hey you...

Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind by the Marquis de Condorcet (English)

“On the Admission of Women to the Rights of Citizenship” by the Marquis de Condorcet (English)

“Enjolras gave expression to its [the Revolution’s] divine right and Combeferre its natural right. The former aligned himself with Robespierre, the latter stood close to Condorcet.” (Les Mis 3.4.1)

This comparison refers to the Marquis de Condorcet: a mathematician and politician who advocated for public education, a constitutional government, and equal rights for people of all races and genders. He was an active member and eventually the president of the Society of the Friends of the Blacks and apparently was known for being pretty radical in his advocacy for women to have full equal rights of citizenship to men. In his essay “On the Admission of Women to the Rights of Citizenship,” he actually said that anti-feminism and preventing women access to birth control or divorce was an act of tyranny. What a cool guy. Ultimately, though he wasn’t officially executed during the Reign of Terror, he did die in prison after being arrested by the Jacobin faction.

One of his most notable books is his Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind. It was published posthumously in 1795 and essentially claims the progress of science and human rights are interconnected throughout history. So by furthering access to education, we will further the fight for social justice. This is, in a nutshell, a really good summary of Combeferre’s basic worldview as well and a really good starting point to understanding his character.

I feel like it’s also worth pointing out that even though Combeferre does give a big speech about women at the barricade, it seems like Condorcet was WAY more feminist than Victor Hugo was capable of portraying. Which is unfortunate, because so many of the people Combeferre looks up to are super feminist. Feminist king, let’s gooo!

Popular Lectures on Astronomy by François Arago (English)

“Fresnel” Biographies of Distinguished Scientific Men by François Arago (English)

“He read everything, went to the theatre, attended public lectures, learned from Arago about the polarization of light, was fascinated by a talk in which Geoffroy Sainte-Hilaire explained the twin functions of the external carotid artery and the internal carotid artery, the one that leads into the face and the other that leads into the brain.” (Les Mis 3.4.1)

Dominique-François Arago was a director of the Paris Observatory, who was well known in Paris for conducting a very popular series of lectures to the general public explaining scientific developments. Arago amassed a pretty huge following over the 33 years he did these public lectures and had an entire amphitheater built at the Observatory to accommodate all the people who attended. (Which his successor destroyed to build himself a personal apartment smh.) Throughout his career, he supported Augustin-Jean Fresnel’s wave theory of light, and the two worked together conducting experiments on the polarization of light. He also dabbled in magnetism but put a pin in that for now. 

Arago was pretty busy with these lectures so he wasn’t publishing much during his (or Combeferre’s) lifetime, but his posthumous publications cover a lot of the same material he would have been talking about while Combeferre was alive. For example, Popular Lectures on Astronomy was published in 1845 but covered material from (you’ll never guess) popular lectures on astronomy that he gave at the Royal Observatory of Paris between 1812 and 1845. These included the public lectures he gave on the polarization of light, which Combeferre is referencing here. Likewise, Fresnel’s biography in Biographies was originally delivered as a lecture in 1830. Actually, it was read precisely on July 26, 1830, apparently literally right after Arago read the news about Charles X passing the July Ordinances which suspended the press that led to the July Revolution of 1830. Just a fun fact. 

It should surprise no one that the guy was also a pretty liberal republican who advocated for public education. After Combeferre would be dead, he also managed to abolish flogging in the military and succeeded in procuring the abolition of slavery in the French colonies. Cool!

Philosophie Anatomique by Geoffrey Sainte-Hilaire (French)

“He read everything, went to the theatre, attended public lectures, learned from Arago about the polarization of light, was fascinated by a talk in which Geoffroy Sainte-Hilaire explained the twin functions of the external carotid artery and the internal carotid artery, the one that leads into the face and the other that leads into the brain.” (Les Mis 3.4.1)

Saint-Hilaire was a naturalist who was part of the Academy of Sciences and worked as a professor of zoology at the University of Paris. During his time there, he did research in anatomy and wrote the Philosophie Anatomique and generally did a lot of work pushing forward the science of evolutionary biology. Presumably the talk he gave would have been a lecture while he was a part of the staff for the University of Paris after he released this book. Combeferre goes to a lot of public lectures on science!

The Political Thought of Saint-Simon selected texts by Saint-Simon (English)

The Utopian Vision of Charles Fourier selected texts by Charles Fourier (English)

He was well-informed, keeping pace with scientific developments, comparing Saint-Simon with Fourier, deciphering hieroglyphics, splitting the stones that he found and studying geology, drawing a silkworm moth from memory, pointing out the incorrect French in the Dictionnaire de l’Académie, reading Puységur and Deleuze, affirming nothing, not even miracles, denying nothing, not even ghosts, dipping into old issues of Le Moniteur, pondering.” (Les Mis 3.4.1)

Henri de Saint-Simon and Charles Fourier were both early utopian socialists and proto-feminists who had a huge impact on early international socialism. Basically, utopian socialists believed that, instead of achieving socialism through rebellion or class war, the masses would naturally adopt a socialist society if they were convinced well enough. Fourier and Saint-Simon started different schools of socialist thought, but they both pushed the idea of gender equality really strongly. Charles Fourier is actually credited with coining the term “feminism,” which is cool. (But the guy was also really, really antisemitic, which is not cool.) Yet again, Combeferre is reading up on his feminist theory. Good for him.

There was plenty of criticism about the elitism of Saint-Simonian socialism because it didn’t seem to abolish social classes, just invent new ones. Saint-Simon also says some wild shit about how his ideological opponents should be “treated like cattle” and at one point shot himself in the head SIX TIMES but didn’t die. Damn. He also tried to worship Isaac Newton. None of that’s important, but it’s all kind of weird so I wanted to mention it. 

