What do you think?
Rate this book
Caligula and Three Other Plays
This English edition includes the plays Caligula, The Misunderstanding (Le Malentendu), State of Siege (L'État de siège), and The Just Assassins (Les Justes).
302 pages, Mass Market Paperback
First published July 4, 1949
207 people are currently reading
6178 people want to read
About the author
Albert Camus
1,075 books37.5k followersWorks, such as the novels
The Stranger
(1942) and
The Plague
(1947), of Algerian-born French writer and philosopher Albert Camus concern the absurdity of the human condition; he won the Nobel Prize of 1957 for literature.
Origin and his experiences of this representative of non-metropolitan literature in the 1930s dominated influences in his thought and work.
He also adapted plays of Pedro Calderón de la Barca, Lope de Vega, Dino Buzzati, and Requiem for a Nun of William Faulkner. One may trace his enjoyment of the theater back to his membership in l'Equipe, an Algerian group, whose "collective creation" Révolte dans les Asturies (1934) was banned for political reasons.
Of semi-proletarian parents, early attached to intellectual circles of strongly revolutionary tendencies, with a deep interest, he came at the age of 25 years in 1938; only chance prevented him from pursuing a university career in that field. The man and the times met: Camus joined the resistance movement during the occupation and after the liberation served as a columnist for the newspaper Combat.
The essay Le Mythe de Sisyphe (The Myth of Sisyphus), 1942, expounds notion of acceptance of the absurd of Camus with "the total absence of hope, which has nothing to do with despair, a continual refusal, which must not be confused with renouncement - and a conscious dissatisfaction."
Meursault, central character of L'Étranger (The Stranger), 1942, illustrates much of this essay: man as the nauseated victim of the absurd orthodoxy of habit, later - when the young killer faces execution - tempted by despair, hope, and salvation.
Besides his fiction and essays, Camus very actively produced plays in the theater (e.g., Caligula, 1944).
The time demanded his response, chiefly in his activities, but in 1947, Camus retired from political journalism.
Doctor Rieux of La Peste (The Plague), 1947, who tirelessly attends the plague-stricken citizens of Oran, enacts the revolt against a world of the absurd and of injustice, and confirms words: "We refuse to despair of mankind. Without having the unreasonable ambition to save men, we still want to serve them."
People also well know La Chute (The Fall), work of Camus in 1956.
Camus authored L'Exil et le royaume (Exile and the Kingdom) in 1957. His austere search for moral order found its aesthetic correlative in the classicism of his art. He styled of great purity, intense concentration, and rationality.
Camus died at the age of 46 years in a car accident near Sens in le Grand Fossard in the small town of Villeblevin.
Chinese 阿尔贝·加缪
Origin and his experiences of this representative of non-metropolitan literature in the 1930s dominated influences in his thought and work.
He also adapted plays of Pedro Calderón de la Barca, Lope de Vega, Dino Buzzati, and Requiem for a Nun of William Faulkner. One may trace his enjoyment of the theater back to his membership in l'Equipe, an Algerian group, whose "collective creation" Révolte dans les Asturies (1934) was banned for political reasons.
Of semi-proletarian parents, early attached to intellectual circles of strongly revolutionary tendencies, with a deep interest, he came at the age of 25 years in 1938; only chance prevented him from pursuing a university career in that field. The man and the times met: Camus joined the resistance movement during the occupation and after the liberation served as a columnist for the newspaper Combat.
The essay Le Mythe de Sisyphe (The Myth of Sisyphus), 1942, expounds notion of acceptance of the absurd of Camus with "the total absence of hope, which has nothing to do with despair, a continual refusal, which must not be confused with renouncement - and a conscious dissatisfaction."
Meursault, central character of L'Étranger (The Stranger), 1942, illustrates much of this essay: man as the nauseated victim of the absurd orthodoxy of habit, later - when the young killer faces execution - tempted by despair, hope, and salvation.
Besides his fiction and essays, Camus very actively produced plays in the theater (e.g., Caligula, 1944).
The time demanded his response, chiefly in his activities, but in 1947, Camus retired from political journalism.
Doctor Rieux of La Peste (The Plague), 1947, who tirelessly attends the plague-stricken citizens of Oran, enacts the revolt against a world of the absurd and of injustice, and confirms words: "We refuse to despair of mankind. Without having the unreasonable ambition to save men, we still want to serve them."
People also well know La Chute (The Fall), work of Camus in 1956.
Camus authored L'Exil et le royaume (Exile and the Kingdom) in 1957. His austere search for moral order found its aesthetic correlative in the classicism of his art. He styled of great purity, intense concentration, and rationality.
Camus died at the age of 46 years in a car accident near Sens in le Grand Fossard in the small town of Villeblevin.
Chinese 阿尔贝·加缪
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 161 reviews
March 8, 2025
4.5
Bleak. Absurd. Brilliant.
Did I say anything about the Creator? I heartily approve of all He does. For I, too, am a judge in my own fashion. I’ve read in books that it’s wiser to be hand in glove with Him than to be his victim. What’s more, I doubt if God is really to blame. Once men start upsetting the applecart and slaughtering each other, you soon discover that God—though He, too, knows the ropes—is a mere amateur compared with them.
- Excerpt from Caligula
The subject matter of these four plays revolves around life, death, meaning of existence, the power of love, justice and God.
1- Caligula ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
I want to drown the sky in the sea, to infuse ugliness with beauty, to wring a laugh from pain.
2- The Misunderstanding ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
This world we live in doesn’t make sense.
3- State of Siege ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
If you must die, I’ll envy even the earth that wraps your body.
4- The Just Assassins ⭐⭐⭐⭐
Loving, that’s very well … but to be loved, that’s another matter...
Bleak. Absurd. Brilliant.
Did I say anything about the Creator? I heartily approve of all He does. For I, too, am a judge in my own fashion. I’ve read in books that it’s wiser to be hand in glove with Him than to be his victim. What’s more, I doubt if God is really to blame. Once men start upsetting the applecart and slaughtering each other, you soon discover that God—though He, too, knows the ropes—is a mere amateur compared with them.
- Excerpt from Caligula
The subject matter of these four plays revolves around life, death, meaning of existence, the power of love, justice and God.
1- Caligula ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
I want to drown the sky in the sea, to infuse ugliness with beauty, to wring a laugh from pain.
2- The Misunderstanding ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
This world we live in doesn’t make sense.
3- State of Siege ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
If you must die, I’ll envy even the earth that wraps your body.
4- The Just Assassins ⭐⭐⭐⭐
Loving, that’s very well … but to be loved, that’s another matter...
August 8, 2020
Do you think, Cherea, that it’s possible for two men of much the same temperament and equal pride to talk to each other with complete frankness—if only once in their lives? Can they strip themselves naked, so to speak, and shed their prejudices, their private interests, the lies by which they live?
*
KALIAYEV: But surely that’s precisely what love means—sacrificing everything without expecting anything in return?
DORA: Perhaps. Yes, I know that love, an absolute, ideal love, a pure and solitary joy—and I feel it burning in my heart. Yet there are times when I wonder if love isn’t something else; something more than a lonely voice, a monologue, and if there isn’t sometimes a response.
*
KALIAYEV: But surely that’s precisely what love means—sacrificing everything without expecting anything in return?
DORA: Perhaps. Yes, I know that love, an absolute, ideal love, a pure and solitary joy—and I feel it burning in my heart. Yet there are times when I wonder if love isn’t something else; something more than a lonely voice, a monologue, and if there isn’t sometimes a response.
March 24, 2023
Camus belongs to one of the very few writers who can bring forth the very destructive and immoral aspects of the human soul yet lead to an end which eventually adds up to the beauty of that very soul. In short, through negation, he affirms the human soul.
The gist of his works can also be summarised with his famous quote-
“In the midst of winter, I found there was, within me, an invincible summer."
But unless you are aware of this winter, you can never appreciate the beauty of this undeniable existence of your soul.
Caligula deals with a tyrannical ruler who, through the absurd, justifies his tyranny. Well, he doesn't really justify it since the absurd draws away all the meaning.
Cross Purpose goes further into the very nihilistic approach of the existential self. It approaches the normal life and how murders and suicides parallel and haunt these philosophical notions.
The Just follows a terrorist group and their revolutionary ideas battling with the moral fabric of their souls. Is the murder of children justified even if it means the liberation of millions of children dying every day with hunger? Or tyranny revolting against tyranny is just another way of an unavoidable meaningless rubble, where the only certainty is the fall to abyss?
Lastly, we have The Possessed, which undoubtedly was the play I was most looking forward to. Camus' favourite Dostoevsky work found an adaptation where he voices the very essence of his own essay, The Rebel. Personally, when I read The Rebel, I could see it as a philosophical interpretation of this very prophetic Dostoevsky novel; where the former deals with the idea of murder in a revolution, the latter was created because of a similar murder that happened in Russia in 1869. Dostoevsky, challenged by this idea of murder and the nihilistic drowning of youth, wrote an absolutely phenomenal novel, which definitely is his most prophetic work. Camus, himself, another absolutely brilliant philosophical writer, justified the essence of the novel in this theatrical masterpiece. I loved the adaptation, more so because it helped me meet two of the most intriguing (and my absolute favourite) men in a single work, condensed and integrated with sublime thoughts and an undenying warmth of the human essence, even in the most tragic and destructive circumstances.
All in all, it is an amazing book to explore the playwright aspect of Camus.
The gist of his works can also be summarised with his famous quote-
“In the midst of winter, I found there was, within me, an invincible summer."
But unless you are aware of this winter, you can never appreciate the beauty of this undeniable existence of your soul.
Caligula deals with a tyrannical ruler who, through the absurd, justifies his tyranny. Well, he doesn't really justify it since the absurd draws away all the meaning.
Cross Purpose goes further into the very nihilistic approach of the existential self. It approaches the normal life and how murders and suicides parallel and haunt these philosophical notions.
The Just follows a terrorist group and their revolutionary ideas battling with the moral fabric of their souls. Is the murder of children justified even if it means the liberation of millions of children dying every day with hunger? Or tyranny revolting against tyranny is just another way of an unavoidable meaningless rubble, where the only certainty is the fall to abyss?
Lastly, we have The Possessed, which undoubtedly was the play I was most looking forward to. Camus' favourite Dostoevsky work found an adaptation where he voices the very essence of his own essay, The Rebel. Personally, when I read The Rebel, I could see it as a philosophical interpretation of this very prophetic Dostoevsky novel; where the former deals with the idea of murder in a revolution, the latter was created because of a similar murder that happened in Russia in 1869. Dostoevsky, challenged by this idea of murder and the nihilistic drowning of youth, wrote an absolutely phenomenal novel, which definitely is his most prophetic work. Camus, himself, another absolutely brilliant philosophical writer, justified the essence of the novel in this theatrical masterpiece. I loved the adaptation, more so because it helped me meet two of the most intriguing (and my absolute favourite) men in a single work, condensed and integrated with sublime thoughts and an undenying warmth of the human essence, even in the most tragic and destructive circumstances.
All in all, it is an amazing book to explore the playwright aspect of Camus.
December 18, 2018
Il malinteso ***
Caligola *****
I giusti ****
Lo stato d'assedio ****
Caligola *****
I giusti ****
Lo stato d'assedio ****
September 8, 2013
Remember the conversations between the Joker and batman in "The Dark Knight" movie?
