Prof. M. Garceau
Gen Ed Syllabi
HIST 115/116
Plagues through history, to 1500
All students are expected to adhere to all rules and regulations set out by the College,
including and most especially, the Honor Code.
Course Description: These courses are meant to enable student to study a broad range of
time periods and places through the lens of massive outbreaks of disease. We will
study the social and cultural setting prior to the outbreak as well people’s
responses, both as the plague hit and how they conceptualized it (and themselves)
afterwards. We will use a combination of primary and secondary literature,
including history of science material. The first course (meant to take 14 weeks)
covers outbreaks to c. 1500. The second course, also of 14 weeks, covers from 1500
until the present day.
Grading: There will be an in-class midterm comprising 25% of the total grade. A series of
quizzes, administered through WebCT and, possibly, in class, will account for 25% of
the final grade. A final paper based on a primary source will account for 40% and
class participation 10%. The paper topics must be approved in advance. For details
about what constitutes an A, B, etc. paper see end of syllabus.
Attendance: Class is important. Each student may have three absences without
explanation. Beginning with the fourth absence, unless otherwise determined by
the instructor, the student will be docked half a letter grade with each absence (i.e.
Student had A and at 4th absence became an A-, 5th absence B+, 6th absence B, etc.).
Cell phones, i-pods, computers, etc. – Students are allowed to take notes on their
computers, but for each instance in which the instructor finds a student using the
computer for non-note-taking activities (surfing the web, updating facebook,
tweeting, etc.) the student will be docked half a letter grade. The same policy
applies for any use of cell phones, i-pods or other electronic devices.
HIST 115: Plagues to 1500
 Bray, Armies of Pestilence: The Image of Disease on History
 Vivian Nutton, Ancient Medicine
Week 1: Biblical Plague
1. Exodus 7-12
Week 2: Hittite Plague
1. Plague Prayers of Mursili II, from reign of Suppililiuma the Great, written by his son,
Mursili II (ca 1327-1295 BC)
Week 3: 460-26 BC Athens
1. Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War 2.47-55:The Plague
Week 4: The Antonine Plague (161-180 AD)
1. Galen, On the Natural Faculties
2. Letters of Marcus Cornelius Fronto, tutor of Marcus Aurelius
3. Chapter 11 “The Hippocratic conception of disease” ” in Diseases in the Ancient Greek
World by Mirko Grmek, trans. Mireille Muellner, 284-304.
Week 5: Aurelian/Roman Plague 250-270
1. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, “On the mortality/Plague”
2. Pontius the Deacon, “The life and passion of Cyprian”
Week 6: Rome & Malaria
1. Chapter 10 “Porotic Hyperostosis, Hereditary Anemias, and Maleria” ” in Diseases in
the Ancient Greek World by Mirko Grmek, trans. Mireille Muellner, 245-83.
Week 7: Justianic Plague (mid-6th c)
1. John of Ephesus, Historia Ecclesiastica
2. Evagrius, a lawyer and honorary prefect living in the city of Antioch, Historia
Ecclesiastica
3. Agathias, Historia
4. Procopius, History of the Wars
Week 8: Medieval Leprosy and Lepers
1. Luke Demaitre, “The Description and diagnosis of leprosy by fourteenth-century
physicians” in Bulletin of the History of Medicine 59(1985), 327-44.
2. Chapter 6 “Leprosy: The Gradual Spread of an Endemic Disease” ” in Diseases in the
Ancient Greek World by Mirko Grmek, trans. Mireille Muellner, 152-176.
Week 9: Heresy as disease
1. Bernard Gui’s description of heresies in Wakefield, Heresies of the High Middle Ages,
373-445.
2. Alexander Patschovsky, “Heresy and Society: On the political function of heresy in
the medieval world” in Texts and the Repression of Heresy, 23-41.
3. Robert I. Moore, “Heresy as Disease” in The Concept of Heresy in the Middle Ages
(Eleventh - Thirteenth Centuries), edited by W. Lourdaux and D. Verhelst, (Leuven,
1976), 1-11.
