Home » Book Reviews » Charles Dickens » Barnaby Rudge by Charles Dickens
Possible spoilers ahead
I do adore Dickens’ books, but am always conscious that there are only a set few to read, so I can tend to delay reading ones I haven’t yet read just so I know I have a ‘new’ one (ie, new to me) in hand to read. Plus I find re-reading his books so addictive, as I always see new threads and hints about the characters and themes every time I read a familiar book of his because there is so much depth in each book and so much to focus on and I find I focus on slightly different things each time I read it, as they are such a wonderfully vast treasure trove of characters and storylines! So I’ve never read Barnaby Rudge before, and am bravely about to reduce my anticipation of unread books of Dickens’ to one less!
The book is set in 1775. The incident of an old murder of a local man is being discussed in the Maypole pub (in a village on the outskirts of London) on the anniversary of the murder, 19th March, just as it is discussed every year on the anniversary. The man who was killed was Reuben Haredale, master of The Warren house. His steward, Rudge, and his gardener had both disappeared after the murder and were both suspected of it, but then Rudge’s body was found in a stretch of water in the grounds of the property, his identity being confirmed by his clothes and watch and ring as the body was quite disfigured. The Warren is now owned by Geoffrey Haredale, who is Reuben Haredale’s younger brother, and he lives there with his niece Emma Haredale (Reuben Haredale’s daughter). This year when the murder is being discussed, there is a mysterious stranger in the pub who has a scar on his cheekbone, and who swiftly leaves even though the weather is bad to travel in. As he leaves, the stranger passes the locksmith, Gabriel Varden, and almost seems to think that Varden would recognise him. The mysterious stranger later knocks down and robs Edward Chester, but Barnaby Rudge comes across the scene and the thief flees. People wonder if Barnaby witnessed everything that happened and could identify the thief, but he is known to be very simple and people are doubtful of his full understanding. Edward is taken to Barnaby’s mother’s house to recover. Barnaby is the son of the dead steward Rudge, and he owns a tame and intelligent raven named Grip. Ooooh, this book seems very very interesting right from the beginning! It feels like a murder mystery story, which I don’t tend to think of as Dickens’ usual fare (although obviously his Edwin Drood book is famous as a murder mystery story, and also famous for the fact that it is unfinished so there is no definitive solution! I am still to read Edwin Drood, though I keep putting it off as I’m not sure I can handle not knowing the end). And of course, as I love murder mystery stories, I’m already looking for suspicious things here that may not be what they seem! So therefore my antennae immediately pricked up that it was difficult to identify Rudge’s body and that this identification was only possible by Rudge’s clothes and watch and ring being on the body, so I’m wondering if this body was actually really the gardener’s body, and Rudge was the murderer of Reuben Haredale and also killed the gardener and dressed the gardener’s body in his own clothes and watch and ring in order to make people believe the gardener was the murderer of Reuben Haredale and ensure that no-one would be looking for himself. And then my antennae pricked up even further (well, if I’m honest I was squealing with excitement, tee hee!!) with the mysterious stranger thinking that Varden would recognise him, as this then leads me to suspect that Rudge was the mysterious stranger! But why would he be in that pub, so local to the scene of the crime, that seems very risky? But with Barnaby being the son of Rudge, I’m also wondering if Barnaby recognised the mysterious stranger as his father (when he attacked Edward), and if so then would he conceal this fact in loyalty to his father? Though I guess with him believing that his father is dead then even if the stranger looked like his father he may well not jump to the conclusion it is actually his father, he would perhaps more likely just think the man looked similar to his father but no more than that.
When Varden visits Edward in the evening, Mrs Rudge seems agitated when there is a knock at the window. Varden sees the person at the window and recognises him as the mysterious stranger from the other night. However Mrs Rudge appears to know this person and in terror she prevents Varden from attempting to capture him, saying ‘he carries other lives beside his own’. She adds that the man’s shadow has been upon the house and at last has come in body, but refuses to explain more and begs him not to talk of the man to anyone else. Ooooh, well, now I’m even more convinced that this man is Rudge! But Mrs Rudge seems to imply that she has long known that the body found wasn’t her husband’s, and I wonder if this is what she means by him carrying other lives beside his own, does she mean that she fears she would be in trouble for concealing the fact that he isn’t actually dead, and was therefore probably the murderer of Reuben Haredale (presumably she must suspect this too, or he may even have told her)? Her terror seems to also imply that Rudge treats her cruelly so that could be used to explain why she had concealed his existence, ie because he threatened her and she believed he would carry out his threats and harm her and/or Barnaby, or her terror could just be her fear of being in trouble for not telling the authorities that he was actually alive (and possibly that she is concealing a murderer, if she does in fact also know this). I can’t really suspect that she was complicit in Reuben Haredale’s death though.
Chester Snr (Edward’s father) and Haredale (Emma’s uncle) meet and vow to work together to break up Edward’s and Emma’s burgeoning relationship, though the two men hate each other. Edward is later turned away from Haredale’s house and he tackles his father about this, accusing him of being the cause of it. He tells his father that he will train and study for the next five years so he can then make his own way in life, and will then speak to his father again about marrying Emma. Chester Snr explains to Edward that all their fortune was lost about 19 years ago and so their present life of luxury is made possible only through huge borrowings and debt, and says that he is therefore relying on Edward to marry a woman of fortune in order to bring them money. He also tells Edward that he objects to Emma as his wife because she is Catholic, and also because her father was murdered which resulted in her experiencing the ‘indelicacy’ of being looked at by a jury, as well as her having no money. Wow, obviously this was a different time but to frown upon Emma as being undignified because she appeared in a court after her father was murdered seems very harsh! But I’m quite fascinated by Chester Snr and I wonder if he is going to be one of Dickens’ memorable characters with his conniving and two-facedness and selfishness! He seems to be a manipulative man who gets people to do what he wants by charming them or staying polite when they get frustrated, and he seems very happy to tell a lie and mislead people in order to achieve the aim he wants. He’s obviously a bad person who I should dislike and disapprove of, but I find I’m struggling to completely dislike and disapprove of him because he is so funny and charming with his amusing and entertaining politeness of speech! I do definitely like Edward though as he seems such a moral man, feeling ashamed of his privileged and luxurious life and of his lack of skills for any suitable occupation, and being determined to give up this privilege and luxury for the woman he loves (bless him!) and to put in time and sacrifice to earn his own living rather than just expecting it to be handed to him on a plate. I also admire him for resisting the urge to go into a tantrum with his father (I was seething at how infuriating his father was being, so I doubt I’d have been able to control my temper as well as Edward in that situation!) and realising that losing his temper wouldn’t benefit him and instead managing to control his emotions, this shows great strength of character, I feel.
