1. Along the Way > Likes and Comments

1. Use this thread for general comments while you read "along the way" or to discuss topics not covered by other threads.

The reign of Charles II is a very interesting one, which is why I was so keen to read this book. I find this period more interesting than the Tudor era, even though it's less well-known. It's a shame that what weakened this dynasty was its excessive dependence on the France of Louis XIV, and that the Protestant-controlled parliament limited the King's power, preventing the misdeeds of Titus Oates from being stopped.

I recommend this novel on this topic "An instance of the fingerpost".

I think after this novel there will be very few left for me to read by Robert Hugh Benson, perhaps only "Richard Raynal Solitary".

What is "Oddsfish"? The word just seems to be dropped into the text with no meaning.

Jill wrote: "What is "Oddsfish"? The word just seems to be dropped into the text with no meaning." According to my research, the novel's title, and the use of the word "oddfish" is derived from King Charles II's favored exclamation, "Odd's fish!".

For more insight into this author's opus, may I suggest the following article written by Ann Happlegarth, on Robert Hugh Benson and his novels, published by the Catholic World Report in 2015: https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2...
"The title of Oddfish (1914), Benson’s last historical novel, is derived from King Charles II’s favorite epithet, “Odd’s Fish!” (a socially acceptable version of the profane oath “God’s Face!”). ...etc..."

The article talks about all of Benson's novels, so there might be some left to read later on.

I was also surprised to learn an interesting fact about our two previous popes regarding Robert Hugh Benson: "Both Pope Francis and Pope Benedict XVI (when he was Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) have encouraged Catholics to read Lord of the World, Msgr. Robert Hugh Benson’s 1907 novel that eerily predicted the state of the world at the beginning of the 21st century."

I am currently reading both Oddfish and Lord of the World (a tall order for myself, I do admit).

Did anyone else have trouble keeping all the historical characters straight?
I found the dramatic ending hard to believe.
No contemporary monastery would accept a candidate fresh from this kind of life and tragedy (something like marrying on the rebound)!
Sad that the King's tendency to mistreat those he loves is regarded as a "womanly" trait.
I don't understand why Roger doesn't have it out with Tom for betraying him. Or why he doesn't simply go get a priest himself.

I am currently reading Chapter II, "The Balance Sheet of the Life of Charles II: Success Without Intention and Intention Without Success." It is very well done and realistically portrays these two historical figures.

To be honest, it couldn't have been easy to convert someone so sensual, selfish, hedonistic, and so given to pleasure. Perhaps Charles II isn't Herod the Great, but he could easily be Herod Antipas.

What I didn't know was that Prince Rupert was still alive. I thought he'd be dead by now. But here he is, doing chemistry experiments. I confess that I like the Stuart era more and more than the Tudor era, by a long shot. Even though England doesn't seem as powerful under the Stuarts.

I'm really looking forward to seeing two characters—I don't know if they'll appear—Titus Oates and Godfrey Berry. I want to see what Robert Hugh Benson has to say about these two historical figures.

I have some Larousse history books, and when I saw the portrait of James II, I found him imposing and magnificent. It was certainly the perfect image for a king.

This isn't a spoiler, just my own deduction. Let's see if I guessed it, but knowing Benson as I think I do, I have a feeling Roger Mallock won't marry his cousin Dorothy. I get confused with the family relationships. It seems the cousin's daughter must be a second cousin; I thought she'd be a second niece :-)

It's curious; there's another novel in which a ghost also appears—I'm referring to Maurice Baring's "Robert Peckham" Both the protagonist and his sister see a ghost, which could be a premonition of the tragedy to come. I wonder if Maurice Baring was inspired by, or borrowed this device from, Robert Hugh Bensonin "Oddsfish!" for "Robert Peckham."

Fonch wrote: "This isn't a spoiler, just my own deduction. Let's see if I guessed it, but knowing Benson as I think I do, I have a feeling Roger Mallock won't marry his cousin Dorothy. I get confused with the fa..."

I don't think they are first cousin's, but if they were, Dorothy would be a first cousin, once removed. As I recall, it comes up later that the relationship between Roger and Dorothy's father is more distant than that (3rd cousins, maybe?).

