Le Cabuc and Past/Present Tense
So Iâve been intrigued by the death of Le Cabuc for a while now. Back in 2013 Murf and I had a brief meta conversation about him that was mostly about his identity as Claquesous and the metaphor of his death paralleling his existence as a member of Patron-Minette. But in my most recent re-read Iâve become really interested in the tense change during Le Cabucâs actions at the barricade. Nowhere else in the novel is there a switch to the present tense that describes a current action (there are a few passages which switch to the present tense in which the viewer is presented with a past scene to imagine rather than a scene currently happening).
In doing some googling (since my knowledge of French consists of one semester in uni before I switched to German), I get the impression that French tense usage is different from English tense usage, and that present tense is often used in historical or journalistic writing rather than the past tense thatâs usually used in English. Historical present tense is used in English historical/journalist writing sometimes too, usually as a combination of present and past tense in order to emphasize certain moments. But also, as far as I can tell (with the help of google translate and various conjugation grids), most of the book is in past tense and this small section is actually in present tense.
So, anyway, I think itâs very interesting that Hugo chose to make this tiny moment specifically present tense. Like I said above, the only other times we get present tense, Hugo is describing to the reader a scene to imagine or painting a picture of a specific moment in history (specifically Waterloo).
Hugo switches to present tense for a total of 9 sentences before switching back to past tense. The tense change occurs as Le Cabuc exclaims âBash the door in!â and runs to the door, and switches back to past tense once he begins to hit the door with the butt of his rifle.
âKnock!â âThey wonât open.â âBash the door in!â Le Cabuc runs to the door, which had a very massive knocker, and raps. The door does not open. He raps a second time. Nobody answers. A third rap. The same silence. âIs there anybody there?â cries Le Cabuc Nothing stirs. Then he seizes a musket and begins to beat the door with the butt. It was an old alley door, arched, low, narrow, solid, entirely of oak, lined on the inside with sheet-iron and with iron braces, a genuine fortress postern. The blows made the house tremble, but did not shake the door. Nevertheless, it is likely that the inhabitants were alarmed, for they finally saw a little square window on the fourth floor light up and open, and at this window appeared a candle, and the pious and frightened face of a gray-haired man, the doorkeeper. The man who was knocking stopped.
(FMA translation)
What fascinates me is that the major action, the murder of the doorkeeper and subsequent execution of Le Cabuc, are not what is emphasized by present tense. Instead, it is the moment just preceding.
So itâs general knowledge that Le Cabuc is actually Claquesous, and also that he is probably a police plant in order to incite chaos. Hugo mentions during his introduction of Patron-Minette that they have contacts with the police who pay them to do dirty work or who they pay off to look the other way, depending on the circumstances. So we know Le Cabuc is both Claquesous and a plant. This explains his actions but not the tense change and its location in the scene.
If Hugo wanted to emphasize the senseless anarchy of Le Cabucâs actions or the judgement of Enjolras, heâd have put the tense change there. Instead, he focuses on the moment just before. This moment also occurs before any combat at the barricade itself, which means itâs not necessarily focusing in on a moment of desperation, the kind of which Hugo describes later.
In the paragraphs before, Hugo sets up the weirdness of Le Cabucâs actions by describing Le Cabuc himself and his relation to the barricade: he tells us that no one actually knows him, even those who âclaimed to recognize him,â that he either is drunk or is acting drunk, that heâs encouraging others to drink, and that his clothes are âworn out at the shouldersâ. (As an aside, the description of his dockhandâs jacket reminds me of Hugoâs description of Thenardierâs costume from The Changer; perhaps this is a disguise rented from The Changer as well.) Hugo tells us that Le Cabuc was unfamiliar, erratic, and odd, and then immediately launches into the scene at the door of the house.
I think the change in tense is meant to emphasize Le Cabucâs actions by bringing to attention the weirdness of them before the main event. Heâs initially described as being out of place, but the moment the tense changes, you realize heâs really, really out of place. Something is wrong here, these actions are not actions of someone who believes in the future of the rebellion; they are reckless and thoughtless even before the moment of killing.
