Rats Lice and History Being a Study in Biography Which After Twelve Preliminary Chapters byZinsser

by Hans Zinsser

There are few topics more distressing than disease, yet there are few books more darkly delightful than this timeless classic about the histories of microbial diseases, rats, and lice, and the scientists and doctors who combatted them. First published in 1934 and still in print, this book combines science, history, biography, literature, and other fields into an elegant but grim package of broad erudition and darker humor. Here are two representative passages.

...[I]nfectious disease is merely a disagreeable instance of a widely prevalent tendency of all living creatures to save themselves the bother of building, by their own efforts, the things they require. Whenever they find it possible to take advantage of the constructive labors of others, this is the path of least resistance. The plant does the work with its roots and its green leaves. The cow eats the plant. Man eats both of them; and bacteria (or investment bankers) eat the man....

...[T]he natural history of the rat is tragically similar to that of man ... some of the more obvious qualities in which rats resemble men--ferocity, omnivorousness, and adaptability to all climates ... the irresponsible fecundity with which both species breed at all seasons of the year with a heedlessness of consequences, which subjects them to wholesale disaster on the inevitable, occasional failure of the food supply.... [G]radually, these two have spread across the earth, keeping pace with each other and unable to destroy each other, though continually hostile. They have wandered from East to West, driven by their physical needs, and--unlike any other species of living things--have made war upon their own kind. The gradual, relentless, progressive extermination of the black rat by the brown has no parallel in nature so close as that of the similar extermination of one race of man by another...

Elsewhere in the book, Zinsser is the equal of our greatest contemporary popular science writers, but as the above passages prove, he has a rather unique style.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Science, Medicine, Medical, Biology, Health

Hardcover

First published January 1, 1935

Reviews

[Michael Perkins · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read Proust last year and in the process learned that his father, Dr. Adrien Proust, was a history making epidemiologist. He was a leading public health official in preventing cholera from entering France. Quite a story.


https://thelandofdesire.substack.com/...

[Alexia · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am absolutely stumped on how to review this book. I love medical histories, so when I saw this at a used bookstore I picked it up.

This book is about everything BUT typhus. Religion, history, mathematics, politics--if it's a subject completely unrelated to typhus it's most certainly in there. So I should just give it one star and move on with my life, right?

I wish it were that easy, because this book was hilarious. So off-topic, but the author is aware of how off-topic he is, "This, we promise, is the last serious digression from our main theme" (It is not)

At multiple points, he feels that so much extraneous matter is related to his subject that he just starts giving a list of random historical events with no explanation of their connection. The topic of typhus isn't truly brought up until page 212, and doesn't really start being addressed until page 229.
This, to me, is hilarious. I started this book in a serious mood, expecting to be informed about the progression and history of a serious disease. Instead, I was caught off guard by all this randomness and burst out laughing.

2 stars then? 5? 1? Let's go with 4. Sure! It's a star number I picked randomly, and that should fit considering the random nature of this book.

[Nancy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rats, Lice and History is written in an entertaining conversational style with with enough scholarly flourishes that you'll want your computer by your side to look up words and translate all the French, German and Spanish quotes. (Generally the Greek and Latin are translated or explained.)

The author manages to weave in a wide range of historical musings along with up to date science (for the publication date of 1934). The description of how "new" diseases arise is as true for AIDS as for typhus.

I found my copy of the book at the University of Oregon Science library. I really enjoyed the physical book. The bookplate for Vandevelde inside the cover, the obituaries for Dr. Zinsser pasted into the front and back of the book,the worn cover, and the pencil underlines all connected me to others who had read this exact same physical book.

[heptagrammaton · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating and often fun. Erudite. Charming. Packed with tangents and digressions to an almost comical degree – in a way that is ultimately enriching to the tone and stylistic appeal of the text. Rats, Lice and History is a systems-oriented insightful history of disease by one of the early 20th century's most pedagogically gifted bacteriologists, and a reminder that pandemic is never annihilated but only allayed by the force of knowledge, and collective action, and sheer material circumstance.

   Full of humour - with blood, and yet also with bile. (Elaboration to follow.)

But then a Grand Duke was murdered at Serajevo and everybody lost their heads [...] And God was on everyone’s side. And when we had all gone to war and the stage was set, typhus woke up again.

Not everyone realizes that typhus has at least as just a reason to claim that it “won the war” as any of the contending nations. Many a French barroom fight might have been avoided if this had been clearly understood.

    ∙    method(ology) is the message

Foregrounded in his focus are the relational dynamics between organisms and the broad evolutional trends of disease once it's established in a population. He rejects moralizing human-centric views in sly mockery, rejects privileging one species' view over another.
   This, I think, is the strongest point of Rats, Lice and History as a work with enduring didactic merit.

    ∙    the monopoly on violence will harvest your scalp

   Zinsser was a firm humanist and vocally derogatory of fascism. Yet his language is and his views are inevitably inflected by colonialism and white supremacy, in the subtle inherited ways that can seem innocuous should we choose to believe ourselves ahistoric beings.
   He relates the following anecdote: in the middle of typhus epidemic, he ran out of healthy lice for expirimental purposes and got a policeman to arrest a man of colour, apparently prodigiously lousy, so as to harvest his lice. The man is supposed to have been let out to go, quickly thereafter, freely, no harm done.
   The whole story is supposed to amuse, yet it may be difficult to feel amused if you are at all inclined to stop and consider how the experience of being stopped on the streets and detained, even if it be briefly, even if it be for the sake of science, even if it be for the sake of public health. We are never told if our lice donor was informed. We are never told if he consented. (We can reasonably imagine he could have hardly felt he had any choice.) We are never, strictly speaking, told to what extent our facilitating tool of the executive was informed of the purpose of this exercise, or if he, strictly speaking, gave a damn about ethics.
   Nor can we escape the racial undertone of. I will grant and believe it reasonable that Zinsser was not racist (insofar as that statement makes sense for his, but also any, time and place.) He keenly observes the historical and material circumstances of infestations, I wouldn't doubt he did not have any prescriptive lousiness/race connections in mind - but it matters who he chose to point out to the constable, and who he did not. It is doubtlessly relevant that for centuries skin colour and moral purity and physical cleanliness have been socially, linguistically (see lousiness/lousiness), institutionally conflated.
   It is a brief reminder of the long roads of ethics, of the flippant dehumanization that was (is) all too common an attitude in medicine and the natural sciences and the intersections of executive power and social prestige.
   We have ethics committees now. It's not good, but it's better.

    ∙    some notes on nomenclature (ICZN, hug me, I am scared)

Our understanding and handling of taxonomy has been fundamentally altered by being - thus a bunch of the space Zinsser dedicates to educated musings on the evolution of rats and lice, reliant as it is on morphologal comparison, has been rendered somewhat obsolete, though nevertheless fascinating. I am affixing this particular note, for the benefit of people like me, with very bare knowledge of zoology. (And because I looked it up and deeply regret it.)
   Today, Mus and Rattus are considered different genera — but literature of the 1930s was a chaotic mess; the brown rat is alternately classified as Mus rattus norvegicus, or Epimus rattus decumanus, or M. rattus decumanus (which Zinsser himself uses elsewhere) or R. norvegicus... I have been trawling through 80-years-old science trying to make sense of this. 0/10.

[Printable Tire · Rating 4 out of 5]

I salvaged an old paperback copy of this book from the library's garbage bin one day when I was walking around with a very bad cold. It seemed like an appropriate thing to read, as it had to deal with sickness and it was the kind of boring subject that is pleasant to read when one is stuck in bed and going nowhere.

It's a very strange, funny book- a shaggy dog with fleas.

The first several or so chapters are a defense for why a doctor should be able to write a work of literature. Dr. Zinsser calls science an art and goes on to quote much Gertude Stein in order to hold it up to ridicule.

The next quarter or even more is then dedicated to wars and disease and destruction from the dawn of civilization onward. It would be an almost unbearably boring and depressing list if Dr. Zinsser didn't have such a sardonic wit and charm to him. He is both cynical of humanity and full of deep humanity, and because of this and his style he is reminiscent of Kurt Vonnegut.

Dr. Zinsser wrote this book before World War II, and his thoughts on the buildup of that war are heartbreaking. He convincingly argues that most wars in history have had more fatalities due to disease than those caused on the battlefield, and that many famous battles and wars were dramatically changed due to the influence of diseases.

The next sections deal with lice, and mice and rats- and these are some of his funniest observations. Concerning the sex-life of the louse, Dr. Zinsser writes,

"Nature has provided that the nymph- that is, what may be called the high-school or flapper age of the louse- is not yet possessed of sexual organs. These do not appear until the fully adult form develops, and reproduction is thus postponed until a responsible age is reached. Adolescent Bohemianism, 'living oneself out,' 'self-expression,' and so forth, never get beyond the D.H. Lawrence stage among the younger set. How much physical hardship and moral confusion could be avoided if a similar arrangement among us could postpone sexual maturity until stimulated by an internal secretion from the fully established intellectual and moral convulsions of the brain! The loss of copy this would entail for Theodore Dreiser, William Faulkner, Ernest Hemingway, and others would be amply compensated for by gains in other directions." (134)

Again, writing about rats:

"Neither rat nor man has achieved social, commercial, or economic stability. This has been, either perfect or to some extent, achieved by ants and by bees, by some birds, and by some of the fishes in the sea. Man and the rat are merely, so far, the most successful animals of prey. They are utterly destructive of other forms of life. Neither of them is the slightest earthly use to any other species of living things. Bacteria nourish plans; plants nourish man and beast. Insects, in their well-organized societies, are destructive of one form of living creature, but helpful to another. Most other animals are content to lead peaceful and adjusted lives, rejoicing in vigor, grateful for this gift of living, and doing the minimum of injury to obtain the things they require. Man and the rat are utterly destructive. All that nature offers is taken for their own purposes, plant or beast." (154-155)

Finally, on page 173 of a 228-page book, Dr. Zinsser broaches the topic of typhus.

