University of Virginia Library

18. CHAPTER XVIII.
HISTORIC EPIDEMICS.

A short history of the principal epidemics, including as it does the description of anomalous diseases, many of which are now extinct, and the valuable knowledge which finally led to their extinction, the extraordinary mortalities which these epidemics caused, and many other associate points of interest would seem fitting to close the observations gathered in this volume. As the illustrious Hecker says, in the history of every epidemic, from the earliest times, the spirit of inquiry was always aroused to learn the machinery of such stupendous engines of destruction; and even in the earliest times there was neither deficiency in courage nor in zeal for investigation. "When the glandular plague first made its appearance as a universal epidemic, whilst the more pusillanimous, haunted by visionary fears, shut themselves up in their closets, some physicians at Constantinople, astonished at the phenomena opened the boils of the deceased. The like has occurred both in ancient and modern times, not without favorable results for Science; nay, more mature views excited an eager desire to become acquainted with similar or still greater visitations among the ancients, but, as later ages have always been fond of referring to Grecian antiquity, the learned of those times, from a partial and meagre predilection, were contented with the descriptions of Thucydides, even where nature had revealed, in infinite diversity, the workings of her powers.''

There cannot but be a natural interest in every medical mind to-day in the few descriptions given of the awful ravages of the epidemics which, fortunately, in our enlightened sanitary era, have entirely disappeared. In the history of such epidemics the name of Hecker stands out so prominently that any remarks on this subject must necessarily, in some measure, find their origin in his writings, which include exhaustive histories of the black death, the dancing mania, and the sweating sickness. Few historians have considered worthy of more than a passing note an event of such magnitude as the black death, which destroyed millions of the human race in the fourteenth century and was particularly dreadful in England. Hume has given but a single paragraph to it and others have been equally brief. Defoe has given us a journal of the plague, but it is not written in a true scientific spirit; and Caius, in 1562, gave us a primitive treatise on the sweating sickness. It

is due to the translation of Hecker's "Epidemics of the Middle Ages'' by Babbington, made possible through the good offices of the Sydenham Society, that a major part of the knowledge on this subject of the English-reading populace has been derived.

The Black Death, or, as it has been known, the Oriental plague, the bubonic plague, or in England, simply the plague, and in Italy, "la Mortalega'' (the great mortality) derived its name from the Orient; its inflammatory boils, tumors of the glands, and black spots, indicative of putrid decomposition, were such as have been seen in no other febrile disease. All the symptoms were not found in every case, and in many cases one symptom alone preceded death. Although afflicted with all the manifestations of the plague, some patients recovered. According to Hecker the symptoms of cephalic affliction were seen; many patients were stupefied and fell into a deep sleep, or became speechless from palsy of the tongue, while others remained sleepless and without rest. The fauces and tongue were black and as if suffused with blood; no beverage could assuage the burning thirst, so that suffering continued without alleviation until death, which many in their despair accelerated with their own hands. Contagion was evident, for attendants caught the disease from their parents and friends, and many houses were emptied of their inhabitants. In the fourteenth century this affection caused still deeper sufferings, such as had not been hitherto experienced. The organs of respiration became the seats of a putrid inflammation, blood was expectorated, and the breath possessed a pestiferous odor. In the West an ardent fever, accompanied by an evacuation of blood, proved fatal in the first three days. It appears that buboes and inflammatory boils did not at first appear, but the disease in the form of carbuncular affection of the lungs (anthrax artigen) caused the fatal issue before the other symptoms developed. Later on in the history of the plague the inflammatory boils and buboes in the groins and axillæ were recognized at once as prognosticating a fatal issue.

The history of this plague extends almost to prehistoric times. There was a pest in Athens in the fifth century before Christ. There was another in the second century, A. D., under the reign of Marcus Aurelius, and again in the third century, under the reign of the Gauls; following this was the terrible epidemic of the sixth century, which, after having ravaged the territory of the Gauls, extended westward. In 542 a Greek historian, Procopius, born about the year 500, gives a good description of this plague in a work, "Pestilentia Gravissima,'' so called in the Latin translation. Dupouy in "Le Moyen Age Médical,'' *[314] says that it commenced in the village of Peleuse, in Egypt, and followed a double course, one branch going to Alexandria and the other to Palestine. It reached Constantinople in the Spring of 543, and produced the greatest devastation wherever it appeared. In the course of the succeeding half century this epidemic became pandemic and spread over all the inhabited earth. The epidemic lasted four months in

Constantinople, from 5000 to 10,000 people dying each day. In his "History of France,'' from 417 to 591, Gregorius speaks of a malady under the name inguinale which depopulated the Province of Arles. In another passage this illustrious historian of Tours says that the town of Narbonne was devastated by a maladie des aines. We have records of epidemics in France from 567 to 590, in which bubonic symptoms were a prominent feature. About the middle of the fourteenth century the bubonic plague made another incursion from the East. In 1333, fifteen years before the plague appeared in Europe, there were terrible droughts in China followed by enormous floods in which thousands of people perished. There are traditions of a plague in Tche in 1334, following a drought, which is said to have carried off about 5,000,000 people. During the fifteen years before the appearance of the plague in Europe there were peculiar atmospheric phenomena all over the world, besides numerous earthquakes. From the description of the stinking atmosphere of Europe itself at this time it is quite possible that part of the disease came, not from China, but originated in Southern Europe itself. From China the route of caravans ran to the north of the Caspian Sea, through Asia, to Tauris. Here ships were ready to take the produce of the East to Constantinople, the capital of commerce, and the medium of communication between Europe, Asia, and Africa. Other caravans went from Europe to Asia Minor and touched at the cities south of the Caspian Sea, and lastly there were others from Bagdad through Arabia to Egypt; the maritime communication on the Red Sea to Arabia and Egypt was also not inconsiderable. In all these directions contagion found its way, though doubtless Constantinople and the harbors of Asia Minor were the chief foci of infection, whence it radiated to the most distant seaports and islands. As early as 1347 the Mediterranean shores were visited by the plague, and in January, 1348, it appeared in the south of France, the north of Italy, and also in Spain. Place after place was attacked throughout the year, and after ravishing the whole of France and Germany, the plague appeared in England, a period of three months elapsing before it reached London. The northern kingdoms were attacked in 1349, but in Russia it did not make its appearance before 1351.

