In Chapter 24, the idea of the Loadstone Rock is introduced to Charles Darnay because of his guilt about the revolution, but other characters have shown invisible attractions to a Loadstone Rock also, like Lucie. In Lucie's case, she's been attracted to her own Loadstone Rock, Madame Defarge. There are two ways Lucie is attracted to her Loadstone Rock, knitting and blood. Madame Defarge and Lucie have recently become increasingly similar and that is what has begun to show their attraction. Lucie uses "golden treads" to interweave her family and her peace, but Madame Defarge used her threads to "throttle an enemy" and plan the deaths of her oppressors. The symbol of knitting is starting to make itself apparent in both of them and they're both used to tie people, deadly or not. However, I doubt that Lucie's tread is going to remain as "golden" after she gets even closer to Madame Defarge.
In terms of blood, Lucie's always been stained with the lust that drives the revolution. Ever since the first time Lucie's met the Defarges' she's been stained with blood. "Now, Heaven defeat the fancy of Lucie Darnay, and keep these feet far out of her life! For, they are headlong, mad, and dangerous; and in the years so long after the breaking of the cask at Defarge's wine-shop door, they are not easily purified when once stained red"(Ch 21, 230). That fateful meeting with a broken wine box attracted Lucie to Madame Defarge without her even noticing it. Ever since that encounter at the beginning of the book, her Loadstone Rock was set, permanently, as Madame Defarge. Madame Defarge has always had a magnetic hold on Lucie. Lucie may be too innocent to understand what exactly is going on for her and Madame Defarge, but once they get closer there will be great destruction, like that unfortunate boat in Arabian Nights.
Brighton’s comment when analyzing Charles in class was interesting to me. She said that Charles was fake. At first I did not think so, but the more I think about his actions and what is said about him, I agree with her. When Charles receives his letter from Gabelle in Chapter 24, he decides to travel to France. He claims it is because he realizes that Gabelle has committed no crime and does not deserve the prison he is in, having done nothing but follow Charles’s requests. He seems extremely heroic. No.
Charles’s resolution is first described as a selfless mission as he who “could not fail to know that he was better than they, was not there, trying to do something to stay bloodshed, and assert the claims of mercy and humanity” (24, 252). But, Dickens later narrates that Charles sees himself going to France in a wave glory and taking the “wild sea” of a revolution down a controlled path. “Then, that glorious vision of doing good… arose before him, and he even saw himself in the illusion with some influence to guide this raging Revolution that was running so fearfully wild” (24, 252). Though Charles portrays his decision as one of “doing good”, his true desire is become a hero. His “noble” act is actually derived from selfish desires, and Darnay’s true aspiration is to become known as a heroic celebrity.
I never imagined that the Defarges would become the antagonists of the story. From the beginning, I thought that they merely represented a different side of the story. Obviously, they speak for the peasants, whereas the Manettes and Darnays are aristocrats. In book three, the two groups finally meet, with unusually menacing results. Though Darnay appeals to Defarge and recognizes him as the man whose house Dr.Manette lived at before Lucie "recalled" him, Defarge treats him like any other prisoner. The meeting of Lucie and Madame Defarge was terrifying. From the moment Defarge shows up with a message for Mr.Lorry, the feeling is ominous. The chapter title is The Shadow, referring to "the shadow attendant on Madame Defarge and her party (that)seemed to fall, menacing and dark, on (Lucie and her daughter.)"(3,277) When Defarge said that Madame Defarge needed to see the group "to ensure their safety,"I was sure that it probably ensured exactly the opposite...
Throughout the novel, we see that Mr. Lorry is a stable person to the Manette family. He is, in a sense, a second father to the family; He is always protecting them, scared for them, and determined to help them. When he sees Lucie and her Father in France, Mr. Lorry becomes instantly worried that someone “dear to [him] is in this dreadful town to-night” (2, 237). Already worried for himself, Mr. Lorry now worries for three people. As the mob comes to Tellson’s banking house, Mr. Lorry tries to protect Dr. Manette and keep him out of danger: “Don’t look out! Manette, for your life, don’t touch the blind!” (2, 237). When Dr. Manette continues to open the blind, and Lucie steps forward to see, Lorry cries “No, Lucie, my dear, not you! Don’t be so terrified, my love. I solemnly swear to you that I know of no harm giving happened to Charles; that I had no suspicion even of his being in the fatal place” (2, 238). He doesn’t want the Manette’s to get hurt, because if they got hurt, he would too. Lorry is also a great comfort to Lucie. We saw that, before the wedding, Mr. Lorry gave the traditional speech that a father would usually give. This speech set up his supportive role in the relationship between Lucie and Charles. In Paris, Lucie is frightened that Charles is hurt and Lorry is the one to give her advice and assure her that he will be fine: “There is no help for you in any action on your part to-night; you cannot possible stir out. I say this, because what I must bid you to do for Charles’s sake is the hard thing to do of all” (2, 238). Lorry helped Lucie in her time of need by telling her to be “obedient, still, and quiet” (2, 238). Lucie shows the reader how much she respects him and her willingness to listen to him: “I will be submissive to you. I see in your face that you know I can do nothing else than this. I know you are true” (2, 238). Lucie respects Mr. Lorry and his advice, just as a daughter would do to her father. Maybe Dickens portrays Mr. Lorry to be a father figure to Lucie because, in the first 17 years of her life, she had no father. Lorry was the first man that she could ever think of as a father. He has been with her through the major events in her life; He travelled with her when she was a little orphan, helped her recall her father to life, cared for her on her wedding day, and eased her stress while she was in Paris. Could this doubling of a father be foreshadowing? Maybe Lucie has two fathers because one of them will die and Dickens doesn’t want to leave her father-less again.
Lord of the Flies take two. “False eyebrows and false moustaches were stuck upon them, and their hideous countenances were all bloody and sweaty, and all awry and howling, and all staring and glaring with beastly excitement and want of sleep… The eye could not detect one creature in the group, free from the smear of blood… Hatchets, knives, bayonets, swords, all brought to be sharpened, were all red with it… And as the frantic wielders of these weapons snatched them from the stream of sparks and tore away into the streets, the same red hue was red in their frenzied eyes,” (Dickens 1, 272).
The warriors of the Revolution have become dehumanized. They can no longer see reason or justice past their thirst for revenge. What began as anticipation for the fall of their monarchy, perhaps a few severed heads of kings and queens, has passed and transformed into an inhumane thirst for blood. After executing France’s rulers, the commoners and peasants set out to kill any individual in a position of power. Then, they moved on to supporters, killing any person who might support or have supported nobility in the past. There must be a time when their massacres exceed the realms of civilization and re-label them as savages. At what point must they reinstate courts to stop the killing of innocent people? At what point have they become so “red with (blood)” that there is no hope of ever returning, no hope of ever again being compassionate or rational? This is that point.
Did Darnay believe he was going to make it out of France alive? It is assumed that Darnay will have a terrible faith when he goes to France. This fact stems from many ideas, for instance, Darnay’s uncle was killed and his chateau was burned down by revolutionists. They did not like Monsieur the Marquis not only because he was a bad man, but also because his family had a horrible history. In order to save Gabelle, Darnay has to use his true identity, which is hated amongst the people in France and England. The question still remains; does Darnay believe he will make it out of France alive?
On his way to Paris, Darnay seemed to realize the seriousness of his situation. “Charles Darnay began to perceive that for him along these country roads there was no hope of return until he should have been declared a good a good citizen at Paris.” (Chapter 1, page 255) It was interesting that Darnay thought not only would he return, but he could be declared a good citizen. This lets us know Darnay did think he would be able to return home. However, when the people find out that he is the Marquis’ nephew, he will more than likely suffer the same fate as his uncle. Yes, Darnay used a pseudonym to cover his identity, but to free Gabelle he was going have to admit who he really is. What will stop the people from killing him at that point?
“Not a mean village closed upon him, not a common barrier dropped across the road behind, but he knew it to be another iron door in the series that was barred between him and England.” (Chapter 1, page 255) This passage informs us Darnay is beginning to realize the possibility of not coming home because, the many barriers are blocking him from England. In conclusion, Darnay’s faith in returning to England overrules the fact he may die before getting there.
In the beginning of the third part of A Tale of Two Cities, red becomes the color of insanity, not the Revolution. In “The Grindstone”, hundreds of people are milling about the grindstone as blood spattered animals. “Their hideous countenances were all bloody and sweaty, and all awry with howling, and all staring and glaring with beastly excitement and want of sleep” (261). Like Sophie said, they have become dehumanized. However, they are not simply animals, they are insane and bloodthirsty. Before, they only wanted freedom but now the Revolutionaries are out for blood, red as their hats.
In the light of day, everyone goes back to their normal lives and usual routines. Everything, that is, except the grindstone. “But, the lesser grindstone stood alone there in the calm morning air, with a red upon it that the sun had never given, and would never take away” (263). The grindstone is the only remaining evidence of their insanity and their bloodlust. “Hatchets, knives, bayonets, swords, all brought to be sharpened, were all red with [blood]” (261). The grindstone is now their best weapon, beating out even the guillotine as it sharpens their swords and their unending craving for death and torture. Their brutality has changed the Revolution from peasants simply wanting a better life to savages seeking only death and destruction. “And as the frantic wielders of these weapons snatched them from the stream of sparks and tore away into the streets, the same red hue was red in their frenzied eyes” (261). At the end, they have passes the level of a mindless beast or bloodthirsty brute and driven themselves straight to a mob of insane, demonic maniacs.
Dickens believes man uses the Earth as one big grindstone.
"The great grindstone, Earth, had turned when Mr. Lorry looked out again, and the sun was red on the courtyard. But the lesser grindstone stood alone there in the calm of the morning air, with a red upon it that the sun had never given, and would never take away" (3, 274).
Dickens describes the Earth as "the great grindstone" and the concrete grindstone from the story as "the lesser grindstone." A grindstone is used to sharpen weapons; Dickens' tone in a previous passage in Chapter 3 makes his viewpoint on grindstones very clear. In the paragraph where Dickens is describing the grindstone he describes the people using it as "more horrible and cruel than the visages of the wildest savages in their most barbarous disguise" (3, 272). Rather than using his more popular approach of sarcasm, Dickens’ tone in this passage is explicit; he wants his point to be very clear. The people are barbaric. Knowing his viewpoint on those using the grindstone makes it easier to understand what Dickens meant when he compared it to the Earth. In comparing the Earth to a grindstone, Dickens is making a universal statement about humankind that is not just applicable to the French Revolution.
Like Sophie talked about, the revolutionaries are being dehumanized, but it is not only the revolutionaries that are dehumanized in this book. For the first half of the book, Dickens described the Aristocrats' cruel treatment of the peasants in a very similar way to his description of the bloodthirsty revolutionaries in these past few chapters. That is why Dickens compares the Earth to one great grindstone. This statement is not to be applied just to the revolutionaries or just to the aristocrats; it is to be applied to humanity in general. I agree with what Sophie said about this being “Lord of the Flies, take two.” Dickens takes a similar viewpoint on the of nature of man as William Golding. In the passage above, Dickens is saying humans use earthly recourses as means for destruction.
