The final great crisis occurs after Cosette and Marius have married. Clearly, Valjean has done the right thing in letting go of his daughter and allowing her to grow up and marry, instead of trying to keep her all for himself. But can he at least remain a part of her life? After all, there is nothing extraordinary about continuing to be part of the life of his married daughter. Indeed, it soon becomes clear that Marius and especially Cosette want him to be part of their life. They are now living in the great house of Marius' grandfather, and there is plenty of room to allow Valjean to lodge there as well.
So why shouldn't he? Well, because he is a convict. He is no longer on the run in any meaningful sense. Javert was the only one who really cared about capturing Valjean, and Javert is now dead. Valjean, at the barricades, asked to be allowed to execute him but instead took him out of sight and fired into the air. Javert, finding that he owes his life to a convict is unable to assimilate the contradiction into his world view. He reacts like one of those computers that Captain Kirk presents with a logical paradox -- smoke starts coming out of his ears, and he self-destructs. So he will not be subjecting them to the dangers of life on the run. He has already absolved himself of being inherently evil, or of committing any serious crime in stealing a loaf of bread. And I see no evidence that he wants to stay out of their life because he was once brutalized by the system. And yet he torments himself with the thought, "Should he impose his galleys on those two dazzling children, or should he consummate his irremediable engulfment by himself? On one side lay the sacrifice of Cosette, on the other that of himself." I can only conclude that he does not want to impose himself on Cosette and Marius because of the social stigma associated with a convict. Furthermore, as it later becomes clear, Valjean cannot live without Cosette in his life, and when excluded, he crawls off into a hole and dies.
This is, indeed, a severe excess of humility. It is, after all, one thing to blame one's self for being brutalized by the system, to consider one's self never really worthy because of what one once became. But it quite another to consider one's self utterly unworthy to be part of other people's lives, and to insist on going off and dying of a broken heart instead. It is the sort of groveling self abasement that makes me want to retch, or at least to throw the book on the ground and stomp on it.
But still, if Jean Valjean merely wanted to grovel in self-abasement, he would wrong only himself, that that would be annoying, but forgivable. He does more than that. In considering himself so unworthy that he must go off and die rather than soil the innocent with his presence, Valjean also subverts his author's intentions. After all, Les Miserables is meant as a clear statement that the judgments of society, and the criminal justice system, are often unjust, that its severity needlessly brutalizes men who are not evil by nature, and, in short, that one should not unthinkingly condemn a convict without looking behind society's judgments to see the fuller truth. Still, fictional characters are not always as obedient as their authors might wish. Having a character develop a will of its own and do things the author didn't intend (or refuse to do things the author wants) is is one of the risks any fiction writer takes. So any wrong he does his author is also forgivable.
What I cannot forgive is the wrong he does Marius and Cosette. Let us start with Marius. The day after the wedding, he visits their house and speaks to Marius in Cosette's absence. In order to create an illusion of choice, he gives Marius a very incomplete account of his past. He gives his true name, his background as a peasant, that he brought Cosette up but is not related to her, and that he is a convict, who served 19 years and is currently on the run. Marius recoils from him in horror. He promises not to tell Cosette, but says it would be "better" if Valjean never saw her again. When Valjean cannot bear such a sentence, Marius partly relents and allows him to visit. But he takes action to discourage the visit, like putting out the fire, or removing the chairs. Valjean, proving once again that he is not the sort of saint who never lies, accepts responsibility to Cosette. This time his lie does not make us like him. He also manipulates her into being away when Valjean calls. Eventually the visits stop. Jean Valjean is broken hearted.
Furthermore, Jean Valjean also denies Marius sufficient information to make an informed decision. There are some things I can understand him withholding. He may not want to tell Cosette directly about his past. He may also want to keep secret the truth about Cosette's and her mother's past. He may not want Cosette and Marius to know that if they reject him he will crawl off into a hole and die. He may fear that they would act out of guilt and not want to inflict it upon them. All of that is understandable. Furthermore, Marius very much wants to know who saved his life at the barricades. Jean Valjean doesn't tell him because he does not want to create an obligation to him. Again, this is understandable. But if he wants Marius to be able to make an informed decision, he should at least tell him everything that does not involve the young couple personally. After all, as Hugo acknowledges, Marius is wrong in automatically condemning Valjean for being a convict:
Marius, on penal questions, still held to the inexorable system, though he was a democrat and he entertained all the ideas of the law on the subject of those whom the law strikes. He had not yet accomplished all progress, we admit. He had not yet come to distinguish between that which is written by man and that which is written by God, between law and right. He had not examined and weighed the right which man takes to dispose of the irrevocable and the irreparable. He was not shocked by the word vindicte (sic). He found it quite simple that certain breaches of the written law should be followed by eternal suffering, and he accepted, as the process of civilization, social damnation. He still stood at this point, though safe to advance infallibly later on, since his nature was good, and, at bottom, wholly formed of latent progress.So why does Jean Valjean allow his son-in-law to persist in his error? Why not set him right on it? Why, instead of embracing the stigma society has so unfairly placed on him, does not not seek to educate Marius on the real injustices of the criminal justice system? Marius is a radical, after all, who questions to social order. Why would he object to having his vision expanded a little further?
And what would happen if Valjean did tell Marius the whole truth about himself, except the parts that directly touched Marius and Cosette? What if he told him about the petty theft and how he was brutalized, but also how he was redeemed by the kindness of the Bishop, how he became a factory owner, and how he was forced to turn himself in rather than let an innocent man suffer in his place. He could also explain his escape and his rescue of Cosette. As for why she was in the hands of the wicked inn keeper, he could tell part of the truth -- that Cosette's father deserted her mother and left her destitute, that she was forced by poverty to leave her daughter with the inn keeper, and that she died of consumption brought on by poverty. It would all be true -- just not the whole truth.
How would Marius respond? Well, we find out, at least in part, when the wicked inn keeper comes by intending blackmail. Marius knows about the mayor/factory owner and greatly admires him, despite his past as a convict. If he had known his father-in-law was the same person, that alone would be enough to reconcile him. As it is, he believes that Valjean informed against the mayor and stole his money. He also believes that Valjean killed Javert at the barricades. The inn keeper presents contemporary news articles establishing that Valjean and the factor owner were the same person, and that Javert killed himself. If Valjean had told Marius as much in the first place, would Marius have wanted him in his life? "Jean Valjean, who had suddenly grown grand, emerged from his cloud." Marius calls him a "hero" and a "saint." So yes, apparently he would have wanted Valjean in his life if he had known enough to make an informed decision. And that is before he finds out that Jean Valjean saved his life. Upon learning that last, he rushes over to his father-in-law, vowing to spend his life at his feet. As it is, Marius and Cosette arrive just in time to say goodbye before Valjean dies.
In short, Jean Valjean denies Marius the opportunity to make an informed decision. He makes for himself the decision that he should not impose the stigma of the convict on Marius, even though Marius, if he had known anything close to the truth, would have considered it an honor to have Jean Valjean in his life. Why does he do such a thing? It cannot be to spare Marius, who would not have wanted to be spared if he had known. I can only assume, out of sheer love of suffering and a desire to wallow in maximum humility. Here is where the saint overdevelops his virtue and makes me resent him.
But the wrong Valjean does to Marius is dwarfed by the wrong he does to Cosette. I will discuss that in my next post, with more literary comparisons.
No comments:
Post a Comment