#Waterloo digression

[pilferingapples]

The detestable maxim, Live on the enemy! produced this leprosy, which a strict discipline alone could heal. There are reputations which are deceptive; one does not always know why certain generals, great in other directions, have been so popular. Turenne was adored by his soldiers because he tolerated pillage; evil permitted constitutes part of goodness. Turenne was so good that he allowed the Palatinate to be delivered over to fire and blood. The marauders in the train of an army were more or less in number, according as the chief was more or less severe. Hoche and Marceau had no stragglers; Wellington had few, and we do him the justice to mention it. Nevertheless, on the night from the 18th to the 19th of June, the dead were robbed. Wellington was rigid; he gave orders that any one caught in the act should be shot; but rapine is tenacious. The marauders stole in one corner of the battlefield while others were being shot in another.- LM 2.1.19 , Hapgood translation

What's that, Hugo? You think the leader of an armed force is morally responsible for ensuring strict discipline? Even if it means summary battlefield executions for people who break the rules of combat? That it's not just necessary, even, but morally laudable to make such a judgement to ensure no one associated with their cause is , say, pillaging the dead, or maybe attacking civilians?

Cool, noted, surely this will never be relevant again.

[the-wraxall-illustrations]

[cliozaur]

JSAMN 20 Readalong. Week 9. Chapters 40–44

This is well-written, but a few minor adjustments could improve flow and clarity. Here’s a refined version:

When my Susanna Clarke meets my Victor Hugo: the chapter on the Battle of Waterloo feels almost intimately familiar, with the fateful rain, the siege of Hougoumont, Highlanders, and French cuirassiers doomed to die. However, here, they don’t fall into an abyss but are pulled into mud by gigantic hands. I really didn’t expect this Waterloo encounter to bring me so much joy!

Segundus, as usual, forgets he’s already met Childermass—twice. Why does Childermass want him to forget they know each other? I like the description of Childermass ‘with his long, ragged dark hair’ as ‘the portent of doom in a bad play.’ Though he’s threatening and blackmailing Segundus, Childermass doesn’t seem entirely hostile, even apologizing and offering to help if Segundus ever considers opening a regular school.

There are two types of authors: those, like Mr. Norrell, who plan to write a book but never start, and those, like Mr. Strange, who actually write it.

The chapter titled Strange Decides to Write a Book spends only its first two pages on this subject; the rest centres on the Gentleman and Stephen. This often happens in their chapters, as if they’re hiding behind other characters.

The Gentleman’s fine aesthetic taste never ceases to amaze me: this time, he’s indignant over Mr. Strange’s ‘battered and ugly’ old penknife. So sensitive!

The end of Chapter 44 is indeed heartbreaking.

[mariuspompom]

I started the Waterloo digression but oops I don't understand anything because I don't have the vocabulary. I have already read this in translation 85 years ago and I don't remember shit. All I remember is that it rained and that that was a very, very bad thing.

[claireverlasting]

*Vaguely threatening piano music intensifies, you can’t escape it, it’s coming*

[fluentisonus]

god the beginning of the waterloo digression goes so unbelievably hard, the way it starts off with him just walking through the countryside on a beautiful day & coming to a farm etc and then as it goes on & he comes across little things in the landscape -- a church, a well, an orchard -- it starts cutting back and forth between these violent bloody horrible moments in the battle and the peaceful countryside full of remnants & marks & ruins that he's walking through. and likewise these grand desperate moments in the battle that then cut back to the 'present' where there's nothing but a few damaged bits of architecture in the may sunshine to show for it. insane insane insane

[secretmellowblog]

I'm not sure you can escape the French coded hyperfixations

true. Jean Valjean and Sly Cooper exist at the absolute opposite ends of the "noble thief who can parkour around Paris with their superhuman agility" spectrum.

[cuntyferre]

writing a brief digression a la hugo about the riot medicine. for the silly poll stealing fic

[bread--quest]

i am bringing les mis to the beach as my beach read because i am a parody of myself

[carolinawrenn]

Our boy really did just pause on a cliffhanger to write 19 chapters about the battle of Waterloo. I am imagining 19th century readers yelling, "We know about that already, Victor! What happens to Jean Valjean and poor little Cosette?" Heck, I know the story, and I am yelling it.

[pilferingapples]

Among the many , many key things going on in the Waterloo Digression, Hugo saw it as possible support against the censors. In a letter to his publisher Lacroix, Hugo urged using excerpts from it in the advance promo work, writing:

En lançant la deuxième et la troisième partie, faites feu des quatre mains. Si l’on donne des citations, qu’on insiste sur Waterloo, qu’on fasse ressortir ce que ce livre a de national, qu’on remue la fibre française, qu’on fasse d’avance honte à Persigny d’arrêter un livre où il est rendu enfin justice à Ney, grand-père de sa femme, qu’on rende la saisie impossible en disant que c’est la bataille de Waterloo régalée par la France, etc. Entendez-vous pour cela avec MM. Vacquerie et Meurice. — Et nos amis de L’Indépendance. M. Frédérix. Demandez de ma part un article à Bancel. Déjà Kesler en a publié deux dans Le Courrier de l’Europe.

"When launching the second and third parts (Vol 2 : Cosette and Vol 3: Marius-PA) fire with all four hands. If we give quotations, if we insist on Waterloo, if we emphasize what is national about this book, if we stir the French fiber,if we shame Persigny in advance about stopping a book where justice is finally done to Ney, his wife's grandfather, we make the seizure impossible by saying that it is the battle of Waterloo regaled by France, etc. "

Waterloo is a key pillar of the book, but Hugo was always aware of the potential political fallout waiting for him even more than other authors, and had to be politically shrewd as well as a skilled writer!

