H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviewsVolume9,No.9(2019)https://networks.h-net.org/h-environment

Publicationdate:Nov1,2019RoundtableReviewEditor:ChristopherF.Jones

WilliamM.Cavert,TheSmokeofLondon:EnergyandEnvironmentintheEarlyModernCity(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2016).ISBN:9781107073005.ContentsIntroductionbyChristopherF.Jones,ArizonaStateUniversity 2CommentsbyPaulWarde,UniversityofCambridge 4CommentsbyLeonaSkelton,NorthumbriaUniversity 9CommentsbyPeterThorsheim,UNCCharlotte 15ResponsebyWilliamM.Cavert,UniversityofSt.Thomas 20 AbouttheContributors 26Copyright©2019H-Net:HumanitiesandSocialSciencesOnlineH-Netpermitstheredistributionandreprintingofthisworkfornonprofit,educationalpurposes,withfullandaccurateattributiontotheauthor,weblocation,dateofpublication,H-Environment,andH-Net:Humanities&SocialSciencesOnline.

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.9(2019) 2

IntroductionbyChristopherF.Jones,ArizonaStateUniversitytisastoryfamiliarinenvironmentalhistory.Pollutingindustries.Dirtysmoke.Unhappycitizens.Petitionsforchange.Limitedresults.Butlookcloser,andyourealizethatWilliamCavert’saccountisfarlessexpected.Forthishistoryisnotsetinthemidstoftheheavyindustrializationofthe19thand20thcenturies;itis

ahistorybeginninghundredsofyearsearlier.TheSmokeofLondontransportsustoBritain’sprimarymetropolefromthelate1500stothe1700s,whensmokefromhomes,breweries,andotherindustriesbegantodrawtheireofprominentresidents.Fossilfuelpollution,hedemonstrates,longpredatesthecontemporaryage.Indoingso,Cavertoffersaworkthatdeservesattentionfromenvironmentalhistoriansregardlessofthetimesandplacestheystudy.Asthebookandtheroundtableparticipantsargue,thefieldofenvironmentalhistoryhasbeenbiasedtowardthelasttwocenturies,withquestionsofindustrialpollutionandthepreservationofwildernessdrawingdisproportionateattention.Yeteveniftheenvironmentwasnotacategoryofanalysisusedintheearlymodernperiodandthescaleofenvironmentalchangebeforetheindustrialrevolutionwassmaller,thisdoesnotmeantherearenotimportantstoriestotelloftherelationshipsbetweenhumansocietiesandtheworldstheylivein.Engagingwithsuchnarrativescanonlymakeourfieldricher,andCavertoffersacompellingexampleofhowtodoso.Miningawiderangeofarchivalsources,hedocumentsoppositiontocoalsmokeinLondonandthesocial,legal,andculturalresponsestothisgrowingproblem.ThoughLondonersneverfullytamedthenoxiousfumesreleasedbyburningcoalinhomesandbusinesses,theydidfilelawsuits,adjudicatecases,debatehealtheffects,andremakeurbanlivingpatternsasaresult.Atthesametime,itwouldbeunfairtopigeonholeTheSmokeofLondonassolelyaworkofenvironmentalhistory.Inadditiontodeeparchivalevidenceandcompellingwriting,thebookintegratesseveralhistoricalsubfields,includingurban,economic,political,andlegalhistory.Cavert’ssuccessinaccomplishingthesegoalsisillustratedinthewiderangeofawardsthebookhaswon:the2017TurkuPrizefromtheEuropeanSocietyforEnvironmentalHistoryandtheRachelCarsonCenteristheonemostreadersofthisserieslikelyknow.ButhiscolleaguesinBritishhistoryhavealsorecognizeditsmerits,awardinghimthe2017WhitfieldPrizefromtheRoyalHistoricalSocietyandthe2017JohnBenSnowPrizefromtheNorthAmericanConferenceonBritishStudies.Befittingthestrengthofthebook,thisroundtablehasacomparablyaccomplishedsetofcommentators.PaulWardeopenstheroundtable,praisingCavertforpushingthefieldofenvironmentalhistorybeyondquestionsofindustrialmodernityandwildernessandintotheconcernsofotherperiods,whileaskingmoreabouthisapproachtocoalandhisideasonperiodization.LeonaSkeltonreiteratesthevalueofconnectingenvironmentalhistorytotheearlymodernperiodandthepotentialto

I

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.9(2019) 3

rethinkstandardchronologies;inaddition,shequerieshowwemightbetterunderstandhowactorsthoughtabouttherelationshipsbetweenthehumanandnaturalworldsatthistime.Inhisremarks,PeterThorsheimwondersaboutwhetheranenvironmentalframingofthenarrativedetractsfromitsmanycontributionstopolitical,urban,andeconomichistoryandencouragesmoreattentiontocomparativeanalysis.Cavertconcludestheroundtablewithagenerousauthorresponse,aimedatthinkingthroughthechallengesandopportunitiesofstudyingtheenvironmentintheearlymodernperiod.Beforeturningtothefirstsetofcomments,Iwouldliketopausehereandthankalltheroundtableparticipantsfortakingpart.Andforourreaders,pleaserememberthatasanopen-accessforum,H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviewsisavailabletoscholarsandnon-scholarsalike,aroundtheworld,freeofcharge.Pleasecirculate.

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.9(2019) 4

CommentsbyPaulWarde,UniversityofCambridgeilliamCavert’sThesmokeofLondontransportsfamiliarthemes—notjustpollution,butLondon’ssmokeitselfasafamiliarculturaltrope—intowhatformostenvironmentalhistoriansisunfamiliarterritory:earlymodernhistory.Inthishefacesadoublechallenge.First,inaddressinghistorians

whohabituallyframenarrativesaboutenvironmentalchangeinrelationtoindustrialmodernity.Second,inspeakingtoearlymodernists,whohavehadlittleenvironmentalhistorytogoonatall,andwherethatwhichexistsisoftenframedintermsofthehistoryofmedicine.Inperformingboththesetaskshegivesuspausetoreflectonwhatmightbemeantbythatnotionof‘modernity.’AcleartargetforCavertisthusthatenvironmentalhistoryshouldbeprimarilyasetofnarrativesabout,andresponsesto,‘modernindustrialcapitalism’(usuallyportrayedasvillain)(p.6).Neitherdoeshisworkfitwithanestablishedpreoccupationwith‘wilderness’,orindeedthelargelyagrarianinterestofmuchofearlymoderneconomicandenvironmentalhistorywhereissuessuchasforestryanddrainagehavebeenprominent(p.10).Cavertishimselfpartofagenerationofscholarsthatismakingthedominanceofsuchthemeslookdated,andeveninthetimesincethepublicationoftheSmokeofLondonthesebattlesappearlesssalientasthefieldwidens.Europeanmedievalistsandearlymodernists,whohaveengagedwithsomeofthethemesofthebookwithoutknowledgeofenvironmentalhistoryatall,mayseethishistoriographicalsegueisofratherlessimportance(andlookingratherAmericaninitsconcerns).Thisreflects,however,avirtueofenvironmentalhistory;ithasnotyetasafieldbecomenarroweddownintoregionalliteratures.Assuch,thisbookusefullyspeakstomanyaudiences.EarlymodernLondonwasnotanindustrialsocietyinthesensefamiliartoday,withfactories,steamenginesrunningbeltedmachines,railwaysandtheonwardmarchofpercapitaincome(or‘moderngrowth’)juxtaposedwiththeresultantcasualtiesanddamages.EarlymodernEnglandwas,however,markedlyindustrialina‘pre-industrial’context,inthesensethatmanufacturingemploymentwasverywidespread,andcommerceandthemarketasaformoforganisationwereunquestionablycomingtodominance.Manufacturingwasnothoweververyenergyintensive.ButLondonwasacoal-firedcity;itwasatleastaslargeasanyotherinEuropebythesecondhalfoftheseventeenthcentury,anditsgrowthatthistimewasunparalleled.Smokecharacterisedthecityforresidentsandvisitorsalike;alsothecoughsandcatarrhsthatcamewithit.Cavertdeclaresthat,‘TheprocessbywhichsmokyaircametobeafundamentalpartoftheimageandexperienceofLondonlifeisthesubjectofthisbook’(p.xvi).Infact,thebook’srealstrengthseemstometolieinitsmultifacetedunderstandingofthepoliticsofcoal,andthewealthofsourcesbroughttothattheme.Thereislessnoveltyintheexaminationofcoalasasourceofeconomic‘goods’and‘bads’,orpreciselyhowitbecamesoprevalent.Cavertprovidesawell-executedsummary

