Człowiek w obliczu epidemii - relacja Tukidydesa i Prokopiusza z Cezarei
Loading...
Date
2021
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Wydawnictwo KUL
Abstract
Dwie dramatyczne sytuacje społeczne, związane z wybuchem choroby o charakterze epidemicznym, opisane przez Tukidydesa oraz Prokopiusza z Cezarei oddziela niemal tysiąc lat rozpiętości czasowej. Obydwaj ci autorzy byli naocznymi świadkami przedstawianych wydarzeń, Tukidydes ponadto sam zaraził się, lecz przeżył tajemniczą chorobę, która spadła na mieszkańców Attyki w pierwszych latach wojny peloponeskiej. Prokopiusz, wzorując się na opisie Tukidydesa, przedstawia najprawdopodobniej pierwszy przypadek dżumy na terenie Europy, która wywarła znacznie większy wpływ na losy mieszkańców Konstantynopola, a także całego imperium bizantyńskiego nie tylko w wieku VI po Chr. lecz i w następnych stuleciach. Opis Tukidydesa, zwięzły, z użyciem fachowej terminologii medycznej, dostarcza nie tylko dokładnego obrazu samych objawów tej choroby, lecz także maluje przed oczyma czytelnika różnorodność ludzkich postaw i zachowań w sytuacji skrajnego zagrożenia, w obliczu ciągłego niebezpieczeństwa utraty własnego życia i straty osób najbliższych, kiedy to człowiek nie jest w stanie wywierać żadnego wpływu na dotykające go wydarzenia. Tukidydes podkreśla zgubne skutki zarazy, jakie powoduje ona w sferze etycznej i społecznej człowieka. W obliczu ogromu nieszczęścia pojawia się skłonność do odrzucenia zasad religijnych i norm prawnych, co prowadzi do pogoni za szybkim zyskiem i przyjemnością, jak też do zerwania więzi społecznych, pozostawiania bliskich na pastwę choroby. Tukidydes, pozostając pesymistą w ocenie natury ludzkiej, która, jego zdaniem właśnie w takich skrajnych sytuacjach ujawnia swe najciemniejsze strony, nie zapomina jednak o osobach, które zachowały postawę szlachetną, pełną współczucia dla cierpiących. Podkreśla ogromne poświęcenie lekarzy, oraz tych, którzy śpieszyli z pomocą nie tylko rodzinie, ale i opuszczonym w nieszczęściu przyjaciołom, często płacąc za to własnym życiem. Prokopiusz naśladując w strukturze, a nawet w niektórych sformułowaniach swego opisu Tukidydesa, nie rezygnuje bynajmniej z rzetelnego przedstawienia realiów sytuacji, w jakiej się znalazł. Ponieważ jego relacja dotyczy innej choroby, inne są też objawy, które skrupulatnie relacjonuje. Poświęca więcej miejsca działaniom, jakie podjęto, aby opanować chaos panujący w mieście i zorganizować uprzątanie zwłok i pochówki zmarłych, a także wspomina o skutkach, jakie epidemia wywarła w sferze gospodarczej cesarstwa. Podobnie jak Tukidydes, skupia swoją uwagę na zachowaniu człowieka w sytuacji skrajnego zagrożenia i prezentuje cały wachlarz ludzkich postaw: od ludzi pełnych poświęcenia, ryzykujących własnym życiem, aby ratować innych do osób egoistycznie skupionych na pogoni za przyjemnością i użyciem, łamiących prawo i wszelkie zasady religijne. W jego komentarzach pojawia się niekiedy więcej goryczy, a czasami wręcz złośliwości, gdy mówi, iż choroba zabrała najszlachetniejsze, najbardziej wartościowe jednostki, a pozostawiła przy życiu wyjątkowo podłych i nikczemnych.
There is almost one thousand years’ time span between two dramatic situations connected with an outbreak of an epidemic described by Thucydides and Procopius of Caesarea. Both authors were eye witnesses to the events they describe, what is more, Thucydides became infected himself, but managed to survive that mysterious disease, which fell on the inhabitants of Attica during the first years of the Peloponnesian War. Procopius, following Thucydides’ description, presents most probably the first case of the bubonic plague in Europe, which had a significantly greater impact on the lives of Constantinople’s inhabitants as well as of the entire Byzantine Empire not only in the 6th century A.D., but also in the centuries to follow. The description by Thucydides, which is concise and contains specialist medical terminology, provides not only a thorough picture of the very symptoms of that disease, but also depicts before the reader’s eyes a variety of human attitudes and behaviours in a situation of extreme threat, when individuals face a continuous risk of losing their own lives and loss of the loved ones in a situation when people do not have any control of the events affecting them. Facing the enormity of the disaster, people get prone to reject religious rules and legal norms, which leads to pursuit of immediate profit and pleasure as well as to breaking social ties, abandoning the closest persons to the disease. Thucydides, who remains a pessimist as regards the assessment of human nature, which, according to him, reveals its darkest sides in such extreme situations, does not forget, however, about the individuals who maintained a noble attitude imbued with empathy for those suffering. He stresses the tremendous devotion of the doctors and of those who rush to help not only their relatives, but also friends abandoned while afflicted by misfortune, often sacrificing their own lives. Procopius, while copying Thucydides in the structure and even in some wordings of his description, does not give up by no means the thorough presentation of the reality of the situation in which he found himself. As his account concerns another disease, its symptoms are different, which he meticulously records. He devotes more attention to the actions that have been undertaken in order to get control over the chaos prevailing in the city and organise collecting bodies and burials of the dead; he also mentions the impact of the epidemic on the empire’s economy. The same as Thucydides, he focuses on the individual’s behaviour in a situation of extreme threat and presents the whole range of attitudes presented by the people beginning from those filled with devotion, risking their lives in order to save other people’s lives to those focussed in an egoistic way on pursuit of pleasure and indulgence, breaking the law and any religious rules. His comments sometimes show more bitterness or even malice when he says that the disease took away the noblest, most valuable members of society while leaving behind those extremely despicable and wicked.
There is almost one thousand years’ time span between two dramatic situations connected with an outbreak of an epidemic described by Thucydides and Procopius of Caesarea. Both authors were eye witnesses to the events they describe, what is more, Thucydides became infected himself, but managed to survive that mysterious disease, which fell on the inhabitants of Attica during the first years of the Peloponnesian War. Procopius, following Thucydides’ description, presents most probably the first case of the bubonic plague in Europe, which had a significantly greater impact on the lives of Constantinople’s inhabitants as well as of the entire Byzantine Empire not only in the 6th century A.D., but also in the centuries to follow. The description by Thucydides, which is concise and contains specialist medical terminology, provides not only a thorough picture of the very symptoms of that disease, but also depicts before the reader’s eyes a variety of human attitudes and behaviours in a situation of extreme threat, when individuals face a continuous risk of losing their own lives and loss of the loved ones in a situation when people do not have any control of the events affecting them. Facing the enormity of the disaster, people get prone to reject religious rules and legal norms, which leads to pursuit of immediate profit and pleasure as well as to breaking social ties, abandoning the closest persons to the disease. Thucydides, who remains a pessimist as regards the assessment of human nature, which, according to him, reveals its darkest sides in such extreme situations, does not forget, however, about the individuals who maintained a noble attitude imbued with empathy for those suffering. He stresses the tremendous devotion of the doctors and of those who rush to help not only their relatives, but also friends abandoned while afflicted by misfortune, often sacrificing their own lives. Procopius, while copying Thucydides in the structure and even in some wordings of his description, does not give up by no means the thorough presentation of the reality of the situation in which he found himself. As his account concerns another disease, its symptoms are different, which he meticulously records. He devotes more attention to the actions that have been undertaken in order to get control over the chaos prevailing in the city and organise collecting bodies and burials of the dead; he also mentions the impact of the epidemic on the empire’s economy. The same as Thucydides, he focuses on the individual’s behaviour in a situation of extreme threat and presents the whole range of attitudes presented by the people beginning from those filled with devotion, risking their lives in order to save other people’s lives to those focussed in an egoistic way on pursuit of pleasure and indulgence, breaking the law and any religious rules. His comments sometimes show more bitterness or even malice when he says that the disease took away the noblest, most valuable members of society while leaving behind those extremely despicable and wicked.
Description
Keywords
epidemia, Tukidydes, Prokopiusz, zaraza ateńska, dżuma Justyniana, dżuma, bubonic plague, epidemic, Thucydides, Procopius of Gaza, plague, Plague of Athens, Plague of Justinian
Citation
"Vox Patrum", 2021, T. 78, s. 25-64