Noodling Around The Eighteen Forties:

George W.M. Reynolds And The Literary World

A Survey Of Sorts.

by

R.E. Prindle

This is one of those essays where I don’t know where to begin.  Incongruously let us begin with the nineteen sixties.  My generation (1960s) doesn’t have a literary history.  Supplanting that, our interest was focused on stereo phonograph records.  Song writing.  Electric guitars and such.

Rather than seeking a solitary literary reputation everything was put into being in a musical group, one or two electric guitars, electric bass, possibly a Farfisa or other type of keyboard and most importantly a charismatic singer.  This also resulted in a massive array of speakers.  Also a major attraction was the singer-songwriter, usually a guitar player.  To show how obsessed with songwriters was Bob Dylan, the very epitome of sixties songwriting, was awarded a Nobel Prize in Literature.  Many of us shook our head in wonder.

However this whole very large body of ‘artists’ embraced the musical ethic.  The artists  preferred variations of the same few themes thus the whole generation nodding in agreement was entranced.

Looking backward to the eighteen forties I believe the same thing happened involving literature.  The musical sixties were magnificent as so the literary eighteen-forties.  The literary phenomenon was worldwide (the world at this time being Europe with an assist from the US.  France and Germany were stellar also but I’m going to concentrate on England and the US.

Just as the musical phenomenon  of the sixties was done by performers born from 1935 to 1945 so the literary scene of the forties depended on writers born between 1800 and eighteen-eighteen.  As the sixties were thematic so were the 1840s, like thinking individuals produce like thinking results in their output.

I am no literary snob so I include all forms of literature in my valuation, from the pulp literature of that time, styled Penny Dreadful, to so-called literary fiction, the latter the peak of literary snobbery.  If anything the general tenor of the time was represented by the Penny Dreadful style.  Another name for the style  is ‘popular.’  Popular being the direct opposite and inferior to Literary fiction.

Just as Bob Dylan and Paul Simon epitomized the singer songwriter faction of the Sixties so Charles Dickens and Geoge Reynolds epitomized the literary period of the eighteen-forties.  The authors played off each other while they all had similar literary backgrounds.  English literature from Daniel Defoe was essentially a continuum to the forties period.

After the forties writers were more affected by technological advances, rising population and a better educated more prosperous workforce.  Therefore those of the changing times could not see and feel in the same way as the forties generation.  By the 1860s a new ethic was forming.  Times had changed. By the 1890s that ethic was replaced.  In many ways a new England came into existence much as is happening in the world of the twenty-first century.

Dickens gives us some idea of how his generation learned their craft, who were their great influences.

Quote:

On the other hand, if I looked for examples, and for precedents, I find them in the noblest range of English literature:  Fielding, De Foe, Goldsmith, Smollett, Richardson, MacKenzie—all these for wise purposes, and especially the two first, brought upon the scene the very scum and refuse of the land.  Hogarth, the moralist and censor of his age…

I embrace the present opportunity of saying a few words in explanation of my aim and object in its production.  It is with some sort of duty to do so in gratitude to those who sympathized with me, and divined my purpose at the time, and who, perhaps will not be sorry to have their impression confirmed under my own hand.

It is, it seems, a very coarse and shocking circumstance, that some of the characters in these pages are chosen from the most criminal and degraded of London’s population; Sikes is a thief, and Fagin a receiver of stolen goods; that the boys are pickpockets and the girl is a prostitute.

Unquote.  Quoted from the preface to the third edition as bound in the 2021 Easton Press edition in parts from the 1843 printing of Oliver Twist.

You can imagine the critics handling of George Reynolds novels that took Dickens characters a few steps further.

Another writer who one hears frequently alluded to is Charles Maturin whose most famous work is Melmoth the Wanderer. In the same vein is George Croly’s Salathiel, a story of the Wandering Jew. And for another, the greatest novelist who ever lived, Walter Scott, with perhaps the lesser known G.P.R. James who also wrote through this period but reflects the eighteenth century in style more.  Unless I am mistaken George Reynolds pays homage to James in his character from the third series of The Mysteries of London, the highwayman Thomas Rainford.  The R in GPR James is Rainsford, shortened most frequently by Reynolds to Tom Rain.

The founder of the idiom was the very famous at the time, Pierce Egan. He was essentially a sports writer.  Loved British games and pastimes. He especially covered boxing writing a multi-volume set detailing the careers of what was called the fancy, or boxing.  He had a very successful sporting magazine so that it was a natural to publish his most famous book, Life in London in parts thus establishing that method of publishing novels. 

Life in London took the country by storm much as Dickens’ Pickwick Papers would sixteen years later.  As with Dickens other writers purloined his characters for their books and especially for theatrical performances that were smashes irritating Egan who rightly felt he should have had a share in profits.

He created the characters of Tom and Jerry.  I’m sure very few people lifting a Tom and Jerry cocktail understand where the name came from.  Even in the twentieth century the characters were being used without credit in the Tom and Jerry cartoons.

Then in 1826 came the early novelists Edgar Bulwer Lytton and W. Harrison Ainsworth; both extremely popular and prolific.  Bulwer Lytton is famous still for his novel The Last Days Of Pompeii, a nearly perfect novel.  And Rienzi, the Last of the Tribunes. 

Thus the way was paved for the emergence of Charles Dickens and the literary blossoming of the generation reaching perfection in the forties.  The ethic played out in the fifties and the early sixties when the evolution of civilization made room for the next generation of authors. Having mentioned Bulwer-Lytton, Ainsworth and Dickens let us now introduce the rest of the group.  I deal here only with the most prominent and influential writers; the period is rich in authorship including Anthomy Trollope’s mother Frances who was a Liberal voice and a very interesting woman, somewhat of an embarrassment for her son.

Edward Lloyd was a publisher not a writer but his writers epitomize the pulp, or Penny Dreadful, faction.  He began a couple years before the forties.  Like many people beginning from nothing he sponged off successful authors publishing derivative novels under similar names such as Oliver Twiss instead of Dickens’ Oliver Twist.  Finding his groove he became what we today would describe as an industry powerhouse.

Others had watched Dickens success and probably Lloyds and determined to succeed in a like manner.  The key being episodic publication whereby a penny a week over twenty weeks became a pound book.  So, the savings were nil but the installment plan worked.  One of these publishers  was George Stiff who published the London Magazine.  It was he who recruited the author that gave the genre credibility.

A similar situation was occurring in France.  In 1943 a French writer, Eugene Sue began a serial publication of his novel The Mysteries Of Paris that quickly became a sensation, excellent novel then, excellent today.   Not slow on the uptake Stiff immediately thought of a counterpart, The Mysteries of London.  All he needed was the right author while he already had a printer named George Vickers.

Kicking around London since 1836 was a fellow by the name of George Reynolds.  George William McArthur Reynolds in full, alternately going by G.W.M. Reynolds.  Reynolds a young 22 year old, had been in Paris for a few years, returning to London in 1836 where he began circulating ln literary circles.  He edited the Monthly Magazine for a year or so on his return.

Reynolds is an interesting character.  He was apparently devoid of literary ideas himself but could adapt any else’s into an original sounding story.  Dickens popularity had turned him into an industry as other writers rushed to emulate him or plagiarize him.  Edward Lloyd led the way.  Without an idea, Reynolds bethought himself to write a continuation of Dicken’s smash hit The Pickwick Papers and so as Dickens had left his characters at the end of his novel, Reynolds decided to lift his cast of characters and place them in the Paris he had just left.  The result was Pickwick Abroad.

The result was an entertaining book, relatively successful, and might have stood on its own with similar but different characters.  Reynolds apparently wanting a four bagger elected to purloin Pickwick and his Club.  Reynolds followed that with a series of titles that were not particularly successful but were well written.

In 1843 then, Stiff looking around for an author settled on Reynolds and offered him the job that Reynolds accepted.  Following his first attempt with Dickens he now had Sue’s Mysteries of Paris as a matrix to embrace his skill.  Now thirty-one he set to work turning out a weekly installment for four straight years.  He was a sensational success.  Paid at the rate of five pounds a week, his annual salary of two hundred and sixty pounds was enough for he and his growing family to live fairly comfortably plus he could freelance on the side so he could easily have added fifty or more pounds a year.  If so three hundred pounds was doing alright in a small way.

In the early forties Ainsworth was at the apex of his career turning out two or three titles a year, all of an excellent quality.  Dickens was continuing his success while Bulwer-Lytton was rolling along.  Lloyd was getting along while he had a couple first rate writers in James Malcom Rymer and Thomas Prescott Press.  Between the two of them they would turn out two monster successes that may be the best known Penny Dreadfulls today:  Varney the Vampire and Sweeney Todd, The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street.  More on them later.

As I mentioned earlier all these writers read each other and were influenced by each other.  Reynolds matured overnight creating a superb style and method that resulted in a monster hit.  While he began by emulating Dickens he began to turn the table on Dickens so that Dickens began to be influenced by his style.

Dickens was not all that prolific while Reynolds was a non-stop writer who worked in several genres.  As popular as Dickens was he was very limited in style.  Thus his Our Mutual Friend was almost as emulative of Reynolds as Pickwick Abroad by Reynolds.

Another writer who was publishing his major works in the forties that I hesitate to include except for the fact that his last two novels, 1870 and 1880, indicate that he was heavily influenced by the forties ambience and may have also in a clumsy imitation have shown reading acquaintance in his 1848 novel, Tancred.

I am also going to have to add a man thought of as a literary author but who was well aware of the Penny Dreadful genre.   That would be William Makepeace Thackaray, and his novel Vanity Fair also published in 1848 that was an outstanding success then and is still read today.  But more on that later, in fact, I intend a full review.

By the end of the First Series of Mysteries of London in 1846 then, George Reynolds was the reigning Penny Dreadful author although he was at such an apex that he almost created another genre.  Ainsworth was in eclipse after 1843 when his essential creative burst played out.  Dickens was having problems coming up with story lines, and Bulwer Lytton, despite the brilliant Last Days of Pompeii was having quality problems.  Rymer began Varney the Vampire about this time.  Varney went on forever.  Rymer was not the sole author being assisted by Prest while once the story got rolling other authors, some speculate up to eight, contributed story lines.  The last story, about the best of the lot, seems to have come from a different hand.  Sweeney Todd also had a good long run of the nature of Varney.

During the forties then Lloyd and Reynolds were the major stays of the genre with the incredible prolificity of Reynolds making him the equal of Lloyd.  Reynolds had a powerful mind that could keep two or three novels separate in his mind.  This prolificity was noticed and he was accused of having a staff of writers.  Not so.

In a postscript to the The Mysteries of the Court of London he explains:

Quote:

For every week, without a single intermission during a period of eight years  has a Number under this title been issued to the public.  Its precursor “THE MYSTERIES OF LONDON” ranged over a period of four years. For twelve years, therefore, have I hebdomadally issued to the world a fragmentary portion of that which, as one vast whole, may be termed an Encyclopedia of Tales.  This Encyclopedia consists  of twelve volumes composing six hundred and twenty-four weekly numbers.  Each Number has occupied me upon an average seven hours in the composition; and therefore no less an amount than four thousand three hundred sixty-eight hours have been bestowed on this Encyclopedia of Tales, comprising the four volumes of “The Mysteries of London,” and the eight volumes of “The Mysteries Of The Court Of London.”  Yet if that amount of hours be reduced to days, it will be found that only a hundred eighty-two complete days have been absorbed for those publications which have ranged with weekly regularity over a period of twelve years!  This circumstance will account to the public for the facility with which I have been enabled to write so many other works during the same period, and yet to allow myself ample leisure for recreation and healthful exercise.

Unquote.

It may be mentioned that the other works he mentioned amounted to at least double the words of his two Mysteries.  All these books are of an even high quality.  At the same time he was married and rearing a brood of kids.

Just as with the exciting sixties of the twentieth century the period of the eighteen forties in England must have been the greatest period in English history.  They called them Penny Dreadfulls but with all the exciting reading available each week it would have taken shillings to keep up.

The forties themselves must have been an exciting period for those with eyes to see.  After the July Revolution in France and the Reform Act of 1832 in England a slow but quickening drum roll was leading up to the 1848 revolution when by coincidence several of these books were published.  While the Reform Act wasn’t properly understood as Benjamin Disraeli, the author and politician believed; it was an actual revolution with repercussions leading up to the Really Big One in 1848. Reynolds himself believed in violent revolution and promoted it in his books.

Let us turn now to William Makepeace Thackery’s Vanity Fair, as mentioned, published in 1848 while being influenced by both Dickens and Reynolds.  At this point I have to introduce two trends that influenced many of these people.  One was the immense popularity of Rabalais’  Gargantua and Pantagruel with its famous motto: Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law from the sixteenth century and the works of another Frenchman the notorious Marquis de Sade: Justine and Juliette, or Virtue and Vice of the eighteenth century.  De Sade thought that the happier and more fulfilled life was enjoyed by Vice, or his heroine Julliette while Virtue was its own reward, that is, a life of misery as epitomized by Justine.

Reynolds in his Mysteries of Paris in which two brothers Richard and  Eugene Markham took the place of De Sade’s sisters and virtue won out over vice.

Thackaray weighed in with the attitude that the consequences of ‘do what wilt’ led to different consequences with more or less equal results whether vice or virtue.

Thackaray was a year older than Reynolds born in 1811 to Reynolds 1812.  Thackaray was born in India but was sent back to England by his mother when he was four.  His mother ignored him when she returned later thus perhaps provided one role model for his heroine, Becky Sharp.

Both he and Reynolds left England for France in 1830, returning in  1836.  A rare coincidence.  Both pursued literary vocations in France.  After Reynolds became prominent Thackaray was asked what he thought of Reynolds.  Thackaray laughingly said that if he was the same George Reynolds that was in Paris he was the only that ever paid him for an article, Reynolds was OK with himself.  A literary incident worthy of Isaac D’Israeli himself.

So, if you know how to look at both Reynolds’ Mysteries of London and Thackeray’s Vanity Fair the two themes, Rabelais and De Sade course through both works.

A Review of Vanity Fair by William Makepeace Thackeray

Benjamin Disraeli attempted to write a novel in the style of the forties with his last novel, Endymion.  In it he passingly discusses Charles Dickens and William Makepeace Thackeray.  He calls Dickens Gushy and Thackery Sainte Barbe.. While not the best selling author of the period Dickens style penetrated the heart of the period on down to the time of this writing.  It is futile to argue against success but Thackeray, Reynolds and any serious litterateur would follow Disraeli and call him Gushy.  Some writer comparing Dickens and Smollet said that Dickens wrote like a boy and Smollett wrote like a man.  That about sums it up and Thackeray and Reynolds wrote like a man also.

That doesn’t mean that Thackeray wasn’t impressed by Dickens’ succuss that he doesn’t do a little ‘gushy’ himself in Vanity Fair but it the weakest part of the novel.  There may also be a smidgen of Bulwer-Lytton and an attempt to wear Reynolds’ hat.  Thackeray does succeed to a certain extent in interweaving his story strands much as Reynold did.  So that, over all the story is interesting and affecting but not in Dicken warm hearted way.  The Bohemian in Thackery comes out in a gentle mockery.  As he said, he didn’t like any of his characters and he passes that message onto his perceptive readers.

Thackeray, underlain by his reading of De Sade and Rabelais had a leaning toward the Bohemian so there is a smear of the snide and mockingly sarcastic.  We, or I, don’ laugh with his characters but laugh at them.  Emmy, after all is a ridiculous character and Thackeray thought so.

My thirteen volume set of Thackeray is what is called the Biographical Edition because Thackeray’s daughter, Anne Ritchie provides biographical notes to each volume.  She quotes her father as saying that he didn’t like any of his characters in Vanity Fair with the exception of Dobbin which means he must have based that character on himself.  I think an attentive reading indicates it is so.  None of the leading characters are ‘nice’ excepting Dobbin and he’s a sap.  Really, what an approach.

Thackeray follows the format of the typical forties novel.  A couple Rakes, Osborne and Crawley botch their lives and the lives of those around them.  The female lead, Becky Crawley, nee Sharp is meant to be the most offensive character in the novel but it seems that Thackeray has a sneaking admiration for her.  As with De Sade’s Juliette she is the soul of vice while doing as she wilt.  Thackeray ends on a happy note and while giving  Juliette/Becky all her wishes.  His detestation of his counter-heroin, Emmy/Justine is apparent at the end.  He saddles Dobbin with her as a wife.  While Thackeray doesn’t say so I imagine that ‘Dob’ lived to regret it.

There are two high points to the novel.  In the first half the novel climaxes with the battle of Waterloo.  The protagonist of this half was George Osborne, your typical rich ne’er do well of the time.  Osborne’s father was a merchant so Thackeray is directed his story at the commercial middle class.  George dies at Waterloo shot through his ‘rotten’ heart as Thackeray is quoted by his daughter in the preface.  He was an arrogant, undisciplined, rotten guy too.  One catches hints of Smollett and Reynolds in his portrayal.  Very Count Fathomish.

The portrayal of the gay, party atmosphere of Brussels before the battle of Waterloo is marvelously done.  The partying went on until the very bugles called the troops to battle.  The English left wing was already engaged.  Osborne rode off to war staggeringly drunk.

Of course, the character that readers remember is the female lead, Becky Sharp, or Crawley as she was.  Apparently there was discussion at the time as to whom Becky was based on.  I think Thackeray told us when he mentioned Marianne Clarke.  Marianne who? perhaps you say.

Marianne Clarke. Now there’s a story.  As it turns out, Mary Anne, who was a sensation of her time was the great-great grandmother of Daphne Du Maurier.  Daphne was the daughter of Gerald Du Maurier and the grand daughter of the famous novelist George Du Maurier, Peter Ibbetson, Trilby, and The Martian.  Apparently Marianne was a family embarrassment so that Daphne wrote a novel about Mary Anne to expiate the shame.  An excellent novel too.

But to relate Mary Anne Clarke to Becky Sharp.  Marianne was of the courtesan class.  Her grea-greatt-grandaughter’s quasi-history titled simply Mary Anne fictionalizes that history.  If not true on all points the story line is accurate.   During the ‘teens then there were men, entrepreneurs one might say, who recruited women to be mistresses of the Lords.  The girls had to be accustomed to the manners of the upper class, and these men trained them.  Mary Anne then was taken up by George III’s second son, Frederick, the Duke of York.  Mary Anne blew it of course when she abused her relationship with the Duke.  She then exposed him which was a major scandal ending with her having to move to the continent, a ruined woman.

A sensation of the time was Harriette Wilson’s Memoirs.  Harriette was as successful as Mary Anne but in a different way.  Her memoirs give a general picture of this interesting social custom.  She was the mistress of several men so that when the bloom left her rose and men just passed her by she decided to write a tell all exposing the ‘life.’  In order to make more money she after to delete the name of anyone who paid he price.  Many did.  When she approached the hero of Waterloo, General Arthur Wellesley, the Duke made the famous comment ‘Publish and be damned.’

Becky will follow the same general course, like Mary Anne Clarke she was a married woman.  She aspired to move in the haute monde which she wheedled her way into having seduced the notorious libertine Duke Steyne.  Always duplicitous she betrays her husband Rawdon Crawley.  Even though Becky has accumulated a substantial amount of money from Steyn she conceals the money from Rawdon.  Rawdon has accumulated debts so that he is subject to arrest.  In order to be able to spend a night or two  carousing Becky and Steyn arrange to have Rawdon arrested for his debts which he was.  She could have had Rawdon released by paying the debt for which he was arrested before her caper or capers with Steyne but preferred to have her husband locked away intending to release him after the fling.

Getting no response from Becky Rawdon appealed to his sister-in-law who took pity on him and advanced the money.  Returning home the poor guy walked into the raucous party.  The tale is told to elicit the most sympathetic response for Rawdon which is done admirably well.  From then on it’s all downhill for Becky until the end of the book when we learn in the recap that she has recaptured a degree of respectability actually becoming rich, per Juliette.

Our Virtuous Justine is a woman called Amelia, a real dishrag, Thackeray actually has nothing but contempt for her but as a counterpart to Becky she is a plausible counter-heroine.

Amelia was the wife of the dashing army officer George Osborne, a rake and man about town.  He and Amelie had been betrothed from birth as her father, a successful businessman was friends with George’s father, another successful businessman at the time who helped George’s fatjer to become rich. Adverse circumstances ruined him.  Now broke and dishonored Osborne scorns him while rejecting the union of George and Amelia.  The various stories develop against the background of Napoleon’s hundred days.  The first climax of the story.  George is killed at Waterloo and the second half of the story begins that leads up to Becky’s betrayal and  Rawdon’s disgrace.

Apart from the two climaxes the story drags along inviting the reader to put down the book.  That may have been the initial response in 1848.  As a serial the book started slow and remained slow for a while until it gradually caught on and made a respectable showing.  The book too needed a kick start.  I can understand it; however as I am reading a ‘classic’ I persist to the end.  I don’t what excuse people of the time made.

We do have a good snapshot of the moment however.  And  that is worth something.   Still, there is something in Thackeray’s attitude that carries weight.  Thackery unites his story with the metaphor of Vanity Fair. Life is a tragicomedy.  A ship of fools.   He begins the novel in his own persona as a stage manager looking in at life, or Vanity Fair, as a manager of a puppet show  pointing out the characters, or actors, or figments of his imagination, before setting them in action.  He is then free to comment on all aspects of his story as a disinterested viewer.  While I was not overawed during the reading, the lingering effect and reexamination reveals a profundity not obvious in the reading.

In Vanity Fair Thackeray, then, combined elements of Dickens and Reynolds with varying success and perhaps a smattering of Smollett. There was also something new, almost a change of direction.  In 1841 Punch magazine had been established.  It called itself The London Charivari after the French magazine Le Charivari established in 1832.

A charivari is a loud raucous parade so that the puppet master satirized politics and the passing social scene.  Thus, the title Vanity Fair was suggested to Thackeray whether he realized it or not.  He then cast himself, the author, as the ring master of essentially the circus of life.  Thus in the preface he portrays himself as a sort of god looking down into his world, Vanity Fair, moving the pieces around to compose his story  or stories a la Reynolds.

The novel having run for a couple years a magazine appeared  to compete with Punch, the London Charivari, titled The Puppet Show, undoubtedly partially inspired by Vanity Fair.  In 1848 Reynolds ended  The Mysteries of London and began The Mysteries of the Court of London that run through four series into 1856.  These Forties writers looked back fondly on the post-Waterloo years, the twenties and thirties technological changes, such as the railroad, being new the writers, if they didn’t reject the changing times, clung to the sentimental period of the stagecoach.  Their period ended or began to end about 1860 as newer authors pushed to the front.

Perhaps the epitaph to the period was provided in 1880 when Disraeli who died the year after published his Endymion.  Disraeli  published his absurd novels from 1826 to 1848 then taking a hiatus until his 1870 novel Lothair then ten years later his last which is a tribute to the forties novel.  He closely follows the methods of Gushy, Dickens and Thackeray, St. Barbe while not mentioning the disreputable Reynolds.  Endymion is a pleasant sentimental novel approaching to the quality of the Big Three but ending a faint imitation.

Englishmen looked back nostalgically  on the 1840s much as we do today at the 1960s.  Both were periods of great change.

History In Its Fullness

November 15, 2021

History In Its Fullness

Origins Of World War One And Two

by

R.E. Prindle

In Flanders Fields

By John McCrae

In Flanders fields the poppies blow

Between the crosses row on row,

That mark our place; and in the sky

The larks, still bravely singing, fly

Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead.  Short days ago

We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,

Loved and were loved, and now we lie,

In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:

To you from failing hands we throw

The torch; be yours to hold it high.

If we break faith with us who die

We shall not sleep, though poppies grow

In Flanders fields.

Prologue.

The above verse was written to honor those fallen in WWI, known as the Great War before WWII.  The carnage was terrible.  Between seven and eleven million soldiers would die many of them buried in the immense military cemetery of Flanders Fields.  As many as forty million Europeans as a direct consequence:  A true holocaust and a preliminary to a worse twenty years later, I do not refer to the collateral deaths of the six million.

Oh, sure.  ‘History’ tells us that an Austrian Prince was assassinated and that was the cause of the war.  That’s a sort of historical white lie.  The Prince’s assassination catalyzed the war but it didn’t cause it.  The primary cause was racial enmity and the origin was the execution of a Jewish political criminal in 1740.

Because of that execution a series of bloody revolutions occurred killing millions more.  1789,1830,1848.  After the ’48 failed the revolutionists determined that a change of tactics was necessary.  Then began an asymmetric war of assassination and agitation.  Dozens of prominent politicians and significant people hit the ground over the next 50-60 years.  The conspirators meant to have a war and by 1914 they had it.  The assassinated Prince was the excuse but not the cause.

What caused the war?  Race.  A long train of events that began, for our purposes on the lone figure of a man hanging from the gallows in an iron cage thirty full feet from the ground.  A heinous execution for a multitude of heinous crimes.  That man was named Joseph Suss Oppenheimer, by race a Jew.  Let us trace the clues that link Suss as the cause of the genocidal two European wars of the twentieth century.

1,

Grievance on Grievance

All EuroAmerican history has been falsified due to the historical sin of omission.  While all the actions of all nations but one have been taken into account the deeds of the Jews have been omitted or, at least, misrepresented.  Yet the Jews have been most influential of all the nations.  That’s an anomaly that demands explanation.

They have and had the smallest population while having no homeland other than the whole of Europe and North America throughout which they were scattered.  Sound contradictory?  It’s not. While spread primarily over the two continents the Jews maintained a tightly knit group of, essentially, conspirators. They existed under two legal systems, theirs and the gentiles with theirs being supreme in their eyes.  The Gentiles had only one which put them to the disadvantage.  The Jews could claim two loyalties but theirs took precedence in their eyes.

Their prophet or failed messiah, Sigmund Freud, proclaimed the method of group psychology and its analysis so that any coherent groups’ activities, patterns, can be determined and analyzed.  Their psychology is based on the notion of being completely distinct from all other races while their sense of superiority is based on the notion that they were the selector’s choice of all the peoples God created.  That is God, himself, did this.  As above, so below.  God would sometimes come down and have a chat with them.  At one time he chatted  and pilpuled  with his favorite, Abram.

The problem was that no other people believed this story hence they didn’t give the Jews the respect that they thought they commanded.  Hence, further, a grievance.  One history of the Jews is a list of their grievances. There were many, many, and all had to be revenged.  An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.  God didn’t go along with this last item.  He admonished his people that revenge  was his prerogative.  Revenge belongs to me, saith the Lord.  The Jews have disregarded that injunction, preferring their own adage.

Thus the grievance list and their remedy grew.  The preferred remedy was genocide.  Kill them all.  Perhaps first on the list were the Amalekites.  For the trivial offence of not allowing the long Jewish train of migrants roaming the desert to pass through their tiny country they were exterminated man, woman and child.  No one has seen an Amalekite for thousands of years now.

The particular grievance with the Amalekites was settled rather quickly but as we will see some took perhaps a couple thousand years one that ended in Flanders Fields.

Speaking of more recent grievances that can be grouped under WWI and II let us choose a beginning point of 1290 which was the time that they were expelled lock, stock, and barrel from the Kingdom of England. Woah, that one wasn’t forgotten and it took to world wars to resolve that.  Soon after King Philip Le Bel of France expelled his Jews in 1307.

The Jewish relations with the Germans had always been troubled. First they expelled, then let back in, then expelled again.  A very frustrating experience.  Of course, it was always the fault of the English, French or Germans, never their own activities.  The Catholic Church had inadvertently given them a monopoly on usury when it forbade Europeans to loan at interest.  Not a realistic ban, on the score of giving the monopoly to the Jews or in developing the economy.

The Jews had taken full advantage of the privilege and were well on the way to confiscation of the wealth of the continent when Napoleon put a stop to it.  The Jews lost their monopoly but retained their souls.

Time, the tides and evolution wait on no man, so over these years and centuries we’re discussing, European society developed at a very rapid rate.  Might not seem so if you were living during those centuries but it was.so. 

The last major expulsion of the Jews took place in 1492 when the Visigoths reconquered the final bit of Moorish territory of Granada.  The Victorious Visigoths gave the Moors and Jews the choice of accepting Christianity or being expelled.  Many stayed and many left. But after England, France and Germany Spain was the last straw.  This was one grievance too far so condign vengeance was declared.  This meant one thing:  Genocide.  The Jews would seethe for four hundred years until…Der Tag.

In the interim there was a lot of life to live.  Some twenty-six years in 1517after Spain, the Catholic priest, Martin Luther would rebel against the Church posting his 96 theses and setting off a train of disasters that would result in modern Europe.  The Central European religious war as ferocious.  Catholics vs. Protestants.  This was the famous Thirty Years War that nearly depopulated Germany.  You can believe that Central Europe was shattered, the economic system destroyed by 1648 when peace was finally established.  Peace of a sort.

Central Europe was impoverished, principalities were small yet political and economic matters were European wide.  The aristocrats savagely suppressed serfs, common people, denying them of educations.  Only one people could operate over across the borders of Europe and that people was the Jews.  So, a relationship developed between the rulers and Jews. The Court Jews provided the essential services of acquisition and distribution.  A temporary institution grew up know as Court Jews.  They were dependent on the rulers but operated between the rulers and the peoples as a semi-autonomous people but solely  able to accumulate wealth..

The factors, or merchants skinned the rulers, their profits were fabulous.  In many cases a factor might have an equally fabulous personal establishment as the rulers, sometimes better.  Thus, though always separate this separation was more conspicuous as the war ravaged Germans began to rebuild from scratch.  Then along came Suss in the 1730s in the German State of Wurttemberg.  Here’s our culprit.  Suss singlehandedly changed the equation between the Court Jews, he being one, and the rulers.  Previously to Suss the rulers had the upper hand.  When the factors flaunted their wealth too conspiculously the rulers simply repudiated their debts leaving the factors roaming the streets.

Repudiating the debt may sound extreme but so was the greed of the factors.  Their activities was essentially a transfer of the wealth from the rulers to themselves.  All the money was ending up in their hands.  So an economic redistribution of the wealth was necessary, one might say inevitable.

Enter Suss.  The wily Suss, the clever Suss.  He was the Court Jew, or factor, for Duke Karl Alexander of the largish State of Wurttemberg in Southern Germany next to Bavaria.  Within a very short time, his tenure was only four years he inveigled what we would call a Power of Attorney from the Duke to function essentially as a co-ruler.  Within the space of a few years he committed enormous crimes appropriating the wealth of the Wurttembergers for his own use enraging the citizens.  Then the Duke unexpectedly died.  Suss was arrested tried and executed in an ignoble fashion.  This infuriated the Jews already smarting from all the expulsions.  Suddenly a plan gelled in their minds.

In the seventeenth century Cromwell of England readmitted the Jews to England.  In the late eighteenth century Napoleon emancipated the Jews.  That is they allowed to function as citizens without disabilities.  But Napoleon demanded a quid pro quo, essentially that the Jews would amalgamate with the French to become one culture but retaining their ‘religion.’  Needless to say, the Jews took the emancipation but reneged on amalgamating with the French.  But, how could they?  In their terms they were a separate and peculiar people.

Now, about 1800 is when Europe’s troubles really began.  After emancipation the Jews immediately set out to revolutionize Europe, that is, to become the rulers.

The Napoleonic emancipation was meant to cover all Europe.  Emancipation was complete in the French territories but advanced more slowly beyond the French borders.  By mid-century it was more or less complete.  Then a new player entered the field, that being the United States of America.  Refugees from the ’48 flooded into the US and prospered.  Post-Civil War they were well established.  Technological inventions opened vast new fields for them.  For an instance, the sewing machine changed the way people obtained their clothes.  The machines made mass production possible so that when hordes of Ashkenazi Jews from Eastern Europe began what amounted to an invasion, the masses of people could find ready employment.

In imitation of the Freemasonic Order, in 1843 the Jews created the Order of the B’nai B’rith which was strictly limited to Jews.  Once established the Order became international and was exported to Europe and soon had lodges in all countries.  Now coordination of activities became a simple matter from centers of conspiracy.  In 1895 the psychologist Sigmund Freud joined the Vienna Lodge where he lectured the faithful on his findings to psychologically manipulate masses, whole countries..

Unlike the goyim the Jews did not reject his findings but embraced them.  It was in the B’nai Brith lodge that the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion were composed during the first Zionist convention in 1897.  Freud and Zionism were the steroids needed to produce the Russian Revolution of 1903-05 and the Soviet Revolution of 1917.

Two other events in the wake of Suss formed the Revolution.  One was the birth of Meyer Amschel Rothschild of Frankfort just above Stuttgart, Wurttemberg.   Suss was from Frankfort, the center of Jewish conspiracy in Europe.  After establishing himself as the Duke’s alter ego he spent much time in Frankfort organizing his people.  From there he toured London and Paris before meeting his fate.   Meyer must have been raised on stories of Suss.  He accordingly made plans.  As he had  five sons, his legendary five arrows, he indoctrinated them in the plan to conquer Europe.  As they came of age he sent them to five European capitals from which as kings of usury they controlled or influenced the currencies.

The two most important countries were, of course, France and England, the West of Europe.  His son, Nathan, was sent to England while the youngest James went to Paris, the two most important posts.

Being outside Continental Europe England was not affected by the emancipation, in fact English Jews had never been under European style disabilities although along with the Catholics and Dissenters they had limited civil disabilities that put an arms length between themselves and the English.  Two nations.

Remember that in addition to Suss France, England and the German principalities had all expelled the Jews and those expulsions had to be avenged.

In 1804 an English avenger was born in the person of Benjamin Disraeli. He was tutored by his father Isaac to be a man of vengeance.  To avoid the civil disabilities Isaac himself gave the appearance of rejecting Judaism so that he could find success as a writer at which he  succeeded.  So that his son Benjamin could function as an English citizen with full rights he had Ben baptized.  So while he remained racially stoutly Jewish he could function as a Christian and a mole.  When Benjamin came of age he began writing tracts that passed as novels.  From1826 to 1836 he established a reasonably good reputation as a novelist.  In 1837 he was elected to Parliament.  The mole was in place.

Now, Nathan Rothschild who founded the English branch of the clan arrived in England in 1795 with the intent to prosper in the burgeoning  textile industry.  He failed to make his mark and so went through a rough period during which he became a successful smuggler and apparently made some money which led him to become a banker.  His muse was sitting on his shoulder so that in 1807 he scored a coup that gave him some substantiality.  By this time his brother James was establishing himself in France, Paris.

Napoleon involved himself in a war in Spain so that the English intervened through Portugal to aid the Spanish.  The English General Wellington became strapped for cash to pay the troops and to obtain supplies.  Nathan supplied the gold which then had to be sent to Spain.

Even though Napoleon had emancipated the Jews making them French citizens with full rights, and even though part of that deal was that the Jews would give up their evil ways and become truly amalgamated with the French, Nathan and James conspired to use Nathan’s smuggling skills to move the gold through France to Spain helping the English to defeat Napoleon.  That avenged themselves a little on France but not enough.

Then in 18i4 as Napoleon and Wellington faced off on the battlefield of Waterloo Nathan performed perhaps the greatest coup in history.  He realized that the English currency could be manipulated to his advantage if he could get the news of victory or defeat first.  He did.  He knew it was victory but circulated the verdict as defeat amongst the City stock brokers.  A panic ensued, stock prices plummeted and as they did Nathan Rothschild bought every share he could so that when the official news of victory arrived Nathan had captured the currency of England.  He was then far and away the richest man in England.  His muse had caressed him; he was on the way and didn’t have to look back.  England belonged to the Jews but there was still the problem of civil disabilities and the English were not going to grant them easily and they never did during Nathan’s lifetime.  It would take his fully capable son Lionel to do that in collaboration with Benjamin Disraeli in1858..

Whither Europe?

As the nineteenth century began the future was momentous for Europe including North America.  An asymmetric war was in process.  The Europeans blinded themselves to the actual situation.  Disraeli mentioned once that there was a tussle going on between the Rothschilds and the Secret Societies.  Robert Blake in his biography of Disraeli scoffs at the notion, as probably Dizzies contemporaries did, thinking that he was deluded.  However, Disraeli was receiving  information from two different sources, the European conventional sources in which he was directly involved and influencing and the Jewish/Rothschild sources.  He thus had a tremendous advantage among the Parliamentarians using sources they didn’t have while at the same time giving inside information to the Rothschilds for whom he served as a mole.  A telling anecdote is that on a mission to Paris he was introduced to James Rothschild, the French patriarch.  James casually mentioned to Dizzy:  I believe you know my nephew, meaning Lionel.  Hearing that Dizzy could lean back and feel comfortable.  He was included.

He thus had obligations to fulfill.  Europeans always wondered how the Jews were so well informed, seeming to have the news before it even took place.  They always had men in high places, some were bought while the Jewish officials just shunted the info over.  The mistake the French made in the Dreyfus Affair of the nineteens was to accuse him of channeling info to the Germans.  The route was Dreyfus to the Synagogue and from there to the Germans or whoever the Synagogue thought fit.  So it was with Johnthan Pollard in the US during the latter part of the twentieth century.  Pollard funneled reams of material to the Israelis and they used it to their advantage regardless to whom.  The info was disastrous for the US Intelligence agencies so much so that Pollard, a Jew, was given a life time sentence.  Needless to say, his people got him out after twenty-five years and he went to Israel with whatever else he knew.

The Jews thought that anyone who would put their enemy into positions, such as Prime Minister or inside Intelligence Agencies, must be crazy and they were right.

Disraeli, himself, was a very nasty piece.  Naturally, as a foreigner, and Jews were considered foreigners, Disraeli endured slights and affronts.  He was asked what he did to retaliate.  He said he never carried a grudge, he said that he just brushed them off.  He noted their names and wrote them on a piece of paper, put the paper in a box, which must have been chock full and when he looked in the box again, he found that his offenders had disappeared.  One can’t know exactly what he meant by that, whether by magic they had slipped from notice or they had serious ‘accidents’ and crossed the bar.  I can only speculate but when his closest associate, George Bentinck, died shortly after reaching his and Disrraeli’s objective he disappeared so that Disraeli was able to seize leadership of the party.  I think Disraeli’s life was filled with such coincidences.  You simply didn’t want to stand in his way.

The same goes for his fellow Jews.  If someone was in the way they were eliminated in one way or another.  Hence the horrendous list of assassinations after the ’48 and into the war years of WWI and WWII which make up a thirty years war.  The asymmetric war then was on.  The Jews, the instigator knew it, but the Europeans were slow to catch on.  The Jewish bete noir, Germany, was the only country who caught on or at least said they did.

Why Germany?  The answer is Jud Suss.  Because of Jud Suss, Germany had to perish.  After a hundred fifty years or so, the scab covering Suss came off.  As the Jews became more confident of taking Germany in the nineteen twenties the issue of Suss was revived by the Jews.  They had blood in their eyes.  While little information about Suss exists in the West, Lion Feuchtwanger wrote a historical novel in 1926 called simply Jud Suss, that met with great success while Selma Stern wrote a short book about the rise of the Court Jew emphasizing Suss’ career.  Then in 1930 Feuchtwanger found financing and made a movie of his book also titled simply, Jud Suss; in the US it was titled Power.  In addition in the US a movie was made glorifying the Rothschilds.  These movies were meant to vilify the Germans.

This set off a fire storm among the National Socialists.  They countered with an excellent movie on the Suss theme and then a magnificent film called The Rothschilds.  Evidently in an attempt to set the record straight.

I have said that the Jews wanted to destroy Germany and the Germans lock stock and barrel.  This will be unbelievable I believe to readers.  However, and  this is not interpretation, there was a genocidal plan to wipe the Germans and Germany from the earth that is well documented.  In 1940 the plan was released through the American Jewish Committee by its operative Theodore Kaufman in a pamphlet called Germany Must Perish.  This was not some off the wall publication but was distributed country wide, reviewed widely, even in Time Magazine and incorporated into Roosevelt’s post-war plans.  You can buy Kaufman’s book, it’s still available.

The plan was the if you castrated all the German men, Germans would ‘disappear’ within a generation. And then German industry was to be destroyed completely and turned into a pastoral territory divided amongst the surrounding countries.  This is not to be pooh poohed and taken lightly.  The National Socialists did not take it lightly.  I don’t know how confident they were of winning this massive war but they must have realized that with the Soviet Union on their East and the US, England and France on the West under the influence of the Jews their situation was perilous.  So, this threat of genocide from the Jews was not to be taken lightly.  Genocide was part of their history.  Ask the Amalekites.

I don’t believe that their plan before this genocidal threat was received was to genocide the Jews, but after it was received they definitely decided to eliminate them before the Jews eliminated them.  That’s called a pre-emptive strike, which the Jews always employ, and self-defense.  The ugly truth comes out. The Suss execution bugged the Jews so much that the US compelled Germany to pardon Suss in the aftermath of the war.  The Suss affair dominated Jewish thinking from 1740 to 1940, or 50.  Germany and the Germans were almost completely destroyed in vengeance.  England, the Soviet Union and the US were merely tools in the hands of the Jews.

To return to Disraeli.

To understand Disraeli one must place him in the proper perspective.  He is not English, could never be English.  If you’ve seen the movie The Day The Earth Stood Still, compare Disraeil with the spaceman Klaatu.  Klaatu looks human but he comes from an entirely different planet, a whole different mindset.  He cannot think like a human.  He is a stranger in a strange land as was Disraeli.  His people occupied a space between the English and say, the Gypsies.  He knew what the English knew and he knew what the English didn’t know.  He operated in two different worlds.

Here is a quote from Disraeli’s last novel, Endymion, that illustrates the difference. Disraeli is talking about the Three Glorious Days of the July Revolution in France in 1930, Chapter VII:

Quote

The men  who have won ‘three glorious days’ at Paris, want neither civilization nor religion.  They will not be content till they have destroyed both.

‘It is possible,’ he continued. ‘that they may be parried for a time; that the adroit wisdom of the house of Orleans, guided by Talleyrand, may give this movement the resemblance, and even the character, of a middle class revolution.  It is no such thing; the barricades were not erected by the middle class.  I know these people; it is a fraternity, not a nation.  Europe is honeycombed with their secret societies.  They are spread all over Spain.  Italy is entirely mined.  I know more of the southern than the norther nations;  but I have been assured, by one who should know, that the brotherhoods are organized throughout Germany and even in Russia.  I have spoken to the Duke about these things.  He is not indifferent, or altogether incredulous, but he is so essentially practical that he can only deal with what he sees.  I have spoken to the Whig leaders.  They tell me that there is only one specific, and that a complete one—constitutional government; that with representative institutions, secret societies cannot exist.  I may be wrong, but it seems to me that with these secret societies representative institutions will disappear.  And so they have today.

Unquote.

Roughly a hundred forty years later, that is as I write in 2021, representative institutions have all but disappeared under the influence of these secret societies.  The whole notion of Republics passed through Democracy into Synarchy and that is the actual state of society today.  A minority of delirious fanatics is running society.

At another time Disraeli was quoted as saying that a struggle was going on between the Rothschilds and the secret societies.  Once again he was scoffed.  But who should know better than he?  Apparently the English secret service was not so developed as to infiltrate these secret societies.  Their blindness allowed a whole new counterculture to develop that today controls the EU and the US.

The Rothschilds knew and they did have the sense to infiltrate the secret societies and indeed to take them over and turn them to Jewish uses.  This still will not be believed today as researchers are dismissed as crack pot Conspiracy Theorists.  There is no theory involved; it is historical fact.

So Disraeli was working in constitution government while, as he says, he knew the people he was talking about.  This raises the question, how did he know them and what was his association with them.  As he said that there was a struggle between them and the Rothschilds did the latter use him as an agent to deal with them? There is something here that needs to be explained.  He is the most preeminent of men and he couldn’t get his message across but was allowed to run the constitutional government.   Things can’t get much stranger than that.

He was routinely denounced as untrustworthy and he was untrustworthy.  He repeatedly worked against English interests and in favor of Jewish interests obviously as was explained in his novel of 1847 Tancred. Few people actually read Tancred although it was in their interest to do so.  Endymion was more widely read but Disraeli was dead by that time.

He was known as an expansionist and every expansion he secured weakened the British Empire a little more.  He obtained a useless appendage in Cyprus that drained England (and Ireland) of more men.

Some of this is too incredible to be true.  Such an incident was the acquisition of the Suez Canal Company’s shares.

A little background.  None of the biographers that I have read seem to realize the connection between Disraeli and the Rothschilds.  It is totally impossible that they wouldn’t have recognized that they were kindred spirits.  Disdraeli himself worshipped the Rothschilds.  It is highly improbable that Isaac D’Israeli and Nathan Rothschild didn’t collaborate in some fashion.  Isaac’s 1933 The Genius of Judaism would indicate that.  Isaac is talking about what he considers the very genius of the spirit of Judaism, without reference to any genius of individual Jews.  He is also trying to break down the resistance of the English to Judaism.

Nathan Rothschild named his headquarters New Court.  That is, a counter court to the Court of England.  In other words he Jews were in a contest to replace the English Court.  Isaac’s book is moving in the same direction.  The appearance of his book in 1933 is an indication that he thought the plan was advancing.  By1933 also Isaac would have thought that he could recommend Benjamin as someone to be accepted and encouraged.

Benjamin as a successful author of scandalous ‘novels’ had called attention to himself.  Now after 1933 he began a number of unsuccessful attempts to enter Parliament, shifting from party to party and ideology to ideology until he was finally selected in 1937.  He was permanently lodged there for the rest of his life.

Nathan died in 1936 succeeded by his son Lionel who was almost the same age as Disreali.  As a member of Parliament then he was befriended by Lionel and the two began cooperating but Disraeli was necessarily the junior party.  His three 1840s novels, Coningsby, Sybil, and Tancred give the plan away while in his character Sidona he lauds Lionel to the skies.  Even when he became the Prime Minister, a chief of England he acknowledged Lionel as his superior.

This was no more evident than in the Suez incident.  To enlarge the field of action:  The Rothschilds acted in concert while the English and French branches of the family were the linchpins.  Nathan’s brother James in Paris died in 1866 succeeded by his sons Gustave and Alphonse.   The French under De Lessups had built the canal.  The canal itself was not for sale but the Suez Canal Company that operated the canal concession had issued shares, the majority of which were owned by  the French, the remainder by the Khedive of Egypt.  The Khedive had fallen on hard times and wanted to sell his shares for four million pounds.

It is impossible that Lionel and the Gustave and Alphonse were not in communication with each other, perhaps even to buy the shares themselves; if so they realized the impracticability of the notion.

Parliament went into recess. At this precise moment Disraeli thought it was imperative for England to acquire the shares, however as Parliament was out of session the funds could not be voted on.  As Disraelj apparently thought it was imperative to get the shares acting on his own authority he went to Lionel and asked him to loan the four million pounds to England.

Disraeli, the Prime Minister of England, went to a mere usurer, which technically was all Lionel was, to ask him to loan the four million.  Now, maybe I’m wrong but as Prime Minister Disraeli took precedence over a mere money merchant.  Disraeli was offering the deal of a lifetime, better even than Nathan’s coup.

The Jews always talk as though they are thorough Englishmen, Germans, what have you, patriotic to the core.  Lionel, coolly looked at Disraeli and asked ‘What’s your collateral?’  This is an English Patriot asking.  Disraeli laughed, ‘The British Empire.’   So, this doofus Benjamin Disraeli signed a loan agreement putting the entire British Empire up as collateral for a mere four million pounds.  At that point, if Parliament came back in session and refused to honor Benjamin’s act the Jews would have owned the British Empire.  As soon as Parliament resumed they voted the four million and retired the loan.

But, for a few weeks loan, this patriotic Englishman, Lionel Rothschild, charged 15% at an annualized rate. One hundred thousand pounds.

Think about it, Disraeli put the Empire in jeopardy to merely buy a commercial company.  As with all his foreign affairs the canal led to the assumption of the Egyptian government by England thus spreading the military even thinner.   Egypt led to the Ang;lo-Egyptian Sudanese condominium and that led to military operations in the Sudan.  It was a sad day when Disraeli became Prime Minister.

Conclusion

Benjamin Disraeli died in 1881 just after he had published his last work, titled Endymion.  In reading this it should be apparent that there was the constitutional government, for the aware it is also clear that there were clandestine plotters or, in another name, Secret Societies.  History is not made up of only the former but a combination of the latter as well.  Given human psychology it is inevitable.  Disraeli repeatedly insisted upon it in his book and who was in a better position to know.  He even tells you that he familiar with Southern secret societies even going so far as to say that Italy was mined with them. 

In Endymion he gives an example involving Napoleon III in England, where he was compelled to go in disguise lest he be assassinated as the French government feared his doing what he did, that is seizing the government and making himself dictator.  This book is a good fictional account of how things worked.  If you look beyond the fictional paraphernalia the general method is true.

This work was published in 1880 when Disraeli was nearing death.  So it has a more relaxed reminiscent feel. It has none of the frenzy of Tancred or the wild exuberance of Coningsby. The book is a roman a clef so most of characters reflect real people.  Disraeli himself is Endymion, the beautiful boy toy of Greek mythology.  The Neuchatels, New Castles that match Nathan’s New Court are the Rothschilds at the apex of their glory in 1880.

Eighteen- eighty would be a pivotal point in English and European history.  The old generation, of which Disraeli was part was dying off.  The scene had shifted from the revolutionary mode of 1789, 1830, 1848 and perhaps 1870 to one of assassination and random bombing.  Included as a secret society is the freemasonry of Judaism, the Freemasons themselves, the Jesuits and the labor movement.  Those groups are above ground but tightly knit confederations who also function clandestinely.

The passage I quote centers around the career of Napoleon III prior to his election as Premier in France and his later usurpation of the government of France.  Bonapartism was not a dead letter in this Napoleon’s life.  It was feared that he would try to establish a regime which after many trials and tribulations he did.  He spent most of his early life in England.  According to Disraeli the Jews were instrumental in putting him in office.