If they had longer conversations, with Joker questioning his own Nihilism and Batman unable to give a satisfactory response, It would look like this brilliant play.
If they had longer conversations, with Joker questioning his own Nihilism and Batman unable to give a satisfactory response, It would look like this brilliant play.
April 13, 2023
Interesante abordări ale unor teme despre care Camus a mai scris și sub alte forme. Bănuiesc că teatrul este/era un mod mai ușor de a ajunge la mase. Unele dintre piesele din volum sper să le văd pe scenă.
(ediția Polirom, 2022)
(ediția Polirom, 2022)
February 28, 2025
Невелика книга, де зібрані всі п'єси Камю. Так, він написав всього чотири п'єси. Взагалі, це мене дивує в авторах першої половини ХХ ст. Вони пишуть навдивовижу мало творів. Художній доробок Камю - 3 повісті, 4 п'єси, 1 незавершений роман, 1 збірка оповідань та 3 збірки есеїв (і вони вже напівхудожні), а також два філософські трактати. Звісно, він також писав й статті (наприклад, про Алжир). Але сумарно це не так багато!
Тому всього чотири п'єси. З хороших новин - вони в класичних перекладах, які виходили в 1996 року. З поганих - самі п'єси в більшості своїй доволі слабкі. Лише Калігула досі звучить сильно (я його читав тричі, а ще двічі бачив на сцені). Решта - відверто слабкі твори. А остання п'єса - Справедливі - ще й про російських терористів-революціонерів ХІХ ст. Хоча якраз ця п'єса могла бути найкращою, але саме в ній творчий метод Камю дає збій.
Камю - модерніст, а тому він залишає широкий простір для інтерпретації, яку зробить аудиторія. Це означає, що текст деколи має залишати певні речі недоговореними, недописаними... Але у випадку з терористами цього недоговореного занадто багато, а тому п'єса "провалюється" в відсутність чіткого послання чи ідеї.
Між першою та останньою п'єсами - Непорозуміння та Стан облоги. Перша з них доповнює Калігулу (це так званий абсурдистський цикл), а друга - Справедливих (і це так званий бунтарський цикл). Проблема в тому, що ці п'єси надто вторинні - і до своїх драматургічних сестер, і до прозових творів та філософських есе. Камю наче повторює одну й ту ж ідею, просто іншими словами. Але не додає нічого нового, а навпаки - спрощує історію. І це логічно: для театру не можна розбудувати таку ж складну сюжетну лінію, як для прозового твору. Але через це п'єси неминуче відсуваються в тінь інших творів.
Я не шкодую, що їх прочитав. П'єси Камю дозволяють краще збагнути його творчі прийоми та ідеї. Але якщо ви хочете просто познайомитися з його творчістю, то з п'єс - навіть з Калігули! - починати явно не варто
Тому всього чотири п'єси. З хороших новин - вони в класичних перекладах, які виходили в 1996 року. З поганих - самі п'єси в більшості своїй доволі слабкі. Лише Калігула досі звучить сильно (я його читав тричі, а ще двічі бачив на сцені). Решта - відверто слабкі твори. А остання п'єса - Справедливі - ще й про російських терористів-революціонерів ХІХ ст. Хоча якраз ця п'єса могла бути найкращою, але саме в ній творчий метод Камю дає збій.
Камю - модерніст, а тому він залишає широкий простір для інтерпретації, яку зробить аудиторія. Це означає, що текст деколи має залишати певні речі недоговореними, недописаними... Але у випадку з терористами цього недоговореного занадто багато, а тому п'єса "провалюється" в відсутність чіткого послання чи ідеї.
Між першою та останньою п'єсами - Непорозуміння та Стан облоги. Перша з них доповнює Калігулу (це так званий абсурдистський цикл), а друга - Справедливих (і це так званий бунтарський цикл). Проблема в тому, що ці п'єси надто вторинні - і до своїх драматургічних сестер, і до прозових творів та філософських есе. Камю наче повторює одну й ту ж ідею, просто іншими словами. Але не додає нічого нового, а навпаки - спрощує історію. І це логічно: для театру не можна розбудувати таку ж складну сюжетну лінію, як для прозового твору. Але через це п'єси неминуче відсуваються в тінь інших творів.
Я не шкодую, що їх прочитав. П'єси Камю дозволяють краще збагнути його творчі прийоми та ідеї. Але якщо ви хочете просто познайомитися з його творчістю, то з п'єс - навіть з Калігули! - починати явно не варто
March 23, 2023
Caligula: 5
The Misunderstanding: 4
A state of Siege: 3
Just Assassins: 5
About the misunderstanding
The first two acts of "the misunderstanding" were 5/5
But the final act would even drop to 3/5 sometimes HOWEVER, the humour at the end did it for me and I would give the second play a 4/5
But I was a bit dissapointed of the third act it was as if it was written to ruine the show( it did have some good moments but Martha's character could've been written better in the third act, althought (and I'm saying this because it's a play) a talented actor with the right director can make up for the writing by displaying either a semi-psychopath Martha or a broken overwhelmed by all the hardships and loss of all the people in her life Martha.
About a state of siege
I really didn't get why Camus made the decision of making Diego the hero and made him look like the enlightened leader who would save his people and above that Camus made diego seem like the lover type who would die for his loved one a lover doesn't hurt the person he loves physically or mentally, stays true to his loved one and never tries to bring them down when he himself is falling. (The parts about fighting off death and plague were a bit annoying but I think me not being familiar with Camus' views on plague might've been the problem)
The Misunderstanding: 4
A state of Siege: 3
Just Assassins: 5
About the misunderstanding
The first two acts of "the misunderstanding" were 5/5
But the final act would even drop to 3/5 sometimes HOWEVER, the humour at the end did it for me and I would give the second play a 4/5
But I was a bit dissapointed of the third act it was as if it was written to ruine the show( it did have some good moments but Martha's character could've been written better in the third act, althought (and I'm saying this because it's a play) a talented actor with the right director can make up for the writing by displaying either a semi-psychopath Martha or a broken overwhelmed by all the hardships and loss of all the people in her life Martha.
About a state of siege
I really didn't get why Camus made the decision of making Diego the hero and made him look like the enlightened leader who would save his people and above that Camus made diego seem like the lover type who would die for his loved one a lover doesn't hurt the person he loves physically or mentally, stays true to his loved one and never tries to bring them down when he himself is falling. (The parts about fighting off death and plague were a bit annoying but I think me not being familiar with Camus' views on plague might've been the problem)
April 26, 2018
Having never read any Camus before I was preparing myself for some heavy subject matter. What I was prepared for was how...exhilarating (?) these plays were. I'm not particularly well-versed with Camus's philosophy and outlook on life, but while each of these dealt in some way with the potential meaninglessness of existence (heavy subject matter, there you go), they also celebrated the desperation and foolish ideals that force human beings to keep going.
Caligula: Probably the grandest one of the lot, tragic from page one and you just know this isn't gonna turn out well. Some of the dialogue feels somewhat over the top, maybe in an attempt to emulate greek/roman tragedy styles. It's arc is perfect: there's a setup, a plan, carrying out the plan, and a result. Hits all the marks, driven by a strong force of antagonism among the many characters, though a little too straightforward in this sense. The story itself feels a bit like it was crafted around a philosophy instead of having the philosophy arise naturally within the story. But hey--character! Wow, the Caligula himself is complex, dangerous, torn by extreme energy and sadness. Hard to fit all this in, but Camus navigates the peaks and valleys of his personality so well, you truly do feel as though you've begun to understand a madman. Some of the scenes where he is alone with Chera or Scipio just about tear your blood vessels out your fingertips, they're that intense and horrifyingly beautiful.
The Misunderstanding: My favorite out of the four. Characters are driven not so much by abstract philosophy as in the other plays, but by very tangible needs and desires. Martha makes this play, she's such a force of pure will and resentment. But perhaps one thing that really drew to this one is it's sense of authenticity. There are certain elements that, yes, come off as rather contrived, but every single character is constantly being faced by a decision that is based in real life, with real everyday problems (even though the situation is heightened). I had hope for this, and didn't get the immediate sense that things were doomed from the start. There was so much potential and possibility in every choice; I hung onto every moment. The final showdown between Martha and Maria ripped me apart, but also didn't give clear answers. Neither character was right or wrong, neither proved anything but sure put out a lot of the theories. Truly beautiful, inspiring, and crushing all at once.
State of Siege: My least favorite out the four. Perhaps it just doesn't read well. This play has a huge cast and plenty of spectacle, which makes it harder to picture. The characters and situation overtly act as metaphor and representation for the message, which never quite hits home to me. Excessive use of a "Chorus" which I couldn't quite get into. Seriously on the nose, lot's of artificial exposition and narrative techniques. Then again, Camus seems to be trying to emulate a Greek tragedy, so maybe I'm just not in to that style. Still, if I had the chance to go see this on stage I would absolutely. It's a fairytale at heart, a battle between good and evil, but who's to say who wins?
The Just Assassins: A mix of all of the above. Plenty of highfalutin philosophical arguments, but argued through flawed and varied characters who genuinely seems like people you could meet on the street. Ultimately though, their fates are clear after scene one and I got the sense none were really capable of change, which lowered the stakes a bit. A big explosion of excitement in the middle, then the latter half is mostly used for an ethics debate, but done in a way that remains compelling. Dora is perhaps the one who has the most potential and appears more dynamic, changeable than the rest, as well as expressing a range of emotion that covers an colourful spectrum, matched and echoed though never exceeded by her playfellows. Camus leaves room for very human disputes among the metaphysical which is, in my opinion, what makes this play a success.
Final thoughts: Holy moly did this guy know how to end a scene! Some of the final lines, actions, movements took my breath away. He has an amazing pacing in his dialogue and monologue patterns, that tightens and builds near the end of a scene to a...what do you even call this?...a captivation of some moment, some piece of life that shows us in its minute way the enormity of even trying to write about this stuff.
Okay that's all I got. Sounds intense, and it is, so apologies for getting carried away with the review.
Caligula: Probably the grandest one of the lot, tragic from page one and you just know this isn't gonna turn out well. Some of the dialogue feels somewhat over the top, maybe in an attempt to emulate greek/roman tragedy styles. It's arc is perfect: there's a setup, a plan, carrying out the plan, and a result. Hits all the marks, driven by a strong force of antagonism among the many characters, though a little too straightforward in this sense. The story itself feels a bit like it was crafted around a philosophy instead of having the philosophy arise naturally within the story. But hey--character! Wow, the Caligula himself is complex, dangerous, torn by extreme energy and sadness. Hard to fit all this in, but Camus navigates the peaks and valleys of his personality so well, you truly do feel as though you've begun to understand a madman. Some of the scenes where he is alone with Chera or Scipio just about tear your blood vessels out your fingertips, they're that intense and horrifyingly beautiful.
The Misunderstanding: My favorite out of the four. Characters are driven not so much by abstract philosophy as in the other plays, but by very tangible needs and desires. Martha makes this play, she's such a force of pure will and resentment. But perhaps one thing that really drew to this one is it's sense of authenticity. There are certain elements that, yes, come off as rather contrived, but every single character is constantly being faced by a decision that is based in real life, with real everyday problems (even though the situation is heightened). I had hope for this, and didn't get the immediate sense that things were doomed from the start. There was so much potential and possibility in every choice; I hung onto every moment. The final showdown between Martha and Maria ripped me apart, but also didn't give clear answers. Neither character was right or wrong, neither proved anything but sure put out a lot of the theories. Truly beautiful, inspiring, and crushing all at once.
