Apples and Moustaches: Montaigne’s Grin in the Face of Infection
There could be no more intense and threatening conception for the transmission of disease than a theory of some ubiquitous, potent and inescapable infection whose origins are untraceable and whose contact is unavoidable. Contagion in such a conception would be the unstoppable and universal spreading of death, recognized by the symptoms of the malady and the span of its action; impossible to counter by the isolation of its physical source, the outbreak of epidemics would leave its potential victims with quarantine as their only defence: that is to say, separation from the community of either the patients stricken with the disease or the healthy, fleeing the ‘infected areas’ to the countryside or some more distant destination. Moreover, this conception of fatal contagion would be all the more appalling if the theory of infection relied on implicit, imprecise and unperceivable principles, such as was the case before germs could actually be observed and accounted for. In other words, implicit theories belong to the imaginary representations of the world, and the place of man in it; before microorganisms were first seen and understood, the descriptions and prevention of epidemics pertained to evasive systems of thought. Medicine, folklore, literature or religion may then be analysed, not as such, but as discourses where a collective conception is at work.
KeywordsBurning Lime Sponge Smoke Aeration
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Cited in C. Classen, D. Howes and A. Synnott, Aroma: The Cultural History of Smell (New York: Routledge, 1995), p. 83.Google Scholar
- 3.B. L. Gordon, Medieval and Renaissance Medicine (London: Peter Owen, 1959), p. 457.Google Scholar
- 4.Annick le Guérer, Les pouvoirs de I’odeur (Paris: F. Bourin, 1988).Google Scholar
- Scent, the Mysterious and Essential Powers of Smell, trans. R. Miller (New York: Turtle Bay Books, 1992), pp. 41–2: ‘Lucretius … attributes the origin of all infection to germs of disease and death. Thought of as “atoms”, such germs can foul the sky should they happen to combine. And when we breathe in such contaminated air, “we are also allowing these pernicious principles to penetrate our bodies”. Stench, an indication of rottenness and poison — two terms that tend to be interchangeable in both Greek and Latin — can be deadly. Seneca believed lightning contained a pestilential and venomous element, a smell of “naturally poisonous” sulphur that spoils whatever it touches and gives a nauseating smell to unguents and perfumes.’ See also A. Corbin, Le Miasme et la jonquille (Paris: Aubier Montaigne, 1986).Google Scholar
- 5.See R. E. Siegel, Galen on sense perception (Basel and New York: S. Karger, 1970), p. 142: ‘We know today that only the uppermost part of the nasal mucosa, close to the base of the skull, contains cells sensitive to odors. … Galen, however, did not consider any part of the nasal cavity as sensitive to odor, since he regarded nasal channels and the pores in their roof only as passages leading to a sense organ at a higher level. Galen’s idea was that the odors travel as very fine particles from the nasal cavity through openings in the lamina cribrosa of the ethmoid and the adjacent pores of the nasal and meningeal membranes into the olfactory area of the brain.’Google Scholar
- 6.Galen, De instrumento odoratus, ed. and trans. J. Kollesh, Galen über das Riechorgan in Corpus Medicorum Graecorum, Supplementband 5 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1964), pp. 2, 10–12, 38, 24–40; English trans. B. S. Eastwood, ‘Galen on the Elements of Olfactory Sensation’, in Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, Herausgeben von Hans Hetter (Franfurt am Main: J. D. Sauerländer Verlag, 1981), pp. 272–2.Google Scholar
- 16.See J.-C. Sournia, The Illustrated History of Medicine (London: Harold Starke, 1992); Histoire Illustrée de la Médecine (Paris: Larousse, 1991).Google Scholar