200469683

Page 1 of 8

Explore the theme of sacrifice in Le Feu by Henri Barbusse.

The self-sacrifice of individuals for the sake of the community, suffering made glorious -
those two things which are the basic elements of the profession of arms - respond to both our
moral and aesthetic concepts. The noblest teachings of philosophy and religion have found
no higher ideals. (De Gaulle, 1960, p.10)

The concept of sacrifice is fascinatingly complex and multi-faceted. Whereas one individual
may consider sacrifice as tantamount to glory, another may equally, and rightly, consider
slaughter its greater suitor. Essentially, this seemingly paradoxical dynamic stems from the
complicated relationship sacrifice has with the individual, where sacrificing oneself would
be synonymous with the former and being sacrificed the latter. This dynamic is further
complicated during times of crisis and conflict where the necessity of sacrifice is often
embraced as an ideal that will contribute to a worthy cause or resolution. (Griffin, 2007)
Generally however, sacrifice can be considered as the act of giving up something valued for
the sake of something else regarded as more important or worthy. (Oxford Dictionary)
Although this is indeed a broad definition, it is one which will help establish a contextualising
stepping stone for a much deeper analysis over the coming paragraphs.

This essay will explore the concept of sacrifice alongside a text which very much embraces
its intricate and dynamic nature, Le Feu (1916) by Henri Barbusse. During this exploration
we will consider the ways in which Barbusse both embraces and rejects the notion of
sacrifice to highlight the truth of war and underline key political and social ideas that have
origin in his stance as a Pacifist-Socialist. As we analyse Barbusses interaction with sacrifice
however, another question will emerge, why is the ideal of sacrifice so effective? What
exactly does it do and why is this the case? The latter end of this essay will reveal that the
period in which the text was written, one riddled with bellicose tension and conflict, is key to
understanding why its sacrificial rhetoric was so readily accepted.

The French novelist Barbusse stands out as one of the exemplar writers of the Great War,
indeed Le Feu remains to this day Frances most popular World War 1 novel. Perhaps what
sets Barbusse apart from other emerging literary styles of the period, was his raw, visceral
and emphatically naturalist descriptions of war, influenced primarily by mile Zola.
Barbusses style was so effective that soldiers adapted their own memories to conform with
200469683
Page 2 of 8

those of his novel, which helped soldiers see anew and feel more clearly about their own
memories (Shapiro, 2005, p.91-101) However Micahel Sollars considers Barbusses life as
paradoxical, describing him as the pacifist in military uniform, the artist as social
reformer.(2008, p.54) It is a just criticism, one that challenges Barbusses ideologies and
integrity as Barbusse did indeed volunteer as a regular soldier at the outbreak of the war and
fought for two years before he was hospitalised for his injuries. Although this implies that
Barbusse was fighting the same war as his comrades around him, a letter he wrote to the
Director of LHumanit on the 9
th
August 1914, suggests otherwise:

Voulez-vous me compter parmi les socialistes anti-militaristes qui s'engagent
volontairement pour la prsente guerre? [...] Cette guerre est une guerre sociale qui
fera faire un grand pas peut-tre le pas dfinitif notre cause. Elle est dirige
contre nos ennemis infmes de toujours : le militarisme et l'imprialisme, le Sabre, la
Botte, et j'ajouterai : la Couronne. (P.9)

For Barbusse, this war was, above all, a social war; one being fought against an enemy far
more complex than just Germany. As a socialist, the act of participating in this war was a
prerequisite to condemnation, a worthwhile sacrifice to fulfilling his socio-political cause
where one must share in the suffering in order to bear witness [to which] the act of writing
becomes a bitter denunciation, a battle against ideological falsehoods. (2009, p.48) To help
justify this act which challenges his integrity, Barbusse adopts an archetype of Western
thought, identified by political scientist Jean Bethke Elshtain as the Just Warrior. The Just
Warrior is a man who can behave both violently and virtuously because of the absolute
righteousness of his cause. A peace loving man can thus become a ferocious (if most often
reluctant) aggressor in the name of the just cause (Smith, 1995, p.256) This just cause for
Barbusse, is his testimony of the truth, set against the ideological manipulation of the pro-
war propaganda press. The revelation of this truth (the word truth is used hesitantly here as
one must understand that it is a very carefully constructed truth, one that, of course, supports
Barbusses socio-political stance) is worthy of any sacrifice as it will be precisely those
sacrifices which will reveal it.

