What do you think?
Rate this book
By Permission of Heaven: The True Story of the Great Fire of London
Draws on first-person testimonies and forensic records to document the events surrounding the 1666 Great Fire of London that destroyed more than 13,000 homes, numerous buildings, and St. Paul's Cathedral, in an account that considers the roles played by such figures as Charles II, Samuel Pepys, and Christopher Wren. 30,000 first printing.
352 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2003
19 people are currently reading
471 people want to read
About the author
Adrian Tinniswood
40 books65 followersAdrian John Tinniswood OBE FSA (born 11 October 1954) is an English writer and historian. He is currently Professor of English Social History at the University of Buckingham.
Tinniswood studied English and Philosophy at Southampton University and was awarded an MPhil at Leicester University.
Tinniswood has often acted as a consultant to the National Trust, and has lectured at several universities including the University of Oxford and the University of California, Berkeley.
He was appointed Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE).
Tinniswood studied English and Philosophy at Southampton University and was awarded an MPhil at Leicester University.
Tinniswood has often acted as a consultant to the National Trust, and has lectured at several universities including the University of Oxford and the University of California, Berkeley.
He was appointed Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 36 reviews
April 24, 2019
A solid account of the events leading up to the Great Fire with chapters following its course and then the aftermath.
But why three stars? Well I liked it but unlike the blurb it didn't grip me. It was well researched, and as Andrew Holgate of The Sunday Times says "the fresh emphasis he places on its fallout" were strengths and new things for this reader, but I did find myself at times wanting to be finished with it.
The lead up is well paced and does provide a useful overview and condition of Britain and Stuart London including its religious divisions, as well as the Capital's trade, social aspects, design - or lack of - and layout of the city. The worries, rivalries, spats and wars with France and notably the Netherlands are also in play.
The fire, and so Thomas Farriner and his part in it, are dealt with quickly and then the conflagration. Useful info on the Lord Mayor's responses and behaviours and the hero of the hour (or days) James, Duke of York (later King James II. Fire fighting techniques and how people responded and rallied are also covered. Eventually changing wind and hard work brought the fire's progress to an end.
The third element of the book is the aftermath and rebuilding. There is much detail here and this is where Adrian Tinniswood excels; but also becalmed me as a reader. The insight of how the city responded with ideas, proclamations, taxes and land ownership; post-fire surveys, the Company bodies & various committees' ideas and plans as well as the availability and cost of labour all feature. As does the investigations, ideas and prosecution about the fire's causes were discussed.
So all-in-all adding this to other books I have read on the Great Fire I learnt much. It just didn't spark a engrossing interest to warm my reading soul.
But why three stars? Well I liked it but unlike the blurb it didn't grip me. It was well researched, and as Andrew Holgate of The Sunday Times says "the fresh emphasis he places on its fallout" were strengths and new things for this reader, but I did find myself at times wanting to be finished with it.
The lead up is well paced and does provide a useful overview and condition of Britain and Stuart London including its religious divisions, as well as the Capital's trade, social aspects, design - or lack of - and layout of the city. The worries, rivalries, spats and wars with France and notably the Netherlands are also in play.
The fire, and so Thomas Farriner and his part in it, are dealt with quickly and then the conflagration. Useful info on the Lord Mayor's responses and behaviours and the hero of the hour (or days) James, Duke of York (later King James II. Fire fighting techniques and how people responded and rallied are also covered. Eventually changing wind and hard work brought the fire's progress to an end.
The third element of the book is the aftermath and rebuilding. There is much detail here and this is where Adrian Tinniswood excels; but also becalmed me as a reader. The insight of how the city responded with ideas, proclamations, taxes and land ownership; post-fire surveys, the Company bodies & various committees' ideas and plans as well as the availability and cost of labour all feature. As does the investigations, ideas and prosecution about the fire's causes were discussed.
So all-in-all adding this to other books I have read on the Great Fire I learnt much. It just didn't spark a engrossing interest to warm my reading soul.
September 15, 2014
By Permission of Heaven gets 3 Stars for a well-rounded look at the 1666 Great Fire of London. Tinniswood takes us on a tour of middle 17th Century England just prior to the fire. England is at war with the Dutch and French. London has just suffered (and continues to suffer) under the plague (in 1665, over 7,000 people per week died of the plague in London). It is only 6 years since Charles II was restored to the throne. The heir to the throne is married to a Catholic and is suspected to be a Catholic himself. Being Catholic in England at this time is not a good thing. The title of the book is taken from a plaque that blames the fire on “Papists”.
Being Catholic or even worse, a priest, could get you in big trouble: Ouch!
The fire starts in a bakery and, aided by gale force winds, quickly spreads out of control. Tinniswood covers the spreading fire, efforts to fight it and the impact on the population. Over 70,000 people were left homeless but amazingly, the death toll due to the fire is only in the single digits. I was hoping for more on the fire and how the people survived the coming winter. Was the fire set or an accident? Much evidence says accidental but a Frenchman “confessed” to setting the fire and was convicted and hanged. Most everyone thought he was lying and not quite right in the head. Pinning down the cause was an interesting discussion. The King was adamant it was an accident because, if it was attributed to enemy action, he could lose his throne just like his Dad, Charles I. No need for a monarch that can’t protect his folks. Legally, the tenants of the houses and buildings would be liable to rebuild the structures if it was an accident. If it was an ‘act of war’, the landlords would be responsible for all repairs. How to figure out who pays to rebuild? Lawyers, of course:
The Fire Court was in session.
In the seventeenth century, as in the twenty-first, litigation was the Devil’s work. Claims heard under civil law routinely involved lots of money, lengthy delays, complications of Dickensian proportions; then, as now, the only sure winners were the lawyers. And the Fire of London promised to unleash a flood of actions the like of which had never been seen before.
