#lm 2.1.13

[maybeitsapineapple]

LM 2.1.13

hugo trying to convince himself that the english and the prussians didn't actually win waterloo

apparently a horace pun?

[lmchaptertitlebracket]

Round 1, Matchup 76: II.i.13 vs V.i.7

[cliozaur]

Oh no, now they are exterminating the prisoners of war. And, of course, Blücher disgraced himself with this barbarous act. This disgrace is much worse than that of chaotic escape of the French army from the battlefield. Their escape can be excused, as Hugo explains it was caused by “the present shadow of a terrible presence.” And then he offers an epic summary of what happened in Waterloo: it was a decline of the great man leading to the advent of the great century. Oh, he still believes that the nineteenth century was a great one.

It's amusing how lions in different translations are transforming into different animals: into hunted deers, goats, and even hares.

[the-wraxall-illustrations]

[dolphin1812]

Although Marius’ speech is embarrassing (both because of the Napoleon content and because of how quickly he’s taken down), it’s also fascinating in that it reveals so much about his character through his politics. 

“I am a newcomer among you, but I will confess that you amaze me. Where do we stand? Who are we? Who are you? Who am I?”

Marius starts with “we!” He’s including himself in this organization, even if he’s confused about their ideas and his position within this group. His own beliefs may be against those of Les Amis, but this is a major change from his earlier isolation. He’s not only surrounded by people, but viewing himself as part of them, and not just in an abstract sense (he started to think of France as his community after reading about his father, but Les Amis is a more concrete group). 

“I hear you say Buonaparte, accenting the u like the Royalists. I warn you that my grandfather does better still; he says Buonaparté’. I thought you were young men.”

I’ll talk more about the focus on “great men” as a way of determining one’s politics in the next line, but I think this is also suggestive of Marius’ lack of exposure to other ideologies. Not having met many republicans outside of Les Amis, he sees Bonapartism as the most legitimate alternative to monarchism, and he associates criticisms of Bonaparte with royalism because that’s the main context in which he heard them. Gillenormand’s “ultra” politics also factor into this, as Marius lambasts them for saying “Buonaparte.” He implies that, if they’re already royalists who despise Napoleon to the point that they pronounce his name like that, they may as well accent the final “e” as well, thus assuming that the most extreme stance possible is the goal. In reality (as stated in the last chapter), Enjolras is the only Ami who says “Buonaparte;” the rest say “Bonaparte,” and Jean Prouvaire sometimes says “Napoleon.” None of them are pro-Napoleon, but they dislike or disagree with him to different extents, and they respect their differences instead of trying to reach the most intense position possible. 

Moreover, Marius’ objection to their hatred of Napoleon on the grounds that they’re “young men” implies that he too believes in a form of “progress,” only his form of progress has Napoleon as the ideal instead of the Republic. It’s one thing for an old man “stuck in the past” like his grandfather to disavow Napoleon in favor of the monarchy, but he can’t see why men his age would hold a similar distaste for the man because he thinks Napoleon is the “next step” in governance. 

“Whom do you admire, if you do not admire the Emperor? And what more do you want? If you will have none of that great man, what great men would you like?”

Marius is very prone to idolizing people. His Bonapartism came from idolizing his father, and he now idolizes Napoleon as well. That Les Amis don’t have one figure that all their politics revolve around, then, is bizarre to him. Of course, they have figures that they admire; they just don’t all agree on them, and their meetings don’t center around a single historical character. Enjolras, for instance, admires Rousseau, but Courfeyrac does not. 

