Monthly Archives: May 2025

To Joë Bousquet
(Marseille, 12 May 1942)

Joë Bousquet was permanently paralysed as the result of a wound in the First World War. Simone Weil had sent him her Plan for an Organization of Front-Line Nurses, and he had replied with a letter of commendation, of which she hoped to make use.


Cher ami,

First of all, thank you for what you have just done for me. If your letter is effective, as I hope, you will have done it not for me but for others through me – for your younger brothers who should be infinitely dear to you, since the same fate has struck them. Perhaps some of them will owe to you, just before the moment of death, the solace of an exchange of sympathy.

You are specially privileged in that the present state of the world is a reality for you. Perhaps even more so than for those who at this moment are killing and dying, wounding and being wounded, because they are taken unawares, without knowing where they are or what is happening to them; and, like you in your time, they are unable to think thoughts appropriate to their situation.

As for the others – the people here, for example – what is happening is a confused nightmare for some of them (though very few), and for the majority it is a vague background, like a theatrical drop-scene. In either case, it is unreal.

But you, on the other hand, for twenty years you have been repeating in thought that destiny which seized and then released so many men, but which seized you permanently – and which now returns again to seize millions of men. You, I repeat, are now really equipped to think it. Or if you are still not quite ready – as I think you are not – you have at least only a thin shell to break before emerging from the darkness inside the egg into the light of truth.

It is a very ancient image. The egg is this world we see. The bird in it is Love – the Love which is God himself, and which lives in the depths of every man, though at first as an invisible seed. When the shell is broken and the being is released, it still has this same world before it. But it is no longer inside. Space is opened and torn apart.

The spirit, leaving the miserable body in some corner, is transported to a point outside space, which is not a point of view, which has no perspective, but from which this world is seen as it is – unconfused by perspective. Compared to what it is inside the egg, space has become an infinity to the second or rather the third power.

The moment stands still. The whole of space is filled, even though sounds can be heard, with a dense silence – not an absence of sound, but a positive object of sensation. It is the secret word, the word of Love, who holds us in his arms from the beginning.

You, once you have emerged from the shell, will know the reality of war – which is the most precious reality to know, because war is unreality itself. To know the reality of war is the Pythagorean harmony, the unity of opposites; it is the plenitude of knowledge of the real.

That is why you are infinitely privileged, because you have war permanently lodged in your body, waiting for years in patient fidelity until you are ripe to know it. Those who fell beside you did not have time to collect their thought from its frivolous wandering and focus it upon their destiny. And those who came back unwounded have all killed their past by oblivion – even if they have seemed to remember it – because war is affliction, and it is as easy to direct one’s thought voluntarily towards affliction as it would be to persuade an untrained dog to walk into a fire and let itself be burnt.

To think affliction, it is necessary to bear it in one’s flesh, driven very far in like a nail, and for a long time, so that thought may have time to grow strong enough to regard it – to regard it from outside, having succeeded in leaving the body and even, in a sense, the soul as well.

Body and soul remain not only pierced through but nailed down at a fixed point. Whether or not affliction imposes literal immobility, there is always enforced immobility – in the sense that a part of the soul is always steeped, monotonously, incessantly, and inextricably, in pain.

Thanks to this immobility, the infinitesimal seed of divine love placed in the soul can slowly grow and bear fruit in patience – the divinely beautiful Gospel expression. Translators say in patientia, but hypomonē is quite another thing. It means to remain where one is, motionless, in expectation, unshaken and unmoved by any external shock.

Fortunate are those in whom the affliction which enters their flesh is the same one that afflicts the world itself in their time. They have the opportunity and the function of knowing the truth of the world’s affliction and contemplating its reality. And that is the redemptive function itself. Twenty centuries ago, in the Roman Empire, slavery was the affliction of the age, and crucifixion was its extreme expression.