Week 10: The Black Death 1348-50 – I: Scientific Responses
1. Herlihy, The Black Death and the Transformation of the West
2. Guy de Chauliac, description of the plague
3. University of Paris, explanation for the plague
Week 110: The Black Death 1348-50 – II: Non-Scientific Responses
1. Boccaccio, Decameron (selections)
2. Sterns, “New directions in the study of religious responses to the Black Death” in
History Compass 7 (2009), 1-13
Week 12: The Black Death returns and returns
1. Marchione di Coppo Stefani, The Florentine Chronicle, “Rubric 643: Concerning A
Mortality In The City Of Florence In Which Many People Died” (late 1370-1380s)
2. Ann Carmichael, The Plague and the Poor in Renaissance Florence
Week 13: Europeans in the New World
1. Crosby, “Virgin Soil Epidemics as a factor in the aboriginal depopulation in
America,” The William and Mary Quarterly 33:2 (1976), 289-99.
2. Thomas Morton, The New English Canaan, 130-34.
3. Philip Curtin, “Epidemiology and the slave trade” in Political Science Quarterly 83:2
(1968), 190-216.
4. Linda Newson, “Indian population patterns in colonial Spanish America,” Latin
American Research Review 20:3 (1985), 41-74.
Week 14: The French/Spanish/English Disease – Syphilis
1. Fracastoro, “Syphilis” (1530) – as found in Fracastoro's Syphilis. Introduction, Text,
Translation and Notes (ARCA, Classical and Medieval Texts, Papers and Monographs
12)
2. “Joseph Grünpeck and his neat treatise (1496) on the French evil: A translation with
a biographical note” by Merrill Moore and Harry C. Solomon, The British Journal of
Venereal Diseases 11 (1935), 1-27.
3. Eugenia Tognotti, “The Rise and Fall of Syphilis in Renaissance Europe in Journal of
Medical Humanities 30:2 (2009), 99-113.
4. Arrizabalaga, Jon, John Henderson, and Roger French, The Great Pox: The French
Dissease in Renaissance Europe (New Haven, 1997)
5. Chapter 5 “The Origin and Spread of Syphilis” in Diseases in the Ancient Greek World
by Mirko Grmek, trans. Mireille Muellner, 133-151
Grading
An A or A- thesis, paper, or exam is one that is good enough to be read aloud in a class. It is
clearly written and well-organized. It demonstrates that the writer has conducted a close
and critical reading of texts, grappled with the issues raised in the course, synthesized the
readings, discussions, and lectures, and formulated a perceptive, compelling, independent
argument. The argument shows intellectual originality and creativity, is sensitive to
historical context, is supported by a well-chosen variety of specific examples, and, in the
case of a research paper, is built on a critical reading of primary material.
A B+ or B thesis, paper, or exam demonstrates many aspects of A-level work but falls short
of it in either the organization and clarity of its writing, the formulation and presentation of
its argument, or the quality of research. Some papers or exams in this category are solid
works containing flashes of insight into many of the issues raised in the course. Others give
evidence of independent thought, but the argument is not presented clearly or
convincingly.
A B- thesis, paper, or exam demonstrates a command of course or research material and
understanding of historical context but provides a less than thorough defense of the
writer's independent argument because of weaknesses in writing, argument, organization,
or use of evidence.
A C+, C, or C- thesis, paper, or exam offers little more than a mere a summary of ideas and
information covered in the course, is insensitive to historical context, does not respond to
the assignment adequately, suffers from frequent factual errors, unclear writing, poor
organization, or inadequate primary research, or presents some combination of these
problems.
Whereas the grading standards for written work between A and C- are concerned with the
presentation of argument and evidence, a paper or exam that belongs to the D or F
categories demonstrates inadequate command of course material.
A D thesis, paper, or exam demonstrates serious deficiencies or severe flaws in the
student's command of course or research material.
An F thesis, paper, or exam demonstrates no competence in the course or research
materials. It indicates a student's neglect or lack of effort in the course.