History of the Plague in London

By Daniel Defoe

Trajectory presents classics of world literature with 21st century features! Our original-text editions include the following visual enhancements to foster a deeper understanding of the work: Word Clouds at the start of each chapter highlight important words. Word, sentence, paragraph counts, and reading time help readers and teachers determine chapter complexity. Co-occurrence graphs depict character-to-character interactions as well character to place interactions. Sentiment indexes identify positive and negative trends in mood within each chapter. Frequency graphs help display the impact this book has had on popular culture since its original date of publication. Use Trajectory analytics to deepen comprehension, to provide a focus for discussions and writing assignments, and to engage new readers with some of the greatest stories ever told.

"History of the Plague in London" by Daniel Defoe is a must read for anyone who is captivated by the 17th century plague that hit London. This novel gives a comprehensive description of London during the years of the Plague.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Trajectory, Inc.
• Release date: Oct 1, 2014
• ISBN: 9781632093219

Daniel Defoe

Daniel Defoe (1660-1731) was an English author, journalist, merchant and secret agent. His career in business was varied, with substantial success countered by enough debt to warrant his arrest. Political pamphleteering also landed Defoe in prison but, in a novelistic turn of events, an Earl helped free him on the condition that he become an intelligence agent. The author wrote widely on many topics, including politics, travel, and proper manners, but his novels, especially Robinson Crusoe, remain his best remembered work.

Reviews for History of the Plague in London

[angelag86 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Kind of slow moving and repetitive in parts, not to mention long-winded. It was interesting, but I won't be rereading it.

[lukerik-1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

This book contains the phrase "Bring out your dead". It also has a scene where a man is put alive onto the dead cart, at which he remarks "But I an't dead though, am I". If those aren't reason enough to read it, then I don't know what is. My understanding is that historians are unable to tell exactly where the line between truth and fiction lies. This edition is lightly modernised, which perhaps slightly spoils the effect of reading an original document but it is very cleverly written, as if by one who doesn't habitually write. He introduces the story of the three brothers several times before he actually tells it. Ultimately, I think the book is a victim of its own success as once the brothers' story is told it becomes repetitive and rather tiresome.

[schmerguls · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Some people reading this might think it is non-fiction, and Defoe strives to make it seem as if written by a guy who lived through the year 1665 in London. It seems pretty realistic and Defoe did research to make the book seem as factual as possible. The plague was a terrible affliction, and while many fled London there were many heroic people who stayed and kept the conditions from being much worse. The book is pretty didactic, but not disturbingly so. The language is kind of convoluted at times but when I finished the book I thought it well worth reading, even if during the reading it seemed heavy-handed at times. Defoe says the Great Fire of London, which occurred the next year--1666--was a blessing because it enabled many to have jobs after the economic disaster which was the plague.

[la2bkk · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Despite its age, this is a well written, very readable account of the the 1665 Great Plague of London. Although in actuality just historical fiction, the account is accurate enough to provide the reader with a meaningful understanding of the event.My only complaint is that, by the second half of the book, DeFoe becomes mired in repetition, hence at times I found my attention waning.All in all, a very interesting account.

[rrainer-1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

I find it difficult to give this a rating not only because of what it is--a book that straddles the fiction/non-fiction line, written centuries ago--but also because of the reasons I read it. I wasn't looking for the story, but for insight into the time period, the science and the language and the people and the geography. It's part anecdote and part statistic, and it makes me wonder what it would have been like to be a contemporary reader of something like this, when it felt like an authentic representation of something that could conceivably happen again tomorrow and not a fictionalized account of something that we no longer fear...or if we do, not at all in the same way or context.

[hemlokgang · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Daniel Defoe is a fascinating writer. He can write a marvelous melodrama and then create a novel that reads as if it is non-fiction. This fictional documentation of the great plague of 1665 in England is quite remarkable. Apparently some historians think it is better than actual documentation in its ability to convey the progression and social repercussions of this horrifying black death. He carefully lays out the slow unraveling of the societal fabric. He seems to say that fear and suffering result in chaos and irrational behavior. The desire to survive drives people to behave in ways they would not otherwise even consider or believe themselves capable of. I have to say that the power of this book seems, unfortunately, as relevant now as ever. With an Aids epidemic, Ebola epidemic, and threats of biological warfare in our lives, it is a pretty scary insight into the likely chain of events should some form of massive biological threat present itself. This was not a fun read, but very thought provoking.

