1837. The London bills of mortality compiled by the Parish Clerks’ Company

had fallen into the last stage of inadequacy, and were on the eve of being superseded by the general system of registration for all England and Wales[726]. The London bills, so long as they existed, never took in the great parishes of St Pancras, Marylebone, Kensington and Chelsea. The area “within the bills of mortality” was that of London about the middle of the 18th century. But, instead of becoming more and more crowded as time went on, it had actually become much less populous, especially in the old City and Liberties, owing to the erection of warehouses, workshops, counting-houses and other non-residential buildings where dwelling houses used to be; so that the decrease of mortality “within the bills” in the 19th century is in part due to the decrease of population within the same area. This has to be kept in mind when the above table is compared with one of those for former influenzas, such as that of 1737, exactly a hundred years before. It was thought that the 1837 influenza in London was worse than that of 1833, but the figures show the contrary as regards the number of deaths from all causes[727]. Both of them, however, were in the first rank of severity, finding their nearest parallels in the three great influenzas of the 18th century, in 1733, 1737 and 1743, when the deaths from all causes during the influenza rose, indeed, to a much larger total within the bills, but rose from a much higher mean level. In Dublin the great increase of burials from the influenza of 1837 fell at the same time as in London, according to the following comparison with the year before for Glasnevin Cemetery[728]: 1835-36 Dec. 1835 355 Jan. 1836 392 Feb. " 362 Mar. " 392 ---- 1501 1836-37 Dec. 1836 413 Jan. 1837 821 Feb. " 537 Mar. " 477 ---- 2248 At Glasgow the deaths from influenza were as follows[729]: 1837 Males Females Total January 111 118 229 February 37 62 99 March 9 20 29 --- --- --- 157 200 357 But the heading of “influenza” did not nearly show the full effects of the epidemic upon the mortality, which was enormous in Glasgow in January, as compared with the same month of 1836: --------------------------------------------------------------- || All causes||Catarrh| Aged| Asthma| Fever| Decline ----------||-----------||-------|-----|-------|------|--------- Jan. 1836 || 790 || 4 | 73 | 31 | 45 | 124 Jan. 1837 || 1972 || 229 | 274 | 185 | 201 | 247 There was also a great increase in the deaths of infants by bowel complaint. The only period of life which did not show a great rise of mortality was from five to twenty; the greatest rise was between the ages of forty and seventy, corresponding to the London experience in the epidemic of 1847. At Bolton, Lancashire, the great rise in the deaths, as compared with the average of five years before, was in February: Average of five years 1831-36 1837 January 111·2 115 February 79·0 205 March 97·8 100 ----- --- 288·0 420 At Exeter, the burials in the two chief graveyards were 227 in January and February, 1837, as compared with 125 in the same months of 1836. These mortalities, although large, were but a small ratio of the attacks. In 2347 cases enumerated in the collective inquiry, there were 54 deaths, a ratio of two deaths in a hundred cases being considered a full average. The attacks were mostly in middle life, and the deaths nearly all among the asthmatic, the consumptive and the aged. The ages of one hundred persons attacked at Birmingham were as follows[730]: Ages 1- 5- 10- 20- 30- 40- 50- 60- 70- 80-90 Cases 3 2 12 23 21 19 12 7 0 1 At Evesham only five out of 93 were under five years. At Leamington, in a list of 170 cases, there were 26 under fourteen years, 119 from fourteen to sixty-five years, and 25 above the age of sixty-five[731]. In some places males seemed to be most attacked, just as at Birmingham in 1833 there was a great excess of female cases; but the collective inquiry showed that the sexes shared about equally all over. The type of the malady was on the whole catarrhal, as in 1833. Nearly all the cases had symptoms of sneezing, coughing, and defluxions; many cases had nothing more than the symptoms of a severe feverish cold; the more dangerous cases had dyspnoea, pneumonia and the like; while all had the languor, weariness, and soreness in the bones which mark every influenza, whether it incline more to the moist type of catarrhal fever or to the dry type of the old “hot ague.” The influenza of 1837 having been remarkably simultaneous, sudden and brief, the doctrine of personal contagiousness found little favour, just as in 1833. The 12th query sent out by the committee of the Provincial Medical Association was: “Are you in possession of any proof of its having been communicated from one person to another?” The answers are said to have been nearly all negative; namely, that there was “no proof of the existence of any contagious principles by which it was propagated from one individual to another.” Shapter, a learned physician at Exeter, inclined to a certain modified doctrine of contagion by persons. Blakiston, of Birmingham, an exact mathematician, declared that the question as ordinarily stated did not admit of an answer. At Liverpool there was an interesting observation made, exactly parallel with those made at Gravesend in 1782 and Portsmouth in 1788. The influenza of 1837 was practically over by the first or second week of March; but “that the atmosphere of Liverpool was still contaminated by the epidemic influence up to the middle and latter end of April was apparent from the fact that many of the officers and men of the American ships, and generally the most robust, were violently attacked shortly after their arrival in port,”--the same being the case also with black sailors on ships arriving from the Brazils and the West Coast of Africa[732]. At the naval stations of Sheerness, Portsmouth, Plymouth and Falmouth, every one of the ships of war had been attacked in January, the ships cruising on the south coast of Spain, or lying at Barcelona, in February, the ships at Gibraltar in April, and those at Malta in May. The ‘Thunderer,’ on the passage from Malta to Plymouth, had the first cases of influenza at sea on the 3rd of January, four days before reaching Plymouth[733], as if she had sailed into an atmosphere of it somewhere near the coast of Brittany. * * * * * For fully ten years, from March or April 1837 to November 1847, there was no great and universal influenza in England. But there were several undoubted minor, and perhaps localized, outbreaks of an epidemic malady which was in each case judged to be truly the influenza, and not a common cold. The earliest of these was in the spring of 1841. It was recognized by the Registrar-General to have been in London from 20 February to 24 April, the mortality having been little affected by it. It was also recognized in Dublin in March, and remarked upon by two physicians to the Cork Street Fever Hospital; it was characterized by the usual languor, weariness, and pains in the head, by defluxions of the eyes, nose and throat, but not by any affection of the lungs, and was in all respects mild[734]. Exactly a year after, in March, 1842, influenza was described as epidemic at York[735]: it was noted also in London in March[736], and is mentioned as having been again in Ireland in 1842[737]. The next undoubted influenza is reported from a rural part of Cheshire (Holme Chapel) in January, 1844, in the wake of an epidemic of scarlatina; it continued in all kinds of weather until June, and had a remarkable intercurrent episode, for some weeks from the middle of March, in the form of an epidemic of pneumonia among young children, which passed into mild bronchitis in the cases last attacked[738]. Coincidently with the influenza in Cheshire, there is a report of a series of catarrhal cases in Dublin about the beginning of January, 1844, in which the sense of constriction and suffocation under the sternum and the paroxysmal character of the attacks seemed to point to influenza[739]. Two years after, a Dublin physician in extensive practice among the rich wrote, at the request of a medical editor, an account of an epidemic of influenza in January and February, 1847; he had sixty cases among children under fourteen in his private practice, usually several children in one house, and sometimes the adults in the house[740]. This was in the midst of the great epidemic of relapsing fever in Dublin and all over Ireland, due to the potato famine. The same prevalence of influenza to a slight extent is recorded also for London at the end of 1846 and beginning of 1847[741]. It is easy to object that these “influenzas” between 1837 and 1847 were but the ordinary catarrhal maladies of the seasons. But the physicians who took the trouble to record them--probably more might have done so--were, of course, aware of the distinction that had to be made between many common feverish colds concurring in the ordinary way, and a truly epidemic influenza, however slight. The Influenza of 1847-48. The great influenza of 1847 began in London about the 16th or 18th of November, was at its height from the 22nd to the 30th, had “ceased to be very prevalent” by the 6th or 8th of December, but affected the bills of mortality for some time longer, as in the following table: _Weekly