Uh-oh, it looks like your Internet Explorer is out of date.

For a better shopping experience, please upgrade now.

Camus and Sartre: The Story of a Friendship and the Quarrel That Ended It

Camus and Sartre: The Story of a Friendship and the Quarrel That Ended It

by Ronald Aronson

Until now it has been impossible to read the full story of the relationship between Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre. Their dramatic rupture at the height of the Cold War, like that conflict itself, demanded those caught in its wake to take sides rather than to appreciate its tragic complexity. Now, using newly available sources, Ronald Aronson offers the first


Until now it has been impossible to read the full story of the relationship between Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre. Their dramatic rupture at the height of the Cold War, like that conflict itself, demanded those caught in its wake to take sides rather than to appreciate its tragic complexity. Now, using newly available sources, Ronald Aronson offers the first book-length account of the twentieth century's most famous friendship and its end.

Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre first met in 1943, during the German occupation of France. The two became fast friends. Intellectual as well as political allies, they grew famous overnight after Paris was liberated. As playwrights, novelists, philosophers, journalists, and editors, the two seemed to be everywhere and in command of every medium in post-war France. East-West tensions would put a strain on their friendship, however, as they evolved in opposing directions and began to disagree over philosophy, the responsibilities of intellectuals, and what sorts of political changes were necessary or possible.

As Camus, then Sartre adopted the mantle of public spokesperson for his side, a historic showdown seemed inevitable. Sartre embraced violence as a path to change and Camus sharply opposed it, leading to a bitter and very public falling out in 1952. They never spoke again, although they continued to disagree, in code, until Camus's death in 1960.

In a remarkably nuanced and balanced account, Aronson chronicles this riveting story while demonstrating how Camus and Sartre developed first in connection with and then against each other, each keeping the other in his sights long after their break. Combining biography and intellectual history, philosophical and political passion, Camus and Sartre will fascinate anyone interested in these great writers or the world-historical issues that tore them apart.

Editorial Reviews

Times Literary Supplement - David Drake
"With meticulous even-handedness, this internationally renowned Sartre expert has produced a remarkably non-partisan account which also reminds us that it is possible to combine the highest level of scholarship with a lively and readable style of writing. Making judicious use of archive and original interview material, which he combines with literary criticism, political insights and anecdotes, Aronson firmly locates the Camus-Sartre relationship in the political and cultural contexts of early post-War France. This important contribution to twentieth-century intellectual and cultural history reveals as never before the extent to which the two men interacted with each other through their writings both before and, importantly, after the 1952 rupture."
Times Literary Supplement
With meticulous even-handedness, this internationally renowned Sartre expert has produced a remarkably non-partisan account which also reminds us that it is possible to combine the highest level of scholarship with a lively and readable style of writing. Making judicious use of archive and original interview material, which he combines with literary criticism, political insights and anecdotes, Aronson firmly locates the Camus-Sartre relationship in the political and cultural contexts of early post-War France. This important contribution to twentieth-century intellectual and cultural history reveals as never before the extent to which the two men interacted with each other through their writings both before and, importantly, after the 1952 rupture.

