The characters in Prévost’s novel ‘Manon Lescaut’ vary greatly in how emotional and rational they are. Chevalier is on the emotional end of the scale, M. de B— on the other and Manon herself occupying the middle, which by itself isn’t a great feat, but what makes her the hero of the story, is the way she always knows what the right modus operandi for each situation is. When it’s beneficial for her to use her brain, she does, if her heart is what is necessary, she uses it. While this compartmentalising might seem cold and artificial, I think it is super smart.

Let’s have closer look at Chevalier to explore this idea. From the moment he first sees Manon, he is obsessed with her. Following that encounter, all his decisions are based solely on whether it means being with Manon.¹ He goes so far as to ruin himself financially, be imprisoned, start gambling, kill a man to help her escape prison and leave the continent. All these are outcomes of decisions made without contemplating, just following his emotions. These keep him from thinking, which in turn denies him access to reality. This leaves him unable to adjust to situations and are only favourable to him by luck. This negative exposure to randomness leaves him in a fragile situation.

Let’s now turn to M. de B—.² His decisions aren’t driven by feelings and are instead very calculated. To get close to Manon, he buys her affection. His proposal is very clear. B-- tells her what he expects and the financial profit she gains from being together with him. When he finds out he has been cheated on by Manon and Chevalier, he has them both imprisoned. Yet, he doesn’t seem to hold a grudge against them. He is very robust and predictable, yet he lacks all the excitement the randomness of emotions can bring. So while emotions don’t bring him down, he also won’t benefit from them.

This is why Manon is so interesting, because she has the advantages of the two, without so much of the downsides. She exposes herself readily to the emotional roller coaster, but only when it cannot harm her, which in Manon’s case means having enough food and luxuries. Whenever her existence is in danger, she turns on her rational self and manoeuvres out of it. She therefore limits the downfall emotions can bring, while enjoying all the upsides. In the words of philosopher N. N. Taleb, her situation could be described as anti-fragile.³

When I first read the novel my focus was completely on Chevalier and his emotions not only made me cringe, but also seriously question their purpose. Looking at it that way, psychopaths seemed enviable. But once I discovered the great spiel Manon was playing, I realised that she has it all figured out and became the most admirable person in the book, which in turn made me emphasise with Chevalier. Maybe he was right to obsess over this great woman.

Footnotes

1. Funnily enough, Manon mostly stays with him when he has money and always leaves him to make some by attracting affluent men. So indirectly money really means happiness for Chevalier. ↩

2. Tiberge is like M. de B— in terms of rationality. They look so different due to their presumptions being unlike another. T. is a man of faith, M. a man of nature, so while both follow each to the logical conclusion, they come out at very different ends. ↩

3. Her system would be perfect, if Chevalier wouldn’t interfere with it so often and get her in serious trouble. ↩