[prop2gether · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

World War Z long before it was written--a narrative description of the year the plague hit London--this novel was originally printed and accepted as a factual description of what was happening in the streets of London when plague came across the English Channel.

[stillatim · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

Yep... Defoe's returns continue to diminish. This reminds me of Dostoevsky's 'House of the Dead,' since both books are absolutely riveting for the first 100 pages or so: you get an immediate impression of what it's like to live in a plague-ridden London (or Russian prison); you get drawn in by the odd 'life is stranger than fiction' moment, but then, before you know it, you're reading exactly the same thing two or even three times for no particular reason other than the narrator's inability to revise his own work. If you know much about the way plague was treated by the early moderns, you won't be surprised by too much here.

This penguin edition has some things going for it, starting with an amazing cover illustration and ending with Anthony Burgess' old introduction which is now an appendix. I suspect that's there because Burgess does what an introducer ought to do: describes a bit about Defoe's life and times, a bit about the book you're about to read, and a very slight interpretation of that book (here: 'can we preserve the societies we build?') The editor of this volume, on the other hand, gives us a semi-rapturous 'analysis' of Defoe's use of 'place' in the book, which sounds interesting until you read the book and realize that it's utterly tendentious.

Literary fashion is an odd beast- wouldn't it have made more sense to redo Roxana than to redo this?

[ehines_20 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Defoe's fictionalized first-person account of plague in 17th-century London. Rivetting.

[paul_s-289480 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Pretty much at every step we match the behaviour of people from 17th century to the point that makes you think that human society has only evolved superficially and underneath the obvious modernity of air travel, vaccines and instant communication is the same herd of clueless and lost apes. China even put padlocks on people's houses. Let's hope we don't also copy the great fire of London idea.

[lynnb_64 · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

I didn't enjoy this book. When I am given a novel, I want strong characters. This was a book about a thing (the plague); not so much about people. Once in a while, we get glimpse of someone (e.g. the man bringing provisions to people living on boats) but then we'd be back to data tables. To be generous, though, this book is an early example of historical fiction. It was introducing a new genre. And it does paint a vivid picture of London's streets. It was interesting to note the many similarities and differences between the Plague and Covid-19. Diseases mutate and learn much faster than people!

[evano_21 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Because 300 years later, so little has changed...

[evenlake_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

A fascinating look at London in 1665, when the bubonic plague swept through the city. Reading it in New York City during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic was especially enlightening, as one can see so many similarities. Hoarding supplies, fleeing the cities for country homes, self-isolation, all of these things were happening in the London pandemic over 300 years ago. There is even the "double-peak" we hear so much about today, where cases start to go on the decline, quarantine restrictions are lifted so people start mingling again, and we see a second wave of infections, albeit not quite as high as the first.

Highly recommended, especially if you want to see how human behavior hasn't changed in the intervening three-and-a-half centuries.

[ffortsa · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

This book reads more like a documentary than a novel, although Dafoe was 5 or 6 when the great plague hit London. Statistics and history are interspersed with more specific stories of people escaping or attempting to escape the ravages of the disease, and the adherence or lack of adherence to what were presumed to be safety measures. Not much has changed. The work dates to 1722, and the complicated writing style, combined with a lack of chapters, made it a little difficult to read. But I highlighted a lot of passages to think about in light of our current predicament.

[ionas_7 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

This was first published in 1722 and purports to be a true account of the Great Plague, which took place in 1665. However, the events described were not personally experienced by Defoe, who was a small child during the plague. Apparently, Defoe got his information from his uncle, Henry Foe, H.F. The language is of course that of the time in which the book was written but nonetheless is clearly understandable; the main difference from our modern language was that the nouns began with a capital letter, as in German, and the spelling of some words was slightly different. Defoe has precise knowledge of the areas of London and the various streets are continually referred to in the book. The narrator tells individual stories of those taken sick and who died, and the various frightening occurrences. An “inward Gangreen” could affect people’s “Vitals” so that they suddenly died on the streets with no warning. There were “dead-carts” that drove round and picked up bodies and dumped them together in large graves. There were many dismal scenes, including “”terrible Shrieks and Shreekings of Women”. The infected had violent pain from swellings, and “Physicians and Surgeons – tortured many poor Creatures, even to Death”. These physicians would apply “”drawing Plasters, or Pultices”” to break hard swellings or “cut and scarified them in a terrible Manner”. Many “died raving mad with the Torment””. When people were known to be infected, they were locked into their houses so they could not get out, though family and friends were permitted to come with food for them; sometimes no-one came. A watchman was placed outside these houses day and night; sometimes people broke out by force or escaped through some back entrance. It was mostly the poor that died of the plague since the rich had the means and opportunity to escape London and move into the country, The narrator informs us that nothing was more fatal than the negligence of the people themelves who had adequate warning of the “Visitation” but failed to lay in a store of provisions or other necessaries. “”This Necessity of going out of our Houses to buy Provisions, was in a great Measure the Ruin of the whole City, for the People catch’d the Distemper, on those Occasions one of another”. I did not get through the book since it became somewhat repetitive. It certainly seemed to be a plausible and true account of the Great Plague. There is a glossary, but I did not feel required to use it.

[rajivc_18 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

This is not an easy book to read. The reason is that Daniel has written the book in the style that was prevalent during his time. The sentences are lengthy and complicated. I would even use the word ‘convoluted’ to describe the sentence structure. Moreover, the book has not been broken into distinct chapters. Once you get past this hurdle, then you will find the book to be a fascinating one. It was written about 50 years after the great plague of London. I believe that he was a young boy at the time that the epidemic, and used the notes that one of his relatives left behind. He has described the scenes without much emotion and has avoided melodrama. Daniel Defoe’s descriptions of human behaviour during this period are revealing. I believe that they hold valuable lessons for us today. He has spoken about how the poor people crowded the streets in desperation; how astrologers and quacks took advantage of the people; the breakdown of trade; how the rich folk escaped to the countryside. It is now about 450 years since the days of the plague that ravaged London, yet human behaviour does not seem to have changed very much. I recommend this book to anyone interested in human behaviour, and anyone interested in the events of those dark days in London.

