Supplement to A Tale of Two Cities

SPOILER ALERT

---

Ackroyd writes more about Dickens’s mindset especially in relation to his personal life (i.e., separation from Catherine due to infatuation with Ellen Ternan) and about the lead-up to, writing and publication of ATTC, and less about the novel as a novel itself. He touches on two themes – that of a man released from long captivity and that of “the need for self-sacrifice and even renunciation in the pursuit of love” – but only to mention them in light of Dickens’s mindset.

---

Chesterfield’s Appreciation is curious. He begins by establishing Dickens as a Cockney to establish the point of view from which Dickens’s tale originates and is seen. He praises the accomplishment that is “ATTC” by a man who, based on his background, had no business being able to accomplish such a thing: “Yet with everything against him he did this astonishing thing. . . . the thing called genius”. He then compares/contrasts Dickens’s French Revolution to that of Carlyle – Dickens comes out ahead, of course, as “in this book [Dickens] has given a perfect and final touch to this whole conception of mere rebellion and mere human nature”.

https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/22362/pg22362-images.html#TWO_CITIES

---

As neither Ackroyd nor Chesterfield delve too deeply into the meat of the novel I looked for other critiques and included the below for your consideration.

---

Lawrence Frank, “The Poetics of Impasse” (Ch 16 in his book, Charles Dickens and the Romantic Self)

I hope it isn’t heresy to suggest that Sydney Carton is not the focal point of “A Tale of Two Cities” but rather that it is Charles Darnay’s story with Sydney acting as foil. Frank’s interesting argument is that ATTC details Darnay’s story of his father-son struggle which is mirrored in Dickens’s depiction of the larger and “generational” national struggle of the French Revolution. As Darnay seeks to detach himself from his Evremonde roots he fails to establish himself as a new and separate individual because he has not – perhaps can not – completely severed the connection. One reason for this inability to sever is Darnay’s reluctance or unwillingness to confront the obligations of his Evremonde family. Instead, he simply wishes to wash his hands of the family and be done – a thing which just cannot happen. As in the larger national struggle, those in positions of responsibility simply cannot look away from the things for which they are responsible. These neglected duties eventually make themselves known, often violently as in the case of the French peasants neglected by their sovereign. For Frank the struggle between Parent/State and Child/Populace – the Impasse of his chapter’s title – is “the recurring struggle between generations” (149) for which there is, ultimately, no solution.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ABoTtKbRIx5frdFqA5Y1vL4f6uyxWH1H/view?usp=sharing

---

Carolyn Dever, “Psychoanalyzing Dickens” (Ch 11 in Palgrave Advances in Charles Dickens Studies).

Pursuing in a way Frank’s impasse, Dever argues that Dickens does indeed provide a solution to this recurring struggle. For Dever the struggle Darnay and others, including the State, face is “to find strategies for putting their ghosts to good use – for resisting the repetition, again and again, of history’s conflicts.” (219) That is, Darnay and others, including the State, must identify and acknowledge the “trauma, anxiety, or dynamic” of their pasts, mentally confront them, and then actively work to break the cycle of repetition. (226). Dever suggests that Sydney Carton’s death works, in part, to break the cycle for through it a hybrid of sorts is born – Lucie’s and Charles’s son Sydney – who owes his existence to Carton’s unexpected and spontaneous unselfish act of love. The other part that works to break the cycle is Miss Pross’s accidental killing of Madame Defarge, thus putting an end to Madame’s blood feud with the Evremond’s – again an unexpected and spontaneous unselfish act of love. Both Carton and Miss Pross “strike[ ] not for the dead but for the living”. (230) Such uncharacteristic behavior – NOT doing the same thing but doing something different – is the only way to break the destructive cycle of repetition.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Lv29naR_HTTxi9JFlrVIY3cQFG31Deax/view?usp=sharing

---

John Gardiner, “Dickens and the Uses of History: A Tale of Two Cities” (Ch 16 of A Companion to Charles Dickens).

Gardiner, echoing both Frank and Dever in his discussion of how deftly Dickens weaves together private and public histories in this novel, suggests Dickens offers consolation for the struggles, trauma, anxiety or dynamic of those histories: “All of this Dickens connects . . . to the idea of love as a force of resurrection”. (253) He continues:

“Public history, Dickens seems to be saying in “A Tale of Two Cities”, is made by individuals with private histories; and however sympathetic we may be to the suffering that shapes those private histories, we should remember that public history can go tragically wrong if people allow themselves to be consumed by bitterness. There is a choice. The sins of forefathers (Darnay’s story shows) do not have to be visited on the living; we can try not to yield to memories and impulses that will incarcerate us in ill-feeling or inhumanity.” (253-254)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BNApp70BUIVYPa9QyE82ltpTudo0uUDo/view?usp=sharing

---

In Conclusion

A Tale of Two Cities then is, ironically, a repetition of the message of Little Dorrit (and perhaps many other Dickens novels) in that “in spite of the s**t life throws at us we must somehow find a way to be useful and happy” (quoting myself from my last “LD” post). In spite of our horrible histories we MUST somehow find a way to NOT repeat them. What’s the old saying – if banging your head against the wall hurts then stop banging it against the wall.