Chapter XI: Section III (5)

But, to be more particular: on the subject of heat people have embarrassed themselves more with philosophical reveries than by any real difficulty, and rendered the matter more obscure than nature has made it. We have already observed, that by the convergence of light, or of electricity, heat is always produced. Here we can see the mode in which the fluid acts, viz. first by _converging_, and then _diverging_. When the light falls upon a solid body, it is evident, that if it be allowed to flow out as easily as it flows in, no internal agitation of the parts, or of any fluid contained in them, can take place. Transparent bodies therefore are never heated. Again, if the light be not allowed to enter the substance of a body, but is entirely reflected, the body cannot be heated; and hence it is very difficult to melt a polished metal even by a strong burning-glass. M. Macquer’s burning mirror, which vitrified flints, could not melt silver. But, when the light falls upon a body capable of allowing it to enter its substance, at the same time that it cannot get out without difficulty, it is plain that the force of the fluid will be exerted in order to overcome that difficulty; the body will be expanded in all directions; the fluid will be thrown out in the same manner, and the more that the internal action of the light prevails over that power by which the parts of the body cohere, the more will the phenomena of heat be perceptible.

Again, let us suppose that the etherial fluid enters the substance of any body capable of being dilated to a great degree, it is equally plain that the action of the fluid must for some time be directed only upon the internal parts, and consequently will be imperceptible on the outside. This then is called _latent_ heat; and where the pressure on the outside balances that on the inside no heat will be perceptible to the touch. But by whatever means this balance is broken, heat will instantly be perceptible; and experiments show that the balance may be broken either by an increase of cold or heat. Thus, in the case of water, the internal pressure remains equal to the external, until the fluid is cooled to a few degrees below 32. The balance is then broken, and the internal action prevails; a quantity of what is called _sensible_ heat escapes, and the water is converted into ice. Again, at the temperature of 32, little or none of the water evaporates; but by the addition of heat, by which the internal action of the subtile fluid we speak of becomes greater than the external, the water is converted into vapour; and it is remarkable that the same effect takes place on greatly augmenting the degree of cold; for the evaporation from ice, even in frosty weather, is found to be very considerable.

On the whole, from innumerable experiments it appears, that there exists in nature a certain invisible fluid, by the action of which, when diverging from a centre, heat is produced in the central point. By a certain other power this diverging force is limited, so that in some cases it is not perceptible beyond the surface of the body in which it acts, and then it is called _latent_ heat. In other cases it is perceptible in a certain degree, and the degree in which it is perceptible hath been called the _temperature_ or _sensible heat_ of the body. On mixing different substances together it is found, that very often the proportions between the external and internal actions are varied. This has been already observed, when giving an account of Dr. Black’s discovery of _latent_ heat, viz. that when snow and warm water are mixed together the temperature of the mixture differs very considerably from the arithmetical mean between the temperatures of the two substances employed. Dr. Crawford prosecuted the experiment further, and found that there were few substances which, on being mixed, did not shew a temperature different from that of the arithmetical mean between the temperatures of the two originally employed. This difference he unfortunately used as the foundation of a rule for determining the _capacities_ of different substances for containing heat, and upon this erroneous principle has raised a superstructure, which upon no occasion can be of service to science, but must always produce obscurity and confusion wherever it is introduced.

With regard to the power which sets bounds to the expansion of the fluid acting as heat, it is natural to think that it can be no other than the same fluid acting in a contrary direction, or from a circumference towards a centre; and thus we shall always find that the same fluid, by limiting its own operations, may produce those phenomena which have been hitherto deemed so difficult of explanation. In what manner this limitation is in all cases effected, or indeed in any case, we cannot pretend to explain. It is sufficient to observe, that wherever there is a perpetual _efflux_ of any thing, there must be also a perpetual _influx_ at the same time, and in proportion to the one the other will be. These two are directly contrary to one another, and, as we suppose the fluid to be universal, it is evident, that if any part of it be put in motion in a particular direction, the rest will press towards that part where the motion is, in order to keep up the equilibrium. Hence we may easily account for the heat produced by percussion or by friction. By hammering a piece of iron, as Dr. Black justly observes, the fluid is forced out from between the parts of the metal. The emission of this fluid in all directions is heat itself; and no sooner is one quantity thrown out than another supplies its place with great rapidity, and so on, until the pressure of the rest in some way or other counteracts the emission of any more, and the heat ceases. Just so with friction. The heat produced by it is always in proportion to the pressure employed. By this pressure the parts of the two substances are forced into such close contact, that an agitation and emission of the fluid pervading their substance takes place. This agitation, as we have already noticed, is heat itself, and, as long as the friction is continued, more and more heat will be produced, without any limitation, as Count Rumford has observed.

Some bodies have a greater disposition than others to emit this subtile fluid; and these we say are naturally of a warmer temperature than others. The _temperature_ is nothing else than the efflux of the fluid from them, continually kept up by the action of the surrounding fluid. By mixture with different substances the temperatures of various bodies may be changed; by some the influx, and by others the efflux, may be augmented. In the former case we say the body becomes colder, in the latter hotter, than before; and in not a few cases the agitation of the fluid becomes so great that the matter actually takes fire. In all these cases, however, we can discover nothing more than the bare fact, that so and so is the case. We know that the bodies do grow hot by the convergence of the etherial fluid towards them, and its emission from them; but why it should converge or diverge we know not.

Thus much with regard to heat in general. We must next consider another fluid which has very generally been accounted the source and fountain of heat, viz. _air_. This is indeed so much the source of heat in all our operations, that it was natural to think it the only one; but experiments have now determined that air itself is a mere creature of heat and light;[79] for, by employing these in a proper manner, airs or gases of all kinds have been produced. Thus, by exposing water in a glass vessel for some time to the rays of the sun, a quantity of very pure oxygen air may be obtained; by concentrating the sun’s rays upon charcoal, inflammable air may be had; and by distilling, with a strong heat, substances of various kinds, we may obtain a great variety of aerial vapours. From all this we may reasonably conclude that heat, attached to some other substance, dissolved in it in such a manner as to become invisible, forms the substance of air. Heat therefore being the agent in the composition of air, it is reasonable to suppose that it is the agent in its decomposition also, or in its transformation from one species to another, of which the conversion of oxygen into fixed air by combustion is an instance. When air is taken into the lungs the blood is warmed by the action of that invisible fluid, which has already given elasticity to the air. In consequence of a considerable quantity of this fluid being then converted from a latent into a sensible state, part of the elastic principle must be lost, and the air diminished in bulk. The reason why this must constantly take place is, that part of the heat evaporates from the surface of the body, during the course of circulation. Were it not so, the quantity thrown out by the lungs would be exactly equal to that which the blood received, and consequently there could be no diminution between the bulk of the air expired and that which was inspired; but, on account of the waste just mentioned, the blood must always receive somewhat more than it gives out by the breath. Thus, while the air we breathe continues the same, and the organization of the body is not changed, the natural operations will go on smoothly, and health will continue; but, as we have formerly observed, by an alteration of either of these, disease must ensue; and we must now endeavour, from the principles laid down, to examine the mode in which epidemic diseases, and particularly the plague, may be produced.

[79] Dr. Priestley thinks water is an _essential_ in the composition
of air.

The air is so evidently connected with human life, that it has been from the earliest ages accounted the source of pestilential diseases, though, as none of the more obvious qualities of it, such as heat, cold, moisture, or dryness, appeared to be connected with them, they were generally supposed to proceed from the action of some unknown natural cause, or from that of the Deity himself. Some, however, have also been of opinion that plagues might originate from the obvious qualities of the air in conjunction with certain effluvia from putrid vegetable or animal bodies. Thus, in several plagues mentioned in ancient history, we find swarms of dead locusts, grasshoppers, the carcases of those slain in battle, crowded houses, and filth of all kinds, assigned as causes. This opinion was adopted by Dr. Mead, and he gives the following account of the origin of the plague in Egypt. “Grand Cairo is crowded with inhabitants, who for the most part live very poorly and nastily; the streets are narrow and close; it is situate in a sandy plain, at the foot of a mountain, which, by keeping off the winds that would refresh the air, makes the heats very stifling. Through the midst of the city passes a great canal, which is filled with water at the overflowing of the Nile; and, after the river decreases, is gradually dried up: into this canal the people throw all manner of carrion, filth, &c. so that the stench which arises from this and the mud together is insufferably offensive. In this posture of things, the plague every year preys upon the inhabitants, and is only stopped when the Nile, by overflowing, washes away this load of filth; the cold winds, which set in at the same time, lending their assistance by purifying the air.” He then proceeds to account for the plagues in Ethiopia in the manner above related, viz. by the prodigious swarms of locusts, which sometimes occasion a famine by devouring the fruits of the earth, and, when they happen to be cast by the winds into the sea, occasion a pestilence; the putrefaction being heightened by the intemperance of the climate, which here is so great that it is infested with violent rains for three or four months together; and it is particularly observed of this country, that the plague usually invades it whenever rains fall during the sultry heats of July and August. He next takes notice of what the Arabians say of the origin of the plague in Ethiopia, viz. that it is brought on by unseasonable moistures, heats, and want of winds. But, whatever truth may be in the account given of the Ethiopic plagues, the testimonies already produced in this treatise are sufficient to render it very doubtful, at least, whether the plague ever does originate in Cairo, or any other place in Egypt. Besides, if we once admit the existence of any thing as a cause adequate to the production of a certain effect, wherever that cause exists the effect ought certainly to follow, unless where we plainly perceive something which prevents its action. It is not fair reasoning to say that the action of the cause is prevented by something unknown, for we might as well say that this unknown something is the cause originally, and acts only upon certain occasions, of when it thinks proper. Now, if the filth of the canal of Cairo be the cause of the plague in that city, it ought to recur annually at the season when that filth exists in greatest quantity, and in the most putrid slate. Nevertheless we have the express testimony of Mr. Eyles Irwin, that at the time he was in Cairo there had not been any plague for seven years. The account he gives of it is a kind of contrast to that above quoted from Dr. Mead. “_Misir al Kaira_, says he, or the _City of Anguish_, so called from the frequent visits which it has received from the plague, but commonly called _Grand Cairo_ by us, is situated in lat. 30 degrees 3 minutes N. on an artificial branch of the Nile. Old Cairo nearly faces the river; but the new city is removed above a mile from it, and approaches to the range of mountains which runs through Upper Egypt, and abruptly breaks off here. It is undoubtedly one of the finest cities in the east; which, from the present style of architecture that reigns among the orientals, is but a faint commendation. The houses are in general built of stone, and, being elevated to several stories, would make a grand appearance, notwithstanding the inelegance of their structure, were not the effect destroyed by the excessive narrowness of the streets. This is one of the causes to which the ingenious Dr. Mead ascribes the birth of the plague in this capital; but experience evinces that it arises from _foreign and adventitious_ causes. _There has not been a plague here these seven years_; which is rendered more remarkable by the commencement of the Russian war at the date of its cessation. No one can account for this; though a year seldom passed by before without a visit from it.”[80]

