Cited by 114History of Medicine and Tropical HealthMedieval and Early Modern JusticeOttoman and Turkish Studies

Shutt Up: Bubonic Plague and Quarantine in Early Modern England

Newman, K. L. S.·2012·Journal of Social History

Abstract

The outbreak of bubonic plague that struck London and Westminster in 1636 provoked the usual frenzied response to epidemics, including popular flight and government-mandated quarantine. The government asserted that plague control measures were acts of public health for the benefit of all. However, contrary to this government narrative of disease prevention there was a popular account that portrayed quarantine and isolation as personal punishment rather than prudent policy. In examining the 1636 outbreak on the parish as well as the individual level, reasons for this inconsistency between official and unofficial perspectives emerge. Quarantine and its effects were not classless, and its implementation was not always strictly in the name of public health. Government application of quarantine was remarkably effective, but it could never be uncontroversial both because of circumstances and because of misuse. The flight of the wealthiest from London and Westminster left only the more socially vulnerable to be quarantined. Though plague policy was financially sensitive to the poorest, it was costly to the middling sort. Another cause of controversy was the government's use of quarantine as a punishment to control individuals found breaking other laws. Though not widely publicized, popular narratives continually included grievances about the cruelty and inequity of quarantine and the militaristic nature of its implementation. Despite these objections, quarantine remained a staple of the government response to plague outbreaks throughout the seventeenth century.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jsh/shr114

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Newman, K. L. S.
Affiliations
Oxford University Press (United Kingdom) (GB)
Corresponding author
Newman, K. L. S.
Venue
Journal of Social History
Published
2012-02-06
Volume
45
Issue
3
Pages
809-834
ISSN
  • 0022-4529 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1897
OpenAlex
W2028368011
Cited by
114
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
53.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Social History (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › History of Medicine and Tropical Health
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Medieval and Early Modern Justice
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › Ottoman and Turkish Studies
Keywords
bubonic plague, quarantine, Westminster, early modern England, public health policy, plague control, 17th century
MeSH terms
Disease Outbreaks, England, Government, Humans, Plague, Public Health, Public Policy, Quarantine, Social Class, Social Control, Formal, Population Groups, History, 17th Century

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review