Abstract: This two-handed text integrates in a single space the debate held by two indisputable academic figures, Georges Didi-Huberman, art historian, and Enzo Traverso, historian, in the French digital daily news AOC [Analyse Opinion Critique], between the months of May and October 2022. In a public exchange of letters, Didi-Huberman begins the discussion on a brief comment that Traverso includes in his book Revolution. An Intellectual History (2021), which alluded to a problematic image by photographer Gilles Caron -taken during the anti-Catholic demonstrations in Northern Ireland in 1969-, part of Soulèvements, an exhibition that Didi-Huberman curated for the Jeu de Paume Museum in Paris between 2016 and 2017. From this point, the debate between the two intellectuals will extend to one of the most interesting reflections, which shows two positions on the ways of seeing the image and its relationship to history.

Resumen: Este texto a dos manos integra en un solo espacio el debate que sostuvieron dos figuras académicas indiscutibles, Georges Didi-Huberman, historiador del arte, y Enzo Traverso, historiador, en el diario digital francés AOC [Analyse Opinion Critique],1 entre los meses de mayo y octubre de 2022. En un intercambio epistolar público, Didi-Huberman comienza la discusión sobre un breve comentario que Traverso incluye en su libro Revolution. An Intellectual History (2021), que hacía alusión a una imagen problemática del fotógrafo Gilles Caron -tomada durante las manifestaciones anticatólicas en Irlanda del Norte en 1969-, parte de Soulèvements, una exposición que Didi-Huberman curó para el Museo Jeu de Paume de París entre 2016 y 2017. A partir de este punto, el debate entre ambos intelectuales se extenderá a una de las más interesantes reflexiones, que muestra dos posiciones sobre los modos de ver la imagen y su relación con la historia.

Resumo Enzo Traveso analisa a relação entre Walter Benjamin e Carl Schmitt no contexto da crise europeia dos anos 1930. Benjamin consagrou a Schmitt algumas passagens de seu livro sobre o drama barroco alemão (1928) e em 1930 escreveu a ele uma carta em que enfatizou suas afinidades com o teórico da ditadura e do decisionismo. Schmitt não respondeu a carta, mas a conservou e esta tornou-se a base de suas discussões com o filósofo judeu-alemão Jakob Taubes após a 2ª Guerra Mundial. Traverso sublinha a impossibilidade de diálogo entre a forma revolucionária do messianismo judaico defendido por Benjamin e a forma conservadora da Teologia Política elaborada por Schmitt. Ambos dividiam uma visão da história como uma catástrofe crescente e reivindicaram a necessidade de uma decisão política, mas suas terapias eram radicalmente opostas: Benjamin identificou o advir da era messiânica com a revolução proletária, enquanto Schmitt acolheu o nazismo como uma espécie de moderno katechon (o vencedor do Anticristo na tradição católica). (Resumo enviado pelo autor aos editores que toma como base a tradução espanhola de seu texto)

Abstract Enzo Traverso analyzes the relationship between Walter Benjamin and Carl Schmitt in the context of the European crisis of the 1930s. Benjamin devoted to Schmitt several passages of his book on German Trauerspiel (1928) and in 1930 wrote a letter to him, where he emphasized his affinities with the theoretician of the dictatorship and “decisionism”. The latter did not responded but conserved this letter, which was the basis of his discussions with the Jewish-German Philosopher Jakob Taubes after the II World War. Traverso underlines the impossibility of a dialogue between the revolutionary form of Jewish Messianism defended by Benjamin and the conservative form of Political Theology elaborated by Schmitt. Both shared the vision of History as a growing catastrophe and claimed the necessity of a political decision, but their therapies were radically opposed: Benjamin identified the coming of the Messianic era with the proletarian revolution, whereas Schmitt welcomed Nazism as a sort of modern Katechon (the defeater of anti-Christ in the Catholic tradition).

Abstract: This article examines the writings of Jean Améry (Austria, 1912-1978), an Auschwitz survivor who through fiction and self-referential essay explored the catastrophe of the contemporary world. The autobiographical elements in his work constitute the real matter that Améry turned into a “contemplative essay”. He did not believe in the therapeutic virtue of memory, but rather only in his own experience and resentment —as portrayed by Frantz Fanon— as the breaking points and promontories from which he could observe the most ill-fated events of the past.

Resumen: Este artículo indaga sobre la escritura de Jean Améry (Austria, 1912-1978), sobreviviente de Auschwitz, quien desde la ficción o el ensayo autorreferencial exploró la catástrofe del mundo contemporáneo. Los elementos autobiográficos constituyen la materia real que Améry convirtió en un “ensayo contemplativo”. Él no creía en las virtudes terapéuticas de la memoria, sino en la propia experiencia y el resentimiento —este último entendido a partir de Frantz Fanon— como puntos de quiebre y promontorios desde los que podía observar los más aciagos acontecimientos del pasado.