John wrote: "Fonch wrote: "This isn't a spoiler, just my own deduction. Let's see if I guessed it, but knowing Benson as I think I do, I have a feeling Roger Mallock won't marry his cousin Dorothy. I get confus..."

Hi John. I admit I have trouble differentiating family relationships. I get confused with relatives; I can't distinguish between first cousins, second cousins, nephews, and great-nephews. Family trees are a problem for me ;-)

John wrote: "Fonch wrote: "This isn't a spoiler, just my own deduction. Let's see if I guessed it, but knowing Benson as I think I do, I have a feeling Roger Mallock won't marry his cousin Dorothy. I get confus..."


I think the father is determined to play the role of Mrs. Benet, that is, to act as a matchmaker and foist her off on the protagonist. So far, I'm really enjoying the book because I'm becoming increasingly interested in the Stuarts, especially Charles II, and James II, whom I'm growing to appreciate more and more. By the way, I don't know if it will appear, but the Duke of York's father-in-law is a real scoundrel.

I have a friend, Andrea Zuvich, who specializes in this period. It's a shame that some biographies of Hilaire Belloc are unpublished in Spanish.

One of the most infamous figures in English history, Titus Oates, has already been named. At the very least, he was one of the most deceitful.G.K. Chesterton Cómo escribir relatos policiacos even suspected he might have been a murderer. The perfect actor to portray such a wicked character would have been Charles Laughton.

It seems that one of Robert Hugh Benson's theories is the same one that G.K. Chesterton thought about Edmund Berry Godfrey.

It pains me to admit it, but the Charles II of this novel was right. If Charles II had acted to save the innocent Jesuits in this novel, he would have lost the throne like his father and his brother, and very possibly his life. The King held the throne, but not the power, which was possessed by the same oligarchy that, a few years later, would dethrone King James II.

There's a very curious film adaptation of King's Thief starring Edmond Purdom (Sinuhe the Egyptian), Ann Blyth (one of the few actresses who made it in Hollywood and was also Catholic. I really liked her in The Golden Horde, which was released in Spain as The Princess of Samarkand), David Niven (as the villain, and he does a great job), and George Sanders. The protagonist does something very similar to what Roger Mallock does in the novel: he reprimands the King. Sir Isaac Newton appeared in that film. The Professor Manuel Alfonseca has a novel in which Sir Isaac Newton also appears. PS. I wonder if Sir Isaac Newton will appear in this novel?

This sacrilegious and anti-Catholic procession organized by Lord Shaftesbury reminds me of the Protestant gatherings led by the Orangemen who succeeded Mary II, the daughter of King James II. Incidentally, William III of Orange should never have been King of England, because apart from Parliament, he had no right to the throne. Therefore, he is nothing more than a common usurper, and no more popular than James II, but he did have the support of the plutocratic elites.

From what I'm seeing, it appears that the Glorious Revolution of 1688 was led by a group called the Immortal Seven, which included Thomas Osborne, Earl of Danby (a prominent Tory); Charles Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury (a Whig); William Cavendish, Duke of Devonshire (a Whig); Richard Lumley, Viscount Lumley (a Whig); Henry Compton, Bishop of London (a high-ranking clergyman); Edward Russell (a naval officer); and Henry Sydney (a courtier).

From what I'm reading, Lord Shaftesbury was the patron of the philosopher John Locke, who was the one who whitewashed the Glorious Revolution (1688). This explains why he was his spiritual father.

I confess that when I read this novel I'm not objective, and that I feel the same aversion for the Duke of Monmouth as the protagonist. In my case, it's not out of jealousy, but for political and religious reasons. I can't stand the puppet of the enemies of the Catholic Church, although I suppose I despised William III, Queen Anne, and the Hanoverians even more, since they were glorified by the triumphant revolution.

When he spoke of Revolution, understand it to mean usurpation, treason, coup d'état, or push.