Mortalities in London._ 1847 Week ending All causes Influenza Pneumonia Bronchitis Asthma Typhus Nov. 20 1086 4 95 61 12 86 27 1677 36 170 196 77 87 Dec. 4 2454 198 306 343 86 132 11 2416 374 294 299 78 136 18 1946 270 189 234 52 131 25 1247 142 131 107 14 83 Jan. 1 1599 127 148 138 26 74 In the thirteen weeks of the first quarter of 1848 the influenza deaths declined as follows: 102, 102, 89, 56, 59, 47, 27, 33, 18, 11, 10, 16, 8. This was the first great epidemic of influenza under the new system of registration. According to the Superintendent of Statistics, it caused an excess of 5000 deaths during the six weeks that it lasted, of which about a fourth part only were set down to influenza, and the rest to pneumonia, bronchitis, asthma, etc. During the three worst weeks it raised the deaths in the age of childhood 83 per cent., in the age of manhood 104 per cent., in old age 247 per cent., whereas the deaths between fifteen years and twenty-five were but little raised by it, and those between ten and fifteen hardly at all. It raised the deaths during six weeks in St George’s-in-the East to a rate per annum of 73 per 1000 living: in some other parishes it increased the death-rate very little. But it had the usual effect of lengthening enormously the obituary columns of the newspapers, which shows that it fell, as usual, to a large extent upon the richer classes. It went all over England in a short time, the month of December being the time of excessive mortality in the towns, according to the following sample totals of deaths from all causes: 1847 Manchester Sheffield York Places in (Ancoats) (West) (Walmgate) Scotland October 169 27 61 521 November 135 27 52 728 December 270 85 99 1001 In some parts of England, as in Kendal, a district of Anglesea and in the Isle of Wight, the mortality of the last quarter of 1847 was actually lower than that of the year before. From St Albans the sub-registrar reported that there had been “no epidemic.” In most parts of the country, including the medium-sized towns, the mortality directly or indirectly due to influenza was lower than in London. The principal returns did not come in from the country until after the new year, the effects of the epidemic having been, as usual, later in rural districts. Hence, while London had 1253 deaths put down to “influenza” in 1847 (nearly all in December), and 659 in 1848 (nearly all in the first quarter), the rest of England had 4881 influenza deaths before the New Year, and 7963 after it[742]. This influenza in the mid-winter of 1847-8 made a great impression everywhere[743]. As regards its range and its fatality, it was like those of 1833 and 1837; and it had once more so much of the catarrhal type, that the name of influenza became still more firmly joined to the idea of a feverish cold or defluxion. * * * * * By the year 1847, agues had almost ceased to be written of in England, although they still occurred in the Fens. But Peacock begins his account of the influenza of that winter with an enumeration of prevailing diseases, which reads somewhat like an old “constitution” by Sydenham or Huxham. The summers and autumns of 1846 and 1847, he says, were both highly choleraic, and dysentery (as well as enteric fever) was unusually common in the former year. Fatal cases of “ague and remittent fever” were also more numerous than usual. Then came much enteric fever, “not unfrequently complicated with catarrhal symptoms.” Throughout the spring and early summer of the influenza year, 1847, “intermittent fevers were common, and in March, April and May, purpura was frequently met with, either as a primary or secondary disease. Scurvy also, owing to the deficiency of fresh vegetables, and from the general failure of the potato crop in the previous year was occasionally seen.” Then follows much concerning a fever called remittent, which reads more like relapsing fever than anything else[744]. “The remittent form of fever was frequent in the course of the epidemic [of influenza], though seldom registered as the cause of death.” Peacock says truly that the rather unusual concurrence of so many sicknesses was “not peculiar to the recent influenza alone;” and he can “scarcely refrain from acknowledging that these several affections are not merely coetaneous but correlative, and types and modifications of one disease, with which they have a common origin. Assuming this inference to be admitted, we may advance to the solution of the further question of what is the essential nature or proximate cause of the disease.” But the inquiry led him to no result: the precise cause he leaves “involved in the obscurity that veils the origin of epidemics generally”--which are