. Camus never addresses

how f o r t u i t o u s i t i s t h a t human nature has an o b j e c t i v e s t r u c t u r e t h a t worksf o r our s a l v a t i o n . Indeed, unresolved i s t h e presence a t t h e h e a r t of Camusconception of t h e human of a philosophy of g r a c e . J u s t a s i n Augustinesalvation i s a g i f t , s o i n Camus our salvation i s t h e g i f t of our n a t u r e ,

should, a s i s again t h e case i n Augustine, we choose i t . Admittedly, Camuswould i n s i s t t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n c e between t h e t wo theologies of grace l i e s i nt h e u n i v e r s a l i t y of t h e g i f t .

The l o g i c of the rebel a nd Chri st i an prince

The counter - theology of Camus becomes e x p l i c i t when he describes t h eadvent of t h e r e b e l and t h e reign of j u s t i c e a s simultaneously t h e

disappearance of t h e world of grace . He w r i t e s :

The r e b e l i s a man who i s on t h e point of accepting o r r e j e c t i n g t h e sacred anddetermined on laying claim t o a human s i t u a t i o n i n which a l i t h e answers a r e

human . . . From t h i s moment every question every word i s an a c t of r e b e l l i o nwhile i n t h e sacred world every word i s an a c t of grace I t would be possiblet o demonstrate i n t h i s manner t h a t only t wo possible worlds c an e x i s t f o r t h ehuman mind : t h e sacred o r , t o speak i n Christian t e r m s , t h e world of g ra ce)

a nd the world of rebellion . The disappearance of one i s equivalent t o t h e

appearance of t h e other . . . R , 2 1 ) .

Camus s e e s t h i s exclusionary l o g i c a t t h e r o o t of t h e French Revolu-

t i o n . Danton wants t h e death of t h e King because t h e r e can be no accom-

modat ion be tween j u s t i c e and g r a c e : J u s t i c e has t h i s i n common withg r a c e , and t h i s a l o n e , t h a t i t wants t o be t o t a l and t o r o l e a b s o l u t e l y . From

t h e moment t h e y c o n f l i c t , t h e y f i g h t t o t h e d e a t h . ( R , 1 1 4 ) I f one were only

t o read t h e Confessions, one mi ght come t o t h i n k t h a t Augustine would n o t

di sa gree wi th t h i s statement. He appears q u i t e e x p l i c i t t h a t r e b e l l i o n and

Revista Filosfica de Coimbra n . 1 6 (1999) p p . 2 5 3 - 2 6 7


6/15


grace cannot compromise t h e one with t h e o t h e r . Book X of t h e Confes-sions has i t s dramatic center i n Augustine s promise t o God t h a t h i s s o u l

s h a l l r e b e l no more. More and more, 0 Lord, y ou w i l l increase your g i f t s

i n me , s o t h a t my s o u l may follow me t o you, f r e e d from t h e concupiscencewhich binds i t , and r e b e l no more against i t s e l f . ( C , 234) Camusunderstands August ine s exper ience completely, only coming t o a d i f f e r -

e n t conclusion.8

Neverthcless, Augustine acknowlcdges i n h i s theory of t h c Christian

prince t h a t grace and r e b e l l i o n a r e n o t mutually exclusive. I t i s with t h i s

concept t h a t Augustine can defy Camu s claim t h a t C h r i s t i a n i t y p u t s t h cr e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r j u s t i c e i n t o God s hands, t h u s consecrating i n j u s t i c e .( R , 2 8 7 ) T h e fundamental s t r u c t u r e of Augustine s C i t y of God i s j u s t l yfamous. The c i t y of man i s characterized by a l u s t f o r domination andgovernment a s such cannot separate i t s e l f f rom violence and coercion.9Members of t h e City of God have offered t h e most complete s a c r i f i c e t oGod: they a r e broken and humble s p i r i t s having forsaken t h e i r l u s t f o rdomination (CG, 3 7 7 -9 ) . A s s u c h , when a tt ac ked t hey cannot r e t u r n v i o -lence f o r violence f o r should they do s o they would r e v e r t t o being mem-b e r s of t h e c i t y o f man (CG, 1 0 3 1 ) . This p o l i t i c s repeats t h e b a s i c s t r u c -t u r e of t h e Confessions: humility o r r e b e l l i o n . This i s t h e p o l i t i c s t o whichCamus strenuously o b j e c t s . However, another p o l i t i c s i s p o s s i b l e . Book I V ,chapter 1 6 of The C i t y of God has a question a s i t s t i t l e : Ca n good men con-s i s t e n t l y d e s i r e t o extend t h e i r dominion? This question r e v e a l s t h a t Camusha s not understood Christian p o l i t i c s when he w r i t e s : The world of graceand t h e world of r e b e l l i o n . T h e disappearance of one i s equivalent t o heappearance of t h e o t h e r . C e r t a i n l y , Camus might be excused f o r h i s mis-understanding a s August ine s formulat ion i s seemingly a contradiction i nt h e t e r r a s of h i s own p o l i t i c s . T h e good a r e supposed t o be s t r a n g e r s t o do-

