Rabies at Bay: ‘The Dog Days’, 1831–1863

  • Neil Pemberton
  • Michael Worboys
Part of the Science, Technology and Medicine in Modern History book series (STMMH)

Abstract

Between 1830 and 1860 rabies was overshadowed by wider problems in pubic health and public order. Public health became dominated by zymotic diseases, especially epidemic diseases such as cholera, typhoid fever, scarlet fever, and typhus, which contemporaries understood to be mostly generated by filth and malign conditions, and to be spread by aerial miasmas.1 Hydrophobia was classed as a zymotic disease, though like syphilis spread by contact contagion. The fight against epidemics was led by so-called sanitarians who emphasised aerial transmission of disease poisons and focused on the physical environment, principally the water supply, sewage, and nuisance removal; in their view few important diseases seemed to be spread by direct contagion.2 Public order became political order, first in the reform crisis of 1830–1832, then in the introduction of the New Poor Law, and then the Chartist campaigns, which seemed to some contemporaries to threaten revolution.

Keywords

Typhoid Fever Scarlet Fever Select Committee Animal Cruelty Spontaneous Origin 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    On zymotic diseases see M. Worboys, Spreading Germs: Disease Theories and Medical Practice in Britain, 1865–1900, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000, 34–42.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    C. Hamlin, Public Health and Social Justice in the Age of Chadwick: Britain, 1800–54, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  3. 15.
    C. Otter, ‘Cleansing and Clarifying: Technology and Perception in Nineteenth Century London’, Journal of British Studies, 2004, 43: 40–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 17.
    Smithfield and its livestock market was already a place of notoriety for cruelty to animals. See D. Donald, ‘Beastly Sights’: The Treatment of Animals as a Moral Theme in Representations of London c. 1820–50’, Art History, 1999, 22: 514–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 19.
    B. Harrison, ‘Animals and the State in Nineteenth Century England’, English Historical Review, 1973, 88: 786–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 24.
    W. Schivelbusch, The Railway Journey: The Industrialization of Time and Space in the Nineteenth Century, Berkley: University of California Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  7. 39.
    Bill to Amend Acts for More Effectual Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Parl. Papers, 1854, (106), ii, 145–49. See M. Radford, Animal Welfare Law in Britain: Regulation and Responsibility, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001, 63–65 and 82.Google Scholar
  8. 51.
    Discussions of the Brontës and dogs to date have ignored rabies.: I. Kreilkamp, ‘Petted Things: Wuthering Heights and the Animal’, Yale Journal of Criticism, 2005, 18: 87–110; M. B. Adams, ‘Emily Brontë and Dogs: Transformation Within the Human-Dog Bond’, Society and Animals, 2000, 8: 167–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 52.
    Emily Brontë, Wuthering Heights, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 2003;Google Scholar
  10. Charlotte Brontë, Shirley, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1985.Google Scholar
  11. 74.
    Paradoxically, in the 1848–1849 cholera outbreak in Bradford dogs were suspected to be carriers of the disease. They were ordered to be confined and strays were killed. M. Sigsworth, Cholera in the West and East Ridings of Yorkshire, 1848–1892, Unpublished DPhil Thesis, Sheffield City Polytechnic, 1991.Google Scholar
  12. 77.
    T. L. Kemp, ‘Rabies and Hydrophobia’, Edinburgh Medical and Surgical Journal, 1855, 58: 1–19.Google Scholar
  13. 79.
    J. Netten Radcliffe, ‘Materials towards the formation of a better knowledge of hydrophobia’, Lancet, 1855, i: 153–4 and 258–60; 1856, i: 683–5; 1856, ii: 217 and 271–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 83.
    E. Phillips, ‘Dick, William (1793–1866)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/ article/56035, accessed 12 Jan 2007].Google Scholar
  15. 86.
    W. C. L. Martin, The History of the Dog: Its Origin, Physical and Moral Characteristics, and its Principal Varieties, London: Charles Knight & Co., 1845;Google Scholar
  16. H. D. Richardson, The Dog; Its Origin, Natural History and Varieties. With Directions for Its General Management, London: Wm. S. Orr & Co., 1851;Google Scholar
  17. E. Mayhew, Dogs: Their Management. Being a New Plan of Treating the Animal, Based upon a Consideration of His Natural Temperament, London: George Routledge and Co., 1854.Google Scholar
  18. 87.
    F. Galton, ‘Heredity Talent and Character’, Macmillan’s Magazine, 1865, 12: 157–66 and 318–27.Google Scholar
  19. 97.
    Stonehenge [John Henry Walsh], The Dog, in Health and Disease, London: Longmans, Green, and Co, 1859.Google Scholar
  20. 100.
    G. H. Lewes, ‘Mad Dogs’, Blackwood’s Magazine, 1861, 90: 222–40.Google Scholar
  21. 101.
    Rosemary Ashton, ‘Lewes, George Henry (1817–1878)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/16562, accessed 16 Nov 2006].Google Scholar
  22. 102.
    D. Noble, ‘George Henry Lewes, George Eliot and the Physiological Society’, Journal of Physiology, 1976, 263(1): 45–54.Google Scholar
  23. 103.
    Quoted in J. B. West, ‘Spontaneous Combustion, Dickens, Lewes, and Lavoisier’, Physiology, 1994, 9: 276.Google Scholar
  24. 105.
    G. Cottesloe, Lost, Stolen or Strayed. The Story of the Battersea Dogs’ Home, London: Arthur Barker, 1971.Google Scholar
  25. 106.
    H. F. ‘The Home for Lost and Starving Dogs’, The Field, 1860, 16: 434.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Neil Pemberton and Michael Worboys 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Neil Pemberton
  • Michael Worboys

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations