How Does Tale of Two Cities Romanticise the French Revolution?
Summary:
In a Tale of Two Cities, Charles Dickens makes it seem like the only people that are scared are the nobles or former nobles and that the common people are not afraid of anything. This book wasn't the Tale of Two cities at all, it was a love story made to portray one person as a hero and only was the background for the story brought up when it needed to be in order to romanticize the novel further.
Charles Dickens romanticises the French Revolution in his novel, Tale of Two cities by cutting out and down playing certain events in the revolution even though his book is called Tale of Two Cities. Many important events of the French Revolution were omitted in his book, although not all. Charles Dickens also leaves out quite a lot of gory details that happened in the revolution such as executions and mob violence. He leaves out certain parts of the revolution because his story is a love story integrated into the French Revolution. Charles Dickens was trying to entertain the readers of the time by making a dramatic love story and not bore them with the exact details of the revolution. Another reason for altering the story of the French Revolution was that he was writing for a Victorian audience and they would not want to read a book that had blood and gore in it, they would rather have a romanticised book with a lot of drama in it. Charles Dickens only focuses on parts of the French Revolution that would complement his plot and sets the revolution as the background for his actual story and this is how he romanticises his novel.
In a Tale of Two Cities, Charles Dickens makes it seem like the only people that are scared are the nobles or former nobles and that the common people are not afraid of anything. The people who were afraid at the time of the French Revolution were former nobles but mainly common people afraid of the new revolutionary government and what they were doing to them. Hardly ever does Charles mention how fearful the common people of Paris were.
In a Tale of Two Cities, the Defarge family hosted former nobles. The real truth is that this probably would not have happened because the Defarge family could have been condemned and they certainly would have been deathly afraid of hosting the Evremonde family. "The following are considered suspected persons...Those who by...the company they keep...have shown themselves to be supporters of tyranny"(Fisher, source 25). This statement would show that if the Defarges hosted an Evremonde in their house that they would be suspected and those people were condemned and usually executed according to "the Law of Suspects"(1793). The Defarges hosting the Evremondes was put into the novel because it romanticized the story but in real life, this would have never happened because the Defarge family (a middle class family) would have been too afraid of doing so at the time.
There was never any mention of how common people in Paris were so scared that they even tried to look poor in order not to be suspected. "There was the same stench...they wore the rags of pretended poverty...at that time in Paris dirtiness was a sort of passport"(Fisher, source 26). Never in a Tale of Two Cities does it mention anything like this but this was how it really was. In the book of tale of two cities, the common people and working class people were not scared of anything but this was just to romanticize the novel and re-enforce a "Man against world theme."
Charles Dickens doesn't really touch upon how revolutionary justice functioned and how the new Jacobin government worked. After the king is removed from power, a new government takes over and Charles Dickens never explains the way that the government convicted people. This is romanticizing the revolution because he didn't want to really give a historical lecture on the French Revolution - he wanted to write an entertaining and dramatic love story that was set in the middle of the French Revolution. He would only include parts of the revolution that would boost his theme therefore romanticizing the French Revolution.
The way that Charles Darnay was tried is not the way that it would have happened for real. Because of the Law of Suspects (which stated, "People could be put in prison without a trial"(Fisher)) and the Law of Prarial (which stated "Juries were allowed to convict people without hearing any evidence."(Fisher)) He should have had a very brief trial where he was simply convicted but this was not the case. If there had been a brief case in the book - it might not be so dramatic when he lost the case in the end so it helps to romanticize this book. Having hope for him being proven innocent and then losing the hope helped to make the plot more dramatic and romanticize the book but if Charles Darnay were executed right on the spot, certain drama would have been taken from the book.
Charles Dickens never mentions how heartless and bloody some executions were - in fact, he doesn't discuss executions happening too much although they occurred frequently during the terror. Now even though executions should have been part of the background, they were not included too much due to the nature of the audience he was writing for and the type of book he was writing (A dramatic love story). Incidents such as "A woman was charged with the crime of having wept at her husbands execution. She was condemned to sit for hours under the suspended blade which shed upon her, drop by drop, the blood of her dead husband, whose body was above her on the scaffold, before she was released by death from her agony" (Mantin, 28, source C) were not included into the book because it would take away from the romantic theme of the novel and would sicken the people for whom this book was directed at.
Charles Dickens did makes it clear that former nobles were being condemned and executed but he never made it clear that most of the people being sent to the guillotine were actually common people and not nobles. "8 out of every 10 people who died in the Terror were poor people and not rich nobles"(Mantin, 28). The novel makes us think that the only people who are at risk from the guillotine are the noble families but in real life that was not the case as we see from the above source. The novel dramatizes and romanticizes the French Revolution by completely ostracizing that any of the common people were ever tried and executed and this is to make the readers feel more sympathy for the Evremondes.
The 3 topics mentioned - executions, revolutionary government and fear during the French revolution show that a lot of key areas of the French Revolution were not mentioned or exaggerated in A Tale of Two Cities. He sets his romantic novel right in the middle of the revolution in order to extract and expose part of the setting that would romanticize his novel and make it more interesting and entertaining to read. Only certain parts of the revolution come up more so he can help make his book more of a love story such as how former nobles were convicted and how all the common people were against the former nobles and supported the government. In full truth, this book wasn't the Tale of Two cities at all, it was a love story made to portray one person as a hero and only was the background for the story brought up when it needed to be in order to romanticize the novel further.
Bibliography
Dickens, Charles. A Tale of Two Cities. US Perma Bound, 1988
Fisher, Peter et. Al. Past Into Present 3: 1700-Present Day. London: Collins Educational. 1989
Mantin, Peter. The French Revolution. Oxford: Heinemann Educational. 1992
This is the complete article, containing 1,247 words
(approx. 4 pages at 300 words per page).
