Darkness Visible: The Rushlight

Background

Some objects mentioned in literature are better than others for describing a character who is living in impoverished or otherwise miserable conditions. One such object is the rushlight. Charlotte Brontë paints for us an image in her book Jane Eyre, published in 1847: "When I again unclosed my eyes, a loud bell was ringing; the girls were up and dressing; day had not yet begun to dawn, and a rushlight or two burned in the room." This image was meant to demonstrate to her readers that poor Jane was not living in the best of conditions.

Rushlights are a form of rudimentary candle, made by dipping a stripped rush through melted animal fat. The resulting "wick" may then be lighted on one end and used for some illumination. Since rushlights are essentially thin wicks, they cannot be held in a candlestick holder; a special plier-shaped holder was used instead. The plier was opened, the rushlight inserted between the plier ends at a bit of an angle (some sources suggest 45 degrees, specifically), and then one simply clamped the pliers gently enough to hold the rushlight. In a 1574 dictionary, John Baret described a rushlight in his An Alveary or Triple Dictionary, in English, Latin, and French: "The rushe, weeke [wick] or match, that mainteyneth the light in the lampe." The light produced has been described in primary sources as minimal but sufficient for nighttime activities. In his The Natural History of Selborne, Gilbert White wrote in 1775: "These rushes give a good clear light." This however contrasts with the much more critical observation by Robert Lloyd, an English poet, who penned the following verses in his 1774 Shakespeare: An Epistle to Mr Garrick: "How much we all are in the dark./ As rushlights in a spacious room,/ Just burn enough to form a gloom." In Shakespeare's Taming of the Shrew, Petruchio sought to "tame" Katherine by forcing her to accept untrue things to the point that Katherine says: "And be it moon, or sun, or what you please. An if you please to call it a rush candle, Henceforth I vow it shall be so for me." Shakespeare contrasts the sun and moon--obviously bright objects--with a rushlight here, implying the lack of illumination a rushlight offers (to, theoretically, laughs from his audience who knew, first-hand the dimness of a rushlight). In an anonymously written book, published in 1792 under the title Anna Melvil, the author described rushlights along the same lines as Lloyd: "a rush-light, a little twinkling uncomfortable spark, which one is every moment afraid will vanish in smoke, and which the least wind will extinguish." Most sources agree--as my personal experience confirms--that rushlights were not ideal forms of lighting, but they worked if the budget was tight.

The idea that rushlights were used by the poor, desperate, or just plain thrifty is alluded to or outright explained in most of the sources. Gilbert White explained that "a poor family will enjoy 5&1/2 hours of comfortable light for a farthing. An experienced old housekeeper assures me that one pound and a half of rushes completely supplies his family the year round, since working people burn no candle in the long days, because they rise and go to bed by daylight." White wasn't beating around the bush here; he explicitly writes that it's a poor family who uses rushlights. Ellis Wynne, in his 1703 religious allegory, Visions of a Sleeping Bard described a vision of hell in which a group of souls threw themselves down before Lucifer's feet. He wrote:

Shortly there appear twenty demons, like Scotch-men, with packs across their shoulders, which they cast down before the throne of despair, and which turned out to be gipsies.  “Ho there!” cried Lucifer, “how was it that ye who knew the fortune of others so well, did not know that your own fortune was leading you hither?”  No answer was given, for they were amazed at seeing here beings uglier than themselves.  “Throw the tan-faced loons to the witches,” bade the King, “there are no cats or rush-lights here for them, but divide a frog between them every ten thousand years, if they will be quiet and not deafen us with their barbarous chatter.”

It's clear that both Scotsmen and Romani people were both looked down upon in Wynne's time in England (and of course the Romani continued to experience racism since then), so by suggesting that they might be accustomed to rushlights (though Lucifer would not grant them) the idea that rushlights are rude forms of illumination, used by the very poor is reinforced here. In addition to the use of rushlights by the poor, their production also seems to have been the job of the poor (including those who were old and physically-disabled) in addition to women and children who sought to make additional money for the family. White wrote in 1775 that "Decayed labourers, women, and children, make it their business to procure and prepare them."

As referenced earlier in Baret's 1574 dictionary, rushlights are a fairly ancient source of lighting. The earliest reference I could find is from Pliny the Elder, writing in the first century AD. In his The Natural History, Pliny described a wick made from a rush: "The rush is in general use for making kipes for sea-fishing, the more light and elegant kinds of basket-work, and the wicks of lamps, for which last purpose the pith is more particularly employed." Perhaps not a full one or two foot rushlight, but at the very least, it was used in a similar fashion to the later rushlight. By the 18th century, it's apparent that they have become so common, they were almost a symbol of the poor and social outcasts. 

