Plague Dogs in 16th Century London.

The discovery of the concept of contagion, in 14^th century Venice, arrived in England in the 16^th century.  Henry VIII and his councilors instituted variations on quarantine during the Sweating Sickness of 1517/8.   The living residents of houses that had suffered a death to the Sickness were required to remain at  home.  Under some conditions they were allowed to emerge so long as they prominently displayed plague badges.

Not all new policies to avoid contagion were well-considered.  It would still require centuries of fitful progress through best guesses and trial-and-error before a fully modern grasp of the concept.

Regardless of the 16^th century progress, the finest minds still tended to look to classical times as a golden age.  Classical authors continued to be considered the most knowledgeable source of scientific and medical information.

In his account of the sources and effects of pestilences, in his enormously popular poem De Rerum Natura, the Roman author Titus Lucretius Carus noted that dogs caught pestilences as well.

above all faithful dogs would lie stretched in all the streets and yield up breath with a struggle; for the power of disease would wrench life from their frame.[1]  

The Greek historian Thucydides mentioned that dogs perished as well as humans from the great plague at Athens.  A highly popular translation of the Thucydides “by Thomas Nicolls Citezeine and Goldesmyth of London” was published in 1550.

And aboue all othere beastes, the dogges gaue mooste knowlayge of thys infectyonne for that, that they mooste accustomedde to haunte the people.[2]

The fact that Thucydides’ original was as cryptic in the matter as Nicholls translation only made it more frightening.

If dogs could have the plague, then, the myriad stray dogs on the streets of London had to be dealt with.[3]  Perhaps the first record of the response this brought about comes from the 1563 accounts of the Parish of St. Margaret’s, Winchester.[4]

Item, to John Welsh, for the killing and carrying away of dogs during the plague, and for the putting of them into the ground, and covering of the same,[5]

This was the year of one of the great plagues of London which came to the city via English soldiers returning from France. He was paid 3s. 2d.

The next great plague (for lesser plagues moved between sections of London and smaller English towns and cities pretty constantly during the century) occurred in 1592.  By this time St. Margaret’s would appear to have much expanded the dog slaughter policy in its parish.  Presumably all parishes had.

Item, paid to the dog-killer for killing dogs the first time of infection, 16s. 0d.

Item, paid more to the dog-killer for killing more dogs, 10s. 10d.[6]

There was now a profession called “dog-killer”.  He seems to have been well remunerated.  Presumably because he was placing himself in danger of contracting the plague by being in close contact with the carcasses.

Churches being much the same in all eras, the next entries in Margaret’s account books indicate a common form of cost cutting.

Item, Paid more to the poor men for killing of dogs by Mr. Dean's appointment, 10s. 4d.

Item, paid more to the poor men for killing of dogs, 17s. 6d.[7]

Multiple men from among the poor of the parish are now performing the task and taking the risk.  In this way, the church was also meeting its obligation to provide for the needs of the less fortunate.

In the accounts of 1603 there is payment again to a professional dog-killer.

Item, paid to Robert Wells the 19th of June, 1603, for killing of fore-score dogs, 6s. 8d.[8]

Only on this occasion, is the number of dogs included.  It is possibly representative of each previous round of slaughter.

All of this said, modern scientific studies have found that dogs cannot catch the bubonic plague.  It is  not clear that genetic studies have been undertaken as to whether or not the plague bacillus has mutated from a form, centuries ago, that dogs might have been able to catch.  Studies have shown,  however, that eating plague infested carcasses does result in bacilli in the blood and feces of dogs for a time.  It was not unusual for impoverished Londoners to kill stray dogs for food.  A dog with plague bacilli would then infect the eater.

Regardless that Lucretius and Thucydides were not correct in their analyses, and that the claims of 16^th century quack pamphleteers were based  upon sensationalism rather than genuine observation, the Londoners of St. Margaret’s and other parishes would likely have seen a positive effect after slaughtering the local strays.  They had the reasons all wrong, but, sadly, the policy was pretty much right.

During plague times human corpses ended up lying in the streets and being devoured by the stray dogs of the London.  Still more, the weakened and distracted population surely emboldened the packs of dogs to defend what they saw as their territory.  Surely fangs were bared in such times with much greater frequency.  Attacks must have been more frequent.  Slaughtering the dogs really did help break the chain of infection, however marginally, and surely made the streets safer for all.

---

[1] De Rerum Natura Libri Sex. (H. A. J. Munro tr.)(1891), III.182.

[2] The hystory writtone by Thucidides the Athenyan of the warre, whiche was betwene the Peloponesians and the Athenyans, translated oute of Frenche into the En∣glysh language by Thomas Nicolls Citezeine and Goldesmyth of London. Pages not numbered.

[3] England was by no means the only country in the world to slaughter stray dogs in times of plague.
[4] Simpson, W. J. A Treatise on Plague (1905), 342.  The plague order of 35 Henry VIII (1543) does read in part: “That all persons having any dogs in their houses other than hounds, spaniels or mastiffs, necessary for the custody or safe keeping of their houses, should forthwith convey them out of the city, or cause them to be killed and carried out of the city and buried at the common laystall…”

[5] “Churchwardens  Accompts of St. Margaret’s, Winchester.” @ 17. Nichols, John. Illustrations of the Manners and Expences of Antient Times in England.

[6] Ibid., 23.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid., 27.

Also at Virtual Grub Street:

• Lady Southwell on the Final Days of Queen Elizabeth I.  March 24, 2019.  “her majesty told [Lady Scrope] (commanding her to conceal the same ) that she saw, one night, in her bed, her body exceeding lean, and fearful in a light of fire.”
• Hedingham Castle 1485-1562 with Virtual Tour Link.  January 29, 2019. “Mr. Sheffeld told me that afore the old Erle of Oxford tyme, that cam yn with King Henry the vii., the Castelle of Hengham was yn much ruine,…”
• Why Shakespeare Appears on Title Pages from 1598.  November 20, 2018.  ‘These he finds unconvincing.  The author’s name having appeared in a number of title pages after 1598, he continues, “it would seem foolish for publishers not to attach the Shakespeare brand to his previously unattributed plays—unless they had other reasons not to do so.”’ 
• The Battle Over Shakespeare's Early and Late Plays. September 24, 2018. “The answers to the post-Oxford dilemma, of course, are three.”
• Shakespeare on Gravity. August 26, 2018. “So carelessly does Shakespeare throw out such an extraordinary divination. His achievement in thus, as it were, rivalling Newton may seem in a certain sense even more extraordinary than Goethe's botanical and osteological discoveries;…”
• Check out the English Renaissance Article Index for many more articles and reviews about this fascinating time and about the Shakespeare Authorship Question.