A Comparative Study of Two Plague Treatises in the Ottoman and Holy Roman Lands in the Sixteenth Century

Abstract

Plague outbreaks, among the greatest catastrophes in human history, have caused profound fear in s eties regardless of the period in which they occurred. In efforts to halt the spread of the disease, physicians have employed numerous preventive measures and therapeutic methods. From the years when the Black Death ravaged Europe onward, independent treatises on plague began to be written. In the face of plague epidemics, which recurred intermittently for centuries, physicians of the two great neighboring empires of the sixteenth century—the Ottoman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire—authored treatises either on their own initiative or in accordance with tasks assigned to them. These works, produced in two different geographical contexts, sought to mitigate the impact of the plague, provide means of protection against it, and contribute to the treatment of the afflicted. This study examines plague treatises written in roughly the same period by the Ottoman physician Qaysunizade Nidai (after 1514–after 1567) and the Holy Roman physician Johann Bosch (1514–85), comparing the measures, recommendations, and treatment methods adopted in these two neighboring regions in response to the disease. Qaysunizade and Bosch exhibited similar views regarding the causes of plague, attributing its emergence to miasma, while also citing sin and divine manifestation as spiritual causes. Both physicians regarded certain natural phenomena as signs of impending plague outbreaks. Concerning diet during periods of illness, they similarly recommended sour foods. On the matter of susceptibility to the disease, Qaysunizade offered a theoretical framework, whereas Bosch listed the constitutions more frequently affected without providing a rationale. With regard to quarantine measures during epidemics, Bosch discussed more detailed precautions. On the subject of the asbāb-i sitte-i ḍarūre (six essential causes), both physicians expressed similar views. Another notable similarity in the treatises is the recommendation to use precious stones, valuable metals, kil-i Ermeni (Armenian clay), and tin-i mahtum (sealed clay), as well as compounded preparations obtained by mixing numerous medicinal substances, albeit with differences in composition. In conclusion, a comparison of these two treatises, written in the Ottoman and Holy Roman Empires in the same period, reveals substantial similarities. However, in formulating the theoretical framework of the disease, Qaysunizade provided more detailed information. The varying degrees of elaboration on certain topics in the two works point to differing needs shaped by the religious life, climatic conditions, and medical traditions of the regions in which they were composed.

Keywords