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._

In considering the origin of a calamity so dreadful and so universal,

we might reasonably suppose that the fatal spots which gave rise to

it would long ago have been marked out and abandoned by the human

race altogether. But this is far from being the case. In the accounts

already given of various plagues, they are always said to have been

imported from country to country, but never to have originated in that

of the person who wrote of them. If a plague arose in Greece, we are

told it came from Egypt; if in Egypt, it came from Ethiopia; and had we

any Ethiopic historians, they would no doubt have told us that it came

from the land of the Hottentots, from Terra Australis Incognita, or

some other country as far distant as possible from their own. In short,

though it has been a most generally received opinion, that plagues

are the immediate effects of the displeasure of the Deity on account

of the sins of men; yet, except David and Homer (already quoted) we

find not one who has had the candour to acknowledge that a plague

originated among his countrymen on account of their sins in particular.

In former times Egypt and Ethiopia were marked out as the two great

sources of the plague; and even as late as the writings of Dr. Mead

we find that the same opinion prevailed. The Doctor, who attempts to

explain the causes of the plague, derives it entirely from the filth

of the city of Cairo, particularly of the canal that runs through it.

But later writers, who have visited and resided in Egypt, assure us

that the country is extremely healthy, and that the plague is always

brought there from Constantinople. It is true that Dr. Timone, in the

Philosophical Transactions, No. 364, tells us, that it appears from

daily observation, as well as from history, that the plague comes

to Constantinople from Egypt; but the united testimonies of Savary,

Volney, Mariti and Russel, who all agree that Egypt receives the

infection from Constantinople, must undoubtedly preponderate.

“The pestilence (says M. Savary) is not a native of Egypt. I have

collected information from the Egyptians, and foreign physicians who

have lived there twenty or thirty years; which all tended to prove the

contrary. They have assured me that this epidemic disease was brought

thither by the Turks, though it has committed great ravages. I myself

saw the caravelles of the Grand Signior, in 1778, unlade, according to

custom, the silks of Syria at Damietta. The plague is almost always

on board; and they landed, without opposition, their merchandise, and

their people who had the plague. It was the month of August; and, as

the disease was then over in Egypt, it did not communicate that season.

The vessels set sail, and went to poison other places. The summer

following, the ships of Constantinople, alike infected, came to the

port of Alexandria, where they landed their diseased without injury

to the inhabitants. It is an observation of ages, that if, during the

months of June, July and August, infected merchandise be brought into

Egypt, the plague expires of itself, and the people have no fears; and

if brought at other seasons, and communicated, it then ceases. A proof

that it is not a native of Egypt is, that, except in times of great

famine, it never breaks out in Grand Cairo, nor the inland towns, but

always begins at the seaports on the arrival of Turkish vessels, and

travels to the capital; whence it proceeds as far as Syria. Having come

to a period in Cairo, and being again introduced by the people of Upper

Egypt, it renews with greater fury, and sometimes sweeps off two or

three hundred thousand souls; but always stops in the month of June, or

those who catch it then are easily cured. Smyrna and Constantinople are

now the residence of this most dreadful affliction.”

M. Volney informs us, that the European merchants residing at

Alexandria agree in declaring that the disease never proceeds from the

internal parts of the country, but always makes its first appearance on

the sea-coasts at Alexandria; from thence it passes to Rosetta, from

Rosetta to Cairo, and from Cairo to Damietta, and through the rest of

the Delta. It is invariably preceded by the arrival of some vessel

from Smyrna or Constantinople; and it is observed, that if the plague

has been violent during the summer, the danger is greater for the

Alexandrians during the following winter.

To the same purpose, the Abbe Mariti says, “The plague does not usually

reside in Syria, nor is this the place where it usually begins. It

receives this fatal present from Egypt, where its usual seat is

Alexandria, Cairo or Damietta. The plague of 1760 came at once from

Cairo and Alexandria; to the latter of which it had been brought from

Constantinople. When it comes from that capital, as well as from the

cities of Smyrna and Salonica, it acquires a peculiar malignity; and

its activity never expands itself with more fury than in the plains of

Egypt, which it overspreads with incredible rapidity. It is observed,

that this plague, so destructive to Egypt, seldom attacks Syria; but

that the latter has every thing to dread from a plague hatched in the

bosom of Egypt.”

The testimony of these three authors, who have all been lately on

the spot, must certainly have very great weight, especially when

corroborated by that of Dr. Russel; for which see Appendix, No. V. But

still there is some difficulty. M. Savary informs us, that, _except

in cases of great famine_, the disease never breaks out in Cairo;

which certainly implies that in cases of famine it does originate in

the city itself; and Mariti, by saying that the Syrians have much

reason to dread a plague _hatched in the bosom_ of Egypt, undoubtedly

intimates that plagues sometimes do originate in Egypt. Smyrna and

Salonica likewise seem to come in for their share of the blame; and

Dr. McBride, in his Practice of Physic, informs us, that some parts

of Turky are visited by the plague once in six or seven years; and M.

Savary says, that Egypt is visited with it once in four or five years;

but if Egypt never receives it but from Turky, it would seem that the

plague could at least be no more frequent than in that country; or,

if the fact be otherwise, that the disease must either originate in

Egypt itself, or be brought to it from some other country than Turky.

Dr. Timone, in the paper already quoted,[26] tells us, that the plague

has taken up its residence in Constantinople; but that, though the

seeds of the old plague are scarce ever wanting, yet a new infection

is likewise imported from time to time. Thus, in attempting to find

out the countries where the plague originates, we are led in a circle.

Constantinople accuses Egypt, and Egypt recriminates on Constantinople.

Ethiopia, the most distant and least known of those countries which

in former times had any connexion with the more civilized parts of

the world, for a long time bore the blame of all; but the Jesuit

missionaries who resided long in Abyssinia (the ancient Ethiopia) do

not mention the plague as more common in that country than some others;

neither does Mr. Bruce, in the accounts he has published, take notice

of any such thing. Ethiopia could not speak for itself, by reason of

the ignorance and barbarity of its inhabitants; and Constantinople

is now very much in the same predicament. The investigation of this

subject therefore would require an accurate account of the climates

of those countries where the plague is found to commit the greatest

ravages, and a comparison of them with those which are now accounted

the most unhealthy in other respects, and likewise a comparison of the

diseases produced in the latter, with the true plague.

[26] Philosoph. Transact. No. 364.

The most unhealthy climates now existing (those where the plague

commonly rages excepted) are to be met with in the hottest parts of the

world; the East and West Indies, the wastes of Africa, and some parts

of America. In all these, Dr. Lind, who has written a treatise on the

diseases incident to Europeans in hot climates, seems to lay the whole

blame upon the heat and moisture accompanying it. In the East Indies

Bencoolen, in the island of Sumatra, is the most unhealthy of all the

English settlements; but he informs us, that by building their fort

on a dry, elevated place, about three miles from the town, it became

sufficiently healthy. Next to this, Bengal is most subject to sickness;

for which he assigns the following reason: “The rainy season commences

at Bengal in June, and continues till October; the remainder of the

year is healthy and pleasant. During the rains, this rich and fertile

country is covered by the Ganges, and converted as it were into a

large pool of water. In the month of October, when the stagnated water

begins to be exhaled by the heat of the sun, the air is then greatly

polluted by the vapours from the slime and mud left by the Ganges, and

by the corruption of dead fish and other animals. Diseases then rage,

attacking chiefly such as are lately arrived. The distempers are fevers

of the remitting or intermitting kind; for, though sometimes they may

continue several days without sensible remission, yet they have in

general a great tendency to it. If the season be very sickly, some

are seized with a malignant fever, of which they soon die. The body

is covered with blotches of a livid colour, and the corpse, in a few

hours, turns quite livid and corrupted. At this time fluxes prevail,

which may be called bilious or putrid, the better to distinguish them

from others which are accompanied with inflammation of the bowels. The

island of Bombay has of late been rendered much more healthy than it

formerly was, by a wall built to prevent the encroachments of the sea,

where it formed a salt marsh; and by an order that none of the natives

should manure their cocoa-trees with putrid fish.

“Batavia, the capital of the Dutch East India dominions, is annually

subject to a fatal and consuming sickness. Here the Dutch, in

attempting to make this, their capital in India, resemble their cities

in Europe, have adorned it with canals or ditches, intersecting

each other, running through every part of it. Notwithstanding the

utmost care to keep these clean, during the rainy season, and after

it, they become extremely noxious to the inhabitants, but especially

to strangers. It has been remarked, that the sickness rages with

the greatest violence when the rains have abated, and the sun has

evaporated the water in the ditches, so that the mud begins to appear.

This happened in 1764, when some British ships of war had occasion

to stay for a little time at Batavia. The stench from the mud was

intolerable; the fever was of the remitting kind; some were suddenly

seized with a delirium, and died in the first fit; but none survived

the attack of a third. Nor was the sickness at that time confined

to the ships; the whole city afforded a scene of disease and death;

streets covered with funerals, bells tolling from morning to night, and

horses jaded with dragging the dead in herses to their graves. At that

time a slight cut of the skin, the least scratch of a nail, or the most

inconsiderable wound, turned quickly into a putrid, spreading ulcer,

which, in twenty-four hours, consumed the flesh, even to the bone.

Besides these malignant and remitting fevers, which rage during the wet

season in the unhealthy parts of the East Indies, Europeans, especially

such as live intemperately, are also subject to fluxes, and to an

inflammation, or disease of the liver; which last is almost peculiar to

India, and particularly to the Coromandel coast.”

In the same work we have an extract from Mr. Ives’s journal of a

journey from India to Europe by land. “Gambroon in Persia, says he,

is very unhealthful. Few Europeans escape being seized with putrid

intermitting fevers, which rage from May to September, and are often

followed with obstructions of the liver. Various authors who have

treated of Gambroon, do, as well as the present English factory, impute

its unhealthfulness, during the summer months, to the noxious effluvia

with which the air is contaminated, from the great quantities of

blubber fish left by the sea upon the shore, and which very soon become

highly offensive. In the rainy seasons, at the island of Karee, in the

Persian Gulf, intermitting fevers and fluxes are the usual distempers.

On our arrival at Bagdad (supposed to contain 500,000 souls) we found

a purple fever raging in the city; but though it was computed that an

eighth part of the inhabitants were ill, yet the distemper was far from

being mortal. Here we were informed that the Arabs had broken down the

banks of the river near Bassorah, with a design to cover with water

the deserts in its neighbourhood. This, it seems, is the usual method

of revenge taken by the Arabs for any injury done them by the Turks

at Bassorah; and was represented to us as an act of the most shocking

barbarity, since a general consuming sickness would undoubtedly be

the consequence. This was the case fifteen years before, when the

Arabs, by demolishing the banks of this river, laid the environs of

Bassorah under water. The stagnating and putrefying water in the

adjacent country, and the great quantity of dead and corrupted fish

at that time lying upon the shore, polluted the whole atmosphere, and

produced a putrid and most mortal fever, of which between twelve and

fourteen thousand of the inhabitants perished; and, at the same time,

not above two or three of the Europeans who were settled there escaped.

The effects of the violent heats we endured were, an entire loss of

appetite, a faintness and gripes, with frequent and bilious stools;

which greatly exhausted our strength. My stomach was often so weak,

that it could receive only a little milk. Several of us became feverish

through the excessive heat, and were obliged to have recourse to gentle

vomits, &c. Though we were furnished with the most ample conveniencies

for travelling, which money, or the strongest recommendations to the

principal christians, as well as mahometan chiefs, could procure,

and had laid in a quantity of excellent madeira, claret, and other

provisions, &c. yet most of us suffered in our constitutions by this

long and fatiguing journey.”

