Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Here we go!

Remember, if you've read beyond the end of Book 3, no spoilers, please. But anything in the first three books is fair game, so if you haven't finished those books yet you have to choose to read posts and risk spoilers, or wait until you've finished the reading.

However, it's also the case that people who are writing about Books 2 and 3 might want mark their posts with that information for those still in the middle of this week's reading. Not required, but a courtesy if you choose to.

Off we go to early 19th century France.

I'll start with a question that's been bothering me. This will be about Books 1 and 2.

The character of M. Myriel/M. Bienvenu bothers me. He is SO good that he seems an artificial caricature rather than a possible human being. I don't believe that any human being could act the way he does, particularly with respect to the silver, but also in many other ways he acts throughout the first two books.

Does Hugo actually expect us to believe in him as a legitimate, possible character? If not, why does Hugo make him this way? Is it to present, as it were, a totally white background against which to paint the rest of his characters, so that by contract the difference between good and evil become emphasized to its maximum? Is Hugo presenting Bienvenu as the way Christ would have lived if he had lived in this era? Is he mocking (or challenging?)the actual practices of the church by showing what a true Christian bishop should be like?

It's not at all clear to me what Hugo is suggesting by painting him in this degree of inhuman perfection. Any thoughts?

I'm wondering about the same thing, Everyman. I'd guess that Hugo wanted to mock or challenge the practices of clergymen at that time by contrasting them with a truly saintly bishop. It is implicit in the narrative that the previous bishop had been living lavishly in the palace while neglecting the care of the sick in the hospital. The clerical vestments stolen by the bandits from the cathedral are also described as inordinately lavish, in contrast to the poverty of the village parishes that Myriel visits. It seems that at this period the clergy received their livings from the goverment and many were profligate in their personal spending. Myriel's story might have been Hugo's critique on them.

Hugo's Myriel reminds me of Father Zosima in The Brothers Karamazov.

Sandybanks wrote: Hugo's Myriel reminds me of Father Zosima in The Brothers Karamazov.

Yes. Alyosha immediately popped into my mind, but Father Zosima fits even better. It's important to point out that Myriel had not always been a just man, at least according to rumor. He was a man redeemed. Perhaps there are not many people like him today--I've only known two, and one died in his late nineties and the other is in his nineties as well--but that does not mean there are not people who live by principal despite all. The experiences that Myriel went through as a Frenchman give us some idea of why he held worldly goods in light esteem. He is also a Christ figure, in that he redeems (buys back) the soul of Jean Valjean. I think that's more important to Hugo's story than a critique of other bishops.

Maybe you're right, Laurele. This is my first reading of Les Mis, so I suppose I'm missing a whole bunch of things. I wish I know more about the state of the church at that time, but it seems to me that Hugo was criticizing lavish spending by some of the clergy through Myriel. So Myriel might have two distinct but not unconnected functions in the narrative : he is the Christ figure who redeems Valjean's soul, and he is also the exemplary clergyman who, in contrast to others, truly lives a saintly life.

Wasn't Father Zosima also a wordly man before he became a monk? I seem to remember that he was a soldier.

Also, Myriel is a royalist who can barely tolerate Napoleon (although he is not beyond receiving appointments and preferments from him for practical reasons). I thought that given his empathy to the poor, he would be more sympathetic to 'liberte, egalite & fraternite'?

Yes, M.Bienvenu is the model of saintliness, but I don't think he was particularly saintly towards the dying revolutionary. M.Bienvenu thought revolutionaries were 'even beyond the law of charity'. I feel that brings him down a notch.

Everyman: The character of M. Myriel/M. Bienvenu bothers me. He is SO good that he seems an artificial caricature rather than a possible human being. I don't believe that any human being could act the way he does...

Without providing any spoilers, I would suggest that this issue will recur several times in the book. A number of characters (and situations) will be drawn at extremes. The juxtaposition of very detailed realism with highly stylized characters is something to come to terms with; I haven't yet got an explanation.

I have been struck by Hugo's ability to set a situation or character in a transparently not credible way--and then with a sentence or two break the reader's heart.

So, no opinion here on Bienvenue (note the name), but, perhaps some things to look for as we proceed.

Zeke wrote: "Everyman: The character of M. Myriel/M. Bienvenu bothers me. He is SO good that he seems an artificial caricature rather than a possible human being. I don't believe that any human being could act ..."

I agree, he's too good to be true. I was wondering if he was a satirical device.

Laurele wrote: "He is also a Christ figure, in that he redeems (buys back) the soul of Jean Valjean. I think that's more important to Hugo's story than a critique of other bishops."

Yes, that was an interesting passage. Interesting, isn't it, that Hugo considered that souls could be bought? The purchase of souls generally went the other way in literature, didn't it? Goethe's Faust was first published in 1808, and revised up to 1829, so presumably Hugo knew not only the legend but also the play. Is he countering Goethe here, pointing out that good can purchase souls as well as evil can?

Stephen wrote: "Yes, M.Bienvenu is the model of saintliness, but I don't think he was particularly saintly towards the dying revolutionary. M.Bienvenu thought revolutionaries were 'even beyond the law of charity'..."

Interesting that a revolutionary was beyond the law of charity, but a thief wasn't. I wonder how/why he (which could mean either Bienvenu or Hugo) makes that distinction.

Zeke wrote: "So, no opinion here on Bienvenue (note the name), but, perhaps some things to look for as we proceed."

Bien should mean good, but what does venu mean?

Come. Verb: venir.

Thus, welcome.

# 7 Zeke wrote: "So, no opinion here on Bienvenue (note the name), but, perhaps some things to look for as we proceed."
---------------------
# 11 Everyman replied:
Bien should mean good, but what does venu mean?
---------------------

It means welcome.

In Book 1, chapter 2, titled: Monseigneur Myriel becomes Monseigneur Bienvenu, second to last paragraph, of the Penguin edition it reads:

"It being customary for bishops to preface their pastoral letters and orders with the full list of their baptismal names, the people of the region, from instinctive affection, elected to call him by the name which for them had the most meaning, Monseigneur Bienvenu. We shall follow their example and use this name when occasion arises. In any event, it pleased him. Bienvenu- or 'welcome'. It counteracts the Monseigneur, he said."

Thanks, Zeke and AR. I had overlooked that, AR; good close reading!

Laurele wrote: He was a man redeemed. Perhaps there are not many people like him today--I've only known two, and one died in his late nineties and the other is in his nineties as well--but that does not mean there are not people who live by principal despite all.


You have it exactly right -- "he was a man redeemed." I know many "redeemed" Christians who truly live their faith like Monseigner Myriel/Bienvenu. Their whole purpose in life is to do the will of God. Material possessions mean nothing.

The question I have about the Monseigneur is slightly different. Perhaps it can't really be answered (without spoilers) until the group has read further. Still, it is not spoiling anything to say that while he plays a pivotal role in the plot, his role ends early in the book. This makes me wonder why Hugo chose to spend so much time and detail in drawing such a thorough portrait of the man's background.

Zeke wrote: "The question I have about the Monseigneur is slightly different. Perhaps it can't really be answered (without spoilers) until the group has read further. Still, it is not spoiling anything to say t..."

It does spoil the tension, Zeke. I consider a spoiler to be any information added past the point where we agreed to stop. Things like "this is a recurring theme throughout the book", "this character's role ends early in the book" - I don't want to know that until I get there. I'm reading for story as much as for anything else. If this were a university course, I could accept comments such as that, but I want my fresh read, please, to remain fresh.

I'm sorry. I apologize. I will come back to the issue later. And, if it helps, you will be surprised at what happens Peregrine. Again, my apologies. I have to figure out how to contribute appropriately to a chapter by chapter discussion of a book.

Zeke wrote: "I'm sorry. I apologize. I will come back to the issue later. And, if it helps, you will be surprised at what happens Peregrine. Again, my apologies. I have to figure out how to contribute appropria..."

Totally accepted, Zeke. :-)

I haven't read any other French lit. from this period, but the English lit. I've read seems to have set me up to see M. as an examplar, beyond what any real human could achieve, but an affecting picture of an ideal. I found him humbling and touching. Don't know if the idea of redeeming ValJean requires any ideas new to Christianity. But it would probably contradict some theological ideas of Protestant Calvinist then and today. That is, he allows Valjean to avoid the temporal consequences of his sin. Whether this will eventually be for Valjean's good or not, I can't say, since I haven't read the book before. (of course I wouldn't say even if I did know :)).

[warning, book 2 info …:]

This detailed description of M. Myriel also struck me as significant, or rather something that Hugo intended to be significant. I can’t say I have any idea why yet, but maybe it will become clearer later. After wondering about this, I started noticing the differences between which people had a descriptive treatment and which did not.

Contrast the amount of information about the “senator” that complains about Myriel in book 1 against the amount of information about Valjean’s seven nieces/nephews in book 2. We know the detailed opinions of the senator. We do not even know the names of the children (or their mother, if I recall)

I think this is a deliberate statement. Hugo is the master of naming even the most forgettable people, witness the 1817 chapter. I think he is using this to emphasize the vast difference between the classes. The poor are numerous and anonymous and forgotten. Their fortunes are so bleak that even relatives guard themselves against caring too much. Valjean went to prison for their sake, then he just forgot them.

Hugo names all the people who are important to society. He leaves the most vulnerable nameless and forgotten.

Zeke wrote: "The question I have about the Monseigneur is slightly different. Perhaps it can't really be answered (without spoilers) until the group has read further. Still, it is not spoiling anything to say that while he plays a pivotal role in the plot, his role ends early in the book. This makes me wonder why Hugo chose to spend so much time and detail in drawing such a thorough portrait of the man's background."

I understand that at least some of the abridgments cut out Book One entirely, considering the detailed study of Bienvenu to be a side note and not a central element of the book.

Everyman: I understand that at least some of the abridgments cut out Book One entirely, considering the detailed study of Bienvenu to be a side note and not a central element of the book.

That amazes--and appalls-- me. One of the things I hope we will wrestle with as we proceed is Hugo's "diversions."

Zeke wrote: " Everyman: I understand that at least some of the abridgments cut out Book One entirely, considering the detailed study of Bienvenu to be a side note and not a central element of the book.

That am..."

I found that my wife had an old abridged version from her early years, and without really looking at it I tossed in the recycling as a perversion. Now I wish I had kept it so I could see what the abridgers kept in and what they left out. But it's too late.

Maybe somebody else has an abridged version floating around their house that they haven't treated with the same violence I did, who could give us an idea from time to time how the abridgments work.

Just for amusement: I checked out the audiobook copies of LesM on audible.

The unabridged version is 66 hours 12 minutes long.

There are various abridged versions. They vary in length: 12 hours 7 min; 2 hrs 24 min; 12 hrs 25 min; 33 hrs 19 min; 5 hrs 5 min; 3hrs 25 min; 3 hrs 54 min.

So the longest abridged version is just half the full version (assuming a roughly equivalent reading pace), two are about 20% of the full version, and a bunch are about 5% of the original.

All I can say is -- Zounds!

[warning, book 2 info …:]

message 21: by Dawn

The poor are numerous and anonymous and forgotten. Their fortunes are so bleak that even relatives guard themselves against caring too much. Valjean went to prison for their sake, then he just forgot them.

Hugo names all the people who are important to society. He leaves the most vulnerable nameless and forgotten.

---------------------------------------------

Good insight, Dawn. I didn't catch that the wife and children aren't named. When they said he forgot them. I thought it was a coping mechanism. If he thought of their plight, he might go insane.

I would note, since some have mentioned Christianity, that some think naming something also gives power and significance to the thing named and to the person who has the power to name. Note the naming of things in the bible as well as the long lineages named.

In post # 4 by Laurele it is noted that "He is also a Christ figure, in that he redeems (buys back) the soul of Jean Valjean."

Valjean soul was bought back with silver. I am probably out on a limb here, but Christ was betrayed for a few pieces of silver. I'm not sure if that fits, but it came to my mind.

Everyman wrote: "Laurele wrote: "He is also a Christ figure, in that he redeems (buys back) the soul of Jean Valjean. I think that's more important to Hugo's story than a critique of other bishops."

Yes, that was ..."

Isn't this also a Christian concept --- that Christ died on the cross to redeem mankind? If Myriel is the Christ figure in this story, that is exactly what he is wont to do.

spoilers for book 1-3 Fantine

When I read I usually underline quotes, well turned phrases, maxims or sentiments that speak to me or make me think. There were quite a few that I underlined in these few chapters that still ring true today. I thought I would share a few that I liked. I think this also speaks to good translation job done by Norman Denny

- What is reported of men, whether it be true or false, may play as large a part in their lives and above all in their destiny, as the things they do."

