Introduction
History as a subject evolves as different scholars and commentators look at the same historical events from different perspectives, using different sources or driven by different motivations. The article by Cohn Jr. (2002) represents a relatively new look at a historical event that may have been assumed to have been long settled. The event in question is referred to as the Black Death, which historians and doctors cannot seem to agree on its nature. Many modern historians argue that the Black Death was a form of bubonic plague, similar to what is now called the Third Plague of the late 19 th century and early 20 th century. Cohn, however, in his article argues that the Black Death was never Bubonic Plague, but a form of pneumatic plague. The main thrust of the entire article is to use historical records to show the distinction between the Black Death of the late medieval period and the Bubonic Plague of the late 19 th century.
Methodology
The author combines primary and secondary data to make the arguments in his article. The primary data used was obtained from experts and professionals who witnessed the Black Plague and those who witnessed the Bubonic Plague. For example, the author uses the records that were used by Johannes of Tornamira who left diaries about the patients he had treated in Montpelier during the Third Plague and compares it with the information left behind by John of Burgundy in the 14 th century (Cohn Jr., 2002). These information from doctors in the respective periods is used as a source of data on what happened as opposed to a source of opinion about why it happened or what caused it. The author does not focus on the opinion of the authors from whom he gets the primary data, but uses the data to form his own opinion and communicate it. The secondary data used stems from historians and commentators who have expressed an opinion about the Black Death and why it was Bubonic plague. Cohn mainly use the secondary data to indicate why the conclusions drawn by the authors were wrong. For example, the author draws from the article by Ann Carmichael named “ Plague and the poor in Renaissance Florence ” and specifically its argument that the Black Plague and the Third Plague were the same (Cohn Jr., 2002). Cohn then attacks such conclusions by showing why they were wrong.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Critique
The success of the Author in Proving His Point and Ability to Convince
Based on a careful analysis of the article and the supporting evidence used, it is evident that the author is able to prove his point. It is important to state that the point the author is seeking to prove is almost an impossible one. History and science seem to have settled that the Black Death was Bubonic plague, a contention that has been made by many experts (Spyrou et al., 2016). Further, sound evidence, in the form of DNAs from medieval rats has been presented to confirm the argument that Cohn was seeking to countermand. Finally, there is the argument that proper records had not been kept regarding the Black Death because it was treated mainly as a superstitious event and not studied medically. Cohn begins with establishing credibility for sources by confirming that although the Black Death was treated with superstition at its advent, the opinion changed when it recurred in almost all areas (Cohn Jr, 2002). To this end, Cohn is able to present evidence that during subsequent occurrences, researchers and doctors were able to treat patients and also keep proper records of the type of treatments they had given them.
Cohn then presents data from these doctors and researchers one by one, and compares them to available data, hence being able to show that the Black Death could not have been Bubonic but pneumatic (Cohn Jr, 2002). For example, Bubonic Plague can only be transmitted through fleas that are found in rats and it can only be transmitted when infected fleas bite humans. Since fleas are near the ground, the manifestations of the plague can only begin down going up, as was seen in the Third Plague. However, in the Black Death, manifestations of the disease would almost always begin in the neck, extend to the armpits and only rarely in the lower body such as the groin (Cohn Jr, 2002). Further, the rates of infection of the Black Death, even in rural areas reflected an airborne disease and not an infection carried by fleas. Based on this and related sound arguments, Cohn is able to credibly argue his thesis. As long as an interlocutor keeps an open mind, there is enough in the article to change the mind from believing that the Black Death was pneumatic, not bubonic.
Weaknesses and Potential Improvement
What the author gains in the soundness of argument and presentation of evidence, he clearly loses in the organization of the paper and a touch of manifestation of bias. The bias, however, does not lie in the use of sources as the author generally makes references to a high number of resources both for and against the argument made. With regard to organization, the paper contains a thread reflecting a very simple argument which is that the symptoms of the Black Death and that of the Third Plague are so different that they could not have been the same. Secondly, the epidemiology of the spread of the Black Death differs from that of the Third Plague. Finally, the ability of the populaces attacked by the Black Death in the Medieval Period to develop immunity was very high as opposed to that of the Black Death (Cohn Jr, 2002).
A diagram that summarizes these and the other important points at the end of the article would have been more convincing for the reader than having to hunt and record the information throughout the article. The substance is all there in the paper, just not summarized for the reader to clearly see. It is also evident that the author, based on the writing, was out to confirm a hypothesis, instead of presenting an investigative argument. From the advent of the paper, the author takes the position that history has been wrong about the Black Death (Cohn Jr, 2002). In all categories discussed, the theme of history being outright wrong about the Black Death is reflected so prominently that the credibility of the author as a just adjudicator of facts is obliterated (McCullagh, 2000). A fair and balanced evaluation of facts that gradually inclines the reader towards the concept outlined in the hypothesis would have been more credible.
Conclusion
The article by Cohn Jr. (2002) can only be considered as a masterpiece of historiography, based on its peculiar thesis and the ability of the author to credibly present evidence that support that thesis. Cohn argues that historians and doctors who argue that the Black Death was a plague were wrong since available evidence shows that it was an airborne infection. After making the monumental statement, the author presents painstaking and credible evidence that aptly proves that the thesis is true. Further, the author does not shy away from quoting from historians who hold a contrary opinion and indicating why their arguments were wrong. Based on a careful reading of the article, it would be hard not to believe that the Black Death and Bubonic Plague are not in any way related.
References
Cohn Jr, S. K. (2002). The black death: End of a paradigm. The American Historical Review , 107 (3), 703-738
McCullagh, C. B. (2000). Bias in historical description, interpretation, and explanation. History and Theory , 39 (1), 39-66
Spyrou, M. A., Tukhbatova, R. I., Feldman, M., Drath, J., Kacki, S., de Heredia, J. B., ... & Gazimzyanov, I. R. (2016). Historical Y. pestis genomes reveal the European Black Death as the source of ancient and modern plague pandemics. Cell Host & Microbe , 19 (6), 874-881