At no point during the assault on the barricade do the insurgents break into any purely residential home; they do use the bistro and its subsequent residential floors, but they do not break down any doors to peopleâs houses alone. A random citizen insurgentâs sudden decision/desire to shoot from upper floors and to bash down the doors of someoneâs home to do so is weird. Le Cabucâs desire is met by a calm rejection: âYes, but the house is shut upâ and âThey wonât open.â The insurgents who respond to Le Cabuc know that itâs not an option and they arenât trying to force it to be one. The people must decide for themselves, Le Cabuc cannot decide for them.
Also, the English translation doesnât do this, but as far as I can tell, there are actually 3 different words used for the knocks on the door. The first âcognonsâ (knock), then âfrappeâ (strike), then âcoupâ (blow). His knocks get progressively more aggressive and angry the longer there is no response.
So the present tense immediately brings us to attention. Thereâs something weird going on, something wrong, this person is not supposed to be acting this way. Hugo almost seems to use this moment of present tense in the same way he uses it during the Waterloo section: the reader is suddenly meant to be in the moment, imagining it as vividly as possible. The reader is no longer passively reading, suddenly they, like Enjolras and the other insurgents at the barricade, are watching this man run to a door and try and beat it down, and theyâre confused by his actions and donât quite know what to make of it.
As soon as the story changes back to past tense, itâs obvious that something bad is going to happen. We all know thereâs no way the residents are going to open the door, and Le Cabuc has only just been introduced as weird and unfamiliar. Hugo doesnât need to keep that intense hold on the reader anymore; heâs got us.
Le Cabuc briefly becomes âthe man who was knockingâ before again being referred to as Le Cabuc. Another moment of weirdness used to emphasize the uncertainty of Le Cabucâs actions and identity. The switch into present tense is bracketed by descriptions of Le Cabucâs unfamiliarity and unknown-ness.
So this switch to present tense is Hugo suddenly jumping from telling a story to telling a moment; heâs now in journalism mode, giving us a play-by-play of something that ocurred, because itâs important and a lead-up to something even more important. So why change back? Why isnât all of Le Cabucâs scene in present tense?
Because at this point, we know all of the subsequent action is going to be important. Le Cabucâs actions are the first actions of an insurgent (or âinsurgentâ) on the barricade. The only other events preceding were the actual raising of the barricade and the capture of Javert, both of which do not involve anyone outside of the rebellion itself, citizen or soldier. (I say this because Javert is disguised as an insurgent, so heâs already behind the barricade and part of the action within.) This is the first moment after the building of the barricade that any outsider is involved. The change is there to make us realize that something weird is going on, but the return to past tense happens because remaining in present tense isnât necessary. We all know shit is going to go down, and weâre paying attention now.
This is also the moment that forces the hand of a âGoodâ character to commit violence; it is the only moment when a Good character actively kills another in a way that is not directly related to battle. This moment is important, but it doesnât need the distraction of a tense change to emphasize it. The jarring change wakes us up, jolts us out of our reading stupor, so we are ready for this terrible and âsavageâ moment, a moment where Enjolras judges and condemns not only Le Cabuc, but himself as well.
During the Waterloo section, and at the very end of the book when describing Valjeanâs grave, Hugo uses present tense to paint a vivid picture, going on for a while and describing the sceneâs visuals. This moment uses the present tense in a more journalistic way, forcing the reader to participate in the immediate moment, watching like everyone else. Itâs this usage which forces us to be hyper-aware of the strangeness of Le Cabucâs actions and to question who he is and why he is there; this is why both his death and his revealed identity only paragraphs later are a surprise but make perfect sense. The switch to present tense isnât an emphasis; itâs an alert, a warning, a wake-up call. Pay attention, from here on out everything happens quickly, in the dark or the half-light or covered in blood, and intentions, morals, and actions are now more important than ever.






