The mysterious stranger follows Mrs Rudge home and demands food and money from her and to warm himself at her fire. Barnaby then arrives home, so the stranger hides in the closet and when Barnaby falls asleep he sneaks out, but not before telling Mrs Rudge that he now has power over her as he now knows of Barnaby’s existence. Oooh, so further proof (I feel) that this is indeed Rudge! And obviously he didn’t know that he had a son, so that means that Barnaby had never seen his father so wouldn’t have recognised him as the attacker of Edward from the other night. And I guess this is what Mrs Rudge meant by other lives being affected, ie that Barnaby could be in danger from the mysterious stranger. Although I’d like to think that Rudge wouldn’t hurt his own son, but I guess he is (I presume) a double murderer so not really a moral man!
Simon Tappertit is apprentice to Varden, and he loves Varden’s daughter, Dolly. Dolly is also loved by Joe Willet, son of the landlord of The Maypole, but Joe doesn’t dare to declare this love. Tappertit is jealous of Joe and sneering towards his employer, Varden. Varden’s wife is called Martha, and she has a very devoted servant, Miggs, and they often join together to criticise and pick fault with Varden. Tappertit is the leader of The Apprentice Knights, who meet secretly at blind Stagg’s place in order to abuse their employers and devise plots for their downfall. The mysterious stranger stumbles across Stagg’s place and seeks shelter there. Hmmm, several more characters have been introduced now, some I very much like (like Varden, who seems lovely) but most I don’t like, as Martha seems a self-absorbed and demanding and unreasonable and illogical woman who always twists a situation to make herself seem hard-done-to (and I loved Dickens’ description of her as, ‘a lady of what is commonly called an uncertain temper, a phrase which being interpreted signifies a temper tolerably certain to make everybody more or less uncomfortable’, tee hee!), and I don’t like how Miggs encourages her in this as well as being a self-declared hater of men (though I did chuckle at Miggs’ extremely forceful words about men, stating that she ‘held the male sex to be utterly contemptible and unworthy of notice, to be fickle, false, base, sottish, inclined to perjury, and wholly undeserving…to wish with great emphasis that the whole race of women could but die off, in order that the men might be brought to know the real value of the blessings by which they set so little store’, wow, she’s not a woman to mince her words, is she?!), and Dolly just seems silly and conceited and to have a very high opinion of herself, and Tappertit seems conniving and secretive and high-minded and totally ungrateful of Varden’s kindness. Wow, quite some unpleasant characters here, and all surrounding lovely Varden, bless him! However, I was amazed at the description of the Vardens’ breakfast table, as it sounds like a real feast, with beef and ham and buttered slices of Yorkshire cake (is this parkin, I wonder)! So not just some cornflakes or a slice of toast, then?! And I also loved that Varden drinks his ale from a Toby jug which is shaped like him, awww, there’s surely a market for this design to be sold, I’d definitely buy it!
Dolly is asked by Edward to take a letter to Emma, and after gaining the agreement of her parents she heads off to do this. But on her walk back (with a reply from Emma to Edward), Hugh, a gypsy stableboy from The Maypole, approaches her and forcibly touches and kisses her without her consent. Joe arrives on the scene unexpectedly which saves Dolly from further harm, but she is too scared of Hugh to say what he did. However, she realises that a piece of her jewellery is missing as well as the letter from Emma to Edward, presumably both stolen by Hugh. Hugh later goes to Chester Snr to report back to him and give him Emma’s letter, which that gentleman then destroys. Chester Snr then goes to the Vardens and charms Martha into promising not to further aid his son’s and Emma’s relationship, adding the lie that Edward is already engaged to someone else. Meanwhile, Mrs Rudge goes to Haredale, who has been supporting her since she was widowed by providing her with a home and an annuity (as Rudge was an employee of Haredale’s brother), and tells him that she and Barnaby are leaving town. Haredale later discusses his concerns about Mrs Rudge’s welfare with Varden, and Varden tells him about the mysterious stranger at Mrs Rudge’s door. Haredale then goes to Mrs Rudge’s house to check on her and speak to her further, but finds Chester Snr there who tells Haredale that Mrs Rudge and Barnaby have already left, admitting that he paid her to leave as he knew she had previously aided Edward’s and Emma’s relationship and wanted to prevent her from doing so again. Arrrgh, Chester Snr really is a nasty piece of work! I can’t believe how many evil things he’s done in such a short space of time (and he is certainly a very busy nasty man!), as he put Hugh up to assaulting Dolly in order to get Emma’s letter to Edward (and, omg, that was really terrible to cause Dolly to be scared and potentially harmed in that way, just in order to steal a letter!), and there’s the lie he told Martha about Edward already being engaged (and I worry that Emma will hear of this false engagement and then doubt Edward!), and he’s contrived the removal of Mrs Rudge and Barnaby from the area (which while it may mean that Rudge then can’t find them, it also means that they now no longer have the support and help from Haredale and from any other friends in the area that they have, and of course Chester Snr didn’t arrange their removal for any gain to themselves, only for gain to himself!). And in contrast to Chester Snr, how lovely is Haredale? He seems such a fair and kindly man supporting Mrs Rudge since she was widowed, and he also seems to genuinely care for Emma’s welfare and only wants to separate her from Edward due to his suspicions of Chester Snr’s behaviour and morals and his potential influence over Edward. But it’s interesting that Haredale’s hatred of Chester Snr is due to him marrying the woman who Haredale loved, as while I feel for Haredale (and feel for the woman, as I suspect Chester Snr wasn’t a nice man to be married to!) then this reason for him hating Chester Snr would usually have made me question if he was actually being unfairly biased against Chester Snr and making sweeping judgments about that man’s behaviour and motives based just on his own hurt and jealous feelings, however I feel the reader has been shown by several examples just how nasty Chester Snr is (!) so I feel I can safely remove any doubt I may have had about Haredale being misled by bias!
