What do you think?
Rate this book
The History of Henry Esmond, Esq.
Orphaned in the England of the later Stuarts, Henry Esmonde is raised by his aristocratic, Jacobite relatives the Castlewoods.
As a young man he falls in love with both Lady Castlewood and Beatrix, her beautiful, headstrong daughter, and is inspired to join the ultimately unsuccessful campaign to reinstate James Stuart to the throne.
Thackeray valued Henry Esmond more than any of his other novels and it displays many of his own memories and emotions.
As a young man he falls in love with both Lady Castlewood and Beatrix, her beautiful, headstrong daughter, and is inspired to join the ultimately unsuccessful campaign to reinstate James Stuart to the throne.
Thackeray valued Henry Esmond more than any of his other novels and it displays many of his own memories and emotions.
652 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1852
About the author
William Makepeace Thackeray
4,264 books1,021 followersThackeray, an only child, was born in Calcutta, India, where his father, Richmond Thackeray (1 September 1781 – 13 September 1815), held the high rank of secretary to the board of revenue in the British East India Company. His mother, Anne Becher (1792–1864) was the second daughter of Harriet and John Harman Becher and was also a secretary (writer) for the East India Company.
William had been sent to England earlier, at the age of five, with a short stopover at St. Helena where the imprisoned Napoleon was pointed out to him. He was educated at schools in Southampton and Chiswick and then at Charterhouse School.
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_...
William had been sent to England earlier, at the age of five, with a short stopover at St. Helena where the imprisoned Napoleon was pointed out to him. He was educated at schools in Southampton and Chiswick and then at Charterhouse School.
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 83 reviews
October 8, 2017
I came to this book having already read and enjoyed both Vanity Fair and The History of Pendennis: His Fortunes & Misfortunes, His Friends & His Greatest Enemy by the same author and was therefore quite confident in my expectations. However, this was quite a different sort of novel, in that it represents an attempt by Thackeray to write a historical novel.
We are first introduced to Henry Esmond, when he is but a child, in the final years of the reign of King James II. His own people are active participants in the events that led to King James’s dethronement and exile, and suffer the consequences for their beliefs and actions. But Henry goes on to have a fairly happy adolescence with his new adoptive family until circumstances thrust him into adulthood rather violently and abruptly.
From that point foreword the political events and intrigues of the time, even England’s foreign adventures, are brought to the forefront and become entwined with Henry’s personal history. And it is where I, as a reader, begin to have issues with the novel. It is Thackeray’s assumption, that his reader is familiar with this period of England’s history, and therefore provides no background information regarding either the events at home or the military campaigns on the continent. A lot of paper is spent describing the military action in detail, real historical figures make their appearance and then soon disappear, and it wasn’t long before I was left wondering whether I should invest in a good history book since Wikipedia was proving inadequate - for some aspects of the narration, at least. Thackeray didn’t help matters by referring to certain historical personages, who appear in the story, by different monikers at different times.
He added further to the confusion with his choice of narrator. He could have chosen a third person omniscient narrator, but no, why make things simple? It’s made apparent quite early that the third person narrator is in fact a much older and wiser version of Henry Esmond, who has no scruples switching from third to first person in order to give us his own opinion and commentary on the events he has just related. Only the older and wiser Esmond holds completely different political views to the young Esmond who is experiencing the events. To be quite honest, I want to trust neither of them. I’d rather read an informed history book on the matter, and form my own opinions.
Aside from the broader political events, that I suspect were Thackeray’s main concern in writing the novel, there is also the more narrow personal story, that is not without its issues. I couldn’t see any of the fictional characters, as well rounded. To me they were all caricatures, and some were more successful than others. The most enjoyable one was the vain and silly step mother who worked because she was quite funny. I didn’t mind the one-dimensional beautiful and ambitious cousin who is, in effect, a paler version of Vanity Fair's Becky Sharp. But Henry Esmond? Even Esther Summerson in Bleak House was less of an annoyingly goody-two-shoes character than he was. I’m usually happy to accept ‘good’ characters but at some point even my credulity was stretched to breaking point. There is another pivotal character in the story, and that is Lady Castlewood, who stood in the role of adopted mother to Henry since his twelfth year and to whom I’m completely unable to reconcile myself. She is shown to switch from love to rejection of Henry at two different points in the story, but at no point are we given an explanation that is believable or even acceptable to our modern way of thinking. With regard to the second rejection, a motive is subsequently hinted at, that to me, today can only be regarded as repulsive. Subsequent events in the story though indicate that this might have been less objectionable in Thackeray’s time.
On the plus side I enjoyed the sense of time and place evoked especially by those parts of the novel set in England, and was interested in seeing the author’s view of historical figures such as the Pretender or John Donne. I would not recommend this to anyone outside Thackeray completists, or people with a specific interest in that period of English history. At the same time I certainly wouldn’t want to put off anyone who is considering it, because although I was often annoyed, I was never bored.
We are first introduced to Henry Esmond, when he is but a child, in the final years of the reign of King James II. His own people are active participants in the events that led to King James’s dethronement and exile, and suffer the consequences for their beliefs and actions. But Henry goes on to have a fairly happy adolescence with his new adoptive family until circumstances thrust him into adulthood rather violently and abruptly.
From that point foreword the political events and intrigues of the time, even England’s foreign adventures, are brought to the forefront and become entwined with Henry’s personal history. And it is where I, as a reader, begin to have issues with the novel. It is Thackeray’s assumption, that his reader is familiar with this period of England’s history, and therefore provides no background information regarding either the events at home or the military campaigns on the continent. A lot of paper is spent describing the military action in detail, real historical figures make their appearance and then soon disappear, and it wasn’t long before I was left wondering whether I should invest in a good history book since Wikipedia was proving inadequate - for some aspects of the narration, at least. Thackeray didn’t help matters by referring to certain historical personages, who appear in the story, by different monikers at different times.
He added further to the confusion with his choice of narrator. He could have chosen a third person omniscient narrator, but no, why make things simple? It’s made apparent quite early that the third person narrator is in fact a much older and wiser version of Henry Esmond, who has no scruples switching from third to first person in order to give us his own opinion and commentary on the events he has just related. Only the older and wiser Esmond holds completely different political views to the young Esmond who is experiencing the events. To be quite honest, I want to trust neither of them. I’d rather read an informed history book on the matter, and form my own opinions.
Aside from the broader political events, that I suspect were Thackeray’s main concern in writing the novel, there is also the more narrow personal story, that is not without its issues. I couldn’t see any of the fictional characters, as well rounded. To me they were all caricatures, and some were more successful than others. The most enjoyable one was the vain and silly step mother who worked because she was quite funny. I didn’t mind the one-dimensional beautiful and ambitious cousin who is, in effect, a paler version of Vanity Fair's Becky Sharp. But Henry Esmond? Even Esther Summerson in Bleak House was less of an annoyingly goody-two-shoes character than he was. I’m usually happy to accept ‘good’ characters but at some point even my credulity was stretched to breaking point. There is another pivotal character in the story, and that is Lady Castlewood, who stood in the role of adopted mother to Henry since his twelfth year and to whom I’m completely unable to reconcile myself. She is shown to switch from love to rejection of Henry at two different points in the story, but at no point are we given an explanation that is believable or even acceptable to our modern way of thinking. With regard to the second rejection, a motive is subsequently hinted at, that to me, today can only be regarded as repulsive. Subsequent events in the story though indicate that this might have been less objectionable in Thackeray’s time.
On the plus side I enjoyed the sense of time and place evoked especially by those parts of the novel set in England, and was interested in seeing the author’s view of historical figures such as the Pretender or John Donne. I would not recommend this to anyone outside Thackeray completists, or people with a specific interest in that period of English history. At the same time I certainly wouldn’t want to put off anyone who is considering it, because although I was often annoyed, I was never bored.
December 21, 2019
It would be hard to find a more virtuous hero than Henry Esmond: finding out that he's not the bastard child he thought he was, but in fact the true heir of a title and fortune, he declines to claim his title and property, leaving it to a sillier, younger man. Or is Henry the less silly man? He moons and mopes over the beautiful Beatrix (his foster-sister) for ten years, declining to see her assholish, power-hungry ways, until he is finally so put off by her flirtations with the horny James Stuart, the royal Pretender, that he decides instead to marry her mother (who was his own foster mother), now in her "autumn" years. (Well, yes.) Though old-ish, his new wife is "as pure as virgins in their spring" (whatever!) and bears him a child. They move to a Virginia plantation and he sells the diamonds he had once given Beatrix to buy "negroes" who are "the happiest and merriest, I think, in all this country..." Oof.
I'm leaving a lot out. Henry goes to Cambridge, finds out who his mother is, finds out who his stepmother is, engages in much Tory politicking and Jacobitism, makes friends with Richard Steele and Joseph Addison, fights in the War of the Spanish Succession, spends time in prison for his part in a duel, annoys Jonathan Swift, does a lot of switching between Protestantism and Catholicism, writes a play that fails, and hatches a plot to restore James Stuart (who would be James III) to the throne.
I was perplexed by the constant switching between past and present tense, and would like an explanation from Thackeray.
April 30, 2018
The cover image is not for the one I have, but I couldn't find it. This is a Bantam Classic from 1961. I read the very nice introduction last night.
Read the preface last night. It's a letter from Henry's daughter which brings up some intriguing plot points sure to be covered later. The letter is written either during or right after the Am. Rev., while the plot focuses on action 50 or so years earlier.
FINALLY back to reading this after weeks of digression. Here we go ...
So, I've "switched to this edition" and now Goodreads says I'm reading this for the second time - STUPID! Anyway, I'm enjoying the read but it's slow going for two reasons. 1 - Thackeray is writing in the style of the late 1600's, not in the style of his own time(mid-1800's). In other words, Shakespeare's career occurred only a hundred years before and Jane Austen was still 1oo years into the future. Still, it is getting a bit easier. 2 - The convoluted family history is a challenge to absorb, especially when most of the male ancestors get referred to as "my Lord." But ... I'm soldiering onward through the very eventful life of young Harry(Henry). It's fun to see his relationships develop with people whose future fate we are somewhat aware of from the genealogy chart. This hard bound edition from 1950 doesn't have one but the paperback I started with does.
- It's a bit distracting to be reading about relationship(s) knowing a bit about what's going to develop in the future. I have two editions of this book, and one of them shows a family tree that gives stuff away AND it has an introduction that gives even MORE away. That's the paperback version. The one I'm reading is hardbound and contains neither genealogy nor intro.
And onward into the very eventful young life of Henry(Harry) Esmond. Right now he's languishing in prison for a year for being a second in a duel. The aristos who participated get off scot=free, but the commoners get prison time. How typical! This particular type of dueling allowed for up to three participants on each side. Curious ...
- One of the smaller b&w illustrations in the book is a take-off/copy on a familiar Dutch theme. Vermeer in particular.
- The somewhat sanctimonious blah-blah factor in this book is pretty high as the memoir teller isn't shy about telling us pretty much ALL of his thoughts. It still manages to be most bearable and interesting, however. I guess one of WMT's points is to illustrate the garrulity of Henry. A big secret has been revealed to Henry, but so far he hasn't shared, though I think I already know what it is. What WAS on that burned-up confession anyhow?
- Another quibble - lots of Latin phrases are used. Probably OK considering the readership of the 19th century, but I'm pretty much ignorant in that regard. I can't look 'em up at home either - no computer. Oh well ...
A new beginning for Harry commences when he gets out of jail. The big secret has been laid out, though not necessarily confirmed as yet. No matter to Harry. He ups and joins the Army and is off to Spain for whatever. The big world awaits and he is happy again.
Rounding toward the home stretch now as the final section will be set in Virginia. Although I doubt that my final rating will be a 3*, I have continued to encounter a bit of a headwind coming from a few ongoing challenges. One is the language, which I've spoken of already. Rather archaic ... Then there's all the political, military and cultural stuff. No doubt that Thackeray's contemporary readers(150 years ago now) had a much easier time of it considering that they were living much closer to the history and culture that WT writes of. A further "problem" seems to the author's insistence to go into endless raptures of praise when talking about the two Castlewood babes, mother and daughter. Sheesh Henry, give it a rest, will ya? We get it - you love BOTH of them! From the family tree that I've seen some of the "outcome drama" is a bit spoiled for me, but I still want to learn how things all came about in that area.
Well, I was wrong, and Henry hasn't made it to the colonies yet. More big dramatic doings in England to be got through first. By now Henry has pretty much retired from the Army, or at least he's trying to retire. Wars keep breaking out along with the pretty much continuous political conflict between Whigs and Tories. The whole reading experience has picked up by the author's bringing Beatrix to the fore. She has a couple of great/nasty-funny speeches in which she delineates Henry's character defects as a prospective lover. She'll get hers. Jonathan Swift makes an unpleasant appearance as well. Obviously, WMT was NOT an admirer of the man. Of the writer - yes, for the most part.
- The emergence of Beatrix from the background brings thoughts of Becky Sharp.
- A bit of diamond drama reminds of Trollope.
Finished up with this one by staying up a bit later than normal last night. I remain conflicted about the rating as this seems to be a perfect 3.5* book. Lots of interesting and fun stuff, but also some "issues," which I've mentioned already. Certainly, it's no "Vanity Fair," but then, what is? I learned a lot about The Augustan Age, The Pretender, The War of the Spanish Succession, the Duke of Marlborough( a member of the Churchill family) etc. The weak spots? The central figure was not especially interesting. Parson Harry ... a lot of sanctimony there and repetition thereof. Beatrix comes on strong at the end and one gets the impression that WMT liked her the best, even though she was kind of a "bad" girl. Anyway, tonight I'll go back to my paperback edition and re-read the introduction and probably the preface(in my hardbound) That'll wrap things up. I think that this is the first part of a trio of books so I may go back and read more in time.
- The estates in Virginia(employing both slave labor and indentured servants) mentioned in the beginning and the end connect to "A Place Called Freedom" by Ken Follett.
- Meanwhile, no 3* for Thackeray = 3.75* = rounded up to 4*.
Read the preface last night. It's a letter from Henry's daughter which brings up some intriguing plot points sure to be covered later. The letter is written either during or right after the Am. Rev., while the plot focuses on action 50 or so years earlier.
FINALLY back to reading this after weeks of digression. Here we go ...
So, I've "switched to this edition" and now Goodreads says I'm reading this for the second time - STUPID! Anyway, I'm enjoying the read but it's slow going for two reasons. 1 - Thackeray is writing in the style of the late 1600's, not in the style of his own time(mid-1800's). In other words, Shakespeare's career occurred only a hundred years before and Jane Austen was still 1oo years into the future. Still, it is getting a bit easier. 2 - The convoluted family history is a challenge to absorb, especially when most of the male ancestors get referred to as "my Lord." But ... I'm soldiering onward through the very eventful life of young Harry(Henry). It's fun to see his relationships develop with people whose future fate we are somewhat aware of from the genealogy chart. This hard bound edition from 1950 doesn't have one but the paperback I started with does.
- It's a bit distracting to be reading about relationship(s) knowing a bit about what's going to develop in the future. I have two editions of this book, and one of them shows a family tree that gives stuff away AND it has an introduction that gives even MORE away. That's the paperback version. The one I'm reading is hardbound and contains neither genealogy nor intro.
And onward into the very eventful young life of Henry(Harry) Esmond. Right now he's languishing in prison for a year for being a second in a duel. The aristos who participated get off scot=free, but the commoners get prison time. How typical! This particular type of dueling allowed for up to three participants on each side. Curious ...
- One of the smaller b&w illustrations in the book is a take-off/copy on a familiar Dutch theme. Vermeer in particular.
- The somewhat sanctimonious blah-blah factor in this book is pretty high as the memoir teller isn't shy about telling us pretty much ALL of his thoughts. It still manages to be most bearable and interesting, however. I guess one of WMT's points is to illustrate the garrulity of Henry. A big secret has been revealed to Henry, but so far he hasn't shared, though I think I already know what it is. What WAS on that burned-up confession anyhow?
- Another quibble - lots of Latin phrases are used. Probably OK considering the readership of the 19th century, but I'm pretty much ignorant in that regard. I can't look 'em up at home either - no computer. Oh well ...
A new beginning for Harry commences when he gets out of jail. The big secret has been laid out, though not necessarily confirmed as yet. No matter to Harry. He ups and joins the Army and is off to Spain for whatever. The big world awaits and he is happy again.
Rounding toward the home stretch now as the final section will be set in Virginia. Although I doubt that my final rating will be a 3*, I have continued to encounter a bit of a headwind coming from a few ongoing challenges. One is the language, which I've spoken of already. Rather archaic ... Then there's all the political, military and cultural stuff. No doubt that Thackeray's contemporary readers(150 years ago now) had a much easier time of it considering that they were living much closer to the history and culture that WT writes of. A further "problem" seems to the author's insistence to go into endless raptures of praise when talking about the two Castlewood babes, mother and daughter. Sheesh Henry, give it a rest, will ya? We get it - you love BOTH of them! From the family tree that I've seen some of the "outcome drama" is a bit spoiled for me, but I still want to learn how things all came about in that area.