[80] Irwin’s Voyage up the Red Sea p. 335.

From this it plainly appears, that, however these putrid effluvia may concur with other circumstances in producing the plague, they are by no means the _only_ cause; otherwise not a single year could have passed in Cairo without a pestilence; and the very same thing we shall find to hold good in every other, let us choose for a cause what we will. In order to investigate this matter fully, we must now consider what causes have been assigned by physicians for other epidemical diseases; and here, to avoid prolixity, we shall chiefly confine ourselves to those enumerated by Dr. Fordyce as the causes of fever; a gentleman whose very extensive experience must give the greatest weight to his testimony.[81] The principal causes assigned by him are,

[81] At the time of writing his treatise Dr. Fordyce informs us, that
he had been “for upwards of twenty years one of the three physicians
of St. Thomas’s Hospital (in London) whose walls have contained
nearly four thousand patients every year, where the proportion of
fevers to other diseases is much greater than the general proportion.”

1. _Infection_, or “a peculiar matter generated in the body of a man in fever, which is carried by the atmosphere, and applied to some part of the body of a person in health, and which causes fever to take place in him.” That such a cause exists, he proves from observing that “of any number of men, one half of whom go near a person ill of a fever, and the other half do not, a greater number of the former will be infected, in a short period afterwards, than in those who do not.” He says he has known, in such circumstances, seven out of nine infected with the disease. This infection is not discoverable by smell or any other organ of sense; neither can the greatest attention to cleanliness disarm it of its malignity. Of this the Doctor says that he has known instances; nay, of a person going into a room where a feverish patient was, and bringing with him the infection, which was communicated to others in the room to which he came. He owns, however, that by allowing the air to stagnate in which feverish patients are, the infection will become extremely violent and fatal. This may naturally be supposed, even without having recourse to putrid effluvia; because, independent of these, the imperceptible infectious matter itself will undoubtedly be accumulated in the atmosphere of the room, and act more powerfully than it could have done had it been partly carried off and diluted by attention to cleanliness and ventilation. He also says, that “when a number of persons live in a small space, supposing even that they are kept as clean as possible, it happens frequently that fever arises in some, often in many of them. It has been in this case supposed, and is extremely probable, that some peculiar species of matter is _produced_, capable of producing fever, on being applied to the body.”

2. _Effluvia from putrid animal or vegetable matters._ Of this our author seems to be less fully ascertained than of the former, as he does not say that he has observed any instances of fevers arising from this cause; and he concludes by observing that “either the cause of fever, consisting of matter produced in the body of a person affected with this disease, seems probably different from that produced by putrefaction, or might be generated without any putrefaction taking place.”

3. _Cold._ Our author “is not disposed to allow that sudden exposure to cold occasions fever to take place, unless some symptom of the disease follows immediately. If a man had been suddenly exposed to cold, and continued in perfect health for _twenty-four_ hours, the author would never allow that fever, or any other disease, was occasioned by it. In this case (exposure to cold) the evidence is much stronger than in that of infection; for the author (Dr. Fordyce) has seen many instances where, from exposure to cold, the commencement of the attack was instantaneous; and many are to be found in the records of medicine.”

4. _Moisture._ On this subject the Doctor observes, that the application of water to the body is not a cause of fever, unless the air has particles of water floating in it; in which case fever has ensued more frequently than in other cases. Water may exist in the atmosphere in three states. 1. In small drops suspended in it like dust in water. 2. In vapour. In this case the transparency of the air is not impaired, and a _chemical_ combination, as it is called, between the air and water takes place. If the atmosphere be hot or dense, it is capable of combining chemically with a larger proportion of water. If therefore the atmosphere should in this manner be saturated with water, at any particular degree of heat or density, by diminishing either of these the vapour will be condensed, and the water reduced to the former state of suspension in small particles. 3. Water, heated to the boiling point, emits a steam, which combines chemically with the atmosphere, till the latter be saturated, after which it assumes the form of small particles; and _this last is the only state_ which has been found to produce fever.

