The Third Horseman of the Apocalypse: A multi-disciplinary social history of the 1793 yellow fever epidemic in Philadelphi

In 1793 Philadelphia experienced the most severe epidemic IN eighteenth-century British North America, a yellow fever epidemic with mortality rates of 10 percent. Already a city of marked contrasts among prosperous better sorts, a majority of working-class lower sorts, and a small African American minority, Philadelphia became a city divided.;This dissertation examines divisions the epidemic brought about in the community by analyzing several discourses through which Philadelphians responded to, discussed, and attempted to control it. The discourses had both immediate and long-term consequences for individuals and communities engaged in them, and in a more limited way for American society.;For African Americans the epidemic worsened an already marginal status. Mathew Carey's characterizations of this group of Philadelphians in a widely-circulated pamphlet about the epidemic broadened and deepened unfavorable press treatment of African Americans. Despite a forceful rebuttal by the Reverends Richard Allen and Absalom Jones, African Americans were vilified, and due in part to the epidemic their marginalization increased.;A second discourse involved a controversy among several physicians over the causes of yellow fever and over diagnoses and treatment of its victims. Prominent in this debate was Dr. Benjamin Rush, whose treatment of bleedings and purges was challenged by colleagues who disagreed with him and among themselves over both medical nosologies--classification of disease--and specific treatments. Ironically, while Dr. Rush was condemned for his harsh prescriptions, his treatment remained widely practiced for another half-century.;A third discourse was Charles Brockden Brown's creative rendering of the epidemic in Arthur Mervyn. Brown's sketch--a polyphonic effort, as much celebration of normalcy's inversion as dirge for the dead--was an important addition to the historical record.;All three discourses had points of similarity: all were failed efforts to capture the complete narrative of the epidemic and all bred polemical debate that divided and polarized the greater community.