minion (CG, 5 9 6 ) . Camus t h i n k s t h a t i n h i s theory of t h e r e b e l he ha s r e -futed Christ ian l o g i c by understanding t h a t t h e good cannot be strangerst o dominion i f they a r e a l s o t o be j u s t . The Christian prince i s no strangert o violence, indeed, violence i s i t s e l f t h e fo rm of her s a c r i f i c e . The Chris-t i a n prince does not s a c r i f i c e her l u s t f o r domination but s a c r i f i c e s for t h esake ofjustice her place i n t h e City of God, and does s o , a s a response t o great g i f t s of Go d . ( CG, 1 3 8 ) Good, but damned.. . a l o g i c found i nCamu s chapter h e Rejection of S a l v a t i o n .

8 But b e f o r e man a c c e p t s t h e s a c r e d world and i n o r d e r t h a t h e s h o u l d b e a b l e t o a c c e p ti t r b e f o r e h e e s c a p e s from i t and i n o r d e r t h a t h e should b e a b l e t o escape from i t t h e r e i s always a p e r i o d o f s o u l - s e a r c h i n g and r e b e l l i o n R . 2 1 ) .

9 S a i n t A u g u s t i n e , Th e C i t y of God, t r a n s . H . Bettenson London : Penguin, 1 9 7 2 ,6 0 0 - 1 87 5 6 : ( = CG).

p p . 2 5 3 - 2 6 7 Revista Filosofica de Coimbra n . 16 ( 1 9 9 9 )


7/15

R eb els a nd C r i s t i a n P r i n c e s Camus and Augustine on Violence and P o l i t i c s 2 5 9

This chapter i s dedicated t o Ivan Karamazov. Camus makes i t c l e a r t h a the sympathizes completely with Ivan s reasons f o r r e j e c t i n g t h e l i f e ofg r a c e . I v a n , claims Camus, launches t h e e s s e n t i a l undertaking of r e b e l -

l i o n , which i s t h a t o f replacing t h e reign o f grace by t h e r e i g n of j u s t i c e .( R , 56) I n Camu s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , Ivan r e j e c t s grace because i t i s unevenlydistributed and while some a r e saved others a r e damned. Ivan i s f u l l yconscious t h a t he i s amongst t h e saved, but i t i s i n t o l e r a b l e t o him. Ivanw i l l not be party t o t h e c r u c i f i x i o n of innocence ( R , 304) and s o refusesh i s own salvation i n a moment of ins ane generosity ( R , 3 0 4 ) . Better t ohave a communi ty with t h e masses of t h e damned t h a n t o l i v e i n commun-ion with t h e f ew who a r e saved, rea sons I va n ( R , 5 6 ) , and s o does not op-

poset h e

murderof h i s f a t h e r . Camus leaves

t i si n no

doubt a s t o t h es igni fi cance of t h i s murder. Having described i n d e t a i l i n t h e previouschapter t h e a t t a c k made by de S a d e on t h e n a t u r a l l a w , Camus notes t h a tt h e significance of t h e p a r r i c i d e l i e s i n i t s being an a t t a c k on procreation( R , 5 9 , n 3 ) . I t i s de S ade, of course, with h i s passion f o r sacrilege( R , 3 7 ) who most thoroughly e r a d i c a t e s procreation through a g l o r i f i c a t i o nof sodomy. But both Ivan and de S a d e have a s i n g l e aim: t o destroy t h epresence of God on e a r t h . God i s t o be d i s - i n c a r n a t e d , r e j e c t e d i n favourof j u s t i c e . Camus explains I v a n : Thus he does n o t absolutely deny t h eexistence of God . He r e f u t e s Him i n t h e narre of a moral value R , 5 5 ) .

A s with a l i t h e thinkers t r e a t e d i n The Rebel, Camus ha s a s t r a i n e drelationship with I v a n . He supports Ivan i n h i s r e j e c t i o n of a theology of

grace and i s i mp re ssed b y t h e e f f o r t i t t a k e s t o r e j e c t s a l v a t i o n f o r t h e sake

of a moral value n e v e r t h e l e s s , Camus r e j e c t s I v a n s c r i m i n a l excesses. Ivan

i s driven (however r e l u c t a n t l y ) t o acknowledge t h a t with God r e j e c t e d t h e r ei s no law and everything i s permitted. Ivan who s o wanted t o s e e a world

of innocence, f r e e f rom a l i crime, including divine crime, becomes t h e

bearer of a l o g i c with which t h e h i s t o r y o f contemporary nihilism r e a l l ybegins. ( R . 5 7) Of course, t h e Christ ian prince does not r e j e c t God, o rr e f u t e Him i n t h e narre of a moral value. S he d o e s , however, e x h i b i t t h e

s a m e insane generosi ty a s I v a n : commi t ted t o j u s t i c e , she forsakes he rsalvation by embracing a p o l i t i c s founded upon v i o l e n c e . Like I v a n , she

i s good but a k i l l e r . 1 0

1 0 I want t o i n s i s t upon t h e p a r e l i e l between I v a n and t h e C h r i s t i a n p r i nc e d e s p i t e

Augustine s a y i n g t h a t t h e good who e x e r c i s e dominion s h a l l r e c e i v e e t e r n a l l i f e (CG, 1 3 9 ) .