Moisture will also produce fever when applied to the body by wearing wet clothes. Those which imbibe or part with heat most slowly, are least apt to produce fevers on being heated. The warmer the atmosphere, the more liable people are to fevers from moisture.

It has been observed, that moisture from marshes, stagnating canals, or where the water runs very slowly, is more apt to produce fevers than what proceeds from the sea, lakes or rapid rivers. “This (says the Doctor) has given occasion to suppose that some other vapours proceed from such marshes beside water, and produce the disease. It certainly often happens, that a considerable degree of putrefaction takes place in marshy grounds, and more especially in warm climates; but it is by no means to be concluded that moisture in the atmosphere always produces fever in consequence of putrefaction. Putrefaction can only take place in vegetable or animal substances. If water therefore, not impregnated with either, should be in such a situation as to produce moisture in the atmosphere, no putrefaction can take place; therefore, if fevers ensue, they are certainly in consequence of moisture, not putrefaction. Many instances of this may be brought, as in the war which took place in Flanders, between the tenth and eleventh year of the present century, an army encamped upon sandy ground, in which water was found in digging less than a foot deep, and occasioned a great moisture in the air, which produced in a few days numbers of fevers, although the army was perfectly healthy before, and no more fevers were produced on shifting their ground. There are a vast many other instances of the same thing having taken place. Besides, fever has often arisen immediately in persons sitting in rooms, the floors of which had been just moistened with pure water.”

5. _Certain kinds of food._ On this Dr. Fordyce observes, that, though food of difficult digestion undoubtedly produces a number of diseases, he has never seen it productive of fever excepting once. Dr. Girtanner relates, that the emperor of Germany, having forced a number of his subjects to serve as soldiers, and sent them into an unwholsome part of Walachia, where he fed them with a kind of paste made of bread and water instead of meat, many of them died of the scurvy. The Doctor, however, does not ascribe this to any positive cause, but to three _negatives_, viz. the abstraction of the stimulus of _nutriment_, by feeding on the paste just mentioned; of the stimulus of _oxygen_ in the corrupted atmosphere of Walachia; and lastly of the _nervous stimulus_, the most powerful of all; the greatest part being engaged by force against their will. This corroborates what Dr. Fordyce has said, that bad food is very seldom the cause of fever; for among so many, who used the _imperial_ paste just mentioned, some would certainly have been affected by fevers, had it been capable of producing them; but, as it did not, it is most evident that the deficiency of _stimuli_ is not the cause of fever.

6. _Passions of the mind._ These are looked upon by Dr. Fordyce to be among the less frequent causes of fever, though it is certain that they have been productive of multitudes of diseases, and even of sudden deaths; and Dr. Falconer, in his Prize Dissertation, ascribes to the passions very considerable effects in fevers, and even in the plague itself. “Contagious fevers (says he) afford strong instances of the influence of mental affections, both as prophylactics and remedies. The plague is a remarkable example, and the same reasoning extends to other disorders of a febrile, contagious nature. Fear, it is well observed by Dr. Cullen, by weakening the body, and thereby increasing its irritability, is one of the causes which, concurring with contagion, render it more certainly active, which he ascribes to its weakening effect on the body, by which its irritability is increased. Against this therefore he directs the mind to be particularly fortified, which is best done by giving people a favourable idea of the power of preservative means, and by destroying the opinion of the incurable nature of the disorder, by occupying the mind with business or labour, and by avoiding all objects of fear, as funerals, passing-bells, and any notice of the death of particular friends. Even charms might be used with good effect, could we promote a strong prepossession of their efficacy, either by the confidence they inspire, or by their engrossing the attention of the mind. It is no less certain, that a studious regard to promote hope and confidence in recovery, is equally necessary for the cure as for the prevention of such disorders. We know that contagious fevers have a peculiar tendency to diminish the energy of the brain, and of course to debilitate the whole system; and that this is especially the case with the plague, which produces the most considerable effects in weakening the nervous[82] system or moving powers, and in disposing the fluids to a general putrescency; and Dr. Cullen is of opinion that to these circumstances, as the proximate causes of the plague, regard should chiefly be had, both for the prevention and cure of this disorder. It must therefore be highly necessary, during the course of this disease, to attend to the support of the spirits, as on these the vital principles greatly depend; and they can by no means be so effectually kept up as by inspiring a confidence of recovery.”

[82] “An intense head-ach, uncommon giddiness, and a sudden loss of
strength, were the first complaints of those who were seized with
this distemper.”

(Russel on the Plague at Aleppo, p. 230.)

Dr. Zimmerman presents us with a great number of examples of the influence of the passions in producing diseases, or death itself; some of the most remarkable of which follow. “All the passions (says he) when carried to excess, bring on very formidable diseases. Sometimes they occasion death, or bring us at least into imminent danger. The most reputable physicians agree in opinion that terror may occasion apoplexy, and death; and indeed they consider apoplexy as the most common effect of violent passion. Without being carried to excess, a passion will sometimes occasion a difficulty of breathing, together with a sense of stricture in the breast, and an hesitation to speak; the tongue remaining as it were immoveably fixed on the palate. Hysterical and hypocondriacal affections are sometimes the effects of grief in the most healthy people. Joy is much more dangerous to life than sudden grief. Sophocles died through joy at being crowned on account of a tragedy he had composed in his old age. The famous Fouquet died on being told that Louis XIV had restored him to liberty. The niece of the celebrated Leibnitz, not suspecting that a philosopher would hoard up treasure, died suddenly on finding under her uncle’s bed a box containing sixty thousand ducats. Violent anger has sometimes produced hæmorrhages and subcutaneous extravasations; or, some vessel of the brain being ruptured by these transports, a fatal apoplexy has taken place. There have been instances of excessive anger being succeeded by epilepsy, colic, or a violent degree of fever. Sometimes it has occasioned an increased flow of bile. In some this produces vomiting; in others it goes off downwards, and causes diarrhœa; or being retained, from a stricture of the gall-ducts, will perhaps be absorbed, and occasion jaundice. In cases where anger has been succeeded by extreme grief, obstructions have taken place in the liver. The effects of terror are similar to those of anger, but in general more violent. Sometimes excessive terror seems to give to men a preternatural strength, as is the case with madmen and drowning persons. In some cases it has not only excited immediate convulsions, but caused them to return periodically. Fear has been said to make the hair stand upright, and to contract the pores from which the hairs issue in the same manner as cold does. There are instances in authors even of the colour of the hair being changed by excessive fright. Philip V died suddenly on being told that the Spaniards had been defeated, and, on opening him, his heart was found ruptured. Timid people are more liable than others to fall sick. A firmness of mind is one of the best preservations against contagion. Willis has very well observed, that they who fear the small-pox the most are generally the first to be attacked with it. Cheyne assures us that fear is extremely prejudicial in all epidemical diseases. Dr. Rogers remarks, that fear constantly increases the ravages of a contagious disease. Rivinus attributed the propagation of the plague at Leipsic wholly to fear. The French physicians, who wrote on the plague at Marseilles, went so far as to deny its being contagious, and ascribed its propagation chiefly to fear.”

As for the cause of the plague itself, Dr. Fordyce supposes it to be produced by an infection of a particular kind. That which takes place in Syria and Egypt, he says, has only been clearly described by Dr. Russel; and it cannot be gathered from the accounts whether this may be originally produced without having been propagated as the first class of infections above mentioned are. “That disease (says he) called the plague, which ravaged this country (England) on considering the histories of the disease, seems to have been a _fever_,[83] produced by infections of the first class which have been enumerated.” Dr. Moore has given an account of the origin of a plague, which, if it could be depended upon, would decide the question concerning the origin of this dreadful distemper without previous infection. This passage is extracted from the History of the Royal Medical Society for the years 1777 and 1778. “Dr. Mitchell, physician to the hospital at Smyrna, appears, according to a memoir of which he is the author, sent by M. le Baron de Tott to the Medical Society to believe in the spontaneity of the plague (or that it arises of itself without any predisposing cause in the body) for proof of which he cites the following circumstance: A solitary shepherd, having no communication with any body, fell sick while he was tending his flocks; he went into an inhabited part, where he communicated the plague with which he found that he was attacked. This circumstance would prove much, if it was certain that the shepherd had no communication with others; if it were known how long, and with what precaution, he had been secluded from company: but the proofs of these are too difficult to be established to allow of any conclusion to be drawn from the fact. We are obliged therefore to acknowledge [it to be a doubtful matter] whether it is in fact a country that is the cradle of the plague; what country this is, supposing that such an one exists; or, finally, whether it sometimes appears spontaneously, and whether the first whom it attacks becomes the focus from whence it emanates.”

[83] This is expressly denied by Dr. Hodges, who had innumerable
opportunities of seeing the distemper.

Dr. Fordyce, in treating of the origin of fever, seems inclined to think that it may arise without any predisposing cause; and after having enumerated the various causes already mentioned, and fully considered them, gives it as his opinion, that “there must undoubtedly be other causes than those which give occasion to the disease, but which are at present _totally unknown_.” In like manner Dr. Moore, speaking of the nervous fever, sums up what may be known concerning the cause of it in the following words. “Upon the whole, we know that people of delicate, exhausted and sickly constitutions, and those whose minds are saddened by depressing passions, are greatly predisposed to this disease, the immediate seeds of which, we also know, may be generated in places where human effluvia are collected and confined. And this is the most essential part of our knowledge respecting the cause of this disease; and even this little is disturbed with uncertainty: for we sometimes meet with instances of people of _robust constitutions_, who are seized with the disease in all its malignity, when they are under no _depressing passion_, when the disease is _not epidemic_, to whom we cannot trace it from any place where the human effluvia could be confined in any uncommon degree, or from any person in the disease, of which perhaps there is no other person ill in the neighbourhood for several miles round; and, in short, when we cannot connect it with any of the causes supposed to be the sources of the distemper. On extraordinary occasions of this kind we have nothing for it but to suppose that, notwithstanding the apparent vigour of the patient, his body has been peculiarly predisposed to catch the infection, and that some contagion, not forcible enough to infect any other person, has by some means, unobserved, been conveyed to him; or, if so many suppositions displease, we may suppose at once that there is in some cases a source of this fever which has not been suspected. For, although the numerous observations that have been made give us the strongest reason to think that human effluvia produce this disease, we have no right to infer that it cannot arise also from some other source.”

