By the second half of the 16th Century, the British Isles had experienced more than two centuries of periodic plague outbreaks. As a result, town councils were well equipped to rapidly implement a range of policies to protect public health. In response to the threat of plague, officials quickly enacted controls on the importation of goods and limits on the number of people traveling between municipalities. Locals or out-of-town workers were hired to care for the ill, bury the dead, clean the streets, and fumigate houses. Read More
In recent research, Bethany Johnson at the University of South Carolina explored community responses to the plague in the 16th Century, specifically comparing the differences in approach and reception between Glasgow in Scotland and London in England.
In Scotland, each burgh had the power to tailor their plague response to fit local political regimes, geographies, cultural practices, and outbreak severity. This was different from the situation in England. Johnson explains that the flexibility of Scottish policy allowed for a wider range of roles and implementations.
Both London and Glasgow employed ‘searchers’, who would search neighbourhoods, family by family, for signs of sickness, record infections and deaths, and institute quarantines. London searchers, mostly under-resourced women engaged in other health work, were vital to slowing the spread of plague. Their work could impact the extent of outbreaks, the success of quarantines, and the length of lockdowns. However, by the late 16th Century, they were generally perceived as money hungry, and misrepresented as dishonest and promiscuous.
More recently, historians have re-examined the reputation of female searchers, understanding the misogyny inherent in historical descriptions. The supposed spiritual pollution of female bodies and their presence for births and deaths encouraged suspicion during outbreaks.
In contrast, Glasgow appointed male searchers who already had economic and political influence, and imbued them with significant police powers. These Glaswegian searchers have been afforded far more respect in historical accounts. At times, the number of searchers increased, demonstrating that their local power expanded and contracted in response to the threat of plague.
The distinctions Johnson identifies between London and Glasgow highlight the complexity of local responses to the plague. Her research may help us to reconsider our response to disease outbreaks in the present day.
For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, mandates on masks and restrictions on unvaccinated people sparked huge controversies in many countries. This is an example of how many people expect relative freedom from illness and resist the notion that their health behaviours can impact community health outcomes.
While early modern settlements were forced to take the interconnectedness of health seriously, we are more reluctant to do so. We expect scientific advances to make health policy irrelevant, but as plague history shows us, policy and community flexibility is key.