But alas for those who have this function and do not fulfil it. When you say that you do not feel the difference between good and evil, your words are not serious if taken literally, because you are speaking of another man in you who is clearly the evil in you. You are well aware – or, when there is any doubt, a careful scrutiny can nearly always dispel it – which of your thoughts, words, and deeds strengthen that other man in you at your expense, and which ones strengthen you at his.

What you mean is that you have not yet consented to recognize this difference as the distinction between good and evil.

It is not an easy consent to give, because it commits one irrevocably. There is a kind of virginity in the soul as regards good, which is lost forever once the soul has given this consent – just as a woman’s virginity is lost after she has yielded to a man. The woman may become unfaithful, adulterous, but she will never again be a virgin. So she is frightened when she is about to yield. Love triumphs over this fear.

For every human being there is a point in time, a limit, unknown to anyone and above all to himself, but absolutely fixed, beyond which the soul cannot keep this virginity. If, before this precise moment (fixed from all eternity), it has not consented to be possessed by the good, it will immediately afterwards be possessed in spite of itself by the bad.

A man may yield to the bad at any moment of his life, because he yields to it unconsciously and unaware that he is admitting an external authority into his soul; and before surrendering her virginity to it, the soul drugs herself with an opiate. To be possessed by the bad, it is not necessary to have consented to it; but the good never possesses the soul until she has said yes.

And such is the fear of consummating the union that no soul has the power to say yes to the good unless she is urgently constrained by the almost immediate approach of the time-limit which will decide her eternal fate. For one man, this time-limit may occur at the age of five, for another at the age of sixty. In any case, neither before nor after it has been reached is it possible to locate it temporally; in the sphere of duration, this instantaneous and eternal choice can only be seen refracted.

For those who have yielded to the bad a long time before the limiting moment is reached, this moment is no longer real. The most a human being can do is to guard intact his faculty for saying yes to the good, until the time when the limiting moment has almost been reached.

It appears to me certain that for you this limiting moment has not yet arrived. I lack the power to read men’s hearts, but it seems to me that there are signs that it is not far distant. Your faculty for consent is certainly intact.

I think that when you have consented to the good you will break the shell – after an interval perhaps, but doubtless a short one – and the moment you are outside it, there will be pardon for that bullet which once pierced the centre of your body, and thus also for the whole universe which drove it there.

The intelligence has a part in preparing the nuptial consent to God. It consists in looking at the evil in oneself and hating it. Not trying to get rid of it, but simply descrying it and keeping one’s eyes fixed upon it until one feels repulsion – even before one has said yes to its opposite.

I believe that the root of evil – in everybody perhaps, but certainly in those whom affliction has touched, and above all if the affliction is biological – is day-dreaming. It is the sole consolation, the unique resource of the afflicted; the one solace to help them bear the fearful burden of time; and a very innocent one, besides being indispensable. So how could it be possible to renounce it?

It has only one disadvantage, which is that it is unreal. To renounce it for the love of truth is really to abandon all one’s possessions in a mad excess of love and to follow him who is the personification of Truth. And it is really to bear the cross; because time is the cross.

While the limiting moment is still remote, it is not necessary to do this; but it is necessary to recognize day-dreaming for what it is. And even while one is sustained by it, one must never forget for a moment that in all its forms – those that seem most inoffensive by their childishness, those that seem most respectable by their seriousness and their connection with art or love or friendship – in all its forms without exception, it is falsehood. It excludes love. Love is real.

I would never dare to speak to you like this if all these thoughts were the product of my own mind. But although I am unwilling to place any reliance on such impressions, I do really have the feeling, in spite of myself, that God is addressing all this to you, for love of you, through me. In the same way, it does not matter if the consecrated host is made of the poorest quality flour — not even if it is three parts rotten.

You say that I pay for my moral qualities by distrust of myself. But my attitude towards myself, which is not distrust but a mixture of contempt and hatred and repulsion, is to be explained on a lower level — on the level of biological mechanisms.

