What do you think?
Rate this book
The Murder of Sir Edmund Godfrey
Book by Carr, John Dickson
15 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1936
1 person is currently reading
169 people want to read
About the author
John Dickson Carr
428 books500 followersAKA Carter Dickson, Carr Dickson and Roger Fairbairn.
John Dickson Carr was born in Uniontown, Pennsylvania, in 1906. It Walks by Night, his first published detective novel, featuring the Frenchman Henri Bencolin, was published in 1930. Apart from Dr Fell, whose first appearance was in Hag's Nook in 1933, Carr's other series detectives (published under the nom de plume of Carter Dickson) were the barrister Sir Henry Merrivale, who debuted in The Plague Court Murders (1934).
John Dickson Carr was born in Uniontown, Pennsylvania, in 1906. It Walks by Night, his first published detective novel, featuring the Frenchman Henri Bencolin, was published in 1930. Apart from Dr Fell, whose first appearance was in Hag's Nook in 1933, Carr's other series detectives (published under the nom de plume of Carter Dickson) were the barrister Sir Henry Merrivale, who debuted in The Plague Court Murders (1934).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
December 1, 2019
This is interesting, a true crime novel twenty years before Capote wrote _In Cold Blood_. Carr's book is nothing like Capote's. It is about the murder of Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey in 1678 and also, because these things are inextricable, about the Popish Plot and Restoration politics and that dreadfully malevolent figure, Titus Oates.
(For my money, Titus Oates and Judge Jeffreys--who also appears in this novel, although as a lawyer, not a judge--are two of the most terrifying figures in English history. Oates is weirdly similar to the afflicted persons of Salem Village--less than twenty years later--in that he would denounce you as a Catholic traitor for the flimsiest of reasons, or for no reason at all, and because the men in authority followed him blindly despite every effort on the part of Oates' victims to make them see the truth.)
Carr writes with a cheerfully omniscient narrator and an encyclopedic knowledge of the time period he's talking about. As one would expect from a Golden Age mystery novelist who was rigorous about the fair play of his clues and solutions, his answer to the question Who murdered Sir Edmund Godfrey? is very plausible. It makes sense of all the weird features of the case, including why the murderer was never caught.
(For my money, Titus Oates and Judge Jeffreys--who also appears in this novel, although as a lawyer, not a judge--are two of the most terrifying figures in English history. Oates is weirdly similar to the afflicted persons of Salem Village--less than twenty years later--in that he would denounce you as a Catholic traitor for the flimsiest of reasons, or for no reason at all, and because the men in authority followed him blindly despite every effort on the part of Oates' victims to make them see the truth.)
Carr writes with a cheerfully omniscient narrator and an encyclopedic knowledge of the time period he's talking about. As one would expect from a Golden Age mystery novelist who was rigorous about the fair play of his clues and solutions, his answer to the question Who murdered Sir Edmund Godfrey? is very plausible. It makes sense of all the weird features of the case, including why the murderer was never caught.
September 10, 2007
I am so glad this is still available! This is the first novelized treatment of an actual historical murder. Only one conversation is made up; the rest is historic record and interpretation thereof. Carr was a relentless scholar, and the Restoration Era was his primary interest.
April 26, 2015
In 1678 a high-profile, well-known London magistrate named Sir Edmund Godrey disappeared for five days. Last seen asking for directions to Primrose Hill, he vanishes for almost a week amid cries that he has done away with himself or, worse still, that the horrible "Papists" have kidnapped him and possibly murdered him. Then his body is found lying in a ditch with his neck broken, marks of strangulation by cord or neck cloth, and run through by his own sword...on, of all places, Primrose Hill. His chest is bruised and his body shows evidence of not having eaten for two days. Where has he been for five days? How did he get bruised? Why are his shoes polished and shiny when any path leading to the hill would have been rain-drenched and muddy? Catholics are eventually tried and executed for the murder, but it is impossible to believe that a "Papist Plot" really called for the death of Godfrey. If innocent men did pay for the crime, whose account should have been charged? John Dickson Carr examines the historical evidence and the theories of various historians and other interested parties to weave a fictionalized account of the crime.