Chester Snr meets Emma and tells her that Edward is not being true to her and is promised to another. Hugh speaks with Chester Snr again, but that gentleman then seems to suddenly recognise something familiar about Hugh’s appearance. Joe is finally goaded beyond endurance by his father and leaves to be a soldier, after declaring his love to Dolly and being rejected by her. Later, Edward tries to talk to his father about how distraught he is that Emma has now rejected him, and his belief that her opinion of him has been influenced by bad tales of him from others, but Chester Snr says he suspects she rejected him because she learnt he was not rich. Edward then tells his father that he refuses to marry a rich woman, as his father had planned, and Chester Snr then bans Edward from the house and later hints to the neighbourhood that Edward is dishonorable, whilst accepting praise himself for his calmness and good temper in spite of this ‘sorrow’ caused by his son. Oooh, I’m intrigued by what Chester Snr saw in Hugh’s appearance which made him pause as if some aspect of him seemed familiar, I wonder if he suspects who Hugh’s parents might be (and if this/these are influential people, then I will go on to guess that he will try to gain something for himself from this knowledge!). And there I was worrying that Emma would overhear the false story of Edward being engaged, but I clearly hadn’t given full credit to Chester Snr’s nastiness for actually telling her this lie himself, and then bad-mouthing his own son to the neighbourhood! Wow, that man, he is shaping up to be one of Dickens’ memorable baddies! And grrrr, I was annoyed at Dolly rejecting poor Joe, silly silly silly vain girl! Poor Joe and poor Edward, there are broken hearts all over the place!
It is now 1780, and the story of the old murder is told again in The Maypole as it is the anniversary of this incident, but then one of the locals comes into The Maypole stating that he believes he saw the ghost of the murdered man that evening in the churchyard. The landlord, Willet Snr, tells Haredale of this tale, who surprisingly takes it quite seriously, begs him not to let Emma know of the tale, and then tells people he is leaving home for a while to go travelling. However, Haredale tells Varden that he actually intends to spend each night in Mrs Rudge’s old home, saying he’s lately been haunted by something. He requests that Varden doesn’t tell anyone where he will be or visit him there, explaining that just wants someone to know his location in case of an emergency, and says that everyone else, including Emma, believes that he has gone out of the London area. He then asks Varden to again describe the mysterious stranger at Mrs Rudge’s door, and also asks whether Varden thought the man looked familiar. Varden is very puzzled by Haredale’s questions and by his intention to stay at Mrs Rudge’s old home, though he knows that Haredale has been determined lately to locate Mrs Rudge and Barnaby, and he even begins to doubt Haredale’s sanity. Hmmm, I am presuming the man in the pub meant that he thought he had seen Rudge’s ghost (Rudge having been presumed to have been murdered by the gardener, who is also presumed to have murdered Reuben Haredale), rather than the ghost of Reuben Haredale? I was a little confused there with him saying it was the ghost of the murdered man as I thought at first that he meant he had seen Reuben Haredale’s ghost but I think now that that doesn’t really fit. And if it was Rudge’s ghost that he thought he’d seen, then I am guessing that it was actually Rudge there in the churchyard, which makes me wonder again why he is in that area risking being seen, I realise he was getting food and money from Mrs Rudge so that gave him a reason to be there before, even though it was a risk to him, but now she’s gone then it seems even riskier to stay there. And it seems like Haredale is beginning to suspect that Rudge may actually be alive, I am guessing he wants to hide at Mrs Rudge’s old home as he suspects that Rudge will turn up there, although this seems a little dangerous as Rudge is (I presume) the murderer of two people and will clearly be desperate to conceal his secret that he is a murderer and is still alive, so I don’t really like the thought of Haredale being there all on his own!
Lord George Gordon and his secretary, Gashford, arrive at The Maypole, they and their Protestant Association supporters are protesting against a proposed bill by Parliament to reduce the restrictions on Catholics, who they call ‘un-English Papists’, these restrictions include Catholics not being allowed to bring their children up in the Catholic religion, not being allowed to teach or preach Catholicism, not being allowed to join the army, not being allowed to hold a responsible job, and not being allowed to own property. Tappertit’s group of The United Bulldogs (formerly known as The Apprentice Knights) join the Protestant Association, as does Hugh (who has got to know Tappertit) and Martha, and the local hangman (Dennis the Hangman). Chester Snr is now Sir John and is a Member of Parliament. He is also a Protestant, and while he supports Lord Gordon’s aims privately he does not want to publicly support a person who he calls ‘a very extravagant madman’ so he urges Hugh to support the Protestant Association instead, secretly hoping that the Association will form a riotous demonstration which will harm Catholics. Chester Snr still employs Hugh to find out things for him and report back to him but often gleans extra information from Hugh without Hugh realising, due to his skillful questioning. He also fosters a hatred in Hugh of Haredale. Hugh is overawed by Chester Snr’s intelligence and also feels intimidated by the power that Chester Snr exerts over him, as he often threatens Hugh with what he knows about him, stating he could have Hugh hanged if he wished. Hmmm, Lord Gordon’s secretary Gashford seems a very sly man and to be creeping and fawning to Lord Gordon and using Lord Gordon to further himself rather than particularly believing in that man’s aims. And wow, I didn’t realise how strictly Catholics were restricted then, those are really some severe restrictions! But feelings against Catholics were obviously high at that time, with several of the characters joining the Protestant Association, and sigh, it always makes me a bit nervous when there is a group formed against a section of society as I foresee discrimination and victimisation ahead! And I remember that Chester Snr said that Emma was Catholic, so I presume Haredale is probably Catholic too and perhaps this also contributes to his and Chester Snr’s antipathy towards each other if they are of opposing religious views. And I’d forgotten that capital punishment still occurred at that time as well (with Dennis the Hangman being introduced).
Haredale bumps into Chester Snr and Gashford, and it is clear that all three also knew each other when they were younger in boarding school. Haredale accuses Gashford of switching sides in order to suit himself, and lists to both men the difficulties currently being faced by Catholics due to the Protestant Association. Chester Snr states he does not belong to the Protestant Association but that he does oppose the reduction of restrictions on Catholics. Haredale sees through this, telling Chester Snr he knows that ‘men of your capacity plot in secrecy and safety, and leave exposed posts to the duller wits’. Lord Gordon joins them and Haredale tries to appeal the rights of Catholics to him, but Lord Gordon refuses to listen. Haredale then tells Lord Gordon that he is wrong to trust Gashford because he was a thief in his boyhood and ‘a servile, false, and truckling knave…(who) crawled and crept through life, wounding the hands he licked, and biting those he fawned upon…(who) never knew what honour, truth or courage meant’, and who slept with his benefactor’s daughter, ruining her reputation by destroying her virtue, and married her in order to break her heart and then treated her with cruelty. When Haredale leaves them, he is followed by a crowd of the Protestant Association and a stone is thrown at him. He accuses Gashford of throwing this stone and attacks him, demanding of Chester Snr and Lord Gordon to not be cowards and to draw their swords, but he is urged (by John Grueby, a member of the Association) to leave, due to the numbers in the crowd against him and because he is already injured from the stone. Later, Gashford speaks to Hugh and Dennis, as it was Hugh who threw the stone, and urges them to bide their time and be patient and not be violent too soon but to wait until more men and strength are behind them. Gashford also urges them that when this time comes they are to punish and destroy Haredale. Wow, I’m still reeling from Haredale’s accusations against Gashford, he didn’t hold back there, phew! And I admittedly hadn’t warmed to Gashford but omg, (according to Haredale) he really is an evil man! I wasn’t sure if Haredale’s demand to Chester Snr and Lord Gordon to draw their swords meant that he intended them to be seconds for Gashford in a duel? I don’t really grasp the rules of duelling, but this occurred to me to be what he might have meant, as surely he wasn’t expecting Lord Gordon and Chester Snr to help him against Gashford. And although I do like Haredale, he does seem quite rash in his speech and behaviour! Obviously he is standing by his values and sees Chester Snr and Gashford as men who act immorally, but part of me thinks he really would be better keeping his head down a little at this time when people are looking for an excuse to harm Catholics!
Meanwhile Varden becomes a volunteer sergeant with the Royal East London Volunteers, although Martha questions why he does this and calls it un-Christian but Varden says his purpose is to defend England against foreign armies. Dolly has lots of admirers who she enjoys teasing, but she is secretly tearful when Varden speaks of Joe being gone and his regret that Joe hadn’t come to him first for guidance before he left. Meanwhile Mrs Rudge and Barnaby (and Grip, the raven) are living quietly and anonymously and eking out a living in a remote village, although Barnaby is craving a more exciting life and to find a way of earning money to support his mother. Stagg comes to their door, sent by Rudge, and demands money from them telling Mrs Rudge that she can easily appeal to her rich friends for money and threatening to take Barnaby away and bring him up himself if she doesn’t comply. Barnaby is fascinated by Stagg’s talk of adventures and money, and is keen to follow him. Mrs Rudge is terrified and swiftly flees the village with Barnaby after Stagg leaves (saying he will return the next day) and she decides to hide in the busy centre of London before determining their next step. However, they arrive in London on the day that Lord Gordon and his followers are marching on the Houses of Parliament and Barnaby is encouraged to join the march by Hugh, much to his mother’s horror and without understanding the reasons or aims of the march himself. The march swells into a mob and the military is brought in to disperse them, but a soldier is knocked off his horse by either Hugh or Barnaby and the mob then destroys a Catholic church. Tappertit is questioned by Varden if he was involved with the mob and the riots, which Tappertit proudly says he was. Varden is worried that he will be hanged for this if he is arrested, so suggests that he goes to Martha’s relatives at Canterbury (Varden feeling responsible for Tappertit as he has been his employer for many years) but Tappertit scorns this idea, saying he will stay true to the cause and then gives them a piece of paper stating that this property is a staunch friend to the cause and recommends they display this and chalk the words ‘No Popery’ on their door for the next week. He then runs away, and Varden destroys the piece of paper and Martha feels regretful that she had previously supported the Protestant Association. Hmmm, I find I am becoming less keen to read the book now the mob has begun and tensions seem to be rising and rising and violence threatening, it just makes me feel so apprehensive, I find I am reaching the next paragraph reluctantly as I am concerned what violent details I might see there. And the book also seems to be focusing more and more on religion and politics and Lord Gordon and Gashford, and less on the plot lines and characters from earlier in the book which had really sparked my interest. But anyway, I will continue on, of course! I was relieved that Varden is against the violence, I do so like him, and pleased too that now Martha is now regretting having shown support for the Association. I was wondering how Rudge had found his wife and son’s location when they were hiding in that remote village, but perhaps it was by hearing of the exploits and talents of Grip the raven, as they were earning money from him talking.