For twelve years I have suffered from pain around the central point of the nervous system, the meeting-place of soul and body; this pain persists during sleep and has never stopped for a second. For a period of ten years it was so great, and was accompanied by such exhaustion, that the effort of attention and intellectual work was usually almost as despairing as that of a condemned man the day before his execution — and often much more so, for my efforts seemed completely sterile and without even any temporary result.

I was sustained by the faith, which I acquired at the age of fourteen, that no true effort of attention is ever wasted, even though it may never have any visible result, either direct or indirect. Nevertheless, a time came when I thought my soul menaced, through exhaustion and an aggravation of the pain, by such a hideous and total breakdown that I spent several weeks in anguished uncertainty whether death was not my imperative duty — although it seemed to me appalling that my life should end in horror. As I told you, I was only able to calm myself by deciding to live conditionally, for a trial period.

A little earlier, when I had already been for years in this physical state, I worked for nearly a year in engineering factories in the Paris region. The combination of personal experience and sympathy for the wretched mass of people around me — in which I formed, even in my own eyes, an undistinguishable item — implanted so deep in my heart the affliction of social degradation that I have felt a slave ever since, in the Roman sense of the word.

During all this time, the word God had no place at all in my thoughts. It never had, until the day — about three and a half years ago — when I could no longer keep it out. At a moment of intense physical pain, while I was making the effort to love (although believing I had no right to give any name to the love), I felt — while completely unprepared for it (I had never read the mystics) — a presence more personal, more certain, and more real than that of a human being; it was inaccessible both to sense and to imagination, and it resembled the love that irradiates the tenderest smile of somebody one loves.

Since that moment, the name of God and the name of Christ have been more and more irresistibly mingled with my thoughts.

Until then, my only faith had been the Stoic amor fati as Marcus Aurelius understood it — to love the universe as one’s city, one’s native country, the beloved fatherland of every soul; to cherish it for its beauty, in the total integrity of the order and necessity which are its substance, and all the events that occur in it.

The result was that the irreducible quantity of hatred and repulsion which goes with suffering and affliction recoiled entirely upon myself. And the quantity is very great, because the suffering in question is located at the very root of my every single thought, without exception.

This is so much the case that I absolutely cannot imagine the possibility that any human being could feel friendship for me. If I believe in yours, it is only because I have confidence in you and you have assured me of it, so that my reason tells me to believe it. But this does not make it seem any the less impossible to my imagination.

Because of this propensity of my imagination, I am all the more tenderly grateful to those who accomplish this impossibility. Because friendship is an incomparable, immeasurable boon to me, and a source of life — not metaphorically, but literally.

Since it is not only my body but my soul itself that is poisoned all through by suffering, it is impossible for my thought to dwell there, and it is obliged to travel elsewhere. It can only dwell for brief moments in God; it dwells often among things; but it would be against nature for human thought never to dwell in anything human.

Thus it is literally true that friendship gives to my thought all the life it has, apart from what comes to it from God or from the beauty of the world.

So you can see what you have done for me by giving me yours.

I say these things to you because you can understand them. Your last book contains a sentence, in which I recognize myself, about the mistake your friends make in thinking that you exist. That shows a type of sensibility which is only intelligible to those who experience existence directly and continuously as an evil.

For them it is certainly very easy to do as Christ asks and deny themselves. Perhaps it is too easy. Perhaps it is without merit. And yet I believe that to have it made so easy is an immense privilege.

I am convinced that affliction on the one hand, and on the other hand joy, when it is a complete and pure commitment to perfect beauty, are the only two keys which give entry to the realm of purity, where one can breathe: the home of the real.

But each of them must be unmixed: the joy without a shadow of incompleteness; the affliction completely unconsoled.

You understand me, of course. That divine love which one touches in the depth of affliction, like Christ’s resurrection through crucifixion — that love, which is the central core and intangible essence of joy — is not a consolation. It leaves pain completely intact.

I am going to say something which is painful to think, more painful to say, and almost unbearably painful to say to those one loves:

For anyone in affliction, evil can perhaps be defined as being everything that gives any consolation.