Tinniswood spends some time on the legal wrangling after the fire and I found it interesting. He also brings in the rebuilding efforts and the architects. Christopher Wren is just an amateur architect but events conspire to bring him to the fore. I did not think Tinniswood spent enough time on the rebuilding efforts. Religion figures throughout the story, used to support various factions and their ideas. Overall, a very good recounting of the Great Fire. Any visitor to or resident of London will find this a great place to read about how London came to be in its current form.
Being Catholic or even worse, a priest, could get you in big trouble: Ouch!
The fire starts in a bakery and, aided by gale force winds, quickly spreads out of control. Tinniswood covers the spreading fire, efforts to fight it and the impact on the population. Over 70,000 people were left homeless but amazingly, the death toll due to the fire is only in the single digits. I was hoping for more on the fire and how the people survived the coming winter. Was the fire set or an accident? Much evidence says accidental but a Frenchman “confessed” to setting the fire and was convicted and hanged. Most everyone thought he was lying and not quite right in the head. Pinning down the cause was an interesting discussion. The King was adamant it was an accident because, if it was attributed to enemy action, he could lose his throne just like his Dad, Charles I. No need for a monarch that can’t protect his folks. Legally, the tenants of the houses and buildings would be liable to rebuild the structures if it was an accident. If it was an ‘act of war’, the landlords would be responsible for all repairs. How to figure out who pays to rebuild? Lawyers, of course:
The Fire Court was in session.
In the seventeenth century, as in the twenty-first, litigation was the Devil’s work. Claims heard under civil law routinely involved lots of money, lengthy delays, complications of Dickensian proportions; then, as now, the only sure winners were the lawyers. And the Fire of London promised to unleash a flood of actions the like of which had never been seen before.
Tinniswood spends some time on the legal wrangling after the fire and I found it interesting. He also brings in the rebuilding efforts and the architects. Christopher Wren is just an amateur architect but events conspire to bring him to the fore. I did not think Tinniswood spent enough time on the rebuilding efforts. Religion figures throughout the story, used to support various factions and their ideas. Overall, a very good recounting of the Great Fire. Any visitor to or resident of London will find this a great place to read about how London came to be in its current form.
November 11, 2021
What with the the muddy streets flowing with rotting food, blood and offal from butchers, toxic water along with typhus, plague, typhoid, cholera and a host of other epidemics awaiting their chance to devastate the third largest city in the world, perhaps a inferno would be a good thing.
Starting in a bakery during the night after the baker had banked the embers - according to his testimony afterwards - as he had always done and yes, he was sure he had done it - the small fire was allowed to grow as people nearby were more concerned with saving their own property than saving their city. The Mayor of the city who would not authorize the pulling down of buildings for the creation of firebreaks. Carts and wagons loaded with personal belongings clogged the narrow streets, preventing any type of firefighting efforts by the militia from getting through.
By the end of the first day (it lasted from September 2 through September 6), Londoners were more concerned with accosting or "punishing" foreigners - or those that looked foreign - rather than save their homes. And then came the accusations. The fire was started by Dutch sympathizers or spies - England was a war with the Dutch at the time. A Popish plot against the English church. Revenge by the Dutch for the burning of a significant portion of their merchant fleet the previous month. The hand of God punishing England and London for their dissolute royal.
After the fire -
*70-80% of the populace of near 100K was homeless
* 80% of the area within the city walls had burned or about 373 acres with an additional 63 acres to the north and west.
*86 churches were damaged and/or destroyed of which 35 would never be rebuilt with their parishioners absorbed by other nearby churches.
*it would take nearly 50 years and £360,000 to replace those chosen for restoration and this at a time when a cook would have an annual salary of £5.
* business losses as well as lost rents, lost public and private buildings were estimated at £9.9 million.
*surprisingly, the death toll - if believed - was less than a dozen but it is likely that some vagrant or paupers that already had nothing and who had no one to speak up for them just disappeared amidst the debris.
Some rather revolutionary ideas regarding the rebuilding of London in order to deal with the rather haphazard expansion that had been occurring previously due to the limitations of the old city walls. The Fire Courts and construction of replacement guildhalls and public buildings. The antics of some landlords who would move the surveyors marks in order to gain additional footage. The widening of the streets. But overall, the people were more concerned with getting a new place to live before winter chill set in which subverted many prospective plans.
Overall, an interesting look at - not only the bumpy road the Stuart royals were dealing with - but the political and economic ramifications when dealing with a major disaster.
2021-216
Starting in a bakery during the night after the baker had banked the embers - according to his testimony afterwards - as he had always done and yes, he was sure he had done it - the small fire was allowed to grow as people nearby were more concerned with saving their own property than saving their city. The Mayor of the city who would not authorize the pulling down of buildings for the creation of firebreaks. Carts and wagons loaded with personal belongings clogged the narrow streets, preventing any type of firefighting efforts by the militia from getting through.
By the end of the first day (it lasted from September 2 through September 6), Londoners were more concerned with accosting or "punishing" foreigners - or those that looked foreign - rather than save their homes. And then came the accusations. The fire was started by Dutch sympathizers or spies - England was a war with the Dutch at the time. A Popish plot against the English church. Revenge by the Dutch for the burning of a significant portion of their merchant fleet the previous month. The hand of God punishing England and London for their dissolute royal.
After the fire -
*70-80% of the populace of near 100K was homeless
* 80% of the area within the city walls had burned or about 373 acres with an additional 63 acres to the north and west.
*86 churches were damaged and/or destroyed of which 35 would never be rebuilt with their parishioners absorbed by other nearby churches.
*it would take nearly 50 years and £360,000 to replace those chosen for restoration and this at a time when a cook would have an annual salary of £5.
* business losses as well as lost rents, lost public and private buildings were estimated at £9.9 million.
*surprisingly, the death toll - if believed - was less than a dozen but it is likely that some vagrant or paupers that already had nothing and who had no one to speak up for them just disappeared amidst the debris.