— David Drake

Publishers Weekly
Beginning with Camus's introduction, from pied noir roots, into the Parisian circle dominated by Sartre and his existentialist milieu, Aronson (Sartre's Second Critique) opens this chronological tale with two resistance writers finding differing paths in the violent days of occupied France. Aronson's perceptive grasp of the distinct orientations of Sartre and Camus helps navigate the reader through their fluctuating political positions and oscillations between popularity and ostracism. While the initial divergence saw Camus supporting an activist resistance and Sartre offering a form of disengagement, Aronson documents the dramatic change during the Cold War and the rise of the Algerian resistance, when Sartre shifted toward embracing violence and Camus thoroughly denounced it. Through much of this postwar turmoil, each evolved his thought in an intimate opposition-an opposition that came to a decisive showdown in the pages of Sartre's Les Temps Modernes. Following a review of Camus's The Rebel, which unflinchingly panned the book, the author responded with a livid letter to the editor. Sartre's counterresponse was to be the last conversation the two ever shared. Aronson's evenhanded analysis of the quarrel reveals the frighteningly personal tack taken by these two amid a political debate that decisively ended their friendship. The consistently close reading of the writings of these authors reveals those writings in many places to be utterly personal, casting the other as a rival until the very end. Aronson's literary acuity combined with an entertaining use of anecdotes on social and personal jealousies Sartre and Camus harbored makes the book a useful biographical background to the major works of these authors and a most enjoyable tale of the turmoil of intellectual life in postwar France. (Jan.) Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information.
Foreign Affairs
This excellent study of the friendship and break between Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre deals with a subject that goes far beyond intellectual history; it illuminates choices that millions of French readers have personally had to make. Although both grew up without fathers, the two men came from very different milieus: Sartre was bourgeois (and hated it), whereas Camus was raised in Algeria by an illiterate mother. Camus' political involvement grew out of his concern for the lives of the Algerian poor; Sartre was drawn to politics only after spending time in a World War II prison camp, long after he had won acclaim as a philosopher and novelist. When France was liberated, the two men became the country's leading new intellectuals and heralds of existentialism (a label Camus never accepted), and over the next 15 years-until Camus' accidental death in 1960-they figured in a kind of three-act politico-intellectual play, which Aronson recounts with erudition, empathy, fairness, and elegance. At first, Camus and Sartre were close friends united by common experience in the Resistance, promoting social change while evincing a clear-eyed determination to face the ethical and political dilemmas of a somber universe. The great issue that began to divide them in the 1950s was communism, and the 1952 publication of Camus' The Rebel led to their break. Their opposing views on violence subsequently led them to react differently to war in Algeria, with Sartre accepting violent means as an acceptable tool in the fight for decolonization while Camus, horrified by the atrocities of both sides, stayed silent in public. Ultimately, of course, neither silence nor shrillness had any impact on the course ofevents.
Library Journal
The brightest stars shining in the existentialist universe, Camus and Sartre produced between them some of the most significant plays (No Exit), novels (The Plague), essays ("The Myth of Sisyphus"), and philosophical treatises (Being and Nothingness) of the mid-20th century. In 1938, the two began a famously rocky friendship spurred by Camus's review of Sartre's novel Nausea. Until now, the published accounts of this friendship have tended to express partisan views of each writer. Drawing on newly available archival materials, Aronson (Sartre's Second Critique) evenhandedly probes the delicate relationship between these two writers. Bound together by their views of the absurdity of existence, the two developed close ties that lasted until 1952. Aronson demonstrates, however, that Camus and Sartre had their differences from the beginning: Camus's political commitment ran much deeper than Sartre's, and the young writer expressed his philosophical ideas in lyrical essays and best-selling novels while Sartre couched his ideas in complex theoretical works. They eventually parted ways for good in 1952 in a very vicious and public quarrel-an exchange of letters in Camus's paper, Combat-over the power and influence of communism and the use of violence as an effective political tool. Aronson's engaging study offers us a glimpse of a time when philosophy mattered. Recommended for larger public libraries and philosophy collections.-Henry L. Carrigan Jr., Lancaster, PA Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information.

Product Details

University of Chicago Press
Publication date:
Phoenix Poets Ser.
Edition description:
Product dimensions:
6.00(w) x 9.00(h) x 1.00(d)

Read an Excerpt

Camus and Sartre

The Story of a Friendship and the Quarrel That Ended It
By Ronald Aronson

University of Chicago Press

Copyright © 2004 Ronald Aronson
All right reserved.

ISBN: 9780226027968

Chapter One

First Encounters

Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus first met in June 1943, at the opening of Sartre's play The Flies. When Sartre was standing in the lobby, according to Simone de Beauvoir, "a dark-skinned young man came up and introduced himself: it was Albert Camus." His novel The Stranger, published a year earlier, was a literary sensation, and his philosophical essay The Myth of Sisyphus had appeared six months previously. The young man from Algiers was marooned in France by the war. While convalescing from an exacerbation of his chronic tuberculosis in Le Panelier, near Chambon, Camus had been cut off from his wife by the Allied conquest of French North Africa and the resulting German invasion of unoccupied France in November 1942. He wanted to meet the increasingly well-known novelist and philosopher-and now playwright-whose fiction he had reviewed years earlier and who had just published a long article on Camus's own books. It was a brief encounter. "I'm Camus," he said. Sartre immediately "found him a most likeable personality."

