les_miserables | In Defense of the Necessity of Enjolras's Death

A little piece of meta on the necessity of Enjolras's death under the cut.

I don't think I can agree with the positioning of Enjolras within a Hugolian narrative of redemption, or indeed within any narrative form in which he survives, for several reasons.

Enjolras does not die for his sins. He does not throw himself in the way of a bullet from any sense of suicidal impulse, any grand and noble gesture of elimination. He dies within Les Miserables as the inevitable result of a sequence of events that he has always understood to end in his death. He acknowledges this before he is at risk of dying, before he knows of the failure, because Enjolras is fighting for a world that has no need of him.

Enjolras is a figure out of classical legend- the language used to describe him is precisely the language that clothes and encompasses specific heroes and the movements those heroes were part of, but along with that inevitably comes the same structure and same placement of Enjolras in those overarching narratives as those heroes. Achilles is aware of his fate, aware of what he sacrifices in attainment of his specific goal (immortality of name) in precisely the same way as Enjolras accepts that the inevitable result of the world he wants is the elimination of himself. This doesn’t manifest just on a conscious decision-making level, but in the fabric of the story that Hugo tells. It’s Oedipus aware of his fate, whose every step leads him closer to his inevitable doom, who cannot escape the path that has been set. Enjolras is in the same groove, only unlike Oedipus he has chosen it.

However we’re not discussing the way he did die, we’re discussing worlds in which he could have survived and still retained a sense of being Enjolras and I don’t think it’s possible to create one- not with the Enjolras we’re given in Les Mis, as opposed to the softened and consistently more variably idealistic and naive presentation of Enjolras that seems to be a popular figure. The Enjolras of Les Mis is Achilles, he’s the distilled representation of the idealised Harmodius and Aristogeiton (those who had died in the pursuit of democracy, as Hugo would have known them) there is no space, nowhere for him to exist in a post-Barricade world.

If he survives the Barricade as is, what does he have? A world changed by revolution and moving slowly into the dream Enjolras had for it? No, he’s left with his ideals broken completely, his faith gone beyond restoration, with blood on his hands and the patent helpless knowledge that he has failed, that everything he has done is less than nothing. That his comrades have died and that he remains, the impotent and nerveless man who did not give of himself to the last drop, did not fight with everything he had, and with the slow painful spectacle of the world still in the same cart tracks.

There are two other ways he can survive. In one the Barricade succeeds. But Enjolras has already laid out his own, constant and unchanging belief that he does not belong in that world. To change that result, that belief is to deny Enjolras the thoughts, the beliefs that drove him to attempt revolution. It’s to change a basic part of his character, his motivation and to deny what has brought him to this point.

In the third way, the Barricade never happens. Something goes wrong, the plans are upset, Lamarque’s death passes without note. But that is not the turning point of Enjolras’s attempt. Regardless of missed opportunity, he will press on. There will be other occasions, he will pick another time for revolt. It always ends there. On the barricade, death dealt by his hands, and received in the end. The merchant meets Death in Samarra try as he might to avoid him. Oedipus marries his mother. Achilles dies. Enjolras fights to his last breath in the knowledge that win or lose, this is where he ends.

While it’s fair to say that Les Mis itself is pretty big on the theme of redemption, of the possibility of hope and happiness, it’s also rather big on self determination. Enjolras living is not redemption. It is not hope or happiness, it’s a diminishment of his goals, of the life he has sought to lead, of the visions he has hoped to become real. Hugo understood that Enjolras must die, and in the moment of his death he gives him understanding, he gives him a death that he would have wished for (a man chooses to die with him), rather than life that would destroy him more thoroughly than any bullet ever could.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

primeideal

Hey! Sorry in advance if I look dumb, I haven't really been involved in the previous conversations, but I'd be curious if anyone could spell out more of the causal mechanism involved in part 2. Is Enjolras' belief that he doesn't belong in a post-barricade-success world something he has even before the fighting breaks out? Does he feel unworthy because of what happens with Cabuc? Is it the failure of other Parisians to show up that makes him realize he's not like them? Are we supposed to understand that "1832"="pretty minor revolution"="never could have affected much change in the grand scheme of things?" Am I missing something else entirely?

Thanks for writing this up! :)

From:

genarti

Oh interesting meta!

And, hmm. I'd say we have two distinct questions here that it's useful to separate out. One is the narrative necessity of the death of the character Enjolras, and the other is the emotional necessity of the death of Enjolras as a person within his own story. The authorial perspective and the character perspective, in other words.

(And here is where I tl;dr, but what else is this comm for?)

Authorially, I think it's entirely valid to say that Enjolras needs to die to fit the story. He's a symbolic incarnation of violent revolution, of the transformative apocalypse that transfigures the world -- and, if the world you're creating is one in which violent revolution has no place and no necessity, then the substance of that violence needs to either transform itself or die in creating the new world. And Hugo has told us that there's only so much Enjolras is capable of changing; he's been influenced, he has changed, but he's also an absolute. It's not that Enjolras isn't capable of surviving any given riot or insurrection -- he lived through 1830, after all, and presumably fought in it, even if Hugo likes keeping the entire July Revolution tidily off the page -- but I don't think he's narratively capable of surviving the book. And the failed insurrection of June 1832 is the only one that's onscreen, so it's the one he has to die in.

In terms of the character perspective, it gets muddier. On this level, ways in which Enjolras is described in the language of classical heroes can't matter, except as clues to his underlying personality, because the language of his descriptions and symbolism is a matter for the narrative; here, we're talking about his personality.

It's clear, I think, that Enjolras is prepared to die. He may even expect it -- not 100%, since there's no reason early on to think that the insurrection is going to fail, but I find it plausible that Enjolras kind of expects to die violently one way or another. He's devoted his life to very risky goals and methods, after all, and this is a time when engaging in politics affects your life expectancy. And for all his genuinely meant arguments about how the Republic doesn't need 30 lives when 20 are enough, and that others should go home, there's never any question that Enjolras will be one of the people staying if anyone is. That'd be true even without Le Cabuc, I think, although it's certainly cemented after that. But is it necessary for him?

I don't think so. Not entirely.

Part of my reasoning here is 1830. That was a revolution that sort of succeeded, in that it deposed the king -- and sort of failed, in that it was immediately co-opted by bourgeoisie politicians who put up another king in his place, and some reforms that were almost immediately whittled away at, and so forth. Since we first meet the Amis in 1828, there's no reason to think Enjolras wasn't on those barricades too. He survived the first flush of success, and he survived the following disappointment, and he fought on with his convictions unwavering.

The other part of my reasoning is that Enjolras believes in his goals, not in personal glory. We're not told that his greatest ideal and joy is to die on a barricade. His greatest ideal and joy is to bring about a republic. If dying is the way he can be most useful to establishing that brighter future, he'll die gladly and regard it an honor, but otherwise he's going to live to fight for it. France gets all of him, death and life both.

So, for your scenarios:

1) The June rebellion goes down as in canon, except Enjolras (alone?) survives. Yeah, that'd be hard as hell. To live on, and his comrades dead? I absolutely think he'd throw himself into the fight again. Maybe that would mean joining with one of the other societies, if he's free; if he's in jail, well, that was its own kind of revolutionary society at the time, as I understand it, and Enjolras would be the kind to make his trial an opportunity for stirring republican oratory, to make himself a loud voice and an example in whatever way he can. And if that meant the death sentence, or harsh suffering in prison, well, we know he's willing to be a martyr. If he lives -- then it's as a sadder man, heartbroken, grieving, but I don't think his ideals would be broken. I don't think they can be. Enjolras's convictions don't waver. And he did fight with everything he had; if that ends with him overpowered by the National Guard rather than executed by them, he still fought to that point.

2) The June revolution succeeds.

In that instance, we come down to figuring out what Enjolras meant by "to what I have sentenced myself" in the Le Cabuc scene. Personally, I hold with those who were positing (on tumblr a while back; I can try to dig up links to the meta if you want) that this doesn't necessarily mean death, but it does mean a trial.

Enjolras executed a man -- killed him, without trial or appeal or jury. He doesn't get to absolve himself of that. He's very firm about that, and correctly so. Maybe nothing can morally absolve him of it, but the republic and the people can say to him either "yes, you killed a man, and you've earned death for it," or "yes, you killed a man, but France needs your life more than your death." Enjolras would, I think, accept either. The thing is that it can't be him making that judgment call. It has to be a legal system that holds every citizen, every human life, to the same moral and legal standard. (If it's an unjust legal system instead, we come back to #1's hypothetical trial of defiant republican oratory.)

Now, what role would Enjolras have in a new republic? I don't know. It depends a lot on how things settled out. There's a transition, after all, between the revolution and the utopian end -- and that's even assuming that a utopian end is possible. (I don't really think it is, but both Hugo and Enjolras seem to have thought so; the twentieth century will be happy, and all that. We'll assume it for the sake of this hypothetical, anyway.) Maybe he'd keep fighting against the smaller injustices, in a quieter way. Maybe he'd be one of the people trying to defend France's national borders against whatever threat came up against them -- and there would be wars, based on all examples of history. Maybe he'd fade into the background as things went well, knowing that his role was unneeded now and he wasn't suited for any other, and let people like Combeferre and Feuilly take more active roles. There are a lot of possibilities. And yeah, the most utopian of them leave Enjolras sort of at loose ends, trying to figure out his place in a world that doesn't need him, and there's a tragedy in that. But I don't think that, from an in-character standpoint, his death would seem necessary to him if the voice of a French republic told him it wasn't.

3) The June 1832 rebellion never happens, or Enjolras and the other Amis are somehow prevented from participating. (They all get cholera and later recover, or something?) Then, yeah, you're right that it would be the next insurrection instead. Maybe he'd die then, maybe he wouldn't; maybe his friends would, maybe they wouldn't. Narratively, we come back to the same question of Enjolras's symbolism, but in-character it all depends on a bunch of variables, whether he'd live or not and how.

From:

bobbiewickham

I agree with all of this, and would add my own tl;dr:

1. Enjolras doesn't think he will inevitably die before he executes Le Cabuc. In fact, that would take away the power of the Le Cabuc scene: if he was doomed all along, then his self-condemnation is redundant. And the scene would take on an entirely different meaning. Instead of "I have done this terrible thing and will accept any penalty for it," it becomes, "I am destined for the ultimate penalty anyway, so I can do all the terrible things I want."

He condemns himself for Le Cabuc's execution specifically, not because he's generally a violent revolutionary. Everyone at the barricade is a violent revolutionary who's going to kill people (and probably has done so already, because at least some of them must have been involved in the 1830 revolution). But Enjolras's execution of Le Cabuc is particularly awful because it's an execution, not "just" a killing, and because it was Enjolras and Enjolras alone who tried, sentenced and executed Le Cabuc. That is why he condemns himself.

The execution itself wasn't inevitable, either. It was contingent on several external circumstances coming together, starting with Le Cabuc (or someone like him) being assigned as agent provocateur to that particular group of rebels.

Now, after he kills Le Cabuc, I think Enjolras has to believe he must die, and that he is unfit for peaceful society. Not that we must agree, necessarily--this belief is itself a rigid absolute, very characteristic of him, but not necessarily the best way to think all the time. But he has to believe it, for the integrity of his character, and because it serves as a check on his other absolutes. As you said, though, this has to mean a trial in a post-revolution world, because otherwise he's just compounding his initial crime of unilaterally condemning and executing someone, even if it's himself.

2. Hugo alludes to classical doomed tragic heroes when he discusses Enjolras, but those are just some of the allusions surrounding the character. There are also allusions to historical people who, though they mostly didn't die of natural causes, were human beings whose fates relied on many variables, and who were not inevitably tragic heroes of legend. For instance, he's associated with Gracchus, Robespierre, Saint-Just, and George Washington, all from history. The Amis are first introduced to us as a group that "almost became historic." That sense of "almost"--of possibility--is, IMO, an important part of their characters and symbolism. And Hugo elaborates on this "almost historic" element for Enjolras and Combeferre in particular, which he does for no other Amis. He tells us what Enjolras would have done if he had "attained to history"--i.e., if their revolution had succeeded. The narrator says that, if they had attained to history, Enjolras would have been "le juste" (the right, the equitable, the just) and Combeferre would have been "le sage" (the wise).

That "if they had attained to history" is probably the major reason why I can't agree with the assumption that Enjolras must die during the revolution no matter what, and could have no role afterwards. I think that "if" implies a role. You might argue that Enjolras's role as "le juste" could refer to him becoming famous for fighting and dying in a successful revolutionary battle, and "attaining to history" in that way. But I can't see it that way, because "juste" implies moral rightness and, as the barricade sequence hammers home, war isn't right even when it's necessary. "Juste" implies something other than harsh battlefield glory. The Bishop of Digne advises people to be "justes," and is himself described as "juste." So I think that part implies that Enjolras would have had a role after the revolution succeeded.

What might that role have been? Well, I think the Washington allusion, while definitely NOT an exact equivalence (none of the historical references are), is suggestive here. Maybe more so than the Saint-Just or Robespierre references, because I don't think the famous actions of those two could be described as "juste" within the moral context of Les Mis. We are pointedly told that G., the old conventionary, didn't vote to execute the king. He didn't consider himself to have the right to execute another human being, and that's part of why he gets to have all this moral authority.

But the Washington allusion is interesting and oddly overlooked in a heavily American fandom. Maybe because Washington's image is very fluffy and benign and fatherly, and Enjolras isn't any of those things (not that Washington was fluffy, being among other things a revolutionary general who authorized summary executions of deserters and marauders in his ranks, but his present-day image is pretty fluffy). Or maybe because the Washington association comes up by juxtaposition in Combeferre's introduction, and not in Enjolras's own. I think the reference is worth paying attention to for these purposes because Washington survived his revolution (for that matter, Robespierre and Saint-Just also survived the initial 'overthrow' part of the revolution), and went on to become famous worldwide for his strict adherence to principle.

Of course, Enjolras isn't going to be President of France (hahahahaha no). IMO, the Washington reference is just meant to evoke certain images and concepts. Washington was most revered worldwide for setting important republican precedents by phasing himself out of political power and declining the powers and grandiose honors that many people wanted to give to such a renowned general. I think the Washington comparison, combined with the part about an attained-to-history Enjolras being "le juste," implies that a post-revolution Enjolras might be among those insisting on phasing the popular revolutionaries out of government (i.e., phasing out people like him), fighting any dangerous monarchical or dictatorial precedents, being severely scrupulous about everything even when it seems unrealistic or inconvenient, etc.

...which is another likely way that Enjolras could get himself killed, either by assassination or by execution in a time of political turmoil. Like Robespierre, Saint-Just and Gracchus. I do think that, even if Louis-Philippe were successfully overthrown in 1832 and Enjolras survived into the aftermath, he would not die in his bed of old age.

From:

genarti

How did I never even notice the Washington comparison before? That's an excellent point!

It occurs to me that I was kind of conflating two questions too, in the section about narrative necessity. There's the utopian hypothetical happy future, and then there's the actual realistic result of a successful revolution.

I do believe that Enjolras has no place in the hypothetical happy future where violent revolution is no longer warranted, where the night of tyranny and despotism has passed, where there are no kings and all men are brothers etc etc. (Whether this future is humanly possible is another question entirely, but it's the one Hugo keeps arguing with himself about and the one that at least some of the Amis believe in -- not as the immediate result of a successful insurrection, but as the end goal.) As a person, I don't know whether he fully believes that he has no place in it until the Le Cabuc scene, but as a character I think he's too much the incarnation of bloody revolution to have a role in the world where revolution is an outdated concept.

