A brief history of epidemic and pestilential diseases; with the principal phenomena of the physical world, which precede and accompany them, and observations deduced from the facts stated. : In two volumes. / By Noah Webster, author of Dissertations on the English language and several other works--member of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences--of the Society for the Promotion of Agriculture, Arts and Manufactures, in the state of New-York--of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and corresponding member of the Historical Society in Massachusetts. ; Vol. I[-II].

SECTION I. Of the diversity of opinions respecting the cause and origin pestilence.

FROM the date of the earliest historical records, the opin|ions of men have been divided on the subject of the causes and origin of pestilential diseases. All enquiries of the philosopher and the physician have hitherto been baffled, and investigations, often repeated, have ended without leading to satisfactory con|clusions.

In the history of opinions on this mysterious subject, there is a remarkable distinction between the ancients and moderns. The ancients derived most of their knowledge and science from personal observation, as they had very few books and little aid from the improvements of their predecessors. The philoso|phers of antiquity, attentive to changes in the seasons and to the revolutions of the heavenly bodies, attempted to trace pesti|lential diseases to extraordinary vicissitudes in the weather, and to the aspects of the planets. Modern philosophers and physi|cians, on the other hand, unable to account for pestilence on the principle of extraordinary seasons, and disdaining to admit the influence of the planets to be the cause, have resorted to in|visible animalculae, and to infection concealed in bales of goods or old clothes, transported from Egypt or Constantinople, and let loose, at certain periods, to scourge mankind and desolate the earth.

In both periods of the world, the common mass of people, usually ignorant and always inclined to believe in the marvellous,

have cut the Gordian knot of difficulty, by ascribing pestilence to the immediate exercise of divine power; under the impres|sion that the plague is one of the judgments which God, in his wrath, inflicts on mankind to punish them for their iniquities.

Without deciding on the comparative merit of these respect|ive opinions, it is sufficient to observe, that they are all probably incorrect; and those of the philosophers, altogether inadequate to explain the origin of pestilential Epidemics.

It may however be of use to insert, in this place, the expla|nations of the cause of pestilence, given by some of the princi|pal writers on the subject.

Hippocrates, the father of medical science, and a man of very acute observation, considered pestilence as the effect of partic|ular seasons and winds. A pestilential state or constitution of air he describes, as occasioned by a continuation of southerly winds, and a warm, humid, clouded atmosphere.

De morbis vulgaribus, lib. 3.

Galen followed the same theory. He says that pestilent dis|eases arise from a putridity of the air; and in another place, a coeli statu, from the state of the air or weather.

p. 627, in Hippoc.—

It will at once occur to an intelligent reader, that a particular description of weather, producing pestilence, must be principal|ly calculated for a particular country or latitude. The state of seasons which Hippocrates calls pestilential, is evidently calcula|ted to produce or augment autumnal diseases in temperate lati|tudes; and is precisely the state of weather which existed in the United States in 1795, when the bilious plague prevailed in the cities of New-York, Baltimore and Norfolk. But it does not correspond with the season in 1793, when the same disease raged in Philadelphia; for that was excessively dry, nor with the summer of 1797, which was temperate, in respect to heat, cold and moisture.

Hippocrates indeed seems to have been aware that the seasons alone were not sufficient to account for pestilence, for he speaks of to theion, some divine principle in the air, by which modern

writers of celebrity suppose to be intended what is now called an epidemic constitution, resulting from changes in the atmosphere produced by unknown causes. Aristotle prob. 1. relates that a hot and dry south wind will produce pestilence.

The philosophical warrior and historian, Ammianus Marcel|linus, after mentioning a plague which broke out in Amida, a city of Persia, when besieged by Sapor A. D. 359, from the corruption of numerous dead bodies which lay unburied in the streets, proceeds to unfold the causes of pestilential distempers, in the following manner.

"Philosophers and eminent physicians have taught that pesti|lence is produced by excess of heat or cold, of drouth of mois|ture. Whence it is that those who live near wet and marshy places are subject to coughs, diseases of the eyes and the like. Those, on the other hand, who reside where the heat is great, are troubled with febrile complaints; and in proportion as the matter of fire is more active, drouth is more rapid in destroying life. Hence, during the war of ten years in Greece, this spe|cies of disease prevailed, and it was said that men perished by the weapons of Apollo, by which was supposed to be meant, the heat of the sun. And, according to Thucydides, the mortality among the Athenians, in the beginning of the Peloponnesian war, was occasioned by an acute disease, which proceeded from the fervid regions of Ethiopia, and gradually extended to Attica.

"Others are of opinion that air, like water, vitiated by the effluvia of dead bodies, or similar substances, is deprived of its salubrity; or at least that a sudden change of air will product the more slight complaints. Some also affirm that the air, ren|dered gross by a denser vapor from the earth, closing the pores of the body and checking perspiration, becomes fatal to the lives of some; for which reason, other animals than man, which are continually bending towards the earth, are the first victims to pestilence, as Homer testifies, and which is proved by many examples, during the prevalence of pestilential diseases.

"The first species of plague is called pandemic, and this af|flicts most severely those who are subject to excessive heat, in hot regions. The second is denominated epidemic, which when

it rages, obscures the sight and excites dangerous humors. The third Lamodes, which is temporary, but produces sudden death."

Lib. 19.

The historian has here explained the causes of ordinary dis|eases, occasioned by extremes of weather, marsh effluvia, vitia|ted air, and the direct action of violent heat, or stroke of the sun. No person will dispute the justness of his remarks, for the same causes, at this day, produce the same effects. But the causes assigned are not adequate to all the effects, which we wish to explain. They do not uniformly occasion pestilence; and on the other hand, pestilence sometimes rages without the influence of those causes.

Aetius, an eminent physician, about the close of the 5th cen|tury, compiled the opinions and methods of cure practised by the most celebrated of his predecessors. In this compilation, entitled "Tetrabiblos," chap. ix. we find the following para|graph on the subject of Epidemic diseases.

"Those are called popular or epidemic diseases, which spring from a common cause, as bad food or water, immoderate grief or want of customary exercise, hunger or repletion, especially when abundance succeeds extreme want. But the nature of the country often causes epidemic diseases: the air we breathe being vitiated by the evaporation from putrid substances. These sub|stances are multitudes of dead bodies after battles, marshes or stagnant water in the vicinity, which emit poisonous and fetid vapours.—This cause is in continual operation. And the air which surrounds us, always changes its temperament, when it becomes immoderately hot or cold, dry or humid. To other causes we are not all equally exposed, nor at all times; but the circumambient air, when we are abroad, surrounds us all alike, and is inhaled with the breath.

"Sometimes the surrounding air, becoming unusually humid and hot, induces a pestilential constitution; and as humors, tending to putrefaction, are collected in the body by eating un|wholesome food, this air becomes the source of a pestilential fever. Therefore if a person takes moderate exercise, and is

temperate and regular in his diet [victu modesto ac castigato] he wholly escapes all affections of this kind."

Such were the opinions of the physic••s and philosophers of antiquity. No distinction appears to have been made by them, between the plague and other pestilential diseases. All were ascribed to the same causes.

At what time the distinction between Pestis and Pestilentia was first made, has not occurred to my enquiries. But I find it in the writings of Prosper Alpinus, a Venetian physician, who wrote about the close of the 16th century, and who had been, for some years, a practitioner in Egypt. This author maintains that pestilent fevers are occasioned by local causes, as vitiated air, and by peculiarities of season, as extreme heat and humid|ity. But he asserts that the plague in Egypt rarely proceeds from corrupted air, and never, except after an unusual overflow|ing of the Nile, when that river has exceeded its common bounds. He contends that if this disease was produced by noxious exhalations from putrid and stagnant water, and marshy places, it would occur every year. He therefore concludes for certain that the plague is usually imported from Greece, Syria, Barbary, or Turkey. "Plerumque igitur id genus morbi ibi contagio ex aliis locis asportari solet." The contagion of the plague is usually imported from other countries.

Rerum. Egypt. vol. 2, p. 73, vol. 3, 61, and vol. 4, 299.

The same author asserts that the plague brought from Barbary is more malignant and of longer duration, than when brought from Greece or Syria.

Diemerbroeck, an eminent Dutch physician of the last cen|tury, has recorded an account of a violent plague in Nemueguen in 1636, and subjoined to it the best treatise on the origin of that disease, which I have been able to find, tho in one or two particulars, his ideas are very inaccurate. This author, whose treatise, I am surprised to find, is little known in this country, assigns three causes of the pestis or true plague. First, the just anger of heaven, provoked by the exhalations from the sinks of our sins and abominable deeds. Secondly, a most malignant, poisonous, and to human nature, deadly pestilent germ, [semi|narium]

like a subtle fermentum or leaven, sent from heaven, in a very small quantity, diffusing itself through the air like a subtle gas, and rendering it impure. This gas, he supposes to spread over many regions its numerous particles, and to impress on the air an infection like poison, which often affects not only many persons, but almost the whole world.