I started out thinking that The Murder of Sir Edmund Godfrey (1936) by John Dickson Carr should be filed under historical fiction/mystery. By the time I finished, I realized it is more accurately fictionalized history. Carr makes no claim that his telling of the story and the final solution is the unassailable historical truth, but he does set himself the task to be historically accurate while entertaining the mystery lover. He says in the "Preface for Connoisseurs in Murder:
That this is the true solution, of course, nobody would be presumptuous enough to declare. It is merely the solution which, while trying to meet with the full requirements of the historian, shall also meet with the requirements of the Society of Connoisseurs in Murder....This record does not presume to be history, except insofar as it tries to be true.
It is possible that some of my Vintage Mystery Challengers will cry "foul" when I claim this for the historical mystery category on the Golden Bingo Card. But Carr himself tells us that he is attempting to meet all the standards of detective fiction while giving as accurate a historical record as possible and who am I to argue with one of the masters of the field?
It is quite obvious that Carr has done his research. He not only gives us what he believes to be the solution to the ultimate questions--Who killed Sir Edmund Godfrey and Why--but he also supplies the reader with eleven other possible solutions complete with historical details that might lead one to at least consider them if not actually believe them. The historical detail accurately brings to life a bawdy, brutal time period full of plots and counter-plots. He informs us of all we need to know about the reign of King Charles II. I have no quibble there and if I were to rate this book on historical accuracy and interest alone, then there is no doubt that it would earn 4 1/2 to 5 stars. But...
Carr makes the claim that the murder of Godfrey is "a very nearly perfect mystery story" (emphasis mine). And, here, for me, this book falls short. Perhaps it is the deluge of historical novels in the last decade or two that has spoiled me--breathing life into historical characters of all sorts from queens and presidents to Thomas De Quincey and Noah's wife. Carr's book, after all, is one of the very first fictional retellings of true crime and, so, is an early venture into this genre. But loving Carr's detective fiction as I do, I expected more entertainment--or at the very least to be entertained while he was providing all the historical background for Charles II's reign and his Opposition and the "Papist Plot"...etc. I never completely felt like I was reading a story. It was very much like reading a history of the events--lots of telling what happened rather than allowing the actors to take the stage, act out the drama, and speak their lines.
And even though Carr says (again in the preface) that there should be "no nods or elbow-joggings from the author" there are moments where it seems as though there is just a bit of a wink and a nudge...little do these historical figures know, but we know....For example, when Sir Edmund Godfrey's body is found and the men are carrying news to the local magistrate, Carr notes: "They did not know, at the moment, that the sword had been thrust through the body of a man already dead from being strangled." There aren't many of these instances, but they are there and they serve to distance the reader from the story. We are no longer caught up in the tale as it happens because we have knowledge that the players do not.
Overall, a very detailed look at an interesting moment in history and a convincing argument for the murderer of choice. Carr is very good, as always, with his explanation of the crime. The foreward and afterward by Douglas G. Greene are gems--excellent and informative framework for Carr's historical narrative. But adding my personal dissatisfaction with the story-telling element.... ★★★ and a half.
First posted on my blog My Reader's Block. Please request permission before reposting. Thanks.
I started out thinking that The Murder of Sir Edmund Godfrey (1936) by John Dickson Carr should be filed under historical fiction/mystery. By the time I finished, I realized it is more accurately fictionalized history. Carr makes no claim that his telling of the story and the final solution is the unassailable historical truth, but he does set himself the task to be historically accurate while entertaining the mystery lover. He says in the "Preface for Connoisseurs in Murder:
That this is the true solution, of course, nobody would be presumptuous enough to declare. It is merely the solution which, while trying to meet with the full requirements of the historian, shall also meet with the requirements of the Society of Connoisseurs in Murder....This record does not presume to be history, except insofar as it tries to be true.
