Esmerlda's Character

[WyattGwyon]

I found this thread infuriating. Blaming Esmeralda for rejecting Frollo and wanting to hurt him? He plagued her existence by condemning her performances, calling her a witch (a charge with a likely death sentence), had her arrested in order to profess his love, and then decided to torture her. Frollo is one of the most amazingly evil hypocrites of world literature. Bottom of the barrel scumbag. There is nothing terribly surprising in her misguided and overly-idealized love for Phoebus either. She was a teenager with no experience of "romantic love" except, judging by her reaction to Gringoire's advances, for fighting off prospective rapists with a knife.

Gringoire is an opportunist and a coward, of course.

[kiki1982]

I think you missed the vital point Hugo made regarding Frollo. The point of his character was not having an evil guy in the book. That was never Hugo's purpose. He has no evil guys. He has only people who are regarded evil in certain circumstances, but cannot help being so.

Frollo starts to fall in love with her and thus uses his power to 'have' her. She, in her angellic womanhood, resists and rather dies than to offer herself to this man. But he cannot be seen giving her grace as he has himself declared she is a witch. So now, he has finished up killing the greatest love of his life. He was going to torture her, but don't forget that most probably cracked before they started things... I mean, who is going to reasonably say that he has flown around with the devil on his broom, and such things, if there is another alternative? Certainly if you know that you'll have to die for it. But running from the pain of torture was good enough to begin with. So, torture... I don't think Hugo ever intended him that evil. That was the system.

So, scumbag... I think Phoebus was a greater scumbag than Frollo ever was, Frollo was an unfortunate victim of the times, like Esmeralda and Quasimodo.

[WyattGwyon]

I think you missed the vital point Hugo made regarding Frollo. The point of his character was not having an evil guy in the book. That was never Hugo's purpose. He has no evil guys. He has only people who are regarded evil in certain circumstances, but cannot help being so.

Frollo starts to fall in love with her and thus uses his power to 'have' her. She, in her angellic womanhood, resists and rather dies than to offer herself to this man. But he cannot be seen giving her grace as he has himself declared she is a witch. So now, he has finished up killing the greatest love of his life. He was going to torture her, but don't forget that most probably cracked before they started things... I mean, who is going to reasonably say that he has flown around with the devil on his broom, and such things, if there is another alternative? Certainly if you know that you'll have to die for it. But running from the pain of torture was good enough to begin with. So, torture... I don't think Hugo ever intended him that evil. That was the system.

So, scumbag... I think Phoebus was a greater scumbag than Frollo ever was, Frollo was an unfortunate victim of the times, like Esmeralda and Quasimodo.

Kiki, I think it is you who may be missing the point. Frollo and his ilk are not victims of the times, they are the creators of the times. Remember, the essential image and theme of the novel: the spider (Frollo) and the fly (Esmeralda) trying to reach the sun (Phoebus). Within this framework, Frollo is a predator using the power society has ceded to him (the web, which, however, he helped spin) in order to rape (coercive sex is rape) a teenage girl. He accused her of being a witch because he couldn't take responsibility for his own sexual impulses and found it more convenient to blame the victim—he was a hypocrite just like many modern-day Christian ministers who can't accept their homosexuality and end up excoriating others for their own perceived defect. This, however, is a generous interpretation of his character. It is equally plausible that he only made the charge as part of the coercion. If he couldn't have her, no one would.

Hugo did have characters who were rotten to the core (Thernadier, Frollo) without any discernible extenuating circumstances.

I have more to say but must get to an appointment. Stay tuned . . . And thanks for caring enough about Hugo to respond.

[kiki1982]

Kiki, I think it is you who may be missing the point. Frollo and his ilk are not victims of the times, they are the creators of the times. Remember, the essential image and theme of the novel: the spider (Frollo) and the fly (Esmeralda) trying to reach the sun (Phoebus). Within this framework, Frollo is a predator using the power society has ceded to him (the web, which, however, he helped spin) in order to rape (coercive sex is rape) a teenage girl. He accused her of being a witch because he couldn't take responsibility for his own sexual impulses and found it more convenient to blame the victim—he was a hypocrite just like many modern-day Christian ministers who can't accept their homosexuality and end up excoriating others for their own perceived defect. This, however, is a generous interpretation of his character. It is equally plausible that he only made the charge as part of the coercion. If he couldn't have her, no one would.

Hugo did have characters who were rotten to the core (Thernadier, Frollo) without any discernible extenuating circumstances.

I have more to say but must get to an appointment. Stay tuned . . . And thanks for caring enough about Hugo to respond.

Hugo wrote for a social purpose, and in that purpose he always opposed the notion that a person is predestined to be bad or good (physiognomy). In Hugo's mind a man or woman had reasons for being corrupted, if they turned out evil. He expressed this in Le Dernier Jour d'un Condamné, opposing the death sentence.

Thénardier, nor Javert, nor Frollo are rotten to the core. The latter two do things, because they were taught that that was the way and they think things are logical until they face the consequences. Thénardier is an even sadder case because he needs to cheat people to live. He is not a bad man, but was forced into crime because of society. He was not as strong as Jean Valjean in that respect, but also not so lucky. He never met anyone who was so good to him as the bishop of Digne. He was never so lucky as Jean Valean to invent or find a new process of making things which gave him a lot of money. He had two children and a wife to support, a B&B that went out of business and no trade... He has to feed his children. And then what?

