Periodic Reporting for period 1 - MadByz (Being ‘Mad’ in Byzantium. Toward a History of Mental Disorders in Early and Middle Greek Middle Ages)
Okres sprawozdawczy: 2020-10-01 do 2023-09-30
MadByz explored how the Byzantine world understood and treated mental disorders. While ancient medicine and Western medieval approaches to madness have long attracted attention, Byzantium has often been left in the shadows. This absence fostered the impression that Byzantine culture contributed little to the history of mental illness beyond accounts of possession or the simulated insanity of holy fools.
MadByz challenged this view by showing that Byzantine physicians and intellectuals elaborated complex and significant ways of thinking about mental illness. Their ideas interacted with religious beliefs but were not reducible to them, opening a new chapter in the history of madness.
The project asked a simple but far-reaching question: how did medical knowledge shape cultural notions of madness, and how, in turn, did everyday experiences and narratives influence scholarly categories? To answer this, it investigated four groups of sources: medical treatises, theological and philosophical writings, monastic and hospital handbooks, and collections of proverbs.
By placing these, MadByz showed that Byzantium was not a transmitter of ancient medicine but a dynamic environment of reinterpretation and innovation, with a lasting impact on the longue durée of Western reflections on mental illness.
MadByz challenged this view by showing that Byzantine physicians and intellectuals elaborated complex and significant ways of thinking about mental illness. Their ideas interacted with religious beliefs but were not reducible to them, opening a new chapter in the history of madness.
The project asked a simple but far-reaching question: how did medical knowledge shape cultural notions of madness, and how, in turn, did everyday experiences and narratives influence scholarly categories? To answer this, it investigated four groups of sources: medical treatises, theological and philosophical writings, monastic and hospital handbooks, and collections of proverbs.
By placing these, MadByz showed that Byzantium was not a transmitter of ancient medicine but a dynamic environment of reinterpretation and innovation, with a lasting impact on the longue durée of Western reflections on mental illness.
From its outset, MadByz pursued three axes: forgotten categories of pre-modern psychopathology, Byzantine medical practice, and the transmission of nosological concepts into cultural arenas.
The project offered the first comprehensive study of an ancient and medieval label for “religious insanity”, enthousiasmós – literally “being inspired by a god”, but in classical texts often describing pathological ritual frenzy. While mania or melancholia had long been studied, enthusiasm had never received sustained attention. MadByz reconstructed its transformations from classical medicine and philosophy to Byzantine re-elaborations, showing how it came to be defined as a form of melancholy with delusional fears of God or illusory prophetic powers.
By editing and analysing a tenth-century compilation by the physician Romanos, the project revealed how monastic hospitals in Constantinople treated patients with psychological and spiritual distress. Far from limiting care to exorcism or spiritual direction, practitioners prescribed pharmacological remedies, dietary measures, rest, and even preventive strategies such as discouraging attendance at vigils or chants when these heightened anxiety. These findings show that Byzantine institutions could integrate mental healthcare into broader medical practice, challenging the stereotype of a purely religious approach and revealing instead a pragmatic, human-centred dimension.
The project also traced the fortunes of ancient nosological categories in unexpected arenas. The so-called “Heraclean disease” – a proverbial expression derived from Euripides’ tragedy in which Heracles is struck by madness – was reinterpreted as insanity triggered by exertion. This medicalised reading was transmitted through philosophical and medical texts and eventually crystallised in Byzantine collections of proverbs. A tragic motif thus entered medical discourse, became a clinical label, and resurfaced in everyday speech.
The early Byzantine physician Alexander of Tralles redefined melancholy as an overarching category absorbing mania and other mental disorders. This reinterpretation, long neglected, helps explain why early modern authors such as Robert Burton, in his Anatomy of Melancholy, could argue that “folly, melancholy, madness, are but one disease.” By tracing this genealogy, MadByz revealed Byzantium’s crucial role in shaping ideas that resonated into the modern period.
Results were disseminated through scholarly publications, invited lectures at leading European institutions, and an international conference in Athens (May 2025). The proceedings, to appear in two open-access special issues, will ensure long-term visibility. Public engagement activities included lectures for psychiatry trainees in Italy, postgraduate teaching in Paris, and a public talk at the Danish Institute at Athens.
The project offered the first comprehensive study of an ancient and medieval label for “religious insanity”, enthousiasmós – literally “being inspired by a god”, but in classical texts often describing pathological ritual frenzy. While mania or melancholia had long been studied, enthusiasm had never received sustained attention. MadByz reconstructed its transformations from classical medicine and philosophy to Byzantine re-elaborations, showing how it came to be defined as a form of melancholy with delusional fears of God or illusory prophetic powers.
By editing and analysing a tenth-century compilation by the physician Romanos, the project revealed how monastic hospitals in Constantinople treated patients with psychological and spiritual distress. Far from limiting care to exorcism or spiritual direction, practitioners prescribed pharmacological remedies, dietary measures, rest, and even preventive strategies such as discouraging attendance at vigils or chants when these heightened anxiety. These findings show that Byzantine institutions could integrate mental healthcare into broader medical practice, challenging the stereotype of a purely religious approach and revealing instead a pragmatic, human-centred dimension.
The project also traced the fortunes of ancient nosological categories in unexpected arenas. The so-called “Heraclean disease” – a proverbial expression derived from Euripides’ tragedy in which Heracles is struck by madness – was reinterpreted as insanity triggered by exertion. This medicalised reading was transmitted through philosophical and medical texts and eventually crystallised in Byzantine collections of proverbs. A tragic motif thus entered medical discourse, became a clinical label, and resurfaced in everyday speech.