State of Siege: My least favorite out the four. Perhaps it just doesn't read well. This play has a huge cast and plenty of spectacle, which makes it harder to picture. The characters and situation overtly act as metaphor and representation for the message, which never quite hits home to me. Excessive use of a "Chorus" which I couldn't quite get into. Seriously on the nose, lot's of artificial exposition and narrative techniques. Then again, Camus seems to be trying to emulate a Greek tragedy, so maybe I'm just not in to that style. Still, if I had the chance to go see this on stage I would absolutely. It's a fairytale at heart, a battle between good and evil, but who's to say who wins?
The Just Assassins: A mix of all of the above. Plenty of highfalutin philosophical arguments, but argued through flawed and varied characters who genuinely seems like people you could meet on the street. Ultimately though, their fates are clear after scene one and I got the sense none were really capable of change, which lowered the stakes a bit. A big explosion of excitement in the middle, then the latter half is mostly used for an ethics debate, but done in a way that remains compelling. Dora is perhaps the one who has the most potential and appears more dynamic, changeable than the rest, as well as expressing a range of emotion that covers an colourful spectrum, matched and echoed though never exceeded by her playfellows. Camus leaves room for very human disputes among the metaphysical which is, in my opinion, what makes this play a success.
Final thoughts: Holy moly did this guy know how to end a scene! Some of the final lines, actions, movements took my breath away. He has an amazing pacing in his dialogue and monologue patterns, that tightens and builds near the end of a scene to a...what do you even call this?...a captivation of some moment, some piece of life that shows us in its minute way the enormity of even trying to write about this stuff.
Okay that's all I got. Sounds intense, and it is, so apologies for getting carried away with the review.
December 3, 2020
Kami je genije i sve što napiše je relevantno i danas, baš zato sam se zeznula i uzela da čitam nešto što me je samo dodatno ubedačilo. Jedna od drama je "Opsadno stanje" koja govori o pojavi kuge i svim posledicama, problemima, razdvojenosti i merama zaštite.
August 29, 2016
A strong reminder that Camus can be very bleak when he so chooses. State of Siege was amazing.
November 20, 2025
In the third part of Camus' play, The State of Siege, The Plague--a chaotic, pseudodeity carelessly bent on dominating the denizens of Spain through fear of death and actual death--has a line I believe incapsulates the spirit of all four plays featured in this collection: "No one can be happy without causing harm to others. That is the world's justice."
Caligula, wounded by the death of his true love, killing and torturing members of his social circle not exclusively because he is cruel and insane, but more because it is an absurd attempt at happiness cultivated by an excessive and creative implementation of power; Martha, in cahoots with her mother, killing her brother for a vision of future happiness she knows can only happen by fratricide, and knowing the blood of her brother will finally bring justice for all she has been denied and suffered; Stepan, Dora, Kaliayev, and the rest of the self-described terrorists justifying and committing murder because of utopia, fantasies, happiness.
These stories are bleak and thought-provoking, wonderfully written, and the play form these four examinations use realizes something very unique in the imagination--something I did not predict would happen when I picked this up.
Let it happen to you.
Caligula, wounded by the death of his true love, killing and torturing members of his social circle not exclusively because he is cruel and insane, but more because it is an absurd attempt at happiness cultivated by an excessive and creative implementation of power; Martha, in cahoots with her mother, killing her brother for a vision of future happiness she knows can only happen by fratricide, and knowing the blood of her brother will finally bring justice for all she has been denied and suffered; Stepan, Dora, Kaliayev, and the rest of the self-described terrorists justifying and committing murder because of utopia, fantasies, happiness.
These stories are bleak and thought-provoking, wonderfully written, and the play form these four examinations use realizes something very unique in the imagination--something I did not predict would happen when I picked this up.
Let it happen to you.
January 16, 2024
il malinteso: 3.5🌟
caligola: 6🌟 capolavoro
i giusti: 4🌟
lo stato d'assedio: 3🌟
caligola: 6🌟 capolavoro
i giusti: 4🌟
lo stato d'assedio: 3🌟
January 31, 2025
Several thought experiments here.
In Caligula, the emperor "felt a desire for the impossible," and declared that he's "exploiting the impossible," as an "emperor's vocation." Aside from wanting to possess the moon, he pushes the thesis that "the world has no importance; once a man realizes that, he wins his freedom." In rejecting equality with a god, he finds that he'd rather take over "a kingdom where the impossible is king." Though "not the first time Rome has seen a man wielding unlimited power," he is nevertheless "the first time he sets no limit to his use of it." His maxims are "all true passion has a spice of cruelty" and "one is always free at someone else's expense." His "purity" is "to follow the essential to the end." Eventually he is "freed [...] from memories and illusion": "I know now that nothing, nothing lasts. Think what that knowledge means! There have been just two or three of us in history who really achieved this freedom, this crazy happiness," an ontological aesthetics, of sorts. We often see conflations that reduce ethics to aesthetics, but not always ontology too. "But for this freedom I'd have been a contented man. Thanks to it, I have won the godlike enlightenment of the solitary." This is celebrated as "the glorious isolation of a man who all his life long nurses and gloats over the ineffable joy of the unpunished murderer." For what it's worth, Camus does say that he wrote this play when he "was only twenty-five, the age when one doubts everything except oneself." So, yeah?
In The Misunderstanding, it seems like an attempt to conjure up an unused permutation of family tragedy, wherein prodigal son is misrecognized to tragic ends. I suppose it's similar in nature to Dostoyevsky's grand inquisitor sequence--a return long desired is doomed. The prodigal son apparently repents his long absence, noting that "happiness isn't everything; there is duty, too." When contemplating a hypothetical prodigal son's return, the family states that "If a son came here, he'd find exactly what an ordinary guest can count on: amiable indifference." This cynicism is the result of "too many bleak years." Though the family, not knowing the son, repents of their motives to murder him at the last minute, nonetheless "he started telling me about those countries where I've always longed to go, and by working on my feelings hardened my heart against him. Thus innocence is rewarded." When the play declares "the world doesn't make sense," I suppose we can nod along, given the setup here.
The third play, State of Siege, is a fable, working through a town controlled by the plague as its governing entity. Camus notes that this play united critics to the extent that everyone hated it. I can see why--it does demand quite a bit. It has a lovely opening that satirizes totalitarian power:
That's the prologue and it's cool. The rest of the play has an unreality to it, a fight for citizens’ belief in the power of the plague government to afflict them or not. There are some great moments, such as the state's idea that "we prefer to think the poor of our city were not indulging in irony when they spoke just now. For irony is destructive of virtue; a good Governor prefers constructive virtue." There's a comical bureaucratic satire in a citizen needing a "certificate of existence." BC Han would be interested in the proclamation that "what interests us is your public life, and that as a matter of fact is the only life you are allowed by us to have." The plague state does not want "comprehension but execution of their duties." The goal is thus: "we are steadily nearing that perfect moment when nothing anybody says will rouse the least echo in another's mind." The plague state has the regular totalitarian impulse that "a vote against us isn't a free vote. It's a mere romantic gesture, conditioned by prejudice and passion."
The last item is The Just Assassins, a fairly decent example of realism, concerning some left SRs or narodniks who are killing aristocrats in propaganda of the deed style terrorist bombings. It sets up a debate inside a cell, such as how "all poetry is revolutionary" versus "There's only one thing that's revolutionary: the bomb." It conflates ethics with aesthetics at one point: "I realized that just to denounce injustice wasn't enough. One must give one's life to fighting it. And now I'm happy." It takes some interesting turns in the agon: "To commit suicide a man must have a great deal of love for himself. A true revolutionary cannot love himself," which sets up a sort of agambenian eidos zoe for the revolutionary persona: "I do not love life. I love something higher--and that is justice." This means that "there are no limits" to violence if justice is the only goal and life is irrelevant. This debate occurs during preparation for a bombing when the target may have his children with him. Of the four, this particular piece works best as a drama, though the others are probably more effective at posing abstract conundrum.
Recommended for those who try to imagine God without prisons.
In Caligula, the emperor "felt a desire for the impossible," and declared that he's "exploiting the impossible," as an "emperor's vocation." Aside from wanting to possess the moon, he pushes the thesis that "the world has no importance; once a man realizes that, he wins his freedom." In rejecting equality with a god, he finds that he'd rather take over "a kingdom where the impossible is king." Though "not the first time Rome has seen a man wielding unlimited power," he is nevertheless "the first time he sets no limit to his use of it." His maxims are "all true passion has a spice of cruelty" and "one is always free at someone else's expense." His "purity" is "to follow the essential to the end." Eventually he is "freed [...] from memories and illusion": "I know now that nothing, nothing lasts. Think what that knowledge means! There have been just two or three of us in history who really achieved this freedom, this crazy happiness," an ontological aesthetics, of sorts. We often see conflations that reduce ethics to aesthetics, but not always ontology too. "But for this freedom I'd have been a contented man. Thanks to it, I have won the godlike enlightenment of the solitary." This is celebrated as "the glorious isolation of a man who all his life long nurses and gloats over the ineffable joy of the unpunished murderer." For what it's worth, Camus does say that he wrote this play when he "was only twenty-five, the age when one doubts everything except oneself." So, yeah?
In The Misunderstanding, it seems like an attempt to conjure up an unused permutation of family tragedy, wherein prodigal son is misrecognized to tragic ends. I suppose it's similar in nature to Dostoyevsky's grand inquisitor sequence--a return long desired is doomed. The prodigal son apparently repents his long absence, noting that "happiness isn't everything; there is duty, too." When contemplating a hypothetical prodigal son's return, the family states that "If a son came here, he'd find exactly what an ordinary guest can count on: amiable indifference." This cynicism is the result of "too many bleak years." Though the family, not knowing the son, repents of their motives to murder him at the last minute, nonetheless "he started telling me about those countries where I've always longed to go, and by working on my feelings hardened my heart against him. Thus innocence is rewarded." When the play declares "the world doesn't make sense," I suppose we can nod along, given the setup here.
The third play, State of Siege, is a fable, working through a town controlled by the plague as its governing entity. Camus notes that this play united critics to the extent that everyone hated it. I can see why--it does demand quite a bit. It has a lovely opening that satirizes totalitarian power:
Let each of you withdraw from hence and return to work. Good governments are governments under which nothing happens. Thus it is the Governor's will that nothing shall happen here, so that his governments may remain benevolent as it has always been. Therefore we apprise you, the townsfolk of Cadiz, that nothing has occurred to justify alarm or discomposure. And accordingly, as from this sixth hour, each of you is ordered to deny that any comet has ever risen on the horizon of our city. All who disregard this order, any citizen who speaks of comets otherwise that as natural phenomena, past or to come, will be punished with the utmost rigor of the law.