However whimsical we may think this author's explanation of the pestilent principle; that some such general cause exists in the atmosphere, at certain periods, will be rendered very probable, if not certain, by the facts hereafter to be related.

The "seminarium e coelo demissum" of Diemerbroeck seems to be the to theion of Hippocrates. In what the essence of this principle consists, is not known; but there must be an alteration in the chymical properties of the atmosphere to solve the diffi|culties that attend our inquiries into the cause of pestilence.— That this alteration is the effect of a poison, "e coelo demissum," is an hypothesis unsupported by facts and wholly incredible.

The third cause of pestilence, mentioned by this author, is infection.

Diemerbroeck also maintains the distinction between pestis and pestilentia. The latter is supposed to proceed from foul exhala|tions, intemperate seasons and the like. But the plague, he contends, cannot be occasioned by those causes, tho these may aid the seminarium or general cause.

Van Helmont, a Flemish writer of some celebrity, in the last century, maintains that the plague cannot be ascribed to the "importunate and unseasonable changes of times, nor to pu|trefaction;" that the "poison of the plague is a fa•• secret one from any other;" that the "matter of that disease is a wild spirit tinged with poison, exhaling from a diseased person, or drawn inwards from a gas of the earth putrified by continuance, and receiving internally an appropriate ferment, and by degrees attaining a pestilent poison in us." "The remote, crude and first occasional matter of the pestilence, is an air putrified thro' continuance, or rather a hoary putrified gas, which putrefaction of the air, hath not the 8200th part of its seminal body." This explanation seems to be hardly intelligible.

Works, Lond. Edit. 1662, p. 1085, 1090, 1102, 1125.

This author contends that "the pest is not sent down from heaven, but that popular plagues do draw their first occasional matter from an earthquake, and from the consequences of camps and sieges."

p. 1125.

Hodges, who wrote a treatise on the great plague in London in 1665, observes that the air suffers some essential alteration which is necessary to favor the propagation of pestilence. The nitro-aerial principle, which causes or in vigorates vegetable and animal life, sometimes becomes imperfect, degenerate or cor|rupt, being tainted with something pernicious to vitality. He calls it poisonous, and observes that it proves injurious to trees and cattle, as well as to man. He supposes the corrupting prin|ciple to be a subtle aura or vapor extricated from the bowels of the earth. To this cause also he ascribes the death of fish du|ring periods of pestilence. At the same time he contends that the infecting principle is generated in Africa or Asia, and con|veyed to other countries. The seat of the disease he supposes to be in the animal spirits.

Van Swieten maintains that the cause of Epidemics is in the hidden qualities of the air, and inexplicable. He supposes it not impossible that exhalations in earthquakes may augment or lessen the deleterious quality of the air in pestilence.

Com. vol. 16, 47.

Sydenham not only agrees with Diemerbroeck, Van Swieten, and others, in ascribing pestilence to occult qualities in the air, but has entered into the subject of explaining the peculiar symp|toms of diseases by the influence of an Epidemic constitution of the air. His occult qualities have been ridiculed by later physi|cians, and so far as his theory, in this respect, has been neg|lected, the science of medicin has degenerated. If I mistake not, it can be made evident, that one of the most important, as well as most difficult branches of medical science, is to as|certain the effect of the reigning constitution of air, on prevail|ing diseases, and to apply that knowledge to the cure of those diseases.

Dr. Mead's treatise on the plague has been much admired and celebrated; yet I will assert, that next to the "Traitè de

la peste," a treatise in quarto on the plague of Marseilles, pub|lished by royal permission, it is the weakest and least valuable performance on that subject now extant. The author acknowl|edges he had never seen the disease of which he wrote; and therefore must have formed his opinions on the observations of others.

His essay is intended to demonstrate that the plague is propa|gated by specific contagion only, and he attempts to prove that this disease, like the small-pox and measles, has been bred in E|gypt or Ethiopia, and thence propagated and entailed on Europe.

Works, p. 242 & 3.

