17th Century Recipes

by Katherine Pym

From the book:  Samuel Pepys' Penny Merriments, Being a Collection of Chapbooks, full of Histories, Jests, Magic, Amorous Tales of Courtship, Marriage and Infidelity, Accounts of Rogues and Fools, together with Comments on the Times. Selected and Edited by Roger Thompson of the University of East Anglia at Norwich, 1977.

Whew, what a mouthful. Our titles these days are much shorter, with less syllables, easier to remember. To remember this, I simply refer to it as: Penny Merriments, a tome I found in a bookstore and considered a great find. It has all sorts of wonderful information, like recipes to make one beautiful, or a recipe for the newest way to roast a hare. It sends me right back into the era of my choice...

17th century England started out with traders going to far distant shores, but the cost was extensive. Spices were gathered through the Levant Company (owned by noblemen and gentlemen of quality) and the fledgling East India Company. As the century moved forward, their ships went to places already taken by the Spanish and Portuguese. 

Battle during First Anglo/Dutch War

The Dutch East India Company (VOC) began at about the same time as England's, but they weren't hampered by the religious upheaval and civil wars England endured during the first half of the century. The Dutch VOC had a leg up on English merchant shipping until Cromwell decided enough was enough and went to war with Holland. This is known as the First Anglo/Dutch war (1652-54), and fought entirely at sea. These wars were over trade, who could monopolize which ports in the East and West Indies.

With that said, the recipes below show an inordinate amount of spices, which were very costly. During the reign of King James I, a fight to near death took place between VOC and English Merchantmen in the South Seas that decimated the crops of nutmeg on Pulo Run Island, in the Banda archipelago. 

Dutch Flagship sailing into Mediterranean Harbor

Through the Levant Company, citrus fruits, dates, pepper, cotton cloth, and other fruits and spices were trekked across the desert sands to ports the Levant held in the Mediterranean, then imported via ship to London. (I won't even mention the pirate contingent that upped the cost of goods.) Once these commodities hit the London markets, they proved costly for the middling English household.

The below recipes can only come from later in the 17^th century, and were directed to the more well-to-do. Middling folk who could read, enjoyed the thoughts of these, though...

"To Roast a shoulder of mutton with Oysters the best way.

"Take one not too fat nor too lean, open it in divers places, stuff your oysters in with a little chopt penny-royal (of the mint family), baste it with butter and claret wine, then serve it up with grated nutmeg, yolks of eggs, ginger, cinnamon, butter and red wine vinegar."

"To Stew a Leg of Lamb the best way.

"Slice it and lay it in order in your stewing-pan, seasoned with salt and nutmeg, adding a pound of butter, and half a pint of claret, with a handful of sliced dates, and the like quantity of currants, and make the sauce with the yolk of two eggs, a quarter pint of verjuice (acid juice from sour or unripe fruit, very sour), and two ounces of sugar. Boil them up, and put them over the meat, serving up hot together."

"The Art of Beautifying the Hands, Neck, Breast and Face: Harmless and Approved, with other Rare Curiosities.

"To make the hands arms white, clear and smooth. Take a quarter of a pound of sweet almonds, blanch and bruise them, with a quarter of a pint of oil of roses, and the like quantity of betony-water (plant of the mint family): heat them over a gentle fire; and then press out the liquid part, and it will serve for either hands or face anointed therewith."

"To take away Freckles, Morphew (scurfy skin) or sunburn.

"Steep a piece of copper in the juice of lemon till it be dissolved (can copper dissolve?), and anoint the place with a feather morning and evening, washing it off with white wine."

"To take off any scurf from the hands and face.

"Take water of tartar, that is, such wherein calcined (burnt to a powder) tartar has been infused, anoint the place, and wash it as the former (with white wine)."

And now, for the final and most excellent recipe...

"To sweeten the Breath, and preserve the Teeth and Gums.

"Boil a handful of juniper berries, a handful of sage, and an ounce of caraway seeds in a quart of white wine, til a third part be consumed: strain it and wash your mouth with it morning and evening, suffering a small quantity to pass down: you may whiten the teeth by rubbing them with pumice stone."

So, who wants to try one of these recipes and let me know how it works? I'd especially like to know the results of whitening your teeth with pumice stone. Or should I do a disclaimer? Don’t do this without the guide of a professional!