But neither Hugo nor any of the Amis is arguing that winning this revolution and getting a republic again is going to instantly lead to a utopia. (They would have to be exceedingly ignorant and naive to believe anything of the sort, given the historical precedent, and none of them are.) Winning this fight, in the absolute best-case scenario where the transition to a democratic republic goes as smoothly as humanly possible, still entails a whole lot of complicated messy politics. There's mopping-up and constitution-rewriting and electing people and arresting other people, and making sure everybody's legally tried instead of getting killed by a mob or by fiat, and keeping a sharp eye out for signs of anyone trying to co-opt the government or roll back reforms or start a counter-revolutionary coup -- and all that without neglecting the harvest or the budget or getting invaded by England/Prussia/Russia/etc. And there's no reason whatsoever that Enjolras wouldn't expect to have a role in that, before the Le Cabuc scene (or after, if he were pardoned by someone else), and there's no narrative reason that his character couldn't do so. Except, of course, that Hugo wanted most of his cast to die, and that Hugo set this story in 1832 when the historical revolt did fail. But if Enjolras has to die before the glorious (but hypothetical) 20th century of peaceful equality can come about, there's nothing inherent in his character or his narrative comparisons that says he has to die before his country has another go at cobbling together a republic of flawed humans groping towards that eventual illuminated future.

From:

baeckahaesten.livejournal.com

Genuine thoughtful question! What do we do with a hypothetical February 1848 AU, including the April elections which marginalised the Left and the June Days? I both...agree and don't agree about the complications post-Revolution - the Amis *aren't* naive, but at the same time the nature of the complications that did arise in '48 were not the same as those of the French Revolution, and certainly shocked Republicans at the time. Hugo himself writes with deep conflictedness about it, "a revolt of the people against itself"

"This is one of those rare moments when, while doing that which it is one's duty to do, one feels something which disconcerts one, and which would dissuade one from proceeding further; one persists, it is necessary, but conscience, though satisfied, is sad, and the accomplishment of duty is complicated with a pain at the heart."

Especially with Hugo's framing of events via two June barricades, I think there is a certain sadness to the political goals of 1832 - once universal suffrage is established, once there's a Republic, then surely everyone's interest will be represented? it's a difficulty that no one really foresaw.

I agree that there would be so much more work to do - and, hey, living in a modern democracy - "thinkers entirely at liberty, believers on terms of full equality...no more hatreds, the fraternity of the workshop and the school, for sole penalty and recompense fame, work for all, right for all, peace over all, no more bloodshed, no more wars, happy mothers!" - we've still got a long way to go to get to *that* Enjolraic speech! But I don't know whether or not Enjolras is someone who can operate in a world of compromise, essentially. This is a really interesting discussion!

From:

genarti

That's an excellent question, and one I honestly don't know enough about 1848 to answer with any confidence in specifics! I must sheepishly confess that I never studied much French history before getting into Les Mis, and in my brushing up for fannish purposes I've been mostly concentrating on the directly canon-era stuff. So I haven't yet branched out much into the later stuff, even the events that obviously very much influenced Hugo's own perspective on what he was writing.

I do absolutely agree that, whatever events might follow a successful insurrection that the Amis survived, they wouldn't be entirely prepared for them. Not because they're naive, but because how could they be? You can't accurately plan for that kind of thing. You can try to plan, and try to think of all the contingencies for how it's going to go down and what you'll do if you do win, but what actually materializes is a complicated messy tangle of people with individual motivations intersecting in complex ways. So whether it's an 1848 AU or any other scenario where their revolution did lead to a changed government, they're not really going to be prepared for what happens after that, and neither is anyone else. Whether that means disaster or just a lot of frantic compromising and negotiations and making the best of everything they can, it's going to be a changed paradigm for everyone involved.

So figuring out what role Enjolras, as a particularly absolute-minded person, would play is complicated too, because what compromises he'd be asked to make and whether he'd be capable of doing so are questions whose answers depend a lot on both your character interpretation and on how everything goes down. And that latter factor is a huge question. But an interesting one!

From:

bobbiewickham

Yes, I think there's a difference between what role Enjolras would have had after the revolution, and the role he would have After The Revolution, so to speak. The capitalized "After," which is a glorious utopia, probably has no role for Enjolras as he exists in canon (if we're looking at him as a person rather than as a Symbol, of course it's possible for him to change and adapt, but narratively he's a symbol). But the lower-case "after"...well, that's a different matter.