attorney answered the counsel for the defence. He was
violent and florid, as district-attorneys usually are.

He congratulated the counsel for the defence on his "loyalty," and
skilfully took advantage of this loyalty. He reached the accused through
all the concessions made by his lawyer. The advocate had seemed to admit
that the prisoner was Jean Valjean. He took note of this. So this man
was Jean Valjean. This point had been conceded to the accusation and
could no longer be disputed. Here, by means of a clever
autonomasia which went back to the sources and causes of crime, the
district-attorney thundered against the immorality of the romantic
school, then dawning under the name of the Satanic school, which
had been bestowed upon it by the critics of the Quotidienne and the
Oriflamme; he attributed, not without some probability, to the influence
of this perverse literature the crime of Champmathieu, or rather,
to speak more correctly, of Jean Valjean. Having exhausted these
considerations, he passed on to Jean Valjean himself. Who was this Jean
Valjean? Description of Jean Valjean: a monster spewed forth, etc.
The model for this sort of description is contained in the tale of
Theramene, which is not useful to tragedy, but which every day renders
great services to judicial eloquence. The audience and the jury
"shuddered." The description finished, the district-attorney resumed
with an oratorical turn calculated to raise the enthusiasm of the
journal of the prefecture to the highest pitch on the following day: And
it is such a man, etc., etc., etc., vagabond, beggar, without means of
existence, etc., etc., inured by his past life to culpable deeds, and
but little reformed by his sojourn in the galleys, as was proved by the
crime committed against Little Gervais, etc., etc.; it is such a man,
caught upon the highway in the very act of theft, a few paces from a
wall that had been scaled, still holding in his hand the object
stolen, who denies the crime, the theft, the climbing the wall; denies
everything; denies even his own identity! In addition to a hundred
other proofs, to which we will not recur, four witnesses recognize
him--Javert, the upright inspector of police; Javert, and three of
his former companions in infamy, the convicts Brevet, Chenildieu, and
Cochepaille. What does he offer in opposition to this overwhelming
unanimity? His denial. What obduracy! You will do justice, gentlemen
of the jury, etc., etc. While