The great Renaissance scholar Erasmus of Rotterdam was a pioneering advocate of the importance of medicine for social as well as individual welfare. Erasmus' “Oration in praise of the art of medicine” (1518) illustrates his literary approach to this topic. Although the original version of his text did not address the state's role in promoting the health of the populace, Erasmus inserted new material on this topic into the “Oration” for a 1529 edition. This new material and references in some of his other writings from the same period indicate that it was in the 1520s that Erasmus first became a strong advocate of government intervention in public health matters. It is suggested that medical events in Erasmus' own life — his experiences both as a patient and as an observer of diseases — may explain why his interest in public health legislation increased significantly around this time.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ColeNHErasmus and his diseases. Journal of the American Medical Association1952;148:529–31.
2.
O'MalleyCDDesiderius Erasmus: The spirit and the flesh. Journal of the American Medical Association1971;216:66–70.
3.
BrabantH. Érasme, ses maladies et ses médecins. In: MargolinJ-C, ed. Colloquia Erasmia Turonensia. Paris: J Vrin; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1972: vol. 1, pp. 539–66.
4.
KrivatskyP. Erasmus' medical milieu. Bulletin of the History of Medicine1973;47:113–54. The four titles cited here represent only a small sample of the many publications in English, French, German and Dutch relating to the medical biography of Erasmus.
5.
GilmoreMPThe World of Humanism. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1952.
6.
FanthamERummelE, eds. Collected Works of Erasmus. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1974- (86 volumes planned).
7.
JardineL. Erasmus, Man of Letters: The Construction of Charisma in Print. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993: p. 30.
8.
DeMolenRLErasmus of Rotterdam in profile. In: DeMolenRL, ed. Erasmus of Rotterdam: A Quincentennial Symposium. New York: Twayne, 1971: pp. 21–3.
CopemanWSCDoctors and Disease in Tudor Times. London: Dawson's, 1960: p. 167.
12.
KrivatskyP (op. cit. ref. 4): pp. 120–3.
13.
ErasmusD. The Institution of Christian Matrimony [Institutio christiani matrimonii] (HeathMJ, trans.). In: FanthamERummelE (op. cit. ref. 6): vol. 69 (1999), pp. 203–438.
ErasmusD. Oration in praise of the art of medicine [Declamatio in laudem arris medicae (Encomium medicinae)] (McGregorB, trans.). In: FanthamERummelE (op. cit. ref. 6): vol. 29 (1989), pp. 31–50, 430n–7n.
16.
DomanskiJ. Introduction to his Latin edition of Encomium medicinae. In: ErasmusD. Opera omnia. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing, 1969–96: vol. I-4 (1973), p. 147.
17.
AlburyWRWeiszGMThe medical ethics of Erasmus and the physician-patient relationship. Journal of Medical Ethics: Medical Humanities2001;27:35–41.
18.
RosenG. A History of Public Health. New York: MD Publications, 1958: pp. 50–80.
19.
CipollaCMPublic Health and the Medical Profession in the Renaissance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976: pp. 1–66.
20.
SiraisiNGMedieval and Early Renaissance Medicine: An Introduction to Knowledge and Practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990.
21.
NuttonV. Medicine in medieval western Europe, 1000–1500. In: ConradLThe Western Medical Tradition, 800 BC to AD 1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995: pp. 139–205.
22.
Airs, Waters, Places. In: JonesWHS, ed. and trans. Hippocrates.London: Heinemann, 1957: vol. 1, pp. 65–137.
23.
RosenG (op. cit. ref. 18): pp. 192–293.
24.
EdelsteinL. The dietetics of antiquity. In: EdelsteinL. Ancient Medicine (TemkinCL, trans.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1967: pp. 303–16.
25.
ErasmusD. The funeral [Funus]. In: FanthamERummelE (op. cit. ref. 6): vol. 40 (1997), pp. 767, 775.
26.
WeiszGMThe papal contribution to the development of modern medicine. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery1997;67:472–5.
