|
Literary Review
The individual and the Infinite
|
In these days, when secularism is being hotly debated, perhaps it is relevant to turn to a great classic for some ideas, says P.S. RAMASESHAN.
|
VICTOR HUGO'S Les Miserables is a book that can be read repeatedly, with each time bringing a new experience. The main plot that is regaled with all of Hugo's superb powers of suspense and masterly story telling is, of course, well known, having been translated into many languages and inspired plays and films (including a film in Tamil). But the words of the book, though familiar, come alive with different meanings and significance to fit different situations and conflicts like the great Sanskrit epics of which is said "ever new" (Sada Navam).
Take for instance the observation in one of the reflective passages with which the novel abounds. "Adversity is the crucible into which destiny throws a man whenever it wishes to create a devil or an angel." This sentence, pregnant with meaning, is the basic structure of the development of some of the main characters of the novel. Jean Valjean, the convict who becomes an angel, Thenardier, the small time deceitful innkeeper, who becomes a master criminal and, after all the merciful considerations and help given to him, becomes a slave trader in America. The novel makes the reader look at them without value judgment, constantly bringing to the mind of the reader the basic force that developed their characters. Jean Valjean and Inspector Javert, both outside the pale of society because it "keeps at bay two classes of people — those who attack it and those who protect it." In a sense the novel is the play, which according to Shakespeare should "hold a mirror as it were to nature. To show virtue her own feature, vice her own image and the way age and body of the time his own form and pressure."
To put important ideas in irrelevant places seems to be Hugo's habit. A similar dissertation on the battle of Waterloo, covering about 30 pages, occurs in the same novel. There is an incident of crucial importance to the plot which occurs in the battle, but hardly necessitating such a lengthy discussion on Waterloo.
The passage referred here is only of marginal relevance to the main plot of the novel. But details discussed here are little known and are not included in any of the popular versions of the novel.
Take the encounter the Bishop of D- has with the Conventionalist G- who was actively associated with the French Revolution and the reign of terror, but after the restoration of the Bourbons was literally thrown out of the pale of society. The Bishop of D- was by background and calling a member of the class whom the Conventionalist despised. He in turn, should have kept away from the conventionalist normally. But the Bishop was perhaps really a man of God and wished to see "a soul who lived alone to whom he owed a visit" at least when he was reportedly going to die.
When the Bishop congratulates G- on "at least not voting for the King's death," G- says, "Do not congratulate me Sir, I voted for the death of the tyrant. Man has a tyrant — ignorance and I voted for the end of the tyrant, which engendered royalty, which is the false authority, while knowledge is the true authority. Man must only be governed by knowledge."
"And by his conscience," says the Bishop, to which G- replies: "That is the same thing. Conscience is the amount of innate knowledge we have in us."
Here a basis has been laid down which could not be disputed by the Bishop. The Conventionalist adds, "I do not believe that I have the right to kill a man, but I have the duty of exterminating a tyrant and I voted for the end of the tyrant. That is to say, for the end of prostitution for women, the end of slavery for men and the end of night for children... I aided in the overthrow of errors and prejudices and such an overthrow produces light. We hurled down the old world, and that vase of wretchedness by being poured over the human race became an urn of joy."
The Bishop says, "you demolished, it is true. It may be useful. But I distrust a demolition complicated with passion."
And the Conventionalist's reply is one of the best ideological defences of the revolution that I have come across. He says, "Right has its passion, Sir Bishop, and that passion is an element of progress. No matter what may be said, the French Revolution is the most powerful step taken by the human race since the advent of Christ. It may be incomplete, but it was sublime. It softened minds, it calmed, appeased and enlightened and it spread civilization over the world. The French Revolution was good, for it was the consecration of humanity."
The Bishop is not one to give up. He brings G- back to the reign of terror and the execution of the innocent child of Louis XVI merely because he was the son of his father. G-'s reply, which refers to all the innocent children of the people punished for merely being such children, provokes the Bishop to retort, that he did not like such an association of names.
G- asks him pointedly on whose behalf he protested — the innocent Dauphen or the innocent child? "If it was the innocent child, the execution of the brother of Cartouche for merely being the brother of Cartouche, was no less than the grief for the execution of Louis XVII."
The Bishop is able to face the thrust of G-'s remarks, while G- continues, "Ah Sir Priest, you do not like, the crudities of truth, but Christ loved them; He took a scourge and swept the temple. When he exclaimed suffering little children to come onto him, he made no difference between the daughter of Barabus and the daughter of Herod. Yes, the brutalities of progress are called revolution, but when they are ended this fact is recognised. The human race has been chastised but it has moved on."
The Bishop has one last arrow in his quiver. And Hugo says the last resource of the Bishop's resistance had all the roughness which was present at the commencement of their discourse. The Bishop says, "progress must believe in God and the good cannot have impious servants. A man who is an atheist is a bad guide for the human race."
G-'s reply is enigmatic. "Oh thou! Oh Ideal! Thou alone existest. The infinite is. It is there. If the infinite had not a me, the I would be its limit; it would not be infinite; In other words, it would not be. But it is. Hence it has a me. This I of the infinite is God." (The extracts here are taken from the Collin's edition.)
What does he mean? The very idea of God is a limitation on the infinite. But the consciousness of the "I" prevents the perception of the infinite, if you can use such a phrase, since perception itself assumes a duality, which doesn't exist. Therefore, as long as the "I" is there God is necessary. And the I of the infinite is God.
Hugo definitely intends to show that the encounter between G- and the Bishop had a great effect on the latter and was instrumental in transforming the convict Jean Valjean into the character Madaleine who becomes the Mayor of M- and by a tragic turn of events had to prove what he had learnt from the Bishop by a great sacrifice.
Where does religion come in? Religion should be a very personal affair between the individual and his creator and nobody has a right to interfere in this relationship. It is the way in which the Infinite is perceived by the individual.
In these days, when the subject of religion and secularism and their interrelation is hotly discussed from many angles, it is interesting and perhaps relevant to look into some ideas in one of the world's greatest classics.
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Literary Review
|
