Chapter V

MEASLES.

In the earliest English writings on medicine, measles is the inseparable companion of smallpox; so closely are they joined in pathology and treatment that even the statements as to the pustules and scars of the eruption are in some compends made to apply to both without distinction. This singular conjunction of two diseases came originally from the Arabian teaching, which was everywhere authoritative in the medieval period, and especially authoritative in all that related to smallpox. In the Latin compends based upon Avicenna or other Arabic writers, the two names were variolae and morbilli, the former being as it were the morbus proper and the latter its diminutive. It can hardly be doubted that we owe the English name of measles as the equivalent of morbilli to John of Gaddesden. Originally the English word meant the leprous, first in the Latin form miselli and misellae (diminutive of miser), as in the histories of Matthew Paris, and later in the Norman-French form of mesles, as in the Acts of Parliament of Edward I. and in the ‘Vision of Piers the Ploughman.’ In the 15th century the leper-houses in the suburbs of London were called the “lazarcotes” or “meselcotes.”

Gaddesden, by some unaccountable stretch of similarity, coupled the sores or tubercular nodules on the legs of “pauperes vel consumptivi,” who were called “anglicé mesles,” with the spotted rash of the Arabian “morbilli”; and it was doubtless this haphazard bracketting of two unlike diseases that led in course of time to the name of mesles being disjoined from its original sense of the leprous and restricted to the second member of Gaddesden’s strangely assorted couple. In the time of Henry VIII. smallpox and mezils are familiarly named together just as variolae et morbilli are an inseparable pair in the treatises of the Arabistic writers. A still more singular usurpation by “mezils” or “maysilles” or “measles” is met with in the Elizabethan period. In the vocabulary of Levins, a schoolmaster who was also a medical graduate of Oxford, the word variolae is rendered by “ye maysilles,” while morbilli is omitted altogether among the Latin names and smallpox among the English; and in the English translation of Latin aphorisms appended to one of the works of William Clowes, surgeon to St Bartholomew’s Hospital, variolae is in like manner translated “measles” on every occasion. In the English dictionary by Baret, belonging to the same period, measles is defined as “a disease with many reddish spottes or speckles in the face and bodie, much like freckles in colour”—which seems to exclude the possibility of a pustular disease having been part of the Elizabethan notion of measles.

Notwithstanding this singular usage of the vocabularies and dictionaries, the name of smallpox occurs by itself in letters or other memorials of the Elizabethan period, having been doubtless correctly applied to the true pustular variola. In the short essay on smallpox by Kellwaye, appended to his book on the plague (1593), measles and smallpox are distinguished on the whole clearly, according to the definitions of Fracastori or other foreign writers of the 16th century. The association between measles and smallpox that survived longest was a peculiar and somewhat uncommon one; certain cases of smallpox, in which the pustules were wholly or partially represented by, or changed into, broad spots level with the skin, red or livid in colour, and in which haemorrhages occurred from the nose, lungs, bowels or kidneys, that is to say, cases of haemorrhagic smallpox, were apt to be called, from the time of James I. until as late as the case of Queen Mary in 1694, by the name of “smallpox and measles mingled.”

From the date of the annual bills of mortality by the Parish Clerks of London, the year 1629, it is improbable that there was any real confusion between smallpox and measles; there was certainly some ambiguity in the entry of measles long after, but that later confusion, especially in the second half of the 18th century, was with scarlatina[1184]. The entry of measles is in the bills from the first, apart from that of “flox and smallpox:”

Year Measles
deaths Smallpox
deaths

1629 42 72

1630 2 40

1631 3 58

1632 80 531

1633 21 72

1634 33 1354

1635 27 293

1636 12 127

1647 5 139

1648 92 401

1649 3 1190

1650 33 184

1651 33 525

1652 62 1279

1653 8 139

1654 52 832

1655 11 1294

1656 153 823

1657 15 835

1658 80 409

1659 6 1523

1660 74 354

In the great epidemic of smallpox in 1628, the year before the bills begin, Thomas Alured wrote to Sir John Coke that his house in London had been visited “once with the measles and twice with the smallpox, though I thank God we are now free; and I know not how many households have run the same hazard[1185].” In the year 1656, which has the highest total in the above table, two cases of measles are mentioned in a letter of 31st May: “Young Sir Charles Sedley is at this time very sick of a feaver and the meazells, of which Sir William dyed”—Charles Sedley being then in his seventeenth year[1186]. An instance parallel to that of 1628, of measles and smallpox co-existing in the same household, occurred in the royal palace at Whitehall in December, 1660. The princess of Orange, sister of the king, died of smallpox on the 23rd; on that day, or a day or two before, her sister the princess Henrietta, who had come from France on a visit with the queen-mother, Henrietta Maria, removed from Whitehall to St James’s, “for fear of infection.” After a few days she embarked on board the ‘London’ at Portsmouth to return to France, but the ship had to come to anchor again owing to the princess being attacked with “the measles.” Her illness, which delayed the sailing of the vessel until the 24th of January, 1661, is uniformly spoken of as the measles in the various letters which make mention of it[1187]. In that year, and in several of the next ten years, the measles deaths in London reached a considerable total:

Year Measles
deaths

1661 188

1662 20

1663 42

1664 311

1665 7

1666 3

1667 83

1668 200

1669 15

1670 295

The epidemic of 1670 is the subject of a description by Sydenham, the diagnostic points of which were doubtless those current at the time.