The truth Barbusse reveals to us is the true horror and unimaginable absurdity of war. From
the outset we are described the longs fosss en lacis o le rsidu de nuit saccumule. Cest la
tranche. Le fond en est tapiss dune couche visqueuse do le pied se dcolle chaque pas
200469683
Page 3 of 8

avec bruit, et qui sent mauvais autour de chaque abri, cause de lurine de la nuit.(p.27)
We are described the repulsion of the battlefield, the deaths, the soldiers covered in mud,
living in their own excrement, soldiers making huge sacrifices whilst trying to make sense of
the war and the violently altered world they find themselves in. Barbusse notes the futility of
this as Ce ne sont pas des soldats : ce sont des hommes. Ce ne sont pas des aventuriers, des
guerriers, faits pour la boucherie humaine bouchers ou btail. (p.268) The use of the
word cattle here is interesting as it critiques not just the arid, animalistic environment the men
are living in, but also the way in which they have been offered for sacrifice much in the same
way as a cow would be sacrificed as an offering to the gods. In doing this Barbusse suggests
that the powers who initiated this war think little more of these soldiers lives than a means to
an end, lives that hold little importance, lives readily sacrifice for the fulfilment of their
cause. In this sense Le Feu can be seen described as an anti-literature of sacrifice, a
literature in which sacrifice is just monstrous. (Strenski, 2002, p.53)

There is, however, an undeniable conflict in Barbusses interaction with these sacrifices.
Although Barbusse is stringently opposed to the sacrifice of these lives, their existence allows
him to highlight their absurdity and hence denounce war. Barbusse therefore makes sure that
these sacrifices are not made in vain by giving meaning to each of their deaths, meaning
which supports his ideals. An example of this can be seen when Barbusse describes the death
of Colonel Bertrand. Bertrand is viewed sympathetically by the narrator of Le Feu as a
virtuous leader with ideals, one that identifies with the German socialist Karl Liebknecht, a
figure qui sest leve au dessus de la guerre et qui brillera pour la beaut et limportance de
son courage. (p.280) We eventually learn Bertrand s'est fait enfin tuer, force de faire
toujours son devoir. (p.292) Barbusse leaves little doubt to his martyrdom describing how
his arms are outstretched in the form of a cross with hands open and fingers separated. This
visual similarity to the crucifixion of Christ is by no means an accident. Christ is recognised
as a figure who sacrificed his life for the sin of man; Barbusse suggests here that Bertrand
should be considered no differently, that his sacrifice was made to highlight the sin of those
who wage war.

Barbusse also feels that it is important to recognise the sacrifice made by those who, for
some, might be considered unvirtuous. In Argoval we come across a ceremony being held by
some soldiers for Cajard, a soldier executed for deserting. We learn how his execution was
un-just and how on a voulu, sans doute, faire un exemple (p.152) because Cajard had
200469683
Page 4 of 8

committed crimes before the war. In building this memorial for Cajard the soldiers recognise
his death as a war death hence involving him in the collective memory of sacrifice, to which
he would have otherwise been excluded. Lionel Jospin would later recognise and pay homage
to those deserters normally excluded from collective memory, who were exhausted by
attacks, condemned in advance, slipping through mud soaked in blood, plunging into a
despair without end (and) refusing to be sacrificed. (Jopsin in Ganley 1998)

Barbusses inclusion of Cajards execution is an important critique of the sacrificial rhetoric.
As previously stated, the glory that one might find in sacrifice is found during self-
sacrifice not in being sacrificed. In refusing to be sacrificed, Cajard is executed. This
implies there is no choice in this sacrifice and that it is a forced sacrifice tantamount to
slaughter. The description of nature in this scene highlights this notion. Where Barbusse
commonly employs pathetic fallacy of grim rain soaked landscapes to highlight the soldiers
mood, he chooses instead to highlight the grands arbres calmes [] Un dernier reflet de
lumire []les feuillages des points jaunes clairs ronds comme des pices d'or.(p.151-152)
Barbusses use of juxtaposition between the soldiers execution and the beauty of nature here
makes it even more shocking. His execution is shown to be in conflict with nature, in conflict
with what is right.

