Talk:Plague doctor costume/Archive 2011-Jan 1, 2015

Suggested move

Beak Doctor from Rome, 1656

The Beak Doctor from the Historiae anatomicae by Thomas Bartolin "Hafniae 1661"

This article should be moved to Plague doctor costume. I can't find any reliable sources which use the term 'Beak doctor'. Celuici (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I typed in "Beak doctor" into Google and it came up some 2 million hits. Some of those have got to be good reliable sources. Under Google Books it comes up with some 19,000 hits. Under images it shows some 195,000 pictures. I prefer to stick with the name "Beak doctor" as this best describes the subject involved.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

As a little tid-bit, apparently the public recognizes this term of "Beak doctor" best as the DYK had almost 18,000 hits when it came out.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Google search results are not a reliable source. I've tried searching on Google Books and JSTOR, and have not found any reliable sources using the phrase 'Beak doctor'. It's not in the OED, whereas 'plague doctor' is (section C1a of the Plague entry). Many of the search results which you refer to do not use the phrase 'beak doctor', but merely contain the words 'beak' and 'doctor' on the same page. There are, however, lots of reliable sources which use the phrase 'plague doctor'. Celuici (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Plague doctor costume would be more appropriate. A Beak doctor implies that the person treats beaks. Parrot of Doom 16:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The idea of "Beak Doctor" originated in the 17th century, some 400 years ago as can be seen in this very famous engraving by Paul Fürst (after J Columbina). It is NOT a term I dreamed up, but one that has been in existence for some 400 years.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 18:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The existence of a print entitled 'Doktor Schnabel von Rom' is not evidence of the historical usage of the terms 'beak doctor' or 'beak doctor costume'. (And it would be original research if it were.) Celuici (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is a 1661 sketch of The Beak Doctor in "Historiae anatomicae" by Thomas Barolin. Since several sketches of the "Beak Doctor" are showing up in this time period, I don't believe you could consider this original research as it is NOT new knowledge generated, but existing knowledge that exists from several different reliable sources of that time period.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The caption to that picture is clearly taken from a later publication, not a contemporary one, and thus does not provide evidence for the use of the phrase 'beak doctor' in the seventeenth century (or earlier). Celuici (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment A Google Books search for Beak Doctor, as suggested above, gets a lot of hits for books which include both words, which is hardly surprising. A search for the quoted phrase "Beak Doctor" gets far fewer, many of which relate to Eric Basso's novella, The Beak Doctor, which ‘has sustained a cult reputation among a hard core of avant-garde writers’ according to the first hit. A search for "Beak Doctor" -Basso gets 38 hits for me. Of these 38 many – e.g. ‘Parker's 45-minute solo performance at the Finger Palace in California in 1978, released on a label with a name as bizarre as that of the venue: The Beak Doctor’ – relate to a jazz-orientated record label. At least one is for a Wikipedia mirror: ‘High Quality Content by WIKIPEDIA articles! A plague doctor contract was an agreement’. Another is for ‘Kerouac borrows an image from the Mexican flag, and a great black bird descends from the sky and takes the snake off in its beak. Doctor Sax is amazed even as he is chagrined at his own powerlessness and uselessness’. Also ‘On the approach of danger or the occurrence of a slight mechanical disturbance, such as jarring, the aphid twitches its abdomen without withdrawing its beak, Doctor Smith says.’ Then ‘Received the Day and Year above written of William Beak Doctor in Divinity’. And ‘... and the TUB LABIATKD BEAK. Doctor cites Cartwright to show that the cubs of the black bear, on the Labrador coast, are often marked with white rings round the neck’. And ‘the aphid twitches its abdomen without withdrawing its beak, Doctor Smith says.’ And ‘a heron with a flopping fish held in its long beak. Doctor Heron. Rosette's hoodoo papa.’ Not to mention (whatever this snippet is about!) ‘E. HAERIS, MD, Metropolitan Board of Health : BEAK DOCTOR : Two car loads of cattle (40 in number), said to be from Ohio, were purchased at Montgomery, in this county, on the 28th day of August, and were driven some five or six miles to….’ And not to speak of ‘Dyson's puff bird has a simple plumage of a deep bluish black and white, and a black beak. Doctor Sclater says of it: "My friends Godman and Salvin tell me that, during their expedition to Guatennila …’.

