
The recurrence and spread of plague in Europe over four centuries, beginning with the Black Death in 1347, engendered distinctive olfactory associations. 'Bad' air or 'miasma', associated with filth and 'corruption' of the air and identifiable by its stench, was thought to directly cause plague. Scientific texts focussing on plague differentiate between 'foul' (causal) and 'sweet' (preventative) odours, which typically co-existed during periods of pestilence as the smell of sickness blended with the scent of prophylaxis. Foul odours, whether in public spaces or in the sick room, needed to be removed or countered with sweet (e.g. flowers, herbs, incense) or particularly pungent smells (e.g pitch, burned goat's horn, gunpowder). Municipal and church authorities accordingly arranged to fumigate cities with woodsmoke and, from the sixteenth century, gunpowder. Householders were urged to keep domestic interiors clean and sweet, free of potential sources of stench and to air, fumigate and scent rooms and textiles with fresh plants and perfumes. Individuals were encouraged to take further preventative action using vinegar-soaked sponges and scented accessories to create a personal cloud of protective fragrance (Welch 2012, 21). Evidence for concern with plague-inducing stench and the use of perfumes to counter it largely comes from sixteenth-century Italian medical texts and their English translations. This reflects the authority of Italian medicine and public health practices and the impact of the Italian plague of 1575-78 (Cohn 2010; 22-33; Henderson 2019, 3-5; Wear 2000. 314). However, theory and practice can radically differ: even if the advice was followed to the letter, what individuals smelled and experienced in the presence of certain scents, is impossible to reconstruct.
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