According to Disraeli in this portrayal, Lous Napoleon (III) attended Eton school where Endymion was his fag, or servant.  At that time he was going by the name of the Count of Otranto,  At this time he is the mysterious Colonel Albert, then Prince Florestan and ultimately Napoleon.

The speaker here is Sidney Wilton who was Napoleon’s guardian.

I quote:

‘My unhappy ward,’ said Mr. Wilton; ‘you know, of course, something about him..’

‘Well, I was at school and college,’ said Waldershare, ‘when it all happened.  But I have just heard that you had relations with him.’

‘The most intimate; and there is the bitterness.  There existed between his mother Queen Agrippina and myself ties of entire friendship.  In her last years and in her greatest adversity she appealed to me to be the guardian of her son.

He inherited all her beauty and apparently al her sweetness of disposition. I took the greatest pains with him.  He was at Eton, and did well there.  He was very popular;  I never was so deceived in a boy in my life.  I thought him the most docile of human beings, and that I had gained over him an entire influence.  I am sure it would have been exercised for his benefit.  In short, I may say it now, I looked upon him as a son, and he certainly would have been my heir; and yet all this time, from his seventeenth year, he was immersed in political intrigue and carrying on plots against the sovereign of his country, even under my own roof.’

‘How very interesting!’ said Walershare.

It may be interesting to you; I know it cost me.  The greatest anxiety and sorrow, and even nearly compromised my honour.  Had I not a large hearted chief and a true man of the world to deal with, I must have retired from the government.’

‘How could he manage it?  said Waldershare.

‘You have no conception of the devices and resources of the secret societies of Europe,’ said Mr. Wilton.  ‘His drawing master, his fencing-master, his dancing master, all his professors  of languages, who delighted me by their testimony to his accomplishments and their praises of his quickness and assiduity, were active confederates in bringing about events which might have occasioned an European war.  He left me avowedly to pay a visit in the country, and I even received letters from him with the postmark of the neighbouring town; letters all prepared beforehand.  My first authentic information as to his movements was to learn, that he had headed an invading force, landed on the shores which he claimed as his own, was defeated and a prisoner.’

‘I remember it,’ said Waldershare.  ‘I had just then gone up to St. John’s and I remember reading it with the greatest excitement.’

All this was bad enough,’ said Mr. Wilton, ‘but this is not my sorrow.  I saved him from death, or at least a dreadful imprisonment.  He was permitted to sail to America on his parole that he would never return to Europe, and I was required, and on his solemn appeal I consented, to give my personal engagement that the compact should be sacred.  Before two years had elapsed, supported all this time, too, by my bounty, there was an attempt, almost successful, to assassinate the king, and my ward was discovered and seized in the capital.  This time he was immured, and for life, in the strongest fortress of the country; but secret societies laugh at governments, and though he endured a considerable imprisonment, the world has recently been astounded by hearing that he has escaped.  Yes; he is in London and has been here, though in studied obscurity, for some little time.

Unquote.

You will notice that England and Europe sent their hardcases to the US.  The US was the great dumping ground of Europe, especially after the ’48 when hordes of revolutionaries descended on NYC, spreading out from there.  Collateral damage of that event was that it transformed the US.

As Disraeli points out operatives can infiltrate anywhere.  When the Bolsheviks took over Russia they immediately sent operatives into every Western capital.  While the Soviet Union was not a secret they used secret operatives who infiltrated every move of any government.  Deep operators entirely disguised, posing as good hearted souls trying to make the world a better place intervened to get minimal sentences or even none.

In 1917 a fully operational system in place, surfaced.  In later twentieth century the great Jewish spy Johnathon Pollard was hired in the intelligence apparatus and transferred reams of material to his home base in Israel before his screen was penetrated.  His material completely disrupted the US’ foreign relations to benefit an Israel that was receiving billions of dollars of aid per year.

The US was devastated so much so that they give Pollard a life sentence over the pleas and protestations of both US and Israeli Jews.  It took twenty-five years of incessant agitation but Pollard was finally released to freedom.  He presently resides at his home in Israel where he is handsomely rewarded.

These clandestine groups and secret societies have to be taken seriously.   Add to this Disraeli’s racial outlook of which he was fully convinced.  I quote another passage from Endymion, pp. 360-61 that fully and emphatically emphasizes his view:

Quote:

There is another great race which influences the world, the Semite.  Certainly when I was at the Congress of Vienna, I did not believe that the Arabs were more likely to become a conquering people than the Tartars, and yet it is a question at this moment whether Mehemet Ali, at their head, they  may not found a new empire in the Mediterranean.  The Semites are unquestionably a great race, for among the few things in this world which appear to be certain;, nothing is more sure than that they invented our alphabet.  But the Semites now exercise a vast influence over affairs by their smallest though most peculiar family, the Jews.  There is no race gifted with so much tenacity, and such skill in organization.  These qualities have given them an unprecedented hold over property and illimitable credit.  As you advance in life, and get experience in affairs, the Jews will cross you everywhere.  They have long been stealing into our secret diplomacy, which they have almost appropriated; in another quarter of a c century they will claim their share of open government.  Well, these are races, men and bodies of men, influenced in their conduct by their particular organization and which must enter into all the calculations of a statesman. But what do they mean by the Latin race? Language and religion do not make a race—there is only one thing which makes a race, and that is blood.    

Unquote.

Then and now, you couldn’t possibly state it more clearly except possibly with technological discoveries not known in Disraeli’s time.

The man is not always accurate.  Mehemet Ali was an Albanian and not a Semite.  Europeans acting in concert easily frustrated any plans he had.

Disraeli says that, ‘they have been stealing into our secret diplomacy, which they have almost appropriated.’  So, does anyone really believe that Dreyfus the Frenchman convicted for espionage in the nineties wasn’t guilty?  Of course he was.  Does anyone not believe that Johnathan Pollard, twentieth century US didn’t ‘appropriate’ reams and reams of secrets and give them to Israeli?  A question not worth asking.  How can one not believe that Disraeli was not cooperating with the Rothschilds?

‘An unprecedented hold over property and illimitable credit…’  Might as well say they own the world.  Disraeli’s enthusiasm gets away from him but he quite rejoices in matters that Jews today deny.

This essay cuts off at 1880 when Disraeli and his generation disappeared.  Lionel died in 1879,  James was already gone in 1866 while civilization transited from one mind set to another.

Matters are being led however to the first phase of the Great Thirty Years War of 1914-1945 that Falk predicted.

Note #4 The Return of George W.M. Reynolds

by

R.E. Prindle

 GWMReynolds

In the twenty-first century when the public mind was focused on exorcizing the past the search was to correct or eliminate unapproved statements and thoughts from literature. This attitude was nothing new. In the nineteenth century censorship was concerned with sexual matters. In the explosive time of the 21st century anything goes as far as pornography. For this time one can be disqualified for life over racial matters.

In 1837 the seemingly immortal Charles Dickens created a criminal character by the name of Fagin in his Oliver Twist. Fagin was a Jew. As he tried to explain in his defence when he was accused of defaming the Jews, in 1837 the underworld of the nineteenth century was run by Jews. In other words, he was depicting reality. He was simply citing underworld facts.

Dickens was made to humble himself and since his works were reproduced in numberless editions he agreed that in future editions he would scrub references to Fagin as a Jew.

Historically, after the French Revolution of the eighteenth century had emancipated the Jews, the conflict between Jews and Europeans shifted in their favor. As the nineteenth century advanced they began to dominate all social and financial areas. This was universally recognized and resented. The question was alert. One of the English writers who early realized and wrote about it was the best selling author of the nineteenth century. No, it wasn’t Charles Dickens, it was an author who was wildly popular until the first world war. His name was George W.M. Reynolds.

He wrote an entire 500 page allegory about the situation, much disguised in his fabulous novel The Necromancer, readily available today. In addition and openly in about 1854-55 when the attack on Dickens was gaining intensity the following extract from his novel published by the Wildside Press, The Fortunes of the Ashtons, Vol. 1, page 201:

In one of the principal thoroughfares, so narrow, so crowded, which constitute the City of London, stood the immense establishment of Mr. Samuel Emanuel, the great clothier.

The reader will not require to be informed that this individual was of the Hebrew race; nor if we be compelled to say anything to his disparagement, it must not be presumed that we are holding him up as an invariable type of his nation. It is nothing of the sort. We yield to no one, we may without vanity affirm, in enlightened opinions with respect to the Jews, and we have the conviction that there are many excellent persons amongst them as well as many admirable traits in their national character. [Here we must acknowledge that Reynolds anticipates the twentieth century psychologist Sigmund Freud in his Group Psychology And The Analysis Of The Ego in which Freud definitely states that groups such as his own Jews do have identifiable traits, while to be in a group by definition is having similar traits. How could a group be considered a group without identifying traits? I have found Reynolds to be an excellent psychologist.]

But, there ae good and bad of all kinds and species in this world—good and bad Christians,, good and bad Musselmans, good and bad Buddhists, and therefore why not bad Israelites as well as good ones? We will even go farther and we will affirm that within the range of our own experience have met persons professing Christianity, of a viler stamp of rascality, and capable of more unmitigated scoundrelism, that ever we discovered a Jew to be guilty of.

Thus, at this time we can see to what a pass society, English society, had come because of the extreme Jewish sensitivity. I have to believe that in this openly broaching of the question that George W.M. Reynolds is coming to the defense of Charles Dickens and indirectly defending freedom of speech that is being encroached on by the Jews. Reynolds might well have asked why the Jews should be given a favored position free from any censure?

In accurately describing English society which consisted of several races and nationalities, various Anglo-Saxon tribes, Normans, Irish, Welsh, Scots, Jewish, Gypsy and we might as well throw in the French Huguenots why should the Jews be excused from the generality and given a special and higher position. How could English society be accurately portrayed without them. How could their deeds and practices be ignored. Indeed they would have complained of neglect had that been the case as they have complained in the nineteenth and twentieth and twenty -first centuries.

I ask how can a historian write accurate history if an historian is required to self-censor to favor a particular race, while at the same time that race has the privilege of censoring the conduct of all others? In the twenty-first century a writer is required to self-censor any accurate depictions of Jews, Moslems, Negroes, Women and Sexual Deviants, and actual madmen. Indeed, one is forbidden to write a factual account of something that happened to one’s self lest it should offend those sensitive perps. One must censor one’s very own life.

If so, history and many other Liberal Arts studies become meaningless.

In Reynolds’ case he was no pansy as was Dickens who cut his jib to suit the Jews. Fagin was an accurate depiction of a Jewish criminal, in fact, he was not the worst of the lot while the whole lot had a very negative impact on society. Indeed the Jews were disproportionately represented in the criminal ranks as they were in financial circles. This is a historic fact. It cannot be denied.

Perhaps after his daring confession of faith Reynolds, because he was more than capable of defending himself, was not taken on by the Jews. Perhaps also the sudden and inexplicable disappearance of his works after 1914 was because he was banned by Jewish vengeance.

There is increasing evidence that a hundred years on after his expulsion he is being rehabilitated and recognized as the great literary artist he is. There is much to be learned from his writing. George W.M. Reynolds was very nearly sui generis.

A Note And Aside On George W. M. Reynold’s Mysteries Of Old London: Days Of Hogarth

by

R.E. Prindle

 

While Old London isn’t as widely read as George’s two masterpieces it is a very interesting book. It is an historical examination of the eighteenth century period of Duke of Wharton and his Mohocks.

A comprehensive review will follow later, this note examines an interesting passage while other notes may follow. In a review of the whole, one frequently omits significant observations or ideas. In this quote that is very remarkable for its time (1848) Reynolds examines weaving in a manner that neither Dickens or Ainsworth could touch.

The quote occurs on page 14 of the British Library reprint while George is setting up his story. Chapter 5, The Two Apprentices.

It has been well said that man is the noblest work of God; but it is not equally easy to decide which is the noblest work of man. Though in contrast with the wondrous achievements of Almighty Power, the efforts of the human race are as nothing- though the most complicated, the most perfect results of mortal ingenuity are mean and contemptible when placed in comparison with the stupendous creations of the Divine Architect- nevertheless the earth is covered with monuments, which excite our astonishment and our admiration at the intelligence, the power, and the perseverance of man!

But of all the acts which in their application, constitute the distinctions between social and savage life- between a glorious civilization and an enduring barbarism- that of Weaving is decidedly one of the chief. For though the savage may affect the finery of shells and flowers- though he may study external adornment by means of natural products most pleasing in his sight- and though he may even conceal his nakedness with leaves, or defend himself from the cold by the hides of animals- yet is only in those portions of the globe where civilization has been the tutress of the human race, that comfortable clothing is known. And for this we are indebted to the LOOM which we may therefore look upon as at least one of the noblest works of Man!

How much of her prosperity,- how much of her greatness does England now owe to that achievement of human ingenuity! Amongst all the departments of National Industry, none is more ennobling in its tendency to commercial progress, than the art of weaving! Alas! That War should ever impose its barbarism in a way of the pursuit of Peace! For while Peace aspires to make our homes happy and increase our comforts, thus augmenting the enjoyments of life- War- hideous barbaric War- snatches our industrious mechanics from their looms, and our agricultural labourers from their plowshares, to place them in the ranks of armies or on the decks of fleets. And, what gain we from War after all? Glory- yes, plenty of glory; aye- and plenty of taxation also! For taxation is a vampire that loves to feast on the blood of a Nation’s heart, and to prey upon the vitals of an industrious population. It is an avaricious, grasping, griping fiend that places it finger on every morsel of food which enters into the mouth, on every article of clothing which covers the person, and on everything which is pleasant to behold, hear, taste, feel or smell! It interferes with our warmth- our light- our locomotion- the very paper which diffuses knowledge! It roams over the land to claim its share of the produce of our fields and our manufactures: and it awaits on the key of our seaports for the unlading of vessels bringing things from abroad. The moment that the industry or the intelligence of man originates something new, the fiend Taxation overshadows it with its loathsome bat like wing. It plunges it fang into the rich man’s dish and the poor man’s porringer: but the poor man suffers the more severely from this rapacious robber because he has but one porringer, whereas the rich man has many dishes. Oh! Insatiate is that Fiend; for he attends the deathbed when the will is made, and in the spiritual court when it is proven:- he has his share of the price paid for the very marble which covers the grave of the deceased-; and it is only there- in the grave- that the victim of Taxation can be taxed no more.

As the chapter is entitled The Two Apprentices and as they are apprentice weavers I suppose that touches off George’s tirades against war and taxation. His interpretation of the role of weaving in civilization manages to bring in a sort of evolutionary discussion of clothing. Just as a note of interest Thomas Carlyle’s Sartor Resartus appeared about this time, and that is a discussion of clothes so the popular imagination may have been drawn to the importance of clothes in these marvelous years of the Dandies, of which George was one, and the early years of discovery leading to the opening of the European mind.

George elsewhere brings up the arrival of the silk weaving on English shores as, as he says, forty thousand Huguenots exiled from France arrived in England and set up the industry.

The novels are full of interesting historical facts as George was a very well read guy.

A Personal Aside

 

I have now read nineteen titles of Reynolds’ novels. The major ones twice. The third and fourth series of Mysteries of London only once, all of the novels up to and including 1850. I own most of the rest. There is one novel that John Dicks lists titled Louisa, the Orphan, to which I can find no other reference.
Apparently George was really appreciated on the other side of the Atlantic in the US. Unable to get enough of George, publishers had writers write numerous titles under his name and this was being done into the1890s. I recently purchased a book titled the Countess of Lascelles or Self-Sacrifice, Part I, a sequel Bertram Vivian also in two parts published by Hurst and Company.

Here is a partial list of title, only a partial list, written and published in the US well into the eighties and nineties by a host of publishers: Caroline of Brunswick, Lord Saxondale, Count Christoval, Eustace Quentin, Banker’s Daughter, The Opera Dancer, Child of Waterloo, Robert Bruce, The Gypsy Chief, Wallace, Hero of Scotland, Isabella Vincent, Duke Of Marchmont, Life in Paris, Countess and the Page, Edgar Montrose, The Ruined Gamester, Clifford and the Actress, Queen Joanna, Ciprina or the Secrets of a Picture Gallery. I recently purchased a title called The Countess of Lascelles, a sequel to Bertram Vivian and which is followed by the two volumes of The Doom of the Burkers. Bertram, Lascelles and Burkers is a six volume series built around the same characters

This is very strange because George W. M. Reynolds was apparently very famous in his day in the US but has been totally forgotten in the history of American literature. How could this be? A firm, T.B. Peterson of Philadelphia published more that a dozen titles under Reynolds name some legit and some not. And that was in the 1880s. Another mystery to be investigated. Why is Reynolds’ popularity in US literature totally forgotten?

Now is the time for a little recapitulation.

The range of George’s interests and the seeming depth of his knowledge is quite astounding. One wonders what his sources were. I’ve mentioned many of his more obvious influences even doubling in some cases such as the Pickwick Papers as sources.

One title I have come across in six volumes is Charles Knight’s amazing title, London. I think it is pretty clear that Reynolds read the work. It was originally published serially then issued in book form when enough articles accrued to bind from 1841-1844. These were years when Reynolds wrote no novels although remaining active journalistically. I have the Cambridge University re-issue. I can do no better than to quote the Cambridge intro:

The publisher and writer Charles Knight (1794-1873) was apprenticed to his printing father but later became a journalist and the proprietor of various periodicals and magazines, which were driven by his concern for education of the poor. As an author, he published a variety of works, including The Old Printer and the Modern Press (also issued in the [Cambridge] Series. He claimed that this six volume work on the architecture and history of London, published between 1841 and 1844, was neither a history nor a survey of London, but looked at the Present through the Past and the Past through the Present. It relies on the skills of eminent artists to bring both the present and the past of London to life, and it is arranged thematically rather then chronologically or geographically. This is a fascinating account of what was the greatest city in the world.

The articles are by several different authors that lovingly describe the attributes of London past and present. George may have read the articles and then examined the sites himself in these four years in which he obviously absorbed much of the information he includes in his novels. Some details fascinated him. In Old London he mentions the Fleet Ditch which was uncovered in the 1720s.

The Fleet Ditch is what was once a stream that was turned into a muddy, foul ditch by the advance of civilization. It was later covered so that it flowed under the city itself. George mentions it here in Old London and then opens his The Mysteries of London with a description when Eliza Sydney was pitched into it by the criminals.

As fascinating as his stories are, acquiring background information then makes the stories more intelligible while opening vistas of what the deeper meanings of the works are. Fathoming the depths of Reynolds mind is important, getting the references. So while I began writing knowing little but the stories, I have worked to develop an understanding of what George saw and was describing.

The struggle or effort goes on. I am now about to begin reading the works of Reynolds mature years, those after 1850, while I have to reread The Mysteries of London, third reading, and The Mysteries of the Court of London, also third reading. It appears that the edition most people are reading of Mysteries of the Court is that published by the Oxford Society (of which there is no knowledge) in England and the Richard F. Burton Society in Boston, USA. It is an expurgated and partially revised edition. Apparently Reynolds was more racy and explicit in the original. In his The Parricide he gets really raunchy. Thus for the third reading I would like to obtain the original.

Just as Mysteries of London had a third and fourth series it is possible that John Dicks actually published a third and fourth series of Court of London. In five volumes each they were titled The Crimes of Lady Saxondale and The Fortunes of the Ashtons. Thus the Oxford edition of 1900 consists of twenty volumes containing all four series.

It seems apparent that the latter two series were not the product of Reynolds’ pen. They must have been written by others. It seems to me that Reynolds does the same thing as Charles Knight did, that is employ other writers to write according to his plan. Thus he might also have done as Alexander Dumas did and put his name on others writing. Certainly Court of London does not seem long enough to have taken eight years to publish it. The four series of The Mysteries of London are equally massive as the The Court of London and they took only four years to publish. The massive first two series must have been completed by 1846 leaving the shorter two series to finish the series by 1848 when Court began. Thus it is probable that Dicks went on publishing Saxondale and The Ashtons after Reynolds finished with George IV and the Regency. Reynolds says that he then abandoned George IV and the Monarchy years.

It seems to me that Reynolds does the same thing in relation to the Past and Present as Charles Knight did in his London and, indeed, that is the approach I am taking in my Time Traveling series.

Knight’s work in a way forms a template for Reynolds novels that in the main are historical combining the past and present. The current novel under consideration, The Mysteries of Old London pertain to the early eighteenth century just after the reign of Queen Anne and the beginning of the four Georges. More particularly does it involve the beginnings of the Hell Fire Clubs of the next hundred years from 1720-21. George specifically mentions that this story begins in 1721 and deals with the period of the historical Duke of Wharton and his Mohocks who terrorized the after dark streets of London during the period. Reynolds character Jem Ruffles certainly represents aspects of the Duke of Wharton as well, probably, of the arch criminal Johnathan Wild.

One of the studies of Charles Wright is of the locality of Spitalfields which was associated with weaving, silk weaving to be specific. The association began with the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685 by order of Louis XIV by which the Huguenot sect was expelled. The Huguenots were Protestants who had evolved out of the Albigensian faiths of Provence and who were nearly exterminated in the thirteenth century. The Huguenots evolved from the earlier belief systems of the Albigensians and were in direct conflict with the Catholic Church. They were harder to deal with than the Albigensians and were constantly at war with Northern government of France. In the fifteenth century under Charles IX a truce was made with the Huguenots and their being invited to Paris to celebrate. This was a ruse and trick of Charles and the Huguenots were set upon by the Catholics and murdered in the celebrated St. Bartholomew’s Massacre. The remnant remained in their stronghold in Gascony in the South of France ruled by Henri of Bearn. Charles was murdered and replaced by his brother Henri III. At Henri III”s death he was succeed by Henri of Bearn, the Huguenot, who became Henri IV. He negotiated the Ediict of Nantes giving his Huguenots the protection of the crown. A little under a hundred years later the Edict was revoked by Louis XIV resulting in the displacement of their silk weaving industry to Spitalfields in London.

This history of the Huguenots was covered by Alexander Dumas in his novels of the Valois kings of France written in the mid forties that Reynolds would have read. Thus the mention of the Huguenots and Spitalfields in the quote from Old London. Reynolds repeatedly gives brief accounts of the various London districts such as Spitalfields following the Wright method of uniting the past and the present. Since his info is so similar to that of Wright one of his key readings must have been Charles Wright’s London.

Of course, Reynolds tramped the streets of all those districts he mentions and probably talked to old timers who may have remembered far back. As Wright lived to the 1870s one wonders whether Reynolds and he had any talks.

In the ending of the Oxford edition of the first two series of Court of London Reynolds says that he has tired of writing about George IV and chose not to follow him into his reign as monarch. He says he has other projects to follow. If those projects were Lady Saxondale and the Ashtons then he probably did hire other writers to compose the text according to his plan. Otherwise where the latter two series came from is a total mystery. The Mysteries of the Oxford Edition need clearing up.

Part XIa

Time Traveling With R.E. Prindle

 GWMReynolds

I have been having trouble finding a way into this chapter. Three efforts have been thrown aside; perhaps the fourth will succeed. I have been successful in finding a copy of The Youthful Impostor and added Vo. I of The Modern Literature of France. The latter is available under the title Georges Sand. A couple of quotes from those may possibly be a good lead in.

A preliminary quote is from David De Leon’s introduction to his translation of volume fifteen of Mystere’s du Peuple, Eugene Sue’s The Executioner’s Knife or Joan of Arc: A Tale of the Inquisition. De Leon:

Whether one will be satisfied with nothing but a scientific diagnosis in psychology, or a less ponderous and infinitely more lyric presentation of certain mental phenomena will do for him, whether the credit of history insists on strict chronology or whether he prizes in matters canonical the rigid presentation of dogma or a whether the tragic fruits of theocracy offer a more attractive starting point for his contemplation- whichever case may be (the career and novels of George Reynolds…) will gratify his intellectual cravings on all three heads.

Of course I have substituted Reynolds for De Leon’s quote of Sue. He pretty well covers the approach I am taking. The smooth or turbulent waters of a rolling river are what is meant by canonical waters, while the real history lies beneath the shining or muddy waters in the hidden river bed. With Reynolds it is necessary to penetrate the river’s surface and search beneath to understand the depth of Reynold’s thought.

