Saturday, November 10, 2018

Passage through the Red Sea by Zofia Romanowicz


Passage through the Red Sea by Zofia Romanowicz
Translated by Virgilia Peterson
Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc. (1962)
Originally published in Polish as Przejscie Przez Morze Czerwone

(3) The night before Lucile visits, Narrator has a dream in which Paul is alive (and Lucile is asleep beside her)

(7) The narrator’s life: “I had so mismanaged without her”
Originally believed Lucile “Could help me straighten out my life,” not to “rake up the memories we had in common.”

(8) Narrator counting on “the renewal of our old intimacy when we met”

(9) Misreading the dream of being with her in camp—not realizing it was a “premonition of disaster”

(10-11) Shared bread from Micheline—defensive, excuse at the ready, ashamed for several reasons. Acting animalistic—can’t refuse despite it. We find out later the Narrator brings back eczema after visiting Micheline’s barracks, which Lucile gets and it disfigures her fingers and hand.

(15) Paul—Lucile’s husband.
Narrator loved him, too.
“[T]he living were no less lost to us in those [camp] days, no more accessible to us, than the dead. Narrator writes to Lucile, asking her to come visit: “no longer bear this burden alone.” The past still overwhelmed her…she hasn’t moved on.

(16) Narrator longed for the reunion with Lucile, “the reunion that I had longed for all these years.”

(17) concerned that Philippe “could ruin our reunion,” though she wasn’t sure how he could

(18) “Carpe diam, carpe horam” was Philippe’s motto

(20) In camp: “an underlying will to survive”
“feeling distraught and defenseless” at the thought of meeting Luicile

(21) Her pellet and the feeling of freedom (or power) it promised/gave her
            “No one knew it was there, as they transported us for a night and a day, and still another night and still another day, while through the cracks between the boards of the freight car we peered at the unidentifiable landscapes we were passing, and it seemed to us, not as though they were transporting us farther and farther, but as though they were sinking us deeper and deeper, even deeper than the depths. No one could possibly suspect that I was, in fact, free; that I was there only for as long as I was willing to remain, since at any moment, if I so desired, I could with one gesture, with one single little gesture, turn the handle of that door of mine and remove myself from this collective fate, from this transport, changing my body into something over which no living soul would ever again have power.”

She never took the “pellet,” giving up her coat when the prisoners arrived at the camp. Even though she lived through the ordeal, the experience marred her and her captors still seemed to have power over her.

Narrator’s normal life is to “go on enduring instead of living” which is “all the more tragic for being normal and routine.”
For a while, the pellet’s existence is what gave her courage and hope. This was replaced by Lucile.

(24) “Perhaps…I had been overwhelmed by an instinct stronger than reason or will”
When she saw Lucile she decided not to commit suicide

(25) They saved each other’s life through “loving reciprocity”
Narrator loses her identity—“From then on, in my mind, it was not ‘I,’ but ‘we’>”

(26) Curiosity caused her to be human.
Narrator and Lucile knew of each other before the camp.

(27) The links and attraction made all that would happen easier to bear

(28) The pellet was “my veto of all that was happening, my refusal to accept it.”
Was the Narrator expecting the same saving grace from Lucile a second time when inviting her to visit?

(29) Narrator is dependent on Phillipe
The only object in her room she had feelings for “was a framed print pictureing the passage through the Red Sea.”

(30) Those fugitives in the painting had two foes, though they didn’t necessarily realize it: the parted sea waiting to crash over them and Pharaoh’s army.
Likewise, does Narrator recognize one foe but not the other?
She identified with the lost Jew on the Egyptian shore—of little faith, hesitant. In her hesitation, “I challenged the patience of the waters.”

(32) What had been burdening Narrator—guilt, betrayal

(33) Contrast between the life Narrator was living vs. the life she lived in amp.
            “In those days, there was a sharply drawn line we would not cross, the line beyond which there was no point in survival, no point in waiting for deliverance, a line pushed back, it is true, to the extreme limits of human endurance, but all the more rigid therefore, and it was Lucile who, as judge, kept watch over it for us both. She herself was ready to die ,if necessary, at any moment, whereas I, the weaker of the two, the more vulnerable, held on, precisely because of my cowardice and weakness, more desperately, and sometimes beyond the point at which we had decided that life was not worth living.”

Lucile orders Narrator to “Let go!” (an order she had given her earlier to drop a rotten turnip she had foraged and was ready to fight to defend it.

(34) Letting go could also mean sinking to inhuman depths in exchange for survival. Seeing others succumb to those depravations “set us on edge…because it was a warning.”

(35) Human ties allow us to see ourselves in others and help us act in a way we find acceptable.
There’s a price for deliverance, and for Narrator and Lucile some prices were too high.
Small things can change the desire to cling to life, to decide to survive.

(36-7) Phillipe—the same as scraps she wouldn’t acquiesce to or sink to lower depths?
The thought of Paul being alive, of hearing his step, haunts Narrator.

(46) Narrator initially missed Lucile at the air terminal due to “trivial circumstances”
They met at camp by chance, by trivial circumstances, too
Her courage deserted her, as when “something one has been wanting for too long, something one has counted on too much, comes within reach…” (ellipsis in original)

(47) Memory of Lucile lost to reality when they met.
“uneasy to see Lucile as she really was”

(48) “memory is one thin and reality is another”
remembrance ¹ existence

(49) memory can “cast its distant shadow”

The history gradually unfolds
(51) Lucile left the hut they had found after leaving the camp, while Narrator stayed.
Separated on day of liberation.

(53) Lucile “deserted me without a word”

(55) “An instant had changed my life, far more drastically than war or even deportation.”
When Narrator “meshed” with Lucile, “That was the first, and indeed the only, time in my life that I was able to become part of someone else, to become inwardly one with someone else.”

(56) Being together in camp was a “necessity,” but for different reasons for both of them
That “meshing” was also the Narrator being let into Paul and Lucile’s world.
“By taking over my life and joining it to hers, Lucile was saving us both.”

(57) Meeting Lucile at the air terminal, Narrator “found her again, but again she was beyond my reach. Between us stood the transparent but impenetrable wall.”

