10 the Eight Alternative Theory on the Plague Epidemics of the Past: Discussion of Ole G
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
10 The Eight Alternative Theory on the Plague Epidemics of the Past: Discussion of Ole G. Moseng’s Composite Theory 10.1 Introduction In recent decades, a number of new and quite often radical alternative theories of the microbiological and epidemiological nature of the historical plague epidemics have been presented. The recent history of alternative theories began in 1971, when J.F.D. Shrewsbury published his monograph on bubonic plague in England where he attributed only a marginal role to bubonic plague as a demographic factor, also in the Black Death. This view was followed by a number of even more sceptical theories of the bubonic-plague theory which took on the character of rejection. C. Morris 1971, G. Twigg 1984, G. Karlsson 1996, Scott and Duncan 2001/(2004), S.K. Cohn Jr. 2002, all insisted that historical plague epidemics were not bubonic plague.1404 Instead, they argued that historical plague epidemics were pure epidemics of primary pneumonic plague (Morris) or of a mutated version of the agent of that disease (Karlsson) or that they were diseases caused by other microbiological agents disseminated by other means or mechanisms, by anthrax (Twigg), a filoviridal haemorrhagic disease related to Ebola disease or Marburg disease (Scott and Duncan), or a disappeared and unknown viral disease (Cohn). These six alternative theories are thoroughly discussed in my 2010 monograph What Disease was Plague? On the Controversy over the Microbiological Identity of Plague Epidemics of the Past. It now seems generally agreed that all these alternatives were shown to be untenable and also problematic in relation to “Ethics of Scholarly Work”.1405 The theory that Pulex irritans, the so-called human flea, was the central vector of plague was discussed more briefly as having been repeatedly disproved and being quite peripheral in the present international discussion, although L. Walløe’s attempts at reviving it was commented on.1406 In 2006 Ole G. Moseng defended a thesis at the University of Oslo where he presented an independent alternative theory of the nature of historical plague epidemics, the eight, according to my reckoning. It can be characterized as a composite theory attempting to integrate several theories or theory elements of plague epidemiology into a coherent new alternative theory.1407 Despite the theory’s 1404 See below, Bibliography and Benedictow 2010. 1405 See, for instance, James 2012: 1201-03; and Horrox 2012: 836-37. Benedictow 2010: 25-69, and elsewhere. 1406 Benedictow 2010: 9-16. 1407 At the time, I considered the idea that Moseng’s alternative theory could be commented on in an appendix in my 2010 monograph, see Benedictow 2006: 83-84, n. 3, English translation in Chapter 3.1, n. 484. 492 The Eight Alternative Theory on the Plague Epidemics of the Past: Discussion ... broad thrust and the author’s claim of general validity, it is quite narrowly based on Norwegian source material. However, also with respect Norwegian sources there is a gigantic gap, because the Black Death is almost passed over, and also the subsequent late medieval plague epidemics are only superficially discussed, presumably for lack of competence in medieval history.1408 Comments in English could, therefore, be useful in order to avoid misunderstandings about its main thrust and basic lines of argument. As the other advocates of alternative theories, Moseng has an enormous amount of rejection to do which, in addition to the standard bubonic-plague theory, comprises all the alternative theories mentioned above and also my position, which is close to the ordinary bubonic-plague theory. Here, only the main arguments he presents in support of his theory will be considered of interest, with the ambition that this will be a useful contribution to the understanding of the issues for scholars abroad and in other Nordic countries. As can be seen in the preceding articles of this monograph, their bibliographies and The General Bibliography, I have written extensively on plague epidemics in Norway. These monographs and articles constitute the basis of my discussion of Moseng’s thesis. Particularly, I will emphasize the importance of my 1992 thesis for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Plague in the late medieval Nordic countries. Epidemiological Studies, the history of plague of epidemics in Norway 1348-1654, special studies of the Black Death (see above), and so on. These studies constitute the basis for this discussion in so far as Moseng thesis relates to Norwegian plague history. My 2004 monograph The Black Death, 1346-1353. The Complete History, constitutes another useful platform. As for his alternative epidemiological theory, my 2010 monograph What Disease was Plague? On the Controversy over the Microbiological Identity of Plague Epidemics of the Past is particularly important, because it provides a comprehensive basis and background for discussion of alternative theories on the plague epidemics of the past. 10.2 Some Perspectives and Methodological Considerations In contrast to the alternative