Caligula by Albert Camus
Author in Depth: Albert Camus
Caligula (1939)
Translated from the French by Stuart Gilbert
My Quick Take: This play is absurd in more ways than one: it is part of Camusā exploration of his philosophy of the absurd, and it also shows the decidedly non-philosophical absurdity of the corruption of absolute power.
***
A late addition to my Author in Depth project to read select works of Albert Camus, Caligula is a play that he wrote as one of three works in his Cycle of the Absurd, his earliest writing. The other pieces are The Stranger and The Myth of Sisyphus, both of which Iāve recently read and blogged about. I wasnāt going to read Caligula, his play first written in 1939, revised several times and first performed in 1944, but I thought, what the heck? My disclaimer: What follows is a non-philosopher's take on this play and philosophy in general, but that's the point of this project.
The play is a quick read, but I found myself a touch nonplussed on reading it through, because discerning the absurdist philosophical themes was more tricky than the other works. They were there, but I wasnāt quite sure what Camus wanted to say about the whole thing. Itās the very straightforward story of Caligula, a Roman emperor who lived between AD 24-41 and turned tyrant with his cruelty, murderous ways, and abuse of his peers. Camusā play finds Caligula after his sister and lover Drusilla has died. Caligula realises the meaninglessness of life and first requests of his Roman guard āthe moon,ā an absurd request for āthe impossible.ā Having felt the meaninglessness of life, he seeks to enact this absurd state onto his subjects, forcing their daughters into brothel work, assaulting their wives, and murdering indiscriminately. In the end, he basically allows his own assassination to happen.
Camus says:
āCaligula is the story of a superior suicide. It is the story of the most human and the most tragic of errors. Unfaithful to man, loyal to himself, Caligula consents to die for having understood that no one can save himself all alone and that one cannot be free in opposition to other men.ā
I had to do some supplementary reading to make much sense of it. I posit that Caligula came to understand the absurd, and in his own āfreedomā he became a tyrant, pushing the logic of the principle that any action is meaningless and equal to any other to its far boundary: killing and corrupting freely, and depriving others of life, rights and freedoms in turn. Camus argues against suicide as a response to the absurd, and I think what he is getting at here is Caligulaās misguided āfreedomā and ārevoltā in harming other people (āyou canāt be free in opposition to other menā). Either Caligula was mocking the absurdity of life by engaging in abhorrent violence (a kind of F-you to the universe) or was misinterpreting absurd freedom and revolt. Perhaps he was unable to live authentically in the absurd and thus his choice of suicide by assassination was āsuperiorā to living the way he was.
Morals and absurdism do not coexist easily, and Iām seeing some discussion in my reading online about this paradox. I mean, Iām going to hope that this notion has traction: āabsurdists often argue that it matters how the agent faces the absurdity of their situation and that the response should exemplify these virtues. This aspect is particularly prominent in the idea that the agent should rebel against the absurd and live their life authentically as a form of passionate revolt.ā (note this is from Wikipedia, though it has three papers as citations).
So I think Caligula may be Camusā example of an individualās absurdism gone wrong at the limits of logic. A cautionary tale. Maybe?
As to the non-Camus definition of absurdism, āridiculously unreasonable,ā or āextremely silly or ridiculousā (Merriam-Webster), the whole play was just over the top! And kind of in a good way, at times. One scene that I wonāt forget is when Caligula holds a poetry contest, where each of the nobles have one minute to pen a poem on āDeath,ā after having just witnessed Caligula killing another nobleman for no good reason. Caligula is to be the judge and timekeeper. His paramour Caesonia intones, deadpan, āNeedless to say there will be rewardsā¦and the penalties wonāt be too severe.ā Stage direction: āConverting his contest into a mad farce, Caligula with his piercing whistle stops each contestant in mid-metaphor.ā I can almost see the patricians sweating over writing excellent verse in this absurd contest, fearing Caligulaās punishment. Itās like a poetry Squid Game for aristocrats.
Iām glad that I chose to add this to my reading about Absurdism, because itās spurred me to consider Absurdism and morality, something that is clearly debated by philosophers. Common sense and human decency, and the need to consider othersā human rights in balance with oneās own is top priority for me and probably most people I know, and getting too precious about philosophical arguments is something I donāt really care to do for this project, but itās an interesting thought experiment. I find many of Camusā concepts of the absurd relevant and useful, but I think I can take what works for me from his theory, and leave what doesnāt serve me well.
Comments
Post a Comment