In November, Camus moved to Paris to start working as a reader forhis (and Sartre's) publisher, Gallimard, and their friendship began in earnest. At their first get-together at the Cafe Flore-where Sartre and Beauvoir worked, kept warm, ate, and socialized-the three started off awkwardly. Then they started talking shop, Camus and Sartre sharing their regard for the surrealist poet Francis Ponge's Le Parti pris des choses. What "led to the ice being broken" between them, according to Beauvoir, was Camus's passion for the theater. Camus had led an amateur political theater troupe in Algiers. "Sartre talked of his new play [No Exit] and the conditions that would govern its production. Then he suggested that Camus should play the lead and stage it. Camus hesitated at first, but when Sartre pressed the point he agreed." They held a few rehearsals in Beauvoir's hotel room for what was to be a low-budget touring production. "The readiness with which Camus flung himself into this venture endeared him to us; it also hinted that he had plentiful time at his disposal. He had only recently come to Paris; he was married, but his wife had stayed behind in North Africa." Sartre was pleased with Camus's work in the role of Garcin, but his financial backer withdrew; this man's wife, who was to be showcased in No Exit, was arrested for suspected Resistance activity. Sartre was then offered the chance to present the play in a professional production on the Paris stage, and Camus obligingly backed out. But the friendship was cemented. "His youth and independence created bonds between us: we were all solitaries, who had developed without the aid of any 'school'; we belonged to no group or clique."

If the friendship seemed so easy at the beginning, one reason was that Sartre and Camus had already gotten to know each other in ways more important than a handshake. Avid readers, each absorbed in shaping his own ideas and styles, the young writers had read each other's books well before they met. Their reviews of each other's early writings are still among the most interesting and enthusiastic commentaries. Although not uncritical, Sartre's and Camus's first responses to each other express the literary and philosophical kinship that underlay their relationship. They also introduce us to one of the most important sites of their interaction for over twenty years-their sometimes direct, sometimes veiled, references to each other. From their first meeting to the last words they exchanged, we will find some of their most vital and charged encounters on paper.

Camus discovered Sartre in October 1938 when he read and reviewed Nausea. The young pied-noir (a Frenchman born in Algeria), was a fledgling reporter and author of a column entitled "The Reading Room" for an Algiers left-wing daily. He had published locally two small books of essays, The Wrong Side and the Right Side and Nuptials, and after abandoning a first novel had begun writing The Stranger. Though only in his mid-twenties, the would-be novelist wrote remarkably self-assured responses in his literary column to the new fiction being published in Paris, including Gide's The Counterfeiters, Nizan's The Conspiracy, Silone's Bread and Wine, Huxley's Those Barren Leaves, Amado's Bahia, and Sartre's Nausea and The Wall.

Camus's review of Nausea was demanding and appreciative. He was no dazzled provincial, light-years from Paris's sophistication, but a peer who deeply shared Sartre's purposes and cheered him on, only to be disappointed by what he saw at this early period as Sartre's ultimate failure. Nausea recounts the breakdown of the reassuring daily life of Antoine Roquentin, who is staying in a western port city and working on a biography of a Revolution-era marquis. Roquentin feels nauseated as he experiences the absurdity normally hidden by his routines, and the truth of that absurdity appears ever more sharply as his life slowly gives way around him. It is a dazzling thought-experiment, containing some marvelous characterizations and descriptions. As Camus had told a friend several months before he wrote the review, he had "thought a lot about" the book, and it was "very close to a part of me." He led off his review by asserting that "a novel is nothing but philosophy expressed in images." In a good novel, however, the philosophy becomes one with the images. Camus gave no indication of knowing that the novelist was also a philosopher who had already published a book on the imagination in 1936 and a long article entitled "The Transcendence of the Ego" the following year. He himself had earned the diplome d'etudes superieures (the equivalent of a master's degree) in philosophy with a thesis on Saint Augustine and Plotinus. Sartre, he insisted, broke the balance between his novel's theories and its life. As a result, its author's "remarkable fictional gifts and the play of the toughest and most lucid mind are at the same time both lavished and squandered." Lavished: each of the book's chapters, taken by itself, "reaches a kind of perfection in bitterness and truth." Daily life in Bouville "is depicted with a sureness of touch whose lucidity leaves no room for hope." And each of Sartre's reflections on time effectively illustrated the thinking of philosophers from Kierkegaard to Heidegger. Squandered: the descriptive and the philosophical aspects of the novel "don't add up to a work of art: the passage from one to the other is too rapid, too unmotivated, to evoke in the reader the deep conviction that makes art of the novel."

