English Views on the French Revolution in Dickens and Burke

Introduction: Two English Authors, One Revolution

This paper introduces, discusses, and analyzes two significant works dealing with the French Revolution: A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens and Reflections on the Revolution in France by Edmund Burke. Specifically, it compares the two works by addressing the following question: given that both authors are English, what do Reflections on the Revolution in France and A Tale of Two Cities reveal about English attitudes toward revolution in general, and the French Revolution in particular?

Both nations were in turmoil during the French Revolution. England had, only a few years before, relinquished her claims over the United States, and so "revolution" was hardly a popular word. The French Revolution frightened many people, including much of the English aristocracy, who may have feared that revolutionary sentiment could spread to their own country.

Dickens and English Social Unrest

Both English authors write about the French Revolution from markedly different perspectives. Dickens approaches it from a distinctly English point of view while championing certain aspects of the Revolution, whereas Burke was decidedly opposed to the revolutionary forces in France. Reading these two works together suggests that Burke — and much of the English aristocracy — feared the Revolution and its aftermath. Dickens, by contrast, was clearly sympathetic to it, to those who lost their lives, and to the underlying causes of the French uprising. Late in his novel he writes, "There could have been no such Revolution, if all laws, forms, and ceremonies, had not first been so monstrously abused, that the suicidal vengeance of the Revolution was to scatter them all to the winds" (Dickens 313). He thus places the blame squarely on the rulers and the rich aristocracy of France, whose abuses finally drove the peasantry to revolt. He illustrates this vividly when the Marquis callously runs over a peasant child without stopping to see whether the child is injured or dead. The rich believed themselves above everyone else, free to abuse people however they wished — arrogant and wholly unsympathetic. Dickens is not arguing that the English were identical to them, but rather that revolution grows from mistreatment, and that England's own record of caring for its lower classes was far from spotless. Revolution, he implies, could come to England too, bringing with it only more killing and confusion.

England had its own serious social problems, and Dickens acknowledges them throughout his novel. Early in the book he writes, "In England, there was scarcely an amount of order and protection to justify much national boasting. Daring burglaries by armed men, and highway robberies, took place in the capital itself every night [...]" (Dickens 3). There was — and to some degree still is — a profound gulf between the classes in England. The ruling and wealthy class was far removed from the peasants and urban working poor. The poor were desperately poor, and the rich were enormously rich. This disparity bred tension, mistrust, and even hatred between the classes, and the English had genuine reason to worry about a similar uprising at home. Despite their differences, English and French society shared much in common.

Burke's Defense of Tradition and Order

It must have been a deeply unsettling time for England. Having just fought and lost the Revolutionary War against the United States, England now watched France erupt in its own revolution. It was an era in which democracy and republicanism were gaining popular appeal, and England — with its long monarchical tradition — had every reason for anxiety. Reading these two books makes it easy to see how sharply divided English opinion was. It is equally easy to see why the English aristocracy would have been frightened of those below them. The highwaymen Dickens mentions are more than a colorful detail; they are a symbol of England's broader social unrest, reflecting the dissatisfaction of the lower classes with their poverty, hard labor, and lack of opportunity.

Throughout his treatise, Edmund Burke paints a very different picture of the English response to the French Revolution. He argues in favor of the Glorious Revolution that took place in England in 1688 and then proceeds to identify the many problems he sees in the French Revolution. He scolds the French for entirely dismantling their government and constitution, writing: "You had all these advantages in your ancient states, but you chose to act as if you had never been molded into civil society and had everything to begin anew" (Burke 40). Burke's disapproval is strikingly passionate — arguably more emotionally charged than even Dickens's prose. Dickens writes vividly of mass violence: "So much more wicked and distracted had the Revolution grown in that December month, that the rivers of the South were encumbered with the bodies of the violently drowned by night, and prisoners were shot in lines and squares under the southern wintry sun" (Dickens 272). Yet despite these graphic images, Dickens's tone does not feel as emotionally raw as Burke's. Both men are passionate; they simply hold opposing convictions about what revolution means for a country.

Burke's position is made plain when he writes: "To make a revolution is to subvert the ancient state of our country; and no common reasons are called for to justify so violent a proceeding" (Burke 193). He is fearful and disapproving of the very idea of revolution in England, while Dickens is sympathetic to the social conditions that make revolution all but inevitable.

Conclusion: Two Visions of Revolution

Burke, Edmund. Reflections on the Revolution in France. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Dickens, Charles. A Tale of Two Cities. New York: Books, 1868.