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.
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.”