#reference also i guess Hugo's quatre-vingt-treize

[revolutionarywig]

More extension on the linguistics of the word terreur during the French Revolution, since it's a really large discussion in the circle. It is notable that in majority of 18th century the word terreur did not carry as much negative connotation as we associate it with today. I am not stating that 18th century thought terror is cool and good, but rather, the word terreur is more associated with the concepts of "sublime", closer to the feeling of being awestruck. which could still have transitioned nicely into 19th century romanticism: the association of something terrible but also beauty. So that is one layer of how Enjolras could be embodying the word "terrible".

Now during the Revolution the word terreur was used in multiple contexts, but the most prominent one that was probably on Hugo's mind while writing is Robespierre's famous speech about terreur and vertu (yeah this is a robespierre blog....). Now before the famous speech, Montesquieu and Robespierre himself have defined terreur as the principle of despotic governments. Well we all know Enjolras is obviously not associated with principle of despotism. Rather, the point of Robespierre's very famous speech is to associate terreur with the method of exceptional government, defining it as "prompt, severe, inflexible justice". This association between terreur and justice is very intimate and sometimes interchangeable in many French Revolutionaries' speeches.

In fact I see Hugo's use of the word "terrible" almost as a direct reference to the action that Enjolras performs later when he executes Le Cabuc – an exceptional case of exacting justice, however horrible it may be.

It must be mentioned though, while there is already a certain amount of historiography on the French Revolution by Hugo's time, it is still different from our current historiography (and certainly very very different from popular media). Hugo does not see terreur as simply justice (something entirely positive) as Robespierre defined.

By the time of Robespierre's death, other Revolutionaries have begun to use the word terreur in way that make it seem like an official regime, kickstarting the idea of a capitalized "Terreur" as an organized initiatives, a system. Because of this post-event construct, many major historians of that period heavily emphasized on the duality of the Revolution, usually giving a lot of credit to 1798-1792, and 1793 onwards as the Terror aka "shit goes down", separating it into the good years vs the violent years. Hence, the word terreur began to gain more negative connotations in the French political landscape.

Hugo is not so exempt from this thought pattern. He sees Robespierre very much as an embodiment of the Revolution's principles (aka the leader), and the Revolution falls into a clean plot of "the justice of the Revolution is sometimes cruel and overly severe".

(Also I don't know how many non-frev people are gonna read this but I don't view the Revolution as "started out good until they went too far and became bad" and I don't view Robespierre as a leader. )

So what is the conclusion? "Enjolras était un jeune homme charmant, capable d'etre terrible." I think there is a strong link between the word choice "terrible" and "terreur" from the French Revolution. And, given Hugo's time period, the word "terreur" has a close association with justice but also slightly more undesirable/violent connotation.

TLDR, Enjolras was a charming young man, who was capable of prompt, severe, inflexible justice.

One thing that annoys me about most translations of Les Mis is of that line that everyone loves, you know, “Enjolras was a charming young man, who was capable of being terrible”?

So the original French line is “Enjolras était un jeune homme charmant, capable d'etre terrible.”

Sounds like a pretty simple and sound translation, right? But the thing is, the word ‘terrible’ in English is used a bit differently than the same word in French. To the modern English reader, the word ‘terrible’ would bring to mind something negative and make you think “He was charming but capable of being a monster”. Meanwhile the word ‘terrible’ in French, while being very similar (since it’s the exact same word), would translate more as ‘fearsome’. So, “Enjolras was a charming young man, who was capable of being fearsome.” I don’t know, it just sounds better to me and brings out more of what Hugo meant.

I’m not saying that most translations are wrong, because they’re not. Both words do mean the same thing. But an English reader and a French reader might interpret the sentence slightly differently and it fascinates me.