#1.1.11

[thelunarchronicles-daily]

Without a sign, her booth hinted at her trade only by the shelves of stock android parts that crowded the walls.

[dolphin1812]

While any combination of “baron” and “Napoleon” will automatically make me think “Pontmercy,” I really do wonder if the bishop is meant to parallel Marius in some way. There are definitely similarities that other points have detailed - such as how they start from a place of privilege and become aware of the injustice around them - but sharing the same title really strengthens the parallels between their statuses. It’s especially interesting that we learn the bishop’s title in this specific chapter, where he has just met with a revolutionary and we now learn of his thoughts on Napoleon. Although Marius certainly sees the same issues with poverty that the bishop does, his encounter with ideas around it is more explicitly political in the narrative (see: Les Amis de l’ABC). In both cases, being a royalist is part of their family backgrounds and how they were raised, while their other beliefs are attached to personal experiences (which are not divorced from family, given that the bishop remains a royalist because of what his family went through in the Revolution and that Marius’ Napoleon phase begins with learning about his father, but still occur later in their lives). However, their confrontation with these ideologies is reversed. Even though the bishop is surrounded by Bonapartists (” the good and weakly flock who adored their emperor “), we see him discuss politics with a revolutionary first. Marius, however, discovers Bonapartist ideas before republicanism. I don’t have a concrete explanation for why this could be significant, but perhaps it’s meant to suggest that Marius, with his greater immersion in politics, will eventually be able to understand true republicanism? (I personally think his hero worship is still getting in the way by the end of the book).

The monarchy is pretty consistently portrayed as being divorced from the people. Napoleon, however, is not. Hugo does call him a “despot”, but he also recognizes his popularity amongst the people in this chapter alone. He also refers to him as a “great man” (again: Marius’ hero worship is susceptible to this line of thought). And republicanism, of course, is shown as being concerned with the people. So perhaps Marius’ political development is sequential (royalist-> Bonapartist -> republicanism) in this sense, in a way the bishop’s isn’t? And whereas the bishop’s order of encounters serves to highlight his limits, Marius’ demonstrates his capacity for change?

[aux-barricades]

I didn't remember that Myriel was a baron (I guess I never paid attention to that detail) and I crack up today when I read it and though of our dear Marius Pontmercy.

[lesmiscollageproject]

“Some time after M. Myriel became a bishop, the emperor made him a baron of the empire, along with several other bishops. The arrest of the pope took place, as we know, on the night of July 5, 1809; on that occasion, M. Myriel was called by Napoleon to the synod of the bishops of France and Italy convened in Paris. This synod was held at Notre Dame, beginning its sessions on June 15, 1811, under the presidency of Cardinal Fesch. M. Myriel was one of the ninety-five bishops present. But he attended only one session and three or four private conferences. Bishop of a mountain diocese, living so close to nature, in rustic conditions and privation, he seemed to bring these eminent personages ideas that changed the tone of the synod. He returned early to Digne. When asked about this sudden return, he answered, “I annoyed them,. The mountain air came in with me. I had the effect of an open door.”

Another time, he said, “What do you expect? Those prelates are princes. I’m only a poor peasant bishop.”

The fact is that he had offended them. Among other strange things, he had dropped the remark one evening when he happened to be at the house of one of his highest-ranking colleagues: “What fine clocks! fine carpets! fine liveries! It must all be very bothersome. How loath I would be to have all these superfluities forever crying in my ears: ‘There are people who are starving! There are people who are cold! What about the poor? What about the poor?’”

[kingedmundsroyalmurder]

Brickclub: 1.1.11

This is a note that I wrote on my last time through this chapter, about the ‘poverty is the first proof of charity’ bit, but I think it highlights the core defect of the Bishop’s philosophy:

“I don't know quite what to do with this. On the surface -- ignoring the glorification of poverty -- it seems fair enough. The idea of charity by the wealthy being an inherent contradiction in terms is a solid enough one, especially when paired with the earlier illustrative anecdotes like that of the 'paying his way into heaven one sou at a time' dude and also the things the Bible has to say about rich people. Certainly as far as the Bishop is concerned, if you still have stuff then you're not charity-ing hard enough.

