'La Chèvre de M. Seguin': On Freedom
written by Vittoria Mariggiò
Freedom is surely a value that is worth fighting for, but is it worth the risk of death? Does freedom have a limit?
Goats - Eliphalet Frazer Andrews
Despite the common moral of 'fighting for freedom', an all American vision of life that prioritizes liberty, a popular story for children dismisses the meaning of death by freedom and portrays this value very differently. In "Lettres de mon moulin", Alphonse Daudet depicts the concept of freedom as a value to be cautious of. La Chèvre de M. Seguin tells the story of a shepherd who loses all his goats in the same terrible way: due to the boredom of being confined to their enclosure, the goats decide to bite the rope that keeps them attached to it and flee to the mountains, only to get eaten by the wolf hiding in the nearby forest. Although this seems to be a banal story of a Provencal berger, it holds a great amount of meaning that is a peculiar reflection on freedom.
Daudet dedicates this particular short story to a lyrical poet called Pierre Gringoire (1475-1538); he mocks him for his choice of refusing the offer of becoming a reporter and following his dream of being a poet by addressing him with a sarcastic tone and pointing out his poverty:
"Comment? on t'offre une place de chroniqueur dans un bon journal de Paris, et tu as l'aplomb de refuser... mais regarde-toi, malheureux garçon!"
The author criticizes Gringoire for not wanting to leave his dream just to stabilize financially,
and he lectures him on the consequences of choosing freedom (cultivating his true passion even though it won't guarantee a secure future) over stability, certainty, security. Daudet narrates the story of M. Seguin’s goat, and clearly demonstrates Gringoire his realistic - if not visionary - ideal of prudence: one mustn’t leave certainty for the unknown, especially in the context of a complex society that requires particular financial needs.
While Daudet’s idea of freedom has a limit, as it must end with uncertainty, Gringoire’s idea of liberty is boundless, almost romantic. Freedom is worth the risk of death if it means indulging in a long-awaited, short-term sensation of sweet-tasting peace, and clinging to it as a last breath of fresh air. This vision is based on passion, and ambition, and curiosity, and zeal; these are the ingredients to the drive of an insatiable person, who essentially would do anything to keep their ardent fire burning. In Gringoire’s perspective, being eaten by the wolf would’ve been worth it. The feeling of freedom would have compensated the disappearance of his soul.
These are the two visions of freedom: the feeling of being satisfied and the urge to stop before the unknown, and the empty sensation in one’s stomach, impatient to be filled with glory. No, there isn’t a correct definition of freedom, but it could be seen as simply the right of being able to choose or not, in a sea of endless possibilities. I’ll repeat the questions I asked myself - only because it is in my nature to overcomplicate thoughts and concepts - so that you can ask them to yourself and get lost in the profoundness of life.
Is freedom worth the risk of death? or does it have a limit?
No comments:
Post a Comment