The reasons for the rushlight being a symbol of the poor are based in both the poor quality light produced, as previously mentioned, but also the cost. Gilbert White worked out the relative cost of rushlights in 1775 by dividing up one pound of rushlights (at 1600 rushes per pound): "Now suppose each of these burns, one with another, only half an hour, then a poor man will purchase eight hundred hours of light, a time exceeding thirty-three entire days, for three shillings... one pound and a half of rushes completely supplies his family the year round." If his calculations are all sound, then a frugal 18th century farmer should be tempted by rushlights, despite the stereotypes surrounding them. White actually praises the frugality of poor farmers who used rushlights over those who bought "an halfpenny candle every evening, which, in their blowing open rooms, does not burn much more than two hours. Thus have they only two hours’ light for their money instead of eleven." That said, rushlights were still a symbol of the poor in the late 18th century.

In an article published in The Energy Journal in 2006 ("Seven Centuries of Energy Services: The Price and Use of Light in the United Kingdom (1300-2000)"), the authors, Roger Fouquet and Peter J.G. Pearson, argue that the price of tallow candles (the cheapest sort of candle, made from animal fat) plummeted between about 1350 and 1550, but that before 1350, they were very expensive. Many families, Fouquet and Pearson argue, made their own sources of light by harvesting rushes and using leftover grease or fat from cooking. Instead of the more expensive tallow candle, these families therefore used rushlights. By the middle of the 16th century, with an increasing GDP in England and all-time low cost of the cheapest type of candle (tallow), more people began using candles instead of rushlights. However, 150 years later, in the beginning of the 18th century, Queen Anne's War broke out and Parliament raised a tax on candles to support the war. The tax varied based on the type and quality of candle, but allowed households to make rushlights without paying a tax, providing that they were "not for sale, of small size, and only dipped once in or once drawn through grease." The result, Fouquet and Pearson concluded in the article, is that there was a resurgence of rushlight use among poor households in the 18th century. Tied to avoiding a tax because of the now-prohibitive cost of candles, it's apparent that rushlights were seen from then on as a symbol of the down and out.

Their Use In Homes

Interestingly, some sources suggest that rushlights were associated with specific uses and rooms. In an article entitled "The Old-Fashioned Rushlight," published in the magazine The Decorator and Furnisher in 1889, the author explains that rushlights were used in the kitchen, as opposed to any other room in the house: "While wax candles illuminated the dining room, the drawing rooms and bed chambers, these others [rushlights] alone were employed in the kitchen." White wrote in 1775 that "Little farmers use rushes much in the short days, both morning and evening in the dairy and kitchen." However, in the article "Rushlights And Rushes," published in Gardeners Chronicle & New Horticulturist in 1874, the author quoted another writer: "I was told by a farmer that he considered one of the peculiar advantages of the rush-stick to be, that on going to bed you could put the rush at a certain length, get into bed by its lights, and then leave it to go out by itself." This certainly suggests that rushlights were not used in exclusively food-prep areas, but could also be employed in the bedroom (further supported by Brontë in Jane Eyre). There is definitely a benefit to having a night light that can remain lit during the night and didn't need to be snuffed out like a candle. Another source from 1894 explains that a rushlight "always burned at night in my father's bedroom... for to strike a light was a long and laborious operation... Why, a burglar could clear off with the plate before the roused master of the house could strike a light and kindle his candle to look for him." 

What's curious to me about these rushlights though, is how long they last. In nearly all descriptions, rushlights are described as lasting for almost no time at all, relative to candles. In White's 1775 account, he timed a 2-foot 4.5-inch long rushlight as lasting 57 minutes. In the same letter, White averages a rushlight as lasting 30 minutes (so perhaps 2' 4" rushlight was uncommon?). In Fouquet and Pearson's 2006 article, they found references to 20-24" rushlights lasting 45 minutes and another at 15-20 minutes for an 18" length. So how could a rushlight be used as a nightlight by one's bed or a constantly-burning source of flame to light a candle with? Perhaps it can be explained with White's description of a watch-light: "Watch-lights (coated with tallow), it is true, shed a dismal one, ‘darkness visible’; but then the wicks of those have two ribs of the rind, or peel, to support the pith, while the wick of the dipped rush has but one. The two ribs are intended to impede the progress of the flame, and make the candle last." I have only experimented with single-ribbed rushlights, so I can't attest to White's assertion that a rushlight with two ribs burns significantly slower (and dimmer), but that could perhaps explain some uses of the rushlight as in Jane Eyre. This is further supported by the 1889 article mentioned earlier, in which the author explains that: "one very narrow strip alone was left from top to bottom as a support for the pith, or two if the dip was intended for a night-light, when it burned slowly and with a feeble flame."

One other interesting point I came across in my research is that some historians have suggested that the maintenance of a lit rushlight was performed by children. The idea is that adjusting a rushlight is a simple task but one that needs to be done so that the flame never burned out prematurely. However, I have only seen one historical reference to this from a book published in 1904 by Gertrude Jekyll. In it, the author writes that she interviewed a "cottage friend" of hers who was in her nineties: "The frequent shifting winter was only just over, and the rushes barely grown, and was the work of a child. It was a greasy job, not suited to the fingers of the mother at her needlework. 'Mend the light,' or 'mend the rush ' was the signal for the child to put up a new length." Perhaps it was one of those tasks passed off to children and just never written about--I just don't feel safe making this assumption for earlier periods without more evidence.

How To Make A Rushlight

Gilbert White has an excellent description of the process for making a rushlight, so let's start here:

The proper species of rush for this purpose seems to be the juncus effusus, or common soft rush, which is to be found in most moist pastures, by the sides of streams, and under hedges. These rushes are in best condition in the height of summer; but may be gathered, so as to serve the purpose well, quite on to autumn. It would be needless to add that the largest and longest are best... As soon as they are cut they must be flung into water, and kept there; for otherwise they will dry and shrink, and the peel will not run. At first a person would find it no easy matter to divest a rush of its peel or rind, so as to leave one regular, narrow, even rib from top to bottom that may support the pith... When these junci are thus far prepared, they must lie out on the grass to be bleached, and take the dew for some nights, and afterwards be dried in the sun. Some address is required in dipping these rushes in the scalding fat or grease; but this knack also is to be attained by practice. The careful wife of an industrious Hampshire labourer obtains all her fat for nothing; for she saves the scumrnings of her bacon-pot for this use; and, if the grease abounds with salt, she causes the salt to precipitate to the bottom, by setting the scummings in a warm oven. Where hogs are not much in use, and especially by the sea-side, the coarser animal oils will come very cheap. A pound of common grease may be procured for four pence; and about six pounds of grease will dip a pound of rushes; and one pound of rushes may be bought for one shilling: so that a pound of rushes, medicated and ready for use, will cost three shillings. If men that keep bees will mix a little wax with the grease, it will give it a consistency, and render it more cleanly, and make the rushes burn longer: mutton-suet would have the same effect.

One other description, a century and a half later can shed a little more light on the process. This comes from Gertrude Jekyll's Old West Surrey: Some Notes and Memories, published in 1904. In it, she includes a description of the process as explained by her 90-year old friend: "You peels away the rind from the peth, leaving only a little strip of rind. And when the rushes is dry you dips 'em through the grease, keeping 'em well under. And my "mother she always laid hers to dry in a bit of hollow bark. Mutton fat's the best; it dries hardest."

This is a fairly easy experiment to try out at home with absolutely minimal equipment. The hardest part was finding rushes here in America. Fortunately, I found a patch near me, aided by a rhyme I read somewhere: "sedges have edges, rushes are round, grasses are hollow, what have you found?" Once you train your eye to ignore cattails and sedges, you'll find yourself identifying rushes in no time! According to my sources, the best time to harvest rushes is in August when they have a solid pith and are easy enough to peel. Another important detail is that you'll want to cut the rushes near the ground.

The next thing I needed was some fat. I had some beef suet lying around, so I used that. You could also probably use lard, bacon fat, or perhaps even a vegetable-based lard like Crisco.

After harvesting the rushes, invite some friends over or ask your tolerant/curious spouse to help you peel away the rind on a few dozen rushes. You can use a small and sharp knife or even just a fingernail. You'll notice that the pith gets wispy the closer you are to the top of the rush, so feel free to cut it as low/high as you need to insure the structural integrity of the final product. Remember that, as you peel away the rind, you want to leave one thin strip of rind on it as a sort of spine, or two ribs if making a watch-light. After peeling, dry out the rushes (on cloth or paper towels or even in the sun as White suggests). 

Once dried (I let mine dry on paper towel lined cookie sheets for a day or two), gently melt some fat in a pan. When melted--not boilingly hot, just melted--draw your peeled rushes through the fat slowly, submersing the rush as best you can. You'll see bubbles escaping from the pith and then it'll stop. That should tell you that it's been probably saturated and you can take it out. Let the greased rushes cool such that the fat has solidified. You do not need to pass the rushes multiple times through the fat. I tried this as an experiment and found the performance to be absolutely negligible. Additionally, as pointed out in the 1709 tax on candles, rushlights seem to have historically only been dipped once.

To use them, you'll need something like a rushlight holder, if not an actual one. For just experimenting at home, you could perch the rushlight on a non-flammable surface like a candlestick holder or in a clamp that's been secured to a table and then light the end. Ideally, the rushlight should be angled up at a 45 degree angle so it neither burns too quickly or too slowly. I found mine smelled ever so slightly like bacon, but not enough to really be noticeable, like you would expect from a tallow candle.

There's really not much to a rushlight, but I find the history fascinating as it illuminates that part of the human experience we share in common with our ancestors, no matter how much our technology changes: the need for light in a dark place.

Thanks for reading! Please leave a comment if you enjoyed this article or if you have any questions about the history or the process.