Of all the political ramifications of the plague, the most noticable were administrative measures taken by the rulers and royalty of the time in response to the plague. While a significant amount of these legislative changes were intended as precautions to guard against the spread of the plague, many of these laws simply reflected the growing frustration of a society looking to place the blame on someone.
A 1374 regulation by Visconte Bernabo at Reggio stressed the importance placed on preserving those who were uninfected:
"Everyone sick of the plague is to be brought out of the town to the fields, there to die or recover. Those who have nursed plague patients are to remain secluded for ten days before having intercourse with anyone. The clergy are to examine the sick and report to the authorities on pain of being burnt at the stake and confiscation of their possessions. Those who introduce the plague shall forfeit all their goods to the State. Finally, with the exception of those set apart for the purpose, no one shall administer to those sick of the plague on pain of death and forfeiture of their possessions." [01]
These laws may be considered
harsh, but they were not quite so monstrous when one considers the brutality
of the plague during the initial wave of the mid-1300s. Significantly systematic
policies did not come into effect until long after the plague had hit its
peak (indeed, the dates are closer to when modern science and government were
coming into being than these early plague years). Still, the political changes
of the late 1300s are well worth going into.
Sanitation was one of the foremost concerns of urban areas, where a high population density made the spread of disease much easier. In Florence, for example:
"Citizens were ordered to clean up streets and piazzas, to scour their homes, to keep animals out of the city, and to i lluminate thestreets at night. Butchers were reminded of the restrictions on the slaughter of animals and the sale of fresh meats." [03]
All this, however, did not stop the plague from entering Florence. But the changes were kept because they served to organize the city, keep it cleaner, and keep the relative level of contamination low. After the plague had passed, the policies were retained because they provided employment for the poor and beautified the city.
As the plague created more and more problems for urban areas, a strange setup evolved. A small group (between 3 and 10) of powerful legislators and aristocrats in each city began to serve on sanitary councils. These councils were created to systematically handle a problem too large in scope for the ordinary man. Intended as a temporary measure to relieve problems during the crisis, many of the councils would survive to become the precursors of more modern systematic governments. [04]
Italian cities, being
the first ones hit by the plague, were accordingly the first to respond with
legislation. Venice, for example, was the first city to institute a sanitary
council on March 29, 1348. Among other policies, the three noblemen who were
on the committee decided to restrict all incoming traffic (human and otherwise)
from Asia on the island of Nazarethum. This prevented any chance of direct
exposure to an already-ailing city.
If any person was identified as a plague carrier, he or she would remain in quarantine for a period of 40 days on Nazarethum (the number is biblical in origin; Jesus and his followers were in the desert for 40 days). [06] Of course, anyone who actually was a plague victim would die within a quarter of this time period. The political powers of the sanitary council were extended in 1504. It is interesting to note how the sanitary council evolved into something with more intrinsic strength because of its power during a time of crisis. (Feel free to draw an analogies to modern politics that you come up with.)
Venice was harder hit than the rest of Italy, losing 100,000 men, women, and children, nearly 75% of its population. The city government was so desperate that it offered full citizenship for any foreigner who settled in the town for two years. [07]
It should come as no surprise that the advent of the plague was a perfect stepping-stone for the European aristocracy to promote their own agendas. Those in power, impotent against a faceless enemy, looked for someone to blame. The victims, of course, were the small, isolated groups of people with a history of persecution.
"A measure to be found in nearly all plague regulations is the expulsion of drunkards, beggars, lepers, and gipsies [sic]." [08]
Indeed, this ostracism could be viewed as a form of "moral cleanup" of the cities. Using the excuse of the plague, officials could now remove undesired components of urban society: the poor, the sick, and those who were at odds with Christianity, such as prostitutes and Jews.
"... the legislation regarding control of prostitutes and sodomites within the city also was included in traditional sanitary legislation. This was not because the city leaders felt that certain diseases were sexually transmitted, but rather because the activities of such individuals were offensive to God." [09]
Such policies reflect the need for the legislators to find a vent for the frustrations of citizens. Historically, ostracism and aggression against of religious, racial, and socioeconomic minorities has been a very effective method of distracting the common man; the Middle Ages weren't an exception. At the same time, these men could pursue a religious agenda, in a time when the Church was perhaps the greatest powermonger of all.
