There is a tv program called “It was alright in the 1970s”. It shows politically incorrect clips from 1970s tv programs to prove how attitudes have changed over the years, the idea being that those attitudes were normal then and so perhaps excusable. This, of course, is the argument made by several ageing celebrities today to excuse behaviour now seen as sexual harassment and abuse.
One of the problems this causes is how one should view the work of writers and artists with similar problematic pasts. The issue becomes even more difficult the further one goes back in time as behaviour and attitudes become even more remote from what is acceptable today.
Consider the case of Victor Hugo. By 1870 Hugo was 68 and one of the most famous men on the planet. He used this fame to attract and seduce huge numbers of women. During the five- month siege of Paris at the end of the Franco-Prussian war in 1871 Hugo had approximately  one sexual encounter per day, a total of 40 different partners. They were actresses, prostitutes, fans who came to see him.  We know this because he recorded them, in semi code, in his diary. He often changed their names into male equivalents and used code words to indicate the type of activity. He also recorded what he paid. Hugo was very careful with money. All his life he kept accurate accounts and so felt compelled to record his transactions with women. And here’s the point –  he clearly had a conscience about this. He recorded these payments  with the abbreviation “sec”, i.e. “secours” meaning alms. Hugo saw this as giving alms to the poor. He wanted to believe he was doing these women a favour. In his lifetime this amounted to hundreds, if not thousands, of favours. This is the man who appealed for our sympathy for the abused prostitute Fantine in Les Misérables.

Hugo had a wife and a long-standing mistress who he cheated on with another married woman – a ménage à quatre? The married woman’s husband had them investigated for adultery. She was imprisoned. Hugo was not. He was above the law because he was a French peer.
His diary also reveals that he viewed  his female servants and cooks as another source of sexual gratification. Their plight surely gives cause for concern. What choice did they have? Say yes or look for another job? What is the difference between their situation and that of Harvey Weinstein’s female employees? How many of Hugo’s conquests would have wished to be able to raise their hand and declare “Me too”? Should this influence our judgement of Victor Hugo and his work? Or do we simply shrug our shoulders and think it was alright in the 1870s?