A tale of two cities
The author tells us about a time, when england and france were ruled by
kings. The reason for the revolutoin in france was, that the aristocrats lived
on the back of the poor people. There was not enough food and the queen,
marie-antonette said,"if they haven't got any bread, they can eat cake!" Nevertheless
the peasents had to pay their taxes, alltough they didn't own the land. The aristocrats
on the other hand were not supposed to pay taxes dispite the fact that they
owned the land. The slogan of the revolution was : freedom, uniformity,
brotherlyness. The king ludwig xvi and his queen marie-antonette tried to
escape but they were caught and excuted.
The book is about the revolution in france. First the rich men led
france. One of them was the marquis of
st. Evrémonde. He drove too fast with his carriage and killed a child
from a poor city. The father of this child held on, rid under the carriage and
killed the marquis when he slept. This man was caught, hanged on a 14 metre
high gallows and left hanging there. The people become very angry, stormed the
bastille on july 14th , 1789 and freed all prisoners. They made new laws, for
example that all relatives of a marquis have to be killed. After the
destruction of this symbol of suppression, the revolution in whole france
began. Charles darney who was the nephew of the marquis has gone to england
after the murder of his uncle. There he married lucie manette who was the
daughter of the former prisoner of the bastille, doctor manette. When charles
came to france he didn't know the new laws and was taken to prison. After a
judicial hearing they let him free. Three years later they found old papers in
the former cell of doctor manette and killed doctor manette, his daughter and
her husband charles darney.
I think the book was good but there were many jumpes of persons and
places. It describes the situation of the people in france in the time of the
revolution very good. The story was very short but there where many long
dialoges. The last thing is that you never found out what in the papers was
written.