Before I did that search I was rather in favour of retaining Beak Doctor, even if (as I had assumed) it was a 20th-century coinage. Now I am not so sure. Ian Spackman (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply - I made this suggestion below, which I believe also applies to this section and these remarks.
It would be best for you to get an actual copy of the book in hand of Johannes Nohl's, The Black Death: A Chronicle of the Plague, J. & J. Harper Edition 1969, Library of Congress No. 79-81867.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

But you do now accept that Google Books searches – a procedure which you first brought up – suggest very little currency for the term, I suppose? Ian Spackman (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Actual books are better references.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

If you get the book I am suggesting, pay particular attention to the poem on page 94.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

After reading page 94 you will be convinced the name of the article should be changed to "Beak Doctors costume".--Doug Coldwell ^talk 10:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

If you wish, I can scan in that page and e-mail to you. Just drop me an email if you desire this. Better yet, get the book!--Doug Coldwell ^talk 17:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Need to check the date of the poem

The article currently describes the poem which is quoted in the article as being from the 16th century. This contradicts the fact that the beak mask was invented in France in 1619. Is anyone able to look at the referenced text and check the date of the poem? Given that the 16th/17th centuries were confused elsewhere in the article, I suspect that's what's happened in this case. Celuici (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

What source are you using to suggest that date? The article, as things stand, isn't contradictory in that regard. Parrot of Doom 21:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I've changed it to seventeenth century as it seems a Dr. Hodges wrote the poem The Beak Doctors in 1672. Ref: Quintner, J. (1999) Plague Doctors in the face of Death, The Medical Observer, Dec 1959 --Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Is that a reliable source? Where did you get this reference from? How can an article which purports to have been published in 1999 have been published in 1959? I can't find any references to the article on JSTOR, Google Scholar or the British and Irish Historical Bibliography. I haven't been able to find out anything about the author of the article either. Celuici (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I found this on Google Books on page 42 of Wine: a scientific exploration By Merton Sandler and Qintner (1999) Plague Doctors in the face of Death here on page 54. Let me ask you a question: Are you doubting the poem was written in the seventeenth century?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 17:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you fix the second link, please? It’s the same as the first. Ian Spackman (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I see the problem. It doesn't seem to fix, however IF you click on "pages" at the top where it says Showing 2 results.....etc it shows then page 54. Don't know any other way to fix this.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm certainly not convinced that it was written in the seventeenth century. I've not been able to find any references to it in a source which I would regard as reliable, and nor have I been able to find a copy of the original text in resources such as Early English Books Online, the British Library integrated catalogue, COPAC and the ESTC. The first quotation for the word 'oilcloth' in the OED is from 1685, which would imply that the poem was unknown to the lexicographers who compiled the dictionary. Furthermore, in my opinon, the poem just doesn't read like typical Restoration verse. The metre of the verse (eight syllables per line) is a relatively unusual form for non-satirical seventeenth-century poetry, which would typically use iambic pentameter. Couple that with the fact that 'called' and 'appalled' would have been pronounced in such a way that they don't fit within the metre of the poem, and the fact that 'alarm' was more frequently spelled 'alarum', I would have guessed that the poem was either written or heavily edited later. Obviously this is just my subjective opinion...Celuici (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's goal is not to present the truth about each topic but to present what is thought about each topic, giving greatest weight to the most widely held opinions. Your subjective opinion of the poem doesn't matter as this would be new knowledge = Original Research. Wikipedia does not allow original thought, subjective opinions, nor guesses. I'm giving references where I am finding this popular seventeenth century poem - NOT rather it is correct and true. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 10:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

