―108―

American Review.

Art. VII.

A Brief History of Epidemic and
Pestilential Diseases; with the
principal Phenomena of the Physi-
cal World, which precede and ac-
company them; and Observations
deduced from the Facts stated.
In two vols. 8vo. By Noah
Webster. Hartford. Hudson
and Goodwin. 1799. pp. 700.

[Continued from p. 36.]

WE cannot pass over the sub-
sequent part of this cata-
logue of plagues, flood, &c. without
remarking that the incidents and
quotations are not arranged with
the utmost accuracy of method.
They are interspersed with observa-
tions which, for the most part, are
imperfect anticipations of what is
afterwards to be proved, or repe-
titions of each other.

There is nothing with regard to
which the truth is more difficult to
ascertain, on which men are more
prone to exaggerate, and on which,
therefore, common historical evi-
dence is more delusive, than the
havock which plagues, famines, and
convulsions of the elements pro-
duce. If Mr. W. aimed at the re-
moval of this evil, he might imagine
some utility in presenting it to us
in the strongest light, and admit-
ting, without much scruple, the
pictures which historians have left
us. When he finds occasion to
speak in his own person, he might
naturally be tempted to make the
largest guesses and inferences as to
the extent of the ruin to which our
own infatuation, ignorance, and
vices expose us. In proportion as
our compassion for others, and
fears for our own safety were ex-

―109―

cited, it might be expected that we
would bestir ourselves in searching
for and employing the means of
prevention and cure.

It happens, however, somewhat
unfortunately, that the chief design
of our author is to shew that epi-
demics are effects of general and
irremediable causes; that they are
connected with revolutions of earth
and air, which cannot be foreseen,
and when they take place, cannot
be disarmed of their malignant in-
fluence. That horid series of
calamities depicted by him, has
little tendency, therefore, but to
dishearten and affright us. We
turn away from the shocking spec-
tacle with sickening and loathing,
and are prompted to exclaim against
the equity of that contriver who
entailed such various, incessant,
and exquisite misery on his crea-
tures.

With these views, we feel less
disposed to forgive any appearance
of exaggeration in the painter.
Where the genuine evil is of such
magnitude, it seems superfluous to
enhance it by groundless and fal-
lacious suppositions, or by implicit
acquiescence in doubtful testimony.
We may indure to see things as
they really are, however disastrous
and deplorable they may be, but
may reasonably object to fanciful
additions or extravagant deductions.
We are sorry, therefore, to observe
in our author, somewhat of this
melancholy temper; a faith in an-
nalists and chroniclers somewhat
too obsequious, and a mind need-
lessly prone to decorate and ampli-
fy their tales of horror.

The following quotations will
evince the lugubrious spirit of our
author, and exhibit the use which
he makes of his materials. He is
describing the plague which prevail-
ed in the middle of the fourteenth
century. These are some of the
particulars:

“Preceding and during the pre-

valence of the disease, the whole
earth was shaken by most tremen-
dous earthquakes. All Germany
was shaken in 1346. In 1349, on
the ninth of September, Sicily was
shaken to its foundation, together
with all Italy. In Greece, many
cities were overthrown; and, in
many places, towns and castles
were demolished. Thousands of
people were swallowed up, and the
courses of rivers were obstructed.

“The pestilential state of air, in
that period, is strongly marked by
the appearance of myriads of un-
usual and loathsome insects, not
only in China, but in Europe. They
are described as young serpents, or
as venomous insects, or as large
vermin with tails and eight short
legs—in which description, proba-
bly, a frightened imagination had
some share of influence. But of
their existence, there can be no
doubt.

“This plague was so deadly that
at least half or two thirds of the
human race perished in about eight
years. It was most fatal in cities,
but in no place died less than a third
of the inhabitants. In many cities,
perished nine out of ten of the people,
and many places were wholly de-
populated. In London, 50,000
dead bodies were buried in one
grave-yard. In Norwich died
about the same number. In Venice,
died 100,000. In Lubec, 90,000.
In Florence, the same number. In
the east, perished twenty millions in
one year. In Spain, the disease
raged three years, and carried off
two thirds of the people. Alphonso
II. died with it while besieging
Gibraltar.