Neste ensaio, originalmente proferido como conferência, Enzo Traverso analisa algumas das linhas de força da trajetória intelectual de Michael Löwy, dos seus primeiros trabalhos sobre Marx, Lukács e Goldmann às suas reflexões mais recentes sobre Benjamin ou sobre o romantismo. Aplicando à análise do autor o mesmo método que ele utilizara para compreender os autores sobre os quais investigou, Traverso defende a hipótese de que, embora nascido no Brasil, Löwy pode ser visto como um “intelectual francês que combina e supera duas tradições que marcaram profundamente a história, a cultura e a política do século XX: a do judaísmo da Europa Central de antes da Schoah e a da esquerda latino-americana posterior à revolução cubana”.

In this essay, originally delivered as a conference, Enzo Traverso analyzes some of the strengths of Michael Löwy’s intellectual trajectory, from his early work son Marx, Lukacs, and Goldmann to his more recent reflection son Benjamin or on Romanticism. Applying to the author’s analysis the same method that he used to understand the authors he investigated, Traverso defends the hypothesis that, although born in Brazil, Löwy can be seen as a “French intellectual who combines and surpasses two traditions that marked deeply history, culture and politics of the twentieth century: that of Central European Judaism before Schoah and that of the Latin American left after the Cuban revolution.”

Dans cet essai, à l’origine livré comme une conférence, Enzo Traverso analyse certains des fils conducteurs du parcours intellectuel de Michael Löwy, depuis ses premiers travaux sur Marx, Lukacs et Goldmann à ses réflexions plus récentes sur Benjamin ou sur le romantisme. Appliquant à l’analyse de l’auteur la même méthode qu’il avait utilisée pour comprendre les auteurs sur lesquels il a travaillé, Traverso soutient l’hypothèse selon laquelle, bien que né au Brésil, Löwy peut être considéré comme un “intellectuel français unissant et dépassant deux traditions qui ont profondément marqué l’histoire, la culture et la politique du XXe siècle: celle du judaïsme d’Europe centrale d’avant la Schoah et celle de la gauche latino-américaine d’après la révolution cubaine”.

Abstract: This article explores what Antoine De Baecque called history-camera, "a cinematic form of history". I will point out what cinema reveals, beyond the hard data and verifiable sources of historiography, about the end of communist hope. I will do so through films that I consider barometers of leftist consciousness, developers of its dilemas and changes.

Resumen: En este artículo se explora aquello que Antoine de Baecque llamó la historia-cámara, es decir, "una forma cinematográfica de la historia". Observaremos lo que el cine nos desvela, más allá de los datos duros y las fuentes verificables de la historiografía, acerca del fin de la esperanza comunista, a partir de películas que considero barómetros de la conciencia de izquierda, como reveladores de sus dilemas y sus cambios.

Enzo Traverso analyzes the relationship between Walter Benjamin and Carl Schmitt in the context of the European crisis of the 1930s. Benjamin devoted to Schmitt several passages of his book on German Trauerspiel (1928) and in 1930 wrote a letter to him, where he emphasized his affinities with the theoretician of the Dictatorship and "Decisionism". The latter did not respond but conserved this letter, which was the basis of his discussions with the Jewish-German Philosopher Jakob Taubes after the II World War. Traverso underlines the impossibility of a dialogue between the revolutionary form of Jewish Messianism defended by Benjamin and the conservative form of Political Theology elaborated by Schmitt. Both shared the vision of History as a growing catastrophe and claimed the necessity of a political decision, but their therapies were radically opposed: Benjamin identified the coming of the Messianic era with the proletarian revolution, whereas Schmitt welcomed Nazism as a sort of modern Katechon (the defeater of anti-Christ in the Catholic tradition).

Enzo Traverso investiga la relación entre Walter Benjamin y Carl Schmitt en el contexto de la crisis europea de la década de los treinta. Benjamin consagró a Schmitt algunos pasajes de su libro sobre el drama barroco alemán (1928) y en 1930 le escribió una carta en la cual subrayaba sus afinidades con el teórico de la dictadura y del "decisionismo". Este último no contestó pero conservó la carta que se convirtió en la base de sus debates con el filósofo judío-alemán Jakob Taubes después de la Guerra. Traverso reconoce la imposibilidad de un diálogo entre la forma revolucionaria del mesianismo judío defendida por Benjamin y la forma conservadora de teologia política elaborada por Schmitt. Ambos compartían una misma visión de la historia como catástrofe y reivindicaban la necesidad de una decisión política, pero sus terapias eran radicalmente contrapuestas: Benjamin identificaba el advenimiento de la era mesiánica con la revolución proletaria, mientras que Schmitt acogía el nazismo como una especie de moderno katechon (el vencedor del Anticristo en la tradición católica).