Transcriber’s notes:
The text of this e-book has been preserved as in the original,
including archaic and inconsistent spellings (although the archaic 'long
s' has been replaced with an ordinary 's'), but numerous presumed
typographic errors have been corrected silently. They are listed at the
end of this transcription. Footnotes have been numbered consecutively
and repositioned below the relevant paragraph. As many of them are
exceptionally long they have been indented to differentiate them from
the body text. Italic text is denoted by _underscores_, and a caret
(^) indicates that the following character is superscripted in the
original, e.g. N^o.
A
TREATISE
ON THE
PLAGUE
AND
YELLOW FEVER.
_With an APPENDIX, containing_
HISTORIES OF THE PLAGUE AT ATHENS IN THE TIME OF
THE PELOPONNESIAN WAR; AT CONSTANTINOPLE IN
THE TIME OF JUSTINIAN; AT LONDON IN 1665;
AT MARSEILLES IN 1720; &c.
By JAMES TYTLER,
Compiler of the Medical Part of the Encyclopædia Britannica.
Let every one, Physician or not, freely declare his own sentiments
about it; let him assign any credible account of its rise, or the
causes strong enough, in his opinion, to introduce so terrible a scene.
THUCYDIDES.
‘Twas all the business then
To tend the sick, and in their turns to die,
In heaps they fell.
ARMSTRONG.
_Published according to Act of Congress._
_SALEM_:
PRINTED BY JOSHUA CUSHING, FOR
B. B. MACANULTY.
1799.
CONTENTS.
PART FIRST.
_Of the_ Asiatic _or_ True _Plague_.
SECTION I. Page
_Of the Plague in general.--Inquiry into the Antiquity of the
Distemper.--Of the Plagues mentioned in the Old Testament.--
History of several remarkable Plagues which, at various times,
have desolated the world._ 1
SECTION II.
_Of the Countries where the Plague is supposed to originate.--
The Influence of Climate in producing Diseases.--And of the Moral
Conduct of the Human Race in producing and influencing the same._ 21
SECTION III.
_Of Disease in general.--The nature of the Plague as a Disease
considered.--Of Contagion.--Whether the Plague is Contagious or
not.--Medical History of the Distemper.--Inquiry into its
Immediate Causes, and whether an approaching Plague is indicated
by any visible Signs._ 74
SECTION IV.
_Of the best Methods of Preventing the Plague._ 302
SECTION V.
_Of the Cure of the Plague._ 347
PART SECOND.
_Of the Yellow Fever._
SECTION I.
_History of the Yellow Fever._ 371
SECTION II.
_Symptoms of the Yellow Fever, as described by various authors.
--Comparison between them and those of the Plague, with an
inquiry into the Causes.--History of the Distemper as it has
appeared in various parts of the United States since the year
1793.--A discussion of the question Whether the Yellow Fever
is Contagious or not._ 382
SECTION III.
_Methods of Prevention and Cure._ 507
SECTION IV.
_Remarkable Cases._ 534
_APPENDIX._
N^o I.
_Account of the Plague at Athens, in the time of the
Peloponnesian War:--From_ THUCYDIDES,--SMITH_’s Translation_. 545
N^o II.
_Account of the Great Plague in the time of_ JUSTINIAN:--_By_
PROCOPIUS. 547
N^o III.
_Account of the Plague at London in 1665:--From Dr._HODGES _and
others_. 548
N^o IV.
_Account of the Plague at Marseilles in 1720:--From the
Periodical Publications of the time._ 554
N^o V.
_Account of the Plague in Syria, Cyprus &c.--From Dr._PATRICK
RUSSEL_’s Treatise_. ibid.
N^o VI.
_Remarkable case of a Remitting Fever at Bassorah in 1780._ 556
N^o VII.
_Set of Queries furnished by Doctors_ AIKIN _and_ JEBB; _and by
Mr._ HOWARD _put to several foreign Physicians, during his tour;
with their Opinions concerning the Plague_. 563
A
TREATISE
ON THE
Plague and Yellow Fever.
PART FIRST.
_Of the_ Asiatic _or_ True _Plague_.
SECTION I.
_Of the Plague in general.--Inquiry into the Antiquity of the
Distemper.--Of the Plagues mentioned in the Old Testament.--History
of several remarkable Plagues which, at various times, have desolated
the world._
Among the many diseases which afflict the human race, we find ONE,
upon record, so irresistible in its progress, so fatal in its attacks,
and so entirely beyond the powers of medicine; that, like the serpent
_Python_, the _Leviathan_, or the _Mammoth_, among animals, it has
generally been distinguished by names expressive of its destroying
nature; not, like other diseases, by any particular appellation derived
from its symptoms. In the Hebrew language this distemper is expressed
by the word which signifies _perdition_;[1] in Greek it is called
_loimos_, from _luo_, to destroy; in Latin, _pestis_, from _pessundo_,
to overthrow; and in English, the _plague_, from the Latin _plaga_,
a stroke with a whip; alluding to the common opinion, that it is a
scourge from heaven, taking vengeance on mankind for their sins.
