SQUID for Book the Second, Chapters 8-12

“’But it is useless to discuss the question. I am, as you say, at a disadvantage. These little instruments of correction, these gentle aids to the power and honour of families, these slight favours that might so incommode you, are only to be obtained now by interest and importunity. They are sought by so many, and they are granted (comparatively) to so few! It used not to be so, but France in all such things is changed for the worse. Our not remote ancestors held the right of life and death over the surrounding vulgar. From this room, many such dogs have been taken out to be hanged; in the next room (my bedroom), one fellow, to our knowledge, was poniarded on the spot for professing some insolent delicacy respecting his daughter-his daughter? We have lost many privileges; a new philosophy has become the mode; and the assertion of our station, in these days, might (I do not go so far as to say would, but might) cause us real inconvenience. All very bad, very bad (p. 114)!’” Monsieur the Marquis.

This quote was politely said by Monsieur the Marquis when he and his nephew Charles Darnay are having a discussion about how Charles Darnay has been getting in trouble because of his actions (attempting to acquire a “sacred” object). Monsieur the Marquis says this after it has been clearly stated that if he had more power in the Court, he would have a letter of de cachet written to put Darnay in a jail for a while so that he wouldn’t be a problem to the family. This quote mainly shows how the corrupt aristocratic families of France were losing power at this time as the atmosphere of France began to change. Before this point in time the aristocrats could do whatever they wanted to the peasants (who were still mere serfs to their lords). The aristocrats had absolute power over their subjects and greatly abused their powers. Aristocrats would choose whether or not a man could live even if he had done nothing wrong. This is the attitude that changed the country. The domination of the lower class by the aristocrats pushed the people to revolt a few years after this quote would have taken place. The quote specifically shows how corrupt the Monsieur of Marquis is and gives foreshadowing to something bad happening to him, because an awful murder that had no just cause took place in his bedroom. He also shows how corrupt he is (adding another item to his list of awful deeds) by wishing that he could have the ability to kill the people that work in his town mercilessly. Monsieur the Marquis ends this quote by threatening his nephew that the change that has swept over France could endanger the aristocrats’ lives. This is a threat that does not hold, because Darnay wants to become an average man instead of being an awful aristocrat. The quote foreshadows events that will happen very soon in the chapter; it adds to the hatred of Monsieur the Marquis, adding to the tension and excitement. 

SQUID for Book the Second, Chapters 4-7

“The lion then composed himself on his back on a sofa on one side of the drinking-table, while the jackal sat at his own paper-bestrewn table proper, on the other side of it, with the bottles and glasses ready to his hand. Both resorted to the drinking-table without stint, but each in a different way; the lion for the most part reclining with his hands in his waistband, looking at the fire, or occasionally flirting with some lighter document; the jackal, with knitted brows and intent face, so deep in his task, that his eyes did not even follow the hand he stretched out for his glass- which often groped about for a minute or more, before it found the glass for his lips (p. 80).”

During this quote, Mr. Carton and Mr. Stryver are sitting in Mr. Stryver’s office filling out paper work from the trial. Mr. Carton is filling out large amounts of paperwork whereas Mr. Stryver is filling out a few “light” forms that take little if no effort to fill out. This quote is all about setting up the important characters. This extended metaphor about the jackal and the lion describe Mr. Carton and Mr. Stryver, respectively. To truly understand the metaphor, the true definition of a jackal must be known. A jackal is a wild dog in Africa that hunts on the plains, but the jackal does more than this. Jackals are known for who they hunt for. When they make their kill, they eat some and leave the rest for the lions. In doing so the lions get to eat the jackals kill without the lion having to do any work. The jackal is the lion’s provider, and yet the jackal receives no credit. This is exactly what is happening in the relationship between Mr. Carton and Mr. Stryver. Mr. Carton puts a lot of effort into being a good member of court (specifically a lawyer), yet Mr. Stryver takes all of the credit. Is it all Mr. Carton’s fault that he lets Mr. Stryver take credit for his hard work? He is definitely responsible, but Mr. Stryver too is almost equally responsible for Mr. Carton’s lack of credit. This is because Stryver is extremely pushy (shouldery), and works only so that he can move up the food chain, whereas Mr. Carton lacks the pushiness to be able to go only for self-gain. Because of foreshadowing that is aimed at Mr. Carton (in this section and the chapter about the trial), it can be expected that Mr. Carton is going to be a very important character later on in the novel. It may be very important to remember how he is not shouldery, and has been only a jackal for the numerous lions in the world.

SQUID for Book the Second, Chapters 1-3

“Silence in the court! Charles Darnay had yesterday pleaded Not Guilty to an indictment denouncing him (with infinite jingle and jangle) for that he was a false traitor to our serene, illustrious, excellent, and so forth, prince, our Lord the King, by reason of his having, on divers occasions, and by divers means and ways, assisted Lewis, the French King, in his wars against our said serene, illustrious, excellent, and so forth; that was to say by coming and going, between the dominions of our said serene, illustrious, excellent, and so forth, and those of the said French Lewis, and wickedly, falsely, traitorously, and otherwise evil-adverbiously, revealing to the said French Lewis what forces our said serene, illustrious, excellent, and so forth, had in preparation to send to Canada and North America (p. 56-57).”

This quote sets up the entire case that will follow. The quote is informing the reader of what Mr. Darnay is being accused of. Darnay is pleading not guilty to having been a traitor (telling French King Louis XVI the English plans to send troops to North America). Mr. Darnay is later ruled innocent by the jury, but at this point his guilt and fate are unknown. Dickens uses a lot of conduplicatio (repetition of words in adjacent phrases or clauses) in this quote to make fun of the government and the people who idealize the government. Dickens writes, “...serene, illustrious, excellent, and so forth...” to describe King George III (England’s king). This is how Dickens makes fun of the stereotyping that would make many believe that the king is a wonderful person. Dickens uses this satirical conduplicatio over and over again to reiterate that he does not believe that the king is as “illustrious” as everyone else makes him out to be. Dickens also spells the word Louis (the King of France) wrong (spelling it “Lewis”). This could be an error on Dickens part, but it is more likely an insult towards the French, the King of France, and the frivolousness of the French language. Dickens also foreshadows how the trial is going to turn out by writing, “wickedly, falsely, traitorously, and otherwise evil-adverbiously, revealing...” By writing this he is showing that the trial is based off of ridiculous accusations that are “otherwise evil-adverbiously” not true. Overall this quote is a very good way for Dickens to set-up his own time era and the Victorian era (showing the relations between England and France), and a way for him to foreshadow what will happen in the trial.

SQUID for Book the First, Chapters 5-6

A Tale of Two Cities

“And now that the cloud settled on Saint Antoine, which a momentary gleam had driven from his sacred countenance, the darkness of it was heavy – cold, dirt, sickness, ignorance, and want, were the lords in waiting on the saintly presence- nobles of great power all of them; but, most especially the last. Samples of a people that had undergone a terrible grinding and regrinding in the mill, and certainly not in the fabulous mill which ground old people young, shivered at every corner, passed in and out at every doorway, looked from every window, fluttered in every vestige of a garment that the wind shook. The mill which had worked them down, was the mill that grinds young people old; the children had ancient faces and grave voices; and upon them, and upon the grown faces, and ploughed into every furrow of age and coming up afresh, was the sign, Hunger (p.27).”

This is one of the deepest and most meaningful quotes in Book the First. This quote depicts the terrible poverty that the poor Parisians who lived in the suburb area of Saint Antoine. The quote starts out describing the “lords” of Saint Antoine. These are cold, dirt, sickness, ignorance, and want. These “lords” represent the things that plague the people of this area the most. The living conditions are awful (hence the cold and dirt “lords”). Sickness is prevalent throughout Europe in these days, and numerous diseases would have affected the Parisians. The people of Saint Antoine were not well educated, nor were many in Europe at this time (the “lord of ignorance”). The “lord” that plagued the people of Saint Antoine the most was want. The people were lucky if they had enough money for food and shelter. Things like wine and furniture were often far out of the budget of these people. Dickens also uses this quote to show that a large part of the population in France worked in mills. They would start working extremely young and would work their entire lives. The mills would “grind young people old,” aging them and making them lose their youthfulness. This quote ends with the idea of Hunger. Countless went without food in these days. Suffering from this was common, and hurt all but the nobility. These living conditions eventually lead to the French revolution. Yet this quote has a bigger purpose in this novel. It sets up the living conditions for poor Monsieur Manette. At this point in the novel, Monsieur Manette was locked in a “room” all alone and forced to live in these conditions. The quote helps set up the feelings of despair and hopelessness that Dickens uses to show just how awful Monsieur Manette’s life was when he was in prison and locked in Monsieur Defarge’s “room.” The horrendous living conditions that affected these poor Parisians and Monsieur Manette was a heart aching way that Dickens set the mood for the rest of the chapter and Book the First.

