The Economist - UK (2022-04-02)

78 Culture The Economist April 2nd 2022

Royaltyanddisease

Great and smallpox

T

hemostdramaticshowdownbetween

humansandsmallpoxprobablytook

placeinEuropeinthe18thcentury.The

disease had by then been gathering

momentumfora coupleofhundredyears,

anddespitetheadventofthefirsteffective

toolforstoppingitinitstracks—inocula­

tion—itembarkedona spreeofregicide,

divertingmorethanoneroyalhouse’sline

ofsuccession.

SorecountedDonaldHopkinsinhisen­

cyclopedichistoryofthedisease,“Princes

andPeasants”,publishedin1983.NowLucy

Wardhaszoomedinononeofthemore

dramaticepisodesinthatdramaticcentu­

ry,blowingit uptobooklength.Whetherit

meritsretellinginsuchdetailisdebatable,

but Catherine the Great of Russia’s

decisiontogetbothherselfandherson

inoculated certainly resonates in these

contagioustimes.It markeda watershedin

popular acceptance of the prophylactic

techniqueandshowedthepowerofleader­

shipbyexample.Irresponsible rulersof

thecovid­19eracouldtakea leafoutofthe

empress’sbook.

Born in Prussia,Catherine was ona

drivetomoderniseheradoptedcountry,

andasthefirstreigningEuropeanmon­

archtovolunteerherself—aswellasher

offspring—forinoculation,shewastaking

a bravestep and acalculated risk. The

procedureinvolvedsmearingpusfroman

infectedperson’sblistersintosmallinci­

sionsina healthyperson’sskin.Itwasfar

saferthancatchingthediseasenaturally,

but not as safe as vaccination, which

would develop out of the inoculation

methodandusedtherelatedbutmilder

cowpoxvirustoconferprotection.

Smallpoxatthattimewasoftenlethal.

Whenit didnotkill,it couldblindordisfig­

ure.Sowhen,in1768,theEnglishdoctor

ThomasDimsdale wassummoned to St

Petersburg to do the honours, he had

understandablequalmsabouttheassign­

ment.Catherineassuredhimthata yacht

wouldbestandingbyintheGulfofFin­

land, ready towhisk him out ofRussia

shouldanythinggowrong.

Nothingdid gowrong, andoncethe

clandestineprocedurewasdeemeda suc­

cess,news ofitwasbroadcastfromthe

onion­domed rooftops. Therewere fire­

worksandreligiousblessings,poemsand

plays were penned, a national holiday was

declared.  Voltaire  wrote  to  Catherine,  his

longtime  correspondent,  lamenting  the

French  ban  on  the  technique:  “You  have

been inoculated with less fuss than a nun

taking an enema.”

Ms  Ward’s  vivid  and  well­told  story

raises the interesting  question  of  who

deservescreditforinoculation. The aristo­

craticMaryWortleyMontagu had brought

itbacktoEnglandearlier  in  the  century,

havingseenelderlyTurkish  women  per­

formitonhertravels. English medics then

modifiedit—making  it  more  rather  than

lessdangerous.

Butanenterprising layman, Daniel Sut­

ton, stripped awaythe  modifications  to

producethemethodthat  Dimsdale  publi­

cised andcarried to  Russia.  (Dimsdale’s

genteelmanners and  scientific  standing

madehima betteremissary  than  the  less

polished,morecommercially minded Sut­

ton.)Intheabsenceof sufficient numbers

ofdoctorsto roll itout  in  Russia,  after

inoculation caught on,  peasant  women

weredeputisedtohelp  once  again—only

nowtoperforma technique  that  had  the

stampofscientificapproval.

Assooften,manypeople contributed to

thesuccessoftheinvention.  But  success­

fulitindubitablywas. In the last hundred

yearsofitsexistence, smallpox is estimat­

edtohavekilledhalf a billion people; but

inRussia,Catherine’s gesture made inocu­

lationfashionableand later led to the rapid

adoptionofvaccination.  In  this  way  she

helped settheworld  on  the  path  to  the

eradicationofthescourge. That milestone

wasannouncedin1980, just over two cen­

turiesaftershe,hersonandtheir  doctor

risked their lives to  demonstrate  that

diseaseneednotbedestiny.n

The Empress and the English Doctor.

By Lucy Ward.Oneworld Publications;

352 pages; $30 and £20

The pus of power

Thegenealogycraze

Sins of the

forefathers

N

earlyoneinsevenAmericanadults

are  curious  enough  about  their  fore­

bears to have tested their dna, according to

the  Pew  Research  Centre,  a  think­tank.

Maud Newton is one of them—but as well

as spitting into a tube she spent years dig­

ging into her ancestry, researching not just

her  lineage  but  everything  from  the  sci­

ence  of  genetics  to  traditional  “ancestor

veneration”. This “ancestor obsession”, she

writes in her first book, sprang from worry

about what she might have inherited from

her troubled family. 

Unpalatable behaviour among her rela­

tions  includes  homicide  by  hay  hook,

Bible­thumping mania, mental illness and

a grandfather who was married ten times.

Ms  Newton’s  own  conception  was  “a

home­grown  eugenics  project”,  she  re­

ports. Her parents “married not for love but

because  they  believed  they  would  have

smart  children  together”.  If,  as  Tolstoy

famously remarked, every unhappy family

is  unhappy  in  its  own  way,  Ms  Newton’s

clan is a knockout.

Such  wild  material  can  make  for  com­

pelling memoir. Yet Ms Newton has broad­

er  ambitions.  Her  book  is  stuffed  with

detailed forays into biology, anthropology

and  intergenerational  trauma,  as  well  as

ancient  and  modern  stories.  No  stone  is

left unturned as she seeks to discover what

her  nutty  ancestors  might  have  handed

down. Readers new to genealogy will find

it  a  useful  introduction;  to  others  it  may

feel like an overfull carpet­bag. 

Still,  her  desire  to  know  where  she

comes from is widely shared. The preoccu­

pation with “roots” has been burgeoning in

America since 1977, when Alex Haley’s tele­

vision  programme  of  that  name  was  first

broadcast.  People  whose  presence  on  the

continent  is  due  to  colonisation,  enslave­

ment  and  migration  tend  to  be  hazier  on

their  ancestry  than  citizens  of  longer  set­

tled  countries.  For  many  Americans,  the

internet  changed  that.  Millions  of  people

now  pore  over  family  trees;  ancestral

sleuthing  is  big  business,  including  the

use of dnadatabases to identify criminals.

Much of this was made possible by the

Mormons.  Among  the  fascinating  titbits

Ms  Newton  relates  is  the  fact  that  the

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter­day Saints

“requires  members  to  routinely  produce

names  of  dead  relatives  for  posthumous

Ancestor Trouble. By Maud Newton.

Random House; 324 pages; $28.99