From the same source may we derive the propensity in the Carthaginian armies to pestilential disorders. Carthage was a colony of Tyre; and the Tyrians were in close alliance with the Jews, during the reigns of David and Solomon, and very probably afterwards; so that from them the distemper might be communicated in such a manner as to be almost endemic; and thus hardly an army could be sent out but what would have the infection with it, breaking out with violence now and then, as occasional causes tended to give life to the contagion. It is impossible, however, from the source just mentioned to trace the plague of Athens, or the first plague in Rome; but it is very natural to suppose that the violent one which raged in Rome, during the reign of Titus, came from Jerusalem. That city had sustained a most dreadful siege, and the obstinate and wretched inhabitants had endured such calamities as have scarcely been recorded in the history of nations. Among these calamities was a pestilence, which, in all probability, would be conveyed to Rome, and there occasion the destruction already mentioned.
But what seems to render this account of the origin of the plague more probable is, that the Jews are to this day accused of propagating the disease in those countries where it is most frequent. Baron de Tott is of opinion that the plague in Constantinople originates among the Jewish dealers in old clothes; for these avaricious dealers, purchasing the infected goods, sell them indiscriminately to every one who will buy, and that without the least care taken to remove the infection from them; by which means it is no wonder to find the plague, as well as other diseases, disseminated among them in great plenty. Dr. Russel informs us, that the Jews are most liable to the plague, the most fearful of it, and the most ready to fly from the infection. The Abbe Mariti agrees in the same accusation against this unfortunate people. “The Jews (says he) purchase at a low price the goods and wares which remain when most of the family are deceased, and then store them up; which, when the plague is over, they sell at a dear rate to those will buy, and thus propagate the pestilential poison: again it kindles, and presently causes new destruction. Thus this opprobrious nation, preferring gold to life, sell the plague to mussulmen, who purchase it without fear, and sleep with it, till, renewed of itself, it hurries them to the grave.” M. Volney, though he does not mention the Jews in such express terms as Mariti and Russel, yet agrees as to the mode of its propagation in Constantinople, and the reason of its continuance in that city. “It is certain (says he) that the plague originates in Constantinople, where it is perpetuated by the absurd negligence of the Turks, which is so great, that they publicly sell the effects of persons dead of the distemper. The ships which go to Alexandria never fail to carry furs and woolen clothes, purchased on these occasions, which they expose to sale in the bazar of the city, and thereby spread the contagion. The Greeks who deal in these goods are almost always the first victims.”
Thus the account we have of the origin of the plague at present is, that the city of Constantinople, having been long and deeply infected, the infection is stored up through the avarice of the Jewish merchants, who buy the goods and clothes of the infected. The stupidity of the Turks allows these goods to be sold in Constantinople, or exported freely to all parts to which their vessels sail, particularly to Alexandria; where the avarice of the Greeks prompts them to buy without examination or precaution, to the destruction of their own lives, and of multitudes of others. Egypt being the principal place of traffick, the plague is more frequent there than in other parts of the empire. Syria is comparatively free from it; which M. Volney supposes to be owing to the small number of vessels which come there directly from Constantinople.
In this way we may, in a pretty plausible manner, account for the origin of this distemper; viz. that it originally fell upon the Jews as a punishment for their iniquities; that from the Jews it has been at different times conveyed to other nations; and, by a mixture of those nations, has, at times, become general all over the world. At last it has, by the avarice of that people who first had been the occasion of its being introduced into the world, become permanent in Constantinople, whence it is still diffused among different nations in proportion to their dealings with that capital.
But it may now be said, ‘Allowing the positions contended for to be true in their utmost extent, how comes it to pass that the plague hath not been general in every age and in every country? Since the destruction of Jerusalem, the Jews have been dispersed over all nations: if nothing then were wanting to produce a pestilence but Jews and old clothes, no age or country ought to have been free from it; nevertheless it is certain that violent plagues take place only at particular times, with long intervals between; and of late the pestilential disposition seems to have become much less frequent than formerly; the western parts of Europe, particularly Britain, having been free from it for a great number of years. There must therefore be some cause, different from what has yet been mentioned, by which the infection is occasionally roused from inactivity, and excited to spread desolation all around.’
That there are predisposing causes to epidemic disorders, especially to the plague, the most fatal of them all, is not denied. These prepare the body for receiving the infection, but they will not, without that infection, produce the disorder. Of these causes so many are to be found in the conduct of mankind themselves, that we scarcely need to look for them any where else. In looking over the histories of plagues, we find them in an especial manner connected with famines and wars. The former sometimes take place in consequence of the failure of crops through natural causes; but, considering the general fertility of the earth, we must certainly account it owing to bad management, in some respect or other, that every country hath not as much laid up within itself as would guard against the consequences of at least one or two bad crops. Yet we believe there is not, at present, a country upon earth in this predicament. If a crop fails any where, the inhabitants must import largely, or they must starve. This is the case even in the fertile regions of the East, where the earth produces in excessive abundance,[32] and there is little or nothing of any kind of provision exported to other countries. A remarkable instance of this occurred in the plague at Aleppo, a history of which is given by Dr. Russel. He tells us, that the winter of 1756 proved excessively cold, which was followed by a famine next year. This account is confirmed by Mr. Dawes, in a letter to the bishop of Carlisle.[33] He tells us, that in the course of the winter many perished through cold; that the inhabitants were reduced to such extremities, by the single failure of the crop in 1757, that women were known to eat their own children as soon as they expired in their arms with hunger; and that human creatures might be seen contending with dogs, and scratching for the same bone with them in a dunghill. A dreadful plague followed; which, the two succeeding years, swept off not fewer than sixty thousand in the city of Aleppo.
