“enjolras killed his friends and was also dumb and wrong”
The interpretation that Enjolras was a “naive little rich boy who got all his friends killed” is…certainly not new to this fandom, but it sometimes pops up in such an atrociously misinformed incarnation that I feel obliged to address it.
This interpretation itself is of course completely wrong, though perhaps encouraged by certain adaptations. But the idea that the rebellion failed because Enjolras “had no idea how to organize a revolt” and he just “ran around wearing a sash and shouting slogans at people”, and particularly that he “thought he could tell the working classes how to live better” is, frankly, appalling.
Enfranchisement during the July Monarchy was severely restricted, as voting rights were only given to males over 25 who paid 200 francs in direct taxes a year. So only about 1% of the population could vote—considerably less than even just the population of Paris alone. Since the voting pool was limited to wealthy, landowning men, elections swung conservative, and the regime supported policies intended to enrich the wealthiest bourgeoisie.
Not only were Enjolras and his friends disenfranchised, but they lived under an authoritarian regime and faced political repression and censorship. Do you have something called “freedom of speech” or “freedom of assembly”? Republican publications were routinely shut down by the government, and clubs and assemblies such as theirs were illegal. Members faced police raids, potentially large fines and months in prison.
Republicanism in the 1830s was a primarily working class movement. The majority of insurgents in the June Rebellion were working class. Enjolras, apart from also being a fictional character, is not a major player in the movement. He is the leader of a very small group that is affiliated with a few other groups in the area, and becomes the leader of a minor barricade during the June Rebellion. He is certainly not the orchestrator of the entire revolt, and it is ridiculous to suggest that, even fictiously, the reason for its failure is his own personal naivety.
You can debate the causes of the failure of the June Rebellion—of the insurgents to not march on the Hôtel de Ville or of the National Guard to not join the insurgents, or the brutality of the government’s reaction—it was not the failure of “the People” to rise, of whom an estimate of almost 400 were killed or wounded. Nor was the cause naive students running around inciting complacent workingmen to riot—rather a cholera epidemic that killed thousands, exacerbated poverty, and killed two prominent politicians.
If the failure of any people to rise is to be blamed, it might be the bourgeoisie, whom Hugo suggests were content with the gains of the liberal July Monarchy.
Enjolras is a highly effective leader. He’s a logical commander who takes care to not sacrifice more resources or men than necessary and is an exceptional (and most likely experienced) street fighter. His fictional barricade is inspired by the famous battle of the Cloître Saint-Merry in the same rebellion, which was used as symbol of republican martyrdom by later republicans. Hugo wrote it that way in order to illustrate what he saw as the sublimity of these men and the moment—he certainly did not see it as pointless or “ridiculous”.
Finally, the idea that Enjolras was responsible for the deaths of his friends or “dangerous to himself and his compatriots” is my most beloathed fandom invention. They were grown ass men who were just as devoted to the cause and just as willing to die for their ideals. Combeferre explicitly expresses his and the group’s willingness to die, and Grantaire obviously chooses to die with him. They were all capable of making their own decisions and it is weirdly infantilizing to suggest otherwise.
Why are people are so eager to make a mockery of Enjolras and his ideals?
Ballots and Barricades, Aminzade
Proletarian Nights, Rancière
