Dysentry in 11th Century

euclid said:

Looking for a non-medical name for dysentry in the 11th century.

Click to expand...

I don't know about the 11th century, but in the 19th century it was known as the Flux (another word for discharge). There is an online dictionary of archaic medical terms that might help:

http://www.antiquusmorbus.com/English/English.htm

I think the flux, or the bloody flux goes back a long way.
Wasn't Henry V described as dying of 'the bloody flux' ?

Here's a blurb about 'bloody flux' that also refers to it as 'surfeit'. I'm not finding much on 'flux' or 'bloody flux' prior to the 1600s, though.

Medievalist here: I think you'll be fine calling it the flux. If they had another name for it, it won't be known to your readers.

I second Lucy.

You can find some eleventh-century treatments for dysentry in one of the Old English leech books here (at the bottom of the page).

lkp said:

Medievalist here: I think you'll be fine calling it the flux. If they had another name for it, it won't be known to your readers.

Click to expand...

Resurrecting the thread.

My book is set in 1402 in Scotland, and the heir to the throne is dying from dysentry and starvation. Would the term 'the bloody flux' be acceptable?

gothicangel said:

Resurrecting the thread.

My book is set in 1402 in Scotland, and the heir to the throne is dying from dysentry and starvation. Would the term 'the bloody flux' be acceptable?

Click to expand...

I'd say yes; I can't think of anything else you could call it that your readers would recognize. But I wonder if "starvation" is even necessary to add (unless you're talking about, say, a famine so severe even the heir to the throne can't get enough to eat)? Otherwise, if you've got a guy with dysentery and no access to modern medicine, wouldn't he be starving regardless of how much food he eats? The dysentery would make him -- forgive me for being vulgar, here -- shit out everything he eats before his body can extract the necessary nutrients from it.

Ink-Stained Wretch said:

I'd say yes; I can't think of anything else you could call it that your readers would recognize. But I wonder if "starvation" is even necessary to add (unless you're talking about, say, a famine so severe even the heir to the throne can't get enough to eat)? Otherwise, if you've got a guy with dysentery and no access to modern medicine, wouldn't he be starving regardless of how much food he eats? The dysentery would make him -- forgive me for being vulgar, here -- shit out everything he eats before his body can extract the necessary nutrients from it.

Click to expand...

Thanks.

I'll explain the history. The Duke of Rothesay [Robert III's son and elder brother of James I] was given a 3 year lieutenancy by his father, and managed to upset quite a few people. The minute the lieutenancy lapsed his uncle had David arrested and imprisoned in his castle at Falkland. Within months, the heir to the Scottish throne was dead. A contemporary chronicler cited '[he] died of dysentry or, as others have it, wasted by hunger.'

Rumours at the time persisted [and historians think it's probably what happened] of foul play. Of course, the prince's death meant his uncle was a heart beat from the throne, with only the 7 year old prince James in his way.

The history books I'm reading suggest that the dysentry was probably caused by neglect and starvation.

Honestly, if it wasn't historical fact, I wouldn't believe it either!

Ah, "imprisoned by a jailer who won't give you food" definitely changes things. In that context, I wonder if a medieval Scots chronicler might have called it a "flux of the bowels"?

Ink-Stained Wretch said:

Ah, "imprisoned by a jailer who won't give you food" definitely changes things. In that context, I wonder if a medieval Scots chronicler might have called it a "flux of the bowels"?

Click to expand...

Cheers.