Documents tapuscrits et manuscrits concernant la création de la Revue Internationale

"We are approaching an extreme movement of the time, what I would call a change of time. [...] We must therefore try to address this serious conundrum represents the passage from one time to another."
At the edge of political changeovers, social and cultural postwar, it is in these terms that Maurice Blanchot sees the need for a collective commitment of the international intellectual world. The plan is then to breathe, develop and affirm a common movement of critical thinking is wanting to literary and political times in response to "radically new events of history". (Bidens).
Originally built around three main committees, French, German and Italian, the International Review hear federate the new European thought after the war as a bulwark ideologies. The occasional use of intellectuals from various backgrounds, from Russia to Latin America, was also urged by Blanchot. In the side of the latter, the French share brought together personalities such as Antelme, Butor, Forestry, Duras, Leiris, Mascolo, Nadeau and Barthes. In Italy, Calvino, Pasolini, Vittorini pilotèrent the project. While the German side, Bachmann, Enzensberger, Grass, Walser and Johnson should coordinate the initial group.
By 1961, construction of the Berlin Wall came hinder the smooth cooperation with the German Committee. French and Italian refused to pursue the intent of a purely Franco-Italian magazine and waited for the decision of Germany. As well as Gaston Gallimard imparted to Louis-René des Forêts in its letter of 16 May 1962, rendering dialogue difficult by the events was injurious to significantly Editorial negotiations: "[...] You also said to me that the situation has unchanged for a year, but I understood that the difficulties you experience the German side you had delayed and that it was because of them that you will give me the necessary details to the conclusion of an agreement ".
The solicitation of Sartre by Blanchot in autumn 1960 was also to give the public review will mobilize harbinger of change: "If we see Sartre, and others with him among the 121 decide to speak in this deliberately chosen as a new form, each, and I mean not only writers, the public wave, but all the intellectual youth, really appreciated that we are entering a new phase and that something decisive takes place, which seeks to s' affirm ". Supplications Blanchot, been unsuccessful, did not manage to get Sartre accession. The future of the magazine was thus in danger from its beginning.
Yet in a surge of unwavering determination, the defense of a new vision, strong and daring was collectively supported by the instigators of the project. Like the arguments Some Forests in the letter addressed to all of our Gallimard, dated May 8, 1962, to claim an original and innovative idea justified the implementation efforts. It was then a question of "[...] u will review any new capable of expressing and trying to deepen the relations of literary responsibility and political responsibility, together with the possibilities of a common literary activity exerted by the language and culture of different countries. "
In these tapuscrites notes relating to the organization of writing, Blanchot even profoundly redefines the nature of the project: "The review is not a review. [...] It must represent in the intellectual, literary and political, some form of responsibility, which must meet an assertion of authority that is not ours, as we ourselves individually or in groups same, but that is anonymously authority corresponding to a certain requirement impersonal, that of literary and philosophical research. "; "This affirmation of a just authority, concern for non-authoritarian authority will, I believe, the great duty of the journal."
In these notes, Blanchot describes the challenge of the section entitled "The intellectual course of events" which bases these first intentions: "[...] This chronic assert any event of any kind whatsoever (philosophical, poetic, sociological , scientific, political). Consists of many texts of varied and quite short form, it is intended to tell the world as it asserts, questions and denounces through the collective consciousness of writers. "And the author to annotate some ideas for boards for thought for the first issue to be published "De-Stalinization, Boulez and Mallarme, utopia, the Berlin Wall, the role of radio in Germany, cultural silos in France, in Italy, where Eichmann Heidegger and his political texts of 1933 ... "He adds, always as a note:" Revue no division between critical part and part anthology because the critical knowledge usually must seem as essential as the beautiful texts or reading texts and those -ci there may implicitly be critical (but never shown) and vice versa. "
Also, the political scope, at the center of the collective commitment was to get rid of any "platform" ideological foundations of the new intellectual future of Europe. However marked on the left, like the beliefs of Blanchot at the turn of the decade 1960, mimeographed for Mascolo Murdoch's letter raises the ambiguity of the desire for emancipation of political speech: "The exact political coloring (or rather the particular lack of political coloration of the magazine!) also appears to raise issues. [...] People may ask, "is it simply a socialist journal, or a Marxist journal? ".
The high hopes that Blanchot melted in this major project, as well as his personal and emotional investment, in particular to feel through correspondence with Gaston Gallimard. In a series of twists and changes of interlocutor between Gallimard and Julliard, negotiations publications contracts proved indeed "long, difficult and vexatious" (Beggar), eventually interrupting definitively in 1963. The letter Blanchot sent to Gallimard in response to that of May 16, 1962, demonstrates the invested faith in this business: "For me, [...] not only do I have no doubt of its realization to the extent that it meets a requirement that we can say historic, but I am tempted to believe that the intellectual future may depend on how it will happen. [...] Of course, there are still practical difficulties. They [me] (striped) seem not insurmountable. "
"But I want to add a more personal note. [...] We all know that we go to great changes in all levels: it is related to the changes that the project of the "review" was designed and should seek to achieve. It is therefore important for our very eyes whether Gallimard are ready to welcome these changes or, conversely, prefer to escape it by simply brilliant facilities for their current success. "
Manuscripts and typescripts of the accounts kept by Blanchot, on the rights of authors, the editorial budget, translation, secretarial and travel, also are valuable testimonies of this drastic and total commitment to the unfortunate outcome, and whose these documents constitute the few remains.

Valuable set which suggests what might have been this review whose failure has affected very DEEPLY Maurice Blanchot.