On Cultural Perceptions of Healing in the Carolingian Empire (original) (raw)

Nestled within the Rhine Valley, Lorsch Abbey, like many a monastery of the early medieval period, was an important site of aristocratic, and later royal, power and influence within its community. It was also home to the relic of St. Nazarius and had a prestigious scriptorium and library. It was in this scriptorium that a manuscript of particular interest to the study of the history of medicine was produced: the Lorsch Pharmacopeia, alternatively known as the Lorsch Leechbook. Though fairly standard for an early medieval leechbook, the Pharmacopeia distinguishes itself from other medical manuscripts with a preface dedicated to the defense of rational medicine as used by Christians. That the anonymous monk who wrote this preface felt that it was necessary to defend medicine is fascinating and speaks to a rather complication relationship between medicine and Christianity across the latter’s history. Therefore, the purpose of this thesis is to understand the need for such a statement, primarily through an investigation of cultural attitudes towards medicine and medical practices in the Carolingian Empire. To accomplish this, this thesis examines the historical relationship between Chrsitianity and medicine to determine the origins of the supposed tensions between the two. In doing so, this thesis also determines that tensions between medicine and Christianity were not inherent but rather the result of the intermingling of ‘superstitious’ pagan practices in otherwise rational medicine, the ramifications of which are still seen in modern scholarship which is all too willing to dismiss early medieval medicine as largely ‘superstitious’ or magical. Indeed, this work places emphasis on the existence of rational medicine in this period and determines the existence of ‘superstitious’ healings as an attempt to extend the limits of contemporary medical science. An exploration of state education under Charlemagne’s reforms serves to emphasize this point, as it shows that even in monastic settings medical manuscripts were primarily comprised of rational medicine and accompanied by accounts of miraculous healings which served much the same purpose as ‘superstitious’ folk medicine. Finally, an exploration of the types of practitioners, the cures that they used, and the causes of illness serves to highlight the fact that, while many individuals were willing to make use of rational medicine, more often than not fear of being exploited by greedy doctors, enduring unnecessary pain, and ultimately the salvation of the soul drove most people towards the more readily accessible religious cures associated with penance, holy relics, and direct miraculous interventions from the saints themselves as displayed in a plethora of Carolingian hagiographies and the writings of Gregory of Tours, Einhard, and Alcuin.