(59) seeing Paul and Lucile kiss—something attainable for Narrator, but still outside it.
Gave her a feeling of hope, but also deprivation.

(60) Lucile shared with Narrator “her advantage over me”

(61) Though Narrator already “felt” those facts, an thinks Lucile “did me the greatest wrong”
            Lucile tells Narrator about being a woman. “Lucile, in giving me all she had to give, all her riches, was at the same time robbing me of even more. She was closing all other doors to me, just when the door that led to Paul had already been forever closed.”
            “[T]hat night she determined my fate and her own.”

(64) Rationalizing Lucile telling her about love, etc. “Once a thing has been put into words, the words themselves have a way of changing it; it becomes something outside and separate, it takes on a shape, a sound, an image of its own, and one is somehow freed of it, somehow rid of it.”

Is that what Narrator is doing with her story? Is she freeing herself of what she has done?

(65) Narrator feels her relationship with Philippe is treacherous. She is incapable of breaking down a barrier between them, and Philippe has “no wish to break it down.”

(66) Narrator wanted to be part of Lucile’s life after the war (and still dreams of being a part of Paul and Lucile’s world), but that was her own disappointed hope. Lucile didn’t want that. Narrator can’t let go while Lucile moves on, and Narrator feels betrayed.

(67) Can’t force fate—when pressed hard, “It takes revenge.”
Narrator realizes she got what she wanted while in the camp instead of “in better times.”
Fate gave her what she wanted “ahead of time.”
Freedom was an embarrassment, useless. “I did not know how to choose anything, any purpose, any direction; I did not know how to allow myself the exercise of choice.”

(69) Phillipe—“takes” Narrator in the same way he takes food or drink; not to help her but to satisfy himself.

Repetitious nature of story-telling. Repeating phrases, revisiting parts of her story now that the reader knows more of other circumstances around them, tying current discussions with those that have passed.

Almost half the book passes/leads up to Narrator and Lucile’s first post-camp meeting.

Narrator seems to enjoy living her life through Paul and Lucile (spying on them, following them)

(70) Lot’s wife—has to watch even knowing (or in spite of) what will happen

(73) Red Sea painting reference: “[W]here the last of the Jews, the most mistrustful of them, still hesitated on the Egyptian shore.”

(75) On meeting Lucile, Narrator can’t decide who seemed “the more lost, the more dead” (Paul or Lucile)
On their meeting, Lucile seems to mock Narrator in front of a man she met on the plane. Lucile is surprised Narrator looks so well despite the desperate tone of her letters.

(77) There’s a “false note” in their meeting and on the taxi ride. Narrator feels Lucile’s meeting with the man was “in secret, … and right then by that lie, Lucile had severed the ties between us.”
Lucile was the axis around whom the Narrator revolved.

(78) Narrator was wanting to “lean on” Lucile, but Lucile was not cooperating.

(80) Narrator lives under the delusion that being together with Lucile would somehow bring Paul back, or at least the feeling he was back.

(85) When “that whole awkwardness of our meeting had disappeared—one word from Lucile, her outstretched hand, had been enough to enable me to yield to my joy at last.” But that word or gesture did not come.

Narrator’s joy, in the camp and now, had been “unfounded because it was not shared.”

(88) Narrator describes their shared duties of guarding meager possessions in the camp, and always fear of separation.

(89) All the strangers in the camp: “In the dormitory, lined with tiers of bunks up to the ceiling like the shelves in a beehive, were huddled people, thrown together by chance, hating each other, yet condemned to sleep in this intimacy. They quarreled over blankets and bunks, they fought over a piece of bread. Until the last siren sounded, until the shouts of the night patrol were heard under the window, the tumult and the wrangling went on, the tumult of a great upheaval in the midst of which our bunk, spread as always with our blanket, was like an oasis.”

Inmates strive to leave “some trace” of their life since, “We counted for so little, our life was so uncertain.”

(90) “Together” was the Narrator’s word (or motto, or mantra). Together is how she liked to think of herself and Paul and Lucile, whether in the camp or in the park.

(90-911) “[F]ar up ahead where the lines began, a terrifying voice called out the numbers one by one, and from beyond the walls, above while we could see the highest branches of the birches swaying, volleys of shots rang out.
            “Those who were summoned to die moved away without looking back. Tomorrow, or even in the next moment, our turn might come, but what did it matter, providing we were together?”

Narrator savors being able to judge Lucile since she felt she was always judged and need to apologize.

(91) After Lucile stayed out all night: “The moment had come, not to begin again, not to live a second time, but to judge.”

Quote: “Forget the camp!” Lucile had said to me that evening before she went off to keep her engagement. “When will you ever make up your mind to escape it child?”

“with that evil clarity of the nighttime that dramatizes and poisons everything”

(92) Something about Narrator’s look showed “some touch of sadness.” Narrator has aged a lot since the camps. Lucile still looks young.

Narrator gives Philippe credit “for having taken an interest in me all this time.” (because of her poor looks)

(93) Narrator appreciates Lucile’s interest in dressing her in nice clothes, but “she had no interest in changing me; all she was doing was to dress me.”

(94-5) Narrator was always passive, acquiescent…letting Lucile dress her, letting Lucile and Paul plan for her. Once out, Narrator had no interest in making decisions. “[N]othing…could ever match the future we used to plan for ourselves.”
Lucile chides Narrator to put the camp behind her.

(95) “clarity of nighttime”
“It was then, for the first time, that I was afraid of my own impulses.” (wanting to cut up Lucile’s dresses)

(96) Red Sea reference: Narrator is incapable of moving while everyone else passed through the sea.

Her dream with Paul—Paul offers her the “little pellet of death.”
Quote: “So this is all it is,” I thought with relief…

(97) Quote:
            It was then, for the first time, that the absurd and saving idea struck me that it was wholly in my power to put an end to that life flowing secretly along its hidden course beneath her skin and that I, more than anyone else, had the right to do so. It was in my power to put an end to Lucile, to fasten her here forever, beside me, before time moved on again, before the earth revolved, while we were still, however insufficiently, together, alike, and before we became total strangers to one another, each for herself alone.
            I was more and more certain, indeed I was convinced, that this was the real purpose and meaning of our reunion, that from the beginning it had been predestined, and that it was the only way to make everything clear and be done with it.