Well, I was wrong, and Henry hasn't made it to the colonies yet. More big dramatic doings in England to be got through first. By now Henry has pretty much retired from the Army, or at least he's trying to retire. Wars keep breaking out along with the pretty much continuous political conflict between Whigs and Tories. The whole reading experience has picked up by the author's bringing Beatrix to the fore. She has a couple of great/nasty-funny speeches in which she delineates Henry's character defects as a prospective lover. She'll get hers. Jonathan Swift makes an unpleasant appearance as well. Obviously, WMT was NOT an admirer of the man. Of the writer - yes, for the most part.
- The emergence of Beatrix from the background brings thoughts of Becky Sharp.
- A bit of diamond drama reminds of Trollope.
Finished up with this one by staying up a bit later than normal last night. I remain conflicted about the rating as this seems to be a perfect 3.5* book. Lots of interesting and fun stuff, but also some "issues," which I've mentioned already. Certainly, it's no "Vanity Fair," but then, what is? I learned a lot about The Augustan Age, The Pretender, The War of the Spanish Succession, the Duke of Marlborough( a member of the Churchill family) etc. The weak spots? The central figure was not especially interesting. Parson Harry ... a lot of sanctimony there and repetition thereof. Beatrix comes on strong at the end and one gets the impression that WMT liked her the best, even though she was kind of a "bad" girl. Anyway, tonight I'll go back to my paperback edition and re-read the introduction and probably the preface(in my hardbound) That'll wrap things up. I think that this is the first part of a trio of books so I may go back and read more in time.
- The estates in Virginia(employing both slave labor and indentured servants) mentioned in the beginning and the end connect to "A Place Called Freedom" by Ken Follett.
- Meanwhile, no 3* for Thackeray = 3.75* = rounded up to 4*.
October 12, 2010
The History of Henry Esmond was widely considered the best historical novel of its day and often considered the best of Thackeray's novels as well; Trollope, who wrote a biography of his friend Thackeray, calls it his masterpiece. It's set just after the Glorious Revolution, during the reigns of William and Mary and then Queen Anne, and follows the life of Henry Esmond, gentleman and officer of the Duke of Marlborough's army, through his military career and his tangled family life.
The novel begins with a preface by Esmond's daughter, before switching over to the third-person narration of Esmond himself, which itself contains footnotes by his daughter. (Word of warning!: if you have the Penguin edition edited by John Sutherland, do not read the end notes to the preface until you've finished the book - they spoiled a couple of important plot points for me. Sutherland did mention that the preface probably should be read after the book, but not until the last note, by which time I was already thoroughly spoiled.)
Esmond's voice is kept up beautifully, without breaking into the voice of the omniscient, ironic narrator more familiar to readers of Vanity Fair; my only confusion here was that occasionally Esmond would slip into speaking in the first person rather than the third for a few sentences. However, since I always thought of it as being Esmond slipping rather than Thackeray, I suppose that simply emphasizes how well the voice is sustained.
Thackeray interweaves the story of Esmond and his family very cleverly with the history of the time, through Esmond's campaigns with the Duke of Marlborough and the family's intriguing for the Jacobites. The appearances of historical figures are nicely done also, never overwhelming, though Thackeray's negative portrayal of Marlborough did make me feel that in fairness I should also read Churchill's more positive biography of the duke. As Sutherland nicely puts it in his introduction, "Esmond, the fictional character, is kept on the edge of historical events...just as historical characters are kept on the fringe of the novel's crises." It's a difficult balance beam to walk, and Thackeray rarely missteps.
I can't say that I enjoyed Henry Esmond as much as Vanity Fair; although I liked Esmond himself, I found several of the minor characters (specifically Rachel Esmond and her daughter Beatrix) less engaging. As an example of Thackeray's craft as a novelist, though, it's very impressive.
The novel begins with a preface by Esmond's daughter, before switching over to the third-person narration of Esmond himself, which itself contains footnotes by his daughter. (Word of warning!: if you have the Penguin edition edited by John Sutherland, do not read the end notes to the preface until you've finished the book - they spoiled a couple of important plot points for me. Sutherland did mention that the preface probably should be read after the book, but not until the last note, by which time I was already thoroughly spoiled.)
Esmond's voice is kept up beautifully, without breaking into the voice of the omniscient, ironic narrator more familiar to readers of Vanity Fair; my only confusion here was that occasionally Esmond would slip into speaking in the first person rather than the third for a few sentences. However, since I always thought of it as being Esmond slipping rather than Thackeray, I suppose that simply emphasizes how well the voice is sustained.
Thackeray interweaves the story of Esmond and his family very cleverly with the history of the time, through Esmond's campaigns with the Duke of Marlborough and the family's intriguing for the Jacobites. The appearances of historical figures are nicely done also, never overwhelming, though Thackeray's negative portrayal of Marlborough did make me feel that in fairness I should also read Churchill's more positive biography of the duke. As Sutherland nicely puts it in his introduction, "Esmond, the fictional character, is kept on the edge of historical events...just as historical characters are kept on the fringe of the novel's crises." It's a difficult balance beam to walk, and Thackeray rarely missteps.
I can't say that I enjoyed Henry Esmond as much as Vanity Fair; although I liked Esmond himself, I found several of the minor characters (specifically Rachel Esmond and her daughter Beatrix) less engaging. As an example of Thackeray's craft as a novelist, though, it's very impressive.
August 18, 2015
Free download available at Project Gutenberg.
Opening lines:
The actors in the old tragedies, as we read, piped their iambics to a tune, speaking from under a mask, and wearing stilts and a great head-dress. 'Twas thought the dignity of the Tragic Muse required these appurtenances, and that she was not to move except to a measure and cadence. So Queen Medea slew her children to a slow music: and King Agamemnon perished in a dying fall (to use Mr. Dryden's words): the Chorus standing by in a set attitude, and rhythmically and decorously bewailing the fates of those great crowned persons.
Page 117:
Ah! no man knows his strength or his weakness, till occasion proves them. If there be some thoughts and actions of his life from the memory of which a man shrinks with shame, sure there are some which he may be proud to own and remember; forgiven injuries, conquered temptations (now and then) and difficulties vanquished by endurance.
3* Vanity Fair
3* Barry Lyndon
3* The Mahogany Tree
3* The Rose and the King
2,5* The History of Henry Esmond
TR The Paris Sketch Book of Mr. M. A. Titmarsh and The Irish Sketch Book
TR Christmas Books
Opening lines:
The actors in the old tragedies, as we read, piped their iambics to a tune, speaking from under a mask, and wearing stilts and a great head-dress. 'Twas thought the dignity of the Tragic Muse required these appurtenances, and that she was not to move except to a measure and cadence. So Queen Medea slew her children to a slow music: and King Agamemnon perished in a dying fall (to use Mr. Dryden's words): the Chorus standing by in a set attitude, and rhythmically and decorously bewailing the fates of those great crowned persons.
Page 117:
Ah! no man knows his strength or his weakness, till occasion proves them. If there be some thoughts and actions of his life from the memory of which a man shrinks with shame, sure there are some which he may be proud to own and remember; forgiven injuries, conquered temptations (now and then) and difficulties vanquished by endurance.
3* Vanity Fair
3* Barry Lyndon
3* The Mahogany Tree
3* The Rose and the King
2,5* The History of Henry Esmond
TR The Paris Sketch Book of Mr. M. A. Titmarsh and The Irish Sketch Book
TR Christmas Books
March 20, 2015
I found The History of Henry Esmond to be a very challenging and difficult read. Ultimately, it became a frustrating read, and ended with (apologies to T.S. Eliot) a profound whimper and no bang at all.
Perhaps it is because Thackeray's characters lack the presence of Dickens's creations, perhaps it is because Thackeray was unable, in my eyes, to create the intricate and incisive social commentary found in a Trollope novel. Perhaps it was that while one could sense the evolution, and even the fate of the characters as one does with Thomas Hardy, there was only a whimper of climax with Thackeray. In The History of Henry Esmond I found little to intrigue me, less to interest me, and nothing else to say.