The “great man” discussion goes back to the Waterloo digression. It’s quite possible that Hugo wouldn’t object to Marius’ specific praises of Napoleon here, actually (even if personally I find his conquests awful and think it’s impossible for anyone’s bulletins to be “Iliads”). The Waterloo digression was full of compliments for Napoleon’s intelligence and skill, especially as a military strategist. The issue was that even if Napoleon was a “great man,” the age of “great men” was over; it was time for the people to rule themselves (”The disappearance of the great man was necessary for the advent of the great age, and He who cannot be answered undertook the task” - LM 2.1.13). In a way, the “to be free” scene more dramatically and succinctly reiterates the theme of that digression. Les Amis could challenge Marius on the specifics of Napoleon’s “greatness,” but they’re not actually relevant. What does matter is that being ruled by an Emperor is bad in itself. 

Most of this discussion (or rather, brief responses to long rambles about how cool Napoleon was) takes place between Marius and Enjolras, which makes sense, given that Enjolras is the most intense politically and thus seems more provocative to Marius. Still, it’s interesting that Combeferre is the one who rebukes Marius. In the last chapter, he attempted to defend the Charter before Courfeyrac burned it, suggesting that he might play “devil’s advocate” and defend unpopular positions to sharpen his friends’ ideas or that, as he believes in gradual progress as well, he’s a little more open to compromise. His comment reminds us that, even if Combeferre seems “moderate” in relation to his friends at times, he’s still very much a republican, and he’s not going to accept tyranny for the sake of keeping the peace. Again, this is a callback to his introduction, which stressed that he abhors violence - even revolutionary violence - but prefers it to “stagnation.” Going back to Bonaparte, then, would be another form of “stagnation” that Combeferre, even with his hope in gradual progress without interference, has to reject. (And given that there was another Napoleon in power when Hugo was writing, it feels especially significant that Bonapartism is seen as so unacceptable that even Combeferre has to intervene). 

[synteis]

2.1.13 - La catastrophe

After the "glory" of the suicide of the imperial guard, what is left is disorder and disaster. Now we've gone from "Vive l'empreur!" to "Sauve-qui-peut!" all the way to "Trahison!" We also get the mentions of "Vive le maréchal Ney" even as we know that he longed for a glorious death the previous chapter.

Here is a difference between Waterloo and the barricades. Because Enjolras is a far better man than Napoleon or Ney, he leads from the front with his men. They don't descend into this chaos and he doesn't yearn for death ahead of them because of the shame of failure. Perhaps this is why the barricades are sublime while Waterloo has moments but is not so in a general way.

Everything has fallen apart and there's now nothing that Napoleon can do even as he tries.

But there are others on the French side who are stil carrying on with courage in spite of their leadership. We get what Lobau tries to do at Genappe where they make barricades and recruit 300 men. The earlier French policies lead to even more terrible policies from the Anglo-Prussians including Blücher.

Ce vertige, cette terreur, cette chute en ruine de la plus haute bravoure qui ait jamais étonné l'histoire, est-ce que cela est sans cause? Non. L'ombre d'une droite énorme se projette sur Waterloo. C'est la journée du destin. La force au-dessus de l'homme a donné ce jour-là. [...] Waterloo, c'est le gond du dix-neuvième siècle. La disparition du grand homme était nécessaire à l'avènement du grand siècle. Quelqu'un à qui on ne réplique pas s'en est chargé. La panique des héros s'explique. Dans la bataille de Waterloo, il y a plus du nuage, il y a du météore. Dieu a passé.

At its heart, all this death is the work of the higher power who is Hugo's God. Napoleon didn’t stand a change even though Hugo’s spent the past ten chapters telling us about all of them. For him to fall so too did all those underneath him, good ones and bad.

[everyonewasabird]

Brickclub 2.1.13 ‘The catastrophe’

Last chapter we saw the brave men standing firm and only heard hints of the eruption of terror and flight behind them. Now we’re among the terrorized and fleeing as the victors turn brutal and friends kill each other in their panicked flight--a larger scale of the carnage that mops up the end of the barricade.

I love how the feel of Hugo’s sentences indicate where we are in rising and falling action. He describes attempts to rally, but the brushstrokes are flat, conveying distance and disintegration. Men try to regroup, but we the observers are pulling back and panning out from the fray. We return to where we began, perusing chunks of masonry taken out by cannonballs and talking about the big picture.