Some rather revolutionary ideas regarding the rebuilding of London in order to deal with the rather haphazard expansion that had been occurring previously due to the limitations of the old city walls. The Fire Courts and construction of replacement guildhalls and public buildings. The antics of some landlords who would move the surveyors marks in order to gain additional footage. The widening of the streets. But overall, the people were more concerned with getting a new place to live before winter chill set in which subverted many prospective plans.
Overall, an interesting look at - not only the bumpy road the Stuart royals were dealing with - but the political and economic ramifications when dealing with a major disaster.
2021-216
March 28, 2010
This is an excellent piece of history, a gripping hour-by-hour account of the Great Fire of London and its aftermath. The descriptions, many of them taken from diaries of the period, make you feel like you were really there. London was completely trashed -- picture New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, except with fire instead of flood. Yet, surprisingly, there were very few fatalities (perhaps a dozen or less), and London as a whole displayed admirable fortitude in coping with the disaster; it was able to stagger to its feet and begin rebuilding almost immediately.
If I can fault the book I may say that I think it began too slowly. There are forty pages of exposition, describing how London and its people were in 1666, before the Great Fire starts. But it's not a big deal, and I think connoisseurs of popular British history would really enjoy this.
If I can fault the book I may say that I think it began too slowly. There are forty pages of exposition, describing how London and its people were in 1666, before the Great Fire starts. But it's not a big deal, and I think connoisseurs of popular British history would really enjoy this.
October 12, 2023
Fire broke out in Thomas Farriner's bakery on Sunday, September 2, 1666. The fire began to spread rapidly, and Sir Thomas Bloodworth, the mayor, was called in to get permission to demolish adjacent buildings to create a firebreak. Unfortunately, he did not grant permission and should bear some responsibility for the further spread of the fire due to his inaction. By Monday, the fire had threatened to burn across London Bridge. It had also reached the financial district, prompting a frantic dash to rescue coinage before it melted into lumps. By Tuesday, St. Paul's Cathedral was ruined, thanks to wooden scaffolding surrounding it that caught fire. Firebreaks were created around the Tower of London to prevent gunpowder stores from exploding. On Wednesday, firebreaks began being more effective as winds began to die down. It is crazy to think that fires were still burning two and three months after the fact, but there were apparently several cases of coal in basements continuing to burn.
This book discussed firefighting in this time period in addition to the fire, which I was extremely interested in. I grew up in a fire and first responder family, so I always love learning about that type of thing. I would love to visit one of the fire museums here to see some similar equipment from this time period. I appreciated the outlining of coordinated firefighting efforts and how firebreaks were used in trying to control this massive fire.
One thing that I learned while reading this and looking up subsequent photos, was that Samuel Pepys was alive and viewed this fire in real time. I had no idea. Another thing I learned was that this fire developed into a firestorm. I suppose I thought it just went from one building to the next, but it created it's own weather. I also learned that there are monuments and a historical tour you can take if you are in London. If you happen to live in that area, or are planning to visit, this would probably be a really neat thing to check out. As far as this book goes, I bought it for .75 at my local used bookstore, and it was absolutely worth that amount of money. I think this was also on sale on Audible/in the Plus Catalog not too long ago, so if you use Audible, check that out. I thought it was researched very well, and written in an attention keeping way. I am so-so on the accuracy of the death toll. I find it difficult to believe that this fire only killed 10 or less people, for the amount of area that was burned. I find it especially difficult to believe when considering that there were people in tents and shacks in one area of the city. This was also not a typical fire, it was a firestorm. The temperatures were certainly hot enough to cremate bodies. I am just not really believing that death toll, and I can see why it is challenged by historians and those who are experts in fires.
This book discussed firefighting in this time period in addition to the fire, which I was extremely interested in. I grew up in a fire and first responder family, so I always love learning about that type of thing. I would love to visit one of the fire museums here to see some similar equipment from this time period. I appreciated the outlining of coordinated firefighting efforts and how firebreaks were used in trying to control this massive fire.
One thing that I learned while reading this and looking up subsequent photos, was that Samuel Pepys was alive and viewed this fire in real time. I had no idea. Another thing I learned was that this fire developed into a firestorm. I suppose I thought it just went from one building to the next, but it created it's own weather. I also learned that there are monuments and a historical tour you can take if you are in London. If you happen to live in that area, or are planning to visit, this would probably be a really neat thing to check out. As far as this book goes, I bought it for .75 at my local used bookstore, and it was absolutely worth that amount of money. I think this was also on sale on Audible/in the Plus Catalog not too long ago, so if you use Audible, check that out. I thought it was researched very well, and written in an attention keeping way. I am so-so on the accuracy of the death toll. I find it difficult to believe that this fire only killed 10 or less people, for the amount of area that was burned. I find it especially difficult to believe when considering that there were people in tents and shacks in one area of the city. This was also not a typical fire, it was a firestorm. The temperatures were certainly hot enough to cremate bodies. I am just not really believing that death toll, and I can see why it is challenged by historians and those who are experts in fires.
December 2, 2019
"By Permission of Heaven" is described as "spellbinding history." I would certainly say that the book is very interesting and informative, and some of it is indeed fascinating, but much of it is just plain tedious. I learned a few things about Stuart London that I hadn't known before, and what Tinniswood shares with the reader about firefighting technology of the time and the various characters involved, the guilds, the progress of the fire, etc., makes for some enthralling bits and pieces. But some of the chapters are little more than exhaustive summaries of every trivial fact Tinniswood managed to unearth.