Charles Fourier had some ideas that are thought of as really commonplace today (like feminism) but also some that just sound… odd. He had this whole theory about “passions” that didn’t stick around and he predicted that when the world reached its utopian ideal state the ocean would turn to lemonade and the polar ice caps would melt, which… y’know actually he might not be all wrong about the polar ice caps. He was also ardently pro-gay in his advocacy for free love, and even explicitly talked about lesbians and non-binary people! This guy was either really ahead of his time or completely off the wall and nothing in between.

Dictionnaire de l’Académie (French)

He was well-informed, keeping pace with scientific developments, comparing Saint-Simon with Fourier, deciphering hieroglyphics, splitting the stones that he found and studying geology, drawing a silkworm moth from memory, pointing out the incorrect French in the Dictionnaire de l’Académie, reading Puységur and Deleuze, affirming nothing, not even miracles, denying nothing, not even ghosts, dipping into old issues of Le Moniteur, pondering.” (Les Mis 3.4.1)

This was the first official French dictionary, produced by the Académie Française as part of their mission to document and regulate the French language. The 5th edition was published in 1798 and would have been the most contemporary version for Combeferre. The Dictionnaire de l’Académie was always met with a certain amount of criticism. Its slow release meant it couldn’t keep up with the evolution of language and was always a little out of date. Also the Académie’s goal in developing the dictionary was less to capture a record of how French was used but instead to dictate how French should be used. As such, it excluded regional words or technical language and Victor Hugo has a lot of opinions about slang (cue war flashback to the slang chapter) so obviously he has opinions about this and so does Combeferre. As we’ll get into later, Combeferre always has a snide opinion to give on the Académie Française, he loves dissing these elitist guys. They’re actually still around to this day and, as far as I can tell, still subject to a lot of the same criticisms. Did you know their uniform costs $50,000? Wild.

Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire et à l'établissement du magnétisme animal by Marquis de Puységur (1784) (French)

Du magnétisme animal, considéré dans ses rapports avec diverses branches de la physique générale by Marquis de Puységur (1807) (French)

Histoire critique du magnétisme animal by Joseph-Philippe-Francois Deleuze (1813) (French)

Instruction pratique sur le magnétisme animal; suivie d’une lettre écrite a l’auteur par un médecin étranger by Joseph-Philippe-Francois Deleuze (1825) (French, English)

He was well-informed, keeping pace with scientific developments, comparing Saint-Simon with Fourier, deciphering hieroglyphics, splitting the stones that he found and studying geology, drawing a silkworm moth from memory, pointing out the incorrect French in the Dictionnaire de l’Académie, reading Puységur and Deleuze, affirming nothing, not even miracles, denying nothing, not even ghosts, dipping into old issues of Le Moniteur, pondering.” (Les Mis 3.4.1)

Alright, it’s time to dip briefly into a little ~animal magnetism~! We’re not really in the thick of it yet. Joly is a huge fan of this magnet pseudoscience so I’ll talk way more about it in his booklist. Basically, for now, what you need to know is that animal magnetism (or mesmerism) was an insanely popular medical fad in France around this time and literally almost everyone had very strong opinions on it. For his part, Combeferre likes the magnets. Puységur and Deleuze were major advocates for animal magnetism, key to its popularity in France, and published a lot of work about it that Combeferre apparently reads! I just pulled some of their most popular or seminal work here to keep it brief, but there is so much written material about this topic at the time, it’s overwhelming (link).

In short, the Marquis de Puységur was a disciple of Mesmer who made a school in Paris to teach people about magnetism. His research focused on the discovery of hypnotism (though he called it artificial somnambulism). In fact, he made a lot of discoveries about the subconscious mind, the benefits of building a rapport with your patient, and other concepts that would eventually become essential to the development of modern psychotherapy. His work was super popular and helped shift the focus of mesmerism from physical to psychological treatment. 

Deleuze was another French researcher, very inspired by the work of Puységur, who had a huge impact on the movement in France. He published one of the most important popular manuals for the practice of animal magnetism. It was super popular and went through at least 4 editions in thirty years in France, that’s a lot of printing! (It also claimed that magnetism could cure alcoholism, but I guess Combeferre didn’t pass that factoid on to Grantaire.) Anyway, in addition to his practical guide, he also wrote a pretty comprehensive history of animal magnetism that was apparently known for being a very balanced record that didn’t ignore legitimate criticism, but ultimately he was still very impressed by what he found. This is an extremely Combeferre attitude, I can see why he’d trust this kind of research.

Le Moniteur Universel (French)

He was well-informed, keeping pace with scientific developments, comparing Saint-Simon with Fourier, deciphering hieroglyphics, splitting the stones that he found and studying geology, drawing a silkworm moth from memory, pointing out the incorrect French in the Dictionnaire de l’Académie, reading Puységur and Deleuze, affirming nothing, not even miracles, denying nothing, not even ghosts, dipping into old issues of Le Moniteur, pondering.” (Les Mis 3.4.1)

Le Moniteur was the main newspaper that covered the French Revolution and the proceedings of the National Assembly. Later, starting under Napoleon, it served as a daily record of the French government and was frequently used for government propaganda. The paper is brought up several times by a few different characters throughout Les Mis in a way that creates a clear delineation between old copies of Le Moniteur and the newer copies. The old ones are revolutionary. The new ones are ye olde Fox News. Marius radicalizes himself by reading, among other things, old copies of Le Moniteur at his university’s library. Meanwhile, Marius’s evil classist grandpa reads the new copies and Marius’s himbo cousin Théodule tries to impress their grandpa by saying “There should be no other newspaper than the Moniteur, and no other book than the Annuaire Militaire.”

The link I found above is to an archive of old issues of Le Moniteur. There are YEARS of them, with a lot of the speeches from the National Convention that iconic people like Robespierre, Saint-Just, or Danton gave. In fact, many of the transcriptions we have today came from the reporting in Le Moniteur. It’s a hugely significant newspaper for historians to understand that entire period of history, and it seems like Combeferre has tapped into that significance early.