It is possible that some of my Vintage Mystery Challengers will cry "foul" when I claim this for the historical mystery category on the Golden Bingo Card. But Carr himself tells us that he is attempting to meet all the standards of detective fiction while giving as accurate a historical record as possible and who am I to argue with one of the masters of the field?
It is quite obvious that Carr has done his research. He not only gives us what he believes to be the solution to the ultimate questions--Who killed Sir Edmund Godfrey and Why--but he also supplies the reader with eleven other possible solutions complete with historical details that might lead one to at least consider them if not actually believe them. The historical detail accurately brings to life a bawdy, brutal time period full of plots and counter-plots. He informs us of all we need to know about the reign of King Charles II. I have no quibble there and if I were to rate this book on historical accuracy and interest alone, then there is no doubt that it would earn 4 1/2 to 5 stars. But...
Carr makes the claim that the murder of Godfrey is "a very nearly perfect mystery story" (emphasis mine). And, here, for me, this book falls short. Perhaps it is the deluge of historical novels in the last decade or two that has spoiled me--breathing life into historical characters of all sorts from queens and presidents to Thomas De Quincey and Noah's wife. Carr's book, after all, is one of the very first fictional retellings of true crime and, so, is an early venture into this genre. But loving Carr's detective fiction as I do, I expected more entertainment--or at the very least to be entertained while he was providing all the historical background for Charles II's reign and his Opposition and the "Papist Plot"...etc. I never completely felt like I was reading a story. It was very much like reading a history of the events--lots of telling what happened rather than allowing the actors to take the stage, act out the drama, and speak their lines.
And even though Carr says (again in the preface) that there should be "no nods or elbow-joggings from the author" there are moments where it seems as though there is just a bit of a wink and a nudge...little do these historical figures know, but we know....For example, when Sir Edmund Godfrey's body is found and the men are carrying news to the local magistrate, Carr notes: "They did not know, at the moment, that the sword had been thrust through the body of a man already dead from being strangled." There aren't many of these instances, but they are there and they serve to distance the reader from the story. We are no longer caught up in the tale as it happens because we have knowledge that the players do not.
Overall, a very detailed look at an interesting moment in history and a convincing argument for the murderer of choice. Carr is very good, as always, with his explanation of the crime. The foreward and afterward by Douglas G. Greene are gems--excellent and informative framework for Carr's historical narrative. But adding my personal dissatisfaction with the story-telling element.... ★★★ and a half.
First posted on my blog My Reader's Block. Please request permission before reposting. Thanks.
June 20, 2021
Carr was an anglophile American mystery writer. Most of his mystery novels were set in England and featured quintessential English settings; country homes, old colleges, castles and old London.
This is a peculiar and enjoyable book. It is a mixture of history and novel. There is too much history and footnotes for it to be considered a historical novel but there is too much invented dialogue and interior monologue for it to be considered history.
The history is fascinating. In 1678 Charles II was being pressured by Protestant politicians and grandees to reject the Catholic influences around him. His wife, Catherine of Braganza, was a Catholic from Portugal. His brother and heir, James, Duke of York, was a Catholic.
The Protestant forces were horrified by the prospect of a Papist king. They considered the Pope to be the antichrist. England had been obscessed with fear of Catholic conspiracies and assassinations since Henry VIII was excommunicated 140 years earlier in 1538. Guy Fawkes, a Catholic terrorist, had tried to blow up Parliament 70 years earlier. The Protestants, particularly the Puritans, were pushing to pass a law excluding James from the line of succession to the throne.
The Papist conspiracy fear was just reaching another of its periodic peaks when when one of the great rogues and scamps in English history made his appearance. Titus Oates claimed that he had infiltrated the Jesuits as a false priest. He said he had all of the details of a horrific plan to assassinate the King and engineer a Catholic take over of England. He named names.
Just as fair minded people were starting to have doubts about his stories, Sir Edmund Godfrey was found dead in a ditch outside of London. Godfrey was a Magistrate who took one of the first sworn statements from Oates. The immediate reaction was that Godfrey had been killed by the Papist to cover up some other outrage.
