marguerite & morality, part i: a deeper look at st. cyr.
choices, consequences, and the weight of those consequences are some of the most important aspects of the original novel, and most of all, marguerite’s storyline, with her actions dictating the events of the narrative, and even life and death for many of the characters. from the denunciation of st. cyr, to the fate of her brother, armand, marguerite is constantly put in extremely demanding circumstances, all of which affect her deeply, and cause somewhat of a moral crisis for most of the novel.
what marguerite fears, most of all, is being a bad person — a fear which is reflected in many of her actions and how she weighs them. this fear and moral conflict is one of the key aspects of her character in novel, and one aspect that many adaptations tend to fumble on, either by undermining or completely devaluing the weight of her actions entirely.
in order to understand marguerite’s moral compass, her actions and how she processes them, i want to look at two events that i believe are crucial to understanding this aspect of her character:
the incident with st. cyr.
her blackmailing via chauvelin.
with these being the two events that she has the most direct involvement in throughout the novel, marguerite’s motivations are portrayed directly, yet, like most aspects of the novel, they are not completely black and white. to say that marguerite is entirely innocent or entirely guilty would be an oversimplification, and there are many underlying aspects to them that must be taken into consideration in order to understand marguerite’s place in the narrative.
A/N: this part only covers the st. cyr incident and marguerite's involvement in it. given how long this part already was (this is over 3k words...), there was no way that i would be dropping this entire meta in one go.
“Ah, yes,” added the Comtesse, whilst a look of haughty disdain and intense bitterness shot through her melancholy eyes. “There was that woman, Marguerite St. Just, for instance. She denounced the Marquis de St. Cyr and all his family to the awful tribunal of the Terror.”
“Marguerite St. Just?” said Lord Antony, as he shot a quick and apprehensive glance across at Sir Andrew. “Marguerite St. Just?—Surely . . .”
(...)
“No mistake is possible, Monsieur,” rejoined the Comtesse, coldly. “Marguerite St. Just’s brother is a noted republican. There was some talk of a family feud between him and my cousin, the Marquis de St. Cyr. The St. Justs’ are quite plebeian, and the republican government employs many spies. I assure you there is no mistake. . . . You had not heard this story?”
“Faith, Madame, I did hear some vague rumours of it, but in England no one would credit it. . . . Sir Percy Blakeney, her husband, is a very wealthy man, of high social position, the intimate friend of the Prince of Wales . . . and Lady Blakeney leads both fashion and society in London.”
“That may be, Monsieur, and we shall, of course, lead a very quiet life in England, but I pray God that while I remain in this beautiful country, I may never meet Marguerite St. Just.”
––– CH IV, THE LEAGUE OF THE SCARLET PIMPERNEL.
there's a lot to unpack in this quote, but the main idea (and what the reader gathers) is that 1.) marguerite denounced the marquis de st. cyr and sent him and his family to their deaths and 2.) it's become somewhat of the hottest “scandal” for lack of a better term, and many — in particular, the comtesse de tournay — don't take to the rumors very lightly. although marguerite has become well respected and the pivot of social london, there is an air of disdain that comes with her name, which is only reinforced when she meets the comtesse face to face, who has some… less than flattering things to say about her, to put it lightly.
“Hoity-toity, citizeness,” she said gaily, “what fly stings you, pray?”
“We are in England now, Madame,” rejoined the Comtesse, coldly, “and I am at liberty to forbid my daughter to touch your hand in friendship. Come, Suzanne.”
––– CH V, MARGUERITE.
wherever marguerite goes, her reputation precedes her — given the cold shoulder by most of the people around her, including her own husband, for this wicked deed she has committed. so, why did marguerite denounce st. cyr? what could he have possibly done that caused her to denounce him and send him to his death? well, her motives for st. cyr’s denunciation are much more personal than that of many others in a time such as the reign of terror.
the reason marguerite had denounced st. cyr — which is hinted at in an earlier chapter but not elaborated on until later — is because he had her brother, armand, beaten “within an inch of his life.” for what reason? for falling in love with his daughter, angèle, which the marquis had deemed unacceptable given the st. just’s middle class background. while such incidents, as orczy puts it, “was of almost daily occurrence in france,” marguerite was horrified and appalled by armand’s beating by st. cyr’s men, and swears that she will have her vengeance on the marquis. this motive behind marguerite’s actions is something that also tends to get lost in adaptation; in the 1934 film, it is one of st. cyr’s sons who wants to marry marguerite instead of armand being in love with angèle, to which the marquis has her imprisoned in st. lazare in retaliation. in the 1982 film, her motive remains the same, only she never acts on it and is resolved of her guilt; instead it’s chauvelin who puts her name on the arrest warrant out of spite. in the 1999 miniseries, st. cyr is responsible for the death of her parents, while the musical doesn’t seem to touch on the motives behind st. cyr’s denunciation, which paints marguerite in a pretty negative light in that regard.
while adaptations have their reason for adjusting marguerite’s motive in st. cyr’s denunciation (or completely absolving her of the responsibility), what many of these adaptations fail to realize is that, by changing her motivation in the st. cyr incident, they actually tend to 1.) undermine the relationship between marguerite and armand and 2.) entirely miss the mark on a crucial aspect of marguerite’s character, which is how she loves — particularly those close to her.
“I was tricked into doing this thing, by men who knew how to play upon my love for an only brother, and my desire for revenge. Was it unnatural?”
(...)
“Listen to the tale, Sir Percy,” she said, and her voice now was low, sweet, infinitely tender. “Armand was all in all to me! We had no parents, and brought one another up. He was my little father, and I, his tiny mother; we loved one another so. Then one day—do you mind me, Sir Percy? the Marquis de St. Cyr had my brother Armand thrashed—thrashed by his lacqueys—that brother whom I loved better than all the world! And his offence? That he, a plebeian, had dared to love the daughter of the aristocrat; for that he was waylaid and thrashed . . . thrashed like a dog within an inch of his life! Oh, how I suffered! his humiliation had eaten into my very soul! When the opportunity occurred, and I was able to take my revenge, I took it. But I only thought to bring that proud marquis to trouble and humiliation. He plotted with Austria against his own country. Chance gave me knowledge of this; I spoke of it, but I did not know—how could I guess?—they trapped and duped me. When I realised what I had done, it was too late.”
––– CH XVI, RICHMOND.
the bond between marguerite and armand is incredibly close, a direct result of their parents dying when they were still children. while their birth order tends to be swapped in later sequels, this fact remains the same throughout. armand is marguerite’s only family, who raised her and was her guardian until she married percy. they have one of, if not the closest, bond in the novel, which brings up the second aspect; how marguerite loves people.
to say that marguerite loves very intensely would just be touching the surface. when it comes to the people she loves, she would do anything for them, including risking/endangering her life. while she never vocalizes it in the novel much, this aspect is seen in almost every important relationship she has, especially with armand, though they’ve grown somewhat distant when the events of the novel begin. so for marguerite to discover that armand, whom she loves more than anything else, was beaten almost to death for what she believes is an unjustified reason, her anger and subsequent want for revenge against st. cyr is justified, and given how marguerite’s first mention in the novel is explicitly about her involvement in st. cyr’s execution, we know that marguerite eventually triumphed in getting her revenge.
the st. cyr incident is not a simple black and white issue, however, and we soon learn that marguerite had no intention of sending the marquis to his death. in fact, when she discovered that he and his family were to be executed, her reaction contradicts what we have been told about marguerite thus far: she was horrified.
Marguerite, impulsive, thoughtless, not calculating the purport of her words, still smarting under the terrible insult her brother had suffered at the Marquis’ hands, happened to hear—amongst her own coterie—that the St. Cyrs were in treasonable correspondence with Austria, hoping to obtain the Emperor’s support to quell the growing revolution in their own country
In those days one denunciation was sufficient: Marguerite’s few thoughtless words anent the Marquis de St. Cyr bore fruit within twenty-four hours. He was arrested. His papers were searched: letters from the Austrian Emperor, promising to send troops against the Paris populace, were found in his desk. He was arraigned for treason against the nation, and sent to the guillotine, whilst his family, his wife and his sons, shared this awful fate.
Marguerite, horrified at the terrible consequences of her own thoughtlessness, was powerless to save the Marquis: her own coterie, the leaders of the revolutionary movement, all proclaimed her as a heroine: and when she married Sir Percy Blakeney, she did not perhaps altogether realise how severely he would look upon the sin, which she had so inadvertently committed, and which still lay heavily upon her soul.
––– CH VIII, THE ACCREDITED AGENT.
orczy makes it a point to emphasize that marguerite’s intention was not to send st. cyr to his death, but instead to humiliate him, which she saw as “just” revenge for what he had done to armand. still, with marguerite swearing vengeance on st. cyr, the fact that she is horrified that he is to be executed — and even goes as far as attempting to stop the execution from happening — is extremely telling about her moral judgement, beliefs, and her morality overall.
when it comes to the morality regarding marguerite’s involvement in st. cyr’s arrest and execution, there are two things to keep in mind:
marguerite’s intentions weren't good, but it wasn’t malicious either.
marguerite’s impulsiveness, brashness, and naïvety (to a point) play a major role in her decision to denounce st. cyr.
while marguerite’s life prior to marrying percy is never explored in detail, the fact that a staunch republican like her, who has actively supported the revolution, would be horrified by st. cyr’s death brings up a question: why? if marguerite wanted revenge against st. cyr so badly, why wouldn’t she be happy that he would be sent to the guillotine? well, that’s the thing: the death of st. cyr and her direct involvement in it goes against everything marguerite stands for morally.