surely not all equally obscure[745]. * * * * * Influenza having continued epidemic for a few weeks in the beginning of 1848, ceased thereafter to attract popular notice in Britain during a period of more than forty years. But a certain number of “influenza” deaths continued to appear steadily year after year in the registration tables. In 1851 this number was nearly doubled, in 1855 it was more than trebled; and those two years were undoubtedly seasons (about January and February) of real influenza epidemics in Europe, recorded by several but not by English writers. A slight epidemic was described for Scotland in 1857, and one for Norfolk in 1878, neither of which seems to have influenced the registration returns in an obvious degree. After the undoubted influenza of 1855, the annual total of deaths in England set down to that cause steadily declined from four figures, to three figures, and then to two figures, standing at 55 in the bill of mortality for 1889. It is improbable that those small annual totals of deaths in all England and Wales were caused by the real influenza; the name at that time was synonymous with a feverish cold, and would have been given here or there to fatalities from some such ordinary cause. An epidemic ague was reported from Somerset in 1858[746]. The Influenzas of 1889-94. More than a generation had passed with little or no word of epidemic influenza in this country, when in the early winter of 1889 the newspapers began to publish long telegrams on the influenza in Moscow, St Petersburg, Berlin, Paris, Madrid and other foreign capitals. This epidemic wave, like those immediately preceding it in the Eastern hemisphere, in 1833, 1837 and 1847, and like one or more, but by no means all, of the earlier influenzas, had an obvious course from Asiatic and European Russia towards Western Europe[747]. In due time it reached London, and produced a decided effect upon the bills of mortality for the first and second weeks of January, 1890, but a moderate effect compared with that of 1847, which was the first to be recorded under the same system of registration. It spread all over England, Scotland and Ireland in the months of January and February, 1890, proving itself everywhere a short and sharp influenza of the old kind, but with catarrhal symptoms on the whole a less constant feature than in the epidemics of most recent memory. At the end of February it looked as if Great Britain and Ireland had got off lightly from the visitation which had caused high mortalities in many countries of Continental Europe. But this epidemic in the beginning of 1890 was only the first of four, and less severe than the second and third. It returned in the spring and early summer of 1891, in the first weeks of 1892, and in the winter of 1893-94. To understand this influenza prevalence as a whole, its four great seasons should be compared. The following tables show its incidence upon London on each occasion: _Four epidemics of Influenza in London, 1890-94._ 1890 Annual death-rate Deaths Week per 1000 from all ending living causes Influenza Bronchitis Pneumonia Jan. 4 28·0 2371 4 530 215 11 32·4 2747 67 715 253 18 32·1 2720 127 630 281 25 26·3 2227 105 468 193 Feb. 1 21·8 1849 75 339 145 8 20·6 1749 38 369 117 1891 Annual death-rate Deaths Week per 1000 from all ending living causes Influenza Bronchitis Pneumonia April 25 21·0 1809 10 240 179 May 2 23·3 2006 37 280 241 9 25·6 2069 148 302 230 16 27·7 2245 266 352 207 23 27·6 2235 319 337 219 30 28·9 2337 310 353 189 June 6 27·0 2189 303 320 176 13 23·3 1886 249 255 166 20 23·0 1865 182 248 159 27 19·0 1538 117 151 113 July 4 16·8 1363 56 108 103 1891-92 Annual death-rate Deaths Week per 1000 from all ending living causes Influenza Bronchitis Pneumonia Dec. 26 21·9 1771 19 355 131 Jan. 2 42·0 3399 37 927 256 9 32·8 2679 95 740 246 16 40·0 3271 271 867 285 23 46·0 3761 506 1035 317 30 41·0 3355 436 844 255 Feb. 6 30·6 2500 314 492 215 13 24·6 2010 183 368 140 20 20·7 1693 79 259 137 1893-94 Annual death-rate Deaths Week per 1000 from all ending living causes Influenza Bronchitis Pneumonia Nov. 4 20·2 1695 8 191 125 11 21·4 1679 20 220 137 18 24·4 2016 22 318 228 25 26·5 2190 36 384 215 Dec. 2 27·1 2235 74 426 248 9 31·0 2556 127 491 266 16 29·1 2401 164 421 232 23 26·3 2170 147 387 203 30 23·3 1920 108 306 157 Jan. 6 24·5 2040 87 342 169 13 29·5 2462 75 490 211 20 23·7 1975 69 320 172 27 19·8 1655 41 232 152 It will be seen that the third epidemic, that of Jan.