To the same purpose I subjoin the very respectable opinion and testimony of Dr. Patrick Russel. “In some epidemical distempers, the sudden alternations of the air have constant and manifest influence; in others, though the influence of the air must be equally admitted, it seems not to depend on sensible alteration or succession in the common properties of the atmosphere, but on some _inexplicable_ combination, some _occult, new, unknown_ quality. Amongst epidemics of this last kind must be reckoned the plague.... Should ever that state of the air, without the concurrence of which the contagion of the pestilence never spreads, or ceases to act, be discovered, and ascertained by unequivocal marks, the dread of the plague, universally prevalent, would be greatly diminished; more effectual means of preservation would be found out, and the application of them might safely be limited to certain seasons.

“Experience in Turky, where, generally, no precautions are taken in the times of pestilence, clearly evinces, that, in a certain state of the air, a communication with infected places may subsist without any material consequence. The return of the plague at Aleppo happens at irregular periods; the intervals are of considerable, but unequal, length; and in those the commerce with Egypt, Constantinople and Smyrna remains uninterrupted. In the intervals between 1744 1760, and from 1762 to 1780, the plague raged several times in the places now mentioned, without affecting Aleppo; and even in two or three years subsequent to 1762, though it was at Marash, as well as other places not far distant, with which Aleppo has continual intercourse, no instances were discovered of communicated infection: if such happened, they must have escaped my utmost vigilance; and the daily exercise of my profession led me to be very much among the natives of all ranks. At the same time I have reason to suspect that infected families from some of those places took refuge in Aleppo; and I know, with certainty, that not only some merchants of that city, who happened to be at Marash when the plague broke out there, returned to their families in the summer of 1763, but that caravans of various merchandise arrived in the course of the same summer.

“I consider it therefore as an established fact in the Levant, that commerce and intercourse with infected towns is sometimes attended with no bad consequence. The same thing may perhaps be asserted, without restriction, of all countries; but till the signs indicating a pestilential constitution be ascertained, no particular year can be declared exempt from danger. Predictions founded on _planetary conjunctions_ have been long exploded; and signs derived from the known properties and alterations of the air, are almost equally fallacious. The seasons concomitant with plagues in England, as well as elsewhere, have been very dissimilar; and the same visible concurrence, usually deemed pestilential, has often, in the revolution of years, been observed to return, in various countries, without producing the dreaded consequences. Upon the whole, from all I have been able to collect, the pestilential constitution seems hitherto to be known only from its effects; _neither its approach nor its retreat can be predicted and its nature remains wrapped up in_ MYSTERIOUS DARKNESS.”

Having thus seen, that, of the causes commonly assigned for epidemical diseases, not one can be accounted certain and determinate, it now remains to consider one more, and that is

_Contagion._ Though this has been generally accounted the same with _infection_, yet by some it has been reckoned otherwise; and indeed there seems to be a necessity for such a distinction; for, though we should prove, ever so clearly, that a disease once communicated to one person should from that person be communicated to another, yet the difficulty is to know from whence the first person had it. This source, if any such can be found, is what we may with the greatest propriety distinguish by the name of _contagion_, and is the sense in which it shall for the future be used in this treatise, the matter communicated from one person to another being always called _infection_. This indeed differs from what many celebrated physicians have said upon the subject; but the distinction certainly must exist. Dr. Cullen speaks rather indistinctly upon the subject. “We have supposed that _miasmata_ are the cause of intermittents, and _contagions_ the cause of continued fevers, strictly so named; but we cannot with propriety employ these general terms. The notion of _contagion_ properly implies a matter arising from the body under disease, _miasma_, a matter arising from other substances. But, as the cause of continued fevers may arise from other substances than the human body, and may in such cases be called a _miasma_, and, as other miasmata also may produce contagious disorders, it will be proper to distinguish the cause of fevers by using the terms _marsh_, or _human_ effluvia, rather than the general ones _miasma_, or _contagion_.”

From this it is not very easy to determine what the Doctor means when he speaks of _specific contagion_ as the cause of the plague. Dr. Russel plainly ascribes it to human effluvia. “The plague (says he) is a contagious disease; that is, an _emanation from a body diseased_, passing into one which is sound, produces, in time, the same disease,” &c. There must, however, undoubtedly have been something originally distinct from the human body which gave rise at least to the _first_ plague that was in the world; and some plagues recorded in history are said to have arisen in this way. Thus, Ammianus Marcellinus says that the plague which broke out in the Roman army in the time of Marcus Aurelius arose from a pestilential vapour confined in a golden coffer dedicated to Apollo. Upon opening this, the _contagion_ diffused itself all around, and the _infection_ spreading from one to another, produced an almost universal pestilence. Ammianus indeed is the only historian who relates this; another account of its origin is given, p. 14, but whether we believe the account of Ammianus or not (which indeed does not appear probable) it is sufficient to show what were the received opinions at the time. In like manner every one has heard of pestilential effluvia breaking out from the earth, from graves, &c. so that we certainly look upon this doctrine of _contagion_ as the cause of diseases to have been pretty generally received. We are also informed by Dr. Mead, from M. Villani, who wrote the history of those times, that the great plague of 1346 began in China, where, according to the report of some Genoese sailors, it was occasioned by a great ball of fire that either burst out of the earth, or fell down from heaven. This is thought incredible by Dr. Mead, and no doubt is so, but it shows the general opinion, that the original cause or _contagion_ which produces a plague is distinct from the _infection_ which is afterwards communicated from one to another. In the French Encyclopedie, we have this account of the ball of fire, or fiery vapour, without any comment.