But back to Frollo. Yes, Frollo may be the spider, but a spider is also evolved the way it is. It cannot help making a web and certainly not that it should eat. What lands in the web is a matter of pure accident. That's the way it is. People also need food. Should they stp eating because otherwise they kill animals? Once, in his Contemplations, Hugo said he loved spiders and nettles, because nothing lives up to and everything spoils their dreary wishes. Indeed, both are not demanding things, but they will thrive. As it is, Frollo has been really somewhat coerced into going into the church by his parents. Even before he knew what sexuality was and then he falls in love, with a gypsy of all people! That is filth, both in terms of his celibate and normality. Gypsies are a no-no. He is not vindictive or jealous, but just covetous. He has been placed in a web (the rules of society and the church) and will have to live by it. He is not independent.

At any rate, the argument about priests is a non-argument as problems in those terms are not caused by the celibate, but rather by not enough will power. And because of the fact that in former days, homosexuality was not accepted or even talked about, naturally homosexuals thought they were abnormal and were probably destined for the church. Of course, why else were they not falling in love with women? It must be. But the fact they have a celibate is as bad for them as for a heterosexual. I don't see what that has to do with Frollo in the least.

[WyattGwyon]

Hugo wrote for a social purpose, and in that purpose he always opposed the notion that a person is predestined to be bad or good (physiognomy). In Hugo's mind a man or woman had reasons for being corrupted, if they turned out evil. He expressed this in Le Dernier Jour d'un Condamné, opposing the death sentence.

Thénardier, nor Javert, nor Frollo are rotten to the core. The latter two do things, because they were taught that that was the way and they think things are logical until they face the consequences. Thénardier is an even sadder case because he needs to cheat people to live. He is not a bad man, but was forced into crime because of society. He was not as strong as Jean Valjean in that respect, but also not so lucky. He never met anyone who was so good to him as the bishop of Digne. He was never so lucky as Jean Valean to invent or find a new process of making things which gave him a lot of money. He had two children and a wife to support, a B&B that went out of business and no trade... He has to feed his children. And then what?

But back to Frollo. Yes, Frollo may be the spider, but a spider is also evolved the way it is. It cannot help making a web and certainly not that it should eat. What lands in the web is a matter of pure accident. That's the way it is. People also need food. Should they stp eating because otherwise they kill animals? Once, in his Contemplations, Hugo said he loved spiders and nettles, because nothing lives up to and everything spoils their dreary wishes. Indeed, both are not demanding things, but they will thrive. As it is, Frollo has been really somewhat coerced into going into the church by his parents. Even before he knew what sexuality was and then he falls in love, with a gypsy of all people! That is filth, both in terms of his celibate and normality. Gypsies are a no-no. He is not vindictive or jealous, but just covetous. He has been placed in a web (the rules of society and the church) and will have to live by it. He is not independent.

At any rate, the argument about priests is a non-argument as problems in those terms are not caused by the celibate, but rather by not enough will power. And because of the fact that in former days, homosexuality was not accepted or even talked about, naturally homosexuals thought they were abnormal and were probably destined for the church. Of course, why else were they not falling in love with women? It must be. But the fact they have a celibate is as bad for them as for a heterosexual. I don't see what that has to do with Frollo in the least.

I didn't imply that Hugo believed anyone was predestined for evil. Frollo was not always evil—he made a conscious decision in choosing evil. Contrary to what you claim, his actions prove unequivocally that he was motivated, in part at least, by jealousy of Phoebus and vindictiveness toward Esmeralda for choosing him. By saying he is rotten to the core I am not speaking about his past but of his character and actions in the novel's present. Most things that are literally rotten to the core, like fruit, the source of the metaphor, were sweet initially. Frollo chose to abandon his deepest beliefs and devotion to God for the sake of lust—and that is all it was. There is no basis for talking about love in this case. Frollo lacked the wisdom and experience even to comprehend romantic love, let alone feel it in a normal way. You claim that "he has been placed in a web (the rules of society and the church) and will have to live by it. He is not independent," but in the case of Esmeralda he had complete freedom of action. He was perfectly free to leave her happy and unmolested but was driven by his twisted lust toward rape and brutality. He chose evil and got the fate he deserved.

I think you may have misunderstood my thinking on the priesthood. Hugo's point about religion in general and priests in particular seems to be that their tendency to repress sexuality inevitably leads to hypocrisy and corruption. Hugo's view of the clergy seems to have been quite negative. With the exception of the bishop of Digne, they are not portrayed in a positive light in his novels (e.g., the Reverend Ebenezer Caudray in Toilers of the Sea)

Thernadier started out picking the pockets of corpses before he had a family to support. He only has a wife at all because he lied to her family and everyone else who would listen about his allegedly heroic character, while concealing his criminal tendencies. He only had the capital to start his B&B because, out of cowardice, he lied to a wealthy officer whose pocket he was picking. He is a fraud, a liar, and a thief. For all we know, these traits could be rooted in his sloth and desire to get things for nothing. I see no reason to attribute any good qualities to him or to see him in a sympathetic light. Javert is another case—but I didn't bring him up or condemn him. He is a symbol of a great societal evil—the blindness and inflexibility of the law—but not evil in the same deep and corrupt way as Thernadier and Frollo.

Just an historical note: Clergy and monks were well-aware of homosexuality in their ranks and even had terminology for discussing homosexual lovers within their communities. The term "special friendship" was used in such cases to indicate same-sex sexual partnerships among monks and nuns.