In support of this theory he even goes so far as to call in ques|tion the unanimous testimony of historians, who relate that the terrible plague of 1347, 8, 9, and 50, began in Cathay, China. In opposition to which he "questions not," that that pestilence originated in Egypt. He alledges that we must seek the cause of plague in Egypt and no where else.

p. 246.

He ascribes the plague to the putrefaction of animal substances and unseasonable moisture, heats and want of winds; but says "no kind of putrefaction in European countries is ever height|ened to a degree capable of producing the true plague."

p. 247 & 8.

This author assigns three causes of plague, 1st. Diseased persons: 2d. goods transported from infected places; 3d. a corrupted state of air.

p. 250.

He thinks the causes mentioned so obvious that he wonders at authors who resort to hidden qualities, such as malignant in|fluences of the heavens, arsenical, bituminous or other mine|ral effl••via, with the like imaginary or uncertain agents.

p. 249.

He does not however deny all latent disorders in the air, but considers them as secondary causes only, increasing and promo|ting the disease when once bred, but he thinks infection to be the means of its propagation. In this he differs widely from Diemerbroeck who utterly denies that the disease is originally derived from infection, although he agrees that it may be after|wards communicated from person to person by contact or near

approach. Diemerbroeck also maintains the latent qualities of the air to be the principal cause of the plague; or cause sine qua non—a point which the facts to be hereafter detailed will most clearly demonstrate.

Dr. Mead says, "the plague is never originally bred with us, but is always brought accidentally from abroad."

p. 261.

The same opinion is asserted most positively in James' Medi|cal Dictionary, and in most modern publications on the subject. The compilers of the Encyclopedia say, "the plague, as is generally agreed, is never bred or propagated in Britain, but al|ways imported from abroad," especially from the Levant, Lesser Asia or Egypt where it is very common." Such also was the opinion of the celebrated Cullen.

Encyclop. art. plague and medicine no. 221.

The following sentence in Dr. Mead is very exceptionable, as it is calculated to check a spirit of free enquiry—a spirit to which mankind are greatly indebted for improvements in science.

"It may be justly censured in those writers that they should undertake to determine the specific nature of these secret chan|ges and alterations which we have no means at all of discover|ing," alluding to changes in the air.

p. 249.

In opposition to all these great authorities, it will probably be proved, that the plague generally, if not always originates, in the country where it exists as an epidemic. The common opinion of the propagation of pestilence solely by infection, has had a most calamitous effect on medicin and on human happiness. It has prevented the researches of acute modern philosophers and physicians, who might have been able, by diligence and a comprehensive view of the subject, to trace pestilence to its real causes, and to suggest the true means of avoiding this terrible scourge.

Thompson who travelled in Egypt about the year 1734, and whose account of that country has not been mended by modern travellers, observes, "The coming and going of the plague are two things not easily to be accounted for, notwithstanding we

are assured of the facts in a most unquestionable manner. That the infection is propagated in the air, and thereby transferred from place to place, seems to be a matter out of dispute; but how it is generated therein, we are much at a loss to determine." He proceeds to state, like many others, "that the plague is generally brought into Egypt from Constantinople or by Cara|vans from the southern countries." And on the whole he thinks it rarely generated in that country.

Travels, vol. 2, p. 194 & 5.

In the Monthly Review vol. 33, there is an account of the plague in Constantinople, by Dr. Mackenzie, in which are some passages worthy of notice. After asserting his opinion that this distemper can be communicated only by the touch or near ap|proach, he adds, "that both here and at Smyrna, the plague breaks out, in some years, when it is not possible to trace whence it is conveyed." He supposes the disease to proceed from "venomous moleculae lodged in wool, cotton, hair, leather and skins," in houses not well cleansed after pestilence; but that the plague from this source is not so fatal as when it comes from abroad. The air he thinks no otherwise concerned in produ|cing the disease, than as "a vehicle to convey the venomous particles from one body to another."

Dr. Chandler, in his account of a plague in Smyrna, has near|ly the same idea, as Mackenzie, with respect to the origin of the disease. He says "the plague might perhaps be truly defined, a disease arising from certain animalculae, probably invisible, which burrow and form their nidus in the human body. These whether generated in Egypt or elsewhere, subsist always in some places suited to their nature. They are imported almost annually into Smyrna, and this species is commonly destroyed by intense heat. They are least fatal at the beginning and latter end of the season. If they arrive early in the spring, they are weak; but gather strength, multiply and then perish. The pores of the skin, opened by the weather, readily admit them."

Baron de Tott in his memoirs observes▪ The researches I have carefully made concerning the plague, which I once believ|ed to originate in Egypt, have convinced me, that it would not be so much as known there, were not the seeds of it conveyed

thither by the commercial intercourse between Constantinople and Alexandria. It is in this last city that it always begins to appear. It rarely reaches Cairo, though no precaution is taken to prevent it; and when it does, it is presently extirpated by the heats, and prevented from arriving as far as the Said. It is like|wise well known that the penetrating dews, which fall in Egypt about midsummer, destroy, even in Alexandria, all remains of this distemper."

Vol. 4. page 70.

In vol. 1, p. 38 he says, "that the researches into the nature of this distemper have only produced opinions which are self-con|tradictory or unsupported by facts."—"There is no difficulty with respect to the causes which preserve and propagate it. Both the one and the other may be referred to the dealers in old clothes in Constantinople."

Du Pauw, in his Philosophical Dissertations on the Egyptians and Chinese, speaks of the plague as a disease of Egypt; and supposes the plague at Vienna in 1680, to have been imported from that country.—"Egypt is the hot-bed of the plague—this disorder is not produced by famin—by exact annotations con|tinued during twenty-eight years, we find that it raged five times, without being preceded by any scarcity of food, and contrary to what I once suspected, unrestricted to a periodical course."

Vol. 1. p. 87, 89.

Savary alledges, in opposition to the last mentioned author, that the pestilence is not native in Egypt, and that he consulted Egyp|tians and physicians who had lived there 20 years, who informed him that the plague was brought thither by the Turks. He sup|poses Constantinople to be now the residence of this dreadful af|fliction, which is preserved in existence by means of old clothes, which, after a plague has ceased, are distributed and sold very low by the Jews, and thus the disease is propagated.

Dr. Alexander Russel has given an account of the plague in Aleppo in 1742 and 3, and endeavored to ascertain from what quarter the disease originated and invaded that city. He seems to think, it always appears first at Tripoli, Sidon, or on the Sea Coast. It was asserted that the great plague of 1719 came from the northward; but as this fact does not suit his theory, he, like

Dr. Mead, in the case before mentioned, gives no credit to the assertion, but adheres to his opinion that all plagues originate in Egypt.—At the same time he is puzzled to trace the disease, in any instance, to that country.

Sec his hist. of Aleppo.

Dr. Patrick Russel has published a quarto volume on the plague of Aleppo in 1760, and the subject of quarantine. In this work, he has preserved a number of important facts, but without under|standing the subject sufficiently to apply them to useful purposes. All his theory and practical remarks are founded on the vulgar supposition of the origin of that disease in one or two cities only, and its propagation by specific contagion—a supposition totally unfounded; his treatise of course will be found of little value, in this respect.

Mr. Volney. with all his philosophy and several months resi|dence in Egypt, furnishes no additional light, on the subject of the origin of pestilence. He says, "some persons have attemp|ted to establish an opinion, that the plague originates in Egypt; but this supposition, founded on vague prejudices, seems to be dis|proved by facts." This is an extraordinary assertion for a man who has the character of a philosopher. And on what author|ity does it rest? Simply on the declaration of European Merch|ants who have been settled for many years at Alexandria, and of the Egyptians, who say that the disease first appears in Alexan|dria, and that it is invariably preceded by an arrival from Smyr|na or Constantinople. Therefore this philosopher concludes, "that the disease certainly originates from Constantinople, where it is perpetuated by the absurd negligence of the Turks, who publicly sell the effects of persons who die of that distemper." Here we have another great man ascribing this vast effect, an epidemic pestilence, to so trifling a cause, as infection preserved in furs, woolens, and old clothes!

What is still more astonishing, the same author adopts the ideas of the Egyptians, which Prosper Alpinus had adopted before him and which he has evidently copied from Alpinus, that a plague coming from one country is less malignant than when it comes from another, as tho there could be a difference in the specific contagion of the disease, when produced in different coun|tries.

Volney says "when brought from the Archipelago, or even from Damietta, into the harbours of Latakia, Saide or Acre, it will not spread; it rather chuses preliminary circum|stances, and a more complex route; but when it passes directly from Cairo to Damascus, all Syria is sure to be infected."

Travels in Egypt and Syria vol. 1. 253. et seq.

