A Melancholy Scene of Devastation: The Public Response to the 1793 Philadelphia Yellow Fever Epidemic

The result of an earlier conference on the same topic, this collection of essays provides the reader with detailed studies of the efforts made by individuals, groups, and institutions in Philadelphia during and after 1793 to subdue yellow fever, contain the attendant social chaos, and prevent both from erupting in the future. To further our understanding of this tragic episode in American history, the editors have included an explanation of the disease itself, both as understood by Philadelphians at the time and the view of modern medicine; a statistical study of the known death rates; and a historiography of the disease. Finally, Smith’s critique of the contributions elucidates the issues pertinent to the historical development of Philadelphia in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, and of yellow fever itself.

All of the above place this text among the best on the subject. Attention to two areas would have made it better, however. First, the editors should have more clearly defined what they meant by the “public.” The essays feature Andrew Brown’s newspaper, the Federal Gazette, and its readers: black clergymen and community leaders Richard Allen and Absalom Jones, along with numerous, (although nameless) black nurses, caretakers, and gravediggers; the College of Physicians; the city council; and republican and federalist political groups—all of whom could be said to represent in one way or another sizable segments of the whole community. However, two essays discuss the private publications of Philadelphia printer and bookseller Matthew Carey, and of Benjamin Rush. Granted, these men were well-known figures in the community—but their publications were private efforts, which seem to fall outside the “public” classification.

Having extended their scope beyond community groups, the editors have not addressed it adequately. First, the essays as a whole leave the reader with the impression that few of the “private” individuals who stayed in Philadelphia did anything to help others. Skillful and attentive nursing played an important role in disease management, yet the only brief mention of nurses is in connection with the protests of the black community against the disparagement by Matthew Carey and others of their contribution. In addition, women are absent from these accounts.

Second, although the editors and some of the authors suggest that the efforts of Philadelphians during this particular epidemic instructed others facing similar crises in distant cities and times, they provide little analysis of Philadelphia’s experience compared to other epidemics in the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries, or later. A short historiographic treatment of this broader topic would be generally instructive and could serve to develop the “public” theme. For example, the most common “public” response to an epidemic is flight. The essays that mention the people who fled Philadelphia are dismissive of them and critical of their actions. The decision to leave a crisis with or without family and belongings involves complicated personal, social, and economic factors worthy of historical inquiry and capable of enriching the subject.

One last note: From its endsheets to its monotone and full-color reproductions and its type, this book is beautifully designed.