It is probable that in this case the famine either produced the plague, or made it worse than it would have otherwise been; and it is not denied that the cold and bad season was the direct cause of the famine. But as little can it be denied, that had the people, or their governors, been so provident as to have laid up stores sufficient to supply the country for one year, this famine would not have been felt. As far, therefore, as the plague was connected with the famine, we must own that it was chargeable on the human race themselves; not the sins of this or that particular person, but a general deviation from the task assigned them by their Maker, viz. that of cultivating the ground; and, instead of this, spending their time in folly and trifling, to say no worse.
But famines are occasioned not only by natural causes, but by wars; in which mankind, acting in direct opposition to the laws of God and nature, destroy and lay waste the earth, taking every opportunity of reducing to extremity both those whom they call innocent and those whom they call guilty. Thus vast multitudes are reduced to want, to despair, and rendered a prey to grief, terror, and every depressing passion of the human mind; they are exposed to every inclemency of the weather; to the scorching heats of the day, and the chilling damps of the night; in short, to every thing that we can conceive capable of predisposing the body for the reception of diseases of the very worst kind. No wonder therefore that war and pestilence go hand in hand; and, by taking a review of the history of mankind, we shall see, that, always at those times when the nations have been most actively employed in the trade of butchering one another, then, or very soon after, they have been afflicted with pestilence. To begin with the great plague of 767 B. C. which coincides with the rise of the Assyrian empire: Till this time, though there had been numberless wars, yet they were carried on upon a much smaller scale than now, when great empires were to be set up, and when the most distant nations were to be assembled in order to gratify the pride and ambition of an individual. The Assyrians, we know, penetrated into Ethiopia; but how far east or how far west they went, we are not certainly informed. To their wars, however, we may with reason ascribe the desolations occasioned by this first plague. From Thucydides’s account of the plague at Athens, it seems plain that it was occasioned, or at least rendered more violent, by the wars of the Greeks with one another at that time. Had the Carthaginian army staid at home when they went to war with Dionysius, tyrant of Syracuse,[34] it is very probable that the pestilence would not have broke out among them. The like may be said of the plague which broke out among them in the time of Marcellus.[35] That in the time of Jugurtha, indeed, is said to have been occasioned by locusts; but, had not vast bodies of men been collected together for the purposes of war, the plague could never have committed such ravages. The plague in the time of Titus could not have been brought from Jerusalem, nor perhaps would it have existed there, had not Titus made war against that city; and so of others.
The plague which began in the reign of Justinian, as it was more violent than any recorded in history, so it was preceded by wars equally unexampled. The Romans had indeed for ages employed themselves in war; but, by their constant superiority to every adversary, their empire had become so amazingly extensive, that, whatever wars were carried on in the remote provinces, the great body of the empire always remained at peace; and this was the case even in their most violent civil wars. On the accession of Alexander Severus, about the year 232, they began to encounter enemies so numerous and formidable, that all their power proved insufficient to repel them. In the tenth year of Alexander’s reign, the Persians, having overthrown the ancient empire of the Parthians, turned their arms against the Romans, and, though frequently defeated at that time with great slaughter, renewed their incursions in the reign of Gordian, about the year 242, when they were in like manner defeated and obliged to retire. As these defeats, however, did not at all affect the strength of the Persian empire, the Romans still found them as formidable enemies as ever; while the Goths, Sarmatians, Franks, and other northern nations, harassed them in other parts. In the reign of Decius, who ascended the throne in 249, they became extremely formidable, insomuch that the emperor himself, with his whole army, was at last cut off by them. The consequence of this was, that the empire was instantly invaded in many different parts, and, though the barbarians were at times defeated, we never find that the empire regained its former tranquillity. The Persians and Scythians, taking advantage of the general confusion, invaded the provinces next them, while the finishing stroke seemed to be given to the Roman affairs by the defeat and captivity of Valerian by the Persians.
This disaster, as may well be imagined, produced an immediate invasion by numberless barbarians, while such multitudes of pretenders to the imperial crown were set up, each asserting his claim by force of arms, that the whole Roman territories were filled with bloodshed and slaughter. At this time Gallienus, the son of Valerian, was the lawful emperor, if indeed we may apply the word to the domination of such a monster. His mode of government may be imagined from the following letter written to one of his officers in consequence of a victory gained over an usurper named Ingenuus. “I shall not be satisfied with your putting to death only such as have borne arms against me, and might have fallen in the field: you must in every city destroy all the males, old and young; spare none who have wished ill to me, none who have spoken ill of me, the son of Valerian, the father and brother of princes. Ingenuus emperor! Tear, kill, cut in pieces, without mercy: you understand me; do then as you know I would do, who have written to you with my own hand.” In consequence of this horrible order, not a single male child was left alive in some of the cities of Mœsia, where this inhuman tragedy was acted.