W

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.9(2019) 5

accountofLondon’sshifttowardscoaluseandawayfromfirewood,especiallybetweenaround1570and1650,astorypreviouslytoldbyJohnNefandJohnHatcher,amongothers.Themicro-economicsoffuelchoiceandthedevelopmentoftheinfrastructureofsupplyremainssomethingofablackbox,asitisacrossearlymodernEnglandatthistime;Idon’tdoubtthatifitwaseasytotraceinLondon’ssources,Cavertwouldhavebeenontoit.Tantalisinglyapaperonthepoliticsoffuelpricesispromisedinthefootnotes,andonewonderswhythiscrucialbutmethodologicallytrickysubjectisnotaddressedhead-onhere.Caverthaspublishedveryusefulestimatesofmajorindustrialconsumptionelsewhere.1Hisaimistotreatcoallessas‘aneconomicfactorofproduction’asa‘thing…essentialtotheemergenceofascertainkindofsociety’(p.31).Iamnotquitesurewhatthisdistinctionis,andwouldwelcomesomeelaboration.Certainly,treatingsomethingasafactorofproductionisacertainkindofdiscourse.Butwhatdoesitmeantoexaminesomethingasa‘thing’?Inunderstandingwhycoalbecamesopervasiveineverysense,thevalueoftheservicesitprovided,andthecostsbothrequiredandsaved(intermsoffurnishinghearthsorfurnaces,inhouseholdlabourandtransport,andsoon)aresurelyessentialtounderstanding.Achapteronthetransitiontocoalisfollowedbyconsiderationofthescaleandintensityofpollution,inevitablydifficulttomeasureeveninlateragesofmonitoringstationsandagreedtechnicalstandards.Londonwasnotyetintheageof‘smogs’,anditstillremainsdifficulttoquantifythebenefitsandcostsofthefuelforthecity.Thebookreallycomesintoitsownasitmovestotheproblematisationandpoliticisationofsmokeintheseventeenthcentury;how‘smoke’asanissuebecamefixedonparticularemitterandsufferers–thebodilyexperienceofroyalty,soimportanttothepoliticsoftherealmandcapital;St.Paul’scathedral;andtheboilersofLondon’sbrewers.Cavertpresentsanexemplarycaseofthecentralityofpersonalanddiscretionarypowerinearlymoderngovernance,asfleetingmomentsofroyalattentiontoperceivedproblemsbroughtcourtiersandcouncillorsrunning,andhardontheirheelswiththeprospectsofgrantsofpatentsandmonopoliesfornewtechnologies,aqueueofchancerswithsolutions.Thepoliticsofsmokecertainlyhastobeinterpretedinthecontextofaworldofgung-hoprofiteersandaspirationsforimprovement,ratherthanas‘environmentalism’avantlemot.WhatseemsmoststrikinghoweveraboutCharlesI’sinterestinsmokeandattemptsatregulationofbrewersisitsabjectfailureandweaklegalbasis.ThecommonlawsetstronglimitstostateauthorityandpossibilitiesforactionevenforthemostabsolutistofEnglishmonarchs(anissuethatplaysanimportantroleinanotherearlymodernenvironmentalhistory,EricAsh’sDrainingoftheFens2).However,Cavertalsodemonstratesimportantlythatconcernsabout‘pollution’werenotjustmattersofroyaldecorum,butneighbourlinessandnuisance,

1WilliamM.Cavert,‘IndustrialcoalconsumptioninearlymodernLondon’,UrbanHistory,44/3(2017),424-443.2EricH.Ash,ThedrainingoftheFens.Projectors,popularpoliticsandstatebuildinginearlymodernEngland(Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,2017).

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.9(2019) 6

arbitratedinthecommonlawtraditionthroughlocalinstitutions.Infact,smokedisputeswerequiterare;asinlatercenturies,Londonersseemtohavebeenremarkablyacceptingoftheirpeers’fuelchoicesandtheconsequences,whichperhapswerenotmuchdifferentfromtheirown.Nevertheless,Cavertshowshowaverywiderangeofarbitersandinstitutionsdidbringsmokenuisancewithintheirremit.Asherightlyargues,earlymodernsocietieswerehighlyattunedtowhatwemightcallenvironmentaldisturbance.Healsodemonstratesindiscussionofscientificunderstandingthatpotentialdangerfromsmokewaswidelyrecognised,althoughperhapsnotgeneratingsomuchliteraturethatwecouldcharacteriseitasa‘debate’.Nevertheless,themeanstoassessthetruemagnitudeoftheriskbeyondhypothesiswaslittledeveloped;therewasneitherdatanottheinstitutionalmeanstomakeitactionable.Thiswasnotasocietythathadametricof‘risk’beyondoffencetothepersonandtheirproperty.Withinthesediscussionsthereareverysignificantsnippetsofinformation.InhabitantsoftheparishofSt.Dunstan’sWestwerepresentedforburningcoalwithoutchimneys,causingnuisance,buteconomichistoryliterature,onthebasisofverylittleevidence,hasclaimedthatthetransitiontocoalburningwasimpossiblewithoutthegreatreconstructionofEnglishhousingwithchimneys.Thisclaimwasalwayssuspecttothisreviewer,andisevidentlyuntrue.Itindicatesagainhowlittletheswitchtocoalburningbyamajorityofthepopulacehasactuallybeenresearched.Cavert’sworkonnuisancecasesalsoillustratestheimportanceoftheordinarypopulace.Muchtwenty-firstliteratureonfossilfuels,historicalorcontemporary,drawsanassociationbetweenfossilfuelsandcapitalism.Undoubtedlycapitalistenterpriseshadanincentivebothtoprofitfromsupply(coalwouldhardlyhavebeensuppliedwerethisnotthecase,andthisistrueofanyotherurbanfuel),andtominimisetheirtotalfactorcostsinorganisingproduction.Butmostearlymoderndemandcamefromordinaryhouseholdsseekingcheaperwaystokeepwarm,heatwater,andcook.AndreasMalmhaspresentedtheadoptionofsteamenginesfiredbycoalintheBritishcottonindustryasparadigmaticoftheonsetoftheageof‘fossilcapital’3.Yetfuelforthecottonmillsneveraccountedformorethan5%ofBritishcoalconsumption,andtheindustryarosewhenover90%ofBritishenergyconsumptionwasalreadyaccountedforbycoal.ThusanyexplanationoftheemergenceofwidespreadfossilfueluseinearlymodernBritain(whereLondonitselfwasonlyoneexampleamongmanyregionsadoptingthefuel)mustrestsquarelyontheopportunitycostsofusingalternativefuelsamongdomestichouseholds.Withoutdoubt,theadoptionofsteampowerwasworld-changingindevelopingthecapacityforindustrialisation.Butthedevelopmentoftheengineitselffromaround1700wasaresponsetothecapitalcostsofmining,andpartlythedemandforcoalfromfieldsinwideswathesofMidlandandnorthernEngland.Thechoicesmadewithinthecottonindustrywereanepiphenomenonwithinan3AndreasMalm,Fossilcapital.Theriseofsteampowerandtherootsofglobalwarming(London:Verso,2016).

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.9(2019) 7

epiphenomenon,anddidnotfundamentallysteerthedirectionoftheenergyeconomy.Thisprimacyofdomesticdemandmeantthatthegovernanceofcoalsupplywasperceivedasanissueofsatiatingtheinterestsandneedsofthemassofthepopulation,andlessasamatterofeconomiccapacitythanasthemaintenanceofsocialstability—infactakinwithconcernsaboutwoodsupplyelsewhere,andgrain.Intruth,asCavertmakesclear,therewasverylittleevidenceofactualinstability—therewasneverafuelriotinLondon,unlikethenumerousoccasionswhenpeople‘transgressed’tomaintaincommonrightstowood.Again,thedetailedanalysisoftheeighteenth-centurypoliticsoffuelisexemplary.Debatesabouttheimportanceofcoaltonationalwealth,whichledtotheideabeingtreatedasself-evidentbyAdamSmith,werespurredaboveallbyfiscalissues.Itwasthetaxationofthiseasilymonitored(inthecaseofLondon,notelsewhereinBritain)commodity,itselfaproductoftheeastcoasttradedrivenbydemandintherapidlyexpandingcity,thatledtotheemergenceofclaimsaboutthenecessityofthecheapnessofcoalanditsimportancetotheeconomy.TheargumentfortheimportanceofcoaltoBritain’slong-rundevelopmentmightseemself-evidentinretrospect(althoughsomeeconomichistoriansremaindeterminedtodenyit);butagain,Cavertshowshowthepoliticsoffuelcoalescedaroundtheparticularsetofpoliticalexpectationsandinstitutionsoftheday;theyarenotasimpleoutgrowthoftheimportanceofthefuelitself.Inthedebatesandstrugglesovertaxandorder,thegovernmentwashappytosetasidepropertyrightswhenitcametosecuring‘infrastructure’andfuelsupply.Asever,governmentdidnotclearlyalignitselfwithoragainstcapital,butwasconstantlychoosingtopromoteorrestrainthebehaviourofparticularcapitalists;landownerswhodidnotwantmineralsmovedovertheirproperty,shipperswhosoughtcombinationstoraisepricesandreducethevolatilityofacommoditypronetoglut.CavertarguesthattheintensifyingsmokinessofLondonledtothewithdrawaloftherichfromsmokeratherthanreform.Reformersweresurelyfew—althoughphysicalwithdrawalcharacterisedmanyaEuropeanmonarch’sreactiontotheircapitalcityinthelateseventeenthandeighteenthcenturies,irrespectiveofthestateoftheair.CanthespecificitiesofLondonbecontrastedwithamoregeneralculturalmoveacrossEuropeatthistime?Suchwithdrawalswerealsomoregenerallymixedwithclassicalnarrativesofretreatfromthetumultofcitylifeinliteraryrepresentations.Takingaturninthenearbycountrysidewaswell-establishedbytheeighteenthcentury,butwas‘takingtheair’anescapefromsmoke,oraquestofquietudeandgreenery?Ifthiscan’tbeanswereddefinitelyyet,isthereanywaytoreallytestthehypothesis?Cavertmakesaplausiblecaseforrankingsmokehighintheseconcerns,butthequestioncanperhapsonlybedecidedbyamoreextensiveandonerousworkofcomparison,toseeifLondonreallywasdistinctfromothergreatcities.Indeed,bymid-eighteenthcenturytheproblemsoftheairhadbecomefocusedonthosewhohadbreathingdifficulties,andthereseemslittledoubtmanydidtryand