Perhaps it is because Thackeray's characters lack the presence of Dickens's creations, perhaps it is because Thackeray was unable, in my eyes, to create the intricate and incisive social commentary found in a Trollope novel. Perhaps it was that while one could sense the evolution, and even the fate of the characters as one does with Thomas Hardy, there was only a whimper of climax with Thackeray. In The History of Henry Esmond I found little to intrigue me, less to interest me, and nothing else to say.
January 18, 2012
This is a rich, complex, but ultimately unsatisfying novel about a young man of principle making his way in the corrupt and luxurious world of the 1700's English aristocracy.
Henry Esmond narrates the story of his own life, and the thing that sinks the novel is that he's always just a little too aware of his own virtue. He shows how venal, corrupt, and selfish all the other characters are, while refusing to admit he's secretly very impressed with his own demure Victorian primness. He's really Thackeray, the moralist with a guilty conscience, pretending to be shocked by the salacious 18th century, but all the time pandering to his own prurient desires.
The other characters in this novel all exist merely as foils for Esmond's virtues. His cousin Beatrice, as witty and seductive as Becky Sharp, is never given a fair break. Thackeray's man Esmond, while pretending to sing her praisies, actually hits her with every cliche known to man. Because she's clever, she must be evil. Because she's beautiful, she must be vain, and because she's vain she must be cruel. Because she has ambitions, she must be selfish. Never once does Esmond say anything good about her -- but supposedly he's heart broken when she rejects him time and again. It's more like, he hates her guts and revels in snitching her out behind her back. Esmond is supposed to be like loyal and loving Gatsby, and Trixie is his unattainable Daisy. But he writes about her like he's Nick Carraway sneering at Myrtle Wilson. It's not pretty.
Meanwhile, Esmond is debating whether to remain loyal to his family's heritage, and support the claim of exiled prince James Stuart to the English throne, or choose the winning side and support King George I. It would be a good dilemna, but Thackeray cops out by presenting the doomed and royal Stuart prince (who in real life was brave, generous, religious, and fair-minded) as some sort of creepy sexual pervert. Again, the Victorian Thackeray thinks he's being heroic by finding dirtiness in everyone and everything.
This book would have been so much better if it had been written by Sir Walter Scott fifty years before. Then Trixie would have been a real damsel, Esmond would have been a noble knight, and James Stuart would have been doomed but noble and good. Thackeray subverts the romance of Sir Walter Scott's historical fictions, but only in the meanest, most cynical way. HENRY ESMOND has less in common with IVANHOE and more in common with LESS THAN ZERO.
Henry Esmond narrates the story of his own life, and the thing that sinks the novel is that he's always just a little too aware of his own virtue. He shows how venal, corrupt, and selfish all the other characters are, while refusing to admit he's secretly very impressed with his own demure Victorian primness. He's really Thackeray, the moralist with a guilty conscience, pretending to be shocked by the salacious 18th century, but all the time pandering to his own prurient desires.
The other characters in this novel all exist merely as foils for Esmond's virtues. His cousin Beatrice, as witty and seductive as Becky Sharp, is never given a fair break. Thackeray's man Esmond, while pretending to sing her praisies, actually hits her with every cliche known to man. Because she's clever, she must be evil. Because she's beautiful, she must be vain, and because she's vain she must be cruel. Because she has ambitions, she must be selfish. Never once does Esmond say anything good about her -- but supposedly he's heart broken when she rejects him time and again. It's more like, he hates her guts and revels in snitching her out behind her back. Esmond is supposed to be like loyal and loving Gatsby, and Trixie is his unattainable Daisy. But he writes about her like he's Nick Carraway sneering at Myrtle Wilson. It's not pretty.
Meanwhile, Esmond is debating whether to remain loyal to his family's heritage, and support the claim of exiled prince James Stuart to the English throne, or choose the winning side and support King George I. It would be a good dilemna, but Thackeray cops out by presenting the doomed and royal Stuart prince (who in real life was brave, generous, religious, and fair-minded) as some sort of creepy sexual pervert. Again, the Victorian Thackeray thinks he's being heroic by finding dirtiness in everyone and everything.
This book would have been so much better if it had been written by Sir Walter Scott fifty years before. Then Trixie would have been a real damsel, Esmond would have been a noble knight, and James Stuart would have been doomed but noble and good. Thackeray subverts the romance of Sir Walter Scott's historical fictions, but only in the meanest, most cynical way. HENRY ESMOND has less in common with IVANHOE and more in common with LESS THAN ZERO.
May 12, 2008
You know what? This book isn't all that great. Sorry, William Makepeace Thackeray.
May 5, 2020
Just a story of a guy who really, really, really likes his stately-hot aunt-mom and smokin-hot cousin-sister amid the Jacobite Uprisings and War of Spanish Succession.
February 3, 2016
Published a decade before War & Peace, I can imagine that this historical novel could have been a model for Tolstoy's epic (maybe someone knows?). It's not quite as long but, although the battle scenes, focussed around Marlborough's campaigns and the War of the Spanish Succession, are fewer and less well realized, it has the massive advantage over W & P of believable, complex and unforgettable female characters. Structurally, there are flaws and problems: the mixture of real history and invented characters is frequently confusing and there are numerous slips and inconsistencies which make an annotated critical edition absolutely necessary. But the history is really a conventional vehicle for a discussion of social and emotional themes such as the effect of secrecy within families and the damage caused by aggressive macho competition (alcohol, gambling, duelling). The most breathtaking passages deal with the emotional development of children and young people, and how their expectations, emergent self-images, and quests for different kinds of love and acceptance are often brutally altered by thoughtlessness, accident, misapprehension, abreactions to half-grasped situations and so on. Read as a historical novel, the book is fairly impressive, but it is much more importantly a vehicle for meditations on human intergenerational behaviour that bear the stamp of real genius.
February 26, 2018
Thackeray was one of Dickens' rivals... the comparison isn't really fair, since Charles Dickens (being sui generis) has no rivals. Every Dickensian sentence is a shining jewel of the craft. "Henry Esmond", a fine book in every way, nevertheless does have some rough edges.
The action takes place during the reign of Queen Anne, the last English monarch; her successor was the German, George I, ancestor of the current Windsors. The transition from the Stuarts to the Hanoverians provides the historical backdrop. Our characters play their parts in the larger drama, but the story is really a love story... according to the footnotes many readers are surprised by the ending. These readers can't possibly have been paying attention to the actual characters though; the ending makes perfect sense, and is perfectly satisfying.
Thackeray, obviously a Protestant writer, writes this book in a unique way; it is not without sympathy to the Catholic cause; and while the novel formally ends with a marriage, as all great Protestant novels do, the preface carries their stories forward until their deaths... as all great Catholic novels do.
I give this book 5 stars because it leaves me with that unique emotion caused by finishing great human stories; sadness that the book is over, grief at the human condition, joy at the love that brings us meaning, awe and fear at the sweep of history.
The action takes place during the reign of Queen Anne, the last English monarch; her successor was the German, George I, ancestor of the current Windsors. The transition from the Stuarts to the Hanoverians provides the historical backdrop. Our characters play their parts in the larger drama, but the story is really a love story... according to the footnotes many readers are surprised by the ending. These readers can't possibly have been paying attention to the actual characters though; the ending makes perfect sense, and is perfectly satisfying.
Thackeray, obviously a Protestant writer, writes this book in a unique way; it is not without sympathy to the Catholic cause; and while the novel formally ends with a marriage, as all great Protestant novels do, the preface carries their stories forward until their deaths... as all great Catholic novels do.
I give this book 5 stars because it leaves me with that unique emotion caused by finishing great human stories; sadness that the book is over, grief at the human condition, joy at the love that brings us meaning, awe and fear at the sweep of history.
May 8, 2016
Henry Esmond is a shitty, bitter dude and his ideas about women suck. This book took me 2 months to read and it was mostly a waste of time. Maybe you'll like this book if you really love Jacobite history and repetitive character building and subplots, but it's not for me.
I loved Pendennis, but I'm over Thackeray after Henry Esmond for the following reasons:
-Women are treated like absolute crap, in ways that are excessive even for this book's time. (& If Beatrix is such a bad person, why does Henry want her for THE ENTIRE BOOK? Beatrix clearly isn't the one with issues here. At least she was always honest about what she was up to. Give her a freaking break.)
-The romantic ending of this book is creepy and predictable, and yet somehow Thackeray failed to build up to it enough to make it believable.
-The narrator is bearable for the first half of the book but becomes pompous and self righteous by the end.
-There's a lot of war and it's boring.
-omg Henry either give up your title and stop whining or take it and use it. You can't have it both ways.
-HE KEEPS CHASING THE SAME GIRL FOR THE WHOLE BOOK AND DOES NOT DEVELOP AS A CHARACTER IN ANY WAY.
I loved Pendennis, but I'm over Thackeray after Henry Esmond for the following reasons:
-Women are treated like absolute crap, in ways that are excessive even for this book's time. (& If Beatrix is such a bad person, why does Henry want her for THE ENTIRE BOOK? Beatrix clearly isn't the one with issues here. At least she was always honest about what she was up to. Give her a freaking break.)
-The romantic ending of this book is creepy and predictable, and yet somehow Thackeray failed to build up to it enough to make it believable.
-The narrator is bearable for the first half of the book but becomes pompous and self righteous by the end.
-There's a lot of war and it's boring.
-omg Henry either give up your title and stop whining or take it and use it. You can't have it both ways.
-HE KEEPS CHASING THE SAME GIRL FOR THE WHOLE BOOK AND DOES NOT DEVELOP AS A CHARACTER IN ANY WAY.
March 11, 2013
This narrative relates the life of the aristocratic-born Henry Esmond. As the 17th Century closes and the 18th dawns, Harry Esmond attends college, goes to jail and serves in the army. William Thackeray describes the demise of James II, reign of William and Mary and Queen Anne. Although he mentions a multitude of historical battles and incidents, pains are taken not to load (or bless) the reader with too much information. Much time and effort are spent in describing the escapades of the Duke of Marlborough. Love springs up in many places and takes many forms. Henry Esmond had the misfortune to fall deeply in love with the wrong woman. William Thackeray doesn’t create the unforgettable characters that flowed from the pen of Dickens but he does manage to write an historical work of fiction that holds the readers interest. This book probably won’t appeal to the masses but certainly to a chosen few.
March 28, 2013
It's not bad, but I have no trouble understanding why this novel is no longer in print. It loses a lot of its interest if you don't have any frame of reference for obscure literary figures of the 18th century or knowledge of 18th century British history. It turns out there was a whole war I'd never even heard of. I felt throughout more or less the way I would imagine Thackeray himself would feel if he watched Forrest Gump: You can tell the things that are going on are supposed to have some sort of significance to the reader, but they don't have any significance to you. And, without that knowledge, the novel just isn't nearly as interesting. The historical references get in the way of the storytelling.
June 25, 2011
After passing over finishing this book to read three other books, I think it may be time to give up the fight. The writing style was annoying. And Thackeray needed a better editor. He keeps repeating the same thing over and over. So far, it is just boring. I do still hope to finish it some day, but not now.
March 12, 2013
There were good bits in this - the picture of a marriage going bad was done very well, I thought. But there was also a lot that was dull - particularly Esmond's experience in the War of the Spanish Succession, about which I knew nothing and now have no desire to know any more. All in all I think it went on too long.
January 31, 2014
It’s been quite a while since I read Vanity Fair, Thackeray’s best-known novel, but I was aware that Thackeray devotees generally hold Henry Esmond in higher esteem. It is a classically-structured novel, one which follows a central character through an extended portion of his or her life, illustrating a moment in history or society by refracting it through the prism of that character.
Oddly, though, much of Henry Esmond’s life seems to transpire in the spaces left among the others around him. An orphan of sorts, tenuously attached to a wealthy family but completely dependent upon their benevolence, he spends his childhood as a glorified servant, and receives his education – both academic and political – from a local priest who also happens to be one of the most low-key international spies I’ve ever encountered.
Henry’s political education is as formative as his academics, since he lives in England during the latter extent of the English Restoration, when one’s religious affiliation (Protestant or Catholic) was in essence a declaration of allegiance to one side or another, and when noble families jockeyed nervously to curry favor but keep their options open in case power shifted. He is a thoughtful, somewhat morose boy, who finds his purpose in an odd but devotional relationship to his mistress, Lady Castlewood, particularly after her husband dies.
Younger than Lady Castlewood but older than her daughter Beatrix and son Frank, Henry spends his youth with only vague ideas about his prospects. He initially steers toward the clergy, but sets his aspirations higher when his “cousin” Beatrix spurns his advances. Distinguishing himself in a number of campaigns (which allows Thackeray to weave in a good bit of the armed conflicts between the English and French at the turn of the eighteenth century), Henry returns as a Colonel, only to find Beatrix consorting with dukes and better. It takes him quite a while to shake off his interest in Beatrix, particularly since his experiment in political intrigue is pretty much a failure on all levels.
A few aspects of this story preoccupied me throughout. First, the story is framed as a memoir, with many chapters titled in the first person (“I Am Left at Castlewood An Orphan”). Yet the vast majority of the text is told in the third person, except when it shifts inexplicably to first person for a sentence or two here and there. I can’t help but feel that this text would not make it past any editor alive today in this form, since there is no reason or symbolic value to these shifts. Today it gives me a vaguely postmodern impression – as though Henry is capable of viewing himself both objectively and subjectively, and that’s not altogether unpleasant, even if it is rather weird.
Another truly bizarre aspect of the story is the fact that Henry spends more than a decade in love with Beatrix, but at the very end, marries her mother, Lady Castlewood. Yes, he has had an almost chivalric devotion to Lady Castlewood for even longer than he has pined for Beatrix. Yes, at the end Beatrix has estranged herself almost completely from both her mother and Henry, and those two are set to depart England for their estate in Virginia. But all that doesn’t change the fact that a man who has been in love with a girl winds up marrying that girl’s mother. Possibly the least modern element in this entire novel.
Another notable aspect of the novel is the inclusion of three influential Restoration writers as characters: Addison, Steele, and Swift. It is safe to say that Thackeray clearly prefers Addision and Steele to Swift, if his portrayals of them are any indication. Thackeray (or at least, his proxy, Henry Esmond) esteems Addison’s poetry more highly than the modern consensus. (These days, Addison and Steele are best known for the stimulating daily paper The Spectator.)
It’s hard for me to guess how this novel read when it was published in the middle of the nineteenth century. At that time it was already historical fiction, being over a hundred years after the events it describes. But I don’t know whether readers at that time were sufficiently knowledgeable of the details of the English Restoration that would either make Henry Esmond suspenseful or not, since the climax hinges on who claims the English throne after Queen Anne dies. Not knowing this, I found the final phase of the novel to be quite engrossing, and I wonder how my experience might have been different had I known this bit of history more thoroughly.
But Thackeray is a master storyteller; in lesser hands, Henry Esmond would be a benign barnacle on the craft of a more dramatic, more interesting wealthy family. Several of those folks try their best to wrest the story away from Henry, but our focus and our sympathies remain with the quietly capable man who will never be fully comfortable among them. That makes the critical secret he carries through most of his life understandable; otherwise it would be nothing more than a stillborn version of The Prince and the Pauper.
Oddly, though, much of Henry Esmond’s life seems to transpire in the spaces left among the others around him. An orphan of sorts, tenuously attached to a wealthy family but completely dependent upon their benevolence, he spends his childhood as a glorified servant, and receives his education – both academic and political – from a local priest who also happens to be one of the most low-key international spies I’ve ever encountered.
Henry’s political education is as formative as his academics, since he lives in England during the latter extent of the English Restoration, when one’s religious affiliation (Protestant or Catholic) was in essence a declaration of allegiance to one side or another, and when noble families jockeyed nervously to curry favor but keep their options open in case power shifted. He is a thoughtful, somewhat morose boy, who finds his purpose in an odd but devotional relationship to his mistress, Lady Castlewood, particularly after her husband dies.
Younger than Lady Castlewood but older than her daughter Beatrix and son Frank, Henry spends his youth with only vague ideas about his prospects. He initially steers toward the clergy, but sets his aspirations higher when his “cousin” Beatrix spurns his advances. Distinguishing himself in a number of campaigns (which allows Thackeray to weave in a good bit of the armed conflicts between the English and French at the turn of the eighteenth century), Henry returns as a Colonel, only to find Beatrix consorting with dukes and better. It takes him quite a while to shake off his interest in Beatrix, particularly since his experiment in political intrigue is pretty much a failure on all levels.
A few aspects of this story preoccupied me throughout. First, the story is framed as a memoir, with many chapters titled in the first person (“I Am Left at Castlewood An Orphan”). Yet the vast majority of the text is told in the third person, except when it shifts inexplicably to first person for a sentence or two here and there. I can’t help but feel that this text would not make it past any editor alive today in this form, since there is no reason or symbolic value to these shifts. Today it gives me a vaguely postmodern impression – as though Henry is capable of viewing himself both objectively and subjectively, and that’s not altogether unpleasant, even if it is rather weird.