As an academic myself, I am all too familiar with the temptation to include in one's publication as much researched information as one can, since finding it comes at such a high price in time and effort. And in an exhaustive scholarly study there might be a place for that--in the footnotes if not in the text itself. But this was not that kind of book. More accurately, it was a book that couldn't make up its mind about what kind of book it really wanted to be. Many of the details Tinniswood chronicles at great length, especially involving all the political wrangling, the land surveys, and other minutia belonging to the fire's aftermath, could easily have been summarized in a single passage or two, and even as a scholarly book it would have been better for it. There are, for instance, entire chapters devoted to chronicling every repetitive testimony from the fire courts and every malicious invented accusation that the author could dig up. For anyone reading the book simply out of interest in the history rather than the scholarship, these chapters are pure punishment. I was also puzzled by the fact that Tinniswood's account of the fire and efforts to fight it are frequently interrupted by distracting digressions and annoying asides that totally destroy the narrative pacing he has (seemingly) so carefully begun to establish. Maybe that tendency is the result of an intentional ploy to distract the reader from the fact that what is reported about the actual fire--the primary if not sole object of most readers' interest--is relatively little compared to the scene-setting, the politics, the religious culture wars of the time, and the fallout from the fire. But more than likely it is the simple result of poor editing. Either way, it hurts the quality of the book in my opinion.
In short, this is an interesting book, and in places very interesting, but one that is interesting primarily because of its subject-matter, not the way that subject is treated.
As an academic myself, I am all too familiar with the temptation to include in one's publication as much researched information as one can, since finding it comes at such a high price in time and effort. And in an exhaustive scholarly study there might be a place for that--in the footnotes if not in the text itself. But this was not that kind of book. More accurately, it was a book that couldn't make up its mind about what kind of book it really wanted to be. Many of the details Tinniswood chronicles at great length, especially involving all the political wrangling, the land surveys, and other minutia belonging to the fire's aftermath, could easily have been summarized in a single passage or two, and even as a scholarly book it would have been better for it. There are, for instance, entire chapters devoted to chronicling every repetitive testimony from the fire courts and every malicious invented accusation that the author could dig up. For anyone reading the book simply out of interest in the history rather than the scholarship, these chapters are pure punishment. I was also puzzled by the fact that Tinniswood's account of the fire and efforts to fight it are frequently interrupted by distracting digressions and annoying asides that totally destroy the narrative pacing he has (seemingly) so carefully begun to establish. Maybe that tendency is the result of an intentional ploy to distract the reader from the fact that what is reported about the actual fire--the primary if not sole object of most readers' interest--is relatively little compared to the scene-setting, the politics, the religious culture wars of the time, and the fallout from the fire. But more than likely it is the simple result of poor editing. Either way, it hurts the quality of the book in my opinion.
In short, this is an interesting book, and in places very interesting, but one that is interesting primarily because of its subject-matter, not the way that subject is treated.
July 28, 2023
How many great fires could a British person name? The fire in Notre Dame Cathedral was remarkable, but hardly a great fire. The same may be said of the many forest fires the world over. The burning of Troy may have been a fiction.
So that perhaps leaves two. There is the burning of Rome during the reign of Nero, sometimes blamed on the Emperor, who probably neither burned Rome nor fiddled (or played the lyre) during its burning. Then there is the Great Fire of London.
There have been plenty of fires in British history, including another great fire in London several hundred years earlier. However this Great Fire occurred at a time of improved record keeping. We know the thoughts of many of the people alive at the time, including the famous diarist Samuel Pepys and a number of poets who wrote about it, the best of them being Dryden.
Adrian Tinniswoode’s book takes us through the journey leading to the Great Fire, and the reconstruction of London. Looking at other Goodreads reviews, Tinniswoode’s account frustrates some readers. He discusses other issues besides the fire, jumps between historical detail and the opinions of contemporaries, and dedicates a good deal of time to other matters, including the reconstruction of London.
Indeed the fire itself only occupies five of the book’s 14 chapters, and around 80 of the book’s 276 pages (excluding appendices and indexes). Personally I have no problem with that, and I find the other details of the book equally interesting. I even enjoyed reading about the different intended designs for rebuilding London.
There is certainly variety here. Tinniswoode takes us through various gloomy predictions before the event, largely based on the fact that the year contains the numbers 666. Much of this was connected with anti-Catholic and anti-Dutch furore, a running theme in the book. Rather amusingly, Tinniswoode later points to the many astrologers who utterly failed to predict the catastrophe, but who continued to brazen it out after the event.
Connected with the anti-Catholic and xenophobic moralising before the event is the series of conspiracies – actual conspiracies against the king. Charles II had been recently restored to the throne, but many people felt that they would rather have maintained the Republic. There were a few ineffectual attempts to replace the king, and he was by no means too popular among Londoners at the time.
Part of this was based on fear that the king was secretly sympathetic to Catholicism. These fears were justified. Charles would indeed have a deathbed conversion, assuming he had not been a closet Catholic all along. His brother James Duke of York would come out openly as a Catholic in future years, and lose his throne for that reason.
Such was the background when an accident in a baker’s shop in Pudding Lane ignited the fire. How it happened is unclear. Many later accounts suggested conspiracy. The Dutch with whom Britain were at war) were implicated, as were Catholics. Jews were presumably out of fashion as an enemy at this time, even though they were only allowed back in the country in 1656 after being expelled for centuries. Maybe numbers were still small.
One of the uglier aspects of the Great Fire was that anyone with a foreign accent was at risk of being assaulted by xenophobic Londoners as a possible culprit. Thankfully none of them were killed. Rigid non-Conformists suggested Catholics either caused it directly or indirectly, through God’s anger.
How did a fire in a baker incinerate so much of London that the city was levelled, and people could see from one end to the other? Firstly many buildings were made of wood. Secondly streets were narrow. Both of these issues would be addressed in the reconstruction of the city.
The third and most important reason was incompetence. The Mayor owed his position to his loyalty to the King rather than ability. He decided that a woman could ‘piss out’ the flames, and went to bed. He refused, perhaps more understandably, to level buildings for fear of offending powerful property owners.
Those buildings would soon be destroyed anyway, and many more would be levelled once the King and his brother James took over the operation against the fire. It is curious that James, not exactly renowned as one of Britain’s most intelligent or sensible kings, proved to be a great leader in this emergency.
