It is an important work of Hugo in his later years, and this is his last novel.He said in his preface to (1869) that he would write two sequels: The Monarchy and "93 Years". The former was never written, the latter between December 1872 and June 1873, published in 1874.At this time, Hugo had returned from exile; he spent nineteen long years in the islands of Jersey and Guernessy in the Strait of Manche, always taking an attitude of inconsistency with Napoleon III, who was retrograde, until the The Second Empire collapsed before he returned to Paris triumphantly.However, a wave of ups and downs occurred again: he had to face the tragic war of the Franco-Prussian War and the bloody struggle of the members of the Paris Commune. The reality in front of him left an unforgettable impression on him and once again inspired his humanitarian thoughts.Looking back at history, he was inspired by the historical facts of the French Revolution, and he intends to expound his thoughts through the rebellion of the royalists in the Vendée region during the Great Revolution.This idea had appeared as early as the end of 1862 and the beginning of 1863, and now the time was ripe for writing.

Hugo said in a letter to his friends: "God will give me the life and strength to carry out what my enemies call an amazingly huge plan? I am a little too old to move these mountains, and what a towering mountain. Ah! It’s such a big mountain!” Obviously, in the mind of Achievement, the weight is very heavy, and he is not willing to write easily, so it has been brewing for more than ten years. Hugo read as much material as possible before writing, doing the work of fully understanding the historical background.Regarding the rebellion in Brittany during the Revolution, he read Count Puyze's "Memoirs" (1803-1807), Duchessman Despaud's "Letter on the Origin of the Juan Party Rebellion". (1825), from which borrowed characters, names, dialects, details of dress and way of life, and events.Regarding the activities of the National Salvation Committee, he consulted the memoirs of Gallas, Goyer, Lange, Senal and others.Regarding the National Convention, he referred to the compilation of the "Daily Bulletin".He studied the works of Michelet, Louis Brown, Thiers, Bonin; Bonin's "History of the French Revolution" kept a bookmark, which read: "May 31, 1793, the key situation.” This day becomes the starting point of the novel.He also used Lamartine's "History of the Girondists", Amer's "History of Robespierre" and his friend Clarty's "History of the Last Mountain Party", in addition, Sebastian Thien Mercier's "New Paris" provided him with valuable material on French life and fortress architecture in 1793.Rather than let this mass of material sway, Hugo harnesses it to create a lively and tense historical novel.It should be said that Hugo was no stranger to the French Revolution. He was born in 1802, his father was a general under Napoleon, and his mother held royalist views.Hugo's childhood and adolescence experienced the vicissitudes of the Revolution.He has personal experience of this earth-shaking social change in human history.But at this time Hugo had already changed his early royalist views. He had become a republican since the end of the 1940s, and he viewed the revolution from the perspective of a bourgeois republican.

Hugo didn't want to write a popular historical novel. He was not satisfied with describing the general process of the French Revolution, but wanted to summarize some historical experience.The perspective of this historical novel is unique.Hugo chose the era of the most intense struggle of the Great Revolution as the background of the novel.1793 was a year of life and death for the Revolution: in Paris, the Jacobins replaced the Girondists on the stage of history; As well as all kinds of enemies who are ready to move, the Jacobin Party implements a revolutionary dictatorship and terrorist policy, and mercilessly suppresses the hostile elements who dare to resist; it sends the Republican Army to Vendée and other places to put down the rebellion, and finally turned the Republic into safety and consolidated the Great Revolution. the results.Hugo pointed out in the novel: "1993 was Europe's war against France, and France's war against Paris. What about the revolution? It was France's victory over Europe, and Paris' victory over France. This is one of the terrible moments of 1993." So great reason, it is greater than the rest of this century." He also said: "93 was a tense year. The storm reached the most violent and spectacular level during this period." Using events to describe the Great Revolution can indeed fully reflect the most thorough anti-feudal bourgeois revolution in human history.

Hugo respects history, truthfully shows the cruelty of the struggle between revolution and counter-revolution, and describes the fierce and magnificent scenes of this struggle.In the novel, the royalist rebels shot an average of thirty blue soldiers every day, set fire to the city, and burned all the residents alive in their homes.Their leader offered to "kill, burn and never forgive".Royalism has a broad base in some backward areas, such as Brittany, where peasants blindly follow their lords.They are ignorant, such as Michel Fleischer, a peasant woman who neither knew she was French nor could she tell the difference between a revolution and a counter-revolution; Franc, captures the rebel leader Lantenac, but hides him and helps him escape.The backwardness of the peasants is the basis for the nobles to launch a rebellion, and the novel truly reflects this social situation.Faced with the brutal burning and killing of the nobles, the Republican Army responded with an eye; it will never forgive the enemy.Within the Jacobins, the Big Three—Robespierre, Danton, and Marat, despite their differences in political views, all agreed to take strong measures.They selected Simurdan, who advocated that "terror must be fought back with terror", as their special representative, and promulgated a severe decree that the death penalty should be used to deal with letting the enemy go.Because to preserve the fruits of the revolution, violence has to be met with violence.