Another truly bizarre aspect of the story is the fact that Henry spends more than a decade in love with Beatrix, but at the very end, marries her mother, Lady Castlewood. Yes, he has had an almost chivalric devotion to Lady Castlewood for even longer than he has pined for Beatrix. Yes, at the end Beatrix has estranged herself almost completely from both her mother and Henry, and those two are set to depart England for their estate in Virginia. But all that doesn’t change the fact that a man who has been in love with a girl winds up marrying that girl’s mother. Possibly the least modern element in this entire novel.
Another notable aspect of the novel is the inclusion of three influential Restoration writers as characters: Addison, Steele, and Swift. It is safe to say that Thackeray clearly prefers Addision and Steele to Swift, if his portrayals of them are any indication. Thackeray (or at least, his proxy, Henry Esmond) esteems Addison’s poetry more highly than the modern consensus. (These days, Addison and Steele are best known for the stimulating daily paper The Spectator.)
It’s hard for me to guess how this novel read when it was published in the middle of the nineteenth century. At that time it was already historical fiction, being over a hundred years after the events it describes. But I don’t know whether readers at that time were sufficiently knowledgeable of the details of the English Restoration that would either make Henry Esmond suspenseful or not, since the climax hinges on who claims the English throne after Queen Anne dies. Not knowing this, I found the final phase of the novel to be quite engrossing, and I wonder how my experience might have been different had I known this bit of history more thoroughly.
But Thackeray is a master storyteller; in lesser hands, Henry Esmond would be a benign barnacle on the craft of a more dramatic, more interesting wealthy family. Several of those folks try their best to wrest the story away from Henry, but our focus and our sympathies remain with the quietly capable man who will never be fully comfortable among them. That makes the critical secret he carries through most of his life understandable; otherwise it would be nothing more than a stillborn version of The Prince and the Pauper.
May 7, 2022
This was part of my ongoing reading initiative: Books that have sat on the shelf for many years. I was hoping for sly, social satire; instead, got 400 pages of tedious historical fiction. Some books should stay on the shelf.
September 21, 2022
Quixotic character. It was one of the celebrated historical novels of Victorian time. I liked it a lot but thought like it could be reduced by about 100 pages. However, it was originally published in 3 vols as was the custom and so can understand why it was stretched. Overall very interesting story and worth the read. Not sure why it is neglected. I have the penguin version.
July 6, 2017
It’s fascinating to read an historical novel that is itself historic: Thackeray’s novel was written as long ago now as the events he treats were in his past. All the requisites of good historical fiction are there—a mixture of real and fictional characters, an approximation of an antiquated style (reminiscent of Fielding), an evocation of England as it was at the beginning of the 18th century, an era of political intrigue involving the complicated throne succession. And there is a well-constructed plot that ingeniously joins this strand with the personal story of the narrator (the Henry of the title) in a masterful conclusion. Until then, the personal tale had been the primary strand, an education of the sentiments. For Henry is torn between devotion to Rachel, wife of his cousin and benefactor, and hopeless love for Rachel’s daughter Beatrix, a stunningly beautiful, heartless femme fatale.
Henry bears a bar sinister on his coat of arms; along with an over-serious-nature, these are his only disabilities. Otherwise, he is a paragon of virtue, especially compared to his “legitimate” relations. This critique of the folly of inherited nobility is skilfully mirrored in pairing the Pretender, James, with his half-brother, a royal bastard who towers over him in ability.
On the surface, then, this seems a rather straightforward example of the golden era of the British novel. Perhaps it is something more, for I am nagged with the suspicion that Thackeray may also be using the technique of unreliable narrator. One clue is a scene in which Henry is reconciled with Rachel after one of his schemes to help had a catastrophic result. While Henry is apologizing to her, Rachel begs forgiveness for a greater, unnamed guilt. Then Henry works out his frustration over Beatrix and her ways by having his friend Dick Steele print a fake edition of his Spectator containing two satirical letters and placing this lampoon next to Beatrix’s place at breakfast. It was a convention of the day for authors to hide their identity with names drawn from the classical era, including mythology, but the one Thackeray chooses resonates too strongly in this family constellation to have been drawn out of a hat, thus providing a second clue for my suspicion.
I enjoyed this book from beginning to end. I’ll only withhold the fifth star because I know that not all readers would enjoy as long or as old-fashioned a book as I did.
Henry bears a bar sinister on his coat of arms; along with an over-serious-nature, these are his only disabilities. Otherwise, he is a paragon of virtue, especially compared to his “legitimate” relations. This critique of the folly of inherited nobility is skilfully mirrored in pairing the Pretender, James, with his half-brother, a royal bastard who towers over him in ability.
On the surface, then, this seems a rather straightforward example of the golden era of the British novel. Perhaps it is something more, for I am nagged with the suspicion that Thackeray may also be using the technique of unreliable narrator. One clue is a scene in which Henry is reconciled with Rachel after one of his schemes to help had a catastrophic result. While Henry is apologizing to her, Rachel begs forgiveness for a greater, unnamed guilt. Then Henry works out his frustration over Beatrix and her ways by having his friend Dick Steele print a fake edition of his Spectator containing two satirical letters and placing this lampoon next to Beatrix’s place at breakfast. It was a convention of the day for authors to hide their identity with names drawn from the classical era, including mythology, but the one Thackeray chooses resonates too strongly in this family constellation to have been drawn out of a hat, thus providing a second clue for my suspicion.
I enjoyed this book from beginning to end. I’ll only withhold the fifth star because I know that not all readers would enjoy as long or as old-fashioned a book as I did.
June 8, 2010
Told as a memior of Henry, the bastard son of the Third Viscount Castlewood. He is brought up by the family (mostly by the Fourth Viscount), lives with them, etc. The family have been King's Men since the time of Charles I when the title started, so when the Glorious Revolution comes and William and Mary step in and later the Georges begin there is a strain.
Told in true Victorian style prose, the sentences curl around and twine themselves so badly in places that I had to reread several times to make sure I had the story straight. Also, a knowledge of Latin and French is not amiss.
The story often jumps back in time without warning and ages and events do not always jibe (although given my own memory, that may be all to true to life.) Still it is an interesting book.
This isn't really the edition I read--I used the Literary Guild 1950 edition with 425 pages.
Told in true Victorian style prose, the sentences curl around and twine themselves so badly in places that I had to reread several times to make sure I had the story straight. Also, a knowledge of Latin and French is not amiss.
The story often jumps back in time without warning and ages and events do not always jibe (although given my own memory, that may be all to true to life.) Still it is an interesting book.
This isn't really the edition I read--I used the Literary Guild 1950 edition with 425 pages.
Read
April 24, 2017my modern sense can't help but be squicked by the hero marrying his mother figure, no matter how much Victorian purity and submissiveness she'd attained, but if one sets that aside, it's interesting—especially when Esmond is away from the women. I always find historical novels written by people who are historical from my vantage quite fascinating; Thackeray gets deeply into custom of the late 1600s and early 1700s, making careless reference to habits that are remote to our time, unless one has read a great deal, and his predictions of who would remain in collective memory are quite interesting as well, underscoring his Victorian views. (The 'good' women are firmly Victorian, the bad very much like women of the time, which is perpetrated by modern writers often enough.) In short, the use of history is more interesting than the story, which does get tedious.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 13, 2012
Oddly, it was Richard Brookhiser who recommended this. I heard him one long-ago Sunday on BookNotes--- an interview where he recommended "Henry Esmond" as a great political novel. I'll agree with that--- this is a wonderful story about the end of a political age. We watch Henry try to negotiate the change between Stuart England--- the age of William and Mary and Queen Anne ---and the new world of the Hanoverians, between a world of patrimony and blood loyalties and one where money alone has begun to define politics. A lovely book about a young man dealing with ambition, love, war,and the upending of his world.
January 6, 2023
Intelligent, passionate (auto)biographical novel of an orphaned boy growing up in the time of William III, who, despite obstacles, eventually develops an unexpected and distinguished career. I read it because it was reportedly Thackeray's favorite among his own works, and I think I can see why. It has the flavor of real life.
April 19, 2015
I liked Books 1 & 2. Unexpected humor had been snuck in here and there. Alas, I was forced for my sanity's sake to skip over parts of Book 3.
This was no Vanity Fair.
This was no Vanity Fair.