Paris or England, aristocrats or peasants: Constantly throughout “A Tale of Two Cities” the reader is constantly asking which of these options Charles Dickens supports. In my opinion, Book 3, Chapter 1 answers both of these questions for the reader. At the beginning of the chapter, Darnay views each village he passes on his journey to Paris as, “another iron door in the series that was barred between his and England” (Book 3, 1, 255). Once he was forced to pay for his escorts to Paris, “a loose line was attached to his bridle, the end of which one of the patriots kept girded round his wrist” (Book 3, 1 257). This begins the metaphor that portrays Paris as a prison and Darnay its prisoner. This automatically causes the reader to feel the dread of arriving at Paris with the protagonist. Once Darnay and his escorts arrive in Paris, Charles Dickens describes the wall of Paris to be a closed barrier, “and strongly guarded” (Book 3, 1, 259). This continues the metaphor. As Darnay rides up to the Paris wall, the man in authority asks for the “papers of this prisoner” (Book 3, 1, 259). After Darnay explained that he had come to Paris by his own will and had paid for an escort, the same man just repeated the question. “Where are the papers of this prisoner” (Book 3, 1, 259). Charles Dickens uses diction in order to show Paris as a prison to his hero. Therefore, the reader gets the impression that Dickens turning away from Paris with his writing, and siding, like Darnay, with England. Furthermore, the question still remains whether Dickens supports the aristocrats or the peasants. At the beginning of the book, Dickens portrays the peasants as scapegoats and unimportant to the wealthy of the society. However, in Book 3, chapter 1 it appears that Dickens has switched “sides.” Unlike Nicole and Lia in their prior blog posts, I believe that Charles Dickens has chosen the side of the aristocrats. After showing us how poorly the peasants were treated, Dickens unveils to the reader their power hungry, chaotic, and blood thirsty side. The reader is now bonded with the character Charles Darnay, and does not want to see him hurt. Therefore his unjust treatment in chapter one causes the readers to side with the aristocrats and look down at the peasants who have gone past the point of no return. At the start of the chapter Darnay is trying to get to Paris. However, once he was allowed to continue his journey the functionary and three armed patriots tell him that he “must have an escort – and must pay for it” (Book 3, 1, 256). This is automatic discrimination against Darnay because he is an aristocrat, which causes the reader to feel a slight distrust and dislike for the Parisian men. This feeling is pushed further as a rope was attached to Darnay’s horse, the end of which was tied around one of the patriot’s wrist. The reader then feels a strong dislike towards the men as they are treated the protagonist as a prisoner, while he came to France only to free a servant of his own. This feeling is thrown over the edge, when Darnay is talking with Citizen Defarge as they walked through the prison. After Darnay asked Defarge to tell Mr. Lorry where he was and what predicament he was in, Defarge darkly replies, “I will do, nothing for you. My duty is t my country and the People. I am the sworn servant of both against you. I will do nothing for you” (Book 3, 1, 263). From this moment through the next two chapters, the revolutionaries are no longer viewed as peasants striving to demand their rights. They are now viewed as the very tyrants and savages they overthrew. In this way, Charles Dickens sides and implores the reader to side with the aristocrats.
Madame Defarge has it out for Charles Darnay, but for what reason? She has something against his family and therefore wishes to take it out on Darnay as revenge. What causes her aggravation? I think that Darnay’s father and uncle, the Marquis, had something to do with her not having kids and a family. I belive that they killed her children. From the novel’s starting point, nothing is known about Madame Defarge’s past. She could have had children. When the confrontation between Lucie and Madame Defarge occurs, Lucie begins to talk about motherhood: “o sister-woman, think of me. As a wife and mother” (3, 278). In response to this, Madame Defarge seems to become even more distant and malicious: “Madame Defarge looked, coldly as ever, at the suppliant” (3, 278). Does Lucie know that Madame Defarge is a mother? When she found out that Charles was in prison, it is assumed that Dr. Manette told her Charles’s full story. Maybe Charles told Dr. Manette what evil acts his father and uncle had committed, including the murder of Madame Defarge’s children, and therefore, Dr. Manette told Lucie. Maybe Lucie is using this as leverage to gain favor with Madame Defarge in order to save her own child’s life.
As revenge, Madame Defarge wants to take the life of the “poor prisoner’s darling daughter, and only child” (2, 278). She delivers the letter so she can identify and find the temporary home of little Lucie as well as Lucie. Madame Defarge threatens little Lucie by “stopping in her work for the first time, and pointing her knitting-needle at little Lucie as if it were the finger of Fate” (3, 277). The knitting-needle sews names of people that Madame Defarge wants dead. By pointing the needle at little Lucie, she is threatening that little Lucie’s name will go into the registry: “the shadow attendant on Madame Defarge and her party seemed to fall so threatening and dark on the child” (3, 278). Lucie, interpreting the pointing of the needle as malevolent, begins to protect little Lucie, causing the shadow of death to fall upon her as well: “her mother instinctively kneeled on the ground beside her, and held her to her breast. The shadow attendant on Madame Defarge and her party seemed then to fall, threatening and dark on both the mother and child” (3, 278). Since the Evrémonde family killed her children, she, in return, will kill the child of the only living Evrémonde as vengeance and to end the family altogether.
The metaphor attached to Madame Defarge of a 'Fate' gives her the power to control the timing of other human beings' deaths. In Chapter 3 "The Shadow," Madame Defarge casts out a shadow of death upon Lucie and her daughter, ominously foretelling of what will come later in this book. Earlier in the novel, the concept that Madame Defarge knits her enemies into her registry is understood. In the chapter "Knitting," Madame Defarge is asked "what do you make" to which she replies "shrouds," which are burial cloths for the dead (15, 180). Death seems to follow this woman around like a menacing puppy at its master's heel. Her continuous activity of knitting displays her constantly calculative, master plan for the Revolution. In Chapter 3 however, she stops "in her work for the first time, and pointing her knitting-needle at little Lucie as if it were the finger of Fate" (3, 277). This threatening gesture implies that this child will die at the hands of Madam Defarge, as her needle is directed at this young daughter of Darnay.
Perhaps not only little Lucie will die by the hand of Madame Defarge. In Chapter 21 "Echoing Footsteps," Dickens writes about the occurrence of an early death for Lucie, the mother. "Among the echoes then, there would arise the sound of footsteps at her own early grave; and thoughts of the husband who would be left so desolate" (21, 218). Madame Defarge's anger and thirst for revenge, to be fulfilled through death, stem from her desire to payback the Evrémonde family for their wrong-doings, whatever those may be. Therefore, since Charles is the last member of this family, Madame Defarge must eliminate him, along with those related to him. This includes his wife Lucie and the "poor prisoner's darling daughter, and only child" little Lucie (3, 278). "The shadow attendant on Madame Defarge and her party seemed to fall so threatening and dark on the child, that her mother instinctively kneeled on the ground beside her, and held her to her breast. The shadow attendant on Madame Defarge and her party seemed then to fall, threatening and dark, on both the mother and the child" (3, 278). This shadow of death, cast out from Madame Defarge, is an ominous foreboding of the deaths of the two Lucies that Charles Evrémonde loves so dearly.
Why would Dickens compare the earth to a grindstone? Our planet earth continually spins in a routine manner, yet the spinning never ends. The grindstone also spins in a cycle allowing the unrestrained mob to sharpen their knives outside of Tellson’s Bank. In Chapter 3, titled “The Grindstone”, the narrator uses a simile to relate the Earth and the grindstone. The murders in Paris at this time were relentless, thus the sharpening of knives was unstoppable. During this Revolution period the grindstone continually spun uncontrolled by the human kind. “The great grindstone, Earth, had turned when Mr. Lorry looked out again,” just as the Earth spins daily on its axis (274). It sits, in the courtyard, spinning as the mob sharpens their murder weapons. “But the lesser the grindstone stood alone there in the calm morning air, with a red upon it that the sun had never given, and would never take away.”(274) The grindstone revolves on an axle around the people, while the Earth revolves around the sun, its only light source.
The Earth is a planet that rotates around the sun to keep us alive. The grindstone is a sharpening tool that rotates on an axle to create murder weapons. However both are involved in a monotonous spinning cycle that never ends. The Earth must spin in order to create seasons and keep weather temperature regulations. The grindstone spins, and spins, and spins to symbolize the never ending massacre in France at the time. Mr. Lorry watched out the window as they were “murdering the prisoners.”(273) The image of blood and wine on the grindstone symbolized the mass murders occurring. However, in this chapter nobody questioned the humanity of all the killings which is why it continued to occur. The grindstone, “all deep of one color”, symbolizes earth because of its unbreakable cycle or scheduled spinning (273). The French murders represent the unbreakable cycle, a cycle that would last a decade.
Between the Defarges, Madame Defarge “wears the pants” in their relationship. Throughout A Tale of Two Cities, the Defarges are identified as the leaders of the French Revolution, but who really is the leader? Although they seem to be a team, there is always an alpha and an omega in any relationship. Monsieur Defarge’s power is doubted by the readers when he asks Madame Defarge, “Where do you go, my wife?” (21, 223). She responds boldly, “I go with you, at present. You shall see me at the head of women, by-and-by,” (21, 223). Although there are very few conversations between the Defarges, the common factor in their interchanges is the presence of Madame Defarge’s growing power. Unlike the stereotypical domesticated woman of the late eighteenth century who just waited on her husband, Madame Defarge tells her husband where she is going. Unusually, Monsieur Defarge, the “man,” has no power over her actions or choices. She telling him, “I go with you at present,” demonstrates power and independence. She will not be a follower; instead she will be “at the head of women.” The conversations witnessed between the Defarges always put Madame Defarge in power: “It is enough my husband. I have seen them. We may go,” (3, 278). Monsieur Defarge simply accompanied her as if he was another sidekick like The Vengeance. Again, Madame Defarge is telling her husband that her plans are fulfilled therefore there is no other reason for staying. Madame Defarge “calls all the shots.”
Not only is Madame Defarge’s growing power demonstrated in the interchanges between her and her husband, but also in the events that occurred during the French Revolution. All the Parisians also treat her with respect as the leader of the French Revolution: “Certain men who had by some wonderful exercise of agility climbed up the external architecture to look in from the windows, knew Madame Defarge well, and acted as a telegraph between her and the crowd outside the building,” (21, 233). Madame Defarge is almost seen as a celebrity with paparazzi trying to spy and write a tabloid about her every action. She is idolized. Throughout the latter part of Book Two, when the revolution erupted, Madame Defarge is always described at the center of violence: “... She put her foot upon his neck, and with her cruel knife – long read – hewed off his head,” (21, 229). Madame Defarge is always shown in scenes that she withholds power. Monsieur Defarge never gets macabre scenes in which it is described how he mutilates one’s body. Because violence and destruction are power, Dicken’s portrayal of Madame Defarge’s violence strengthens her. One can only destroy if one is more powerful.