But, on the other hand, it's still an entirely individual approach. The Bishop is never really, I don't think, able to conceptualize of a world where poverty doesn't *exist at all.* He views the poor kind of like how he views the spiders: unfortunate, blameless for their situation, and eternal. And from his perspective they are, because he cannot really handle the concept that personal charity isn't enough. *His* personal charity isn't enough, but his idea is that if everyone were like him then things would be better. He relies on the inherent goodness within human beings. Which is good and honorable and definitely commendable in a religious leader, but ultimately kind of a bandaid solution. If your solution relies on people choosing to be good, then the moment people, for whatever reason and not even all people, stop choosing to be good then you're right back where you started. He rejects the more permanent solution -- institutional change such as the French Revolution -- to a point where he can't even really conceptualize of it.”

And we see this in action. We’re told that the encounter with G does nothing but make him kinder, i.e. the effect of being exposed to the idea of institutional change is that he doubles down on ideas of individual change. The Bishop goes to the synod of Bishops and chides his colleagues for accepting the wealth given to them, rather than critiquing the system that gives them that wealth in the first place. Or, in other words, “I do not blame the law, but I do thank God.” The Bishop’s a monarchist, a traditionalist, a product of the ancien regime and one who, had the Revolution not happened, probably would have had no issues living out his life with the privileges afforded to him by his birth. He believes in social order, believes that the problems of society can be solved through individual actions and good intentions. It’s not that he objects to systemic change as a concept -- his preaching to his villagers about how they can do better by their vulnerable groups shows that he absolutely encourages social change -- it’s that he thinks the best way to implement it is to convince the people in power that it’s the right thing to do.

I’m really curious about the dynamics within the Myriel family, now that we know there are four of them. More accurately, I’m curious about how all three of the men ended up, at least initially, being worldly and comfortable. The Bishop only became  priest after his wife died in exile -- I think it’s not a huge stretch to assume that, had that not happened, he would have remained a lightly hedonist aristo. Meanwhile, Baptistine is described from the start as having led a life that was one saintly action after another. I’ve long headcanoned that, after the death of Myriel’s wife, it was Baptistine who led him to God, perhaps as a way of healing or processing the loss. So you have a family of three worldly brothers and a sainted sister, which on the one hand is, you know, somewhat Problems, but is also really intriguing to dig into. (And how do the other brothers feel about Baptistine starving for the sake of her brother’s convictions? Presumably she doesn’t complain to them, but do they wonder about it? Or has her whole life been so devoted to others that even the people she grew up with find it all too easy to forget that she’s a person with her own preferences and needs? Now I’ve made myself sad again...

I love this sentence: “we do not confuse what are called ‘political opinions’ with the grand aspiration for progress, with the sublime, patriotic, democratic, humane faith, which today ought to be the very foundation of all generous understanding."

I love it for what it actually says, and I love it because it is 1000% a Gautier shoutout. But it’s also Hugo very pointedly Calling People Out. It’s Hugo looking his readers in the eye and going, “of course you agree that we should exercise basic human decency and treat people as people, as any decent person does” and daring them to object or argue.

I also love the closing sentence of the chapter (Hugo is really good at closing sentences, honestly). It perfectly captures the kind of benign, unconscious doublethink that everyone does. (Although it’s a better pun in French, where the wording is ‘adoraient leurs empereur’ which means both love and worship. ‘Adorer’ is what you do to God. Wordreference helpfully notes that there are people still who restrict ‘adorer’ just to how you feel about God. Which, actually, now that I think about it, probably means that Hugo here is using it as not just a pun but another ‘God is more powerful than Napoleon’ moment -- the adoration that the people have for Napoleon is not strong enough to overpower the love they have for the Bishop, and, by extension, the God he represents.)

Final note: the Bishop is basically the anti-Marius, with regards to his title, isn’t he? I think this is literally the only mention of it, and clearly he doesn’t think much of it.

[umeed-e-sehr]

1.1.11

I like that the discussion of what the bishop’s political views are like, immediately follows from the meeting with the Conventionist. And in this chapter we are confronted with the opulence of Napoleon and his convention of bishops which is shown in stark contrast to the bishop’s humble life. Hugo is taking a swipe at the opulence of great men and suggesting that the bishop should be poor if he lives near and cares about the poor. I love the bishop’s very visible annoyance about/with Napoleon from 1813 to 1815. I do wonder whether the bishop’s feelings about being a Royalist and Hugo spending some time dwelling on it, is more to talk about his own past as a Royalist and as Bonapartist, and try to maybe justify it, like he does about 1848 later. It feels very much in that vein. Also, here in these chapters and in most of the book, Hugo’s foremost concern isn’t politics/political issues but social issues, which he feels are more important for progress which is interesting, I wonder if you can separate the politics from progress.

I find it interesting that Hugo writing about Napoleon after the fact seems to invoke Providence all the more, with his line about ‘Waterloo seems to be lying in wait’ for Napoleon line and since in the actual digression, Hugo also points to some aspect of the defeat being due to Providence/weather, I wonder how much he believes in it and uses it throughout this book.

Although now I can’t help wondering if underneath his ‘if you are not a persistent critic during a great man’s success, you should remain silent during times of a man's downfall,’ may also be a jab at Louis Napoleon III or people not criticising NIII as vocally as he was, as Hugo had been a strong opponent of his for quite some time now.  Admittedly that may be a stretch to make here, but Hugo’s talk of great men and success always reminds me of his very valid feud with NIII.

Nevertheless, we know that the bishop has not changed his politics radically after the meeting with Conventionist G, I would like to know what he thought, I feel that he liked G individually, but he still has not fully confronted what the French Revolution means to him, because it is personally associated with a time in his life that he may not wish to return to. The only after effect we can see is that he does try to be even kinder to everyone- and probably almost reaches towards perfection (he helps a man who was ruined because he is loyal towards Napoleon during Louis XVIII’s time). His being more or less neutral in his political opinions is written as a failing/flaw here, but also as an aged bishop in a small town, I can hardly hold him accountable, he does try to help in whichever way he is able to, and he helps anyone regardless of their politics.  

I also love his persistent sassiness directed towards Napoleon, which even the people have come to accept, and I love the throwback to the comparisons of great man and good man in the previous chapters, Napoleon with his deeds of war and as an Emperor may have caused people to admire him, (Hugo uses the word flock for them, the people of the village are perhaps admiring Napoleon out of their simplicity) but they know the bishop and love him, which makes all the difference in the world, to Hugo as well as to us as readers.  

[dolphin1812]

I think it’s hilarious that even though Hugo specifies that the bishop isn’t super political in this chapter, he’s now dedicated multiple chapters to his political beliefs. This is the second in a row! And the French Revolution is basically the first thing we learned about his backstories. He may not consider himself political and may avoid advocating for political causes directly, but politics have been a key influence on his life in a way that has undoubtedly shaped his opinions.

Also, how is postponing visits to a man for years, only going to see him on his deathbed, solely because he was a revolutionary being “ tolerant and easy” in one’s political views? It really seems like the bishop is only more tolerant of Bonapartists, likely because he works to be kind to everyone and doesn’t have to confront any deep-set feelings when dealing with them (unlike with revolutionaries). 

[lesmiscollageproject]

“To conclude: He was always and in all things just, true, fair, intelligent, humble, worthy, beneficent, and benevolent, which is another beneficence. He was a priest, a sage, and a man. We must even say that in those political opinions that we have been criticizing and that we are disposed to judge almost severely, he was tolerant and yielding, perhaps more than we who now speak.”