A Tale of Two Cities as a Historical Novel

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 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. Sydneys sacrifice is due to Lucies 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.Manettes coming back to
the steam of life illustrates the course of new order. Sydneys 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
same touched forms. Sow the same seeds of rapacious license and oppression again over again,
and it will surely yield the same fruit according to its kind.