Secondly, Hugo correctly evaluated a series of policies implemented during the dictatorship of the Jacobin Party.He compared the National Convention to a wine-brewing barrel, in which "terror is boiling, but progress is also brewing."The National Convention proclaimed freedom of belief, held that poverty should be respected, disability should be respected, mothers and children should also be respected; the blind and deaf-mute became guardians of the state; condemned the crime of the black slave trade; abolished slavery ; promulgated the compulsory education system; created a craft exhibition hall and museum; unified the code and weights and measures; founded the telegraph, elderly relief homes, hospitals; created the Meteorological Bureau and the Research Institute.All these measures radiate brilliant light of thought and benefit the people.What the Great Revolution carried out was the ideal of the Enlightenment thinkers, replacing the ignorant and backward feudal system with an advanced bourgeois civilization.So far, the above-mentioned measures continue to play a good role and have spread to all countries in the world.

The correct description of the French Revolution and the life-and-death struggle of classes in 1993 is the basic value of this novel.Hugo's defense of the French Revolution, including a series of correct policies of the Jacobins, clearly demonstrated his democratic ideas and reflected his insights.It truly reproduces the French historical appearance at the end of the eighteenth century with vigorous brushwork, and is an epic depicting the French Revolution. However, Hugo did not fully affirm what the Jacobins did.Why did the Jacobins fail?People have various opinions, and Hugo also conducted philosophical meditation.In his view, although on the one hand there is swords and swords, and violence is met with violence, on the other hand, there should be kindness, and humanity must be used to deal with humanity or inhumanity.He believes that the Jacobins killed innocent people indiscriminately and failed to implement humanitarian policies, which led to their collapse.This contemplation is expressed at the end of the novel.People have always been arguing about this ending, and it is difficult to draw a conclusion, but the charm of the novel comes from this to a large extent.From an artistic point of view, the ending of the novel is unexpected and grippingly written at the same time.

The leader of the rebel army, Lantenac, Prince of Brittany, was besieged in the Castle of Turg. He demanded to exchange the three children he had taken as hostages. He asked Govan, the commander of the blue army, to let him go. Flatly refuse.But Langtenac got help from others and escaped from the tunnel.Suddenly he heard the painful cry of the mother of three children: the three children were about to be engulfed by the fire.Lantenac resolutely turned back, risked himself, and rescued the three children, while he himself fell into the hands of the Republican Army.Govan was shocked by Langtenac's humanitarian spirit of sacrificing himself to save others, and he had a fierce ideological struggle. He believed that humanity should be treated humanely, so he let Langtenac go.The special representative, Simurdan, was Govan's teacher when he was young. He ignored the pleas of the Republican soldiers and resolutely implemented the decree that "any military leader who releases a captured rebel will be sentenced to death", ruthlessly advocating Send Govan to the guillotine.The moment Gowan's head fell to the ground, he also shot himself.

Simuldan, Govan and Lantenac are the three main characters in the novel, and the entanglement among them has changed from the hostility of political views to the conflict of whether to implement humanitarianism.According to Hugo: "Compassion is a residue of the common life of mankind, and it is in all people, even the most hard-hearted." Such is the case of Lantenac, "that mother's cry awakened in him the outdated Mercy," "He has stepped into the darkness, and back into the light. Having committed a crime, he automatically destroys that crime." In this, Govan observed in meditation, "A hero emerges from this demon Jumped out of him," Lanternac was no longer a murderer, but a savior; no longer a demon, the man with the butcher's knife became an "angel of light"; he redeemed all kinds of barbarism, Saved his own soul and became a sinless person.

This dramatic change in the novel is like a sudden peak, which makes the contradiction reach a fever pitch.How to deal with and evaluate the behavior of Langtenac and Govan constitutes the conflict between the characters, and also arouses readers' different opinions.There is no doubt that this is Hugo's thought rather than Govan's.It would be conceivable if Lantenac had been an ordinary Royalist or an ordinary rebel commander, and he would have given his life to save three children in the midst of the fire.What is puzzling is that Langtenac is an unusually cruel person. When he appeared, he once shot and killed the women accompanying the blue army without mercy. The hostages he was threatening were the ones who wanted to set fire to them and prepare to die together.Just ask, how can such a hard-hearted person still have humanitarian thoughts in his heart?How could he suddenly change his nature and produce humanitarianism?Hugo does not describe his inner thoughts at this moment, so the reader has no way of understanding the credibility of this action.It has to be said that Hugo did not come up with sufficient evidence to prove how this evil person (or devil) put down his butcher knife and became a Buddha immediately.Therefore, Langtenac's return to save the three children is only a very conceptual illustration of the author's view that "compassion exists even in the hardest of hearts".