That's the prologue and it's cool. The rest of the play has an unreality to it, a fight for citizens’ belief in the power of the plague government to afflict them or not. There are some great moments, such as the state's idea that "we prefer to think the poor of our city were not indulging in irony when they spoke just now. For irony is destructive of virtue; a good Governor prefers constructive virtue." There's a comical bureaucratic satire in a citizen needing a "certificate of existence." BC Han would be interested in the proclamation that "what interests us is your public life, and that as a matter of fact is the only life you are allowed by us to have." The plague state does not want "comprehension but execution of their duties." The goal is thus: "we are steadily nearing that perfect moment when nothing anybody says will rouse the least echo in another's mind." The plague state has the regular totalitarian impulse that "a vote against us isn't a free vote. It's a mere romantic gesture, conditioned by prejudice and passion."
The last item is The Just Assassins, a fairly decent example of realism, concerning some left SRs or narodniks who are killing aristocrats in propaganda of the deed style terrorist bombings. It sets up a debate inside a cell, such as how "all poetry is revolutionary" versus "There's only one thing that's revolutionary: the bomb." It conflates ethics with aesthetics at one point: "I realized that just to denounce injustice wasn't enough. One must give one's life to fighting it. And now I'm happy." It takes some interesting turns in the agon: "To commit suicide a man must have a great deal of love for himself. A true revolutionary cannot love himself," which sets up a sort of agambenian eidos zoe for the revolutionary persona: "I do not love life. I love something higher--and that is justice." This means that "there are no limits" to violence if justice is the only goal and life is irrelevant. This debate occurs during preparation for a bombing when the target may have his children with him. Of the four, this particular piece works best as a drama, though the others are probably more effective at posing abstract conundrum.
Recommended for those who try to imagine God without prisons.
April 28, 2023
oh no, she's becoming a camus girlie, send help
September 21, 2025
Caligula by Albert Camus
Another version of this note and thoughts on other books are available at:
- https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...
Caligula is a wonderful play…
I think.
It was broadcast last night on one of the National TV channels, albeit the recording dated from some decades ago.
Actually, it was the cast that I remember seeing on the stage of The National Theater, about twenty five years ago.
The play had a great impact on me on the first encounter, when it was considered a hit and tickets were hard to come by.
In fact I had to wait for the last minute and when it was time for the performance to start, those in the same position were allowed to step in and fill the empty seats left by those who missed the play or came too late.
I was seated about one and a half meters from Caligula, as played by Ovidiu Iuliu Moldovan and the spit from his mouth reached that chair.
It was the first time that I saw actors so close with the foam and aforementioned secretions coming out.
Alas, there have been mixed feelings, both at that first look and last night, for the second taking in so many decades.
As stated from the start, I guess the play is fabulous.
The qualms are most likely induced by the acting, the direction and the setting- with costumes and outfits.
The adaptation has the Romans with their heads covered by what looks like swimming caps, but painted over with a strange hue.
Their faces had some drawings that at times made me think of Cherokees and not of ancient citizens of Rome.
Interesting though, when Caligula came out with a face made up as if he was half man and half woman it was a good choice.
But the actor in the lead role and the others: Albulescu, Bleont -were too artificial and over the top, at least from where I saw it.
Maybe Gheorghe Cozorici did better.
But my opinion is that this concept, the wrong vision of the people behind the adaption have affected badly the original/
At times I wondered if the uneasy feeling and the revulsion felt often during the play is not exactly the point.
After all, Caligula decides to order all the citizens- with means, not the paupers who had nothing- to give up their fortunes upon their final departure and sign a will giving all their wealth to the state which meant Caligula at that moment.
He is cruel, murderous, heinous to an incredible extreme, provoking a father whose son had just been killed…
- How are you?
- Hem…
- I want you to be happy, aren’t you happy!?
I do not have the quote, but that was the message I remember, plus the fact that he wants all those present to laugh, even those that were actually mourning after loved ones killed by the tyrant and mad man.
He takes one of the dignitaries’ wives from the gathering and starts raping her with her husband still present.
The outrageous, murderous behavior of that lunatic, called for excellent reason a “monster” by the historian Suetonius.
The play might be wondrous, but the adaptation, misguided and exaggerated overacting have diminished what should have been a fantastic experience.
Another version of this note and thoughts on other books are available at:
- https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...
Caligula is a wonderful play…
I think.
It was broadcast last night on one of the National TV channels, albeit the recording dated from some decades ago.
Actually, it was the cast that I remember seeing on the stage of The National Theater, about twenty five years ago.
The play had a great impact on me on the first encounter, when it was considered a hit and tickets were hard to come by.
In fact I had to wait for the last minute and when it was time for the performance to start, those in the same position were allowed to step in and fill the empty seats left by those who missed the play or came too late.
I was seated about one and a half meters from Caligula, as played by Ovidiu Iuliu Moldovan and the spit from his mouth reached that chair.
It was the first time that I saw actors so close with the foam and aforementioned secretions coming out.
Alas, there have been mixed feelings, both at that first look and last night, for the second taking in so many decades.
As stated from the start, I guess the play is fabulous.
The qualms are most likely induced by the acting, the direction and the setting- with costumes and outfits.
The adaptation has the Romans with their heads covered by what looks like swimming caps, but painted over with a strange hue.
Their faces had some drawings that at times made me think of Cherokees and not of ancient citizens of Rome.
Interesting though, when Caligula came out with a face made up as if he was half man and half woman it was a good choice.
But the actor in the lead role and the others: Albulescu, Bleont -were too artificial and over the top, at least from where I saw it.
Maybe Gheorghe Cozorici did better.
But my opinion is that this concept, the wrong vision of the people behind the adaption have affected badly the original/
At times I wondered if the uneasy feeling and the revulsion felt often during the play is not exactly the point.
After all, Caligula decides to order all the citizens- with means, not the paupers who had nothing- to give up their fortunes upon their final departure and sign a will giving all their wealth to the state which meant Caligula at that moment.
He is cruel, murderous, heinous to an incredible extreme, provoking a father whose son had just been killed…
- How are you?
- Hem…
- I want you to be happy, aren’t you happy!?
I do not have the quote, but that was the message I remember, plus the fact that he wants all those present to laugh, even those that were actually mourning after loved ones killed by the tyrant and mad man.
He takes one of the dignitaries’ wives from the gathering and starts raping her with her husband still present.
The outrageous, murderous behavior of that lunatic, called for excellent reason a “monster” by the historian Suetonius.
The play might be wondrous, but the adaptation, misguided and exaggerated overacting have diminished what should have been a fantastic experience.
June 18, 2024
CALIGULA (turning away, in a neutral tone)
People die and they are not happy.
HELICON (after a moment passes)
Oh, come now, Caius, that's a truth we handle very well. Look around you. It's not the sort of thing that keeps people from going out for lunch.
CALIGULA (suddenly exploding)
Well, that's because everything around me is a lie, and I... I want us all to live in truth! And indeed, I have the means to make them live in truth, for I know what it is they’re lacking, Helicon. They’ve been deprived of knowledge and they lack a teacher who knows what he's talking about.
HELICON
Don't take offense at what I'm about to say to you, Caius, but first and foremost, you need some rest.
CALIGULA (sitting down, again gentle)
That’s not possible, Helicon. That will never again be possible.
HELICON
And why is that?
CALIGULA
If I go to sleep, who's going to give me the moon?
HELICON (after a moment of silence)
True enough.
People die and they are not happy.
HELICON (after a moment passes)
Oh, come now, Caius, that's a truth we handle very well. Look around you. It's not the sort of thing that keeps people from going out for lunch.
CALIGULA (suddenly exploding)
Well, that's because everything around me is a lie, and I... I want us all to live in truth! And indeed, I have the means to make them live in truth, for I know what it is they’re lacking, Helicon. They’ve been deprived of knowledge and they lack a teacher who knows what he's talking about.
HELICON
Don't take offense at what I'm about to say to you, Caius, but first and foremost, you need some rest.
CALIGULA (sitting down, again gentle)
That’s not possible, Helicon. That will never again be possible.
HELICON
And why is that?
CALIGULA
If I go to sleep, who's going to give me the moon?
HELICON (after a moment of silence)
True enough.
January 21, 2025
Just because I had fun with these doesn't make them good plays. Your mileage will almost certainly vary according to how interested you are in Camus' absurdist and political themes, and how tolerant you are for the earnestly naive romantic moralistic blunt manner in which he attempts to grapple with these ideas.
The central ambition connecting these plays is an attempt to reinvent the structures of Classical Greek Tragedy to a modern idiom that could capture the philosophy of Absurdism and the moral dilemmas of Revolutionary Socialism. A kind of Francophone rendition of Arthur Miller, perhaps, albeit accomplished with much less elegance than his American comrade. Camus ran a theatre company in the 1930s and many of these pieces were originally written to star himself, and in his preface he openly admits that this was due to "guilelessness," a word that might sum up the collection quite succinctly. In his defence, he pleads that, "I was only twenty-five, the age when one doubts everything except oneself. The war forced me to modesty."
Of the four plays, the earliest, 'Caligula' (written 1938, performed 1945) is by far the weakest, mostly due to its risible psychology that has a character quietly admiring the philosophy of the tyrant murdering his parents that he's actively trying to avenge. The play reimagines Caligula's infamous madness as a reaction to discovering life's Absurdity. Gods, laws, mores, all of them vanish in the face of the great existential void that Caligula spies in the wake of his lover's death, and so he exploits the tools of imperial power to abuse and mistreat the world around him for not seeing the same underlying absurdity that he does. Language, and men's oaths, are taken literally, often to the death, and his fleeting whims are elevated to the status of grand ontological foundations whilst the state devolves into an avaricious mouth chewing up bodies and estates within its jaws to squeeze out every last drop of gold, simply to illustrate the state's underlying imperative for extracting cash.
The joke here is that this hyper-obsessive logicality, this semi-autistic demand that the world make sense and follow consistent rules, is ultimately a manifestation of Caligula's own egoism. His satire of irrational social mores becomes, not an opportunity for absurdist liberation, but a monstrous occasion for worshipping his own ego. In what I assume is a sly parody of the more belligerent literalisms of Friedrich Nietzsche, Caligula's inability to grapple with the reality of Love is what reduces his legitimate insights about the Absurd into a terroristic, destructive force. Perhaps presciently, just as the typical existentialist heroes are often lambasted today for their privileged self-obsession, Camus ridicules Caligula as a man snagged by a half-an-insight into the abyss, but missing the human connection that grounds life's artificial meanings.
A worthy theme, sure, but hardly well-explored with 70 pages of Caligula's inane whining and a half-heartedly penned conspiracy cobbled together to give some flat aphorisms the illusion of a plot.
The second play, 'The Misunderstanding' (written 1943, performed 1944) is much more successful as a narrative, though it is entirely one-note in its straightforwardly flat dramatic irony. A son, who left home to find his fortune, returns to his family's remote mountain inn after many years, with wealth to rescue them from their decrepit state. But rather than announce himself at the door, he takes on an odd notion to surprise them, to never say his name directly, to play a stranger and watch them in the hope that they will recognise him for who he is. Little does he know, however, that in his absence, his mother and sister have taken to robbing and murdering travellers, putting together a little fortune with which they hope to one day move to a house besides the sea (an image that curiously recurs in the subsequent play, 'State of Siege'). Obvious shenanigans ensue, as both parties speak in double-entendres about recognitions, surprises, endings, fates etc etc, since his family - so hardened to their brutal occupation - do not truly look at their prey for fear of growing attached the victims they will slaughter.
