Study Questions for Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities (1859)
1. One useful way to better understand Dickens’ technique in this novel is to set up a double-column tally sheet, with Paris (and France) on one side and London (and England) on the other. On that tally sheet, you can then list the various events, characters, principles, thematic elements, and images that Dickens deliberately places in obvious juxtaposition.
But it is important also to take note of any instances in which Dickens makes exceptions to this rule of deliberate parallelism. What accounts for any such exceptions?
2. On a related note, one of the most important motifs in the novel is the figure of the double. Examine how and why Dickens exploits this principle of “doubling.” Does he use doubles to draw contrasts (differences), comparisons (similarities), or both?
3. Dickens wrote and published A Tale of Two Cities in 1859, exactly seventy years after the French Revolution began with the fall of the Bastille on 14 July 1789, a period that is about as long as that which separates the beginning of World War II and the present day. The French Revolution went through several phases, including the executions of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette in 1793, the Reign of Terror (under Robespierre) in 1793-94, and the rise in the later 1790s of Napoleon who became Emperor in 1804, abdicated in 1814 and after returning to France from exile was defeated at Waterloo in July 1815. During this time there was a state of almost continual war among the various European powers, who aligned with one another in a variety of shifting alliances in which the only real constant was the irreconcilable opposition between Great Britain and France.
Why do you suppose Dickens wrote this novel? Can we draw any inferences about his social or political purposes in doing so? What might he expect his readers to know – or believe – about the French Revolution and about the broader political and social issues that he examines in his novel?
4. In his preface to the first edition of the novel, Dickens acknowledges that he has been considerably influenced by “the philosophy of Mr. Carlyle’s wonderful book.” He is referring to the three-volume The French Revolution: A History (1837) by Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881) which covers only the period from 1789 through 1795. Carlyle’s book famously abandons the detached, supposedly objective style of most history-writing and adopts an energetic and highly involved, present-tense and first-person style and voice that makes it appear that the reader is actually present at the events that Carlyle is describing. We know that Dickens read heavily and often in Carlyle’s history when he was working on A Tale of Two Cities, and so in considering Dickens’ novel it is worth investigating what Carlyle had to say about the events and characters of the French Revolution. What might we expect to learn from such an investigation?
5. By 1859 Dickens was well known as a social crusader. How sympathetic does Dickens appear to be toward the French Revolution and the principles and practices it seems to have embodied? What details seem particularly to illustrate his attraction or revulsion? Does he seem to believe that the revolution was inevitable, or does he think it was preventable? What are his attitudes toward the French royalty and aristocrats? What about the revolutionaries and their ordinary-people followers? Does Dickens appear to believe that people have the right to revolt against government (or other) oppression and repression?
6. The novel contains many scenes in which crowds and mobs figure prominently in the action. Does he seem to distinguish between what a “crowd” is and what a”mob” is? How do they seem to make decisions? Does he distinguish between crowds/mobs in England and in France? On the whole, what does Dickens seem to be saying about large groups of people and about what we might call “crowd behavior”?
7. Although Dickens is famous for his skill in filling his prose with many instances of humor of various sorts, critics often complain that A Tale of Two Cities is “humorless.” Is that a fair assessment? Are there any characters or episodes in the novel that do involve humor? If so, what are they, and what is their purpose (if any) in the novel?
8. Dickens’ treatment of women in A Tale of Two Cities strikes many readers as simplistic: he is said to represent women as either “natural” or “unnatural.” Is that an accurate characterization? Which women seem to most obviously “fit” this binary characterization, and what are the characteristics that identify them as either “natural” or “unnatural”? What characteristics does Dickens idealize in women? What characteristics does he regard as abnormal? Are there exceptions to this “either-or” way of seeing the women?
9. Following from #8, what about the men in the novel? Does Dickens seem to set up an “either-or” opposition when it comes to the men? If so, is it also a matter of “natural” vs “unnatural,” or does the opposition involve a different set of binary poles? If you don’t see an “either-or” opposition among the men (and you do see one among the women), how would you account for the difference?
10. A matter of history. In his novel, Dickens devotes a lot of space to descriptions of the characters and actions of the lower class(es) in France during the revolutionary period, but he gives comparatively little space to the lower class(es) in England during that same period. Considering that there was a good deal of sympathy for the French Revolution in England in the yeras that immediately followed it, and that there was also a considerable class struggle taking place in England, why does Dickens give so little space to these matters as they were transpiring specifically in England? How much does your answer (whatever it is) have to do with the circumstances in Great Britain in 1859?
11. Consider the theme of resurrection in the novel. When is it first introduced into the story, and in what form? What characters are brought back to life, and how? Does there appear to be any situation from which resurrection is impossible?
Does Dickens seem to develop a broader and more complex “meaning” around the term (and the idea) of resurrection, or does he keep it relatively straightforward and uncomplicated (in the fashion, for instance, of a caricature artist)? Are there any important or particularly relevant examples of “resurrection” toward which Dickens might be directing his readers’ attention?
Stephen C. Behrendt, Spring 2009