As for Govan, his actions are well-founded.Hugo had already confessed that he was strong in the war, but he was weak afterwards; he was merciful to others, forgiving the enemy, protecting the nun, rescuing the wives and daughters of the nobles, releasing the captives, and giving freedom to the priests.His magnanimity was not unprincipled. He once said to Simurdan that he pardoned three hundred peasants who were captured after the defeat because they were ignorant, but he would not pardon Lantenac because Lanternac Knuckle was a heinous man, even his great-uncle.France was his elder brother, and Lantenac was a traitor to his country.He and Langtenac swore to be at odds with each other, and they could only live to the death.However, he has some ideas, which are not commensurate with his status as a commander.For example, he sees Louis XVI as a sheep cast among lions, and it is natural for him to want to run and defend himself, although he would bite whenever he could.The most important thing is that he believes that "the politics of terror will damage the reputation of the revolution" and that to overthrow the monarchy is not to replace it with a guillotine. In my opinion, it is the most beautiful word in the human language... In war, we must be the enemy of our enemies, and after victory, we must be their brothers." These words set the tone for his subsequent actions. Although the foreshadowing is Hugo's point of view, it is integrated with the characters' thoughts.

Govan's actions are related to Hugo's views on the Jacobins. Hugo was quite critical of the terrorism of the Jacobins.In his writing, the three giants of the Jacobin Party are more fanatical than rational, only know about repression, not benevolent government, their language is full of gunpowder, and they exude the vulgar atmosphere of common people.The politics of terror they carry out works under certain conditions, but at the same time it also contains disadvantages.Govan believes that the old world must be operated on, but surgeons need to be calm, not violent, "terrorist politics will damage the reputation of the revolution."The Republic does not need a "frightening facade".From this point of view, it is logical for Govan to let Langtenac go.It should be said that Hugo's views expressed in the novel are neither all right nor all wrong.For the armed rebellion of the royalists and the brutal massacre of civilians, the revolutionary regime can only save itself by fighting an eye for an eye.But it is also undeniable that the Jacobin Party overcorrected and killed indiscriminately. This is why the dictatorship of the Jacobin Party could not last long, and even Robespierre was guillotined.According to Mathieu's "History of the French Revolution", in 1794, the authorities felt that the guillotine execution was too slow, so they supplemented it with bombardment, mass shooting, and shipwreck, and executed hundreds of people at a time.Therefore, Hugo's proposal that the leniency policy should be implemented after the victory is aimed at the extreme policy of the revolutionary regime, and has reasonable and correct factors.But the reason why Govan let Langtenac go was based on this consideration: the enemy can also practice humanitarianism, so why can't the Republican Army practice humanitarianism?Here, Hugo goes to the other extreme.His point of view is concentrated in this sentence: "Beyond the absolutely correct revolution, there is also an absolutely correct humanism." It is wrong for Hugo to separate revolution and humanism.Revolution and humanism can and should be united.Take the bourgeois revolution as an example, it was the liquidation of the criminal and inhuman feudal system, and replaced it with a more humane social system; freedom, equality, and fraternity are based on humanitarianism, and compared with feudalism's personal dependency.Aristocratic privileges and a strict hierarchy will take a big step forward.However, in a society where hostile classes exist, especially at critical moments before final victory, it is impossible and should not practice magnanimous and absolute humanitarianism, otherwise it would be inhumane to the people.As far as Langtenac is concerned, even if he rescued the three children and captured him without a fight, for the revolutionary side, it is entirely possible for the revolutionary party to make a reasonable judgment that is in the interests of the people based on his situation, and does not necessarily have to be sentenced to death.Of course, the IRA wouldn't do that.But what would happen if you let him go?He is bound to be an enemy of the revolutionary government, gather rebels again, attack the Republican Army, massacre innocent people, and commit inhuman crimes.In terms of effect, Govan's action of letting Langtenac go is not in line with the principles of humanity for the people.The above analysis shows that neither the Jacobin Party nor Hugo himself could properly handle the relationship between revolution and humanity. Simuldan is presented as the opposite of Govan, although he is also a revolutionary.In the novel, he is the embodiment of the revolutionary government.Although he was a priest at first, he had a clear love and hate, and he could suck the abscess in a patient's throat with his mouth, but he would never do it for a king.He realized that the enemy of the revolution is the old society, "the revolution is merciless to this enemy".However, he was a "ruthless man", no one saw him shed tears, he thought he could not make mistakes, and others were blameless.He is both righteous and terrifying.Although he is lofty, "this kind of loftiness is isolated from people, it is the loftiness on the cliff, it is gray and not close to people; his loftiness is surrounded by cliffs and cliffs." He is loyal to Jacobin Party creed and terror policy, he assured the National Convention entrusted to him: "If the Republican leader entrusted to me takes a wrong step, I will also sentence him to death." He repeatedly warned Govan: "In our We live in a time when benevolence can be a form of treachery." His oath and warning came true.After Govan was sentenced to death, he confronted Govan again.Govan swayed and talked freely about his ideals, but Simurdan was speechless and retreated in defeat.He admitted that Gowan's words were reasonable, but he couldn't change his point of view, and he was in an insurmountable contradiction in his heart. "He had the blind accuracy of an arrow, aiming at the target and flying straight. There is nothing more terrifying than a straight line in a revolution. Simuldan kept going straight, and this doomed him to misfortune." He personally executed his "spiritual son", his students, and his comrades-in-arms, and finally shot himself in pain and confusion.Through his tragedy, Hugo criticized the revolutionaries who only talked about violence but not humanity, who only knew how to execute blindly and could not deal with it flexibly.Simurdan is a representative and quite real image. As the leader of the romantic faction, Hugo's romantic technique has been fully expressed in the novel.One of Hugo's important romantic techniques is to describe inanimate or inhuman things as magical, moving and amazing as living objects.The description of the cannon on the battleship at the beginning of the novel is a good example.On this warship named Jujian, a 24-pound cannon slipped from its mount, and it turned into a monster. Killing, annihilating, and like a hammer hammering willfully against a city wall: "This is the freedom of matter, or the eternal slave who has found a chance for revenge; everything seems to be hidden in what we call inanimate objects. That malignity burst forth suddenly; it looked like a tantrum, and was waging a queer mystic vengeance; nothing could be more merciless than this inanimate rage. This mad colossus had the agility of a leopard , the weight of an elephant, the dexterity of a mouse, the hardness of an axe, the suddenness of a wave, the swiftness of lightning, the deafness of a grave. It weighs ten thousand pounds, yet it bounces like a child's ball.  … The storm can stop, the typhoon It will blow over, a broken mast can be replaced, a hole can be plugged, and a fire can be extinguished; but what to do with this huge bronze beast?" The cannon completely neutralized the combat effectiveness of the warship.Hugo's rich imagination paints this scene breathtakingly.It was in such a tragic scene that Lantenac appeared, showing his sternness, sternness and fortitude.This gloomy and mysterious opening sets the tragic tone for the novel.Hugo used such brushwork to create a cruel and unpredictable atmosphere, which has a strong romantic color.Hugo believed that this romantic approach could also achieve truth. He said in the novel: "There is truth in history, and there is truth in legends."Legendary truth is qualitatively different from historical truth.The truth of legend is to reflect reality in fiction. "Romantic techniques and realistic techniques lead to the same goal by different routes. Hugo is known to be a master of contrast.He once pointed out in "Cromwell Preface": "ugliness is next to beauty, deformity is close to beauty, five monsters are hidden behind sublime, beauty and evil coexist, and light and darkness accompany." This principle has always guided the rain fruit creation.The contrasting technique is also used, but this novel does not use the comparison of the characters' bodies or the comparison between the body and the soul like that.The comparison of the three main characters in the novel is reflected in thought: Langtenac is ruthless, stubborn, determined not to give up until he reaches his goal, and has the majesty and courage to become a leader.There is no trace of human emotion in him, and it is only at the end that humanity reappears.Simuldan was equally steadfast, Langtenac a firm believer in royalism, he a firm believer in republicanism, and above all in the politics of terror.He opposed the practice of benevolence and did not believe that humanitarianism was a universal principle.It should be said that he has a harder heart than Lantenac, and is more meticulous in maintaining his beliefs.Both characters were criticized by Hugo.Govan has both the firmness to carry out a revolution and the flexibility to face complex realities.He is the embodiment of humanitarianism in Hugo's mind: he sacrificed his life for humanitarianism.The ideological contrast and contradiction of these three characters strongly promote the development of the plot. Hugo's novel skills reached a more mature point in the novel.The progress of the plot of the novel is extremely compact, and there are not many idle words and digressions, unlike He and He, who often have large arguments or branching plots.The author's arguments are integrated into the thoughts of the characters and become an indispensable part of shaping the characters. This is a more clever technique.Structurally speaking, the novels are linked together and pushed to a climax step by step.The climax centers on the encounters of the three children and the conflict between the thoughts of the three main characters. The writing is tense and touching.Although this novel is not large in length, it is comparable to voluminous historical novels and has become a rare and excellent work. Zheng Kelu