Dickens’s portrayal of Madame Defarge as the mythological creatures, The Fates, emphasizes the enormity of her strength: “Madame Defarge, stopping in her work for the first time, and pointing her knitting-needle at little Lucie as if it were the finger of Fate,” (3, 277). Mythological creatures are out of this world which makes Madame Defarge’s significance to A Tale of Two Cities far greater than a mere human. Fate cannot be stopped, and neither can Madame Defarge.
Sophie said that the peasants and revolutionaries have become dehumanized, just like in Lord of This Flies. Does this mean that Dickens and Golding have the same view about human nature? Does Dickens think that deep down, all humans are savage, blood thirsty beasts? “The frightful deeds that were to be soon done, were probably unimagined at that time in the brains of the doers. How could they have a place in the shadowy conceptions the gentle mind?” (Ch. 1, 264) At first the minds of the people are gentle, but they turn into violent, blood thirsty minds. Dickens seems to view the violence as inevitable. By saying that the horrible actions “were to be soon done,” it makes the action seems unavoidable. Deep down, the people have violent and savage minds, and when put into certain situations, their true nature is revealed. In both Lord of The Flies and A Tale of Two Cities, the situations that trigger the exposure of true humanity involve a loss of government. When faced with the task of forming a new government, the peasants turn violent. Dickens questions us, the readers, by asking us how could the violent deeds “have a place in the shadowy conceptions the gentle mind?” He does this in order to make us think about “the shadowy conceptions of the gentle mind.” What if all humans have a secret, shadowy mind? The peasants obviously do. The peasants are described as “bloody” and “sweaty” with “long,” savage hair. (Ch. 1, 264) They are put in a situation in which they have to form their own government and because of their savage, violent human nature, violence and chaos is inevitable. -Nicole Raisin
Dickens intentionally is stating that history is bound to repeat itself and its horrific events by using certain Greek myths. Throughout the book, Dickens illustrates characters and events through the use of Greek mythology. Since there are so many example of this, it cannot be ignored! Madam Defarge is obviously a Fate sister: “stopping in her work for the first time, and pointing her knitting-needle at little Lucie as if it were the finger of Fate” (276). We also see that she, and other women, are weaving the names of particular people into her knitting, basically “they [are sitting] knitting, knitting, counting dropping heads” (194). Madam Defarge is sentencing people to death by intertwining them with her needle work, much like the three fates in Greek mythology that weave, measure, and cut the thread of life. During the Storming of the Bastille, the peasants are killing any enemy on sight, stopping at nothing to achieve their first battle. During the battle, Mr. Defarge calls the ‘Jacques’ to him. As they speak with one another the image described is of “their three heads [being] close together” (227). This is symbolizing Cerberus, the monstrous three-headed dog that guards the gates of hell. Have the revolutionaries brought hell upon the earth? Why else describe the men that were destroying and murdering as a hellish figure? Another allusion to Greek mythology is the Loadstone Rock. This rock leads Charles Darnay into trouble that is seen as being his end. The rock is alluding to the Sirens from mythology that use their beautiful songs as lures to men on ships passing by. They are calling the men to their own death by bashing their ships on the deathly rocks that surround the island. Darnay is called to France on a suicide journey, he knows he is headed for unspeakable dangers, and yet, like the Sirens’ songs, he wants the glory of responsibility and maybe the ending of a revolution more than he wants to keep himself and his family safe.
Despite the efforts, Lucie and Little Lucie are becoming intertwined with the Revolution, mixing their golden thread with that of blood and revenge. "Thus, the rustling of an Angel's wings got blended with the other echoes, and they were not wholly of earth, but had in them that breath of Heaven. Sighs of the winds that blew over a little garden-tomb were mingled with them also, and both were audible to Lucie, in a hushed murmur -- like the breathing of a summer sea asleep upon a sandy shore -- as the little Lucie, comically studious at the task of the morning, or dressing a doll at her mother's footstool, chattered in the tongues of the Two Cities that were blended in her life" (21, 219). When the book began, Lucie and Madame Defarge were always in different chapters, but as the book progresses, they become together in the same chapters. And because Madame Defarge knits fate together, we see Lucie coming closer to her fate, whatever that may be.
The passage above is a part of the chapter "Echoing Footsteps," which is very peculiar. "Not only would the echoes die away, as though the steps had gone; but, echoes of other steps that never came, would be heard in their stead, and would die away for good," (6, 102-103) Lucie seems to hear the echoes even when their not there. Echoes, being the revolutionaries, usually are associated with death and destruction, but "the rustling of an Angel's wings got blended with the other echoes," stating that now there is a new heavenly like presence among the echoes. "Sighs of the winds that blew over a little garden-tomb were mingled with them also, and both were audible to Lucie." This shows that Lucie can now see both the "golden" that she has always had about her and depicted, but now she is becoming associated with death. Even Little Lucie is being affected, "as the little Lucie… chattered in the tongues of the Two Cities that were blended in her life." Also, we find out in book 3, chapter 2 that Lucie and Little Lucie even go to Paris in search of Mr. Darnay. So as the novel progresses, Lucie and her precious child become more intertwined with the revolution, presumably becoming closer to their fate.
Peasants? Or nobles? That question is always in the back of my mind as I read. Who does Dickens really support? Starting in the second book, it seems obvious that Dickens favors the peasants, calling out nobles like Monseigneur, who’s “morning chocolate could not so much as get into the throat of [him] without the aid of four strong men” (7, 93). His rich sarcasm towards the nobles’ actions gives us the idea that he does support the peasants, rather than the aristocrats, who believe that “the earth and the fullness thereof are” theirs (7, 94). In the beginning, it seems that Dickens believes that the nobles are naïve, not knowing what the world is really like, while the peasants are forced to struggle through life because of the nobles’ actions. But, like Sarah, I also notice that Dickens seems to change his views after the Revolution’s start. Once the tide had turned, Dickens opinion turns too; it turns against the peasants. As chapter 2, The Grindstone, progresses, we get a feeling of how savage and bloodthirsty the peasants are becoming, “their hideous countenances were all bloody and sweaty, and all awry with howling, and all staring and glaring with beastly excitement” (2, 239). As Sophie pointed out, it seems like Lord of the Flies all over again. The peasants, who want equality and peace, have now become bloodthirsty beasts who cannot be stopped. The narrator describes “ruffians [who] turned and turned, their matted locks now flung forward over their eyes, now flung backward over their necks” (2, 239). This image also adds to the idea that the peasants have become savages. It is as this point that the changes in Dickens opinion are made clear; he no longer sees anything but bloodlust in the eyes of the peasants, and therefore, begins to switch sides, turning to the nobles, in the war between classes.
Lucie is losing her innocence. Seen so far in this book, Lucie is the Heavenly- like figure. She is the golden thread connecting everyone, and she always sees the good in people. Noticed especially in Chapter 21 of Book Two, Lucie begins changing. One of the reasons I think she begins to change is because of Madame Defarge. Lucie and Madame Defarge are in the same chapter for the first time which indicates that Lucie is falling under the “fate” of Madame Defarge. In Chapter 3 of Book Three, Lucie says to Madame Defarge, “We are more afraid of you than the others.” By saying this, she finally realizes that the Defarges are not good people with good intentions; Lucie is losing her innocence.
“Thus, the rustling of an Angel’s wings got blended with the other echoes, and they were not wholly the earth, but had in them that breath of Heaven” (Ch. 21, 219). This quote is describing Lucie’s loss of innocence. It is telling how Lucie’s dead son was taken up to Heaven, but it also means something different. “Angel” in this quote is capitalized, which means it is referring to a specific person: Lucie. An angel is a person sent from Heaven to show the right way, which describes Lucie’s Heavenly-like personality. “The Angels’ wings got blended with the other echoes,” is the phrase which shows Lucie losing her innocence. The echoes are symbolizing the people of the Revolution, and because Lucie is being blended into these, she is falling under the trance of the Revolution. I agree with Katy Beth in saying that because of these things, Lucie’s fate is coming nearer and nearer as the Revolution progresses. Lucie is no longer the young, innocent, optimistic girl whom she used to be.
Darnay’s fate leads him to death. In chapter 24, Darnay goes to Paris, the place of “the rising sea.” (274) Throughout some of these chapters, Dickens uses an extended metaphor of the ocean to describe the revolution. “The sea of black and threatening waters, and of destructive upheaving of wave against wave, whose depths were yet unfathomed and whose forces were yet unknown. The remorseless sea of turbulently swaying shapes, voices of vengeance, and faces hardened in the faces of suffering until the touch pity could make no mark on them. ” (2, 21, 257) He shows how the people of the revolution have no mercy and are dark, ominous, and uncontrollable just like the ocean. Being the new Marquis, Darnay is not such a “hot commodity” among the people, so Paris is the last place where he wants to be. But his loadstone is pulling him there.
According to Dictionary.com, a loadstone is a rock which can be used as a magnet and was formerly used as a primitive compass; literally a guiding stone. Compasses are used to lead you in the right direction of your destination. If the loadstone is Darnay’s compass that is leading him to Paris, then that’s where he was destined to be. Chapter 24 is called “Drawn to the Loadstone Rock,” and specifically talks about Darnay. The magnetic force of the loadstone is pulling him to Paris where his fate lies. At the end it says he “left all that was dear on earth behind him, and floated away for the Loadstone Rock.” So not only is the loadstone forcing him, but the people that create the “sea” are also pulling him in to his doom. Darnay cannot escape what was destined for him.
The French revolutionaries are a force of nature. In Chapter 23, “The Sea Still Rises,” and Chapter 24, “Fire Rises,” the aggressive peasants are compared to the powerful and destructive forces of water, more specifically the vast and uncontrollable ocean, and the reaching flames of fire. Even from both of the chapter titles it is seen that the revolutionaries are evolving into something different than what was seen before the storming of the Bastille.
The revolutionaries begin to form a group to go and kill Foulon, and a woman called The Vengeance leads the way. They began to take charge towards “where the old man, ugly and wicked, was, and overflowing into the adjacent open space and streets.” (24, 233) Dickens uses this metaphor, also in earlier chapters like “Echoing Footsteps,” to show that just as the sea that these revolutionaries cannot be stopped. The Vengeance leads them like a ship through the stormy waters. They are on a mission to make things right by taking down the corrupt French aristocracy and are impossible to stop. This metaphor could also be seen as a reference to numbers and the mentality of the peasants all flowing as one big, united party. Either way, Dickens shows the mind set and also the fear that could ensue from this approaching group of determined revolutionaries.
But in Chapter 24, there is a clear and dramatic switch in metaphor. Both fire and water, known opposites, are now at use in describing the same group of people. They have now burned down the Monsieur the Marquis’ stone château and take Gabelle hostage sending him to prison. The revolutionaries have much more to achieve. “The fierce figures were steadily wending East, West, North, and South, be that as it would; and whosoever hung, fire burned.” (24,242) This metaphor seems to suggest that the revolutionaries are now untouchable; no one can stop them on their march to freedom and no one wants to try. It also suggests that the revolutionaries have lost some of themselves in the process becoming wild like a forest fire that burns everything in its path. With each metaphor change, the revolutionaries are only gaining more and more power.
But they are wandering away from freedom the Defarges have planned so tediously to fight for. And in truth, the revolutionaries have dehumanized themselves into an overflowing ocean of ever enveloping flames, therefore bringing great fear and terror to their country which is reflected by the usage of these metaphors.
In Chapter 22, Defarge entered and “pulled off a red cap he wore.” (22, 231) The “red cap” is mentioned numerous times throughout the rest of Book the Second, “The Golden Thread,” and also in Book the Third, “The Track of the Storm.” A note in the back of the book tells the reader that the red cap “originated in and image drawn from ancient Roman coins: slaves who had just been freed were presented with so-called Phrygian bonnets.”(Notes, 470) It also goes on to say that “Initially a symbol of liberty, they soon began to signify republican sympathies, and were closely identified with the sans culottes.” (Notes, 471) An example of the sans culottes was the working class. The red cap is presented numerous times in Chapter 22, Book 2 and Chapter 1, Book 3. First, Defarge is seen wearing the cap. He comes in to the shop wearing the red cap as a revolutionary who seeks to over throw a certain form of leadership. Then, once he has taken off the cap, he becomes the leader when is wife says, “Listen everywhere! Listen to him!”(22, 231)Mrs. Defarge says this as if her husband was the leader and should be of the highest importance. Then, the road mender, “(wore a red cap now, in place of his blue one).” (23, 238) The idealistic color of the republicans is red, and by wearing the red cap, instead of the blue one, the little man is characterized as a revolutionary. The most repetitive use of the red cap was in Chapter 1. In this case the term red cap is used to identify a person. For example, “Silence, growled a red-cap, striking at the coverlet with the butt-end of his musket.”(1, 256) As the note tells the reader, the red cap originated around slaves. Dickens is trying to say that by wearing the red cap, people are subjecting themselves to the loss of power. They are sacrificing some form of power that they might have, in order to over throw the higher power. For example, when Mr. Defarge takes off his cap, he is getting back the power he did not have with the cap on and therefore becoming a leader again. Like slaves, the revolutionaries form a union and revolt against the higher power in hopes of equality.
Darnay is as innocent and as doomed as a martyr. As September draws near, so does the massacre of the prisoners in La Force. Darnay senses Death drawing nearer to him, but is not as afraid as any other man would be. He knows he must bear the sins of his family and accepts that he cannot hide from his past forever. As much as Charles doesn't want to leave his beloved Lucie and their daughter, Darnay faces his destiny as he enters the trap that awaits him in France. Once he is taken prisoner, he knows his fate. In what may end up being his last words to Lucie, he requests one thing: "Kiss our child for me" (III.1). These possible last words were extremely similar to those of Lucie and Darnay's young son: "Poor Carton! Kiss him for me" (II.21)! The two sentences are almost completely identical. This infers that Charles knows death is near.
La Force is one of the words Dickens uses throughout the book to foreshadow events of the future. La Force and La Guillotine. These words are used subliminally in conjunction during chapter one, "In Secret." La Guillotine is a murder weapon used during the French Revolution. La Force however, is the name of the prison in which Darnay is being held. La Force is foreshadowing the force the guillotine will have as it beheads the people of the prison. Then, Dickens uses La Force along with the irony of Darnay being in prison to foreshadow Darnay’s future. Darnay has done nothing wrong yet he is an innocent man in prison. Even the guards who have placed him in prison know he has done nothing. "We have new laws, Evérmonde, and new offenses, since you were here." (1, 262) This is the only excuse the officer in the prison has for Darnay when he asks why he is being kept in La Force. However, the prison name being La Force, is foreshadowing that the prisoners become a force together, to save their lives from the force of the Guillotine.
Trapped, imprisoned, persecuted; these words come to mind as the novel continues. Throughout the novel, we become more aware of people's "secrets", which could also be thought of as people's "imprisonment." Just as almost every character has a secret, almost every character has something that is keeping them from ultimately being free. Just as the peasants attempt to break free from the nobles, the characters try to break free from their own inner battles. For example, Doctor Manette was literally imprisoned in the Bastille for many years. However, even though he has freedom now he is still trapped within his own mindset and suffers relapses into what it was like in prison. "He spoke with the diffidence of a man who knew how slight a thing would overset the delicate organization of the mind, and yet with the confidence of a man who had slowly won his assurance out of personal endurance and distress." (211) He is forced to live in a world inside his own head that causes his past to resurface, and even though he is not naïve to these relapses, he cannot always prevent them. And although Lucie, Miss Pross, and Mr. Lorry attempt to free him, they cannot, and frequently Lucie "walks together with him, up and down, till her love and company have brought him to himself." (102) Another form of self imprisonment, though not as drastic, are Sydney Carton and Darnay, who are similar in other ways than looks. Carton constantly tries to escape his lack of motivation and his work ethic. While alone once he questions himself and asks "why should you like a man who resembles you? There is nothing in you to like; you know that...he shows what you have fallen away from and what you might have been!" (89 He cannot seem to get a hold of himself in order to strive to become a better man, no matter how much he wants to. Darnay is forced into the past of his family and tries to escape his parent's wrongdoing. In attempts to push his family away, he is actually drawn to it when his past resurfaces. By the end of the second book, Darnay is going to the place of his family's origination in order to free himself and another literal prisoner, Gabelle, from his family's legacy. He receives a letter informing him of his friend that has been imprisoned and he contemplates going to France thinking about his family, and he "knows very well, that in his horror of the deed which had culminated the bad deeds and bad reputation of the old family house, in his resentful suspicions of his uncle, and in the aversion with which his conscience regarded the crumbling fabric that he was supposed to uphold." (251) Will the characters be able to escape the torture from their own mind just as the peasants escape from the nobles? Dickens uses the characters to portray the freedom from not only one's country, but one's own mind too.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Well Charles of multiple last names, I shan’t be fooled into pitying you again.
There is no clearer message than history repeating itself. Though the accusations he is charged with in both London and Paris may have been false or exaggerated, Dickens is, in two separate instances, portraying Charles Darnay as the traitor he is. While he is not a spy from France and is a victim of the new laws being laid down by the vengeful hand of St. Antoine, there is solidity in the accusations laid at his feet in both cities. He had indeed been “passing and repassing between France and England, on secret business of which he could give no honest account” (68) even to his wife and close friend. Charles betrays all of the London circle’s trust in him by not divulging his past to them and then turning around and abandoned them just he had “abandoned the estates when he inherited them and left them to the ruffian herd.” (248) The people who depend on him have no hope as he will up himself and run to wherever he feels the fancy to run to. He even betrays himself by admitting his plans to stay in England, hiding from his heritage were just the “immature plans of last week” (251) when he needed a reason to leave. There is not one person who has not been betrayed by Charles and not one person who has not suffered by loving him.
Charles Darnay is the one character in the book that seems to have no firm loyalty to anyone. Lucie is loyal to all she sees, Mr. Lorry is loyal, sometimes to a fault, to Tellison’s and even the merciless Defarge’s are “sworn servants of [their country and its People.]” (263) Charles has no such loyalty to anything or anyone. Not to his father’s name, which he happily abandoned. Not to Lucie or his child, who he deceived, left behind, and led into peril. Not to England who he never belonged to and not to France who he only cares for because he thinks he will be given glory. By giving into his fancy of having “influence to guide this Revolution” which “would be greatly acknowledged in France,” (252) he has drawn the people who care about him into capital of a bloodstained country. He has snipped the Golden Thread and now there is nothing to do but watch the Track of the Storm unfold.
Secrets, secrets are no fun, unless Lucie's a part of one.
The web of lies being woven is beginning to entangle the characters of A Tale of Two Cities. In a book about weaving, it was expected for something to become tangled, right? When Charles Darnay married Lucie, he didn’t realize he was legitimately tying a knot in his web. By keeping his past a secret, Darnay is stressed to keep the lose ends in check. In Chapter 24, Lorry receives a letter and Darnay uses another lie in order to cover up his past by volunteering to deliver the letter to the Marquis. When Darnay takes off to France in response to the letter, he leaves Lucie a note telling her where he has gone and he "took horse [to] Dover; and began his journey" (Ch. 24, 254). As Darnay continues to lie to Lucie he breaks the trust with her along with twisting himself further into the web. The doom stricken weaving of Darnay contrasts nicely with the glorious weaving of Lucie. Lucie is "busily winding the golden thread which [binds] her" (Ch. 21, 218) life, throughout the last few chapters of the novel. Darnay's past of darkness comes to mix in with the golden thread that is Lucie's present. Mixing the two contrasting threads results further results in the entanglement that Darnay experiences in Chapter 24.
By keeping his past a secret from Lucie, Darnay continues the web of lies that he has created and further entangles himself for the chapters to come.
Everybody loves Lucie. FALSE. I do not love Lucie. In fact, throughout the novel, my frustration with her has only grown. Yes, she did recall her dad to life, help to save Darnay's life, show compassion for Carton, and tie 1/3 of an entire novel together, but I don't like her. In my opinion, her character is entirely unrealistic. "God bless her for her sweet compassion!" (Book 2, Chapter 20) This is the most common phrase spoken about Lucie. Never once is has she made a wrong choice, inconvenienced anyone, been careless, insecure, or lost her temper. To be imperfect is to be human.
The more I think about her character, the more I believe that Dickens made her unrealistic on purpose. The only characterization of Lucie is that she's angelic. Her hair is golden, her eyes are bright blue, and her character is compassionate yet somehow undeveloped. Dickens gave us the view of every character except Lucie because the more mysteriously perfect she appears to be, the more like an angel she is. She is unrealistically perfect because she is to been seen as heavenly. We know that she is still human, not an actual angel, but if Dickens had continued to characterize Lucie, he would have had to show some flaw in her character to make her realistic, therefore ruining her angelic charm. The mystery of Lucie's character adds to her angelic personality and helps to create an overall heavenly feel.
In Chapter 24, the idea of the Loadstone Rock is introduced to Charles Darnay because of his guilt about the revolution, but other characters have shown invisible attractions to a Loadstone Rock also, like Lucie. In Lucie's case, she's been attracted to her own Loadstone Rock, Madame Defarge. There are two ways Lucie is attracted to her Loadstone Rock, knitting and blood. Madame Defarge and Lucie have recently become increasingly similar and that is what has begun to show their attraction. Lucie uses "golden treads" to interweave her family and her peace, but Madame Defarge used her threads to "throttle an enemy" and plan the deaths of her oppressors. The symbol of knitting is starting to make itself apparent in both of them and they're both used to tie people, deadly or not. However, I doubt that Lucie's tread is going to remain as "golden" after she gets even closer to Madame Defarge.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of blood, Lucie's always been stained with the lust that drives the revolution. Ever since the first time Lucie's met the Defarges' she's been stained with blood. "Now, Heaven defeat the fancy of Lucie Darnay, and keep these feet far out of her life! For, they are headlong, mad, and dangerous; and in the years so long after the breaking of the cask at Defarge's wine-shop door, they are not easily purified when once stained red"(Ch 21, 230). That fateful meeting with a broken wine box attracted Lucie to Madame Defarge without her even noticing it. Ever since that encounter at the beginning of the book, her Loadstone Rock was set, permanently, as Madame Defarge. Madame Defarge has always had a magnetic hold on Lucie. Lucie may be too innocent to understand what exactly is going on for her and Madame Defarge, but once they get closer there will be great destruction, like that unfortunate boat in Arabian Nights.
Brighton’s comment when analyzing Charles in class was interesting to me. She said that Charles was fake. At first I did not think so, but the more I think about his actions and what is said about him, I agree with her. When Charles receives his letter from Gabelle in Chapter 24, he decides to travel to France. He claims it is because he realizes that Gabelle has committed no crime and does not deserve the prison he is in, having done nothing but follow Charles’s requests. He seems extremely heroic. No.
ReplyDeleteCharles’s resolution is first described as a selfless mission as he who “could not fail to know that he was better than they, was not there, trying to do something to stay bloodshed, and assert the claims of mercy and humanity” (24, 252). But, Dickens later narrates that Charles sees himself going to France in a wave glory and taking the “wild sea” of a revolution down a controlled path. “Then, that glorious vision of doing good… arose before him, and he even saw himself in the illusion with some influence to guide this raging Revolution that was running so fearfully wild” (24, 252). Though Charles portrays his decision as one of “doing good”, his true desire is become a hero. His “noble” act is actually derived from selfish desires, and Darnay’s true aspiration is to become known as a heroic celebrity.
I never imagined that the Defarges would become the antagonists of the story. From the beginning, I thought that they merely represented a different side of the story. Obviously, they speak for the peasants, whereas the Manettes and Darnays are aristocrats. In book three, the two groups finally meet, with unusually menacing results. Though Darnay appeals to Defarge and recognizes him as the man whose house Dr.Manette lived at before Lucie "recalled" him, Defarge treats him like any other prisoner.
ReplyDeleteThe meeting of Lucie and Madame Defarge was terrifying. From the moment Defarge shows up with a message for Mr.Lorry, the feeling is ominous. The chapter title is The Shadow, referring to "the shadow attendant on Madame Defarge and her party (that)seemed to fall, menacing and dark, on (Lucie and her daughter.)"(3,277) When Defarge said that Madame Defarge needed to see the group "to ensure their safety,"I was sure that it probably ensured exactly the opposite...
Throughout the novel, we see that Mr. Lorry is a stable person to the Manette family. He is, in a sense, a second father to the family; He is always protecting them, scared for them, and determined to help them. When he sees Lucie and her Father in France, Mr. Lorry becomes instantly worried that someone “dear to [him] is in this dreadful town to-night” (2, 237). Already worried for himself, Mr. Lorry now worries for three people. As the mob comes to Tellson’s banking house, Mr. Lorry tries to protect Dr. Manette and keep him out of danger: “Don’t look out! Manette, for your life, don’t touch the blind!” (2, 237). When Dr. Manette continues to open the blind, and Lucie steps forward to see, Lorry cries “No, Lucie, my dear, not you! Don’t be so terrified, my love. I solemnly swear to you that I know of no harm giving happened to Charles; that I had no suspicion even of his being in the fatal place” (2, 238). He doesn’t want the Manette’s to get hurt, because if they got hurt, he would too.
ReplyDeleteLorry is also a great comfort to Lucie. We saw that, before the wedding, Mr. Lorry gave the traditional speech that a father would usually give. This speech set up his supportive role in the relationship between Lucie and Charles. In Paris, Lucie is frightened that Charles is hurt and Lorry is the one to give her advice and assure her that he will be fine: “There is no help for you in any action on your part to-night; you cannot possible stir out. I say this, because what I must bid you to do for Charles’s sake is the hard thing to do of all” (2, 238). Lorry helped Lucie in her time of need by telling her to be “obedient, still, and quiet” (2, 238). Lucie shows the reader how much she respects him and her willingness to listen to him: “I will be submissive to you. I see in your face that you know I can do nothing else than this. I know you are true” (2, 238). Lucie respects Mr. Lorry and his advice, just as a daughter would do to her father.
Maybe Dickens portrays Mr. Lorry to be a father figure to Lucie because, in the first 17 years of her life, she had no father. Lorry was the first man that she could ever think of as a father. He has been with her through the major events in her life; He travelled with her when she was a little orphan, helped her recall her father to life, cared for her on her wedding day, and eased her stress while she was in Paris. Could this doubling of a father be foreshadowing? Maybe Lucie has two fathers because one of them will die and Dickens doesn’t want to leave her father-less again.
Lord of the Flies take two. “False eyebrows and false moustaches were stuck upon them, and their hideous countenances were all bloody and sweaty, and all awry and howling, and all staring and glaring with beastly excitement and want of sleep… The eye could not detect one creature in the group, free from the smear of blood… Hatchets, knives, bayonets, swords, all brought to be sharpened, were all red with it… And as the frantic wielders of these weapons snatched them from the stream of sparks and tore away into the streets, the same red hue was red in their frenzied eyes,” (Dickens 1, 272).
ReplyDeleteThe warriors of the Revolution have become dehumanized. They can no longer see reason or justice past their thirst for revenge. What began as anticipation for the fall of their monarchy, perhaps a few severed heads of kings and queens, has passed and transformed into an inhumane thirst for blood. After executing France’s rulers, the commoners and peasants set out to kill any individual in a position of power. Then, they moved on to supporters, killing any person who might support or have supported nobility in the past. There must be a time when their massacres exceed the realms of civilization and re-label them as savages. At what point must they reinstate courts to stop the killing of innocent people? At what point have they become so “red with (blood)” that there is no hope of ever returning, no hope of ever again being compassionate or rational? This is that point.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDid Darnay believe he was going to make it out of France alive? It is assumed that Darnay will have a terrible faith when he goes to France. This fact stems from many ideas, for instance, Darnay’s uncle was killed and his chateau was burned down by revolutionists. They did not like Monsieur the Marquis not only because he was a bad man, but also because his family had a horrible history. In order to save Gabelle, Darnay has to use his true identity, which is hated amongst the people in France and England. The question still remains; does Darnay believe he will make it out of France alive?
ReplyDeleteOn his way to Paris, Darnay seemed to realize the seriousness of his situation. “Charles Darnay began to perceive that for him along these country roads there was no hope of return until he should have been declared a good a good citizen at Paris.” (Chapter 1, page 255) It was interesting that Darnay thought not only would he return, but he could be declared a good citizen. This lets us know Darnay did think he would be able to return home. However, when the people find out that he is the Marquis’ nephew, he will more than likely suffer the same fate as his uncle. Yes, Darnay used a pseudonym to cover his identity, but to free Gabelle he was going have to admit who he really is. What will stop the people from killing him at that point?
“Not a mean village closed upon him, not a common barrier dropped across the road behind, but he knew it to be another iron door in the series that was barred between him and England.” (Chapter 1, page 255) This passage informs us Darnay is beginning to realize the possibility of not coming home because, the many barriers are blocking him from England. In conclusion, Darnay’s faith in returning to England overrules the fact he may die before getting there.
In the beginning of the third part of A Tale of Two Cities, red becomes the color of insanity, not the Revolution. In “The Grindstone”, hundreds of people are milling about the grindstone as blood spattered animals. “Their hideous countenances were all bloody and sweaty, and all awry with howling, and all staring and glaring with beastly excitement and want of sleep” (261). Like Sophie said, they have become dehumanized. However, they are not simply animals, they are insane and bloodthirsty. Before, they only wanted freedom but now the Revolutionaries are out for blood, red as their hats.
ReplyDeleteIn the light of day, everyone goes back to their normal lives and usual routines. Everything, that is, except the grindstone. “But, the lesser grindstone stood alone there in the calm morning air, with a red upon it that the sun had never given, and would never take away” (263). The grindstone is the only remaining evidence of their insanity and their bloodlust. “Hatchets, knives, bayonets, swords, all brought to be sharpened, were all red with [blood]” (261). The grindstone is now their best weapon, beating out even the guillotine as it sharpens their swords and their unending craving for death and torture. Their brutality has changed the Revolution from peasants simply wanting a better life to savages seeking only death and destruction. “And as the frantic wielders of these weapons snatched them from the stream of sparks and tore away into the streets, the same red hue was red in their frenzied eyes” (261). At the end, they have passes the level of a mindless beast or bloodthirsty brute and driven themselves straight to a mob of insane, demonic maniacs.
Dickens believes man uses the Earth as one big grindstone.
ReplyDelete"The great grindstone, Earth, had turned when Mr. Lorry looked out again, and the sun was red on the courtyard. But the lesser grindstone stood alone there in the calm of the morning air, with a red upon it that the sun had never given, and would never take away" (3, 274).
Dickens describes the Earth as "the great grindstone" and the concrete grindstone from the story as "the lesser grindstone."
A grindstone is used to sharpen weapons; Dickens' tone in a previous passage in Chapter 3 makes his viewpoint on grindstones very clear. In the paragraph where Dickens is describing the grindstone he describes the people using it as "more horrible and cruel than the visages of the wildest savages in their most barbarous disguise" (3, 272). Rather than using his more popular approach of sarcasm, Dickens’ tone in this passage is explicit; he wants his point to be very clear. The people are barbaric. Knowing his viewpoint on those using the grindstone makes it easier to understand what Dickens meant when he compared it to the Earth. In comparing the Earth to a grindstone, Dickens is making a universal statement about humankind that is not just applicable to the French Revolution.
Like Sophie talked about, the revolutionaries are being dehumanized, but it is not only the revolutionaries that are dehumanized in this book. For the first half of the book, Dickens described the Aristocrats' cruel treatment of the peasants in a very similar way to his description of the bloodthirsty revolutionaries in these past few chapters. That is why Dickens compares the Earth to one great grindstone. This statement is not to be applied just to the revolutionaries or just to the aristocrats; it is to be applied to humanity in general. I agree with what Sophie said about this being “Lord of the Flies, take two.” Dickens takes a similar viewpoint on the of nature of man as William Golding. In the passage above, Dickens is saying humans use earthly recourses as means for destruction.
