Victorians! discussion

The story is taken 5 years forward. The setting is Maypole on a windy day. Solomon Daisy comes to Maypole with a wierd tale of seeing a dead man walking. The day is 19th March, 27 years since the murder of Reuben Haredale. Mr. John Willet and his cronies decide to keep the tale a secret. But on second thought, fearing the tale will be abroad despite his injunction, Mr. Willet decides to narrate the tale to Mr. Haredale. He, with Hugh as his guard, goes to the Warren and communicates the tale to Mr. Haredale. Mr. Haredale is visibly affected by the communication.

We are introduced to Lord George Gordon. He and his small retinue put up for the night in Maypole Inn. Lord Gordon is inciting the Protestants against the Catholics. He has formed an organisation called The Great Protestant Association. We learn that Mr. Tappertit's union has changed its name to "United Bulldogs" and had joined Lord Gordon's organisation. Mrs.Varden and Miggs also attend its meetings and fund it. Hugh of Maypole, too, joins.

The surprising development is learning that Mr. Chester has become Sir John Chester, a Memeber of the Parliament. He still keeps in touch with Hugh. After learning Hugh's interest in joining Lord Gordon's Association, Sir John contemplates how to use Hugh to settle his own scores with Mr. Haredale.

What do you think of these change of events and the newly introduced characters? It looks like a riot is emminent.

I have read criticism of this novel that said it should have been two books: one about the various people we have already encountered, and one about the Gordon Riots. I disagree because we are starting to see the characters we’ve previously met being drawn into the circle of Lord Gordon’s followers. We now have Sim and Hugh enlisted; we know that Mrs. Varden and Miggs are providing support; and of course Lord Chester is still scheming. We can see that Lord Gordon is a weak young man, rather laughable, being encouraged and manipulated by Gashford, and the overnight stop at the Maypole brings in John Willett.

Two interesting asides occur. Lord Gordon has dreams of becoming a Jew, and in real life he did convert to Judaism later in life. Also, Solomon Daisy has another ghostly encounter on the anniversary of the murders. Who is the entity he encountered - a spirit or a real human being?

I have just finished this week's segment, which started off well enough. That little ghost story was rather entertaining and well told. That's how I like my Dickens.

Unfortunately, we are then introduced to Lord George Gordon and Mr Gashford, two shady men who are up to no good. Sorry, but the last thing this book needed was more unpleasant characters. And I am sick and tired of Mr Chester!

Hope we'll meet with some good, decent people next week. Though I foresee more trouble ahead.

I had already read somewhere that the story changes abruptly around half way. Guess that's where we are. I am, however, rather looking forward to the wedding of Hugh and Miggs 😂

Do we know anything about Dickens' portrayal of Lord George Gordon? Was he anything like this? Or is Dickens just making fun of him? In view of later events, GG's dream and comments about becoming a Jew were quite funny.

Lindenblatt wrote: "I have just finished this week's segment, which started off well enough. That little ghost story was rather entertaining and well told. That's how I like my Dickens.

Unfortunately, we are then int..."

As Nancy pointed out, Lord Gordon did convert to Judaism in his later life. But regarding other characteristics and physical appearance, not too sure if Dickens were being satirical.

I agree with the comments, somehow this week’s chapters felt like a completely different book? I can’t explain it, even though we still followed some of the known characters, to me the atmosphere changed somehow…I think it’s because we are now starting to focus on the riots and “left” the other major plots behind…for now! Still interesting though, i need to do further research on the Gordon Riots :D

Another example of Boz’s superior word-smithing, in my humble opinion.

“To surround anything, however monstrous or ridiculous, with an air of mystery, is to invest it with a secret charm, and a powerful attraction which to the crowd is irresistible. False priests, false prophets, false doctors, false patriots, false prodigies of every kind, veiling their proceedings in mystery, have always addressed themselves at an immense advantage to the popular credulity, and have been, perhaps, more indebted to that resource in gaining and keeping for a time the upper hand of Truth and Common Sense, than to any half-dozen items in the entire catalogue of imposture. Curiosity is, and has been from the creation of the world, a major-passion. To awaken it, to gratify it by slight degrees, and yet leave something always in suspense, is to establish the surest hold that can be had, in wrong, on the unthinking portion of mankind.”
— Charles Dickens, “Barnaby Rudge,” Oxford Illustrated Dickens (1860), ch. XXXVII, p. 277

How did Mr. Dickens become so astute and eloquent at capturing the timeless human condition in prose?

Daryl wrote: "I agree with the comments, somehow this week’s chapters felt like a completely different book? I can’t explain it, even though we still followed some of the known characters, to me the atmosphere c..."

Agree with you, Daryl. The story became a complete new one. My reading speed got slower because I had to acquaint myself with new characters and the different atmosphere which felt much darker.
I would say yes to further research on Gordon Riots. I did and found some interesting information.

