The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

For disucssing Books 4 and 5 which consist of the chapters:

BOOK FOURTH.
1. GOOD SOULS.
2. CLAUDE FROLLO.
3. IMMANIS PECORIS CUSTOS, IMMANIOR IPSE.
4. THE DOG AND HIS MASTER.
5. MORE ABOUT CLAUDE FROLLO
6. UNPOPULARITY.

BOOK FIFTH.
1. ABBAS BEATI MARTINI.
2. THIS WILL KILL THAT

Upon reading more of this history about Quasimodo and seeing as how he was brought into the Notre Dame when he was still a child and how much the church has become so connected and interwoven into his life as in the previous discussion there was talk as to how the architecture of the church seemed to be reflective of Quasimodo's appearance it began to make me think.

Is the Quasimodo's deformity connected to the grotesqueness of the gargoyles of Notre Dame? The gargoyle were used as sort of guardians of the church to scare away evil spirits. In a sense is Quasimodo also like a guardian of Notre Dame, and the way in which the gargoyles are physically rooted to the church in stone so is Quasimodo rooted to the church as his whole existence revolves around it. Is he like a living manifestation of the gargoyles?

In reading about Quasimodo when he was first discovered and being taken in by Frollo it also really made me think of Frankenstein's monster. They seem to be similar in the way in which they are both rejected and outcast because they are different and both seen as "monsters" and also in the same way it is said that Quasimodo's maliciousness was created by the cruelty of societies treatment.

Both Quasimodo and the Frankenstein monster also show the potential for intelligence and learning, but end becoming that which they are already perceived as being.

They are also both abandoned by their original creators/fathers.

Becasue Madge K is presently away I was asked to post this upon her behalf

MadgeUK wrote:

'What do folks think of Frollo? As the archdeacon of Notre Dame he is the central representation of Christianity (of catholicism?) in HND. Hugo seems to be criticising what he considers the unnatural position of a priest's celibacy with respect to the attraction of the opposite sex. He appears to be suggesting that it is unnatural and probably impossible to try to rise above nature, and in so doing Frollo has left himself open to human weakness – weakness which neither he nor his position can tolerate. For Frollo the religious aspect of his position seems to be little more than a 'front'. The church of the time was very much a political organisation, wielding great power in the secular world and open to corruption. Perhaps Frollo’s conduct represents a more general weakening of the position (and authority) of the church as its position of strength and influence deteriorates while reason and scepticism are spread by the production of printed material which is becoming accessible to all. As Frollo says'...the book will kill the edifice'. 'When Frollo instructs Quasimodo to kidnap Esmeralda, it is not for public protection, but for personal gratification and he is willing to make use of Quasimodo as an instrument of achieving this end. He abuses his position, and shows no respect for either Esmeralda or Quasimodo. The kidnap and his subsequent love for Esmeralda transforms Quasimodo from an obedient and faithful servant of Frollo, respectful and afraid, to an anarchic participant in a revolt against Frollo and his position. The cathedral becomes Frollo's prison as well as Quasimodo's and Esmeralda's, and their fates, together with the predicted decline of the church, seem to prefigure the fall of the Bastille.'

FYI - I haven't given up. I'm just behind. I'll catch up the next couple of days.

As already mentioned by Silver there is very interesting connection between Quasimodo and the cathedral. To me they have an almost symbiotic relationship - the one can hardly live without the other. The cathedral comes to live through Quasimodo and for Quasimodo the cathedral is his world, in which he can somehow fully live and develop with all his senses as the "normal people" outside (e.g. despite his deformed legs he is able to reach his bells upstairs faster than anyone).

Hedi wrote: "As already mentioned by Silver there is very interesting connection between Quasimodo and the cathedral. To me they have an almost symbiotic relationship - the one can hardly live without the other..."

I agree. The connection between Quasimodo and the cathedral comes out very strongly in Book 4, further developing the description in Book 3 of the cathedral as a living creature. I think that Quasimodo's deformities also reflect the damage done to the cathedral done by time and by man which Hugo described earlier in the narrative (and vice versa).

Upon considering Frollo and Quasimodo it is almost as if they are like a grotesque parody (as parody is used so often throughout the book) of Esmeralda and her goat.

Esmeralda is a young beautiful, innocent woman, of whom we see also has a generous and compassionate heart when she steps up to rescue Gringoire from his fate and accepts him as her husband. Which is a self-sacrificing act in spite of the fact that she does than insist they live as brother and sister. And Djali her goat compassion seems to be a reflection of herself, being portrayed as a rather charming creature whom is often described as being beautiful as well.

While on the other hand Frollo who appears as this rather sinister figure haunting Esmeralda uses Quasimodo as a device for his own ominous desires. It is as if the ugliness of Quasimodo is a reflection of Frollo's own twisted and tormented soul and Quasimodo's maliciousness born from Frollo's own cruelty.

