Victor Hugo\'s Ninety Three

Marquis de Lantenac and Cimourdain: One or Two Versions of Violence?

Our thesis needs to be a little bit more varied than the actual question we will be addressing, because, in my opinion, simply categorizing one or both of the characters as versions of violence needs to be doubled by an analysis of the causes of violence, be they the characters' own interior framework or the external environment in which they live. As such, we will briefly follow upon the creation of each character in Victor Hugo's play.

The first impression we have of Cimourdain is at the beginning of the Second Part, First Book. Noted by the author as having a "pure conscience, but somber" (Second Part, First Book), we are introduced to someone who had been a priest in the Old Regime, but had rejoined the people entirely, serving the cause of the Revolution. As he "adored from afar catastrophe" (Ibid.), we may find him ready for any eccentric and extremist action on behalf of the Revolution. As we are in 1793, a period where the Revolutionary Terror begins to be exercised by the Committee of Public Safety, we can be in no doubt as to the present architecture of our character: completely dedicated to the Revolution, he will spare no action to see that the revolutionary goals are achieved.

In the Second Book of the Second Part, Cimourdain meets the ruling troika of the time, the most influential people in 1793: Marat, Robespierre and Danton. The mission that Cimourdain receives may strengthen our belief that he represents violence. Indeed, it is the Vendee, where a vicious civil war was going on, between the Royalists and the Republicans. Are we to believe that anybody would be sent there to "kill the Vendee"? Of course, someone necessarily ruthless had to take action and answer to the Royalists with the same arms they have been using: useless killing and slaughter. Someone who would not look back upon his action was needed and the troika seems to think that Cimourdain would be an excellent choice.

During the same scene, we are introduced to Cimourdain opponent in the Vendee, the Marquis de Lantenac, who "burns villages, kills the wounded, massacres the prisoners and shoots the women" (second book, second part, chapter 3). He has been known to shoot a mother of three, among others. He is noted as "ferocious" by Cimourdain, who is determined to be "terrible against terrible."

Violent as Cimourdain may appear in his dialogue with the ruling troika, even more threatening especially because it seems to be an uncontrolled violence against anything and anybody that may be considered an enemy to the Revolution, we begin to understand that his violence is conducted not necessarily by his character, but mostly by his duty. This becomes obvious when he refers to mercy and when this should be practiced (during same meeting). Mercy is always a crime when it regards enemies of the country (paraphrase).

From this line, we have a clear positioning of Cimourdain's violence as related to the other three. For Marat, mercy is 'always' a crime (violence without object), for Danton, it is 'sometimes' a crime (moderate violence), for Robespierre it is 'often' a crime (closer to Marat). For Cimourdain, mercy is a crime only when it deals with enemies of the country (directed violence).

On the other hand, the Marquis de Lantenac's character seems to be built almost in the same manner as Cimourdain. Of course he kills left and right, women and children, but they way he rescues the three children is revelatory for his character. Indeed, we seem to have the impression that he tacitly approves the 'total war' tactics that his lieutenants use. On the other hand, we cannot not admire his humanity, as he limits his violence to the scene of war. When an intermezzo appears, after the battle, he doesn't hesitate to risk his life for those of the innocent children.

We should note at this point that this argumentation revolving around the violence as it is presented for each character is not necessarily an attempt to justify their acts. However, actions as they are presented in the book, especially during their actions towards the end of the book, suggest the fact that the main, if not only reason for their violent actions are the times they are leaving and the causes they are fighting for. We have no reason to believe that, in other circumstances, they would not be perfectly normal men.

As such, it is somewhat of an antithesis that is built similarly in the case of each character. Violent to the point of irrationality, sparing no means in achieving their goals and fighting for the causes they believe in, the Marquis de Lantenac and Cimourdain in turn prove that violence does indeed stop at a certain point. May it be saving innocent lives or shooting oneself as a sign of utter grief, both have human facades.