The English Sweating Sickness of 1551: An Epidemic Anatomized

Medical History

Volumn 41, Issue 3, 1997, Pages 362-384

  Dyer, Alan ^a  

^a BANGOR UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; EPIDEMIC; FEVER; HISTORY; HUMAN; UNITED KINGDOM;

DISEASE OUTBREAKS; ENGLAND; HISTORY, 16TH CENTURY; HUMANS; SWEATING SICKNESS;

EID: 0031181431     PISSN: 00257273     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/s0025727300062724     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. A brief and up-to-date summary of the subject may be found in R E McGrew, Encyclopedia of medical history, London, Macmillan, 1985, pp. 106-8, and in K F Kiple (ed.), The Cambridge world history of human disease, Cambridge University Press, 1993, pp. 1023-5. The most recent extended consideration of the disease can be found in J A H Wylie and L H Collier, 'The English sweating sickness (sudor anglicus): a reappraisal', J. Hist. Med., 1981, 36: 425-45, though one cannot always concur with their interpretation of the historical documentation.
2. A brief and up-to-date summary of the subject may be found in R E McGrew, Encyclopedia of medical history, London, Macmillan, 1985, pp. 106-8, and in K F Kiple (ed.), The Cambridge world history of human disease, Cambridge University Press, 1993, pp. 1023-5. The most recent extended consideration of the disease can be found in J A H Wylie and L H Collier, 'The English sweating sickness (sudor anglicus): a reappraisal', J. Hist. Med., 1981, 36: 425-45, though one cannot always concur with their interpretation of the historical documentation.
3. A brief and up-to-date summary of the subject may be found in R E McGrew, Encyclopedia of medical history, London, Macmillan, 1985, pp. 106-8, and in K F Kiple (ed.), The Cambridge world history of human disease, Cambridge University Press, 1993, pp. 1023-5. The most recent extended consideration of the disease can be found in J A H Wylie and L H Collier, 'The English sweating sickness (sudor anglicus): a reappraisal', J. Hist. Med., 1981, 36: 425-45, though one cannot always concur with their interpretation of the historical documentation.
4. The national index of parish registers, London, Society of Genealogists, various dates, is the most detailed national survey, but the most authoritative sources are the lists maintained in each county record office.
5. Wrigley and Schofield find that in their survey of 404 (generally good quality) registers there is a level of 11 per cent of deficient entries for the reign of Edward VI. E A Wrigley and R S Schofield, The population history of England 1541-1871, Cambridge University Press, 1989, p. 25.
6. W E Tate, The parish chest, Cambridge University Press, 1960, pp. 45, 288; less than 200 paper registers now survive, and there is a dramatic increase in the number of surviving parchment transcripts beginning in and after 1558.
7. The principal resource employed here was the excellent collection of printed or transcribed copies, microfilms and microfiches held in the Library of the Society of Genealogists, London; I am most grateful to the staff there for their help.
8. The counties which were sampled extensively but not examined exhaustively were Bedfordshire, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire, Cornwall, Essex, Hertfordshire, Huntingdonshire, Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Nottinghamshire, Suffolk, Surrey and the West Riding of Yorkshire. Many of these counties were slightly affected or contain many very small parishes which are unlikely to be very helpful, as explained below.
9. Wrigley and Schofield, op. cit., note 3 above, p. 647.
10. J A H Wylie and I J Linn, 'Observations upon the distribution and spread of the English sweating sickness (sudor anglicus) in Devon in 1551', Rep. Trans. Devonshire Ass. . . ., 1980, 112: 101-15, pp. 104-5.
11. The 1563 census can be found in British Library Harleian MS 594 ff. 63r-84r. Population totals assume 5.0 people per household (see A Dyer, 'The Bishops' Census of 1563: its significance and accuracy', Local Popul. Stud., 1992, 49: 19-37). Crude death rate based on Wrigley and Schofield, op. cit., note 3 above, p. 531.
12. The location of all individual registers may be assumed to be the record office of the county concerned, unless otherwise stated.
13. One symbol is given for each place, ignoring multiple parishes in towns. Because of the difficulties involved in detecting marginal sweat mortalities in the register record, parishes have been assigned to the three categories of Map 1 on a basis which is partly subjectively judged (including consideration of seasonality) and partly based on the following guidelines: in larger parishes (those with 10 or more burials in an average normal year) a concentration of 5 or more burials in a five-day period rates as "clear" and 5 or more in 10 days as "ambiguous"; in smaller parishes than these, 3 burials in 5 days and 3 in 10 days are the corresponding limits.
14. A convenient modern reprint can be found in E S Roberts (ed.), The works of John Caius M.D. . . . , Cambridge University Press, 1912, with each work separately paginated; the geographical analysis is found at pp. 11-12. The English text of 1552 was followed by a Latin version in 1555 which contains different material; the latter has been held to state (p. 67) that Caius was present in Shrewsbury during the epidemic but in fact these words are detached from the Shrewsbury references and amount to a general statement that he experienced the epidemic in person, which we should have in any case expected since he was a physician with a house, and almost certainly a practice in the City of London when the sweat epidemic occurred, a circumstance clearly implied in the Epistle which prefaces his English tract. Perhaps Caius had a personal informant with Shrewsbury connections who might have been able to observe at first hand the spreading of the infection in the direction of London. Recent work on Caius includes C Brooke, A history of Gonville and Caius College, Woodbridge, Boydell Press, 1985, pp. 55-78; V Nutton, John Caius and the manuscripts of Galen, Cambridge Philological Society, 1987.
15. A convenient modern reprint can be found in E S Roberts (ed.), The works of John Caius M.D. . . . , Cambridge University Press, 1912, with each work separately paginated; the geographical analysis is found at pp. 11-12. The English text of 1552 was followed by a Latin version in 1555 which contains different material; the latter has been held to state (p. 67) that Caius was present in Shrewsbury during the epidemic but in fact these words are detached from the Shrewsbury references and amount to a general statement that he experienced the epidemic in person, which we should have in any case expected since he was a physician with a house, and almost certainly a practice in the City of London when the sweat epidemic occurred, a circumstance clearly implied in the Epistle which prefaces his English tract. Perhaps Caius had a personal informant with Shrewsbury connections who might have been able to observe at first hand the spreading of the infection in the direction of London. Recent work on Caius includes C Brooke, A history of Gonville and Caius College, Woodbridge, Boydell Press, 1985, pp. 55-78; V Nutton, John Caius and the manuscripts of Galen, Cambridge Philological Society, 1987.
16. A convenient modern reprint can be found in E S Roberts (ed.), The works of John Caius M.D. . . . , Cambridge University Press, 1912, with each work separately paginated; the geographical analysis is found at pp. 11-12. The English text of 1552 was followed by a Latin version in 1555 which contains different material; the latter has been held to state (p. 67) that Caius was present in Shrewsbury during the epidemic but in fact these words are detached from the Shrewsbury references and amount to a general statement that he experienced the epidemic in person, which we should have in any case expected since he was a physician with a house, and almost certainly a practice in the City of London when the sweat epidemic occurred, a circumstance clearly implied in the Epistle which prefaces his English tract. Perhaps Caius had a personal informant with Shrewsbury connections who might have been able to observe at first hand the spreading of the infection in the direction of London. Recent work on Caius includes C Brooke, A history of Gonville and Caius College, Woodbridge, Boydell Press, 1985, pp. 55-78; V Nutton, John Caius and the manuscripts of Galen, Cambridge Philological Society, 1987.
17. The report of the Venetian ambassador states that it started in Wales, but since it was written in 1554, the information may well derive from Caius' work, printed in 1552. Calendar of state papers Venetian, 1534-1554, London, 1873, p. 541. At this date the expression "Wales" may well include parts of the English border counties too. Wriothesley's chronicle claims that it began in Shropshire, though this may again be derived from Caius. (W D Hamilton (ed.), A chronicle of England . . . by Charles Wriothesley, London, Camden Society, 1878, New Series 20, p. 49.