Camus went on to praise Sartre's descriptions of absurdity, the sense of anguish that arises as the ordinary structures imposed on existence collapse in Antoine Roquentin's life, and his resulting nausea. Sartre's deft handling of this strange and banal subject moves with a "vigor and certainty" reminiscent of Kafka. But-and here Sartre differs from Kafka-"some indefinable obstacle prevents the reader from participating and holds him back when he is on the very threshold of consent." By this, Camus meant not only the imbalance between ideas and images but also Sartre's negativity. Sartre dwells on the repugnant features of humankind "instead of basing his reasons for despair on certain of man's signs of greatness." And the reviewer was also bothered by the "comic" inadequacy of Roquentin's final attempt to find hope in art, considering how "trivial" art is when compared with some of life's redeeming moments.

Though strongly critical, Camus appreciated Sartre's ideas and enjoyed his honesty and his capacity to break new ground. The review's closing words stress his admiration:

This is the first novel from a writer from whom everything may be expected. So natural a suppleness in staying on the far boundaries of conscious thought, so painful a lucidity, are indications of limitless gifts. These are grounds for welcoming Nausea as the first summons of an original and vigorous mind whose lessons and works to come we are impatient to see.

Was this merely a reviewer's posture, a way of balancing criticism with just enough praise so as to not sound peevish? The impatient critic did not have long to wait. Less than six months later, Sartre's next book fully satisfied him. In February 1939, in reviewing Sartre's collection of stories The Wall, Camus enthusiastically hailed Sartre's lucidity, his portrayal of the absurdity of existence, and his depiction of characters whose freedom was useless to them. Their negativity-if anything, stronger in The Wall than in Nausea-now troubled him less. Overwhelmed by their freedom, these people could not overcome absurdity as they bumped up against their own lives. They had "no attachments, no principles, no Ariadne's thread," because they were unable to act. "From this stems both the immense interest and the absolute mastery of Sartre's stories." The reader does not know what the characters will do from one moment to the next; their author's "art lies in the detail with which he depicts his absurd creatures, the way he observes their monotonous behavior."

Camus confessed to being unable to put these stories down. They gave their reader "that higher, absurd freedom which leads the characters to their own ends." It was a useless freedom, which "explains the often overwhelming emotional impact of these pages as well as their cruel pathos." Sartre described an absurd human condition, but he refused to flinch before it. The philosophy and the images were now in balance. Camus's conclusion indicated not only his enthusiasm for the author but his sense of common purpose with a writer who,

in his two books, has been able to get straight to the essential problem and bring it to life through his obsessive characters. A great writer always introduces his own world and its message. Sartre's brings us to nothingness, but also to lucidity. And the image he perpetuates through his characters, of a man seated amid the ruins of his life, is a good illustration of the greatness and truth of his work.

"Greatness and truth"-"la grandeur et la verite." Might Sartre have seen this tribute? On his side, all we know for certain is a literary encounter that took place in fall 1942. Discovering Camus only weeks after sending off the completed manuscript of Being and Nothingness, he was moved to devote a generous, detailed, 6,000-word essay to The Stranger. In this striking article, Sartre reads that book alongside The Myth of Sisyphus, the fiction in relation to the philosophy. As he writes, let us listen to the different voices:

The absurd ... resides neither in man nor in the world if you consider each separately. But since man's dominant characteristic is "being-in-the-world," the absurd is, in the end, an inseparable part of the human condition. Thus, the absurd is not, to begin with, the object of a mere idea; it is revealed to us in a doleful illumination. "Getting up, tram, four hours of work, meal, sleep, and Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, in the same routine ...," and then, suddenly, "the seeing collapses," and we find ourselves in a state of hopeless lucidity.

Here Sartre is approvingly summarizing and quoting from a passage near the beginning of The Myth of Sisyphus, where Camus lays out his basic ideas. Surprisingly, the quoted passage sounds like Camus's paraphrase of none other than Roquentin's experience in Nausea. Sartre continues, in apparent agreement with Camus: "If we are able to refuse the misleading aid of religion or existential philosophies, we then possess certain basic, obvious facts: the world is chaos, a 'divine equivalence born of anarchy'; tomorrow does not exist, since we all die. 'In a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger.'"

Turning directly to the context in The Myth of Sisyphus where this sentence occurs, and reading from this point forward, we are reminded of Nausea: "At any streetcorner the feeling of absurdity can strike a man in the face." And on the next page of The Myth of Sisyphus is the Sartre-like passage about daily routine collapsing, which Sartre quotes in his review. As we turn the page, Sartre's novel is mentioned explicitly: "This nausea, as a writer of today calls it, is also the absurd." Whose voice, then, is heard in the original quotation above? In a stunning reflection of kinship, Sartre enthusiastically quoted Camus-whose analysis drew upon Sartre. It is both of their voices at one and the same time.

Beyond this kinship, Sartre compared Camus with Kafka and Hemingway, whom he admired, and praised The Stranger for its "skillful construction."

There is not a single unnecessary detail, nor one that is not returned to later on, and used in the argument. And when we close the book, we realize that it could not have had any other ending. In this world that has been stripped of its causality and presented as absurd, the smallest incident has weight. There is no single one which does not help to lead the hero to crime and capital punishment. The Stranger is a classical work, an orderly work, composed about the absurd and against the absurd.

The author of Nausea obviously admired the imaginative power of The Stranger. The stark simplicity of Camus's language, his ability to evoke the physical, the unforgettable descriptions of the funeral vigil, the next morning's procession, and Meursault's daily routines combine with more disturbing aspects-Meursault's lack of normal human emotion, his mindless murder of the Arab, the prosecutor's outrage at the young man's indifference toward his mother's death, his own defiance of the jury and its sense of propriety, as well the improbability of a death sentence for a white man who has killed an Arab in Algeria-to create the great novel of French Algeria. But how did the author of Being and Nothingness respond to The Myth of Sisyphus? Having just completed one of the most original and profound philosophical constructions of the twentieth century, Sartre showed respect for the philosophical essayist who, "by virtue of the cool style of The Myth of Sisyphus" as well as its subject, "takes his place in the great tradition of those French moralists" regarded as Nietzsche's forerunners. "The turn of his reasoning, the clarity of his ideas, the cut of his expository style and a certain kind of solar, ceremonious and sad sombreness, all indicate a classic temperament."

Just as Sartre must have noticed that The Stranger came alive as fiction in ways that his own Nausea did not-as Camus had astutely pointed out four years earlier-so also he must have seen that for all its appeal as popular philosophizing The Myth of Sisyphus was the work of a dabbler in philosophy and not a systematic builder of ideas. Camus briefly dismissed existentialists such as Jaspers, Heidegger, and Kierkegaard en route to insisting that nothing could overcome life's absurdity. Sartre, on the other hand, had spent years working through the phenomenology of Heidegger and Husserl until he synthesized them in Being and Nothingness into a work that sought to penetrate the very nature of being. Starting with Cartesian individual consciousness, Sartre carefully described basic structures of existence, fundamental human projects, and characteristic patterns of behavior such as bad faith. By the end of the book he was poised to follow his philosophy's implications, as he did over the next several years, into virtually every aspect of existence-from daily life and politics to ethics, artistic creation, and the nature of knowledge. In The Myth of Sisyphus, on the other hand, starting from the premise that "the meaning of life is the most urgent of questions," Camus stayed on the terrain of experience and its frustrations rather than pursuing "the learned and classical dialectic." Thus both The Myth of Sisyphus and Being and Nothingness began with the absurd and exuded the same zeitgeist; yet they were vastly different.

Just how different is conveyed joltingly in a single, nasty "by the way": "Camus shows off a bit by quoting passages from Jaspers, Heidegger, and Kierkegaard, whom, by the way, he does not always seem to have quite understood." The philosopher, agrege from the Ecole Normale Superieure, puts down the philosophizer, diplome d'etudes superieure from the University of Algiers.


Excerpted from Camus and Sartre by Ronald Aronson Copyright © 2004 by Ronald Aronson. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

Meet the Author

Ronald Aronson is Distinguished Professor of interdisciplinary studies at Wayne State University. He is the author or editor of seven previous books, including Sartre's Second Critique and Stay Out of Politics: A Philosopher Views South Africa, both published by the University of Chicago Press.

Customer Reviews

Average Review:

Post to your social network


Most Helpful Customer Reviews

See all customer reviews