Read
October 17, 2015JUST FINISHED HENRY ESMOND, WHICH IS ONE OF THE DULLEST BOOKS IN THE WORLD.
IT'S ABOUT A VERY GOOD MAN WHO HAS THE HOTS FOR HIS FOSTER MOTHER AND HER SHALLOW DAUGHTER. HE FIGHTS IN A WAR AND COMMENTS ON POLITICS. IT'S VERY SLOW.
IT'S ABOUT A VERY GOOD MAN WHO HAS THE HOTS FOR HIS FOSTER MOTHER AND HER SHALLOW DAUGHTER. HE FIGHTS IN A WAR AND COMMENTS ON POLITICS. IT'S VERY SLOW.
November 1, 2022
I was motivated to read Henry Esmond by the back cover blurb, in which it was noted that contemporaries of Thackeray, as well as the author himself, considered this novel not only superior to Vanity Fair, but in fact the greatest English novel ever written.
How could it be, I wondered, that a book which at the time was considered peerless could today be utterly forgotten? Esmond, after all, appears on no one's secondary school reading list. And while not technically out of print (in the age of print-on-demand, this is no longer a meaningful concept) you will not see this book on the shelves of booksellers. What's more, all currently available editions on Amazon have less than half the number of reviews and a lower rating than my own first novel, "The Hydra". What grim fate, then, could have befallen the greatest novel ever written in the English language?
The answer is important because of what it might imply about the nature of cultural capital as it is passed down to us through history. We assume, perhaps naively, that the great filtre of time is effective in separating out the literary wheat from the chaff. In other words, that the novels that survive the test of time represent the best of their kind, and therefore with limited reading time at our disposal, the casual reader should never bother looking beyond the Penguin classics shelf at their local Barnes & Nobel. As I cracked open the pages of the tattered 1950s paperback that chance has thrown into my possession, I wondered whether the filtre did in fact work as it was supposed to. Or were there great novels, Henry Esmond perhaps being one, which history had simply forgotten?
The plot line is linear but compelling - like a nice piece of meat that doesn't need an elaborate sauce. It tells the story of the title character as he straddles the religious divide between Catholicism and Protestantism, as well as the political divide between the Whigs and the Tories following the successful protestant insurgency led by William of Orange and his wife, Mary Stuart in 1688. Born to a great house but as an illegitimate son, our protagonist is likeable and nuanced. Esmond is a devout protestant and an English patriot, yet also fiercely loyal to the exiled catholic king, James III & VIII.
His love for his flightly and vain cousin Beatrix Castlewood mirrors his devotion to the ill-fated Stuart regency. These personal and political threads are woven together with delicious ingenuity, leading to a satisfying conclusion to the novel, including with a refreshingly surprising and modern 'plot reveal' that I will not spoil.
Yet I can't help shrinking back from asserting this novel is better than Vanity Fair, or a host of other 19th Century chart-topping classics by Dickens or their contemporaries. As a historical fiction, much of its appeal no doubt lies in the readers' prior knowledge of the events Thackeray brings to life - and by all accounts the author was a legit scholar of the age. To the modern reader, for whom the infamous misdeeds of Lord Mohun mean nothing, much of this spice is lost. Indeed, religious sectarianism is the pulse raising plot dynamic motivating much of the action. But that which tore 17th Century England apart fails to inspire any emotional response in the modern reader, save perhaps in enclaves in Northern Ireland or insofar as we can imagine parallels to the Middle East.
On balance, therefore, I would say that the Great Filtre of History is not entirely broken, even if great novels do slip through the cracks and get washed into the gutters of literary oblivion - and Henry Esmond is arguable such a case.
One message to would-be writers is, if you want your story to have lasting historical impact, know that adorning it with the baubles of Current Thing will not be enough to earn you a place on your great great grandchildren's bookshelf. For that, you will need the timeless elements of a perfect story, outstanding characters, compelling and unpredictable plot turns - and the most important ingredient of all: luck.
How could it be, I wondered, that a book which at the time was considered peerless could today be utterly forgotten? Esmond, after all, appears on no one's secondary school reading list. And while not technically out of print (in the age of print-on-demand, this is no longer a meaningful concept) you will not see this book on the shelves of booksellers. What's more, all currently available editions on Amazon have less than half the number of reviews and a lower rating than my own first novel, "The Hydra". What grim fate, then, could have befallen the greatest novel ever written in the English language?
The answer is important because of what it might imply about the nature of cultural capital as it is passed down to us through history. We assume, perhaps naively, that the great filtre of time is effective in separating out the literary wheat from the chaff. In other words, that the novels that survive the test of time represent the best of their kind, and therefore with limited reading time at our disposal, the casual reader should never bother looking beyond the Penguin classics shelf at their local Barnes & Nobel. As I cracked open the pages of the tattered 1950s paperback that chance has thrown into my possession, I wondered whether the filtre did in fact work as it was supposed to. Or were there great novels, Henry Esmond perhaps being one, which history had simply forgotten?
The plot line is linear but compelling - like a nice piece of meat that doesn't need an elaborate sauce. It tells the story of the title character as he straddles the religious divide between Catholicism and Protestantism, as well as the political divide between the Whigs and the Tories following the successful protestant insurgency led by William of Orange and his wife, Mary Stuart in 1688. Born to a great house but as an illegitimate son, our protagonist is likeable and nuanced. Esmond is a devout protestant and an English patriot, yet also fiercely loyal to the exiled catholic king, James III & VIII.
His love for his flightly and vain cousin Beatrix Castlewood mirrors his devotion to the ill-fated Stuart regency. These personal and political threads are woven together with delicious ingenuity, leading to a satisfying conclusion to the novel, including with a refreshingly surprising and modern 'plot reveal' that I will not spoil.
Yet I can't help shrinking back from asserting this novel is better than Vanity Fair, or a host of other 19th Century chart-topping classics by Dickens or their contemporaries. As a historical fiction, much of its appeal no doubt lies in the readers' prior knowledge of the events Thackeray brings to life - and by all accounts the author was a legit scholar of the age. To the modern reader, for whom the infamous misdeeds of Lord Mohun mean nothing, much of this spice is lost. Indeed, religious sectarianism is the pulse raising plot dynamic motivating much of the action. But that which tore 17th Century England apart fails to inspire any emotional response in the modern reader, save perhaps in enclaves in Northern Ireland or insofar as we can imagine parallels to the Middle East.
On balance, therefore, I would say that the Great Filtre of History is not entirely broken, even if great novels do slip through the cracks and get washed into the gutters of literary oblivion - and Henry Esmond is arguable such a case.
One message to would-be writers is, if you want your story to have lasting historical impact, know that adorning it with the baubles of Current Thing will not be enough to earn you a place on your great great grandchildren's bookshelf. For that, you will need the timeless elements of a perfect story, outstanding characters, compelling and unpredictable plot turns - and the most important ingredient of all: luck.
June 18, 2020
First sentence: When Francis, fourth Viscount Castlewood, came to his title, and presently after to take possession of his house of Castlewood, county Hants, in the year 1691, almost the only tenant of the place besides the domestics was a lad of twelve years of age, of whom no one seemed to take any note until my Lady Viscountess lighted upon him, going over the house with the housekeeper on the day of her arrival.
Premise/plot: Henry Esmond is an orphan being raised by his distant cousins, Francis and Rachel Esmond. He is brought up with their two children Beatrix and Frank. He is in that awkward space between servant and adopted son. The moods of this couple vary greatly. He is either greatly beloved or scorned and rejected. For example, when the plague comes--I believe it is the plague--he is REJECTED because he's blamed for the family's exposure to it. The couple's relationship is never quite the same after that--the plague--and the happy marriage becomes miserable. Of course, Henry is to blame. But the two are determined to see him educated--and at Cambridge University. While their moods are completely volatile and unreliable, Henry feels only love, loyalty, and gratitude. Perhaps to the point of being ridiculous?
(Henry comes from a long line of Stuart-supporters and Stuart-defenders. In fact, I believe, his father and grandfather both died in battle because of their allegiance.)
So when Henry isn't being a soldier--he's a Colonel by the end of the book--he's madly, truly, deeply in love with the unattainable, cold-hearted Beatrix. That is until he isn't. Who's the love of his life? Well, in a surprise twist that comes on the last page or second to last page, it's revealed he marries his FOSTER MOTHER. (Never mind that he's spent probably ten to twelve years at least thinking of her as HIS MOTHER.)