- ...where there are plenty of tongues that gossip and few minds that think.

- Since there is always more misery in the depths than compassion in the heights

- We must never fear robber or murderers. They are dangers from outside, small dangers. It is ourselves we have to fear. Prejudice is the real robber, and vice the real murderer. Why should we be trouble by a threat to our person or our pocket? What we have to beware of is the threat to our souls.

-success is an ugly thing. Men are deceived by its false resemblances to merit.

- ...the sour convict -chuckle that is like the laughter of demons.

- A man may leave prison but he is still condemned.

-...like Dante at the gate of hell, have expunged form that life the word which God's finger writes on the brow of every man, the word Hope.

Everyman wrote: "Stephen wrote: "Yes, M.Bienvenu is the model of saintliness, but I don't think he was particularly saintly towards the dying revolutionary. M.Bienvenu thought revolutionaries were 'even beyond the..."

From Chapter X, Book I :

"What is it that you have come to ask of me?"

"Your blessing," said the Bishop.

And he knelt down.

When the Bishop raised his head again, the face of the conventionary had become august. He had just expired.

The Bishop returned home, deeply absorbed in thoughts which cannot be known to us. He passed the whole night in prayer. On the following morning some bold and curious persons attempted to speak to him about member of the Convention G----; he contented himself with pointing heavenward."

I thought that Myriel was initially appalled at the thought of having to minister to such an ungodly man, but then changed his mind after hearing the man's justification of his acts in the revolution. He ended up respecting the man's integrity, and even knelt before him to ask for his blessing. Afterward, he believes that the revolutionary's soul is in heaven. He clearly doesn't think that the revolutionary is beyond redemption.

Or am I missing something here?

spoiler book 2

I thought the questions raised in this section are relevant today as they were then. And there is still much debate on the topic.

Section VII- The inwardness of despair

Nature of Nurture?

"...society as a whole had done him nothing but injury. He has seen nothing of it but the sour face which it calls justice and shows only to those it castigates. Men had touched him only to hurt him; his only contact with them had been though blows. From the time of his childhood, and except for his mother and sister, he had never encountered a friendly word or kindly look.

Hugo asks:
- Can human nature be ever wholly and radically transformed?

- Can the man whom God made good be made wicked by man?

- Can the soul be reshaped in its entirety by destiny and made evil because destiny is evil?

- Can the heart become misshapen and afflicted with ugly, incurable deformities under disproportionate misfortune?

-Is there not in every human soul...and essential spark, and element of the divine, indestructible in this world and immortal in the next, which goodness can preserve, nourish and fan into glorious flame, and which evil can ever quite extinguish?

**** From Chapter X, Book I


Sandybanks wrote: ...I thought that Myriel was initially appalled at the thought of having to minister to such an ungodly man, but then changed his mind after hearing the man's justification of his acts in the revolution. He ended up respecting the man's integrity, and even knelt before him to ask for his blessing. Afterward, he believes that the revolutionary's soul is in heaven. He clearly doesn't think that the revolutionary is beyond redemption.

Or am I missing something here?

"
========================

That is how I read it, too. The Bishop was changed by the experience. It says "thereafter his tenderness and solicitude for the defenseless and suffering were doubled."

Alias Reader wrote: "When I read I usually underline quotes, well turned phrases, maxims or sentiments that speak to me or make me think. There were quite a few that I underlined in these few chapters that still ring true today. I thought I would share a few that I liked.."

I also found a great many almost throw-away comments slipped into the text which really struck me. I like the ones you picked out.

Hugo seems to me to do this more than most other writers of my experience. I had intended -- still do intend -- when I get some free minutes to collect some of the ones I marked and particularly liked and will add them to your collection.

Sandybanks wrote: "I thought that Myriel was initially appalled at the thought of having to minister to such an ungodly man, but then changed his mind after hearing the man's justification of his acts in the revolution. He ended up respecting the man's integrity, and even knelt before him to ask for his blessing. Afterward, he believes that the revolutionary's soul is in heaven. He clearly doesn't think that the revolutionary is beyond redemption.

Or am I missing something here?"

