Edward Rutherfurd's London, The Novel

Rutherfurd has written six books, the last of which was published in 2006.

I am grateful for any comment, or suggestion for additions. Please send me an e-mail. Note that I am not Rutherfurd.

First a few quotes:

"Few literary novels tell us as much about the history of modern humans, or have such charity."
Daily Telegraph

"Edward Rutherfurd's grand new novel weaves together the great events of English history."
New York Times

"London, The Novel could hook you on history for life."
The Times

An easily accessible and detailed source of information is - of course - the book search page of an online book store such as Amazon.com, which includes many reader comments; or Barnes and Noble, which includes published reviews.

The book is on J. S. Arkenberg's impressive list of fiction for students of history at Rhodes College.

Steven H. Silver discusses the book in detail.

Sherle Elizabeth Abramson and Teresa Eckford have the book on their list of favorites.

Not included here are the many bestseller lists at booksellers' sites where the book is included.

Note that the Rutherford coat of arms looks somehwat like the Ducket coat of arms as described in the chapter London Bridge (paperback page 617; hardback page 397). The Rutherfords have three martlets, while the Duckets have three ducks.

I am told that in German there is a proverb about easily finding a fault with a beloved one: Was sich liebt, das neckt sich. In this spirit, I ask the following questions. (I have sent them to the author as well, through the publisher.)

• In the family trees at the beginning of the book:

  Elias Bull in the episode of The Whorehouse should be William Bull?

  Here Rob Watson from Australia (see also below) notes: I don't think it has him wrongly as Elias Bull, since he is Elias's brother (see page 453; hardback 293) and should appear beside Elias on the line between Sampson and Gilbert.

• In the chapter The River, before the caption 54 BC (page 4 in the paperback; 3 in the hardback):

  When in the middle of the Thames estuary, the Kent side is seen to the south (the southern side mentioned here), and the East Anglia side is seen to the west (or north-west). Then the estuary's eastern side, where the chalk ridges veer away northwards, should be western side? In fact, the eastern side is the sea.

  Keith Willoughby suggests that we should read eastern side as East Anglia side.

• Also in the chapter London Bridge (page 616 in the paperback; 396 in the hardback):

  The background of a heraldic coat of arms can be divided into two halves of four quarters. Is this a typo, which has to be read as two halves or four quarters? (The word or is in Dutch of. Does the author have a Dutch typist?)

• In section "1649" in the chapter God's Fire (page 866 in the paperback; 553 in the hardback):

  Julius Ducket finds dollars from the Low Countries in the treasure chest. However, in the northern part of the Low Countries, The Netherlands (where I live) we had guilders from the Middle Ages to the end of 2001 (when we got the euro currency), and surely no dollars. And also no dollars in the southern part of the Low Countries, Belgium. (Historical note: Manhattan was bought from the Indians by the Dutch for the value of sixty guilders, as reported in a letter dated 1626.)

  Here Keith Willoughby notes that both the US dollar and the Dutch daalder coin (consisting of a certain amount of guilders) got its name from the German Thaler coin. He suggests that Rutherfurd found it "more realistic to use the English version to describe the thoughts of an Englishman".

Rob Watson notes:

• In the chapter The River (page 14 in the paperback; 5 in the hardback):

  ... this one making a full right angle to the south before veering eastward again. This is describing the river bends around the Island of Thorns as one travels upstream. Surely it should veer westward after that, not eastward? See the map of Roman and Saxon London.

• In the chapter The Mayor (page 393 in the paperback; 254 in the hardback):

  "Frankly," he remarked, "it wouldn't surprise me if this didn't lead to a commune." This is a complex double-negative, the opposite of what appears to have been intended. Should it read it wouldn't surprise me if this led to a commune instead?

• In the chapter The Whorehouse (page 491 in the paperback; 317 in the hardback):

  He passed Charing Cross, and turned west along the lane. ... It was as he reached at Aldwych... How does one turn west at Charing Cross to reach Aldwych? See the map of Medieval and Tudor London, or the map of Georgian and Victorian London.

• In the chapter The Suffragette (page 1231 in the paperback; 786 in the hardback):

  "... we haven't needed to alter a single pair of your trousers, even at the last fitting." I think this should have been even at the first fitting. This would be much more worthy of note and indicative of a good tailor.

In the book, the Great Model of St. Paul's Cathedral is described. The model is at a scale of 1:24, so it must be more than four metres high. I have looked for it in the crypt of the cathedral, but did not find it. I put on this website the first picture which I receive with the sender on it beside the Great Model. (Of course, only if the photo has not be tampered with :-)

Last updated December 2006