Up to this time Reynolds has escaped the biographer’s pen. Fortunately for us Reynolds has left some pretty transparent clues in his writing making them fairly accessible auto-biography, more especially in the novels of his apprenticeship before embarking mid-stream as he began the fullness of his career with The Mysteries Of London. Two novels stand out in auto-biographical detail. The first is The Youthful Impostor first composed when he was eighteen in 1832 and edited before publication in 1835. The completely rewritten version of 1847 retitled The Parricide bears small relation to the first published version. The second work is his Modern Literature of France published in 1839 when he was twenty-five. The latter is non-fiction. In it he says in the introduction speaking directly to the reader p. XVII

The literature of France previous to the Revolution of 1830 resembled that of England at the present day; inasmuch as a moral lesson were taught through the medium of almost impossible fiction. Now the French author paints the truth in all its nudity; and this development of the secrets of Nature shocks the English reader, because he is not yet accustomed to so novel a style. To depict truth, in all its bearings, consistently with nature, is a difficult task; and he who attempts it muse occasionally exhibit deformities which disgust the timid mind. A glance at life in all its phases, cannot be attended with very satisfactory results; and while the age surveys much to please, it must also be prepared to view much that will be abhorrent to the virtuous imagination. The strict conventual usages of English society prevent the introduction of highly coloured pictures into works of fiction; and thus, in an English book which professes to be a history of man or of the world, the narrative is but half told. In France the whole tale is given at once; and the young men, and young females do not there enter upon life with minds so circumscribed and narrow that the work of initiation becomes an expensive and ruinous task. We do not become robbers because we read of thefts; nor does a female prove incontinent on account of her knowledge that such a failing exists. The pilot should be made aware of rocks and quicksands, that he may know how to avoid them; it is ridiculous to suffer him to roam on a vast ocean without having previously consulted the maps and charts which can alone warn him of peril. Such is the reasoning of French writers, who moreover carry their system to such a an extent, that they cannot hesitate to represent vice triumphant, and virtue leveled with the dust, for they assert that the former incredibly prospers, and the other languishes without support; whereas the English author points to a difficult moral in his fiction.

One might say that Reynolds plan of literature was formed in France while his five years there were the most significant and formative in his life. Whether he witnessed the three important days of the July Revolution that unseated Charles X is not important, what is important is that their import coalesced his own political outlook. Thus when he returned to England in 1836 it was in full revolutionary mode and remained so promoting the Revolution of 1848 by any and all means at his disposal. He directed his revolutionary effort toward ’48 by his involvement in the Chartist Movement in which he was ultimately successful. Coming from France where he believed that the July Revolution swept away ancient ways be violence, belief in violence offended the English agitators who believe evolutionary tactics the better approach. They belittled his contributions and diminished him personally. Notwithstanding his vision of Chartism triumphed changing English society and he should be rehabilitated and acknowledged as such.

Secondly the quote displays perfectly Reynolds’ literary ideals to present reality starkly as he saw it. I do not agree with many of his conclusions and in observing his usages do not necessarily endorse them in their entirety. Time has proven many of his observations fatuous and against human nature. To ignore them is to misunderstand his import. He is almost always going against the grain. Especially compared to Dickens and Ainsworth.

The French literature he discusses was prior to the effusion of the Forties, which was astonishing. In his critique he is referring to the theatrical or poetic works of Dumas and Victor Hugo. He apparently was an ardent theatre goer.

The tremendous events of the fifty years preceding 1830 were brought to a head in the July Revolution of France and the Reform Act of 1832 in England. The political and belated explosion in France in 1789 was only less significant compared to the Industrial Revolution of England and the subsequent economic reorganization. When the Napoleonic era ended modern society had been reorganized emerged complete.

Once again, Reynolds was keenly aware of changing customs and mores. This vision was held up starkly to him when he set foot in France shortly after the July Revolution. One should also note this was after the cholera epidemic of the same year. To quote him again: The +*-Modern Literature of France pp. XIII-XIV:

The literature of France since the July Revolution of 1830 is quite distinct from that under the fallen dynasty. A sudden impulse was given to the minds of men by the successful struggle for freedom which hurled the improvident Charles from his royal seat; and all aims—all views—and all interests underwent a vast change. Ages of progressive but peaceful reform couldn’t have accomplished so much, in reference to the opinions and tastes of a mighty nation, as those three days of revolution and civil war. The march of civilization was hurried over centuries; and as if France had suddenly leapt from an old into a new epoch without passing through the minutes, the hours, and the days which mark the lapse of time, she divested herself of the grotesque and gothic apparel, and assumed an attire which at first astounded and awed herself. And then men began to congratulate each other upon the change of garb; and now that they are accustomed to see and admire it, they look upon their rejected garments as characteristic of antiquity, and not as things that were in vogue only a few years since.

As a Chartist, other Chartists who were more evolutionarily minded disliked Reynolds because he was known for wanting drastic results by violent revolutionary means Reynolds retorts, p. XVI:

It is a matter of speculation whether the Reform Act (of 1832 in England) would have been even now (1839) conceded to the people of this country, if it had not been found necessary to keep pace as much as possible with the giant strides made by the French. Certainly a change has taken place in the literature of England since the passing of the Reform itself as well as that of France since the three days of July.

The change in literature in England was led by Edward Bulwer Lytton, William Harrison Ainsley, perhaps Charles Dickens, by Reynolds himself and quite probably writers like Pierce Egan and the Penny Blood and Dreadful writers as developments in printing and paper made ever cheaper editions possible making books of all qualities affordable to the rising literacy among the underclasses. Indeed by the 1850s, John Dicks, Reynolds printer and partner, would make available the complete Shakespeare for pennies. Of course, the type was so small they are virtually unreadable except to the most dedicated.

All of these writers were reformers, writing especially about the harsh penal laws.

The core attitudes of Reynolds remained unchanged from his introduction into France. It was in France that a very young eighteen year old wrote his first book, The Youthful Impostor.

-II-

Reynolds incorporates his entire life into his novels so this might be the right time to assemble a chronology of his life. For those who may have read my earlier chapters this account may seem familiar but it incorporates much new material, better organization and deeper thinking. Or so I think.

While George’s first novel, The Young Impostor was first composed in 1832 when he was eighteen the book was not to published until 1835 when he was twenty-one. There was some touching up for the 1835 version as he includes a chapter head quote from W. Harrison Ainsworth’s Rookwood that was only published in 1832 and couldn’t have been read for his original manuscript. He also chapter headed a quote from Bulwer-Lytton’s 1830 novel Paul Clifford. That novel was definitely an influence on The Youthful Impostor. The Youthful Impostor is highly autobiographical so we can form an almost biographical account of his early years. By the way the 1847 rewrite of the Impostor, The Parricide, bears almost no resemblance to the earlier version. It can read as an independent novel and not his best.

George was born July 20, 1814. His father, a naval post-Captain commanded a cruiser during the Napoleonic wars. Born in Sandwich, Kent of the Cinq Ports, the family was moved to the island of Guernsey when George was two. Six years later the family returned to Kent and its capital Canterbury. Reynolds has indelible memories of all this so references to his early life crop up frequently in his works.

Returning to 1822, at the age of eight he was saddened by the death of his father thus making him an orphan. Orphans figure prominently in his works. His mother died eight years later depriving him of both parents leaving him on his own at fifteen under the guardianship of his father’s best friend Duncan McArthur, hence George’s third name. He passed under that man’s guardianship after his father’s death. His mother was not his guardian.

His relationship with McArthur, if we judge from his writing, was not a happy one. There are other references but in 1854 writing in his novel, The Rye House Plot, which by the way is a superb novel, George had this to say about his guardian: Rye House Plot, p. 63,

This guardian of mine was a man of stern disposition; and I loved him not.

I think we can apply the quote to Duncan McArthur. He, himself, was an old Navy man, a surgeon. From the age of eight to sometime at the age of thirteen George attended a school in Ashford, a few miles from Canterbury which were happy years for him as he idolized his schoolmaster. Then, as George styles it, at the tender age of thirteen he

was placed in the Sandhurst Military Academy in Berkshire. Thirteen would indeed had been tender to have been thrown in with older boys of sixteen or eighteen and even young men heading into their twenties. Tom Brown’s School Days at Rugby by Thomas Hughes at roughly this time shows how difficult George’s situation probably was. He was impoverished while probably the majority of the cadets were from titled families having plenty of money. So from thirteen to sixteen when George was either removed or removed himself the years must have been unpleasant. The Youthful Impostor covers those years.

George’s mother died in March of 1830 when he was fifteen. He left the academy shortly after his sixteenth birthday in September. He left for France at the end of 1830, a greenhorn of sixteen. A sitting duck for sharpers one might say.

The question then is how much money did he have. Dick Collins think nothing but I think he had to have much more so I accept his statement to the adjudicator at his 1848 bankruptcy hearing when George told him that he had had seven thousand pounds. Where did they come from?

In The Rye House plot he discusses such an issue like this. His character General Oliphant is speaking. “Eighteen years ago, when I was a youth under twenty, I embarked with my uncle, Mr. Oliphant, on board a vessel bound for a Spanish port where he had some mercantile business to transact, he being engaged in commercial enterprises. Mr. Oliphant was my +

guardian, my parents having died when I was very young. I must observe that Mr. Oliphant being a man of reserved and stern disposition had kept me in the most perfect state of ignorance as to my own affairs; and although I had reason to believe that my parents had left some little property, which I should inherit on obtaining my majority, I had not the smallest conception of what amount or value it might be or what nature it was nor where situated or deposited.

As it turned out the inheritance was a couple thousand pounds payable at twenty-one. This coincides with Dick Collins researches in George’s finances. So, I think we can believe that George is describing his own situation in the above quote. While it is generally thought that George inherited twelve thousand pounds when his mother died, we can I think dismiss the account. Where, then, did George get seven thousand pounds. If The Young Impostor is as autobiographical as I think it is then George was involved in a substantial swindle and fled England in somewhat of a hurry at the end of 1830.

George does not often write about his military life but he does in YI and the Rye House Plot. The cadets were given a fair amount of liberty and traveled from the barracks to London frequently. This was George’s first acquaintance with London and it was overwhelming.

In Chapter VI of the Parricide a rewrite of The YI Reynolds quotes this verse:

Houses, churches, mix’d together

Streets unpleasant in all weather,

Prisons, palaces contiguous,

Gaudy things enough to tempt you

Showy outsides, insides empty,

Baubles, trades, mechanic arts,

Coaches, wheelbarrows, and carts,

-This is London! How do ye like it?

Sometime then at thirteen and fourteen he had his first introduction to the Big City in company with other cadets on the town. Breathtaking and terrifying. And that was my impression of London too. I’m sure he was stunned by his first vision as I was a hundred seventy years later.

He frequently mentions the Hounslow barracks. Highwaymen infested the highways from Hounslow to London and also in the vicinity of Bagshot.

Reynolds with little money in his pocket traveled from Sandhurst to London and back many times apparently following at times through Bagshot and Hounslow.

Now, as a young cadet, he has himself returning from London late one night when he is accosted by two highwaymen. Naturally he had little money and was being harassed accordingly when a third party appeared who dispersed the robbers and rescued him. It would seem apparent that as the robbers worked in parties of three that the third party also a robber who intervened for another reason. Reynolds names him as Arnold. Having read the story and reviewing it, it should be apparent that Arnold thought he had found a use for the young cadet and he and, actually the other two, were contemplating some large scale swindle but needed a naïve young man to complete the ensemble as bait. George may very probably have been that young man.

Reynolds has James, his character, and Arnold dupe a Jewish usurer named Mr. Nathanial. The amount George mentions was seven thousand pounds. This may be a coincidence or it may be where his seven thousand pounds came from when he absconded to France at the end of 1830.

It may have been at this time that Long’s Hotel became familiar to the young orphan. Long’s was apparently London’s most luxurious hotel at the time. Reynolds is almost breathless when he mentions the name. Long’s figures prominently in his pre 1844 works. Most often with criminal acts. And indeed, Reynold’s is familiar with endless hotel scams.

According to Collins there is some question as to young George’s integrity and George himself from time to time mentions that he has redeemed his youthful crimes, while swindles are frequently performed in his novels. That’s not proof of course but such a swindle would have provided the seven thousand pounds he said he had plus an incentive to leave England just ahead of the Bow Street Runners. At any rate we know that he showed up in France at the end of 1830 and we’ll take his word that he had seven thousand pounds.

If George was associated with this ‘Arnold’ who was part of the criminal underworld he must have been inducted into that society in some capacity. In that capacity he would have learned something of criminal ways of which he seems to be fairly familiar and according to Collins he did do some prison time while he went through a bankruptcy just before returning to England from France.

If I am correct, then George benefited by his and ‘Arnold’s’ swindle and absconded to France. Collins also records that he was arrested in Calais for playing with loaded dice. In Mysteries of London, first series, George gives a detailed description with diagrams of how to load dice. Of course, that may have been taken from a manual.

So, at the beginning of 1831 George landed in France where he would remain until 1836. From Calais he went straight to Paris where he remained either residing at Meurice’s Hotel or hanging around the

environs as may be indicated by his book of Pickwick Abroad. When he married he resided in different places as Collins’ research accords.

Evidence indicates that he did explore areas of France. At one point he laments never have been to Belgium, the closest he came was four miles from the border. Since one can only write about what is stored in one’s mind and one’s experience it follows that Reynolds must have been at the places he writes about or had read about them. As he frequently writes about Italy one does question his presence there. In his book Wagner, the Wehr Wolf his descriptions of Florence don’t seem to ring true so he may be working from from written accounts or pure imagination although his descriptions do resonate with the Italian period in Dumas’ The Count of Monte Cristo. Otherwise he may have traveled about quite a bit.

As a green, but initiated, sixteen year old in 1831, perhaps with money, he would have been prey to various spongers and swindlers. It is difficult to envision a sixteen year old boy brazening his way through a foreign capital but he very obviously did for five years. One imagines his first six months must have been intense orientation. Yet he says that he completed The YI in 1832 and had been able to obtain a copy of Bulwer-Lytton’s Paul Clifford, read it and incorporated it in his first novel. We’re talking of a bit of a phenom here. He must have gravitated into journalistic and literary circles, possible theatrical, very quickly in his career, and he is merely a boy not attaining his majority until the year before he left France. I find this fairly astonishing.

He says he wrote The Young Impostor in 1832 so he must have been considering the story from his very landing in France if not before. As an eighteen year old It could only portray his experience up to that year. The novel itself in excellent and precocious for an eighteen year old; nor was it ignored. The copy I have is a reprint of an 1836 US edition published by E. L. Cary and A. Hart of Philadelphia. Thus within a year of its French publication it was published across the Atlantic. Why a Philadelphia company would appropriate an unproven title by an unknown author isn’t clear to me.

According to Collins within these two years he also met, courted and married his wife Susannah Pierson. (Collins say that Pierson is the correct spelling not Pearson.) She was apparently moving in literary circles as Collins describes her as a writer. She would later, in the 1850s, write a novel titled Gretna, which is available. Gretna refers to Gretna Green across the Scottish border where those wishing to elope repaired to. In 1745 a law was passed forbidding underage couples to marry without parental permission so that couples flew to Gretna Green for their nuptials. I was something like going to Las Vegas. It’s a good story.

In The YI A Pearson who was unmarried, while having a fairy like persona, not unlike Huon of Bordeaux, took him under his wing and instructed him in seedy practice. Whether he was related to Susannah isn’t known. So, by eighteen George was married and remained so until his wife died in 1854. He apparently never remarried.

According to all the references to books George makes in his writing he was reading voraciously. Here may be an appropriate time to discuss aspects of the literary situation in England and France during the thirties and forties.

The base for the writers in both England and France was the novels of Walter Scott and the Gothic novelists along with Byron. I would say that all the English and French writers were inspired by Scott. Scott died in 1832 at the young age of 61 thus missing the joy of seeing his influence on succeeding authors, except for William Harrison Ainsworth. Ainsworth who published his Rookwood in 1832. That book is almost an homage to Scott but lacks Scotts consummate style, complexity and depth. Ainsworth followed that up in 1835 with Crichton and then began an outburst of historical novels from 1839 with Jack Sheppard and a dozen more in quick succession through about 1845. At that time Reynolds was quiescent but he read all the titles and they influenced him greatly.

Of course Charles Dickens began his career in the late thirties and turned out a few titles in the forties. Dickens wasn’t that prolific but he made the most lasting impression of the novelists of the era. It is needless to say that he made his impression on Reynolds. George despised Dickens as a lightweight, and Dickens novels are lightweights. For me they are unreadable.

Lastly comes Edward Bulwer-Lytton. He was an important writer for his period and has survived into the present as an occultist. His novel The Coming Race is a must read for any esotericist. The idea of it seized H.G. Wells mind and he used it for his excellent novel The Food of the Gods. Bulwers’ Rienzi and The Last Days Of Pompei may still have a readership. He’s not a particularly good writer however. His opening line for Paul Clifford ‘It was a dark and stormy night’ for some reason is found hilarious by a certain type of reader. A contest is held each year to see if anyone can match this imagined terrible sentence. Reynolds uses it occasionally in his books. Bulwer maintained a fair reputation at least up to the 1950s while Reynolds was heavily influenced by him. And of course Byron. George even attempted ‘A Sequel To Don Juan’ but he was no Byron. He did get it published and it did find readers. Fortunately Byron was dead by that time and unable to the show the umbrage that Dickens did.

And then there are the magnificent French writers of the Forties and into the Fifties. The incomparable Alexander Dumas, pere inspired by Walter Scott began turning out his French historical novels in machine gun style, writing so fast that he had multiple serialized novels being published at one time. And what novels! Few novels can compare to The Three Musketeers or The Count of Monte Cristo. And, of course, Dumas is popular to this day.

At the same time Honore de Balzac was publishing his Human Comedy collection of novels. Strangely compelling, Balzac’s brain had an odd construction. Love him but I always wonder: Why am I reading this? Balzac too is read widely today. My favorite story in the novella The Girl With The Golden Eyes.

Victor Hugo, also widely read today, is not a favorite of mind. I will concede that Notre Dame de Paris – The Hunchback of Notre Dame in the US, is compelling and could possibly be a great book. The US title switches the focus of the book from the architectural edifice of Notre Dame to the character of Quasimodo, the Hunchback. The movies were essential to changing the emphasis from the edifice to the Hunchback. Les Miserables is an OK read but doesn’t impress me. Hugo was a Communist and in his novel 1793 actually advocates murdering all the Royalists because they would never accept the New Order. Don’t go away because you read that; it’s just my opinion.

And then we come to the incredible Eugene Sue. Not quite as prolific as Dumas but a non-stop writer. Not quite as concentrated as Dumas, his style is more diffuse but always interesting. His two key works, neither widely read today are The Mysteries of Paris and the Wandering Jew. Both are terrific books and very long. Both books were models for Reynolds Mysteries of Paris. The Wandering Jew may have resonated especially with him because it takes place in 1830, the year of the July Revolution and the cholera epidemic.

And now I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that another key influence might have been the American Edgar Allen Poe. While Poe didn’t have that many pages to his credit, he was a prolific writer of short stories and the short stories are amazing. Mind boggling. Inventive. Concentrated. They would be very difficult to top. They crossed the Atlantic quickly and were received with open arms in France and England. I may be reaching but I find evidences of Poe in his story of Grand Manoir in his Master Timothy’s Bookcase and we are going to look more closely at that shortly.

And, of course his mind is obsessed with the works of the Marquis de Sade. He must have read De Sade’s two great studies Justine and Juliette shortly after arriving in Paris. De Sade believed that following virtue would lead to an unhappy life while pursuing vice would lead to worldly success. The contrast of vice and virtue then informs almost all his works, but he wishes to reverse De Sade’s conclusions.

To really understand Reynold’s, one must be familiar with these authors. But he was so influenced by his wide reading that I’m sure these authors are just the tip of the iceberg.

In Pickwick Abroad George is familiar with all the sights of Paris. He must have at least visited all the prisons and insane asylums both in France and England. We get tours of many. Of course George was very interested in psychology. While Phrenology and Physiognomy may not be considered psychology, they are. Phrenology, an idea of the German, Franz Gall, was a crude attempt at brain anatomy and if risible today it was more because of the misuse by ununderstanding users than Gall’s idea itself that led to its discreditization. The notion was made on the right idea, different areas of the brain control different functions, it’s a moot point today but Gall deserves more credit that he gets, Reynolds entertains an interest in both ideas, especially physiognomy He was apparently a great reader of facial expressions.

Apropos of that, a very interesting novel is the novel Master Timothy’s bookcase published in 1840.

-III-

Master Timothy’s Bookcase is very serious and it is a major book. Interestingly the book begins in Kent, then follows Reynold’s career to Berkshire and London and then to France while ending with his return to England ending in the shire of Kent.

As Reynolds was only twenty-six in 1840 his mental acuity is actually astonishing. He had what one might call a four octave mind. Reynolds quite often resorts to supernatural or, perhaps, proto-scientific elements. In this book the hero Edmund Mortimer is the seventh son so-to-speak of a family founded six generation earlier. The ‘genius’ of the family appears to each member and offers them the approach to life that they think will make them contented and happy. They choose wealth, success et al. and all end up unhappy. Edmund Mortimer chooses Universal Knowledge. This choice, of course, reflects Reynolds ruling passion. George, himself, seeks Universal Knowledge and does a good job of it. However, even he at only twenty-six, he realizes that universal knowledge does not lead to happiness as knowing all displays mankind at its worst.

The more Mortimer, and we may assume Reynolds, learns about human nature, the more disgusted he becomes and regrets his choice. His peregrinations take him through several adventures and episodes.

The ‘Genius’ then gives Mortimer a supernatural bookcase that only he can see and is always with him. Whenever Mortimer is perplexed by a situation concerning the motivations or activities of the participants he he turns to the bookcase that provides him with a manuscript that explains the true situation all its manifestations he has only to ask. However, his bookcase cannot predict the future.

Mortimer’s uncanny ability to know the complete past history of people he has only just met will have consequences because he can produce no evidence as to how he acquired the knowledge. This becomes clear in the episode of the Marquis Delaroche. Without going into inessential details in this very clever story the Marquis neglects the wife of his dead brother whose fortune had been entrusted to him. Mortimer becomes acquainted with Athalie d’Estival, her name and confronts the Marquis Delaroche, to whom he is a complete stranger, attempting to shame him into supporting his sister-in-law.

The Marquis is old and the epitome of deviousness. When Mortimer butts into the Marquis’ life and proves to him that he has misappropriated his brother’s inheritance the Marquis sets Mortimer up. He opens his safe, leaving the door open, and gives Mortimer a casket containing his wealth refusing to give a proper written authorization for Mortimer to be in possession of the casket and expels Mortimer from his house. Immediately then, with his safe left open the Marquis commits suicide by slashing his throat. His servant accosts Mortimer leaving the house with the casket under his cloak and assumes the Mortimer stole it. The dead body is then discovered and circumstantial evidence indicates Mortimer to be both a murderer and thief.

Reynolds thoroughly dislikes the authority of circumstantial evidence, and with good reason, so this story gives him an opportunity to display its fallaciousness.

Because of his ability to know personal details of other people’s lives Mortimer’s friends consider him not only eccentric but insane. This is confirmed to the judge when he interrogates Mortimer. I will quote a passage because it indicates Reynolds brilliance and knowledge of psychology at only twenty-six years of age.

The Judge of Instruction commenced the usual system of catechizing; and for some time our hero replied with calmness and precision to the various question put to him. But at length, as those questions gradually touched more nearly on the dread event itself, he became confused- his ideas were no longer defined and distributed in their proper cells in his imagination, but were collected into one heterogeneous and unintelligible mass; and, yielding to the impulse of those sentiments which were uppermost in his mind, he commenced a long exculpatory harangue, the principle subject of which was his race. The Judge listened patiently for some time, and at length shrugged up his shoulders to imply his utter ignorance of the meaning of the prisoner’s speech. At length, exhausted by the long flow of verbiage in which he had indulged, Sir Edmund sank upon a seat, almost unconscious of what he had been saying and where he was.

That’s a pretty acute description of a state of mind. Reynolds was deeply interested in psychological studies. One must bear in mind that this period was the beginning of the great opening of the European mind. I doubt if there were many who could have reproduced that analysis. The description of the whole interview is masterful and that at only twenty-six.

In any event Mortimer was convicted of murder, declared insane, and committed to the Bicetre insanity wing. George was familiar with, at least, the outside of the building, this massive Bicetre structure housing criminals, the insane and others.

It seems obvious that George toured all these insane asylums and prisons. He was up on recent developments of the treatment of the insane. He was aware of Dr. Phillippe Pinel who had very recently begun the humane treatment of the mentally afflicted.

The people of the time were placed under unbearable distress and hardship, especially women. One reads of the women that Dr. Jean Martin Charcot at the Salpetriere of Paris in the 1860s, 70s and 80s treated and their mental sufferings were appalling. Their history of abuse was incredible. Nor were all asylums as enlightened as those of Drs. Pinel and Charcot and, remember, these were pioneers.

Whether George’s description of the Bicetre is accurate is beyond me to determine, he does however tell an interesting story of one of the inmates. The story sounds like it may have been true, but, read on: Mortimer has been declared guilty but insane. Committed to the Bicetre insane wing he domiciled with three other monomaniacs. The three stories are actual psychological evaluations of the inmates. The one the interests us most is the first. The story is a Frankenstein type.

The first was an old man of sixty-five with long grey hair flowing from the back part of his head, the crown and regions of the temples being completely bald. He was short in stature, stooping in gait, and possessed of a countenance eminently calculated to afford a high opinion of his intellectual powers, he was however a monomaniac of no uncommon description. Bred to the medical profession, he had given, when at an early age, the most unequivocal proofs of a vigorous and fertile imagination. He first obtained attention towards the singularity of his conceptions by disputing the rights of the Englishman, Dr. Harvey, to the honour of having first discovered the circulation of the blood. He maintained that Harvey merely revived the doctrine, and that it was known to the ancients. This opinion he founded upon the following passage in Plato: – “The heart is the centre or knot of the blood vessels, the spring or fountain of the blood, which is carried impetuously round; the blood is the food of the flesh; and for the process of nourishment the body is laid out in canals, which is like those drawn down through gardens, that the blood may be conveyed as from a fountain, to every part of the previous system.”

