----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
Published by EH.NET (May 2004) 
 
Andrea A. Rusnock, _Vital Accounts: Quantifying Health and Population in Eighteenth-
Century England and France_. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. xvii + 249 pp.
$70 (hardback), ISBN: 0-521-80374-8.
 
Reviewed for EH.NET by Bernard Harris, Division of Sociology and Social Policy, School of
Social Science, University of Southampton, U.K.
 
In 1662, John Graunt published what has been called the first "recognisably demographic"
account of population change in his study of _Natural and Political Observations upon the
Bills of Mortality_,[1] and over the next 150 years, the rise of numbers, and especially
tables, became a staple part of the common currency of medical debate. However, as Andrea
Rusnock, an Assistant Professor of History at the University of Rhode Island, points out,
the growth of quantification was neither straightforward nor inexorable, and the central
aim of this book is to show how its progress varied in the different institutional
contexts of England (or Britain) and France.
 
Although many of the broad outlines of Rusnock's story may have been told before, the
book's main strength is the meticulously-detailed reconstruction of the particular ways in
which these early quantifiers developed their techniques in order to bring their findings
to the attention of a wider audience. She also succeeds particularly well in conveying the
optimistic and proactive spirit of her main protagonists, which was reflected in their
fervent belief that it was not only possible to understand the workings of the world in
numbers, but also to subject "natural" phenomena to informed human intervention. This
belief was expressed with particular vigour by the Irish physician, William Black, in his
_Arithmetical and Medical Analysis of the Diseases and Mortality of the Human Species_ in
1789: "I propose ... to ... reconnoitre more distinctly our enemies arranged in hostile
front ... to make the best disposition and preparation for defence where the danger is
apprehended, and the most formidable assault to be sustained" (quoted on pp. 137-9 of
Rusnock).
 
The main sections of the book are divided into three parts and seven chapters, excluding
the introduction and conclusion. The first substantive chapter focuses on the work of
Graunt and William Petty, and summarizes the development of "political arithmetic" in
England in the seventeenth century. As Rusnock shows, the most characteristic feature of
the work carried out by these authors was their use of tables as a means of summarizing
information and presenting it in ways which might be helpful to public debate, and the aim
of the succeeding chapters is to show how their hopes and aspirations were rewarded in the
following century.
 
After completing this piece of seventeenth-century scene-setting, Rusnock proceeds to a
comparative analysis of the role played by quantification in the eighteenth-century debate
over smallpox inoculation. Inoculation was imported into Europe from Turkey at the
beginning of the eighteenth century, but it spread much more rapidly in England and Wales
than in other parts of Europe, and Rusnock's account implies that this may have been
partly related to differences in the role of the medical profession and its attitude to
numbers.[2] In England, two of the leading students of the efficacy of inoculation, John
Arbuthnot and James Jurin, were medically-trained individuals who were able to use
quantitative methods to demonstrate that individuals who contracted smallpox through
inoculation enjoyed much higher survival chances than individuals who contracted the
disease naturally, and they were able to use these insights to promote the popularity of
inoculation among their fellow-doctors and aristocratic patients. By contrast, French
doctors were much more hostile to mathematical (or even arithmetical) demonstrations, and
support for inoculation was largely confined to public administrators, and it was not
until the final quarter of the eighteenth century that the practice began to make much
headway on the other side of the English Channel.
 
The second main section of the book focuses on the use of "medical arithmetic" as a way of
exploring the relationship between health (or ill-health) and the geography of "airs,
waters and places." Here again, James Jurin was a key figure in gathering observations
about the relationship between mortality and various meteorological phenomena, such as
temperature and precipitation, in a range of different European countries, but these
investigations did not prompt the same divide between Britain and France which was
apparent during the debates over inoculation. Rusnock does not devote a great deal of
attention to the exploration of these differences, but it is possible that the use of
numerical arguments caused less controversy in relation to environmental issues because it
did not encroach so directly on the physicians' area of therapeutic competence.
Nevertheless, this does perhaps indicate one area where the arguments in the book might
have been taken a stage further.
 
