CHAPTER X

EPIDEMICS IN BESIEGED STRONGHOLDS

When fortified cities are subjected to a long siege the death-rate in them increases considerably; if diseases break out during the siege, they spread beyond expectation and carry away large numbers of people. The greatest enemy of the people in a besieged city is hunger. Since the approaching hostile army causes the inhabitants of the surrounding country to take refuge in the cities, the latter suddenly become overcrowded, moreover with people who are generally quite penniless and have to be provided for by the rest. In former years, when warfare was much more cruel than it is to-day, this was especially the case. Furthermore, the size of the garrison must be rapidly increased, or perhaps the whole of a retreating army, as was the case in Metz, must be quartered in the stronghold. Accordingly, the first step taken by the commander of a fortress must be to ascertain the quantity of provisions on hand, and to work out an appropriate plan for the distribution of them. How the quality of the bread becomes more and more unsatisfactory, and finally reaches the point where the product is scarcely worthy of the name bread; how people are obliged to eat the flesh of horses, dogs, and other animals; how the prices of the necessaries of life soar _ad infinitum_—all this is so well known that it needs no further exposition. Besides the absence of these necessaries of life, the lack of milk, fats, salt, and vegetables is accompanied by various consequences; very frequently improper and badly prepared food gives rise to a large number of severe cases of intestinal catarrh.

Insufficient nourishment is seldom the direct cause of death; on the other hand, it frequently so weakens people that they are much more subject to sickness, or, if they have already contracted some disease, they are much more likely to die, or, if they recover, to convalesce slowly. Thus Vacher[324] states that typhoid fever, which usually results fatally in one out of four cases, during the siege of Paris carried away no less than forty per cent of those who contracted it; tuberculosis, he says, often acquired an acute form and caused death within a few weeks. Little children present slight resistance to famine. ‘In regard to new-born and one-year-old infants I have observed in certain cases that become more frequent every day, that the effects of insufficient alimentation show themselves in the form of a progressive emaciation, which includes all the tissues of the body and almost always has fatal consequences; oedema of the teguments, anaemia, uncontrollable diarrhoea, and continual plaintive crying on the part of the little patients are the characteristic symptoms of that hunger-fever which actually decimates our infant generation.’

Another result of insufficient nourishment, one which has frequently been observed in besieged strongholds, is the appearance of scurvy.

During sieges, the hygienic measures of precaution, which are absolutely essential to the maintenance of health in cities, can no longer be carried out. If spring-water is secured outside the city for the inhabitants, the besiegers cut off the source of supply; if the water of rivers is used, then filtration plants have to be erected. But even filtration does not prevent the appearance of those infectious diseases the germs of which are carried in water, since for washing purposes the river-water is used just as it is found. The removal of refuse constitutes an extremely difficult problem; the cleaning out of privies is often possible only to a very insufficient extent, especially when the besiegers have advanced very close to the city, and the failure to dispose of garbage necessarily causes large accumulations of dirt and filth in the streets; this was especially the case in former times.

The burying of so many dead bodies, of both men and animals, especially horses, has met in many sieges with serious obstacles;[325] if the ditches intended for a large number of bodies are not dug deep enough, the atmosphere becomes polluted; to burn them is impossible, owing to lack of fuel; and if they are cast into the river, this jeopardizes the health of those living further downstream. During certain sieges in the past, hard conditions have made it necessary to leave corpses and carcases lying in the open, with terrible consequences.

If the siege takes place in the winter, it is very difficult to procure fuel for heating purposes, unless sufficient provision has been made beforehand. In Paris, for example, the inhabitants suffered severely from cold, and to meet the emergency artificial fuel was prepared by mixing stable manure with tar and reducing the mass to solid form under the hydraulic press.

In the following pages we discuss a few sieges which were characterized by severe outbreaks of pestilence.

1. THE SIEGE OF MANTUA (1796–7)[326]

During the siege of Mantua, which the French carried on from May 30, 1796, to February 3, 1797, war-pestilences raged with fearful severity among both besiegers and besieged. The city lay in an extremely unhealthy region—malaria was ever prevalent and the drinking-water was bad. The intentional flooding of the region and the great heat of the summer of 1796 caused malaria to break out with great severity and to acquire virulent forms that rendered the disease more dangerous than usual. In the latter part of May 1796, the garrison consisted of 18,000 Austrian troops, whose power of resistance had been greatly reduced by hard service from November on, and by exposure to rain and cold with inadequate means of shelter. Besides intermittent fever, both intestinal catarrh and typhus fever made their appearance in July; the latter, at least, was probably the ‘nervous fever’ mentioned by Stegmeyer. Thus as early as the latter part of July there were some 2,000 sick men in the garrison. In August the investment was not yet complete, so that the soldiers did not suffer from lack of food. Notwithstanding this fact, however, the diseases increased in prevalence and caused many deaths; the number of sick men was no less than 6,000. On September 12 the Austrian general, Würmser, with about 12,000 men, succeeded in gaining entrance into the city; he brought with him a large number of disabled men who had been wounded in recent fighting, and many of whom succumbed to tetanus and hospital fever. The number of patients now increased to 8,500; as there was no bedding or straw available, the patients were compelled to lie on the bare ground, and the uncleanliness of the hospitals grew worse. When the investment was finally rendered complete in October, it caused a great scarcity of meat, fat, and wine; the number of patients that month was 9,000 and the number of deaths 2,560. These figures, however, are not complete, since they do not include the patients in the houses set aside for troops overcome by exhaustion. Up to this time the weather had been good, but in November rain set in; and while intermittent fever then decreased in prevalence, dysentery raged even more furiously, and typhus fever also broke out in a virulent, quickly fatal form. The supply of food now ran very low, and although there was sufficient bread on hand, horse-flesh was the only meat. To add to the general misery, scurvy made its appearance in November, and all those who contracted it died. The extreme cold compelled the patients to keep their clothes on, and they lay without blankets on the hard floors of the hospital corridors; their number had now increased to 9,500, and 2,400 died in November. In December the misery increased; the cold became more and more intense, the supply of food was almost exhausted, and the wine gave out altogether; scurvy raged in an even more severe and virulent form, being frequently accompanied by copious hemorrhages from various parts of the body. In the hospitals there were 7,354 patients, and 2,021 died in the month of December. In January the acme of misery was reached; the scarcity of food was terrible, and the ravages of scurvy were no less than frightful; 1,968 men in the garrison were carried away in the course of that month. On February 3, 1797, the stronghold was surrendered to the French. The number of patients taken in by the hospitals between September and January exceeded 40,000, and of the garrison, which numbered some 30,000 men, 10,249 (more than one-third of the total) died. Fodéré estimates the total number of deaths in the city of Mantua during the siege at 20,000;[327] regarding the prevalence of diseases and the number of deaths among the civil inhabitants Steegmeyer unfortunately gives us no information.

2. THE SIEGE OF DANZIG (1813)

Danzig, which in the spring of 1807 had passed through a siege of ten weeks, was once more, in the year 1813, from January 11 to November 29, subjected to the horrors of a siege, which for two reasons was even more horrible than the previous one; in the first place, the garrison was badly infected with disease, causing a severe epidemic to rage throughout the city; and in the second place, the defenders of the stronghold, which was most advantageously located to withstand a siege, were national enemies of the inhabitants. Consequently the latter were not only grossly disregarded in the distribution of supplies, but were actually obliged to turn over all they had to the French and then buy it back at exorbitant prices. And while the inhabitants, and toward the end of the siege the soldiers, too, suffered severely from a lack of the necessaries of life, the higher officers and the military officials lived in luxury until the day of the surrender.

Napoleon had assigned the defence of the city to General Rapp, who performed the task with great valour and ability. On the return march from Russia, some 40,000 men of Macdonald’s corps had congregated in Danzig, and 5,000 of them were sent away by Rapp; in the middle of January the total number of men in the garrison, including the military officials, was 35,934, consisting of Frenchmen, Poles, Bavarians, Westphalians, Spaniards, Italians, and Dutchmen. While Macdonald’s corps had fared pretty well, comparatively speaking, in the Russian campaign, the men were all very much exhausted, and furthermore, typhus fever was prevalent among them. As early as the latter part of January, accordingly, the number of sick soldiers was very large; in fact, only about 10,000 men were healthy and able to bear arms. ‘As there were no hospitals, beds, or remedies,’ says Friccius,[328] ‘many died from lack of care, and at the same time infectious diseases broke out and made great havoc. A heap of dead men and horses was a common sight in the streets, and in a short time many thousands of the troops, as well as of the inhabitants, were carried away.’

In January the death-rate remained comparatively low; of the garrison about 400 men died in the course of that month. But in February, which was a very cold month, typhus fever spread abroad with great rapidity, so that toward the end of the month some 130 soldiers died every day; no less than 15,000 men lay sick, and the total number of deaths for the entire month amounted to 2,000. When it began to thaw on February 24, the number of patients and deaths increased still more, so that 4,000 men died in March and 3,000 in April. From April on, the condition of health in the garrison improved, although the number of deaths in the month of May was still no less than 2,000.[329]

As early as February typhus fever had spread to the civil population, which before the siege had numbered some 40,000; a great many civilians, however, had fled from the city before the investment was yet complete. In the months of February and March, according to Blech,[330] some 200–300 persons died every week, ‘including representatives of all classes—physicians, preachers, jurists, merchants, down to the humblest people.’ The pestilence raged most furiously among the civil inhabitants in the latter part of March. ‘Almost every family was in mourning, and many families were wiped out entirely; the best and most estimable young men were carried away in the prime of their lives. Whole families perished, especially in certain streets which the pestilence seemed to have selected for its chief dwelling-place.’[331] These were especially the streets inhabited by the poorer classes.

It was not long before a lack of the necessaries of life began to make itself felt in the city. As early as February 27 the Russians had cut off the supply of water afforded by the Radaune, which fed the wells in the city, and this necessitated dependence upon rain-water. For the purpose of obtaining new supplies of food, a sortie along the Nehrung was undertaken on April 27; and while the enterprise was successful, the only persons who really derived any benefit from it were the higher officers and military officials, who sold butter, milk, and corned beef at exorbitant prices. Thus the well-to-do citizens, at least, were able to secure food by paying an excessive price for it. In May the conditions among the poor became a great deal worse; they were obliged to eat things that were positively disgusting; horse-meat and waste from the breweries were delicacies, while cats and dogs were also devoured. The rations of the soldiers grew smaller and smaller, although there was sufficient grain on hand to keep them supplied with bread. Says Friccius,[332] in regard to a sortie undertaken on June 9, ‘How hungry the troops in the garrison were is indicated by the fact that they cut up every horse that was killed in battle and took the edible parts with them.’

After the conclusion of the armistice, which became known in Danzig on June 10, there was a pause in the siege lasting until August 18; during this time the besiegers brought food to the garrison every five days, but absolutely no provision was made for the civil inhabitants. During the armistice many citizens left the city; indeed the French expelled from the city all persons who were not sufficiently provided with the necessaries of life. At first the Russians allowed the fugitives to pass through their lines, but later on they raised objections, so that a large number of the unfortunate inhabitants were obliged to live in the open fields between the besiegers and the besieged, where many of them died of starvation. In the latter part of September General Rapp allowed some 300 of them, who had managed to keep alive, to return into the city. Blech asserts that the emigration of beggars and others of the poor reduced the population of the city by some 16,000.[333]

In October, lack of the necessaries of life reached a climax, so that rats and mice were eaten. Since the scarcity of provender made it necessary to slaughter almost all the horses, the soldiers were supplied with large quantities of horse-meat. On November 1 the granaries, in which were kept the provisions of the garrison, were destroyed by fire, resulting in the loss of about two-thirds of the provisions. This made it necessary to reduce the soldiers’ bread-rations, and the bread with which they were supplied was made of half-burned flour and of rusks fished out of the stinking Mottlau; ‘it was so disgusting that only ravenous hunger could induce anybody to eat it.’[334]

In consequence of hunger and the unnatural food eaten, the mortality among the civil inhabitants, the number of whom had dwindled down to 16,000, became very high; the number of deaths per week in the month of October was no less than 50–80, to which, according to Blech, must be added the deaths among the poor which were no longer reported. In the first part of November there were some 80–90 deaths per week. On November 29 General Rapp surrendered the city to the Russians and Prussians; but since the conditions of capitulation could not be agreed upon until January 1, 1814, there was an interval of about a month during which the French garrison, but not the civil population, was supplied with food; consequently the death-rate among the citizens remained high. Furthermore, the besiegers, among whom a virulent typhus had been raging since October, communicated the infection to the inhabitants, 107 of whom succumbed to it in the last week of November, 133 in the first week of December, and 138 in the following week. On December 1, permission was obtained to establish a market, and from that time on, the citizens could once more provide themselves with food in a regular way.

The loss of human life inside the besieged stronghold was terrible; of the 35,900 troops in the garrison, 15,736 according to Friccius died in the lazarets; at the time of the capitulation only 16,532 men were left, and of these 1,482 were sick and had to be left in the city. According to Blech, a total of 5,592 civilians died, 1,142 of them in the last three months (October-December) of the year; the number of deaths in December alone was 473. Toward the end of the siege some ninety persons died of starvation.[335]

3. THE SIEGE OF TORGAU (1813)[336]

On May 10, 1813, when Napoleon had appeared in Saxony, and the King, after considerable hesitation, had decided in his favour, the Saxon garrison of Torgau, at that time a place of 5,000 inhabitants, was replaced by a French army-corps. In the course of the summer large transports of sick soldiers from various lazarets arrived at Torgau, and on July 18 alone 3,000 sick men and 1,000 convalescents came from Dresden. Consequently the number of sick in the stronghold was very large even before the siege began; all public buildings had been converted into lazarets. But even these were not numerous or large enough to accommodate all the patients, who numbered some 6,000 in the month of September, so that the occupants of houses along entire streets were driven out of their homes, which were used for lazarets and barracks. ‘A virulent, putrid fever’ raged in all the lazarets, and at least one-third of the persons who contracted it died; the inhabitants and the Frenchmen quartered in the homes of citizens were at first spared by the disease.

After the battle of Dennewitz (September 6, 1813) the head-quarters of the third and fourth French army-corps was transferred to Torgau, where also numerous fugitives took refuge; at the same time the large French head-quarters from Dresden arrived, so that the size of the garrison was increased by 10,000 men and 5,000 horses. After the battle of Leipzig the stronghold was besieged by the Prussians, and presently the supply of food ran low and the uncleanliness in the streets and houses grew incredibly worse. ‘Then the pestilence began to spread at an alarming rate among the inhabitants and among the Frenchmen quartered in the homes of citizens, so that the entire city of Torgau came to resemble a large, overcrowded lazaret.’[337]

‘The regular lazarets now became veritable hot-beds of misery; they were scarcely able to accommodate the large number of patients, who numbered at least 12,000, and whom it was necessary to place so close together that they almost touched one another. There was a lack of straw and of other necessities, of sick-attendants and physicians, of effective remedies, and especially of order and proper superintendence.’ The patients suffered partly from severe, fetid diarrhoea, and partly from typhus. In the courtyards there were enormous accumulations of dirt and refuse, and the doors leading into many of the sick-rooms could scarcely be opened owing to the collections of foul matter which covered the floor ankle-deep; in order to reach the sick it was necessary to wade through this and to climb over dead bodies. Absolutely no thought was given to keeping the rooms warm. ‘Thus it is quite natural that among these horrible surroundings the slightest wound, the most insignificant indisposition, could easily have a fatal termination, and that it was like sentencing a man to death to bring him to the lazaret.’ The number of deaths exceeded 8,000 in the month of November alone.

Equally terrible were the conditions in the other parts of the city; all the private houses were overcrowded with patients and filled with dirt. A sickening odour permeated the atmosphere; in the ditches around the fortress and in every corner of the city lay dead horses, rotting straw sacks, ragged uniforms, and even human corpses. Refuse of the worst kind was piled up in the streets, often as high as the second story. ‘At this time’, says Lehmann, ‘Torgau looked more like a lazaret than a city inhabited by healthy persons; for who would have been able to find a house in which there were no persons suffering from nerve-fever? Parlours, bedrooms, halls, stables, kitchens, and cellars—all were filled with patients.’ The barracks and guard-rooms resembled hospitals. In a few weeks more than 600 inhabitants died; entire families were wiped out by the epidemic, and there was scarcely one which was not mourning the loss of one of its members.

Up to the beginning of December the number of patients steadily increased; in the lazarets alone, 300 soldiers died every day.

The terrors of the bombardment had a very disastrous effect upon the inhabitants of the city, since it compelled them to live in damp, unhealthy, infected cellars. Not until the latter part of December did the epidemic begin to abate and to lose, at the same time, its virulent character; the arrival of very cold weather, as well as the diminution of the number of people, and the fact that the infection had practically run its course among the inhabitants and the garrison, were at least partly responsible for this abatement; furthermore, there was now less crowding, and it became possible to establish better order.

The lack of system in the French lazarets is shown by the fact that the authorities were never once able to give an account of the number of persons that died in them. From grave-diggers’ records and church registers Richter managed to compile the following table of statistics indicating the number of deaths:[338]

_French _Saxon _Civil _Total._ soldiers._ soldiers._ inhabitants._ January-August (1813) 222 September 1,107 64 43 1,214 October 4,803 36 66 4,905 November 8,209 3 228 8,440 December 4,886 258 5,144 January 1–10 (1814) 649 83 732 January 11–31 314 91 405 February 400 79 479 March 100 52 152

According to this table there died, between September and January 10, 19,654 French soldiers, 103 Saxon soldiers, and 678 civilians. But Richter says in regard to the above figures: ‘There is no doubt, however, that the figures pertaining to the French soldiers are much too small, since they include only those that were actually buried by the grave-diggers in public burial-grounds. All those who died in private houses, in the _tête-de-pont_, in the various forts, in the lunettes, or in any of the outworks of the fortress are not included; their number was by no means small, and many of them were buried unceremoniously by citizens or by their comrades, while large numbers of bodies were left lying in the open.’ In the month of May it was impossible to find a grave-digger to bury the heaps of corpses, which were consequently thrown in masses into the Elbe; this of course interfered with the operation of the floating mills along the river. Nor are the bodies disposed of in this way included in the above table. Accordingly, Richter estimates the total number of deaths among the French soldiers at between 29,000 and 30,000 men.

The pestilence continued to rage even after the surrender of the stronghold, and did not begin to abate until the latter part of January. Although the Prussian troops were not quartered in the city, and entered it only in the day-time, the pestilence nevertheless spread to them and carried away more than 300 men in the course of three months. Not until the end of February did the pestilence among the civil inhabitants begin to abate; the mortality was still high in March, but in April it sank to normal again.

According to Richter, two-thirds of the patients in the military lazaret were suffering from ‘colliquative, dysenteric diarrhoea’, and only one-third from ‘true typhus’, whereas among the civil inhabitants the latter was by far the more common. There were two forms of diarrhoea observed; it appeared either as an acute attack of dysentery, which rarely lasted longer than two weeks and then terminated in either death or recovery, or else as a chronic, dysenteric diarrhoea, which caused general weakness and finally death.

Typhus fever began always with a frequently recurring chill, and with a violent headache and general indisposition; this was followed by a stage of dry fever, accompanied by stupor, dizziness, and often wild delirium; as a rule the first few days were characterized by obstinate constipation, and bleeding at the nose was very common. Later on, somnolence manifested itself, and the original constipation changed to a copious, fetid diarrhoea. Petechiae appeared frequently, but not invariably; at first small, bright-red spots showed themselves, and later on they assumed a darker colour, grew larger, and finally turned black. Their size varied considerably; sometimes they were the size of a pin-head, while often they were from one to one-and-a-half centimetres in diameter. Most of the patients died between the tenth and fifteenth days; but if the disease progressed favourably, signs of improvement usually showed themselves suddenly on the fourteenth or fifteenth day; as a rule, convalescence was of short duration.

The two forms of ‘nerve-fever’ mentioned by Richter doubtless include various other diseases. That many cases of typhus fever were among the fever patients may be inferred from the fact that the disease was very prevalent among the French troops, and also from Richter’s description; he expressly mentions the sudden appearance of the disease, the initial chill, the remission of the fever in the third week, and the rapid convalescence—all of them characteristic signs of typhus fever. Moreover, typhoid fever doubtless prevailed more or less extensively. Richter describes ‘a pituitous modification of typhus’, with a lingering development;[339] the crisis always came late, frequently not until the sixth or seventh week, and was invariably uncertain, so that convalescence was very slow and often interrupted by relapses. Deuteropathic complications were of almost regular occurrence. There can be no doubt that we have to do here with a good description of typhoid fever, which revealed its presence chiefly among the newly-conscripted young French soldiers.

Regarding the enormous loss of life caused by the epidemic in Torgau, Richter, who was a Prussian military physician, says: ‘The devastation that it caused among the Frenchmen, and unfortunately among the inhabitants of the ill-fated city as well, was indeed terrible; in fact there is happily scarcely a parallel to it in the history of the world. One may safely say that the misery experienced by the French troops throughout the entire course of that disastrous war reached its climax inside the walls of Torgau. The French lazarets in the city represented scenes of horror such as repel human nature, and such as one must actually witness in order to appreciate fully their dreadfulness.’

4. THE SIEGE OF MAYENCE (1813–14)

The terrible devastation caused by typhus fever in the strongholds along the Vistula, Elbe, and Rhine, which were so valorously defended by French generals in the years 1813–14, excited general consternation. Wittmann[340] furnishes a very accurate description of the misery undergone in the besieged cities, especially the city of Mayence. First he comments on the scarcity of supplies, observing that the vicissitudes of war can never be foreseen; furthermore, he asserts that the commanders of fortresses, when they anticipated a siege, purposely kept the inhabitants in uncertainty about it. In the case of Mayence, Napoleon ordered the city to be provisioned after the battle of Leipzig. Some 2,000 oxen were collected, and most of them were kept in the villages surrounding Mayence; but when the Allies crossed the Rhine the oxen were all quickly driven into the city, where they grew lean owing to lack of provender, and died of rinderpest in such large numbers that it became necessary to slaughter them all and salt the meat. This was done in such a careless way that a large part of the meat was spoiled; even after the stronghold surrendered, some of this salted meat was still on hand, and it was so rotten that it had to be destroyed. The citizens had learned of the danger too late, and numerous unscrupulous citizens bought up all the important necessaries of life and then took advantage of the situation by raising the prices so high that only the wealthy could procure food. Lack of good bread, which had been so scarce during the previous siege of Mayence (1793), does not seem to have been so severely felt in the siege of 1813. Particularly noticeable was the want of fuel, so that many soldiers froze to death in the exposed guard-rooms of the outworks. Legumes, especially peas, could not be thoroughly cooked, so that it was frequently necessary to throw them away. The supply of good fat, as well as of fresh vegetables, soon ran out, while the great quantity of alcoholic beverages stored up in Mayence had a very detrimental effect. Very inadequate provision was made for the sheltering of the soldiers; inasmuch as the siege took place in the winter, they could not camp in the open, and the barracks were not large or numerous enough to accommodate them. Consequently the officers were quartered in the homes of the wealthier citizens, one officer in each house, while the troops were housed in large numbers in the often insanitary homes of the poorer people. This of course greatly favoured the dissemination of infectious diseases.

According to Wittmann, there was not a single trace of an infectious disease in Mayence in September 1813. In October the field-lazarets of the army were transferred from Leipzig to the West, and most of them passed through Mayence; in the first part of November, moreover, the field-army itself passed through the city on its return march; thus sick and healthy soldiers conveyed typhus fever into the stronghold. ‘In the vicinity of the hospitals and churches, where sick soldiers were congregated, in the streets through which these doomed victims passed, and in the houses in which they were quartered together with healthy men, or into which they had crept from sheer inability to go further, contagious typhus broke out first and with the greatest severity.’[341] Dr. Petit, the commissary sent out by the government in Paris, did not have the courage to oppose the will of Marshal Marmont, who was in chief command, and so he sought to pacify the inhabitants by means of notices in the papers to the effect that the prevailing disease was neither epidemic nor infectious, and was only contagious typhus.

After the investment was complete, typhus fever caused terrible devastation throughout the city. When the siege began, Mayence had a garrison of some 30,000 men, while the civil inhabitants numbered about 24,500; to the latter, however, must be added a considerable number of refugees from the surrounding country. The bad hospital arrangements, as always happened at that time, greatly helped to spread the disease in Mayence. According to a report made out by two French physicians and reproduced by Wittmann, the air in the hospitals was terrible; every bed was occupied by two patients, while the straw under them and the blankets over them were never changed or washed, so that they must necessarily have constituted a source of infection. A report by Kerckhoffs[342] regarding the Mayence hospitals describes even worse conditions:

I was appointed to serve in the hospital established in the Municipal Octroi Building, and the first time that I went there I found the living and the dead, the wounded and the sick, scattered in confusion all over the place. The sick were stretched out on the floor, without even straw under them, covered with ordure. I was obliged to pick my way on tip-toe in order not to sink up to the ankles in filth. I saw sick men lying beside the dead bodies of their comrades. In effect, there were so many of them that they were lying on top of one another. In some of the rooms the windows were closed, so that no air could enter; in other rooms there was neither glass nor boarding in the doors or windows, notwithstanding the extreme cold. The sick men told me that they had been in that same position for two, three, and even four days, without having had a drop of water.

The soldiers under arrest, who were compelled to clean out the hospitals, all died, no more sick-attendants were to be found, and a large number of physicians perished in the performance of their duties; all the persons employed in the hospital entirely neglected their duties, and most of them were drunk all the time, since large quantities of wine were on hand for the patients.

The result was that the epidemic gradually attained to enormous dimensions. ‘The infection’, says Wittmann,[343] ‘carried away all the grave-diggers one by one, and it was impossible to find anybody who was willing to do that dangerous work. Thousands of dead bodies of citizens and soldiers lay for weeks in front of the Münstertor, where they were piled up like logs pending burial.’ In December and January the epidemic reached its climax; after that it gradually abated, but did not come to an end until May 3, 1814, when the siege terminated and the Allies entered the city.

In the period between November 1, 1813, and May 3, 1814, 7,000 deaths among the soldiers are recorded in the civil register of the city; according to statements of the grave-diggers, some 10,000 or 11,000 more soldiers were buried, whose names were not entered in the register for the reason that they could not be ascertained; nor do the above figures include the number of deaths in the stronghold of Kastel on the other side of the Rhine. Of the civil inhabitants, 2,445 (about one-tenth of the population) died; a large number of physicians contracted the disease, and four physicians and five surgeons succumbed to it.

5. THE SIEGE OF PARIS (1870–1)[344]

After the battle of Sedan the Germans immediately began to march toward Paris; on September 15, 1870, the first cavalrymen appeared before the capital, and on September 19 the investment was complete.

An exhaustive account by H. Sueur and a large number of other reports offer us very full information regarding the condition of health in Paris during the siege, since the administrative apparatus never stopped running. The approach of the German armies caused numerous well-to-do citizens to leave the city; some went south, some to Switzerland, and some to England. Sueur estimates their number from the reports of the railroad companies at 300,000. On the other hand, a large number of the inhabitants of the surrounding country sought refuge in the city; their number is estimated at 180,000. Furthermore, the size of the garrison was considerably increased; the number of men in the regular army on November 4, 1870, is estimated at 236,941, and this does not include 8,000 men in the First Division of the First Corps. To the above, moreover, must be added the number of soldiers who died between the beginning and the end of the siege. Thus the number of men in the regular army at the beginning of the siege was some 246,000; of these some 56,000 were already in the city in the middle of the summer, while the remaining 190,000 arrived later. Accordingly, the total number of people in the city shortly before the siege began was increased by 70,000. Legoyt estimated the population of the city on July 1, 1870, at 1,890,000, so that on the opening day of the investment there were 1,960,000 (in round numbers, 2,000,000) people in Paris. The arrival of the 190,000 soldiers altered the composition of the population, since the increase augmented only the number of males between the ages of 20 and 40.

A severe epidemic of small-pox raged in Paris, as stated above, even before the siege took place. In the first part of the siege, moreover, the disease raged with even greater fury in the city, since most of the young newly-enlisted mobile guards had never been vaccinated. The maximum of deaths caused by it were reported between November 6 and November 27. We have already described the course of the small-pox epidemic in Paris.[345] It was influenced neither by hunger nor by cold, but developed chiefly for the reason that it was impossible to congregate and isolate the large number of unvaccinated and susceptible persons.

Typhoid fever, dysentery, and diarrhoea, because of the unfavourable conditions brought about by the siege, became very widespread and virulent. Whereas in the year 1869 there were 630 deaths caused by typhoid fever, during the siege of 1870 no less than 3,475 persons succumbed to that disease. Dupinet[346] thinks that the above number is too small, because the disease was often not recognized, and pneumonia, a common complication, was entered as the cause of death. Inasmuch as typhoid fever was endemic in Paris, and as the native inhabitants had acquired immunity by recovery from an attack in the early part of their lives, those who were most severely afflicted by the disease were chiefly the soldiers in the army and the refugees from the surrounding country. The largest number of deaths was reported in the twentieth week of the siege, i.e. between January 14 and 20.[347] No less than 375 persons succumbed to typhoid fever in the course of that week, whereas in the corresponding week of the previous year only sixteen deaths had been reported. The largest number of deaths caused by dysentery and diarrhoea in a single week was reported somewhat later; the limited prevalence of these diseases during the siege is indicated by the fact that in the half-year 1869–70 the number of deaths caused by them was never more than twenty per week. From statistics compiled by Sueur we have arranged the following table (p. 323), which also includes the deaths caused by bronchitis and pneumonia, but not the victims buried on the battle-fields, of whom there were some 3,000.

The table indicates the gradual diminution of the food-supply. In December the quality of the bread grew worse and worse; white bread could no longer be baked, and in its place an almost inedible form of brown bread was made out of bran, wheat, rye, rice, barley, and oats. Particularly noticeable was the lack of good fats, making it necessary to prepare foods with a bad-tasting tallow that was sold under the name of ‘Beurre de Paris’. Since the cattle had to be slaughtered (those that were not killed died of various diseases), there was very soon a great scarcity of milk, making it very difficult to feed infants.[348]

Several persons have maintained that the extreme cold exerted considerable influence upon the death-rate; and a glance at the two columns in the table indicating the number of deaths caused by pneumonia and bronchitis would seem to justify this contention. How great the difference was, as compared with normal years, will be obvious when we call attention to the fact that, whereas in the twenty-second week of the siege (January 28–February 3) 627 persons succumbed to bronchitis, in the preceding year only seventy-six deaths were caused by that disease between January 30 and February 5, and that, whereas from 465 to 468 persons succumbed to pneumonia between January 21 and February 18, 1871, the number of deaths caused by that disease in the corresponding period of the previous year varied from 90 to 119 per week.

According to the unanimous verdict of the Paris physicians, typhus fever did not make its appearance during the siege.

MORTALITY DURING THE SIEGE OF PARIS

──────┬───────────────┬───────────────────────────────┬────────┬─────── _No. │_First and last│ _Important ordinances and │_Average│_Total of the│ day of the │ events._ │ no. │ no. week._│ week._ │ │ deaths │deaths │ │ │ in the │during │ │ │ years │ the │ │ │1867–9._│siege._ ──────┼───────────────┼───────────────────────────────┼────────┼─────── 〃 │ 〃 │ 〃 │ 〃 │ 〃 │ │ │ │ ──────┼───────────────┼───────────────────────────────┼────────┼─────── 1│Sept. 4–10 │ │ 889│ 981 2│Sept. 11–17 │ │ 852│ 1263 3│Sept. 18–24 │Sept. 19, investment completed │ 821│ 1272 4│Sept. 25–Oct. 1│ │ 766│ 1344 5│Oct. 2–8 │Oct. 8, meat ration fixed at │ │ │ │ 100 gr. for adults, 50 gr. │ │ │ │ for children │ 754│ 1483 6│Oct. 9–15 │ │ 737│ 1610 7│Oct. 16–22 │ │ 761│ 1746 8│Oct. 23–9 │ │ 754│ 1878 9│Oct. 30–Nov. 5 │Oct. 30, requisition of fuel │ 767│ 1762 10│Nov. 6–12 │ │ 781│ 1885 11│Nov. 13–19 │ │ 780│ 2064 12│Nov. 20–26 │Nov. 21, requisition of │ │ │ │ potatoes │ 793│ 1927 13│Nov. 27–Dec. 3 │ │ 833│ 2023 14│Dec. 4–10 │ │ 833│ 2455 15│Dec. 11–17 │Dec. 15, horse-meat ration │ │ │ │ fixed at 50 gr. per head │ 884│ 2728 16│Dec. 18–24 │Dec. 19, reduction of bread │ │ │ │ ration to 300 gr. for │ │ │ │ adults,150 gr. for children │ 854│ 2728 17│Dec. 25–31 │ │ 856│ 3280 18│Jan. 1–6 │Jan. 4, beginning of │ │ │ │ bombardment │ 838│ 3680 19│Jan. 7–13 │ │ 902│ 3982 20│Jan. 14–20 │ │ 903│ 4465 21│Jan. 21–7 │ │ 936│ 4376 22│Jan. 28–Feb. 3 │ │ 951│ 4671 23│Feb. 4–10 │Feb. 4, armistice. First │ │ │ │ supplies brought in │ 955│ 4451 24│Feb. 11–17 │ │ 974│ 4103 25│Feb. 18–24 │ │ 995│ 3941 26│Feb. 25–Mar. 3 │ │ 984│ 3500 27│Mar. 4–10 │ │ 1020│ 2993 28│Mar. 11–17 │ │ 975│ 2576 ──────┼───────────────┼───────────────────────────────┼────────┼─────── │ │ │ 24148│ 75167 ──────┴───────────────┴───────────────────────────────┴────────┴───────

