Planet Savers 301 Extraordinary

Environmentalists 1st Edition Kevin Desmond

Ghillean Prance download

https://ebookbell.com/product/planet-savers-301-extraordinary-
environmentalists-1st-edition-kevin-desmond-ghillean-
prance-51305288

Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.

The Planet Savers And Three More Stories Marion Zimmer Bradley

https://ebookbell.com/product/the-planet-savers-and-three-more-
stories-marion-zimmer-bradley-46420946

Sociology Saves The Planet An Introduction To Socioecological Thinking

And Practice 1st Edition Thomas Macias

https://ebookbell.com/product/sociology-saves-the-planet-an-
introduction-to-socioecological-thinking-and-practice-1st-edition-
thomas-macias-36402458

Dawn Saves The Planet Ann M Martin

https://ebookbell.com/product/dawn-saves-the-planet-ann-m-
martin-55554344

Dawn Saves The Planet 9780545690522

https://ebookbell.com/product/dawn-saves-the-
planet-9780545690522-35521882
Dawn Saves The Planet Ann M Martin

https://ebookbell.com/product/dawn-saves-the-planet-ann-m-
martin-230327020

Haven Jacobs Saves The Planet Barbara Dee

https://ebookbell.com/product/haven-jacobs-saves-the-planet-barbara-
dee-46451814

Haven Jacobs Saves The Planet Barbara Dee

https://ebookbell.com/product/haven-jacobs-saves-the-planet-barbara-
dee-48253454

Lonely Planet Israel The Palestinian Territories 7th Edition Daniel

Robinson

https://ebookbell.com/product/lonely-planet-israel-the-palestinian-
territories-7th-edition-daniel-robinson-4128772

Lonely Planet Israel The Palestinian Territories Lonely Planet

https://ebookbell.com/product/lonely-planet-israel-the-palestinian-
territories-lonely-planet-11680984
Planet Savers
‘We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it
from our children.’
Native American Proverb
PLANET
301 EXTRAORDINARY ENVIRONMENTALISTS

SAVERS
KEVIN DESMOND
WITH A FOREWORD BY SIR GHILLEAN PRANCE
First published 2008 by Greenleaf Publishing Limited

Published 2017 by Routledge

2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

Copyright © 2008 Taylor & Francis

Cover by LaliAbril.com.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in
any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter
invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or
retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

Notice:
Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are
used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

The paper used for this book is a natural, recyclable product made from wood grown
in sustainable forests; the manufacturing processes conform to the environmental
regulations of the country of origin.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data:

Desmond, Kevin, 1950-
Planet savers : 301 extraordinary environmentalists
1. Environmentalists - Biography
I. Title
333.7'2'0922

ISBN-13: 978-1-906093-00-6( * ( (pbk )

Contents
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Professor Sir Ghillean Prance FRS, VMH
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

The Planet Savers:

1 Siddhartha Gautama 32 Mrs Williamson . . . . . . 42 63 Jay Norwood ‘Ding’
Buddha . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 33 Poul la Cour. . . . . . . . . 43 Darling . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
2 Appius Claudius 34 Johannes Juul . . . . . . . 43 64 Rosalie Edge . . . . . . . . 70
Caecus . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 35 John Muir . . . . . . . . . . . 44 65 William Beebe. . . . . . . 71
3 St Francis of Assisi . . . 14 36 John Burroughs . . . . . . 46 66 Roger Tory Peterson . . 72
4 John Evelyn . . . . . . . . . 16 37 Octavia Hill . . . . . . . . . 47 67 Frank Lloyd Wright . . . 73
5 William Penn. . . . . . . . 17 38 Robert Hunter . . . . . . . 47 68 Arthur George Tansley 74
6 Amrita Devi . . . . . . . . . 18 39 Hardwicke Rawnsley . 47 69 Aldo Leopold . . . . . . . . 75
7 Carl Linnaeus . . . . . . . 19 40 Gifford Pinchot . . . . . . 48 70 Robert Marshall . . . . . 76
8 Georges-Louis Leclerc, 41 Elihu Stewart . . . . . . . 49 71 Colonel Jim Corbett . . 77
Comte de Buffon . . . . . 20 72 Roderick Haig-Brown . 78
42 James ‘Scotty’ Philip. . 49
9 Pierre Poivre . . . . . . . . 21 73 Archibald Belaney
43 Rudolph Diesel . . . . . . 50
10 Gilbert White. . . . . . . . 22 (alias Grey Owl) . . . . . 79
44 Theodore Roosevelt . . 51
11 John Chapman. . . . . . . 22 74 Théodore Monod. . . . . 80
45 Edward North Buxton. 52
12 Thomas Malthus . . . . . 23 75 Lady Eve Balfour. . . . . 81
46 Paul Kroegel . . . . . . . . 53
13 Alexander von 76 Laurance S.
47 Frederick Courtney
Humboldt. . . . . . . . . . . 24 Rockefeller . . . . . . . . . 81
Selous . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
14 John James Audubon . 26 77 Russell Ohl . . . . . . . . . 83
48 Alice Hamilton . . . . . . 55
15 Henry Doulton. . . . . . . 27 78 Palmer C. Putnam . . . . 83
49 Paul Sarasin . . . . . . . . 56
16 George Catlin . . . . . . . 28 79 Perrine Moncrieff . . . . 84
50 Gilbert H. Grosvenor. . 57
17 Joseph Paxton . . . . . . . 29 80 Gertrude Dudy Blom. . 85
51 Ansel Adams . . . . . . . . 58
18 Hugh Cleghorn . . . . . . 30 81 Norman Borlaug . . . . . 86
52 Will Dilg . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
19 Chief Seattle . . . . . . . . 30 82 John Gordon Dower . . 87
53 Beatrix Potter . . . . . . . 60
20 Henry David Thoreau . 31 83 Peter Scott. . . . . . . . . . 88
54 Alessandro Ghigi. . . . . 61
21 Frederick Law 84 Marjory Stoneman
55 Vladimir Ivanovich
Olmsted . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Douglas . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Vernadsky . . . . . . . . . . 62
22 Charles Darwin . . . . . . 34 85 Sàlim Ali . . . . . . . . . . . 89
56 Mohandas K. Gandhi . 63
23 George Perkins Marsh 35 86 Ruth Patrick . . . . . . . . 90
57 Charles Sutherland
24 Joseph Bazalgette . . . . 36 Elton. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 87 Archie Carr . . . . . . . . . 91
25 John Ericsson . . . . . . . 37 58 Richard Buckminster 88 Henry Fairfield
26 Julius Sterling Morton 38 Fuller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Osborn Jr . . . . . . . . . . . 93
27 Ellen Swallow 59 Albert Howard. . . . . . . 66 89 Roger Heim . . . . . . . . . 93
Richards. . . . . . . . . . . . 39 60 Myles Dunphy . . . . . . . 67 90 Harold J. Coolidge. . . . 94
28 George Bird Grinnell. . 40 61 Milo Dunphy . . . . . . . . 67 91 Emma Lucy Braun. . . . 95
29 William Morris . . . . . . 41 62 Franklin Delano 92 Arie Haagen-Smit . . . . 96
30 Ernst Rudorff. . . . . . . . 42 Roosevelt. . . . . . . . . . . 68 93 Miriam Rothschild . . . 97
31 Mrs Phillips . . . . . . . . . 42 94 Alain Bombard . . . . . . 98

5
95 Eugene Odum . . . . . . . 99 139 Garrett J. Hardin . . . . 142 184 David Ehrenfeld . . . . 185
96 Kai Curry-Lindahl . . . 100 140 Anton Rupert . . . . . . 143 185 David Gaines. . . . . . . 186
97 Scott Nearing . . . . . . 101 141 Paul Ehrlich. . . . . . . . 144 186 Lois Gibbs . . . . . . . . . 187
98 Helen Nearing. . . . . . 101 142 Anne Ehrlich . . . . . . . 144 187 Hazel Wolf. . . . . . . . . 188
99 Irenäus 143 David Brower . . . . . . 145 188 Hans Jonas . . . . . . . . 189
Eibl-Eibesfeldt . . . . . 102 144 Pete Seeger . . . . . . . . 147 189 James Lovelock . . . . . 190
100 Wladyslaw Szafer . . . 103 145 Mario Boza . . . . . . . . 148 190 David Attenborough . 191
101 Frank Fraser Darling. 103 146 Tom J. Cade . . . . . . . . 149 191 Melaku Worede. . . . . 192
102 Margaret Mee . . . . . . 104 147 Edward (‘Teddy’) 192 Yolanda Kakabadse . 194
103 Ian L. McHarg . . . . . . 106 Goldsmith . . . . . . . . . 150 193 Alan Rabinowitz . . . . 195
104 William O. Douglas. . 106 148 Oren Lyons . . . . . . . . 151 194 Jimmy Carter . . . . . . . 196
105 Charles David 149 William D. 195 Sunderlal Bahuguna. 197
Keeling. . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Ruckelshaus . . . . . . . 152 196 Wangari Maathai . . . 198
106 Bernhard Grzimek . . 109 150 Sylvia Earle . . . . . . . . 153 197 Thomas E. Lovejoy . . 199
107 Frank Craighead . . . . 110 151 Denis Hayes . . . . . . . 154 198 Jakob von Uexküll. . . 200
108 John Craighead . . . . . 110 152 Nicholas Georgescu- 199 Jared Diamond . . . . . 201
109 Raymond Dasmann . 111 Roegen . . . . . . . . . . . 155
200 Norman Myers . . . . . 202
110 Gerald Durrell . . . . . . 112 153 José Lutzenberger. . . 156
201 Amory Lovins . . . . . . 203
111 George Schaller . . . . 113 154 Roger Payne . . . . . . . 157
202 Vandana Shiva . . . . . 204
112 Julian Huxley. . . . . . . 114 155 Peter Raven. . . . . . . . 158
203 Madhav Gadgil . . . . . 206
113 Joy Adamson . . . . . . . 115 156 Biruté Galdikas . . . . . 159
204 Petra Kelly. . . . . . . . . 207
114 Jane Goodall . . . . . . . 116 157 Arne Naess . . . . . . . . 160
205 Martin Green. . . . . . . 208
115 Kenneth Mellanby. . . 117 158 Mostafa Kamal Tolba 161
206 John Houghton . . . . . 209
116 Rachel Carson. . . . . . 118 159 Arthur H. Westing. . . 162
207 Jonathon Porritt . . . . 209
117 Murray Bookchin . . . 120 160 David McTaggart. . . . 163
208 Jean-Bosco Kpanou. . 210
118 Ghillean Prance . . . . 121 161 Donella H. Meadows 164
209 George M. Woodwell 211
119 Edward Pritchard 162 Ernst Friedrich
210 Dian Fossey. . . . . . . . 212
Gee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 Schumacher . . . . . . . 165
211 Homero Aridjis . . . . . 213
120 Jacques-Yves 163 Ivan Illich . . . . . . . . . 167
212 Atsumu Ohmura . . . . 214
Cousteau . . . . . . . . . . 123 164 F. Sherwood
Rowland . . . . . . . . . . 168 213 Joschka Fischer. . . . . 215
121 Felix Rodriguez de la
Fuente . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 165 Paul Crutzen . . . . . . . 168 214 Craig E. Williams . . . 216
122 Neftalí García . . . . . . 125 166 Mario Molina. . . . . . . 168 215 Charles Windsor . . . . 218
123 Claudia ‘Lady Bird’ 167 Takayoshi Kano. . . . . 169 216 Medha Patkar . . . . . . 219
Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . 126 168 Jean-Baptiste 217 Cindy Duehring. . . . . 220
124 Russell E. Train . . . . . 127 Chavannes. . . . . . . . . 170 218 Yvon Chouinard . . . . 221
125 Clair Cameron 169 Paulo Nogueira-Neto 172 219 János Vargha . . . . . . . 222
Patterson. . . . . . . . . . 128 170 Lester R. Brown . . . . 173 220 Alla Yaroshinskaya . . 223
126 Wendell Berry . . . . . . 129 171 Lonnie Thompson. . . 174 221 Gro Harlem
127 Ralph Nader . . . . . . . 130 172 Robert Bateman . . . . 175 Brundtland . . . . . . . . 225
128 Barbara Ward . . . . . . 131 173 Robert Redford . . . . . 176 222 Daniel Janzen . . . . . . 226
129 Barry Commoner . . . 132 174 Pat Mooney . . . . . . . . 177 223 John Elkington . . . . . 227
130 Robert H. Boyle . . . . 133 175 Cary Fowler. . . . . . . . 177 224 Nicolas Hulot . . . . . . 228
131 Lynn Townsend 176 Russell A. 225 Harrison Ngau Laing 229
White Jr . . . . . . . . . . . 134 Mittermeier . . . . . . . . 178 226 Yoichi Kuroda . . . . . . 230
132 Alan Chadwick . . . . . 135 177 Paul Watson . . . . . . . 179 227 Chico Mendes . . . . . . 231
133 Herman Daly . . . . . . . 136 178 Crispin Tickell. . . . . . 180 228 Richard Leakey . . . . . 232
134 Paolo Lugari . . . . . . . 137 179 Anita Roddick . . . . . . 181 229 David Foreman . . . . . 233
135 René Dubos. . . . . . . . 138 180 John Denver. . . . . . . . 182 230 Karl-Henrik Robèrt . . 234
136 Edward Abbey. . . . . . 139 181 Ibrahim Abouleish . . 183 231 Sunita Narain . . . . . . 235
137 Margaret Owings . . . 140 182 Bill Mollison . . . . . . . 184 232 Danny Seo . . . . . . . . . 236
138 Carl Sverker Åström . 141 183 David Holmgren . . . . 184

6
233 Arturo Gómez- 256 Theodora Colborn. . . 261 279 Alden ‘Denny’
Pompa . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 257 Sebastian Chuwa . . . 262 Townsend . . . . . . . . . 286
234 David T. Suzuki . . . . . 238 258 Alexandr Nikitin . . . . 263 280 Ken Livingstone . . . . 287
235 Ted Turner . . . . . . . . . 240 259 Erin Brockovich . . . . 264 281 Giorgios
236 Stephan 260 Pan Wenshi . . . . . . . . 265 Catsadorakis . . . . . . . 288
Schmidheiny . . . . . . . 240 261 Ernst Ulrich von 282 Myrsini Malakou . . . . 288
237 Pat Gruber. . . . . . . . . 242 Weizsäcker . . . . . . . . 267 283 Peter Blake . . . . . . . . 289
238 Juan Pablo Orrego . . 243 262 Timothy E. Wirth . . . 268 284 Tim Smit . . . . . . . . . . 290
239 Terry Tempest 263 Jane Lubchenco . . . . 268 285 William McDonough . 291
Williams . . . . . . . . . . 244 264 José Bové. . . . . . . . . . 270 286 Anita Studer . . . . . . . 292
240 Maurice Strong . . . . . 245 265 Pierce Brosnan . . . . . 271 287 Cormac Cullinan . . . . 293
241 Edward O. Wilson . . . 246 266 William Clay Ford Jr . 272 288 Li Quan . . . . . . . . . . . 294
242 Gunter Pauli . . . . . . . 247 267 Janine M. Benyus . . . 273 289 Arnold
243 Mikhail Gorbachev . . 248 268 Dan Morrell . . . . . . . . 274 Schwarzenegger . . . . 295
244 Alexey V. Yablokov . . 248 269 Annie Kajir . . . . . . . . 275 290 Geoffrey Hawtin . . . . 296
245 Paul Hawken . . . . . . . 250 270 Julia ‘Butterfly’ Hill. . 276 291 José Andrés Tamayo . 297
246 Birsel Lemke . . . . . . . 251 271 Klaus Töpfer . . . . . . . 277 292 Jim Ball . . . . . . . . . . . 299
247 Randall Borman . . . . 252 272 Carl Safina . . . . . . . . 278 293 Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 300
248 Ray Anderson . . . . . . 253 273 Hammerskjoeld 294 Zhao Hang . . . . . . . . . 301
249 José Maria Figuères . 254 Simwinga . . . . . . . . . 279 295 Olya Melen . . . . . . . . 302
250 Pooran Desai. . . . . . . 255 274 Leonardo DiCaprio . . 280 296 Dorothy Stang. . . . . . 303
251 Sue Riddlestone . . . . 255 275 Yann Arthus- 297 Greg Nickels . . . . . . . 304
252 Steven R. Galster . . . 257 Bertrand . . . . . . . . . . 281 298 Jean-Michel
253 Dimítrios 276 Jorge Viana . . . . . . . . 282 Cousteau . . . . . . . . . . 305
Archontónis. . . . . . . . 258 277 Gordon E. Moore . . . 283 299 James E. Hansen . . . . 306
254 Ken Saro-Wiwa . . . . . 259 278 James Gustave ‘Gus’ 300 Al Gore . . . . . . . . . . . 307
255 Charles A. Munn III . 260 Speth . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284 301 George Monbiot . . . . 308

Index of Planet Savers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310

Index of organisations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
Photo credits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
About the author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320

7
Foreword
It is a bold task to choose 301 ‘Planet Savers’ from among the many people who
have striven and are striving to save planet Earth from disaster. Here we have a fas-
cinating selection of people from all walks of life who have played their part. The
contribution of each individual might seem small in light of the grave environmen-
tal crisis we are facing, but it is these many individual actions that are indeed mak-
ing a difference. The sum of all these actions, whether large or small, is certainly
much greater than the parts. This book shows how every local action, however
small, counts towards the avoidance of ecological disaster.
It is impressive to see how someone from any background or any type of job can
play a part in saving our planet. In this selection of people we see how movie actors,
mothers and housewives, poets, scientists, journalists, musicians and many others
are helping to rescue the planet. It is also good to see the long history of action from
early visionaries such as George Perkins Marsh to contemporary activists and con-
servationists. The selection of people is also suitably international as we read about
planet savers from Brazil to India, from Malaysia to Kenya and from many other
corners of the globe. A sadness that becomes apparent as we read through these
brief biographies is how the governments or industries of the countries of so many
Planet Savers are resisting their actions and the change that is needed to save
Earth’s ecosystems.
While we have an excellent and most appropriate selection of Planet Savers dis-
cussed here, I must also herald the numerous unsung heroes that I have encoun-
tered in my travel around the world who are also playing their part. The home gar-
deners in Bangladesh who have restored their land to produce nutritious food, the
indigenous peoples who are protecting so many of the ecosystems upon which their
livelihoods depend, the medicine men of India and Nepal who have moved to sus-
tainable cultivation and conservation of the plants they use for treatment of ill-
nesses, and the Guaraní of northern Argentina who are fighting to preserve their
forests from excess timber extraction. Wherever I go I come across Planet Savers
who are striving for the cause and who deserve as much praise as those people who
happen to have been selected for inclusion here.
Whether the Planet Savers working today will be successful in defending the
planet for future generations very much depends upon the actions that we take now
in 2008 and over the next decade. We have little time left as we see the growing
effects of climate change, species loss, water shortages, soil erosion, desertification
and many other signs of a groaning planet. The best way in which we can honour
all the Planet Savers in this book and the many others working around the world is
to take action in small ways wherever we may be located. We can all join this group

8
of Planet Savers if we want to, by promoting energy conservation, recycling, using
public transport, composting green waste, using renewable green energy, writing
to politicians about environmental issues, and in many other ways. This is a book
that should not just be read to entertain, but to challenge all its readers into action.
It is my hope that you too will join this distinguished list of people who care about
the future of the planet upon which we live.