[1] Thus Dr. Hodges; but Calmet informs us, that the Hebrews call
by the name of plagues all diseases sent by way of punishment or
correction from God; as the pestilence, infection, the leprosy,
sudden deaths, famines, tempests: in a word, all calamities, whether
public or private. _Calmet’s Dict._ vol. ii. fol. 412. _Plaga._
Parkhurst derives the Greek term _loimos_, either from _luo_, as
above, or from another Greek word signifying _to faint_; the same
from which the English word _eclipse_ has its origin; or it may be
from the Hebrew _lehem_, to consume.
A friend observes, that “we no where find the word _perdition_
in our version of the Old Testament. We have, however, the word
_destruction_, which is of a similar import; as, for instance, in
Prov. xv. 11. where the Hebrew is _abdun_. In Rev. xvii. 8 & 11, we
find the English word _perdition_; but as we have no Hebrew version
of the New Testament, we may advert to the ancient Syriac version.
The Syriac being a sister dialect of the Hebrew, differs, radically,
but little from it. The Syriac of the two places referred to above is
_abdna_; hence the word _abaddon_, whole root is _abd_, and is the
same with that of the Hebrew word above.
“As to the word _plague_, we often find it in the Old Testament, but
perhaps never in that specific sense in which the moderns use it. The
original word, rendered plague, is pretty generally _ngp_, or its
derivations; as Exod. xii. 13., ii. Sam. xxiv. 21, &c.” On this last
occasion, however, as the word _pestilence_ had been used before, in
the same chapter, we can scarce doubt its having been really some
kind of disease: and we know that modern plagues will sometimes
destroy as quickly as this is said to have done.
Other distempers, called by the general name of _Epidemics_, have at
different times infected whole cities, and even overspread extensive
regions; but these, though sometimes very fatal, have always been
found so much inferior to the distemper of which we treat, that, on
a comparison, we may justly say, though epidemics have slain their
_thousands_, the true plague has slain its _ten thousands_. In speaking
of the destructive ravages of epidemics, we may count the dead by
tens, by hundreds, or by thousands; but in the true plague, always by
thousands, by myriads,[2] or by millions. Procopius, when speaking of
a plague which desolated the world in his time, compares the number
of the dead to the sand of the sea; and Mr. Gibbon, who attempts to
specify, thinks they might amount to an hundred millions;[3] and I
cannot help being of opinion, that the destruction generally occasioned
by violent plagues, amounts to about one half of the population; the
reasons for which opinion will be given in the course of this work. In
all violent plagues, we hear of the dead being left unburied; of their
being cast into pits, &c. But if we wish to make any gross comparison
between the destructive power of the true plague, and that of any other
violent epidemic, we cannot, perhaps, have a better instance than
that which took place at Bassorah (a city on the confines of Persia)
in the years 1773 and 1780.[4] In the former of these years that city
was visited by the true plague; and in the latter, by an epidemic
remittent fever. The fever was most violent in its kind, and destroyed
twenty-five thousand in the city and neighbourhood; but the true
plague, no fewer than two hundred and seventy-five thousand in the same
place. Supposing the two computations therefore to be equally exact, we
must calculate this plague to have been eleven times more deadly than
the epidemic. If therefore the ingenious classifiers, in modern times,
have brought into alliance the plague with other epidemic diseases,
and characterised the former from the latter; we may justly say, that
they have fallen into the same error with other naturalists, who
characterise the superior from the inferior; the lion from the cat, not
the cat from the lion. As to the remedies applied in these diseases,
doubtful in epidemics, they so universally fail in the true plague,
that, notwithstanding the improved state of medicine, we may yet say,
it stands among diseases, in a great measure, like a giant without any
champion to oppose; like a poison without any antidote.
[2] A myriad is generally supposed to contain ten thousand.
[3] Gibbon’s History, vol. iv.
[4] Transact. of Society for improving Medical Knowledge.
In this unhappy predicament, the breaking out of a plague, in any city
or country, proves a most distressing calamity, not only on account of
the numbers destroyed by the disease itself, but by reason of the bonds
of society being loosed; so that humanity gives way to terror; children
are abandoned by their parents, and parents by their children; every
thing wears the appearance of ruin and desolation; while, in too many
instances, avarice urges on the unprincipled to rapine, or even to
murder. Nor are the cruel modes of prevention, sometimes practiced even
by the authority of the magistrate, less abhorrent to humanity, then
the lawless outrages of the thief or murderer. Instances of all this
will appear in the course of the work; the following are so remarkable,
that I cannot help inserting them in this place. In the great plague at
Marseilles, in 1720, the town being almost deserted, and few choosing
to venture into it, “three sea-captains, and some hundreds of sailors,
having the courage to enter the city, from the sea-side, found therein
a gang of murderers, who made it their business to destroy people
seized with the plague, and to plunder their houses. The ringleader of
them, named _Rouanne_, a gunsmith, was broken alive upon the wheel, and
forty others were hanged. Rouanne owned that he had killed a thousand
persons. There were found, upon one of the murderers, jewels to the
value of more than thirty thousand livres.”[5] During the time of
this public calamity, four men, who came from Marseilles to Aix, were
shot by order of the parliament, lest they should have brought the
infection along with them.[6] Even this is not equal to what Mr. Howard
informs us was practiced in a hamlet of Dalmatia, where, the plague
having raged with such violence, that only two or three remained; the
neighbouring magistrates ordered these miserable survivors to be shot.
