“It lay back on the pillow of Monsieur the Marquis. It was like a fine mask, suddenly startled, made angry, and petrified. Driven home into the heart of the stone figure attached to it, was a knife. Round its hilt was a frill of paper, on which was scrawled: “Drive him fast to his tomb. This, from Jacques.” (Dickens, 154 Oxford World Classics Edition).
Throughout A Tale of Two Cities thus far, readers have been forced to acknowledge the presence of two types of characters: namely, the members of the upper class and the members of the lower class. In terms of context, this passage ends chapter 9 of the second book, keying in on the death – the murder – of Monsieur the Marquis, a man who is, undoubtedly, a member of the French aristocracy.
Let’s connect this passage to the opening passage of chapter 9: “It was a heavy mass of building, that chateau of Monsieur the Marquis, with a large stone courtyard before it, and two stone sweeps of staircase meeting in a stone terrace before the principal door. A stony business altogether…”
When the reader finally makes it to the end of book 2 chapter 9, it is difficult not to compare the Marquis’ stony chateau to himself. Interestingly, Dickens is swift to point out that the heart itself is not necessarily stone, it is the “figure attached to [the heart].” Perhaps Dickens is trying to point out that, while the Marquis seems cold and heartless on the outside, on the inside, he actually has the possibility to show compassion? Let’s dig deeper. While the Marquis de Evrèmonde’s role in the novel is relatively short-lived, his presence is one that is certainly remembered because it served a pivotal role. In a sense, the Marquis is a symbol – a representation – for the aristocracy itself. Think about it: we are never given the Marquis’ entire name and we never really meet many of the elite. This begs the question, is the Marquis even a real person? In each instance the reader encounters the Marquis, he/she is continuously beset with the one-dimensionality of his character. He literally has no redeeming qualities: he kills the son of a peasant named Gaspard (note he actually has a name) remorselessly, ignores the pleas of a poor, dying woman, and later, wishes that his nephew would burn alive in bed. Nevertheless, the Marquis believes that his elite power – his noble blood – justifies all of his wrongdoings. Due to this method of thinking, one could come to the conclusion that the aristocracy itself is the direct cause of the Revolution, which, in this case, would not be incorrect. Madame Defarge would agree with you.
On a grander scale, this passage is referring directly to the relationship between rich and poor, powerful and powerless. More particularly, this is pointing to the relationship between death and resurrection which, as Dickens has already shown, plays a large role in the novel (Dr. Manette’s resurrection from being a prisoner, Darnay’s rebirth from being quartered, etc.). When the Marquis’ death is made apparent, the peasants living below the chateau are resurrected. They are no longer constrained by the heartless and wicked man who lives on the hill behind their homes. As a result, they come to the realization that, perhaps, they can hold power, even over those who possess the most of it. This is a very important scene because it is one of the first instances – if not the first – when the peasants hold power over the elite. As a result, who is to say that this cannot happen in the heart of Paris? Something terrible, bloody, and frightening is coming. Can you hear the footsteps?
While the dichotomy of rich versus poor and death versus renewal are themes that are certainly present in the novel, I think Dickens is trying to make something much darker known to his reading public, and that is the relationship between good and evil. Think about this: while the peasants are, toward the beginning, made out to be the “good guys,” and the elite are made out to be the “bad guys,” that idea is stood on its head later in the novel when the situation seems to be completely flip-flopped. Now, the peasants are the ones that are killing others remorsefully and throwing others in prison without sufficient reasons, while the elite are powerless, begging for mercy. In a way, the readers begin to sympathize for the artistocracy.
Let’s return to the passage from the beginning. The reason that Dickens is swift to point out that the heart itself is not necessarily stone but the “figure [which is attached to the heart]” is because he is showing that we all may believe that we have good intentions, but, in truth, we are all corrupt and, if we get the right amount of power, we might just abuse it. Keep your wits about you.
I think this such a good analysis of the reversal in roles versus the peasants and the aristocracy, and who is actually good and who is actually bad. The most important connection that I can make with your analysis is the moment when we learn of the true evil nature of the Marquis – how he raped the village girl and stabbed her brother (306-318). What stood out to me during the reading of these horrible events was how individual it was. The speech that the paysan brother makes is so personally pained. It is in deep contrast to all the other anonymous and numerous figures who become “Jacques” or “Monseigneur.” We start to imagine Monseigneur as less an actual person than as a group of people. The reason this passage is so important because it highlights how horrible the peasants’ suffering was. Then, we are reminded at the closing of the chapter, that although roles have been reversed, it is true: everyone can become evil when given unchecked power. And actually, at the end of the day, perhaps the one who feels this most deeply is Sydney Carton: “In a city dominated by the axe, alone at night, with natural sorrow rising in him for the sixty-three who had been that day put to death, and for to-morrow’s victims then awaiting their doom in the prisons, and still to-morrow’s and to-morrow’s.” (301). He recognizes that it is not about who is an aristocrat, or who is a peasant, but the meaning of each individual whose life will end because of this horrible system of justice.