Professor Sir Ghillean Prance FRS, VMH

School of Plant Sciences, University of Reading
Scientific Director, The Eden Project

9
Introduction
Welcome to a collection of 301 portraits of those who have had the drive, determi-
nation, patience and courage to do something positive to save our planet. This is
not a scientific or political treatise, but a long overdue tribute to a glittering display
of pioneers – male and female, young and old, rich and poor, black and white, from
all corners of the globe. It is an impressive roll of honour that should be available
in every language and in every library in the world to inspire and to educate those
who would do likewise – particularly the next generation on whom so much now
depends.
Although ecology, environment and conservation must continue to inspire
philosophical and political discussion, role-model narratives can also play an
important part. We all need heroes.
If we are to save our planet, we shouldn’t spend all of our time reading and talk-
ing about it. We should really be out in the field doing what we can in our back
yards and beyond. For this reason, the Planet Savers in this book have been pre-
sented as short, easy-to-read portraits. They are arranged chronologically. Should
you wish to read more – and I sincerely hope you will – use the website addresses
provided, read their books or other books written about them. And an atlas will also
come in very handy; these Planet Savers truly are a global phenomenon.
Living in the countryside, as I do, certainly changes your perspective and prior-
ities. Where I have the privilege to live, we have become the intruders, and the
squatters. I inhabit a house in the middle of a wilderness. The birds migrate over-
head, as they were doing so long before the house was built. The woodpeckers, but-
terflies, dragonflies, salamanders, tree-frogs, hummingbird hawk moths, honey-
bees and bats go about their business as they always have done. If we are sensitive
enough, we take our place in nature, no longer the dominant destroyers nor the
clumsy constructors, but observing and integrating.
This collection does not for one moment claim to be definitive. There have been
tens of thousands of people who have acted to protect the planet and its threatened
inhabitants throughout history. New Planet Savers are at work right now in rain-
forests and megacities; in community centres and boardrooms; at road protests and
in courtrooms, all over the world. If this book has one great aim it is to inspire you,
the reader, to join them.
Kevin Desmond
Bordeaux, France

10
Acknowledgements
The research for this book was undertaken over a period of three years. The ques-
tion very early on became: where to stop? The more time I spent on the project, the
further away I was from completing it. The discovery of a new Planet Saver led me
to investigate other under-represented areas and twenty more people would appear
on my long list for inclusion. But this has been a long labour of love.
The people included here have been the recipients of literally thousands of envi-
ronmental awards for their work in protecting the planet. Many of these awards are
mentioned in their portraits, but it is impossible to be absolutely inclusive without
tiring the reader with exhaustive lists. Several of these prizes have been extremely
helpful in writing this book. In particular, kudos must be given to the Right Liveli-
hood Award, the Goldman Prize, the Rolex Award for Enterprise, the Tyler Environ-
mental Prize, the Cosmos Prize, the Chevron Conservation Award, the Volvo Envi-
ronment Prize and the Heinz Award. I would also like to thank the numerous
organisations that have supported the book by providing information and photo-
graphs. While every effort has been made to verify all of the information in this
book, the nature of the biography is that it is always in flux.
Finally, much credit should also be given to the editors at Greenleaf Publishing
who have tirelessly worked on the manuscript over a number of months. Nor could
I have finished this book without the support of my friend, Sir Ghillean Prance,
Philippe De Spoelberch and my wife Alex, and our two children, Helen and
Andrew.

11
The Planet Savers:
c.c.533
533BC
BC

Siddhartha Gautama Buddha

563–483 BC
Dharma
Some time during the 6th century BC, Siddhartha Gautama, formerly a wealthy
Nepalese prince but now a monk living a life of complete austerity, spent some
seven weeks meditating beneath a pipal tree (Ficus religiosa) near Buddh Gaya in the
Indian state of Bihar. He refused to rise until he had attained the ultimate knowl-
edge of spiritual enlightenment. Gautama achieved his aim and, from then on, was
known as the Buddha or Awakened One.
Among the truths the Buddha subsequently presented to his followers was the
concept of oneness with the Earth. For him, planting gardens (aram-aropa) and
forests (vanaropa) would give them merit both night and day. Believing that if we
destroy something around us we
destroy ourselves, the Buddha
and his disciples refused to kill
any animal.
Today, Buddhism teaches that
the Western idea of individual-
ity is an illusion. The health of
the whole is inseparably linked
to the health of the parts, and
the health of the parts is insep-
arably linked to the health of
the whole. This means that car-
ing for the environment begins
with caring for oneself. As calls The Ushiku Big Buddah peering through autumn foliage in
for ethical business practices Ibaraki Prefecture, Japan. It is the world’s tallest bronze statue
at 120 metres
grow in our ever more glob-
alised world, a livelihood that
does not harm others, such as refusing to trade with or own shares in companies
that deal in weapons, meat, alcohol or drugs, can be seen as a Buddhist way of life.

“ The kind of seed sown will produce that kind of fruit. Those who do good
will reap good results. Those who do evil will reap evil results. If you care-
fully plant a good seed, you will joyfully gather good fruit.

13
312
312BC
BC

Appius Claudius Caecus

c. 340–273 BC
Cleaner water
In the early days of Rome, the city’s water supply came from the River Tiber and its
waste went back into the river. By the 4th century BC, with the Roman population
growing rapidly, the city urgently needed an alternative supply of unpolluted water.
In 312 BC, the Roman Senate ordered Appius Claudius Caecus, an aristocratic
reformer, to find a new source of water for the city. Claudius started construction
on the first aqueduct to supply water to Rome. The 16.5 km Aqua Appia flowed
almost completely underground and dropped only 10 m over its entire length, mak-
ing it a remarkable engineering achievement for its day. It could deliver 73,000 m3
of water a day to the city. It was so successful that 40 years later another aqueduct,
the Anio Vetus, was built. This was followed by the improved Marcia aqueduct of
144 BC which used the inverted siphon system to lead water upwards to the hills of
Rome. By 97 AD, thanks to 11 aqueducts, Rome’s water supply system was one of
the marvels of the ancient world. The Roman Empire also built many other aque-
ducts in Greece, Italy, France, Spain, north Africa and Asia Minor.
It was to be many years before such a sophisticated system for clean, unpolluted
fresh water came to be used again.

1224
1224

St Francis of Assisi
1182–1226
The patron saint of animals and ecology
During the 13th century, Francis of Assisi founded a brotherhood of 5,000 monks
– the Franciscans – whose way of life was based on charity, poverty and obedience.
Many of the stories that surround the life of St Francis deal with his love for ani-
mals. Perhaps the most famous incident that illustrates his humility towards nature
is recounted in the Fioretti (Little Flowers), a collection of legends and folklore. It is
said that one day while Francis was travelling with some companions they came to
a place where birds filled the trees on either side. Francis told his companions to ‘wait
for me while I go to preach to my sisters the birds’. The birds surrounded him, drawn
by the power of his voice, and not one of them flew away. Francis spoke to them:
My sister birds, you owe much to God, and you must always and in everyplace
give praise to Him; for He has given you freedom to wing through the sky and

14
 He has clothed you . . . you neither sow nor reap, and God feeds you and gives
you rivers and fountains for your thirst, and mountains and valleys for shelter,
and tall trees for your nests. And although you neither know how to spin or
weave, God dresses you and your children, for the Creator loves you greatly and
He blesses you abundantly. Therefore . . . always seek to praise God.

Another legend from the Fioretti tells us that, in the city of Gubbio, where Fran-
cis lived for some time, there was a wolf ‘terrifying and ferocious, who devoured
men as well as animals’. Francis had compassion upon the townsfolk and went,
with some companions, up into the hills to find the wolf. Soon fear of the animal
had caused all his companions to flee, but Francis pressed on and when he found
the wolf he made the sign of the cross and commanded the wolf to come to him
and hurt no one. Miraculously the wolf closed his jaws and lay down at the feet of
Francis who said he wanted to make peace with the animal. Then Francis led the
wolf into the town and, surrounded by startled citizens, he made a pact between
them and the wolf. Because the wolf had ‘done evil out of hunger’ the townsfolk
were to feed the wolf regularly and, in return, the wolf would no longer prey upon
them or their flocks. In this manner Gubbio was freed from the menace of the pred-
ator. Francis even made a pact on behalf of the town dogs that they would not bother
the wolf again.
These legends exemplify the Franciscan love of the natural world. Part of this
appreciation of the environment is expressed in Francis’s Canticle of the Sun, a
poem thought to have been written around 1224, which expresses a love and appre-
ciation of Brother Sun, Sister Moon, Mother Earth, Brother Fire and all of God’s
creations personified in their fundamental forms.
Francis believed in the universal ability and duty of all creatures to praise God,
and the duty of all men to cherish and protect God’s divine creation of the natural
world. This teaching, that the Earth must be preserved, is more prescient now than
ever in light of habitat loss and species extinction. The realisation that everything
comes from the same source made Francis call all created things, no matter how
insignificant, his brothers and sisters, because they had the same origins as he.
Every year on the Sunday nearest the feast day of St Francis on 4 October, Catholic
and other Christian churches around the world host services where animals are
blessed. These services are a powerful way to celebrate Francis’s compassionate
concern for all creatures.

“ If you have men who will exclude any of God’s creatures from the shelter
of compassion and pity, you will have men who deal likewise with their fel-
low men.

” x www.franciscanfriarstor.com

15
1661
1661

John Evelyn
1620–1706
Diarist turns silviculturalist
With the restoration of King Charles II to the throne of England, among the mem-
bers of the Court was John Evelyn, a diarist, gardener and writer. London had for a
long time been suffering from air pollution caused by the burning of poor-quality
‘sea-coal’. In 1661 Evelyn wrote a pamphlet entitled Fumifugium (or The Inconve-
nience of the Aer and Smoak of London Dissipated), the first book ever written about
air pollution.
To combat the problem, Evelyn proposed moving industries such as breweries
and lime-burners to locations far outside the city. In addition to relocating pollut-
ing industries, Evelyn encouraged gardens and orchards to be planted on the city’s
periphery that the ‘the whole city, would be sensible of the sweet and ravishing vari-
eties of the perfumes’. In contrast to unpleasant odours, which were believed to
cause illness, pleasant odours were thought to be healthful and curative. Following
the publication of Fumifugium, Evelyn was appointed to the Royal Society.
Soon after this, Evelyn received a request from the Commissioners of the Navy
for advice on the management of woodland. Timber for ships was in short supply
and forests were being stripped to provide material for the expansion of the British
Navy and to provide wood for iron and glass-making. The resulting book, first pub-
lished by the Royal Society in 1664, was Sylva (or A Discourse of Forest-Trees). Eve-
lyn was well aware of the need for replanting, residing as he did near the naval dock-
yard in Deptford, and encouraged new planting to meet the demand. His plea for
afforestation was a valuable work on arboriculture. He went on to recommend that:
His Majesty’s forests and chases be stored with this spreading tree at handsome
intervals, by which grazing might be improved for the feeding of deer and cat-
tle under them, benignly visited with the gleams of the sun, and adorned with
the distant landscapes appearing through the glades and frequent valleys; noth-
ing could be more ravishing. We might also sprinkle fruit trees amongst them
for cider . . .

Only 200 mature trees were left standing in the old Forest of Dean when it was
surveyed a few years later. Fortunately, Evelyn’s advice was taken – an open pattern
of replanted forest was established and later echoed in many parks. Today, some
350 years later, those oaks, limes and sweet chestnuts planted under the influence
of Evelyn’s Sylva are magnificent examples of his vision. One wonders whether the
diarist ever considered the beneficial effect that the planting of trees might have had
on the very lungs of his polluted city.

“ . . . the Hellish and dismall Cloud of sea coal . . . which is . . . so univer-

sally mixed with the otherwise wholsome and excellent Aer, that her Inhab-

16
 itants breathe nothing but an impure and thick Mist accompanied with a
fuliginous and filthy vapour, which renders them obnoxious to a thousand
inconveniences, corrupting the Lungs, and disordring the entire habits of
their Bodies; so that Catharrs, Phthisicks, Coughs and Consumptions rage
more in this one City than in the whole Earth besides.

”
x www.british-trees.com/Oldsite/p10.htm

1682
1682

William Penn
1644–1718
‘A greene country towne’
In 1681, a 37-year-old Englishman called William Penn obtained a grant of land in
North America which he called Pennsylvania in honour of his father. On arrival,
Penn began to plan Pennsylvania’s first town, which he called Philadelphia. Hav-
ing in his youth seen overcrowding and unsanitary conditions exacerbate the Great
Plague in London and then watched the city razed by fire, Penn aimed for what he
called a ‘greene country towne’. He and his surveyor, Tom Holme, mapped out a
grid of evenly spaced streets with their boundaries marked on the trunks of the
chestnut, walnut, locust, spruce, pine and other forest trees that covered the land.
There were to be several wide boulevards lined by trees and five public squares of
greenery. Writing the world’s first urban conservation law, Penn stipulated that
each plot of land within Philadelphia was to be at least one acre, with space each
side of the building ‘for gardens, or orchards, or fields’. He also required Pennsyl-
vanian settlers to preserve one acre of trees for every five acres cleared.
After Penn had returned to England not all Pennsylvanians respected their
founder’s love of trees. After only 25 years, Philadelphia’s South-east Square was
being used as a potter’s field and a burial yard for strangers in the city. But Penn’s
spirit lived on and, in 1815, a public walk was created at South-east Square and a
tree-planting programme began which today supports 60 varieties of tree.

“ Let us begin where nature begins, go at her pace, and close always where
nature ends, and we cannot miss being good naturalists.

”x www.williampenn.org

17
1730
1730

Amrita Devi
c. 1700–1730
The world’s first environmental martyr
Amrita Devi was a woman from the Bishnoi community in Rajasthan, India,
founded by Guru Jambheshwar in the 15th century. The sect followed a remarkably
detailed 29 principles laid down by its founder. Animals and trees were deemed
sacred and killing or felling them was banned.
In 1730, the Maharaja of Jodhpur sent an army of woodcutters to fell the Khejri
trees in the Bishnoi village of Khejarli. He needed wood to fuel the lime kilns for
cement to build a palace. Amrita Devi was at her home with her three daughters
(Asu, Ratni and Bhagu bai) and when she realised what was happening she
protested to the Maharaja’s men. The woodcutters asked for bribes to spare the
trees. Amrita told them that she considered this an insult to her faith and would
rather give away her life to save the trees, saying: ‘Sar santey rookh rahe to bhi sasto
jaan’ (‘If a tree is saved even at the cost of one’s head, it’s worth it’). She was
beheaded, as were her three daughters.
The Bishnois of Khejarli and 83 other Bishnoi villages in the area gathered as
the tree-felling continued. It was decided that for every tree felled, one Bishnoi vol-
unteer would sacrifice his/her life. In the beginning, old people voluntarily started
embracing the trees to be cut. Soon, young men, women and children were sacri-
ficing themselves in a similar manner. The carnage led the tree-felling party to
return to Jodhpur to report to the Maharaja with their mission unfulfilled. As soon
as he learned about it, he ordered the felling of trees to be stopped. By that time,
363 Bishnois had already become martyrs.
Honouring the courage of the Bishnoi community, Maharaja Abhay Singh apol-
ogised for the mistake committed by his officials and issued a royal decree banning
the cutting of green trees and hunting of animals within the revenue boundaries of
Bishnoi village – even members of the ruling family would not be allowed to shoot
animals in or near Bishnoi villages.
Although the Bishnoi community paid a huge price for saving a few trees, this
incident has inspired many others to fight and protect trees and wildlife. Today, the
Bishnois consider themselves the world’s first environmentalists and were the
inspiration for the 20th-century Chipko (treehugger) movement in India. They con-
tinue to be proactive and were recently instrumental in securing the conviction of
Bollywood film star Salman Khan for the illegal shooting of black buck deer.

“ Let the Earth we dig become greener and greener every day.

”x www.bishnoi.org

18
1735
1735

Carl Linnaeus
1707–1778
The economy of nature
In 1735, a widely travelled Swedish scientist, botanist,
zoologist, geologist, doctor, health worker and
philosopher, Carl Linnaeus, published Systema
Naturae in which he set out a plant classification
system based on sexual characteristics. It was to
earn him the title ‘the father of modern taxon-
omy’.
But Linnaeus was curious about the entire natural world and wanted to map the
whole of nature. His curiosity led to the naming convention known as the binary
nomenclature that he introduced in 1749. In his Species Plantarum published in
1753 Linnaeus attempted to name and describe all known plants, calling each kind
a species and assigning to each a two-part Greek or Latin name consisting of the
genus (group) name followed by the species name. Many of his names for flower-
ing plants survive with little, if any, change: for example, Quercus alba for white oak.
The 1758 edition of Systema Naturae extended binomial classification to animals.
Humans, for example, are known as Homo sapiens in the Order primates in the
Class of mammals (Mammalia). Because he was the first to achieve a consistent and
efficient system of nomenclature, in 1905 botanists agreed to accept his Species Plan-
tarum and zoologists agreed to accept the 10th edition of his Systema Naturae (1758)
as the official starting points for scientific names of plants and animals.
The subject of ecology as a distinct area of investigation was first outlined by Lin-
naeus in a thesis of 1749 entitled Specimen Academicum de Oeconomia Naturae. Lin-
naeus organised ecology around the balance-of-nature concept, which he named
the ‘economy of nature’. He emphasised interrelationships in nature and was one
of the first naturalists to describe food chains. He also studied plant succession, the
diversity of habitat requirements among species, and the selective feeding habits of
insects and hoofed animals. He was strongly interested in the distribution of
species and studied their different means of dispersal. He urged the application of
biological knowledge not only in medicine but also in agriculture, for he believed
that the effective combating of agricultural pests must be based on a thorough
knowledge of their life histories.

“ If a tree dies, plant another in its place.

x www.linnaeus2007.se  Wilfrid ”
Blunt and William T. Stearn, The Compleat Naturalist: A Life
of Linnaeus (London: Frances Lincoln Publishers, 3rd rev. edn 2002)

19
1749
1749

Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon

1719–1786
France’s first naturalist
In an era long before ecosystems or biodiversity became commonly understood, the
French naturalist, mathematician, biologist, cosmologist and author Comte de Buf-
fon had deduced that all organisms, including humans, are the products of specific
environmental conditions. He wrote that ‘three causes . . . must be admitted as
concerning the production of . . . varieties . . . among the different nations of the
earth: the influence of climate; food, which has a great dependence on climate; and
manners on which climate has a still great influ-
ence’.
From 1739, as Manager of King Louis XV of
France’s Royal Garden, Buffon doubled both its
plants and animal menagerie. His achievements
included planting a magnificent arboretum of trees
of every origin, transported from all over the world.
Observing nature, he noted the importance of cer-
tain species in the food chain, and the role of birds
in the dispersion of tree seeds.
In 1749 he began to write what would be his
life’s work: Histoire naturelle, générale et particulière.
It would run to 36 volumes in the next 29 years up
to his death, with another eight volumes published
posthumously. This astonishing project included
everything known about the natural world up until
that date. He noted that, despite similar environ-
ments, different regions have distinct plants and
animals, a concept later known as Buffon’s Law,
widely considered the first principle of Biogeography. He also made the radical con-
clusion that species must have both ‘improved’ and ‘degenerated’ (evolved) after
dispersing away from a centre of creation. He also asserted that climate change
must have facilitated the worldwide spread of species from their centre of origin.

Ü
Buffon was the most widely read scientist of his day, an influence on the later
work of Darwin (Buffon considered the possible shared ancestry between man and 34
apes), and his work is regarded as a great influence on modern ecology.

“ Humans squander and pollute Nature, but in her generosity she is capable
of supporting it . . .

”  Jacques Roger, Buffon (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1996)

20
1767
1767

Pierre Poivre
1719–1786
The colonial environmentalist
The Dutch abandoned the Indian Ocean island of Mauritius in 1710. Five years
later, the French arrived and renamed the territory Ile de France. Among them was
Pierre Poivre, a horticulturalist from Lyon, who had originally trained to be a mis-
sionary. Poivre had a sense of adventure and wanted to remove the Dutch monop-
oly on the spice trade. He arrived with trunks full of seeds and shrubs, including
cloves, nutmeg and pepper plants. His efforts were sabotaged and he returned dis-
illusioned to France.
In 1767, Poivre returned as administrator of Ile de France and Ile Bourbon
(Réunion). He constructed a botanical garden on Mauritius which consisted of
trees, shrubs and plants from tropical sites worldwide. Today, on northern Mauri-
tius, the Botanical Garden of Pamplemousses that Poivre created still flourishes; it
is now a 25 hectare garden containing tropical plants and trees from Africa, Asia
and the Americas as well as the islands of the Indian Ocean.
Poivre observed that the wholesale destruction of the Mauritian Calvaria tree
(Sideroxylon majus) was having an impact on the regional climate by reducing rain-
fall. The trees had once been nourished by, and provided nourishment for, the dodo
which had lived off the fruit of the tree and whose faeces helped fertilise the seeds.
But with the arrival of the Portuguese in the early 16th century the flightless dodo
was hunted for the table. Its eggs became food for the dogs, pigs, monkeys and
other animals brought by humans. Since the female dodo laid only one egg at a
time, their population rapidly declined. By 1681 the dodo was extinct and the Cal-
varia tree was endangered, although the connection between these events remains
unproven.
In a law of 1769, called the Règlement Economique, and in later laws passed
after Poivre had left the island in 1772, an extensive system of forest and riverside
reservations was established on Mauritius, along with tree-planting programmes,
in order to protect the rainfall, prevent soil erosion and provide a sustainable tim-
ber supply. These plans were very ambitious: one scheme of 1784 envisaged the
planting of 500,000 trees
The complex environmental and botanical agendas pursued by the French on
Mauritius stand out as a template for most subsequent conservationist initiatives
throughout the British and French colonial empires. They also constituted a major
plank of the earliest arguments for a forest conservation service in the US. Poivre
has since been considered by his fellow countrymen as one of the founders of mod-
ern ecology.

 Pierre Poivre, Mémoires d’un botaniste et explorateur (Rennes: La Découvrance, 2006)

21
1789
1789

Gilbert White
1720–1793
England’s first ecologist
During his life as curate of Selborne and its neighbouring Hampshire parishes,
Gilbert White spent most of his hours observing and noting down the plants, ani-
mals and birds that surrounded him. In 1751 he began to keep a Gardeners’ Kalen-
dar, and later A Naturalist’s Journal. He would then include his observations in let-
ters to Thomas Pennant, the leading British zoologist of the day and also to the
Hon. Daines Barrington, another member of the Royal Society. These letters con-
tained White’s discoveries about local birds, animals and plants. He believed in dis-
tinguishing birds by observation rather than by collecting specimens, and was thus
one of the first people to separate the similar-looking chiffchaff, willow warbler and
wood warbler by means of their song.
After twenty years, White published his findings in The Natural History and
Antiquities of Selborne. It has never been out of print.
White is regarded by many as England’s first ecologist and one of the founders
of modern respect for nature
The Selborne Society for the preservation of birds and plants was founded in
1885 in memory of Gilbert White. Today ‘The Wakes’, White’s family home, is a
museum, whose grounds are managed with conservation efforts in mind.

“ Earthworms, though in appearance a small and despicable link in the chain

of nature, yet, if lost, would make a lamentable chasm . . . worms seem to
be the great promoters of vegetation, which would proceed but lamely
without them.

”
x www.gilbertwhiteshouse.org.uk  G. White, TheofIllustrated
Selborne
Natural History and Antiquities
(London: Thames & Hudson, 2007)

1797
1797
John Chapman
1774–1845
Johnny Appleseed
In 1797, a 26-year-old Christian missionary called John Chapman, later known as
Johnny Appleseed, left western Pennsylvania carrying a sack of apple seeds
obtained from a cider mill. As he travelled westward, Chapman began planting the

22
seeds. He created his first nursery orchard in a valley near the Ohio River. Many
more would follow.
Chapman had discovered that, following the War of Independence, those who
had volunteered to fight against the British were to be rewarded with plots of land.
He went ahead and planted his nurseries in readiness for the arrival of these veter-
ans. His plan was to sell them the trees at an affordable price. In 1802, when they
arrived, his trees were big enough to transport. He continued planting for the next
50 years, ahead of the great immigrant flood sweeping ever westward, first across
Ohio, then Indiana, then Illinois. It is estimated that Johnny Appleseed planted mil-
lions of apple trees throughout the upper Midwest.
He was forever travelling, either moving on to plant the next nursery or return-
ing to ensure the healthy growth of the saplings. Many pioneers travelled long dis-
tances to buy trees from him. Johnny Appleseed came to know many Indian tribes,
to understand their culture and medicines, and to speak their languages. He also
sowed seeds of medicinal herbs wherever he went, such as dog fennel, pennyroyal,
catnip, horehound, mullen and rattlesnake root.
During his seed-sowing travels, Johnny Appleseed rescued several abandoned,
aged or maimed horses and paid a farmer to care for them during their final years.
It is even said that he once rescued a wolf from a trap, resulting in the wolf adopt-
ing him and following him for many days. When asked why he feared neither man
nor beast, Johnny Appleseed claimed that he could not be harmed as long has he
lived according to the laws of harmony and love. Just before his death aged 71,
Johnny Appleseed was still ‘a gatherer and planter of apple seeds’. Today, he is con-
sidered one of America’s first conservationists.

“ I could not enjoy myself better anywhere – I can lay on my back, look up
at the stars and it seems almost as though I can see the angels praising
God, for he has made all things for good.

”
1798
1798

Thomas Malthus
1766–1834
The principle of population
In 1797, Reverend Thomas Malthus, a brilliant 31-year-old Cambridge-educated
mathematics scholar was a clergyman at Okewood Chapel, a few miles from his
parents’ home at Albury, Surrey. Although a poor parish, it had an unusually high
baptism rate. One day, Malthus had a discussion with his father on the ‘perfectibil-
ity of society’. His father, Daniel Malthus, a philosopher and close friend of Jean-
Jacques Rousseau, was struck by his arguments and encouraged him to publish his
ideas.

23
 An Essay on the Principle of Population first appeared in 1798. In it, Malthus made
the famous prediction that population increases in England would quickly outstrip
the available food supplies, leading to famine and misery. His argument was based
on the premise that, while populations can grow geometrically, food production
cannot because it is limited by the land available. He doubted whether science and
technology could solve the problem since any gains made through technology
would be quickly offset by population increases, with ultimately disastrous conse-
quences.
Although Malthus seriously underestimated the ability of society to augment the
resource base, and therefore the ability of the population to grow to its present size,
he nevertheless initiated an important debate on the interaction between human
populations and environmental conditions and constraints which continues today.
The UN Population Division expects the world population to reach 9.5 billion by the
year 2100.

“ The power of population is so superior to the power of the Earth to produce

subsistence for man that premature death must in some shape or other visit
the human race. The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of
depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction, and
often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war
of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague advance
in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tens of thousands.
Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the
rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the
world.

”
x desip.igc.org/malthus  Thomas Malthus, An(Teddington,
Essay on the Principle of Population
UK: The Echo Library, 2003)

1799
1799
Alexander von Humboldt
1769–1859
The greatest travelling scientist
In 1799, 30-year-old Alexander von Humboldt, a Prussian naturalist and explorer,
travelled to South America for what would be one of the greatest scientific expedi-
tions ever undertaken. Among the myriad achievements of the five-year trip were
four months exploring the route of the Orinoco river which established its connec-
tion to the Amazon, an ascent of Mount Chimbarazo in the Ecuadorean Andes to
a new record height and investigations into the fertilising properties of guano
which led to its widespread use in Europe. His work was the first detailed scientific

24
 description of the region and has led him to become described as the father of both
physical geography and meteorology.
By his delineation (in 1817) of isothermal lines, he devised the means to compare
climatic conditions between countries. He first investigated the rate of decrease in
mean temperature with increase of elevation above sea level and, informed by his
inquiries into the origin of tropical storms, uncov-
ered the earliest clue to the detection of the more
complicated law governing atmospheric distur-
bances in higher latitudes. His work on the geogra-
phy of plants was based on the then novel idea of
studying the distribution of organic life in relation
to varying physical conditions. His discovery of the
decrease in intensity of the Earth’s magnetic field
from the poles to the equator was communicated to
the Paris Institute in a memoir read by him in
1804, and its importance was attested by the speedy
emergence of rival claims.
His services to geology were mainly based on his
attentive study of the volcanoes of the New World.
He showed that they fell naturally into linear groups,
which he deduced corresponded with vast subter-
ranean fissures; and by demonstrating the igneous
origin of rocks previously held to be of aqueous ori-
gin he contributed largely to the development of geology as a scientific discipline.
One of von Humboldt’s lesser-known studies concerned the falling water levels
of Lake Valencia in Venezuela. With characteristic originality, he attributed this to
decreasing rainfall caused by deforestation – in effect, human-influenced climate
change. By the middle of the 19th century, von Humboldt’s observations, published
in his book Travels to the Equinoctial Regions of the New World, had helped raise con-
cern worldwide about whether expanding industrialisation allied to deforestation
would have a permanent impact on the climate.
Ü On his return to France, he quickly became the most famous living European
34 after Napoleon Bonaparte. According to Charles Darwin, Humboldt was ‘the great-
est travelling scientist who ever lived’.

“ I have the crazy notion to depict in a single work the entire material uni-
verse, all that we know of the phenomena of heaven and earth, from the
nebulae of stars to the geography of mosses and granite rocks – and in a
vivid style that will stimulate and elicit feelings.

x www.humboldt-foundation.de Exploration ”
Aaron Sachs, The Humboldt Current: Nineteenth-century
and the Roots of American Environmentalism
(New York: Viking, 2006).

25
1820
1820

John James Audubon

1786–1851
First paint the birds, then protect them
In 1820, John James Audubon, a 34-year-old financially unsuccessful farmer and
hunter, started an unprecedented project. He planned to paint the likeness of every
bird in North America – life-size! With the finan-
cial and moral support of his wife Lucy, seven
years later this artist of French/Creole origins
had published the first 87 portfolios of The Birds
of America. Audubon spent the next years of his
life seeking out additional species. By 1838, The
Birds of America – hand-coloured engravings of
an astounding 1,065 birds – was complete. Their
life-size portrayal demanded printing on double
elephant folios, a very expensive undertaking.
Between 1840 and 1844, Audubon produced a
‘miniature’ edition of seven volumes, which
became a bestseller. At the same time, he began
another tome: The Viviparous Quadrupeds of North
America. Audubon had already drawn 61 species by the time he and his four assis-
tants embarked on their journey up the Missouri River in 1843 to collect informa-
tion and images of western mammals.

Ü
Audubon’s influence lasted long after his death. In response to the slaughter and
exploitation of birds for their plumage, eggs and for taxidermy collections, George 40
Grinnell founded the Audubon Society in 1886. Although this first organisation
was disbanded in 1888, new Audubon organisations continued to form in a num-
ber of US states. In 1905 the various state organisations were incorporated into the
National Association of Audubon Societies for the Protection of Wild Birds and Ani-
mals. Today, the National Audubon Society has more than 600,000 members and
530 chapters in the Americas. Environmental and nature education is conducted at
over 100 Audubon wildlife sanctuaries and nature centres nationwide.

“ A true conservationist is a man who knows that the world is not given by
his fathers but borrowed from his children.

x www.audubon.org Making ”
William Souder, Under a Wild Sky: John James Audubon and the
of the Birds of America(New York: North Point Press, 2004)

26
1827
1827

Henry Doulton
1820–1897
Making drinking water safer
Henry Doulton’s father, John, founded his first pottery in 1815 at Lambeth in Eng-
land on the banks of the River Thames. The main products of the original company
were ceramic busts, figurines, canning jars and tableware. Influenced by the unre-
lenting progress of the Industrial Revolution, John Doulton placed equal emphasis
on industrial applications for ceramic technology. As early as 1827, this fine china
manufacturer was in the water treatment business, using various earth and clay
materials in the first Doulton water filters. The Thames at that time was heavily
contaminated with raw sewage. ‘Offensive to the sight, disgusting to the imagina-
tion and destructive of health’, as one pamphlet described it at the time. Cholera
and typhoid epidemics were rife.
In 1827, Henry ingeniously came up with a ceramic filter for removing bacteria
from drinking water. In 1835, Queen Victoria recognised the health dangers in
drinking water and commissioned Doulton to produce a water filter for the royal
household. Doulton created a gravity-fed stoneware filter which combined the tech-
nology of a ceramic filter with the artistry of a hand-crafted pottery water container.
Satisfied with the new device, the Queen bestowed upon Doulton the right to
embellish each of his filters with the Royal Crest.
Henry Doulton introduced the Doulton manganous carbon water filter in 1862,
the same year that Louis Pasteur’s experiments with bacteria conclusively exploded
the myth of spontaneous generation (the long-held idea that some forms of life
arose spontaneously in dead matter: for example, maggots from rotting meat). This
more advanced understanding of bacteria made it possible to direct research and
development efforts towards the creation of a porous ceramic capable of filtering
out microscopic organisms.
In 1901 King Edward VII knighted Henry Doulton and honoured the company
by authorising it to use the word ‘Royal’ on its products. In 1906, Doulton intro-
duced a filter that proved to be the equal to the one Louis Pasteur had developed in
France. It was rapidly adopted by hospitals, laboratories and for use in domestic
water filtration throughout the world. The popularity and effectiveness of these
early-20th-century designs has resulted in their continued use in Africa and the
Middle East. The range and efficiency of Doulton domestic water filters has been
widely extended over the years to meet the demands of increasingly sophisticated
uses.

 Edmund Gosse and Desmond Eyles, Sir Henry Doulton: The Man of
Business as a Man of Imagination (London: Hutchinson, 1970)

27
 1832
1832

George Catlin
1796–1872
First call for a national park
In 1824, a 28-year-old lawyer called George Catlin saw an Indian delegation pass-
ing through Pennsylvania. He was so impressed that he gave up law to devote his
career to painting Native Americans and champi-
oning the cause of this ‘vanishing race’.
Having taught himself to paint, in 1830 Catlin
set off for St Louis and became friends with Gen-
eral William Clark, the US Superintendent of
Indian Affairs, sketching and painting the Native
Americans who visited Clark at his office. Two
years later he travelled over 3,000 km up the Mis-
souri River to Fort Union where he spent several
weeks among indigenous people still relatively
untouched by European civilisation. There, at the
edge of the frontier, he produced the most vivid
and penetrating portraits of his career.
Increasingly worried about the impact of west-
ward expansion on Native American civilisation
The White Cloud, Head Chief of the
Iowas, painted by George Catlin
and on wildlife, Catlin put forward the idea of pre-
serving and protecting special areas of wilder-
ness. His vision was partly realised in 1864 when Congress donated Yosemite Val-
ley to California for preservation. Eight years later, in 1872, Congress reserved the
spectacular Yellowstone country in the Wyoming and Montana territories ‘as a pub-
lic park or pleasuring-ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people’. With no
state government established yet to receive and manage it, Yellowstone remained
in the custody of the US Department of the Interior as a national park – the world’s
first area to be so designated.

“ By some great protecting policy of government . . . What a beautiful and

thrilling specimen for America to preserve and hold up to the view of her
refined citizens and the world in future ages! A Nations Park, containing
man and beast, in all the wild and freshness of their nature’s beauty!

x americanart.si.edu/catlin/highlights.html andSmithsonian ”
American Art Museum, George Catlin
His Indian Gallery: Smithsonian American Art
(New York: W.W. Norton, 2002)

28
 1842
1842

Joseph Paxton
1803–1865
Designing ‘lungs’ for cities
By the 1840s, the inhabitants of many of the polluted cities across Victorian Britain
were increasingly in need of easy access to fresh air and open spaces. As head gar-
dener at the Duke of Devonshire’s stately home of Chatsworth in Derbyshire, Eng-
land, Joseph Paxton began his work to give
city-dwellers what they so needed. In 1842 he
designed Princes Park in Liverpool. It was the
first time that land for a public park had been
acquired by an Act of Parliament. Paxton de-
signed a separate perimeter road for carriages,
which allowed the park interior to be enjoyed
by pedestrians. Among those who walked
Ü through the park was a young American on a
33 European tour, Frederick Law Olmsted. Olm-
sted observed, ‘We have nothing like this in
democratic America’.
Paxton’s growing reputation as a designer
of glasshouses (he designed the Great Conser-
vatory and lily house at Chatsworth) resulted in him being awarded a commission
to build his masterwork – the Crystal Palace for the Great Exhibition in May 1851. In
October, he was knighted by Queen Victoria. A year later, as Crystal Palace was relo-
cated to Sydenham in Kent, Paxton co-designed a park around the great structure.
The same year he laid out Scotland’s first public urban park for the citizens of Glas-
gow: Kelvingrove. Four years later, Paxton designed the People’s Park for the wool
manufacturing town of Halifax. He followed this with Baxter Park in Dundee and,
in 1864, the year before his death, Hesketh Park in Slough, Berkshire.
In 1874, Olmsted’s Central Park, many of its features inspired by Paxton, gave
New Yorkers room to breathe.

x www.josephpaxton.org  Kate Colquhoun, A Thing in Disguise:

Paxton
The Visionary Life of Joseph
(London: Fourth Estate, 2003)

29
1851
1851

Hugh Cleghorn
1752–1837
Conservator of forests in India
In 1851, a paper was submitted for discussion at a meeting of the British Associa-
tion for the Advancement of Science. Report of the Committee Appointed by the British
Association to Consider the Probable Effects in an Economical and Physical Point of View
of the Destruction of Tropical Forests warned that tropical deforestation – specifically
in India – threatened to reduce rainfall and increase regional temperatures. Poten-
tially important drugs might be lost as little-known trees and plants were cut down,
while fuel-wood shortages would become serious. Famines would become more
frequent and disease-carrying insects would thrive in stagnant watercourses left
after deforestation.
Timber resources in India were declining rapidly as a result of the British
Empire’s insatiable demand for timber, local use and, above all, the expansion of
colonial agriculture. The rapid growth of a railway system after 1850 added a criti-
cal burden on forest resources.
In 1855, on the advice of one of the report’s three authors, Hugh Cleghorn, Pro-
fessor of Botany at the Madras Medical College, the government of Madras estab-
lished a Forest Department and appointed Cleghorn as Conservator of Forests.
In 1864, the Governor-General of India, Lord Dalhousie, set up an India-wide
Forest Department with Cleghorn as the first Inspector-General. The establishment
of this department, motivated by Lord Dalhousie’s concern both to maintain a sus-
tainable timber supply and to curb drought, was his, and Cleghorn’s, crowning
achievement and one of the most durable outcomes of British rule in India.

 Alywin Clark and Hunter Steele, An Enlightened Scot: Hugh Cleghorn, 1752–1837
(Perth, UK: Black Ace Books, 1992)

1854
1854
Chief Seattle
c. 1786–1866
For Native America
‘Chief Sealth’ (Ts’ial-la-kum), better known today as Chief Seattle, was a leader of
the Suquamish and Duwamish tribes, around Washington’s Puget Sound. Although
there was no hereditary system among the Puget Sound Indians, strong leaders
arose in each village from time to time, distinguishing themselves by their actions

30
or particular skills. Chief Seattle was a crisis leader and a noted orator in his native
language.
Chief Seattle had pursued a strategy of accommodation with the white settlers
and Governor Isaac I. Stevens had made treaty proposals that asked for the surren-
der or sale of native land to the colonisers. In 1854, Chief Seattle is reported to have
made a speech at a large public meeting with the Governor. The exact date and the
content of what has since come to be regarded as a powerful, bittersweet plea for
respect of Native American rights and environmental values, is disputed. But the
words are remarkable.

“ So, we will consider your offer to buy our land. But it will not be easy. For
this land is sacred to us. This shining water that moves in the streams and
rivers is not just water but the blood of our ancestors. If we sell you the
land, you must remember that it is sacred, and you must teach your chil-
dren that it is sacred and that each ghostly reflection in the clear water of
the lakes tells of events and memories in the life of my people. The water’s
murmur is the voice of my father’s father . . . We know that the white man
does not understand our ways. One portion of land is the same to him as
the next, for he is a stranger who comes in the night and takes from the
land whatever he needs. The earth is not his brother, but his enemy, and
when he has conquered it, he moves on. He leaves his father’s grave
behind, and he does not care. He kidnaps the earth from his children, and
he does not care. His father’s grave, and his children’s birthright are for-
gotten. He treats his mother, the earth, and his brother, the sky, as things
to be bought, plundered, sold like sheep or bright beads. His appetite will
devour the earth and leave behind only a desert . . .

”
 Chief Seattle, The Speech of Chief Seattle (Bedford, MA: Applewood Books, repr. edn 2000)

1854
1854

Henry David Thoreau

1817–1862
Walden
In 1837, the year following publication of his prose rhapsody Nature, the writer
Ralph Waldo Emerson moved to the village of Concord, Massachusetts. Soon after,
he was joined by an unknown 20-year-old Harvard graduate called Henry David
Thoreau. Born in Concord, young Thoreau had returned home to teach and to
expand his family’s pencil-making business. Emerson introduced him to other
writers who were making Concord a centre for new ideas. Emerson, who valued

31
Thoreau’s skills in gardening, carpentry and stonemasonry, invited him to live in
the Emerson household.
Grief brought them closer together. Emerson’s first son died just two weeks after
the death of Thoreau’s beloved brother. Three years later Thoreau, still grieving,
decided that he wanted to live in the woods and
embark on a career as a writer. Emerson offered
him the use of a newly purchased site at Walden
Pond. It was surrounded by one of the few remain-
ing woodlands in a heavily farmed area. During the
spring and early summer of 1845, Thoreau built
himself a one-room house beside Walden Pond.
During the two years he was there, Thoreau lived
simply, reading books, writing his diary, cultivating
beans and walking in the woods.
Published in 1854, Walden (or Life in the Woods)
compresses that time into a single calendar year,
using the passage of four seasons to symbolise
human development. Part memoir and part spiri-
tual quest, Walden at first won few admirers, but
today critics regard it as a classic American book
that explores natural simplicity, harmony and beauty as models for just social and
cultural conditions. It has since inspired millions to become aware of, and to
respect, the natural environment.
Thoreau’s books, articles, essays, journals and poetry total over 20 volumes.
Among his lasting contributions were writings on natural history and philosophy
in which he anticipated the methods and findings of ecology and environmental
history, two sources of modern-day environmentalism.

“ I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the
essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and
not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived. I did not wish to live
what was not life, living is so dear; nor did I wish to practise resignation,
unless it was quite necessary. I wanted to live deep and suck out all the
marrow of life, to live so sturdily and Spartan-like as to put to rout all that
was not life, to cut a broad swath and shave close, to drive life into a cor-
ner, and reduce it to its lowest terms, and, if it proved to be mean, why then
to get the whole and genuine meanness of it, and publish its meanness to
the world; or if it were sublime, to know it by experience, and be able to
give a true account of it in my next excursion.

x www.walden.org  Henry ”
David Thoreau, Walden: Or, Life in the Woods
(New York: Dover Publications Inc., new edn 1995)

32
1858
1858

Frederick Law Olmsted

1822–1903
Emerald necklaces
Frederick Law Olmsted was fascinated by nature from his youth. After attending
Phillips Academy, he studied agricultural science and engineering at Yale.
Olmsted’s friend and mentor, Andrew Jackson Downing, the charismatic land-
scape architect, first proposed the development of New York’s Central Park when
he was publisher of The Horticulturist magazine. It was also Downing who intro-
duced Olmsted to the English-born architect Calvert Vaux, whom Downing had per-
sonally brought back from England as his architect–collaborator. After Downing
died a hero’s death in a steamboat explosion on the Hudson River in July 1852, Olm-
sted and Vaux entered a competition in his honour to present designs for Central
Park and, in 1858, won. Their ‘greensward’ plan envisaged sweeping meadows and
lakes to mimic pastoral landscapes.
After 16 years of work by thousands of Irish, German and New England labour-
ers, a difficult terrain of swamps and bluffs, punctuated by rocky outcroppings had
been converted into Central Park. More than 10 million cartloads of material had
been hauled through it, including 4 million trees, shrubs and plants, representing
more than 1,400 species. Thirty-six bridges and archways had been built and four
artificial lakes fed by the city’s water supply.
The design of Central Park embodied Olmsted’s social consciousness and com-
mitment to egalitarian ideals. Influenced by Downing and by his own observations
regarding social class in England, China and the American south, Olmsted believed
that common green space must be equally accessi-
ble to all citizens. This principle is now so funda-
mental to the idea of a ‘public park’ as to seem self-
evident, but it was not so then; Olmsted’s tenure as
park commissioner was one long struggle to pre-
serve that idea.
Olmsted not only created city parks in many cities
around the US, he also conceived entire systems of
parks and interconnecting parkways which con-
nected certain cities to green spaces. Two of the best
examples of the scale on which Olmsted worked are
the park system designed for Buffalo, New York, and
the system he designed for Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
For Boston, Olmsted conceived a rural park system
he called the ‘emerald necklace’. It involved develop-
ing 810 hectares to create five large parks, an inter-
connecting riverfront and playgrounds, which looped
around the city in a giant semi-circle.

33
 Olmsted’s other great environmental achievement concerned the protection of
Niagara Falls. By the early 1880s, only a small portion of the Falls were visible to
the tourist. Olmsted felt that many people were losing out on the vast beauty that
the Falls had to offer. He therefore set about purchasing Goat Island, which sepa-
rated the Canadian and US Falls, as well as neighbouring Bath Island which had a
small factory on it. He returned them to their natural glory and in 1885 helped cre-
ate the Niagara Reservation, the country’s first state park.

“ What artist so noble . . . as he who, with far-reaching conception of beauty,

in designing power, sketches the outlines, writes the colors, and directs the
shadows of a picture so great that Nature shall be employed upon it for
generations, before the work he arranged for her shall realize his inten-
tions.

”
x www.fredericklawolmsted.com onFrederick Law Olmsted, Civilizing American Cities: Writings
City Landscapes (New York: Da Capo Press, new edn 1997)

1859
1859

Charles Darwin
1809–1882
The theory of evolution

In 1831, Charles Darwin, a 22-year-old theologian and naturalist, embarked on HMS

Beagle, bound for Patagonia on a scientific survey expedition. Already a passionate
collector of plants, insects and geological specimens, this voyage of discovery was
to be one of the most important in human history. During the five-year expedition,
Darwin obtained an intimate knowledge of the fauna, flora and geology of South
America, Australasia and Africa. But his most famous stay was in the Galapagos
Islands, where he observed many plants and animals of the same general type as
those on the South American continent. Back home after five years, the publication
of his journal in The Voyage of the Beagle made Darwin famous as a popular author.
During the 1840s, Darwin remained a country gentleman among his gardens
and conservatories in Downe, Kent. But, from the practical knowledge he had
gained, he gradually developed a theory that the origin and evolution of species had
taken place over thousands of millions of years, and not the few days recounted at
the beginning of the Bible.
In November 1859, he published his findings in a book: On the Origin of Species
by Means of Natural Selection, or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life. The book provided scientific evidence to show that all species of life have evolved
over time from one or a few common ancestors through the process of ‘natural
selection’. The veracity of his arguments led to his theory of evolution being accepted

34
in his lifetime, while the theory of natural selection came to be widely seen as the
primary explanation of the process of evolution by the 1930s and now forms the
basis of modern evolutionary theory. Darwin’s discovery remains the basis for our
understanding of biology, as it provides a unifying logical explanation for the diver-
sity of life.
Darwin wrote, ‘There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers,
having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and
that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity,
from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have
been, and are being evolved.’
Darwin continued to write a series of books on botany, zoology, fertilisation and
geology. His final work, The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms,
was published in 1881, the year before his death. In 1959, one hundred years after
publication of On the Origin of Species, the Charles Darwin Foundation was founded,
dedicated to the conservation of the Galapagos Islands ecosystems.

“ It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent
that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.

”
x darwin-online.org.uk

1864
1864

George Perkins Marsh

1801–1882
America’s first environmentalist
In the 19th century, geographers believed that the physical aspects of the Earth were
entirely the result of natural phenomena. This was not an opinion held by George
Perkins Marsh, a widely travelled philologist and diplomat, originally from Ver-
mont. Marsh believed that we are not passive inhabitants of Earth. Rather, we give
Earth its shape and form; we are responsible for it.
Marsh was partially sighted. As a child, finding reading difficult, he explored the
forests near his boyhood home. If he could not read books, he could at least read
nature. He developed an abiding love of animals, plants and the world they occupy.
Few of us, he once said, could make as good a claim to personality as a respectable
oak.
In 1864, while acting as US Ambassador in Italy, Marsh wrote an early key work
of ecology called Man and Nature (or Physical Geography as Modified by Human
Action). He had seen the damage humans had caused by clearing the once lush
forests surrounding the Mediterranean. Marsh argued that deforestation could lead
to desertification, highlighting the advance of the Sahara as evidence. He asserted,

35
 ‘The operation of causes set in action by man has
brought the face of the Earth to a desolation almost
as complete as that of the moon.’
We are, he wrote, destined to disturb nature’s
harmonies. But we have to learn to do so as good
stewards not as vandals.
Man and Nature was heavily revised and repub-
lished in 1874 as The Earth as Modified by Human
Action. Marsh’s book was widely praised by critics
and scientists and indirectly sparked the Arbor Day
movement, the establishment of forest reserves
and a national forest system, as well as being a cat-
alyst in the establishment of the Adirondack State
Park. His influence also extended beyond North
American borders.
George Perkins Marsh’s book fell into disuse
until the 1930s when it was rediscovered by those
who were beginning to realise how much the
planet was being harmed. The historian Lewis
Mumford has called him ‘the fountainhead of the
conservation movement’.

“ Man, who even now finds scarce breathing room on this vast globe, cannot
retire from the Old World to some yet undiscovered continent, and wait for
the slow action of such causes to replace, by a new creation, the Eden he
has wasted.

”  David Lowenthal, (Seattle,

George Perkins Marsh: Prophet of Conservation
WA: University of Washington Press, 2000)

1868
1868

Joseph Bazalgette
1819–1891
The sewage engineer
By the 1850s, London was suffering from recurring epidemics of cholera, with tens
of thousands dying from the disease. At the time, the River Thames was little more
than an open sewer, devoid of any fish or other wildlife. Following ‘The Great Stink’
caused by the summer heatwave of 1858, Parliament decided that something must
be done about the foul air they believed to be causing disease.
Joseph Bazalgette, chief engineer to London’s Metropolitan Board of Works,
realised the cause was not the air but contaminated water. He put forward propos-

36
als to revolutionise London’s sewerage system at colossal expense. Bazalgette’s
solution was to construct 133 km of underground brick main sewers to intercept
sewage outflows, and 1,770 km of street sewers to intercept the raw sewage which
up until then flowed freely through the streets and thoroughfares of London. The
scheme involved the construction of a number of major pumping stations both
north and south of the river. By removing sewage contamination from water sup-
plies, the new sewerage system dramatically reduced the incidence of cholera and
other water-borne diseases.
Bazalgette also had a significant impact on London’s appearance. His sewers
were built behind embankments on the riverfront, replacing the tidal mud of the
Thames shoreline with reclaimed ground for riverside roads and gardens. He con-
structed the Victoria, Albert and Chelsea Embankments, the latter reclaiming over
21 hectares from the Thames.

“ The whole of the sewage passed down sewers from the high ground at right
angles to the Thames into the low grounds adjoining the Thames, where at
high water it was pent up in the sewers, forming great elongated cesspools
of stagnant sewage, and then when the tide went down and opened the out-
lets, that sewage was poured into the river at low water at a time when
there was very little water in the river.

 Stephen ”
Halliday, The Great Stink of London: Sir Joseph Bazalgette and the
Cleansing of the Victorian Metropolis (Stroud, UK: Sutton Publishing, 1999)

1872
1872

John Ericsson
1803–1889
Inventor of the ‘sun motor’
Following the end of the American Civil War, 60-year-old
Swedish-born engineer, John Ericsson, the inventor of the
screw-propeller and the first metal-clad warship, turned his
genius to developing what he called the ‘sun motor’. His
work was inspired by a fear shared by virtually all of his fel-
low solar inventors that coal supplies would someday end. Following extensive
experiments from the rooftop of his Manhattan home, in 1872 Ericsson built a
machine that used two concave mirrors to gather radiation from the sun strong
enough to run an engine at 240 rpm. His original intention was that Californian
farmers utilise his sun motor for irrigation projects.
Ericsson maintained an unshakable belief in the future of solar power to his last
breath. He had set up a large engine in his back yard and was still perfecting it when

37
he died in early 1889. Unfortunately for the struggling discipline, the detailed plans
for his improved sun motor died with him. Nevertheless, the search for a practical
solar motor was not abandoned. In fact, the experimentation and development of
large-scale solar technology was just beginning.

“ The time will come when Europe must stop her mills following the
inevitable exhaustion of the coal fields. Upper Egypt then, with her never-
ceasing sun power, will invite the European manufacturer to remove his
machinery and erect his mills on the firm ground along the sides of the allu-
vial plain of the Nile where sufficient power can be obtained to enable him
to run more spindles than a hundred Manchesters. We estimate that 22 mil-
lion solar engines, each of 100 horsepower could be kept in constant oper-
ation, during nine hours a day, by utilising only that heat which is now
wasted on a very small fraction of the land extending along some of the
water fronts of the sunburnt regions of the Earth.

” x www.johnericsson.org

1872
1872

Julius Sterling Morton

1832–1902
Founder of Arbor Day
In the 1840s, the Midwestern state of Nebraska was a territory with a wide prairie.
When pioneers moved to settle there, they found few trees to build houses or to
burn fuel. There was no shade from the sun or shelter from the wind, and crops
did not grow well in the dry earth.
When Julius Sterling Morton and his wife moved from their home in Detroit,
Michigan to settle in Nebraska, one of the first things they did was to plant trees.
As the editor of the state’s first newspaper, The Nebraska City News, Morton began
to advocate planting trees to help sustain life on the vast, barren plain.
In January 1872, Morton, now Secretary of the Nebraska Territory, spoke at a
meeting of the State Board of Agriculture, proposing that citizens set aside a day to
plant trees. He suggested offering prizes as incentives for committees and organi-
sations that successfully planted the most trees. On 10 April 1872, Nebraska cele-
brated its first Arbor Day, with Nebraskans planting a staggering 1 million trees in
less than 24 hours. Two years later, Arbor Day was officially proclaimed by Gover-
nor Robert W. Furnas. In 1882 it became a legal holiday in Nebraska and 22 April,
Morton’s birthday, was selected as the date for its permanent observance, particu-
larly at schools. Julius Sterling Morton later wrote:

38
 Arbor Day which has already transplanted itself to every state in the American
Union and has even been adopted in foreign lands . . . is not like other holi-
days. Each of these reposes on the past, while Arbor Day proposes for the
future.

Today the most common date for state observances is the last Friday in April,
and several US presidents have proclaimed Arbor Day on that date. But a number
of Arbor Days have taken place at other times to coincide with the best tree-plant-
ing weather, ranging from January and February in the south to May in the north.
Julius Sterling Morton became Secretary of Agriculture in the government of
President Grover Cleveland. He is credited with helping change that department
into a coordinated service to farmers, and he supported Cleveland in setting up
national forest reservations.

“ Each generation takes the Earth as trustees. We ought to bequeath to poster-

ity as many forests and orchards as we have exhausted and consumed.

”
x www.arborday.org

1876
1876
Ellen Swallow Richards
1842–1911
The feminist ecologist
In 1876, Ellen Swallow Richards, a chemistry professor at the Massachusetts Insti-
tute of Technology (MIT), bought an Italianate home in Jamaica Plain, a part of
Boston, which she systematically began to convert into what she later called the
Center for Right Living.
She installed window units that opened at both the top and bottom to release
warm, stale air. She removed lead pipes, set up a system of indoor oxygen-produc-
ing plants and re-routed the waste system away from the property’s well. Richards
hired MIT students to scientifically test foods, utilities and utensils to the point of
calculating the smallest units of fuel, time and money needed for individual tasks.
She would call this ‘home economics’.
Richards was a pioneer is many ways. The foremost female industrial and envi-
ronmental chemist in the US in the 1800s, Richards was the first woman admitted
to MIT and its first female instructor, the first woman in America accepted to any
school of science and technology, and the first American woman to earn a degree
in chemistry.
Her work was not confined to her home. In 1887, at the request of the Massa-
chusetts State Board of Health, Richards and her team undertook a survey of the
quality of the inland bodies of water of Massachusetts, many of which were already
polluted with industrial waste and municipal sewage. Over 20,000 water samples

39
were examined, the first such large-scale study in America. As a result, Massachu-
setts established the first water quality standards in America, as well as the first
modern sewage treatment plant, in Lowell. Richards was a consulting chemist for
the Massachusetts State Board of Health from 1872 to 1875, and the official water
analyst from 1887 until 1897.
In later years, Richards was a tireless campaigner for the new discipline of home
economics applying scientific principles to domestic situations, such as nutrition,
clothing, physical fitness, sanitation and efficient home management, with the aim
of allowing women more time for pursuits other than cooking and cleaning. In
1908, she was chosen to be the first President of the newly formed American Home
Economics Association.

1876
1876

George Bird Grinnell

1849–1938
A journalist and conservationist
In 1860, the 11-year-old George Bird Grinnell moved with his father to Audubon

Ü
Park, a piece of land owned by the ageing Lucy Audubon, the widow of bird artist
John Audubon. His friendship with Lucy laid the foundation for his lifelong love of 26
the outdoors and of protecting bird life. In his twenties, while on fossil-hunting
expeditions, the young George realised that hunting and shooting had brought
such species as the passenger pigeon, the Carolina parakeet and the buffalo to the
very edge of extinction.
Grinnell had extensive contact with the terrain, animals and Native Americans
of the northern plains, starting with his participation in the last great hunt of the
Pawnee in 1872 and spending many years pursuing the natural history of the
region. As a naturalist he accompanied Custer’s 1874 Black Hills expedition in
search of gold. In 1875, Colonel William Ludlow, who had also been on Custer’s
gold exploration effort, approached him to again serve as naturalist and mineralo-
gist on an expedition to Montana and the newly established Yellowstone Park. His
experience in Yellowstone led to the production of the first of many magazine arti-
cles dealing with conservation and the American west.
Seeing the need for urgent action, Grinnell purchased a hunting and fishing
tabloid publication called Forest and Stream. As its new editor, he directed its edito-
rial to fiercely champion the cause of conservation and sportsmanship. He cham-
pioned the protection of big game from poachers in the Yellowstone Park. He advo-
cated the protection of the Adirondack mountain range and pressed for sustainable
management of the nation’s forests. He remained editor for 35 years, until 1911.
In 1885, Grinnell discovered the glacier in Montana that now bears his name
and was later influential in establishing Glacier National Park in 1910. He was also

40
 a member of the Edward Henry Harriman expedition of 1899, a two-month survey
Ü
51
of the Alaskan coast by an elite group of scientists and artists.
In 1887, Grinnell was a founding member, with Theodore Roosevelt, of the
Boone and Crockett Club, dedicated to the restoration of America’s wildlands.
Ü Other founding members included General William Tecumseh Sherman and Gif-
48 ford Pinchot.
Subsequent US legislation to regulate the hunting of migratory birds was indi-
rectly due to the campaigning journalism of George Bird Grinnell.

“ We are a water drinking people, and we are allowing every brook to be

defiled.

”
x www.boone-crockett.org  Michael Punke, Last Stand: George Bird Grinnell, the Battle to
Save the Buffalo, and the Birth of the New West (London:
Collins, 2007)

1883
1883

William Morris
1834–1896
Eco-socialism
With the relentless advance of the industrial revolution in Victorian Britain, William
Morris – poet, critic, artist and designer – a towering figure in the cultural and polit-
ical landscape of England, devoted his later literary and theoretical skills to promot-
ing socialism.
From 1883, Morris promoted his ideas within the Social Democratic Federation
and, later, The Socialist League. He also expressed his utopian and radical views in
his writing of an imaginary future socialist world in A Dream of John Ball and, in
1890, News from Nowhere. The latter intimately linked Marxism to ecological regen-
eration and sustainability. In this respect, many contemporary scholars believe him
to be one of the first eco-socialist thinkers. His romantic vision most likely came
from his earlier commitment as an artist to a ‘critical notion of beauty’.
Morris was radically opposed to industrialisation. With a group of friends, he set
up a company (‘The Firm’) to revive traditional, hand-made crafts such as stained-
glass painting, dyeing and printing fabrics, tapestry weaving and furniture making.
He was one of the principal founders of the British Arts and Crafts movement.

“ I do not [believe] we should aim at abolishing all machinery; I would do

some things with machinery which are now done by hand, and other things
by hand which are now done by machinery; in short, we would be the mas-
ters of our machines and not their slaves, as we are now. It is not this or

41
 that . . . machine which we want to get rid of, but the great intangible
machine of commercial tyranny which oppresses the lives of all of us.

x www.morrissociety.org  WilliamOxford ”
Morris, News from Nowhere (Oxford:
University Press, new edn 2003)

1888
1888

Ernst Rudorff
1840–1917
A musician protects nature
Ernst Friedrich Karl Rudorff of Leipzig came from a wealthy musical family. He was
a highly respected music teacher and composer. But Rudorff became increasingly
concerned about the protection of nature in his native Germany, including rural
paths and landscapes. His enemies were the scars of economic development –
unsightly railways, dams on scenic rivers, the extension of agriculture into virgin
land, the replacement of small fields, copses and hedgerows by larger fields suit-
able for mechanical equipment, and the despoiling of the landscape by tourist
hotels, scenic railways and litter.
In 1888, Rudorff coined a new word in the German language – Naturschutz
(nature protection). One of Rudorff’s close colleagues was Hugo Conwentz, 15 years
his junior and director of the Prussian Natural History museum. Conwentz had
been making a detailed inventory of objects such as moraines, dunes and quarries
which should, in his opinion, remain wild. In 1901, Rudorff published a book,
Heimatschutz (Homeland Protection), in which he protested against the destruction
of nature and called for the creation of nature reserves.
Three years later, Rudorff, Conwentz and other supporters founded the League
for Homeland Protection (Bund Heimatschutz) to preserve natural wonders, endan-
gered species, rural landscapes and other threatened historic objects such as build-
ings, costumes and crafts.

1889
1889

Mrs Phillips and Mrs Williamson

dates of birth and death unknown
For the protection of birds
Towards the end of the Victorian era in Britain, several waterfowl birds were seri-
ously threatened with extinction due to the demands of fashion. For example, the

42
skin and soft underpelt and head frills of the great crested grebe’s feathers were par-
ticularly in demand by the millinery trade to decorate ladies’ fancy hats and ruffs.
The only way to obtain such feathers was by killing the birds. In one year, accord-
ing to the official trade figures of auctions at the London Commercial Sales Rooms,
some 1,608 packages of heron plume came under the hammer.
In 1889, two small concerned groups decided that if they got together some-
thing could be done. One was Mrs Emily Williamson’s Plumage League in Dids-
bury, Manchester, which met at the local Fletcher Moss Botanical Gardens to cam-
paign against the craze for egret feathers from Florida. The other was the Fur and
Feathers League run by Mrs Phillips in Croydon, near London, which campaigned
against the killing of grebes.
The first publication of the Society for the Protection of Birds, formed by the
merger of the two groups, was called Destruction of Ornamental Plumaged Birds.
Soon afterwards, the Duchess of Portland accepted the office of President and the
Society for the Protection of Birds began in earnest.
Incorporated by Royal Charter in 1904, today the Royal Society for the Protec-
tion of Birds has 1,500 employees, 12,000 volunteers and over 1 million members,
making it the largest wildlife conservation charity in Europe. In recent years, legis-
lation, changing fashions and an increase in the number of lakes available for
breeding have seen great crested grebe numbers in Britain and Ireland grow to over
1,000 pairs and the egret has even expanded its worldwide range to include south-
western England.

x www.rspb.org.uk

1891
1891

Poul la Cour
1846–1908

Johannes Juul
1887–?
Harnessing the power of the wind
The Danish are culturally predisposed towards wind power and, at a time when
electricity was about to be introduced, Poul la Cour, a Danish scientist, inventor and
educationalist, believed that wind should contribute to the electrification of the
country. In Holland, proposals to produce electricity from windmills had been
investigated but not implemented because of their low efficiency and the problem
of storing the energy. Overcoming these problems appealed to the inventor and
physicist la Cour.

43
 In 1891 la Cour got the idea of storing wind energy in the form of hydrogen (and
oxygen) using electrolysis. He was granted financial support by the Danish govern-
ment and the first experimental mill at Askov Folk
High School, where he was teaching, was erected
in the summer of 1891. La Cour’s first task was to
make the mill produce a constant current to drive
a generator. This was solved by a differential regu-
lator, the so-called ‘kratostate’, which was later sim-
plified and widely used in electricity-producing
windmills in the Nordic countries and Germany.
In 1904, la Cour founded the Society of Wind Elec-
tricians which reached a membership of 356 after
a year. By the end of the First World War, more than
a quarter of all rural power stations in Denmark
were using wind turbines. During the long
wartime blockade, the 3 MW (megawatt) provided
by these crude wind machines and the widespread
use of small farm windmills for grinding grain
were a valuable source of power for an impover-
ished rural population. Though most windmills
were used for mechanical power, the Danish Energy Agency estimates that wind
turbines were providing the equivalent of 120–150 MW in Denmark by 1920.
One of la Cour’s students at Askov was the engineer Johannes Juul. Half a cen-
tury later, Juul built the first alternating-current wind turbines at the Danish village
of Vester Egesborg. In 1957, he built a 200 kW (kilowatt) turbine on the coast of
Gedser in southern Denmark. Its aerodynamic efficiency enabled it to run for 11
years, virtually maintenance-free. Indeed, the Gedser wind turbine was renovated
as late as 1975 at the request of NASA which wanted measurements from the tur-
bine for the new US wind energy programme.
Poul la Cour and Johannes Juul were the European pioneers of wind power, and
their work carries huge importance as the world comes to terms with the problems
of climate change and the finite resources of a carbon-based economy.

x www.windsofchange.dk

1892
1892

John Muir
1838–1914
High sierra
When he was 29 years old, the Scottish-born John Muir was working in a factory
in Wisconsin. While connecting a machine belt, he accidentally thrust the point of

44
 a file into his right eye. That evening his other eye failed him. Thinking he had gone
blind he protested, ‘My right eye is closed forever on God’s beauty!’ Muir’s eyesight
would return, but he found the prospect of blindness so terrifying that he began
plans to see the world’s natural wonders. He became a wilderness explorer, renowned
for his adventures in California’s Sierra Nevada, for crossing Alaskan glaciers, for
riding an avalanche down a mountain and surviving, for exploring the source of
waterfalls and for travelling all over the world to see trees and mountain landscapes.
In 1892 Muir wrote to the editor of The Century Magazine, ‘Let us do something to
make the mountains glad!’ The result was the foundation of the Sierra Club, the first
major organisation in the world dedicated to using and ‘preserving’ wild nature,
and now one of the most important conservation organisations in the US. Muir was
the club’s president for 22 years until his death.
Muir’s hugely popular writing contributed
greatly to the creation of the US national parks
Sequoia, Mount Rainier, Petrified Forest and
Ü Grand Canyon. His words and deeds helped
51 inspire President Theodore Roosevelt’s innova-
tive conservation programmes, including the
establishment of Yosemite National Park by
Congressional action. He was not always suc-
cessful, however, and some say he died of a
broken heart in 1914 when his beloved Hetch
Hetchy Valley, which he referred to as ‘a sec-
ond Yosemite’, was flooded to create a reser-
voir to supply water to San Francisco.
Muir’s vision of nature’s value for its own
sake and for its spiritual, not just practical,
benefits to humankind helped to change the
way we look at the natural world. He was a
preservationist rather than a conservationist
Ü and argued for many years with leading figures
48 in the latter camp, such as Gifford Pinchot.
Muir’s heroic life is recognised in the naming of many places, including the
Muir Glacier in Alaska, Muir Memorial Park in Wisconsin and, in California, by
such places as Muir Woods National Monument, John Muir Trail, John Muir
Wilderness and the John Muir National Historic Site. In his birthplace of Dunbar,
Scotland, there is a Muir Country Park, and his birthplace home is now a museum.
Scotland also boasts a John Muir Trust which works to preserve nature in the UK,
much as the Sierra Club does in the US and Canada, and through global partners
around the world.

“ When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything

else in the Universe.

”
x www.sierraclub.org  John Muir, My First Summer in the Sierra
(New York: Modern Library, new edn 2003)

45
1895
1895

John Burroughs
1837–1921
The grand old man of nature
John Burroughs had been working for 20 years as a treasury clerk and bank exam-
iner in Washington when, in 1874, he bought a farm near Esopus, New York. There
he studied fruit culture and literature and, before long, he began to write collections
of essays extolling nature, such as Wake-Robin, Locusts and Wild Honey, Fresh Fields
and Signs and Seasons. By 1895 John Burroughs had become an immensely popu-
lar nature writer.
At this point, as he later explained:
I was offered a tract of wild land, barely a mile from home, that contained a
secluded nook and a few acres of level, fertile land shut off from the vain and
noisy world by a wooded precipitous mountain . . . and built me a rustic house
there, which I call Slabsides, because its outer walls are covered with slabs. I
might have given it a prettier name, but not one more fit, or more in keeping
with the mood that brought me thither . . . Life has a different flavor here. It is
reduced to simpler terms; its complex equations all disappear.

A mile and a half from his house by the Hudson River, Slabsides served the nat-
uralist for the last 20 years of his life as a place where he could write, study nature
and entertain his friends. The guest books of

Ü
Slabsides contain the names of hundreds of Bur-

Ü
roughs’ admirers, including Theodore Roosevelt, 51
John Muir, the inventor Thomas Edison and the 44
car manufacturer Henry Ford
A year after his death in 1922, the ‘sage of
Slabsides’ final book Accepting the Universe was
published. Its simple, expressive prose continued
to encourage people to experience and respect
the natural world. John Burroughs’ books have
sold over 1.5 million copies. His work resonated
with early-20th-century culture and society,
which explains its enormous popularity at the
time and its relative obscurity since.
In 1964 the woodlands surrounding Slabsides
were threatened by logging and development. Fol-
lowing successful fundraising, the 69 hectare John Burroughs Sanctuary was cre-
ated.

“ We can use our scientific knowledge to improve and beautify the Earth, or
we can use it to . . . poison the air, corrupt the waters, blacken the face of

46
 the country, and harass our souls with loud and discordant noises, [or] . . .
we can use it to mitigate or abolish all these things.

x www.johnburroughs.org ”
 Edward J. Renehan, John Burroughs: An American Naturalist
(White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green, 1993)

1895
1895

Octavia Hill
1838–1912

Robert Hunter
1844–1913

Hardwicke Rawnsley
1851–1920
Founders of the National Trust
Ü
16 In 1884, the descendants of the 17th-century diarist John Evelyn approached
Octavia Hill, a well-known social reformer. They asked her whether it would be pos-
sible to permanently conserve the garden that Evelyn had created at his home in
Sayes Court in the heart of Deptford, east London. They wanted to donate the prop-
erty to the nation, but no organisation existed to accept the gift. Hill approached Sir
Robert Hunter, legal adviser to the Post Office and well respected for his success-
ful legislation to protect common lands. Hunter felt a new company should be
established ‘for the protection of the public interests in the open spaces of the coun-
try’. Hill wanted a short, expressive name for the new company, prompting Hunter
to suggest the National Trust.
The idea lay dormant for nearly ten years until 1893 when Canon Hardwicke
Rawnsley sought help to buy some land in the Lake District which was under threat
from speculators. A brilliant propagandist, Rawnsley gained nationwide financial
support ranging from Princess Louise, the daughter of Queen Victoria, to factory
workers in the industrial Midlands. With a donation of 2s 6d, a Sheffield worker
wrote, ‘All my life I have longed to see the Lakes. I shall never see them now, but I
should like to help keep them for others.’
In this spirit, in January 1895 the National Trust was founded with Sir Robert
Hunter as its first chairman. With the purchase of two acres of Wicken Fen, near
Cambridge, the Trust acquired its first nature reserve. The National Trust Act, skil-
fully drafted by Hunter, was passed in 1907.
Today, over a century later, with around 4,300 members of staff and more than
43,000 volunteers, the National Trust cares for over 248,000 hectares of British

47
countryside, plus more than 1,126 km of coastline and more than 200 buildings
and gardens.

x www.nationaltrust.org.uk  Graham Murphy, Founders of the National Trust

(London: National Trust Books, new edn 2006)

1898
1898

Gifford Pinchot
1865–1946
America’s first professional forest protector
In 1890, a 25-year-old Yale graduate called Gifford Pin-
chot returned from Europe where he had been studying
forestry in France and Germany convinced of the value
of selective rather than unrestrained harvesting of
forests.
Eight years later, Pinchot was appointed chief of the
US Department of Agriculture’s Forest Bureau and
charged with developing a plan for the nation’s western
forest reserves. Pinchot’s approach was so effective that
in 1905 his Bureau was given control of the national for-
est reserves and renamed the US Forest Service with Pin-

Ü
chot its first chief.
Working under the patronage of President Theodore 51
Roosevelt, Pinchot further developed his scientific
approach to forest management and is credited with
coining the term ‘conservation’ as applied to the wise use
of all natural resources. Under Pinchot, the Forest Service added millions of acres
to the national forests, controlled their use and regulated their harvest. Pinchot also
organised the 1908 Governor’s Conference on Conservation and the 1909 North
American Conservation Conference. He founded the Yale School of Forestry and
served as a professor there from 1903 to 1936.
Although Gifford Pinchot died in 1946, his name lives on in many ways. In
1949, the 530,000 hectare Columbia National Forest was renamed the Gifford Pin-
chot National Forest. In 1963 President John F. Kennedy inaugurated the Pinchot
Institute for Conservation at Grey Towers, Pinchot’s former home in Washington,
DC. In the early 1980s forest activists in south-west Washington came together in
a coalition known as the Gifford Pinchot Task Force. Their priorities were to moni-
tor timber sales, reducing logging of old-growth trees within the Gifford Pinchot
National Forest and create the Mount St Helen’s Volcanic National Monument. Per-
haps because of pride in the first Gifford Pinchot’s legacy, the Pinchot family has
continued to name their sons Gifford, down to Gifford Pinchot IV.

48
“ The purpose of conservation: The greatest good to the greatest number of
people for the longest time.

x www.fs.fed.us/gpnf ”
 Char Miller, talism
Gifford Pinchot and the Making of Modern Environmen-
(Washington, DC: Shearwater Books, new edn 2004)

1899
1899
Elihu Stewart
1844–1935
Father of the Dominion Forest Service
In 1899, Elihu Stewart, the 55-year-old mayor of Collingwood, Ontario, Canada, was
appointed chief inspector of timber and forestry for the Dominion Forestry Branch
– now the Canadian Forestry Service. For many decades, Canada’s natural resources
had been considered vast and everlasting, but by the turn of the century they were
being depleted at an alarming rate. There was a need to raise public awareness of
the dangers of the wholesale destruction of timber along rivers and streams. Stew-
art saw a need for major improvements to the development of forest public lands
– promoting tree planting in treeless areas, along streets and in the parks of vil-
lages, towns and cities. In 1900, Stewart founded the Canadian Forestry Association.
For Stewart, only two words counted: conservation and propagation. His perse-
verance led to a reforestation programme in western Canada which saw more than
8 million seedlings planted. He also set up a fire-fighting system to protect wood-
land. The Dominion Forest Reserve Act, passed in 1906, placed some 14,000 km2
of forest reserves under the management and protection of the Dominion Forestry
Branch. One of Stewart’s greatest strengths was his ability to talk about forestry
issues with Canadians at all levels, including the then Prime Minister Sir Wilfrid
Laurier who often consulted him on forestry issues. On Stewart’s suggestion, in
1907 the University of Toronto offered the first Canadian forestry course. His legacy
is sustained by the Canadian Forestry Association which continues to advocate the
protection and wise use of Canada’s forest, water and wildlife resources.

x www.canadianforestry.com

1899
1899
James ‘Scotty’ Philip
1858–1911
The man who saved the buffalo
Approximately 60 million bison roamed North America when Europeans first
started to settle there in the 16th century. During the 1800s, the railroad brought

49
Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:
Prince Napoleon, in his brief sketch of these critical months, says
plainly that the Government concerned itself less with foreseeing the
political complications which might lead up to war, than with the best
mode of proceeding when war arrived. So true is this, that a General
was sent to Vienna to discuss the bases of a campaign with the
Austrian War Office. But in the spring of 1870 fortune seemed to
smile on official France; and on the last day of June M. Ollivier,
instructed by the Foreign Minister, considered himself authorized to
boast before the admiring Deputies that the peace of Europe had
never been less in danger than it was at the moment when he
delivered his optimistic declaration. In England, also, the Foreign
Secretary could not discern “a cloud in the sky.”

The Hohenzollern Candidature.

One week later, not only M. Ollivier and Lord Granville, but
Europe, nay, the whole world, saw plainly enough the signs and
portents of discord and convulsion. On the 3rd of July the Duc de
Gramont learned from the French Minister at Madrid that Prince
Leopold of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, with his own full consent, had
been selected as a candidate for the vacant throne of Spain, and
that, at no distant date, the Cortes would be formally requested to
elect him. The French Government quivered with indignation, and
the political atmosphere of Paris became hot with rage. Not that the
former were unfamiliar with the suggestion. It had been made in
1869, considered, and apparently abandoned. Indeed, the Emperor
himself had, at one time, when he failed to obtain the Rhenish
provinces, proposed that they should be formed into a State to be
ruled by the King of Saxony, and at another, that the Sovereign
should be the Hereditary Prince of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen; the
very Prince put forward by Marshal Prim. He had been grievously
hampered and perplexed in the choice of a Sovereign of Spain by
some Powers, especially by France; but now the Imperial
Government turned the whole tide of its resentment, not upon
Madrid, but Berlin, which, it was assumed, aimed at establishing an
enemy to France beyond the Pyrenees. Explanations were demanded
directly from the Prussian Government, but M. Le Sourd, the chargé
d’affaires, could extract no other answer than this—that the Prussian
Government knew nothing about the matter. The Duc de Gramont,
who had succeeded Lavalette, in May, as Minister for Foreign Affairs,
regarded the statement as a subterfuge, and forthwith determined
to fasten on the King a responsibility which he could not fasten on
the Government. The Duc de Gramont was not a wise counsellor; he
was deep in negotiations having for their object an offensive and
defensive alliance against Prussia, and he was hardly less moved by
a noisy external opinion than by his own political passions. He
ordered M. Benedetti, who had only just sought repose at Wildbad,
to betake himself at once to Ems, whither King William, according to
custom, had repaired to drink the waters. The French Ambassador
reached the pleasant village on the Lahn late at night on the 8th of
July, and the next day began a series of interviews with the King,
which take rank among the most curious examples of diplomacy
recorded in history.
Before the ambassador could commence his singular task, an
event had occurred in Paris which seemed to render a war
unavoidable. The politicians of the French capital had become
feverish with excitement. Not only did a species of delirium afflict the
immediate advisers of the Emperor, but the band of expectants,
who, more ardent Imperialists than he was, still believed that
nothing could withstand the French army; while the opposition,
loving France not less, but what they called liberty more, were eager
to take advantage of an incident which seemed likely to throw
discredit on the Bonapartes. Wisdom would have prevented, but
party tactics demanded a movement in the Chamber which took the
innocent-looking form of an inquiry. The Government dreaded, yet
could not evade, the ordeal, and M. Cochery put his question on the
6th of July. Had the Duc de Gramont been a clever Minister, or had
he represented a Government strongly rooted in the national respect
and affection, he would have been able to deliver a colourless
response, if he could not have based a refusal to answer upon public
grounds. The truth is, he was carried off his feet by the sudden
storm which raged through the journals and society, and it may be
surmised that, even then, despite the plébiscite, fears for the
stability of the dynasty had no small share in determining his
conduct. Yet, it must be stated, that he was only one of the Council
of Ministers who sanctioned the use of language which read, and still
reads, like an indirect declaration of war. After expressing sympathy
with Spain, and asserting, what was not true, that the Imperial
Government had observed a strict neutrality with regard to the
several candidates for the crown, he struck a note of defiance: “We
do not believe,” he exclaimed, “that respect for the rights of a
neighbouring people obliges us to endure that a foreign State, by
placing one of its princes on the throne of Charles V., should be able
to derange, to our injury, the balance of power in Europe, and to
imperil the interests and honour of France.” The pacific sentences
uttered by M. Ollivier on this memorable occasion were forgotten;
the trumpet-blast of the Duc de Gramont rang through the world,
and still rings in the memory. Prussia was not named by the Minister,
but everyone beyond the Rhine knew who was meant by the
“German people,” and a “foreign Power;” while, as Benedetti has
stated in a private despatch to Gramont, the King deeply felt it as a
“provocation.”
Not the least impressive characteristic of these proceedings is the
hot haste in which they hurried along. M. Benedetti neither in that
respect nor in the swiftness and doggedness which he imparted to
the negotiations, is to blame. The impulse and the orders came from
Paris; he somewhat tempered the first, but he obeyed the second
with zeal, and, without overstepping the limits of propriety in the
form, he did not spare the King in the substance of his demands.
Nor, in the first instance, were they other than those permitted by
diplomatic precedent; afterwards they certainly exceeded these
limits. The first was that the King himself should press Prince
Leopold to withdraw his consent: indeed, direct him so to do. The
answer was that, as King, he had nothing to do with the business;
that as head of the Hohenzollern family he had been consulted, and
had not encouraged or opposed the wish of the Prince to accept the
proffered crown; that he would still leave him entire freedom to act
as he pleased, but that his Majesty would communicate with Prince
Antoine, the father of Prince Leopold, and learn his opinion. With
this reply, unable to resist the plea for delay, the ambassador had
perforce to be content. Not so the Imperial Government. The Duc de
Gramont sent telegram on telegram to Ems, urging Benedetti to
transmit an explicit answer from the King, saying that he had
ordered Prince Leopold to give up the project, and alleging, as a
reason for haste, that the French could not wait longer, since Prussia
might anticipate them by calling out the army. The ambassador, to
check this hurry, prudently warned his principals, saying, that if they
ostentatiously prepared for war, then the calamity would be
inevitable. “If the King,” wrote De Gramont, on the 10th of July, “will
not advise the Prince to renounce his design—well, it is war at once,
and in a few days we shall be on the Rhine.” And so on from hour to
hour. A little wearied, perhaps, by the pertinacity of the ambassador,
and nettled by the attempt to fix on him the responsibility for the
Spanish scheme, the King at length said that he looked every
moment for an answer from Sigmaringen, which he would transmit
without delay. It is impossible, in a few sentences, to give the least
idea of the terrier-like obstinacy displayed by M. Benedetti in
attacking the King. Indeed, it grew to be almost a persecution, so
thoroughly did he obey his importunate instructions. At length the
King was able to say that Prince Antoine’s answer would arrive on
the 13th, and the ambassador felt sure of a qualified success,
inasmuch as he would obtain the Prince’s renunciation, sanctioned
by King William. But, while he was writing his despatch, a new
source of vexation sprang up in Paris—the Spanish Ambassador,
Señor Olozaga, announced to the Duc de Gramont the fact that
Prince Antoine, on behalf of his son, had notified at Madrid the
withdrawal of his pretensions to the crown. It was reasonably
assumed that, having attained the object ostensibly sought, the
French Government would be well content with a diplomatic victory
so decisive, and would allow M. Benedetti to rest once more at
Wildbad. He himself held stoutly that the “satisfaction” accorded to
the wounded interests and honour of France was not insufficient.
The Emperor and the Duc de Gramont thought otherwise, because,
as yet, no positive defeat had been inflicted, personally, upon King
William. The Foreign Minister, therefore, obeying precise instructions
from St. Cloud, directed Benedetti to see the King at once, and
demand from him a plain declaration that he would not, at any
future time, sanction any similar proposal coming from Prince
Leopold. The Duc de Gramont’s mind was so constructed that, at
least a year afterwards, he did not regard this demand as an
ultimatum! Yet how could the King, and still more Bismarck, take it
in any other light? Early on the 13th the King, who saw the
ambassador in the public garden, advanced to meet him, and it was
there that he refused, point blank, Louis Napoleon’s preposterous
and uncalled-for request, saying that he neither could nor would
bind himself in an engagement without limit of time, and applying to
every case; but that he should reserve his right to act according to
circumstances. King William brought this interview to a speedy close,
and M. Benedetti saw him no more except at the railway station
when he started for Coblenz. Persistency had reached and stepped
over the limits of the endurable, and King William could not do more
than send an aide-de-camp with a courteous message, giving M.
Benedetti authority to say officially that Prince Leopold’s recent
resolution had his Majesty’s approval. During the day the
ambassador repeated, unsuccessfully, his request for another
audience; and this dramatic episode ended on the 13th with the
departure of the King, who had pushed courtesy to its utmost
bounds.
During that eventful 13th of July Count Bismarck, recently arrived
in Berlin from Pomerania, had seen and had spoken to Lord
Augustus Loftus in language which plainly showed how steadfastly
he kept his grip on the real question, which was that France sought
to gain an advantage over “Prussia,” as some kind of compensation
for Königgrätz. The Duc de Gramont also conversed with Lord Lyons
in Paris, and induced him to set in motion Lord Granville, from
whose ingenious brain came forth a plausible compromise wholly
unsuitable to the exigency, and promptly rejected at Berlin, but
having an air of fairness which made it look well in the pages of a
Blue Book. It was a last effort on the part of diplomacy, and served
well enough to represent statesmanship as it was understood by the
Cabinet to which Lord Granville belonged. On the evening of that
day Count Bismarck entertained at dinner General von Moltke and
General von Roon; and the host read aloud to them a telegram from
Ems, giving an account of what had occurred, and the royal
authority to make the story public. “Both Generals,” writes Dr. Moritz
Busch, “regarded the situation as still peaceful. The Chancellor
observed—that would depend a good deal upon the tone and
contents of the publication he had just been authorized to make. In
the presence of his two guests he then put together some extracts
from the telegram, which were forthwith despatched to all the
Prussian Legations abroad, and to the Berlin newspapers in the
following form:—‘Telegram from Ems, July 13th, 1870. When the
intelligence of the Hereditary Prince of Hohenzollern’s renunciation
was communicated by the Spanish to the French Government, the
French Ambassador demanded of His Majesty the King, at Ems, that
the latter should authorize him to telegraph to Paris that His Majesty
would pledge himself for all time to come never again to give his
consent, should the Hohenzollerns hark back to their candidature.
Upon this His Majesty refused to receive the French Ambassador
again, and sent the aide-de-camp in attendance to tell him that His
Majesty had nothing further to communicate to the Ambassador.’”