William Harvey published his treatise on the circulation of the blood in Frankfurt Germany in 1628. He did not come out of the blue as others were working on the same problem. Even he was assailed by skeptics and for a time lost reputation. I have no doubt that Harvey had read Plato and unless his memory was defective he probably retained an impression of Plato’s statements.

But to the point, Plato’s description is prescient. He understood the matter which he explained in literary, not scientific, terms so the imprisoned doctor was essentially right that Harvey could not claim to be the first to understand the role of the heart in the circulation of the blood. He was the first known physician to describe the issue completely in scientific detail or nearly completely.

The young physician was laughed at for venturing to contradict a popular belief, and was assailed by the English press for attempting to deprive an Englishman of the initiative honour of the discovery. He was looked upon as an enthusiast, and lost all the patronage he had first obtained by his abilities. Being possessed of a competency, he did not regret this circumstance in a pecuniary point of view; but his pride was deeply wounded, and he resolved to accomplish some great feat which should compel the world to accord him those laurels which had hitherto been refused. He was deeply skilled in the science of anatomy; and his intimate acquaintance with the human frame led him to fashion two beautiful anatomical bodies in wax. The one was a perfect representation of the form of man, with all the muscles and nerves laid bare; and the second; which took to pieces, was the image of a female in the last stages of gestation. These models were applauded as specimens of art, but obtained no praise as evidences of Anatomical skill. Again disappointed and disgusted at the coldness of a world that knew not how to appreciate the merits of his labours, the physician urged by the perpetual contemplation of his wax models and considering himself to be sufficiently practiced in the minutiae of the human frame by the manufacture of these representations of life, resolved in attempting a more sublime task. His elevated imagination aimed at nothing less than the fabrication of an animate being! For weeks- for months- for years in the solemn silence of a chamber fitted up for the purpose, and into which he never permitted a soul to enter, did the enthusiast study his project, without being fully aware of the way in which he should commence it. At length his intellect became so far affected by his strange meditations, that he felt convinced in his own mind that his experience could never be sufficient to encompass his lofty aim, unless he examined the fountains of life in the bosom of an expiring human being. Dead to all other feeling save the morbid one which urged him on to this study, he calmly resolved to choose some victim as a model for his projected work. He one night issued forth into the streets of Paris, in the midst of a horrible winter and accosted a young man whom, by his condition he supposed to be homeless and starving. He was right in his conjecture, and with kind words he enticed the unsuspecting mendicant home. He gave him food, and then caused him to imbibe a cup of generous wine, in which he had previously infused a powerful narcotic. The mendicant fell into a deep stupor; and the physician without a single sentiment of compunction hastened to perform his diabolical operation upon the lethargic victim. He bled him in the jugular vein; and, while the poor young man’s life was ebbing away, the anatomical speculator proceeded to hack away, with his unsparing knife, at those parts which he wished to lay open and examine at his own brutal leisure. In his hurry to accomplish his mysterious designs, he had forgotten to make fast the door to his study; and the curiosity of his old housekeeper led to the detection of his crime. The woman excited an alarm in the house; and his atrocious deed, with all its circumstances, was exposed. He was tried for the murder, and was condemned as a monomaniac to perpetual imprisonment in the Bicetre. At that time Mortimer became acquainted with this singular individual, he had been an inmate of the prison for upwards of thirty years, and never lost an opportunity of declaring that, if he were provided with the proper implements and materials, he would form a human being, far more complete, and less liable to organic derangement than man.

I consider that quote quite astounding writing and the template for numerous horror films in the twentieth century. One wonders if Reynolds had experienced this situation while he could not possibly have. His residence in France doesn’t leave time, however this story must be based on real events that he either read about or was told. Throughout his way to 1851 which is all I can attest to at this time Reynolds returns frequently to stories of physicians of which he seems to have intimate knowledge of his various descriptions. Of course, his namesake, Duncan McArthur was a physician and if Dick Collins was right did operate on cadavers as fresh as he could get. It is a small step from that to imagine a doctor working on live specimens but still the psychological description of the man in Bicetre is so complete and convincing that Reynolds was a very accomplished at the age of twenty-six.

He wrote circles around Bulwer-Lytton, Ainsworth and Dickens, his contemporaries while being far more accomplished than writers who followed him like Trollope and Willkie Collins as accomplished as these writers and their fellows were. They all must have been influenced by him to some degree.

Certainly Dickens and Ainsworth were, as he by them, but the quality of his mind is much deeper and more highly developed. Ainsworth who began an amazing sequence of historical novels in the early forties when Reynolds was quiescent tried to explore historical topics in a deep way but his mind was a little light, he takes a more academic style. A comparison between the two can be found in Reynolds 1854 novel The Rye House Plot.

Both Ainsworth and Dickens gravitated toward George’s style in their later works. Reading Ainsworth’s South Sea Bubble written in the 1860s is very close to his style.

George, of course was influenced by all three writers, among many, Bulwer-Lytton, Ainsworth and Dickens. Ainsworth who had a literary salon in the late forties and through the fifties excluded Reynolds from his coterie. He and Dickens were tight and getting Dickens and Reynolds into the same room would have been hazardous.

While Ainsworth’s Rookwood and Jack Sheppard were favorites of George and Dickens interestingly all three were in decline. The social conditions that had produced them had disappeared and a new crop of writers responding to new conditions replaced them. For my own tastes I prefer these Late Georgian to early Victorian authors to what followed.

There is a charm in the three and the sporting novels of R.S Surtees and Captain Marryat and the rest, William Makepeace Thackery, who can forget him, that is lacking as the epoch changed. Still we see a certain loss of innocence as advancing knowledge turned the world more serious and complex. The greatest of historians and histories, Edward Gibbons and the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire couldn’t have been written in the same way after Darwin’s Origin of Species. Maybe the big change occurred even earlier in Prince Albert’s Crystal Palace Exhibition of 1851. The exhibition of all those machines and advance screamed: Hello to the Brave New World, as brave or maybe even braver than Aldous Huxley’s. Exhibitions became the rage until the great Columbian Expo of Chicago crowned the whole movement. What could ever top that? Nothing. Fade to modernity.

To return to George Reynolds. As I say, it was almost a tragedy that Reynold’s titled Master Timothy’s Bookcase after Dickens’ Master Humphrey’s Clock. The Magic Lantern Of The World, the subtitle, would have been much better. The Bookcase is very readable both as a novel and as a collection of stories with a great deal of philosophical matter pertinent to understanding the mind of Reynolds himself. As Dick Collins say, there is much autobiographical material in the novels and Bookcase is full of it.

End of Part XIa, Part XIb follows.

Part X, Time Traveling With R.E. Prindle

A Review

Geo. W.M. Reynolds’ The Necromancer

by

R.E. Prindle

Reynolds’ writing system was such that he could write each installment of the Mysteries of the Court of London in seven hours leaving the rest of the week open. Thus he had a seven hour work week leaving time to do a myriad other things including writing other books. He says his mind was bursting with ideas. He had a powerful compartmentalized mind so that he could keep two or three novels going at the same time so that in the year of 1851 he wrote his installments for the Court of London and The Seamstress, Pope Joan, Kenneth and the Necromancer, the last two extending into 1852. We are going to examine here his very fine novel, The Necromancer, or perhaps one might rename it the Magician.

If as seems evident that every novelist is writing his own life whether consciously or unconsciously, it is also true that the novelist reflects his own time. Ostensibly the Necromancer takes place in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries but I think we can abstract a story about what was happening currently in his day. This will require much background work.

As is uppermost in every twenty-first century White mind the question of is the author in any way anti-Semitic, non, Feminist, a racist, and as it is expressed a Homophobe. We are going to explain the Necromancer as an explanation of Semitism in the England of Reynolds and ignore the other bete noirs. You have been forewarned.

Whether you consider Semites, that is Jews, as a religion, a nation, a people or whatever they are an economic, political and social force working solely for Jewish interests to the exclusion of all others. Jews consider themselves a nation and a people. The period from 1814 through the nineteenth century saw the rise of the Jewish people as the pre-eminent people of Great Britain. The rise was especially prominent from 1815 to 1860, the period most important of Reynolds novelist life.

It is not possible that he didn’t note the situation and if he didn’t mention it directly, which he doesn’t, then there must be a reason. Why would he have to resort to a parable such as The Necromancer? The answer was that even at that time there were penalties to writing ethnographical studies such as Reynolds’ that did not show Jews to critical advantage.

If one found it necessary to include Jewish characters they must be portrayed in the most benevolent light. Reynolds does mention Jewish characters but in a peculiar way. He lauds them as long suffering, unfairly victimized as a people but then he invariably displays them as what are called anti-Semitic stereotypes. Thus the pawn broker in Wagner, the Wehr Wolf.

He is depicted as a totally inoffensive person, obsequious to the extreme as a persecuted member of the bedeviled people. After these laudatory comments Reynolds then pictures a character bearing all the so-called Semitic tropes. He changes the stones on the pawned diamonds to paste, which Reynolds justifies by his peoples ages long persecution, as well as other criminal acts. It would seem that Reynolds knew the score.

The odd thing, since Jewish activity was at a height is that Reynolds makes no reference to Jewish economic or banking activities. Let us do a brief survey of where matters stood at the time. In 1815 Nathan Rothschild seized control of English currency and the Bank of England.

To explain:

A famous European and Jewish canard is that of father Mayer Amschel Rothschild and his five arrows, that is, his five sons. They were dispatched to European capitals to form a powerful network covering the continent and England. Nathan Rothschild was sent to Manchester to engage in the booming textile industry. Nathan was no businessman and could not succeed in textiles. He therefore turned to crime becoming a smuggler which would turn out to fortuitously make his fortune.

In 1806 Napoleon was conquering the German States, moving in on the Margrave of Hesse-Cassel. The Margrave was fabulously wealthy. He wanted to conceal his wealth from Napoleon who was more than eager to appropriate it. The Margrave then employed his Court Jew, Mayer Amschel Rothshild, to conceal it. Mayer sent a substantial portion of it to Nathan who by this time was floundering around as a banker. The money immediately established Nathan as a financial force. At that time the British were engaging Napoleon in the Iberian Peninsular War. Wellington the British general in the Peninsula needed cash desperately but the usually inventive English didn’t know of a secure way to get the money to him. Nathan was then used to transport the money. Using his, by this time, well developed smuggling skills in conjunction with his brother arrow, James, in Paris, they delivered the mail.

This was known to the French authorities as Fouche, the very clever Minister of Police, was aware of exactly how it had been done. The method is well demonstrated in the German Movie, The Rothschilds. So Nathan and his fellow Jews scored a bundle on that caper.

Nathan’s most outstanding feat that brought England to its knees was his capture of the currency after Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo. He spread the rumor that Napoleon had won Waterloo causing a stupendous sell off that drove prices far down. While others sold Nathan bought. Then his special couriers raced to London to carry news of the English, or allied, victory. Prices bounced back but by then using the fabulous wealth of the Margrave of Hesse Nathan owned huge amounts of securities that he sold at magnificent profit thus securing the base of the Rothschild dynasty, still going strong eight generations on.

To report this astonishing feat in history tends to mitigate the reaction of the Brits when they learned how they had been diddled out of the ruling of their country for Rothschild had pulled an astonishing cheat. Reynolds who was very well informed across the board must have known this but was constrained from portraying it for fear of Jewish retaliation which even was formidable.

We are now moving to the 1840s and Nathan who had passed was succeeded by Lionel Rothschild as the scion of the family. A most formidable and dangerous antagonist.

At this time young Benjamin Disraeli (1804-81) was attempting to establish himself as a literary wizard before entering politics. He had already written many novels when in 1844 he wrote Coningsby, Sybil in 1845 and Tancred in 1847. In Coningsby he laid bare the Jewish influence in European affairs when he wrote that the world was actually governed by different people behind the scenes than the public imagined. Thus he led the reading public to believe that the apparent rulers were mere operatives of others, that is, the Jews.

These three political novels made more of a stir than his earlier romances had so that it seems reasonable that Disraeli, Coningsby at least, had been read by Reynolds by 1851. In Coningsby Disreali lauds his Jewish mastermind as the most astounding human being since Adam. The character was based on the real life Right Honourable Lionel Freiherr Rothschild. (1808-1879) Named Sidonia in the novel.

Lionel, Lion-el means Lion of the Lord or God, what we might say, Defender of the Faith in Christian terms.

The Jews since Nathan had owned the State of England but they as a different religion from the Anglicans suffered political and religious disabilities. It was Lionel’s mission to remove them in which mission he was successful.

In 1847 he was the first Jew to be elected to Parliament. This was success but it would also have absorbed Lionel as just another member. He wanted more. He in essence did not want to be absorbed as an English member of the House of Commons but as an autonomous Jew. To be sworn in he had to take an oath of Christian formulation. This he refused to do wishing to be sworn in as a Jew.

In order to accommodate him this would have required a changing of the rules with long term consequences. Accordingly Lord Russell introduced a Jewish Disabilities Act to change the rules. In 1849 when the Act failed the German-Jewish Baron Lionel Rothschild resigned his seat. But still determined he won a bye election to keep his campaign going. Returning he still refused to swear on the New Testament demanding the Jewish or Old Testament. The oath still required him to say: ‘Upon the true faith of a Christian.’ He refused to do so on the grounds that Christianity was not the true faith, Judaism was. Once again he was compelled to resign his seat.

In 1852 he tried to bull his way through but once again was denied. Finally in 1858 Lionel Rothschild forced through the oath changes. Refusing to be bareheaded as required by English custom he demanded to wear his yarmulke or skull cap and instead of saying ‘on the true faith of a Christian’ he was allowed to say ‘so help me Jehovah.’

Thus he became the first Jewish member of the House of Commons but the first Jew in the House rather than an English member of the Jewish faith. Thus in this long battle to be seated Lionel changed the nature of the country into a country of Englishmen and nearly autonomous Jews. Already in control of English currency the Jews would now aspire to political power while moving freely through society ostensibly equal but actually superior having all English rights as well as autonomous Jewish rights that were denied the English.

Thus Disraeli’s astonishing Sidonia/Lionel cleared the way for Disraeli to serve in the Commons but also to become the Prime Minister; the intermediary between the English people and their Sovereign.

These activities were not carried on in a vacuum or beneath the observance of interested parties of which Reynolds was one. While he was only observing the struggle up to 1851-52 when he wrote the Necromancer the writing was on the wall. No doubt Reynolds had read Disraeli’s Coningsby and had watched Lionel Rothschild’s maneuvering. Being a novelist it was easy for him to shadow forth the denouement that occurred in 1858.

My reading of the Necromancer reflects Reynolds’ version of what was happening. Thus his protagonist Lionel Danvers is Lionel Rothschild. As an historical novelist he then creates a fictional history of the Danvers/Rothschild story. He combines the five arrows into one. As was commonly thought at the time the Jews were Satanic thus Danvers had sold his soul to Satan for a period of a hundred fifty years so and with the due date imminent it was necessary for Danvers to honor his commitment to Satan to redeem his soul.

Danvers existed under several names and guises as he was able to shape shift to any age at any time. Thus at various periods he was the middle aged Walter, a mature Lionel Danvers and a boyish Reginald or Conrad.

Even though he had sold his soul to the devil, Satan had given him an escape clause in that if he could find six virgins who would do anything for him, even die, he would take those six souls in exchange for Danvers’. For some reason I always read Danvers in the French form of D’enfer. Thus Danvers becomes The Lion Of the Lord of Hell. Whether correct or not it certainly fits.

Now, Lionel Danvers to use that name of his existence, had all the wealth of Europe at his command. While ostensibly an English Lord he spent all his time on the continent where he had the greatest concentrations of wealth in addition to his very large holdings in England. For him money had no other meaning than to buy power in whatever form it took by any means necessary.

In his Walter incarnation, his first, as the clearest example, Walter shows up in Genoa where he befriends the scion of the Landini trading family. He then bestows, not as a loan but for safe keeping interest free, an incredible fortune that Landini can use without any restrictions for his own benefit on the condition that whenever Danvers appears the Landinis are to return his money in full on demand or they become his slaves.

Naturally the Landinis being astute traders enjoy enormous success for several generations. Even though Danvers has never returned they still maintain his fortune. Each successor has been made aware of his obligation so that not only the trust is available ready to honor at any time but also interest. However suddenly the worst fortune descends on them and all their deals begin to sour, whole argosies are lost at sea. Danvers chooses this moment to return and demand his money. The demand can’t be honored.

But, the Landinis have a beautiful virgin daughter, Bianca. Danvers courts her, wins her heart and they set a date to be married. In the meantime, as debtors to Danvers, the Landinis have become his slaves. They are ordered to go to London and start a jewelry house, which they do.

Before leaving the marriage is arranged between Walter and Bianca. Before the marriage Danvers carries Bianca off to no one knows where. They both just vanish. Bianca becomes the first of the virgins sacrificed to Satan by Danvers. But, of course, the details that can be revealed here are mysteries to the reader.

Bianca had been abducted to Danvers ruined castle on the Isle of Wight. In the secret chamber where Danvers murders the women a score card is on the wall in fiery letters, thus Bianca becomes virgin soul #1, five more to go.

As the story opens Lionel Danvers is sacrificing his fifth, Clara Manners.

One of the deepest mysteries in this astonishingly deep book is the problem of Musidora Sinclair who Lionel has selected as his sixth victim. He seems to have had a singular attachment to the girl. Musidora had been a charming girl but at the age of seventeen she became of a very icy temperament unmoved by anyone or anything. As it turns out Lionel had attempted to lead her to his secret chamber, she lived on the Isle of Wight, but she got cold feet on the way to the chamber and fled. This event turned her heart cold. Now, after having despatched Clara Manners he decides to try again to make Musidora his final victim.

I take Musidora to mean Golden Song or music. Whether right or wrong, she is.

Lionel now has a problem because Musidora won’t allow him near her. Fortunately Lionel has a plan B. He will impersonate King Henry VIII, during whose reign the story takes place at this point, and wed her. Unfortunately her beauty overwhelms him and he impregnates her (another mystery) thus destroying her virginity. Even Lionel Danvers was not so stupid that he didn’t know that it was impossible to diddle Satan.

For Reynolds the story of the impersonation of Henry III is the central point of the story. Between Nathan and Lionel Rothschild a shadow government had been forming in England. While Queen Victoria was the apparent ruler at this time the actual rulers were, as Disraeli had written, other than the seeming rulers. Lionel lived till 1879 when he died at the age of seventy.

Granting that Disraeli was accurate then whatever power the shadow rulers had at the time, their power has gone on increasing to the present day when Evelyn Rothschild wields the power behind the throne. Prior to the Communist Revolution of 1917 Rasputin was deemed the power behind the Russian throne. He was also thought to be conspiring with the Germans. As it happened Rasputin had a Jewish secretary and we must suppose that the secretary had ties to other Jewish revolutionaries so that he was able to pass information to them much as Dreyfus had done in France in the 1890s.

In all probability the German agents Rasputin was thought to be conspiring with was actually being done by his Jewish secretary. The secretary would have been very intimate with Rasputin and would have had strong control over what information Rasputin received while having access to all or most of Rasputin’s info and plans. Thus Through Rasputin the Jews would have been able to influence the Czarina and through the Czarina the Czar.

In the US during the same period, the Wall Street speculator Bernard Baruch would become the actual co-president of Woodrow Wilson free to issue commands on his own authority subject only to correction by Wilson himself and he and Wilson were of like minds. So, at the crucial time of the Revolution both Russia and the US were subject to Jewish discipline.

Be that as it may, is it any coincidence that Lionel Danvers and Lionel Rothschild bore the same Christian name? I think not. Reynolds is trying to tell us something. So Lionel Danvers having circulated rumors that he was dead or on the continent set about to realize his lust on the body of Musidora Sinclair while posing as Henry VIII.

It will be remembered that at this time Henry was seeking a divorce from his Spanish wife Catherine, but it had not yet been achieved. Danvers has to fool Musidora into believing he, impersonating Henry, had succeeded in obtaining that divorce. First Danvers has to lure Musidora from her retreat on the Isle of Wight. He has a relative couple of Musidora living in the royal city of Greenwich invite Musidora to come for and extended visit to their castle. Then he finds a probable excuse for Henry to be a guest of the Earl and Countess Grantham, Musidora’s relatives.

There is some hint that Danvers magically transformed himself into a duplicate form of Henry. I don’t think that was necessary. At this point in history but few people would have seen Henry. So, all that Danvers would have had to have done is bought some clothes royalty would have worn and developed the persona. Of course Musidora knew Danvers well as a young girl and ought to have been able to identify his voice. But, this is Reynolds’ story and the disguise was complete although their was some uncertainty accepting face values.

Nevertheless Henry/Danvers showered Musidora with expensive gifts including a set of very expensive diamonds. It will be remembered that the Landinis from Genoa had been running a jewelry shop in London for about a hundred years.

Eventually, with continued prodding from the Granthams, who were completely fooled, Danvers/Henry break Musidora down and she agrees to marry the faux monarch. However suspicions remain and the strictest safeguards are taken. Musidora demands to see the papal bull nullifying Henry’s marriage to Catherine which matter was not resolved at the time.

Danvers has one forged. As three papal seals are needed Danvers obtains authentic seals.

As a political operative he has suborned numerous members of Henry’s household putting them on the payroll and so has one obtain seals from an authentic papal communication. The officiating priest is fooled and really has no choice but to marry Musidora and Danvers/Henry. Danvers cannot allow Musidora to circulate or talk about her marriage so he swears her to secrecy about the whole affair.

Nevertheless Henry learns of the fraud and swears his informers to secrecy because he doesn’t want the public to know that a shadow King Henry is loose in the kingdom. Reynolds here is describing the actual political condition in England that a second monarch is running the kingdom by secretive measures. This answers to Disraeli’s claim that others than the seeming rulers are directing affairs.

In fact Disraeli himself will become Prime Minister and facetiously and destructively make Victoria the Empress of India. Disraeli was ostensibly a Christian having changed from Judaism to Anglican at the age of thirteen. Thirteen is when a Jewish lad takes his Bar Mitzvah becoming a young man with a man’s prerogatives. It is very likely the change to Anglicanism was deceitfully made with political motives in mind. Disraeli became a Jew disguised as a Christian.

While there may be some objectors to my analysis one should note that Sir Piers Dunhaven the father of the second female victim had once had an extensive property in Cumberland but he had lost most of his property to usury. As Christians were forbidden usury it follows that Jews using their monopoly in usury had stripped Sir Piers of his property. There are subtle hints such as this to Lionel Danvers nationality.

What we have here then is an allegory of the subjection of England by the Jews according to Reynolds. On that level this is the shadow meaning of the novel.

On another level this is a near perfect Gothic novel. One is reminded of The Mysteries of Udolpho by Mrs. Radcliffe. As he was an old admirer of Mrs. Radcliffe I’m sure that Reynolds had Udolpho in mind as he wrote this. The story is also first class mystery and would beat out Willkie Collins for longest mystery story. And, Reynolds keeps the mystery going to the very end. Who could have guessed that Marian Bradley, Danvers last possible chance to beat the devil was his and Musidora’s daughter? Didn’t see that one coming did we?

The story is plotted out perfectly.   When we are shown the glowing signboard with the illuminated names and the blank spaces we have to wonder. That was the first mystery and the finest first mystery explained. This list of victims also gave Reynolds his opportunity to tell six tales and he loves to tell those tales.

Then there is the mystery of Danvers and where he gets his inexhaustible supply of money. His fortunes, not just a fortune but fortunes, come from over all Europe and England. An historical question often asked is how do Jews when expropriated and expelled out of one locality show up in a new one and immediately, as it seems, regain their wealth. The solution to that one is easy—usury. Aware that they may be expelled on short notice they kept jewels and portable wealth sewn into garments so that they could leave on amoment’s notice to resurface as wealthy elsewhere.

The Catholic Church and its opinion on money making money, that is usury, which is the objection to loaning on interest, penalized its own adherents and enfranchised the Jews who it politically disenfranchised. Interest in those days wasn’t six or seven percent either. Usury laws only came into existence much later. In those days interest was as much as fifty percent compounded daily or more so you can see how the money lenders, Jews, cornered the money supply wherever they were. The Danvers unlimited, renewed wealth must have come from usury, that is, legalized theft.

And Danvers applied his wealth artfully. The ruse of entrusting money to someone to be reclaimed whenever on no notice is a sure way to entrap the party. Reynolds was no dummy when it came to understanding ruses and ploys. He studied hard. The ploy that the Marquis of Leveson used to entrap Venetia Trelawney was classic.

The Marquis wanted sex from Venetia that she didn’t want to give. Not unlike Danvers, Leveson had unlimited funds that he didn’t mind losing so long as he obtained his desire. So he presented Venetia with a magnificent string of pearls. He told her he would redeem one or all at a time at a thousand pounds each on demand and with the last pearl she was his. Venetia then accepted what she thought was a guarantee that she would never be in want and never have to succumb.