At such prices will people buy a precarious, nay, an imaginary, safety.
In short, what Mr. Gibbon says of the situation of people in the time
of violent earthquakes, will also, in a great measure, hold good in
the time of pestilence, or any great public calamity. “Instead of the
mutual sympathy which might comfort and assist the distressed, they
dreadfully experience the vices and passions which are released from
a fear of punishment; the houses are pillaged by intrepid avarice,
revenge embraces the moment and selects the victim: while [7]vengeance
frequently overtakes the assassin or ravisher in the consummation of
his crimes.”
[5] Political State for 1720.
[6] Political state, ibid.
[7] Mr. Gibbon, agreeably to the subject on which he writes,
particularises the mode of vengeance; saying, “the _earth frequently
swallows up_ the assassin,” &c. It is hoped the substitution of
the word _vengeance_, in general, will not be deemed a material
alteration.
Whether the world hath been in the same predicament ever since the
human race began to multiply, or whether plagues have originated at
some remote period, is a question not easily determined. It is certain
that, as far as histories go, they give us accounts of plagues;
much less frequent indeed in very ancient times than in those which
followed; but the compass of historical knowledge is narrow. There are
no authentic histories of any nation previous to the termination of
those of the Old Testament. Where sacred history ends, profane history
begins. The fabulous period affords many accounts of wars, heroes,
giants, and monsters, but scarce any of plagues. Diodorus Siculus
indeed makes mention of a plague which happened in Greece, after the
flood of Deucalion; and which, he says, was occasioned by the general
corruption of vegetables, &c. consequent on the flood. Deucalion’s
flood is supposed to have been nearly cotemporary with the departure
of the Israelites from Egypt; so that, if there is any truth in the
relation of Diodorus, it is not improbable that some of the Egyptian
plagues might have spread into Greece. We are likewise told of a
pestilence at Athens in the time of Theseus;[8] but all the accounts
of these times are so uncertain, and so much involved in fable, that
little or no dependence can be placed on any of them.
[8] Univ. Hist. vol. vi.
The first distinct account we have of plagues of any kind, then, is in
the book of Exodus, where we are told of many heavy judgments sent upon
the Egyptians because of their disobedience. Before this, indeed, we
read of plagues sent on the king of Egypt, for having taken Abraham’s
wife; but as these fell only upon the king and his household, we cannot
suppose any thing like a general pestilence to have taken place among
the people. In like manner did it happen to Abimelech, king of Gerar,
on the same account. All the women belonging to the king’s household
were rendered barren for a time; but we hear of nothing happening
to the nation at large. Again, when Moses and Aaron went in before
Pharaoh, they said to him, “Let us go and sacrifice to the Lord our
God; lest he fall upon us with the sword, or with _pestilence_.” This
shews indeed that both Moses and Pharaoh knew that such a thing as
_pestilence_ existed, or might exist; but it cannot prove that the
disease we now call the plague or pestilence commonly took place among
nations in those days as it has done since. Even among the plagues
inflicted upon the Egyptians by the hand of Moses and Aaron, we find
only two that can be supposed to have any similarity to the disease we
now call the _plague_; viz. the _boil_, and the destruction of their
first born. The former _may_ have been pestilential buboes; the latter
also _may_ have been the effect of a most malignant pestilence; such
as, in the beginning of it, is said frequently to kill suddenly, as by
lightning; but whether it was so or not, we cannot now determine.
In the history of Job, who is supposed to have been cotemporary with
Moses, we have a case more in point. The boils, with which he was
covered, are by Dr. Mead supposed to have been the small pox; though in
the true plague the body is sometimes covered with gangrenous pustules,
constituting a disease still more dangerous and painful than the small
pox; but whatever the disease of Job was, we may reasonably conclude,
that in his time there was none similar to it commonly existing among
mankind.
