“The Great Fire of London ended the plague”

Many people believe that the devastating Great Fire of London in 1666 brought an end to the Great Plague that had ravaged the city. This common misconception likely stems from the close timing of these two catastrophic events. It’s easy to imagine the fire, consuming much of the old, unsanitary city, as a dramatic purifier that wiped out the disease-carrying rats and fleas, thereby saving London from further outbreaks. This idea offers a semblance of a silver lining to an otherwise immense tragedy.

However, historical records clearly show that the plague was already in significant decline long before the first flames erupted in Pudding Lane in September 1666. The peak of the plague's mortality had passed in the late summer and early autumn of 1665, and death rates had fallen sharply through the winter of 1665 and into early 1666. Furthermore, the Great Fire primarily destroyed the walled City of London, while many of the areas most affected by the plague were in the poorer, densely populated suburbs which remained largely untouched by the blaze. Evidence also indicates that isolated cases of plague continued to occur in London even after the fire.

The true reasons for the plague's retreat are more complex and less dramatic than a cleansing fire. Factors such as the harsh winter of 1665-1666, which naturally reduced flea and rat populations, and the development of some level of immunity within the surviving human and rat populations, are considered more likely explanations. The fire was simply a devastating coincidence that occurred after the worst of the epidemic had already passed, cementing a convenient but inaccurate narrative in popular memory.