Les Misérables · Chapter
On What Conditions One Can Respect the Past explained
This chapter presents a philosophical critique of monasticism and the persistence of antiquated institutions in the modern era.
What happens
This chapter presents a philosophical critique of monasticism and the persistence of antiquated institutions in the modern era. The author argues that while the past should be respected when it is truly dead, any attempt to revive outdated dogmas, superstitions, or ascetic practices must be actively opposed. The text distinguishes between the need to destroy harmful anachronisms and the value of careful examination, ultimately framing the struggle as an eternal combat against phantoms of the past.
Themes in this chapter
Revolution and Social Upheaval
The chapter frames the struggle against monasticism and antiquated institutions as part of an ongoing revolutionary fight for progress, referencing the revolutions of 1789, 1830, and 1848.
The Human Condition and Fate
The text reflects on humanity's eternal combat with phantoms of the past, exploring the tension between progress and the stubborn persistence of outdated beliefs.
Key passages
“Monasticism, such as it existed in Spain, and such as it still exists in Tibet, is a sort of phthisis for civilization. It stops life short. Claustration, castration.”
Monasticism is like a disease that stifles civilization, halting life and growth through confinement and denial.
The author uses strong medical and violent metaphors to condemn monasticism as a destructive force.
“As for us, we respect the past here and there, and we spare it, above all, provided that it consents to be dead. If it insists on being alive, we attack it, and we try to kill it.”
We honor the past only when it is truly over; if it tries to remain active, we must oppose and destroy it.
This encapsulates the chapter's central thesis on the conditional respect for tradition.
“Let us fight, but let us make a distinction. The peculiar property of truth is never to commit excesses. What need has it of exaggeration? There is that which it is necessary to destroy, and there is that which it is simply necessary to elucidate and examine.”
We must struggle against harmful anachronisms, but we should do so with measured reason, destroying only what must be destroyed and examining the rest.
The author advocates for a balanced approach, distinguishing between outright destruction and thoughtful analysis.