On these climates in general Dr. Lind observes, that in well cultivated

countries, such as China, the air is temperate and wholesome; while

the woody and uncultivated parts prove fatal to multitudes accustomed

to breathe a purer air. In all places also, near the muddy and impure

banks of rivers, or the foul shores of the sea, mortal diseases are

produced from the exhalations, especially during the rainy season.

“There is a place near Indrapour, in Sumatra, where no European can

venture to remain, or sleep one night on shore, during the rainy

season, without running the hazard of his life, or at least of a

dangerous fit of sickness; and at Podang, a Dutch settlement on

Sumatra, the air has been found so bad, that it is commonly called the

Plague-Coast. Here a thick, pestilential vapour or fog arises, after

the rains, from the marshes, which destroys all the white inhabitants.”

In treating of the diseases of Africa, the same author takes notice of

those of Egypt; which country, he says, is rendered unwholesome by the

annual inundation of the Nile, and being surrounded on three sides by

large and extensive deserts of sand, by which means it is exposed to

the effects of that noisome vapour, which, during the summer months,

arises from sultry, hot sand. He doth not, however, say, that the true

plague originates in this country, either from the inundation of the

Nile or any other cause. On the climate of Egypt I shall once more

quote M. Savary, who is a strenuous advocate for its healthiness, and

is at pains to confute the opinion of Mr. Pauw, and others, who assert

the contrary. “Mr. Pauw (says he) pretends, that at present Egypt is

become, by the negligence of the Turks and Arabs, the cradle of the

pestilence; that another epidemical disease, equally dreadful, appears

here, by the caravans of Nubia; that the culture of rice engenders

numerous maladies; that the want of rain and thunder occasions the

air of the Thebais to acquire a violence that ferments the humours

of the human body, &c.” “These assertions (M. Savary observes) have

an air of probability, which might impose on people who have not

lived in Egypt; but Mr. Pauw has ventured opinions in his closet,

without the guidance of experience. In vallies, indeed, enclosed by

high mountains, where the atmosphere is not continually renewed by

a current of air, the culture of rice is unwholesome, but not so,

near Damietta and Rosetta. The plains are nearly on a level with the

sea; neither hill nor height impedes the refreshing breath of the

north, which drives the clouds and exhalations off the flooded fields

southwards, continually purifies the atmosphere, and preserves the

health of the people; so that the husbandmen who cultivate the rice are

not more subject to diseases than those who do not. The heats of the

Thebais certainly surpass those of many countries under the equator.

Reaumer’s thermometer, when the burning breath of the south is felt,

sometimes rises to thirty-eight degrees above the freezing point,[27]

often to thirty-six. Were heat the principle of diseases, the _Said_

(Upper Egypt) would not be habitable; but it only seems to occasion a

burning fever, to which the inhabitants are subject; and which they

cure by regimen, drinking much water, and bathing in the river: in

other respects they are strong and healthy. Old men are numerous, and

many ride on horseback at eighty. The food they eat in the hot season

contributes much to the preservation of their health; it is chiefly

vegetables, pulse and milk. In Lower Egypt, the neighbourhood of the

sea, the large lakes, and the abundance of the waters, moderate the

sun’s heat, and preserve a delightful temperature. Strabo and Diodorus

Siculus, who long lived here, did not think the country unhealthy.

There is, indeed, an unwholesome season in Egypt. From February till

the end of May, the south winds blow at intervals, and load the

atmosphere with a subtile dust, which makes breathing difficult, and

drive before them pernicious exhalations. Sometimes the heat becomes

insupportable, and the thermometer suddenly rises twelve degrees. The

inhabitants call this season _Khamsin, fifty_; because these winds are

most felt between Easter and Whitsuntide; during which season they eat

rice, vegetables, fresh fish and fruit; bathing frequently, and using

plenty of perfumes and lemon juice; with which regimen they prevent the

dangerous effects of the Khamsin. But it must not be supposed that this

wind, which corrupts meat in a few hours, blows fifty days. Egypt would

become a desert. It seldom blows three days together; and sometimes is

only an impetuous whirlwind, which rapidly passes, and injures only

the traveller overtaken in the deserts. When at Alexandria a tempest

of this kind suddenly arose, driving before it torrents of burning

sand, the serenity of the sky disappeared, a thick veil obscured the

heavens, and the sun became blood-coloured. The dust penetrated even

the chambers, and burnt the face and eyes. In four hours the tempest

ceased, and the clearness of the day appeared. Some wretches in the

deserts were suffocated, and several I saw brought to appearance dead;

some of whom, by bathing in cold water, were restored to life.”

[27] Water boils at eighty degrees of this thermometer.

The internal parts of the continent of Africa are but little known.

The northern parts, containing the States of Barbary, are sufficiently

healthy; the middle parts of the western coast, known by the names

of Negro-land, Guinea, &c. are extremely unhealthy and pernicious to

strangers. Dr. Lind informs us, that, at a distance, this country

appears in most places flat, covered with low, suspended clouds; and

on a nearer approach heavy dews fall in the night time; the land being

every morning and evening wrapped up in a fog. The ground is clothed

with a pleasant and perpetual verdure, but altogether uncultivated,

excepting a few spots, which are generally surrounded with forests or

thickets of trees, impenetrable to refreshing breezes, and fit only for

the resort of wild beasts. The banks of the rivers and rivulets are

overgrown with bushes and weeds, continually covered with slime, which

sends forth an intolerable stench. All places however are not equally

unhealthy; nor is any place equally unwholesome at all times of the

year. It is only with the rainy season that the sickness commences.

But as it would be tedious, and not answer our present purpose, to

enumerate those places which are healthy, and those which are not,

I shall only extract from Dr. Lind’s work an account of one which

seems to be as bad as can well be imagined. It is called _Catchou_, a

town belonging to the Portuguese, and situated in 12 degrees N. lat.

“I believe (says the author of this account) there is scarce to be

found on the whole face of the earth a more unhealthy country than

this during the rainy season. We were thirty miles distant from the

sea, in a country altogether uncultivated, overflowed with water,

surrounded with thick, impenetrable woods, and overrun with slime. The

air was vitiated, noisome and thick, insomuch that the lighted torches

or candles burnt dim, and seemed ready to be extinguished; even the

human voice lost its natural tone. The smell of the ground, and of

the houses, was raw and offensive; but the vapour arising from the

putrid water in the ditches was much worse. All this, however, seemed

tolerable, in respect of the infinite numbers of insects swarming every

where, both on the ground and in the air; which, as they seemed to

be produced and cherished by the putrefaction of the atmosphere, so

they contributed greatly to increase its impurity. The wild bees from

the woods, together with millions of ants, overran and destroyed the

furniture; while swarms of cock-roaches often darkened the air, and

extinguished even the candles in their flight; but the greatest plague

was the musquetoes and sand-flies, whose incessant buzz and painful

stings were more insupportable than any symptom of the fever. Besides

all these, an incredible number of frogs, on the banks of the river,

made such a constant and disagreeable croaking, that nothing but being

accustomed to such an hideous noise, could permit the enjoyment of

natural sleep. In the beginning of October, as the rains abated, the

weather became very hot, the woods were covered with abundance of dead

frogs, and other vermin, left by the recess of the river; all the

mangroves and shrubs were likewise overspread with stinking slime.”

No doubt these accounts are calculated to inspire us with dreadful

ideas of the countries mentioned in them. What could be done by the

putrefaction of dead animals and vegetables, certainly would be done

here; the produce, however, was not the true plague; not even in

_Catchou_; but “a sickness which could not well be characterised by

any denomination commonly applied to fevers; it however approached

neared to what is called a nervous fever, as the pulse was always

low, and the brain and nerves principally affected,” &c. Certainly

if in any country heat, moisture and putrefaction could produce a

plague, it would be in this. Yet, in all the places we have mentioned,

whether India, Arabia, Egypt, or Guinea, (and we might go through the

whole world in the same manner) we have not been able to find either

moist heat or dry heat, even when aided by putrefaction, insects, and

nastiness of all kinds (not justly chargeable upon any climate;) I

say, we have not found the united powers of all these able to produce

a plague. Nay, it is even doubtful whether climates can produce those

inferior diseases above mentioned. Even Dr. Lind, who appears to be

so willing to ascribe every thing to climate, seems embarrassed in

this respect. “There are many difficulties (says he) which occur in

assigning a satisfactory reason, why in some countries, as in those

between the tropics, heavy and continual rains should produce sickness;

while in other places, especially in the southern parts of Europe,

a want of rain for two or three months in summer brings on diseases

almost similar. Upon this occasion (adds the Doctor) I cannot help

observing, that there is hardly a physical cause which can be assigned

for the produce of any disease, that will not admit of some exceptions:

thus, not only the woods and morasses in Guinea are tolerably healthy,

with some exceptions, in the dry season; but a few instances might be

produced of towns surrounded with marshes and a foggy air, where the

inhabitants suffer no inconvenience from their situation, even during

the rainy season. Do the impetuous torrents of water poured from the

clouds during the rainy seasons, in tropical countries, contain what

is unfriendly to health? Thus much is certain, that the natives of

such countries, especially the mulattoes, avoid being exposed to these

rains as much as possible, and when wet with them immediately plunge

themselves into salt water, if near it. They generally bathe once a

day, but never in the fresh water rivers, when overflown with rains,

preferring at such times the water of springs. Is the sickness of these

seasons to be ascribed to the intense heat of the then almost vertical

sun; which frequently, for an hour or two at noon, dispels the clouds,

and with its direct beams instantly changes the refreshing coolness of

the air into a heat almost insupportable?

“Further: As the season of those sudden and terrible storms, called

the hurricanes, in the East and West Indies, and tornadoes on the

coast of Guinea, partly coincides with that of the rains, do these

dreadful tempests in any measure contribute to produce the prevailing

sickness at those times? It was remarkable one year at Senegal, that,

in the beginning of the rainy season, in the night succeeding one of

these tornadoes, a great number of the soldiers, and two thirds of

the English women, were taken ill, this garrison before having been

uncommonly healthy.

“Lastly: Is it not more probable, as in those countries the earth for

six or eight months in the year receives no moisture from the heavens

but what falls in dews, which every night renew the vegetation, and

reinstate the delightful verdure of the grass, that the surface of the

ground in many places becomes hard and incrustated with a dry scurf,

which pens up the vapours below, until, by the continuance of the

rains for some time, this crust is softened, and the vapours set free?

That these dews do not penetrate deep into the surface of the earth,

is evident from the constant dryness and hardness of such spots of

ground, in those countries, as are not covered with grass and other

vegetables. Thus the large rivers, in the dry season, being confined

within narrow bounds, leave a great part of their channel uncovered,

which, having its moisture totally exhaled, becomes a hard, dry crust;

but, no sooner the rains fall, than, by degrees, this long parched up

crust of earth and clay gradually softens, and the ground, which before

had not the least smell, begins to emit a stench, which in four or five

weeks becomes exceeding noisome; at which time the season of sickness

commences.”