As to the opinion of pestilential vapours arising out of the earth, though we are assured that people have been suddenly killed by explosions, probably of the electrical kind, or by lightning issuing from under their feet, yet we are not furnished with any well authenticated accounts of a _plague_ having arisen from any such cause. About 19 years ago a violent fever raged epidemically through a small district in the north of Scotland, which was said to have originated in the following manner. Some young men having heard that a certain place in their neighbourhood had, in the time of a plague been a burial ground, took into their heads to dig into it. They did so, and one of them immediately fell sick, but recovered. The father of two of the young men, exceedingly displeased at the conduct of his sons, and apprehensive of the consequences, filled up the hole they had dug in the ground, soon after which he fell sick and died, and the fever continued to rage in the neighbourhood for some time. The mother of another of the parties concerned also died, and boils broke out on various parts of the bodies of the sick. This was the account given in some of the news-papers of the time, and had the matter been thoroughly investigated and attested, would have been decisive in favour of pestilential contagion being capable of taking up its residence in the earth. As it stands at present, it can only draw our attention to what may happen in another case, should any similar one occur.[84]

[84] Though the writer of this Treatise was not at that time on the
spot where this event took place, yet he has as good evidence as any
one can have of what has not fallen under his immediate inspection,
that these graves were opened, that the father of one of the young
men died; and the mother of another, and one of the young men himself
was taken ill with the eruption of boils on some parts of his body;
but whether there was any person previously affected with fever in
the neighbourhood from whom it might have been derived, or any thing
which might have strongly predisposed those people to it, is unknown.
It is indeed no easy matter to discover who was the first person
affected with an epidemic, as no body chooses to own that either
they, or any of their relatives were the authors of mischief, however
involuntary, to the community. M. Chaptal, however, in his Elements
of Chemistry, has some curious, as well as useful observations on the
propriety of burying bodies in a sufficient space and at a sufficient
depth; and on the accidents which may arise from opening vaults
and burying grounds. An instance of this he gives of the ground of
a church in Paris being dug up, which emitted a nauseous vapour,
affecting several people in the neighbourhood.

From M. Chaptal’s observations it appears, that bodies do not soon
dissolve in such a manner as to emit no disagreeable or noxious
effluvia, when buried. M. Becher, he says, “had the courage to make
observations during the course of a year upon the decomposition of
a carcase in the open air. The first vapour which rises, he says,
is subtle and nauseous: some days after, it has a certain sour and
penetrating smell. After the first weeks the skin becomes covered
with a down, and appears yellowish; greenish spots are formed in
various places, which afterwards become livid and black; a thick
glosey or mouldy substance then covers the greatest part of the
body: the spots open and emit a sanies.” In such as are buried the
decomposition is much more slow; our author thinks _four times_ at
least. According to M. Petit, a body buried at the depth of four feet
is not decomposed in less than three years, and, at a greater depth
the decomposition is still more slow. This decomposition is favoured
by the presence of water, and likewise by some kinds of earth more
than others. It has been proved by Lemery, Geoffroy, and others, that
argillaceous earths have very little effect in this way: porous and
light earths much more: the roots of vegetables also by absorbing
the putrid effluvia contribute greatly to the final decomposition of
bodies buried in places exposed to the open air; but in churches and
other covered places the case is vastly different. “Here, says our
author, is neither water nor vegetation; and consequently no cause
which can carry away, dissolve or change the nature of the animal
fluids: and I cannot but applaud the wisdom of government which has
prohibited the burying in churches; a practice which was once a
subject of horror and infection.

“The decomposition of a body in the bowels of the earth can never
be dangerous, provided it be buried at a sufficient depth, and that
the grave be not opened before its complete dissolution. The depth
of the grave ought to be such that the external air cannot penetrate
it; that the juices with which the earth is impregnated may not
be conveyed to its surface; and that the exhalations, vapours, or
gases, which are developed or formed by decomposition, should not be
capable of forcing the earth covering which detains them. The nature
of the earth in which the grave is dug, influences all its effects.
If the stratum which covers the body be argillaceous, the depth of
the grave may be less, as this earth difficultly admits a passage
to gas and vapour; but, in general, it is admitted to be necessary
that bodies should be buried at the depth of five feet to prevent all
these unhappy accidents. It is likewise necessary to attend to the
circumstance, that a grave ought not to be opened before the complete
decomposition of the body. The term of decomposition is various;
according to M. Petit of three years in graves of four feet, and
four years in those of six feet. The pernicious custom which allows
a single grave to families more or less numerous, ought therefore to
be suppressed; for, in this case the same grave may be opened before
the time prescribed. It is likewise necessary, to prohibit burying in
vaults, or even in coffins.”

With regard to epidemics occasioned by the action of electricity, we cannot indeed produce any instance; but we have one of a distemper more dreadful than even the plague itself; and that is of a person suddenly struck by an electric flash (generated either in his own body, or in the room where he was) and by this stroke reduced to a most deplorable condition, which soon ended in death. The account stands on the authority of Mr. Joseph Battaglia, surgeon at Ponte Bosio, who transmitted it to Florence, and is as follows.

“Don G. Maria Bertholi, a priest residing at mount Valere in the district of Livizzano, went to the fair of Filetto, on account of some business which he had to transact, and after spending the whole day in going about through the neighbouring country, in order to execute commissions, in the evening he walked towards Fenille, and stopped at the house of one of his brothers-in-law, who resided there. No sooner had he arrived, than he desired to be conducted to his apartment, where he put a handkerchief between his shoulders and his shirt, and, when every body retired, he began to repeat his breviary. A few minutes after, a loud noise was heard in Mr. Bertholi’s chamber; and his cries having alarmed the family, they hastened to the spot, where they found him extended on the floor, and surrounded by a faint flame, which retired to a greater distance in proportion as it was approached, and at length disappeared entirely. Having conveyed him to bed, such assistance as seemed necessary was given him. Next morning I was called, and after examining the patient carefully, I found that the teguments of the right arm were almost entirely detached from the flesh, and hanging loose, as well as the skin of the lower part of it. In the space contained between the shoulders and the thigh, the teguments were as much injured as those of the right arm. The first thing, therefore, to be done, was to take away those pieces of skin; and, perceiving that a mortification was begun in that part of the right hand which had received the greatest hurt, I scarified it without loss of time; but notwithstanding this precaution, I found it next day, as I had suspected the preceding evening, entirely sphacelous. On my third visit, all the other wounded parts appeared to be in the same condition. The patient complained of an ardent thirst, and was agitated with dreadful convulsions. He voided by stool bilious putrid matter, and was distressed by a continual vomiting, accompanied with a violent fever and delirium. At length the fourth day after a comatose sleep of two hours, he expired. During my last visit, while he was sunk in the lethargic sleep of which I have spoken, I observed with astonishment, that putrefaction had already made so great progress, that his body exhaled an insupportable smell. I saw the worms which issued from it crawling on the bed, and the nails of his fingers drop of themselves; so that I thought it needless to attempt any thing farther, while he was in this deplorable condition. Having taken care to get every possible information from the patient himself, respecting what had happened to him, he told me, that he had felt a stroke, as if somebody had given him a blow over the right arm, with a large club, and that at the same time, he had seen a spark of fire attach itself to his shirt, which in a moment was reduced to ashes, though the fire did not in the least injure the wrist-bands. The handkerchief which he had placed upon his shoulders, between his shirt and his skin, was perfectly entire, without the least appearance of burning, his drawers were untouched, but his night-cap was destroyed, though a single hair of his head was not hurt. That this flame under the form of elementary fire, burnt the skin, reduced the shirt to ashes, and entirely consumed the night-cap, without in the least touching the hair, is a fact which I affirm to be true: besides, every symptom that appeared on the body of the deceased, announced severe burning. The night was calm, and the circumambient air very pure: no bituminous smell could be perceived in the chamber, nor was there the least trace of fire or of smoke. A lamp, however, which had been full of oil, was found dry, and the wick almost in ashes. We cannot reasonably suppose this fatal accident to have been occasioned by any external cause; and I have no doubt that if Maffei were still alive he would take advantage of it to support an opinion which he entertained, that lightning is sometimes kindled in the human body and destroys it.”

Another account, to the same purpose, is given in Mr. Battaglia’s paper. “On the 21st of April, 1781, the first battalion of the brigade of Savoy set out from Tortona, in order to go to Arti, when the weather was excessively hot. On the 22d, having made rather a forced march, the soldiers suffered a great deal from the ardour of the sun, so that, at the village of Serre, where they halted, one of them, named Bocquet, a man of twenty-five years of age, whose skin being very hard and thick had not perspired, sent forth a loud cry, which seemed to announce some extraordinary commotion, and instantly fell down. Mr. Bianet, surgeon major to the regiment, found the patient in convulsions. When he was carried to the hospital the upper part of his body, to the thighs, appeared to be withered and black, and in a gangrenous state. Mr. Bianet employed scarifications, but without effect; it was impossible to make him swallow any thing; and it was found necessary to abandon him to his dismal fate. His body soon exhaled a putrid smell, and he died at the end of five hours. That his disorder might not be communicated to others, he was interred together with his clothes. Upon inquiry, after his death, it was found that this man was addicted to the constant use of spiritous liquors, and that he had even drank of them to excess upon the march.”