T h i s p o s i t i o n does n o t s i t w el l w i t h h i s e x c l u s i o n a r y l o g i c v e s s e l s o f w r a t h / v e s s e l s o f mercy

(CG, 598) n o r w i t h h i s d e s c r ip t i o n o f t h e C i t y o f G od when s h e r e f r a i n e d from f i g h t i n g

b a c k , t o e n s u r e h e r e t e r n a l s a l v a t i o n . (CG, 1 0 3 1 ) .

Revista Filosfica de Coimbra n . 1 6 ( 1 9 9 9 ) p p . 2 5 3 - 2 6 7


8/15

2 6 0

Manichean or Mercifui?

G . J . McAleer

Camus s e t s himself t h e t a s k t o a r t i c u l a t e a l o g i c of rebellion which

nevertheless does not i s s u e i n mass c r i m i n a l i t y . F or Camu s , t h e age of r e -b e l l i o n i s our h i s t o r i o r e a l i t y . ( R , 2 1) Living i n an unsacrosanct mo-

ment ( R , 2 1) he seeks t o answer t h i s q u e s t i o n : I s i t possible t o f i n d a r u l e

of conduct outside t h e realm of r e l i g i o n and i t s absoluto v a l u e s ? ( R , 2 1

What i s s o f a s c i n a t i n g about Camus answer i s t h a t he does n o ( presume,

and here i s y e t another dimension of h i s theology, t h a t innocence i s pos-

s i b l e i n r e b e l l i o n . A s he e x p l a i n s : The problem i s t o know whether t h i s

r e f u s a l can only l e a d t o t h e destruction of himself and of o t h e r s , whether

a l i r e b e l l i o n must end i n t h e j u s t i f i c a t i o n ofuniversal murder, o r whether,

on t h e c o n t r a r y , without laying claim t o an innocence t h a t i s impossible,

i t can discover t h e p r i n c i p i e of reasonable c u l p a b i l i t y . ( R , 1 1 ) Rebellion

must n e c e s s a r i l y rob t h e r e b e l of her innocence, a c e r t a i n s i n i s inescapable.

T h e c u l p a b i l i t y might b e t houg ht t o have i t s o r i g i n i n a r e j e c t i o n of God,and maybe t h i s i s a p a r t of Camu s t hought , but more a s s u r e d l y , i t pointst o a c u l p a b i l i t y i n respect t o other humans. I t i s here t h a t we approach

Camu s manichean presuppositions. Camus t e x t bears out t h e claim t h a th i s metaphysics i s manichean: but beyond t h e t e x t , such a presuppositionmust be i n place otherwise t h e r e i s no good explanation f o r why Camuswould i n s i s t t h a t r e b e l l i o n can o f f e r no more than a r e l a t i v e j u s t i c e . ( R ,2 9 0 ) What supposition i s i t t h a t f o r c e s Camus t o claim t h a t without sub-

mission t o God, humans w i l l be forced t o defend j u s t i c e a t a l i c o s t s andt h i s w i l l mean k i l l i n g other h u man s? For twenty centuries t h e sum t o t a lof e v i l has not diminished i n t h e world. ( R , 3 03 ) This sentence announces

Camus manichean p r e d i l e c t i o n . He teus u s , rebellion indefatigablyconfronts e v i l , f rom whic h i t can only derive a new impetus. ( R , 3 0 3 )I f rebellion indefatigably confronts e v i l , i t i s a l s o t r u e f o r Camus , t h a te v i l indefatigably confronts t h e r e b e l . T h e c u l p a b i l i t y o r criminalitywhich t h e r e b e l cannot escape presupposes a metaphysics of permanents t r u g g l e .

Confronted by murder and i t s i n j u s t i c e , t h e r e b e l , t h e ma n [who] f romt h e very depths of h i s s o u l c r i e s out f o r j u s t i c e ( R , 3 0 3 ) i s propelled t oTo s e h i s innocence. Camus explains t h e o r i g i n of t h i s c u l p a b i l i t y : t h e r e

i s an e v i l , undoubtedly, which men accumulate i n t h e i r f r a n t i c d e s i r e f o ru n i t y . ( R , 3 0 3 ) Th e u n i t a r i a n r e i g n of j u s t i c e i s t h e hallmark of Camusp o l i t i c s of r e b e l l i o n but i t i s a l s o a r e j e c t i o n o f another Augustinian p o l i t i c a lp r i n c i p i e . When Camus o b j e c t s t o h i s t o r i c a l C h r i s t i a n i t y ( R , 3 0 3 ) t h a t i t s cure of e v i l a nd mu rde r ( R , 3 0 3 ) i s an e t e r n a l l i f e beyond h i s t o r y , he i sr e a l l y disputing a principie of Christian jurisprudence. August ine (and

p p . 2 5 3 - 2 6 7 Revis ta Fi losf ica de Coimbra n . / 6 1 9 9 9 )


9/15

Rebels and C r i s t i a n P r i n c es : Camus and Augustine on V i o l e n t e and P o l i t i c s 2 6 1

Aquinas) 1 1 acknowledged t h a t t h e human d e s i r e f o r u t t e r innocence wouldc r e a t e i t s own e v i l : arguing t h a t where t h i s d e s i r e i s a c t i v e l y sought humancommuni ty w i l l be destroyed. Camus draws exactly t h e same conclusion

but refuses t o acknowledge t h e divine law which allows Augustine (andAquinas) t o r e s t r a i n t h e human d e s i r e f o r j u s t i c e . Camus i s , i n t h e f a c e ofmetaphysical i m p o s s i b i l i t y , i n t e n t upon a p o l i t i c s which seeks t o r e - s a n c -t i f y h i s t o r y . Th e Christian prince i s driven by t h e same u r g e , knowing a l ithe t i m e , t h a t her exercise of domination both defends and destroys t h emoral value of innocence . A l i t h e same, her p o l i t i c a l a c t i o n i s r e s t r a i n e di n her r e f u s a l t o leave Babel. Of course, a s i s t o be s e e n , her a c t i o n i s a l s or e s t r a i n e d by mercy. The r e b e l l i o n which l e a d s her away f rom humility t odomination s t o p s w e l l before t h e engine of n i h i l i s m : Augustine s Christianprince does not seek u n i t y .

I n seeking a t o t a l u n i t y and by assuming t h e permanente of s t r u g g l eagainst e v i l , t h e o r i g i n of Camus conviction t h a t t h e r e b e l must murder i sseen not t o be cynicism but h i s p a r t i c u l a r v i s i o n of human f i n i t u d e . L e f twithin h i s t o r y , humanity must s t r i v e f o r j u s t i c e i n order t o do what i t cant o e r a d i c a t e e v i l and murder. However, even by h i s g r e a t e s t e f f o r t man canonly propose t o diminish arithmetically t h e suf fering s of t h e world.( R , 3 0 3 ) Camus s a y s t h a t t h e r e b e l out o f a s t r a n g e form o f love ( R , 304)

i s condemned t o l i v e f o r t h o s e w h o . . . cannot Ti v e . ( R , 304) S u c h l o v e p r o -p e l s t h e r e b e l who without a moment s delay r e f u s e s i n j u s t i c e ( R , 304) owards murder. There w i l l always be t h e a f f r o n t o f i n j u s t i c e , ensuringt h a t t h e r e b e l s only v i r t u e w i l l l i e i n never y i e l d i n g t o t h e impulse t o a l -low himself t o b e eng ulf ed i n t h e shadows t h a t surround him and i n ob-s t i n a t e l y dragging t h e chains of e v i l , with which h e i s bound, toward t h el i g h t of good. ( R , 2 8 6 ) Th e manichean presupposition of Camu s theorycould not be c l e a r e r . We a r e bound by t h e chains o f e v i l and t h i s i s why

t h e r e b e l i s condemned t ot i v e f o r those who cannot l i v e and why i t i s

impossible t o T i v e i n innocence n j u s t i c e w i l l be ever present demandingt h a t we k i l l . Camus i s e x p l i c i t : t h e r e b e l c an never f i n d peace. ( R . 2 8 5 )

The b i t t e r (hopeless) consequence o f t h i s manichean metaphysics i sannounced i n t h e following passage. I n i t , Camus r e s t a t e s h i s manicheansupposition and draws t h e consequente: I f r e b e l l i o n e x i s t s , i t i s because

falsehood, i n j u s t i c e , and violente a r e p a r t o f t h e r e b e l s c o n d i t i o n . He can-

1 1 Fourthly, Augus t ine says (D e L i b . Arb. I . 5 , 6 ) , human la w cannot p u n i s t e or f orb id

a l i e v i l deeds, f o r while i t aims a t repressing a l i e v i l s , i t would follow t h a t many good thines

wouid be l o s t a nd th e service of th e common good, which i s necessary f o r hurnan

association, would be impeded. Therefore, t h a t no e v i l wouid remain unprohihitcd and

unpunished i t was necessary t h a t there be a Divine Law which would prohibit a l i s i n s .

(Saint Thomas Aquinas , The Treatise on La w, e d . R. Henle, S . J . [Sou th Bend, I N:

University of Notre Dame P r e s s , 1 9 9 3 1 , q . 9 1 , a . 4 , corpus, p . 1 7 1 ) .

Revista Filosfica de Coimbra n . 1 6 ( 1 9 9 9 p p . 2 5 3 - 2 6 7


10/15


11/15

Rebels and C r i s t i a n P r i n c e s : Camus and Augustine on Violente and P o l i t i c s 2 6 3

give t h e person who commi t s an i n j u s t i c e but he does n o t presume t h a tshould he k i l l , even i n defense of t hose s u f f e r i n g i n j u s t i c e , t h a t he couldthereby hope t o be excused f rom t h e s e v e r i t y of h i s l o g i c : Camus does notseek forgiveness . Here i s a theology of s a c r i f i c e without mercy . I t i s ana s c e t i c s theology : The choice w i l l remam open b et we en grace and h i s -t o r y. God o r t h e sword. ( R , 2 8 7 ) Though t h e sword i s not t h a t of n i h i l i s m ,but of r e b e l l i o n i t i s nevertheless a sword . Rebellion rooted i n t h e natu-r a l co mmu n i ty i s opposed t o t h e e v i l of h i s t o r y R , 2 8 9 without adopt-ing a criminal transcendence : r e b e l l i o n i s a c o n c i l i a t o r y value R , 2 8 8 )ready t o acknowledge t h e necessity of a l o s s of innocence.

T h e transcendence offered by Camus i s one s t a i n e d by h i s t o r y and i t si n e v i t a b l e c r i m i n a l i t y . I t i s a transcendence i n which s i n though acceptedcan s t i l l be acknowledged a s problematic, something purely h i s t o r i c a lthought cannot do : t o t h e contrary purely h i s t o r i c a l thought wholeheart-edly accepts t h e e v i l of h i s t o r y . R , 2 89 ) This manichean theory of h i s -t o r y i s t h e foundation o f Camus c r i t i q u e o f mercy . To f o r g i v e murder r a t h e rthan t o l i t e ra l l y f i g h t i t i s simply t o p a r t i c i p a t e more completely i n t h ecriminality of h i s t o r y . Thus, he writes of Christ ian l o v e , understood byCamus a s a love t h a t can f o r g i v e , only love can m a k e u s consent t o t h ei n j u s t i c e done t o Martha, t o t h e e x p l o i t a t i o n o f workers, a n d , f i n a l l y, t o t h e

death of innocent c h i l d r e n . ( R , 5 6 ) S a i n t - J u s t , Camus t e u s u s , demandsthe execution of t h e King because t h e crime of r o y a l t y i s permanent.( R , 119) The permanente of t h e crime precludes t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of f o r g i v e -n e s s . I f t h e people forgive today, glosses Camu s , they w i l l f i n d t h ecrime i n t a c t tomorrow even though t h e criminal s l e e p s peacefully i nprison . R, 1 1 9 ) Forgiveness i s n o t permitted where t h e s t a t e o f c r i m i n a l i t y

i s unchanging and Camus manichean metaphysics i n which f i n i t u d e andh i s t o r y i s an unchanging e v i l , cements t h e l i f e o f t h e sword a s t h e l i f e of

t h e r e b e l . Camu s argument founders a s soon a s one denies t h i s theory ofh i s t o r y .

Although Augustine s formal argument a g a i n s t Manichean doctrine i sfound i n t h e Confessions, t h e more b r i l l i a n t c r i t i q u e , and one t h a t c h a l -lenges t h e doc trine a s a theory of history i s found i n The C i t y of God.Augustine and Camus a r e agreed about t h e phenomenology of h i s t o r y , i t scriminality and murder but i t s nihilism i s not a product o f a metaphysical

violence a s i n Camus, but t h e h i s t o r i c a l emergence o f a l u s t f o r domina-

t i o n . T h e l u s t f o r domination enslaves a l l of us who e x e r c i s e i t ; leaving u s ,

a s Augustine puts i t , dominated by t h a t very l u s t of domination . (CG, 5 )

Augustine i s able t o provide evidence t h a t so me have been a b l e t o breakf r e e of t h i s domination t o dominate a s i n t h e case of t h e martyrs (CG,1 0 3 1 ) , t h e symbo l of t h e City of God, but a l s o t h e invading hordes who

amidst t h e i r slaughtering i n Rome respected t h e s a n c t u a r i e s of t h e Chris-

Revista Filosfica de Coimbra , . 1 6 ( 1 9 9 9 ) p p . 2 5 3 - 2 6 7


12/15


t i a n s (CG, 6 ) . A s s t a t e d a t t h e o u t s e t of t h i s e s s a y , t h e argument i s only

meant t o sh o w t h a t Camus argument a g a i n s t a Christian p o l i t i c s of mercy

does not succeed. Augustine robs The Rebel of i t s power t o convince both

by advocating a r e b e l of h i s own, t h e Christian p r i n c e , but a l s o by provi-

ding a theory of h i s t o r y t h a t i s a s r e a l i s t i c a s Camu s i n facing up t o t h e

horror o f h i s t o r y b u t refusing t o make t h e horror metaphysical. T he chains

t h a t wc have forged f o r ourselves c o n t r a s t s i g n i f i c a n t l y with Camu s meta-

physical chains f r o c o which t h e r e i s no escape. Having r e c a s t violence and

domination a s an h i s t o r i c a l phenomenon, Augustine can extend h i s p o l i t i c s

f rom t h e Christ ian prince t o include t h e martyrs of t h e City of God who,

brok en a nd humbled by t h e s a c r i f i c e of t h e i r I u s t t o dominate, forgive i n

t h e hope t h a t t h e i r s a c r i f i c e might convert o t h e r s . A ugustine s philosophy

of h i s t o r y allows hi m t o sh o w t h a t pace Camus, t h e martyrs forgiveness

i s not t o accept i n j u s t i c e : they can r i g h t l y hope t o transform t h e unjust i n t o

t h e j u s t . This demonstrat ion i s a l s o a fundamental d r i v e o f t h e Confessions.

A t t h e core of Augustine s Confessions i s h i s coming t o recognize againstPlato (and Camus) t h a t h i s t o r y i s a s i t e i n which s a l v a t i o n can be r e a l i z e d .

Indeed, A ugustine s p o s i t i o n i s t h a t h i s t o r y i s always redeemed ( C , 2 1 0 ,

2 3 1 ) . A s he says i n t h e opening pages, God i s t h e most present amongs t

u s . ( C , 2 3 and a l s o 8 2 -3 , 2 3 1 ) Th e t e x t i s s o structured a s t o allow t h e

reader t o recognize t h a t time and again Augustine made h i s own h i s t o r y ,and t h a t of h i s f r i e n d s , a h i s t o r y of e v i l p r e c i s e l y because he missed t h et r a n s f i g u r e d character of h i s t o r y accomplished by t h e I n c a r n a t i o n . T h e t e x ti s designed t o make c l e a r t h a t i f Augustine w i l l only submit t o h i s objectivei d e n t i t y a s a creature bound by an i d e n t i t y shared with God, h i s h i s t o r ywould likewise be transfigured f rom e v i l t o s a l v a t i o n , f rom brokenness t ou n i t y . Ultimately, and notwithstanding continuing d i f f i c u l t i e s , Augustine s

h i s t o r i c a l existence i s transfigured with h i s conversion:

The power o f your h a n d , 0 G od Almighty, i s i n d e e d g r e a t enough t o c u r e a l lt h e d i s e a s e s o f my s o u l . By g r a n t i n g me more abundant g r a c e y ou c a n evenquench t h e f i r e o f s e n s u a l i t y which provokes me i n my s l e e p . More and more,0 L o r d , y ou w i l l i n c r e a s e your g i f t s i n me, s o t h a t my s o u l ma y f o l l o w me t oy o u , f r e e d from t h e concupiscence which b i n d s i t , and r e b e l no more a g a i n s ti t s e l f( C , 2 3 4 )

Camus has not a pprec ia ted t h e complexity of Augustine s thought, andt h i s causes h i s argument t o f a i l . I t i s important t h a t t h e Christian value ofmercy and forgiveness cannot merely be a s s e r t e d . To point out t h a t Camu sargument leaves no room f o r mercy i s merely t o s t a t e t h e obvious: Camusknows t h i s , and h a t e s mercy a s a s e a l of i n j u s t i c e . I t i s because Augustinecan account f o r t h e phenomenology of history without recourse t oManichaen theory t h a t he i s a b l e t o provide a philosophical legitimacy f o r

p p . 2 5 3 - 2 6 7 Revista F i l a s v { l i c a de Coimbra-,, 16 (19941


13/15

Rebels a nd C ri s t ia n P r in c e s : Camus and Augustine on Violence and P o l i t i c s 2 6 5

t h e p r a c t i c e of mercy. Having stopped Camus argument, he could go on

t o c r i t i q u e Camus with respect t o a value which they do both embrace:

s o l i d a r i t y . Th e i n j u s t i c e t h a t i s h i s t o r y must be both accepted and r e j e c t e d

a t t h e same t i m e . 1 3 T h e r e b e l cannot escape h i s t o r y , and would not seekt o , a s t h i s would merely be t o leave h i s t o r y t o God. The r e b e l w i l l forever

be unreconciled t o i t , however: Even though he can p a r t i c i p a t e , by t h e

force of e v e n t s , i n t h e crime o f h i s t o r y , he cannot n e c e s s a r i l y l e g i t i m a t e i t .

( R , 2 9 0 ) T h e crime o f h i s t o r y betrays Camus manichean presupposition,

of course, but a l s o points t o a Platonic dimension i n Camu s thought.

