may be indicated by noticing that the writer (Saintsbury) seriously compares Defoe with Carlyle as a descriptive writer. It would be consoling to think that this is intended as a joke.
Those who wish to know more about the plague than Defoe tells them should consult Besant's "London," pp. 376–394 (New York, Harpers). Besant refers to two pamphlets, "The Wonderful Year" and "Vox Civitatis," which he thinks Defoe must have used in writing his book.
Footnotes
1 At first, a weekly; with the fifth number, a bi-weekly; after the first year, a tri-weekly.
2 Preface to his pamphlet entitled Street Robberies.
3 For a very different estimate, see Saintsbury's Selections from Defoe's Minor Novels.
HISTORY
OF
THE PLAGUE IN LONDON.
It was about the beginning of September, 1664, that I, among the rest of my neighbors, heard in ordinary discourse that the plague was returned again in Holland; for it had been very violent there, and particularly at Amsterdam and Rotterdam, in the year 1663, whither, they say, it was brought (some said from Italy, others from the Levant) among some goods which were brought home by their Turkey fleet; others said it was brought from Candia; others, from Cyprus. It mattered not from whence it came; but all agreed it was come into Holland again.4
We had no such thing as printed newspapers in those days, to spread rumors and reports of things, and to improve them by the invention of men, as I have lived to see practiced since. But such things as those were gathered from the letters of merchants and others who corresponded abroad, and from them was handed about by word of mouth only; so that things did not spread instantly over the whole nation, as they do now. But it seems that the government had a true account of it, and several counsels5 were held about ways to prevent its coming over; but all was kept very private. Hence it was that this rumor died off again; and people began to forget it, as a thing we were very little concerned in and that we hoped was not true, till the latter end of November or the beginning of December, 1664, when two men, said to be Frenchmen, died of the plague in Longacre, or rather at the upper end of Drury Lane.6 The family they were in endeavored to conceal it as much as possible; but, as it had gotten some vent in the discourse of the neighborhood, the secretaries of state7 got knowledge of it. And concerning themselves to inquire about it, in order to be certain of the truth, two physicians and a surgeon were ordered to go to the house, and make inspection. This they did, and finding evident tokens8 of the sickness upon both the bodies that were dead, they gave their opinions publicly that they died of the plague. Whereupon it was given in to the parish clerk,9 and he also returned them10 to the hall; and it was printed in the weekly bill of mortality in the usual manner, thus:—
Plague, 2. Parishes infected, 1.
The people showed a great concern at this, and began to be alarmed all over the town, and the more because in the last week in December, 1664, another man died in the same house and of the same distemper. And then we were easy again for about six weeks, when, none having died with any marks of infection, it was said the distemper was gone; but after that, I think it was about the 12th of February, another died in another house, but in the same parish and in the same manner.
This turned the people's eyes pretty much towards that end of the town; and, the weekly bills showing an increase of burials in St. Giles's Parish more than usual, it began to be suspected that the plague was among the people at that end of the town, and that many had died of it, though they had taken care to keep it as much from the knowledge of the public as possible. This possessed the heads of the people very much; and few cared to go through Drury Lane, or the other streets suspected, unless they had extraordinary business that obliged them to it.
This increase of the bills stood thus: the usual number of burials in a week, in the parishes of St. Giles-in-the-Fields and St. Andrew's, Holborn,11 were12 from twelve to seventeen or nineteen each, few more or less; but, from the time that the plague first began in St. Giles's Parish, it was observed that the ordinary burials increased in number considerably. For example:—
| Dec. 27 to Jan. 3, | St. Giles's | 16 |
| St. Andrew's | 17 | |
| Jan. 3 to Jan. 10, | St. Giles's | 12 |
| St. Andrew's | 25 | |
| Jan. 10 to Jan. 17, | St. Giles's | 18 |
| St. Andrew's | 18 | |
| Jan. 17 to Jan. 24, | St. Giles's | 23 |
| St. Andrew's | 16 | |
| Jan. 24 to Jan. 31, | St. Giles's | 24 |
| St. Andrew's | 15 | |
| Jan. 31 to Feb. 7, | St. Giles's | 21 |
| St. Andrew's | 23 | |
| Feb. 7 to Feb. 14, | St. Giles's | 24 |
| Whereof one of the plague. | ||
The like increase of the bills was observed in the parishes of St. Bride's, adjoining on one side of Holborn Parish, and in the parish of St. James's, Clerkenwell, adjoining on the other side of Holborn; in both which parishes the usual numbers that died weekly were from four to six or eight, whereas at that time they were increased as follows:—
| Dec. 20 to Dec. 27, | St. Bride's | 0 |
| St. James's | 8 | |
| Dec. 27 to Jan. 3, | St. Bride's | 6 |
| St. James's | 9 | |
| Jan. 3 to Jan. 10, | St. Bride's | 11 |
| St. James's | 7 | |
| Jan. 10 to Jan. 17, | St. Bride's | 12 |
| St. James's | 9 | |