while the alternative to execution (humiliating him and soiling his reputation) isn’t ideal, marguerite did not denounce st. cyr with the intention to send him to his death. in fact, she had no intention of sharing his involvement with austria with anyone really, let alone revolutionary officials, with it being revealed that marguerite was tricked into denouncing st. cyr by using her love for armand and her desire for revenge against her. while this does indicate that marguerite is “morally” innocent when it comes to st. cyr’s death, i don’t believe that’s the case. despite ultimately being manipulated into sharing st. cyr’s involvement with austria, it was still marguerite’s choice to denounce him at the end of the day, giving her an active part in st. cyr’s denouncement and eventual execution. if this aspect of the st. cyr incident were to be ditched — which is what most adaptations tend to opt to — it downplays and devalues a large majority of marguerite’s motivation and actions in the latter half of the novel, where she is desperately trying to “atone” for her sin.
then there is marguerite’s impulsive nature, which ultimately got her into this situation to begin with. i think it’s important to note that although marguerite is clever and sophisticated, she is incredibly impulsive, brash, and to a point, naïve, which all leads back to her upbringing; she was sheltered in a convent for a majority of her formative years, and when she left the convent, she was under the guardianship of armand. she hasn’t had enough opportunities to really confront more difficult situations, let alone an entire revolution in the years leading up to its reign of terror. as a result, marguerite tends to act before she can really consider the consequences of her actions, something which comes to haunt her later on.
along with this, marguerite is definitely someone who cracks when put under enough pressure, i.e the opera box chapter, which will be more thoroughly dived into later on. given what the denunciation of st. cyr meant for the revolution, for her, and for the people pressuring her into telling them about st. cyr’s correspondence with austria, it’s likely to believe that she simply didn’t have the time to contemplate the decision thoroughly enough. for her, the denunciation meant that st. cyr would finally see “justice” (he would be humiliated) for armand’s beating, and that her desire for revenge would be satisfied. while outside forces did play a major role in her decision, marguerite had denounced st. cyr in the heat of the moment and did not have the time to properly weigh the morality of her decision, and did not take the consequences into consideration. she saw the opportunity to seek revenge and she seized it. marguerite hates st. cyr, that is true, but she would never wish death upon him, let alone the rest of his family, who were completely innocent in this whole affair.
for her, the denunciation meant that st. cyr would finally see “justice” (he would be humiliated) for armand’s beating, and that her desire for revenge would be satisfied. while outside forces did play a major role in her decision, marguerite had denounced st. cyr in the heat of the moment and did not have the time to properly weigh the morality of her decision, and did not take the consequences into consideration. she saw the opportunity to seek revenge and she seized it. marguerite hates st. cyr, that is true, but she would never wish death on him, let alone the rest of his family, who were completely innocent in this whole affair.
Yet she had done these things (...) just as two years ago the Marquis de St. Cyr had perished through a thoughtless word of hers; but in that case she was morally innocent—she had meant no serious harm—fate merely had stepped in.
––– CH XVI, RICHMOND.
this concept of “fate” stepping in, which will come up again when marguerite is blackmailed by chauvelin, is one that orczy uses to show how marguerite rationalizes her part in st. cyr’s death; the situation was out of control, she didn’t know any better. despite this, marguerite still feels an extreme amount of guilt, one which haunts her enough that she confesses to percy in a way which “might have sounded unpleasant to an english ear,” and which motivates her to try and repair her marriage and eventually save percy.
the st. cyr incident is a turning point for marguerite, as she realizes that the revolution, in her eyes, has gone too far. with her word being used to arrest and send st. cyr to his death, she realizes that her words hold more weight than she had previously thought, and that they can be used against her if they would fulfill an agenda (which, in this case, was the revolution). if st. cyr had died by her word, then just how far would they go in the name of the revolution? how many more people would die by her hand? would she be safe from meeting a similar fate at the guillotine? it’s questions like these that weight heavily on her, and by the time that the events of the novel begin, she is still incredibly guilt ridden due to this incident with st. cyr, which is why she is against aiding chauvelin in his mission to uncover the pimpernel’s identity until she’s blackmailed — she doesn’t want to be responsible for another death, despite knowing what is at stake.
it’s her direct involvement in st. cyr’s death that causes her to question the morality of the revolution and ultimately what it stands for. while she never gives up her ardent republican beliefs, marguerite is disgusted by the pointless bloodshed in order to keep the revolution alive. her role in st. cyr’s death is one of the key motivators for her actions in the novel, and is always weighing heavily on her conscience despite her efforts to “atone” for her sin. there’s also a feeling of betrayal that marguerite has to come to terms with; she was tricked into denouncing st. cyr by people she once considered her closest confidantes, who played on her love for her brother and her desire for revenge in order to do so. as a result, marguerite has become wary of people’s intentions and motives, and in a way, she’s almost paranoid that a betrayal such as this could happen again. it’s sort of marguerite’s “pandora’s box” or “temptation of eve” moment, where she learns that her actions will have dire consequences if not considered carefully.
while the story still works if you were to rid marguerite of her guilt and involvement (see the ‘82 film), it feels pointless and only waters down the weight of her actions in the latter half of the story when she goes to rescue percy. though i want to believe that adaptations have good reason to mess with this aspect of marguerite’s storyline, it’s really just another aspect that shows the disconnect and evolution of the story as the years passed on, going from marguerite’s story to percy’s, with her role in the narrative becoming smaller and smaller as the story continues to be adapted for a modern audience.