However the wily Marquis set a series of matters in motion to compel Venetia to redeem the pearls. Borrowing from Eugene Sue’s Wandering Jew he has accomplices debauch the formerly steady husband of Venetia so that he turns to dissipation and gambling thus having to be bailed out frequently. Venetia soon has to bed the Marquis. The mysteries are usually tragic stories if you compassionate with the characters.

In this novel, while none of the characters has the memorability of the Resurrection Man from Mysteries of London, the whole ensemble of characters all work well together to create a memorable story.

The Necromancer is one of series of Satanic novels that Reynolds wrote from 1847 to 52. The first being Wagner the Wehr Wolf, 1846-47, Faust in 1847, The Bronze Statue in 1849-50 and then the Necromancer in 1851-52. Each is a beat the devil attempt on the part of the protagonist. Satan is a tough customer and none succeed.

The end of Danvers is a classic much exploited in novels and movies. Lionel (Walter, Reginald and Conrad) has lived for a hundred fifty years. When his attempt on the sixth maiden fails and Satan comes to receive his due, Danvers shrivels from a handsome young man into a withered old man bursts into flames and disappears.

I don’t know whether Reynolds was the first to use this dodge or not, but it becomes a classic dodge thereafter.

The estimable critic Dick Collins considers the Necromancer to be his favorite Reynolds. While I have now read twenty-five volumes of Reynolds I can’t place the volume ahead of the massive novels of The Mysteries of London, The Mysteries of the Court of London, nor, for that matter, The Mysteries of Old London. The last has a special place in my esteem; yet, as I have said, The Necromancer as a super-natural Gothic novel I think it may be near perfection. I’m sure that Mrs. Radcliffe would have been pleased with George’s effort.

Par XI of Time Travels With R.E Prindle follows.

Pt. IX: Time Traveling With R.E. Prindle

by

R.E. Prindle

 GWMReynolds

George W.M. Reynolds

Now that in parts six, seven and eight we have an adequate time line of Reynolds’ career we can get down into the substance of his major works, Mysteries of London and Mysteries of the Court of London. For those not aware of the extent of his corpus, it is immense with about all of it written concurrently with his two major novels.

For instance, in the four years from 1844 to 1848 when the four series of Mysteries of London were written, George also wrote Faust: A Romance of the Secret Tribunals in 1847; Wagner, the Wehrwolf in 1846-47; The Mysteries of Old London: Days of Hogarth in 1847-48 and The Coral Island or, The Hereditary Curse in 1848 as he ended Mysteries of London and began Mysteries of the Court at the same time. All of these are significant works are of some length.

Also, in 1846, he began to publish his magazine, The Reynolds Miscellany which he edited. While I have not received the copies yet, Gyan Publishers of India offers ten volumes of the Miscellany in five volumes of about eight hundred pages each. I will browse them when they arrive.

Altogether this seems to be a heavy writing load, an impossible load. Yet when one examines Reynolds’ working methods and his careful time management it may have been easily done by him given his large mind. Certainly the load from 1844 to 1848 was, for him, light. He was responsible for turning in eight double column pages, minus illustrations a week.

George_IV_

George IV In Full Regalia

As his mind could apparently be rigidly compartmentalized; as he is said to have written very fast, then his actual work period turning out eight thousand words could be easily done in, say, six hours. He had to keep his whole story in mind for each sequent but, as I imagine, as he turned in an installment his mind, or part of it, immediately began plotting out the next installment so that when his next deadline approached he had the eight thousand words ready and could just spill them out. So, his whole work week by which he sustained his whole extensive family was only six hours long.

The rest of the seven days could be devoted to family matters, exploring the metropolis and reading. George read and studied. His Greek mythology was correct and extensive, and he drops classical references regularly. Oddly he makes few Biblical references. He very obviously was familiar with the British, French and German literature of the day. He was definitely literate in English and French and probably could read German. He takes his inspiration from where he can get it. Could there be any coincidence that the William Harrison Ainsworth depiction of the Gypsy camp in Rookwood is reflected in Reynolds’ passages of Gypsy camps in Mysteries of London? I think not.

As I am discovering, not many people are aware of W.H. Ainsworth. He seems to be virtually unknown, but then, so does Reynolds. Ainsworth was a very successful and influential author of the day turning out perhaps more books than Reynolds while being a major influence on Reynolds. Very good books, too, well worth reading.

While I had read Ainsworth’s name being frequently mentioned I had never read him until just recently. I was fortunate to pick up various sets of novelists of this period at an online auction for next to nothing. Ainsworth was one of the sets. While the books were nearly free, about a dollar each, the shipping from Topeka Kansas was horrendous. So, while I have some reading of the period, I can now immerse myself.

By the way, I have been familiar with the French writers for some time and more recently the German authors while an ardent admirer of ETA Hoffman for a couple decades. While it is clear that George read French with ease, it seems probable that he could wade through German texts also. So, what he did with a full week’s time is of interest.

Obviously, one thing, was how to become his own publisher. In 1846 only two years into Mysteries of London he obviously understood enough about publishing to launch his successful Miscellany at which time he began his ancillary novels to fill its pages. The first issue began with his Wagner, the Wehr Wolf. Undoubtedly the other three novels also appeared in its pages. I will find out soon.

Now, the two major works are immense. I have now read each twice. The first time I caught the most exciting highlights. The second time I penetrated the depth but the stories are so long and diverse a third and fourth reading would be necessary to organize all the characters and incidents. Actually both works are several novels in one. The stories are braided in such a way that that one story branches out replaced by another related story then rejoining further downstream. Each story could be abstracted and edited into a complete novel with certain characters interchangeably distributed throughout. Thus the story in the first series of Mysteries of the Court of Tim Meagles and Lady Diana Lade is completed and finished with Tim and Diana eased out of the rest of the novel.

Beau Brummel

The Beau w/Cravat

The question in that instance is who was Tim Meagles in real life. I believe he was none other than the Beau himself, Beau Brummell. As Mysteries of the Court is a story of the Regency of George VI and as the Beau had the same relationship with the Prince as Meagles, the two must be related as no other than the Beau had so close a relationship with the Regent.

As my authority for the history of Beau Brummell I use the biography of Capt. Jesse, titled Beau Brummell. The Capt. Published in 1844 and he is speaking first hand while having had an acquaintance with Beau in his exile in France. My edition is from a set called Beaux and Belles of England published probably in the 1890s by the Grolier Society of London, a veritable treasure trove of biographies of the era.

The Beau, a Dandy and Beau, is an example of a social species with a long history in England and indeed probably going back in the annals of time to the transformation of the human species from the anthropoids. It is certain that there were cavemen who wore their pelts better than others and perhaps bathed more regularly. The advent of Mr. Gillette being well in the future. The Beau himself was fastidious, apparently unlike his contemporaries as his fastidiousness is mentioned as exceptional. Make your own judgment.

Brummel who was named George as apparently were half the male members of England at the time, was the son of a wealthy merchant thus inheriting thirty thousand pounds on his father’s death or however long it took to get out chancery. Beau, surveying the social scene determined that the only society worth having was that of the aristocrats. Having money but no title he did not qualify for their company so the Beau became the Beau, the trendsetter of male fashion and thus gained acceptability.

He also developed into a master snob and as such rose to prominence or, at least, notoriety. His notoriety attracted the attention of the Prince, that is, George IV, later the Regent and then the King in his own right. There is a remarkable resemblance between the two. I post pictures. From these it appears that the two might almost have had the same father. At any rate, Prince and Beau become bonded, much like Meagles and the Prince. Remember that George IV in his own persona is the main character in the story. The Prince then resided in his mansion, Carlton House, on Pall Mall. Let me interject that there is an excellent survey of the Capital titled London by Charles Knight in six lengthy volumes, Cambridge University Press, containing wonderful historical essays on most of the locations mentioned by George- that is, Reynolds. The six volumes were originally issued in parts ending in 1844, One can sharpen one’s understanding.

But, George- that is Brummel- was terribly irked by his inferior position to George- that is the Prince and so he became demeaning and superior, ridiculing George IV in conversations with others so that the Prince, George, became infuriated and broke off relations with George, the Beau. The crowning touch came when he and a fellow ran into the Prince while walking. The Prince studiously ignored the Beau addressing only his friend causing Brummell to caustically remark: Who’s your fat friend? Well, come now. Completely in disfavor now the Beau deteriorated and as a relatively young man was forced into exile in Calais, France. This previous history is all that concerns us in his characterization in Tim Meagle.

Meagles’ story was written a while after Dumas’ very famous The Three Musketeers was published. The Three Musketeers is a fabulous myth. A wonderful creation of the equally fabulous Alexander Dumas. In Meagles and his companion Lady Diana Lade it appears that Reynolds is trying to create a myth to equal the Musketeers and female character, Milady. Indeed, there are such similarities that Reynolds may have considered himself a rival to the great Frenchman.

Read what Andre Maurois has to say in his biography of the three Dumas titled The Titans of 1957, pp. 182-83:

Never in the whole course of French literature has there been anything comparable to Dumas’s output between the years 1845 and 1855. Novels from eight to ten volumes showered down without a break on the newspapers and bookshops. The whole history of France was passed in review. The Three Musketeers was followed by Twenty Years After and that by Vicomte de Bragelone, another trilogy- Chicot the Jester (La Reine Margot), La dame de Monsoreau and The Forty-Five Guardsmen.

Simultaneously with these, Dumas was busy narrating the decline and fall of the French monarchy—The Diamond Necklace…Le Chevalier de Maison Rouge, Memoires of a Physician…Ange Pitou and La Comtesse de Charny. From early on he had planned to annex the whole of history to his romantic domain. “There is no end to what I want to do,” he said. ‘I long for the impossible. How am I to achieve what I have in mind? By working as no one has ever worked before, by pruning life of all its details; by doing without sleep…’ This programme accounts for the five or six hundred volumes which so astonish the reader…. No one has read all Dumas.

Compare Reynolds and his output from 1844 to 1859. He too wished to write the history of all Europe. When Maurois mentions the five or six hundred volumes he means, I imagine, parts. Thus if Reynolds is broken into parts he can account for three or four hundred volumes. The eight or ten volumes of Mysteries of the Court of London can be broken down to eight or ten complete novels all interrelated. Truly the period from about 1840 to 1880 is the height of British and European literature.

Reynolds changes the character of Meagles from Brummell’s own. The Beau according to Capt. Jesse was quite effeminate. Indeed, he never married and apparently had no female lovers. Meagles and Lady Lade seem to have had a platonic relationship until her husband died. They extorted a Marquisate from George III and then as the Beau had disappeared from England they disappear from The Mysteries of the Court.

Indeed, the Beau must have been trying to inveigle his friend, George IV, into making him a Marquis or ennoblement of some kind. Had Brummel been ennobled then he would have been entitled to associate with the aristocracy instead of being a hanger on.

Lady Lade throughout her and Meagles’ episodes dresses in men’s clothing so that she and Meagles appear as two men to the unobservant. As her name Diana indicates she represents the virgin huntress Artemis in Greek mythology or Diana in the Latin; the female archetype of the Piscean Age in Northern Europe. Reynolds repeatedly refers to her as the Huntress and other attributes of Diana, Tim must therefore be meant to be the male archetype of Pisces in Reynolds’ mind, not as the Redeemer but perhaps as the Trickster.

Just as the Beau longs for a title so does Tim. While the Beau retreated ungratified Tim and Lady Diana Lade obtain their Marquisate by criminal or blackmail means. Without going into details here, Tim and Diana have knowledge that would compromise the reputation of the Georgian House. Using this knowledge then they criminally extort their Marquisate from George III.

To some extent then, Mysteries of the Court is a roman a clef. How many of the other novels in the Mysteries of the Court collection may reference actual histories remains to be addressed.

The main theme is a condemnation of the Regent, George IV. Reynolds detests him as well as the whole aristocracy to the maximum. But, how much of that detestation is sheer envy. How much of himself did Reynolds put into Meagles/Brummell? Reynolds himself has the appearance of a Dandy or Beau and Ainsworth definitely was one. He is so vehement one has to wonder about his accuracy. Is this a fictional history of reality or mere raving. It is apparently reasonably accurate. Capt. Jesse who wrote of Beau Brummell while a stalwart member of his class condemns George IV for, as he puts it, teaching the aristocracy to live beyond their incomes, squandering their great wealth frivolously while living the lives of Libertines.

Reynolds then has the spirit of the times correct and while he may perhaps exaggerate he is not false. He himself believes he is writing fictionalized history; that is, fleshing out the fact with probable detailing.

Thus, in what might be termed the fifth and sixth series of the extended Mysteries of London and the Court, although these two series are not related to the first four, the fifth series concerns itself with the years around 1795 leading to the marriage of George IV with the Princess Caroline. The key point being his previous secret marriage to Mrs. Fitzherbert.

Reynolds does not tackle his main theme directly but embeds it in a series of stories, or novellas, or novels, peripheral to it while creating a sociological portrait of the times making George’s character confirmed by external events.

Mrs. Fitzherbert had ruled Carlton House and the Prince, as George then was, before the Regency, and enjoyed great privileges. The crisis came when George’s father, demanded that George marry the German Princess Caroline of Hanover, Germany who was something of a rustic. That meant he had to put away Mrs. Fitzherbert whom he found compatible and take up with Caroline who he detested.

He tolerated her long enough to create an heir, the Princess Charlotte and then made Caroline’s life miserable so that she exiled herself to the Continent. In Reynolds’ story, sixth series, she is living in Switzerland twenty years later. As this is 1815 Napoleon has just returned from his exile on Elba to Paris.

Reynolds is a clear writer and as his title indicates he is essentially writing a mystery he reveals clues only as necessary. The sixth series, then, titled Venetia Trelawney tells of Mrs. Fitzherbert’s attempt to regain her position at court through a surrogate, Venetia.

We are not permitted to know this until at the conclusion of the series of book five. Apart from all the subsidiary stories the main burden of the sixth series is George IV’s machinations to injure his wife, Caroline. He attempts to portray her as dissolute and morally corrupt for consorting with her equerry, Bergami. he was a fine figure of a man.

To achieve this goal the Prince, now Regent, goes to great lengths in a more or less improbable scheme. A Mrs. Owen has four lovely daughters who, following the Prince’s instructions, she is turning into courtesans and mistresses of duplicity. The youngest, Mary, refuses the training but the other three go to Geneva to be ladies in waiting for Caroline. There by subterfuge they make it appear that Caroline and Bergami are having an affair. Needless to say the scheme is baffled through the agency of Mrs. Fitzherbert.

That’s the general plan but of course much excitement is created by circumambient subplots that are braided into the main story. Many interesting characters are created. Larry Sampson, the Bow Street detective and his adversary the Hangman, Daniel Coffin. Coffin comes close to being as interesting as the Resurrection Man of the first two series of the Mysteries of London. Doctor Death of the third and fourth series doesn’t come close to the above two as a villain. Coffin is more related to the eighteenth century criminal master mind Johnathan Wild or Conan Doyle’s fictional Moriarty.

Of the six series the third and fourth are the weakest although having brilliant moments and a very good temptress, Laura Lorne. That will be dealt with separately. Having discussed the main story of The Mysteries Of London is the first eight parts of Time Travels there is no need to do so here.

When George closed off the second series of The Mysteries of the Court he said that he was through with George IV but that his head was bursting with ideas for a new series. Now a mystery ensues.

My edition of Mysteries of the Court was published by the Francis F. Burton Ethnographical Society in Boston and an Oxford Society in England in twenty volumes c. 1900 under the general title The Works of George W.M. Reynolds. By works is meant twenty volumes of The Mysteries of the Court of London, that’s all. Thus, the set is divided into four units of five volumes. The first five deal with the coming marriage to Caroline, the second five to Venetia Trelawney and the plot against Caroline. Then a third set issued under Reynolds’ name with his picture on the title page under the title, Lady Saxondale’s Crimes, while the fourth division of five volumes is called The Fortunes of the Ashtons. Thus, if the last two divisions are authentic the total work would be ten thousand pages. However there is no mention of the latter two series by any Reynolds scholar. Neither the Oxford Society nor the Burton Ethnographical Society give any indication of the provenance of the latter two series.

Richard F. Burton is the famous Victorian explorer, most notably in the search for the source of the Nile, and being the first European to penetrate into Mecca. He translated the entire Arabian Nights in seventeen volumes. So he became among the first ethnographers. The Oxford Society was also an ethnographical society. Little can be found on either on the internet.

Burton established his Society in 1843 splitting off from a predecessor. One wonders if Reynolds, ever curious, associated himself with the Burton Society and perhaps its predecessor. His Mysteries of the Court of London may be construed as an ethnographical study. I certainly read it as such. Possibly the Oxford and Burton Societies found the Mysteries of the Court so suitable that they commissioned writers to write the two additional series.

It might be possible that Reynolds commissioned the two series but there appears to be no earlier record of them at this tim, indeed, no record but their publication in the Works of George W.M. Reynolds. There is a story worth investigating in the American publishing house, T.B. Peterson. They were responsible for the publication of several novels written by their stable of authors under Reynold’s name. There is information on T.B. Peterson on the internet.

The firm was located in Philadelphia. They had a huge catalog what literature is in the Penny Dreadful style including a large selection of titles from writers like W.H. Ainsworth, Bulwer Lytton and, of course George W.M. Reynolds. They published a two volume edition under the title of The Mysteries of the Court of London. I have no idea whether it included the whole of the two series or a condensed version. They published twenty, perhaps more titles written by their authors under Reynolds’ name, including Ciprina or, The Secrets of the Picture Gallery.

This volume has actually been issued by the British Library as an authentic Reynolds. Possibly T.B. Peterson is unknown to them. Lord Saxondale, who was apparently a little less criminal than his wife Lady Saxondale, Count Christobal, and Lucrizia Mirano, Edgar Montrose or, the Mysterious Penitent, the Ruined Gangster. Peterson really liked The Necromancer while that title was also published by a New York firm.

Anent the Necromancer. I am of the opinion that this book was also not written by Reynolds, or possibly with a collaborator, even though it was published in his Miscellany in 1851. The style isn’t his, the vocabulary isn’t his while in my reading I had the feeling that the book was written by a woman. The detailing just seemed feminine. I think it probable that Reynolds was following in the footsteps of his model Alexander Dumas. Dumas collaborated with Auguste Maquet and others although the books were always issued as Dumas alone.

Perhaps in this case, Peterson called the Necromancer, the Mysteries of the Court of Henry VIII, Reynolds roughed out the story while employing someone else to do the actual writing. At any rate, I do not believe he was the writer or perhaps the sole writer.

Needless to say, Reynolds received no economic benefit because the US did not honor English copyright laws. Nor could Reynolds do anything about the counterfeits written under his name.

So, then, the question is from whence came the final two series and at what date were they written? And perhaps, why? Certainly they were commissioned. Having never read them I am unqualified to speculate but, perhaps, someone might know and be willing to share their knowledge?

Reynolds began the two works in 1844 and so far as we know finished them in 1856. Eighteen fifty-six was three short years before Darwin changed the world by issuing The Origin of Species and making evolution a household word.

By 1856 when the last word of the Mysteries was written Reynolds was already living in the Brave New England whether he knew it or not, and I suspect that he did know. Being wide awake was a new term at the time but I suspect that Reynolds was wide awake. The very face of England was changing as well as tunnels under the Thames. The tunnel probably cost several times what a bridge would have cost and have been more useful.

While writing mysteries of the Court Reynolds turned out twenty other volumes many of great length. Perhaps in the mode of Dumas he was making the maximum use of his time working long and sleeping little. Or, perhaps, as he was accused by Dickens, of employing other writers. Reynolds denies it.

Around him a new crop of novelists were rising, each having become aware of different times and formed by different social conditions. I suspect that although Reynolds remained a best seller throughout the century he became a little old fashioned. Certainly his newspaper kept his name alive and before the public. His politics would always have been ‘avant garde’ although by the turn of the century most of the Chartist demands had been met. The triumph of the Revolution still lay ahead a few years.

Part X  a review of The Necromancer follows.

Reynolds_Miscellany_v1_n1

Pt. VIII: Time Traveling With R.E. Prindle

by

R.E. Prindle

A Dialogue Between George Reynolds and John Dicks with asides from R.E. Prindle.

GWMReynolds

Let us imagine George Reynolds and John Dicks sitting over lunch and a nice glass of Lafite, as George spelled it, reminiscing in early 1860 about the good old days. At this point in time George had ended, or was about to, his novelistic career. He would now devote himself to journalistic matters with his very successful newspaper and magazine. John Dicks who began his association with George in late 1847 had run a tight printing shop always keeping up with developments in printing. An employee of George at this time he will soon be made a full partner and go on to an illustrious later career of publishing cheap literary editions for the masses.

Merely getting by back in ’47 they are now well-to-do men with money in the bank and more rolling in with every publication. They have every reason to think well of themselves.

John asks George how he came up with the idea or the first two Mysteries of London series about the Markham Brothers and the astonishing Resurrection Man.

 

George: That’s kind of an interesting story John. As you know my last couple of books, damn good books too, had flopped. My whole early career was kind of a waste. My apprenticeship one might call it. Personally I thought the Steam Packet and Master Timothy’s Bookcase were great, but, the fickle public, you know…

There I was approaching thirty supporting my family with odd jobs, looking desperately into the future with great fear, a failure without an idea, when George Stiff approached me and said he had a novel idea, serial, that he was calling the Mysteries of London, same general notion as Eugene Sue’s Mysteries of Paris. There was also another Mysteres de Londres by this other French fellow by the name of Paul Feval who had actually published his Mysteres de Londres that was alright. I had this notion of two brothers who chose different paths in life, Richard Markham, virtue, and his brother Eugene, vice.

John: Did that have anything to do with Ainsworth’s two brothers in Rookwood?

George: I remembered that and then there’s Cain and Able of course and Romulus and Remus of Rome but, more importantly I could never get De Sade’s two novels Justine and Juliette out of my mind with De Sade’s notions about the rewards of virtue and vice. So, I changed the sexes to men and reversed the roles and made virtuous Richard more successful than vicious Eugene. I think I’m right too.

John: Did Eugene have any reference to Sue, his first name?

Eugene Sue

Author of Mysteres de Paris and The Wandering Jew

George: Probably. A little joke. I leaned pretty heavily on Sue during my career. A lot more from his Wandering Jew than The Mysteres de Paris, and then his later work. Sue just died you know, young man. Worked himself to death. Terrific prolific writer. I borrowed a lot but don’t lets talk about that.

John: I hadn’t heard about Sue’s death. Interesting fellow. You didn’t by any chance use him as a model for the Marquis of Holmesford in the second series of Mysteries of London by any chance did you George?

George: You got that, did you John?

John: I know your devious mind, George. I remembered how fascinated you were that Sue kept a harem of women of many different nationalities and races in his castle. Then when Holmesford did the same thing I did associate the two. Of course you made Holmesford an old man for your literary purposes but the similarities were there.

George: The truth is stranger than fiction, John but fiction makes it more interesting. Do you know that many of those women were actually Sue’s slave girls? He owned them.

John: No, I didn’t know that. Most of them were white women, how could he own those? Where did he buy them?

George: Slavery hasn’t disappeared John, it’s true that we English outlawed the African slave trade back in ’02 or whenever but slavery is still going strong in America and the Brazils and the middle East. That fellow Livingston reports that the barbaric Arab slave trade from East Africa to the Middle East is tremendous.

The Ottomans control the Balkans and parts of the Caucasus so that slave marts selling whites is still Strong. Samuel Baker, the fellow that is organizing his African expedition actually bought his wife in Hungary at a slave mart in Budapest. Wonderful story. So, there were many sources for Sue to buy his women. Of course, I put in a sly joke with Holmesford in which, rather than die in bed, he struggles to his feet to stagger to the arms of his favorite and dies on her capacious bosom.

Everyone takes a negative view of it when it’s supposed to be a tender moment if humorous. Good way to die don’t you think John? Hated to see Sue die, there goes my inspiration. Dumas’ still alive but my intuition tells me he’s finished. Boy, what productively, exhausted his brain. I’m learning how that feels.

John: You mean the inspiration of the Mysteries series with Sue?

George: No. That was Stiff. Right before my nose but I couldn’t see it. Once I got into it though and finished with George IV, I borrowed his stuff for things like Joseph Wilmot, Mary Price and that sort of thing, his Matilda, or The Misfortunes Of Virtue for instance. You can see the de Sade reference. Sue plotted out the stories for me, I mean I used them, something like Maquet did for Dumas. And then I rewrote them according to my own sensibilities.

Back to Stiff. Nobody had any idea of how astonishingly successful the Mysteries would be. I wasn’t even sure I wanted to do it, but Stiff promised a five quid note a week and always came through. Two hundred sixty quid a year. This seemed like a good deal to me for only a few thousand words a week. Coupled with what I could make on the side. I had a of words in me and they were free to me. Of course, as I came to realize I was making him a heck of a lot more than I was getting. The end result was that he bought himself a damn good income and lifestyle for next to nothing. Look how we’re living.