James wrote: "Another example of Boz’s superior word-smithing, in my humble opinion.

“To surround anything, however monstrous or ridiculous, with an air of mystery, is to invest it with a secret charm, and a po..."

I think Dickens is a born genius, James. I really love his word play although he is accused of being verbose.

Well, Gordon and his entourage didn’t enthuse me to wear the blue cockade…. I found them heavy going.

The dimwits at the Maypole are also beginning to get on my nerves and it didn’t help when were joined by the obviously mad Lord Gordon. His madness is being utilised by those around him to whip up mass hysteria. Feels a bit like the present day actually.

This section picked up considerably when the hangman character was introduced followed swiftly by our ‘old favourites’ Hugh and Tappertit.

By the way, I am not surprised that Chester is now a Sir and and MP. That is obviously the satirical way that Dickens has decided that Chester’s particular ‘skills’ are best used.

Almost all the bad guys have gone up in the world whilst there is a deadly silence around Joe, Barnaby and his mother, and Edward, even after five years!

The name change of Tappertit’s organisation from’Prentice Knights to United Bulldogs seems very ominous indeed. They always were a group of thugs but now they seem to be a well organised group of thugs. I laughed at Dickens’ description of Tappertit, who has risen in eminence (amongst the thugs) but seems to have become smaller in stature.

Wallowing in evil was not a comfortable feeling for me whilst reading this section and I longed to hear about the good characters, but in these chapters they were none existent.



A Nice Trio by Fred Barnard. 1874. - Hugh, Tappertit and the Hangman

’ Mr. Tappertit, nothing loath, began again; and so the three went staggering on, arm-in-arm, shouting like madmen, and defying the watch with great valour.

I also had a hard time getting through this section, Trev. Lord Gordon's mad intentions were ominous. The name change of Tappertit's organisation felt as a symbolic representation of the brewing evil.
The humour Dickens generates with the portrayal of Tappertit, a small man commanding big, formidable men, ease a bit of the tension.

I am also having trouble with the characters in this book. Dickens has so many unlikeable characters in this book! Way too many!
I'm reading it two chapters and a day and so far I'm not tempted to read it any faster. The copy of the book I'm reading has the original illustrations, which really add to my so-far lukewarm enjoyment of the book.

I do think that the poster that Willet has in his pub about his runaway son is funny. I imagine that when his son comes back he will be a real surprise to his father.

Quite true, Rosemarie. This book has way too many wicked characters! It's a new experience with Dickens for me. This section checked both ny reading speed and enthusiasm. Things will hopefully improve in coming up segments.

Completed reading today.

Interesting, but I found Lord George to be a very weak man, constantly in need of being propped up. I don’t really care for him, nor for the organization very much.

Im sure we will be getting into the riots soon as these chapters felt like setup.

I also found very interesting Old John’s missing poster for Joe, describing him as a child. I wonder what’s up with that. Simply a worried father remembering his missing son as a child? Or something else?

Beda wrote: "I also found very interesting Old John’s missing poster for Joe, describing him as a child. I wonder what’s up with that. Simply a worried father remembering his missing son as a child? Or something else?..."

Not too sure, Beda. I tend to think it could be your first assumption.

Piyangie wrote: "Beda wrote: "I also found very interesting Old John’s missing poster for Joe, describing him as a child. I wonder what’s up with that. Simply a worried father remembering his missing son as a child..."

I agree Piyangie and Beda, it’s a running joke from the early chapters that John refuses to recognise Joe is growing up and continues to treat him as a child. Here it’s taken to the extreme as his mental image of Joe makes him create a totally unreliable missing person poster (and leads to him being overrun with missing children!)

I’m enjoying this so far, I loved how Dickens can switch from one tone to another - the powerful descriptions of the storm and the ‘ghost’ story, and then John’s comical conversations with the strangers.

There’s a lot of manipulation going on - Lord George Gordon is obviously sincere but naive and is being played by his companions who flatter him while following their own interests, and Hugh is also naive if a more unpleasant character and is being used by Chester. The foreshadowing is that it will not end well, especially for Hugh.

Agree with you about Hugh, Pamela. His fiery and violent nature will surely bring him to trouble.

Oh, my, yes! What a lot of manipulation!
So five years have passed… and something has changed for nearly every one of the characters introduced in the first section. We are, of course, moving closer to the riots. I’m not looking forward to the havoc of that event, but I AM ready to have more happen than threats and manipulation.

Two notes:
1. I didn’t put together that Dickens kept telling us that Mrs. Varden is a Protestant because Mr. Varden is a Catholic. I’m not sure why it didn’t click! But now I’m nervous for both her and for Miggs. AND for Varden!

2. Isn’t Gashford a fabulous name for a villain?

Renee wrote: "I didn’t put together that Dickens kept telling us that Mrs. Varden is a Protestant because Mr. Varden is a Catholic. I’m not sure why it didn’t click! But now I’m nervous for both her and for Miggs. AND for Varden!..."

OMG! I completely missed this till I read your comment, Renee. I though the Varden household, including Gabriel, was Protestant!

I also missed the reference to Gabriel Varden being Catholic. Can you point it out to me? Very interesting.

From Chapter 40…

“ 'You are a specious fellow,' returned Sir John, fixing his eyes upon him, 'and carry two faces under your hood, as well as the best. Didn't you give me in this room, this evening, any other reason; no dislike of anybody who has slighted you lately, on all occasions, abused you, treated you with rudeness; acted towards you, more as if you were a mongrel dog than a man like himself?'

'To be sure I did!' cried Hugh, his passion rising, as the other meant it should; 'and I say it all over now, again. I'd do anything to have some revenge on him--anything. And when you told me that he and all the Catholics would suffer from those who joined together under that handbill, I said I'd make one of 'em, if their master was the devil himself. I AM one of 'em. See whether I am as good as my word and turn out to be among the foremost, or no. I mayn't have much head, master, but I've head enough to remember those that use me ill. You shall see, and so shall he, and so shall hundreds more, how my spirit backs me when the time comes. My bark is nothing to my bite. Some that I know had better have a wild lion among 'em than me, when I am fairly loose--they had!'”

I thought the reference was to Gabriel Varden. But maybe I’m getting my characters mixed up. What do you think?

Sorry. Sorry. Sorry.

I thought Hugh worked for Varden before he worked at the Maypole. Now, I’m not sure WHY Dickens made such a big deal about Mrs. V being a Protestant.

I think it was a part of her character to use her religion as a weapon against her husband when anything displeased her. My impression of Gabriel is that he might be as easygoing about his religion as he is about most everything (with some exceptions, of course).

From that dialogue, I think Hugh may be referring to John Villet. Is he a Catholic? I haven't paid attention to various characters' religious beliefs except to the ones pointed out as Catholics, like the Haredales.

I know that Haredale is a Catholic. Chester states it's one of the reasons that he doesn't want his son to marry Haredale's niece.

I believe that dialogue actually refers to Mr Haredale, whom we know to be a Catholic. I understood that Hugh was quite offended by the manner Haredale treated him when he arrived with John Willet at night (in ch. 34).

Sir John even says so a few lines below the above quote: 'There-get you gone,' said Sir John, [...] You'll have an opportunity of revenging yourself on your proud friend Haredale, though, and for that, you'd hazard anything I suppose?'

Lindenblatt wrote: "I believe that dialogue actually refers to Mr Haredale, whom we know to be a Catholic. I understood that Hugh was quite offended by the manner Haredale treated him when he arrived with John Willet ..."

Ah yes, that makes sense. Thanks, Lindenblatt.

I don’t see any tangible evidence beyond supposition that Gabriel Varden is a Catholic. I think Boz’s point is that there were good-hearted, levelheaded, reasonable Protestants who were not carried away by the mob mentality (as Mrs. Varden & Miggs so obviously were). I think Mr. Varden’s attitude is a fitting counterpoint to most of the other Protestant characters in the book. Both Varden’s words and actions reflect Dickens’s consistent critique of religious bigotry & senseless violence.

By the way, according to several sources Dickens originally planned to call “Barnaby Rudge” …(wait for it)… “Gabriel Varden, the Locksmith” because of the significant role Gabriel Varden plays in the story (he’s the actual protagonist of the tale, imho). However, as Dickens developed the novel, the focus shifted more toward Barnaby Rudge himself, leading to the final title.

I was never under the impression that Gabriel was Catholic. I doubt Mrs Varden would have married him if he had been, in those days.

I think he is Protestant, but pretty non-religious about it. Like he doesn’t care that much about religion generally.

Haredale is Catholic, but I don’t recall anyone else being called out as being Catholic up to where I am in the book (ch 56, in the middle of the riots).

Beda wrote: "I was never under the impression that Gabriel was Catholic. I doubt Mrs Varden would have married him if he had been, in those days.

I think he is Protestant, but pretty non-religious about it. L..."

I was also of the view that from all the characters, Haredales were the only Catholics. Then I thought Willets might be Catholics but now I'm convinced they are not.

James wrote: "I don’t see any tangible evidence beyond supposition that Gabriel Varden is a Catholic. I think Boz’s point is that there were good-hearted, levelheaded, reasonable Protestants who were not carried..."

The more I read the more I feel that Dickens should have stick with his original title "Gabriel Varden, the Locksmith". He plays a dominant role in the story, whereas Barnaby Rudge, though an interesting character in his own way with his simplicity and his pet raven, is almost a secondary character. I'm curious to know what makes him choose Barnaby Rudge as his titular character.