The ironies are gratifying, if somewhat slight, relying as they do a little heavily on atmosphere as a vehicle for allegory. Camus describes the play as reflective of the claustrophobia he felt writing it in mountains of central France during the war, and suggests a fitting moral in which the play:
Regardless, the play sets up a recurring theme across the subsequent plays wherein the high ideals of romantic or revolutionary socialism are juxtaposed against the debasing realities of grim, hard-scrabble poverty. It is to the play's credit that it lingers in this sombre image of human fate without recourse to cheap solutions, since how easy is it to find in ourselves 'basic sincerity' and 'the most appropriate word' in the darker muddles of the world as we live in it?
The third play, 'State of Siege' (1948) though terrible, is the sort of thing I'd probably have loved if I'd read it when I was 17. Camus, though a rictus smile, pleads against the critics that "it is, of all my writings the one that most resembles me," which would probably have been a poor defence if I didn't find myself charmed by its most risible qualities. A grand, near-Brechtian psychodrama in which an anthropomorphic plague and its secretary (Death, in a calm, flirty, gothic, cool-girl, Stalinist bureaucracy- chic incarnation half a century before The Sandman, Vol. 2: The Doll's House) descend on a city and take it over, with the plague being a stand-in for Totalitarian Leftism.
As characters succumb to the mental poison and terror of this literal and metaphorical 'plague', one man stands up to its power with such fierceness that even Death gets the hots for him. One can almost hear the anime music blaring in the background of the ensuing hyperbolic speeches, and yet - bad taste though it may be - I did find myself reflecting on how these weren't just empty sentiments to Camus. He did live through the Nazi occupation, editing the underground paper, Combat for the French Resistance. These grand ideals of speaking truth to power and the power of individual bravery in the face of tyranny's seductive logic were not entirely idle rants, but lived issues he clearly felt very deeply. And to be honest, I do admire the hyper-earnestness of it all, even though I cannot speak to any particularly robust aesthetic achievements in the play as a whole.
The best part of the collection, then, is the final play, 'The Just Assassins' (1949), which I assume was written as a riposte to Sartre's own Les Mains sales a year earlier. This is a naturalistic socialist drama, retelling the true story of Ivan Kalayev's assassination of the Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich in 1905. The play focuses on the internal debates of the revolutionary socialists planning and organising the bomb plot which, in that characteristically 20th Century style of magical thinking, employs a moral calculus that assumes the assassination will certainly and tangibly accelerate Russia towards freedom.
This historical episode prompts some impressive moral tensions from its real-life incidents, first when Kalayev refuses to throw a bomb at the last moment after he realises that the Duke's children will be caught in the explosion, and second, when the Duke's newly widowed wife visits him in his prison cell and demands an explanation of his act. The first scenario prompts a criticism of the traumatised, misanthropic motives that Camus sees as underpinning Leninist dogma against the more humanitarian motives of his heroes. The second scenario offers some Kafkaesque hysteria as Kalayev is pressured to repent for killing a guy responsible for the forced displacement of over 20,000 Jews from the Pale of Settlement because his wife says he looked cute when he was sleeping, all whilst the secret police pressure him with the threat of publishing falsified confessions anyway to ruin his reputation. A somewhat surreal conversation with a prisoner-hangman further ratchets up the tension, and overall it's impressive how much dramatic mileage Camus gets without straying from the historical facts.
Over the course of the play these characters agonise over whether their violence should be carried out under the auspices of love or hate (no prizes for guessing the winner there), but its final, and much darker declaration, is one that endorses political violence (or, to use more emotive language, terrorism) so long as the perpetrators face direct and immediate punishment for what is undeniably a crime. For Camus, political murder is only acceptable so long as it is still recognised as murder and treated accordingly, with the true danger coming from how revolutionary rhetoric creates states-of-exception whereby the perpetrators of political violence can insulate themselves from just punishments for getting their hands dirty. To Camus, totalitarian terror is so monstrous because it reserves for itself the right to enact political violence in pursuit of its aims whilst erasing the immoral character of those actions through philosophical sophistry. Only by recognising that the world being changed by bad means doesn't stop those means being bad can libertarian movements insulate themselves from the degeneration inherent in the necessities of the power politics they hope to destroy.
Read in an age of suicide bombings, this is a somewhat disconcerting model of political morality, though Camus seems to have specifically admired how the historical Ivan Kalyayev lived long enough to stand trial and openly welcomed the death sentence the court laid against him, recognising within even corrupt institutions a certain authenticity of right and moral duty to which its opponents owe a historically-contingent loyalty:
This is, if nothing else, a distinctly peculiar answer to the traditional 20th century Socialist debates on the role of violence in politics, though one struggles to imagine it making much headway in practice. Camus wasn't for revolution; he was for the Rebel, the archetype, the existential stance of defiance taken to serious extremes that puts oneself in danger rather than others. It is an aesthetic position, an admiration for the romance of a lone assassin as a ward against complicity with the general terror of the status quo or loyalty to the mechanical death-machines of Leninist bureaucracy. Is this a serious political stance? Perhaps not, especially considering Camus' opposition to insurrectionary bombings in Algeria, but I think it is a curious philosophical position at the very least, grappling as it does with the murky stench of a dilemma at which Sartre tended to lick his lips a little too ghoulishly in his taste for blood.
As tragedies, these stories have little in the way of surprises, but that's part of the point. Fate, for Camus, rings with perfect resonances of the Absurd. As his characters attempt to hammer out a direction to their lives, to the world, to history, their cross-cutting self-deceptions, self-obsessions, and self-aggrandisements frustrate and trip them at every turn. Much as Sisyphus always knows before he puts his shoulder to it that the boulder will fall again, the audience is invited to affirm each obvious tragedy in advance, putting pressure as that does on the more comforting teleologies of Leftist thought. If there is no end to history, then socialism is not found in a future society with men and women not yet born, but in the evolving absurdities of today, in today's new struggles, and in today's fresh sadnesses. If Caligula could burn a world for his asocial abstractions, Camus, perhaps, would rather we affirm it for the more tangible connections with flesh and blood beings.
I don't think these are particularly successful models for what a socialist theatre should look like, but their earnestness still makes for an interesting attempt.
The central ambition connecting these plays is an attempt to reinvent the structures of Classical Greek Tragedy to a modern idiom that could capture the philosophy of Absurdism and the moral dilemmas of Revolutionary Socialism. A kind of Francophone rendition of Arthur Miller, perhaps, albeit accomplished with much less elegance than his American comrade. Camus ran a theatre company in the 1930s and many of these pieces were originally written to star himself, and in his preface he openly admits that this was due to "guilelessness," a word that might sum up the collection quite succinctly. In his defence, he pleads that, "I was only twenty-five, the age when one doubts everything except oneself. The war forced me to modesty."
Of the four plays, the earliest, 'Caligula' (written 1938, performed 1945) is by far the weakest, mostly due to its risible psychology that has a character quietly admiring the philosophy of the tyrant murdering his parents that he's actively trying to avenge. The play reimagines Caligula's infamous madness as a reaction to discovering life's Absurdity. Gods, laws, mores, all of them vanish in the face of the great existential void that Caligula spies in the wake of his lover's death, and so he exploits the tools of imperial power to abuse and mistreat the world around him for not seeing the same underlying absurdity that he does. Language, and men's oaths, are taken literally, often to the death, and his fleeting whims are elevated to the status of grand ontological foundations whilst the state devolves into an avaricious mouth chewing up bodies and estates within its jaws to squeeze out every last drop of gold, simply to illustrate the state's underlying imperative for extracting cash.
The joke here is that this hyper-obsessive logicality, this semi-autistic demand that the world make sense and follow consistent rules, is ultimately a manifestation of Caligula's own egoism. His satire of irrational social mores becomes, not an opportunity for absurdist liberation, but a monstrous occasion for worshipping his own ego. In what I assume is a sly parody of the more belligerent literalisms of Friedrich Nietzsche, Caligula's inability to grapple with the reality of Love is what reduces his legitimate insights about the Absurd into a terroristic, destructive force. Perhaps presciently, just as the typical existentialist heroes are often lambasted today for their privileged self-obsession, Camus ridicules Caligula as a man snagged by a half-an-insight into the abyss, but missing the human connection that grounds life's artificial meanings.
A worthy theme, sure, but hardly well-explored with 70 pages of Caligula's inane whining and a half-heartedly penned conspiracy cobbled together to give some flat aphorisms the illusion of a plot.
The second play, 'The Misunderstanding' (written 1943, performed 1944) is much more successful as a narrative, though it is entirely one-note in its straightforwardly flat dramatic irony. A son, who left home to find his fortune, returns to his family's remote mountain inn after many years, with wealth to rescue them from their decrepit state. But rather than announce himself at the door, he takes on an odd notion to surprise them, to never say his name directly, to play a stranger and watch them in the hope that they will recognise him for who he is. Little does he know, however, that in his absence, his mother and sister have taken to robbing and murdering travellers, putting together a little fortune with which they hope to one day move to a house besides the sea (an image that curiously recurs in the subsequent play, 'State of Siege'). Obvious shenanigans ensue, as both parties speak in double-entendres about recognitions, surprises, endings, fates etc etc, since his family - so hardened to their brutal occupation - do not truly look at their prey for fear of growing attached the victims they will slaughter.
The ironies are gratifying, if somewhat slight, relying as they do a little heavily on atmosphere as a vehicle for allegory. Camus describes the play as reflective of the claustrophobia he felt writing it in mountains of central France during the war, and suggests a fitting moral in which the play:
"amounts to saying that everything would have been different if the son had said: 'It is I; here is my name.' It amounts to saying that in an unjust or indifferent world man can save himself, and save others, by practising the most basic sincerity and pronouncing the most appropriate word."
Regardless, the play sets up a recurring theme across the subsequent plays wherein the high ideals of romantic or revolutionary socialism are juxtaposed against the debasing realities of grim, hard-scrabble poverty. It is to the play's credit that it lingers in this sombre image of human fate without recourse to cheap solutions, since how easy is it to find in ourselves 'basic sincerity' and 'the most appropriate word' in the darker muddles of the world as we live in it?
The third play, 'State of Siege' (1948) though terrible, is the sort of thing I'd probably have loved if I'd read it when I was 17. Camus, though a rictus smile, pleads against the critics that "it is, of all my writings the one that most resembles me," which would probably have been a poor defence if I didn't find myself charmed by its most risible qualities. A grand, near-Brechtian psychodrama in which an anthropomorphic plague and its secretary (Death, in a calm, flirty, gothic, cool-girl, Stalinist bureaucracy- chic incarnation half a century before The Sandman, Vol. 2: The Doll's House) descend on a city and take it over, with the plague being a stand-in for Totalitarian Leftism.
As characters succumb to the mental poison and terror of this literal and metaphorical 'plague', one man stands up to its power with such fierceness that even Death gets the hots for him. One can almost hear the anime music blaring in the background of the ensuing hyperbolic speeches, and yet - bad taste though it may be - I did find myself reflecting on how these weren't just empty sentiments to Camus. He did live through the Nazi occupation, editing the underground paper, Combat for the French Resistance. These grand ideals of speaking truth to power and the power of individual bravery in the face of tyranny's seductive logic were not entirely idle rants, but lived issues he clearly felt very deeply. And to be honest, I do admire the hyper-earnestness of it all, even though I cannot speak to any particularly robust aesthetic achievements in the play as a whole.