27.
FrenchR. Dissection and Vivisection in the European Renaissance. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1999.
28.
DomanskiJ (op. cit. ref. 16): pp. 158–9.
29.
AlburyWRHistorical reaction to “new” diseases. Australian Journal of Forensic Science1985;18:5–12.
30.
RosenG (op. cit. ref. 18): pp. 65–7, 86–8, 96–8.
31.
BrabantH. Épidemies et médecins au temps d'Érasme. In: MargolinJ-C (op. cit. ref. 3): vol. 1, pp. 515–37.
32.
PhillipsMMErasmus and the Northern Renaissance. London: English Universities Press, 1949: pp. 13–14.
33.
BrabantH (op. cit. ref. 3): pp. 539–40.
34.
ErasmusD. The Correspondence of Erasmus (MynorsRABThomsonDFS, trans.). In: FanthamERummelE (op. cit. ref. 6): vol. 6 (1982), pp. 112–26.
35.
The Correspondence of Erasmus: vol. 2 (1975), pp. 168–9.
36.
ErasmusD. A marriage in name only, or the unequal match [, sive coniugium impar]. In: FanthamERummelE (op. cit. ref. 6): vol. 40 (1997), p. 853.
37.
KrivatskyP (op. cit. ref. 4): p. 122.
38.
BrabantH (op. cit. ref. 3): pp. 553–4.
39.
ErasmusD. The Correspondence of Erasmus (DalzellA, trans.). In: FanthamERummelE (op. cit. ref. 6): vol. 11 (1994), pp. 219–20.
40.
ErasmusD. The Correspondence of Erasmus (MynorsRABThomsonDFS, trans.). In: FanthamERummelE (op. cit. ref. 6): vol. 6 (1982), 398n.
41.
QuételC. History of Syphilis (BraddockJPikeB, trans.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992: pp. 27–30.
42.
In private correspondence written in 1523 and 1524, Erasmus condemned von Hutten's “lascivious living which not even his pitiful disease could teach him to abandon”; and he stated that he had not allowed von Hutten to visit him because he refused “to take this swashbuckler into my house, pox and all”. But Erasmus never referred to the matter in his public controversies with von Hurten. ErasmusD. The Correspondence of Erasmus (MynorsRAB, trans.). In: FanthamERummelE (op. cit. ref. 6): vol. 9 (1989), p. 337; and ErasmusD. The Correspondence of Erasmus (MynorsRABDalzellA, trans.). In: FanthamERummelE (op. cit. ref. 6): vol. 10 (1992), p. 378.
43.
CipollaCM (op. cit. ref. 19): p. 18.
44.
ErasmusD (op. cit. ref. 36): p. 852.
45.
The account that Erasmus gives in his Correspondence suggests that in Bologna surgeons who attended plague victims were able to leave the houses of their patients, but if they did so they were required to wear a distinctive white linen scarf and avoid coming into contact with other people. Anyone so dressed who ventured into a public area was at risk of being killed by a mob. ErasmusD. The Correspondence of Erasmus (MynorsRABThomsonDFS, trans.). In: FanthamERummelE (op. cit. ref. 6): vol. 2 (1975), p. 301; vol. 4 (1977), pp. 22–3.
46.
ErasmusD. The Correspondence of Erasmus (MynorsRABDalzellA, trans.). In: FanthamERummelE (op. cit. ref. 6): vol. 10 (1992), p. 471.
47.
The Correspondence of Erasmus: p. 472.
48.
ErasmusD (op. cit. ref. 36): p. 853.
49.
ErasmusD. The Correspondence of Erasmus (DalzellA, trans.). In: FanthamERummelE (op. cit. ref. 6): vol. 11 (1994), p. 220.
50.
ErasmusD (op. cit. ref. 13): p. 327.
51.
ErasmusD. The Correspondence of Erasmus (MynorsRABThomsonDFS, trans.). In: FanthamERummelE (op. cit. ref. 6): vol. 4 (1977), p. 410.
