History of Animal Plagues. 377 



Some thought and named it a malignant fever, or a pestilential 

 and exanthematous fever ; others as an ardent or eruptive fever;^ 

 and others again as a simple dysentery.^ 



There were so many points of resemblance between this 

 malady and that of 171 j and 1714, that all those who com- 

 pared them were unanimous in saying it was the same pest 

 which had broken out anew, or had not ceased to ravage Eu- 

 rope and Asia, and had only been roused again by some cause to 

 renewed fury.'' Paulet, writing in 1775^ remarks: '■ If we atten- 

 tively compare the symptoms one with another, we will find that 

 the diagnosis, prognosis, the progress, and the crisis, are all nearly 

 the same; there is the identical pestilential character, and the 

 same unsuccessfulness in treatment. If there is little difficulty in 

 pronouncing a certain judgment in this comparison, there is more 

 in deciding affirmatively as to the identity of the symptoms of 

 1745. Although it is evident that the disease is the same, never- 

 theless we can distinguish many symptoms which were not equally 

 apparent in all the places where the epizoiJty was observed, 

 either because each author has his particular manner of seeing 

 and describing such things, or that the difi'erence of climates and 

 seasons has a real influence in modifying these symptoms. It is 

 certain, for example, that the epizocity in cattle observed in 

 Denmark, Franche-Comte, Burgundy, and Paris presented nearly 

 the same characters; while that of Holland and of Vivarais 

 diflered from these, and appeared to have a great resemblance 

 between them. MM. de Sauvages and Leclerc scarcely mention 

 a slight pustular eruption observed in the interior of the mouth 

 and about the muzzle of the cattle; whereas all the other 

 authors speak of a general eruption of pustules {boutons), which 

 rendered the skin quite mangy, and on whose appearance were 

 founded all hopes of a cure. The pestilential buboes in the 

 groins and in the glands of the neck, which M. Clerc mentions, 

 scarcely find a place in the descriptions of the other authors, 

 unless we accept the natural or artificial depots of which M. de 

 Sauvages speaks. In this way we may say that the epizocity 



' M. lUondd. Dissert, sur la Maladie Kpidc'iiiique dcs Bestiaux, p. 20. 

 * Nosologia Mcthodica .Sauvagii, class ix. p. 89. 

 ^ Mem. de TAcademic de Berlin, 1768. 