So far we have seen how Barbusse acknowledges the sacrifice of soldiers lives to denounce
a system which will allow it. He negates a delicate boundary as he makes sure to avoid, at all
costs, any glorification of these sacrifices. Throughout Le Feu, Barbusse critiques any sort of
veneration of sacrifice, highlighting how its rhetoric is revolting and nave. In chapter 22 in
particular, Barbusses use of comic episode demonstrates this misconstrued perception of
sacrifice during a conversation with a woman the squad come across during a brief respite in
Paris:
a doit tre superbe, une charge, hein ? [] le clairon qui sonne dans la campagne :
Y a la goutte boire l-haut ! ; et les petits soldats quon ne peut pas retenir et qui
crient : Vive la France ! ou bien qui meurent en riant ! (p.325-326)

The womans nave and even patronising opinion of the glory she thinks is found on the
battlefield is in stark contrast to the reality that the squad are aware of. This reality is
highlighted by a common poilu who criticises the hypocrisy of the heroic sacrificial rhetoric
of the pre-war period, revealing how:
200469683
Page 5 of 8


[]la gloire militaire, ce nest mme pas vrai pour nous autres, simples soldats. []
la gloire du soldat est un mensonge [] En ralit, le sacrifice des soldats est une
suppression obscure []. Ils courent se jeter dans un effroyable nant de gloire. On
ne pourra jamais accumuler mme leurs noms, leurs pauvres petits noms de rien.
(p.374)

The poilus words reveal how the reality of war doesnt recognise the contribution and
sacrifice of the common soldier, indeed his words are supported by Luigi Pirandello who uses
Berrecches thoughts to claim that this great war will show no trace of all these common
little stories, of all these thousands and thousands of unknown human beings that right now
disappear routed by it even stating how it is not a great war but instead it is a great
slaughter. (2007, p.117) Whereas the sentiments of the woman and the poilu are in stark
contrast they share a common theme, the glory of sacrifice. Whereas the soldier no longer
believes that this glory exists, his words do suggest that, at one point, he did. The remainder
of this essay will aim to provide an explanation as to the origin of the disillusionment, one
that led so many thousands of soldiers to sacrifice their lives.

Ivan Strenski argues that the force of this disillusionment with sacrifice can only be
appreciated against the backdrop of at least a generations worth of cultural formation
including a whole literature extolling sacrifice, which immediately preceded it. (2002, p.54)
Strenski is granted in that the pre-war period was saturated with nationalist literature from
writers such as Henri Masson, Alfred de Tardes, Maurice Barres and Charles Peguy who
promoted the sacrificial rhetoric with incredible effect; Hereux ceux qui sont morts pour la
terre charnelle [] Hereux ceux qui sont morts dans les grands bataille [] Hereux ceux
qui sont mort pour leur atre et leur feu. (Peguy, 1897) In addition, Anne Louise Shapiro
questions whether the kind of vigorous patriotism that lay at the core of the manuels
scolaires contributed to this disillusionment, citing Anatole Frances address to a congress of
school teachers:

Burn! Burn all books that teach hate! Exalt work and love! Shape for us rational men
who can topple the vain splendours of barbarous glories and resist the bloody
ambitions of nationalism and imperialism that led their fathers astray. (1997, p.117)

200469683
Page 6 of 8

Whereas these words help us begin to understand where this extreme nationalism comes from
it doesnt quite explain the manic bellicosity of the French society at the beginning of the
war. Roland Stromberg aimed to address the inadequacy of this explanation adding that not
only the avant-garde but ordinary people from every class were eager to witness a cultural
rebirth unfolding in an age of machines and masses rather than popes and princes.(1982,
p.5) This idea of a cultural rebirth is extremely important and is supported by Angelo
Ventrone who suggests that the age of nationalism had powerfully promoted the war ethic
conviction that the war experience fulfilled the task of rejuvenating and regenerating a
civilization now in steep decline. (Ventrone in Griffin, 2007, p.154) The state of pre-war
France was incredibly tumultuous; essentially society was going through a transition into
modernity one in which many young men and women believed they were about to witness
the dawning of a new age a cultural transmutation brought about by the sudden collapse
of the nineteenth-century political system in Europe. (Wohl, 1998, p.1) The war was
therefore a platform to see in this transition, as much symbolic of the destruction of the old as
it was renewal. In this sense the soldiers death is pictured as a gesture of purification
(Frantzen, 2004, p.261) a necessary sacrifice to move into a new era.