but I'd much prefer it if we could find a reliable scholarly source which attributes the poem. Celuici (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)  Done THE PLAGUE DOCTOR - Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, Volume XX Issue 3 July 1965 page 276, Yale University and Oxford University which is further referenced by scholar Nohl (specialist in plague history). --Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC) You should get the Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences article for yourself - or do you want me to e-mail to you what I received from the Library of Congress?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 14:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It would be best for you to get an actual copy of the book in hand of Johannes Nohl's, The Black Death: A Chronicle of the Plague, J. & J. Harper Edition 1969, Library of Congress No. 79-81867 - or I can e-mail to you the pertinent pages (just e-mail me first) of what I received from the Library of Congress. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 19:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Be sure to check out page 8 of Nohl's book as well as the Bibliography. Here is a book review. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 10:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It's excellent news that we have reliable sources identifying it as 17th cent. But I'm puzzled by the bald reference to Hodge’s Aoimologia [I assume that’s a typo for Loimologia] Sive Pestis of 1672. Is it there that it was printed? Seems odd since the work was in Latin, and the poem doesn’t appear in the 1720 English translation. The other question that strikes one, of course, is can we get a copy of the picture which must have accompanied it? It seems clear from the first line that there was one. Ian Spackman (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is a typo. It should be Loimologia .... of 1720 (in English). I have ask those very questions to the British Library and this is their answer: Your enquiry has now been assessed by the Humanities Reference Service, and it has been decided that it would be answered more appropriately by the Rare Books Reference Service. It was transferred there this evening, 5 July. Yours faithfully, J Harrison. Will let you know when I get an answer from them.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I got the title Aoimologia Sive Pestis from the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Vol 93, 2000 which is indicating that is the Latin title when published in 1672. The English 1720 title is Loimologia or an historical Account of the Plague in London in 1665....... (in English).--Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Good. I shall be off-wiki till the middle of the week – but with a spot of luck you’ll have had a reply by then; I’ll look forward to it. The ESTC, Oxford and Cambridge copies of the 1672 edition are all listed under ‘Loimologia’, with a note that the first word is printed in Greek characters. copac search. Perhaps Holland misread the lambda as an alpha? A Google search for Aoimologia shows only his article and ours! Ian Spackman (talk) 12:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Received an answer back from the British Library and they said: Dear Doug Coldwell, Thank you for your enquiry. The poem written by Dr Nathaniel Hodges in 1672 about the strange plague doctor's outfit entitled The Beak Doctors is in latin occording to Latin publication Aoimologia Sive Pestis. Regards, Anju Trehan, Reference Specialist Rare Books, British Library, 96 Euston Road, London NW1 2DB--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Received an answer back from the Bodleian Library and bottomline they said, In any case, since the early text is entirely in Latin, the poem, where it to be contained therein, would also be in Latin, it seems fair to conclude. Again, the later translation was mostly in English; though an occasion para was in Latin, the passages were not, as far as I could tell from context and layout, poetic digressions from the reporting task being undertaken by this work. The lines you quote would seem quite incongruous. I would advise you to look for other sources of this poem. I am sorry I have not been able to help you further. Regards, Alan Brown; Bodleian Main Enquiry Desk. I have taken out therefore the reference to Loimologia, sive, pestis nuperae apud populum Londinensem grassantis narratio historica 1672 (Latin) by Dr Nathaniel Hodges -AND- Wine, A Scientific Exploration that made reference to this. The Nohl reference I believe to be still good since the Oxford Journal of the History of Medicine use him as their reference. On pages 94 & 95 where the poem can be found he makes no note or reference exactly where he got this. There is an extensive bibliography at the end of his book, so I assume he obtained it from one of those sources. He has no "Notes" section. Columbia University also responded to my email, but have only access to the Latin text and no opinion if the poem is there. Send me an email if you want either of these forwarded to you.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 17:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

This JSTOR document of DeFoe's Journal of the Plague Year also indicates that "Loimologia" is the correct spelling.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 17:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

"Beak Doctor"