Poetics by Aristotle (English)

Pratique du théâtre by Abbé d’Aubignac (English)

L’Art Poétique by Nicolas Boileau (French, English)

“Preface to Cromwell” by Victor Hugo (English)

“At the sight of a theatre poster displaying the title of a tragedy from the old, so-called classical, repertoire, Bahorel cried, ‘Down with the bourgeoisie's beloved tragedy!’ And Marius heard Combeferre reply, ‘You’re mistaken, Bahorel. The bourgeoisie likes tragedy, and on that score the bourgeoisie should be left alone. Tragedy in wigs has its own justification, and I’m not one of those who in the name of Aeschylus dispute its right to exist. There are in nature some crude designs; there are in creation some ready-made parodies: a beak that’s not a beak, wings that aren’t wings, flippers that aren’t flippers, feet that aren’t feet, a plaintive cry that makes you want to laugh - and there you have the duck. Now, since poultry and birds co-exist, I don’t see why classic tragedy shouldn’t play opposite antique tragedy.’” (Les Mis 3.4.3)

I had this foolish hope that I’d be able to narrow down a specific list of plays this quote could conceivably be referencing by using the genre and year it was taking place in, but no such luck. However, there’s still something for the booklist because Combeferre is talking with some specificity about classic tragedy and the restrictive rules of French Neoclassical theater. These rules were largely imposed by The Académie Française, which Combeferre has already criticized earlier with their dictionary, so I feel pretty confident that he’s read up on this subject too.

In short, in the 1600’s a group of French playwrights decided that the plays of classic antiquity were the best and all new plays should follow the Three Unities described in Aristotle’s Poetics. That is the Unity of Action (a play should follow one action with minimal subplots), Unity of Time (a play should take place over a period of no more than 24 hours), and Unity of Place (a play should exist in a single location). These playwrights later founded The Académie Française, and made it compulsory for all published works to follow an even longer list of rules. I don’t have time to explain all of those here but if you’re interested in more details, PBS’s Crash Course on French Neoclassicism (link) is an amazing source! As you can imagine, there was a lot of elitism and strict adherence to a specific classic repertoire in French theater leading up to the point in time when Combeferre is having this conversation. Napoleon also released several decrees controlling which theaters were allowed to operate and what kind of plays they could show (link), which the Romantics viewed as state censorship (link). While Bahorel is straightforwardly indignant at elitist classic tragedy, Combeferre loves to play the devil’s advocate. Here, he makes a backhanded defense of the genre, implying that it’s a ridiculous version of the thing it’s trying so hard to be. Scathing.

Other than the Poetics, I picked a couple more major sources that helped to shape the Neoclassical movement and that Combeferre might have presumably read. The Pratique du théâtre was a handbook for aspiring writers, advising them on how to adhere to the classic rules of theater, which apparently had a huge impact on the development of the Neoclassical style (link). Boileau was also very inspired by the classic rules of theater when he wrote L’Art Poétique. The Literariness Journal describes it as a “formal statement of the principles of French classicism, and perhaps the most direct expression of neoclassical ideals anywhere” (link) and during Bossuet’s introduction to Marius, he rattles off a quote from L’Art Poétique verbatim, so I think it’s safe to assume that Combeferre might be familiar too. And, finally, there’s the preface to Cromwell, aka part of the reason I think we’re even getting this scene at all. 

This conversation that Combeferre is having with Bahorel would have taken place in roughly 1828, which is right after Victor Hugo published his famous preface to his play Cromwell in 1827. I mean the preface was famous, not the play. The play was a total flop that had a SEVEN HOUR runtime, but the introduction became a manifesto of the Romantic movement and a seminal work on the topic. Then, just a few years later in 1830, the royal commissioner allowed Victor Hugo to stage his Romantic play Hernani at the Théâtre-Français, the most premier official venue in Paris. And this became the boiling point between the classicists and the Romantics. It completely popped off. And Victor Hugo loves to bring it up. So let’s be real, this whole thing is a wink wink nudge nudge reference to the face that Hernani is about to drop on the scene. It’s always about Hernani. Victor Hugo, you can’t fool me. Marius’s evil grandpa even insults Hernani so Hugo can make fun of people who think Hernani is bad, it’s a whole thing. So I truly believe he’s setting up a little self-reference to his cool moment he got to stick it to the classical theater community.

The French Charter of 1814 (English)

“In the last corner they were talking politics. The 1814 Charter was coming under criticism. Combeferre was weakly defending it, Courfeyrac was energetically attacking it.” (Les Mis 3.4.4) 

Combeferre loves to play the devil’s advocate. The 1814 Charter was the basis for the constitutional monarchy under King Louis XVIII and then, briefly, King Charles X. The July Revolution of 1830 would be a direct response to King Charles X using it as an excuse to suspend the liberty of the press and other tyrannical changes. But that won’t be for a couple more years. Combeferre doesn’t actually believe in this Charter, but this is a group of friends that likes arguing for fun, so he’s always being contrary.

“The Cat That Turned Into a Woman” Fables by Jean de La Fontaine (English)

“Combeferre philosophically watched Louis XVIII’s masterpiece burn, and confined himself to the remark, ‘The charter that turned to ashes.’” (Les Mis 3.4.4)

This is a reference to La Fontaine’s fable “The Cat That Turned Into a Woman”. A lot of characters throughout Les Mis reference La Fontaine’s Fables, which is no surprise because they’re very popular. The moral of this one is that something’s true nature will always reveal itself no matter how its physical shape changes. Since he makes the allusion after Courfeyrac throws the charter into the fire for effect, he’s basically saying that the nature of the charter is unchanged despite Courfeyrac’s dramatic gesture.