[booktsunami · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Well, I started reading this after the world was entering a shutdown because of the Covid19 disease caused by Corona virus. I just wondered what we might be able to learn from the previous experiences with pandemics. (I guess the black plague in London was not truly a world wide pandemic but the local impact would be similar to local impacts today). A few things stood out for me. One was that the epidemic moved across London ...more or less from suburb to suburb and didn't overwhelm the whole place at once. So some areas were free from the disease whilst others were overwhelmed. At it's peak there were around 12,000 people dying per week...maybe even up to 10,000 in one day. Niceties went out the window, People were unceremoniously dumped into mass graves.According to Defoe, the authorities actually did a pretty good job of managing the whole thing; burials were all done at night. the streets were cleaned. people with the plague were locked into their houses together with all the inhabitants and watchmen placed outside. Up to 20,000 watchmen were employed. And there were various levels of inspectors allocated to check that the rules wee being followed. But, according to Defoe , the whole policy of locking people int their homes was wrong. It was almost possible to police, many people broke out and escaped and spread the infection, and it condemned the healthy to live with the unhealthy and thus contract the disease. The rich escaped into the country at the start of the epidemic......leaving mainly the poor behind. The poor lost their livelihoods and would undertake any work ....hence there was never a shortage of people to run the death carts...even though they were most susceptible to catching the disease. The same with nurses to attend the sick. They really had no idea what was causing the plague but felt it was transmitted via the air in some way...and certainly by contact with the infected. Interestingly enough the famous cry "bring out your dead" accompanied by the ringing of a bell...I think....was along cited once in the whole book. There was actually a great deal of charity in terms of providing provisions for the poor and attending to the sick....especially in the early stages. The plague started in December 1664 ....reached its peak around August September 1665 and had almost disappeared by Feb 1666. (And then the great fire of London swept away much of the poor wooden dwellings and the home of the vector (rats and the rat flea). Also the virulence of the plague seemed to have declined as time went on so that by February, most people seemed to be recovering from the disease. Normally the time from the obvious signs of the disease ...black marks on the thigh or chest etc (buboes) ....to death...was very rapid:..... a couple of days. But the pain and torment was obviously very great....with some people throwing themselves, still alive, into the burial pits.One thing that struck me (and the author) was the number of "snake-oil" salesmen a soothsayers that appeared at the beginning of the plague...offering all sorts of protections and cures against the sickness. Of course, none worked and Defoe comments that all these people had disappeared at the end of the plague .......whether carried away by it or gone on to other scams elsewhere. International trade tended to disappear during this time. Other ports were reluctant to accept goods from London for fear of importing the plague and were reluctant to export to London for fear of acquiring it when they were there. Though of course there were various subterfuges .....sending goods to other ports in England and then re-exporting from there ....or passing the goods off as Dutch etc. Though there were grave penalties if caught. (And, rightly so, because of the consequences if plague was imported along with a cargo from London). Interestingly, many people lived on board ships moored in the Thames throughout the period. And some people.....notably Dutch families....sequestered themselves in their houses/compounds with supplies and never ventured out for the whole period. (Though this sounds a little hard to believe).There is one in treating story within the story of a group of 4 friends who broke out of the city with some tools and a tent and established themselves in the forest ...eventually meeting up with some similar people and also making some kind of rapprochement with local villagers and drawing on the charity of locals.Throughout, Defoe praises the Mayor, the aldermen and the civic leaders for their fairness and their governance. On the other hand is is rather scathing of the clergy...especially those of the Church of England who fled the city at the start and were not at all well received when they returned at the end of the plague. What can we learn from this for the current pandemic? Well a couple of things I think. Locking people into their houses wasn't a great policy and a better policy would have been to remove the sick to specialised "pest houses" ...maybe we should be removing people from self quarantine the moment they show any sort of flu symptoms. Exponential growth of deaths can rapidly overwhelm the social systems and cause extreme anti-social behaviour.....avoidance etc. If we have tests for Covid 19 we should be really utilising them.

[scottjpearson · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

The years 1665-1666 were rough for London. 1665 brought plague, and 1666 brought a city-wide fire. This book contains a fictionalized account of that plague year of 1665. Defoe, writing 50 years hence, constructed a narrative based upon research in journals from that era. In providing an account of these interesting times, this book provides several interesting interludes. Like the story of a naked Quaker who walked the streets. Or how the poor and city officers bravely attacked the disease to make the city function.

It is always interesting to study British history through the lens of class. Ironically, the clergy and the well-to-do did not confront the illness with as much braveness as the lower classes. Although the poor suffered most from the disease (think of the close living quarters in pre-Industrial-Revolution London), they were less paralyzed by fear of the "distemper." Remember that people at that time did not know that the plague was caused by rats. They just knew that it was a "contagion" that was transmitted in an area. For all they knew, it was an act of God's displeasure upon London, not a relatively random event in the history of bacteria!

Fear, courage, and madness are all on display in this dystopian tale. One cannot help but wonder how modern London would respond to a similar crisis. We have record of an Ebola outbreak in recent years in Africa to compare to. That public health crisis was not handled too well by the international community. Fortunately, London now has a public health system that can respond to emergent outbreaks with speed and skill. Perhaps that prevention is the lesson of the plague year for us. We do not suffer these kind of events commonly because we attend to their prevention in the early stages of problems. What of our problems will those 300 years from now read and wonder about in the pages of our literature? One can only dream...

[angelab86 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Kind of slow moving and repetitive in parts, not to mention long-winded. It was interesting, but I won't be rereading it.

[nsenger-1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Many consciences were awakened; many hard hearts melted into tears; many a penitent confession was made of crimes long concealed. It would wound the soul of any Christian to have heard the dying groans of many a despairing creature, and none durst come near to comfort them. Many a robbery, many a murder, was then confessed aloud, and nobody surviving to record the accounts of it.When A Journal of the Plague Year was first published in 1722 as the "Observations and Memorials" of a "citizen" who called himself "H.F.," readers accepted it as the real journal of a survivor of the London plague of 1665. That's not surprising, given the book's attention to detail, including tables of casualties for different geographical areas. One of the book's greatest strengths is its feeling of authenticity. Over time, however, it was revealed that the author was actually Daniel Defoe, who was only five years old during the outbreak, and who therefore could not have written his own first-hand account of the plague. Though it reads like an authentic journal, it is actually a well researched work of historical fiction, probably based on the journal of Defoe's uncle, Henry Foe.A Journal of the Plague Year is one of those books that is more interesting to me as a literary artifact than as a book in its own right. What I mean is, I can appreciate its importance in the development of fiction, but beyond that it did not mean much to me. It's also the second book I've read in the last twelve months that describes the effects of the plague on a town, the first being Manzoni's The Betrothed, which dealt with the Milan plague of 1630.Not a bad read, but not something that I plan on rereading again.

[bookworm12_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

With Ebola outbreaks on the news and debates on vaccinations on every blog, it seemed like a perfect time to return to one of the original records of a disease outbreak. I was particularly curious to read this book because it was mentioned multiple times in “On Immunity”. The author of Robinson Crusoe wrote this fictionalized account of a man who lives through the bubonic plague in England in 1665. Defoe was only 5-years-old at that time, but his account is considered one of the most accurate ones of the plague. Defoe looks at the plague through the eyes of one man. He’s forced to decide if he should stay or go when the outbreak begins. So many people fled, but some didn’t realize they had already been infected. They carried the plague with them to other towns. Some people who were sick would throw themselves into the pits of the dead and wait their death out. The book is surprisingly interesting for a nonfiction account written centuries ago. Defoe talked about the actually details of how the outbreak was handle. For example, when one person in a family got sick, the rest of the family was kept in their house with a guard posted out front or other times they were all sent to the sick house, where they often became infected even if they weren’t sick before. Random Tidbits: The scene from “Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail” where they are yelling out “Bring out your dead!” was a real thing. People went around with carts and actually yelled that out to collect the dead bodies. The standard of burying people six feet under was also established at this point. It used to be a very arbitrary depth before the plague.BOTTOM LINE: It’s less about the plague itself than it is about the study of a society in duress. It was fascinating to see the different ways people reacted. Their fight or flight tendencies haven’t changed much over the last 300 years.

[dandelionroots · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Daniel Defoe, while only five when the plague ravaged London in 1665, writes a first hand fictional narrative of a citizen who remained in the city throughout the pestilence based upon parish/church records and personal accounts. The telling is consumed with misery, yet I was surprised at how well government officials were able to keep order during such an extreme and uncontrollable calamity. Many well-off families fled to the countryside leaving behind a primarily poor populace. The government, church, and private citizens donated significant funds to provide necessities for those without thus preventing riots. The redonk amount of dead were buried by and the even more numerous sick were cared for by the poor. Defoe details many attempts to escape, alleviate, and contain the disease by city officials acting on the advice of respected physicians and by quacks looking to make a quick profit - largely to no avail. I was, however, impressed with the level of understanding the physicians had of the disease. If a similar scenario occurred today, I believe we would be fucked since the populace was largely controlled by their resignation to God's fury.

[imyril · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

A rambling account of the London plague of 1665, repetitious and at times rather dry - but nonetheless a fascinating insight into the disaster. Includes death figures from the bills, anecdotes and rumours, opinion and contradictions, and is at times (unwittingly?) funny. With the constant references to the infected, I couldn't help but reread the plague as a zombie apocalypse - ironically, the account bears this rather well.