As to the mortality of this fearful epidemic Dupony considers that in the space of four years more than 75,000,000 fell victims, that is, about half of the population of the countries visited. Hecker estimates that from 1347 to 1351, 25,000,000 people died, or one-quarter of the total population of Europe. It was reported to Pope Clement that throughout the East, probably with the exception of China, nearly 24,000,000 people had fallen victims to the plague. Thirteen millions are said to have died in China alone. Constantinople lost two-thirds of its population. When the plague was at its greatest violence Cairo lost daily from 10,000 to 15,000, as many as modern plagues have carried off during their whole course. India was depopulated. Tartary, Mesopotamia,

Syria, Armenia, and Arabia were covered with dead bodies. In this latter country Arabian historians mention that Maara el nooman, Schisur, and Harem in some unaccountable manner remained free. The shores of the Mediterranean were ravaged and ships were seen on the high seas without sailors. In "The Decameron'' Boccaccio gives a most graphic description of the plague and states that in Florence, in four months, 100,000 perished; before the calamity it was hardly supposed to contain so many inhabitants. According to Hecker, Venice lost 100,000; London, 100,000; Paris, 50,000; Siena, 70,000; Avignon, 60,000; Strasburg, 16,000; Norwich, 51,100. Dupony says that in one month there were 56,000 victims in Marseilles, and at Montpellier three-quarters of the population and all the physicians were stricken with the epidemic.

Johanna of Burgundy, wife of King Philip VI. of Valois; Johanna II., Queen of Navarre, granddaughter of Philippe le Bel; Alphonse XI. of Castile, and other notable persons perished. All the cities of England suffered incredible losses. Germany seems to have been particularly spared; according to a probable calculation, only about 1,250,000 dying. Italy was most severely visited, and was said to have lost most of its inhabitants. In the north of Europe two of the brothers of Magnus, King of Sweden, died; and in Westgothland alone 466 priests died. The plague showed no decrease in the northern climates of Iceland and Greenland, and caused great havoc in those countries.

The moral effect of such a great pandemic plague can be readily surmised. The mental shock sustained by all nations during the prevalence of the black plague is beyond parallel and description. An awful sense of contrition and repentance seized Christians of every community. They resolved to forsake their vices, and to make restitution for past offenses; hence extreme religious fanaticism held full sway throughout Europe. The zeal of the penitents stopped at nothing. The so-called Brotherhood of the Cross, otherwise known as the Order of Flagellants, which had arisen in the thirteenth century, but was suppressed by the mandates and strenuous efforts of the Church, was revived during the plague, and numbers of these advocates of self-chastisement roamed through the various countries on their great pilgrimages. Their power increased to such an extent that the Church was in considerable danger, for these religious enthusiasts gained more credit among the people, and operated more strongly on their minds than the priests from whom they so entirely withdrew that they even absolved each other. Their strength grew with such rapidity, and their numbers increased to such an extent daily, that the State and the Church were forced to combine for their suppression. Degeneracy, however, soon crept in, crimes were committed, and they went beyond their strength in attempting the performance of miracles. One of the most fearful consequences of this frenzy was the persecution of the Jews. This alien race was given up to the merciless fury and cruelty of the populace.

The persecution of the Jews commenced in September and October, 1348, at Chillon on Lake Geneva, where criminal proceedings were instituted against them on the mythic charge of poisoning the public wells. These persecuted people were summoned before sanguinary tribunals, beheaded and burned in the most fearful manner. At Strasburg 2000 Jews were burned alive in their own burial-ground, where a large scaffold had been erected, their wealth being divided among the people. In Mayence 12,000 Jews were said to have been put to a cruel death. At Eslingen the whole Jewish community burned themselves in their synagogue, and mothers were often seen throwing their children on the pile, to prevent them from being baptized, and then precipitating themselves into the flames. The cruel and avaricious desires of the monarchs against these thrifty and industrious people added fuel to the flames of the popular passion, and even a fanatic zeal arose among the Jews to perish as martyrs to their ancient religion. When we sum up the actual effects as well as the after effects of the black death, we are appalled at the magnitude of such a calamity, the like of which the world had never seen before.

In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries the plague was generally diffused throughout Europe, and in the latter half of the seventeenth century a final Occidental incursion of the plague took place. From 1603 to 1604 over 30,000 people perished in London from the plague, and in 1625 the mortality in that city amounted to 35,417 persons. But the great plague of London did not begin until 1664. In this plague the patient at first became sensible of great weariness and fatigue, had slight chills, nausea, vomiting, vertigo, and pains in the loins. The mental disturbance rapidly increased, and stupor and delirium ensued. The face was alternately flushed and pallid, and a sense of constriction was experienced in the region of the heart. Darting pains were felt all over the body, soon followed by the enlargement of the lymphatic glands, or by the formation of carbuncles in various parts of the body. About the third day the tongue became dry and brown, and the gums, tongue, and teeth were covered with a dark fur, and the excretions became offensive; paralysis intervened; ecchymosed patches or stripes due to extravasation appeared on the skin; finally the pulse sank, the body grew cold and clammy, delirium or coma seized the victim, and in five or six days, sometimes in two or three, the painful struggle was at an end.