(98-9) The first night was bad, but the next day was better. The visit had ups and downs, “dreams mingled with reality.”

(100) Narrator feels Lucile is recanting all she said in the camp.

(Reflecting after the following events occur) “Now that everything is over, now that I am myself again, that I am finally and forever appeased…”

(100-101) “Everything one touches proves tainted and condemned from the start. So what is there left to us, other than that which prompts us to recognize the inherent flaw in ourselves and in everything, and to accept it? But willing as I was to accept any flaw in myself, I was unable, I had not the strength, to tolerate a flaw in Lucile.”

(101) “We had survived, and we doubtless do not survive in order to demand the fulfillment of what we once promised ourselves in order to be able to survive; we survive in order to live. It does not matter how we live; what matters is to be alive.”

In the camp, despite their captivity, they felt a type of freedom. What could the guards do, kill them? They would get to heaven faster if they did.

(102) But what if paradise was “meaner, less perfect?” Or if it doesn’t exist at all? Since we can’t be sure, Narrator prefers to “burn and thirst forever” instead of accepting the mirage of “a higher and more just form of existence.” (end of sentence is from 101)

(103) “What a mockery it is, when our desires come true.”
Longing, therefore, is futile. Desire, then, turns into shadows.

(104) Lucile’s mutilated hand and fingers are from eczema that Narrator brought into their barracks. It not only punished Lucile, but Narrator, too.

(105) Lucile had avoided contact in bed with Narrator when Narrator had eczema. Probably afterwards, too (at least it sounds like she did)
Narrator was a child that “needed comforting, counseling.”
But “Lucile was contemptuous of sentimentality” in the camp and afterwards.
(106) Narrator—little natural dignity in her except from imitating Lucile. In comparison, the “natural dignity that Lucile seemed to embody, which was our salvation.”
Narrator tried to please Lucile and win her approval, receive “demonstrations of affection I so craved.”

(107) Did Lucile’s “present way of life, … her rather cynical new wisdom” come from the scars?

She felt the need to “make a more definite break with what was too painful for her, with what bound her too closely, that she had so promptly rid herself of me, without delay, on that very first night of freedom, before there was time for us to form any new habits of a new, free life together.”

(108) “I alone…clung to that imaginary future, to that hope, and only because of it had I been able to keep afloat.”
Lucile must have abandoned hope in the future or even desire it.

Narrator feels safer thinking of (living in) the time of the camps.
Quote:
            “And suddenly, with the wild longing of those who are not truly saved and who feel the taste of the heavenly rain on their tongues, I went back once again with my whole being into that other time, into that circle of suffering and damnation, that closed and therefore unalterable circle, forever safe from disillusion, cut off by the unknowable succession of days and nights, by the hope of that illusory [thirst-quenching] rain. I went back to what had been or what had only seemed to me to be.”

(109) Lucile had broken with the past and with Narrator “in order to ensure her own salvation.”

(110) Upon gaining their freedom:
“This consciousness of having recovered free will threw us into confusion, since for years we had been accustomed to walking in step, unthinkingly, obeying orders, and our joy at having escaped was mixed with anxiety, even with a certain sadness, a somewhat melancholy feeling of uncertainty, of having been abandoned, as though we were the first human beings to walk the earth.”

(111) Evidently Narrator and Lucile had escaped from the camp relocation.
They saw a husband and wife farming and tried to hike to their field.

(112) However their attempt to hike to their field took them off course, putting them in another part of the woods.
They accidentally stumble on a different camp during the night.

(113) They hear a call for help. Narrator would have left, avoiding the call for fear of losing their fragile freedom.

(114) Lucile chose “the better, the harder way” and returned to the camp, which turned out to have been opened.
That’s one reason Narrator longed to see Lucile, to have her around her again. Quote:

Without her, I could only choose what was less good, without her there was no life with which I could be content. In her lay all my hopes and all my potentialities. It seemed to me that I had only to be with her, to follow and imitate her, for the right choice to force itself upon me, the choice of the harder way, to be sure, but also of the better way the way one can remember without remorse.
Yet it was that very night—there are times when I am sure of it—that something cracked in Lucile. But I did not realize that the Lucile who left me was another person, someone who too heavy a load had broken, someone who, after that, would refuse every burden.

(115) They find a man, who had died after his call for help, in the remains of the camp.
(116) Lucile still takes the dead man’s hand. They bring a mattress out to him and try to dress his wounds.
(117) It was “as though the salvation of the world, as though our own salvation, depended on him.” (and bringing him back to life)
Narrator falls asleep, waking alone except for the dead man nearby.

(118) Narrator catches up with Lucile, who was leaving through the camp gate. The “slight weight” of the dead man had been enough to break Lucile, and cause her to desert Narrator that night (although she had already detached herself emotionally fro her).

Narrator feels upbeat and the world full of promise. “Someone had died in the night, but that was no doubt the last death in the world.”

(119) “Then we started off together, seemingly together, that is, but actually already separate, walking straight ahead, fleeing from what had been—though we were carrying it within us—fearing what was to come, dodging here and there, choosing paths, choosing fates, seeking people out and then running away from them, dozing with our backs against tree trunks, until we found the refuge of the wooden hut.”

The hut makes Narrator think that it was like having a house of their own (or at least the first step toward that).

Lucile leaves during the night, but she had already left earlier in the day because of “the dead man she had been unable to save, together with everything which, for her, was dead, dead and ended, and which, if she was to go on living, had to die for her, had to end had to cease to have any importance whatever.”

(120) Narrator “tests” Philippe and Lucile by dropping back as they walked, waiting for them to turn around and notice her lagging. They don’t…the reassurance she wanted did not come.
“But as the people between us, between those two and me, began to form a living and increasingly thick wall, little by little there arose in my mind a wicked thought, a wicked hope that drove out the other: that, on the contrary, Lucile would not turn around, that they two would do the rejecting, that they would go off together, ridding themselves of me. That was how I wanted it; there was something within me that desired the worst.”

(121) Narrator thought “that Lucile had only to appear for Philippe to disappear.”
She had tried to break with Philippe when she knew Lucile was coming. Philippe had ignored previous attempts (fleeting, desperate) to break things off.

(122) “But this time, I meant it” in order “to put myself in order.”
She felt she had been submitting without love, consenting without desire.

(124) Narrator paints Philippe as a “cynical seducer who had cast his spell over me and was holding me in humiliating bondage” to Lucile. Narrator notes “It was not very just,” even though she notes he debased “everything to the level of a vulgar game” and she “had agreed to play the game.”
She tries to excuse herself by noting her relationship was her “one link with the world, my one way of having a part in it, my one security.”

(125) Small thanks for him finding her an apartment and a job.

Again she mentions that being fair now “can no longer be of any use to anything or anyone, now when in my case everything has been decided, crystallized in its unforeseeable finality” as she desires “to understand more clearly.”

(126) Narrator feels her “whole present life was also a betrayal of the death that had spared me, washing me up as on a shoal, after having lifted me so high.”
Narrator believes there was a barrier between her and Philippe (and anyone else?) on the night Lucile, in the camp, told her the facts of life. She believed there was a paradise (like between Paul and Lucile?) and she “would never renounce completely the hope of attaining it.”

(127) Narrator notes how Lucile and Philippe are “in tune,” “akin.”
They didn’t even have “the decency” to notice she wasn’t with them.
Philippe showed up unexpectedly at the apartment door. Narrator slams the door in his face.

(128) Narrator had not told Lucile about Philippe yet when he showed up at the door. She had postponed it so much that “he had ceased to exist.”

(129) Philippe’s first words made him “intolerable” to Narrator, who described him as a “fat beetle.”
Philippe simply opened the door with his key.
How narrator describes her life as full of misery, hypocrisy, uselessness, and had become unendurable.

(130) Narrator mentions again that “Lucile had only to appear for Philippe disappear.”
To Narrator, Lucile defined the line of demarcation for hanging on, surviving.
TO Narrator, she “was the enemy, for already they [Philippe and Lucile] had become allies.”

(131)  “[W]e are slow to accept the truth we fear.”
Narrator wishes she could have met Lucile halfway (distance-wise) in order to hide everything about her life.
Imagery of nakedness being pure, while being clothed is corruption.

(132) Narrator feels she is diseased.
A “film of hope that covered my heart” would “tear apart” during Lucile’s time with her.
Lucile was needed to “reconcile me to myself,” and Narrator felt she could only hold contempt on herself—“there was no place for Lucile.” She forgave weakness in herself, but if Lucile were weak it would be a catastrophe for both of them. Even worse, Lucile didn’t feel guilty about what she done.

Narrator has held an idealized view of Lucile because of all she did for her in the camps. Now when she meets her and sees she has faults, that view is destroyed and sends her off the deep end.
“[S]he had withdrawn everything on which, long ago, she had made me build, so there was no reason for her to feel guilty.”

(132-3) Even worse was when Narrator woke up next to Lucile, and Lucile pulled away.

“There had also been that morning when everything had been laid bare enough for me to discover another, an intolerable, a grotesque truth, when Lucile, awakening beside me with an expression I had never seen before, with the face of a stranger, drew away from me and wrapped herself more closely in the sheet to avoid touching me. That was what she used to do, so many years ago. With a look and a smile, she was picking up the thread of those years again, but the look and the smile were such that, hiding my wounded hand, folding around it a corner of the sheet, which reddened at once, I too drew away, with tears of revolt against the present and against the past.”

(133) Narrator thinks she wiped out all of this from her memory because she was anxious to do so. She’s also concerned about Philippe’s role”
“Instead of compromising me, Philippe had raised me in Lucile’s estimation.”

(134) Narrator is ashamed of Philippe.
Narrator’s two days with Lucile finds her attitude toward her shifting, “from contempt to remorse to adoration.”
Narrator assumed Lucile would hate Philippe as much as she did, that they would be “adversaries,” “enemies.”

(135) Of course they weren’t. Their “formal ballet,” a “grotesque dance for two,” were assigned parts. Philippe thrived on their masquerade…”enchanted, intoxicated” by it.

(136) “I was too slow in realizing what was happening.” Tries to join in, but feels everything has been “trampled down.”
“I was suddenly certain that this had already happened to me before.”

(137) Narrator fills in past events, with Philippe in the role of Paul. “Paul did not exist. He had never existed. Lucile had never existed, either. People had come between us and hidden us all from each other; they had replaced us; we were all replaceable. We had all been replaced a long time ago.”

Gives up on everything. Narrator felt completely replaceable.
“There was no passage through the Red Sea, there was not even an opposite shore.”

(138) “What happened, happened through me. Essentially, I was the cause of it, and if I were to be judged, I would certainly be found guilty.”

(139) “I wanted it, I longed for it, but still it had to be within my power to accomplish it and it had to end by being more than mere intention or that little gash along the hollow of my palm.”

(140) “Afterwards [after the first murder] no one could ever again take the body for more than it is, for more than a mere receptacle, and such a fragile receptacle, the content of which—a little breath—disappears when it suffers the slightest damage. It is possible to kill, and it is so easy that this most astounding of all things has long since ceased to astound us and everyone resorts to it.”

(141-2) “If the slain were to rise again, if it were impossible to kill, and if we had to wait till our bodies fell away from us of themselves and abandoned us, then the impotence of hatred would be equal to the impotence of love, and dominance the same as slavery.”

(142) “Thank God, we always had, we always felt beneath our skin, that invisible little pellet, that blessed flaw in the receptacle containing us, enclosing us; that key which no lock, no enclosure, could have resisted. They could kill us, it was true, but they could not compel us to survive for a single day against our will, they could not drag us across the line we ourselves had drawn.” That line may be redrawn, but “the line existed and depended, not on them, but on us, on a gesture, not of theirs, but of ours.”

Which is funny since Narrator sleepwalks through life, doing everything either against her will or at least not with her acceptance.

“All violence, therefore, is canceled out by the acceptance of it, and no change of direction is needed to escape, since escape is always possible by going out to meet it.”

This seems monstrous. Violence is done to us only if we accept it. It seems like she’s excusing her on (soon to be described) violence. She has become little better than her captors in the camps, saying she is helping Lucile, who doesn’t have the strength to do it herself.

(143) Narrator says she wish she had been shot as they were leaving the camp, as those lagging behind or trying to escape were shot. “I, for one, was hoping they would shoot.”

It was at this point that Narrator had helped Lucile, saving “her once in spite of herself” (142). “For some time, Lucile had no longer been her usual self.” She was exhausted, seemingly ready to “be crushed, canceling out with a single stroke the years of our hard-won, secret independence.” (144)

(144) Narrator had planned and caused their escape to happen, leaping “off the road, into the night, into the forest.”

(145 ) “The wind carried the echo of the shots and also the great collective lament, the tramping of that thousand-footed monster, enslaved to its last breath, writhing in agony on the road a few yards from where we stood, still so close as to be almost brushing against us, still trying to devour us again, and only slowly dragging past us the last of its coils.”

That feeling of being free, being saved: “Life was no more than an appendage to salvation.”

The three of them (Lucile, Philippe, Narrator) are in the car, Narrator in the back (apparently asleep). She can see the looks, gestures between the other two in the front.

(146) “Indeed, they were not far wrong in assuming that I was asleep. The truth is that I had never fully awakened since that night before Lucile’s arrival, when the dream that had been living in me for so many years had returned to find me and carry me back into its own time; it was this dream that had set in motion, had put into gear, all that was to happen to me thereafter. I was asleep, this was nothing but a dream.”

(148) They eat at the same inn where Philippe and she had first met for a “bang-up meal.” Narrator is upset that Lucile: “It was not jealousy that made me sit there in silence, appalled at the sight of Lucile picking up where I had left off instead of helping me to free myself, taking my place instead of taking my hand to haul me to the opposite shore.”

Narrator wants to convey to Lucile how special that “first evening I spent with Philippe, the only good one,” something that had saved her to a certain extent, using it to “justify to a certain extent my subsequent defeats and compromises, for that evening seemed to me to have been a mitigating circumstance.”

“But now that whole scene, instead of merely being described in a conversation, was being re-enacted before my eyes in an inexcusable parody.”

Narrator seems to have long stretches of her life as well as certain incidents where everything is dreamlike, like she’s not fully participating in what is going on around her.
She often visualizes what she should do, a “gesture” she should make, long before she actually does it. This is what she feels in the back seat, and has for a while since Lucile arrived—a particular gesture she should make.

(149) “I started to make the gesture, but once again, only in my mind. Huddled in a corner of the back seat, I was bathed again in the sweat that comes of immense effort or of immense fatigue.”

Narrator reaches from the back seat and turns the steering wheel “with all my strength.” She doesn’t remember if they cried out or not.

(150) Lucile’s hands reach over and are placed on top of hers, “in a gesture that was not meant, I am certain, to repulse me, that was not made in self-defense, but was on the contrary intended to show her full consent.”

Narrator does this not so Lucile to stop being herself, instead “to stop her, to hold her back, so that she would cease not being Lucile.”

Narrator is telling this story a month after the events happened.

(151) Narrator comes to: “I knew that I was alive and probably I was glad.”

Thursday, August 2, 2018

Brutus: The Noble Conspirator by Kathryn Tempest


Brutus: The Noble Conspirator by Kathryn Tempest
Yale University Press, 2017

Both a biography of Brutus and a study of how he has been presented in literary works from his time to the present.

Marcus Junius Brutus (c.85 – 42 BC), later Servilius Caepio Brutus

Challenges of a biography of Brutus
Brutus has been a controversial figure through the ages, starting with his own time. Some of the earliest references to him evidently treated him with respect. While the works of Titus Livius, Gaius Asinius Pollio, or Marcus Valerius Messalla Corvinus that cover Brutus  have not survived, mentions of their passages referring to Brutus reveal the conspirators against Julius Caesar were regarded in a positive light. While Plutarch’s biography of Brutus paints a glowing picture, we have to keep in mind the author’s concern, which was drawing moralistic lessons in the comparisons of key historical figures. Plutarch’s pairing of Brutus with Dion, who overthrew the tyrant Dionysus II of Syracus in the 4th century BC, highlights the author’s praise for men who put Platonic ideals into action.  Criticisms of Brutus and the conspirators appear early, too, with charges of parricide and banditry common. The letters between Cicero and Brutus and other letters of Cicero’s that speak of Brutus help provide a portrait of the conspirator, but also have to be weighed against the concerns and agendas behind the correspondence. Tempest’s approach presents the many points of view regarding Brutus in order to let the reader arrive at their own evaluation of the man.

“As we go in search of Brutus, this book will take an approach that combines history and historiography , in order to examine what we can learn not just about his life, but about how that life has been recorded and transmitted from antiquity to the present day.” (11)


“But Brutus, we are told, was not accused even by his enemies of such a departure from his principles; nay, Antony at least, in the hearing of many, declared that in his opinion Brutus was the only conspirator against Caesar who was impelled by the splendour and by what seemed to him the nobility of the enterprise, whereas the rest banded together against the man because they envied and hated him.”
From Plutarch’s Parallel Lives
The Life of Brutus: 29.7

Chapter 1
Brutus tried to shape how he was viewed, not just a “victim” of others for his reputation.
In Roman history/legend, his ancestor Lucius Brutus had deposed the last king of Rome and helped usher in the Republic era. Such a legendary ancestor could help Brutus’ career and aid in his self-promotion and defense. On his mother’s side he could boast the ancestor Servilius Ahala, killer of the (alleged) aspiring tyrant Spurius Maelius in 439BC.

Although little known of Brutus’ early life, Tempest sets the scene for what a son of the nobility would have experienced in Rome, Athens, and Rhodes during his studies there. Also, she examines likely influences that would have shaped his thinking during these years.

Pressure to achieve at level of forbearers’ reputations. Brutus may have been privileged, but he faced his own challenges (father’s early death) and political challenges (Sulla’s changes in the laws, Pompey’s and Caesar’s domination in politics, for examples).

“From these opening two chapters, we have seen how Brutus used his ancestry and name to forge a political identity, and how his wealth and education enabled him to accumulate both the social and cultural capital needed to succeed in political life.” [54]

“All in all, then, we should see Brutus not just as eloquent, cultured and an outspoken defender of the res publica, but as an active manipulator with his own interests, an independent operator who knew what he wanted and how to get it.” [54]

After the murder of Julius Caesar, much of Brutus’ life was viewed with that in mind. He has ceased to be a historical figure and one from mythology instead.

In civil war between Caesar and Pompey, Brutus chose Pompey, despite Julius Caesar’s overtures (wanting to avenge the deaths of M. Brutus and others. His role in Pompey’s camp, though, is uncertain. (60-62)

After Pompey’s loss at Pharsalus (Aug 48 BC), Brutus turns to Julius Caesar. Uncertain where Brutus was in 48-7 BC, when JC met Cleopatra, that long affair, and JC’s defeat of Pharaceses II in Zela. (65)

How much of Brutus’ actions around this time reflect an independent streak? Or opportunism? Or ploys based on his limited but potentially great political power?

[66] …”Brutus’ whole career displays a remarkable knack for political side-switching…”  Can we assume consistent principles then? Or does his principles precipitate the switching?

[68] Important to Brutus about his reputation: virtue, familial devotion

KT positions Brutus as a bridge-builder between Caesar’s camp and those he had pardoned, such as Cicero (after Cato’s death; see page 74). It is difficult to tell exactly given so missing documents mentioned in other writers work (contemporary and later).

Marriage as political maneuvering. Brutus divorces his first wife to marry Porcia, a daughter of Cato. Was this to try to unite or at least force to “live together” opposing sides? Cato: republic. Brutus’ mother Servilia: Caesar’s former lover.
Caesar had been calling for reconciliation with former enemies (such as pardoning the ones he didn’t kill)…Brutus seems to be acting in accordance.


Chapter 4: Thinking about Tyrannicide

Influences on Brutus joining/leading a plot against Caesar:

Caesar’s actions. While Caesar took many popular actions, there were many unpopular ones, too, particularly in the political realm. His taking of the title dictator perpetuo seems to not just acknowledge but cement the desire of tyranny (despite the ambiguity of perpetuo, which can mean either ‘uninterrupted’ or ‘for life’).

Brutus’ family history, which the graffiti mentioned would throw in his face every day that his ancestors had rid Rome of tyrants. Having emphasized this background in his own political career, he can’t very well ignore it now. Having accepted favors from Caesar (such as governorship of Cisalpine Gaul), his reputation appears to have been compromised.

Peer pressure: cries of libertas  may mean freedom for the people, it also meant the ability (right?) for the leading classes to participate in the spoils of governing. There is also the “Porcia legend” that grew about his wife, goading Brutus for retribution (father Cato, husband Bibuius).

Cassius: leader? Co-conspirator? Follower? His involvement seems to go against his Epicurean background, although jeopardizing his own happiness to help others in need would be consistent. Did he feel left out in seeing others’ political rise (people like Brutus)? Cassius did show some pushback against the honors given to Caesar at the end of 45 BC. Regardless of which one first approached the other, it seems likely that a plot against Caesar would have been very different without the cooperation of these two.

For Brutus personally, he had achieved office, but not honorably…it had been gifts from Caesar.  How long would he be dependent on the whims of Caesar? Brutus was dependent on Caesar and was participating in his regime. He had sworn an oath to protect Caesar’s life. If Caesar was a tyrant, Brutus was aiding and abetting a tyranny. Was murder, especially of a friend and benefactor, the best solution? Apparently Brutus seemed to think so.
If you can access a copy of “The Ethics of Brutus and Cassius” by David Sedley, please do so since it provides a more detailed look at the philosophy used to justify the assassination.
As Tempest points out, such philosophical bases may not have been the impetus behind Brutus’ participation in the conspiracy, but it would help seal his commitment to do so. [97]

Once the conspiracy begins, who should be killed? It seems Brutus was insistent on only murdering Caesar so their actions could be viewed as just. Thus Antony was to be spared.


[109-110] Conspirators conflated the concern of Caesar seeking to be monarch with that of tyranny as criticized by the Greeks, and so misreading what the populace wanted. They didn’t want the killing of Caesar, simply the return to the rule of law they had enjoyed beforehand…a major reason there was not popular support for the assassination.


Hindsight clouds our judgment. Because of the great number of extant letters of Cicero Tempest concentrates on what is in the letters as well as what is between the lines in order to understand how the assassination was received by Brutus’ contemporaries (while also providing an appendix comparing the major early historians’ accounts).

The conspirators seem not to have thought too far ahead, about what would happen after (and if) their plot succeeded. Antony remained aloof from them, then began his opposition to them. The senate was split on whether to avenge Caesar’s death or honor the “liberators.”

A compromise was reached…the assassins were pardoned, Caesar’s appointments for the next two years would go as planned, and his acts would be carried out (including grants of land to army veterans). There are many ironies here. Caesar’s actions, in ignoring the law and precedents, was a major reason the conspirators had acted. Yet they would benefit from his appointments being carried out, as several of them would have influential posts. They would have to wait for free elections.

Cicero repeatedly harps on the conspirators’ lack of proactive intervention in the first 48 hours after the assassination. Even if the conspirators had followed Cicero’s request to have immediately called a meeting of the Senate, they could have only done so much. As it was, within a month of Caesar’s death, most, if not all, of the assassins had left Rome. By failing to seize the initiative immediately after the assassination, they were more at the mercy of what followed from the Caesarians.

Atticus had held that a funeral should not be held for Caesar. Because there was one, Antony helped shape the opinion of Caesar and his assassins, a turning point against the conspirators.

Antony appears to have pushed through measures that benefitted him and the Caesarians on the pretext that they had been intended by Caesar, and thus covered by the compromise that allowed the dictator’s mandates to be carried out.