Camus s t r e s s e s throughout The Rebel t h a t P l a t o s transcendence, t y p i f i e d

by S a i n t - J u s t , i s one o f t h e g r e a t sources o f n i h i l i s m , and t o t h i s e x t e n t ,

Camus i s willing t o accept Nietzsche. I n t u r n , however, Camus appears t o

have l e f t h i s own thought open t o a similar charge. J u s t a s S a i n t - J u s t i s

h o r r i f i e d by t h e f i n i t u d e o f t h e French people h a t t h e y cannot a t t a i n t h emoral heights t h a t S a i n t - J u s t has i d e n t i f i e d a s t h e F o r m o f t h e c i t i z e n oCamus cannot accept human f i n i t u d e . For Camus, f i n i t u d e , t h a t t h e human

i s h i s t o r i c a l , i s i d e n t i f i e d a s an e v i l . Moreover, t h e r e i s t h e P e a r t h a t Camus

ha s a l s o f a i l e d t o escape t h e i s o l a t i o n t h a t he s e e s a s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of t h e

Platonic nihilism o f S a i n t - J u s t . S a i n t - J u s t i s characterized a s a f i g u r e of

s o l i t u d e , a s a man who has detached himself f rom t h e co mmu n i ty through

such a profound love o f v i r t u e . S a i n t - J u s t s speech seeking t h e death o f t h e

King h a s , comment s Camus, a l i t h e earmarks o f a t h e o l o g i c a l t r e a t i s c .

( R , 1 1 8 ) S a i n t - J u s t denounces Louis a s t h e s t r a n g e r i n our midst empha-

s i z i n g t h a t Louis i s a s o l i t a r y because h i s r u l e i s n e c e s s a r i l y criminal a s a

r u l e by divine appointment. A s Camus p o i n t s o u t , when S a i n t - J u s t declares

t h a t no one can r i d e innocently he announces h i s forthcoming criminal-

i t y and h i s own s o l i t u d e . The condemnation o f t h e King i s a t t h e crux o f

our contemporary h i s t o r y . I t symbolizes t h e s e c u l a r i z a t i o n o f our h i s t o r y

and t h e d i s i n c a r n a t i o n o f t h e C h r i s t i a n G o d . . . Therefore t h e r e i s nothing b u ta semblance of God, relegated t o t h e heaven of p r i n c i p i e s . ( R , 120) These

e t e r n a l p r i n c i p i e s a r e T r u t h , J u s t i c e and Reason. The Republic e s t a b l i s h e s

principies t h a t a r e immortal, impassive, sheltered f rom t h e temerity of

man. ( R , 1 2 2 )Plato c o n s i s t e n t l y i d e n t i f i e s forms i n a s t a t e o f s o l i t u d e and t h e lover

who r i g h t l y loves a s likewise being i n s o l i t u d e . 1 4 Camus r i g h t l y i d e n t i f i e s

t h i s detachment from communi ty a s a form o f n i h i l i s m and f i n d s t h i s s t r u c -

1 3The r e b e l s a y s Camus r e f u s e s h i s c o n d i t i o n and h i s c o n d i t i o n t o a l a r g e e x t e n t i s

h i s t o r i c a l . I n j u s t i c e t h e t r a n s c i e n c e o f t i m e , d e a t h l i a r e m a n i f e s t i n h i s t o r y I n s p u r n i n gthem, h i s t o r y i t s e l f i s spurned . ( R , 289-90)

S ee The Symposittm ( O x f o r d : Oxford U . P . , 1 9 9 4 ) , 5 4 - 5 ; c f . The Phnedo, 1 3 1 .

Revista Filosfica de Coimbra t i . 1 6 ( 1 9 9 9 p p . 2 5 3 - 2 6 7


14/15


t u r e repeated i n a f i g u r e l i k e de Sade f o r whom s o l i t u d e i s power ( R , 248)

a s well a s i n t h e Romantics.15 Does Camus r e b e l t r u l y escape s o l i t u d e ,

however? Camus does n o t want power over other humans, n e v e r t h e l e s s , i f

power were not exerc ised one wouldaccept i n i q u i t y . ( R , 248) Thus v i o -

lence i s somet imes necessary (and once more t h e l o g i c of t h e Christian

prince i s c l e a r l y v i s i b l e ) , a s a rupture i n communicat ion which must a l -

w a y s r e t a i n t h e provisional character o f e f f r a c t i o n and c a r r y a personal

