Like all novels that tell stories of significant events in history, Adrian Tinniswood’s recount of the fire that devastated London in 1666 is extensively researched and well-told.
He also gives an interesting account of Charles II who had recently been returned to the thrown after the monarchy had been restored. We are treated to a side of the King known as the ‘Merry Monarch’ that is usually not seen. Charles, according to Tinniswood, showed political shrewdness and level-headedness that helped keep the nation together during such a devastating calamity.
The book begins with the tensions that summer which were running high between England and the Dutch. So much so that the Londoners blamed the conflagration on Dutch terrorists. It was well-known that the fire started in the ovens of a Dutch baker on Pudding Street. But in this post-Elizabethan era, anti-Catholic sentiment ran just as high if not higher than British-Dutch relations.
Restoration England had been relatively quiet since the civil war and the death of Oliver Cromwell and nobody wanted to think about those times. But no one wanted the Catholics to regain the throne either.
Into this volatile mix a fire, the likes of which has never been seen before or since, reduces a large area of the capitol city to ashes. By all accurate accounts, it was an accident. Not the precursor to a Dutch invasion. Not an act of war. Not the Papists trying to return the country and the crown to Catholicism. However, an unfortunate and perhaps misguided man admitted to setting the fire and was subsequently hanged. Despite his confession, many Londoners realized that it was a tragic mishap.
However, after the fire, Tinniswood’s novel drags. Unlike the Erik Larsen’s Isaac’s Storm about the 1900 Galveston hurricane or David McCullough’s The Johnstown Flood where the aftermath involved massive cleanup efforts and dealing with a profound sense of loss, Tinniswood ventured into the realm of bureaucracy that governed during the rebuilding of London, decisions about who should be architects and who was going to pay for all of this. If it were an accident, the tenants owed the landlords and were responsible for rebuilding. But since a man was convicted and executed for starting the fire, it was an act of war and the burden of rebuilding fell to the landlords. Such events although important don’t make for thrilling reading.
Still for anyone interested in London or Restoration England this is a must-read. Tinniswood’s research brings details of mid-seventeenth century British culture to life through vivid descriptions that almost make the reader smell smoke.
He also gives an interesting account of Charles II who had recently been returned to the thrown after the monarchy had been restored. We are treated to a side of the King known as the ‘Merry Monarch’ that is usually not seen. Charles, according to Tinniswood, showed political shrewdness and level-headedness that helped keep the nation together during such a devastating calamity.
The book begins with the tensions that summer which were running high between England and the Dutch. So much so that the Londoners blamed the conflagration on Dutch terrorists. It was well-known that the fire started in the ovens of a Dutch baker on Pudding Street. But in this post-Elizabethan era, anti-Catholic sentiment ran just as high if not higher than British-Dutch relations.
Restoration England had been relatively quiet since the civil war and the death of Oliver Cromwell and nobody wanted to think about those times. But no one wanted the Catholics to regain the throne either.
Into this volatile mix a fire, the likes of which has never been seen before or since, reduces a large area of the capitol city to ashes. By all accurate accounts, it was an accident. Not the precursor to a Dutch invasion. Not an act of war. Not the Papists trying to return the country and the crown to Catholicism. However, an unfortunate and perhaps misguided man admitted to setting the fire and was subsequently hanged. Despite his confession, many Londoners realized that it was a tragic mishap.
However, after the fire, Tinniswood’s novel drags. Unlike the Erik Larsen’s Isaac’s Storm about the 1900 Galveston hurricane or David McCullough’s The Johnstown Flood where the aftermath involved massive cleanup efforts and dealing with a profound sense of loss, Tinniswood ventured into the realm of bureaucracy that governed during the rebuilding of London, decisions about who should be architects and who was going to pay for all of this. If it were an accident, the tenants owed the landlords and were responsible for rebuilding. But since a man was convicted and executed for starting the fire, it was an act of war and the burden of rebuilding fell to the landlords. Such events although important don’t make for thrilling reading.
Still for anyone interested in London or Restoration England this is a must-read. Tinniswood’s research brings details of mid-seventeenth century British culture to life through vivid descriptions that almost make the reader smell smoke.
No comments:
Post a Comment