Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    haimish's Avatar
    haimish Posts: 1, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #1

    Oct 27, 2007, 05:50 PM
    The Plague, 1665
    Hello
    I wanted to ask, during the plague that hit London in 1665, it is widely known that most rich people had the money and facilities to escape London and temporarily moved to the outskirts, whilst the poor were ordered to stay locked in their homes. I was wondering what happened to the servants of the rich, considering attitudes towards the poor at the time? Did they go along with their masters, or were made to stay?
    Thank you!
    charlotte234s's Avatar
    charlotte234s Posts: 1,903, Reputation: 143
    Ultra Member
     
    #2

    Oct 27, 2007, 05:53 PM
    I am guessing some went with the rich, and some were probably just dismissed for fear they had the disease or because the rich people could find other servants away from town and avoid any hassle.
    shygrneyzs's Avatar
    shygrneyzs Posts: 5,017, Reputation: 936
    Uber Member
     
    #3

    Oct 27, 2007, 05:55 PM
    Depends on how valuable the servant was. If the master and mistress of the house felt that the person was indispensable, the servant would go with. If not, the servant was let go or made to stay, to make sure no looters came in the house.
    Wondergirl's Avatar
    Wondergirl Posts: 39,354, Reputation: 5431
    Jobs & Parenting Expert
     
    #4

    Oct 27, 2007, 06:09 PM
    Also, the country people didn't want the city people to bring them the plague, so they did everything they could to keep city people away.

    Meanwhile, many of the servants lived at home in the poor section or went there to visit family members and brought the plague back into the rich peoples' homes.
    Athos's Avatar
    Athos Posts: 1,108, Reputation: 55
    Ultra Member
     
    #5

    Oct 28, 2007, 08:52 PM
    I don't know where you got the idea that that the poor were plague victims and the rich could escape. The plague of 1348 killed probably 30% - some say 50% - of the European population - it did not discriminate between rich and poor. The 1665 plague that hit London was equally non-discriminatory although one could argue that, given enough notice the rich could "escape" to the countryside, that theory belies the fact that the plague struck the countryside also. What finally stopped this instance of the plague was the Great Fire which occurred at almost exactly the same time as the plague and destroyed the rats, and the fleas on the rats, that carried the disease.

    You might be interested to know that the bubonic and pneumonic forms of the disease still exist in the southwestern United States. Not long ago, within the last ten years, a tourist became sick in New York City, and he was diagnosed as having bubonic plague. He was from the southwest. The fact was not revealed until the health authorities determined that all risk of contagion was past. Among the public health people, it was a VERY scary time until they could determine the danger was past.
    firmbeliever's Avatar
    firmbeliever Posts: 2,919, Reputation: 463
    Ultra Member
     
    #6

    Oct 29, 2007, 04:37 AM
    The link below gives a very different account of the plague being spread..
    Check the link for the whole story and pics.

    -------------------------------
    ::Eyam and the Great Plague of 1665::
    In the summer of 1665, the village tailor received a parcel of material from his supplier in London. This parcel contained the fleas that caused the plague. The tailor was dead from the plague within one week of receiving his parcel. By the end of September, five more villagers had died. Twenty three died in October.

    Some of the villagers suggested that they should flee the village for the nearby city of Sheffield. Mompesson persuaded them not to do this as he feared that they would spread the plague into the north of England that had more or less escaped the worst of it. In fact, the village decided to cut itself off from the outside would. They effectively agreed to quarantine themselves even though it would mean death for many of them.

    The village was supplied with food by those who lived outside of the village. People brought supplies and left them at the parish stones that marked the start of Eyam. The villages left money in a water trough filled with vinegar to steralise the coins left in them. In this way, Eyam was not left to starve to death. Those who supplied the food did not come into contact with the villagers.

    Eyam continued to be hit by the plague in 1666. The rector, Mompesson, had to bury his own family in the churchyard of Eyam. His wife died in August 1666. He decided to hold his services outside to reduce the chances of people catching the disease.

    By November 1666, the plague was considered at an end. 260 out of 350 had died in the village but their sacrifice may well have saved many thousands of lives in the north of England. Mompesson did survive. He wrote towards the end of the village's ordeal:
    Now, blessed be God, all our fears are over for none have died of the plague since the eleventh of October and the pest-houses have long been empty.
    -------------------------------------------------
    languadoc's Avatar
    languadoc Posts: 9, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #7

    Jan 18, 2009, 06:03 AM
    A good description is in the fairly complex historical novel A Journal of the Plague Year by Daniel Defoe (1659-1731); author also of Robinson Crusoe.

    I lived without Aldgate, about midway between Aldgate Church and
    Whitechappel Bars, on the left hand or north side of the street; and
    As the distemper had not reached to that side of the city, our
    Neighbourhood continued very easy. But at the other end of the town
    Their consternation was very great: and the richer sort of people,
    Especially the nobility and gentry from the west part of the city,
    Thronged out of town with their families and servants in an unusual
    Manner; and this was more particularly seen in Whitechappel; that is to
    Say, the Broad Street where I lived; indeed, nothing was to be seen but
    Waggons and carts, with goods, women, servants, children, &c.; coaches
    Filled with people of the better sort and horsemen attending them, and
    All hurrying away; then empty waggons and carts appeared, and spare
    Horses with servants, who, it was apparent, were returning or sent from
    The countries to fetch more people; besides innumerable numbers of men
    On horseback, some alone, others with servants, and, generally speaking,
    All loaded with baggage and fitted out for travelling, as anyone might
    Perceive by their appearance.
    languadoc's Avatar
    languadoc Posts: 9, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #8

    Jan 18, 2009, 06:13 AM
    Also this:

    The truth is, the case of poor servants was very dismal, as I shall have
    Occasion to mention again by-and-by, for it was apparent a prodigious
    Number of them would be turned away, and it was so. And of them
    Abundance perished, and particularly of those that these false prophets
    Had flattered with hopes that they should be continued in their
    Services, and carried with their masters and mistresses into the
    Country; and had not public charity provided for these poor creatures,
    Whose number was exceeding great and in all cases of this nature must
    Be so, they would have been in the worst condition of any people in the
    City.
    It's a very interesting read of an interesting time.

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search

Add your answer here.



View more questions Search