BOO KS
371
the proletariat, the bourgeoisie, the Communists and the anti-Commu–
nists, and, unhappily for the characters in
The Mandarins,
that special
group with special claims; the forced laborers in the Russian work
camps. How is one to meet the claims of all these people? It is no more
possible to do this in politics than in personal life, where a choice often
has to be made between one's husband and one's lover, one's mistress
and one's wife. Somebody's claim must be denied. Dubreuilh, presented
by the author as the most lucid person in
The Mandarins,
is opposed to
meeting the claim of the forced-labor-camp prisoners in Russia (and
what a modest claim is made on him in the name of these millions!
The only thing proposed to him is that he admit publicly that they
exist); even this is too much for him, for if he admitted that forced–
labor-camp prisoners exist (as everybody knows they do anyway) he
would fail to meet his obligations to the French proletariat by aiding
their enemies, the anti-Communists. When his friend Perron argues
that by protesting against forced labor in Russia, the non-Communist
European left may bring pressure on the Soviet government and effect
some mitigation of the work-camp system, Dubreuilh accuses Perron of
idealism. The political break between Dubreuilh and Perron is the
central ideological event in
The Mandarins.
Perron presents the claims
of the forced-labor-camp prisoners to Dubreuilh, and Dubreuilh pre–
sents the claims of the proletarian left to Perron. Both characters, as
seen by the author, are unequal to
all
the claims made on them.
Unhappily this conflict is utterly unreal and abstract, and simply
reveals that the characters here described do not believe seriously in
the political views they assert. When one holds a political view in a
serious way, one is not
mainly
concerned with what one's opponents think
of it. One is too busy fighting them. A man really persuaded of the
Communist view would either deny the existence of forced labor or
have to argue for its necessity; Communists have often done both. But
what serious person, not denying the existence of the camps privately,
would yet make such a point as Dubreuilh does, that their existence
should not be admitted publicly? Khrushchev, who is at least serious, did
not scruple to reveal far more about the Soviet regime than its enemies
accused it of. Yet Simone de Beauvoir takes Dubreuilh most seriously.
And here lies the real weakness and failure of
The Mandarins.
If
the novel is to be praised for the fact that the characters it treats of are
highly conscious, what are we to say of the equally evident fact that
about politics, with which these characters are all so concerned, they
are absolutely devoid of significant ideas? The political assumptions of
every single one of them are completely absurd. One wonders then ;