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.9(2019) 8

evadeLondon’ssmoke,iftheywererichenough.Inthis,Cavertexplodesthenotionthatsmokewasonlywidelyseenasaprobleminthenineteenthcentury,anddemonstratesthatitmustbeconsideredinthelightofthevulnerabilitiesofparticulargroups.Equally,theimageofLondonasthebusyandcosmopolitanhive,simultaneouslysmokyandsmelly,incontrasttotheinactivityandlanguorofthecountry,mayhavehadtheeffectofnormalisingsmokeindiscourse—evenmakingitasattractiveastheothervirtuesofthecity.Howeverifeverydaybehaviourasaguidetovalue(‘themarketdecides’),thenthehousingmarketalsoindicatesthatrelativelyclearairintheWestEndofthecitywasmoredesirable.Again,givenCavert’sdeepknowledgeofthesourcesandtopics,itwouldbeusefultohearhisviewsonbeingabletotracebehaviourialpatternsmoreclearlyasanindicatorofattitudes.Asthecitygrewcleanairwasamovingtargetbutsowereindustries—brick-makingforexample,wasnot‘urban’butanindustryoftheperiphery,tracingtheverymovementoftheperipheryasitconstructedit.Cavert’sperceptiveobservationsinthisregardareaninvitationtomoreresearchinlocatingandmappingsourcesofpollution,nowthatthetechnologytodosoisreadilyavailable.TheSmokeofLondonmakesacasefordoingearlymodernenvironmentalhistory;butitalsoarguesthereisnoclearbreakbetweenearlymodernLondonandthatoftheRegencyandVictorianages.Inthis,itjoinscriticismofasharpbreakintomodernityandenvironmentalconsciousnessdeliveredbyhistoriansofParissuchasThomasLeRouxandJean-BaptisteFressoz.Isthereanykindofperiodisationthatmightworkbetter?It’sagreatburdentolayonabookthatitshouldreshapehistoriographygenerally.Thatmanyquestionsremainsuggestshoweverthatsomerealignmentofperspectivesisunderway.NeverhasthesmokeofearlymodernLondonreceivedsuchsustainedattention,andlikeallgoodbooks,thisshoulddrawahostoffurtherstudies,someundoubtedlycritical,initswake—that’samarkofprogress.Andanyreadermustalsoapplaudthesuperbamountofarchivalworkthatunderpinsthestudy,bringingadepthofunderstandingtoepisodespreviouslyunderstoodonlysuperficially.Itwillbealandmark,shininglikethedomeofWren’scathedralaboveacitywheresomuchstillliesunrevealed.

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.9(2019) 9

CommentsbyLeonaSkelton,NorthumbriaUniversityhepopularphrase‘that’slikecarryingcoalstoNewcastle’,synonymouswith‘sellingsnowtoEskimos’,continuestoremindusoftheenormoushistoricalimportanceofnorth-eastEngland’sRiverTyneasaconduitfortheexportationofcoal.Fromthelate-medievalperiod,andtakingoffincreasingly

fromthelate-sixteenthcentury,theTynefunctionedasanationallystrategicportexportingamongothergoodsverysubstantialvolumesofcoaldowntheeastcoasttoLondon,aroundtheBalticSeaandelsewhereonaflotillaofcolliersailingships.Bytheearlyseventeenthcentury,somuchofLondon’scoalwasbroughtdowntheeastcoastbycolliersailingshipsthatthefuelwasknownlocallybyLondonersas‘seacoal’.By1700,almosthalfofEngland’scoalcamefromNorthumberlandandDurham.Inamerethreemonthsof1699,forexample,anincredible250shipscarriedcoalawayfromtheNorthumberlandDurhamcoalfields,largelyintotheRiverThamestobeburnedinLondon’shearthsandfurnaces.4Atthistime,carryingcoaloverlanddoubledthecommodity’spriceforeverytwomilestravelled,whichmeantthatshippingwastheeasiest,cheapestandultimatelythemostpopularmethodoftransportandnavigableriversfunctionedaseconomicallyvaluableliquidhighways.5Inthiscontext,itisunsurprisingthatin1651,JohnClevelandproudlyemphasisedthelargescaleandconsequentlynationalimportanceofNewcastle’scoalexportsbycomparingittoPeru:‘England’saperfectworld!HasIndiestoo!/Correctyourmaps:NewcastleisPeru’.6Ihavespentadecadestudyingtheenvironmentalhistoryofcoalexportationfromnorth-eastEnglandandtrackingitstransportationdowntheeasternseaboard,andI’mdelightedWilliamCavertwastheretomeetmycoalcolliersontheThames,andtoexplaineloquentlyinhisTheSmokeofLondontheimpactofburningNorthumbrianandDurhamcoalinLondon.7Andwhatanimportant,insightfulandinfluentialbookitis!Environmentalhistoryhasbeenlargely(andmistakenly)pre-occupiedwithindustrialandpost-industrialcasestudies,primarilyasaresultofthelargerscaleofenvironmentaldamageandoveruseofnaturalresourcesafter1800,andevenmoresoafter1880.8Consequently,therelationshipsbetweenpre-modernsocietiesandtheirenvironmentshavebeen,untilrelativelyrecently,misunderstood.Continually,Iremindsocial,economic,politicalandculturalearlymodernists,aswellasmymodernenvironmentalhistorycolleagues,thatearlymodernenvironmentalhistoryisnotbeingpursuedinaninsularbubble,orwithinasub-fieldofhistoricalgeographyorlandscapehistory.Rather,premodernenvironmentalhistoriansare4D.LevineandK.Wrightson,TheMakingofanIndustrialSociety:Whickham,1560-1765(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1991),p.3.5LevineandWrightson,TheMakingofanIndustrialSociety,p.9.6W.Ellis,NewsfromNewcastle(London,1651).7L.Skelton,TyneafterTyne:AnEnvironmentalHistoryofaRiver’sBattleforProtection,1529-2015(Cambridge:WhiteHorsePress,2017).8S.Mosley,TheChimneyoftheWorld:AHistoryofSmokePollutioninVictorianandEdwardianManchester(Cambridge:Routledge,2001);A.Rome,‘ComingtoTermswithPollution:TheLanguageofEnvironmentalReform,1865-1915’,EnvironmentalHistory,vol.1(1996),pp.6-28.

T

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.9(2019) 10

immersingthemselvesinthecomplexitiesofearlymodernhistoricaldevelopmentasmuchas,ifnotmorethan,theirfelloweconomic,legal,political,socialandculturalhistorians.Havingsecuredaseatonearlymodernhistoriography’stop(round)table,wearenowrevealingveryusefullyhowsocio-environmentalinteractionswithsoil,air,water,fire,treesandmanyothernaturalresourcesandsystemsshapedkeyissuesincludinglocalandnationalgovernance,nationhoodandidentity,socialinteractionandriotandrebellion.Almostadecadeago,in2009,SverkerSorlinandPaulWardelamented,‘thereisapeculiargap’betweenthe‘relativelyrecentandlimiteddiscipline-basedhistoriographyandtheomnipresenceofnatureandnaturalresourcesasfundamentalsofhumansocietiesthatgoesbacktotheveryrootsofhumanexistence’.9Cavert’sSmokeofLondonisawelcomecontributiontowardsfillingthis‘peculiargap’,anditiscurrentlyspearheadingatidalwaveofhistoriographywhichelucidatespremodern,two-way,socio-environmentalrelationships.Thetaskofinvestigatingearlymodernenvironmentalattitudescannotbeachievedmerelybyinspiringmodernenvironmentalhistorianstopushtheirchronologiesfurtherbackintimetoconsidertheearlymodernfoundationsoftheirmodernresearchtopics.Earlymodernists,withthebenefitofcrucialexpertiseinrelationtotheparticularpolitical,economic,religious,cultural,legalandsocialcontextsoftheperiod,aremuchbetterplacedtoconductthisresearch.10WilliamCavertstandsatthecentreofacoregroupofBritishearlymodernists,whoaresuccessfullyraisingtheprofileofpremodernsocio-environmentalrelationships.ThecontentofSmokeofLondonisintrinsicallyinteresting,basedonimpressivelyrichandwide-rangingresearch.CavertdeftlycombinesanilluminatingcasestudyofearlymodernLondoninitsownright,confirmingforexamplethatbetween1624and1640CharlesIdeliberatelyexcludedsmokyindustriesfromtheareaaroundhiscourtinLondontoimprovethequalityoftheair,withwiderhistoriographicalconsiderationsandpersuasiveargumentsaboutwhyearlymodernistsshouldincorporatenaturalresourcesandsystemsmoreprominentlyintotheirownnarratives.IuseSmokeofLondonextensively,notonlywhenI’mteachingmyundergraduatestudentsabouttheubiquityofbio-physicalflows,non-visualsensoryexperiencesandsocio-environmentalrelationshipsindailyurbanlifeexperiences,butalsotodemonstrate9S.SorlinandP.Warde,‘MakingtheEnvironmentHistorical:AnIntroduction’,inS.SorlinandP.Warde,(eds.),Nature’sEnd:HistoryandtheEnvironment(Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan,2009),pp.1-19.10C.Smout,NatureContested:EnvironmentalHistoryinScotlandandNorthernEnglandsince1600(Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress,2000);B.HanawaltandL.Kiser,(eds.),EngagingwithNature:EssaysontheNaturalWorldinMedievalandEarlyModernEurope(NotreDame,Indiana,2008);L.Skelton,SanitationinUrbanBritain,1560-1700(London:Routledge,2015);KnollandReith,(eds.),AnEnvironmentalHistoryoftheEarlyModernPeriod;P.Reynard,‘ChartingEnvironmentalConcerns:TheReactiontoHydraulicPublicWorksinEighteenth-CenturyFrance’,EnvironmentandHistory,vol.9(2003),pp.251-273;P.Warde,‘Imposition,EmulationandAdaptation:RegulatoryRegimesintheCommonsofEarlyModernGermany’,EnvironmentandHistory,vol.19(2013),pp.313-337;P.WardeandT.Williamson,‘FuelSupplyandAgricultureinPost-MedievalEngland’,AgriculturalHistoryReview,vol.62(2014),pp.61-82;J.Morgan,‘UnderstandingFloodinginEarlyModernEngland’,JournalofHistoricalGeography,vol.50(2015),pp.37-50.

