The plague is a health and public welfare calamity but, as Micheal suggests, also sadly results in the breakdown of society: “a general increase in crime”; “As crime grew, so did madness”; “hallucinations of the learned”; “an enormous tangle of public insanity”; “feeble human intellect clashing with its own delusions”; and, perhaps, worst of all “not only was the neighbor, the friend, the guest, to be distrusted, but even those names, those bonds of human charity - husband, and wife, father, and son, brother and brother – became words of terror.” Devastating.
Excellent depiction of struggle between good sense vs common sense and ensuing “public insanity.” “The learned borrowed whatever delusions of the common people suited their own ideas. And the commoners borrowed whatever they could understand, and as best as they could understand, from the hallucinations of the learned. And from the combination of the two, an enormous tangle of public insanity was formed.” With good sense becoming a “family secret” ruled by fear: “Good sense did indeed exist, but it stayed hidden for fear of common sense.” Love the image of an enormous tangle because it describes how public opinion functions.
However, I’m that reader (no offense intended) who “might not necessarily care to know the rest of our story after dwelling on these cases.” These last chapters reminded me of sections, especially the epilogues, in War & Peace that meander, at times tediously, from central stories. I’m relieved and happy to “return to our characters, whom we shall not abandon again until the end.”
I'm curious about this: "In the city alone, more than sixty priests died from the epidemic, about eight out of every nine." This sounds like there were not many priests in Milan in the first place, relative to the size of the population?--which seems odd--is there something about "city" here (a central area, e.g.) or about "priest" (doesn't include friars and other religious, only seniors or some such?) -- were parishes so large that fewer than 70 priests would have been enough?
Yesterday we discussed some of the reasons that people react in reprehensible ways to plagues. The desire to blame someone rather than philosophically recognizing that it's an invisible killer, and nature and society itself are the culptrits, and hatred of professionals and intellectuals among a large part of society.
Now, we see another source of bad behavior. Self-interested desire to capitalize on the misery of others. The monatti and apparitori. In our own plague, it was those who promoted fanciful and quackery cures for the plague or substitutes for the vaccine. You won't attract 700,000 twitter followers by commenting on big shaggy novels, but promoting ivermectin may get you there.
"But now, [Dr. Tadino], too, began to derive conclusive proof of poisonous, harmful unguents from these same symptoms. This same man who had remarked that delirium was a side effect of the disease...It was shocking to see him cite the following incidents of proof of unguents and a diabolic plot..." This is one of the few places where I feel like our plague differed from their plague. This might be the equivalent of Fauci endorsing Trump's COVID cure of disinfectant injections.
"...and finally return to our characters" ...but for me the back stories, the context, and historical accounts have been the most deeply rewarding, insightful and (can I say) philosophical elements of the book. The plot although engaging in it's own way has served as a sort of mule to carry me from one place to another and link elements together.
Then a glance at the historical background (p659 and p660) contains this summary of the war and plague of which we have now have so much moving, personal and wrenching detail: "When Emperor Ferdinand 11 dispatched the Imperial troops to Italy in 1629, at the request of Spain, they bought with them the bubonic plague, which ravaged northern Italy, taking the lives of an estimated 35 percent of the population."
The plague is a health and public welfare calamity but, as Micheal suggests, also sadly results in the breakdown of society: “a general increase in crime”; “As crime grew, so did madness”; “hallucinations of the learned”; “an enormous tangle of public insanity”; “feeble human intellect clashing with its own delusions”; and, perhaps, worst of all “not only was the neighbor, the friend, the guest, to be distrusted, but even those names, those bonds of human charity - husband, and wife, father, and son, brother and brother – became words of terror.” Devastating.
Excellent depiction of struggle between good sense vs common sense and ensuing “public insanity.” “The learned borrowed whatever delusions of the common people suited their own ideas. And the commoners borrowed whatever they could understand, and as best as they could understand, from the hallucinations of the learned. And from the combination of the two, an enormous tangle of public insanity was formed.” With good sense becoming a “family secret” ruled by fear: “Good sense did indeed exist, but it stayed hidden for fear of common sense.” Love the image of an enormous tangle because it describes how public opinion functions.
However, I’m that reader (no offense intended) who “might not necessarily care to know the rest of our story after dwelling on these cases.” These last chapters reminded me of sections, especially the epilogues, in War & Peace that meander, at times tediously, from central stories. I’m relieved and happy to “return to our characters, whom we shall not abandon again until the end.”
Again, I state the obvious….” plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose” (the more things change….)
I'm curious about this: "In the city alone, more than sixty priests died from the epidemic, about eight out of every nine." This sounds like there were not many priests in Milan in the first place, relative to the size of the population?--which seems odd--is there something about "city" here (a central area, e.g.) or about "priest" (doesn't include friars and other religious, only seniors or some such?) -- were parishes so large that fewer than 70 priests would have been enough?
Some beauties:
"The imaginary dimensions and bizarre nature of the alleged plot..."
"the hallucinations of the learned..."
and finally: "Good sense did exist, but it stayed hidden for fear of common sense."
After all this I am overjoyed to read that we are returning to "our characters."
Yesterday we discussed some of the reasons that people react in reprehensible ways to plagues. The desire to blame someone rather than philosophically recognizing that it's an invisible killer, and nature and society itself are the culptrits, and hatred of professionals and intellectuals among a large part of society.
Now, we see another source of bad behavior. Self-interested desire to capitalize on the misery of others. The monatti and apparitori. In our own plague, it was those who promoted fanciful and quackery cures for the plague or substitutes for the vaccine. You won't attract 700,000 twitter followers by commenting on big shaggy novels, but promoting ivermectin may get you there.
"But now, [Dr. Tadino], too, began to derive conclusive proof of poisonous, harmful unguents from these same symptoms. This same man who had remarked that delirium was a side effect of the disease...It was shocking to see him cite the following incidents of proof of unguents and a diabolic plot..." This is one of the few places where I feel like our plague differed from their plague. This might be the equivalent of Fauci endorsing Trump's COVID cure of disinfectant injections.
"...and finally return to our characters" ...but for me the back stories, the context, and historical accounts have been the most deeply rewarding, insightful and (can I say) philosophical elements of the book. The plot although engaging in it's own way has served as a sort of mule to carry me from one place to another and link elements together.
Then a glance at the historical background (p659 and p660) contains this summary of the war and plague of which we have now have so much moving, personal and wrenching detail: "When Emperor Ferdinand 11 dispatched the Imperial troops to Italy in 1629, at the request of Spain, they bought with them the bubonic plague, which ravaged northern Italy, taking the lives of an estimated 35 percent of the population."