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . ( R , 2 9 2 ) Given h i s v i s i o n o f h i s t o r y , Camus i s s u r e l y forced

t o accept t h a t t h e r e b e l i s condemned t o a l i f e o f s o l i t u d e . T h e e f f r a c t i o n

o f communi ty necessary t o preserve t h e r e b e l l i o n i s n o t a contingent v a l u c :

i t i s n e c e s s i t a t e d by h i s t o r y. Camus d e c l a r e s t h a t h i s t o r y alone can o f f e r no

hope t o humanity ( R , 249) and t h u s r e b e l l i o n based on t h e transcendent

value of t h e n a t u r a l communi ty i s n e c e s s a r y . However, does n o t t h e meta-

physical cha ract er of h i s t o r y a s e v i l make t h e r e b e l s u f f e r a metaphysical

s o l i t u d e t h a t robs her of hope? S u r e l y , only a genuine r e c o n c i l i a t i o n b e -

tween immanence and transcendente can give hope t o t h e human person

and t h i s requires a very d i f f e r e n t desc ript ion of h i s t o r y : and August ine

would s u r e l y push t h i s p o i n t . J u s t a s S a i n t - J u s t f i n d s human f i n i t u d e i n t o l -

erable and therefore k i l l s i n order t o overcome f i n i t u d e , does not Camus

theorize t h e r e b e l a s someone forced t o be s o l i t a r y and f o r t h e s a m e r e a -

s o n , because f i n i t u d e i s i n t o l e r a b l e ? And j u s t a s t h e l o g i c s of nihilism donot lead t o provisional e f f r a c t i o n s of t h e natural community nor does

Camu s l o g i c of r e b e l l i o n : does not t h e permanent cha racter of t h e e f f r a c -

t i o n rob Camus of h i s ambition t o develop a p o s t - n i h i l i s t i c p o l i t i c s ?

Conclusion: Augus t in ian P o l i t i c s

The p r i n c i p i e s of Augustine s p o l i t i c s a r e equal t o t h e not i n s i g n i f i c a n tchallenge Camus own p o l i t i c s pose t o a Christian p o l i t i c a l v i s i o n centered

on mercy. The t wo p r i n c i p i e s which mos t successfully blunt Camu s c r i -t i q u e a r e Augustine s concept of t h e Christian prince and h i s theory of h i s -

t o r y. T h e f i r s t preserves j u s t i c e i n t h e world, t h e second gives us hope t h a tthose of us victim t o t h e l u s t f o r domination can be converted t o t h e good.

I t i s t h i s hope t h a t i s t h e g r e a t support of t h e p r a c t i c e of mercy. A p o l i t i c a l

theory developed i n t h e Middle A g e s i s e s p e c i a l l y i l l u m i n a t i n g a t t h i s p o i n t .

Al t h o u g h well known t o scholars of t h e Middle Ages , Giles of Romethought i s generally unknown. Hi s p o l i t i c a l theory i n p a r t i c u l a r deserves

1 1The Romantic h e r o i s ` b e a u t if u l , w i t h a b e a u t y unknown on t h i s e a r t h (Lermontov),

s o l i t a r y and p o w e r f u l , unhappy and s c o r n f u l , h e i s offhand even i n o p p r e s s i o n . ( R , 4 9 )

p p . 2 5 3 - 2 6 7 Revista Filos f i c a de Coimbra . 16 ( / 9 9 9 )


15/15

Rebels and C r i s t i a n P r i n c e s Camus and Augustine on Violence and P o l i t i c s 2 6 7

t o be b e t t e r known: i t includes many f i n e i n t e r p r e t a t i on s o f Augustine, andi n t h i s he i s stronger than Camu s . Though t y p i c a l l y regarded a s a l iultramontanist on account o f h i s p o s i t i o n t h a t S t a t e power should be sub-

servient t o Church power, t h i s position can beseen

a s an extension ofAugustine s p o l i t i c s o f t h e Christian p r i n c e . Giles o f Rome reasons t h a t i ft h e Church i s t o p r o t e c t t h e poor t h e Churc h must needs have a coercivepower i f i t i s t o be an organ o f j u s t i c e i n t h e world. I n t h i s reasoning, heobserves a l o g i c i n Augustine which Camus ha s missed. I n h i s DeEcclesiastica P o t e s t a t e , Giles mak es t h i s p o s i t i o n c l e a r i n a powerful im-age drawn f rom t h e Book o f Numbers . God orders t h e f o r t y - e i g h t f o r t i f i e dc i t i e s of t h e Jewish kingdom t o be given t o t h e p r i e s t s f o r them t o r u l e . S i xof these c i t i e s a r e t o be s e t a p a r t a s asylums, Giles t e l l s u s , so t h a t those

who had shed blood might f l e e t o them. 1 6 J u s t i c e and mercy : a formula

f o r a softened sword o f j u s t i c e t h a t eluded Camus.

Loyola College i n Mary land

1 6 Giles of Rome O. S . A . , On Ecclesiastical Pourer, Medieval P o l i t i c a l P h i l o s o p / r v .

e d . R. Lerner M. Mahdi (New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1 9 6 3 ) , 3 9 7 .

Revista FilosdJica de Coimbra r i . 1 6 ( 1 9 9 9 p p . 2 5 3 - 2 6 7

Documents

Rebels and Christian