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.9(2019) 11

andshowcasetheapplicabilityandusefulnessofenvironmentalhistoryinmainstreamearlymodernBritishhistory.Cavert’sSmokeofLondonisimportantbecauseitbreaksdownthearbitraryrampartsseparatingtheheartlandoftraditionalearlymodernhistoryandtherelativelynewfieldofenvironmentalhistory,provingamplythatearlymodernenvironmentalhistorycanandwillcontinuetouncovernewinsights,usefulperspectivesandamoregroundedappreciationofdaily,livedexperiences,re-entangledwithandreconnectedtothenexusofnaturalflows,materialsandprocesseswhichshaped,redirectedandlimitedhistoricaldiscontinuitysoforcefully.Attitudestowardstheenvironment,conservationandsustainability,aremisconceivedbytoomanyasamoderninvention.Inhisenvironmentalhistoryoftheearlymodernworld,JohnRichardspointsoutthat‘asthetermearlymodernsuggests’,the‘long-termtrendsthatacceleratedinthisperioddeeplyinfluencedmassiveandgrowinghuman-inducedenvironmentalchange’after1800.11AndRonaldZupkoandRobertLaureswarnthatitismisleadingtoperceive‘environmentalawareness’asacompletelymodernmovement,‘arisingoutofthetumultofahalf-centuryofwaranddepressionlikesomeVenusgivenbirthinthecrashingsurfofaMediterraneanshore’.12However,whilethescaleofearlymodernindustrialdevelopmentshouldnotbeplayeddown,asithasbeen,neithershouldthefactthatitsscalewassignificantlysmallerbeignoredordenied.In2002,Pierre-ClaudeReynardencouragedenvironmentalhistorianstofollowhisleadindemonstratingthat‘earlymodernconcernsaboutindustrialeffluentswerenotmarginalornascent,haphazardorweak’.13Asaresultoffutureresearchintoearlymodernenvironmentalregulation,inparticular,Reynardbelievedthat‘asolidcore’ofcontinuitieswillberevealedwhichconnectpre-modernenvironmentalattitudeswithmodern-dayenvironmentalimpactassessments.14Cavertisrighttoremindusthatoverstatingsuchcontinuitiescanleadusto‘misscrucialdistinctionsandrisklumpingtogetherverydifferenttypesofenvironmentalinterventionandstress’.15IndeedMartinSchmidgoesasfarastosuggestthat‘environmentalhistoriansshouldnottaketheepochalboundariestooseriously’.16IwonderhowCavertwouldrespondtothatstatement.Cavert’sjustificationforstudyingtheenvironmentalchangesbetweenthesixteenthandeighteenthcenturiesindetailispersuasive,butIwouldappreciatedeeperconsiderationanddiscussioninrelationtotheprosand

11J.Richards,TheUnendingFrontier:AnEnvironmentalHistoryoftheEarlyModernWorld(London:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,2003),p.2.12R.Zupko,andA.Laures,StrawsintheWind:MedievalUrbanEnvironmentalLaw–TheCaseofNorthernItaly(Oxford:Westview,1996).13P.Reynard,‘PublicOrderandPrivilege:Eighteenth-CenturyFrenchRootsofEnvironmentalRegulation’,TechnologyandCulture,vol.43(2002),pp.1-28.14Reynard,‘PublicOrderandPrivilege’,pp.1-28.15Cavert,SmokeofLondon,p.xvii.16M.Schmid,‘TheEnvironmentalHistoryofRiversintheEarlyModernPeriod’,inM.KnollandR.Reith,(eds.),AnEnvironmentalHistoryoftheEarlyModernPeriod:ExperimentsandPerspectives(Berlin:Lit,2014),pp.19-26.

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.9(2019) 12

consofearlymodernenvironmentalhistorians’uncriticaladoptionofthechronologicalbookendsofthe‘earlymodern’perioditself.Isitpossiblethatthroughanenvironmentalhistorylens,thatotherchronologicalbookendsmightbemorelogical?AsDollyJorgensenhighlightsinrelationtolate-medievalandearlymodernsanitation,forexample,theReformationandthepoliticalchangeswhichcameasaresultofElizabethI’saccession‘didnotradicallyalterthewaycitiesdealtwiththephysicalproblemsofurbanlife’.17Sanitationsystemsunderwentfarmoresignificantchangessubsequently,intheseventeenthcentury.Dosocio-environmentalrelationshipsalsorequirebespokechronologicalboundariesbetweenmedieval,earlymodernandmodern?Therearenospecificnatureessays,writtenbythemenwhomanagedBritainintheearlymodernperiod,describingexplicitlytheirattitudestowardsandvaluationofnaturalresourcesandsystemsandregardingtherisks,benefitsandadverseeffectsofalteringsuchsystemsinordertoboosttheefficiencyoftrade,industryandprofit.AsBarbaraHanawaltandLisaKiserobserve,‘formanywritingintheseearlyperiods,“nature”wasarguablynotevenadiscursivecategory;itsimplywentwithoutsaying’.18PerhapsRichardWhite’srejectionofanyseparationbetweenthehumanandthenaturalwouldraisefeweyebrowsinaseventeenth-centurycoffeehouse;hewouldmerelybestatingawidelyacknowledgedfact.Bylabelling,sopersuasively,theregulationofcoalsmokeinearlymodernLondonaspurposeful,asafullyself-consciousattempttoimproveairqualityinthecity,Cavertispersuadingbothearlymodernistsandmodernenvironmentalhistorianstoconsidermoreseriouslypremodernconceptionsoftheenvironment,whatitmeanttouseorconservea‘natural’resourceortonegatetheadverseimpactofsmokyairbeforetheadventoftermssuchaspollutants.19Earlymoderncontemporariesimaginedaveryclearseparationbetweenthespiritualworldandthenatural,physicalworldwhichtheyinhabited,butthelatter’shumans,animalsandenvironmentswerecompletelyentangledtogether.Ourmodern-dayconceptualisationofadistinctionbetweenthenaturalandthehuman,therefore,isanachronisticinanearlymoderncontext.Nonetheless,earlymodernattitudesandvaluesinrelationtotheenvironmentcanstillbeappreciatedaspartofthelong-termprocessofdevelopingthecharacterofmorerecentattitudes.Thesesocietiescreatedimportantpoliticalandlegalframeworkswithinwhichtheycouldanddidpurposelyprotect‘natural’resources,systemsandlandscapesfromharm,astheyperceivedit,beforein-depthscientificexperimentationconfirmedexactlywhatcouldandcouldnotdamagenaturalsystemsinthelongandshortterm.PerhapsCavertcouldreassureearlymodernistsinrelationtohowfarwecanandshouldgointermsofpushingconcepts

17D.Jorgensen,‘“AllGoodRuleoftheCitee”:SanitationandCivicGovernmentinEngland,1400-1600’,JournalofUrbanHistory,36:3(2010),pp.301-2.18B.HanawaltandL.Kiser,‘Introduction’,inHanawaltandKiser,(eds.),EngagingwithNature,p.2.19P.Warde,TheInventionofSustainability(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2018);P.Wardeetal.,(eds.),TheEnvironment:AHistoryofanIdea(Baltimore,Maryland:JohnHopkinsUniversityPress,2018);P.Warde,‘TheIdeaofImprovement,c.1520-1700’,inR.Hoyle,(ed.),Custom,ImprovementandLandscapeinEarlyModernBritain(Farnham,2011),pp.127-148.