It is very clear (he even says it) that Dr. Zinsser was inspired by Tristram Shandy in writing his rambling, preambling "biography" of typhus, digging out interesting but unrelated topics when they interest him, burrowing around history for the first signs of its existence.

It's a bumpy but no less enjoyable ride for being so, and in its casual, layman's way seems ahead of its time. The only faults I had with it are there are sometimes no translations of long passages in another language (perhaps the average reading public knew more languages than I do back then) and it can be quite repetitive, though pleasantly repetitive, and the chronological order of events is totally bananas (Dr. Zinsser will talk about the Dark Ages and plague then go back and talk about diseases in ancient Greece.) Also, I'm not entirely sure what typhus is, or if it's even around anymore. But still, as a science book on a topic I usually show no interest in, it is a fascinating, intelligent, and well-written book.

[James Henderson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Zinsser's book, published in 1935, can be read as a modern adaptation of Laurence Sterne's The Life and Opinions of Tristam Shandy. It provides the reader with a picaresque description of how typhus outbreaks have influenced human history. In the days before antibiotics, he issued a challenge against germs that is still relevant today: "Infectious disease is one of the few genuine adventures left in the world." The lance is rusting in the chimney corner and the dragons are all dead. The war against those ferocious little fellow creatures, which lurk in dark corners and stalk us in the bodies of rats, mice, and all kinds of domestic animals; which fly and crawl with the insects, and which fly and crawl with the birds, is about the only sporting event that has not been negatively impacted by the relentless domestication of a once free-living human species.

Even though this book was written almost a century ago, it hasn't become any less interesting or funny. Hans Zinsser has created an eccentric view of history, rambling about rats, typhus, the Roman Empire, lice, and everything. You can't read it in one sitting, because you'll have to keep taking breaks to calm down from the experience. I liked the book because because I learned so much - this book is a classic microbiology textbook among other things. My favorite foonote was associated with a word I'd never heard -- it said, "If the reader does not know the meaning of this word, that is unfortunate." That gives you an inkling of what is in store for you if you choose to read this book.

[Veronica · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this book in college in a course called Disease in History. I can’t help but think of the course and the book in the current pandemic. I keep thinking how could our governments worldwide not know what can happen when a disease with no immunity explodes. History tells us. It has been so clear to me from the start, that it is startling. My knowledge comes from education. Our leaders need to ask the experts not rely their gut feelings.

[Daphne · Rating 5 out of 5]

Contains the best footnote ever: "If the reader does not understand the meaning of this word, that is too bad"

[Brian Clegg · Rating 3 out of 5]

This classic of popular science has just had a welcome reissue. I say popular science, but Hans Zinsser regularly claims his book is nothing of the sort, as 'we detest and have endeavoured to avoid [popular science]'. (The use of the royal 'we' is another of Zinsser's foibles.) Yet popular science it certainly is - his attempt to avoid the label seems to be because it was somewhat despised as a type of writing by academics in the 1930s when this book was written - and Zinsser wanted to make this more personal than popular science tended to be back then, hence his instance that the book was a 'biography' of the disease typhus.

Such is Zinsser's enthusiasm to underline this more arty, biographical approach, he spends the first couple of chapters not talking about typhus, but rather the range of the arts and sciences, their relationship and the point of biography. If you are interested in these topics (as I am) this is interesting and amusing (in part because of Zinsser's very obvious attempt to demonstrate his own breadth of interest and knowledge), if not what you'd expect in a book like this.

More surprisingly still, perhaps, it's not until chapter 13 that we really meet the disease typhus. Along the way, Zinsser teases us with little details, but then puts off the main topic as he dives into, for example, the natural history of the two main vectors of typhus, rats and lice. Finally, though, we do get a grounding in the nature of this unpleasant killer - as far as was possible, considering that a virus like typhus was too small to be seen under the microscopes of the day.

How you find this book will depend to an extent how you cope with Zinsser's whimsical and eccentric approach. I found the first 12 chapters more interesting than those on the disease itself (partly because of an aversion to things medical), but there's no doubt that his writing can still be amusing and interesting. You wouldn't read it as you might a modern equivalent to get the latest science - but you will certainly find out a lot about typhus and the conditions (including the wars and living conditions) that made it possible for it to exist and thrive in human hosts.

[Neal Alexander · Rating 3 out of 5]

Typhus is a group of diseases which are transmitted by the bites of lice, fleas or mites. They flourish in conditions of poor hygiene, such as in war or prison. In early modern England “gaol fever” was a synonym for typhus and, for example, after the 1577 “Black Assize” court in Oxford, more than 300 people died of typhus, including the Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer and the Lord High Sheriff.

The author, Zinsser, compares his book to Tristram Shandy in terms of the time it takes the protagonist to be born. Unfortunately, some of the preliminary material is just tiresome, such as musings about whether the book will ever be published and read, and footnoting the word “saprophyte” only to tell the reader that it’s “too bad” if they don’t know what it means. However, other preliminary material is worthwhile, in particular a kind of historiographical essay of what we can know (generally little) about historical epidemics, such as those we call the plagues of Athens (as told by Thucydides) and of Justinian.

Consistent with his trope of calling the book a biography, the author stresses that pathogens evolve to take advantage of changing environments of vectors (insects and mites) and of vertebrate hosts (humans, other mammals, and birds). Within this program it makes sense to include the description of syphilis as something which in time became relatively benign, at least compared to its gruesome morbidity when it was first known in late 15th century Europe.

On the other hand, such evolutionary ideas will be well known to potential readers, bearing in mind that it’s not intended as a popular science book (a genre which the author says he detests). So there might have been more value in the specific topic of typhus. But, unfortunately, cutting edge knowledge from the 1930s is not always helpful today, in fact it can be confusing.

In particular, Zinsser talks about the “murine type” and the “human type” of “true typhus” (as opposed to spotted fever rickettsiosis and Tsutsugamushi disease, the latter now usually being called scrub typhus). These murine and human types are now recognised as different diseases with different pathogen species and different vectors. The “human type” is what we now call louse-borne typhus or epidemic typhus, and its main transmission is between humans via the lice, as mentioned in the title of the book. Given that title, it may be surprising to read that “Typhus fever was born when the first infected rat flea fed upon a man”. (Here the protagonist is finally “born” over two thirds into the book, compared to about one third in the case of Tristram Shandy.) The idea is that the “birth” via the flea was a species jump from mouse to human. Whether or not such a jump ever occurred, we now recognise “murine typhus” or “endemic typhus” as a separate infection with its main cycle being between rats and fleas, and humans sometimes getting in the middle. The author talks about the typhus “virus” even though he previously said it was either a bacterium or protozoon: this is presumably just because “virus” was a more general term in the 1930s than it is now.

There are also some contemporary references which don’t stand the test of time, such as snide remarks about FD Roosevelt, and a contemporary New York city mayoral election. Finally, the author seems proud of himself to have caused someone to have been incarcerated for a night just so that a sympathetic policeman could harvest lice from him for the experimental use.

[Nick Davies · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very interesting content, but because of the writing style it was somewhat tough going. Nevertheless, this book represents a curious look at the history of infectious disease and public health. Some parts were unintentionally funny - the Philistines beating the Jewish in an ancient war by getting their Gods to strike the Jews down with a plague. But not a plague of pestilance or dysentry, oh no. Historians believe it was a epidemic of haemorrhoids.

[Dina · Rating 4 out of 5]

What an excellent book. Didn't expect to enjoy it so much. It's fascinating how human history including the destruction and creation of great civilizations was influenced by epidemics of infectious diseases. Its also fascinating how far back in history those diseases persisted in influencing the events in human history. Entertaining and fascinating read.

[Jason · Rating 4 out of 5]

Warfare has always been a part of human existence. So has disease. What if I were to tell you that the two are inextricably linked? That is the point that science historian Hans Zinsser attempts to prove in his semi-classic study Rats, Lice and History. While he makes a sweeping and somewhat superficial survey of Western civilization, he does have enough scientific credibility to prove his point.

This book does not get off to a great start. Although written in the 1930s, the author writes with a prose that resembles Victorian era essays using baroque sentences that meander on for a bit too long with elaborate detailing and excessive description. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, I happen to like some 19th century literature, but it feels a little out of place in the context of this mid-modern text. The first two chapters also left me wondering where the book would be going since they had almost nothing to do with rats, lice, or history. The second chapter, in particular, was a rant against modernist styles in literature where the author makes it clear that he has no appreciation for the likes of T.S. Eliot, Gertrude Stein, or James Joyce.

Moving on from there, Zinsser gives a lengthy overview of trade practices, disease, and warfare as they occurred in ancient times. We hear about the usual Greeks, Romans, and Christians up through the Middle Ages to the voyages of Columbus. By this point in my life I’m getting a little bored of every history scholar writing as if the world outside of Europe didn’t exist before World War II, but I just have to accept that that is how history used to be studied. In any case, the author points out that the use of ships for trade and war did a lot to spread disease since stowaway rats carried infected fleas that regarded the sailors as nothing more than food. Yes, like it or not, people are food.

One of the strongest points of the book’s first half is that diseases often weakened and killed more soldiers than combat actually did. He even goes so far as to make the point that disease could have been a more decisive factor in fighting than military strategy, skill, or execution. Now that is an idea that should deflate the myth of the courageous warrior. The science of the matter is that having large groups of people, be they confined on boats or engaging in military campaigns, in close proximity to each other make it easy for fleas and lice to spread sicknesses throughout the population at a rapid pace. Soldiers returning home or mingling with the people they conquer spread the diseases into the civilian population and then we have epidemics like the Black Death. You have to admit the idea is plausible and with Zinsser’s background in biology, he uses his knowledge of entomology to support the point.

After about one hundred pages of what eventually sounds like a bunch of babbling about wars, the narrative really takes off as Zinsser examines historical writings to locate the first mention of typhus. There isn’t much in the historical record that corresponds with the modern understanding of typhus symptoms and its origins are murky at best, but he develops a theory, one that he admits is not strong, that typhus originated in Asia and was spread by sea merchants to Western Europe via Cyprus during the Renaissance.

From there, Zinsser takes a big leap into the subject of human-animal relationships with chapters describing lice, mice, rats, and fleas which, along with humans, form a pentangonal track for typhus to travel along. His opinion of lice is surprisingly sympathetic while his take on rats is not so hot. Lice, he claims, are actually neutral vectors that catch typhus from humans. When they reproduce, they pass the typhus on to their offspring which spread among the human population and spread the disease further amongst humans. Typhus actually kills the host lice so spreading the disease does not benefit them in any way. They are innocent vermin that just happened to get caught in the crossfire of a war between humans and a disease. Rats, on the other hand, are nothing but pests according to the author. He thinks they serve no purpose in the world other than to cause problems. They are, in fact, part of the food chain and being the scavengers that they are, their ecological function in the world is to clean up the messes left by other creature like us. That is why they thrive in places that are full of human-made garbage. Useless? I hardly think so. But regardless of what you believe, the truth is that mice carry the fleas that transmit typhus to rats and those fleas transmit typhus to humans. The humans transmit it to lice and the lice transmit it to other humans. It’s a grim way of looking at people, but we do have to be reminded from time to time that we are not the magnificent species we claim to be. We might actually be little more than a dangerous parasite if looked at from Planet Earth’s point of view. In any case, this portion of the book is fascinating and brilliant; you can really see Zinsser at his best in these passages.

The rest of the book is all about typhus and he gets around to pointing out how bad of a problem it was during World War I. This brings up an interesting dilemma. If this book was inspired by the aftermath of World War I, is it fair to say that the event overly influenced the author in his analysis and conclusions? Or did the post-war realities shine a light onto a previously unexplored matter of human history, medical science, and entomology? I can’t say for myself because I know absolutely nothing about typhus or the science of epidemics. But I can say this book made me look at humanity in a new light which is saying a lot considering the thousands of books I have read in my lifetime.

Since the 1930s, scientists have learned a lot about typhus and other illnesses so it is fair to assume that some of the information in this book is dated. But Rats, Lice and History poses a significant question about human nature and our history. If wars are the primary way in which diseases spread and become epidemics or pandemics, wouldn’t it make sense to fight less of them or even eliminate them altogether? I have no idea how we could accomplish that, but if that question is the biggest takeaway you can get from this book, then the message transcends any dated scientific ideas it may contain. I’d say that the way Hans Zinsser presented just enough evidence to make that question stick in my mind is reason enough for it to be worth reading, even almost one hundred years after its initial publication.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

Best biology book I ever read. Beautiful, ornate style that reminds me of Swift and Defoe. Fascinating details. Nero Wolf was caught reading it once when he was away from the Orchid rooms, which is a recommendation in itself. The idea of a disease as being like a single organism that spans space and time in a single body and has always been with us is irresistible. I keep up with developments in microbiology as a hobby, although I don't normally do hobbies which are usually associated with pastimes such as chess, knitting and cookery...

[Lobo]

Kiedy książka ma masę ciekawych informacji, ale autor jest dupkiem. Wszystko, co było przedstawianiem faktów historycznych - bardzo interesujące. Wszystkie subiektywne dygresje autora (czyli solidne 30% książki)? Droga przez mękę. Zinsser nie powinien wypowiadać się o modernizmie w sztuce, a najlepiej wszystkie swoje poglądy zatrzymać dla siebie, bardzo prywatnie, jak gloryfikacja Corteza (sic!). Zdecydowanie za mało szczurów.

[Maaike van Stratum · Rating 3 out of 5]

Het begin entertainend, zake toen wat in, maar aan het eind was het wel weer aardig.

[Kris Raah · Rating 4 out of 5]

An appropriate book to read during our current virus crisis. And what else is there to do during my self inforced social distancing BUT READ READ READ

[Rita · Rating 3 out of 5]

c 1935
I have Pocket Book edition August 1945
"This is a wartime book...in compliance with the government's regulations for conserving paper..."

When Renee saw this little book on my bookshelves she was rather excited. Had read it long ago and wanted to get reacquainted.
Indeed he writes amusingly. A very personal style [except referring to himself as WE]. The technical details got a little too complicated for me, but his point that diseases have killed many more soldiers than guns is made very well. A lot of interesting historical examples.

He has respect for Russia and for Russian scientists.
235: "There are no words to record the dreadful sufferings of the Russian people from 1917 to 1921. We are concerned with TYPHUS ALONE. From the careful and conservative calculations of Tarassewitch, it is likely that, during these years, there were no less, and probably more, than 25 million cases of typhus in the territories controlled by the Soviet Republic, with from 2 1/2 to 3 million deaths."
210 "1566 - Vienna suffered the most severe typhus outbreak of its history. Ever since that time typhus has remained ENDEMIC in Hungary, the Balkan states, and the adjoining territories of Poland and Russia. These are still, at the present day, the HOME STATIONS from which modern European epidemics take origin."

229 "It is a curious and heartening fact that international cooperation in the prevention of epidemics placidly continues, however hostile or competitive other relationship may become. Now [1935] -- while the world is an armed camp of suspicion and hatred, and nations are doing their best to push each other out of world markets, to foment revolutions and steal each other's military secrets -- organized government agencies are exchanging information concerning epidemic diseases; bacteriologists, epidemiologists and health administrators are consulting each other and freely interchanging views, materials, and methods, from Russia to South America... It is perhaps not generally known that for several years, during the most turbulent period of the Russian Revolution, the **only** official relationship which existed between that unfortunate country and the rest of Europe consisted in the interchange of information bearing on the prevention of epidemic disease, arranged in cooperation by the Health Commission of the League of Nations and the Soviet government."
157 "From the point of view of all other living creatures, the [brown, now common] rat is an unmitigated nuisance and pest. There is nothing that can be said in its favor. It can live anywhere and eat anything. It burrows for itself when it has to, but when it can it takes over the habitations of other animals, such as rabbits, and kills them and their young. It climbs and it swims.
It carries diseases of man and animals -- plague, typhus, tichinella spiralis, rat-bite fever, infectious jaundice... Its destructiveness is almost unlimited...Man and the rat will always be pitted against each other as implacable enemies. And the rat's most potent weapons against mankind have been its perpetual maintenance of the infectious agents of plague and of typhus fever."
162 "Neither rat nor man has achieved social, commercial or economic stability. This has been achieved by ants and by bees, by some birds, and some fishes. Man and the rat are merely, so far, the most successful *animals of prey*. They are utterly destructive of other forms of life. Neither of them is of the slightest earthly use to any other species of living thing....Man and the rat are utterly destructive. All that nature offers is taken for their own purposes, plant or beast."
146 "The louse will never be completely exterminated, and there will always be occasions when it will spread widely to large sections of even the most sanitated populations. And as long as it exists, the possibility of typhus epidemics remains."

[Melanie Chartoff · Rating 5 out of 5]

I’ve been continuously captivated by this insightful book on the origins of typhus by Hans Zinnser. It’s informative, shocking and quite funny in places. Considering it’s publishing date of 1935. It’s remarkably hip to human nature in 2024, just past the worst pandemic of my particular lifetime. How lucky we have been, due to the evolution of hygiene and the sharing of results between scientist of all countries to escape the scourges that killed so much of humanity, and won so many wars, and defeated so many brilliant leaders.
I highly recommend this book to non-scientists of all stripes.

[Inder · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thanks to Happyreader, I realized my review of this book is associated with a totally obscure and out-of-print edition. So that no one will ever actually see my review, and I can't easily compare mine with others'. Since I really, really love this book, I'm moving my review.
_____________________________

A must read for anyone interested in biology, or science, or language, or good writing, or life in general, this is one of my all-time favorites. After many non-sequitors about a variety of topics, the author finally gets around to explaining, in engaging, lucid detail, why human history is actually the history of bacterias, viruses, fleas, lice, and, yes, the occasional rat.

This is the precurser to "Guns, Germs, and Steel," but it's funnier. But beware, the first couple of chapters are very weird. Don't give up!

This book made me want to become an epidemiologist. It's still one of my back-up plans.

[Hannelore · Rating 2 out of 5]

As much as I dislike to give this book such a low rating, I feel that I must. While the book is actually very well written it meanders through multiple other topics before arriving at the self professed subject shortly after the 200th page. For a book the author calls a biography of Typhus it discusses everything from the difference between science and art to multiple other plagues and their effects on history before briefly introducing the reader to the subject for a short period that still wildly tangents. Thus the low rating.