theories of Twigg, Scott and Duncan, and Cohn, Moseng’s alternative theory does not involve a different microbiological agent and a different disease, but is at least mainly based, as it may seem, on the contagion Yersinia pestis 1408 The comments he makes on medieval aspect of problems of Norwegian plgaue history confirm, in my opinion, this assumption. See also a long interview in a provincial newspaper with Moseng on 15 March 2008, which for practical reasons is entered under Moseng in the Bibliography, and my re- sponse on 29 July 2008 (because it came late to my knowledge). There are also more general method- ological problems. See Johannessen 2007: 687-692; Moseng 2007: 289-95, and Johannessen 2007: 465-67. Johannessen has no record of relevant plague research, which does not exclude that he made some significant methodological points. See also Walløe 2007: 3272-75. Some Perspectives and Methodological Considerations 493 and bubonic plague. Instead, like Morris and Karlsson, he argues for a different epidemiological structure and pattern of dissemination of the plague bacterium. Moseng argues for a composite alternative theory of plague epidemiology which includes the two main forms of spread of the disease, bubonic plague and primary pneumonic plague, although Moseng argues for a more important role for the latter modality than has been usual. However, the main specificity of Moseng’s theory lies in the diversity of insect vectors and mechanisms of transmission and dissemination to which he attributes importance. All these vectors and mechanisms have previously been more or less eagerly discussed or peripherally suggested, but quite generally rejected, also by all the advocates of alternative theories mentioned above. Moseng’s alternative theory of historical plague epidemics is, as mentioned, quite narrowly based on Norwegian historical sources to the history of plague. However, the Black Death is ignored as a topic of importance, commented on only peripherally and episodically, which may explain why he pays scant attention not only to my history of plague in Norway, but also to my general monograph on the Black Death of 2004. Instead, he starts with a brief presentation of the second epidemic of 1360.1409 Moseng’s thesis is based on a selection of the Norwegian sources, the international medical and historical studies, and elements in the standard works on plague, reorganized and regrouped so as to enable him to argue a new theory. With the exception of some recent publications, these studies and standard works are used in my 1992 thesis, general Norwegian plague history, and history of the Black Death with much other material and many other studies. Also, the structure of his thesis is based on the structure of analysis I developed during the work on my thesis. As I see it, the difference consists mainly in Moseng’s use of selection and that he omits the Black Death, which is the only nationwide plague epidemic in Norwegian plague history with sufficient source material to permit epidemiologically adequate analysis at this territorial level. My doctoral thesis is central in Moseng’s thesis, because the viability of his own thesis is dependent on a broad successful criticism and comprehensive rejection, which can clear the way for an alternative theory of the microbiological and epidemiological nature of historical plague epidemics in Norway. However, significantly, he passes over in (almost?) complete silence my complete 2002 history of plague in Norway, although a broad successful criticism of this monograph would be even more important for his ambition, because it provides the basis for crucial synthetically inferences to plague epidemiology based on all available sources (at the time). Moseng characterizes my thesis as a one-sided defence of the bubonic-plague theory and claims that is based on (arbitrary) a priori assumptions.1410 This is not true. On the contrary, the idea at the heart of my thesis which has the telling 1409 Moseng 2006: 227. 1410 Moseng 2006: 17, 136-37. My translation from Norwegian. 494 The Eight Alternative Theory on the Plague Epidemics of the Past: Discussion ... subtitle Epidemiological Studies was originally deep scepticism of the notion, usual among Norwegian agrarian historians for over two generations, that bubonic plague had spread with tremendous devastating power and mortality in the very sparsely populated Norwegian countryside and could explain their findings of disastrous contraction of settlement, precipitous fall of land rents, and so on. For this reason, I explicitly underscore that The problematical points of any microbiological explanation are the justified doubts as to whether a disease both can be a highly effective killer and be easily communicable, and as to whether the powers of spread of any disease can be sufficient for highly effective spread in the thinly populated countryside where the vast majority of medieval popula- tions lived.1411 The use of bold type in the citation is in the original text, reflecting a hope, futile as it has turned out to be, that this would underscore and highlight my principal position and the theoretical point of departure of my thesis.