Contagion, Honour and Urban Life in Early Modern Germany

  • Mitchell Lewis Hammond

Abstract

In his famous treatise On Assistance to the Poor (De Subventione Pauperum), printed in Bruges in 1526, Juan Luis Vives waxed indignant over the sick poor who risked infecting others by begging in public places. ‘What sort of situation is this,’ he asked, ‘when in every church — especially at the solemn and most heavily attended feasts — one is obliged to enter into the church proper between two rows of the sick, the vomiting, the ulcerous, the diseased with ills whose names are unmentionable …?’ What was more, the presence of the sick was a risk to the young, the old and pregnant women, ‘especially since ulcers of this sort are not only forced upon the eyes but upon the nose as well, the mouth, and almost on the hands and body as they pass through. How shameless such begging!’1 Vives’ words resonated with particular force because an outbreak of a highly contagious illness, the so-called ‘French pox’, had erupted across Europe only three decades earlier, bringing with it severe pain and swollen pustules that terrified people who encountered the infected. When city officials confronted such crises, Vives believed, they should act ‘in the same manner as the medical profession who cannot eradicate diseases completely from the population but bend every effort to cure them’.2 City councils and urban residents across Europe shared these concerns, especially since the sixteenth century was a period of growing urban poverty as well as a tumultuous era of epidemic outbreaks.

Keywords

Mercury Europe Assure Resi Bark 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    The translation is by A. Tobriner, in ‘A Sixteenth-Century Urban Report’, Social Service Monographs (1971) p. 36.Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    A. Foa, ‘The New and the Old: The Spread of Syphilis (1494–1530)’, in Sex and Gender in Historical Perspective, ed. E. Muir and G. Ruggiero (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990), p. 27.Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    J. Eck, Der fünft vnd letst Tail Christenlicher Predig von den Zehen Gebotten … (Ingolstadt, 1539), XLVIV; Luther’s remarks quoted in Luther’s Works, ed. J. Pelikan and H. Lehmann, vol. 22 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1955), p. 500.Google Scholar
  4. 6.
    See the discussion of epidemics as collective events in C. Rosenberg, Explaining Epidemics and Other Studies in the History of Medicine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 285–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 7.
    The first of these was the city of Augsburg in 1582, followed by Vienna, Ulm, Nördlingen and Nuremberg. A. Fischer, Geschichte des deutschen Gesundheitswesens, Band l(Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1965), p. 91.Google Scholar
  6. 8.
    In the medical and philosophical milieu of the time, the interpreting of the ‘signs’ of a disease and consequent indications for therapy were more important than the ‘diagnosis’ of an ontologically distinct pathogen or disorder. See the discussion in I. Maclean, Logic, Signs, and Nature in the Renaissance. The Case of Learned Medicine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), pp. 297ff.Google Scholar
  7. 10.
    Hence in 1478, an apothecary ordinance for the city of Cologne affirmed the jurisdiction of physicians over that of lepers. A. Schmidt, Kölner Apotheken (Cologne, 1931), p. 108.Google Scholar
  8. 11.
    See the detailed discussion in D. Amundsen, Medicine, Society, and Faith in the Ancient and Medieval Worlds (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996), pp. 310–72. Earlier physicians were also circumspect about the sexual causes of leprosy.Google Scholar
  9. L. Demaitre, ‘The Description and Diagnosis of Leprosy by Fourteenth-century Physicians’, Bulletin of the Historiy of Medicine 59 (1985) 327–44, esp. 338.Google Scholar
  10. 12.
    D. Sabean, ‘Soziale Distanzierungen. Ritualisierte Gestik in deutscher bürokratischer Prosa der frühen Neuzeit’, Historische Anthropologie, 4 (1996) 216–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 13.
    Krieger, Topographie der Stadt Strassburg (Strasbourg, 1889), p. 455.Google Scholar
  12. 20.
    See the discussion of tanners and honour in K. Stuart, Defiled Trades and Social Outcasts: Honor and Ritual Pollution in Early Modem Germany (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), p. 46.Google Scholar
  13. 29.
    R. Herrlinger, ‘Die Nürnberger Leprösenschau im 16. Jahrhundert’, Ärztliche Praxis, III/13 (March 1951) 16.Google Scholar
  14. 34.
    L. F. Qualtiere and W. W. E. Slights, ‘Contagion and Blame in Early Modem England: The Case of the French Pox’, Literature and Medicine, 22.1 (Spring 2003) 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 35.
    F.-O. Touati, ‘Contagion and Leprosy: Myths, Ideas, and Evolution in Medieval Minds and Societies’, in Contagion. Perspectives from Pre-Modem Societies, ed. L. I. Conrad and D. Wujastyk (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2000), pp. 179–201.Google Scholar
  16. 37.
    L. von Hoernigk, Politia Medica (Frankfurt, 1638), p. 16.Google Scholar
  17. 38.
    R. French, Medicine before Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mitchell Lewis Hammond

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations