At an estate, young Rosseau committed a crime that he
still haunts his conscience. While things were being moved around there,
Rosseau stole a little pink and silver ribbon that belonged to a young lady.
When he was asked where he found the ribbon, he panicked and blamed it on an innocent,
young girl named Marion. Although she had an extremely good reputation, the
authorities still doubted her and decided to question both Jean and Marion. Jean
“boldly accused her” when questioned, and she firmly denied her guilt. Marion
pleaded Jean to “remember [him]self and not disgrace an innocent girl who had
never done [him] any harm.” But Jean continued to accuse her, until the Count
dismissed the case as he remarked, “the guilty one’s conscience [will] amply avenge
the innocent” (87). And he was right: Jean still feels as if he ruined Marion
and her innocence and her trust for others. He feels that he will never be
forgiven of his heinous crime. Interestingly, Jean wasn’t afraid of the
punishment, but the disgrace, which made him blame it on Marion. After that
moment, all that he felt was shame: he says, “It was my shame that made me
impudent, and the more wickedly I behaved, the bolder my fear of confession
made me” (88).
The fear of shaming one’s name seems to prevail in the site of
interrogation, as we see with John Proctor in The Crucible and Don Luis
in Heresy. We see how the site of questioning, along with the fear of
disgrace, induces Jean to create a false truth. We also see how this same
scenario induces Marion to be stripped of her identity to others when she is
disgraced: people thought of her as a trustworthy, innocent girl, but after she
was accused and questioned, she was doubted. Ultimately, Jean seems to juxtapose an honest and
flawed confession.
I enjoyed the line, "the guilty one's conscience [will] amply avenge the innocent." How far does this go, though? Will expressing guilt at something absolve another of their wrongful accusation? This reminds me of the book 'Atonement' by Ian McEwan, where a young girl's misjudgment sends one innocent man to prison, and then to war, and splits a young couple for ever, leading to their deaths. She cannot bring the two back together, even after spending the rest of her life apologizing for her mistake. It just goes to show how quickly someone's reputation - and even the course of his/her life - can turn on a dime because of a false accusation. They say actions speak louder than words, but we seem to give words more credit than they deserve.
ReplyDeleteGreat analysis Andrea! I thought it was interesting how you tied in the idea of shaming someone with "the Crucible" because it's very fitting. When someone is accused of a crime their whole reputation moves to revolve around what they are accused of and people become invested in the outcome. I agree also that when someone is accused of something, their identity can be lost and replaced with the brand of a criminal regardless if they are innocent or not. In the case of Marion, while it would have been very unlikely for her to have stolen the ribbon, she is still looked down upon after Jean accuses her of stealing it. This just goes to prove that even if you have a respectable reputation, accusation can be very powerful.
ReplyDeleteYour examples compare very well with the situation that Rousseau has created. The sense of one's pride shown in "Confessions" - as well as identity, is involved in several works we have read this semester. In "The Crucible", we see that John Proctor is unwilling to tarnish his pride and identity, even if that means giving up his life. Similar in desire - yet very contrasting in execution, this work shows Rousseau not willing to tarnish his own reputation, but does so in a very unfitting way - by not admitting to his crime and pinning it on Marion, who in turn suffers from this and loses people's trust despite doing nothing.
ReplyDelete