──────┬───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── _No. │ of the│ week._│ │ │ │ _No. of deaths during the siege caused by_ ──────┼───────┬────────┬────────────┬────────────┬────────────┬───────────── 〃 │_Small-│_Typhoid│ │ │ │ │ pox._ │Fever._ │_Dysentery._│_Diarrhoea._│_Pneumonia._│_Bronchitis._ ──────┼───────┼────────┼────────────┼────────────┼────────────┼───────────── 1│ 116│ 39│ 8│ 25│ 54│ 45 2│ 168│ 45│ 10│ 65│ 66│ 55 3│ 158│ 45│ 9│ 43│ 62│ 61 4│ 210│ 56│ 23│ 46│ 46│ 36 5│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 212│ 54│ 18│ 69│ 50│ 56 6│ 311│ 54│ 26│ 72│ 64│ 55 7│ 360│ 55│ 23│ 76│ 66│ 70 8│ 378│ 62│ 49│ 99│ 71│ 77 9│ 380│ 61│ 32│ 87│ 69│ 72 10│ 419│ 62│ 39│ 91│ 79│ 82 11│ 431│ 94│ 25│ 91│ 73│ 92 12│ │ │ │ │ │ │ 386│ 103│ 25│ 92│ 81│ 89 13│ 412│ 140│ 25│ 76│ 92│ 99 14│ 398│ 137│ 33│ 83│ 108│ 107 15│ │ │ │ │ │ │ 391│ 173│ 38│ 103│ 131│ 190 16│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 388│ 221│ 30│ 73│ 147│ 172 17│ 454│ 250│ 51│ 98│ 201│ 258 18│ │ │ │ │ │ │ 329│ 251│ 52│ 151│ 262│ 343 19│ 339│ 301│ 46│ 143│ 390│ 457 20│ 380│ 375│ 42│ 137│ 426│ 598 21│ 327│ 313│ 48│ 134│ 478│ 548 22│ 258│ 324│ 63│ 150│ 465│ 627 23│ │ │ │ │ │ │ 225│ 260│ 57│ 144│ 468│ 593 24│ 174│ 298│ 59│ 158│ 471│ 539 25│ 134│ 301│ 52│ 181│ 410│ 557 26│ 147│ 260│ 50│ 190│ 338│ 424 27│ 85│ 258│ 60│ 142│ 267│ 379 28│ 98│ 229│ 49│ 104│ 188│ 301 ──────┼───────┼────────┼────────────┼────────────┼────────────┼───────────── │ 8068│ 4821│ 1042│ 2923│ 5623│ 6982 ──────┴───────┴────────┴────────────┴────────────┴────────────┴─────────────

Scurvy broke out, but did not become at all widespread; sporadic cases of the disease were observed among the civil inhabitants, while in the prisons and hospitals it was somewhat more prevalent. Delpech[349] attributes the appearance of the disease to the lack of fresh vegetables, which were very expensive and could not be given out in the public establishments. Among the soldiers the disease broke out only in Fort Bicêtre, the garrison in which consisted of 800 marines, of whom some seventy or seventy-five contracted it. None of them were given any salted meat, and Grenet[350] contends that the outbreak was caused by the lack of light and air in the small casemates, and by arduous service, especially in the night. But here, too, the real cause was probably to be found in the lack of fresh vegetables, which Grenet does not mention.

The death-rate in Paris during the siege was about three times as high as normal. Sueur has estimated that in the years 1867–9 the mortality in the twenty-eight weeks corresponding with those in the above table was 13·1 per 1,000 inhabitants, whereas in the twenty-eight weeks of the siege the mortality was 38·6 per 1,000.

6. THE SIEGE OF PORT ARTHUR (1904)

Port Arthur was besieged by the Japanese from July 30, 1904, to January 2, 1905—a period of 156 days. Whereas, as stated in the last chapter, the condition of health in the Russian army was good, the sanitary conditions in Port Arthur during the siege were very bad, since the supply of provisions that had been laid in proved to be insufficient.[351] The offer made on August 16 by General Nogi and Admiral Togo, granting all the women, children (under 16 years), ecclesiastics, members of the diplomatic corps and military and naval attachés of foreign powers permission to leave the stronghold, was refused by General Stössel. As early as August 5 horse-meat began to be distributed;[352] from September 17 on the troops were supplied four times a week with horse-meat, since there was no other fresh or canned meat available. At this time almost everything in the city was consumed, though the Chinese secretly brought rice, eggs, and other things, on boats from Chufoo. After September 28 the soldiers were given meat only twice a week (one-half of a pound of horse-meat or one-third of a can of preserved meat). Regarding conditions up to October 20 we are informed by the report of the Russian General Medical Staff:[353] ‘The supply of food ran lower and lower; beef gave out very early, only a small quantity of canned meat was left, and even the portions of horse-meat had to be dealt out very sparingly, as we had very important use for horses in transporting ammunition, water, food, &c., to the various positions. In the city it became more and more difficult every day to procure food; meat, if by any chance a small quantity was marketed, was sold in the stores for one and one-half roubles per pound. A chicken cost twelve roubles, a goose twenty roubles, an egg one rouble, a pound of onions one rouble, a pound of horse-meat one half-rouble.’

In November all the soldiers were given was horse-meat; only the sick received canned meat. The supply of food in the possession of private individuals was exhausted, while garlic and vegetables had given out altogether.

On September 19 the Japanese captured the redoubts controlling one of the aqueducts that supplied Port Arthur with water; there was however another aqueduct, and, furthermore, wells were bored and a plant for distilling seawater was put into operation. The statement of the Russian General Staff that there was at no time a serious scarcity of water is not confirmed in Olga von Baumgarten’s diary, which frequently refers in plaintive terms to the lack of drinking-water in the lazarets.[354]

During the summer the condition of health among the Russian troops was comparatively good;[355] on August 26 there were 132 officers and 5,661 men in the lazarets. In the first part of October typhoid fever broke out in Port Arthur, where it was endemic, and before long an epidemic of such severity was raging in the city that it was difficult to find places in which to shelter the patients. There were also a great many cases of dysentery. Owing to the lack of preserved meat and vegetables, scurvy also made its appearance; the first cases of the disease were observed early in October. In the latter part of that month there were in the lazarets 450 typhoid-fever patients, 855 dysentery patients, and 167 scurvy patients. In addition to these diseases, cases of night-blindness (inability to see after dusk) were observed; the latter disease is quite common among Russian country-people, being caused by bad nourishment.

In December the garrison was completely exhausted. Scurvy had become more and more widespread, and between the fourteenth and twenty-seventh of that month 71 officers and 1,790 men had been committed to the lazarets. On the day of the surrender (January 2, 1905) the number of men in the Russian garrison was 32,400, and of these 6,458 were lying sick or wounded in the lazarets.[356] Of the remaining 25,942 men, 13,207 were incapacitated; thus the number of healthy men (besides 2,193 marines) in the garrison at the time of the surrender was only 12,735. Regarding the loss of life during the siege we find no information in the report of the General Staff. The number of soldiers in the city (excluding the officers and officials) was 41,780 at the beginning and 32,400 at the end of the siege. No further information regarding the condition of health among the civil inhabitants of Port Arthur is obtainable.

CONCLUSION

The history of war-pestilences has shown how severely belligerent armies are attacked by infectious diseases, how seriously their operations are hampered by them, and what loss of life such diseases cause by spreading to non-combatants. If we start from the time when more or less accurate descriptions enable us to determine the nature of the epidemics, we find that plague and typhus fever were the two diseases which, until a few decades ago, most commonly attacked the soldiers; the latter disease, which made its appearance in almost every war that was waged between the beginning of the sixteenth and the middle of the nineteenth century, consequently acquired the name ‘war-plague’.

For a long time nobody knew just how to combat these pestilences, and nowhere were rational measures adopted aiming to prevent them from spreading. We have seen the bitter truth of this statement in connexion with the endless Napoleonic wars. One reason for the neglect of preventive measures was the belief that these pestilences broke out spontaneously when large numbers were crowded together under miserable living conditions. The physicians of that time, in their efforts to explain the sudden appearance of these pestilences, arrived at the conclusion that they were autochthonic. But modern medical science, realizing its limitations, contents itself with the hypothesis that the original cause of these diseases is not to be ascertained, and with the knowledge that the infective agents in the case of almost all of them have been discovered, and that an outbreak of any infectious disease in any specific locality signifies that the germ of that disease must in some way have been deposited there. It was precisely the belief in the spontaneous origination of pestilences that led people to neglect watching for and isolating, with all possible dispatch, the first cases—a measure which is to-day looked upon as the most important means of preventing the dissemination of a disease.

The belief in the autochthonic origin of diseases continued to prevail until the first half of the nineteenth century. Hecker upheld it in a discussion of the plague-epidemic that occurred during the Russo-Turkish War of 1769–70; he believed that the intermittent fever prevalent in the Danube countries passed over into putrid fever, with or without petechiae, that carbuncles and buboes gradually developed, and that putrid fever was thus converted into bubonic plague. ‘It is therefore in all probability true’, says Hecker, ‘that the outbreak of plague in the Russian army in the year 1770, as well as in the year 1828, was not caused by direct infection from the Turkish troops, but was merely an independent development from intermittent fever and spotted fever.’

Recent investigations in the field of medicine turn over to the other sciences all questions regarding ultimate causes, and confine themselves to what is actually observed. We know that the agents responsible for infectious diseases are specific minute organisms which must be present in the system to produce the disease in question, and that these micro-organisms are conveyed from place to place by infected persons, by intermediaries, on articles to which they have attached themselves, in contaminated food, in drinking-water, and in many other ways. Investigators have studied the conditions in which these infective agents live and the manner in which they are disseminated, they have discovered methods of determining the nature of the disease in a very short time, and they have come to recognize the danger of coming in contact with germ-bearers, that is, with persons, healthy or convalescent, who have these micro-organisms in their systems without being themselves sick. Medical science is now endeavouring, by means of systematic procedure and splendid organization, to guard soldiers against the danger of infection; good drinking-water is provided, the men and the rooms in which they live are kept clean, persons suffering from infectious diseases are isolated, all rooms and articles used by patients are disinfected, infected divisions of troops are quartered by themselves, germ-bearers are watched for and discovered, &c. The success of such measures is well known. The knowledge gained and profited by in times of peace is also applied in times of war, and to-day we are able to confine pestilences within much narrower limits than was formerly possible. In order to do this, however, we must have, in addition to an efficient system of transporting and feeding troops, physicians who are well informed in regard to hygiene and bacteriology.

As early as the eighteenth century, successful efforts were made to prevent, by means of energetic measures, the reappearance of plague in Europe; the Russo-Turkish War of 1828–9 was the last war in which it broke out. On the other hand, typhus fever continued to be the Nemesis of belligerent armies, while a new infectious disease, cholera, entered upon the scene and played a very important rôle in the Crimean War, and a by no means minor rôle in the war of 1866. Along with these diseases, typhoid fever advanced into the foreground about the middle of the last century, and it soon turned out to be one of the most dangerous diseases that occur among soldiers. This appearance of typhoid fever has led some to think that the disease has prevailed extensively only in comparatively recent times. Hirsch, however, ably defends the opposite view; he maintains that typhoid fever was in many instances confused with the _febres pestilentes_, _malignae_, _putridae_, and _nervosae_, with the mucous fevers, bilious fevers, putrid fevers, &c. In discussing the typhus-fever epidemics that occurred in the course of the Napoleonic wars, we have several times called attention to the fact that typhoid fever probably broke out in the form of epidemics; but it could be diagnosed with certainty only after post-mortem examinations began to be more frequent. At all events, typhoid fever is to-day prevalent all over the world, and there is always danger that field-armies will be infected with it, either in their own land or in the land of the enemy. All the wars of the last few decades have clearly demonstrated this fact.

For a successful battle against war-pestilences, it is a fortunate coincidence that the civil as well as the military authorities are equally interested in their prevention. Every military leader knows how important it is for the soldiers to keep healthy, since their efficiency is otherwise seriously impaired. It is not our task to describe the particular measures that are to be adopted; the manuals of military sanitation give us accurate information regarding these matters. We merely mention the fact that it is of great value and importance to have physicians, who are well acquainted with hygienic problems, make a preliminary examination of sanitary conditions in the territory through which the soldiers will be required to pass in order to reach the scene of hostilities.

Very great difficulties, to be sure, confront the efforts made in war times to prevent the outbreak of infectious diseases. If the struggle is carried on in an infected region, the troops are often compelled to seek shelter in infected houses; thus during the battles of Orléans and Le Mans in the Franco-German War the troops, in order to protect themselves against the severe winter cold, had to live in houses which small-pox patients had shortly before occupied or were actually occupying at the time. Circumstances frequently arise which render impossible the adoption of the most effective measure calculated to prevent the dissemination of a pestilence, that is, the isolation of infected divisions of troops; one can readily imagine how difficult this would be in the case of an army re-forming after a lost battle. Furthermore, even if one of the belligerent armies is doing all it can to prevent diseases from spreading, its efforts must be seriously handicapped if the enemy’s army does not include an equally diligent sanitary corps and does not devote the same amount of energy to the prevention of the outbreak and dissemination of infectious diseases. For even if a sanitary corps is successful in warding off a reaction upon its own troops, nevertheless this reaction is sure to take place with respect to the civil inhabitants of the country in which the war is waged.

During a war, the civil authorities must also do their part in preventing diseases from spreading to the civil population. The local administrations of a region in which fighting is going on are powerless. The generals care very little whether or not a city or village in the enemy’s country is infected by their troops, whom they quarter in whatever house or place best suits their purpose. On the other hand, the communities in which military prisons are located are confronted with a very difficult problem, since these prisons, if infected men are confined in them, easily develop into centres of infection; this fact was observed a hundred times in the year 1870. If a disease breaks out in a community in consequence of the fact that a military prison has been established there, in my opinion it is incumbent on the central government of the country to support the local authorities in their efforts to check the disease, and to give them financial help as well as scientific advice. Unfortunately, it is not to be denied that, in many small cities and in almost all rural communities, absolutely no provision is made for the isolation of persons suffering from infectious diseases; the authorities justify themselves with the reflection that in case of emergency barracks can quickly be erected for the purpose, but at the same time they fail to remember that working-men are not always available in the storm and stress of war times, that building materials in the general scarcity of supplies cannot always be procured with sufficient promptitude, and that pestilences, if the isolation of the first cases is delayed, usually spread with great rapidity.

In future wars we must expect the military authorities to do all they can, just as soon as the prisoners are taken, to segregate as carefully as possible all known and suspected cases of infectious diseases. The difficulties confronting the military authorities, when it is necessary to remove large numbers of prisoners with all possible dispatch away from the scene of the war, are, to be sure, very great.

Finally, we must also call attention to the danger to which the civil inhabitants of a country are exposed, when the soldiers return home after the termination of a campaign in an infected region. It must be demanded under all circumstances that divisions of troops among whom infectious diseases have made their appearance, before returning from the enemy’s country, shall be subjected to a medical examination, isolated, and disinfected, just as was done on such a large scale, for example, by the Japanese after the wars with China and Russia. This also applies to all other persons who have had anything to do with infected divisions, particularly to teamsters.

All preparations designed to prevent the outbreak and dissemination of infectious diseases must be made in times of peace; barracks and lazarets must be erected, physicians who are well acquainted with methods of hygienic investigation must be available, and an adequate number of nurses and sick-attendants must be prepared for immediate service at the very first appearance of an infectious disease. For the military authorities, who can scarcely perform all the duties that the beginning of a war imposes upon them, it will facilitate matters greatly if in future campaigns the Red Cross devotes its attention, not only to the care of the wounded, but also, on a larger scale than it has heretofore, to the prevention of the outbreak and dissemination of war-pestilences.

INDEX

Acre, pestilence, 14.

Adrianople, bubonic plague epidemic 1829, 168 f.

del Agua, 277.

Algiers, typhus epidemic 1868, 195 f.

Amoebic dysentery, 7 f.

Amsterdam, pestilence 1624, 72.

Andersonville prison, 181.

Anti-vaccinationists, 198, 251, 260, 269.

Armenia, plague epidemic 1828, 169 f.

Athens, plague, 11.

Augsburg, pestilence 1634, 58 f.; pestilence 1703, 80; small-pox epidemic 1871, 259.

Austria, small-pox epidemic 1872, 275 f.

Barbarossa, 12 f.

Basel, small-pox epidemic 1870, 271 f.

Baudens, 174.

Baumgarten, von, 326.

Bavaria, typhus epidemic 1813, 149 f.

Beitzke, 122, 129, 132.

Belgium, small-pox epidemic 1870, 273 f.

Beri-beri, 298.

Berlin, pestilence 1637, 69; small-pox epidemic 1871, 230 f.; typhus fever epidemic 1813, 124 f.

Berne, small-pox epidemic 1870, 271.

Bernstein, 140.

Black Death, 6.

Blech, 122, 308, 309, 310.

Boehnke, 195.

Boersch, 29, 78.

Boin, 103, 104.

le Borne, 95.

Bouchut, 322.

Bourchardet, 320.

Brandeis, 12.

Braun, 151.

Bremen, small-pox epidemic 1870, 242.

Breslau, pestilence 1758, 82; plague 1633, 47; small-pox epidemic 1871, 224 f.; typhus epidemic 1813, 123.

Brunner, 272.

Bubonic plague, 5; 1707, 85; Adrianople 1829, 168 f.; Armenia 1829, 169 f.; Bucharest 1828, 165 ff.; France 1628, 73 f.; Italy 1629, 74 f.; Netherlands 1635, 72 f.; Russo-Turkish War 1769, 86; Russo-Turkish War 1828, 165 ff.; Thirty Years’ War, 25 ff., 41 ff.; Varna 1829, 168 f.

Bucharest, bubonic plague 1828, 165 ff.

Bukowina, small-pox epidemic 1871, 276.

Burckhardt, 78, 158, 272.

Bürger, 313.

Cannstatt, 112.

Canz, 94.

Cazalas, 183.

Charles VIII, expedition to Naples, 17.

Charles XII, 85.

Chauffard, 200.

Chemnitz, small-pox epidemic 1871, 255 f.

Chenu, 171, 173, 183.

Cholera, 6 f.; Balkan War, 300 ff.; Crimean War, 170 ff.; France 1853, 170 ff.; German War of 1866, 184 f.; Tripolitan War, 299 f.

Civil War, American, 5; dysentery, 178 f.; malaria, 180; measles, 179; small-pox, 179; typhoid fever, 177; typhus fever, 178.

Cless, 260.

Colin, 203.

Cologne, small-pox epidemic 1870, 247 f.

Concentration camps, South Africa, 292 ff.

Constantinople, cholera epidemic 1912, 301.

Copenhagen, pestilence 1710, 85.

Crimean War, cholera, 170 ff.; dysentery epidemic, 172; scurvy epidemic, 172; typhus epidemic, 172 ff.

Crusades, 12, 13 ff.

Czetyrkin, 165, 167, 169.

Daimer, 185, 275, 276.

Damietta, siege of, 14 f.

Danzig, pestilence 1709, 85; siege of, 306 ff.; small-pox epidemic 1870, 220 f.; typhus fever 1813, 122.

Davoust, 141.

Delpech, 201, 202, 324.

Deneke, 141.

Denmark, small-pox epidemic 1871, 280 f.

Depopulation, Thirty Years’ War, 76 ff.

Diemerbroeck, 73.

Dietz, 78.

Dillenius, von, 151.

Diodorus, 11.

Diphtheria, Boer War, 294.

Dresden, pestilence 1757, 83; plague 1632, 44; small-pox epidemic 1871, 254 f.; typhus epidemic 1813, 127 f.

Dupinet, 321.

Düsseldorf, small-pox epidemic 1871, 245 f.

Dysentery 7 f., 14; American Civil War, 178 f.; Crimean War, 172; Franco-German War, 190 ff., 194 ff.; Port Arthur, 326 f.; Russian Campaign, 116 ff.; siege of Paris, 321 ff.; siege of Torgau, 314 f.; Thirty Years’ War, 31 ff.

Elsässer, 150.

Ebstein, 12, 115, 137.

England, small-pox epidemic 1870, 278; typhus fever 1808, 105; typhus fever 1856, 174 f.

Enteric fever, 8.

Erfurt, small-pox epidemic 1871, 236 f.; typhus epidemic 1813, 133.

Erisman, 287.

Feichtmayer, 98.

Ferenczy, 291.

Finland, small-pox epidemic 1871, 280 f.

Fischer, 127, 128.

Flexner, 7.

Flinzer, 130, 255.

Follenfant, 298.

Fonteret, 205.

Fracastorius, 20.

Franco-German War, small-pox epidemic, 197 ff.

Frankfurt-on-the-Main, pestilence 1633, 63.

Frankfurt, small-pox epidemic 1871, 250 f.; typhus epidemic 1813, 135 ff.

Franque, von, 137, 138, 140.

Frederick the Great, 82, 83.

Friccius, 122, 307, 309, 310.

Friedländer, 157.

Fuchs, 17.

Gaffky, 8.

Gasc, 117.

Geissler, 256.

Genoa, typhus fever 1799, 67.

Gilbert, 100.

Giraud, 132.

Gmelin, 61.

Godelier, 175.

Göden, 121.

Gratiolo, 22.

Grätzer, 78, 82.

Gravelotte, 189.

Greiner, 132.

Grellois, 196.

Grenet, 324.

Grossi, 74.

Gurlt, 1, 99, 101, 115, 122, 125, 131, 132, 143, 153.

Gustavus Adolphus, 27 ff., 50.

Guttstadt, 186, 214, 219, 223, 230, 231, 233, 234, 242, 243, 248, 270, 283.

Györy, 20, 24.

Haga, 297.

Hain, 98, 161.

Hamburg, small-pox epidemic 1870, 239 f.; typhus fever epidemic 1813, 141 f.

Hammer, 85.

Hanau, typhus fever epidemic 1813, 134 f.

Häser, 12, 17, 72, 74, 81, 85, 92, 97, 114, 123, 172, 306.

Haurowitz, 176.

Hecker, 17, 86, 87, 89, 329.

Heilbronn, small-pox epidemic 1870, 263 f.

Herero War, 296.

Hildenbrand, 106, 113.

Hirsch, 15, 18, 19, 173, 178, 184, 185, 330.

Holk, 44.

Höring, 263.

Horn, 52, 113, 124, 125, 133.

Hörnigk, 64.

Hufeland, 100, 103, 106, 107, 108, 112, 113, 124.

Hungarian disease, 20, 22 ff.

India, small-pox epidemic 1873, 282.

Ireland, small-pox epidemic 1871, 280.

Italy, small-pox epidemic 1872, 277 f.

Joerdens, 99.

Jörg, 112.

Kanngiesser, 12.

Kausch, 123.

Kerckhoffs, 115, 116, 120, 318.

Kiev, bubonic plague 1770, 89.

Knaak, 1, 183, 287.

Koch, 7, 286.

Königsberg, typhus epidemic 1806, 100; typhus epidemic 1812, 121 f.

Kopp, 108, 122, 131, 134, 135.

Kosloff, 286, 289.

Kraft, 138.

Kraus, 301.

Kriesche, 204.

Kruse, 7.

Kübler, 184.

Ladysmith, typhoid epidemic, 291 f.

Lammert, 26, 50, 58, 64, 66, 72, 74, 77.

Larrey, 115.

Laveran, 1, 12, 73, 100, 118, 158, 175, 178, 197, 202.

Lehmann, 311, 312.

Leipzig, pestilence 1630, 41 f.; small-pox epidemic 1871, 252 ff.; typhus epidemic 1813, 128.

Lemazurier, 115, 117, 118.

Lentilius, 79.

Leprosy, 15 f.

Lersch, 13, 14, 18, 282.

Leyden, pestilence 1624, 72.

Liévin, 220, 221.

Linstow, 1, 101.

Littré, 12.

Löbenstein-Löbel, 132.

Lohnes, 150.

London, small-pox epidemic 1871, 279.

Loth, 194, 237.

Lotz, 274.

Louis IX, 15.

Louis XIV, 79.

Lübeck, small-pox epidemic 1871, 240 f.

Lyons, small-pox epidemic 1870, 205 f.

Magdeburg, small-pox epidemic 1871, 233 f.

Maier, 125.

Majer, 258.

Malaria, American Civil War, 180 f.; Italian War of 1859, 183; siege of Mantua, 304 f.

Mansfeld, 29 ff.

Mantua, pestilence 1630, 75; siege of, 304 ff.

March, 182, 274.

Maréchal, 18, 21, 30, 92, 109, 155.

Maria Theresa, 80.

Martin, 188.

Martius, 258.

Massachusetts, small-pox epidemic 1872, 281.

Matignon, 299.

Maurin, 196.

Mayence, siege of, 316 ff.; small-pox epidemic 1870, 266 f.

Mayr, 257.

Measles, American Civil War, 179; Boer War, 294 f.

du Mesnil, 203, 321.

Metz, pestilence, 21; pestilence 1636, 65 f.; pestilence 1792, 93; small-pox epidemic 1870, 203; typhus epidemic 1813, 155 f.; typhus epidemic 1870, 196 f.

Meyer, 32.

Michaux, 14, 196.

Michigan, small-pox epidemic 1872, 281.

Milan, pestilence 1630, 75.

Moore, Thomas, 18.

Moravia, typhus epidemic 1813, 161.

Mortality, Moscow pestilence 1771, 91; Seven Years’ War, 84; Thirty Years’ War, 78.

Moscow, bubonic plague 1771, 89; typhus fever 1812, 116.

Munich, pestilence 1634, 55 f.; small-pox epidemic 1871, 258 f.

Münster, small-pox epidemic 1871, 242 f.

Murchison, 73, 112, 174.

Myrdacz, 183, 287.

Nantes, pestilence 1793, 95.

Napoleon, 115 ff., 126.

Nassau, typhus epidemic 1813, 140.

Netherlands, small-pox epidemic 1871, 274 f.

Neuhof, 126.

Neumann, 110.

New York, small-pox epidemic 1871, 281.

Niedner, 173, 184.

Norway, small-pox epidemic 1871, 280 f.

Nuremberg, plague 1633, 53; small-pox epidemic 1871, 258 f.

Oesterle, 304.

Oettingen, von, 298.

Okuniewski, 324.

Ophthalmia, 15.

Ozanam, 21, 73, 74, 75, 81, 84, 97, 101, 104.

Parenteau-Desgranges, 109.

Paris, siege of, 320 ff.; small-pox epidemic 1869, 202; typhus fever epidemic 1814, 156 f.

Parrot, 118.

Pastau, von, 225.

Pellerin, 157.

Peloponnesian War, 11.

Peninsular War, typhus fever, 101.

Perroud, 206.

Pettenkofer, 286.

Pfaff, 40.

Physicians, typhus mortality, 123, 129, 131, 135, 137, 142, 145, 151, 155, 319.

Plague, 5 ff.; Athens, 11; Rome, 12.

Pneumonia, siege of Paris, 322 f.

Pneumonic plague, 5 f.

Pont-à-Mousson, typhus fever epidemic 1813, 154.

Port Arthur, siege of, 324 ff.

Prague, pestilence 1742, 81; small-pox epidemic 1872, 277.

Presl, 186.

Pringle, J., 1, 82, 308.

Prinzing, 199.

Prussia, small-pox mortality, 198.

Rabinowitsch, 272.

Rapp, 260.

Rasori, 97.

Reisseisen, 155.

Reissner and Neidhart, 265, 266.

Reuss, 260.

Rhumelius, 29.

Richter, 311–16.

Riecke, 313.

Roetenbeck, 52.

Roller, 99.

Roloff, 131.

Rösle, 78.

Roth, 297.

Russia, small-pox epidemic 1871, 280 f.

Russian Campaign, typhus epidemic, 115 ff.

Samoilowitz, 89.

Sanitary Commission, American Civil War, 176.

Schäfer, 148, 298.

Schafonsky, 89.

Scheerer, 115, 116.

Schinzinger, 152.

Schnurrer, 12, 21, 24, 52.

Schön, 60.

Schopper, 301.

Schwiening, H., 18.

Scorbutus, 9.

Scotland, small-pox epidemic 1871, 280.

Scrive, 171, 173.

Scurvy, 9, 14; Crimean War, 172; Metz 1552, 21–2; Port Arthur, 326 f.; siege of Mantua, 305 f.; siege of Paris, 324; Thirty Years’ War, 52 ff., 66.

Sedan, 189.

Seidlitz, 166, 167, 168, 169.

Seitz, 26, 55, 81, 95, 98, 99, 144, 147, 148, 149, 150, 257.

Sforza, 299.

Siegel, 253.

Sigel, 261.

Silesia, typhus epidemic 1805, 98.

Simon, 166.

Small-pox, 9, 17; American Civil War, 179; Franco-German War, 197 ff.; Germany 1865, 184; Germany 1870, 212 ff.; siege of Paris, 321.

Small-pox mortality, in France, 199; French prisoners 1870, 209 f.; Germany 1871–2, 268; Prussia, 198; Prussia 1862–73, 214.

Stegmeyer, 305.

Steiner, 16, 299, 324.

Steinheim, 142.

Stemmler, 132.

Stettin, small-pox epidemic 1871, 226 f.

Stiga, 7.

Stockholm, pestilence 1710, 85.

Strassburg, small-pox epidemic 1870, 204.

Stricker, 115.

Stuttgart, small-pox epidemic 1870, 261 f.

Sueur, 203, 320, 322.

Süssmilch, 83.

Suttner, 55.

Sweating sickness, 18 ff.

Sweden, small-pox epidemic 1871, 280 f.

Switzerland, typhus fever epidemic 1813, 158 f.

Syphilis, 16, 17, 18.

Takaki, 298.

Teuffel, 188.

Thierer, 62.

Thilenius, 138.

Tholazan, 169.

Thouvenel, 154.

Thucydides, 11.

Tilly, 27, 50.

Torgau, siege of, 311 ff.

Typhoid fever, 8 f.; American Civil War, 177 f.; Boer War, 290 ff.; Franco-German War, 190 ff.; Herero War, 296; Port Arthur, 326 f.; Russo-Japanese War, 297 f.; Russo-Turkish War 1877, 288 ff.; siege of Paris, 321 ff.; siege of Torgau, 315 f.; Thirty Years’ War, 71.

Typhus fever, 4 ff., 19 ff., 106 ff., 149 f.; 1812, 114 ff.; 1813–14, 162 ff.; Algiers 1868, 195 f.; American Civil War, 178; Balkan War, 301 ff.; Berlin 1813, 124 f.; Breslau 1813, 123; Coalition War, 98; Crimean War, 172 ff.; Danzig 1813, 122; Dresden 1813, 127 f.; England 1622, 75 f.; England 1808, 105; England 1856, 174 f.; Erfurt 1813, 133; Frankfurt 1813, 135 ff.; Genoa 1799, 97; Hamburg 1813, 141 f.; Hanau 1813, 134 f.; Königsberg 1806, 100; Königsberg 1812, 121 f.; Leipzig 1813, 128 ff.; Metz 1813, 155 f.; Metz 1870, 196 f.; Moravia 1813, 161; mortality 1813–14, 163; mortality among physicians, 108; Moscow 1812, 116; Nassau 1813, 140; Paris 1814, 156 f.; Peninsular War, 101 f.; Pont-à-Mousson 1813, 154; Russian Campaign, 115 ff.; Russo-Turkish War of 1877, 287 ff.; Seven Years’ War, 82 ff.; siege of Danzig, 307 ff.; siege of Mantua, 305 ff.; siege of Mayence, 317 ff.; siege of Torgau, 311 ff.; Switzerland 1813, 158 f.; Thirty Years’ War, 26 ff.; Verdun 1792, 109; Vilna 1812, 117; Wars of French Revolution, 92 ff.; War with Moors in Spain, 21; War of Polish Succession, 80; Warsaw 1812, 119; Württemberg 1813, 150 f.

Uetterodt, L., 1.

Ulm, pestilence 1634, 62; small-pox epidemic 1870, 262 f.

Vaccination, 200, 201, 202, 207, 211, 212, 217, 231, 240, 241, 251, 255 f., 260, 265, 269 f., 279, 282, 283, 284, 285; effects of, 197 f.; effect on mortality, 9.

Vacher, 199, 206, 207, 303, 320.

Varna, plague 1829, 168.

Venice, pestilence 1630, 75.

Verdun, pestilence 1793, 82 f.; typhus epidemic 1792, 109.

Vernois, 200, 201.

Verona, pestilence 1630, 75.

Vienna, small-pox epidemic 1872, 277.

Vilna, typhus fever 1812, 117.

Virchow, 115.

Viry, 196.

Vogt, 271.

Volz, 186, 194, 262.

Wahl, 247.

Wallenstein, 27, 50.

War Pestilence, use of term, 4.

Warsaw, typhus epidemic 1812, 119.

Weber, 143.

Weichselbaum, 185.

Wendt, 123.

Westergaard, H., 1.

Wilbrandt, 94, 136.

Wilken, 14, 15.

Wittmann, 316–19.

Woillez, 207.

Wolf, 119.

Wunderlich, 251, 252, 270.

Württemberg, pestilence 1634, 63; typhus epidemic 1813, 150 f.

Yellow fever, Spain 1810, 101.

Zenzen, 318.

Zurich, small-pox epidemic 1871, 272.

GENERAL APPENDIX PUBLICATIONS OF THE DIVISION OF ECONOMICS AND HISTORY

The Conference which met at Berne in 1911, under the auspices of the Division of Economics and History of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, appointed three Commissions to draft the questions and problems to be dealt with by competent authorities in all countries. The first Commission was entrusted with _The Economic and Historical Causes and Effects of War_; the second with _Armaments in Time of Peace_; the third with _The Unifying Influences in International Life_. Subsequently the suggestions of the three Commissions were considered and approved by the entire Conference.

The questions are to be discussed scientifically, and as far as possible without prejudice either for or against war; and their discussion may have such important consequences that the questions are presented below _in extenso_.

Report of the First Commission THE ECONOMIC AND HISTORICAL CAUSES AND EFFECTS OF WAR

The Conference recommends the following researches:

1. Historical presentation of the causes of war in modern times, tracing especially the influence exercised by the striving for greater political power, by the growth of the national idea, by the political aspirations of races and by economic interests.

2. Conflicts of economic interests in the present age:

(_a_) The influence of the growth of population and of the industrial development upon the expansion of States.

(_b_) The protectionist policy; its origin and basis; its method of application and its influence upon the relations between countries; bounties (open and disguised, public and private); most-favoured-nation treatment; the attitude towards foreign goods and foreign capital; the boycott; discouragement of foreign immigration.

(_c_) International loans; the policy of guarantees; the relations of the creditor to the debtor States; the use of loans for gaining influence over other States.

(_d_) Rivalry among States with respect to capitalist investments in foreign countries:

1. The endeavour to obtain a privileged position in banking enterprises, in the opening and development of mines, in the letting of public contracts, in the execution of public works, in the building of railways (Siberian, Manchurian, Persian Bagdad Railway, Adriatic Railway, &c.); in short, the organization of larger capitalistic enterprises in foreign countries.

2. The hindering of foreign countries by convention from executing productive enterprises on their own soil, e.g. from building railways in their own countries.

3. The anti-militarist movement, considered in its religious and political manifestations. (Only opposition to all military organization is here to be considered.)

4. The position of organized labour and the socialists in the various States on the questions of war and armaments.

5. Is it possible to determine a special interest of individual classes making for or against war, for or against standing armies?

6. The influence of women and woman suffrage upon war and armaments.

7. The extension of obligatory military service in the different States, in times both of war and of peace.

(_a_) The conditions of military service; the system of enlistment and of general obligatory service, the actual position of aliens.

(_b_) The ratio of the persons obliged to render military service to the entire population.

(_c_) The influence of the present system of military obligation and the organization of armies upon warfare and upon its duration.

8. The economic effects of the right of capture and its influence upon the development of navies.

9. War loans provided by neutral countries; their extent and influence on recent warfare.

10. The effects of war:

(_a_) Financial cost of war. The methods of meeting it: Taxation; International Loans; External Loans.

(_b_) Losses and gains from the point of view of public and private economic interests; checks to production and the destruction of productive forces; reduction of opportunities for business enterprises; interruption of foreign trade and of the imports of food; the destruction of property; shrinkage of values of property, including securities; financial burden caused by new taxes, debts, and war indemnities; effects upon private credit and upon savings banks; advantages to those industries which furnish military materials; advantages and disadvantages to neutral countries.

(_c_) The effects of war upon the supply of the world with food and raw materials, with special reference to those States which are in large degree dependent upon other countries for such supplies, e.g. Great Britain and Germany; by diversion of capital from those countries which produce food and raw materials (especially the stoppage of railway building and of new investments in agriculture and other industries).

(_d_) The condition of the victorious State: manner of levy and use of contributions and war indemnities; influence upon industry and social life.

(_e_) The manner in which the energy of nations is stimulated or depressed by war.

11. Loss of human life in war and as a result of war: influence upon population (birth-rate, relation between the sexes, ratio of the various ages, sanitary conditions).

12. The influence of war and of the possibility of war upon the protective policy, upon banking conditions (especially upon banks of issue), and upon monetary systems.

13. The influence of annexation upon the economic life of the annexing States, and upon the State whose territory has been annexed.

14. The annexation of half-civilized or uncivilized peoples, considered especially from the point of view of the economic interests, which act as motive powers; the methods through which private enterprises take root in such regions and through which they bring influence to bear upon their own governments; the effects of such annexations upon the development of trade with the annexing State and with other countries, as well as upon the economic and social life of the natives.

15. The progressive exemption of commercial and industrial activities from losses and interferences through war.

16. Influence of the open-door policy upon war and peace.

Report of the Second Commission ARMAMENTS IN TIME OF PEACE. MILITARY AND NAVAL ESTABLISHMENTS. THE THEORY, PRACTICE, AND HISTORY OF MODERN ARMAMENTS.

1. Definition. Armaments might be described as ‘the preparations made by a State either for defence or for attack’. These would include the provision of food, financial preparations, and also semi-military railways, canals, docks, &c.

2. Causes of armaments. Motives for increasing or commencing them, distinguishing the great from the small powers.

3. Rivalry and competition in armaments. Motives and consequences of rivalry, with the possibilities of limitation.

4. Modern history of armaments, with special fullness from 1872. To be noted as important landmarks:

(_a_) The introduction of conscription into Germany, France, Austria, Italy, Japan, &c.

(_b_) Modern inventions affecting war.

(_c_) The question of privateering and private property at sea.

(_d_) Duration of military service.

(_e_) The traffic in arms.

5. Military budgets from 1872 (distinguishing ordinary from extraordinary expenditures).

6. The burden of armaments in recent times.

(_a_) The proportion of military to civil expenditure.

(_b_) Military expenditure per capita.

(_c_) Military expenditure from loans in time of peace, i.e. a comparison of expenditure from taxes with expenditure from borrowed money.

(_d_) Comparative burdens of individual taxpayers in different countries and the extent to which the differences are due to armaments.

(_e_) Military pensions.

(_f_) It is desirable to ascertain where possible the ratio between the total income of each nation and the total expenditure on armament at various times.

7. The effects of war preparations upon the economic and social life of a nation:

(_a_) On the sustenance of the entire population of a country at war.

(_b_) On railway policy.

(_c_) On public administration and on social legislation.

8. The economic effects of withdrawing young men from industrial pursuits, into the army and navy:

(_a_) Compulsory.

(_b_) Of non-compulsory service (specially in the case of mercenary troops).

(Allowance being made for the industrial value of military education and training.)

9. The influence of changes in the occupations of a people upon the composition and efficiency of armies, and the influence of the changes in the composition of armies on the economic life.

10. Loans for armaments (participation of domestic and foreign capital).

11. The industries of war, i.e. the various manufactures and other industries which are promoted and encouraged by military and naval establishments, distinguishing between:

(_a_) Government undertakings (arsenals, dockyards, &c.).

(_b_) Private undertakings, including the history and working of the great armament firms, which sell to foreign customers as well as to their own governments.

12. War materials (munitions of war). Their recent development and their cost. This includes arms, ammunition, armour-plate, warships, guns of all kinds, military airships, &c. So far as possible the effect of recent inventions upon offensive and defensive war should be indicated.

Report of the Third Commission THE UNIFYING INFLUENCES IN INTERNATIONAL LIFE

1. The Conference is of the opinion that the economic life of individual countries has definitely ceased to be self-contained; and that, notwithstanding the barriers raised by fiscal duties, it is becoming in ever-increasing measure a part of an economic life in which the whole world participates.

2. It desires that this change be studied with the object of ascertaining to what extent the economic life of individual nations has ceased to be self-contained, and the causes which are bringing about the greater interdependence of nations.

3. Special attention should be paid to the following factors:

(_a_) How far the growth of population is responsible for the changes that have occurred and are in progress.

(_b_) The extent to which the insufficiency of the natural resources of individual countries for their own requirements has contributed to it.

(_c_) Whether the increasing economic unity of the world is the cause or the result of the rising in the standard of living, and how far the increasing welfare of nations has been caused by the growing unity.

(_d_) In what measure the need of individual countries to obtain materials of production from other lands and to find new markets for their own products is responsible for the growth of international dependence.

4. The Conference desires that investigations be made into:

(_a_) The volume of the world’s production of all the many articles of food, of the various raw materials, and of the principal manufactures.

(_b_) The productions of individual countries, and the extent to which they are retained for home consumption or are exported.

(_c_) The consumption of individual countries, and the extent to which the various articles are supplied from home productions or are imported.

5. The Conference wishes to ascertain to what extent the economy of production by large units, instead of by small units, has contributed to the international dependence of nations.

6. The development of this world-embracing economy has taken place in great measure in consequence of the investment of capital by rich countries in less developed lands. Through this there have arisen close relations and a great increase of wealth, not only for the lending and the borrowing countries, but for all nations. The Conference is of the opinion that researches should be made into the extent of the interdependence of the nations in the matter of capital.

7. The Conference desires to institute inquiries into the interdependence of the financial centres of the world.

8. The Conference desires to make the unifying effects of international trade, the building of railways, the progress of shipping, the improvement and extension of all means of communication and the progress of inventions, the subjects of careful investigation.

9. The Conference is in favour of making a comprehensive study of the various international unions and associations, in which the social and economic interests of all classes of society are now either organized or in process of organization, through official or private action.

Footnote 1:

This subject is discussed in a general way in the following works: J. Pringle, _Beobachtungen über die Krankheiten einer Armee sowohl im Felde als in Garnison_. Translation by J. E. Greding. Altenburg, 1754.—Gurlt, _Zur Geschichte der internationalen und freiwilligen Krankenpflege im Kriege_. Leipzig, 1873.—A. Laveran, _Traité des maladies et épidémies des armées_. Paris, 1875.—L. Uetterodt zu Schaffenberg, _Zur Geschichte der Heilkunde: Darstellungen aus dem Bereiche der Volkskrankheiten und des Sanitätswesens im Deutschen Mittelalter mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Lagerepidemien und der Militärkrankenpflege_. Berlin, 1875.—Knaak, _Die Krankheiten im Kriege_. Leipzig, 1900.—von Linstow, _Kriege, Schlachten und Belagerungen, in denen nicht die feindlichen Waffen, sondern Krankheiten das entscheidende Moment waren. Deutsche mil.-ärztl. Zeitschrift_, vol. xxix, p. 177, 1900.—H. Westergaard, _Die Lehre von der Mortalität und Morbilität_. Second edition. Jena, 1901. pp. 223, 254, 260, 264, 566.—H. Schwiening, _Krieg und Friede_, in Th. Weyl, _Handbuch der Hygiene_. 4. Supplement, B. 1904. P. 65.

Footnote 2:

We must remember that the word ‘typhus’, without further qualification, in Germany means typhoid fever, whereas in France and England it means typhus fever.

Footnote 3:

F. Schnurrer, _Chronik der Seuchen_. Tübingen, 1825. Vol. i, p. 38.—H. Brandeis, _Die Krankheit zu Athen nach Thukydides_. Stuttgart, 1845.—H. Häser, _Lehrbuch der Geschichte der Medizin und der epidemischen Krankheiten_. Third edition. Jena, 1882. Vol. iii, p. 4.—W. Ebstein, _Die Pest des Thukydides_. Stuttgart, 1899.—Also an article by the same author entitled _Die Pest des Thukydides in the Deutsche med. Wochenschrift_. No. 36. 1899.—F. Kanngiesser, _Über die Seuche des Thukydides_. _Prag. med. Wochenschrift._ No. 100. 1903.

Footnote 4:

A. Laveran (note 1, introduct.), p. 653.—H. Häser, op. cit., p. 24.

Footnote 5:

Information regarding pestilences that attacked German armies during campaigns into Italy is taken largely from a book by B. M. Lersch, entitled _Geschichte der Volksseuchen_. Berlin, 1896.

Footnote 6:

See B. M. Lersch (loc. cit.) for statements regarding the First and Second Crusades, pp. 80 and 85.

Footnote 7:

B. M. Lersch (loc. cit.), p. 90.

Footnote 8:

F. Wilken, _Geschichte der Kreuzzüge_. Leipzig, 1826. Vol. iv, p. 314.

Footnote 9:

Id., loc. cit., vol. vi, p. 222.

Footnote 10:

F. Wilken, _Geschichte der Kreuzzüge_. Leipzig, 1826. Vol. vi, p. 290.

Footnote 11:

Id., loc. cit., vol. vii, p. 561 ff.

Footnote 12:

A. Hirsch, _Handbuch der historisch-geographischen Pathologie_. Second edition, 1881. Vol. ii, p. 4.—II. Schwiening, op. cit., p. 692.

Footnote 13:

H. Häser, op. cit., p. 256.

Footnote 14:

H. Fuchs, _Die ältesten Schriftsteller über die Lustseuche in Deutschland_. Göttingen, 1843. P. 436.—J. F. C. Hecker, _Die grossen Volkskrankheiten des Mittelalters_. Berlin, 1865. P. 218.

Footnote 15:

F. Maréchal et J. Didion, _Tableau historique, chronologique et médical des maladies endémiques, épidémiques et contagieuses qui ont régné à Metz et dans le Pays-Messin_. Metz, 1850 and 1861. P. 116.

Footnote 16:

H. Hirsch (note 10, Chapter II), vol. ii, p. 62.

Footnote 17:

H. Schwiening (note 1, Introduction), p. 694.

Footnote 18:

B. M. Lersch (note 3, Chapter II), p. 197.

Footnote 19:

H. Hirsch (note 10, Chapter 11), vol. i, p. 385. Hirsch uses the word typhus for typhus fever.

Footnote 20:

Tiberius von Györy, _Morbus hungaricus_. Jena, 1901. P. 146.

Footnote 21:

J. A. F. Ozanam, _Histoire médicale, générale et particulière des maladies épidémiques, contagieuses et épizootiques_. Paris and Lyons, 1823. Vol. iv, p. 157.—F. Schnurrer, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 27.

Footnote 22:

Maréchal et Didion, op. cit., p. 89.

Footnote 23:

Ibid., p. 150.

Footnote 24:

Györy, op. cit., p. 145.

Footnote 25:

Györy, op. cit., p. 143.—F. Schnurrer, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 112.

Footnote 26:

F. Seitz, _Der Typhus, vorzüglich nach seinem Vorkommen in Bayern geschildert_. Erlangen, 1847. P. 55.

Footnote 27:

G. Lammert, _Geschichte der Seuchen-, Hungers- und Kriegsnot zur Zeit des Dreissigjährigen Krieges_. Wiesbaden, 1890.

Footnote 28:

J. C. Rhumelius, _Historia morbi, qui ex castris ad rostra, et a rostris ad aras et focos in Palatinatu Bavariae superioris penetravit, anno 1621, et permansit annos 1622 et 1623_. Quoted from Ch. Boersch in his _Essai sur la mortalité à Strassbourg_, 1836, p. 138.

Footnote 29:

Maréchal et Didion, op. cit., p. 174.

Footnote 30:

E. J. J. Meyer, _Versuch einer medizinischen Topographie und Statistik der Haupt- und Residenzstadt Dresden_. Stolberg and Leipzig, 1840. P. 122.

Footnote 31:

K. Pfaff, _Nachrichten über Witterung, Fruchtbarkeit, merkwürdige Naturereignisse, Seuchen u.s.w. in Süddeutschland, besonders in Württemberg, vom Jahre 807 his zum Jahre 1815. Württ. Jahrbuch_, 1850, p. 80.

Footnote 32:

Lammert, op. cit., p. 114.

Footnote 33:

E. J. J. Meyer, op. cit., p. 267.

Footnote 34:

Lammert, op. cit., p. 120.

Footnote 35:

Joannes Roetenbeck, _Speculum scorbuticum oder Beschreibung des Scharbocks in zweyen Traktätlein, abgefasst dem gemeinen Mann zum Besten_. Nuremberg, 1633.—Caspar Horn, _Kurzer Bericht von der fremden, vordem bei uns bekannten, jetzt aber eingreifenden Krankheit, dem Scharbock_. Nuremberg. Quoted from F. Schnurrer, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 174.

Footnote 36:

G. von Suttner, _München während des dreissigjährigen Kriegs_. Munich, 1796. Quoted from F. Seitz, op. cit., p. 63.

Footnote 37:

F. Seitz, op. cit., p. 66.

Footnote 38:

Lammert, op. cit., p. 110.

Footnote 39:

Th. Schön, _Bilder aus Württembergs Leidensgeschichte nach der Schlacht bei Nördlingen. Blätter für württ. Kirchengeschichte._ 1891. P. 14.

Footnote 40:

J. Gmelin, _Bevölkerungsbewegung im Hällischen seit Mitte des 16. Jahrhunderts_. G. von Mayr’s _Allg. statist. Arch._ Vol. vi, p. 240. 1902.

Footnote 41:

G. Thierer, _Ortsgeschichte von Gussenstadt auf der Schwäbischen Alb._ Stuttgart, 1912. Vol. i, p. 207.

Footnote 42:

Hörnigk, _Würgengel_. P. 195. Quoted from Lammert, op. cit., p. 201.

Footnote 43:

Maréchal et Didion, op. cit., p. 185.

Footnote 44:

Lammert, op. cit., p. 218.

Footnote 45:

F. Schnurrer, op cit., vol. ii, p. 181.

Footnote 46:

Lammert, op. cit., p. 214.—H. Häser, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 410.

Footnote 47:

Diemerbroeck, _Peste de Nimègue_. Amsterdam, 1665. Quoted from A. Laveran, op. cit.

Footnote 48:

Ch. Murchison, _A Treatise on the Continued Fevers of Great Britain_. Quoted from the German translation by W. Zülzer. Brunswick, 1867. P. 25.—Ozanam, op. cit., vol. iv, p. 173.

Footnote 49:

H. Häser, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 404.

Footnote 50:

Ozanam, op. cit., vol. v, p. 18 ff.

Footnote 51:

Ch. Murchison, op. cit., p. 26.

Footnote 52:

Figures published by the Leipzig Bureau of Statistics in 1872; prior to 1629 they cover the governmental years of the successive burgomasters, but from 1630 on, they cover the calendar years.

Footnote 53:

Only the Protestant population, including sixteen villages annexed to Dresden, _Stat. Jahrbuch der Stadt Dresden_, Jahrgang 1902. P. 15.

Footnote 54:

Dr. J. Grätzer, _E. Halley und C. Neumann_. Breslau, 1883. P. 89. Including only the deceased supporters of the Augsburg Confession.

Footnote 55:

According to a written compilation made out by Dr. E. Rösle in Dresden. Taken from the reference material in the Augsburg Archives.

Footnote 56:

A. Dietz, _Frankfurter Bürgerbuch_. Frankfurt-on-the-Main, 1897. The Catholics are only partially included, the Jews not at all.

Footnote 57:

Ch. Boersch, op. cit., p. 167.—Krieger, _Beiträge zur Geschichte der Volksseuchen_. _Stat. Mitteilungen über Elsass-Lothringen_, fascicle 10.

Footnote 58:

A. Burckhardt, _Demographie und Epidemiologie der Stadt Basel während der letzten drei Jahrhunderte, 1601-1900_. Leipzig, 1908.

Footnote 59:

Rosini Lentilii _Miscellanea medico-practica tripartita_. Ulmae, 1698. Vol. ii, p. 435 ff.

Footnote 60:

F. Seitz, op. cit., p. 85.

Footnote 61:

Ibid., p. 105.

Footnote 62:

F. Seitz, op. cit., p. 110.

Footnote 63:

Ozanam, op. cit., vol. iv, p. 206.—Häser, op. cit., vol. iii. p. 478.

Footnote 64:

Ozanam, op. cit., vol. iv, p. 207.

Footnote 65:

J. Pringle, loc. cit.

Footnote 66:

Dr. J. Grätzer, loc. cit.

Footnote 67:

J. P. Süssmilch, _Die göttliche Ordnung u. s. w._ Vol. i, p. 316. (Fourth edition. Berlin, 1788.)

Footnote 68:

_Statistisches Jahrbuch für die Stadt Dresden_, Jahrgang 1902.

Footnote 69:

Figures published by the Leipzig Bureau of Statistics in 1872.

Footnote 70:

Year-book of Statistics for the City of Berlin.

Footnote 71:

Ozanam, op. cit., vol. iv, p. 181 ff.

Footnote 72:

Häser, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 454.

Footnote 73:

Ibid., vol. iii, p. 459.

Footnote 74:

Ibid., vol. iii, p. 481.—Hammer, _Geschichte der Pest, die vom Jahre 1738 bis 1740 im Temesvarer Banate herrschte_. Temesvar, 1839. (Quoted from Häser.)

Footnote 75:

J. F. C. Hecker, _Geschichte der neueren Heilkunde_. Berlin, 1839.

Footnote 76:

J. F. C. Hecker, _Geschichte der neueren Heilkunde_. Berlin, 1839, p. 11.

Footnote 77:

D. Samoilowitz, _Mémoire sur la peste qui, en 1771, ravagea l’empire de Russie, surtout Moscou_. Paris, 1783. (A German translation appeared in Leipzig in 1785.)

Footnote 78:

H. Häser, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 533.

Footnote 79:

Maréchal et Didion, op. cit., p. 284.

Footnote 80:

Ibid., p. 287.

Footnote 81:

L. Wilbrandt, _Die Kriegslazarette von 1792-1815 und der Kriegstyphus zu Frankfurt am Main. Arch. für Frankfurts Geschichte und Kunst._ N.F., Vol. xi, p. 29. 1884.

Footnote 82:

G. E. F. Canz, _Beschreibung einer Schleim-, Faul-, und Nervenfieberepidemie, die im Winter und Frühjahr 1793-4 in der Rheingegend und auf dem Schwarzwald unter dem Landvolk gewütet_. Tübingen, 1795.

Footnote 83:

F. Seitz, op. cit., p. 125.

Footnote 84:

G. le Borne, _Recherches historiques sur les grandes épidémies qui ont régné à Nantes depuis le 6^e jusqu’au 19^e siècle_. Nantes, 1852.

Footnote 85:

Häser, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 536.

Footnote 86:

Ozanam, op. cit., vol. iv, p. 251.

Footnote 87:

G. Rasori, _Geschichte des epidemischen Fiebers, das in den Jahren 1799-1800 zu Genua geherrscht hat_. Translated from the Italian. Vienna, 1803.

Footnote 88:

Ozanam, op. cit., vol. iv, p. 291.

Footnote 89:

Seitz, loc. cit.—J. N. Feichtmayer, _Beitrag zur Geschichte des in einem Teile von Schwaben und auch in unserer Gegend häufiger als sonst gewöhnlich herrschenden Nervenfiebers_. Ulm, 1800.

Footnote 90:

J. Hain, _Handbuch der Statistik des österreichischen Kaiserstaats_. Vienna, 1852. Vol. i, p. 78.

Footnote 91:

Seitz, op. cit., p. 150.

Footnote 92:

P. G. Joerdens, _Semiotische Bemerkungen über die auch zu Hof im Jahre 1806 herrschend gewesenen Nervenfieber. Hufelands Journal der prakt. Heilkunde._ Vol. xxv. 1807. Third section. P. 58.

Footnote 93:

E. Gurlt, op. cit., p. 151.

Footnote 94:

J. Ch. Roller, _Geschichte und Beschreibung der Stadt Pforzheim_. Heidelberg, 1816. P. 247 ff.

Footnote 95:

A. Laveran, op. cit., p. 254.

Footnote 96:

Hufeland, _Bemerkungen über die Nervenfieber, die im Winter 1806-7 in Preussen herrschten. Hufelands Journal der prakt. Heilkunde._ Vol. xxvi. 1807. Third section. P. 120.

Footnote 97:

N. P. Gilbert, _Tableau historique des maladies internes de mauvais caractère, qui ont affligé la grande armée dans la campagne de Prusse et de Pologne et notamment de celles qui out été observées dans les hôpitaux militaires et les villes de Thorn, Bromberg, Fordon et Culm dans l’hiver de 1806 à 1807, le printemps et l’été de 1807_. Berlin, 1808.

Footnote 98:

Gurlt, op. cit., p. 177.

Footnote 99:

Ozanam, op. cit., vol. iv, p. 266.

Footnote 100:

von Linstow, op. cit., vol. xxix, p. 204. Compare also _Der Feldzug von Portugal in den Jahren 1811 und 1812 in historischer und medizinischer Hinsicht. Beschr. von einem Arzt der französischen Armee von Portugal_. Stuttgart und Tübingen, 1816.

Footnote 101:

A. Hirsch, op. cit., vol. i, p. 238.—Kopp, _Jahrbuch der Staatsarzneykunde_. 6. Jahrgang. Frankfurt-on-the-Main, 1813. P. 246.

Footnote 102:

Ozanam, op. cit., vol. iv, p. 269.

Footnote 103:

Hufeland, _Journal der prakt. Heilkunde_, vol. xxxvi, 1813, May vol., p. 120.

Footnote 104:

A. Boin, _Mémoire sur la maladie qui régna en 1809 chez les Espagnols prisonniers de guerre à Bourges_. Paris, 1815.

Footnote 105:

Ozanam, op. cit., vol. iv, p. 275.

Footnote 106:

J. V. von Hildenbrand, _Über den ansteckenden Typhus_. Vienna, 1810.

Footnote 107:

C. W. Hufeland, _Über die Kriegspest alter und neuer Zeit, mit besonderer Rücksicht auf das Aderlassen in derselben_. _Hufelands Journal der praktischen Heilkunde_, vol. xxxviii, 1814, June vol., p. 55. See also special copy with the title, _Ueber die Kriegspest alter und neuer Zeit, mit besonderer Rücksicht auf die Epidemie des Jahres 1813 in Deutschland_. Berlin, 1814.

Footnote 108:

Hufeland, _Erster Bericht über das epidemische und ansteckende Nervenfieber und dessen Behandlung im kgl. Charité-Krankenhaus zu Berlin_. _Hufelands Journal_, vol. xxxvi, 1813, June vol., p. 3.

Footnote 109:

J. H. Kopp, _Jahrbuch der Staatsarzneykunde_. 1814. Vol. vii, p. 280.

Footnote 110:

J. Parenteau-Desgranges, _Hommage à la vérité; précis historique des événements les plus remarquables survenus depuis la rentrée de la Russie jusqu’au passage du Rhin_. Paris, 1814.—_Journ. de méd., chir., pharm., etc._, 1814, Vol. xxix, p. 407.

Footnote 111:

Maréchal et Didion, op. cit., p. 287 ff.

Footnote 112:

Neumann, _Ein Wort über die Fieber, die in Lagern und Militärlazaretten auszubrechen pflegen_. _Hufelands Journal_, vol. xxxiv, 1812, April vol., p. 70.

Footnote 113:

Kopp, op. cit., vol. vii, p. 292.

Footnote 114:

C. Cannstatt, _Handbuch der medizinischen Klinik_, vol. ii, p. 578 ff. 1847.—Ch. Murchison, _Die typhoïden Krankheiten_. Translated by W. Zülzer. P. 34. Brunswick, 1867.

Footnote 115:

J. Ch. G. Jörg, _Das Nervenfieber im Jahre 1813 und eine zweckmässige Behandlung desselben_. Leipzig and Berlin, 1814. P. 27.

Footnote 116:

H. Häser, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 613.

Footnote 117:

J. R. L. Kerckhoffs, _Observations médicales faites pendant les campagnes de Russie en 1812 et d’Allemagne en 1813_. First edition, 1814. Third edition, 1836. Reproduced in epitome by W. Stricker in his _Historische Studien über Heereskrankheiten und Militärkrankenpflege_, 1743-1814. Virchow’s _Archiv für pathologische Anatomie u.s.w._, vol. liii, p. 383. 1871. (The spelling ‘Kerkhove’ is incorrect.)—J. D. Larrey, _Mémoires de chirurgie militaire_, vols. i-iv. Paris, 1812-17. (Kerckhoffs and Larrey give only indefinite information regarding the nature of the diseases; Larrey, in particular, who served as a surgeon and general inspector on the Health Staff, had very little understanding for the infectious character of typhus fever or for the energetic measures that have to be adopted to prevent its dissemination.)—M. J. Lemazurier, _De la campagne de Russie in Recueil de mémoires de médecine, chirurgie, et pharmacie militaires_, vol. iii, p. 161. Paris, 1817. Translated from the French by C. F. Heusinger, _Medizinische Geschichte des Russischen Feldzugs von 1812_. Jena, 1823. (This book, owing to the clarity of its descriptions, constitutes the best source of information regarding the diseases that broke out during the Russian campaign.)—Ch. J. Scheerer, _Historia morborum, qui in expeditione contra Russiam anno 1812 facta legiones Wurttembergicas invaserunt; praesertim eorum qui frigore orti sunt_. Tubingae, 1819.—R. Virchow, _Kriegstyphus und Ruhr_. Virch. Archiv, vol. lii, p. 1. 1871.—E. Gurlt loc. cit.—W. Ebstein, _Die Krankheiten im Feldzug gegen Russland_. Stuttgart, 1902.

Footnote 118:

W. Ebstein, op. cit., p. 65.

Footnote 119:

J. Ch. Gasc, _Histoire de l’épidémie observée à Wilna en 1813 après la campagne de Moscou_. Reproduced in Gasc and Breslau, _Matériaux pour servir à une doctrine générale sur les épidémies et les contagions, par F. Schnurrer_. Translated from the German. Paris, 1815.

Footnote 120:

A. Laveran, op. cit., p. 254.

Footnote 121:

Parrot, _Über das im jetzigen Krieg entstandene typhöse Fieber und ein sehr einfaches Heilmittel desselben_. _Hufeland’s Journal_, vol. xxxvi, 1813, May vol., p. 3.

Footnote 122:

Wolf, _Bemerkungen über die Krankheiten, welche im Jahre 1813 in Warschau herrschten, insbesondere über den ansteckenden Typhus_. _Hufeland’s Journal_, vol. xxxix, 1813, May vol., p. 3.

Footnote 123:

Kerckhoffs, op. cit. Kerckhoffs uses the name ‘fièvre adynamique’ for typhus fever; occasionally he uses the word typhus.

Footnote 124:

H. A. Göden, _Erfahrungen und Ansichten zur Lehre vom Typhus_. Horn’s _Archiv für mediz. Erfahrung_, 1814, p. 342.

Footnote 125:

Gurlt, op. cit., p. 217.

Footnote 126:

A. F. Blech, _Geschichte der siebenjährigen Leiden Danzigs von 1807-14_. Danzig, 1815.—Carl Friccius, _Geschichte der Befestigungen und Belagerungen Danzigs_. Berlin, 1854.—H. Beitzke, _Geschichte der deutschen Freiheitskriege in den Jahren 1813-14_. Second edition. Berlin, 1859. Vol. ii, p. 604.

Footnote 127:

Kopp, op. cit., vol. vii, p. 284. 1814.

Footnote 128:

Wendt, _Über die letzte Typhusepidemie insofern sie den Nichtarzt interessiert. Corr.-Blatt der schles. Ges. für vaterländische Kultur_, vol. v, 1814, Nos. 17 and 18.

Footnote 129:

Kausch, _Die auf Selbsterfahrung gegründeten Ansichten der akuten Kontagien überhaupt und des Kontagiums des Typhus insbesondere_. _Hufeland’s Journal_, vol. xxxix, 1814, July vol., p. 9.

Footnote 130:

Häser, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 612.

Footnote 131:

Hufeland, op. cit.—E. Horn, _Über die ansteckenden Nervenfieber, welche während der Monate März, April, Mai, Juni, u.s.w. 1813 herrschten. Archiv für mediz. Erfahrung._ Jahrgang 1813, p. 278.

Footnote 132:

Horn’s _Archiv für mediz. Erfahrung._ Jahrgang 1813, p. 245.

Footnote 133:

Gurlt, op. cit., p. 339.

Footnote 134:

Horn’s _Archiv für mediz. Erfahrung_. Jahrgang 1813, p. 431.

Footnote 135:

Neuhof, _Geschichte und Beschreibung des im Jahre 1813 und 1814 zu Annaberg im sächsischen Erzgebirge allgemein geherrschten Nervenfiebers. Annalen der Heilkunst des Jahres 1815_, p. 5.

Footnote 136:

A. F. Fischer, _Geschichtliche Darstellung der im Herbst 1813 in Dresden ausgebrochenen und bis gegen Ende Januars 1814 angedauerten Epidemie. Annalen der Heilkunst des Jahres 1814_, p. 82.

Footnote 137:

Reproduced in Kopp’s _Jahrbuch der Staatsarzneikunde_. 7. Jahrgang. 1814, p. 286.

Footnote 138:

Beitzke, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 460 and 562.

Footnote 139:

_Ältere Nachrichten über Leipzigs Bevölkerung 1595-1849. Mitteilungen des statistischen Bureaus der Stadt Leipzig_, 1872.

Footnote 140:

F. Flinzer, _Die Bewegung der Bevölkerung in der Stadt Plauen i. V. während der Jahre 1800-99. Bericht über die Verwaltung und den Stand der Gemeindeangelegenheiten der Kreisstadt Plauen i. V. auf die Jahre 1899 und 1900._

Footnote 141:

M. Magaziner, _Über den ansteckenden Typhus In Zwickau, vom September 1813 bis zum Februar 1814. Annalen der Heilkunst._ 1815. P. 218.

Footnote 142:

Kopp, _Jahrbuch der Staatsarzneykunde_, vol. vii, p. 413.

Footnote 143:

Gurlt, op. cit., p. 459.

Footnote 144:

Beitzke, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 564.

Footnote 145:

P. F. F. J. Giraud, _Campagne de Paris en 1814_. Third Edition. Paris, 1814. P. 32.

Footnote 146:

Greiner, _Das exanthematische Nervenfieber. Annalen der Heilkunst des Jahres 1814_, p. 602.

Footnote 147:

J. G. Stemmler, _Schilderung des vom November 1813 bis Februar 1814 in Zeulenroda herrschenden Nervenfiebers. Annalen der Heilkunst des Jahres 1814_, p. 97.

Footnote 148:

Löbenstein-Löbel, _Über das Wesen und über die Heilung des Nervenfiebers in und um Jena von Michaelis 1813 bis Ostern 1814. Annalen der Heilkunst des Jahres 1814_, p. 217.

Footnote 149:

Wilhelm Horn, _Zur Charakterisierung der Stadt Erfurt_. Erfurt, 1843. P. 318 ff.

Footnote 150:

J. H. Kopp, _Beobachtungen über den ansteckenden Typhus, welcher im Jahre 1813-14 in Hanau epidemisch war. Hufeland’s Journal_, vol. xxxviii, 1814, May vol., p. 3.

Footnote 151:

L. Wilbrand, _Die Kriegslazarette von 1792-1815 und der Kriegstyphus zu Frankfurt a. M. Archiv für Frankfurts Geschichte und Kunst._ N. F. Vol. xi, p. 96. 1884.

Footnote 152:

J. B. von Franque, _Die Verbreitung der typhösen Krankheiten im Herzogtum Nassau während der ersten Hälfte dieses Jahrhunderts. Mediz. Jahrbücher für das Herzogtum Nassau_, fascicles 12 and 13, p. 18. Wiesbaden, 1854.

Footnote 153:

H. C. Thilenius, _Beobachtungen über das im Winter 1813-14 im Rheingau epidemisch ansteckende Fieber. Hufeland’s Journal_, 1815, vol. xli, October vol., p. 3.

Footnote 154:

Kraft, _Etwas über den Typhus bellicus und die blaue Nase, eine merkwürdige Erscheinung bei demselben. Hufeland’s Journal_, vol. xli, 1815, July vol., p. 47.

Footnote 155:

J. Th. Ch. Bernstein, _Kleine medizinische Aufsätze_. Frankfurt-on-the-Main, 1814. P. 132 ff.

Footnote 156:

_Die Gesundheitsverhältnisse Hamburgs im 19. Jahrhundert._ Hamburg, 1901. P. 273. (Presented to the Seventy-third Congress of German Naturalists and Physicians.)

Footnote 157:

Steinheim, _Über den Typhus im Jahre 1814 in Altona_. Altona, 1815. P. 12.

Footnote 158:

Fr. Weber, _Bemerkungen über die in Kiel und der umliegenden Gegend im Anfange des Jahres 1814 vorherrschenden Krankheiten, besonders über den Typhus_. Kiel, 1814.

Footnote 159:

F. Seitz, op. cit., p. 157 ff.

Footnote 160:

F. Seitz, op. cit., p. 174 ff.

Footnote 161:

J. Schäfer, _Die Zeit- und Volkskrankheiten des Jahres 1813 in und um Regensburg. Hufeland’s Journal_, vol. xxxix, 1814, p. 73.

Footnote 162:

J. A. Elsässer, _Beschreibung der Menschenpockenseuche, welche in den Jahren 1814, 1815, 1816, und 1817 im Königreich Württemberg geherrscht hat_. Stuttgart, 1820.

Footnote 163:

J. H. B. Lohnes, _Dissertatio inauguralis medico-chirurgica de utilitate Hydrargyri in febre typhoïde inflammatoria_. Tubingae, 1814.

Footnote 164:

F. E. Braun, _Medizinisch-praktische Ansicht der Jahre 1813 und 1814_. Tübingen, 1816.

Footnote 165:

C. von Dillenius, _Beobachtungen über die Ruhr, welche im Russischen Feldzug 1812 in der vereinigten Armee herrschte_. Ludwigsburg, 1817.

Footnote 166:

F. Schinzinger, _Die Lazarette der Befreiungskriege 1813-15 im Breisgau_. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1907.

Footnote 167:

Gurlt, op. cit., p. 696.

Footnote 168:

Supplements to the statistics relating to the Grand Duchy of Baden, fascicle 2, p. 185.

Footnote 169:

Gurlt, op. cit., p. 646.

Footnote 170:

Kopp, _Jahrbuch der Staatsarzneykunde_. Jahrgang 7. 1814. P. 290.

Footnote 171:

P. S. Thouvenel, _Traité analytique des fièvres contagieuses et sporadiques, simples et compliquées, qui out régné dans le Département de la Meurthe vers la fin de 1813 et au commencement de 1814_. Pont-à-Mousson, 1814.

Footnote 172:

Reisseisen, _Strassburger Brief vom 22. August 1814. Kopp’s Jahrbuch der Staatsarzneykunde._ Jahrgang 7. 1814. P. 425.

Footnote 173:

Maréchal et Didion, op. cit., p. 298.

Footnote 174:

B. Pellerin, _Considérations sur les maladies qui ont régné à l’hospice de la Salpêtrière dans les premiers mois de 1814 pendant lesquels les militaires malades ont été admis dans cet hospice_. Paris, 1814.—M. Friedländer, _Notice sur la dernière épidémie du typhus. Gazette de santé ou Recueil général et périodique._ Année 42. Paris, 1815. P. 89.

Footnote 175:

_Gazette de Santé_, etc. Année 41. Paris, 1814, and Année 42, 1815.

Footnote 176:

A. Laveran, op. cit., p. 255.

Footnote 177:

_Ehe, Geburt und Tod in der schweizerischen Bevölkerung während der 20 Jahre 1871-90._ Third Part. First half, p. 195. Bern, 1901.

Footnote 178:

A. Burckhardt, op. cit., p. 48.

Footnote 179:

Historical Survey of the health-conditions in Austria, Styria, Carinthia, Moravia, and Bohemia, in the years 1813 and 1814. Information taken from the _Hauptsanitätsberichte der Landesstellen_. Observations and discussions by Austrian physicians regarding practical therapeutics, vol. ii., p. 1. 1821.

Footnote 180:

Compare also J. R. Bischoff, _Beobachtungen über den Typhus und die Nervenfieber nebst ihrer Behandlung_. Prague, 1814.

Footnote 181:

_Historical Survey_, p. 84.

Footnote 182:

J. Steiner, _Über den Gesundheitszustand in Mähren im Jahre 1814. Beobachtungen und Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiete der gesamten praktischen Heilkunde von österreichischen Aerzten_, vol. i, p. 88. 1819.

Footnote 183:

J. Hain, _Handbuch der Statistik des österreichischen Kaiserstaats_. Vienna, 1852. Vol. i, p. 78.

Footnote 184:

_Historical Survey_, p. 132. In _Hufeland’s Journal_ (Jahrgang 1814 and 1815. Vols. xxxii-xxxiv) there is general survey of the copious literature of that time regarding infectious nerve-fever; it comprises several hundred numbers. Many publications are only of a theoretical nature and deal only with the character of the disease and do not aim at offering descriptive data; only a few contain usable information regarding the duration and extent of the epidemic in the individual localities.

Footnote 185:

Czetyrkin, _Die Pest in der russischen Armee zur Zeit des Türkenkriegs im Jahre 1828 und 1829_. Translated from the Russian. Berlin, 1837. P. 1.

Footnote 186:

Seidlitz, Petersenn, Rinck, und Witt, _Medizinische Geschichte des Russisch-türkischen Feldzugs in den Jahren 1828 und 1825_. New edition by F. A. Simon. Hamburg, 1854. P. 27.

Footnote 187:

Ibid., p. 38 ff.

Footnote 188:

Czetyrkin, op. cit., p. 4 ff.

Footnote 189:

Seidlitz, op. cit., p. 137.

Footnote 190:

Seidlitz, op. cit., p. 10.

Footnote 191:

Ibid., p. 180.

Footnote 192:

Ibid., p. 8.

Footnote 193:

Seidlitz, op. cit., p. 186.

Footnote 194:

J. D. Tholazan, _Histoire chronologique et géographique de la peste au Caucase, en Arménie et dans l’Anatolie, dans la première moitié du XIX^e siècle. Gazette médicale de Paris_, vol. xlvi, p. 458. 1875.

Footnote 195:

Czetyrkin, op. cit., pp. 6 ff.

Footnote 196:

G. Scrive, _Relation médico-chirurgicale de la campagne d’Orient_. Paris, 1857. Pp. 56 ff., and p. 71.

Footnote 197:

Scrive (loc. cit.), p. 343.

Footnote 198:

J. C. Chenu, _Rapport au Conseil de santé des armées sur les résultats du service médico-chirurgical aux ambulances de Crimée et aux hôpitaux militaires français en Turquie pendant la campagne d’Orient en 1854-5-6_. Paris, 1865. P. 565.

Footnote 199:

Chenu (loc. cit.), p. 593.

Footnote 200:

Häser, op. cit., p. 860.

Footnote 201:

Scrive, op. cit., p. 345.

Footnote 202:

Ibid., p. 420.

Footnote 203:

Chenu (note 14, Chapter VII), p. 595.

Footnote 204:

O. Niedner, _Die Kriegsepidemieen des 19. Jahrhunderts und ihre Bekämpfung_. Berlin, 1903. P. 64.

Footnote 205:

A. Hirsch, op. cit., vol. i, p. 395.

Footnote 206:

M. L. Baudens, _La guerre de Crimée, les campements, les abris, les ambulances_, etc. Paris, 1858. Taken from the second edition, translated by W. Mencke. Kiel, 1864. P. 164.

Footnote 207:

Ch. Murchison, _Die typhoïden Krankheiten_. Quoted from the German translation by W. Zülzer. Brunswick, 1867. P. 43.

Footnote 208:

A. Laveran, _Traité des maladies et épidémies des armées_. Paris, 1875. P. 257.

Footnote 209:

Godelier, _Mémoire sur le typhus observé au Val-de-Grâce du mois de janvier au mois de mai 1856. Gazette méd. de Paris_, 1856. Nos. 40-1. Quoted from Laveran (loc. cit.), p. 257.

Footnote 210:

H. von Haurowitz, _Das Militärsanitätswesen der Vereinigten Staaten von Nordamerika während des letzten Kriegs_. Stuttgart, 1866.

Footnote 211:

_The medical and surgical history of the war of the rebellion (1861-5), prepared in accordance with acts of congress under the direction of Surgeon-General Joseph K. Barnes, United States Army, Washington._ Six vols., 1870-88. The work is divided into two main parts, each consisting of three volumes. Part I includes the Medical History; Vol. I gives the statistical results, Vols. II and III deal with the individual diseases (Vol. II only with diarrhoea and dysentery). Part II, Vols. I-III, comprises the Surgical History.

Footnote 212:

Ibid. Part I, p. xxxvii, and vol. iii, p. 1.

Footnote 213:

_Medical and Surgical History_, part iii, p. 193. The reports for each year begin on July 1.

Footnote 214:

_Medical and Surgical History_, part iii, p. 209.

Footnote 215:

Laveran, op. cit., p. 258.

Footnote 216:

Niedner, op. cit., p. 72.—Also _Medical and Surgical History_, part iii, p. 323 ff.

Footnote 217:

Hirsch, op. cit., p. 404.

Footnote 218:

_Medical and Surgical History_, part ii, p. 67.

Footnote 219:

Ibid., part iii, p. 624.

Footnote 220:

_Medical and Surgical History_, part iii, pp. 82-3.

Footnote 221:

For the white troops, ibid., part i, pp. 636-7; for the coloured troops, part i, p. 710.

Footnote 222:

_Medical and Surgical History_, part iii, p. 47.

Footnote 223:

Ibid., part iii, p. 35.

Footnote 224:

L. March, _Statistique internationale du mouvement de la population_. Paris, 1907. P. 867.

Footnote 225:

M. Cazalas, _Maladies de l’armée d’Italie ou documents pour servir à l’histoire méd.-chirurg. de l’armée d’Italie_. Paris, 1864.—J. C. Chenu, _Statistique médico-chirurgicale de la campagne d’Italie en 1859 et 1860_. Paris, 1869.—P. Myrdacz, _Sanitätsgeschichte des Feldzugs 1859 in Italien_. Vienna, 1896.—O. Niedner, op. cit., pp. 66 and 118.

Footnote 226:

Knaak, op. cit., p. 31.

Footnote 227:

Kübler, _Kriegssanitätsstatistik. Klin. Jahrb._, vol. ix, p. 301. Jena, 1902.

Footnote 228:

Niedner, op. cit., p. 17.

Footnote 229:

Hirsch, op. cit., vol. i, p. 295.

Footnote 230:

A. Weichselbaum, _Epidemiologie_. Jena, 1899. P. 399. (In Th. Weyl’s _Handbuch der Hygiene_, vol. ix, p. 3.)—Hirsch, op. cit., vol. i, p. 294.

Footnote 231:

J. Daimer, _Todesursachen in Oesterreich während der Jahre 1873-1900. Das österreichische Sanitätswesen_, 1902. Supplement to No. 37, p. 150.

Footnote 232:

Fr. C. Presl, _Die öffentliche Gesundheitspflege in Österreich seit dem Jahre 1848. Statist. Monatsschrift._ 1898. Vol. iii, p. 392.

Footnote 233:

Guttstadt, _Die Choleraepidemieen in früherer Zeit. Hyg. Rundschau._ 1906. Vol. xvi, p. 265.

Footnote 234:

Robert Volz, _Die Cholera auf dem Badischen Kriegsschauplatz im Sommer 1866. Amtlicher Bericht._ Karlsruhe, 1867.

Footnote 235:

J. Teuffel, _Die Choleraepidemie zu Uzmemmingen, O.-A. Neresheim, im Jahre 1866. Württ. med. Corr.-Bl._ 1867. P. 129 ff.

Footnote 236:

_Die Cholera in Unterfranken während des laufenden Sommers. Bayr. ärztl. Intel.-Blatt_, 1866, p. 509.

Footnote 237:

A. Martin, _Die Cholera in Bayern während des diesjährigen Sommers. Bayr. ärztl. Intel.-Blatt_, 1866, p. 577.

Footnote 238:

Most of the statements in this chapter are taken from vols. ii and vi of the _Sanitätsbericht über das deutsche Heer im Krieg gegen Frankreich 1870-1_. Berlin, 1886.—Compare also H. Westergaard, op. cit., p. 223.

Footnote 239:

Vol. vi, p. 162.

Footnote 240:

Vol. ii, p. 199.

Footnote 241:

Including the convalescent German troops from France that were taken into the immobile army-corps.

Footnote 242:

Prior to 1870 the reports cover the year beginning October 1 and ending September 30.

Footnote 243:

Loth, _Der Einfluss der in den letzten 30 Jahren erfolgten hygienischen Massregeln auf den Gang der Infektionskrankheiten und die allgemeine Bevölkerungsbewegung in Erfurt. Corr.-Blatt des allgemeinen ärztlichen Vereins von Thüringen_, November 11 and 12, 1901.

Footnote 244:

Volz, _Medizinalbericht des Kgl. Oberamtsphysikats vom Jahre 1871. Med. Corr.-Blatt des württ. ärztl. Vereins_, November 8 and 9, 1873.

Footnote 245:

H. E. Boehnke, _Die Ruhrepidemie im Standort Metz im Sommer 1910. Deutsche mil.-ärztl. Zeitschrift_, vol. xl, p. 803. 1911.

Footnote 246:

A. Maurin, _Le typhus exanthématique ou pétéchial, typhus des Arabes_. Paris, 1872. Ref. in _Gaz. hebdom. de méd. et de chir._, 1873, vol. xx, p. 110.—Grellois, _Histoire médicale du blocus de Metz_. Paris and Metz, 1872.

Footnote 247:

Michaux, _Du typhus exanthématique à Metz dans la population civile, à la suite du blocus. Gaz. hebdom._, 1873, vol. xx, p. 38.

Footnote 248:

Viry, _Du typhus exanthématique à Metz dans la population civile. Gaz. hebdom._, 1873, vol. xx, p. 56.

Footnote 249:

A. Laveran, op. cit., p. 260.

Footnote 250:

F. Prinzing, _Handbuch der medizinischen Statistik_. Jena, 1906. P. 383.

Footnote 251:

Vacher, _L’épidémie de variole en 1870-1. Gaz. méd. de Paris_, 1876, vol. xlvi, p. 470.

Footnote 252:

Vol. vi, p. 80.

Footnote 253:

M. Chauffard, _Rapport sur les épidémies pour les années 1869-70. Mémoires de l’Académie de Médecine_, vol. xxx. Paris, 1871-3.

Footnote 254:

Vernois, _Rapport général sur les épidémies qui ont régné en France pendant l’année 1871. Mémoires de l’Académie de Médecine_, vol. xxx, p. 423.

Footnote 255:

M. Delpech, _Rapport général sur les épidémies pour les années 1870, 1871 et 1872. Mém. de l’Acad. de Méd._, vol. xxxi. Paris, 1875.

Footnote 256:

A. Laveran, op. cit., p. 364.

Footnote 257:

M. Delpech, _Rapports sur les faits de l’épidémie variolique observée à Paris depuis l’année 1865 jusqu’au 1^{er} juillet 1870. Ann. d’hyg. publ._, 1871, series ii, vol. xxxv.—Léon Colin, _La variole au point de vue épidémiologique et prophylactique_. Paris, 1873.—O. du Mesnil, _La mortalité à Paris pendant le siège. Ann. d’hyg. publ._, 1871, series ii, vol. xxxv, p. 413.—H. Sueur, _Étude sur la mortalité à Paris pendant le siège_. Paris, 1872.

Footnote 258:

According to Sueur, the number of men in the garrison at the beginning of the siege was 246,000.

Footnote 259:

Statistics regarding Alsace and Lorraine, No. 11 (Strassburg, 1878) p. 133.

Footnote 260:

A. L. Fonteret, _Étude générale des maladies régnantes et des constitutions médicales observées à Lyon de 1864 à 1873_. Paris-Lyons, 1873.

Footnote 261:

M. Woillez, _Rapport général sur les épidémies pendant l’année 1873. Mém. de l’Acad. de Méd._, vol. xxxi, p. clvii. 1875.

Footnote 262:

1872, p. 896.

Footnote 263:

German Health Report, vol. vi, p. 81.

Footnote 264:

Vol. vi, p. 29.

Footnote 265:

According to a written communication from the Royal Prussian Bureau of Statistics.

Footnote 266:

A. Guttstadt, _Die Pockenepidemie in Preussen, insbesondere in Berlin 1870-2. Zeitschrift des Kgl. Preuss. Statist. Bureaus_, vol. xiii, p. 116. 1873.

Footnote 267:

A. Liévin, _Die Pockenepidemie in den Jahren 1871 und 1872 in Danzig. Viertelj. für öff. Ges.-pflege_, vol. v, p. 366. 1873.

Footnote 268:

According to the German Health Report. Liévin reports seventy-one cases of the disease and nine deaths, since he includes all the German soldiers, even the transients in the immobile army.

Footnote 269:

von Pastau, _Beiträge zur Pockenstatistik nach den Erfahrungen aus der Pockenepidemie 1871-2 in Breslau. Deutsches Arch. für klin. Med._, vol. xii, p. 112. 1873.

Footnote 270:

Reports vary; Guttstadt himself gives two figures for 1871—5,212 and 5,084; for 1872 he gives 1,106, whereas a report, in manuscript, of the Prussian Bureau of Statistics, gives the figure 2,598.

Footnote 271:

Loth, loc. cit.

Footnote 272:

_Die Gesundheitsverhältnisse Hamburgs im 19. Jahrhundert._ Hamburg, 1901. P. 161.

Footnote 273:

The figures have reference to all the deaths that occurred among all persons in the city and in the city-state; the older year-books of the State of Bremen include only the resident inhabitants, so that the above figures do not concur with the figures found in the older records.

Footnote 274:

M. Wahl, _Statistik der Geburts- und Sterblichkeitsverhältnisse der Stadt Essen, 1868-1879. Zentralblatt für allg. Ges.-pflege_, vol. i, p. 352. 1882.

Footnote 275:

_Vierter und fünfter Jahresbericht über das Medizinalwesen im Königreich Sachsen auf die Jahre 1870-1 und 1872-3._ Dresden, 1874 and 1875.

Footnote 276:

C. A. Wunderlich, _Mitteilungen über die gegenwärtige Pockenepidemie in Leipzig. Arch. für Heilkunde_, vol. xiii, p. 97. 1872.

Footnote 277:

Siegel, _Die Pockenepidemie des Jahres 1871 im Umkreise von Leipzig. Arch. für Heilkunde_, vol. xiv, p. 125. 1873.

Footnote 278:

A. Fiedler, _Statistische Mitteilungen und aphoristische Bemerkungen über die Pockenepidemie zu Dresden in den Jahren 1870 und 1871, nach Beobachtungen im Stadtkrankenhaus daselbst. Jahresberichte der Ges. für Natur- und Heilkunde in Dresden._ 1872.

Footnote 279:

M. Flinzer, _Die Blatternepidemie in Chemnitz and Umgegend in den Jahren 1870 und 1871. Mitteilungen des Statistischen Bureaus der Stadt Chemnitz_, fascicle 1. Chemnitz, 1873.

Footnote 280:

A. Geissler, _Einige Bemerkungen über Pocken und Vakzination. Arch. für Heilkunde_, vol. xiii, p. 547. 1872.

Footnote 281:

G. Mayr, _Bewegung der Bevölkerung des Kgr. Bayern im letzten Vierteljahr des Kalenderjahres 1870 und im Kalenderjahr 1871. Zeitschrift des bayr. stat. Bureaus_, vol. iv, p. 244. 1872.

Footnote 282:

F. Seitz, _Krankheits- und Sterblichkeitszustand zu München im Jahr 1870. Ärztl. Intelligenzblatt, 1871._ P. 414.—C. Majer, _Die Sterblichkeit in München, Nürnberg und Augsburg während der Jahre 1871 und 1872. Ärztl. Intelligenzblatt, 1873._ P. 677.

Footnote 283:

C. Martius, _Die Blatternepidemie zu Nürnberg, 1870-2. Ärztl. Intelligenzblatt, 1872._ P. 639.

Footnote 284:

Rapp, _Ueber den Nutzen der Epidemieenhäuser. Ärztl. Intelligenzblatt_, 1872, p. 2.

Footnote 285:

G. Cless, _Impfung und Pocken in Württemberg_. Stuttgart, 1871.—Reuss, _Generalimpfbericht vom Jahre 1869. Württ. ärztl. Corr.-Blatt._ For 1871, vol. xli, p. 220; for 1870, vol. xlii, p. 61, 1872; for 1871, vol. xliv, p. 213. 1874.

Footnote 286:

Sigel: _Die Mortalität in Stuttgart im Jahre 1870.—Württ. med. Corr.-Bl._, 1872, p. 209. For the year 1871, p. 273; for the year 1872, vol. xliii, p. 313. 1873.

Footnote 287:

Volz, op. cit., p. 59.

Footnote 288:

Höring, _Die Pocken in Heilbronn. Württ. med. Corr.-Bl._, 1871, vol. xli, p. 189.

Footnote 289:

Reissner-Neidhart, _Zur Geschichte und Statistik der Menschenblattern und der Schutzpockenimpfung im Grossherzogtum Hessen. Beiträge zur Stat. des Grossh. Hessen_, vol. xxviii, fascicle 3. Darmstadt, 1888.

Footnote 290:

Two cases not datable.

Footnote 291:

Estimate.

Footnote 292:

According to MS. reports.

Footnote 293:

A. Vogt, _Die Pockenseuche und Impfverhältnisse in der Schweiz_. Berne, 1882.

Footnote 294:

A. Burckhardt, _Demographie und Epidemiologie in der Stadt Basel, 1601-1900_. Leipzig, 1908. P. 105.

Footnote 295:

A. Brunner, _Die Pocken im Kanton Zürich_. Zurich, 1873.—S. Rabinowitsch-Tonkonogowa, _Über das Vorkommen der Pocken im Kanton Zürich im 19. Jahrhundert_. Karlsruhe, 1903.

Footnote 296:

L. March, _Statistique internationale du mouvement de la population_. Paris, 1907.

Footnote 297:

_De Pokkenepidemie in Nederland in 1870-3._ Hague, 1875. Quoted from Th. Lotz, _Pocken und Vakzination_. Basel, 1880.

Footnote 298:

J. Daimer, _Todesursachen in Oesterreich während der Jahre 1873-1900. Das österreichische Sanitätswesen_, 1902. Supplement to No. 37, p. 104.

Footnote 299:

Felice del Agua, _Cenni sul vajuolo e sulla vaccinazione_. Quoted from Virchow-Hirsch, _Jahresbericht über die Leistungen und Fortschritte in der ges. Med. für 1872_. Vol. ii, p. 267. For 1873, vol. i, p. 310.

Footnote 300:

Thirty-fourth Annual Report of the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in England and Wales. London, 1873. P. xxxi.

Footnote 301:

_Befolkningsforholdene i Danmark i det 19. Aarhundrede._ Copenhagen, 1905. P. 147.

Footnote 302:

B. M. Lersch, op. cit., p. 437 f.

Footnote 303:

_Blattern und Schutzpockenimpfung._ Elaborated in the Kaiserl. Gesundheitsamt. Second edition, 1896. P. 75 f.

Footnote 304:

N. Kosloff, _Kriegssanitätsbericht über den Krieg gegen die Türkei, 1877-8_. St. Petersburg, 1884-6; P. Myrdacz, _Sanitätsgeschichte des Russisch-türkischen Kriegs (1877-8) in Bulgarien und Armenien_. Vienna, 1898; Knaak, _Die Krankheiten im Kriege_. Leipzig, 1900. P. 65.

Footnote 305:

O. Niedner, op. cit., p. 90.

Footnote 306:

_The British Medical Journal_, 1901, vol. i, p. 160, and 1902, vol. i, p. 167.

Footnote 307:

‘The Recent Epidemic of Typhoid Fever in South Africa.’ Discussions of the Clinical Society of London, on May 8 and 22, 1901. Report in the _British Medical Journal_, 1901. Vol. i, p. 642 ff. and 770 ff. Also in the _Deutsche Med. Wochenschrift_, 1901. _Vereinsbeilage_, p. 139.—Ferenczy, _Die Typhusepidemie im südafrikanischen Kriege (1899-1901), deren Aetiologie und die Präventivimpfungen dagegen. Wien. Med. Presse_, 1906, no. 44.

Footnote 308:

‘The Siege Statistics from Ladysmith,’ _Brit. Med. Journal_, vol. i, p. 730.

Footnote 309:

‘The Rates of Mortality in the Concentration Camps in South Africa,’ _Brit. Med. Journal_, 1901, vol. ii, p. 1418.

Footnote 310:

‘The Working of the Refugee Camps,’ _Brit. Med. Journal_, 1901, vol. ii, p. 1631 f.

Footnote 311:

‘The Report on the Working of the Refugee Camps’ (loc. cit.), p. 1618.

Footnote 312:

L. _Hönigsberger, Bericht über das Konzentrationslager Merebank (Natal). Münch. Med. Wochenschrift_, 1902. Vol. xlix, No. 36.

Footnote 313:

_Die Kämpfe der deutschen Truppen in Südwestafrika._ Published by the General Staff. Berlin, 1906-7.

Footnote 314:

E. Haga, _Beobachtungen eines japanischen Divisionsarztes während des Russisch-japanischen Kriegs. Deutsche militärärztliche Zeitschrift_, vol. xl, p. 945. 1911.

Footnote 315:

W. Roth, _Jahresbericht über die Leistungen und Fortschritte auf dem Gebiet des Militärsanitätswesens_, vol. xxxii, p. 91. 1906. _Militärwochenblatt_, 1906. P. 158. _Deutsche militärärztliche Zeitschrift_, 1907. Vol. xxxvi, p. 111.

Footnote 316:

W. von Oettingen, _Studien auf dem Gebiete des Militärsanitätswesens im Russisch-japanischen Kriege, 1904-5_. Berlin, 1907.—Schäfer, _Mitteilungen über kriegschirurgische Erfahrungen im russischen Kriege. Deutsche med. Wochenschrift_, 1905. P. 1337.

Footnote 317:

Follenfant, _L’hygiène des armées dans les pays froids d’après les enseignements de la guerre russo-japonaise. Bull. off. de l’Union fédérative des médecins de réserve_, 1906, Nos. 6-7. Quoted from W. Roth, op. cit., p. 91, vol. xxxii.

Footnote 318:

Takaki, ‘_The Preservation of Health amongst the Personnel of the Japanese Navy and Army_.’ Lancet, 1906. Vol. i, p. 1369.

Footnote 319:

_Résumé statistique de l’empire du Japon._ Published annually.

Footnote 320:

Steiner, _Ueber den Sanitätsdienst der Japaner im Krieg gegen Russland. Strefflers österr. milit.-ärztl. Zeitschrift_, 1906.—Matignon, _La désinfection des troupes japonaises rentrantes de la campagne de Mandchourie. Rev. d’hyg. et de pol. san._, 1906, p. 661.

Footnote 321:

Sforza, _Bemerkungen über einige Infektionskrankheiten, die in Lybien vom Tage der Okkupation an bis März 1912 geherrscht haben. Deutsche mil.-ärztl. Zeitschrift_, 1912. Vol. xli, p. 756.

Footnote 322:

According to newspaper reports and to publications of the Imperial Health Office.

Footnote 323:

K. Kraus, _Über Massnahmen zur Bekämpfung der Cholera auf dem bulgarischen Kriegsschauplatze. Wiener klin. Woch._, 1913. P. 241.—K. J. Schopper, _Erfahrungen über die Cholera in Ostrumelien während des Balkankriegs, 1912. Wiener klin. Woch._, 1913. No. 10.

Footnote 324:

Vacher, _La mortalité à Paris en 1870. Gaz. médicale de Paris_, 1871, p. 9.

Footnote 325:

O. Oesterle, _Paris und die Hygiene während der Belagerung von 1870 und 1871. Deutsche Vierteljahresschrift für öff. Ges.-pflege_, vol. ix, p. 410. 1877.

Footnote 326:

F. Stegmeyer, _Bemerkungen über die Krankheiten, welche unter der Garnison zu Mantua während der Blockade vom 30. Mai 1796 bis zum 3. Februar 1797 geherrscht haben. Abhandlungen der K. K. mediz.-chirurg. Josefs-Akademie zu Wien_. Vienna, 1801. Vol. ii, p. 387.

Footnote 327:

H. Häser, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 536.

Footnote 328:

Carl _Friccius, Geschichte der Befestigungen und Belagerungen Danzigs_. Berlin, 1854. P. 158.

Footnote 329:

Pringle, op. cit., p. 240.

Footnote 330:

A. F. Blech, _Geschichte der siebenjährigen Leiden Danzigs von 1807-14_. Danzig, 1815. Part ii, p. 23.

Footnote 331:

Blech (loc. cit.), vol. ii, p. 61.

Footnote 332:

Friccius, op. cit., p. 203.

Footnote 333:

Blech, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 204.

Footnote 334:

Friccius, op. cit., p. 284.

Footnote 335:

Blech, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 296.

Footnote 336:

F. Lehmann, _Beobachtungen des im Jahre 1813 in Torgau herrschenden Typhus. Annalen der Heilkunst des Jahres 1814_. P. 506.—G. A. Richter, _Geschichte der Belagerung und Einnahme der Festung Torgau und Beschreibung der Epidemie, welche daselbst in den Jahren 1813 und 1814 herrschte_. Berlin, 1814.

Footnote 337:

Richter, op. cit., p. 9.

Footnote 338:

Richter, op. cit., p. 19. The figures do not exactly coincide with those published by Bürger. Compare J. C. A. Bürger, _Nachrichten über die Blockade und Belagerung der Elb- und Landesfestung Torgau, 1818_. Torgau, 1838. Quoted in C. F. Riecke, _Der Kriegs- und Friedenstyphus in den Armeen_. Potsdam, 1848. P. 120.

Footnote 339:

Richter, op. cit., p. 54.

Footnote 340:

F. J. Wittmann, _Erfahrungen über die Ursachen der ansteckenden Krankheiten belagerter Festungen_. Mayence, 1819.

Footnote 341:

Zenzen, Leydig, and Renard, _Ueber das ansteckende Nervenfieber, welches in den Jahren 1813 und 1814 in Mainz herrschte_. _Horn’s Arch. für med. Erfahrung_, 1814. P. 449.

Footnote 342:

J. R. L. Kerckhoffs, _Observations médicales_, etc. Maestricht, 1814. P. 68 f.

Footnote 343:

Wittmann, op. cit., p. 150.

Footnote 344:

Vacher, _La mortalité à Paris en 1870. Gaz. méd. de Paris_. 42^e année, 1871, p. 9.—Bourchardet, _L’hygiène de Paris pendant le siège. Gaz. des Hôpitaux_, 1870, No. 46.

Footnote 345: