You must log in or register to comment.
I found a blog with a bunch of the definitions
https://www.neatorama.com/2022/03/09/Leading-Causes-of-Deaths-in-London-1632/
Thanks. I have so many questions about some of these. Cut of the stone, king’s evil, Planet, rising of the lights, teeth… I’m mostly curious what king’s evil is in this context. Gonna go look Edit: per the link it’s scrofula.
Teeth might be dental infections. Those can get nasty if untreated.
Thank you!
Cancer, and Wolf.
“People called cancer the wolf, because it ‘ate up’ the person.” But this wasn’t just a linguistic quirk. The idea was actually translated into practice. “Some doctors would even apply raw meat to a cancerous ulcer, so that the wolf could feast on that for a while instead of ‘eating’ the patient.
I could see how people 400 years ago could think that makes sense.
“There are two wolves inside of you. I’m afraid it’s terminal.”
Classic comedy duo, well until cancer went through the divorce…
Made away themselves.
Ah British dancing around the point terms.
We’d still say “done away with themself”.
“Unalive” is the current dance. Euphemism isn’t new.
Just trying to avoid the YouTube censors
Kill’d by several accidents
When the universe is out to get you, but you survive the first accident
Rasputin syndrome
Like this guy. The only thing that could kill him was himself apparently.
Ye olde’ Final Destination.
Is 2 several? Or 3? At which point do you come under the several category
“My teeth are killing me” meant something pretty different back then.
“Teeth” actually meant “a child who’s still teething.” As with “chrisomes and infants,” so many little ones died that often they were categorized by age rather than a specific cause. Probably the only reason to specify “overlaid, and starved at nurse” would be to blame and punish the wet-nurse.
So aggravating to not be able to sort by columns
Planet ?!?
Scary:
“Dying of planet” was a term used in the 17th and 18th centuries to describe a sudden and severe illness or paralysis that was attributed to astrology and the influence of malevolent planets. People who died from “planet” exhibited symptoms similar to strokes, heart attacks, and aneurysms. At the time, people who picked up bodies for burial often knew little about the cause of death. Other causes of death listed in The Diseases, and Casualties this year being 1632 included “affrighted” and “made away themselves”. -Via Overview.
Cancer, and wolf
Wolf is an old name for Lupus, which of course is Latin for wolf.
It took me a will to figure out it was not a joke…
And 10 at that!
Goddamn wolves, targeting cancer patients!
The term I grew up with for botfly larva was wolves. Cancer was often diagnosed when the tumors erupted through the skin. The crab.
So, probably a bad death.
The ultimate partnership
beware!
tf is King’s Evil?
Mycobacterial cervical lymphadenitis
I’m gonna call it the other thing
“Killed by several accidents.”
lol.
Kill’d
Kil’d
Kil’d to death 💀
Hah! Gonna take more’n ONE accident to kill me, you bastards!!!
- I would choose wolves over cancer
- I suspect it means ear infections, but I choose to believe there was a big kettledrum accident that year
It meant tumor
Cause: Suddenly.
aka heart attack.
If was the covid vaccine and you know it!
Heart attack (not listed as such)
Over-laid sounds like a good way to go.
Death by snu-snu!
I know right? Especially when it’s so good you starve to death. And she’s a nurse too
Better than King’s Evil.
Don’t know why they felt the need to have it and executions separately
Chrisomes : died while under a month old.
Not sure, but I’m guessing part of the reason to specify the difference between “infants” and “Chrisomes” (baptized babies) might be to say where they’d be buried/where their souls would go.
“And in other news, the death figures were released today. Once again, the leading cause of death is: being a baby. Over the last year, 2,268 infants died naturally of babyness.”
Spawnkill
Only 7 murders? The population of London was apparently about 400,000 back then so that’s less than half the murder rate of present-day New York City (which is considered a relatively safe city). I don’t think that can be right…
1632 London: 7 / 400,000 = 17.5 murders per million people
2023 New York: 312 / 8,258,000 = 37.8 murders per million people
a relatively safe city […] 37.8 murders per million
Ignoring that in 1632 it might’ve been easier for murder to go undetected, here are the numbers of present day London. It’s about 13.1 mpm, even lower than in 1632, about a third of present day New York.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/862984/murders-in-london/
America is not really a shining example when it comes to those things…
New York’s murder rate (and the overall murder rate in the USA) is shaped by a history of race relations which is quite different from London’s. A white person in New York is much less likely (and conversely a black or Hispanic person is much more likely) to be murdered than the overall murder rate for the city might lead someone to think.
Oh, well, carry on then.
Username checks out.
Yeah, exactly. You seem to arbitrarily place higher value on white people’s lives…
I’m not making a value judgement. I’m explaining why New York City’s murder rate is so much higher than London’s. It’s because NYC has a population of white and Asian people who are as safe as Europeans and another, de facto segregated population of black and Hispanic people who are much less safe.
I presume that a big part of the reason why things are the way they are is that society places a higher value on white people’s lives, but I’m not doing that here. Explaining isn’t the same as justifying.
Why bring it up at all then? The topic was New York being unsafe, you come rushing it explaining it’s because of the brown people.
Welp. Even though at this point I’m leaning towards “very clumsy with words” rather than “disgusting racist”, I don’t really have much interest in talking to you further.
It’s a lot harder to murder somebody when you actually have to stab them or beat their head in with something.
present-day New York City (which is considered a relatively safe city).
Relative to USA. It would easily be one of the most violent cities in Europe.
It’s for the greater good!
I’m especially dumbfounded as I thought that before there was an important police force and a mature legal system, murders were far more frequent than after.
At the same time, it’s possible I’m imagining 1632 London to be more primitive than it really was.