A pure joy, which in some cases may replace pain or in others may be superimposed on it, is not a consolation. On the other hand, there is often a consolation in morbidly aggravating one’s pain. I don’t know if I am expressing this properly; it is all quite clear to me.

The refuge of laziness and inertia — a temptation to which I succumb very often, almost every day, or I might say every hour — is a particularly despicable form of consolation. It compels me to despise myself.

I perceive that I have not answered your letter, and yet I have a lot to say about it. I must do it another time. Today I’ll confine myself to thanking you for it.

Yours most truly,

S. Weil

I enclose the English poem, “Love,” which I recited to you. It has played a big role in my life, because I was repeating it to myself at the moment when Christ came to take possession of me for the first time. I thought I was only reciting a beautiful poem, but, unknown to me, it was a prayer.

Sometimes to be strengthened, sometimes to falter

And our Lord’s next showing was a supreme spiritual pleasure in my soul. In this pleasure I was filled with eternal certainty, strongly anchored and without any fear. This feeling was so joyful to me and so full of goodness that I felt completely peaceful, easy and at rest, as though there were nothing on earth that could hurt me. This only lasted for a while, and then my feeling was reversed and I was left oppressed, weary of myself, and so disgusted with my life that I could hardly bear to live. There was no ease or comfort for my feelings but faith, hope and love, and these I had in reality, but I could not feel them in my heart. And immediately after this God again gave me the spiritual rest and comfort, certainty and pleasure so joyful and so powerful that no fear, no sorrow, no bodily or spiritual pain that one might suffer could have distressed me. And then the sorrow was revealed to my consciousness again, and first one, then the other, several times, I suppose about twenty times. And in the moments of joy I might have said with Paul, ‘Nothing shall separate me from the love of Christ.’ And in the moments of sorrow I might have said with Saint Peter, ‘Lord save me, I perish.’

This vision was shown to me, as I understand, to teach me that it is necessary for everybody to have such experiences, sometimes to be strengthened, sometimes to falter and be left by himself. God wishes us to know that he safely protects us in both joy and sorrow equally, and he loves us as much in sorrow as in joy. And to benefit his soul, a man is sometimes left to himself, though not because of sin; for at this time I did not deserve by sinning to be left alone, neither did I deserve the feeling of bliss. But God gives joy generously when he so wishes, and sometimes allows us sorrow; and both come from love. So it is God’s will that we should hold on to gladness with all our might, for bliss lasts eternally, and pain passes and shall vanish completely. Therefore it is not God’s will that we should be guided by feelings of pain, grieving and mourning over them, but should quickly pass beyond them and remain in eternal joy, which is God almighty, who loves and protects us.

— Julian of Norwich, Revelations of Divine Love, the Short Text (tr. Spearing)

Weil writes to Bernanos

1938 letter from Weil to Bernanos about what she witnessed in Spain:

However ridiculous it may be to write to a writer, who is always, due to the nature of his profession, inundated with writing, I can’t keep myself from doing so after reading The Great Cemeteries Beneath the Moon. Not that this is the first time a book of yours has touched me; The Diary of a Country Priest is in my opinion the most beautiful, at least of those I have read, and truly a great book. But, although I may have loved others of your books, I had no reason to bother you by writing to you. For this last one, it’s another matter: I have had an experience corresponding to yours, although it was briefer, not as profound, situated elsewhere, and in appearance – in appearance only – undergone in a very different spirit.