With these ideas in mind we can better understand what Barbusse is trying to achieve with Le
Feu. During the concluding chapter lAube, a solider states how sil faut faire un sacrifice
pareil, ajouta dsesprment lhomme informe, en se retournant encore, cest parce quon se
bat pour un progrs, non pour un pays ; contre une erreur, non contre un pays (p.362) As the
conversation continues we eventually learn that, for Barbusse, the war is in fact a
continuation of the French Revolution, a war against the powers of Nationalism, Militarism
and Capitalism that continue to burden society. For Barbusse the war was a platform to
highlight how these powers continue to exist, waging wars and destroying lives. There is an
undeniable hesitancy in Barbusses words however, a vagueness as to what he wants to
achieve exactly. One must remember that Barbusse finds himself in a precarious position,
France had been invaded by Germany so military action was as much a necessity as it was a
choice. Furthermore Barbusse wrote Le Feu before the outcome of the war was evident,
adding ambiguity to the future in which his novel would be received. Barbusses tentative
relationship with the concept sacrifice exists because he requires it as much as he despises it.
For Barbusse the loss of life enables him to demonstrate precisely how absurd that loss is, he
despises the sacrificial rhetoric but recognises the sacrifices made as ones made for progress,
for the continuation of the French Revolution and not for the glorification of militarism.
200469683
Page 7 of 8


(2634 Words.)





Bibliography


Barbusse, Henri. 1916. Le Feu: Journal dUne Escouade, Suivi du Carnet de Guerre.
Flammarion :1965.

De Gaulle, Charles. 1960. The Edge Of The Sword, trans. Gerard Hopkins. New York:
Criterion Press.
Frantzen, Allen. 2004. Bloody Good. Chivalry, Sacrifice and the Great War. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

Ganley, Elaine. 1998. Plea to Forgive Mutineers Sparks Deabte. Cit. 5
th
April 2014 at
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19981109&slug=2782518
Griffin, Roger. 2007. Modernism and Fascism: The Sense of a New Beginning under
Moussonlini and Hitler. Palgrave Macmillan Press.

Griffin, Roger. 2007. The Meaning of Sacrifice in the First World War. Adapted from
Modernism and Facism. New York: Palgrave Macmillian

Lamberti, Elena. Fortunati, Vita. 2009. Memories and Representations of War. The Case of
World War I and World War II. Rodopi Amsterdam, New York, NY.

Little Oxford English Dictionary (2006) 9th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Peguy, Charles. 1897. Jeanne d'Arc. Paris: Librairie de la Revue Socialiste.

Pirandello, Luigi. 2007. Berecche and the War (1914.) trans, and intr. By Julie Dashwood,
Hull Italian Texts (Market Harborough: Troubador)
Shapiro, Anne-Louise. 1997. Fixing History: Narratives of World War I in France. History
and Theory: Studies in the Philosophy of History v.36.Middletown, CT :Wesleyan University
Press.

Shapiro, Anne-Louise. 2005. The Fog of War: Writing the War Story Then and Now
History and Theory 44. Brown University Press.

Smith, Leonard V. 1995. Masculinity, Memory and The French First World War. In:
Coetzee, Frans. Coetzee, Marilyn Shevin. Authority, Identity and the Social History of the
Great War. Bergrahn Books.

200469683
Page 8 of 8

Sollars Michael. Jennings, Arbolina Llamas. 2008. The Facts on File Companion to the
World Novel: 1900 to the Present. Infobase Publishing

Strenski, Ivan. 2002. Contesting Sacrifice: Religion, Nationalism, and Social Thought in
France. University of Chicago Press.
Stromberg, Roland. 1982. Redemption and War. The Intellectuals and 1914. Kansas: The
Regent Press of Kansas.
Wohl, Robert. 1988. The Lost Voices of World War 1. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.