The early Byzantine physician Alexander of Tralles redefined melancholy as an overarching category absorbing mania and other mental disorders. This reinterpretation, long neglected, helps explain why early modern authors such as Robert Burton, in his Anatomy of Melancholy, could argue that “folly, melancholy, madness, are but one disease.” By tracing this genealogy, MadByz revealed Byzantium’s crucial role in shaping ideas that resonated into the modern period.
Results were disseminated through scholarly publications, invited lectures at leading European institutions, and an international conference in Athens (May 2025). The proceedings, to appear in two open-access special issues, will ensure long-term visibility. Public engagement activities included lectures for psychiatry trainees in Italy, postgraduate teaching in Paris, and a public talk at the Danish Institute at Athens.
MadByz goes beyond the state of the art in several ways. Research had focused either on classical medicine or the Latin Middle Ages, leaving Byzantium as a “gap” between the two. MadByz overturned this assumption by showing that Byzantine medicine actively redefined mental illness, adapting ancient categories to new contexts.
A major innovation lies in the integrated methodology: instead of treating medical, philosophical, monastic, and paroemiographic sources in isolation, MadByz set them in dialogue. This revealed continuities and disjunctions that cannot be seen within a single corpus, showing how learned nosology interacted with lived practices and popular representations. The systematic study of neglected categories is another advance. While notions such as mania or melancholia had long been studied, MadByz produced the first history of enthousiasmós as a pathological category, tracing its two-thousand-year evolution from ritual frenzy to a melancholic form of delusion. The discovery and analysis of new manuscript evidence – such as the unedited text by Romanos on hospital practices – expands what was previously known about Byzantine medicine. These sources provide unique insight into how mental disorders were treated pragmatically within institutional settings, challenging the stereotype of a purely religious approach. MadByz also reconstructed the genealogy of key nosological categories. Alexander of Tralles’ redefinition of melancholy as an umbrella disorder helps explain later early modern assimilations of folly, madness, and melancholy into a single disease. This establishes Byzantium as a crucial link in the intellectual history of mental illness, rarely acknowledged before. MadByz also created opportunities for comparative research, paving the way for connections with Syriac, Arabic, and Latin traditions, for closer analysis of the reception of Byzantine psychopathology into early modernity, and for reflections on how cultural environments mediate the perception and treatment of psychological suffering.
The results resonate with debates in psychiatry and global mental health about the cultural dimensions of illness, the integration of biomedical and spiritual approaches, and the risks of stigma or exclusion. Byzantine examples show that pluralism in mental healthcare was embedded in premodern societies, sometimes in tension, sometimes in dialogue. This perspective helps challenge simplistic dichotomies between natural and supernatural, rational and irrational, or medical and religious. It also highlights cases where mental healthcare was integrated within communal institutions, offering valuable precedents for present-day discussions about inclusion and culturally sensitive care.
By demonstrating the richness of Byzantine approaches, MadByz advanced scholarship and laid the groundwork for future comparative research. Its legacy will endure through open-access publications and new research networks. In this way, the project contributes not only to historical knowledge but also to broader reflection on how societies have confronted, cared for, and integrated mental suffering across cultures and centuries.
A major innovation lies in the integrated methodology: instead of treating medical, philosophical, monastic, and paroemiographic sources in isolation, MadByz set them in dialogue. This revealed continuities and disjunctions that cannot be seen within a single corpus, showing how learned nosology interacted with lived practices and popular representations. The systematic study of neglected categories is another advance. While notions such as mania or melancholia had long been studied, MadByz produced the first history of enthousiasmós as a pathological category, tracing its two-thousand-year evolution from ritual frenzy to a melancholic form of delusion. The discovery and analysis of new manuscript evidence – such as the unedited text by Romanos on hospital practices – expands what was previously known about Byzantine medicine. These sources provide unique insight into how mental disorders were treated pragmatically within institutional settings, challenging the stereotype of a purely religious approach. MadByz also reconstructed the genealogy of key nosological categories. Alexander of Tralles’ redefinition of melancholy as an umbrella disorder helps explain later early modern assimilations of folly, madness, and melancholy into a single disease. This establishes Byzantium as a crucial link in the intellectual history of mental illness, rarely acknowledged before. MadByz also created opportunities for comparative research, paving the way for connections with Syriac, Arabic, and Latin traditions, for closer analysis of the reception of Byzantine psychopathology into early modernity, and for reflections on how cultural environments mediate the perception and treatment of psychological suffering.
The results resonate with debates in psychiatry and global mental health about the cultural dimensions of illness, the integration of biomedical and spiritual approaches, and the risks of stigma or exclusion. Byzantine examples show that pluralism in mental healthcare was embedded in premodern societies, sometimes in tension, sometimes in dialogue. This perspective helps challenge simplistic dichotomies between natural and supernatural, rational and irrational, or medical and religious. It also highlights cases where mental healthcare was integrated within communal institutions, offering valuable precedents for present-day discussions about inclusion and culturally sensitive care.
By demonstrating the richness of Byzantine approaches, MadByz advanced scholarship and laid the groundwork for future comparative research. Its legacy will endure through open-access publications and new research networks. In this way, the project contributes not only to historical knowledge but also to broader reflection on how societies have confronted, cared for, and integrated mental suffering across cultures and centuries.