Excellent piece - very interesting that one year should have had so many fires - is it possible that arson really was involved? Bernard Capp found several cases of arson - committed by disgruntled servants for example.
Thanks Angela, glad you liked it. I don't think arson was involved in the majority of cases, since several of the reports point to negligence. But that said, it can't be ruled out in every case, especially since there was a motive - some people thought the world would end in 1656 (as they later believed that it would end in 1666). So the fires of London would have reinforced those apocalyptic beliefs as well as creating a climate of fear.
Where does Bernard discuss these cases of arson? I'd like to follow up
A large scale Quaker presence in London was a relatively new thing in 1655. Martha Simmons was still a very active minister, and any conflicts that she may have had with Quakers from the North had not yet emerged publicly. I'm presuming that you would hypothesize that these events would push Simmons and London Friends in an apocalyptic direction (along with many others). Is that correct? Is there anything else that might be said about the impact of these events on London Quakers?
You're right about the Quaker presence in London being relatively new in 1655 Steve. But I wouldn't want to speculate as to whether or not these events pushed Simmons and London Friends into an apocalyptic direction. That said, it is interesting that Nayler rode into Bristol in October 1656 - the year that some contemporaries believed would see the apocalypse.
Another question is how early Quakers envisaged this coming apocalypse; would it be an internal spiritual combat, or an external physical manifestation? I've found Douglas Gwyn's work on Fox very helpful in this regard.
Finally, there's an article in Journal of the Friends Historical Society on Quakers and the Great Fire of London; you may well know it but I'll link to it below just in case.
It always surprised me that in the case of the major fire in which I have a historical interest (at Cowdray Palace in Sussex, in September 1793) the presumably considerable public awareness of the danger of fire counted for nothing, as the carpenters who were working in the North Gallery of the palace left a fire burning there, in the middle of piles of wood shavings and whatnot, and the palace servants were too soused to be able to fetch the water buckets!
I used the National Archives currency converter (which gives a value in 2017) and then the Bank of England inflation calculator to give a figure for Dec 2024.
It was slightly problematic in that the currency converter only gives figures by decade so I also had to estimate a mid-way figure. Then there was the point about purchasing power in 1655 or 1666, which I didn't want to get into since it would have been too much of a digression. But I very much take your point.
I hadn't thought of the house price approach; although again, like today, there were high-end as well as less desirable dwellings that were destroyed. So that approach would only work if things evened themselves out or there was some uniformity in particularly affected regions.
The last one in relation to GDP at the time is really striking and I think most effectively makes the point. I've never seen it expressed as 20% of GDP which, as you say, is a very big deal.
Excellent piece - very interesting that one year should have had so many fires - is it possible that arson really was involved? Bernard Capp found several cases of arson - committed by disgruntled servants for example.
Thanks Angela, glad you liked it. I don't think arson was involved in the majority of cases, since several of the reports point to negligence. But that said, it can't be ruled out in every case, especially since there was a motive - some people thought the world would end in 1656 (as they later believed that it would end in 1666). So the fires of London would have reinforced those apocalyptic beliefs as well as creating a climate of fear.
Where does Bernard discuss these cases of arson? I'd like to follow up
A large scale Quaker presence in London was a relatively new thing in 1655. Martha Simmons was still a very active minister, and any conflicts that she may have had with Quakers from the North had not yet emerged publicly. I'm presuming that you would hypothesize that these events would push Simmons and London Friends in an apocalyptic direction (along with many others). Is that correct? Is there anything else that might be said about the impact of these events on London Quakers?
You're right about the Quaker presence in London being relatively new in 1655 Steve. But I wouldn't want to speculate as to whether or not these events pushed Simmons and London Friends into an apocalyptic direction. That said, it is interesting that Nayler rode into Bristol in October 1656 - the year that some contemporaries believed would see the apocalypse.
Another question is how early Quakers envisaged this coming apocalypse; would it be an internal spiritual combat, or an external physical manifestation? I've found Douglas Gwyn's work on Fox very helpful in this regard.
Finally, there's an article in Journal of the Friends Historical Society on Quakers and the Great Fire of London; you may well know it but I'll link to it below just in case.
https://journals.sas.ac.uk/fhs/article/view/4667/4619
Excellent article!
It always surprised me that in the case of the major fire in which I have a historical interest (at Cowdray Palace in Sussex, in September 1793) the presumably considerable public awareness of the danger of fire counted for nothing, as the carpenters who were working in the North Gallery of the palace left a fire burning there, in the middle of piles of wood shavings and whatnot, and the palace servants were too soused to be able to fetch the water buckets!
Unbelievable.
Thanks so much, Michael.
I've seen what's left of Cowdray (Ruins) since it isn't too far from us - but didn't know these details! As you say, unbelievable.
Adam writes:
Reckoning the cost of things like this from centuries past isn't straightforward. But I reckon on balance you are understating the effect.
One approach was taken here (https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/nz/news/breaking-news/great-fire-of-london-insurance-cost-recalculated-52364.aspx) using modern day values. An alternative approach is to just multiply the number of houses lost by average house prices today which gets you a cost of around £9 billion.
But does it make sense to use modern day values? Perhaps not. Another approach is to look at the costs in values of the time and set them in a reasonable context. So, costs of £10mn compare with English GDP in 1666 estimated at £52million (Bank of England https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/statistics/research-datasets/a-millennium-of-macroeconomic-data-for-the-uk.xlsx)
which gets you a cost of 20% of GDP which is a big deal. Or, compare with total revenue of the government of around £2million (same source).
Thanks for this Adam, that's really helpful.
I used the National Archives currency converter (which gives a value in 2017) and then the Bank of England inflation calculator to give a figure for Dec 2024.
https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/currency-converter/
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation/inflation-calculator
It was slightly problematic in that the currency converter only gives figures by decade so I also had to estimate a mid-way figure. Then there was the point about purchasing power in 1655 or 1666, which I didn't want to get into since it would have been too much of a digression. But I very much take your point.
I hadn't thought of the house price approach; although again, like today, there were high-end as well as less desirable dwellings that were destroyed. So that approach would only work if things evened themselves out or there was some uniformity in particularly affected regions.
The last one in relation to GDP at the time is really striking and I think most effectively makes the point. I've never seen it expressed as 20% of GDP which, as you say, is a very big deal.