Shutt up: bubonic plague and quarantine in early modern England

Abstract

The outbreak of bubonic plague that struck London and Westminster in 1636 provoked the usual frenzied response to epidemics, including popular flight and government-mandated quarantine. The government asserted that plague control measures were acts of public health for the benefit of all. However, contrary to this government narrative of disease prevention there was a popular account that portrayed quarantine and isolation as personal punishment rather than prudent policy. In examining the 1636 outbreak on the parish as well as the individual level, reasons for this inconsistency between official and unofficial perspectives emerge. Quarantine and its effects were not classless, and its implementation was not always strictly in the name of public health. Government application of quarantine was remarkably effective, but it could never be uncontroversial both because of circumstances and because of misuse. The flight of the wealthiest from London and Westminster left only the more socially vulnerable to be quarantined. Though plague policy was financially sensitive to the poorest, it was costly to the middling sort. Another cause of controversy was the government's use of quarantine as a punishment to control individuals found breaking other laws. Though not widely publicized, popular narratives continually included grievances about the cruelty and inequity of quarantine and the militaristic nature of its implementation. Despite these objections, quarantine remained a staple of the government response to plague outbreaks throughout the seventeenth century.