Religion, Science, and the Great Plague of 1665 in London
This essay examines the Great Plague of 1665–1666 in England, analyzing how contemporaries interpreted and responded to the outbreak through the overlapping lenses of religion, superstition, and nascent scientific understanding. Drawing on historical accounts and archaeological evidence, the paper traces containment measures such as household quarantine and mass burial, as well as cultural effects including the closure of theaters and the flight of the wealthy from London. A particular focus is placed on the village of Eyam in Derbyshire, where religious conviction arguably facilitated effective disease containment. The essay argues that religion and early scientific reasoning were not always in opposition but could work in harmony during epidemic crises.
- The Great Plague of 1665 and Its Impact on London: Overview of plague's scale and interpretations
- Early Containment Measures and Their Brutality: Household sealing, burial pits, and marked doors
- Superstition, Religion, and Social Inequality: Posies, flight from London, and the poor
- The Plague Beyond London: The Case of Eyam: Flea-borne spread and Eyam's sacrifice
- Religion and Science Working in Harmony: Rector's open-air sermons bridge faith and science
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The essay balances multiple interpretive frameworks — religious, superstitious, and proto-scientific — without reducing the historical response to a single cause, giving it analytical nuance.
- The use of a specific case study (the village of Eyam) grounds the broader argument in a concrete, well-documented historical example, making abstract claims about religion and containment tangible.
- The paper opens and closes with a clear thesis trajectory: moving from religion as explanation to religion as active facilitator of containment, giving the argument a satisfying arc.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective use of primary-source quotation alongside secondary historical analysis. The Daniel Defoe passage, for instance, is deployed not merely for illustration but as evidence of a distinctly medical — rather than theological — interpretation of plague, showing that the student understands how to read a source for its argumentative implications.
Structure breakdown
The essay moves from broad context (the plague's demographic and historical significance) to specific containment practices, then to social and cultural effects, and finally to the Eyam case study, which serves as the paper's analytical centerpiece. The conclusion synthesizes the tension between religion and science introduced in the opening, resolving it with the observation that the two frameworks were not mutually exclusive. This funnel structure — general to specific, then back to a broad claim — is well-suited to a short analytical essay.
The Great Plague of 1665 and Its Impact on London
Just as technology and geography can have a major impact upon the course of human history, so can disease. Recent archaeological findings in Great Britain confirmed that the Great Plague of 1665–1666 was the bubonic plague, the last major outbreak of the disease in Britain (Stanbridge). Fear was understandably rampant, given that the plague would eventually decimate a quarter of the population of London, thus leaving a lasting mark upon the city's demographics (Stanbridge). As in the past, the plague was interpreted as a religious judgement from the divine, although it is important to remember that not all eyewitnesses viewed it as such. Author of Robinson Crusoe, Daniel Defoe, noted how the individual's constitution affected responses to the plague, indicating a medical rather than theological interpretation: "The plague, as I suppose all distempers do, operated in a different manner on differing constitutions; some were immediately overwhelmed with it, and it came to violent fevers… others with swellings and tumours… others, as I have observed, were silently infected" (Stanbridge).
Early Containment Measures and Their Brutality
The manner in which the plague was contained, although brutal, also showed a nascent understanding of disease. When one person in a house came down with the plague, the entire house would be sealed up — effectively, as one historian noted, condemning all its inhabitants to death in an attempt to contain the infection (Johnson). Corpses would be taken out at night and buried in pits specifically designated for plague victims, rather than in the usual manner of burial (Johnson). The door of an infected household would be marked with a cross and the words "Lord have mercy on us" written upon it (Johnson). Religion was appealed to for protection and salvation from the disease, but it was not solely relied upon.
Superstition, Religion, and Social Inequality
Superstition as well as religion marked the general response to the plague. Many people believed that holding a posy to one's nose could ward off the disease, and the nursery rhyme "Ring Around the Rosy" has its origins in this superstition. The streets of London were said to be empty, as those who could — including the royal court — fled to the countryside, while those who were too poor to move had no choice but to stay. Thus, the disease disproportionately affected the poor, whose close and unsanitary living conditions further exacerbated its spread. Theaters and other places of public recreation were closed, so the secular culture of London was disrupted alongside people's lives and livelihoods.
Works Cited
Johnson, Ben. "The Great Plague 1665." Historic UK. December 11, 2018. https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/The-Great-Plague/
Stanbridge, Nicola. "DNA confirms cause of 1665 London's Great Plague." BBC. September 6, 2016. Web. December 11, 2018. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37287715
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.