Le Misanthrope by Molière (English, French song, French play recording)

“It was Combeferre, and this is what he was singing:  ‘If Caesar had offered me glory and war, But on pain of forsaking my mother’s love, I’d have told great Caesar his prizes to keep, I love my mother more, tra-la, I love my mother more.’” (Les Mis 3.4.5)

During the Revolution, it became extremely popular to recast, or make new lyrics for familiar tunes and publish or perform these new lyrics publicly, often for political reasons. This continued to be prevalent throughout the early 1800’s, so it’s a pretty normal thing for Combeferre to be doing here (link). Specifically, Combeferre is recasting a song the character Alceste sings in Molière’s Le Misanthrope (Act I scene ii), a comedy of manners that satirizes the hypocrisies of the French aristocracy. Combeferre loves Molière! I’ve included a link to a choir performing the song so you can get a sense of the tune, as well as a link to that part of the play, though the melody is less distinct in that one. For further reference, I found a university project uploaded on youtube that performs a skit of the act with Combeferre’s little song, though they cut off before that actual line (link). It does a good job conveying the vibe of this scene in English, and if you watch it just keep in mind that this is apparently peak comedy for Combeferre. He saw this and he memorized that song to use as a sick burn later. Like, “HA, Marius, you’re just as cringe as Oronte performing his sonnet in Le Misanthrope Act I scene ii!” Devastating. And honestly? …Accurate. Poor Marius will never recover. 

I’ve seen people say that Molière is the French equivalent of Shakespeare, and I think that’s pretty accurate. His plays are funny, accessible reads that mocked the society of his time and tbh a lot of it holds up today. Combeferre makes another reference to Molière later and calls him a genius, so I think it’s safe to assume he’s a big fan. In fact, Combeferre really loves comedy in general and I think that’s really cute. Much like Molière, Combeferre has a dry, sarcastic sense of humor and he’s always saying short little cutting remarks to his friends. He’s often characterized by fans as the serious one with glasses when he canonically loves comedy more than anyone else in his friend group. The boys are all seeing Oppenheimer and he’s at Barbie having the time of his life.

The Athenian Constitution by Aristotle (English)

“Surrounded by students and artisans, Combeferre was talking about the dead, Jean Prouvaire, Bahorel, Mabeuf, and even Cabuc, and about Enjolras’s stern sorrow. He said, ‘Harmodius and Aristogeiton, Brutus, Chaerea, Stephanus, Cromwell, Charlotte Corday, Sand, have all had their moment of anguish after the event.’” (Les Mis 5.1.2)

The Tyrranicides are back! Enjolras was previously compared to Harmodius and Aristogeiton during his introduction to emphasize his disinterest in dating women, and now Combeferre is referencing them for a very different reason. Whereas, for Enjolras, the emphasis was on their revolutionary violence, Combeferre is more interested in what comes after that act of violence.

Looking over this whole list of names, when Combeferre mentions the “moment of anguish after the event” he’s not talking about literal regret or sadness so much as he’s talking about the unexpected consequences of these people’s revolutionary actions. Their own executions, political retaliation, that sort of thing. All the primary ancient sources on the Tyrranicides are really celebratory of them, so there isn’t a lot of focus on their deaths after the assassination, but Aristotle talks a little bit more than others about Aristogeiton’s torture and eventual death. He’s mostly talking about how cool Aristogeiton is the whole time, but still. Combeferre is using these examples to ponder over the potential future consequences of their own revolution now that some of his friends have already died. Unlike Enjolras, he’s more interested in humanizing these people in order to understand how his friends might be remembered as well.

Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare (English)

Le Mort de César by Voltaire (French)

The Bible, Gospel of Matthew (English) 

“Surrounded by students and artisans, Combeferre was talking about the dead, Jean Prouvaire, Bahorel, Mabeuf, and even Cabuc, and about Enjolras’s stern sorrow. He said, ‘Harmodius and Aristogeiton, Brutus, Chaerea, Stephanus, Cromwell, Charlotte Corday, Sand, have all had their moment of anguish after the event.’” (Les Mis 5.1.2) “[Combeferre:] ‘Cicero metes out justice by the intellect just as Brutus metes out justice by the sword. For my own part, I condemn this latter form of justice, the blade, but antiquity allowed it.’” (Les Mis 5.1.2) “[Combeferre:] ‘Caesar, violator of the Rubicon, bestowing as it they derived from him the dignities that derived from the people, not rising for the Senate, acted, as Eutropius says, like a king and almost like a tyrant, regia ac poene tyrannica. He was a great man. Too bad. Or so much the better - the lesson is all the more edifying. His twenty-three wounds affect me less than the spitting in Jesus Christ’s face. Caesar is stabbed by senators. Christ is treated with contempt by lackeys. In the greater outrage you sense the deity.’” (Les Mis 5.1.2)

Okay, we’ve got two allusions here. First off, we’ve got another reference to Brutus. In contrast to Enjolras’s whole-hearted celebration of Brutus as a revolutionary figure, Combeferre is more hesitant to praise political violence. This contrast between the two of them comes up a lot, so it’s no surprise here. Combeferre is a gentle guy so he’d prefer progress to be peaceful, but he also won’t outright condemn people who kill tyrants. As mentioned in the Enjolras book list, Shakespeare had a huge impact on the Romantic movement and Victor Hugo, so his play Julius Caesar is almost definitely a source for this Brutus reference. Voltaire’s version, La Mort de César, was the first translation of the play into French and the version most French-speakers in the early 19th century would be familiar with, so I’ve included it as well even though Voltaire’s play cuts out almost all the content after the assassination. Since Combeferre makes an explicit reference to the “anguish after the event,” aka Brutus’ slow decline and the failure of the Roman Republic, that would probably be a reference to the original Shakespeare version.

And, secondly, we have Combeferre’s Hugo-assigned Biblical reference! This one’s pretty simple, since Combeferre references the Gospel of Matthew, aka the Jesus part of the Bible. As opposed to Enjolras’s righteous fury, Combeferre is all about being nice to people, specifically women and the underprivileged.

“Caligula” and “Claudius” Lives of the Twelve Caesars by Suetonius (English, English)

“Surrounded by students and artisans, Combeferre was talking about the dead, Jean Prouvaire, Bahorel, Mabeuf, and even Cabuc, and about Enjolras’s stern sorrow. He said, ‘Harmodius and Aristogeiton, Brutus, Chaerea, Stephanus, Cromwell, Charlotte Corday, Sand, have all had their moment of anguish after the event.’” (Les Mis 5.1.2)

We’ll talk a little bit more about Emperor Caligula during Grantaire’s booklist, but if you’re not familiar with the name, basically he’s an infamous corrupt ruler of the Roman Empire. He did really weird things like trying to make his favorite horse a Consul so he tends to come up when people talk about comically evil Roman Emperors. Most of the information we know about Caligula comes from an account by the historian Suetonius, which includes a record of his eventual assassination. One of these assassins, and reportedly the one who struck the first blow, was Cassius Chaerea. He was later executed by the following emperor, Claudius, who was afraid the conspirators had also intended to assassinate him. The assassination itself is covered in the chapter “Caligula” and the ensuing execution is covered in the chapter “Claudius” so I included both of those here. Like the rest of this list, it’s another example of a guy who died as a consequence of his radical political action.

Roman History by Cassius Dio (English)

“Surrounded by students and artisans, Combeferre was talking about the dead, Jean Prouvaire, Bahorel, Mabeuf, and even Cabuc, and about Enjolras’s stern sorrow. He said, ‘Harmodius and Aristogeiton, Brutus, Chaerea, Stephanus, Cromwell, Charlotte Corday, Sand, have all had their moment of anguish after the event.’” (Les Mis 5.1.2)

Stephanus was one of three assassins who plotted to kill the Roman Emperor Domitian, as recorded in the Epitome of Book LXVII of Dio’s Roman History. I wasn’t familiar with Domitian before this booklist, but this chapter on him was such a wild ride. The chapter opens with the line “Domitian was not only bold and quick to anger but also treacherous and secretive” and continues to somehow be even less flattering than that line prepared me for. Most of the account is just a list of comically evil things he did during his reign and how “there was no human being for whom he felt any genuine affection.” He’s paranoid, insecure, bloodthirsty, a sex menace to both women and men, and he won’t stop executing people for predicting his death. According to Dio, Domitian had an astrologer tell him all the people whose horoscopes indicated they’d try to usurp him and he just started going down the list having them all murdered. There’s actually a lot of astrologers and psychic visions that come into play in this story, but the important part is the assassination itself. 

During the assassination, Stephanus led the charge and threw Domitian to the ground, but apparently everyone was so eager for this guy to die that some people who weren’t part of the plan also rushed into the room all at once to kill Domitian and they killed Stephanus too. So, Stephanus’s misstep was just being caught in the crossfires while killing Domitian, though his assassination was ultimately successful.

Cromwell by Victor Hugo (English)

“Surrounded by students and artisans, Combeferre was talking about the dead, Jean Prouvaire, Bahorel, Mabeuf, and even Cabuc, and about Enjolras’s stern sorrow. He said, ‘Harmodius and Aristogeiton, Brutus, Chaerea, Stephanus, Cromwell, Charlotte Corday, Sand, have all had their moment of anguish after the event.’” (Les Mis 5.1.2)

We know this guy. Victor Hugo wrote a whole play about the aftermath of Cromwell’s revolution and the moral ambiguity of attaining power after toppling those in power, etc. etc. I cited this play in Enjolras’s booklist with the stipulation that, though the timeline checks out, I’m not sure the play would actually be to Enjolras’s taste. I don’t feel that way about Combeferre, I do think he would’ve checked this play out. I already mentioned the preface of this play when Combeferre was going off about classical theater, and I think Combeferre is actually very tapped into the discourse surrounding the rules of classical theater so he wouldn’t have missed this one.

“Adresse aux Français amis des lois et de la paix” by Charlotte Corday (French)

“Surrounded by students and artisans, Combeferre was talking about the dead, Jean Prouvaire, Bahorel, Mabeuf, and even Cabuc, and about Enjolras’s stern sorrow. He said, ‘Harmodius and Aristogeiton, Brutus, Chaerea, Stephanus, Cromwell, Charlotte Corday, Sand, have all had their moment of anguish after the event.’” (Les Mis 5.1.2)

Charlotte Corday famously murdered the revolutionary journalist Jean-Paul Marat by stabbing him while he was in the bath. There’s an iconic painting done by Jacques-Louis David in the same year depicting the death that you might recognize, fittingly called The Death of Marat (link). Corday was also a revolutionary, but she was a Girondin and she didn’t like the Jacobins, so she thought that Marat was leading the people of France down a bad road. Yet again, we see a cheeky little example of how Combeferre is balancing out Enjolras’s more Jacobin sympathies by mentioning Corday as a revolutionary hero instead of Marat. Anyway, Charlotte Corday didn’t even try to get away with the assassination. She waited on site to be arrested and had a manifesto letter that she sent to the papers to be published afterwards explaining why she did it. By all accounts she had no regrets about the murder, but she was convicted by the Revolutionary Tribunal and guillotined within a few days, so that’s probably the anguish after the event Combeferre is referencing here.

Since this is such a small reference, I opted to just include the letter that Charlotte Corday had published in the papers. She makes a few literary references herself during all of this. Her letter evokes Brutus from Voltaire’s La Mort de César and she reportedly carried a copy of Plutarch’s Parallel Lives with her to the murder, both works that get referenced elsewhere by Les Amis as well. That’s cool! It’s also very Combeferre to stan a woman revolutionary, even if she is a little bit more violent than he would like. Apparently, a lot of the contemporary coverage about her centered largely around gender and violence, so I guess we can imagine that Combeferre was reading up on his feminist news per usual (link). Love that for him.

“Karl-Ludwig Sand” Celebrated Crimes by Alexandre Dumas (English)

“Surrounded by students and artisans, Combeferre was talking about the dead, Jean Prouvaire, Bahorel, Mabeuf, and even Cabuc, and about Enjolras’s stern sorrow. He said, ‘Harmodius and Aristogeiton, Brutus, Chaerea, Stephanus, Cromwell, Charlotte Corday, Sand, have all had their moment of anguish after the event.’” (Les Mis 5.1.2)

Ohohoho, okay we’ve got a bit of a weird one here re: the timeline. Technically, German student Karl Ludwig Sand assassinated the conservative dramatist August von Kutzebue (an alleged Russian spy and German traitor) in 1819, leading to Sand’s execution in 1820. It’s not an anachronistic reference for Combeferre to make in that regard. The event was a big deal in Germany and led to a lot of government restrictions on liberal and German nationalist groups. However, none of this was really common knowledge in Paris until Alexandre Dumas published a version of the story in his collection Celebrated Crimes, which wouldn’t be published until 1839. This is almost definitely the source that Combeferre is supposed to be referencing. A lot of the information Dumas published was based on interviews he personally did, so it wouldn’t have been widely available before his book came out. Plus Dumas and Hugo were friends, and Hugo wrote an unfinished play on the subject of another one of the crimes Dumas covered here. So I feel like all signs point to this being an anachronistic reference to Celebrated Crimes, but I’ll allow that technically Combeferre could’ve just been super ahead of his time and done his own research to make this reference. 

Anyway, the point here is in line with all the other references Combeferre makes on this list. He was a man who, according to Dumas, “kings regarded as an assassin, judges as a fanatic, and the youth of Germany as a hero.” It is a good note to leave off on for Combeferre to punctuate his theme of what makes a martyr and how people will interpret the legacy of political violence after it’s done.

Georgics by Virgil (English)

Georgics translated by J.F. Raux, 1802 (French)

Georgics translated by Antoine de Cournand, 1804 (French)

Georgics translated by Abbé Delille, 1770 (French)

Georgics translated by Jacques-Charles-Louis Clinchamps de Malfilâtre, 1810 (French)

“And a moment later, such are the circuitous routes of conversational exchange, with Jean Prouvaire’s verses providing the transition, Combeferre was comparing the translators of the Georgics, Raux with Cournand, Cournand with Delille, referring to the few passages translated by Malfilâtre, particularly the portents at Caesar’s death.” (Les Mis 5.1.2)

The Georgics are a four-book Latin poem by Virgil about agriculture, our relationship with the land, and hard work. There were several French translations released during the turn of the century, and apparently Combeferre has opinions about a lot of them. I went ahead and included all the versions he listed here in French. We don’t get to hear his specific opinions on these, but you can check them out if you’re interested. 

Though most of the poem is instructional about agriculture, we are told that Combeferre is focusing specifically on the passages about Caesar’s death (in Book 1, lines 461-497). This is mostly covering the civil war following Caesar’s death, framing it as a cosmic upset that must be navigated carefully or Rome will suffer. This ties into the “anguish after the event” that he was discussing earlier; he remains focused on the consequences of these large political changes that must be survived.

De Officiis by Cicero (English)

“‘Caesar,’ said Combeferre, ‘was justly brought down. Cicero was harshly critical of Caesar, and he was right to be. That harshness is no diatribe. When Zoilus insults Homer, when Maevius insults Virgil, when Visé insults Molière, when Pope insults Shakespeare, when Fréron insults Voltaire, it is an old law of envy and hatred that is being observed. Genius attracts insult, great men are always more or less subject to carping. But Zoilus and Cicero are two different matters. Cicero metes out justice by the intellect just as Brutus metes out justice by the sword. For my own part, I condemn this latter form of justice, the blade, but antiquity allowed it.” (Les Mis 5.1.2)

Cicero has a lot of written work that was hugely influential in ancient Rome, and Cicero’s impact on the Enlightenment and later the French Revolution was so huge that I really don’t have time to cover all of it here. Francesca Romana Berno wrote a whole essay on the relationship between Cicero’s work and the French Revolution (link) that’s super interesting if you want to know more about the topic, but in short he was an idol to the French republicans. Cicero also appeared as a minor character in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, where the conspirators consider inviting him to the assassination and then say never mind because “he will never follow any thing that other men begin.” Hysterical.

However, in the realm of actual historical documents, I think De Officiis is a good contender for the source of Combeferre’s little anecdote about Cicero criticizing Caesar here. It was one of his last publications, written at the end of his life during the fall of the Roman Republic, and considered one of his masterpieces. De Officiis literally means something like “On Duties” or “On Moral Obligations” and it was basically a practical guide to the moral duties of citizens. He criticized Caesar’s tyranny in large part because of the way that a lack of political rights negatively affects people’s moral virtues. All of this would be very topical to France at the turn of the century. Cicero also wrote letters that were critical of Caesar (I’m a big fan of the one where Cicero wishes he’d been invited to the Ides of March, that one’s really funny), but ultimately I think this treatise is more substantial and historically significant. Fun fact, it was the second book ever printed on a printing press!

Anyway, this whole anecdote is very utopian socialist of Combeferre, to say that publishing a particularly cutting critique of Caesar is as valid an execution as stabbing him to death and is an equally valid path to overthrowing a tyrant. I talked a little bit about Combeferre’s take on Caesar and Brutus earlier, but basically of course Combeferre idolizes this man who could rally an educated population with words instead of violence. This is Combeferre’s entire thing. However, even Cicero said “the ides of march was a fine deed, but half done” and Combeferre does admit that, despite his personal preferences, there was nothing unjust about killing Caesar. Just as we’re told that Enjolras has become a gentler version of himself by the time he gets to the barricade due to Combeferre’s influence, Combeferre is also at the barricade and ready to fight due to Enjolras’s influence. They’re a good balance to each other.

An Essay on Criticism by Alexander Pope (English)

The Iliad by Homer (English)

“‘Caesar,’ said Combeferre, ‘was justly brought down. Cicero was harshly critical of Caesar, and he was right to be. That harshness is no diatribe. When Zoilus insults Homer, when Maevius insults Virgil, when Visé insults Molière, when Pope insults Shakespeare, when Fréron insults Voltaire, it is an old law of envy and hatred that is being observed. Genius attracts insult, great men are always more or less subject to carping.” (Les Mis 5.1.2)

Here, Combeferre rattles off a long list with examples of people who made a name for themselves by criticizing someone who was more talented than them out of envy. So we can assume that Combeferre has read both the criticism he’s referencing, and the works they’re criticizing. Let’s break those down!

First up we’ve got Zoilus insulting Homer. Zoilus was a scholar in the fourth century BC whose entire legacy is just how much he hated Homer. None of his works, including Against the Poetry of Homer, survived but we still know about this guy because of how much drama he was embroiled in. The ancient architect Vitruvius (of the Vitruvian Man fame) writes about him in On Architecture, mentioning a completely unverifiable account of Zoilus being such an insufferable Homer-anti that the king, a Homer stan, had him crucified or stoned to death by an angry mob (link). He even called him Homeromastix, or literally “Homer hater.” Wow. People truly never change, they are always getting pissed off about people’s bad takes and then writing fictionalized accounts of them publicly dying. Or maybe a mob really did kill Zoilus for being so insufferable, who can say. Anyway, a lot of authors have gone on to mention Zoilus as a catch-all term for a bitter and envious critic. So many that it has an entry in Merriam-Webster (link). Honestly I’ve gotta respect the legacy this man managed to garner. Miguel de Cervantes brought hating on Zoilus back into vogue in the Middle Ages when he called Zoilus a slanderer in his preface to Don Quixote. And then by the 18th century another hater from later in Combeferre’s list, Alexander Pope, ironically calls out Zoilus in his An Essay on Criticism: “Nay, should great Homer lift his awful head, Zoilus again would start up from the dead. Envy will Merit as its shade pursue, But like a shadow proves the substance true…” Victor Hugo has referenced both of these, but since Combeferre himself mentions Pope later in the same sentence and it’s more contemporary, I opted to go with that one as Combeferre’s source for this insult. But there’s a strong argument to be made for just the preface to Don Quixote as well. 

Oh yeah, and as for Homer, I could’ve gone with The Iliad or The Odyssey because apparently Zoilus hated them both, but I opted for The Iliad because the other boys mention it so much and I wanted Combeferre to match his friends.

Eclogue 3 by Virgil (English)

Epode 10 by Horace (English)

“‘Caesar,’ said Combeferre, ‘was justly brought down. Cicero was harshly critical of Caesar, and he was right to be. That harshness is no diatribe. When Zoilus insults Homer, when Maevius insults Virgil, when Visé insults Molière, when Pope insults Shakespeare, when Fréron insults Voltaire, it is an old law of envy and hatred that is being observed. Genius attracts insult, great men are always more or less subject to carping.” (Les Mis 5.1.2)

Not much is known about Maevius since none of his works (if he even had them) or biographical information survived. The two main sources proving this guy even existed are Virgil’s Eclogue 3, which mockingly mentions a poet named Maevius, and Horace’s Epode 10, which is just a long prayer to manifest “that stinker Mevius” dying horribly at sea. These two are commonly thought to be the same guy, remembered just for being really hated by guys who are more talented than him, presumably.

Zélinde, Comédie, Ou La Véritable Critique de l'Escole Des Femmes Et La Critique de la Critique by Jean Donneau de Visé (French)

L'école des Femmes (School for Wives) by Molière (English)

“‘Caesar,’ said Combeferre, ‘was justly brought down. Cicero was harshly critical of Caesar, and he was right to be. That harshness is no diatribe. When Zoilus insults Homer, when Maevius insults Virgil, when Visé insults Molière, when Pope insults Shakespeare, when Fréron insults Voltaire, it is an old law of envy and hatred that is being observed. Genius attracts insult, great men are always more or less subject to carping.” (Les Mis 5.1.2)

Discourse over the rules of classic theater is back! Okay, Molière has appeared on Combeferre’s booklist before with Le Misanthrope, which Combeferre loves. To recap: He’s one of the great classic French playwrights, and the one who played the most loose with the rules of French classical theater. School for Wives was one of Molière’s early plays, and it was both extremely popular and controversial at the time. It’s a comedy that follows a creepy old man who is so insecure about the idea of being cheated on that he tries to marry his young ward who he’s raised to be naive to men and relationships. But it doesn’t work. She falls in love with someone else and escapes him. Critics of School for Wives thought it violated multiple of the rules of classic theater and they were incensed. Morality was a big one, accusations of obscenity were lobbied at the play a lot, but there was also a surprising amount of controversy surrounding verisimilitude, aka nitpicking scenes that were implausible (link). In retaliation, Molière wrote a one-act play response to the criticisms titled La critique de l’École des femmes and had it performed at the end of his play. It’s very meta. Basically the characters pretend they’ve just seen the play and discuss their opinions on it so Molière can characterize his detractors as losers and his supporters as cool, even though they all think they’ve won the argument by the end of the play. As you can probably predict, this pissed off a lot of people. The Duke of La Feuillade even assaulted Molière over it and many more people published responses making fun of the play (link). Enter Jean Donneau de Visé.

Visé published Zélinde, and based on the subtitle alone you can probably guess that it’s a criticism of School for Wives and the follow-up La critique de l’École des femmes (that sassy one-act play). Although apparently later Visé and Molière buried the hatchet and ended up working together on several shows. Aw, a happy ending. Anyway, Zélinde didn’t really survive the test of time, but School of Wives absolutely did. There have been so many English retellings of this play that I was familiar with the name before I even did the research for this booklist. And omg look Phillipa Soo was Agnès in this 2014 version of the play in New Jersey a year before Hamilton (link), that’s fun.

The Works of Shakespear by Alexander Pope (1725) (English)

“‘Caesar,’ said Combeferre, ‘was justly brought down. Cicero was harshly critical of Caesar, and he was right to be. That harshness is no diatribe. When Zoilus insults Homer, when Maevius insults Virgil, when Visé insults Molière, when Pope insults Shakespeare, when Fréron insults Voltaire, it is an old law of envy and hatred that is being observed. Genius attracts insult, great men are always more or less subject to carping.” (Les Mis 5.1.2)

Pope both loved and insulted Shakespeare throughout his career. He published a translation of the works of Shakespeare in 1725, but he edited the plays to make them “more appealing” to a contemporary reader. He explained this decision and some of his changes in the preface of the first edition (link) but the reception of this adaptation was contentious. One guy in particular, Lewis Theobold, really came for Pope and published a scathing pamphlet called Shakespeare Restored that catalogued all of the changes and perceived errors in Pope’s translation (link). You may hear “pamphlet” and think this is a short criticism, but it’s like 200 pages. Savage. It pissed off Pope so much he went on to make Theobald a major character in his The Dunciad, a poem about mediocre people who bring stupidity and tastelessness to Britain. He’s so messy!

L’Année Littéraire by Elie Fréron

Candide by Voltaire (English)

L’Ecossaise (The Scotch Woman) by Voltaire (French, English)

Le Pauvre Diable (The Poor Devils) by Voltaire (French)

“‘Caesar,’ said Combeferre, ‘was justly brought down. Cicero was harshly critical of Caesar, and he was right to be. That harshness is no diatribe. When Zoilus insults Homer, when Maevius insults Virgil, when Visé insults Molière, when Pope insults Shakespeare, when Fréron insults Voltaire, it is an old law of envy and hatred that is being observed. Genius attracts insult, great men are always more or less subject to carping.” (Les Mis 5.1.2)

Elie-Catherine Fréron used his popular review journal, L’Annee Litteraire, to publish anti-Enlightenment criticism, including many, many shots at Voltaire. Hating Voltaire has basically become Fréron’s entire legacy. He simply can’t shut up about the guy. For his part, Voltaire hated Fréron right back and wrote so much nasty stuff about him. Voltaire is notoriously a messy bitch, so there’s a lot of content that came out of this feud. Just to narrow it down, I opted to only include his actual book-length works that made fun of Fréron for the booklist, but Voltaire also published a bunch of mean poems too. I kept running into this one epigram, roughly translated as: “The other day, beside the lake / Jean Fréron got bit by a snake. / What do you think happened then? / It was the snake that met its end!” (link, link). Sometimes I see things from historical people and I just know they would’ve had the craziest twitter. Alas. Anyway, Fréron cameos in Voltaire’s most famous novel Candide. The theater critic in Chapter 22 (link) is referred to as a Fréron: “"He is a bad character," answered the Abbé, "who gains his livelihood by saying evil of all plays and of all books. He hates whatever succeeds, as the eunuchs hate those who enjoy; he is one of the serpents of literature who nourish themselves on dirt and spite; he is a folliculaire." / "What is a folliculaire?" said Candide. / "It is," said the Abbé, "a pamphleteer—a Fréron."” Brutal.

After this, Fréron wrote mean things about Candide (go figure), so Voltaire made him a character in his comedy play L’Ecossaise (French, English) or “The Scotch Woman,” a satire of Scottish and English aristocracy. Fréron (oh I’m sorry, Frélon, an obviously different man) is a rascally writer who intervenes and whose name has been changed to literally mean “wasp.” Get it? Because he buzzes around being annoying? In the opening of the play, a character straight up asks him if he deliberately tries to be so universally hated because Voltaire has no chill. He also appears in Le Pauvre Diable (French) or “The Poor Devils,” a satire about a struggling writer with an equally unflattering portrayal. There’s so much more, but I have to stop. These two guys just loathed each other.

Hugo himself described Voltaire as he “who must always be fought against and fought for” in his William Shakespeare, because Voltaire is such a hater and constantly picking fights with other writers. The literary infighting is a never-ending circle. I have to stop making this same joke over and over again, but RIP Combeferre, you would’ve loved booktok drama.

Summary of Roman History by Eutropius (English)

“[Combeferre:] ‘Caesar, violator of the Rubicon, bestowing as it they derived from him the dignities that derived from the people, not rising for the Senate, acted, as Eutropius says, like a king and almost like a tyrant, regia ac poene tyrannica. He was a great man. Too bad. Or so much the better - the lesson is all the more edifying.’” (Les Mis 5.1.2)

And, finally, we have Combeferre’s last allusion in the novel. This line he quotes is from the end of book 6 of Eutropius’s Brevarium Historiae Romanae, which covers the death of Caesar. The chapter is a condensed version of several books in Livy’s super long History of Rome and is, as the title suggests, a brief summary of the events covered. I’m not surprised that Combeferre is quoting the version that is more accessible. He’s true to his mission for equitable access to education until the very end.

As for the quote itself, the Latin is just a translation of the phrase Combeferre says immediately before comparing kings and tyrants. The original quote was specifically calling out Caesar, who Combeferre has mentioned before, and the conclusion Combeferre is making is that no matter if Caesar is a “good man,” his actions as a king are akin to a tyrant. Regency is inherently tyrannical. There are no good kings. Victor Hugo also talks at length in Les Mis about how Louis-Phillipe was a “good man,” and the parallel is hard to miss. As Combeferre says here, even if a “good man” is a king, it is still tyranny and the people should still oppose it. Much of what Combeferre talks about on the barricade deals with the legacy of revolutionary actions, and he continues to dwell on that here. Combeferre is aware of their doom, but he’s still looking forward and contemplating what truths about their current situation the people will learn from their sacrifice. It’s so fitting that the last thing Combeferre quotes is, he hopes, a lesson.