18. The report of the Venetian ambassador states that it started in Wales, but since it was written in 1554, the information may well derive from Caius' work, printed in 1552. Calendar of state papers Venetian, 1534-1554, London, 1873, p. 541. At this date the expression "Wales" may well include parts of the English border counties too. Wriothesley's chronicle claims that it began in Shropshire, though this may again be derived from Caius. (W D Hamilton (ed.), A chronicle of England . . . by Charles Wriothesley, London, Camden Society, 1878, New Series 20, p. 49.
19. W A Leighton, 'Early chronicles of Shrewsbury 1372-1603', Trans. Shropshire Archaeol. Nat. Hist. Soc., 1880, 3:240-353, p. 260; town chronicles were compilations which were copied and re-copied over long periods of time, so that it is impossible to be sure where this information came from, but it could well be a contemporary record or reflect a local oral tradition. Stow gives April 15th as the commencement of the Shrewsbury outbreak, the date given in the Latin version of Caius' work; the chronicler lists Caius' name in the margin at this point as the authority for his account of the 1551 sweat. (J Stow, Annales, or a generall chronicle of England, London, 1631, p. 605.)
20. W A Leighton, 'Early chronicles of Shrewsbury 1372-1603', Trans. Shropshire Archaeol. Nat. Hist. Soc., 1880, 3:240-353, p. 260; town chronicles were compilations which were copied and re-copied over long periods of time, so that it is impossible to be sure where this information came from, but it could well be a contemporary record or reflect a local oral tradition. Stow gives April 15th as the commencement of the Shrewsbury outbreak, the date given in the Latin version of Caius' work; the chronicler lists Caius' name in the margin at this point as the authority for his account of the 1551 sweat. (J Stow, Annales, or a generall chronicle of England, London, 1631, p. 605.)
21. Dates on the map show the first day when a clear concentration of burials is evident, so that where epidemics begin rather slowly, dating may be a little late. All dates are derived from register evidence with the exception of Shrewsbury and London (referred to in the text) and Chester, where in the absence of register data, the town chronicle records the date of onset (P R Hunter, 'The English sweating sickness, with particular reference to the 1551 outbreak in Chester', Reviews of Infectious Diseases, 1991, 13: 303-6, p. 305.
22. The Loughborough facts are somewhat unclear, since the available register copies and transcripts give both June 18th and 24th as the date of onset.
23. D M Palliser, 'Epidemics in Tudor York', North. Hist., 1973, 8: 45-63.
24. York civic officials admitted that what was happening in the city by October was "nowe perceyved to be a kynd of plague and swyttyng" (ibid., p. 50).
25. Howden and York St Olave are two good examples.
26. Our portrayal of the Devon epidemic differs in detail from Wylie and Linn (op. cit., note 8 above, pp. 104-5, 106-11); they miss the two earliest outbreaks at the end of July in the southern villages of Blackawton and Stoke Fleming, and so see the epidemic as beginning in the east in August.
27. Caius, op. cit., note 12 above, English text, pp. 17-19.
28. Ibid., Latin text, p. 65. As a devoted student of Galen and the Greek humoral theory of disease, Caius has much to say about the connection between diet and susceptibility to sweat. These prejudices would have led him to expect high mortality amongst the well-fed.
29. Stow, op. cit., note 14 above, p. 605. Stow seems to rely more on the Latin than the English version of Caius' work (see notes 12 and 14).
30. J G Nichols (ed.), The diary of Henry Machyn . . ., London, Camden Society, 1848, vol. 42, p. 7.
31. Shrewsbury chronicle, op. cit., note 14 above, p. 260. "Towards" in this context probably means "promising". Wriothesley, op. cit., note 13 above, p. 50; the editor, Nichols states (op. cit., note 23 above, p. 50) that King Edward's journal mentions the susceptibility of young men of strong constitution, but I can find no such reference in the modern edition (W K Jordan (ed.), The chronicle and political papers of King Edward VI, London, Allen and Unwin, 1966).
