Sahmland I
Institut für Geschichte der Medizin, Giessen.
Sudhoffs Arch. 1991;75(1):58-73.
Medical matters were popularized in the eighteenth century on three main levels: the Moral Weeklies were directed at the educated public; there were various publications designed to instruct the masses; and the rural population and the young were reached by means of the catechisms of health. The latter (the subject of the present study) were works of a simplified and self-instructive character aimed at a lay readership, and developed out of such popularizing compendia as Tissot's Avis au peuple sur la santé (1761). Whereas the earlier catechistical approaches to popular knowledge retained some of the religious intention of their generic forebears, the catechisms of health tended to take a secular approach to matters of personal health. The catechisms expected their readers to be responsible for the maintenance and restoration of their own state of health. Instruction was given in the sex res non naturales of the regimen sanitatis. Instead of self-medication, the patient was exhorted to consult a trained physician or surgeon; the advice given was thus of a general nature relating mainly to hygiene and nursing. In opposing such antiquated practices as bleeding, purging, faith-healing and uroscopy, the catechisms were also an appropriate medium for promoting recent medical achievements (such as inoculation against small-pox and, later on, vaccination) which were customarily regarded with suspicion by the common people. The fact that the catechisms of health were written by physicians on the one hand and pedagogues on the other generated criticism. Whereas the publications written by physicians normally reflected the "state of the art", this could not always be said for the compilations of the pedagogues, who were often attacked for incompetence by their colleagues, thus giving rise to new prejudices. The catechisms of health can be seen as a realistic and inexpensive approach to enlightening the populace in medical affairs. The familiar question-and-answer format eased distribution in schools. Questionable attitudes underlying traditional approaches to popular medicine were openly addressed in a realistic manner. Although the catechisms of health (especially that of Bernhard Christoph Faust) were widespread--as is shown by the many editions and translations--it is very difficult to judge their effectiveness. They certainly did not, for example, fulfil their chief goal, which was to introduce health educaiton into the schools, as their organization and structure in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century were not sufficiently receptive to such a progressive concept.
医学知识在18世纪通过三个主要层面得到普及:道德周刊面向受过教育的公众;有各种旨在教导大众的出版物;乡村人口和年轻人则通过健康问答手册来获取相关知识。后者(即本研究的主题)是一些面向普通读者、具有简化和自我指导性质的作品,是从诸如蒂索的《给民众的健康忠告》(1761年)等此类普及性简编发展而来的。早期用问答形式普及知识的方法保留了其同类先驱的一些宗教意图,而健康问答手册则倾向于对个人健康问题采取世俗的方法。这些问答手册期望读者对自身健康状况的维持和恢复负责。手册中介绍了养生法中与非自然性行为相关的内容。手册劝诫患者不要自行用药,而是去咨询训练有素的内科医生或外科医生;所提供的建议主要是关于卫生和护理的一般性建议。在反对诸如放血、催泻、信仰疗法和尿液检查等陈旧做法的同时,这些问答手册也是推广当时民众通常持怀疑态度的最新医学成就(如天花接种以及后来的疫苗接种)的合适媒介。健康问答手册一方面由医生撰写,另一方面由教师编写,这一事实引发了批评。医生撰写的出版物通常反映了“最新技术水平”,但对于教师编写的汇编而言,情况并非总是如此,教师编写的汇编常常因其同事指责其能力不足而受到攻击,从而引发了新的偏见。健康问答手册可被视为一种在医学事务上启发民众的现实且低成本的方法。常见的问答形式便于在学校传播。传统大众医学方法背后的可疑态度以现实的方式被公开探讨。尽管健康问答手册(尤其是伯恩哈德·克里斯托夫·浮士德编写的那本)流传甚广——从众多版本和翻译中可见一斑——但其效果却很难评判。例如,它们肯定没有实现其主要目标,即将健康教育引入学校,因为在18世纪末和19世纪初,它们的组织和结构还不足以接受这样一个进步的理念。