[59] There are many reasons why the poor must be the chief victims of the plague, whenever it rages in any country; for 1st, They are the persons who are employed to remove or destroy infected goods, to carry away and bury the dead, &c. 2dly, As they live in small, crouded habitations, when any one of them is attacked by the disorder, all the rest of the same family are exposed to the contagion, in consequence of breathing an air tainted by the breath and other effluvia of the sick. 3dly, They are generally destitute of nurses and other necessary attendants, and particularly they cannot have that change of linen, which contributes in a very great degree to carry off the contagion and promote the recovery. 4thly, When the plague is at its height, the number of sick is so great that it becomes impossible for the physicians and surgeons to visit all of them, even once in twenty-four hours, though to be of real service, the visits should be repeated, in every family, twice within that space of time. Lastly, They have not wherewithal to procure themselves the proper food and diet; or, if these are provided for them out of the parochial funds, by the contributions of the wealthy, or by government, they do not strictly adhere to them, but fly to spirituous liquors and other hurtful things. Tr. [60] _Sydenham_ Oper. Sect. II. Cap. 2. and _Van Swieten_ Comment. Tom. V. § 1407. We have deemed it sufficient to refer to these authors, without transcribing the passages which Dr. _Mertens_ has introduced. Tr. [61] The author includes in his definition of the plague the circumstance of the disorder being brought by infected persons or goods from Egypt, or some other province of the Turkish empire; but as this is a circumstance which relates merely to its origin, without serving to mark its properties or pourtray its features, we thought it foreign to a definition, and have accordingly omitted it. Tr. [62] See _Chenot_ de Peste, p. 93, and _Russell_'s Aleppo, p. 229 and 235. [63] From the manner in which the author makes mention of _James_'s powder, it appears that it was administered in such large doses as produced vomiting. It should have been given in small quantities, so as to have acted as a diaphoretic, both alone, and in conjunction with opiates. Perhaps, however, it may be objected that this and other antimonials, in small doses, repeated at intervals of three or four hours, are too tardy in their operation for a disease so rapid in its progress? In larger doses they would be apt to purge. Thus there seems to be little encouragement for administering them in any way, in cases of the plague. Tr. [64] As the author's observations relative to the treatment of the buboes and carbuncles, coincide with those of other writers on this subject, they have been purposely omitted. See _Russell_ on the Plague, Book II. Chap. V. Tr.