From these quotations it must certainly appear, that the author himself

is dissatisfied with his theory; and that, though in the outset he

thought heat and moisture, assisted by the exhalations from putrid

animal and vegetable substances, sufficient to produce the disorders

of which he treats, yet, on a more minute investigation, he is obliged

to acknowledge, that something inexplicable still remains. This he

now wishes to solve by unknown properties in the water, by confined

exhalations, &c. But as the consideration of these things belongs

properly to the next section, I shall here only remark, that there hath

not yet been given any satisfactory account of the origin of epidemic

diseases of what I call the _inferior_ kind, much less of the true

plague, which stands above them all, as I have already said, like the

serpent Python above other serpents.

To what has been quoted from Dr. Lind, I shall here subjoin the

testimony of Dr. Clark, who had an opportunity of observing the

epidemic diseases which raged at Bengal in 1768 and 1769. These were,

“the remittent fever and dysentery, which begin in August, and continue

till November. During the beginning of the epidemic, the fever is

attended with extreme malignity and danger; frequently carrying off

the patient in twelve hours; and, if not stopped, generally proves

fatal on the third or fourth day. In August the remissions are very

imperceptible; in October they become more distinct; and, as the cold

weather comes on, the fever becomes a regular intermittent. At that

time, too, the putrid dysentery begins to rage with the fever. These

diseases were very fatal to many Europeans, particularly new comers,

in 1768. But in the year 1770, when there was a scarcity of rice, it

was computed, that about eighty thousand natives, and one thousand

five hundred Europeans, died at Bengal. The streets were covered

with funerals; the river floated with dead carcases; and every place

exhibited the most melancholy scenes of disease and death. During

the sickly seasons at Bengal, the uncertainty of life is so great,

that it frequently happens that one may leave a friend at night in

perfect health, who shall not survive next day. There have been several

instances of persons who have returned home in a state of perfect

health from performing the last duties to a deceased friend, and have

next day been numbered with the dead. But the cool, agreeable season,

from December to March, is productive of no prevailing diseases.

The complaints to be met with are in general the consequences, or

remains, of the diseases of the former period. The complaints which

the Europeans are subject to in the dry months are, the cholera and

diarrhœa. Fluxes and fevers are then seldom epidemic; and, when they do

happen, are not attended with much danger.

“At Batavia the rainy season is from November to May, during which time

malignant, remitting and continued fevers and the dysentery rage with

great fatality. Captain Cook, in his first voyage, arrived here in

October 1779; the whole crew, excepting Tupia, a native of Otaheite,

being in the most perfect health. But, in the course of nine days, they

experienced the fatal effects of the climate, and buried seven people

at Batavia. On the 3d of December, the ship left the harbour. At that

time the number of sick amounted to forty; and the rest of the ship’s

company were in a very feeble condition. When the ship anchored at

Prince’s Island, in the Straits of Sunda, the sickness increased, and

they buried twenty-three persons more in the course of about six weeks.

The Grenville Indiaman, which touched at this island in 1771, suffered

equally from the malignity of the air. A few were taken on board, when

the ship sailed from Batavia, ill of a malignant fever; which spread

by contagion at sea, and carried off great numbers. I visited several

in this ship, when she arrived at China, who were reduced to mere

skeletons, by the duration of the fever and dysentery; both of which

were most certainly propagated by contagion.

“Those parts of Sumatra lying immediately under the line are

continually subject to rain, and the ground near the shore is low, and

covered with thick trees and underwood. The heat being intense, noisome

fogs arise, which corrupt the air, and render the country fatal to

foreigners. The land of North Island, which lies on this coast, near

the beginning of the Straits of Sunda, appears at a distance finely

variegated; but at the place where the wood and water are to be got it

is low, and covered with impenetrable mangroves, and infested with a

variety of insects. It is here that most of the East India ships take

in wood for their homeward voyage. A Danish ship, in 1768, anchored

in this island, and sent twelve of her hands on shore to fill water;

where they only remained two nights. Every one of them was seized with

a fever, whereof none recovered: but although the ship went out to

sea, none, except the twelve who went on shore, were attacked with the

complaint.”

With regard to China, this author says, that the “port of Canton is

by no means so healthy as is generally represented. The comparative

degree of health which Europeans enjoy here has been ascertained from

the instances of the supercargoes, which is, however, a very erroneous

standard. The generous and regular way in which these gentlemen live,

for the most part, exempts them from diseases; and, being but few in

number, no great mortality can take place among them. But seamen, who

never observe much regularity in their way of living, who work hard in

the day time, are but badly clothed, and not provided against the damps

and cold north-easterly winds at night, seldom fail to be afflicted

with the diseases already mentioned (fevers and fluxes.) Even the

factors of different nations, who reside here for any considerable

time, experience all the inconveniences peculiar to any sultry climate:

florid health is a stranger to their countenances; their constitutions

are soon weakened and enfeebled; and they become subject to habitual

fluxes and other complaints, the usual consequences of too great

relaxation.”

The climate of the southern part of China, according to the same

author, is excessively hot during the summer months. Even in September

and October, when the nights are cold, the days continue to be sultry.

The cold months are, December, January and February; “and during this

time the vicissitudes of the weather are more quick than in any other

part of the world. When the wind is northerly, and the thermometer

at 46, upon a change of the wind to the south, it is next day up to

60 or 70. People who reside here are always at a loss with regard to

their clothing; one day finding a silk coat sufficient; and the next,

upon a sudden change of wind, finding it necessary to wear a flannel

waistcoat.”

On the subject of climate, therefore, I must conclude with the

following observations:--First: That, as the diseases above mentioned

are produced both in moist and dry countries, in those in the torrid

and those in the temperate zone, they can neither be the offspring of

moisture or drought, of heat or cold, of septics or antiseptics, but of

something not yet discovered. Second: That, upon fair investigation, it

does not appear, that ancient historians have been able to ascertain

the origin of any plague whatever: they have universally ascribed it

to the anger of the Deity, while their own pride would never allow

it to have originated in any country with which they were connected.

Third: It doth not by any means appear, that the climates of those

countries, where the plague is known to be most common, are at all

inferior to those already described, excepting the very circumstance

of having the plague frequently in them: nay, indeed, that they

are equally bad. Nobody will pretend to argue, that the climate of

Asia Minor, of Greece, of the Morea, or of any of the countries most

infected with the plague, was, or is, worse than that of _Catchou_ in

Africa, already described; yet it is certain, that we have a number

of testimonies that the plague has ravaged Asia Minor, while we have

not one of its visiting _Catchou_. Ancient Greece, the Peloponnesus

(Morea) and Asia Minor, were accounted healthy and fine countries; and

modern travellers assure us, that they have not degenerated in this

respect; yet these countries are desolated by the plague, while the

unwholesome regions above described are entirely free from it, unless

imported from some other quarter. To give this matter, however, as

fair a discussion as possible, I shall here consider the account we

have of the climate of Bassorah, given by the gentleman residing there

in 1780; whose case, in the remitting fever, is given, Appendix, No.

VI. “The overflowing of the Euphrates, and its waters stagnating in

the desert, have always been accounted primary causes of epidemical

diseases at Bassorah. The great floods from the melting of the snow

on the mountains of Diarbekir, the ancient Assyria, happened in the

year 1780, early in the month of May, when the heats in Persia and

Arabia begin to be excessive. The desert, which reaches to the gates of

Bassorah, is, for many miles, incrusted with a surface of salt; which,

when mixed with the stagnated waters, and exposed to the sun, produces

the most noxious effluvia. As early as the 25th of May, the town was

surrounded by a salt marsh, the heated steam arising from which was, at

times, almost intolerable; but the canal that runs through a great part

of the city being filled with the bodies of animals, and all kinds of

putrid matter; and, at low tides, all these substances exposed to the

sun, made the air in the town scarce supportable; and, being totally

destitute of police, the streets were in many places covered with human

ordure, the bodies of dead dogs and cats, &c. which emitted a stench

more disagreeable and putrid than any thing I ever experienced in my

life. As to the degree of solar heat, it far exceeded what I conceived

the human frame to be capable of bearing. The sensation under this heat

was totally different from what I had ever experienced; it resembled

the approach of an heated substance to the body. The quicksilver, in

Fahrenheit’s thermometer, rose to between 156 and 162 degrees.[28] From

the 30th of May I never saw it so low as 156, but generally between 158

and 160. After I left Bassorah I was told that it rose still higher.

In the coolest part of the house, with the aid of every invention to

decrease the heat, the quicksilver rose to 115; but after I came away,

I was informed that it rose still higher, even at seven in the morning,

the hour which we accounted the coolest in the day. Once the heat was

said to be so intolerable, that no one could expose himself to it

long enough to observe the thermometer in the sun. Some of the oldest

inhabitants of Bassorah said that they never remembered to have heard

of such a heat in any part of Persia or Arabia. The natives of the

country appeared more alarmed at the heat than the Europeans: nothing

could induce them to expose themselves to the sun after ten o’clock. I

left Bassorah for Aleppo on the 30th of May. On our arrival at Zabira,

the heat was so intense, that even the Arabs sunk under it.”

[28] Spirit of wine boils at 175.

From this account it was natural to expect that violent sickness would

ensue. This was the opinion of the inhabitants, and they were not

deceived. The sickness, however, was not the true plague, but a violent

remitting fever; and even this did not originate in the city itself,

but was observed to approach from Asia Minor, ravaging Diarbekir, and

keeping the course of the Tigris, to Bagdad, where many died. From

thence it followed the course of the Euphrates to Bassorah, and for

about twenty miles lower. The opposite, or Persian shore, though within

a few miles, was exempted, and it did not spread more than twenty

miles into the desert.[29]

[29] Transactions of Society for improving Medical Knowledge.

I might now proceed to give an abstract of what has been said of the

power of climate in producing diseases on the Western Continent, and

West India islands; but as this belongs more especially to the second

part of this Treatise, I shall here pass it over, as well as what Dr.

Smith has said of the climate of Greece, in the Medical Repository,

and which he endeavours to prove to be similar to the climate of

North America. But, before we proceed to consider what diseases may

be produced by _climate_ alone, it is proper to discuss the question,

how far man is naturally subject to diseases of any kind? Many, no

doubt, will be apt to suppose this a very absurd question; for as man

is now, by nature, subject to death, it seems to follow, that he is

also naturally subject to disease, as the means of bringing on death.

But, however plausible this may appear, experience shows, that disease

and death are not always connected. Many people die of mere old age;

the powers of life being exhausted, and the system so far decayed,

that the various parts of it can no longer perform their offices. On

the other hand, a disease destroys by attacking some particular organ,

and either totally consuming or altering it in such a manner, that

it disturbs the vital operations, while yet strong and vigorous. We

may therefore compare the death of a person from mere old age to the

natural extinction of a candle when the tallow is totally consumed;

and death from disease, to the blowing out of a candle while a part

of it remains, and might have burned for a considerably longer time.

Thus I am inclined to consider all diseases as merely accidental; and

this with the greater certainty, because, though, in common with other

believers in revealed religion, I think that death is the consequence

of Adam’s transgression, yet I do not find that disease of any kind was

threatened except in cases of positive transgression, long after the

days of Adam.

