• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

By Root 2717 0

based upon a single reading of Carlyle’s History of the French Revolution. Though not disputing that “the French noblesse had much to answer for,” Stephen was most critical of A Tale for “exaggerat[ing] the faults of the French aristocracy in a book which will naturally find its way to readers who know very little of the subject except what he [Dickens] chooses to tell them.” The class bias here is clearly marked. (Stephen also poked fun at Dickens’s translations from French, which he deemed awkwardly literal; this, too, was a mark of class prejudice.) On the other hand, the review in the Observer found Dickens’s presentation of the Revolution not radical enough: “he has written of it as though he were imbued with all the prejudices of the days of Pitt, against the actors and the drama,” that is, exhibiting the fear of Republicanism common during Prime Minister Pitt’s government (1783–1801).

Other critics, such as the anonymous Morning Chronicle reviewer, were less concerned about the novel misleading the uneducated British populace, and instead acknowledged “the great attraction [. . .] found in the isolated pictures of life which abound in its pages.” The Sun’s review of the work in progress declared Dickens had “recently developed genius as a master of Terror.” (One might dispute the recent development of this talent; Dickens’s skill at depicting terrifying incidents was evident from earlier novels, such as the murder of Nancy in Oliver Twist, the crowd riot in Barnaby Rudge, and the haunted guilty conscience of Jonas Chuzzlewit in Martin Chuzzlewit.) A longtime friend and admirer of Dickens, John Forster, who reviewed the novel for the Examiner, emphasized the relationship the novel explores between nation and family. Part of the strength of the story, according to Forster, is “[t]he subtlety with which a private history is associated with a most vivid expression of the spirit of the days of the great French Revolution.” He claimed that in Dickens’s “broadest colouring of Revolutionary scenes, [. . .] he is working out closely and thoroughly the skilfully designed tale of a household.” Like other Victorian novels, such as Thackeray’s Vanity Fair (1848), A Tale of Two Cities aggrandizes the private history and minimizes the national story by comparison.

Forster was not the only critic to praise the novel for its sympathy with the suffering—the suffering that caused the Revolution as well as that which was inflicted by the Revolution. The Sun review called the scene in which Dr. Manette is restored to the world and to his daughter “among the most exquisite things Charles Dickens has ever written.” Regarding the dénouement, the reviewer for the Morning Chronicle was “perfectly amazed at a solution so unexpected, and withal so natural.” Forster, in The Life of Charles Dickens (1872–74), reflected on the effect of A Tale of Two Cities. He suggested that the death of Sydney Carton merited the most acclaim: “Though there are excellent traits and touches all through the revolutionary scenes, the only full-length that stands out prominently is the picture of the wasted life saved at last by heroic sacrifice. Dickens speaks of his design to make impressive the dignity of Carton’s death, and in this he succeeded perhaps even beyond his expectation [. . .].”

Psychology in A Tale of Two Cities

Widely regarded as a subfield of philosophy until the mid-nineteenth century, psychology was first developed into an independent scientific discipline in Germany. The British psychologists (to employ a slight anachronism) of Dickens’s period were influenced by the ideas of John Locke about the self as a composite of experience, and particularly by his theory of association. Throughout the nineteenth century scientists attempted to discover a biological mechanism for the association of ideas. One early hypothesis, the pseudoscience of phrenology, first developed by Franz Gall and then popularized in Britain by George Combe, had widespread impact. Phrenology claimed that different areas, or “organs,” of the brain (which manifested in