Good to be reminded that popular acclaim and best-sellerdom in one’s own time rarely equate with long term critical esteem. Ainsworth is definitely no Dickens. Best parts of the novel are the descriptions of the plague and the fire, cribbed, one gathers, from Defoe and his contemporary sources. The paper-thin plot concerns two unrelated women whose virtue is threatened by two noblemen; the combination of titillation and faux shock and outrage is quite off-putting. Writing style is overblown and character development non-existent. Only saving grace was that my edition had wonderful contemporary illustrations by John Franklin.

An extremely interesting account of London throughout the event's of the great plague in 1665 and the succeeding fire in 1666. A very good story. ( )

An excellent and lurid story of the plague times in London ( )

This is another engaging novel by Ainsworth, in my view a very underrated 19th century author of historical fiction. The characters are romantic stereotypes, of course, but who cares when it is this much fun. Charles II makes an appearance here, as do, briefly, Christopher Wren and Samuel Pepys. The horrors of the plague are well described, drawing heavily on Defoe's Journal of a Plague Year , though occasionally the plot does become a little repetitive and tiresome with endless disguises and deceptions. The final sixth of the novel deals with the Fire and is magnificently exciting and dramatic as the flames spread over the city of London and St Paul's itself finally tumbles. Great stuff. 5/5 ( )