Hugo tells us this was the event the 19th century hinges on: Napoleon’s army wasn’t expecting to flee in disarray, but the hand of Providence intervened. @fremedon has pointed out how Napoleon, a commoner taking some of his cues on policy from the Revolution, felt like a new kind of ruler to the people who supported him. This is God overturning that future in favor of a different one.

Hugo calls the nineteenth century great, but nineteenth century France will be one era of oppression and bloodshed after another--kings, more kings, attempts at republic, dictators--and God won’t be able to save anyone from that. It was a horrible century, and Hugo had seen most of it by the time he was writing this, in exile, attempting to overthrow a dictator while dodging his censorship.

It’s a bold move to call all that God’s plan, and say this was necessary. Very likely some of that was to dodge the censors, but it’s also a central thesis here--that there is victory in martyrdom and in the strange turns history takes when battles are lost. The defeat of the barricade in the Rue de la Chanvrerie won’t be that kind of historical turning point, but it’s clear Hugo hopes history will draw something from its doomed greatness and its fighting to be free.

We’ve seen France in granular detail two years from now, in 1817: a country pretending to be whole and at peace, whose king alleges he’s been on the throne all along. Providential intervention didn’t bring about utopia--far from it. But this pivot point at Waterloo starts a new conversation, where the people rest up a while in conservatism and illusion, preparing themselves--though they aren’t aware of it--to rise again.

“Lions turned to deer” this chapter says, a sad echo of the earlier warning that cats can turn into lions.

But that line was describing Paris two years after this. The lions will be back.

[pilferingapples]

Les Mis 365, 2.1.11, 2.1.12, 2.1.13

2.1.11

Again, Hugo chalks this battle up to "the immense quirks of fate", meaning the weather that delayed the battle; but again, there seems to be an obvious and very human force really changing things, and it's Bulow's guide. However Bulow found his guide, if the shepherd boy had misdirected Bulow's troops the wayLacoste misdirected Napoleon's, the battle might have gone very differently.  At least from this telling, the battle seems to depend, as much as anything, on the goodwill of the non-combatants; and it might be the shepherd boy who's the single most important actor here. And we don't even get his name.

2.1.12

The Imperial Guard is determined to charge into death, knowing it's death; the rest of their army seems to not be so on board with this plan, and tries to retreat. Hugo assigns? credits? the non-French forces with appreciating the courage and heroism of the Guard. And, interestingly to me, Hugo refers to what the Guard does here as 'suicide'.  There is definitely a different tone to the way Hugo uses that word, and the way I'm used to hearing it used; though I have to think more about exactly what that difference is.  But there's often an approval of it, in a way I'm not at all used to seeing associated with any sort of chosen death; I think even martyrdom has some negatice connotations in modern discourse. So is this use of the (very loaded) word a common thing for Hugo's era, or is Hugo making a personal stand about it, or what?  

2.1.13

At least Ney and the Guard, charging to their deaths (or TRYING to , in Ney's case)  hang on to some sort awareness and self-control. The French army in retreat is described in terms of hopeless and unthinking terror, friends killing each other to make their getaway, and unlike Hugo I don't feel the need to say they witnessed the specter of Providence to account for it.

The winners of the battle aren't merciful or honorable in victory, and of course that's another parallel between the book's battle scenes-- and, I think, a connection to a LOT of the character's individual struggles in the book. The victors, in combat or in social war, tend to show no mercy. They demand first surrender and then abasement, and then, too often, even death. It's  of a kind with Javert's sense of triumph, Victurnien's sense of triumph. For the universe to be in alignment by their lights, victory isn't enough; the vanquished have to suffer.

Napoleon failed to understand the will of Providence before and during the battle, and he fails to recognize it afterward. It's not just that Napoleon can't go back and re-fight Waterloo; he can't re-start the age of the Great Men. Maybe I'm mean to feel a little wistful at that, a twinge of The Legends Are Dying nostalgia for a Grander Era.  But to HECK WITH THAT.The Great Man mythos is horrible. I want to know what happened to the guides, not the Emperor.

[lmchaptertitlebracket]

II.i.13 La Catastrophe

(this appears to have been skipped the first go round, but it's Waterloo-- couldn't escape if you wanted to. hopefully this is correctly queued up to coincide with the les mis letters chapter!)

The Catastrophe: Wilbour, Wraxall, Hapgood, Gray, FMA, Rose, Donougher

[the-wraxall-illustrations]

[dolphin1812]

The “heroism” of previous chapters (to the extent that Hugo sees combat as glorious) vanishes in the first paragraph as the chaos of defeat takes over. Hugo adds a lot of particularly horrifying details - like friends killing each other, arms littered across the battlefield, and men walking over those dead and alive - to illustrate this, to good effect; this opening paragraph is all over the place and very disturbing, just like an army towards the end of a battle.

Hugo then centers on the change in the “Grand Army” which, once so widely praised (or derided in fear), is now falling apart:

“Blücher outdid Roguet. Duhesme, the general of the Young Guard, hemmed in at the doorway of an inn at Genappe, surrendered his sword to a huzzar of death, who took the sword and slew the prisoner. The victory was completed by the assassination of the vanquished. Let us inflict punishment, since we are history: old Blücher disgraced himself. This ferocity put the finishing touch to the disaster.”

The chaos of battle continues here with the notes on who killed who and the recognition that “victory” entailed many deaths, but I’m most interested in the line after that: “Let us inflict punishment, since we are history.” “We” implies a collective. It could be Hugo and his audience, the people, or both, but either way, it’s a sharp contrast to the focus on individuals in the rest of the paragraph. It also brings back Hugo’s notion of the populace as the force evaluating the past, although here, the populace is not merely “judging,” but is specifically meting out punishment. The broader historical narrative of Waterloo, then, is subject to the populace’s memory of it, but just as Napoleon’s overall image is determined in their minds, so too are other men who contributed to the disaster pardoned or condemned by the people.

The next paragraph is also interesting:

“This vertigo, this terror, this downfall into ruin of the loftiest bravery which ever astounded history,—is that causeless? No. The shadow of an enormous right is projected athwart Waterloo. It is the day of destiny. The force which is mightier than man produced that day. Hence the terrified wrinkle of those brows; hence all those great souls surrendering their swords. Those who had conquered Europe have fallen prone on the earth, with nothing left to say nor to do, feeling the present shadow of a terrible presence. Hoc erat in fatis. That day the perspective of the human race underwent a change. Waterloo is the hinge of the nineteenth century. The disappearance of the great man was necessary to the advent of the great century. Some one, a person to whom one replies not, took the responsibility on himself. The panic of heroes can be explained. In the battle of Waterloo there is something more than a cloud, there is something of the meteor. God has passed by.”

Much of this paragraph repeats earlier ideas: Napoleon was destined to be defeated, and Waterloo is merely where that defeat happened; this end was divinely ordained. Hugo also references the importance of Waterloo in the nineteenth century, but this time, in a different way: the nineteenth century as a “great” century was only possible after Waterloo because that battle put an end to the era of “the great man.” It’s not specified what replaces that, but the opposite of the “great man” is the common people, so perhaps this alludes to Hugo’s general notion of Progress. The great man is gone, so now the common people can come to take charge of their affairs; the nineteenth century is when that will be decided and it is therefore “great,” and then, “the twentieth century will be happy.”

This isn’t related to the content of the chapter exactly, but I find old translations from French to English funny because of the overlap between the two languages. Napoleon “essaying to advance” isn’t something we would say today even if it might actually be a word in English, but it does match the use of the verb “essayer” in the original French.