Are you doubting that the plague doctors were often called "Beak Doctors" during the Black Death?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 17:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I've not seen any convincing sources which show that plague doctors were often called "Beak Doctors" during the Black Death of the mid-14th century. Celuici (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Since it looks like you have done some additional research on this, are you convinced now? --Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Even your source relates the nickname ‘beak doctor’ to the mid-14th century, Boccaccio's time. Petrarch and Boccaccio are my heroes!--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not my source, I merely posted the link to it here to clarify what the Google Books snippet is refering to. I don't think it meets high standards of reliability. It's just a short description of the image which appeared on the journal's cover, and therefore was unlikely to have been submitted to the same vetting procedures as the rest of that journal's content. I can't see any evidence that it was written by a specialist in the field. Celuici (talk) 23:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I tend to find that there are few references for Beak doctor, whereas there are plenty for Plague doctor. The latter article is not that big that it requires a split. --Anneyh (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Also the origin of the picture File:Thomas Bartholini's beak doctor.jpg is dubious, there is a typo in the name of Thomas Bartholin and the image is different from the one in Rhetorics of Bodily Disease and Health in Medieval and Early Modern England. --Anneyh (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply to above: I took the picture from page 49 of of the Nohl source. The picture says "Hafniae 1661" - Thomas Bartholin seems to have been born in 1616. Perhaps these are two different people, therefore the reason why two different spellings on their last name. I'll look further into this.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't know what the word "Hafniae" means. IF it means "born" then perhaps it is Thomas Bartholin. In Google translate it comes out of Latin as "Philadelphia". Still looking into this....--Doug Coldwell ^talk 14:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it seems that "Hafniae" comes out of Latin now as Copenhagen, which then makes sense. It does appear then it is Thomas Bartholin and the sketch comes from his 1661 publication "Historarium anatomicarum rariorum centuria I-VI" published in Copenhagen, 1654-1661.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 17:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Well the issue is that Nohl was published in 1969 (is the English version the original one or is it the translation of the 1924 German Der schwarze Tod ? Sounds like de:Johannes Nohl died in 1963). So unless I missed something, it's not copyright free, because the drawing is not from Bartholin, see Thomae Bartholini Historiarum anatomicarum medicarum rariorum centuria V. VI., 1661, page 143. And Bartholin wrote in latin Habitus Medici in Pestilentia. (was previously a typo on date)

I would not qualify the illustration as a sketch, because that would mean an unfinished drawing which is not the case of an illustration published in a book (furthermore back in 1661, it was not as easy as today to get an illustration printed in a book). --Anneyh (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the book I have on my desk says "Translated by C.H. Clark, Ph.D." J. & J. Harper Edition 1969 Library of Congress Card Number 79-81867. The Common's image is a copy of page 97 of the Nohl book. It says on the image "Historiae anatomicae" by Thomas Bartolin, "Copenhagen 1661" which I assume is the publishing place and date. What might you call the image if it is not a sketch?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you agree this cannot possibly be the Bartholin 1661 version ? I would call the image an illustration, the 1661 is most probably a woodcut illustration. But the 1924/1969 picture should be removed from commons. --Anneyh (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The Commons image is the Bartholin 1661 version.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

QJC

I found the QJC source here. In YOUR mind you may have established that the "beak doctor" mask was invented in the 17th century, not the 14th. I am just going by the references that I am able to find on Google Books. Are you doubting that the plague doctors were often called "beak doctors" because the mask they wore had a protruded beak which contained aromatic herbs?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 17:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary in which I removed the QJM reference, I can't find the article that the snippet on Google Books is taken from. It's impossible to judge its value as source. After extensive searching, I've not found any reliable sources which report that the phrase 'beak doctor' was often used in the seventeenth century (or earlier). Celuici (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I've found the article now: [1]. The relevant content is in section 4 of the journal. It hadn't been indexed because it is not (I think) an article but part of the introductory matter. Celuici (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Then you agree to use this as a inline reference for the first line in the second paragraph at the end of ....aromatic herbs. oui?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I've now answered this question in the section above. Celuici (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Celuici|talk.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Geographical

I found Geographical: the monthly magazine of the Royal Geographical Society, Volume 63; Volume 63, p. 19 here. It says "Plague doctors of the 14th century wore disctintive bird-like masks and were known as beak doctors." I'm just going by the references. I didn't make it up. Soooooo, bottomline - do you doubt that the plague doctors were referred to as "beak doctors"?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 17:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The Royal Geographical Society appears to be a reliable source of information from the article we have on it.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 18:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something here but I see nothing in Celuici's contributions that suggest he's deserving of your sarcasm. Parrot of Doom 19:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I've answered the question about whether I think plague doctors were called beak doctors above. Regarding whether Geographical is a reliable source: I can't see any evidence that it was a peer reviewed publication (it's a monthly magazine, not an academic journal). Nor can I see any evidence that the content in question was written by an author who can be regarded as reliable and likely to produce work of a rigorous standard. Furthermore, the text makes an assertion which is not supported by any reliable sources that I've found, and which is flatly contradicted by Christine Boekel's work. Such an apparent error casts doubt on the value of the source. Celuici (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The Geographical Magazine above about plague doctors used as reference in the article is listed by Ulrich's Periodicals Directory as "Content Type : Academic / Scholarly".