The best part of the collection, then, is the final play, 'The Just Assassins' (1949), which I assume was written as a riposte to Sartre's own Les Mains sales a year earlier. This is a naturalistic socialist drama, retelling the true story of Ivan Kalayev's assassination of the Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich in 1905. The play focuses on the internal debates of the revolutionary socialists planning and organising the bomb plot which, in that characteristically 20th Century style of magical thinking, employs a moral calculus that assumes the assassination will certainly and tangibly accelerate Russia towards freedom.
This historical episode prompts some impressive moral tensions from its real-life incidents, first when Kalayev refuses to throw a bomb at the last moment after he realises that the Duke's children will be caught in the explosion, and second, when the Duke's newly widowed wife visits him in his prison cell and demands an explanation of his act. The first scenario prompts a criticism of the traumatised, misanthropic motives that Camus sees as underpinning Leninist dogma against the more humanitarian motives of his heroes. The second scenario offers some Kafkaesque hysteria as Kalayev is pressured to repent for killing a guy responsible for the forced displacement of over 20,000 Jews from the Pale of Settlement because his wife says he looked cute when he was sleeping, all whilst the secret police pressure him with the threat of publishing falsified confessions anyway to ruin his reputation. A somewhat surreal conversation with a prisoner-hangman further ratchets up the tension, and overall it's impressive how much dramatic mileage Camus gets without straying from the historical facts.
Over the course of the play these characters agonise over whether their violence should be carried out under the auspices of love or hate (no prizes for guessing the winner there), but its final, and much darker declaration, is one that endorses political violence (or, to use more emotive language, terrorism) so long as the perpetrators face direct and immediate punishment for what is undeniably a crime. For Camus, political murder is only acceptable so long as it is still recognised as murder and treated accordingly, with the true danger coming from how revolutionary rhetoric creates states-of-exception whereby the perpetrators of political violence can insulate themselves from just punishments for getting their hands dirty. To Camus, totalitarian terror is so monstrous because it reserves for itself the right to enact political violence in pursuit of its aims whilst erasing the immoral character of those actions through philosophical sophistry. Only by recognising that the world being changed by bad means doesn't stop those means being bad can libertarian movements insulate themselves from the degeneration inherent in the necessities of the power politics they hope to destroy.
Read in an age of suicide bombings, this is a somewhat disconcerting model of political morality, though Camus seems to have specifically admired how the historical Ivan Kalyayev lived long enough to stand trial and openly welcomed the death sentence the court laid against him, recognising within even corrupt institutions a certain authenticity of right and moral duty to which its opponents owe a historically-contingent loyalty:
"'I am pleased with your sentence,' he told the judges. 'I hope that you will carry it out just as openly and publicly as I carried out the sentence of the Socialist Revolutionary Party. Learn to look the advancing revolution right in the face.'"
- The Last Tsar: the Life and Death of Nicholas II, pg 86
This is, if nothing else, a distinctly peculiar answer to the traditional 20th century Socialist debates on the role of violence in politics, though one struggles to imagine it making much headway in practice. Camus wasn't for revolution; he was for the Rebel, the archetype, the existential stance of defiance taken to serious extremes that puts oneself in danger rather than others. It is an aesthetic position, an admiration for the romance of a lone assassin as a ward against complicity with the general terror of the status quo or loyalty to the mechanical death-machines of Leninist bureaucracy. Is this a serious political stance? Perhaps not, especially considering Camus' opposition to insurrectionary bombings in Algeria, but I think it is a curious philosophical position at the very least, grappling as it does with the murky stench of a dilemma at which Sartre tended to lick his lips a little too ghoulishly in his taste for blood.
As tragedies, these stories have little in the way of surprises, but that's part of the point. Fate, for Camus, rings with perfect resonances of the Absurd. As his characters attempt to hammer out a direction to their lives, to the world, to history, their cross-cutting self-deceptions, self-obsessions, and self-aggrandisements frustrate and trip them at every turn. Much as Sisyphus always knows before he puts his shoulder to it that the boulder will fall again, the audience is invited to affirm each obvious tragedy in advance, putting pressure as that does on the more comforting teleologies of Leftist thought. If there is no end to history, then socialism is not found in a future society with men and women not yet born, but in the evolving absurdities of today, in today's new struggles, and in today's fresh sadnesses. If Caligula could burn a world for his asocial abstractions, Camus, perhaps, would rather we affirm it for the more tangible connections with flesh and blood beings.
I don't think these are particularly successful models for what a socialist theatre should look like, but their earnestness still makes for an interesting attempt.
March 6, 2023
Orden de preferencia:
1. Calígula.
2. El estadio de sitio.
3. Los justos.
4. El malentendido.
1. Calígula.
2. El estadio de sitio.
3. Los justos.
4. El malentendido.
February 17, 2025
I've enjoyed this body of work by Camus more than I've enjoyed his novels. Granted, I have not read The Plague yet or have finished his philosophical books and essays, but this selection of Camus' most impressive and introspective plays will be a treat for any fan of Camus and or the theatre. The four plays selected here are some of the more grim and macabre plays I've ever read, presenting the audience with new perspectives on morality, life, and a variety of social commentary regarding the government and politics in general. Camus is well-regarded for his simplicity in writing, and this collection further establishes this fact by providing the reader with an easy to read but hard to comprehend experience for each story.
With Caligula's disturbing and brutal atmosphere, The Misunderstanding's deeply moving and absurdist atmosphere, State of Emergency's witty yet horrific social commentary, and The Just's simple but powerful meditation on rebellion and morality, one can learn many of Camus' philosophies and his perspectives on some of literature's most difficult subjects through this one collection of exceptional drama.
With Caligula's disturbing and brutal atmosphere, The Misunderstanding's deeply moving and absurdist atmosphere, State of Emergency's witty yet horrific social commentary, and The Just's simple but powerful meditation on rebellion and morality, one can learn many of Camus' philosophies and his perspectives on some of literature's most difficult subjects through this one collection of exceptional drama.
November 24, 2014
You had me at Caligula, Albert Camus, whose CALIGULA AND 3 OTHER PLAYS has circulated through my private library ever since I took my parent’s copy while in the depth of adolescent existentialism. I collected as much Camus as I could then, from his notebooks to the plays, essays and novels, again, mostly from my parent’s old college reading list that they kept shelved years later. I never read anything after THE STRANGER, but what young angry boy wouldn’t be drawn it the ducktail hairdo’d, cigarette-smoking rebel captured in the author’s profile? Now, nearing completion of my reading of Camus’ canon, I finally got around to these plays and they’re great. Again, Caligula, the mad emperor, the incestuous murder, what’s not to love? THE MISUNDERSTANDING, whose basic plot is first revealed in a newspaper clipping under the prison mattress of the narrator of THE STRANGER, is told as a Greek tragedy. STATE OF SEIGE is a more political reading of Camus’ novel THE PLAGUE and THE JUST ASSASSINS is about just that, a group of Russian revolutionaries plotting murder. What I loved about these plays was their artful artificiality. Never a fan of reading plays or screenplays, it may be time to reexamine that assessment, for I was attracted to the abstraction of their format. Camus’ didacticism is well suited to the medium, and, especially in STATE OF SEIGE, an almost Eugène Ionesco-like absurdist humor enlivens many scenes, something I’ve not encountered in Camus’ other works.
November 9, 2020
I read this after reading 'The Stranger' for a high school class and 'The Plague' and 'The Myth of Sisyphus' for myself. Camus had impressed me for being intellectually honest and courageously forthright, so I was on a roll, going on to read the above and then 'Resistance, Rebellion and Death', 'Neither Victims nor Executioners' etc.
May 10, 2022
Desde la perspectiva propuesta en El Mito de Sísifo, en estas 4 obras hay guiños sutiles y a veces directos a los "saltos" (escapes) que condenó el filósofo en su ensayo. (Yo, al día que escribo esto, ausente de la lectura de El Hombre Rebelde, regresaré luego a complementar esta bitácora sobre El estado de sitio y Los Justos).
•Calígula:
Aquí la obra más joven de Camus, ejemplifica brillantemente la dirección de la agitación existencial desbocada. Aquí, Camus aprovechó genialmente las condiciones materiales que hicieron tan especial y único al personaje histórico de Calígula. Tantas son las respuestas y modos de enfrentar y valerse ante el sin sentido como personalidades, condiciones sociales y culturales hay. Calígula, desencantado por la muerte de su amante y hermana, objeta contra el mundo sensible y finito, hallando y subsanando con la hipotesis idealista de lo imposible. Calígula pondrá todo su empeño en alcanzar lo inalcanzable, en, si es posible, desgarrar el mundo sensible para abrirse paso hasta uno extrasensible y místico donde pueda hacer el amor con la luna misma. El escéptico ilustrado de Calígula, sin embargo, muy cuerdo y consciente a la vez de la imposibilidad práctica de su apuesta mística, sopesa batallando contra todas las estructuras plausibles del mundo en busca de una libertad ideal (por antonomasia absoluta por su delirio nihilista), así, aprovecha su condición de Cesar, y engendra la tiranía mas brutal, cínica, sadista, absurda y sofista. Calígula arrasa con el mundo en busqueda de una libertad que solo se halla por fuera de los límites del mundo y del lenguaje, escala por las libertades internas del mundo hasta chocar con los límites del mismo (allí agoniza y se retuerce apasionadamente), somete los contratos de los hombre al juicio de un dios hombre, porque solo el hombre con el poder para la tiranía absoluta que él pudo, es más real (y por tanto grande) que los mismos dioses que su imperio brindaba culto, dado que son hechos visibles, violaciones que se hacían sentir en carne, y no solo extorsiones supersticiosas a entidades etéreas. A diferencia de la creencia común o quizás hasta de la histórica, el Calígula de Camus no estaba loco, todo lo contrario, quizás de los hombres mas conscientes de su época, así, este Calígula era malo, solo eso, maldad hecha voluntad, hecha y echadada al hecho por una voluntad empujada por una clarividencia absorta. Calígula decide ser tirano porque desea a como de lugar, acceder a la mística como facto.
La respuesta existencial de Calígula, como aclara Camus, es el peor de los saltos, total antítesis del Espíritu Absurdo (tesis del Mito de Sísifo), la cual es darle la espalda al hombre; una fe, otra esperanza puesta en el anhelo, patético por frenético, miserable por autodestructivo y flagelador, patético por hambriento, triste por no indiferente. ¿Cómo diverge la actitud de Calígula con la respuesta de Sade? Calígula en su nihilismo, desencanta lo material y lo moral, repartiendolo todo en partes iguales al sin sentido. Así, "abusa" moviéndose en esas estructuras con total libertad individual; para ello pone la herramienta exclusiva de los seres racionales en función de la destrucción y ridiculización de la misma, atrayendo, trayendo y sublimando como muestra de libertad al alma Aristotélica de lo animal lo sensible irracional, lo pulsional. En resumen, por parte de Calígula: por la negación del mundo, desemboca la razón guiando todo artificio material (animal) y racional (contrato humano social) a los límites de la misma, acabando siempre en el absurdo por la pretensión de exceder lo posible. Y en este choque lógico, en este total absurdo, la exigencia por ser libre de los límites del mundo, siempre crece, y siempre acaba en el estalle visceral de lógica y sangre que (repito); pretende desgarrar el cielo de lo plausible para abrazar a la luna.
