1 Universal and Particular: The Language of Plague, 1348–1500

A. Carmichael
{"title":"1 Universal and Particular: The Language of Plague, 1348–1500","authors":"A. Carmichael","doi":"10.1017/S0025727300072070","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"What disease or diseases caused the recurrent, demographically punishing epidemics that Europeans called plague? During the last twenty years a once prevalent historical consensus about causes and consequences of European plagues has dissolved, prompting new archival research as well as novel technological and interdisciplinary approaches to material evidence. The core debates about the history of plague are not, however, limited to scholars of medieval and early modern Europe. Molecular biologists over the last decade have determined that the organism that causes plague today, Yersinia pestis, is a relatively recent emergent pathogen descended from a significantly less lethal gastro-intestinal parasite, Yersinia pseudotuberculosis. Furthermore, fifty years ago microbiologists accepted a model of three different “biovars”—biochemically different variants—of Yersinia pestis, which were tidily aligned to three historical pandemic waves: antiqua, mediaevalis, and orientalis. That synthesis, too, is seriously challenged. There are instead at least eight Yersinia pestis strains and four biovars, and all have emerged within the last 5000 to 20,000 years.1 This organism remains a likely perpetrator of the great plagues in Europe because all Yersinia pestis biovars can be extraordinarily lethal in human bodies. Most medievalists, including those who doubt that the Black Death and subsequent plagues could have been caused by Yersinia pestis, make a modern assumption that the Black Death indeed had some unique microbial cause. No one yet has argued in a sustained fashion that the plague was a “perfect storm” of many different epidemic infectious diseases, but one could.2 Nor has a radical scepticism emerged—for example, that the causes of each and every local or regional epidemic called peste/pestilentia by contemporaries need to be investigated separately, unrelated to other local contexts—but that, too, might be possible. If we would be truly rigorous, we cannot assume that a “plague” in one place was due to the same specific microbial cause as a pestilence in another locality, even during this worst of all recorded pandemics. There needs to be evidence for such a claim. During the High Middle Ages Europe was thickly settled, but profoundly rural; great cities were exceptional, and regional markets were not well integrated.3 In the early modern centuries, market centres were far better connected: a significant epidemiological difference. Scholars, nevertheless, analyse individually later medieval and early modern pestilences, accepting local differences and local historical contexts. Nor do most maintain that, given one location, all the sizeable pestilences over these later centuries were necessarily due to the same cause. Historians simply do not accept that “plague” (peste) had or has one universal translation applicable over both time and space—except when we consider the Black Death. In other words, some of the doubts expressed in recent years are solely about Yersinia pestis as the cause of plagues in Europe, and do not contest the view that a single pathogen was principally responsible for the pan-European epidemic of 1347–50. Even more remarkably, there has been little doubt among the doubters that whatever microbe caused the Black Death also caused the next epidemic wave of the 1360s—and so on. Plague language, both modern and medieval, thus begins with plague's universality.","PeriodicalId":74144,"journal":{"name":"Medical history. Supplement","volume":"1 1","pages":"17 - 52"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0025727300072070","citationCount":"17","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical history. Supplement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025727300072070","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

Abstract

What disease or diseases caused the recurrent, demographically punishing epidemics that Europeans called plague? During the last twenty years a once prevalent historical consensus about causes and consequences of European plagues has dissolved, prompting new archival research as well as novel technological and interdisciplinary approaches to material evidence. The core debates about the history of plague are not, however, limited to scholars of medieval and early modern Europe. Molecular biologists over the last decade have determined that the organism that causes plague today, Yersinia pestis, is a relatively recent emergent pathogen descended from a significantly less lethal gastro-intestinal parasite, Yersinia pseudotuberculosis. Furthermore, fifty years ago microbiologists accepted a model of three different “biovars”—biochemically different variants—of Yersinia pestis, which were tidily aligned to three historical pandemic waves: antiqua, mediaevalis, and orientalis. That synthesis, too, is seriously challenged. There are instead at least eight Yersinia pestis strains and four biovars, and all have emerged within the last 5000 to 20,000 years.1 This organism remains a likely perpetrator of the great plagues in Europe because all Yersinia pestis biovars can be extraordinarily lethal in human bodies. Most medievalists, including those who doubt that the Black Death and subsequent plagues could have been caused by Yersinia pestis, make a modern assumption that the Black Death indeed had some unique microbial cause. No one yet has argued in a sustained fashion that the plague was a “perfect storm” of many different epidemic infectious diseases, but one could.2 Nor has a radical scepticism emerged—for example, that the causes of each and every local or regional epidemic called peste/pestilentia by contemporaries need to be investigated separately, unrelated to other local contexts—but that, too, might be possible. If we would be truly rigorous, we cannot assume that a “plague” in one place was due to the same specific microbial cause as a pestilence in another locality, even during this worst of all recorded pandemics. There needs to be evidence for such a claim. During the High Middle Ages Europe was thickly settled, but profoundly rural; great cities were exceptional, and regional markets were not well integrated.3 In the early modern centuries, market centres were far better connected: a significant epidemiological difference. Scholars, nevertheless, analyse individually later medieval and early modern pestilences, accepting local differences and local historical contexts. Nor do most maintain that, given one location, all the sizeable pestilences over these later centuries were necessarily due to the same cause. Historians simply do not accept that “plague” (peste) had or has one universal translation applicable over both time and space—except when we consider the Black Death. In other words, some of the doubts expressed in recent years are solely about Yersinia pestis as the cause of plagues in Europe, and do not contest the view that a single pathogen was principally responsible for the pan-European epidemic of 1347–50. Even more remarkably, there has been little doubt among the doubters that whatever microbe caused the Black Death also caused the next epidemic wave of the 1360s—and so on. Plague language, both modern and medieval, thus begins with plague's universality.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
1普遍与特殊:瘟疫的语言,1348-1500
是什么疾病导致了欧洲人称之为鼠疫的反复出现的、在人口统计学上具有破坏性的流行病?在过去的二十年里,曾经流行的关于欧洲瘟疫的原因和后果的历史共识已经消失,促使新的档案研究以及新的技术和跨学科方法来获取物证。然而,关于鼠疫历史的核心争论并不局限于中世纪和近代早期欧洲的学者。在过去十年中,分子生物学家已经确定,今天引起鼠疫的微生物鼠疫耶尔森氏菌是一种相对较新出现的病原体,它来自一种致死率明显较低的胃肠道寄生虫假结核耶尔森氏菌。此外,50年前,微生物学家接受了鼠疫耶尔森氏菌的三种不同“生物变体”(生物化学上不同的变体)的模型,它们与历史上的三次大流行浪潮:古体大流行、中世纪大流行和东方大流行紧密相关。这种综合也受到了严重挑战。相反,至少有8种鼠疫耶尔森菌菌株和4种生物变体,它们都是在过去5000到20000年间出现的这种微生物仍然是欧洲大瘟疫的可能肇事者,因为所有鼠疫耶尔森菌生物变体都可能对人体非常致命。大多数中世纪学者,包括那些怀疑黑死病和随后的瘟疫可能是由鼠疫耶尔森氏菌引起的人,都做出了一个现代的假设,即黑死病确实有一些独特的微生物原因。到目前为止,还没有人坚持认为鼠疫是许多不同传染病的“完美风暴”,但我们可以这样认为也没有出现激进的怀疑——例如,每一种被同时代人称为“鼠疫”的地方性或区域性流行病的起因都需要单独调查,与其他当地情况无关——但这也是可能的。如果我们真的严谨,我们就不能假设一个地方的“瘟疫”与另一个地方的瘟疫是由同一种特定的微生物引起的,即使是在这次有记录以来最严重的大流行期间。这样的说法需要证据。在中世纪盛期,欧洲人口密集,但乡村气息浓厚;大城市是例外,区域市场没有很好地整合在现代早期,市场中心的联系要好得多:这是一个显著的流行病学差异。然而,学者们单独分析中世纪后期和近代早期的瘟疫,接受地方差异和当地历史背景。大多数人也不认为,在一个地方,后来几个世纪里发生的所有大规模瘟疫都必然是由同一原因造成的。历史学家根本不接受“鼠疫”(pest)有或有一个适用于时间和空间的通用翻译——除非我们考虑黑死病。换句话说,近年来表达的一些质疑仅仅是关于鼠疫耶尔森氏菌是导致欧洲瘟疫的原因,并没有质疑单一病原体主要导致1347 - 1350年泛欧流行病的观点。更值得注意的是,怀疑者几乎毫无疑问地认为,不管是什么微生物导致了黑死病,也同样导致了13世纪60年代的下一波流行病——等等。鼠疫语言,无论是现代的还是中世纪的,都是从鼠疫的普遍性开始的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Preface Appendix II 3. Bibliography Appendix B Appendix V
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1