Scenario 2 – London Plague
1. Do we know the hearth of the plague?
The likely hearth for the 1563, 1593, 1603 and 1625 plague outbreak was the area
surrounding St.Botolph in the northwestern part of London as evidenced by the initial
infections when climatic conditions fostered the growth and propagation of the disease.
Mortality records indicate a rise in deaths in July of 1563 and in 1593. The deaths from
plague began as early as April, suggesting the strong hold the disease had there. A
similar style of outbreak was seen at St. Giles-in-the-fields during the 1665-6 plague
and can be considered that year's hearth. In general, hearths were located in poor,
insalubrious areas with unsanitary conditions that allowed rats to freely move without
impediment.
2. What are specific examples of plague relocation diffusion, contiguous diffusion,
and hierarchical diffusion?
a. Relocation diffusion can be seen by the example of the traveling tailor with his
infected cloth. As he moved from one possibly distant area to Eyam, he created a new
infection zone apart from the adjoining area and thus a 'pocket' of infection. At first,
given the blame rats take in the spread of the disease, ports would have been likely
relocation diffusion of the disease, but facts say otherwise.
b. Contiguous areas of diffusion is seen between parishes and as can be seen on the
Plague website, infection along travel routes caused very heavy deaths, much greater
that that found within the walls of London.
c. Hierarchical diffusion probably existed among the nurses who went in the infected
houses to treat patients and to count the dead. As they returned to their hospitals or
other supply houses, they could have easily infected other nurses who in turn infected
other staff within the patient care infrastructure.
3. How does the concept of distance decay relate to plague diffusion?
Distance decay affected the rate at which the plague spread from the poor areas of
London to the richer or 'substantial' areas and essentially, this economic chasm
provided a bulwark for the rich Londoners. Since the poorer citizens did not mingle
with the rich, the infection almost literally would have been stopped at the doorstep of
their houses. The actual pace of plague deaths can also be considered to have a distance
decay affect in that the plague killed rather quickly and citizens who had become
infected would not likely be able to travel too far, thus concentrating deaths as can be
seen in the plague death maps from the 'Where they Died' illustration.
4. What were some specific cultural barriers to plague diffusion?
The wealthier areas of London provided a form of cultural barrier from the plague in
that the wealthy households were cleaner, more likely devoid of rats and could store
food more readily which enabled them to physically remain isolated form the infected
poor who had to probably travel daily for food and thus expose themselves, or others to
the disease. They could also afford to actually move from the area once the plague
cases began to increase. Such an example is Isaac Newton, who, while attending
Cambridge when it was hit with the plague, was able to return home to avoid infection.
5. What were some specific physical barriers to diffusion?
Physical barriers include the climate, which had to have been above 70 degrees for
some time to incubate the disease, dogs and cats which would keep the numbers of rats
in check (as the opposite was found when a mass killing of cats and dogs occurred in
1665 and caused a rapid increase in plague deaths). The Thames River also would have
provided a barrier except for the town and suburbs of Southwork who seem to have
been infected due to the location of the bridge which could easily transport the disease.
6. What were some environmental impacts as a result of the plague?
With tens-of-thousands of people dead, making effective toxic waste, disposal of the
bodies without infecting thousands more was a delicate proposition. Whole
neighborhood would have become wastelands requiring a 'cooling off' period to ensure
the safety of other Londoners.
7. How did the plague impact population figures, the economy, and culture?
Other than the obvious loss of life, the plague would have affected people's desire to go
to London from areas where the plague was not as prevalent. Trade diminished and the
once hearty flow of cash into the city would have had to rebuild itself over time. People
would have had a harder time getting the supplies they needed with shop owners and
others providing the financial infrastructure of London buried in plague pits throughout
the city. An overall economic, cultural and population was the result.