“In this fatal period, the appre-
hension of death destroyed the value
of property. In England, cattle were
neglected, and they ran at large over
the country. The corn perished in
the fields for want of reapers; whole
villages were depopulated; and after
the malady ceased, multitudes of

―110―

houses and buildings of all kinds
were seen mouldering to ruin. A
horse which before had been worth
forty shillings, after the sickness,
sold for half a mark.

“Although in the year preceding
there had been a plenty of provi-
sions, yet, the neglect of agricul-
ture during the general distress,
produced a famine. Such was the
loss of labourers, that the few sur-
vivors afterwards demanded exor-
bitant wages, and the parliament
of England was obliged to inter-
fere, and limit their wages, and
even compel men to labour.—See
23d Edward III. A. D. 1350. The
preamble states, that a great part
of the people, especially workmen
and servants, had died of the late
pestilence; and those who survived,
seeing the necessity of men, de-
manded excessive wages.

“This disease was particularly
fatal in Denmark: all business was
at a stand, towns were deserted,
and all was terror and despair. It
reached the highest northern lati-
tudes; it broke out in Iceland, and
was so fatal, that the settlements
there are supposed not to have
since recovered their population.
It was called the sorte diod, black
death.

“In some places, people attempt-
ed to escape infection by taking
their families on board of vessels,
and putting to sea; but it was in
vain; they were seized in every
place, without regard to age or
sex.

“A phenomenon attending this
plague, was the death of fish. This
circumstance, with the bad state of
the weather, which is often affect-
ed by the pestilential state of the
elements, and was greatly affected
in this period, gave rise to a report
that the Jews had poisoned the wells
and springs. The prejudices against
the Jews, which have marked and
scandalized all christian countries,
except America, were at their

height in the reign of Edward III.
of England, the period under con-
sideration. These prejudices drove
legislators and princes to exercise
every species of cruelty upon the
Israelites, on account of their usury;
and, when the report of their poi-
soning the water circulated, the
populace, in some places, and es-
pecially in Germany, rose and as-
sassinated multitudes of these un-
fortunate men.

“The death of animals, particu-
larly of sheep, marked the same
period. In England, 5000 died in
one pasture. The state of the air
and water was so pestilential, that
it is averred by historians the fowls
and fishes had bloches on them.”

Nothing is more common in this
history, than accounts of earth-
quakes which shook the whole
earth, floods that swept away thou-
sands, and plagues that destroyed
two thirds of the human race.
These facts are not naturally im-
possible, but surely we may de-
mand stronger evidence of their
truth than the chroniclers of the
middle ages, and the physicians of
Italy and France. Our author's
theory does not require all this geo-
graphical and arithmetical precision;
and will stand or fall whether we
adopt or reject many of these eviden-
ces; but their tendency is hurtful,
by reflecting discredit on the pene-
tration, or the candour of the au-
thor, and the value of his “facts”
is lessened by being associated with
improbabilities or fictions. Before
sentence was pronounced upon the
veracity of compilers, Mr. Webster
should have recollected how much
his situation compelled him to rely
upon their evidence, and how much
of his narrative is derived from no
other source.

The following extract will serve
as an example of the mode in which
our author reasons on the contro-
verted point of imported and spe-
cific contagion, in relation to the

―111―

pestilence of the last century in Eu-
rope:

“English authors all agree that
the disease was imported into Eng-
land from Holland, in some bales
of cotton! ‘O fatal bales of cot-
ton!’ says Short. This tale has
been recorded and repeated by every
writer on the subject, without a
single document in evidence to
prove that any cotton was imported,
or that the first persons seized had
ever seen such cotton. The whole
tale rests on assertion. That the
seeds of the distemper were not im-
ported is evident from the acknow-
ledged facts relative to its origin;
and is demonstrated by the history
of the preceding diseases found in
the works of Sydenham.

“The origin of the pestilence,
which arrived to its crisis in 1665,
is to be traced back to the year 1661,
when malignant diseases began to
appear in different and distant parts
of the world. ‘In London, the in-
termitting tertian fever,’ says Sy-
denham, ‘became epidemic, and
differed from the same disease in
other years, by new and unusual
symptoms, which, in short, amount-
ed to this, that they were all more
violent. In winter, the disease
yielded, as usual, to cold; but con-
tinued fevers prevailed every win-
ter.’ These fevers, with some va-
riations, continued until the spring
of 1665, and the bills show how
much they augmented the mortality
in London. This increased malig-
nity in usual diseases, with an in-
crease of the number and mortality
of epidemics, is the constant pre-
cursor of the plague or other pes-
tilential fevers.

“Notwithstanding the clear evi-
dence of these facts, authors have
conjured up a tale of importation
which would disgrace a school-boy
by its inconsistency. The account
states, ‘That a violent plague raged
in Holland in 1663, on which ac-
count, the importation of merchan-

dize from that country was prohi-
bited by the British Legislature in
1664. Notwithstanding this pro-
hibition, it seems the plague had ac-
tually been imported; for in the
close of 1664, two or three per-
sons died suddenly in Westminster,
with marks of the plague on their bo-
dies.—Some of their neighbours,
terrified at the thoughts of their dan-
ger, removed into the city; but
too late; for they soon died of the
plague, and communicated the in-
fection to others. It was confined,
however, through a hard, frosty
winter, till the middle of February,
when it again appeared in the Pa-
rish of St. Giles, to which it had
been originally brought; and after
another long rest, till April, show-
ed its malignant force afresh, as
soon as the warmth of spring gave
it opportunity. At first, it took off
one here and there, without any certain
proof of their having infected each
other.

Encyclopedia, art. London. 21.

“In the substance of the fore-
going statement, all authors are
agreed, and I want no other proof
that the report of the importation
of the disease is all a vulgar, childish
tale; the propagation of which is
a disgrace to philosophy, and to
the faculty of that age.

“In the first place we have no
authentic evidence in any author,
that any bales of cotton were
brought from Holland to London,
at that time. The whole assertion
rests on vulgar report, and is wholly
unsupported by proof. Had the re-
port been well founded, the fact
might have been ascertained, and
in an affair of such magnitude, pro-
bably would have been. The im-
portation of goods from Holland
was prohibited by act of parlia-
ment.

“In the second place, the disease
first appeared in Westminster, not
in the commercial city of London,
but in a place where bales of cotton

―112―

would be the least likely to be de-
posited and opened; Westminster
being the residence of the nobility
and gentry, rather than a place of
commerce.

“In the third place, no proof is
stated that the persons first seized
had any connection with bales of
cotton.

“In the fourth place, the death of
two or three persons, with the
plague-marks on their bodies, in
December, 1664, is no evidence of
any imported infection at that time;
for the bills of mortality show, and
the reader is desired to turn to them,
to be satisfied, that a smaller num-
ber died that year of the plague
than had died of it in any of the six
preceding years. In the year 1659
died of that disease 36—in 1661
died 20, and every year more or
less. In 1664 died but 6 of the
plague, and yet this number, small
as it was, must be proof of the im-
portation of infection, that year,
when greater numbers, in preceding
years, are passed over in silence!
In such accounts, there must be
want of knowledge, or want of
honesty. The plague imported from
Holland! when the city of London
had not been free from it for twen-
ty-eight years preceding! See the
bills of mortality.

“Besides, why in the name of
common sense, should ‘two or
three’ infected persons, in 1664,
spread the plague over London, and
desolate the city, when twelve,
fourteen, twenty, and thirty-six
infected persons, who died in pre-
ceding years, produced no ill ef-
fects? To account for such effects
on the principle of infection, is not
possible; and men of science ought
to be ashamed of such absurdities.

“In the fifth place, the suspen-
sion of the disease, during six weeks,
is evidence that infection had no
agency in spreading the disease. It
is a fact known and acknowledged,
that infection cannot be preserved

for a tenth part of that time in the
open air. Air dissolves the poison
of any disease in a very short time.
Infection can only be preserved in
confinement, as in close vessels or
packages of goods. The walls of
an infected house will be cleansed
by the action of air in a very few
days, so as to be perfectly harmless.
During the six weeks suspension of
the plague in London, where was
the infection concealed to preserve
it from air and frost?

“Was the fomes shut up by de-
sign for a few weeks, and then set
at liberty? Had the persons who
were first seized in February, any
access to the infected houses or
clothes of those who died in De-
cember? Is this probable? There
is no suggestion of this sort.

“Then, again, another interval
of several weeks elapsed from the
death of those in February, before
others were seized. It is not solely
improbable; but I aver, that the
fomes or infecting principle of no
disease whatever, can be suspended
in a state of inaction, in the open
air, and afterwards give rise to
disease. Unless, therefore, it can
be proved that the persons who
died in April had access to infec-
tion, which had been closely con-
fined from the air, they could never
have received the disease from the
virus generated in February or De-
cember. Now it appears from the
statement, that the persons seized in
February lived in a different part
of the city from those who died in
December, and no suggestion that
they had an intercourse with any
infected object.

“But the last sentence of the
statement disproves fully all asser-
tions and suspicions respecting in-
fection. It seems that when the
disease showed itself in spring, it
seized one here, and another there,
in scattered situations, ‘without
any certain proof of their having
infected each other.’ This is

―113―

usually the case in the plague, and
in the yellow fever, in the ulcerous
sore throat, the dysentery, and
other contagious, epidemic diseases.
The whole mystery is, that any
disease will first seize the constitu-
tions least capable of resisting that
state of air from which the disease
proceeds. One person will sustain
a vitiated air for one day only,
another for two days, and a third
for a week, before his constitution
yields to the destructive principle.
It is precisely with the access of the
plague, in a city, as with a com-
pany of men going from a healthy
situation into a marshy place: one
man will be seized very speedily
with the ague and fever, another
will sustain his health for a week or
two, and some, perhaps, escape
unaffected. This example explains
the phenomena which attend the
invasion of pestilence, as related
by Evagrius, Diemerbroeck, and
others, and which will be more
fully discussed in a subsequent sec-
tion.

“The account, therefore, of the
origin of the plague in London in
1665, not only does not prove the
disease to have proceeded from im-
ported fomes, but actually demon-
strates the impossibility of the fact.

“But we have better evidence
than the popular accounts afford us,
that the disease was generated in the
city of London. Sydenham has
left facts on record which place this
point beyond controversy.

“After describing the multiplied
diseases of increased malignity which
prevailed in London from 1661 to
1665, and which swelled greatly
the bills of mortality in that city, he
informs us that in May, 1665, he
was called to assist a woman of a
sanguine habit, who was seized
with violent fever and frequent
vomitings. He was surprised at
the singularity of the symptoms,
and puzzled to know how to treat
the disease. The woman died the

14th day. He observed her face,
during the fever, to be red; and
that, a little before her death, a few
drops of blood issued from her nose.
These, and other circumstances,
suggested to him the use of bleeding,
and his next patient recovered.

“This species of malignant fever
soon spread, and towards the close of
May and beginning of June, be-
came epidemic. Soon after ap-
peared the true plague, with its cha-
racteristic symptoms. After stat-
ing these facts, Sydenham says,
'Whether the fever under con-
sideration deserves to be entitled a
plague, I dare not positively affirm;
but this I know by experience, that
all who were then seized with the
true plague, attended with all its
peculiar concomitants, and for some
time afterwards, in my neighbour-
hood, had the same train of symp-
toms, both in the beginning and
through the course of the disease.’

“He then observes that he at-
tended some persons with the true
plague, and afterwards he saw se-
veral cases of a similar fever.

See chap. ii. sect. 2.

“Had not the faculty been
blinded to truth by their theory of
specific contagion, it would not have
been possible so long to overlook
the progressiveness of the plague,
which not only Sydenham, but
many physicians of the 16th and
17th centuries observed and re-
corded.

“The malignant diseases which
prevailed from 1661 to 1664,
marked a pestilential state of air in
London. We now know what
Sydenham could not know, that
this unhealthy state of air extended
not only over Europe, but over
Persia and America. But the ma-
lignant fever which appeared in
May, as described by Sydenham,
was the first stage of the plague, or
mild form of the disease, which
always precedes that state of it
which is characterized by bubos.

―114―

This form of the disease appears
before the season or state of the at-
mosphere is advanced sufficiently
to give the destructive principle its
full force.

“The same species of fever pre-
ceded the terrible plague in Ve-
nice and in Naples, as before relat-
ed; and this is always the cause of
uncertainty and controversy, re-
specting the nature of the disease,
at its commencement. And it is
remarkable that this milder form of
the plague often rages for many
months before the disease arrives
to its crisis. Thus, in London,
the pestilential principle produced a
few cases of real plague, in the
winter of 1664-5. The cases must
have occurred in constitutions more
irritable, or susceptible of the cause,
than bodies in general; or the per-
sons must have been exposed to the
action of powerful local causes,
or to extreme debility. The severe
frost doubtless suspended the ope-
ration of the pestilential principle—
but on the opening of spring, the
operation began, and proceeded,
from the malignant epidemic of
May, to produce the most deadly
effects.

“It has been alleged, and gene-
rally admitted, that the plague was
introduced into Amsterdam, in
1663, by a vessel from the Mediter-
ranean. It is probable that if this
question could be fully canvassed,
the popular belief would appear to
have had no better foundation
than many opinions in America, in
regard to the importation of the
yellow fever, which are proved to
rest merely on conjectures, suppo-
sitions, and vague reports. But in
regard to the origin of the pesti-
lence in Holland, in this instance,
it is wholly immaterial whether
popular opinion was well founded
or not; for we have the express au-
thority of Diemerbroeck, that an-
terior to the arrival of the ship,
with the supposed infection, the

plague broke out in Heusden, a
town on a branch of the Meuse,
surrounded by a morass, not a ma-
ritime place. Besides, the spotted
fever, which precedes the plague, and
turns into it, had been prevailing in
all parts of Holland in the preced-
ing year. The pestilence, therefore,
originated in Holland, before the in-
fection arrived; and the tales of im-
portation vanish in smoke.

“According to the bills of mor-
tality, London lost upwards of
68,000 inhabitants by the plague
in 1665, and more than 28,000 by
other diseases. As the 28,000
deaths by common diseases must
have occurred mostly in the six
first months of the year, before the
plague raged, this circumstance
shows what a great increase of mor-
tality preceded the plague. With
such evidence before their eyes,
how can discerning men look
abroad for the sources of the ma-
lady!

“It should also be remarked that
this calamity among the human
race, was preceded by a great mor-
tality among cattle in 1664.

“It must not pass unobserved,
that the summer of 1665, in Eng-
land, was very temperate, the wea-
ther fine and the fruits good. All
the writers of that day agree, that
no cause of pestilence could be ob-
served in the visible qualities of the
season.

“This was the last plague that
has appeared in London, or in
Great-Britain. The disappearance
of the plague in that and other
countries, is a most consoling fact,
and one that has not a little engag-
ed the minds of philosophic men,
to discover the cause. The causes
usually assigned are, the destruction
of the city by fire in 1666, the
more airy, convenient construction
of the modern city, the introduc-
tion of fresh water, with more
cleanliness, and improved habits
of living.

―115―

“These reasons would have
more weight in my mind, if the
other large cities in England, in
France, Spain, Holland, and Ger-
many, which have neither been
burnt nor improved in their gene-
ral structure, had not also escaped
the ravages of pestilence. But as
the plague has not visited Paris and
Amsterdam, which retain their
ancient construction, no more
than London, which has been im-
proved, we must resort to other
circumstances for the causes of this
exemption.”

Close attention to an abstruse
subject, and to the arguments on
one side of a controversy, is apt to
generate strong convictions, and to
make us suspect the candour, pe-
netration and knowledge of our ad-
versaries. We are in danger of
changing compassion for the errors
of others, into contempt of their
understanding, or abhorrence of
their motives; and, instead of con-
centering all our energies in argu-
ment, or disarming prejudice and
opposition by the mildness of our
treatment, by conciliation and gen-
tleness of manners, we are likely to
deal too much in sarcasm and in-
vective. Instead of weakening the
prepossessions that fight against us,
and gaining at least a candid audi-
ence to our reasonings, we are mere-
ly heightening these hostile prepos-
sessions, and irritating the pride of
our antagonists. He that is railed
at and despised for his opinions,
will be sure to hold them faster
than ever; and whatever be the
benefits of truth, its advocates are
in reality counteracting and frus-
trating their own efforts, and in-
crease the number and obstinacy of
their foes, infinitely more by their
invectives than they lessen it by
their raticionation.

These errors in controversy are
to be deplored in proportion to the
benefits flowing from agreement in
opinion. The bickerings and ani-

mosities of disputants, respecting
the origin of epidemics, is a subject
of particular regret; and we are
sincerely sorry to observe, in the
work before us, so many proofs of
a contemptuous spirit. We are
not qualified to say whether the ad-
vocates for importation and con-
tagion are right or wrong in their
belief, but we may venture to
affirm, that the imputations of pue-
rile inconsistency, vulgar credulity,
and childish folly, can only tend to
render their belief more strong, and
their opposition more strenuous.

(To be continued.)