Posting today's discussion post a little early, since my schedule tomorrow will be wonky. Chapter 2.1.3, "Un coin non trempé dans le Styx," aka "A Corner Not Dipped in Styx" or "A Heel not Dipped in the Styx."
Everything I need to know about Greek myths, I learned from Wikipedia.
"Corner" seems to be a very weird translation—the chapter title seems to be going for Achilles’ heel, the one weak point to an otherwise invulnerable person. Achilles was held by his mother (Thetis…not to be confused with Themis from last chapter) when dipped into the River Styx—from the word for "hate, detest." Achilles’ power comes from being surrounded by hatred—the first word of the Iliad refers to the rage of Achilles. Last chapter, we saw some of the things that Cimourdain hates—but even then, he was able to constructively work for justice.
So, after a bunch of rhetorical questions, Hugo finally decides to level with us and admit that yes, Cimourdain is totally capable of individual love, for the child he tutored back in the day. Even then, it’s still love on Cimourdain’s terms: the child is “a sort of prey to this heart condemned to solitude.”
"he had inoculated him with the dreadful virus of his virtue" Cimourdain’s ideals are, hopefully, going to spread throughout France—furthering the revolution, and so forth. He wants them to be able to "infect" other people. But they’re still dreadful, and in large doses can sometimes lead to harm. He does, however, want the child to get an appropriate dose at first, so that he’ll maybe be "immune" to the aristocratic views he might otherwise have grown into.
"Let us add this: it was easy to replace the father, for the child had no father;" Narrator’s not even going to hide the fact that he’ll gladly kill off parents for a simple origin story.
"The natural separation of their lives came about. When his education was completed, Cimourdain was obliged to leave the child, grown to a young man. With what cold and unconscionable cruelty those separations are made!" So we move pretty quickly from "natural" to "unconscionable." Is this just the great-uncle trying to save money? He’s avoiding the castle, so who knows how long it takes him to remember "oh, yeah, junior’s grown up, let’s leave him to his own devices."
"We shall see." Again with the snap answers to rhetorical questions. Not even hiding the foreshadowing, either.
A corner not soaked in the Styx. Hugo has real problems with detached, logical types, even if (especially if?) they’re also morally upright. He sees them as cold, with too much soul and too little heart, full of benevolence for everyone but insufficient love for anyone, soaked in the Styx. They need to be saved by the Power Of Love, which will render them soft and warm and fuzzy—an attitude that should be deeply familiar to anyone who’s read any fanfic. I can understand Hugo’s attitude. But I’d also note that a lot of the times it’s not the people who are emotionally inexpressive or strictly principled who are the most callous or dismissive of others’ feelings. Sometimes it’s the people who get totally swept up in their own feelings and believe their feelings are entitlements.
There’s an interesting little aside here about how uber-privileged children are forgivable, even by their slaves, because they’re children. The old “negro” loves the white kid—and despite his archaic language, you can see Hugo’s point.
If Cimourdain reminded me of Enjolras in his introduction, he reminds me of Valjean now. The child he teaches and raises becomes all in all to him, son and brother and child and creation, as Cosette is all things to Valjean. And like Valjean, he is separated from his beloved child because he doesn’t have a socially recognized relationship with him anymore—though in Valjean’s case, it’s really his own internalized sense of being ‘nothing’ to Cosette, and not something externally imposed.
The line about how the preceptor can be more of a father than the actual father and the wetnurse can be more of a mother than the actual mother is true in part, but it’s also revoltingly sexist. Why doesn’t Hugo say the preceptor can be more of a mother than the actual mother? Answer: because the mother’s contribution to the child isn’t supposed to be of the mind. It’s purely flesh-based and heart-based, unthinking, giving sustenance without intellect. There’s a pretty long Western tradition (also found in some other cultures) of crediting the mother with creating only the “matter” and “flesh” of a child, while the “form and “spirit” supposedly comes from the father.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
no subject
"Corner" seems to be a very weird translation—the chapter title seems to be going for Achilles’ heel, the one weak point to an otherwise invulnerable person. Achilles was held by his mother (Thetis…not to be confused with Themis from last chapter) when dipped into the River Styx—from the word for "hate, detest." Achilles’ power comes from being surrounded by hatred—the first word of the Iliad refers to the rage of Achilles. Last chapter, we saw some of the things that Cimourdain hates—but even then, he was able to constructively work for justice.
So, after a bunch of rhetorical questions, Hugo finally decides to level with us and admit that yes, Cimourdain is totally capable of individual love, for the child he tutored back in the day. Even then, it’s still love on Cimourdain’s terms: the child is “a sort of prey to this heart condemned to solitude.”
"he had inoculated him with the dreadful virus of his virtue" Cimourdain’s ideals are, hopefully, going to spread throughout France—furthering the revolution, and so forth. He wants them to be able to "infect" other people. But they’re still dreadful, and in large doses can sometimes lead to harm. He does, however, want the child to get an appropriate dose at first, so that he’ll maybe be "immune" to the aristocratic views he might otherwise have grown into.
"Let us add this: it was easy to replace the father, for the child had no father;" Narrator’s not even going to hide the fact that he’ll gladly kill off parents for a simple origin story.
"The natural separation of their lives came about. When his education was completed, Cimourdain was obliged to leave the child, grown to a young man. With what cold and unconscionable cruelty those separations are made!" So we move pretty quickly from "natural" to "unconscionable." Is this just the great-uncle trying to save money? He’s avoiding the castle, so who knows how long it takes him to remember "oh, yeah, junior’s grown up, let’s leave him to his own devices."
"We shall see." Again with the snap answers to rhetorical questions. Not even hiding the foreshadowing, either.
2.1.3
(Anonymous) 2014-05-18 03:16 am (UTC)(link)There’s an interesting little aside here about how uber-privileged children are forgivable, even by their slaves, because they’re children. The old “negro” loves the white kid—and despite his archaic language, you can see Hugo’s point.
If Cimourdain reminded me of Enjolras in his introduction, he reminds me of Valjean now. The child he teaches and raises becomes all in all to him, son and brother and child and creation, as Cosette is all things to Valjean. And like Valjean, he is separated from his beloved child because he doesn’t have a socially recognized relationship with him anymore—though in Valjean’s case, it’s really his own internalized sense of being ‘nothing’ to Cosette, and not something externally imposed.
The line about how the preceptor can be more of a father than the actual father and the wetnurse can be more of a mother than the actual mother is true in part, but it’s also revoltingly sexist. Why doesn’t Hugo say the preceptor can be more of a mother than the actual mother? Answer: because the mother’s contribution to the child isn’t supposed to be of the mind. It’s purely flesh-based and heart-based, unthinking, giving sustenance without intellect. There’s a pretty long Western tradition (also found in some other cultures) of crediting the mother with creating only the “matter” and “flesh” of a child, while the “form and “spirit” supposedly comes from the father.
Re: 2.1.3
Re: 2.1.3
That last paragraph is a great point. We'll see more depictions of motherhood down the line, and...yeah, basically you nailed it.