The mob continues rioting for a week, rampaging through the city and plundering churches and properties, and the authorities seem powerless to stop them. Some rioters are arrested and it is announced that Haredale is to appear as a witness against them, so Gashford reminds Hugh and Dennis of their promise of vengeance towards Haredale. The mob then head to Haredale’s home, The Warren, after first damaging The Maypole pub and traumatising and tying up Willet Snr, and they totally destroy The Warren. The mysterious stranger arrives at The Maypole intending to follow the mob to The Warren but he is turned crazy by the sound of The Warren’s bell tolling. Omg, that just got worse and worse and worse, and even though I was expecting out-of-control violence, I was shocked at the extent of it, sob, to damage The Maypole and to tie up poor Willet Snr, and then to destroy The Warren too! And, eeek, Emma and Dolly were inside The Warren at the time so I am terrified at what has happened to them and if they have been hurt or killed, or if Hugh had taken this further chance to assault Dolly! I was puzzled why the authorities didn’t do more to stop the mob though, were they scared to antagonise them further and then have the violence and destruction get even worse, or were they uncertain how to stop them or too intimidated to do so, or did they just hope the mob would tire and just break up of its own accord? And Dickens’ analysis of what he feels makes up a mob was interesting, as he described the type of people and their aims and also their keenness for mischief and their poverty and their disillusionment.
Later Willet Snr, although shocked and numb after the attack and the damage to The Maypole, describes the mysterious stranger who he says appeared like a ghost. Haredale goes to The Warren and finds it completely destroyed, without a roof or walls and with broken staircases. He calls out for anyone who is hidden there, the servants or Emma, but finds no-one. He hears a noise and springs upon Rudge! He recognises him and accuses him of being the murderer of his brother and gardener. He takes him to London and ensures he is locked in Newgate Prison. Meanwhile, Emma and Dolly have been taken to a house in London by Hugh and Dennis and Tappertit, Dolly is told she must marry Tappertit though Hugh also has intentions for her himself, and Emma is told she must marry Gashford. Meanwhile, Barnaby is captured and imprisoned in Newgate, with Grip. The mob have fostered panic in the citizens, and threatened and scared them enough to ensure that no help or aid is offered to Catholics and they are refused protection when their houses are burnt and they are refused transport to leave London with their belongings. Wow, there is such a quantity of dramatic happenings in this section, I can barely keep up with it all, and there’s all the tension too, I’m really finding it quite exhausting to read, to be honest! And omg, Emma and Dolly are being held captive by those horrible men, I dread to think what is happening to them, poor things, and how terrified they must be, and how terrified of their future too, surely they can’t be forced to marry people they don’t want to marry?! And it seems like Gashford is involved in their capture too, or at least involved in the men’s intentions for the women. And I found it so distressing to read about the terrible actions and prejudice and ostracising and isolation of the Catholics, with their houses being destroyed and no-one they can turn to for support or justice, and this is all being done by their fellow human beings, it’s just so awful, so terrible! And it’s also so frightening how the mob has quickly taken control and almost become the law and is seemingly answerable to no-one, and it’s hard to see how it’s going to end and the mob finally subdued as it’s alarming how ineffective the authorities are against them and how ill-prepared and unsure of how to act. It’s just so hard to imagine how this could happen in a community, although I guess we see it happening in our present day too so clearly it can easily happen, people can get caught up with their feelings and then band together and commit terrible acts, but it’s so hard to fathom. And I know it almost seems wrong to mourn a building when so many people have been harmed, but I was so sad that The Warren was destroyed, sigh, all that history and beauty gone, just like that, as well as being horrified at the level of out-of-control anger and rage the mob must have possessed to do such a violent and destructive act and to destroy a large property like that. And Newgate Prison, urgh, I always give a shudder when I see that name, notorious as it was in so many of these old books as being a dreadful place to be held, I even feel sorry for Rudge being there (though he is clearly a baddie and deserves to be punished for his dreadful deeds) as I fear how he will suffer in there, and I feel particularly sorry for poor Barnaby being in there too (although at least he has Grip with him), though I kind of hope that perhaps he won’t entirely understand what is going on which may shield him a little from the horrors of it all. And obviously both father and son are now in Newgate together, I wonder if they will meet and if so will Rudge acknowledge Barnaby (as obviously Barnaby doesn’t know Rudge as his father)! Hmmmm, lots of potential drama ahead, I really can’t think of another book I’ve read lately that is quite so packed with tension and drama and action!
While in prison, Rudge seems haunted by guilt and to be regretful of the murders he committed, explaining to Stagg how he always saw the image of Reuben Haredale before him no matter where he went and always felt drawn to be close to that area even though he knew it was risky to be there. He also says that at the time he had told his wife what he’d done and she had advised him to flee, enabling him to escape justice though she made it clear that she then disowned him. When Rudge is exercising in the yard, he meets Barnaby and tells him he is his father, at which news Barnaby hugs him. Oh, bless him, Barnaby! But oh dear, Mrs Rudge did help her husband to escape justice, sigh, I worry about what might now happen to her as a consequence, though I feel sorry for her too as I suspect she felt she had no choice in acting as she did. And there is also now an explanation why Rudge used to hang around the local area, which I’d wondered about a few times as it seemed so risky to him, as it was guilt and regret and being haunted by the face of his victims (if he can be believed, of course).
Hugh and Dennis, with the mob, decide to burn down every prison and set all the prisoners free. They drag Varden to the prison to make him open the lock (as he had originally built the prison’s lock) but although he is threatened and beaten, he refuses to do as they demand. The prison keeper also refuses to follow the orders of the mob, and his possessions and furniture are taken and burned. A soldier (with one arm) drags Varden away, threatening to force him to do what the mob demands. The prison is eventually stormed and the prisoners released, including Rudge and Barnaby. The mob then spot Haredale and corner him. Omg, that was scary to read, the mob really seem completely out-of-control now, there seems no limit to what they will do! And something about that one-armed soldier made me think that it could possibly be Joe, but I was then doubting this thought when he snatched Varden away stating he would force him to comply with the mob’s demands, but then it occurred to me that he might actually be rescuing Varden from harm? And omg, the mob now have Haredale, oh noooo!
Edward and Joe (who is revealed to be the one-armed soldier) and John Grueby (who has been sacked by Lord Gordon and now acts as spy for the other side) rescue Haredale from the mob. Joe and Edward and Haredale also rescue Emma and Dolly, and apprehend Gashford who is at the house trying to steal away Emma and dispose of Dolly, and they also find Tappertit lying there at the house injured. Meanwhile, Dennis betrays Hugh to the authorities, because he didn’t agree with Hugh releasing those prisoners who were due to be hanged. He also alerts the authorities to Barnaby and Rudge and Stagg’s whereabouts, and the three are arrested and Stagg is shot dead whilst running away. After four days of fighting, and 72 houses and 4 prisons destroyed, the riots are ended after the military shoot on the mob, killing and wounding many. Lord Gordon is also imprisoned in the Tower charged with High Treason. Phew, everyone is rescued safely, and eventually the riots are over, but all that destruction and all those people acting in that way, it just blows my mind, I really have to keep reminding myself that these facts are real and this riot in London really happened and these people (40,000 people who apparently followed and supported Lord Gordon!) turned into this mob and caused all this destruction and violence, rather than it just being a dramatic fictional story, it just seems almost incredible to believe, a bit like how I struggle to believe the French Revolution actually happened as it just seems so dreadful and so hard to fathom how people could act in that way. And yay, the one-armed soldier was actually Joe!
Mrs Rudge speaks to Rudge, whilst visiting Barnaby in prison, and appeals to him to confess and repent for his crimes and to hope for Barnaby’s release, but he says he hates both her and Barnaby and his only comfort will be that they suffer as he does. Hugh and Dennis share a cell, and Dennis realises that he had hanged Hugh’s mother. He remembers that she said she had left her gypsy clan for a gentleman and had had a son by him but that she had always refused to name the gentleman, but he also remembers that another of her gypsy clan was also hanged by him who had named the gentleman as Chester Snr. Varden learns this so goes to Chester Snr with this information, asking him to speak to his son and to try and save him, but Chester Snr refuses to do this and denies all knowledge of ever knowing Hugh’s mother. Later, Hugh and Dennis and Rudge are hanged. Edward buries Hugh in an unnamed grave, and he had tried to visit him as his brother before he died but Hugh had refused to see him. Barnaby is saved from being hanged through successful appeals from Varden. Dolly goes to Joe and asks for his forgiveness and to be his wife and vows to be a better person, and they are later happily married with lots of children and run The Maypole pub and farm, and the King sends Joe a silver snuff-box as a mark of his recognition of his conduct in the riots. Willet Snr lives in a cottage near to them and has a huge fireplace in his cottage where he talks to his old friends from The Maypole pub and even has a maypole erected in order to try and replicate his life as landlord of The Maypole, but he never recovers fully from the trauma of the attack by the mob. Haredale gives his blessing to Emma and Edward, and apologises for standing in their way before, and Edward returns to the West Indies with Emma which is where he had prospered earlier. Eeeek! Chester Snr is Hugh’s father, what a twist, I didn’t see that coming at all! So the familiarity that he saw in Hugh’s face was of Hugh’s mother, and he must have suspected then that he could possibly be Hugh’s father, so his recognition wasn’t in order to blackmail someone else for being Hugh’s parent, it was instead the awareness that he himself potentially could be Hugh’s parent, wow!! Dickens is soooo good at these twists, I’d kind of thought the book was winding down but no, he still has this twist up his sleeve! And I am glad that Dolly became more sensible and realised how wonderful Joe is and now appreciates his worth, though obviously I didn’t want her to go through that dreadful experience of being kidnapped and threatened in order to make her a better person! And awww, I was so delighted that the King praised and rewarded the lovely Joe too! And I’m so relieved that Barnaby was saved from being hanged, and by lovely lovely Varden too who must be one of the most solid and loyal and reliable and honourable (and nicest) characters in fiction, bless him!
Haredale is now a sad and aged and lonely man after Emma goes abroad with Edward. He decides to view the ruins of The Warren again, although his sad look and restless night’s sleep at the nearby pub make the staff fear that he may be contemplating suicide. At The Warren he sees Chester Snr, who calls out to him though he tries to retreat without having to engage in conversation. Chester Snr says he is sorry for the loss of The Warren, but Haredale accuses Chester Snr of causing the destruction of The Warren by encouraging Hugh and Gashford to instruct the mob to do this. Haredale also refers to Hugh as Chester Snr’s son, and refers again to Chester Snr being the person who sent Mrs Rudge and Barnaby away at the time when they left their home and their protection under his care, and accuses Chester Snr of historically spreading rumours that he had benefitted from his brother’s death which then made people suspicious that he may have been involved in that death, as well as referring again to Chester Snr stealing the woman that he loved. He goes on to say ‘In every action of my life, from that first hope which you converted into grief and desolation, you have stood like an adverse fate between me and peace. In all, you have ever been the same cold blooded, hollow, false, unworthy villain’. Phew, such anger and bitter words from Haredale, his speech just drips with hatred and hurt, it’s a really powerful speech and I was reeling from it so I struggle to imagine how Chester Snr wasn’t cowed being faced directly with those words! And poor Haredale, how he has suffered at the hands of this man but also I feel sorry for Haredale that he has held onto this hurt and let it fester and grow inside of him (for him to be able to access it so swiftly just on sight of Chester Snr), obviously he had reason (many reasons!) to be hurt but I worry about the cost to himself that holding onto this has done. And I am wondering now if Chester Snr might be one of Dickens’ baddest baddies as his evilness and his campaign to destroy Haredale has been so long-running and been maintained so vindictively for so many years! Although then again, I wonder if Chester Snr actually set out to hurt Haredale over many many years and block his happiness at every opportunity he could, or is this just Haredale’s interpretation of Chester Snr’s actions, and actually some of Chester Snr’s actions were just selfishness to please or benefit himself, rather than to cause Haredale pain? Part of me can imagine Chester Snr being so self-absorbed that he really wouldn’t waste time which could have been devoted to himself and his own wants and interests by plotting vengeful acts against Haredale, he’s too busy selfishly enjoying his own life. I can imagine that if he learnt that one of his actions or decisions had stood in Haredale’s way or hurt or affected that gentleman, then he would have been pleased, but I wonder if he would devote quite so much attention to hurting Haredale (as Haredale clearly believes he has) when that attention could be spent on himself. But either way, I had begun to relax and presume that Dickens was tying up all the loose ends by detailing the happy conclusions of the good characters (and the hangings of the bad characters), so omg, I didn’t see this tirade of bitterness coming or dreamt it still had to be dealt with by Haredale, I had presumed he was just content to send Emma off with his love and good wishes to her happy life with her husband, obviously I was wrong…