Every one allows, that, though some diseases are natural, some are

likewise artificial; but nobody hath attempted to draw the line of

demarcation between them. Every thing is charged upon climate, heat,

moisture, drought, vapour, &c. and yet, upon examination, we shall find

the utmost difficulty in deriving a single disease from the causes we

assign. No person in his senses will say that Adam, in consequence of

eating the forbidden fruit, became liable to the venereal disease. As

little can we say for the gout, the stone, or the dropsy; and if we

cannot particularize the diseases to which he became naturally liable,

we have no right to say that any kind of disease became natural to

him in consequence of his transgression. If, therefore, death itself,

originally not natural to man, did yet take place in consequence of

his moral conduct; and if diseases, without number, have arisen among

his posterity, though not natural to him in consequence of his first

transgression, we have equal reason to believe that these diseases

have taken place among them in consequence of their moral or rather

_immoral_ conduct, in totally deviating from the line prescribed them

by their Maker, and following others of their own invention; and this

will appear the more probable, when we consider, that, long after

mankind became subject to death, we find diseases, particularly the

pestilence, threatened as the consequence of subsequent transgressions.

If, without taking scripture into consideration, we attend only to

what may be gathered from profane history, we find the testimony of

all the ancients concurring in one general point, viz. that in times

of great antiquity men were more healthy, and even stronger, than in

the times when those authors lived. This is taken notice of by Homer,

when comparing the strength of men in the time of the Trojan war with

those in his days, about two centuries later.[30] Virgil, who lived in

much more modern times than Homer, carries his ideas of the degeneracy

of man much farther; and informs us, that Turnus, when fighting with

Æneas, took up and threw a stone which twelve men of that time could

not have lifted. Now, though we know that both these accounts are

fabulous, yet they perfectly coincide with the voice of historians of

all nations; for we are universally told, that the first inhabitants

of countries were a brave, hardy people, living according to the

simplicity of nature, free from diseases, and attaining to a good old

age.

[30]

A pond’rous stone bold Hector heav’d to throw,

Pointed above, and rough and gross below;

Not _two_ strong men th’ enormous weight could raise,

Such men as live in these degenerate days.

Iliad, B. xii.

This is so conformable to what is generally said at present, probably

very often by rote, without regard to rational evidence, that, were

we so inclined, ample room might be found for declamation against

modern luxuries, particularly the practice of drinking ardent spirits,

as pernicious to health, and destructive to the human body. On this

subject, however, we may once for all observe, that, although we find

ample evidence of the baleful influence of these liquors in producing

other diseases, yet we find none of their ever having had any share

in the production of an epidemic or general disease among mankind.

In ancient times the art of distillation seems to have been unknown;

so that whatever mischief was done in those days must have been done

by wine, or other fermented liquors. In modern times, though the use

both of fermented liquors and ardent spirits is undoubtedly carried

to excess, yet there is no evidence of their producing an epidemic,

or even making it more violent or general than it would otherwise

have been. Dr. Cleghorn, having spoken largely of the manner of

living of the natives in Minorca, proceeds thus: “I should next give

a circumstantial account of the diet and way of life of the British

soldiers in this island; but as this would be a disagreeable task,

I shall only observe, that the excess of drinking is among them

an universal vice, confirmed into habit. But, however different

the Spaniards be from the English, in their meat, drink, exercise,

affections of the mind, and habit of body; yet the health of both

nations is equally influenced by the seasons. An epidemical distemper

seldom or never attacks the one class of inhabitants without attacking

the other also; and, surprising as it may appear, it is nevertheless

true, that the peasants, remarkable for temperance and regularity, and

the soldiers, who, without meat and clothes, frequently lie abroad

drunk, exposed to all weathers, have diseases almost similar, both as

to their violence and duration.”

There can be no doubt that excess in drinking hath put an end to the

lives of many individuals; and it hath been observed, that such as

attempt to preserve themselves from the plague by the use of strong

liquors, have generally fallen sacrifices to it;[31] but this cannot

prove that such excess would have brought on the distemper without some

other cause. It hath been certainly found, that excess in drinking or

eating, excess in venery, excessive fatigue by labour, watching, study,

&c. will all make an epidemic disease more violent when it attacks a

particular person; but no experience hath yet shown that the _first_

person seized with an epidemic always fell under this description. All

that can be said on the subject is, that, by such excesses as have

already been described, the body is prepared for receiving the disease,

by an exhaustion, or evaporation (if we please to call it so) of the

vital principle; as wood is prepared for burning by the evaporation

of its moisture; but as wood, however dry, will not burn without the

contact or application of fire, so neither will the body, though ever

so well prepared, be attacked by any epidemic, unless the true cause of

that epidemic be also applied.

[31] See Sec. IV. Preventives of the Plague.

Thus we are still disappointed in our attempts to discover the origin

of the plague. We have seen that the most unhealthy climates in the

world do not produce it of themselves; neither can the conduct of any

individual bring it upon himself, without an unknown _something_, which

nobody has yet found out. It was this difficulty of finding out the

natural cause, which certainly induced by far the greatest number of

writers on the subject to ascribe it to Divine Power; and even as late

a writer as Dr. Hodges tells us, that he believes in the _to Theion_,

the “finger of God,” in the plague, as much as any body. As for those

who have endeavoured to account for the origin of this distemper

from an inquiry into natural causes, and conclusions drawn from the

late experiments on air, they have totally failed; as will be fully

elucidated in the following section.

If then we are to believe that diseases, especially those called

epidemics, among which the plague holds the first place, have arisen

in consequence of a certain line of conduct adopted by the human race,

or have been inflicted by the Deity as punishments on that account, we

are to look for their origin among those to whom the Deity principally

manifested himself; that is, the Jews, and nations who interfered with

them. Among the Jews we hear of the first general plague distinctly

mentioned; viz. the three days pestilence of David, and to which it is

possible that Homer alludes in his Iliad. Next to this is the great

plague of 767 B. C. said to have spread all over the world. This

coincides with the time of Pul, king of Assyria; who, having overthrown

the ancient kingdom of Syria, turned his arms against that of Israel,

and no doubt extended his conquests among the eastern nations, as we

know very well the Assyrian monarchs did. As the ten tribes, ever after

their separation from the house of David, had in a manner totally given

themselves up to idolatry, we are not to wonder if the pestilence, so

frequently threatened by Moses, was very common, or, as physicians

term it, _endemic_, among them. Thus, whatever enemy invaded the

country, would almost certainly carry the disease along with them, and

spread it among the other nations with whom they afterwards had any

connexion. At this time, or even before this, during the wars of Syria

with Israel and Judah, this dreadful pestilence might begin; but, as

to its being all over the world in any particular year, I do not see

how it can be ascertained; because there are no general histories of

the world in those early times. It appears more probable that this

general pestilence took place at the time that Sennacherib’s army was

destroyed. I have no doubt, indeed, for the reasons already given,

that the plague had infected Sennacherib’s army before he went into

Ethiopia. In that country, in all probability, he would leave it; and,

after his return to Judea, when the dreadful catastrophe befel him

of an hundred and eighty-five thousand of his men being destroyed in

one night, there can be no doubt that the remains of his army would

carry with them the seeds of a most malignant pestilence, capable of

spreading destruction far and wide. It is true, we are not directly

told, in Scripture, that the Assyrian army was destroyed by a plague,

but that the angel of the Lord destroyed them; but, as this expression

is quite similar to what we read of the pestilence in David’s time,

there can be but little doubt that the means of destruction made

use of in both cases were the same. Josephus expressly says, that

Sennacherib’s army was destroyed by a pestilence. Neither are we to

conclude, because this pestilence was miraculous, that it therefore

certainly killed every one on whom it fell; or that it would not infect

those who came near the sick, as any other disease of the kind would do.

From the same source may we derive the propensity in the Carthaginian

armies to pestilential disorders. Carthage was a colony of Tyre; and

the Tyrians were in close alliance with the Jews, during the reigns

of David and Solomon, and very probably afterwards; so that from

them the distemper might be communicated in such a manner as to be

almost endemic; and thus hardly an army could be sent out but what

would have the infection with it, breaking out with violence now and

then, as occasional causes tended to give life to the contagion. It

is impossible, however, from the source just mentioned to trace the

plague of Athens, or the first plague in Rome; but it is very natural

to suppose that the violent one which raged in Rome, during the reign

of Titus, came from Jerusalem. That city had sustained a most dreadful

siege, and the obstinate and wretched inhabitants had endured such

calamities as have scarcely been recorded in the history of nations.

Among these calamities was a pestilence, which, in all probability,

would be conveyed to Rome, and there occasion the destruction already

mentioned.

But what seems to render this account of the origin of the plague more

probable is, that the Jews are to this day accused of propagating the

disease in those countries where it is most frequent. Baron de Tott

is of opinion that the plague in Constantinople originates among the

Jewish dealers in old clothes; for these avaricious dealers, purchasing

the infected goods, sell them indiscriminately to every one who will

buy, and that without the least care taken to remove the infection

from them; by which means it is no wonder to find the plague, as well

as other diseases, disseminated among them in great plenty. Dr. Russel

informs us, that the Jews are most liable to the plague, the most

fearful of it, and the most ready to fly from the infection. The Abbe

Mariti agrees in the same accusation against this unfortunate people.

“The Jews (says he) purchase at a low price the goods and wares which

remain when most of the family are deceased, and then store them up;

which, when the plague is over, they sell at a dear rate to those will

buy, and thus propagate the pestilential poison: again it kindles,

and presently causes new destruction. Thus this opprobrious nation,

preferring gold to life, sell the plague to mussulmen, who purchase it

without fear, and sleep with it, till, renewed of itself, it hurries

them to the grave.” M. Volney, though he does not mention the Jews in

such express terms as Mariti and Russel, yet agrees as to the mode of

its propagation in Constantinople, and the reason of its continuance

in that city. “It is certain (says he) that the plague originates in

Constantinople, where it is perpetuated by the absurd negligence of

the Turks, which is so great, that they publicly sell the effects of

persons dead of the distemper. The ships which go to Alexandria never

fail to carry furs and woolen clothes, purchased on these occasions,

which they expose to sale in the bazar of the city, and thereby spread

the contagion. The Greeks who deal in these goods are almost always the

first victims.”

Thus the account we have of the origin of the plague at present is,

that the city of Constantinople, having been long and deeply infected,

the infection is stored up through the avarice of the Jewish merchants,

who buy the goods and clothes of the infected. The stupidity of the

Turks allows these goods to be sold in Constantinople, or exported

freely to all parts to which their vessels sail, particularly to

Alexandria; where the avarice of the Greeks prompts them to buy without

examination or precaution, to the destruction of their own lives, and

of multitudes of others. Egypt being the principal place of traffick,

the plague is more frequent there than in other parts of the empire.

Syria is comparatively free from it; which M. Volney supposes to be

owing to the small number of vessels which come there directly from

Constantinople.

In this way we may, in a pretty plausible manner, account for the

origin of this distemper; viz. that it originally fell upon the Jews

as a punishment for their iniquities; that from the Jews it has been

at different times conveyed to other nations; and, by a mixture of

those nations, has, at times, become general all over the world. At

last it has, by the avarice of that people who first had been the

occasion of its being introduced into the world, become permanent in

Constantinople, whence it is still diffused among different nations in

proportion to their dealings with that capital.

But it may now be said, ‘Allowing the positions contended for to be

true in their utmost extent, how comes it to pass that the plague

hath not been general in every age and in every country? Since the

destruction of Jerusalem, the Jews have been dispersed over all

nations: if nothing then were wanting to produce a pestilence but

Jews and old clothes, no age or country ought to have been free from

it; nevertheless it is certain that violent plagues take place only

at particular times, with long intervals between; and of late the

pestilential disposition seems to have become much less frequent than

formerly; the western parts of Europe, particularly Britain, having

been free from it for a great number of years. There must therefore be

some cause, different from what has yet been mentioned, by which the

infection is occasionally roused from inactivity, and excited to spread

desolation all around.’

That there are predisposing causes to epidemic disorders, especially to

the plague, the most fatal of them all, is not denied. These prepare

the body for receiving the infection, but they will not, without that

infection, produce the disorder. Of these causes so many are to be

found in the conduct of mankind themselves, that we scarcely need to

look for them any where else. In looking over the histories of plagues,

we find them in an especial manner connected with famines and wars.

The former sometimes take place in consequence of the failure of crops

through natural causes; but, considering the general fertility of the

earth, we must certainly account it owing to bad management, in some

respect or other, that every country hath not as much laid up within

itself as would guard against the consequences of at least one or two

bad crops. Yet we believe there is not, at present, a country upon

earth in this predicament. If a crop fails any where, the inhabitants

must import largely, or they must starve. This is the case even in the

fertile regions of the East, where the earth produces in excessive

abundance,[32] and there is little or nothing of any kind of provision

exported to other countries. A remarkable instance of this occurred in

the plague at Aleppo, a history of which is given by Dr. Russel. He

tells us, that the winter of 1756 proved excessively cold, which was

followed by a famine next year. This account is confirmed by Mr. Dawes,

in a letter to the bishop of Carlisle.[33] He tells us, that in the

course of the winter many perished through cold; that the inhabitants

were reduced to such extremities, by the single failure of the crop in

1757, that women were known to eat their own children as soon as they

expired in their arms with hunger; and that human creatures might be

seen contending with dogs, and scratching for the same bone with them

in a dunghill. A dreadful plague followed; which, the two succeeding

years, swept off not fewer than sixty thousand in the city of Aleppo.

[32] Herodotus says, that in his time the province of Babylonia

produced commonly two hundred, and in plentiful years three hundred

fold.

[33] Philos. Transact. vol. liv.

It is probable that in this case the famine either produced the

plague, or made it worse than it would have otherwise been; and it is

not denied that the cold and bad season was the direct cause of the

famine. But as little can it be denied, that had the people, or their

governors, been so provident as to have laid up stores sufficient to

supply the country for one year, this famine would not have been felt.

As far, therefore, as the plague was connected with the famine, we must

own that it was chargeable on the human race themselves; not the sins

of this or that particular person, but a general deviation from the

task assigned them by their Maker, viz. that of cultivating the ground;

and, instead of this, spending their time in folly and trifling, to say

no worse.

But famines are occasioned not only by natural causes, but by wars;

in which mankind, acting in direct opposition to the laws of God and

nature, destroy and lay waste the earth, taking every opportunity of

reducing to extremity both those whom they call innocent and those whom

they call guilty. Thus vast multitudes are reduced to want, to despair,

and rendered a prey to grief, terror, and every depressing passion of

the human mind; they are exposed to every inclemency of the weather; to

the scorching heats of the day, and the chilling damps of the night; in

short, to every thing that we can conceive capable of predisposing the

body for the reception of diseases of the very worst kind. No wonder

therefore that war and pestilence go hand in hand; and, by taking a

review of the history of mankind, we shall see, that, always at those

times when the nations have been most actively employed in the trade

of butchering one another, then, or very soon after, they have been

afflicted with pestilence. To begin with the great plague of 767 B. C.

which coincides with the rise of the Assyrian empire: Till this time,

though there had been numberless wars, yet they were carried on upon a

much smaller scale than now, when great empires were to be set up, and

when the most distant nations were to be assembled in order to gratify

the pride and ambition of an individual. The Assyrians, we know,

penetrated into Ethiopia; but how far east or how far west they went,

we are not certainly informed. To their wars, however, we may with

reason ascribe the desolations occasioned by this first plague. From

Thucydides’s account of the plague at Athens, it seems plain that it

was occasioned, or at least rendered more violent, by the wars of the

Greeks with one another at that time. Had the Carthaginian army staid

at home when they went to war with Dionysius, tyrant of Syracuse,[34]

it is very probable that the pestilence would not have broke out among

them. The like may be said of the plague which broke out among them in

the time of Marcellus.[35] That in the time of Jugurtha, indeed, is

said to have been occasioned by locusts; but, had not vast bodies of

men been collected together for the purposes of war, the plague could

never have committed such ravages. The plague in the time of Titus

could not have been brought from Jerusalem, nor perhaps would it have

existed there, had not Titus made war against that city; and so of

others.

[34] See Sec. i. p. 10.

[35] Ibid. p. 12.

The plague which began in the reign of Justinian, as it was more

violent than any recorded in history, so it was preceded by wars

equally unexampled. The Romans had indeed for ages employed themselves

in war; but, by their constant superiority to every adversary, their

empire had become so amazingly extensive, that, whatever wars were

carried on in the remote provinces, the great body of the empire always

remained at peace; and this was the case even in their most violent

civil wars. On the accession of Alexander Severus, about the year 232,

they began to encounter enemies so numerous and formidable, that all

their power proved insufficient to repel them. In the tenth year of

Alexander’s reign, the Persians, having overthrown the ancient empire

of the Parthians, turned their arms against the Romans, and, though

frequently defeated at that time with great slaughter, renewed their

incursions in the reign of Gordian, about the year 242, when they

were in like manner defeated and obliged to retire. As these defeats,

however, did not at all affect the strength of the Persian empire,

the Romans still found them as formidable enemies as ever; while the

Goths, Sarmatians, Franks, and other northern nations, harassed them in

other parts. In the reign of Decius, who ascended the throne in 249,

they became extremely formidable, insomuch that the emperor himself,

with his whole army, was at last cut off by them. The consequence of

this was, that the empire was instantly invaded in many different

parts, and, though the barbarians were at times defeated, we never

find that the empire regained its former tranquillity. The Persians

and Scythians, taking advantage of the general confusion, invaded the

provinces next them, while the finishing stroke seemed to be given

to the Roman affairs by the defeat and captivity of Valerian by the

Persians.

This disaster, as may well be imagined, produced an immediate invasion

by numberless barbarians, while such multitudes of pretenders to the

imperial crown were set up, each asserting his claim by force of

arms, that the whole Roman territories were filled with bloodshed

and slaughter. At this time Gallienus, the son of Valerian, was the

_lawful_ emperor, if indeed we may apply the word to the domination

of such a monster. His mode of government may be imagined from the

following letter written to one of his officers in consequence of

a victory gained over an usurper named _Ingenuus_. “I shall not be

satisfied with your putting to death only such as have borne arms

against me, and might have fallen in the field: you must in every city

destroy all the males, old and young; spare none who have _wished_ ill

to me, none who have spoken ill of me, the son of Valerian, the father

and brother of princes. _Ingenuus_ emperor! Tear, kill, cut in pieces,

without mercy: you understand me; do then as you know I would do, who

have written to you with my own hand.” In consequence of this horrible

order, not a single male child was left alive in some of the cities of

Mœsia, where this inhuman tragedy was acted.

In the midst of this dreadful commotion, we find the pestilence

contributing its share to the common work of desolation. In Alexandria

in Egypt, says Dionysius, bishop of that place, “fury and discord raged

to such a degree, that it was more easy to pass from the east to the

remotest provinces of the west, than from one place of Alexandria to

another. The inhabitants had no intercourse but by letters, which were

with the utmost difficulty conveyed from one friend to another. The

port resembled the shores of the Red Sea strewed with the carcases

of the drowned Egyptians: the sea was dyed with blood, and the Nile

choked up with dead bodies. The war was attended with a general famine,

and the famine with a dreadful plague, which daily swept off great

numbers of people, insomuch that there were then in Alexandria fewer

inhabitants, from the age of fourteen to that of eighty, than there

used to be from forty to seventy.” It was not in Egypt alone that this

calamity prevailed. It raged with great violence in Greece, and at Rome

itself; where, for some time, it carried off five thousand persons a

day. Many terrible phenomena of nature took place at the same time.

The sun was overcast with thick clouds, and great darkness took place

for several days, attended with a violent earthquake, and loud claps

of thunder, not in the air, but in the bowels of the earth, which

opened in several places and swallowed up great numbers of people in

their habitations. The sea, swelling beyond measure, broke in upon the

continent, and drowned whole cities.[36]

[36] Univ. Hist. vol. xvi. pp. 433, 435.

At last the civil commotions were settled by the accession of Claudius

to the empire in 268. He found the Roman force so exhausted, that, when

marching against the Goths, he wrote to the senate in the following

terms: “If I should not be attended with success, you will remember

that I fight after the reign of Gallienus. The whole empire is quite

spent and exhausted, partly by him, and partly by the many tyrants

who, during his reign, usurped the sovereignty, and laid waste our

provinces. We want even shields, swords and spears.” In this miserable

plight, however, he gained a most extraordinary victory; three hundred

thousand of the enemy being killed or taken. But, while Claudius thus

carried on the work of death successfully against the barbarians,

he was attacked from a quarter where he could make no resistance: a

violent plague broke out in his army, and carried off himself and a

vast number of his men.

The dreadful defeat given to the Goths did not long preserve the

tranquillity of the empire. New invasions took place, and new massacres

ensued. At last, on the accession of Dioclesian to the empire, it was

thought proper, on account of the present emergences, to divide such

wide-extended territories into four parts, to be governed by four

emperors of equal authority. By the activity and valour of these,

particularly of one of them, named Galerius, the northern barbarians

were repressed, and the Persians reduced so low, that they were obliged

to yield up a great part of their territories; and it is said that

their country might even have been reduced to a Roman province, had the

emperor so inclined. We know not whether, in his eastern expedition,

the Roman army received any infection, nor do we hear of any plague

breaking out in it; but we are told that Galerius himself died of an

uncommon distemper; an ulcer, attended with mortifications, violent

pains, and the production of an infinite number of vermin, which

devoured and tormented him day and night. This distemper, however,

seems rather to have been a cancer than a pestilential disorder, as

he laboured under it for more than a year. After his death, dreadful

wars continued, both by reason of the incursions of barbarians, and

the contests of those who enjoyed, or wished to enjoy, the empire. The

eastern parts, however, had for some time kept free from pestilential

contagion; of which the christian writers say, that Maximin, who

reigned there, had made his boast; and, being a heathen, ascribed it

to the care he took of preserving the worship of the gods. But, if

this was really the case, he soon found his gods unable to protect

him; for, soon after the accession of Constantine the great, and his

embracing christianity, the dominions of Maximin were afflicted with

famine accompanied with pestilence, and that attended by symptoms of a

most extraordinary nature; particularly ulcers about the eyes, which

rendered multitudes of those who were infected with the distemper

totally blind. The christians did not fail to ascribe this plague to

the sins of Maximin; but it must be observed, that to his other sins

he had added that of involving himself in a violent war, during which

the pestilence broke out, and which probably was one of the causes of

it. We may likewise observe, that if the sins of Maximin brought on the

plague, the piety of Constantine could not keep it off; since we find

that in the year 332, a considerable time after the death of Maximin,

the territories of Constantine were ravaged by a dreadful plague, and

the famine was so severe, that, at Antioch, wheat was sold at four

hundred pieces of silver per bushel. The distemper which put an end to

the life of Maximin himself was indeed so extraordinary, that we may

reasonably excuse those who called it a judgment sent directly from

heaven. His eyes and tongue are said to have putrefied; “an invisible

fire was kindled in his bowels, which, being attended with unrelenting

torments, reduced him in a few days to a perfect skeleton; his whole

body was covered over with a kind of leprosy, and devoured by swarms

of vermin; he could not be prevailed upon to take any nourishment, but

greedily swallowed handfuls of earth, as if he had hoped by that means

to assuage his pains, and allay the hunger with which he was tormented

without intermission.”[37] All this, we are told, was the effect of

poison, which he had swallowed in despair, after being defeated in

battle; but the symptoms are unaccountable.

[37] Univ. Hist. vol. xvi.

After the death of Constantine, the empire being again parted, civil

dissensions took place; the northern barbarians and Persians renewed

their incursions, and at length the battle of Mursa, between the

emperor Constantius and an usurper named Magnentius, destroyed such

numbers that the empire no more recovered its former strength. From

this time therefore the wars with the barbarians became more and more

violent; and, though frequently overcome, the advantage was ultimately

on their side. In 361, the first year of the emperor Julian, the

pestilence again made its appearance. It was accompanied by many

other grievous calamities: Dreadful earthquakes were felt in every

province; most of the cities in Palestine, Libya, Sicily and Greece,

were overturned. Libanius writes, that not one city in Libya was left

standing, and but one in Greece; that Nice was utterly ruined, and

Constantinople greatly damaged. The sea, in several places, broke in

upon the land, and destroyed whole cities with their inhabitants. At

Alexandria, the sea, retiring during an earthquake, returned again

with such violence, that it drowned several towns and villages in the

neighbourhood. The earthquakes were followed by a famine, and the

famine by a pestilence. It was observed by the christian writers, that

the famine seemed to follow Julian from place to place: and no wonder

that it did so; for he not only had always a large army along with

him, which consumed great quantities of provision, but, attempting to

remedy the evil by fixing the prices of provisions, he rendered it much

worse, as the dealers in corn were thereby tempted to convey it to

other places.[38] Indeed this emperor seems to have been inclined to

produce famines wherever he went; for, on his entering the territories

of the Persians, with whom he was at war, he wasted the country to such

a degree, that he could neither subsist nor return; while the enemy,

imitating his example, destroyed all before him. The consequence was,

that, by the time Julian was killed, the famine raged in the Roman camp

to such a degree, that not a single person could have escaped, had not

the enemy mercifully granted them peace.

[38] Univ. Hist. vol. xvi.

Notwithstanding this dismal situation, we hear of no plague invading

the camp of the Romans at that time. The wars, however, continued with

great violence; and, in the time of Valentinian, Valens and Gratian,

became worse than ever. The dreadful state of the empire in the time

of Gratian is thus described by St. Jerom: “The whole country, from

Constantinople to the Julian Alps, has been swimming these twenty years

in Roman blood. Scythia, Thrace, Macedon, Dardania, Dacia, Thessaly,

Achaia, both Epiruses, Dalmatia, both Pannonias, are filled with Goths,

Sarmatians, Quadians, Alans, Huns, Vandals, Marcomans, &c. whose

avarice nothing has escaped, whose cruelty has been felt by persons of

all ranks, ages and conditions.” “What evils, (says Gregory Nazianzen)

have we not seen or heard of! Whole countries have been destroyed with

fire and sword; many thousand persons of all ranks and ages have been

inhumanly massacred; the rivers are still dyed with blood, and the

ground covered with heaps of dead bodies.”

In the midst of so great calamities, the pestilence, as an evil of

inferior nature, might in many cases pass unnoticed by the historians

of the times; nevertheless, even during that distracted period, we

find some accounts of it. In 384 we are told of a famine and plague

at Antioch; and, in 407, of one in Palestine, said to be occasioned

by multitudes of grasshoppers, which even obscured the sun, and

turned day into night. After having done incredible mischief, they

were thrown by the wind partly into the Red Sea, and partly into the

Mediterranean; whence being again cast ashore by the waves, they

putrefied, and occasioned a pestilence. Two years after, when Rome

had been first besieged by Alaric the Goth, the city was reduced to

such straits, that human flesh was publicly sold, and some mothers

are said to have devoured their children. This terrible famine was

occasioned by the uncultivated state of the country, which had lain

waste for several years, by reason of the wars, and the ports of Africa

being blocked up by Heraclianus lest an usurper should become emperor;

and thus this loyal admiral, for fear that the people should have a

bad governor, determined rather that there should be no people to be

governed. Notwithstanding this terrible famine, however, we hear of no

pestilential disorder taking place; not even after the taking of the

city by Alaric, when bloodshed and massacre were added to the other

calamities.

All this time the empire, by the incursions of barbarians, by

usurpations, civil wars, and the general licentiousness of the people,

had been in a situation not to be described. The invasion of the Hunns,

a new and more formidable enemy than they had ever experienced, now

completed the ruin of the Romans. The whole western part of the empire

became one continued scene of carnage and desolation. The common

epithet bestowed upon Attila, the king of these barbarians, was, “The

_Scourge_ of GOD, the _Destroyer_ of _Armies_.” As a specimen of his

behaviour, we shall select the account of his taking of Aquileia in

452. That city, “being well fortified, and defended by the flower of

the Roman troops, held out, in spite of his utmost efforts, for three

months; at the end of which it was taken by assault, pillaged for

several days together, and laid in ashes; not a single house being

left standing, nor one person alive that fell into the enemy’s hands.

The cities of Trevigio, Verona, Mantua, Cremona, Brescia and Bergamo,

underwent the same fate; the barbarians raging every where with such

fury as can hardly be expressed or conceived, and putting all to the

sword, without distinction of sex, age, or condition.”[39]

[39] Univ. Hist. vol. xvi.

Every one must own that this was a very effectual method of preventing

the plague in those cities. It did not, however, prevent that, or some

other diseases, from destroying such numbers of the tyrant’s troops,

that he was for that time prevented from taking Rome itself. From this

time, to the total extinction of the western empire, we do not hear of

any remarkable infection taking place. The barbarians still continued

their wars with one another, while the emperors of Constantinople were

likewise at continual variance with the Persians. At last, in the

year 532, they concluded what they called a _perpetual_ or _eternal_

peace, which lasted _eight years_! Other treaties and truces were

concluded; notwithstanding which, the war was almost continual in the

east; while, by the second conquest of Italy, and the invasion of the

Gothic territories, new desolations overspread the west. Thus, for a

great number of ages, mankind had been preparing themselves for the

dreadful pestilence which was about to ensue. Whatever infection could

be communicated to the air by multitudes of carcases rotting above

ground had been done in an ample manner. Whatever debility could be

communicated to the human frame by famine, exposure to the inclemency

of weather, by fatigue, terror, grief, and every thing that can render

life miserable, had also been communicated by the most powerful

means. There only wanted _something_ to begin the calamity; and this,

whatever it was, took place in the fifteenth year of Justinian. Mr.

Gibbon ascribes the origin of it to locusts; and its universality, to

the general mixture of all nations, and the unrestrained intercourse

they had with one another. “No restraints (says he) were imposed on

the frequent intercourse of the Roman provinces. From Persia to France

the nations were mingled by wars and emigrations; and the pestilential

odour, which lurks for years in a bale of cotton, was imported, by the

abuse of trade, into the most distant regions. Procopius relates, that

it spread always from the sea-coast to the inland countries: the most

sequestered islands and mountains were successively visited; the places

which had escaped the fury of its first passage, were alone exposed to

the contagion of the ensuing year. In time, its malignity was abated

and dispersed; the disease alternately languished and revived; but

it was not till the end of a calamitous period of fifty-two years,

that mankind recovered their health, or the air resumed its pure and

salubrious qualities.”

Thus Mr. Gibbon endeavours to explain the causes of this plague from

an alteration in the salubrity of the atmosphere, without taking into

consideration the dreadful commotions among mankind, above related.

But, now that we have noticed two very general infections, one in

767 B. C. the other 1300 years after, we find them both preceded and

accompanied by wars uncommonly violent and destructive. The great

plague in the time of Justinian is said by Mr. Gibbon to have continued

only fifty-two years; but this we must understand of its first and most

violent attack; for it appears, from the testimonies produced in the

former section, that pestilential disorders, even very violent ones,

continued at intervals for several centuries. Thus, from the year 541

to 593, the space of fifty-two years is included; nevertheless, in the

time of Phocas, who began to reign ten years after, the same calamity

continued; as did also violent wars with the Persians and other

barbarians.

The year 622 is remarkable for the flight of Mahomet from Mecca to

Medina, from which time we may date the rise of the empire of the

Saracens; a people who, for desolation and destruction, were perhaps

never equalled except by the Hunns and Moguls. In 630 the impostor

himself died, after having just united the Arabs or Saracens, and

fitted them for the work in which they were to be employed. Their first

exploit was, to fall upon the empire of Persia, now weakened by its

endless wars with the Romans. This was conquered in two years; after

which they broke into Palestine, and conquered the provinces bordering

upon Syria. In 634 they reduced Syria itself and Egypt. In 636 they

took and plundered Jerusalem. In 642 they conquered the African

provinces, and reduced some of the islands in the Levant. With unabated

fury they proceeded to the east and west; laying siege, in 668, to

Constantinople itself, where they received their first check by the

shipwreck of their fleet, and the defeat of their army. Thus, in the

space of 38 years, the immense tract of country from the eastern part

of Persia to the confines of the Mediterranean Sea, with the northern

coasts of Africa, the whole including a space scarce inferior to the

empire of Alexander the Great, was reduced under subjection to a race

of savage barbarians, who knew only how to plunder, destroy, and reduce

other nations to slavery.

In this manner were the eastern parts of the world prepared for a new

infection, supposing the old one to have been entirely gone off. The

Saracens pursued their good fortune, ravaged and conquered from India

to Spain, and from Spain were proceeding northward through France, to

extend their conquests to the other countries of Europe. But here, in

728, their fury was stopped by Charles Martel, the father of Pepin, and

grandfather of Charles the Great. After a most obstinate and bloody

battle, which lasted seven days, and in which the barbarians lost three

hundred and seventy-five thousand men,[40] they were driven beyond the

Pyrennean mountains, and never after durst enter France. Thus was one

fury stopped, only to give place to another. Charles, as ambitious and

as cruel as the Saracens, having in vain attempted the conquest of

Spain, reduced Italy and Germany; and, having dreadfully massacred the

Saxons, and almost exterminated the Hunns, set up the German Empire,

and was crowned emperor of the West in 800.

[40] M. Millot places this account among the “exaggerations which

ought not to have a place in history;” but, as we have no evidence

for or against the fact, it was thought proper to let it remain as

related by the historians of those times. It is certain that in those

days mankind assembled for the purposes of bloodshed and slaughter in

prodigious numbers; the destruction was commonly in proportion to the

numbers assembled. The account is not more incredible than that of

Tamerlane’s filling up the harbour of Smyrna by causing each of his

soldiers to throw a stone into it. Such an army could have spared the

number in question.

While the nations were thus deluging the earth with blood, the

pestilence made its appearance in the east, attended with extraordinary

phenomena.[41] Some of these are taken notice of by the Arabian

historians, and others are mentioned by them, concerning which

the Greek histories are silent. In 636, particularly, we hear of

violent storms of hail throughout the Arabian Peninsula, and of Syria

being ravaged by epidemic distempers. It would seem, indeed, that

the plague, during the whole of these horrible periods, had never

been extinguished; for in 671 they tell us that a celebrated Arab,

named _Ziyad_, died of the plague; though neither Greek nor Arabian

historians take notice of any remarkable pestilence as raging at that

time. We are told that this man was attended by no fewer than _an

hundred and fifty_ physicians.[42] “But, _as the decree was sealed_,

and _the thing determined_, they found it impossible to save him.” This

distemper was attended with such an excruciating pain in his right

hand, that the unhappy patient had recourse to a _cadi_, or judge, to

inform him whether he might lawfully cut it off. The judge determined

that it was absolutely unlawful to do so; notwithstanding which,

Ziyad resolved to proceed: but his heart failed him when he saw the

instruments and cauterising irons to be employed in the operation; for

in those times of barbarity and ignorance they knew no other method of

stopping blood but by a hot iron; and therefore some of the physicians

in ancient times, when a limb was to be cut off, ordered the incision

to be made down to the bone with a red hot razor. But, to return to our

subject: In Syria and Mesopotamia swarms of locusts infected the earth

about the year 679; but, as it seems extremely probable that the plague

was never out of the eastern regions, we cannot expect to hear much

of it, unless when extremely violent. That in the time of Constantine

Copronymus seems to have extended over Arabia, as we are told that

the Khalif Yezid, who was cotemporary with Copronymus, died of the

plague. We are also told, that the earthquakes which afflicted the

territories of the Greek emperors extended themselves to the countries

about the Caspian Sea. In those ages indeed the phenomena of nature

appear to have been so extraordinary, that we can scarcely account

them any other than miraculous. Some of these have been described in

the former section, on the authority of the Greek historians: the

Arabians make mention of others similar. They tell us, also, that

once or twice it rained black stones, and that some of these were so

inflammable, that an Arab having attempted to make a fire with one of

them in his tent, it burst out into such a violent flame as consumed

the tent altogether.[43] This rain may be accounted for from the

explosion of a volcano; but how shall we account for the sun himself

losing his light? a phenomenon acknowledged even by Mr. Gibbon; though

that author huddles things together in such a manner as seems totally

inconsistent with the regular chain of events. He tells us, that the

dreadful plague, which broke out in the time of Justinian, was preceded

by comets, and most violent earthquakes; and that these comets were

attended with an extraordinary paleness of the sun. This may be; but

the word _paleness_ cannot apply to the _darkness_ which lasted from

the fourth of August to the first of October, and to which he seems to

allude, though it happened long after the time of Justinian; neither

can it be applied to what I am now about to relate, viz. that in the

year 782, a little after sunrise, the solar light was lost without an

eclipse, and the darkness continued till noon. It is impossible to

read the histories of those times without remembering the words of

our Saviour, that there should be signs in the sun and in the moon,

distress and perplexity of nations, the sea and waves roaring, men’s

hearts failing them for fear, &c. But, however the God of nature might

thus intimate to mankind his displeasure with their proceedings, it

is certain they made no alteration in their conduct. The Saracens,

having conquered immense tracts of country, engaged in civil wars

among themselves; the western nations, after having tried in vain to

destroy each other, at last united in a romantic design of conquering

Palestine from the Infidels; while the Turks, leaving their habitations

about Mount Caucasus, where, like the vultures of Prometheus, they

had for ages remained unseen and unknown, precipitated themselves

upon the Greeks and Saracens, and lastly, as if all hell had broke

loose at once, the Moguls, from the most easterly part of Asia, poured

destruction upon the countries to the west, even as far as Russia and

Poland.

[41] See Sec. i.

[42] Modern Univ. Hist. Arabia.

[43] That such accounts are not to be looked upon as entirely

fabulous, may be gathered from what is related by Mr. Thomson in

his travels through Palestine, viz. that on the brink of the lake

Asphaltites he found numbers of “small _black pebbles_, which are

soon set on fire by being held in the flame of a candle, and yield a

smoke intolerably stinking and offensive; but have this remarkable

property, that by burning they lose nothing of their weight, nor

suffer any diminution in their bulk. They are capable of taking as

fine a polish as black marble, and are likewise said to be met with

of considerable size in the neighbouring mountains.”

All these events took place in a few centuries. In 844 the Turks

quitted Mount Caucasus, and settled in Armenia Major. In 1030 they

fell upon the Saracen empire, now divided among innumerable chieftains

continually at war with each other. Among these was one called the

Sultan of Persia, and another of Babylon. The former being worsted,

called in the Turks to his assistance. They sent him an auxiliary

army of only _three thousand_ men; and from this slender beginning

has arisen the vast empire of the Ottoman Porte. The three thousand

men were commanded by a general called by the Greeks _Tangrolipix_,

and by the Asiatics _Togrul Beg_. Being a man of ability, the Sultan

of Persia, by his assistance, got the better of his adversary; but,

refusing to let the Turks depart, Tangrolipix with his army withdrew

to the desert of Carbonitis, where, being joined by numbers of

discontented Persians, he began to invade the territories of the

Saracens. The Sultan of Persia sent against him an army of twenty

thousand men, whom Tangrolipix surprised and defeated, acquiring at the

same time an immense booty. The fame of his victory, and his wealth,

procured him bands of robbers, thieves, and blackguards, from all the

neighbouring countries; so that he soon found himself at the head of

fifty thousand. Against such a formidable force the Sultan of Persia

marched in person; but happening to lose his life in the engagement by

a fall from his horse, his men threw down their arms and acknowledged

Tangrolipix to be Sultan of Persia.

The new sultan instantly thought of destroying other sultans and

potentates; for which purpose he opened a passage for his countrymen

from Armenia to Persia. The Sultan of Babylon was the first victim;

after which Tangrolipix turned his arms unsuccessfully against the

Arabians, but afterwards more successfully against the Greek emperors.

The first invasion by the Turks took place in 1041; and in four hundred

and twelve years they became absolute masters of the empire. Though

unsuccessful at first against the Saracens, they prevailed greatly

afterwards, and, by the time of the crusades, we find them masters of

Palestine, as well as several other countries formerly conquered by

the Arabs. From the time of their first invasion, in 1041, we may say,

the war never ceased; and there is the greatest reason to suppose that

the Greek empire would have been overthrown in a very short time, had

not the crusaders checked their progress. The immense numbers with

whom the barbarians had now to contend (amounting to no fewer than

seven hundred thousand) threatened with destruction the newly erected

empire of the Turks; and had it not been for the want of unanimity

among the crusaders themselves, and the jealousy of the emperors of

Constantinople, they certainly would have overthrown it. But, as

matters went, all their labour was lost; and they only increased the

general carnage and desolation to an extreme degree. The first crusade

was planned in 1093, published in 1095, and in March 1096 the first

army set out. In 1097 they began their conquests, but soon found it

very difficult to keep them. The Turks being at home, and united, had

many advantages over foreign invaders; which the latter endeavoured

to counteract by drawing continual supplies of fresh men from Europe.

Thus, for several centuries, the western part of Asia was rendered

a scene of bloodshed and desolation. When they had contended for

something more than _two hundred_ years, Jenghiz Khan, the Mogul, seems

to have formed the _noble_ design of destroying the whole human race

at once, excepting only his own immediate followers. His plan was, to

_exterminate_ man, woman and child wherever he went, and to plant the

countries with his own people. It is impossible to do justice to his

exploits. Voltaire, speaking of the irruption of the Moguls, says,

that the people fled every where before them, like wild beasts roused

from their dens by other beasts more savage than themselves. In the

Universal History we are told, that he is supposed to have destroyed

_fourteen millions and an half_ of his fellow creatures. He died in

1227, and left successors worthy of himself. Some of these proceeded

eastward, and some westward. The latter, under the conduct of a

_monster_ named _Hula-ku_, overthrew, in the year 1256, the remains

of the Saracen empire, by the taking of Bagdad. The miserable Khalif,

coming forth to meet his conqueror, was trampled under his horse’s

feet, then sewed up in a sack, dragged through the streets, and thrown

into the river. The Moguls who proceeded eastward invaded China. The

Chinese resisted with innumerable multitudes, and battles were fought

to which those of the present age are mere skirmishes. The soldiers,

overcome with thirst, drank blood instead of water; hundreds of

thousands fell on both sides, while human blood ran in streams for five

or six miles. At last the fury of the Moguls was stopped by the ocean;

for, having attempted the conquest of Japan, their fleet was wrecked,

and an hundred thousand perished. Like other great empires, also,

pretenders to the sovereignty started up, and the whole was parcelled

out into a number of little states, which, of course, ceased to be

formidable.

The decline of the Mogul empire did not restore peace to the world.

The Turks continued their ravages; the western nations continued their

crusades. England, which became a kingdom in 800, had been ravaged

and conquered by the Danes and Normans, and likewise distressed by

civil wars. At last, having emerged from its own difficulties, it

began to inflict upon other nations the miseries itself had endured.

Wales and Scotland became objects of the ambition of Edward I, who had

already signalized his valour in the crusade. The Welsh were totally

subjugated, and the Scots overthrown in the very bloody battle of

Falkirk, where almost the whole force of the country was destroyed. The

Scots, however, were never totally subdued. Robert Bruce retaliated on

the English in the battle of Bannock-burn, where two hundred thousand

English were defeated by thirty thousand Scots. But Robert was not

contented with asserting the liberty of his country. Jealous of his

brother Edward, he sent him with an army to conquer Ireland. We shall

not doubt of his valour, or of the miseries he inflicted, or was

willing to inflict, upon the people among whom he came. In destroying

them he destroyed his own army. They were reduced to the most dreadful

straits by famine, insomuch that they were obliged to feed upon the

most loathsome matters, their own excrements not excepted.

Being now arrived at the beginning of the fourteenth century, we see

that, from Ireland to China, mankind had involved themselves in one

general work of destruction. Besides the wars, famines had been so

frequent, that the eating of one another seemed to be but a common

affair. Indeed the history of mankind would tempt one to believe that

they thought themselves brought into the world for no other purpose but

to destroy each other. As far back as the year 409, in the time of the

wars of the Vandals in Spain, a dreadful famine took place, which, in

410, reduced many to the necessity of feeding upon human flesh; parents

devoured their children, and the wild beasts, being deprived of the

dead bodies which they used to feed upon, but which were at this time

devoured by the living, fell upon the latter, and thus increased the

general destruction. Such of the Romans as fled into strong holds and

fortresses, were in the end obliged to feed upon one another. To these

calamities the pestilence was added, which did not fail to rage in its

usual manner. Famine and pestilence had also ravaged the city of Rome

when besieged by the Goths under Vitiges, and under Totila. In this

last siege the unhappy citizens were reduced to such straits, that they

consumed even the grass which grew near the walls, and were at last

obliged to feed on their own excrements. We do not indeed hear, at this

time, of any particular instances of people feeding upon one another;

though, in such dreadful emergences, it is scarcely to be doubted that

some would have recourse to this terrible expedient in order to allay

their hunger. But in the famines which took place during the ravages of

the Saracens, Turks and Moguls, nothing seems to have been more common.

In 1066 a most grievous famine took place at Alexandria in Egypt, and

throughout the whole country. Three bushels and a half of flour were

sold at eighty dinars, a dog at five, and a cat at three. The Visir,

having waited on the Khalif, left his horse at the palace gate; but,

before he returned, the animal had been carried off and eaten. Three

men were hanged for this theft, and their bodies ordered to be exposed

upon gibbets; but next day they were found picked to the bones, their

flesh having been all cut off and devoured the preceding night. Bodies

of men and women were boiled, and their flesh publicly sold. A violent

plague followed, which swept away the greatest part of the inhabitants.

As the hellish Moguls spread desolation wherever they advanced, so

their retreats were equally formidable. In 1243, having advanced as far

as Aleppo in Syria, they found themselves obliged to retreat, and that

for a very odd reason, viz. that their horses were not well shod. This,

however, did not hinder them from destroying every thing the earth

produced, and stripping every man, nay, every woman, they met, even of

their clothes. The consequence was, a terrible famine, so that people

were fain to sell their children for small pieces of bread.

Such was the conduct of men, from one end of the earth to the other,

during the interval, if any interval there was, between the plague

in the time of Justinian and that of 1346. The pestilence, which had

continually raged in one place or other, now overspread the whole

world. At what time it began to decline we know not; and, indeed, as

the same desolations and massacres continued, if these had any share in

its production, it ought scarcely to have declined at all. That there

was all this time little or no interval, appears from what Dr. Rush

says, vol. iii. p. 165, that between the years 1006 and 1680, that is,

in a period of 674 years, the plague was _fifty-two_ times epidemic all

over Europe. Supposing the intervals between every general infection

then to have been equal, and the plague to have lasted only one year at

a time, it must have recurred once in twelve years. But the intervals

were not equal; for the Doctor tells us that it prevailed _fourteen_

times in the fourteenth century; which gives an interval of less than

seven years; and if the pestilence so frequently overspread the whole

continent, we may be very sure that it never was out of particular

places of it. The Doctor adds, “The state of Europe in this long period

is well known.” We shall also consider that of Asia.

The empire of the Moguls, which had fallen into decay, revived under

Tamerlane; who, following the example of Jenghiz Khan, had the epithet

of the _destroying prince_ bestowed upon him by the Indians, on account

of his behaviour in their country. Building his captives into walls

with stones and lime, pounding them by thousands in large mortars, was

his common practice; while the Turks, proceeding westward, wasted every

thing with fire and sword; the christians all the while continuing

their mad crusades, and when driven from one place endeavouring to

establish themselves in another. At last the Turks and Tartars, or

Moguls, or rather their emperors, happening to quarrel, the battle of

Angora, in Galatia, decided (at the expense of some hundred thousand

lives) the dispute in favour of Tamerlane; but, as his empire ended

with his life, the Turks soon recovered from the blow they had

received; and, by the taking of Constantinople in 1453, put an end to

the terrible commotions which had prevailed in the east for so many

ages. The crusades had also for some time been discontinued, and the

world hath since that time been comparatively in a state of peace.

But, by so much intercourse with the Asiatics, especially with the

countries particularly subject to the plague, all Europe had been so

deeply infected, that the distemper could not but prevail for a long

time, even though it had not been kept up by the almost continual

wars of the Europeans with one another, which was too much the case.

Dr. Sydenham informs us that before his time the plague commonly

visited England once in forty years; but by this we must understand a

very violent infection; for Dr. Rush tells us that plagues prevailed

in London _every year_ from 1593 to 1611, and from 1636 to 1649. The

author of the Journal of the Plague Year (1665) mentions a visitation

in 1656; and Mr. Carey, in the beginning of his account of the plague

of London in 1665, says, that the plague was _almost continually_

among the diseases enumerated in their bills of mortality; so that we

may fairly conclude it to have been _endemic_ in that city. Now let

us see how England had employed itself. Its kings, as well as many of

their subjects, had gone to the holy wars, as they called them, and, by

continuing in that devoted country where most probably the pestilence

first originated, it is impossible to suppose that some of them did not

receive the contagion. Having caught the pestilence in the _holy war_,

they came home to diffuse it among their countrymen, and to keep it up

by _profane wars_, I suppose, both foreign and domestic. Henry VII put

an end to a very long and bloody contest between the houses of York and

Lancaster; but he brought the pestilence along with him, which raged

violently during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. A most violent

war, for half a century, on the continent of Europe, and civil wars in

England, would still continue to keep the infection alive from 1600

to 1648, when a general peace was concluded; and from the subsequent

state of tranquillity, probably, after the violent attack in 1665, it

seems to have languished and died in England, as a plant in a soil not

natural to it.

But, though England has since remained in peace, on the continent it

has been otherwise. In the beginning of the eighteenth century, the

heroic madness of Charles XII seemed ready to confound the north, while

the glorious exploits of prince Eugene and the duke of Marlborough

appeared equally confounding to France. In the midst of these grand

atchievments, the pestilence silently claimed its share in the common

work of destruction; carrying off upwards of two thousand in a week for

some time, in 1709, in the city of Dantzick, and, in 1711, twenty-five

out of sixty thousand inhabitants in Copenhagen.

The infection, however, seemed now to be retiring to the place from

whence it originally came. In 1666, or soon after, it seems to have

totally abandoned the island of Britain; with the attack in 1711 it

left the western countries of the continent next to that island; in

1713, 1714 and 1715 we are informed by baron Van Swieten that it

ravaged Austria; in 1721, or soon after, it abandoned France; in 1743

it made its last attack on Messina; and in 1784 we find it confined

to Dalmatia and the eastern territories, where it has so long reigned

without interruption.

From the view then which we have taken of the conduct of the human

race, and the consequences of that conduct, we may reasonably conclude,

that war will produce famine and pestilence, and that after all

violent wars a violent pestilence may be expected, especially if the

contending parties interfere with those nations where it is most

frequent. Another piece of conduct by which mankind expose themselves

to pestilential contagions is, the practice of cooping themselves up

in great cities. Mr. Gibbon, speaking of earthquakes, says, that men,

though always complaining, frequently bring mischief upon themselves.

“The institution of great cities (adds he) which enclose a nation

within the limits of a wall, almost realises the wish of Caligula, that

the Roman people had but one neck. In these disasters (earthquakes) the

architect becomes the enemy of mankind. The hut of a savage, or the

tent of an Arab, is thrown down without injury to the inhabitant; and

the Peruvians had reason to deride the folly of the Spanish conquerors,

who with so much cost and care erected their own sepulchres. The rich

marbles of a palace are dashed on its owner’s head, a whole people

is buried under the ruins of public or private edifices, and the

conflagration is kindled and propagated by innumerable fires necessary

for the subsistence and manufactures of a great city.” In plagues,

great cities are unquestionably as pernicious as in earthquakes; not

indeed by reason of the weight and bulk of the materials, but the

confinement of the people within the sphere of infection, and their

continual exposure to the causes which prepare the body for receiving

it. In fact, it has always been found that plagues begin in cities;

and were it not for the multitudes that continually fly out of them

there can be no doubt that the mortality would be much greater than

it is. The intercourse of many nations with one another, the carrying

from one end of the earth to the other of goods capable of bringing

with them the infection, must also be supposed a very principal cause

of pestilence; but this last will be more fully considered in the next

section. At present we may conclude, that, the pestilential contagion

having originally fallen upon mankind for their sins, it is still kept

alive by the same causes; and, as far as we can conjecture, these sins

are, the propensity to murder and destroy which breaks forth in war;

the vanity, pride and luxury which produces great cities; and the same

vanity, &c. joined with avarice, which gives life to commerce. Add to

all this the neglect of the cultivation of the earth, which ought to be

the principal business of man. In consequence of this neglect, immense

tracts of it are still overrun with woods, covered with stagnant and

noxious waters, or lying in waste and now uninhabitable deserts, fit

only for serpents and the most destructive animals. Thus the very

climate is changed from what it ought to be; the elements become

hostile to man in an extreme degree, and the whole system of nature,

originally designed to give life and happiness to the human race, is,

through their own misconduct, changed into a system of misery, disease

and death.

The account just now given of the ways in which mankind bring upon

themselves the plague, and other diseases almost equally terrible, is

so conformable to the opinions of the learned Dr. Mead, that I shall

conclude this section with a few extracts from his works. Of the

small pox he says, that he supposes this “to be a plague of its own

kind, originally bred in Africa, and more especially in Ethiopia, as

the heat is excessive there; and thence, like the true plague, was

brought into Arabia and Egypt, after the manner above mentioned” (i.

e. by war and merchandise.) “Now (adds he) if any one should wonder

why this contagion was so long confined to its native soil, without

spreading into distant countries, I pray him to consider, that foreign

commerce was much more sparingly carried on in ancient times than

in our days, especially between Mediterranean nations; and likewise

that the ancients seldom or never undertook long voyages by sea, as

we do. And Ludolfus observes, that the Ethiopians in particular were

ignorant of mercantile affairs. Therefore when in process of time the

mutual intercourse of different nations became more frequent by wars,

trade and other causes, this contagious disease was spread far and

wide. But, towards the end of the eleventh century, and beginning of

the twelfth, it gained vast ground by means of the wars waged by a

confederacy of christian powers against the Saracens, for the recovery

of the Holy Land; this being the only visible recompense of their

religious expeditions, which they brought back to their respective

countries.” Of the true plague he says, “It appears, I think, very

plainly, that the plague is a real poison, which, being bred in the

southern parts of the world, is carried by commerce into other parts

of the world, particularly into Turky, where it maintains itself by

a kind of circulation from persons to goods; which is chiefly owing

to the negligence of the people there, who are stupidly careless in

the affair: that, when the constitution of the air happens to favour

infection, it rages there with great violence; that at that time,

more especially, diseased persons give it to one another, and from

them contagious matter is lodged in goods of a soft, loose texture,

which, being packed up and carried into other countries, let out, when

opened, the imprisoned seeds of the contagion, and produce the disease

whenever the air is disposed to give them force; otherwise they may be

dissipated without any considerable ill effects. The air of our climate

is so far from being ever the original of the true plague, that most

probably it never produces those milder infectious distempers, the

small pox and measles. For these diseases were not heard of in Europe

before the Moors had entered Spain; and, as already observed, they were

afterwards propagated and spread through all nations, chiefly by means

of the wars with the Saracens. The sweating sickness was most probably

of foreign original. It began in the army with which king Henry VII

came from France, and landed in Wales; and it has been supposed by some

to have been brought from the famous siege of Rhodes, three or four

years before, as may be collected from one place of what Dr. Keyes says

in his treatise on the disease. We had here the same kind of fever

in 1713, about the month of September, which was called the _Dunkirk

fever_, is being brought by our soldiers from that place. This,

probably, had its original from the plague which broke out at Dantzick

a few years before, and continued some time among the cities of the

north.”

I now take leave, for the present, of this subject, which exhibits

the conduct of mankind in such a disagreeable view. Some, like M.

Millot above quoted, may be apt to suppose that many of the accounts

are exaggerated. But it is evident, that in our days it is impossible

to determine any thing to be a falsehood, said to have happened in

former ages, which is not absolutely contradictory to reason. Every

one of the accounts inserted in this section has found a place in the

works of historians reckoned authentic, particularly in the Universal

History. All who believe the New Testament must certainly believe,

from the words of our Saviour, that extraordinary things were to

happen in the ages subsequent to his appearance. Can we then discredit

the relations of those historians who inform us that extraordinary

things have happened? Modern historians, making their own judgments

the infallible measure of wisdom, and the strength of nations now

existing the ultimate measure of human power, have endeavoured to turn

into ridicule every thing which does not precisely accord with these

two. In this the French are particularly culpable; accounting every

thing to be incredible which exceeds the power of modern France to

accomplish, though they certainly do not know even the extent of this

power. Of such scandalous vanity we have a notable instance in the

works of president Goguet, who positively determines that the walls of

ancient Babylon, the pyramids of Egypt, and all the wonderful works of

Semiramis, Nebuchadnezzar, &c. were not equal to the canal of Languedoc

made by Louis XIV!