James’ actions helped to limit the spread of the fire, and eventually halt it in its tracks. Both he and his brother put their own lives at risk in protection of their subjects. He gained little gratitude for it. His Catholicism ensured that many disliked him, and even led to conspiracy theories that he had been escorting Catholics to safety. At least he was not blamed for the fire.
Tinniswood describes the details of London streets and landmarks going up in flames. Most poignantly, St Paul’s Cathedral was among the casualties. Yet surprisingly few people died, though I suspect rather more than the official figures suggest. There may also have been deaths among Londoners forced out of the town and barely subsisting on food until aid could be found for them.
This may have been because there were still plenty of escape routes for local people to move away, and because the fire moved slowly across the city. Firefighting efforts were also surprisingly good for the age, and none of the firefighters lost their lives.
Since a fire that lasted only a few days, however devastating, cannot be enough to fill a book, Tinniswood deals in the aftermath at length. Locals pointed the finger at numerous culprits, and one man confessed and was hanged, even though he clearly had mental health problems.
He was not the only one. Information is scant, but Tinniswood points to Londoners who were haunted by the disaster, and had bad dreams about it. Just think how much more of this there must have been. Poets wrote extensively about the events, often in a moralistic and clichéd manner. A plaque was put up, but deplorably the plaque pandered to anti-Catholic conspiracies about the Fire.
Still the event did not always bring out the worst in people. It was not all looting, theft, profiteering and bigotry, but there was plenty of that too. There were attempts to provide relief to London, though Plague across the country had limited the amount available. Judges made a sincere attempt to be partial in disputes between landlords and tenants.
Then there was the reconstruction. Numerous grid-like patterns were drawn up for how London should look. The exception was Christopher Wren’s dazzling design with piazzas and radial patterns. It looks wonderful on paper, but Tinniswood points out that many later historians have now decided that the model was Utopian, and not the lost opportunity that was often imagined.
Still London was adequately rebuilt, and Wren got to build St Paul’s Cathedral, albeit with many compromises and reductions of scale. It would be many years before London was fully restored however.
Tinniswood provide an exciting and absorbing account of one of England’s most remarkable disasters. However his work is also scholarly and not sensationalist. He keeps to the facts as he knows them, and does not spoil the book by paying attention to the more absurd conspiracies, or by offering up some of his own.
So that perhaps leaves two. There is the burning of Rome during the reign of Nero, sometimes blamed on the Emperor, who probably neither burned Rome nor fiddled (or played the lyre) during its burning. Then there is the Great Fire of London.
There have been plenty of fires in British history, including another great fire in London several hundred years earlier. However this Great Fire occurred at a time of improved record keeping. We know the thoughts of many of the people alive at the time, including the famous diarist Samuel Pepys and a number of poets who wrote about it, the best of them being Dryden.
Adrian Tinniswoode’s book takes us through the journey leading to the Great Fire, and the reconstruction of London. Looking at other Goodreads reviews, Tinniswoode’s account frustrates some readers. He discusses other issues besides the fire, jumps between historical detail and the opinions of contemporaries, and dedicates a good deal of time to other matters, including the reconstruction of London.
Indeed the fire itself only occupies five of the book’s 14 chapters, and around 80 of the book’s 276 pages (excluding appendices and indexes). Personally I have no problem with that, and I find the other details of the book equally interesting. I even enjoyed reading about the different intended designs for rebuilding London.
There is certainly variety here. Tinniswoode takes us through various gloomy predictions before the event, largely based on the fact that the year contains the numbers 666. Much of this was connected with anti-Catholic and anti-Dutch furore, a running theme in the book. Rather amusingly, Tinniswoode later points to the many astrologers who utterly failed to predict the catastrophe, but who continued to brazen it out after the event.
Connected with the anti-Catholic and xenophobic moralising before the event is the series of conspiracies – actual conspiracies against the king. Charles II had been recently restored to the throne, but many people felt that they would rather have maintained the Republic. There were a few ineffectual attempts to replace the king, and he was by no means too popular among Londoners at the time.
Part of this was based on fear that the king was secretly sympathetic to Catholicism. These fears were justified. Charles would indeed have a deathbed conversion, assuming he had not been a closet Catholic all along. His brother James Duke of York would come out openly as a Catholic in future years, and lose his throne for that reason.
Such was the background when an accident in a baker’s shop in Pudding Lane ignited the fire. How it happened is unclear. Many later accounts suggested conspiracy. The Dutch with whom Britain were at war) were implicated, as were Catholics. Jews were presumably out of fashion as an enemy at this time, even though they were only allowed back in the country in 1656 after being expelled for centuries. Maybe numbers were still small.
One of the uglier aspects of the Great Fire was that anyone with a foreign accent was at risk of being assaulted by xenophobic Londoners as a possible culprit. Thankfully none of them were killed. Rigid non-Conformists suggested Catholics either caused it directly or indirectly, through God’s anger.
How did a fire in a baker incinerate so much of London that the city was levelled, and people could see from one end to the other? Firstly many buildings were made of wood. Secondly streets were narrow. Both of these issues would be addressed in the reconstruction of the city.
The third and most important reason was incompetence. The Mayor owed his position to his loyalty to the King rather than ability. He decided that a woman could ‘piss out’ the flames, and went to bed. He refused, perhaps more understandably, to level buildings for fear of offending powerful property owners.
Those buildings would soon be destroyed anyway, and many more would be levelled once the King and his brother James took over the operation against the fire. It is curious that James, not exactly renowned as one of Britain’s most intelligent or sensible kings, proved to be a great leader in this emergency.
James’ actions helped to limit the spread of the fire, and eventually halt it in its tracks. Both he and his brother put their own lives at risk in protection of their subjects. He gained little gratitude for it. His Catholicism ensured that many disliked him, and even led to conspiracy theories that he had been escorting Catholics to safety. At least he was not blamed for the fire.