-Feb. 1892, had the highest maximum weekly mortality from influenza (506) as well as the highest maxima from bronchitis and pneumonia not specially associated in the certificates with influenza; that the second epidemic, of 1891, had the next highest maxima, and that the first and last of the four outbreaks were both milder than the two intermediate ones. All but the second, which fell in early summer, are strictly comparable as regards season (mid-winter). But although the second, in 1891, had the advantage of falling in some of the healthiest weeks of the year, it was more protracted than the original outbreak, much more fatal than it in the article influenza, more fatal also in the article pneumonia, and less fatal only in the article bronchitis. The third outbreak was not only more protracted than the first, in the same season of the year, but much more fatal in all the associated articles. As to the deaths referred to influenza (whether as primary or secondary cause), the numbers are not strictly comparable in all the outbreaks; they are probably too few in the first table, more nearly exact in the second, third, and fourth, the diagnosis having at length become familiar and the fashion of nomenclature established. It is undoubted that many of the deaths from bronchitis and pneumonia in January, 1890, were due to the epidemic; for, “while the ordinary rise of mortality in cold seasons is mainly among the very aged, the increased mortality in this fatal month was mainly among persons between 20 and 60 years” (Ogle). While the first epidemic of the series was universal and of short duration all over the kingdom, the second and third were more partial in their incidence and more desultory or prolonged. The second, which began in Hull (and at the same time on the borders of Wales), produced the following highest weekly death-rates per annum from all causes among 1000 persons living: _Highest Weekly Death-rates in the Second Influenza._ 1891 Annual death-rate from all Week causes per ending 1000 living Hull Apr. 11 42·5 Sheffield May 2 70·5 Halifax " 2 42·1 Leeds " 9 48·5 Manchester " 9 43·6 Bradford " 16 56·7 Huddersfield " 16 54·5 Leicester " 16 44·6 Oldham " 23 50·4 London " 30 28·9 Salford " 30 45·9 Blackburn June 6 48·5 The third was heard of first in the west of Cornwall and in the east of Scotland, in the last quarter of 1891. It was in the following English towns that it produced the maximum weekly death-rates per annum from all causes: _Highest Weekly Death-rates in the Third Influenza._ 1892 Annual death-rate Week from all causes Town ending per 1000 living Portsmouth Jan. 16 57·0 London " 23 46·0 Norwich " 23 44·7 Brighton " 23 60·9 Croydon " 30 47·2 These highest death-rates in the third successive season of influenza were all in the southern or eastern counties; in the latter, Colchester also had a maximum death-rate during one week of about 80 per 1000 per annum. Liverpool, among the northern great towns, appears to have had most of the third influenza. The fourth outbreak, in the end of 1893, was noticed first in the Midlands (Birmingham especially), and was afterwards heard of in the mining and manufacturing districts of Staffordshire, South Wales, Lancashire, Yorkshire and Durham, as well as in Scotland and Ireland, London, as in the table, having a share of it. The tables given of the London mortality in each of the four outbreaks, from influenza and the chest-complaints which were its most usual secondary effects, are a fair index both of the period and of the severity of the disease all over the kingdom in each of its successive appearances[748]. Everywhere the first and the fourth were the mildest, the second and third the most fatal. Deaths from “influenza” were reported from all the counties of England and Wales in the first and second epidemics, the highest rates of mortality per 1000 inhabitants in the corresponding calendar years having been in the following counties, while in all the counties the greater fatality of the second epidemic is equally marked: 1890 Cumberland ·35 North Wales ·28 Herefordshire ·28 Salop ·28 Wilts ·28 Somerset ·26 Dorset ·25 Bucks ·25 1891 Rutland 1·36 Lincolnshire 1·19 North Wales 1·09 Westmoreland 1·02 Monmouth 1·00 E. Riding Yorks ·98 Herefordshire ·98 Northamptonshire ·95 In London the entry of influenza is in the weekly bills of mortality throughout the whole period, with the exception of a few weeks; but the deaths were often reduced to unity, and there was perhaps only one occasion, besides the four great outbursts, namely the months of March and April, 1893, when cases were so numerous or so close together in households or neighbourhoods as to constitute a minor epidemic. The type of the influenza of 1890-93 was not quite the same as on the last historical occasions. When it was announced as approaching from the Continent, everyone looked for “influenza colds”; but the