Paris or England, aristocrats or peasants: Constantly throughout “A Tale of Two Cities” the reader is constantly asking which of these options Charles Dickens supports. In my opinion, Book 3, Chapter 1 answers both of these questions for the reader. At the beginning of the chapter, Darnay views each village he passes on his journey to Paris as, “another iron door in the series that was barred between his and England” (Book 3, 1, 255). Once he was forced to pay for his escorts to Paris, “a loose line was attached to his bridle, the end of which one of the patriots kept girded round his wrist” (Book 3, 1 257). This begins the metaphor that portrays Paris as a prison and Darnay its prisoner. This automatically causes the reader to feel the dread of arriving at Paris with the protagonist. Once Darnay and his escorts arrive in Paris, Charles Dickens describes the wall of Paris to be a closed barrier, “and strongly guarded” (Book 3, 1, 259). This continues the metaphor. As Darnay rides up to the Paris wall, the man in authority asks for the “papers of this prisoner” (Book 3, 1, 259). After Darnay explained that he had come to Paris by his own will and had paid for an escort, the same man just repeated the question. “Where are the papers of this prisoner” (Book 3, 1, 259). Charles Dickens uses diction in order to show Paris as a prison to his hero. Therefore, the reader gets the impression that Dickens turning away from Paris with his writing, and siding, like Darnay, with England.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, the question still remains whether Dickens supports the aristocrats or the peasants. At the beginning of the book, Dickens portrays the peasants as scapegoats and unimportant to the wealthy of the society. However, in Book 3, chapter 1 it appears that Dickens has switched “sides.” Unlike Nicole and Lia in their prior blog posts, I believe that Charles Dickens has chosen the side of the aristocrats. After showing us how poorly the peasants were treated, Dickens unveils to the reader their power hungry, chaotic, and blood thirsty side. The reader is now bonded with the character Charles Darnay, and does not want to see him hurt. Therefore his unjust treatment in chapter one causes the readers to side with the aristocrats and look down at the peasants who have gone past the point of no return. At the start of the chapter Darnay is trying to get to Paris. However, once he was allowed to continue his journey the functionary and three armed patriots tell him that he “must have an escort – and must pay for it” (Book 3, 1, 256). This is automatic discrimination against Darnay because he is an aristocrat, which causes the reader to feel a slight distrust and dislike for the Parisian men. This feeling is pushed further as a rope was attached to Darnay’s horse, the end of which was tied around one of the patriot’s wrist. The reader then feels a strong dislike towards the men as they are treated the protagonist as a prisoner, while he came to France only to free a servant of his own. This feeling is thrown over the edge, when Darnay is talking with Citizen Defarge as they walked through the prison. After Darnay asked Defarge to tell Mr. Lorry where he was and what predicament he was in, Defarge darkly replies, “I will do, nothing for you. My duty is t my country and the People. I am the sworn servant of both against you. I will do nothing for you” (Book 3, 1, 263). From this moment through the next two chapters, the revolutionaries are no longer viewed as peasants striving to demand their rights. They are now viewed as the very tyrants and savages they overthrew. In this way, Charles Dickens sides and implores the reader to side with the aristocrats.
Madame Defarge has it out for Charles Darnay, but for what reason? She has something against his family and therefore wishes to take it out on Darnay as revenge. What causes her aggravation? I think that Darnay’s father and uncle, the Marquis, had something to do with her not having kids and a family. I belive that they killed her children. From the novel’s starting point, nothing is known about Madame Defarge’s past. She could have had children. When the confrontation between Lucie and Madame Defarge occurs, Lucie begins to talk about motherhood: “o sister-woman, think of me. As a wife and mother” (3, 278). In response to this, Madame Defarge seems to become even more distant and malicious: “Madame Defarge looked, coldly as ever, at the suppliant” (3, 278). Does Lucie know that Madame Defarge is a mother? When she found out that Charles was in prison, it is assumed that Dr. Manette told her Charles’s full story. Maybe Charles told Dr. Manette what evil acts his father and uncle had committed, including the murder of Madame Defarge’s children, and therefore, Dr. Manette told Lucie. Maybe Lucie is using this as leverage to gain favor with Madame Defarge in order to save her own child’s life.
ReplyDeleteAs revenge, Madame Defarge wants to take the life of the “poor prisoner’s darling daughter, and only child” (2, 278). She delivers the letter so she can identify and find the temporary home of little Lucie as well as Lucie. Madame Defarge threatens little Lucie by “stopping in her work for the first time, and pointing her knitting-needle at little Lucie as if it were the finger of Fate” (3, 277). The knitting-needle sews names of people that Madame Defarge wants dead. By pointing the needle at little Lucie, she is threatening that little Lucie’s name will go into the registry: “the shadow attendant on Madame Defarge and her party seemed to fall so threatening and dark on the child” (3, 278). Lucie, interpreting the pointing of the needle as malevolent, begins to protect little Lucie, causing the shadow of death to fall upon her as well: “her mother instinctively kneeled on the ground beside her, and held her to her breast. The shadow attendant on Madame Defarge and her party seemed then to fall, threatening and dark on both the mother and child” (3, 278). Since the Evrémonde family killed her children, she, in return, will kill the child of the only living Evrémonde as vengeance and to end the family altogether.
The metaphor attached to Madame Defarge of a 'Fate' gives her the power to control the timing of other human beings' deaths. In Chapter 3 "The Shadow," Madame Defarge casts out a shadow of death upon Lucie and her daughter, ominously foretelling of what will come later in this book. Earlier in the novel, the concept that Madame Defarge knits her enemies into her registry is understood. In the chapter "Knitting," Madame Defarge is asked "what do you make" to which she replies "shrouds," which are burial cloths for the dead (15, 180). Death seems to follow this woman around like a menacing puppy at its master's heel. Her continuous activity of knitting displays her constantly calculative, master plan for the Revolution. In Chapter 3 however, she stops "in her work for the first time, and pointing her knitting-needle at little Lucie as if it were the finger of Fate" (3, 277). This threatening gesture implies that this child will die at the hands of Madam Defarge, as her needle is directed at this young daughter of Darnay.
ReplyDeletePerhaps not only little Lucie will die by the hand of Madame Defarge. In Chapter 21 "Echoing Footsteps," Dickens writes about the occurrence of an early death for Lucie, the mother. "Among the echoes then, there would arise the sound of footsteps at her own early grave; and thoughts of the husband who would be left so desolate" (21, 218). Madame Defarge's anger and thirst for revenge, to be fulfilled through death, stem from her desire to payback the Evrémonde family for their wrong-doings, whatever those may be. Therefore, since Charles is the last member of this family, Madame Defarge must eliminate him, along with those related to him. This includes his wife Lucie and the "poor prisoner's darling daughter, and only child" little Lucie (3, 278). "The shadow attendant on Madame Defarge and her party seemed to fall so threatening and dark on the child, that her mother instinctively kneeled on the ground beside her, and held her to her breast. The shadow attendant on Madame Defarge and her party seemed then to fall, threatening and dark, on both the mother and the child" (3, 278). This shadow of death, cast out from Madame Defarge, is an ominous foreboding of the deaths of the two Lucies that Charles Evrémonde loves so dearly.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhy would Dickens compare the earth to a grindstone? Our planet earth continually spins in a routine manner, yet the spinning never ends. The grindstone also spins in a cycle allowing the unrestrained mob to sharpen their knives outside of Tellson’s Bank. In Chapter 3, titled “The Grindstone”, the narrator uses a simile to relate the Earth and the grindstone. The murders in Paris at this time were relentless, thus the sharpening of knives was unstoppable. During this Revolution period the grindstone continually spun uncontrolled by the human kind. “The great grindstone, Earth, had turned when Mr. Lorry looked out again,” just as the Earth spins daily on its axis (274). It sits, in the courtyard, spinning as the mob sharpens their murder weapons. “But the lesser the grindstone stood alone there in the calm morning air, with a red upon it that the sun had never given, and would never take away.”(274) The grindstone revolves on an axle around the people, while the Earth revolves around the sun, its only light source.
ReplyDeleteThe Earth is a planet that rotates around the sun to keep us alive. The grindstone is a sharpening tool that rotates on an axle to create murder weapons. However both are involved in a monotonous spinning cycle that never ends. The Earth must spin in order to create seasons and keep weather temperature regulations. The grindstone spins, and spins, and spins to symbolize the never ending massacre in France at the time. Mr. Lorry watched out the window as they were “murdering the prisoners.”(273) The image of blood and wine on the grindstone symbolized the mass murders occurring. However, in this chapter nobody questioned the humanity of all the killings which is why it continued to occur. The grindstone, “all deep of one color”, symbolizes earth because of its unbreakable cycle or scheduled spinning (273). The French murders represent the unbreakable cycle, a cycle that would last a decade.
Between the Defarges, Madame Defarge “wears the pants” in their relationship. Throughout A Tale of Two Cities, the Defarges are identified as the leaders of the French Revolution, but who really is the leader? Although they seem to be a team, there is always an alpha and an omega in any relationship. Monsieur Defarge’s power is doubted by the readers when he asks Madame Defarge, “Where do you go, my wife?” (21, 223). She responds boldly, “I go with you, at present. You shall see me at the head of women, by-and-by,” (21, 223). Although there are very few conversations between the Defarges, the common factor in their interchanges is the presence of Madame Defarge’s growing power. Unlike the stereotypical domesticated woman of the late eighteenth century who just waited on her husband, Madame Defarge tells her husband where she is going. Unusually, Monsieur Defarge, the “man,” has no power over her actions or choices. She telling him, “I go with you at present,” demonstrates power and independence. She will not be a follower; instead she will be “at the head of women.” The conversations witnessed between the Defarges always put Madame Defarge in power: “It is enough my husband. I have seen them. We may go,” (3, 278). Monsieur Defarge simply accompanied her as if he was another sidekick like The Vengeance. Again, Madame Defarge is telling her husband that her plans are fulfilled therefore there is no other reason for staying. Madame Defarge “calls all the shots.”
ReplyDeleteNot only is Madame Defarge’s growing power demonstrated in the interchanges between her and her husband, but also in the events that occurred during the French Revolution. All the Parisians also treat her with respect as the leader of the French Revolution: “Certain men who had by some wonderful exercise of agility climbed up the external architecture to look in from the windows, knew Madame Defarge well, and acted as a telegraph between her and the crowd outside the building,” (21, 233). Madame Defarge is almost seen as a celebrity with paparazzi trying to spy and write a tabloid about her every action. She is idolized. Throughout the latter part of Book Two, when the revolution erupted, Madame Defarge is always described at the center of violence: “... She put her foot upon his neck, and with her cruel knife – long read – hewed off his head,” (21, 229). Madame Defarge is always shown in scenes that she withholds power. Monsieur Defarge never gets macabre scenes in which it is described how he mutilates one’s body. Because violence and destruction are power, Dicken’s portrayal of Madame Defarge’s violence strengthens her. One can only destroy if one is more powerful.