After the departure of the Israelites from Egypt, we find frequent
mention of a plague as a disease commonly to be met with; but it was
always that of leprosy; those destructive plagues, which might be
supposed to resemble the disease we now call by that name, being all
miraculous. Concerning the prevalence of the leprosy among the Jews,
Diodorus says that they “were driven out of Egypt as impious, and
hateful to the gods; for their bodies being overspread and infected
with the itch and leprosy, (by way of expiation) they got them
together, and, as profane and wicked wretches, expelled them out
of their coasts.” This he tells us was a reason given to one of the
kings of Syria why he should exterminate the Jews. In another place
our author gives the following account of the origin of the Jewish
nation. “In ancient times there happened a great plague in Egypt, and
many ascribed the cause of it to God, who was offended with them. For
there being multitudes of strangers of several nations who inhabited
there, who used foreign ceremonies, the ancient manner of worship was
quite lost and forgotten. Hence the natural inhabitants concluded,
that unless the strangers were driven out, they should never be freed
from their miseries. Upon which they were all expelled,” &c. He then
tells us that some of them came into Greece under the conduct of Danaus
and Cadmus; but the greater part entered Judea, then quite desert and
uninhabited. Their leader “was one _Moses_, a very wise and valiant
man,” &c.[9]
[9] Diodor. Sic. Frag.
The allusion, in this last passage of Diodorus, to the plagues of
Egypt, mentioned in Exodus, is manifest; and it is equally manifest,
that the Egyptians themselves, as well as the sacred historian, owned
them to be miraculous. Here, however, let it be remarked, that, though
these, and others inflicted on the Israelites, were miraculous, we
are not from thence to conclude that they took place without the
intervention of natural causes. On the contrary, in speaking of the
plagues of Egypt, we are told, that when the locusts came, “the Lord
sent a strong _east wind_, all that day and all that night; and when
it was morning, the _east wind_ brought the locusts.” In like manner
“the Lord turned a mighty strong _west wind_, which took away the
locusts, and cast them into the Red sea.” Again, when the sea itself
was divided, “the Lord caused it to go back by a strong _east wind_ all
that night.” The Egyptians were witnesses to this; but, as they did not
believe that the powers of nature had any superior, they could never be
induced to think that any of the elements would take part in a dispute
between two nations, or favour the one more than the other.
In diseases inflicted on the human body, we are assured that the powers
of nature were as much employed as in the miracles already mentioned.
When it was told David that the child born to him by Bathsheba should
die, the infant was seized with a natural distemper, probably a fever,
and died the seventh day. When Hezekiah was informed that he should
die, he did not, any more than David had done, give himself up to
despair; but used, for his recovery, such means as were in his power,
viz. prayers to God; from whom, by the constitution of things under the
Old Testament, he would receive a direct answer. And it is remarkable,
that though the answer was favourable, yet the disease was not removed
by any invisible power operating like a charm, but by the use of a
remedy. It is plain therefore that this disease was occasioned by one
natural power, and removed by another. The boil (for that was the
distemper) was brought to maturity by a poultice of figs, and the king
recovered.[10] If then the scripture informs us, that even where the
Deity himself speaks, he has directed the use of a remedy, much more
ought we to be diligent in the use of such as our feeble skill can
suggest, in those cases where he leaves us entirely to the exercise
of our own judgments. To sit down supinely, in case of a dangerous
distemper, with a notion, that if God wills us to die we certainly
shall die, _in any use of natural means_; and if he wills the contrary,
that we shall as certainly recover, _in any neglect of them_; is a
conduct equally unscriptural and absurd.
[10] Mead.
In the books of Moses we find the Israelites, in case of disobedience,
threatened with the _botch_ of Egypt; with terror, consumption, and the
_burning ague_. From the name of this last we may reasonably suppose
it to have been the same with the remitting fever of the East, which
is attended with the most intolerable sensation of burning in the
bowels; but whatever the nature of these diseases might have been,
they certainly were not very common in the world at that time, or they
would not have been threatened as extraordinary judgments. They were
not the same with the pestilence; because we find, that after they
had been threatened with fever, consumption, and extreme burning, it
is added, “I will make the _pestilence_ cleave unto thee:” as if it
had been said, that the pestilence, which hitherto had appeared only
on extraordinary occasions, should then become _endemic_, and never
leave them. But, on the whole, the first account we have of any general
plague, seems to be that which was inflicted on the Jews on account
of the sin of their king in numbering the people. David was nearly
cotemporary with the Trojan war; and Homer, in the first book of his
Iliad, informs us, that a plague likewise took place in the camp of
the Greeks; and that too for the sin of their king in carrying off the
daughter of the priest of Apollo, and refusing to restore her at the
entreaty of her father.
In comparing the account of the sacred historian with that given by
Homer, we cannot help observing a striking similarity between them.
Both plagues were inflicted on the people for the sin of their kings;
both were miraculous; the one continued three days, the other nine.
In both the Deity himself appeared: an angel brandished a drawn sword
over Jerusalem; and Homer says, that, from the top of Olympus, Apollo
shot his arrows into the Grecian camp. Lastly, both were stopped in a
similar manner: David offered sacrifices to the true God; and Agamemnon
returned Chryseis, his captive, to her father, the priest of Apollo,
by whose prayers and sacrifices the plague was stopped. Hence it seems
not impossible, that the story told by Homer, is only that of David,
altered as he thought most proper for embellishing his poem; and that
this was the first remarkable plague in the world.