El Marqués de Sade en cambio, si bien puede discutirse que le da la espalda a los hombres, los iguala y crea propone una ética absoluta (para todo individuo sin distinción) de la sumisión y el placer siempre incipiente. Sade, no pone su espera en una mística ideal, si no en la tierra misma, y no desgarra a los hombres para libertar o ridiculizar el mundo por absurdo, si no para satisfacer la lascivia y ridiculizar y librarse de la mística (pretendiendo ahogar por falaz a las instituciones que lo ameritan). Es decir, si Calígula empuja la razón del nihilismo hacia arriba, Sade empuja la razón del nihilismo hacia abajo.
•El Malentendido:
La obra mas directa de las cuatro, les digo de una vez, es la historia que aprece en el trozo del diario que encuentra Meursault en la carcel. Así que, ¡qué emoción! Camus tiene su universo. Aquí toca el tema de la justicia y la muerte como también lo hace en Los Justos. Solo que aquí de la forma irónica y fatal, mejor dicho, inminente; la decepción por la hipocresía de una madre ciega y de una hija virgen que se siente traicionada por su madre. Ambas tremendamente orgullosas, una acabada por el honor al decepcionar su vocación existencial (admitida en la historia por su personaje) de ser madre, y la otra por el desvío y por tanto abandono de su madre, de su proyecto conjunto, una real menor de edad.
•El Estado de Sitio:
Efectivamente como lo declara el mismo Camus, su obra más compacta y llena de tópicos recuerrentes en el resto de su obra, el absurdo, la justicia, el amor, el miedo, la rebelión, la soledad. Aquí esta está encantada por la personificación de ideas (sustantivos) encarnadas en individuos, la Nada y La Peste, la melancólica Victoria, son personajes en esta obra; aprovecha encantando así la prosa, con un uso incisivo y sin tapujos de la ironía acusatoria. La valentía junto con darle la cara al mundo (al igual como lo haría el Espíritu Absurdo) son la clave para ser libres de La Peste que administra La Muerte (La secretaria).
Gran obra para leer en estas épocas (ya post) pandemia. Camus recrimina brillantemente al orden social por sus cabezas, que el espíritu industrializado que invadió sus estructuras, deshumaniza a través del miedo. Esta obra es especial por poética y fantástica a la vez que sumamente real y áspera. Los recursos visuales de la escenografía que propone Camus le hacen justicia a su prosa.
•Los Justos:
La obra más trágica y moralmente pesada por titubeante entre las cuatro. Aquí de nuevo, como suele hacer Camus, somete entre una linea de matices un maniqueísmo sobre la justicia; solo aquellos que matan han de aceptar su muerte premeditadamente. De nuevo aquí, Camus da diversos ejemplos de saltos (Mito de Sísifo) las pugnas sobre la discusión del deber frente a lo justo y lo necesario. El que lleva acabo una revolución debe aceptar cargar el peso de la muerte pagándola con la misma suya, siendo mártir únicamente sobre su apuesta en la esperanza de su fin filantrópico; siendo así, todos los personajes en esta obra le fallaron al espíritu absurdo, unos escaloraron más allá que otros sobre la jerarquía de la cobardía (recordemos que el espíritu absurdo es tan temerario que no lo es: es indiferente y le da la cara a todo; lo enfrenta todo de frente), y a su vez, todos siempre tuvieron la esperanza puesta sobre alguna escapatoria, y aquí el lío, escapar; distinto a no tener una esperanza que da la cara a los hombres como podría suponer un espíritu que lucha indiferente por el mundo (por la humanidad) pero que al final lucha por él. En resumen, los que lucharon por los hombres siempre tenían aparte del consuelo altruista, el consuelo en alguna escapatoria, como la muerte, la absolución de la muerte en el cadalso, irse a un puesto de ejecución militante distinto, y los enemigos: Dios y el perdón, o su avaricia penitenciaria. Pero quizás hablar de esto sea distraer del tópico de la obra, la Justicia (aunque con su evidente intersección). El protagonista, un filántropo socialista, en la revolución al cual pertenece, acepta su muerte inminente al él matar (exclusivamente a lo injusto), y el único consuelo y pago que ve viable, es su muerte (¿por parte del mismo sistema que pretendió asesinar? No, solo su muerte). El que ama a la vida, ama a lo vivos, naturalmente con el deber de acompañarlos en la vida que merece o en la muerte que debe. Pregunta exquisita que hace Camus aquí, ¿el amor está por encima de la justicia? Dora nos responde.
•Calígula:
Aquí la obra más joven de Camus, ejemplifica brillantemente la dirección de la agitación existencial desbocada. Aquí, Camus aprovechó genialmente las condiciones materiales que hicieron tan especial y único al personaje histórico de Calígula. Tantas son las respuestas y modos de enfrentar y valerse ante el sin sentido como personalidades, condiciones sociales y culturales hay. Calígula, desencantado por la muerte de su amante y hermana, objeta contra el mundo sensible y finito, hallando y subsanando con la hipotesis idealista de lo imposible. Calígula pondrá todo su empeño en alcanzar lo inalcanzable, en, si es posible, desgarrar el mundo sensible para abrirse paso hasta uno extrasensible y místico donde pueda hacer el amor con la luna misma. El escéptico ilustrado de Calígula, sin embargo, muy cuerdo y consciente a la vez de la imposibilidad práctica de su apuesta mística, sopesa batallando contra todas las estructuras plausibles del mundo en busca de una libertad ideal (por antonomasia absoluta por su delirio nihilista), así, aprovecha su condición de Cesar, y engendra la tiranía mas brutal, cínica, sadista, absurda y sofista. Calígula arrasa con el mundo en busqueda de una libertad que solo se halla por fuera de los límites del mundo y del lenguaje, escala por las libertades internas del mundo hasta chocar con los límites del mismo (allí agoniza y se retuerce apasionadamente), somete los contratos de los hombre al juicio de un dios hombre, porque solo el hombre con el poder para la tiranía absoluta que él pudo, es más real (y por tanto grande) que los mismos dioses que su imperio brindaba culto, dado que son hechos visibles, violaciones que se hacían sentir en carne, y no solo extorsiones supersticiosas a entidades etéreas. A diferencia de la creencia común o quizás hasta de la histórica, el Calígula de Camus no estaba loco, todo lo contrario, quizás de los hombres mas conscientes de su época, así, este Calígula era malo, solo eso, maldad hecha voluntad, hecha y echadada al hecho por una voluntad empujada por una clarividencia absorta. Calígula decide ser tirano porque desea a como de lugar, acceder a la mística como facto.
La respuesta existencial de Calígula, como aclara Camus, es el peor de los saltos, total antítesis del Espíritu Absurdo (tesis del Mito de Sísifo), la cual es darle la espalda al hombre; una fe, otra esperanza puesta en el anhelo, patético por frenético, miserable por autodestructivo y flagelador, patético por hambriento, triste por no indiferente. ¿Cómo diverge la actitud de Calígula con la respuesta de Sade? Calígula en su nihilismo, desencanta lo material y lo moral, repartiendolo todo en partes iguales al sin sentido. Así, "abusa" moviéndose en esas estructuras con total libertad individual; para ello pone la herramienta exclusiva de los seres racionales en función de la destrucción y ridiculización de la misma, atrayendo, trayendo y sublimando como muestra de libertad al alma Aristotélica de lo animal lo sensible irracional, lo pulsional. En resumen, por parte de Calígula: por la negación del mundo, desemboca la razón guiando todo artificio material (animal) y racional (contrato humano social) a los límites de la misma, acabando siempre en el absurdo por la pretensión de exceder lo posible. Y en este choque lógico, en este total absurdo, la exigencia por ser libre de los límites del mundo, siempre crece, y siempre acaba en el estalle visceral de lógica y sangre que (repito); pretende desgarrar el cielo de lo plausible para abrazar a la luna.
El Marqués de Sade en cambio, si bien puede discutirse que le da la espalda a los hombres, los iguala y crea propone una ética absoluta (para todo individuo sin distinción) de la sumisión y el placer siempre incipiente. Sade, no pone su espera en una mística ideal, si no en la tierra misma, y no desgarra a los hombres para libertar o ridiculizar el mundo por absurdo, si no para satisfacer la lascivia y ridiculizar y librarse de la mística (pretendiendo ahogar por falaz a las instituciones que lo ameritan). Es decir, si Calígula empuja la razón del nihilismo hacia arriba, Sade empuja la razón del nihilismo hacia abajo.
•El Malentendido:
La obra mas directa de las cuatro, les digo de una vez, es la historia que aprece en el trozo del diario que encuentra Meursault en la carcel. Así que, ¡qué emoción! Camus tiene su universo. Aquí toca el tema de la justicia y la muerte como también lo hace en Los Justos. Solo que aquí de la forma irónica y fatal, mejor dicho, inminente; la decepción por la hipocresía de una madre ciega y de una hija virgen que se siente traicionada por su madre. Ambas tremendamente orgullosas, una acabada por el honor al decepcionar su vocación existencial (admitida en la historia por su personaje) de ser madre, y la otra por el desvío y por tanto abandono de su madre, de su proyecto conjunto, una real menor de edad.
•El Estado de Sitio:
Efectivamente como lo declara el mismo Camus, su obra más compacta y llena de tópicos recuerrentes en el resto de su obra, el absurdo, la justicia, el amor, el miedo, la rebelión, la soledad. Aquí esta está encantada por la personificación de ideas (sustantivos) encarnadas en individuos, la Nada y La Peste, la melancólica Victoria, son personajes en esta obra; aprovecha encantando así la prosa, con un uso incisivo y sin tapujos de la ironía acusatoria. La valentía junto con darle la cara al mundo (al igual como lo haría el Espíritu Absurdo) son la clave para ser libres de La Peste que administra La Muerte (La secretaria).
Gran obra para leer en estas épocas (ya post) pandemia. Camus recrimina brillantemente al orden social por sus cabezas, que el espíritu industrializado que invadió sus estructuras, deshumaniza a través del miedo. Esta obra es especial por poética y fantástica a la vez que sumamente real y áspera. Los recursos visuales de la escenografía que propone Camus le hacen justicia a su prosa.
•Los Justos:
La obra más trágica y moralmente pesada por titubeante entre las cuatro. Aquí de nuevo, como suele hacer Camus, somete entre una linea de matices un maniqueísmo sobre la justicia; solo aquellos que matan han de aceptar su muerte premeditadamente. De nuevo aquí, Camus da diversos ejemplos de saltos (Mito de Sísifo) las pugnas sobre la discusión del deber frente a lo justo y lo necesario. El que lleva acabo una revolución debe aceptar cargar el peso de la muerte pagándola con la misma suya, siendo mártir únicamente sobre su apuesta en la esperanza de su fin filantrópico; siendo así, todos los personajes en esta obra le fallaron al espíritu absurdo, unos escaloraron más allá que otros sobre la jerarquía de la cobardía (recordemos que el espíritu absurdo es tan temerario que no lo es: es indiferente y le da la cara a todo; lo enfrenta todo de frente), y a su vez, todos siempre tuvieron la esperanza puesta sobre alguna escapatoria, y aquí el lío, escapar; distinto a no tener una esperanza que da la cara a los hombres como podría suponer un espíritu que lucha indiferente por el mundo (por la humanidad) pero que al final lucha por él. En resumen, los que lucharon por los hombres siempre tenían aparte del consuelo altruista, el consuelo en alguna escapatoria, como la muerte, la absolución de la muerte en el cadalso, irse a un puesto de ejecución militante distinto, y los enemigos: Dios y el perdón, o su avaricia penitenciaria. Pero quizás hablar de esto sea distraer del tópico de la obra, la Justicia (aunque con su evidente intersección). El protagonista, un filántropo socialista, en la revolución al cual pertenece, acepta su muerte inminente al él matar (exclusivamente a lo injusto), y el único consuelo y pago que ve viable, es su muerte (¿por parte del mismo sistema que pretendió asesinar? No, solo su muerte). El que ama a la vida, ama a lo vivos, naturalmente con el deber de acompañarlos en la vida que merece o en la muerte que debe. Pregunta exquisita que hace Camus aquí, ¿el amor está por encima de la justicia? Dora nos responde.