I have just finished book 4 and was wondering whether there is any specific reason that Hugo mentioned the Bishop Hugo de Besancon in chapter 5. It seems as if he wanted to hint to some relative.

Silver, that is an interesting comparison. I was very surprised about this dark side that Frollo seems to have which is so different from the way he was described earlier. I also liked Hugo's comparison of the dog and his master, as you can sometimes see how dogs seem to completely adapt themselves and reflect their masters in their ways and behavior. In this case Quasimodo would then be this reflection of Frollo, as you mentioned. I was also wondering what Frollo's relationship with the cathedral is, as he seems to have completely different interests in it and also as the book is more about the cathedral as a protagonist than anyone else. So I assume there is something about that relationship, too. Maybe this will become clearer at a later stage... It was just something that struck me when reading chapter 5 of book 4.

I find the views expressed by Hugo in "This will kill that" very interesting. I'm not sure that I totally agree that printing killed great architecture, but I follow the argument. If it is accepted that great architecture was the most important way of expressing a society's aspirations, then printing provided a cheaper and more convenient way of doing so. What I wondered while I read this chapter, is what Hugo would think about (and write about) modern mass communication. What would he think about what we do here, on this website? If printing killed architecture, what would Hugo say the internet has destroyed?

Kim wrote: "I find the views expressed by Hugo in "This will kill that" very interesting. I'm not sure that I totally agree that printing killed great architecture, but I follow the argument. If it is accepted..."

Well, at least the electronics seem to kill the printing industry, as visible by the recent insolvency of Borders, and the economic struggle many publishers worldwide have been experiencing lately. :-(

Kim wrote: "I find the views expressed by Hugo in "This will kill that" very interesting. I'm not sure that I totally agree that printing killed great architecture, but I follow the argument. If it is accepted..."

In reading those chapters I could not help but be struck by the irony of reading Hugo condemning the printing press and lamenting what its invent has done to other art forms.

I do think that his arguments were an interesting one in listening to how he described his impressions of the true meaning and purpose of architecture. Who would ever see a connection between architecture and a printing press?

And though I do not think it has completely ruined the possibility or existing of great architecture, I think that it has redefined architecture. In a word in which people were largely illiterate and generally speaking books were only accessible to scholars and perhaps the really wealthy, engravings, and paintings, sculpture, were used as a way of communicating stories to the masses. So with the printing press and literature would become more widespread it would replace architecture in that role of storyteller.

Silver wrote: "In reading those chapters I could not help but be struck by the irony of reading Hugo condemning the printing press and lamenting what its invent has done to other art forms..."

I too was struck by the irony and briefly wondered whether Hugo (as opposed to Frollo, who first expresses the view) meant it ironically. But I dismissed that idea as I read on. I wonder if there are architectural historians out there who agree with Hugo.

Yes, architecture has certainly been redefined and no longer tells stories in the way it once did. Although you get the occasional stained glass window which commemorates something, you do not get the gargoyles or other embellishments. Buildings are buildings and books are books nowadays but will the internet now kill the latter? Will the spoken word itself be replaced by text? I know that my grandchildren communicate much more by text than they do by speech and children are supposedly becoming less articulate and taciturn - more like Quasimodo perhaps as they metaphorically close their ears to the spoken word.

I was struck by the way Frollo seemed to change from a very kind and compassionate person to a harsh, severe one and wondered if this was also meant to be a description of the way churches have changed - less 'communal' and more regimented, which was one of the reasons the Nonconformist churches succeeded and began to replace catholicism. Methodists, for instance, conducting services in the open and doing more communal hymn singing, made worship a friendlier experience. Priests without elaborate robes, no choristers etc. The rise in 'happy clappy' services are another, modern indication of this move away from the formal worship of the established churches. Also, the move away from the celibacy of the priesthood as Frollo struggled with his love/lust for Esmeralda. The changes Hugo noted in Frollo were perhaps the start of these trends? And they mirror the changes in architecture - from the elaborate to the simple.

(Just random thoughts upon my return from a wonderful but exhausting holiday with hundreds of folk dancers and singers!)

MadgeUK wrote: "I was struck by the way Frollo seemed to change from a very kind and compassionate person to a harsh, severe one and wondered if this was also meant to be a description of the way churches have cha..."

I was also struck by that. In fact, it was something that I'm not sure is very well explained in the narrative. The Frollo who loves his baby brother and the Frollo who adopts Quasimodo is replaced by someone who seems to be an entirely different person. Maybe it is supposed to be the expected result of both the rigours of the priesthood and Frollo's more esoteric studies - and of course it is very important to the plot - but it felt a bit wrong to me as far as character development goes.

MadgeUK wrote: "Also, the move away from the celibacy of the priesthood as Frollo struggled with his love/lust for Esmeralda. ..."

What's the difference between lust and love?

Aha now there's a question! To my mind, not a lot of difference but others make a great deal of 'lurv':D

but it felt a bit wrong to me as far as character development goes.