Although the book is primarily concerned with the eighteenth century, its concerns can
hardly be said to be confined to that century (and, indeed, many of the debates which
exercised contemporaries, such as the risks associated with various forms of treatment,
are ones which are strikingly relevant today). This is particularly true of Chapter 6,
which explores the relationship between disease, mortality and the environment, and
provides the source for the quotation from William Black mentioned earlier. This chapter
is perhaps particularly interesting for the historian of a later period because it
provides clear evidence of the existence, half a century before the emergence of a
concerted movement for sanitary reform, of a clear understanding of the unhealthy nature
of urban environments. Here, for example, is the Manchester physician, Thomas Percival, in
1775: "Great towns are in a peculiar degree fatal to children. Half of all that are born
in London die under three, and in Manchester under five years of age; whereas at Royton, a
manufacturing township in the neighbourhood of Manchester, the number of children dying
under the age of three years is to the number of children born as one to seven; and, at
Eastham, a parish in Cheshire, inhabited by farmers, the proportion is considerably less"
(pp. 159-61). It is impossible to read these words and not be reminded, irresistibly, of
the data collected by Edwin Chadwick concerning the average age at death of individuals in
Manchester and Rutland in 1842.[3]
 
While much of the book is primarily concerned with the application of numbers to the study
of disease and mortality, the final part focuses instead on the measurement of population
itself. Rusnock frames her discussion of this topic in the context of eighteenth-century
beliefs in mercantilism and the importance of population growth as an index of national
strength, but her account points once again to the importance of national differences.
These are particularly apparent in relation to the means by which information about
population size was obtained. In England, it was left to private individuals to gather
data and frame estimates surrounding the number of people, whereas in France such data
were gathered by the state, and the main focus of scientific debate concerned not so much
the gathering of data, but the development of increasingly-sophisticated means of
analyzing them.
 
Although this book will be widely-used, and deservedly so, it is in some ways rather
narrowly-focused, and this may -- possibly -- reflect its origins in a Princeton
University Ph.D. thesis. As we have already seen, its greatest strength lies in its
meticulously- and even lovingly-detailed reconstructions of the internal arguments of a
range of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century thinkers, but there are times when the close
attention to detail might have been supplemented by some additional attention to the wider
picture. This is perhaps particularly apparent in relation to three important issues. In
the first place, although Rusnock highlights the links between writers such as Jurin and
the Royal Society of London, she does not discuss the extent to which they themselves
derived the inspiration for their new modes of thinking from developments in the natural
sciences, even though it is clear that they were well aware of these. Secondly, although
the author should be commended for her efforts to compare developments in Britain and
France, one sometimes feels that the reasons for both the similarities and the differences
between the two countries might have been examined more fully. Finally, although Rusnock
is undoubtedly alive to the limitations as well as the strengths of this new quantitative
discourse, she could sometimes push her analysis of these limitations a little further. As
we have already seen, one of the many strengths of her book is the way in which she
highlights the work of men such as John Haygarth and Thomas Percival in drawing attention
to the sanitary hazards of eighteenth-century urban life, but one does not get a strong
sense of the impact which these writers were able to exercise on a wider public. If the
arguments presented by these men were so compelling, why did it take another sixty or
seventy years for them to be converted into a national campaign for public action?
 
Notes:1. Sheila Ryan Johansson, "When Numbers Began to Count for Health Policy: A Review
Essay," _Population and Development Review_ 29 (2003), 715-29, p. 715. 2. Inoculation also
spread less rapidly in other parts of the British Isles. See Deborah Brunton, "Smallpox
Inoculation and Demographic Trends in Eighteenth-Century Scotland," _Medical History_ 36
(1992), 403-29. 3. Michael Flinn, ed., _Report on the Sanitary Condition of the Labouring
Population of Great Britain, by Edwin Chadwick, 1842_, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press, 1965, p. 223.
 
Bernard Harris is Reader in Social Policy in the Division of Sociology and Social Policy,
School of Social Science, University of Southampton, UK. He has published extensively in
the areas of anthropometric history, the history of health and living standards, and the
history of social policy. His latest book, _The Origins of the British Welfare State:
Social Welfare in England and Wales, 1800-1945_, is due to be published by Palgrave
Macmillan in June 2004.
 
Copyright (c) 2004 by EH.Net. All rights reserved. This work may be copied for non-profit
educational uses if proper credit is given to the author and the list. For other
permission, please contact the EH.Net Administrator ([log in to unmask]; Telephone: 513-
529-2229). Published by EH.Net (May 2004). All EH.Net reviews are archived at
http://www.eh.net/BookReview.
 
 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]