Tinniswood describes the details of London streets and landmarks going up in flames. Most poignantly, St Paul’s Cathedral was among the casualties. Yet surprisingly few people died, though I suspect rather more than the official figures suggest. There may also have been deaths among Londoners forced out of the town and barely subsisting on food until aid could be found for them.
This may have been because there were still plenty of escape routes for local people to move away, and because the fire moved slowly across the city. Firefighting efforts were also surprisingly good for the age, and none of the firefighters lost their lives.
Since a fire that lasted only a few days, however devastating, cannot be enough to fill a book, Tinniswood deals in the aftermath at length. Locals pointed the finger at numerous culprits, and one man confessed and was hanged, even though he clearly had mental health problems.
He was not the only one. Information is scant, but Tinniswood points to Londoners who were haunted by the disaster, and had bad dreams about it. Just think how much more of this there must have been. Poets wrote extensively about the events, often in a moralistic and clichéd manner. A plaque was put up, but deplorably the plaque pandered to anti-Catholic conspiracies about the Fire.
Still the event did not always bring out the worst in people. It was not all looting, theft, profiteering and bigotry, but there was plenty of that too. There were attempts to provide relief to London, though Plague across the country had limited the amount available. Judges made a sincere attempt to be partial in disputes between landlords and tenants.
Then there was the reconstruction. Numerous grid-like patterns were drawn up for how London should look. The exception was Christopher Wren’s dazzling design with piazzas and radial patterns. It looks wonderful on paper, but Tinniswood points out that many later historians have now decided that the model was Utopian, and not the lost opportunity that was often imagined.
Still London was adequately rebuilt, and Wren got to build St Paul’s Cathedral, albeit with many compromises and reductions of scale. It would be many years before London was fully restored however.
Tinniswood provide an exciting and absorbing account of one of England’s most remarkable disasters. However his work is also scholarly and not sensationalist. He keeps to the facts as he knows them, and does not spoil the book by paying attention to the more absurd conspiracies, or by offering up some of his own.
April 3, 2016
A rattling good read. This is the story of the period leading up to London's Great Fire, the terrifying and confused days of the fire itself, and then the aftermath. Tinniswood has pieced together the human, political and economic consequences of this cataclysm in a measured, yet gripping fashion, recreating the period in telling detail. Who knew, for instance, that the clothworkers of Coventry would suffer so from the consequences of the fire? They'd just send down a £2000 consignment of cloth to London for export .... and it was consumed by the flames. Or that foreigners would come under the kind of suspicion and mistrust that asylum seekers here can feel in our own times? This is an evocative, gripping account.
November 30, 2021
This history highlights the simultaneous devastating large-scale crises which existed in 1666 London: England was afraid of invasion by Dutch fleet just off the coast; Londoners were fearful of foreigners (French and Dutch). Protestant King whose brother (and successor to the throne) was Catholic, and anti-papist sentiment ran high. The populace had just survived the Great Plague of 1665 (possibly 100,000 perished in London alone), immediately followed by the Great Fire of 1666 (which raged for 4 days) which destroyed most of London. The wrath of God, an accident, or the work of enemy foreigners firing the city? Conspiracy theories abounded that the fire was deliberately set either by papists or foreigners. Fascinating details.
January 10, 2010
In depth account of the Great Fire of London with a lot of detailed context and personalities. Sets the scene of the conflagration very well, England essentially (as we always have really) warring with the rest of Europe - notably the Dutch and French at this time.
There is a lot to learn about this fascinating period of English history and this book puts the fire in context. As a result there is a lot to read and the historical events are woven into the story of the fire that lasted several days.
Easy to read though so you don't need prior historocal knowledge to get a lot out of it.
There is a lot to learn about this fascinating period of English history and this book puts the fire in context. As a result there is a lot to read and the historical events are woven into the story of the fire that lasted several days.
Easy to read though so you don't need prior historocal knowledge to get a lot out of it.
October 5, 2022
How to turn a disaster into an opportunity to re-plan the heart of a capital city. Or not. Seldom have such a combination of unfortunate circumstances been at the heart of a rebirth so great, and so many people's efforts or mistakes been the source of possibilities missed and used.
Worth a read if you've ever wandered the streets of London and wondered why they are how they are today.
Worth a read if you've ever wandered the streets of London and wondered why they are how they are today.
June 14, 2020
Too often author Adrian Tinniswood adds too many tangential details to his narrative of the 1666 Great Fire of London. His book, By Permission of Heaven, is interesting but he included plenty of unnecessary information such as who was buried at churches that burned and why that person was famous. For example, “It was up to the men at the Temple Bar fire post to prevent the fire from breaking through and moving up the Strand to the gates of Whitehall itself. They were supervised by Lord Belayse, the absentee governor of Tangier and one of the Duke’s most trusted friends; by Hugh May, the paymaster of the kings works, who was currently acting up as surveyor-general during Sir John Denham’s bout of madness;...”
It’s like Tinniswood wanted to show us readers how much he knew about 17th-century London overall rather than limit himself to the fire. He clearly researched the hell out of this incident and its context, but proof of his research would not be diminished by omitting the Austen-esque details of London society.
Chapter 12 was a great surprise because it considered literature of loss: the poems and stories Londoners wrote to make sense of their feelings after the fire. It reminded me of a research project my friend Adam and I did about poetry written about abolitionist John Brown. Unfortunately, Tinniswood interrupted that insightful chapter after only a few pages to continue his detailed narrative of plans for rebuilding London.
I appreciated the author’s emphasis on Londoners’ concern with portents of disaster and understanding of the 1666 fire as God’s punishment. Even after a man claimed responsibility for igniting the fire as an act of war/terror, government officials were reluctant to shift collective blame for weak faith onto a single individual. After 1666, the fire became a tool for justifying anti-Catholicism depending on the religious choices and popularity of who sat on the throne.
Although I was disappointed with this book overall, it does contain some good information and interpretation. I don’t recommend it, but I am keeping it in my collection of books about fires.
It’s like Tinniswood wanted to show us readers how much he knew about 17th-century London overall rather than limit himself to the fire. He clearly researched the hell out of this incident and its context, but proof of his research would not be diminished by omitting the Austen-esque details of London society.
Chapter 12 was a great surprise because it considered literature of loss: the poems and stories Londoners wrote to make sense of their feelings after the fire. It reminded me of a research project my friend Adam and I did about poetry written about abolitionist John Brown. Unfortunately, Tinniswood interrupted that insightful chapter after only a few pages to continue his detailed narrative of plans for rebuilding London.
I appreciated the author’s emphasis on Londoners’ concern with portents of disaster and understanding of the 1666 fire as God’s punishment. Even after a man claimed responsibility for igniting the fire as an act of war/terror, government officials were reluctant to shift collective blame for weak faith onto a single individual. After 1666, the fire became a tool for justifying anti-Catholicism depending on the religious choices and popularity of who sat on the throne.
Although I was disappointed with this book overall, it does contain some good information and interpretation. I don’t recommend it, but I am keeping it in my collection of books about fires.
January 22, 2018
To say this is exhaustive is an understatement. I feel like I know everything there is to know about every brick and scorched and scruffy Londoner. I found it detracted from the overall narrative unfortunately and it felt like a slog, despite it being about a massive fire. Maybe I'm just thick and need my history span around a pretty narrative.
January 23, 2025
Detailed account of fire and aftereffects. Great information on why it was assumed the Dutch started the fire, and why years later, popular belief was Catholics were to blame. Numerous footnoted incidents included, may not be the most compelling book for the casual reader. I did enjoy the inclusion of so much about Samuel Pepys.
March 9, 2023
Really gripped by history and the moment and there are so many possibilities with the story of the great fire of London and how and why it possibly happened, and I love the detailed pages of sources of information at the back of the book
May 12, 2024
Good read about the London fire of 1666. The chapters about the fire itself and the attempts to fight it were the most interesting. The chapters about the aftereffects and rebuilding efforts got a little long.
June 13, 2020
This was a little boring. It spent too much time on the politics of reconstruction, which doesn’t really interest me.
December 7, 2020
Fantastic, comprehensive read on the fire, before and after, as well as all the important people involved. Great maps to show the growth and direction of the destructive flames.
December 25, 2022
Excellent easy to read history with many similarities to the modern world.
February 28, 2024
Interesting story, fairly well told.
December 30, 2024
Interesting but boring.
June 8, 2025
This is a good book, well researched. I don't know why I didn't get into and do a fast read, but it lagged in the last two chapters or so. Still worth a read!
September 13, 2025
random find at a used book store. very well-researched and thorough, stopped reading when we got to the discussion of city planning after the fire because i just do not need to know that much.
November 2, 2019
A solid history of the 1666 fire, but also the surrounding context and immediate repercussions. I especially appreciated how the author illustrated the role of racism and religious conflict in the reaction to the fire - goes to show how history continues to repeat itself.
September 2, 2016
The story of the Great Fire of London is much more complicated that I originally supposed. I did not realize that England was at war with the Dutch even as the fire started, and this hostility amplified an event already chaotic to the average Londoner. I also didn’t know that the country was in the grip of an extraordinary gale which blew for days and was probably the prime reason the flames spread so relentlessly. What looks to us like a horrific natural disaster was taken in a different context by many contemporaries, whose paranoia increased as the fire spread. People were imagining arsonists throwing fireballs into windows, and foreigners were suddenly set upon by vengeful townspeople. Immigrants of Dutch and French descent were particular targets, and even the Duke of York made it his business to shield high-status refugees in his palace until the craze died off (and he was later reproached for this suspicious behavior).
Author Adrian Tinniswood gives us a day-by day description of the terrible week surrounding the fire. It was interesting to see the map at the beginning of every chapter showing how far the fire spread by each morning. We get an excellent description of the confusion and frustration, and it was easy to see how things got out of hand. People moved their belongings once, twice, even more. Nothing was safe, even the crypt below St. Pauls, as printers, stationers, and booksellers were to discover, much to their chagrin. People were so busy taking care of their own stuff, most couldn’t spare the time to fight the fire. And why bother, anyway? There seemed to be no stopping it. Pulling down buildings to create a fire stop was the main technique for fighting fires, and it only took one or two sparks (driven by the gale) to jump to the next building and create a new inferno. Soon the thieves stepped in and looted undefended property, adding insult to proverbial injury.
Once the gale stopped, the fire slowed. Halfway through the book, we see how the government tried to get things moving immediately. Plans for rebuilding the city were not lacking, though the will to make huge changes was fraught with conflicts of interest. Just surveying the thousands of vacant lots was an enormous task; added to that was compensation to be paid for widening the roads. Additionally, I was surprised to learn that tenants were responsible for rebuilding, not the landlord—unless the fire was an act of war, which helped explain why so much effort was spent in finding the alleged terrorists. The majority of Londoners were leasehold tenants, so rebuilding was a major issue. “While you were still reeling from the loss of your home, your business, quite possibly your stock and your personal possessions, you realized that even though you had no means of earning a living, you still owed your quarterly rent; and your landlord could still take you to law and force you to rebuild your house.” The King set up courts to find a compromise between tenants and landlords; many decisions gave the tenant a break on the rent or extended the lease to help relieve the stress: “if landlords couldn’t be persuaded to contribute to the rebuilding, and tenants couldn’t afford to do it themselves, then just how was London supposed to rise from the ashes?” This is so unfathomable to the 21st century reader, used to relying on insurance and government aid. How these people recovered from such a disaster is difficult to comprehend.
There was much to absorb regarding the great Fire of London and this book packed in a lot of information while still moving along very well. My only quibble is that so much emphasis was given to things that didn’t happen (plans to rebuild that were rejected, architects and civil planners who went by the wayside) that by the end I was quite confused as to what exactly did happen! But I learned a lot about this event and in the future I will look at London with much more respect.