Carr tells the story of the investigation and prosecutions of the murder in two ways. He, first, describes in detail the corrupt and dishonest techniques used by the Protestant prosecutors to pin the murder on three innocent Catholics. Torture was not allowed under English law by this time, but every abuse short of that was used. Arbitrary arrest, horrific jails for arrested suspects, bribes, lies and fabricated evidence were routine.
The trials, which Carr does a wonderful job describing, were wildly unfair. The Defendants could not testify. They did not know the evidence against them. If they were able to produce evidence, it was frequently excluded. Judge's instructions to juries were unashamedly slanted to get a conviction. Carr convincingly established that three innocent men were convicted and executed for the murder of Sir Edmund Godfrey. Oates ,and the other informants who joined in, were proven, years later, to be lying.
The second thing Carr does is to treat the murder of Sir Edmund Godfrey as a murder mystery. He has a chapter half way through where he sums up twelve theories of who committed the murder. As he tells the history he comments on theories that different authors have had over the years and highlights pieces of evidence, as if he were writing a murder mystery.
At the end of the book he reviews all twelve theories. He explains why he rejects eleven of them and he explains his theory of who the murderer is. I found his theory persuasive, but not conclusive.
Carr has read deeply into this period. He gives a vivid picture of the small world of the Royal Court, Parliament and the Courts of Law caught up in hysteria. He is sympathetic to Charles II, who he portrays as a clever and calm voice of reason surrounded by fanatics.
This is a very clever and convincing picture of a crisis in English history which ended ten years later in the Glorious Revolution, combined with a fascinating and challenging murder mystery. It is a one of a kind book.
This is a peculiar and enjoyable book. It is a mixture of history and novel. There is too much history and footnotes for it to be considered a historical novel but there is too much invented dialogue and interior monologue for it to be considered history.
The history is fascinating. In 1678 Charles II was being pressured by Protestant politicians and grandees to reject the Catholic influences around him. His wife, Catherine of Braganza, was a Catholic from Portugal. His brother and heir, James, Duke of York, was a Catholic.
The Protestant forces were horrified by the prospect of a Papist king. They considered the Pope to be the antichrist. England had been obscessed with fear of Catholic conspiracies and assassinations since Henry VIII was excommunicated 140 years earlier in 1538. Guy Fawkes, a Catholic terrorist, had tried to blow up Parliament 70 years earlier. The Protestants, particularly the Puritans, were pushing to pass a law excluding James from the line of succession to the throne.
The Papist conspiracy fear was just reaching another of its periodic peaks when when one of the great rogues and scamps in English history made his appearance. Titus Oates claimed that he had infiltrated the Jesuits as a false priest. He said he had all of the details of a horrific plan to assassinate the King and engineer a Catholic take over of England. He named names.
Just as fair minded people were starting to have doubts about his stories, Sir Edmund Godfrey was found dead in a ditch outside of London. Godfrey was a Magistrate who took one of the first sworn statements from Oates. The immediate reaction was that Godfrey had been killed by the Papist to cover up some other outrage.
Carr tells the story of the investigation and prosecutions of the murder in two ways. He, first, describes in detail the corrupt and dishonest techniques used by the Protestant prosecutors to pin the murder on three innocent Catholics. Torture was not allowed under English law by this time, but every abuse short of that was used. Arbitrary arrest, horrific jails for arrested suspects, bribes, lies and fabricated evidence were routine.
The trials, which Carr does a wonderful job describing, were wildly unfair. The Defendants could not testify. They did not know the evidence against them. If they were able to produce evidence, it was frequently excluded. Judge's instructions to juries were unashamedly slanted to get a conviction. Carr convincingly established that three innocent men were convicted and executed for the murder of Sir Edmund Godfrey. Oates ,and the other informants who joined in, were proven, years later, to be lying.