It's a crime that the Duchess of Portsmouth, who is French (her name is Louise de Kérouaille), supports the legitimization of the Duke of Monmouth. This proves that she is more interested in herself than in her country and her religion. In my opinion, it's an act of betrayal against Louis XIV (in the English case, even though he was an enemy of Spain, he should be supported because he wants to restore the Catholic faith in England). In fact, I was saddened that Carlos II of Spain, the so-called "bewitched" one, supported the enthronement of Mary II because it benefited the House of Habsburg against France. But this proves that the French—and I'm referring to the Duchess of Portsmouth—are not to be trusted when it comes to matters of religion.

Fonch wrote: " I was saddened that Charles II, the so-called "bewitched" one, supported the enthronement of Mary II because it benefited the House of Habsburg against France."

Fonch here means "Carlos II" of Spain, not "Charles II" of England.

When I finish the novel, I'll give my personal impression of James II. I've only found two things to criticize about him, but I'm absolutely convinced that if he'd been allowed to rule, he would have been a great king. Perhaps one of the best in England.

I have the feeling that this is the Robert Hugh Benson novel where the historical characters are best described and developed.

I'm so intrigued by Lord Stafford's fate that I have to keep reading a little longer :-). I'm more hooked on this than on a Turkish soap opera. Very popular in Spain, by the way.

Poor Roger 😭.

The third part of the novel is clearly inferior, in my opinion. The conspiration in which the protagonist is involved and the methods used by the conspirators are too convoluted to be credible, and the information they pass him over is of an amazing naiveté.

Manuel wrote: "The third part of the novel is clearly inferior, in my opinion. The conspiration in which the protagonist is involved and the methods used by the conspirators are too convoluted to be credible, and..."

The truth is, it seems there was indeed a conspiracy in 1683 that attempted to assassinate both Charles II and King James II, and both emerged much stronger. I was looking into it yesterday because I was reading the Wikipedia entry for James II, and it revealed this. I don't know what the third part will be like, though. Right now, I'm at the part with Lord Stafford, and at the point where the protagonist has suffered a romantic setback.

Manuel wrote: "The third part of the novel is clearly inferior, in my opinion. The conspiration in which the protagonist is involved and the methods used by the conspirators are too convoluted to be credible, and..."

This is what Wikipedia says, translated: "The Rye House Plot of 1683, a Protestant conspiracy aimed at assassinating Charles and the Duke of York, failed completely, but served to increase popular sympathy for the king and his brother. York again became influential in the government, becoming the leader of the Tory party. His brother reinstated him as Lord High Admiral in 1684." I have the feeling that Benson didn't invent anything, and if it was crude, it must have been. What surprises me is that nothing is known about this conspiracy, or that it hasn't been publicized, and I fear it's to save the reputation of the Whigs and Protestantism, who illegally seized control of the country in 1688 in that usurpation. This proves the anti-Catholicism of historiography.

Fonch wrote: "Manuel wrote: "The third part of the novel is clearly inferior, in my opinion. The conspiration in which the protagonist is involved and the methods used by the conspirators are too convoluted to b..."

Yes, Fonch, I know that the conspiracy is historical. What I don't find credible is the insertion of the protagonist in that conspiracy as a triple spy, and the way the conspirators connect with him, which obviously is not historical.

Manuel wrote: "Fonch wrote: "Manuel wrote: "The third part of the novel is clearly inferior, in my opinion. The conspiration in which the protagonist is involved and the methods used by the conspirators are too c..."

I haven't gotten there yet, I'll see. But for now, I'm sorry to disagree, but I'm really enjoying this novel.

The plot devised by Benson to make Roger save the life of Charles and James in the Rye conspiration is very weak. Roger himself confesses that there was one in ten possibilities that the King would be assassinated as a consequence of acting according to his message. That probability would be unacceptable in real life. Especially because there was a much better solution: let the King remain in Newmarket, and recall one hundred soldiers to go back with him to London. The conspirators wouldn't have dared to attack.

Of course, Benson wanted to involve Roger in the conspiracy, but I don't think he was successful. The real reason why the plot failed and the King and his brother were saved was chance or Providence, as a fire destroyed half the town of Newmarket and the races the King had gone to watch were cancelled. Benson mentions the fire, but says it was unimportant.