A Tale of Two Cities” is a historical novel

“A Tale of Two Cities” is a historical novel. Discuss.

Or 

“A Tale of Two Cities” is related to a most influential incident of history, but it is not complete historical book. Comment.

 Answer:

“A tale of two cities” is a historical novel related to the period before and all through the French Revolution. Previously, Dickens had written one historical novel, Barnaby Rudge, which dealt with a period of English history. When he wrote “A Tale of Two Cities” he was feeling great interest in history. However,

“A Tale of Two Cities” is not a complete story of French Revolution.

As a historical novel, “A Tale of Two Cities” has obvious limitations. It does not give a complete picture of either the English or the French political world of those critical years (1775-1793). In this novel, Dickens describe the beginning of discontent in France, the rising dissatisfaction of people with the aristocrats and the turmoil caused by the public fury and the cruelties committed by the revolutionaries during the years of French Revolution. Dickens does not describe the progress and culmination of French Revolution. He gives us brief and scattered account of the main event. But, by this he tries to convey to us all the horror of the French Revolution. He gives us no systematic analysis of the causes of the French Revolution. At the same time, Dickens takes no notice of the leading historical personalities of the French Revolution, such as Mirabeau, Lafayette, Robespierre and Napoleon. He does not show the struggle of the government for money in the time of depression, the difficulties of parliament and philosophical thinking behind the Revolution.

 Dickens main concern was to show that extreme injustice leads to violence. In the first part of the novel, Dickens sympathizes with the poor and downtrodden, but in the end these very people become villains and he rejects them. Dickens first reference to the cause of the French Revolution comes in the Chapter called “The Wine Shop”. Here he uses the symbol of the mill to convey the grinding poverty through which the people of Saint Antoine are passing. Then there are three chapters in which the callousness and the arrogance of a particular noble are described.

Dickens main achievement lies in mixing the personal lives of a group of private characters with the events of French Revolution. These private individuals are Dr. Manette, Lucie Manette, Darnay and Carton. Although, the major characters have no ideological interest in the Revolution yet they are driven into the main whirlpool of the Revolution and have to suffer. The death sentence of Charles is the most unjust when we see that he is on the side of the people. In his humanity, he even gives up the property of his family. Furthermore, he was in France to save the life of a poor man who was in danger. The others are drawn into the whirlpool for the sake of Darnay. Sydney’s sacrifice is due to Lucie’s involvement.

Although. Dickens does not give systematic theory about the Revolution yet there is his definite view about it. In this respect, he also seems to have been influenced by Carlyle. Dickens shows that past is the storehouse of moral lessons and a terrible moral drama. He has a definite aim in writing this novel, as he wants to show the effect of social order on the lives of the individuals. The lives of both Dr. Manette and Sydney Carton are example of it. Dr. Manette’s coming back to the steam of life illustrates the course of new order. Sydney’s noble death proves the possibility of rebirth through love. According to one critic, there is no other piece of fiction in which domestic life of a few simple private people is in such a manner interwoven with a terrible public event, so that one seems to be the part of the other.

The fact is that Dickens considers revolution as monster. The scenes of violence that are described in “A Tale of Two Cities” are really horrible. The lesson that Dickens wants to teach us through this novel is that violence leads to violence and hatred is the result of hatred. He wanted that government should not allow the people to become frustrated and angry that they are compelled to revolt and become not only violent, but also ruthlessly violent. If all the noblemen had behaved like Charles and all the intellectuals had exposed the social evils like Dr. Manette, then there would not have been any such violent revolution. Dickens never forgets that the French Revolution was the result of unspeakable suffering, intolerable oppression and heartless indifference. Society was diseased before the fever broke out. And this conclusion about the French Revolution is stated in the final chapter of his novel as:

“Crush the humanity out of shape once more, under similar hammers, and it will twist itself into the same tortured forms. Sow the same seed of rapacious

 license and oppression again over again, and it will surely yield the same fruit according to its kind.”