Dickens’s portrayal of Madame Defarge as the mythological creatures, The Fates, emphasizes the enormity of her strength: “Madame Defarge, stopping in her work for the first time, and pointing her knitting-needle at little Lucie as if it were the finger of Fate,” (3, 277). Mythological creatures are out of this world which makes Madame Defarge’s significance to A Tale of Two Cities far greater than a mere human. Fate cannot be stopped, and neither can Madame Defarge.
Sophie said that the peasants and revolutionaries have become dehumanized, just like in Lord of This Flies. Does this mean that Dickens and Golding have the same view about human nature? Does Dickens think that deep down, all humans are savage, blood thirsty beasts?
ReplyDelete“The frightful deeds that were to be soon done, were probably unimagined at that time in the brains of the doers. How could they have a place in the shadowy conceptions the gentle mind?” (Ch. 1, 264) At first the minds of the people are gentle, but they turn into violent, blood thirsty minds. Dickens seems to view the violence as inevitable. By saying that the horrible actions “were to be soon done,” it makes the action seems unavoidable. Deep down, the people have violent and savage minds, and when put into certain situations, their true nature is revealed. In both Lord of The Flies and A Tale of Two Cities, the situations that trigger the exposure of true humanity involve a loss of government. When faced with the task of forming a new government, the peasants turn violent. Dickens questions us, the readers, by asking us how could the violent deeds “have a place in the shadowy conceptions the gentle mind?” He does this in order to make us think about “the shadowy conceptions of the gentle mind.” What if all humans have a secret, shadowy mind? The peasants obviously do. The peasants are described as “bloody” and “sweaty” with “long,” savage hair. (Ch. 1, 264) They are put in a situation in which they have to form their own government and because of their savage, violent human nature, violence and chaos is inevitable.
-Nicole Raisin
Dickens intentionally is stating that history is bound to repeat itself and its horrific events by using certain Greek myths. Throughout the book, Dickens illustrates characters and events through the use of Greek mythology. Since there are so many example of this, it cannot be ignored! Madam Defarge is obviously a Fate sister: “stopping in her work for the first time, and pointing her knitting-needle at little Lucie as if it were the finger of Fate” (276). We also see that she, and other women, are weaving the names of particular people into her knitting, basically “they [are sitting] knitting, knitting, counting dropping heads” (194). Madam Defarge is sentencing people to death by intertwining them with her needle work, much like the three fates in Greek mythology that weave, measure, and cut the thread of life.
ReplyDeleteDuring the Storming of the Bastille, the peasants are killing any enemy on sight, stopping at nothing to achieve their first battle. During the battle, Mr. Defarge calls the ‘Jacques’ to him. As they speak with one another the image described is of “their three heads [being] close together” (227). This is symbolizing Cerberus, the monstrous three-headed dog that guards the gates of hell. Have the revolutionaries brought hell upon the earth? Why else describe the men that were destroying and murdering as a hellish figure?
Another allusion to Greek mythology is the Loadstone Rock. This rock leads Charles Darnay into trouble that is seen as being his end. The rock is alluding to the Sirens from mythology that use their beautiful songs as lures to men on ships passing by. They are calling the men to their own death by bashing their ships on the deathly rocks that surround the island. Darnay is called to France on a suicide journey, he knows he is headed for unspeakable dangers, and yet, like the Sirens’ songs, he wants the glory of responsibility and maybe the ending of a revolution more than he wants to keep himself and his family safe.
Despite the efforts, Lucie and Little Lucie are becoming intertwined with the Revolution, mixing their golden thread with that of blood and revenge. "Thus, the rustling of an Angel's wings got blended with the other echoes, and they were not wholly of earth, but had in them that breath of Heaven. Sighs of the winds that blew over a little garden-tomb were mingled with them also, and both were audible to Lucie, in a hushed murmur -- like the breathing of a summer sea asleep upon a sandy shore -- as the little Lucie, comically studious at the task of the morning, or dressing a doll at her mother's footstool, chattered in the tongues of the Two Cities that were blended in her life" (21, 219). When the book began, Lucie and Madame Defarge were always in different chapters, but as the book progresses, they become together in the same chapters. And because Madame Defarge knits fate together, we see Lucie coming closer to her fate, whatever that may be.
ReplyDeleteThe passage above is a part of the chapter "Echoing Footsteps," which is very peculiar. "Not only would the echoes die away, as though the steps had gone; but, echoes of other steps that never came, would be heard in their stead, and would die away for good," (6, 102-103) Lucie seems to hear the echoes even when their not there. Echoes, being the revolutionaries, usually are associated with death and destruction, but "the rustling of an Angel's wings got blended with the other echoes," stating that now there is a new heavenly like presence among the echoes. "Sighs of the winds that blew over a little garden-tomb were mingled with them also, and both were audible to Lucie." This shows that Lucie can now see both the "golden" that she has always had about her and depicted, but now she is becoming associated with death. Even Little Lucie is being affected, "as the little Lucie… chattered in the tongues of the Two Cities that were blended in her life." Also, we find out in book 3, chapter 2 that Lucie and Little Lucie even go to Paris in search of Mr. Darnay. So as the novel progresses, Lucie and her precious child become more intertwined with the revolution, presumably becoming closer to their fate.
Peasants? Or nobles? That question is always in the back of my mind as I read. Who does Dickens really support? Starting in the second book, it seems obvious that Dickens favors the peasants, calling out nobles like Monseigneur, who’s “morning chocolate could not so much as get into the throat of [him] without the aid of four strong men” (7, 93). His rich sarcasm towards the nobles’ actions gives us the idea that he does support the peasants, rather than the aristocrats, who believe that “the earth and the fullness thereof are” theirs (7, 94). In the beginning, it seems that Dickens believes that the nobles are naïve, not knowing what the world is really like, while the peasants are forced to struggle through life because of the nobles’ actions.
ReplyDeleteBut, like Sarah, I also notice that Dickens seems to change his views after the Revolution’s start. Once the tide had turned, Dickens opinion turns too; it turns against the peasants. As chapter 2, The Grindstone, progresses, we get a feeling of how savage and bloodthirsty the peasants are becoming, “their hideous countenances were all bloody and sweaty, and all awry with howling, and all staring and glaring with beastly excitement” (2, 239). As Sophie pointed out, it seems like Lord of the Flies all over again. The peasants, who want equality and peace, have now become bloodthirsty beasts who cannot be stopped. The narrator describes “ruffians [who] turned and turned, their matted locks now flung forward over their eyes, now flung backward over their necks” (2, 239). This image also adds to the idea that the peasants have become savages. It is as this point that the changes in Dickens opinion are made clear; he no longer sees anything but bloodlust in the eyes of the peasants, and therefore, begins to switch sides, turning to the nobles, in the war between classes.
Lucie is losing her innocence. Seen so far in this book, Lucie is the Heavenly- like figure. She is the golden thread connecting everyone, and she always sees the good in people. Noticed especially in Chapter 21 of Book Two, Lucie begins changing. One of the reasons I think she begins to change is because of Madame Defarge. Lucie and Madame Defarge are in the same chapter for the first time which indicates that Lucie is falling under the “fate” of Madame Defarge. In Chapter 3 of Book Three, Lucie says to Madame Defarge, “We are more afraid of you than the others.” By saying this, she finally realizes that the Defarges are not good people with good intentions; Lucie is losing her innocence.
ReplyDelete“Thus, the rustling of an Angel’s wings got blended with the other echoes, and they were not wholly the earth, but had in them that breath of Heaven” (Ch. 21, 219). This quote is describing Lucie’s loss of innocence. It is telling how Lucie’s dead son was taken up to Heaven, but it also means something different. “Angel” in this quote is capitalized, which means it is referring to a specific person: Lucie. An angel is a person sent from Heaven to show the right way, which describes Lucie’s Heavenly-like personality. “The Angels’ wings got blended with the other echoes,” is the phrase which shows Lucie losing her innocence. The echoes are symbolizing the people of the Revolution, and because Lucie is being blended into these, she is falling under the trance of the Revolution. I agree with Katy Beth in saying that because of these things, Lucie’s fate is coming nearer and nearer as the Revolution progresses. Lucie is no longer the young, innocent, optimistic girl whom she used to be.
Darnay’s fate leads him to death. In chapter 24, Darnay goes to Paris, the place of “the rising sea.” (274) Throughout some of these chapters, Dickens uses an extended metaphor of the ocean to describe the revolution. “The sea of black and threatening waters, and of destructive upheaving of wave against wave, whose depths were yet unfathomed and whose forces were yet unknown. The remorseless sea of turbulently swaying shapes, voices of vengeance, and faces hardened in the faces of suffering until the touch pity could make no mark on them. ” (2, 21, 257) He shows how the people of the revolution have no mercy and are dark, ominous, and uncontrollable just like the ocean. Being the new Marquis, Darnay is not such a “hot commodity” among the people, so Paris is the last place where he wants to be. But his loadstone is pulling him there.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Dictionary.com, a loadstone is a rock which can be used as a magnet and was formerly used as a primitive compass; literally a guiding stone. Compasses are used to lead you in the right direction of your destination. If the loadstone is Darnay’s compass that is leading him to Paris, then that’s where he was destined to be. Chapter 24 is called “Drawn to the Loadstone Rock,” and specifically talks about Darnay. The magnetic force of the loadstone is pulling him to Paris where his fate lies. At the end it says he “left all that was dear on earth behind him, and floated away for the Loadstone Rock.” So not only is the loadstone forcing him, but the people that create the “sea” are also pulling him in to his doom. Darnay cannot escape what was destined for him.
The French revolutionaries are a force of nature. In Chapter 23, “The Sea Still Rises,” and Chapter 24, “Fire Rises,” the aggressive peasants are compared to the powerful and destructive forces of water, more specifically the vast and uncontrollable ocean, and the reaching flames of fire. Even from both of the chapter titles it is seen that the revolutionaries are evolving into something different than what was seen before the storming of the Bastille.
ReplyDeleteThe revolutionaries begin to form a group to go and kill Foulon, and a woman called The Vengeance leads the way. They began to take charge towards “where the old man, ugly and wicked, was, and overflowing into the adjacent open space and streets.” (24, 233) Dickens uses this metaphor, also in earlier chapters like “Echoing Footsteps,” to show that just as the sea that these revolutionaries cannot be stopped. The Vengeance leads them like a ship through the stormy waters. They are on a mission to make things right by taking down the corrupt French aristocracy and are impossible to stop. This metaphor could also be seen as a reference to numbers and the mentality of the peasants all flowing as one big, united party. Either way, Dickens shows the mind set and also the fear that could ensue from this approaching group of determined revolutionaries.