Chester Snr states that Haredale conspired with him to try and prevent Emma and Edward’s marriage, and then accuses him of being false and trying to redeem himself by later supporting their marriage. Haredale and Chester Snr fight with swords, and Haredale kills Chester Snr, who, even at the end, is conscious of his appearance and alters his final expression from hatred to calmness. Haredale then flees England and spends the rest of his life in a strict monastery abroad. Oh noooo, I am so sad about this, I really really wanted Haredale to have a happy ending, not that he would have to flee the country in order to escape being arrested as a murderer, that seems so unfair! Why oh why couldn’t Dickens have just let Haredale be happy, he’s had such a tough life with losing the woman he loved and losing his brother and being targeted for his faith, and I can imagine he would be lonely without Emma but he has Varden and the people at The Maypole who could have been his friends (though I guess he is of a higher social standing than them so perhaps he couldn’t have mixed with them quite as I imagine). Or even acknowledging all of that and that Haredale has to escape the country after killing Chester Snr, then why couldn’t Dickens have him living happily abroad in the sunshine, does he have to be condemned to a strict monastery?! Though I guess Dickens had to have him punished for taking a life, but sob, I so wanted him to find happiness! And wow, that was such a huge shock with him killing Chester Snr, I didn’t see that coming at all! And I was wondering again at Haredale’s impulsivity and quickness to anger and whether I should be surprised at its appearance here, but I guess he had been quick to attack Gashford when he thought that man had thrown the stone at him and also in that same scene he challenged Lord Gordon and Chester Snr to draw their swords, so it seems that those characteristics always simmered away inside of him, though it again surprises me that a man with that tendency to express himself impulsively through violence could also be so eloquent (even though this eloquence takes a bitter form, such as his speech criticising Gashford in the stone-throwing incident, and his speech criticising Chester Snr here). And surely this is it for the surprises, there can’t be any more coming in these final few pages?! But I have felt several times that I could now relax and observe the last few scenes gently play themselves out, and then have been taken by surprise!
Lord Gordon is found not guilty of High Treason and is released from the Tower of London. He then converts to Judaism, however he continues to speak out on matters he feels strongly about and his words about the Queen of France causes him to be imprisoned again and later he dies of prison fever. Gashford survives for a while trading on Lord Gordon’s secrets, then becomes a government spy, and finally commits suicide. Tappertit had to have both legs amputated due to his injuries from the riots and was imprisoned but then released, and after this he becomes destitute but is helped by Varden so is able to form a successful shoe-shining business and employ two apprentices, and he later marries. Barnaby seems to be able to process ideas and thoughts in a clearer way after his experience and has a better memory and firmer purpose and speaks more rationally, he also continues to be a happy person though sometimes a dark cloud descends on him when he remembers that time. He and his mother live and work at The Maypole farm (beside the The Maypole pub) and he adopts Hugh’s dog. Grip didn’t speak for a year after his time in Newgate with Barnaby, but then he suddenly recovers his voice and talks constantly after that. Phew, I am so relieved that Grip survives, I was worried several times that he wouldn’t! And I was also very relieved that Hugh’s dog was remembered and taken in by Barnaby, phew! And it’s lovely that Barnaby and Mrs Rudge live back in the community and can support themselves working at The Maypole farm (these are the kind of happy endings I was expecting from Dickens, not revelations of secret fathers and the shocks of murders!). And tee hee, I also appreciated the irony of Tappertit employing two apprentices, after his earlier view that apprentices were treated unfairly by their employers! I am presuming those details of what happened to Lord Gordon and how he died is true as he was a real person? But wow, what an odd character! He seems (to me) to have been more of a person who was easily led into strong ideas rather than having those ideas himself, and then because of his appearance and manner he was able to lead others? I do question though if he understood the consequences of the strong ideas he had been encouraged to preach and I wonder what he thought of the often violent results. But perhaps I’m wrong and he was a determined and decisive man who incited others to follow him and to commit violent acts. I will have to read up more about him as he greatly interests me.
Well, what a very dramatic book, wow, and not really what I was expecting, with the murder mystery aspect and the mob violence aspect! I thoroughly enjoyed the murder mystery aspect and the development of the characters (and Haredale and Varden are now some of my favourite Dickens’ characters, as is Grip the raven (!), and I will certainly think of Chester Snr as one of Dickens’ most memorable villains!), but I was less keen on the mob violence parts of the book as I honestly found it really upsetting to read, though I guess that is a credit to this wonderful author for his ability to bring the scenes alive (though so very much alive that I really found it quite disturbing!). I struggled to deal with the fact that the mob were in essence just regular people which then made it extra distressing to contemplate their violence, and I also that the Gordon Riots are a part of history and actually happened so these scenes (well, the main scenes) aren’t just dramatic story-telling but did actually happen, people did actually act like that! And perhaps I am just easily disturbed (!) but I found at times within those sections that I had to keep taking a break from the book, and was also then a little reluctant to pick up the book again, as Dickens’ description of it all was just so vivid, with the sheer violence and damage to the property and the senseless waste and destruction, and the almost inhuman and deranged behaviour of the mob and how they became like monsters driven by hatred and without reason or the ability to stop themselves, it was very strong and powerful writing! All the twists towards the end of the book also made it quite exhausting to read for the first time not knowing what was coming next, though I obviously heartily enjoyed those twists and am full of admiration (yet again!) for what a wonderful writer Dickens was to be able to produce those twists which I had no idea or hint were coming!
