Tracing tradition. The idea of cancerous contagiousness from Renaissance to Enlightenment

Abstract

This paper is concerned with landmarks in the history of the idea of cancerous contagiousness from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment. The origins of the idea of cancerous contagiousness is considered on the basis of Galen's distinction between scabiesleprosy, cancer and elephantiasis. Paul of Aegina (seventh century) established the association between these latter diseases. In the fourteenth century, a 'new line of inquiry' developed concerning the transmission of diseases like plague, and G. Fracastoro (1546) applied this approach by stating that putrefaction and inflammation notably produce elephantiasis, which is obviously contagious, as inflammation and heat, without putrefaction, produce cancer. J. Fernel (1548) applied the process of syphilitic contamination to ulcerated cancer, whose vapour 'is widely dispersed' and which 'quickly kills by its malignancy'. G. Cardano (1564) reacted against these views, and declared that cancer was could not be transmitted by contact. But A. Zacuth (1629-1634) and N. Tulp (1652) provided instances of such transmission. D. Sennert, who is often said to have accepted Zacuth's testimony, was doubtful and suggested, rather than contagion, transmission by heredity. This type of explanation was privileged during Classical Age, until experiments on animals or human beings infected by cancerous liquid took place during the Enlightenment in France and England. Pichler (1786) finally recommended forbidding marriage between people suffering from cancer.

Early Modern Diets against Cancer: The Case of Poultry

“…He published text-books intended 'for the universities of the whole of Europe' which received praise from 'famous figures such as Vesalius, Fracastoro, Fallopius', etc [55]. His Medicina universa of 1587 devotes a number of observations to cancer, and especially to the fact that it is not contagious [56][57][58][59]. This summa was accompanied by various books of commentaries on Hippocrates, Avicenna and Rhazes [60][61][62].…”