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.9(2019) 13

ofsustainability,thefinitenatureofresourcesandwasteoroverusebacktothepremodernperiod.RichardGrove,arguablythepioneerofresearchintoearlymodernenvironmentalattitudes,arguedin1995thatwhile‘theoriginsandearlyhistoryofcontemporarywesternenvironmentalconcernandconcomitantattemptsatconservationistinterventionliefarbackintime’,neverthelessthedevelopmentoftheseattitudeswasdrivenbytheparticularcircumstancesinwhichearlycolonistsfoundthemselvesinthesixteenth,seventeenthandeighteenthcenturies,whenresourcesinthecolonieswereoftenscarceandthereforehadtobeusedsparingly.20WhereGrove’sargumentexcelsisinitsemphasisonresourcescarcityasacatalystforthedevelopmentofenvironmentallysensitiveattitudes.Heelaboratesthatbeforecolonialexpansion,‘atthecoreofthedevelopingeconomicsysteminmetropolitanEurope,environmentalanxietieswereforalongtimeconfinedalmostentirelytotheprospectofatimbershortage–withthenotableexceptionoftheVenetiancolonialstate’.21Withthisinmind,CavertmighthavesaidmoreaboutLondon’sElizabethantimbersupplycrisiswhichdrovethedemandforincreasingvolumesofcoal,andinparticulartohowthetimbercrisischangedenvironmentalvaluesofbothgovernorsandthegoverned.ChapterTwo,‘London’sTurntoCoal,1575-1755’focusesprimarilyontheintroductionofcoal,andthebenefitsanddisadvantagesofthenewfuel,somewhatneglectingthephasingoutoftimber,theprosandconsofthatfuelintermsofdailylife,cookingandindustryandhowpeoplefeltaboutthetimbershortage.ThereissomediscussionofthetimberfuelshortageinChapterFour,SectionII,andthreereferencestowoodasasub-fieldoffuelintheindex,yettheword‘timber’,curiously,isomittedfromtheindex.IwonderwhyCavertchosenottoexplorethetimbercrisisinmoredepth.WhileCavert’sexplanationofwhatthetransitionfromwoodtocoalmeanteconomically,technologicallyandintermsofsmokyair,Iwonderifhemightelaborateonwhatthetransitionfromwoodtocoalmeantintermsofmaterialculture,newanddifferentcookingequipmentanddailylife,especiallyforwomenanddomesticservants.Cavert’sattentiontodetail,andhismasteryofmultiplesub-disciplinaryhistoricalcontextsinrelationtowhichhissocio-environmentalrelationswithcoalwereplayedout,confirmsthatweneedmoreexperiencedearlymodernistsfullyversedinthecomplexcontextsofthesixteenth,seventeenthandeighteenthcenturiesratherthanmodernenvironmentalhistorianswillingtopushtheirchronologiesbackintothepre-modernperiod.TheSmokeofLondonisreallyaboutthereception,sensationandmeaningofcoalinpeople’slives,livelihoodsandbodies,andunlikemanysimilarlychronologicallyambitiousmonographs,itpaysimpressivelysensitiveattentiontochangeovertime.Cavertrightlybringstotheforethephysicalityoftouching,haulingandburningcoal,andthedailyexperiencesoflivingwithinandinhalingsmokyairinvariouslydistinctzonesofthecity:publicand

20R.Grove,GreenImperialism:ColonialExpansion,TropicalIslandEdensandtheOriginsofEnvironmentalism,1600-1800(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1995),pp.1,2.21Grove,GreenImperialism,pp.7,95.

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.9(2019) 14

private,poorandwealthy,industrialandresidential.Thekeytothisbook’ssuccessisthatCavertchosenottowriteinanenvironmentalhistorysilo.Thisworkusefullydrawstogetherurban,economic,sensory,social,cultural,politicalhistoryandthehistoryoftechnology.I,forone,lookforwardtoreflectingonthisseminalbook’simpactonthefieldofpremodernenvironmentalhistorywiththebenefitofhindsight,insay2030,stilladmiringhowitshaped,inspiredandunderpinnedtheproceedinggenerationofscholarship.

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.9(2019) 15

CommentsbyPeterThorsheim,UNCCharlottenparallelwithotherrecentscholarshipthatintegrateseconomic,cultural,andenvironmentalhistory,WilliamCavert’sprodigiouslyresearchedandelegantlywrittenstudymakesthecasethatmanyofthechangesthatweassociatewithmodernityinfactoriginatedduringtheearlymodernage.22Londonisatthe

epicenterofthesedevelopments,atleastinrespecttoenergyuseandenvironmentaldegradation.ThetransitionfromrenewablesourcesofenergytofossilfuelshappenedinLondonaround1600,twoormorecenturiesearlierthanpracticallyeverywhereelseontheplanet.Inconsequence,hearguesthatearlymodernEnglandshouldbeconsideredthe“firstmodernsociety”(xviii),andhepromisestorevealthe“richstoryofenvironmentalchangeandenvironmentalconcerntobetoldaboutLondonbeforetheindustrialrevolution”(7).AlthoughLondonwasnottheworld’slargestcityintheearlymodernperiod,Cavertobservesthat“noothercityburnednearlyasmuchdirtycoal”(xvi).Drawingonthearchivalresearchheconductedwithrecordsofcoalduties,hetellsusthatcoalconsumptioninLondonexpandedfrom15,000tonsinthemidsixteenthcenturytohalfamilliontonsbythe1680s.23Thisenormousincreaseresultedchieflyfromgrowingpercapitaconsumption,butinthedecadesandcenturiesthatfollowed,theriseincoalusemirroredthegrowingpopulationofLondon(24).Throughouttherestoftheearlymodernperiod,Londonersburnedanaverageofaboutatonofcoalperpersoneachyear.24Oneofthemostimpressiveaspectsofthisbookisitsdeepgroundinginprimarysources.Cavert’sresearchtookhimtonumerousarchivesonbothsidesoftheAtlantic,andheseemsequallycomfortabledrawinginsightsfromeconomicdata,parliamentarydebates,andliterarysources.Healsoprovidesafrankandthoughtfuldiscussionofthedifficultieshistoriansinevitablyfaceinderivingaccurateconclusionsfromthefragmentaryrecordsattheirdisposal.Inadditiontodiscussinghistoricalunderstandingsandperceptionsofcoaluse,hesurveysthestateoftwenty-firstcenturyscientificandmedicalknowledgeaboutcoalsmokeanditseffects.

22EdmundBurkeandKennethPomeranz,eds.,TheEnvironmentandWorldHistory(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,2009);SvenBeckert,EmpireofCotton:AGlobalHistory(NewYork:AlfredA.Knopf,2014).

23OtherhistorianshavefoundroughlysimilarfiguresforcoaluseinLondonduringtheeighteenthcentury,buttheyoftenfailtoprovidedataforearlierperiods.SeeB.R.Mitchell,BritishHistoricalStatistics(NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1988),244-45.

24Overthecourseofthenineteenthcentury,percapitacoalcombustioninLondondoubled,toanaverageoftwotonseachyear.SeePeterThorsheim,InventingPollution:Coal,Smoke,andCultureinBritainsince1800,rev.ed.(Athens:OhioUniversityPress,2018),1,5.

I

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.9(2019) 16

Intheireffortstoreviseourunderstandingofindustrialization,somehistorianspointoutthatcoal-firedsteamenginesplayedarelativelyminorroleinBritishmanufacturingbeforethemiddleofthenineteenthcentury,andtheymaintainthatwaterpower,animalpower,andevenhumanmusclepowerdeservegreaterrecognitionfortheimportantrolesthattheyplayedduringtheindustrialrevolution.Cavertagreeswiththesubstanceofthispoint,buthepersuasivelyarguesthatcoalplayedacrucialroleinBritainlongbeforeitbecamehometolegionsofsteamengines.CavertalsorejectstheclaimsofeconomichistorianswhohaveengagedincounterfactualspeculationwiththeaimofsuggestingthatBritaincouldhaveachievedanidenticallevelofeconomicgrowthbyburningimportedBaltictimberinsteadofdomesticcoal.Instead,heinsiststhatthecostsofacquiringthiswood,andthedemandsuponshippingthatitstransportwouldhaveentailed,meanthatitwouldhaveprovidedapoorsubstituteforthesubterraneanfueluponwhichBritonscametodepend.Inwartime,suchareliancewouldhaveposedadditionalburdensandstrategicrisks.Thisispreciselywhatoccurredduringbothworldwars,whenattacksbyU-boatsandothervesselsthreatenedtoisolateBritainfromitsglobalsupplychain.25Cavert’scentralclaimisthatLondonersidentifiedcoalsmokeasaseriousproblemlongbeforetheadventof“modernindustrialcapitalism”(6),butdespitethisrecognition,effortstoamelioratesmokelongremained“limited,local,sporadic,andrearguard”(190).AlthoughmanyearlymodernLondonersbelievedthatcoalsmokewasugly,unpleasant,andunhealthy(atleastforsome),theyaccepteditasthepricetopayforthecheapandplentifulenergythatcoalprovided.“Neitherlawnorscience,”heavers,“offeredstraightforwardsupportforclaimsthatsmokewasdangerous,anambivalencethatmadeitdifficultforsmoke’senemiestoovercometheincreasinglyconfidentclaimsfortheimportanceofcoal”(99).Despiteitstitle,thisbookisaboutmuchmorethanjustsmoke.Fundamentally,itisacultural,political,economic,andenvironmentalhistoryofthefirstcityintheworldtobecomeentirelydependentonfossilfuelconsumption.CavertsuggeststhatLondonersviewedsmokebothasasymbolofurbanlifeandapointedreminderofthecity’ssocialandmoral,aswellasenvironmental,distancefromanostensiblyundefiledcountryside.Hethusenhancesourunderstandingofthedeeplyanti-urbaniststrainofthoughtthathaslongpervadedBritishculture.Possessingasharpeyefordetailandadelightincontradiction,heenlivensthetextwithpointedobservations,suchashisremarkabouttheparadoxicalphenomenonof“LondonerswritingpoemsabouttheimpossibilityofpoetryinLondon”(204).

25PeterThorsheim,WasteintoWeapons:RecyclinginBritainduringtheSecondWorldWar(NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,2015).