For more information on trade with the Levant Company, please see my novel TWINS, a 2012 EPIC finalist. You can find it at: http://www.wings-press.com/Bookstore/Twins.htm Amazon or the NOOK.

THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY ENGLISH VILLAGE

by Maggi Andersen

Farming was the chief occupation in Britain, until the invention of machinery changed her from an agricultural into an industrial nation. The change was not completed until the early nineteenth century, by which time Britain’s population had increased so enormously that it could not in any case have been fed by home-grown produce alone. Meanwhile the eighteenth century had brought tremendous developments of agriculture.

The spread of this system encouraged experiments in new methods of planting and tilling which were gradually supplanting the old medieval ways. Much of the country still practiced the old medieval ‘open field’ system in which each man who held land was given ‘strips’ divided from those of other by ridges of earth. But the enclosing of land by hedges had notably increased since the sixteenth century, and was by now prevalent among the farmers of south-eastern and south-western England. It was seen to produce such good results that the practice became general. It was frequently legalized by the passing of Enclosure Acts by Parliament, enforcing the enclosure of special tracts of country. The land was then re-divided; each tenant had his own fields in one locality and cut them off from those of his neighbors by neat hedges.

The advantages of this were:

Improvements in treating the soil could now be more generally tried and their results noted.

Time wasted in getting from one separated strip of a man’s holding to another was saved.

The industrious farmer had less to fear from invasion by his neighbor’s weeds.

Cattle diseases were more easily kept in check when a farmer could enclose his pasture land and keep out other men’s herds.

The disadvantages:

Most big reforms involve hardship. The poor landless laborer accustomed to gather firewood or pasture his beast on the open common, found it closed against him. The yeoman who farmed in a small way could be ousted by the man able to afford the rent of a large enclosed farm. Yet evidence seems to show that the number of small farmers increased rather than diminished during this enclosure period, and the new agricultural methods must have provided plenty of employment. Rural life suffered when villagers migrated to the town, attracted by the relatively high wages offered.

New methods were found to improve the quality of the soil reclaiming previously unproductive land for the growing of crops. This was done by draining away superfluous moisture, and sometimes by altering the substance of the soil, e.g. mixing chalk and clay with thin, sandy soil.

In 1701 a Berkshire man, Jethro Tull, invented the ‘drill’, a machine for sowing seeds in regular rows instead of wastefully scattering them by hand. He also encouraged the use of the hoe.

New crops such as turnips, cleansed the soil for the next year’s crop of barley or wheat, so that it was not necessary to let each field lie fallow for one year in turn. These root crops could be fed to the cattle in winter when there was very little winter fodder. More fresh meat now became available.

Beginning first with the wealthy landowners, these methods became universally practiced. King George III himself set up a model farm at Windsor, and made breeding of fine cattle a fashionable hobby among the rich.

Lord Townshend (1674-1738), friend and colleague of Walpole, was a rich landowner who grew root-crops on a large scale – hence his nickname of ‘Turnip Townshend.’

Thomas Coke (1752-1842) was a rich landlord who inherited his Norfolk estates in bad condition, the sheep were of a poor breed and all the fields were open. Coke farmed it himself instead of renting it, inviting other farmers from the district to inspect his farm and advise him. He improved the soil and was eventually able to grow wheat successfully where no one had ventured to plant anything but rye. He increased the number of his cattle and sheep, improved their quality and provided better farm buildings and cottages for his workmen.

Robert Bakewell (1725-95) was a pioneer in the breeding of a good livestock. He became famous for his new breed of sheep known as ‘Leicesters’ which grew fat and matured more quickly than others. His ideas were copied and sheep were made twice as valuable for their meat as well as their wool. His new ‘Leicestershire longhorn’ cattle were equally notable.

Source: British History Displayed 1688-1950

Author website

Our Love Affair With Mr. Darcy - And The Worst Marriage Proposal in History

By Karen V. Wasylowski

What is this fascination we women have for Mr. Darcy?