And interestingly, I sometimes felt at times that it seemed a little like two different books bolted together, like he’d got the murder mystery and the mysterious stranger etc all unfolding and which was a great story, and then tagged on his writings about the Gordon Riots. Perhaps this feeling was caused by my reluctance to read the scenes with the mob violence of the Gordon Riots, and this is why the two main plots feel so separated in my mind? But it kind of made me wonder what the book would have been like with the Gordon Riots left out of it and if the book would have suffered at all? I don’t personally feel it would have suffered, as the murder mystery felt like a strong enough plot all on its own. Yes, the antagonism between Haredale and Chester Snr was partly due to their difference in religion and this was then exacerbated by the Gordon Riots, but they certainly had plenty of other issues to increase their hatred of one another without the Gordon Riots and their difference in religion could still have been part of it without the need for the riots. I can see that Barnaby Rudge is involved in both stories (the murder mystery story and the Gordon Riots story), but I’m not sure if his involvement in the riots was necessary to that plot as there were plenty of other characters involved and arrested and at threat of being hanged, and his character felt more linked to the murder mystery story I felt. It made me wonder if Dickens just felt very strongly about the Gordon Riots so was determined to bring it into one of his books in order to increase awareness of this event in history, and just chose this book to do so? But saying that, I am grateful to him that I now know that such a thing as the Gordon Riots existed (or perhaps I should have listened more at school, tee hee!) and I have been interested in learning more about them and about Lord Gordon too, so I can say that its inclusion in the book certainly served that purpose (if Dickens’ purpose was to increase awareness of the Gordon Riots). And just comparing this book with another book of his which incorporated a real historical event within its storyline, ie The Tale of Two Cities, then the inclusion of the French Revolution in that book felt to me to be more successfully entwined within that story and to flow better, in comparison to this book with the Gordon Riots, although then again perhaps this is because The Tale of Two Cities is just the one plot (about the French Revolution and how the characters are shaped and affected by it and the reasons leading up to it) rather than it having a second plot like this book did, so this may be why it seems to flow better.
And though I can see that the character Barnaby Rudge was involved in both the plotlines, I still wonder a little quite why the book’s title bears his name as he didn’t seem (to me) to be one of the main important characters. I’d have said Haredale, for instance, played a far greater role (and he too was involved in both the plotlines) as did Chester Snr and even Hugh, so why not one of their names if Dickens wanted the book to have a character’s name? And why a character’s name at all for the title, as if I’d just read the book and been asked to summarise it and guess the title myself then I’d have probably guessed at a title which gave a hint of the murder which is such a crucial part of the plot and the consequences of which determines the actions of many of the characters, or even a title which gave a hint of the secret parental link between Chester Snr and Hugh. Or even a reference to the Gordon Riots would make sense as the title, as that was clearly something that Dickens wanted to write about. Ooooh, now I’ve just looked on wonderful Wikipedia to see if there is any clue on there about the thinking behind the title choice, I see that the book’s full title (though commonly referred to as just ‘Barnaby Rudge’) is actually ‘Barnaby Rudge: A Tale of the Riots of Eighty’, so clearly the title does indicate the Gordon Riots so I stand corrected!
One other thing still puzzles me though, which is the reason why Rudge murdered Reuben Haredale in the first place (I can imagine that he murdered the gardener because he was either a witness to the crime, or his death made him useful as a scapegoat)? I presume I just missed this and will look back in the book to check, as it would surprise me if Dickens had failed to state this.
As ever, there are some wonderfully descriptive and poignant and humorous phrases from Dickens in this book, which I had to jot down to savour, and some of my favourites are below:
‘Every wrinkle but a notch in the quiet calendar of a well-spent life’ (how beautiful is this description of an elderly person!)
‘There is little doubt that troubles are exceedingly gregarious in their nature, and flying in flocks are apt to perch capriciously, crowding on the heads of some poor wights until there is not an inch of room left on their unlucky crowns, and taking no more notice of others who offer as good resting places for the soles of their feet than if they had no existence’ (tee hee, and how true this sometimes feels when troubles all seem to arrive at once!)
‘The daisies on the green had closed their fairy hoods, the honeysuckle twining round the porch exhaled its perfume in a twofold degree, as though it lost its coyness at that silent time and loved to shed its fragrance on the night, the ivy scarcely stirred its deep green leaves’ (it’s so beautifully descriptive, I can almost see and smell all those plants!)
And I think possibly my favourite quote is this description of an author, which shows their magical skill at creating worlds and the people who inhabit them (and how I envy their ability), ‘chroniclers are privileged to enter where they list, to come and go through keyholes, to ride upon the wind, to overcome in their soarings up and down all obstacles of distance, time, and place’ (wow, how wonderful it must be to be one of those talented people!).
I will definitely re-read Barnaby Rudge as it was such an impressive book and I feel there was so much to absorb that I am bound to have missed some of it (or is this partly me also delaying my reading of the other books of Dickens’ that I haven’t yet read, in order to always have a ‘new’ book to read, tee hee?!). I have also been meaning to re-read Martin Chuzzlewit, as I’ve only read that once so it’s not very familiar to me, and of course when I do pick up another of Dickens’ books that I haven’t yet read (eeek!) I think I will have to make it The Mystery of Edwin Drood seeing as I’ve been so impressed with the author’s ability to write murder mystery in Barnaby Rudge. I’m also still interested in learning more about the Gordon Riots, and I see there is a book called The Gordon Riots by Ian Haywood and John Seed so I am keen to read that too.