catarrhal symptoms, although not wanting, were soon found to be unimportant beside the nameless misery, prostration and ensuing weakness. Some, indeed, contended that the disease was not influenza but dengue, so pronounced were the symptoms of break-bone fever[749]. Many cases had a decided aguish or intermittent character. The name of ague itself was once more heard in newspaper paragraphs, and more freely used in private talk; but, as we have long ceased to write of epidemic agues, equally as of marsh intermittents, in this country, it is not probable that there will remain any record of agues in Britain accompanying the influenzas of the years 1890-94. On the other hand the complications and after-effects of our latest influenza, more especially as affecting the nervous system, have been very fully studied[750]. That which chiefly distinguishes the influenza of the end of the 19th century from all other invasions of the disease is the revival of the epidemic in three successive seasons, the first recurrence having been more fatal than the original outbreak, and the second recurrence more fatal (in London at least) than the first. The closest scrutiny of the old records, including the series of weekly bills of mortality issued by the Parish Clerks of London for nearly two hundred years, discovers no such recurrences of influenza on the great scale in successive seasons. It is true that several of the old influenzas came in the midst of sickly periods of two or more years’ duration, such as the years 1557-58, 1580-82, 1657-59, 1678-80, 1727-29 and 1780-85. But in those periods the bulk of the sickness was aguish, the somewhat definite episodes of catarrhal fever having been distinguished from the epidemic agues by Willis in 1658, by Sydenham in 1679, by several in 1729, and by Baker, among others, in 1782. It is probable, indeed, that there were two strictly catarrhal epidemics in successive years in the periods 1657-59 and 1727-29, just as we know that, in New England, there was a catarrhal epidemic in the autumn of 1789 and an equally severe influenza, less catarrhal in type, in the spring of 1790[751]. But history does not appear to supply a parallel case to the four successive influenzas in the period 1889-94, unless we count the seasonal epidemic agues of former “constitutions” as equivalent to influenzas for the purpose of making out a series. The Theory of Influenza. Influenza is not an infection which lends itself to a simple theory of its nature or a neat formula of its cause. All that one can do is to indicate the direction in which the truth lies. Something broad, comprehensive, steady from age to age, telluric if not cosmic, must be sought for. Some have thought that the legendary or representative universal sickness at the siege of Troy was influenza, because it began upon the horses and dogs, as so many historical influenzas have done. But it will be sufficient to show that influenza was the same in the Middle Ages as now; for what circumstances make a broader contrast than medieval and modern? The first writer in England to mention influenza--of course not under that name--was a dean of St Paul’s in the reign of Henry II., Radulphus de Diceto[752]. He is narrating the journey to Rome of the archbishop-elect of Canterbury: his election in England was in June, 1173, he had got as far as Placentia by Christmas, whence he turned aside to Genoa, and at length reached Rome, to have his election confirmed by the pope in the nones of April, 1174. It is in the midst of this account of the archbishop’s journey, that reference is made to an influenza, otherwise known, from German and Italian chronicles, to have happened in December, 1173: “In those days the whole world was infected by a nebulous corruption of the air, causing catarrh of the stomach and a general cough, to the detriment of all and the death of many”--_universus orbis infectus ex aeris nebulosa corruptione_. What kind of infection can that be which has befallen men on both sides of the Alps within the same short time in the 12th century as in the 19th? And what kind of infection is it which has outlived so many changes in the great pestilences of mankind, has seen the extinction of plague and the rise of cholera, and all other variations, most of them for the better, in the reigning types of epidemic sickness? To have lasted unchanged through so many mutations of things, from medieval to modern, and from modern to ultra-modern, and to have become more inveterate or protracted at the end of the 19th century than it had ever been, is unique in this history. Influenza appears to correspond with something broadly the same in human life at all times. Or is it rather a thing telluric, of the crust of the earth or the bowels of the earth? Or is it perhaps cosmic, affecting men as the vintage is affected by a comet, or as if it came from the upper spheres? My belief is that we need not transcend the globe to look for its source, and that, upon the earth, we need not go deeper than the surface, nor beyond the inhabited spots. I shall come back to this from giving the history of English opinion upon it. The best known influenzas of the 16th century all came in summer, as some of the later ones have done, so that no one thought of them as exaggerated common colds. But it happened that the influenzas observed by Willis in 1658, and by Sydenham in 1675 and 1679, came in spring or winter and in such weather as to suggest to each of those physicians that the catarrhal symptoms corresponded to the season. Robert Boyle, their great philosophical contemporary, was also a witness of one or more of these influenzas, and it appeared to him that there was more than season and weather in them. “I have known a great cold,” he says, “in a day or two invade multitudes in the same city with violent, and as to many persons, fatal symptoms; when I could not judge (as others also did not), that the bare coldness of the air could so suddenly produce a disease so epidemical and hurtful; and it appeared the more probable that the cause came from under ground, by reason that it began with a very troublesome fog[753].” I am unable to say whether Boyle was the first to apply the doctrine of telluric or subterranean emanations to influenza; he was certainly not the first to apply it to pestilences in general, for it is found in Seneca among the ancients[754], and it is clearly stated in Ambroise Paré’s essay “Sur les Venins,” having been probably a familiar notion of the sixteenth century, although a mystical and undefined one. Sydenham also, who must have discussed these questions with Boyle, referred all the more obscure or “stationary” epidemic constitutions to effluvia discharged into the air from “the bowels of the earth”: those hypothetical miasmata were for him the τὸ θεῖον of Hippocrates, the mysterious something which had to be assumed so as to explain plague, pestilential fever, intermittent and remittent fevers, the “new fever” of 1685-6, and all other epidemic constitutions which were not caused by obvious changes of season and weather. But it does not appear, and it is not probable, that he ascribed to that mysterious cause the two transient waves of influenza which fell within his own experience, those of November, 1675, and of November, 1679. On the other hand, Boyle certainly did so; he included influenza in his hypothesis explicitly; and if one examines its general terms, it will appear as if it had been made specially for influenza. Boyle’s general expression, for both endemial and epidemic maladies, is that they are due to subterranean effluvia sent up into the air. As a chemist, and as dealing with the new knowledge then most in vogue, he assumed the sources of these miasmata to be for the most part mineral deposits in the crust of the globe, especially “orpimental and other mischievous fossiles”; but later in his writing he says: “To speak candidly I do not think that these minerals are the causes of even all those pestilences whose efficients may come from under ground”; there were many mischievous fossils of which physicians and even chymists had no knowledge, and “the various associations of these, which nature may, by fire and menstruums, make under ground and perhaps in the air itself, may very much increase the number and variety of hurtful matters.” He makes provision, also, for the hurtful matters multiplying in their underground seats, according to a principle which we know now to be true for organic, instead of mineral matters, and to be true for them above ground, or in the air, as well as under ground: “I think it possible that divers subterraneal bodies that emit effluvia may have in them a kind of propagative or self-multiplying power. I will not here examine whether this proceeds from some seminal principle, which many chymists and others ascribe to metals and even to stones; or (which is perhaps more likely) to something analogous to a ferment, such as, in vegetables, enables a little sour dough to extend itself through the whole mass, or such as, when an apple or pear is bruised in one part, makes the putrefied part by degrees to transmute the sound into its own likeness; or else some maturative power ... as ananas in the Indies, and medlars ... after they are gathered, acquire (as it were spontaneously) in process of time a consistence and sweetness and sometimes colour and odour, and, in short, such a state as by one word we call maturity or ripeness.” Other of Boyle’s fruitful principles (I am separating them out from amidst much other matter not specially related to influenza) are these: “It is possible that these effluvia may be, in their own nature, either innocent enough, or at least not considerably hurtful, and yet may become very noxious if they chance to find the air already imbued with certain corpuscles fit to associate with them.” Again, the effluvia sent up into the air may pass by certain places without causing an epidemic, because these “are not inhabited enough to make their ill qualities taken notice of; but, more frequently, because by being diffused through a greater tract of air, they are more and more dispersed in their passage, and thereby so diluted (if I may so speak) and weakened as not to be able to do any notorious mischief.” Again, the effluvia may not produce epidemic disease at the part of the globe where they had emerged from under ground; an illustration of which may be intended in the case of the Black Death, which, as he says, came from China, yet plague is little heard of in that country, a Jesuit, Alexander de Rhodes, who spent thirty years in those parts, testifying that the plague is not so much as spoken of there. Again, why are some epidemics of so short duration at a given place? Either, he answers, because the morbific expiration from under ground had ascended almost at once, and been easily spent; or the subterraneal commotion which sends up the miasmata “may pass from one place to another and so cease to afford the air incumbent on the first place the supplies necessary to keep it impregnated with noxious exhalation; and it agrees well with this conjecture that sometimes we may observe certain epidemical diseases to have, as it were, a progressive motion, and leaving one town free, pass on to another”--as notably in the case of sweating sickness and influenza. Lastly there are ever new forms of epidemic disease appearing, not to count every variation of an autumnal ague “which the vulgar call a New Disease.” Of the really new types Boyle offers the following explanation: “Some among the emergent variety of exotick and hurtful steams may be found capable to disaffect human bodies after a very uncommon way, and thereby to produce new diseases, whose duration may be greater or smaller according to the lastingness of those subterraneal causes that produce them. On which account it need be no wonder that some new diseases have but a short duration, and vanish not long after their appearing, the sources or fumes being soon destroyed or spent; whereas some others may continue longer upon the stage, as having under ground more settled and durable causes to maintain them.” As a chemist, Boyle sought for the source of the pestilential emanations in underground minerals, in the new combinations of these under the action of “fire and menstruums,” in their self-multiplying power as if by subterraneous fermentation (“which many chymists and others ascribe to metals and even to stones”), and in their meeting with suitable “corpuscles” in the air of an inhabited spot wherewith to combine for their morbific effects. He assumed, also, their discharge into the air at particular spots of the globe (where they might not be directly morbific in their effects), or in a series of localities from the wave-like progress of the underground commotion; in which assumption he seems to be applying the very old idea of classical times that earthquakes and volcanic eruptions were a cause or antecedent of epidemics. Sometimes his mineral fossils were deep in the crust of the globe, touched only by the greater cataclysms; and then we might expect novelties in the forms of epidemic disease. But he does not exclude emanations from the earth’s surface proceeding more gently or insensibly. It would be a mistake to set aside Boyle’s hypothesis of epidemical miasmata as made altogether void by his choosing strange minerals to be the source of them, and by his assuming a kind of fermentation in these inorganic matters so as to explain the continuance and spreading of the infections. Substitute organic matters in the soil for minerals in the crust of the earth, and read a modern meaning into the doctrine of underground or aërial fermentation or leavening, and we shall find Boyle’s hypothesis, especially as applied to influenza, far from obsolete. Some such adaptation of the doctrine of miasmata was made two generations later by Dr John Arbuthnot in his ‘Essay concerning the Effects of Air upon Human Bodies,’ the immediate occasion of which was the London influenza of