Brick Club 1.2.2 “Cautionary Advice To The Wise”
In which the bishop aligns with Kant, sort of.
The chapter begins by describing the text that Myriel is working on, which is a thesis on duty. Part of this pinged some memory in my brain from a philosophy class in university forever ago, so I dug out some old class notes.
Kant posited that goodness is about the intent, not necessarily the outcome, and true goodness is borne of doing something because you feel the duty to do that goodness, not because one is “naturally good” or because it feels nice to be nice. All of this tracks, because something else that Kant believed was basically that a person who starts out unsympathetic and works to overcome that and be kind out of a sense of duty, rather than naturally taking pleasure in it, is a more moral person than the one who takes pleasure in it from the get-go. Working really hard to be good because it’s right > just kinda naturally being good because you like it, basically. Which reminded me of back in 1.1.13 which mentions that Myriel had been a “passionate, even violent man” and “his universal tenderness was less an instinct of nature than the result of a strong conviction...” He had been a royalist, who was possibly violent, who through a sense of duty and conviction became good. Which, in Kant’s view, is the most good you can be.
(Sidenote: I’d love to know Hugo’s opinions on Kant. I’m sure he had some, considering the divisive nature of Kant’s philosophies and also their very opposite opinions on things like capital punishment. Kant died a few years after Hugo was born, so I’m willing to bet Hugo read his work at some point.)
Other people mentioned it in previous brick club posts, but here we see yet again Myriel’s lack of concern for his own safety endangering that of M. Magloire and Mlle. Baptistine.
In fact, this time we see it much more directly. Madame Magloire explains all the rumors she heard in town and how much she wants a lock for the door, and how quick and easy it would be to go and get a lock put on, if only for the one night. She’s willing to compromise, just to get a lock for a bit. She even says, “I say we must have bolts, if only for tonight...”
What’s interesting is she tells Mlle. Baptistine all about the rumors, and Myriel overhears the end of the tale. When Baptistine, obviously worried, prompts him, he asks Magloire for clarification, “Are we in any great danger?” and when Magloire explains, he listens and even encourages her to keep talking, but he completely dismisses her fears. He basically does the equivalent of going “Oh,” and shrugging. And then he dismisses those worries and complaints completely by yelling “come in!” at the knock on the door just as Magloire is mentioning her concern about him having a habit of doing exactly that.
This goes back to the duty thing, both Kant’s ideas of duty and the thesis Myriel was working on.
The specific duties listed in the beginning of 1.2.2, which are pointed out in Matthew are duty toward God, toward oneself, toward one’s neighbor, and toward animals. The bishop is currently working on finding other duties in other sections of the bible and compiling a thesis on them, which Hugo explains was never finished. Odd, I think, that the bishop would focus so intently on the idea of duty and then forget the duty he has to his own household.
Perhaps he considers Magloire and Baptistine to be part of “duty to oneself,” which he obviously sees in a light similar to Kant’s idea of duty: that goodness must be realized through conviction, and sacrifice of one’s safety is certainly an adherence to duty. Or perhaps he forgets that “duty to one’s neighbor” can mean simply, people in your life that are not yourself.
Either way, this sense of duty to goodness that he upholds, the good will towards strangers that has him leaving his door (in fact, all of the doors in the whole house) unlocked and answering the door at all hours of the night, completely forgoes or forgets a sense of goodwill towards those living in the house with him. He may not mind sacrificing his own safety for the duty of goodness, but it’s presumptuous to sacrifice the safety of others, especially considering Magloire is fairly vocal about it bothering her, even if she does obey Myriel’s will.
Obviously, we learn a few times over that Myriel is flawed despite his goodness. I just wonder whether or not this is a bit like the “who is allowed to lie outright” thing that I pointed out for the last chapter. Does Myriel’s level of goodness ultimately overpower his flaws? Or does it follow Kant’s reasoning, that because Myriel’s intentions are from a duty to kindness and goodness, the potential outcomes (such as danger to the women of the house) don’t factor into the goodness meter?
