Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
American Journal of Philology.
http://www.jstor.org
For the evidence see S.H.A. Verus 8.1-2; W. Schur RE 36, 3rd ed.
(1949) 2025 s.v. Parthia; J. F. Gilliam, "The Plague under Marcus
Aurelius," AJP 82 (1961) 228-29 (hereafter Gilliam). Lucian (Hist.
Conscr., 15) tells of the work of Crepereius Calpurnianus, who in his
history of Verus' Parthian War, wrote of a plague in Nisibis after
the style of Thucydides. The siege of Nisibis was probably in 165, but
the date is uncertain (see Gilliam 229). As Gilliam says, there is no
way of knowing whether this is the same which struck the Romans at
Seleucia in winter 165/66 A.D., but there is no reason to doubt that
it was the same disease.
2 This is based on Galen's comments. See Gilliam 228 n. 12.
8 According to Dio Cassius 72.14.3-4 about 189 A.D. under Commodus'
reign a pestilence occurred, the greatest of any of which he had knowl-
edge, in which 2,000 persons often died in Rome in a single day. What
other plagues Dio has in mind when he says this one was the greatest
is not clear. Dio may not consider this as part of the plague under
M. Aurelius, or this outbreak might have been more virulent than
those under Marcus. Herodian 1.12.1 refers to this outbreak. He says
a plague struck Italy. This does not preclude the possibility that it
also attacked other parts of the Empire. His account does not seem
very reliable. He says the plague killed all the animals that came into
contact with men and also that there was a famine. Although it is
possible that the outbreak of 189 was another disease, most likely it
was the same one as struck under M. Aurelius. In their routes of
contagion plagues lie dormant, wait for a more susceptible generation
and double back along the routes which they have taken. For example,
Mexico City suffered major outbreaks of smallpox in 1737, 1761,
1779 and 1797/98. A second flareup of the epidemic in 189 A.D. would
be perfectly consistent with the pattern of epidemic diseases.
4 Lectures on the History
of Rome, 2nd ed., III (London, 1849) 251.
243
I
IDENTIFICATION OF THE DISEASE.
FEVER.
1. Those afflicted with plague appear neither warm, nor burn-
ing to those who touch them, although they are raging with
fever inside, just as Thucydides describes (in the Athenian
plague). (Comment. 1 in Hippocratis Libr. 6 Epidemiorum.
Aph. 29=Kiihn 17.1.885).
2. Galen calls the plague a fever plague. (Comment. S in
Hippocratis Libr. 3 Epidemiorum. Aph. 57-Kiihn 17.1.709).
BOWELS.
1.Black excrement was a symptom of those who had the
disease, whether they survived or perished of it. Colliquescence
(diarrhea) was first auburn, then yellowish red, later black,
like fecal matter of blood. (Comment. 4 in Hippocratis
Aphorismos. Aph. 31=Kiihn 17.2.683).
2. Colliquescence of evacuation was an inseparable symptom
of the plague. (Comment. S in Hippocratis Libr. S Epidemiorum.
Aph. 57=-Kiihn 17.1.709).
3. In many who survived, black stools appeared, mostly on
the ninth day or even the seventh or eleventh day. Many dif-
ferences occurred. Some had stools that were nearly black; some
had neither pains in their excretions, nor were their excretions
foul smelling. Very many stood in the middle. If the stool was
not black, the exanthem always appeared. All those who excreted
very black stools died. (De atra bile 4=-Kiihn 5.115).
VOMITING.
Occurred in some cases. (Methodus medendi 5.12=Kiihn
10.367).
STOMACH UPSET.
Occurred in all cases. (Methodus medendi 5.12=Kiihn
10.367).
FETID BREATH.
Occurred. (De praesagitione ex pulsibus 3.4=Kiihn 9.357).
COUGH-CATARRH.
1. On the ninth day a young man had a slight cough. On
the tenth day the cough became stronger and with it he brought
up scabs. (Methodus medendi 5.12=Kiihn 10.360).
2. After having catarrh for many days, first with a cough
he brought up a little bright fresh blood, and afterwards even
part of the membrane which lines the artery and rises through
the larynx to the pharynx and mouth. (Methodus medendi
5.12=Kiihn 10.367).
INTERNAL ULCERATIONS AND INFLAMMATION.
On the tenth day a young man coughed and brought up a scab,
which was an indication of an ulcerated area in the windpipe
in the region of the trachea near the jugular vein. No ulcers
were present in the mouth or throat (there was no problem of
ingesting food). (Methodus medendi 5.12=Kiihn 10.360). The
larynx was infected, and the man's voice was damaged.
(Methodus medendi 5.12==Kiihn 10.367).
DURATIONOF THE DISEAiSE.
1. The crisis appeared on the ninth to twelfth day. On the
third day after the ninth the young man was able to rise from
his bed. (Methodus medendi 5.12=Kiihn 10.360. Cf. De atra
bile 4=Kiihn 5.115).
DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS.
The distinguishing feature and the differential symptoms for
most exanthematous diseases (where a skin eruption occurs) is
the rash. Dr. J. C. Snyder states 11 (italics ours):
II
MORTALITY RATE.
French troops. By 1803 only 3,000 were left alive to evacuate the
island, most deaths being due to yellow fever, while the native popula-
tion was barely affected. Nearly 50 percent of the population of New
Spain died of smallpox in 1520 when an infected sailor from Cortez's
ships spread the disease to the populace.
2, See E. E. Duvillard, Analyse et Tableaux de l'Influence de la
Petite Verole (Paris, 1806) pp. 105-106. For example, in Edinburgh
during the years 1744-1753 the death rate from smallpox was 9.6 per-
cent and from 1754 to 1763 9.8 percent. [C. Creighton, A History of
Epidemics in Britain (New York, 1965) 2.523].
80 D. B.
Cooper, Epidemic Disease In Mexico City 1761-1813 (Austin,
Texas, 1965) p. 68.
?1Cooper (see above n. 30) pp. 86-156.