32. Wylie and Collier, op. cit., note 1 above, p. 426. M B Shaw, 'A short history of the sweating sickness', Ann. med. Hist., 1933, 5: 246-74, p. 256.
33. Wylie and Collier, op. cit., note 1 above, p. 426. M B Shaw, 'A short history of the sweating sickness', Ann. med. Hist., 1933, 5: 246-74, p. 256.
34. To stoop could mean to acknowledge another's superiority; a knave is male and usually young and regarded with disapproval; a gallant is a man of fashion and pleasure (O.E.D.), presumably young and well-off. The possibly related "trousse-galant" of the Continent reflects a similar idea (F G Crookshank, 'The "Trousse-galants" of 1528-29 and 1545-46', Proc. R. Soc. Med., 1921-2, 15: 27-34).
35. Machyn, op. cit., note 23 above, p. 318; S J Gunn, Charles Brandon Duke of Suffolk c. 1484-1545, Oxford, Blackwell, 1988, p. 94.
36. Machyn, op. cit., note 23 above, p. 318; S J Gunn, Charles Brandon Duke of Suffolk c. 1484-1545, Oxford, Blackwell, 1988, p. 94.
37. Jordan, op. cit., note 24 above, p. 71. J Strype, Ecclesiastical memorials . . ., Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1822, vol. 2 (i), pp. 93-4.
38. Jordan, op. cit., note 24 above, p. 71. J Strype, Ecclesiastical memorials . . ., Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1822, vol. 2 (i), pp. 93-4.
39. J Barry (ed.), The Tudor and Stuart town, London, Longman, 1990, p. 23. Most of the outbreaks in provincial towns do show a marked male bias, such as Durham, Bristol, Chelmsford, Rye and Evesham, and all the parishes with a clear female bias lay in the countryside.
40. Stow, op. cit., note 14 above.
41. Used by Hancock in 1554 (Strype, op. cit., note 28 above, vol. 3 (i), p. 111.
42. C Creighton, A history of epidemics in Britain, Cambridge University Press, 1891, vol. 1, p. 260.
43. The only exception to this statement is one reference to "the sweat" during the influenza epidemics of the late 1550s (J R Taylor, 'Population, disease and family structure in early modern Hampshire, with special reference to the towns', PhD thesis, University of Southampton, 1980, pp. 330-1).
44. Caius, op. cit., note 12 above, English text, p. 11. Machyn gives 872 of all diseases between the 8th and the 19th (Machyn, op. cit., note 23 above, p.8) while a private letter reports that 938 have died from the sweat between the 7th and the 20th (idem, p. 319, quoting British Library, Harleian MS 353 f.107). Evidently all these figures derive from the same official source; the surviving parish registers make clear that most of the mortality was concentrated between the 10th and the 16th, with only a dribble after the 20th.
45. A L Beier and R Finlay, London 1500-1700: the making of the metropolis, London, Longman, 1986, p. 45.
46. Total population estimate based on chantry certificate returns of communicants in 1548, multiplied by 1.5 to bring them up to total populations (C J Kitching, London and Middlesex chantry certificates 1548, London Record Society, 1980, p. 16). Individual parishes recorded surprisingly consistent levels, ranging between 0.5 per cent and 2.3 per cent. Only two parishes scored more than 1.7 percent.
47. British Library, Harleian MS 594-5. A multiplier of 5.0 has been used to convert households to total population, a higher one than is often suggested but justified, one trusts, by the arguments in Dyer, op. cit., note 9 above.
48. The counties covered by this sample were Cambridge, Chester, Derby, Gloucester, Kent, Lancaster, Shropshire (north), Stafford, Warwick, Westmorland, Worcester, Yorkshire (parts); where a parish showed two separate bursts of mortality, both were generally counted if the interval was not too long.
49. Wrigley and Schofield, op. cit, note 3 above, p. 528, estimates the age-structure at this date.
50. Ibid., p. 531. Though they note that the July mortality was doubled and so rates as a crisis, Wrigley and Schofield suggest that the increase in mortality for the whole year was modest - very much less than the 15,000 that we suggest here (pp. 337-8, 496, 531), though their figures for July and August 1551 would suggest an excess mortality of perhaps 10,000, obscured in the annual total by some low values for the remaining months of the year - p. 511). However the sample of registers on which their 1551 figures are based is only about 76, and has a regional bias at this date, so it would be quite fortuitous if this happened to provide an accurate sample of the experience of the country as a whole.
51. Wrigley and Schofield figures would suggest a loss of over 30,000 in the plague and over 200,000 during the three main influenza years (ibid., p. 496).
52. P Slack, 'Mortality crises and epidemic disease in England 1485-1610', in C Webster (ed.), Health, medicine, and mortality in the sixteenth century, Cambridge University Press, 1979, pp. 25-7.
53. State papers Venetian, op. cit., note 13 above, p. 542.
54. Stow, op. cit., note 14 above.
55. Strype, op. cit., note 28 above, vol. 3 (i), p. 111.
56. Calendar of state papers domestic series, Edward VI, rev. ed., London, HMSO, 1992, p. 198.
57. W D Robson-Scott, 'Joseph Maler's visit to England in 1551', Mod. Lang. Rev., 1950, 45: 346-51.
58. British Library, Additional MS 27582 f. 70v.
59. P Gwyn, The king's cardinal: the rise and fall of Thomas Wolsey, London, Barrie and Jenkins, 1990, pp. 58, 440.
60. Op. cit., note 1 above.
61. Henry Tudor's army passed through Shrewsbury on its way to Bosworth, and there is a long tradition that the disease was carried to London in the train of the new king. The alternative argument is that the disease was already generally known by name by 1485 and already present in Lancashire or its general area in the weeks before the battle of Bosworth, though not perhaps established as an epidemic killer nationwide; both positions would support our thesis. (L Attreed, 'Beggarly Bretons and faynte-harted Frenchmen: age- and class-specific mortality during London's sweating sickness of 1485', The Ricardian, 1978, 4: 2-16, p. 7).
62. G Ormerod, History of the county palatine and city of Chester, 2nd ed., London, Routledge, 1882, vol. 1, p. 234. This gives the date as 1507, presumably because the town chronicle is organized by the usual municipal year which covers part of two calendar years, 1507-8 in this case.
63. Kiple, op. cit., note 1 above, pp. 587-95; P E C Manson-Bahr and F I C Apted, Manson's tropical diseases, London, Baillière Tindall, 1982, pp. 254-74; J Steele (ed.), CRC handbook series in zoonoses, Boca Raton (Florida), CRC Press, 1981, section B vol 1.
64. Kiple, op. cit., note 1 above, pp. 587-95; P E C Manson-Bahr and F I C Apted, Manson's tropical diseases, London, Baillière Tindall, 1982, pp. 254-74; J Steele (ed.), CRC handbook series in zoonoses, Boca Raton (Florida), CRC Press, 1981, section B vol 1.
65. Kiple, op. cit., note 1 above, pp. 587-95; P E C Manson-Bahr and F I C Apted, Manson's tropical diseases, London, Baillière Tindall, 1982, pp. 254-74; J Steele (ed.), CRC handbook series in zoonoses, Boca Raton (Florida), CRC Press, 1981, section B vol 1.
66. Manson-Bahr and Apted, op. cit., note 53 above, pp. 260, 269; Steele, op. cit., note 53 above, pp. 291, 412.
67. Victoria history of the counties of England, A history of Shropshire, vol. 4, Agriculture, Oxford University Press, 1989, pp. 119-68.