“Les Misérables” by Victor Hugo (post 5): In metafictional interlude, “the author of this book” speaks of himself in third-person and first-person plural

“Many years have already passed since the author of this book, who is compelled, reluctantly, to speak of himself, was in Paris. Since then, Paris has been transformed. A new city has arisen, which to him is in some sense unknown. He need not say that he loves Paris; Paris is the native city of his youth…If after times, when we are there no longer…that we miss…which we see no more…and we love…and call them up…such as they were…

“Permit us, then, to speak of the past in the present. Saying which, we beg the reader to take note of it, and we proceed” (1, p. 389).

When a person speaks of himself in both third-person and first-person plural, it may imply three personalities. Third-person implies two personalities, the one speaking and the other one he refers to. Then first-person plural implies a different perspective, that of a third personality, who refers collectively to himself plus the other two. But the precise number of personalities is not the issue. Any number more than one is multiple personality.

Why didn’t the author simply use first-person in this metafictional interlude? Is he flaunting his multiple personality? Or is it just that these particular personalities always work as a team, and “team” has no “I” in it (an old sports joke).

1. Victor Hugo. Les Misérables [1862]. Trans. Charles E. Wilbour. New York, The Modern Library, 1992.

Added later: My idea that the author or narrator has more than one personality may be supported by what seems to be confusion about the narrative perspective in opinions which I just found online. The most common opinion is that the narration is third-person omniscient, which I can understand, because there are long stretches in which the narrator makes no self-reference. But that doesn't account for the times, as I've previously mentioned, that the narrator refers to himself in first-person plural ("we"), and the one occasion so far in which he refers to himself in first-person singular. I also found some commentary which disputed that the narrator was omniscient, in that sometimes he seemed to be, but other times he didn't.