What Do Historians Think?
Part of The Great Plague — GCSE History
This interpretations covers What Do Historians Think? within The Great Plague for GCSE History. Revise The Great Plague in Medicine Through Time for GCSE History with 8 exam-style questions and 5 flashcards. This topic appears less often, but it can still be a useful differentiator on mixed-topic papers. It is section 9 of 13 in this topic. Use this interpretations to connect the idea to the wider topic before moving on to questions and flashcards.
Topic position
Section 9 of 13
Practice
8 questions
Recall
5 flashcards
🔎 What Do Historians Think?
Interpretation 1 — The Plague Orders represented genuine progress in public health administration: Some historians, including Paul Slack in his influential study The Impact of Plague in Tudor and Stuart England, argue that the government's response to the Great Plague of 1665 represented a significant advance in state public health administration. The systematic recording of deaths in Bills of Mortality, the enforcement of household quarantine, the appointment of searchers to record plague deaths, and the attempt to restrict public gatherings all show that the government was using institutional power to manage disease on a scale that would have been inconceivable in 1348. The Plague Orders were the first systematic attempt to use government authority to limit the spread of infectious disease in England.
Interpretation 2 — The government response was confused, class-biased, and ultimately ineffective: Other historians emphasise the limitations and contradictions in the 1665 response. The wealthy fled London (including King Charles II and his court) while the poor were locked in their homes by watchmen. The Plague Orders may actually have increased mortality by trapping healthy family members with sick ones. The authorities continued to rely on miasma theory (burning bonfires and firing cannon to clear bad air) rather than effective measures. Samuel Pepys's diary shows widespread fear and disorder rather than effective public health management. The Orders looked organised on paper but were poorly enforced and based on entirely wrong assumptions about the disease's cause.
Why do they disagree? Slack focuses on the administrative and institutional achievement — the fact that government was attempting systematic disease management at all was new. Critics focus on outcomes and effectiveness — what difference did these measures actually make? The disagreement reflects the challenge of judging historical responses by their own standards versus modern standards. For the exam, both arguments are valid; the best answers show students can use both to make a judgement.