It is really surprising that, if the fact is well evidenced, that a plague proceeding from one country is more malignant than one proceeding from another, men of extensive erudition and observation should not undertake to assign some rational cause for the phenomenon, rather than to propagate the vulgar tales and opinions of the Egyptians.

From this lengthy statement of opinions in regard to the ori|gin and causes of pestilence; opinions weak, contradictory, ab|surd or inaccurate, what conclusion shall be drawn. This, most evidently, that the subject is not understood. Perhaps it never will be understood. But surely a subject so interesting to the life and happiness of man, deserves most critical and laborious enquiry. A subject which concerns the lives of millions of the human race ought not to be abandoned by the man of science, until every effort to find the truth shall have been exhausted. Yet strange as it may appear, even a history of pestilence that all devouring scourge which has swept away a large portion of the human race in every age, is yet a desideratum in our libraries.

To supply in part this defect, and to stimulate further re|searches into the origin of this frequent and formidable calamity, I will recite such historical accounts of the plague, as an im|perfect examination of authors has enabled me to collect. And as the most accurate observers of the operations of nature, have suggested the probability that pestilential epidemics are caused by some occult qualities in the air, or by vapor from the internal parts of the earth, or by planetary influence, it is absolutely necessary to enquire how far such suggestions are supported by facts. For this purpose, I shall note, as I proceed, any extra|ordinary occurrence or phenomena in the physical world, as earthquakes, eruptions of volcanoes, appearance of comets, vi|olent tempests, unusual seasons, and other singular events and circumstances, which may appear to be connected with pesti|lence,

either as cause or effect, or as the effect of a common cause.

The result of this process will probably be a refutation of some of the foregoing opinions, and the establishment of such as are more rational and philosophical.

It is proper however to premise, that this investigation, which has been pursued but a few months only, amidst other occupa|tions, has been subjected to inconveniences peculiar to the Uni|ted States. No man can find in this country all the books ne|cessary for a complete examination of a historical or scientific subject. The public libraries in New-York and New-Haven, tho very valuable, are deficient. Those of Harvard College and Philadelphia, are more extensive, but incomplete. I have examined them all, tho in some of them I could spend but little time; yet in none of them could I find all the authorities which it was my wish and intention to consult.

It is further to be premised, that I have, as far as it could be done, resorted to original historians for my facts and authorities. This is certainly the only safe method for a compiler; but in the United States, it cannot be pursued with complete success, for want of the original writers of the local histories of countries. Most of the Greek and Roman authors are to be obtained in our public or private libraries; but some of the best historians of Italy, Germany, the Baltic nations and Spain, who have lived within the last four or five centuries, are not to be found; others are in the original languages, which I do not understand.

As to the modern historical compilations in my native lan|guage, they are almost useless on this subject. The most able and celebrated of them, Hume, Robertson, Smollet, Rapin and Gibbon, have passed over most of the plagues which have desolated cities and countries, without notice, or with some general remarks which afford little light on the subject of their origin.

Most modern writers appear to think every thing beneath their notice, except war and political intrigues. They detail, with disgusting minuteness, whatever relates to the definition or an|noyance of mankind by the ambition of princes and demagogues;

while they omit or slightly mention whatever regards the civil and domestic economy, the private manners and habits, the arts, the health, and the social happiness of nations. To this de|scription, Dr. Henry's History of England, is an exception.

Nor have modern travellers furnished us with many valuable materials to supply the defects of our histories. They pass from country to country; examine and describe a few external ob|jects, such as cities, buildings, paintings and statues, but leave more useful subjects unexamined, and return home with a book of vulgar tales and errors.

In respect to useful history, the ancient authors have the preference over the modern. Modern compilers appear to have written for fame or for money, rather than for the sake of en|folding and diffusing truth. Hence they have principally at|tended to those animated periods of the world, which were dis|tinguished for great achievments; or those prominent events, a description of which would interest the passions of their readers: Or they have selected for description such parts of the history of nations as would enable them to adorn their works with an elevated style; omitting a multitude of subordinate facts, as below the dignity of history. Others appear to have undertaken historical compilation, solely or principally to sup|port some preconceived system of government or religion; and have studied to bend the evidence of facts, to the accomplish|ment of that purpose.

These observations have arisen out of my enquiries, relative to pestilential diseases. I have discovered that many of the histories or rather abridgements and compilations which are al|most the only authorities consulted by American readers in gen|eral, are very incomplete; and no man who relies on them only, and neglects original writers, can acquire an accurate and com|prehensive knowledge of history.