[the-wraxall-illustrations]

[songder-bot]

When, touched by their heroism, suspending the moment of death above these men, an English general cried out to them, "Brave Frenchmen, surrender!", Cambronne answered, "Merde!"

[pilferingapples]

eee ok this is an EXCITING bit so bear with me if I ramble a little

Historical Context A: The Napoleonic Era was huge for Hugo's generation of French writers. Like...what WWI was for the Jazz Age, you know? They'd all grown up with this image of the Emperor, this larger than life figure, and then POP he was gone--but he left a really massive legacy effect, not just on the macro level of new alliances, national borders, etc, but in the daily life of every French person, thanks to the Napoleonic Code (the effective legal system for AGES) , major changes that he had set up in society, etc.

which all leads to :

Literary Point A: one of the big themes going on in Les Mis is that it's time to move on from the concept of the Great Man of History and focus on regular people. That history is and should be made now by just people, that Jean Valjean is as important as Napoleon. So as you read the Waterloo section, look for the way Hugo talks about why Napoleon loses-- the emphasis on weather , on the way Napoleon treats his conscripted peasant guide, on how the effect he's having on history is out of favor with God.

Making this argument , Hugo still grants Napoleon and the French a LOT of glory, here. Saying "only GOD could stop Napoleon" is pretty complimentary, after all! And there's plenty of praise for individual leaders in the French army. Which brings us to...

Historical Context B: When Hugo wrote Les Miserables, he was in exile, an opponent of the current ruler of France , Napoleon.

...well , Napoleon III, Louis Bonaparte.

which leads to

Literary Point B: Hugo and his publisher were both sincerely concerned that Les Miserables might get banned in France, or be so heavily censored that it would effectively be banned. This had already happened with some earlier work he'd written in exile!

And Les Miserables is, frankly , a call to revolution , of one sort or another. It's extremely pro-socialism and pro-republic, and France was operating with neither system at the time. It is super political and Hugo's politics were Not Welcome with the people currently running the country.

But! the Waterloo section of Les Mis was really super positive about France and Napoleon's army, even while denouncing Napoleon as incompatible with Progress. Hugo actually pushed for the Waterloo section to be released if anyone wanted a preview , saying :

“If we give quotes, insist on Waterloo, bring out (focus on) what the book has of the national (cause/identity), what stirs the French fibers(/soul), make Persigny ashamed to stop a book in which justice is finally done to Ney, grandfather of his wife, make the seizure impossible by saying it is the battle of Waterloo won by France, etc…”

( more of that letter, and more on those background politics, here!)

As I say at that link, I don't think Waterloo is just chaff for the censors; Hugo didn't say anything he didn't mean to say. But the way he said it was always , of necessity, with consideration of his chances of publishing legally. (Hugo wasn't new to this. Writers in 19C France were always working around censors from one government or the other. It's a fun thing to think about when considering Why X Said It That Way! ) Waterloo is very relevant to that!

And, just for fun, Purely Literary Point C :

Les Mis looooves its parallels and antitheses. That's Hugo's stylistic jam. Les Mis reflects on itself and outwards in endless fractals. So Waterloo is this big grand last stand marking the end of an era... and then one of the major sequences in the narrative's present is a big grand last stand marking not an ending, but hopefully the beginning of a beginning. To be direct: keep an eye on the details in Waterloo, they will echo and counter-echo in surprising ways on the barricade.

(Also you can check out this fantastic post about it! it really helped me understand the emotional core of this section way back when)

(and all this said.... skip Waterloo entirely if you need to. The most immediately relevant chapter is the last one, with the post-battle looting. You can come back and read it later, with the rest of the book fresh for making connections, and it will still be good! But all this makes the whole digression a lot more interesting for me now. )

so part 2 is called Cosette

why the fuck am I reading about Napoleon for ages

[lesmisletters]

Congratulations, Les Mis Letters readers, on surviving to the end of the Waterloo Digression! You made it through the battle!

AFFIRMATIONS: You did not die in the sunken road of Ohain! You did not die by English bullets! You are free! Today, we return to the funky little fictional characters!

(For those who aren't aware: Les Mis has 365 chapters, and Les Mis Letters is an email subscription readalong that sends you one chapter a day for a year. Learn more, subscribe, and join our Discord server in our pinned post!)

[secretmellowblog]

There’s a fandom joke about the Waterloo digression not mattering to Les Mis, but I really love how all of Volume 2 takes place in its shadow. It’s strongly emphasized how everything is happening in the wake of these massive conflicts and wars.

The Ship Orion, where Jean Valjean is working as a convict, is a warship being used in the Spanish invasion. Now that Napoleon has been defeated, the French monarchy is sending their army to Spain to help violently assert the divine rights of the Spanish kings. The republic is dead, the empire is dead, and now it seems that monarchy will control France (and Europe) for a very long time.

The way that Madeleine “falls” and his town collapses without him feels like an echo of the fall of Napoleon.

Then, we reach “The Seargant of Waterloo” inn— where Thenardier has built his entire life on leeching off the legacy of Waterloo.

He made his initial fortune robbing the corpses at the battlefield, and now boasts/lies about having been a brave sergeant of Napoleon who rescued a general. He seems to worship violence and is desperate to enrich himself by exploiting anyone he can; he has all of Napoleon’s negative qualities, without any of his positive ones. Victor Hugo once insulted Napoleon III (the guy who exiled him) by calling him “Napoleon the Small”— and Thenardier feels like he could be a reference to that.

Outside of Thenardier we see other patrons of the inn talking about the Spanish wars, Napoleonic soldiers going to a fair to see a bird with coloration that reminds them of the tricolor flag, etc etc etc.

There’s this constant feeling of ordinary people existing under the shadows of this massive war, and its really fascinating to read!