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.9(2019) 17

TheSmokeofLondonprovidesadeepanddetailedexplicationofearlymodernnuisancelaw,anditshowshowthelegalsystemprovidedmuchmorerelieftowealthyplaintiffswhocomplainedofdamagetotheirpropertythantothosewhosufferedpersonaldiscomfortorillhealthasaresultofotherpeople’sactions.CavertcommentsthatCharlesIadoptedadualapproachinhiscampaignagainstsmoke.Asanindividual,hehadtherighttosueothersforcommittingaprivatenuisanceagainsthim;astheheadofstate,he(oragentsactingonhisbehalf)couldbringchargesofpublicnuisanceagainstoffenders(56).Predatingtwentieth-century“smokelesszones”byhundredsofyears,earlymodernmonarchsalsosoughttobansmokeemissionsfromtheirvicinity.ButinaninterestingcontrasttothephenomenonofpollutiondisplacementexplicatedbytheenvironmentalhistorianJoelA.Tarr,Cavertobservesthatstartingaround1700Englishmonarchsabandonedthegoalofremovingsmokefromcitiesandinsteadsoughttoremovethemselvesfromthesmoke.26Thisisanextremelywell-researchedandcompellingbook.Itdoes,however,raiseseveralquestionsthatIhopetheauthormightcommentoninhisresponse.First,Cavert’sdeterminationtomakehisoverallargumentfitundertheumbrellaofenvironmentalhistoryfeelsatoddswiththemorenuancedargumentsandwiderscopethathetakeswithinmanyofitschapters.Isthereariskthattheenvironmentalframingofthisbookunderplaysitsfindingsinotherareas?Iwasstruckbythebook’spotentialcontributionstoeconomicandpoliticalhistoryandwonderwhetherhemighthavedonemorewiththem.Second,whatmightbegainedfromamoreextensivecomparativeperspective?CavertisquiterighttoseeLondonasuniqueinitslevelofcoalconsumptionduringthisperiod,butothercontemporarycitiessufferedfromsmoke—includingEdinburgh(longknownas“AuldReekie”)andNewcastle(thesmokeofwhichisaddressedonlycursorilyhere).Howdidpeople’sexperienceswithandunderstandingsofcoalsmokedifferbetweenLondonandearlymoderncitieselsewhereinBritain,inEurope,andinAsia?Third,Iwonderabouttheclaimthatthescientificrevolutionplayedacentralroleinthisstory.Complaintsaboutsmoke,afterall,dateasfarbackasthethirteenthcentury,longbeforetheriseofmodernscience.27Althoughhesuggeststhatfewhistoriansrealizethatsignificantenvironmentalchangesandconcernspredatedthemodernera,thisclaimsseemssomewhatofastrawman.Mostrecognizetheexistenceofthesephenomenainearlierperiods,whilealsoconcludingthattheydifferedbothqualitativelyandquantitativelyfromthosethatcamelater.26JoelA.Tarr,TheSearchfortheUltimateSink:UrbanPollutioninHistoricalPerspective(Akron,Ohio:UniversityofAkronPress,1996).

27PeterBrimblecombe,TheBigSmoke:AHistoryofAirPollutioninLondonsinceMedievalTimes(London:Routledge&KeganPaul,1987).

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.9(2019) 18

Fourth,IwouldliketheauthortograpplemorefullywiththerangeofideasthatearlymodernLondonersexpressedaboutthesubstancesintheairthattheybreathed.Cavertshowsthatsomecontemporaries,includingtheanonymousauthorofOrvietan(ca.1680s),rejectedthenotionthatsmokewasthesolecauseofimpureair.Instead,dustandmanurefromdirtystreetsweretheprimaryproblems.Anothertopicofcontemporaryinterestwasmiasma.Althoughtheauthorconcedesthatconcernsaboutitmayhaveprovidedajustificationforcoalsmokeasadisinfectantduringmuchoftheeighteenthandnineteenthcenturies,hesuggeststhatsuchbeliefshadnosignificantroleduringtheperiodofhisstudy.YetasPaulSlackshowedthreedecadesago,peopleinseventeenth-centuryEnglandoftenattributedtheplaguetomiasma,andtheyoftenreliedonfiresto“dispelinfectedair.”Theassociationbetweendecayanddiseasewasnothingnew;Galen,notesSlack,warnedthatdeadbodiesandstagnantwaterpoisonedtheairandcauseddisease.28CaverthimselfnotesthatthestudiesofmortalityinLondonbytherespectedseventeenth-centurydemographerJohnGrauntremained“somewhatambiguousregardingtheoverallimportanceofLondon’suniquedirtyair.”Infact,henotesthatGrauntbelievedcoalsmoke“somehowshieldedthecapitalfromtheworsteffectsoftheplague”(94).Fifth,Iwouldliketoasktheauthortoreflectmorefullyontheinterplaybetweenmedicalandmoralconcerns.Henotesthatthehostilitytowardsmokethatsomepeopleexpressedinseventeenth-centuryLondonstemmedasmuchormorefromconcernsaboutdecorumandbeautyasabouthealth.ThiswastrueevenofJohnEvelyn,arguablythemostprominentearlymodernvoiceagainstcoalsmoke.AsCavertobservesofEvelyn,smoke“matteredprimarilybecauseitsulliedroyalhonour.”(178).InseekingtoexplainthediminishedbirthrateinLondonrelativetootherplaces,earlymodernexpertssuchasJohnGrauntandCharlesDavenantsawcoalsmokeasbutonefactor;otherpotentialcontributorsincludedsuchthingsas“adultery,luxury,andbusiness”(95-96).Cavertgoesevenfurtherinquotingfromanothercontemporarydemographer,ThomasShort,whobelievedthat“coalsmokehadnospecialpowertoexplainLondon’sdivergenthealthstatistics;itwasmerelyoneamongmanydirtyaspectsofurbanlifethatwerethemselvesnotnearlyasimportantasotherexplanations,inparticularmaritalcustomsandsexualbehavior”(98).Cavertconcludeswithanuancedassessment:“Therewerestrongreasonsfordislikingsmoke—aesthetic,political,andmedical,”buthearguesthatthesewerenomatchfor“thepowerfulandpositiveassociationsthatcoalconsumption”entailedinearlymodernLondon(215).Londoners’longaccommodationtosmokyairsprangfromaresignationtoputupwithcoalinexchangeforits“undeniablecommercial,industrial,fiscal,andstrategicbenefits”(235).Thisbookthusoffersaprescientcautionarytaleabouttherisksinherentinfailingtorecognizeenvironmental

28PaulSlack,TheImpactofthePlagueinTudorandStuartEngland(London:Routledge&KeganPaul,1985),26-27,30,45.

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.9(2019) 19

problemsandtherelateddangerofacomplacenthopethattechnologywillsaveusfromproblemsofourowncreation.Today,thesearchforawayoutofthisFaustianbargainiscrucialnotonlytoLondoners,buttoallofhumankind.

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.9(2019) 20

ResponsebyWilliamM.Cavert,UniversityofSt.ThomaswouldliketothankLeonaSkelton,PeterThorsheim,andPaulWardefortheirthoughtfulandperceptivecommentsonmybook,andIwelcometheircollectivesuggestionthatitsstoryopensupnewquestions.IhopeIcanaddresssomeofthespecificissuesthattheyraise,butinothercasesIcanonlyjointhemin

hopingthatfurtherworkcontinuestoexploretheproblemsthattheircommentsraise.Onethemethatemergesineachofthecommentsinsomewayisperiodization,inparticularhowastoryofenvironmentalchangefitswithinotherwaysofboundinganddefiningearlymodernity.Thorsheimasksformoreclarityonwhat,exactly,wasnewduringtheearlymodernperiod,consideringthatthereweremedievalprecedentsforconcernaboutcoalsmoke.WardepointsoutthatmystoryjoinsotherrecentworkonFrancetoquestionasharpbreakbetweentheearlymodernandmodernperiods,andSkeltonaskswhether“earlymodern”isausefultermatall.Ithinkitisuseful,bothasatermofartandasachronologicalboundingofthisstory.Forwhiletherewereindeedafewinstancesofprotestagainstcoalsmokeduringthe13thand14thcenturies,theywerenotofthepersistentkinddescribedinthisbook.Therewasroyalcomplaintagainstlimeburningnearacastleinthe1250s,andasmallclusterofroyalpronouncementsagainstusingcoalsmokeinLondonwithinafewyearsof1300.29AsDerekKeenehassuggested,ataboutthatdateLondon’spopulationreachedalevelnotobtainedagainuntilElizabeth’sreign,producingaseriesofstrainsthatparallel,insomeways,therelateddemographic,economic,andsocialdislocationsofthelate16thcentury.30Butthiswaslimitedinbothscaleandduration,andthe14thcenturyproducedafewisolatedreferencestocoalburningandsmoke,ratherthantheongoingandescalatingconversationsoftheearlymodernperiod.London’sswitchtocoal,occurringduringthelastthirdofthesixteenthcentury,reallydoesmarkanewdepartureinitsenvironmentalandeconomichistory.31AsWardestressesitishardertomarktheendofthisearlymodernperiod,especiallyasitfitswellwithinaliteraturethatseesagradual,ratherthansudden,transitiontoindustrialization.WhileLondonboomedinthe17thand18thcenturies,burningcoalininnumerablesmallhearthsaswellasindustrial-scalebreweriesandnewsmoke-belchingsteampumps,mostofEngland’sthousandsofvillageschanged29SummarizedinWilliamH.TeBrake,“AirPollutionandFuelCrisesinPreindustrialLondon,1250-1650,”TechnologyandCulture16:3(1975),339-340.30DerekKeene,“MaterialLondoninTimeandSpace,”inMaterialLondon,ca.1600,ed.LenaOrlin(Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,2000),55-74.31Warderegretsthatthistransitionremainsa“blackbox.”Ididnotfindmaterialdescribinghowexactlythewoodshortageoccurred,butdoreferonp.21tosurveysofwoodsuppliescarriedoutinthe1570sand80sbytheCourtofAldermen,whofindworryinglylowfuelsuppliesatwharfsalongtheThames,Lea,andMedway.Thismaterialdoesnotilluminatetheecologicalstrainsonexistingforests,butitdoesclearlyshowtheperceptionthatsupplieswerelimitedandthatthiswasanissueforcivicgovernmentalattention.

I

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.9(2019) 21

muchless.Indeed,thisunevenpaceofchange—innovationjuxtaposedwithcontinuity—isarguablypartoftheparticularityofearlymodernityasaperiod.Theclaimmadeinthebook’sEpilogueisthatthereisindeedmorecontinuitythandisruptioninLondonduringtheyearsaround1800,butthatthecapital’splacewithinEnglandasawholewasprofoundlyalteredwhenmanufacturingtowns,andruralindustry,alteredthefaceofsomuchofEngland.Theperiodofferedhere,then,ismarkedbyLondon’suniquestatuswithinEnglandasitsonlygreatcity,inwhichauniquerelationshipbetweenenergyandenvironmentwasbothprevalentandevident.Beforeabout1575thisrelationshipdidnotexist,andafterabout1820itwasnolongeruniquetoLondon.Anumberofmorespecificquestionsarisefromhowproblemslikepollution,moreusuallylocatedaspartofindustrialmodernity,canbeassessedduringthisperiod.Skeltonaskstowhatextentsustainabilitycanbelocatedinthispre-moderncontext.Ifwearetalkingaboutusingthetechniquesofmodernsciencetoestimatehowpastsocietiesmayhaveencounterednaturallimits,thencertainlythisisessentialworkforanyandallperiods.Butifwearetalkingaboutanactorcategory,Iwouldnotlabelthekindsofconcernsdescribedinthebookasbeingabout“sustainability,”atleastnotinthewaysthattermhasbeenusedinrecentdecades.AsWardehasshown,thatconceptbuildsonanumberofimportantearlymodernstrandsofthoughtthatwerenotsynthesizeduntilthe19thcentury.32Therewere,however,waysinwhichearlymodernpeopledidworryaboutfutureenvironmentalharms.AsWardepointsouttherewasnotyetthecapacityofstatestoincorporatesuchconcernsintocentralizedplanningprocesses,buttherewereotherwaysinwhichstatemachineryallowedforthearticulationofconcernsthatharmingthenaturalorbuiltenvironmentscouldhinderfutureprosperity.Theearlymoderncommonlawdoctrineofprivatenuisance,examinedinchapter5,involvesclaimsabouthowinterventionsinnaturalorbuiltsystems—smokyairpumpedintoone’sgarden,watercoursesdivertedfromone’smill,newpostsblockingone’saccesstopublicroads—producedeconomicdamage.33Suchcasesmightinvolveone-offclaimsofloss,butcouldalsoincludeopen-endedchangestolandscapesthatreducedtheabilityofplaintiffstomakealivingfromthem.Public(asopposedtoprivate)nuisanceinvolvedthemagistrate’sdutytopreventanythingthatwroughtsuchdamagetothepublicingeneral,andinvolvedakindofinformalzoninginwhich“fit”activitiesweretobeallowed.Fitness,ofcourse,wassociallyandpoliticallydetermined,changedovertime,andinvolvedestimatesofeconomicbenefitandharm,allofwhichwerefilteredbydifferentialsofpower.Nuisance,then,wasacapaciousconceptintheearlymodernperiod,bothalegaltermofartandalsoavaguedescriptionforanythingbothersome–withsubstantialoverlappossible32PaulWarde,TheInventionofSustainability:NatureandDestinyc.1500-1870(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2018).33NuisancelawprinciplesandprecedentaresummarizedintextbookslikeGilesJacob,Anewlawdictionary(1756),sub.“nusance”[sic].OnecaseofblockingapublicroadinLondonin1653isfoundatTheNationalArchivesoftheUnitedKingdom,KB27/1755,r.708-708v,digitizedathttp://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT7/Com/KB27no1755/aKB27no1755fronts/IMG_0218.htm.

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.9(2019) 22

betweenthesetwoapplications.Atamoment(autumnof2019)whenaseriesoflawsuitsinAmericancourtsassertthatclimatechangeviolatesarangeofprotectionsagainstnuisance,perhapsthisisoneearlymodernconceptdeservingoffurtherconsideration.Mydiscussionofitinchapter5isbasedonexaminingthousandsofcases,bothinprintandmanuscript,butthatisonlyasmalltipofalargelyundiscoveredarchivaliceberg.Thorsheimasksaboutmedicalandnaturalphilosophicalunderstandingsofair,andinparticularabout“miasma”andcoalsmoke’srelationshipswithotherkindsofbadair.Thebroaderhistoriographicalclaimmadeinchapter6isthathistoriansofmodernenvironmentalpollutionclaimthatearlymodernmedicinewasuninterestedinsmoke,thatitwasseenasbeneficialandwasthereforeusedtofumigateagainstplague.Thorsheim’sexcellentbookontheperiodafter1800makesthisclaimexplicitly.34Incontrast,Iarguethatduringthe17thand18thcenturiescoalsmokewasassessedthroughtherangeofapproachesavailableatthetime,including(al)chemicalandphysicalapproachesthatcontinuallyreformulatedconceptionsofthebody.Coalsmokewasassessed,bymanyphysicians,throughthecategoriesandlanguagesofthescientificrevolution.Ofcoursesmokewasnottheonlykindofbadair,andtherewasneverresolutionaboutwhatexactlybadairwas,norhowitworked.Somedidnotconsidersmokeaproblem,thoughmydiscussionfocusesonthosewhodid.Thefactthatcoalwasburnedtofightplaguedoesnot,Ithink,meanthatitwasconsideredinnocuous.Yes,coalsmokewaslessdangerousthanplague-butwhatwasn’t?Morebroadly,“miasma”isatermthatIfoundlessofteninthesourcesthanexistingliteraturewouldleadonetoexpect.Itdoesnotappearatall,forexample,eitherinEvelyn’sFumifugium(1661)orinArbuthnot’sEssayconcerningtheEffectsofAironHumanBodies(1733).ItisalsoentirelyabsentfromtheShortTitleCatalogueandfromEEBO’slistofkeywords.Ofcoursetheconceptcertainlydidexistandwasdiscussedbyphysicians,butoftenasanearsynonymfor“poison”orotherunhealthyelementin,orarrangementof,theair.Inthissensetherewasnot“amiasmatictheory”anymorethantherewasasingletheoryofdisease.Miasmawasmoreacategoryofquestion—whatmadeairbad?Howdidbadairsworkonthebody?—thanitwasananswer.Additionally,myimpressionisthatconcernovermiasmasbecamefarmoreimportantbyabout1800thanithadbeenduringthe17thcentury,perhapsasaresultofnewapproachestomeasuringtheeffluviaproducedbydecayinganimalsandvegetables,orbydevelopmentsintropicalmedicine.35Insum,thebooksuggeststhatbeliefin“miasmas”hasbeentakentoexplainmorethanitdoes,butIwouldliketoaddacaveatherethataddressingthisissueadequatelywouldrequiremuchmoresustainedanddetailedresearchinthemedicalsources.

34PeterThorsheim,InventingPollution:Coal,SmokeandCultureinBritainsince1800(Athens,OH:OhioUniversityPress,2006),5-6,16-17.35NowexploredinSumanSeth,DifferenceandDisease:Medicine,Race,andtheEighteenth-CenturyBritishEmpire(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2018).