Antony leaves Rome to shore up support with troops loyal to Caesar. Octavian returns to Rome in the meantime and stakes his claim to Caesar’s inheritance and plans events to honor Caesar. This pushes Antony to have to decide…abide by the amnesty, working with Caesar’s assassins, or work with Octavian and honor Caesar.

“[O]pinions in how Caesar’s rule was to be remembered represented a new battlefield…” [128]

Antony returns to Rome with army veterans, which causes enough concern with Brutus and Cassius write to him about their concerns with what is going on, and why they don’t feel safe returning to Rome. Antony is also seeking control of both Gaul provinces, a direct affront to Decimus. While Brutus and Cassius did not immediately seek to profit individually from Caesar’s death, with the level of fear in Rome and the changing political landscape it would be hard to convince everyone of that. Since they were still away from Rome, it was difficult to gauge their intentions.

Lots of political jockeying over routine events and annual spectacles, each side trying to outmaneuver the other and present their politically correct version.
However, with Antony in Rome, he had access to politics and the public that the conspirators did not have.
Things weren’t smooth for Antony, though, as his struggle with Octavian escalated through many political and public fronts. While Antony seemed to have sizable military backing, Octavian was winning the hearts of the Roman people. Despite the enmity between the two (Octavian and Antony), they made a public display of reconciliation. The big losers would be the conspirators.

[136] Friction between Octavian and Antony. Oct. may have public sympathy, but Ant. Had soldiers and direct access to people of Rome…and the Senate. Oct. held games for Caesar, following Brutus’ successful fames of Apollo.
After competing edicts to the people, they eventually had a public reconciliation.

Brutus’ and Cassius’ public edict annoyed Antony, and impacted the courtesy he had been extending toward them. Campaign on all sides to influence public opinion. Brutus and Cassius painted themselves as Liberators, not assassins. On the opposing side they asked see what Julius Caesar’s clemency got him? Now we’re in chaos and fear because of it.
Cicero: did not condemn the assassination, but did criticize Brutus’ handling of it afterwards (armchair QB)

{141]  “Yet, given the intensity with which Cicero later attacked Antony, it is easy to forget just how inactive he had been in the Liberators’ cause up until now. When Brutus raised his bloody dagger and called upon Cicero by name, he did not respond; at least, there is no response that we hear of. He had made his support of their deed publicly known, and he had negotiated and addressed the people on the matter of the amnesy agreement. But he had for the most part criticised Brutus’ handling of the affair: he blamed the poor planning and believed that Antony should have been killed too. He regretted that Brutus and Cassius had not summoned the Senate immediately and complained that they had allowed Caesar a public burial. He thought that Brutus’ oratory was lacklustre and inefficient in winning over the people. At the same time, he pinned the future of the res publica on their shoulders alone.  ‘The deed was carried out with the courage of men and the policy of children’, is one of his more damning verdicts.
            On nearly all these points, Atticus disagreed with him; a reminder that, however compelling and clear Cicero’s voice can be, we should always seek to engage in the debate with him. So what could and should Brutus have done? Caesar’s assassination had seemingly failed to restore freedom. Does that mean the dictator should have been left to live out his days and conduct the Parthian campaign on which he was set to embark? Even Cicero blushed to admit it: ‘The Ides of March do not please me. He would never have come back; fear would not have compelled us to confirm all his measures…he was not a master to run away from.’
            Yet, here and elsewhere, Cicero has underestimated the extent of the problem; as had Brutus, Cassius, Decimus and the rest of the Liberators. For, as we have seen repeatedly throughout this chapter, Caesar was more than a man and, dominant though he was, there were far more players batting on his side than we sometimes remember, all with far too many vested interests. In other words, his celebrity, popularity with the veterans and plebs, and the movement Caesar spurred in Roman political life were far greater than the force of the assassins’ daggers. As the disagreements between Cicero and Atticus reveal, from the differing perspectives of two friends and contemporaries, each with his own view of Brutus, there is no simple answer to the question of why the conspiracy failed. Fear, anger, jealousy and pride have all played their part in this narrative, as indeed they did for a large part of republican history. But one thing appears certain: the real enemy was not Caesar, but Caesarism—and that was proving far more difficult to stamp out.”




[143] [o]ne of the paradoxical elements inherent in the republican system was that, although in theory it heavily guarded against monarchical ambitions, its leading men strove to outperform each other in the accumulation of wealth, glory, and dignitas.

Nice little tidbits, such as Dio’s comment that statues were erected to Brutus and Cassius in Athens, alongside other tyrannicides. Recent archeological finds  may support his claim.

Brutus and Cassius leave Rome for lowly (to them) administrative posts. As Brutus heads to Macedonia (although his designated province was Crete), Cassius had been assigned the grain commission in Sicily. Cicero makes Brutus sound compliant, willing to carry out the task. Cassius had supposedly been defiant, wanting to head to Syria instead, probably to set up a base there from which to defend/attack as necessary or wanted, seemingly more set on war. Two different conspirators with two different plans, and had been. Tempest reminds the reader that though the two had agreed on assassinating Caesar, they differed on other major points (like whether Antony should be assassinated).


As Brutus heads east, he finds himself feted by anti-monarchical / anti-tyrannical mood in Athens from a younger generation of Romans finishing their studies in Greece. In an aside from Plutarch, it appears Brutus may have immersed himself in literary/philosophical pursuits while in Athens.

[146] “The role of philosophy as a tool for reviving republicanism and recruiting for war should not be consequently overlooked in piecing together an overview of Brutus’ activities in Athens. For, when we remember the role of philosophical discourse in the fomenting of the plot against Caesar, it seems arbitrary to separate these two spheres of activity in the latter part of 44 BC. “

Speculative, but extremely possible since that seems to coordinate with his activities before the assassination on civil war, etc.

[148-9] Brutus’ masterful play to take control of rich eastern provinces by controlling Macedonia. Some quaestors returning to Rome transferred money to Brutus instead.
[149] Brutus usurped control of provinces that had not been allocated to him and was now the commander of a sizeable force of men.