[santhony_35 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

I must admit to a morbid fascination with accounts of natural disasters, harrowing exploration tales and historical plagues. This ostensibly first-hand account of the 1665 visitation of the Black Death upon London, written by Daniel DeFoe, certainly fits nicely into that genre. I say “ostensibly”, because while Defoe was alive at the time of the event, he was a very young child and wrote this work in 1722. Therefore, while we can be assured that many of the accounts therein are largely accurate, it would be stretch to label it as strictly non-fiction.This is not a spellbinding or even captivating read. It is full of statistics and seemingly never ending references to specific neighborhoods and precincts as existed in London at the time. Much of the book is taken up with body counts and comparisons of mortality from time to time in the different areas of London and its environs. As most people have no geographic knowledge of the area, this is largely wasted, except to realize that, “Gee, a lot of people died in Whiteside, but not so many in Wapping.”Sprinkled throughout this relatively short work (under 200 dense pages), are interesting anecdotes, and this is the beauty of the book; the actions and reactions of everyday people to the scourge within their midst. How did the authorities address the problem? What was the medical knowledge and prevailing treatments as existed at the time? What did people in London do when commerce and society effectively broke down? What did they do to acquire food? How were the bodies disposed of? All intriguing and practical questions that are asked and answered herein.Given the factual and dry nature of most of the prose, coupled with the early 18th century writing style, I cannot recommend this work to the casual reader or one looking strictly for entertainment or to pass the time. Even an aficionado of the genre will likely be hard pressed to profess an unreserved endorsement of the book as anything other than what it is; a dry, at times enlightening, account of the Black Death’s impact on the city and citizens of London, written in close proximity to the event itself.

[randystafford · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

My reactions upon reading this in 1990.I expected a more straight forward, organized narrative full of more anecdotes and not any references to what public policy and private behavior should be in the next plague epidemic. I found Defoe's narrative disorganized. (As the critic points out in the introduction, this leads versimilitude to an ostensible common man's journal, but it's not really planned -- just a feature of Defoe's rushed, first-person style.). Defoe never really seems to make up his mind whether it was a good idea to quarantine plague victims in their homes. On the other hand, Defoe gives us some compelling anecdotes of the plague and a balanced portrait of the good and evil of government and private responses to the epidemic. It's also interesting to see Defoe's mind grapple with some questions: is it faithless to flee London or is it wrong not to do all to save oneself? It's interesting to see Defoe try to reconcile the contemporary theory of the plague's infectiousness with how it actually spread. And it's interesting to see, in passing, a reference to some of the doctors of the time believing that the plague is due to "living Creatures ... seen by a microscope of strange monstrous and frightful Shapes." But Defoe says he doubts this, a glimmering of the bacteriological theory of disease.

[aketzle · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

Gave up. Boring. Not a fan of journalistic-style fiction, really.

[john257hopper · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Although ostensibly fiction, this is very much written as a non-fictional memoir of one man's experiences during the Great Plague of 1665 (who signs off at the end as H F - Defoe himself was only five years old when the plague happened). Defoe usually calls it "distemper" rather than "plague". The full gamut of human emotions and experiences are revealed in this slightly rambling, but very human narrative. You get a real feeling of colourful incident and emotion, but there are a lot of statistics as well. Good stuff. 4/5

[pondlife_1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

An interesting and believable account of the plague of 1665. It's difficult to be sure how much is fact and how much fiction, but it feels like it's based on a true account.Some of the interesting things are the effect of the plague on the businesses and trades, and the measures put in place by the Mayor and magistrates to give work and distribute alms which did a lot to reduce the problem and may have prevented a riot.It's a bit repetitive in places, with the same point often being made a few times. The lack of chapters also makes it more difficult to read than would otherwise be the case.

[heptonj · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

This is a fictional account of one man's experience of the plague year. It is utterley fascinating and while Daniel Defoe was only 5 at the time of the plague it is surely drawn from the experiences/notes of near relatives? There is great detail of the management of the people and the infection with detailed statistics which are rather frightening to think about. He describes the desperation of the people and the lengths they go to in that desperation. According to the author there were numerous charletons in London selling quackery and uncountable tales of robberies during this horrendous time. There are tales of evil-doers tempered with the praise of the dignitaries and of the good souls who helped the poor in any way possible. This is well worth reading

[gavieb_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I would rate this book 4 stars but for the errors in the edition I was reading (Barnes & Noble Library Of Essential Reading). Regardless of whether this book is fiction, history or a blend between the two, it is a very interesting account of the Great Plague of London, and if the subject interests you, I would recommend reading it.