3 the Black Death in Norway: Arrival, Spread, Mortality

3 The Black Death in Norway: Arrival, Spread, Mortality. Discussions with Birger Lindanger and Hallvard Bjørkvik 3.1 Introduction The Black Death has long been a central topic in the Norwegian historiography on the late Middle Ages. In the period c. 1920-80, agrarian historians showed that the Black Death caused a tremendous contraction of settlement and a steep fall in rents and taxes, which must reflect a demographic disaster. It must have been an exceedingly important event in Norwegian history. It was known that there were later plague epidemics, but their individual and collective significance attracted scant interest. In his highly regarded History of Norway until the Introduction of Absolutism in 1660, Andreas Holmsen characteristically mentioned only the Black Death, which made incomprehensible the continued deepening of the crisis and its duration.482 The epidemiological and medical dimensions of the Black Death and later plague epidemics remained almost completely ignored before I made this the subject of my thesis for the degree Doctor of Philosophy, Plague in the Late Medieval Countries: Epidemiological Studies (1992).483 In 2002, appeared (in Norwegian) my monograph , The Black Death and Later Plague Epidemics in Norway: The History of Plague Epidemics in Norway 1348-1654. This monograph offers a complete account of Norwegian plague history, numerous waves of plague epidemics over 300 years. Evidently, it focuses on the epidemiological and medical dimensions of plague, but examines also the demographic and economic effects (as far as the sources permit). The great advantage of a complete historical study is that it provides the opportunity to uncover systematic long-term patterns of regularity. These two monographs are the only major studies in Norwegian historiography that make serious and focused primary source research on the Black Death and later 482 * The author’s translation of an article in Collegium Medievale, 19; 2006a: 83-163, with some changes and additions adapting it to an international audience. Some parts at the end of the article, which discuss demographic questions on household size not clearly related to the Black Death, have been left out. Holmsen 1949: 412, 1977: 328-29. 483 It was submitted in 1991, the disputation took place in 1992, and it was formally published later that year in a somewhat revised version, incorporating critical remarks made by committee members and official opponents, Professor Erik Ulsig of the University of Aarhus, Denmark, Professor Øivind Larsen of the University of Oslo, and in a formal written statement submitted to the adjudicating committee by the appointed medical plague expert, Professor Thomas Butler of Texas Tech University Health Sciences Centre, School of Medicine. It was reprinted in 1993 and again in 1996, in the footnote apparatus here cited as 1996a. 184 The Black Death in Norway: Arrival, Spread, Mortality. Discussions with Birger Lindanger ... plague epidemics.484 The previously prevailing views on these historical events were mainly based on the big, multivolume histories of Norway where the authors could not avoid mentioning the Black Death (but often the subsequent plague epidemics), or were found as incidental information in some works of local history. The unique historical significance of the Black Death as a tremendous demographic catastrophe with huge social repercussions is obvious. Its impact was such that it uniquely functioned as a gateway to a historical period, namely the late Middle Ages, which derived its historical specificity from these conditions. This explains the central position of the Black Death in my two previous monographs (of 1992 and 2002). It is also due to the fact that there is extant a useful, albeit complicated and quite difficult primary source material to the history of the Black Death in Norway. In my subsequent 2004 monograph on plague history, the Black Death was presented in a complete international perspective. That gave the opportunity to analyse again the material on the Black Death’s history in Norway, now in the broadest possible perspective. This included discovery of new Swedish and Danish materials on the spread of the Black Death, which cast new light also on the Black Death in Norway. 