[846] He was under the tutelage of John Churchill, duke of Marlborough, who does not give a name to the malady (Coxe’s Life of Marlborough). Dr James Johnstone, junr., of Worcester, in his Treatise on the Malignant Angina, 1779, p. 78, claims the death of the Duke of Gloucester as from that cause, on the evidence of Bishop Kennet’s account.
[847] In the Gentleman’s Magazine, under the dates.
[848] A Direct Method of ordering and curing People of that Loathsome Disease the Smallpox, being the twenty years’ practical experience of John Lamport alias Lampard, London, 1685. The writer was probably an empiric, “Practitioner in Chyrurgery and Physick,” dwelling at Havant, and attending the George at Chichester on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, the Half Moon at Petersfield on Saturdays. He says: “One great cause of this disease being so mortal in the country is because the infection doth make many physicians backward to visit such patients, either for fear of taking the disease themselves or transferring the infection to others.” He has another fling at the regular faculty: “Do not run madding to Dr Dunce or his assistance to be let bloud.” Empirics, although they were commonly right about blood-letting, were under the suspicion of not speaking the truth about their cures.
[849] Macaulay, History of England, IV. 532. The moving passage on the former horrors of smallpox, à propos of the death of Queen Mary in 1694, is familiar to most, but it may be cited once more in the context of a professional history: “That disease, over which science has since achieved a succession of glorious and beneficent victories, was then the most terrible of all the ministers of death. The havoc of the plague had been far more rapid: but plague had visited our shores only once or twice within living memory; and the smallpox was always present, filling the churchyards with corpses, tormenting with constant fears all whom it had not yet stricken, leaving on those whose lives it spared the hideous traces of its power, turning the babe into a changeling at which the mother shuddered, and making the eyes and cheeks of the betrothed maiden objects of horror to the lover.” It is not given to us all to write like this; but it is possible that the loss of picturesqueness may be balanced by a gain of accuracy and correctness.
[850] Kellwaye, u. s., 1593.
[851] Dr Richard Holland in 1730 (A Short View of the Smallpox, p. 75), says: “A lady of distinction told me that she and her three sisters had their faces saved in a bad smallpox by wearing light silk masks during the distemper.”
[852] As I do not intend to come back to the subject of pockmarked faces, I shall add here that I have found nothing in medical writings of the 18th century, nor in its fiction or memoirs, to show that pockpitting was more than an occasional blemish of the countenance. At that time most had smallpox in infancy or childhood, when the chances of permanent marking would be less. The disappearance of pockpitted faces was discovered long ago. The report of the National Vaccine Board for 1822 says: “We confidently appeal to all who frequent theatres and crowded assemblies to admit that they do not discover in the rising generation any longer that disfigurement of the human face which was obvious everywhere some years since.” The members of this board were probably seniors who remembered the 18th century; and it is quite true that the first quarter of the 19th century was singularly free from smallpox in England except in the epidemic of 1817-19. But the above passage became stereotyped in the reports: exactly the same phrase, appealing to what they all remembered “some years since,” was used in the report for 1825, a year which had more smallpox in London than any since the 18th century, and again in the report for 1837, the first year of an epidemic which caused forty thousand deaths in England and Wales. These stereotyped reminiscences are apt to be as lasting a blemish as the pockholes themselves.
[853] Collinson, Hist. of Somerset, III. 226, citing Aubrey’s Miscellanies, 33.
[854] Blomefield, Hist. of Norfolk, III. 417.
[855] Thoresby, Ducatus Leodiensis, ed. Whitaker. App. p. 151.