January 8, 2021
The play was a great medium for Camus to be able to deliver his ideas and in each of these plays he impressed me greatly. My favorite was definitely State of Siege but each is great in its own right.
April 7, 2020
Ha sido mi primera vez haciendo teatro, ha sido por skype, no me había leído el texto y he representado a 4 personajes.
Altamente recomendable
Altamente recomendable
January 4, 2025
One of the things I'm most interested in doing regarding reading in 2025 is to dive into work by writers that I know are great but I've only read their mainstream work. The only Albert Camus I've read prior to this was The Stranger and I have been itching to get back into his work. I came across Caligula and Three Other Plays by accident while looking up things about Caligula. Besides "Caligula," this collection consists of the plays: "The Misunderstanding," "The State of Seige," and "The Just Assassins."
"Caligula" is about the emperor of Rome who is torn apart by the death of his lover and sister Drusilla. Camus referred to this play as an orchestration of a superior suicide. Caligula provokes his patricians to assassinate him by doing awful deeds to them and the citizens of Rome. I really enjoyed this despite not knowing much about Caligula.
"The Misunderstanding" also deals with fate when a man who has been gone from home for years isn't recognized by his mother and sister. It is about the myth of Elektra and the Prodigal Son from the Bible. Since the man is rich, his sister and mother kill him in his sleep as he's lodging in their home. I didn't really enjoy reading this play but I think I'd like it if I was watching. It took a while to get to the point, and I expected a bit more urgency for such a tragic plot.
"The State of Seige" and "The Just Assassins" are the two that I would rate five stars if they were separate from this collection.
"The State of Seige" is about the arrival of a plague and how totalitarian regimes are created out of fear and manipulation tactics. The way this threat of a plague plays out throughout the production shows how people fight over scraps while the rich use fear to get richer. This was one of Camus's most controversial subjects and to my understanding, it was not received well by French critics. I personally enjoyed it though and I thought it was perfect from start to finish.
"The Just Assassins" ends the collection as a historical play about a group of Russian Socialist-Revolutionaries who assassinated the Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich in 1905. It is about the moral issues associated with terrorism and murder. I thought it was interesting to get into the minds of these people who wanted to overthrow their tsarist regime. It raised many questions about morals when it comes to seeking revolution. I found this play to be the most readable of the collection because it was fast-paced and thrilling.
"Caligula" is about the emperor of Rome who is torn apart by the death of his lover and sister Drusilla. Camus referred to this play as an orchestration of a superior suicide. Caligula provokes his patricians to assassinate him by doing awful deeds to them and the citizens of Rome. I really enjoyed this despite not knowing much about Caligula.
"The Misunderstanding" also deals with fate when a man who has been gone from home for years isn't recognized by his mother and sister. It is about the myth of Elektra and the Prodigal Son from the Bible. Since the man is rich, his sister and mother kill him in his sleep as he's lodging in their home. I didn't really enjoy reading this play but I think I'd like it if I was watching. It took a while to get to the point, and I expected a bit more urgency for such a tragic plot.
"The State of Seige" and "The Just Assassins" are the two that I would rate five stars if they were separate from this collection.
"The State of Seige" is about the arrival of a plague and how totalitarian regimes are created out of fear and manipulation tactics. The way this threat of a plague plays out throughout the production shows how people fight over scraps while the rich use fear to get richer. This was one of Camus's most controversial subjects and to my understanding, it was not received well by French critics. I personally enjoyed it though and I thought it was perfect from start to finish.
"The Just Assassins" ends the collection as a historical play about a group of Russian Socialist-Revolutionaries who assassinated the Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich in 1905. It is about the moral issues associated with terrorism and murder. I thought it was interesting to get into the minds of these people who wanted to overthrow their tsarist regime. It raised many questions about morals when it comes to seeking revolution. I found this play to be the most readable of the collection because it was fast-paced and thrilling.
December 3, 2021
Decía Camus en el mito de Sísifo: "La vida humana no tiene ningún sentido inherente" (haciendo alusión a que todo es absurdo). A lo largo de estas obras de teatro, que bien se sabe no fueron aclamadas por la crítica ni la gente, se ve rasgos de ello, pero también de ideas filosóficas/existenciales que revelan la condición del ser humano frente a extremos como la privación de su libertad o su falta de deseo.
"Calígula" es, sino, la mejor obra de Camus. En pocas páginas captura al lector y representa muy bien la lógica en dicho personaje, a quien la historia y los mismos protagonistas lo han tildado de loco. Calígula sigue sus mandatos acorde a la siguiente frase: "Los hombres mueren y no son felices"; es por ello que manda y tortura con impunidad para demostrar su punto; y esto es porque él ve que la gente que lo rodea está dormida, son gente que no desea nada, que poco hacen por su libertad (excepto Quereas, quien sí desea matarlo, pero abandona su deseo por cumplir con su deber). Él busca lo imposible, porque ya la realidad no le da satisfacción; se vuelve exigente con su anhelos, así como desear la luna, desear todo lo que desborda la realidad. Al final, como un gran personaje, entiende que no puede ser libre si pasa por la libertad de los demás, por lo que acepta su muerte. Es decir, Calígula es una obra de un gran suicidio.
"El malentendido" va más hacia la tragedia, y cómo pudo evitarse si tan solo se hubieran escogido las palabras correctas o se hubiese dicho la verdad; y deja un mensaje que refiere a que "todo dolor debe ser cargado por uno mismo, nadie puede ayudarte en eso".
"El estado de sitio" es una obra experimental, osada, con la temática de la libertad y la lucha frente a los tiranos (se confunde fácilmente con su novela La peste).
Y, por último, "Los justos", es una obra que trata en sí sobre la aceptación de la justicia en base a los actos. Yo lo interpreto de esta manera: así como el ser humano que mata condena a otro ser en base a su concepto de justicia, este debe afrontar la misma muerte por el reflejo de su acto.
"Calígula" es, sino, la mejor obra de Camus. En pocas páginas captura al lector y representa muy bien la lógica en dicho personaje, a quien la historia y los mismos protagonistas lo han tildado de loco. Calígula sigue sus mandatos acorde a la siguiente frase: "Los hombres mueren y no son felices"; es por ello que manda y tortura con impunidad para demostrar su punto; y esto es porque él ve que la gente que lo rodea está dormida, son gente que no desea nada, que poco hacen por su libertad (excepto Quereas, quien sí desea matarlo, pero abandona su deseo por cumplir con su deber). Él busca lo imposible, porque ya la realidad no le da satisfacción; se vuelve exigente con su anhelos, así como desear la luna, desear todo lo que desborda la realidad. Al final, como un gran personaje, entiende que no puede ser libre si pasa por la libertad de los demás, por lo que acepta su muerte. Es decir, Calígula es una obra de un gran suicidio.
"El malentendido" va más hacia la tragedia, y cómo pudo evitarse si tan solo se hubieran escogido las palabras correctas o se hubiese dicho la verdad; y deja un mensaje que refiere a que "todo dolor debe ser cargado por uno mismo, nadie puede ayudarte en eso".
"El estado de sitio" es una obra experimental, osada, con la temática de la libertad y la lucha frente a los tiranos (se confunde fácilmente con su novela La peste).
Y, por último, "Los justos", es una obra que trata en sí sobre la aceptación de la justicia en base a los actos. Yo lo interpreto de esta manera: así como el ser humano que mata condena a otro ser en base a su concepto de justicia, este debe afrontar la misma muerte por el reflejo de su acto.
December 12, 2023
Este libro sobrepasó mis expectativas como muy pocos han logrado hacerlo.
Tras gozar de estas 4 magníficas obras de teatro pude darme cuenta realmente de que el 4 de enero de 1960 perdimos al hombre que pudo haber sido el mejor autor del siglo XX y las muchas obras que pudo habernos dado. Realmente ninguna de las 4 obras tengo algo que reprochar
En todas las obras podremos ver el resumen de lo que puede llegar a ser la vida frente a tener un objetivo o una meta y qué tanto sentido y satisfacción nos puede dar el llegar a cumplirlas. Eso te llega al corazón y puedes ponerte en la piel de los personajes y entender que el tormento o el existencialismo no siempre es un capricho, como muchos lo pintan.
Los dilemas que se plantean en Los justos y El estado de sitio hacen pensar tanto que hasta puedes sentirte desesperado mientras lees, Camus logra una conexión con el lector perfecta hasta humanizar los personajes.
El malentendido y Calígula te transmiten esa impotencia que muchos podemos sentir hoy en día y que nunca deja de estar por más que estas obras se ambienten en tiempos nada recientes.
Recomiendo este libro a todos los lectores sin ninguna excepción. 👏🏼
Tras gozar de estas 4 magníficas obras de teatro pude darme cuenta realmente de que el 4 de enero de 1960 perdimos al hombre que pudo haber sido el mejor autor del siglo XX y las muchas obras que pudo habernos dado. Realmente ninguna de las 4 obras tengo algo que reprochar
En todas las obras podremos ver el resumen de lo que puede llegar a ser la vida frente a tener un objetivo o una meta y qué tanto sentido y satisfacción nos puede dar el llegar a cumplirlas. Eso te llega al corazón y puedes ponerte en la piel de los personajes y entender que el tormento o el existencialismo no siempre es un capricho, como muchos lo pintan.
Los dilemas que se plantean en Los justos y El estado de sitio hacen pensar tanto que hasta puedes sentirte desesperado mientras lees, Camus logra una conexión con el lector perfecta hasta humanizar los personajes.
El malentendido y Calígula te transmiten esa impotencia que muchos podemos sentir hoy en día y que nunca deja de estar por más que estas obras se ambienten en tiempos nada recientes.
Recomiendo este libro a todos los lectores sin ninguna excepción. 👏🏼
February 27, 2025
All these plays are very evidently written by Camus, as each one, however inadvertently, raises many philosophical questions, especially relating to the purpose of life, power, and justice. Caligula was my favorite out of the three, with The Plague (which is indeed much different than the book) behind. Overall, I would recommend all of these plays, especially because they do not take a great amount of time to read and pack a lot of thought into stories with rather simple premises.
March 16, 2025
I only didn’t like one of the plays, State of Emergency. It was more of the format of the play though. Otherwise this whole book would be 5 stars. I really enjoyed the themes of each of the plays and how they all sort of tie together in certain ways.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 161 reviews