My thoughts: I don't know what's worse being bored to death with all the war talk (though, the fact that he had encounters with famous men of the time like Richard Steele and Jonathan Swift, and others, etc. was slightly interesting) OR being grossed out by the fact that he falls in love with his mother. Yes, she's not technically his mother--biologically. But she is his foster mother, adopted mother, recognized guardian.
Quotes:
'Tis not the dying for a faith that's so hard, Master Harry—every man of every nation has done that—'tis the living up to it that is difficult, as I know to my cost," he added with a sigh.
To see a young couple loving each other is no wonder; but to see an old couple loving each other is the best sight of all.
'Tis a hard task for women in life, that mask which the world bids them wear. But there is no greater crime than for a woman who is ill used and unhappy to show that she is so.
"I never had a mother, but I love this lady as one. I worship her as a devotee worships a saint. To hear her name spoken lightly seems blasphemy to me. Would you dare think of your own mother so, or suffer any one so to speak of her? It is a horror to me to fancy that any man should think of her impurely. I implore you, I beseech you, to leave her. Danger will come out of it."
"Yes, I did, Harry," said she; "I thought of it; and think of it. I would sooner call you my son than the greatest prince in Europe—yes, than the greatest prince. For who is there so good and so brave, and who would love her as you would? But there are reasons a mother can't tell."
"I am your mother, you are my son, and I love you always," she said, holding her hands over him: and he went away comforted and humbled in mind, as he thought of that amazing and constant love and tenderness with which this sweet lady ever blessed and pursued him.
I suppose a man's vanity is stronger than any other passion in him;
Parting and forgetting! What faithful heart can do these? Our great thoughts, our great affections, the Truths of our life, never leave us.
Premise/plot: Henry Esmond is an orphan being raised by his distant cousins, Francis and Rachel Esmond. He is brought up with their two children Beatrix and Frank. He is in that awkward space between servant and adopted son. The moods of this couple vary greatly. He is either greatly beloved or scorned and rejected. For example, when the plague comes--I believe it is the plague--he is REJECTED because he's blamed for the family's exposure to it. The couple's relationship is never quite the same after that--the plague--and the happy marriage becomes miserable. Of course, Henry is to blame. But the two are determined to see him educated--and at Cambridge University. While their moods are completely volatile and unreliable, Henry feels only love, loyalty, and gratitude. Perhaps to the point of being ridiculous?
(Henry comes from a long line of Stuart-supporters and Stuart-defenders. In fact, I believe, his father and grandfather both died in battle because of their allegiance.)
So when Henry isn't being a soldier--he's a Colonel by the end of the book--he's madly, truly, deeply in love with the unattainable, cold-hearted Beatrix. That is until he isn't. Who's the love of his life? Well, in a surprise twist that comes on the last page or second to last page, it's revealed he marries his FOSTER MOTHER. (Never mind that he's spent probably ten to twelve years at least thinking of her as HIS MOTHER.)
My thoughts: I don't know what's worse being bored to death with all the war talk (though, the fact that he had encounters with famous men of the time like Richard Steele and Jonathan Swift, and others, etc. was slightly interesting) OR being grossed out by the fact that he falls in love with his mother. Yes, she's not technically his mother--biologically. But she is his foster mother, adopted mother, recognized guardian.
Quotes:
'Tis not the dying for a faith that's so hard, Master Harry—every man of every nation has done that—'tis the living up to it that is difficult, as I know to my cost," he added with a sigh.
To see a young couple loving each other is no wonder; but to see an old couple loving each other is the best sight of all.
'Tis a hard task for women in life, that mask which the world bids them wear. But there is no greater crime than for a woman who is ill used and unhappy to show that she is so.
"I never had a mother, but I love this lady as one. I worship her as a devotee worships a saint. To hear her name spoken lightly seems blasphemy to me. Would you dare think of your own mother so, or suffer any one so to speak of her? It is a horror to me to fancy that any man should think of her impurely. I implore you, I beseech you, to leave her. Danger will come out of it."
"Yes, I did, Harry," said she; "I thought of it; and think of it. I would sooner call you my son than the greatest prince in Europe—yes, than the greatest prince. For who is there so good and so brave, and who would love her as you would? But there are reasons a mother can't tell."
"I am your mother, you are my son, and I love you always," she said, holding her hands over him: and he went away comforted and humbled in mind, as he thought of that amazing and constant love and tenderness with which this sweet lady ever blessed and pursued him.
I suppose a man's vanity is stronger than any other passion in him;
Parting and forgetting! What faithful heart can do these? Our great thoughts, our great affections, the Truths of our life, never leave us.
December 16, 2022
This is a strange book that would only be interesting today to a specialist in British literature or history. It's dull, hugely repetitive, and strangely moves from first-person to third-person narration. The main character, one of the multiple Henrys in the book, is infatuated with a woman about 10 years his elder who he thinks of as his mother, sister, and, ultimately, wife and lover. She's described at least 50 times as perfect --- sweet, kind, smart, beautiful, witty, etc. It's astonishingly dull to read about her perfection.
I guess that if you were a contemporary reader of this book (1850s) and British, you might be interested in the historical period it covers (late 1790s through about 1810). But you'd have to be very into British royalty and all its boring twists and turns to even find that meaningful. The men and women in this book fight over their titles that are comical to us: Keeper of the Stool, etc. And while Thackeray at some level is making fun of it, too, overall he's bought into the idea that the nobility have an extra layer of dignity and intelligence that the rest of the people don't have. In fact, in this book, they're invisible unless they are in service to the nobles as a tutor, chaplain, or footman.
I can't find anything to recommend about this book. Perhaps other Thackeray books wear better over the centuries. Certainly a lot of other 19th century British authors are still well worth reading.
I guess that if you were a contemporary reader of this book (1850s) and British, you might be interested in the historical period it covers (late 1790s through about 1810). But you'd have to be very into British royalty and all its boring twists and turns to even find that meaningful. The men and women in this book fight over their titles that are comical to us: Keeper of the Stool, etc. And while Thackeray at some level is making fun of it, too, overall he's bought into the idea that the nobility have an extra layer of dignity and intelligence that the rest of the people don't have. In fact, in this book, they're invisible unless they are in service to the nobles as a tutor, chaplain, or footman.
I can't find anything to recommend about this book. Perhaps other Thackeray books wear better over the centuries. Certainly a lot of other 19th century British authors are still well worth reading.
January 29, 2024
sorry Trollope, I can't agree with you about this book... there's no way it's better than Pride and Prejudice!
it was okay, pretty good, but just too much was vaguely described 'we went and fought these people etc.' all the historical stuff was just described and I never felt invested in any of the battles or political intrigues. Lots of it felt like name dropping. I like historical fiction that makes me understand and care about what was going on at the time, and shows the personal perspectives of characters who we really get to know. There was way too much distance. I think part of the problem with this was that it's written like a memoir - it would have been better as a proper novel. and the constant switches between first and third person got quite annoying, although that wasn't helped by the fact that I didn't pick up from the audio that it was a memoir for ages lol.
and the ending?? like what was the age gap? I swear it was a mother -son dynamic, she brought him up?! and he'd been in love with her daughter for ten years?! and the throw away 'yay we got to run a plantation with happy slaves' was sickening.
I cared more about Beatrix than Esmond by the end, I wish it'd been more about her haha. That being said there were good bits and so I have given it 3 stars, I really enjoyed his childhood but it felt like it went downhill after his imprisonment ended. Give me a Charlotte M Yonge for Victorian historical fiction over this any day. I love the Chaplet of Pearls 🤩
it was okay, pretty good, but just too much was vaguely described 'we went and fought these people etc.' all the historical stuff was just described and I never felt invested in any of the battles or political intrigues. Lots of it felt like name dropping. I like historical fiction that makes me understand and care about what was going on at the time, and shows the personal perspectives of characters who we really get to know. There was way too much distance. I think part of the problem with this was that it's written like a memoir - it would have been better as a proper novel. and the constant switches between first and third person got quite annoying, although that wasn't helped by the fact that I didn't pick up from the audio that it was a memoir for ages lol.
and the ending?? like what was the age gap? I swear it was a mother -son dynamic, she brought him up?! and he'd been in love with her daughter for ten years?! and the throw away 'yay we got to run a plantation with happy slaves' was sickening.
I cared more about Beatrix than Esmond by the end, I wish it'd been more about her haha. That being said there were good bits and so I have given it 3 stars, I really enjoyed his childhood but it felt like it went downhill after his imprisonment ended. Give me a Charlotte M Yonge for Victorian historical fiction over this any day. I love the Chaplet of Pearls 🤩
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 83 reviews