SQUID for Book the First, Chapters 2-4

A Tale of Two Cities

“'...if Monsieur Manette had not died; if he had suddenly and silently disappeared; if he had been spirited away; if it had not been difficult to guess to what dreadful place, though no art could trace him; if he had an enemy in some compatriot who could exercise a privilege that I in my own time have known the boldest people afraid to speak of in a whisper, across the water, there; for instance, the privilege of filling up blank forms for the consignment of any one to the oblivion of a prison for any length of time; if his wife had implored the king, the queen, the court, the clergy, for any tidings of him, and all quite in vain;-then the history of your father would have been the history of this unfortunate gentleman, the Doctor of Beauvais (p. 22).’”

This quote blatantly shows the absolute fear of the French government during the Victorian era. The English government had a lot of power over its people, but it was not as corrupt as the French government during the Victorian era. As shown in this quote, the French government was awful to its people during this time. People were abducted out of their homes never to be seen again, sent to jail, or killed for reasons that were never told to the families, even if the families begged the king, queen, or clergy. Even “the boldest people [were] “afraid to speak of [it] in a whisper.” During this time the French government had the power to do whatever it wanted. Some people in the government or wealthy enough people could send another to jail (“filling up blank forms for the consignment of any one to the oblivion of a prison for any length of time.”). There was no evidence to show that this had in fact happened to Monsieur Manette, but it was extremely likely that it had. Now that Monsieur Manette has been found, he needs to be taken away from France so that he cannot be sent to jail again. This is the first major part of the plot. This gives the reader knowledge into what the characters are setting off to France to do. This quote also shows that the characters are going to face a lot of danger and obstacles in France, because Monsieur Manette was sent to jail once, and he is at risk of being sent back to jail again. This quote sets the stage for the entire plot to follow.

SQUID for Book the First, Chapter 1

A Tale of Two Cities

“France, less favoured on the whole as to matters spiritual than her sister of the shield and trident, rolled with exceeding smoothness down hill, making paper money and spending it. Under the guidance of her Christian pastors, she entertained herself, besides, with such humane achievements as sentencing a youth to have his hands cut off, his tongue torn out with pincers, and his body burned alive, because he had not kneeled down in the rain to do honour to a dirty procession of monks which passed within his view, at a distance of some fifty or sixty yards (p. 2).”

This quote shows the views of the British towards the French in 1775 and the time that Dickens wrote the novel. Dickens shows very well that he and the people of the Victorian era believe that Britain is and was a superior country, especially to France. He is very contemptuous towards the French in this passage, and even starts out by saying that France is a lesser country when it comes to spiritual matters (heart, soul, and religion) than Britain (“of the shield and trident”). He first commented on how the French were sending themselves into a financial pit, using a smooth and graceful jest to poke at the country of France. He then tells the story of a young man who was killed by the government because the government had been corrupted by the church (“Christian pastors”). This was most likely a reference to the execution of the Chevalier de la Barre, but the passage gets Dickens point across that France had become incredibly corrupt because it had followed the guidance of the church. Throughout the quote he makes the French look like they were awful people in 1775, but this does not just apply to creating the setting for the novel. The French were still regarded as reckless people even after the Victorian era (when Dickens wrote A Tale of Two Cities). The quote shows the distaste of the French both in Dickens era and in 1775, and shows overgeneralizations that could later be proved incorrect in the novel.

Update:
When Dickens was writing this novel in 1859 the Victorian era was over. Yet the British were very much like the French. During the 19th century there were many political reforms in Britain. Numerous political parties were created and a large variety took power for short lengths of time. The government often became corrupt (even if it was only for a short time). During the times of political reform, there were many sentences of death or jail for common people for simple things. In this aspect, as well as many others, the French and British were very similar groups of people. Yet the British were extremely hypocritical, because they were the same as the French in these countless aspects.

The Murder of 30,000 People

Reign of Terror

September 1793 - June 1794

During the French Revolution there was an incredible amount of executions that took place. An especially large number of these deaths were from the Reign of Terror. The Reign of Terror was the most famous individual series of events in the French Revolution. About 30,000 people lost their lives to the swift and sharp blade that the guillotine wields.