This is under their Title ID 37749, ISSN 0016-741X. Library of Congress catalog record: http://lccn.loc.gov/37037532 --Doug Coldwell ^talk 19:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The Geographical Journal

According to Encyclopedia.com "The Geographical Journal" is a British academic journal. As far as you are concerned then, it would be alright to re-enter this as an inline reference - je suppose que? --Doug Coldwell ^talk 18:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a different publication to the one originally mentioned, which has the article about plague doctors in. Celuici (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Christine Boekel

Looking in Google Books it doesn't show she wrote books on the bubonic plague or any books. You have material by her? --Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Answered in section below. Celuici (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Charles de Lorme

Since I started the article on Charles de Lorme and am the major contributor (95%) I am pretty familiar with him. In the article however, I don't recall ever saying anything about him inventing the "Beak Doctor" idea. I believe I recall in my research I read something about him adopting the idea from others for his medical practice. Common sense tells me then that the idea was in existence prior to the seventeenth century.

These are the comments you made, which I don't believe are correct - since I wrote the article on Charles de Lorme and I don't recall any of this.

• This contradicts the fact that the beak mask was invented in France in 1619.
• (as we've established the costume was invented in the 17th century, not the 14th)

If you have a reference that shows Charles de Lorme invented the beak mask, I'll look at it. Keep in mind we never established anything like the above two remarks. You may have thought this in your mind, but never furnished proof of this with references. Is it important that the beak mask idea be invented in the seventeenth century or beyond for some reason? --Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Christine M. Boeckl [Professor of art history at the University of Nebraska at the time of publication], Images of plague and pestilence: iconography and iconology (Truman State University Press, 2000), p. 15: "Protective garments were first invented in 1619 by Charles de L'Orme... Long leather or waxed-canvas gowns covered the whole body. The head was protected with a birdlike mask,its beak stuffed with fragrant herbs". So we have a definite statement that the plague doctor costume was invented in the early seventeenth century. This statement appears in a text written by an expert in the field, and which was published by a reputable publisher. I'll happily accept that the beak costume was worn before the seventeenth century, if you can provide an authoratitative source which proves it. I'll also happily accept that the phrase 'beak doctor' was used historically, if you can provide a similar source for it. I really don't have any particular agenda to push here. I just think that Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable sources. Celuici (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I've posted a request for more help with references here. Let's hope something turns up. Celuici (talk) 00:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and finally, you're right that I never made it clear where I was getting this information from. I thought I'd pointed it out when I added the Boeckl reference to the article. Sorry about that. Celuici (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

There is another source, but I do not have access to the full text: Iqbal Akhtar Khan (May 2004). "Plague: the dreadful visitation occupying the human mind for centuries". Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 98 (5): 270–277. doi:10.1016/S0035-9203(03)00059-2.. --Anneyh (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Since I have access, I can quote the relevant section:

Charles Delorme (1584—1678), personal physician to King Louis XIII, was credited with introducing special protective clothing for plague doctors during the epidemic in Marseilles. It consisted of a beak-like mask supplied with aromatic substance, presumed to act as filter against the odour emanating from the patients, and a loose gown covering the normal clothing. On occasions, a drifting fragrance such as camphor was used.

It is unclear which reference Khan has used for it. Kolbasz (talk) 00:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

aromatic herbs

Are you disputing the statement The mask they wore had a protruded beak which contained aromatic herbs ?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 18:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The statement seems to be backed up by several independent references. Even in the article The Posy Tree; Mapperton, Dorset in the Oxford Jounal of "International Journal of Medicine" that you found it says they wore masks with a long beak containing sponges soaked in vinegar and aromatic herbs. These references show what is thought about this topic (content within the protruded beak of plague doctor mask), giving the widely held opinions of many different people. They all seem to say basically the same thing and back each other up independently.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 16:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

"Beak doctor" untenable as part of the WP:RS WP:COMMONNAME of anything in English

("Plague doctor" is more prevalent by a factor of 10 in English, as in other languages such as German 3,630:148, Dutch 5,160:520) Accordingly I've moved to something based on "plague doctor," which (as Wikipedia requires) can be found in abundance in good sources. The only alternative I could think of fitting encyclopedic usage standards was plague doctor's costume. Of the six editors who have commented on this page above, four (in addition to me) questioned "beak doctor" and supported "plague doctor," one (Doug Coldwell) the reverse, and one expressed no opinion. I'll leave to others the content issues connected with an article constructed around such oddly selected sources. Wareh (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

1619

Protective garments were first invented in 1619 by Charles de Lorme..... is in the last paragraph of the reference on page 15 Images of Plague and Pestilence: Iconography and Iconology By Christine M. Boeckl. Look in Google Books.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

14th century - dubious

This seems to have been debated in other topics on this talk page, but deserves its own topic.

The claim that the costume has 14th and not 17th century origins is very dubious. I know of no medieval illustration of such a costume, nor any medieval accounts of anything resembling it either. Everything I've read suggests the costume was invented in the 17th century, and that the notion of it being in use in the 14th century has only come about through sloppy writers lumping all the European plague epidemics together (despite the hundreds of years separating them). In other words, it's a factoid.

If we look at some contemporary accounts, mention is made of aromatic herbs and flowers - but not of beaks or special plague doctor costumes:

Boccaccio:

Not a few there were who belonged to neither of the two said parties, but kept a middle course between them, neither laying the same restraint upon their diet as the former, nor allowing themselves the same license in drinking and other dissipations as the latter, but living with a degree of freedom sufficient to satisfy their appetites, and not as recluses. They therefore walked abroad, carrying in their hands flowers or fragrant herbs or divers sorts of spices, which they frequently raised to their noses, deeming it an excellent thing thus to comfort the brain with such perfumes, because the air seemed to be everywhere laden and reeking with the stench emitted by the dead and the dying, and the odours of drugs.

Marchionne di Coppo di Stefano Buonaiuti:

No doctors were to be found, because they were dying like everybody else; those who could be found wanted exorbitant fees cash-in-hand before entering the house, and having entered, they took the patient's pulse with their heads turned away, and assayed the urine samples from afar, with aromatic herbs held to their noses.

As for scholarly works, here's an excerpt from the article on "Plague, Historical" in the Encyclopedia of Microbiology (especially noteworthy because of its author being both an M.D. and a history professor):

Refinement and Internationalization of Plague Control in Europe, 1600–1894

[...]

The most-often cited refinement of barrier technologies invented during this period is a visual metaphor for plague: the bird-beaked, robed physician, although it need not be a physician beneath the garment. A royal physician to King Louis XIII of France claimed the credit for inventing this protective gear during 1621, when a minor plague reached Paris. Charles DeLorme’s (1584–1678) costume was not affordable by any but the wealthiest healers, but the idea of an oiled or waxed robe diffused quickly across northern and Central Italy, and was more used there than in France. Priests also wore the robe. DeLorme’s headgear was to be made of fine Moroccan leather, the beak packed with herbs and perfuming blossoms; the waxed robe tucked into pants and high boots. More modest costumes were made of linen or even flax; the wax or oil was impregnated with aromatic herbs and applied to the robe, head covering, gloves, and shoes that were humble wooden clogs. Occasionally even the carriages that conveyed doctors to the stricken were covered in oiled cloth. Refinements to the costume were debated throughout the eighteenth century.

Another is cited in another thread on this talk page: Khan, "Plague: the dreadful visitation occupying the human mind for centuries"

Charles Delorme (1584—1678), personal physician to King Louis XIII, was credited with introducing special protective clothing for plague doctors during the epidemic in Marseilles. It consisted of a beak-like mask supplied with aromatic substance, presumed to act as filter against the odour emanating from the patients, and a loose gown covering the normal clothing. On occasions, a drifting fragrance such as camphor was used.

So, short version: until someone can find a primary source for this claim, it should be regarded as nothing more than a factoid. Kolbasz (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to respond to your concern. I think the idea is that a statement has to be referenced, NOT necessarly proving if the fact is true or not for inclusion into a Wikipedia article. Therefore a primary source for the claim does NOT have to be made. You are trying to prove IF the fact is true or not - which is NOT a requirement for inclusion into a Wikipedia article. Reference #6 is a good reliable source that references the point - therefore I have removed your "dubious" template.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 17:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I have tweaked the wording -- hopefully this will be acceptable. Celuici (talk) 09:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)