I did not find this because I read it as a corollary to the increasing decadence of the church. Hugo seems to be saying that all started well with religion and with those who were involved in it but that all went downhill after a certain point in history, which coincided with the printed word - 'the book will kill the edifice'. Frollo's good character therefore declined, got corrupted, just as the church hierachy did and just as the building did. At least I think that is what he is getting at.

MadgeUK wrote: Frollo's good character therefore declined, got corrupted, just as the church hierachy did and just as the building did. At least I think that is what he is getting at. ..."

That makes sense, Madge. I suspect I glossed over what Hugo had to say about the church.

Nicholas Flamel, mentioned in Chapter II Book 5, 'was a French scrivener and manuscript-seller who developed a posthumous reputation as an alchemist due to his reputed work on the philosopher's stone. The essence of his reputation is that he succeeded at the two magical goals of alchemy - that he made the Philosopher's Stone, which turns lead into gold, and that he and his wife Perenelle achieved immortality through the "Elixir of Life".' Isaac Newton mentions him in his journals and he is significant to the plot of J K Rowling's first Harry Potter book, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (1997). In the novel Flamel and his wife are still alive in the 1990's, having gained immortality from the eponymous Philosopher's Stone. . A Paris street near the Louvre Museum, the rue Nicolas Flamel, has been named for him; it intersects with the rue Perenelle, named for his wife.' (Wikipedia.) This is his house, now a restaurant and the oldest stone house in Paris:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:P51...

I found this a very interesting idea:-

There exists at that epoch, for thought written in stone, a privilege exactly comparable to our present liberty of the press. It is the liberty of architecture....Thought was then free only in this manner [in architecture]; hence it never wrote itself out completely except on the books called edifices. Thought, under the form of edifice, could hve beheld itself burned in the public square by the hands of the executioner, in its manuscript form, if it had been sufficiently imprudent to risk itself thus; thought, as the door of a church, would have been a spectator of the punishment of thought as a book. Having thus only this resource, masonry, in order to make its way to the light, flung itself upon it from all quarters. Hence the immense quantity of cathedrals which has covered Europe...All the material forces, all the intellectual forces of society converged towards the same point: under the pretext of building churches to God, art was developed in its magnificent proportions...Then whoever was born a poet became an architect. Genius, scattered in the masses, repressed in every quarter under feudalism as under a testudo of brazen bucklers, finding no issue except in the direction of architecture, gushed forth through that art, and its Iliads assumed the form of cathedrals. All other arts obeyed and placed themselves under the discipline of architecture. They were the workmen of the great work. The architect, the poet, the master, summed up in his person the sculpture which carved his facades, painting which illuminated his windows, music which set his bells to pealing, and breathed into his organs.'

Hugo's ideas here reminded me of a good epic novel about the building of Salisbury cathedral, The Pillars of the Earth by Ken Follett:-

http://www.amazon.com/Sarum-Novel-Eng...

MadgeUK wrote: "Isaac Newton mentions him in his journals and he is significant to the plot of J K Rowling's first Harry Potter book, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (1997). In the novel Flamel and his wife are still alive in the 1990's, having gained immortality from the eponymous Philosopher's Stone...."

Madge, I read the first Harry Potter book just last week (after avoiding it for 14 years!) at around the same time as I was re-reading the chapter in HND which mentions Flamel. It was a surprise to find myself concurrently reading two such different books, both referring to Flamel and alchemy!

That must have been alchemy Kim:D

Either alchemy or plain old serendipity, Madge. :)

MadgeUK wrote: "I found this a very interesting idea:-

There exists at that epoch, for thought written in stone, a privilege exactly comparable to our present liberty of the press. It is the liberty of architect..."

Fascinating indeed. I think Hugo was saying that people found freedom of expression in architecture and art, because the authorities didn't have enough understanding and discernment of the arts to censor them.

Hugo wrote, "This liberty goes very far. Sometimes a portal, a façade, an entire church, presents a symbolical sense absolutely foreign to worship, or even hostile to the Church."

The architecture of a church (or at least part of it) reflected the desires of the masses, and it could be against the Church in the symbolic sense. If the clergy had understood the symbolism, would they have allowed it to be built?

This is analogous to what's happening to Frollo. His desire/lust for Esmerada is against the laws of his religion, and there's a terrible and passionate struggle inside of him.

I don't think the vow of celibacy was the cause of the problem though. A married man (clergy or not) could still fall in love/lust for another woman, and he would face the same struggle. Should he obey the law of society or follow his own desire? Is it love or lust?

Nemo wrote: "I don't think the vow of celibacy was the cause of the problem though. A married man (clergy or not) could still fall in love/lust for another woman, and he would face the same struggle. Should he obey the law of society or follow his own desire? Is it love or lust?"

Nemo, I agree with that, too, and it reminds me of the struggle of Newland Archer in "The Age of Innocence", which I had just read before starting HND.