{"title":"马丁·路德的很多疾病我一直都是些不知名的恶魔","authors":"M. Stolberg, Tilmann Walter","doi":"10.14315/arg-2018-1090105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article provides an edition of a medical consilium for Martin Luther by Matthäus Ratzenberger (1501–1559). So far overlooked by Luther’s biographers, it is the only known direct source for the therapeutic communication between the reformer and his personal physicians. In this article, Ratzenberger’s consilium is taken as a starting point for a discussion of the challenges and pitfalls of retrospective diagnosis. While some historians have rejected retrospective diagnosis in toto, the authors take a more nuanced position. They argue that, in Luther’s case, certain diagnoses – for instance, that he had kidneyor bladder-stones, gout or angina pectoris – are much more plausible and pro bable than others. The crucial and frequently underestimated problem, the authors argue, however, is that modern diagnostic terms do not do justice to the very different contemporary notions and experiences of the body and its diseases in early modern Europe. The authors illustrate this by a series of examples, mostly taken from Ratzen berger’s consilium and his account of Luther’s life and death. These range from the different understanding of syphilis and the reasons why contemporaries attributed 85. Jebisch, lies: Eibisch. Stolberg, Walter ARG_109_Inhalt_DD.indd 150 10.09.2018 12:49:35","PeriodicalId":42621,"journal":{"name":"ARCHIV FUR REFORMATIONSGESCHICHTE-ARCHIVE FOR REFORMATION HISTORY","volume":"109 1","pages":"126 - 151"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.14315/arg-2018-1090105","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Martin Luthers viele Krankheiten. Ein unbekanntes Konsil von Matthäus Ratzenberger und die Problematik der retrospektiven Diagnose\",\"authors\":\"M. Stolberg, Tilmann Walter\",\"doi\":\"10.14315/arg-2018-1090105\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article provides an edition of a medical consilium for Martin Luther by Matthäus Ratzenberger (1501–1559). So far overlooked by Luther’s biographers, it is the only known direct source for the therapeutic communication between the reformer and his personal physicians. In this article, Ratzenberger’s consilium is taken as a starting point for a discussion of the challenges and pitfalls of retrospective diagnosis. While some historians have rejected retrospective diagnosis in toto, the authors take a more nuanced position. They argue that, in Luther’s case, certain diagnoses – for instance, that he had kidneyor bladder-stones, gout or angina pectoris – are much more plausible and pro bable than others. The crucial and frequently underestimated problem, the authors argue, however, is that modern diagnostic terms do not do justice to the very different contemporary notions and experiences of the body and its diseases in early modern Europe. The authors illustrate this by a series of examples, mostly taken from Ratzen berger’s consilium and his account of Luther’s life and death. These range from the different understanding of syphilis and the reasons why contemporaries attributed 85. Jebisch, lies: Eibisch. Stolberg, Walter ARG_109_Inhalt_DD.indd 150 10.09.2018 12:49:35\",\"PeriodicalId\":42621,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ARCHIV FUR REFORMATIONSGESCHICHTE-ARCHIVE FOR REFORMATION HISTORY\",\"volume\":\"109 1\",\"pages\":\"126 - 151\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.14315/arg-2018-1090105\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ARCHIV FUR REFORMATIONSGESCHICHTE-ARCHIVE FOR REFORMATION HISTORY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14315/arg-2018-1090105\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ARCHIV FUR REFORMATIONSGESCHICHTE-ARCHIVE FOR REFORMATION HISTORY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14315/arg-2018-1090105","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Martin Luthers viele Krankheiten. Ein unbekanntes Konsil von Matthäus Ratzenberger und die Problematik der retrospektiven Diagnose
This article provides an edition of a medical consilium for Martin Luther by Matthäus Ratzenberger (1501–1559). So far overlooked by Luther’s biographers, it is the only known direct source for the therapeutic communication between the reformer and his personal physicians. In this article, Ratzenberger’s consilium is taken as a starting point for a discussion of the challenges and pitfalls of retrospective diagnosis. While some historians have rejected retrospective diagnosis in toto, the authors take a more nuanced position. They argue that, in Luther’s case, certain diagnoses – for instance, that he had kidneyor bladder-stones, gout or angina pectoris – are much more plausible and pro bable than others. The crucial and frequently underestimated problem, the authors argue, however, is that modern diagnostic terms do not do justice to the very different contemporary notions and experiences of the body and its diseases in early modern Europe. The authors illustrate this by a series of examples, mostly taken from Ratzen berger’s consilium and his account of Luther’s life and death. These range from the different understanding of syphilis and the reasons why contemporaries attributed 85. Jebisch, lies: Eibisch. Stolberg, Walter ARG_109_Inhalt_DD.indd 150 10.09.2018 12:49:35