In the year 767 B. C. we hear of a universal pestilence; but the
imperfect state of history in those early periods affords few accounts
that can be depended upon, either concerning that or any thing
else.[11] Till after the foundation of Rome, indeed, authentic history
scarce commences; and it is not till the 279th year of that city,
that we hear of its being in any remarkable degree infected with a
pestilential disorder.[12] The plague we speak of is said to have taken
place about the year 469 B. C. which comes within 38 years of that of
Athens in the time of the Peloponnesian war. The near coincidence of
these dates, in times so remote, and when chronology was so little
settled, tends to excite a suspicion that both arose from the same
infection. Of its ravages at Athens we have an excellent account
by the historian Thucydides,[13] who was an eye witness of what he
writes. He says, that according to report it began in Ethiopia, from
whence it came down into Egypt, and thence into other countries. It is
possible, therefore, that it might reach Italy some time before it came
into Greece; for it seems scarce probable, that such a very violent
infection could have taken place in Italy without being communicated to
the neighbouring countries; whence we may reasonably conclude, that the
first plague at Rome, and that of Thucydides, were the same. At Rome,
we are informed, it swept away almost all the flower of the youth who
were able to bear arms, the greatest part of the tribunes, and both the
consuls. The mortality was so great, that no place of sepulture could
be found for the dead bodies, but they were thrown promiscuously into
the Tiber. In short, so low were the Romans at this time reduced, that
the Æqui and Volsci, two Italian nations with whom they were almost
always at war, made an immediate attack, in hopes of being easily able
to carry the city; but in this they were disappointed. The situation
of Athens was truly deplorable; being not only engaged in a foreign
war, but crowded with people from the country; numbers dying daily in
the streets, and the survivors giving themselves up to all manner of
licentiousness.[14]
[11] In the subsequent section this plague will be more fully treated
of.
[12] A plague is spoken of in the time of Romulus; but the accounts
of this, and some others, are extremely obscure and indistinct.
[13] See Appendix No. I.
[14] See Thucydides’s account at large, Appendix No. I.
As it seems probable that the same infection desolated both Rome and
Athens, so it seems not unlikely that it was a continuance of the same
which destroyed the Carthaginian army in Sicily, while carrying on a
successful war against Dionysius, tyrant of Syracuse. The plague, as we
are informed by the Universal History, was common in the Carthaginian
territories, especially those on the continent of Africa; and this
pestilence broke out soon after the conclusion of the Peloponnesian
war. As it originally came from Africa, it is probable that it had
never been quite extinguished there; and the compilers of the Universal
History think it probable that the army might have brought the seeds
of it along with them into Sicily. But, whatever was the origin, the
distemper soon became so malignant, that the living were not sufficient
to bury the dead; and those who attended the sick perished in such a
manner, that, after some time, few dared to come near them. At first
they gave the dead a kind of burial; but in time the number became
so great, and the survivors so few and weak, that an hundred and
fifty thousand are said to have rotted above ground. “Justin seems
to intimate that almost the whole Carthaginian army perished by the
plague; and that in a manner all at once, as it were in an instant.
Diodorus, however, informs us, that a considerable body of Africans
and Iberians survived the dreadful calamity. It is worth observation,
that not a single person of those who attended the sick survived.” The
miserable remains of this army, consisting at first of more than three
hundred thousand, were now attacked by their enemies, whom they were no
longer able to resist. Their land forces were entirely defeated, and
their fleet was burnt: “the Gods themselves, (says Diodorus) when the
ships were all in a blaze, and the flames ascending above the masts,
seeming to destroy the Carthaginians with lightning from heaven.” Forty
gallies still remained, and the unfortunate general was now obliged to
purchase liberty to return with the few men he had left. But even these
were treacherously attacked by the tyrant’s fleet, and several of them
sunk. On his arrival at Carthage, he found the whole city not only in
mourning, but in despair: “the wretched inhabitants giving full vent to
their grief, made the shore ring with their groans and lamentations.
In short, a greater scene of horror, except the spot of ground where
the Carthaginian army encamped before Syracuse, than Carthage now was,
cannot well be conceived.” This reception completed the despair of
the unhappy general. Clothing himself in mean and sordid attire, he
joined with the rest in bewailing their common calamities. After some
desperate exclamations against the gods, whom he accused of partiality,
“The enemy, said he, may rejoice at our misery, but have no reason to
glory in it. The troops we have lost did not fall by their valour, nor
did they now oblige those that arrived here to leave Sicily by force.
We return victorious over the Syracusians, and are only defeated by
the plague. As for the baggage found in our camp, this ought not to be
looked upon as the spoils of a conquered enemy, but as moveables which
the casual death of their owners has left the Syracusians in possession
of.” Having then gone on to express his grief for the loss of his army,
and declared his intention not to outlive them, he shut himself up in
his house, refusing admittance even to his own children, and put an end
to his life.[15]
[15] Univ. Hist. vol. xvii.
