4 ms·

How representative are these treatments of mainstream medieval medicine? I can find any number of modern texts that suggest even more ridiculous treatments for

How representative are these treatments of mainstream medieval medicine? I can find any number of modern texts that suggest even more ridiculous treatments for the same problems.

lofatdairy 4y ago
A well known problem in historiography is how representative your sources are. This is not just a case with medieval studies, but classical antiquity, early modern history, etc. Especially with medieval studies, what written records survive still represents the smaller subset of information that was considered worth documenting[^1]. However, while attention usually centers on the absurd and curious, we can often use comparative methods and references to other sources to build better accounts. Vesalius would be towards the later end of the sources in the article (I also assume that the texts would be more Norman/early British rather than continental), but might be a good example. We know that while Vesalius's accomplishments and findings resulted in recognition and renown, we also know that he faced significant resistance. I imagine a lot of his opponents would have survived, but in a sense they might not have needed to, as he was railing against neo-Galenists so often and so vehemently in much of his work that we can get a picture of where his findings clashed with mainstream thinking or powerful opponents. On another note, because the texts likely have similarities with speculum literature and various early encyclopedias that have survived, as well as grimoires and other texts, we can get a sense of in what spaces this knowledge was being circulated and how orthodox they were. [^1]: A brief tangent but a fantastic book, Montaillou, gives a really detailed account on French peasant life in the early 14th century. It's only made possible because of inquisitorial records made, not because the peasants themselves recorded anything.

How representative are these treatments of mainstream medieval medicine? I can find any number of modern texts that suggest even more ridiculous treatments for the same problems.

lofatdairy 4y ago

A well known problem in historiography is how representative your sources are. This is not just a case with medieval studies, but classical antiquity, early modern history, etc. Especially with medieval studies, what written records survive still represents the smaller subset of information that was considered worth documenting[^1]. However, while attention usually centers on the absurd and curious, we can often use comparative methods and references to other sources to build better accounts. Vesalius would be towards the later end of the sources in the article (I also assume that the texts would be more Norman/early British rather than continental), but might be a good example. We know that while Vesalius's accomplishments and findings resulted in recognition and renown, we also know that he faced significant resistance. I imagine a lot of his opponents would have survived, but in a sense they might not have needed to, as he was railing against neo-Galenists so often and so vehemently in much of his work that we can get a picture of where his findings clashed with mainstream thinking or powerful opponents. On another note, because the texts likely have similarities with speculum literature and various early encyclopedias that have survived, as well as grimoires and other texts, we can get a sense of in what spaces this knowledge was being circulated and how orthodox they were. [^1]: A brief tangent but a fantastic book, Montaillou, gives a really detailed account on French peasant life in the early 14th century. It's only made possible because of inquisitorial records made, not because the peasants themselves recorded anything.