By the time I got into the second series though, I began to think that there’s something wrong here. If my writing could make their fortunes, my writing could do a lot better for me, I thought.

In ’46 then, still under contract for Mysteries, I began my Reynold’s Miscellany that has been fairly successful as you know. Somehow that brought us together. I realized your genius from the beginning—no, no, I’m serious John, no need for false modesty with me, your integrity, the whole works. So, when the second series was coming to the end, and the expiration of my contract, I had worked up the general outline for the George IV fifth and sixth series so were we’re ready to go as soon as I turned in my last clip to Stiff and refused to sign a new contract.

John: They weren’t too happy with that, were they?

George: I should think not. Of course, I had foolishly talked about the George IV series, so they thought they were going to have that too. That would have put them on Easy Street with me getting five pounds a week. They owned the rights to the Mysteries of London, lock, stock and copyright. Owned the title. If Stiff could have found a writer the Mysteries might have gone on forever.

Finding another writer wasn’t that easy. They should have come to terms with me and shared the income more equitably but, as they said, a contract is a contract. They apparently didn’t understand that contracts are written with a fixed term. They got lucky with me but although I think Tom Miller who they signed next is a fine person and a very adequate writer neither he nor Blanchard who succeeded him understood the audience. I, in association with you John, continued the success.

John: Stiff and Vickers came unglued then in ’48 and forced you into bankruptcy proceedings?

George: Damn ‘em. That was more Vickers who lost a lot of printing business so the clod uses my name to try to make up for my loss. Attacked the Miscellany, putting out a vile rag called the Reynolds something or other because he had some obscure typesetter with the name of Reynolds. Got his though. I know how they got me into that bankruptcy mess. I only owed two thousand and by ’48 that was nothing what with the Miscellany and the beginning of George IV. We were already bringing in that much each month. Vickers was just being vicious, humiliated me and got nothing out of it. Hope the villain is happy and rots in hell.

But that was then and this is now. Look where Vickers is at and look where we’re at.

John: I think your politics had something to do with that too, George. Remember what year that was? ’48? Ring any bells?

George: (laughing immoderately) I thought that Revolution of ’48 was the real thing; an ’89 that worked. Was I ever wrong. Marx put that manifesto out in ’47, alerting the reactionaries as to what was coming and were they ever ready for us. We were all riddled with spies. Put the government is a tizzie though. A little better leadership and it might have been done. I wasn’t keen on the Communist stuff though. Our Chartist idea was the best. No violence.

John: I was always of the opinion that revolutions mean violence. Anyway, they smashed the revolution and the revolutionaries scattered like leaves in the wind. Hope the Americans know what to do with them because they got a lot and the worst of them.

I always wondered, George, to change the subject a bit, of all your characters which was your favorite?

George: The Resurrection Man of course. Boy, did he really come from the depths of my subconscious. Terrified myself more than he did my readers. You know something though, John? I think I had stumbled on to something but I didn’t know what to do with it.

John: What might that have been?

George: Remember Larry Sampson the leading detective of the Bow Street Runners? And the hangman, Daniel Coffin?

John: Yes. That was strong, very effective. But…?

George: Better than strong, John. I don’t know if you’ve read this American Edgar Allen Poe, he’s dead now, tragic story, collapsed and died on the streets of Baltimore. Tragic death, tragic. Great artist. He wrote a story called The Murders In The Rue Morgue. Wonderful imaginative tale. He has an intellectual sort of detective, C. August Dupin. Initials spell CAD. Good joke, what? Poe was very intellectual keen on acumen. He thought he was a genius, probably was. Dupin solves the crime in the Rue Morgue, an impossible closed door mystery, sitting in his armchair. Acumen you see. I appreciated the acumen but I thought a true detective would keep records and biographies and with the information would be able to lead him more quickly and accurately to probable perpetrators. Thus, I introduced Lawrence ‘Larry’ Sampson of the Metropolitan Police, chief of the Bow Street Runners.

John: Your old friend Paul Feval has written a book, John Devil, in which he introduces a master detective from Scotland Yard by the name of Gregory Temple. Have you read that?

George: No, not yet. Have you read any of Feval’s Black Coat series? The crime network he portrays reminds me of our Johnathan Wild who had criminal London pretty well organized in the last century. Wild in turn reminds of Vidocq, the head of the Paris Surete. Francois Vidocq, who died a couple years ago by the way. Vidocq was a nasty criminal and obviously the greatest of con men. Imagine hiring a master criminal to be he head of police! There was a scandal. Just like Wild he was amazingly able to recover stolen goods without having to arrest a thief? Same routine Wild was running. The thieves stole and got a commission from the money Wild received for returning the stolen merchandise.

 

Prindle: Reynolds was of course right that the detective novel would become, or perhaps, was already becoming at the time he wrote a new genre. For the origin of the detective story most people nominate Poe and then trace it through a series of French writers leading up to Emile Gaboriau who has supposed to have been the inspiration for Conan Doyle’s great Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson. From there it was off to the races.

Reynolds seems to have been overlooked as an early source. I’m sure that Doyle would have read Mysteries of the Court and have noted Sampson. Doyle used both acumen and a thorough record system. It can’t be proven, of course, but Reynolds was a staple for nineteenth century proto-pulp fiction, especially before the adventure novel of the Rider Haggard type and the detective stories of Conan Doyle and his epigone.

Certainly, during Doyle’s boyhood and youth Reynolds would have been essential reading along with W.H. Ainsworth, Bulwer Lytton and James Malcom Rymer. These writers were very popular throughout the nineteenth century while becoming passe at the beginning of WWI. They were old fashioned and didn’t fit into the post-war world. Thus they dropped out of literary history, if the Penny Dreadful, pulp writers, were ever a part of it. Back to George and John.

 

George: Speaking of criminals, that reminds me of those criminal Americans who respect no writer’s rights. It’s bad enough that they pirate my own works but they have the audacity to hire writers and then publish their stuff under my own name.

John: (laughing) You must be very popular in the United State.

George: I should hope so and maybe you laugh. Maybe I could sue over appropriating my name but I don’t think there’s a chance of success.

It’s not just a book either, listen to these titles: Ciprina or, the Secrets of the Picture Gallery, Lord Saxondale, Count Christoval, Lucrigia Marano, The Child of Waterloo or, the Horrors of the Battle Field. And there are more. I must be an entire industry over there. There might be dozens more under my name. People must think I’m a super-man, turning out not only my own works but these other people under my name. My god, don’t they have sense of decency? What’s a poor writer to do?

John: Speaking of that, I’m thinking of beginning a series called Dicks’ English Novels. I’ll have twenty or so of your novels plus your favorites by Dickens, Ainsworth, Bulwer-Lytton along with your favorites Notre Dame de Paris and Dumas’ Queen Margot. All your major influences except Byron. What do you think?

George: Any money in it?

John: Should be. All of it’s still popular and we’ll get it out at prices that will shock the industry.

George: Interesting. That sounds very good John and I’m sure that it will be a great success. We’ve worked together for ten years or more now, and a very successful partnership it’s been. Now that I’m about finished as a novelist and going to work for the newspaper perhaps with your plans we should make our relationship a full partnership. Does that sound feasible to you John?

John: Very satisfactory George. It would make me proud. Together I think we can make John Dicks the most successful publishing house in England while educating those the most that afford it the least. We can change the face of England and make it a better place. I want to get the prices down as low as possible. Without the paper tax we should be able to cut costs.

George: If you get the type any smaller John and keep our readership you may obtain both goals. I don’t know how those type setters can set such small type.

John: Quite a skill, I can assure you. I’d like to be able to invent a type setting machine where there are keys for the alphabet and punctuation marks so that the type setter can punch keys and the letters fall into place.

George: I’m sure someone is working on it. The steam press itself is a modern miracle. It would be impossible to get out the tens of thousands of papers and books we get out every week without them.

John: Yes. We’d be making a lot less money than we are now anyway. Quite a machine. By the way, George, I’ve got a suggestion.

George: Yes…

John: Well, as you know the government’s pretty unhappy with the Miscellany.

George: Yes…

John: It think we could get rid of some pressure by discontinuing it.

George: (unhappy but aware of the problem) Discontinuing the Reynolds Miscellany?

John: Not exactly getting rid of it but changing the name anyway. I’ve got an idea for a magazine I’d call Bow Bells. We could fold the Miscellany into it, under my editorship. It would be the same program but a little less…uh…er…aggressive, to keep the hounds off us. Doesn’t have to be done right now but something to think about, maybe. I’d really like to do it George. They haven’t forgotten ’48. That still rankles them.

George: How would that affect the newspaper?

John: Not at all, not at all.   That would continue under your editorship and I would edit the combined Bow Bells and Miscellany. Just a thought. We can keep it in the back our minds I’ve got some newer writers in mind.

George: Hmm, newer writers. I know your concern, John, and it is something to consider. I’ll consider it. I am getting pretty tired and fourteen years of turning out a zillion words a week has taken its toll. My brain doesn’t have the elasticity and vitality that it used to have. You see, I know how Dumas feels. Things don’t come as easily anymore. That would be a load off me. Let me think about it.

John: Let me say that I really admire your energy George. The ten years or so I’ve been working with you have been amazing. I wish we had The Mysteries of London from Stiff and Vickers. What a catalog that would make; Mysteries of London and Mysteries of the Court. I’d even throw in Mysteries of Old London, the Days of Hogarth. Underappreciated but it has one of the greatest tales I have ever read. My land, what an outstanding three works.

George: Oh, flattery…flattery. Keep it up. (laughing)

John: Just the truth, George, just the truth.

Part IX of Time Traveling With R.E Prindle continues.

WWII: The Greatest Crime Of The Ages

by

R.E. Prindle

German Must Perish! and The War Goal of World Plutocracy by Theodore Kaufman and Wolfgang Dieverge, reprint of the two 1941 editions by Ostara Publications, no date.

The history of the Second World War of 1939-45 is not as the orthodox version describes. That history has been molded and shaped to conform with the desires of some interested parties. In other words, it has been falsified. The skewed history is more than merely one of interpretation. Whole swaths of incidents have been suppressed, obscured or forced into a false narrative. While your attention has been directed to a certain narrative, the real story lies exposed like geological strata.

I offer concrete undeniable facts to bring your attention to what was really going on. The demonstration will focus on a book published in 1941 by one Theodore Nathan Kaufman. Kaufman was an operative of the American Jewish Committee, the AJC. For those not familiar with the AJC it is the directing governmental body of Jews in the United States. It is essentially an espionage unit spying on the American people dedicated to rooting out what they are pleased to call ‘anti-Semites.’ They were also behind the effort to lead the United States into the war with Germany. Their whole goal was to destroy Germany physically and to commit the genocide of 80 million Germans.

I know you are shocked and in total belief that 80 million people could be murdered but you shouldn’t be. After all, the Chinese autocrat Mao Ze Dong murdered thirty million or more of his fellow Chinese and the world said nothing. Not that much of stretch from 30 to 80 million.

Consider the facts: In 1933 the AJC executive, lawyer Samuel Untermyer declared irrevocable hatred of the Germans and war on the Germans. Then began a whole series of boycotts and sanctions against Germany from the United States, a nominally neutral country by law. This was done by its newly elected Democratic president Franklin Delano Roosevelt, FDR. FDR as he is familiarly known was in the pocket of the Jewish governing body, the American Jewish Committee.

There were six key nations fighting this proposed war: England, Russia, France, Germany, the United States and the Jewish Nation, the last spread out through Europe and the Americas. The Jewish Nation was very carefully screened so that there would be minimal appearance of their maximum role. They made themselves appear innocent victims while they stoked the fires of war.

We should be clear: there was no chance that Germany could win the war and this was against the combined might of the Soviet Union in the East and the United States to Germany’s West. Zero chance and this was recognized by the warmakers at the time.

We now get to Theodore Kaufman. Remember as he was writing his screed it was acknowledged that Germany could not win the war. At the time Germany Must Perish, Kaufman’s book, was published England, France and the USSR were one block. Germany Must Perish was published in March of 1941 before Germany had invaded the USSR and nine months before the US declared war on Germany. So neither the US or USSR was at war with Germany of the time of publication. Yet Kaufman was calling for the extermination of the Germany. By whom then?

The agitation for US entry was conducted by England, Roosevelt and the American Jewish people. England because it could not defend itself after being the first people to declare war on Germany in 1939. England, because the country could not defend itself needed the US to fight the war for them. England had neither the men nor the resources to even think of getting into the war on its own.

The Jewish Nation because the Jews wanted the whole German nation exterminated. Kaufman explains:

Today’s war is not a war against Hitler. Nor is it a war against the Nazis. It is a war of peoples against peoples…. This war is being waged by the German people. It is they who are responsible. It is they who must be made to pay for the war.

Remember that in 1933 the Jews declared war on Germany with no response from Germany.

So then, who is this Theodore Nathan Kaufman?

He was an AJC operative. He is portrayed in the US as an insignificant shopkeeper from the Jewish colony of Newark, New Jersey. A mere voice in the wilderness, perhaps a crazy Jewish prophet. But, as a crazy Jewish prophet he publishes from the remote Newark Jewish colony a screed like Germany Must Perish calling for their total erasure from the Earth. This book was not ignored, instead it was given maximum countrywide attention. No such crank would have had access to the President of the United States but Kaufman did, no penniless shop keeper from Newark can launch a multi-million dollar campaign to publicize his book. That just doesn’t happen. He was a member of the AJC and the AJC was spending millions and millions on espionage, publishing books by the score while Jewish attorneys were filing lawsuits on every side.

Now, these deeds, these books, these acts have at the very least been disregarded or obscured, if it were possible to erase such a public campaign all evidence would have been scrubbed. But, Kaufman and his book are inescapable evidence, not only fact, but concrete evidence of the activities of this Jewish Nation to draw the US and its resources into their, not the US’s, but their fight against the German people. The war was between the Jewish Nation and the German Nation with the Jews as the aggressors.

The American People had no dog in this war but the Jewish People as Kaufman said, did. What dog did Roosevelt have in the fight? Why was he anxious to sacrifice the lives of tens of thousands of men in the prime of their lives? Why was he so willing to strip America of its tremendous resources to badger a country that was no threat to the US? Forget all that today Europe, tomorrow the world stuff. Even if the Germans fancied it, had they conquered the whole of Europe including the Soviet Union, they would have been exhausted and unable to keep what they had. That’s right, the Germans would never have been a threat to the US.

The Soviet Union unaided and without immense US supplies would have defeated Germany, it might have taken longer but as Stalin knew when he declared: God is on the side of the big battalions. Germany could not have won the war. FDR certainly knew this. Why was he subservient to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? No contradiction there. Because he was a socialist if not a Communist. His old World War I master, Woodrow Wilson was a socialist. FDR’s administration was a continuation of Wilson’s. FDR even faked the League of Nation under the name of the United Nations through thus completing Wilson’s heritage.

Ah, I hear voices saying, you can’t genocide eighty million people. The AJC and Kaufman thought you could. It was simple. You’ve heard of Eugenics haven’t you? Of course you have. Kaufman’s plan was simple. You simply sterilize all Germans of child bearing age and children. As Kaufman said, who was probably frightened by the word castration, sterilization doesn’t mean castration. Sterilization for men is a simple operation, a little more complex for women. I see no reason to examine the techniques of such a plan but if you have seen pictures of Germany bombed flat, Germans carving dwellings out the ruins, ‘honorable allied soldiers’, American soldiers, turning German women into prostitutes with Hershey bars, you will realize how easy it would have been. The plan only lacked will and it became within an ace of happening. By Americans.

The Jews of course were ready. The hitch came when Americans, less the Jews, were horrified at the notion. The plan had the tentative backing of FDR and it was only his death on the eve of the end of the war that blocked the plan.

If we remember Kaufman’s book was published in 1941 before Germany had invaded the Soviet Union or the US had entered the war. Kaufman’s was a pre-emptive plan. Thus the representatives of the Jewish Nation had the system of genocide in place, Total War, before the Final Solution of the German Jewish problem was put into effect.

The Germans naturally were aware of Kaufman’s book shortly after publication, so it follows that the Final Solution was a variant of what Kaufman called the Total Solution of the Jewish Nation’s German problem. Therefore, much of the Final Solution is mitigated by the Total Solution.

As to whether the whole Jewish People was responsible, Kaufman said that this was a war between peoples—the Jewish Nation versus the German Nation. The Jews initiated its Total War, the desired end of which would be the total extermination, genocide, of the German People, that is a holocaust. So, how can the German People be found guilty of attempting the genocide of the Jewish People except as an act of self-defense? The slaughter was of course terrible, but so was the murderous war against Germany. And that war was conducted with the full overwhelming power of the USSR and the USA against them. Fleets of nightly bombers from the West and relentless artillery barrages from the East. Germany had no chance of winning such a war; its doom was clear.

In March-April of 1941, then, the Germans learned of the Jewish menace. They were horrified. Copyright laws prevented the book from being published in Germany. For whatever reason the law abiding Germans honored the copyright law. The Germans were sticklers for the law and thus observed it refusing to print the book and alerting the German People of this threat from the Jewish People. This side of story has never been told.

However, the Germans did print reviews of the book using extensive quotations which were ‘legal’ under copyright laws. A pamphlet was published by the German government titled The War Goal of World Plutocracy by one Wolfgang Diewerge.

What Dieverge called the World Plutocracy meant the Jewish led coalition against Germany. The title failed to indicate the urgency of the real issue, that of the declared war of the Jewish Nation against the German Nation. Perhaps the Germans meant to implicate England, the US and Russia as well as the Jews which was a mistake. Four nations were involved but only three countries.

There is more than one legal system with its laws and customs involved here. On has the English and American variations of the Common Law, Soviet law, German law and Jewish law. Today all countries are using a variant of Jewish law. Under Jewish law the defendant is considered guilty and can only mitigate the charges. Thus we have the situation in the US today of the Judeo-Liberal party that alleges that the accused is guilty, or he or she wouldn’t be accused would they? Thus, the crime can only be resolved by accepting the guilt of being ‘wrong’ and accepting the judgment of the Party. Bear in mind that in this so-called democracy the Jewish-Liberal party isn’t even the majority. They are a minority that has appropriated the government regardless of who is president. Thus, it is false to think we live in a democracy when we live in a Jewish flavored theocracy.

2.

Given that the Jews can manage the writing of history and the dissemination on knowledge and control discussion of the narrative it should come as no surprise that the German side of the story is suppressed. The narrative is cast in the form of The Children Of Light vs. The Children Of Darkness. All right then resides with the former and all fault with the latter.

As it is clear that the Jews first broached the notion of genocide when they were managing the overwhelming power of the US and USSR it follows that to avoid a German holocaust that the Germans were justified in a pre-emptive Jewish holocaust. Both holocausts were to be managed in a scientific manner. Thus, the Germans have no more cause for guilt than the Jews.

As might be supposed, since the plan for German genocide was trumpeted loudly throughout America, free copies were sent to influential people, Time-Magazine gave an approving review, newspapers nationwide disseminated the plan in an approving manner. It should have been one of those things read with incredulity.

At the time the America First Committee was lobbying very actively, very actively, to prevent the US from entering another European war. The American public was decidedly against any involvement in the war. In March of ’41 a war with Japan seemed a remote possibility. Roosevelt touted democracy and freedom yet he disregarded the vast majority and put US soldiers on the front lines both in the Pacific and the Atlantic.

And then we have a Jewish appeal for a German holocaust. Without the US having yet no sinews of war, no will to war, what were the Jews thinking in making such a strange proclamation? As Charles Lindbergh pointed out in his Des Moines speech, the Jews were finagling the US into a criminal war against Germany. Forget any notion of a good war.

The Germans quickly obtained copies of the book or pamphlet that had been distributed to millions in the US with a copy sent free to every influential American. The Germans were aghast. Had the death of eighty million people ever been proclaimed before? By a nation that refused to call itself that publicly? Pretending to be Englishmen, Frenchmen, Russians, Americans, whatever. The disguise was total and the danger was real.

The Jewish government presented Kaufman as an anonymous loner, something like Lee Harvey Oswald who may have fired at President Kennedy. But was he? He was no fanatic rejected by World Jewry, no insane creature, but rather a leading and widely known Jewish figure in the United States.

The Germans published their answer to Kaufman in a pamphlet by Wolfgang Diewerge titled The War Goal of World Plutocracy. He did a little research and came up with this:

The Jewish president Kaufman is no anonymous loner, no fanatic rejected by World Jewry, no insane creature but rather a leader and widely-known Jewish figure in the United States.

Diewerge then says that Kaufman was a member of Roosevelt’s Brain Trust. I’ve never read that before but then one can’t be sure that orthodox histories are ‘definitive.’ Diewerge goes on:

He belongs to Roosevelt’s so-called “Brain Trust”, the staff of intellectuals and political advisors to the American President. This circle provides the material for the hateful speeches against National Socialist Germany that President Roosevelt like to give…

The half-Jewish mayor (mother was Jewish) of New York, La Guardia, along with Roosevelt’s close confidante and friend, Bernard Baruch (“the unofficial president of the USA) also belongs to this group, which maintains closest ties to the leading men of the Soviet Union.

Baruch wasn’t so much a confidante and friend of FDR as a Grey Eminence giving direction to FDR. As the war progressed and Kaufman’s proposal was tentatively accepted by Roosevelt, Kaufman’s plan was adapted by Secretary of the Treasury, the Jew Henry Morgenthau Jr. who did bill himself co-president with FDR. Thus while Baruch was actually co-president with Woodrow Wilson during WWI, Morgenthau filled that role with Roosevelt.

Diewerge goes on:

The book Germany Must Perish is the background music to the major policy deception that the leaders of the world plutocracy, President Roosevelt and his business partner in international warmongering, Winston Churchill, have launched to support their ally, Stalin.

That was an accurate description. Stalin, by the way, was the brilliant mastermind pulling the strings of Churchill, Roosevelt and, actually, Hitler. All three were duped by Stalin.

While Roosevelt preached Total War against the ‘aggressor nations’, unconditional surrender, while the US was neutral after a fashion, Diewerge gives the German side of who the aggressors were:

A digression is in order here. Who declared war on 3 September 1939? England and France used the local conflict over Dantzig and the Corridor, where justice was indisputedly on the side of Germany, to declare war on Germany and thus cause a world conflagration.

This was true. Germany saw itself as rectifying the injuries it endured by the one-sided Treaty of Versailles. It was also true as Diewerge was right when he next records:

And the United States has been trying to “get into the business” for months with repeated provocations. It prays daily for another “Lusitania” and regrets the case of the “Athenia” German attentiveness ruined their finely spun plans.

So, who were the aggressor nations? First in order is the Jewish Nation with its proclaimed war of peoples. Second was Stalin and the Third International, then Churchill and England and tied with Churchill was Roosevelt. The Versailles Treaty that was designed by England and France in 1918 guaranteed another war in twenty years as was recognized at the time and as it happened.

Now, as to the Jewish desire to exterminate the Germans, consider how the war was fought: there were actually two operations going on at the same time. One was the war of land battles fought with armies and one was merely a series of bombing raids to destroy German cities, that is Germany, bomb it out of existence and bombing civilians to kill racial Germans. In other words, aerial genocide.

During the war only the Anglo-American group had heavy bombers; the others had only tactical support bombers to support the ground troops. The English developed the Landcaster with the capability of carrying twenty-thousand pound bombs along with incendiaries. The Americans provided huge fleets of the smaller B-17s and then the bigger B-29s. In a one of a kind situation that won’t be seen again the huge flotillas of these behemoths dropping long strings of bombs, you’ve seen this in movies, with no other purpose than killing civilian Germans and destroying Germany.

The crowning achievement was Churchill’s decision to bomb the city of Dresden which at that time was packed with German people, women and children, displaced by the war. Purely murderous. There was no war industry there and not a single anti-aircraft gun. Flotillas of bombers flying over low unloading everything from ten ton blockbusters to scads of incendiaries creating a fire storm. This was purely a raid against unarmed civilians. A holocaust pure and simple. And if one horror wasn’t enough, they came back the next day to bomb the ruins.

As will be remembered, Kaufman and the AJC said that this was a war against a people- the Jews vs. the Germans. Certainly the terrific bombing campaigns leveling German cities and killing millions was no less a crime than the Germans killing their avowed Jewish enemies in extermination camps like Auschwitz. One might say tit for tat. Also remember that the English was the aggressor, declaring war first. Also, the bombing began long before the death camps were put into operation so one cannot say that the camps were not retaliatory.

Dresden was not like the end of horrors for the Germans but merely the beginning. While the English and Americas were bombing the hell out of the civilians, the Eastern front against the Germans had been collapsing in an orderly fashion but tens of thousands of German troops had been captured and were never seen alive again. They died in the Gulags where the camp commandants were with one exception were Jewish.

Once again, the fate of the German immigrants in Russia had little or nothing to do with the war. Prior to the unification of the Germans under Bismarck, the Russian Czars had invited German colonists to settle in the Ukraine and the Volga Delta. Always orderly and industrious the Germans prospered farming the Ukraine making that underpopulated desert bloom. The contrast between the Jewish, the Russian and the German farmers was sharp and distinct. Germans quickly moved to prominence in the government.