I am not Catholic, although—what I am going to say is going to seem presumptuous to any Catholic, coming from a non-Catholic, but I cannot express myself otherwise—although nothing Catholic, nothing Christian has ever seemed foreign to me. I have sometimes told myself that, if only they were to put up a sign on the doors of churches that entrance is forbidden to anybody enjoying an income higher than such-and-such an amount (not very elevated), I would at once convert. From childhood, my sympathies have been turned toward associations claiming a connection with the despised strata of the social hierarchy, until I realized that these associations are of a nature to discourage all sympathies. The last one to inspire my confidence was the Spanish C.N.T. I had traveled a bit in Spain – a small bit – before the civil war, but enough to feel the love it is difficult not to feel towards this people; I had seen in the anarchist movement the natural expression of its grandeurs and its vices, of its most and least legitimate aspirations. The C.N.T., the F.N.I., were an amazing mixture, where absolutely anybody was allowed in, and where, consequently, you found jostled together immorality, cynicism, fanaticism, cruelty, but also love, the spirit of brotherhood, and above all the most beautiful demand for honour amongst humiliated men; it seemed to me that those who had come there inspired by an ideal outnumbered those who were impelled by a taste for violence and disorder. In July 1936 I was in Paris. I don’t like war; but what has always horrified me the most in war is the situation of those behind the lines. When I found that, despite my efforts, I couldn’t keep myself from participating emotionally in this war, that is, from desiring every day, every moment, the victory of one side and the defeat of the other, I said to myself that Paris was behind the lines, and I took the train for Barcelona with the intention of enlisting. It was the beginning of August 1936.

An accident made me shorten perforce my stay in Spain. I spent several days in Barcelona; then, in the middle of the Aragonese countryside, on the banks of the Ebro River, fifteen kilometres from Saragossa, at the precise spot where recently Yaguë’s troops crossed the Ebro; then in the palace at Sitges, transformed into a hospital; then once again in Barcelona; in all about two months. I left Spain against my will and intending to return there; subsequently I made no attempt to do so. I no longer felt the inner necessity to participate in a war that was no longer what it had appeared to be in the beginning, a war of starving peasants against landholders and a clergy in cahoots with them, but rather a war between Russia, Germany, and Italy.

I recognised that odour of civil war, blood, and terror your book gives off; I had breathed it. I saw nothing, and heard nothing, I have to say, that quite reaches the shameful horror of certain of the stories you tell – the murders of old peasants, the balillas hitting old men with clubs to make them run. What I heard nonetheless sufficed. I almost witnessed the execution of a priest; during the minutes spent waiting, I asked myself if I was just going to watch, or get myself shot by trying to intervene; I still don’t know what I would have done if a lucky chance had not prevented the execution.

So many stories pressing to be told… But it would take too long, and what would be the point? A single one will suffice. I was at Sitges when the militiamen of the expedition to Majorca returned, defeated. They had been decimated. Out of forty young boys who had started out from Sitges, nine were dead. We learned it only when the thirty-one others returned. The very next night, nine punitive expeditions were made; they killed nine Fascists – so-called – in this little town where, in July, nothing had taken place. Among these nine was a baker about thirty years old, whose crime, I was told, was having belonged to the local militia; his aged father, whose only child and only support he was, went mad. Yet another: in Aragon, a little international group of 22 militiamen of every country, after a light engagement, captured a young boy of fifteen, who was fighting as a Phalangist. As soon as he was captured, all atremble from having seen comrades killed around him, he said that he had been enrolled by force. He was searched, a medal of the Virgin and a Phalangist’s card was found on him; he was sent to Durrutti, the chief of the column, who, after expounding for an hour on the beauties of the ideal anarchist, gave him the choice between dying at once and enrolling at once in the ranks of those who had made him a prisoner, against his comrades of the night before. Durutti gave the child twenty-four hours to reflect; when these twenty-four hours were up, the child said no and was shot. Durrutti was nevertheless in certain regards an admirable man. The death of this little hero has never ceased weighing on my conscience, although I learned about it only after the fact. This too: in a village that reds and whites had taken, lost, retaken, relost I don’t know how many times, the red militiamen, having retaken it definitively, found in the caves a handful of haggard souls, among whom were three or four young men. They reasoned thus: if these young men, instead of going with us the last time we retreated, stayed and awaited the fascists, it was because they were fascists. So they shot them at once, then fed the others and considered themselves very humane. A final story, this one from behind the lines: two anarchists told me how, with some comrades, they had captured two priests; they killed one on the spot, in the other’s presence, with a gunshot, then they told the other he could leave. When he was twenty paces away, they shot him down. The one who was telling me the story was very surprised when he didn’t see me laugh.