Whether the unfortunate remains of this army brought with them the
infection to Carthage, and there produced a new scene of desolation, we
are not informed; but there seems to have been a very great tendency
to pestilential disorders in the Carthaginian armies; for, in the time
of the siege of Syracuse by Marcellus, a plague broke out in the camp
of the Carthaginians who had come to assist the Syracusians. From them
it passed into the city itself, with so much malignity, that nothing
was to be seen but heaps of dead and dying. None durst receive or
assist the sick, for fear of being infected by them; and the bodies
of the dead were, for the same reason, left unburied, to infect and
poison the air with their putridity and corruption. Nothing was heard,
night and day, but groans of dying men; and the heaps of dead bodies
continually presented mournful objects to the living, who expected
every moment the same fate.[16] The infection reached the Roman camp;
but we do not hear of its being conveyed, at this time, either to
Rome or Carthage. In the time of the contest with Jugurtha, however,
a very terrible calamity took place in Africa. “According to Orosius,
a great part of Africa was covered with locusts, which destroyed all
the produce of the earth, and even devoured dry wood. But, at last,
they were all carried by the wind into the sea, out of which being
thrown in vast heaps upon the shore, a plague ensued, which swept
away an infinite number of animals of all kinds. In Numidia only,
perished eight hundred thousand men; and in Africa Propria, two hundred
thousand; among the rest, thirty thousand Roman soldiers, quartered
in and about Utica for the defence of the last mentioned province. At
Utica, in particular, the plague raged with such violence, that fifteen
hundred dead bodies were carried out of one gate in a day.”[17]
[16] Univ. Hist. vol. viii.
[17] Id. vol. xviii.
From the time that the Romans finished their African wars, till they
had accomplished most of their conquests in Asia, their empire seems
to have continued free from this dreadful scourge; but soon after the
destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, such a violent infection seized on
the city, that for some time upwards of twenty thousand are said to
have died in it daily.
As the Roman arms were carried still farther to the eastward, and all
the countries reduced, to the confines of Persia, the plague seems to
have become more common among them. In the time of Marcus Aurelius, a
war was undertaken against the Parthians, which was carried on by the
Romans with great success, and with no less cruelty; for, though the
city of Seleucia opened its gates to the Roman general, he caused the
inhabitants, to the number of four hundred thousand, to be massacred.
But they soon paid dear for this cruelty, by a dreadful pestilence,
which broke out, according to the historian Ammianus Marcellinus, in
the very city which they had desolated, and was brought by their army
into Italy, from whence it spread throughout the whole empire. Other
historians say, that it originated in Ethiopia, from whence it spread
into Egypt, and thence into the country of the Parthians. We know not
how long the infection continued; only that, some years afterwards,
when the emperor was defeated by the Germans, the pestilence still
raged to such a degree, that slaves, gladiators, and even the banditti
of Dalmatia and Dardania, were enlisted for the defence of the empire.
It is certain that great havock must have been made by it, as we find
that the barbarians were encouraged to invade the empire on all sides,
and could scarcely be repulsed; insomuch that historians compare this
with the most destructive wars the Romans had ever waged.[18]
[18] Univ. Hist. vol. xv.
During the time that the empire was overrun by the northern barbarians,
the plague frequently made its appearance; which we shall have occasion
to notice more particularly in the following section; but in those
times the destruction by the sword was so extraordinary, that less
mention is made by history of any pestilential disorder. In the time of
Justinian, however, about sixty-five years after the final destruction
of the western empire, the most violent plague recorded in history took
place. Of this we have a particular account by Procopius.[19] “The
distemper (says Mr. Gibbon) arose in the neighbourhood of Pelusium,
on the confines of Egypt, between the Sarbonian bog and the eastern
channel of the Nile. From thence, tracing, as it were, a double
path, it spread to the east, over Syria, Persia, and the Indies,
and penetrated to the west, along the coast of Africa, and over the
continent of Europe. In the spring of the second year, Constantinople,
during three or four months, was visited by this pestilence. Such was
the corruption of the air, that the pestilence was not checked, nor
alleviated, by any difference of seasons. The numbers that perished
in this extraordinary mortality have not been recorded; only we find
that, during three months, there died at Constantinople five, and at
last ten thousand a day. Many cities of the east were left vacant, and,
in several districts of Italy, the harvest and vintage withered on the
ground. The triple scourge of war, pestilence and famine afflicted the
subjects of Justinian; and his reign is disgraced by a visible decrease
of the human species, which has never been repaired, in some of the
fairest countries of the globe.”[20]
[19] See Appendix, No. II.
[20] Gibbon’s Hist. vol. iv. Procopius, in speaking of the numbers
who died in this extraordinary plague, compares them to the sand of
the sea; and afterwards expresses them by a phrase which has been
translated _two hundred millions_. The phrase is _myriadas myriadon
myrias_. Mr. Gibbon, by dropping the first word, restricts the sense
to _one hundred millions_; which he thinks not wholly inadmissible;
but the probability seems to be, that Procopius did not mean to
specify the number, but to represent it as incalculable. This is done
by putting a comma, or semicolon, after the first word; and we may
then read, that there perished _myriads; a myriad of myriads_. The
grammar is rectified by reading _myriades_ instead of _myriadae_.
