Tag: history

  • “Why should we fix our eyes on this spot only?”

    A sheet of stickers with an image of a crown within a heart and the words "I've had my COVID vaccination"
    Stickers given out to people in the UK after receiving their COVID-19 vaccination

    Recently I’ve been prone to thinking that things are looking bleak for vaccination, that wonder of science which is estimated to have saved 154 million lives since 1974. There’s the global increase in incidences of vaccine-preventable diseases (the much-reported surge in measles cases, yes, but also pertussis, diphtheria, polio in Gaza, and, in Africa, meningitis and yellow fever) and the declining vaccination rates that have fuelled this. There are the cuts to public health spending and overseas aid that are disrupting vaccination programmes and which will only serve to further prevent people from receiving these lifesaving interventions. And, although I am keen to emphasise that this is not just about anti-vaccination activists, we have to acknowledge that the appointment of an anti-vaccine US health secretary is scary (and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s actions since taking office have done nothing to alleviate this concern, from cutting $500 million worth of grants into mRNA vaccine research to calling for a medical journal to retract a paper showing there are no health risks in using aluminium in vaccines, and that’s just this month).

    It’s easy to imagine that these are, as they say, ‘unprecedented times’. But, as someone who’s spent a large chunk of my working life dealing with the history of vaccination, I can tell you we’ve been here before. Vaccination has, from its very beginnings, suffered this same mixture of apathy, poor execution, and outright hostility.

    In 1805, just nine years after Edward Jenner’s first vaccination using the disease cowpox to protect against the feared smallpox, Dr William Rowley published Cow-pox inoculation no security against small-pox infection. In this pamphlet he railed against “the effects of the diseases of brute beasts incorporated into the human constitution” and reported a fellow doctor’s observation of the face of a young patient which, shortly after vaccination,  “seemed to be in a state of transforming, and assuming the visage of a cow.” That medic was Dr Benjamin Moseley who had, in 1804, published a Treatise on the lues bovilla, or, cow pox, a deliberately provocative title that falsely linked cowpox with syphilis. Rowley and Moseley were not to be the last medical practitioners to publish spurious claims about vaccination.

    Resistance was also found outside of the medical profession. As early as 1800, Jenner received a report of vaccinated individuals in Hadleigh, Suffolk being attacked with stones if they left their houses. Later, as compulsory vaccination started to be introduced around the world, opposition grew and became more organised. In 1885 an anti-vaccination rally in Leicester attracted, according to contemporary reports, some 80,000 to 100,000 people and an effigy of Edward Jenner was subjected to a mock execution. That same year, in Montréal, a riot occurred when smallpox vaccination was made compulsory in the city in response to an outbreak.

    And yet, when Jenner’s friend wrote to him outlining his concerns about the likely impact of early anti-vaccination activism, the pioneering doctor’s response was buoyant. “Why should we fix our eyes on this spot only?” He then listed places around the world where vaccination was thriving: Europe, America, India, and Sri Lanka (Ceylon, as Jenner knew it) where Jenner was pleased to share a report of 30,000 people being vaccinated.

    In Hope In The Dark, Rebecca Solnit describes hope as “an embrace of the essential unknowability of the world, of the breaks with the present, the surprises.” We are encouraged in this through study of history, of the significant changes in society, of the progressive victories brought about through activism. Here we take the broader perspective, like I think Jenner did.

    In this vein, the history of vaccination gives me cause for hope. In 1802 Jenner predicted that “the annihilation of the small-pox, the most dreadful scourge of the human species, must be the final result of this practice.” Less than two centuries later, in 1980, the World Health Organisation did indeed declare that smallpox had been eradicated, the result of an international campaign of vaccination.

    That’s not to say that the current path of vaccination is not troubling and distressing. Indeed, as Solnit notes, “hope doesn’t mean denying these realities… grief and hope can co-exist”.

    Smallpox was eradicated despite anti-vaccination sentiment. Despite the kind of indifference that led the Thornbury Medical Officer of Health to write in 1952, “I think it is also relevant to mention the low figure of vaccination against Smallpox in the County as a whole, and especially in this District, which contains the home town of Jenner”. Despite seemingly overwhelming logistical and resourcing challenges. Despite the world being overshadowed by the Cold War, and indeed only because the USSR made the case that they continued to have smallpox outbreaks notwithstanding their strict border procedures and successful vaccination programme (surely a lesson for today’s ‘country-first’ politicians?).

    The eradication of smallpox is one of the great triumphs of vaccination and public health. In 184 years, humanity was able to wipe out a disease that had haunted us for thousands of years. But it’s not the only one.

    The first vaccine against polio was licensed in 1955 in the US. That year there were 28,985 cases of the disease in the country and 1,043 deaths. By 1957 there were 5,485 cases and 221 deaths. By 1965, only ten years after the start of the nationwide vaccination campaign, the number of cases in the US had reduced to 61. This in spite of confidence being rocked by the Cutter Incident, in which 40,000 children contracted polio from a defective batch of the vaccine just weeks after the first vaccinations. In 1988, when the WHO commenced a global campaign to eradicate polio, there were an estimated 350,000 cases of wild poliovirus worldwide. Last year, there were 99. Wild poliovirus has gone from being endemic in 125 countries to 2. Throughout this initiative, health professionals have had to contend with distrust and misinformation that has led to the halting of the campaign in various communities and the very real risks posed to vaccination workers.

    The fight against diphtheria is another work in progress. In the 1930s it was a leading cause of child death in England and Wales. In 1942, when routine vaccination was introduced, there were 41,404 cases of the disease in England and Wales, with 1,827 deaths. By 1950 there were just 962 cases and 49 deaths. In 2024, 85% of children worldwide received the necessary three doses of diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (DTP) vaccine, up from 72% at the turn of the millennium. Look how far we have come.

    New innovations are further changing the ways in which we can imagine vaccination. We now have vaccines that can protect against cancer; in the UK the HPV vaccine has been responsible for a nearly 90% reduction in cervical cancer in those who have been vaccinated. And of course there are the huge advances in technology that allowed vaccines against COVID-19 to be available just months after the first case of the disease. In the first year of the vaccination programme alone, COVID-19 vaccines were estimated to have prevented 19.8 million deaths worldwide. Now, 13.64 billion doses of COVID-19 vaccine have been administered around the world despite issues around equitable access, misinformation spread on social media, and activists disrupting vaccination programmes.

    These achievements were only possible through the actions of countless individuals (and Solnit reminds us that “hope and action feed each other”). For Edward Jenner his hope led to a commitment to free access to vaccination, long hours spent writing to correspondents throughout the world, and work building trust amongst members of his community. More recently, I think of the 100,000 volunteers who supported the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine in England, of health officials in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, Pakistan, who have set themselves the ambitious target of vaccinating 90% of children aged under two against twelve diseases by 2027 (vaccination rates in the province currently stand at 55%), and of Khadija Maalim, a Somali social media influencer whose TikTok videos challenge misinformation being spread by groups like Al-Shabaab. I also think of the US state officials who are successfully contesting RFK Jr.’s health grant cuts in court, the CDC leaders who have resigned in protest at the Trump administration’s approach to vaccine policy and misinformation, and the staff who gathered to applaud them for doing so.

    We must remember that the majority of people still support vaccination (a study this year found that 85% of UK parents believe that vaccines are safe, an increase from 84% in 2023). And that even in those countries where support for vaccination isn’t as strong, a high proportion of children are still receiving the necessary vaccines (in Latvia in 2023, 46% of people disagreed that vaccines were safe and yet 98% of children received the full course of DTP vaccines). It’s also worth pointing out that, against the backdrop of the US measles outbreak, more people in Texas and New Mexico got their MMR vaccination than in the same period last year.

    Where will hope take us today? A few years ago, I attended a panel discussion in which Professor Helen Bedford, a leading authority on childhood vaccination, declared “we need some more noisy pro-vaccine activism”. She was right. The anti-vaccination movement is organised; we must be too. Let’s talk more about vaccination, tell stories about the way it has changed the world for the better, of the lives saved. Let’s give space for our vaccine hesitant friends and relatives to talk about their concerns, pointing them to trusted sources of information. Let’s badger our elected representatives to ensure they are holding our governments to account in supporting science and providing proper funding to do the things we known that work, both at home and abroad: vaccines delivered where people are in ways that are convenient for them to access, opportunities for people to have conversations with community health workers, education in schools and throughout life. And let’s challenge individualistic and nationalistic understandings of human health, to remind people that, in the words of Eula Biss, “immunity is a shared space – a garden we tend together.”

  • Words for the ploughman

    The Tyndale Monument, a tall stone tower with a pitched roof, in evening light.
    Tyndale Monument by Saffron Blaze (licenced under CC BY-SA 3.0)

    On a hill above the Gloucestershire village of North Nibley sits a Victorian monument to a local son who had a profound impact on religion, society, and culture. His name was William Tyndale.

    Although the details of his early life are unknown, it is widely believed that Tyndale was born either in North Nibley or in neighbouring Stinchcombe in the late 1400s. The Tyndale family in this area were influential and well-connected, and it seems likely that young William had a relatively privileged upbringing. Tyndale’s studies took him to the University of Oxford, from where he obtained a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1512. After this he was ordained as a priest and may well have returned to his native Gloucestershire at this point to take up a role in a chantry chapel, although others have suggested that in this period Tyndale was furthering his studies at Cambridge.

    Tyndale was certainly back in Gloucestershire by 1521, when he took up the role of chaplain and tutor to the family of Sir John Walsh at Little Sodbury. This position must have offered him plenty of opportunities to write and study, and to share his opinions with the local clergy and dignitaries who came to dine with Walsh’s household. Tyndale also preached in the open air at St Austin’s Green in Bristol. Tyndale’s ideas were, however, controversial. During one discussion, he is reported to have stated “I defy the Pope… and all his laws and if God spare my life ere many years I will cause a boy that driveth the plough shall know more of the Scripture than thou dost.” It was his firm conviction that English people should be allowed to read the Bible in their own language, rather than it only being available in Latin. This was not a new idea, a century before Tyndale’s birth the Lollards had called for scripture to be translated into the vernacular and an English-language Bible had been published, a translation of the Latin Vulgate Bible. However, Tyndale wanted to go further and to directly translate from the Bible’s original languages.

    In 1523, finding his beliefs under increased scrutiny in Gloucestershire, Tyndale moved to London and then a year later to mainland Europe. In 1526 he was finally able to realise his goal and publish a translation of the New Testament. Although initially easily available in England, Cardinal Wolsey soon ordered that copies of Tyndale’s New Testament should be seized and burned. Tyndale became a wanted man but, despite the risks, continued to refine and revise his New Testament and begin translating the first few books of the Old Testament. His work was cut short in 1535, however, when Tyndale was captured and arrested. On 6 October 1536 he was executed as a heretic at Vilvoorde.

    Tyndale was a true radical. Not only did his work, for the first time, allow the English to read and hear scripture directly translated into their own language from its original texts, it also challenged the many ways in which the Latin Vulgate translation had been used to prop up the structures and hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. Here one word could make all the difference. In Latin the Greek word ‘ekklesia’ had been translated as ‘Church’ and the word ‘presbyteros’ as ‘priest’, but Tyndale instead chose the more people-focussed ‘congregation’ and ‘elder’, respectively. Furthermore, Tyndale sought to democratise the translation exercise, using the preface to the 1526 edition of his New Testament to encourage readers to make amendments to his work where they felt he might have been deficient.

    A radical definitely, but a rural radical? It’s interesting to ponder the various influences on Tyndale and his work and wonder whether his rural upbringing may have contributed to his vision. Certainly, Tyndale himself appears to have acknowledged that the seeds of his life’s work were planted during his early education in Gloucestershire, writing “I read when I was a child thou shalt find in the English chronicle how the king Athelstan caused the Holy Scripture to be translated into the tongue that was then in England and how the prelates exhorted him thereunto.” Tyndale’s translation was also distinctively rural, making use of Gloucestershire dialect and writing in a manner more akin to spoken English, and perhaps the spoken English of the Vale of Berkeley, than the literary English of the time. Tyndale biographer David Daniell has argued that Tyndale’s use of the word ‘elder’ rather than ‘priest’ when translating ‘presbyteros’ reflected his experience of society in a Gloucestershire village.

    Tyndale’s work lives on. Many of us will have heard readings from the 1611 King James translation of the Bible, including recently during the coronation of King Charles III and Queen Camilla, and this borrowed extensively from Tyndale’s earlier translations. 93% of the New Testament in the King James Bible is Tyndale’s work, along with 85% of the first five books of the Old Testament. This means that some of our everyday phrases are Tyndale’s. Whenever we describe someone as “broken-hearted” or “the salt of the earth”, or when we talk about “the powers that be”, we are quoting Tyndale and the words and speech patterns of our ancestors. And yet, perhaps this is not in the spirit of Tyndale’s vision. After all, he wanted to see a living and accessible translation of the Bible written in language that people used in everyday life. As beautiful as it is, the insistence of some sections of society to cling to the King James Bible for use in church services and larger public occasions makes it a symbol of the established way of doing things rather than the radical and inclusive tool it once was.


    References and further reading

    Melvyn Bragg. William Tyndale: A very brief history. London: SPCK, 2017.

    Brian Buxton. “William Tyndale in Gloucestershire”. Transactions of the Bristol & Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, 131 (2013): 189-198.

    David Daniell. William Tyndale: A Biography. New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1994.

    The Tyndale Society. “William Tyndale’s Life and Work”. The Tyndale Society. Accessed May 30, 2023. http://www.tyndale.org/tyndale.htm

    William Tyndale. The Obedience of a Christian Man. London: Penguin Books, 2000.

    Roland Whitehead. “William Tyndale, Gloucester’s Fame and England’s Shame”. The Tyndale Society. Accessed May 23, 2023. http://www.tyndale.org/tsj08/whitehead.html

  • The Ascott Martyrs

    Ascott-under-Wychwood church surrounded by tombstones
    Ascott-under-Wychwood church by Philip Halling (licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0)

    In May 1873, a group of women from the small Oxfordshire village of Ascott-under-Wychwood sparked a national conversation which defied Victorian expectations of the role of women. Rather than being a discussion about, say, domestic issues or family life, they started a dialogue about draconian anti-picketing laws and the role women could play in industrial disputes. They were the Ascott Martyrs, among them Amelia Moss, Ann Moss, Ann Susan Moss, Caroline Moss, Charlotte Moss, Elizabeth Pratley, Ellen Pratley, Fanny Honeybone, Jane Moss, Lavinia Dring, Martha Moss, Martha Smith, Mary Moss, another Mary Moss, Mary Pratley, and Rebecca Smith.

    Just one year earlier, Warwickshire hedger and ditcher Joseph Arch had formed the National Agricultural Labourers’ Union to represent the interests of rural workers. By May 1872 the Oxford District of the Union had over 500 members. The following year one of the Union’s early acts in the area was to request that workers’ wages be increased by two shillings a week. In Ascott-under-Wychwood the first farmer to be asked was Robert Hambidge, who had the tenancy of the village’s largest farm, Crown Farm. Hambidge was not entirely dismissive of the request but offered the extra two shillings only to the most productive workers rather than everyone. This was counter to the Union’s aims and, as a result, Hambidge’s workers gave notice of their intention to strike. Soon the strike at Crown Farm had spread to the other farms in the village.

    Some weeks later on 12 May, keen for farm work to continue but still unwilling to change his stance, Hambidge employed two young men, John Hodgkins and John Millin, from a neighbouring village to hoe a pea field. On hearing about this, a group of women from Ascott-under-Wychwood decided that they would head to the field themselves to try to prevent the men from breaking the strike and undermining the Union. In effect, they were picketing.

    Hodgkins and Millin returned to the farm stating that they were unable to work and so, in the absence of Hambidge, his wife sent for the local constable who came to disperse the women, noting down the names of seventeen of them. On his return from Stow Fair the furious Hambidge decided to bring a private prosecution against the identified women, under the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1871 which had made picketing illegal. On 21 May the seventeen women appeared before the magistrates in Chipping Norton and sixteen of them were convicted of intimidating Hodgkins and Millin and attempting to prevent them from going about their employment. Hambidge insisted that the women must face the most severe punishment possible. And so it was that seven of the women from Ascott-under-Wychwood were sentenced to ten days in prison with hard labour, while the other nine faced seven days, again with hard labour. Two of the women had young babies who they would have to take into prison with them.

    The details of the case soon found their way into local and national newspapers and, before long, the matter was being discussed in Parliament. Particular concerns were raised about the fact the sentence included hard labour. There is a popular story that Queen Victoria herself heard of the women’s plight and granted a full pardon, along with a petticoat to each woman, but there seems to be no truth in this. Instead on 29 May, the Home Secretary made a surprising intervention and sent a telegram to the Governor of Oxford Prison telling him to remit the hard labour. By this point, however, nine of the women had already been released and the remaining seven only had two days left to serve of their sentence.

    When all the women were finally released there were celebrations along their route home. Back in the village, Joseph Arch presented each woman with £5 raised by public subscription. The suffering of the Ascott Martyrs, as they became known, had turned into a triumph. But there was more to come.

    Two years later the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1871 was repealed through the introduction of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875. Early calls for reform cited this story as evidence of the injustice of the 1871 Act and union representatives at the time stated that the Ascott Martyrs had played a significant role in the legalisation of picketing. That picketing continues to be such an integral part of industrial action is thanks in no small part to the sixteen women from Ascott-under-Wychwood.

    More than a century later, the right of some workers to strike is under threat and it seems perfectly conceivable that new anti-picketing legislation could soon follow. Whilst the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill specifically targets those employed in health, education, fire and rescue, border force, nuclear decommissioning, and transport, there is no doubt that it threatens us all. The right to strike is a right to desire a better future for yourself and for others, and to put the common good above actions which benefit only a select few. Let’s not forget the people, like the Ascott Martyrs, who achieved this for us, and do all we can to defend their legacy.


    References and further reading

    Carol Anderson. “The Ascott Martyrs”. YouTube video posted by “TolpuddleMartyrs1834”. September 8, 2022. Accessed March 29, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CSo317lOmE

    Mary Davis. “Timeline 1850 – 1880”. TUC History Online. Accessed March 27, 2023. http://www.unionhistory.info/timeline/1850_1880.php

    Laura Lys. “The Ascott Martyrs: Early Pioneers of the Trade Union Movement”. Museum of Oxford. Accessed March 27, 2023. https://museumofoxford.org/the-ascott-martyrs-early-pioneers-of-the-trade-union-movement

    Wendy Pearse. “Defiant Women”. Ascott Martyrs Educational Trust. Accessed March 15, 2023. https://www.ascottmartyrs.co.uk/defiant-women

    The Museum of English Rural Life. “The Evolution of Rural Protest”. University of Reading. Accessed March 29, 2023. https://merl.reading.ac.uk/explore/online-exhibitions/evolution-rural-protest/

    Tim Sharp. “Fighting the anti-strike law”. Trades Union Congress. Accessed March 27, 2023. https://www.tuc.org.uk/blogs/fighting-anti-strike-law