In Barcelona they killed on average, on these punitive expeditions, about fifty people a night. It was proportionally much less than at Majorca, since Barcelona is a city of more than a million inhabitants; what’s more, a deadly street battle took place there that lasted three days. But the numbers are perhaps not the essential thing in such a matter. The essential thing is the attitude about murder. I never saw, either amongst the Spanish, or amongst the French, whether they had come to fight or just to look around – the latter kind most often colourless and inoffensive intellectuals – I never saw anyone express, even in private, repulsion, disgust, or even disapproval with regard to the blood shed pointlessly. You speak of fear. Yes, fear had a share in these slaughters, but where I was, I didn’t see the share that you attribute to it. Seemingly courageous men – there is at least one whose courage I witnessed with my own eyes – would, in the middle of a meal full of camaraderie, relate, with a nice brotherly smile, how many they had killed in the way of priests or “fascists” (a very broad term). I acquired the feeling that, whenever the temporal and spiritual authorities have placed a category of human beings outside of those whose life has a value, there is nothing more natural to a man than to kill. When one knows it is possible to kill without risking either punishment or blame, one kills; or at least one surrounds those who kill with encouraging smiles. If perchance one feels a little disgust, one keeps quiet about it, and before long one extinguishes it, for fear of seeming to lack manliness. One is swept up; it is an intoxication impossible to resist without a strength of soul I am obliged to consider exceptional, since I have never encountered it anywhere. In contrast, I have encountered peaceable French persons, whom I did not despise up to this point, who would not have had themselves the idea of killing, but who bathed in this atmosphere soaking in blood with visible pleasure. For the latter I can never have any esteem in the future.

Such an atmosphere immediately wipes out the very goal of the struggle. For one can formulate the goal only by relating it to the public good, to the good of human beings – and human beings are of no worth. In a country in which the poor are, in a very great majority, peasants, the improved condition of the peasants must be an essential goal of any association of the extreme left; and this war was perhaps, above all, a war for and against the apportionment of lands. Well now, these wretched and magnificent peasants of Aragon, who had remained so proud beneath their humiliations, were for the militiamen not even an object of curiosity. Without acts of insolence, without insults, without brutality – at least I saw nothing like that, and I know that theft and rape, in the anarchist columns, were subject to the death penalty – an abyss separated the armed men from the unarmed population, an abyss completely similar to the one that separates the poor and the rich. That could be sensed in the attitude of the one group, a bit humble, submissive, fearful, and in the ease, the nonchalance, the condescension of the other.

You go off as a volunteer, with ideas of sacrifice, and you end up in a war of mercenaries, with many additional cruelties and even less idea of the regards due to the enemy.

I could continue such reflections indefinitely, but one has to limit oneself. Ever since I was in Spain, and since I have been hearing and reading all kinds of considerations about Spain, I can mention no one, other than you alone, who, to my knowledge, has bathed in the atmosphere of the Spanish war and has resisted it. You are a royalist, a disciple of Drumont – what do I care? You are nearer to me, incomparably, than my fellow militiamen of Aragon – those comrades I nonetheless loved.

What you say of nationalism, of war, of French foreign policy after the war also went straight to my heart. I was ten years old at the time of the Treaty of Versailles. Up until then I had been a patriot with all the exaltation of children in time of war. The desire to humiliate the conquered enemy that spilled out so repugnantly everywhere at that moment (and in the years that followed) cured me once and for all of this naive patriotism. The humiliations inflicted by my country are more painful to me than those it may suffer.

P.S. I included my address without thinking. For, first of all, I think you must have better things to do than answer letters. And then, I am going to spend one or two months in Italy, where a letter from you would not perhaps follow me without being stopped on the way.

Mlle Simone Weil
3, rue Auguste-Comte
Paris (VIe)