Far from thinking you're missing something, I think you're on to something. I'm not sure I would have said that he was appalled at the thought of ministering to the revolutionary; I think he was too saintly for that, though I do agree that he didn't expect to find what he did find. And I think it was a transforming experience for him as well as for the revolutionary.

book 1 chapter X

#32- Everyman: I'm not sure I would have said that he was appalled at the thought of ministering to the revolutionary
=====================

I wonder if different translations give this a different slant. Mine seems to agree with Sandybanks. The Penguin Denny translations reads

"the former revolutionary inspired in him the kind of repugnance, bordering on hatred.."

Alias Reader wrote: "book 1 chapter X

#32- Everyman: I'm not sure I would have said that he was appalled at the thought of ministering to the revolutionary
=====================

I wonder if different translatio..."

My version reads

...the conventionist inspired him, he knew not how, with that sentiment which is the fringe of hatred, and which the word 'aversion' so well expresses."

Everyman wrote: "Sandybanks wrote: "I thought that Myriel was initially appalled at the thought of having to minister to such an ungodly man, but then changed his mind after hearing the man's justification of his a..."

Myriel was a privileged individual in the Ancien Regime, and he and his family lost everything because of the revolution. The revolution was also anti-clerical and thus is an anathema to his deeply held beliefs as a Catholic priest. So I think that it is very reasonable that he could hate such a man, who in his mind is an enemy of both people like him and the church. However, after hearing the man's justification, he realizes that the revolution's ideals are similar to his own, though he still does not agree with its violent means.

He is also astonished that a person whom he thought is an atheist is capable of spirituality, though different from his own.

From Chap. 10, Book I :

"What think you of Bossuet chanting the Te Deum over the dragonnades?"

The retort was a harsh one, but it attained its mark with the directness of a point of steel. The Bishop quivered under it; no reply occurred to him; but he was offended by this mode of alluding to Bossuet. The best of minds will have their fetiches, and they sometimes feel vaguely wounded by the want of respect of logic."

I think that Hugo is showing that Myriel is not perfect after all, not because he thinks that the revolutionary is irredeemable, but because he still clings to his prejudices ('fetiches'), and perhaps a certain amount of bourgeoisie pride as well.

Sandybanks... I thought that Myriel was initially appalled at the thought of having to minister to such an ungodly man, but then changed his mind after hearing the man's justification of his acts in the revolution. He ended up respecting the man's integrity, and even knelt before him to ask for his blessing. Afterward, he believes that the revolutionary's soul is in heaven. He clearly doesn't think that the revolutionary is beyond redemption.

Or am I missing something here?


Yes, I agree, I'm probably being way too harsh on the bishop, but I thought the fact that he had prejudged the man based on his politics made him an iota less of a saint.

Likewise, the revolutionary had preformed judgements about the bishop too, by assuming he lived lavishly.

His perspective towards the revolutionary man definitely changed after talking too him though.

Sandybanks wrote: Also, Myriel is a royalist who can barely tolerate Napoleon (although he is not beyond receiving appointments and preferments from him for practical reasons). I thought that given his empathy to the poor, he would be more sympathetic to 'liberte, egalite & fraternite'?"


I very much relate to these sentiments. I didn’t realize that M. Myriel was such a true patriot of the monarchy until I reached the part where he encounters the revolutionary. It came across to me as very contradictory to the portrait of M. Myriel that had previously been painted in my mind. This interaction seems to expose the fact that while he loves all, he does not view all equally. He seems to concur with the idea that the children of kings hold more value than the children of common people. How can such a contradiction of philosophy occur in a person so opposed to materialism and earthly status?

This is my first time reading Les Miserables, and I’m grasping to discover the direction the novel is going. I don’t know if I’m way off here, but it seems there is some foreshadowing going on (at the end of chapter IV of book I) when M. Myriel becomes deeply affected after witnessing the execution of the prisoner that he had counseled through the night.

Hugo writes: “The violent calm of the fatal moment had disappeared; the phantom of social justice took possession of him. He, who ordinarily looked back on all his actions with such radiant satisfaction, now seemed to be filled with self-reproach.”

(Social justice is the key word that grabs me.)

M. Myriel seems to experience the same kind of affliction when he finds that he agrees with many of the sentiments that the revolutionary expresses. The reason these two scenarios seem like foreshadowing to me is because M. Myriel generally seems to be consistent, content, and generally at ease with himself, but he appears to experience serious doubt and turmoil after both of these encounters.

These two particular experiences may suggest a possible transition from the act of love, sympathy, and charity to an attempt to make revolutionary social change happen. I may be reaching here, but I can’t help but make speculations as I read. Has anyone made these kinds of connections (or possibly major speculations) too?

I'm going to try to comment on the book but I don't feel that I have anything worthwhile to say, my words aren't elloquent and I haven't checked for spelling mistakes.

This is my second reading. I find it interesting that when I was quite a bit younger and read this book I had great sympathy for Jean Valjean and felt somewhat of a contempt for society that would allow a family to go hungry. However, the first thought that I had upon reading this time was, "why couldn't he just ask for help?" It seems to me that shoving your hand through a glass window for a loaf of bread is something of overkill. Why did he do it at night when he knew he would be punished more severely? It almost makes me wonder if he was tired of being the sole provider for this unfortunate family and may have unconsciously wanted some means of escape. I am sure he didn't realize the true consequences and that he would be in jail for that long. And why did he keep trying to escape from jail only to add more time to his sentence? It reminds me of criminals that go to jail and get out only to return because they feel more at home in jail than in society.

It reminds me of a boy I know who has had a problem with stealing since he was quite young and garnered up quite a record for juvenile delinquency before he turned 18. Then when he turned 18 the slate was wiped clean and what did he do but go out and steal a bunch of stuff from Wal Mart and get put in jail with a new record as an adult. Could Jean Valjean have been acting out some sort of role that was expected from him in society? This boy I know is the scapegoat of the family and it doesn't matter what he does he gets in trouble anyway. Was Jean ValJean some sort of scapegoat?

Everyman wrote: "Here we go!

Remember, if you've read beyond the end of Book 3, no spoilers, please. But anything in the first three books is fair game, so if you haven't finished those books yet you have to ..."

Why does Forrest Gump keep popping into my head head when I read about this Bishop?

Dianna wrote: "I'm going to try to comment on the book but I don't feel that I have anything worthwhile to say, my words aren't elloquent and I haven't checked for spelling mistakes.

This is my second reading...."

Dianna, your insight as someone who has read the book before is very interesting. I feel sympathy for Valjean, but yes, why didn't Valjean just ask for help? Surely there were goverment or church-run charities that could help. Was the law so harsh that someone could be jailed 5 years for stealing a loaf of bread? My thinking is that this happened in circa 1789, in the midst of the French Revolution, when normal life was so disrupted. 'Normal' laws were disregarded. The providers of charity (the Bourbon goverment and the Catholic church) were in total disarray. I'm not an expert on this era, but perhaps the terrible condition at that time forced Valjean to steal. He had no choice.

As to why he repeatedly tried to escape from jail --- I suppose that after so long and harsh an incarceration, he was not able to think rationally anymore. He just had to escape and didn't care for the consequences.

Jennifer wrote: "Sandybanks wrote: Also, Myriel is a royalist who can barely tolerate Napoleon (although he is not beyond receiving appointments and preferments from him for practical reasons). I thought that given..."

Myriel is not so saintly after all.

According to Hugo's bio on Wikipedia, Hugo was critical of the Catholic church, and Les Mis was often cited as an offensive book by the Vatican during his lifetime. I wonder what Hugo was really trying to say about Catholicism through Myriel. I suppose that he held Myriel's boundless charity as something exemplary, but also revealed that such a seemingly saintly man is still prone to prejudices and pride like other people.

Depends on one's definition of saintly perhaps? In the Catholic sense of worthy of canonization, I personally don't think anybody is. But in the Protestant view of "saint" as one in the process of becoming sanctified through God's guiding grace, surely M. is an ideal example? Maybe I'm going way overboard with the theology here. Sorry, we all have our lenses! But I wonder if the "anti-Catholic" element could be M's contrast to his fellow priests?

I've been traveling all day and, having just reached my destination for the evening, was interested to see such lively discussion about the meeting between Bishop Myriel and the conventioner G. I thought this was the key interaction in the first section and, perhaps, the reason Hugo went to such lengths to paint a detailed portrait of the priest.

Jennifer's comment made me realize that Myriel is not the protagonist in the conversation. Indeed, the conventioner gives him (and us) quite an education.

There is an interesting footnote in my edition that sheds some light on this. It says that there were two archetypes in the late 18th century French church. The "philosopher bishop," an aristocratic prelate who flouted his vows of poverty, chastity and was widely known for his wit, his gambling and his womanizing. Talleyrand epitomizes this archetype. (Obviously Myriel does not.)

However, the counter archetype is the "patriot priest," committed to both Church and Republic. An exemplar of this type was the abbe Henri Gregoire (1750-1831) who also defended the rights of Protestants and Jews as well as championing abolition of slavery and the slave trade. Gregoire, a sincere believer, was, in fact, a conventioner and was absent on the day of the vote sentencing Louis XVI. It is speculated that he is the model for the character in the book.

I fear I have to disagree with those who feel Jean Valjean could have/should have asked for help. I think they may be assuming that twentieth century standards applied in an early 19th century country that had been through lots of turmoil. While Napoleon ushered in many governmental reforms, a welfare system as we know it was not one of them. And, as the many comments about Myriel's uniqueness show, the Catholic Church certainly wasn't practicing "social gospel" at that time.

Indeed, I think one of Hugo's main points is that society always grinds some people down and dehumanizes them in the process. I think that is why --if I read him correctly--he is an advocate not for the 1789 Revolution alone, but for an almost perpetual revolution.

My second point above is purely speculative at this point and I doubt I could defend it. But I feel pretty certain of my first contention.

Zeke wrote: "I fear I have to disagree with those who feel Jean Valjean could have/should have asked for help. I think they may be assuming that twentieth century standards applied in an early 19th century coun..."

I agree with your first point here, Zeke. Also, people were afraid of the poor and held them in disdain, so it would be hard to find ordinary people to help them. I think he would have been able to get some help at a church, but evidently not in his town.

I've enjoyed reading about Myriel/Bienvenu but I have just begun to scratch the surface. I didn't think he treated the revolutionary badly, there was a different outlook, a difference of opinion (not between us here) but between the priest and the revolutionary, but then, wouldn't there be? Also, just a sidebar - bienvenu is similar to the Spanish word "bienvenidos" and means welcome. Ah, the Romance languages...

Dianna wrote: "And why did he keep trying to escape from jail only to add more time to his sentence? ...."

I also pondered Valjean’s reason for his escape attempts and I was particularly taken by the overboard sailor metaphor in book 2, Chapter VIII. It describes Valjean’s struggles to grasp at any kind of moral foothold and the desperation that finally turns him into a mindless animal, acting only on instinct.

Initially I thought this was metaphor inappropriate, thinking Valjean’s capacity for rational thought should have kept him from sinking into such a state. But then, what becomes of rational thought when no kindness is ever seen and all hope is lost?

"Oh, implacable march of human societies!
Oh, losses of men and of souls on the way!
Ocean into which falls all that the law lets slip!
Disastrous absence of help! Oh, moral death!”

Dianna wrote: "I'm going to try to comment on the book but I don't feel that I have anything worthwhile to say, my words aren't elloquent and I haven't checked for spelling mistakes."

As far as I'm concerned, you were wrong on the first two counts. You did have something valuable to say, and you said it well. And I only found one spelling error; I hope I do as well.

Let's hear more from you!

Zeke wrote: "I've been traveling all day and, having just reached my destination for the evening, was interested to see such lively discussion about the meeting between Bishop Myriel and the conventioner G. I t..."

"However, the counter archetype is the "patriot priest," committed to both Church and Republic. An exemplar of this type was the abbe Henri Gregoire (1750-1831) who also defended the rights of Protestants and Jews as well as championing abolition of slavery and the slave trade. Gregoire, a sincere believer, was, in fact, a conventioner and was absent on the day of the vote sentencing Louis XVI. It is speculated that he is the model for the character in the book. "

It's very interesting to learn that there were Catholic clergy in the ranks of the revolutionaries. I didn't know that. Thanks for posting the info, Zeke.

However, Myriel is a staunch royalist who abhors the conventioner and the French Revolution in general, so he couldn't have been based on Abbe Gregoire.
He seems to be a combination of the two types cited in your quote : liberal in charity, but conservative (in the sense of being a royalist) in his politics.

Meeting the conventioner is a watershed moment for him.