The second thing Carr does is to treat the murder of Sir Edmund Godfrey as a murder mystery. He has a chapter half way through where he sums up twelve theories of who committed the murder. As he tells the history he comments on theories that different authors have had over the years and highlights pieces of evidence, as if he were writing a murder mystery.
At the end of the book he reviews all twelve theories. He explains why he rejects eleven of them and he explains his theory of who the murderer is. I found his theory persuasive, but not conclusive.
Carr has read deeply into this period. He gives a vivid picture of the small world of the Royal Court, Parliament and the Courts of Law caught up in hysteria. He is sympathetic to Charles II, who he portrays as a clever and calm voice of reason surrounded by fanatics.
This is a very clever and convincing picture of a crisis in English history which ended ten years later in the Glorious Revolution, combined with a fascinating and challenging murder mystery. It is a one of a kind book.
January 10, 2022
Lots of fascinating stuff here, but the book is pretty unfocused. Is it about the Popish Plot, about Charles II, about Godfrey, about the appalling injustice of the seventeenth-century English judicial system? It’s all of the above, and therefore none of them. Still, Carr writes well, and the material is interesting, so it’s hard to regret having given it a read.
January 23, 2024
This book was a real slog to get through. And so many characters. I didn’t really know who was who.
But, I learned a lot about the Protestant vs. Catholic debate in 17th century England.
The solution didn’t seem fair. Felt sprang upon us. The reader didn’t get all the info they needed to potentially piece this mystery together.
But, I learned a lot about the Protestant vs. Catholic debate in 17th century England.
The solution didn’t seem fair. Felt sprang upon us. The reader didn’t get all the info they needed to potentially piece this mystery together.
January 18, 2013
Superb. There is no better work of historical detection. Barzun and Taylor in their Catalog of Crime call it a masterpiece, and that's what it is. It relies heavily on primary sources. After you read all the atrocities committed in the name of religious and political delusion, it will make you appreciate our democracy, however imperfect that is.
Carr if a master of the classic detective stories. His two main detectives are Dr. Gideon Fell and Sir Henry Merrivale. The series with Fell he wrote under his own name; that of H.M. under the pseudonym of Carter Dickson. A couple of the best with Fell are The Crooked Hinge and The Three Coffins; with Merrivale The Judas Window Murder and The Red Widow.
Carr if a master of the classic detective stories. His two main detectives are Dr. Gideon Fell and Sir Henry Merrivale. The series with Fell he wrote under his own name; that of H.M. under the pseudonym of Carter Dickson. A couple of the best with Fell are The Crooked Hinge and The Three Coffins; with Merrivale The Judas Window Murder and The Red Widow.
August 3, 2015
The best parts of this book, as a few other of Carr's, are the chapters that feature his ratiocinations of whodunnit, fact by fact, building and building into a well reasoned argument.
I feel like I couldn't give this book a fair shake. I got it from the library along with about ten other Carrs that I read before this one, including a few historical whodunnits. So I was kind of burned out on both by the time I got to this one.
Carr is a genius, though, and his reputation is way underrated. He really captured, for me, the 17th c. And, for my money, he solved the murder of Sir Edmund Godfrey.
Recommended.
I feel like I couldn't give this book a fair shake. I got it from the library along with about ten other Carrs that I read before this one, including a few historical whodunnits. So I was kind of burned out on both by the time I got to this one.
Carr is a genius, though, and his reputation is way underrated. He really captured, for me, the 17th c. And, for my money, he solved the murder of Sir Edmund Godfrey.
Recommended.
February 21, 2025
For my full review click on the link below:
https://crossexaminingcrime.wordpress...
https://crossexaminingcrime.wordpress...
Read
November 10, 2009Liked it but couldn't get into it.
April 26, 2014
A tough read with lots of repetition.
Want to read
February 17, 2019Synopsis: partly a true story. In 1678, a London magistrate, Sir Edmund Godfrey, disappeared for five days. His body was found in a ditch.
September 19, 2013
And excellent telling and analysis of the mysterious death of Edmund Berry Godfrey.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews