Fumifugium (a 17th century environmental campaign)

[Melvadius]

Whatever your personal views on current environmental campaigns it may suprise some to discover that such campaigns are nothing new.

 

Environmental Protection UK has just reprinted in 'modernised English and with some added comparisons' a 1661 essay by John Evelyn (a noted author and diarist, a member of the group that founded the Royal Society, and the inspiration for a certain UK based skincare company) on air pollution in London, called Fumifugium.

 

[N.B. it can be read online via the previous link]

 

It is drafted as an entreaty to King Charles II; describing the nature of the problem (via a few anachronistic digressions on the influence of air on the characters of nations and some fulsome praise of influential nobles) makes one or two unfavourable comparisons with the air in other European cities, picks up on some interested parties views and then explains what Evelyn would see done.

 

The chief issue back then was the burning of sea coal, but the message Evelyn was trying to get across is very similar to the line taken by modern day campaigners:

[caldrail]

The major difference between modern and historic enviromental movements is the origin of the initial complaint. In previous eras it's almost certainly the discomfort and inconvenience of a wealthy and influential person.

 

I'm thinking of the Lord of Lydiard House who made a great deal of fuss when the railworks were built in Swindon because the the company hooter was waking him up of a morning. So he began a campaign to have the hooter silenced and after legal action (and bending many important ears) the company received a noise abatement instruction.

 

As a result the workers began an irreverent campaign of letters and poems to inform the good gentleman what the working class thought of his desire for a hootless Swindon. In any case, the GWR simply built another hooter next to the old one that wasn;'t covered by the ruling.

 

Not only that, but take the case of Lord Goddard who in the 1870's was part of the committee for building the Swindon, Marlborough, & Andover Railway. A fine project leading to a much needed north/south route across the west contry linking Swindon to the industrial midlands and the maritime south coast. Unfortunately it wasn't quite so fine when the good gentleman discovered a railway station was going to appear at the bottom of his garden, on his land no less! The railway then had to be routed under Swindon hill with a tunnel that flooded and collpased dangerously before work was suspended for lack of funds, leading to another route around the town.

 

Arguably the rise of the Roman villa and the landscaped gardens also suffers from this older perspective. Whilst the landscape is made prettier and more impressive to look at, this parkland was for show. It was meant to underline the owners wealth and status that he could afford such beautiful surroundings. Behind the villa, out of sight from the road, was a working farm employing hordes of hard working slaves that didn't quite fit the rural idyll.

 

The same can be said for other instances. Nero's new Rome for instance, following the great fire of ad68. It is true that at his insistence the streets were to be made wider and less prone to spreading fires, but clearly it was also done with an eye for beautification, a typical Roman ploy to generate public goodwill by civil benefice, especially sinec Nero was grabbing money from anyone he could find to pay for it.

 

However, the prize has to go to Augustus, who bribed the Roman public with civic development (and games too, he certainly made sure everyone knew how spectacular his sponsored events were). Finding Rome in brick and leaving it in marble may have made the city a more pleasant enviroment (despite the usual objections to urban life before modern sanitation) but it wasn't there to make life more pleasant for the public. It was there to impress them.