Substantially, it was the grotesque pile of misrepresentation built

up on this blunt telegram—M. Benedetti read it next morning in the
“Cologne Gazette,” and took no exception whatever to the brief and
exact narrative it contained—which set the Parisians on fire.
Travestied in many ways by calculating politicians, as well as gossips,
the message became a “Note,” or a “despatch,” imputing the
extreme of intentional rudeness to King William, and imposing the
depth of humiliation, publicly inflicted, upon France through her
representative, who, all the time, was not only unconscious of any
insult, but emphatic in his acknowledgments of the King’s courtesy,
kindness, and patience. Probably Count Bismarck wrote his telegram
for Germany, but its effect in satisfying the Fatherland, was not
greater than its influence upon the fiery French, who never read the
text until months afterwards, and in July, 1870, were set a-flame by
the distorted versions freely supplied by rumour’s forked tongue.

The French Government and the Chamber.

War was now plainly inevitable, yet the decisive word still rested
with the Imperial Government. In Paris there were two currents
running strongly in opposite ways, and, for a moment, it seemed
possible that the tide which made for peace would overpower the
surging stream which drove onwards towards war. More than one-
half the Ministry believed, and some, M. Ollivier for one, said that
the retreat of Prince Leopold, with the consent of the King, a great
diplomatic victory for France, was enough, and had, indeed, brought
the quarrel to an end. At midday, on the 13th, M. Robert Mitchell,
meeting M. Paul de Cassagnac, said, “I have just left Ollivier, and,
thank God, peace is secured.” “My father,” was the reply, “has just
quitted the Emperor; war is resolved on.” The statement was not
then exact, but it may be accepted as a forecast. For, in truth, it was
only at noon the next day that the Ministers assembled in council at
the Tuileries to answer the momentous question which so profoundly
agitated their minds. They sat six hours; they were divided in
opinion; yet, although Marshal Lebœuf was authorized to call out the
reserves—he had threatened to resign unless that were done—the
Ministers separated with the understanding that a peaceful line of
action should be adopted, based on a demand for a Congress of the
Powers to sanction the principle that no member of any reigning
house should accept a foreign throne. The Duc de Gramont’s brief
account of this notable Council shows that the hankering after war
was powerful therein; since he says that “the Government decided,
not without hesitation, but influenced by a love of peace, to propose
this pacific solution.” But all, or some of the Ministers, and still more
the Emperor, stood in dread of two things: they were alarmed lest
the “dynasty” should be injured by a course which bore the
semblance of a forced retreat, and they could not rely with
confidence on the sober opinion of the Chambers. The Court war-
party operated upon the Senators and Deputies through M. Clément
Duvernois, a schemer, and M. Jérôme David, by birth and training a
fanatical Bonapartist, the second accentuating the questions of the
first, and giving to his own language a substance which made
retreat almost impossible. Both these men had a double object. They
intended to extort a declaration of war and, at the same time, expel
Emile Ollivier, together with what they called the Parliamentary
element, from the Ministry. The energetic, aggressive and relentless
group were really the mouthpieces of the Emperor and Empress, and
in a less degree of M. Rouher, who had been deposed by the new
Imperial constitution, and of the Duc de Gramont, who all through
the business desired to secure a prolongation of peace, solely
because it would give him time to ripen the projects of alliance with
Austria and Italy, and also to make war, lest “la Prusse,” aware of his
design, should choose her own hour for battle. It so chanced that
Marshal Lebœuf, after despatching the orders calling out the
reserves, received a note from the Emperor, which, he says, seemed
to suggest a regret at the decision adopted by the Council; and
thinking, innocent man, that some constitutional scruples had
sprung up in the Imperial mind, the Marshal begged that the
Ministers might be summoned once more. That night they met
again, talked for an hour, and had nearly resolved that the
mobilization of the army should be deferred, when papers were
placed in the hands of the Duc de Gramont. The exact contents of
these documents have not been described, but they seemed to have
contained some report of language held by Count Bismarck which
exasperated the war party; and, in an instant, the Council resolved
on war. That same night, M. Robert Mitchell, walking in the garden
of the Foreign Office, asked M. Ollivier why he did not resign? The
Minister gave a host of plausible reasons having no real weight;
adding these prophetic words: “Whatever happens, I am sacrificed;
for the war will sweep away the régime to which I have attached my
name. If we are beaten, God protect France! If we are victorious,
God protect our Liberties!”
So that, having a clear perception of the future, this Minister, at
least, met the Chambers on the morrow. The exciting events of the
past week, imperfectly understood and carelessly or purposely
misrepresented, had aroused a tempest of passion in Paris and
France, which, by its violence and uproar, overpowered, but could
not wholly silence, the voices of sagacity and sober judgment. The
Senate was unanimous for war. In the Chamber the Opposition
waged courageously a desperate contest, so desperate from the
outset, that even M. Thiers, perhaps because he told unpleasant
truths, could not command an unbroken hearing, while M. Gambetta
only secured one by making a rare display of forensic tact, basing
himself on Parliamentary ground, and tempering his appeal for
“more light” with evidences of his indisputable patriotism. The Duc
de Gramont favoured the Senators with a version of the facts, which
was neither complete nor candid. M. Emile Ollivier allowed an
unhappy phrase to escape from his lips—he went into the war “à
cœur leger.” A committee was appointed to inspect the diplomatic
documents on which the Court relied; it was easily satisfied, and late
in the night, sustained by a large majority, the policy of the
Government was amply sanctioned.
Perhaps a sentence spoken by M. Guyot Montpayroux best
illustrates the predominant feeling. “Prussia,” he said, “has forgotten
the France of Jena, and the fact must be recalled to her memory.”
Thus was war declared by these infuriated legislators on the night of
July 15th. M. Thiers, who desired a war with Prussia “at the proper
time,” has left on record his judgment that the hour then selected
was “detestably ill-chosen.” Yet even he and M. Gambetta were both
anxious that “satisfaction” should be obtained for Sadowa; while the
thought which animated the Court is admirably expressed in the
phrase imputed to the Empress who, pointing to the Prince Imperial,
said, “This child will never reign unless we repair the misfortunes of
Sadowa.” Such was the ceaseless refrain. The word haunted French
imaginations incessantly, and it was the pivot on which the Imperial
policy revolved, and it exercised a spell scarcely less powerful and
disastrous upon Monarchists like M. Thiers, and Republicans like
Gambetta and Jules Favre. Still, it may be said that France was
divided in opinion. Consulted through the Prefects, only sixteen
departments were for war; no fewer than thirty-four were adverse,
and the remainder could not be said to hold with the one or the
other. Nor should it be overlooked that these estimates of popular
feeling were transmitted by functionaries who have always a wish to
please the superior Powers. Germany, on the other hand, was united
as it had never been since 1813. King William was applauded
everywhere. When he reached Berlin on the evening of the 15th, he
was met at the railway station by the Crown Prince, Count von
Bismarck, General von Moltke, and General von Roon. There the
decision was formally taken to accept the challenge, the fact was
repeated to the crowd who had assembled, and whose shouts were
loud, deep, and prolonged; and that same night went forth the brief
telegraphic orders which from one centre touched a thousand
springs, and called into instant being an army, perfectly organized,
equipped, trained and supplied. So that when Baron Wimpfen, a
secretary of legation, entered Berlin on the 19th of July, and handed
to M. Le Sourd the French declaration of war—the sole official
document on the subject received by Prussia, as Von Moltke bluntly
remarks—that work had already begun which finished in little more
than a fortnight, enabled the King to break into France at the head
of more than three hundred thousand soldiers.
Only one word more need be said on this subject—the causes of
the war. Clearing away the diplomatic mist which hides the realities,
the student will discover two deadly opposites; on one side the
determination of France to insist on a right of meddling with internal
German affairs, and even of prescribing the form or forms which the
national aggregate should assume; on the other, the fixed resolve of
the German people that the French should no longer dictate or
pretend to dictate beyond the Rhine, that an end should be put to
the policy of seeking political profits by fomenting the spirit of
discord in the petty German Courts; and that, if possible, by dint of
“Kraft und Muth,” Germany should secure palpable safeguards
against French invasions, and resume possession of the strongholds
and dependent territories which were acquired, in times of adversity
and disunion, by Louis XIV. Thus, the causes of war were deeply
rooted in essential facts. The moment to be chosen, if it can be said
to have been chosen, was for statesmen to decide. The Imperial
Government, down to the last hour, sought to form a combination
adverse to Prussia, intending to wage war at its own time. Prussia
refused to be made the victim of a triple alliance, and taking a fair
advantage of the imperious conduct of the French Court, seized the
golden opportunity, promptly answered the declaration of war, and
struck down the French Empire before its hesitating and unprepared
allies could move a finger to avert a defeat which neither attempted,
nor dared attempt to repair. Austria, the unready, stood in fear of
Russia: Italy, the ambitious, demanded the right to enter Rome. “We
can grant nothing of the kind,” said the over-confident Duc de
Gramont, so late as July 30. “If Italy will not march,” he exclaimed,
“let her sit still.” Abundant evidence exists to prove that war between
France and Germany was solely a question of time, and Prussia
cannot be blamed justly for selecting or seizing the hour most
suitable to her and least suitable to her adversaries. The Duc de
Gramont asserts that neither the Emperor nor the Government nor
France, desired war—certainly not just then; but they intended to
make war at a time and under conditions chosen by themselves. He
admits that it was the duty of the Imperial Government to evade a
war, but also prepare for a war as much as possible; and, failing to
do the former, he further confessed many months afterwards, that
too much confidence in the army and in its untested military virtues,
and the dazzling splendour of a glorious past dragged France, its
Government and its representatives, into an unequal struggle. “We
believed ourselves too strong to stoop,” he says, “and we knew not
how to resist the system of provocations so ably combined and
directed by the Cabinet of Berlin.” A frank confession, especially from
the pen of a statesman who was himself endeavouring to combine a
system of alliances, and who was anticipated by the Power against
whom his plans were directed. M. Prevost Paradol, who in a moment
of weakness had accepted from the Emperor the post of Minister at
Washington, saw more clearly into the future than the Duc de
Gramont and some of his colleagues. On the very afternoon of the
day when the unhappy journalist killed himself, he saw a
countryman, the Comte d’Hérisson, and his language to the young
man showed how deeply he was moved, and with what sagacity he
estimated the near future. In his opinion, expressed on the 10th of
July, war was even then certain, because not only “la Prusse”
desired war, but because, as he said, “The Empire requires war,
wishes for it, and will wage it.” The young Frenchmen to whom he
spoke made light of the peril, and said he should like to travel in
Germany, and study in the libraries of her conquered cities. But the
Minister checked his natural exultation, saying, “You will not go to
Germany, you will be crushed in France. Believe me, I know the
Prussians. We have nothing whatever that is needed to strive with
them. We have neither generals, men, nor matériel. We shall be
ground to powder. Nous serons broyés. Before six months are over
there will be a Revolution in France, and the Empire will be at an
end.” Mourning over the error he made in laying down his sharp
critical pen to put on a diplomatic uniform, and maddened by the
retrospect and prospect, Paradol, a few hours after uttering his
predictions, escaped from unendurable misery by a pistol-shot. It
was like an omen of the coming catastrophe.
 CHAPTER II.
THE GATHERING OF THE HOSTS.

German Mobilization.
The great contest, thus precipitated by the formal defiance which
Baron Wimpfen bore from Paris to Berlin, excited deep emotion all
over the world. The hour had at length struck which was to usher in
the deadly struggle between France and Germany. Long foreseen,
the dread shock, like all grave calamities, came nevertheless as a
surprise, even upon reflective minds. Statesmen and soldiers who
looked on, while they shared in the natural feelings aroused by so
tremendous a drama, were also the privileged witnesses of two
instructive experiments on a grand scale—the processes whereby
mighty armies are brought into the field, and the methods by means
of which they are conducted to defeat or victory. The German plan
of forming an Army was new in regard to the extent and
completeness with which it had been carried out. How would it work
when put to the ultimate test? Dating only from 1867, the French
scheme of organization, a halting Gallic adaptation of Prussian
principles, modified by French traditions, and still further by the
political exigencies besetting an Imperial dynasty, having little root in
the nation, besides being new and rickety, was in an early stage of
development; it may be said to have been adolescent, not mature.
No greater contrast was ever presented by two parallel series of
human actions than that supplied by the irregular, confused, and
uncertain working of the Imperial arrangement of forming an Army
and setting it in motion for active service, and the smoothness,
celerity, and punctuality which marked the German “mobilization.”
The reason is—first, that the system on which the German Army was
built up from the foundations was sound in every part, and that the
plan which had been designed for the purpose of placing a
maximum force under arms in a given time, originally
comprehensive, had been corrected from day to day, and brought
down to the last moment. For example, whenever a branch or
section of a railway line was opened for traffic, the entire series of
time-tables, if need be, were so altered as to include the new facility
for transport. The labour and attention bestowed on this vital
condition was also expended methodically upon all the others down
to the most minute detail. Thus, the German staff maps of France,
especially east of Paris, actually laid down roads which in July, 1870,
had not yet been marked upon any map issued by the French War
Office. The central departments, in Berlin, exercised a wide and
searching supervision; but they did not meddle with the local military
authorities who, having large discretionary powers, no sooner
received a brief and simple order than they set to work and
produced, at a fixed time, the result desired.
When King William arrived in Berlin, on the evening of July 15,
the orders already prepared by General von Moltke received at once
the royal sanction, and were transmitted without delay to the
officers commanding the several Army Corps. Their special work, in
case of need, had been accurately defined; and thus, by regular
stages, the Corps gradually, but swiftly, was developed into its full
proportions, and ready, as a finished product, to start for the frontier.
The reserves and, if needed, the landwehr men filled out the
battalions, squadrons, and batteries to the fixed strength; and as
they found in the local depôts arms, clothing, and equipments, no
time was lost. Horses were bought, called in, or requisitioned, and
transport was obtained. As all the wants of a complete Corps had
been ascertained and provided beforehand, so they came when
demanded. At the critical moment the supreme directing head,
relieved altogether from the distracting duty of settling questions of
detail, had ample time to consider the broad and absorbing business
problems which should and did occupy the days and nights of a
leader of armies. The composition of the North German troops, that
is, those under the immediate control of King William, occasioned no
anxiety; and there was only a brief period of doubt in Bavaria, where
a strong minority had not so much French and Austrian sympathies,
as inveterate Prussian antipathies. They were promptly suppressed
by the popular voice and the loyalty of the King. Hesse,
Würtemberg, and Baden responded so heartily to the calls of
patriotism that in more than one locality the landwehr battalions far
exceeded their normal numerical strength, that is, more men than
were summoned presented themselves at the depôts. The whole
operation of bringing a great Army from a peace to a war footing, in
absolute readiness, within the short period of eighteen days, to meet
an adversary on his own soil, was conducted with unparalleled order
and quickness. The business done included, of course, the transport
of men, guns, horses, carriage, by railway chiefly, from all parts of
the country to the Rhine and the Moselle; and the astonishing fact is
that plans devised and adopted long beforehand should have been
executed to the letter, and that more than three hundred thousand
combatants—artillery, horse, infantry, in complete fighting trim,
backed up by enormous trains—should have been brought to
specified places on specified days, almost exactly in fulfilment of a
scheme reasoned out and drawn up two years before. The French
abruptly declared war; the challenge was accepted; the orders went
forth, and “thereupon united Germany stood to arms,” to use the
words of Marshal von Moltke. It is a proud boast, but one amply
justified by indisputable facts.

French Mobilization.
How differently was the precious time employed on the other
side of the Rhine. When the Imperial Government rushed headlong
into war, they actually possessed only one formed Corps d’Armée,
the 2nd, stationed in the camp of Chalons, and commanded by
General Frossard. Yet even this solitary body was, as he confesses,
wanting in essential equipments when it was hurriedly transported to
St. Avold, not far from Saarlouis, on the Rhenish Prussian frontier.
Not only had all the other Corps to be made out of garrison troops,
but the entire staff had to be provided in haste. Marshal Niel, an
able soldier, and the Emperor, had studied, at least, some of Baron
Stoffel’s famous reports on the German Army, and had endeavoured
to profit by them; but the Marshal died, the Corps Législatif was
intractable, favouritism ruled in the Court, the Emperor suffered from
a wearing internal disease, and the tone of the Army was one not
instinct with the spirit of self-sacrificing obedience. In time it is
possible that the glaring defects of the Imperial military mechanism
might have been removed, and possible, also, that the moral and
discipline of the officers and men might have been raised. Barely
probable, since Marshal Lebœuf believed that the Army was in a
state of perfect readiness, not merely to defend France, but to dash
over the Rhine into South Germany. His illusion was only destroyed
when the fatal test was applied. Nominally, the French Army was
formidable in numbers; but not being based on the territorial
system, which includes all the men liable to service in one Corps,
whether they are with the colours or in the reserve, and also forms
the supplementary landwehr into local divisions, the French War
Office could not rapidly raise the regiments to the normal strength.
For a sufficient reason. A peasant residing in Provence might be
summoned to join a regiment quartered in Brittany, or a workman
employed in Bordeaux called up to the Pas de Calais. When he
arrived he might find that the regiment had marched to Alsace or
Lorraine. During the first fortnight after the declaration of war
thousands of reserve men were travelling to and fro over France in
search of their comrades. Another evil was that some Corps in
course of formation were split into fragments separated from each
other by many score miles. Nearly the whole series of Corps,
numbered from One to Seven, were imperfectly supplied with a
soldier’s needments; and what is more astonishing, the frontier
arsenals and depôts were sadly deficient in supplies, so that
constant applications were made to Paris for the commonest
necessaries. There were no departmental or even provincial
storehouses, but the materials essential for war were piled up in
three or four places, such as Paris and Versailles, Vernon and
Chateauroux. In short, the Minister of War, who said and believed
that he was supremely ready, found that, in fact, he was compelled
almost to improvise a fighting Army in the face of an enemy who, in
perfect order, was advancing with the measured, compact, and
irresistible force of a tidal wave.
The plan followed was exactly the reverse of the German
method. East of the Rhine no Corps was moved to the frontier, until
it was complete in every respect, except the second line of trains;
and consequently, from the outset, it had a maximum force prepared
for battle. There were some slight exceptions to the rule, but they
were imposed by circumstances, served a real purpose, and
disappeared when the momentary emergency they were adapted to
meet had been satisfied. West of the Rhine, not one solitary Corps
took its assigned place in a perfect state for action. All the battalions
of infantry, and of course the regiments, were hundreds short of
their proper strength. Before a shot had been fired, General de Failly,
at Bitsche, was obliged to send a demand for coin to pay the troops,
adding notes won’t pass—“les billets n’ont point cours.” General
Frossard, at St. Avoid, reported that enormous packages of useless
maps had been sent him—maps of Germany—and that he had not a
single map of the French frontier. Neither Strasburg, Metz, Toul,
Verdun, Thionville, nor Mézières, possessed stores of articles—such
as food, equipments, and carriage—which were imperatively
required. The Intendants, recently appointed to special posts,
besieged the War Office in Paris, to relieve them from their
embarrassments—they had nothing on the spot. The complaints
were not idle. As early as the 26th of July, the troops about Metz
were living on the reserve of biscuits; there were sent only thirty-
eight additional bakers to Metz for 120,000 men, and even these few
practitioners were sadly in want of ovens. “I observe that the Army
stands in need of biscuit and bread,” said the Emperor to the
Minister of War at the same date. “Could not bread be made in Paris,
and sent to Metz?” Marshal Lebœuf, a day later, took note of the fact
that the detachments which came up to the front, sometimes
reserve men, sometimes battalions, arrived without ammunition and
camp equipments. Soldiers, functionaries, carts, ovens, provisions,
horses, munitions, harness, all had to be sought at the eleventh
hour. These facts are recorded in the despairing telegrams sent from
the front to the War Office. The very Marshal who had described
France as “archiprête,” in a transcendent state of readiness for war,
announced by telegram, on the 28th of July, the lamentable fact that
he could not move forward for want of biscuit—“Je manque de
biscuit pour marcher en avant.” The 7th Corps was to have been
formed at Belfort, but its divisions could never be assembled.
General Michel, on the 21st of July, sent to Paris this characteristic
telegram: “Have arrived at Belfort,” he wrote: “can’t find my brigade;
can’t find the General of Division. What shall I do? Don’t know where
my regiments are”—a document probably unique in military records.
Hardly a week later, that is on the 27th, Marshal Lebœuf became
anxious respecting the organization of this same Corps, and put,
through Paris, some curious questions to General Félix Douay, its
commander. “How far have you got on with your formations? Where
are your divisions?” The next day General Douay arrived at Belfort,
having been assured in Paris by his superiors that the place was
“abundantly provided” with what he would require. After the War,
Prince Georges Bibesco, a Roumanian in the French Army, attached
to the 7th Corps, published an excellent volume on the campaign,
and in its pages he describes the “cruel deception” which awaited
Douay. He writes that, for the most part, the troops, had “neither
tents, cooking pots, nor flannel belts; neither medical nor veterinary
canteens, nor medicines, nor forges, nor pickets for the horses—they
were without hospital attendants, workmen, and train. As to the
magazines of Belfort—they were empty.” In the land of centralization
General Douay was obliged to send a staff and several men to Paris,
with instructions to explain matters at the War Office, and not leave
the capital without bringing the articles demanded with them. Other
examples are needless. It would be almost impossible to understand
how it came to pass that the French were plunged into war, in July,
1870, did we not know that the military institutions had been
neglected, that the rulers relied on old renown, the “glorious past” of
the Duc de Gramont, and that the few men who forced the quarrel
to a fatal head, knew nothing of the wants of an army, and still less
of the necessities and risks of war.

War Methods Contrasted.

As the story is unfolded, it will be seen that the same marked
contrast between the principles and methods adopted and practised
by the great rivals prevailed throughout. The German Army rested
on solid foundations; the work of mobilization was conducted in
strict accordance with the rules of business; allowing for the
constant presence of a certain amount of error, inseparable from
human actions, it may be said that “nothing was left to chance.” The
French Army was loosely put together; it contained uncertain
elements; was not easily collected, and never in formed bodies; it
was without large as well as small essentials; it “lacked finish.” And
similar defects became rapidly manifest in the Imperial plan for the
conduct of the war. Here the contrast is flagrant. The Emperor
Napoleon, who had lived much with soldiers, who had been present
at great military operations, and had studied many campaigns, could
not be destitute of what the French call “le flair militaire.” He had,
also, some inkling of the political side of warfare; and in July, 1870,
he saw that much would depend upon his ability to make a dash into
South Germany, because, if he were successful, even for a brief
time, Prussia might be deprived of South German help, and Austria
might enter the field. There was no certainty about the calculation,
indeed, it was almost pure conjecture; seeing that Count von Beust
and the Archduke Albert had both warned him that, “above all
things,” they needed time, and that the former had become
frightened at the prospect of Hungarian defection, and a Russian
onfall. Yet it was on this shadowy basis that he moved to the frontier
the largest available mass of incomplete and suddenly organized
batteries, squadrons and battalions. He and his advisers were
possessed with a feverish desire to be first in the field; and the
Corps were assembled near Metz, Strasburg, and Belfort, with what
was called a reserve at Chalons, on the chance that the left might be
made to join the right in Alsace, and that the whole, except the
reserve which was to move up from Chalons, could be pushed over
the Rhine at Maxau, opposite Carlesruhe, and led with conquering
speed into the country south of the Main. Before he joined the head-
quarters at Metz, on the 28th of July, the Emperor may have
suspected, but on his arrival he assuredly found that the plan, if ever
feasible, had long passed out of the range of practical warfare. He
reaped nothing but the disadvantages which spring from grossly
defective preparation, and “raw haste half-sister to delay.” He knew
that he was commander-in-chief of a relatively weak and ill-found
Army, and he acquired the certainty at Metz, that, unless he were
conspicuously victorious, neither Austria nor Italy would move a
man.
His mighty antagonist, on the other hand, was advancing to the
encounter with such large resources, and so thoroughly equipped,
that no fewer than three Army Corps were left behind, because even
the admirably man managed and numerous German railway lines
were not able to carry them at once to the banks of the Rhine.
Moreover, General von Moltke, the Chief of the Great Staff, had, in
1868–69, carefully reasoned out plans, which were designed to meet
each probable contingency, either a march of the French through
Belgium, an early irruption into the Rhenish provinces, or the
identical scheme upon which the Emperor founded his hopes; while,
if the French allowed the Germans to begin offensive operations on
French soil, then the method of conducting the invasion, originally
adopted, would come into play. The memorandum on this great
subject, the essential portions of which have been published by its
author, Von Moltke, is, for breadth, profundity, and insight, one of
the most instructive to be found in the records of war. This is not the
place to deal with its general or detailed arguments. For present
purposes, it is sufficient to set forth the main operative idea. The
contention was, that an army assembled on the Rhine between
Rastadt and Mainz, and on the Moselle below Treves, would be able
to operate successfully, either on the right bank of the main stream,
against the flank of a French Army, which sought to invade South
Germany; or, with equal facility, concentrate on the left bank, and
march in three great masses through the country between the Rhine
and Moselle, upon the French frontier. Should the French make a
precipitate dash into the German country towards Mainz, then the
Corps collected near that fortress would meet them in front, and
those on the Moselle would threaten their communications or assail
them in flank. The soundness of the reasoning is indisputable; its
application would depend upon the prompt concentration of the
Armies, and that had been rendered certain by careful and rigorously
enforced preparations. The great Prussian strategist had calculated
the move of troops and railway trains to a day; so that he knew
exactly what number of men and guns, within a given area, he could
count upon at successive periods of time; and, of course, he was
well aware that the actual use to be made of them, after the
moment of contact, could not be foreseen with precision, but must
be adapted to circumstances. But he foresaw and prepared for the
contingency which did arrive. “If,” he said, “the French desired to
make the most of their railways, in order to hasten the assembly of
all their forces,” they would be obliged to disembark, or as we now
say, “detrain” them, “at Metz and Strasburg, that is, in two principal
groups separated from each other by the Vosges.” And then he went
on to point out how, assembled on the Rhine and Moselle, the
German Army would occupy what is called the “interior lines”
between them, and “could turn against the one or the other, or even
attack both at once, if it were strong enough.”
The grounds for these conclusions, succinctly stated, were the
conformation of the frontier, an angle flanked at each side by the
neutral states of Switzerland and Luxemburg, restricting the space
within which operations could be carried on; the possession of both
banks of the Rhine below Lauterbourg; the superior facility of
mobilization secured by the Germans, not only as regards the rapid
transition of Corps from a peace to a war footing, but by the skilful
use of six railway lines running to the Rhine and the Moselle; and,
finally, the fact that, fronting south between those rivers, the
advancing German Army would be directed against an adversary
whose line of retreat, at least so far as railways were concerned,
diverged, in each case, to a flank of any probable front of battle. The
railway from Strasburg to Nancy traversed the Vosges at Saverne;
the railway from Metz to Nancy on one side, and Thionville on the
other, followed the valley of the Moselle; and as the important
connecting branch from Metz to Verdun had not been constructed, it
follows that the French Army in Lorraine had no direct railway line of
retreat and supply. The railway from Metz to Strasburg, which
crossed the Vosges by the defile of Bitsche and emerged in the
Rhine valley at Hagenau, was, of course, nearly parallel to the
German front, except for a short distance west of Bening. The
frontier went eastward from Sierck, on the Moselle to Lauterbourg
on the Rhine, and thence southerly to Basle. The hill range of the
Vosges, starting from the Ballon d’Alsace, overlooking the Gap of
Belfort, runs parallel to the river, and extends in a northerly direction
beyond the French boundary, thrusting an irregular mass of uplands
deep into the Palatinate, ending in the isolated Donnersberg. It
follows that the main roads out of, as well as into, France were to
the east and west of this chain, and it should be observed that the
transverse passes were more numerous south than north of Bitsche,
and that, practically, while detachments could move along the
secluded valleys, there was no road available for large bodies and
trains through the massive block of mountain and forest which
occupies so considerable a space of the Palatinate. Thus, an army
moving from Mainz upon Metz would turn the obstacle on the
westward by Kaiserslautern and Landstuhl; while if Strasburg were
the goal, it would march up the Rhine valley by Landau, and through
the once famous Lines of the Lauter. If two armies, as really
happened in 1870, advanced simultaneously on both roads, the
connection between them is maintained by occupying Pirmasens,
which is the central point on a country road running from Landau to
Deux Ponts, and another going south-east to Wissembourg.
The influence of this mountain range upon the offensive and
defensive operations of the rival armies will be readily understood.
The French could only unite to meet their opponents in the Prussian
provinces at or north of Kaiserslautern; while the Germans,
assuming that their adversaries assembled forces in Alsace, as well
as in Lorraine, would not be in direct communication until their left
wing had moved through the hill-passes and had emerged in the
country between the Sarre and Meurthe.
It has been seen that the available French troops, including
several native and national regiments from Algeria, had been hurried
to the frontier in an imperfect state of organization and equipment.
There were nominally seven Corps d’Armée and the Guard; but of
these, two, the 6th and 7th, were never united in the face of the
enemy. Marshal Canrobert, commanding the 6th, was only able to
bring a portion of his Corps from Chalons to Metz; and General
Douay, the chief of the 7th, had one division at Lyons, and another
at Colmar, whence it was sent on to join the 1st Corps assembling
under Marshal MacMahon near Strasburg. The principal body,
consisting of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Corps, ultimately joined by the
greater part of the 6th, and the Guard were posted near and north
of Metz; while the 5th occupied positions on the Saar, and formed a
sort of link, or weak centre, between the right and left wings.
Nothing indicated cohesion in this array, which, as we have shown,
was adopted on the vain hypothesis that there would be time to
concentrate in Alsace for the purpose of anticipating the Germans
and crossing the Rhine at Maxau.
No such error was made on the other side. The German troops
were divided into three armies. The First Army, consisting of the 7th
and 8th Corps, under the veteran General von Steinmetz, formed the
right wing, and moved southward on both banks of the Moselle. The
Second Army, composed of the Guard, the 3rd, 4th, and 10th Corps,
commanded by Prince Frederick Charles, was the central body,
having in rear the 9th and 12th Corps as a reserve. They were
Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.

More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge

connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and

personal growth every day!

ebookbell.com