The Guillotine

The guillotine is the machine with which tens of thousands of executions were carried out during the Reign of Terror. The machine was the official instrument of execution in the French Revolution (the use of the guillotine was first proposed by Dr. Louis Guillotin who the machine was named after). The guillotine was used for almost all of the executions in the Reign of Terror. It was the machine that sent King Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette, Madame Roland, and the Girondins (political opponents of the Jacobin controlling political party) to their deaths. The guillotine brings a blade down upon the necks of the victim severing the head from the body. This would cause instant death, except that the head remained alive for a few seconds sometimes, causing a very painful death. The guillotine was used for public executions and many came to watch its blade slice necks. The guillotine was not invented by the French, but first used by the Irish. Also, the guillotine was used a few times in more modern history by Hitler (he killed political opponents publicly).

History of the Reign of Terror

After the French Revolution began, King Louis XVI was sent to a prison in Paris called the “Temple.” This is when the National Convention took over the country and began ruling the country. The Convention created the Committee of Public Safety (was actually an executive committee of the National Convention). This is the Committee that was responsible for all of the executions in France. The Convention decided to have King Louis XVI executed for his treasonous crimes. He was killed by the guillotine in the Revolution Square. The Committee of Public Safety was an awful group of people. They were almost solely responsible for the 30,000 people that died in the Reign of Terror. The committee was led by Maximilien Robespierre (shown in the picture). Robespierre is even referred to as the mastermind of the Committee of Public Safety. He was the most powerful man in France while he was the leader of the Committee of Public Safety. He believed that terror was a good thing, which would give structure to France, and would eventually lead to the formation of a completely free government. He once said that, “Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible.” Eventually though, after the deaths of tens of thousands, the Jacobins (the leading political party of the time) finally had enough. They decided that the Reign of Terror must be stopped. At first when people tried to speak against Robespierre they were killed by the guillotine. When Robespierre called for a new sweep of executions in 1794 however, the other members of the Committee of Public Safety swiftly rebelled against Robespierre. Robespierre was arrested and killed on the guillotine. This was a sad irony that took far too long to happen. After 30,000 people were killed, all of the nobility were dead, and all political opponents of the Jacobins were dead, the Reign of Terror finally ended in 1724 just a year after it started.

Who Was Killed?

Men, women and children were killed in the tens of thousands. Almost all of the nobles in the country were killed in the Reign of Terror. If anyone was even suspected of treason, they would be sent to the guillotine. If an informer told the Committee of Public Safety that a man had said something critical of the Revolution, then the man, his wife, and children would all be killed by the guillotine. There were many victims that did not nor thought about rebelling against the Jacobins.

One Last Thought

The Reign of Terror was an awful, loss of human life. Yet at the same time it eliminated all of the nobility and gave way for a system of government that gives its citizens more freedoms than many countries in the world. France is now gives its citizens as many rights if not more than the United States gives its citizens. So was the Reign of Terror worth it? Were the awful murders in the past worth the amazing freedoms given to the people of modern day?

Works Cited
   

"The Reign of Terror." Historywiz. 2008. Web. 31 Mar. 2011.
      
           <http://www.historywiz.com/terror.htm>.
     

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror

http://www.victorianweb.org/history/hist7.html

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0858287.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p003k9cf

http://www.ehow.com/about_4572095_who-were-jacobins.html

http://www.historywiz.com/guillotine.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_XVI_of_France

http://www.francethisway.com/history/reign-of-terror.php

Aesthete or Suprematist

There have been many different art movements in the history of the world. There were a specific two that were particularly influential to literature. They also contrasted each in as opposite ways as is possible in the art world.

Aestheticism

What is Aestheticism? In the dictionary aestheticism is defined simply as: “Devotion to and pursuit of the beautiful; sensitivity to artistic beauty and refined taste.” The overarching idea of aestheticism is “Art for Art’s Sake.” Aestheticism is the art movement that was founded off of the idea that art should be for beauty not for any other purpose. In aesthetic art there are often many colors used that work well with each other. Many aesthetic art pieces were extremely detailed and usually were very realistic. Their sole purpose is to be pretty to the viewers’ eyes instead of a way to express a social or political idea or theme.

Take a look at this painting for example. This is The Garland: A Girl Tending Flowers by Edward Burne Jones.

If you look at this aesthetic piece of art you will see how it is extremely detailed. Yet at the same time it was painted for beauty, not to sponsor a political party, political campaign, or any social class. This painting just is. This is the idea of aestheticism, the art just is.

Aestheticism in Literature

Aestheticism doesn’t just apply to art that is in the form of paintings and sculptures; it also applies to art in the written form, literature. Oscar Wilde (the author of The Importance of Being Earnest) was a figurehead for the aesthetic movement. He had long hair, wore many colors, and carried flowers during lectures. This was extremely unacceptable at the time. He was a revolutionary in the art world because he wrote literature that was beautiful not purposeful. If we look at his work The Importance of Being Earnest, we see that it has a lot of aesthetic qualities and parts. Yet at the same time it is not a completely aesthetic work. Although it incorporates many aesthetic ideas and individual parts, it has a purpose. It does not wholly fit the “art for art’s sake” ideal because the play is used to make fun of and criticize the aristocracy of the Victorian era. Yet Oscar Wilde did not write it to make money, or propagate any ideas. He wrote it to entertain the audience. This is what makes it an aesthetic play.

Suprematism

Suprematism is “a school and theory of geometric abstract art that originated in Russia in the early 20^th century and influenced constructivism.” Suprematism focuses on geometric shapes, especially the square and circle. Many paintings were as simple as geometric shapes in a painting, but more complex pictures put those shapes together to make people like in Kasimir Malevich’s To the Harvest.

Malevich’s painting Black Circle perfectly shows how suprematism paintings looked. It was simple, yet at the same time it symbolized a lot. The shapes are so basic that they seem to symbolize a new beginning.

Suprematism also did not try to promote social or political ideas; instead it was in a sense “art for art’s sake.” Yet in the Suprematism, it was the simplicity of the art that made it exist for its own sake. In aestheticism, it was the beauty of the art that made it exist for its own sake.

Comparing Two Unlike Paintings

  

To the Harvest	The Beguiling of Merlin
Painted by: Kasimir Malevich	Painted by: Edward Burne Jones

Comparison
At first it seems like there is absolutely nothing similar in these two paintings. It seems as if they are on the opposite sides of the spectrum of art. This is the first similarity, they are both art. It may not seem like a big similarity, but a piece of art is made to tell a story or show beauty. These both do both of these things. Both of them tell a story whether it is related to the common people or King Arthur, both paintings tell a story. They both show what their painters considered beauty. Kasimir Malevich painted To the Harvest using shapes to show the beauty in simplicity of life. The Beguiling of Merlin on the other hand shows Edward Burne Jones’ incredible detail in his painting that he uses to show the beauty of life. Both painters did not use the painting to promote any political or social ideas.

Contrast

The most obvious difference between these two paintings is the amount of detail that the painters used. Kasimir Malevich used simple shapes to make his painting, whereas Edward Burne Jones put as much detail as he possibly could into his painting. Kasimir Malevich purposefully made his painting this simple looking, because he was showing the beauty of how simple basic things make-up our world. Edward Burne Jones on the other hand was trying to show the beauty of life and the world with all of his detail. Also the stories that these paintings tell is very different. To the Harvest is a story of the common people, while The Beguiling of Merlin illustrates a part of the legend of Arthur.

Suprematism: A Reaction to Aestheticism

Suprematism was in fact a direct reaction to aestheticism. How is it a reaction? During the 19^th century, aestheticism was at its peak. It was all about the beauty of life, but it was about the extravagance of life too. All of the minute details we see in paintings from the aesthetic movement show the love of extravagance and luxuries of the people of the Victorian era. When the Suprematists’ artwork started becoming produced in the early 20^th century, it was completely different. The Suprematists believed that the extravagance and over-indulgence of the Victorian era did not represent life and art. The Suprematists believed that our world could be represented with the most basic and simple of shapes. The Suprematists reacted to the aesthetics’ extraordinarily detailed works with simple shapes and simple colors. Using basic shapes the Suprematists showed that they too could represent the world that surrounded them in ways that the aesthetics never could. The Suprematists showed that you can do so much with so little, a concept the aesthetics never understood. The Suprematists showed the world in a way that they believed the aesthetics never captured, in a simple way.

Aestheticism: A Reaction to Victorian Morality/Hypocrisy

Aestheticism took place during the Victorian era. This was an era in which people had to be proper, decent, respectable, and refined. During this era all that mattered to the upper class was their social status. This is what aestheticism is reacting to. Aestheticism is a way of the artists to be able to show that all that the others hold dear, their social rank, is not actually important in the real world. They showed that luxuries were fine, using the incredible amounts of detail. Yet, their art showed that there is beauty in life. The art showed that there is more to life than just social class. They were trying to get at the idea that if the people would pause for a moment in their lives and look at the beauty that is all around them instead of worrying about their social class, they would appreciate their own lives much more.