Jakub Węglorz

Already in the 19th century, researchers of the history of medicine tried to reinterpret the old pathogenesis and diagnostics by framing the descriptions of past epidemics within the framework of their own scientific discourse. However, this practice has sometimes led astray both then and now due to the incompatibility of modern medical language with historical sources, often of a narrative character. In addition, researchers in the field of historical science are often not qualified enough to correctly interpret the descriptions of the symptoms and course of the epidemic. On the other hand, representatives of medical sciences dealing with the past often misinterpret sources, cutting single pieces of information out of context and building a picture that is consistent with the current state of knowledge but inconsistent with the past. Given the persistence of this problem, which has been observable in the historiography of epidemics for many decades, it is worth investigating such cases in order to identify points that are particularly vulnerable to the risk of error.

It is predominantly accepted in the historiography of European medicine that, apart from the differences in education, there was a division of competences between physicians educated at universities and barber-surgeons trained in the guild system in terms of their theoretical background. Regardless of the former stereotypes – dating back to the 19th century – relating to the Church-imposed restrictions in teaching surgery at universities, it is believed that the actual differences in terms of competences must have influenced the scope of the undertaken therapeutic activities. A different education model and the predominance of either theoretical or practical knowledge among representatives of these groups resulted in different treatment methods and a different perception of the causes of the disease. Physicians with mainly theoretical knowledge are often put in opposition to practising barber-surgeons. While it seems that the reluctance to bloody operations (sometimes articulated by the surgeons themselves) was a reason for the limited involvement of physicians in the barber-surgeon practice, it is difficult to clearly indicate the factors that would prevent surgeons from dealing with “non-operational” treatment. The article attempts to answer the question to what extent the then-existing differences in education and legal restrictions influenced the actual division of therapeutic tasks and the functioning of various medical professions as viewed from the patient’s perspective.

Early modern medicine was based on the assumptions of humoral pathology that had its roots back in the ancient era. According to this view, maintaining good health was determined by keeping a balance between humors, which were the constituent elements of the body. The methods of treatment and prevention promoted by official medicine had a dominant influence on the perception of health by the intellectual and economic elites of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, but to some extent they also shaped the behavior of other social groups (even peasants). The article is devoted to the analysis of propagated health behaviors as it compares them with the descriptions that are to be found in egodocuments from the era.