Justice....?

A Tale of Two Cities by Mr. Charles Dickens made me feel like a young child in an ice cream shop who was struggling to decide between two flavors of ice cream. I am still not sure if I despise this book or unconditionally love it. I think that my taste buds are telling me that I absolutely love this book, even though the ending makes it more of a love-hate relationship for me. I am not going to pour out the ending right now due to the fear you may not have finished yet. However, I will give you this; this is without a doubt, one of the most beautifully written books I have ever had the pleasure to read, with an amazingly bitter-sweet ending. I will stop talking about the ending for fear that I have already said too much. Throughout A Tale of Two Cities, there is much foreshadowing of things yet to come, horrible, gruesome events that will change the lives of not one or two people, but everyone involved. Unfortunately, being that I cannot properly explain much of the foreshadowing as it will give away the ending, I will instead do a close reading on the event that officially started the French Revolution. In reality, the French Revolution had numerous small acts that all contributed to the revolution, according to Dickens however, the official start was due from the fateful act of revenge. Now, unfortunately this particular act of vengeance involved two different people from two very different classes. Monsieur the Marquis, though he was loathed by the poor (remember this fact), was a very powerful and wealthy figure. The other figure was not wealthy or powerful -in wealth anyway, in starting a riot, yes- he was the estranged father of a young child the Monsieur had negligently killed.

"It is extraordinary to me," said he, "that you people cannot take care of yourselves and your children. One or the other of you is forever in the way. How do I know what injury you have done on my horses" (Dickens 106).

This man, who has just killed a child, cannot even apologize for the horrifying act he has just committed. In fact, he does the complete opposite by ignorantly criticizing the people for not being able to properly watch their children! It was due to this man's ignorance and stupidity that the spark of vengeance was born into the father, which led to the beginning of the revolution. For the people of France were already hungry and worn to the bone, the only spark that they needed was a little piece of encouragement that a high, powerful leader could be brought down. That little piece of encouragement was brought to them by the father of the child who brought the life of the Monsieur in his hands and carried out his vengeance.

"It lay back on the pillow of Monsieur the Marquis. It was like a fine mask, suddenly startled, made angry, and petrified. Driven home into the heart of the stone figure attached to it, was a knife. Round its hilt was a frill of paper, on which was scrawled: 'Drive him fast to his tomb. This, from Jacques' " (123).

According to Dickens, this is the very moment when the French Revolution was born; when the father of the slain child killed the Monsieur the Marquis. At first I thought the father's action was out of justice; but then I thought harder and questioned his motive. His desire to kill the Monsieur I do not doubt, I completely understand, I would feel the same way if someone were to kill a family member of mine. The question is though would I actually do it? I would not for in fear of what my actions would bring to myself and others. The vital fact is that not only did the father kill another man, he killed the Monsieur, a high and powerful leader of society. Was the father thinking of the consequences his actions would bring to himself and all of France? Did he understand that by killing the Monsieur, he would be provoking emotions from two worlds that were already full of unleashed tension.

The members of the Hierarchy did not understand, nor did they particularly care about the poor, "scarecrow like" people they governed. These leaders felt of the poor as more of pests that needed to be disposed of, just as the Monsieur felt of the child. The people themselves were exhausted, weak and increasingly tired of working themselves for little scraps. With both sides feeling this way, all that was needed was one more, deed great enough to seal the deal. The ignorant Monsieur, the poor dead child and the act of vengeance were all enough to lead these two groups over the edge and inspire the riots of the poor.

I do not know the actual reason why the real French Revolution began, all I do know is that I want you to follow your own set of taste buds and deliberate if the father knew what he was doing, if he intentionally wanted war and if the Monsieur discovered his own ignorance and changed, would the revolution still have happened?...