This plague broke out in the time of Justinian, in the year 541 or 542
of the christian era; and not only ravaged Constantinople in the time
of Justinian, but returned with increased violence during the reigns of
many of his successors. In the time of Mauritius we find the Avari, a
barbarous nation to the north of the Danube, driven back by the plague
after they had crossed that river to invade the Roman territories. The
reign of Phocas, successor to Mauritius, was still more unfortunate.
“Great numbers were swept off, either by famine or pestilence; the
earth refused her fruits in season; the winters were so severe, that
the seas were frozen, and the fish destroyed.” Phocas ascended the
imperial throne in 603; but in the midst of such confusion as then
filled the world, we can scarce expect an accurate account of the time
when this most malignant pestilence ceased. We can scarcely suppose
it to have lasted two centuries; but, in the reign of Constantine
Copronymus, which began in 742, we find the distemper still raging, and
the same dreadful phenomena of nature still continuing. The plague, we
are now told, broke out in Calabria in Italy; whence it soon spread
over Greece, Sicily, the islands in the Ægean sea; and at last reached
Constantinople; where it raged for three years together, with such
fury, that the living were scarce sufficient to bury the dead. The
earthquakes, which accompanied or preceded this pestilence, were such
as had never been known in any age. In Syria and Palestine several
cities were swallowed up; others, entirely ruined; and some, if we may
give credit to Nicephorus, removed without any considerable damage, six
miles and upwards from their former seats. At the same time happened an
extraordinary darkness, which lasted from the fourth of August to the
first of October, there being little or no distinction, during all that
time, between day and night.[21] During the reign of the same prince,
there happened such an extraordinary frost, that, at Constantinople,
both seas were frozen for an hundred miles from the shore; the ice
being covered with snow twenty cubits deep, and sufficiently strong
to bear the heaviest carriages. When the frost broke, mountains of
ice and frozen snow, being driven by the wind through the straits,
did a great deal of damage to the walls of Constantinople. The month
following, several prodigies appeared, or were thought to appear, in
the air. At the same time a comet, which the Greeks called _Docites_,
because it resembled a beam, was seen for ten days in the east, from
whence it moved into the west, and shone there for one and twenty days
more. The people were struck with terror and amazement at the sight
of the prodigies, and apprehended the last day to be at hand.[22]
Dreadful earthquakes, strange phenomena in the heavens, inundations,
&c. occurred in the year 812, during the reign of Michael Balbus; but
no remarkable plague is mentioned by the Greek historians, till the
year 1025, when a new train of calamities took place. The plague broke
out in Cappadocia, raging with such violence there, as well as in
Paphlagonia and Armenia, that the people were forced to abandon their
dwellings. A terrible famine followed; after which the earthquakes
again commenced with redoubled fury: at Constantinople they continued
forty days together; while people were terrified by a _comet_ (probably
a large meteor) which passed with a dreadful noise from north to south;
the whole horizon appearing to be in a flame.
[21] Univ. Hist. vol. xvii.
[22] Ibid.
From these calamities the world, at least that part of it known to
the Greek historians, appears to have enjoyed some respite till the
year 1346. Indeed we may now say, as in the time of the invasion by
the northern barbarians, that the sword, and not the pestilence, was
the plague of those times. A most violent and universal pestilence,
however, now took place; though, for want of such historians as
Thucydides and Procopius, we cannot here give a particular account of
it. In general we are told, that it began in the kingdom of Cathay (the
northern part of China) from whence it gradually overspread all the
countries between that and the western extremity of Asia. Invading,
at last, Constantinople, it proceeded from thence to Greece, Italy,
France, Africa, Germany, Hungary, Denmark, Britain and Ireland. Thus,
it seems to have been as extensive a contagion as ever appeared in the
world. It is even probable, that, from the remains of this contagion,
Europe hath been but very lately set at liberty; as we hear, not long
after, of plagues being very frequent in different parts of that
continent. In England it assumed somewhat of a new form towards the end
of the fifteenth century; being then known by the name of the English
Sweating Sickness. But, except in the greater propensity to sweat,
the disease appears not to have differed from the true plague. The
sweating sickness first made its appearance in the army of Henry VII,
when he landed at Milford in 1483; and that year invaded London, where
it continued only from the 21st of September to the end of October.
It returned in 1485, 1506, 1517, 1528 and 1551; since which time it
has not been known in Britain. In 1517 it was extremely violent and
mortal; sometimes killing the sick in three hours; and so general was
the infection, that, in some places, one half of the inhabitants
died. In 1528 it also raged with great violence; the sick sometimes
dying in four hours. The last attack, in 1551, was also very violent.