Then, when Germany consolidated all the petty principalities that the West found amusing, into a unified State, and began functioning on modern Western methods they became a threat being more capable than the English and French, while the Czars began to view their German citizens although thoroughly Russified as a potential Fifth Column and persecuted them. Thus German hatred began to grow. Disabilities were placed on the Ukrainian and Volga Germans. They were discriminated against. When the Soviets replaced the Russians and Stalin replaced Lenin, the former minister of minorities collected the Volga Germans en masse and sent them to Siberia for extermination. Thus, combined against the Germans in WWII were the Soviets in the East and Americans in the West and the Jewish Nation distributed throughout in influential, directing positions. If you think the Germans could not see what was going on you should question your analytical abilities. Actually, Germany was fighting for survival.

As the Soviet armies breached the German border, the ever clever Stalin who had thought this moment out thoroughly drove the civilian German population before him. This horrific rout is described as a population transfer by orthodox historians. One must question their analytical abilities. The East Germans then murdered and raped by the advance troops were driven pell mell westward in the depths of winter.

The entire East German population of twelve to fifteen million people were displaced in a moment, driven West. Such intense and concentrated suffering had never been seen in the world and this includes the child’s play of Auschwitz.

The Soviet armies consisted of primitives who had never seen a wrist watch before and were entranced. They had never tasted real wine. They had never had their way with beautiful White women. Now they tortured and raped to their hearts’ content. Women were gang raped like the flotillas that bombed Dresden. You have to be heartless not to understand and sympathize. Auschwitz? Phooey!

In the dead of winter, ill clad and ill fed, at risk every moment these millions upon millions of wretched people fled just in advance of the total destruction of their destination. They arrived in Berlin just in time for the most fearful artillery bombardment ever. The Soviets made up for their lack of bombers with terrific and devastating artillery bombardments. Now remember, the Soviets had only been enabled with these abilities because Roosevelt stripped America of its resources and was supplying Russia with the sinews of war. Thus the Americans. In effect, were giving it to the Germans both East and West, materially.

Berlin was completely destroyed blown into bits of rubble. That anyone survived this terrible onslaught both from the air and from the land is a miracle

Now, I was brought up to believe that American soldiers where saints who though brave were never brutal. And I believed what I had been told. I didn’t question the propaganda. And then, my elders made a mistake- they taught me how to read. And I resent how terribly I was misled.

The Americans were hardly less brutal than the Soviets under the direction of Dwight David Eisenhower.

Kaufman said that the war had nothing to do with Hitler but that it was a war between the Jewish and German peoples. As such the shooting war ended in 1945; the war of the Jewish people on the German people didn’t.

The Americans and Soviets drove the Germans down but now the Jewish people wanted to finish the job, enforce their plan. As the Anglo-American and Soviet troops entered Germany for the Jews then, don’t forget Dresden, the horrible truth of the extermination camps was revealed. The Jews were appalled and now in power over the Germans could get on with exterminating them. But there was a hitch, Roosevelt died.

In the US the Kaufman Plan had morphed into the Morgenthau Plan of the Secretary of State, Henry Morgenthau Jr. Roosevelt would have carried out the plan except that he passed in April of ’45 a month before the shooting war ended. His replacement, Vice President Harry S. Truman was completely ignorant of the plans of the FDR cabal. Truman entered office with no knowledge of the State of the Union. Even though FDR was sitting with his feet dangling in the grave he didn’t think it expedient to inform his obvious successor of the state of affairs. Did he think that his cabal was so evil that Truman would be repulsed? Let me put it this way, Truman was repulsed when he learned what was going on. Among other things on his mind was his discovery of the Manhattan Project and its Atom Bomb. Blindsided by Rooseveltian politics.

However Truman was not so sympathetic to Jewish machinations as FDR had been. Thus their power was broken. As members of what might be called FDR’s shadow government they faded away. Samuel Rosenman, perhaps the closest to FDR no longer had any place in DC. Sidney Hillman was gone. Henry Morgenthau himself tendered his resignation unable to work with Truman. Truman gladly accepted it. The tyranny of FDR fairly quickly evaporated. A weight was lifted from the American people. Don’t think there wasn’t rejoicing either.

While Truman was being quickly briefed on the actual state of affairs, the mopping up operations in German continued more or less according to the Kaufman/Morgenthau Plan. The Supreme Commander in Europe was Dwight D. Eisenhower. His advisor and confidant was Bernard Baruch, a man who wanted to be the greatest Jew of all time, and who was, indeed, a very large ranking member of the Jewish World Government.

As mentioned, he had actually been co-president with Woodrow Wilson during what could now be called WWI. He had meddled with Republican politics during the interim of 1921-33 and came into power again with the Roosevelt Administration in 1933. Diewerge described him as co-president with FDR which is not exactly true but may have seemed so to outside observers. The relationship was more adversarial, but face to face Baruch was able to intimidate FDR.

Dwight Eisenhower had been disciple of Baruch’s for twenty-five years. Eisenhower considered him the wisest man alive. There was a tremendous furor at the time as to how to treat the Germans. The Jewish faction wanted to dismember the German State completely parceling out the German territories to the surrounding countries. The dividing of Germany into Allied administrative units perpetually occupied was decided upon. The German people were to be kept impoverished and starved to death with no relief.

Eisenhower had under his control several German armies. Although the shooting war was over and there was absolutely no chance of Germany conducting any resistance these men were not released nor, were they treated humanely according the Geneva conventions. Eisenhower mean to destroy as many as he could. Remember that Bernard Baruch had direct connections to him and wanted to further the murder of the Germans. Hence Eisenhower unilaterally declassified them as soldiers and reclassified them as enemy combatants who were not covered by the Geneva Conventions. The men were crowded together in open fields with no covering and no amenities, ill clothed and ill fed. Civilians were forbidden on pain of death for comforting them in anyway. Women trying to pass food through the barbed wire were shot down without compunction.

Nor did this criminal conduct end quickly but was continued until 1950 when the Americans, England and France realized that they needed a buffer state between themselves and the Soviet Union. And so, the war in the West came to its grudging end. The Soviets were much more brutal, so much so that there was a continuing drain from the East German Sector of the USSR as Germans fled to the West necessitating the building of the Berlin wall.

As may easily be seen the orthodox version, the academic version, of the period is so distorted as to be a fantasy of the reality. The root of the war as per Kaufman’s plan was the Jewish Nation’s hatred of the German Nation. That hatred went back many centuries and was fully developed. Having essentially captured the US, England and USSR governments the Jewish Nation was able to direct their energies toward a Total Solution of their German Problem which was the total genocide of the German people. WWII was the greatest crime ever perpetrated.

All this has been obscured and ignored and hidden if not nearly erased. The world is so conditioned to view the period from the Jewish point of view that they find the truth incomprehensible. To expose that truth is to expose one’s self to many hazards. Many such people now have permanent homes in prisons. Laws in nearly all countries have been passed to make even the objective discussion of the period a criminal offence, France and Germany being the worst offenders with England close behind. They must protect their narrative at all costs.

And so, nearly a hundred years after the war goes on unabated. Circumstances have changed but the situation hasn’t.

Pt. III

Time Traveling With R.E. Prindle

GWMReynolds

Sources:

Reynolds, G.W.M: The Necromancer, forward by Dick Collins, Valancourt Press

http://www.victorianlondon.org/mysteries/mysteries-00-introduction.htm

 

When it comes to time traveling the Gothic and Romantic periods are my favorites. The study of origins is my favorite. One is astonished in Reading Reynolds and Dickens how little things have changed, the same personality types with all the same dodges, the same terms, the same ideas just dressed differently from the twenty-first century. Of course in this early stage of current developments, manners and methods were really crude, now they’ve become merely rude. Much of the change experienced in the present is only because of introduction of technological innovations. All of the innovations seem to be regressive in social effects. Superficial perhaps. By the time of the Industrial Revolution, blindsided by the coming of the railroads and their attendant infra-structure, society was totally mentally and also physically disorganized and had to adjust as rapidly as possible even as further developments crowded time swiftly along. It took decades to realize the nature of electricity which made its appearance at this time. Photography which captured the images of the time.

George Stephens knew not what he had done when he put steam engines on the rails. The joint stock company essentially arose from the railroads, giving birth to vast new streams of financial criminality. Steamships and the Marconi telegraph drew North America closer together and expanded opportunity.

Reynolds and Dickens certainly seized the new financial crimes as important elements of their stories. Dicken laments the displacement of the stage coach and its social structure as a whole major part of English civilization melted away as the snows of yesteryear.

The period of the Regency Bucks of the Romantic period and the new Men of the World or Man About Town captured Reynolds imagination. His Mysteries of the Court of London captures the spirt of the Regency Buck while the Mysteries of London chronicles the adventures of the Man of the World or the Man About Town. Although written in reverse order he apparently considered his two masterpieces as one unit. And what a magnificent achievement.

When he began Mysteries of London in 1844, he was only a young thirty, ending the story when thirty-four. During that period mind and skill developed exponentially, so as he began Mysteries of the Court of London, which would take eight years to write he moved into the years of his peak powers. Well were they exhibited. Court of London is amazing. Those eight years were astonishing years.

Thus, in these twelve volumes (of my editions) Reynolds seems to have captured the dark side of England. While apparently a true representation there were many others who wrote from a different viewpoint. One of the finest was R.S. Surtees (Richard Smith) who wrote great sporting novels centered on his hero Jorrocks and fox hunting. Surtee’s novels too are accurate portrayals of the Regency Buck but of rural England and not London. George Borrow’s curious novels, especially The Bible In Spain, are interesting although mostly concerned with the gypsies in England. The great Romanticists Byron and Shelley and their interpreter Thomas Love Peacock. Who can possibly ignore the great recorder of Vanity Fair, William Makepeace Thackery. The amazing career of the inventor of the historical novel, Walter Scott. Scott in his magnificent effusion literary skill influenced a couple of generation at least to 1850 both in England and the Continent. Both Sue and Dumas acknowledged their debt to the great Walter Scott. There were other Penny Dreadful writers, perhaps more narrow in scope, such as James Malcolm Rymer and his two great works Varney The Vampire and Sweeney Todd, William Harrison Ainsworth, Bulyer Lytton, a major influence of Reynolds and others. There is literary wealth to equal the gold mines of the Witwatersrand, too precious to be forgotten.

While famous in his time Reynolds’ fame was of a disreputable kind. He himself was disreputable and he wrote Penny Dreadfuls.

Victorian scholar Lee Jackson writes of general opinion of Penny Dreadfuls. He quotes a James Greenwood from his 1869 complaint against the literature, The Seven Curses of London.

Quote:

Is it because it stands to reason that all such coarse and vulgar trash finds its level amongst the coarse and vulgar, and could gain no footing above its own elevation? It may stand to reason, but unfortunately it is the unreasonable fact that this same pen poison finds customers at heights above its natural low and foul waterline almost inconceivable. How otherwise is it accountable that at least a quarter of million of these penny numbers are sold weekly? How is it that in quiet suburban neighbourhoods far removed from the stews of London, and the pernicious atmosphere they engender; in serene and peaceful semi-country towns where genteel boarding schools flourish, there may almost invariably be found some small shopkeeper who accommodatingly receives consignments of “Blue-skin,” and the “Mysteries of London,” and unobtrusively supplies his well-dressed little customer with these full-flavoured articles? Granted, my dear sir, that your young jack, or my twelve years old Robert… and so on.

Unquote.

Undoubtedly young Bob and Jack received an eyeful and a magnificent addition to their education.

So these Penny Dreadfuls, like the Dime novels of slightly later US, the comic books beginning in the 1930s, sci-fi movies and stories in the fifties and horror of all horrors, the Rock and Roll explosion that was seen as soul destroying missiles to be suppressed. Along the scale of decades the nineteen fifties are overlooked for the exciting years they were.

Were Penny Dreadfuls soul destroying? Well, a little over a hundred years later society degenerated from Mysteries of London to the totally soul destroying Tales From The Crypt comic books. A definite downward spiral there. But, how is it that the soul destroying Mysteries of London passed from vulgar filth to valuable literary virtue?

In point of fact, even as fiction, the Mysteries is accurate reportage of conditions in London of the time. Reynolds might have been of questionable morality himself, Mysteries reads as though he had personally experienced the incidents (literary skill perhaps,).   His portrayals are of what he considered ‘men of the world.’ Indeed, he desperately wanted to be known as ‘a man of the world.’ And that ‘man of the world’ seems to be a ‘gentlemanly’, or at least an aspirant to gentlelimaness, criminal. George Montague Greenwood schemes to separate rich men from their money by devious financial schemes. And he and his kind are successful. Was Reynolds one of these schemers? Certainly his knowledge of their ways would indicate that he associated with them. Amongst the Chartists, a political group, with which he was involved, he earned a reputation for promoting financial schemes for which he was rejected. Was his mind not then conditioned to such schemes? It would seem that he used false bankruptcies to advance his own financial affairs.

Reynolds very likely paraded the ‘Man of the World’ notion in his life or because it was so prominent in his novels that Dickens, who certainly bore Reynolds no goodwill, with justice, may very likely have been referring to him in this passage from The Old Curiosity Shop:

Quote:

‘He, he!’ simpered Brass, who in his deep debasement really seemed to have changed sexes with his sister, and to have made over to her any spark of manliness he might have possessed. ‘You think so, Sarah, you think so perhaps; but you would have acted quite differently, my good fellow. You will not have forgotten that it was a maxim of Foxey—our revered father, gentlemen—Always suspect everyone. That’s the maxim to go through life with.’–…

With deference to the latter opinion of Mr. Brass, and more particularly to the authority of his Great Ancestor, it may be doubted with humility whether the leveling principle laid down to the latter gentleman, and acted on by his descendant, is always a prudent one, or attended by practice with the desired results. This beyond question a bold and presumptuous doubt, in as much as many distinguished characters called men of the world, longheaded customers, knowing dogs, shrewd fellows, and their like have made, and do daily make, this axiom their star and compass. Still the doubt may be greatly insinuated. And in illustration it may be observed that if Mr. Brass, not being over-suspicious, had without prying and listening, had not been in such a might hurry to anticipate her (which he would not have been, but for his distrust and jealously.) he would probably have found himself much better off in the end. That it will always happen that these men of the world, who go through it in armor, defend themselves from quite as much good as evil, to say nothing of the inconvenience and absurdity of mounting guard with a microscope at all times, and of wearing a coat of mail on the most innocent occasions.

Unquote.

I would not consider the lawyer Brass of Dickens’ story a man of the world nor as I perceive Reynolds using the term. So long as one retires from the world to some extent that rescues oneself from many of the hazards of the world, but as nearly everyone must move about in the world I would prefer a very close attention, and if that attention slopped over into paranoia so be it, to who is doing what.

Reynolds very brilliantly portrays the hazards of fixtures and forces that may be operating to one’s detriment in the background. Indeed, if Richard Markham had been more of a man of the world and less naïve he would have avoided the snares that landed him in prison. Thus Reynolds’ trusting characters are always being blindsided.

Sometimes one’s projected villainies that are foiled save one from a greater danger. Reynolds very cleverly does this in the case of George Montague and Eliza Sydney. Eliza has been unwittingly mired into a scheme by her mentor, Mr. Stephens. Stephens has employed George Montague, alias of Eugene Markham, to bear false witness in the situation. A day or so before its realization Montague and Eliza who have become close, Eliza in love with him, during a horrid storm later at night, offers Montague a room to save him walking home as cabs are no longer available. Gorgeous woman of the swelling ivory orbs, Montague works himself into a fever entering her room with evil intent. Eliza awakens, is horrified at the thought of what Montague was contemplating and breaks relations off completely then and there. She is not a woman of the world.

This means he can no longer serve as Stephens accomplice. Stephens replaces him with the shifty lawyer, Mac Chizzle. Meanwhile, the police who had a spy system reviewing the mail working from a Black Room in which they open letters have opened and read a letter by Stephens detailing the scheme and the date of execution. The authorities are alerted. Stephens, Mac Chizzle and Sydney are arrested as Stephens would have been if he had maintained strict morality and not thought to rape Eliza. Thus his evil intents saved him from being caught in the police snare.

An excellent detail that shows off Reynolds’ brilliance and is something that the more basic Dickens could never have conceived and executed.

Ramifications from this incident in the first hundred pages will be continued throughout twenty-four hundred additional pages.

So, we have a huge record of virtue and vice as outlined in Part II of Time Travel. Add the concern with virtue and vice to that of the concept of man of the world and you have the core of Reynolds’ concerns. Now, how did Reynolds learn all the details that make his work interesting. After all he was now only thirty years old and seems to have the experience and knowledge of a much more mature man. He gives us at least a partial answer in this passage from his Mysteries.

Eugene Markham alias George Montague now becomes Greenwood, the moniker, George Montague having been worn out and no longer useful. Greenwood wishes to employ the criminal Tom the Cracksman, or burglar, for a crime. They are negotiating:

Quote:

“What the natur’ of the service?” demanded the Cracksman, darting a keen and penetrating glance at Greenwood.

“A highway robbery,” cooly answered this individual.

“Well, that’s plain enow,” said the Cracksman. “But first tell me how you came to know of me, and where I was to be seen because how can I tell but what this is all a plant of yours to get me in trouble?”

“I will answer you candidly and fairly. A few years ago, when I first entered into London life, I determined to make myself acquainted with all the ways of the metropolis, high or low, virtuous or vicious. I disguised myself on several occasions in very mean clothes, and visited all the flash houses and patter cribs- amongst others, the boozing ken in Great Saffron Hill. There you were pointed out to me; and your skill, your audacity, and your extraordinary luck in eluding the police, were vouched by the landlord of the place in no measured terms…”

“…the landlord’s a fool to talk so free; how did he know you wasn’t a trap in disguise?”

“Because I told him that my object was merely to see life in all its shapes and I was then so very young I could scarcely have been considered dangerous. However, I have occasionally indulged in such rambles, even today…”

Unquote.

Now, looking freely at what is known of Reynolds’ history, his father being a naval Captain, he was stationed on the British island of Guernsey next to France until Reynolds was eight, then was moved to Canterbury in Kent where he attended a school in its proximity. Then at fourteen in 1828 he was placed at the military academy at Sandhurst, which according to his scenario he left to flee to France at the age of sixteen in 1830. Perhaps this has something to do with so many of his heroines being sixteen. You have to pay attention to his very precise dates in his stories. Most of the biographical details I’m using come from the two Dick Collins’ articles noted under the title of the this essay.

Collins disputes the 12,000 pound inheritance of 1830 but I find it difficult to believe that a sixteen year old kid would have attempted to be an ex-pat in France without a sixpence in his pocket. Perhaps from his early experience in Guernsey he could handle the French language. I doubt if French was on the curriculum of Sandhurst. Collins points out that during the Napoleonic wars Reynold’s father captained a frigate and took several prizes. The proceeds from the prizes were parceled out in shares to officers and crew. It is not unlikely that the captain’s share might have added up to twenty thousand pounds, or more, to Capt. Reynolds’ estate, which have escaped Collins’ attention. Certainly the Reynolds family was not living hand to mouth. Reynold’s says specifically that he received the inheritance from his father. I have no difficulty believing that his father left his son twelve thousand pounds. His mother died in March of 1830 when he was fifteen thus he would have come under the jurisdiction of his active guardian Duncan McArthur. So McArthur would have been in charge of the family finances. He would have had to pay Reynolds way from those funds. It appears probable that Reynolds got into some kind of trouble at Sandhurst, possibly inducted into a gambling crowd, so that he left Sandhurst, removed by his friends, so the phrase has it. That happened in July of 1830 just as the revolution in France occurred. Now adrift with no direction it seems likely that he would have petitioned McArthur for his inheritance and with it leave for France where he stayed for six or seven years until his money was gone. He was probably a prey to the sharpers he depicts so well while learning their ways. Of course, the above may be just one solution to the Mysteries of G.W.M Reynolds.

At any rate as Reynolds returned to England in 1837 at the young age of twenty-three he had no familiarity with the metropolis having formerly lived in Kent at Canterbury which is why the area figures so prominently in his stories. Twenty-three is one of ages, along with sixteen, that recur frequently in his writings. So, beginning in 1837 at the age of twenty-three Reynolds began familiarizing himself with London high and low, East End and West End. A great and daunting adventure.

Now, Reynolds had met and married his wife Susannah Pierson in Paris. She was English but Collins can find few details about her except that Reynolds met her in prison, whatever that means, either as a visitor or an inmate. She may also have been married before at fourteen making her Reynolds her second husband at the age of either late sixteen or early seventeen. That occurred in in 1835 when Reynolds was twenty-one. The marriage was one of those made in heaven as they were happily married until she died.

A sixteen year old showing up in France with twelve thousand pounds must have attracted every sharper, or man of the world, in Paris, thus Reynolds’ education began. He knows whereof he speaks.

This learning curve must have been painful and arduous requiring a strong mind to survive and overcome. If he had twelve thousand pounds when he arrived in France he left without any. Twelve thousand pounds was a lot of money to go through in six years. He, therefore, arrived in England without any of the ready. He had to find his way out of the hole, what with a wife and offspring arriving frequently.

How autobiographical is the Mysteries? I think highly but it requires a lot of imagination and interpretation, and then you can’t be certain. It would appear that the two brothers Eugene and Richard Markham represent the two halves of a split personality. Richard is the naïve young sport who left England for France and came back as a variation of Eugene, this also plays into the de Sadian dichotomy of Justine and Juliette, virtue and vice. Thus viewing each half separately one arrives at the whole.

In the story Richard survives while Eugene/GeorgeMontague/Greenwood is killed off by an aggrieved victim. Thus virtue triumphs over vice reversing de Sade’s reverse understanding of life. That was in 1848. Does that mean that Reynolds lived the rest of his life in Richard’s shoes? Not as late as 1850 it doesn’t. According to his Chartist friends he was still full of questionable financial schemes.

Those schemes may very well have resembled the schemes of his characters and possible his alter ego Montague/Greenwood. If so, his alter ego was a much more successful schemer than he was. According to Dick Collins, who seems knowledgeable, but never gives the sources of his information, Reynolds was arrested in France and imprisoned in France for playing with loaded dice in Calais. The man certainly outlined the tricks of doctoring dice in the Mysteries, even with illustrations. Collins says that he met Susannah Pierson in prison in France. Whether that means that a very young Susannah was a visitor or a prisoner Collins doesn’t make clear. If she had been convicted of some malfeasance, then both she and Reynolds were partners in skirting the law.

Collins even makes a not implausible accusation that Reynolds was arrested for stealing jewels in order to pay his bill at Long’s Hotel in Bond Street. Reynolds’ has long passages that take place in Long’s Hotel in his novel Grace Darling or The Heroine of Fern Islands. His character Slapman Twill may have been his alter ego in this incident. At any rate Mr. Twill is arrested at Long’s restaurant for non-payment of bills and goes to King’s Bench prison much as Collins says Reynolds did.

And then Reynolds files for bankruptcy three times apparently having learned to take advantage of bankruptcy laws. He has the proprietor of the Dark House public house gloat that the bankruptcy laws were great as he had filed and was doing very nicely.

Thus as Reynolds roamed the lower and higher reaches of society he definitely lived in the lower until later in life. Even then he was probably not accepted in society because of his prison time as Richard Markham has a very difficult time living down his prison stay even though he was a dupe and innocent of the charges. Collins has him living in the lowest area of London, the Borough, at one time as well as other terrible locations.

One imagines Reynolds prowling the streets of these poverty stricken areas examining each and every side street until he became thoroughly familiar with the streets. This is especially evident in the Courts of London which can be very terrifying. Streets, buildings and inhabitants, Reynolds knew them all. He provides an accurate portrait of all aspects of London as it then existed.

I would like to close part III with an aside, that of the great plan of Reynolds’ novels, because all the novels seem to have a resemblance to Balzac’s Human Comedy. I am just sketchy here as I familiarize myself with Reynolds’ vast corpus. Reynold’s himself said the Mysteries of London and Court of London were one vast story. If so, then it appears that rather than two parts of the continuum there are three written out of order. Mysteries of London is actually Part three and it was written first. Mysteries of the Court of London is the second part written after both the first and last parts. Reynolds undertook to write The Mysteries of Old London or Days of Hogarth which portrays mid-eighteenth century London previous to the birth of George IV in the last two years of Mysteries of London.

The Court of London chronicles the doings of George IV during the Regency when Reynolds appears to have hated him for whatever reason. George IV died in 1830 just as Mysteries of London begins. Reynolds who was sixteen with George IV died then had actual memories of him as king.

So, between the three novels, Old London while not as long as the other two is not that short either, we have one long semi-historical novel of a hundred some years. Mysteries of London and Court of London are said to contain four and a half million words with perhaps a hundred-fifty to two hundred thousand for Old London so unraveling the mind of Reynolds which I believe is a worthy pursuit is a mighty project especially with all the side novels of further explication thrown in.

I doubt if I will be equal to the task but I hope my analysis is not an unworthy effort.

 

Part IV of Time Traveling with R.E. Prindle follows in which I will examine primarily the early novels Alfred de Rosann and Grace Darling and perhaps Master Timothy’s Bookcase