[Victor Sonkin · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a very famous and much-lauded book; I was very anxious about finally reading it. Well, it does not deliver. Its beginning does not make any sense at all; it has not aged gracefully; the biological nature of typhus (which is actually the subject of the book) is left rather unclear; all that from a scientist who was a major figure in typhus studies, responsible for identifying one of its types! A necessary classic, yes, but that's it.

[Joyce · Rating 4 out of 5]

An unusual and fascinating read. Discovered this early edition amongst my husband's old finds from library sales. Written in an interesting style, lots of details, but not too scientific. Loved the Author's viewpoints on life written from a perspective just after World War I. Many of his observations would still be relevant today. Thank G for good sanitation and sanitation engineers!

[Dan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Probably more interesting as a historical document about how scholars looked at disease and the world in the 1930s than as actual history, but the book remains influential in the field, as far as I can tell.

[Zanna · Rating 4 out of 5]

Taking disease as his spectacles for an analysis of the history of civilization, Zinsser's lively odyssey throws light on events and cultural tropes in a highly entertaining way. Deservedly a classic

[kubby]

got this on my table at the studio for when i need a break; picked it up at the hart library for a buck!

[Peter · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a very good and authoritative account of the spread of disease by a master historian of science. Originally published in the 1930s the book has a classic feel to the language and structure.

[Ergative Absolutive · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a remarkable book -- not so much for its accomplishment of what it promises on the cover ('A bacteriologist's classic history of mankind's epic struggle to conquer the scourge of typhus'), but for 1) its insight into the world of medical science in 1934 (when it was written) and 2) the author's delightful rambling personality. We get very little actually about typhus, but quite a lot about the problems with biographers these days (too Freudian); the distinction between art and science with commentary about the silly modernists these days (especially Gertrude Stein); a fond, affectionate description of the life cycle of the louse; chapters upon chapters upon chapters of discussion of histroical epidemics that are not any of them typhus, with chapter headings saying things like, 'This, we promise, is the last serious digression from our main theme'; and then a few chapters later, which still is not yet about typhus, 'The need for this chapter will be apparent to those who have entered into the spirit of this biography'.

Accompanying these more light-hearted commentaries are digressions in which Zinsser makes his political view clear. He never loses an opportunity to comment on how bankers are parasites upon the worker; or, oddly, to criticise the New Deal, and he becomes remarkably eloquent on the horrors of war, and how it is diseases, rather than military strategy, that are often deciding factors.

One does not read this book to learn about typhus. There actually isn't all that much about typhus in it, and I'm sure a modern book of popular science (a genre which Zinsser despises, for which reason he gives very little information about what is known scientifically about the disease; how discoveries of its spread and action were made, or anything of that sort) would be much more effective in teaching the reader about the disease itself. But from the perspective of 2024, this 90-year-old book is a remarkable window into the personality of a passionate and peevish bacteriologist.

[YHC · Rating 4 out of 5]

“流感”最开始被称作“昏睡症”，“狂犬病”最早被当做“舞蹈病”，鼠疫最早被称为“黑死病”……人类在突发的“新疾病”面前，除了认识程度不断增加之外，自身的抵抗力也在不断加强，但没有取得进化的，则是人类自身的贪婪和残暴。

正如汉斯教授在《老鼠、虱子和历史》这本书中指出的那样：

刀剑、长矛、弓箭、机关枪，甚至是烈性炸药，对一个民族的命运所造成的影响，都远远不及传播伤寒的体虱、传播鼠疫的跳蚤和传播黄热病的蚊子！



目录 · · · · · ·
前言
第一章 澄清与致歉
在人类历史的长河中，传染病未曾引起诗人、艺术家以及历史学家的注意。刀剑、长矛、弓箭、机关枪，甚至是烈性炸药，对一个民族的命运所造成的影响，都远远不及传播伤寒的体虱、传播鼠疫的跳蚤和传播黄热病的蚊子。

第二章 科学与艺术的关系
在美国存在着一种偏见，即专家们不应该越过他们自己的“围场”（领域），不管他们多么有兴趣越过围栏去看看外面的世界。然而，文学批评家总是对科学说三道四，发表诸如“科学不应该受到盲目的追捧”之类的观点。

第三章 生命的起源
泰勒斯认为水是一切生物的生命之源，生命起源于温暖的泥泞和海底的淤泥。古希腊哲学家阿那克萨哥拉（Anaxagoras）认为，生命起源于雨水，是雨水将能够生长发育的种子，从宇宙太空中带到了地球上。

第四章 寄生现象
寄生现象起源于远古时代，是不同生物之间习惯性接触的结果。它并不是一蹴而就的，而是逐渐发展演化而来的。从根本上说，寄生现象意味着打破对立——通常情况下，每一个活的细胞复合体都会被另一个生命体入侵。

第五章 新型疾病
我们倾向于相信，如果一种病毒之前没有感染过人类，那么它一定是一种新的疾病。更具可能性的是，在很多情况下，新的疾病代表着宿主与寄生生物之间的、一种之前不为人知的生物关系。

