“The Great Fire of London ended the plague”

It is a widely held belief that the devastating Great Fire of London in 1666 brought a swift end to the rampant plague that had gripped the city. This idea suggests a silver lining to the tragedy, implying the fire somehow purged London of the disease. However, historical evidence clearly shows that this popular notion is a misconception.

In reality, the Great (Review) Plague was already in significant decline months before the fire ever broke out. The peak of the epidemic occurred in September 1665, a full year prior to the blaze, with mortality rates falling sharply through the winter of 1665 and into early 1666. By February 1666, the number of new plague cases had dropped considerably, and King Charles II even felt it was safe to return to London. Furthermore, the fire primarily destroyed the walled City of London, while many of the areas worst affected by the plague, particularly the overcrowded poorer parishes outside the city walls like Whitechapel and Southwark, remained untouched by the flames. Records also indicate that isolated cases of plague continued to appear even after the fire.

The enduring belief in this myth likely stems from the close proximity of the two catastrophic events and the fact that the 1665-1666 outbreak was indeed the last major plague epidemic in England. It created a compelling, albeit incorrect, narrative of cause and effect. The plague's actual decline was more complex, influenced by factors such as the natural course of the epidemic, the onset of colder weather which reduced flea activity, and potentially some level of herd immunity developing within the population. While the post (Review)-fire rebuilding efforts did lead to some improvements in sanitation and urban planning, these changes contributed more to preventing future outbreaks than ending the one already subsiding.