In 1529 it appeared in Holland and Germany, destroying great numbers
of people; but it hath not been observed, at least in any remarkable
degree, in those countries since that time. In the course of the 17th
century, various parts of Europe have suffered very much from the
plague in its usual form. Indeed (for reasons given in the subsequent
section) we can scarce suppose the pestilential contagion ever to
have ceased entirely. In 1603, London was visited with the plague;
and on this occasion the practice of shutting up infected houses was
first introduced.[23] In 1656 another plague took place in the same
metropolis, but does not appear to have made any violent attack. In
Naples it raged that year with great fury; destroying, according to
some accounts, fifteen thousand, according to others, twenty thousand,
a day. But these accounts the author of the Journal just quoted, with
great probability, supposes to have been exaggerated. Others say, that
four hundred thousand Neapolitans were destroyed by this infection;
so that we must at any rate believe it to have been very violent. In
the plague of London in 1665, immense numbers perished; and particular
accounts were published of this calamity; of which an abridgment is
given in the Appendix to this work, No. III. Since that time it has not
been known in Britain; but other parts of Europe have not been equally
fortunate. In the beginning of the eighteenth century it appeared in
several parts of the continent; particularly in Copenhagen in the year
1711; where it committed great ravages, as it had done at Dantzic two
years before; but in 1720 it appeared at Marseilles in France, where it
raged with such fury as to destroy sixty out of the hundred thousand
supposed to be the whole population of the place.[24] Since that time
France hath been free from the distemper; but in Sicily, the dominions
of the Ottoman Porte, and places adjacent, it hath been felt very
severely. In 1743 it was supposed to have destroyed two thirds of the
inhabitants of Messina. A particular account of its ravages was read
before the Royal Society of London by Dr. Mead. The following is taken
from Dr. Lobb’s Treatise on the Plague. “From the beginning of June to
the end of July, of forty thousand inhabitants, two thirds perished.
The disorders in the city were incredible. All the bakers died, and no
bread was baked for many days. The streets were full of dead bodies;
at one time from twelve to fifteen thousand remaining in the open air:
men, women and children, rich and poor, all together dragged to the
church doors. The vaults being full, and the living not sufficient
to carry the dead out of the city, they were obliged to put them on
funeral piles, and burn them promiscuously. Nothing was more shocking
than to see people, far above the common stations, go about begging for
a loaf of bread, when they could hardly walk, with their tumours upon
them; and few were in a state to help them. All these calamities did
not hinder the most execrable villanies, which were committed every
moment; and, though so few survived, the governor was obliged to make
several public examples.”
[23] Journal of the Plague Year.
[24] See Appendix, No. IV.
In the Turkish dominions, though we have not read of such extraordinary
devastations as formerly took place, yet we are assured that the
pestilence rages there very frequently. From 1756 to 1762 we have
histories of it by Dr. Russel and others, the substance of which
accounts is given in the Appendix, No. V. In the time of the great war
between the Turks and Russians, it found its way to Moscow, which city
it invaded in 1771. M. Savary says, it was brought thither by infected
merchandise from the store houses of the Jews; and that it carried
off two hundred thousand people. In the sixth volume of the Medical
Commentaries, however, we are told that it was brought from the army
by two soldiers; both of whom were carried into the military hospital,
and both died. The anatomist who dissected their bodies died also. The
infection quickly seized the hospital, and thence the whole city.
This happening in the beginning of the year, its progress was for some
time checked by the cold; but its ravages became greater as the summer
advanced. It raged most violently during the months of July, August
and September; in which time there were instances of its destroying
twelve hundred persons in a day. Twenty-five thousand died in the month
of September; in the course of which month scarce one in an hundred
of the infected recovered. Only seventy thousand, according to this
account, perished by the disease. The year 1773 proved very fatal to
Bassorah; where, as formerly mentioned, two hundred and seventy-five
thousand perished in the summer season, through the violence of the
distemper.[25] But in countries where the plague rages so frequently,
and where there are few that make observations with any accuracy, we
cannot expect complete histories of every attack made by it; neither
would the limits of this Treatise admit of a detail of them, though
there were. We know, however, that since the year we speak of, the
plague has ravaged Dalmatia, particularly in the year 1784, when
it almost desolated the town of Spalatro, destroying three or four
thousand of its inhabitants. Though some countries therefore have for a
number of years remained free from the attacks of this terrible enemy,
yet there are others where it is as it were stored up, and from whence
it may, on a proper occasion, break forth as formerly, and once more
spread ruin and desolation through the world.
[25] An English gentleman, who resided in Bassorah at that time,
preserved himself from the infection by retiring to a mud-house,
where he had no communication with the inhabitants. Having a large
quantity of Bengal cotton, he sold it to the people to wrap their
dead in. The price was put in a basket, which he hauled up by a rope
to his ware-room; lowering it again with the proportionate quantity
of cloth. In the course of the summer he had an account of _seventy
thousand_ winding sheets thus disposed of!
(Transact. of a Society for improving Medical Knowledge.)