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.9(2019) 23

Thorsheim,andalsoWarde,raisethequestionofcomparisons,ofLondon’splacewithintheurbanandenvironmentalhistoriesofBritain,Europe,andtheworld.ThebookarguesthatLondonwasunique,bothinthematerialfactsofitsairpollutionandintheattentiondevotedtosmoke.Itsuggests—butcertainlydoesnotdemonstrate—thatbythe18thcenturyLondonprovidedamodelforsmallerBritishcitieswhowereexpandingandindustrializing,aseriesofLittleLondonsthatenteredtheindustrialrevolutionwithanalready-existinglanguageforassessingtherelationshipbetweentheirboomingeconomiclifeandtheirdeterioratingenvironment.Thisinfluenceisahypothesis,onethatneedsfurtherworktobeconfirmed,rejected,ornuanced.Thereare,however,afewcenterswhereIsuspectthepictureisprobablymorecomplicatedthanIpresentinthebook.Newcastlewas,ofcourse,dependentonthecoaltrade,anditburnedalargeamountitself,bothwithinthetownandinthesaltpansalongtheTyneestuary.SimilarlyDublinintheeighteenthcenturywasgrowingandburningincreasingamountsofcoal.Bothcitiesmusthavereckonedwiththelegal,medical,andpoliticalsignificanceofsuchcombustion,andmaywellhavedonesoinwaysthatwerelessderivativeofLondon’sexperiencethanmybooksuggests.TheobviousEuropeancomparisonforLondonisprobablyParis,whichwasofcomparablesizethroughouttheperiod,butthecasethatstrikesmeasmoreinterestingisAmsterdam.Duringthe17thcenturytheDutchentrepôtboomedandexpanded,acenterofglobaltradethatalso,likeLondon,hadanenergy-intensiveeconomy,basedonpeatratherthancoal.BeyondEuropethereisthecaseofBeijing,whichhadsomenearbycoalsourcesinthewesternhillsthatwereexploitedlongbeforeandlongaftertheperiodcoveredinmybook.RobertHartwell’sstudiesfromthe1960s,muchcitedintheAnglophoneliterature,arguedthataboomingcoal-fueledironindustryduringtheSongperioddeclineddramaticallyafterabout1200.Thisthesishasbeencritiquedbyscholarswhofindevidenceofcoal-firedindustryduringtheMingandQingperiods,butIamnotawareofanyworkinvestigatingtheplaceoffuelinearlymodernChinesecities.36Insum,addressingthecomparativequestionadequatelywouldrequiresecondaryworkontheseandothercities,workwhichwouldbeverywelcome.Isuspectthatthereisagreatdealtolearnaboutenvironmentalperceptionsinthesecontexts,thattheirstoriesarericherthanisyetknown,butIwouldbesurprisedifanyofthemwitnessedthekindoflarge-scaleandlong-lastingaccommodationwithserioussmokepollutionthatmybookdescribes.Lastly,IwouldliketoturntoWarde’scomments.Hisreadingissensitiveandperceptive,unsurprisingfromascholarwhohaswrittenauthoritativelyontheissuesraisedherefromavarietyofperspectives.ButIwanttopushbackslightlyonafewplacesinhisreviewwherehepresentsdichotomieswhereIseetransitions.Thatis,hestressesthepoliticsofurbancoalsupplyasabout“lessasamatterof

36CritiquesofHartwell’sargumentforpost-SongdeclineincludeHailianChen,“FuelingtheBoom:CoalasthePrimarySourceofEnergyforProcessingZincinChinaandComparisonwithEurope,ca.1720-1820,”JournaloftheEconomicandSocialHistoryoftheOrient57:1(2014),76-111andChineseworkdiscussedinTimWright,“AnEconomicCycleinImperialChina?RevisitingRobertHartwellonIronandCoal,”JournaloftheEconomicandSocialHistoryoftheOrient50:4(2007),398-423.

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.9(2019) 24

economiccapacitythanasthemaintenanceofsocialstability.”Thatitistruefortheperiodingeneral,butthebookalsotriestostressatransitionfromthefocusonattentiontosocialstabilityfoundintheperiodbeforeabout1660,totheincreasingawarenessofcoal’sroleas,inWarde’swords,“amatterofeconomiccapacity,”whichisincreasinglyevidentfromthelate17thcenturyonwards.Similarly,Warde’ssummaryofmydiscussionofnuisancelawanditsnegotiationfindsthatthiswas“notasocietywithametricofriskbeyondoffence.”Thatiscertainlytruebeforethemid-17thcentury,butagainIarguethatsuchametricemerges—graduallyandimperfectly,withlimitedeffects,tobesure—fromabout1660.Statisticalmethods,inparticular,engagedwiththeHippocraticideathatbadaircauseddisease,seekingtoquantifytheroleofcoalsmokeinLondon’spublichealth.Inbothcasesthebookarguesthattheearlymodernperiodseestheemergenceofsomekeywaystoapproachtherelationshipbetweenfossilfuelsandsociallife,suchasitsroleintheeconomy,itshealthimpacts,andtheperhapsabovealltherelationshipbetweenthetwo.Thisstressontherelationshipbetweenenergyuseandthesocial,cultural,andpoliticalconstructionstourbanlifemorebroadlyleadsWardetoask,inafewplaces,formorerigorousinvestigationsofthepreciseroleofkeyvariables.Heaskshow,forexample,onecouldtestmysuggestionthatsmokyaircontributedtothewithdrawalofelitesfromcentralLondon,especiallyconsideringthatsimilardevelopsarefoundinothercitiesandotherroyalcourts.Here,again,furtherworkwouldbeverywelcome.Butmyassertion,developedprimarilyinchapter12,isthatthismessyfusionofcategoriesisthepoint,thataclassicaldiscourseofotiumandthebeatusvirbecame,inLondon,also(butnotonly)acritiqueofworseningpollution.Thismessinessisperhapsalsoattheheartofthedistinctionthebookmakesbetweencoalasafactorofproductionandasa“thing.”Thisintendstogetatanawarenessofthenecessityofcoalinwhichitspricemattersalongsideofalltheotherpossibleimpedimentstoitsuse:sizeandbulk,transportandsecurity,uglysmokeandsulphuroustaste.Itwasathingthatwasstored,distributed,piledupanddoleout,lookedatandsmelled.Ofcoursecostwascentral,butthatisn’ttheendofthestory.Finally,IwouldliketoconcludewithaquestionraisedbyThorsheim:doesthisbookreally“fitundertheumbrellaofenvironmentalhistory”?Isitperhapsatleastasmuchpartofothersub-fields,suchaseconomicorpoliticalhistory?Oneofthebook’smaingoalswastogosomewaystowardserasingsuchdistinctions.Skeltongenerouslypraisesitpreciselyfornotremaining“inanenvironmentalhistorysilo,”andWardesuggeststhatsomeAmericandefinitionsofthatfieldarenotonlydatedbutsomewhatparochial.Escapingexistingnarratives(suchasthedeclineofwilderness)andwritingacrossboundariesbetweensub-disciplines(suchaseconomic,urban,andsocialhistory)wereindeedgoalsofthebook.Buttheywereinstrumentalgoals,pursuednotfortheirownsakebutbecausetheywerenecessarytotellthisstory.Thisisbecause“theenvironment”hadnotemergedasacoherent

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.9(2019) 25

andstablecategoryduringtheearlymodernperiod.37(Indeed,perhapsitisnotevenonetoday.)Earlymodernenvironmentalhistorythereforemustalsobepolitical,social,economic,orurban.Environmentalchangeduringthisperiodcannotbeisolatedfromotherspheresoflife,norcanitbeignored.

37ForitsemergenceseePaulWarde,LilyRobin,andSverkerSörlin,TheEnvironment:AHistoryoftheIdea(Baltimore:JohnHopkinsUniversityPress,2018).

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.9(2019) 26

AbouttheContributorsWillamM.CavertteachesearlymodernandenvironmentalhistoryattheUniversityofSt.Thomas(MN,USA),havingpreviouslyheldapost-doctoralfellowshipatClareCollegeCambridge.TheSmokeofLondonreceivedprizesfromtheRoyalHistoricalSociety,theNorthAmericanConferenceonBritishStudies,andtheEuropeanSocietyforEnvironmentalHistory.HiscurrentworkexploresvermineradicationcampaignsinearlymodernEngland,aswellasperceptionsofwinterduringtheLittleIceAge.ChristopherF.Jones,AssociateProfessorofHistoryatArizonaStateUniversity,studiesthehistoriesofenergy,environment,andtechnology.HeistheauthorofRoutesofPower:EnergyandModernAmerica(Harvard,2014)andiscurrentlyworkingonaprojectexaminingtherelationshipsbetweeneconomictheoriesofgrowthandthedepletionofnon-renewablenaturalresources.LeonaSkeltonisSeniorLecturerinEnvironmentalHistoryatNorthumbriaUniversity,inNewcastleonTyne,UK.Focusingprimarilyonwater,herresearchexploresthehistoryofrivers,sanitationinfrastructureandreservoirsinBritain(1500-present),revealingthetwo-wayinteractionsbetweenpeopleandwaterforces,resourcesandsystems.Dr.SkeltonisauthorofTyneafterTyne:AnEnvironmentalHistoryofaRiver’sBattleforProtection,1529-2015(WhiteHorsePress,2017)andSanitationinUrbanBritain,1560-1700(Routledge,2016).PeterThorsheimisProfessoranddirectorofgraduatestudiesintheDepartmentofHistoryattheUniversityofNorthCarolinaatCharlotte.HeisagraduateofCarletonCollegeandtheUniversityofWisconsin-Madison,andhewasagraduateexchangeresearchfellowattheUniversityofWarwick.HeistheauthorofInventingPollution:Coal,Smoke,andCultureinBritainsince1800(OhioUniversityPress,2006)andWasteintoWeapons:RecyclinginBritainduringtheSecondWorldWar(CambridgeUniversityPress,2015),andheisco-editorofAMightyCapitalunderThreat:TheEnvironmentalHistoryofLondon,1800-2000(inpress).PaulWardeisaProfessorinEnvironmentalHistoryattheUniversityofCambridge.Hisinterestsfocusonnaturalresourceuseanditsroleinshapingsocietiesandeconomicdevelopment,andparticularlyenergyandfuel;andthehistoryofenvironmentalandeconomicthought.RecentbooksincludeTheInventionofSustainability:NatureandDestiny1500-1870(Cambridge,2018)andTheEnvironment:aHistoryoftheIdea(JohnsHopkins,2018),thelatterwrittenwithLibbyRobinandSverkerSörlin.Copyright©2019H-Net:HumanitiesandSocialSciencesOnline

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.9,No.9(2019) 27

H-Netpermitstheredistributionandreprintingofthisworkfornonprofit,educationalpurposes,withfullandaccurateattributiontotheauthor,weblocation,dateofpublication,H-Environment,andH-Net:Humanities&SocialSciencesOnline.