But in Chapter 24, there is a clear and dramatic switch in metaphor. Both fire and water, known opposites, are now at use in describing the same group of people. They have now burned down the Monsieur the Marquis’ stone château and take Gabelle hostage sending him to prison. The revolutionaries have much more to achieve. “The fierce figures were steadily wending East, West, North, and South, be that as it would; and whosoever hung, fire burned.” (24,242) This metaphor seems to suggest that the revolutionaries are now untouchable; no one can stop them on their march to freedom and no one wants to try. It also suggests that the revolutionaries have lost some of themselves in the process becoming wild like a forest fire that burns everything in its path. With each metaphor change, the revolutionaries are only gaining more and more power.
But they are wandering away from freedom the Defarges have planned so tediously to fight for. And in truth, the revolutionaries have dehumanized themselves into an overflowing ocean of ever enveloping flames, therefore bringing great fear and terror to their country which is reflected by the usage of these metaphors.
In Chapter 22, Defarge entered and “pulled off a red cap he wore.” (22, 231) The “red cap” is mentioned numerous times throughout the rest of Book the Second, “The Golden Thread,” and also in Book the Third, “The Track of the Storm.” A note in the back of the book tells the reader that the red cap “originated in and image drawn from ancient Roman coins: slaves who had just been freed were presented with so-called Phrygian bonnets.”(Notes, 470) It also goes on to say that “Initially a symbol of liberty, they soon began to signify republican sympathies, and were closely identified with the sans culottes.” (Notes, 471) An example of the sans culottes was the working class.
ReplyDeleteThe red cap is presented numerous times in Chapter 22, Book 2 and Chapter 1, Book 3. First, Defarge is seen wearing the cap. He comes in to the shop wearing the red cap as a revolutionary who seeks to over throw a certain form of leadership. Then, once he has taken off the cap, he becomes the leader when is wife says, “Listen everywhere! Listen to him!”(22, 231)Mrs. Defarge says this as if her husband was the leader and should be of the highest importance. Then, the road mender, “(wore a red cap now, in place of his blue one).” (23, 238) The idealistic color of the republicans is red, and by wearing the red cap, instead of the blue one, the little man is characterized as a revolutionary. The most repetitive use of the red cap was in Chapter 1. In this case the term red cap is used to identify a person. For example, “Silence, growled a red-cap, striking at the coverlet with the butt-end of his musket.”(1, 256) As the note tells the reader, the red cap originated around slaves. Dickens is trying to say that by wearing the red cap, people are subjecting themselves to the loss of power. They are sacrificing some form of power that they might have, in order to over throw the higher power. For example, when Mr. Defarge takes off his cap, he is getting back the power he did not have with the cap on and therefore becoming a leader again. Like slaves, the revolutionaries form a union and revolt against the higher power in hopes of equality.
Darnay is as innocent and as doomed as a martyr. As September draws near, so does the massacre of the prisoners in La Force. Darnay senses Death drawing nearer to him, but is not as afraid as any other man would be. He knows he must bear the sins of his family and accepts that he cannot hide from his past forever.
ReplyDeleteAs much as Charles doesn't want to leave his beloved Lucie and their daughter, Darnay faces his destiny as he enters the trap that awaits him in France. Once he is taken prisoner, he knows his fate. In what may end up being his last words to Lucie, he requests one thing: "Kiss our child for me" (III.1). These possible last words were extremely similar to those of Lucie and Darnay's young son: "Poor Carton! Kiss him for me" (II.21)! The two sentences are almost completely identical. This infers that Charles knows death is near.
La Force is one of the words Dickens uses throughout the book to foreshadow events of the future. La Force and La Guillotine. These words are used subliminally in conjunction during chapter one, "In Secret." La Guillotine is a murder weapon used during the French Revolution. La Force however, is the name of the prison in which Darnay is being held. La Force is foreshadowing the force the guillotine will have as it beheads the people of the prison. Then, Dickens uses La Force along with the irony of Darnay being in prison to foreshadow Darnay’s future. Darnay has done nothing wrong yet he is an innocent man in prison. Even the guards who have placed him in prison know he has done nothing. "We have new laws, Evérmonde, and new offenses, since you were here." (1, 262) This is the only excuse the officer in the prison has for Darnay when he asks why he is being kept in La Force. However, the prison name being La Force, is foreshadowing that the prisoners become a force together, to save their lives from the force of the Guillotine.
ReplyDeleteTrapped, imprisoned, persecuted; these words come to mind as the novel continues. Throughout the novel, we become more aware of people's "secrets", which could also be thought of as people's "imprisonment." Just as almost every character has a secret, almost every character has something that is keeping them from ultimately being free. Just as the peasants attempt to break free from the nobles, the characters try to break free from their own inner battles.
ReplyDeleteFor example, Doctor Manette was literally imprisoned in the Bastille for many years. However, even though he has freedom now he is still trapped within his own mindset and suffers relapses into what it was like in prison. "He spoke with the diffidence of a man who knew how slight a thing would overset the delicate organization of the mind, and yet with the confidence of a man who had slowly won his assurance out of personal endurance and distress." (211) He is forced to live in a world inside his own head that causes his past to resurface, and even though he is not naïve to these relapses, he cannot always prevent them. And although Lucie, Miss Pross, and Mr. Lorry attempt to free him, they cannot, and frequently Lucie "walks together with him, up and down, till her love and company have brought him to himself." (102)
Another form of self imprisonment, though not as drastic, are Sydney Carton and Darnay, who are similar in other ways than looks. Carton constantly tries to escape his lack of motivation and his work ethic. While alone once he questions himself and asks "why should you like a man who resembles you? There is nothing in you to like; you know that...he shows what you have fallen away from and what you might have been!" (89 He cannot seem to get a hold of himself in order to strive to become a better man, no matter how much he wants to. Darnay is forced into the past of his family and tries to escape his parent's wrongdoing. In attempts to push his family away, he is actually drawn to it when his past resurfaces. By the end of the second book, Darnay is going to the place of his family's origination in order to free himself and another literal prisoner, Gabelle, from his family's legacy. He receives a letter informing him of his friend that has been imprisoned and he contemplates going to France thinking about his family, and he "knows very well, that in his horror of the deed which had culminated the bad deeds and bad reputation of the old family house, in his resentful suspicions of his uncle, and in the aversion with which his conscience regarded the crumbling fabric that he was supposed to uphold." (251)
Will the characters be able to escape the torture from their own mind just as the peasants escape from the nobles? Dickens uses the characters to portray the freedom from not only one's country, but one's own mind too.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete(my computer wouldn't let me post my blog together so I broke it up into two parts.. sorry)
ReplyDeleteFool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Well Charles of multiple last names, I shan’t be fooled into pitying you again.
ReplyDeleteThere is no clearer message than history repeating itself. Though the accusations he is charged with in both London and Paris may have been false or exaggerated, Dickens is, in two separate instances, portraying Charles Darnay as the traitor he is. While he is not a spy from France and is a victim of the new laws being laid down by the vengeful hand of St. Antoine, there is solidity in the accusations laid at his feet in both cities. He had indeed been “passing and repassing between France and England, on secret business of which he could give no honest account” (68) even to his wife and close friend. Charles betrays all of the London circle’s trust in him by not divulging his past to them and then turning around and abandoned them just he had “abandoned the estates when he inherited them and left them to the ruffian herd.” (248) The people who depend on him have no hope as he will up himself and run to wherever he feels the fancy to run to. He even betrays himself by admitting his plans to stay in England, hiding from his heritage were just the “immature plans of last week” (251) when he needed a reason to leave. There is not one person who has not been betrayed by Charles and not one person who has not suffered by loving him.
Charles Darnay is the one character in the book that seems to have no firm loyalty to anyone. Lucie is loyal to all she sees, Mr. Lorry is loyal, sometimes to a fault, to Tellison’s and even the merciless Defarge’s are “sworn servants of [their country and its People.]” (263) Charles has no such loyalty to anything or anyone. Not to his father’s name, which he happily abandoned. Not to Lucie or his child, who he deceived, left behind, and led into peril. Not to England who he never belonged to and not to France who he only cares for because he thinks he will be given glory. By giving into his fancy of having “influence to guide this Revolution” which “would be greatly acknowledged in France,” (252) he has drawn the people who care about him into capital of a bloodstained country. He has snipped the Golden Thread and now there is nothing to do but watch the Track of the Storm unfold.
Secrets, secrets are no fun, unless Lucie's a part of one.
ReplyDeleteThe web of lies being woven is beginning to entangle the characters of A Tale of Two Cities. In a book about weaving, it was expected for something to become tangled, right? When Charles Darnay married Lucie, he didn’t realize he was legitimately tying a knot in his web. By keeping his past a secret, Darnay is stressed to keep the lose ends in check. In Chapter 24, Lorry receives a letter and Darnay uses another lie in order to cover up his past by volunteering to deliver the letter to the Marquis. When Darnay takes off to France in response to the letter, he leaves Lucie a note telling her where he has gone and he "took horse [to] Dover; and began his journey" (Ch. 24, 254). As Darnay continues to lie to Lucie he breaks the trust with her along with twisting himself further into the web. The doom stricken weaving of Darnay contrasts nicely with the glorious weaving of Lucie. Lucie is "busily winding the golden thread which [binds] her" (Ch. 21, 218) life, throughout the last few chapters of the novel. Darnay's past of darkness comes to mix in with the golden thread that is Lucie's present. Mixing the two contrasting threads results further results in the entanglement that Darnay experiences in Chapter 24.
By keeping his past a secret from Lucie, Darnay continues the web of lies that he has created and further entangles himself for the chapters to come.
Everybody loves Lucie. FALSE. I do not love Lucie. In fact, throughout the novel, my frustration with her has only grown. Yes, she did recall her dad to life, help to save Darnay's life, show compassion for Carton, and tie 1/3 of an entire novel together, but I don't like her. In my opinion, her character is entirely unrealistic. "God bless her for her sweet compassion!" (Book 2, Chapter 20) This is the most common phrase spoken about Lucie. Never once is has she made a wrong choice, inconvenienced anyone, been careless, insecure, or lost her temper. To be imperfect is to be human.
ReplyDeleteThe more I think about her character, the more I believe that Dickens made her unrealistic on purpose. The only characterization of Lucie is that she's angelic. Her hair is golden, her eyes are bright blue, and her character is compassionate yet somehow undeveloped. Dickens gave us the view of every character except Lucie because the more mysteriously perfect she appears to be, the more like an angel she is. She is unrealistically perfect because she is to been seen as heavenly. We know that she is still human, not an actual angel, but if Dickens had continued to characterize Lucie, he would have had to show some flaw in her character to make her realistic, therefore ruining her angelic charm. The mystery of Lucie's character adds to her angelic personality and helps to create an overall heavenly feel.