Orvostorteneti kozlemenyek最新文献

The coalitioned man-at-arms batallion of Louis II (1516-1526) King of Bohemia and Hungary had crushing defeated by overwhelmingly Turk army of Suleiman (1520-1566) the Magnificent at close to Mohács on 29 August 1526. Louis II and his trusty servant, István Aczél escaped from the losing battle, but both of them drowned into a brook (perhaps a local stream, named Csele) or a swampy fishpond. The one of the Bohemian noble, Ulrich Czettritz von Neuhaus royal court chamberlain was the single eyewitness of this luckless misadventure, furthermore - according to his first verbal report - he failed to help to the King from the sludge. The same Czettritz identified the King’s dead body on the spot on 18 October of 1526, but the King’s corpse turned up from a newly dug sepulchral mound instead of water, swamp or any kind of original surface. Ferenc Sárffy (royal castle head of Győr) joined to Czettritz’s scene investigation and Sárffy reported István Brodarics Chancellor about the case on 19 October 1526. The details of royal corpse identification is well-known from the copy of Sárffy’s letter, which one has been preserve at Poland. According to the Sárffy’s report the corpse of Louis II was taintless, in spite of the royal dead body spent underground circa 50 days and unknown persons previously removed it. In our opinion it would have been decompose because of late autodigestion or adipoceration. So if Sárffy’s report is right about the undamaged condition of corpse, it must not Louis’ dead body. It could not excluded that Ferenc Sárffy deliberately embellished the truth. Nevertheless Louis was not buried by Ulrich Czettritz or Maria Habsburg — Louis’ widow, who sent Czettritz to the corpse identification —, or Maria’s brother Ferdinand Archduke of Austria, who aspirated to the throne. Point of interest that finally the King’s funeral was made by John Szapolya vaivoda of Transylvania, who occupiedwith his army the crowning city (named Székesfehérvár), because he aspirated to the throne also and he was a politician on the other side of the fence. The ceremonial funeral became on 9 November 1526, when the royal body was dead for 72 days. This is the reason why we have been sceptical about Louis’ corpse was in suitable condition for the procession of burial, where some important Hungarian people surely inspected him and nobody failed to notice that the King’s body had had signs of advanced decompose. In our opinion - considering that date of the scene investigation, then circumstances of the medical examination, finally Czettritz was not a skilled doctor - could be 66 percent chances that Czettritz and Sárffy should not found the corpse of Louis II. An English document proves our statement. Thomas Wolsey Chancellor, Archbishop of York wrote a letter to Henry VIII King of England from Westminster on 23 October 1526. The Chancellor informed Henry VIII in this document about the founding and burying process of Louis II. Out of consideration for the distan

In November of 1918 the 30 years old Gyula Vészi of Jewish religion was appointed to „ordinary and public university professor” by king Charles Habsburg IV.. At the same time Vészi got the direction of the Department of Physiology at the recently founded Debrecen University as well. The later printed documents however lack all details regarding this event, since from the after-war period to 1945 in Hungary university tenures were denied for Jews. Gyula Vészi - being the last Jewish professor appointed in Hungary - has got his tenure in 18th September 1918 and took his oath 30 days later. He took also part in the opening session of the medical department, but he couldn’t begin his activity, since he died in the Spanish flu epidemic two weeks after his initiation. Gyula Vészi’s name is still lacking from comprehensive biographical works. Present article attempts to fill the gap by a detailed documentation and by analysis of the rich archival material of the Hungarian state offices.

Author gives a wide overview on the role of the bat in Hungarian folklore and folk medicine. His detailed and thoroughly noted treatise begins with the analysis of the various names of the bat in Hungarian dialects emphasising also the special phonological and phonosemanti- cal characteristics of the variations of its name. The strange appearance and the problematic zoological classification of the bat in the European lore and early scientific literature probably explains the doubtful and mostly negative role, this animal played in European literary heritage and lore. Bat proved to be a common tool of apotropaic or love magic and its body or blood was widely used to treatments of folk medicine as well. After grouping, listing and citing the various Hungarian lores connected with the bat, author cites some recent literary and poetrical allusions to the animal. This comprehensive collection of the Hungarian linguistic and ethnological heritage regarding bat, will certainly prove to be a useful source for further ethnozoological resarch.

Author - after this short introduction and analysis - published below the pharmaceutical bills sent by various pharmacists for Count Adam Batthyány and for his wife Katalin Aurora For- mentini during the period 1650-1654. Based on these bills author identifies the illnesses to be cured, the names of pharmacists and the medicaments made by them, including their prices as well. The carefully written bills recorded the names of the medicaments used both in German and Latin. The prices partly proved to be astonishingly high, so author concludes that services of pharmacists that time were utilized exclusively by the rich. Analysing the bills we can identify the illnesses of the Batthyány family and also those of the Turks imprisoned in their castle, whose curing served the economic interest of the count.