It was supposed that the disease originated in the Orient and was brought to London from Holland. In his "Journal of the Plague in London'' Defoe describes its horrors, and tells of the dead-cart which went through the streets gathering the victims. A few extracts from Pepys's "Diary,'' the evidence of an eye-witness and a contemporary, show the ghastly aspects of this terrible visitation. On August 31st he writes: "In the City, this week, died 7496, and of them 6102 died of the plague. But it is found that the true number of the dead this week is nearer 10,000; partly from the poor who cannot be

taken care of through the greatness of the number, and partly from the Quakers and others that will not have any bell rung for them.'' According to Adams, John Evelyn noted in his "Kalendarium'':—"Sept. 7th.— Near 10,000 now died weekly; however, I went all along the City and suburbs from Kent street to St. James's, a dismal passage, and dangerous to see so many coffins exposed in the streets; the streets thin of people, the shops shut up, and all in silence, no one knowing whose turn might be next.''

As the cold weather came on the plague diminished in intensity and the people regained their confidence and returned to the city. According to Adams, [18.1] in the first week of March, 1666, deaths by the plague had decreased to 42; and by the end of the month it was nearly extinct after carrying off about 100,000 victims. In our days we can hardly comprehend the filthy hygienic conditions under which the people in the cities lived, and it was probably to this fact that the growth and perpetuation of this plague was due.

As to the bubonic plague recently raging in Camptown, China, Mary Niles [18.2] says that it was the same disease as the great London plague, and was characterized mainly by glandular enlargement. It had not appeared in the Canton district for forty years or more, though it was endemic in Yunnan. In some places it began in the winter; and as early as January she herself found the first case in Canton in an infected house. In no case was direct contagiousness found to exist. The glands enlarged twelve hours after the fever began, and sometimes suppurated in nonfatal cases in a short time. Kitasato has recently announced the discovery of the specific cause of the bubonic plague.

Sweating Sickness.—According to Hecker, very shortly after Henry's triumphant march from Bosworth Field, and his entry into the capital on August 8, 1485, the sweating sickness began its ravages among the people of the densely populated city. According to Lord Bacon the disease began about September 21st, and lasted to the end of October, 1485. The physicians could do little or nothing for the people, and seemed to take no account of the clinical history of the disease,—in this respect not unlike the Greek physicians who for four hundred years paid no attention to small-pox because they could find no description of it in the immortal works of Galen. The causes seemed to be uncleanliness, gluttony, immoderate drinking, and also severe inundations leaving decaying vegetation. Richmond's army has been considered a factor in the germination of the seeds of pestilent disorder which broke out soon after in the camps of Litchfield, and on the banks of the Severn.

Sweating sickness was an inflammatory rheumatic fever, with great disorder of the nervous system, and was characterized by a profuse and injurious perspiration. In the English epidemic the brain, meninges, and the nerves were affected in a peculiar manner. The functions of the pneumogastric

nerves were violently disordered in this disease, as was shown by the oppressed respiration and extreme anxiety, with nausea and vomiting,—symptoms to which modern physicians attach much importance. The stupor and profound lethargy show that there was an injury to the brain, to which, in all probability, was added a stagnation of black blood in the torpid veins. Probably decomposing blood gave rise to the offensive odor of the person. The function of the lungs was considerably impaired. The petechial fever in Italy in 1505 was a form of the sweating sickness. There were visitations in 1506 and in 1515 in England. In 1517 the disease lasted full six months and reached its greatest height about six weeks after its appearance, but was apparently limited to England. Meningeal symptoms were characteristic of the third visitation of the disease. In 1528 and 1529 there was a fourth visitation which resulted in the destruction of the French Army before Naples. It is said that in 1524 a petechial fever carried off 50,000 people in Milan, and possibly this was the same disease. In 1529 the disease had spread all over Europe, attended with great mortality.

Germany, France, and Italy were visited equally. The famine in Germany, at this time, is described by authorities in a tone of deep sympathy. Swabia, Lorraine, Alsace, and provinces on the border of the lower Rhine, were frightfully affected, so that the disease reached the same heights there as in France. In England Henry VIII. endeavored to avoid the epidemic by continual traveling, until at last he grew tired of so unsettled a life and determined to await his destiny at Tytynhangar. It was not the inhabitants of the land alone who were affected, but even fish and the fowls of the air sickened. According to Schiller, in the neighborhood of Freiburg in Breisgau, dead birds were found scattered under the trees with boils as large as peas under their wings,—indicating among them a disease, and this extended far beyond the southern districts of the Rhine. The disease was undoubtedly of a miasmatic infectious nature, as was proved by its rapid spread and the occasional absence of a history of contagion. It was particularly favored in its development by high temperature and humidity.

The moral effect of the sweating sickness, similar to that of the black plague, was again to increase religious fanaticism and recreate the zeal of persecution.

On the 15th of April, 1551, there was an outbreak of the fifth and last epidemic of sweating fever in Shrewsbury, on the Severn. With stinking mists it gradually spread all over England, and on the 9th of July it reached London. The mortality was very considerable. The English residents were particularly susceptible, foreigners being comparatively exempt. The epidemic terminated about the 30th of September. Since that time the sweating sickness has never reappeared in England; but in the beginning of the eighteenth century a disease very similar in symptoms and course broke out in Picardy, in Northern France. Toward the end of the century it spread

to the South of France, and since that time has appeared epidemically, 195 distinct outbreaks having been observed in the course of one hundred and sixty-nine years, from 1618 to 1787. The disease has frequently appeared in Italy since 1755, and in various parts of Germany since 1801. In Belgium it has been observed in a few places within the present century (Rohé).