484 When the present paper was in its final edited version after comments from referees and editorial remarks, appeared Ole G. Moseng’s thesis for the degree of Doctor of Art, University of Oslo, Moseng 2006. Here he launched the eight alternative theory on the Black Death’s and later plague epidemics’ microbiological nature and epidemiological structure presented in the last 35 years. It is discussed quite thoroughly in Chapter 10, some central points also in Chapter 5. Since then, several other theories have been presented, thirteen in all, see Chapter 1.4, Chapter 9, and Chapter 11. These alternative theories challenge the established view that the plague epidemics of the past were bubonic plague caused by ordinary variants of the contagion Yersinia pestis, transmitted and disseminated by the black rat and its usual flea parasite Xenopsylla cheopis. They are highly disparate and incompatible, at least twelve of them must consequently be untenable, and why not all thirteen? Curiously, Moseng refrains from relating to the Black Death, which is in the focus here and does not test the validity of his theory on it. This is a serious weakness, because the Black Death is by very far the historically most important plague epidemic in Norwegian plague history. It offers also unrivalled opportunity for the source-based study of the countrywide pattern of spread of a plague epidemic in Norway. His decision to refrain from address- ing the topic of the Black Death, can be seen as evidence that he had nothing of significance to add. For the first time, it is thoroughly presented and discussed in my 1992 doctoral thesis. In my monograph on the history of plague in Norway 1348-1654, Benedictow 2002, the Black Death is presented and discussed over 60 pages, far more thoroughly than has been possible for any other plague epidemic. Its pattern of spread, in a wide sense of the concept, is systematically compared with or tested on the basic structures of bubonic-plague epidemiology, as will be seen also from the discussions and analyses of the present Chapter. This account of the Black Death is published above in English translation in Chapter 2. See also below, Chapters 4-5. Preliminarily, it could be useful to refer to the fact that all responsible leading international or- ganizations engaged in the combat of contagious diseases, like WHO and Centres for Disease Control, do not mention the alternative theories on their web sites, but maintain the established identity be- tween modern bubonic plague and the plague epidemics of the past. www.who.int/inf and www.cdc. gov. See above Chapters 1.2 and 1.3. Introduction 185 My account of the Black Death’s history in Norway has been met with quite numerous objections formed in systematic and relatively comprehensive alternative accounts by two historians who had previously not addressed this topic. Firstly, this is the case with Halvard Bjørkvik’s account in his volume of Aschehougs Norges Historie [Aschehoug’s History of Norway] which relates to the account in my 1992 thesis.485 The alternative account is indirect in the sense that Bjørkvik does not state explicitly that he argues against the main lines of my account. He also fails to mention that he argues for an entirely new view of the Black Death’s chronology and dissemination.486 The other alternative account is argued by Birger Lindanger. He is explicit about his intention to give an alternative account, in this case in relation to the one I gave in my 2002 history of plague in Norway.487 It is based on the same basic ideas argued by Bjørkvik but without making this explicit. Lindanger gives both a more systematic criticism of my account and also a more comprehensive alternative account that can be said to constitute an alternative theory. Bjørkvik and Lindanger give two quite closely related radical new accounts of the Black Death’s history in Norway both in relation to previous historiography and to my account. Evidently, these alternative accounts of a uniquely important event in Norwegian history deserve thorough attention. Especially Lindanger takes up questions relating to population size on the eve of the Black Death and the population loss it caused, which raise central issues of historical demography. The discussion of these demographic issues makes it useful to comment also on some related new views by other historians, particularly by Hilde Sandvik and Geir Atle Ersland, which is performed in the Appendix [not included here, because they do not relate directly to the Black Death]. These two alternative accounts are written without a footnote apparatus or scholarly references. In the case of Bjørkvik’s account this is beyond criticism, because it is an ordinary feature of this form of popular historical works. Lindanger’s point of departure is that he has accepted an editorial request to write a review of my 2002 history of plague, but has instead used the opportunity to present a quite comprehensive alternative account on the Black Death’s arrival and spread in Norway and the mortality it caused. This has the unfortunate consequence that these two alternative accounts do not cover the ordinary scholarly requirements for direct testability. This made it quite challenging to relate to much of the discussion with concrete arguments, because it easily assumes the form of an argumentative blind man’s bluff: What is the basis of the alternative assertions, if any? Another problem is that undocumented assertions can be easily stated, but it may take much effort to 485 Bjørkvik 1996: 12-23. Aschehoug is the publisher.

Load more