Date: 	Fri, 1 Mar 1996 16:23:55 +0100
Subject:       Re: MB: Heidegger


I confess to made my statements very briefly. They aren't based upon 
the work of Mehlman who is reducing the whole prewar criticism of 
Blanchot to one topic (antisemitisme) without taking in consideration 
all the elements (also the non-textual), as for instance the fact of 
taking publicly the defense of Paul Levy in januari 1938, a moment of 
which the historian Ph. Burrin is saying that "l'antisemitisme tient 
une place notable". This fact seems to me much more important than 
the frindship with Levinas and it is unforgivable to Mehlman that he 
doesn't mention it.
When my interpretation differs fundamentally of that of Mehlman, it 
is because I analysed the Blanchot prewar discourse in its evolution. 
I was first of all interested in how the literary praxis of the athor 
took shape. And the interesting point of this analysis is that I 
could show how a conception of literature as an 'experience' or an 
'itineraire' emerges from a continous debate with the contradictions 
implies in the Maurras' system. The ideal who guides the evolution is 
the idea that the eternel man (cf. Maurras eternal beautiness) should 
unified with the destiny of a living person. Art should transforme 
the accidental aspects of experience in a necessary order. Still in 
Faux pas one can find this conception (f.i. p.218). This ideal goes 
together with the ideal of an autonomous praxis of the writer. The 
XVIII century (the premodern world) figures here as a model. 
Those two ideals explain Blanchot's evolution, first from literature 
to a revolutionary engagement and second from the last one back to 
the first. This mouvement can be called dialectical because the 
outcome (the second moment) is put on a higher level and implies 
therefore the first (cf. Hegels 'aufhebung'). The literary work is 
explicitely interpreted as a mean to support the revolutionary 
spirit. So it implies an engagement but in the same time it refuses 
to let become the engagement absolute. Here the words "depasser" and 
"recouper" (the literary work "recoupe l'oeuvre de la revolution") 
are crucial. This double mouvement enables Blanchot to define a 
position opposite to liberalisme and communisme, and different from 
fascism. In the same the issue of it is a concept of literature as an 
"itineraire" on the background of "echec" and "desastre". These words 
appear already in the literary critics of 1937 on a moment that 
Blanchot is still defining himself by the slogan of La Jeune Droite "ni droite, ni 
gauche". 
Of course, all this had only historical interest -it just depend a 
bit how large you interprete this notion. It is completely wrong to consider 
those prewar texts as exemplary for Blanchot's writing. But it is 
also wrong to see just a break between pre- and afterwar. A good 
notion of the historical origin of Blanchot's oeuvre enables us to 
see the difference and proximity between Blanchot and Levinas, or 
between Blanchot and Heidegger. It also enables to estimate the 
'portee' of the later works in which Blanchot keep on to reflect upon 
the position of the writer in a modern society. Last but not least, 
it enables to deny the claim that a certain antisemtisme was inserted 
editorially. When Blanchot critices in 1933 "les persecutions 
barbares contre les juifs" in Germany, he argues "elles n'ont jamais 
eu de but politique precis" as if on the opposite condition they can 
be accepted. Impossible to impute this Maurras legacy to an editorial 
intervention: Paul Levy was director of Le Rempart. When this fact 
may have no longer interest for Blanchot, nor for the actual 
commentary on his work, the rechercher interested in literature in 
general and in Blanchot in particular cannot and maynot neglect it.
Thanks for the attention and again sorry for the long exposition. 
A. Cools