第六章 传染病
在医学与传染病的斗争中，人类取得的最大成就，就是发现在流行病间歇期间，潜在的疾病介质可以潜伏在人类、家养动物以及昆虫等载体上。

第七章 传染病与罗马帝国的衰亡
关于罗马帝国的瓦解，任何一个可能的角度，人们都已经分析过了，因为没有什么比一个古代文明的消亡更称得上是巨大的历史谜团了。何况罗马帝国的消亡是如此的彻底，以至于在数百年野蛮人的黑暗统治之下，竟然没有一丝火花闪耀。

第八章 传染病对政治史、军事史的影响
425年，匈奴人之所以放弃了向君士坦丁堡的进军，是因为一种未知的瘟疫摧毁了他们的部落。
十字军东征所遇到的困难，与其说是阿拉伯人的军事力量，倒不如说是流行病。十字军东征的历史，读起来像是一系列传染病的编年史。

第九章 虱子的进化
虱子也并非总是需要依靠宿主才能生存的生物。它们曾经是一种热爱自由的生物，当其他昆虫向它们打招呼时，它们能够用复眼望着对方，对之报以微笑。这是比《独立宣言》的颁布还要遥远许久的事儿了，因为虱子花了好几个世纪才放弃它的个人主义。

第十章 虱子与人类
自从人类存在以来，虱子就成了我们密不可分的伙伴。与其他的寄生生物不同，除非出现意外和灾难，否则虱子永远也不会离开它的宿主。

第十一章 大鼠，而非小鼠
自抵达之日起，大鼠就以迅雷不及掩耳之势，迅速蔓延至整个欧洲，其传播速度甚至比白人席卷美洲的速度还要快。在13世纪末以前，大鼠已经成为一种有害动物。

第十二章 斑疹伤寒的家庭关系和直系祖先
和其他的立克次氏体病一样，斑疹伤寒两种变种的病毒，都是通过昆虫传播给人类的。体虱和头虱携带着病毒，从一个人身上蹦到另一个人身上。

第十三章 斑疹伤寒的诞生、童年和青年时期
我们推测在斑疹伤寒还未发展为流行病、不为人类所知之前，它就以单独的、地方性的、大鼠—人类或小鼠—人类的形式存在了数百年。

第十四章 斑疹伤寒早期流行史探究
在东方，斑疹伤寒从地方性传染病发展成流行病的时间，可能要比欧洲早一些。而且有证据表明，最早记载的非常严重的欧洲流行病，是被从塞浦路斯返回西班牙的士兵们带来的。

第十五章 斑疹伤寒的成年时期
我们相信匈牙利战争及其后果创造了这样的环境，使斑疹伤寒有机会通过虱子，在不间断的循环中从一个人身上传播到另一个人身上，跳过老鼠—跳蚤传播阶段，并使寄生生物牢固地适应人类—虱子—人类的传播形式。

第十六章 当代人的评价以及未来的畅想
直到1840年左右，美国才有了浴缸的身影。公共澡堂缺乏卫生的洗衣设施，其传播疾病的可能性和控制疾病的可能性一样大。学校、监狱和各种公共集会场所也缺少预防疾病传染的相关规定。

[Michael Reilly · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was originally published in 1934.The edition I read was not the one pictured above. I read a Bantam Classic paperback that sold for 50 cents when it was published in 1960. I picked it up as a second hand book years ago. This seemed like a good time to finally read a book with the wonderful subtitle above.

Zinnsser takes advantage of typhus fever to indulge in a leisurely walk around the history of man and disease with multiple digressions to look at whatever interests him. The big story he tells is the overwhelming effect of disease on human history. He concludes his section on the effect of disease on wars by explaining;

"Soldiers have rarely won wars. They only mop up after the barrage of epidemics...The epidemics get the blame for defeat and generals the credit for victory. It ought to be the other way around."

One of the great pleasures of the book is the casual asides he drops. "Most scholars agree that there is no reliable mention of rats- as such- in classical literature.". He ends a learned note on the "long cyclic swings of history" by asking, in 1934,"Does Mr. Roosevelt and his brain trusters realize this?" Another footnote to the word "saprophyte" reads, "If the reader does not understand this word, too bad."

Underneath all of the fun about deadly epidemics, Zinnsser emphasizes the exact same lessons we are re-learning now. Diseases are very clever. Herd immunity is a horrific approach. Epidemics bring out the best and worst in people. Epidemics feed fear of outsiders. The real progress in fighting epidemics is made by scientist.

He takes most of the book to finally get to typhus. When he gets there it becomes clear that typhus is a fascinating disease that travels back and forth between rats, mice, mammals and men.

This is a civilized, worldly, slightly cynical book. It is hard to picture this kind of book being written today.