Chronologic Table of the Principal Plagues.—In December, 1880, H. P. Potter, F. R. C. S., published a chronologic table of some of the principal plagues on record. [18.3] In comments on his table, Potter says that he has doubtless included mention of many plagues which, although described under that name, are probably a dissimilar disease, writers having applied the terms pestilential and pestilent in a generic sense to diseases specifically different. It must also be remembered that, in some cases, death must have been due to famine, want, and privation, which are so frequently coexistent with pestilence. Following the idea of Hecker, the dancing manias have been included in this table.

TABLE OF PLAGUES.—Continued.

[Description: More of the table]

TABLE OF PLAGUES.—Continued.

[Description: More of the table]

TABLE OF PLAGUES.—Continued.

[Description: End of the table]

Small-pox.—From certain Chinese records it appears that small-pox, or a disease with similar symptoms, was known in China before the Christian era, and it was supposed to have been known at a very early period in India. Most likely it was introduced into Europe in the second century by a Roman army returning from Asia. Before the sixth century, the terrible century of the great plague, there seem to be no records of small-pox or other eruptive fevers. Neither Hippocrates, Galen, nor the Greek physicians who practiced at Rome, mention small-pox, although it is now believed that the Emperor Marcus Aurelius died of this disease. According to Dupony, the first document mentioning variola was in 570 A. D., by Marius, a scholar of Avenches, in Switzerland. ("Anno 570, morbus validus cum profluvio ventris, et variola, Italiam Galliamque valde affecit.'') Ten years later Gregory of Tours describes an epidemic with all the symptoms of small-pox in the fifth reign of King Childebert (580); it started in the region of Auvergne, which was inundated by a great flood; he also describes a similar epidemic in Touraine in 582. Rhazes, or as the Arabs call him, Abu Beer Mohammed Ibn Zacaríyá Ar-Razi, in the latter part of the ninth century wrote a most celebrated work on small-pox and measles, which is the earliest accurate description of these diseases, although Rhazes himself mentions several writers who had previously described them, and who had formulated rules for their cure. He explained these diseases by the theory of fermentation, and recommended the cooling treatment. Adams remarks that although it is probable that small-pox existed for ages in Hindoostan and China, being completely isolated

in those countries from the European world, it was not introduced into the West until the close of the seventh century. Imported into Egypt by the Arabians, it followed in the tracks of their conquests, and was in this way propagated over Europe. The foregoing statement disagrees with Dupony and others. It is well known that small-pox was prevalent in Europe before Rhazes's description of it, and after the Crusades it spread over Central and Western Europe, but did not extend to the northern countries until some years later. In 1507 the Spaniards introduced it into San Domingo, and in 1510 into Mexico, where it proved a more fatal scourge than the swords of Cortez and his followers, for according to Robertson it swept away in Mexico three millions and a half of people. In 1707 it appeared in Iceland, and carried off more than one-fourth of its inhabitants; in 1733, according to Collinson, it almost depopulated Greenland. The Samoyeds, Ostiaks, and other natives of Eastern Siberia, have frequently suffered from devastating epidemics. In Kamchatka the disease was introduced in 1767, and many villages were completely depopulated. According to Moore, at the beginning of the eighteenth century nearly one-fourteenth of the population died from small-pox in England, and at the end of the century the number of the victims had increased to one-tenth. In the last century the statement was made in England that one person in every three was badly pock-marked. The mortality of the disease at the latter half of the eighteenth century was about three to every thousand inhabitants annually. India has always been a fertile ground for the development of small-pox, and according to Rohé [18.4] the mortality from small-pox has been exceedingly great for the past twenty years. From 1866 to 1869, 140,000 persons died in the Presidencies of Bombay and Calcutta, and several years later, from 1873 to 1876, 700,000 died from this disease. China, Japan, and the neighboring countries are frequently visited with small-pox, and nearly all the inhabitants of Corea are said to bear evidences of the disease. In the Marquesas Islands one-fourth of the inhabitants had fallen victims to the disease since 1863. It was first introduced into the Sandwich Islands in 1853, and it then carried off eight per cent. of the natives. Australia, Tasmania, New Zealand, and the Fiji Archipelago have to the present day remained exempt from small-pox; although it has been carried to Australia in vessels, rigorous quarantine methods have promptly checked it. On the American continent it was believed that small-pox was unknown until the conquest of Mexico. It has been spread through various channels to nearly all the Indian tribes of both North and South America, and among these primitive people, unprotected by inoculation or vaccination, its ravages have been frightful.

That small-pox a disease so general and so fatal at one time—has, through the ingenuity of man, in civilized communities at least, become almost extinct, is one of the greatest triumphs of medicine.

Inoculation was known in Europe about 1700, and in 1717 the famous letter of Lady Montagu from Adrianople was issued, containing in part the following statements:—

"The small-pox, so fatal and so general amongst us, is here entirely harmless, by the invention of ingrafting, which is the term they give it. There is a set of old women who make it their business to perform the operation every autumn in the month of September, when the great heat is abated. People send to one another to know if any of their family has a mind to have the small-pox; they make parties for this purpose, and when they are met, the old woman comes with a nut-shell full of the matter of the best sort of small-pox, and asks what vein you please to have opened. She immediately rips open that you offer her with a large needle, and puts into the vein as much matter as can lie upon the head of her needle, and after that binds up the little wound with a hollow shell, and in this manner opens four or five veins.''

Soon after this letter Lady Montagu had her son inoculated in Turkey, and four years later her daughter was to be the first subject inoculated in England. She made rapid progress notwithstanding the opposition of the medical profession, and the ignorance and credulity of the public. The clergy vituperated her for the impiety of seeking to control the designs of Providence. Preaching in 1722, the Rev. Edward Massey, for example, affirmed that Job's distemper was confluent small-pox, and that he had been inoculated by the Devil. Lady Montagu, however, gained many supporters among the higher classes. In 1721 Mead was requested by the Prince of Wales to superintend the inoculation of some condemned criminals, the Prince intending afterward to continue the practice in his own family; the experiment was entirely successful, and the individuals on whom it was made afterward received their liberty (Adams).

According to Rohé, inoculation was introduced into this country in 1721 by Dr. Zabdiel Boylston of Boston, who had his attention directed to the practice by Cotton Mather, the eminent divine. During 1721 and 1722 286 persons were inoculated by Boylston and others in Massachusetts, and six died. These fatal results rendered the practice unpopular, and at one time the inoculation hospital in Boston was closed by order of the Legislature. Toward the end of the century an inoculating hospital was again opened in that city.

Early in the eighteenth century inoculation was extensively practiced by Dr. Adam Thomson of Maryland, who was instrumental in spreading a knowledge of the practice throughout the Middle States.

Despite inoculation, as we have already seen, during the eighteenth century the mortality from small-pox increased. The disadvantage of inoculation was that the person inoculated was affected with a mild form of small-pox, which however, was contagious, and led to a virulent form in uninoculated persons.

As universal inoculation was manifestly impracticable, any half-way measure was decidedly disadvantageous, and it was not until vaccination from cow-pox was instituted that the first decided check on the ravages of small-pox was made.

Vaccination was almost solely due to the persistent efforts of Dr. Edward Jenner, a pupil of the celebrated John Hunter, born May 17, 1749.

In his comments on the life of Edward Jenner, Adams, in "The Healing Art,'' has graphically described his first efforts to institute vaccination, as follows: "To the ravages of small-pox, and the possibility of finding some preventive Jenner had long given his attention. It is likely enough that his thoughts were inclined in this direction by the remembrance of the sufferings inflicted upon himself by the process of inoculation. Through six weeks that process lingered. He was bled, purged, and put on a low diet, until `this barbarism of human veterinary practice' had reduced him to a skeleton. He was then exposed to the contagion of the small-pox. Happily, he had but a mild attack; yet the disease itself and the inoculating operations, were probably the causes of the excessive sensitiveness which afflicted him through life.

"When Jenner was acting as a surgeon's articled pupil at Sudbury, a young countrywoman applied to him for advice. In her presence some chance allusion was made to the universal disease, on which she remarked: `I shall never take it, for I have had the cow-pox.' The remark induced him to make inquiries; and he found that a pustular eruption, derived from infection, appeared on the hands of milkers, communicated from the teats of cows similarly disordered; this eruption was regarded as a safeguard against small-pox. The subject occupied his mind so much that he frequently mentioned it to John Hunter and the great surgeon occasionally alluded to it in his lectures, but never seems to have adopted Jenner's idea that it might suggest some efficacious substitute for inoculation. Jenner, however, continued his inquiries, and in 1780 he confided to his friend, Edward Gardner, his hope and prayer that it might be his work in life to extirpate smallpox by the mode of treatment now so familiar under the name of vaccination.

"At the meetings of the Alveston and Radborough Medical Clubs, of both of which Jenner was a member, he so frequently enlarged upon his favorite theme, and so repeatedly insisted upon the value of cow-pox as a prophylactic, that he was denounced as a nuisance, and in a jest it was even proposed that if the orator further sinned, he should then and there be expelled. Nowhere could the prophet find a disciple and enforce the lesson upon the ignorant; like most benefactors of mankind he had to do his work unaided. Patiently and perseveringly he pushed forward his investigations. The aim he had in view was too great for ridicule to daunt, or indifference to discourage him. When he surveyed the mental and physical agony inflicted

by the disease, and the thought occurred to him that he was on the point of finding a sure and certain remedy, his benevolent heart overflowed with unselfish gladness. No feeling of personal ambition, no hope or desire of fame, sullied the purity of his noble philanthropy. `While the vaccine discovery was progressive,' he writes, `the joy at the prospect before me of being the instrument destined to take away from the world one of its greatest calamities, blended with the fond hope of enjoying independence, and domestic peace and happiness, were often so excessive, that, in pursuing my favorite subject among the meadows, I have sometimes found myself in a kind of reverie. It is pleasant to recollect that those reflections always ended in devout acknowledgments to that Being from whom this and all other blessings flow.' At last an opportunity occurred of putting his theory to the test. On the 14th day of May, 1796,—the day marks an epoch in the Healing Art, and is not less worthy of being kept as a national thanksgiving than the day of Waterloo—the cow-pox matter or pus was taken from the hand of one Sarah Holmes, who had been infected from her master's cows, and was inserted by two superficial incisions into the arms of James Phipps, a healthy boy of about eight years of age. The cow-pox ran its ordinary course without any injurious effect, and the boy was afterward inoculated for the small-pox,— happily in vain. The protection was complete; and Jenner thenceforward pursued his experiments with redoubled ardor. His first summary of them, after having been examined and approved by several friends, appeared under the title of `An Inquiry into the Causes and Effects of the Variolæ Vaccinæ,' in June, 1798. In this important work he announced the security against the small-pox afforded by the true cow-pox, and proceeded to trace the origin of that disease in the cow to a similar affection of the horse's heel.''

This publication produced a great sensation in the medical world, and vaccination spread so rapidly that in the following summer Jenner had the indorsement of the majority of the leading surgeons of London. Vaccination was soon introduced into France, where Napoleon gave another proof of his far-reaching sagacity by his immediate recognition of the importance of vaccination. It was then spread all over the continent; and in 1800 Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse of Boston introduced it into America; in 1801, with his sons-in-law, President Jefferson vaccinated in their own families and those of their friends nearly 200 persons. Quinan [18.5] has shown that vaccination was introduced into Maryland at least simultaneously with its introduction into Massachusetts. De Curco introduced vaccination into Vienna, where its beneficial results were displayed on a striking scale; previously the average annual mortality had been about 835; the number now fell to 164 in 1801, 61 in 1802, and 27 in 1803. After the introduction of vaccination in England the mortality was reduced from nearly 3000 per million inhabitants annually to 310 per million annually. During the small-pox epidemic in

London in 1863, Seaton and Buchanan examined over 50,000 school children, and among every thousand without evidences of vaccination they found 360 with the scars of small-pox, while of every thousand presenting some evidence of vaccination, only 1.78 had any such traces of small-pox to exhibit. Where vaccination has been rendered compulsory, the results are surprising. In 1874 a law was established in Prussia that every child that had not already had small-pox must be vaccinated in the first year of its life, and every pupil in a private or public institution must be revaccinated during the year in which his or her twelfth birthday occurs. This law virtually stamped small-pox out of existence; and according to Frölich [18.6] not a single death from small-pox occurred in the German army between 1874 and 1882. Notwithstanding the arguments advanced in this latter day against vaccination, the remembrance of a few important statistic facts is all that is necessary to fully appreciate the blessing which Jenner conferred upon humanity. In the last century, besides the enormous mortality of small-pox (it was computed that, in the middle of the last century, 2,000,000 victims perished in Russia from small-pox), the marks of affliction, blindness, deafness, etc., were plain in at least one member of every family.

Asiatic cholera probably originated centuries ago in India, where it is now endemic and rages to such an extent as to destroy 750,000 inhabitants in the space of five years. There is questionable evidence of the existence of cholera to be found in the writings of some of the classic Grecian and Indian authors, almost as far back as the beginning of the Christian era. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries travelers in the East gave accounts of this disease. Sonnerat, a French traveler, describes a pestilence having all the characteristics of Asiatic cholera which prevailed in the neighborhood of Pondicherry and the Coromandel coast from 1768 to 1769, and which, within a year, carried off 60,000 of those attacked. According to Rohé, Jasper Correa, an officer in Vasco da Gama's expedition to Calicut, states that Zamorin, the chief of Calicut, lost 20,000 troops by the disease. Although cholera has frequently extended to Europe and America, its ravages have never been nearly as extensive as in the Oriental outbreaks. An excellent short historic sketch of the epidemics of the cholera observed beyond the borders of India has been given by Rohé. [18.7] In 1817 cholera crossed the boundaries of India, advancing southeasterly to Ceylon, and westerly to Mauritius, reaching the African coast in 1820. In the following two years it devastated the Chinese Empire and invaded Japan, appearing at the port of Nagasaki in 1822. It advanced into Asiatic Russia, and appeared as far east as St. Petersburg in 1830, from whence it spread north to Finland. In 1831 it passed through Germany, invading France and the western borders of Europe, entering the British Isles in 1832, and crossing the Atlantic Ocean for the first time, appeared in Canada, having been carried thence by some Irish emigrants.

From Canada it directly made its way to the United States by way of Detroit. In the same year (1832) it appeared in New York and rapidly spread along the Atlantic coast.

"During the winter of 1832 it appeared at New Orleans, and passed thence up the Mississippi Valley. Extending into the Indian country, causing sad havoc among the aborigines, it advanced westward until its further progress was stayed by the shores of the Pacific Ocean. In 1834 it reappeared on the east coast of the United States, but did not gain much headway, and in the following year New Orleans was again invaded by way of Cuba. It was again imported into Mexico in 1833. In 1835 it appeared for the first time in South America, being restricted, however, to a mild epidemic on the Guiana coast.

"In 1846 the disease again advanced beyond its natural confines, reaching Europe by way of Turkey, in 1848. In the autumn of this year it also appeared in Great Britain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United States, entering by way of New York and New Orleans. In the succeeding two years the entire extent of country east of the Rocky Mountains was invaded. During 1851 and 1852 the disease was frequently imported by emigrants, who were annually arriving in great numbers from the various infected countries of Europe. In 1853 and 1854 cholera again prevailed extensively in this country, being, however, traceable to renewed importation of infected material from abroad. In the following two years it also broke out in numerous South American States, where it prevailed at intervals until 1863. Hardly had this third great pandemic come to an end before the disease again advanced from the Ganges, spreading throughout India, and extending to China, Japan, and the East Indian Archipelago, during the years 1863 to 1865. In the latter year it reached Europe by way of Malta and Marseilles. It rapidly spread over the Continent, and in 1866 was imported into this country by way of Halifax, New York, and New Orleans. This epidemic prevailed extensively in the Western States, but produced only slight ravages on the Atlantic Coast, being kept in check by appropriate sanitary measures. In the same year (1866) the disease was also carried to South America, and invaded for the first time the states bordering on the Rio de la Plata and the Pacific coast of the Continent.

"Cholera never entirely disappeared in Russia during the latter half of the sixth decade, and in 1870 it again broke out with violence, carrying off a quarter of a million of the inhabitants before dying out in 1873. It spread from Russia into Germany and France and was imported, in 1873, into this country, entering by way of New Orleans and extending up the Mississippi Valley. None of the Atlantic coast cities suffered from this epidemic in 1873, and since that year the United States has been entirely free from the disease, with the exception of a few imported cases in New York harbor in 1887'' (and in 1893).

In 1883 an epidemic of cholera raged in Egypt and spread to many of the Mediterranean ports, and reappeared in 1885 with renewed violence. In Spain alone during this latter epidemic the total number of cases was over one-third of a million, with nearly 120,000 deaths. In 1886 cholera caused at least 100,000 deaths in Japan. In the latter part of 1886 cholera was carried from Genoa to Buenos Ayres, and crossing the Andean range invaded the Pacific coast for a second time. In Chili alone there were over 10,000 deaths from cholera in the first six months of 1887. Since then the entire Western hemisphere has been virtually free from the disease.

In 1889 there was an epidemic of cholera in the Orient; and in 1892 and 1893 it broke out along the shores of the Mediterranean, invading all the lines of commerce of Europe, Hamburg in the North and Marseilles in the South being especially affected. In the summer of 1893 a few cases appeared in New York Bay and several in New York city, but rigorous quarantine methods prevented any further spread.

Typhus fever is now a rare disease, and epidemics are quite infrequent. It has long been known under the names of hospital-fever, spotted-fever, jail-fever, camp-fever, and ship-fever, and has been the regular associate of such social disturbances as overcrowding, excesses, famine, and war. For the past eight centuries epidemics of typhus have from time to time been noticed, but invariably can be traced to some social derangement.

Yellow Fever is a disease prevailing endemically in the West Indies and certain sections of what was formerly known as the Spanish Main. Guitéras recognizes three areas of infection:—

(1) The focal zone from which the disease is never absent, including Havana, Vera Cruz, Rio, and the other various Spanish-American points.

(2) The perifocal zone, or regions of periodic epidemics, including the ports of the tropical Atlantic and Africa.

(3) The zone of accidental epidemics, between the parallels of 45° north and 35° south latitude.

In the seventeenth century Guadaloupe, Dominica, Martinique, and Barbadoes suffered from epidemics of yellow fever. After the first half of the seventeenth century the disease was prevalent all through the West Indies. It first appeared in the United States at the principal ports of Boston, Philadelphia, and Charleston, in 1693, and in 1699 it reappeared in Philadelphia and Charleston, and since that time many invasions have occurred, chiefly in the Southern States.

The epidemic of 1793 in Philadelphia, so graphically described by Matthew Carey, was, according to Osler, the most serious that has ever prevailed in any city of the Middle States. Although the population of the city was only 40,000, during the months of August, September, October, and November the mortality, as given by Carey, was 4041, of whom 3435 died in the months of September and October. During the following ten years epidemics of a lesser degree

occurred along the coast of the United States, and in 1853 the disease raged throughout the Southern States, there being a mortality in New Orleans alone of nearly 8000. In the epidemic of 1878 in the Southern States the mortality was nearly 16,000. South America was invaded for the first time in 1740, and since 1849 the disease has been endemic in Brazil. Peru and the Argentine Republic have also received severe visitations of yellow fever since 1854. In Cuba the disease is epidemic during June, July, and August, and it appears with such certainty that the Revolutionists at the present time count more on the agency of yellow fever in the destruction of the unacclimated Spanish soldiers than on their own efforts.

Leprosy is distinctly a malady of Oriental origin, and existed in prehistoric times in Egypt and Judea. It was supposed to have been brought into Europe by a Roman army commanded by Pompey, after an expedition into Palestine. Leprosy was mentioned by several authors in the Christian era. France was invaded about the second century, and from that time on to the Crusades the disease gradually increased. At this epoch, the number of lepers or ladres becoming so large, they were obliged to confine themselves to certain portions of the country, and they took for their patron St. Lazare, and small hospitals were built and dedicated to this saint. Under Louis VIII. 2000 of these hospitals were counted, and later, according to Dupony, there were 19,000 in the French kingdom. Various laws and regulations were made to prevent the spread of the contagion. In 1540 it was said that there were as many as 660 lepers in one hospital in Paris.

No mention is made in the Hippocratic writings of elephantiasis græcorum, which was really a type of leprosy, and is now considered synonymous with it. According to Rayer, some writers insist that the affection then existed under the name of the Phœnician disease. Before the time of Celsus, the poet Lucretius first speaks of elephantiasis græcorum, and assigns Egypt as the country where it occurs. Celsus gives the principal characteristics, and adds that the disease is scarcely known in Italy, but is very common in certain other countries. Galen supplies us with several particular but imperfect cases—histories of elephantiasis græcorum, with a view to demonstrate the value of the flesh of the viper, and in another review he adds that the disease is common in Alexandria. Aretæus has left a very accurate picture of the symptoms of elephantiasis græcorum; and Pliny recapitulates the principal features and tells us that the disease is indigenous in Egypt. The opinion of the contagiousness of elephantiasis græcorum which we find announced in Herodotus and Galen is more strongly insisted upon by Cælius Aurelianus who recommends isolation of those affected. Paulus ægenita discusses the disease. The Arabian writers have described elephantiasis græcorum under the name of juzam, which their translators have rendered by the word lepra. Later, Hensler, Fernel Paré, Vesalius, Horstius, Forestus, and others have discussed it.

The statistics of leprosy in Europe pale before the numbers affected in the East. The extent of its former ravages is unknown, but it is estimated that at the present day there are over 250,000 lepers in India, and the number in China is possibly beyond computation. According to Morrow, in 1889 in the Sandwich Islands there were 1100 lepers in the settlement at Molokai. Berger states that there were 100 cases at Key West; and Blanc found 40 cases at New Orleans. Cases of leprosy are not infrequently found among the Chinese on the Pacific coast, and an occasional case is seen in the large cities of this country. At the present day in Europe, where leprosy was once so well known, it is never found except in Norway and the far East.

Possibly few diseases have caused so much misery and suffering as leprosy. The banishment from all friends and relatives, the confiscation of property and seclusion from the world, coupled with poverty and brutality of treatment,—all emphasize its physical horror a thousandfold. As to the leper himself, no more graphic description can be given than that printed in The Ninteenth Century, August, 1884: "But leprosy! Were I to describe it no one would follow me. More cruel than the clumsy torturing weapons of old, it distorts, and scars, and hacks, and maims, and destroys its victim inch by inch, feature by feature, member by member, joint by joint, sense by sense, leaving him to cumber the earth and tell the horrid tale of a living death, till there is nothing left of him. Eyes, voice, nose, toes, fingers, feet, hands, one after the other are slowly deformed and rot away, until at the end of ten, fifteen, twenty years, it may be, the wretched leper, afflicted in every sense himself, and hateful to the sight, smell, hearing, and touch of others, dies, despised and the most abject of men.''

Syphilis.—Heretofore the best evidence has seemed to prove that syphilis had its origin in 1494, during the siege of Naples by Charles VIII. of France; but in later days many investigators, prominent among them Buret, have stated that there is distinct evidence of the existence of syphilis in prehistoric times. Buret finds evidence of traces of syphilis among the Chinese five thousand years ago, among the Egyptians at the time of the Pharaohs, among the Hebrews and Hindoos in biblic times, and among the Greeks and Romans after Christ. Some American writers claim to have found evidences of syphilitic disease in the skulls and other bones of the prehistoric Indian mounds, thus giving further evidence to the advocates of the American origin of syphilis. The Spaniards claimed that, returning from America in 1493, Columbus brought with him syphilis. Friend says: "One thing is remarkable; the Spaniards, upon their first expedition to America, brought home from thence this contagious disorder, and soon after carried another affection thither, the small-pox, of which the Indian Prince Montezuma died.'' The first descriptions of syphilis are given under the name of morbus gallicus, while the French in return called it morbus neapolitanus or mal d'Italie. The name of syphilis was said to have been

first given to it by a physician of Verona, in a poem describing the disease. Inspired by heroic epics Fracastor places before us the divinities of paganism, and supposes that a shepherd, whom he called Syphilus, had addressed words offensive to Apollo, and had deserted his altars. To punish him the God sent him a disease of the genitals, which the inhabitants of the country called the disease of Syphilus.

"Syphilidemque ab eo labem dixêre coloni.'' [18.8]

Buret traces the origin of the word syphilis from συν, with, and ςιλια, love, the companion of love; which means in plain language that the pox is a disease transmitted more especially by venereal relations. The first great epidemic of syphilis occurred between 1493 and 1496, and attacked all ranks, neither the Church nor the Crown being spared. The ravages of this disease were increased by the treatment with mercury which soon afterward was found in proper doses to be a specific in this disease. It is possible that the terrible manifestations of syphilis of which we read in the older writers were in a great measure due to the enormous doses of mercury. At the present day syphilis is universally prevalent. In his excellent monograph Sturgis estimated in New York, in 1873, that one out of 18 suffered from it; and White of Philadelphia pronounces the opinion that "not less than 50,000 people in that city are affected with syphilis.'' According to Rohé, on this basis Gihon estimates the number of syphilitics in the United States at one time as 2,000,000.

To-day no disease, except possibly tuberculosis, is a greater agency in augmenting the general mortality and furthering sickness than syphilis. Its hereditary features, the numerous ways in which it may be communicated outside of the performance of the sexual act, and the careful way in which it is kept from the sanitary authorities render it a scourge which, at the present day, we seem to have no method of successfully repressing.

Modern Mortality from Infectious Diseases.—As to the direct influence on the mortality of the most common infectious diseases of the present day, tuberculosis, universally prevalent, is invariably in the lead. No race or geographic situation is exempt from it. Osler mentions that in the Blood Indian Reserve of the Canadian Northwest Territories, during six years, among a population of about 2000 there were 127 deaths from pulmonary consumption. This enormous death-rate, it is to be remembered, occurred in a tribe occupying one of the finest climates of the world, among the foothills of the Rocky Mountains, a region in which consumption is extremely rare among the white population, and in which cases of tuberculosis from the Eastern provinces do remarkably well. Mayo-Smith [18.9] quotes a table illustrating the annual deaths (based on the returns from 1887 to 1891) from certain infectious diseases per 10,000 European inhabitants. The figures for each disease give a rough measure of its prevalence in different countries. The large figures as to small-pox show the absence in Italy and

Austria of vaccination; diphtheria Seems to be very fatal in Germany and Austria; Italy has a large rate for typhoid fever, and the same is true of the other fevers; France, Germany, and Austria show a very large rate for tuberculosis, while Italy has a small rate.

DEATHS FROM CERTAIN DISEASES PER 10,000 INHABITANTS.

            

COUNTRY.	SMALLPOX.	MEASLES.	SCARLET FEVER.	DIPHTHERIA.	TYPHOID FEVER.	TUBERCULOSIS.
Italy,	3.86	6.17	2.99	6.08	7.49	13.61
France (cities),	2.3	5.18	3.1	6.66	5.32	33.
England,	0.11	4.68	2.31	1.74	1.9	16.09
Ireland,	0.01	2.01	1.22	0.76	2.33	21.15
Germany (cities),	0.04	2.8	2.15	10.21	2.11	31.29
Prussia,	0.03	3.2	2.46	14.17	2.26	28.06
Austria,	4.43	5.36	5.57	13.2	5.42	37.2
Switzerland,	0.06	1.53	1.22	3.53	1.47	21.07
Belgium,	1.52	6.2	1.62	5.77	3.83	19.87
Holland,	0.02	3.93	0.38	1.45	2.5	19.21
Sweden,	0.01	2.3	3.69	3.89	2.22	. .

Based upon the Tenth Census Reports, we figure that of every 10,000 inhabitants of the United States the number of deaths for the census year from similar diseases was as follows:—

       

	Rural.	Cities.
Measles,	1.62	1.54
Scarlet Fever,	2.84	5.54
Diphtheria,	7.53	8.
Croup,	3.51	4.08
Typhoid Fever,	4.75	3.46
Tuberculosis,	16.29	28.55

The general average of deaths from small-pox was about 0.14.