[150] The Senate voted to grant Brutus the power he already realized. The Senate’s vote, though, was unconstitutional.

Ebb and flow of power

Cicero’s return coincided with Octavian’s increase in power.  Was Oct. the lesser of two evils? Cicero clearly hated Antony.

Decimus Brutus, governor of Cisalpine Gaul, refuses to hand over power of Cisalpine Gaul to Mark Antony.

[156] Cicero advocated war against Antony. “Brutus feared Octavian and he still hoped that a peace with Antony might be achieved.”
Brutus hoped to make the republican base stronger, which should (in theory) offset ambitions of people like Octavian and Antony.

[158] Brutus’ letter explaining why he hadn’t killed Gaius Antony. —The Senate had not declared it OK.— ((How does this carry over to Caesar’s assassination? Maintaining republic vs. defending it? No order to kill Caesar. Picking and choosing republic support when convenient?))

[159-60] Antony defeated at Mutina, declared a public enemy. Decimus saved.

Tempest questions everything, including sequence of letters.

Dolabella, Antony’s co-consul, sets his eye on Syria. Brutus charged to attack Dolabella in east instead of returning to Italy against Antony, whom he probably thought was defeated and out of the picture after Mutina.

[169] Flaw in Brutus’ plan according to Cicero: ‘[H]e had placed his trust in men who were not to be trusted.”
Cicero’s backing of Octavian was similarly misplaced. Octavian led his troops toward Rome, had himself and Quintus Pedius (a relative) made consuls, and promptly sought revenge against Caesar’s assassins.

[170] Octavian and Pedius revoke the hostis decree against Antony and Lepidus.
On 27 November 43BC, Mark Antony, Octavian, and Lepidus were “granted the ‘impereum’ of a consul for five years.”

Now there was open civil war, with the proscription list of enemies. Terror. Murder. Cicero murdered.

Recommendation: Flower 2010 Roman Republics

Gaius Antonius finally executed (Mark Antony’s brother) after several attempts of inciting mutiny in Brutus’ ranks

[179] Three defenders of res publica: Brutus, Cassius, Sentus Pompeius
[181] Their defense of the Republic, though, was just as brutal in the Eastern territories as was their opponents’ in Rome. Their “defense” of the republic was “remembered as a shocking and aggressive assault on the Greek east.”

[181-2] Mass suicide at Xanthus (Lycia) reflects badly on Brutus (you call that liberating?), but may be more of a reflection on Roman rule

[185] Cassius fares worse in history than Brutus (and that’s saying something). There is a “good” Brutus and a “bad” Brutus in the historical records, depending on the author.
Mark Antony’s marketing sought to conflate Brutus and Cassius’ actions in the East, making both equally bad. Brutus could also be seen as the noble, while Cassius seen as disreputable. The battle for how history would remember Brutus began while he was still alive.


[190] Lepidus (Brutus’ brother-in-law and governor of parts of Hispania and Gaul) backs Antony

[202] Cassius’ suicide after first battle of Phillipi…mixed results…
Brutus’ men route Octavian, but they stop to plunder instead of pressing the point. Antony’s men, though, are successful against Cassius’ troops. In the confusion, Cassius kills self (or has Pindarus do it)

[203-4] Brutus, in order to please soldiers, makes promises Plutarch finds abhorrent (loot Sparta and Thessalonica, which had supplied Octavian/Antony’s side)


Despite wanting to outlast Oct/A’s troops (and not hearing of their supply ships being destroyed), defections of Brutus’ troops caused him to initiate 2nd battle

[206] Casualties of 2nd battle not recorded, but the scale was huge in “current and late reflections”
Virgil’s Georgics—bewildered that such a thing could happen with the god’s blessing

[207] Brutus escapes, flees

[208-9] Differences in Brutus’ body’s in treatment in death as varied as his later reputation. Antony showed respect … Octavian wanted “Brutus’ severed head to be sent back to Rome and there cast at the feet of Caesar’s statue.”

Bad Brutus: conspired and killed a man “constitutionally elected,” plundered provinces in the east, fought battles against succeeding leaders of the res publica..

[210] “As we have repeatedly seen throughout this chapter, the wrangle over Brutus’ reputation generated competing sides to the man, as his friends and enemies alike tried to shape the memory he was to leave behind; already at his death, different ‘endings’ were being written for Brutus’ life. But these competing narratives in the historical material are a blessing rather than a curse. The legend of Brutus, the complexities of his character, and the questions that surround his legacy are all significantly enriched when we trace them back to the beginning, as we shall attempt to do in the next chapter, to the life of Brutus and how he was received by his contemporaries.”

[213] “Even though we do not have full access to these works today, what is clear is that in the years both before and after the assassination Brutus had singled himself out as a man who acted upon an ideal code of conduct, one which he had partly inherited, parted shaped for himself. Hence his reputation as a man of virtue first and foremost stemmed from the works in which he engaged in the philosophical and political debates of his times. But Brutus had also engaged in other literary activities, which give a further insight into his character.” Poetry, summaries of history, debates (came across as exceptional)

Early questions focus on Brutus’ lack of gratitude—Caesar spared his life. Good of country vs. personal…what wins out? What should he have done?

Dilemmas faced when a ruler is bad, or perceived to want to do bad things…how are they to be handled? Is tyrannicide justified? Addressed by Cicero, Thomas Aquinas, Shakespeare, and many others.

[219] Ronald Syme in 1939’s The Roman Revolution: “to judge Brutus because he failed is simply to judge from the results.”

[232] Quote: The more we look at the evidence for Brutus’ life and how it shaped his later legend, the less sure we may feel at making definitive statements about the historical man: a detailed study only demonstrates that there were many sides to Brutus, and that he drew a wide variety of responses from those who knew him.

Undoubtedly an eminent man
            Politician and orator: made a name for himself
            Philosopher: only fragments survive, but established a reputation for being moral
            Words and deeds after the assassination: was he different? Or was that a return to being a champion of freedom?

Questions that cannot be fully answered today. Final judgment: to us today, like those of his time, an enigma.