Tom Lefroy

Jane Austen's true love and possibly the model for Darcy

(actually, and unfortunately for Jane, he was more of a Willoughby)

Apparently, there was a poll conducted years ago by the Orange Prize for Fiction.  Now I don't know exactly what the subject matter of the poll was, or exactly what the Orange Prize for Fiction is; however,1,900 women, across generational lines, selected Fitzwilliam Darcy as the man with whom they'd most like to go on a date.  He was also chosen as the man they'd most like to have attend their dinner party, which is odd since he'd probably not want to associate with most of those women - depending upon, of course,  just who their 'people' were.

He's kind of a prig when you think of it.  Just think of how he treats the woman he loves, most ardently...


 The Worst Proposal in Literary History, PRIDE AND PREJUDICE style

Mr Darcy: `In vain have I struggled. It will not do. My feelings will not be repressed. You must allow me to tell you how ardently I admire and love you.'

He continues on:  His sense of her inferiority -- of its being a degradation -- of the family obstacles which judgment had always opposed to inclination, were dwelt on with a warmth which seemed due to the consequence he was wounding, but was very unlikely to recommend his suit.  He spoke of apprehension and anxiety, but his countenance expressed real security. 


(Could that mean the lovely, lively Bennet girls won't be invited to Pemberley for weekend house parties very often?  And what of Mrs. Bennet?)


Elizabeth Bennet responds: "In such cases as this, it is, I believe, the established mode to express a sense of obligation for the sentiments avowed, however unequally they may be returned. It is natural that obligation should be felt, and if I could feel gratitude, I would now thank you. But I cannot -- I have never desired your good opinion, and you have certainly bestowed it most unwillingly. I am sorry to have occasioned pain to any one.

It has been most unconsciously done, however, and I hope will be of short duration. The feelings which, you tell me, have long prevented the acknowledgment of your regard, can have little difficulty in overcoming it after this explanation."

Jane Austen

The art of the put-down

Darcy is described as smug and defensive when she rejects him, he becomes pale with anger .  He is becoming unraveled now, however, and he struggles for composure.

Darcy:  ``And this is all the reply which I am to have the honour of expecting! I might, perhaps, wish to be informed why, with so little endeavour at civility, I am thus rejected. But it is of small importance.''

He simply can't believe that she doesn't understand how really scummy her family is compared to his:

Darcy again: (the poor guys doesn't realize - when you find yourself in a hole - stop digging!) Could you expect me to rejoice in the inferiority of your connections? To congratulate myself on the hope of relations, whose condition in life is so decidedly beneath my own?"

Can you imagine, in your wildest dreams, accepting a proposal like that?  I can't.

Unless he was really, really rich and owned Pemberley....but I digress.


Elizabeth confronts his part in ruining her sister's happiness and future: `Can you deny that you have done it?'' she repeated.

Darcy:  ``I have no wish of denying that I did every thing in my power to separate my friend from your sister, or that I rejoice in my success. Towards him I have been kinder than towards myself.''


That's when she gives him the final blow:

"From the very beginning, from the first moment I may almost say, of my acquaintance with you, your manners, impressing me with the fullest belief of your arrogance, your conceit, and your selfish disdain of the feelings of others, were such as to form that ground-work of disapprobation, on which succeeding events have built so immovable a dislike; and I had not known you a month before I felt that you were the last man in the world whom I could ever be prevailed on to marry."

A direct hit!  What a put down!  We women adore Darcy for his non-attainability, his self confidence, his superiority; then, oddly enough, we love to see him brought to his knees for the very same reasons.  Puzzling and very possibly schizophrenic; but, I have to admit, I too get a kick out of this scene each and every time I read it.

And we still love him!  Fitzwilliam Darcy's character is so artfully written that he is popular two hundred years after his inception,  he is so broadly drawn that he adapts to every age, he can fulfill every woman's fantasy of the 'perfect' man. Whether or not  any of us could actually live with a husband like this, a man who would say such things to a woman he supposedly loves - well, that's problematic.  Each generation seems to embrace it's own ideal romantic hero - it's own Darcy - employing the norms for that age.

And I wonder what our current film interpretations of this novel says about 'our' age.  I can't imagine Jane Austen's Darcy emerging soaking wet from the lake, or strolling toward Lizzy across a field shrouded in mist, his shirt undone, his hair wild...

No, I don't think that would have been acceptable in Jane Austen's age, but in ours...my, my, my.

Here it is - THE WORST PROPOSAL IN HISTORY, followed by the greatest put down

My book, DARCY AND FITZWILLIAM, is a continuation of Jane Austen's wonderful novel, PRIDE AND PREJUDICE.  The two cousins from the Jane Austen book, the iconic Fitzwilliam Darcy and Colonel Fitzwilliam are best friends and share some very funny, and very poignant adventures.  They're the Regency Era's answer to Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid.

COMING October 1, 2012, is my sequel to Darcy and Fitzwilliam, SONS AND DAUGHTERS.  The Family Saga begun in 'Pride and Prejudice', 

continued in 'Darcy and Fitzwilliam', 

now goes on with 'Sons and Daughters'.  

The men are fathers now and their families are growing, getting into mischief, and loving life.

Look for a contest all through October on 

THE LEAGUE OF BRITISH ARTISTS

to enter and win a Free Kindle, with 

"Sons and Daughters" 

or one of two copies of

"Darcy and Fitzwilliam"

Undergarments Revealed

by Diane Scott Lewis

Undergarments Revealed, 17th and 18th Century.

Determined to do accurate research on my historical novels, the most difficult and interesting task was to find out what people wore under all that clothing. Many writers have erred in this area, as in mentioning “bloomers” in the eighteenth century, an item which didn’t come into use until the 1850’s. My interests are mainly in the eighteenth to early nineteenth century, but for this post I’m slipping back into the seventeenth as well.

While in previous years undergarments were utilitarian, to throw off the strict hand of the Puritans, under the Stuarts underclothes took on more of a sexual allure.

A man’s shirt became ruffled and more visible, with puffed sleeves tied in ribbons, to show him off as a fine gentleman.

Women’s dresses became less rigid, and cut to flaunt pretty petticoats. The petticoat, often several of them, was worn to give the outer gown a better shape, and I’m certain, important for warmth. It was often of embroidered or ruffled material in bright, attractive colors.

Poet Robert Herrick wrote in 1650: A sweet disorder in the dress kindles in clothes a wantonness.

Beneath their dresses, next to their skin, women wore chemises or smocks made of Holland, and heavily perfumed to diffuse body odors.

Sleeves were long and sometimes trimmed in lace. In the 1660’s dress sleeves were shortened to reveal the evocative chemise. Silk and linen were also popular materials because they harbored less vermin than wool. Wool fell out of favor, prompting Charles II to legislate that everyone must be buried in wool garments to promote the British wool industry.

With the extreme décolletage of the gowns, corsets or “stays” had no shoulder straps.

The corset was heavily boned with a long busk in front and was laced tightly at the back. People of the time commented that young women were foolish to want such “whalebone prisons” for fashion, and left themselves open to consumptions.

Drawers, what we know today as underwear or knickers, were worn by French women, but there’s no evidence that Englishwomen wore such an item in this era. Although a country race where women ran to win a new smock said the girls wore half-shirts and drawers. So it is still a mystery.

In the eighteenth century the hoop came into fashion again, reminiscent of the farthingale of the sixteenth century. These pushed out dress skirts and the women walked holding them to one side like a bell to reveal their fancy under-petticoats, and the shape of their legs. This must have been dangerous considering the women wore no knickers. The hoop or pannier, especially in Court dress, pushed the sides of gowns out to ridiculous proportions where women had to walk sideways to fit through doors. Later in the century, panniers became narrower and the corset lighter, lacing in the front as well as back.

Men still revealed their fancy shirts by leaving their waistcoats unbuttoned to attract the ladies. Men’s drawers are another mystery.

Some reports have them wearing such items—a loose fitting garment that tied at the waist and on each leg—but other sources say that men wore long shirts that covered their privates in their breeches. Breeches had linings of detachable washable material, which no doubt served the purpose of drawers.

During the French Revolution after 1789 the classic style pervaded, and women discarded their corsets and confining gowns for simple, high-waisted Greek style chemises. Many women dampened these dresses to show off the fact they were naked beneath. It would take the stringent Victorian age to turn fashion to a more modest level and bring back restrictive undergarments.

Information garnered from my own research and The History of Underclothes, by C. Willett and Phillis Cunnington, 1992 edition.

Check out the results of my research in my debut novel, adventure and romantic elements in eighteenth century England.

The False Light

Diane Scott Lewis has three published historical novels. Visit her website at:

http://www.dianescottlewis.org

 

 

 

 

The Will of the Prioress

By Nancy Bilyeau

In the town of Dartford, a 40-minute train ride from London Charing Cross, stands a building called the Manor Gatehouse. Inside you will find a registration office to record the births, marriages, and deaths that occur in Kent. This handsome red-brick building, fronted by a garden, is also a popular place for a wedding. “It looks amazing in the official pictures,” gushed one satisfied bride in a website testimonial.

But when I first walked up that path to the Gatehouse, I was filled with awe, and definitely not because I was planning a wedding. I was thinking of who stood on this same piece of ground six centuries ago. Because it was then a Catholic priory—a community of women who constituted the sole Dominican order in England before the dissolution of the monasteries—and it is where I chose to tell the story of my first novel, The Crown.

This is where Sister Joanna Stafford, my half-English, half-Spanish protagonist, prayed, and sang, and wept, and struggled.

The Gatehouse of Henry VIII, today

I didn't create a Catholic novice as a protagonist for my book because of a religious or political agenda. A lifelong Tudor fanatic, I felt I had no choice but to set a story in the 16th century. I wanted to write about someone different, and so I plunged into researching the life of a young nun at the most tumultuous time in the Dissolution of the Monasteries. What would it be like to have your way of life taken from you--would you try to stop the destruction, or accept the inevitable? 

Supreme head of the Church

At one time, like many others, I accepted a series of "truths" about life in the time of Henry VIII: people did not often live to old age; women were rarely educated outside of the royal family or high aristocracy; women outside of the court of the king, and the carnal grasp of the king, were not as interesting to our modern sensibilities; the monastic life was in decline, most likely corrupt, and deserved to be ended; and nuns were either forced to take vows or ended up in convents because they were not as "good" as the women who married--ie, they were rejects. 

My years of research revealed to me how wrong all of those stereotypes were.

The true story of one woman's life, Prioress Elizabeth Cressner, illuminates some of the complex truths.   A "good and virtuous woman," she was the leader of the priory in Dartford for 50 years; she died in December 1536 at somewhere between 75 and 80 years of age, just as Henry VIII was putting intense pressure on the monasteries to submit to his will.

Dartford Priory had been founded with great care by Edward III, although the idea of establishing a house for Dominican sisters is attributed to Edward II. Did he feel some obligation to carry out the wish of his deposed father? Impossible to know. Once the pope approved the founding of the order, four Dominican sisters were recruited from France, for whose expenses 20 pounds was paid from the Exchequer.

Edward III

The English priory soon established a reputation for "strict discipline and plain living." Dartford was known for the value put on education and contained a library of books. It also drew aristocratic nuns, even royalty, most famously Princess Bridget of York, the daughter of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville.

Artist's conception of the priory in 15th century

Prioress Elizabeth Cressner took on her tasks with great energy and a bold temperament. She executed wills for people in the community and appointed priests to celebrate Mass in the parish church and masters to oversee the local almshouse for the poor. She administered much of the property owned by the priory, even though it was technically the job of the friars assigned there.

In the 1530s, Thomas Cromwell was turning a speculative eye on the monasteries. Undaunted, Prioress Elizabeth sent Henry VIII's minister a series of firm letters over a recent appointment of a certain Friar Robert Stroddel as president at the Dartford community. The prioress found him unkind and even dishonest.

Thomas Cromwell

The prioress wrote Cromwell:

"And now of late I understand {Stroddel} hath purchased letters of your good lordship under our most gracious founder's seal to be president here the term of his life, by feigned and untrue suggestion, for as much as he hath governed the office so well, as he himself reporteth."

Despite her fiery letters, the prioress was unable to dislodge Friar Stroddel. When Elizabeth Cresssner died, the convent at Dartford was still intact. There was no corruption found at the priory by the king's investigators. But her successor, Joan Vane, was forced to surrender it just the same to the king, and all of the nuns were expelled with small pensions and no place to go. The king did not award the priory to a favored courtier, as he usually did. He took the priory for himself, ordered it demolished and a luxurious manor house raised on the property. Henry VIII never slept there, though his ex-wife, Anne of Cleves, lived there for a time.

The manor house was given to Sir Robert Cecil by King James I, and passed through various hands before being demolished by the 19th century. All that remains is the red-brick gatehouse, although that was built by Henry VIII. Nothing is left of the priory itself, except for the stone wall that ran along its perimeter.

Original priory wall, seen at right

One a cloudy afternoon, I walked the perimeter of the centuries-old wall, as the cars whizzed by. There are no Dartford Priory gift shops, as exist at the carefully preserved Tower of London. No mugs for sale bearing the face of Prioress Elizabeth Cressner. But her life was significant all the same.

I paid her homage on my solitary walk.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy Bilyeau has written a trilogy of historical thrillers taking place in the reign of Henry VIII. The Tapestry was published on March 24, 2015 in North America and the United Kingdom. For more information, go to www.nancybilyeau.com

Marriage

by Gerri Bowen

When it comes to history, people have their own idea about how things were done. Marriage is one of those things we assume we know about.

I believe most people assume that couples were always married in a church, and always with a priest or other religious authority officiating. But no, the rules of marriage and the traditions we follow today are quite different from what our ancestors practiced.

Today we, female and male, seek out people we like, admire and come to love when we consider marriage. They are gradually introduced to friends and family. We hope that the marriage will last, and enter into a future together with our eyes wide open. Shared bank accounts, shared names on property, the number of children we want to have, if any, is agreed upon before vows are exchanged. If it doesn’t work out, well, divorce is available, and the laws are fair for both parties. We go our separate ways, property divided, custody and visitation rights agreed to.

Marriage in the past was also an agreement, but more of an alliance between families. Marriage was about gaining more money, land, and/or political power. Cattle might be given or vast estates. The parties involved might be neighbors or neighboring countries. It was an alliance to make each family stronger. Love did not enter into any discussion of marriage.

Each country, city and village had their own ways to celebrate the betrothal, but the betrothal was significant. Gifts were exchanged, and some had the tradition of a gold coin which was broken in half, the male keeping one and the female receiving the other half. When wed, the two halves were joined together. Then the tradition of a ring, which was broken in half, joined when the couple wed. The next progression was the man giving a ring to his betrothed, signifying to other men that this woman was no longer available. There was no wedding ring as we know it today.

Early on, when couples wed, they did so in front of witnesses. Their hands were joined, sometimes tied whilst they agreed to marry the other. A priest may have blessed them, or not. It is also significant that both parties agreed to wed the other, that the wedding was not forced. However, I think we can all envision circumstances where one party did not want to wed, but had little choice in the matter.

What I found surprising was until the 10th century, weddings were held outside of a church. Not until the 12th century did a priest even become part of the wedding. It wasn’t until the 13th century that the priest took charge of the wedding, when it was by that time considered a sacrament of the church. Even then, different areas in different countries had their own take, traditions. In some areas the priest attended the celebrations after the wedding. In other areas he was forbidden to go near such earthy celebrations.

My latest release, FOR LOVE OF GWYNNETH, a Medieval, has several marriage related passages. One such passage concerns consanguinity, of the three reasons a marriage could not take place. Or if it did, could be declared invalid.

Consanguinity is a blood relationship up to 6th or 7th degree, so no closer than 3rd cousin. No marriage between couples if they were in this category, but that could be gotten around, and was, often by royals.

Affinity is the closeness between the two families of the newly joined husband and wife. Once they married, they became one flesh, so all the relations in the two newly joined families became related as well. No marriages allowed between members of the two newly joined families, but this could be gotten around.

Spiritual Affinity existed between godparents and godchildren, and therefore, their families. So, no marriage there either. It could be gotten around.

Depending on the century, and the country, and even the area of a country, marriage laws evolved and changed. What was standard in 900 was different in 1400, and that was changed in 1700’s and so very different from the 1900’s. One cannot assume anything.

So many interesting facts, so little time to research and report them all.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Once wed, Gwynneth and Richard make the best of what has been forced upon them. When Gwynnth is taken from him, Richard realizes the depth of his feelings for his Gwynneth, and does what he must to get her back. All For Love of Gwynneth.

"The Crown," By Nancy Bilyeau

Nancy Bilyeau is giving away two paperback copies of her historical thriller "The Crown," to residents of North America. This giveaway ends at midnight, September 9th. To see some information about the book, please click HERE. Comment here to enter the drawing, and be sure to leave your contact information.

By Permission of Heaven - The Great Fire of London

by Richard Denning

Jane called up about three in the morning, to tell us of a great fire they saw in the City. So I rose, and slipped on my night-gown and went to her window, and thought it to be on the back side of Mark Lane at the farthest; but, being unused to such fires as followed, I thought it far enough off, and so went to bed again, and to sleep. . . . By and by Jane comes and tells me that she hears that above 300 houses have been burned down tonight by the fire we saw, and that it is now burning down all Fish Street, by London Bridge. So I made myself ready presently, and walked to the Tower; and there got up upon one of the high places, . . .and there I did see the houses at the end of the bridge all on fire, and an infinite great fire on this and the other side . . . of the bridge. . . . 

Samuel Pepys Diary for 2nd September 1666


The 2nd of September 1666 was the day that the Great Fire of London started. Today I will give an overview of the fire.


Before the Fire – early 1666.

London, in early 1666, was a city still suffering from the great plague. The death rate was slowing down but new cases were still happening even up to the time of the fire. The King and his court had evacuated the city and the government was run from Oxford through the winter and early spring. Yet in the summer of 1666 life was returning to the city. The markets were open and trade was thriving once more. England was at war with Holland and France and that meant that in the summer the fleet put to sea looking for an engagement that would decide the war. That fleet needed provisions and one of the bakers that supplied the all important ship’s biscuit was Thomas Farriner of Pudding Lane. 

At the time accusations of conspiracy would fly around the city as rapidly as the fire itself. Catholics were to blame, or French or Dutch spies or maybe republicans. Then again maybe it was the will of God. London was a cesspit of sin and the wrath of God would be visited upon it. That at least was the predictions of astrologers before the fire. This year – 1666 – was full of portents of doom and the unrighteous would soon suffer hell fire. That is what people said. 

Eventually the truth came out. It was not the judgement of heaven or the evil act of malicious enemies. No it was merely a baker forgetting to put out his ovens. Thomas Farriner was to blame. Not that he ever admitted to this himself of course.

But we should not blame Farriner. Really it was the case that the city of London in 1666 was ready for this disaster. Most houses in this crowded and congested city were wood and thatch leaning precariously towards each other. The city contained hundreds of workplaces, many of which were fire hazards- foundries, smithies, glaziers and was full of warehouses which had stores and cellars of combustibles. That summer of 1666 had been one of the hottest in living memory making the buildings dry as tinder. Finally there was a strong wind blowing north westerly for the first three days fanning on the fire.

Here then is an outline of the key stages in the fire:

Day 1: Sunday 2nd September 

Extent of Fire damage on 2nd September (with thanks to Wikipedia for the image - reused under commons agreement)

Circa 1am the fire starts at the Bakers on Pudding Lane. 4am Lord Mayor Bludworth visits but down plays it and goes back to bed! Later that day he fails to act decisively. Samuel Pepys goes to see king and gets royal orders back to Mayor so he starts to pull down houses BUT it is already too late. The fire is spreading fast and Londoners start to flee. Getting his priorities right, Pepys buried a big cheese and wine in his garden!

Day 2: Monday 3rd September 

Extent of Fire damage on 3rd September 

About four oclock in the morning, my Lady Batten sent me a cart to carry away all my money, and plate, and best things, to Sir W. Riders at Bednall-greene. Which I did riding myself in my night-gowne in the cart; and, Lord! to see how the streets and the highways are crowded with people running and riding, and getting of carts at any rate to fetch away things.

Samuel Pepys Diary for 3rd September 1666.

The fire spread throughout the 3rd, despite the efforts of the Duke of York who was given command of fire-fighting that morning and began to bring better organisation to the fight. The only success came at Leadenhall in the north-east, were a combination of low wind and the leadership and wealth of one citizen which enabled him to hire sufficient labour to create a working firebreak stopped the blaze advancing. Paranoia over suspected plots meant that people start attacking foreigners in the street. James is forced to spend a lot of time saving foreigners from attacks by the London mob. 

James Duke of York - who led the fire fighting efforts

“the whole City in dreadful flames near the water-side; all the houses from the Bridge, all Thames-street, and upwards towards Cheapside, down to the Three Cranes, were now consumed” 

John Evelyn

Day 3: Tuesday 4th September 

Now begins the practice of blowing up of houses in Tower-streete, those next the Tower, which at first did frighten people more than anything, but it stopped the fire where it was done, it bringing down the houses to the ground in the same places they stood, and then it was easy to quench what little fire was in it, though it kindled nothing almost. W. Hewer this day went to see how his mother did, and comes late home, telling us how he hath been forced to remove her toIslington, her house in Pye-corner being burned; so that the fire is got so far that way, and all the Old Bayly, and was running down to Fleete-streete; and Pauls is burned, and all Cheapside. I wrote to my father this night, but the post-house being burned, the letter could not go. 

Samuel Pepys Diary for 4th September 1666.

By sunrise September 4th, the fire was at its peak, an estimated ten times as strong as twenty-four hours previously. The success at Leadenhall was repeated on the 4th by other teams – one led by Samuel Pepys who now used gunpowder to clear great gaps in the city and build fire breaks In the east, the fire was stopped before reaching The Tower of London. However, in the north the flames remained unchecked, surging with avarice across Cheapside and the city market, and in the west they jumped across the River Fleet in spite of attempts to clear the bridge and nearby buildings. People ran and pushed goods and belongings into St. Pauls or up against the walls hoping it would protect them. It did not! By the midnight of the 4th/5th September, St. Paul’s Cathedral was surrounded and literally melting: the lead roofing flowed down the streets and building stones exploded from the heat.

Day 4: Wednesday 5th September Day 5: Thursday 6th September
On the 5th two events conspired to save London: firefighters started to actively use gunpowder to clear firebreaks on a wider scale. More crucially, the powerful east wind dropped. There was still a great struggle. Pepys reports than even the King was seen helping carry buckets, but the tide had turned. Small fires still burnt by midday on Thursday 6th 1666, but they were soon under control.

The Aftermath
There was something of a witch hunt during and after the fire looking for the culprits and the London mob chased down any foreigners or just someone who looked a bit odd. A mentally ill Frenchman admitted to causing the fire and although it was shown that he could not have done so he was still hung. In the end calm prevailed and it was realised by those in government that it had just been an accident made worse by the condition of the city.

Rebuilding 
The destruction was vast. It is estimated that the destruction included 13200 houses, 87 churches, 44 Guild Halls, St Pauls Cathedral, Baynards Castle, the Royal Exchange, Newgate prison and many other important sites. Maybe 1 person in 3 or 4 of greater London was made homeless. Something like £14 Billion of damages in today’s terms was caused. For some this was an opportunity. Unscrupulous bankers made a fortune giving loans at huge rates of interest to assist rebuilding. Landlords discovered that they would insist on the properties they had rented out being rebuilt at the tenants cost and usually ended up with buildings of greater value. A massive legal process ensued with court cases going on for years. Others had higher aims. John Evelyn and Christopher Wren both submitted plans for rebuilding the city. The warren of streets would be swept away and broad avenues and squares echoing the glories of Italian cities brought in. In the end though landlords insisted on their houses being rebuilt and the best that Wren achieved was the contract to design and rebuild London’s churches including the magnificent St Paul’s Cathedral.

The Monument

Near the site of the original bakery where the fire had started a monument was constructed. On it read the words:

Here by ye permission of Heaven, Hell broke loose on this protestant city.

Here by ye permission of Heaven, Hell broke loose on this protestant city. 

(Original Engraving on the Great Fire Monument)

A modern version of the monument (near the Underground Station that shares its name) is still there today.

The Great Fire of London is of particular interest to me. I made it the back drop to my Historical Fantasy Novel The Last Seal  I also published a boardgame based wound the events of the Great Fire: 

The players are men of wealth and standing who own property around London. They can use the trained bands to fight the fire, use demolitions to destroy blocks of housing to prevent the fire flowing or turn a blind eye and allow the fire to spread and damage rival’s property. Victory can belong to the player with the most property left but putting out fires can give you a boost. In addition each player will have several hidden objectives which might include helping another player or protecting parts of the city.

Find out more