Author Adrian Tinniswood gives us a day-by day description of the terrible week surrounding the fire. It was interesting to see the map at the beginning of every chapter showing how far the fire spread by each morning. We get an excellent description of the confusion and frustration, and it was easy to see how things got out of hand. People moved their belongings once, twice, even more. Nothing was safe, even the crypt below St. Pauls, as printers, stationers, and booksellers were to discover, much to their chagrin. People were so busy taking care of their own stuff, most couldn’t spare the time to fight the fire. And why bother, anyway? There seemed to be no stopping it. Pulling down buildings to create a fire stop was the main technique for fighting fires, and it only took one or two sparks (driven by the gale) to jump to the next building and create a new inferno. Soon the thieves stepped in and looted undefended property, adding insult to proverbial injury.
Once the gale stopped, the fire slowed. Halfway through the book, we see how the government tried to get things moving immediately. Plans for rebuilding the city were not lacking, though the will to make huge changes was fraught with conflicts of interest. Just surveying the thousands of vacant lots was an enormous task; added to that was compensation to be paid for widening the roads. Additionally, I was surprised to learn that tenants were responsible for rebuilding, not the landlord—unless the fire was an act of war, which helped explain why so much effort was spent in finding the alleged terrorists. The majority of Londoners were leasehold tenants, so rebuilding was a major issue. “While you were still reeling from the loss of your home, your business, quite possibly your stock and your personal possessions, you realized that even though you had no means of earning a living, you still owed your quarterly rent; and your landlord could still take you to law and force you to rebuild your house.” The King set up courts to find a compromise between tenants and landlords; many decisions gave the tenant a break on the rent or extended the lease to help relieve the stress: “if landlords couldn’t be persuaded to contribute to the rebuilding, and tenants couldn’t afford to do it themselves, then just how was London supposed to rise from the ashes?” This is so unfathomable to the 21st century reader, used to relying on insurance and government aid. How these people recovered from such a disaster is difficult to comprehend.
There was much to absorb regarding the great Fire of London and this book packed in a lot of information while still moving along very well. My only quibble is that so much emphasis was given to things that didn’t happen (plans to rebuild that were rejected, architects and civil planners who went by the wayside) that by the end I was quite confused as to what exactly did happen! But I learned a lot about this event and in the future I will look at London with much more respect.
September 1, 2016
An enjoyable, readable and informative story of the Great Fire of London of September 1666 (350 years ago as I write).
It includes a brief introduction to the historical background (a serious outburst of plague in 1665 and war with the Dutch), which helps put the fire in context, and also several chapters about the aftermath, not just in terms of the rebuilding, but also political and cultural responses, with brief comment about key characters.
Although written for the general reader with the brief historical background noted above, some familiarity with the general British history of the period will increase enjoyment and understanding. Having read Peter Ackroyd's Civil War last year, I was able to place some of the political/social implications quickly, which might otherwise be missed (or prove distracting).
Tinniswood leavens his historical narrative with plenty of interesting facts, such as ‘Pudding’ is a medieval word for entrails or bowels (the fire started in Pudding Lane) and touches of humour:
It is hard for a society which greets every winter with hysterical headlines about ‘killer flu epidemics’ to understand the effects of the plague. and
Sir Thomas took refuge in bluster. The fire wasn’t all that serious, he said. ‘A woman could piss it out.’ And with that he went home to bed and a place in the history books.
There are also plenty of appropriate extracts from eyewitness accounts, not just from the justly famous Evelyn and Pepys, but also lesser known individuals.
I was lucky enough to be able to visit the exhibition on the Great Fire at the Museum of London and although there is inevitably overlap between the detailed book and the brief exhibition information boards, it was wonderful to see what fire engines and “squirts” used in the fire might have looked like.
It includes a brief introduction to the historical background (a serious outburst of plague in 1665 and war with the Dutch), which helps put the fire in context, and also several chapters about the aftermath, not just in terms of the rebuilding, but also political and cultural responses, with brief comment about key characters.
Although written for the general reader with the brief historical background noted above, some familiarity with the general British history of the period will increase enjoyment and understanding. Having read Peter Ackroyd's Civil War last year, I was able to place some of the political/social implications quickly, which might otherwise be missed (or prove distracting).
Tinniswood leavens his historical narrative with plenty of interesting facts, such as ‘Pudding’ is a medieval word for entrails or bowels (the fire started in Pudding Lane) and touches of humour:
It is hard for a society which greets every winter with hysterical headlines about ‘killer flu epidemics’ to understand the effects of the plague. and
Sir Thomas took refuge in bluster. The fire wasn’t all that serious, he said. ‘A woman could piss it out.’ And with that he went home to bed and a place in the history books.
There are also plenty of appropriate extracts from eyewitness accounts, not just from the justly famous Evelyn and Pepys, but also lesser known individuals.
I was lucky enough to be able to visit the exhibition on the Great Fire at the Museum of London and although there is inevitably overlap between the detailed book and the brief exhibition information boards, it was wonderful to see what fire engines and “squirts” used in the fire might have looked like.
April 18, 2008
Scholarly but readable; author includes amazing information about the fire, its context, and its aftermath. I can now recognize the thinking of the time which said that there MUST have been involvement from the Dutch and French. The history I used to teach has come alive while I have been reading this book.
August 2, 2018
This book was my introduction to Adrian Tinniswood's work. If you could go back in time and experience the fire for yourself you would not have a better insight into the devastation. We are given experiences and vantage points from all walks of life, from kings to common people, as well as the attitudes and prejudices that fed the fire as surely as the wooden buildings.
April 23, 2009
Well-researched, wonderfully readable, Tinniswood's prose really brings the Great Fire of London to life. Highly recommended.
Currently reading
January 13, 2011Interesting read especially for someone interested in the history of London
Displaying 1 - 30 of 36 reviews